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.

ELECTION - 28 days from today

I was a guest on Silvio Canto Jr.'s excellent Dallas-based talk show yesterday.  You can listen to that edition of the show here.

TUESDAY, OCTOBER 5, 2010

HARVARD? – AT 11:15 P.M. ET:  Every now and then something happens at an elite American institution that gives us hope.  From the Harvard Crimson:

Some students of Harvard show their appreciation for America by observing (sleeping late on) Columbus Day, others by religiously following Monday Night Football. Residents of Weld Hall, however, express their passion for this country at 9:15 a.m. every Monday with the Pledge of Allegiance.

The practice began last week in Weld 52 with Zachary A. Young ’14 and Thomas J. Gaudett ’14, and expanded to a group of six yesterday. Though Young has only advertised the gathering through the Weld e-mail list, he plans to eventually “start expanding it to other dorms.”

Why stop by Weld to recite an oath that many haven’t heard since middle school? “Why not?” replied Young. “Why is there any reason not to? I’m personally very passionate about my country and I want to reflect that. Why not do it together?”

Though the gatherings haven’t been controversial, Young admitted that he and his suitemates have received “reactions of great indifference.”

If you’d like to take part in the Pledge but can’t make it on Monday mornings, don’t fret. “Hopefully, once we get enough interest,” Young added, “we’ll be able to have it more frequently.”

COMMENT:  I hope these good guys aren't dragged into some dean's office for promoting "hate speech."  Believe me, that can happen.

I hope this story goes national, and these young patriots can get proper publicity for their terrific idea. 

October 5, 2010     Permalink

I SUSPECT SHE'S AVAILABLE – AT 7:18 P.M. ET:  Bob Woodward, whose book, "Obama's Wars," is just out, is saying what a lot of us are thinking...about 2012.  From The Hill:

A 2012 ticket featuring Secretary of State Hillary Clinton as the vice presidential candidate is "on the table," veteran journalist Bob Woodward suggested Tuesday.

Woodward, who just released a book detailing some of the most intimate details of internal White House deliberations over the war in Afghanistan, said that Clinton's advisers think it's possible that she would replace Vice President Biden on President Obama's re-election ticket in two years.

"It's on the table," Woodward said in an interview to air this evening on CNN. "Some of Hillary Clinton's advisers see it as a real possibility in 2012."

In other words, they're telling Joe Biden to get out of the way.

Such a ticket would bring together the two former adversaries for the 2008 Democratic presidential nomination in a political union that many Democrats had hoped would come to pass in 2008.

There have been murmurs of a potential replacement for Biden in two years, but the White House has generally dismissed such speculation out of hand.

Clinton would bring the kind of additional foreign policy experience to the table that had initially prompted Obama to choose Biden as a running mate in 2008. She's also one of the few administration officials to actually enjoy an increase in popularity since joining the administration.

Her popularity tends to increase when she's out of the public eye.

A Gallup poll suggested that Obama still has the upper hand on Clinton, though, if she were to attempt to reprise the 2008 contest with a primary challenge to the president in 2012.

52 percent of Democrats said they'd choose Obama in a Democratic primary against Clinton, compared to 37 percent who'd vote for the secretary of State.

I suspect that figure is accurate, and is driven partly by the lopsided African-American vote in the Democratic Party. 

Look, Clinton can't run against Obama for the nomination in 2012.  It would split the party, and she'd lose critical black support.  But she could join the ticket, with an eye toward becoming the presidential nominee in 2016.  Even if Obama lost in 2012, a distinct possibility if his poll numbers don't rise, she would probably be untouched.

The key question, of course, is whether Obama wants Hillary on the ticket.   She'd have more star power than the president, which is usually not the way the system works.  And she'd be running her own little presidency, even if the job eluded her in "real life."  In addition, Obama would have to put up with the constant presence of Bill Clinton.

I suspect he'd only name her if he absolutely needs her.

October 5, 2010      Permalink

NEW FOX POLL CONFIRMS GOP STRENGTH IN KEY STATES – AT 11:10 A.M. ET:  The election four weeks from today will be fought state by state, district by district.  The GOP is poised to do very well in key states, if the current trends continue, as measured by Fox:

Deep resistance to Obama's agenda has put a West Virginia Senate seat once thought to be safe territory for Democrats in serious jeopardy.

A new Fox News battleground state poll on the race for the seat held by the late Sen. Robert Byrd for 51 years shows Republican businessman John Raese with a 5-point lead over Democratic Gov. Joe Manchin among likely voters -- 48 percent to 43 percent.

And...

Republican Sharron Angle seems to be solidifying her support in her bid to unseat Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid in Nevada.

In the latest Fox News battleground state poll of likely voters, Angle drew 49 percent to Reid’s 46 percent. As voters make up their mind with four weeks to go until Election Day, Angle seems to have the edge.

And...

Missouri voters see a strong connection between President Obama and Democratic Senate nominee Robin Carnahan, and that’s not helping Carnahan.

A new Fox News battleground state poll in Missouri shows Carnahan trailing Republican candidate Roy Blunt by 8 points among likely voters. Blunt, a seven-term congressman from the central part of the state, won the support of 50 percent compared to 42 percent for Carnahan, the second-term secretary of state.

And...

Republicans are still gaining ground in bellwether Ohio, a bad sign for Democrats trying to assess their party’s chances in the heartland this year.

Republican Senate candidate Rob Portman leads Democrat Lee Fisher by 16 points in the latest Fox News battleground state poll -- Portman’s widest lead yet.

Portman, the former Cincinnati-area congressman and Bush administration budget boss, got 53 percent of the likely voters surveyed, compared to 37 percent for Fisher.

Republican gubernatorial challenger John Kasich also saw his numbers rise against Democratic incumbent Gov. Ted Strickland. Kasich was the choice of 49 percent of respondents compared to 43 percent for Strickland. The 6-point lead is the largest in the four weeks of Fox battleground polling on the race.

Only in Connecticut, among the key states polled, is the Democrat, Richard Blumenthal, clearly ahead of the Republican, Linda McMahon, for the Senate seat being vacated by Chris Dodd.  Blumenthal is ten points ahead. 

COMMENT:  Overall, that's good news.  I'm particularly pleased to see the lead being built by Sharron Angle in her face against Harry Reid in Nevada.  Angle is a flawed candidate, and it will still be a struggle.  But she may just pull it out.

October 5, 2010      Permalink

TERROR UPDATE – AT 9:06 A.M. ET:  Although the terror plots that have made the news in the last three of four days aren't, to the best of our knowledge, aimed at the American homeland, serious precautions are being taken.  From ABC News:

U.S. authorities plan a law enforcement surge this week along Amtrak routes, an exercise called RailSafe, and the heads of the country's biggest mass transit systems were briefed today on the possible terror threat, all part of what is being called an abundance of caution.

Amtrak is holding a high-security exercise Friday in which uniformed officers will be a visible presence on national transit routes. RailSafe will include all the local police agencies along the Amtrak routes involved in the exercise.

"If al Qaeda is planning simultaneous attacks in Europe," said Richard Clarke, former White House national security official and now an ABC News consultant, "there's nothing to say they could not also include the US on that list of simultaneous attacks."

COMMENT:  US. authorities have been playing down the threat to the United States, but the fact is that neither we nor the Europeans know where a strike is planned...because we don't know where the terrorist squads are located.

What strikes me is the sheer level of seriousness about this latest Al Qaeda threat.  Of course, the president has yet to address it publicly.  Look, maybe he can says some things about not being judgmental if terrorists try to blow up the Golden Gate.  It's legitimate grievance, that's all.

October 5, 2010      Permalink

SNIPPET OF THE DAY – AT 8:51 A.M. ET:

After the record heat wave this summer, Russia's weather seems to have acquired a taste for the extreme.

Forecasters say this winter could be the coldest Europe has seen in the last 1,000 years.

The change is reportedly connected with the speed of the Gulf Stream, which has shrunk in half in just the last couple of years. Polish scientists say that it means the stream will not be able to compensate for the cold from the Arctic winds. According to them, when the stream is completely stopped, a new Ice Age will begin in Europe.

We present this to you so you can dress appropriately.  Be sure to wear, under your heavy coat, your "Fight Global Warming" T-shirt.

October 5, 2010      Permalink

THE WISE MAN SPEAKS – AT 8:29 A.M. ET:  George Shultz has always been one of my favorite secretaries of state.  He served under President Reagan and actually had the radical view that the State Department should work on behalf of the United States. 

One of the best stories about Shultz concerns his meetings with new U.S. ambassadors.  He'd take one of them to a map and ask, "Which is your country?"  Almost inevitably, the appointee would point to the country where he was being posted.  "No," Shultz would reply.  He then pointed to the United States.  "This is your country."  Just a friendly reminder to avoid the "citizen of the world" syndrome that occasionally takes hold at State.

Now Shultz has expressed himself, in his usual blunt manner, about Obama's Afghanistan strategy.  The Washington Times reports:

Reagan-era Secretary of State George Shultz blasted President Obama Monday night for his scheduled July 2011 date to begin withdrawing U.S. forces from Afghanistan.

Mr. Shultz, 89, made the unusually blunt remarks at a packed dinner for the International Republican Institute -- the GOP-aligned counterpart to the National Democratic Institute -- where he was receiving the organization's 2010 Freedom Award.

"You're out of your mind," he said at a question-and-answer forum, when asked his opinion of the president's drawdown date. "How can you say that 'if I haven't won by six or nine months from now, I'm leaving?' "

COMMENT:  Indeed.  How can you say it?  But Obama is beholden to his leftist base, and the base wants nothing to do with Afghanistan, even though it went along with the Democratic hoax during the 2008 campaign that Afghanistan was the "good" war and Iraq the "bad war," engineered by BUSH (!!).

The enemy simply has to wait us out.  They detect, we can be sure, President Obama's lack of enthusiasm for the Afghan mission. 

Imagine if, after Pearl Harbor, President Roosevelt told the American people that we'd fight until 1943, and then start returning soldiers to civilian life?  He could easily have been impeached.  But times have changed.

July, 2011, isn't very far away. 

October 5, 2010      Permalink

SIGN OF THE TIMES – AT 8:11 A.M. ET:  Democrat?  You think I'm a Democrat?  I'm insulted!

That pretty much sums up the approach of some Democratic candidates running for Congress this year.   It's understable in places like the Midwest, where job loss has resulted in real anger at the Dems.  But denying the Democratic heritage is now occurring in places like New York.  We haven't heard the word "heretic" yet, but don't be shocked to see some Dems burnt at the stake for their blasphemy.  From The New York Times:

One New York Democrat proclaims that he proudly opposed the federal government’s health care overhaul plan. Another one pledges, in the finest Tea Party spirit, to oppose any future financial bailouts. Still another has rolled out three Republicans in three separate commercials, all vouching for his credentials.

But there is one word you will not hear mentioned in any of these campaign advertisements: Democrat.

With the Democratic Party bracing for a dismal showing in the elections next month, many candidates are doing everything possible to convince voters that they are not tied at the hip to President Obama or Nancy Pelosi, the House speaker. A vulnerable Democratic incumbent in North Dakota, Representative Earl Pomeroy, praises former President George W. Bush in one of his commercials. But even Democrats in and near New York State are running away from their party.

“In a year of insurgency and anti-incumbency, being a Republican in New York State is, for the first time in a long time, not a bad thing, because being a Democrat implies you’re an incumbent,” Hank Sheinkopf, a veteran Democratic consultant, said.

COMMENT:  Dropping the Dem label, at least in polite speech, is also an attempt by some Democrats to de-nationalize the election and make it local.  Democrats just don't want to be associated with the unpopular Barack Obama.  They do better when they run as the local boy or girl who made good.

October 5, 2010     Permalink 

MONDAY, OCTOBER 4, 2010

GREAT MOMENTS IN MEDIA – AT 8:55 P.M. ET:   The New York Times reports that MSNBC, the journalistic embarrassment of NBC News, is going on a publicity campaign.  Observe the creativity, the uniqueness, the breathtaking originality:

MSNBC, once the also-ran but now the No. 2 cable news channel, has a new tagline that embraces its progressive political identity.

Number two?  I guess that means CNN has slipped to number three.  Well, that's what happens when you fire a news giant like Rick Sanchez.  (That is a joke.)

The tagline, “Lean Forward,” will be publicly announced Tuesday, opening a planned two-year advertising campaign intended to raise awareness of the channel among viewers, advertisers and distributors.

Lean forward?  That's the new slogan?  Lean forward?  Isn't that when you do when you can't hear the sound from the movie? 

How many committees did it take to come up with "Lean forward"? 

The tagline “defines us and defines our competition,” said Phil Griffin, the president of MSNBC, his implication being that the Fox News Channel, which is No. 1 in cable news and a home for conservatives, is leaning backward. Fox’s best-known tagline is “Fair and Balanced.”

So Phil Griffin really thinks that "Lean forward" defines MSNBC and its competition.  No, if he wants to define his network and its relationship to the competition he might have chosen, "Having the pants beaten off us."

Some of the new MSNBC ads include shots of President Obama on his election night; others, directed by the filmmaker Spike Lee, showcase hosts like Keith Olbermann and Rachel Maddow preparing for their nightly programs; and still others feature quotes like “the future belongs to the fearless.”

My insomnia is now cured.  I am asleep.

October 4, 2010     Permalink

MAJOR POLL RESULT – AT 8:01 P.M. ET:  Gallup has just released a major new poll measuring party preference among likely voters in next month's election.  That's really the only way to go at this point.  You want to know what people who are likely to vote think, not all people who happen to be registered:

PRINCETON, NJ -- Gallup's generic ballot for Congress among registered voters currently shows Republicans with 46% of the vote and Democrats with 43%, similar to the 46% to 46% tie reported a week ago. However, in Gallup's first estimates among likely voters, based on polling from Sept. 23-Oct. 3, Republicans have a double-digit advantage under two separate turnout scenarios.

If there is a high turnout on election day, Gallup estimates that the preference for Republicans would be 53% to 40%, an astounding 13-point gap.

And get this:  If there's a low turnout, the Republican advantage grows to 18 points, 56% to 38%.

Now, we stress that this is one poll, but it is the kind of survey that measures the so-called "enthusiasm gap."  What Gallup is saying is that Republicans are just more likely to go to the polls. 

This, of course, can change somewhat by election day as Democrats crank up the fear campaign and drag their base to polling places.  (If the corruption is as bad as usual in some cities, the Dems may drag the polling places to the voters.)

Gallup has found Republicans, compared with Democrats, expressing higher levels of enthusiasm about voting and more thought given to the elections throughout 2010. It follows that models in which voting is restricted to those most likely to vote would show Republicans doing disproportionately well.

Gallup cautions that races tend to tighten as election day nears.   I like where we are, though.

October 4, 2010     Permalink

IS IT POSSIBLE? – AT 8:35 A.M. ET:  A year ago the question would have elicited laughs.  But, in this year of 2010, is it possible for Republicans to elect a United States senator from the blue-glowing state of New York, where Republicans normally meet in a small closet?

It is possible, even though the Republican candidate, former Congressman Joe DioGuardi, isn't exactly Mr. Excitement.  The Democratic candidate, incumbent Senator Kirsten Gillibrand, was appointed by Governor David Paterson to fill the seat vacated by Hillary Clinton.  She has made zero impression and can walk down any street in New York State and not be recognized.  Her greatest asset seems to be her good looks, leading Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid to declare her, in a moment of exquisitely bad taste, the "hottest" senator. 

The race, as RealClearPolitics points out, is closer than had been expected, but it's a tough GOP road:

Let's be clear up front: A straight-up Republican win would be unheard of. No Democratic senator has ever been defeated for re-election in the Empire State, and the last time a non-Democrat won an open seat in New York in a two-way race was in 1958. The typical formula for a non-Democratic win in New York is to have a Republican running on the Liberal Party line who splits the anti-Republican vote with the Democrat; this is in part how Alfonse D'Amato and Christopher Buckley won their Senate races. This won't happen this year - there isn't even an independent Liberal Party in New York anymore.

Nevertheless, it is certainly possible for DioGuardi to pull off the upset, though I certainly would require some decent odds before taking the bet. DioGuardi would need to make the final results a little better than what is presently showing up in SurveyUSA's crosstabs. I think he can do this.

Polls show Joe to be within striking distance of the little-known Gillibrand.  Gillibrand is also tied to a deeply unpopular governor, and there is little enthusiasm for her in New York City, which a Democrat must carry by overwhelming numbers to counter the Republican upstate vote.  In addition, the suburbs around New York have become politically unstable, with Democrats losing a key percentage of their strength.

If I had to bet, I'd still go with Gillibrand.  This is New York, after all.  but DioGuardi, a plain-spoken, plain vanilla CPA who knows budgets and numbers, could pull off an upset in a year in which people are worried about money, and in a state that is hovering near bankruptcy. 

Watch this one.

October 4, 2010      Permalink

NEW MEXICO MIRACLE – AT 8:08 A.M. ET:  There's a remarkable story coming out of New Mexico.  The current governor, Democrat Bill Richardson, will be stepping down.  And replacing him...if the current trend continues...will be a Hispanic woman.  If she wins, she will be the first Hispanic woman to become a governor.  Politics Daily reports:

Republican Susana Martinez, who is the first Hispanic woman to win a major party nomination for governor, has widened her lead over Democratic Lt. Gov. Diane Denish in the race to succeed outgoing Gov. Bill Richardson, according to a Rasmussen Reports poll conducted Sept. 29.

Martinez, a county district attorney, is leading Denish by 51 percent to 41 percent, with 3 percent preferring some other candidate and 5 percent undecided. The margin of error is 4 points.

This is the first time Martinez has broken the 50 percent mark. In late August, she had led by 48 percent to 43 percent...

...Martinez is getting much stronger support from fellow Republicans than Denish is from Democrats -- 90 percent compared to 62 percent.

COMMENT:  An important race.  Republicans are now challenging what some observers had seen as a Democratic "lock" on the Hispanic vote, a vote that is actually quite diverse.  Add the probable election of Republican Cuban-American Marco Rubio to the Senate from Florida to the mix.

Indeed, ethnic diversity is marking this year's Republican lineup, with a number of African-Americans also running for Congress on the Republican ticket.  Maybe the GOP is finally learning the first rule of electoral politics:  Concede nothing.  Fight for every inch.  Make your opponent spend money and time in places he never expected to be challenged. 

Susana Martinez is a rising star.  The Republican bench is getting stronger.

October 4, 2010      Permalink

TERROR UPDATE – AT 7:53 A.M. ET:  As regular readers know, we've been following, carefully, the terror warnings coming out of Europe.  They are serious.  We now learn that American troops at Ramstein Air Base in Germany were given special warnings, and kept on the base during part of the weekend.

Eli Lake, one of the best defense analysts around, reports for The Washington Times:

U.S. and allied intelligence agencies are on a near-global manhunt — from South Asia and the Middle East to North Africa and Europe — for teams of al Qaeda-affiliated terrorists thought to be preparing multiple attacks on major European cities.

U.S. counterterrorism officials told The Washington Times that U.S. and allied services were examining multiple plots as well as multiple modes of attacks ranging from paramilitary-style raids similar to the 2008 attacks on downtown Mumbai to the vehicle bombs that to this day ravage Baghdad.

The al Qaeda affiliates plotting the attacks on Europe include Lashkar-e-Taiba and the Pakistani Taliban that are said to be training dozens of European passport holders for attacks in Europe.

Also planning attacks are operatives from al Qaeda in Islamic Maghreb, the group's affiliate based in Algeria and North Africa.

"No one should think in terms of a single Europe threat," a U.S. counterterrorism official told The Times. "We could be looking at plots — plural — that are probably at various stages of development.

"As you would expect, American and European counterterrorism officials are working closely together to gather information on, and thwart, anything that terrorists may be planning," the official said. "And since some of the concerns emanate from South Asia and North Africa, governments in those parts of the world are involved, too."

COMMENT:  While the immediate threats appear to target Europe, intelligence analysts have been quoted as saying that plots against the United States cannot be discounted.  All it would take is one team flying to the U.S. to carry out a devastating assault on a hotel.

The great fear is that some, or all, of the terrorists thought to be involved may be home-grown – natives or citizens of European countries, speaking the language fluently, and virtually impossible to detect.

October 4, 2010      Permalink

WHERE DO WE STAND? – AT 7:38 A.M. ET:  The election is four weeks from tomorrow.  Where does the nation stand?

Polls still point to solid Republican gains, but analysts have grown more cautious in their predictions.  Republican control of the House is still a realistic prospect, but control of the Senate looks extremely problematical.  A new Senate with Republicans holding, say, 47 or 48 seats, seems more realistic.  A New York Times analysis over the weekend even raised questions as to whether a House turnover is likely.  Please remember that it will take a GOP gain of some 39 seats to control the House, a very large order. 

There is speculation about an "October surprise," which could include the prospect of a terrorist attack on the United States or American targets abroad.

Although there is a sense that Democrats have tightened some races, a new Gallup survey shows that the president and his party remain at a clear disadvantage.  Andrew Malcolm, in the L.A. Times's Top of the Ticket blog, reports:

A new Gallup Poll this morning finds his approval rating for September was 45%, almost the same as August's 44%. Obama's not exceeded the crucial 50% level in a single month so far this year.

Since Obama's name is not on any ballot Nov. 2, the proportions of Americans who like or dislike the fellow on Oct. 1 of a midterm election year shouldn't matter, in theory. However, history indicates otherwise.

Presidents with approval ratings below 50% at midterm time see their party suffer substantial losses in its congressional membership, regardless of how much explaining and blaming the president attempts in the campaign leading up to what becomes, in effect, a referendum on the president.

And since Democrats currently hold substantial majorities in both the Senate and House of Representatives, they have substantially more seats to lose. A switch of 39 House and 10 Senate seats would give control of both houses to the Republicans for the first time since they lost it in 2006 after 12 years of GOP majorities.

Democrats (79%) and liberals (75%) still like Obama a lot.

But after that, his approval percentage goes to the deep south. Support among even young people is down: 57%. Hispanics: 55%. Moderates: 54%. Unmarrieds: 53%. Easterners: 52%. Women: 47%. Midwesterners and Westerners: 45%.

Men: 43%. Southerners: 41%. Independents: 40%. Marrieds: 39%. Seniors: 38%. Whites: 36%. Conservatives: 23%.

COMMENT:  I was surprised to see the support of women fall below 50%.  The senior support, at 38%, is especially devastating because seniors vote in droves.  The president's Hispanic support, at only 55%, is also surprising.

So while the Dems may have made some gains, that may only mean that the Titanic will sink in three hours, rather than two.

October 4, 2010     Permalink