SUNDAY,  OCTOBER 11,  2009

THE BRITS VIEW VIRGINIA - AT 7:55 P.M. ET:  We've observed here that British journalists have written some of the most perceptive copy on American politics, especially since the coming of The One.

Now, Alex Spillius of London's Telegraph, examines the Virginia gubernatorial race, in which the Democrat is sinking fast, and Obama is getting a chunk of the chilling blame:

President Barack Obama is facing defeat in his first electoral test since he won the White House, with the Republicans leading the polls for the governor's race in the swing state of Virginia.

I wonder if they showed this to Obama, along with the Nobel e-mail.

Just nine months into his presidency, Mr Obama has proved more of a hindrance than a help to the Democratic candidate, Creigh Deeds. Unlike Democrats across the country in 2008, the state senator is keeping a very loose grip on the president's coat-tails.

"Frankly, a lot of what's going on in Washington has made it very tough," he said at a recent forum, adding that voters were "just uncomfortable with the spending, they were uncomfortable with a lot of what was going on".

Mr Obama has made only one appearance with Mr Deeds, and will probably make just one more before polling day. The Democrat is trailing his Republican rival, Bob McDonnell, by nine points in a poll published in the Washington Post last week.

Mr Deeds, 51, may have earned the displeasure of the White House with his honesty, but no one has contradicted his assessment that Mr Obama's massive stimulus bill, and the cost of proposed health care and energy reforms, have raised concern among Virginians.

At the Deeds campaign office in Manassas, there was no sign of Mr Obama in the dozens of posters and banners lining the walls.

That's crushing.  No picture?  Not even a drawing?  A framed autograph?

Now that will get the attention of the White House.  Among the leftist crowd, you know you're in trouble when they don't have your picture up with the other commissars.

The picture is gone.  The new order is coming.

October 11, 2009   Permalink

IT'S HARRY REID, NOT HARRY TRUMAN - AT 7:15 P.M. ET:  Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid is in trouble in his own state.  He doesn't exactly have the fight in him that Harry Truman did, so we might not be seeing Reid around town beyond next year.  From the Las Vegas Review-Journal:

Nevadans say they're ready to replace longtime Democratic incumbent Sen. Harry Reid with an untested Republican.

Which Republican? Undecided.

But of their top two picks -- former GOP party official Sue Lowden and real estate developer Danny Tarkanian -- either one would unseat Reid if the election were held today, according to a poll commissioned by the Review-Journal.

Lowden and Tarkanian are in a statistical tie atop a list of nine primary candidates, according to the survey of Nevada registered voters.

COMMENT:  Let's hope the Republicans don't mess this up.  Maybe we're hoping against hope.

October 11, 2009   Permalink

I'M SO RELIEVED, NOT - AT 5:01 P.M. ET:  We are once again assured that Pakistan's nuclear weapons are safe:

LONDON - U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton said Sunday the Taliban siege of Pakistan's army headquarters showed extremists are a growing threat in the nuclear-armed American ally, but she contended they don't pose a risk to the country's atomic arsenal.

Clinton, in London on the second leg of a five-day tour of Europe and Russia, also joined British Foreign Secretary David Miliband in warning Iran that they would not wait long for the Islamic republic to convince the world that its nuclear intentions are peaceful.

COMMENT:  All these assurances about the safety of Pakistani nukes remind me of those comments you see on TV after people find out that a neighbor has been charged with murder:  "Gee, he's such a nice guy." 

A killer isn't a killer until he kills.  And nukes aren't in terrorist hands until they are. 

And I am far from reassured.  Pakistan is in turmoil.  The nukes are reportedly stored in one of the most unstable areas.  What are these reassurances based on?

October 11, 2009   Permalink

FORGET THE NOBEL, MR. PRESIDENT, THERE'S WORK TO BE DONE - AT 4:42 P.M. ET:  From Fox News:

Top Republican senators escalated their call Sunday for President Obama to grant Gen. Stanley McChrystal's request for more troops in Afghanistan, and one prominent Democrat warned that a failure to do so could jeopardize U.S. forces.

The Obama administration is deep in deliberations over whether to build on its counterinsurgency strategy with thousands more troops in Afghanistan or focus more on taking out top Al Qaeda targets, particularly in Pakistan. The bloody clash this weekend at the Pakistan army headquarters, where commandos freed dozens of hostages early Sunday after militants attacked the facility, underscored the instability in the region.

Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., said the attack emphasized the "danger of the Taliban not only in Afghanistan but in Pakistan as well."

But he said any attempt by the administration to scale back the fight against the Taliban in favor of a tactical battle against Al Qaeda would damage security...

...Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., chairwoman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, also said the counterinsurgency strategy pursued by McChrystal is "really critical." She said the American people don't have the stomach to stay in Afghanistan for another 10 years, but that the mission there is in "serious jeopardy" and Obama has an obligation to follow his commander's advice.

COMMENT:  The Nobel Peace laureate may have to defy the Euro-pacifist crowd in Oslo and send those troops.  I wonder what the "committee" for the prize would say then. 

And Hillary Clinton, probably seething over the fact that  she didn't get the prize, said today that we can't wait forever for Iran to act on its nuclear program - implied pressure on her boss to contemplate some tough action against the mullahs. 

October 11, 2009   Permalink

WATCH THIS CAREFULLY - AT 10:59 A.M. ET:  Is there anyone lower in the Republican Party than Chuck Hagel?  This Republican-in-name-only served as senator from Nebraska, but went so far left that he declined to run again last year, realizing he would probably lose his party's nomination.  He then all but endorsed Barack Obama.  His wife endorsed Obama outright.  He was a militant opponent of President Bush.

There's been recent speculation that Obama will name Hagel to replace Robert Gates, when Gates steps down as secretary of defense, possibly at the end of this year.  That would be a disgraceful appointment, an obvious payoff, and another sign of the Bush-hatred that is still rampant in this administration.  Hagel's basic qualification is that he was a sergeant or something in Vietnam.

Now Hagel suddenly surfaces again.  Why?  Well, he's endorsing health-care reform.   From The Politico:

Former Sen. Chuck Hagel (R-Neb.), who was an ally of the president's in the campaign, released a statement Saturday through the White House calling on Congress "to put aside their narrow partisan differences" on health care reform.

"We will fail our country if we do not succeed," Hagel said.

Hagel doesn't mention anything about the tough unresolved issues of negotiations. But he highlighted how health care legislation could mark the beginning of entitlement reform -- a concern raised often by Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.).

His positive words are not surprising. Hagel spoke favorably of Obama's foreign policy views during the campaign, and appeared with him in Jordan during an overseas trip in July 2008. Hagel's wife endorsed Obama, but the former senator never did.

COMMENT:  You don't think that Hagel is angling for the defense job by making a statement like this, do you?  Nah.  An honorable man would never do a thing like that.

I wrote "an honorable man."

Enough said.

Yuch.

October 11, 2009    Permalink

MUCH TOO THIN-SKINNED - AT 10:48 A.M. ET:  I have no problem at all with the White House, or anyone else, criticizing journalists.  But the Obaman campaign against Fox News is starting to look like something out of a junior high school gripe session.  From The Politico:

White House communications director Anita Dunn said Sunday that the administration views Fox News as an "arm" of the Republican Party.

"It’s fair to say about Fox, and certainly the way we view it, is that it is a wing of the Republican Party," Dunn said on CNN's "Reliable Sources."

"They are widely viewed as part of the Republican Party. Take their talking points, put them on the air. Take their research, put it on the air," Dunn said of the network. "Fox News often operates as either the research arm or the communications arm of the Republican Party."

Dunn scoffed at the network's defense that viewers can distinguish between Fox's news content and the conservative commentary of the network's primetime hosts.

"There is a very different story selection," Dunn said. "This isn’t us making it up."

COMMENT:  Of course there's a different story selection.  Fox does try to provide some balance in its news reports.  Independent studies confirm that.  Contrast please with CNN or NBC, which are decidedly liberal. 

This is whining by a White House known as the most thin-skinned in memory.  We must not criticize The One.  The Obamans should try to figure out why Fox is so popular, not just slam it.  Obviously, viewers are getting something from Fox that they're not getting elsewhere.

October 11, 2009   Permalink

QUOTE OF THE DAY - AT 10:25 A.M. ET:  From Fred Barnes, writing in the Weekly Standard: 

George Will suggested last week that President Obama's self-referential speech on behalf of Chicago's bid for the 2016 Olympics may lead to his being known as the "vain" president. Maybe, but worse things have been said about a president and probably will be if Obama declines to send substantially more troops to Afghanistan and rejuvenate his counterinsurgency strategy. He'll be called a "weak" president. And the label will stick.

A weak president is vulnerable, politically and otherwise. In Jimmy Carter's case, being seen as weak in dealing with Iran and the Soviets was a major factor in his defeat by Ronald Reagan in 1980. Americans don't like pushovers, especially pushover presidents. Obama is at risk of becoming a pushover.

COMMENT:  Barnes is correct.  And we wonder what impact the Nobel Prize will have on Obama's decision.  If things get worse in Afghanistan/Pakistan in the absence of effective action by this president, he becomes a weakling.

Problem is, you can't beat somebody with nobody.   We don't have a Ronald Reagan for 2012.  The GOP isn't very good at developing top candidates, and it had better develop that skill.

October 11, 2009   Permalink

SMART AMERICANS - AT 10:15 A.M. ET: Who said Americans aren't savvy?  Rasmussen reports that they've caught on to the racket known as the Nobel Peace Prize:

Americans are much more skeptical of the motivation behind the awarding of the prestigious international Nobel Prizes following President Obama's win Friday of the Nobel Peace Prize.

A new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that 58% of American adults now believe that politics plays a role in the awarding of the Nobel Prize. That's an 18-point jump from 40% a year ago.

Just 21% of Americans say politics does not play a role in the awarding of the Nobel Prize. Twenty-one percent (21%) are not sure.

COMMENT:  The 21% who say politics plays no role corresponds to the number of Americans who describe themselves as liberals.  Figures.

October 11,  2009   Permalink

SATURDAY,  OCTOBER 10,  2009

WHY SHOULD WE CARE? - AT 11:38 P.M. ET:  The common-sensical columnist Anne Applebaum, writing in the Washington Post, cares for our emotional needs by explaining why we shouldn't care that much about the Nobel Peace Prize:

The Nobel Committee consists of five Norwegians, selected by the Norwegian parliament. In his will, Alfred Nobel, the Swedish dynamite tycoon who thought up this whole thing, specifically wanted Norwegians to choose the winner, apparently because Norwegians, being outside the European mainstream, would be less likely to be politically corrupt. The trouble is that Norwegians, being outside the European mainstream, are also more likely to be eccentric. Norway is a wonderful country and Norwegians have some of the highest living standards in the world -- thanks to their low population numbers and their large deposits of oil and gas – but the last time I was there, I got in an argument with someone over which country was more evil, the United States or North Korea. This being a few years ago, at the height of the Bush Terror, you can guess which side the Norwegian was on.

COMMENT:  Despite the bit of nastiness about the "Bush Terror," I feel much better now.  If people actually knew what the Nobel Peace Prize is, and who actually awards it, news of the winner would appear on page 24.

October 10, 2009   Permalink

NEW YORK TERROR FUNDS SLASHED - AT 5:41 P.M. ET:  This has far less to do with New York than with the lack of seriousness in the way "anti-terror" funds are allocated in Washington.  They often seem to be dispensed based more on political clout than defense needs.  From CBS:

After facing one of the most serious terror threats since the 9-11 attacks, Department of Homeland Security officials are slashing a big chunk of anti-terror funding to New York City.

Local lawmakers say the cut could put American lives at risk.

Just weeks after Najibullah Zazi was nabbed in an al-Qaida terror plot to explode dirty bombs here, the feds have inexplicably slashed Big Apple terror funding designed to build a network of sensors to uncover nuclear or radioactive devices in a 50 miles radius of the city.

"To me this is beyond comprehension that less than a month after al-Qaida attempted an attack against New York City that you would have the Congress cutting the money that New York City needs to defend itself from a dirty bomb attack. It's absolutely mind-boggling," Rep. Peter King, R-Long Island, told CBS 2 HD on Thursday afternoon.

COMMENT:  Considering what we've spent to bail out banks and provide "stimulus" earmarks to every Dem congressman and senator with a going pulse, cutting anti-terror funds to a prime target is obscene. 

Once again we see the attitude of today's Democratic Party toward defense of the nation.  Harry Truman, wherever he is, must be stunned.

October 10, 2009   Permalink

HERE COME THE GROWN-UPS - AT 5:04 P.M. ET:  There are children in politics, and there are grown-ups.  Very often we have to call on the grown-ups after the children have spilt their milk and messed up the place.

Sometimes, however, the children make far more than minor mischief.  Sometimes they cost lives, as when children dither and waste time when important questions of war and peace are involved.  We're in such a time now, as the president of the United States cannot seem to decide on a course in southern Asia.  As Fox News reports, problems requiring adult judgment stand in his way:

An ongoing hostage standoff in Pakistan is adding to growing concerns about the stability of that nuclear-armed country as President Obama decides whether to shift U.S. focus to Pakistan or ramp up the war in Afghanistan.

Further complicating U.S. relations with Pakistan, a key ally in the region, is the Pakistani military's hostility toward conditions recently attached to a nearly $2 billion aid package.

Military advisers are pushing Obama to increase manpower in Afghanistan to battle the Taliban, but some other advisers reportedly are suggesting that the U.S. should consider allowing the Taliban into a political role in Afghanistan's future so that the U.S. can turn its attention toward eliminating roots of the Al Qaeda threat in Pakistan.

But the new violence in Pakistan could undercut any concessions being considered for the Taliban.

"What happened today in Pakistan should encourage [Obama] to follow the advice of the military because they know better the strength of the Taliban," Walid Phares, a terrorism analyst and senior fellow at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies told FOXNews.com.

COMMENT:  It is perfectly evident from news reports that Obama and his leftist followers are looking for a cheap way out in southern Asia.  If their strategy fails, after all, they can always blame BUSH (!!). 

But conditions are deteriorating in both Afghanistan and Pakistan.  There is no cheap way out.  But a president who has just been awarded the Nobel Peace Prize will not be inclined to take the expensive, and correct course.  In an administration where image is everything, courage will not do.

October 10, 2009   Permalink

CALIFORNIA, HERE WE DON'T COME - AT 12:15 P.M. ET:  California has often been a bellwether for the rest of the country.  The numbers coming out of the tarnished golden state are grim:

Oct. 9 (Bloomberg) -- California’s revenue collections trailed its forecasts by $1.1 billion during the first three months of the fiscal year, showing new deficits are emerging in the budget Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger signed July 28.

Revenue was 5.3 percent less than was assumed in the $85 billion annual budget during the three months ended Sept. 30. Income tax receipts led the shortfall, as unemployment reached as high as 12.2 percent in August.

“Revenues more than $1 billion under estimates and recent adverse court rulings are dealing a major blow to a budget that is barely 10-weeks old,” Controller John Chiang said in a statement. “While there are encouraging signs that California’s economy is preparing for a comeback, the recession continues to drag state revenues down.”

COMMENT:  I'm always amused when public officials talk about a state that is "preparing" for a comeback.  How do you prepare?  California is in terrible shape.  It is burdened by excessive spending, fleeing industry, and a large number of illegal immigrants. 

And Hollywood, a major industry in the state, is cutting back on budgets.

Soon the matrimonial lawyers might even leave.  Followed by the plastic surgeons.

This does not bode well for other states.  Illinois is also in trouble. 

And how does Washington react?  The Dems are already talking about a second stimulus package.  Boy, I hope it's as effective as the first one.  That really brought jobs back, didn't it?  They're also talking about a value added tax, which will kill purchasing, a sure way to improve the economy.

October 10, 2009   Permalink

WHAT? IS THIS THE BBC?  THE LEFTIST, ANTI-AMERICAN, SUPER-TRENDY BBC?  YES IT IS.  YES THEY CAN - AT 11:12 A.M.  Well, it took one mainstream news organization to break the silence on the global-warming racket, and BBC does it with a fine piece questioning the conventional "wisdom":

This headline may come as a bit of a surprise, so too might that fact that the warmest year recorded globally was not in 2008 or 2007, but in 1998.

But it is true. For the last 11 years we have not observed any increase in global temperatures.

And our climate models did not forecast it, even though man-made carbon dioxide, the gas thought to be responsible for warming our planet, has continued to rise.

So what on Earth is going on?

Climate change sceptics, who passionately and consistently argue that man's influence on our climate is overstated, say they saw it coming.

And they were laughed at, and called the equivalent of Holocaust deniers.

What is really interesting at the moment is what is happening to our oceans. They are the Earth's great heat stores.

According to research conducted by Professor Don Easterbrook from Western Washington University last November, the oceans and global temperatures are correlated...

And, after a period of warming, the oceans are starting to cool.

Climate change sceptics argue that this is evidence that they have been right all along.

They say there are so many other natural causes for warming and cooling, that even if man is warming the planet, it is a small part compared with nature.

But those scientists who are equally passionate about man's influence on global warming argue that their science is solid.

And it's the true believers who, unfortunately, have the ear of politicians, starting with science whiz and chief cook Al Gore.

So what can we expect in the next few years?

Both sides have very different forecasts. The Met Office says that warming is set to resume quickly and strongly.

It predicts that from 2010 to 2015 at least half the years will be hotter than the current hottest year on record (1998).

Sceptics disagree. They insist it is unlikely that temperatures will reach the dizzy heights of 1998 until 2030 at the earliest. It is possible, they say, that because of ocean and solar cycles a period of global cooling is more likely.

One thing is for sure. It seems the debate about what is causing global warming is far from over. Indeed some would say it is hotting up.

COMMENT:  Yes indeed.  It sure is "hotting up."  And this country is being asked by the "international community" to spend trillions of dollars, and possibly wreck our economy, on the basis of "science" that may turn out to be entirely wrong. 

Let's be sure.  Is that too much to ask?

October 10, 2009   Permalink

OBAMA GAINS IN POLL - AT 10:16 A.M. ET:  Rasmussen reports:

The Rasmussen Reports daily Presidential Tracking Poll for Saturday shows that 32% of the nation's voters Strongly Approve of the way that Barack Obama is performing his role as President. Thirty-five percent (35%) Strongly Disapprove giving Obama a Presidential Approval Index rating of -3. That’s the President’s best Approval Index rating in nearly a month and matches his best rating since early July.

Forty-three percent (43%) give the President good or excellent marks on national security matters and 30% say he is governing on a bi-partisan basis.

Most voters say a middle class tax cut is more important than new spending on health care.

COMMENT:  The polling was done before announcement of the Nobel Peace Prize.  Some analysts report that the president's poll numbers stabilized in September.

My own sense is that the improvement is due largely to the decline in the number who "strongly disapprove."  Liberalism has a very strong base that will always "strongly approve" of any liberal office holder, especially a minority office holder.  That base, I estimate, is in the 25-28 percent range.  It is very difficult to drive the "strongly approve" number for a liberal president below that base.

The combat for conservatives is to make sure the liberals don't get the extra 22-25 points needed, beyond the base, for an electoral victory.  Conservatives failed last year.  It must not happen again.

October 10, 2009   Permalink

REAL CLASS - AT 9:58 A.M. ET:  The State Department greeted the awarding of the Nobel Peace Prize to President Obama with a statement that showed that even our diplomats have learned the Chicago style of politics:

In a clear dig at former President George W. Bush, a State Department spokesman compared President Obama's Nobel Peace Prize to the flying footwear his predecessor faced in Iraq.

"From our standpoint, you know, we think that this gives us a sense of momentum … when the United States has accolades tossed its way, rather than shoes," State Department spokesman P.J. Crowley told reporters on Friday.

Crowley was referring to a 2008 incident in which an Iraqi reporter hurled his shoe at Bush during a news conference in Baghdad.

Real class.  The obsession with BUSH (!!) continues.  The statement is an embarrassment to the United States, but nothing will be done about it.

Oh, by the way, the Democratic National Committee released a statement accusing Republicans who oppose the award of siding with terrorists.  The New York Times more or less reports the debate.

October 10,  2009   Permalink