HALF-FULL REPORT 05/13/11

Due to his extraordinarily heavy travel schedule, Jack Wheeler asked me to do the HFR this week.  Here goes:

In the presidential campaign political news, it looks as if the party’s over for Donald Trump.  You’ll remember that last month, Public Policy Polling (a Democrat firm), had The Donald out in front, with 26 percent of Republicans supporting him.  But in a poll released Tuesday (5/10) , the first since President Obama released his long form birth certificate, Trump has fallen into a 5th place tie with Rep. Ron Paul.

Mr. Trump is undaunted.  He’s working on a policy book , to be published in late summer.

There’s no word on whether it will come with crayons.

The party may just be getting started for businessman and radio talk show host Herman Cain.  A Frank Luntz focus group said Mr. Cain won, hands down, a debate among sorta kinda GOP contenders in South Carolina May 5.

In all the years I’ve been doing this, I’ve never seen a reaction like this to a debate, said Luntz, who is given somewhat to overstatement.  It’s important to bear in mind that the debate was among members of the scout team, and hardly anybody watched it.

But evidently enough people watched the debate, or heard about it, to vault Mr. Cain to second in a Zogby interactive poll released Tuesday (5/10). f

Mr. Cain had 14 percent to 17 percent for New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie.  Ron Paul was third with 10 percent.

Robert Costa of National Review profiles Cain here: click to view

Since Mr. Cain has never held public office, he is a long, long, long shot.  But Mr. Cain is articulate, personable, solidly conservative.  And with Barack Obama as president, the pigmentation of his skin is an asset.  At this time in 2007, hardly anybody had heard of Mike Huckabee.  But he vaulted into contention among better known Republicans due to his strong performances in debates.  Herman Cain could be the Mike Huckabee of 2012.

Speaking of Huckabee, Paul Bedard of U.S. News & World Report hears from “insiders ” that the former Arkansas governor is itching to run again.

He is seriously considering the race. He could decide in the next four to six weeks," said an associate. "He knows that he cannot wait forever."

Insiders said that he wants to run and is already forming a preliminary staff of aides and trusted advisers led by his 2008 consigliere Ed Rollins.

The timing would put the announcement right before the important Iowa Straw Poll, set for August 13.

Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich formally announced his candidacy Wednesday (5/11).  Here’s his statement:

New York Times’ statistician Nate Silver (a liberal, of course, but usually a straight shooter) puts Newt’s chances of winning the nomination at 9 or 10 percent.  But if Huckabee does run, all the groundwork (and pandering) Newt has done in Iowa may be for naught.

John Podhoretz won’t be supporting Gingrich.

When he’s seized by an idea, he believes in it wholeheartedly and makes a very good case for it. Unfortunately, it’s often immaterial whether the idea itself is sound or wacko. Thus, during that 1985 interview with me, what he wanted to talk about most was how space colonies might become states of the union.

I’m underwhelmed too.  Newt has some excellent ideas (and some really stupid ones).  He speaks very well.  He’ll give Cain a run for his money in future debates.  But Newt was a lousy Speaker.  Too much ego, not enough managerial ability.  And as far as I am concerned, the way he treated his first two wives disqualifies him.

Even though he had just 9 percent support in the Zogby poll, most in the news media and the Washington establishment regard former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney as the GOP frontrunner.  But Mr. Romney has a gushing wound: Romneycare in Massachusetts is very like Obamacare.

In order to stanch that wound, Mr. Romney gave a “major speech” on health care at the University of Michigan Thursday (5/12).  Basically, he doubled down:

Romney said it would be dishonest for him to jettison his support for a plan that critics, including many conservatives, have derided as "RomneyCare." He explained that he’s "proud" of what he attempted on governor.

In a presentation at the University of Michigan’s Cardiovascular Center, Romney said even though it might be to his political benefit to apologize for the plan, he wouldn’t do so.

"I presume that a lot of folks would think that if I did that, it would be good for me politically," he said. "But there’s only one problem with that: It wouldn’t be honest."

"I, in fact, did what I think was right for the people of my state ," he added.

The Wall Street Journal wasn’t impressed.

Once government takes on the direct or implicit liability of paying for health care for everyone, the only way to afford it is through raw political control of all medical decisions.
 
Mr. Romney’s refusal to appreciate this, then and now, reveals a troubling failure of political understanding and principle. The raucous national debate over health care isn’t about this or that technocratic detail, but about basic differences over the role of government. In the current debate over Medicare, Paul Ryan wants to reduce costs by encouraging private competition while Mr. Obama wants the cost-cutting done by a body of unelected experts like the one emerging in Massachusetts.

It’s no accident that RomneyCare’s most vociferous defenders now are in the White House and left-wing media and think tanks. They know what happened, even if he doesn’t.

Romney’s prospects also are clouded by the likely candidacy of another Mormon, Jon Huntsman, former Utah governor, and Barack Obama’s ambassador to China.  Democrat bigwigs told ABC’s Jake Tapper that Huntsman is the potential GOP candidate they fear most.

Uh huh.  I suspect these Democrats think Huntsman would be the candidate most like John McCain, which is why they’re touting him. 

Another reason for disliking Huntsman is that Time magazine thinks he’s really hot stuff.

Indiana Gov. Mitch Daniels appears to be inching closer to making a presidential run.

He told the Washington Post some while ago he wouldn’t announce his intentions until after the Indiana legislature completed its session for the year.  The legislature adjourned April 29, after burnishing Mr. Daniels’ credentials as one of the very best governors in America by passing a sweeping school voucher bill and voting to defund Planned Parenthood in the state.

Mr. Daniels has said he thinks he can beat Zero.  Associates say he’d like to make the race.  The holdup seems to be the attitude of his wife, Cheri.

Cheri Daniels may have more than a spouse’s usual objections to the invasion of privacy a presidential campaign entails. In 1993, she left Mitch and their four daughters and married another man . She returned to Mitch in 1997, and they’ve reportedly been happy ever since.  But I can understand why she wouldn’t want to have this episode rehashed in the press.

Ron Paul announced his candidacy today (5/13) on ABC’s Good Morning America program.

Yecch.  Somehow I don’t think the right guy to take on the first anti-American president is an aging anti-Semite who also hates America.

All this gossip is entertaining for political junkies, but it doesn’t mean much.  It’s way too early to tell which Republicans actually will run for president, much less who the GOP nominee will be, and what his or her prospects are of beating Barack Obama.

Pay little attention to polls which pit various possible GOP contenders against Zero.  The conventional wisdom about a weak GOP field is wrong, says Jay Cost , the best psephologist in America.
 
Jay reminds us that a year and a half before a president seeks re-election, the only polling numbers which matter are the right track/wrong track numbers, and the deserves re-election numbers.  They indicate Zero isn’t that popular .

So anybody who claims with certitude to know how the election will come out is an ass, because only God knows what will be going on next year.  But, Cost says, if the economy then is pretty much the same as the economy is now, Zero will be in big trouble.

---

Meanwhile, the Permanent Campaigner was in Texas Tuesday.  The primary purpose for his visit was to attend a $1,000 a plate fund-raiser in the liberal enclave of Austin, which had been scheduled for at least a month.  But last week Thursday (5/05), the White House announced there would also be an “unspecified” official event in El Paso.  Mack Mackowiak of the Daily Caller explained why: click to view

If the White House adds an “official” event to a “campaign” event, the campaign can split the significant cost of Air Force One with the taxpayer, increasing the financial profit for the campaign. All presidents do this, but only the Obama White House does it with such bravura — shamelessly adding an “unspecified” official event six days before the trip occurs.

The “unspecified” event turned out to be a speech on immigration reform to a largely Hispanic audience at the Chamizal National Memorial, a park along the U.S.-Mexican border.

The speech followed a familiar pattern, Charles Krauthammer noted:

The El Paso speech is notable not for breaking any new ground on immigration, but for perfectly illustrating Obama’s political style: the professorial, almost therapeutic, invitation to civil discourse, wrapped around the basest of rhetorical devices — charges of malice compounded with accusations of bad faith. “They’ll never be satisfied,” said Obama about border control. “And I understand that. That’s politics.”

How understanding. The other side plays “politics,” Obama acts in the public interest. Their eyes are on poll numbers, political power, the next election; Obama’s rest fixedly on the little children.

This impugning of motives is an Obama constant. “They” play politics with deficit reduction, with government shutdowns, with health care. And now immigration. It is ironic that such a charge should be made in a speech that is nothing but politics. There is zero chance of any immigration legislation passing Congress in the next two years. El Paso was simply an attempt to gin up the Hispanic vote in preparation for 2012.

Mr. Obama praised America as a nation built by immigrants, but made no distinction between legal and illegal immigrants.

Now that the border fence is “basically complete,” it is time for “comprehensive immigration reform” (amnesty), he said.

Zero has a peculiar notion of what constitutes “basically complete.”  Krauthammer notes that:

There are now 350 miles of fencing along the Mexican border.  The border is 1,954 miles long.

Jake Tapper of ABC News adds:

More to the point, the border remains quite porous.

The Border Patrol, per the GAO study, has achieved “varying levels of operational control for 873 of the nearly 2,000 southwest border miles at the end of fiscal year 2010…GAO’s preliminary analysis of the 873 border miles under operational control in 2010 showed that about 129 miles (15 percent) were classified as ‘controlled’ and the remaining 85 percent were classified as ‘managed.’”

Though he’s done a wonderful job of securing the border, nothing satisfies Republicans, Mr. Obama said.

"Maybe they’ll need a moat," he said, dismissing their calls for more border security. "Maybe they want alligators in the moat."
f
Bryan Preston of Pajamas Media didn’t think that was funny.

This smirking jackwagon of a president delivers us jokes, just days after 13 people, including a Mexican marine, were killed in a firefight on Falcon Lake, which straddles the Texas-Mexico border.

In a masterpiece of understatement, CNN concluded its report on the president’s speech by noting:

Key proponents of tighter immigration standards were disappointed with Obama’s proposal.

Some in Zero’s target audience weren’t so pleased, either. Teresa Puente, an Hispanic journalist in Chicago, described the speech as “mas de lo mismo” (more of the same).

Many immigration activists around the country were disappointed in the speech. They had hoped Obama would make some policy change, such as halting the deportation of undocumented youth brought here by their parents or of immigrants who have spouses or children who are U.S. citizens.

Even the editors of the New York Times were underwhelmed: click to view

President Obama went to the border in El Paso on Tuesday and delivered a speech on immigration reform. He didn’t present a bill or issue any executive orders or set deadlines for action. Aides say his goal was to “create a pathway” and “a sense of urgency” to “move forward.” That is a start but not nearly enough.

---

In other political news, moonbat Congressman Dennis (the Menace) Kucinich, who is about to be redistricted out of his seat in Ohio, is contemplating seeking re-election in Washington State.

Click to view

He could try for the state’s yet-to-be drawn new 10th Congressional District or seek Democratic U.S. Rep. Jay Inslee’s 1st District seat if Inslee, as expected, runs for governor.

Carpetbags never go out of style.

---

There are 12 judges on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, based in Richmond, which will render an opinion on the ruling of a Virginia district court judge that the individual mandate portion of Obamacare is unconstitutional. 

Four of the judges were appointed by Bill Clinton.  Two were appointed by Ronald Reagan.  Three were appointed by George W. Bush, and three were appointed by Barack Obama.

The three judge panel that is hearing the Obamacare appeal consists of a judge appointed by Clinton , and two appointed by Obama.

It isn’t hard to guess what their decision will be.  Constitutional scholar Richard Epstein elaborates: click to view

The panel allegedly was chosen at random by a computer.  But I smell a stacked deck.  (The chief judge is a Clinton appointee.)

This isn’t good.  But it isn’t as bad as it might seem.  The more definitive rejection of Obamacare came from Judge Roger Vinson in Florida.  His ruling that the whole thing is unConstitutional has been appealed to the 11th Circuit in Atlanta.  On that court, five judges were appointed by Clinton; two by George H.W. Bush; and one each by Gerald Ford, Ronald Reagan, G.W. Bush and Obama.  It isn’t automatic how that Court will rule.

On Wednesday, a panel of leading physicians and hospitals said a key provision of Obamacare is so complex it’s unworkable.

Click to View

I hope the judges on the 11th Circuit read this.  I know those on the 4th Circuit panel won’t.

---

In a column this week, I assert the double game Pakistan has been playing is over.  Americans won’t stand for it in the wake of evidence the Paks sheltered Osama bin Laden all these years.

The Paks don’t grasp this.  They seem to think they can still smack us around and, like a battered spouse in a dysfunctional marriage, we’ll keep giving them money.

* Pakistan’s prime minister has threatened a military response if there are more U.S. raids in his country.

* Pakistan outed the CIA station chief in retaliation.

* Prayers were said for Osama bin Laden in the Pakistani parliament.

Pakistani leaders are doing these things in large part to placate a populace which much more strongly supports al Qaida and the Taliban than it does the United States. A poll indicates 75 percent of Pakistanis disapproved of the raid.

Click to View

The Paks don’t seem to understand this behavior really pisses us off.

I’m not sure Washington understands this, either.  Sens. John Kerry and Richard Lugar warn there will be “dire consequences” if aid to Pakistan is cut off.

Yeah, for the Paks.

Perhaps the Paks think – and people like Kerry and Lugar fear – that if we don’t give the Paks what they want, they’ll turn to China for help.

Walter Russell Mead thinks this is an empty threat: Click to View

For the Chinese, who have so far flirted with Pakistan but never come close to giving the Pakistanis the support they desperately crave, there are three very big catches.

First, Pakistan looks as bent on self-destruction to China as it does to everyone else in the world; why put your money on a such a weak horse?

Second, if China becomes the partner of Pakistan’s dreams, it wrecks its relationship with India and drives India into America’s arms. A closer relationship with Pakistan might be necessary for China in the event that the US and India developed a tight alliance aimed against China, but China’s best strategy now is to prevent the US-India relationship from turning into an anti-China alliance. Flirting with Pakistan makes sense as a way to keep both Washington and Delhi on their toes, but anything more would be a costly mistake.

And third, there are the same questions of competence and trust that give Washington pause. Can Pakistan really be trusted on the subject of ‘Islamic’ terror? The Pakistani defense establishment is totally fixated on maintaining links with terror groups and radical groups to advance its interests in both Afghanistan and India. China doesn’t like this very much; none of the great powers with interests in Central Asia have much sympathy for Pakistan’s desire to strengthen radical Sunni groups. But if Pakistan showed that it was willing and able to use this weapon selectively — to tolerate and even promote terror groups aimed at India while cracking down ruthlessly and effectively on any Muslims crazy enough to dream of fighting for their co-religionists in western China — then maybe, just maybe, Pakistan and China could cut a deal.

But the Abbottabad imbroglio calls Pakistan’s good faith and its ability into question. Will Islamabad really suppress, murder and betray Uighur Muslims who want to bring jihad to their homeland, or will Pakistani weakness, incompetence, religious fanaticism and/or corruption mean that Pakistan will provide sanctuary and perhaps more to China’s deadly enemies even as it takes China’s cash? On the evidence of Abbottabad, few Chinese foreign policy analysts will propose trusting Pakistan. Nice words, candy and flowers on its birthday, but little else.

---

Sometimes even some of his supporters think our scofflaw president has gone too far. As you know, Zero wanted Congress to pass a bill requiring companies that do business with the federal government to disclose political contributions by their officers and directors.  When Congress wouldn’t comply, the president said he’s considering issuing an executive order.

That would be a bridge too far for House Democratic Whip Steny Hoyer.

"The issue of contracting ought to be on the merits of the contractor’s application and bid and capabilities," Mr. Hoyer said at his weekly press briefing. "There are some serious questions as to what implications there are if somehow we consider political contributions in the context of awarding contracts."

 Sens. Joe Lieberman, I-Ct and Claire McCaskill, D-Mo, also have expressed opposition.

---

Last Sunday (5/08) Rageit Almurisi, a 28-year-old man who carries a Yemeni passport, brushed past a flight attendant on an American Airlines flight to San Francisco and began banging on the cockpit door.

A male flight attendant tackled Almurisi.  Several passengers – among them a retired cop and a Secret Service agent — helped subdue him.

A subsequent AP dispatch said Almurisi has been living in Vallejo, California for the last year and a half.  The cousin, Rageh Almoraissi, said Almurisi is very laid back, he’s always smiling, he’s always laughing. He’s not an angry person.

Almoraissi said he could not imagine what may have caused his cousin to act as authorities allege he did on the plane, but said he was certain Almurisi was not a terrorist. He said his cousin did not show an interest in politics and was not intensely religious.

"He might have seriously mistaken the cockpit for the bathroom," Almoraissi said. "He’s only been on three planes in his whole life."

 Police said Almurisi was “yelling unintelligibly” as he brushed past the flight attendant.  A woman passenger who speaks Arabic said what Almurisi was yelling was “Allahu Akbar!” (God is Great.) 

I applaud the AP for mentioning this.  In its account of the incident, the CBS affiliate in San Francisco did not.

The retired cop, Larry Wright , told the San Mateo Journal Almurisi repeated “Allahu Akbar” 30 times.

“He had a plan,” Wright said. “I thought he was trying to crash the plane.”

Since it isn’t customary for Muslims to scream “Allahu Akbar” on their way to the toilet, this sounds like a case of Sudden Jihad Syndrome.

The authorities seem to agree.  Mr. Almurisi is being held without bail.

Michelle Malkin wondered this morning how, despite a massive transportation and homeland security apparatus, did al-Murisi get into this country and get on a plane? He had no keys, no luggage, $47 cash, two curious posted checks totaling $13,000, and a trove of expired and current state IDs from New York and California — where relatives said he had not notified them that he was coming. He is young, male, brought no family with him, had no job or other discernible income, and hails from the terror-coddling nation of Yemen. Yes, the same Yemen that is Osama bin Laden’s ancestral home, harbors al-Qaida operatives who are burning the "torch of jihad," and is deemed a "special interest country" whose citizens warrant increased scrutiny by DHS when they cross the border illegally.

As I reported last month, a federal watchdog revealed that TSA’s counterterrorism specialists failed to detect 16 separate jihad operatives who moved through target airports "on at least 23 different occasions." Neutered by Islamophobia-phobia and an "overtime over security" mentality, our State Department consular offices’ and airline security bureaucracy’s stance toward the al-Murisis slipping through their snaking lines is:

Nothing to see here; move along.

Perhaps TSA was too busy protecting us from infants.

---

That’s all folks.  I hope you enjoyed it.  Jack Wheeler will be back next week.