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.

MONDAY, NOVEMBER 29,  2010

AH, THE SYMBOLISM – AT 9:44 P.M. ET:  There are these little moments that make politics occasionally bearable.  From The Hill:

Senate Republicans on Monday formally claimed President Obama’s former Senate seat with the swearing-in of Sen. Mark Kirk (R-Ill.).

As is customary, Kirk was sworn in by Vice President Joe Biden twice — once on the Senate floor, which is closed to photographers, and again down the hall in the Old Senate Chamber, in front of the media. Questions from reporters were not allowed.

A five-term congressman whose district stretched north of the Chicago area, along Lake Michigan, Kirk beat out Illinois state treasurer Alexi Giannoulias (D) on Nov. 2 with 56 percent of the vote, after a bitter contest marked by inartful campaigns on both sides.

Because the campaign was a special election to fill out the remainder of Obama’s elected term in the Senate, Kirk is allowed to participate in the lame-duck session. Paperwork delays prevented him from being seated earlier.

COMMENT:  Kirk's victory was more convincing than had been expected by pollsters.  While an excellent congressman, he had flawed campaign.  He had to admit exaggerating some aspects of his service record.  But he was clearly superior to his opponent, a bit of a shady character with ties to a shady bank.  Even in Illinois this can count.

November 29, 2010       Permalink

THE MOVEMENT FROM LEFT TO RIGHT CONTINUES – AT 9:13 A.M. P.M. ET:    Just when the Dems thought it was safe to go back to politics.  It seems some of their own are leaving the family farm.  From WaPo:

ATLANTA -- Staggering Election Day losses are not the Democratic Party's final indignity this year. At least 13 state lawmakers in five states have defected to Republican ranks since the Nov. 2 election, adding to already huge GOP gains in state legislatures. And that number could grow as next year's legislative sessions draw near.

The defections underscore dissatisfaction with the Democratic Party - particularly in the South - and will give Republicans a stronger hand in everything from pushing a conservative fiscal and social agenda to redrawing political maps.

In Alabama, four Democrats announced last week they were joining the GOP, giving Republicans a supermajority in the House that allows them to pass legislation without any support from the other party. The party switch of a Democratic lawmaker from New Orleans handed control of Louisiana's House to Republicans for the first time since Reconstruction.

In Georgia, six rural Democratic state legislators - five from the House and one in the Senate - have switched allegiance to the GOP since Nov. 2. In Maine, a House Democrat flipped; in South Dakota, a Democratic state senator.

Most of the party swaps are in the South, where GOP rule is becoming more entrenched and Democrats - many of them already more conservative than their counterparts elsewhere - are facing what looks like a long exile in the minority.

COMMENT:  The name "solid South" was given to the region when it was almost entirely Democratic.  The term applies again, although the party label is different.

The support of state legislatures is critical to Republican governors enacting their programs.  That in turn makes some of these governors into presidential contenders.  So, what happens at the state and local levels can quickly have national implications.

November 29, 2010    Permalink

THE TIMES EXPLAINS – AT 9:56 A.M. ET:  The New York Times has explained its decision to publish the WikiLeaks leaked documents exposing American state secrets.  It is a pathetic, lame, and, of course, pompous explanation of what amounts to a serious breach of the law:

The articles published today and in coming days are based on thousands of United States embassy cables, the daily reports from the field intended for the eyes of senior policy makers in Washington. The New York Times and a number of publications in Europe were given access to the material several weeks ago and agreed to begin publication of articles based on the cables online on Sunday. The Times believes that the documents serve an important public interest, illuminating the goals, successes, compromises and frustrations of American diplomacy in a way that other accounts cannot match.

The arrogance is breathtaking.  The documents break the confidentiality required by governments.  It is not up to The Times to decide, for itself, what is damaging and what is not.

They were originally obtained by WikiLeaks, an organization devoted to exposing official secrets, allegedly from a disenchanted, low-level Army intelligence analyst who exploited a security loophole.

That's some loophole.  Is it finally closed, or are they appointing a committee in Washington?

The Times has taken care to exclude, in its articles and in supplementary material, in print and online, information that would endanger confidential informants or compromise national security. The Times’s redactions were shared with other news organizations and communicated to WikiLeaks, in the hope that they would similarly edit the documents they planned to post online.

Where, precisely, is The Times's expertise in this matter?  National secrets of the United States are the property of the American people, and are entrusted to elected officials and their appointees.

After its own redactions, The Times sent Obama administration officials the cables it planned to post and invited them to challenge publication of any information that, in the official view, would harm the national interest. After reviewing the cables, the officials — while making clear they condemn the publication of secret material — suggested additional redactions.

They should not have cooperated at all.

My friend at PowerLine, Scott Johnson, points out the hypocrisy of The Times.  Scott notes:

The New York Times is participating in the dissemination of the stolen State Department cables that have been made available to it in one way or another via WikiLeaks. My friend Steve Hayward recalls that only last year the New York Times ostentatiously declined to publish or post any of the Climategate e-mails because they had been illegally obtained. Surely readers will recall Times reporter Andrew Revkin's inspiring statement of principle: "The documents appear to have been acquired illegally and contain all manner of private information and statements that were never intended for the public eye, so they won't be posted here."

The Times appears to have a flexibile view of the word "illegal."

Shame.

November 29, 2010      Permalink

STATE OF THE STATES – AT 9:01 A.M. ET:  We may be in a season of good cheer, but there's very little to cheer about in several of America's most profligate states.  They face financial ruin.  Michael Barone suggests that bankruptcy may be their best course.  Can you just imagine it – California, Illinois and New York declaring bankruptcy?  For years, the elites of those states have proclaimed their moral superiority.  From RealClearPolitics:

...it's entirely possible that some state government -- California and Illinois, facing $25 billion and $15 billion deficits, are likely suspects -- will be coming to Washington some time in the next two years in search of a bailout. The Obama administration may be sympathetic. It's channeled stimulus money to states and TARP money to General Motors and Chrysler in large part to bail out its labor union allies.

But the Republican House is not likely to share that view, and it's hard to see how tapped-out state governments can get 60 votes in a 53-47 Democratic Senate.

How to avoid this scenario? University of Pennsylvania law professor David Skeel, writing in The Weekly Standard, suggests that Congress pass a law allowing states to go bankrupt...

...The threat of bankruptcy would put a powerful weapon in the hands of governors and legislatures: They can tell their unions that they have to accept cuts now or face a much more dire fate in bankruptcy court.

It's not clear that governors like California's Jerry Brown, who first authorized public employee unions in the 1970s, or Illinois's Pat Quinn will be eager to use such a threat against unions, which have been the Democratic Party's longtime allies and financiers...

...The policy arguments for a bailout of California or Illinois public employee union members are incredibly weak. If Congress allows state bankruptcies, it might prevent a crisis that is plainly looming.

COMMENT:  In the last election, there were Republican gains in both New York and Illinois, but not in California.  And in New York and Illinois, the gains were largely limited to congressional seats, not high state officials.  One reason for this is that state employee unions can send thousands, if not hundreds of thousands, of state employees to voting booths to help swing close elections. 

Unless the economy dramatically turns, the possibility of state bankruptices will loom large in the 2012 elections.  I wonder, though, if Obama will try to get a federal bailout of favored states first, a move that could cost him dearly in political terms...except in the proligate states affected.

November 29, 2010      Permalink

CHICKENS DO INDEED COME HOME TO ROOST – AT 8:38 A.M. ET:  Some of the very people who did the most to boost Obamacare are starting to feel its negative impact.  From The Wall Street Journal:

One of the largest union-administered health-insurance funds in New York is dropping coverage for the children of more than 30,000 low-wage home attendants, union officials said. The union blamed financial problems it said were caused by the state’s health department and new national health-insurance requirements.

The fund is administered by 1199SEIU United Healthcare Workers East, an affiliate of the Service Employees International Union. Union officials said the state compelled the fund to start buying coverage from a third party, which increased premiums by 60%. State health officials denied forcing the union fund to make the switch, saying the fund had been struggling financially even before the switch to third-party coverage.

The fund informed its members late last month that their dependents will no longer be covered as of Jan. 1, 2011. Currently about 6,000 children are covered by the benefit fund, some until age 23.

The union fund faced a “dramatic shortfall” between what employers contributed to the fund and the premiums charged by its insurance provider, Fidelis Care, according to Mitra Behroozi, executive director of benefit and pension funds for 1199SEIU. The union fund pools contributions from several home-care agencies and then buys insurance from Fidelis.

“In addition, new federal health-care reform legislation requires plans with dependent coverage to expand that coverage up to age 26,” Behroozi wrote in a letter to members Oct. 22. “Our limited resources are already stretched as far as possible, and meeting this new requirement would be financially impossible.”

COMMENT:  Freely translated, health insurance is far more complicated than the Obamacare propaganda was willing to admit.  There are plans being altered, or dropped, all over the country.  In addition, medical practices are being impacted. 

But how could we have known about these things?  Not only have we not read the bill, but the people who passed it never read it either. 

Reforming the reformers, and fixing Obamacare, will be among the most critical assignments for the new Republican House.  How the GOP performs on health care may well have a critical bearing on the 2012 election.

November 29, 2010       Permalink

INCIDENT IN TEHRAN – Someone is killing Iranian nuclear scientists.  From The Jerusalem Post:

Assailants on motorcycles attached bombs to the cars of two nuclear scientists as they were driving to work in Teheran Monday, killing one and seriously wounding the other, according to Iranian state media reports, which accused Israeli agents on motorbikes of attaching the bombs to their cars.

"In a criminal terrorist act, the agents of the Zionist regime attacked two prominent university professors who were on their way to work," Iran's state television network reported on its web site, referring to Israel.

Iran's nuclear chief, Ali Akbar Salehi, said the man killed was involved in a major project at the country's chief nuclear agency, though he did not give specifics. Some Iranian media reported that the wounded scientist was a laser expert at Iran's Defense Ministry and one of the country's few top specialists in nuclear isotope separation.

COMMENT:  Bits and pieces regularly come out, but it's apparent that there are significant sabotage operations underway against the Iranian nuclear program.  Obviously, we cannot confirm that these latest hits were Israeli, and the Israelis won't be talking.  In addition to commando-style operations, a devastating computer virus was also unleashed against Iranian nuclear facilities, probably setting back the Iranians somewhat.

I would not be shocked to see commando operations escalate in the face of the failure, thus far, of sanctions to work.  I also would not be surprised to hear that Arab countries, which fear Iran, are involved.  The weakness of the American president, in the face of Iranian bluster, has its consequences.

November 29, 2010     Permalink

SUNDAY, NOVEMBER 28,  2010

THE LEAKS ARE OUT – AT 11:22 P.M. ET:  WikiLeaks has struck.  The leak of this treasure trove of diplomatic cables will seriously affect America's ability to do business.  Foreign nations will wonder why we can't keep our secrets.  Most of them do.  Consider this, published joyously by The New York Times, whose role in covering for these leaks has been disgraceful:

There was little surprising in Mr. Barak’s implicit threat that Israel might attack Iran’s nuclear facilities. As a pressure tactic, Israeli officials have been setting such deadlines, and extending them, for years. But six months later it was an Arab leader, the king of Bahrain, who provides the base for the American Fifth Fleet, telling the Americans that the Iranian nuclear program “must be stopped,” according to another cable. “The danger of letting it go on is greater than the danger of stopping it,” he said.

His plea was shared by many of America’s Arab allies, including the powerful King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia, who according to another cable repeatedly implored Washington to “cut off the head of the snake” while there was still time.

These warnings are part of a trove of diplomatic cables reaching back to the genesis of the Iranian nuclear standoff in which leaders from around the world offer their unvarnished opinions about how to negotiate with, threaten and perhaps force Iran’s leaders to renounce their atomic ambitions.

COMMENT:  No matter what you may think of these leaders, they deal with the U.S. on a confidential basis.  What has happened here is disgraceful.

Excellent talk show host Mike Scully sends us a quote from the conservative columnist, Max Boot, that sums up how many of us feel about what has become of our profession:

"There was a time when editors and reporters thought of themselves as citizens first and journalists second. There were damaging leaks even during World War II, but when they occurred they were generally denounced by the rest of the press. We now seem to have reached a moment when the West’s major news organizations, working hand in glove with a sleazy website, feel free to throw spitballs at those who make policy and those who execute it. This is journalism as pure vandalism. If I were responsible, I would feel shame and embarrassment. But apparently, those healthy emotions are in short supply these days."

Indeed.  Indeed.

November 28, 2010       Permalink

SNIPPET OF THE DAY – AT 12:09 P.M. ET:

Computer programmer William Tunstall-Pedoe has calculated April 11, 1954, to be the most objectively dull day since 1900.   On that day a general election was held in Belgium, a Turkish academic was born and an Oldham Athletic footballer called Jack Shufflebotham died. Apart from that nothing much happened.

He is wrong.  The most objectively dull day was the day Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid held their first joint press conference.  Even the microphone fell asleep.

November 28, 2010       Permalink

FROM A PATRIOT – AT 11:33 A.M. ET:  John McCain, who is said to have had a sometimes awkward relationship with Sarah Palin, gives her a firm thumbs up today.  From The Politico:

CNN's Candy Crowley asked John McCain on Sunday what he thought of his former running mate Sarah Palin's book/reality show/political/self- promotion tour.

"She's keeping her options open, and i think she should," the Republican senator from Arizona said on "State of the Union. "She's an incredible force in the American political arena."

When Crowley interrupted to ask if Palin was "divisive," the senator chuckled.

"A guy named Ronald Reagan used to be viewed as divisive," said McCain, whose staff regarded Palin as a primping, under-prepared political novice at times during the 2008 campaign.

"She's doing a great job. I think she's motivated our base," he added. "She had a positive impact on the last election, and I'm proud of her."

COMMENT:  That's not a presidential endorsement, of course, but McCain is right.  Ronald Reagan was not only regarded by some pundits and party professionals as divisive, but as wild and unprepared. 

Palin isn't Reagan.  She doesn't have Reagan's background as a two-term governor of our largest state.  And she cannot, as of now, articulate the issues the way Reagan could.  But she is a tremendous motivator, one of the greatest political cheerleaders I've ever seen.  Whether she should make a presidential run is a different story, to be examined over time.  But I'm glad that McCain, after so many rumors of a split, gave her his okay.

November 28, 2010      Permalink

THESE PEOPLE ARE NUTS, AND NEED PROFESSIONAL CARE – AT 10:55 A.M. ET:   As readers know by now, there was a close terror call in Portland, Oregon.  Fortunately, the FBI prevented a Somali jihadist from blowing up a crowd of people at a Christmas celebration. 

But get this:  Portland is one of those chic, "progressive" cities that has officially refused to cooperate with the Joint Terrorism Task Force.  This is just unbelievable:

Portland Mayor Sam Adams and Police Chief Mike Reese have discussed for months whether Portland should rejoin the Joint Terrorism Task Force, a multi-agency group that investigated Friday's failed plot to set off a bomb downtown.

Five years ago, Portland became the first city in the nation to withdraw from the FBI-led task force....

...In April 2005, the City Council, led by then-Mayor Tom Potter, voted 4-1 to withdraw its two police officers from the federal task force. Potter cited the potential for trespasses against civil liberties and an inability to oversee Portland officers who would be deputized as federal agents. Commissioner Dan Saltzman cast the lone vote against withdrawal...

...Andrea Meyer, legislative director for the American Civil Liberties Union of Oregon, said her agency would oppose any move to put Portland police back on the task force. The ACLU argues the bureau would lose the ability to ensure its city officers are adhering to state law, which is unique in that it prohibits police from collecting and maintaining information on someone's religious beliefs.

COMMENT:  What can one say?  What can one say?  These people are adolescents.  They cannot accept the real world.  Now, they say, they're reexamining their position.  But you can be sure the usual suspects will come out of the woodwork – that's the woodwork you see on the left – and argue for Portland to maintain its "values."  Leftists are very big on maintaining their "values," no matter how many people are put at risk.

Barry Goldwater once suggested that we saw off the East Coast and send it out to sea.  May I suggest an additional piece of real estate, in the West, that could qualify.

November 28, 2010       Permalink

MAJOR VULGARITY ALERT – AT 10:39 A.M. ET:  Brace yourself.  According to reliable sources, WikiLeaks, that "service" that acquires classified U.S. documents, is about to release thousands of highly sensitive diplomatic messages sent between American embassies and the State Department.

State is already cautioning foreign nations, especially Britain and Israel, that the documents will prove highly embarrassing and can damage relations.  Translated:  These cables contain frank assessments by American diplomats of foreign leaders and their policies.

This is a potential disaster.  If diplomats cannot be assured of privacy in official communications, the assessments and advice that Washington needs cannot be delivered.  In addition, if candid comments are made public, the embarrassment can cause serious breaches in relationships.

How the hell did this happen?  How did so many documents get loose?  Clearly, we have a security problem, but the American media seems indifferent.  Indeed, it's now been reported that The New York Times has been given advance access to the highly sensitive material by WikiLeaks.  This is disgraceful, but typical of the "new" Times. 

Classified information is the property of the American people, and handled by our elected officials in Washington, and their appointees.  If legally classified, it is an outrage that any newspaper would print it.  The U.S. Government is already warning that people can be killed as a result of this anticipated document dump. 

We await the release.  It is imperative that we plug these leaks and take whatever action we can take internationally to make sure this doesn't happen again.

November 28, 2010     Permalink