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.

WEDNESDAY,  MAY 12,  2010

THE DEMS AND EUROPE, A GOP OPPORTUNITY? – AT 7:50 P.M. ET:  This is an original, fascinating take on an issue that hasn't quite made it to the surface yet – the Democrats' reverent attitude toward things European, and how that might affect the November elections.  From pollster Peter A. Brown in The Wall Street Journal:

Over the past decade or so, and especially since Barack Obama’s ascendancy to the presidency, conservatives have fretted about what they see as liberal efforts to make American more like Western Europe. But now, with the financial problems in the Eurozone, Republicans may be able to profit from the change they have long decried.

And...

...it does appear to many that within the Obama administration and the Democratic congressional leadership there is the sentiment that America would be a better place if it were more to resemble Western Europe.

An Opportunity for GOP Candidates

And with Western Europe on the ropes, this could provide a political opportunity for the Republicans in the November elections.

Here’s one potential way the confluence of the European financial problems and the Obama administration’s efforts to move the U.S. more towards the European model could rear its head come November.

And...

Even before the European economic problems surfaced, Republicans were planning on using the debt issue this November to brand Democrats as fiscally irresponsible.

The European economic crisis is likely to make that argument more effective. With other nations in addition to Greece facing severe financial problems because of government overspending, the story isn’t going away any time soon.

Moreover, the example of how the average Greek citizen is going to take a hit in his and her standard of living because of the nation’s past fiscal sins is something that the GOP may be able to use to drive home its message.

If so, the Democratic soft spot for Western Europe could become a political liability for party candidates this November.

COMMENT:  The writer has a solid point.  America is largely the child of Europe, but Americans don't want to be Europeans.  They really don't like it when Europeans parade their "superior" values before us or their more "humane" societies. 

Americans actually do know something of history, and know that it's the United States that has had to save Europe, repeatedly, and not the other way around.  Americans also know that some of the ugliness of Europe – fascism and extreme socialism – are not especially humane. 

They also know that some of the "advances" in Europe were made possible by a Western defense alliance largely created by and financed by the United States.

If Democrats come off as having a special passion for the Euro, they could become French toast.

May 12, 2010     Permalink

DESCENT INTO MADNESS – AT 7:23 P.M. ET:  We become increasingly concerned at the rapid advance of political correctness at the high-school and elementary-school level, and we'll track these developments.  Here's a new gem out of the great, incorruptible state of Illinois.  From Fox:

Parents in Illinois are outraged over a move by a local high school to scrap its girls basketball team's trip to Arizona over the Grand Canyon State’s new immigration law.

The Highland Park High School varsity basketball team has been selling cookies for months to raise money for a tournament in Arizona.

Now, after winning their first conference title in 26 years, the girls are being denied the opportunity to play in the tournament due to uncertainty over how a new Arizona law that makes it a crime to be in the country illegally will be enforced -- and because the trip “would not be aligned” with the school's “beliefs and values,” Assistant Superintendent Suzan Hebson told the Chicago Tribune.

And...

Parents said there was no vote or consultation regarding the decision, which they called confusing, especially since they say no players on the team are illegal immigrants.

“I’m not sure whose values and what values and what beliefs they’re talking about, we were just going to Arizona to play basketball and our daughters were very disappointed to find out the trip had been canceled,” Michael Evans, a father of one of the players told Fox News.

Well said, Mr. Evans.  This is just disgraceful.  And get this:

Evans said he also failed to understand why the school allowed so many other trips, but not this one.

“The school has sent children to China, they’ve sent children to South America, they’ve sent children to the Czech Republic, but somehow Arizona is more unsafe for them than those places,” he said.

“The beliefs and values of China are apparently aligned since they approved that trip,” he added.

COMMENT:  Given what's taught in schools of education these days, the "educators" who made this decision probably think China is just fine.

This is a classic case of school officials imposing their left-wing views on students.  It is a time for parental action.  Will we see it? 

If I were the governor of Arizona, I'd invite this girl's team to come to the state as honored guests.  And if I were on the school board in Highland Park, I'd be looking for some new school officials.

May 12, 2010     Permalink

VIGILANCE II – AT 9:50 A.M. ET:  From the Santiago (Chile) Times:

Mohamed Saif Ur Rehman (28), a student of Spanish and Hotel Management in Santiago, was visiting the U.S. embassy on Monday to request a work visa to the United States when the alarm of an explosives detector went off. The student denied any connection to unauthorized materials.

U.S Ambassador to Chile Paul E. Simons told the Santiago Times that after embassy security officials detected the explosive residue on the Pakistani man "the case was turned over to Chilean police." “The U.S. Embassy keeps close contact to Chilean law enforcement," said Simon.

Rehman had been living in Chile four months and arrived at the embassy at 15.00 p.m. on Monday. Security officials contacted a special Chilean police unit (Gope de Carabineros), which then sent agents with a detection dog that reacted immediately at smelling the student.

A second test with a detection machine by the police had the same result. The possible presence of explosive residue was established on the student’s hands, pockets, cell phone and his documents.

COMMENT:  We must be careful, but the story is fascinating.  A hotel management student, ay?  Remember the attacks on hotels in Mumbai? 

By the way, why would a Pakistani study hotel management in Chile?  Is there a big tourist trade between Pakistan and Santiago?  That must be it.

Curioser and curioser.  Eternal vigilance, as they say.

May 12, 2010     Permalink

VIGILANCE – We're sure he's just a sportsman.  From AP:

CAIRO — Airport officials in Cairo say police have detained an American-Egyptian man who arrived on a flight from New York with several weapons in his luggage.

The officials say the man was taken into custody as he tried to pass through customs with a metal box containing two 9 mm handguns, 250 bullets, several swords, daggers and knives.

They say customs officials had been alerted after the weapons were discovered when the box was examined upon arrival Wednesday on an Egypt Air flight from New York's JFK International Airport in Cairo.

A police official confirmed the man was under investigation by prosecutors.

The officials all spoke on condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to speak to reporters.

COMMENT:  Just another well-equpped traveler.  Question:  Why weren't these munitions detected in New York?  There'll be a probe, a serious one.

May 12, 2010     Permalink

NOT GOOD, NOT GOOD – AT 8:23 A.M. ET:  I know it's a lot of fun to play the "purge the impure" game in politics, but it usually winds up destroying a political party.  Now, according to The Politico, another Republican is in trouble because some see him as impure:

The Utah Republican delegates who unceremoniously dumped Sen. Bob Bennett at their state convention last weekend also left an ominous warning for their longest-serving senator: You could be next.

Sen. Orrin Hatch’s expected bid for a seventh term won’t happen until 2012 — a lifetime away in political terms. But while it’s impossible to predict the level of anti-establishment fervor or the staying power of forces like the tea party movement two years from now, there are plentiful telltale signs that Hatch may have real reason to start worrying.

Roughly half of Utah voters would vote for someone other than Hatch if he were up for reelection this year, according to a Mason-Dixon poll released Tuesday and commissioned by the Salt Lake Tribune.

And the same sentiment was easy to find at this year’s convention. Many of the same delegates who helped bring down Bennett signaled that Hatch could encounter similar problems with grass-roots conservatives who view any break from ideological purity as a betrayal of the cause.

“He’s toast,” chimed in delegate Saima Leon, when she overheard a reporter inquiring about Hatch’s political vulnerability.

COMMENT:  Now let's just control ourselves, shall we?  If Orrin Hatch, a fine, solid, conservative senator isn't considered conservative enough, who is? 

This is exactly what happened to the Democratic Party, starting in 1968.  The greats – including the legendary Scoop Jackson ("Mr. National Defense") were cast aside in favor of this year's trendies.  You see the result.

America is an idealistic, but not an ideological country.  We like our political parties a bit more flexible than do the Europeans.  We are a nation of 305 million, with vast territory.  We have always respected local traditions.

A conservative in one region may not be exactly the same as a conservative in another.  Thus, we embrace Rudy Giuliani, even though some of his views will not mesh with those of Tom Coburn.  We backed Scott Brown, even though a Massachusetts senator has to make certain compromises. 

A party must be a large tent, although, clearly, not an infinite one.  I'm afraid we have some people who want to start tossing loyal Republicans out of the tent because they're not pure on every issue.  If you agree with them, I'll simply ask you how the phrase "minority party forever" appeals to you. 

It's time for the grown-ups to assert themselves.  We expect reasonable adherence to party ideals.  But the idea of demanding every crossed "t" and dotted "i" is absurd.  By the standards of some of these purists, Ronald Reagan would, today, be shown the door.

May 12, 2010     Permalink

"SCIENCE" STRIKES AGAIN – AT 8:08 A.M. ET:  We include this story because it's another great reminder that many "discoveries" reported by "researchers" turn out not to be true.  A cautionary tale, which we unabashedly link to the "global warming" craze.  From The New York Times:

Many who think they have food allergies actually do not.

A new report, commissioned by the federal government, finds the field is rife with poorly done studies, misdiagnoses and tests that can give misleading results.

You mean, scientists can make mistakes? 

While there is no doubt that people can be allergic to certain foods, with reproducible responses ranging from a rash to a severe life-threatening reaction, the true incidence of food allergies is only about 8 percent for children and less than 5 percent for adults, said Dr. Marc Riedl, an author of the new paper and an allergist and immunologist at the University of California, Los Angeles.

Yet about 30 percent of the population believe they have food allergies. And, Dr. Riedl said, about half the patients coming to his clinic because they had been told they had a food allergy did not really have one.

Dr. Riedl does not dismiss the seriousness of some people’s responses to foods. But, he says, “That accounts for a small percentage of what people term ‘food allergies.’ ”

COMMENT:  Right.  And "science" used to tell us that heart patients should lie in bed for six weeks after a heart attack, and polio victims should not be moved at all and...  Science progresses.  Some research accepted for decades is later found to be flawed.

So when Al Gore tells you the science of global warming is "settled," recall this and other stories.  Science is never settled.  It's an unending search for the truth, with plenty of detours.

The Earth is flat, you know.  I read it in an old science book.

May 12, 2010    Permalink

BRITAIN TODAY – RELIEF – AT 7:34 P.M. ET:  Dr. Liam Fox, originally trained as a medical doctor, has been named the new British secretary of state for defense, the equivalent of our defense secretary.

That is a relief for us.  Fox is the closest thing you'll get to a Maggie Thatcher in today's Britain.  Profoundly pro-American and pro-defense, he'll safeguard, to the extent budget cuts allow, British defense.

Britain's Ministry of Defense is not in good shape.  Fox, on a trip to New York last year, told us the extent to which leftish political correctness has crept into the place.  Under current policy, officers are not permitted to wear their uniforms to work, on grounds it might make civilian workers uncomfortable.  I kid you not.  That policy will be reversed.

William Hague will be foreign secretary.  He's basically an okay guy who sometimes strays a bit from the true transatlantic faith, but is committed to the alliance.  From the Wall Street Journal, reporting on a new interview with Hague:

Hague also said the new government would have a "solid but not slavish" relationship with the U.S., saying that undoubtedly disagreements would arise but that the special relationship between the two countries remained important.

He said the U.S. remains "in intelligence matters, in nuclear matters, in international diplomacy, in what we're doing in Afghanistan, the indispensable partner of this country."

I hope our White House feels the same.  Better put that bust of Churchill back up in the Oval Office.  There's a new sheriff in London town.

May 12, 2010    Permalink

TUESDAY,  MAY 11,  2010

TIMES SQUARE UPDATE – AT 7:48 P.M. ET:  When I was in journalism, it was a rule of thumb that you got better information from the New York Police Department than from the FBI.  NYPD was considered more advanced and less political.  With all respect to some of the fine work done by the FBI, and it is fine indeed, I listen a bit more carefully when New York's police commissioner, Ray Kelly, speaks.

Kelly has given an update on the Times Square bomber:

The suspected driver in a failed car bombing of Times Square fits the profile of a recent wave "homegrown" terrorists threatening America, New York police officials warned Tuesday.

The officials said Faisal Shahzad and other suspects like Najibullah Zazi - the admitted leader of a plot to bomb the New York subway system - had roots in working- or middle-class society, some college education and no previous criminal records, but became radicalized in part by traveling to overseas terrorist hotbeds.

Notice that they were not the impoverished "oppressed" sad saps often portrayed by the tale spinners of the left.

The Times Square threat was "a classic case of homegrown terrorism," Police Commissioner Raymond Kelly said at a briefing for private security executives.

And...

New York Police Department analyst Mitch Silber said that along with foreign travel, homegrown terrorists typically fall under the spell of extremist, anti-American literature and rhetoric found on the Internet or elsewhere.

Among the items found in Shahzad's home was a version of the Quran known for its "violent interpretation" of jihad, Silber said.

What!  Are they saying that ideology has something to do with this.  You mean it isn't Israeli apartments in Jerusalem? 

Kelly told reporters after the briefing that Shahzad still hadn't appeared in court on Tuesday because he was continuing to provide information in an ongoing investigation. He declined to say whether authorities were seeking other suspects.

A little different from the "lone wolf" garbage handed out in the first days after the failed attack. 

COMMENT:  As we noted in a previous post, military analyst Ralph Peters has detected a more serious take on terrorism from the Obama administration since the Times Square event.  Maybe there is learning going on.  I get the sense that Ray Kelly had it correct from the start.

May 11, 2010     Permalink

AND SO IT BEGINS – AT 7:03 P.M. ET:  During the health-care debate, opponents of Obamacare warned that the bill would gradually increase over time to far beyond the cheerful predictions.  We didn't think the process would start this soon.  From Fox:

President Obama's new health care law could potentially add at least $115 billion more to government health care spending over the next 10 years, congressional budget referees said Tuesday.

If Congress approves all the additional spending called for in the legislation, it would push the 10-year cost of the overhaul above $1 trillion -- an unofficial limit the Obama administration set early on.

The Congressional Budget Office said the added spending includes $10 billion to $20 billion in administrative costs to federal agencies carrying out the law, as well as $34 billion for community health centers and $39 billion for Indian health care.

The costs were not reflected in earlier estimates by the budget office, although Republican lawmakers strenuously argued that they should have been. Part of the reason is technical: the additional spending is not mandatory, leaving Congress with discretion to provide the funds in follow-on legislation -- or not.

"Congress does not always act on authorizations that are put into legislation by drafters," explained Kenneth Baer, a spokesman for the White House budget agency. "Authorizations for discretionary spending are not expenditures."

COMMENT:  That's nonsense.  The Democrats will demand those new expenditures, if they have the power to do so, because their base will demand them. 

As the song from "Gypsy" goes, "You Gotta Have a Gimmick."  What we see here is a world-class gimmick.

May 11, 2010    Permalink

BRITISH CRISIS OVER? – AT 6:17 P.M. ET:  Well, we're not really sure.  As many of you know by now, events moved very quickly today in London.  Any chance of a deal that would keep Labour in power in a deal with the Liberal Democrats collapsed – at least Labour demonstrated some pride in this – but a deal between the Conservatives and the Liberal Dems appears in the making, and pretty much assured.

So, Gordon Brown firmly resigned as prime minister, visiting the Queen to do it, and the Queen summoned David Cameron, the conservative chief, and asked him to form a new government.

Cameron is the new prime minister, even though his deal with the Lib Dems is not complete, and brings its own dangers.  From the solid John Burns of The New York Times:

LONDON — David Cameron, the Conservative leader, took over as Britain’s prime minister on Tuesday evening and announced the formation of a coalition government, capping a day of political negotiations that ended with the Tories returning to power after 13 years in the opposition.

That word "coalition" requires the magnifying glass to look at the fine print that emerges.  We want to know how British foreign and defense policy will be affected. 

Speaking outside the prime minister’s office at 10 Downing Street, Mr. Cameron said his Conservative party, which failed to win an outright majority in last week’s elections, would form a coalition with the center-left Liberal Democrats — a potentially fraught arrangement that Mr. Cameron admitted could pose “all sorts of challenges.”

Indeed.  The Lib Dems favor the dismantling of Britain's Trident submarine fleet and have something of an anti-American tone about them.  Fox is reporting that their leader, Nicholas Clegg, who sometimes gives the impression that he doesn't much like his own country, may be deputy prime minister, a breathtaking achievement for a leader who actually lost seats in last Thursday's election.

How much of the store has been given away? 

A five-hour meeting between Conservatives and Liberal Democrats, who came in third in the elections, ended Tuesday with no announcement of a deal. William Hague, a Conservative leader, emerged from talks without giving any details of the negotiations, saying he and his colleagues were on their way to see Mr. Cameron.

We will withhold any champagne until we see the arrangement.  Cameron is an ambitious man, and ambitious men can make foolish concessions on their way to the job they've sought all their lives.

This is a better outcome than a Labour-Lib Dem deal.  How much better remains to be seen.

May 11, 2010    Permalink

THE MORNING AFTER PILL – AT 10:36 A.M. ET:  Do you sometimes get the feeling that some "investors" and "financial analysts" are just children playing in a sandbox?  How else do you explain the childlike reaction to yesterday's dramatic European bailout, and the reversal today?  It's like a kid deciding that he doesn't like the red bike after all.

Yesterday the international markets went into ecstasy over a European bailout plan to salvage the Greek economy and provide some protection for others that may be in trouble of falling off the cliff.

This morning the financial geniuses woke up to realize that the bailout may not be enough, that the nations themselves may not do what's asked of them, and that we may see this movie again, with a much higher price of admission.  Question:  Why couldn't all these money wizards figure this out yesterday?

(Reuters) - Germany's cabinet approved the biggest national contribution to a $1 trillion emergency rescue package intended to stabilize the euro as global markets sobered up after Monday's euphoria.

Relief at the European Union's bold move to restore investor confidence gave way on Tuesday to doubts about whether weaker euro zone economies can meet their part of the bargain and deliver drastic debt cuts, driving the euro and stocks lower.

Might have thought of that a little earlier, don't you think?

The 16-nation single currency, which surged above $1.30 early on Monday, slipped below $1.27 as traders weighed debt worries and a perceived blow to the European Central Bank's independence in its weekend policy reversal to start buying euro zone government bonds.

The emergency plan -- the biggest since G20 leaders threw money at the global economy following the collapse of Lehman Brothers in 2008 -- wowed markets with its sheer size and sparked a spectacular rally in world stocks and the euro.

Yet stock and bond markets turned cautious when they reopened for business in Asia and Europe on Tuesday, with investors concerned that the plan was not a long-term solution to problems plaguing the 11-year old single currency area.

COMMENT:  Must be fun being a financial analyst.  You can change your mind overnight and still get the big bonus.  What a life.

May 11, 2010    Permalink

A SCAM BY ANY OTHER NAME – AT 9:36 A.M. ET:  Ah, diversity, thy name is hypocrisy.

The diversity crowd is firmly entrenched in Washington, making sure that all men truly are created equal.  But, of course, we all know what diversity really means –  it means a boost for those groups popular on the political left in a given year.  Check the list regularly, for it changes. 

Now the Weekly Standard rips bare the truth about diversity when it comes to U.S. Supreme Court justices.  Why, what a diverse lot we have.  Oh, yes, the justices vary by race, gender and ethnicity, the Holy Trinity of the diversity faith.  But there the diversity stops. 

On other important grounds, the Supreme Court appears as a surprisingly monolithic group of justices. Nearly all attended elite colleges and proceeded from there to a few Ivy League law schools. They come from either a few northeastern states or from California. Considered as a group, the absence of genuine diversity on the Court is more than a little stunning.

Here, then, is the line-up of the current Court, with nominee Kagan penciled in, with their colleges, law schools, religious background, and region of residence listed:

So let's see.  The march of diversity begins with the fact that eight of the nine justices went either to Harvard or Yale Law School.  A diversity blowout!  The ninth, Ruth Ginsburg, went to Columbia, another Ivy.  As for undergraduate schools, eight of the nine went to "elites."  Only Clarence Thomas went to what some would call a less-than-elite, Holy Cross. 

All of course are lawyers. Eight of the nine—excepting Kagan—were elevated to the Court from judicial positions to which they were appointed because of their training, intelligence, and connections. None has held an elected office that would have required an appeal to the common sense of voters. All have lived and worked in the hermetic world of elite colleges, Ivy League law schools, and the federal bench.

COMMENT:  Diversity has again been exposed as a kind of a racket.  We're all for diversity as long as it only includes "our" people. 

We're reminded of the famous story of Lyndon Johnson, after his first Cabinet meeting as Kennedy's vice president, rushing back to Capitol Hill to exclaim to Speaker Sam Rayburn what a spectacular Cabinet Kennedy had, with graduates of Harvard, Yale, MIT, and the other glories.

Mr. Sam, according to the story, just leaned back in his chair and replied, "Lyndon, I just wish one of them had run for sheriff."

Indeed. 

May 11, 2010     Permalink

ARE THE OBAMANS WAKING UP? – AT 9:02 A.M. ET:  Military writer Ralph Peters has been extremely tough on Obama, and properly so.  Now he detects change in the Obaman approach to terror.  We've detected the same thing.  Is something good happening, or is this just pre-election gimmickry?  From the New York Post:

Something big is happening. Big enough to alarm the White House. So big that the administration did an abrupt about-face regarding terrorism.

Terrorism's serious now -- driving major policy reversals. The administration just won't tell us why.

A week ago, failed Times Square bomber Faisal Shahzad wasn't even a Muslim, but a 40-something white male and, as Mayor Bloomberg insisted, probably an opponent of ObamaCare.

Yeah, these billionaires sometimes don't get it.  We were also told by administration talkers, including the very four-starred David Petraeus, that this was just a lone wolf.  Nothing to see, nothing to see.

Then wham! Over the weekend, the Obama administration unleashed a reverse-course media offensive -- deploying Attorney General Eric Holder, terror czar John Brennan, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and plentiful back-channel messages from staffers.

And...

...the administration's biggest policy reversal to date came from Holder, the longtime advocate of terrorist "rights," who offered one of the most belated acknowledgments in history when he told a TV network, "We're now dealing with international terrorism."

Holder, of all people, now wants Congress to change the rules for Miranda rights, giving the government more time under a "public-safety exception" to permit extended questioning of terrorist suspects before arming them with lawyers.

And the meaning, according to Peters:

First, the administration has plainly realized that the terror danger is much higher than it believed one week ago.

Second, it means that Shahzad really has been talking -- almost certainly tipping us that there are more America-bound terror trainees out there (or already here) and letting us fit together important pieces of the intelligence puzzle.

Third, the White House obviously fears more terror attacks sooner rather than later.

This sudden policy shift and media mobilization by an administration that's usually lethargic on security issues means that folks at the top are worried about the political costs of a successful terrorist strike.

Given the nature of this White House, I'd imagine that last point got their attention.  Big time.

Since Inauguration Day, reality denial has been an integral part of this administration's culture. But reality's a persistent intruder. For reasons we don't yet know in detail, the failed Times Square bombing appears to have brought the White House at least part way to its senses.

Some revelation about the terrorist threat has shocked the president. It's about time.

COMMENT:  Well, let's see what the administration's attitude toward terror is after the election.  Clearly, the Obamans have been jolted.  But the left wing of the Democratic Party hasn't been jolted.  And that's the Obama base.

If there's been a permanent change for the better, we applaud.  But right now we applaud with only one hand, waiting for real action.

May 11, 2010     Permalink

OH, THEY'RE FIGHTING IN BRITAIN – ON THE GROUND, ON THE BEACHES, IN THE AIR – AT 8:42 A.M. ET: 

A British political fight is like no other.  Under the veneer of British gentlemanliness there lie the razor blades.  A debate in the House of Commons is, commonly, much rougher than one in our own Congress.  The insults fly, the air thick with ridicule and put-downism. 

And now the Brits fight again.  Yesterday (organ music please) we told you of the new betrayal:  While negotiating with the Conservatives, the nutbag Lib Dems started talking with Labour over forming a government coalition, forcing the Tories out.  But even some in Labour, not easily revolted by anything, are revolted.  From The Times of London:

Labour opposition to a deal with the Liberal Democrats was growing today even as party negotiators faced demands for more concessions from Nick Clegg.

Clegg, what the Brits call a nutter, is head of a party that actually lost seats in this election, but holds the balance of power.  Add his seats to one of the large parties, and a majority of Parliament is created, or at least a near-majority.  Clegg now has delusions of grandeur, and intelligence. 

David Blunkett, the former Home Secretary, gave public voice to concerns about whether Labour could trust the Lib Dems in a coalition deal, claiming that they were behaving like "every harlot in history."

That is an insult to the very fine harlot communities of the world.

John Reid, another former Home Secretary, warned that voters would punish Labour if it tried to "cobble something together that was not in the national interest".

But The Times has learnt that behind the scenes there is wider Cabinet disquiet at the turn of events.

Jack Straw, the Justice Secretary, who has always been opposed to agreements with the Liberals, is said by colleagues to be "incensed" about the moves. One colleague even questioned whether Mr Straw would stay in the Cabinet in such circumstances.

A senior Cabinet source said that Mr Straw was not alone in his reservations. "We had to fight hard to get the AV referendum promise through the PLP. We could never go beyond that. If the Libs are asking us for PR, they won't get it. We can't deliver."

A ministerial source added: "This is obscene. We have to accept that we did not win the election. We lost it. Let's get real."

If they got real, they wouldn't be in the Labour Party at all. 

Another ministerial source told The Times: "It strikes me this is all about giving Gordon another six months in the job."

Gordon Brown, that is, who has offered to resign, but would like some more months at 10 Downing Street, just to dust off the pictures, you know.

COMMENT:  In two days Britain will have gone a week without a permanent government.  The British politicos should immediately ask for advice from Chicago, whose government is completely permanent.

May 11, 2010     Permalink

OBAMA GALLUPS ON – AT 8:22 A.M. ET:  Well, maybe trots on.  A new Gallup poll paints a picture of relative stability for the president, but with serious danger signs: 

PRINCETON, NJ -- President Barack Obama's approval ratings remain polarized by political party and race, and continue to show a significant gap between younger and older Americans.

For example, 82% of Dems approve of the president, compared with 14% of Republicans.  The danger sign:  Only 47% of independents approve.  Without independents, Obama loses in 2012.

On race:  Some 89% of blacks approve, whereas 43% of whites do. 

Age:  Some 58% of 18-29 year-olds approve, whereas only 43% of those 65 and older approve.  The danger sign: Obama's approval is down to 50% among 39-49 year-olds, considered a "youngish" group these days. 

More broadly, Obama's 50% approval average among all Americans for the week ending May 9 continues an extended run of stable ratings for him. Since mid-November, Obama's approval ratings have narrowly ranged between 47% and 51%.

COMMENT:  Rasmussen also has Obama's approval in the mid to high 40s, but with a disapproval hovering at about 52%. 

So Obama, despite a dramatic drop from the lofty figures of inauguration day, 2009, is hanging on.  He will not be easy to beat in 2012.  Gear up now for a tough, but winnable race.

May 11, 2010     Permalink