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.

(You can subscribe or donate by mail, as well as by PayPal.  See below.)

SUBSCRIPTION DRIVE - FIVE MORE DAYS!

DAY 17

We are in our subscription drive's final week.

But we still haven't reached our goal.  

URGENT AGENDA SERIOUSLY NEEDS SUBSCRIPTIONS AND DONATIONS TO CONTINUE OUR WORK AT A HIGH LEVEL.

I think we perform a valuable service here.  Many readers tell us that we're the first place they visit online each day.  That is very encouraging, and reflects the loyalty our readers have shown.  They know that Urgent Agenda is written for a special, intelligent audience, not a mass audience. 

But publishing Urgent Agenda is costly, and we count on subscribers and donators to keep us going.  Without you, we're history.  Our first two years showed dramatic growth, but this last year has been tougher.  Clearly, the economy is a factor.   But we must have a stable financial base in order to continue.

Once again we ask our regular stalwarts to consider expanding their subscriptions or making an additional donation.  And we ask our new readers to subscribe or donate.  Please don't put the burden entirely on a core group.

If you like what you see each day, and you want to be sure it's there tomorrow, please subscribe or donate.  You can do so by PayPal under SUBSCRIPTIONS, in the right hand column of this page, opposite these words. 

You can also subscribe by mail.  If you'd like to do that, just send us an e-mail at service@urgentagenda.com, and we'll reply with our mailing address.  (We don't like to publish it to avoid mailboxes stuffed with Viagra ads.)

The most important reason to subscribe or donate is to support our work.  But, in addition, you become a member of The Angel's Corner, and receive our twice-a-week e-mailed page, most of which is devoted to short essays by our readers, who are invited to comment on anything they wish, at whatever length they choose.  It is the liveliest part of Urgent Agenda.

We hope to have you aboard.

SEPTEMBER 21,  2011

SHORT TAKES ON THE DRIFTING WRECKAGE – AT 9:40 P.M. ET:

OH, THE POOR DEARS – Do you remember when ball parks were named for real people, and had something to do with baseball?  Now it's commerce and show biz.  Citi Field is where the Mets play, or try to, in New York.  Citi Field, named for a bank, doesn't quite have the ring of Yankee Stadium or Ebbets Field, but we take what we can get.  Now we learn that the proprietors of said field will change its dimensions...because the batters find the current field too large and challenging.  Now wait.  How many millions are these guys paid every year to swing a bat?  And we have to alter the field for them?  There are signs when a civilization is sliding downhill, and this is one of them.  Ah, I remember the Brooklyn Dodgers.  Do you?

SNEAKING UP ON US – More Americans are abandoning airlines because of high costs, and taking to the road.  But government has a way of punishing us, and road travelers are becoming aware of a new menace – absurdly high tolls, that can dent any family budget and cut into the incomes of those who travel for work.  Here in New York, going over a bridge can set you back $12...or more.  Even if the tolls are only one way, that's $60 a week for a commuter, excluding fuel, other tolls, and wear on the car.  That's $3,120 a year, or $6,240 for a two-income family.  And politicians wonder why people are screaming.  By the way, the most expensive toll road in the country is, natch, in Chicago – the Chicago Skyway, costing drivers 46 cents a mile, or $3.68 for the 7.8-mile road. 

WELL SPOKEN – The president gave a good speech at the UN today, showing a little of the backbone that political writers and, perhaps, even orthopedists, have looked for.  It probably was too late, for his weakness has already been amply demonsrated.  He did make a firm commitment to Israel and slammed the nutty Palestinian idea of going around direct negotiations to get a state.  He also slammed Arab dictators, especially in Syria.  We wonder if this is the end of the president's fantasy of "reaching out" to the Muslim world, an outreach that plainly has failed.  Or, was this just a campaign speech.  Watch for the actual policy.

A SHRINE DISGRACED – There is no greater national shrine than Arlington National Cemetery.  Visiting the cemetery, and the Tomb of the Unknowns, has been a pilgrimage for millions of Americans, especially those of the greatest generation, and their children.  It's therefore grating to hear of how badly run the cemetery has been in recent years – with grave mixups, indifference, and a general lack of oversight.  Now, today, we learn that families trying to arrange for burial at Arlington have often given up because all they got was a ringing phone.  It seems the cemetery, until last year, didn't even have voice mail...or an answering machine.  That has been corrected, but, except for those service personnel killed in Iraq or Afghanistan, the wait for a burial with full military honors has increased to almost three months.  Utterly disgraceful, and heads should roll.

September 21, 2011      Permalink

NEW MOVES AGAINST TERROR – AT 10:43 A.M. ET:  The Obama administration, which favors the use of pilotless drones in the war on terror, is expanding our drone capabilities, as Fox News reports:

The Obama administration is expanding its drone program far beyond Pakistan, building secret bases in the Horn of Africa and Arabian Peninsula in a move to target dangerous al Qaeda affiliates.

A senior U.S. military official with knowledge of the program told Fox News that the expansion has been underway for over a year. It started with a base in Seychelles, an archipelago northeast of Madagascar, followed by the development of one in Ethiopia -- which the official described as "the basing location of choice."

The locations were first reported by The Washington Post. The drone program has ramped up significantly in recent years under the Obama administration, being used primarily to take out top terror leaders in the vast tribal areas of Pakistan.

Drone attacks have also been reported in Libya, Somalia and Yemen, as well as the two more formal war zones of Afghanistan and Iraq. U.S. officials had confirmed to Fox News earlier this year that the CIA would mount an operation in Yemen with drone strikes, virtually identical to the mission in Pakistan.

COMMENTS:  The main advantages of drone attacks, of course, are that American air crews are not put at risk, and drones are far less expensive than conventional aircraft.  The main disadvantage is that there is no human eye directly on the scene, expanding the possibility of mistakes that can cost civilian lives. 

We give credit where it's due here, and the Obama administration has done some good things in the war on terror.  Sadly, that good is negated by an overall foreign policy that makes a train wreck look elegant.  If only Obama could get his foreign act together, he might have something to show to the American people.  I'm not optimistic on that score.

September 21, 2011      Permalink

LAYING IT ON THE LINE – AT 9:50 A.M. ET:  We like the Rasmussen polls because Scott Rasmussen surveys "likely voters," the people most likely actually to go to the polls. 

Rasmussen's latest presidential matchup emphasizes what the GOP must realize – that 2012 will not be an easy election.  The president, while politically unpopular, is still liked.  No specific Republican candidate has so far made the sale.

President Obama and former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney continue to run neck-and-neck in a hypothetical Election 2012 matchup.

The latest Rasmussen Reports national survey of Likely U.S. Voters shows the president’s support at 44%, while Romney earns 41% of the vote. Seven percent (7%) prefer some other candidate, and another seven percent (7%) are undecided.

Given the margin of error, the two men remain basically tied. Romney continues to be the Republican hopeful who runs most competitively with the president

A week ago, Romney posted a 43% to 40% lead over Obama. But less than three weeks earlier, Obama led the unsuccessful 2008 GOP contender 43% to 39%.

Obama now leads Texas Governor Rick Perry, the frontrunner for the 2012 Republican presidential nomination, 46% to 39%. Minnesota Congresswoman Michele Bachmann, another GOP hopeful, trails Obama by double digits. The president tops former Utah Governor Jon Huntsman, a long shot for the Republican nomination, 43% to 35%.

The president continues to trail a generic Republican candidate in weekly Rasmussen Reports matchups, but he earns 39% to 46% of the vote against named Republican challengers. Despite those relatively low levels of support, Obama has never trailed a Republican by more than three percentage points and has enjoyed large double-digit leads in some matchups.

COMMENT:  This may tell us that the great electoral middle, the independents, are not yet convinced that any GOP candidate would do a better job than Obama, whom they've turned against in many polls. 

The Republican Party is not popular, and needs a presidential candidate who can rise above the baggage.  I can't deny a certain apprehension.  Next year's election will be one of the most critical in our modern history.  No party has ever had a better shot at turning out an incumbent.  But, as they say, you can't beat somebody with nobody.

September 21, 2011       Permalink

OBAMA AT THE UN - ANYONE INTERESTED? – AT 9:34 A.M. ET:  President Obama addresses the UN General Assembly today.  At one time an Obama speech before the UN was presented by the world's press as a godlike figure coming to speak to mere mortals.  No longer. 

Obama's foreign policy is a mess.  Even the Palestinian Authority, which gets half a billion in American aid each year, thumbs its nose at this weak president.  Obama, as much for domestic as for policy reasons, is trying to head off a reckless attempt by the PALS to have the UN declare them a state without directly negotiating terms with the Israelis.  They wouldn't have tried this with Bush as president:

NEW YORK (AP) - Scrambling to head off a diplomatic clash, President Barack Obama will publicly push for the Palestinians to drop a statehood bid when he addresses the U.N. General Assembly on Wednesday.

Obama will follow up his speech with separate meetings with Israeli and Palestinian leaders as he seeks to coax both parties back to direct peace talks.

At the same time, U.S. officials are conceding that they probably cannot prevent Palestinian leader Mahmoud Abbas from moving forward with a request to the U.N. Security Council for full Palestinian membership.

Recognizing that Abbas seems intent to proceed, Obama is expected to privately ask the Palestinian leader to essentially drop the move for statehood recognition after Abbas delivers a formal letter of intent to the U.N. on Friday.

"The president will say, frankly, the same thing in private that he'll say in public, which is that we do not believe that this is the best course of action for achieving Palestinian aspirations," White House deputy national security adviser Ben Rhodes said.

Obama will also meet Wednesday with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.

The Obama administration has pledged to veto any Palestinian statehood bid, arguing that only direct peace negotiations, not a U.N. vote, would allow the Palestinians to achieve the benefits of statehood.

Meanwhile, Susan Rice, the U.S. ambassador to the U.N, called the Palestinian push for recognition by the world body "an unwise and diversionary gambit."

"There is no shortcut to statehood," she said Wednesday morning in an interview on CBS's "The Early Show."

COMMENT:  The fact is, other nations feel they can run all over Obama, and that's especially true in the Mideast.  After all, this is a president who snubbed the Israeli prime minister, but bowed deeply to a Saudi king.  Not good stuff.

The president is also, in some bizarre remarks, taking credit for success in the Libyan venture, even though Gadaffi is still alive in Libya and we don't know what shape any new government will have.  Remember how Bush was ridiculed for the "Mission Accomplished" banner behind him in the first days after the initial victory in Iraq?  Apparently, Obama doesn't need a banner to make the same mistake.

September 21, 2011       Permalink

THE PERRY FACTOR – AT 8:46 A.M. ET:  Well, there's one thing about Rick Perry, he certainly gets the buzz going. 

Today The Hill features a piece quoting Republicans in Congress saying Perry must deal better with his political vulnerabilities unless he wants to lose the nomination.  Last night several commentators, especially Gloria Borger at CNN, went nearly hysterical over Perry's direct attack on Obama's Mideast policy.  Borger cited the old tradition that politics stops at the water's edge.  Only problem is, Borger, a generally responsible analyst, never noted the overwhelming viciousness of Democratic attacks on George W. Bush's foreign policy, attacks launched while American soldiers were in the field.

And this morning comes an analysis by top political observer Charlie Cook, who says that the GOP nomination is Perry's to lose...but that he might do it.  This is in National Journal:

The 2012 Republican presidential nomination is Texas Gov. Rick Perry’s to lose. The question is: Will he blow it? To be sure, there are less polarizing Republicans, ones who are, have been, or should have been running, who would stand a better chance of winning over the between-the-40-yard-line independents who tend to decide big elections. Former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney would stand a better chance of winning; former Minnesota Gov. Tim Pawlenty would not likely have offended the middle; and my guess is that Indiana Gov. Mitch Daniels and Mississippi Gov. Haley Barbour, if they had run, would have fared better as well. But Perry is the dominant figure right now and, given the listless economy, even Perry, if nominated, would have a 50-50 chance of beating President Obama (Sarah Palin or Michele Bachmann, maybe not).

Over the next 60 to 90 days, through this endless stream of debates and hundreds of speeches, appearances, and public utterances, the critical question will be: Does Rick Perry demonstrate the capacity to grow and mature as a candidate and to maximize his chances of winning a general election, or does he fail to recognize the differences between voters in the suburbs of Philadelphia, Columbus, or Denver and those in Houston, Dallas, Waco, or Amarillo?

And something we've been saying here:

One lesson that national Republican figures, particularly the more conservative ones, have to learn is that Republican and conservative national candidates are never likely to get more than their fair share of breaks from the news media. Simply put, they have to be careful—in Texas, not so much, but on the national stage, absolutely. But careful doesn’t come naturally to some candidates—Perry and Bachmann come to mind—and there is a terrible price to be paid for not being careful...

...Historically, electability is not among the top considerations in the minds of most voters in making their nomination choices. But we are not living in normal times. Just as liberals became apoplectic with George W. Bush, conservatives have come to be that way with President Obama. Polls show the party is evenly split today on the question of electability and ideological compatibility, but right now, all the top Republicans are running relatively even with Obama.

That is something Republicans haven't really absorbed.  Despite Obama's low popularity ratings, he is holding his own in poll matchups with specific Republicans.

Perry has made, and will make, more mistakes. The question is whether he learns and grows from them. Trial and error is a fantastic teacher, assuming one recognizes and learns from the errors. It’s more about learning how to say things: showing more judiciousness, contemplating the consequences of saying things one way versus another. If he learns, if he can effectively make the turn from being a successful practitioner in a one-party state to being an effective candidate in a much more ideologically diverse state, the nomination is his.

COMMENT:  There will be another GOP debate tomorrow night, in Orlando.  The eyes will be on Perry.  His performance in his first debate was fine, less than brilliant but good enough to keep him respectable.  His performance last week was less good.  He'll be given one or two more chances by party insiders and the news media.  He's got to produce tomorrow night – with specific answers, a national platform, a presidential style.

Perry is known as a strong campaigner.  His political staff is highly respected.  But Perry has never been on the national stage, as compared with Ronald Reagan in 1980, who'd been a national figure for decades.

We'll also be watching Mitt Romney tomorrow night, who has a realistic chance of regaining frontrunner status assuming 1) Perry stumbles and 2) he can expand on the mastery of issues he's shown in debate thus far.

I urge you to tune in on Fox.  This will be very interesting.

September 21, 2011     Permalink

SEPTEMBER 20,  2011

SHORT TAKES ON THE DRIFTING WRECKAGE - AT 11:42 P.M. ET:

CHRISTIE MULLING? – Ace political reporter John Fund tells us that there are signs Governor Chris Christie of New Jersey may be rethinking his emphatically stated decision not to enter the GOP presidential sweeps.  Christie, a tough-talking, effective governor, is a favorite among many conservatives.  As readers of Urgent Agenda know, I've long been skeptical of Christie.  While he polls strongly among men, he polls poorly among women, who often see him as a bully.  Polls in New Jersey say that Christie would lose his own state to Obama.  A colorful, blunt-talking governor does not automatically translate into a viable presidential candidate.  Governors control roads and bridges.  Presidents control nuclear weapons.

SARAH RISING? – A stunning new McClatchy-Marist poll has Sarah Palin within five points of Barack Obama in a 2012 presidential matchup.  Palin now trails 49-44%, after being behind more than 20 points in the same poll earlier this year.  Her progress comes from the fact that she now leads among independents.  Ironically, Rudy Giuliani would lead Obama 49-42%; Obama would lead Romney, 46-44%; Obama leads Perry 50-41%.  We stress that this is one poll.  We'd have to see these results verified by other polls to believe that it represents more than a snapshot in time.  Giuliani and Palin, of course, aren't even candidates.  Palin has suggested she'll have a decision soon.  Rudy may get in after the election.

WHOOPS – President Obama has often used the term "The New Foundation" to describe his policies designed to transform America.  Loyal reader Linda Gordon points out that the phrase comes from a line in the old Communist hymn, the Internationale:  "The earth shall rise on new foundations."  Now, we're not charging anything here, not at all.  As Linda says, it's no doubt pure coincidence.  But you'd think one of those brilliant scholars in the Obama White House would have recognized the line and guided the president away from any personal embarrassment.  We assume, of course, that there might be personal embarrassment.

NOT MUCH MORE GREEN IN GREENLAND – In another fumble for the Church of the Global Warming, the Times Comprehensive Atlas of the World, one of the most authoritative atlases, is retracting a claim in its new edition that Greenland has lost 15% of its ice cover in the last 12 years.  The actual number is reportedly closer to 0.1%, a dramatic difference.  The retraction comes in the aftermath of "Himalayagate," another global-warming scandal in which it was claimed that the Himalayas could be glacier-free by 2035 due to global warming.  The claim has been withdrawn.

September 20, 2011       Permalink 

STILL SLICK AFTER ALL THESE YEARS – AT 9:28 P.M. ET:   Bill Clinton has a way of reminding us periodically just how slick he can be, and that is not a compliment.

Apparently, Clinton has now bought into the whole climate-change bit, and he's gotten almost as bad as Al Gore.  I mean, just listen to this:

Bill Clinton turned up the heat on the leading Republican presidential contenders Tuesday, saying their opposition to acknowledging climate change makes the country “look like a joke.”

Factually incorrect.  Republicans do not dispute that climate changes.  Of course it does.  The issues are 1) the degree to which humans cause changes; 2) whether anything can be done about it without breaking the economic back of civilization; 3) whether anything should be done; 4) what should be done.

“If you’re an American, the best thing you can do is to make it politically unacceptable for people to engage in denial” about climate change, the former president said on the first day of the Clinton Global Initiative’s seventh annual meeting in New York City.

In other words, one must not ask questions.  And this man considers himself educated. 

“I mean, it makes us — we look like a joke, right? You can’t win the nomination of one of the major parties in the country if you admit that the scientists are right? That disqualifies you from doing it? You could really help us there,” Clinton added.

What scientists is he talking about?  There are some awfully big names among the dissenters, including Nobel laureates.  Are they all nuts?  Do they all work for oil companies?  Clinton, Gore, and their crowd are getting awfully close to the old Soviet tactic of declaring mentally ill anyone who dissents.

Kicking off the three-day conference, Clinton called the lack of debate in America on climate change “really tragic.”

COMMENT:  Well, Mr. Clinton, who's responsible for the lack of debate?  It's your side, which declares global warming "settled science" and refuses to discuss the serious doubts.  But there's no such thing as settled science.  By its nature, science is unsettled, and always subject to inquiry.

Also, many people are becoming aware of how much money is being made on the climate change industry.  I'm not saying that Clinton has cashed in, but Gore certainly has.  And yet the press will ask no questions.

Clinton's whole tone is ugly, more appropriate for a totalitarian state than a democracy. 

September 20, 2011       Permalink

MORE JOYOUS ECONOMIC NEWS – AT 10:51 A.M. ET:  The International Monetary Fund brings us greetings, the kind of greetings we'd prefer not to hear:

WASHINGTON (AP) -- The world economy has entered a "dangerous new phase," according to the chief economist of the International Monetary Fund. As a result, the international lending organization has sharply downgraded its economic outlook for the United States and Europe through the end of next year.

The IMF expects the U.S. economy to grow just 1.5 percent this year and 1.8 percent in 2012. That's down from its June forecast of 2.5 percent in 2011 and 2.7 percent next year.

To achieve even that still-low level of growth, the U.S. economy would need to expand at a much faster rate in the second half of the year than its 0.7 percent annual pace in the first six months.

Most economists expect growth of between 1.5 percent and 2 percent in the final two quarters. Though an improvement, it wouldn't be enough to lower the unemployment rate. The rate has been 9 percent or higher in all but two months since the recession officially ended more than two years ago.

"The global economy has entered a dangerous new phase," said Olivier Blanchard, the IMF's chief economist. "The recovery has weakened considerably. Strong policies are needed to improve the outlook and reduce the risks."

The IMF has also lowered its outlook for the 17 countries that use the euro. It predicts 1.6 percent growth this year and 1.1 percent next year, down from its June projections of 2 percent and 1.7 percent, respectively.

COMMENT:  What the Fund does not cover is that this kind of economic stress can eventually lead to social and political unrest.  We have seen hints of that in Europe, where riots have broken out in Greece and Spain.  And economic stress can also lead to unwise decisions that can have catastrophic effects a decade or two down the line – decisions involving risky cuts in defense budgets, for example.

It is a time for strong, informed leadership.  We don't have that, and we must depend on an upcoming election to correct the problem.

September 20, 2011       Permalink

SNIPPET OF THE DAY – AT 10:17 A.M. ET:

From London's Telegraph:   Britain is about to experience an early winter, with snow expected to arrive as soon as next month, forecasters have warned.  Temperatures over the next three months will plummet to below average with one long-range forecaster predicting snowfalls in October.  James Madden, of Exacta Weather, said: ‘I expect to see the first signs of some moderate to heavy snowfalls as early as October or November in certain parts of the UK.

Now remember, this is caused by global warming, just as the recent Texas heat was caused by global warming.  Oh, also, bad television ratings and bad hair days.  Al Gore will be flying to Britain in his private jet to blame the snows on Exxon-Mobil.

OBAMA'S HISPANIC SUPPORT WOBBLY – AT 9:48 A.M. ET:  Hispanics are the fastest-growing ethnic group in America, and were a major component of the Obama coalition in 2008.  But there are signs that Hispanic support for the president is slipping, something that could cost him the election.  From the Washington Post, via London's Telegraph:

In recent Gallup polling, his approval rating among Latinos dipped to 48 percent — the lowest mark of his presidency and a significant drop-off from the 60 percent approval among the group he carried as recently as January. Obama’s approval rating among Hispanics is now just seven points higher than it is among the general public in Gallup data, a major decline from earlier in his term.

And polling conducted by Resurgent Republic, a conservative-aligned group, shows Obama under-performing his 2008 totals in key swing states with large Hispanic populations.

In Florida, where Obama won 57 percent of the Latino vote in 2008, 48 percent of Hispanics say he deserves a second term. Ditto in New Mexico, where Obama carried Latinos with 69 percent but now sees just 58 percent of that voting bloc willing to say he should be reelected.

Does this mean the Hispanic vote is up for grabs.  Republicans say yes.  But Dems say, absolutely not:

Joel Benenson, Obama’s lead pollster, pointed to an August tracking poll from ImpreMedia/Latino Decisions that showed that 72 percent of Hispanic voters said Republicans either “didn’t care” or were “hostile” to the Hispanic community as evidence that Obama’s number is likely to improve once Republicans pick their nominee.

There is reason to that.  Republicans still do not understand how unpopular their party is.  Obama may be down, even far down, but Americans don't love Republicans, although they might, at times, adore an individual Republican, like Eisenhower or Reagan.  When one thinks of political romance, the letters GOP do not come immediately to mind.

One notable Republican exception could be Texas Gov. Rick Perry, who has sounded a largely moderate note on immigration during his presidential campaign; at a debate last week in Florida, he defended a measure he signed into law in 2001 that allows some illegal immigrants to attend state colleges and universities at in-state tuition rates.

Perry knows the Hispanic community.  He could possible make inroads. 

“The question that we won’t know the answer to for some time is whether they will vote for him at the same levels as 2008 or whether their sky-high vote for him will drop,” said Republican pollster Glen Bolger. “Those are the questions that likely have Democrat Latino strategists losing sleep at night.”

COMMENT:  May their insomnia increase.

September 20, 2011       Permalink

A MOVE TOWARD ROMNEY? – AT 9:22 A.M. ET:  Increasingly, it looks like a two-man race in the GOP, unless one of them self-destructs or some prince or princess comes in and shakes things up.

Michael Gerson, of the Washington Post, formerly chief speechwriter for President Bush 43, clearly believes Romney will be the better choice, and thinks that's who the party will ultimately choose as its standard bearer:

Would an economic crisis favor a revolutionary candidate or a reassuring candidate?

In Rick Perry and Mitt Romney, we have undiluted representatives of each type. Perry is purposely provocative in style and content. He questions the legitimacy of 70 years of federal entitlement commitments. He proposes a fundamental reordering of the relationship between the federal government and the states. He is highly critical of the Federal Reserve and its chairman. Perry’s specific economic policies remain defiantly unspecific, but his rhetoric and intentions are ideologically ambitious.

Romney is running at Perry from the reassuring center. Both are harshly critical of Obama’s economic policies. But unlike Perry, Romney refuses to hurl the accusation of “socialism.” Romney argues that an overbroad condemnation of Social Security would leave Republicans “obliterated as a party.” His own 59-point economic plan contains a “number of options” for incremental entitlement reform — an approach the Wall Street Journal has criticized as “timid and tactical.” But Romney’s timidness on some issues is his main tactic against Perry. With the economy suffering a series of complex maladies, who wants a surgeon who performs only amputations?

And...

But if this is the choice during a period of national stress, the advantage goes to the reassuring. During the financial panic of September 2008, John McCain’s response was emotional and chaotic — suspending his presidential campaign in order to make time for a series of rash and contradictory statements. Obama said little of interest, but he said it calmly. And he benefited greatly.

Within the Republican Party, primary voters have a history of preferring less ideologically vivid, more electable candidates. Iowa caucus-goers — disproportionately religious and conservative since the late 1980s — do their best to change this habit. But they seldom pick the eventual winner in contested races.

And...

None of these historical precedents make Romney a shoo-in. But they indicate his prospects are better than his current polling. Perry is a perfect candidate for a time of Tea Party anger — say, around 2010. But Romney has a better case in a time of economic fear — like the one we may be entering — when competence becomes a desperate political demand. In this case, Republicans may choose, once again, not the purist they love but the old hand they trust.

COMMENT:  One can agree or disagree with Gerson's logic, but I think he makes sense.  Rick Perry is the current Republican man of the hour.  But polling shows his progress is stalling, perhaps because voters want to see more substance, less swagger.  That's why Thursday's debate from Orlando is so critical.  It isn't make or break, but Perry must show that he has the stuff of the presidency.  Romney must show that he's the man to be trusted in precarious times.

I look forward to this debate.  Things are starting to be defined on the Republican side.

September 20, 2011      Permalink

QUOTE OF THE DAY – AT 8:45 A.M. ET:  The New York Times reviews "Confidence Men," by Ron Suskind, which paints a devastating picture of a dysfunctional Obama White House.  From the review:

The president’s own assessment of his first two years in office? Mr. Suskind says Mr. Obama told him that he, along with Bill Clinton and Jimmy Carter, shared “the disease of being policy wonks,” that he had been “very comfortable with a technocratic approach to government,” and that he needed to focus on the bigger picture. “Going forward as president,” he said in the February 2011 interview, “the symbols and gestures — what people are seeing coming out of this office — are at least as important as the policies we put forward.”

COMMENT:  It's nice to know the president understands.  He comes, though, from the "intellectual" world, a world in which the human factor is often discounted, in favor of technocratic policies that are cold at heart.

Great presidents always understand that leadership has a spiritual component.  That may not mean religion, although religion must be a part of any American leader's outlook.  The spiritual component, including symbols and gestures, reassures the nation that the president is "part of us," that he understands and is with us.

Lincoln understood the spiritual.  It's one of the factors that made his speeches great, that made him a moral, as well as a political leader.  Franklin D. Roosevelt understood it, as he prayed with the nation on D-Day.  Ronald Reagan understood it, as he consoled the nation after the Challenger disaster.

This current chap hasn't got a clue.

The man who could run such a brilliant campaign has little understanding of his office.  He seems not to like his own country, and to feel himself above it.  He speaks beautifully, but really says nothing.  He would undoubtedly scoff at lines like, "Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall." 

Part of the spiritual side of leadership is understanding, as great military leaders do, the importance of morale.  American morale is in the basement right now, and we have a president who, unlike the optimistic Mr. Reagan, has no idea how to speak to us in ways that would envision a better future.  He can't do it, because I'm not really sure he believes in it. 

September 20, 2011     Permalink