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.

APRIL 6,  2011

A TRUMPING WE WILL GO – AT 10:51 P.M. ET:  A new Wall Street Journal/NBC News poll shows Donald Trump second among Republican primary voters.

Now, is that just name recognition, or what?  I think it's more.  Trump, not known for his skills in international politics or governmental leadership, has clearly caught on with a segment of Republicans who may be looking for an alternative to the usual field of candidates.  Recall that Ross Perot had that same appeal in 1992.  The votes Perot received in the general election that year were critical to defeating incumbent President George H.W. Bush and electing Bill Clinton.

And there may well be something else.  Trump says things that other people think.  He has brought up the Obama birth-certificate issue, something not considered proper in respectable circles.  But many Americans, including those who assume the president was born in Hawaii when he says he was, still wonder why Mr. Obama won't release his long-form birth certificate, which contains detailed information.  Trump discusses this in a common-sense, guy-in-the-corner-bar way.  If someone doesn't release something, Trump says, he's probably hiding something.  And on this, Trump is right.

Trump claimed today that he has investigators working in Hawaii and that they have discovered disturbing things.  Now Trump can be blowing smoke.  He's good at that.  But he could be dead serious.  If he opens up this can of worms, and it turns out to be a can of worms, he can suddenly emerge as a political hero to the right.  In this, Trump may be tapping deep suspicions about Obama in at least a part of the electorate. 

And even though I'm not a "birther," I, too, have wondered why Obama doesn't release his birth certificate.  Maybe he should, for I can almost imagine Donald Trump holding a copy up in a televised news conference and announcing, "I have here in my hand..."

April 6, 2011       Permalink

WHAT A FARCE – AT 9:48 P.M. ET:  One of the great lines you hear from Hollywood schemers is, "My hands are tied."  You know, sorry about the situation, but I can't do anything about it.  It's almost never true. 

Now President Obama gives us the political version of that.  High gasoline prices?  Oh, that's really too bad, but my hands are tied:

Obama cautioned that it's going to be tough to transition from America's oil-dependent economy and acknowledged there's little he can do to lower gasoline prices over the short term.

"I'm just going to be honest with you. There's not much we can do next week or two weeks from now," the president told workers at a wind turbine plant outside Philadelphia.

It's a theme Obama's struck before as he tries to show voters he's attuned to a top economic concern with gas prices pushing toward $4 a gallon.

Obama said he wants to move toward "a future where America is less dependent on foreign oil, more reliant on clean energy produced by workers like you." That will happen by reducing oil imports, tapping domestic energy sources and shifting the nation to renewable and less polluting sources of energy, such as wind, the president says. He has set a goal of reducing oil imports by one-third by 2025.

But the president said it won't happen overnight and if any politician says it's easy, "they're not telling the truth."

"Gas prices? They're going to still fluctuate until we can start making these broader changes, and that's going to take a couple of years to have serious effect," Obama said.

COMMENT:  Well, let's see.  Obama can start a crash program to increase domestic production of petroleum, including offshore drilling, but that might offend the enviro-nuts who are part of his base.  Of course the enviro-nuts don't understand that people are part of the environment, and people plunged into poverty don't give us a healthy world.

The fact is that there are people around Obama who like high gasoline prices because it will discourage people from driving, something of a sin in their little paradise.

We have enough domestic oil to take care of our needs, as we gradually transition to newer fuels.  But that oil hasn't been tapped, largely because of government policy.  So an entire generation must be financially strained because of the left's political and economic theories. 

But the president's hands are tied.

April 6, 2011     Permalink

SPIRITED CHOICE – AT 8:53 A.M. ET:  As you know, I don't think Obama is much of a president, but his political operation has always been first class.  It's gotten even better with Chicago's Bill Daley as White House chief of staff.  Now Obama – and I suspect that this was driven by Daley – has made a spirited choice to head the Democratic National Committee.  From The Politico:

President Barack Obama has chosen Florida Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz as the incoming chairwoman of the Democratic National Committee, the party announced late Tuesday.

Wasserman Schultz, 44, was chosen for her strength as a fundraiser and as a television messenger and for her clout in the crucial swing state of Florida, the sources said.

She will succeed Tim Kaine, who announced earlier Tuesday that he will run for U.S. Senate from Virginia.

The committee announced the choice in an email to members from Vice President Joe Biden.

“In selecting Debbie to lead our party, President Obama noted her tenacity, her strength, her fighting spirit and her ability to overcome adversity,” Biden wrote.

COMMENT:  By "her ability to overcome adversity," Biden was alluding to the fact that she's a breast cancer survivor.

Wasserman Schultz is a bigmouth, a transplanted New Yorker who now represents a congressional district in Florida, and an extremely effective debater and political operator.  She's photogenic and does very well on television.  Most important, she's a party sparkplug who understands that boredom doesn't win elections.  She is going to be, for our side, a very tough competitor.

I wish Republicans can learn the "spirit" lesson.  Reagan had a fighting spirit and personality that lit up the party.  There are some young, vigorous Republicans like Paul Ryan, Marco Rubio and Eric Cantor who follow in that tradition.  But the current presidential field feels like the old presidential field, and the one before that.  I urge again that Republicans look to their new, dynamic generation for 2012.  Obama the weak president will morph into Obama the 2008 campaigner, with the press at its back.  Only a great candidate can fight back effectively.  The selection of Wasserman Schultz is a sign that the Dems are back in political style.

April 6, 2011      Permalink

HEY, WE MAY NOT HAVE A GOVERNMENT PRETTY SOON – AT 8:37 A.M. ET:  From Fox:

The impasse between the White House and Congress increasingly looks like it will force the government to shut down by the weekend, with a spending summit yielding no deal on Tuesday.

President Obama said he would like to meet with congressional leaders every day until the stalemate over funding the government for the rest of the fiscal year is solved, but as of Tuesday evening no additional meetings were on the calendar.

"Myself, Joe Biden, my team -- we are prepared to meet for as long as possible to this resolved," a visibly frustrated Obama said during a surprise appearance at the White House briefing room.

The Tuesday summit with the president, House Speaker John Boehner and Senate Majority leader Harry Reid seemed only to aggravate the two sides, and a followup meeting between the two congressional leaders didn’t seem to make any progress of funding the government through Sept. 30.

COMMENT:  Republicans were elected in November to put this nation's fiscal house in order, and that's what they're trying to do.  Paul Ryan's dramatic budget proposals, announced yesterday, are a major element in the Republican plan.

At the same time, the GOP must be superbly adept at politics while pursuing its goals.  If the government is shut down, Americans may well blame the Republicans because the White House can demagogue the issue.  ("There weren't any shutdowns when Democrats ran the House.")  In addition, the administration can make the shutdown really hurt average Americans, which will result in public fury directed at those deemed responsible.  What if Social Security checks are withheld?  Medicare payments?  Aid to education?

This weeks marks a huge test for the Republican Party – keeping its promises, yet not falling into serious political traps that can reverse the effects of the 2010 midterms.  Watch for all-night negotiations.  I think the GOP wants a deal so it can pursue its larger aims.

April 6, 2011      Permalink

OBAMA THE LEADER – AT 8:22 A.M. ET:  We've been following closely the effects of President Obama's lack of leadership – or confused leadership – during the Libya combat.  Europeans understand that this marks a turning point in America's role in the world.  Obama doesn't like that role, but the results of his pulling back can be catastrophic.  From Financial Times:

Transatlantic relations are being tested by the US’s refusal to lead the military mission in Libya, with figures on both sides of the ocean depicting the conflict as a wake-up call for Europe’s military and political establishments.

Britain and France are straining to fill the gap left by Washington’s decision to pull back, as Europe’s military ambitions are tested.

The Pentagon said on Tuesday that it had flown 1,600 sorties since operations began on March 19 and would no longer be involved in air strikes against Libyan targets. It would continue support missions, such as aerial refuelling, and would remain on alert for emergency strike missions, if requested by Nato.

Defence experts maintain that the US move has a longer-term significance, since it signals that Europeans cannot rely on Washington to provide security in crises in their neighbourhood.

“What we’ve seen in Libya is hugely significant,” said Lord Hutton, a former defence secretary in the last Labour government. “The US has been saying for 10 or 15 years that it wants the Europeans to share more of the security burden and we have to heed that lesson. We should be doing much more in Europe. We cannot go on expecting the US to take the leading role.”

COMMENT:  It is correct to say that Europe has sponged off the US for too long, cutting its own defense budgets to appease the powerful European left, yet expecting us to do the heavy lifting.  In that sense, Obama's pulling back may be a good thing.

But there are right ways and wrong ways to withdraw, and Obama has decidedly chosen the wrong way.  He has pulled American forces back in the midst of a major crisis.  If any other country had done that to us, we'd call it a betrayal.  In addition, Obama has pulled forces back without a clear strategy.

Libyan rebel sources – whoever they are – are now telling news organizations that NATO is now a problem:

Libyan rebels have accused Nato of being too slow to act - and asked them to suspend operations unless they "do the job properly".

Oh great.  What a dream operation.  We've going to antagonize just about everyone, and benefit no one. 

This isn't change we can believe in.

April 6, 2011      Permalink

THE PETRAEUS FACTOR – AT 7:57 A.M. ET:  Yesterday we reported on intense speculation that General David Petraeus might be made head of the CIA in an administration musical chairs game to be played later this year.  There is also speculation that politics may be in the general's future.  Now Urgent Agenda hears from a very well-informed source, in a position to know, who has a reaction to the speculation.  Our source has these things to say about Petraeus:

1. He is exhausted because Afghanistan is an intractable mess. I spoke to two highly placed sources today who are often in Kabul. They said that despite the "surge" and much bally-hooed reorganizations, the Afghan Army remains firmly on a different script from both the US and Afghan President Karzai. Karzai is hoping against hope that reconciliation is possible. (It is not according to these two.)  

The US hopes to rapidly expand Afghan forces to achieve doctrinal counterinsurgency force ratios. Problem is the Afghans have little inclination to conduct counterinsurgency. It is very difficult and requires sophisticated NCOs, which they lack. They see their army as a buttress against Pakistan, Iran, the Stans to the north, etc.

2. I am not sure he will make a good politician. He is great in theory, but once forced to actually take positions he will inevitably lose support. And he is not that great a speaker...he does not capture a room. He has a professorial manner that may not thrill on the stump.

3. I do not believe the CIA rumors. Sounds like a White House trial balloon. They would love to keep him busy for a few years. Supreme Allied Commander, Europe, is a possibility, but may be too sideways a move for him.

COMMENT:  Interesting observations.  I heard Petraeus give a briefing in a small room last year, and must concur in the notion that he isn't a compelling speaker.  Generals often fail when they try to enter politics.  Witness Wesley Clark and William Westmoreland.  Douglas MacArthur, regarded as godlike by many Americans, broadly hinted that he was interested in the presidency, but his strident speeches turned off most Americans in the early 1950s, and he got one vote at the 1952 Republican convention.

Of course, Petraeus is being talked about constantly.  His name is always in the news.  That can't hurt should he decide to take a swing at a civilian career in government and politics. 

April 6, 2011     Permalink

APRIL 5,  2011

THE PLANNING, THE STRATEGY, MAYBE THE MOVIE – AT 9:57 P.M. ET:  Libya isn't going well.  The rebels are stalemated, and maybe that isn't such a bad thing, since we don't know exactly who the rebels are.  Now we learn that mighty NATO, absent the United States, isn't a paper tiger.  It's a paper mouse:

Nato is running short of attack aircraft for its bombing campaign against Muammar Gaddafi only days after taking command of the Libyan mission from a coalition led by the US, France and Britain.

David Cameron has pledged four more British Tornado jets on top of eight already being used for the air strikes. But pressure is growing for other European countries, especially France, to offer more after the Americans withdrew their attack aircraft from the campaign on Monday.

"We will need more strike capability," a Nato official said.

Since the French launched the first raids on Libya 16 days ago, the coalition and Nato have destroyed around 30% of Gaddafi's military capacity, Lieutenant General Charles Bouchard, the Canadian officer leading the air campaign, told Nato ambassadors.

But attempts to "degrade" the Libyan leader's firepower further were being complicated by a shift in tactics by Gaddafi, said Brigadier General Marc van Uhm, a senior Nato military planner.

"They are using light vehicles and trucks to transport," while hiding tanks and heavy weapons, he said.

COMMENT:  There certainly doesn't seem to be much enthusiasm on the part of NATO, absent vigorous American leadership.  And there doesn't seem to be any vigorous strategy.  I think there has been a greater sense of hesitation after press reports noted that the rebels aren't exactly Explorer Scouts, and that key members of the rebel leadership have dark pasts.  Reports out of Egypt that the "democratic" revolution may not be very democratic may also be leading to a pulling back, at least emotionally. 

I also get the sense that Americans are losing interest in the Libya story.  Without a clear distinction of good guys and bad guys, it's hard to charge into the lines.

April 5, 2011       Permalink 

SNIPPET OF THE DAY – AT 9:32 P.M. ET: 

From AOL:  Police in Charlotte, N.C., say they arrested a home invasion suspect who accidentally left a T-shirt featuring his own face -- in the form of a mug shot -- at the scene of the crime.  Following his release from a North Carolina prison after serving seven years for armed robbery and breaking and entering, Jonathan Huntley, 25, acquired a T-shirt printed with his own mug shot and the words "Making Money Is My Thang," The Smoking Gun reports.

A man who messes up this badly should immediately be put in charge of our Mideast policy.  It would be a step up.

April 5, 2011      Permalink

THE BIG BUCKS ARE FLYING – AT 10:15 A.M. ET:   Republicans have unveiled their budget proposals.  They are dramatic, and they will be controversial.  From Bloomberg:

U.S. House Republicans today unveiled a plan to overhaul the federal budget and slash the deficit in coming years by about three-quarters, with a $6- trillion cut in spending and 25 percent cap on tax rates.

The proposal, the Republicans’ first comprehensive budget plan since the November elections, would cut the deficit next year to $995 billion from $1.4 trillion now. It would continue to narrow the shortfall to as little as $379 billion in 2018, though it wouldn’t balance the government’s books until 2040.

House Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan’s plan relies on spending cuts to reduce the red ink, slicing more than $6 trillion over the next decade out of Medicare, Medicaid, food stamps and scores of other programs. At the same time, his proposal calls for cutting taxes, with the top corporate and individual tax rates set at 25 percent.

“We believe that we have the moral responsibility to step in and provide the leadership that the president has not been providing,” Ryan told reporters today in Washington. “He punted on debt reduction. We’re not going to do that.”

The plan marks a major escalation in Washington’s budget wars where lawmakers have been debating for months funding levels for the remainder of the government’s current fiscal year. Ryan’s proposal presents substantial political risk for Republicans because Democrats are sure to pounce on proposed cuts to popular government programs before next year’s presidential and congressional elections.

COMMENT:  At least the Republican proposals are serious and far-reaching.  Paul Ryan, whose career may either be enhanced or fatally damaged by the sheer scope of these proposals, deserves enormous credit for shaping the GOP plan.  He is a public servant in every sense.

The demagogues will now pounce.  My fear is that they will be successful, for they will have the media fronting for them.

As we said here yesterday, the way the GOP presents and explains this plan will be just as important as the plan itself.  Republicans should learn from the way Democrats botched the introduction of Obamacare.

April 5, 2011       Permalink

PETRAEUS ON THE MOVE? – AT 9:16 A.M. ET:  There's great buzz on the internet this morning about the future of General David Petraeus, the best-known American military officer of this generation.  Toby Harnden of Britain's Telegraph, has the best coverage:

This summer it will be musical chairs among President Barack Obama’s national security team. Leon Panetta, the CIA Director, is widely tipped to take over from Bob Gates as Pentagon chief. General David Petraeus, who is said to be exhausted and eager to leave Afghanistan, is being tipped by NPR as a serious contender for Panetta’s job.

We note that NPR is National Public Radio, not always known for its precision.  The story about Petraeus has not been confirmed.

It wouldn’t be unusual for a military officer to take over at Langley but Petraeus – known to some as King David – has no specialist intelligence background, though he’s certainly spent plenty of time as an intelligence consumer.

The possible move shows that the Obama administration is having a hard time finding a slot for the general, once considered a potential 2012 nominee for Republicans.

And...

One big thing the CIA job would do is give Petraeus an entry point into the civilian politics of Washington. Certainly, Petraeus is extremely well connected in DC for a military man but there’s no doubt that a stint at CIA would be a broadening experience for him.

Which means, of course, he would be an even more attractive presidential candidate in due course.
Petraeus in 2016 anyone?

COMMENT:  Well, I don't know.  We haven't had a general in the White House since Eisenhower, and he wore five stars and had far greater stature than Petraeus. 

I'm fascinated by this report, though, because it does make sense.  Panetta would probably be a solid choice, at least in Obama's mind, for SecDef because he's loyal to Obama and is well regarded as an administrator.  He's unlikely to develop a Hillary-like following.

Petraeus at CIA might bring to mind the awful CIA reign of Vice Admiral William Raborn, the father of the Polaris missile program, who was made CIA director and almost turned the agency into a sinking ship.  But Petraeus would bring to the CIA an understanding of unconventional warfare that could improve the agency's product. 

I'm not sure Obama would want to enhance the general's political credentials because he's widely believed to be a Republican.

The real change will come at the State Department.  When Hillary leaves at the end of Obama's turn, and if Obama is reelected, who will fill Clinton's shoes?  Some of the candidates talked about – John Kerry and Samantha Power – are beyond depressing and would send us rushing for sedatives.  We might also buy land in Australia. 

We hope, of course, that Obama will be sent by the voters back to the South Side of Chicago, and will not have the chance to make all these juicy appointments.  He could work for Mayor Rahm Emanuel.

April 5, 2011     Permalink 

OH DEAR, CAN ALL THIS BE TRUE? – AT 8:58 A.M. ET:  As readers know, we've been asking the fundamental questions about the "democracy" rebellions in the Mideast:  Who are the rebels?  What do they stand for?  The answers, day by day, are getting very depressing.  This, from Toronto's Globe & Mail: 

Who are these Libyan rebels whom the Western powers, including Canada, are helping with their air raids?

The little we know is anything but reassuring. And it makes one wonder why Western leaders were foolish enough to provide major support to a group that might prove to be even more dangerous than Moammar Gadhafi’s regime. Colonel Gadhafi is a cruel despot, to be sure, but at least he stopped sponsoring international terrorism; he’s now al-Qaeda’s nemesis and a violent foe of radical Islamists.

Yeah.  Absolutely evil, but maybe the lesser of two evils.  In the Mideast, a human-rights sewer, that may even count for something. 

In late 2009, a Canadian intelligence report called the anti-Gadhafi stronghold of eastern Libya an “epicentre of Islamist extremism,” pointing out that “extremist cells” operated in the region, including in some of Benghazi’s mosques.

Happy days are here again.

Last month, the Transitional National Council, the group formed by the anti-Gadhafi rebels during the uprising of 2011, was endorsed by Abu Yahya, a Libyan-born al-Qaeda official (and alleged member of the Libyan Islamic Fighting Group), who broadcast a video message urging the Benghazi rebels to continue the fight for the establishment of an Islamic regime.

And...

The council’s chairman is Mustafa Abdul Jalil, a former justice minister in Col. Gadhafi’s government. The appellate court of which he had been president twice confirmed the death penalty for five Bulgarian nurses who had been arrested in 1999 on the ludicrous charge of contaminating Libyan children with the AIDS virus.

And...

Abdul Fatah Younis, a senior military commander of the insurgency, is a former interior and public security minister. As such, he was responsible for the system of torture set up by the Gadhafi regime.

And...

Idris Laga, the council’s “military co-ordinator,” was head of the Association of Relatives of Children Infected with AIDS, an organization set up by the regime to raise the price exacted for the Bulgarian nurses held hostage. Vladimir Chukov, a Bulgarian expert on the Arab world, says Mr. Laga “harbours a deep hatred for the West.”

COMMENT:  Have a nice day.  Remember that Hitler was democratically elected.

April 5, 2011      Permalink

MICHELE? – AT 8:27 A.M. ET:  No, I don't mean the one in the White House.  I'm referring to Michele Bachmann (one "l"), Republican congresswoman from Minnesota, who seems increasingly serious about running for president in 2012.  And she's being taken increasingly seriously, at least in the conservative base of the Republican Party.  Can she be a factor – nominee, kingmaker, troublemaker?  The Hill has a well-reported story:

The vacuum created by former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin’s (R) absence from the 2012 campaign trail presents a major opportunity for the woman she once hinted might share a presidential ticket with her: Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-Minn.).

With strategists and conservative activists increasingly convinced that Palin won’t make a run for the White House next year, she is losing some clout among her contingent of grassroots devotees who are eager to hit the 2012 campaign trail and rally behind an alternative to President Obama.

Bachmann, who is mulling a 2012 run, is the most obvious choice to supplant Palin in next year’s presidential contest. The Minnesota Republican is positioning herself to take up the anti-establishment mantle that vaulted Palin to Tea Party stardom.

And polls reflect Bachmann’s growing cachet. The three-term lawmaker came in second in last week’s Gallup poll that measured GOP voters’ level of intensity about the 2012 hopefuls. Palin was sixth. The poll also found that Palin had a higher unfavorable rating, 8 percent, than Bachmann, who had a 4 percent disapproval rate.

COMMENT:  I have mixed feelings about this.  Bachmann is a crowd rouser, like Palin, and does her homework on the issues.  She's a lawyer who did post-graduate academic work in law.  However, she's very junior, and tends to be gaffe-prone.  Now, Obama is gaffe-prone as well, but, in the gaffe department, only Republicans get nailed by the media.  Dems get a pass. 

Bachmann will certainly draw a great deal of attention if she runs.  But, at this stage in her career, she's widely viewed as a lightweight, and someone who would have trouble bringing in the independents who are critical to a GOP victory in 2012.  She'd make the race more interesting.  She'd also draw attention away from those more likely to succeed at getting the nomination.  This is a potential candidacy that clearly cuts both ways.

Read the story.  Interesting stuff.  The 2012 election is right around the corner.

April 5, 2011     Permalink