Please note that you can leave a comment on any of our posts at our Facebook page.  Subscribers can also comment at length at our Angel's Corner Forum.

OUR DAILY SNIPPETS ARE HERE.

SATURDAY, SEPTEMBER 4, 2010

SCRAPING THE BOTTOM – AT 7:18 P.M. ET:  We should caution that daily tracking polls can vary pretty widely from day to day, week to week, but today's result from Rasmussen should not provide any Labor Day weekend joy to the White House:

The Rasmussen Reports daily Presidential Tracking Poll for Saturday shows that 24% of the nation's voters Strongly Approve of the way that Barack Obama is performing his role as president. Forty-five percent (45%) Strongly Disapprove, giving Obama a Presidential Approval Index rating of -21.

And...

Overall, 42% of voters say they at least somewhat approve of the president's performance. This matches the lowest approval rating yet measured for President Obama. Fifty-six percent (56%) now disapprove.

We'll watch those numbers this week to see if they remain relatively stable.  Generally, Rasmussen, over the months, has pegged Obama approval in the mid-forties.  If the president slips into the thirties, then you'll see comparisons to the Titanic.

There are stories circulating that the Dems will soon announce a new economic plan.  The problem is that plans announced during election campaigns smack of cynicism.  As Douglas MacArthur once said, all defeats begin with two words:  Too late.

September 4, 2010       Permalink

SNIPPET OF THE DAY:

BETHEL, Ohio, Sept. 3 (UPI) -- An Ohio couple whose son was born in the front seat of their pickup truck said their first son also was born in a car on the way to the hospital.

As they say, timing is everything.

September 4, 2010     Permalink

THIS JUST WON'T GO AWAY – AT 8:45 A.M. ET:  The "Hillary for President" thing won't die.  Now there's even a TV ad boosting the idea:

(CNN) - We've still got two months left until the 2010 midterm elections, but we now have our first television commercial of the 2012 presidential campaign. And the ad advocates for a person who says she has no intention of running for the White House.

"She has more experience working in and with the White House than most living presidents. She is one of the most admired women in our nation's history. Let's make sure the president we should have elected in 2008 will be on the ballot in 2012. Hillary 2012: Hillary Clinton for President. Start now. Where there's a Hill there's a way," says an ad that began running on television in New Orleans Wednesday.

The commercial was paid for by a Chicago dentist named William DeJean.

When asked why he put the ad up, DeJean told CNN Thursday that "I'm a dentist and I don't think this country is headed in the right direction."

COMMENT:  There are serious discussions about this, including one on Fox News yesterday.

However, it's like threading a needle in the dark.  Hillary could only run if Obama stepped aside.  She could never run in a primary against him.  Imagine her running against the first black president.  Even if she won, and she might very well, she'd lose the black vote in the general election.  No Democrat can be elected president without the black vote.

It's more likely that Hillary will sharpen her credentials for 2016, possibly by taking the secretary of defense job, if Obama offers it, or replacing Joe Biden on the 2012 ticket, again if offered.  Or, she could just leave her current job and be the experienced stateswoman, possibly with a book or two in her, waiting for her time.  Remember please that Richard Nixon was defeated for the presidency by Jack Kennedy in 1960, but came back to win eight years later. 

There is talk that Obama might well step aside in 2012, for any number of reasons.  Would Hillary then be a shoo-in for the nomination?  Probably, but you never know.  She'd be associated with a failed administration, and another Democrat can come out of the blue.

No matter what route is taken, Hillary will be in our lives.  One cheer.

September 4, 2010     Permalink

SABATO ALSO ROASTS DEM CHANCES IN NOVEMBER – AT 8:41 A.M. ET:  Larry Sabato, of the University of Virginia, adds his voice to the journalistic pundits and professional pols who see a disaster for Democrats coming up.  From US News:

Typically cautious Larry Sabato, head of the University of Virginia's Center for Politics, is rocking the political world with a new "Crystal Ball" prediction: The GOP will win the House, making Ohio's John Boehner speaker, might get a 50-50 split in the Senate, and will pick up some eight new governors.

"2010 was always going to be a Republican year, in the midterm tradition," Sabato said in his latest prediction, issued Thursday. "But conditions have deteriorated badly for Democrats over the summer. The economy appears rotten, with little chance of a substantial comeback by November 2nd. Unemployment is very high, income growth sluggish, and public confidence quite low. The Democrats' self-proclaimed 'Recovery Summer' has become a term of derision, and to most voters—fair or not—it seems that President Obama has over-promised and under-delivered."

And...

Sabato on House elections: "Given what we can see at this moment, Republicans have a good chance to win the House by picking up as many as 47 seats, net.

And...

Sabato on the Senate: "In the Senate, we now believe the GOP will do a bit better than our long-time prediction of +7 seats. Republicans have an outside shot at winning full control (+10), but are more likely to end up with +8 (or maybe +9, at which point it will be interesting to see how senators such as Joseph Lieberman of Connecticut, Ben Nelson of Nebraska, and others react). GOP leaders themselves did not believe such a result was truly possible just a few months ago. If the Republican wave on November 2 is as large as some polls are suggesting it may be, then the surprise on election night could be a full GOP takeover. Since World War II, the House of Representatives has flipped parties on six occasions (1946, 1948, 1952, 1954, 1994, and 2006). Every time, the Senate flipped too, even when it had not been predicted to do so. These few examples do not create an iron law of politics, but they do suggest an electoral tendency."

COMMENT:  We always learn something from Larry Sabato.  I was not aware that the Senate flipped each time the House did in time since World War II. 

But we must always note that many of the key races are very close.  If the Dems can succeed in pushing the electorate four points in their direction, the outcome nationally could be dramatically different from what our best analysts are now saying.  That's why we must fight as if we're 20 points behind.

September 4, 2010      Permalink

STAND-UP GUY – AT 8:35 A.M. ET:  Britain's Tony Blair was a superb American ally during the Iraq War, often taking major heat at home for his fondness for America.  Now he makes clear that he has no intention of abandoning the struggle that joined him with George W. Bush.  From the BBC:

Former UK Prime Minister Tony Blair has described radical Islam as the greatest threat facing the world today.

He made the remark in a BBC interview marking the publication of his memoirs.

Mr Blair said radical Islamists believed that whatever was done in the name of their cause was justified - including the use of chemical, biological or nuclear weapons.

Mr Blair, who led Britain into war in Afghanistan and Iraq, denied that his own policies had fuelled radicalism.

Asked about the argument that Chechens, Kashmiris, Palestinians, Iraqis and Afghans were resisting foreign occupation, he said Western polices were designed to confront radical Islamists because they were "regressive, wicked and backward-looking".

The aim of al-Qaeda in Iraq was "not to get American troops out of Baghdad [but] to destabilise a government the people of Iraq have voted for", he told the BBC's Owen Bennett Jones in a World Service interview.

COMMENT:  Compare please to our own government's refusal even to name our enemy – you know, the ones who cause "manmade disasters."  I wonder what Blair really thinks of Barack Obama. 

We were lucky to have Tony Blair with us on Iraq, just as we were lucky to have Winston Churchill with us in World War II.  I fear the day when that kind of luck runs out.

September 4, 2010     Permalink

FRIDAY, SEPTEMBER 3, 2010

THE SENATE IS IN PLAY – AT 7:51 P.M. ET:  That is, according to Charlie Cook, one of our best political analysts.  Dick Morris believes the Senate will definitely go GOP.  Cook is a bit more cautious, and notes that a 10-seat pickup would be needed.  From tomorrow's National Journal:

...the possibility of a GOP takeover is growing.

To be sure, a 10-seat gain for Republicans remains hard. Eighteen Senate seats could plausibly turn over -- a dozen held by Democrats and six by Republicans. Looking first at the five open seats -- Florida, Kentucky, Missouri, New Hampshire, and Ohio -- that the GOP is defending, the Republican challenger holds the lead in each race. Granite State voters won't select nominees until September 14, but former Attorney General Kelly Ayotte, the Republican with the best chance of defeating Rep. Paul Hodes, the presumptive Democratic nominee, is increasingly favored to win the GOP nod. None of the Republican leads in these five states is insurmountable, but at this point, you would rather be the GOP nominee than the Democratic one in each place...

...Suffice it to say that Republicans have a good shot of holding all their seats. If that's true, then the GOP would need to win 10 Democratic-held seats to win the majority.

Is it possible?

If I had to make a wager today, I would bet that the open seats in Illinois and Pennsylvania will also fall to Republicans, although both races remain quite competitive and are hardly over. If my hunch is correct, Republicans would gain six seats. That brings us to Democratic incumbents Michael Bennet (Colorado), Barbara Boxer (California), Russell Feingold (Wisconsin), Patty Murray (Washington), and Harry Reid (Nevada), who are all roughly even-money bets. Boxer, Murray, and Reid have statistically insignificant leads over their challengers, while Bennet and Feingold trail their opponents by similarly insignificant margins.

In Connecticut, where the seat is open, Democrats are watching their once huge lead erode rapidly. Some Republicans are also eyeing the West Virginia open seat, noting that President Obama's job-approval ratings in the Mountaineer State are among his lowest in the country...

It's a tall order for the Republicans, but within reason:

The odds still favor Democrats holding their majority, but that is no longer given.

COMMENT:  My own sense is that, if the elections were held today, the Republicans would fall just short, and we'd have a 52-48 Senate, with the Dems still in charge.  However, that is hardly a working majority.  Senators must represent entire states, not just gerrymandered congressional districts, and tend to be more moderate than some House firebrands, whose seats are safe.  Democratic senators will not be willing to commit suicide to satisfy the House revolutionaries.

September 3, 2010      Permalink 

NEVADA – A CAUTION LIGHT FOR REPUBLICANS – AT 9:53 A.M. ET:  It's the oldest political cliché:  "You can't beat somebody with nobody."  Sometimes, parties try.

In Nevada, the GOP is sure trying.  It has managed to turn an easy victory over Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid into a horse race by nominating a gaffe-prone, inadequate candidate.  Scott Rasmussen has been monitoring Nevada, and has the details:

Democratic Senator Harry Reid and his Republican challenger Sharron Angle are still neck-and-neck in Nevada’s race for U.S. Senate.

The latest Rasmussen Reports statewide telephone survey of Likely Voters shows the candidates tied with 45% of the vote each. Five percent (5%) prefer another candidate and six percent (6%) more are undecided...

...Earlier this year, Reid was considered to be one of the Senate’s most vulnerable incumbents. He picked up just 39% of the vote following Angle’s primary victory but has seen his own numbers improve to 41% in late June, 43% in early July, 45% in late July and 47% in mid-August...

...For Angle, the numbers have been heading in the opposite direction. The GOP nominee attracted 50% of the statewide vote following her primary victory in early June. That fell to 48% later that month, 46% in early July and 43% in late July.

COMMENT:  There is growing concern about ideological rigidity in the GOP, and it is justified.  To win, a party must be inclusive.  It must nominate capable, solid, go-the-distance candidates, not just those who adhere to a narrow, politically correct (for the right) agenda.

I heard an old war horse recently even attack Charles Krauthammer, one of the leading conservative writers and thinkers today...because he'd once been a Democrat.  Of course!   Many GOP stars began on the other side, and that included Ronald Reagan.  The glory of the Reagan Revolution is that it brought so many new people into our camp.  Yet, there are those who insist on a pure pedigree, starting at birth.

This can be a "wave" election, but the Republicans can still blow it, especially in Senate races.  There are some weak, flaky GOP candidate out there.  The Democrats are unpopular, but the Republicans are not exactly loved.  If voters get a whiff of extremism, they may just stick with the devil they know.  Most of the races Republicans are counting on to make great gains in the Senate are very close, with no room for blunders or purges.  I'm not sure this lesson is being absorbed.

September 3, 2010       Permalink

SNIPPET OF THE DAY – AT 9:28 A.M. ET:

EVANSTON, Ill., Sept. 2 (UPI) -- An Illinois researcher says his team's controversial government-funded "machine-generated humor" project is a serious attempt to model "human cognitive skills."  Northwestern University computer professor Kristian Hammond said his team's project title, "Computational Creativity: Building a Model of Machine-Generated Humor," probably led to the bad reputation that landed it on Sen. John McCain's list of the Top 100 Most Wasteful Stimulus Projects, the Chicago Sun-Times reported Thursday.

All you have to do is watch Congress on CSPAN and you get the same effect.  Why spend taxpayers' money?

September 3, 2010       Permalink

THE TRAIN WRECK – AT 8:52 A.M. ET:  Very bad economic news this morning, as AP reports via the Washington Post:

WASHINGTON -- The unemployment rate rose in August for the first time in four months as weak hiring by private employers wasn't enough to keep pace with a large increase in the number of people looking for work.

The Labor Department says companies added a net total 67,000 new jobs last month, down from July's upwardly revised total of 107,000. Wall Street analysts expected a smaller gain, according to Thomson Reuters.

Overall, the economy lost 54,000 jobs as 114,000 temporary census positions came to an end. State and local governments shed 10,000 positions. The jobless rate rose to 9.6 percent from 9.5 percent in July.

COMMENT:  Have you noticed that the economic news in some sector gets grim just as some federal program expires - like Cash for Clunkers, or the recent housing incentives.  In other words, our economy is artificially propped up by temporary government subsidies – sort of like a socialist or third-world country. 

We are in deep trouble.  It's the private economy that's the real economy.  We can't depend on a  federally funded "coupon" economy.

There are news reports surfacing this morning that President Obama may propose some kind of tax cut just before the November election.  Would that have a political effect?  It would be pretty transparent, considering the timing, and may make Americans more angry than grateful.

September 3, 2010      Permalink

QUOTE OF THE DAY – AT 8:35 A.M. ET:  One of the heroes of the current political season is Democratic pollster and analyst Pat Caddell, who has openly and severely criticized his own party on national television and in the press.  Caddell continues his roast at NRO:

“President Obama’s undoing may be his disingenuousness,” Caddell says. After campaigning for post-partisanship, Obama, he observes, has lurched without pause to the left. “You can’t get this far from what you promised,” Caddell says, “especially when people invest in hope — you must understand that obligation. The killer in American politics is disappointment. When you are elected on expectations, and you fail to meet them, your decline steepens.”

Yeah.  Caddell was Jimmah Carter's pollster.  He knows this "disappointment" turf.

“Democrats used to be the voice of the common man in America, not his dictator,” Caddell laments. “Now, with Wall Street, their mantra is, ‘We’ll take your money, but we won’t kiss.’ The people who own the party — George Soros, the Center for American Progress, the public-employee union bosses, rich folks flying private jets to ‘ideas festivals’ in Aspen — they’re Obama’s base.”

I'm reminded of the old story about Winston Churchill, and his confrontation with Lady Astor.  Astor, appalled by Churchill's views, told him, "If you were my husband, I'd give you poison."  Churchill replied, "If you were my wife, I'd take it."

If I were married to the Democratic Party today, with that political base, I'd take the poison.

September 3, 2010      Permalink

LET'S HEAR IT FOR OUR SIDE – AT 8:14 A.M. ET:  It's been a rather satisfying week for our side.  First, a report to the UN from an outside panel led by former Princeton University president Harold Shapiro severely criticized the UN's standards and practices in the matter of climate change research. 

Second, President Obama, in his Iraq address to the nation, had to concede, if only grudgingly, that the surge in Iraq worked and led to the end of our combat mission in that country this week.

Third, in one of the most remarkable statements by a media bigwig in modern times, the director-general of the BBC, Mark Thompson, conceded that the charges of bias against the world's largest news organization were correct:

The director general of the BBC admitted Thursday that his organisation had been guilty of a "massive bias to the left" but said "a completely different generation" of journalists now works at the broadcaster.

Mark Thompson told the right-of-centre Spectator magazine that there was an institutional bias when he joined the organisation, reinforcing the findings of a 2007 internal report which concluded that greater efforts were required to avoid liberal bias.

"In the BBC I joined 30 years ago, there was, in much of current affairs, in terms of people's personal politics, which were quite vocal, a massive bias to the left," Thompson said.

"The organisation did struggle then with impartiality. And journalistically, staff were quite mystified by the early years of Thatcher."  Now it is a completely different generation. There is much less overt tribalism among the young journalists who work for the BBC," he added.

In all three cases, our side can take a bow.  No, we're not crazy right-wing zealots.  We're thoughtful, informed people who had raised questions about the UN's climate-change propaganda; supported President's Bush's (and General Petraeus's) visionary surge; and constantly pointed out bias at the "prestigious" BBC.  For our efforts we were subjected to the usual name-calling.  It was even suggested, in regard to our skepticism about climate-change research, that we're the equivalent of Holocaust deniers.

Of course, we await corrective action at the UN.  And we remain skeptical about the BBC's "new generation" of journalists.  But at least we have the concession from its chief that bias has reigned at "the beeb."  That's more than we can say for the heads of American news organizations, who continue to insist that they're simply fair-minded professionals, a claim met with appropriate howls of laughter from anyone above the age of 18.  Make that 10.

So take that bow and hoist a few this weekend for our guys.  We've been right on a number of other fronts as well, and we look to the electorate to validate our conclusions this November.

September 3, 2010     Permalink