CNN: Perry enters race in virtual tie with Romney, Bachmann fades

posted at 10:05 am on August 11, 2011 by Ed Morrissey
printer-friendly

Texas Governor Rick Perry will upend the Republican presidential primary with his entry this weekend, CNN’s latest national poll shows. He starts off in a virtual tie with Mitt Romney, 17/15, with his nearest competitors at 12%. Perhaps most surprisingly, Michele Bachmann isn’t among them — and her support gets cut almost in half with Perry’s candidacy:

According to a CNN/ORC International poll, 15 percent of Republicans and independents who lean towards the GOP pick Perry as their first choice for their party’s nomination, just two points behind former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney, who’s making his second bid for the White House. Romney’s two point margin over Perry is within the survey’s sampling error.

The poll’s Thursday release comes two days before Perry gives a speech at a major conservative gathering in South Carolina where his staff has indicated he will make his intentions for a presidential run clear. Later in the day Perry travels to New Hampshire to meet with GOP lawmakers, activists, and voters. Perry’s travels Saturday come as the rest of the political spotlight will be shining on Iowa, for a crucial presidential straw poll in Ames. Perry heads to Iowa Sunday to speak at a Republican party gathering, which means he will visit three of the crucial early voting primary and caucus states this weekend.

The survey indicates that former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani, former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin, and Rep. Ron Paul of Texas, who is making his third bid for the White House, are at 12 percent apiece. While both Giuliani, who ran for the presidency four years ago, and Palin, the Republican vice presidential nominee in 2008, have flirted with bids, neither has taken concrete steps towards launching a campaign.

Three weeks ago, Perry scored 14% but Giuliani, Palin, and Bachmann all scored 13% or 12%. Now Bachmann has dropped to 7%, a fall of five points and the biggest decline in the field for the period. Ron Paul has picked up four points to surpass her and join Giuliani and Palin in a three-way tie for third place.

Bachmann isn’t the only candidate trending downward, but the rest are in the second tier. Herman Cain dropped two points to 4%, while Tim Pawlenty dropped one to come in at 2%. Both of these candidates need breakout performances in Iowa, which was well known before this week. If CNN’s series is not an outlier, Bachmann may need one as well, now that Perry has come closer to tossing his hat in the ring. She has been wowing crowds in Iowa this week in advance of the debate and straw poll, so she is doing all she can on the ground, but that may not be enough — at least not this week.

Time Magazine’s Mark Halperin interviewed Perry this week about his plans:





A highlight from the transcript:

Q: You’ve talked about how all of the social issues are important and this election is going to be about what the voters care most about: economy and jobs. Is it your hope, if you become a candidate, that even voters who disagree with you on social issues will find your record and argument on jobs so compelling that they vote for you even though they did disagree with you?

A: Well, I’m pretty sure there has never been a candidate [where] all the people agree with his or her positions on the issues. And there are single-issue voters, and I understand that. I respect that. I’ve run three times in Texas and I would suggest to you, Texas is somewhat of a microcosm of the rest of the country, particularly in this first decade of the 21st century. We are very, very cosmopolitan, if you will, very urban, but we have our rural areas. We have an incredible diversity of people [who] live in this state. This is not the Texas of my father. It is a very diverse state. Running for the governorship of the state of Texas, I recognized all the diversity of thought.
So, what’s the most important thing that’s facing this country? It’s getting this economy back. I am a pro-business governor. I will be a pro-business President if this does, in fact, ensue and I’m blessed to be elected President of the United States—unabashedly [so] because the fact of the matter is, there’s nothing more important than having an environment created by government that allows for the private sector to risk its capital to know that they have a good chance of having a return on the investment. Because at that particular point in time, the men and women who are out of work today can be back employed. They can take care of their family. They can do the things they desire in their lives. And without that strong economy, America can’t be strong militarily. We can’t have, frankly a presence in the world that we need to have. It all goes back to having an economy that people are comfortable with—they can risk their capital and they’ll have a return on the investment. We don’t have that today.

Q: There are people who’ve looked up—even though you’re not yet a candidate—your record and your endorsement of Mayor Giuliani in the last campaign, some of the positions you’ve taken on immigration, etcetera, and they say Rick Perry is not actually as conservative as he says. What do you say to those people?

A: Well, you know, I stand on my record. I thought Mayor Giuliani did a wonderful job of managing a city. He was very strong militarily. He was as strong on crime as any big city Mayor has ever been. He and I were 180 degrees on social issues, but he would put strict constructionists on the Supreme Court, which dealt with those social issues. I happen to be comfortable that I was making the right decisions and that as President, when it comes to those social issues, it’s very important to have that strict constructionist view of who you put on the Supreme Court. Because they’d look at the constitution and say, you know what, that issue dealing with abortion is not in the constitution. We will put it back to the states. Now if the states want to pass an amendment and three quarters of the states want to pass an amendment to make this be a change of our United States constitution, then just follow that process. And I’m a big believer that that’s how our country should work.

Q: So if you got in, would you be the most conservative candidate in the race? Or as conservative as everybody else?

A: Yeah I don’t think there’s any doubt about that. But again, we go back to what’s the most important issue here? I mean if somebody wants to go back and find, oh here’s a little spot right here—you know, I was a democrat at one time in my life. I was 25 years old before I think I ever met a person who would admit being a Republican. So the key is, I’ve got a record. And that record, particularly when it comes to the most important issues in this campaign, which is creating the climate of America that gives incentives to job creators to risk their capital and create jobs for our citizens, I will put that up against anybody who’s running and particularly against this President we have today, whose jobs record is abysma

Continue Reading →

Obama prepares for career as landlord

posted at 1:25 pm on August 11, 2011 by Jazz Shaw
printer-friendly

It’s an idea so beautiful in its simplicity and so perfectly targeted to cure one of our biggest national headaches that many readers will be slapping their foreheads in one of those, “I could have had a V-8″ moments. The housing market is still in the tank and the government has been forced to foreclose on countless properties which now sit vacant, generating no tax revenue. The nation’s coffers are running dry and we have to tackle our debt problem. But nobody wants to raise taxes. What to do?

Why, you kill two birds with one stone, of course! We’ll let the government go into the property rental business!

    The Obama administration may turn thousands of government-owned foreclosures into rental properties to help boost falling home prices.

    The Federal Housing Finance Agency said Wednesday it is seeking input from investors on how to rent homes owned by government-controlled mortgage companies Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac and the Federal Housing Administration.

    At the end of last month, the government owned roughly 248,000 foreclosed homes, officials said. About 70,000 of those are listed for sale. But officials expect the number of foreclosures to soar in the coming months.

What could possibly go wrong? Over at Pajamas Media, Bryan Preston suspects that even in such an obviously brilliant scheme, there might be a few wrinkles.

    [N]ot to put too fine a point on things, renting your home from the government raises all kinds of liberty questions. If they don’t like your politics, can they find a way to evict you? Can they tell you what to do (more than the government already does) in the home you’re renting from Uncle Sam? With a president hitting 51% disapproval, an IRS that’s become notorious for political audits and federal law enforcement agencies known lately more for gunrunning than crime stopping, that’s not an idle question. Would the feds allow renters to own firearms in these government homes? The majority of renters between now and 2012 are likely to be people who don’t like their landlord, but the landlord has, shall we say, serious firepower superiority. There’s a great deal to ponder here.

It’s difficult to imagine what a mess this would wind up being in court, if only on the constitutional authority questions. Preston offers an alternate suggestion of scrapping Fannie and Freddie entirely and spinning off all of those properties at open, public auctions. Granted, that would have a sudden, if short term negative impact on the real estate market, but it could conceivably hasten the process of allowing it to find its natural bottom and begin rebuilding from there in an organic fashion.

But who knows? If we let Washington handle it as proposed, there would probably be all sorts of exemptions and set-asides built into the system and you might wind up renting a mansion for fifty bucks a month. And if the house is built well enough it will provide you with a place to hide when the zombie apocalypse begins.

Cash for Bunkers?

Continue Reading →

Allen West: Not going to get involved in Tea Party “schizophrenia”

posted at 1:25 pm on July 29, 2011 by Ed Morrissey
printer-friendly

Matt Lewis says, “When Laura Ingraham and Rep. Allen West are calling out the Tea Party, you know something’s up[.]” As it turns out, some of the Tea Party attack on Allen West turned out to be a misunderstanding, but West takes the opportunity to support John Boehner and remind people that Harry Reid’s plan cuts defense spending. Laura Ingraham pledges her support to West as she scolds some conservatives for attacking West for attempting the possible:



As I said on the air yesterday in an interview, any definition of “fiscal conservative” that doesn’t include Paul Ryan and Allen West is one that I can’t recognize. West defends himself and the Republican caucus well enough, so I don’t need to recap it, but West has a point when he asks what he’s voting for if people demand that he vote against Boehner 1.1.

Besides, the entire notion that the Tea Party Nation would push for a primary against West is based on a faulty media report. Judson Phillips, its founder and CEO, repudiated that notion entirely in a statement later in the morning:

    Setting the Record Straight

    There is a story in The Hill that a group of Tea Party organizations is threatening a primary challenge against a number of Freshmen Congressmen including Allen West. This story says a press release has been issued with Tea Party Nation supporting an effort to push a primary challenge against Allen West.

    Tea Party Nation has NEVER said we want to see a primary challenge against Allen West. West has been a staunch Tea Party supporter and though we strongly disagree with his support of the really terrible John Boehner plan, West has been an overwhelmingly good Congressman and we would be hard pressed to find someone better.

    The group that put this press release out used Tea Party Nation’s name without our permission. No one at TPN was shown this press release in advance. Had we been shown that press release, we would have vetoed the use of our name.

    We still call for a primary challenge to John Boehner and there maybe some Republicans who deserve a primary challenge, but Allen West is not one of those.

    To be absolutely clear, neither Tea Party Nation, nor Tea Party Nation founder Judson Phillips support this effort.

    We specifically repudiate it.

Not that there is anything wrong with primary challenges anyway, of course. That’s a perfectly legitimate way to push for policy goals, and the Tea Party in general made good use of them in 2010. However, targeting Allen West of all people for being insufficiently conservative would have been a fast track to irrelevancy, and Phillips certainly understands that.

Continue Reading →

Reid: Hey, who’s up for killing another debt-ceiling increase?

posted at 2:30 pm on July 28, 2011 by Ed Morrissey
printer-friendly

Must be nice to have a job that doesn’t actually require any work, except to refuse to work at all:

House Republicans are just wasting their time debating Speaker John Boehner’s debt reduction bill, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid said today.

“Boehner’s bill dies tonight,” Reid communications director Adam Jentleson wrote on Twitter. “Forever.” …

“As soon as the House completes its vote, the Senate will move to take up that bill,” Reid said, “and it will be defeated tonight.”

“No Democrat will vote for a short-term Band-Aid that would put our economy at risk and put the nation back in this untenable situation a few short months from now,” he said.

To which the answer should be: “Where’s the Senate plan?” The Politico article has Harry Reid standing in front of a display that reads, “In the battle of budget scores, Senate plan is a clear winner over Boehner plan.” That was certainly true of the Boehner 1.0 plan, but it’s less clear that it’s true about Boehner 1.1. Either way, Reid’s bill only reduced actual spending by $750 billion rather than Boehner 1.0′s $710 billion over a ten-year period, so neither was exceptionally robust in scoring. It’s a bit like bragging about winning a football game when the only score comes off of a safety.

But that argument assumes the Senate will actually produce a plan. So far, even though Reid controls the majority and the floor, we haven’t even seen a hint of a vote. In fact, we haven’t seen the Senate originate any budget bill in over 800 days. Since Reid’s plan doesn’t include new taxes — or at least that’s his claim — it doesn’t have to originate in the House.

The proper legislative process should be for both chambers to work on their own versions of legislation and form a conference committee to produce a bill for up-or-down votes in each chamber. Reid could have done that with the CCB bill, had he chosen to do so, although there would have been very few commonalities between a Senate response and the CCB around which to compromise. That’s not true of the Boehner 1.1 bill; as National Journal noted yesterday, they have quite a bit in common, including the level of cuts. All that needs to happen is to get the Senate to pass its bill and let the conference committee hammer it out. That can even take place after a vote to kill Boehner 1.1.

If all Reid does is vote to kill the Boehner plan, however, then nothing can happen. Reid wants to bully the House into doing his work. The House should tell Reid to do his job rather than worry about doing theirs. If Democrats never plan to make a proposal, then they should just pass Boehner 1.1, and Republicans should call a halt to any further efforts until Democrats start taking their responsibilities seriously.

Update: A reminder, via Newsbusters‘ Lachlan Markay, that Harry Reid could have raised the debt ceiling last year.

Update II: Lachlan actually went to Heritage a few weeks ago.

Continue Reading →

Oh, by the way, the U.S. just accused Iran of working with Al Qaeda

posted at 8:19 pm on July 28, 2011 by Allahpundit
printer-friendly

A little something light to tide you over while we wait for the next chapter in the debt-ceiling saga. I’ve been around blogs long enough to remember when claiming that Shiite nuts might collaborate with Sunni nuts against America would draw derisive snickers from lefty blogs at the sheer wingnuttery of the idea. Isn’t it just like neocons to try to drum up war against Iran by claiming a connection as preposterous as that?

And now here we are. Over to you, Obama administration:

The Treasury Department slapped sanctions on six individuals operating in a network that they said “serves as the core pipeline through which al Qaeda moves money, facilitators and operatives from across the Middle East to South Asia, including to Atiyah Abd al-Rahman, a key al Qaeda leader based in Pakistan, also designated today.”

“Iran is the leading state sponsor of terrorism in the world today. By exposing Iran’s secret deal with al Qaeda allowing it to funnel funds and operatives through its territory, we are illuminating yet another aspect of Iran’s unmatched support for terrorism,” Under Secretary for Terrorism and Financial Intelligence David Cohen said in a statement announcing the sanctions…

Among the individuals sanctioned today is Ezedin Abdel Aziz Khalil, described by the Treasury Department as “an Iran-based senior al Qaeda facilitator currently living and operating in Iran under an agreement between al Qaeda and the Iranian government.”…

“As al Qaeda’s representative in Iran, Khalil works with the Iranian government to arrange releases of al Qaeda personnel from Iranian prisons. When al Qaeda operatives are released, the Iranian government transfers them to Khalil, who then facilitates their travel to Pakistan,” the Treasury Department said.

This isn’t the first time Treasury’s targeted Al Qaeda inside Iran, actually: Bill Roggio remembers that four AQ operatives, including Saad Bin Laden, were sanctioned in January 2009. If that doesn’t prove to you that Iran’s dealing with major players inside Al Qaeda, not just the rank-and-file, Roggio also points out that Atiyah Abd al-Rahman happens to be Al Qaeda’s operations chief and was working with Bin Laden himself on an attack timed to the 10th anniversary of 9/11 before the SEALs came knocking on Osama’s door. But then, none of this is the least bit surprising. Remember where Saif al-Adel, one of AQ’s highest capos, spent the better part of the last decade? Remember the AP’s exclusive just two months ago about how Iran might be preparing to release Al Qaeda prisoners in order to target American troops in Iraq and Afghanistan? Do I need to link this evergreen Tom Joscelyn piece about longstanding ties between Iran and Al Qaeda yet again? Go figure that a fundamentalist state that specializes in outsourcing terror against the west via proxies might broker a cold peace with America-hating Wahhabist terrorists.

Since we’re on the subject, I feel obliged to link this hopeful WaPo story from a few days ago about how U.S. intel increasingly believes Al Qaeda’s leadership in Pakistan is on its last legs. Daveed Gartenstein-Ross warns against declaring mission accomplished, which is fair enough, but if the best this degenerate can do right now is try to convince Syrian protesters that America’s their worst enemy and not the monster in Damascus who’s been killing them for months, well, maybe we’re closer to mission accomplished than we think.

Continue Reading →

Chaos: Gunmen kill Libyan rebels’ top military commander — while he’s in rebel custody

posted at 7:38 pm on July 28, 2011 by Allahpundit
printer-friendly

To fully appreciate how shady this is, take two minutes to read the Atlantic Wire’s excellent tick-tock of news accounts of how this guy was killed. Rumors that he was dead started turning up in Arab media four days ago, oddly enough. Then word came that he had been recalled from the front lines to Benghazi to be questioned about collaborating with Qaddafi loyalists. (Younis used to be the regime’s Interior Minister but defected to the rebels earlier this year and took charge of their army.) Then, suddenly, he was under arrest. And lo and behold, shortly thereafter he was dead — shot by a mysterious group of gunmen whose identities the rebels’ spokesman is being curiously tight-lipped about. The AP’s story simply reeks of suspicion that it was an inside job:

The head of the Libyan rebel armed forces was shot and killed Thursday just before arriving for questioning by rebel authorities, their political leader said in a carefully worded statement to reporters that gave few details on who was behind the killing.

Adding to the confusion, the rebels had said hours earlier they had already detained the commander, Abdel-Fattah Younis, on suspicion his family might still have ties to the regime of Moammar Gadhafi, raising questions about whether he might have been assassinated by his own side…

Announcing the killing at a press conference where he did not take questions, Mustafa Abdul-Jalil, head of the rebels’ National Transitional Council, called Younis “one of the heroes of the 17th of February revolution,” a name marking the date of early protests against Gadhafi’s regime.

He said two of the commander’s aides, both colonels, were also killed in the attack by gunmen and that rebels had arrested the head of the group behind the attack. He did not say what he thought motivated the killers.

The spokesman himself alternately blamed the killing on “efforts by the Gadhafi regime to break our unity” and, er, “armed criminal gangs” running wild. Supposedly the “gang” killed him before he arrived before the rebel council in Benghazi to be questioned about ties to Qaddafi, but a rumor being pushed to Al Jazeera by Qaddafi loyalists claims that Younis was executed by the gunmen before the committee itself. Yet another journalist flagged by the Atlantic is hearing that the killing happened after a “major general” from a rival rebel tribe started an argument with Younis at a Benghazi hotel. (Remember, Younis wasn’t supposed to be in Benghazi today; he was recalled from the front.) Any guesses who that general might be? Revisit this post by Ed from April for a possibility.

To sum up, then: The man who’s supposed to be leading rebel troops to final victory over Qaddafi, thereby vindicating NATO’s decision to join the war, is now dead in his own capital on the orders of his own side, in all probability. The best-case scenario is that he was a traitor to their/our side and had to be removed immediately. The worst-case scenario is that the rebel leadership is so dysfunctional and gangsterish that they’re risking their war effort on settling personal grievances. This comes, incidentally, after a week filled with stories about the failure of “diplomatic solutions” to the stalemate, the best of which is this Time piece marveling at the fact that NATO’s been so ineffective in dislodging Qaddafi that we’re now looking at peace treaties that would involve letting him stay in the country. Take a moment to read it. And remember: “Days, not weeks.”

Continue Reading →

Rick Perry: Abortion is a states’ rights issue

posted at 5:07 pm on July 28, 2011 by Allahpundit
printer-friendly

A smart middle-ground play for independents, but I thought he was supposed to be the great evangelical hope. Last week he said he was “fine” with New York legalizing gay marriage before clarifying today that he’s not fine with gay marriage itself. (In fact, he supports a Federal Marriage Amendment.) Now this. Why would a social-conservative voter looking for a champion who has traction in the polls prefer him to, say, Bachmann?

Maybe Perry’s willing to shed some votes in Iowa in exchange for picking some up in New Hampshire.

Despite holding personal pro-life beliefs, Texas Gov. Rick Perry categorized abortion as a states’ rights issue today, saying that if Roe v. Wade was overturned, it should be up to the states to decide the legality of the procedure.

“You either have to believe in the 10th Amendment or you don’t,” Perry told reporters after a bill signing in Houston. “You can’t believe in the 10th Amendment for a few issues and then [for] something that doesn’t suit you say, ‘We’d rather not have states decide that.’”…

The National Right to Life Committee responded to Perry’s categorization of abortion as a states’ rights issue in a statement, saying, “Our society has an obligation to enact laws that recognize and protect the smallest members of our human family. Prior to Roe, states had the ability to enact laws that extended full legal protection to unborn children. We look forward to the day when Roe v. Wade is changed, and the states will once again have the ability to pass legislation that fully protects mothers and their unborn children.”

I’m surprised the NRLC gave him cover on that. Granted, the immediate first step after Roe is overturned would be state laws restricting abortion, but I’ve never understood that to be the end point for pro-lifers, as Perry seems to suggest by invoking the Tenth Amendment. The goal is a Human Life Amendment or, at a minimum, a federal statute banning abortion coast-to-coast. If you believe abortion is murder, why on earth would you want to let any state choose to legalize it? Huckabee made that point succinctly during the 2008 campaign; watch the end of the clip below.

Maybe Perry’s position on this mirrors his position on gay marriage. His argument for the Federal Marriage Amendment is that it would require ratification by three-fourths of the states, so the process honors the federalist principle of the Tenth Amendment even though the FMA would trump it. He could make the same argument for the HLA, although (a) a hardcore believer in the Tenth Amendment presumably wouldn’t want to see the sovereignty of any state trumped, even if three-quarters of the other states agree, and (b) if he didn’t make the same argument for the HLA, he’d have to explain why he thinks gay marriage requires a national solution but abortion doesn’t.

But maybe none of this matters. Neither the HLA nor the FMA will ever pass, so all we’re doing is polishing credentials here — and his already have plenty of polish. The latest whispers from his advisors, incidentally, claim that he’ll be in by late August. In fact, he’s already nudging Fox about a spot in the August 11 debate.

Continue Reading →

Guess who’s gotten pretty quiet this week

posted at 4:28 pm on July 28, 2011 by Ed Morrissey
printer-friendly

Jim Geraghty notices that the man who has spent July all over our TV screens now seems strangely … shy:

This is not a complaint, but an observation: President Obama has made no public speeches, appearances, or remarks since Monday night.

According to CBS News’ Mark Knoller, he has no public or press appearances scheduled for today.

This seems more than just a coincidence. After all, this is crunch time on the debt ceiling. If the President wanted to pick a time for conspicuous leadership, this would be it. By tomorrow, there may not be enough time to get any solution through Congress, let alone one the White House likes.

Jim speculates that Obama’s advisers may have decided that Obama’s media blitz the last three weeks has just not moved the needle, but I think it goes farther than that. I’d guess that the White House is getting worried about Obama’s relentless scolding while pursuing the no-plan strategy. The White House press corps has begun insisting on seeing Obama’s plan in writing, and since it’s not forthcoming, Obama’s team may be afraid of putting him out in public.

This could also reflect some frustration from Senate Democrats. The Reid and Boehner plans share a similar structure, and Reid might want to get the Senate into position to pass his proposal so that a conference committee can quickly produce something that will pass both chambers. Having Obama out front demagoguing the issue doesn’t help move that process along, as Republicans could filibuster Reid’s efforts if they really dig in their heels.

But Jim has the bottom line right — Obama very obviously didn’t help matters over the last three weeks with his all-mouth, no-plan strategy. If one doesn’t want to offer a solution, then perhaps the One shouldn’t be spouting off about those who do — and have.

Continue Reading →

ATF official: I told the White House about Fast & Furious

posted at 10:45 am on July 27, 2011 by Ed Morrissey
printer-friendly

What did Barack Obama know about Operation Fast and Furious, and when did he know it?  Rep. Darrell Issa’s committee uncovered an explosive nugget of information from the subpoena of ATF e-mail, which went public in yesterday’s hearings.  The ATF manager of the Phoenix office notified a White House official of Operation Fast and Furious as an update on the overall Project Gunrunner effort, connecting the controversial operation directly to the White House for the first time:

    At a lengthy hearing on ATF’s controversial gunwalking operation today, a key ATF manager told Congress he discussed the case with a White House National Security staffer as early as September 2010. The communications were between ATF Special Agent in Charge of the Phoenix office, Bill Newell, and White House National Security Director for North America Kevin O’Reilly. Newell said the two are longtime friends. The content of what Newell shared with O’Reilly is unclear and wasn’t fully explored at the hearing. …

    Congressional investigators obtained an email from Newell to O’Reilly in September of last year in which Newell began with the words: “you didn’t get this from me.”

    “What does that mean,” one member of Congress asked Newell, ” ‘you didn’t get this from me?’ ”

    “Obviously he was a friend of mine,” Newell replied, “and I shouldn’t have been sending that to him.”

Issa asked him why O’Reilly would have been asking about Project Gunrunner, the overall interdictment effort, but that’s fairly clear.  As a national-security advisor with responsibility for North America, the cartels in Mexico would be one of the primary threats O’Reilly would watch.  O’Reilly told Newell that he planned to travel to Mexico to work on the issue, which would explain the need for an update.

What’s less clear is why Newell informed him with the caveat “you didn’t get this from me”.  Why wouldn’t the ATF report on Fast and Furious results to the White House when asked?  Was Newell told to avoid linking the operation directly to the White House, or was the ATF worried about the implications of the operation even before it blew up in their faces?  Given the hostility towards Congressional oversight already demonstrated at the ATF and Department of Justice during this investigation, this looks like even more evidence that the Obama administration let the ATF run wild, perhaps on purpose.

The more important question will be who O’Reilly told at the White House about the operation.  Clearly, O’Reilly wanted the information to prepare for key meetings on a very sensitive subject.  It’s hard to believe that O’Reilly would have kept that information to himself.  Issa’s committee needs to get O’Reilly into the hearing and on the record, and it may be time to subpoena some White House records, too.

Continue Reading →

Perry pulls into statistical tie with Romney in Gallup poll

posted at 12:05 pm on July 27, 2011 by Ed Morrissey
printer-friendly

Of all the potential late entrants into the Republican nomination contest, the one who gives Mitt Romney the toughest fight is Rick Perry, according to the latest Gallup poll.  If Perry, Sarah Palin, and Rudy Giuliani all get into the race, Perry comes in just two points behind Romney and ahead of Palin and Giuliani, while Michele Bachmann falls to fifth place — well within the margin of error:

    Mitt Romney is the leader for the GOP nomination among the current field of official candidates, supported by 27% of Republicans, compared with 18% for Michele Bachmann. However, Rick Perry would essentially tie Romney, with Sarah Palin and Rudy Giuliani close behind, in a scenario in which all three of these undecided candidates entered the race.

    Gallup asked respondents to choose among all 11 current and potential candidates, and then asked for their second and third choices. The second and third choices are used to simulate preferences when certain combinations of unannounced candidates are excluded from the race. Three such scenarios include the eight announced candidates plus one of the unannounced candidates. Palin, Perry, and Giuliani finish in no worse than a statistical tie for second place when each is pitted against the eight firm candidates.

If only Perry gets in the race, he starts off five points behind Romney — and five points ahead of Bachmann, who loses four points in the transaction.  Palin comes in at 15 if alone, one point behind Bachmann in a statistical tie for second place, while Giuliani gets 14%, three behind Bachmann for third place, without Palin or Perry.  Romney holds 23% in each model.

The numbers between conservatives and moderates/liberals are also interesting.  Gallup didn’t run separate models for that breakdown as they did with the overall numbers, but if all three jump into the race, Perry ties Romney for the lead with conservatives at 18%.  His support drops off considerably with moderates/liberals, finishing tied for fifth place with Bachmann.  Giuliani wins that demographic at 16%, two points ahead of Romney and Palin.  Somewhat surprisingly, Palin only scores 11% among conservatives, a fourth-place finish behind Romney, Perry, and Bachmann.

Needless to say, the other candidates in the field barely change positions with or without the three late entrants.  All of them had better hope for lightning to strike in Ames in a couple of weeks, at the debate and then at the straw poll.  Without some sort of breakout performance, an entry of any of the three maybes will swamp out any hope of getting the kind of media attention that will build momentum in the fall

Continue Reading →

CBO: Reid bill a bigger reduction in spending … barely

posted at 11:25 am on July 27, 2011 by Ed Morrissey
printer-friendly

The Washington Times reports today that the duel of spending reduction bills may be won by Harry Reid.  The CBO scored Reid’s proposal better than John Boehner’s on actual reductions in spending, although neither takes a machete to the budget.  In fact, the difference is almost indistinguishable:

    The Congressional Budget Office said the plan by Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid would raise the government’s borrowing limit by $2.7 trillion, and cut $2.2 trillion from future spending, chiefly by limiting the amount of money spent on the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. …

    The CBO analysis could give momentum to Mr. Reid’s plan, though the GOP says spending on the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan was going to drop anyway, and so shouldn’t be considered as future savings. …

    The CBO said the Senate bill’s discretionary spending cuts would result in $840 billion in lower authorized spending, and $750 billion in actual lower outlays over the next decade. The Senate bill also capped spending on the two wars at $450 billion over the next decade, which would mean spending authority is $1.2 trillion lower, and actual outlays would be $1 trillion lower.

Reid’s advertising his proposal as authorizing $2.2 trillion in cuts for a $2.7 trillion debt-ceiling increase, but most of those cuts would happen anyway.  Reid counts dollars spent on the war at current rates as part of the savings when the drawdowns occur, savings that are already in place.  Instead, his bill cuts in 10 years roughly half of the annual budget deficit, averaging $75 billion a year, which is roughly nineteen days of borrowing at current deficit rates.

That’s an improvement over Boehner’s bill, but not by much.  Boehner would save $710 billion over the next decade, averaging $71 billion a year, which accounts for 17.3 days of borrowing at the current rate of deficit spending.  That’s more of a distinction without a difference.  Boehner’s bill would only authorize a $900 billion hike in the debt limit, however, which would force a new round of cuts before next year’s election.  Unlike Reid’s proposal, Boehner assumes that the savings in war funding have already taken place.

Boehner promised to go back and rewrite the House bill to get more savings out of it.  Given these figures, that shouldn’t be a terribly difficult task.  However, at this point, it looks like the two chambers are close enough in figures and approaches to pass their bills and get a conference committee to deal with the differences, which is probably what will happen by the end of the week.

Continue Reading →

Battleground states looking grim for Obama?

posted at 10:05 am on July 27, 2011 by Ed Morrissey
printer-friendly

National polls put Barack Obama in the mid-40s and slightly underwater, which could indicate trouble for him in 2012 — if the Presidency was won on a national popular vote.  (Ask Al Gore how that works out.)  National Journal took a look at polling in battleground states and sees a much bigger problem than national polls indicate:

    In every reputable battleground state poll conducted over the past month, Obama’s support is weak. In most of them, he trails Republican front-runner Mitt Romney.  For all the talk of a closely fought 2012 election, if Obama can’t turn around his fortunes in states such as Michigan and New Hampshire, next year’s presidential election could end up being a GOP landslide.

    Take Ohio, a perennial battleground in which Obama has campaigned more than in any other state (outside of the D.C. metropolitan region). Fifty percent of Ohio voters now disapprove of his job performance, compared with 46 percent who approve, according to a Quinnipiac pollconducted from July 12-18.

    Among Buckeye State independents, only 40 percent believe that Obama should be reelected, and 42 percent approve of his job performance. Against Romney, Obama leads 45 percent to 41 percent—well below the 50 percent comfort zone for an incumbent.

    The news gets worse from there.  In Michigan, a reliably Democratic state that Obama carried with 57 percent of the vote, an EPIC-MRA pollconducted July 9-11 finds him trailing Romney, 46 percent to 42 percent. Only 39 percent of respondents grade his job performance as “excellent” or good,” with 60 percent saying it is “fair” or “poor.” The state has an unemployment rate well above the national average, and the president’s approval has suffered as a result.

Obama also trails Romney in New Hampshire, getting edged by two points.  More worrisome for the White House is Obama’s standing in these states, and others like them.  Regardless of who the nominee is, having re-elect numbers in the low 40s is a clear sign that the state is up for grabs. And it’s not just these states, either.

If Michigan is in play — and it almost certainly will be — then Pennsylvania and Wisconsin probably are as well, and Indiana may already be lost.  That Rust Belt band played heavily into Obama’s victory in 2008.  Hillary Clinton Democrats, primarily white working-class voters, turned out for Obama in 2008, but those are the voters Obama is losing fastest in this cycle.  National Journal wonders whether Obama can hold Colorado, Nevada, and Virginia, but they miss North Carolina, where Obama’s standing has already shown to be crumbling, too.

Most presidential re-election runs have some element of defense to hold territory won in the previous election, but that may be the only strategy Obama can put in play.  Obama won the Electoral College handily in 2008, 365-173.  By flipping Pennsylvania, Ohio, Florida, Indiana, Colorado, Virginia, Nevada, and Wisconsin, Republicans edge Obama 295-243.  Swapping Florida for North Carolina still produces a 281-257 win for Republicans.  Winning Michigan and conceding Colorado makes it 288-250 Republicans.

You can bet that the Obama campaign is studying the map very, very carefully in order to see where they want to spend money, and it’s mostly going to go in that Rust Belt area.  Republicans should plan accordingly.  That could be the key to the entire election

Continue Reading →

econd Week of Gains for Yen, Will BOJ Intervene?

Japanese yenThe Japanese yen posted a second week of gains as concerns the debt problems in the US and Europe made the currency more appealing as a safe haven.

Worries about the sovereign-debt crisis intensified after the major rating agencies warned that the rollover of the Greek debt would be considered a default and spoke about possibility of the US credit rating downgrade. The yen climbed against the greenback on the speculation that the Federal Reserve will embark on a next round of the quantitative easing.

The fundamentals in Japan are positive for the yen too. The Bank of Japan said that the economy is recovering from the earthquake:

    After declining sharply following the earthquake, production has recently shown clear signs of picking up with the easing of supply-side constraints. This has resulted in an upturn in exports. Domestic private demand has also begun to pick up, with some improvement in household and business sentiment.

On the negative side, the strength of the Japanese currency is a danger by itself as a strong currency may cause an intervention of the central bank to support the nation’s exporters.

USD/JPY fell from 80.53 to 79.12 this week and posted a weekly low of 78.46. EUR/JPY slumped from 114.41 to 112.00, while GBP/JPY dropped from 128.98 to 127.63.

If you have any questions, comments or opinions regarding the Japanese Yen, feel free to post them using the commentary form below.

Earlier News About the Japanese Yen:

    Yen Declines as Chinese Economy Grows (2011-07-13)
    Growing China's Economy Saps Demand for Safety of Yen (2011-06-14)
    Yen Falls on Anticipation of Stimulus (2011-06-13)
    Yen Profits from Fears of European Crisis (2011-06-08)
    Yen Loses Strength on Poor GDP, Rebound of Stocks & Commodities (2011-05-19)

Continue Reading →

Reid: I have an exciting new compromise debt deal for you radical right-win

posted at 6:00 pm on July 25, 2011 by Allahpundit
printer-friendly

The Corner has a rundown of Boehner’s two-step short-term proposal — lots o’ buck-passing to a commission plus some procedural chicanery a la Mitch McConnell’s proposal plus a vote on a balanced-budget amendment down the line — but I think it’s a nonstarter. The Cut, Cup, and Balance coalition has already rejected it, which, if all members abide by that, means Boehner’s bill would start without 39 GOP votes in the House and 12 Republican votes in the Senate. Maybe the CCB crowd is playing good cop/bad cop with Boehner, trying to frighten the White House and Reid into agreeing to more concessions as the deadline looms, but eyeball their membership roster. Usually they mean what they say.

As for Reid’s plan: $2.7 trillion in cuts and no tax hikes — but no entitlement reform either, and fully $1 trillion of those “cuts” are merely the savings the feds have already been counting on from winding down the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Obama endorsed it about an hour ago, notwithstanding his weeks-long demand for new revenue, because it ensures that the next debt-ceiling debate won’t happen until 2013 and thus achieves his main/only goal of helping him get reelected. In fact, per Ed’s post this morning, remember that as of this weekend Boehner’s short-term plan was Reid’s plan. They were going to present it as a bipartisan compromise until The One intervened and reminded Dingy Harry what’s truly important to America, namely, another four years of Barack Obama. So Reid caved, even though Obama surely would have signed Boehner’s plan, and threw this thing together as quickly and haphazardly as he could. How haphazardly? Feast your eyes.

And that’s where we are at right now. Check back in an hour or two and we’ll probably have another 15-20 new proposals to fill you in on. Via Greg Hengler, here’s Dingy’s salute to the CCB coalition, which inexplicably makes it even harder for moderate Republicans in the House and Senate to vote for his plan. Which GOPer would want to take sides against the tea party with a guy who’s dumping on them as “extremists”? Exit question: Doesn’t Reid have the upper hand on Boehner right now? We already know that the GOP caucus is split over Boehner’s proposal whereas the Democrats might support Reid’s plan fairly uniformly, especially in the Senate. It’ll be a tough sell to progressives in the House, but the fact that it doesn’t touch entitlements and that Obama’s backing it (and sure to talk it up during his speech tonight) makes things somewhat easier. If Pelosi/Hoyer can deliver 100 Democrats in the name of averting default, Boehner might be able to deliver 120 Republicans, especially now that some righties are half-praising Reid’s bill as not so bad

Continue Reading →

GOP lawmakers officially announce “imperfect” plan, in which “no side gets

posted at 5:20 pm on July 25, 2011 by Tina Korbe
printer-friendly

House GOP leaders were perfectly candid in their assessment of the deficit-reduction-and-debt-limit-increase plan they put before the House today.

“It’s not ‘Cut, Cap and Balance,’” House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) said. “But it is built on the principles of ‘Cut, Cap and Balance’ that can pass the United States Senate, as well as the United States House.”

House Majority Leader Eric Cantor (R-Va.) echoed Boehner.

“The plan we just introduced is a well-thought-out and reasoned plan in which no side gets what it wants,” Cantor said.

As rumored, the short-term plan provides for a last-minute debt limit increase offset by even greater spending cuts with no tax increases. It also requires a vote on a balanced budget amendment — but doesn’t require that the amendment pass. The debt limit increase doesn’t carry the country through 2012, either. That means another politically-motivated round of debt limit negotiations — precisely what the president has said he doesn’t want.

“This plan is not perfect,” House GOP Whip Rep. Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.) said. “But it shows a great contrast to what the president has put forward. The president continues to pick politics over people. His only concern when you listen to him is, he brings up the election. We’re more concerned about policies, with the direction this country is going.”

The president is scheduled to respond to Boehner’s plan at 9 p.m. tonight and the Speaker will likely respond to the president’s response.

The plan is not dreadful for a short-term deal. As many have pointed out, the no-tax part, in particular, represents a significant victory for Republicans. But the nature of the cuts aren’t clear and the debt limit increase will be upfront. The deal has already engendered fierce opposition from the “Cut, Cap and Balance” coalition. Realists might suggest time is running out for a reworked “Cut, Cap and Balance” to make its way through the House and Senate — but conservatives counter that “more of the same” in terms of a short-term deal that does nothing to ensure a balanced budget in the future betrays the American people, who sent Tea Partier after Tea Partier to Congress to combat “business as usual.”

In case anyone else has as severe a case of whiplash as I do from the this-is-the-plan, no-that-is-the-plan back-and-forth, it’s helpful to remember no plan is “the” plan until it’s written down, passed and signed. This short-term deal very well could be that, but, until it is, I’m still in the “Cut, Cap and Balance” camp. Of course, Republicans are just looking for a deal that will pass (and that’s understandable) — but, like Erick Erickson, I refuse to offer absolution to tired GOP-ers who’ve abandoned the plan. Too many Democrats have opposed a debt limit increase in the past and too many have expressed openness to a balanced budget amendment to dismiss “Cut, Cap and Balance” as extreme or to pronounce it “over, done and dead,” as Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid has tried to do. Perhaps a short-term deal will relieve the pressure of the negotiations momentarily, but it won’t solve the fundamental problems like “Cut, Cap and Balance” would. CCB is still the best plan on the table — one worth reviving and one worth fighting for.

Continue Reading →

Obama: I wish I could bypass Congress and change things on my own

posted at 4:02 pm on July 25, 2011 by Allahpundit
printer-friendly

Via National Journal. He’s quick to add, “But that’s not how our system works.” Doesn’t it? Bypassing Congress to whatever extent possible has been his strategy for more than a year, culminating in an unauthorized war in Libya that even his own lawyers believe is illegal. (FYI: According to Mike Mullen, that war is now indeed a “stalemate.”) Scarcely a day passes without a new op-ed by some lefty law professor arguing that the Fourteenth Amendment lets Obama raise the debt ceiling unilaterally, despite decades of congressional precedent to the contrary. And ICE has already decided to go ahead and consider factors championed by the DREAM Act in immigration cases despite the fact that the Act hasn’t passed. O may say “no we can’t” here to the suggestion of executively-imposed amnesty, but in light of the above, can you blame the La Raza crowd for thinking (and chanting) “yes we can”?

George Will, describing The One as “Huey Long with a better tailor,” has had enough:

    Inordinate self-regard is an occupational hazard of politics and part of the job description of the rhetorical presidency, this incessant tutor. Still, upon what meat doth this our current Caesar feed that he has grown so great that he presumes to command leaders of a coequal branch of government? He once boasted (June 3, 2008) that he could influence the oceans’ rise; he must be disabused of comparable delusions about controlling Congress.

    When he was a lecturer on constitutional law, he evidently skipped the separation-of-powers doctrine. But, then, because this doctrine impedes the progressives’ goal of unleashing untrammeled government, they have long loathed it: Woodrow Wilson, the first president to criticize the American founding, considered the separation of powers the Constitution’s “radical defect.”

    It has, however, rescued the nation from Obama’s preference for a “clean” debt-ceiling increase that would ignore the onrushing debt tsunami. There are 87 reasons for Obama’s temporary conversion of convenience to the cause of spending restraint — the 87 House Republican freshmen. Their inflexibility astonishes and scandalizes Washington because it reflects the rarity of serene fidelity to campaign promises.

The true stupidity of this clip, of course, is that — as with everything else — his constitutional faux-modesty is motivated by getting reelected. It’s not that he has some profound separation-of-powers objection to an executive amnesty; it’s that he knows independents would seethe at the power grab, especially on an issue as sensitive as immigration, and it’d end up hurting him badly at the polls. He’s already got the Latino vote locked up. Better, then, to play it safe with indies by paying lip service to La Raza about how his hands are tied or that he “needs a dance partner,” etc. Whatever excuse works.

Continue Reading →

Rep. Issa: U.S. deserves a downgrade in credit if spending isn’t addressed

posted at 2:00 pm on July 25, 2011 by Tina Korbe
printer-friendly

Goldman Sachs suggests a downgrade of U.S. credit is increasingly likely and experts continue to warn that a weakened credit rating would have significant financial repercussions in the markets, but at least one member of Congress has accepted that a downgrade might be deserved.

“Until we stop spending more, we should be downgraded,” Rep. Darrell Issa (R-Calif.), chairman of the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, said this morning on the Fox Business Network.

The Hill reports more details:

    The credit-rating agencies Moody’s Investors Service and Standard & Poor’s both put the nation’s triple-A credit rating on review for a downgrade this month. The agencies warned that the U.S. might lose its perfect rating if the government defaulted on its debt or failed to take steps to address the deficit.

    “If America can, in fact, pay its bills, it’s AAA. If we can’t pay our bills, it doesn’t matter what rating they give us,” Issa said. “Right now we can pay our bills, but we’re heading toward the kind of spending and debt to where someday we wouldn’t be able to pay our bills, and that’s what’s gotta change.”

    Like many Republicans, Issa also indicated he does not consider Aug. 2 the drop-dead deadline to raise the debt ceiling. “[Obama] signed funding through September months ago,” he said.

Debate continues about what effects a credit downgrade could have. Some Wall Street traders say discussion about the potentially devastating effects is “much ado about nothing,” and Reuters’ James Pethokoukis says the impact would not be “as frightening as I might have assumed.”

Pethokoukis makes the astute point that the bigger repercussions would probably be political and would hinge on whether President Barack Obama or Republicans were blamed for the downgrade. With Republicans making remarks like Issa’s, it’s hard to think how the American people could fail to see which side is serious about solving the problem. Republicans won’t be sidetracked from offering solutions by discussion of a downgrade or default. On the other hand, all Obama has really done is talk up the terror of a default, even as he proves time and time again — possibly even this past Sunday if reports are true that he turned down a bipartisan debt deal — that he cares more about his reelection effort than he does about the nation’s fiscal health.

That’s what Issa is really saying here — that all the wailing in the world won’t change the reality. A falsely pristine credit rating won’t spare the U.S. from reaping what it has sowed — too much spending — and a downgrade doesn’t mean the U.S. will lose its ability to repay its obligations overnight. It will just come as yet another stark reminder that Congress eventually must make the hard decisions politicians are oh-so-good at procrastinating.

Continue Reading →

CNN poll: Perry in 2nd place?

posted at 3:10 pm on July 22, 2011 by Ed Morrissey
printer-friendly

CNN’s latest look at the Republican primary fight shows a big move being made by the man who hasn’t made his big move yet.  Mitt Romney remains in first place at 16%, but only within the margin of error, as a group of speculative candidates have crowded right behind him.  Texas Governor Rick Perry finishes second with 14%, and that’s not all:

    As Texas Gov. Rick Perry comes closer to jumping into the race for the White House, he’s also close to the top of a new national survey in the battle for the GOP presidential nomination.

    A CNN/ORC International Poll released Friday indicates that 14% of Republicans and independents who lean toward the GOP pick Perry as their first choice for their party’s nomination, just two points behind former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney, who’s making his second bid for the White House.

    Romney’s two point margin over Perry is within the survey’s sampling error.

Right behind Perry come Sarah Palin and Rudy Giuliani, both at 13% and both within the MOE, too.  None of these close finishers have actually declared a candidacy, which means that 40% of survey respondents not only are dissatisfied with the current lineup, they’ve picked non-candidates in their stead.  That’s not good news for Romney, whose high profile from the 2007-8 campaign means that the problem isn’t a lack of familiarity with the electorate. Only 14% declare themselves “very satisfied” with the field, less than half of those who are either not very satisfied or not satisfied at all with the field (34%).

Bachmann finishes at 12%, the last candidate in double digits.  Tim Pawlenty only gets 3% of the survey respondents’ endorsement, falling behind Ron Paul, Herman Cain, and Newt Gingrich, which puts a lot of pressure on Pawlenty to score big in next month’s Ames straw poll.  Curiously, when Rick Perry gets removed from the list of choices, Bachmann scores best, picking up three points to finish tied for second with Palin at 15%.

Among independents, there are some surprising results.  Mitt Romney finishes third at 12%, where Giuliani and Perry tie for second at 14% — and Bachmann wins at 15%.  Bachmann comes in third among self-professed conservatives at 13%, with Romney beating her at 16%, but getting edged by Perry at 17%.  Among both groups, Palin comes in fourth place.   Not surprisingly, Perry wins the South handily, 21% to the 13% for Romney and, er, Giuliani? Romney and Giuliani also tie for first in the suburban demographic at 14%, with Perry close behind at 13%.

Clearly, Perry will be a force if and when he enters the race.  If he’s the last person in, he may find even wider support, because right now it appears that Republicans are still holding their breath.

Continue Reading →

Obama: It’s that gosh-darned divided government that has kept us from a budget solution, or something

posted at 1:50 pm on July 22, 2011 by Ed Morrissey
printer-friendly

I swear, you just can’t make this stuff up. Responding to a question at his town-hall meeting today that expressed frustration at the slow process in the debt-ceiling negotiations, Barack Obama put the blame on voters for the divided government. If Democrats had the town all to themselves, Obama says, he’d be able to spend more time this summer with his daughters:

Say, didn’t Democrats have the town to themselves in 2010? Didn’t they have an opportunity to raise the debt ceiling at that time, and pass a budget for FY2011 as well? In fact, Democrats still control the Senate in 2011. Where is their plan to deal with the issues? For that matter, where is Obama’s?

After all, the House has now passed two of their own plans, the Ryan budget plan that would have (slowly) brought the federal government’s budgets into balance, and the Cut, Cap, and Balance Act that would have forced Washington to do it a lot more quickly. Where the Democrats still have control, they have produced … nothing. Except, of course, whining about how presidenting is kinda tough.

Continue Reading →

Al Qaeda recruiting goes all Loony Toons or something

posted at 8:20 pm on July 22, 2011 by Jazz Shaw
printer-friendly

What’s a terrorist team to do when they can’t get anyone to take a leadership role for fear of a visit from Seal Team Six? Obviously you need to go back to the grass roots and capture the hearts and minds of the next generation. And what better way than a loveable set of cartoon characters?

    Yemen-based Al Qaeda sympathizers are in the midst of producing a children’s cartoon to recruit young Muslim viewers to join their cause and take up arms against the West, according to intelligence experts monitoring militant websites.

    Yemen-based Al Qaeda sympathizers are in the midst of producing a children’s cartoon to recruit young Muslim viewers to join their cause and take up arms against the West, according to intelligence experts monitoring militant websites.

    The British thinktank Quilliam, which aims to combat extremism, found out about the propaganda film on the password-protected Arabic-language al-Shumukh online forum Sunday. According to Quilliam, Abu al-Laith al-Yemin, a contributor to the website, wrote about the project that he is working on with several associates to teach children aboutAl Qaeda’s history and encourage them to engage in terrorist activity, Reuters reported.

Well… OK then!

Perhaps there’s simply too much of a gulf between the cultures or, possibly, I was poisoned by growing up watching Roadrunner and the coyote. But the actual human children portrayed in the cartoons of my youth didn’t end the show blowing up inside a bank. They were usually the winners, laughing at the foibles of the non-human antagonists.

Then again, maybe I’m approaching this from the wrong angle. If you wanted to convince children to blow themselves up, what better vehicle than a coyote who falls off a 500 foot cliff with a ten ton Acme anvil landing on his head who then gets up and walks away with just a few bandages and some bluebirds circling his head?

And I suppose that’s the scary part. What if it works?

Continue Reading →