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.

PRE-ELECTION SUBSCRIPTION DRIVE

Do you like Urgent Agenda?  Do you feel we do worthwhile work?  Would you like to see us survive and grow?

If the answer is yes, please become a subscriber. 

Subscriptions are the life blood of Urgent Agenda.  Without them, we vanish.  We have a superb subscriber base whose support is vital, but we need more subscribers to maintain our level of service and expand beyond it.

As a subscriber you 1) support our work and 2) become a member of the Angel's Corner.  Members receive a private e-mail twice a week with features not published on the free site.  Members also participate in our Forum, which we think is the most provocative on the web.  You can write at length on anything you wish.  There are special essays.  And it's at the Angel's Corner where we give the coveted Pompous Fool Award, every bit as revered as the Worst-Dressed Actress Award. 

Unless you subscribe, you're only getting half of Urgent Agenda, and missing a good part of the fun.  We hope, in the future, to expand the Angel's Corner to three times a week.

So please subscribe through PayPal in the right-hand column under SUBSCRIPTIONS.  Or, in that same place, you can donate what you please.  If you don't like PayPal, let us know and we'll send you a mail address.

This election is crucial.  Your support is crucial if we're to be there every step of the way.  Help us see the fight through.

Note:  The early hours of our subcription drive have been very sluggish.  We really must make progress if we're to sustain and enlarge our work.  This is not hype.

WEDNESDAY, SEPTEMBER 8, 2010

YES, THEY DO HAVE A PLAN – AT 9:21 P.M. ET:  We've been warning for months that the Dems are not going to lie down and play dead.  They're developing a plan, desperate though it is, that has the potential to keep them in power.  From The Politico:

Democratic lawmakers can rest assured: Their party is thinking creatively about how to keep its majorities in the House and Senate. And it's working hard to hold as many governorships as possible.

There’s only one catch for incumbents. As the party faces the prospect of serious losses at every level of government, its best survival strategy may involve focusing on candidates who aren’t yet in office.

An emerging Democratic survival strategy depends on winning a handful of key congressional and gubernatorial races that could allow the party to retain power even in the face of widespread defeats. In the House, that means taking a small group of Republican-controlled seats—all within reach—that would allow Democrats to lose roughly 40 seats and still emerge with a slim majority.

On the Senate side, winning just two open GOP-held Senate seats—Missouri and Kentucky—could offset an otherwise awful Election Day and possibly prevent a Republican takeover.

COMMENT:  This not an unintelligent plan.  The Democrats are playing the numbers.  Many, many races being fought across the country are very close.  Some Republicans, even incumbents, are only leading by a few points in the polls.  So a targeted "triage" strategy makes sense for the Democrats. 

Many observers are assuming that the election will be about Republicans picking up Democratic seats.  But by concentrating on vulnerable Republican seats, the Democrats can provide themselves with a buffer. 

Races tend to tighten as elections draw near.  We will know a lot more about these midterms a month from now.  Don't be shocked if predictions become more cautious.  That is why Republicans must stop advertising their victories in advance.  President Dewey would think that's a bad idea.

September 8, 2010     Permalink

THIS IS BIZARRE – AT 7:35 P.M. ET:  Fox News is reporting a private UN meeting that is nothing short of chilling.  Never underestimate the conceit and arrogance of the UN.  From Fox:

After a year of humiliating setbacks, United Nations Secretary General Ban ki-Moon and about 60 of his top lieutenants — the top brass of the entire U.N. system — spent their Labor Day weekend at a remote Austrian Alpine retreat, discussing ways to put their sprawling organization in charge of the world’s agenda.

Ah yes, Austrian retreats.  Where have we seen those before?

Details concerning the two-day, closed-door sessions in the comfortable village of Alpbach were closely guarded. Nonetheless, position papers for the meeting obtained by Fox News indicate that the topics included:

-- how to restore “climate change” as a top global priority after the fiasco of last year’s Copenhagen summit;

-- how to continue to try to make global redistribution of wealth the real basis of that climate agenda, and widen the discussion further to encompass the idea of “global public goods”;

-- how to keep growing U.N. peacekeeping efforts into missions involved in the police, courts, legal systems and other aspects of strife-torn countries;

- how to capitalize on the global tide of migrants from poor nations to rich ones, to encompass a new “international migration governance framework”;

-- how to make “clever” use of new technologies to deepen direct ties with what the U.N. calls “civil society,” meaning novel ways to bypass its member nation states and deal directly with constituencies that support U.N. agendas.

COMMENT:  It's a far cry from the UN set up in 1945.  Now it's a "something for nothing" UN, run heavily by "third world" countries that cannot manage their own affairs.  And we know whose fault that is, don't we?  It's America's fault.  Oh, also Britain and Israel.

Ordinarily, the machinations of the UN are mostly a financial burden.  But the Obama administration, you may be sure, has plenty of foot soldiers who believe in every sentence of the UN agenda.  That is the danger – that things will be done and agreed to with little or no public approval.

September 8, 2010       Permalink

SNIPPET OF THE DAY – AT 1:56 P.M. ET: 

BALTIMORE, Sept. 7 (UPI) -- A University of Baltimore professor said he is basing his English 333 curriculum around zombies.  Arnold Blumberg said his class will involve screening 16 zombie film classics, zombie comic books as required reading and the option for students to write a screenplay or draw storyboards for their ideal zombie movies as final projects, The Baltimore Sun reported Tuesday.  "Zombies are one of the most potent, direct reflections of what we're thinking moment to moment in our culture," Blumberg said.

And it's only $42,000 a year.

September 8, 2010     Permalink

CALIFORNIA, HERE WE COME – AT 9:51 A.M. ET:  Conservatives, I mean.  For the first time in a long time, the GOP has a shot at making strong gains in the once-golden state.  And Senator Barbara Boxer, once an institution, now may be ready for one, if the good trends continue.  Scott Rasmussen reports:

Democratic incumbent Barbara Boxer and her Republican challenger Carly Fiorina remain in a dead heat in California’s race for the U.S. Senate.

The latest Rasmussen Reports statewide telephone survey of Likely Voters, including leaners, shows Fiorina picking up 48% of the vote, while Boxer draws support from 47%. Two percent (2%) prefer some other candidate, and three percent (3%) remain undecided.

These numbers show a slight shift from results with leaners found two weeks ago, when Boxer led Fiorina 49% to 44%. Leaners are those who initially indicate no preference for either of the candidates but answer a follow-up question and say they are leaning towards a particular candidate. From this point forward, Rasmussen Reports considers results with leaners the primary indicator of the race.

COMMENT:  Boxer, not considered one of the sharpest knives in the drawer, is pretty typical of the liberal California crowd in Congress.  Out of touch, out of their minds.  That used to be a New York delegation monopoly.

But the race with Fiorina is still a toss-up, and the Dems control much of the election machinery in California.  In close elections, votes have a way of appearing from nowhere.

September 8, 2010      Permalink

WHA? – AT 9:08 A.M. ET:  Even the heavily Obamafied Associated Press couldn't swallow this one whole.  Hillary Clinton, who knows better, but is doing her bit for her party, is boosting the Obama foreign policy as a huge success.  Hey, maybe it's equal to the moon shot:

WASHINGTON (AP) -- Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton asserted Wednesday that the Obama administration's approach to foreign policy is beginning to pay important dividends.

''We are advancing America's interests and making progress on some of our most pressing challenges,'' she said in remarks prepared for a speech to the Council on Foreign Relations. ''Today we can say with confidence that this model of American leadership works, and that it offers our best hope in a dangerous world.''

Really?  Show me a success.  We're being kicked all over the place, and our traditional allies, having been humiliated by Barack Obama, have no confidence in his administration.  As noted, the AP couldn't swallow Hillary's line:

Critics question whether the administration's foreign policy efforts are paying off, given Iran's refusal to negotiate over its nuclear program, continued stalemate in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and an uncertain outlook for a successful conclusion to the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

The administration also has made no discernible progress in getting North Korea to give up its nuclear weapons program.

Details, details.  These reporters are always so interested in details. 

But, alas, 'tis true.  Iran is a huge failure, and marches toward nuclear weapons.  Even the Europeans seem more serious about Iran than we do.  And North Korea?  The northerners recently sank a South Korean warship.  Notice the firm blowback from our iron-willed president. 

No, we're still looking for a major win in Obama's foreign policy. 

Maybe Hillary was just impressed by the batting practice.  Or maybe she's painting a bright picture to boost her own political future.  But the truth it ain't.

September 8, 2010      Permalink

ELECTION UPDATE – AT 8:45 A.M. ET:  From the horse's mouth.  One of President Obama's chief political advisers paints a dire picture for Democrats in the upcoming midterms.  From The Hill:

President Obama's top political guru said Tuesday that he believes 70 House races and 15 Senate races are in play this fall.

White House senior adviser David Plouffe — Obama's 2008 presidential campaign manager — said that a bevy of races were in play, from the national to local level.

"There are a lot of competitive races out there. There's going to be at least 70 House races in play, about 15 competitive Senate races, a couple dozen tough gubernatorial races," he said in a video to supporters of Organizing for America, the president's political arm.

Plouffe painted a picture of a dire electoral landscape in which, if Democrats were to lose the majority of those races, their losses would be massive.

The Democratic political guru encouraged party members to get out the vote this fall by helping to volunteer, and focus in particular on turning out first-time voters who supported Obama in 2008.

COMMENT:  Problem is, those first-time voters have become disillusioned.  Their political prince did not bring peace on Earth and good will toward men, the way he'd promised.  And the oceans didn't recede either.

But again, we note that the election won't be held today.  We get great encouragement from tracking polls, but they can be very erratic.  Last week's 10-point GOP lead in the generic Congressional poll, heralded in the political press, was erased by yesterday's Gallup poll, which showed the parties even at 46%.  It will change again I'm sure.  I'm much more impressed by individual state and district polls.

The real fight is just starting.

September 8, 2010       Permalink 

QUOTE OF THE DAY – AT 8:15 A.M. ET:  The usual religious suspects were out in force yesterday, holding press conferences to protest against a rising tide of American Islamophobia which, strangely, doesn't show up in any survey.  The Ground Zero mosque controversy is too much for these pious pipers:

WASHINGTON — Prominent Christian, Jewish and Muslim leaders held an extraordinary “emergency summit” meeting in the capital on Tuesday to denounce what they called “the derision, misinformation and outright bigotry” aimed at American Muslims during the controversy over the proposed Islamic community center near ground zero.

“This is not America,” said Cardinal Theodore E. McCarrick, the emeritus Roman Catholic archbishop of Washington, flanked by three dozen clergy members and religious leaders at a packed news conference at the National Press Club. “America was not built on hate.”

This is totally outrageous.  I've seen very little hate in this national discussion.  In fact, according to FBI statistics, Muslims rank rather low, as compared, say, to Jews, in the number of hate crimes committed against them.

Most of the hate I've seen has been directed at those who, out of sensitivity to the dead and the mourning, oppose the location of the mosque.  They've been called racists, bigots, morons, fascists and warmongers. 

The great Andy McCarthy, who prosecuted the terorrists in the first World Trade Center bombing, replies with some blistering truth, at NRO:

For the better part of two decades, Americans have been murdered by Islamists and then lectured that they are to blame for what has befallen them. We have been instructed in the need for special sensitivity to the unceasing demands of Islamic culture and falsely accused of intolerance by the people who wrote the book on intolerance. Americans have sacrificed blood and bottomless treasure for Islamic peoples who despise Americans — and despise us even more as our sacrifices and gestures of self-loathing intensify. Americans have watched as apologists for terrorists and sharia were made the face of an American Muslim community that we were simultaneously assured was the very picture of pro-American moderation.

Americans have had our fill. We are willing to live many lies. This one, though, strikes too close to home, arousing our heretofore dormant sense of decency.

That is the quote of the day, maybe the quote of the year.

We are all for respect here.  We're perfectly prepared to show respect for Islam.  But to get respect, you've got to give some.  We're still waiting for the Muslim world, which this country has helped time and time again, without so much as a simple thank you in return. 

We wait, and we hear the silence, and we're told by the fashion plates of the American elite that it's all our fault.  No it isn't, and we draw the line.

September 8, 2010     Permalink

TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 7, 2010

UH, ON SECOND THOUGHT – AT 7:48 P.M. ET:  There is some thinking going on about global warming.  That's news.  The thinking doesn't match the prevailing party line.  That's real news.  The story:

PARIS (AFP) - – Estimates of the rate of ice loss from Greenland and West Antarctica, one of the most worrying questions in the global warming debate, should be halved, according to Dutch and US scientists.

In the last two years, several teams have estimated Greenland is shedding roughly 230 gigatonnes of ice, or 230 billion tonnes, per year and West Antarctica around 132 gigatonnes annually.

Together, that would account for more than half of the annual three-millimetre (0.2 inch) yearly rise in sea levels, a pace that compares dramatically with 1.8mm (0.07 inches) annually in the early 1960s.

But, according to the new study, published in the September issue of the journal Nature Geoscience, the ice estimates fail to correct for a phenomenon known as glacial isostatic adjustment.

This is the term for the rebounding of Earth's crust following the last Ice Age.

COMMENT:  Not to worry, environmental kamikazes.  Daddy Barack won't change his views anytime soon.  And you can still compare global-warming skeptics to Flat Earthers.  The press won't mind.

But recent surveys show that the American people are turning against the global-warming "consensus," and some of the dogmatic tactics used to advance it.  We need a lot more research, a a lot more honest research.  If Obama would lead on this, rather than follow, it might counter his image as weak, indecisive, and conformist.  But then, of course, he wouldn't be our Barack.

September 7, 2010      Permalink

ELECTION UPDATE – AT 7:24 P.M. ET:  This is bigger than the abdication of Eddie the 8th in 36.  Mayor Richard M. Daley of Chicago, son of the real Mayor Daley and one of the most powerful figures in American politics, has announced that he won't run for another term.  The political implications for Illinois, and even Washington job-seeking, are profound:

Mayor Richard M. Daley of Chicago said Tuesday that he would not run for re-election when his term expires next year, an announcement that could have implications from the Windy City to the White House.

“I’ve done my all. I’ve done my best,” Mr. Daley told reporters during a news conference at City Hall in Chicago. “Now, I’m ready with my family to begin the new phase of our lives.”

The news created an immediate stir inside the West Wing.

“No mayor in America has loved a city more or served a community with greater passion than Rich Daley,” President Obama said in a statement. “He helped build Chicago’s image as a world class city, and leaves a legacy of progress that will be appreciated for generations to come.”

He was also, in effect, Obama's "guiding force," a nice term for it, when Obama was an Illinois politician.

Rahm Emanuel, the chief of staff to President Obama, has talked openly about his desire to run for mayor of his hometown. He has said that he would only consider running if Mr. Daley decided to step aside.

This gives Obama a chance to replace the hard-edged Emanuel.  It also dramatically reduces Daley's influence in Illinois politics in the midst of a critical election campaign.  Obama's Senate seat is up for grabs.  If it's lost to the GOP, that would be a severe psychological blow to the president, and might make the difference in control of the U.S. Senate.

When I was a student at the University of Chicago many decades ago, the current mayor's father was mayor.  He was famous for running a tight, if ruthless ship, and for mangling the English language in ways that make George W. Bush sound like Winston Churchill.  The elder Daley would, for example, refer to O'Hare Airport as O'Hara Airport. 

He liked to call Chicago "the city that works."  That led some political wags to ask, "For whom?"  The Daleys have always run an efficient machine that paid great attention to citizens' basic needs, like traffic lights and street signs.  Education didn't quite make it up to that level of priority.

There is already a movement building among the Democratic left to deny Rahm Emanuel the mayoralty, and it may succeed.  He doesn't make friends easily, and he's white in a heavily minority city.

If Rahm leaves to try for the job, though, Obama could reach for the stars and appoint a highly popular national figure as chief of staff, even offering the job to a willing Republican, and doing so before the November election.  But Obama is Obama, and he will probably stick with a member of the Chicago crowd, like Valerie Jarrett.

A major political power is leaving the stage at a time when his party is in disarray.  The mayoralty election is in February of next year.  The next months in Chicago will be fascinating, with national implications.

September 7, 2010     Permalink

SNIPPET OF THE DAY – AT 4:37 P.M. ET: 

BULLETIN FROM THE BBC:  Climate change is not responsible for civil wars in Africa, a study suggests.  It challenges previous assumptions that environmental disasters, such as drought and prolonged heat waves, had played a part in triggering unrest.  Instead, it says, traditional factors - such as poverty and social tensions - were often the main factors behind the outbreak of conflicts.

Al Gore is reported in seclusion.

September 7, 2010      Permalink

THANKS A LOT, GUYS – AT 10:02 A.M. ET:  Well, it was a good thought, I guess.  So-called "peace talks" began last week between Israel and the Palestinian Authority.  Now the president of the PA has pretty much cancelled the whole affair in advance:

Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas rejected Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu's talk about an "historic compromise" and said there would be no compromises on core issues such as Jerusalem and borders.

Then what is the point of peace talks?  In the end, these talks always end with Arab rejectionism. 

Abbas also reiterated his rejection of Netanyahu's demand that the Palestinians recognize Israel as a Jewish state. "We're not talking about a Jewish state and we won't talk about one," Abbas said in an interview with the semi-official Al-Quds newspaper. "For us, there is the state of Israel and we won't recognize Israel as a Jewish state."

Gee, neat.  What if we refused to recognize Muslim states as Muslim?  Can you just see our embassies burning?

Obviously, statements like this will not advance peace.  Abbas makes them because he has Arab extremists and the Western left behind him.  He could talk genocide and the Western left would still applaud.

We wonder whether President Obama will get on the phone with Abbas today and read him the riot act.  Don't hold your breath.  Riot acts are only read to America's allies.  It takes backbone to read them to enemies.  Backbone hasn't shown up on any of the president's recent X-rays or MRI's.  Specialists are upset.

So, right from the start, these talks are on life support.  Hillary Clinton will go to the Mideast later this month to preside over the second round of talks.  Given Abbas's stand, there isn't much to talk about....unless Hillary will take a big political risk and start knocking Palestinian heads.  She's experienced at knocking the Israeli heads. 

September 7, 2010     Permalink

TODAY CHICAGO, TOMORROW THE WORLD – AT 9:08 A.M. ET:  Having worked in Chicago politics some decades ago, I recall the whole catalogue of jokes about the dearly departed voting in every election.  True then, true now.  And what's being done about that, and other voter fraud scandals around the country?  An editorial from The Washington Times reports on some stunning news from our Department of Occasional Justice:

The dead voters may be forced back into their graves. The biggest scandal emerging from the infamous New Black Panther voter- intimidation case didn't even involve the Black Panthers. Instead, it came when whistleblowing attorney J. Christian Adams told the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights that top Justice Department official Julie Fernandes had openly refused to enforce laws that require states to remove ineligible names - dead people, felons, people who have moved - from voter rolls.

"We have no interest in enforcing this provision of the law," Ms. Fernandes reportedly told a roomful of employees of the department's Voting Section in November. "It has nothing to do with increasing turnout, and we are just not going to do it."

Now comes Mr. Adams to show this wasn't idle talk. As early as today, 16 states will start receiving official "notice letters" from him warning of coming private-action lawsuits to compel them to enforce these particular provisions of the law. This appears to mean that the Justice Department is refusing to make states comply with federal voter-verification laws - which is why the task will fall to Mr. Adams, helping represent private citizens whose legal votes otherwise would be diluted in value by fraudulent votes.

COMMENT:  Incredible.  When Gerald Ford became president, succeeding the disgraced Richard Nixon, one of the most important things he did was to choose an impeccable attorney general, Edward Levi of the University of Chicago.  Ford needed to assure the American people that the Justice Department was actually devoted to justice.

Now, under Eric Holder and his hard-left appointees, we have a department that is highly politicized and devoted only to select causes dear to its political base.  Its civil rights division has become a virtual invasion force mounted against the state of Arizona. 

You'd think President Obama would realize the danger, but, in truth, he's part of the danger.  We have a Justice Department, Chicago style.  We've reached the point where a former official, J. Christian Adams, must take action as a private citizen to assure enforcement of basic voting laws.

Republicans have pledged that, if they take control of either house of Congress, they will investigate the Justice Department's handling of the Black Panther case, which could easily lead to a probe of the entire department.  We need that probe, and we need it fast.

September 7, 2010      Permalink

POLARIZATION AT THE SUPREME COURT – AT 8:41 A.M. ET:  The New York Times does a piece of solid, original reporting, seeking to examine the ideological intensity of the Supreme Court by the clerks the justices hire:

WASHINGTON — Each year, 36 young lawyers obtain the most coveted credential in American law: a Supreme Court clerkship. Clerking for a justice is a glittering capstone on a résumé that almost always includes outstanding grades at a top law school, service on a law review and a prestigious clerkship with a federal appeals court judge...

...These days the more conservative justices are much more likely than were their predecessors to hire clerks who worked for judges appointed by Republicans. And the more liberal justices are more likely than in the past to hire from judges appointed by Democrats.

And...

The recent divide in the selection of clerks amplifies the ideological rifts on a polarized court, one political scientists say is the most conservative in recent memory. And it echoes as clerks go on to prominent careers in government, the legal academy and major law firms.

David J. Garrow, a University of Cambridge historian, said the court had in this way started to mimic the political branches of government.

“We are getting a composition of the clerk work force that is getting to be like the House of Representatives,” Professor Garrow said. “Each side is putting forward only ideological purists.”

COMMENT:  Whether we like this trend or not, it shows the importance of taking control of the Senate, which must confirm justices by a simple majority vote.  Given President Obama's appointment, thus far, of two very liberal justices, and the number of 5-4 decisions the Court is making,  it is critical that the Democrats not be permitted to continue their rubber-stamp confirmations.  If Republicans are in control, they can influence the appointment of justices by simply making it clear that they will not confirm another cookie-cutter liberal.

September 7, 2010       Permalink

ELECTION UPDATE – AT 8:08 A.M. ET:  A series of new polls, right at the informal start of the campaign, indicate the depths of the problems for Democrats.  We weep, we wail.  Not.  From WaPo:

For the first time in more than four years, Republicans run about evenly with Democrats on the basic question of which party they trust to handle the nation's biggest problems. Among registered voters, 40 percent say they have more confidence in Democrats and 38 percent say they have more trust in Republicans. Three months ago, Democrats had a 12-point advantage.

Actually, other polls show the GOP well ahead.  Why the discrepancy?  It's explained here:

Among all voters, 47 percent say they would back the Republican in their congressional district if the election were held now, while 45 percent would vote for the Democrat. Any GOP advantage on this question has been rare in past years - and among those most likely to vote this fall, the Republican advantage swells to 53 percent to the Democrats' 40 percent.

The key is "likely voters."  Republicans and their allies are more likely to vote, and voting, not pre-election polls, are the numbers that count.  And there is this feast as well:

Voters were also asked whether they think it is more important to have Democrats in charge of Congress to help support the president's policies or to have Republicans in control to serve as a check on Obama's agenda. Here, 55 percent say they prefer Republicans, while 39 percent choose Democrats. The GOP's 16-point edge is double what it was in July.

Also, take a look at this chart from RealClearPolitics, showing where the parties stand on the generic Congressional ballot.  Solidly Republican.  The RealClearPolitics average shows the GOP with an 8.1-point advantage.  It actually is higher, but a Newsweek outlier poll shows the parties even, bringing down the GOP number.

September 7, 2010     Permalink