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.

OUR DAILY SNIPPETS ARE HERE.

SUNDAY,  APRIL 18,  2010

CHAVEZ LOOKS EAST – AT 9:03 P.M. ET:  Hugo Chavez is raking it in from a variety of sources – Russia, Iran, and now China.  Threat to us?  Nah.  Just multiculturalism:

CARACAS, Venezuela (AP) - President Hugo Chavez has announced an agreement with China that would have the Asian economic giant devote $20 billion to financing long-term development projects in Venezuela.

The Venezuelan president says the financing would go toward industrial and infrastructure projects, among other development plans.

He spoke Saturday during a televised appearance attended by China's natural resources minister.
Chavez is providing few other details about the investments.

COMMENT:  Will the White House please wake up and pay some attention to this.  The reds are back, and Hugo's got 'em.  He's the new Castro, vastly more powerful because of Venezuela's oil wealth.  I wouldn't be shocked to see foreign bases near Caracas fairly soon.

Obama probably sees Chavez as an "understandable reaction to America's mistakes."  Which is why Obama must be shown the door, politely.

April 18, 2010    Permalink

CRIST NOT GETTING HEAVY INDY SUPPORT – AT 8:39 P.M. ET:  One of the big political questions right now is whether Republican Governor Charlie Crist of Florida, trailing badly behind Marco Rubio in the U.S. Senate primary, will run as an independent in November.  A recent poll showed Crist would win a three-man race, but would edge out Rubio only by a few points.

Republicans are not rushing to Crist's side:

Some of Florida Gov. Charlie Crist’s top fundraisers are warning that they will no longer support him if he bolts the Republican Party to run for the Senate as an independent.

It's not entirely clear what his intentions are, but with his veto Thursday of an education reform bill favored by Republicans and repeated refusal all week to say whether he still would seek the GOP nomination, Crist has ratcheted speculation to a fever pitch.

He has until April 30 to decide whether he’ll stay in a primary in which he trails former state House Speaker Marco Rubio by over 20 points or pursue a third-party candidacy.

If he abandons the GOP race, a group of his most prominent supporters indicate they will not follow him.

“I’m a Republican and I’m going to support the Republican candidate,” said John Rood, the state GOP finance chairman, a former ambassador to the Bahamas and one of Florida’s biggest contributors to Republican causes.

COMMENT:   I suspect that Republican elders will have some heart-to-hearts with Crist, who has no chance of winning the GOP Senate primary.  He's 23 points down.  Discussions like this often involve words like "judgeship" and "ambassadorship." 

Rubio should win easily over the Dem candidate, with Crist out of the race.  Crist will, during these heart-to-hearts, be reminded of what will happen to him if he becomes the spoiler and allows the Dem to win.  There are political equivalents to "sleeping with the fishes." 

My guess is that Crist will graciously withdraw and endorse Rubio, even offering to campaign for him.  Then he will have a political future, guaranteed.

April 18, 2010    Permalink

MULLEN ON IRAN – AT 8:17 P.M. ET:  The chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff has spoken out about Iran, on the day we learned that his boss, Secretary of Defense Robert Gates, warned President Obama that we have no real strategy to deal Iran if it goes nuclear.  From Fox:

President Obama's principal military advisor said Sunday that all options are the table for dealing with the Iran nuclear threat and if the President calls for military action, the U.S. is prepared.

At a forum at Columbia University in New York, Admiral Mike Mullen, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff stressed, however, that "use of the military should be the last option" should diplomatic engagement and sanctions fail, because any attack against Iran would entail serious "known and unknown consequences."

Responding to press reports that Defense Secretary Robert Gates has warned in a memo to top White House officials that the U.S. lacks an effective policy for dealing with Iran, Admiral Mullen said, "We at the Pentagon, we plan for contingencies all the time and certainly there are [military] options which exist." He said he has worried about a nuclear armed Iran for a long time because of President Ahmadinejad's unbridled threats against Israel and "worry that other countries in the region will then seek to, actually, I know they will seek nuclear weapons, as well."

When asked whether giving more time to diplomatic efforts to resolve the crisis put the U.S. military at a disadvantage in maximizing any potential strike against Iran, Admiral Mullen said, "it is being taken into consideration in the decision calculus, if you will, to strike." He said that clearly there is "not much decision space to work in," because Iran "having a weapon and striking [against Iran] generate consequences that are unpredictable."

COMMENT:  Clearly, the top uniformed officer at the Pentagon is seeking to reassure the country that American military planners would know how to strike Iran if the order came...if you can imagine it coming from this president. 

But I wish the Iranian threat would be described in more detail.  Yes, Iran is a threat to Israel and, yes, an Iranian bomb would probably start a nuclear arms race in the Middle East.  But the far greater threat Iran poses is that it could sail a nuclear device into an American port in the hold of a cargo ship and use a suicide crew to set it off, with no way of tracing the origin of the weapon.  And further, Iran could give nuclear components to terror groups, if it chose to, magnifying Iran's power if it Tehran possessed only five or six bombs.

April 18, 2010     Permalink

OH YES, HE DOES HAVE EXPERIENCE – AT 11:51 A.M. ET:  One of the charges hurled by our side against Barack Obama during the presidential campaign was that he lacked experience.  Now, we meant grown-up experience, the kind of thing you can do after you get your senior license. 

But, in fact, Barack Obama did have experience...in Illinois politics.  What he learned there he seems to be applying on a national scale.  And what did he learn?  Well, just look at Illinois today, after the legacy of "progressive" politics that Obama and his comrades left:

If you want to know what “progressive” policies will do to America in the long run, look no farther than the president’s home state....Despite the recession, there is no good reason that Illinois should be bleeding jobs and that its state budget should be on life support...

...Less than a decade ago, the state had money in the bank, unemployment was low and the outlook was bright. Illinois even managed to shrug off the mini-recession that followed 9-11 with barely a pause. Then, in 2003, Democrats took over complete control of state government, brimming with progressive policies that – cross their hearts and hope to die – wouldn’t hurt the state’s budget or damage its economy one little bit. Happy days, the bedazzled citizens of Illinois were told, were here again.

Seven years later, the Illinois’ economy is lies in smoldering ruins thanks to the progressive policies foisted upon its citizens by a cabal of Democrats that included then-state senator Barack H. Obama. Illinois ranks forty eighth in the nation in job loss, with over 200,000 jobs lost in 2009 alone and unemployment over eleven per cent. Our leading exports used to be corn and soybeans. Today, our number one export is college graduates, because young adults can’t find jobs in the state that gave them their education. In 2000, Illinois debt basically matched revenues. Now, the state’s total debt totals over $100 billion, almost four times annual revenue.

And...

There’s an object lesson here, for Illinois’ road to near-bankruptcy is eerily, and disturbingly, similar to the path that Congress and the Obama administration is leading the nation down today.

Finally...

Conservatives frequently hang the tag “socialist” on the president. The fact that he learned his political trade in Illinois suggests something else. Given his inability to speak coherently about practically any subject without the benefit of a script, it seems more likely that rather than being a mastermind, Barack Obama is – like Rod Blagojevich – just another useful idiot in a position of power.

COMMENT:  Illinois is one of the heavyweights among the blue states.  So are California, New York, and New Jersey.  All are in desperate financial trouble.  Yet, there seems little indication that the Democratic parties of those states have learned anything, or care to learn anything.  They will raise taxes where they can to keep the flow of pork projects going, and prolong their own careers.

Only in New Jersey is there light.  A terrific new Republican governor, Chris Christie, actually is bashing skulls and taking names, and addressing the fiscal crisis in his state head on.

Let's see how long he lasts.  

Obama was carefully taught in Illinois, and especially in the Chicago machine.  I wonder how the Illinois legislature would have dealt with Iran.

April 18, 2010     Permalink

THIS NAILS IT – AT 11:15 A.M. ET:  One of the new outrages we're faced with is the sudden chatter about the VAT – the Value Added Tax.  Just a few weeks after Congress recklessly passed new health-care entitlements, without any mention of tax increases, we're told by the usual suspects that we must consider a VAT, or go bankrupt.  George Will, in a superb column, nails not just the disgrace of the moment, but the strategy behind it:

When liberals advocate a value-added tax (VAT), conservatives should respond: Taxing consumption has merits, so we will consider it -- after the 16th Amendment is repealed.

A VAT will be rationalized as necessary to restore fiscal equilibrium. But without ending the income tax, a VAT would be just a gargantuan instrument for further subjugating Americans to government.

Believing that a crisis is a useful thing to create, the Obama administration -- which understands that, for liberalism, worse is better -- has deliberately aggravated the fiscal shambles that the Great Recession accelerated. During the downturn, federal revenue plunged and spending soared. And, as will happen for two decades, every day 10,000 more baby boomers are joining the ranks of recipients of Medicare and Social Security, two programs with unfunded liabilities of nearly $107 trillion.

In the context of this concatenation of troubles, the administration's highest priority was to put an enormous new health-care entitlement on the welfare state's rickety scaffolding. Why? Because the liberals' lunge to maximize government's growth depends on quickly creating a crisis that can be called a threat to the entitlement menu and to the currency as a store of value. Then the public can be panicked into accepting the addition of a VAT to the existing menu of taxes.

COMMENT:  Wonderfully stated.  What must disturb us is the utter contempt the Obama crowd has for the American people.  Like most people with superiority complexes, they believe we can be eternally tricked.  Or, they believe that enough of us can be tricked to win elections.

For those who believe the Obamans have swindled us, you haven't seen anything yet.  Wait until we're panicked into accepting a VAT.  And wait until we're all charged with racism for questioning VAT, and taking things away from "the kids."  It's coming to a CNN outlet near you.

April 18, 2010     Permalink

OH, WAIT, SOMEONE IN THE MSM NOTICED – AT 10:25 A.M. ET:  Some in the mainstream media have, using their keen eyes and sonar-like ears, noticed that many Americans are upset over this president's squishy-soft vocabulary...when applied to enemies of the United States.  Well, it's so good to attract the practiced eyes of such seasoned professionals:

“Rogue states” is being pushed aside in favor of the less confrontational “outliers.”

“Islamic radicalism” is being converted to the less religiously freighted “violent extremism.”

And in one of the most important speeches of his presidency, Barack Obama omitted a term that was the Bush administration’s obsession: terrorism – part of a larger effort to de-emphasize the problem in Obama's relations with Muslim states.

Diplomats, academics and foreign leaders are hotly debating whether Obama, who won the White House promising dramatic change in U.S. foreign policy, has actually changed much substantively. But there’s little question that he's made a pronounced shift in how the U.S. talks about the rest of the world – and in a way that has opened him up to charges of being soft in the face of America’s enemies.

Sen. Joe Lieberman (I-Conn.) was so incensed at the administration’s recent step towards ending its use of the phrase “Islamic extremism” that he fired off a letter to Obama’s top counterterrorism adviser, John Brennan. Lieberman worries that if Obama doesn’t confront the true nature of the threat, he can’t stop it.

“The failure to identify our enemy for what it is—violent Islamist extremism— is offensive and contradicts thousands of years of accepted military and intelligence doctrine to ‘know your enemy,’” Lieberman wrote, later calling the decision “absolutely Orwellian” in a TV interview.

COMMENT:  Imagine what this "change we can believe in" looks like to soldiers in the field, and the families of those killed and wounded.  Imagine if President Roosevelt, after Pearl Harbor, had called the Japanese "misguided adventurers," or the Nazis "upsetters of peaceful peoples."  Just imagine.

The Obamans behind this Orwellian vocabulary shift are from the same crowd that had fainting spells when Ronald Reagan described the Soviet Union as "the evil empire."  That didn't exactly lead to World War III, did it? 

Will this change of wording increase our "respect" in the Islamic world?  Well, let's answer it this way:  No nation in Europe, during the 1980s, was more solicitous of the Arabs than was France.  And what nation in Europe saw more Arab terrorism on its soil in that decade?  I'm sure you've figured it out.

Osama bin Laden is right on one thing:  In the Muslim world, people back the strong horse.  What do you think this change in vocabulary makes us look like?

April 18, 2010     Permalink 

INCREDIBLE! – AT 10:09 A.M. ET:  We read this, and it confirms some of our worst fears about the competence and even the integrity of the Obama administration.  From The New York Times:

WASHINGTON — Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates has warned in a secret three-page memorandum to top White House officials that the United States does not have an effective long-range policy for dealing with Iran’s steady progress toward nuclear capability, according to government officials familiar with the document.

Several officials said the highly classified analysis, written in January to President Obama’s national security adviser, Gen. James L. Jones, came in the midst of an intensifying effort inside the Pentagon, the White House and the intelligence agencies to develop new options for Mr. Obama. They include a set of military alternatives, still under development, to be considered should diplomacy and sanctions fail to force Iran to change course.

And...

Mr. Gates’s memo appears to reflect concerns in the Pentagon and the military that the White House did not have a well prepared series of alternatives in place in case all the diplomatic steps finally failed. Separately, Adm. Mike Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, wrote a “chairman’s guidance” to his staff in December conveying a sense of urgency about contingency planning. He cautioned that a military attack would have “limited results,” but he did not convey any warnings about policy shortcomings.

“Should the president call for military options, we must have them ready,” the admiral wrote.

COMMENT:  Pretty outrageous.  Gates's memo was written a year after this administration took office, and still we don't have proper policy alternatives in place. 

Certainly makes us sleep better at night, correct?

The lack of urgency by the White House is appalling.  Maybe it tells us what Obama really thinks about Iran.  Maybe he doesn't think at all. 

This story will be read intensively this morning by all the countries we're presumably trying to get on board for new sanctions on Iran.  I'm sure they'll be deeply impressed.

And what happens when Bob Gates, a solid guy, leaves the administration?  Who will Obama appoint to succeed him at Defense?  It gives one the chills.

April 18, 2010    Permalink

SATURDAY,  APRIL 17,  2010

COULD IT BE? – AT 7:19 P.M. ET:  Dick Morris is possibly the most visible political analyst around.  He generally knows his stuff, and is making a very sweeping prediction about November:

HARRISBURG, Pa.—The man considered one of the premier sculptors of Bill’s Clinton’s re-election in 1996 predicted Friday night that Republicans would take control of the Senate and the House in mid-term elections this fall.

Noting that he keeps reading quotes from GOP leaders such as Republican National Chairman Michael Steele that they are “optimistic” about the elections this fall, Dick Morris told a packed dinner at the Pennsylvania Leadership Council: “I’ve got news—it’s not even going to be close, guys.”

And...

“Republicans will win the Senate with 52 or 53 seats,” Morris said without hesitation, “and the House will go Republican by 10 to 20 seats.”

COMMENT:  That's a tall order, and Morris's prediction places him as the most optimistic, from the GOP standpoint, of those risking predictions.

Morris's record is mixed.  After all, he wrote a book predicting that the 2008 presidential race would be between Condi Rice and Hillary Clinton.  His argument this time is more persuasive, but I remain unconvinced that the GOP can do as well as he predicts.  He may be underestimating the power, diminished but still great, of the major media to twist events to Obama's favor, and the Democrats' own political machine.

Stuart Rothenberg, another respected analyst, will go so far as to say that major Republican gains in the house are "inevitable," but won't venture numbers beyond this:  "At this point, GOP gains of 25-30 seats seem likely, though considerably larger gains in excess of 40 seats certainly seem possible."  It will take a gain of 39, as of now, to flip control of the House.

Tough.  But we can dream, can't we?  

April 17, 2010     Permalink

OBAMA SLIDES AGAIN – AT 6:59 P.M. ET:  After a brief spurt upward, President Obama's standing in the Rasmussen daily tracker is following his usual pattern...a slide downward:

The Rasmussen Reports daily Presidential Tracking Poll for Saturday shows that 27% of the nation's voters Strongly Approve of the way that Barack Obama is performing his role as President. Forty-four percent (44%) Strongly Disapprove giving Obama a Presidential Approval Index rating of -17.

And...

Overall, 45% of voters say they at least somewhat approve of the President's performance. Fifty-four percent (54%) disapprove.

This result confirms other polls.  The president's inability to sustain a bump upward appears to reflect an overall dissatisfaction with him, even a growing dislike of him, as opposed to opposition on any particular issue.  And there's this:

While some Democrats are seeking to brand Republicans as the “Party of No,” a narrow plurality of voters nationwide views that label as a good thing. Thirty-nine percent (39%) say it’s good to the Party of No in today’s political environment while 34% say it’s bad.

That is only one result on this question.  If it reflects a trend, then clearly the public is in a negative, rejectionist mood, just fine for our side in November...if the trend can be sustained.  Other polls also suggest that the American people are sending a signal to Washington to slow down.  Washington won't, since the forces that control the Democratic Party realize that they may only have from now until January, when the new Congress assembles, to push through their leftist agenda.

April 17, 2010     Permalink

THE TRAP – AT 11:05 A.M. ET:  Republicans must be careful not to fall into a classic Democratic trap, in which the GOP is linked with big business, and against the "little guy."  That may be happening right now:

President Barack Obama took a swipe Saturday at top Senate Republicans for opposing a financial regulatory reform bill, accusing them of taking their cues from Wall Street special interests.

Obama suggested that Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell came out against the overhaul bill after meeting with two dozen top Wall Street executives – a charge that Republicans have denied.

“Just the other day, in fact, the Leader of the Senate Republicans and the Chair of the Republican Senate campaign committee met with two dozen top Wall Street executives to talk about how to block progress on this issue,” Obama said in his weekly radio and Internet address. “Lo and behold, when he returned to Washington, the Senate Republican Leader came out against the common-sense reforms we’ve proposed. In doing so, he made the cynical and deceptive assertion that reform would somehow enable future bailouts – when he knows that it would do just the opposite.”

The meeting took place two weeks ago, and has become a Democratic talking point as the White House argues that lobbyists are mobilizing against the measure. Republicans have responded to the charge by pointing out numerous Democratic fundraisers hosted by Wall Street executives.

COMMENT:  Michael Barone and other conservatives have correctly urged the Republican Party to get on board with financial reform.  That doesn't mean endorsing the administration's bill, of course.  But it does mean being pro-active and coming up with a convincing series of measures to prevent what happened in September of 2008.

Too often the Republicans have been seen as automatic allies of the fat cats.  In fact, Wall Street gave more money to Democrats in 2008 than to Republicans, but the image persists.  Financial reform is needed, just as health care reform is needed.  Here's an opportunity for the GOP to show that it can come up with effective, imaginative solutions, rather than just being the "party of no."

The shenanigans on Wall Street often have nothing to do with the "free enterprise system," but are merely gimmicks designed to extract bonuses from the nation's economy.  The nation has paid a heavy price. 

Democrats will lay many traps for Republicans between now and election day.  Republicans have a history of falling into them.

April 17, 2010    Permalink

RIGHT UNDER YOUR NOSE, MR. PRESIDENT – AT 10:41 A.M. ET:  We caught Bill Clinton yesterday trying to link the tea party movement to anti-government violence.  Clinton made a great show, when leaving office, of placing his new headquarters in Harlem, New York.  Well, if he's so concerned about violence, maybe he'd better take a look at what's happening under his nose:

A massive gang takedown in Queens uncovered a rare alliance between Bloods and Crips and a ruthless plot to assassinate cops, authorities said Friday.

The revelations came as law enforcement unveiled the chilling results of long-running "Operation Under Siege" - 104 suspects, dozens of guns, two slayings and piles of drugs and cash.

The sprawling case was built on wiretaps - including recordings of gang associate Keith Livingston, who blabbed about plans to protect his drug turf by killing cops on patrol.

"He intended to position himself on rooftops and shoot police officers who were compromising his business in Far Rockaway and South Jamaica," Police Commissioner Raymond Kelly said.

"Before his deadly plans could be carried out, detectives arrested him and seized a defaced 9-mm. Hi-Point rifle, among other weapons."

Livingston's plot was only one facet of an investigation that began two years ago when police and prosecutors began looking into a drugs-and-guns network in Far Rockaway.

By Friday, they had arrested 104 people, closed two murder cases, and exposed ties between Far Rockaway Crips and the Bloods in South Jamaica.

COMMENT:  Domestic terrorism by anti-government groups is a legitimate concern.  But it is minor compared to the crime that goes on in America's cities every day.  Don't hear too much anguish about that.

Oh, and speaking of domestic terrorism, the former president might have shown some interest last year when an Army recruiter was gunned down by a Muslim extremist in Little Rock, Clinton's former stomping ground.   And I didn't hear much pain from the left after Ford Hood.  It's only people who want to cut spending and taxes who are a dire threat.

April 17, 2010     Permalink 

NEW GUY IN TOWN? – AT 10:01 A.M. ET:  Haley Barbour has established a superb reputation as governor of Mississippi.  It was inevitable that there'd be presidential talk:

When asked about his presidential ambitions, Mississippi Gov. Haley Barbour told reporters earlier this year that “If you see me losing 40 pounds that means I’m either running or have cancer."

It might be time to start watching Barbour’s waistline.

POLITICO has learned that Barbour is weighing the prospect of a 2012 White House bid and convened a private meeting April 8 with a group of some of his oldest and closest advisers, some of whom flew in from the East Coast to Jackson, Miss. The gathering stretched for six hours, during which time the topic of a presidential run was discussed.

One adviser familiar with the state capital sit-down said that Barbour concluded that he did not need to make a decision now and that the group should meet again after this fall’s election.

Barbour, who as chairman of the Republican Governors Association is directing the GOP’s efforts to win the 37 governors' races this year, told his team that he would remain focused intently on November but also made clear that he would stay open to the prospect of a presidential run.

COMMENT:  Barbour would probably make an excellent president.  The only problem is getting there.

Look, let's be direct:  It's unfair, but Mississippi doesn't have exactly the best image throughout the United States.  Now, this is not the state that it was 50 years ago, but impressions change slowly over time.  The picture of the governor of Mississippi running against the first black president would probably make many Americans uncomfortable, and would provide a field day for our foreign enemies, especially if Barbour won. 

Again, it's unfair, but those are just the political realities.  Barbour's Mississippi base would probably cost him at least seven or eight percent of the vote, and would, by definition, bring out a huge black vote for Obama.  I'm not sure Barbour could be competitive.  If not, America loses a fine prospect.

April 17, 2010     Permalink

LOOK, UP IN THE SKY, IT'S A BIRD, IT'S A PLANE, IT'S...GROVEL-GIRL – AT 9:47 A.M. ET:  Hillary Clinton, who is really getting into the rhythm of the Obama administration, informs us that there is great wisdom on energy in places that we, in our ignorance and bigotry, never realized:

(CNSNews.com) – Secretary of State Hillary Clinton told officials from more than 32 Western Hemisphere nations on Thursday that the United States is looking to those nations to develop better energy policies and practices.

“For our part, we believe the United States has a lot to learn,” Clinton said at the Energy and Climate Ministerial of the Americas in Washington.

She said the U.S. has a “deep respect” for the way nations such as Brazil, Mexico, Colombia and Costa Rica are developing clean fuels and adopting sustainable technologies: “We know we have some catching up to do, and we’re committed to doing just that,” Clinton said.

Yes, I was thinking just yesterday what a deep respect I had for the energy policy of Mexico, which is so advanced that it ships its excess citizens across our border without documentation.  Deep respect, deep respect.  Who are we compared to them?

The two-day summit, hosted by the Obama administration, stems from an energy partnership announced a year ago in which nations of the Western Hemisphere collaborate on creating “clean” energy and combating global warming.

I guess it'll keep Hillary out of more trouble for a few days.

April 17, 2010    Permalink