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.

FRIDAY, NOVEMBER 26,  2010

NOW THIS IS GOOD – AT 7:01 P.M. ET:  I admire people in politics who, if they make a mistake, work to correct it.  It's far better than to make excuses or, Obama style, blame someone else.  Again, from Fox:

In the wake of the Tea Party's 2010 victories and losses, a new effort is underway to improve vetting and candidate recruitment. It is an explicit acknowledgement of past mistakes to avoid in the future.

Ned Ryun of MajorityAmerica.org is running a nationwide "New Leaders" program with several Tea Party factions and says the movement is going through some rigorous self-appraisal.

"I will say this when I'm talking with these local leaders they have mentioned by name Christine O'Donnell and Sharron Angle and said we'd prefer not to have that again in 2012. In many ways they felt it was damaging to the movement to have candidates like," Ryun said.

It is a goal being embraced by several of the major organizations within the broader Tea Party movement.

"We've got to do some vetting of the candidates because we don't want someone getting out there announcing they're a Tea Party candidate, getting some good support and suddenly we discover something terrible about them," said Judson Phillips who organized the first Tea Party Convention as a founder of Tea Party Nation.

Tea Partiers admit they did not know much about Republican Christine O'Donnell's background before supporting her for the GOP nomination in Delaware. It will never be known if a well-run Republican campaign in Nevada may have ousted Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, but Tea Partiers are painfully aware that Sharron Angle spent more time running from reporters than she did waging a credible campaign.

To the Tea Party, such setbacks amount to growing pains and the operative word is growing. "We want to see candidates that can be far more credible, that are able to effectively communicate the ideas that we know are winning ideas. And not have the other things that came with O'Donnell and Angle campaigns," Ryun said.

COMMENT:  Wonderful attitude.  Examine what went wrong, and fix it.  The Tea Partiers are, of course, denounced as kooks, extremists, racists, nutballs.  In fact, they appear to be thoughtful people who know how to build a movement and improve it as they go.  Kudos.

November 26, 2010      Permalink

ANOTHER "HUMAN RIGHTS" ORGANIZATION UNMASKED AND PUNISHED – AT 6:46 P.M. ET:  ACORN, an organization that used to count Barack Obama among its supporters, is no more, but the melody lingers on.  From Fox:

The scandal-plagued ACORN may no longer exist, but its tarnished legacy lives on in court, as the activist group and its former employees face criminal punishment.

So far this year, at least 18 former workers have admitted guilt or been convicted on varying charges of election fraud. The punishment has ranged from probation to several months of prison time.

ACORN, once a powerful advocate for low-income and minority voters, shuttered its operations amid plummeting revenues in March, six months after conservative activists posing as a pimp and prostitute caught on video some of the group's employees offering them tax advice.

But the group is still facing charges in Nevada on conspiracy to commit the crime of compensation for registration of voters.The trial, originally scheduled to begin Monday, has been postponed likely until next year.

COMMENT:  If it weren't for Fox News, I don't think we'd know much about these cases.  But we can only wonder how many close elections have been affected by ACORN'S corrupt activities. 

I fear that another group like it will take its place.  They really don't help minority voters, of course.  They only help the politicians who get elected to "serve" minority communities.  Left-wing groups tend to be top-down operations.  While blabbering about "the people," they actually are more committed to leaders.  And, eventually, these groups become businesses, then rackets, as the philosopher-longshoreman Eric Hoffer once pointed out.

November 26, 2010     Permalink

EARLY RETIREMENT FOR OBAMA? – AT 9:21 A.M. ET:  We are already in the 2012 presidential election cycle.  And Byron York of the Washington Examiner thinks the indicators for President Obama are not very good:

A look inside his poll numbers suggests that if he cannot turn around some key trends, he'll be a one-term president.

Just look at the exit polls from 2008, which reveal the demographic contours of Obama's support. Compare those with Gallup's weekly analysis of the president's approval rating, drawn from multiple polls broken down by age, gender, political philosophy, and the like. Throw in some insights from the midterm elections, and the mix shows a dramatic deterioration in Obama's 2008 support.

And...

Start with voters who call themselves independents. Obama won 52 percent of them in 2008; now, according to Gallup, he is at 42 percent. Obama's party as a whole fared even worse among independents in the midterms, losing them to Republicans by 19 points. If Obama does anywhere near that badly in 2012, he'll lose.

Next, women. In 2008, Obama won 56 percent of female voters. Today, he's at 49 percent. If that number doesn't improve, he'll be in deep trouble. (Obama is also down with men, from 49 percent in 2008 to 44 percent now.)

Even younger voters, a key part of Obama's coalition, are peeling away. In '08, Obama won 66 percent of voters 18-29 years of age. Now, he's at 58 percent.

And...

Then there are white voters. In '08, Obama won 43 percent of whites. Now, he's at 37 percent -- a dangerously low number for his re-election hopes. He won 67 percent of Hispanic voters in 2008; now, he's at 58 percent...

...Just one group has stuck with Obama through it all. In '08, he won 58 percent of people with graduate degrees. Now, he's at 59 percent. It appears that academic types will be with Obama always, but they're not enough.

Yeah, the anthropology vote just isn't as decisive as it once was. 

There are counter-arguments, of course, but they seem weak:

Obama supporters point to the example of Bill Clinton, whose approval dipped to 40 percent after losing Congress in 1994, only to climb to 54 percent before winning easy re-election in 1996. Maybe that will happen again.

But Clinton's former pollster, Doug Schoen, doesn't see it that way. Schoen recently did a survey asking voters whether Obama deserves to be re-elected and found that 56 percent believe the president doesn't deserve another term, while just 38 percent believe he does.

York makes the point that major Republican blunders can still save the president, and we observe that the Republican Party has often proved itself blunder-friendly.  We must especially be concerned about the party's militant base demanding a presidential candidate who is unelectable. 

But, York says, "at this point, it will be hard for Obama to save himself. He'll need a lot of help to win a second term in the White House."

I don't think the picture is entirely bleak for the president.  An economic turnaround can save him.  So can an astute handling of a foreign crisis, although the record isn't encouraging.  "Astute handling" is not Obama's middle name.

First item of business:  to identify the Republican candidates who can beat Obama, who can run a professional campaign against a hostile press.  The bench is not all that great.  I get the sense that many in the party are looking for a dark horse, or wishing that Marco Rubio was older.  Without the best candidate, the message can turn to dust.

November 26, 2010      Permalink

Y'THINK? – AT 8:40 A.M. ET:  It will come as a shock, but some people in authority are actually starting to think intelligently about airline security.  Calming medications may be required as you absorb this shock.  From The Politico:

If Americans don’t want the government touching their “junk” to improve air security, the alternative may well be greater scrutiny of passengers’ travel histories and personal backgrounds, security experts say.

The public backlash against the aggressive pat-downs the federal government rolled out this month could put more pressure on the government to introduce security measures previously rejected on privacy grounds, including in-depth interrogations of travelers at airports, government scrutiny of passengers’ airline information, and even creation of a secure, standardized national ID card.

Oh dear.  Isn't that...dare I say it in polite circles...the Israeli system?  Must not say it.  Might offend some very sensitive people.

“The question is, which kind of privacy do you want to have?” said Stewart Baker, a top Department of Homeland Security official during the Bush administration. “This has been a pretty searing experience for DHS. Obviously, we’re not going to do more in this area [of physical checks] and it would be welcome if we could do less….The alternative is to look for terrorists in advance.”

That approach to security, Baker said, calls for singling out suspicious passengers and subjecting them to intense questioning.

Can you just hear the reaction among "civil liberties" groups?  These are the same groups that are curiously silent about the scanners and pat-downs.  Bit of hypocrisy on the left, no?

We are paying the price for political correctness, but why should we be shocked?  Political correctness on college campuses has led to outrageous breaches of freedom – like speech codes and different standards for different ethnic groups.  A true civil libertarian told me some years ago that what gets taught in colleges becomes national policy 20 years later.  Chickens are coming home to roost.

November 26, 2010      Permalink

LONDON TERROR THREAT – AT 8:14 A.M. ET:  Will London become the major target for terrorists in the next two years?  Remember that there are two spectacular events planned in that city – the April wedding of Prince William, and the 2012 Olympics.  Thus far, the wedding announcement having just been made, British security has been focused on the Olympics.  From London's Telegraph:

Hundreds of street parties, local festivals and big screen events across the country timed to coincide with the London 2012 Olympic Games could be vulnerable to terrorist attack, a government security assessment has found.

The results of the review, released by the government, highlight the risks posed by “parallel events” run alongside the games but not part of them.

With just 20 months before the games, security officials are concerned by what they call “displacement” in which terrorists change their plans to attack well-protected Olympic venues and aim instead at softer targets.

A campaign is to be launched to get every event registered with local authorities by the end of March so that police can make an assessment of the risk, the Daily Telegraph has learned.

But...

Assistant Commissioner Chris Allison, in charge of the policing operation at Scotland Yard, said there was likely to be a shortage of trained search officers, explosives dogs and handlers, firearms officers, close protection officers and mounted officers.

Advertising that fact may not be the wisest course, in my view. 

If there are willing terrorists in Britain, among the country's partly radical Muslim population, or if they can be smuggled in through holes in the travel and immigration security net, there may be little police can do to prevent terror attempts...as long as the terrorists are willing to give up their lives.  The suicide bomber has his own guidance system – himself – and is not seeking any protection.  Beyond that, we have to hope for technical incompetence, like the kind shown recently in New York when a huge bomb planted in Times Square failed to go off.

Britain is going through drastic reductions in spending, and it's been made clear that security for the Olympics is not exempt from those cuts...another message one might wish would be kept private. 

The purpose of terror is to terrorize and to convince a population that its government must change policies.  A royal wedding and the Olympics are ideal targets.

November 26, 2010       Permalink

HIGH TENSION IN KOREA – AT 7:58 A.M. ET:  From Fox:

Tensions have soared between the Koreas since the North's strike Tuesday destroyed large parts of this island, killing two civilians as well as two marines in a major escalation of their sporadic skirmishes along the sea border.

The attack — eight months after a torpedo sank a South Korean warship further west, killing 46 sailors — has also laid bare weaknesses in South Korea's defense 60 years after the Korean War. The skirmish forced South Korea's beleaguered defense minister to resign Thursday, and President Lee Myung-bak on Friday named a former chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff to the post.

The heightened animosity between the Koreas is taking place as the North undergoes a delicate transition of power from leader Kim Jong Il to his young, inexperienced son Kim Jong Un, who is in his late 20s and is expected to eventually succeed his ailing father.

As Washington and Seoul pressed China to use its influence on Pyongyang to ease tensions amid worries of all-out war, the U.S. prepared to send a nuclear-powered aircraft carrier to South Korean waters for joint military drills in the Yellow Sea starting Sunday.

COMMENT:  There are no reports of any troop buildup on the North Korean side of the border.  We're down to educated guessing as to why the North launched this latest barrage.  Most analysts seem to think it's a show of defiance combined with a demand for attention. 

The appeasement crowd, led by Jimmah Carter, says the North wants to negotiate.  Negotiate what?  We've been negotiating with them for years, but never seem to get anywhere.  The appeasement crowd believes negotiations are the goal of negotiations.

Iran will be watching how President Obama handles North Korea, as a sign of how far it can push in the Middle East.  North Korea would not have launched this latest attack if it felt there was a serious chance of a major American response.

November 26, 2010     Permalink

THURSDAY, NOVEMBER 25,  2010

HOLIDAY WRAP-UP – AT 11:31 P.M. ET:  We had a very pleasant Thanksgiving, and hope you did too.  We went to a family dinner in a house built in 1775, a year before the writing of the Declaration of Independence.   You could just feel the ghosts – George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, Larry King.  A good time was had by all. 

I've been sweeping the news sources, on this very slow news day.  Every day should be a major holiday, for the politicians are silent and not causing any trouble.  But watch for these stories tomorrow:

1.  The Korean crisis.  No one is quite sure what the North is after, but the South Koreans are bolstering their defenses.  One danger of the recent North Korean artillery barrage against a South Korean island is the possibility of blundering into an accidental war.  The U.S. administration is sending an aircraft carrier and supporting ships to the area as a show of force.

2.  WikiLeaks, the official leaker of the radical left, is set to release hundreds of thousands of classified U.S. diplomatic cables.  These might contain highly embarrassing assessments by American diplomats serving abroad.  It is simply incredible how little interest our mainstream media has shown in determining where WikiLeaks is getting all this classified material. 

3.  Everyone will be watching sales on Black Friday, so named because retailers that have been in the red look to the day to finally put them in the black.  Some economists are predicting a good day, but their predictions are tempered by the fact that many shoppers are lured by deep discounts, which cut severely into profits. 

We'll be back tomorrow.

November 25, 2010      Permalink

GIVING THANKS – AT 10:26 A.M. ET:  All of us can list the things we are thankful for on this day.  We might all consider adding things that aren't on the traditional lists.

Let me add my own:  I think we should be thankful for many, many wonderful kids in our younger generation.  It's easy to disparage the young.  Every older generation does it.  But when you consider the volunteers in our all-volunteer military, and what they have sacrificed, we must be grateful to them.  In fact, all over America there are young people are aren't on drugs, who don't rush to anti-American demonstrations, and who contribute to their communities every day.

I'm thinking specifically of a small group of veterans and ROTC cadets who, once a week, raise the flag at Columbia University.  Columbia doesn't permit ROTC, so these cadets get their training at other schools.  I'm sure their weekly gesture of patriotism is ridiculed by the "sophisticates" around them.  But these veterans and cadets are the real sophisticates, the ones with a mature understanding of the world and their responsibilities within it. 

So, on this Thanksgiving, let's add the good members of the coming generation to our list of things for which we are thankful.  They deserve it. 

November 25, 2010      Permalink

FOR OBAMA, A MIXED THANKSGIVING – AT 10:16 A.M. ET:  Mr. Obama has, like all Americans, much to be thankful for.  But one thing, surprisingly, that he might not be thankful for is the continued power of Nancy Pelosi.  It seems Ms. Pelosi is moving into a kind of subtle opposition to the president.  From AP:

WASHINGTON -- Hers was the face on the grainy negative TV ads that helped defeat scores of Democrats. His agenda, re-election chances and legacy are on the line. Rep. Nancy Pelosi of California, chosen after a messy family feud among Democrats to remain as their leader in the new Congress, and President Barack Obama share a keen interest in repairing their injured party after this month's staggering losses.

But Pelosi's mandate is diverging from the president's at a critical time, with potentially damaging consequences for Obama's ability to cut deals with Republicans in the new Congress.

Their partnership is strained after an election in which Pelosi and many Democrats feel the White House failed them by muddling the party's message and being too slow to provide cover for incumbents who cast tough votes for Obama's marquee initiatives.

Pelosi will lead Democrats "in pulling on the president's shirttails to make sure that he doesn't move from center-right to far-right," said Rep. Lynn Woolsey, D-Calif., a co-chair of the liberal Progressive Caucus in the House. "We think if he'd done less compromising in the last two years, there's a good chance we'd have had a jobs bill that would have created real jobs, and then we wouldn't even be worrying about having lost elections."

COMMENT:  Oh dear, oh dear.  It is craziness time at the old corral.  I mean, get that last paragraph.  Lynn Woolsey, Madame Flako of the California delegation, is worried that Obama "doesn't move from center-right to far right."  Really?  Obama is center-right?  As Johnny Carson used to say, "I did not know that."

Nor does anyone else.

This is the kind of thinking that goes on at the Democratic left.  And it's the kind of thinking that Nancy Pelosi will now be defending, as she tries to force the left's agenda on an already leftist and sinking White House.  The Democratic left didn't even notice the recent election.  If it did notice, it didn't care.

And pundits complain about the Tea Party's influence on Republicans.

Look for an internal food fight among the Dems.  I expect to see some of them in "Che" T-shirts before too long.

November 25, 2010     Permalink

QUOTE OF THE DAY – AT 9:53 A.M. ET:  Ah, how Thanksgiving is misused.  Only a New York Times columnist could twist a Thanksgiving column to include his own piece of absurd political propaganda.  Robert Wright, another Times leftist columnist, gives us this:

Since what I enjoy is focusing on the negative, this sent my mind back into the realm of nonblessings. For example:

(1) The New Start treaty — which just about every analyst, Democratic or Republican, says would make America more secure — is on the verge of being sunk by a few senators for partisan reasons. (2) This is symptomatic of intense political polarization, bitter division that is paralyzing our politics. (3) Some of America’s divisions, dangerously, are falling along ethnic lines. In particular, American Muslims are often the object of irrational fear and suspicion.

At this point I typically envision a scenario in which these pieces of bad news, along with others, find a horrible synergy that ushers in the apocalypse.

I’d like to think that it’s just me, but the truth is that never before have I heard so many people I know say they’re deeply worried about America — more worried than they’ve ever been, even.

COMMENT:  They are worried, in part Mr. Wright, because of people just like you.  Narrow, irresponsible people.

First, the START treaty isn't being sunk by a few senators for partisan reasons.  Those senators are calling for a reexamination based on their thoughtful concerns about the state of our nuclear deterrent. 

Second, American Muslims are rarely the object of irrational fear and suspicion.  We have been incredibly tolerant, as a nation, of the Muslim community.  But it is entirely responsible and mature to have concerns about elements within that community.  Americans expressed those same concerns about elements within the German-American community before World War II, just as we promoted German-Americans like Eisenhower and Nimitz to lead the struggle against fascism. 

Wright's column begins this way:

An aspect of Thanksgiving I’ve always had trouble with is the part about giving thanks. I’m not against gratitude, but things to be grateful for just don’t naturally spring to mind.

Another example of why The Times, out of touch with the nation, is slipping badly.

November 25, 2010     Permalink