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.

APRIL 22,  2011

MASSACRE IN SYRIA – AT 5:19 P.M. ET:   A large number of deaths is reported today, as Syrian government forces fired on demonstrators following Friday prayers.  The White House issued a tough, unrelenting wrist slap:

The White House on Friday urged the Syrian government to stop its violence against demonstrators and called on Damascus to follow through on promised reforms. The comments came as Syrian security forces shot to death at least 70 protesters across Syria in the bloodiest day in a month of escalating demonstrations against Syrian President Bashar al-Assad.

Take that, Syria!  Another White House statement, as effective as all the others.

White House spokesman Jay Carney, speaking to reporters as President Barack Obama flew back to Washington from California, said, "We deplore the use of violence." He called on the Syrian government to "cease and desist in the use of violence against protesters" and to follow through on promised reforms.

Don't you just love the legal lingo.  The passion.  The fervor.

British Foreign Secretary William Hague on Friday echoed the White House's call for a follow through on reforms, saying that said "Emergency Law should be lifted in practice, not just in word."

"I am extremely concerned by the reports of deaths and casualties across Syria" Hague said, adding that the the Syrian government should "exercise restraint instead of repression."

Syrian security forces killed at least 70 protesters on Friday, rights activists said, the bloodiest day in a month of escalating pro-democracy demonstrations against the rule of President Bashar al-Assad.

Syrian rights organization Sawasiah said 70 civilians had been killed across the country, in the biggest demonstrations to sweep Syria so far. Wissam Tarif, director of human rights group Insan, gave a similar death toll.

This probably means even larger demonstrations next week, with heavy casualties. 

By the way, one of the major stories on the Mideast out of Washington is that the Obamans are working feverishly on an Israeli-Palestinian peace plan, in order to preempt the Israeli prime minister, who visits in May.  Imagine that.  We work hard to pull the rug out from under an ally, but give a wrist slap to an enemy.  We push Egyptian ally Mubarak out of office, but do almost nothing to push the murderous Assad of Syria.

Welcome to the age of Obama.  What is the far left complaining about?  He is them.

April 22, 2011      Permalink

THE NIGHTMARE SCENARIO  – AT 10:49 A.M. ET:  It's pretty clear that Donald Trump will run for the Republican nomination for president.  But it's unlikely he'll get it.  What happens then?  Well, here in New York The Donald is known for his sizable ego, and his deep pockets.  Do you think a little nomination thing will stand in his way?  Thus, the nightmare scenario.  From The Wall Street Journal:

Donald Trump has waffled on whether he’d run as an independent should he fall flat chasing the Republican 2012 nomination. But one thing is certain: a Trump solo run could be very bad news for the Republican Party.

In Iowa, GOP operatives and activists are almost universally pumped about Mr. Trump jumping into the first-in-the-nation caucuses. The real-estate magnate and reality TV star says he will decide by June. But the same Republicans are mortified at the thought of him making an independent bid.

A Public Policy Poll released Thursday gives a good glimpse why. Were Mr. Trump to launch an independent run, 21% of those polled in Iowa said they would back him in the general election. In turn, former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney got 27% support, while President Barack Obama pulled in 43%, easily enough to win the state.

The PPP poll of 1,109 Iowans has a margin of error of 2.9%.

Considering that Ross Perot garnered 18% nationally in 1992, helping tilt the election to Bill Clinton, it’s hardly outlandish to say that Mr. Trump could pull in a similar swath of voters in 2012—almost certainly guaranteeing a Obama victory.

COMMENT:  Exactly right, and I fear that may just happen.  Trump believes his own press clippings, as did Ross Perot, who did cost Bush 41 the 1992 election.  Trump may well convince himself that he could be elected as an independent.

Donald, go build an apartment house.

April 22, 2011      Permalink

SNIPPET OF THE DAY – AT 10:20 A.M. ET:

From The Hill:  President Obama said Friday that the United States can lead the world in tackling of climate change by investing in clean energy technology.

This is like the captain of the Titanic remarking, as he's going down, that he has some great ideas for building better ships in the future.

April 22, 2011      Permalink

REQUIRED READING – AT 9:23 A.M. ET:  Many kudos to Senator Lisa Murkowski of Alaska for writing the best piece on American energy supplies that I've yet read, published in the Washington Post.  The senator sets the record, and the president, straight on our situation.  Will he call her in for a meeting, and benefit from her extensive knowledge?  You can answer that yourself:

I welcomed President Obama’s recent pledge to increase domestic production. It was a big step, and I hope his administration heeds the message. But I’m also deeply concerned by some of the information presented about America’s energy potential. Left unchallenged, it will contribute to a mistaken belief that increased domestic production is not truly possible.

The president said this month that “even if we doubled the amount of oil that we produced, we’d still be short by a factor of five.” That’s simply incorrect. Doubling our production would trim imports nearly in half. Boosting production by a factor of five is not currently feasible, but if it were, it would make the United States the world’s largest producer.

Perhaps most misleading is his claim — also made by others — that the United States has “about 2, maybe 3 percent of the world’s proven oil reserves; we use 25 percent of the world’s oil.” That line is crafted to make the audience think that America is both running out of oil and using oil at an unsustainable rate.

In truth, “reserves” is just one of several categories used to quantify oil and, on its own, misrepresents America’s potential. To classify a barrel as a reserve, you have to drill, prove the oil is there, and meet strict criteria established by the Securities and Exchange Commission. It’s not an easy process.

Right now, America has an estimated 22.3 billion barrels of oil reserves. But that’s hardly the whole story. A recent Congressional Research Service report that I commissioned with Sen. Jim Inhofe of Oklahoma found that the United States’ recoverable oil resources are estimated at 157 billion barrels. That is seven times as much as our reserves and doesn’t even include the roughly 900 billion barrels of unconventional oil resources nearing commercialization.

COMMENT:  Please read the entire article.  We are given so much nonsense about energy supplies, much of it filtered through environmental extremists. Murkowski knows her stuff.

I read this article somewhat wistfully.  If Sarah Palin had done her homework and written articles like this, and remained as governor of Alaska, she'd be in an entirely different position right now.  By resigning her governorship, she gave up her major credential and short-circuited her governmental "experience" argument.  Alaska right now is booming because of energy prices.  If Palin had been governor, she would have glowed as a successful executive of a successful state.  Had she learned to make the kind of detailed arguments Murkowski is making, she would have been taken more seriously.  It's sad, but I think she blew it, and I can't see a road back.  The lure of celebrity became too great.

April 22, 2011       Permalink

THE TIPPING POINT? – AT 8:58 A.M. ET:  Related to Americans' grim assessment of their economic situation, reported in the post just below, is another assessment of close we may be to another recession.  From CNBC:

The combination of rising gasoline prices and the steepest increase in the cost of food in a generation is threatening to push the US economy into a recession, according to Craig Johnson, president of Customer Growth Partners.

Johnson looks at the percentage of income consumers are spending on gasoline and food as a way of gauging how consumers will fare when energy prices spike.

With gas prices now standing at about $3.90 a gallon, energy costs have now passed 6 percent of spending—a level that Johnson says is a "tipping point" for consumers.

"Energy is not quite as essential as food and water, but is a necessity in today's economy, and when gasoline costs more than bottled water—like now—then it takes a huge bite out of disposable spending," he said, in a research note.

Of the six US recessions since 1970, all but the "9-11 year 2001 recession" have been linked to—if not triggered by—energy prices that crossed the 6 percent of personal consumption expenditures, he said. (During the shallow 2001 recession, energy prices had risen to about 5 percent of spending, which is higher than the long-term 4 percent share.)

What may make matters worse this time around, is there has been a steep increase in food prices that occurred as well. In other recent recessions food costs were benign, at between 7.5 percent and 7.8 percent of spending.

COMMENT:  What is so striking, and I think Americans will get this, is the coldness coming from the White House.  High energy prices?  Why, maybe that's good for us.  They'll force us to be enlightened, like the crowd that flies to Aspen in private jets each year to attend conferences on major issues. 

This president, who mastered the dramatic moment during his campaign, seems incapable of doing so as president.  Thus the label "no drama Obama."  It's all very intellectual...but real people are hurting out there.  Long-term energy theories, often supplied by the global-warming crowd, just don't cut it.

April 22, 2011      Permalink

GRIM IN AMERICA – AT 8:41 A.M. ET:  Weren't we supposed to be in an economic recovery?  I read it somewhere.  Or some guy living in a big house on Pennsylvania Avenue in Washington said it.  But Americans – you know, those people who cling to their guns and their religion – apparently don't think so:

Americans are more pessimistic about the nation’s economic outlook and overall direction than they have been at any time since President Obama’s first two months in office, when the country was still officially ensnared in the Great Recession, according to the latest New York Times/CBS News poll.

Amid rising gas prices, stubborn unemployment and a cacophonous debate in Washington over the federal government’s ability to meet its future obligations, the poll presents stark evidence that the slow, if unsteady, gains in public confidence earlier this year that a recovery was under way are now all but gone.

Capturing what appears to be an abrupt change in attitude, the survey shows that the number of Americans who think the economy is getting worse has jumped 13 percentage points in just one month. Though there have been encouraging signs of renewed growth since last fall, many economists are having second thoughts, warning that the pace of expansion might not be fast enough to create significant numbers of new jobs.

The economy is dragging down ratings for both parties, and for President Obama, so Republicans can take no great comfort in this poll's result. 

Disapproval of Mr. Obama’s handling of the economy has never been broader — at 57 percent of Americans — a warning sign as he begins to set his sights on re-election in 2012. And a similar percentage disapprove of how Mr. Obama is handling the federal budget deficit, though more disapprove of the way Republicans in Congress are.

COMMENT:  One would think that the direction of public opinion points to the desirability of the GOP nominating a successful governor next year – someone who has kept his state afloat amidst the turmoil.  But none of those governors has yet to capture the national imagination. 

We're told that many potential Republican candidates are holding back, for fear of spending too much campaign cash too early.  That may be a wise tactical move, but it has permitted people like Donald Trump to capture a great deal of TV attention.

The president may win by default in 2012 unless the Republicans build their bench.

April 22, 2011     Permalink

APRIL 21,  2011

ENTERTAINMENT NEWS – AT 11:05 P.M. ET:  We alluded to this in the post below.  Our president was serenaded in San Francisco by a very fine musical group today.  It is our pleasure to bring you a report of this culturally uplifting moment:

A crowd of half a dozen protesters concerned with the Wikileaks story disrupted the Obama event at the St. Regis Hotel, with Oakland activist Naomi Pitcairn organizing the event for the group which calls itself freshjuiceparty.com; she personally paid $76,000 total for tickets for the group to gain entry to the high priced fundraiser, she told us.

The progressive group protested what they called the inhumane treatment of Pvt. Bradley Manning in the Wikileaks case. Their protest song — which included lyrics: “We paid our dues..where’s our change?” — was sung in its entirety for Obama, who thanked them at the end of the a capella performance.

Outside, the group said that they were progressives who had worked for Obama and voted for him in 2008, but who were disappointed not only with Manning's treatment, but with Obama's policies on war as well.

The protest began when Pitcairn stood up about 5 minutes into the president’s speech and said, “We wrote a song for you, Mr. President.” When he tried to suggest she wait, the group launched into the ditty, and kept singing for several minutes.

COMMENT:  Readers can e-mail various record companies and radio stations, and demand that the song be recorded and played.  We should also insist that the lyrics be printed in a variety of languages, of course including those of African, Pacific Islander, and rain forest peoples. 

However, and we don't wish to be rude, but we wonder whether there was a better use for that $76,000.  You think?

April 21, 2011       Permalink

THE LESS THAN CHARMING PRESIDENT – AT 6:25 P.M. ET:  Many votes in presidential elections are cast, not from the head, but from the gut.  It's how we feel about a candidate.  Do we like him, or her.  Is there trust in a crisis?

Daniel Henninger of The Wall Street Journal, argues something we've believed here for a long time – that President Obama, once the nice-guy-with-a-brain candidate, isn't coming off as particularly likable any longer.  And it can cost him:

If it is true, as Michelle Obama said in February, that her husband isn't smoking anymore, maybe he'd better start mellowing out with the cigs again before it costs him the presidency.

The Barack Obama we've been seeing lately is a different personality than the one that made a miracle run to the White House in 2008.

Obama.2008 was engaging, patient, open, optimistic and a self-identified conciliator.

Obama.2011 has been something else—testy, petulant, impatient, arrogant and increasingly a divider.

Never forget: That historic 2008 victory came with 52.9% of the total vote and 52% of independent voters. David Axelrod recently noted "how small the margin for error is."

Presidential personality is well inside the margin of error for 2012, but the one on display recently has not been attractive. And it's happening a lot.

This Monday, after wrapping up a White House interview with a Dallas TV reporter, the station reported that Mr. Obama said: "Let me finish my answers the next time we do an interview, alright?"

And...

The Obama migration from the high road to the low road is evident even in nonpolitical settings. Here he is last weekend talking about the White House phone system: "You know the Oval Office always thought I was going to have like real cool phones and stuff. I'm like 'come on guys, I'm the president of the United States.' Where's the fancy buttons and stuff, and the big screen comes up? It doesn't happen."

I'm like? Real cool phones and stuff? Would Franklin Roosevelt or John F. Kennedy ever have affected whatever their generational equivalent was of "Where's the fancy buttons and stuff?"

And...

The latest Obama, which seems genuine, routinely ridicules and mocks his opposition. He mocks pretty much anyone who disagrees with him about anything.

Finally...

What voters like is the memory of the historic Obama they voted into the office of the presidency. The person they voted for in 2008 is different than the person who kicked off his presidential campaign last week by personally stomping his opposition.

Somehow voters are apparently expected to "like" whichever version Mr. Obama chooses to give them. It is asking a lot. By definition, this is a gap, and it's looking like it could be a dangerous one for the incumbent.

COMMENT:  Agreed, although the media will soften the blows on the president, even the self-inflicted ones.  But the Obama of 2011 is not the Obama of 2008.  Today he is an experienced president who's seen what the job really is, and he's seen that his little coffee-house (caffeine-free) theories don't necessarily work in the real McDonald's world. 

Some of his rabid base hasn't seen the real world, and that is causing the president no end of trouble.  He is being heckled at one rally after another.  Today the followers of Bradley Manning, the imprisoned soldier who is charged with passing a vast amount of classified data to WikiLeaks, interrupted an Obama appearance with their shouted demands that their hero be better loved. 

The president has his troubles.  We tend to forget what Henninger reports – that Mr. Obama only got 52.9 percent of the vote in 2008.  The way the media reported it, you'd think he was elected almost unanimously. 

At the same time, the president has the power of incumbency.  The Republicans have the weakness of being in the media crosshairs.  Still a hard fight.

April 21, 2011      Permalink

NEW WESTERN EFFORTS IN LIBYA – AT 11:06 A.M. ET:  A stalemate is developing in Libya, but some Western allies are taking action, absent the leadership of the United States.  From WaPo:

The United States and its allies have entered a new stage of involvement in Libya, sending assistance and advisers directly to opposition military forces, which have been unable to break Libyan leader Moammar Gaddafi’s stranglehold over much of the country despite help from NATO airstrikes.

France and Italy said Wednesday that they would join Britain in dispatching military advisers to assist the inexperienced and disorganized rebel army, primarily in tactics and logistics. President Obama authorized sending $25 million worth of nonlethal equipment, including body armor, tents, uniforms and vehicles.

And...

A senior European official, who spoke on the condition of anonymity to avoid antagonizing the Americans, said that Obama’s eagerness to turn over command of the Libyan air operation to NATO late last month, and the withdrawal of U.S. fighter planes from ground-strike missions, had undermined the strength of their united front against Gaddafi.

Yeah, we noticed.  Remember how the Europeans greeted Obama's election?  A new god had become president.  You don't hear much of that any longer.  In fact most reports say that the Europeans are appalled by Obama's conduct of foreign policy.   And he was conspicuously absent from the invitation list for next week's Royal wedding in London.  Now, maybe they just weren't inviting American presidents, but maybe a hint was being sent. 

If Obama is reelected, he could argue that he now had the experience to be president.  I'm not sure.

April 21, 2011       Permalink

WHERE OBAMA STANDS – AT 9:52 A.M. ET:  Well, it's good for our morale.  The Hill presents a pretty devastating picture of where Obama stands politically right now, and analyzes the reasons.  They're all valid, but none of them negate the need for the GOP to have a candidate who can take Obama on: 

President Obama’s approval ratings are plummeting, and the timing is terrible for the White House.

Even as Obama skewered Rep. Paul Ryan (R-Wis.) and the House GOP budget plan, his approval rating dipped in a Gallup poll to 41 percent, the lowest number yet of his presidency.

A Washington Post/ABC News poll released Tuesday shows Obama at 47 percent, down seven points since January.

Worse yet for the White House, Gallup shows the president in a nosedive with independents, who are coveted by the Obama-Biden 2012 campaign.

From April 12-14, independents’ approval of Obama fell to 35 percent, 9 percentage points off his average for the year, according to Gallup.

Rising gas prices are no doubt a problem for the White House, and may be a main factor in the plummeting poll numbers. The higher gas prices generally rise, the lower a president’s approval ratings tend to be.

Still, it is disconcerting for the White House and Obama’s new campaign operation in Chicago to see falling poll numbers just after the president launched his reelection campaign with a strategy of focusing on the economy and the contrasting economic visions of the president and the GOP.

COMMENT:  It is still very early in the game.  We are probably a year away from knowing who the Republican nominee is.  And I'd love to know what gas prices will be in April of 2012. 

As the story goes on to say, Mr. Obama is whipping up his crazy base now, with the hope of getting it re-involved, and hoping to come back to the independents later.  That may be a bridge too far.  We hope it is, but we will have only one hand clapping until we know who the GOP picks.

April 21, 2011      Permalink

SNIPPET OF THE DAY – AT 9:11 A.M. ET:

From the Columbus Dispatch:  The anger that most people feel when they discover a scratch on their vehicles often turns to rage when they see the body-shop repair bills.  Those hard feelings might be avoidable someday, thanks to a team of researchers who say they've created a type of paint that can heal itself when exposed to ultraviolet light.  The idea improves on other experimental coatings that repaired themselves when exposed to heat, said Stuart Rowan, a polymer chemist at Case Western Reserve University in Cleveland.

I don't know about you, but I think that's a great idea.  Yankee ingenuity.  We now await a government agency coming in and demanding a ten-year-study to see if the new material will destroy the world.

April 21, 2011       Permalink

NOTHING LIKE A LITTLE SLANTED JOURNALISM – AT 8:51 A.M. ET:  We rail about press bias here, and today we see a stark example from The Politico.  These "journalists" seem to go about their work completely unembarrassed:

For all the rhetoric about cutting government spending, NASA’s space mission remains sacred in Congress.

A handful of powerful lawmakers are so eager to see an American on the moon — or even Mars — that they effectively mandated NASA to spend “not less than” $3 billion for a new rocket project and space capsule in the 2011 budget bill signed by the president last week.

NASA has repeatedly raised concerns about the timeframe for building a smaller rocket — but the new law expresses Congress’s will for the space agency to make a massive “heavy-lift” rocket that can haul 130 metric tons, like the ones from the days of the Apollo.

Congressional approval of the plan — all while $38 billion is being cut elsewhere in the federal government — reflects not only the power of key lawmakers from NASA-friendly states, but the enduring influence of major contractors like Lockheed Martin and Boeing in those states.

For instance, a series of stop-gap spending laws had kept money flowing to the man-to-moon Constellation program because Sen. Richard Shelby (R-Ala.) initially tucked a provision into a 2010 budget bill — even though President Barack Obama and Congress agreed last fall to end that Bush-era initiative. An internal NASA audit pegged the cost of that move at $215 million over five months.

It's Bush (!!), don't you see?  It's always Bush!

While some praise Congress for pushing the United States to remain a world leader in space science, critics say the national space program is effectively run by lawmakers protecting jobs in their home states.

COMMENT:  I have no doubt, no doubt whatever, that lawmakers are trying to protect jobs in their home states.  Shock.  I also have no doubt that companies do heavy lobbying.  And I also have no doubt that sometimes foolish decisions are made, based on political calculations.

But the space program has been one of the most exciting, productive, and uplifting programs in America's history, and the technology from it has improved virtually every area of American life.  It symbolizes American supremacy.  And, to some of us, American supremacy is pretty important.

Obama has de-emphasized the space program, and it isn't only members of Congress who are complaining.  Former astronauts, scientists and editorialists have argued against Obama's shrunken NASA.  Neil Armstrong made an impassioned plea to keep a program that Obama cut.  And Obama's choice to head NASA actually said that his mandate was to improve relations with the Muslim world.  As Johnny Carson used to say, "I did not know that."

But the way the Politico piece was written, you'd think that those who want to forge ahead in space are the real villains, as opposed to the cool rational heads urging a second-rate NASA.  Not good, not good.  This is why people lose confidence in media.

April 21, 2011       Permalink

THE CHILDREN'S CRUSADE II – AT 8:15 A.M. ET:  In 1968 some pundits called Eugene McCarthy's campaign to unseat President Lyndon Johnson "the children's crusade" because there were so many young people involved. 

It was in some respects a children's crusade, with an intellectual and emotional maturity level to match.  It was noticed in a place named North Vietnam, whose armies we were fighting.  The North Vietnamese realized they could use this political movement to their advantage, and they did. 

We seem to have a new children's crusade, surrounding the presidency of Barack Obama.  Obama addressed some of the young 'uns yesterday, with an intellectual level worthy of the 1960s.  From Fox:

SAN FRANCISCO -- Easing into his 2012 campaign, President Obama is telling his supporters he understands their frustration over the compromises he's made with Republicans, while preparing them for more to come.

It's a timely warning given the upcoming vote on raising the debt ceiling and the ongoing debate over long-term deficit reduction, both issues Obama says can only be solved if Republicans and Democrats work together. But further compromises could prove a tough pill to swallow for many of Obama's liberal backers, who have grown tired of watching the president cede ground to the GOP on spending cuts and tax breaks for the wealthy.

During a raucous fundraiser focused on young people in San Francisco Wednesday night, Obama said his supporters are not alone in their frustration.

"There are times when I've felt the same way you do. It's a big, complicated, messy democracy," he said. "We knew this wouldn't be easy."

Obama's three-day West Coast swing -- his most extensive travel since announcing his re-election bid -- offered a glimpse of how Obama will seek to reenergize the independents and first-time voters who carried him to victory in 2008. Obama's rallying cry is that more work needs to be done in order to make the vision of America he promised a reality, and he is the only one who can see those hopes through.

COMMENT:  Isn't democracy hard?  Oh dear, oh dear, all that dealing with...Republicans.  Can't we just pretend the 2010 elections didn't happen, just like we erase a video recording? 

It's becoming clear that Obama intends to use juvenile arguments in 2012, just as he did in 2008, and they may work.  When you try to "youthify" politics, you get a very immature political scene.  We had it in the late sixties, we may be getting it again.  Slogans and emotions rather than policies.  Who needs to work the details?  Let's go have pizza.

Republicans aren't ready to counter this.  They don't know how, just as they haven't yet mastered the art of talking above the media directly to the American people.

Don't underestimate Obama.  There are enough children of all ages out there to send him back to the White House.

April 21,  2011     Permalink