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.

NOTE TO READERS:  "The Angel's Corner," normally published late Friday night, will be published over the weekend.  Had some shoulder surgery today.  I was in and out in five hours, but the recovery in the first few days is a bit rough.  I should be back to an almost full schedule sometime tomorrow.

This was not life-threatening, but I will accept all female sympathy and warmth.  Gentlemen need not apply.

FRIDAY,  JULY 30,  2010

OBAMA AND THE "WOMEN'S" VOTE – AT 5:11 A.M. ET:  You've been reading in the last day or so that the president's support among women has declined.  This is critical political news.

The Democratic Party has, in recent decades, benefited from the so-called "gender gap."  The greater the gap, the greater the chances for a Democratic victory.  That gap is now narrowing. 

One of the great myths about the "women's vote" is that women vote for the most attractive man running, that their vote is frivolous.  That is profoundly untrue.  In 1960, the women's vote went to Nixon, not the far more attractive Kennedy.  Women, as all men know, tend to be more mature then men, especially in the younger age groups.

The decline in Obama's female support is probably due simply to his poor performance as president, and the impact that performance is having on families.  If the trend continues, Obama will have virtually no chance at reelection in 2012.  The key phrase is, "...if the trend continues."  Republicans have enormous opportunies with women this year because of the sheer number of GOP female candidates, many of them superb.  If the party can project itself as a place where women, and the views of women, are welcome, the gender gap may well take care of itself.

We say again, Republicans cannot depend only on Democratic failure.  The positive message must go out.

July 30, 2010      Permalink

THE CLASS ACT CONTINUES – AT 4:07 A.M. ET:  The Democratic strategy for the midterms has "statesmanship" written all over it.  Not.  From The Politico:

After months of attacks against the Tea Party by Democrats calling them everything from extremists to racists with no explanation, the reason is now clear.

Part of the Democrats strategy for trying to keep control of Congress is to link the Republican Party to the Tea Partiers. They are releasing what they say is the identical agenda of both the Tea Party and the Republicans and titled it, “Contract on America."

The Democrats are saying that the Republicans and Tea Party will repeal all that the Dems have “accomplished."

I’m not sure about the Republicans, but speaking for myself as a Tea Partier, I would love to repeal Obama-care and everything else this administration has “accomplished."  It would be the best thing for the future of this nation. That is unless you like bankruptcy…

COMMENT:  It's pretty clear that the Democratic campaign will feature fear as its main calling card.  And "racism" will be on the flip side.

These are old tactics on the left, but the tragedy is that our first post-racial president is doing nothing to stop them.  This is going to be an ugly campaign coming up, and don't underestimate the ability of the Democratic party to make low tactics work. 

July 30, 2010      Permalink

FLOATING AN IMMIGRATION PROPOSAL – AT 4:03 A.M. ET:  Apparently the administration has some new ideas on immigration, but they involve an end run around congressional action.  I get the feeling this is a trial balloon:

With Congress grid locked on an immigration bill, the Obama administration is considering using a back door to stop deporting many illegal immigrants - what a draft government memo said could be "a non-legislative version of amnesty."

The memo, addressed to U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services Director Alejandro Mayorkas and written by four agency staffers, lists tools it says the administration has to "reduce the threat of removal" for many illegal immigrants who have run afoul of immigration authorities.

"In the absence of comprehensive immigration reform, USCIS can extend benefits and/or protections to many individuals and groups by issuing new guidance and regulations, exercising discretion with regard to parole-in-place, deferred action and the issuance of Notices to Appear," the staffers wrote in the memo, which was obtained by Sen. Charles E. Grassley, Iowa Republican.

The memo suggests that in-depth discussions have occurred on how to keep many illegal immigrants in the country, which would be at least a temporary alternative to the proposals Democrats in Congress have made to legalize illegal immigrants.

Chris Bentley, a USCIS spokesman, said drafting the memo doesn't mean the agency has embraced the policy and "nobody should mistake deliberation and exchange of ideas for final decisions."

COMMENT:  I don't think that some administrative proposal that looks like amnesty will get by the American people.  I suspect there'd be a terrible backlash, in part because the whole mechanism looks sleazy and political.

July 30, 2010      Permalink

SOBER THINKING ABOUT DEFENSE – AT 4:01 A.M. ET:  A number of defense experts are increasingly concerned about our status in Asia, and are recommending changes in the way we defend our interests there.  From the Washington Times:

A bipartisan, congressionally mandated defense panel on Thursday challenged the Pentagon to broaden its focus beyond counterinsurgency in Afghanistan and Iraq and expand the Navy to deal with threats from rising powers in Asia.

The report by the independent panel, headed by former White House National Security Adviser Stephen Hadley and former Defense Secretary William Perry, calls for the U.S. military to shift its long-term focus to five areas, ranging from "radical Islamist extremism and the threat of terrorism" to confronting "an accelerating global competition for resources."

The panel report also said U.S. maritime power should be increased to deal with "the rise of new global great powers in Asia," an indirect reference to China's growing military and political power. It said the U.S. military must prepare for the "continued struggle for power in the Persian Gulf and the greater Middle East" and "persistent problems from failed and failing states."

In reviewing the Pentagons Quadrennial Defense Review strategy, the panel, in recommendations made public on Capitol Hill, also said that the United States should merge the budgeting process for the military, intelligence and foreign-assistance spending.

To beef up U.S. maritime power in Asia, the report calls for expanding the Navy from its current fleet of 282 ships to 346 ships.

COMMENT:  Too many Americans believe that once we "withdraw" from Iraq and Afghanistan, we can pick up our marbles and go home.  In fact, threats against the United States are escalating, and some are coming from China. 

I think it will be very hard to get the leftist Democratic base to agree to increase the size of the Navy.  That may have to be done by a coalition of Republicans and moderate Democrats...and that assumes Obama will sign the bill.

July 30, 2010     Permalink

THURSDAY,  JULY 29,  2010

SHIRLEY, YOUR 15 MINUTES ARE UP – AT 7:41 P.M. ET:  Some people just don't know when to get off the stage.  From The Politico:

Former Agriculture Department employee Shirley Sherrod said Thursday that she would “definitely” sue conservative blogger Andrew Breitbart over the video that prompted her firing last week.

“Andrew Breitbart ... had to know that he was targeting me,” Sherrod said. “Now, whether he was also trying to target the NAACP ... he had to know that he was targeting me.”

“At this point, he hasn’t apologized — I don’t want it at this point. And he’ll definitely hear from me,” she said.

Sherrod was asked to resign last week when Breitbart’s site, Big Government, posted an edited version of her comments at an NAACP event, in which she said that she had considered not giving a white farmer her “full force” to help him avoid foreclosure. In the full video, it was clear that she related the 23-year-old incident to make the point that “it was about poor, versus those who have” and that she ultimately steered the farmer to a lawyer who helped him save his land.

Sherrod received a public and private apology from Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack, who admitted that he and his staff acted too hastily in asking for her resignation last week and offered her a new job at the Agriculture Department. President Barack Obama later called Sherrod to apologize.

COMMENT:  The woman was somewhat wronged, but got justice in 24 hours and a call from the president.  How many of you, if you've been wronged, got that kind of response? 

Shirley, it's over.  You're not going to be the next Oprah, or the next Michelle, and Halle Berry isn't begging to play you in the movie.   A Rosa Parks you're not.  Publishers are not knocking down the doors for your life story.

Now please go back to work. 

July 29, 2010      Permalink

NEW POLL CONFIRMS GOP LEAD – AT 7:33 P.M. ET:  We've been cautious about accepting the findings of a late Rasmussen poll showing Republicans 10 points ahead in the generic congressional preference race.  Now, though, A Fox Dynamics poll is saying the same thing:

With less than 100 days until the midterm elections, American voters would give the edge to Republicans by an 11 percentage-point margin if the Congressional election were today. Yet a majority doesn't think a Republican takeover of Congress would lead to positive change.

A Fox News poll released Thursday finds that if Americans were heading to the voting booth today, they would back the Republican candidate in their district over the Democrat by 47-36 percent. Two weeks ago the Republicans had a slimmer 4-point advantage (41-37 percent).

As has been the case all year, Republicans continue to be more interested in the upcoming election. Thirty-six percent of Republicans are "extremely" interested compared to 23 percent of Democrats.

COMMENT:  That enthusiasm gap is also important, and also helps Republicans.  As to the finding that most respondents don't think a Republican takeover will lead to positive change, that's a matter of real concern.  As we've reported here before, Republicans are gaining from poor Democratic performance.  The GOP isn't all that popular.  The party has got to work on that problem, and actually govern well (surprise) if elected.  The worst thing would be for Republicans to take over Congress, mess things up, and hand Obama a victory in 2012.

July 29, 2010      Permalink

TALES OF THE BRITISH HEALTH SYSTEM – AT 9:09 A.M. ET:  President Obama has just given a recess appointment to Harvard Professor Donald Berwick, to head the Medicare system.  Under a recess appointment, Berwick will serve for a year, but will not have to be confirmed by the Senate...or answer any congressional questions.  Berwick is known as a great fan of the British health system, which he thinks we should adopt.

Consider this, from London's Telegraph:

Four babies died at a National Health Service heart unit where managers were trying to raise the number of patients being treated in order to avoid closure, according to a damning report.

The infants died within three months of each other after being operated on by a relatively junior surgeon who was appointed to raise patient numbers at the John Radcliffe Hospital in Oxford, an external review has found.

Caner Salih, who was left alone on his second day in the post, complained about the age of the equipment and poor working practices at the children’s cardiac unit. He blew the whistle to bosses after four of his patients died within three months and asked to stop operating.

At least the physician had some decency.  But I doubt if stories like this, and there are many of them, will stop the American left from worshipping the socialized health system of other countries.  I just fear that, with Obamacare about to make its debut, we will take the best overall health-care system in the world, and the fastest, and trash it to make way for the equality of mediocrity.

It can be stopped, and that will depend on the next two major elections.

July 29, 2010      Permalink

DIDN'T WE USED TO CALL IT THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA?  WELL, I GUESS TRENDS CHANGE – AT 8:33 A.M. ET:  The Massachusetts legislature, in an act of profound arrogance and ignorance, has voted to get its state out of the electoral college:

The Massachusetts Legislature has approved a new law intended to bypass the Electoral College system and ensure that the winner of the presidential election is determined by the national popular vote.

"What we are submitting is the idea that the president should be selected by the majority of people in the United States of America," Senator James B. Eldridge, an Acton Democrat, said before the Senate voted to enact the bill.

Under the new bill, he said, "Every vote will be of the same weight across the country."...

...The bill, which passed on a 28-to-9 vote, now heads to Democratic Governor Deval Patrick's desk. The governor has said in the past that he supports the bill, said his spokeswoman Kim Haberlin.

Under the law, which was enacted by the House last week, all 12 of the state's electoral votes would be awarded to the candidate who receives the most votes nationally.

In other words, the people of the state are effectively disenfranchised.  It's people elsewhere in America who will decide who gets the state's electoral votes.

This is another attempt by the hard left, very present in Massachusetts, to scrap the state system and nationalize everything that can be picked up.

Illinois, New Jersey, Hawaii, Maryland, and Washington have already approved the legislation, according to the National Popular Vote campaign's website. The new system would only go into effect once a sufficient number of states have passed laws that would make it work.

Who do these people think they are?  Was there any groundswell of support for this?

The states on the list so far are traditional Democratic states, although New Jersey is tottering. 

The current Electoral College system is confusing and causes presidential candidates to focus unduly on a handful of battleground states, supporters say. They also say that the popular vote winner has lost in four of the nation's 56 elections.

I love it, I love it.  Something is always too "confusing" for the people.

As far as concentrating on a handful of battleground states, that's nonsense.  We've been running widespread campaigns, and some candidates actually ignore some large states if they think they're lost. 

We know from 2000 that even a small state can be decisive.  If Al Gore had won his own state of Tennessee, a medium-sized state, he would have been president, and without Florida. 

The electoral college system should only be changed by constitutional amendment, not by these silly "opt-out" laws that effectively surrender state sovereignty.  We are the United States, not a mob. 

July 29, 2010      Permalink

BACK TO THE NASTY REAL WORLD AGAIN – AT 8:17 A.M. ET:  There is no more important issue than the spread of nuclear weapons.  The nuclear weapon does exactly what it's supposed to do.  Technicians can even predict its effects in particular cities.  It may be hard to get, but it's easy to use.  Any good customer can follow the instructions.

Therefore, this story by the outstanding Eli Lake of The Washington Times, needs examining, and requires concern:

Scientists, engineers and financiers involved in the A.Q. Khan nuclear-smuggling network are being contacted by several governments in an effort to lure these specialists out of retirement.

The development is raising concerns among U.S. intelligence agencies about the revival of the proliferation network that was thought to have been shut down years ago.

Two U.S. intelligence officials and other U.S. officials with access to intelligence reports said information compiled over the past seven months showed that agents from several foreign governments — including Brazil, Burma, Iran, Nigeria, North Korea, Sudan and Syria — pursued members of the network named after Abdul Qadeer Khan, the scientist considered to be the father of Pakistan's nuclear weapons program.

"They have propositioned them to get them to come out of retirement," one senior U.S. intelligence officer said.

Not everyone agrees with the assessment:

Earlier this month, a classified analysis was distributed on the Defense Intelligence Daily — a compendium of intelligence products shared with senior executives in the military and the Pentagon — on evidence that elements of the Khan network may be reactivating. It did not answer that question conclusively. The report, however, did confirm the existence of new intelligence on the recruiting efforts.

I hope this is being taken very seriously inside the intelligence establishment.  We've seen too many cases before when officials, pushing their own agenda, have produced distorted reports.  The most infamous is the report that Iran stopped its nuclear weapons program in 2003, a conclusion picked up and amplified by the thankful left-wing media.  TIME slapped the conclusion on its cover with the blurb, "Now they tell us."  The report turned out to be pathetically optimistic, but reflected the views of those trying to bring down the Bush foreign policy. 

It's entirely logical that those with expertise in nuclear weapons, and a history of selling that expertise, would be contacted by atomic wannabes.  And a little knowledge goes a long way.

July 29, 2010      Permalink

THE PRESIDENT DOES A SHOW – AT 7:45 A.M. ET:  The president of the United States appeared on "The View" yesterday, a daytime TV chat show for women, featuring such intellects as Joy Behar and Whoopi Goldberg.   

It's hard to imagine Lincoln doing that, or FDR, or Jack Kennedy, who had a sense of style.  Even Ronald Reagan, who'd spent part of his life in show business, knew how to be president.  He would not enter the Oval Office without a jacket on.  He did not do talk shows.  He understood symbols. 

This wasn't Obama's first outing on the talk circuit.  He did Jay Leno last year, was widely criticized for lowering the stature of the presidency, but apparently wasn't listening.  When you bow to a Saudi king and grovel to America's enemies, it's hard to lower the stature of the office much further.

Mr. Obama's appearance on "The View" was inappropriate.  Yes, yes, I know, Richard Nixon did "Laugh-In" in the 1960s, uttering the line, "Sock it to me?"  But he was a lawyer at the time, not president. 

I recall picking up a paper in the early 1990s and seeing a photo of President Bill Clinton, behind his Oval Office desk, wearing a jogging suit.  I said to an associate, "This man is in trouble."  It was instinctive.  Some presidents know how to act, know what's expected of them, and some don't.   And, clearly, some don't care.

This president, Mr. Obama, is in trouble.  Americans are turning against him.  One of his great attributes, his likability, is fading.  Many don't like him any longer.  They see him as something of a fake, a make-believe president put in office by a vastly immature political base and an army of willing journalists.  They see him as a man constantly running for an office he already holds.

Is Obama finished?  No president is ever "finished" until his last day in office.  Harry Truman made the most spectacular comeback in modern presidential history in 1948.  Reagan was down for a time. 

The difference, though, is that Obama is carrying extra baggage:  He is disturbingly inexperienced.  He has proven to be an ideologist of the left.  His comments during the campaign, incredibly ignored by a gullible American public, showed that he doesn't much like his own country. 

An ABC report on the president's appearance said this:

So why sit down with "The View's" feisty and opinionated five hosts in the first place?

"I was trying to find a show that Michelle actually watched, and so I thought this is it, right here," he said. "All those new shows, she's like, eh, let me get the clicker."

On Tuesday, White House spokesman Robert Gibbs said the decision was made to put the president on "The View" because it provides an opportunity "to talk to people where they are."

You know, that's really pathetic stuff.

If the president recovers, it will probably be because of some significant, popular act in foreign policy.  But he will have to make the same decision that Harry Truman made when he began his fight back in 1948.  He will have to decide that some support is not worth having, and that he must start to govern a nation, not a faction.  Truman allowed some of the racial segregationists to walk out on him, maintaining his principles.  He also told the party's leftist fringe where they could go, and it wasn't Heaven.  He showed what he was made of.

Will Mr. Obama show what he's made of?  I'd like to be pleasantly surprised, but I'm afraid we've already found out.

July 29, 2010     Permalink