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

OCTOBER 5,  2011

SHORT TAKES ON THE DRIFTING WRECKAGE – AT 10:53 P.M. ET:

RUBIO PASSES ON VP SLOT – Senator Marco Rubio of Florida, who has firmly said he will not run for president in 2012, now says, with equal firmness, that he does not want the second spot on the Republican ticket and will turn it down if offered.  When asked if he would accept, he replied "The answer is gonna be no."  Rubio, who we believe should run for president because he arouses such voter excitement, says he wants to stay in the Senate.  He is only 40, and, biology permitting, has a very long career ahead of him.

UNIONS JOIN PROTEST MOVEMENT – Labor unions are joining the movement that began with the "Occupy Wall Street" demonstrations in New York.  The protests are spreading, and we urge readers not to underestimate them.  While a number of the protesters are no doubt flakes and goofballs, and a good chunk are the usual Marxists, the movement is reflecting some of the very real anger that many Americans feel toward Wall Street and corporate executives.  I have no doubt that this movement will grow, whether responsibly or not, and will be a factor at next year's national political conventions.  Remember – these characters may have no good ideas for change, but they will have the support of much of the trendy media.  The media that tried to find racism in the Tea Party movement finds only romance in left-wing activism. 

AMATEURISM – We also cheer Herman Cain and his rise in the ranks of Republican presidential candidates.  But Cain is an amateur, and it showed today in this foolish comment about the demonstrations on Wall Street:  "Don't blame Wall Street, don't blame the big banks, if you don't have a job and you're not rich, blame yourself."  That's the kind of thing you just don't say.  Yes, there are loafers out there.  But there are millions of Americans out of work through no fault of their own, and a comment like that is hurtful and untrue.  If Cain gets on the national ticket in either position, that quote will be a sound bite.  It is very similar to something Herbert Hoover once said, and you know what happened to him.  Be careful, Herman.  There are good people hurting out there.

PATHETIC – We beat the Russians in the space race, and we beat them in the Cold War.  Now, NASA is requiring all new astronauts to learn Russian because we are dependent on the Russians to get into space, since we've retired our shuttles with nothing immediately available to replace them.  "When China can reach the moon and we cannot, I don't see why any other nation would regard us as a world leader," former NASA administrator Mike Griffin said recently.   Thanks, President Obama.  Thanks loads.  On your watch America is becoming a second-rate power.  I'm sure the coffee-house intellectuals around you are cheering.

October 5, 2011       Permalink

PASSING OF A GIANT – AT 9:30 P.M. ET:  We don't normally do obituaries here, but the passing of Steve Jobs, at 56, deserves special mention.  He was one of the great visionaries of our time.  As some have said of him this evening, he knew what we wanted before we did.  As the man who, with a superb team, built Apple into what it is today, he was one of the major guiding forces in the development of the computer industry, and he changed the music industry with the iPod and the whole concept of the telephone with the iPhone.

Jobs, with Steve Wozniak, founded Apple in the 1970s.  He was later thrown out of his own company by "businessmen" who had no understanding of what innovation and vision were all about.  He later returned in triumph, guided the iMac, the iPod, the iPhone and the iPad to the market.  A company that was almost bankrupt in the early 1960s, written off as a failure, is now one of the two most valuable companies in America, the other being Exxon-Mobil. 

Urgent Agenda is run on Apple Macintosh computers, using the newest Lion operating system.  We get on the internet through an Apple Airport Extreme wireless base station.  Everything you read is backed up, not only in our office, but at Apple's servers through its remote backup system, soon to be absorbed into something called "the cloud."  I visit our local Apple Store regularly for inspiration, to play with those great gadgets, and to get the kind of tech support no one else in this outsourced economy gives.  (Yes, yes, I know, not all Apple Stores are wonderful, but we have a great one here.)  The Apple Store concept itself was developed on Steve Jobs's watch.  Other companies tried the same thing and failed because they lacked two things that marked Jobs's tenure as CEO – design and style.  Apple came to define "cool" in the best sense of that word.

It is sad to think that Steve Jobs died at only 56.  But he packed vast accomplishment into that short life.

October 5, 2011     Permalink 

BULLETIN - AT 6:32 P.M. ET:  Sarah Palin has just announced that she will not be a candidate for president. 

SNIPPET OF THE DAY – AT 9:14 A.M. ET: 

ATLANTA (AP) -- Drunken driving incidents have fallen 30 percent in the last five years, and last year were at their lowest mark in nearly two decades, according to a new federal report.  The decline may be due to the down economy: Other research suggests people are still drinking as heavily as in years past, so some may just be finding cheaper ways of imbibing than by going to bars, night clubs and restaurants.  "One possibility is that people are drinking at home more and driving less after drinking," said Dr. Thomas Frieden, director of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

Or, of course, Al Gore could come along and say that people are drinking less because it's too hot to drink.  You've noticed that, haven't you?

GETTING IT RIGHT – AT 8:41 A.M. ET:  We are in economic hard times, and most of the stories we hear are probably accurate, and often heartbreaking. 

But this is also a time when propagandists try to slip in their agendas, and their views of society, no matter how corrupt and uninformed those views may be.  Because of the pain out there, they might be taken more seriously than they should be.

The great Tom Sowell, one of the finest commentators writing today, destroys one of the myths being circulated:

Twenty years ago, hysteria swept through the media over "hunger in America."

Dan Rather opened a "CBS Evening News" broadcast in 1991 declaring, "One in eight American children is going hungry tonight." Newsweek, the Associated Press and the Boston Globe repeated this statistic, and many others joined the media chorus, with or without that unsubstantiated statistic.

When the Centers for Disease Control and the Department of Agriculture examined people from a variety of income levels, however, they found no evidence of malnutrition among those in the lowest income brackets. Nor was there any significant difference in the intake of vitamins, minerals and other nutrients from one income level to another.

That should have been the end of that hysteria. But the same "hunger in America" theme reappeared years later, when Sen. John Edwards was running for vice president. And others have resurrected that same claim, right up to the present day.

And...

Those who see social problems as requiring high-minded people like themselves to come down from their Olympian heights to impose their superior wisdom on the rest of us, down in the valley, are behind such things as the hunger hoax, which is part of the larger poverty hoax.

We have now reached the point where the great majority of the people living below the official poverty level have such things as air-conditioning, microwave ovens, either videocassette recorders or DVD players, and own either a car or a truck.

Why are such people called "poor"? Because they meet the arbitrary criteria established by Washington bureaucrats. Depending on what criteria are used, you can have as much official poverty as you want, regardless of whether it bears any relationship to reality.

Those who believe in an expansive, nanny-state government need a large number of people in "poverty" to justify their programs. They also need a large number of people dependent on government to provide the votes needed to keep the big nanny state going.

Politicians, welfare-state bureaucrats and others have incentives to create or perpetuate hoaxes, whether about poverty in general or hunger in particular.

COMMENT:  Well said.  Yes, there is real pain out there, but general hunger there is not.  The liberal press does a poor job of separating fact from self-serving advocacy when reporting on social conditions in the United States.  It also does a poor job of reporting when social conditions are the result of self-inflicted damage.  It is often culture, not economic status, that dictates social behavior and social pathology. 

We know that many Americans don't get medical care because their cultural group doesn't stress it, even though it's available under a variety of programs.  We know that some Americans do poorly in school, not because the school is bad, but because their culture doesn't stress the value of education.

Tom Sowell is the proverbial breath of fresh air in a media culture that loves headlines about how terrible things are, but refuses to do the digging to determine if the story is true.

October 5, 2011       Permalink

NEW DEBATE FORMAT – AT 8: 17 A.M. ET:  The next Republican debate, on October 11th at Dartmouth College in New Hampshire, should prove fascinating.  The sponsors are chucking the usual format, and devoting the entire debate to the economy.  From the Washington Examiner:

"With the nation facing sustained high unemployment as well as concern over deficits, weak growth and a possible double-dip recession, the Bloomberg/Washington Post debate will devote the entire program to a substantive exploration of the candidates' specific plans for a national economic recovery," says a release from Bloomberg News. The debate will be moderated by public television's Charlie Rose.

And...

The debate, which will be the first face-off in New Hampshire since June, will have a different look from previous sessions as well. "The candidates will outline their economic and job creation proposals in a unique format: seated side-by-side at a round table facing the hosts and surrounded by audience members," a Bloomberg news release says. "This format will facilitate serious and substantive debate on issues of vital importance to the country."

As the article points out, some of the most newsmaking moments in previous debates have not involved the economy, such as Rick Perry's comments on immigration.  But the new format, I think, is good.  There are already too many candidates on the platform.  Add to that a whole variety of subjects and the debate becomes confusing, and runs out of steam after 45 minutes.  This format should seriously test the candidates by giving each one far more time to address the economy than in previous outings.

The coming debates, though, must thin out the herd.  The most you can handle for a truly good debate is three or four participants.  Getting it down to two is even better. 

The new format does provide a means for Rick Perry, who's been falling rapidly, to get back into the game.  The main argument he's given for his election is that he's brought jobs to Texas.  He gets the chance to expand on that theme Tuesday.  The format also, of course, helps Mitt Romney, who really is a whiz at discussing economic subjects.  And, indeed, watching Herman Cain will be fascinating, since his entire background is in business.  It could be a breakthrough moment for Cain if, with his refreshing delivery, he proves himself to have more common sense and straight talk than the other guys.

Mark Tuesday night to watch.

October 5, 2011       Permalink

SARAH THE INDEPENDENT? – AT 8:12 A.M. ET:  The article in The Hill is speculative, but it's the kind of thinking that will probably set off a lot of discussion in the media.  Can Sarah Palin, not terribly popular in her own party these days, run as an independent?

The question itself reminds us of 1992, when a Ross Perot candidacy probably cost George H.W. Bush reelection.  Will Sarah do it?  The party doesn't love her much, and the feeling is reciprocal:

The consequences for both her and the presidential race couldn’t be more profound, and there are a number of reasons why this could be a very real possibility.

The deadline for entering primaries in many states is rapidly approaching, and yet a rapid decision from Palin doesn’t seem to be on the horizon, despite past words to the contrary.

And...

Palin has held the GOP establishment in contempt since 2008. During the 2010 elections, she regularly railed against the “GOP machine” and “good old boys,” and both she and her supporters have accused the party of trying to muzzle Palin. In fact, Palin’s embrace of the Tea Party movement has regularly been coupled with attacks on the Republican Party, and she’s often keen to note that her spirit and principles are conservative, not Republican.

In short, Palin doesn’t claim loyalty to the GOP, and in fact loathes the party establishment. There’d be no greater blow she could strike to the GOP elite than to run as an independent and siphon off votes from the Republican nominee. Party bigwigs would either fawn over her, trying to coax her out of the race, or attack her mercilessly as they try to discredit her among conservative-minded voters. Either way, Palin would once again be the center of attention.

That makes a great deal of sense...if Palin wants to permanently separate herself from the GOP.  She would never be welcomed back if she cost the party the presidency.

Imagine that the independent candidate is Sarah Palin. The equation would be explosive — a political figure who’s provoked endless fascination with a phenomenon that’s rarely seen.

But would Palin actually draw that many votes?

Dartmouth Professor Brendan Nyhan, a best-selling media critic, said the prospect would raise overwhelming flash — if not overwhelming results at the ballot box.

“It would be a spectacle,” Nyhan said, “but I don’t think she’d be taken nearly as seriously by the press as a centrist third-party candidate like Perot would be. Perot actually briefly led in the polls, whereas she has negative ratings well over 50 percent and would be lucky to get double digits.”

COMMENT:  That could be true, but 10% would make her a pretty effective spoiler.  And, you never know, with Romney not generating much gut enthusiasm, many conservatives might choose a protest vote over a real vote. 

My guess is that Sarah, despite her love of attention, will stay out of it, figuring that all she could do is spoil, and, as with Perot, it would end her political career.  She's young, and might well have her sights on rebuilding her image and running in the future. 

October 5, 2011       Permalink

WHAT HAPPENS AFTER THAT? – AT 7:51 A.M. ET:  The European debt crisis continues.  There is growing concern, expressed by analysts across the internet, that we're only at the beginning, and that a convulsion is coming that could deeply affect the United States, and possibly the 2012 presidential election.  The operative name is "Greece."  From CNN:

NEW YORK (CNNMoney) -- It was once unthinkable but is now widely expected: Greece is headed toward default.

Not if -- but when.

"A default is likely," said Wolfango Piccoli, director of the London office of the Eurasia Group. "At this stage, the question is about the timing."

The timing is important because European authorities are scrambling to build a "firewall" that will protect banks and other euro area nations from the fallout of a Greek default.

The first step is to overhaul an existing bailout fund for Europe, which is expected to be officially approved by all 17 eurozone nations by the end of October.

The goal, analysts say, is to create conditions for Greece to default in an organized way, rather than an abrupt collapse that could cause chaos in global financial markets.

And...

The threat of a banking crisis is one of the main reasons why euro area politicians have pledged to do whatever it takes to prevent a Greek default.

In addition, officials in Europe are afraid a messy default would lead to a so-called debt contagion that would undermine larger economies such as Italy.

Euro area governments are expected to unanimously approve a proposed expansion of the European Financial Stability Facility by the end of October. The revamped bailout fund will have greater flexibility to intervene in sovereign debt markets and provide financing for troubled banks.

COMMENT:  The psychology of a default could be even more significant than the numbers involved.  If followed by extreme danger for other European economies, like Spain or Italy, it could trigger worldwide changes in markets that could hurry a double-dip recession in the United States, with consequences for the American election.

The psychological mood building is that there is trouble ahead around the world.  This is not the psychology of investment and growth, but the psychology of stuffing money under the mattress.  Answers, Mr. President?

October 5, 2011     Permalink

OCTOBER 4,  2011

SHORT TAKES ON THE DRIFTING WRECKAGE – AT 8:57 P.M. ET:

DECLINE OF A NATION – Great Britain now has more generals than battle tanks.  There are 256 British generals and just 200 Challenger tanks.  And there are three times more generals than Apache helicopters, which the British have used effectively in Afghanistan.  In the 1960s, Britain had 4,000 battle tanks.  What we are watching is the decline of a great nation, under the boot of leftist ideology which even infects the Tory party.  We may not wish to acknowledge it, but the Britain of Churchill is fast disappearing, and will be almost useless as an ally in future battles.  You may be sure our enemies are taking note.

CHRISTIE OUT, BUT WHO'S IN? – Chris Christie's withdrawal is focusing attention on who might now get into the race, and the spotlight is shifting to Sarah Palin.  Even though she has lost considerable backing in the GOP, she still has a passionate, if smaller following.  It is reported that a law firm affiliated with a major Palin operative has been making inquiries about legal filing deadlines in the several states.  Palin might not draw major electoral support if she jumps in, but she will draw huge press coverage.  She is a camera magnet, and that may well take attention away from the other Republican candidates.  Question:  If she gets in, will she come to the debates prepared to speak about issues in detail?

CAIN RISING – A new CBS News poll, just out, shows Herman Cain now even with Mitt Romney at 17%, with Rick Perry at only 12%.  Look, this is one poll.   They differ.  But all major polls now show major slippage for Rick Perry.  Unless Perry does something dramatic, or puts in a spectacular debate performance next time out, I'm afraid he'll fade away.  It may be unfair, given that he's been a successful governor, but politics has never been fair.

EXPOSED FOR WHAT THEY ARE – Russia and China, those two great centers of human rights, have vetoed a European-sponsored UN resolution threatening action if Syria does not end its crackdown on its democracy movement.  The United States, showing rare backbone in the age of Obama, expressed strong outrage over the veto, pointing out that the democracy demonstrators in Syria now know who their friends are.  I wonder if Al Jazeera will tell them.

October 4, 2011       Permalink

BULLETIN – AT 11:44 A.M. ET:  CHRIS CHRISTIE WILL NOT RUN FOR PRESIDENT, A NUMBER OF NEWS ORGANIZATIONS ARE REPORTING.

BULLETIN:  CHRIS CHRISTIE WILL ANNOUNCE HIS DECISION ON WHETHER TO RUN FOR PRESIDENT AT A PRESS CONFERENCE AT 1 P.M. ET TODAY.

TOUGH TALK FROM CHINA – AT 9:29 A.M. ET:  With our attention focused on the economy, and our international attention focused on the convulsions in the Mideast, we tend to overlook China, which is building up its military and becoming increasingly belligerent.  China is the coming world power, and look at the kind of thing published in an official (state-controlled) Chinese paper:

LONDON, Oct. 3 (UPI) -- An ugly momentum is building in the South China Sea, where an official Chinese newspaper called last week for war against Vietnam and the Philippines to uphold China's assertion of sovereignty over the mineral-rich seabed, estimated to hold 7 billion barrels of oil and 900 trillion cubic feet of natural gas.

The lead article in the Chinese Communist Party newspaper Global Times

Tuesday carried the headline "The time to use force has arrived in the South China Sea; Let's wage wars on the Philippines and Vietnam to prevent more wars."

"The South China Sea is the best place for China to wage wars," the article said. "Of the more than 1,000 oil rigs there, none belongs to China; of the four airfields in the Spratly Islands, none belongs to China; once a war is declared, the South China Sea will be a sea of fire [with burning oil rigs]. Who will suffer the most from a war? Once a war starts there, the Western oil companies will flee the area, who will suffer the most?"

The article went on to argue that "the wars should be focused on striking the Philippines and Vietnam, the two noisiest troublemakers, to achieve the effect of killing one chicken to scare the monkeys."

The Global Times is China's main newspaper for international affairs, widely distributed internationally in English, and is published under the authority of the central committee of the Chinese Communist Party. The article also argued that the United States wouldn't intervene, too preoccupied with its war on terror, its quagmire in Afghanistan and its own economic problems.

COMMENT:  No one can say we weren't warned.  And the smug comments about American weakness should be taken to heart.  If China thinks we're weak, China might strike somewhere in Asia.  China is already strong, and hauling in gobs of money from international trade and its growing manufacturing sector.  At the same time, China holds much of our debt.  Imagine what its strength could be in ten years.   

As if we didn't already have our hands full, China will become a major threat.  It is not free of problems.  It is a huge country, with some regions hard to control.  But we underestimate the threat at our peril, and we are underestimating it right now.

October 4, 2011      Permalink

YOU CANNOT MAKE THIS UP – AT 8:26 A.M. ET: We've heard of political correctness run amuck, but this case takes the prize.   Apparently, in the minds of some people, religious institutions cannot have religious values.  From the Washington Examiner:

A legally frivolous but potentially dangerous lawsuit filed against Catholic University by a crosstown rival has become a national cause celebre for liberal activists who want to shove their notions of college life down the private religious school's throat. At issue is CU President John Garvey's decision to reinstate same-sex dorms to discourage underage drinking and casual sex among the incoming freshman class, something he has every legal and moral right to do. Led by George Washington University law professor John Banzhaf, the lawsuit is a direct attack on the constitutionally protected rights of every religiously affiliated university in the country.

At a recent speech at another Catholic university in Pittsburgh, U.S. Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia defended CU's decision to end a 25-year policy of co-ed dorms and urged Catholic colleges to stand up to any such attempts to undermine their religious identity. "Our educational establishment these days, while so tolerant of and even insistent on diversity in all other aspects of life, seems bent on eliminating the diversity of moral judgment ... based on religious views," Scalia told students at Duquesne University Law School.

And...

Banzhaf ...is not so shy about his motives. His absurd claim is that single-sex dorms somehow violate the District's Human Rights Act, which prohibits housing discrimination. But there's no discrimination when both sexes are treated exactly the same. What Banzhaf...really wants to do is make it illegal for Garvey or any other private university president to exercise any moral authority over his own institution. This is such a clear violation of CU's right to freely exercise its core religious values that it will be a travesty of justice if it ever gets to Scalia's court. But if it does, we can't wait to read Scalia's opinion.

COMMENT:  How much further do these leftist fools want to push?  It is important to defend Catholic University, which is certainly exercising its right to impose religious values on student life.  Students attend CU voluntarily. No coercion is involved.  If they don't like the dorm setup, they can go elsewhere.  That is called freedom.  It is a concept that many on the militant left find strange.

Naturally, Maureen Dowd of The New York Times, a CU graduate, criticized Scalia for his speech.  She had to.  How else could she face the other Times people in the cafeteria? 

The sixties generation, now in charge of many American institutions, is weakening with generational change.  It may fight harder, and more viciously, to protect the "change" it has brought to America.  Some elements of that change may be good.  Other elements are very bad, such as our dramatic cultural decay and the kind of lawsuit contemplated against Catholic University. 

If you think you've seen cultural clashes, you ain't seen nothin' yet.

October 4, 2011       Permalink

OUTRAGEOUS...AND DANGEROUS – AT 7:35 A.M. ET:  You've heard the term "crony capitalism."  It refers to a perversion of the free enterprise system resulting in vastly inflated pay for a few people at the top, or for people doing strange things on Wall Street, pay dependent more on games among friends than on actual performance.  The Washington Post has a superb piece describing this disgrace.  There is growing fury, including anger among conservatives, over crony capitalism and its potential to completely discredit our economic system:

THOUSAND OAKS, Calif. — As the board of Amgen convened at the company’s headquarters in March, chief executive Kevin W. Sharer seemed an unlikely candidate for a raise.

Shareholders at the company, one of the nation’s largest biotech firms, had lost 3 percent on their investment in 2010 and 7 percent over the past five years. The company had been forced to close or shrink plants, trimming the workforce from 20,100 to 17,400. And Sharer, a 63-year-old former Navy engineer, was already earning lots of money — about $15 million in the previous year, plus such perks as two corporate jets.

The board decided to give Sharer more. It boosted his compensation to $21 million annually, a 37 percent increase, according to the company reports.

Why?

The company board agreed to pay Sharer more than most chief executives in the industry — with a compensation “value closer to the 75th percentile of the peer group,” according to a 2011 regulatory filing.

This is how it’s done in corporate America. At Amgen and at the vast majority of large U.S. companies, boards aim to pay their executives at levels equal to or above the median for executives at similar companies.

The idea behind setting executive pay this way, known as “peer benchmarking,” is to keep talented bosses from leaving.

And...

...the jump in pay because of peer benchmarking is significant. A chief executive’s pay is more influenced by what his or her “peers” earn than by the company’s recent performance for shareholders, according to two independent research efforts based on the new disclosures.

And...

Since the 1970s, median pay for executives at the nation’s largest companies has more than quadrupled, even after adjusting for inflation, according to researchers. Over the same period, pay for a typical non-supervisory worker has dropped more than 10 percent, according to Bureau of Labor statistics.

And...

The practice has persisted because corporate board members, many of whom have personal or business relationships with the chief executive, have been unwilling to abandon the practice.

Crony capitalism.  It is passionately denounced by some of the best people in American business, including Warren Buffett.  Sarah Palin has spoken out against it. 

COMMENT:  It is disgraceful, utterly disgraceful.  It drains companies of valuable resources, it creates tremendous anger and resentment in the employee ranks, it distorts corporate values, it provides powerful arguments for confiscatory taxation, and it cannot be defended in any moral sense.

It also provides powerful arguments to change the economic system to a socialistic one, to eliminate this vast inequity.

As for defending this practice as needed to keep "good people," may I point out that the president of the United States is paid $400,000 a year, and there is no shortage of applicants.

The problem is not new.  It began to be noticed in the early 1980s, when it was pointed out that the gap between highest paid and lowest paid in American corporations was the widest in the world.   It has gotten far wider.  We are the only country on Earth that allows this obscenity, and that isn't the kind of American exceptionalism we want.

We are in tough times.  There is growing bitterness.  We have seen the start of mass demonstrations here against capitalism, inspired by movements abroad.  Do not underestimate the potential power of social resentment in these times.  Intellectually lazy pundits can decry "class warfare," but if the warfare is seen as justified by those looking at crony capitalism, it can change this country in ways that were unimaginable only a few years ago.

Remember the old poltical law from New York City, from the days when rent-control laws were introduced:  There are more tenants than landlords, and they vote.  In America there are more workers than executives, and they too vote.

Crony capitalism must be brought to an end to save a system that these greedy clowns are destroying.

October 4, 2011      Permalink 

ROMNEY BACK ON TOP, PERRY SLIDES, CAIN GAINS – AT 7:19 A.M. ET:  A new Washington Post/ABC News poll gives the latest picture of the GOP race:

After a quick rise in the race for the Republican presidential nomination, Texas Gov. Rick Perry has experienced an almost equally dramatic decline, losing about half of his support over the past month, according to a new Washington Post-ABC News poll.

Perry’s slide, which comes after several uneven performances in candidate debates, has allowed former Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney to resurface atop the GOP field. But the most direct beneficiary of the disenchantment with Perry is businessman Herman Cain, who is now tied for second place.

The Post neglects to point out that part of the reason for Perry's decline has been the remarkable number of hit pieces about him, published in the influential liberal press...and that includes the Washington Post.

Among announced candidates — without Christie or Palin in the race — Romney leads with 25 percent, which is identical to his support from a month ago. Perry and Cain are tied for second with 16 percent, numbers representing a 13-point drop for Perry and a 12-point rise for Cain since early September.

Rep. Ron Paul (Tex.) is the only other candidate in double figures, at 11 percent. Just behind him are former House speaker Newt Gingrich (Ga.) and Rep. Michele Bachmann (Minn.), both with 7 percent. Gingrich’s support has held steady through the late summer. Bachmann’s numbers fell sharply after Perry announced his candidacy.

Former senator Rick Santorum (Pa.) and former Utah governor Jon Huntsman Jr. bring up the rear, with Santorum at 2 percent and Huntsman at 1 percent.

COMMENT:  Romney's inability to rise demonstrates once again his lack of emotional appeal.  He may well get the nomination, but right now he's seen more as "the next guy in line" than a great leader, or great candidate.  Herman Cain's rise is striking, but remember that he's only at 16%.  We're not talking about a runaway candidacy here.

Plenty of time to go in this race.  We should know this week whether Chris Christie gets in.  That will shake things up...but the experts said that about Rick Perry as well before he jumped.  He comes in at only 10% in the poll.

As for the other question mark, the poll shows that Sarah Palin would get only minor support, at 9%, if she took the plunge.

People are already talking about a Romney-Rubio ticket, which might just do the job, if Romney doesn't mind being overshadowed by the second guy on the ticket.

October 4, 2011     Permalink