FRIDAY,  DECEMBER 4,  2009

THE WAY THINGS WORK - AT 8:23 P.M. ET:  Comcast has announced a proposed merger with NBC Universal, which in practical terms is a sale of the latter to the former.  Such things require federal approval, and, well, there are things that one must do.  Andrew Breitbart's Big Government blog informs us that gestures are already being made:

A day, one single day, after the two media giants announced their deal, Comcast CEO Brian Roberts proudly weighed in to strongly support the Senate Democrats’ health care reform bill.

Now Comcast is a big company, with about 100,000 employees. I’m sure health care costs have a big impact on their bottom line. But the bottom line impact on Roberts’ personal net worth will be much greater if the federal government, with a big say-so from the US Senate, approves the $13 billion deal.

So Roberts’s heartfelt letter to the president in support of the Democrats’ singular policy issue was the first action he took in what is expected to be a twelve-month regulatory review process. This is an action with absolutely no relevance to the vast intricacies of the merger, but a move that sets a new standard for blatant pandering aimed at a group of people for whom pandering is the new coin of the realm.

Pander they must.  Apparently, this is part of the change we can believe in. 

On the other side of the transaction, GE CEO Jeff Immelt has been among Obama’s biggest corporate cheerleaders. Immelt is particularly eager to see more government help in the credit realm to benefit GE Capital and to continue to vast government handouts for wind turbines in which GE is heavily invested. Immelt has already pledged his undying support for Obamacare. And now, his company stands to win a huge influx of cash if his new pals in Washington will approve this transaction.

COMMENT:  Yuch.

December 4, 2009   Permalink

HE SPEAKS, AND THE DISCIPLES LISTEN - AT 7:51 P.M. ET:  Reader Joseph J. Gallick alerts us to the latest pronouncement from hot-air expert Al Gore, a week before the big Copenhagen shindig on global warming.  From The Times of London:

Even if a deal is reached at the UN climate change talks in Copenhagen next week it will only be the first step towards the far more radical cuts that are needed in global carbon emissions, Al Gore, the former US Vice-President, told The Times last night.

Mr Gore said that to avoid the worst ravages of climate change world leaders would have to come together again to set more drastic reductions than those now planned.

“Even a final treaty will have to set the stage for other tougher reductions at a later date,” he said. “We have already overshot the safe levels of CO2 in the atmosphere.”

He insisted that the present goal set for Copenhagen of stabilising world emissions of carbon dioxide at or below 450 parts per million — enough to prevent a rise in average global temperatures of no more than 2C — was insufficient and a safer target would be 350 parts per million.

But serious scientists, like Willy Soon of Harvard, beg to differ, arguing that CO2 does not cause global warming, and that warming often precedes the rise in CO2.

And, naturally...

He also brushed aside questions over the reliability of climate science that have followed the publication last month of leaked e-mails between climate experts. He claimed that the scientific consensus around climate change “continues to grow from strength to strength”. He added: “The naysayers are in a sunset phase with a spectacular climax just before they subside from view. This is a race between common sense and unreality.”

The man is delusional, or deceptive.  Where is the "strength to strength" that he talks about?  And the naysayers, as he calls them, are growing in number, not declining.

Gore should be the first to call for a reexamination of the "science" behind global warming.  But this is a political, not a scientific movement, so reexamination is not on the agenda.

December 4, 2009   Permalink 

ABORTION AND HEALTH CARE - AT 7:37 P.M. ET:  The abortion issue has emerged as a leading impediment to passage of the Democratic health "reform" bill in the Senate, and the debate is increasingly bitter.  From The Politico:

In the past week, abortion has flared up as a major impediment to passage of a health care reform bill in the Senate, taking a similar path as it did during the House debate — from obscurity to obstacle in a matter of days.

After months of trying to craft a 60-vote coalition based on the finer points of health care policy, Senate Democrats are growing increasingly worried that abortion will upend what had become a clear path to approving the overhaul bill.

Sen. Ben Nelson (D-Neb.) sparked a fresh round of concern this week when he repeatedly and definitively vowed to filibuster the health care legislation unless it included abortion restrictions as tough as the so-called Stupak amendment in the House bill.

“I don’t ordinarily draw a line in the sand, but I have drawn a line in the sand,” Nelson said Friday.

And...

“There is a worry that Sen. Nelson means business,” said a senior Senate Democratic aide, who spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss strategy. “Unlike with public option, there is very little ground liberal Democrats are willing to give on this issue. Abortion, not the public option, may be the cause of our first official defection.”

The United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, which proved highly influential in the House health care debate, is assisting Nelson and Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-Utah) in drafting an anti-abortion amendment, and its representatives are meeting with senators, including Byron Dorgan (D-N.D.).

COMMENT:  The latest report, this evening, indicates that the debate in the Senate is proceeding very, very slowly.  The drag effect can push action beyond the first of the year, and even into February.  There are no guarantees that any of this will ever become law.

December 4, 2009   Permalink

LOOK FOR THE FINE PRINT - AT 7:08 P.M. ET:  The U.S. will apparently push for new sanctions on Iran in January.  But the fine print here doesn't fill us with optimism.  From AP:

WASHINGTON (AP) -- The Obama administration is looking to press in early January for a new round of United Nations sanctions against Iran for its continued defiance of demands to come clean about its nuclear program, U.S. officials said Friday.

As President Barack Obama's year-end deadline looms for Iran to comply with demands to prove its atomic activities are peaceful, the administration is reaching out to European allies, Russia and China to win support for new penalties at the U.N. Security Council after its membership changes Jan. 1, the officials said.

Huh?  The UN Security Council is the place where China and Russia have veto power, and China, particularly, has said it rejects stronger sanctions.  So what are we doing?

Senior U.S. diplomats, including Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton and her chief deputy James Steinberg, raised the urgency of the matter with European foreign ministers at high-level meetings in Athens and Brussels this week ahead of a summit of European leaders.

Some European countries, especially France, are truly concerned about Iranian nukes.  But, in the end, they usually succumb to their trade interests and pursue, not crippling sanctions, but crippling compromises.

The official said there are still disagreements over how far to push on sanctions, noting that some moves could affect world oil markets. ''We are looking to find what everyone can agree will be most effective and have the least impact on the Iranian people,'' the official said.

It gets more pathetic as you read on.  Tehran must really be shivering over this.

The State Department said Friday the administration was hoping for a strong statement on Iran, including a mention of possible sanctions, from the Dec. 10 and 11 European Council session in Brussels.

''There will be a broad discussion on next steps in that meeting,'' spokesman Ian Kelly told reporters. ''The E.U. is expected to have a written statement on Iran.''

Nuclear negotiations with Iran are in their seventh year, and we are hoping for a strong statement.  And the man in the White House refuses to use the word "victory," even in a war speech.  Prepare for a nuclear-armed Iran.

December 4, 2009   Permalink

NO GAIN FOR OBAMA - AT 9:46 A.M. ET:  Scott Rasmussen just reported that President Obama apparently experienced no gain in public opinion from his West Point speech:

The Rasmussen Reports daily Presidential Tracking Poll for Friday shows that 28% of the nation's voters Strongly Approve of the way that Barack Obama is performing his role as President. Forty percent (40%) Strongly Disapprove giving Obama a Presidential Approval Index rating of -12 (see trends).

These results are collected from nightly telephone interviews and reported on a three-day rolling average basis. Roughly two-thirds of the interviews for today’s update were conducted after the President’s speech on Afghanistan Tuesday night. The President did not receive an immediate bounce in the polls from that speech.

And...

Overall, 46% of voters say they at least somewhat approve of the President's performance. Fifty-four percent (54%) disapprove.

COMMENT:  That is a considerable gap.  Now, we always point out that polls aren't frozen, that they're snapshots in time, and can easily change.  But there has been a certain stability in polls over the last few months that may indicate that opinions about Mr. Obama are starting to solidify, and not in a way favorable to the president.

December 4, 2009   Permalink

ECONOMIC CONTRADICTIONS - AT 9:06 A.M. ET:  There is contradictory economic news, but none of it is all that great.  The unemployment rate has dropped from 10.2% to 10%, as The New York Times reports:

The United States economy shed 11,000 jobs in November, and the unemployment rate fell to 10 percent, down from 10.2 percent in October, the Labor Department said Friday.

The government also revised the October number to show that the economy lost 111,000 jobs instead on 190,000.Though pace of job loss has been declining since a peak in January, the November number was surprising. Economists have been expecting a turning point to come in the late spring or summer, with employers finally adding workers as a recovery takes hold. The last time the number was this good was December, 2007, when the economy added 120,000 jobs. “We’re moving toward stability in the labor market and the end of the tremendous firing that has plagued America,” said Allen L. Sinai, the founder of Decision Economics, a research firm.

But...

“But it’s going to be bleak for years. While it is going to be better than what we’ve seen, it’s still going to be terrible.”

And that's the point.  The administration will hail "improvement," but the real situation is awful:

The number of Americans facing long-term unemployment, which includes people who cannot find work for 27 weeks or more, has been at record highs in recent months, reaching 5.6 million in October. It was more than 5.9 million people in November, or 38.3 of percent of those unemployed. Once hiring resumes, those workers are likely to be among the last to land jobs.

And then there's this, from AP:

NEW YORK — A decline in sales at the nation's retailers in November after two consecutive months of gains is an ominous warning sign for the holiday shopping season and for an economy in the early stages of a fragile recovery.

Many merchants may be forced to discount more than they planned to get financially strapped holiday shoppers to buy after last weekend's respectable bargain buying surge didn't offset weak spending for the rest of the month.

The 0.3 percent decline, according to one measure, is especially worrisome because it comes on top of a freefall last November as spooked shoppers went into a defensive crouch after the financial meltdown. Analysts had expected a solid gain. Consumer spending accounts for 70 percent of all economic activity.

COMMENT:  We are far from out of the woods.  And with the Dems piling on more federal debt, we can face a double-dip recession without the economic means to recover fully.

December 4, 2009   Permalink

DELUSIONAL DEMS - AT 8:27 A.M. ET:  The Democratic Party, having invested heavily in climate change as its trendy-issue-of-the-decade, isn't going to allow a bit of data tampering to interfere with the delusion.  Why, why, the science is settled.  This is just another narrative.  This is...oh, you know.  From Declan McCullagh of CBS News:

If you're a U.S. politician calling for expensive new laws relating to global warming, you know you're in trouble when Jon Stewart lampoons the scientists whose embarrassing e-mail messages were disclosed in what's being called "ClimateGate."

Stewart is becoming a better reporter than a lot of the "legitimate" voices out there.

But Democrats put a brave face on it on Wednesday, with Massachusetts Rep. Ed Markey saying that the leaked files and allegations of scientific misconduct should not stand in the way of the U.S. Congress swiftly enacting cap and trade legislation to reduce carbon dioxide emissions. (See earlier CBSNews.com coverage of ClimateGate and the costs of cap and trade.)

Incredible.  Why let facts stand in the way?  We have an ideology to pursue.  There are party invitations involved.

Markey, the head of a House global warming committee, said during a hearing that his Republican colleagues "sit over here using a couple of e-mails to (tell us) how to deal with a catastrophic threat to our planet." And: "There is no alternative theory that the minority is proposing, other than that we know has been funded by the oil, by the coal industries that want to continue business as usual."

That is too much for this CBS reporter:

That's a bit of an overstatement. The leak includes over 1,000 e-mail messages, and another 2,500 or so computer files, many of which are still being analyzed. And the burden of proof should properly be on anyone -- even a House committee chairman -- proposing new taxes and extensive regulations, especially when climate science is anything but settled.

What a refreshing perspective coming from a mainstream CBS journalist.

Question:  Will Katie Couric let him live?  That's a serious question.

December 4, 2009   Permalink

DISTURBING, BUT UNDERSTANDABLE - AT 8:14 A.M. ET:  There has been a sharp rise of isolationist sentiment in the United States, according to the latest Pew poll.  This is understandable at a time of domestic economic distress, and occurred in the 1930s as well.  But it is dangerous when the threats against us are real, and growing:

WASHINGTON — At the very moment when President Barack Obama is looking to thrust the U.S. ever more into global affairs, from Afghanistan to climate change, the American public is turning more isolationist and unilateralist than it has at any time in decades, according to a new poll released Thursday.

The survey by the Pew Research Center found a plurality of Americans — 49 percent — think that the U.S. should "mind its own business internationally" and leave it to other countries to fend for themselves.

It was the first time in more than 40 years of polling that the ranks of Americans with isolationist sentiment outnumbered those with a more international outlook, Pew said.

"The U.S. public is turning decidedly inward," Pew said.

Maybe a little more gratitude by foreign nations, especially Muslim nations, whom we've repeatedly helped, would reverse a little of this trend.

It's also growing more unilateralist, with 44 percent saying that the U.S. "should go our own way in international matters, not worrying about whether other countries agree with us or not."

That was the highest percentage since the question was first asked in 1964.

Cheers on that one.  We want allies whenever possible, obviously, but this obsession with international popularity has become completely irrational.  Even CBS's Bob Schieffer, a liberal, said in frustration after Mr. Obama's Afghan speech, "This is not a football game." 

And get this:

A majority of Americans, 53 percent, see China's growing power as a "major threat." That's virtually unchanged from what the quadrennial poll found in 2001 and 2005.

However, 642 members of the Council on Foreign Relations, who are seen as opinion leaders and also were polled by Pew, had the opposite view. Just 21 percent of them saw China as a major threat, down from 38 percent in 2001 and 30 percent in 2005.

For them, Pew said, "China has been transformed from a major threat to the United States to an increasingly important future ally."

An increasingly important future ally?  Well, we certainly hope so, but I'd love to know what evidence these "opinion leaders have."  China, just this last week, threw a "made in China" monkey wrench into our plans for increased sanctions on Iran, a critical issue for the United States. 

I'd like to see some proof that China intends to be our ally. 

December 4, 2009   Permalink

ATTACK IN PAKISTAN - AT 7:52 A.M. ET:  From CNN, breaking:

Islamabad, Pakistan (CNN) -- Militants armed with guns and grenades attacked a mosque during midday prayers in Rawalpindi on Friday, killing at least 40 people and wounding 83, authorities said.

Several explosions followed by gunfire were heard inside the mosque around 1:30 p.m. local time, according to Gen. Athar Abbas, a Pakistani military spokesman. It was not immediately clear what caused the explosions or who fired the gunshots.

The militants entered the compound by climbing over a wall, said Aslam Tareen, Rawalpindi police chief. Several children and elderly worshipers are among the dead.

The mosque -- frequented by retired and serving military officials -- is in a residential area near national army headquarters. A witness told GEO TV that there were up to 300 worshipers at the mosque at the time of the attack.

COMMENT:  Just yesterday there was an attack, in Damascus, on a bus carrying Iranians. 

It's unlikely that these attacks are random.  They reflect the tensions and rivalries within the Muslim world.  There will be some kind of retaliation, and it doesn't make our job any easier.

December 4,  2009   Permalink

THURSDAY,  DECEMBER 3,  2009

IRAN DEADLINE - AT 11:09 P.M. ET:  White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs reiterated today that Iran has only until the end of this month to show progress in nuclear talks with the West. 

That's boilerplate tough talk, but what precisely will happen at the end of the month?  The United States has been hinting at stronger sanctions, even "crippling" sanctions, to cite Hillary Clinton's language.  But that would require action by the UN Security Council.  China, which has veto power, has already said that it's opposed to further sanctions.  There's been some optimism about the Russians...until today, when Vladimir Putin said that Russia had no proof that Iran was seeking nuclear weapons.  Not a great moment for our side.

The president was barely able to make a decision on Afghanistan.  In the absence of agreement on firmer sanctions, Iran will be much harder.  At least the Afghan government is formally on our side, as is the Iraqi government.  The Iranian regime is one of the most hostile in the world. 

If sanctions fail, or cannot be enhanced, there remain very few options, one of them being an application of military power.  This could take the form of a strike on Iranian nuclear facilities - those that we know about - or could involve a naval blockade, or even commando raids. 

But would Obama, tied down in Afghanistan, have the stomach?  Could we take on another Muslim country, even one whose engineering progress threatens us? 

And what will the Israelis, who feel their existence threatened, do in the face of Western weakness?

Those are 2010 questions.  Add them to the 2010 midterms, and we have quite a year coming up.

December 3, 2009   Permalink

FEEL THEIR PAIN, PLEASE FEEL THEIR PAIN - AT 7:44 P.M. ET:  The people cited in this Washington Post piece give an entirely new meaning to the term "classless society."  It is incredible that any person of minimal intelligence can speak this way:

Some of President Obama's wealthiest supporters are becoming a bit whiny, and it has nothing to do with policy.

Tickets for tours of the presidential residence are scarce, even for those who raised hundreds of thousands of dollars for last year's campaign. Private fundraisers tend to be brief, businesslike affairs. And there have been no sleepovers in the Lincoln Bedroom, weekends at Camp David or intimate lunches with the first couple.

I weep for them, I cry.

Nearly a year into his presidency, that pattern has led some top Democratic donors across the country to grumble that they aren't getting the kind of personal attention from Obama and special access to the White House that they became used to during the eight years of the Bill Clinton presidency.

We remember that high-toned presidency. 

"I've had almost no communication with the White House," said Chris Korge, a top Hillary Clinton supporter from Miami who later collected $5.5 million for Obama, making him one of the president's biggest fundraisers.

Either, apparently, has General McChrystal.

Korge said his only visit to 1600 Pennsylvania Ave. was a St. Patrick's Day event, and he complained in a recent interview that the administration has done little to reward the president's donors or tap into their experience and wisdom.

"There is no connection between the administration and money people," he said. "If they do have any connection . . . it is very limited as far as the fun stuff is concerned."

COMMENT:  Unbelievable, just unbelievable.  You'd think, especially at a time of such economic pain, that people would be embarrassed to speak this way.  Whatever happened to good taste?

December 3, 2009   Permalink 

PUBLIC AGAINST SINGLE PAYER FOR HEALTH CARE - AT 6:40 P.M. ET:  With the focus on the Afghanistan war, let's not forget that the Senate is debating health-care legislation, with the Dem leaership determined to pass something, if only a bill requiring shinier stethoscopes. 

It's pretty much agreed that a large faction of Congressional Democrats want eventually to have the government act as a single payer for health care, the structure in many, more socialistic countries.  The public, according to Rasmussen, isn't buying:

Only 27% of voters nationwide favor a single-payer health care system where the federal government provides coverage for everyone. That’s down five points from August.
The latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that 62% are opposed to a single-payer system and another 12% are undecided.

Most Democrats (54%) favor this type of system, though 37% are opposed. Most Republicans (87%) and voters not affiliated with either party (64%) are opposed to the idea.

There is little difference in opinion between those voters who currently have health insurance and those who do not.

COMMENT:  One feature of the current health-care debate is the utter contempt many Democrats have shown for public feelings.  They have a mama-knows-best -- excuse me, a gender-neutral-parent-knows- best -- attitude.  They will not be swayed or reasoned with.

This is something that will have to be dealt with at the polls next year.

December 3, 2009   Permalink

FROM THE INSIDE - AT 6:14 P.M. ET:  As many readers know, Urgent Agenda has a private source on Afghanistan, an American with relevant expertise who has traveled frequently to the country and knows the region.  This is what our source says about Obama's West Point speech:

Obviously, his "withdrawal in eighteen months" codicil greatly encourages the Taliban (hey, all we have to do is wait another 18 months!!!).  But it will give the Afghans a perverse incentive to let things get WORSE, not make them better.  They know they can't improve nearly enough in the short term, but will fear that any marginal improvement will be seized upon by the Obama Administration as excuse to continue with the withdrawal plan.  They may decide that a descent into chaos will be the only thing that will keep us longer term.  They will think that the last thing Obama wants to do is run a campaign during which he must defend his abandoning the Afghans to disaster.  

My other comments are conventional.  Obama is not leading decisively:  too few troops to actually do the job but close enough to McChrystal's request to defend his right flank, balanced by a pledge to withdraw soon to defend his left.  I didn't see anything to make me believe he is determined to win.  He seems to be determined to be able to say, "Well, at least I tried" during the next campaign.

Well said.

December 3, 2009   Permalink

SON OF CLIMATEGATE, COMING TO A THEATER NEAR YOU - AT 7:52 A.M. ET:  Even though the mainstream media is in full denial mode over revelations of data tampering amongst the high priests of the Church of Global Warming, the scandal may yet reach a new level, as The Washington Times reports:

The fight over climate science is about to cross the Atlantic with a U.S. researcher poised to sue NASA, demanding the release of the same kind of information that landed a leading British center in hot water over charges that it skewed its data.

Christopher C. Horner, a senior fellow at the Competitive Enterprise Institute, said NASA has refused for two years to provide information under the Freedom of Information Act that would show how the agency has shaped its climate data and explain why the agency has repeatedly had to correct its data dating as far back as the 1930s.

NASA has been one of the chief sales agents for global warming.

"I assume that what is there is highly damaging," Mr. Horner said. "These guys are quite clearly bound and determined not to reveal their internal discussions about this."

The numbers matter. Under pressure in 2007, NASA recalculated its data and found that 1934, not 1998, was the hottest year in its records for the contiguous 48 states. NASA later changed its data again, and now 1998 and 2006 are tied for the hottest years, with 1934 listed as slightly cooler.

Mr. Horner, a noted skeptic of global warming and author of "The Politically Incorrect Guide to Global Warming and Environmentalism," wants a look at the data and the discussions that went into those changes. He said he's given the agency until the end of the year to comply or else he'll sue to compel the information's release.

COMMENT:  We've called before at Urgent Agenda for major investigations, but I doubt if we'll get them.  President Obama is off soon to the global-warming conference in Copenhagen, where he certainly can't announce that skeptics deserve a voice.  He'll then proceed to Oslo to pick up his Nobel Peace Prize, which he should donate to the 30,000 troops he's sending to Afghanistan.  You can be sure that the Nobel crowd just loves global warming.  They probably all have thermometers mounted on their foreheads.

This story will grow, with or without the mainstream media.  And Americans may learn that "scientists" aren't always right, and that science continuously evolves.

December 3, 2009  Permalink

THOMPSON WEIGHS IN - IS HE RUNNING IN 2012? - AT 7:38 A.M. ET:  Former Senator Fred Thompson ran a lackluster campaign for the Republican nomination last year, but there've been some signs recently that he plans a revised run in 2012.  At his best, he can be an excellent candidate, as these caustic remarks on Obama's Afghanistan speech demonstrate.  From NRO:

I was wondering how he was going to pull off the famous Obama split.
He did it chronologically, and in two ways.

First, in the speech itself:
In the first part of his speech he sounded like Winston Churchill.
In the second part of his speech, he sounded like Lady Churchill.

Secondly, with regard to his course of action:
Commit troops for the Right, and then announce their withdrawal prematurely,
in time for the 2012 election — for the Left.

It was clear for the world to see that we are without the most important ingredient for a chance of success: a determined president whose heart is in the effort.

COMMENT:  Fred said it better than anyone else.  Now, if we can have more of this, and a more animated guy on camera than we saw last year, he's got a shot.

December 3, 2009   Permalink

GOP I.D. GAINS - AT 7:28 A.M. ET:  Andrew Malcolm, of the L.A. Times's Top of the Ticket blog, reports on dramatic changes in party identification during the first year of the Age of Obama:

A new poll by Rasmussen Reports finds that despite -- or perhaps because of -- legislative progress on President Obama's 2009 keynote issue of healthcare reform, among other issues, this autumn, the number of adult Americans calling themselves Democrats fell by almost 2 whole points just in the month of November.

A year after hope, change and jubilation filled the party ranks, those Americans considering themselves Democrats is now only 36%.

That's the lowest percentage in 48 months.

The percentage calling themselves Republican is lower -- 33.1%. However, unlike the Democrats, that number is increasing, up from 31.9% the previous month.

What's particularly encouraging is that the unaffiliated, 30.8%, are tilting rightward in most polls.  Indeed, the Obama brigade's greatest losses are among independents.

All the factors are in place for the out-party to make gains among unhappy -- and often unemployed -- voters. But the one indicator that has caused analysts to hedge their current bets about maintaining that pattern in 2010 has been the low number of Americans calling themselves Republicans after the later Bush years when the party abandoned its conservative fiscal roots.

However, after an active legislative fall with Democratic congressional leaders Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid prominent in the media, along with immense spending and deficit numbers, November's poll shows the GOP percentage now increasing, even with the party still leaderless nationally.

As a result, the current gap in party identifiers is only 2.9%, the smallest since December, 2007.

COMMENT:  Sounds good, but don't underestimate the political abilities of the Obama White House.  At the same time, those abilities were tested when Obama was a blank slate.  This political team hasn't had to try to sell a president or party one year into a highly contentious presidential term.

But the Republicans still need a set of clear principles to run on, and a slate of attractive candidates.  The homework still hasn't been done.  They cannot depend on Democratic unpopularity, which can turn around quickly.

What we have coming up are the most exciting midterm elections in memory.

December 3, 2009   Permalink

NBC TO CHANGE HANDS - AT 7:14 A.M. ET:  Now it's official, as The New York Times reports:

After nearly eight months of negotiations, Comcast, the nation’s largest cable operator, finally reached an agreement on Thursday to acquire the television network, NBC Universal, from the General Electric Company in a $30 billion deal.

They overpaid, but people getting involved in Hollywood almost always do. 

The deal, which has been known for months, was announced Thursday morning. Almost immediately, the transaction reshapes the nation’s entertainment industry even as it raises the sector’s anxieties about the future.

Here comes the hype:

In a statement, Brian Roberts, the chief executive of Comcast, called the deal “a perfect fit for Comcast and will allow us to become a leader in the development and distribution of multiplatform ‘anytime, anywhere’ media that American consumers are demanding.”

Oh, dear God, when they start talking like that you know they're easy prey for the Hollywood horribles.

Jeff Zucker, the current head of NBC, will stay on as chief executive and would report to the chief executive of Comcast, Steve Burke. In a statement released by the companies Monday morning, Mr. Zucker called the deal the “start of a new era” for NBC.

That statement reflects the level of creativity we've seen from NBC recently.

Look, our main interest is in NBC News, which needs new direction and new standards.  We'll hope for the best.

NBC's hope:  Resurrect Johnny Carson!

December 3, 2009   Permalink

NOTHING TO SEE, FOLKS, NOTHING TO SEE - AT 7:06 A.M. ET:  There has been a bit of bother in Damascus.  From Reuters:

Syria on Thursday denied terrorism was behind a bomb blast that ripped through a bus carrying Iranian pilgrims near a major Shi'ite religious shrine in Damascus, leaving at least six dead.

"There was no terrorism factor behind the bus incident," Syrian Interior Minister Said Sammour said. "The bus entered a petrol station to have one of its burst tires inflated and the tire exploded. Three people were killed."

Those Syrian tires.  So powerful.

The blast took place as Saeed Jalili, Iran's chief nuclear negotiator, was visiting Damascus for meetings with Syrian officials.

"Body parts are still scattered around the bus," a witness told Reuters. Several more people were wounded in the explosion in the Sayyeda Zainab area in Damascus.

COMMENT:   We'll be following this.  There are a number of forces in the Mideast who would like to separate Syria from Iran.  And the Iranian nuclear issue is coming to a head.

By the way, why would Iran's top nuclear negotiator be visiting Damascus?  Is Iran helping Syria with its nuclear program, part of which was blown away by the Israelis last year? 

Very intriguing story, and I don't think we've heard the end of it.

December 3,  2009    Permalink