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.

PRE-ELECTION SUBSCRIPTION DRIVE

After an encouraging first week, our drive has slowed a bit.  We ask you to consider subscribing.  It's important for the survival and health of Urgent Agenda.  And you'll have a good time at The Angel's Corner.

We welcome all of our new subscribers, but it is imperative that we increase our subscriber base substantially to keep up our progress, as we head toward the most important midterm election in our lifetime. 

This message is especially for readers who've joined us recently:

Do you like Urgent Agenda?  Would you like to see us survive and grow?  Would you like to have special Urgent Agenda features delivered right to your computer?

If the answer is yes, please become a subscriber.   Without subscriptions, we vanish. 

As a subscriber you 1) support our work and 2) become a member of the Angel's Corner.  Members receive a private e-mail twice a week with features not published on the free site.  Members also participate in our Forum, which we think is the most provocative on the web.  You can write at length on anything you wish.  There are special essays.  And it's at the Angel's Corner where we give the coveted Pompous Fool Award, every bit as revered as the Worst-Dressed Actress Award. 

Unless you subscribe, you're only getting half of Urgent Agenda, and missing a good part of the fun.  We hope, in the future, to expand the Angel's Corner to three times a week.

So please subscribe through PayPal in the right-hand column under SUBSCRIPTIONS.  Or, in that same place, you can donate what you wish.  If you don't like PayPal, let us know and we'll send you a mail address.

This election is crucial.  Your support is vital if we're to be there every step of the way.  Help us see the fight through.

***********************************************

SUNDAY, SEPTEMBER 19, 2010

GET THIS MAN A PRESCRIPTION – AT 6:23 P.M. ET:  We have been informed by The New York Times that New York's increasingly batty mayor, Mike Bloomberg, is on a holy mission around the country to put in power his idea of good government guys.  His choices make Lady Gaga's choice in wardrobe look normal.  From The Times:

PROVIDENCE, R.I. — In an election year when anger and mistrust have upended races across the country, toppling moderates and elevating white-hot partisans, Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg is trying to pull politics back to the middle, injecting himself into marquee contests and helping candidates fend off the Tea Party.

Don't you just love "white-hot partisans"?  I guess the fanatics who blindly supported Barack Obama in 2008 were "dedicated idealists."

He visited Rhode Island on Thursday to champion Lincoln D. Chafee, a Republican turned independent who is locked in a three-way battle for the governor’s office.

Lincoln Chafee?  Lincoln Chafee?  Do you remember him?  He got his job as a U.S. Senator because his father had held the seat.  He was a marshmallow defined.  He thought being a Republican meant wearing a nice suit and never having a strong point of view on anything.  So Bloomberg now embraces him, and a check must be on the way. 

Bloomberg also recently pilgrimmed to Pennsylvania to endorse Joe Sestak over Pat Toomey.  Sestak, a former Navy vice admiral who left the service under questionable circumstances, is sinking in the polls. 

And get this:

And, in perhaps the mayor’s most direct confrontation with a Tea Party candidacy, he will host a fund-raiser at his Manhattan town house for Harry Reid, the Senate majority leader facing an unexpectedly forceful challenge from Sharron E. Angle, a political neophyte backed by Sarah Palin.

Wait a minute.  I thought Bloomberg was now an independent.  Does an independent hold a fund-raiser for the most partisan Democrat in the Senate, the majority leader? 

Recently, as you may recall, Bloomberg embraced the mosque (or cultural center, or family hang-out) at Ground Zero, pompously stating that anyone opposed should be "ashamed of themselves."  Mayor Mike's ego has never been hard to find.

Look, if any of you see him in your area, just attach a label to him saying "return to City Hall, NY," and dump him in the nearest mailbox.   The package will get here. 

Bloomberg, originally elected mayor with the help of Rudy Giuliani, has drifted further and further away from the Rudy tradition.  He was term-limited to two terms, but managed to convince the necessary authorities to waive the rule just for himself.  Since being inaugurated for a third term he has become a bit of a joke.  It's clear, by the way, that he would like to be president.  Lord save us.

September 19, 2010      Permalink

CLINTON, DITCHING OBAMA'S APPROACH, APPEALS DIRECTLY TO IRANIAN PEOPLE – AT 10:46 A.M. ET:  Another small sign that Hillary Clinton, in some respects at least, is going her own way.  While Barack Obama shows little interest in the opinions or plight of the Iranian people, Clinton has appealed directly to them.  From AP:

U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton is urging the people of Iran to reject what she says is an expansion of the Iranian military's role and power.

Clinton said Washington is increasingly concerned about the rise of military power in Iran, the main U.S. adversary in the Middle East.

In an interview for broadcast Sunday on ABC's This Week, Clinton said many Iranians are also worried and she hopes they find a way to head off the military drift.

Clinton said she has "grave disagreements" with the Iranian Revolution.

"But the early advocates of it said this would be a republic. It would be an Islamic republic, but it would be a republic. Then we saw a very flawed election and we've seen the elected officials turn for the military to enforce their power," she said.

She said that many Iranians, even those who were originally sympathetic to the revolution are starting to have serious second thoughts about the direction their government has taken.

Without elaborating she said, "I can only hope that there will be some effort inside Iran, by responsible civil and religious leaders, to take hold of the apparatus of the state."s

COMMENT:  Hmm.  Notice that last line.  Is that a call to revolution?  Is Clinton aware of something through intelligence circles?  This is clearly not the kind of comment that her boss would make.  (But does Hillary really consider him her boss?)

Slowly, the secretary of state has been taking a tone at variance with the Obamans.  While Clinton couldn't challenge Obama directly for the 2012 Democratic nomination – she'd alienate the black vote permanently – she could hope that Obama might decide to be a one-termer, giving Clinton a clear shot at the nomination.  Stranger things have happened in politics...like Obama becoming president in the first place.

September 19, 2010      Permalink

WILL SARAH DO IT? – AT 10:03 A.M. ET:  Sarah Palin said this week that she's considering a run for the presidency.  Will she do it?  We have no way of knowing?  The first response, even from so-called "values" pros, was negative.  She scares a lot of people...in part because she won't kowtow to them. 

If she does run, she may have to carve out her own style.  The GOP establishment, which swears in secret ceremonies always to nominate the next person in line, will not be supporting her.  The Politico, in a somewhat sneering article, outlines the Palin dilemma:

DES MOINES — Former Alaska Governor Sarah Palin came to the cradle of America’s Republican establishment to deliver a tribute to “renegades going rogue.”

Palin made clear she is considering running for president but showed no sign that she plans to engage in the painstaking, humbling contest that will begin here in Iowa later this year...

...“I don't know how the machine works. I don't really know who they are up in that hierarchy in the GOP machine,” Palin told the Des Moines audience during her call for party unity and a “great awakening of America.”

But Palin was speaking to the machine. The traditional route to the presidency runs through the Iowa caucuses and victory in the caucuses begin with kowtowing to state Republican leaders in Des Moines, and then devolves to kowtowing to county leaders, town leaders, and precinct captains. The crowd was full of men and women with warm memories of a long line of Republican candidates who have made the journey here.

And that's the problem, and also the obstacle for Sarah, who's improved dramatically as a speaker.  For too long the little hacks in Iowa have had outsized power in the primary system.  Sarah Palin is not a typical candidate.  The GOP dinner she addressed in Iowa this week was the largest of its kind ever held because of her presence.  Behind the hacks sitting up front were the real people sitting in the rear, and they outnumbered the hacks.

Palin must overcome a great deal, and it's possible she can't.  Her own faltering behavior during the 2008 campaign, and a press that despises her and her culture, have combined to give her a net negative in approval ratings.  At Urgent Agenda we've been somewhat skeptical of her.

But, somehow, I hope she runs, just to demonstrate a gutsiness that's been lacking in American politics.  And look, you never know.  Ronald Reagan was also laughed at.  And so, by the way, was FDR, who was called "featherduster" because of his supposed intellectual shallowness. 

We're a nation that cheers the underdog.  If done properly, a Palin run could be an education in itself.

September 19, 2010      Permalink

QUOTE OF THE DAY – AT 9:48 A.M. ET:  We certainly oppose religious bigotry, but discussing religious groups, their problems and controversies, has become an honorable part of the journalistic tradition, and often involves exposing wrongdoing.

Sadly, some people, especially on the left, don't quite get that.  The left has suddenly discovered freedom of religion, but only if it applies to their faves, and is prepared to label anyone as a hater or bigot if the favored group is probed in any way. 

Frank Miele is a brave columnist out West.  I always read him and sometimes quote him.  He's been examining Islam, and now fights back against those who are labeling him simply because he's finding disturbing things:

If you believe my accusers, it turns out I am a bad person because I have actually tried to inform myself about the history of Islam in the West, the basic tenets of the religion, and the danger they pose when unopposed. I am supposed to just shut up about the gay-killing, wife-beating, adulterer-stoning, infidel-conquering beliefs of traditional Islam. If I talk about them, it is little old me who is the problem, not the religion that sanctions executing homosexuals or stoning women to death.

Calling someone who sounds the alarm over Islam’s danger Islamophobic is roughly the equivalent of calling Paul Revere Anglophobic for shouting (in folklore at least), “The British are coming, the British are coming.” If the British had been home napping in London town, Paul Revere would have been crazy. But since the British were indeed marching on Lexington and Concord, it made him a hero, not a fool.

I submit that while I may not be a hero, I am certainly no fool when I warn Americans that we face a grave threat from people who hate us in large part because they are Muslims and we are not. The attacks of 9/11 should have proved that once and for all. The Fort Hood shooter and Times Square bomber are recent confirmations.

Yes sir, yes sir.  We need more rhetoric like that, more fight back.  The attempts to label anyone who questions any part of Islam as "Islamophobic" is well under way, led in part by super-jerk Christiane Amanpour.  At the same time, Islam's attacks on Christianity and Judaism are considered merely "cultural" statements. 

We must protect journalists like Frank Miele.  Reasonable tolerance, which Americans practice every day, does not mean blind acceptance.

Contrast Miele's bravery with today's profoundly embarrassing piece by Nicholas Kristof of The New York Times, in which he apologizes to Islam for our real or imagined sins.  Kristof has won Urgent Agenda's Pompous Fool Award, and may well be in line for another.

September 19, 2010     Permalink

SATURDAY, SEPTEMBER 18, 2010

WHY NOT?  SHE EARNED IT? – AT 6:15 P.M. ET:  Helen Thomas is getting a prize, hurrah, hurrah.  From The Hill:

The longtime White House correspondent who resigned from Hearst newspaper in June in the wake of comments she made about Israel will receive a lifetime achievement award from the Council on American-Islamic Relations.

CAIR is honoring Thomas, who is of Lebanese descent and now 90 years old, at its Leadership Conference and 16th Annual Fundraising Banquet on Oct. 9 in Arlington, Va.

What is it with these Muslim organizations?  You'd think they'd be politically savvy enough to avoid Helen Thomas.  I wonder if some of the CAIR-supported groups that have been linked to terrorism will send reps.

Speakers will also include Oxford Islamic studies scholar Tariq Ramadan.

Yeah, "scholar."

Thomas started at the White House as a reporter during the Kennedy administration. In a video interview captured at a White House Jewish heritage event for RabbiLIVE.com that spread quickly across the Internet, Thomas advised Israeli Jews to "get the hell out of Palestine" and "go home" to Poland, Germany, America and "everywhere else."

The White House Correspondents Association and the White House rebuked Thomas, and President Obama said she made the right call in stepping down for the "offensive" remarks.

COMMENT:  Why would CAIR want to honor a woman who made those comments?  Because it agrees with them.

September 18, 2010        Permalink

O'DONNELL TROUBLE – AT 5:54 P.M. ET:  More trouble for controversial GOP Senate nominee Christine O'Donnell.  Apparently some old video of her on Bill Maher's show has surfaced, courtesy of Maher, in which she talks about participation in witchcraft.  It's not clear from news reports when this participation occurred, but it certainly wasn't recent, and the descriptions sound more like adolescent pranks.

However, O'Donnell's reaction to the disclosure was amateurish.  She was scheduled to appear on Face the Nation and Fox News Sunday, and cancelled both appearance.  That is dead wrong.  The first thing you do as a candidate when confronted with something embarrassing is to fight back, and publicly.  If the witchcraft occurred three weeks ago, it would spell big trouble.  If it occurred when she was young, people will be tolerant.  It doesn't sound like much.

However, Maher says there's more where this came from, and promises to show more clips of O'Donnell until she agrees to appear on his show.  "It's like a hostage crisis," Maher said, showing his usual class. 

My own sense is that O'Donnell should make a well-prepared appearance on Maher's show, and hit it out of the ball park.  You stand up to a bully, you win.  By canceling appearances, you lose.

Oh, by the way, have you ever noticed how only conservative women are investigated and probed?  If you're a woman on the left, you get an Obama-style pass from the media.  I recall how, many years ago, the media looked the other way when Bella Abzug was in Congress.  This "feminist icon" was known in political circles to abuse women on her staff, as did Betty Friedan, but it was never reported.

I'd love to know more about Nancy Pelosi, and where all the cash comes from.

September 18, 2010       Permalink

SNIPPET OF THE DAY – AT 11:30 A.M. ET:

COLUMBIA, Mo., Sept. 17 (UPI) -- Instead of finding a beach or a mountain cabin for vacation, some people are traveling Tornado Alley to experience a tornado, U.S. researchers say.

In the immortal words of that great philosopher, Jerry Lewis, "Bad looks you can change, stupid is forever."

September 18, 2010      Permalink

SERIOUS IMPLICATIONS – AT 11:01 A.M. ET:  This story has simply not been given the attention it deserves:

WASHINGTON -- A scientist and his wife who both once worked at Los Alamos National Laboratory before becoming outspoken critics were arrested Friday after an FBI sting operation and charged with trying to sell nuclear secrets to Venezuela.

The scientist, Pedro Leonardo Mascheroni, is being detained until a hearing Monday morning in Albuquerque, New Mexico. His wife, Roxby Mascheroni, was released on a variety of conditions, including a monitor attached to her.

The investigation first drew attention last October when federal agents reportedly seized six computers, two cameras, two cellphones and hundreds of files from the scientist, Pedro Leonardo Mascheroni.

Mascheroni declared his innocence to The New York Times last year, saying, "If I were a real spy, I would have left the country a long time ago."

After their arrest Friday morning, the two appeared in federal court in Albuquerque, New Mexico and were accused of dealing with an FBI undercover agent posing as a Venezuelan agent. The government did not allege that Venezuela or anyone working for it sought U.S. secrets.

COMMENT:  There is no question that the husband is an embittered, fired employee.  That may be all there is here.

But there also may be more.  Why would someone think that Venezuela wants to develop nuclear weapons, or would want nuclear secrets?  Please remember that Venezuela is building a close relationship with Iran.  Recent reports from Fox News suggest that technical and intelligence people fly back and forth between the two countries on special airline flights reserved for them. 

Reporters should stay on the story.  What did Mascheroni know about Venezuela that the U.S. Government should know?  Were there contacts?  Is Venezuela working on its own nuclear weapons?

Some day, there may be a lot more coming across our border besides illegal immigrants.

September 18, 2010     Permalink 

DOES CHRISTINE HAVE A CHANCE? – AT 10:20 A.M. ET:  Just about everyone with an Approved Pundit membership card is writing off Christine O'Donnell in Delaware.  But Roger Simon, at The Politico, is trying to put the brakes on the "inevitable loser" talk, and he has a point:

People often...look for a candidate “who understands my problems” or “is a regular person just like me.”

A few voices question whether O’Donnell’s loss is inevitable: Neil King Jr. of The Wall Street Journal wrote an article that appeared Wednesday with the headline “Odds Are Tough, but Not Hopeless, for GOP in Delaware,” and Mark Halperin of The Page referenced his Thursday appearance on “Morning Joe” under the headline “Don’t Write Off O’Donnell.”

But most analysts are writing her off (or are waiting for the polls to see which way they should jump).

After all, O’Donnell really is way over on the right, and Delaware is not a ‘way over on the right’ state — at least until now.

Something is clearly going on in this country. And while O’Donnell, Palin and the tea party are giggled about in Washington, they are seen as a deadly serious and potent political force by many outside. Those outside are not giggling right now. They are waiting for election night to do that.

COMMENT:  There's a great deal of wisdom in that.  O'Donnell, though, must do her part by running a masterful campaign, refraining from nutty comments, and confronting her past.  She apparently has left a trail of unpaid bills, tax problems, and difficulty paying her college loans.  Hey, maybe she's normal.

O'Donnell may have to make the modern equivalent of a "Checkers" speech to have a shot.  For those too young to remember, or those whose American History course in college included only slavery and George McGovern, here is a brief reminder:  In 1952, Republican presidential nominee, Dwight D. Eisenhower, chose Senator Richard M. Nixon of California as his running mate.  But it came out that Nixon had access to a "slush fund" provided by campaign supporters, something clearly outside ethical norms.  Nixon had to explain himself and clear his name, and so he addressed the nation on the then-new medium of television, denying any wrongdoing, but conceding that his family had accepted one gift, a little dog that Nixon's daughters named "Checkers."  And Nixon swore he'd never give it back.  The heartwarming nature of the speech saved Nixon's candidacy.

The next two weeks are critical for Christine.  She's got to define herself and her opponent.  And she's got to unite Republicans around her.

September 18, 2010      Permalink

BAKED ALASKA – AT 10:06 A.M. ET:  Republican Senator Lisa Murkowski, who lost the GOP primary to keep her seat recently, has announced that she will run as a write-in candidate.  The GOP primary winner was West Pointer Joe Miller.

It's absurd.  Miller won fair and square.  Both are conservatives.  There are no great issues of principle here, as there were when Joe Lieberman ran as an independent after losing the Connecticut primary to a leftist.  Joe ran on his principles as an independent and won.  But Murkowski?  Lisa, sometimes it's wise just to say thank-you and good-bye.  Most observers believe the race will come down to a contest between Miller and Murkowski, with the Democrat making an appearance.  But you never know.  Republicans should unite around Miller and tell Lisa to try another time.

There are now rumors – only rumors at this stage – that Congressman Mike Castle might try the same stunt in Delaware, having lost the GOP Senate primary to the controversial Christine O'Donnell.  We'll soon find out if the rumors bear fruit.  I wouldn't be surprised if Castle is polling.

Maybe we need a new way to tell candidates that they've lost.  Things are getting very strange.

September 18, 2010     Permalink