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.

ELECTION - 31 days from today

SATURDAY, OCTOBER 2, 2010

WE CERTAINLY HOPE SO – AT 6:57 P.M. ET:  Even the Nobel Prize people seem disappointed in Obama, joining the rest of the world. 

STOCKHOLM -- As the secretive Nobel Prize committees huddle for their final deliberations to select the 2010 winners, the question looms large: Are the jurors preparing another Obama-style shocker?

After the unusual ruckus caused by honoring Barack Obama less than nine months into his presidency, Nobel experts believe the peace prize committee will opt for a more low-profile choice.

A bit of an error here.  The peace-prize clowns actually decided to give the prize to Obama the same week the president took office.  The word "farce" is too generous. 

"I do not foresee a similar level of risk-taking as last year," says Kristian Berg Harpviken, Director of the Peace Research Institute in Oslo.

Front-runners in the guessing game for the 2010 Nobel Peace Prize include Chinese dissident Liu Xiaobo and Russian human rights activist Svetlana Gannushkina.

Harpviken, whose institute has made it a tradition to speculate on peace winners, said his top choice was Sima Samar, an Afghan women's rights activist who leads the Afghanistan Independent Human Rights Commission.

His other picks were the Oslo-based Democratic Voice of Burma - a Norway-based shortwave radio station and website run by exiled Myanmar dissidents - and the Special Court for Sierra Leone set up in 2002.

COMMENT:  The Nobel Peace Prize has become a joke.  It isn't like the real Nobel prizes, like medicine and physics, given to those who actually accomplish something.  It's a political prize given in Norway (not Sweden, like the real prizes), and has gone to such worthies as Yasir Arafat, some guy from North Vietnam, and a peanut farmer from Georgia.  The award to Obama was clearly meant as a slap to George Bush.  Also, the chaps who gave the prize could then have a picture taken with Obama, and they could show it to their friends at the office.

We also hope for a more low-key award this year, and one free of the tiresome left-wing correctness.

October 2, 2010      Permalink

MORE TERROR CONCERNS – AT 6:51 P.M. ET:  The seriousness of the terror threat in Europe is being brought home once again.  Washington is not underplaying it:

WASHINGTON -- The Obama administration is considering telling U.S. citizens to be vigilant as they travel in Europe, updated guidance prompted by fresh al-Qaida threats, American and European officials told The Associated Press on Saturday.

Such a move could have negative implications for European tourism, business and diplomacy if travelers fear there's a possibility of terror attacks.

The State Department may issue a travel alert as early as Sunday advising Americans to stay vigilant as they travel through Europe because of fresh threat information, U.S. officials told the AP.

"We are considering issuing an 'alert' tomorrow," a senior State Department official said following an inter-agency meeting to assess the threat and discuss the language of the advisory. "The bottom line is travel, but be vigilant."

COMMENT:  The fact that an American election is only a month from today must figure into this.  Some terror groups believe they can change the results of elections. 

A travel warning for Americans traveling in Europe is rare.  In fact, I don't recall the last one.  Obviously, the nature of the information we have is chilling.

October 2, 2010      Permalink 

BIG MARCH TODAY – AT 9:07 A.M. ET:  There's another big march planned for Washington today.  But NewsBusters points out there's something missing in the hoopla about it:

An official NAACP video for Saturday's One Nation rally (featuring their leader Ben Jealous, among others) claims that their movement includes "Conservatives and moderates, progressives and liberals." But a look at the actual "endorsing organizations" on the One Nation website doesn't list conservative groups, but it does include the Communist Party USA, the Committee of Correspondence for Democracy and Socialism (founded as a "moderate" wing of the CPUSA), the International Socialist Organization (publishers of SocialistWorker.org), and the Democratic Socialists of America (as well as its Chicago, Detroit, and New York chapters).

And the liberals get mad when you associate them with socialism. Well, what are these groups doing on this list, then? Where are the media worrying about "fringes" and "extremists"?

These endorsements have been missing from news accounts. AP's pre-protest dispatch by Nafeesa Syeed surgically began "Groups pushing for progressive policies will gather in the nation's capital this weekend for a march aimed at recapturing momentum for their agenda and mobilizing supporters before next month's midterm elections." Krissah Thompson left this angle out in her Washington Post story.

COMMENT:  I'm sorry to say that this is par for the course, and a major journalistic embarrassment.  Ever since the "McCarthy era" it has not been respectable for journalists to identify Marxists as Marxists.  The cry of "McCarthyism" would surely follow, no matter how accurate the Marxist label might be. 

If you are on the right, your group will be meticulously described and listed by the gatekeepers of mainstream journalism.  But if you are on the fringe left, you will either be upgraded to "liberal" or "progressive," not mentioned at all, or be assigned a euphemistic label like "anti-war activist," or, most corrupt, "human rights activist."

I saw this phenomenon for the first time during the Vietnam War, where the red groups and their allies would march down Fifth Avenue in New York chanting, "Ho, Ho, Ho Chi Minh."  The next day the mainstream scribes would describe them as "peace activists." 

Code Pink will also be in the One Nation rally.  Now tell me:  How many times have you seen a Code Pink spokeswoman like Medea Benjamin or Jodi Evans on TV?  Many times, correct?  But how many times have you seen a searching journalistic report on the group and what it advocates.  I hear the sound of silence.

That pretty much tells the story.

October 2, 2010      Permalink

U.S. NAILS AL QAEDA INVOLVEMENT IN NEW TERROR PLOT – AT 9:04 A.M. ET:  From the AP:

WASHINGTON — US counter-terrorism officials on Friday said they believe that senior al-Qaida leaders, including Osama bin Laden, were involved in the latest terror plots against European cities.

The multi-pronged scope of the emerging plan — which aimed to launch coordinated shooting sprees or attacks in Britain, France and Germany — is an al-Qaida hallmark. One US intelligence official added, however, that the details of how the plan was directed or coordinated by the group's core leaders is not yet clear.

The involvement of bin Laden and his core leaders, believed to be in hiding in Pakistan, underscores concerns about that country's role as a haven for al-Qaida and other Islamic extremists. US officials have pressed Pakistan to increase its efforts to root out the militants hiding in the mountainous border region.

COMMENT:  The sheer extent of the reported plot, involving a number of countries and "Mumbai"-style attacks, is stunning.  Add Denmark, by the way, to the list of countries mentioned in the story. 

This plot is bad enough, on its own.  But flash ahead five or ten years later, when some terror groups are almost certain to get weapons of mass destruction, possibly beginning with biological weapons.  It is that prospect that makes it sheer folly to underplay the terror risk.

It's also sheer folly to revert back to our old strategy, popular again at the Department of Justice, to treat terror as simply a law-enforcement issue.  Please notice that the unmasking of this huge plot was accompanied by a dramatic increase in military strikes in Pakistan, many by pilotless drones.  Police forces simply do not have the "reach" of military forces.  I hope this plot makes that clear, even to Eric Holder.

October 2, 2010      Permalink

DEMOCRATS WEAKER AMONG HISPANIC-AMERICANS – AT 9:02 A.M. ET:  The electoral implications here are considerable, if, as the analysts like to say, "the present trend continues."  From The Washington Times:

Well here is a punch in the stomach to those who pandered to Hispanics over the summer by bashing Arizona and its Republican Governor Jan Brewer for passing the immigration law known as SB 1070. According to the latest report from Gallup, Hispanics have peeled off from Democrats in August and September.

Hispanics' Preferences Shift, While Whites' and Blacks' are Stable

Hispanic voters' support for Democratic candidates waned in August and September. As a result, Hispanics in September favored Democrats by a 13-point margin (51% to 38%), compared with 32-point margins in June and July.

Whites in September favored Republican over Democratic candidates by a 14-point margin, similar to their support level in most other months this year. The vast majority of blacks continued to favor Democrats.

This is quite the "duh" moment, considering the vitriolic campaign from the left over anybody who voiced concern over the illegal immigration and border security issue. The mistake that is made so often, though, is that Hispanics in the United States are composed of various individuals of various races from different countries and territories throughout the world.

Using Arizona's SB 1070 as a wedge issue, liberals bunched all those nationalities and races together and assumed each individual from a Spanish speaking country would be offended by the push to enforce border security. Such a presumption is not just ignorant but insulting. For example, essentially, the Left is arguing that those of Dominican descent can't possibly be thinking any differently about immigration than Mexicans who cross the border illegally.

COMMENT:  Yes, liberals, Hispanics actually do think for themselves, without much help from the Democratic National Committee or Maxine Waters.  So this is a learning experience for you. 

If Dems lose Hispanic Americans, it could be devastating for their election chances, both this year and in 2012.  I'm so upset.

October 2, 2010     Permalink

FRIDAY, OCTOBER 1, 2010

BULLETIN:  CNN CLEANSES – AT 7:31 P.M. ET:  CNN anchor Rick Sanchez has been fired by the network after making some openly anti-Semitic comments in a radio interview.   From The Politico:

Rick Sanchez lost his job at CNN on Friday, just 24 hours after giving a satellite radio interview in which he called Jon Stewart a “bigot” and suggested that Jews run CNN and other media companies.

“Rick Sanchez is no longer with the company,” CNN said in a statement. “We thank Rick for his years of service, and we wish him well.“

Sanchez is the second CNN journalist to be fired for bias in recent weeks, the first being Arab reporter Octavia Nasr. This is speculation, but these dismissals may mark attempts by CNN to clean up its act, something made easier by the departure of the odious Christiane Amanpour, who was one of the problems there for years.  Amanpour is now sinking at ABC News.

I think charges of racism, anti-Semitism or other forms of bigotry have to be made very carefully, and only after real evidence is presented.  I've looked at Sanchez's comments, in context, and they are clearly bigoted, and meant to be.  I have no idea what the man was thinking. 

I've also watched Sanchez on occasion, as I sweep the news outlets during the day while researching Urgent Agenda.  I always found him a lightweight, sloppy and uninformed.  He also went out of his way to praise anti-Israel guests, telling one it was a "delight" to have him on, and now I think we know where those sentiments come from.

CNN is under new leadership.  Showing Sanchez the door may be a good sign that it's a serious management that knows the network has problems, and is willing to address them.

October 1, 2010      Permalink

WHERE? – AT 7:08 P.M. ET:   We've been reporting this week on the apparently serious terror threat to Europe.  Now, the most unlikely nation is signaling that it, too, takes this seriously.  From The New York Times:

STOCKHOLM (AP) — Sweden has raised its terror threat alert from low to elevated because of "a shift in activities" among Swedish-based groups that could be plotting attacks against the Scandinavian country, security officials said Friday.

The Swedish Security Service, SAPO, declined to say whether the threat involved Islamic terrorists or if it was linked to a terror plot announced this week by Western intelligence officials to wage Mumbai-style shooting sprees or other attacks in Britain, France and Germany.

COMMENT:  Sweden? SWEDEN?  I didn't even know they were awake.  I spent months on a research project trying to find a use for Sweden...and failed. 

Actually, Sweden is moving right – something we'll discuss in another post – and is starting to take life more seriously.  The country's third largest city, Malmo, has a serious problem with non-integrated Muslim immigrants.  Translated:  If they try to do anything about conditions there, they may be hit with a terror threat, or an actual attack.

Sweden was neutral in World War II, although it traded with the Nazis, and refused to join NATO during the Cold War, although it benefited from NATO's defense.  And yet its diplomats have regularly strutted around the world lecturing everyone on human rights.  Samantha Power, one of Obama's leftist henchwomen in the White House, held the Anna Lindh professorship at Harvard, named for a Swedish foreign minister who was one of the worst of the pompous lecturers.  Lindh was murdered by a knife-wielding assassin in a department store, and it was noted at the time that, despite the number of people in the store, no one stopped the murderer from escaping. 

Maybe, with this new approach to terror, Sweden is showing a maturity and sense of realism not demonstrated earlier.

October 1, 2010      Permalink

A CONSPIRACY SO VAST – AT 9:48 A.M. ET:  With polls showing him suddenly vulnerable, Massachusetts ultra-liberal Congressman Barney Frank is looking around for the usual suspects, and is finding them.  From The Wall Street Journal:

Despite reports from local Massachusetts media, Rep. Barney Frank, Massachusetts Democrat, remains confident he will win his re-election in November against his Republican opponent Sean Bielat. Former President Bill Clinton appeared with Mr. Frank recently at a political rally in Taunton last week, and Mr. Bielat claimed, according to reports, that Mr. Clinton was brought in to help buoy Mr. Frank.

"The notion that it’s a sign of panic is just silly. That’s just politics when they don’t have anything else better to say. It’s a tougher race, because once I became chairman of the [banking] committee in 2007, the right-wing media talk show hosts decided to target me," said Rep. Frank, when I asked him about his race during Wednesday votes on Capitol Hill. "They were frankly worried about what we would do, and I also have people who were angry about the financial reform bill."

While House Democrats at large are experiencing a tough re-election cycle, the Massachusetts Democrat who heads up the House Banking Committee believes the factors affecting his race come down to how he is being portrayed in the media.

"I’ve had Hannity, Limbaugh, Beck basically say things about me that weren’t true and if people say things that aren’t true over time and you don’t respond, then it has an impact, so I’m responding."

Mr. Frank's GOP opponent recently released an internal poll showing support for the Congressman is below 50 percent and Mr. Frank ahead by only ten points.

COMMENT:  It's Fox News.  It's always Fox News.  Fox News, you know, also causes global warming and a variety of allergies.  There may be a link with poor personal spending habits. 

Frank will still probably be reelected.  But the way formerly "safe" Democrats handle tension is instructive in itself.  Just the kind of guy you want in the foxhole next to you.

October 1, 2010      Permalink

SNIPPET OF THE DAY – AT 8:43 A.M. ET:

From the Daily Caller: 

Federal copy editors are demanding New York City change its 250,900 street signs — such as these for Perry Avenue in The Bronx — from the all-caps style used for more than a century to ones that capitalize only the first letters.  Changing BROADWAY to Broadway will save lives, the Federal Highway Administration contends in its updated Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices, citing improved readability.  At $110 per sign, it will also cost the state $27.6 million, city officials said.

If you haven't been convinced that government is nuts, I hope you are now.  Changing signs may be desirable, but a lot of other things in society are desirable as well, and far more important than this.  And the federal government wanrts more power.

October 1, 2010      Permalink

WE DO HOPE SO – AT 8:15 A.M. ET:  It's hard to be optimistic about Barack Obama.  He has let us down in so many ways, and his foreign policy has been a public embarrassment.  But now Robert Kagan, in the Washington Post, sees hope on the foreign front.  We don't necessarily agree with this analysis, but it's worth examining.  Tell us what you think:

Almost two years into the Obama presidency, there is a discernible shift in the administration's foreign policy.

Prove it, baby, prove it.

This is speculation, of course. But evidence of a shift abounds.

-- Allies are back. Compare Secretary of State Hillary Clinton's recent speech to the Council on Foreign Relations to the one she gave there last summer. Her 2009 speech sounded like an international relations professor's fantasy: She talked about using "smart power" to solve "collective action problems" in a "multi-partner world." While emphasizing relations with Russia, China, Brazil and other "emerging powers," she brushed past the old democratic allies in one lifeless paragraph. This year, the IR lingo is gone; Russia and China were singled out as much for being "authoritarian states" as for their cooperation. And Clinton devoted 10 paragraphs to extolling better relations with "our closest allies, the nations that share our most fundamental values and interests" in Europe, North America and Asia.

And...

-- Democracy is back. A year ago, who would have believed that Obama would devote almost a third of his speech at the United Nations to democracy or use language such as "liberty" and "tyranny"? Apparently, the Bush stink is off the word "democracy." Clinton, too, has elevated democracy to a primary objective. In Krakow in July, she criticized authoritarian states that were "slowly crushing civil society and the human spirit," singling out China, Russia and Egypt.

And...

-- America is back. A year ago, the talk was of the post-American world. Obama seemed to be the post-American president, resigned to doing the best he could with the bad hand he'd been dealt. Today, officials exude more optimism. Clinton talks of "a new American moment" and, in words that might have been called arrogant a few years ago, believes "the world is counting on us" for "global leadership."

Finally...

Under the circumstances, old democratic allies in Asia and Europe look like a better foundation on which to build U.S. policy. Democracy looks like a better answer to many of the world's problems than authoritarianism. And American leadership looks like a better option than a consortium with authoritarian great powers. Get ready for Phase Two.

COMMENT:  Now, this is quite a broad analysis, and we'll have to wait for some real proof, some actions, rather than words.

Will Obama, facing increasing conservative power in the next Congress, be able to free himself from the left wing of the Democratic Party?  Does he want to?  As he looks to 2012, will he see his political salvation in a move to the center?  Many leaders, once they win election and take office, are confronted with dire intelligence reports and the realities of a hard world.  Has Obama been affected?

One indicator this week may be Obama's relatively mild reaction to Israel's refusal to extend the moratorium on building on the occupied West Bank.  Last year we would have expected bluster and table pounding.  This time we got some thoughtful, ongoing diplomacy.

And...most intriguing, please notice the name of Hillary Clinton in Kagan's analysis.  What exactly is her role?  Is she trying to forge an independent policy in preparation for her own run for the presidency?

Politics is never dull. 

Kagan's analysis is fascinating, and there'll be a lot of reaction across the internet.

October 1, 2010     Permalink

THE ORIGINAL AMATEUR HOUR – AT 7:51 A.M. ET:  I do not like amateurs in politics.  Let me repeat that.  I do not like amateurs in politics.   The name of the game in electoral politics is winning.  There is no other game.  There is no consolation prize.  You don't go home with the prize behind door three just for coming in second.  There is no prize for second place.

And yet, some people don't understand that.  We have a disgraceful situation in Nevada, where Harry Reid, the Senate's unsmiling majority leader, should be easy prey.  He's unpopular, he was way, way behind in the polls only months ago.  Now, thanks to the GOP nominating an unsteady candidate in Sharron Angle, he's about even.  But what many people don't realize is that it's a three-person race.  The third candidate represents, printed right on the ballot, the Tea Party.  And every vote for the Tea Party is a vote that Sharron Angle doesn't get, a vote for Harry Reid. 

What do do?  Well, the logical, intelligent thing for a patriotic Tea Party candidate is to withdraw, possibly guaranteeing a GOP pickup.  But amateurs don't think that way.  From The Wall Street Journal: 

Nevada GOP Senate candidate Sharron Angle encouraged the Tea Party of Nevada candidate to drop out of the race to give her a better chance against Democratic Majority Leader Harry Reid.

The meeting did not go well.

“I can’t win without you,” Ms. Angle told the Tea Party candidate, businessman Scott Ashjian, at a private meeting in Las Vegas, according to Mr. Ashjian.

“That isn’t happening,” Mr. Ashjian says he replied.

A knowledgeable figure in Nevada politics described Ashjian as an "ego-maniac whack-job."  He hasn't even campaigned.

Remember that Bill Clinton became president in 1992 because another ego, Ross Perot, took votes from President Bush 41 in a three-way race.  Perot was an appalling, unprepared candidate with a lot of cash. 

Look, people have a right to run for office.  But occasionally it's not a bad idea to put country first.  The Tea Party can reelect Harry Reid, and I'm not so sure that's where they want to be.

This is what happens when the farm team tries to play in the majors.

October 1, 2010     Permalink

THE COUNTDOWN – AT 7:28 A.M. ET:  The most important midterms in memory will be held one month from tomorrow.  Congress has just adjourned and the criminal class will be back in their districts imparting their wisdom.  Now the fun really begins.

This is where the country stands right now, according to RealClearPolitics:

President Obama's approval rating, averaging the different surveys, stands at 45% approve, 50.6% disapprove.  That is critical because midterms are often a referendum on the president in power, and Mr. Obama is not doing well.

But the generic congressional vote ("Which party would you vote for..?) has tightened.  Republicans stand at 46.5, Dems at 42.5, a spread of four points.  Now, it's been unusual for the GOP to lead at all in recent years, and a four-point lead is solid, but it isn't spectacular.  Generic polls have often predicted the eventual outcome of midterms.  A four-point lead points to GOP gains, but not necessarily spectacular gains.  But the huge enthusiasm on the right can alter that on election day.

Congressional job approval stands at 20.5% approve, 71.3% disapprove, a gap of 50.8 points.  Since Dems are in control of Congress, this number is no great endorsement of their work. 

A month is five lifetimes in politics, so we caution about making blanket predictions.  Beware the October surprise, especially in foreign policy, by this intensely political White House.  Beware the effects of a potential terror attack.  And beware the obscene linkage between the Democratic Party and the mainstream media, a linkage that must be worth a certain number of points in many races.  And beware the fact that the Republicans, in this Republican year, are hurt in some key races by some marginal candidates.

Thus far we've been lucky in that the president's campaigning hasn't apparently roused the Democratic base.  That can change.  Our fight must intensify. 

It's at this point that most of the public really starts to engage the election, and that engagement will grow once we get inside the two-week mark.   Nothing is in the bag, but I'd rather be a Republican right now than a Democrat.

October 1, 2010     Permalink