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

DECEMBER 30,  2011

SHORT TAKES ON THE DRIFTING WRECKAGE – AT 9:26 P.M. ET: 

HORROR IN SYRIA – Hundreds of thousands demonstrated against the regime in Syria today, and it's reported that more than 30 died for it.  This happened even though Arab League "monitors" are in Syria to assess the human rights situation.  The monitors are headed, naturally, by a former Sudanese official associated with a brutal regime in his own country.  That's the Arab League.  At the same time, Syrian dissidents are deeply discouraged by the casual attitude that President Obama is taking toward their tragedy.  There are no plans for Western action.  Contrast please with the speed with which we pushed American ally Hosni Mubarak out of office in Egypt.  Syria's President Assad is an American enemy.

CHRISTIE STARS – You have to believe this is a tryout for the vice presidential spot on a Romney ticket. Chris Christie has been campaigning for Romney in Iowa with gems like, "Well, let me tell you, after three years of Obama, we are hopeless and changeless, and we need Mitt Romney to bring us back, to bring America back."   He also playfully threatens to retaliate against Iowa "Jersey style," if it doesn't go for Romney on Tuesday.  Christie is a great asset to Romney, and has not ruled out a vice presidential run, if asked.  I think he'll be asked.

GINGRICH FLOATS SARAH – as a possible vice presidential choice.  But he also said she could be an effective Cabinet officer, especially given her expertise in energy.  Gingrich is correct, although I really don't think he, or anyone else, would select her as vice president, given the 2008 experience, and the negative press coverage that would result from her selection.  But a Cabinet post might work, if Sarah would simply do a few things occasionally to show that she is still a serious political participant.  Her handling of energy issues in energy-rich Alaska was widely praised.

STOCKS ESSENTIALLY UNCHANGED FOR 2011 – This was the last trading day of the year, and the stock market wound up essentially where it was on the first trading day.  The S&P 500 was down .003% for the year.  The Dow did better, up 5.5%.  Nasdaq finished down a minor 1.8%.  Our stocks did better than most of the world.  The German stock market was down 14.7% and the Japanese down 17.3%.   Some economists are expressing guarded optimism about 2012, citing the gradual decline in the number of Americans applying for jobless benefits.  But others warn that the problems in Europe, largely unresolved, could rattle the American economy in the coming year.

December 30, 2011       Permalink 

LATE IOWA POLL – AT 9:46 A.M. ET:   The first voting of the 2012 campaign takes place Tuesday in Iowa, with the Iowa caucuses. 

Caucuses – essentially meetings to hear speeches, after which everyone votes – are probably not the best way to gauge public opinion, and results are often skewed by the presence of one or two candidates – like Ron Paul – who have zealous followings.  But Iowa will create some buzz, at least for a few days, so we follow it.

The latest poll in Iowa confirms other polls taken in the last week.  It's race between Romney and Paul, with Romney having a slight edge.  However, I would not be shocked at a Paul victory.  He has a superb ground organization in Iowa, and his followers have a religious fervor.  From NBC: 

Former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney and Texas Rep. Ron Paul are running neck-and-neck in Iowa, former Pennsylvania Sen. Rick Santorum is surging and former House Speaker Newt Gingrich collapsing just four days before the state's Jan. 3 caucuses, according to a new NBC News-Marist poll.

Romney drew the support of 23 percent of likely caucus-goers in Iowa – identified based on interest, chance of voting and past participation – ahead of Paul, at 21 percent.

They are followed by Santorum at 15 percent, Texas Gov. Rick Perry at 14 percent, Gingrich at 13 percent and Minnesota Rep. Michele Bachmann at 6 percent.

COMMENT:  A Paul victory in Iowa will be immediately discounted as the product of zealotry that does not actually reflect Republican support nationwide.  But a Romney victory would set Romney up well for the New Hampshire primary, a week later, where he is expected to win substantially.  After that comes South Carolina, which Gingrich may win simply because of local loyalties – he's from Georgia and is seen as more in tune with South Carolina than is Romney – but then comes Florida, at the end of January, the fourth largest state.  That will be the one to watch.  A Romney victory there would be significant, especially if it follows wins in Iowa and New Hampshire.  Florida would mean three victories in three different regions.

But it ain't over.  There's still talk of a dark horse coming in late.  The Republican race has been very volatile.

December 30, 2011       Permalink

QUOTE OF THE DAY – AT 8:55 A.M. ET:  From Rich Lowry, writing about Margaret Thatcher in the New York Post:

At this moment in our history, though, it is Thatcher’s central purpose that is most important: Her unyielding rejection of British decline. She rejected it with every bone in her middle-class body even though sophisticates scoffed at such a naive nationalism. She rejected it even though the grandees of her own party said it was inevitable. She rejected it even though she knew reversing it meant forcing a wrenching political and economic crisis.

The acrid whiff of decline is in the air in America, in the enduringly weak employment picture, in the spiraling debt, in the persistent pessimism about our prospects and in the intellectual preparation for a “post-American world.”

Part of the volatility in the Republican presidential field is the unfulfilled hunger for a Thatcher-like figure. She had the urgency of an emergency-room surgeon, the rhetorical subtlety of a blowtorch and the conviction of a desert monk. Tory M.P. John Biffen called her “a tigress surrounded by hamsters.” But she matched her fearlessness to sound judgment and a positively Prussian work ethic. Needless to say, Thatchers aren’t often on offer.

COMMENT:  No, but the spirit of Margaret Thatcher, and Ronald Reagan, can capture us again.  If we resist our own grandees, if we reject the dry rot of much of our "intellectual" class, if we make it plain to the mainstream media that we'll ignore their endless fronting for whatever trendy "progressive" idea has the stage for the moment, if we insist on greatness, then this will be another American century, not the "post-American" century that we're being sold by defeatists. 

Now we must find the right people to lead us.

December 30, 2011        Permalink

THESE PEOPLE ARE SERIOUS – AT 8:40 A.M. ET:  And we hope Washington is just as serious.  The Iranians are conducting naval maneuvers, threatening to close the strategic Strait of Hormuz, and now they're getting ready to fire long-range missiles. 

(Reuters) - Iran will fire long-range missiles during a naval drill in the Gulf Saturday, a semi-official news agency reported, a show of force at a time when Iran has threatened to close shipping lanes if the West imposes sanctions on its oil exports.

Iran has long-range missile systems including the Shahab-3, which could reach Israel and U.S. bases in the Middle East.

In the past week it has threatened to stop ships moving through the strategic Strait of Hormuz if sanctions are imposed on its oil exports over its disputed nuclear program, increasing tension in a long-running standoff with the West.

"The Iranian navy will test several kinds of its missiles, including its long-range missiles, in the Persian Gulf on Saturday," Admiral Mahmoud Mousavi, deputy commander of the Iranian navy, told Fars news agency.

COMMENT:  Some members of the "aren't we bright" club of foreign policy experts reassure us that it would be irrational for Iran to seal the Strait of Hormuz because it would be hurting its own economy.  But who can be sure that the Iranians will act rationally?  It wasn't very rational for the Japanese to attack Pearl Harbor, knowing our industrial might.  It wasn't very rational for Hitler to invade the Soviet Union.  And it wasn't all that smart for Khrushchev to put missiles in Cuba, only 90 miles off our shore.  All three things happened.

December 30, 2011      Permalink

ARE WE GETTING THIS MESSAGE? – AT 8:29 A.M. ET:  Doesn't look we're in for a ton of fun from the new Great Leader of North Korea.   From AP:

North Korea warned the world Friday there would be no softening of its position toward South Korea's government after Kim Jong Il's death as Pyongyang strengthened his son and heir's authority with a new title: Great Leader.

I personally prefer Dear Leader, but who are we to judge other cultures?

North Korea's powerful National Defense Commission said the country would never deal with South Korean President Lee Myung-bak, a conservative who stopped a no-strings-attached aid policy toward the North in 2008.

How dare the South Koreans ask where the money is going.  Why, pretty soon Americans will ask where federal aid to education goes. 

The stern message also said North Korea was uniting around Kim Jong Un, referring to him for the first time with the title Great Leader — previously used for his father — in a clear message of continuity. It was the latest incremental step in a burgeoning personality cult around the son following the Dec. 17 death of Kim Jong Il.

The younger Kim on Thursday was pronounced Supreme Leader of the ruling party, military and people at a massive public gathering on the final day of official mourning for his father.

The top levels of government appear to have rallied around Kim Jong Un, who is in his late 20s, in the wake of his father's death. Still, given his inexperience and age, there are questions outside North Korea about his leadership of a nation engaged in delicate negotiations over its nuclear program and grappling with decades of economic hardship and chronic food shortages.

"We declare solemnly and confidently that the foolish politicians around the world, including the puppet group in South Korea, should not expect any change from us," the National Defense Commission said. "We will never deal with the traitor group of Lee Myung-bak."

COMMENT:  What a bunch of warm, nice guys.  But we wait for Nicholas Kristof of The New York Times to go to North Korea and report, "I sat down and took tea with the Great Leader, and saw a warm, kindly side to him."

December 30, 2011     Permalink

DECEMBER 29,  2011

SHORT TAKES ON THE DRIFTING WRECKAGE – AT 10:51 P.M. ET:

ROMNEY ROMPS IN RASMUSSEN POLL – The poll shows Mitt Romney defeating Barack Obama 45-39%.  This is the biggest lead for Romney yet in the Rasmussen survey.  The poll also shows that Romney is the only GOP candidate who, at this stage in the race, can defeat the president.

MORE WORRY FOR OBAMA – After a brief rise in the polls, following the Republican fumbles in the payroll tax extension debate, Mr. Obama is slipping again.  Today's Gallup Poll has him at 41% approval and 50% disapproval.  This is a dramatic decline from earlier in the week, when the president registered 46% approval in the same poll.

REALLY?  REALLY? – Nancy Pelosi's daughter, who should know, says her mother would like to leave Congress, but stays only because campaign donors want her there.   Look, if people are giving money to get her to stay, how about the rest of us promising to send checks if she leaves?  The former speaker's office hotly denies her daughter's statement, but it has the ring of truth.

RON PAUL SLAMMED – The Manchester Union-Leader, one of the most important conservative papers in the country, published a sizzling editorial today slamming Ron Paul and calling him "dangerous" to America.  The paper denounced Paul's foreign policy views, noted the disturbingly bigoted background of a number of his supporters, and said that has consistently spouted nonsense.  This is part of the backlash against Paul that is building among knowledgeable conservatives.

December 29, 2011       Permalink 

SHOWING THE FLAG – AT 8:24 A.M. ET:  The U.S. is apparently showing the flag rather conspicuously as Iran conducts naval drills to show that it can close the vital Strait of Hormuz, through which many of the world's oil tankers pass.  From Fox:

TEHRAN – An Iranian surveillance plane has shot video and photographed a U.S. aircraft carrier during Iran's ongoing navy drill near a strategic waterway in the Persian Gulf, the official IRNA news agency reported on Thursday.

The report did not provide details and it was unclear what information the Iranian military could gleam from such footage. But the announcement is an indication Iran is seeking to cast its navy as having a powerful role in the region's waters.

IRNA quoted Iran's navy chief, Adm. Habibollah Sayyari, as saying the action shows that Iran has "control over the moves by foreign forces" in the area where Tehran is holding a 10-day military exercise.

"An Iranian vessel and surveillance plane have tracked, filmed and photographed a U.S. aircraft carrier as it was entering the Gulf of Oman from the Persian Gulf," Sayyari said.

He added that the "foreign fleet will be warned by Iranian forces if it enters the area of the drill."
State TV showed what appeared to be the reported video, but it was not possible to make out the details of the carrier because the footage was filmed from far away.

The Iranian exercise is taking place in international waters near the Strait of Hormuz -- the passageway for one-sixth of the world's oil supply.

COMMENT:  Some commentators have pointed out that the Iranian threat to close the Strait of Hormuz in the event we ratchet up sanctions against Tehran runs hollow because it would damage the Iranian economy.  Also, U.S. Navy could almost certainly break a blockade rather quickly.

But the threat itself roils oil markets and gives Tehran at least some leverage in its battle with the West.

The carrier is apparently the Stennis, which has, if normally configured, about 85 planes on board.

December 29, 2011       Permalink

HE SHOULDA DUN IT – AT 8:07 A.M. ET:  A new book claims that General David Petraeus almost resigned in protest against President Obama's decision quickly to draw down forces in Afghanistan.  From AP:

WASHINGTON – Four-star general-turned-CIA director David Petraeus almost resigned as Afghanistan war commander over President Barack Obama's decision to quickly draw down surge forces, according to a new insider's look at Petraeus' 37-year Army career.

Petraeus decided that resigning would be a "selfish, grandstanding move with huge political ramifications" and that now was "time to salute and carry on," according to a forthcoming biography.

Author and Petraeus confidante Paula Broadwell had extensive access to the general in Afghanistan and Washington for "All In: The Education of General David Petraeus," due from Penguin Press in January. The Associated Press was given an advance copy.

COMMENT:  I wish he had resigned, which would have set off a needed national discussion about Afghanistan.  It would have also given Petraeus some running room politically.  Instead, he got trapped in the CIA job, effectively taking him out of the political arena, and a possible presidential race.

Of course, there is no guarantee that Petraeus would have made a good presidential candidate.  I heard him speak at a small gathering a year ago, and it was clear he isn't a great orator.  Eisenhower wasn't either, but Eisenhower was considered the liberator of Europe, and, in the minds of many Americans, could do no wrong.

Also, Eisenhower, in 1952, was running against Adlai Stevenson, the Democratic governor of Illinois.  If Petraeus had entered the political arena and run for president, he would have been running against Obama, his former boss.  Many Americans might have considered that disloyal, and a bit too ambitious. 

So, who knows what might have been?  But resignation over principle is often a healthy thing, and doesn't happen here often enough.

December 29, 2011      Permalink

WHAT'S IN A NAME? – AT 7:49 A.M. ET:  Plenty, it appears, at least temporarily.  The Dems have been desperate to find an alternative to "liberal," which, in many areas of the country, will not get you elected to anything.  They picked "progressive," and may have made a wise choice.  From the Daily Caller:

The Democrats’ newest ideological label — “progressive” — has a 67 percent approval among Americans, far higher than the recognized and rejected “socialist” and “liberal” labels, says a new poll released by the Pew Research Center for the People & the Press.

However, the conservative label wins a 62 percent approval from the 1,521 people polled by the Pew, despite Democrats’ prevalence in the education, culture and media sectors, and despite the sympathetic media coverage given during the fall to the Occupy Wall Street protesters.

The progressive label gets a 67 percent approval rating largely because it is still rated positively by 55 percent of Republicans and 68 percent of independents, said the poll.

That's the point.  Most Americans don't yet realize that "progressive" has been slipped in to replace "liberal."  Once they realize that, the poll numbers will go south.

The liberal label was deeply damaged by the social-policy failures of the 1960s and 1970s. “Liberal” now gets a positive rating of only 39 percent, and a negative rating of 50 percent.

This repudiation prompted many Democrats — including Obama — to subsequently label themselves as progressives. In the House of Representatives, for example, 83 Democratic legislators have joined the progressive caucus. There is no “liberal caucus” group in the House.

COMMENT:  What's a bit hilarious here is that the "progressive caucus" is actually to the left of most of the liberals in the House.  Indeed, the Progressive Party of the 1940s was clearly to the left of liberal Democrats of the time, and wouldn't even condemn the Soviet-sponsored North Korean invasion of South Korea.

Republicans, if awake, must focus on defining "progressive" for what it is, a subterfuge.  Defining your opponent is one of the first requirements of political strategy.

December 29, 2011       Permalink

IOWA LATEST – AT 7:30 A.M. ET:  Really, the only important thing about the Iowa caucus results next Tuesday is that 1) they may give a bit (but not more) of momentum to someone and 2) they may tell us who is at the bottom of the heap and will have a lot more trouble raising cash.

But they are fun because horse races are fun, so let us examine the latest polling results, as reported by CNN:

Did Newt Gingrich peak too early?

A new survey of people likely to attend Iowa's Republican caucuses indicates that the former House speaker's support in the Hawkeye State is plunging. And according to a CNN/Time/ORC International Poll, one-time long shot candidate Rick Santorum has more than tripled his support since the beginning of the month.

Twenty-five percent of people questioned say if the caucuses were held today, they'd most likely back Mitt Romney, with 22% saying they'd support Rep. Ron Paul of Texas. Romney's three point margin is within the poll's sampling error.

The poll's Wednesday release comes six days before Iowa's January 3 caucuses, which kickoff the presidential primary and caucus calendar. The Iowa caucuses are followed one week later by the New Hampshire primary...

...In Iowa, both Romney and Paul are each up five points among likely caucus goers from a CNN/Time/ORC poll conducted at the start of December. The new survey indicates that Santorum, the former senator from Pennsylvania, is at 16% support, up 11 points from the beginning of the month, with Gingrich at 14%, down from 33% in the previous poll. Since Gingrich's rise late last month and early this month in both national and early voting state surveys, he's come under attack by many of the rival campaigns.

And...

In New Hampshire, the CNN/Time/ORC poll indicates that Romney remains the overwhelming front runner. He's supported by 44% of likely GOP primary voters, up nine points from earlier this month.  Paul is at 17%, with Gingrich at 16%, down ten points from early December. Huntsman, who's hoping for a strong finish in the Granite State, is at 9%, with Santorum at 4%, Bachmann at 3%, and Perry at 2%.

COMMENT:  For symbolic reasons, I'd like to see Paul defeated in Iowa, which is probably his strongest state.  But he may just eke out a victory because his supporters, or propeller heads, are so committed.  It's impossible to predict precisely who will come to the Iowa caucuses because they require a much greater commitment than simply going into a booth and pulling a lever.

The New Hampshire polling seems to reflect other recent polls we've seen. 

December 29, 2011     Permalink