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 - 29 days from today

MONDAY, OCTOBER 4, 2010

GREAT MOMENTS IN MEDIA – AT 8:55 P.M. ET:   The New York Times reports that MSNBC, the journalistic embarrassment of NBC News, is going on a publicity campaign.  Observe the creativity, the uniqueness, the breathtaking originality:

MSNBC, once the also-ran but now the No. 2 cable news channel, has a new tagline that embraces its progressive political identity.

Number two?  I guess that means CNN has slipped to number three.  Well, that's what happens when you fire a news giant like Rick Sanchez.  (That is a joke.)

The tagline, “Lean Forward,” will be publicly announced Tuesday, opening a planned two-year advertising campaign intended to raise awareness of the channel among viewers, advertisers and distributors.

Lean forward?  That's the new slogan?  Lean forward?  Isn't that when you do when you can't hear the sound from the movie? 

How many committees did it take to come up with "Lean forward"? 

The tagline “defines us and defines our competition,” said Phil Griffin, the president of MSNBC, his implication being that the Fox News Channel, which is No. 1 in cable news and a home for conservatives, is leaning backward. Fox’s best-known tagline is “Fair and Balanced.”

So Phil Griffin really thinks that "Lean forward" defines MSNBC and its competition.  No, if he wants to define his network and its relationship to the competition he might have chosen, "Having the pants beaten off us."

Some of the new MSNBC ads include shots of President Obama on his election night; others, directed by the filmmaker Spike Lee, showcase hosts like Keith Olbermann and Rachel Maddow preparing for their nightly programs; and still others feature quotes like “the future belongs to the fearless.”

My insomnia is now cured.  I am asleep.

October 4, 2010     Permalink

MAJOR POLL RESULT – AT 8:01 P.M. ET:  Gallup has just released a major new poll measuring party preference among likely voters in next month's election.  That's really the only way to go at this point.  You want to know what people who are likely to vote think, not all people who happen to be registered:

PRINCETON, NJ -- Gallup's generic ballot for Congress among registered voters currently shows Republicans with 46% of the vote and Democrats with 43%, similar to the 46% to 46% tie reported a week ago. However, in Gallup's first estimates among likely voters, based on polling from Sept. 23-Oct. 3, Republicans have a double-digit advantage under two separate turnout scenarios.

If there is a high turnout on election day, Gallup estimates that the preference for Republicans would be 53% to 40%, an astounding 13-point gap.

And get this:  If there's a low turnout, the Republican advantage grows to 18 points, 56% to 38%.

Now, we stress that this is one poll, but it is the kind of survey that measures the so-called "enthusiasm gap."  What Gallup is saying is that Republicans are just more likely to go to the polls. 

This, of course, can change somewhat by election day as Democrats crank up the fear campaign and drag their base to polling places.  (If the corruption is as bad as usual in some cities, the Dems may drag the polling places to the voters.)

Gallup has found Republicans, compared with Democrats, expressing higher levels of enthusiasm about voting and more thought given to the elections throughout 2010. It follows that models in which voting is restricted to those most likely to vote would show Republicans doing disproportionately well.

Gallup cautions that races tend to tighten as election day nears.   I like where we are, though.

October 4, 2010     Permalink

IS IT POSSIBLE? – AT 8:35 A.M. ET:  A year ago the question would have elicited laughs.  But, in this year of 2010, is it possible for Republicans to elect a United States senator from the blue-glowing state of New York, where Republicans normally meet in a small closet?

It is possible, even though the Republican candidate, former Congressman Joe DioGuardi, isn't exactly Mr. Excitement.  The Democratic candidate, incumbent Senator Kirsten Gillibrand, was appointed by Governor David Paterson to fill the seat vacated by Hillary Clinton.  She has made zero impression and can walk down any street in New York State and not be recognized.  Her greatest asset seems to be her good looks, leading Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid to declare her, in a moment of exquisitely bad taste, the "hottest" senator. 

The race, as RealClearPolitics points out, is closer than had been expected, but it's a tough GOP road:

Let's be clear up front: A straight-up Republican win would be unheard of. No Democratic senator has ever been defeated for re-election in the Empire State, and the last time a non-Democrat won an open seat in New York in a two-way race was in 1958. The typical formula for a non-Democratic win in New York is to have a Republican running on the Liberal Party line who splits the anti-Republican vote with the Democrat; this is in part how Alfonse D'Amato and Christopher Buckley won their Senate races. This won't happen this year - there isn't even an independent Liberal Party in New York anymore.

Nevertheless, it is certainly possible for DioGuardi to pull off the upset, though I certainly would require some decent odds before taking the bet. DioGuardi would need to make the final results a little better than what is presently showing up in SurveyUSA's crosstabs. I think he can do this.

Polls show Joe to be within striking distance of the little-known Gillibrand.  Gillibrand is also tied to a deeply unpopular governor, and there is little enthusiasm for her in New York City, which a Democrat must carry by overwhelming numbers to counter the Republican upstate vote.  In addition, the suburbs around New York have become politically unstable, with Democrats losing a key percentage of their strength.

If I had to bet, I'd still go with Gillibrand.  This is New York, after all.  but DioGuardi, a plain-spoken, plain vanilla CPA who knows budgets and numbers, could pull off an upset in a year in which people are worried about money, and in a state that is hovering near bankruptcy. 

Watch this one.

October 4, 2010      Permalink

NEW MEXICO MIRACLE – AT 8:08 A.M. ET:  There's a remarkable story coming out of New Mexico.  The current governor, Democrat Bill Richardson, will be stepping down.  And replacing him...if the current trend continues...will be a Hispanic woman.  If she wins, she will be the first Hispanic woman to become a governor.  Politics Daily reports:

Republican Susana Martinez, who is the first Hispanic woman to win a major party nomination for governor, has widened her lead over Democratic Lt. Gov. Diane Denish in the race to succeed outgoing Gov. Bill Richardson, according to a Rasmussen Reports poll conducted Sept. 29.

Martinez, a county district attorney, is leading Denish by 51 percent to 41 percent, with 3 percent preferring some other candidate and 5 percent undecided. The margin of error is 4 points.

This is the first time Martinez has broken the 50 percent mark. In late August, she had led by 48 percent to 43 percent...

...Martinez is getting much stronger support from fellow Republicans than Denish is from Democrats -- 90 percent compared to 62 percent.

COMMENT:  An important race.  Republicans are now challenging what some observers had seen as a Democratic "lock" on the Hispanic vote, a vote that is actually quite diverse.  Add the probable election of Republican Cuban-American Marco Rubio to the Senate from Florida to the mix.

Indeed, ethnic diversity is marking this year's Republican lineup, with a number of African-Americans also running for Congress on the Republican ticket.  Maybe the GOP is finally learning the first rule of electoral politics:  Concede nothing.  Fight for every inch.  Make your opponent spend money and time in places he never expected to be challenged. 

Susana Martinez is a rising star.  The Republican bench is getting stronger.

October 4, 2010      Permalink

TERROR UPDATE – AT 7:53 A.M. ET:  As regular readers know, we've been following, carefully, the terror warnings coming out of Europe.  They are serious.  We now learn that American troops at Ramstein Air Base in Germany were given special warnings, and kept on the base during part of the weekend.

Eli Lake, one of the best defense analysts around, reports for The Washington Times:

U.S. and allied intelligence agencies are on a near-global manhunt — from South Asia and the Middle East to North Africa and Europe — for teams of al Qaeda-affiliated terrorists thought to be preparing multiple attacks on major European cities.

U.S. counterterrorism officials told The Washington Times that U.S. and allied services were examining multiple plots as well as multiple modes of attacks ranging from paramilitary-style raids similar to the 2008 attacks on downtown Mumbai to the vehicle bombs that to this day ravage Baghdad.

The al Qaeda affiliates plotting the attacks on Europe include Lashkar-e-Taiba and the Pakistani Taliban that are said to be training dozens of European passport holders for attacks in Europe.

Also planning attacks are operatives from al Qaeda in Islamic Maghreb, the group's affiliate based in Algeria and North Africa.

"No one should think in terms of a single Europe threat," a U.S. counterterrorism official told The Times. "We could be looking at plots — plural — that are probably at various stages of development.

"As you would expect, American and European counterterrorism officials are working closely together to gather information on, and thwart, anything that terrorists may be planning," the official said. "And since some of the concerns emanate from South Asia and North Africa, governments in those parts of the world are involved, too."

COMMENT:  While the immediate threats appear to target Europe, intelligence analysts have been quoted as saying that plots against the United States cannot be discounted.  All it would take is one team flying to the U.S. to carry out a devastating assault on a hotel.

The great fear is that some, or all, of the terrorists thought to be involved may be home-grown – natives or citizens of European countries, speaking the language fluently, and virtually impossible to detect.

October 4, 2010      Permalink

WHERE DO WE STAND? – AT 7:38 A.M. ET:  The election is four weeks from tomorrow.  Where does the nation stand?

Polls still point to solid Republican gains, but analysts have grown more cautious in their predictions.  Republican control of the House is still a realistic prospect, but control of the Senate looks extremely problematical.  A new Senate with Republicans holding, say, 47 or 48 seats, seems more realistic.  A New York Times analysis over the weekend even raised questions as to whether a House turnover is likely.  Please remember that it will take a GOP gain of some 39 seats to control the House, a very large order. 

There is speculation about an "October surprise," which could include the prospect of a terrorist attack on the United States or American targets abroad.

Although there is a sense that Democrats have tightened some races, a new Gallup survey shows that the president and his party remain at a clear disadvantage.  Andrew Malcolm, in the L.A. Times's Top of the Ticket blog, reports:

A new Gallup Poll this morning finds his approval rating for September was 45%, almost the same as August's 44%. Obama's not exceeded the crucial 50% level in a single month so far this year.

Since Obama's name is not on any ballot Nov. 2, the proportions of Americans who like or dislike the fellow on Oct. 1 of a midterm election year shouldn't matter, in theory. However, history indicates otherwise.

Presidents with approval ratings below 50% at midterm time see their party suffer substantial losses in its congressional membership, regardless of how much explaining and blaming the president attempts in the campaign leading up to what becomes, in effect, a referendum on the president.

And since Democrats currently hold substantial majorities in both the Senate and House of Representatives, they have substantially more seats to lose. A switch of 39 House and 10 Senate seats would give control of both houses to the Republicans for the first time since they lost it in 2006 after 12 years of GOP majorities.

Democrats (79%) and liberals (75%) still like Obama a lot.

But after that, his approval percentage goes to the deep south. Support among even young people is down: 57%. Hispanics: 55%. Moderates: 54%. Unmarrieds: 53%. Easterners: 52%. Women: 47%. Midwesterners and Westerners: 45%.

Men: 43%. Southerners: 41%. Independents: 40%. Marrieds: 39%. Seniors: 38%. Whites: 36%. Conservatives: 23%.

COMMENT:  I was surprised to see the support of women fall below 50%.  The senior support, at 38%, is especially devastating because seniors vote in droves.  The president's Hispanic support, at only 55%, is also surprising.

So while the Dems may have made some gains, that may only mean that the Titanic will sink in three hours, rather than two.

October 4, 2010     Permalink

SUNDAY, OCTOBER 3, 2010

DEMS WEAKER WITH YOUTH – AT 8:23 P.M. ET:  The election will be four weeks from Tuesday.  The Democrats are depending on their base to save them.  However, part of that base is showing a distinct lack of enthusiasm.  Mary Katherine Ham, one of our Facebook friends,  reports for the Washington Examiner:

President Obama held a rally in deep-blue Madison, Wisconsin Tuesday in an attempt to rally one of his most enthusiastic voting blocs from 2008. But as the president tries to fire up young voters, recent polling shows they’re increasingly cool on the president’s policies.

A September Rock the Vote poll showed the Democratic advantage in party affiliation has been cut in half since 2008—down to 9 percent from 18. Democrats get 35 percent, Republicans 26 percent, and Independents 29 percent. (2008 Rock the Vote Numbers were 41 D, 23 R, 25 I).

While Obama and Democrats remain more popular than Republicans, the Tea Party, and conservative figures, young voters’ reactions to issues in two polls belie the assumption that enthusiasm for Obama translated into undying to devotion to liberalism.

For instance, a majority of voters ages 18-29 side with the majority of the American people against the president on the Arizona immigration law and the Ground Zero Mosque. According to the Rock the Vote poll, they support the Arizona immigration law, 53-44.

On the issue of the Ground Zero Mosque, young people give another surprising answer, opposing it 52-41.

And...

There are plenty of caveats for Republicans in the data too, as a majority of young people support repealing Bush’s tax cuts for wealthy Americans, and their reservoir of good will for Obama and a Democratic Congress is far deeper than the general public’s.

But the polls do constitute encouragement for Republican candidates to reach out to a demographic many might have considered a lost cause since the election of President Obama.

COMMENT:  There have been some indications that the young generation of today is less ideological than the young generation of, say, 20 or 30 years ago, less influenced by 1960s dogma.  For Republicans, that is all to the good.  But Republicans must know how to exploit the opening, and I'm not convinced they have that knack.  Show me.

October 3, 2010      Permalink

FURTHER TERROR UPDATE – AT 7:44 P.M. ET:  The terror warnings flying around are now getting the attention they deserve from the major TV news outlets.  Following the State Department's warning to Americans to be vigilant when traveling in Europe, the British government has weighed in.  From Sky News:

Britons travelling to France and Germany have been told they may face a high threat from terror attacks, following a US warning for its citizens to be vigilant while in Europe.

Americans living in or visiting Europe have been told to take more security precautions.
This advice is one step below the formal warning recommending no travel at all.

Following the US move, Britain upgraded its travel advice for Europe.

The Foreign Office said there was a "high threat" of attacks in countries including France and Germany, rather than the "general threat" previously identified.

It follows intelligence indicating al Qaeda terrorists are planning to launch simultaneous Mumbai-style attacks in the UK, France and Germany.

"Terrorists may elect to use a variety of means and weapons and target both official and private interests," the US State Department said in its alert.

COMMENT:  The warnings seem to escalate day by day.  We're told by news outlets that most of the information leading to these warnings comes from a German citizen of Muslim origin being held in Afghanistan.  However, I doubt very much that the extent of these warnings is based on this one man.  He may well have led authorities to other sources.  I'm getting the sense that electronic surveillance may be involved here.  That is, of course, speculation, but the information is clearly regarded as highly credible.

October 3, 2010     Permalink

DEAR LEADER STEPS IT UP – AT 10:53 A.M. ET:  One of the negative things about our long election campaigns is that we take our eye off foreign concerns.  We have gotten absolutely nowhere with Iran in curtailing its nuclear program, and precious months are ticking away.

Now the Iranian president, fresh from a triumphant meeting with American sympathizers and leftist agitators in New York, during the UN General Assembly session, is making new threats, raising the rhetoric against a weak American president:

TEHRAN, Iran — Iran's president Sunday called for US leaders to be "buried" in response to what he says are American threats of military attack against Tehran's nuclear program.

Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is known for brash rhetoric in addressing the West, but in a speech Sunday he went a step further using a deeply offensive insult in response to US statements that the military option against Iran is still on the table.

"May the undertaker bury you, your table and your body, which has soiled the world," he said using language in Iran reserved for hated enemies.

And, hey, he isn't even talking about BUSH (!!).

Several top US officials including Adm. Mike Mullen, chairman of the US Joint Chiefs of Staff have said in recent months that the military option remains on the table and there is a plan to attack Iran, although a military strike has been described as a bad idea.

The crowd of military men and clerics in the town of Hashtgerd just west of the capital chuckled at the president's insult and applauded.

COMMENT:  Iran is making its move to become the dominant power in western Asia and the Mideast.  There doesn't seem to be much standing in its way. 

Threatening death to foreign leaders is a pretty serious step, but watch as it's essentially ignored by Washington.

October 3, 2010     Permalink

STARTLING, FROM WOODWARD – AT 10:16 A.M. ET:  Bob Woodward, whose new book, "Obama's Wars," is arousing the usual interest that a Woodward book arouses, is often very discreet in his comments about his presidential subjects.  But in Obama's case, he is saying some startling things.  They are not designed to fill us with confidence.  From London's Telegraph:

President Barack Obama is letting down his troops and seems not to have the commitment and 'X-factor' to win the war in Afghanistan, Bob Woodward has told The Daily Telegraph.

This strong opinion is all the more stinging because it comes not from the US President’s usual vociferous critics but Bob Woodward, the legendary Watergate journalist who is normally scrupulous at keeping his views to himself.

“I believe in neutral inquiry,” he tells The Daily Telegraph in an interview. “That is the core job of the journalist.”

And...

“The will to win is the X factor in lot of things - politics, war and journalism,” he says. "It can mean a lot, just because in any contest, the psychological dimension is important – it’s the ‘yes we can’,” he says, citing Obama’s vitalising slogan from 2008.

Asked directly if Obama has that “X factor”, he checks himself and responds: “It’s not clear.”

“The troops feel it, the generals feel it. I think he is sincere and genuine but he keeps a distance, he keeps a distance from people,” he frowns.

“He realises how dreary it [the war] is, and he realises he’s been dealt a bad hand, but he can’t walk away, and so he’s committed but it’s not the George [W] Bush kind of ‘bring it on’ commitment.”

And...

A former naval officer, he feels the troops have been let down. “We owe those people everything as US citizens, and it’s not clear we are giving them everything we could and that includes the definition of the mission.”

COMMENT:  I think Woodward's observation should be taken very seriously.  Obama represents a world view, and that view doesn't include victory for the United States.  It doesn't include an emotional attachment to the armed forces.  It doesn't include the patriotism felt by ordinary Americans.  Obama is president of us, but he is not of us, and that can easily turn out to be a catastrophic factor in any military situation.

We have been discussing the terror alerts now being issued.  (See post just below.)  If we are attacked, we will look to the president of the United States for guidance.  Will he react like George W. Bush, or will he start lecturing Americans on the need not to "blame" people or engage in bigotry, or cling to their religion and guns.  The fact that we even have to ask this question is deeply troubling.

October 3, 2010     Permalink

TERROR UPDATE – AT 10:06 A.M. ET:  We again emphasize the terror warnings coming from Europe, surely the most serious in years.  ABC News reports:

Strong concerns that terrorist teams in Europe have selected their targets, completed their surveillance, eluded capture and are now ready to strike at airports and tourist attractions have prompted the State Department to ready a highly unusual travel advisory for Europe, multiple law enforcement and intelligence sources tell ABC News.

Intelligence and law enforcement officials have information that the teams could at any time launch a "Mumbai style" terror attack that targets civilians for death or hostage taking. The 2008 Mumbai attack used small arms and explosives to kill 175 people and paralyze the Indian city for days.

The current concerns are for scenarios that include opening fire at airports in Europe as well as executing similar attacks at "soft" targets like tourist attractions or hotels.

According to ABC News sources, the terror plotters have moved through the surveillance stage, checked back in with al Qaeda in Pakistan, and have received the go-ahead to strike.  (Emphasis mine.)

Officials said earlier that Osama bin Laden had approved or blessed the attack plan.

And...

Recent law enforcement operations within the United States have helped to flush out chatter that added to earlier concerns about the U.S. homeland as a possible additional target of the attacks.

COMMENT:  There was a story earlier in the week that the plot had been thwarted.  Apparently, if I correctly piece together the different stories that have since emerged, intelligence officials realize that most of the teams cannot be identified, meaning they could carry out their plots even though terror warnings are being issued.

We are weeks from a major American election.  That could easily figure into terrorist planning.

October 3, 2010     Permalink