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.

WE'VE RESUMED OUR PRACTICE THIS YEAR OF PLACING THE FLAG STRIP BEFORE AND AFTER POSTS DEALING WITH THE ELECTION DURING THE LAST MONTH OR SO OF THE ELECTION CAMPAIGN.

OCTOBER 4,  2014

SHORT TAKES ON THE DRIFTING WRECKAGE – AT 11:20 P.M. ET: 

STRANGE APOLOGY – From AP:  "ANKARA, Turkey (AP) — US Vice President Joe Biden apologized Saturday to Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan, who was angry over comments in which Biden said Erdogan had admitted that Turkey had made mistakes by allowing foreign fighters to cross into Syria."  So our vice president (probably acting on a prompt from our president) finds it necessary to apologize to Erdogan, a two-bit West-hating Islamist, who has become increasingly repressive.  One person who won't be receiving an apology from Biden is former CIA Director and Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta, whose new book severely criticizes Barack Obama's style of non-leadership.  Biden called the book "inappropriate."  No, it's very appropriate, as America is now warned by an insider about the reality of an administration that still has two years to run. 

THE REAL WORLD – From Fox:  "The Islamic State terror group identified its next target on Friday, a former U.S. Army Ranger who was captured in Lebanon last year during a relief mission to help Syrian refugees.  Peter Edward Kassig, 26, first visited Beirut on a college spring break trip. What the Indiana native saw there prompted him to return, the next time as a medical assistant and humanitarian worker hoping to offer blankets, food and medical care to victims of the region's conflicts.  Kassig founded a nongovernmental organization that provided aid for refugees fleeing the civil war in neighboring Syria. But his work in Lebanon led to his capture by militants on Oct. 1, 2013, while en route to eastern Syria."   It was the beheading of one American that led to public outrage here over the Islamic State.  One wonders what a new beheading will bring.  And what if the same fate falls on a downed American airman?

HILLARY'S ITINERARY – From The Politico:  "Hillary Clinton has mapped out much of her political schedule through Election Day, an itinerary that focuses on helping Senate candidates and includes trips to a half-dozen states, including Kentucky and presidential early states Iowa and New Hampshire, according to details obtained by POLITICO.  The plan, which could see adjustments and additions as races hit critical points in the coming weeks, was the product of close work between Clinton chief of staff Huma Abedin and the Democratic campaign committees."  Sounds like just the right itinerary for someone looking to pick up loyalty points for a presidential run.  She's not doing this out of love for fellow Democrats.  I wonder if she's bringing the new baby with her.

October 4, 2014       Permalink

GALLUP ASSESSES THE RACE – AT 11:57 A.M. ET:  And sees similarities to 2010 and 2006.  From Gallup: 

PRINCETON, NJ -- Registered voters are more likely to view their choice of candidate in this year's midterm elections as a message of opposition (32%) rather than support (20%) for President Barack Obama. That 12-percentage-point margin is similar to what Gallup measured for Obama in 2010 and George W. Bush in 2006, years in which their parties performed poorly in the midterm elections.

Gallup first asked this question in 1998, the year Republicans were moving toward impeaching President Bill Clinton for lying about his affair with a White House intern. That year, when Clinton's approval rating was 63%, more voters said their choice of candidate in the fall election would be made to show support rather than opposition to Clinton. Democrats had a strong showing in that fall's elections, gaining seats in the House of Representatives, bucking the historical pattern by which the president's party loses seats in Congress in midterm elections.

In the next midterm election, voters by an even larger margin said their vote would be made to support rather than oppose President George W. Bush, who had a 66% approval rating at the time of the elections. These attitudes were consistent with the eventual outcome, as Republicans increased their majority in the House and gained majority control of the Senate.

The presidents in the next two midterm elections were not popular, including Bush's second midterm election in 2006 (38%) when Democrats won control of the House and Senate and Obama's first midterm in 2010 (44%) when Republicans won back control of both houses of Congress. Reinforcing that the 2014 midterms look more like 2006 and 2010 than 1998 or 2002, Obama's approval ratings have been in the low 40% range, including 42% in the most recent Gallup Daily tracking three-day rolling average.

COMMENT:  Yes, true.  At the same time we must caution that, as Tip O'Neill famously said, "all politics is local."  Senators run in their states, not in the nation.  Our side is having trouble in some states we should be winning easily because the local incumbent retains residual support.  Overcoming that local advantage is one of the keys to victory.  Simply bashing Obama won't be enough.

October 4, 2014       Permalink

MITT RISING? – AT 11:16 A.M. ET:  Gee, Mitt Romney seems to be everywhere these days.  And he's saying the right things.  You don't think he's planning to....  Nah.  Well, maybe nah.  From CBS: 

IVONIA, Mich. — A victory by Terri Lynn Land in Michigan’s Senate race in November is important to winning back Republican control of the chamber, former Republican presidential nominee Mitt Romney told supporters during a GOP rally Thursday in his native state.

Romney, the former Massachusetts governor who lost the 2012 presidential race to Barack Obama, said it has been a tough time for the country since that election.

“It’s time for him to apologize to America,” Romney said of Obama, speaking to several hundred GOP supporters.

But, Romney said, “Help is on the way” in the person of Land, who “will make a difference in Washington.”

He then introduced Land, the former secretary of state who is pitted in a tight race with Democratic U.S. Rep. Gary Peters to replace longtime Democratic Sen. Carl Levin.

COMMENT:  Hmm. That's a good line – demanding that Obama apologize to America.  I suspect we're seeing the foundation being laid for a new presidential campaign by Mitt, emphasizing the fact that he was right on so many things, and Obama, as usual, was wrong.  Mitt can run on the values of wisdom, experience, competence, and record.  It will be tough.  He isn't charismatic, and Hillary will suck the journalistic oxygen out of the room.  She's be anointed as the "obvious" next president.  But maybe the American people will wake up and surprise the pundits.

October 4, 2014       Permalink

GOP VICTORY CLOSER? – AT 10:55 A.M. ET:  From The Hill:

With one month until Election Day, Republicans' chances for retaking the Senate and picking up seats in the House are improving.

The GOP has been buoyed by positive public polling, while red-state Democrats are still struggling to find distance from President Obama. There are bright spots and even some unexpected new targets on the map for both parties, but the overall national environment seems to have ticked a bit toward Republicans.

The GOP needs to win a net of six seats to retake control of the Senate, and Republicans seem better-positioned to do so now than they did through much of the summer.

Democrats must hold their own for a decent election night, and they’re putting their faith in their vaunted ground game for the final stretch.

Both sides say control of the upper chamber is still very much at play, and Republicans certainly aren’t taking a victory lap just yet.

“The Senate is up for grabs and the outcome is far from certain,” said Paul Lindsay, spokesman for the pro-GOP American Crossroads. “There's a lot of encouraging signs in many states and a good progression for us in many states. But at the same time many of these races are still up for grabs.”

The GOP is all but certain to win open seats in Montana, South Dakota and West Virginia. Their candidates have also pulled into dead heats or slight leads against red-state Sens. Mark Begich (D-Alaska), Mary Landrieu (D-La.) and Mark Pryor (D-Ark.), leaving the party feeling bullish that former Alaska Department of Natural Resources commissioner Dan Sullivan (R) and Reps. Tom Cotton (R-Ark.) and Bill Cassidy (R-La.) will be joining the upper chamber next year.

COMMENT:  I'm mildly encouraged, which for me is near-euphoria.  A month is three lifetimes in politics.  The Dems have their usual dirty tricks, including an odd mathematical phenomenon wherein more people vote in a district on election day than live in the district.  They also have their scare campaigns.  Nothing is certain yet.  Control of the Senate may actually not be known election night, or even the next morning, if Louisiana goes into a runoff.  Fight as if we're 20 points behind.

October 4,  2014     Permalink

OCTOBER 3,  2014

SHORT TAKES ON THE DRIFTING WRECKAGE – AT 11:43 P.M. ET: 

GRAHAM IN? – From The Hill:  "South Carolina Sen. Lindsey Graham (R) says he could be a presidential candidate in 2016.  The outspoken two-term Senator, known as a foreign policy hawk, told The Weekly Standard that if the hawks aren’t well represented when the 2016 field begins to solidify, he might throw his hat into the ring. "  I know that many Republicans don't care much for Graham, but he has been a rock-solid voice for a strong national defense, which Republicans overwhelmingly favor.  He won't get the nomination, however he could contribute importantly to the debate.  He would clearly be a counter to Rand Paul.

AND NOW THE BAD NEWS – There's all kinds of giddiness on the Dem side about today's jobs report, showing strong job growth.  But the downside is far more significant.  From CNS:  "A record 92,584,000 Americans 16 and older did not participate in the labor force in September, as the labor force participation rate dropped to 62.7 percent, a level it has not seen in 36 years, the Bureau of Labor Statistics reported on Friday.  Six times in the last twelve months the participation rate has been as low as 62.8 percent; but September's 62.7 percent is the lowest since February of 1978."  That is very grim.  The number of Americans not working is stunning.

THE HACKERS – From The New York Times:  "The huge cyberattack on JPMorgan Chase that touched more than 83 million households and businesses was one of the most serious computer intrusions into an American corporation. But it could have been much worse.  Questions over who the hackers are and the approach of their attack concern government and industry officials. Also troubling is that about nine other financial institutions — a number that has not been previously reported — were also infiltrated by the same group of overseas hackers, according to people briefed on the matter. The hackers are thought to be operating from Russia and appear to have at least loose connections with officials of the Russian government, the people briefed on the matter said."  Guess the Obama reset button for Russia wasn't connected to this circuit.

October 3, 2014       Permalink

IS JOE EVER RIGHT? – AT 9:05 A.M. ET:  Joe Biden is a nice guy with one of the worst track records on foreign-policy judgment in recorded history.  Now, at Harvard, he speaks again, and he's wrong again.  From The Hill: 

Vice President Biden argued Thursday night in a foreign policy address at Harvard University that Americans “face no existential threat” from terrorism.

Imploring students to keep the threat posed by violent extremists “in perspective,” Biden said that although the country must remain vigilant, terrorists did not fundamentally challenge “our way of life or our security.”

“Let me say it again: We face no existential threat — none — to our way of life or our ultimate security,” Biden said. “You are twice as likely to be struck by lightning as you around to be affected by a terrorist event in the United States.”

The vice president’s comments come the week after the U.S. expanded its bombing campaign against the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria (ISIS), which President Obama described in a “60 Minutes” interview on Sunday as posing “immediate threats to the United States.”

“These folks could kill Americans,” Obama said.

Biden acknowledged that ISIS had demonstrated “the most blatant use of terrorist tactics the world has seen in a long, long time,” but said the U.S. knows “how to deal with them.”

“While we face an adaptive, resilient enemy, let’s never forget that they're no match for an even more resilient and adaptive group of people, the American people, who are so much tougher, smarter, realistic and gutsy than their political leadership gives them credit for,” Biden said.

COMMENT:  The problem with Biden's logic, of course, is that he's assuming terrorist groups will continue to be restricted to conventional weapons.  But what if, as is probably inevitable, they actually acquire WMD, including nuclear warheads?  No existential threat?  Three well-placed nuclear bombs in the United States could kill, in an instant, more Americans than have died in all our wars put together, and could cripple the American economy for years.  That's what Biden should be worried about.

October 3, 2014       Permalink

PRESIDENT BOBBY? – AT 8:38 A.M. ET:  There are signs that Bobby Jindal, the great Republican governor of Louisiana, will make a try for the White House in 2016.  He's an exciting, creative guy.  But there are problems, primarily concerning his popularity at home, that could severely handicap any campaign.  From Byron York at the Washington Examiner: 

A few months ago, Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal traveled to Washington to introduce a new national health care proposal. While there, he arranged to meet privately with a small group of conservative journalists and policy experts at the offices of the Ethics and Public Policy Center think tank.

Some of the experts engaged Jindal in debate about one of the plan's more arcane provisions. The back-and-forth between Jindal and his questioners went deep into the proposal's details, and it was soon clear that Jindal could dive as far into the health care policy weeds as any of the wonkiest wonks. He knew his stuff.

Jindal, a former Assistant Secretary of Health and Human Services, university president, congressman, and two-term governor, knows more than just health care. It's probably safe to say there are few politicians who can equal or surpass his policy knowledge.

Now Jindal is getting ready to run for president. So far, he's not exactly taking the race by storm. Of the ten candidates included in the RealClearPolitics average of polls for the 2016 Republican presidential race, Jindal is currently 10th, behind, in order of popularity, Chris Christie, Jeb Bush, Rand Paul, Paul Ryan, Ted Cruz, Rick Perry, Marco Rubio, Scott Walker, and Rick Santorum.

Jindal is smart, experienced, full of ideas, a solid conservative. So why is he so far back?

First, he is still virtually unknown. To the degree that people outside of Louisiana know Jindal, it is for his poorly received — OK, really bad — Republican response to President Obama's first State of the Union address in 2009.

"He's an undervalued stock," says Jindal adviser Timmy Teepell. "The view of the pundit class in DC, who have not seen Jindal on the stump or interacting with voters, is that he's an underdog without much of a shot. They take the simplistic approach — 'the first time I heard of him he gave a bad State of the Union response, so he can't be any good.' Fortunately, DC pundits don't get to decide elections."

Teepell points out that Jindal has won four elections in Louisiana — two for the House and two for the governor's office — all by decisive margins. When he makes his case to voters, he usually succeeds.

But all is not well at home for Jindal in his seventh year as governor. A poll released this week by PPP, a Democratic firm, pegged his job approval rating in Louisiana at just 34 percent, with 55 percent disapproval. (Other polls have also shown low approval ratings, although some have indicated recent improvement.)

In addition, PPP asked about hypothetical presidential matchups between Hillary Clinton and various Republicans in Louisiana. Bush, Cruz, and Paul, as well as Mike Huckabee, all topped Clinton. Jindal, the favorite son, trailed Clinton by a single point, 45 percent to 46 percent.

COMMENT:  The argument goes that Jindal has used up political capital at home to make needed reforms, and it's reflected in his poor public standing.  True enough.  But what counts in the end are the political numbers.  Jindal would make an exciting, innovative president.  His life story – he comes from a family that immigrated from India – is terrific.  But the numbers must start to work in his favor.  That can only happen if he announces and goes out on the stump, essentially full time, to make his case.

October 3, 2014       Permalink

WAPO EDITORIAL – SANE AGAIN – AT 8:18 A.M. ET:  We've said here often that the Washington Post has the best liberal editorial page in the country, especially on foreign policy.  It demonstrates that there are sane, thoughtful liberals of the old, national-defense school, that they're not all Obamanuts.  Now the Post, in a great editorial, demands that the administration stand firm on Iran.  

The Obama administration has a history of responding to Iran’s stonewalling by peeling away its own demands. It gave up an attempt to impose a permanent ban on Iranian enrichment and seems to have dropped a requirement that an underground uranium enrichment plant be closed. Now it seems to be contemplating scenarios under which Iran would not have to dismantle centrifuges that would be the center of any bomb-making effort.

In theory, a nuclear deal including this concession could still achieve the goal publicly set by Secretary of State John F. Kerry, which is to increase the time Iran would need to produce a bomb to six months to one year. However, by leaving the nuclear infrastructure intact, it would cede Iran the option of racing to build a nuclear arsenal at a time of its choosing, while removing the sanctions that are pressing the regime. Meanwhile, a concession already made by the United States and its allies — setting a date after which all restrictions on Iran’s nuclear work would lapse — would create a time bomb for the Middle East. Neighbors such as Saudi Arabia would likely take such a date, whether it is five or 15 years away, as a deadline for creating their own capacity for building nuclear weapons.

We have supported negotiations with Iran, and the interim deal struck last year, as preferable to what had previously looked like a slide toward war. But President Obama should resist the temptation to make further concessions in order to complete a long-term deal by November. In the absence of a dramatic change in its positions, Iran should be offered, at best, an extension of the existing arrangement, with the current sanctions left in place — and threatened with tougher measures if it does not accept.

COMMENT:  Sound thinking.  Don't expect the same from The New York Times, whose editorial writers work in a sandbox. 

October 3, 2014       Permalink

FASCINATING – AT 8:09 A.M. ET:  Fox did a very unusual poll, and I thought you'd be interested in the results:

There’s lots of talk about it. Last month, Scotland voted against it. In 2013, some residents in California, Colorado and Maryland signed petitions to do it. And Texas has toyed with the idea off and on for years. What is “it”?

Secession!

But it’s a lot more talk than anything else, according to a Fox News national poll that asked voters if they would support their state splitting off from the United States. Just nine percent said they would.

The poll also gave people another option: What if you could boot other states out of the union?

Nearly twice as many -- 17 percent -- liked that idea.

Which state would be the first voted out? California. Of the voters willing to ditch a state or two, 53 percent pick the Golden State.

Next out the door is New York (25 percent), followed by Texas (20 percent) and Florida (11 percent). Respondents were allowed to name multiple states they wanted out of the union.

Democratic pollster Chris Anderson says voters who want to kick out a state appear to have presidential politics in mind.

“The top four states targeted for expulsion,” he observed, “are also the four most electorally rich states in the country.” Anderson conducts the Fox News poll with Republican pollster Daron Shaw, who for his part approvingly noted the first two states on the chopping block are solid blue.

COMMENT:  I've lived in New York and spent a lot of time in California.  I can understand why many people would want them lopped off. 

October 3,  2014     Permalink