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

LAST SUBSCRIPTION DRIVE OF 2011 – MORALE BOOST NEEDED

We're launching our final subscription drive of 2011.  Our first two days have been so-so.  We need to do much better.

The sales pitch will be brief:  Urgent Agenda depends on subscriptions and donations to keep going.  While we still have an impressive retention rate among our subscribers, we need new subscribers to replace the few who drop out, and to help us build an even larger base of support to take into the future.

Current subscribers and donators can help by adding to their participation.

If you like what you see, and want it to continue, please subscribe or donate by going to the SUBSCRIPTIONS section in the right-hand column of this page.  It's right opposite what you're reading now.  You can subscribe or donate there, using PayPal.  If you don't like PayPal, send us an e-mail at
service@urgentagenda.com and we'll give you a traditional mailing address.

As a subscriber or donator, you'll receive The Angel's Corner, our twice-a-week e-mailed page.  The Angel's Corner contains the Forum, the most popular feature at Urgent Agenda.  Readers get to write, at length if they wish, on any subject they choose.  This goes well beyond the "comments" section of most websites.

So please subscribe or donate.  You'll join a community of exceptionally well informed readers, and help to sustain a website that many have come to depend on each day. 

DECEMBER 1,  2011

SHORT TAKES ON THE DRIFTING WRECKAGE – AT 9:55 P.M. ET:

ANOTHER "UNEXPECTEDLY" – If something doesn't go right for the Obama administration, the obliging media describes the event as "unexpected," or a variation thereof.  We got multiple uses of the "un" word this morning when it was announced that jobless claims "unexpectedly" rose above 400,000 this week, after being below that number for three straight weeks.  The claim figure would have to consistently be below 375,000 to have an impact on the unemployment rate.  This latest number is discouraging to those who thought they saw an improvement in the labor market.  They unexpectedly are upset.

GOOFBALLS AT WORK – Amnesty International is urging African countries to arrest former President George W. Bush if Bush visits, so the former chief executive can be "brought to justice" for authorizing torture.  Like many "human rights" groups, Amnesty has been taken over by leftists, who are bothered not at all when real thugs and dictators travel.  But BUSH (!!!) drives them up a wall.  One can just imagine what would happen if CHENEY (!!!!!) decided to go on vacation.  Amnesty has made a mockery of human rights before, so don't be surprised by this latest stunt.

EGYPT VOTES FOR THE DARK AGES – This will become a major story.  Egypt, which had a chance to move into the 21st century, has apparently chosen to return to the 10th.  Preliminary results from the first round of parliamentary elections show that Islamist parties, including the Muslim Brotherhood and an even more radical group, will win a majority in the new parliament.  The secular, liberal parties, whose adherents really began the "Arab spring," are well behind.  Next time we hustle a pro-American leader like Hosni Mubarak out of power, we ought to be reasonably sure who we're getting.  We're reminded that Hitler was democratically elected also. 

WHAT A VOTE OF CONFIDENCE – General Motors is offering to buy back any Chevy Volt whose owner fears it will catch fire.  Boy, what an advertisement for the car.  What'll they think of next?  Free fire extinguishers and fireproof suits?  GM also says it will recall the 6,000 Volts on the road once they figure out why three Volts caught fire in government crash tests.  You know, I can just imagine the enthusiasm that Volt owners will have tomorrow morning as they get into their new, green-energy car and realize they're getting a free recall...if they survive that long.  I actually saw a Volt a few months ago.  Haven't seen one since.

December 1, 2011     Permalink

BULLETIN – THE GINGRICH SURGE – AT 3:14 P.M. ET:  It just seems incredible, but Newt Gingrich is absolutely soaring in the GOP race, according to a Rasmussen survey, just released.

Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich has surged to the largest national lead held by any candidate so far in the race for the Republican Presidential Nomination.

A new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey of Likely Republican Primary Voters finds Gingrich on top with 38% of the vote. Former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney is a distant second at 17%. No other candidate reaches double-digits.

The national survey of 1,000 Likely Republican Primary Voters was conducted on November 30, 2011 by Rasmussen Reports. The margin of sampling error is +/- 3 percentage points with a 95% level of confidence.

COMMENT:  I really wonder whether this is really a growing enthusiasm for Gingrich, or a growing enthusiasm for anybody-but-Romney. 

If the trend continues, Gingrich, who was such a joke at the start of the campaign that his entire staff deserted him, will be on his way to the nomination...unless someone else enters the race and steals his thunder. 

I've never seen a contest quite as strange as this, although Clinton's rise in 1992 from a scandal-tinged start because of sexual allegations made by Gennifer Flowers may come close.  And Clinton won the whole thing.

Remember, back a couple of months, when people said the Republican race was so dull?

December 1, 2011       Permalink

SCARED TO DEATH – AT 9:42 A.M. ET:  The Egyptians are voting.  Some very starry-eyed folks are still referring to it as the "Arab spring," even though the weather has clearly changed.   Islamists appear to be winning, and their coming to power is producing gray hair among those willing to see a problem for what it actually is.

But please notice that there is one group regularly left out of the reporting of this "transition to democracy."  Some ten percent of Egyptians are Coptic Christians, and they are frightened.  At least a few AP reporters noticed them:

ASSIUT, Egypt – Ahead of elections, Egypt's Coptic Church discreetly told followers to vote for an alliance of leftist and liberal parties sponsored by a Christian tycoon. The move by a Church normally wary of inserting itself into politics showed how deeply Egyptian Christians fear that Islamists will come to power.

The country's Christian minority turned out in droves for voting Monday and Tuesday in the first parliamentary elections since the fall of Hosni Mubarak in February.

Many indeed said they had "voted for the eye" — a reference to the Egyptian Bloc, the coalition that the Church pointed to. Each party has a campaign symbol so that illiterate voters can identify their choices on the ballot, and the Bloc's symbol was the eye.

In pockets where their community is concentrated, the flow of Christians to the polls was strong. In the Cairo district of Shubra, men and women with cross tattoos on their wrists — a common tradition among Egyptian Christians — kept lines full through the day. White-haired elders, equipped with chairs and bottles of water for the long wait, waited with young men and women who took time off from jobs to get to the ballot box.
Almost all expressed a common motivation: Stop the Islamists.

"We are voting for liberal parties as a means of survival," said Farid George, a Christian in the southern city of Assiut. "Egypt is our country. My kids were raised here and I will die here."

The prospect of an Islamist victory in the election has Egypt's Christians, who make up about 10 percent of the population of 85 million, terrified that one day strict Islamic law will be imposed. Talk of leaving Egypt has increasingly circulated among many Christians since Mubarak's fall, raising fears over the fate of a community that predates the coming of Islam to the country in the 7th century.

And...

Anti-Christian violence accelerated since Mubarak's fall, blamed by Christians on increasingly bold Islamists. Salafi preachers have spoken out against the building of churches and accused Christians of seeking to take over "Islamic" Egypt.

COMMENT:  Gee, I wonder the "human rights activists" have anything to say about this.  Probably not.  I mean, what kind of a cocktail party invitation will you get by being concerned about Christians? 

Now if these were prisoners at Guantanamo...

What kind of an "Arab spring" is this?

December 1, 2011       Permalink

THE OBAMAN STRATEGY – AT 8:51 A.M. ET:  Jay Cost, in the Weekly Standard, has an excellent piece on the White House strategy to win reelection, and why he has doubts about it.  Well worth reading. 

Across a series of news articles...it has become clear how Team Obama sees a path to reelection.

Essentially, it all comes down to three big goals:

1. Do as well with the non-white vote as Obama did in 2008, with the expectation that it continues to increase as a share of the total electorate.

2. Hold steady with upscale white voters, who tend to be more focused on quality of life issues like environmentalism.

3. Mitigate losses among the white working class, but expect to lose this group once again.

So this would be a path to 270 electoral votes that might include Colorado, Nevada, and Virginia (which historically have been Republican) but not Ohio (a quadrennial swing state) or even Pennsylvania (which historically has been Democratic).

As we've noted here, the loss of the white working class is a profound development in the history of the Democratic Party, which based its 20th-century victories on that very group.

Is this a feasible approach?

At this point, it's not likely. I could go on at length about all of its problems, but let’s just look at the three biggest dilemmas I see.

1. Obama still needs the “white working class.”...The problem with this approach is that the white working class is more essential to the Obama coalition than one might think.

Cost points out that "roughly half of Obama’s voters in the key Midwestern swing states were in the white working class" in 2008.

2. Hispanics are not secure. I’ve pointed out before that “emerging Democratic majority” theorists make a category error when they talk about Democratic strength among “non-white” voters. There are important differences within this overly-broad category.

African Americans are loyally Democratic, in that they back the party in roughly the same numbers through thick and thin. “Non-white” voters who are not African American – e.g. Asians and Hispanics – do not behave in this manner. They are, rather, swing groups that have a Democratic tilt. In other words, the Democratic share of this group goes up and down, depending on the party’s overall position in the country.

There is obvious concern in Democratic circles about the Hispanic vote.  There is a strong strain of conservatism, especially social conservatism, in the Hispanic community. 

3. Obama has trouble with the affluent, too.

Some are not so affluent these days.  Affluent Democrats like to dabble in "social justice" causes.  But in a dwindling economy, they may not have that luxury.

COMMENT:  Of course, much depends on who is nominated by the Republican Party.  I don't think that someone who barely has a pulse will beat Obama who, it must be emphasized, is a superb campaigner.  And, as president, Obama has powers that can be used to advance his political fortunes.  The presidency is, remember, that bully pulpit...and has the armed forces of the United States behind it.

December 1, 2011       Permalink

IS OBAMA GETTING DESPERATE? – AT 8:27 A.M. ET:  One of our favorite bloggers, Andrew Malcolm, of Investors Business Daily, and formerly of the L.A. Times, concludes that there is a sense of desperation in the Obama camp, and that Obama's hyperbole is coming far earlier than usual in a presidential campaign.

Suddenly, President Obama is inserting a stark new tone of drama and urgency into his campaign speeches to loyalists at political fundraisers...

..."Every single thing that we care about is at stake in the next election," he told one donor group. "The very core of what this country stands for is on the line."

So, the future of the entire country is now inextricably tied to Obama's own reelection?

Such hyperbolic, hubristic claims are usually reserved for a campaign's closing hours to prompt a last-minute spurt of political adrenalin among supporters. Not 341 days out. Not 10 months before even early voting opens. This couldn't possibly be desperation! Already?

Here are several other points made by Obama to a possibly puzzled crowd assembled at the Gotham Bar and Grille:

"I've got to win in 2012."

"In order to finish the job, I'm going to have to have a second term."

"I need a couple more years to finish the job."

"I'm going to need another term to finish the job."

And in case anyone had missed the point, the ex-partial-term senator said, "I'm going to need a few more years to finish the job."

This was in one speech.

In foreign policy, Obama emphasizes that he's winding down two wars, but then goes into fantasyland:

No talk about victory, but he's ending two wars. Then, Obama claims modestly: "We’ve also been able to mobilize world opinion around U.S. leadership in a way that many people had thought had been lost when I came into office."

Really?  As Johnny Carson used to say, "I did not know that."  Yup.  Watch all those countries fall in line behind Barack.  One by one.  Why, marching in unison, just like West Point cadets.

If you see anything like that, please send me an e-mail.

We've also noticed a sense of desperation in some Democratic talk.  I think it stems from the belief that the Dem base isn't very interested, and that Obama can lose simply because people stay home on election day. 

What the president needs is a major victory – a major economic boost, or some foreign policy triumph in which he can actually use the word "victory," even if he chokes on it.  Hmm.  Those Iranian nuclear targets may look awfully tempting come next summer.

December 1, 2011       Permalink

WORRY IN THE ROMNEY CAMP – AT 8:11 A.M. ET:  Newt Gingrich's sudden rise is producing real concern in the Romney camp.  A Romney interview with Fox News turned testy, and the Mitt people are starting to snipe at Gingrich, without getting too personal.   Ace political reporter Doyle McManus, of The Los Angeles Times, has the story:

By this point in the Republican presidential campaign, Mitt Romney's backers had hoped that conservative voters would be coalescing around the former Massachusetts governor as the inevitable nominee.

But that's not happening. The disappointed partisans of Michele Bachmann, Rick Perry and Herman Cain haven't flocked to Romney; they haven't even trickled. Instead, Romney's support in national polls declined over the last month. In many surveys, there's a new front-runner: Newt Gingrich, whose candidacy once looked so moribund that his staff left in droves and he took off for a vacation in the Greek islands.

Now, Romney and his aides are having to contemplate nightmare scenarios: A Gingrich upset in New Hampshire, a Gingrich victory in South Carolina, a Gingrich endorsement from Sarah Palin — and a bitter, two-man race all the way through the 11 primaries of Super Tuesday on March 6.

Romney might still win a race like that, but he's unlikely to come out unscathed. His supporters worry that a grueling negative campaign could weaken him for the ultimate battle with President Obama.

One of Romney's problems, of course, is that he's not a new candidate, a fresh face.  He's an old competitor and people feel they know him, which is why perceptions of him tend to be set.  Republicans just haven't warmed to him.  He doesn't inspire much loyalty or enthusiasm.  He comes off as a wealthy technocrat, no matter how capable he may actually be.  There is no quote from Romney worth remembering, which should always be worrisome. 

You get the feeling that, if you were in a foxhole with Newt Gingrich and Mitt Romney, Gingrich would be firing like mad, whereas Romney would be examining his rifle to see how it could be made more inexpensively.  That's the difference.

Why has Gingrich risen to the top of the heap as the last remaining conservative alternative to Romney, despite his long record of heresies and gaffes?

He may merely be the latest enthusiasm of a conservative electorate that keeps searching for an ideal candidate, and he could soon be tossed aside like his predecessors. But he may also have an outside chance at winning, or at least coming close...

...The real test, as always, will be one of temperament: Is New Newt disciplined and steady enough to match Romney's virtually error-free run?

"When Newt is doing well is when he gets into trouble," a Romney advisor told me. "He's smarter than he used to be. We're about to find out how much smarter."

The smart money among Republican political veterans is still on Romney. But Gingrich is making his progress to the nomination more difficult.

COMMENT:   Newt is lucky in that he's the final serious candidate to challenge Romney, and is peaking just before the voting begins.  Romney's nightmare scenario may just come to pass.  Then we'll have to see whether it's good or bad for the conservative cause.

December 1, 2011     Permalink

NOVEMBER 30,  2011

SHORT TAKES ON THE DRIFTING WRECKAGE – AT 9:52 P.M. ET:

FRANCE WITHDRAWS AMBASSADOR – France has withdrawn its ambassador from Iran, a day after Britain withdrew all its diplomats from Tehran.  Observers say that this is the worst diplomatic crisis between Iran and the West since the Iranian hostage crisis of 1979.  France will now push for tougher sanctions on Iran.  Meanwhile, back in the colonies, our government has restricted its reaction to the storming of the U.K.'s Tehran embassy to some statements.  In one of them, President Obama referred to the British embassy as the "English embassy."  He once said that citizens of Austria spoke Austrian.  Can you imagine what the press would say if a Republican made these errors?  Can you just imagine?

BROTHERHOOD LEADS IN EGYPT – As expected, the early vote count shows that the Muslim Brotherhood is the largest single vote getter in Egypt.  In second place is an even more extreme Islamist party.  Only in third place is a secular party.  So it appears that Egyptians, in their first act of democracy following the "Arab spring," are going to the polls and empowering elements that have no commitment at all to the fundamental principles of democratic life.  Shades of Germany in the early thirties.  Already, Muslim groups in America are arranging for some of the new Islamist leaders in Arab countries to come to Capitol Hill and meet the legislators.  Do you get the feeling we've been had?

MORE SMILES FOR NEWT – The good news keeps pouring in for Newt Gingrich.  A new Rasmussen matchup shows him besting Barack Obama in a general election, 45-43%.  It's rare that any named GOP candidate has defeated Obama in a presidential poll, although a generic Republican candidate usually emerges as the winner.  But remember, Newt is only the latest GOP contender to suddenly seize the spotlight.  The others from the anyone-but-Romney camp have all been swept to the side of the road.   We wonder who Gloria Allred has up her sleeve.   

REPUBLICANS TO OFFER BUDGET COMPROMISE – Trying to deflect the charge that they're the party of "no," Republicans, led by House Majority Leader Eric Cantor, are preparing a budget compromise that would extend the current payroll tax cut and unemployment benefits, things the Dems crave, while the automatic defense cuts scheduled to go into effect would be scaled back, satisfying defense hawks in the Republican Party. Obama has recklessly threatened to veto anything that tampers with the automatic cuts, meaning he is willing to jeopardize defense.  Predictions as to whether Cantor's efforts will succeed are guarded at best.

November 30, 2011        Permalink

THE MONEY TRAIL – AT 10:26 A.M. ET:  The Dow is up almost 400 points this morning, on news that the major central banks, including our Fed, have taken action to prop up the international banking system.  From WaPo:

The world’s major central banks unveiled a new strategy Wednesday morning to create a wall of money that could prevent Europe’s financial woes from undermining the stability of the global banking system.

The Federal Reserve, European Central Bank and central banks in Canada, Britain, Switzerland and Japan said in a joint announcement that they will extend the timing of and lower the interest rate paid on “swaps,” arrangements that have been used intermittently since late 2007 to funnel dollars to the banking systems of countries where there is need.

In effect, the Fed is handing over money to other global central banks — now at a lower rate than in the past — and those central banks, in turn, lend the dollars to banks in their countries that are facing difficulties funding themselves.

It is a step meant to arrest a creeping crisis of confidence in the world banking system, brought on by the rapidly deepening European debt crisis. The lack of confidence threatens major European banks and many of their counterparts elsewhere in the world.

COMMENT:  We're glad the Dow is up, but I think we should look at this deal with two eyes.  There have been a number of "steps" taken recently to save Europe and the international banking system.  Each "step" works for a time, and then we're told that new "steps" are needed. 

Are we going through the same cycle again?   What are the chances that the funds handed over by the Fed can be lost?  What are the chances that Europe will continue to worsen, as it has, despite all the "steps" taken?

I'd be awfully cautious.  Many of the "investors" on Wall Street, or "investahs," as we call them here, would respond to someone sneezing.  The market is a casino, as Felix Rohatyn once said, not necessarily a verdict on the wisdom of economic policies.

We'll follow this.

November 30, 2011        Permalink

BULLETIN – IRAN UPDATE – AT 9:44 A.M. ET:   Ah, when Britain gets Churchillian, we love it, don't we?  From Fox:

LONDON – Britain's foreign secretary William Hague said Wednesday that the UK was ordering the immediate closure of the Iranian embassy in London and that Britain was closing down its embassy in Tehran.

"We require the immediate closure of the Iranian embassy in London and for staff to leave the country," Hague told British lawmakers in a statement to parliament.

Hague added that Iranian diplomats "must leave the United Kingdom within the next 48 hours."
The closure follows the storming of the British Embassy in Tehran on Tuesday by hardline student protesters.

All UK staff have now left Iranian soil, Hague confirmed.

Hague said Britain's move to close the Iranian embassy did not amount to the complete severing of diplomatic ties between the two countries.

COMMENT:  We wonder what our spineless president will say about this development.  There once was a bust of Churchill in the oval office, but Obama, in one of his first acts as president, ordered it returned to Britain.  Maybe he should ask for another loaner, just to look good.  Maybe he could even get some Churchill speeches for his iPod.

There is speculation, but it is only speculation, that any military attack on Iran would be launched in 2012...because such an action would actually help Obama win reelection.  Americans would rally 'round the president.  Also, 2012 might well be the last year before Iran has operational nuclear weapons, which might well deter any plans for an attack.

Do you feel there's an overload of news?  There is.  And there is an absence of leadership, at least on this side of the Atlantic.

November 30, 2011       Permalink

MORE ON THE GINGRICH SURGE – AT 9:11 A.M. ET:  Hey, this is getting serious, and follows on our first post this morning.  Just released is a new poll showing a major Gingrich surge in the nation's fourth largest state, Florida.  From RealClearPolitics:

Newt Gingrich leads Mitt Romney by more than 20 points in the important early-voting state of Florida, according to a new Insider Advantage poll.

Gingrich has 41 percent support while Romney has 17 percent. Businessman Herman Cain, who is fading in the wake of allegations of sexual harassment and infidelity, sits in third place with 13 percent. Former Texas Gov. Rick Perry has 7 percent, Texas Rep. Ron Paul has 4 percent, Minnesota Rep. Michele Bachmann has 3 percent, and former Pennsylvania Sen. Rick Santorum rounds out the field with 1 percent.

And...

Florida's Jan. 31 primary comes 10 days after South Carolina Republicans go to the polls, offering Sunshine State voters a chance to add clarity to the race after the traditional early-voting states have their say.

COMMENT:   Gingrich's advance now can't be denied.  Think two months from now, January 30th.  We will have had the Iowa caucuses, the New Hampshire primary, the South Carolina primary, and the Florida primary.  The presumed frontrunner is now ahead in only one of those states, New Hampshire, and, as we reported earlier, his lead is shrinking. 

Now, if Gingrich really bloodies Romney in January, is it then possible for an anti-Gingrich candidate to emerge?  It would be awfully late, and probably impossible for anyone to put together a coherent campaign right in the midst of the primaries.  And there is no obvious "above politics" candidate like Eisenhower to pull things together.

The question that will be repeatedly asked as all this develops is this:  Can Newt Gingrich defeat Barack Obama?  Frankly, I don't know, and neither does anyone else.  My quick answer, and the conventional one, is that Romney would have a much better chance.  He has less baggage and has more of a chance with independents.  Gingrich has, at best, only ideological appeal.  But remember, that's exactly what the party establishment said about Ronald Reagan in 1980. 

At the same time, Reagan had been a two-term governor of our largest state, had a winning personality, and was not beset by the ethical questions surrounding Gingrich.

We must keep our eyes on the prize – the defeat of Barack Obama in 2012.  That's the real prize, not the Republican nomination.

November 30, 2011        Permalink 

IRAN RUMBLINGS – AT 8:30 A.M. ET:   With our economic woes, and the holiday season, we are not paying enough attention to the convulsions in Iran, and we will pay a price.  The Brits are pulling embassy personnel out of that country after their embassy was stormed yesterday.  There is talk of a full break in relations.  From London's Telegraph:

Britain has evacuated all its diplomatic staff from Iran, a day after protesters stormed and ransacked its embassy and residential compound.

Both properties were severely damaged, with official and personal possessions seized or destroyed, said sources who had spoken to staff at the embassy. One described the damage as "carnage".

Britain said it was outraged by the attacks and warned of "serious consequences".

"In light of yesterday's events, and to ensure their ongoing safety, some staff are leaving Tehran," Britain's foreign office (ministry) said in a statement.While the official statement referred only to "some staff", two diplomatic sources said that all British staff were leaving.

Norway has also closed its embassy in Tehran due to security concerns after the attacks.

And the American reaction?  Pathetic.  President Obama gave a mumbling statement yesterday saying that the Iranian regime should hold those who ransacked the British embassy accountable.  Are we serious here?  Those attackers wouldn't have crossed a street without the approval of the regime.  Instead of a strong, unequivocal support for our British allies, Obama pulled another Obama – soft on Iran, indifferent to Britain, which apparently Obama still resents for its colonial past.

And then there's this intriguing story on the strange series of explosions that have rocked Iran recently:

Satellite imagery "clearly showing billowing smoke and destruction" has proven that an explosion Monday damaged a nuclear facility in the Iranian city of Ifsahan, according to a Wednesday Times of London report .

The report quoted Israeli intelligence officials as saying that there was "no doubt" that the blast damaged a uranium enrichment site, and asserted that it was "no accident."

Clearly it was no accident.  There are ongoing Israeli, and, presumably, other Western sabotage operations underway in Iran.  And Iranian computer operations have been disrupted by viruses injected from outside the country. 

Officials from Isfahan have been denying that the city had been hit by an explosion.

Mohammad-Mahdi Esma'ili, Isfahan's deputy governor in political and security affairs, called the reports "sheer lies" according to the IRNA news agency. An official from the city's fire department also denied that there had been an explosion.

The mysterious explosion Monday rocked the Iranian city of Isfahan, which hosts a nuclear facility involved in processing uranium fed to the Natanz fuel enrichment facility.

The source and target of the explosion were initially unclear. Some reports claimed it took place in a military base and others said it was a gas explosion.

Two weeks ago, on November 12, an explosion hit an Iranian military base near the town of Bid Kaneh, killing 17 members of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps and Maj.-Gen. Hassan Moghaddam, chief architect of the Islamic Republic’s ballistic missile program. Israel’s Mossad has been accused of orchestrating the blast.

COMMENT:  These operations may slow Iranian military programs, but they won't kill them.  Only two developments could prove decisive toward that end – either regime change, with a more reasonable government coming to power in Tehran, or a sustained military assault that could be very effective, but which could cause major convulsions in the region and even in the oil supply line.

Happy holidays.

November 30, 2011       Permalink

OH DEAR, OH DEAR, LOOK WHAT THE POLLSTER BRINGS – AT 7:58 A.M. ET:   The New Hampshire primary is little more than a month and a week away, and the numbers are moving.  Scott Rasmussen, who polls likely voters (not all adults or all people with a pulse) reports the following:

What a difference a month makes in the race for the Republican nomination. In September, Rick Perry was leading in Iowa and running second in New Hampshire. In October, Herman Cain took the lead in Iowa and was running second in New Hampshire. Now, it’s Newt Gingrich’s turn.

The latest Rasmussen Reports telephone survey of Likely Republican Primary voters in New Hampshire shows former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney on top at 34%, followed by former House Speaker Newt Gingrich at 24%. This is the first survey of New Hampshire Primary voters conducted since the Manchester Union Leader endorsed Gingrich. Seventy-six percent (76%) were able to identify Gingrich as the candidate who had received the endorsement from the influential statewide newspaper.

And...

The numbers in New Hampshire show Romney’s support down seven points from a month ago, while Gingrich has gained 16 points. Cain was the biggest loser over the past month, dropping 12 points. Ron Paul’s support has inched up three points, and Huntsman has gained four. Gingrich also has moved into the lead in Iowa.

COMMENT:  Everything at this point is about "if."  If Gingrich can take the Iowa caucuses on January 3rd and then slash into Romney's lead in New Hampshire on the 10th, Romney could be in serious trouble.  New Hampshire, bordering Massachusetts, where Romney was governor, is Romney's signature state.  If he can't stage a serious triumph there, where can he?

It is true, however, that Gingrich will now have all political guns focused on him, just as Herman Cain did and, before him, Rick Perry, when they started to move.  Both men went down the tubes, and we wonder whether something will come out about Gingrich in the next month to send him packing as well.  Romney has a very well oiled machine, and he has learned how to fight.

Already the utterly predictable New York Times is out with a hit piece on Gingrich, the inevitable gift granted by The Times to any Republican who starts to rise in the polls.  It's here, if anyone is interested. 

It looks like an exciting month ahead in Republican politics, just before the voting starts.  What will Santa bring to Mitt and Newt?

November 30, 2011     Permalink