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

I appeared on Silvio Canto Jr.'s show from Dallas last night.  It's here.

NOVEMBER 7,  2011

SHORT TAKES ON THE DRIFTING WRECKAGE – AT 11:52 P.M. ET:

CAIN TO SPEAK – The Cain campaign has announced that Herman Cain will hold a news conference tomorrow, Tuesday, to reply to sexual harassment charges made by a woman who came forward in New York today.  Cain thus departs from the position he's taken in recent days that his comments about harassment charges are over.  The change clearly comes in response to the remarks of conservative leaders, noted below, that these new charges are serious and specific, and require a thorough answer.  Already the betting has started on how long Cain can last as a candidate.

DIPLOMATIC BLUNDER – You kind of wonder when politicians will start to understand that private comments should never be made near microphones.  Sometimes mikes are on.  That just happened when a private conservation between French President Sarkozy and President Obama produced a diplomatic incident.  Sarkozy is heard referring to Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu as a liar, and Obama lamenting that he has to deal with Netanyahu every day.  This will certainly go far toward building confidence between Obama and Netanyahu.  I suspect the Israeli government will decline comment on the matter, but the damage is done. 

NO NEW TAXES? – Slowly, but definitely surely, Republicans in Congress are starting to talk about "increasing revenue" in any new budget deal.  That usually means higher taxes, however GOP members say that they think revenue can be enhanced without new taxes, but by growing the economy...and they are willing to talk about adjustments in tax deductions, governments fees and the like.  The GOP flexibility is designed to put Democrats on the defensive and force them to make real cuts in spending to match GOP "realism."  Why do I feel the Republicans, as usual, are about to be taken to the cleaners?  Liberal Democrats don't cut spending when their own constituencies are involved.

OCCUPIERS LOSING FAVOR – Many people were startled by the fairly substantial public support that the "occupy" movement had when it first got started.  That's because some of the original occupiers were asking the kind of questions many Americans were asking, about crony capitalism and the fact that those who caused the 2008 crash got away without punishment.  But that was then, and this is now.  New polls show the public turning sharply against the movement, as TV screens are filled with occupiers engaged in violence and anti-social acts.  The crazies have taken over in many cities, and in Oakland actually shut down the port.  Once again a left-wing movement has shown itself incapable of moving beyond adolescence, and that is too bad for a country that could use more thoughtful debate on a host of issues.

November 7, 2011        Permalink 

HEAT ON CAIN GROWS MORE INTENSE – AT 9:35 P.M. ET:  Most readers probably know by now that another woman has made sexual harassment charges against Herman Cain.  This time the woman came forward, identified herself, described what she alleges in great detail, and identified herself as a Tea Party Republican.

There's a general belief among conservative pundits who've commented thus far, like William Bennett, that this is a far more serious situation than Cain faced last week, when vague charges were made, and the women behind those charges remained anonymous.

Sharon Bialek, a Chicago woman who worked at the National Restaurant Association in the mid-1990s has come forward to say that Herman Cain sexually harassed her while she was looking for a job. In graphic detail, Bialek described an encounter with Cain that happened in July of 1997 in Washington, D.C., that left the woman shaken and embarrassed.

After being let go by the NRA foundation, Bialek, who had met Cain on several occasions during conferences and at a dinner, reached out to Cain to obtain guidance on getting a new job. The NRA confirmed on Monday afternoon that Bialek had worked for its education foundation from December 1996 to June 1997.

During their meeting, Bialek alleges that Cain put his hand under her skirt and reached for her genitals and also pushed her head toward his crotch while they were in a car.

She recalls saying: “This isn’t what I came here for, Mr. Cain.”

The now-GOP presidential candidate responded, according to Bialek, “You want a job, right?”

Cain’s campaign, which has been trying to redirect the focus from sexual harassment and has denied all of the allegations, released this statement:

“Just as the country finally begins to refocus on our crippling $15 trillion national debt and the unacceptably high unemployment rate, now activist celebrity lawyer Gloria Allred is bringing forth more false accusations against the character of Republican front-runner Herman Cain,” said Cain spokesman J.D. Gordon in the statement.

“All allegations of harassment against Mr. Cain are completely false. Mr. Cain has never harassed anyone. Fortunately the American people will not allow Mr. Cain’s bold ‘9-9-9 Plan,’ clear foreign policy vision and plans for energy independence to be overshadowed by these bogus attacks.”

Immediately following the incident, Bialek — who is a registered Republican, homemaker, and single mom — said that she told her then-boyfriend and another person, according to her lawyer, Gloria Allred. Allred presented the two sworn statements of the people Bialek told at the news conference.

Speaking at a news conference in New York, Bialek said that she spoke out in order “to give a face and a voice to those other women” who chose not to, referring to two women who filed complaints against Cain, but have thus far remained anonymous.

COMMENT:  No matter what we may think of publicity hound Gloria Allred, who is close to the California Democratic Party, this is a serious, specific charge, and far more disturbing than any charge Anita Hill made against Clarence Thomas.  Cain must reply. 

As one reporter noted, there are dates and places in the accuser's story that can be checked out.  If they don't check out, Cain is in the clear.  But if they do, and my gut reaction tells me that they will, Cain has a load of trouble.  He can't just refuse to deal with the issue.  I'm afraid a line of seriousness was crossed today, and I'm not at all sure that Cain's candidacy can survive, especially if he handles this charge with the same ineptness that he displayed in handling the original story.

November 7, 2011     Permalink

IRAN WEEK – AT 10:22 A.M. ET:  We call it Iran week because Iran will be making major news this week, of a particularly grim kind.  The United Nations nuke boys will be issuing a report, unless it is suddenly suppressed, essentially accusing Iran of developing nuclear weapons, and presenting damning proof.

Already the reactions are pouring in.  Russia, as usual, is downplaying the report and warning against military action against Iran.  Although Washington doesn't want to admit it, Russia has become an ally of Iran, pretty much destroying the faculty-lounge mythology of the Obama administration that we have "reset" relations with Moscow.  They've gotten worse.

And, incredibly, there are reports in The New York Times that the Obama administration is being very "cautious" about the UN report.  (Did you ever think we'd be to the left of the UN?)  The Times story points out that the UN report is not an absolute case, and dredges up the old issues involving reports of WMD in Iraq.  I get the feeling that the Times story represents a massive attempt by parts of the intelligence establishment in Washington to justify its disgraceful, possibly dishonest 2007 National Intelligence Estimate, that claimed Iran had stopped nuclear weapons development in 2003.  I have long argued that the 2007 report should be the subject of a major Congressional investigation, with the possibility of criminal charges against those involved, if it can be shown that the report was intentionally deceptive.  There are many thoughtful, careful observers who believe that was the case, that members of the intelligence establishment were trying to shape American policy, rather than provide accurate information to policymakers, which is what their oath required.

Already, parts of the UN report are leaking out, including a devastating finding that Iran has had foreign help in building a bomb:

Intelligence provided to U.N. nuclear officials shows that Iran’s government has mastered the critical steps needed to build a nuclear weapon, receiving assistance from foreign scientists to overcome key technical hurdles, according to Western diplomats and nuclear experts briefed on the findings.

Documents and other records provide new details on the role played by a former Soviet weapons scientist who allegedly tutored Iranians over several years on building high-precision detonators of the kind used to trigger a nuclear chain reaction, the officials and experts said. Crucial technology linked to experts in Pakistan and North Korea also helped propel Iran to the threshold of nuclear capability, they added.

The officials, citing secret intelligence provided over several years to the International Atomic Energy Agency, said the records reinforce concerns that Iran continued to conduct weapons-related research after 2003 — when, U.S. intelligence agencies believe, Iranian leaders halted such experiments in response to international and domestic pressures.

The U.N. nuclear watchdog is due to release a report this week laying out its findings on Iran’s efforts to obtain sensitive nuclear technology. Fears that Iran could quickly build an atomic bomb if it chooses to has fueled anti-Iran rhetoric and new threats of military strikes. Some U.S. arms-control groups have cautioned against what they fear could be an overreaction to the report, saying there is still time to persuade Iran to change its behavior.

COMMENT:  Yes, we must guard against overreaction, just as Churchill was lectured about overreaction when he warned against Nazi Germany in the 1930s.  Later, Churchill called World War II "the unnecessary war" because, if Britain had listened to him and rearmed earlier, the war might have been prevented.

Information will come out all week.  Eyes are on the Israelis, who take this very seriously.  But watch for the usual suspects to say, possibly anonymously, that the problem isn't the Iranian bomb, but those hotheads trying to stop it.

November 7, 2011       Permalink

AND NOW ITALY – AT 9:18 A.M. ET:  With Greece still in crisis, and the future of its government in doubt, attention is turning to the economic fragility of Italy, a much larger economy than Greece.  We are far from out of the woods in Europe.  A major collapse would have profound effects on the U.S., right before a presidential election.  From CNBC:

Italy's economic problems took center stage Monday as its government, led by increasingly threatened Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi, faced yet another key vote.

The health of the euro zone's third-largest economy has come into focus despite Berlusconi accepting IMF monitoring and surviving several confidence votes in recent months.

Italy's size makes the potential consequences if it were to fail more wide-ranging than the much smaller Greece.

"Italy has much more systemic implications," Thanos Vamvakidis, Head of European G10 FX Strategy, BofA Merrill Lynch Global Research, told CNBC Monday.

"It's too big to fail, too big to save."

The problems facing Italy include the euro zone's second-highest debt-to-GDP ratio, and the lack of a credible alternative to Berlusconi's government.

Italian MPs will vote Tuesday on the country's public finances, with a number of rebel MPs from Berlusconi's party threatening to vote against the government in protest at the way it has managed the country's finances.

Yields on Italian 10-year bonds surged last week, and are now dangerously close to the unsustainable 7 percent level. Other euro zone countries such as Portugal and Ireland had to seek bailouts after their yields rose to over 7 percent.

"The markets don't believe Berlusconi," said Vamvakadis.

COMMENT:  Both the current Greek and Italian governments are friendly to the U.S.  We don't know what their successors would be like.  But the European economic crisis seems intractable, and it is one of the things holding back recovery here. 

Also, the weakness of countries like Greece and Italy, both southern European countries, affects our policies toward the Mideast. Italy has a major stake in Libya.  Greece, a natural opponent of Turkey, gives us a counter to Turkey's increasing hostility.  Should the European economies continue to spiral downward, our foreign policies could be severely affected, in addition to the economic damage.

November 7, 2011        Permalink

A DISGRACE – AT 8:02 A.M. ET:  Threats to this country are not diminishing.  They are growing.  The percentage of our GNP devoted to national defense is not unusual, and much lower than in many previous periods of our history.  And yet, the Pentagon faces a money crisis that could seriously undermine defense, and the morale of our forces.  From The New York Times:

WASHINGTON — Under orders to cut the Pentagon budget by more than $450 billion over the next decade, Defense Secretary Leon E. Panetta is considering reductions in spending categories once thought sacrosanct, especially in medical and retirement benefits, as well as further shrinking the number of troops and reducing new weapons purchases.

So we promised our troops certain benefits, and now they're threatened.  We have a volunteer force and must attract new members, and benefits are a strong inducement.  Why don't I like this?

Mr. Panetta, a former White House budget chief, acknowledged in an interview that he faced deep political pressures as he weighed cuts to Pentagon spending, which has doubled to $700 billion a year since the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001. He said that meeting deficit-reduction targets might require another round of base closings, which could be highly contentious as members of Congress routinely fight to protect military deployments and jobs in their communities.

That doubling of defense expenditures since 9-11 is deceptive.  The economy has also grown during that period, as have other government departments.

Among other steps, Mr. Panetta said, Pentagon strategists were looking at additional cuts in the nuclear arsenal, with an eye toward determining how many warheads the military needed to deter attacks.

Oh great.  Just as Iran is on the nuclear brink, we're thinking of cutting our deterrent forces.

Look, we know that the federal government must make cuts, but let's go about this with some common sense.  National defense is not discretionary.  It's a Constitutional requirement, the duty of the government.  Even in a time of austerity, you don't take risks with the survival of the nation. 

There is no doubt that many Democrats, especially in the party's most liberal wing, can't wait for major defense cuts.  They think America is part of the problem, not part of the solution.  And some green-eyeshade Republicans, yearning for the good old days of the 1930s, will go along.  But we are a nation in danger, and we should act accordingly, regardless of the price.

November 7, 2011        Permalink

THE ROMNEY DILEMMA – AT 7:21 A.M. ET:  We're less than two months away from the voting in Republican primaries and caucuses to begin.  The field is pretty much set.  Mitt Romney leads most polls in the early primary states, but there is a problem – Mitt Romney.  Jon Cohen and Dan Balz of the Washington Post sum it up.  I don't know Cohen, but Balz is a highly respected, and fair, political reporter:

Former Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney has a significant advantage over his rivals for the Republican presidential nomination in only one area — electability — and will approach the next round of candidate debates with several potential liabilities, according to a new Washington Post-ABC News poll.

Often described as the candidate to beat in the GOP race, Romney remains stuck in place in national polls — he is at 24 percent in the Post-ABC survey — despite the fact that one of his main challengers, Texas Gov. Rick Perry, has stumbled and several high-profile potential candidates decided not to enter the race to challenge President Obama.

Romney’s lack of traction carries well beyond the head-to-head matchups with other competitors. It also is reflected on discrete issues and candidate attributes. Considerable numbers of Republicans and GOP-leaning independents consider the health plan that Romney signed into law in Massachusetts and his Mormon religion as strikes against him.

The survey tested the candidates on six attributes or characteristics. Romney has a sizable lead in just one: One-third of Republicans and GOP-leaning independents say he has the best chance of anyone in the field to defeat Obama in 2012. Running second on that question is businessman Herman Cain. About one-fifth say Cain would be the party’s strongest candidate...

...In the other five areas tested in the new survey, Romney shows no greater strength than other GOP contenders. On empathy, 21 percent say Cain is the one who best understands their problems, compared with Romney’s 17 percent. On honesty, it’s Cain at 22 percent, Romney at 17 percent. The two also run closely on the economy and issues generally, while Newt Gingrich rivals Romney on upholding core Republican values.

COMMENT:  An interesting and well-done survey.  And it highlights Romney's problem.  He's bound to get the nomination in a year when Republicans should have a clear advantage in winning the White House.  Rarely has any president with Barack Obama's numbers, in a number of areas, been reelected.  And yet the probably Republican nominee cannot win the enthusiasm of even his own party.

Some say, of course, that Romney only has to draw independents to his cause to win next November.  That is true, but elections are won by voters who actually go to the polls.  The stay-at-home vote has the potential to undo Romney.  So, of course, could a third-party effort launched by disgruntled conservatives unimpressed by Romney's protestation that he is a true conservative.  It was Ross Perot who ruined the 1992 race for Bush 41 and allowed Bill Clinton to win with a minority of the popular vote. 

And yet, lack of enthusiasm can be overcome.  Contrary to modern myth, John F. Kennedy was far less than universally loved by the Democratic Party in 1960, when he defeated incumbent Vice President Richard Nixon.  Many Democrats felt Kennedy was too young, too rich, and too pushy.  His record in the Senate had been mediocre.  He was the son of Joseph Kennedy, who'd expressed ideas that came close to being pro-Nazi.  His wife, while not a deficit, was no great asset either.  Every time she spoke, it was whispered, she sounded like an upper-class little girl.  And Kennedy had pushed aside Adlai Stevenson and Hubert Humphrey, two beloved Democrats.  But Kennedy won.

And the fact is that Ronald Reagan was controversial during most of the 1980 campaign, was opposed by the Republican establishment of the East, and was the subject of a whispering campaign that he was mentally unstable and controlled by sinister businessmen in green sport jackets.  He won by a landslide.

So there is hope for Romney.  However, as we've pointed out previously, Romney will face a president who is personally liked.  Neither Dick Nixon nor Reagan's opponent, Jimmy Carter, could have gotten elected prom king. 

Could a surprise upend Romney's race for the nomination?  It could, or there could be a "draft" movement, although it's difficult to say who could be drafted.  There's no Eisenhower waiting in the wings.  It's hard to think of anything that can prevent a Romney nomination, however lacking in public zeal, unless something truly scandalous comes out about him, but we'll certainly have to wait and see. 

November 7, 2011     Permalink

NOVEMBER 6,  2011

SHORT TAKES ON THE DRIFTING WRECKAGE – AT 11:23 P.M. ET:

CONDI SPEAKS OUT – Condi Rice is calling for the United States to do everything possible to bring down the Iranian regime.  She talks sense.  The only real chance we have to stop the Iranians is regime change...assuming a new regime will be better than the current one.  Rice also says that the policies of George W. Bush have been vindicated, which I think is largely true.  Bush, who may not have articulated his policies that well, exuded strength and confidence.  The current president exudes weakness, with an intellectual veneer.

CAIN MILDLY HURT – A new Reuters/Ipsos poll shows some decline in Herman Cain's popularity since the accusations of sexual harassment against him surfaced.  But the damage seems relatively small, considering the enormous publicity the case has received.  I would imagine that part of the poll damage is caused by Cain's inept and sometimes snippy handling of the controversy.  Among all registered voters, Cain's favorability declined five percent, among Republicans nine points, to 57%.  Cain has not helped himself by stories that change or by anger, however justified, at the press.  He has been treated unfairly, but should have realized that this is the way it is for conservatives in the big leagues.

PERRY AND TEXAS – One of the major disappointments for Rick Perry has got to be that Herman Cain is running ahead of him in some polls in Perry's own state of Texas.  Indeed, support for Perry's presidential run doesn't seem that spectacular in the Lone Star State.  And today, Texas Republican Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison, who ran against Perry for the Republican gubernatorial nomination during the last governorship election, said she will take back none of the criticism she made of Perry during that contest.  She didn't have any particular praise for him.  Perry is known as a tough campaigner, and clearly has made plenty of enemies along the way.  The knives are sharpened.

November 6, 2011     Permalink

AND THIS IS FROM A LIBERAL CONGRESSMAN – AT 11:25 A.M. ET:  Reader Jacqueline Reckseit alerts us to an absolute outrage – the use of federal stimulus money to hire foreign workers for projects on American soil.   This is only one example:

Congressman Peter DeFazio (D-Ore.) spoke out against Oregonian forestry contractors who used stimulus money to hire legal foreign workers instead of unemployed Americans. Earlier this year, Rep. DeFazio introduced the bi-partisan Electronic Employment Eligibility Verification and Illegal Immigration Control Act (H.R.483) that would require all businesses to use E-Verify. Oregon's unemployment rate is slightly above the national average, standing at 9.6%.

Rep. DeFazio responded to a Department of Labor report that found that Oregonian forestry contractors abused the H-2B visa program to use stimulus money to hire foreign workers.

"We've set up a system that is easily gamed," Rep. Peter DeFazio, D-Ore., said.

According to the Department of Labor report, the forestry contractors hired 254 seasonal workers holding H-2B visas costing at least $7 million of stimulus money. The H-2B visa requires that employers demonstrate that there are no available American workers before requesting the visas. But forestry contractors advertised for the jobs in small newspapers and began the hiring process months before the actual work began, causing issues for unemployed Americans collecting unemployment benefits.

"These people still could have made a profit and employed Oregonians. How greedy are they?" Rep. DeFazio said. "I thought about different angles on how we could prosecute these people. Unfortunately, we can't. Which is a shame."

COMMENT:  DeFazio is a hardline liberal, but we give credit where it's due.  He's right.  In other cases, a Chinese contractor was hired to build a bridge because, it was claimed, there weren't enough American welders available.  There seem to be a lot of American welders out of work in my part of the country.

The abuse must stop.  Let's see what our "Justice" Department has to say.

November 6, 2011      Permalink

IRAN UNDER THE MICROSCOPE – AT 11:04 A.M. ET:   This will be a major week for the crisis, and it is a real crisis, involving the Iranian nuclear program.

(Reuters) - The U.N. nuclear watchdog is expected this week to issue its most detailed report yet on research in Iran seen as geared to developing atomic bombs, heightening international suspicions of Tehran's agenda and stoking Middle East tensions.

Western powers are likely to seize on the International Atomic Energy Agency document, which has been preceded by media speculation in Israel of military strikes against Iranian nuclear sites, to press for more sanctions on the oil producer.

But Russia and China fear the publication now of the IAEA's findings could hurt any chance of diplomacy resolving the long-running nuclear row and they have lobbied against it, signaling opposition to any new punitive U.N. measures against Iran.

Iran rejects allegations of atomic weapons ambitions, saying its nuclear program is aimed at producing electricity.

The report is tentatively scheduled to be submitted to IAEA member states on November 9 before a quarterly meeting the following week of the agency's 35-nation board of governors in Vienna.

It "will be followed by a U.S.-European Union push for harsher sanctions against Iran at the U.N. Security Council, where Western powers will meet stiff resistance from Russia and China," said Trita Parsi, an expert on U.S.-Iran relations.

The document is expected to give fresh evidence of research and other activities with little other application than atomic bomb-making, including studies linked to the development of an atom bomb trigger and computer modeling of a nuclear weapon.

An Israeli newspaper – ironically the most left-wing major newspaper in Israel – is printing a photo of a suspect facility, with an even more direct news story:

According to recent leaks, Iran has carried out experiments in the final, critical stage for developing nuclear weapons - weaponization. This includes explosions and computer simulations of explosions. The Associated Press and other media outlets have reported that satellite photos of the site reveal a bus-sized container for conducting experiments.

COMMENT:  Well, now just what are we going to do about it?  Harsher sanctions?  No chance in the Security Council, where Russia and China are likely to veto anything beyond a wrist slap. 

Individual sanctions?  You might check out Germany, which has a robust trade relationship with Iran, despite our appeals. 

Sanctions have hurt Iran, but not stopped it.  We had sanctions on Japan in 1941, but they didn't prevent Pearl Harbor.

We're getting awfully close to the endgame, which will involve a decision on whether to strike the Iranian nuclear program militarily.  If we don't, or the Israelis don't, Iran will have the bomb, with all that implies.  But watch, as some in the mainstream media present the problem as, not an Iranian bomb, but those who want to prevent it by strong action.  That is too often the mindset.

Watch the news carefully this week.

November 6, 2011      Permalink

MAKES SENSE, IF YOU READ CAREFULLY – AT 10:32 A.M. ET:  Here is one of those Republican proposals that will immediately elicit the standard "Republicans are in the pocket of big business" responses.  But study it carefully.  It makes sense.  From The Hill:

The House Energy and Commerce subcommittee on Communications and Technology held a hearing on Friday to discuss the Mobile Informational Call Act of 2011, a bill sponsored by Rep. Lee Terry (R-Neb.) that would loosen restrictions on telemarketing calls to cellphones.

The Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA), enacted in 1991, prohibits automated dialing and prerecorded voice message calls to mobile phones.

Terry says his bill is a badly-needed update to that law and would only allow calls for "informational purposes" and only to people who opt-in to receiving them. He said it would allow companies to quickly notify consumers if their flight is delayed, a product is recalled or their credit card information has been stolen.

Makes a great deal of sense to me, and it seems that Congressman Terry has shaped the bill correctly.  The cell phone user is still in control.

"I think we can all agree that any legislation should not subject consumers to unwanted telephone solicitations," he said.

Naturally, one of the ultra-left liberals from the California delegations is leading the fight against the proposal.  Anna Eshoo is slightly to the left of Lenin, but don't tell anyone.  And of course she opposes the bill because those peasants out there could not possibly be intelligent enough to use their cell phones without government holding their hands:

Rep. Anna Eshoo (D-Calif), the subcommittee's ranking member, expressed reservations about Terry's bill. In particular, she worried that people could opt-in to receiving robo-calls without meaning to.

“I’m concerned that in redefining 'prior express consent,' as this legislation does, consumers will unknowingly be opening themselves up to receiving future robo-calls any time they provide a business with their mobile number," she said.

Yup.   The people are so dumb they can't possibly be trusted with their own affairs.  They can buy a cell phone, program its address book, use it, choose a plan...but they can't opt in or out for specific services, something they do routinely already.

If the Dems had their way, Eshoo would be in charge of the economy.

November 6, 2011     Permalink