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,  MAY 11,  2010

TIMES SQUARE UPDATE – AT 7:48 P.M. ET:  When I was in journalism, it was a rule of thumb that you got better information from the New York Police Department than from the FBI.  NYPD was considered more advanced and less political.  With all respect to some of the fine work done by the FBI, and it is fine indeed, I listen a bit more carefully when New York's police commissioner, Ray Kelly, speaks.

Kelly has given an update on the Times Square bomber:

The suspected driver in a failed car bombing of Times Square fits the profile of a recent wave "homegrown" terrorists threatening America, New York police officials warned Tuesday.

The officials said Faisal Shahzad and other suspects like Najibullah Zazi - the admitted leader of a plot to bomb the New York subway system - had roots in working- or middle-class society, some college education and no previous criminal records, but became radicalized in part by traveling to overseas terrorist hotbeds.

Notice that they were not the impoverished "oppressed" sad saps often portrayed by the tale spinners of the left.

The Times Square threat was "a classic case of homegrown terrorism," Police Commissioner Raymond Kelly said at a briefing for private security executives.

And...

New York Police Department analyst Mitch Silber said that along with foreign travel, homegrown terrorists typically fall under the spell of extremist, anti-American literature and rhetoric found on the Internet or elsewhere.

Among the items found in Shahzad's home was a version of the Quran known for its "violent interpretation" of jihad, Silber said.

What!  Are they saying that ideology has something to do with this.  You mean it isn't Israeli apartments in Jerusalem? 

Kelly told reporters after the briefing that Shahzad still hadn't appeared in court on Tuesday because he was continuing to provide information in an ongoing investigation. He declined to say whether authorities were seeking other suspects.

A little different from the "lone wolf" garbage handed out in the first days after the failed attack. 

COMMENT:  As we noted in a previous post, military analyst Ralph Peters has detected a more serious take on terrorism from the Obama administration since the Times Square event.  Maybe there is learning going on.  I get the sense that Ray Kelly had it correct from the start.

May 10, 2010     Permalink

AND SO IT BEGINS – AT 7:03 P.M. ET:  During the health-care debate, opponents of Obamacare warned that the bill would gradually increase over time to far beyond the cheerful predictions.  We didn't think the process would start this soon.  From Fox:

President Obama's new health care law could potentially add at least $115 billion more to government health care spending over the next 10 years, congressional budget referees said Tuesday.

If Congress approves all the additional spending called for in the legislation, it would push the 10-year cost of the overhaul above $1 trillion -- an unofficial limit the Obama administration set early on.

The Congressional Budget Office said the added spending includes $10 billion to $20 billion in administrative costs to federal agencies carrying out the law, as well as $34 billion for community health centers and $39 billion for Indian health care.

The costs were not reflected in earlier estimates by the budget office, although Republican lawmakers strenuously argued that they should have been. Part of the reason is technical: the additional spending is not mandatory, leaving Congress with discretion to provide the funds in follow-on legislation -- or not.

"Congress does not always act on authorizations that are put into legislation by drafters," explained Kenneth Baer, a spokesman for the White House budget agency. "Authorizations for discretionary spending are not expenditures."

COMMENT:  That's nonsense.  The Democrats will demand those new expenditures, if they have the power to do so, because their base will demand them. 

As the song from "Gypsy" goes, "You Gotta Have a Gimmick."  What we see here is a world-class gimmick.

May 10, 2010    Permalink

BRITISH CRISIS OVER? – AT 6:17 P.M. ET:  Well, we're not really sure.  As many of you know by now, events moved very quickly today in London.  Any chance of a deal that would keep Labour in power in a deal with the Liberal Democrats collapsed – at least Labour demonstrated some pride in this – but a deal between the Conservatives and the Liberal Dems appears in the making, and pretty much assured.

So, Gordon Brown firmly resigned as prime minister, visiting the Queen to do it, and the Queen summoned David Cameron, the conservative chief, and asked him to form a new government.

Cameron is the new prime minister, even though his deal with the Lib Dems is not complete, and brings its own dangers.  From the solid John Burns of The New York Times:

LONDON — David Cameron, the Conservative leader, took over as Britain’s prime minister on Tuesday evening and announced the formation of a coalition government, capping a day of political negotiations that ended with the Tories returning to power after 13 years in the opposition.

That word "coalition" requires the magnifying glass to look at the fine print that emerges.  We want to know how British foreign and defense policy will be affected. 

Speaking outside the prime minister’s office at 10 Downing Street, Mr. Cameron said his Conservative party, which failed to win an outright majority in last week’s elections, would form a coalition with the center-left Liberal Democrats — a potentially fraught arrangement that Mr. Cameron admitted could pose “all sorts of challenges.”

Indeed.  The Lib Dems favor the dismantling of Britain's Trident submarine fleet and have something of an anti-American tone about them.  Fox is reporting that their leader, Nicholas Clegg, who sometimes gives the impression that he doesn't much like his own country, may be deputy prime minister, a breathtaking achievement for a leader who actually lost seats in last Thursday's election.

How much of the store has been given away? 

A five-hour meeting between Conservatives and Liberal Democrats, who came in third in the elections, ended Tuesday with no announcement of a deal. William Hague, a Conservative leader, emerged from talks without giving any details of the negotiations, saying he and his colleagues were on their way to see Mr. Cameron.

We will withhold any champagne until we see the arrangement.  Cameron is an ambitious man, and ambitious men can make foolish concessions on their way to the job they've sought all their lives.

This is a better outcome than a Labour-Lib Dem deal.  How much better remains to be seen.

May 10, 2010    Permalink

THE MORNING AFTER PILL – AT 10:36 A.M. ET:  Do you sometimes get the feeling that some "investors" and "financial analysts" are just children playing in a sandbox?  How else do you explain the childlike reaction to yesterday's dramatic European bailout, and the reversal today?  It's like a kid deciding that he doesn't like the red bike after all.

Yesterday the international markets went into ecstasy over a European bailout plan to salvage the Greek economy and provide some protection for others that may be in trouble of falling off the cliff.

This morning the financial geniuses woke up to realize that the bailout may not be enough, that the nations themselves may not do what's asked of them, and that we may see this movie again, with a much higher price of admission.  Question:  Why couldn't all these money wizards figure this out yesterday?

(Reuters) - Germany's cabinet approved the biggest national contribution to a $1 trillion emergency rescue package intended to stabilize the euro as global markets sobered up after Monday's euphoria.

Relief at the European Union's bold move to restore investor confidence gave way on Tuesday to doubts about whether weaker euro zone economies can meet their part of the bargain and deliver drastic debt cuts, driving the euro and stocks lower.

Might have thought of that a little earlier, don't you think?

The 16-nation single currency, which surged above $1.30 early on Monday, slipped below $1.27 as traders weighed debt worries and a perceived blow to the European Central Bank's independence in its weekend policy reversal to start buying euro zone government bonds.

The emergency plan -- the biggest since G20 leaders threw money at the global economy following the collapse of Lehman Brothers in 2008 -- wowed markets with its sheer size and sparked a spectacular rally in world stocks and the euro.

Yet stock and bond markets turned cautious when they reopened for business in Asia and Europe on Tuesday, with investors concerned that the plan was not a long-term solution to problems plaguing the 11-year old single currency area.

COMMENT:  Must be fun being a financial analyst.  You can change your mind overnight and still get the big bonus.  What a life.

May 10, 2010    Permalink

A SCAM BY ANY OTHER NAME – AT 9:36 A.M. ET:  Ah, diversity, thy name is hypocrisy.

The diversity crowd is firmly entrenched in Washington, making sure that all men truly are created equal.  But, of course, we all know what diversity really means –  it means a boost for those groups popular on the political left in a given year.  Check the list regularly, for it changes. 

Now the Weekly Standard rips bare the truth about diversity when it comes to U.S. Supreme Court justices.  Why, what a diverse lot we have.  Oh, yes, the justices vary by race, gender and ethnicity, the Holy Trinity of the diversity faith.  But there the diversity stops. 

On other important grounds, the Supreme Court appears as a surprisingly monolithic group of justices. Nearly all attended elite colleges and proceeded from there to a few Ivy League law schools. They come from either a few northeastern states or from California. Considered as a group, the absence of genuine diversity on the Court is more than a little stunning.

Here, then, is the line-up of the current Court, with nominee Kagan penciled in, with their colleges, law schools, religious background, and region of residence listed:

So let's see.  The march of diversity begins with the fact that eight of the nine justices went either to Harvard or Yale Law School.  A diversity blowout!  The ninth, Ruth Ginsburg, went to Columbia, another Ivy.  As for undergraduate schools, eight of the nine went to "elites."  Only Clarence Thomas went to what some would call a less-than-elite, Holy Cross. 

All of course are lawyers. Eight of the nine—excepting Kagan—were elevated to the Court from judicial positions to which they were appointed because of their training, intelligence, and connections. None has held an elected office that would have required an appeal to the common sense of voters. All have lived and worked in the hermetic world of elite colleges, Ivy League law schools, and the federal bench.

COMMENT:  Diversity has again been exposed as a kind of a racket.  We're all for diversity as long as it only includes "our" people. 

We're reminded of the famous story of Lyndon Johnson, after his first Cabinet meeting as Kennedy's vice president, rushing back to Capitol Hill to exclaim to Speaker Sam Rayburn what a spectacular Cabinet Kennedy had, with graduates of Harvard, Yale, MIT, and the other glories.

Mr. Sam, according to the story, just leaned back in his chair and replied, "Lyndon, I just wish one of them had run for sheriff."

Indeed. 

May 10, 2010     Permalink

ARE THE OBAMANS WAKING UP? – AT 9:02 A.M. ET:  Military writer Ralph Peters has been extremely tough on Obama, and properly so.  Now he detects change in the Obaman approach to terror.  We've detected the same thing.  Is something good happening, or is this just pre-election gimmickry?  From the New York Post:

Something big is happening. Big enough to alarm the White House. So big that the administration did an abrupt about-face regarding terrorism.

Terrorism's serious now -- driving major policy reversals. The administration just won't tell us why.

A week ago, failed Times Square bomber Faisal Shahzad wasn't even a Muslim, but a 40-something white male and, as Mayor Bloomberg insisted, probably an opponent of ObamaCare.

Yeah, these billionaires sometimes don't get it.  We were also told by administration talkers, including the very four-starred David Petraeus, that this was just a lone wolf.  Nothing to see, nothing to see.

Then wham! Over the weekend, the Obama administration unleashed a reverse-course media offensive -- deploying Attorney General Eric Holder, terror czar John Brennan, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and plentiful back-channel messages from staffers.

And...

...the administration's biggest policy reversal to date came from Holder, the longtime advocate of terrorist "rights," who offered one of the most belated acknowledgments in history when he told a TV network, "We're now dealing with international terrorism."

Holder, of all people, now wants Congress to change the rules for Miranda rights, giving the government more time under a "public-safety exception" to permit extended questioning of terrorist suspects before arming them with lawyers.

And the meaning, according to Peters:

First, the administration has plainly realized that the terror danger is much higher than it believed one week ago.

Second, it means that Shahzad really has been talking -- almost certainly tipping us that there are more America-bound terror trainees out there (or already here) and letting us fit together important pieces of the intelligence puzzle.

Third, the White House obviously fears more terror attacks sooner rather than later.

This sudden policy shift and media mobilization by an administration that's usually lethargic on security issues means that folks at the top are worried about the political costs of a successful terrorist strike.

Given the nature of this White House, I'd imagine that last point got their attention.  Big time.

Since Inauguration Day, reality denial has been an integral part of this administration's culture. But reality's a persistent intruder. For reasons we don't yet know in detail, the failed Times Square bombing appears to have brought the White House at least part way to its senses.

Some revelation about the terrorist threat has shocked the president. It's about time.

COMMENT:  Well, let's see what the administration's attitude toward terror is after the election.  Clearly, the Obamans have been jolted.  But the left wing of the Democratic Party hasn't been jolted.  And that's the Obama base.

If there's been a permanent change for the better, we applaud.  But right now we applaud with only one hand, waiting for real action.

May 10, 2010     Permalink

OH, THEY'RE FIGHTING IN BRITAIN – ON THE GROUND, ON THE BEACHES, IN THE AIR – AT 8:42 A.M. ET: 

A British political fight is like no other.  Under the veneer of British gentlemanliness there lie the razor blades.  A debate in the House of Commons is, commonly, much rougher than one in our own Congress.  The insults fly, the air thick with ridicule and put-downism. 

And now the Brits fight again.  Yesterday (organ music please) we told you of the new betrayal:  While negotiating with the Conservatives, the nutbag Lib Dems started talking with Labour over forming a government coalition, forcing the Tories out.  But even some in Labour, not easily revolted by anything, are revolted.  From The Times of London:

Labour opposition to a deal with the Liberal Democrats was growing today even as party negotiators faced demands for more concessions from Nick Clegg.

Clegg, what the Brits call a nutter, is head of a party that actually lost seats in this election, but holds the balance of power.  Add his seats to one of the large parties, and a majority of Parliament is created, or at least a near-majority.  Clegg now has delusions of grandeur, and intelligence. 

David Blunkett, the former Home Secretary, gave public voice to concerns about whether Labour could trust the Lib Dems in a coalition deal, claiming that they were behaving like "every harlot in history."

That is an insult to the very fine harlot communities of the world.

John Reid, another former Home Secretary, warned that voters would punish Labour if it tried to "cobble something together that was not in the national interest".

But The Times has learnt that behind the scenes there is wider Cabinet disquiet at the turn of events.

Jack Straw, the Justice Secretary, who has always been opposed to agreements with the Liberals, is said by colleagues to be "incensed" about the moves. One colleague even questioned whether Mr Straw would stay in the Cabinet in such circumstances.

A senior Cabinet source said that Mr Straw was not alone in his reservations. "We had to fight hard to get the AV referendum promise through the PLP. We could never go beyond that. If the Libs are asking us for PR, they won't get it. We can't deliver."

A ministerial source added: "This is obscene. We have to accept that we did not win the election. We lost it. Let's get real."

If they got real, they wouldn't be in the Labour Party at all. 

Another ministerial source told The Times: "It strikes me this is all about giving Gordon another six months in the job."

Gordon Brown, that is, who has offered to resign, but would like some more months at 10 Downing Street, just to dust off the pictures, you know.

COMMENT:  In two days Britain will have gone a week without a permanent government.  The British politicos should immediately ask for advice from Chicago, whose government is completely permanent.

May 10, 2010     Permalink

OBAMA GALLUPS ON – AT 8:22 A.M. ET:  Well, maybe trots on.  A new Gallup poll paints a picture of relative stability for the president, but with serious danger signs: 

PRINCETON, NJ -- President Barack Obama's approval ratings remain polarized by political party and race, and continue to show a significant gap between younger and older Americans.

For example, 82% of Dems approve of the president, compared with 14% of Republicans.  The danger sign:  Only 47% of independents approve.  Without independents, Obama loses in 2012.

On race:  Some 89% of blacks approve, whereas 43% of whites do. 

Age:  Some 58% of 18-29 year-olds approve, whereas only 43% of those 65 and older approve.  The danger sign: Obama's approval is down to 50% among 39-49 year-olds, considered a "youngish" group these days. 

More broadly, Obama's 50% approval average among all Americans for the week ending May 9 continues an extended run of stable ratings for him. Since mid-November, Obama's approval ratings have narrowly ranged between 47% and 51%.

COMMENT:  Rasmussen also has Obama's approval in the mid to high 40s, but with a disapproval hovering at about 52%. 

So Obama, despite a dramatic drop from the lofty figures of inauguration day, 2009, is hanging on.  He will not be easy to beat in 2012.  Gear up now for a tough, but winnable race.

May 10, 2010     Permalink

MONDAY,  MAY 10,  2010

"ISLAM'S NOWHERE MEN" – AT 8:11 P.M. ET:  That's the title of a brilliant piece by Fouad Ajami in today's Wall Street Journal, reflecting on the man, Faisal Shahzad, who wanted to blow up Times Square last week:

"A Muslim has no nationality except his belief," the intellectual godfather of the Islamists, Egyptian Sayyid Qutb, wrote decades ago. Qutb's "children" are everywhere now; they carry the nationalities of foreign lands and plot against them. The Pakistani born Faisal Shahzad is a devotee of Sayyid Qutb's doctrine, and Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan, the Fort Hood shooter, was another...

...The Islamists are now within the gates. They fled the fires and the failures of the Islamic world but brought the ruin with them. They mock national borders and identities.

And...

Nowadays the Islamic faith is portable. It is carried by itinerant preachers and imams who transmit its teachings to all corners of the world, and from the safety and plenty of the West they often agitate against the very economic and moral order that sustains them. Satellite television plays its part in this new agitation, and the Islam of the tele-preachers is invariably one of damnation and fire. From tranquil, banal places (Dubai and Qatar), satellite television offers an incendiary version of the faith to younger immigrants unsettled by a modern civilization they can neither master nor reject.

And home, the Old Country, is never far. Pakistani authorities say Faisal Shahzad made 13 visits to Pakistan in the last seven years. This would have been unthinkable three or four decades earlier. Shahzad lived on the seam between the Old Country and the New. The path of citizenship he took gave him the precious gift of an American passport but made no demands on him.

It's the "no demands" that should worry us.  It's true.  We make no demands on those who become new citizens. 

From Pakistan comes a profile of Shahzad's father, a man of high military rank, and of property and standing: He was "a man of modern thinking and of the modern age," it was said of him in his ancestral village of Mohib Banda in recent days. That arc from a secular father to a radicalized son is, in many ways, the arc of Pakistan since its birth as a nation-state six decades ago. The secular parents and the radicalized children is also a tale of Islam, that broken pact with modernity, the mothers who fought to shed the veil and the daughters who now wish to wear the burqa in Paris and Milan.

We have our own equivalent – the immigrant family whose children reject the "old ways," and their children, who want to explore them again. 

This is a long twilight war, the struggle against radical Islamism. We can't wish it away. No strategy of winning "hearts and minds," no great outreach, will bring this struggle to an end. America can't conciliate these furies. These men of nowhere—Faisal Shahzad, Nidal Malik Hasan, the American-born renegade cleric Anwar Awlaki now holed up in Yemen and their likes—are a deadly breed of combatants in this new kind of war. Modernity both attracts and unsettles them. America is at once the object of their dreams and the scapegoat onto which they project their deepest malignancies.

COMMENT:  Another superb piece by Ajami, one of the few scholars of Islam who refuses to drink the Kool-Aid and do the multicultural dance.  He warns us, just as Churchill warned Britain in the 1930s.  Churchill's warnings were ignored, and the Second World War resulted.  Will Ajami be ignored?  Will we face Islamist nations armed with nuclear weapons, and the will to use them?  Those are the great foreign-policy questions of the next two decades.  I'm not sure of the answers.

May 10, 2010     Permalink

KAGAN REACTION – AT 7:35 P.M. ET:  Republicans are reacting cautiously to the nomination of Solicitor General Elena Kagan to the Supreme Court.  The Politico reports:

Key Senate Republicans who already voted to confirm Elena Kagan as solicitor general were quick to point out that their previous support does not guarantee they will back her for a lifetime appointment to the Supreme Court.

Republicans such as Orrin Hatch and Jon Kyl – both yes votes in 2009 on Kagan — blasted statements within minutes of Monday morning's Supreme Court announcement, emphasizing that their previous support was not indicative of what their votes will be when the former Dean of the Harvard law school comes before the Senate for the nation's highest court, likely in July.

“As I made clear when I supported her confirmation as Solicitor General, a temporary political appointment is far different than a lifetime appointment to the Supreme Court,” Kyl said. “Every senator has a constitutional duty to scrutinize judicial nominees, and I will take great care in examining her record to ensure that she possess the qualities the American people expect in our Supreme Court Justices.”

The Minority Whip from Arizona joined Republicans Hatch, Tom Coburn of Oklahoma, Olympia Snowe and Susan Collins of Maine, Judd Gregg of New Hampshire, and Richard Lugar of Indiana in confirming Kagan as Solicitor General in a 61-31 in March 2009.

COMMENT:  I suspect this is more posturing than anything else.  Unless there's a smoking gun somewhere, which would mean Democrats turning against her, Kagan will be confirmed. 

The biggest rap on her nomination is her record of opposing military recruiters at Harvard over the "don't ask, don't tell" policy of the armed services.  However, Kagan can easily explain this as a reflection of Harvard policy, rather than any antagonism toward the military. 

Ironically, Kagan may face some opposition from the fringe left, which feels she didn't hire enough minorities when dean of Harvard Law.  If that opposition becomes more heated, it could conceivably peel away enough Democratic senators to deny Kagan her confirmation.  However, I don't think it will.  Although nothing was made of it today, she is apparently gay, and I really don't think the left will actively oppose the first gay nominee to the Supreme Court.

May 10, 2010     Permalink

METHINKS THE MESS IS EXPANDING – AT 7:14 A.M. ET:  I was with a very knowledgeable participant in and observer of British politics today, and she was absolutely despondent over the mess over there.

There is no new government.  The Conservatives were negotiating with the Liberal Dems, but now Prime Minister Gordon Brown has offered to resign as head of the Labour Party, and there's some negotiating between Labour and the Lib Dems.  So we could see 1) a coalition government between Tories and Lib Dems; 2) a coalition government between Labour and Lib Dems; or 3) a minority Conservative government on shaky foundations.

The worst of the three would be a coalition between Labour and the Lib Dems – essentially a coalition between a failed government and a group of psychiatrically certifiable eccentrics, the Lib Dems, who don't much like their own country.

This comes against a background of major economic crisis in Europe. 

Weren't all these folks the ones who were lecturing George W. Bush on the proper way to run things?  I think they were.  Maybe they should now hire him as a consultant.

The British political crisis is significant.  Whether President Obama wishes it or not, Britain is our closest and most important ally.  The longer the negotiations for a new government go on, the weaker Britain looks.

May 10, 2010     Permalink

FAIR WARNING – AT 10:23 A.M. ET:  This is happening more and more at schools below the college level.  It reflects the kind of education that teachers themselves are receiving.  From Fox:

The battle over the American flag has reached a middle school art class in California’s Santa Rita School District where a student was told not to draw Old Glory because it was “offensive,” while another student was praised for drawing a picture of President Obama.

Tracy Hathaway, of Salinas, CA, told FOX News Radio her 13-year-old daughter was ordered to stop drawing the American flag and start another project at Gavilan View Middle School.

“She had drawn the flag and was sketching the letters, ‘God bless America,’ when the teacher confronted her,” Hathaway told FOX. “She said, ‘You can’t draw that – that’s offensive.’”

Even more striking, another student in the same art class drew a picture of President Obama and was praised by the teacher.

“The picture of Barack Obama was in red, white and blue hues,” Hathaway said. “ The teacher said it was great. But when it comes to the flag – all of a sudden it was offensive?”

Hathaway said she took her concerns to the principal – and he was “floored” and apologized for what happened. He arranged a meeting with the Hathaways and the teacher.

“My husband point-blank asked her what she found offensive about the picture – the American flag or the words, ‘God Bless America,’” she said. “The teacher didn’t say a word.”

COMMENT:  How many parents are alert to what's being taught in our schools?  And to the behavior of some teachers?

Yes, we've always had a certain number of off-kilter teachers.  I had a few, on both sides of the political aisle.  But stories like this are going to increase unless parents take a more active role in their children's educations.  That is their right and responsibility.  The days when you can send your child to a "good" school and be confident are over. 

Since the sixties, the left has made a concerted effort to influence elementary and secondary education.  After all, consider the fact that Bill Ayers, former radical Weatherman and friend of Barack Obama, is considered a "distinguished" educator.

May 10, 2010     Permalink

PENNSYLVANIA POKER – AT 8:49 A.M. ET:  There is major political news coming out of the very important state of Pennsylvania.  And it could affect the makeup of the next U.S. Senate.

Arlen Specter, who switched from the Republican to the Democratic Party, seemed on track to win the Democratic nomination this year for another term in the Senate.  But in recent days Congressman Joe Sestak, his challenger for the nomination, has made dramatic strides and now leads Specter.  From RealClearPolitics:

The trend remains ominous for Sen. Arlen Specter (D) in the Muhlenberg College tracking poll (5/6-9, 398 LVs, MoE +/- 5%) of the Pennsylvania Senate race. Rep. Joe Sestak (D) leads for the third straight day, having turned a 9-point deficit last week into a 5-point lead.

Senate Primary Election Matchup
Sestak 47 (+1)
Specter 42 (unch)
Und 11 (-1)

Toppling Specter, a Pennsylvania institution, would be a political earthquake.  It might also mean trouble for our side.  Polls show former Republican Congressman Pat Toomey, the almost-certain GOP nominee for the Senate, could defeat Specter.

Sestak is another story.  He's a fresh face, and a former Navy vice admiral.  When you listen to him, you wonder how he ever got that high.  He is, however, a consummate politician, the smoothest of smooth talkers, which may explain it.  His separation from the Navy was, apparently, not entirely a happy one, something any opponent would want to explore. 

But Sestak, in part because of his military background, may give Toomey a harder time than Specter would.  We have counted on Pennsylvania as a possible GOP pickup this November.  Not so sure right now.  And Florida is looking tight, with Gov. Charlie Crist running as an independent.

As we've said here before, November is going to be a tough fight for the Republicans, despite what some early polls might say.  The GOP must run every race as if it's 20 points behind.

May 10, 2010     Permalink

LIKE A THIRD-WORLD COUNTRY – AT 8:22 A.M. ET:  Britain still has no definitive outcome to the election held last Thursday. 

Conservative David Cameron is odds-on favorite to be living at 10 Downing Street, but the movers are being held up by the eccentric, anti-American, almost anti-British leader of the Liberal Dems.  This is pathetic.  From The Times of London:

Nick Clegg is making David Cameron sweat as the pair edge towards a deal that would put the Conservative leader in Downing Street.

Both sides will resume talks today. Their negotiating teams spent nearly six hours at the Cabinet Office yesterday, trying to thrash out an agreement, but Liberal Democrat sources suggested that it might be Thursday before Mr Cameron could think about walking into No 10.

William Hague, who led the talks for the Tories, and Danny Alexander, his Lib Dem counterpart, tried to reassure the markets by announcing that cutting the deficit would be at the heart of any agreed programme for government. There were no details about how such a programme would look.

Tory sources suggested that a deal — short of full coalition but with agreement on a range of legislation — was within reach today. Liberal Democrats, however, described this as “optimistic”. A senior source said: “It’s more important to get this right than to be hasty. But we need to reach a deal before the public turns against the process.”

COMMENT:  The key, from an American viewpoint, would be to prevent the very leftist libs from having any influence in British foreign and defense policy.  Among other things, kooky Clegg wants to scrap Britain's Trident submarines, which would reduce the Royal Navy to a coastal defense force and ferry service.  And he just loves cozying up to the European Union, some of whose members are approaching bankruptcy. 

Not exactly their finest hour.

May 10, 2010     Permalink

BRING IN THE FOOD TASTERS – AT 8:05 A.M. ET:  I've seen plenty of questionable political statements in my time, but this one has to take some kind of prize.  Of course, it's by Hillary Clinton, who was never named Miss Integrity in any contest, beauty or otherwise.  From the New York Daily News:

They've come a long way, baby.

Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said she and President Obama - once fierce rivals for the White House - have buried the hatchets and are now the best of buds.

"I ran hard against him, he ran hard against me," she told CBS' "60 Minutes."

"He won. I lost. And then he asked me to work him on behalf of our country."

Now? "We have a great relationship," she insisted.

Yuch.  Come on.  It's authoritatively reported that Clinton maintains her political operation in Washington.  And if Obama should falter?  You watch what happens to that "best buddy" stuff.

As far as burying the hatchets is concerned, I think you'll find them in top desk drawers, and kept very sharp.

But the former First Lady also revealed that when Obama asked her to be his secretary of state, she initially balked.

"Just ridiculous," she said in describing her first reaction. "I absolutely did not believe it."

"When he raised it, I said, 'Well, there are so many other people you should consider. I really don't think I wanna do that. I'm not interested in doing it.'"

"I wanted to get back to what I was already doing," said Clinton, referring to her job as New York's junior senator.

Yeah, right.  She wanted to still be senator.  Then why isn't she?  She already had the job, and the drapes.

COMMENT:  Look, I guess she really can't say anything else about Obama.  But the wounds from the 2008 have got to remain.  The Obama side, after all, essentially accused the Clinton camp of stoking racism. 

Hillary Clinton wants to be president.  I am far from convinced that she's doing all this because she suddenly loves traveling to Pakistan.

May 10, 2010     Permalink

KAGAN – AT 7:35 A.M. ET:  Barring a last-minute surprise, or a revelation that she was a pen pal of George W. Bush, President Obama will announce his selection of Elena Kagan for the U.S. Supreme Court today.

So what can we say?  No one denies Kagan's intellect, or her demonstrated ability, as dean of Harvard Law, to "bring people together."  As an individual and an administrator, she has an excellent reputation.

But she has little in the way of a paper trail.  She will, if confirmed, be the only member of the Court without judicial experience, which means she's never written an opinion from the bench.  She is most famous for trying, at Harvard, to bar military recruiters from campus on the basis of the "don't ask, don't tell" policy in the military regarding gay personnel.  Kagan is assumed to be gay, but has apparently never formally confirmed it.

Her role in the military recruitment issue will clearly be a bone of contention in confirmation hearings, but is not expected to block confirmation.

We assume she's a liberal, but most sources say she's not doctrinaire.  (Look, we're not going to get a conservative from Obama.  But we can hope for reasonably sane liberals.)  If she joins the Court, which is highly probable, it will leave the Supreme Court without any Protestant justices.  There will be six Catholics and three Jews.  That is a delicate matter for any politician to bring up these days, but it almost certainly means that Obama's next choice will have to be a Protestant male. 

The problem with Kagan is that, once again, we will have a justice with an Ivy League and Eastern pedigree.  The Court is heavily tipped in that direction, and clearly needs some educational and geographic balance.  The president has said he wants justices with "empathy," but Americans out West or in the South can occasionally use some empathy as well.  Once again we find that the political class that constantly screams for "diversity" never extends that diversity beyond itself. 

We'll learn more about Kagan during confirmation hearings.  She went through easily when confirmed for solicitor general, the post she holds now.  Nothing has changed since then.  She'll be the ninth justice.

May 10, 2010    Permalink