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 Sunday night.  It's here.

APRIL 24,  2012

SHORT TAKES ON THE DRIFTING WRECKAGE – AT 9:32 P.M. ET:

NEW YORK – Following on our primary update, Mitt Romney has now won New York State, giving him a sweep of all five primaries held today.  The GOP presidential contest is effectively over.

THE NEW EGYPT? – Yeah, let's hear it for the Arab spring.  An Egyptian court sentenced one of the most famous comedians in the Arab world to three months in prison for offending Islam in some of his most popular films.  The sentence for Adel Imam has raised fears among Egyptian moderates and liberals that this is a sign of things to come, as rigid Islamists gain power in the "new" Egypt.  Egypt has a vibrant film industry, and there are also fears that this trend can severely damage it.

NEWT – Newt Gingrich, who thought (wrongly) that he might win Delaware today, now says, "I think we need to take a deep look at what we are doing."  He promises a week of reflection, of reassessment, which of course could lead to his ending his quest for the Republican nomination.  He says he wants to consider what role he can best play in the drive to unseat Barack Obama.

STRANGE TIMING – Federal prosecutors brought the first criminal charges today in regard to the Gulf oil spill.  The timing seems odd, right at the start of a political campaign in which energy policy will play a significant role.  A former BP engineer has been charged with obstruction of justice.   The charge comes two years and four days after the explosion on an offshore rig started the spill. 

April 24, 2012       Permalink

PRIMARY UPDATE – AT 9:14 P.M. ET:  Mitt Romney has won the Rhode Island, Delaware, Connecticut and Pennsylvania primaries.   Polls in New York have just closed, but Romney is expected to win New York easily.  He will be the Republican candidate for president.

Romney has just given a major campaign speech in New Hampshire, turning his attention to the general election.  It was covered by Fox and CNN.  He was upbeat, positive and unifying, clearly attempting to distinguish himself from the negative tone of the Obama campaign.

The constant question on cable TV news:  Who will Romney pick for the second spot?

April 24, 2012        Permalink 

MR. PEANUT IS BACK – AT 10:10 A.M. ET:  We mentioned Jimmy Carter in the post just below.  Well, he's back.  This time the most incompetent president we've had in our lifetime, before the current incumbent, is in Chicago for a meeting of winners of the Nobel Peace Prize.  The prize itself has become as much of a joke as Carter has.  It is given in Oslo by a bunch of left-wing Norwegian parliamentarians, who have awarded it to such profound peacemakers as Yasir Arafat, Al Gore, and Barack Obama.  But many people confuse it with the real Nobel prizes, given in Stockholm for actual accomplishment in the sciences.

Carter, in Chicago, gives us a taste of his ego and blindness:

Carter said that, as the last global superpower, the US has a responsibility to be a leader in peace efforts and set an example to the rest of the world. Instead, he said, the US is “too inclined to go to war” and is contemplating going to war again, “perhaps in Iran.”

What a dork.  The late British economist, Barbara Ward, once wrote, after traveling through our country, that she felt America was almost a pacifist country, and remarked on how hard it was to get Americans to go to war. 

Indeed, history shows that Americans are incredibly reluctant to commit men to battle.  In 1940, with World War II already underway in Europe, and Japan threatening in the Pacific, the extension of the draft act passed the House by only one vote.

The US has been at war almost constantly in the last 60 years, said the former president. Most of those wars failed to meet the criteria for a just war and “some of them were completely unnecessary,” he said.

Utterly outrageous.  First of all, the U.S. has not been at war almost constantly for the last 60 years.  It was not at war from 1953 to 1965.  It was not at war from 1973 to 1991.  The Gulf War in 1991 was extremely brief.  It was not at war from 1991 to 2001, except for the NATO air campaign in the Balkans. 

Of course there were brief incidents, but they don't count as wars.  Carter doesn't even know basic history, but probably doesn't care.  And the criteria for "just war"?  Who sets those criteria?  Jimmy Carter? 

And I'd love to know which wars were "completely unnecessary."  Perhaps Carter can discuss that with the widows of those wars.

“Humankind has got to say that war comes last” and negotiation comes first, Carter said during a panel discussion with Gorbachev, Walesa and former South African president F.W. de Klerk.

All said that more young people need to adopt the ideals of peace — including human rights, justice and environmental issues — whether it’s in the rest of the world or their own communities.

COMMENT:  What is pathetic is that Carter is a Naval Academy graduate, who seems to have forgotten everything he learned. 

The 20th century taught us that peace is a process, achievable first through strength, never through weakness.  We won the Cold War without fighting a third world war because we recognized that.  Ronald Reagan, who barely served in the military, understood the strategy of peace far better than Carter. 

As for the "ideals of peace," those ideals begin with a realistic, mature understanding of how peace is achieved.  They don't begin with adolescent sloganeering.

What an embarrassment Carter is. 

April 24, 2012       Permalink

ANOTHER U.S. FOREIGN-POLICY VICTORY – AT 9:45 A.M. ET:   North Korea continues to laugh at us, signing agreements one day, breaking them the next.  They recently ran a missile test – unsuccessful, fortunately – that flew in the face of their international commitments.  Now a new nuclear test is clearly planned, and there's not a thing we're doing about it.  This is critical, not only because the North Koreans have the bomb, but because they export deadly technology:

(Reuters) - North Korea has almost completed preparations for a third nuclear test, a senior source with close ties to Pyongyang and Beijing told Reuters, which will draw further international condemnation following a failed rocket launch if it goes ahead.

The isolated and impoverished state sacrificed the chance of closer ties with the United States when it launched the long-range rocket on April 13 and was censured by the U.N. Security Council, including the North's sole major ally, China.

Critics say the rocket launch was aimed at honing the North's ability to develop an intercontinental ballistic missile capable of hitting the United States, a move that would dramatically increase its military and diplomatic heft.

Now the North appears to be about to carry out a third nuclear test after two in 2006 and 2009.

"Soon. Preparations are almost complete," the source said when asked whether North Korea was planning to conduct a nuclear test.

This is the first time a senior official has confirmed the planned test and the source has correctly predicted events in the past, telling Reuters about the 2006 test days before it happened.

The rocket launch and nuclear test come as Kim Jong-un, the third of his line to rule North Korea, seeks to cement his grip on power.

COMMENT:  The failures of our North Korea policy were set in concrete during the Clinton administration.  The Clinton crowd actually believed it could reason with the most rogue of the rogue states.  The person in charge of negotiating agreements with North Korea, is now in charge of negotiations with Iran.  They never learn, do they?

And of course another actor played a role...Jimmy Carter, who never met a dictatorship he didn't like.  Jimmy made trips to North Korea and came back smiling.  The people of North Korea never smile.  They're too busy starving.

April 24,  2012     Permalink

SCARE OF THE DAY – AT 8:57 A.M. ET:  Can Republicans lose the House this fall?  It may just be a tactic to get the GOP working harder, but Speaker John Boehner believes his party has a one in three chance of losing the body it now holds.  From Fox:

John Boehner is setting expectations high -- but apparently not too high -- for this year's congressional elections, telling Fox News that the Democrats have a chance of retaking the House.

The House speaker, in an interview with Fox News to air Tuesday morning, gave his Republican Party a "two-in-three chance" of holding on to control of the House after taking power in the 2010 elections.

"But there's a one-in-three chance we could lose," Boehner said. "I'm being myself -- frank. We've got a big challenge, and we've got work to do."

Democrats face an uphill battle in their efforts to take back the House, where Republicans hold a 242-190 seat advantage.

And control of the Senate could be up for grabs this year, too, with Democrats clinging to a fragile six-vote majority. The oddsmakers who track congressional races with obsessive dedication project a handful of pickups for Republicans in the Senate -- but not necessarily enough to get to 51.

In the House, a flurry of redistricting decisions appears to be working as of late in the Democrats' favor, though the chaotic process has stung both parties repeatedly.

The Democrats would need 25 seats in the House to regain the majority -- a very steep climb in a year when neither party is particularly popular. However, Democrats are thought to have far more safe seats than Republicans going into November. Earlier this year, the Rothenberg Political Report projected a Democratic pick-up of between five and 12 seats.

COMMENT:  I sense that many Republicans are asleep in terms of House contests.  The party could be in for a shock.  Many Republicans elected in 2010 are from swing districts.

In the Senate, the withdrawal of moderate Republican Senator Olympia Snowe of Maine has been a big blow to GOP chances of taking control.  Also, the retirement of great Senator Joe Lieberman of Connecticut, now an independent, will probably mean a Dem pickup.  And Scott Brown is far from safe in Massachusetts.

Real work is required, and ideological arguments must be put aside for the general election.

April 24, 2012       Permalink

THE BEAT GOES ON – AT 8:31 A.M. ET:  Romney has essentially captured the Republican nomination, but the race is, technically, still on.  Today is a kind of junior Super Tuesday.  Five states vote:  Connecticut, Delaware, New York, Pennsylvania and Rhode Island.  Romney could really nail it down today.  From Fox: 

Already the presumptive nominee, Mitt Romney could effectively shut out his remaining Republican presidential rivals in the next round of primaries Tuesday and emerge the clear rival to President Obama in November.

The five-state set of primaries Tuesday became decidedly less interesting after Rick Santorum, Romney's top primary opponent, suspended his campaign earlier this month. But the low-key race could set the field for the general election...

...On the Republican side, Romney has the opportunity Tuesday to sideline both Newt Gingrich and Ron Paul.

While Romney will not be able to clinch the nomination outright -- he needs 1,144 delegates to do that, and will not reach that threshold Tuesday -- he could make it mathematically impossible in most scenarios for either of his two remaining opponents to reach that number.

COMMENT:  Romney is the nominee.  Virtually all political buzz is turning to his vice presidential choice, and the extraordinary visibility of Marco Rubio.

April 24,  2012     Permalink

APRIL 23,  2012

SHORT TAKES ON THE DRIFTING WRECKAGE – AT 9:35 P.M. ET:

OH SO SHY – More on Marco Rubio.  He's now announced that he will deliver what is billed as a major foreign-policy speech this Wednesday.  The speech will focus on American global leadership.  This man is not interested in being on the Republican ticket.  We insist on that.  Start laughing.  And get out your Romney/Rubio buttons.

UH, A LITTLE MISTAKE – One of the legendary scaremongers of the global-warming religion, one James Lovelock, is writing a new book, at age 92, admitting that he was an alarmist, and that all of his predictions were wrong.  He says, “The problem is we don’t know what the climate is doing. We thought we knew 20 years ago. That led to some alarmist books – mine included – because it looked clear-cut, but it hasn’t happened."  He points to Al Gore's "An Inconvenient Truth" as another example of alarmism.

"WAR ON WOMEN" CHARGE AGAINST GOP BACKFIRES – The Dems tried to portray Republicans as anti-woman, but most women aren't buying it.  A poll by The Hill reports that 46% of women voters feel Romney better understands their concerns, whereas 41% feel Obama is better.  The poll revealed, not a gender gap, but a marriage gap.  Obama does much better among single women, and Romney much better among married women.

ANOTHER GREAT MOMENT AT THE UN – The UN has decided to investigate the condition of native Americans.  Of course, we have great confidence in the UN and know that it will issue a fair and balanced report.  (Choke.)  Oh, by the way, the guy leading the "research" is a University of Arizona professor of "human rights" who has expressed deep support for native Americans before.  That's fine with me.  We should all support native Americans.  But we know what UN reports are like. 

April 23, 2012       Permalink

SNIPPET OF THE DAY – AT 3:30 P.M. ET:

From The Politico:   John Edwards’s favorability rating stands at a dismal 3 percent, according to a new poll released as the criminal trial of the former presidential candidate is set to begin on Monday.

Wouldn't you love to have a conversation with some of those three percent? 

DEMOCRATS MANNING THE LIFEBOATS – AT 9:52 A.M. ET:  We've reported on the growing list of congressional Dems who are abandoning Obama on the Keystone pipeline issue. 

Now there's another list being written – Dems defecting on Obamacare.  What will this cost the president?  From Investor's Business Daily:

Perhaps Democrats know something the rest of us don't about Barack Obama's political fortunes. What else explains the increasing numbers who are openly defying the president on two key election issues?

The notoriously thin-skinned Obama could not have been happy with the news last week that, as the Hill newspaper put it, "an increasing number of Democrats are taking potshots at President Obama's health care law."

North Carolina's Brad Miller, who voted for the law, now laments that "we would all have been better off" if Congress had dealt with more pressing issues "and then came back to health care."

Barney Frank complained that the Democrats "paid a terrible price for health care." And Virginia's outgoing Sen. Jim Webb said the law would be Obama's "biggest downside" in the election and had cost him "a lot of credibility as a leader."

Meanwhile, stalwart Massachusetts liberal Elizabeth Warren is now calling to repeal a piece of ObamaCare — the 2.3% tax on medical devices — because, she says, it "disproportionately impacts the small companies with the narrowest financial margins."

There are many of those companies in Massachusetts.

Warren, by the way, is running for the Senate seat occupied by Republican Scott Brown, whose victory in 2010 was a result of the public's intense opposition to ObamaCare.

Former Alabama Rep. Artur Davis went furthest. "I think the Affordable Care Act is the single least popular piece of major domestic legislation in the last 70 years," he said. "It was not popular when it passed; it's less popular now." Ouch.

COMMENT:  Republicans can make hay on Obamacare, but only if they come up with a credible alternative that has popular support.  They cannot simply be against something, especially a health-care plan.

Obamacare, Keystone, a stalled economy – there's a laundry list of policies on which Obama is vulnerable.  But you may be sure that his team is working hard on ways to use these issues against Romney.  And the attacks on Romney will be relentless.  My sense is that he's ready.  He's organized an excellent campaign.  This can be won.

April 23, 2012       Permalink

THE MARCO WATCH – AT 9:31 A.M. ET:  We've run a number of items about Marco Rubio because he seems awfully active for a guy who says he's not interested in being vice president.  Clearly, he's on Romney's very short list.  The two, as we reported, will soon campaign together.

Now Rubio is making a daring move.  He's proposing a conservative alternative to the Democratic Dream Act, designed to address the problem of illegal immigration.  He knows it's a risk because there is a militant faction within the GOP that will accept nothing less than deportation of illegals.  But it's absurd to think this country will deport 12 million people, and Rubio knows it.  His proposal is getting scrutiny.  If it gains traction, and pacifies the right, it can put him on the ticket as a great asset on a difficult issue.  From The Politico:

Marco Rubio's version of the DREAM Act has spawned a lot of chatter in Spanish-language media, which is playing up the possibility that some children of illegal immigrants could eventually become citizens under his emerging proposal.

But when asked at a briefing Thursday with English-language reporters if his plan would create a pathway to citizenship, Rubio insisted it wouldn't.

"I think the key difference is it doesn't create a special pathway for citizenship and thereby leads to illegal chain migration," he said of the distinctions between his plan and the Democratic DREAM Act. "What it does it only puts them in the same position as any other holder of a non-immigrant visa, which is the opportunity to avail themselves of the existing legal immigration system whatever that system is at that time when they access it."

Democratic leadership aides said Friday that Rubio seemed to be playing up the citizenship piece with Spanish-language press and downplaying it with English-language media.

But Rubio's office on Friday strongly denied that was the case.

Alex Conant, a Rubio spokesman, said Friday that "there is nothing in his proposal that would prevent these kids from eventually becoming citizens. But unlike the current DREAM Act, it does not create special pathway to citizenship. If these kids want to become citizens, they would have to go through the same process as anyone else and wait in line."

COMMENT:  I think Rubio is on to something here.  His plan looks fair, and, very important, practical.   I also think Rubio would add excitement to the ticket.  And proposing an immigration plan that can attract widespread backing adds substance.  Take the emotional issue of illegal immigration away from Democrats, and the GOP gains considerably.

April 23, 2012       Permalink

ZIMMERMAN FREED – AT 9:06 A.M. ET:  George Zimmerman, the shooter in the Trayvon Martin case, has now been released on $150,000 bail.  There were no violent incidents accompanying his release.

There are also reports from Florida that things have calmed down considerably, now that the legal system has pursued the case and the race hustlers have gone home to hustle someone else.

There may also be a recognition by cooler heads in the African-American community that this case is very complex, and that the charge that the killing of Trayvon Martin was racially motivated doesn't hold up under scrutiny.  Indeed, the charge of second-degree murder against Zimmerman appears to most legal observers to be way over the top. 

What is feared most now is another O.J. Simpson farce, where a jury might be intimidated to vote one way or the other, depending on community pressure.   We'll follow the story closely, in part because any major story involving race can affect the political process.

April 23, 2012        Permalink

SYRIA ALERT – AT 8:40 A.M. ET:  The UN-brokered "ceasefire" in Syria has failed to cease anything, which is fairly typical for UN-brokered agreements.  The violence continues, with high daily death tolls.  Now we're seeing what many observers feared the most, an influx of jihadists who are trying to infiltrate and take over the opposition.  If they succeed, we'll have two bad forces against each other in that critical country.  From the Washington Post:

BEIRUT — As Syria’s revolution drags into its second year amid few signs that a U.N.-mandated cease-fire plan will end the violence, evidence is mounting that Islamist extremists are seeking to commandeer what began as a non-ideological uprising aimed at securing greater political freedom.

Activists and rebel soldiers based inside Syria say a small but growing number of Islamist radicals affiliated with global jihadi movements have been arriving in opposition strongholds in recent weeks and attempting to rally support among disaffected residents.

Western diplomats say they have tracked a steady trickle of jihadists flowing into Syria from Iraq, and Jordan’s government last week detained at least four alleged Jordanian militants accused of trying to sneak into Syria to join the revolutionaries.

And, an interesting take on why the West might want to intervene:

...if the United Nations’ peace plan fails to end the government’s bloody crackdown and promises of Western and Arab help for the rebel Free Syrian Army do not materialize, activists and analysts say, there is a real risk that frustrated members of the opposition will be driven toward extremism, adding a dangerous dimension to a revolt that is threatening to destabilize a wide arc of territory across the Middle East.

“The world doing nothing opens the door for jihadis,” said Lt. Abdullah al-Awdi, a Free Syrian Army commander who defected from the regular army in the summer and was interviewed during a visit he made to Turkey. He says that he has rebuffed several offers of help from militant groups in the form of arms and money and that he fears the extremists’ influence will grow.

COMMENT:  Some members of the U.S. Senate, like John McCain, Joe Lieberman and Lindsey Graham – a heroic trio on foreign policy – have met with elements of the Syrian opposition and are convinced that they are sincere and non-radical.  McCain has argued for military intervention, but has gotten indifference from the administration.

This is coming to a head.  If Assad stays in power in Syria, Iran, Syria's ally, will have won a great victory.  But if the opposition is indeed radicalized because of the West's failure to help it, we lose that way, too. 

Decisions are difficult because the Mideast is a mess, there is deception everywhere, and the United States is weakened under Obama.  But some kind of intervention is going to be necessary soon to prevent an absolute disaster in which we lose no matter who wins.

April 23,  2012     Permalink