Please note that you can leave a comment on any of our posts at our Facebook page.  Subscribers can also comment at length at our Angel's Corner Forum.

OCTOBER 8,  2014

SHORT TAKES ON THE DRIFTING WRECKAGE – AT 11:52 P.M. ET: 

SOBER – From the Washington Times:  "The Pentagon on Wednesday made the sobering prediction that more towns in Syria and Iraq will fall to the Islamic State in the coming weeks, and that air power alone is not going to be enough to prevent the fall of the Syrian city of Kobani near the Turkish border.  It also raised the prospect of Islamic State terrorists marching on Baghdad, a fear that lawmakers and former top military officials say can only be addressed by ground forces."  Interesting that the assessment came from the Pentagon, not the White House.  I wonder if it had White House approval.  I get the sense that it's now every man for himself in the administration.  No one wants to be blamed for the impending disaster in Syria and Iraq. 

THE ADMIRAL OF THE FLEET SPEAKS – From The Politico:  "Former President Jimmy Carter is criticizing President Barack Obama’s Middle East policy, saying he has shifting policies and waited too long to take action against the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant.  In an interviewed published Tuesday in the Fort Worth Star-Telegram, the 39th president said the Obama administration, by not acting sooner, allowed ISIL to build up its strength."  We eagerly awaited this military briefing from the admiral.  You think he means it?  Or is he only saying these things because Obama never calls him?

NANCY WHO? – From National Journal:  "House Republicans have surprising new company in attacking Nancy Pelosi: her fellow House Democrats.  Three Democrats running in GOP-leaning House districts have used late-stage television ads in a bid to distance themselves from the liberal leader of Democrats' House caucus—the same caucus they're fighting to join in 2015.  'Here's what I believe: Congress is broken,' says Gwen Graham, one of the Democratic Party's top recruits, in a recent TV ad as a photo of Pelosi and House Speaker John Boehner flashes on the screen. 'Both parties—Republican and Democrat—are to blame. And both need new leaders in Washington.'"  They're running from Obama.  They're running from Pelosi.  Soon they'll be embracing photos of FDR and Harry Truman.

MASSACHUSETTS? – From NRO:  "Massachusetts Democratic gubernatorial candidate Martha Coakley may be seeing another election slipping away from her. The state attorney general, who lost to Republican Scott Brown in Massachusetts’s 2010 special Senate election, is trailing her opponent by her largest margin yet in the latest poll.  Republican businessman Charlie Baker leads Coakley by six percentage points among likely voters, according to a new Emerson College/WGBH poll. The survey shows Coakley under 40 percent in the deep-blue state, garnering just 39 percent to Baker’s 45 percent."  Even Massachusetts grows up.

October 8, 2014       Permalink

SOURNESS ON OBAMACARE – AT 10:21 A.M. ET:   In this midterm election, Obamacare may only count for three or four points, but those points are almost certainly going to be counted for the Republicans.  The program is losing support even in Obama's own party.   From Breitbart: 

A Gallup poll released Wednesday finds that the number of Democrats who say Obamacare has hurt them more than doubled in the last five months.

In May, just 6% of Democrats said Obamacare hurt them. Now, 15% of Democrats polled said Obamacare hurt them.

Equally troubling for Democrats, the poll found that only 27% of Democrats say Obamacare has helped them, a slight 4% increase since May. Overall, more than one in five Democrats (21%) said in the long run Obamacare will "make things worse."

Nationally, Americans remain sour on Obamacare. When Gallup asked, "In the long run, how do you think the healthcare law will affect the healthcare situation in the U.S.?" 46% of Americans said Obamacare would "make things worse" versus 36% who said it would "make things better."

Gallup concluded: "Americans' views toward the law overall and its effect on the U.S. healthcare situation in the long run continue to be more negative than positive."

COMMENT:  And this is considered Obama's big achievement.  But Republicans must be more creative in running against Obamacare and proposing practical solutions of their own.  Simply saying "no" may not be enough to keep this a winning issue.

October 8, 2014       Permalink

POTENTIAL BIG TROUBLE – AT 9:51 A.M. ET:  South Dakota has been declared "in the bag" for the Republican Senate candidate this year, a GOP pickup.  But there's potential trouble.  An independent candidate, former Republican Senator Larry Pressler, is gaining rapidly.

Pressler once represented South Dakota in the Senate as a Republican.  In recent years he has changed, and endorsed Barack Obama in 2008 and 2012.  It's possible many votes still think he's a Republican.  From The Hill: 

South Dakota Republican Senate candidate Mike Rounds is looking increasingly vulnerable as another poll shows independent Larry Pressler surging and now trailing him by just two points.

The poll, conducted by Survey USA for the American News, KSFY TV and KOTA TV, gives Rounds, a former South Dakota governor, 35 percent support. Pressler, a former U.S. senator, takes 32 percent support among likely voters.

Democrat Rick Weiland gets 28 percent in the poll, and independent Gordon Howie draws three percent support.

That's a marked improvement for Pressler from the last Survey USA poll, conducted in early September, which gave him a quarter of the vote. Meanwhile Rounds has lost four percent support, and Weiland and Howie haven't moved.

Pressler ran as a Republican when he served as a U.S. senator between 1979 and 1997, but he endorsed Barack Obama for president in 2008 and 2012.

And it aligns with other recent polling, with two surveys out in late September giving Pressler about a quarter of the vote and showing Rounds dropping below 40 percent support.

COMMENT:   If Pressler can pull it out, I see virtually no chance for the Republicans to take the Senate.  But that's a big "if."  The GOP people will now probably open up on Pressler, centering the attack on his support for Obama.

However, remember that South Dakota is the state that gave us George McGovern.  They do crazy things there.

October 8, 2014       Permalink

FAILING AGAINST ISIS? – AT 9:14 A.M. ET:  Still again, the Washington Post shows that it has the best, most adult, liberal editorial page around.  The Post questions Field Marshal Obama's strategy in fighting the Islamic State, and suggests that we're losing: 

TWO MONTHS after the United States began airstrikes in Iraq, and two weeks after they were extended into Syria, the forces of the Islamic State are still advancing. Last week they captured the Iraqi towns of Hit and Kubaisa, northwest of Baghdad. On Tuesday they appeared close to overrunning Kobane, a strategic city on the border between Syria and Turkey that is populated by Kurds. The enemy victories are happening in spite of U.S. and allied airstrikes and resistance from local forces. They suggest that the U.S. air campaign is failing to achieve the minimal aim of stopping the expansion of the Islamic State — much less “degrading” and “destroying” it.

Why can’t the U.S.-led coalition prevent a ragtag insurgent army from overrunning large towns? The answers speak to the limitations imposed on the military campaign by President Obama as well as the continuing political complications of fighting the Islamic State. Military analysts point out that U.S. strikes on Islamic State forces around Kobane have come late and in small handfuls — not enough, as of Tuesday, to turn back thousands of fighters armed with tanks and artillery. In contrast with the successful 2002 air campaign against the Taliban in Afghanistan, U.S. pilots cannot rely on Special Forces spotters to identify targets. Mr. Obama has ruled out such ground personnel despite requests from military commanders...

...Independent military analysts believe that, in addition to targeting Kobane and towns in western Iraq, the Islamic State is readying a full-scale assault on Baghdad. To turn back the offensive, U.S. forces will need to step up the tempo of operations and react more quickly to movements on the ground, which will be difficult without ground personnel. Turkey, with its powerful army, must be brought into the fight, and that will require U.S.-Turkish agreement on a strategy for dealing with the Assad regime.

For now, the U.S. operation in Iraq and Syria is defined mainly by its limitations. The restrictions Mr. Obama has imposed on his commanders are not compatible with the objectives he has asked them to achieve.

COMMENT:  The question before the house, of course, is whether Obama cares, or is simply launching token strikes to look tough during an election campaign. 

What happens after the campaign?  What happens if ISIS makes great strides and threatens to take Baghdad.  Will Obama get behind a more serious military effort, or will he announce that our allies have failed and that Americans are fed up with the Mideast?  Will we have some kind of victory, or the virtual collapse of American foreign policy?

October 8, 2014        Permalink

QUOTE OF THE DAY – THE PATRIOTS – AT 8:46 A.M. ET:  The big buzz, as all of you know, is about Leon Panetta's new book, "Worthy Fights," and the extraordinary interview he gave last night to Bill O'Reilly, in which Panetta, somewhat diplomatically, devastated Barack Obama's style of "leadership."  But Panetta follows two others, Robert Gates, like Panetta a former secretary of defense, and Hillary Clinton, former secretary of state and probable Democratic nominee for president.  All have raised the gravest questions about their commander-in-chief. 

The Obamans are striking back, questioning the character Panetta, in particular, and the judgment of the others.  Is it fair?  Do you attack a god when he's still doing his god act?  But Ed Rogers, at WaPo, has a superb reply to the defenders: 

Perhaps Panetta, Gates and Clinton are telling those who still serve in government that President Obama’s biases and instincts need to be challenged. The few adults left in the administration should not roll over, and the Republican opposition needs to be constantly vigilant in order to try to shape a more protective American national security posture. Maybe Panetta, Gates and Clinton are putting loyalty to a country at risk ahead of deference to the president who appointed them.

All three knew their disclosures would be flashpoints in the media and that many would find fault in their decision to go public. Gates and Panetta have both held their last government jobs, they don’t need the money and they don’t have an agenda beyond contributing to the historical record. Clinton may have a more tangled mix of motives behind her latest book, but the points she makes are still valid when reinforced by Gates and Panetta.

The bottom line is that all three have made it clear: There are problems within the Obama administration, and they saw those problems up close. As Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal told Milbank, “Secretary Panetta and others are echoing what is obvious from the outside, but it’s more powerful when it’s coming from people on the inside.”

COMMENT:  Well said.  Obama has been badly damaged by Panetta's revelations.   Most Americans may not be following this story, but the powers in Washington are eating it up.  Our regret is that, for two more years, Barack Hussein Obama Jr. will be running the foreign policy of the United States.

October 8,  2014     Permalink

OCTOBER 7,  2014

SHORT TAKES ON THE DRIFTING WRECKAGE – AT 11:58 P.M. ET: 

NO CONFIDENCE – From Breitbart:  "A new survey released by CNBC reports just 24% of Americans are confident in the President's economic leadership. Support for Obama's economic leadership, moreover, is 15 points lower than it was in August 2010, just a few months before the GOP wave swept through Congress. Obama's low marks comes even as the poll found a slight increase in American's optimism about the economy.   Last week, Fox News analyst Juan Williams suggested that the 'improving' economy could bolster Obama and the Democrats in the upcoming midterm elections. The CNBC survey should put that notion to rest. Just 45% of Democrats report they are confident in Obama's economic policies."  The public has truly turned on Obama.

THE PROGRESS OF ISIS – From The Hill:  "Joint Chiefs of Staff General Martin Dempsey said Tuesday that he's 'fearful' ISIS terrorists are about to take over Kobani, a city located in Syria near the Turkey border.  'I am fearful that Kobani will fall,' Dempsey told ABC News’s Martha Raddatz in an interview regarding Islamic State in Iraq and Syria (ISIS) terrorists.  Administration officials are concerned that if ISIS takes Kobani, they could make inroads into Turkey."  Dempsey also expressed the fear that, if ISIS takes Kobani, there would be a bloodbath, with residents of the city massacred.

YOU CAN'T MAKE THIS UP – From the Washington Times:  "President Obama raised money Tuesday from wealthy Democrats who have benefited from his policies and warned supporters in an email that if Republicans win both houses of Congress in the midterm elections 'the interests of billionaires will come before the needs of the middle class.'"  I guess some billionaires are more equal than other billionaires.

THIS IS A CRISIS? – From the New York Post:  "NBC is holding crisis meetings over the future of 'Nightly News With Brian Williams' after rival ABC’s 'World News Tonight with David Muir' scored a historic ratings win.  For the week of Sept. 29, ABC’s newscast scored an across-the-board win in total viewers — 8.4 million — as well as the golden demos, adults 25 to 54 and adults aged 18 to 49. NBC’s 'Nightly News' trailed with 8.2 million viewers.  Sources tell us that after the release of the figures Tuesday, 'the NBC News morning call was very somber. A meeting was held with the "Nightly News" executive producer to try to motivate the staff. There will be further crisis meetings.'”  Do you think, maybe, that NBC should concentrate on better journalism?  Might help the ratings.  It also might want to abolish MSNBC, whose leftist image has damaged NBC News.

October 7, 2014       Permalink

THESE NASTY FACTS, THEY'RE SO UPSETTING – AT 8:31 A.M. ET:  Day by day, the global warming arguments are crumbling.  From Newsmax:   

The deep ocean may not be hiding heat after all, raising new questions about why global warming appears to have slowed in recent years, said the US space agency Monday.

Scientists have noticed that while greenhouse gases have continued to mount in the first part of the 21st century, global average surface air temperatures have stopped rising along with them, said NASA.

Some studies have suggested that heat is being absorbed temporarily by the deep seas, and that this so-called global warming hiatus is a temporary trend.

But latest data from satellite and direct ocean temperature measurements from 2005 to 2013 "found the ocean abyss below 1.24 miles (1,995 meters) has not warmed measurably," NASA said in a statement.

The findings present a new puzzle to scientists, but co-author Josh Willis of NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory (JPL) said the reality of climate change is not being thrown into doubt.

"The sea level is still rising," said Willis.

"We're just trying to understand the nitty-gritty details."

COMMENT:  Oh, those little details.  Well, I'll tell you something, Brother Willis.  You get those details nailed down before you ask us, the American people, to spend trillions of dollars, based on your "research."  Because, frankly, that research isn't adding up.

Oh, and by the way, Willis, we were told that "global warming" would cause all kinds of weather havoc.  Well, this year not a single hurricane hit the Atlantic Coast of the United States.  Not one.  Explain please.

October 7, 2014        Permalink

I THINK SHE'S RIGHT – AT 8:04 A.M. ET:  Sometimes public figures have the courage to say what many of the rest of us are thinking.  From Mediaite: 

Senator Kelly Ayotte (R-NH) told Fox News Sunday that she worried President Barack Obama was only confronting ISIS to help Democrats in the upcoming midterms, and that he would ease up on the Sunni militants after the election.

“I think we have a problem where the president’s foreign policy is being trapped by his campaign rhetoric,” Ayotte said. “I’m very fearful as we look at the current military strategy that it is surrounding the November elections, and he won’t have the resolve to follow through with what needs to be done in a sustained effort to destroy ISIS.”

“Are you suggesting that after the November election, and acting tough and talking tough, that he’s gonna pull back from confronting ISIS?” host Chris Wallace asked.

“I’m very concerned about that, and his resolve in this regard,” Ayotte said.

COMMENT:  Anyone who knows Obama's devious history has to be concerned.  For the next step in any legitimate fight against the Islamic State will inevitably involve ground action.  Who would supply the troops?  It's becoming evident that the Arab contribution to the struggle, currently limited to air strikes, has been minor.  A token, really.

Joe Biden made some blunt comments about our Arab "allies" in recent days, and had to apologize for them.  He had to apologize for being correct.   Some of our "allies" are part of the problem, not part of the solution.  Obama, the most pro-Muslim president we've ever had, probably forced the apology.

The election is four weeks from today.  After that, Barack Obama's campaign obligations to the Democratic Party will be over.  He may well throw his party under the same bus where many of his former friends and allies lie.  It's all about Barack and his exalted thoughts.

I'm worried.  We should all be worried.

October 7, 2014       Permalink

HILLARY'S PROBLEM – AT 7:53 A.M. ET:  Related to the post just below, Hillary Clinton is facing a challenge from the left, not only politically but financially.  From The Politico: 

Hillary Clinton is facing the beginnings of a backlash from rich liberals unhappy with her positions on litmus test issues and her team’s efforts to lock up the Democratic presidential nomination before the contest starts.

Elizabeth Warren says she’s not running, but donors are pledging big money to get her to reconsider. Joe Biden, Martin O’Malley and Jim Webb have found polite and occasionally receptive audiences among potential sugar daddies. Even Bernie Sanders has support from some wealthy donors.

Clinton is seen by some liberals as too hawkish, too close to Wall Street and insufficiently aggressive on fighting climate change, income inequality and the role of money in politics. Those are animating causes for many rich Democrats, and some are eager for a candidate or candidates to challenge Clinton on those issues, if only to force her to the left.

“I have talked to large donors who are not happy with what Hillary represents,” said Guy Saperstein, a San Francisco lawyer and part owner of the Oakland A’s. “But they’re not going to stick their heads up above the ramparts right now and get shot at.”

Saperstein provided seed funding to a super PAC launched this summer to try to draft Warren into the presidential race and pledged $1 million if the Massachusetts senator decides to run. The super PAC is hiring staffers in key primary states and recently enlisted a fundraising firm to solicit donors.

COMMENT:  The hypocrisy flows.   Here are rich donors who use their money grandly in politics, and they express concern about the influence of money in politics.  Do they know what they sound like?

And Hillary is too hawkish?  She's more hawkish than Obama, but that's not a high standard.  Snow White is more hawkish than Obama.  Do these wealthy donors have any idea what's happening in the world, or are they so obsessed with impressing the smart set with their multiculturalism and "deep personal commitment" to some vague notion of "peace"?

October 7, 2014       Permalink

TOEING THE LINE – AT 7:45 A.M. ET:  Looks like Hillary Clinton is back toeing the Obama line on foreign policy.  She's probably guarding against a challenge in 2016 from her party's powerful left wing.  From The Hill: 

Former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said Monday that military force is a necessary part of the “long-term struggle” between the U.S. and the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria (ISIS or ISIL), according to a report.

Clinton said at an event in Ottawa that because ISIS’s mission is “expansionary” in nature — and because the group seems interested in embedding militants in the countries it opposes — she supports military action.

The former senator and top diplomat and likely 2016 presidential candidate also took issue with ISIS’s preferred name, the Islamic State.

"Whether you call them ISIS or ISIL, I refuse to call them the Islamic State, because they are neither Islamic nor a state," Clinton said, echoing comments that President Obama has made about the group.

Hmm.  They seem pretty similar in Islamic values to some countries we know.  And they're actually holding and governing territory. 

Clinton said in her recent memoir that she had advocated for the U.S. to arm rebels in Syria in the early days of the country’s civil war, but that the president ultimately disagreed. Some have argued that aiding moderate rebels could have made it harder for ISIS gain such a foothold in Syria.

COMMENT:  Clinton is now proceeding with more care.  She doesn't need Obama against her if she goes for the nomination in 2016.

October 7,  2014     Permalink