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 - SIX MORE DAYS!

DAY 16

We are in our subscription drive's final week.

But we still haven't reached our goal.  

URGENT AGENDA SERIOUSLY NEEDS SUBSCRIPTIONS AND DONATIONS TO CONTINUE OUR WORK AT A HIGH LEVEL.

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 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 20,  2011

SHORT TAKES ON THE DRIFTING WRECKAGE - AT 11:42 P.M. ET:

CHRISTIE MULLING? – Ace political reporter John Fund tells us that there are signs Governor Chris Christie of New Jersey may be rethinking his emphatically stated decision not to enter the GOP presidential sweeps.  Christie, a tough-talking, effective governor, is a favorite among many conservatives.  As readers of Urgent Agenda know, I've long been skeptical of Christie.  While he polls strongly among men, he polls poorly among women, who often see him as a bully.  Polls in New Jersey say that Christie would lose his own state to Obama.  A colorful, blunt-talking governor does not automatically translate into a viable presidential candidate.  Governors control roads and bridges.  Presidents control nuclear weapons.

SARAH RISING? – A stunning new McClatchy-Marist poll has Sarah Palin within five points of Barack Obama in a 2012 presidential matchup.  Palin now trails 49-44%, after being behind more than 20 points in the same poll earlier this year.  Her progress comes from the fact that she now leads among independents.  Ironically, Rudy Giuliani would lead Obama 49-42%; Obama would lead Romney, 46-44%; Obama leads Perry 50-41%.  We stress that this is one poll.  We'd have to see these results verified by other polls to believe that it represents more than a snapshot in time.  Giuliani and Palin, of course, aren't even candidates.  Palin has suggested she'll have a decision soon.  Rudy may get in after the election.

WHOOPS – President Obama has often used the term "The New Foundation" to describe his policies designed to transform America.  Loyal reader Linda Gordon points out that the phrase comes from a line in the old Communist hymn, the Internationale:  "The earth shall rise on new foundations."  Now, we're not charging anything here, not at all.  As Linda says, it's no doubt pure coincidence.  But you'd think one of those brilliant scholars in the Obama White House would have recognized the line and guided the president away from any personal embarrassment.  We assume, of course, that there might be personal embarrassment.

NOT MUCH MORE GREEN IN GREENLAND – In another fumble for the Church of the Global Warming, the Times Comprehensive Atlas of the World, one of the most authoritative atlases, is retracting a claim in its new edition that Greenland has lost 15% of its ice cover in the last 12 years.  The actual number is reportedly closer to 0.1%, a dramatic difference.  The retraction comes in the aftermath of "Himalayagate," another global-warming scandal in which it was claimed that the Himalayas could be glacier-free by 2035 due to global warming.  The claim has been withdrawn.

September 20, 2011       Permalink 

STILL SLICK AFTER ALL THESE YEARS – AT 9:28 P.M. ET:   Bill Clinton has a way of reminding us periodically just how slick he can be, and that is not a compliment.

Apparently, Clinton has now bought into the whole climate-change bit, and he's gotten almost as bad as Al Gore.  I mean, just listen to this:

Bill Clinton turned up the heat on the leading Republican presidential contenders Tuesday, saying their opposition to acknowledging climate change makes the country “look like a joke.”

Factually incorrect.  Republicans do not dispute that climate changes.  Of course it does.  The issues are 1) the degree to which humans cause changes; 2) whether anything can be done about it without breaking the economic back of civilization; 3) whether anything should be done; 4) what should be done.

“If you’re an American, the best thing you can do is to make it politically unacceptable for people to engage in denial” about climate change, the former president said on the first day of the Clinton Global Initiative’s seventh annual meeting in New York City.

In other words, one must not ask questions.  And this man considers himself educated. 

“I mean, it makes us — we look like a joke, right? You can’t win the nomination of one of the major parties in the country if you admit that the scientists are right? That disqualifies you from doing it? You could really help us there,” Clinton added.

What scientists is he talking about?  There are some awfully big names among the dissenters, including Nobel laureates.  Are they all nuts?  Do they all work for oil companies?  Clinton, Gore, and their crowd are getting awfully close to the old Soviet tactic of declaring mentally ill anyone who dissents.

Kicking off the three-day conference, Clinton called the lack of debate in America on climate change “really tragic.”

COMMENT:  Well, Mr. Clinton, who's responsible for the lack of debate?  It's your side, which declares global warming "settled science" and refuses to discuss the serious doubts.  But there's no such thing as settled science.  By its nature, science is unsettled, and always subject to inquiry.

Also, many people are becoming aware of how much money is being made on the climate change industry.  I'm not saying that Clinton has cashed in, but Gore certainly has.  And yet the press will ask no questions.

Clinton's whole tone is ugly, more appropriate for a totalitarian state than a democracy. 

September 20, 2011       Permalink

MORE JOYOUS ECONOMIC NEWS – AT 10:51 A.M. ET:  The International Monetary Fund brings us greetings, the kind of greetings we'd prefer not to hear:

WASHINGTON (AP) -- The world economy has entered a "dangerous new phase," according to the chief economist of the International Monetary Fund. As a result, the international lending organization has sharply downgraded its economic outlook for the United States and Europe through the end of next year.

The IMF expects the U.S. economy to grow just 1.5 percent this year and 1.8 percent in 2012. That's down from its June forecast of 2.5 percent in 2011 and 2.7 percent next year.

To achieve even that still-low level of growth, the U.S. economy would need to expand at a much faster rate in the second half of the year than its 0.7 percent annual pace in the first six months.

Most economists expect growth of between 1.5 percent and 2 percent in the final two quarters. Though an improvement, it wouldn't be enough to lower the unemployment rate. The rate has been 9 percent or higher in all but two months since the recession officially ended more than two years ago.

"The global economy has entered a dangerous new phase," said Olivier Blanchard, the IMF's chief economist. "The recovery has weakened considerably. Strong policies are needed to improve the outlook and reduce the risks."

The IMF has also lowered its outlook for the 17 countries that use the euro. It predicts 1.6 percent growth this year and 1.1 percent next year, down from its June projections of 2 percent and 1.7 percent, respectively.

COMMENT:  What the Fund does not cover is that this kind of economic stress can eventually lead to social and political unrest.  We have seen hints of that in Europe, where riots have broken out in Greece and Spain.  And economic stress can also lead to unwise decisions that can have catastrophic effects a decade or two down the line – decisions involving risky cuts in defense budgets, for example.

It is a time for strong, informed leadership.  We don't have that, and we must depend on an upcoming election to correct the problem.

September 20, 2011       Permalink

SNIPPET OF THE DAY – AT 10:17 A.M. ET:

From London's Telegraph:   Britain is about to experience an early winter, with snow expected to arrive as soon as next month, forecasters have warned.  Temperatures over the next three months will plummet to below average with one long-range forecaster predicting snowfalls in October.  James Madden, of Exacta Weather, said: ‘I expect to see the first signs of some moderate to heavy snowfalls as early as October or November in certain parts of the UK.

Now remember, this is caused by global warming, just as the recent Texas heat was caused by global warming.  Oh, also, bad television ratings and bad hair days.  Al Gore will be flying to Britain in his private jet to blame the snows on Exxon-Mobil.

OBAMA'S HISPANIC SUPPORT WOBBLY – AT 9:48 A.M. ET:  Hispanics are the fastest-growing ethnic group in America, and were a major component of the Obama coalition in 2008.  But there are signs that Hispanic support for the president is slipping, something that could cost him the election.  From the Washington Post, via London's Telegraph:

In recent Gallup polling, his approval rating among Latinos dipped to 48 percent — the lowest mark of his presidency and a significant drop-off from the 60 percent approval among the group he carried as recently as January. Obama’s approval rating among Hispanics is now just seven points higher than it is among the general public in Gallup data, a major decline from earlier in his term.

And polling conducted by Resurgent Republic, a conservative-aligned group, shows Obama under-performing his 2008 totals in key swing states with large Hispanic populations.

In Florida, where Obama won 57 percent of the Latino vote in 2008, 48 percent of Hispanics say he deserves a second term. Ditto in New Mexico, where Obama carried Latinos with 69 percent but now sees just 58 percent of that voting bloc willing to say he should be reelected.

Does this mean the Hispanic vote is up for grabs.  Republicans say yes.  But Dems say, absolutely not:

Joel Benenson, Obama’s lead pollster, pointed to an August tracking poll from ImpreMedia/Latino Decisions that showed that 72 percent of Hispanic voters said Republicans either “didn’t care” or were “hostile” to the Hispanic community as evidence that Obama’s number is likely to improve once Republicans pick their nominee.

There is reason to that.  Republicans still do not understand how unpopular their party is.  Obama may be down, even far down, but Americans don't love Republicans, although they might, at times, adore an individual Republican, like Eisenhower or Reagan.  When one thinks of political romance, the letters GOP do not come immediately to mind.

One notable Republican exception could be Texas Gov. Rick Perry, who has sounded a largely moderate note on immigration during his presidential campaign; at a debate last week in Florida, he defended a measure he signed into law in 2001 that allows some illegal immigrants to attend state colleges and universities at in-state tuition rates.

Perry knows the Hispanic community.  He could possible make inroads. 

“The question that we won’t know the answer to for some time is whether they will vote for him at the same levels as 2008 or whether their sky-high vote for him will drop,” said Republican pollster Glen Bolger. “Those are the questions that likely have Democrat Latino strategists losing sleep at night.”

COMMENT:  May their insomnia increase.

September 20, 2011       Permalink

A MOVE TOWARD ROMNEY? – AT 9:22 A.M. ET:  Increasingly, it looks like a two-man race in the GOP, unless one of them self-destructs or some prince or princess comes in and shakes things up.

Michael Gerson, of the Washington Post, formerly chief speechwriter for President Bush 43, clearly believes Romney will be the better choice, and thinks that's who the party will ultimately choose as its standard bearer:

Would an economic crisis favor a revolutionary candidate or a reassuring candidate?

In Rick Perry and Mitt Romney, we have undiluted representatives of each type. Perry is purposely provocative in style and content. He questions the legitimacy of 70 years of federal entitlement commitments. He proposes a fundamental reordering of the relationship between the federal government and the states. He is highly critical of the Federal Reserve and its chairman. Perry’s specific economic policies remain defiantly unspecific, but his rhetoric and intentions are ideologically ambitious.

Romney is running at Perry from the reassuring center. Both are harshly critical of Obama’s economic policies. But unlike Perry, Romney refuses to hurl the accusation of “socialism.” Romney argues that an overbroad condemnation of Social Security would leave Republicans “obliterated as a party.” His own 59-point economic plan contains a “number of options” for incremental entitlement reform — an approach the Wall Street Journal has criticized as “timid and tactical.” But Romney’s timidness on some issues is his main tactic against Perry. With the economy suffering a series of complex maladies, who wants a surgeon who performs only amputations?

And...

But if this is the choice during a period of national stress, the advantage goes to the reassuring. During the financial panic of September 2008, John McCain’s response was emotional and chaotic — suspending his presidential campaign in order to make time for a series of rash and contradictory statements. Obama said little of interest, but he said it calmly. And he benefited greatly.

Within the Republican Party, primary voters have a history of preferring less ideologically vivid, more electable candidates. Iowa caucus-goers — disproportionately religious and conservative since the late 1980s — do their best to change this habit. But they seldom pick the eventual winner in contested races.

And...

None of these historical precedents make Romney a shoo-in. But they indicate his prospects are better than his current polling. Perry is a perfect candidate for a time of Tea Party anger — say, around 2010. But Romney has a better case in a time of economic fear — like the one we may be entering — when competence becomes a desperate political demand. In this case, Republicans may choose, once again, not the purist they love but the old hand they trust.

COMMENT:  One can agree or disagree with Gerson's logic, but I think he makes sense.  Rick Perry is the current Republican man of the hour.  But polling shows his progress is stalling, perhaps because voters want to see more substance, less swagger.  That's why Thursday's debate from Orlando is so critical.  It isn't make or break, but Perry must show that he has the stuff of the presidency.  Romney must show that he's the man to be trusted in precarious times.

I look forward to this debate.  Things are starting to be defined on the Republican side.

September 20, 2011      Permalink

QUOTE OF THE DAY – AT 8:45 A.M. ET:  The New York Times reviews "Confidence Men," by Ron Suskind, which paints a devastating picture of a dysfunctional Obama White House.  From the review:

The president’s own assessment of his first two years in office? Mr. Suskind says Mr. Obama told him that he, along with Bill Clinton and Jimmy Carter, shared “the disease of being policy wonks,” that he had been “very comfortable with a technocratic approach to government,” and that he needed to focus on the bigger picture. “Going forward as president,” he said in the February 2011 interview, “the symbols and gestures — what people are seeing coming out of this office — are at least as important as the policies we put forward.”

COMMENT:  It's nice to know the president understands.  He comes, though, from the "intellectual" world, a world in which the human factor is often discounted, in favor of technocratic policies that are cold at heart.

Great presidents always understand that leadership has a spiritual component.  That may not mean religion, although religion must be a part of any American leader's outlook.  The spiritual component, including symbols and gestures, reassures the nation that the president is "part of us," that he understands and is with us.

Lincoln understood the spiritual.  It's one of the factors that made his speeches great, that made him a moral, as well as a political leader.  Franklin D. Roosevelt understood it, as he prayed with the nation on D-Day.  Ronald Reagan understood it, as he consoled the nation after the Challenger disaster.

This current chap hasn't got a clue.

The man who could run such a brilliant campaign has little understanding of his office.  He seems not to like his own country, and to feel himself above it.  He speaks beautifully, but really says nothing.  He would undoubtedly scoff at lines like, "Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall." 

Part of the spiritual side of leadership is understanding, as great military leaders do, the importance of morale.  American morale is in the basement right now, and we have a president who, unlike the optimistic Mr. Reagan, has no idea how to speak to us in ways that would envision a better future.  He can't do it, because I'm not really sure he believes in it. 

September 20, 2011     Permalink

SEPTEMBER 19,  2011

SHORT TAKES ON THE DRIFTING WRECKAGE – AT 10:43 P.M. ET:

RETURN MATCH – Linda McMahon, defeated by Democrat Richard Lumen in last year's Senate race in Connecticut, will announce her candidacy this week for the Senate seat being vacated by Joe Lieberman next year.  McMahon is a former CEO of WWE, the wrestling folks, an organization she ran with her husband Vince.  Her wrestling background proved more than controversial in her 2010 bid for the Senate, as professional wrestling is not seen as a pristine sport.  Figure skating it ain't.   But McMahon could finance her own campaign, which sold her to the party.  Her primary opponent this time will probably be former Republican Congressman Chris Shays.  We don't know who the Democratic candidate will be, but he (or she) will be heavily favored in Connecticut.

FORGET SATURDAY MAIL – President Obama has endorsed a Postal Service idea to end Saturday mail deliveries to help close the service's massive deficit.  The USPS lost 8.5 billion last year.  That's dollars, not letters.  The service is losing out to e-mail, a decline in advertising mail due to the recession, and competition from faster package carriers.  It is also burdened by an excess number of post offices, kept open at the insistence of members of Congress.  It is the only business forced by law to keep unprofitable stores open.  Right now the USPS does not get any tax dollars.  It's hard to see how it can function without subsidies.  There just isn't enough business, and even that is likely to decline.

THE PHONINESS OF IT ALL – Saudi Arabia is contributing $10-million for a new counterterrorism center at the UN in New York.  That's like a society of sex offenders building a new headquarters for the Girl Scouts.  I suspect, and I think with good reason, that this "gift" has little to do with counterterrorism, but much to do with getting the emphasis away from Islamic extremism.  Some 15 of the 19 hijackers of 9-11 were from Saudi Arabia, and Saudi Arabia is the leading exporter of very extreme interpretations of Islam.  But the powerful, and vastly wealthy, Saudi lobby in America continues to portray the Saudis as wonderful fellas.  See much reporting on that lobby?

BAN THEM, BAN THEM! – A new academic study says that about 1,000 pedestrians are injured by bike riders each year in New York State.  Bikes, of course, are one of the darlings of the greenies, who would like to see us all on two-wheelers to avoid those awful, sinful automobiles.  New York City for years has tried to encourage bike riding, creating bike lanes in congested Manhattan.  (I have dodged more than my share of bikes, especially those piloted by messengers.)  I wonder what the new statistic will do to the promotion of bike riding.  Will six-year-old Johnnie have to get a bike license?  Appear in court?  Of course, we could ban bikes, but then only the outlaws will have them.

September 19, 2011       Permalink

MR. CANDIDATE TACKLES THE ECONOMY – AT 8:26 P.M. ET:  Barack Obama, the perpetual candidate who is happiest running for something and unhappiest when actually doing the job, proved again today that candidacy is his game, his only game.

Al Smith, the late governor of New York and the Democratic candidate for president in 1928, was called "the happy warrior."  But, as a candidate, he was absolutely glum-faced when compared to battlin' Barack.  The president put forward his deficit-reduction plan today, and even his partisans declared it primarily a campaign document.  From Dan Balz at the Washington Post:

Rarely has this president been as blunt in his challenges to the other party as he was on Monday. Rarely has he been so willing to draw lines in the sand. Rarely has he waved the threat of a veto with such emphasis...

...With his own political standing weakened and his base in near-revolt, the president may have had no choice other than to reappraise both his economic and his political strategy. Attempting to stay above the fray and appealing for at least a temporary cessation in the partisan wars in Washington was no longer an option.

Gone is any illusion that he and Boehner can really make a deal along the lines discussed during the summer — a deal that would take a serious bite out of entitlements, particularly Medicare, and include some new taxes. Gone too is his willingness to offer anything that would make his base even more estranged that it already is. Instead, Obama is under pressure to produce a program that can produce jobs and to reassert his standing as the leader of Democrats...

...With more force than at any time in his presidency, Obama pressed his argument of mutual sacrifice, with a significant share of it aimed at the wealthiest Americans. His call for an end to the Bush tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans and a millionaires’ tax (in the name of billionaire Warren Buffett) on top was greeted by charges of class warfare from his Republican critics. “This is not class warfare,” he said. “It’s math.”

Finally...

Obama’s speech was obviously anything but a blueprint designed to produce bipartisan consensus. For now, those days are over. Instead, the president has decided he must win the battle for public opinion in the debate between his vision and that of the Republicans if he hopes to win a second term in office.

He believes the American people are with him on the broad outlines and values he espoused Monday. The campaign that began on Sept. 8 in the House chamber continued Monday in the Rose Garden, with a weakened president fighting to win that battle.

COMMENT:  Say what you will, these boys know their politics.  The president's proposals today, a combination of tax increases on the wealthy, corporations, and other unpopular entities, cuts in tax breaks for oil companies, and some deficit reduction, will play well in many constituencies out there, and will help solidify the Democratic base.  The president also defends Social Security and Medicare, two very popular programs. 

The Republicans naturally declared the plan dead on arrival.  But in so doing they appeared to be reinforcing their image as the party that exists primarily to protect certain economic classes.  This may be unfair, but politics isn't about nice rules for nice people.

The ball is in the Republican court.  They could begin by attacking crony capitalism, as Sarah Palin and an increasing number of conservatives have done, realizing that corruption in the free enterprise system grates on Americans, infuriates them, and weakens pro-capitalism arguments.  Then the GOP must come up with an economic plan that works, actually creates jobs, and has about it the sense of fairness.  It is not easy, but the future of this country will be heavily influenced by next year's election, and I fear the Republicans, never a swift party, might be left at the starting gate by an unpopular president whose greatest ability is counting votes.

September 19, 2011      Permalink

SNIPPET OF THE DAY – AT 6:09 P.M. ET:

When Hurricane Irene swept over the Northeast, it washed away pumpkin patches, leaving retailers scrambling to find pumpkins from other parts of the U.S. to stock for consumers. Wet, rainy weather continues to offer the threat of mold that could decimate crops that initially survived Irene. To add insult to injury, an early frost may have put the icing on the proverbial cake for the pumpkin crops in the Northeast. With 2011 already seeing corn shortages that were made worse by weather conditions during the year, another crop shortage is not a good thing.

Since we all know that global warming caused Hurricane Irene, as well as heat waves, blizzards, and a shortage of good comedy writers, we can now expect Al Gore to say that those who deny global warming are also anti-Halloween.  What horrible people!  When your child can't get a pumpkin, just sit down with her, or him, and relate how the bad people won't invest in Al Gore's companies.  But if they did, more pumpkins!  Isn't the world simple? 

WHAT A TURKEY – AT 10:45 A.M. ET:  Ah, for the good old days, when Turkey was a secular nation, a firm ally of the United States, and a reliable member of NATO.

Turkey even fought with us in Korea, and its fighters were among the best.

But in the last ten years Turkey has become increasingly Islamic, and nutty.  Turkey borders on Iraq, but Turkey refused to help our efforts there.  It has enjoyed a good, and productive, relationship with Israel.  That is in shreds.  And, while still a member of NATO, one wonders why.  At one time Turkey was a bulwark against the Soviet Union, which hasn't existed for two decades. 

Now Turkey is developing illusions of grandeur.  And these illusions can hurt America in the Mideast.  From the Jerusalem Post:

Turkish Foreign Minister Ahmet Davutoglu said that Ankara is seeking a partnership between Turkey and Egypt that will create a new axis of power in the Middle East at a time when US influence in the region is waning.

Isn't it great to read that American influence is waning.  Another contribution by Barack Obama.

“This will not be an axis against any other country — not Israel, not Iran, not any other country, but this will be an axis of democracy, real democracy,” Davutoglu said in an interview published in Monday's New York Times. “That will be an axis of democracy of the two biggest nations in our region, from the north to the south, from the Black Sea down to the Nile Valley in Sudan,” he added.

Just what the region needs – an increasingly Islamist Turkey allied with an unstable and unpredictable Egypt. 

Turkey's ambitions are driven by its prime minister, Recep Tayyip Erdogan, who sees himself as the head of a new Arab empire, a modern-day reflection of Turkey's Ottoman Empire. 

But, analysts say Erdogan’s regional ambitions can only come at the cost of Egypt’s standing as the Arab world’s leading power. Faced with a slumping economy and an uncertain political future, Cairo may be in a weak position to compete with Ankara, but it is likely to resist becoming the junior member of a partnership.

“This isn’t going to be an easy relationship to manage. These countries have been competitors in the game of regional influence, with Egypt wanting to play a lead role in the Arab world and Turkey trying to increase its influence,” Sinan Ulgen, director of Turkey’s Centre for Economic and Foreign Policy Studies (Edam) and a visiting scholar at the Carnegie Institution, told The Media Line.

COMMENT:  President Obama's weakness, and his appeasement-style "outreach" to the Muslim world, is creating a power vacuum in the Mideast, and those stepping forward to fill it are a pretty unsavory lot. 

And what is incredible is that Obama's standing in the region has declined, despite all he has done to win friends there.  Bottom line, what is appreciated in the Mideast is power, the "strong horse" as Osama bin Laden correctly said.  We are increasingly seen as a weak horse.  If our defense budget is slashed substantially, we'll be a weak puppy.  And the wild dogs might just take over.

September 19, 2011     Permalink

SOME GOOD NEWS ON CRIME – AT 9:29 A.M. ET:   The FBI has just released crime statistics for last year.  There's progress here:

According to the figures released today by the FBI, the estimated number of violent crimes in 2010 declined for the fourth consecutive year. Property crimes also decreased, marking this the eighth straight year that the collective estimates for these offenses declined.

The 2010 statistics show that the estimated volumes of violent and property crimes declined 6.0 percent and 2.7 percent, respectively, when compared with the 2009 estimates. The violent crime rate for the year was 403.6 offenses per 100,000 inhabitants (a 6.5 percent decrease from the 2009 rate), and the property crime rate was 2,941.9 offenses per 100,000 persons (a 3.3 percent decrease from the 2009 figure).

COMMENT:  There is something quite fascinating here.  The decline is coming at a time of substantial economic stress.  Now, how many times have you heard that "poverty causes crime"?  It's one of the chiseled-in-stone talking points of the political left.  In fact, the crime rate actually went down during the Great Depression.  I don't know why this is so, but it calls into question much of what is taught by trendy sociologists.

The fact is that, over the last 20 years, crime in New York City has declined dramatically, largely due to vast improvements in policing.  It may well be that the national decline in offenses reflects the fact that other areas are learning New York's lessons.  When the criminal has a high expectation that he will be caught, and successfully prosecuted, he might choose another endeavor, like work. 

Crime is best studied on a locality-by-locality basis.  Some places never seem to improve much, others improve dramatically.  Examine carefully the quality of local leadership and its attitude toward law enforcement.

September 19, 2011      Permalink 

MICHELE, WE HARDLY KNEW YE – AT 9:06 A.M. ET:  Is Michele Bachmann toast?   Frankly, that is the growing opinion of political observers, who have watched her campaign tank since Rick Perry entered the race.  They both appeal to the same constituencies, and it was expected that Bachmann would take some backers from Perry.

But the problem is deeper.  When she entered the race, Bachmann carried some real baggage.  Known as intelligent and well prepared, she also was known as a shoot-from-the-hip speaker who often "misspoke," got facts wrong, and often had to backtrack – not the traits you want in a president.

Last week, in attacking Rick Perry, Bachmann may well have gone too far, and there's been a backlash.  As governor, Perry once tried to order girls in Texas to be vaccinated with Gardasil, a drug that could prevent cervical cancer.  Perry now concedes that he should have proceeded more carefully, and in consultation with the legislature, but even critics concede his heart was in the right place.

Look, required vaccinations are a fact of life all over America, and in our armed forces.  In most school districts, you can't go to school without first getting "your shots."  It's a public health issue.  But Bachmann, in a way over-the-top attack, suggested that Perry was some kind of monster, preying on "innocent" little girls.  It did not go down well.  Later, she passed on a story from a mother who claimed Gardasil caused mental problems in her daughter.  There is absolutely no evidence to back that up, but Bachmann hasn't apologized. 

One piece of advice I'd give to politicians:  Don't give medical advice. 

Columnist Michael A. Walsh, in the New York Post, puts it this way:

The way Bachmann chose to go after Perry -- berating him for “government injections” of “innocent little 12-year-old girls” -- made it sound like the Texan was ordering up fiendish medical experiments instead of responding to legitimate public-health concerns.

Further, there is nothing wrong with states ordering vaccinations -- they do it all the time with infectious diseases like polio, and save millions of lives.

It’s fine for Bachmann to raise the issue of possible “crony capitalism” -- Perry’s former chief of staff was a lobbyist working for the vaccine’s manufacturer, Merck. But she went way over the line when, after the debate, she repeated the evil lie that vaccines can cause autism.

Bachmann, wrote former Bush speechwriter Michael Gerson, “seems prone to a serious condition: the compulsive desire to confirm every evangelical stereotype of censorious ignorance.”

COMMENT:   Sadly, I have to agree.  When Michele Bachmann entered the race we bent over backwards at Urgent Agenda to be fair to her.  This angered some readers, and one, a prominent individual and subscriber, canceled his subscription.  But our view here is that we come to conclusions after we see the evidence, not before.  Our growing feeling is that Michele Bachmann, in many respects a wonderful woman, bright and passionate, needs further work as a candidate.  This is not her year.  We hope she will grow, and become a force for responsible conservatism in the future.

September 19, 2011       Permalink

ANOTHER RUMBLE, ANOTHER SHOW – AT 8:33 A.M. ET:  There will be another Republican debate this week, Thursday night to be exact.  It will be on Fox, and will mark the third outing for Rick Perry.

Perry was less than overwhelming in his last debate, often failing to present a coherent picture of his views, and appearing to lose steam as the debate progressed.  But he is known as a fast learner in campaigns, and we will be looking to see an improved performance.

Perry continues to lead in GOP polls, but we sense, in stories across the internet, that he's now beginning to get greater scrutiny, both positive and negative.  On the positive side, Perry comes off as genuine, strong-willed, and, yes, often compassionate.  On the negative side, both pundits and Republican insiders wonder about his electability.  He is, on paper, easy to run against – with a series of controversial statements about Social Security and Medicare, and a tendency to wear religion on his sleeve.  For many independents that may, unfairly or not, mark him as "strictly Texas."  From The Politico:

Last weekend, at a meeting of Pennsylvania Republicans in Harrisburg, there were unmistakable concerns that Perry atop the ticket could make life harder for candidates running down-ballot in the southeast region of the state, which encompasses Philadelphia and its vote-rich suburbs.

Most agreed that Romney would be an easier sell to the fiscally conservative, socially liberal voters who play an outsize role in deciding both statewide and swing district congressional races.

“I don’t think Rick Perry is going over real well in the southeast,” said suburban state Sen. John Rafferty, who’s running for state attorney general. “Romney would do better.”

Michael Meehan, the Philadelphia GOP leader and influential state party southeast caucus chairman, deadpanned of a Perry-leading ticket: “It wouldn’t be the first time that it’s every candidate for himself.”

Other Republicans from traditionally competitive states echo these concerns — but are hesitant to say so on the record out of fear of offending the potential nominee.

“I think Perry is just too hot,” said a longtime Ohio strategist, suggesting that Obama couldn’t scare swing voters about Romney the way he could with the Texan.

And yet, on the other hand, some Republicans say this is a "big theme" election, and that Republicans must nominate a man who paints with broad strokes, as Ronald Reagan did in 1980.  They point out that the Republican establishment was afraid of Reagan as well.

The problem, of course, is that Perry isn't Reagan.  Whether he can grow during the primaries is an open question.

As for Romney, he is on the attack, and he comes off well.  One thing about Romney, he is well prepared.  This will be a fascinating debate, with Romney hoping to level the field and Perry hoping to hang onto his lead.  Neither man, at this stage, has a lock on anything.

September 19, 2011     Permalink