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 15,  2014

SHORT TAKES ON THE DRIFTING WRECKAGE – AT 11:55 P.M. ET: 

GOP PROSPECTS SEEM SOLID – From ABC:  "A ‘CRISIS OF CONFIDENCE’: Barack Obama and his political party are heading into the midterm elections in trouble. The president’s 40 percent job approval rating in a new ABC News-Washington Post poll is the lowest of his career – and the Democratic Party’s popularity is its weakest in polling back 30 years, with more than half of Americans seeing the party unfavorably for the first time, according to ABC News Pollster GARY LANGER. The Republican Party is even more unpopular. But benefiting from their supporters’ greater likelihood of voting, GOP candidates nonetheless hold a 50-43 percent lead among likely voters for U.S. House seats in the Nov. 4 election. These and other results are informed by an array of public concerns on issues from the economy to international terrorism to the Ebola virus, crashing into a long-running crisis of confidence in the nation’s political leadership. Almost two-thirds say the country is headed seriously off on the wrong track."  I'm becoming guardedly optimistic, but prefer to make my predictions the day after the election.

AND IN THE NUT FACTORY – From AP:  "UNITED NATIONS (AP) — Turkey is in a 'very tight race' with Spain and New Zealand for one of two available seats on the UN Security Council.  The UN General Assembly’s 193 member states will vote Thursday to elect five new members to the UN’s most powerful body and Venezuela’s socialist government is virtually certain to win because it is unopposed for the single seat allocated to Latin America and the Caribbean.  Angola is the only candidate for an African seat and Malaysia has no opposition for a single seat for Asia, so their victories are also virtually assured.  That means all eyes will be on New Zealand, Spain and Turkey, who are competing for two seats representing the Western group of nations."  Western?  Did they say Western?  Since when is Turkey a Western nation?  It's an Islamic nation, and one that routinely throws journalists in jail.  So we may well have Venezuela, Malaysia and Turkey on the UN Security Council.  Isn't that exciting?  The UN is already a joke, and determined to be even funnier in the future.  Maybe it's time for a League of Democracies. 

COLOSSAL NEWS BULLETIN – We're putting everything else aside to contemplate the significance of this.  From The Wall Street Journal:  "Mayor Bill de Blasio’s administration is exploring new ways to regulate the size of large sugary drinks in New York City, holding high-level meetings behind closed doors with health advocates and beverage industry executives.  'Mayor de Blasio has made clear he supports a ban on large sugary drinks,' his spokesman, Phil Walzak, said on Thursday. 'The administration is currently considering plans on the best way to reach that goal.'  The administration’s talks with lobbyists could revive an issue championed by Mr. de Blasio’s predecessor, Michael Bloomberg , who oversaw a sugary drink ban in 2012 that was eventually overturned by the courts."  Did you know that large sugary drinks are made even more harmful by global warming?  Yes, it's true.  Only flat Earthers believe otherwise.  Let's get rid of them.

OBITUARY – From Deadline.com:  "The first time it went out with a bang — this time it went out with a whimper; CNN’s Crossfire is no more. Again. The show had been missing in action for weeks and already some of its co-hosts — Stephanie Cutter, Newt Gingrich, S.E. Cupp and Van Jones — have been popping up as contributors around the network’s landscape. Some staff have been moved to other programs, and the remainder have been encouraged to apply for open positions within the bureau, source say — surprising, given that CNN is in the process of slashing about 300 positions."  I actually thought it was pretty good.  Newt is always fascinating, a true man of ideas.  He'd be good on his own.

October 15, 2014       Permalink

OCCASIONALLY THERE'S GOOD NEWS – AT 9:08 A.M. ET:  From The New York Times: 

Oil prices sank again on Monday, giving consumers more of a break and causing a split among OPEC leaders about what action should be taken, if any, to halt the slide.

The price drop has led to a near free fall in gasoline prices in the United States. On Monday, the national average price for regular gasoline was $3.20, 9 cents lower than it was a week ago and 14 cents below the price a year ago, according to the AAA motor club.

The price at the pump generally follows oil after a few days, leading energy experts to predict lower prices for the rest of the month at least.

“This is not your garden variety autumn price decline,” said Tom Kloza, chief oil analyst at GasBuddy.com, which reports fuel prices from filling stations across the country. “Clearly there is a rift in OPEC, and that means we are more likely to see a price war over the next six months. Crude oil is teetering on the brink of collapse.”

Mr. Kloza predicted that the national average for regular gasoline was headed to between $2.95 and $3.10 a gallon. The average household consumes 1,200 gallons of gasoline a year, translating into an annual savings of $120 for every 10-cent drop in the price of gasoline.

COMMENT:  I'm sure Obama will take credit for this, but he had nothing to do with it.  One of the reasons for pressure on OPEC is the increasing oil production in the United States.  Obama's crowd has been fighting it tooth and nail.  But common sense, especially in some sanely run states, is prevailing.  At the current rate of production growth, we can be energy independent within six years.

The enviro-nuts are rushing to their shrinks.  Al Gore is threatening to leave the planet.

October 15, 2014       Permalink

IF TRUTH BE TOLD – AT 8:53 A.M. ET:  One of the mysteries of the Iraq War was the failure to find WMD, even though Saddam Hussein had used WMD in his war against Iran in the 1980s. 

There were solid reports that Saddam's WMD arsenal had been moved to Syria before the American-led invasion in 2003, but those reports were viewed with heavy official skepticism, for some reason.

Now some of the real story is starting to come out.  Apparently, there was WMD in Iraq, although the materials were old.  I'd like to know more about this story, well reported in The New York Times, because it can change our perception of the Iraq war, and reverse the leftist line that we went to war for a lie. 

From 2004 to 2011, American and American-trained Iraqi troops repeatedly encountered, and on at least six occasions were wounded by, chemical weapons remaining from years earlier in Saddam Hussein’s rule.

In all, American troops secretly reported finding roughly 5,000 chemical warheads, shells or aviation bombs, according to interviews with dozens of participants, Iraqi and American officials, and heavily redacted intelligence documents obtained under the Freedom of Information Act.

The United States had gone to war declaring it must destroy an active weapons of mass destruction program. Instead, American troops gradually found and ultimately suffered from the remnants of long-abandoned programs, built in close collaboration with the West.

COMMENT:  Read the whole story.  This requires a Congressional investigation.  Why were these facts held back from the American people?  Their release would have at least partially vindicated President Bush. 

I remember well how distorted, often propagandistic reporting, warped our view of the Vietnam War, which was gradually being won.  I'm afraid we may have seen it again in Iraq.  I want to know more.

October 15, 2014       Permalink

NEW HAMPSHIRE MIRACLE? – AT 8:41 A.M. ET:  One of the toughest Senate races for Republicans this year has been New Hampshire.  Jeanne Shaheen, the Democratic incumbent, is relatively popular in the state, and has held a lead against Republican challenger and former Senator Scott Brown.

Brown, of course, was senator from neighboring Massachusetts, until defeated by Elizabeth Warren.  He is trying to make a comeback in New Hampshire, where he has owned a home.  No doubt the switch in states has cost him some support in New Hampshire, but he is now making progress.  A new poll, for the first time, has him ahead of Shaheen.  From Fox: 

Republican candidate Scott Brown has taken his first lead in a poll against Democratic Sen. Jeanne Shaheen, although the results are statistically a dead heat.

Brown, a former Massachusetts senator, led Shaheen by 1 point in a New England College poll released Tuesday. However Dr. Wayne Lesperance, a professor at New England College, noted that the race was neck and neck.

“This week Republican Scott Brown leads Democrat Sen. Jeanne Shaheen 48 percent to 46.9 percent,” he said in a press release. “However, this is well within the 2.98 percent margin of error. So the Senate race is just too close to call.”

Shaheen is leading Brown by 3.5 points overall, according to a Real Clear Politics average. The Tuesday poll was the first time Brown has pulled ahead in a poll, according to Real Clear Politics. Shaheen has led in every other poll except for three, which were listed as ties.

Brown, 55, moved to New Hampshire to run for Senate after losing his 2012 re-election bid in Massachusetts. He was elected in 2010 to the seat once held by the late Democratic Sen. Edward M. Kennedy.

COMMENT:  As the professor said, the race is neck-and-neck.  Shaheen is still favored, but the momentum may well have shifted to Brown.  We'll know more when further polls come out in the next week.  If the GOP can pick up this seat, we may well see a wave election on November 4th, meaning an election that can seriously change the political landscape. 

October 15, 2014       Permalink

THE ROMNEY FACTOR – AT 8:32 A.M. ET:  Despite all the standard denials from the Romney camp, stories persist that he is actually serious about running again in 2016.  He is getting encouragement from Republican voters.  From Fox: 

Iowa Republicans are hoping Mitt Romney will change his mind about running for president in 2016.

Despite the 2012 Republican nominee’s continued assertions that he will not run for president again, Romney is still the top pick for likely Iowa Republican 2016 caucusgoers, according to a Bloomberg Politics/Des Moines Register Iowa poll released Tuesday.

Romney was the top vote-getter in the poll with 17 percent and Dr. Ben Carson, a conservative neurosurgeon who has never held public office, came in second with 11 percent.

Carson told Fox News’ Sean Hannity Monday night that the chances of him running are “50/50.”

Iowa Republicans were less enthusiastic about other potential candidates, most of whom currently hold public office and are better nationally recognized.

Kentucky Sen. Rand Paul came in third in the poll with 10 percent, but New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie and former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush failed to make waves with 6 percent and 4 percent each.

COMMENT:  A poll like that is hardly definitive, and Romney, at 17 percent, isn't exactly running away with it.  But he commands increasing respect within the party as a man who's been proved right on many statements he made during the 2012 campaign, and who has presidential stature. 

I can understand any reservations Romney and his family might have, however.  Running for president is grueling, the hardest task in politics.  To run again and lose again must be on the Romneys' minds as they contemplate the future.  The second disappointment could be devastating. 

October 15,  2014     Permalink

OCTOBER 14,  2014

SHORT TAKES ON THE DRIFTING WRECKAGE – AT 9:46 P.M. ET: 

GRIMES FADING? – From The Hill:  "Senate Democrats announced Tuesday they won’t spend any more money on television in Kentucky, throwing in the towel on their fight to oust Senate GOP Leader Mitch McConnell.  Most polls have shown the race slipping away from nominee Alison Lundergan Grimes (D) for weeks in a contest long considered a top pickup opportunity for Democrats. But with the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee’s (DSCC) decision, the party is shifting almost solely to defense in hopes of protecting its fragile six-seat majority."  Remember, though, that the only poll that counts is the one on election day.  News like this can create overconfidence.  Mitch must still run as if he's 20 points behind.

EBOLA WORRIES – Americans are truly worried about Ebola, especially after administration assurances that it wasn't coming here.  From WaPo:  "Nearly two-thirds of Americans are concerned about a widespread Ebola epidemic in the United States, despite repeated assurances from public officials that the country’s modern health-care and disease-surveillance systems will prevent the type of outbreak ravaging West Africa.  In a Washington Post-ABC News poll conducted in recent days, the number of Americans who say the government should be doing more to prevent additional Ebola cases in the United States is almost twice the number who believe the United States is doing all it can to control the spread of the virus.  That includes overwhelming support — 91 percent — in favor of stricter screening for people traveling to this country from West Africa. Such screening began this past weekend at John F. Kennedy International Airport in New York and soon will begin at four other international airports in the country."

UNBELIEVABLE – From Howard Kurtz at Fox:  "Even in an era when media outlets sell access to their journalists at conferences and on cruises, a new promotion by The New York Times is truly troubling.  The destination is Iran.   Check out this corporate come-on by the Times:  'Journey 2,500 years back in time to discover the ancient secrets of Persia on this 13-day itinerary incorporating some of most well preserved archaeological sites in the world. Welcome to the once-forbidden land of Iran.'  Wow. You'd never know that Iran is developing nuclear weapons, supports terrorism, poses a mortal threat to Israel, and has been hostile to the United States since its seizure of American hostages back in 1979."  Poor Howard Kurtz.  Doesn't he understand that true "sophisticates" aren't interested in those little details?

IS THIS AMERICA? – From Fox:  "The city of Houston has issued subpoenas demanding a group of pastors turn over any sermons dealing with homosexuality, gender identity or Annise Parker, the city’s first openly lesbian mayor. And those ministers who fail to comply could be held in contempt of court.  'The city’s subpoena of sermons and other pastoral communications is both needless and unprecedented,' Alliance Defending Freedom attorney Christina Holcomb said in a statement. 'The city council and its attorneys are engaging in an inquisition designed to stifle any critique of its actions.'  ADF, a nationally-known law firm specializing in religious liberty cases, is representing five Houston pastors. They filed a motion in Harris County court to stop the subpoenas arguing they are 'overbroad, unduly burdensome, harassing, and vexatious.'"  This is a chilling attack by the city of Houston on traditional rights of free speech and freedom of religion.  Let's see how "civil liberties advocates" respond to the outrage.  Don't hold your breath.

October 14, 2014       Permalink

MISSING – AT 9:14 A.M. ET:   There was a time when Barack Obama was the hottest invitation in the world.  Everyone – well, everyone with a maturity level under 16 – wanted him.  Ah yes, I remember it well. 

But times have changed.  From Breitbart: 

Editor's Note: ABC News published an astonishing admission today, revealing that President Barack Obama has not attended a single public campaign event for a Democratic candidate as the party heads into a white-hot election season.

Just three weeks to go until the midterm elections and with control of the Senate hanging in the balance, candidates are scrambling toward the finish line.

One key figure, however, has been largely absent: President Obama.

President Obama has appeared at zero public campaign events this cycle, opting instead to tap into his fundraising prowess to boost Democratic candidates behind closed-doors.

Obama’s absence on the trail underscores how the president has become a political liability for many candidates. With his approval rating down in the dumps, a personal visit from Obama would likely hurt rather than help his party’s cause in the hotly contested states.

Obama is expected to step-up his public presence on the campaign trail in these final weeks, but likely only in deep blue states. He will attend his first public campaign rally for a candidate this Wednesday when he stumps for Connecticut Gov. Dan Malloy.

It’s not unheard of for the president to be scarce in the run-up to the midterms. President George W. Bush headlined 15 rallies in 2006, but they were all in the final weeks, according to Brendan Doherty, professor of political science at the US Naval Academy and author of “The Rise of the President’s Permanent Campaign.”

Not only is the president a persona non grata on the trail, Democratic candidates are going to great lengths to avoid being even remotely associated with him.

COMMENT:  I don't think we've ever seen a president fall this far.  George W. Bush was barely elected in both 2000 and 2004.  His political fall, especially with the left-wing press relentlessly against him, was not all that shocking.  But Obama?  He had been elevated to godlike status, and now most Democratic candidates barely speak his name.  Amazing what a little incompetence and deception can do.

But I'm sure he can have lunch at The New York Times on any day he wishes.

October 14, 2014       Permalink

ENCOURAGEMENT FOR OUR SIDE – AT 8:56 A.M. ET:  New polling has some good news for our cause, but there are no runaway victories in store here.  From The Weekly Standard: 

A new set of polls from High Point University and SurveyUSA have good news Republican candidates for Senate in Colorado, North Carolina, and New Hampshire. The polls of likely voters in all three swing states found Republicans in good positions against incumbent Democrats with just weeks to go before the election.

In Colorado, likely voters prefer Republican Cory Gardner to Democrat Mark Udall 46 percent to 42 percent, with 7 percent saying they're voting for someone else and 5 percent undecided. The poll also found 52 percent disapprove of Udall's job as senator and 54 percent disapprove of Barack Obama's job as president.

For North Carolina Republican Thom Tillis, the High Point poll is the first in more than two months to show him ahead, even if by a few fractions of a point. The survey found 40.4 percent prefer Tillis to incumbent Democrat Kay Hagan, at 39.5 percent. With rounding, the candidates are tied at 40 percent, which is the lowest rating for Hagan (who also gets 46 percent disapproval) since August. Fifty-five percent disapprove of Obama's job.

And in New Hampshire, Democratic senator Jeanne Shaheen leads Republican challenger Scott Brown by just 2 points, 48 percent to 46 percent. Shaheen's approval/disapproval numbers are the closest among the three Democrats, with 48 percent disapproving and 47 percent approving of her job. President Obama, meanwhile, has a 54 percent disapproval rating in New Hamsphire.

COMMENT:  We always say that polls are but snapshots in time, and these polls are no exception.  Also, I want to see these results ratified by other pollsters.

The election is three weeks from today.  That's five lifetimes in politics. 

October 14, 2014       Permalink

SICKENING – AT  8:44 A.M. ET:  Has the Islamic State used chemical weapons in its current attempt to take over Iraq?  If so, did that WMD come from Saddam's arsenal?  From Fox: 

Disturbing new photos of ethnic Kurds killed by Islamic State fighters are stoking fears the terrorist army may be using chemical weapons seized from Saddam Hussein’s old arsenals, according to a Middle East watchdog.

The pictures, obtained by the Middle East Review of International Affairs (MERIA), show the bodies of Syrian Kurds who appear to have been gassed by ISIS in the besieged Kobani region this July. That fighting came just one month after Islamic State forces surged through the once-notorious Muthanna compound in Iraq, the massive base where Hussein began producing chemical weapons in the 1980s, which he used to kill thousands of Kurds in Halabja in northern Iraq in 1988.

Jonathan Spyer, editor of the MERIA Journal, told FoxNews.com that experts believe the Kurds were slaughtered in July with what “appears to be a case of mustard gas or some kind of blistering agent.”

“It is fairly concerning that, if the pictures are genuine -- and I have no reason to believe they are not -- then this [use of chemical weapons] is looking clearer and clearer,” Spyer said.

The images of the dead Syrian Kurds show bodies with large areas of white, blistered skin apparently having been burned away. Nisan Ahmed, the Kurdish authority health minister, told Spyer that, “burns and white spots on the bodies of the dead [indicated] the use of chemicals which led to death without any visible wounds or external bleeding.”

Experts believe the chemical weapons were used on July 12, in the village of Avidko, close to Kobani, the Kurdish town on the Turkish border that is now the scene of fierce fighting between Kurds and Islamic State forces.

If Islamic State fighters did indeed gain chemical weapons in Muthanna, it would corroborate a 2007 CIA report that confirmed their presence there. That report was cited when, in June, Islamic State fighters captured the Muthanna facility from Iraqi soldiers and allegedly seized a cache of chemical weapons, including more than 2,500 degraded chemical rockets contaminated with deadly mustard gas.

COMMENT:  But wait.  I thought Saddam didn't have any WMD.  Isn't that what we were told?  Is there a can of worms being opened here?

Why am I afraid that this story will disappear quickly?

October 14, 2014       Permalink

IS SHE TRAPPED? – AT 8:31 A.M. ET:  The soap opera in Kentucky goes on.  The Democrats dream of knocking off Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, and their vehicle is one Alison Lundergan Grimes, who is running fairly close to McConnell in a conservative state. 

But Grimes, who does not strike us as the sharpest knife in either the drawer or the dishwasher, has blundered badly in the last few days by refusing to tell Kentuckians if she voted for Barack Obama for president.  Last night Mitch and Alison had their only debate, and Grimes's refusal to say whether she voted for the head of her party was the big issue.  From the Daily Caller: 

Kentucky Democratic Senate candidate Alison Lundergan Grimes has taken heat from the left and right for recently refusing to admit whether she voted for Barack Obama for president.

So it surprised observers when she again dodged the question when pressed during Monday night’s U.S. Senate debate with Republican Mitch McConnell.

“I am not going to compromise a constitutional right provided here in Kentucky in order to curry favor on one or the other side, or for members of the media,” Grimes said when pressed by the moderator on the issue.

Observers note that Grimes’s refusal to say is a result of Obama’s unpopularity in the state.

But asked to explain why she is so reluctant, Grimes replied: “There is no reluctancy. This is a matter of principle. Our constitution grants here in Kentucky the constitutional right for privacy at the ballot box, for a secret ballot. You have that right. Sen. McConnell has that right. Every Kentuckian has the right. And as Secretary of State, the chief election official, I’m tasked with overseeing and making sure we’re enforcing all of our election laws.”

McConnell, the incumbent, shot back: “There’s…no sacred right to not announce how we vote. I voted for Mitt Romney, proudly. I voted for John McCain.”

COMMENT:  Grimes sounds like a fool.  But McConnell symbolizes the Washington insider, and there is an anti-incumbency mood out there, even in Kentucky.  It's hard to assess how much this little episode will cost Grimes, and if it will help seal the deal for Mitch.  But Grimes's repeated refusal is tactically ridiculous.  Just say you voted for Obama, but don't agree with him on a number of things.  That kills the issue.  Everyone knows she voted for him.

Grimes might also learn that "reluctancy" is not a word.  She meant "reluctance."

October 14,  2014     Permalink