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 yesterday.  It's here.

OCTOBER 19,  2015

SHORT TAKES ON THE DRIFTING WRECKAGE – AT 11:56 P.M. ET:

CANADIAN RETURNS – The mainstream (leftist) media has joyfully announced the election of Justin Trudeau as Canada's next prime minister.  This was expected, but the delight of the left was still evident.  Trudeau is the son of the late Prime Minister Pierre Trudeau, who had no great love for America, but who went to great parties with his wife, Margaret.  We now lose, but profusely thank, Prime Minister Stephen Harper, who has run Canada as a stalwart ally of the United States and freedom.  I wish Harper had been blessed with a better president to work with.  How long will it be before Canadians express buyer's remorse?  Maybe a week?

WEBB BOOMLET? – From the Washington Free Beacon: Jim Webb, the author and former senator from Virginia who also served as secretary of the Navy under President Ronald Reagan, is weighing an independent bid for the presidency, according to a press release sent by his campaign on Monday.  Webb, who is currently running for the Democratic presidential nomination and whose views on foreign policy, affirmative action, and other issues are widely considered out of step with his current party, will give a press conference on Tuesday, Oct. 20.  “Senator Jim Webb will hold a press conference on Tuesday, October 20, 2015, to discuss his candidacy, the campaign and his views of the political parties in the current election cycle,” said the release, which was headlined “Jim Webb To Consider Independent Run.”  Could be fascinating.  Webb could run as a true independent, a centrist, at a time when the parties are being increasingly pulled to the left (Dems) or the right (GOP).  The question is whether Webb can gain any traction at all.  If he can, which party does he hurt most?

WHOOPS – From mediaequalizer.com:  Embarrassed Washington Post editors were left scrambling earlier today after a story was accidentally published that declared Joe Biden’s presidential candidacy.  With “XXX” showing in certain areas where details were yet to be added, it’s clear the piece was meant to remain in draft mode. But somebody with a fat finger hit the wrong button. Before the story could be removed, the Republican National Committee grabbed and sent the copy to those on its “War Room” mailing list.  Once the error was discovered, it was replaced with an editor’s note reading “This file was inadvertently published.”  Notice the public excitement when the thing actually came out.  Maybe it's a message to Joe.

October 19, 2015       Permalink

CANADA VOTES – AT 9:49 A.M. ET:  Why do we always ignore Canada, one of our closest allies?  Probably because Canada never causes any trouble and is no threat to us.  It's unfair, because Canada has so often been with us in the tough times.

Canada votes in a national election today. Unfortunately, the probable result this time will not be entirely pleasing.  We probably will lose Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper, one of the greatest leaders in the West, a friend to America – despite Obama's contemptuous attitude toward Canada – and a man who never hesitated to identify freedom's enemies by name.  From AP:

TORONTO (AP) -- The son of a man who brought glamor and excitement to Canadian politics in the late 1960s is favored to become Canada's next prime minister.

Justin Trudeau, the son of late Prime Minister Pierre Trudeau, is leading in the polls ahead of Monday's election that could spell the end of a decade of Conservative rule under Stephen Harper.

Trudeau, tall and trim at 43, channels the star power - if not quite the political heft - of his father, who swept to power in 1968 on a wave of support dubbed "Trudeaumania."

Pierre Trudeau, who was prime minister until 1984 with a short interruption, remains one of the few Canadian politicians known in America, his charisma often drawing comparisons to John F. Kennedy. A bachelor when he became prime minister, he dated actresses Barbra Streisand and Kim Cattrall.

At age 51 while in office, he married 22-year-old Margaret Sinclair, who earned notoriety as first lady for partying with the Rolling Stones and at New York's Studio 54. They had three sons, including Justin, the eldest. The couple divorced when Justin was six and the boys were raised by their father, who died in 2000.

If he wins, Justin Trudeau, who has three young children with former model and television host Sophie Gregoire, would become the second youngest prime minister in Canada's history, despite a thin resume. A former teacher who sported long hair until recently, Trudeau has been an opposition member of Parliament since 2008.

COMMENT:  Trudeau is on the left, his father was seen as somewhat anti-American.  You'll recall that, under Pierre Trudeau, Canada became a haven for American draft dodgers. 

But the son seems to be somewhat more sane.  Obama will undoubtedly call him, leftist to leftist, and maybe even invite him here.  After all, how many friends does Obama have remaining?

October 19, 2015       Permalink

NO BOUNCE FOR HILLARY – AT 8:19 A.M. ET:  The first major post-Democratic-debate poll is just in, and the results must be disappointing for Hillary Clinton.  From CNN:

Washington (CNN) With the first Democratic debate in the books, a new CNN/ORC poll finds most who watched think Hillary Clinton had the best performance of the night, but her strong showing hasn't boosted her standing in the race for the party's nomination.

Clinton stands at 45% in the race for the Democratic nomination, with Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders behind her at 29%. Vice President Joe Biden, who is considering a run for presidency and did not participate in last week's debate, follows at 18%.

Behind the top three, former Virginia Sen. Jim Webb had 1% support, while former Rhode Island Gov. Lincoln Chafee, Harvard professor Larry Lessig and former Maryland Gov. Martin O'Malley all held less than 1% support.

Compared with pre-debate polling, Sanders' support is up five points since mid-September, but no other candidate showed significant change.

As Biden mulls whether or not to get in the race, the poll suggests Democrats are becoming less enamored of a run from the vice president. In August, 53% of registered Democrats said they wanted Biden to run, that's down to 47% in the new poll. Should Biden decide to sit out the race for the Democratic nomination, Clinton's lead over Sanders climbs to 23 points: 56% would back Clinton, 33% Sanders.

Overall, 31% of registered Democrats say they watched all or most of the CNN/Facebook debate, held October 13 in Las Vegas.

COMMENT:  So, what do we see?  Despite her debate performance, and the fact that she is one of the most recognizable political figures in the world, Hillary Clinton still polls at below 50% in her own party.  Even if Biden opts out, she would be at only 56%, hardly a knockout figure.

Hillary has problems.  It's clear she faces a serious enthusiasm gap, and trustworthiness gap.  She appears before the Benghazi committee this week.  And there is that little matter of an FBI investigation.

She is not a sure bet at all.

October 19, 2015       Permalink

STILL WAITING ON JOE – AT 8:14 A.M. ET:  By the time Biden decides, no one will remember who he is.   From CBS News: 

A close confidant and longtime advisor of Biden's who spoke to him recently says that Biden, as vice president, feels he has earned the right make a decision about his political future on his own timetable.

"He (Biden) really does not care about John or anyone else," the source said, referring to John Podesta, Hillary Clinton's campaign chairman. "He does not like bullies and will not be bullied. He has never really been part of the Democratic establishment and could care less about it." Podesta told multiple media outlets last week that it was time Biden made a decision about whether he's running for the presidency.

Former top adviser to President Obama, David Axelrod, seemed to agree with Podesta. After pointing out the filing deadlines that come up in November, he said he thought "particularly within the Democratic community there's a growing impatience with this period of reflection," he said in an interview with John Dickerson on "Face the Nation" Sunday."

COMMENT:  Axelrod is correct.  Although people sympathize with Biden over the recent death of his son, they also understand that this is about the presidency of 320 million people. 

Biden's "decision-making" process is beginning to raise questions about whether he's decisive enough to be president, whether he has what Jack Kennedy called the "vigor."  I mean, if he can't decide on this, what can he decide on?

As we pointed out, there is no great "wanting" of Joe Biden.  His strength is that he's not Hillary Clinton.  Despite her well-received debate performance, Clinton still has a perilous road ahead.  I don't recall any other presidential candidate being under FBI investigation while campaigning.  Many Democrats want an alternative to the scandal-prone Clinton.  You can't get out of jail to attend your own inauguration.

October 19, 2015       Permalink 

ABOUT TIME SOMEONE SAID IT – AT 8:03 A.M. ET:  Hillary Clinton will testilie before the House Benghazi committee this week, and Chairman Trey Gowdy is laying down the law to adolescents in his own party about behavior.  From Fox: 

Hillary Clinton’s upcoming testimony before Congress’ special Benghazi committee is being hyped as the biggest moment in the panel’s controversial existence. But the committee’s Republican leaders said Sunday they are equally, if not more, focused on new evidence and continued pursuit of the facts behind the fatal 2012 attacks.

“We have found new facts that have absolutely nothing to do with her,” South Carolina GOP Rep. Trey Gowdy, chairman of the House Select Committee on Benghazi, told CBS' “Face the Nation.”

“I get that people don't want to talk about that. But the seven [Republican] members of my committee are much more focused on the four dead Americans than we are anyone's presidential aspirations.”

Clinton, the 2016 Democratic presidential front-runner, is scheduled to testify Thursday about her role as secretary of state during the Sept. 11, 2012, attacks on a U.S. outpost in Benghazi, Libya, in which Ambassador Chris Stevens and three other Americans were killed.

And...

In addition, Gowdy on Sunday told fellow Republicans uninformed about exactly what the committee is doing to "shut up."

COMMENT:  About time.  A couple of slow learners on the Republican side, apparently full of themselves, have suggested that the committee is all about politics, essentially destroying the committee's credibility.  One of the slow learners is Kevin McCarthy, who was on track to be the next speaker of the House, but whose rhetorical blunder has now wrecked that aspiration, and possibly his career.

The committee can restore its luster if it comes up with some striking new information about Benghazi.  Trey Gowdy is a shrewd operator.  I think he'll make some major news.

October 19,  2015     Permalink

OCTOBER 18,  2015

SHORT TAKES ON THE DRIFTING WRECKAGE – AT 11:57 P.M. ET: 

RAND TAKING HEAT – From Fox:   FRANKFORT, Ky. – A defiant Rand Paul is brushing off weak fundraising and weaker poll numbers as would-be donors and home state Republicans push him to abandon an uphill presidential bid to focus on his Senate re-election.  While showing some frustration, the first-term Kentucky senator this week claimed his superior political organization would prove wrong those doubting his chances in the White House contest. At the same time, he released fundraising numbers that place him squarely in the bottom tier of the GOP's 2016 class over the last three months, a painful symbol of stalled momentum for the libertarian favorite who was considered a major presidential contender earlier in the year.  This is a classic case of a candidate with very limited appeal believing he has much greater appeal.  His foreign-policy views are far to the left of the Republican Party.  They are not acceptable to the great mass of Republicans, and that's that.  He should get out, and try to keep his Senate seat in GOP hands.

SIGN OF THE TIMES – From Fox:   NEW DELHI – Naval warships, aircraft carriers and submarines from the U.S., India and Japan steamed into the Bay of Bengal on Saturday as they took part in joint military exercises off India's east coast, signaling the growing strategic ties among the three countries as they face up to a rising China.  The sea drills, part of the six-day-long Malabar exercises, will cover the full spectrum of naval maneuvers, including military-to-military coordination and anti-submarine warfare, according to a joint statement.  The U.S. has deployed the aircraft carrier USS Theodore Roosevelt, a missile cruiser and a nuclear-powered submarine for the annual exercises, which end Monday.  "India and Japan both are fantastic partners of the United States," Capt. Craig Clapperton, commanding officer of the USS Theodore Roosevelt, told reporters on board the ship. "We share a great deal in common, and we certainly have very strong economic, military and political relationships and friendships with India and Japan."  But how convincing are naval exercises when the president of the United States shows so little interest in American defense and the welfare of our allies?

APPEASER-IN-CHIEF –  Obama is on the appeasement train again, even as Iran expands in the Mideast and heaps scorn on us every day.  From AFP:   President Barack Obama ordered the US government Sunday to take steps towards lifting sanctions on Iran, in accordance with the historic nuclear deal struck between six world powers and Tehran.  Obama’s directive comes 90 days after the UN Security Council endorsed the accord signed in Vienna in July, a milestone referred to as “Adoption Day.”  “I hereby direct you to take all necessary steps to give effect to the US commitments with respect to sanctions,” Obama said in a memorandum addressed to the US secretaries of state, energy, commerce and the treasury.  The measures will take effect upon confirmation by the Secretary of state that Iran has met its commitments under the so-called Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), as the accord is known, Obama said.  What do you think the chances are that the secretary of state will declare that Iran hasn't met its commitments?   Kerry knows what the boss wants. 

October 18,  2015     Permalink

RIDICULOUS – AT 12:32 P.M. ET:  I've noted before that I think Donald Trump has gotten ridiculous.  Instead of growing as a candidate, he reverts back to verbal thuggery whenever challenged.  From Newsmax: 

GOP front-runner Donald Trump is tripling down on blaming President George W. Bush for the terrorist attacks of 9/11.

In an interview with The Washington Post, Trump said the president is ultimately responsible for what happens on his watch, pointing out three things he would have done differently were he in the White House in 2001.

"You always have to look to the person at the top," Trump told the Post. "Do I blame George Bush? I only say that he was the president at the time, and you know, you could say the buck stops here."

Trump's three points of disagreement with Bush: Immigration policy, cross-departmental communication and foreknowledge an attack was likely.

"We had very weak immigration laws," Trump said. He said that under "the strong laws that I’m wanting, these terrorists wouldn’t have been in the country."

The FBI, National Security Council, and CIA weren’t talking to each other about what they knew about possible threats, and the fact was well-known, Trump said. "If I'm president, I want to have my three most important agencies talking to each other and coordinating with each other."

And Bush's CIA Director George Tenet "knew in advance that there would be an attack, and he said that," Trump said.

While insisting, "I don’t blame anybody," Trump added that "perhaps something could have been done that was obviously better than the worst attack ever perpetrated on the United States."

COMMENT:  Come on.  He's not really saying anything.  The enemy, Donald, is the Democratic Party, not George W. Bush.  I'm hoping we can get past this tantrum stage in the campaign and have a real debate on October 28th.  I'm also hoping the Republican primary electorate starts focusing on candidates who can go the distance against Hillary Clinton.  I'm not at all sure we've found that person.

October 18, 2015       Permalink

AH, ANOTHER QUOTE OF THE DAY – AT 11:57 A.M. ET:  We have an embarrassment of riches in quotes today.  This, by Newt Gingrich, summarizes the state of Hillary Clinton's campaign, and her morality.  From the Washington Times: 

Many observers in the political-news media establishment thought Hillary Rodham Clinton delivered a winning performance at Tuesday night’s Democratic presidential debate.

It certainly was a performance. We have yet to see whether it will be a winning one.

The reason this Democratic debate offered any drama at all, in a year when the Democratic frontrunner was presumed to have cleared the field, is that the Clinton campaign is clearly in significant trouble. She is lagging in some state polls behind Sen. Bernie Sanders, a candidate who, when he announced, was considered to be among the least plausible nominees the party could find.

Part of the reason for Mr. Sanders‘ success is undoubtedly his ideological appeal to the hard-left of the Democratic Party. But Hillary’s collapse likely has much more to do with the fact that she keeps lying, and that she keeps getting caught, than it does with Bernie’s charm.

In a recent Quinnipiac poll, the word most mentioned by respondents in association with Hillary Clinton was “liar.” The runners-up were “dishonest” and “untrustworthy” — offered by a combined 394 people. The next most common term, “experience,” was offered by 82.

Now Hillary’s solution to nearly her lowest favorability ratings in two decades of public life is to lie some more.

COMMENT:  Newt is right, of course.  But Hillary is surrounded by the same press corps that did so much to put the vastly inexperienced and deceptive Barack Obama in office.   Will the protection work this time?  I think it depends entirely on the quality of the Republican candidate and the willingness of the GOP to fight for the presidency, not just run for it.

October 18, 2015       Permalink

QUOTE OF THE DAY – THE AGE OF OBAMA – AT 11:35 A.M. ET:  Occasionally we see a passage that clearly defines our national situation.  Saw one this morning by a very fine writer, Salena Zito, of the Pittsburgh Tribune-Review, view realclearpolitics.com.  She writes about Barack Obama and the Democratic view of America:

He has used his position as one of deep correction, to change what his elite and academic prisms view as a deeply flawed country.

Those corrections were not made in the spirit of taking us together to a better place. Instead, they have been bitterly divisive and intended to produce “justice.”

There is nothing wrong with change, but a good leader would have invited all of us to take that journey. Not doing so has been Obama's greatest flaw.

Last week's Democrat debate was incredibly revealing of where this party wants to take the country. With the exception of Jim Webb, everyone on stage seemed to loathe anyone who wouldn't vote for them in a primary.

They hate gun owners and supporters of traditional values; unless you're “progressive,” you have no place in their view of the world.

They think America's worst enemies are climate change, the NRA, and Republicans.

The answer that gave Hillary Clinton her biggest applause came when she was asked what would separate her from President Obama. Her answer: gender.

“Well, I think that's pretty obvious,” she said about being a woman.

Racial justice, gender justice, pay justice — that is what all of the Democrats spoke to.

All of them embraced the concept that “black lives matter” over other American lives.

They did so on a national stage while demanding free college for everyone and in-state tuition for illegal immigrants, all in an effort to appeal to the Obama base but excluding the rest of America.

They made clear that each would be the president of progressives, not of all Americans.

COMMENT:  Wonderfully stated, and accurate. 

October 18,  2015     Permalink