Click on WORD or PDF for full content
Mark Steyn on the raid.
…The belated dispatch of Osama testifies to what the United States does well – elite warriors, superbly trained, equipped to a level of technological sophistication no other nation can match. Everything else surrounding the event (including White House news management so club-footed that one starts to wonder darkly whether its incompetence is somehow intentional) embodies what the United States does badly. Pakistan, our “ally,” hides and protects not only Osama but also Mullah Omar and Zawahiri, and does so secure in the knowledge that it will pay no price for its treachery – indeed, confident that its duplicitous military will continue to be funded by U.S. taxpayers.
…A decade later, we’re back to Sept. 10. Were Washington to call Islamabad as it did a decade ago, the Pakistanis would thank them politely and say they’d think it over and get back in six weeks, give or take. They think they’ve got the superpower all figured out – that America is happy to spend bazillions of dollars on technologically advanced systems that can reach across the planet but it doesn’t really have the stomach for changing the facts of the ground. That means that once in a while your big-time jihadist will be having a quiet night in watching “Dancing With The Stars” when all of a sudden Robocop descends from the heavens, kicks the door open, and it’s time to get ready for your virgins. But other than that, in the bigger picture, day by day, all but unnoticed, things will go their way. …
John Stossel explains how speculators help keep prices stable.
…The evil oil-speculator theory also runs up against the fact that the Federal Reserve’s inflationary policies (QE2) and other factors have continued the dollar’s slide against foreign currencies — to a three-year low. As the dollar loses value, oil sellers demand more for their product. “Commodities, along with most traded goods globally, are priced in dollars,” former Federal Reserve official Gerald P. O’Driscoll of the Cato Institute writes. “It is the old story of too much money chasing too few goods.”
If Sanders and other economic illiterates get their way, we’ll have new laws banning “speculation.” That will raise prices further. Don’t believe me? Think back to a previous time when a Senate committee said that “speculative activity causes severe and unwarranted fluctuations in the price. …” That was in 1958, when people got upset about the price of onions. Fools in Congress addressed that problem by banning speculation on onion prices.
The result? A Financial Times analysis found that the ban made prices less stable. This year, the retail price of onions rose more than the price of gasoline — 36 versus 24 percent. Most years, the price of onions fluctuates more than other goods. No mystery there. Speculators help keep prices stable. When they foresee a future oil shortage — that is, when prices are lower than anticipated in the future — speculators buy lots of it, store it and then sell it when the shortage hits. They know they can charge more when there’s relatively little oil on the market. But their selling during the shortage brings prices down from what they would have been had speculators not acted. …
Michael Barone surveys the political landscape in Canada after their stunning elections.
…The headline story is that the Conservative Party of Prime Minister Stephen Harper, who has headed minority governments since 2006, won an absolute majority of seats, 167 of 308, in the House of Commons. It was a result practically no Canadian pundit or psephologist predicted.
…In Canada, Harper’s Conservatives have already cut taxes and modified spending programs, but always with the tacit consent of the separatist Bloc Quebecois or the left-wing New Democrats or the long-dominant Liberal party. Now they’re on their own, and we’ll see the results.
…The Conservatives’ triumph offers a couple of lessons that may be relevant to U.S. Republicans. One is that smaller-government policies, far from being political poison, are actually vote winners. …
Karl Rove thinks that 2012 has the potential to be a much tighter race than 2008. He breaks things down for us.
…Since the 2008 election, 18 states have experienced a change in their number of electoral votes because of the decennial census. Some (mostly red ones) have gained electoral votes and some (mostly blue) have lost electoral votes. John McCain would have closed the gap by 14 electoral votes in 2008 if the contest had been run under the 2012 Electoral College distribution.
…The 2012 presidential election is likely to be decided in 14 states. If Mr. Obama loses the three states he narrowly carried in 2008 plus Ohio and Florida, then the GOP would win back the White House by swiping any one of the nine remaining battlegrounds. This is a good place for the party to be right now.
…At this point, the 2012 election is shaping up to be much closer than 2008. Mr. Obama has the considerable benefits of incumbency but also a dismal record. The electoral map has shrunk for him: Key states that went for him last time are unlikely to do so again. This election is within the GOP’s grasp. The quality of the Republican candidate’s campaign and message will decide whether it becomes so.
In Forbes, Merrill Matthews gives a number of reasons why Obama will not win reelection.
…“It’s the Economy, Stupid.” We have former Bill Clinton advisor James Carville—who knows a little something about beating an incumbent president, Bush 41—to thank for that important insight. Maybe Carville was anticipating Obama.
A new Washington Post poll claims that 57 percent of the public disapproves of Obama’s handling of the economy. Those kinds of numbers can create electoral landslides—for the opponent.
…The economy will likely pick up over the next 18 months, but very slowly. And that means millions of struggling families will head to the polls on election day and vindicate Carville’s political insight . …
Nile Gardiner, in the Telegraph Blogs, UK, discusses recent polls.
…Significantly, a Newsweek/Daily Beast poll conducted immediately after the bin Laden announcement showed no overall bump in the president’s approval rating, which remained stuck at 48 percent. A striking 92 percent of respondents stated that the killing of Bin Laden will have no effect on the way they will vote in 2012, and just 39 percent felt that Obama was doing his job well enough to deserve re-election.
On the crucial issue of the economy, a mere 27 percent of respondents in the Newsweek/Daily Beast poll agreed that it was heading in the right direction, compared to 60 percent who felt it was not. And with the critically important independent voters, Obama remains in serious trouble. As leading pollster Douglas Schoen notes, independents retain grave doubts over the president’s handling of economic issues…
…The bin Laden raid may have succeeded in temporarily halting a sharp fall in the president’s overall approval rating, which nosedived in April, but it has made no difference to largely negative public perceptions of Obama’s leadership on the top voter issues facing the American people. Barack Obama still looks clueless and in denial on the huge economic problems facing the United States, including the towering debt hanging over the country. He continues to preside over a presidency in long-term decline, while advancing many policies that are making his country weaker, less prosperous and more indebted.