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.

(You can subscribe or donate by mail, as well as by PayPal.  See below.)

SUBSCRIPTION DRIVE - VITAL!!

DAY TWO.

We got off to a slow, but reasonably respectable start yesterday.  It was a pleasure to see some new readers subscribe.  However...

Urgent Agenda seriously needs subscriptions and donations to continue our work!

I think we perform a valuable service here.  Many readers tell us that we're the first place they visit online each day.  That is very encouraging, and reflects the loyalty our readers have shown.  They know that Urgent Agenda is written for a special, intelligent audience, not a mass audience. 

But publishing Urgent Agenda is costly, and we count on subscribers and donators to keep us going.  Without you, we're history.  Our first two years showed dramatic growth, but this last year has been tougher.  Clearly, the economy is a factor.   But we must have a stable financial base in order to continue.

Once again we ask our regular stalwarts to consider expanding their subscriptions or making an additional donation.  And we ask our new readers to please subscribe or donate.  Please don't put the burden entirely on a core group.

If you like what you see each day, and you want to be sure it's there tomorrow, please subscribe or donate.  You can do so by PayPal under SUBSCRIPTIONS, in the right hand column of this page, opposite these words. 

You can also subscribe by mail.  If you'd like to do that, just send us an e-mail at service@urgentagenda.com, and we'll reply with our mailing address.  (We don't like to publish it to avoid mailboxes stuffed with Viagra ads.)

The most important reason to subscribe or donate is to support our work.  But, in addition, you become a member of The Angel's Corner, and receive our twice-a-week e-mailed page, most of which is devoted to short essays by our readers, who are invited to comment on anything they wish, at whatever length they choose.  It is the liveliest part of Urgent Agenda.

We hope to have you aboard.

SEPTEMBER 7,  2011

9:47 P.M. ET:  The debate abruptly ends.  On balance, a reasonably good debate.  Again, the number of candidates minimizes our ability to focus on specific answers.  As the months go on, I assume we'll get dropouts, possibly Herman Cain and Rick Santorum.  (Possibly.)  If I had to choose a winner, I'd say again...Mitt Romney.  He was forceful, more forceful than he's been, and he came prepared.  Rick Perry, who was the object of most of the attention, held his own.  But whether he did more is an open question.  At times he seemed a bit distant from the subjects.  However, his last statement, about fighting crime, hit it out of the park.  I'd say that, for the Republican base alone, he probably came out ahead tonight, but that base, alone, cannot elect a president.  And that is at the heart of Perry's problem – his appeal, or lack of it, to the people in the middle.  In that department, Romney triumphed. 

A few words about Michele Bachmann:  She's been overshadowed by Rick Perry, and both appeal to the same constituency.  But we must give her credit for remaining in the race, and giving a number of thoughtful, articulate answers.  She was less ideological tonight than on other occasions, and that's to the good.  I don't think she can come from behind to win the nomination, but she has an important future if she grows, comes up with innovative proposals, and prepares as well as she has.

9:42 P.M. ET:  They're varying the subjects in these last few minutes of the debate.  Romney is discussing taxes and economic growth, and he speaks with authority.  He knows his stuff.  Now the question goes to Perry, about the number of people executed in Texas while he's been governor.   He gives the best answer he's given during the debate, and presents a passionate defense of the death penalty.  Biggest applause line of the night, and here Perry shines.  Whether you agree with him or not on the death penalty, his passion comes through and he came alive.

9:35 P.M. ET:  Huntsman on, asked a real zinger about comments by his campaign manager that some of the GOP candidates are cranks.  He's evasive on that.  Perry is now asked about climate change.  He's being pressed to give details.  He's vague on climate change, but gives some good points about what's been done in Texas on clean air.   He does make the point that the science of climate change is unsettled. 

9:22 P.M. ET:  They're back.  Perry is discussing the debt deal.  Proposes a balanced budget amendment.  Huntsman is now discussing foreign policy, and sounds a bit isolationist.  Romney on.  Again, I like the way he hits issues in the center.  He gives specific reasons for things.  I think he'd do well against Obama in debate.  Perry on.  Discussing defense.  He's rambling a bit.  He is giving some credit to Obama on security issues, which is appropriate.  But again, I think the contrast with Romney's specifics is telling.  Now Bachmann is on, with a firm statement denouncing Obama's foreign policy.  She also warns about some of the "rebels" in the Mideast.  We don't really know them.

9:14 P.M. ET:  They're discussing immigration.  And Rick Perry, who should have shone in this segment, is largely forgotten.  He missed a golden opportunity, as a border-state governor, to really speak with authority and present a program.  But he missed it.  They're on the second commercial break right now.  Again, I think Romney comes out first, and maybe his lead has increased a bit since the last break.  But Perry does hold his own, and the others have all acquitted themselves reasonably well.

9:10 P.M. ET:  Perry is now discussing immigration.  As Texas governor, he knows the subject.  But Romney is now outdistancing him with, again, specific proposals.  This campaign may come down to a battle between these two men.  As of now, Romney comes out better.  He is simply better prepared.

9:05 P.M. ET:  Perry is now being asked about some poor educational statistics from his state.  He answers well, pointing out some accomplishments, and noting the first-class corporations that move to Texas, and which require an educated work force.  Good answer, if incomplete.  Newt is now talking about education.  Again, I point out that he is full of ideas.  Sadly, I don't think he has much traction.  He is often seen as a man of the past, which is unfair.

9:00 P.M. ET:  As always happens in these debates, the session starts to drift.  They're talking about whether FEMA should be abolished.  I didn't know this was a big issue.

8:54 P.M. ET:  Ron Paul is now attacking his fellow Texan, Rick Perry.  Now Bachmann is up.  She's slipping back into philosophy, rather than practicality, and I have to concede it's a weakness.  Perry is being attacked for a mandatory innoculation program for girls that he established in Texas.  He answers well, but doesn't add anything in particular.  Perry's failure to come up with any specific ideas is beginning to hurt him.  He certainly knew that everyone would be attacking him, and that the spotlight would be on him.  He speaks well, he's personable, he gives some good answers.  But where's the vision?

8:48 P.M. ET:  Debate resumes.  Perry is asked about his negative views on Social Security, views that can sink him in an election.  He continues his attack on the way Social Security is run.  But again, he has no proposals. He's in trouble on Social Security.  It's obvious.  Now Romney is up, also on Social Security.  He goes after Perry on Perry's view that states should be able to opt out of the program.  Romney wins this going away.  Perry is now replying, but he has no ideas for improving Social Security.  This is a critical moment in the debate, and Perry loses it, badly.

8:45 P.M. ET:  There's now a tribute to Ronald Reagan, and I have to concede it's tasteful and well done.  Brian Williams deserves credit for this. 

8:39 P.M. ET:  There's some back and forth right now among the candidates.  This segment of the debate is now over.  They've gone to a commercial:  Summing up:  The candidates are all doing surprisingly well.  Focus is on Perry because it's his first time on the presidential debate stage.  He's doing well.  He's impressive.  But he does not have detailed answers on what he intends to do as president.  His game tonight focuses on knocking everyone else.  He'll have to bring some balance to his campaign.  Who's winning?  I'd give the edge to Romney because of his knowledge and detail, but it's only an edge.

8:35 P.M. ET:  Bachmann up, makes a brief but good statement on energy.  Now Huntsman is up again, and I think is the surprise candidate this evening.  He's good, and informed.

8:31 P.M. ET:  Perry up.  Replies to a question about povery by pointing out that the best antidote to poverty is a strong economy.  Good answer, but lacking in specifics.  Romney up, discussing energy, and again he is more detailed than Perry.  He's impressive.  At least he has proposals.   Between the two men, we have a real, and worthy race.

8:26 P.M. ET:  Huntsman discusses health care.  I must say he's very impressive tonight, having apparently woken up.  He may help himself tonight with his forceful performance, but he's way, way behind.  Now Bachmann is up, and again she has that commanding presence.  You can't take it away from her.  And now Newt launches an attack on the press, charging the questioners with trying to get the participants to fight each other.  I don't care for the press either, but I think attacking the press won't do much good tonight.

8:23 P.M. ET:  Perry takes a hit from a question pointing out that Texas ranks dead last in people covered by health insurance.  This is the kind of question that can damage him in a general election campaign.  He does not answer well.  He repeats what "the people of Texas" do not want, but really doesn't prescribe a program.  Republicans must come up with visionary proposals.  It can't just be negative. 

8:20 P.M. ET:  Perry just zinged Romney on Romneycare.  Romney responds by pledging to overturn Obamacare through executive action – giving every state an opt-out, which is legal.  Again, both men are speaking well, but I'd give Romney the edge on details. 

8:18 P.M. ET:  Gingrich up.  He won't get the nomination, but he is always full of ideas, and his denunciation of Obama's leftist policies is right on.

8:15 P.M. ET:  Michele Bachmann is up at the plate.  I have to say, she gives terrific answers.  She's human, and yet very well informed.  You have to give her credit for coming so well informed.  So far, by the way, none of the candidates has stumbled.  Ron Paul is on now.  Look, I really think the guy is on the fringes. 

8:10 P.M. ET:  Rick Santorum is on.  Look, he won't get the nomination, and, frankly, as good a guy as he is, he's a distraction.  There are only two realistic candidates up there – Romney and Perry.  Maybe Bachmann, on the outside.  Now Herman Cain is up.  Again, great guy, good answer, but I sense that people are waiting for what they saw in the opening minutes – Perry vs. Romney.  And now Huntsman is up.  Speaking well, surprisingly so, since his campaign has tanked.  But the party doesn't really trust him with conservative values.

8:06 P.M. ET:  Second question is to Romney, also with a kind of sneering attitude by Williams.  Is his business experience that great?  Romney, like Perry, answers well. Very solid.  There's now a back-and-forth between Perry and Romney, and, I'm happy to say, both men are doing well.  Presidential.  Knowledgeable. 

8:03 PM. ET:  Rick Perry gets the first question from the very liberal anchorman, Brian Williams.  He's asked about some poor economic statistics in Texas.  He responds superbly, strongly, with details, correcting the mistakes in the Williams question.  Right away Perry is telling us he won't be blindsided by the MSM.  Good opening. 

September 7, 2011     Permalink

WE ARE ABOUT TO START OUR LIVE BLOGGING OF THE REPUBLICAN DEBATE FROM THE REAGAN LIBRARY, WHICH STARTS WITHIN SECONDS.  STAY WITH US.

GOOD STUFF – AT 12:33 P.M. ET:   We're always happy to alert readers to good things in which they can participate.  I recently received an e-mail from a chap named Mike Caputo, who's Public Insight Network Senior Analyst for American Public Media in Minnesota.  You may have read about his efforts recently at Power Line.

I subsequently had a conversation with Mr. Caputo, and was impressed with the work he and his organization are doing.  They provide a means by which members of the electorate can have their voices heard in the mainstream media, something of particular interest to conservatives.  Let me quote directly from Mr. Caputo's e-mail:

American Public Media (which runs Minnesota Public Radio) operates the Public Insight Network, which works with news organizations around the country <http://www.pinsight.org/>  to add context and relevance to issues like the presidential race. This network has more than 100,000 citizens who have agreed to be on-the-ground sources for those newsrooms. It could always use more.
 
In fact, we recognize the need to have more Republican and conservative voices that inform the news partners in this network, especially with the Republican nomination up for grabs. So we are making a specific plea for more people who describe themselves politically as Republican or conservative.

And that’s where Urgent Agenda comes in. Would you consider helping to make a link between your readers and this network?
 
We have an easy way to do this. The Public Insight Network has a short survey your readers could take. It’s aimed at putting voters’ stories first (rather than candidates’) and helping reporters understand more about what’s motivating and inspiring conservative voters this year. Here’s the link:
 
Assess the GOP presidential field ... and tell us what stories from your life should they know <http://www.publicinsightnetwork.org/form/apm/7cbbfe34279b/gop-voters-who-are-your-top-candidates-at-the-moment> .
 
This isn’t a poll. Instead, it’s designed to help journalists see what motivates and mobilizes citizens. Some people who respond could hear from a reporter wanting to learn more. Trends your readers identify will become the basis for more citizen-centered reporting in this campaign season.

COMMENT:  This is legit, and you might consider participating.  Every voice heard is important.   It is critical that reporters and editors hear from as many voters as possible, and actually get to know the electorate.

The late Charles Kuralt, who did the "On the Road" series for CBS, once told me that what impressed him most in all his travels around the U.S. was how well informed Americans are.  He was correct.  Americans are well informed, and they do listen.  To prove that, notice how tracking polls change instantly as soon as anything significant happens in a political campaign.  Well informed citizens should, in turn, inform the media, which can use citizen help.

September 7, 2011       Permalink

WILL REPUBLICANS GO TOO FAR? – AT 10:23 A.M. ET:  We regularly discuss here the conflict between ideology and electability that is going on inside both parties.  There are the true believers, then there are the believers, also true, who'd like a little power occasionally. 

Conservative writer Ramesh Ponnuru has written a very thoughtful column on this for Bloomberg.  It's worth mulling what he says, because blowing next year's election would be a sin for the Republican Party, and possibly lead to the party's splitting into endlessly warring factions.  From Bloomberg: 

In any presidential primary there’s a tension between the voters’ desire for a candidate who can win the general election and their desire for a candidate who shares their views -- between, in other words, ideology and electability. The more beatable Obama looks, the more the balance for Republican voters will tilt toward ideology and away from electability.

That doesn’t just mean they will be more likely to support candidates such as Michele Bachmann and Herman Cain, who will have trouble winning votes from independents and Democrats. It also means the terrain of the primaries will shift: The candidates will place more emphasis on outflanking one another on the right and less on showing they can win in November 2012.

Even if Obama were doing better, the Republican primary would put a heavy weight on ideology. Whenever someone suggests that a candidate can’t win, many conservatives retort that people said that about Reagan, too. (What they forget is that people also said it about Barry Goldwater, and they were right.)

And...

Already the Republican primaries have seen candidates take positions that will be hard sells in the fall of next year. Both Bachmann and former House Speaker Newt Gingrich, for example, want to abolish the Environmental Protection Agency. Polls suggest that while the public doesn’t consider environmental protection its top priority right now, it favors regulation and trusts Democrats over Republicans on the issue. Texas Governor Rick Perry has suggested that Social Security and Medicare are unconstitutional and that they should be replaced by state-run programs. There’s a reason no Republican candidate since 1964 has run on a platform anything like this one on entitlements: Both programs are extremely popular.

And...

It’s possible, of course, for a party to concentrate too much on electability and to care more about gaining power than about accomplishing anything with it. But at least a party that cares about electability is looking outward, beyond its members. Today’s Republican Party is more interested in refining its doctrines than gaining converts. It has turned inward.

That is good news for Obama, at a time when he isn’t getting much. The more his political standing falls, the more Republicans will think they are sure to beat him. And the more they think that, the less likely they will be to win.

COMMENT:  That is good reasoning.  Ronald Reagan showed us that a candidate can be both committed and electable at the same time, but Reagan did it by tempering his ideology with an ability to work with those who disagree. 

Reagan's political role model was Franklin Roosevelt, who very skillfully presented himself as a man who wanted to strengthen American institutions, not overthrow them.  He would borrow programs from, say, the socialist movement, but keep that movement at a distance.  (And please remember that, when abortion was a very hot issue, Ronald Reagan never addressed a pro-life rally in person.  He always did it by phone.)

Ironically, Obama succeeded, cynically, in convincing a good part of the electorate that he was a centrist when he ran in 2008, a practical man interested in practical solutions. 

America is an idealistic nation, but not an ideological one.  Ideology means far less here than in Europe, where it's golden.   There's an old line about a socialist saying, "I know it works in practice, but does it work in theory?"  Americans just want to know that it works.  The successful presidential candidate will understand that.

September 7, 2011       Permalink

ATTACK IN INDIA – AT 9:39 A.M. ET:   We are regularly reminded that terrorism continues as a major threat around the world.  There has been a new attack in India.  It was simple in its execution, the kind of attack American authorities dread could come here.  From AP, via Fox:

NEW DELHI – A powerful bomb hidden in a briefcase ripped through a crowd of people waiting to enter a New Delhi courthouse Wednesday, killing 11 people and wounding scores more in the deadliest attack in India's capital in nearly three years.

The blast at the gate outside the High Court was the second that targeted the building in five months and came despite a high alert across the city. It renewed doubts about India's ability to protect even its most important institutions despite a security overhaul that followed the 2008 Mumbai siege.

"Have we become so vulnerable that terrorist groups can almost strike at will?" opposition lawmaker Arun Jaitley said in Parliament.

The bomb left a deep crater on the road and shook the courthouse, sending lawyers and judges fleeing outside.

"There was smoke everywhere. People were running. People were shouting. There was blood everywhere. It was very, very scary," said Sangeeta Sondhi, a lawyer, who was parking her car near the gate when the bomb exploded.

A Muslim militant group claimed responsibility for the blast in an email, but investigators said it was too early to name any group as suspects. The government rallied Indians to remain strong in the face of such attacks.

COMMENT:  Some terror experts have wondered out loud why we haven't seen attacks of this kind in the United States.  There have, of course, been attempts – the attempt to blow up an airliner over Detroit, the attempt to set off a bomb in Times Square in New York – but they and other plots have failed.  Is it our good security?  Is it luck?  Is it the possibility that Al Qaeda and its allies only want to plan large attacks?

It's probably a combination of all three.  But the Department of Homeland Security has been warning about lone-wolf attacks, attacks carried out by individuals who may have been radicalized on the internet.  For the lone wolf, the "bomb in the suitcase" scenario is ideal. 

Eternal vigilance, my friends.  Eternal vigilance.

September 7, 2011       Permalink

IS THAT CASH OR CREDIT? – AT 9:10 A.M. ET:  Tomorrow, one day after the Republican debate at the Reagan Library, President Obama will unveil his jobs plan to Congress.  We are being told by the usual informed sources that it comes with a whopping price tag:

WASHINGTON (AP) — The economy weak and the public seething, President Barack Obama is expected to propose $300 billion in tax cuts and federal spending Thursday night to get Americans working again.

Republicans offered Tuesday to compromise with him on jobs — but also assailed his plans in advance of his prime-time speech.

In effect, Obama will be hitting cleanup on a shortened holiday week, with Republican White House contender Mitt Romney releasing his jobs proposals on Tuesday and front-running Texas Gov. Rick Perry hoping to join his presidential rivals Wednesday evening on a nationally televised debate stage for the first time.

Lawmakers began returning to the Capitol to tackle legislation on jobs and federal deficits in an unforgiving political season spiced by the 2012 presidential campaign.

More on the White House plan:

According to people familiar with the White House deliberations, two of the biggest measures in the president's proposals for 2012 are expected to be a one-year extension of a payroll tax cut for workers and an extension of expiring jobless benefits. Together those two would total about $170 billion.

The people spoke on the condition of anonymity because the plan was still being finalized and some proposals could still be subject to change.

The White House is also considering a tax credit for businesses that hire the unemployed. That could cost about $30 billion. Obama has also called for public works projects, such as school construction. Advocates of that plan have called for spending of $50 billion, but the White House proposal is expected to be smaller.

Obama also is expected to continue for one year a tax break for businesses that allows them to deduct the full value of new equipment. The president and Congress negotiated that provision into law for 2011 last December.

COMMENT:  The question is whether this is too little, too late.  Obama will have been in office three years in January.  Yet, only now does he seem to be getting serious about the unemployment crisis.

The bottom line here is that the United States is in trouble.  It will only get out of trouble if our economy grows dramatically.  No combination of budget cuts in Washington and federal programs can begin to compare with a growing economy as a solution.  But our economy is not growing, and one reason has got to be the loss of confidence in the president's leadership and the uncertainly that brings.  Even modest private citizens are fearful about making plans, buying large items or taking risks because of their fear of the future.  Companies are reluctant to hire workers, fearing their profits may be cut in a declining economy.

It took World War II finally to get us out of the Great Depression.  I hope we don't have to go that route again.

September 7, 2011        Permalink

SHOWDOWN AT THE REAGAN CORRAL – AT 8:35 A.M. ET:  The nationally televised Republican debte from the Reagan Library is on for tonight.  At last report, Governor Rick Perry of Texas, the current frontrunner, will attend, having skipped a debate over the weekend to supervise his state's response to wildfires. 

This will be the first presidential debate for Perry.  Eyes will be on him.  Will he be able to solidify his frontrunner status, or will he simply become the flavor of the month?  Will he show he can be a national candidate.  Or will he show – and many in the GOP fear this – that he's strictly Texas?

Eyes will also be on Mitt Romney, former frontrunner trying to win back his status after the initial Perry surge.  Will he attack Perry, quoting from Perry's own words to indict the Texas governor as an outside-the-mainstream extremist who could never get elected?

The jury tonight will be that great body of voters in the center who decide presidential elections.  Romney's problem is that, while he can appeal to that center, he fails to excite the much more conservative base.  Perry's problem is that he can excite the base, but may repel the center.

There will, of course, be tributes to Reagan flowing tonight.  But some analysts point out that Reagan might not be able to win the Republican nomination today.  A skilled politician and two-term governor of California, he might easily be seen as a compromiser, not ideologically acceptable to the Tea Party and its allies. 

While Obama's poll numbers are down, his numbers against individual Republican candidates remain quite respectable.  Beating him will not be easy.  I wish many in the Republican Party would start to understand that, and plan accordingly.

Of course, we'll be watching the debate carefully, and live blogging throughout.

September 7, 2011     Permalink

SEPTEMBER 6,  2011

SHORT TAKES ON THE DRIFTING WRECKAGE – AT 11:24 P.M. ET:

NEW VIDEO GAME – A new video game makes its entry into the marketplace, heralding a fresh era of political civility.  It's called "Tea Party Zombies Must Die."  The object of the deeply intellectual game is to destroy zombies who look like conservative figures, like Sarah Palin or Fox News analyst Brit Hume.  You can also shoot up the headquarters of Fox News.  We await comment on this from leading Democrats, the White House, and all those who lectured conservatives after the Tucson shootings.

CALIFORNIA, HERE I...NO, I'M NOT COMIN' – A new poll shows California voters increasingly downcast about the direction of the country.  At the same time, Californians of both parties are hardening their positions and urging leaders not to compromise their ideological positions.  Sounds like Student Government to me.  And despite the mess in Washington, Obama has the highest approval rating (50%) of any politician included in the poll.  Wasn't this the state where Ronald Reagan was governor?  Or was that another galaxy?

SHAKEUP – The Michele Bachmann campaign staff is being shaken up.  Ed Rollins, a respected Republican figure, is leaving his position in charge of Bachmann's day-to-day campaigning, but will stay on as an adviser.  His deputy is leaving altogether.  Rollins conceded what everyone already knows, that Bachmann hasn't been able to capitalize on her win in the Iowa straw poll because of Rick Perry's entry into the race.  Rollins also concedes that Bachmann is now the "third candidate" behind the leading pair of Romney and Perry.  Unless Perry self-destructs, I suspect Bachmann will not rise higher.

WHICH COUNTRY WILL BE THE LUCKY WINNER? – London's Telegraph reports that intensive talks are underway to allow Colonel Gaddafi to leave Libya and seek asylum in a sympathetic country.  (Or, of course, he could be made a professor at the Kennedy School of Government.  Can you imagine the party invitations?)  The Telegraph further reports that convoys carrying gold, cash and members of Gaddafi's inner circle traveled across the Libyan border in Niger earlier today, setting off the diplomatic scramble to resolve Gaddafi's housing problems.

September 6, 2011       Permalink

MILITARY GENIUS AT WORK – AT 8:57 P.M. ET:   President Obama has apparently blindsided his generals by approving a drastic reduction in American forces in Iraq.  There is substantial anger in the military.  From Fox:

The Obama administration has decided to drop the number of U.S. troops in Iraq at the end of the year down to 3,000, marking a major downgrade in force strength, multiple sources familiar with the inner workings and decisions on U.S. troop movements in Iraq told Fox News.

Senior commanders are said to be livid at the decision, which has already been signed off by Defense Secretary Leon Panetta.

Panetta, touring sites Tuesday in advance of the Sept. 11 10th commemoration, insisted "no decision has been made" on the number of troops to stay in Iraq.

"That obviously will be the subject of negotiations with the Iraqis and as a result of those negotiations. As I said no decision has been made of what the number will be," he said.

Currently, about 45,000 U.S. troops are stationed in Iraq. The generals on the ground had requested a reduced number of troops remaining in Iraq at the end of the year, but there was major pushback about "the cost and the political optics" of keeping that many in Iraq. The military's troop-level request was then reduced to 10,000.
Commanders said they could possibly make that work "in extremis," in other words, meaning they would be pushing it to make that number work security-wise and manpower-wise.

Now, sources confirm that the administration has pushed the Pentagon to cut the number even lower, and commanders are concerned for the safety of the U.S. troops who would remain there.

"We can't secure everybody with only 3,000 on the ground nor can we do what we need to with the Iraqis," one source said.

COMMENT:  Some pundits are speculating that domestic politics controlled this decision, a desire not to offend the leeft wing of the Democratic Party, which wants all American troops out of Iraq.  (Sometimes I think they want all American troops out of America as well.) 

That's probably correct.  There doesn't seem to be any legitimate military reason for such a drastic cut, but this will make the Obama base happy, and give them something to cheer about.

September 6, 2011        Permalink

NOT MUCH OPTIMISM ON THE STREET – AT 10:33 A.M. ET:  Wall Street isn't exactly saluting the return from Labor Day.  Right now the Dow is down 272 points, or 2.42%.  The S&P 500 is in even worse shape, down 2.63%.

Wall Street, of course, is only an indicator.  It isn't the real Main Street economy, but it does create a psychological effect on the nation that can be stimulating or devastating.  In the current case, there's plenty of devastation to go around.  Aside from domestic problems, the markets are looking at the mess in Europe, where decades of welfare state spending have led to a debt crisis. 

There is also a mindset building that our serious economic woes will go on for years, and that results are not guaranteed.  The only way we'll get out of our doldrums is through an expanding economy, and you can't have an expanding economy when no one has any confidence, and few are willing to take any risks.

Community organizers tend not to be very good at dealing with stuff like this.

September 6, 2011       Permalink

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

TRIPOLI, Libya – For the past two weeks, there have been jubilant parades in the streets as opposition fighters celebrate the capture of the capital and the dawn of a new era in this oil-rich North African state.  Away from the celebrations, there are some in the city who fear for the future and say they miss the stability and security of life during Moammar Gadhafi's 42 years in power.  "We lived in peace before. We had money. We had everything," Akram Mohammed Al Garbarji, 30, said as he waited to withdraw money from a bank in downtown Tripoli. "I love Gadhafi; I will die for Gadhafi."

Yeah, but if he dies for Gadhafi the bank won't let him withdraw his money because he couldn't present his photo I.D..  I guess he didn't figure that.  Only in the Mideast do people pine for the likes of Gadhafi.  And the rebel movements, which have our initial sympathy, have often turned out to be stalking horses for governments worse than the ones they're seeking to replace.  Great place, the Mideast.  Make sure to have a return ticket.   

BUMBLING BARACK – AT 9:22 A.M. ET:  What is it about Obama?  He was such a smooth candidate in 2008, but, as president, he messes up every time he opens his mouth.

He's going to give a major speech about jobs on Thursday to a joint session of Congress.  That's a big deal in Washington.  How often, as a friend of mine asks, does a president address Congress outside the State of the Union message?  So, you would think the president would try to build support from both sides of the aisle before the speech, demonstrating that, as president, he's above petty politics.

But Barack Obama has never been above petty politics.  He is petty politics.  The Chicago clubhouse all the way.  Consider his warm embrace of the Republican Party in a speech just yesterday, as the Washington Post reports:

DETROIT — Surrounded by thousands of labor union members chanting “four more years,” President Obama began a high-stakes campaign to jump-start the struggling economy with a broad range of job-creation programs. The coming proposals, he said, will show whether Republicans in Congress “can put country before party.”

Oh, that's just swell.  Question the patriotism of Republicans in Congress.  That ought to get them applauding when the president makes his grand entrance.  If a Republican president said that about Dems in Congress he'd, within five seconds, be labeled a modern-day McCarthyite.

And get this for nerve:

Obama, who is scheduled to deliver a speech to a joint session of Congress on Thursday, told the Labor Day rally of auto workers, health-care employees and school teachers that he will present a far-reaching jobs plan aimed at winning bipartisan support.

He's already questioned the Republicans' patriotism, and now he says he'll present a plan to win their support.  Does anyone read these presidential speeches before they're delivered?

And the real message:

“But we’re not going to wait for them,” he added. “We're going to see if we’ve got some straight shooters, see if congressional Republicans can put country before party. We’re going to give them a plan and say, ‘Do you want to create jobs? . . . Show us what you’ve got.’ ”

Translated into English:  We know we can't get anything through Congress, so we're going to do as much through executive action as possible. 

We'll be fair, of course, and wait to evaluate the president's ideas after his Thursday speech.  But one would think that, if he actually had any economic ideas, they'd have surfaced long before now. 

While the speech is anticipated, there is virtually no confidence that I can detect that the president will actually say anything significant.  The economy will react appropriately.

September 6, 2011       Permalink

THE TRUTH EMERGES – AT 9:10 A.M. ET:  When General David Petraeus was asked to leave his four-star rank, put on civvies and become director of Central Intelligence, many Petraeus watchers were baffled.  Was this a promotion?  An inspired naming of a successful general to an agency that often needs better guidance...or were the Obamans trying to shut Petraeus up?

If you checked (c), the shut-up option, you may well be right, according to reporting out today.  From The Politico:

Despite overwhelming popularity in Congress, retired General David Petraeus will be sworn in privately Tuesday as the director of the CIA because the White House wants to lower his profile amid concerns that he could be a loose cannon in the administration.

“Silent is what some in the White House want the well-connected former four-star general to remain,” writes the Associated Press Tuesday, according to three former and current U.S. officials.

White House officials who disagreed with Petraeus on a counterinsurgency troop surge are concerned that the former four-star general will use his influence with the media and Capitol Hill to pursue policies at odds with their goals.

Look, let's also add the bottom line here:  The White House fears Petraeus, who could have resigned from the Army and sought the GOP presidential nomination, which he probably would have gotten.  He'd then be seen as a modern-day Eisenhower, who ended the Republican Party's 20-year absence from the White House when he won election in 1952. 

Petraeus, who retired last week after 37 years in the military, was confirmed as CIA chief by a resounding vote of 94-to-0, an overwhelming show of support from what has been a divided Senate.

Gen. Petraeus’ influence was seen when he helped to persuade President Barack Obama to increase troops in Afghanistan - similar to Petraeus’ successful counterinsurgency strategy in Iraq - over the doubts of other advisors, such as Vice President Joe Biden.

COMMENT:  I'm just speculating, but I suspect that Petraeus is heading for oblivion.   The Dems are not going to let this man breathe, let alone think.  They don't like military men to begin with, and they know that Petraeus is the most popular soldier of his time.

I wonder how long Petraeus will last before he realizes he's been sidelined.

September 6, 2011        Permalink

WHERE OBAMA STANDS – AT 8:14 A.M. ET:  The political season unofficially starts today, and the president of the United States is, frankly, in poor political shape.  From the Washington Post:

Public pessimism about the direction of the country has jumped to its highest level in nearly three years, erasing the sense of hope that followed President Obama’s inauguration and pushing his approval ratings to a record low, according to a new Washington Post-ABC News poll.

More than 60 percent of those surveyed say they disapprove of the way the president is handling the economy and, what has become issue No. 1, the stagnant jobs situation. Just 43 percent now approve of the job he is doing overall, a new career low; 53 percent disapprove, a new high.

As part of a reinvigorated effort to regain momentum as he heads toward the 2012 election year, Obama traveled to Detroit on Monday for a Labor Day appearance that served as a prelude to his speech Thursday to a joint session of Congress in which he will unveil new proposals to create jobs.

The urgency for Obama to act is driven not just by the most recent unemployment report, which on Friday showed no job growth in August and the unemployment rate stuck at 9.1 percent, but also by the depth of the political hole in which the president finds himself. Even more than two-thirds of those who voted for Obama say things are badly off course.

I wonder what the other third are thinking.  Are we on course?

By this time in their presidencies, approval ratings for both Ronald Reagan and Bill Clinton — who also suffered serious midterm setbacks during their first term — had settled safely above the 50 percent mark. Both then stayed in positive territory throughout their reelection campaigns.

However, there is no room for relaxation on our side:

Obama does, however, rate better than do congressional Republicans, his adversaries in recent, fierce confrontations on federal spending. Just 28 percent approve of the way Republicans in Congress are doing their job, and 68 percent disapprove, the worst spread for the GOP since summer 2008.

COMMENT:  This is more or less consistent with other polls we've seen. Indeed, Gallup has had approval of the president as low as 38%. 

However, most polls also show Mr. Obama either tied with or defeating potential Republican rivals.   Public discontent with a president doesn't always lead to his defeat...if the public thinks the other side is worse.  The Republican Party remains unpopular, and its candidate for president must rise above that.  An NBC/Wall /Street Journal poll out today reports:

...in a hypothetical general election contest, Obama leads Texas Gov. Rick Perry by five points, 47 percent to 42 percent. And he leads former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney by one, 46 percent to 45 percent, though that margin is down five points since June.

But for the first time in the poll, more say they'd probably vote for a generic Republican candidate (44 percent) than say they'd probably vote for Obama (40 percent).

The headache is that this generic guy, whom everyone writes about, doesn't exist.  If he does exist, I wish he'd get his campaign together.

September 6, 2011     Permalink