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.

TUESDAY,  AUGUST 10,  2010

PRIMARY RESULTS – AT 11:45 P.M. ET:  The Georgia "endorsement" battle between Huckabee and Ginrich-endorsed Nathan Deal and Palin-endorsed Karen Handel, for the GOP governor's nomination, is essentially a dead heat, with 99% of the votes in.  This may well be decided by absentee ballots. 

In Colorado, news organizations are calling the race for the GOP Senate nomination for Ken Buck, an insurgent, who has apparently defeated Jane Norton, who had the backing of the national Republican Party and John McCain.  Buck will face incumbent Senator Michael Bennet.  I'm uneasy over this one.  I think Norton would have easily defeated Bennet.  Buck is a loose cannon.  Republicans have great chances this year, but in several crucial states they have nominated problematical candidates for the Senate. 

August 10, 2010

PRIMARY RESULTS – AT 10:15 P.M. ET:  Some primary results are now in:  In Connecticut, wrestling executive Linda McMahon has won the GOP Senate primary, and will face, or arm-wrestle, state Attorney General Richard Blumenthal, in the general.  Blumenthal, a man of corpse-like stiffness, was exposed as having lied about his military record, but is still favored over McMahon.  Dems will focus on McMahon's career as a wrestling magnate, as wrestling does not make a pretty picture.

In Colorado, incumbent U.S. Senator Michael Bennet has won the Senate nomination, defeating Bill-Clinton-endorsed Andrew Romanoff.  The GOP race has not been decided. 

More later.

August 10, 2010

THE MAN SPOKE THE TRUTH – AT 7:47 P.M. ET:  We are not famous here for praising White House Press Secretary Bob Gibbs.  But the man has spoken the truth:

The Obama administration's most public face, White House press secretary Robert Gibbs, has tried to climbed down from angry remarks he aimed at leftwing critics, calling them "crazy".

In an interview with The Hill newspaper in Washington DC, Gibbs revealed frustration at attacks on the administration from liberal Democrats and others on the left, in terms likely to make relations even worse:

"I hear these people saying he's like George Bush. Those people ought to be drug tested," Gibbs said. "I mean, it's crazy."

The press secretary dismissed the "professional left" in terms very similar to those used by their opponents on the ideological right, saying, "They will be satisfied when we have Canadian healthcare and we've eliminated the Pentagon. That's not reality."

Like anyone else who speaks the truth in Washington, Gibbs later tried to walk back his remarks, calling them "inartful."  But what he said was plainly true.  There is a left fringe in the Democratic Party, similar to the Marxist-leaning leftoids whom Harry Truman tossed out of the party in 1948.  And yes, they want the Pentagon eliminated.  They wouldn't mind seeing the Bill of Rights put into mothballs as well.

There is now anger and fury among the nuts.  Keith Ellison, the self-proclaimed "moderate" Muslim congressman from Minnesota (what a joke) has demanded Gibbs's resignation.  Other leftoids are similarly inclined. 

I'd like to see Obama back Gibbs.  I don't think Gibbs stands any chance of being fired, but, given the general tone and cowardice of this administration, he may be given a tour of the underside of the bus just to keep him on message.

I'm relieved to know someone in the White House understands the left.  It's about time.

August 10, 2010     Permalink

PRIMARIES TONIGHT – AT 7:08 P.M. ET:  There are primaries in four states today – Georgia, Connecticut, Colorado, and Minnesota. 

The Georgia Republican gubernatorial nomination race will be a test of endorsements.  Nathan Deal is endorsed by Newt Gingrich and Mike Huckabee, but Deal has some ethics problems.  Challenger Karen Handel is backed by Sarah Palin, although Handel is considered the less conservative of the two candidates.

Connecticut will probably see Republicans putting the gun to their heads and nominating Linda McMahon as U.S. Senate candidate, to go up against Richard Blumenthal, the highly defective Dem entry who fibbed about his Vietnam record.  Republicans have a chance to take this seat in a normally Democratic state, but Linda McMahon's record is largely with the World Wresting Federation, which she started with her husband.  Not exactly stellar credentials.  Her main claim to the nomination is that she can finance her own campaign.  Money talks.  It spoke too loudly in this case.

Colorado will have establishment Republican Jane Norton, backed by John McCain, in a race for the GOP Senate nomination against rebel Ken Buck, a prosecutor who leads Ms. Norton by about ten points.  Here is a case where a Senate seat is clearly winnable, but Mr. Buck may simply not be the man the people of Colorado want to send to Washington.  Republican rebels have succeeded in nominating several problematical Senate candidates already – Sharron Angle in Nevada and Rand Paul in Kentucky.  Buck might be the third.  The GOP winner will face either incumbent Democrat Michael Bennet, the Obama choice, or Andrew Romanoff, endorsed by Bill Clinton.  That race itself is fascinating, another test of endorsements.

I don't know much about the Minnesota contests, and they don't seem nationally significant, so I won't comment.

We'll naturally note the results later on.

August 10, 2010     Permalink

"WHY, LITTLE OLD ME?" SHE EXCLAIMED, "WHY WOULD ANYONE THINK THAT?" – AT 9:56 A.M. ET:  There is a boomlet for Hillary Clinton.  Of course, she and her allies have nothing to do with it.  It's the will of the people, don't you see?  From John Fund at The Wall Street Journal:

As President Obama sinks in the polls, Democrats and liberal pundits inevitably are searching for a scapegoat. The most likely victim appears to be gaffe-prone Vice President Joe Biden, who has become the focus of speculation that Secretary of State Hillary Clinton just might replace him on the 2012 Democratic ticket.

Former Virginia Gov. Doug Wilder, his state's first African-American governor, touched off the controversy. Writing at Politico.com last week, Mr. Wilder argued that Mr. Biden's tenure has been undistinguished and chock full of "too many YouTube moments." He charged that Mr. Biden "has continued to undermine what little confidence the public may have had in him."

By way of contrast, Mr. Wilder says that Hillary Clinton has excelled in her role.

And so the buildup continues.

John Heilemann, a reporter for New York magazine, said the major obstacle would be to "figure out a way for Biden to slide aside happily" and suggested that Mr. Biden replace Mrs. Clinton as Secretary of State.

Along the way, Mr. Heilemann outlined why President Obama just might want to have a steadier hand at his side for his re-election campaign: "The Republican attack on Obama is going to revolve around 'too liberal,' but also 'too incompetent.' . . . They're going to say, 'Look, you hired this guy. He was too young for this job. He didn't know what he was doing. He didn't have the experience, and look what's happened.'"

Hmmm. Sounds a lot like the campaign Mrs. Clinton ran against Barack Obama in 2008, complete with that infamous commercial asking voters who they wanted in the White House when a 3 a.m. crisis call came in.

COMMENT:  Fascinating, of course, but there are some problems with the script.  First, Hillary would be running as v.p. candidate as part of Obama's try for a second term.  Second terms are notoriously unsuccessful.  Why would she want to be first mate on a sinking ship?  As secretary of state, or even as a private citizen, she distances herself from Obama's mistakes.

Second, the ticket could lose, probably finishing Clinton in national politics.  A new group of younger Dems will step forward for 2016.

Third, Clinton may project an image of "competence," but her tenure as secretary of state hasn't produced a major success.  She could wind up being less than an asset.

Fourth, the public may revolt against the "dynasty" factor.  Her husband has been president.

Fifth, Obama may veto the idea.  He'll certainly know that Hillary would spend her four years as vice president measuring the Oval Office drapes, and doing little else.  Who needs this?

Sixth, the image of Hillary, already Her Pushiness, pushing aside Joe Biden, may not be helpful.  The guy's got feelings, and public sympathy may actually display itself.

Seventh, the notion that being vice president gives Hillary an automatic presidential nomination in 2016 may not turn out to be valid.  The public may tire of her.  Two terms as first lady.  A term and a half in the Senate.  A term as secretary of state.  A term as vice president.  Got any other pitchers in the bull pen?

But it is an intriguing possibility.  We'd like it just because it gives us so much to write about.  It's show biz.

August 10, 2010     Permalink

IRAN ON THE MOVE – AT 8:53 A.M. ET:  There is much talk about the administration's next step on Iran.  With all the sanctions business and the tough rhetoric, little if anything has been achieved in stopping, or even slowing, the Iranian nuclear program.  And now comes this:

VIENNA — Iran has activated equipment to enrich uranium more efficiently in a move that defies the U.N. Security Council, the International Atomic Energy Agency said Monday.

The Vienna-based nuclear watchdog said Iran has started using a second set of 164 centrifuges linked in a cascade, or string of machines, to enrich uranium to up to 20 percent at its Natanz pilot fuel enrichment plant. Another cascade there has been producing uranium enriched to near 20 percent since February.

If enriched to around 95 percent, uranium can be used in building a nuclear bomb. At 20 percent, it can be turned into weapons-grade material much more quickly than less-enriched uranium.

Tehran denies it has such aims and says its nuclear activities are for peaceful purposes only. But some in the international community — the United States and its allies — aren't convinced.

COMMENT:  No, and Iran hasn't been very convincing. 

The question is, after the recent imposition of new sanctions, whether we have a Plan B.  If sanctions fail once more, what are we prepared to do?  Much of Europe would shudder to think of anything more drastic than sanctions, especially now that polls show Angela Merkel's center-right German government to be increasingly unpopular.  If it is replaced by the left, you can kiss strong action against Iran goodbye, at least action from Europe.

With American elections coming up, Obama would actually benefit from a harder line, even if his party won't go along with it. 

But it appears certain that 2011 will be an utterly crucial year for Iran policy.  Either sanctions will work, or will fall apart.  If they fall apart, the next move may well be up to the U.S., perhaps acting alone.  Britain?  We'll wait and see.  The new government of alleged conservative David Cameron is strange indeed.  A new, high-level executive appointed to the Foreign Office had to resign a Foreign Office post earlier after having an affair with a member of the PLO.  That inspires confidence, doesn't it?

One thing Obama will probably have going for him in 2011 is a Congress more supportive of strong action against Iran.  Whether he'll know how to work with that Congress is another story.

August 10, 2010      Permalink

A REVOLT FROM WITHIN – AT 8:35 A.M. ET:  A federal agency knows it's in trouble when its own employees turn against it.  From the Washington Times:

The union that represents rank-and-file field agents at U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement has unanimously passed a "vote of no confidence" for the agency's leadership, saying ICE has "abandoned" its core mission of protecting the public to support a political agenda favoring amnesty.

The National Immigration and Customs Enforcement Council of the American Federation of Government Employees, which represents 7,000 ICE agents and employees, voted 259-0 for a resolution saying there was "growing dissatisfaction and concern" over the leadership of Assistant Secretary John Morton, who heads ICE, and Phyllis Coven, assistant director for the agency's office of detention policy and planning.

The resolution said ICE leadership had "abandoned the agency's core mission of enforcing U.S. immigration laws and providing for public safety," instead directing its attention "to campaigning for programs and policies related to amnesty and the creation of a special detention system for foreign nationals that exceeds the care and services provided to most U.S. citizens similarly incarcerated..."

And...

The statement also noted that:

• The majority of ICE's enforcement and removal officers are prohibited from making street arrests or enforcing U.S. immigration laws outside of the jail setting.

• Hundreds of ICE officers nationwide perform no law enforcement duties whatsoever because of resource mismanagement within the agency.

• ICE detention reforms have transformed into a detention system aimed at providing resortlike living conditions to criminal aliens based on recommendations not from ICE officers and field managers, but from "special-interest groups."

COMMENT:  A worthwhile story to read.  This is one union that seems fiercely independent, and not a rubber stamp for the Obamans.  I hope conservative media gives the announcement a great deal of coverage.

August 10, 2010     Permalink

FROM THE POLLSTER'S MOUTH TO YOU KNOW WHOSE EARS – AT 8:13 A.M. ET:  A Republican Senate?  It is, to some, but a dream.  It's an important dream, though, for the Senate confirms Supreme Court justices and ratifies treaties, two processes that could do long-term fatal damage to the essence of America.

But a Republican Senate may be possible.  From The Politico:

It’s a hope so audacious that few Republicans will even acknowledge it out loud: the possibility that the balance of power in the Senate might be up for grabs in November. The GOP would have to take 10 seats, knocking off virtually every targeted Democratic incumbent and sweeping the open seats held by both parties.

A new poll conducted for American Crossroads, the independent conservative group founded by Karl Rove and former Republican National Committee Chairman Ed Gillespie, suggests the 2010 landscape might be just volatile enough to give Republicans at least a chance at that prize...

....taken together, the results suggest Republicans have an opening to make substantial gains this fall, even to the point of putting the Democrats’ 59-seat majority in peril. In eight seats currently held by Democrats – Arkansas, Colorado, Delaware, Illinois, Indiana, Nevada, Pennsylvania and Washington – Republican candidates average an edge of seven points over their Democratic opponents, leading 47 percent to 40 percent.

In five Republican-held seats – Florida, Kentucky, Missouri, New Hampshire and Ohio – GOP candidates hold an average lead of eight points, 45 percent to 37 percent.

But let's be careful about interpreting the data:

...the poll doesn’t mean Democrats are likely to lose the Senate – it doesn’t even mean definitively that the Senate is in play. For Republicans to take control of the chamber, they would have to win every seat named in the survey, plus two more from a list of Democratic incumbents topped by Wisconsin Sen. Russ Feingold and California Sen. Barbara Boxer. Republicans would also have to maintain control of Louisiana Sen. David Vitter and North Carolina Sen. Richard Burr’s seats, which Democrats have vowed to target.

However...

To American Crossroads, however, the point of the poll is the big picture: the voters who will ultimately decide the fate of the Senate campaign are mad as hell, and seem unlikely to take it anymore.

COMMENT:  The reality is that the election is almost three months away, several lifetimes in politics.  This White House will not fold easily.  The scare campaigns – Republicans will take away your Social Security, Medicare, and even your Viagra – have only just begun.  And Democratic giveaways may provide crucial votes in key states.  If you rob Peter to pay Paul, Paul will vote for you. 

Republicans must run as if they're 20 points behind.  And they must come up with a positive program to present to America.  Most important, they must provide a photographic portrait, so to speak, of an America run by Obama Democrats, starting with a bankrupt Treasury.

August 10, 2010     Permalink

MONDAY,  AUGUST 9,  2010

THIS MUST BE A MISUNDERSTANDING – AT 8:47 P.M. ET:  I'm sure this is simply a failure to comprehend the multicultural aspects of international events and initiatives.  Yeah, right.  From AP:

A Hamburg mosque once frequented by some of the Sept. 11 attackers was shut down Monday because German authorities believe the prayer house was again being used as a meeting point for Islamic radicals.

The Taiba mosque was closed and the cultural association that runs it was banned, Hamburg officials said in a statement.

"We have closed the mosque because it was a recruiting and meeting point for Islamic radicals who wanted to participate in so-called jihad or holy war," said Frank Reschreiter, a spokesman for Hamburg's state interior ministry.

Look, if the fellas need a mosque, there's one being built in New York that may be open to moving.

He said that 20 police officers were searching the building and had confiscated material, including several computers. He was not aware of any arrests.

Authorities have said the prayer house, formerly known as the al-Quds mosque, years ago was a meeting and recruiting point for some of the Sept. 11 attackers before they moved to the United States.

Reschreiter said it was the first time the mosque had been closed, and that it had been under observation by local intelligence officers for quite a long time.

COMMENT:  As a general rule, Europeans, with the possible exception of the Brits, tend to take internal security more seriously than we do.  Closing a mosque, especially in a country with a large number of Muslim immigrants or guest workers, is a serious step, open to legal challenge.  I'd imagine the German authorities have quite a dossier on these touchy-feely moderates, who probably just wanted to play a little table tennis.

If the mosque has indeed been used as a meeting point for radicals, it certainly points to the probability that Islamic radicalism in Europe is becoming increasingly brazen.  And why not?  There is a powerful European left that protects the radicals, if for no other reason than both the left and the radicals despise the United States.

We're far from out of the woods.

August 9, 2010       Permalink

OCCASIONALLY THEY GET IT RIGHT – AT 7:29 P.M. ET:  So-called "human rights" groups often aren't, or are generally so incompetent or biased that they hardly are.  Now and then, though, they get it right.  So it was surprising to see some of them taking on the world's new military-leak champion, WikiLeaks, for the damage the group is doing.  From tomorrow's Wall Street Journal:

A group of human-rights organizations is pressing WikiLeaks to do a better job of redacting names from thousands of war documents it is publishing, joining the list of critics that claim the Web site's actions could jeopardize the safety of Afghans who aided the U.S. military.

The letter from five human-rights groups sparked a tense exchange in which WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange issued a tart challenge for the organizations to help with the massive task of removing names from thousands of documents, according to several of the organizations that signed the letter. The exchange shows how WikiLeaks and Mr. Assange risk being isolated from some of their most natural allies in the wake of the documents' publication.

Make no mistake about it.  These "human rights" groups don't give a damn about the lives of American service personnel, but at least they're trying to protect the Afghans who've helped us. 

The human-rights groups involved are Amnesty International; Campaign for Innocent Victims in Conflict, or CIVIC; Open Society Institute, or OSI, the charitable organization funded by George Soros; Afghanistan Independent Human Rights Commission; and the Kabul office of International Crisis Group, or ICG.

The groups emailed WikiLeaks to say they were concerned for the safety of Afghans identified as helping the U.S. military in documents obtained by WikiLeaks, according to several of the groups. WikiLeaks has already published 76,000 of the documents and plans to publish up to 15,000 more.

I'd like to see our media do a lot more detailed reporting on WikiLeaks and Mr. Assange than they've done.  So far we haven't been told much about the illustrious Mr. Assange, other than he's "anti-war," or some such generality.  During the Vietnam War the more fashionable news outlets got into the habit of suppressing the hard-left, pro-Communist views of many "anti-war" groups, leaving the readers and viewers to think these were simply sincere citizens trying to stop a war they didn't believe in.  Old habits die hard.  We've got the same approach today.

The national secrets of the United States are the property of the people of the United States, and supervised by elected officials and their appointees.  They are not the property of political groups or even newspapers.  They may well be things that are improperly suppressed to protect office holders, and should be public information.  It is up to a vital press to expose what should be exposed, always keeping in mind the safety of American soldiers and their allies.  There is absolutely no excuse for the release of thousands of documents, and no real public interest has been served.

Secrets are released in every war, sometimes by accident or through indiscreet remarks by public officials.  This country has historically bent over backwards to protect those who've made honest errors, or even newspapers who think they're performing a service.  No country has more thoroughly protected press freedom.  But there are limits, and WikiLeaks has exceeded those limits.

August 9, 2010      Permalink

AGAIN, THE DANGEROUS SPLIT SHOWS UP – AT 9:49 A.M. ET:  This is a remarkable report from Scott Rasmussen, one that shows the split in thinking between the American electorate and the political class of the country: 

Eighty-six percent (86%) of voters nationwide say there should be “limits on what the federal government can do.” A new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that only nine percent (9%) believe the federal government should be allowed to do most anything in this country.

These views are overwhelming shared across virtually all partisan and demographic lines.

But get this:

The only exception is America’s Political Class. By a 54% to 43% margin, the Political Class believes the federal government should be allowed to do most anything. Mainstream voters reject that view by a 94% to three percent (3%) margin.

COMMENT:  Utterly stunning.  And dangerous.  The political class works diligently every day from the halls of government, journalism, and the academy, to change America in its direction.  The American electorate works diligently every day to keep America running and families safe.  Thus, the vast American people can be undercut by a political class that does not share its values.

The split that appears in this survey may be the most frightening set of statistics that we've seen recently.  Remember what these numbers show, and what they portend.

August 9, 2010      Permalink

QUOTE OF THE DAY – AT 8:58 A.M. ET:  From Victor Davis Hanson's brilliant analysis of Barack Obama at NRO:

...over half the electorate sees only hypocrisy. Obama initially called for understanding and patience with the BP spill, in a way he had not when demagoguing Katrina. He suddenly found Guantanamo, renditions, military tribunals, Predator assassinations, and Iraq to be complex issues, after assuring us that they were open-and-shut cases of simple morality. Bush’s deficit misdemeanors suddenly became Obama’s felonies — after he ran on the theme that Bush had recklessly run up the debt. The 2008 campaign to highlight racial harmony by electing the symbolic postracial Obama has become a sort of nightmare in which the old, tired identity politics of the 1980s rage as never before, fanned by an unpopular president desperate to rev up his base.

COMMENT:  Well said.  What I think has shocked so many Americans is that Obama, far from being a modern, post-racial president, is very much a child of the sixties.  Indeed, in rhetoric, in tone, in style, this president and his Democratic followers seem to want to drive the country back almost half a century, as if there has been no racial progress, no women's progress, nothing except the need to re-visit old grudges.

And, like the modern "progressives" he champions, Obama solves no problems.  Indeed, actually solving a problem appears the furthest thing from his mind.  His first priority is to impose an ideology, a "correct" way of looking at the world.  The people in that world can be helped, of course, but only if that help is filtered through the proper ideology.  Indeed, the breathtaking insensitivity of Michelle Obama's queenly trip to Spain is all too typical of the kind of "progressive" we've seen in America since the 1960s, the kind who actually has contempt for the feelings of the very people he or she claims to be serving. 

During the campaign, Barack Obama himself was direct in expressing his contempt, ridiculing Americans who "cling to their guns and their religion."  In an act of supreme adolescence, many of those Americans voted for him anyway.

August 9, 2010      Permalink

WHAT A RECOVERY! – AT 8:20 A.M. ET:  The White House has been hoping for good economic news to bolster the Dems' election prospects.  They may have to look hard to find something.  From the Financial Times:

The Federal Reserve is set to downgrade its assessment of US economic prospects when it meets on Tuesday to discuss ways to reboot the flagging recovery.

Faced with weak economic data and rising fears of a double-dip recession, the Federal Open Market Committee is likely to ensure its policy is not constraining growth and to use its statement to signal greater concern about the economy. It is, however, unlikely to agree big new steps to boost growth...

...In congressional testimony last month, Ben Bernanke noted “unusual uncertainty” in the economic outlook and in a speech last week the Fed chairman warned of a “considerable way to go” before the US achieves a full recovery.

Although Fed policymakers still believe the basic trajectory of the economy remains one of moderate expansion, there may be more attention given to heightened dangers of a sharp slowdown. “The FOMC will have to tone down its assessment of the economy in view of recent weak indicators on real growth, real consumption spending and employment,” said Brian Bethune and Nigel Gault, economists at Global Insight.

COMMENT:  Wow, what an incentive to go out and buy a Corvette.  I'll take mine in red. 

The fact is that you can learn a great deal about the economy by just going out and talking to people, and the talk is not good.  People are frightened.  Those with some extra cash don't want to spend it.  Employers are trying to make do with fewer people.  You don't hear much confidence in Obama economics.  And there well may be a long economic pause until business people find out who will win in November, and what changes are in store.

Obama, who was inspirational as a candidate, at least with his base, is a dud as president.  He couldn't get me to buy a cookie, and I love cookies. 

We now have to see if the Republicans, not known as the party of imagination, can provide the inspiration that the Democrats have not.

August 9, 2010      Permalink

ENTERTAINMENT NEWS – AT 7:55 A.M. ET:  We wanted to rush this right to you so you can put it on your "must see" schedule.  From Spiegel (Germany) online:

It's like American Idol. Except in this Malaysian reality TV show, the goal is to find a religious role model. Young men compete in challenges such as washing corpses and ferreting out unmarried couples. The winner gets a MacBook and the chance to lead prayers in public.

It just frustrates me so much that the United States doesn't teach its kids anything about washing corpses.  Even Malaysia puts us to shame.

There was a big casting call:

Astro Oasis, a Malaysian TV network, was looking for a young imam who could help put an end to moral decline in the country and get young people more interested in Islam.

What a great TV idea!  Why didn't I think of that?

The winner would become an imam at one of the big mosques in the capital, travel to Mecca and study at the University of Medina in Saudi Arabia. Most of all, however, he would receive a cash prize of 20,000 ringgit (about €5,000 or $6,600) a car and a MacBook. In the show, which follows the format of Western reality TV shows like American Idol, the goal is to find talented young religious leaders.

Somehow, the MacBook doesn't fit in.  I'm doing this on a MacBook, and I don't feel very Islamic.  If I switch to my Safari browser, the stuff I can get wouldn't pass muster with the Prophet.  At least not the Prophet they advertise.

But mark your TV calendars.  This looks like the next megahit.  Simon Cowell, eat your heart out.

August 9,  2010     Permalink