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.

SEPTEMBER 10,  2014

THE PRESIDENT'S SPEECH – AT 11:54 P.M. ET:  There'll be no "Short Takes" tonight.  Aside from publishing The Angel's Corner, which has been sent out, I've spent the night watching Mr. Obama's speech and gauging the reaction.

On balance, it wasn't a bad speech.  The good news:  The president did actually declare ISIL, the Islamic State, "evil."  (Remember how the self-proclaimed sophisticates expressed outrage when George W. Bush used the same word?)  He also declared it a cancer.  He committed American air power and training personnel to the fight against ISIL, and made clear he was willing to take the fight to Syria, where ISIL is based. 

That's the good news.  Now the bad news:  The speech was given by Barack Obama.  The man has a history of half-measures and half-hearted measures, and of abandoning allies.  He is not trusted by America's traditional friends in the Mid east, starting with Israel, a country he never mentioned in his speech.  In the speech he stated, without equivocation, that his goal was to "destroy" ISIL.  He cautioned that it would take time.  But he must now be held to his own stated standard:  he must destroy ISIL.  Nothing less will be acceptable. 

I agree with David Bergen, who said that the first part of Obama's speech, which dealt entirely with ISIL, was fine.  The president laid out, in rather general terms, his campaign of air strikes, alliances, and training – including training of some elements of the Syrian opposition – and sounded almost tough.  But Bergen pointed out that the end of the speech, where Obama told us that all in America is well, that the economy is booming, that his administration is approaching perfection, was jarring in its effect.  It was Obama as politician, as campaigner.  When you're talking about committing American fighting men and women, that's what the speech should be about.  Nothing else.

Reaction to the speech was generally positive, with Republicans far more gracious than Democrats ever were after a Bush 43 speech.  For the most part, Republicans praised the president for finally stepping forward and taking some direct action against the ISIL threat – although he weirdly denied that ISIL was a Muslim organization.  Democrats were generally supportive, but guarded.  They were clearly aware that Obama's speech will be seen as a concession that his policies haven't worked, even though he claimed they had.  And Democrats must watch the left wing of their party, which is anti-military and anti any war America has a chance of winning. 

Now comes the execution of the policy.  One commentator – I believe it was Brit Hume – put it best when he wondered what would happen if things got rough, if Americans were killed, If the Iraqi ground force that we're depending on collapsed, if we had to go back in with infantry and armor.  Were Americans up for the fight?

The president clearly had his eye on the 2014 midterms.  He is aware that he's considered a drag on his party, in part because he's seen as weak in foreign policy.  He tried to sound firm – Newt Gingrich said it was the most American speech he's given – and there was about him the tone of a man chastened by real life, and willing to leave the faculty lounge.  But there was also the tone of a man who has little enthusiasm for military operations, and who refused to use the word "victory."  Which Obama will win?  I want to be pleasantly surprised.  I can't say I expect to be.

September 10, 2014       Permalink 

HILLARY FALTERS – Whether we want to admit it or not, the 2016 presidential campaign is underway, even though no one has announced as a candidate.

Clearly, more talk centers on Hillary Clinton than on anyone else.  Is she a shoo-in for the Dem nomination?  Is she inevitable as the next president?  Will the press put her in office, as it did Obama? 

But wait.  Hillary has a problem.  Her numbers are showing.  From The Wall Street Journal: 

The more Hillary Clinton looks like a candidate, the less invincible she appears.

The former first lady and New York senator enjoyed sky-high approval ratings during her tenure as President Barack Obama’s secretary of state, but her numbers have returned to earth since she traded her perch as the nation’s top diplomat for her current role as the Democrats’ top presidential prospect in 2016.

The latest Wall Street Journal/NBC News poll found 43% of registered voters view Ms. Clinton positively, compared with the 41% who harbor negative views. That’s a steep drop from February 2009 when 59% viewed the newly confirmed secretary of state positively and just 22% held negative views. The numbers suggest Americans are far less charitable about Ms. Clinton when she is seeking office or, in this case, merely considering it than they are about other politicians who retire from public office.

And...

Despite that erosion, Ms. Clinton remains more popular than many of the Republicans she could face in a presidential showdown in 2016. Kentucky Sen. Rand Paul, former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney and former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush – three Republicans mentioned as potential White House hopefuls in 2016 – are all viewed more negatively than positively. Only Florida Sen. Marco Rubio garnered as many positive views as he did negative ones, with registered voters split evenly at 21%-21%.

COMMENT:  Lesson:  Our side must build its candidates.  Obama may be way down, and Clinton seems to be following him.  But the Republican brand is not popular.  I mean, why would America have a negative view of Jeb Bush?  Or Mitt Romney, who's been proved right on so many things?  Republicans cannot depend on Democratic crashes.  It's time to be loved again.

September 10, 2014       Permalink

POLLING UPDATE – AT 9:52 A.M. ET:  More bad news for the Dems, at least as of today.  From the Washington Times: 

Voters in key regions want Republicans to win control of the U.S. Senate, making it that much harder in an already tough year for Democrats to hold onto their thin majority in the upper chamber, said a new poll released Wednesday.

The CNN/ORC International poll found voters in Southern and rural states favoring Republicans, giving the GOP toss-up states such as Arkansas, Louisiana, North Carolina and Alaska that will decide who wins majority control of the U.S. Senate in November.

What’s more, Republicans have a 15-point advantage with prized independent voters who often swing elections, according to the survey.

Assuming Republicans maintain control of the House, Americans split over which party they want in control of the Senate with 46 percent supporting a Democratic majority and 42 percent hoping for a Republican takeover.

But voters in the South broke decidedly Republican, with 51 percent backing a GOP-run Senate next year. That’s bad news for endangered Democrats in Arkansas, Louisiana and North Carolina.

Rural voters also sided with Republicans by a wide margin, 38 percent to 37 percent, giving GOP challengers an edge in the key battleground of Alaska, Colorado and Iowa.

Republicans need net gain of six seats in the midterm elections to seize control of the Senate. The GOP is expected to easily pick up seats in Montana, South Dakota and West Virginia, putting the party just three seats away from winning a Senate majority.

COMMENT:  We'll hope, but I must continue to caution that the only poll that counts is the one on election day.  And people actually vote on election day, rather than answer phone calls from pollsters.  That means turnout will be the key.  Historically, Democrats have run a superior ground game on election day, dragging their base to the polls.  Republicans must run that kind of ground game this year to avoid another disappointment.

September 10, 2014       Permalink

OTHER SCOUNDRELS – AT 9:35 A.M. ET:  The Islamic State isn't the only problem we have in the Mideast.  Saudi Arabia, while nominally an ally of ours, really doesn't share our values at all.  A powerful, magnificently-financed Saudi lobby in Washington keeps the tributes and smiles going, but let's understand the reality.  From Fox:   

Dozens of Christians arrested at a prayer meeting in Saudi Arabia need America's help, according to a key lawmaker who is pressing the State Department on their behalf.

Some 28 people were rounded up Friday by hard-line Islamists from the Commission for the Promotion of Virtue and Prevention of Vice in the home of an Indian national in the eastern Saudi city of Khafji, and their current situation is unknown, according to human rights advocates.

"Saudi Arabia is continuing the religious cleansing that has always been its official policy," Nina Shea, director of the Washington-based Hudson Institute’s Center for Religious Freedom, told FoxNews.com. "It is the only nation state in the world with the official policy of banning all churches. This is enforced even though there are over 2 million Christian foreign workers in that country. Those victimized are typically poor, from Asian and African countries with weak governments."

In Friday's crackdown, several Bibles were confiscated, according to reports from the Kingdom.

Rep. Frank Wolf, R-Va, told FoxNews.com he will press the U.S. ambassador in Riyadh and the State Department to assist the arrested Christians.

“I hope our government will speak up,” said Wolf, adding that the anti-Christian raid was not surprising given that the Saudi regime “did not want our soldiers to wear crosses during the Desert Storm” operation in 1991 to stop Iraqi jingoism."

A spokeswoman for Saudi Arabia’s embassy press officer, Nail Al-Jubeir, in Washington, told FoxNews.com that “Mr. Jubeir has nothing on that [arrests of Christians].” She suggested calling the Saudi Gazette newspaper.

The English-language paper Saudi Gazette, along with Saudi Arabic-language news outlets, published a news item about the mass arrests.

COMMENT:  It's unlikely we'll see much action on this.  Too much Saudi money is flowing around Washington. 

Please remember that 15 of the 19 hijackers on September 11, 2001, were from Saudi Arabia.   That fact was papered over very quickly, I'm sorry to say, by the Bush administration. 

There are actually some small signs of liberalization in Saudi Arabia today.  But they have centuries to make up.

September 10, 2014        Permalink

CRUNCH TIME – AT 8:55 A.M. ET:  Tomorrow is September 11th.  The United States will be on high alert, except perhaps for its intellectual classes, political science professors, assorted leftists, and the remaining supporters of Barack Obama.  Obama himself will speak to the nation at 9 p.m. ET tonight on the new threat posed by the Islamic State. 

The fact that he has to make the speech at all is an admission that his anti-terror policies have failed, that his view of the world (probably developed in Bill Ayers's living room) has been distorted, and that he has ill-served the American people.  No such admission will be forthcoming, of course, but more and more Americans know the truth.

And the truth is that Americans are scared again, and for good reason.  From the Washington Times: 

The brutal beheadings of journalists by the terrorist army known as Islamic State has shaken America to its core, with more people saying the United States is less safe now than at any point since 9/11, said a new poll released Wednesday.

The NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll found that 47 percent of Americans believe the country is less safe now than before the Sept. 11, 2001, terror attacks on New York and Washington. That’s more people feeling unsafe than even a year after 9/11 when just 20 percent felt that way.

The fear has prompted more than 60 percent of Americans to back military action against the Islamic State, also known as ISIL or ISIS, which has overrun large swaths of territory in Iraq and Syria and declared itself an Islamic caliphate.

The numbers underscore the challenges facing President Obama when he addressed the nation Wednesday at 9 p.m. to outline a strategy for confronting the terrorists.

“A very war-weary country … seems to have woken up to the real threat that ISIS may present,” said Republican pollster Bill McInturff, who conducted the survey with Democratic pollster Peter Hart.

“The beheadings are so chilling to the American public,” Mr. Hart added. “The only things I think of equal impact are the self-immolations back in Vietnam.”

But Americans also have little confidence in Mr. Obama. The poll found that just 32 percent of voters approve of his handling of foreign affairs, which is a new low for the president.

COMMENT:  By the way, are you as offended as I am when Americans are described as "war weary"?  Aside from our armed forces, and the families of our armed forces, what precisely have Americans done to earn that label?  Get inconvenienced at an airport?  Go through a metal detector at a public event?  Wow.  I'm impressed.

I recall a sign put up in Iraq during our action there:  "America isn't at war.  The Marine Corps is at war."  We have become such a soft nation that we hear ourselves described as war weary, and no one gets particularly annoyed. 

From mid-December of 1944, to the end of January, 1945, the United States and its allies fought the German Ardennes offensive, better known as the Battle of the Bulge.  The United States suffered 75,000 casualties.  Yes, you read that number correctly.  It was 75,000.   The total population of the United States was a little under 140,000,000.  (Today it is approaching 319,000,000.)

You want war weary?  Think 1945.  That's war weary. 

September 10,  2014     Permalink

SEPTEMBER 9,  2014

SHORT TAKES ON THE DRIFTING WRECKAGE – AT 11:38 P.M. ET: 

GOP ROMP IN TEXAS GUBERNATORIAL – From Breitbart:  "HOUSTON, Texas — The gubernatorial campaign of Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott continues to widen his lead over State Senator Wendy Davis, the Democrat nominee. Abbott now leads by a margin of eighteen points in a recent WPA Opinion Research Poll.  In June Breitbart Texas reported a twelve point lead by Abbott over his opponent. The new poll represents a fifty percent increase in the lead. Pollster Chris Wilson said, on a conference call of Abbott’s donors, that Abbott’s poll numbers have only increased since the Davis campaign began its series of attack ads last month. Abbott’s favorability rating is the highest it has ever been throughout the race, Wilson said in an article posted by the Houston Chronicle.  The poll also showed a strong position by Abbott in terms of support from women and Hispanic voters. Women voters preferred Abbott by a margin of 47-41 while Hispanics sided with Abbott by an eleven point margin of 51-40."  That is remarkable  Dems thought Davis was their golden girl because of her stand against a new Texas abortion law, which is actually quite moderate.  It's clear the women of Texas see through Davis, who is a throwback to the sixties generation.

FROM HIS MOUTH TO... – From The Politico:  "Political analyst Stu Rothenberg sees a wave election coming for Senate Republicans in November.  In a Roll Call column published Monday, the electoral expert said he is expecting Republicans to gain at least seven seats in the Senate and earn a November victory more dramatic than several pollsters have suggested.  'I am now expecting a substantial Republican Senate wave in November, with a net gain of at least seven seats,' he said. 'But I wouldn’t be shocked by a larger gain.' Rothenberg said that while his election models don’t yet support his claim, he personally expects dramatic results coming in the midterms. 'I’ve witnessed 17 general elections from my perch in D.C., including eight midterms, and I sometimes develop a sense of where the cycle is going before survey data lead me there,' he wrote."  I sure hope he's right, but I never underestimate the political skills of the Democratic Party, especially its ability to turn out their base on election day.

BROWN NOMINATED IN NEW HAMPSHIRE – From The Politico:  "Scott Brown won the New Hampshire Republican Senate primary Tuesday night, setting up a general election showdown with Democratic Sen. Jeanne Shaheen.  The former Massachusetts senator, who lost to Elizabeth Warren in 2012 and became a New Hampshire citizen last December, easily defeated two main challengers, former state Sen. Jim Rubens and former U.S. Sen. Bob Smith.  With 78 percent of precincts reporting, Brown had just less than 50 percent of the vote, compared with 24 percent for Rubens and 22 percent for Smith.  Brown’s victory brings an end to a Senate primary season that began six months ago in Texas.  Polls have shown Brown trailing Shaheen by single digits. An internal poll for the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee last week put Shaheen up 8 points; a poll from the right-leaning American Crossroads at the end of August showed Shaheen ahead by 3 points."  Brown was all but written off in polling against Shaheen just weeks ago, but he has been gaining strength.  He has a serious shot.

OBAMA TALKS TOUGH – From The Hill:  "President Obama told congressional leaders at a White House meeting on Tuesday he doesn’t need their authorization to expand his military campaign against Islamic terrorists.  The president offered the assurance one day before a prime-time address he’s scheduled to give to the nation.  Wednesday’s address is a pivotal moment for the president just months before a midterm election season in which the Senate’s majority hangs in the balance.  Polls show that confidence in Obama’s foreign policy is eroding just as anxiety over the threat posed by the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria (ISIS) has peaked."  So Obama starts to talk tough.  I'm not impressed, as he has no concept of strategy. We'll see tomorrow (Wednesday) night what his policy toward the Islamic State will be, or will be at least for a week.  The man's record is not encouraging, but we always hope that reality will enter his brain.

September 9, 2014       Permalink

THE AIRLINER – AT 9:35 A.M. ET:  An initial verdict is in on the recent crash of a Malaysian airliner in the Ukraine.  From ABC News: 

Malaysia Airlines Flight 17 was likely struck by multiple "high-energy objects from outside the aircraft," causing it to break up over eastern Ukraine, a preliminary report into the deadly aviation disaster concluded Tuesday.

The report by the Dutch Safety Board stopped short of saying the Boeing 777 was shot down by a missile but its findings point to that conclusion. It also did not say who might have been responsible.

The Boeing 777 suddenly plunged out of the sky July 17 over territory held by pro-Russian rebels in Ukraine, killing all 298 passengers and crew on board.

"The damage observed in the forward section of the aircraft appears to indicate that the aircraft was penetrated by a large number of high-energy objects from outside the aircraft," the report said. "It is likely that this damage resulted in a loss of structural integrity of the aircraft, leading to an in-flight break up."

The board is leading the international investigation into the cause of the disaster. Its full report is expected within a year.

"The initial results of the investigation point toward an external cause of the MH17 crash," the board's chairman, Tjibbe Joustra, said in a statement. "More research will be necessary to determine the cause with greater precision. The Safety Board believes that additional evidence will become available for investigation in the period ahead."

Christopher Yates, an aviation safety specialist at Yates Consulting, told The Associated Press the report "is extremely consistent with damage from a missile for the simple reason there are penetration marks.

"It must have been moving at very high velocity to create the damage," he said. "It could only be a missile of the type that would reach the altitude that would have struck the aircraft" — potentially a Buk missile.

COMMENT:  The political question is whether the shoot-down was intentional, or whether the missileers were going after another plane, possibly a military plane.  We will await the full results of the probe.

September 9, 2014       Permalink

THE POLITICS OF IT – AT 9:14 A.M. ET:  If American combat operations are increased in coming weeks, and, especially, if we are hit again this Thursday, September 11th, will that necessarily increase support for the president's party in the coming midterm election?

It may seem cold to discuss politics at a time like this, but elections are critical to the running of the nation.  We must discuss politics.

Military operations usually increase support for the president, but not necessarily for his party.  Consider the political impact of Pearl Harbor.  Support for FDR was high after the attack, in December of 1941, and he was re-elected in 1944.  But the president's party did not fare anywhere near as well.  In the congressional elections of 1942, Mr. Roosevelt's Democrats lost 45 seats in the House.  Republicans picked up 47.  Dems still ran the House, but by a slender 222 to 209 majority. 

There was a similar result in the Senate.  The Dems lost eight seats, whereas the Republicans picked up nine.  Still, the new Senate had 58 Democrats to 37 Republicans.

The political drama is constant.  Some Americans turned against the Dems, blaming them for Pearl Harbor or for wartime hardship.  But they still gave Mr. Roosevelt's part a strong majority in the Senate and a much weaker one in the House.

Bottom line:  As Tip O'Neal said, all politics are local.  The commander-in-chief's party can lose, even if the man at the top is widely supported.  Hard to predict if military action now will help the Dems in November.

September 9, 2014       Permalink

THE COST OF WEAKNESS – AT 8:55 A.M. ET:  Obama can talk tough on Wednesday night, when he addresses the nation about the Islamic State, but he has a record, and it's coming home to curse him.  From AP: 

BEIRUT (AP) — Stitching together a broad coalition to tackle the extremist Islamic State group hinges on overcoming the reluctance of US allies in the Middle East who are deeply frustrated with a White House they believe has been naive and weak on Syria’s civil war

Key Sunni Arab states, Saudi Arabia chief among them, have wanted the U.S. to do more to provide robust support to mainstream Syrian rebels in their war against President Bashar Assad. The result is hesitation to answer President Barack Obama’s call for a regional front against the Islamic State group, even though it is widely reviled.

The United States is mounting a major campaign to get allies on board. Secretary of State John Kerry will visit the region and Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel was in Turkey on Monday to lobby the NATO ally.

But it is not always an easy sell.

“Trust is so low, especially in the Gulf region, for Obama’s leadership quality and the way he manages foreign policy. I don’t think any country is going to put its hand up or neck out by accepting an alliance with the US that easily,” said Mustafa Alani, the director of the security and defense department at the Gulf Research Center in Geneva.

That is not to say that Sunni states in the region won’t ultimately join the US in the campaign against the extremists who have seized large swaths of Iraq and Syria, or that they don’t view the militants as a threat. But it suggests, analysts say, that the US will have to do some convincing — and likely enticing — to get them into the fight.

“These countries can offer a lot, but I think any cooperation here is going to be conditional,” Alani said. “They are not going to jump in the pool for nothing.”

COMMENT:  Incredible.  We have to beg countries to go along with us because they see the United States of America as weak and indecisive.  Thanks, Mr. Obama, for hope and change.

September 9, 2014        Permalink

THE TURNAROUND – AT 8:46 A.M. ET:  The shocking brutality of the Islamic State is moving American public opinion.  The question is whether Field Marshal Obama can keep up with the wisdom of the public.  I doubt it.  From WaPo:

Americans overwhelmingly view Islamic State terrorists as a serious threat to vital U.S. interests and, in a significant shift, widely support airstrikes in Iraq and Syria, according to a new Washington Post-ABC News poll.

The nation’s increasingly hawkish mood will form part of the backdrop for a speech by President Obama on Wednesday, when he will outline his thinking on how to confront the threat from the Islamic State. Obama’s remarks will come a day after he confers with congressional leaders at the White House about the administration’s planning.

Obama’s speech also comes at a critical moment in his presidency. He will address the nation at a time of record or ­near-record lows in public assessments of his performance. Only 43 percent of Americans say he is a strong leader, the lowest reading since he entered the White House. Just over half the country says his presidency has been a failure, although partisanship colors that judgment.

His overall foreign policy ratings are his lowest yet in a Post-ABC News poll. A majority says the president is too cautious when it comes to international problems and specifically in dealing with Islamic State militants. His handling of Russian aggression in Ukraine receives somewhat better marks, but more than 4 in 10 still say he is too cautious.

COMMENT:  Despite all the efforts of the pro-Obama press, Americans do eventually find out.  Obama will speak to the nation Wednesday night.  I'm bracing for some election-year cynicism – the tough Obama trying to show that he's really commander-in-chief, at least through election day, after which he will revert to community organizer. 

September 9,  2014     Permalink