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 14,  2011

BUZZ, THY NAME IS BACHMANN – AT 9:37 P.M. ET:  We continue to monitor coverage of last night's debate, and the name that keeps coming up is Bachmann.  Clearly, she changed at part of the nature of the race last evening, and that is major in a presidential campaign.  From The Wall Street Journal:

If the 2012 Republican presidential race now has an established front-runner, it also has a potential spoiler.

Minnesota Rep. Michele Bachmann's decision to jump into the 2012 field, which she announced during Monday's debate on CNN, could scramble the electoral math in several of the early nominating contests.

Her strengths among Iowa's evangelical and tea-party contingents are likely to make life tough on former Minnesota Gov. Tim Pawlenty and others who need a win in the first-in-the-nation caucuses early next year to propel their campaigns.

"She's going to be a force to be contended with, no doubt about it," said Vin Weber, a former Minnesota congressman and top Pawlenty adviser, who has known Ms. Bachmann since she entered politics just over a decade ago.

His advice to Mr. Pawlenty: "Treat her with respect."

Others contend that Ms. Bachman, 55 years old, could use a strong showing in Iowa, where she was born, to build an advantage in soon-to-follow New Hampshire and South Carolina.

"If the large tea-party factions start coalescing around her here, she could really end up being a force in New Hampshire, especially if she comes out of Iowa with real momentum," said Kevin Smith, a GOP activist who runs a conservative think tank in New Hampshire.

COMMENT:  Bachmann has also had another effect:  She has made the race much more interesting.  She has a certain magnetism. She's obviously attractive.  She comes prepared, speaks very well, and is a learner.  She has a commanding style.

The inevitable question is whether Bachmann's strong performance will have an impact on Sarah Palin.  I think it has to.  There's room for both women, of course, but they appeal to the same constituency, and that means they must be considered competitors.  You may be sure the old boys' club in the media will play up that part.

More combat ahead.

June 14, 2011      Permalink

YOU HAVE TO LOVE THIS, YOU JUST HAVE TO – AT 9:18 A.M. ET:  Look, not every story has to be about profound political decisions.  This is a high-tech happy-ending story, and it's great.  From Fox:

Don't get mad, get even.

When Joshua Kaufman's Apple MacBook was stolen from his apartment in Oakland, Calif, he didn't throw up his arms in despair. Instead, Kaufman turned on an app called Hidden that allowed him to surreptitiously photograph the thief -- and ultimately catch him.

On Wednesday morning, the Okaland police busted the crook, thanks to the series of incriminating photos Kaufman posted to a blog, thisguyhasmymacbook.tumblr.com, and reunited him with his stolen property.

"An Oakland police officer just called me to let me know that they arrested the guy in my photos! BOOYA!" wrote Kaufman exuberantly after hearing the good news.

"The police used my evidence (email which pointed to a cab service) that he was a driver and tricked him into picking them up. Nice work OPD!"

Kaufman claims he took the data to police but had no luck getting them to help, until he posted the photos online. He says police contacted him after his efforts went viral.

COMMENT:  Go to the link in the story, which actually shows the photos, bottom of the page, that the software took of the alleged thief.  Ah, modern technology.

June 14, 2011       Permalink

IS THIS PATHETIC, OR WHAT? – AT 8:31 A.M. ET:  In the United States Navy they refer to Britain's Royal Navy as "the senior service," a sign of respect for a navy that once ruled the waves.   Now, consider this, from London's Telegraph:

The British military intervention in Libya is unsustainable, the head of the Navy has said.

Adml Sir Mark Stanhope said the campaign would have been more effective without the Government's defence cuts.

The aircraft carrier and the Harrier jump-jets scrapped under last year's strategic defence review would have made the mission more effective, faster and cheaper, he said.

Sir Mark warned that the Navy would not be able to sustain its operations in Libya for another three months without making cuts elsewhere.

The First Sea Lord's comments will stir the debate over defence cuts that have left Britain without a working aircraft carrier and forced the Royal Navy's Harrier jump jets to be mothballed.

Highlighting military anger over the shrinking Armed Forces, another admiral warned that "comical" defence cuts would leave the Navy without enough ships to be effective.

How sad, how sad.  Britain is a symbol of what's happened all over Europe – defense cuts made to fuel the welfare state, without any understanding that a strong defense is what allows any nation to exist at all.  As we've said here, there's the great Britain, and the not-so-great Britain.  The latter is winning, even with nominal conservatives in power.

Britain has a great defense minister in Liam Fox, whom I've had the privilege of meeting.  His vision is a strong Britain, firmly allied with the United States.  But Britain has a left wing that won't budge, and will become a defense backwater before too long.

I'm sure they'll even send James Bond into retirement.

June 14, 2011      Permalink

OBAMA CAMPAIGN FLOP – AT 8:08 A.M. ET:  This is one thing we usually don't see with Obama – a failed campaign rally.  You can be sure there'll be hell to pay at the White House.  But if this is an indication of things to come, Obama can be in real trouble.  From the Politico:

MIAMI, Fla. -- A low-dollar fundraiser here Monday felt like a throwback to the 2008 campaign.

There was the same old soundtrack – including “City of Blinding Lights” by U2, the president’s 2008 anthem -- the enthusiastic organizers and the abundant appeals for supporters to rally behind President Obama.

The one missing element? Overflowing crowds.

Granted, it was a fundraiser, not a free rally. But the empty seats were hard to miss.

The top level of the 2,200-seat concert hall at the Adrienne Arsht Center for Performing Arts was entirely empty, as were the seats along the side of the second and third levels.

"The expectation was 900," a Democratic official said, and more than 980 tickets were sold.

That's damage control. 

Tickets for the Gen 44 event started at $44, the official said.

COMMENT:  Obviously, the shortage of people was caused by global warming.  Or was it Bush?  Or Cheney?  Or Bush's economy. 

By the way, among other gems delivered by the president was a line claiming he isn't given to partisan rhetoric.  You can start laughing now, and finish at the end of the year.  This guy is the most partisan bird I've seen in a long time.

Obama is vulnerable.  The talk on the internet this morning is that Republicans, more and more, want a winner, not an idealogue whom they can cheer in defeat.  That's good.  Good thinking.

June 14, 2011      Permalink

THE DEBATE – AT 7:39 A.M. ET:  I realize that many readers may not have been with us as we live blogged the GOP debate last night.  Let me give you my impressions, and a review of what I've seen from others:

The format was bad, things went by much too quickly, and there were too many candidates on the platform.  However, we got some strong impressions.  If there was a "winner," it was Michele Bachman.  (She spells it with one "l".)  Michael Barone sums it up:

Michele Bachmann. The rap against her is that she is inspirational but sometimes make statements she cannot defend. I don’t think she did that in this debate. On the contrary, she was well prepared with specifics. She defended the tea parties as part of the three-legged stool of national security, cultural conservative and free market economic conservatives—the definition of the conservative movement pioneered by William F. Buckley many years ago. She managed to tell viewers that she was a tax lawyer and that she raised three children and provided homes for 23 foster children—I don’t care how cynical you are; that’s impressive. She deftly quoted then-Senator Barack Obama—a voice more eloquent than mine—on the debt limit. She said that as president she wouldn’t go into states and lobby against allowing same-sex marriages and she brushed aside as numerically insignificant the question—always raised by liberals like CNN moderator John King—about abortions in cases of rape and incest. She used her seat on the Intelligence Committee to make her point that there is no vital American interest in Libya and quoted Ryan Lizza’s New Yorker piece on how an Obama insider said he was “leading from behind.” An impressive performance.

And if there was a strong survivor, it was Mitt Romney.  As the assumed "frontrunner," he was the target, but the rest of the group went easy on him, and he answered questions with brief, substantive replies.  He may not have gained much, but he didn't lose anything.  Again, Barone:

Overall Romney showed a clear sense of command and directed well-aimed attacks at Barack Obama and his administration. He was well prepared for the format and did better than I thought.

The disappointment was Tim Pawlenty, former governor of Minnesota.  His job was to break out of the second tier, and make himself better known, but didn't do it.  As for the others, I just don't think they have a realistic chance at the nomination.

Important individuals were not there.  Governor Rick Perry of Texas wasn't there.  Neither was former Governor Jon Huntsman of Utah.  Perry would be an instant, serious contender if he gets in, but I must tell you that, the more I read about him, the more reluctant I am.  Yes, he has a great jobs record in Texas, but he tends to sound a bit on the fringe a times, and more local than national.  I don't know if he'll travel well.  He's speaking in New York today, and we should get a taste of Rick Perry without a Texas backdrop.  As for Huntsman, it's currently "Jon who?"  He served as Obama's ambassador to China, which won't sit well with the GOP base.  How can you serve a president and then run against his policies?

On balance, it was Mitt's and Michele's night last night.   I agree with Barone that Romney was better than we'd thought he would be.  Can Michele be taken as a serious candidate?  If she continues with the kind of solid performance she gave in the debate, yes. 

This is only the start.  More action ahead.

June 14, 2011     Permalink

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