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.

JUNE 13,  2011

10:06 P.M.:  They're going home.  Good.

9:55 P.M.:  They're discussing who was the better vice presidential candidate in 2008, Biden or Palin.  Silly.  Debate is winding down.  Everybody was respectable.  But the format and the sheer number of candidates made for a frustrating two hours.  I don't think anyone was particularly helped or hurt, although Bachmann will probably get the most chatter. 

9:49 P.M.:  Santorum gave the best answer of the evening in discussing the need for American leadership around the world, and decrying the lack of that leadership under Obama, correctly accusing Obama of embracing our enemies and undercutting our friends.   

9:42 P.M.:  Troops out of Afghanistan?  Ron Paul gives a classic isolationist, 1930s reply, which is why he should not be taken seriously.  Others give a more nuanced, saner answer.  All oppose our operation in Libya. 

9:38 P.M.:  They're on a break, going into foreign policy.  You know, save the world in 30-second segments.  This I gotta hear.  Stand by. 

9:31 P.M.:  It's getting really boring.  I'd imagine a lot of people have tuned out.  They're going to go to two hours, but I'm not getting a real portrait of any of the candidates because of factors I've already mentioned. 

9:24 P.M.:  They're on abortion.  Again, they are stuffing so many subjects into this debate that it's impossible to think.  This should have been a debate with a few well-selected subjects.  And the candidates are spending most of their time appealing to the GOP base, not the general voter.  We can only give general impressions.  I can't imagine deciding on a candidate on the basis of this rushed format.

9:18 P.M.:  Same-sex marriage is the subject.  Question is whether the federal government should intervene in state decisions.  Some candidates said they favored a constitutional amendment defining marriage, others said they would not interfere in state decisions.  Now they're on "don't ask, don't tell."  It is impossible to discuss these complex issues with only a few sentences.  Useless time.

9:04 P.M.:  Question about separation of church and state.  Lots of bromides.  But Cain is hung up on a question about whether he'd appoint a Muslim to his administration.  The moderator is trying to nail him as a bigot, which isn't fair.  Romney takes it up, and gives the fairly standard "everyone is welcome" answer.  Not a useful segment, in my view.

9:00 P.M.:  We're an hour into the debate, and I really couldn't give you the specific positions of the candidates on issues.  We only get impressions.  If I had to pick a winner thus far, I'd say Bachmann.  Everyone is looking at Romney because he's the presumed frontrunner.  He's fine, and knowledgeable, but we really can't evaluate him until he's on a platform with fewer candidates. 

8:48 P.M.:  Question now on Medicare.  Ron Paul answers, but starts to rail against military and foreign spending.  Give him a counselor.  Pawlenty on.  Perfectly fine.  Again, this is a complex issue and there are too many candidates.  The blur factor increases. 

8:45 P.M.:  The debate is becoming a blur.  There are so many people on that platform, and things move so quickly, that it's hard to concentrate.  Also, the points made by almost all the participants are too general.  We keep hearing the moderator's voice, trying to interrupt, and it drives one crazy.  The best we can do here is get a general impression.  This is not a format for examining issues carefully.

8:41 P.M.:  What Romney needs to do is to propose policies, and make them specific.  They're talking about the auto industry, and his father was head of American Motors.  Okay Mitt, what would you do to save that industry, or not to save it?  He does know his stuff, though. 

8:36 P.M.:  There was a commercial break, and they're back.  Ron Paul is on.  Look, I'm prejudiced.  I think he's a kook, with a crazy foreign policy, and I don't take him seriously.  Romney on now.  He's fine, but for some reason he still comes off as a bit wooden.  Bachmann is far more dynamic, and the contrast shows.

8:31 P.M.:  Cain on.  Always more impressive than people think he'll be.  But I wish the moderator would speak more slowly, and less nervously.  After a while, you want to take a pill.

8:27 P.M.:  Bachmann on again.  Once more, I think she's coming out as the most impressive.  That may be because she's the only woman, and people are fascinated by her.  But she knows her stuff and she knows how to drive home a point. 

8:24 P.M.:  Cain finally got a shot, and spoke well.  But again, the speed of this debate is so fast that you just can't follow the ideas.  Bad format, hard-driving host, candidates who aren't allowed to develop their thoughts.

8:19 P.M.:  A good, new question from a member of the audience, asking how the candidates could avoid simply representing a segment of the party.  All the candidates are doing reasonably well, but the format isn't giving them much of a chance.  Of all, however, I'd say Michelle Bachmann is giving the best impression.  She is prepared, provocative, a kind of Sarah Palin who has done her homework. 

8:17 P.M.:  John King, the moderator, is a bit annoying.  He keeps interrupting and sounds a bit hostile, rather than probing.  Also, he's not giving equal time to each candidate.  Herman Cain has gotten no time since his opener.

8:14 P.M.:  Bachmann on again, pledges to repeal Obamacare.  Describes it as a jobs killer.  Well spoken, but she should insert a few lines on her health-care program.  Romney on now, defending the health-care plan he introduced as governor of Massachutts.  An effective, substantive answer.   

8:11 P.M.:  Bachmann, only woman in the group, on now.  Informs us that she's definitely running for president.  An awkward moment because she was supposed to speak about jobs.  Now Ron Paul is on.  The candidates have 30 seconds, and that's just not enough to explain an economic policy.

8:08 P.M.:  They're speaking in general terms about the need to create jobs, but there are no dramatic or mind-grabbing proposals.  Romney on now, spending his time attacking Obama.  All the speakers are speaking well, but no home runs in the first inning.

8:05 P.M.:  Herman Cain speaks first.  The first subject is job-creation policy.  A citizen asked the first question, but now John King, CNN reporter and moderator, is asking his own.  Tough but good questions.

8:02 P.M.:  No opening statements.  Candidates are introducing themselves, Miss America style.  "I'm Joe Blow, and I..."   I can't wait for the evening gown competition.

WE'RE NOW GOING TO START LIVE BLOGGING THE REPUBLICAN PRESIDENTIAL DEBATE FROM NEW HAMPSHIRE.

OVERLOAD – AT 9:55 A.M. ET:  We have so much to deal with in the news right now, and it's easy to overlook critical stories.  None is more critical than the continuing upheaval in the Middle East.  It will have a profound effect on us, and could involve us in even more military action.

No country is more important in the Mideast than ancient Syria.  Not only is Damascus one of the Arab world's cultural capitals, but Syria is the Arab nation with the closest relationship with Iran.  The great Fouad Ajami, of Johns Hopkins, gives a blunt assessment of what's going on in Syria, and how Obama has, surprise, messed it all up: 

Pity the Syrians as they face the Assad regime's tanks and artillery and snipers. Unlike in Libya, there is no Arab or international "mandate" to protect them. Grant Syria's rulers their due: Their country rides with the Iranian theocracy and provides it access to the Mediterranean. It is a patron of Hamas and Hezbollah. And still they managed to sell the outside world on the legend of their moderation.

True, Damascus was at one time or another at odds with all its neighbors—Turkey, Lebanon, Jordan, Iraq, Israel—but it managed to remain in the good graces of the international community. It had made a mockery of Lebanon's sovereignty, murdered its leaders at will. Yet for all the brutality and audacity of the Syrian reign of terror and plunder in Lebanon, the Syrians were able to convince powers beyond that their writ was still preferable to the chaos that would engulf Lebanon were they to leave.

But get this:

Barack Obama provided the Syrian dictatorship with a diplomatic lifeline. He was keen to "engage" Tehran and Damascus, he was sure that Syrian radicalism had been a response to the heavy hand of the Bush administration. An American ambassador was dispatched to Damascus, and an influential figure in the Democratic Party, Sen. John Kerry, made it his calling to argue that the young Syrian ruler was, at heart, a "reformer" eager to sever his relations with Iran and Hezbollah.

John Kerry?  Didn't he run for president?  Didn't he pick John Edwards as his vice presidential choice?  The man has such good judgment.  Next time I buy a car, I'll ask for his advice.

Until the Arab Spring, nothing had stirred in Syria in nearly three decades. President Hafez al-Assad and his murderous younger brother Rifaat had made an example of Hama in 1982 when they stamped out a popular uprising by leveling much of the city and slaughtering thousands. Now, the circle is closed. President Bashar al-Assad and his younger brother Maher, commander of the Republican Guard, are determined to subdue this new rebellion as their father did in Hama—one murder at a time. In today's world it's harder to turn off the lights and keep tales of repression behind closed doors, but the Assads know no other way. Massacre is a family tradition.

It took time for the diplomacy of the West to catch up with Syria's horrors. In Washington, they were waiting for Godot as the Damascus regime brutalized its children. In his much-trumpeted May 19 speech from the State Department—"Cairo II," it was dubbed—President Obama gave the Syrian ruler a choice. He could lead the transition toward democracy or "get out of the way." Secretary of State Hillary Clinton has since used the same language.

But one senses this newfound bravado is too little too late.

Douglas MacArthur said that all defeats begin with those two words:  Too late. 

The refugees from the Syrian massacre are streaming across the Turkish border.  Americans, meanwhile, are preoccupied with a failing economy.  The Brits and the French bravely try to carry on in Libya, but years of gutting their defenses to pay for the welfare state are taking their toll.  All this while Mr. Obama makes pretty speeches on things he knows nothing about.

And it is only months to an election in Egypt that may well bring in the worst elements.

It is time for America to lead once more, but our team has an inexperienced, egotistical and shallow manager.  Casey Stengel could do a better job, and make a better speech.

June 13, 2011       Permalink

GO, BE GONE WITH YOU – AT 9:14 A.M. ET:  When Republicans do naughty stuff, they're gone the next day.  When Dems do it, they're indulged.  But Anthony Weiner may be too much even for the "tolerant" types in his own party.  New photos came out over the weekend featuring the "lawmaker" in various states of undress in a Congressional gymnasium locker room.  The man has to resign, and maybe he's realizing it:

Reports out of New York Monday indicated that Congressman Anthony Weiner is now at least exploring the possibility of stepping down - this after that new batch of photos came out over the weekend and Democratic leaders said publicly for the first time that he should go.

The new photos, released by the website TMZ.com, show the congressman in various stages of undress at a Capitol Hill gym reserved only for House Members.

The New York Daily News is reporting that a source close to Weiner said the congressman is reconsidering his stance, after the incessant media coverage and the disclosure of even more illicit photos. Congressional staffers say Weiner may not make a decision until after his wife, Hillary Clinton aide Huma Abedin, returns Wednesday from a trip to Africa.

COMMENT:  Many people have asked why the reaction to Weiner is so much harsher than was the reaction to Bill Clinton.  I can only theorize, but here is my theory:  What Clinton did was obviously wrong.  He hurt his wife.  His was seen as an act of immorality, or many such acts.  Weiner's behavior is seen as perversion, something with a very substantial "yuch" factor.  That's the same kind of thing that brought down Republican Congressman Chris Lee, who had to depart Congress recently after it was revealed that he'd put shirtless photos of himself on the internet and solicited improper contact.  The "yuch" factor is important, especially in an age of instant visual imagery. 

The verdict on Weiner:  Triple yuch.   

June 13, 2011      Permalink

ROMNEY SHOWS A LITTLE GLOW – AT 8:47 A.M. ET:  He didn't do well the last time out, but Mitt Romney seems to be inching up in the polls as tonight's debate draws near.  Andrew Malcolm, at the L.A. Times's Top of the Ticket blog, headlines "Mitt Romney surges as GOP debate season opens."  The Politico, which is tilting more and more leftward, warns readers, "Mitt Romney underestimated."  From The Politico:

Everyone just might have underestimated Mitt Romney.

Serious competitors for the Republican presidential nomination have dropped out of the running. Romney has flexed his financial muscle with a $10 million-plus one-day fundraising haul. Most of all, his narrow, economy-focused message appears to be resonating amid growing alarm about the unemployment rate – which rose above 9 percent the day after Romney declared his campaign.

And in one poll, an ABC News/Washington Post survey released last week, Romney actually led President Barack Obama by 3 percentage points. That’s the best general election showing any Republican has had in a long time.

Add it all together and Romney has had his best political month in nearly four years. He increasingly looks like the 2012 election’s marathon man, a steady and durable candidate who enters Monday’s New Hampshire presidential debate with a better shot than ever at becoming his party’s nominee.

Long described as the GOP’s weak frontrunner, Romney hasn’t actually resolved many of the vulnerabilities at the heart of his candidacy. The Massachusetts health care law he signed and his history of shifting positions on social issues, along with his wooden style as a campaigner, are still formidable obstacles.

Nevertheless, Romney has watched the 2012 race move gradually in his direction.

COMMENT:  Well, we'll see.  One thing Romney does have going for him is an ability to appeal to the middle.  And people do know him.  His reputation as a successful businessman helps.  Having been born to wealth doesn't.  Many people, rightly or wrongly, write off the success of the well-born as being more a matter of connections than talent, and in some cases they're right.

Right now, Romney appears to be the man to beat.  We'll see tonight if he's a fighter, or a guy who'll "sit on his lead."

June 13, 2011       Permalink

DEBATE TONIGHT – NO WEAPONS ALLOWED – AT 8:29 A.M. ET:  The first serious debate of the presidential campaign will be held tonight in New Hampshire.  There was a debate some weeks ago, but the big guys didn't show up.  This one will be different.

We're hoping for something out of "West Side Story," but Republicans are too polite.  From the Manchester Union-Leader:

GOFFSTOWN — Candidates seeking the Republican Party nomination for the 2012 presidential election have a chance at a debate tonight to find differences, however subtle, to separate themselves from the pack.

The debate is sponsored by the New Hampshire Union Leader, CNN and WMUR and runs tonight from 8 to 10 p.m. at St. Anselm College's Sullivan Arena.

Minnesota Rep. Michele Bachmann, businessman Herman Cain, former House Speaker Newt Gingrich, Texas Rep. Ron Paul, former Minnesota Gov. Tim Pawlenty, former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney and former Pennsylvania Sen. Rick Santorum are scheduled to participate.

Tonight's debate is the second among Republicans who either are presidential candidates or are considering a run, though Romney, Gingrich and Bachmann did not participate in the first forum, held May 5 in Greenville, S.C., and hosted by Fox News and the South Carolina Republican Party.

Still, two heavyweights won't be on the playbill – Sarah Palin and Texas Governor Rick Perry, who looks like he may make the plunge.  Others mentioned by the Great Mentioner are Congressman Paul Ryan, who says he's not running, and New Jersey Governor Chris Christie, who says he's definitely not running.

What to look for tonight:  First, a pulse.  We want to be sure our candidate has one.  It's not always the case.  Second, practical solutions to problems the nation actually feels.  Third...and this really is critical, a style and approach that appeals to independents, because they will determine the election.

We will watch, and report.

June 13, 2011     Permalink

JUNE 12,  2011

THE RESET BUTTON BROKE AGAIN – AT 11:56 P.M. ET:  Remember when President Obama descended from the galaxy to become our president?  He promised that our relations with Russia would be "reset," apparently believing that any friction we'd had with Moscow was caused by BUSH (!!) and CHENEY (!!!!).

Uh, apparently the reset button was improperly connected, or maybe the spring broke, or they got the wiring wrong.  You know, it's so hard to get good button men today.  They're always out playing golf.

The Russians are becoming more hostile every day.  There's been no reset.  They're uncooperative and they're starting to develop advanced weapons again.  Then there's this:

MOSCOW – Russia is voicing concern about a U.S. warship now just off its shores in the Black Sea.

The guided-missile cruiser USS Monterey, which is taking part in annual joint military exercises conducted by NATO and Ukraine, is an integral part of U.S. plans to create a missile shield in Europe, which Russia opposes.

Russia's Foreign Ministry issued a statement Sunday saying Russia "has repeatedly stressed that we will not leave unnoticed any elements of U.S. strategic infrastructure in the immediate vicinity of our borders and will consider any such steps as a threat to our security."

That's pretty strong stuff, especially when directed at a weak American president.  Of course, the fact that Obama is weak allows for the Russian strength.

Russia agreed to consider NATO's proposal last fall to cooperate on the missile shield, but insisted the system be run jointly. NATO rejected that demand and no compromise has been found yet.

If Russia becomes increasingly hostile, we will face an array of threatening forces greater than that faced since the Second World War – Russia, China, militant Islam, and even some adversaries in Latin America, like Chavez's Venezuela, which has alliances with both Iran and Russia.  That will require superb American leadership, which means replacement parts for the chaps we have now.

June 12, 2011       Permalink

GET WELL, GABY – AT 12:07 P.M. ET:  The first photos of Gabrielle Giffords taken since she was shot in Tucson have just been released.   For someone who's been through her ordeal, she looks fine:

Obviously, Congresswoman Giffords has a long path to travel.   Her ability to speak, according to an aide, is still far from normal. 

We wish her well.  She's a traditional pro-defense Democrat, married to a Navy captain, who is also a senior astronaut.  And she has a fine, honorable reputation.  We want to welcome her back to Congress. 

June 12, 2011       Permalink

COMING SOON TO A TRENDY TOWN NEAR YOU – AT 11:48 A.M. ET:  Well, actually, I hope not.  There is a disturbing story out of Britain today that shows what political correctness can do to a society.  It can destroy its values and its standards.

Of course, there are really several Britains.  The Britain we love is the Britain of Churchill and Margaret Thatcher – strong, resolute, with a defiant spirit.  But there is another Britain, leftist, conformist, unthinking, under the mindless spell of multiculturalism.  That is the Britain we see in this story, from London's Telegraph, and it should worry us:

Police have been accused of “covering up” a campaign of abuse, threats and violence aimed at “Islamicising” an area of London.

Victims say that officers in the borough of Tower Hamlets have ignored or downplayed outbreaks of hate crime, and suppressed evidence implicating Muslims in them, because they fear being accused of racism.

We are seeing the same thing here.  We saw it after the Fort Hood shootings, when even our own Defense Department did handstands to avoid mentioning that the shooter was a committed jihadist.

The claims come as four Tower Hamlets Muslims were jailed for at least 19 years for attacking a local white teacher who gave religious studies lessons to Muslim girls.

The Sunday Telegraph has uncovered more than a dozen other cases in Tower Hamlets where both Muslims and non-Muslims have been threatened or beaten for behaviour deemed to breach fundamentalist “Islamic norms.”

One victim, Mohammed Monzur Rahman, said he was left partially blind and with a dislocated shoulder after being attacked by a mob in Cannon Street Road, Shadwell, for smoking during the Muslim holy month of Ramadan last year.

“Two guys stopped me in the street and asked me why I was smoking,” he said. “I just carried on, and before I knew another dozen guys came and jumped me. The next thing I knew, I was waking up in hospital.”

Please note, in reading the story, that Muslims are among the victims.  They often are.  More Muslims have been killed in terrorist attacks around the world than members of any other group, giving the lie to the propagandists who tell us that our "policies" lead to terrorism. 

This is a great piece of reporting, and I highly commend it to you.  We are watching Western civilization eroded, and that erosion may get worse as we avert our eyes to solve our economic problems. 

Be on guard...and learn what policies are in place in your local law-enforcement agencies.

June 12, 2011      Permalink

THERE WAS A TIME... – AT 11:17 A.M. ET:  I've never been a fan of mindless nostalgia.  You know, people who tell us how perfect everything was "back then," as opposed to right now.  There were plenty of things wrong in the America of my youth, including the exclusion from full participation in American life of a number of groups. 

However, there were many things right about our country back then.  A wonderful popular culture, with music written by real composers like Cole Porter and Irving Berlin, and lyricists like Oscar Hammerstein II.  Great movies that we still watch today, as we wonder whatever happened to our storytelling talent.  A media that was respectful of the country and its values.  Schools that existed to teach students the fundamentals of a fine education, not to indoctrinate them in leftist babble.  And a certain indescribable warmth that linked us together as Americans.   It was something we felt.

Bob Greene has a wonderful column today describing something else about that era – the fact that American companies identified with the American soldier, and were proud of it: 

The two wars in which the United States became engaged after the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, have often felt as if they have little to do with the daily lives of civilians at home. People in the nation's cities and towns carry on with their business; the volunteers in the military fight. Life on the home front goes on.

It's rare to find an advertisement that makes a direct point of linking a company or manufacturer with America's wars.

And...

Contrast that with advertising that appeared in U.S. newspapers and magazines during World War II. The difference is stark. Back then, many ads went out of their way to show consumers that the companies -- whether they made wristwatches or paint or ball bearings -- were proudly involved in the fight overseas.

"Time is Short, Adolf!" proclaimed the headline on a 1942 ad from the Philco Corp., manufacturer of radios, phonographs, refrigerators and air conditioners. The illustration showed a skeleton holding a pistol aimed at the right ear of Hitler. The text praised the men and women of Philco: "The incentive and inspiration for their war achievements are Victory and the survival of America's freedom."

If you ever get a chance, go to a library that has the bound volumes of LIFE magazine from World War II.  You'll see page after page of the ads that Greene is talking about. 

Maybe all those ads were there because it was a different kind of war.

Or maybe it was because, back home, this was a different America.

COMMENT:  Alas, it was a different America.  Sure, it was an America that could stand improvement, and we improved.  But it was an America with so many wonderful things about it. 

Think of this:  Sixty-five years ago, American kids were dancing to the music of George Gershwin.  They were going to movies like "Thirty Seconds over Tokyo" and musicals like "Meet Me in St. Louis."  They were laughing at the clean comedy of Jack Benny.  Contrast please with today.

I'm afraid we threw out the baby with the bath water.  If we don't invite that baby back into our homes, we will never have that America again.

June 12, 2011       Permalink

WHERE OBAMA STANDS – AT 11:02 A.M. ET:  The president has suffered a sudden and substantial decline in the Rasmussen survey, which polls likely voters.  He had been showing some strength in that survey, but is slipping back to fire-sale numbers:

The Rasmussen Reports daily Presidential Tracking Poll for Sunday shows that 23% of the nation's voters Strongly Approve of the way that Barack Obama is performing his role as president. Thirty-nine percent (39%) Strongly Disapprove, giving Obama a Presidential Approval Index rating of -16.

And...

Overall, 47% of voters say they at least somewhat approve of the president's performance. Fifty-three (53%) at least somewhat disapprove.

And get this:

When President Obama first took office, 39% of voters nationwide expected the economy to be stronger in a year. By July 2009, confidence that the economy would be stronger peaked at 45%. By the middle of 2010, just 37% expected the economy to be stronger in a year. Now, just 31% hold such optimism.

If we had a parliamentary system, Obama might well lose a vote of confidence.  He is clearly in trouble, and yet polls show him doing respectably well against any Republican opponent.  That means that the GOP clearly has its work cut out for it.  It has such opportunities, if it gets its act together, nominates a strong candidate with wide appeal, and constructs a platform that can attract the independents who are abandoning Obama in droves.

June 12, 2011     Permalink