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

OCTOBER 27,  2011

SHORT TAKES ON THE DRIFTING WRECKAGE – AT 9:02 P.M. ET:

WARNING TO REPUBLICANS? – A new poll for TIME shows Hillary Clinton easily defeating any of the potential Republican presidential nominees.  Obama defeats them as well, although by much smaller margins.  The poll signals something that is increasingly showing up in political chatter – a worry that, although Obama's approval ratings are low, he is still seen as preferable the weak Republican field.  This may change, of course, once the Republicans settle on a nominee, but any thought that this race will be easy for the GOP should be consigned to the famous junk heap of history.

GOOD SIGN, OR MIRAGE? – The stock market has just had its biggest monthly rally since 1974.  Is this a sign of better times ahead, or a statistical fluke?  Historically, the stock market and the real economy have often been separated.  There was a rising stock market between 1933 and 1937, the worst years of the Great Depression.  However, a new deal that seems to have put off a European crisis clearly is giving encouragement to financial circles, and unemployment, while still high, hasn't worsened in the U.S.  Clearly, signs of a rising economy will dramatically help Obama.

MANY USES – The first batch of shoes equipped with GPS devices has just been shipped by GTX Corporation.  The purpose of the new fashion is to track Alzheimer's or dementia patients who get lost.  Obviously, there are other uses.  It is understood that Hillary Clinton has bought a pair for Bill, whose wanderings will now be tracked by the State Department.  Members of Congress could be required by law to wear the shoes, so their constituents can learn where they actually spend their time in Washington.  The GPS service will presumably give exact locations, by motel name.

A NEW FRONT AGAINST TERROR – The Washington Post reports that the United States is now flying counterterrorism drones from southern Ethiopia as part of a proxy war against an Al Qaeda affiliate in East Africa.  The targets are in Somalia, where Washington has been reluctant to deploy any ground forces.  However, it is expected that the mission may well be expanded to include Special Forces soldiers and CIA personnel.  There are also other new U.S. drone bases being built for operations in Africa.

October 27, 2011     Permalink

SO-SO PROGRESS IN THE JOBLESS RATE – AT 8:50 A.M. ET:  There was a slight improvement last week in the unemployment statistics, but we're talking shadows here.  From Bloomberg:

Fewer Americans filed applications for unemployment assistance last week, while those on benefit rolls dropped to a three-year low, signaling limited improvement in the labor market.

First-time jobless claims decreased by 2,000 to 402,000 in the week ended Oct. 22, Labor Department figures showed today in Washington. The median forecast of economists in a Bloomberg News survey called for a drop to 401,000. The number of people collecting unemployment benefits fell in the prior week by 96,000 to 3.65 million, the fewest since September 2008.

Bottom line:  Any number above 400,000 is considered bad.

Waning dismissals, which lay the groundwork for gains in payrolls, may forestall cutbacks by consumers whose spending accounts for about 70 percent of the economy. At the same time, faster hiring is needed to trim unemployment, lift household confidence and spur the recovery.

“Any improvement is better than none, but the labor market is showing very slow progress,” Jennifer Lee, an economist at BMO Capital Markets in Toronto, said before the report. “There’s reluctance to hire unless absolutely necessary. The jobless rate is unlikely to taper off below 9 percent in the next few months.”

COMMENT:  There will be another report out later this morning on economic growth in the U.S., and predictions are that it should be fairly strong.  But it's the employment numbers that bring pain.  Add to the raw numbers the number of Americans who are underemployed or have had to settle for part-time work, and the picture is grim.  We may well have a jobless recovery, with all the election implications that can have.

And the standard of living for most Americans, according to statistics, is either frozen or declining.  As we noted in the post just below, pessimism seems to be the national mood.  Politically, the Republicans must present a clear alternative that is believable to a skeptical, increasingly angry country.

October 27, 2011       Permalink

HOPE AND CHANGE?  REALLY? – AT 8:34 A.M. ET:  Ah, to have an inspirational president.  Can't you just see the smiles on the faces of Americans, their optimism, their belief that they are being saved by Washington?  You can't?  Hmm.  Maybe I got that wrong.

Actually, the hope 'n change department has closed because of lack of customers.  Some things just can't be sold.  From The Hill:

More than two-thirds of voters say the United States is declining, and a clear majority think the next generation will be worse off than this one, according to the results of a new poll commissioned by The Hill.

A resounding 69 percent of respondents said the country is “in decline,” the survey found, while 57 percent predict today’s kids won’t live better lives than their parents. Additionally, 83 percent of voters indicated they’re either very or somewhat worried about the future of the nation, with 49 percent saying they’re “very worried.”

The results suggest that Americans don’t view the country’s current economic and political troubles as temporary, but instead see them continuing for many years.

Now why would they think that, with Barack Obama in the White House and Nancy Pelosi in The House?  I can't think of a good reason.

It isn't just Obama, of course.  Congress doesn't rank very well, and, even with Republican control of the House, we have to note that point.

The degree of pessimism, however, varies sharply by race and party affiliation, The Hill Poll found. Republicans, for instance, have less hope for the country’s future, with 90 percent saying the United States is declining and 66 percent predicting today’s kids will be worse off than their parents. By contrast, fewer than half of Democratic respondents indicated the country is in decline (47 percent) or fear for the next generation’s living standards (45 percent).

Oddly enough, African Americans — who were hammered much harder by the recession than whites — are more optimistic about the direction of the country, with 30 percent of black respondents saying the United States is deteriorating, versus 74 percent of whites.

There may be some understandable racial loyalty toward Obama in that.  The fact is, if we continue sliding, the poor and minorities will suffer most.

So the president who came in on a cloud of optimism and wild predictions ("the oceans will recede") now faces a country that has been Carterized once again.  The answer the first time was Ronald Reagan.  Well, we don't have a Reagan, which is why Republicans are going to have to fight for every vote next year.  No matter how bad things are, many Americans still prefer sticking with the devil they know.  And that's some devil.

October 27, 2011       Permalink

WITH A JUSTICE DEPARTMENT LIKE THIS, WHO NEEDS CRIMINALS? – AT 8:14 A.M. ET:  Eric Holder's goofball Justice Department seems determined to bring that good old sixties sensibility to one of the most important agencies of government.

One of the things Obama has done pretty well is to aggressively pursue international terrorism.  That doesn't mean we approve of his overall foreign policy.  As readers of this site know, we don't.  But Obama's specific actions against terror have often been praiseworthy.  Therefore, we view with complete dismay the actions of his own Justice Department in frustrating anti-terror efforts here at home by de-linking terrorism and Islamic extremism.  Investor's Business Daily has a great comment on this:

The bleaching of Islam from the terror picture is almost complete. Eric Holder has ordered a purge of FBI training manuals. Soon the 9/11 hijackers' religion will be censored, too.

Last week, top Justice Department officials huddled with several Islamic groups — including a Muslim Brotherhood front implicated in a terror-finance scheme — to discuss "post-9/11 discrimination." They promised the aggrieved they'd pull back references to Islam from terror-training materials.

"I recently directed all components of the Department of Justice to re-evaluate their training efforts," Deputy Attorney General James Cole announced during the Washington conference. U.S. Attorney Dwight Holton explained that FBI training materials that even remotely link Islam to violence will be banned.

"I want to be perfectly clear about this: Training materials that portray Islam as a religion of violence or with a tendency towards violence are wrong, they are offensive and they are contrary to everything this president, this attorney general and Department of Justice stands for," he told Muslim activists gathered at the George Washington University law school. "They will not be tolerated." (Emphasis added.)

So apparently, reality will no longer be tolerated in counterterror programs. In Islam, there's clear doctrinal basis for jihad, which is why almost every Muslim terrorist cites it as a motivating factor.

And...

This latest unilateral disarmament was precipitated by complaints from the Council on American-Islamic Relations and other Islamist groups, who have threatened to end "cooperation" with the FBI unless it nixes jihad and other Islamic terms from training materials.

Such a threat from terror-tied CAIR is laughable. The FBI has banned the group from outreach functions, and it was excluded from the Justice meeting. However, its sister organization — the Islamic Society of North America — was invited, though Justice prosecutors just three years ago named ISNA an "unindicted co-conspirator" in the largest terror-finance case in U.S. history...

...Allowing ISNA to now have a say in how the department investigates terrorism is outrageous. Yet there ISNA's president was, seated at the same table with top Justice officials, mau-mauing them about the "law."

And...

So when five Moroccans are caught breaking into a San Antonio courthouse after taking photos of courthouses and other public buildings in cities nationwide, we should just believe them when they say they were merely tourists "trying to get a better view of the city."

Nothing to investigate here. The men's religion is irrelevant. And when passengers ram cockpit doors while screaming "Allahu Akbar!" — as a Yemeni recently did on an American Airlines flight — we should just write it off to in-flight stress. Nothing to see here, move along.

COMMENT:  It is not promoting bigotry to examine the relationship between extreme Islam and terrorism.  The relationship has been clear.  Some goodie two-shoes pundits whine that, whenever there's a terrorist attack, we immediately speculate that it was done by Muslim extremists.  The reason we speculate is the reality of statistics.  Obviously, not all Muslims are terrorists, but a disturbingly high proportion of terror attacks are carried out by extreme Muslims.  The Muslim world has a problem.  It is now our problem.  While fully protecting the innocent Muslim population, dealing with the problem must be done realistically, not in accordance with the tenets of political correctness.

October 27, 2011       Permalink

HILL TO THE HILL, LEGISLATORS FUMING – AT 7:44 A.M. ET:  Hillary Clinton heads to Capitol Hill to deal with a mini-revolt among members of Congress over the disgraceful comments of occasional ally, Afghan President Hamid Karzai.  From The Politico:

When Hillary Clinton heads to Capitol Hill Thursday, the secretary of state can expect to face questions from lawmakers who are furious with Afghanistan President Hamid Karzai’s recent comment that he would side with Pakistan should a U.S.-Pakistan conflict arise.

As the Associated Press reports, a number of lawmakers, including some supporters of the war in Afghanistan, have reacted angrily to Karzai’s comments...

...Karzai told a Pakistani TV station recently, “God forbid, if ever there is a war between Pakistan and America, Afghanistan will side with Pakistan.”

Calling Pakistan a “brother” to the Afghan nation, Karzai also said the tension in the U.S.-Pakistan relationship has “not had an impact on our attitude toward Pakistan.”

“Now more than ever, President Karzai’s insult to America tells me that it’s time for our country to stop pouring our limited taxpayer dollars and losing precious American lives in a country where we aren’t even welcome - and even worse, where they have the gall to threaten to side against us,” said Sen. Joe Manchin, (D-W.Va.), a member of the Senate Armed Services Committee, according to the AP.

COMMENT:  Karzai is a corrupt fool, a liar, and a political degenerate.  Other than that, a fine man.

Look, we've had problems with allies in wartime before.  Winston Churchill famously said, during World War II, that the greatest cross he had to bear was the Cross of Lorraine, the symbol of the Free French forces.  He was referring, of course, to Charles DeGaulle.

The difference is that, in World War II, there was a clear path to victory.  In Afghanistan, there really isn't.  The patience of the American people is wearing thin. 

At the same time, even individuals like Karzai might be redeemable if they see a stalwart, resolute America.  Instead, they see a weak, vacillating president who gives enemies timetables for our withdrawal.  So, the Karzais of the universe look elsewhere for allies and consistency.

Karzai is bad news.  However, expressions of weakness never bring us friends, only contempt.  We're getting that both from Karzai and the current regime in Iraq.

October 27, 2011     Permalink

OCTOBER 26,  2011

SHORT TAKES ON THE DRIFTING WRECKAGE – AT 10:57 P.M. ET:

CHELSEA, IN OR OUT – There is great huffing and puffing in New York over reports, that started circulating early this morning, that Chelsea Clinton is looking for a chance to run for Congress.  Translated:  She's looking for a congressional district she can move into, Kennedy style, and just take over.  The story hit a kind of third rail with implications that Congresswoman Nita Lowey of Westchester would conveniently retire next year, clearing the way for Chelsea to call the movers.  Lowey stepped aside once before for a Clinton, the Clintonian mother, who moved to New York to run for the Senate the same year Lowey intended to.  This afternoon Lowey issued a blunt statement saying she has no intention of retiring.  I guess she was only willing to lick boots once.  And Chelsea now denies she wants to run for Congress at all.  My sense is that the story was accurate, but that the Clintons realized how pushy it sounded, and pulled back.

THE GENIUS SPEAKS – Major league nutbag Louis Farrakhan, head of the Nation of Islam, is denouncing President Obama for the killing of Farrakhan friend Muammar Gaddafi.  Farrakhan, who refers to Gaddafi as "a brother," warned that the West would soon face retribution for Dear Leader's demise.  Farrakhan now calls Obama "an assassin," and says he witnessed the good Gaddafi did for Libya.  Obama will probably gain politically from Farrakhan's attacks.  Farrakhan is in the tradition of other collaborators with evil, many of whom made common cause with the Nazis before World War II.

CAIN REFUSES TO FADE – A new Fox poll has Herman Cain leading the Republican field.  Cain gets 24%, Romney 20%, and Perry is down to 10%.   Once again Romney just can't soar among Republicans.  However, other late polls show Romney leading in key early-primary states, which could send him hurtling toward the nomination.  Romney leads in Iowa, New Hampshire, South Carolina, and Florida.  Romney could sew up the nomination by sheer momentum alone, with little attention paid to the enthusiasm factor. 

PERRY DEBATE SHY? – The Perry camp is dropping broad hints that the governor may not participate in all the upcoming debates.  Indeed, he may not participate in any of them.  Perry himself said Tuesday that he regretted participating in the debates thus far.  Clearly, he did not do well, and his dropping poll numbers show it.  A spokesman for Perry said today that each debate would be looked at individually.  A decision not to participate might make Perry more comfortable, but it will probably destroy whatever is left of his campaign.  Inevitably, he'd be seen as the quitter, the candidate who ran away.  He is not a good debater, but those are the breaks.

October 26, 2011       Permalink

DOES ANYONE CARE? – AT 9:13 A.M. ET:  Christiane Amanpour hasn't exactly been ratings gold at ABC News, where she anchors "This Week," a declining Sunday show that used to be anchored by real journalists like David Brinkley.  Now is is reported, but denied, that poor Christiane is unhappy and would like to return to CNN, her original home.

That is dreadful news.  CNN has made progress since Amanpour's departure.  She is no reporter.  She's a political propagandist of the left posing as a reporter.  She sounds good with that put-on British accent, but she's an intellectual lightweight who is all style and no substance.  Does anyone outside the Ivy League really care what she thinks?

CNN's Mideast reporting, a farce under Amanpour, has become better, deeper and more balanced.  If she returns, CNN will not gain, it will lose.  Here is the story, for what it's worth:

“This Week” anchor Christiane Amanpour isn’t getting along with the bosses at ABC News, and has reached out to the honchos at CNN to return to the network where she started her career. Sources tell us award-winning Amanpour has been “miserable” anchoring the weekly political talk show and contacted Turner CEO Phil Kent about getting back to reporting on her passion -- international affairs. “The courtship began over the summer when Phil first got wind that all was not well with her over there,” a source said. “Both sides regretted her leaving.” Sources say Amanpour has butted heads with executive producer Rick Kaplan and ABC News president Ben Sherwood. “It’s a problem,” a source said. “Rick is trying to guide the show, but she doesn’t want to hear it.” An ABC rep said, “I just got off the phone with Christiane, she says that’s total nonsense. She’s very happy at ABC News. She’s not going anywhere. She’s had the most extraordinary year. She’s a critical, essential voice.” A CNN rep declined to comment on “speculation.”

COMMENT:  I hope Amanpour stays at ABC, where she's essentially harmless.  I can't imagine the more thoughtful people at CNN would be happy about her return.  She brings down the class average.

October 26, 2011        Permalink

A FUN THEORY – AT 8:41 A.M. ET:  Michael Goodwin, of the New York Post, is one of my favorite columnists.  Provocative and somewhat conservative, he at least gets us thinking.

Now he's discussing an idea that isn't new, has actually been shot down by the White House, but which is being circulated again.  Is it possible?  Or is this just entertainment?

Clinton could replace the foot-in-mouth vice president as President Obama’s running mate, and Biden could replace her as secretary of state.

I’m aware that the White House already has shot down the idea, and perhaps honestly so. Since it’s early in the campaign and Obama hasn’t given final approval, there is no deal.

Yet the switch makes such perfect sense that White House handlers likely will be forced to give it serious consideration next year, if they haven’t already. Absent an economic miracle or the gift of a Republican opponent who can’t attract independent voters, Obama looks to be headed for defeat in 2012. His divisive populism isn’t moving the needle, and he’s running out of options and time.

The key fact is that he pulls only one in three independents, and that means he will have trouble winning enough swing states to get a majority of 270 electoral votes. Running up the score in deep-blue states like New York and California won’t matter if he can’t win in places like Michigan, Ohio, Wisconsin and Pennsylvania. All four of those states elected GOP governors last year.

Biden adds nothing to the ticket, and his erratic bluster makes him a liability. Clinton would be a shot in the arm for the campaign among women, and holds appeal to the blue-collar workers in the industrial states Obama needs.

So remember my theory the next time Biden says something stupid -- which will be the next time he opens his mouth. And remember it the next time Clinton goes on TV to enthusiastically praise Obama for “smart leadership,” as she did Sunday.

COMMENT:  Well, maybe.  Biden couldn't do too much damage at State, since the world already knows you can't take anything he says too seriously.  Clinton would probably be a help on the ticket, but people usually don't vote for the vice president.  True, she'd be in line for an easy nomination for president in 2016...if there's still a country by 2016.

There are serious problems, though.  Dumping Biden looks like a political execution, which is what it would be.   It might not go down well with an electorate that has already seen Obama throw a number of people under the bus.  Also, Biden has broadly hinted that he might run for president in 2016.  A demotion would probably kill his chances, and he may well decide to chuck it all, making Obama look ungrateful for his help.  He might write a book.

And one wonders whether Hillary is really up for another campaign.  She seems tired, she's indicated she wants to retire, and I think she may be serious.

Further, I'm not sure Hillary wants the scrutiny.  The Clinton family closet has skeletons.  Bill has been acting increasingly erratic and sometimes angry.  He's made a wad of money since leaving the White House.  Fox News will want to know where he's made it, and what influence that may have on American policy.  Read that "Mideast money."

I'm guessing that Obama will go with Biden and take his chances, unless Biden takes some broad hints and decides that he's yearning to practice law again.  Stand by.

October 26, 2011       Permalink

BACHMANN TOASTED – AT 8:20 A.M. ET:  It may well be time for Michele Bachmann to make a graceful withdrawal from the presidential race, as Tim Pawlenty did, and not beat the bush any longer.  From the Washington Examiner:

Michele Bachmann, once a rising star of the Republican presidential field, is sinking into political oblivion.

The latest national poll, released Tuesday by CBS and the New York Times, shows the Minnesota congresswoman with just 2 percent of the vote, her lowest showing since April 1. Moreover, the candidate who won the Iowa straw poll in August is now in fifth place in the Hawkeye State and even further back in other early-primary states.

If Bachmann, a Tea Party favorite, is unable to make a strong showing at the Iowa caucus 10 weeks from now, she'll have few places to turn to revive her campaign.

Bachmann has invested little in New Hampshire, a point underscored last week when her entire Granite State campaign staff quit, and she is running at the back of the pack in Florida and South Carolina, two other critical nominating states.

"For New Hampshire, she's a total write-off," said Patrick Hynes, a GOP strategist based in Concord. "She has absolutely no operation going here and what she had going just quit. She's a nonfactor at this point."

COMMENT:   I got into deep trouble with an original reader and subscriber because I wanted to be fair to Michele Bachmann at the start of the campaign, and he despised her.  So, I lost a reader and subscriber, but I'm glad we were fair, and came to our conclusions through facts and observation. 

I think Bachmann has made a contribution, and, with proper growth, can be an important factor in the party's future.

But it is now time to go, and overstaying your welcome in a presidential race simply annoys people, antagonizes the leading candidates, and continues to make the debates unwieldy.  It's also time for Jon Huntsman and Rick Santorum to reconsider.  Newt Gingrich is a former speaker who is playing an important intellectual role.  Ron Paul, whose nutbag foreign-policy views have now been exposed, will not get out because he believes there are hidden regiments, led by black helicopters, who will rescue him. 

It's now a Romney, Cain, Perry race.  And Rick Perry must gain back some traction in the next two weeks or he, too, will be looking at the exits.  A party must narrow its field at some point, so the public can start concentrating on the heavy hitters.

October 26, 2011       Permalink

PLANNED DESTRUCTION – AT 7:38 A.M. ET:  If there is one Republican the liberal establishment would like to take out, it's Senator Marco Rubio of Florida.  A rising star, attractive and eloquent, he's seen as a future presidential candidate, and someone who can bring Hispanic voters to the Republican Party.

One part of Rubio's appeal is his family's story, immigrants who came to the United States to start a new life.

But last week a reporter for the Washington Post with a history of sucking up to Castro, wrote a hit piece accusing Rubio of fudging his family's history, giving the impression that Rubio's parents fled Castro, when in fact they came to America three years before Castro took power.  The story also questioned Rubio's use of the word "exiles" to describe his mother and father.

Rubio responded furiously, conceding that he got the year of his parents' exodus to America wrong, but claiming that his parents were exiles nonetheless because they could not return to Cuba, that their country had been taken from them.

There's no question but that Rubio should have had every fact right in his official Senate biography.  Every political figure knows that the bio is the first thing "oppo" (opposition) research looks at.  But the detail is small.  Rubio's parents came here, struggled (his mother worked as a cleaning woman in Las Vegas for a time), and raised a great family.  His mother apparently went back to Cuba for a short time to care for an ailing relative, but returned to the U.S.  Some details are murky, but the basic facts are there. 

What is also there, however, is the new narrative of the left, which will be used by some left-wing Hispanics who want to punish Rubio for straying from the party line, that Rubio is a liar, not a true member of the "community," and someone who can't be trusted.  The Politico today has another story on Rubio that examines the claims and counterclaims, and comes up with little or nothing.  The point is made that Rubio's parents didn't become U.S. citizens until 1975, but it's also noted that this was common.  (It was common in the immigrant experience generally for immigrants to put off citizenship applications.)   We're told that the Rubios originally filed for permanent residence in the U.S., suggesting that they could not therefore be exiles.   But we're then told that this filing was routine.

Really, a mountain has been made out of a molehill.  The term "exile" has always been used to describe those who not only have been expelled from their countries, but those who left voluntarily but can no longer return, even if they don't particularly want to.  I know Iranians, for example, who came here voluntarily, but cannot go back to their native country.  They're often called exiles. 

Will this hurt Rubio?  I tend to doubt it.  His story is compelling enough, and most Americans have some kind of immigrant background and know that details can become hazy.  I only learned late in life, for example, that my maternal grandfather, for whom I'm named, came to this country, not through New York, the traditional portal, but through San Francisco, after working on a tramp steamer to get here.  Would it have made me a liar to think and say that he came through Ellis Island because I assumed it to be true?  Oh, and my maternal grandmother, whom I'd always associated with the renowned Ellis Island, actually came through Castle Garden in lower New York because a fire had put Ellis Island out of commission for a time.  Have I lied about it because I didn't know every detail?

I think Rubio will get through this just fine.  In fact, there might be a backlash against attempts to nail him on his family history.  Looks awfully petty, especially as that history is dramatic enough. 

Of course, we might feel some gratitude toward the liberal press for at least asking questions.  Now about Barack Hussein Obama Jr...

October 26, 2011     Permalink