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.

I'm off to a birthday party for Winston Churchill (no kidding) in New York City, given by Atlantic Bridge.  I'll be back later with a report and more brilliance.

TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 30,  2010

BACK FROM THE PARTY – AT 11:51 P.M. ET:  Well, we had a grand party for Winston Churchill tonight at the Union League Club, founded to support the Union cause in the Civil War, or the War of Northern Aggression, whichever you wish.

Andrew Roberts, the distinguished British historian spoke about things Churchillian, Hitlerian and Obaman.  He lit into Obama for returning to Britain the bust of Churchill that had rested in the Oval Office, a gesture Roberts described as entirely gratuitous, but which sent a message to Britain that the special relationship between our two nations was a thing of the past.  It isn't, and won't be, when a real president comes to office again, replacing Mr. Make Believe.

Roberts noted that some people attributed Obama's ungrand gesture to the president's presumed belief that his Kenyan father or grandfather had been roughed up by the British during the colonial era.  Roberts says that there is absolutely nothing that supports the claim.

Ah, it was good to hear a Brit who spoke in the tradition of Winston.  A recording of Winston's "finest hour" speech was played, and some in the audience spontaneously rose to toast him and sing "God Save the Queen."  Of course, those were the British guys.

Nice to be among friends.  Then I left and realized I was in the middle of a city that, not many years ago, rejected a Navy proposal to make New York an official home port because the idea offended local leftists. 

The celebrations are much more inspiring than the reality.

November 30, 2010      Permalink

AREN'T YOU EXCITED BY THIS? – AT 4:20 P.M. ET:  It's so heartening to see these dramatic moves toward peace and eternal harmony.  From the Jerusalem Post:

Iran agreed to renew talks with world powers on its nuclear program, a European Union spokesperson told AFP on Tuesday.

Iranian negotiator Said Jalili will reportedly meet with EU chief diplomat Catherine Ashton, who will lead the "5+1" group of nations negotiating with Iran, on December 6-7. The talks will be the first between Iran and the six world powers since October 2009.

"We've now received a response from the Iranian authorities in which they have said that Dr. Jalili has accepted Catherine Ashton's proposal to meet in Geneva," the EU spokesman told AFP. "Talks between Catherine Ashton and Dr. Jalili will now take place on Monday and Tuesday next week in Geneva."

COMMENT:  As they say, endlessly, in Hollywood, "I'm very excited about it."

Another round of talks.  They've been talking for years.  Nothing has come of it.  We've been talking with North Korea for years.  Nothing has come of that either.

And nothing will come of these new talks...unless the Iranians are firmly convinced that they will suffer staggering consequences if there is no resolution to their nuclear program.  But what do they see?  They see a weak American president whose government can't even keep its secrets, and they see Catherine Ashton, a throwback to 1930s European diplomacy.

Expect nothing.  But of course Obama will endorse the talks.  That's all he's got.

November 30, 2010      Permalink

OBAMA STILL HURTING, BADLY, AMONG INDEPENDENTS – AT 9:36 A.M. ET:  We always stress that tracking polls must be studied over time, but we are struck, in today's Rasmussen report, by President Obama's stunningly poor performance among independents:

The Rasmussen Reports daily Presidential Tracking Poll for Tuesday shows that 26% of the nation's voters Strongly Approve of the way that Barack Obama is performing his role as president. Forty-three percent (43%) Strongly Disapprove, giving Obama a Presidential Approval Index rating of -17 (see trends).

Fifty-one percent (51%) of Democrats Strongly Approve while 73% of Republicans Strongly Disapprove. Among those not affiliated with either major party, 20% Strongly Approve and 45% Strongly Disapprove.

COMMENT:  These numbers show just how valuable the 2012 nomination for president is.  While there's no guarantee at all that a Republican will defeat Obama, a good Republican candidate has more than a fighting chance.

Indeed, not only are Obama's numbers among independents abysmal, but his numbers in his own party are slipping.  Only 51 percent of Democrats strongly approve of him. 

The biggest question in American politics today has to be, "Who will the Republicans choose?"  I don't know.  But the GOP has a history of snatching defeat from the jaws of victory.  The choice of presidential candidate for 2012 will be one of the most important decisions in the party's history, possibly as important as the choice of Abraham Lincoln in 1860.  And remember:  There will be no prize, in the presidential election, for second place.  We don't give out silver medals. 

November 30, 2010       Permalink

SPEAKING WISELY – AT 8:48 A.M. ET:  Former President George W. Bush has spoken out on the WikiLeaks scandal, with a dose of Bushian common sense.  From CNN:

(CNN) -- Former President George W. Bush joined a chorus of U.S. officials calling any leaks of sensitive government information "very damaging," telling a forum at Facebook headquarters that Wikileaks' recent release of 250,000 documents may significantly hurt Washington's image abroad.

"It's going to be very hard to keep the trust of foreign leaders," the nation's 43rd president said of the documents on issues ranging from Iran to Honduras to Turkey. "If you have a conversation with a foreign leader and it ends up in a newspaper, you don't like it. I didn't like it."

He is right, of course.  You may be sure that foreign leaders, right now, are reconfiguring their approach to this country, and watching their private comments.  What a disaster for us.

A relaxed Bush was joined by Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg on stage in Palo Alto, California, with hundreds watching from the audience and up to 6,500 following the interview live online.

The hourlong discussion centered on Bush's memoir, "Decision Points." Released just over two weeks ago, the book ranks atop the New York Times' hardcover nonfiction best-seller list, topping works by the likes of rapper Jay-Z, rocker Keith Richards and the late Mark Twain.

Well, Twain won't be hot again until his next book.  Jay-Z and Keith Richards have limited appeal in the literary world.

COMMENT:  Bush's public-opinion stock has been rising.  In fact, his political resurrection is occurring much faster than anyone had predicted.  He was hardly a perfect president, but one can't help but be impressed by his decisiveness and his clarity of thought. 

The greatest resurrection, of course, was the post-presidency rise of Harry S. Truman, who left office with an approval rating in the 20s, and who is now regarded as a great or near-great president.  The fringe left, naturally, does not join in that appraisal, since it was Truman who formulated the policies that allowed us successfully to confront the Soviet Union in the Cold War.  But the fringe left can take its 12 votes and go cast them somewhere, preferably San Francisco. 

November 30, 2010      Permalink

OBAMA THE CENTRIST? – AT 8:29 A.M. ET:  Does Obama's announcement of a pay freeze for federal workers signal a Clintonesque move to the center?  From The Politico:

President Barack Obama’s embrace of the politically symbolic two-year freeze on federal government salaries aligns him with House Republican leaders and against unions, public workers and some leaders in his own party.

A winner of incoming House Majority Leader Eric Cantor's YouCut online spending-cut poll in May, the proposal would require the House and Senate, at the last minute, to include the freeze in any long-term federal spending bill dealing with the slate of unfinished fiscal 2011 appropriations laws.

The president's adoption of a GOP proposal that goes straight to the ideological divide between the parties — the size, scope and value of government — could be an early sign of White House efforts to move toward the political center in advance of the 2012 election.

It infuriated union leaders, some rank-and-file Democratic lawmakers and even a handful of Republicans — few of whom saw it coming — and thus put the president squarely to the political right of liberals and other labor allies. The word "triangulation" — a reference to President Bill Clinton's practice of calibrating positions to distance him from both the political and left and the political right — floated through the corridors of Congress on Monday.

COMMENT:  I think it will take a lot more than this to convince the electorate that Mr. Obama is traveling back from the left, where he has resided his entire adult life, and maybe before that.

He was simply responding to the outrage felt by Americans when they learned that federal workers now earn more than their civilian counterparts, and have protections the civilian worker can only dream of.  Pensions for government workers have been a main ingredient in the economic woes dragging down both California and New York.

We'll be watching to see if the president makes any other encouraging moves. 

November 30, 2010      Permalink

OBAMA TRIUMPHS IN "RESET" WITH RUSSIANS - NOT – AT 8:14 A.M. ET:  Another famous victory in the foreign policy adventures of Barack Obama.  Let the military bands play.  From Fox:

The U.S. believes Russia has moved short-range tactical nuclear warheads to facilities near North Atlantic Treaty Organization allies as recently as this spring, U.S. officials say, adding to questions in Congress about Russian compliance with long-standing pledges ahead of a possible vote on a new arms-control treaty.

U.S. officials say the movement of warheads to facilities bordering NATO allies appeared to run counter to pledges made by Moscow starting in 1991 to pull tactical nuclear weapons back from frontier posts and to reduce their numbers. The U.S. has long voiced concerns about Russia's lack of transparency when it comes to its arsenal of tactical nuclear weapons, believed to be many times the number possessed by the U.S.

COMMENT:  I'm shocked that anyone would think our Russian friends would cheat.  Another example of the kind of American 1) triumphalism, 2) militarism, 3) imperialism, and 4) exceptionalism that the godlike Barack was elected to eliminate.  As our most respected president, Jimmah Carter, used to say, so wisely, we have an inordinate fear of Communism.  Can't we just get along?

Please ignore that last paragraph.  I had a nostalgia attack.

November 30, 2010     Permalink 

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