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 talk show from Dallas last night.  It was a bit of a nostalgic show, and is here.

OCTOBER 31,  2011

SHORT TAKES ON THE DRIFTING WRECKAGE – AT 10:47 P.M. ET:

CAIN RESPONDS – Herman Cain has apparently gotten some good political advice, and spent the day responding to the sexual harassment issue.  You have to deal with these things quickly and effectively.  Thus far, no reporter appears to have reached the two women who allegedly made the charge in the 1990s.  Cain was reasonably effective in his replies.  Obviously, something happened, but he claims the matter was investigated and that he was exonerated.  He claims he doesn't know of any financial settlement with the two women, which is tough to believe.  However, these cases are often settled by giving accusers some money, whereupon they leave.  We don't know the facts.  There are obviously very truthful harassment charges, but there are others.  We'll see in the next polling round if this has hurt Cain.

PALESTINIANS BULLY U.S. – Despite warnings from the U.S. that funding could be affected, UNESCO, which has a history of corruption, today voted to make "Palestine" a full member, even though it isn't a country and is "controlled" by two separate governments, Hamas and the Palestinian Authority.  Thus the Pals thumbed their noses at President Obama, who'd asked that membership applications be held off until peace was negotiated with the Israelis.  Obama is perceived as weak.  However, the U.S., in response to the vote, did freeze funds for UNESCO, a proper response to
the Palestinian attempt to circumvent negotiations.

THE GRAND ILLUSION IS BURST AGAIN – The illusion, hustled by the real-estate lobby in the last 20 years, is that you can't lose money in real estate.  Tell that to the millions of Americans whose homes are underwater.  Now, a major analytical company predicts that housing is in for a triple-dip recession, with prices expected to fall another 3.6% by next June, meaning they'll be 35% below their 2006 peak.  The real-estate bubble was one of the most irresponsible that I've seen, with people pressured into buying junk at exorbitant prices, expecting prices to automatically go up.  Junk is still junk.  What went up during the bubble were not real-estate values, but real-estate prices, an entirely different matter.

MISPLACED PRIORITIES? – A disturbing story in The Hill reports that the Obama administration is seeking to shift our military emphasis from the Middle East to the Asia/Pacific region.  While we must beef up our Asia/Pacific preparedness, turning away from the Mideast would be a catastrophe, especially with Iran's rise.  We must be able to handle both regions, something made more difficult by budget cuts.  We learned from today's Daily Mail (London) that the Al Qaeda flag has been raised over Benghazi, Libya, one of Libya's major population centers.  At a time when the Mideast is so unstable, it is grossly irresponsible to be sending out messages saying we're shifting our focus.  Where is the thinking in this?  Or is this just another pathetic attempt by the Obamans to appease the Muslim world, something that has brought us zero results?

October 31, 2011       Permalink 

MARKETS WORK – AT 9:21 A.M. ET:  I find this story delightful.  The market works...when people make decisions that force it to work. 

Warren Buffett has been known to cross a street to save a quarter.  Good for him.  Intelligent economic choices force businesses to compete and to become both efficient  and consumer-friendly. 

Recently, Bank of America announced a five-dollar-a-month fee for using its debit cards.  Other cards were said to be "considering" the same thing.  But Bank of America's customers made their feelings known, and in some cases relieved Bank of America of their deposits.  The result is pure free enterprise, as AP reports:

NEW YORK — Chase is joining the list of banks that won’t be charging customers to use their debit cards, as the backlash to Bank of America’s planned $5 monthly fee continues.

The retail banking arm of JPMorgan Chase & Co. will stop charging a $3-per-month fee for using debit cards when its current pilot program in Wisconsin and Georgia ends in November, a source with knowledge of the bank’s plans told the Associated Press.

And...

Banks are justifying the fees by stating that they need to recoup revenue lost to new regulations that limit the fees they can collect from retailers for handling debit card transactions. But the new fees sparked a huge backlash...

...Credit unions and community banks nationwide are reporting huge spikes in new accounts as consumers seek no-fee options.

And...

The anger appears to be resonating. On Friday, Bank of America bent. A source at the bank, who asked not to be identified because the policy is still evolving, said it likely it will offer ways for its customers to avoid debit card fees through using direct deposit, maintaining minimum balances or using Bank of America credit cards.

COMMENT:  When customers fight back against things they don't like, they often win.  Free enterprise works when people participate responsibly, which sometimes means doing a little work to find the best product or service at the best price. 

Now if we can only get the market to work in driving college costs down.  That may be a pipe dream.

October 31, 2011       Permalink 

OUR STARTLING DEFENSE SHRINKAGE – AT 8:46 A.M. ET:  Robert Samuelson, in the Washington Post, writes one of the best articles I've read, warning of further drawdowns in our national defense.  Samuelson reveals some stunning statistics that, I think, will shock our readers:

People who see military cuts as an easy way to reduce budget deficits forget that this has already occurred. From the late 1980s to 2010, the number of America’s armed forces dropped from 2.1 million men and women to about 1.4 million. The downsizing — the “peace dividend” from the end of the Cold War — was not undone by the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. In 1990, the Army had 172 combat battalions, the Navy 546 ships and the Air Force 4,355 fighters; today, those numbers are 100 battalions, 288 ships and 1,990 fighters.

And we now have the oldest air fleet in the Air Force that we've ever had.

Three bogus arguments are commonly made to rationalize big military cuts.

First, we can’t afford today’s military.

Not so. How much we spend is a political decision. In the 1950s and 1960s, when the country was much poorer, 40 percent to 50 percent of the federal budget routinely went to defense, representing 8 to 10 percent of our national income. By 2010, a wealthier America devoted only 20 percent of federal spending and 4.8 percent of national income to the military.

I wish facts like this would be publicized more capably by conservatives, some of whom have become wishy-washy on defense.

Second, we spend so much more than anyone else that cutbacks won’t make us vulnerable.

In 2009, U.S. defense spending was six times China’s and 13 times Russia’s, according to estimates from the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute. The trouble with these numbers is that they don’t truly adjust for differences in income levels. U.S. salary and procurement costs are orders of magnitude higher than China’s, for example. But China’s military manpower is about 50 percent greater than ours, and it has a fighter fleet four-fifths as large.

And...

Third, the Pentagon has so much inefficiency and waste that sizable cuts won’t jeopardize our fighting capability.

Of course there is waste and inefficiency. These are being targeted in the $450 billion of additional cuts over 10 years — beyond savings from Iraq and Afghanistan — that President Obama and Congress agreed to this year... But like most bureaucratic organizations, the Pentagon will always have some waste. It’s a myth that it all can be surgically removed without weakening the military.

Most important:

By itself, defense spending does not ensure that our national power will be wisely or effectively deployed. This depends on our civilian and military leaders. But squeezing defense will limit these leaders’ choices and expose U.S. troops to greater risk...

...Obama repeatedly pledges to maintain America’s strength, but the existing cuts may do otherwise. Even before these, defense spending was headed below 3 percent of national income, the lowest level since 1940.

COMMENT:   The figures Samuelson cites are just jolting.  I think most Americans would be deeply disturbed to see where this nation is heading on national defense.  It is time for a national conversation, with the narrative seized and dominated by Reagan Republicans.

It's been noted by others that no war ever started because America was too strong.  We should remember that when we contemplate the "cost" of national defense.  Some things are priceless.

October 31, 2011       Permalink

OBAMA'S FOREIGN MYTHS – AT 8:07 A.M. ET:  Have you noticed that the Obamans are trying to divert attention away from their candidate's sorry domestic record by tooting horns over his "successes" in foreign policy?  The Republicans have done little to answer, so once again we have the Democrats providing the "narrative."  But Michael Barone knocks down the myths a-building in the White House that we have some kind of international star in the Oval Office.  What we have is an amateur:

Obama seemed to think that the replacement of an uncouth Texan by a nuanced black American would convert determined enemies of the United States -- a supposition that is one of those irritable mental gestures that pass for thought in the faculty lounge.

And in the lounges of our major news organizations.

Iran is run by a regime that has been committing acts of war against us for more than 30 years, starting with the seizure of diplomats -- a violation of the first rule of international law. North Korea is run by a gangster regime that starves its people and tries to prevent all contact with the outside world.

Why must Barone upset us with such truths?

Astonishingly, foreign policy analyst Fareed Zakaria, writing in the Washington Post after a trip to Tehran, calls for Obama to "return to his original approach and test the Iranians to see if there is any room for dialogue and agreement."

Zakaria claims that Obama consults him on foreign policy.  I hope that is an exaggeration, for Zakaria, a CNN star, is simply an old leftist with a pleasant style. 

What I see in Obama's foreign policy is a retreat from the dreamy assumptions on which he campaigned to a reluctant and stumbling reversion in many areas to policies resembling those of George W. Bush.

Without ever crediting Bush.  In the faculty lounge, that's close to plagiarism.

He took a brave but long-delayed decision to double down in Afghanistan and has authorized drone attacks on terrorists in Pakistan and Yemen that some of his appointees would have denounced as criminal if Bush were still in office.

But he is also sharply cutting back the defense budget and his failure to negotiate a troop presence in Iraq could have dreadful consequences. Meanwhile, Defense Secretary Leon Panetta, like his predecessor Robert Gates, does his best to proclaim that American resolve is firm and can be counted on.

They seem to understand what Obama may not yet accept, that as the world's leading economic and military power the United States is unlikely to be loved, regardless of whether our president is a baseball team owner from Texas or a community organizer from Chicago.

The best we can expect among many of the elites and peoples of the globe is to be respected. And as Machiavelli argued long ago, if you have to choose it is better to be respected than to be loved.

COMMENT:  That is correct, but liberals need lots of love.  They like to be enveloped in a kind of glow, with the sound of sixties guitars strumming in the background.  "All we are saying is...give peace a chance."

It is respect we require, and that means being, at times, feared.  There's nothing wrong with that, as long as it's your enemies who fear you.  And despite all the adolescent-level applause Obama has gotten around the world, the fact is that our allies can no longer trust us to carry out our commitments, and that will inevitably lead some of them to hedge their bets when deciding whose side they're on.

Not a great legacy.

October 31, 2011       Permalink

CAIN'S MONDAY – AT 7:27 A.M. ET:  Political news today is likely to be dominated by the charge that Herman Cain was accused of sexual improprieties in the 1990s by two women, who were then paid to go away.

This is sleazy stuff, but Cain must deal with it forthrightly.  I watched Geraldo Rivera interview one of Cain's spokesmen last night, and the interview was catastrophic for Cain.  The spokesman neither confirmed nor denied the story, which is not what the public wants to hear.  Even Geraldo became exasperated, trying to explain how suspicious the spokesman's answers were.

The fact that it hasn't been denied makes me assume that there's at least some truth to the story.  That does not mean Herman Cain is guilt of sexual harassment.  He could have dealt with false or exaggerated stories by paying off the women in question, a common practice in large businesses.  But once again we have a conservative black man under attack on the sex charge. 

Some journalists will undoubtedly try to find the women who made the accusations.  Without their physical presence, and oral confirmation, before cameras, that they were harassed and were compensated, the story will lose steam.  Also, there could be a backlash, a sympathy vote for Cain.

This will be a facinating day.  I wouldn't be surprised if Cain came out of it even stronger, but that depends on how he handles this first crisis of his campaign.

October 31, 2011       Permalink

OCTOBER 30,  2011

SHORT TAKES ON THE DRIFTING WRECKAGE – AT 10:52 P.M. ET:

SHADES OF CLARENCE THOMAS – The Politico is reporting that two women accused Herman Cain of inappropriate sexual comments when he was president of the National Restaurant Association in the 1990s.  The allegations remind us of the charges made by Anita Hill against Supreme Court nominee Clarence Thomas.  It's odd that these allegations are only surfacing after Cain has soared in the polls.  The Cain campaign has put out statements denouncing the press reporting, but not completely denying the charges, or the report that the two women were given financial settlements.  Stand by for more on this.

LIBYA CONFIRMS CHEMICAL WEAPONS – The country's interim prime minister confirms that chemical weapons are in Libya, and that international inspectors will soon arrive to deal with the problem.  The prime minister said that Libya has no interest in the weapons.  The problem, of course, is not what happens in the future, but what may have happened in the past.  Were any of these weapons slipped out of Libya during the rebellion?  Have any of them fallen into the hands of terror groups?  I doubt very much if inspectors will be able to answer these questions, which should be a source of major concern.

DEMS TARGET ROMNEY – The Washington Times reports that Democratic operatives in the Obama campaign are convinced that Mitt Romney will win the GOP presidential nomination, and they are laying out their strategy to defeat him.  The approach is no surprise.  Dems will assert that Romney is a man with "no core," as one operative put it, their term for "flip-flopper."  That's the same charge many conservatives make against Romney.  Unfortunately, in an age of videotape and sound recordings, the Dems will have plenty of ammunition to back up the charge.  The Romney campaign will have to come up with a serious strategy to counter the charges.  It is already trying to shift the focus to President Obama's record, in effect saying that, while Romney isn't perfect, he can do a far better job of fixing the economy.  That may work if conditions in the country worsen, and if Romney, assuming he's the nominee, can be effective against Obama in debates.  But I can just see those Dem TV ads, backed up by news clips.  Not fun.

October 30, 2011       Permalink

TOUGH-TALKING FROM THE FIRST LADY – Michelle Obama is, according to the polls, a popular first lady.  And she has done some good work among military families and on behalf of children.  But she has a view of her own country that is sometimes sinister, at best.  Victor Davis Hanson reminds us about that, and calls out the first lady on some of her recent comments, which seem to reflect the coarseness of the 2012 campaign the Dems have planned for us: 

It was wise late in the 2008 campaign to suggest that Michelle Obama cool it and retrench a bit. There had been one too many “raise the bar,” one too many “downright mean country,” one too many “for the first time in my adult life I’ve really been proud . . .” whines, and the picture was emerging of one who had become increasingly angry since her undergraduate days in direct proportion to the privileges extended her.

Now she’s back on the campaign trail, and for some reason is returning to the same hardball politics. The other day, she thundered, “Will we be a country that tells folks who’ve done everything right but are struggling to get by, ‘Tough luck, you’re on your own’? Is that who we are?”

Given that the federal budget has increased by $2 trillion in just a decade, entitlements are at record levels, and this administration is now running $1.5 trillion annual deficits, it is hard to imagine that any government has told anyone “tough luck.” And it is even harder to suggest that nine months of a Republican-controlled House — voted in as part of the largest midterm correction since 1938 — has had much effect on the Obama employment agenda of nearly three years, the majority of which time Obama controlled both houses of Congress and borrowed nearly $5 trillion in sending unemployment over 9 percent.

And when Ms. Obama charges, “Will we be a country where opportunity is limited to just the few at the top? Who are we?” one wonders, why, then, in the past three years of hard times, did she insist on vacationing, in iconic fashion, at Vail, Martha’s Vineyard, and Costa del Sol, the tony haunts of “the few at the top”? In these rough times, surely a smaller staff, less travel, and budgetary economies would have enhanced her populist message of some at the top enjoying perks at the expense of others.

In short, even if she does not revert to 2008 style and restart her lamentations about life in her country being unfair, I think it a mistake for any president to put the First Lady out, in highly partisan fashion, on the campaign trail to attack her husband’s political rivals. And, I think, the public unease with it will soon prove the point.

COMMENT:  Very well stated, but I think Hanson is overly optimistic about public unease.  Michelle Obama's comments will be filtered through the press, and the Republicans will be reluctant to attack her.  First ladies are usually fairly immune, although Eleanor Roosevelt got some arrows sent her way because she was so publicly active, a departure for first ladies.  Things were fairly quiet after her tenure until we got to Hillary Clinton, who was indeed attacked because she saw herself as a public-policy "partner" to her husband, even though I never found her name on the ballot.  Must have been those new voting machines. 

My greatest fear is that, should Obama be re-elected, he will revert back to the leftism that informed his youth, and set this country on a course that will make us a clone of failed European nations, and leave us weak and poorly defended.  After that he can be rewarded by being made secretary-general of the UN, where the damage can continue.  And Michelle can have even better vacations.

October 30, 2011       Permalink

NEWT NAILS IT – AT 10:41 A.M. ET:  One of the most interesting developments in the GOP campaign thus far has been the emergence of Newt Gingrich is a kind of intellectual guide to conservative thinking.  Newt is clearly the best informed candidate in the debates, knows history thoroughly, and has reasoned through his positions.

While he won't get the nomination, for a variety of reasons, Gingrich is a man worth hearing.  During the last week, President Obama announced a plan to ease the debt burden on those holding student loans.  Gingrich explodes it for the illusion that it is.  From The Hill:

Presidential hopeful Newt Gingrich said President Obama's recently announced student loan proposal was a "Ponzi scheme."

Obama's plan would allow for easier consolidation of outstanding student loans, and would forgive outstanding balances on federal loans after 20 years of payments, rather than 25. Federal loan repayments would also be capped at 10 percent of a borrower's income, down from 15 percent now. The president would begin implementing the changes next year, as opposed to the 2014 start that was currently planned.

But Gingrich (R-Ga.) says that Obama's plan lies to students "by promising to every young person, 'You won't have to pay off your student loan as a student.' " Instead, the former Speaker of the House says, those who benefit from the program will just "have to pay off the national debt" as taxpayers later in life.

He went on to say that the proposal was "a Ponzi scheme even by [Texas] Gov. [Rick] Perry's standards," riffing off his primary rival's remarks on Social Security.

COMMENT:  Student loans are now a huge proportion of the loans out there, and, in a hard economy, well-intentioned students are having a tough time paying them off.  Maybe some device can be introduced that would make payments easier, and we should certainly start looking intelligently at the wild cost of education itself.  But the president's plan does little to help.

One idea that's been floated is that loan payments be pegged to the student's choice of subjects studied.  If you study something the country "needs," you make lower payments.  That is a dreadful idea, absolutely awful.  It is not a conservative idea, it is a very liberal idea, wherein the government plays favorites.  Students should be able to study what they wish, even if we have doubts about the subject, and loan programs should be universal.

October 30, 2011       Permalink

PERRY REVERSES – AT 10:25 A.M. ET:  In a smart reversal of a dumb move, Rick Perry has now agreed to participate in more TV debates, where he has not exactly gotten A's.  A previous trial balloon floated by his campaign had him pulling out of the debates, which, in our view, would have killed his campaign entirely and branded him as a quitter.  Now the revised strategy:

(AP) WASHINGTON - Rick Perry plans to participate in at least five more presidential primary debates, his campaign said Saturday, dismissing speculation that the Texas governor's lackluster performances so far would lead him to skip future Republican debates.

Perry, who has struggled through parts of his first five debates, will attend all of the events currently scheduled in November as well as a December debate, his spokesman, Ray Sullivan, told The Associated Press.

The decision comes after questions over whether Perry would bypass some debates to concentrate on other types of campaigning. He has always conceded he is not a strong debater, and has often avoided the sparring matches in his past campaigns.

But he's not giving up.

"Shoot, I may get to be a good debater before this is all over," Perry joked during a campaign stop in New Hampshire on Friday.

COMMENT:  Perry has criticized the debates, and some of his criticism is correct.  It's basically a zoo up there.  There are, at this stage, only two months before primary voting begins, too many candidates up there.  There should be no more than three or four.  How can we actually analyze a candidate's views? 

And the debates are too long.  They're two hours, and after an hour your eyes glaze over because of the sheer number of voices. 

Newt Gingrich has challenged other candidates to one-on-one Lincoln-Douglas-style debates.  I'd love to see it.  We're told that Americans have short attention spans, and that is true.  But maybe that trait can be challenged by some superb, informed debating.

October 30, 2011     Permalink