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.)a

SUBSCRIPTION DRIVE - FOUR MORE DAYS, GETTING SLUGGISH

DAY 18

We have four days to go, and things are slowing down.  We'd love to build our subscription drive to a terrific ending.  So, please help out.  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 22,  2011

TEXT OF OUR LIVE-BLOGGING OF THE GOP DEBATE IN ORLANDO:

COMMENT:  Advantage Romney.  It wasn't a knockout, but Romney won on points.  Perry did not do what he had to do, which was to break out as a truly national candidate.  But I don't think it was enough of a Romney victory to change the polls all that much immediately.   However, those who counted Romney out when Perry jumped into the race were clearly wrong.   

10:51 P.M. ET:  The debate is winding down and getting tired.  And now it abrupty ends.

10:47 P.M. ET:  Discussion turns to who the candidates would pick as running mates.  Silly stuff. 

They're on another break.  Only 15 minutes to go.

10:40 P.M. ET:  Back to the economy.  Each candidate is given a chance to say how he, or she, would lead.  And, you know, they're all pretty good.  These are set pieces.  Gary Johnson gives the best line of the night:  "My neighbor's two dogs have created more shovel-ready jobs than this administration."  Great laugh.  Not much happening in this round.  People are looking at their watches.

They're on another commercial break.  I still think Romney is ahead, but the last segment was confusing because of all the separate questions.  Also, we're now at the 90-minute (slightly more) mark, and a debate starts to get tiresome after about 75 minutes.  I think any impressions that are going to be made tonight have already been made. 

10:24 P.M. ET:  Discussing health care.  Perry once again defends an attempt to require an anti-cancer vaccine for girls.  He's effective and sounds compassionate, which he actually is.  It's one of his strongest traits, but it doesn't come across often enough.  Romney up, defending his Massachusetts health plan.  Now Perry snaps back, and strongly attacks Romney as someone who changes his views.  Tough attack.  Romney deflects it and turns his guns on Perry, accusing him also of flip-flopping.  I'll call this a draw.

10:15 P.M. ET:  Now they're talking about church and state.  Bachmann defends a Jeffersonian view.  And now they're talking about "don't ask, don't tell."  And now, sigh, they're talking about abortion.  Once again, the format has shifted to each candidate getting a different question, so it's confusing.  The mind starts to wander. 

10:02 P.M. ET:  Foreign policy is the subject.  Romney strongly defends our alliance with Israel, and raps Obama.  Herman Cain echoes Romney.  Perry now speaking about Pakisan, and he speaks knowledgeably.  He's done homework, and that is commendable.  Santorum up.  He's very strong on foreign policy, and takes a traditional, and good, hawkish line.  It's a strange format at this point because each candidate is being asked a different question.  I'd like to hear them answer the same question. 

They're on another commercial break.  I still think Romney has the edge in this debate, and it may be more than an edge.  I repeat my earlier feeling that he's beating Perry in the "confidence" factor.

9:47 P.M. ET:  Talking immigration.  Lots of red meat here.  Romney attacks Perry's Texas plan to provide in-state college tuition rates for illegal immigrants.  Again, he has detailed figures.  Now Perry is up.  His somewhat liberal immigration policy is controversial, possibly his Achilles heel within the Republican Party.  (Is he soft on illegal immigration?)  Perry, though, gives an effective reply, defending giving those tuition breaks.  But Rick Santorum points out that the tuition breaks give an unfair advantage to the illegals.  Perry replies, but doesn't reply to the issue, saying he'll put boots on the border if he's president.  It was an okay answer, but not great.

9:37 P.M. ET:  Debate now turns to federal education policy.  Usual conservative talk, much of it good.  But now Perry claims Romney is in favor of Obama's education policy.  Romney deflects, and lays out an education program.  Again, Romney has organized his thinking in an effective manner, and he continues to defeat Perry.  Bachmann and Cain speak about education, but our minds, I think, are focused on the two frontrunners.s

9:32 P.M. ET:  Romney up again.  Strong statement on his economic philosophy.  Now Huntsman is up.  Again, there's just a lack of impact, and no personality.  Herman Cain goes.  You have to give Herman credit, he's a great entertainer.  Has some good ideas.  But he won't get the nomination. 

9:28 P.M. ET:  Perry up, asked about Social Security.  Claims he doesn't want it returned to the states.  Romney replies, challenges strongly what Perry said, quoting Perry's recent book.  Advantage, Romney.  But now Perry responds.  And he catches Romney in a contradiction.  Romney responds, again in detail.  Romney is beating Perry.  He's got a grasp of information.

They're on a commercial break.  So far, no great fireworks, but I think Romney has the edge.  He's been aggressive and detailed.  I would say, without too much analysis, that average voters could easily feel that he, more than the others, deserves their confidence.  That is only my impression thus far.

9:15 P.M. ET:  Huntsman up.  I just find him boring.  He has this image of the "responsible" candidate, but I see a kind of shallowness.  He never seems passionate about anything.  Herman Cain is up.  You can't dislike the guy.  He has an economic plan, but it seems awfully oriented to companies.  To the voters' ears, that may not click.  Romney responds to an attack by Cain, and, once again, gives specifics.  We can't examine every aspect of his plan here, but at least he speaks in specifics, and appears to know his subjects.  That, I think, is why he's approaching Perry in some polls. 

9:09 P.M. ET:  Bachmann up, says Americans should keep every cent of what they earn, but that some has to go for taxes for the services they want.  Sensible answer, but nothing special.  Santorum and Gingrich speaks.  They have some interesting ideas, but they're not going to be nominated.  The debate is cluttered/

9:06 P.M. ET:  Perry starts by talking about what he's done for jobs in Texas.  Fine, but, again, too much Texas.  He's running for president.  Romney up now.  Gives specific ideas, whether good or bad, and gives national answers.   

9:01 P.M. ET:  Bret Baier of Fox News is introducing the candidates.  There is one new guy – former Governor Gary Johnson of New Mexico.  There are nine candidates in all, too many, really, for a good debate, but we work with what we have.

WE ARE NOW STARTING OUR LIVE BLOGGING OF THE REPUBLICAN DEBATE FROM ORLANDO

September 22, 2011       Permalink

ROMNEY BOOSTED BY NEW GALLUP POLL – AT 7:55 P.M. ET:  This is being written about an hour before tonight's Republican debate from Orlando (9 P.M. ET, on Fox).  Universally, across the web and on TV, pundits are saying how important this particular debate is, because there's going to be a lot of shaking out.  It's understood that Rick Perry will come out swinging, replying to the attacks on him.

A new Gallup poll just out gives comfort to Mitt Romney and outlines the challenge that Perry faces in proving that he's an electable candidate:

PRINCETON, NJ -- More registered voters say they would definitely vote for Mitt Romney or might consider doing so (62%) than say the same about his two main rivals in the 2012 presidential election, Democrat Barack Obama (54%) and Republican Rick Perry (53%).

Though Romney currently receives the highest level of consideration among voters, more say they would "definitely vote for" Obama (33%) than say this about either Romney (21%) or Perry (20%). That may reflect the virtual certainty that Obama will be the Democratic candidate for president, while Republicans' loyalties are divided between their two leading contenders.

That dynamic is apparent in the higher percentage of Democratic registered voters who say they definitely would vote for Obama (70%) than of Republican registered voters who would definitely vote for either of the main Republican contenders (41% for Perry and 44% for Romney). Once the Republican nominee is decided, the percentage of Republicans who say they would definitely vote for that candidate should increase significantly.

COMMENT:  Voters, in my view, are looking for an economic leader, and that notion will probably grow as the economy weakens even further.  Just look at the panic in the markets today.  Romney might look better and better.  I say "might" because he can falter, or attacks on his record can take their toll.

Watch the debate.  Should be fascinating. 

And the lingering question:  Will Sarah Palin get in?  She could pull votes from Perry, enough to make Romney the frontrunner again. 

This ain't over.  It ain't even begun.

September 22, 2011       Permalink

GRIMNESS, GRIMNESS, GRIMNESS – AT 10:01 A.M. ET:  Sure, we're in an economic recovery.  Can't you see it everywhere?  From The New York Times: 

Global stock markets tumbled Thursday as investor pessimism about the outlook for the United States and European economies was deepened by weak data for the euro zone and a grim assessment from the Federal Reserve.

“Today, we really seem to be stuck in a negative spiral,” said Matthias Jasper, head of equities at WGZ Bank in Düsseldorf. “Investors just want to keep their exposure low and watch from the sidelines.”

In the opening minutes of Wall Street trading, the Dow Jones industrial average was down 301.06, or 2.7 percent, 10.823.78. The Standard & Poor’s 500-stock index lost 2.6 percent, and the Nasdaq composite was down 2.7 percent.

In afternoon trading Thursday in Europe, the benchmark Euro Stoxx 50 index, the FTSE 100 in London and the CAC-40 in Paris were all down between 4 and 5 percent.

And this, from Bloomberg:

More Americans than forecast filed first-time claims for unemployment insurance payments last week as the labor market struggled to improve.

Applications for jobless benefits decreased 9,000 in the week ended Sept. 17 to 423,000, Labor Department figures showed today. Economists forecast 420,000 claims, according to the median estimate in a Bloomberg News survey. The average number of claims in the past month rose for a fifth straight week, to the highest level since July 16.

An elevated level of dismissals raises the odds U.S. companies may put off plans to increase employment, making it difficult for joblessness to fall below 9 percent. Citing ongoing weakness in the labor market, Federal Reserve policy makers announced yesterday they would use another unconventional monetary tool to spur economic growth and job gains.

“These numbers are consistent with a job market that is essentially in suspended animation,” said Brian Jones, an economist Societe Generale in New York, who correctly forecast the level of claims. “Anything that the Fed does to help the economy should help the labor market, but it takes time. We’ve got to see job growth before we can get more demand.”

COMMENT:  It gets more and more grim.  The administration is clueless, and, frankly, I'm not sure the Republicans have any great answers.  We seem to be in uncharted territory.

All this agony will undoubtedly come up at the Republican debate tonight.  It is in the area of "business" that Romney has his advantage.  We'll see if he can exploit it.

September 22, 2011        Permalink

ROMNEY ON THE ATTACK – AT 9:25 A.M. ET:  Romney and Perry are going at each other, but Romney's attacks are more concentrated and seem better organized.  He is hitting Perry on the electability question, clearly one of Perry's major problems:

Mitt Romney is leaning into an unapologetically process-focused sales pitch ahead of Thursday night’s debate, urging Republican primary voters to consider which of their party’s candidate’s is really capable of defeating Barack Obama.

In a USA Today interview published on the morning of the debate, Romney voiced concern that Perry’s “disconcerting” position on Social Security would hobble him against Obama.

And during a campaign stop in Florida yesterday, Romney explained in frankly tactical terms that he aims to win support beyond “the base of our party.”

“I also want to get independents and women generally and a lot of Democrats to say, ‘Yeah, he’s a pretty good guy, too,’” Romney told voters, according to the Boston Globe.

Romney’s former rival-turned-campaign co-chairman, Tim Pawlenty, also took to the pages of POLITICO to make this argument for nominating Romney: “We have to win.”

“For conservatives to lead America to a brighter future — it’s mission critical that our candidate win the election,” Pawlenty wrote. Romney can. And when he does — America’s future will be immeasurably better as a result.”

Romney supporters have hoped for some time that GOP primary voters would recognize Perry’s potential limitations as a general election candidate. Now, Romney and his surrogates are making the electability argument more openly than ever.

Perry fights back by hitting Romney's vulnerability, the idea that he's not a true conservative Republican:

ORLANDO -- In the hours before another high-profile Republican debate, Texas Gov. Rick Perry is leveling some of the campaign's sharpest rhetoric yet at rival Mitt Romney. In an interview with Fox News' Sean Hannity Wednesday night, Perry said Republicans "don't need to nominate Obama lite -- someone who's going to blur the lines between President Obama and our nominee."

COMMENT:  Ouch!  That may be a bit over the top, but it does show one thing about Perry that no one can deny, and that I like – he's a gut fighter.  If he gets the nomination, he wont take a punch without throwing one back.  It'd going to be a very dirty campaign, and Perry is not known as a wimp.

September 22, 2011       Permalink

POLL STUNNER – AT 8:43 A.M. ET:  We caution that this is one poll, and that New Hampshire cannot be counted as typical because Mitt Romney, former governor of neighboring Massachusetts, is so well known there.  Still, these results from a respected survey are raising eyebrows across the political internet:

Former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney has surged among Republican voters in New Hampshire, and Rick Perry is a distant fourth, according to a Suffolk University/7NEWS (WHDH TV) poll of likely voters in New Hampshire’s GOP presidential primary.

Romney has opened up a 27-point lead over his nearest rival in New Hampshire, and pundits may have to rethink predictions of a two-man GOP race between Romney and Perry.

Romney (41 percent) gained 5 points since June, followed by Ron Paul (14 percent), and Jon Huntsman (10 percent). Huntsman and Paul gained 6 percent each since the last poll.

The single-digit tier consisted of Perry (8 percent), Sarah Palin (6 percent), Michele Bachmann (5 percent), and Newt Gingrich (4 percent), while Rick Santorum and Buddy Roemer each received 1 percent. Eleven percent of likely New Hampshire GOP primary voters were undecided.

“Mitt Romney is saying ‘get out of my back yard’ and making New Hampshire his strong firewall despite showing some weakness in the other states’ early primaries,” said David Paleologos, director of Suffolk University’s Political Research Center. “The anti-Romney candidate at this point could be either Ron Paul, who has polled consistently over the past year, or Jon Huntsman, whose numbers are really growing in the Granite State.”

COMMENT:  The question, of course, is why Perry is so weak.  New Hampshire is a New England state, and Perry must show strength in different sections of the country to convince the party's voters that he deserves the nomination.

It's best to withhold judgment until we see some polling from other northern states, especially across the Midwestern industrial belt, or what used to be the industrial belt.  But this poll should remind Perry of what he must do.

September 22, 2011       Permalink

RUMBLE TONIGHT, BE THERE – AT 8:21 A.M. ET:  Big Republican debate tonight in Orlando, sponored by Fox News and Google.  This is the most anticipated of the GOP debates so far.

It's the most anticipated because the public is getting to know the candidates and has made Rick Perry the frontrunner, but there are serious questions about his electability  The party expects Perry to answer those questions tonight.  If he can't, he might start to run into headwinds. 

Perry is still getting his campaign legs.  He still doesn't seem all that comfortable on the national stage.   He made a strong speech on the Mideast yesterday, but he read it rather than delivered it, and it was pretty clear from the phrasing that he didn't write it. 

The conventional wisdom is that Romney can only catch up to Perry if Perry fumbles badly, and I think that wisdom is correct.  In addition, it's now generally believed that the GOP field is complete...except for the possibility of Sarah Palin jumping in.  She is teasing the press every day with hints that she might, but she's also suggesting that she doesn't have to decide until November, which I think would be a mistake.

No Republican candidate has been able to connect personally, emotionally, with the electorate, or enough of the electorate to have a shot at victory.  But give that time.  People forget that Ronald Reagan didn't make that connection, and begin to bond with the public, until well into the general election campaign.

I'll be watching and live-blogging tonight's debate.  I hope you join us.

September 22, 2011     Permalink

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