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.

SATURDAY,  JULY 24,  2010

NO TO KAGAN – AT 8:50 P.M. ET:  My friend Scott Johnson, one of the three Power Liners, has written the best set of arguments yet on why Elena Kagan should not be confirmed as a Supreme Court justice.  While we raise Shirley Sherrod to Mount Rushmore status, the nation is forgetting that we're about to get a new justice, however charming and brilliant she may be, with a very disturbing record.  Read Scott's piece here.

It was perfectly obvious that both Kagan and Sonia Sotomayor, Obama's previous choice for the Court, were heavily coached in preparing their testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee, part of the confirmation process.  Both swore obeisance, for example, to the Second Amendment.  But Sotomayor, in the recent case regarding the Chicago handgun ban, did a complete 180 and contradicted her own testimony, without apology.  There is now nothing that can be done about it.

In her own testimony, Kagan was grilled about her banning of military recruiters from the Harvard Law School because of the military's "don't ask, don't tell" policy.  She replied to a questioner by assuring him that "I revere the military."  Oh, come on, Elena.  That's a coached line.  I come from the same neighborhood in Manhattan where Kagan grew up.  No one there uses that vocabulary.

Kagan is known for her political skills.  She has so little experience as a lawyer that her legal skills are largely unknown.  Like the president who appointed her, she has virtually no paper trail. 

I fear we're getting a politician for the Court.  I hope to be pleasantly surprised.  I don't think I will be.

Read Scott Johnson's argument.

July 24, 2010     Permalink

WE NEED AN INTERVENTION – AT 7:56 P.M. ET:  We ask the question:  Is CNN committing suicide?  The network has gone completely bonkers over the Shirley Sherrod story, devoting hours each day to our newly anointed liberal saint.

CNN will do Sherrod's life story tonight.  I hope they get someone tasteful to do the music.   All Shirley, all the time.

And thrown in with the worshipful reports on the thoughts, wisdom, philosophy and choleserol level of Shirley are sharp attacks on the internet and on Andrew Breitbart.  There is major anguish over the "irresponsbility" of the internet, over the fact that stories on the web are sometimes inadequately researched.  Gee, that problem did start with the internet, didn't it?

Oh, by the way, in not a single case that I've seen, did any of CNN's rants about the internet begin with these words:  "Full disclosure:  CNN is a competitor with the internet.  We want you to be aware of our commercial interest in this."  Isn't a statement like that usually required in the self-proclaimed world of "responsible" journalism? 

CNN has always been obsessed with the holy trinity of race, gender, and ethnicity.  This week they've gone over the top.

July 24, 2010      Permalink

UNDER THE RADAR – AT 8:26 A.M. ET:  While the mainstream media is busy making Shirley Sherrod into a national icon – space is being provided on Mount Rushmore – tensions are rising with North Korea, just as the U.S. and South Korea are about to hold a major military exercise.  This story is creeping up on us:

North Korea said it would counter U.S. and South Korean joint naval exercises with “nuclear deterrence” after the Obama administration said the government in Pyongyang shouldn’t take any provocative steps.

North Korea will “legitimately counter with their powerful nuclear deterrence the largest-ever nuclear war exercises to be staged by the U.S. and the South Korean puppet forces,” the National Defense Commission said, according to the Korean Central News Agency.

The maneuvers, which involve 20 vessels and 200 aircraft from the U.S. and South Korea, pose a threat to the country’s sovereignty and security, Ri Tong Il, an official with North Korea’s delegation to the Asean Security Forum, told reporters in Hanoi yesterday.

Ri’s comments came after North Korean Foreign Minister Pak Ui Chun sat in the same room with Secretary of State Hillary Clinton in Hanoi for a security meeting of Asia’s largest powers. Clinton condemned North Korea for being “on a campaign of provocative, dangerous behavior,” urging Kim Jong Il’s regime to change.

COMMENT:  There is a growing fear, reflected in news reports, that North Korea might midjudge the United States, particularly in light of the current administration's "we are the world" foreign policy, and stage a major attack against the South, repeating the mistake North Korea made in June of 1950, which led to the full-blown Korean War. 

Secretary Clinton and Secretary Gates were in Korea this week, standing firm and saying the right things.  The problem is that no one can be sure what their boss would do if a major military confrontation erupted.  It's that kind of uncertainty that is so dangerous, and so tempting for a rogue regime.

July 24, 2010     Permalink

THERE WAS A TIME WHEN REPUBLICANS WERE RICH – AT 8:23 A.M. ET:  Republican fundraising, which used to be easy before the elite establishment went slumming on the left, is lagging behind, and that ain't good.  From the Washington Examiner:

House Democratic candidates have raised nearly twice as much in campaign contributions than their GOP opponents, according to Andrew Kreighbaum of OpenSecrets.org.

“In 29 toss-up races, Democratic candidates had more than $31 million in cash on hand at the end of the second quarter, a Center for Responsive Politics analysis indicates.The Republicans in these contests had raised $17.9 million,” Kreighbaum said. The analysis is based on FEC reports through June...

...The 29 races are rated as toss-ups by veteran political handicapper Charlie Cook.

COMMENT:  There was a time when Democrats were cash poor.  They got their contributions from laborers, the middle class, and "ordinary" citizens.  Republicans had the banks and Wall Street.

So what happened?

I think higher education happened.  Today, the old "Republican" industries are dominated by products of post-sixties universities.  And to be part of the "in" group in these universities, and among other alumni, one must show appropriate obeisance to chic, trendy, "progressive" causes.  It is a kind of respectability that business people often yearn for. 

The Democrats have responded with warmth to deep-pockets donors by adopting the most anti-business agenda since the sixties.  You see the result.

July 24, 2010      Permalink

SOCIAL NEWS – AT 8:20 A.M. ET:  You'll want to know that there is deep upset, anguish, and mental torture in certain circles over the Clinton wedding next weekend.  The New York Times has the whole rotten story:

So, just what does it take to score an invitation to the hottest — not to mention most secretive — political wedding of the summer?

More than a cross-country ride on a private jet, apparently.

“I’m good enough to borrow a plane from, but not good enough to be invited to the wedding?” complained one Clinton friend, who remembered the times he handed over his jet and his pilot to take Bill Clinton around the country but had not landed a coveted invitation to Chelsea Clinton’s nuptials.

Next Saturday, Ms. Clinton, 30, and her fiancé, Marc Mezvinsky, 32, are expected to marry in Rhinebeck, N.Y. But not everyone these days is feeling the love.

While most friends and acquaintances of the former president and Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton say they understand that the wedding is a private affair of 400 or so guests, each with a direct connection to the bride or bridegroom, some are privately grumbling about who made the cut.

COMMENT:  I want to inform our readers that I have not been invited to the wedding, but that I'm okay with it.  Yes, there were a couple of bad days.  You wonder what you did wrong.  I yelled at the mail guy a few times, thinking he may have delivered the invite to the wrong address, but he was cleared. 

I guess the five-dollar check my cousin wrote to the Clinton campaign in 1992 didn't get us on the list.  But I refuse to buy myself through life.

I'll just put on a tuxedo and pretend.

July 24, 2010     Permalink

FRIDAY,  JULY 23,  2010

HOW THE OTHER HALF LIVES – AT 7:04 P.M. There is deep upset on the left fringes of the Democratic Party.  Seems Obama isn't lefty enough, and the party still allows....centrists to come to meetings.  What's next?  Fascism?  From WaPo:

...as Netroots Nation, a conference of 2,100 liberal activists, opened here Thursday, it was clear that anger among some prominent progressives is still raw -- and it could imperil some Democrats this fall.

Markos Moulitsas, founder of the Daily Kos blog and an organizer of the first such annual conference five years ago, said he and his followers are disinclined to help Democratic candidates simply to preserve the party's big majorities.

"There's a lot of Democrats I'll be happy to see go," Moulitsas said in an interview. "I'll celebrate when Blanche Lincoln is out of the Senate. There is a price to be paid for inaction and incompetence. We're not getting much done with 59 [Democratic senators], so if we're down to 54, who cares?"

Too soft, Markos, too soft.  Only the guillotine will do.  I love these voices of reason.

Moulitsas went on to suggest that a smaller Democratic majority in the House might be better for advancing a more progressive agenda. "If 20 Blue Dogs lost their seats, nobody's going to care," he said. "That's their problem and I'm not going to cry about them. To me, a more cohesive caucus might be a better deal moving forward than one in which the Blue Dogs need to be appeased."

Right on!  To the blade!  To the blade!  Who are these people who reflect their constituents' values?  Scum!

"Progressive doesn't necessarily mean Democratic," said Arshad Hasan, executive director of Democracy for America, the liberal grass-roots advocacy group founded by former Vermont governor and Democratic National Committee chairman Howard Dean.

Right.  Take your five followers and stomp out, the way the lefty kooks did on Truman in 1948.  We know how that wound up.

The would-be Leninists ran a candidate in the Dem primary against Blanche Lincoln, only to see him shot down, with the help of Bill Clinton.

"It's tough to see someone you've believed in betray you in a big way," Green said of the former president. "We need to pick our heroes. . . . I think it would be sad if we went through this entire conference without calling out Bill Clinton for what he did."

I love it when they argue among themselves, don't you?  And, of course, America is just clamoring for a Democratic Party farther to the left.  Everyone knows that.

July 232010       Permalink

WHAT?  THERE ARE STILL FAMILIES IN AMERICA?  THE LEFT JUST WASN'T THOROUGH ENOUGH – AT 7:18 A.M. ET:  We really should do more at Urgent Agenda about popular culture.  I promise I'll try.

Brent Bozell comments on the fate of some recent movies, another proof, if any were needed, that Hollywood is totally clueless about the country:

The surprise box-office boom for the cartoon "Despicable Me" is making it clear again to Hollywood this summer that family films are the most likely to be top-grossing films...

...It happens over and over again. And still the "executives" are caught off guard. It shouldn't be that hard to figure out. Nobody needs a graphing calculator. Bring out the whole family, and you bring out a bigger audience. It's summertime, and the kids are bored. If the whole family doesn't go, the driving-age teenager gets assigned to take the young ones to the movies, sometimes more than once.

And yet, The Hollywood Reporter finds the movie market gurus slightly embarrassed at what they call the "family stampede." Family films have well outpaced pre-release projections repeatedly since May, and the studio bosses are puzzled over why these movies "outperform" their guesses.

And...

Only one R-rated movie has grossed more than $100 million this year, the Leonardo DiCaprio horror flick "Shutter Island."

Never heard of it.

Why can't greedy Hollywood just look at the math and put their money where the American public's eyes want to go?

Here's what should follow: more respect from the movie awards shows for these animated films. "Toy Story 3" drew rave reviews across the board. The St. Petersburg Times said it "isn't merely the best movie of the summer -- even with summer just kicking in -- but an immediate candidate for best of the year." Don't bet the mortgage.

COMMENT:  Ah, Brent, how right you are.  But the chances of things improving in the short run are slim.

Hollywood isn't about movies.  It's about deals.  I've worked there, done that.  Many "executives" would be just as happy selling soap.  Many aren't even that interested in movies.  Some probably think "Gone With the Wind" is an energy company.  "Sands of Iwo Jima"?  Why, probably a beach flik for the tweens.  "Singin' in the Rain"?  Isn't that the one about weather stuff and global warming?

What really interests the execs is lunch, and getting the best table. 

You can probably count the number of film executives and agents who've seen military service on the fingers of one hand. 

Hollywood isn't even very American any longer.  Most of its money is made in foreign distribution, which is one reason why you see so few pro-American films. 

Look, you can get great old movies on tape or DVD.  Rent some for a weekend, and see the kind of thing America used to create.  Just rent "An American in Paris," and realize that, half a century ago, American kids were seeing that, and loving it.

July 23,  2010       Permalink  

BACK TO THE SIXTIES – AT 7:14 A.M. ET:  Four months ago, was anyone talking about race?  I don't think so.  Now it's all the rage.  Why, don't plan a dinner party, or even a backyard barbecue, unless you're prepared to indulge.  Some sixties folk songs would be nice.

Victor Davis Hanson, who's written some sharp pieces this week, examines what has happened:

...in just 18 months of the Obama administration, racial discord is growing and relations seem to have been set back a generation.

Black voters are galvanizing behind Obama at a time of rapidly falling support. White independents, in contrast, are leaving Obama in droves...

And this is occurring right before a decisive election.

...Why the escalation of racial tension in the supposed postracial age of Obama?

First, Obama's reputation as a racial healer was largely the creation of the media. In fact, Obama had a number of racially polarizing incidents that probably would have disqualified any other presidential candidate of the past 30 years.

His two-decade apprenticeship at Trinity Church under the racist and anti-Semitic Rev. Jeremiah Wright has never been adequately explained. Obama indulged in racial stereotyping himself when he wrote off the white lower-middle class of Pennsylvania as clueless zealots clinging to their guns, religion and xenophobia.

Obama also characterized his grandmother as a "typical white person" when he implied that her supposed fear of young black males symbolizes the prejudices of the entire white community.

And in the White House?

Such campaign trash talk did not stop during the first 18 months of the Obama presidency. The race-baiting Van Jones -- the short-lived presidential advisor on "green jobs" -- should never have been appointed. Then, the president himself criticized Cambridge, Mass., police for acting "stupidly" when they arrested his friend, Harvard professor Henry Louis Gates.

It's a much longer list, as Hanson points out.

Yet the country passed the old white/black divide years ago. We are a racially diverse society of Asians, blacks, Hispanics, whites, and mixtures of all that and more. In a world of conservative Cubans and liberal whites, race is no longer necessarily a guide to politics.

Who now, exactly, is the racial "Other" deserving of special consideration in hiring and education? A half-Punjabi immigrant whose father owns 500 acres? A three-quarters Puerto Rican who just arrived in New York? A Korean-American son of an orthodontist? The African-American children of a Cabinet official?

The more the president appeals to his base in racial terms, the more his appointees identify themselves as members of a particular tribe, and the more political issues are framed by racial divisions, so all the more such racial obsession creates a backlash among the racially diverse American people.

America has largely moved beyond race. Tragically, our president and a host of his supportive special interests have not.

COMMENT:  I think the issue goes beyond race, and into the realm of radical politics.  Remember, Obama was largely shaped by advisers and mentors for whom race was not simply a cause, but a weapon, to be employed for political purposes.

That is not to suggest that we still don't have racial prejudice.  Of course we do, although it has been vastly diminished in my lifetime.  But some people live in the past, and would like to go back to the confrontational racial politics of the sixties – in part because it benefits them and brings them newfound glory, in part because they feel more comfortable as combatants than healers.

The president could do a great deal to calm the waters.  So far he hasn't, probably because he, and his political counselors, may see some upside in rousing the ethnic base of the Democratic Party.

July 23,  2010       Permalink

WHAT WAS THAT ABOUT A NATIONAL CRISIS? – AT 7:08 A.M. ET:  The planet will burn up, the cities will be flooded, millions will perish, and we'll have to live on the Moon because Earth will be uninhabitable...unless we act now, now, now!!

Or maybe in a couple of years.  Hey, let's not panic.  From Fox:

Hitting a wall of bipartisan opposition to placing a price on carbon, even if just in the utility sector, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., Thursday unveiled a narrow, limited energy bill that contains no cap and trade plan.

Add this to all of Al Gore's current woes.  This is worse than a bad massage.

"Unfortunately this Congress, we don't have a single Republican," Reid told reporters, as he outlined a 4-pronged plan that increases the liability cap for damage incurred from the BP oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico, as well as, new oil rig safety regulations; converts the diesel fleet to natural gas; legislates the HOME STAR energy efficiency program which provides homeowners financial incentives to purchase energy efficient products; and invests in the Land and Water Conservation Fund.

Reid said he has 60 votes for the scaled-back legislation, though details of the BP portion of the bill were not yet clear. The HOME STAR legislative component has Sen. Olympia Snowe, R-ME, as a co-sponsor, though, and Reid said Republicans have supported the other provisions of his plan.

Moderate Sen. Ben Nelson, D-NE, a cap and trade skeptic said he expects the new Reid bill to pass.

While the leader is punting on climate change legislation for now, he made it clear he and other Democrats would continue to try to rally support for a price on carbon, but it is not clear how the math would change in the Senate that would enable Reid to get 60 votes to break a filibuster.
Still, Sen. John Kerry, D-Mass., who has worked on climate change legislation for more than a year, promised, "Let me be crystal clear, this legislation he has proposed doesn't replace climate change legislation or comprehensive energy legislation," adding that President Obama called him before a Democratic Caucus meeting on energy Thursday afternoon promising to step up efforts to find support for a broader bill.

While Republicans stood unanimously against any bill that priced carbon, it is important to note that coal state Democrats and others opposed the effort, as well.

COMMENT:  We do need an energy policy that will develop new sources of energy and eliminate our dependence on foreign, often hostile countries.  But we're not going to get a thoughtful energy program unless we base it on real science and engineering, not fantasies, and unless there's an understanding that the American economy must not be further damaged, just to satisfy the demands of environmental militants. 

July 23,  2010       Permalink

OH, BY THE WAY – AT 7:04 A.M. ET:  While the news media has been consumed by the saga of Shirley Sherrod, Department of Agriculture employee, other stuff has been happening.  For example:

WASHINGTON -- New jobless claims in the U.S. jumped last week by the most since February, reversing a sharp fall two weeks ago. The rise is partly a result of seasonal factors but also reflects the job market's weakness.

The Labor Department says new claims for unemployment insurance jumped by 37,000 to a seasonally adjusted 464,000. Analysts expected a smaller rise, according to a survey by Thomson Reuters.

The sharp increase comes after claims fell steeply two weeks ago to their lowest level since August 2008. But much of that drop was driven by temporary seasonal factors and not necessarily by an improving job market.

COMMENT:  If there's one thing the administration doesn't want to talk about during this year's election campaign, it's the economy.  The fact is that, despite a few bright spots, the economy is still in the basement, with substantial fears of a double-dip recession, or, at least, a very long and painful recovery.

Not change we can believe in.

July 23,  2010     Permalink