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.

OUR DAILY SNIPPETS ARE HERE.

FRIDAY,  JULY 23,  2010

HOW THE OTHER HALF LIVES – AT 7:04 P.M. There is deep upset on the left fringes of the Democratic Party.  Seems Obama isn't lefty enough, and the party still allows....centrists to come to meetings.  What's next?  Fascism?  From WaPo:

...as Netroots Nation, a conference of 2,100 liberal activists, opened here Thursday, it was clear that anger among some prominent progressives is still raw -- and it could imperil some Democrats this fall.

Markos Moulitsas, founder of the Daily Kos blog and an organizer of the first such annual conference five years ago, said he and his followers are disinclined to help Democratic candidates simply to preserve the party's big majorities.

"There's a lot of Democrats I'll be happy to see go," Moulitsas said in an interview. "I'll celebrate when Blanche Lincoln is out of the Senate. There is a price to be paid for inaction and incompetence. We're not getting much done with 59 [Democratic senators], so if we're down to 54, who cares?"

Too soft, Markos, too soft.  Only the guillotine will do.  I love these voices of reason.

Moulitsas went on to suggest that a smaller Democratic majority in the House might be better for advancing a more progressive agenda. "If 20 Blue Dogs lost their seats, nobody's going to care," he said. "That's their problem and I'm not going to cry about them. To me, a more cohesive caucus might be a better deal moving forward than one in which the Blue Dogs need to be appeased."

Right on!  To the blade!  To the blade!  Who are these people who reflect their constituents' values?  Scum!

"Progressive doesn't necessarily mean Democratic," said Arshad Hasan, executive director of Democracy for America, the liberal grass-roots advocacy group founded by former Vermont governor and Democratic National Committee chairman Howard Dean.

Right.  Take your five followers and stomp out, the way the lefty kooks did on Truman in 1948.  We know how that wound up.

The would-be Leninists ran a candidate in the Dem primary against Blanche Lincoln, only to see him shot down, with the help of Bill Clinton.

"It's tough to see someone you've believed in betray you in a big way," Green said of the former president. "We need to pick our heroes. . . . I think it would be sad if we went through this entire conference without calling out Bill Clinton for what he did."

I love it when they argue among themselves, don't you?  And, of course, America is just clamoring for a Democratic Party farther to the left.  Everyone knows that.

July 232010       Permalink

WHAT?  THERE ARE STILL FAMILIES IN AMERICA?  THE LEFT JUST WASN'T THOROUGH ENOUGH – AT 7:18 A.M. ET:  We really should do more at Urgent Agenda about popular culture.  I promise I'll try.

Brent Bozell comments on the fate of some recent movies, another proof, if any were needed, that Hollywood is totally clueless about the country:

The surprise box-office boom for the cartoon "Despicable Me" is making it clear again to Hollywood this summer that family films are the most likely to be top-grossing films...

...It happens over and over again. And still the "executives" are caught off guard. It shouldn't be that hard to figure out. Nobody needs a graphing calculator. Bring out the whole family, and you bring out a bigger audience. It's summertime, and the kids are bored. If the whole family doesn't go, the driving-age teenager gets assigned to take the young ones to the movies, sometimes more than once.

And yet, The Hollywood Reporter finds the movie market gurus slightly embarrassed at what they call the "family stampede." Family films have well outpaced pre-release projections repeatedly since May, and the studio bosses are puzzled over why these movies "outperform" their guesses.

And...

Only one R-rated movie has grossed more than $100 million this year, the Leonardo DiCaprio horror flick "Shutter Island."

Never heard of it.

Why can't greedy Hollywood just look at the math and put their money where the American public's eyes want to go?

Here's what should follow: more respect from the movie awards shows for these animated films. "Toy Story 3" drew rave reviews across the board. The St. Petersburg Times said it "isn't merely the best movie of the summer -- even with summer just kicking in -- but an immediate candidate for best of the year." Don't bet the mortgage.

COMMENT:  Ah, Brent, how right you are.  But the chances of things improving in the short run are slim.

Hollywood isn't about movies.  It's about deals.  I've worked there, done that.  Many "executives" would be just as happy selling soap.  Many aren't even that interested in movies.  Some probably think "Gone With the Wind" is an energy company.  "Sands of Iwo Jima"?  Why, probably a beach flik for the tweens.  "Singin' in the Rain"?  Isn't that the one about weather stuff and global warming?

What really interests the execs is lunch, and getting the best table. 

You can probably count the number of film executives and agents who've seen military service on the fingers of one hand. 

Hollywood isn't even very American any longer.  Most of its money is made in foreign distribution, which is one reason why you see so few pro-American films. 

Look, you can get great old movies on tape or DVD.  Rent some for a weekend, and see the kind of thing America used to create.  Just rent "An American in Paris," and realize that, half a century ago, American kids were seeing that, and loving it.

July 23,  2010       Permalink  

BACK TO THE SIXTIES – AT 7:14 A.M. ET:  Four months ago, was anyone talking about race?  I don't think so.  Now it's all the rage.  Why, don't plan a dinner party, or even a backyard barbecue, unless you're prepared to indulge.  Some sixties folk songs would be nice.

Victor Davis Hanson, who's written some sharp pieces this week, examines what has happened:

...in just 18 months of the Obama administration, racial discord is growing and relations seem to have been set back a generation.

Black voters are galvanizing behind Obama at a time of rapidly falling support. White independents, in contrast, are leaving Obama in droves...

And this is occurring right before a decisive election.

...Why the escalation of racial tension in the supposed postracial age of Obama?

First, Obama's reputation as a racial healer was largely the creation of the media. In fact, Obama had a number of racially polarizing incidents that probably would have disqualified any other presidential candidate of the past 30 years.

His two-decade apprenticeship at Trinity Church under the racist and anti-Semitic Rev. Jeremiah Wright has never been adequately explained. Obama indulged in racial stereotyping himself when he wrote off the white lower-middle class of Pennsylvania as clueless zealots clinging to their guns, religion and xenophobia.

Obama also characterized his grandmother as a "typical white person" when he implied that her supposed fear of young black males symbolizes the prejudices of the entire white community.

And in the White House?

Such campaign trash talk did not stop during the first 18 months of the Obama presidency. The race-baiting Van Jones -- the short-lived presidential advisor on "green jobs" -- should never have been appointed. Then, the president himself criticized Cambridge, Mass., police for acting "stupidly" when they arrested his friend, Harvard professor Henry Louis Gates.

It's a much longer list, as Hanson points out.

Yet the country passed the old white/black divide years ago. We are a racially diverse society of Asians, blacks, Hispanics, whites, and mixtures of all that and more. In a world of conservative Cubans and liberal whites, race is no longer necessarily a guide to politics.

Who now, exactly, is the racial "Other" deserving of special consideration in hiring and education? A half-Punjabi immigrant whose father owns 500 acres? A three-quarters Puerto Rican who just arrived in New York? A Korean-American son of an orthodontist? The African-American children of a Cabinet official?

The more the president appeals to his base in racial terms, the more his appointees identify themselves as members of a particular tribe, and the more political issues are framed by racial divisions, so all the more such racial obsession creates a backlash among the racially diverse American people.

America has largely moved beyond race. Tragically, our president and a host of his supportive special interests have not.

COMMENT:  I think the issue goes beyond race, and into the realm of radical politics.  Remember, Obama was largely shaped by advisers and mentors for whom race was not simply a cause, but a weapon, to be employed for political purposes.

That is not to suggest that we still don't have racial prejudice.  Of course we do, although it has been vastly diminished in my lifetime.  But some people live in the past, and would like to go back to the confrontational racial politics of the sixties – in part because it benefits them and brings them newfound glory, in part because they feel more comfortable as combatants than healers.

The president could do a great deal to calm the waters.  So far he hasn't, probably because he, and his political counselors, may see some upside in rousing the ethnic base of the Democratic Party.

July 23,  2010       Permalink

WHAT WAS THAT ABOUT A NATIONAL CRISIS? – AT 7:08 A.M. ET:  The planet will burn up, the cities will be flooded, millions will perish, and we'll have to live on the Moon because Earth will be uninhabitable...unless we act now, now, now!!

Or maybe in a couple of years.  Hey, let's not panic.  From Fox:

Hitting a wall of bipartisan opposition to placing a price on carbon, even if just in the utility sector, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., Thursday unveiled a narrow, limited energy bill that contains no cap and trade plan.

Add this to all of Al Gore's current woes.  This is worse than a bad massage.

"Unfortunately this Congress, we don't have a single Republican," Reid told reporters, as he outlined a 4-pronged plan that increases the liability cap for damage incurred from the BP oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico, as well as, new oil rig safety regulations; converts the diesel fleet to natural gas; legislates the HOME STAR energy efficiency program which provides homeowners financial incentives to purchase energy efficient products; and invests in the Land and Water Conservation Fund.

Reid said he has 60 votes for the scaled-back legislation, though details of the BP portion of the bill were not yet clear. The HOME STAR legislative component has Sen. Olympia Snowe, R-ME, as a co-sponsor, though, and Reid said Republicans have supported the other provisions of his plan.

Moderate Sen. Ben Nelson, D-NE, a cap and trade skeptic said he expects the new Reid bill to pass.

While the leader is punting on climate change legislation for now, he made it clear he and other Democrats would continue to try to rally support for a price on carbon, but it is not clear how the math would change in the Senate that would enable Reid to get 60 votes to break a filibuster.
Still, Sen. John Kerry, D-Mass., who has worked on climate change legislation for more than a year, promised, "Let me be crystal clear, this legislation he has proposed doesn't replace climate change legislation or comprehensive energy legislation," adding that President Obama called him before a Democratic Caucus meeting on energy Thursday afternoon promising to step up efforts to find support for a broader bill.

While Republicans stood unanimously against any bill that priced carbon, it is important to note that coal state Democrats and others opposed the effort, as well.

COMMENT:  We do need an energy policy that will develop new sources of energy and eliminate our dependence on foreign, often hostile countries.  But we're not going to get a thoughtful energy program unless we base it on real science and engineering, not fantasies, and unless there's an understanding that the American economy must not be further damaged, just to satisfy the demands of environmental militants. 

July 23,  2010       Permalink

OH, BY THE WAY – AT 7:04 A.M. ET:  While the news media has been consumed by the saga of Shirley Sherrod, Department of Agriculture employee, other stuff has been happening.  For example:

WASHINGTON -- New jobless claims in the U.S. jumped last week by the most since February, reversing a sharp fall two weeks ago. The rise is partly a result of seasonal factors but also reflects the job market's weakness.

The Labor Department says new claims for unemployment insurance jumped by 37,000 to a seasonally adjusted 464,000. Analysts expected a smaller rise, according to a survey by Thomson Reuters.

The sharp increase comes after claims fell steeply two weeks ago to their lowest level since August 2008. But much of that drop was driven by temporary seasonal factors and not necessarily by an improving job market.

COMMENT:  If there's one thing the administration doesn't want to talk about during this year's election campaign, it's the economy.  The fact is that, despite a few bright spots, the economy is still in the basement, with substantial fears of a double-dip recession, or, at least, a very long and painful recovery.

Not change we can believe in.

July 23,  2010     Permalink

THURSDAY,  JULY 22,  2010

A GOOD CLARIFICATION – AT 7:43 P.M. ET:  The left is on a tear, trying to find ways to accuse all opponents of racism, or bigotry, or some such sin.  It's backfiring, but will continue.  As we've pointed out, it's part of a campaign to rouse the Democratic base and get it voting on election day.

Earlier this week Sarah Palin posted a comment on Facebook opposing the building of a mosque at Ground Zero in New York.  The post suddenly disappeared, and some on the left rejoiced, speculating that Facebook had removed a bigoted comment.  Not so, Facebook says, in a decent apology:

Facebook issued an apology Thursday for deleting a post by former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin.

Facebook spokesman Andrew Noyes explained in a statement that a Palin post criticizing the building of a mosque near ground zero in New York City was removed by an automated system and had nothing to do with the content of the post.

Palin’s post calling the building of the mosque an “intolerable mistake” received widespread criticism in left-leaning circles, prompting some bloggers Thursday to speculate that either Palin or Facebook had removed the post to quell the controversy.

But Noyes said no such thinking was behind the removal of the post.

“The note in question did not violate our content standards but was removed by an automated system,” Noyes said. “We're always working to improve our processes, and we apologize for any inconvenience this caused.”

Okay, good for them.  The issue of the mosque is being positioned in leftist circles as a test of our "tolerance" and our respect for the First Amendment.  It is neither.  There is a First Amendment right to worship, but no First Amendment right to build a house of worship on any particular site.  Churches, synagogues and mosques must meet the same local building standards as any other structure.  Indeed, refusals often occur because of traffic problems.

As for tolerance, Sarah's wonderful comment, "It tears at the heart," says it better than all the other critics combined.  There's a time for decency, for respect.  Placing a mosque at Ground Zero is somewhat like placing a Japanese Shinto shrine at Pearl Harbor.  Those placing the shrine might have the best of intentions, but putting it there is insensitive.  And, by the way, there is no Japanese Shinto shrine at Pearl Harbor.

I've written before that if the sponsors of the mosque were pure of heart, and had a history of moderation and interfaith dialogue, there might be a reason to approve.  But the sponsorship is vague, at best, and the sponsoring imam has said some awful things.  Sorry, we don't have to ignore comments.

And there's something else.  We recognize that most of the world's Muslims don't engage in terrorism, and, presumably, don't approve of it.  But Islam will gain respect by giving some.  How about the Saudis permitting the building of a church or synagogue in Saudi Arabia?  How about teaching that Christianity and Judaism are sister religions of Islam, not inferior religions?  When those things are done, maybe we'd feel a bit differently about the mosque at Ground Zero.

In the meantime, Sarah speaks for many of us on this, and I'm glad to see Facebook's apology.  I reported earlier today that Sarah Palin is being taken more and more seriously by those with the power to see.  Maybe this is one more example.

July 22, 2010     Permalink

AGAIN? – AT 7:32 P.M. ET:  We know that our readers like to be kept informed about the latest trends in vacations.  Consider this, for your future plans of course:

WASHINGTON — President Barack Obama is taking his own advice and taking his family to the Gulf Coast on vacation next month, something he and first lady Michelle Obama have been urging others to do to help the area's suffering economy.

Wait, wait, wait.  Didn't the supreme leader just come back from a vacation in Maine?  And then there was the vacation in...?  Okay, there's no contract that spells out the presidential vacation allowance, but this president has absolutely abused the vacation privilege.  A presidential vacation isn't just a week off here and there, with a burning of frequent-flier miles.  It involves vast public expense, Air Force One, and stuff like that.  Doesn't Obama like the job?

The White House said the Obamas will visit an undisclosed section of Florida's coast the weekend of Aug. 14.

Obama has made four trips to the Gulf region, including an overnight stay, since an underwater well failed in April and began spewing oil into the Gulf of Mexico. First lady Michelle Obama was scheduled to make her second visit the area on Friday.

On their trips to the region, both the president and Mrs. Obama have made a point of encouraging people to visit Gulf Coast beaches that are open and oil-free to help boost an area economy battered by the sharp decline in tourism that followed the spill.

"One of the best ways that fellow Americans can help is to come on down here and spend some money," Mrs. Obama said this month in Panama City Beach, Fla., where she strolled barefoot in the sand and bought a cup of chocolate ice cream.

Uh, the Maine vacation was unnecessary.  Shoulda gone to the Gulf Coast, and stayed awhile.

But thanks for the ice cream purchase.  The tax on that will go a long way toward eroding that multi-trillion-dollar debt.

July 22, 2010     Permalink

AH, THE PASSAGE OF TIME – AT 9:37 A.M. ET:  There's a new survey out showing the relative popularity of the current president, compared to his immediate predecessors.  It shows Clinton more popular than Obama.  But that, in my view, isn't the real news here:

Former President Clinton is more popular than either of his successors, according to a new Gallup poll.

The poll found that 61 percent of voters have a favorable view of Clinton, compared to 52 percent who have a favorable view of President Obama and 45 percent for former President George W. Bush.

Not a shock.  Clinton doesn't have to deal with the problems of the world.  A consummate con artist, he still has the knack of speaking to people and making them believe him.  Even Monica believed him. 

It's the first time Clinton's favorable rating tops Obama's in Gallup's polling.

Democrats gave Clinton and Obama similar favorable ratings, but Clinton is more popular than Obama among independents and Republicans. A full 60 percent of independents have a favorable view of Clinton, and 30 percent of Republicans view him favorably.

But that's not the story, that's not it.  The real news here is that George W. Bush (!!!), the most reviled president in recent memory, the man portrayed by the mainstream media as a bumbling idiot who could barely read or write, is only seven points behind Obama. 

Time passes.  People reassess.  They're contrasting Bush with Obama.  Are we seeing a Truman effect here?  When Harry S. Truman left office, his approval ratings were in the twenties.  His opponents liked to quip, "To err is Truman."  Now he's seen as one of the greats.

I'm not sure Bush will reach that exalted level, but I sure felt safer with him in the White House than our current choice.

July 22, 2010      Permalink

DO YOU WANT TO KNOW WHY STATES GO BROKE? – AT 9:04 A.M. ET:  Reader James Croak alerts us to this little gem, which explains what has been going on in some locales when voters weren't paying attention:

Hundreds of residents of one of the poorest municipalities in Los Angeles County shouted in protest last night as tensions rose over a report that the city’s manager earns an annual salary of almost $800,000.

An overflow crowd packed a City Council meeting in Bell, a mostly Hispanic city of 38,000 about 10 miles (16 kilometers) southeast of Los Angeles, to call for the resignation of Mayor Oscar Hernandez and other city officials. Residents left standing outside the chamber banged on the doors and shouted “fuera,” or “get out” in Spanish.

It was the first council meeting since the Los Angeles Times reported July 15 that Chief Administrative Officer Robert Rizzo earns $787,637 -- with annual 12 percent raises -- and that Bell pays its police chief $457,000, more than Los Angeles Police Chief Charlie Beck makes in a city of 3.8 million people. Bell council members earn almost $100,000 for part-time work.

I ask a simple question:  Where has the local press been?  Did it ignore the story because the community is Hispanic?  I'm not making that charge, but I think it needs to be explored.

City Attorney Edward Lee said the council members couldn’t discuss salaries in public without advance notice. The council then adjourned for a private session. About an hour later, the council members returned, and Hernandez read a statement saying the city would prepare a report on the salaries and seek public comment at the next council meeting, scheduled for Aug. 16.

Residents shouted in protest. Lee said he would have the room cleared if people continued to speak out of line. Police Chief Randy Adams said the fire department wanted to end the meeting because the crowd outside was blocking the door.

Apparently Randy Adams is the guy who "earns" $457,000.  At that price he should be blocking the door himself, and giving out free dinners.

How do outrages like this occur?  They occur because people don't know about them, or can't take the time to care.  They apparently occur all over California, a once golden state that now has a severely tarnished image.  In one community the pension for a retired fire chief is a quarter of a million a year.

California used to be known for its educational system, its aircraft industry, and Hollywood.  Today its educational system is a shambles, its universities are crypts for old leftists.  Its aircraft industry is a shadow, frowned upon by the self-appointed intellectual classes.  And Hollywood?  Does anyone remember Hollywood?

July 22, 2010     Permalink

SARAH FOR PRESIDENT? – AT 8:38 A.M. ET:  Do you sense a rumbling in the Republican Party?  Do you hear people saying privately, "Let's face it, she's the only star we've got"? 

I'm starting to hear that.  I'm also noticing that Sarah Palin is being taken more seriously all the time.

Roger Simon, in The Politico, has written the best piece on Sarah Palin that I've ever read.  He actually approaches her in a mature manner:

More than 13 months ago, I wrote a column that began: “Sarah Palin can be the Republican nominee in 2012. I am not saying she will be, but she can be. Those who underestimate her do so at their own risk.”

It was not the most popular column I ever wrote. I remember snickering and mockery from those who could not find actual vegetables to throw...

...Now, more than a year later, I have not changed my mind about Palin’s political potential. This is not based on the polls — especially a recent one showing her in a 46 percent to 46 percent tie with Obama in a hypothetical 2012 face-off. I don’t believe such polls tell us anything meaningful.

I am basing my belief now, as back then, on Palin’s ability to connect with the base of her party. Name a bigger name in the Republican Party today. Heck, name any name in the Republican Party today.

Yeah, yeah.  The guy is on to something.

Today, Palin is going around the country endorsing and making speeches for Republican candidates with some success. Tuesday night in Georgia, former Secretary of State Karen Handel, who was endorsed by Palin, got 34 percent of the vote, while former U.S. Rep. Nathan Deal, endorsed by Newt Gingrich, got 23 percent of the vote...

...Whatever Palin has been doing...seems to be working. And I have noticed a certain change in how the media are viewing her. In a recent column giving advice to journalists, Marc Ambinder of The Atlantic wrote: “Be humble about conclusions. ... Sarah Palin may not be ready to be president today, but that doesn’t mean she won’t be ready to be president tomorrow.”

Correct.  Remember a guy named Reagan?  He was laughed at for years before he became president, and much of the laughter came from within the Republican Party.

In even better news for Palin, her political opponents continue to dismiss her. Mark Halperin wrote in Time magazine recently: “An adviser to Mitt Romney ... says of Palin, ‘She’s not a serious human being.’”

Which leads me to believe that Romney needs to get himself some new advisers. Or at least he ought to remind them of the words of the Chinese philosopher Lao Tse, who wrote: “No disaster is greater than underestimating the enemy.”

Besides, does the most serious human being always win? Did Al Gore? Did John Kerry?

No, but Gore was distracted by his interest in massages.

Sarah Palin has something more than intellect. She has the ability to understand, connect with and energize her party.

And considering her likely opposition — Romney, Gingrich, Tim Pawlenty, Bobby Jindal, Mike Huckabee or Haley Barbour — tell me she has no chance. Go ahead and tell me. It’s enough to make one snicker.

COMMENT:  Hey, you think?

July 22, 2010       Permalink

HEY, MAYBE WE CAN'T, MAN – AT 8:12 A.M. ET:   We wrote here a few days ago that the Obamans are playing the race card and the Hispanic card, and that they might soon have to play the youth card in order to try to rebuild their sagging 2008 coalition. 

The Quinnipiac poll we reported yesterday indicates that they'd better start taking that card out of the deck.  The young are not following the leader, as the script requires.  From the New York Post:

WASHINGTON -- Young voters who had been enthralled by Barack Obama's "Yes, we can" message are now saying "Maybe not" -- and are backing away from the president in a worrisome new poll for the White House.

Obama is losing in a match-up against a generic Republican challenger by 37 percent to 34 percent among voters in the 18-34 age group, according to a stunning Quinnipiac University poll released yesterday.

In March, voters in this group approved of Obama by 54 percent to 37 percent.

"The youngest age group may be the most impatient and the most easily disillusioned among all age groups," said Molly Andolina, a youth-vote expert and DePaul University political-science professor.

For many young voters in 2008, "it was the first time they'd been really been involved, really paying attention. This is someone telling them, 'Yes, you can,' " she said.

Two years later, with a prolonged Gulf oil spill, "watching how slow it is to respond may be a little disillusioning," she added.

Obama won an astounding 66 percent of the vote among the under-30 crowd, according to exit polls tracked by the Pew Research Center, the biggest winning percentage for a candidate since Richard Nixon in 1972.

What?  Who?  Nixon?  Nixon got the youth vote?  Yeah, he did.  And in 1960, against Kennedy, he got the women's vote. 

The youth vote is fickle.  The young 'uns fell for Obama in 2008, giving me the feeling – I've had it often – that we should raise the voting age to 25, or maybe 45.  This country is adolescent enough without allowing the adolescents to have the ultimate weapon.

How would the Obamans play the youth card?  Easy.  Young people are vulnerable to certain scare tactics.  The Dems could say 1) if you vote Republican they'll take away your Social Security, and you'll just be paying in for other people; 2) if you vote Republican they'll change the terms of your student loans; 3) if you vote Republican they'll take away your unemployment insurance, and we know that many of you have lost jobs.  Then, there's the streetsweeping scare tactic:  If you vote Republican, they'll bring back the draft.  You know those warmongers.

Some of that stuff could work.  It's worked before.

July 22, 2010     Permalink