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

As readers know, there's a Republican debate tonight from Michigan.   It's starting now, 8 p.m. ET.  We won't be live blogging, but we will watch, at least on and off.  Frankly, these debates have become tedious and almost useless.  There are far too many candidates on the stage.  By this time in the campaign the field should have been dramatically reduced, allowing a real debate among, say, three or so people.  But we'll have to take what we can get, even if there are candidates up there still stuck at 2%. 

NOVEMBER 9,  2011

SHORT TAKES ON THE DRIFTING WRECKAGE – AT 10:58 P.M. ET:

WILL DEBATE GAFFE SINK PERRY? – The Republican debate from Michigan tonight was routine and uneventful, but highlighted by a gaffe from Rick Perry.  Perry, who'd promised he'd abolish three Cabinet departments could not name all three when asked.  Perry rushed to reporters after the debate to concede he'd messed up.  The clip of the gaffe is now all over the internet and is here.  Perry just comes off as unprepared, once again.  I really don't think he's ready for prime time, at least not prime time debates.  This performance tonight will do him no good, and he needs a lot of good to get back in the race.

MAJOR SHOCKING NEWS – Eddie Murphy, who used to be a famous comedian, has withdrawn as host of the next Academy Award ceremonies in solidarity with his producer, Brett Ratner, who had to withdraw the day before because of an anti-gay slur and some bizarre behavior on a TV program.  Do you care?  Does anyone care?  The Oscar broadcast, years ago, had a certain veneer of class, and now it reached down to grab a has-been comedian at a time when fewer and fewer people are going to movies.  In ten years I expect to see the Oscar telecast, if there is one, on some minor cable channel.  Movie stars today are smaller than life, and an industry that used to be run by major showmen is today run by talent agencies, which in turn are populated by graduates of our "best" colleges who've never been on a movie set and couldn't recognize the script of "Casablanca."  What a comedown.

PENN STATE SCANDAL – Legendary football coach Joe Paterno and the president of Penn State, Graham Spanier, have been forced out in the light of allegations that they did too little to stop the sexual abuse of young boys by Jerry Sandusky, the former football defensive coordinator.  The two men clearly should have done more, and their departures are appropriate, even though it is sad to see Paterno's legendary coaching career end this way.  At the same time, the double standard in universities persists, as it does elsewhere in our society.  Please remember that there was not a single reprimand for members of the Duke University faculty who publicly called for what amounted to the legal lynching of three lacrosse players charged with rape, despite a lack of any real evidence that they'd committed any crime.  The three were eventually exonerated.  I guess it depends on which side of the politically correct fence you're on.

ISRAELI STRIKE? – Britain's Daily Mail is reporting that British intelligence chiefs expect an Israeli military strike on Iran, possibly as soon as Christmas or early next year.  The British Defence Ministry is already making plans should Britain decide to back any such attack.  The United States is ostensibly opposed to Israeli action, but it would be very difficult for President Obama to be seen as interfering with an Israeli attack, especially since, as we reported here, a number of Arab nations are apparently in favor of it, including Saudi Arabia.  I have doubts about the Daily Mail story, but there's no doubt the Iranian nuclear program, now accused by the UN of fostering atomic-bomb development, is very much on the international front burner.

November 9, 2011    Permalink

IRAN WEEK II – THE LITTLE BOMB – AT 8:42 A.M. ET:  This adds to our earlier post on the UN report concerning Iran's nuclear program.  From Bloomberg:

Iran continued working on nuclear weapons at least until last year, including efforts to shrink a Pakistani warhead design to fit atop its ballistic missiles, a report from United Nations inspectors said.

The International Atomic Energy Agency, drawing on evidence collected over eight years, reported yesterday that Iran carried out “work on the development of an indigenous design of a nuclear weapon including the testing of components.”

The document shows that Iran worked to redesign and miniaturize a Pakistani nuclear-weapon design by using a web of front companies and overseas experts, according to the report and an international official familiar with the IAEA’s probe. Such a warhead could be mounted on Iran’s Shahab-3 missile, which has the range to reach Israel, according to the IAEA.

COMMENT:  Shrinking a warhead has many uses other than mating the warhead to a missile.  The smaller the device, the more transportable it is.  The lighter the device, the more transportable it is with fewer people.  Our concern here centers on two possibilities:  1) the sailing of a nuclear device, in a small crate, into an American harbor, where it would be set off by a "martyr" (suicide) crew; 2) the smuggling of a small nuclear device across our southern border, from which it could easily be transported into an American city.  The work could be done by a terrorist group under Iranian control, and possibly based in Venezuela.

The future gets more and more precarious.  There are no guarantees that anything serious will be done to stop the Iranians.

November 9, 2011      Permalink

CAIN, THE SEQUEL, AVAILABLE NOW! – AT 7:48 A.M. ET:  Herman Cain struck back at a press conference yesterday, denying all the charges against him, while, as we noted, no particular facts.

We'll now see how badly he's been damaged in the polls, and we'll also see where this is going.  The latest breathless developments:

1.  Stories are building that attempts are being made to get all of Cain's accusers together for a gala press conference.  There are no reports yet of who the M.C. will be.

2.  One previously anonymous accuser has now identified herself, but it turns out that she has a history of making workplace complaints and threatening legal action:

WASHINGTON (AP) — A woman who settled a sexual harassment complaint against GOP presidential candidate Herman Cain in 1999 complained three years later at her next job about unfair treatment, saying she should be allowed to work from home after a serious car accident and accusing a manager of circulating a sexually charged email, The Associated Press has learned.

Karen Kraushaar, 55, filed the complaint while working as a spokeswoman at the Immigration and Naturalization Service in the Justice Department in late 2002 or early 2003, with the assistance of her lawyer, Joel Bennett, who also handled her earlier sexual harassment complaint against Cain in 1999. Three former supervisors familiar with Kraushaar's complaint, which did not include a claim of sexual harassment, described it for the AP under condition of anonymity because the matter was handled internally by the agency and was not public.

3. The Cain accuser who came forward with legal gunslinger Gloria Allred at her side has now acknowledged that she has a problematical history:

WASHINGTON — Her motives and personal history under scrutiny, the woman who publicly has accused Republican presidential candidate Herman Cain of groping her inside a parked car in July 1997 says she came forward out of duty.

Cain rejected Sharon Bialek’s claims as “totally fabricated,” with his campaign pointedly noting her history of bankruptcies, unpaid debts and legal troubles.

“I tried to remember if I recognized her, and I didn’t,” Cain said at a Tuesday news conference. “I tried to remember if I remembered that name, and I didn’t. The charges and allegations, I absolutely reject. They simply didn’t happen.”

Now, in fairness, we should point out that, because these women have something of a history, does not make them liars or the charges untrue.  This story is going to go on.  There may be corroborating evidence somewhere, either way.  Ms. Kraushaar has now apparently waived privacy rights involving the complaint she filed against Cain at the National Restaurant Association, which means she can release original documents. 

Each day brings new delights.  What is fascinating, though, is that the charges against Cain pale by comparison to those against Bill Clinton.  He's still going.

November 9, 2011       Permalink

IRAN WEEK – AT 7:21 A.M. ET:  The International Atomic Energy Agency, now under honest management after years under the corrupt leadership of Mohamed ElBaradei, has now issued its report on the Iranian nuclear program.  It is devastating.

United Nations weapons inspectors have amassed a trove of new evidence that they say makes a “credible” case that “Iran has carried out activities relevant to the development of a nuclear device,” and that the project may still be under way.

The long-awaited report, released by the International Atomic Energy Agency on Tuesday, represents the strongest judgment the agency has issued in its decade-long struggle to pierce the secrecy surrounding the Iranian program. The findings, drawn from evidence of far greater scope and depth than the agency has previously made public, have already rekindled a debate among the Western allies and Israel about whether increased diplomatic pressure, sanctions, sabotage or military action could stop Iran’s program.

The report reflects common sense.  Iran is moving a good part of its program into hardened underground bunkers, something one needn't do if the facilities are designed to provide power for hair dryers and iPod chargers. 

But, as could be expected, the report was greeted by a big yawn by much of the mainstream media.  Some media types were eager to wonder out loud whether the intelligence was "flawed," reminding us of the intelligence failure regarding WMD in Iraq.  After all, one must give crazed enemies the benefit of the doubt.  You know, that little man with the mustache in Berlin, he really doesn't mean it.

And how could an Iranian bomb compete in importance with Michael Jackson's doctor or Herman Cain's accusers?

The key element now is what to do about the report.  Already there are those who are trying to shift attention away from the Iranian bomb and toward attempts to prevent any dramatic action, like a military strike, to stop it.

There is no chance for increased UN sanctions.  China and Russia, two nations that regularly thumb their noses at Obama's "outreach," have made it clear they'd veto increased action in the Security Council.  What remains is action by individual nations, but there is a huge problem.  The only effective sanctions left would have to be directed at Iran's energy sector, and that would mean higher oil prices here right before an election.  Not a good prospect.

Besides, sanctions have not had much of an effect on the nuclear program.

That leaves the possibility of a military strike.  France has already stated its opposition.  Obama sent Defense Secretary Panetta to Israel recently to pressure the Israelis not to do it.  Tehran must be smiling.

But the threat is dire, with the possibility of one of the world's most irrational regimes in possession of nuclear weapons, which could even be shared with terrorist groups.

The deciding factor may be something rather stunning...that Arab nations are quietly lining up behind the idea of a military strike.

As speculation grows over Israeli or American plans to attack Iran’s nuclear facilities, questions are being raised over Arab support for a military strike. Last year’s WikiLeaks trove of US diplomatic cables showed unanimous support among Arab rulers for military action. Then as now, however, in public, those same rulers have remained tight-lipped.

Saudi support, in particular, is said to be strong.  I would not be shocked at an Israeli strike, done with the tacit approval, and assistance, of some Arab nations, and with quiet help from the U.S. and possibly Britain.  It is murky, but the threat is now widely understood. 

As we noted, a military strike before the 2012 election, if it is understood to have Obama's quiet support, could help him seal the deal with the voters.  That may sound cynical, but that's the way the world works.

November 9, 2011         Permalink

VIRGINIA UPDATE – AT 7:09 A.M. ET:  We reported last night that, as of that moment, it appeared the Republicans would fall just short of taking control of the Virginia state Senate.  What a difference a night's sleep makes.

It now appears, although it is not certain, that there's been a change.  Republicans, as of the latest count, have a good chance of tying the Senate.  With the presiding officer a tie-breaking Republican, Republicans will have a tiny working majority, if the vote holds.  (The GOP candidate in the deciding race is ahead by only 86 votes.)  However, committees will be tied, making it difficult for Republicans to bring favored bills to the floor. 

For Dems, the results could have been much worse, with some pundits predicting a major Republican takeover.

Why is this important?  Because the GOP governor, Bob McDonnell, is becoming a national figure, with at least a chance of being on the Republican presidential ticket in the second spot next year.  Or, he could be a major contender in 2016 if the Republicans lose to Obama in 2012.  State victories count toward a governor's political appeal.

Meanwhile, the Republicans increased their control of the state's House of Delegates, and now have the largest majority they've ever had in the lower house.  All good for McDonnell.

Virginia is a swing state.  It will still be tough for the Republicans next year because northern Virginia, with its vast number of federal employees, has become a major Democratic enclave.  But, bit by bit, McDonnell is building the Republican base and running a solid state administration.

So stand by for the final outcome in the state Senate.

November 9, 2011        Permalink

NOVEMBER 8,  2011

SHORT TAKES ON THE DRIFTING WRECKAGE – AT 10:46 P.M. ET:

OHIO RESULTS I – This is election day in various parts of the country.  Eyes are on Ohio, Mississippi, and Virginia.  In Ohio, Republican Governor John Kasich was rebuffed by voters, who overturned a new law denying collective bargaining privileges to state workers.  It is widely believed that Kasich botched the campaign on behalf of the law, whereas organized labor, bringing in firepower from all over the country, did well.  Is this a GOP setback?  I really don't think so.  For many Americans, especially in a strong union state, collective bargaining has become a basic right, and people are reluctant to take it away.  I think that was what is involved here.

OHIO RESULTS II – On the other hand, Ohioans strongly affirmed a state measure to opt out of Obamacare's individual mandate, handing President Obama a defeat in a key swing state.  Obamacare is proving so unpopular that it's amazing the Dems don't take the message and revise the law before the election.  But the party's base won't allow it as it advances their dream of government control of health care.  The Ohio vote may well turn out to be a decisive moment in an attempt by moderates and conservatives to shred the federal legislation.

MISSISSIPPI RESULTS – A proposal for a pro-life "personhood amendment" appears to be going down to defeat in one of the most pro-life states of the union.  However, this isn't exactly a famous victory for the other side.  Governor Haley Barbour, himself a pro-life governor, said tonight that the wording of the measure was highly flawed (and, I would add, very extreme), and that many, many pro-life citizens voted against it because of its rigid, extreme language.  This is a classic example of movement people going too far, even alienating their own supporters.  The measure originated, not in Mississippi, but in Colorado.  I would imagine the Mississippi legislature will now take up pro-life legislation that will be more thoughtful and reflective.

VIRGINIA RESULTS – Results are not yet definitive in the attempt by Virginia's Republicans to win control of the state Senate, but it appears that attempt will fall short.  Republicans are just shy of a majority.  Early returns show that's the way the final result will go.  Obviously, a victory would be very helpful to Governor Bob McDonnell, who's been prominently mentioned as a possible vice presidential choice, in large measure because he, theoretically, could bring Virginia back to the Republican column in a presidential race.

November 8, 2011       Permalink

CAIN FIGHTS BACK – AT 10:29 P.M. ET:   I was able to watch the entire Herman Cain press conference today, in which Cain hotly denied all of the accusations against him.

Actually, the highlight of the affair was the opening statement by Cain's lawyer, Lin Wood, who gave an eloquent and reasoned presentation about false accusations, the justice system and the concept of fairness.

Then Cain came on.  Look, he was passionate, and defended himself with vigor.  However, he didn't add anything new, and presented nothing that would lead an impartial viewer to say, "He's nailed it."  He simply denied.  It was an emotional performance, but free of great substance.

Cain, though, was helped today by revelations that the accuser who came forward yesterday, fronted by Gloria Allred, has a troubled financial past, and has made charges like this before.  She didn't help herself by being all over the tube, obviously trying to start a new career.  And Gloria Allred is a well-known Democratic activist and contributor.

At the same time, the first accuser, who spoke through her lawyer last week, saying she wanted to remain anonymous, came forward and identified herself.  She's an employee of the Treasury Department.  In other words, she works in the Obama administration.  She said she would speak publicly, but preferred to  hold a joint press conference with all the other accusers.  I wonder why.

I have no idea whether Herman Cain did the things he's accused of doing.  He clearly botched the handling of these accusations in the first days, and has made wild, unsubstantiated charges about people he says instigated the charges.  But the accusers have not been able to prove their statements.  What we need here, and will probably not get, is some first-class investigative journalism.

This story isn't over, so stand by.

November 8, 2011       Permalink 

IRAN WEEK (CONT'D) –  AT 8:58 A.M. ET:  We're calling it Iran Week, as we said yesterday, because this week will mark release of a UN report, an honest one for a change, that will detail Iran's militarily oriented nuclear program.  The issue:  What will be done about it?

Benny Avni, one of the best reporters on this issue, theorizes that President Obama may well decide on a military option, despite his reputation, and that politics may enter into his decision.  From the New York Post:

A report detailing intelligence on Iran’s nuclear advances, to be published as early as tomorrow, is taking us closer to a fish-or-cut-bait moment.

Much of the International Atomic Energy Agency’s revelations have already leaked: The report will detail a “military dimension” of Iran’s nuclear program, long denied by the mullahs and their enablers.

With Egypt’s Mohamed ElBaradei as director, the IAEA for years neglected its watchdog duties. Instead, ElBaradei’s lawyerly written reports aimed at minimizing the menace so that no one would act militarily against Iran.

But the new IAEA chief, Yukia Amano of Japan, is much less political. His report is expected to paint a much truer, grimmer picture of Iran’s efforts to obtain a weapon -- with help from Russian, Pakistani and North Korean scientists. The mullahs are close.

The report is expected to finally kill the notion that Iran ended its military nuclear pursuit in 2003 -- a conclusion that a joint assessment of the US intelligence community reached in 2007. Like ElBaradei’s reports, that assessment was designed mostly to stop Bush administration Iran hawks from striking militarily.

Now the pendulum is swinging back. Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad may describe President Obama as a “cowboy,” but everyone else assumes our president is strongly averse to military action, so there’s no need to stop him. But is there?

And...

Bombardment foes in Israel and America say that ever-tightening sanctions, coupled with covert action like the assassination of scientists and the release of such computer malware as the Stuxnet bug, could slow Iran’s program -- so there’s no need for a risky military attack.

But now Iran is moving the bulk of its nuclear operation to facilities deep underground in mountains near the holy city of Qom -- virtually removing the military option from our action menu. Plus, if the plants go operational, bombing them might spread radiation and kill many innocents.

Then, too, there’s the simple fact Iran’s rulers have long said they want Israel off the map, and will likely soon have the means to make it happen.

As dovish Israeli President Shimon Peres said last week, “It would seem that Iran is getting closer to having nuclear weapons”; the world must act now, “whether that means serious sanctions or whether it means a military operation.”
Yet Russia and China will surely find enough wiggle room in the IAEA report to nix any significant tightening of UN-based sanctions. We must act without them.

A successful military strike on Iran would boost Obama’s national-security credentials and his re-election prospects. Imagine: With allies, a once-timid US president is now poised to change the course of Mideast and world history.

Will he? Don’t bet against it.

COMMENT:  Read the whole piece.  I'm somewhat skeptical, for Obama is also beholden to a hard left that would oppose any military action, and there is potential damage to the world economy in an attack on Iran.  Sad to say, there are even Republicans, especially in the House, who might be reluctant to sign on because some of their supporters have business interests in Iran. 

But this president, on national security matters, has sometimes (by no means always) acted decisively, especially when he could claim credit, as he did after the bin Laden operation.  And there is the reality that an Iranian nuclear bomb would constitute a humiliating defeat for Obama and could seriously compromise American security. 

I would imagine that, if Obama approved an attack, the actual action would be carried out by Israel, with tacit American support, and possibly the support of several other nations.  Don't be shocked if the Saudis give a wink and a nod.  They despise the Iranian mullahs.

Stand by for more.

November 8, 2011      Permalink 

OH DEAR, OH DEAR, OH DEAR – AT 8:41 A.M. ET:  The plot, as they say, thickens.  Herman Cain will hold a press conference today to tell his side of the story vis-a-vis his latest accuser.  But the Chicago Sun-Times – the accuser is from Chicago – is running an absolutely intriguing story that can, if accurate, make it much easier for Cain.  Consider:

The Cain Encounter ...

They hugged each other backstage in a full embrace like old friends.

She grabbed his arm and whispered in his left ear.

She kept talking as he bent to listen, and he kept saying “Uh, huh. Uh, huh.”

Huh?

“I don’t know if what she was giving him was a sucker punch, but he didn’t put his arm down while she was talking to him,” said the Sneed source.

The “he”... is GOP presidential contender Herman Cain, who has been accused of sexual harassment by several women.

The “she”... is Chicagoan Sharon Bialek, who held a news conference Tuesday as the only woman to PUBLICLY accuse Cain of sexual harassment.

The Sneed source ... is WIND radio co-host Amy Jacobson, who tells Sneed she witnessed the Cain/Bialek encounter a month ago while backstage at the AM 560 WIND sponsored TeaCon meeting in Schaumburg Sept. 30-Oct. 1 at the Renaissance Hotel and Convention Center.

Quoth Jacobson: “I had turned on TV to find out who was Cain’s accuser, and I almost fell over when I saw it was Sharon Bialek accusing Cain of groping her genitals.”

“I was waiting for Herman Cain’s ‘Accuser No. 4’ to surface — and up pops Sharon!”

“I couldn’t believe it. I was shocked.”

COMMENT:  Utterly intriguing. Let's hear what Herman has to say.  Even conservatives are demanding that he answer this latest charge thoughtfully and completely.  If the eyewitness report of the encounter is correct, he may have some powerful arrows in his quiver.  But we'll wait and see.

November 8, 2011      Permalink

CRITICAL VOTE IN OHIO – AT 8:10 A.M. ET:  As Americans pay attention to Michael Jackson's doctor and Herman Cain's hands, a critical vote is taking place today in Ohio, and our side may well lose, with substantial implications for the 2012 election.  Ohio is a bellwether state, a swing state.  From Business Week:

Nov. 8 (Bloomberg) -- After efforts across the U.S. this year to rein in government-worker unions, Ohioans today will decide whether Governor John Kasich and Republican lawmakers went too far.

Voters will consider a referendum on a law Kasich signed in March that was billed as a way to cut costs by limiting collective bargaining. Polls show the law may be headed for repeal, which would give Democrats a victory in a debate with Republicans over government’s scope heading into the 2012 presidential race.

The outcome “is going to have a lot to do with where this country goes politically,” Harold Schaitberger, president of the International Association of Firefighters, said during a Nov. 5 rally outside the main fire station in Warren, Ohio. “In every way you can measure it, this is really a national election.”

If the law is struck down by a large margin, it will boost Democrats and unions after defeats in 2010 that brought Kasich and other Republicans to power, said Paul Beck, a political- science professor at Ohio State University in Columbus.

“Momentum clearly was in a Republican direction through the 2010 elections and into 2011,” Beck said in a telephone interview. “You can almost think of this as an interception and touchdown off the interception by the other side that could simply turn the game around.”

COMMENT:  Kasich has a low approval rating.  Support for retaining the law stands at only 32% in the polls.  The hangup seems to be that most people favor collective bargaining as a right, and yet surveys also show that some parts of the law, requiring greater contributions by government employees to health care, for example, are popular. 

Unions have poured vast sums into this fight, while the other side kind of slept, which is what Republicans often do. 

I am certainly not anti-union, being a member of a union myself.  The problem is that public-service unions present a unique challenge.  The people of the state are management, and governors can be put in power by the very public-service unions with which they then must negotiate.  There is an inherent conflict of interest. 

Today's vote will undoubtedly be seen as a victory for the Democrats, and it will be.  It is important for national Republicans to analyze everything that's been done in Ohio, and how a Republican governor lost public support.  Part of the problem, of course, is that Republicans are seen as anti- the little guy.  Unless that perception is changed, we may have a very depressing election day in 2012.

November 8, 2011       Permalink

ANOTHER FORM OF TERROR – AT 7:41 A.M. ET:  We report this because it demonstrates what happens when law enforcement breaks down in a liberal city.  The city is New York.  This would not have happened if Rudy Giuliani was still mayor.  From the New York Post:

A business owner near the Occupy Wall Street encampment claims she has been repeatedly harassed and threatened with bodily harm by protesters after she and her employees refused to give in to their outlandish demands.

“I’ve been told, ‘Watch your back!’ 10 times,” Stacey Tzortzatos, owner of Panini & Co. Breads, located across from Zuccotti Park, told The Post yesterday.

She and her employees are terrified by the constant threats, which she said began after she demanded the protesters stop using her shop’s restroom as a place to bathe every day.

The final straw came about two weeks ago, when the demonstrators broke a bathroom sink, flooding the shop, and clogged the toilet -- setting her back $3,000 in damages.

She put up a sign that said the bathroom was out of order, but they tore it down shortly afterward, she said.

“I have the police in here 10 times a day, [and] I’m the bouncer. I’ve been called the spawn of the devil. “It’s unbelievable what goes on in here every day, ” Tzortzatos said.

And on Friday, she said, a crazed squatter burst into the shop and demanded that workers fill a 10-gallon container of water.

When they refused, “he banged it on the ground and started yelling” and threatened the staff, she said.

“He said he was entitled to have it for free.”

Tzortzatos said the unsafe conditions begin at around 5 p.m. every day, when “they come from the park drunk, under the influence of something.

“They use one of our doorways as a bathroom, and we have to scrub it down every morning.

COMMENT:  For the record, it is extremely difficult to exercise the right to bear arms in New York City.  If Ms. Tzortzatos tried, and had to display or even fire a weapon, she'd be the one in trouble, not the perp.  And you may be sure that various "civil right" and "civil liberties" groups are monitoring people like Ms. Tzortzatos, not the lawbreakers.  And you may also be sure that "feminist" groups are more interested in bringing down Herman Cain and Sarah Palin than in protecting a struggling woman trying to build a business. 

There is a right to peaceably assemble, under our Constitution.  There is no right to "occupy" turf, especially private turf.  These "occupy" demonstrations have turned into a disgraceful farce, but mayors are afraid to act, fearing they may alientate one constituency or another, or that the police might scratch somebody and give CNN a field day.  It has been reported that owners of the park the occupiers use as their private bedroom have been threatned if they try to close down the demonstrations.

Welcome to the 1960s.  The mayor of New York, Mike Bloomberg, is having a very bad third term, and it is his own fault.  But there is, sadly, no Rudy waiting in the wings, just as there is no Ronnie waiting for a presidential election.

November 8, 2011     Permalink