Wednesday, October 29, 2014

Netanyahu Served In An Elite Israeli Unit and Saw Combat! Obama Never Donned A Uniform! Who Is The "Chicken Shit?" You Decide!

Filings, or lack thereof, reveal Michelle Nunn has no explicit policy vis a vis Israel, other than raising money from the Jewish Community.

In the last few hours Ms Michelle 'Stealth'  Nunn's campaign is tanking. Is it because voters are beginning to connect those elusive dots and realize she is a Democrat, after all ,who waffles on whether she will vote for Harry Reid etc.

Is it because a member of  'her' president's staff called Netanyahu a "chicken shit coward?"

Perhaps this community organizer, who has revealed little about her true beliefs, would better serve the public working as a community organizer for Waffle House.
===
We know Obama is never wrong and always blames others for his many failures.

Now that we know what he and his staff think about Netanyahu, calling him a 'coward' and being a 'chicken shit,' are they setting Netanyahu up for blame when Obama's entire Middle East Policy falls apart after he allows Iran to go nuclear and/or  be within a few weeks of such?

Netanyahu was one of Israel's most heroic officers serving in one of the nation's most  elite units. Meanwhile, Obama never donned a military uniform.  I rest my case as to who is a  "chicken shit."

Lynn's great uncle, Avram,  helped to establish The Likud Party also trained Netanyahu for government and I can assure you Netanyahu may not always do what I and Israelis wish he would but I can also assure you he is no coward. I can also assure you he is a friend of America and appreciates the solid relationship our two nations have had.

Netanyahu's reluctance to attack Iran was based on his mistaken belief he could trust Obama and his concern that had he already done so, and still might, he would have caused this administration great political and military problems.

Netanyhau's hope is that Obama will not allow Iran to come within weeks of being capable of going nuclear but no longer believes that is a sound bet and thus, may be forced to do what he does not want  - send young Israelis to destroy Iran's various nuclear facilities. (See 1 and 1a below.)
===
FOX's Cavuto lays it on: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DDdmtJCEWPA

Wonder what Obama thinks about FOX news now?  
 This is an excellent response to Obama

If YOU WONDERING HOW AND WHY ISIS HAS GROWN TO BE A THREAT TO THE U.S. AND THE WORLD DO NOT BLAME ISRAEL AS SEC< KERRY WANTS BUT WATCH THIS VIDEO :http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/rise-of-isis/
=== 
Turkey's Erdogan no longer Arab rock star! (See 2 below.)
===
Those who are voted to nominate  Perdue are learning what he is learning - Jack Kingston, would have been a better and more effective campaigner.

Why?  Because Perdue,like General Motor's Charlie Wilson, who was a businessman is also a businessman and  good politicians, who have appealed to voters, often know better how to execute the campaign game.  (See 3 below.)

As election day draws near and the undecided begin to decide, the tide appears to be moving towards Republican shores and well it should because of the disaster Democrats have brought to this nation .  Between Obama, Reid and Pelosi what more evidence is needed? In my lifetime I have never experienced more disasters, lies and ineptness.  (See 3a below.)

Courting the black vote.

If Republicans make a sincere effort and have a sensible and convincing message they are damn fools not to try. (See 3b below.)
===
Dick
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1)

The ‘Chickenshitgate’ Fallout for America, Israel, and the Middle East


Author:

avatar Ben Cohen

President Obama and Prime Minister Netanyahu at the White House. Photo: Screenshot.

Naftali Bennett, Israel’s economy minister, got it 100 percent right in a Facebook posting just a few hours after the latest blow to American-Israeli relations—aka “chickenshitgate”—surfaced in the media.

Responding to the anonymous “senior Obama administration” official who told The Atlantic correspondent Jeffrey Goldberg that Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu was a “chickenshit,” Bennett said, “Cursing the prime minister and calling him names is an insult not just to him but to the millions of Israeli citizens and Jews across the globe. The leader of Syria who slaughtered 150,000 people was not awarded the name ‘chickenshit.’ Neither was the leader of Saudi Arabia who stones women and homosexuals or the leader of Iran who murders freedom protestors.”

I would have also added Qatar into the mix, as that terror-financing, slave-owning Gulf emirate is also fawned over by the Obama administration, but Bennett’s point stands nonetheless. Our officials in Washington come across as a vindictive and petty bunch, accusing an ally of cowardice while hiding behind anonymity, and guilty of hypocrisy in its rankest form.

“Chickenshit?” That’s rich, coming from an administration whose fear of Vladimir Putin is the subject of derisory mirth in the Kremlin, and whose cravenness towards Bashar al-Assad’s regime in Damascus has directly resulted in the deaths of thousands of innocent Syrians. Blissfully dismissive of their own failings, they round on Netanyahu, a man who served with distinction in his country’s elite Sayeret Matkal army unit, by calling him, of all things, a coward!

And that’s not the only epithet. As Goldberg pointed out, “Over the years, Obama administration officials have described Netanyahu to me as recalcitrant, myopic, reactionary, obtuse, blustering, pompous, and ‘Aspergery.’” (For those unclear as to what that last term means, it’s a pejorative description for people with Asperger syndrome, a form of autism, and it’s as nasty as calling someone a “retard.” Remember that next time you hear another kumbaya, “let’s heal” speech from Obama.) You have to think that sooner or later, the administration will join the chorus of confirmed Israel-haters by labeling Netanyahu as a “baby killer” and a “war criminal.”

Sure, the Obama officials will say that the Israelis started it, by citing the injudicious comments about Secretary of State John Kerry uttered in private by Israeli Defense Minister Moshe Ya’alon. But Ya’alon was man enough to apologize for what he said, and that still didn’t stop the administration from pursuing a private vendetta against him, blocking him from meeting with key officials like Vice President Joe Biden during his recent visit to Washington. And while the Israelis wish they could turn back the clock on Ya’alon’s advice to Kerry to “take his Nobel Prize and leave us alone,” Obama’s appointees see nothing wrong with insulting Netanyahu in such a grotesque manner because, you see, they are Right with a rolling, upper case “R,” and therefore anything goes.
I’ve argued many times in this column that, as far as Israel is concerned, the Obama administration is a lost cause. The only question now is how much damage they will do before Obama departs the White House—a day that can’t come soon enough, frankly.

The immediate danger lies on two fronts. Firstly, the Palestinians. Any doubts that the Obama administration believes that Israel is responsible for the stalemate with the Palestinians will have been dispelled by Goldberg’s revelations. As far as Obama, Kerry, and company are concerned, the primary problem is Israel’s insistence in building new housing units in its undivided capital, Jerusalem. Their impatience could reach the point where the U.S. no longer backs Israel at the United Nations, thereby allowing Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas’s crusade for unilateral recognition to reach fruition. In the event of such an outcome, Israel could find itself worryingly isolated, as the European governments are anxiously awaiting a signal from the Americans that it’s okay to abandon the Jewish state. If so, we will then be confronted with the edifying spectacle of the world’s democracies aligning themselves with tyrannies from Venezuela to Iran in singling out Israel for opprobrium.
Secondly, the Iranians. The deadline for a final deal over the mullah’s nuclear ambitions—November 24—is upon us. Perhaps Obama thinks that cursing Netanyahu will persuade Iran’s Supreme Leader, the brutal Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, to accept a deal. Judging by the breathlessly excited manner with which the regime’s English-language outlet, the Holocaust-denying Press TV, greeted chickenshitgate, the president might be onto something.

But what benefits will a historic accord with the Iranians bring us? Very few, whereas the costs will be enormous.
For a start, this isn’t just about Israel. We will alienate the conservative Arab states like Egypt and Saudi Arabia, all of them already angry and frustrated with Obama’s kowtowing to Tehran. We will permit an Islamist state to become a nuclear power, at the same time that it backs terrorist organizations like Hamas and Hezbollah with money and weapons. We will lose our leverage over the Iranians, in the form of biting sanctions, with few resource at our disposal to compel them to cooperate with international nuclear inspectors when they start—as they inevitably will—obstructing them at every turn. And we risk, again, the prospect of an Israeli pre-emptive strike, because whatever else Netanyahu might be, he’s no chickenshit.

Umpteen immediate questions remain, among them: Will Obama apologize for the chickenshit remark? Will he publicly name and discipline the officials who showered Netanyahu with insults? What will he do if the Iranians decline to make a deal?

But the biggest question of all is a long-term one. What will the strategic map of the Middle East look like once Obama is done? That’s what should be occupying the minds of Israel’s leaders, who are painfully aware that Obama’s peace efforts can only lead to more conflict and strife.

Ben Cohen is the Shillman Analyst for JNS.org and a contributor to the Wall Street Journal, Commentary, Haaretz, and other publications. His book, “Some Of My Best Friends: A Journey Through Twenty-First Century Antisemitism” (Edition Critic, 2014), is now available through Amazon.

1a)
Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, this morning (Thursday, 30 October 2014),
at his Jerusalem office, held a special discussion in the wake of last
night's terrorist attack in which Yehuda Glick was shot. Participating in
the discussion were Defense Minister Moshe Yaalon, Public Defense Minister
Itzhak Aharonovitch, ISA Director Yoram Cohen, Israel Police Commissioner
Insp.-Gen. Yohanan Danino, Jerusalem District Police Commander Moshe Edri,
Jerusalem Mayor Nir Barkat and representatives from the Attorney General's
office, the Justice Ministry and the IDF.

Prime Minister Netanyahu said at the start of the meeting:

"I would like to send my best wishes for a full and quick recovery to Yehuda
Glick, who is now fighting for his life.

I would also like to commend the ISA and the Israel Police for quickly
solving this act of terrorism.

A few days ago, I said that we were facing a wave of incitement by radical
Islamic elements and by Palestinian Authority Chairman Abu Mazen who said
that Jews must be prevented from going up to the Temple Mount by any means
possible.

I still have not heard from the international community so much as one word
of condemnation for these inflammatory remarks.

The international community needs to stop its hypocrisy and take action
against inciters, against those who try to change the status quo.

I have ordered significant reinforcements so that we can maintain both
security in Jerusalem and the status quo in the holy places.

This struggle might be long, and here, like in other struggles, we must
first of all, lower the flames.

No side should take the law into its own hands.

We must be level-headed and act with determination and responsibility, and
so we shall."

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2) Turkey: No Longer a "Rock Star" on Arab Street
by Burak Bekdil

Early in 2010, James Jeffrey, then U.S. ambassador to Turkey, sent acable to Washington, DC in which he described Turkey as a country "[w]ith Rolls Royce ambitions but Rover resources." Time has proven him right.

Back in 2009-10, then Turkey's Prime Minister (now President) Recep Tayyip Erdogan was greeted like a rock star in every Arab capital. He was presumably the darling of the Arab street, including Damascus, Beirut and Egypt -- all of which are today Turkey's regional nemeses. In 2011, an Egyptian columnist wrote a commentary in which he "begged the Turks to lend [them] their prime minister." To which this columnist replied: "By all means. Take him, and you need not return him."

Erdogan's "rock star" popularity on the Arab Street was based on a single dimension: his constant Israel-bashing and deep hatred of the Jewish state. "When there are matters of conflict between the Turks and Arabs all those love affairs will disappear," a Lebanese friend said at that time.
All the same, Erdogan thought that the rock star treatment would earn him his lifelong dream of reviving the Ottoman Empire with the Sunnis of the former Ottoman lands worshipping a new Turkish caliph. Proof? Turkey was a rising star. In 2008, it had won 151 votes out of 193 members of the United Nations to win easily a coveted non-permanent seat at the UN Security Council [UNSC]. With that seat, Turkey would further reinforce its influence in the region and the world.


After Turkey won the Security Council seat, then Foreign Minister (now Deputy Prime Minister) Ali Babacan spoke like a Rolls Royce: "This is the product of our efforts during the last five years. The election is an indication that Turkey's global perception, visibility and influence are on the rise. It shows how positively Turkey is perceived by the international community."

Fine. When a country wins a UNSC seat for the first time after 47 years, it is normal that politicians claim credit. But by simple logic, if it had lost the contest in 2008, the defeat should have meant that "Turkey's global perception, visibility and influence were on decline;" how negatively Turkey was being perceived by the international community. Right? Right. Not in the Turkish psyche.

On Oct. 16, Turkey once again bid for the same seat it had won six years earlier. A day before the vote, Foreign Minister Mevlut Cavusoglu declared to journalists in New York: "We believe, Allah permitting, that we will get the [positive] result of the work we put in."

Allah did not permit. Turkey won merely 60 votes -- compared to 151 in 2008 -- and was defeated by New Zealand and Spain. Does that mean that Turkey is now being negatively perceived by the international community? Or that Turkey's global perception, visibility and influence are on decline? Of course not!

Cavusoglu heroically defended the defeat: "There may be those that are disturbed by our principled stance." How lovely! In the Turkish Islamist thinking, the country's election to the UN Security Council is an acknowledgement of Turkey's success story but failure is the work of unprincipled nations who envy Turkey. Enjoy your Rover!

It is an open secret in diplomatic circles in Ankara that several Arab and African countries in which Turkey has heavily invested -- both economically and politically -- over the past several years, lobbied against Turkey's UNSC bid. Another group of countries with decent democratic credentials preferred to vote for a country [Spain] with the same democratic credentials, instead of a country known by its alarmingly autocratic resume.

Erdogan's Turkey is no longer an attraction for the Muslim Street. Instead, it is, overtly or covertly, on hostile terms with Syria, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Jordan, the United Arab Emirates and Iran -- all at the same time. Ironically, after the 2010 Mavi Marmara incident, in which a Turkish flotilla tried to break an Israeli naval blockade aimed at preventing weapons from reaching the Gaza Strip, Erdogan and his then Foreign Minister (now Prime Minister), Ahmet Davutoglu, vowed to "isolate Israel."

Instead, it is Turkey that has been badly isolated, with the help of its one-time Arab brothers who had rushed to one city square after another, waving Turkish flags, to attend Erdogan's public rallies in Arab capitals.

The U.S. ambassador's wording, "Rolls Royce ambitions," denotes a mental condition that categorically refuses admittance of own fault. In this mind-set, "We are so superb that we cannot be wrong because what we think right is Allah-given." If things go wrong, it must be because of something else.

It is often amazing to observe that Erdogan and Davutoglu have every confidence in their foreign policy calculus despite repeated -- and sometimes tragic -- failures. At moments of despair, both men have had the reflex to blame failure on the "wrong world order." It is this childish psychology that, from time to time, when it suits their convenience, prompts them to question the legitimacy of international institutions, including the UN and the UN Security Council. They do not, for instance, question the UN's legitimacy when a resolution denounces Israel. But they question that legitimacy only when it does not fit their agenda. Once, Erdogan said that the permanent UN Security Council members should have Muslim representation. Which country could he have been thinking of? I'll bet he was thinking of the one that he considers the heir to the throne of the Ottoman caliph.

For the mess they created in Syria, they have accused the West and NATO. For the failure to move an inch toward European Union membership, they have accused the EU of discriminating against a Muslim country. And most recently, Turkey failed to win the UN Security Council seat because of "those who are disturbed by [Turkey's] principled stance."
Burak Bekdil, based in Ankara, is a columnist for the Turkish daily Hürriyet and a fellow at the Middle East Forum.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
3) In Georgia, a Capitalist Struggles 
GOP Senate candidate David Perdue is learning that voters can recoil from market rationality. 

McDonough, Ga. — In a sun-dappled square decorated with scores of entrants in the community’s Halloween scarecrow contest, a balky sound system enables, if barely, the Republican U.S. Senate candidate to exhort a few hundred people, mostly supporters, to urge neighbors to vote to reduce Senator Harry Reid to minority leader. The exhorter is David Perdue, a glutton for punishment who has been campaigning incessantly for 15 months and may be doing so for two more.

A January 6 vote would end his second runoff, which will be necessary if, because the libertarian candidate gets perhaps 5 percent of the vote, neither Perdue nor his Democratic opponent, Michelle Nunn, wins 50 percent of the vote next Tuesday. Perdue’s first runoff, a nine-week slog ending in July, resulted when none of the seven Republican primary candidates reached 50 percent.

While the grandson of former governor Jimmy Carter runs for governor, Perdue, the cousin of Georgia’s two-term governor Sonny Perdue, is running against the daughter of former four-term senator Sam Nunn. Barack Obama’s unpopularity is her principal problem, but bucking such headwinds is a family tradition. In 1972, when her father won his first term, George McGovern led the Democratic ticket, en route to losing 49 states, including Georgia by 50 points. Nunn won by eight.

That she might win November 4, or at least force a runoff, illustrates a paradox of Republican politics: Republicans prefer the private sector to the public. Americans profess admiration for markets and those who prosper in them. But voters can recoil from market rationality.

Perdue, 64, won the nomination by stressing that he is a stranger to politics and is a practicing capitalist (“I would be the only Fortune 500 CEO in the Senate”), thereby touching two Republican erogenous zones. But capitalist rationality is more beneficent than pretty, which is a problem.

Nunn, 47, is a political novice from the nonprofit sector, which is doubly ideal: She has no record in any office to attack, and she has never made the political mistake of making a profit. In Perdue’s attempts, sometimes unsuccessful, to revive failing companies, he outsourced jobs, making him vulnerable to reprises of the attacks on Mitt Romney in 2012. Romney was first attacked as a “vulture capitalist” by rivals in the Republican primaries. Nunn is recycling attacks that Perdue’s Republican rivals began, and she is using an advertising firm that made anti-Romney ads.

Today’s saturation campaigning exhausts the power of particular attacks. But more than half a million votes will probably have been cast by November 4, many of them when those attacks were fresh. Making the campaign about Perdue’s business past has enabled Nunn to avoid dwelling on the future — why Georgians, many of whom think the country is on the wrong track, should send another senator into Reid’s obedient ranks.

It will be difficult for Nunn to reach 50 percent in this still-red state that Romney won by only 7.8 points, compared to his victory margins in the contiguous states of South Carolina (10.5 points), Alabama (22.2) and Tennessee (20.4). And in a runoff, with the national excitement having subsided, turnout will be down, especially among three crucial Democratic constituencies — minorities, young people, and unmarried women.

By then, and for similar reasons, a likely runoff in Louisiana on December 6 may have sealed or enlarged a Republican Senate majority, reducing Georgians’ interest in sending a new senator to join the Democratic minority.

Sam Nunn was elected just 22 months after Lester Maddox, the pick-handle-wielding segregationist proprietor of Atlanta’s Pickrick restaurant, ended his term as Georgia’s governor. But as has been said, the past is another country. The rally here occurred at the base of a monument common to squares in southern county seats, a statue of a soldier facing south, high atop a column the base of which is inscribed with florid prose about the Confederate dead “who sleep beneath the sod of every Southern state” and “those who like a benediction, still limp in our midst.” The rally was watched by a few members of Georgia law enforcement, blacks and whites in a brotherhood of boredom, cloaked in crisply pressed uniforms and the dignity of the state. They dignify the state by the professionalism of their presence, which is evidence of how much America has changed. At the end of a political season of splenetic rhetoric, this tableau is now a remarkably unremarkable reminder of the good that politics can do.


3a)

The Insiders: Things are better for Republicans than Karl Rove dreamed

By Ed Rogers


As Insiders readers know, in politics, what is supposed to happen tends to happen. In a Wall Street Journal op-ed in May 2013,“The GOP sets its sights on the Senate in 2014,” no less than Karl Rove analyzed the likelihood that Republicans would take back the Senate majority in the 2014 midterm elections. Largely based on his own observations and his knowledge of history, Rove gave Republicans no better than an “outside chance” of winning the majority, as long as Republicans ran strong candidates, fund-raised competitively and focused on the issues that matter most to voters.
Well, today, the RealClearPolitics average polling shows Republicans are projected to gain a net of 7 seats in the Senate, and there is only an “outside chance” that the Democrats will retain the Senate Majority.
Rove, and almost everybody else, overestimated how strong the president would be politically in the fall of 2014.  Even though Rove was able to precisely outline some of the challenges that Republicans would face, no one could have predicted the calamity that the Obama administration has become. It seemed unlikely a year ago that Republicans would add to their majority in the House and take back the Senate. After all, in November 2013, the generic ballot favored Democrats by 6.6 percent.  Now, one year later, the generic ballot favors Republicans by 3.1 percent.  What should naturally be a good year for Republicans has turned out to be a great year for Republicans due to the failures of the Obama administration.
While it seems that traditional pocketbook issues have been pushed aside by the sinister, lethal contagion that is ravaging West Africa and has found its way to the United States, famous GOP pollster Ed Goeas reminds me that economic issues still drive the right track/wrong track equation in this campaign cycle.  And currently, 65.8 percent of Americans think this country is on the wrong track.  So at the end of the day, what is worse for the Democrats?  For voters to render a verdict on the low-growth, low-income Obama economy, or for them to vote based on President Obama’s and the Democrats’ inept, confusing handling of crises ranging from Obamacare to Ebola?
Obviously, the current Ebola crisis has enhanced the trouble the Democrats are in, and it may end up being seen as the coup de grace in this election. The Ebola crisis could have been managed better if the White House had reached out to an admiral in a crisp uniform and made him the Ebola Czar. If that had happened, every Democrat would be quoting him and demanding that everyone defer to him, and no Republican would want to outright challenge what a military officer was saying we should do.  Even if the White House had appointed someone like former Senate majority leader Bill Frist (who is also a doctor) to be Ebola Czar, the dynamics of the Ebola crisis could be very different for the Democrats.
The cascade of debacles brought about by the incompetence of this administration is so constant that the half-life of any given crisis is very short. But it doesn’t look like the Ebola crisis will completely fade in the next week.
Anyway, here we are, one week from Election Day, and the Democrats’ situation reminds us that in politics, bad gets worse.


3b) Is the GOP Wasting Its Time Courting Black Voters in Illinois?

Republican Bruce Rauner is aggressively courting black voters in his bid to be governor. If he succeeds, his outreach will be the model for the entire party.


CHICAGO—It's just days before a heated election to determine Illinois' next governor, and Republican Bruce Rauner is in Chicago's South Side. He wants to know what issues matter to a convicted felon who served 22 years for laundering drug money.
They're at Fleck's Coffee, a year-old business in the working-class Chatham neighborhood, just blocks from where some of the worst violence in the city has taken place. Rauner listens as Joseph Davis, who runs an organization that helps former felons find work, and a group of black ministers—many of whom have endorsed the Republican—talk about crime, drug sentencing, and challenges for black-owned businesses.
The 57-year-old venture capitalist doesn't look out of place. But he isn't in his element either. He nods his head when Davis argues that felons need a chance to "reestablish themselves" when they get out of jail. Davis entered the meeting undecided, but said he left as a supporter of Rauner's.
When the Rev. Corey Brooks, an African-American pastor who endorsed Rauner, expresses concern about rampant unemployment in Chicago, Rauner sounds an empathetic note: "I don't see enough stores and businesses owned by African-Americans. There's a lack of economic opportunity and a lack of economic empowerment," he replies. For the most part, Rauner listens, and speaks in carefully practiced sound bites.
"African-American families today are suffering terribly with unemployment, poverty, crime, low wages, lousy schools, shredding social services. [Gov. Pat Quinn has] failed the African-American community, yet he's taken their vote for granted," Rauner tells me after the breakfast meeting. "He's assuming African Americans are voting for him even though he doesn't deserve to get their vote."
It's part of an unconventional strategy for Rauner, a billionaire venture capitalist who is spending time in an overwhelmingly African-American community that gave nearly unanimous support to President Obama and instinctively votes Democratic. Several prospective Republican presidential candidates, including Paul Ryan and Rand Paul, have engaged in minority outreach, but it has been rare for top Republican candidates to make it such a prominent part of their strategy in the final stage of an actual campaign.
Rauner is doing just that. Locked in a tight race with a Democratic governor, Rauner's campaign is convinced that if he can get about 15 percent of a usually-monolithic black vote, he's got the election locked up. "Pat Quinn is taking the African-American vote for granted. He's talking, but he's not delivering results!" he thundered at a debate that night cosponsored by the Chicago Urban League.
Rauner used the opportunity to tout the endorsement he received from the black ministers he'd met in the morning, while outside the debate hall dozens of Rauner's African-American supporters, brought in by the campaign, shouted epithets at Quinn.
"I've been a Democrat all my life," says Davis, now in his 60s, wearing a grey suit with a crucifix lapel pin. "I found out that just being a Democrat is not enough. I'm for whoever's going to help the community." He added: "Democrats have become so arrogant that they think they're the heir to black votes. We're not your children."
Democrats are perplexed by Rauner's strategy, assuming it's as much a play to win over moderate suburban white voters as it is to actually win over black votes. Even one in-state Republican operative wondered why Rauner was spending valuable October campaign time in overwhelmingly Democratic precincts, given that he needs to win over undecided suburbanites in more politically-competitive territory.
"What Rauner is trying to do is taking a 90-10 electorate, and making it 88-12," said a former adviser to Rahm Emanuel about the Republican's focus on black voters. "That's a waste of your time when there's a 60-40 [suburban] electorate that you can make 50-50."
In the three days I spent with his campaign in mid-October, the campaign stops Rauner made were all in minority areas of Chicago—the coffee shop on the South Side, a café on the city's heavily-Hispanic West Side, and at a popular Chinese restaurant in Chinatown. The vast majority of voters who attended the events were small business owners and religious leaders—two professions where Republicans perform well with white voters but still lag badly with minorities.
"Many Democratic politicians take the Latino vote for granted. They talk about Latino issues but they don't change anything for Latino families. And they don't create the real opportunity for the American dream. We're going to change that," Rauner said while campaigning at La Catedral Café on Chicago's West Side. He offers an entrepreneurial message focused on economic opportunity and education reform—that with hard work and a helping hand, anyone can succeed—sprinkled with sharp criticism of Gov. Quinn for the insidiously high unemployment rate in the minority communities throughout Illinois.
Tony Hu, the owner of the popular Lao Shanghai restaurant in Chicago's Chinatown, said the Republicans' last gubernatorial nominee, conservative state Sen. Bill Brady, made a last-minute visit to his restaurant in 2010 asking for his vote, but never engaged in any prior outreach to him or the Chinese-American community in Chicago. Rauner, by contrast, schmoozed with him when they were both part of a 2011 trade delegation (that included then-Mayor Richard Daley), and forged a relationship. Rauner kept in touch after the trip, occasionally visiting the restaurant with his family. Hu said that past engagement played a pivotal role in his support and advocacy for Rauner's campaign.
"Bruce has roots with us. I'm not a political person, I'm a community servant. But I look at someone's past. He has the ability. Look at his background. And vision," Hu said. "We don't care about Democrats or Republicans. We care about who has ability. Bruce, he has ability."
HIGH STAKES IN ILLINOIS
Even though it hasn't garnered a level of national attention on par with battleground Senate elections, the Illinois governor's race is as consequential a contest for Republicans as any other in the country. It's something of a political science experiment, testing whether Republicans have a chance to make even small inroads with minority communities.
On paper, Rauner is an appealing Republican candidate for such a mission. He has a long record of philanthropy to minority communities, even before he began his second career in politics. He was the main donor for several urban renewal projects, including a YMCA in the majority-Hispanic Little Village neighborhood and six new charter schools on the city's West Side. His work in education-reform circles has opened up a partnership with leading African-American community leaders and clergy that he's utilized in the gubernatorial campaign. He's a friend of the Rev. James Meeks, minister at Salem Baptist Church, one of the largest black churches in the city. They've gone fly-fishing together on vacation. He talks about his endowment of a professorship at historically black Morehouse College. He tapped a Latina running mate, attorney Evelyn Sanguinetti, whose experience as a first-generation immigrant is a story he highlights when speaking to Hispanic groups.
"Our outreach effort has been like no other. Businesses of every kind are suffering. So we're reaching out to Latinos, to the Indian-American communities, the Polish community, the Russian communities," said Sanguinetti. "As Republicans, the messaging is out there now. Before, I believe we had problems with messaging. But that's no longer the case. The party has a face-lift."
Last Sunday, Rauner even spent the second-to-last weekend on the trail at the New Beginnings Church of Christ on Chicago's South Side. "Our Lord God has not put us on this Earth as Democrats and Republicans," he told the congregation, according to the Associated Press. "He put us on this Earth to take care of each other."
Meanwhile, he's running against one of the least popular governors in the country, who has presided over a state with unemployment rates among minority communities well above the national average. Bill Brady, Quinn's last Republican opponent, won just 6 percent of African-American voters and 26 percent of Hispanics in the last gubernatorial election. Quinn won the race by a 32,000-vote margin out of 3.4 million votes. This year's race is shaping up to be as competitive.
One of Rauner's ads, specifically aimed at the black community, features footage of former Chicago Mayor Harold Washington in 1987, saying he regretted hiring Quinn as the city's revenue director. "He was dismissed and he should've been dismissed," said Washington, who was the city's first black mayor. "My only regret is that we hired him and kept him too long."
Quinn's campaign has been bludgeoning Rauner on the airwaves, portraying him as a vulture capitalist who laid off workers and shipped jobs overseas, and even unleashed allegations that he threatened a female manager because she declined to lay off employees.
That Democratic assault might be working. Talk to strategists with both campaigns, and Rauner hasn't made the gains with minority voters that he expected, despite his effort. He's facing a challenge hitting 10 percent support among black voters, and isn't improving much on Brady's Hispanic performance, either. In fact, the Chicago Tribune poll released last week has him winning only 3 percent of the African-American vote, just half of Brady's showing in 2010.
"He'll be lucky to get what Brady got," said Quinn pollster Mark Mellman. "Across the state, including the African-American communities, [people] see him for what he is—a guy who makes himself rich in shady business deals at the expense of everyone else. That's not what people want in a governor."
A SUBURBAN AUDIENCE
Even Republicans working for Rauner privately acknowledged that despite their candidate's optimism, they're not going to reshape long-standing voting patterns that have consigned Republicans to a sliver of the black vote. His campaign has set a goal of winning 20 percent of the vote in Chicago, something that can be accomplished with only small inroads among minority voters. But they also hope that by highlighting Rauner's minority outreach, he'll improve his showing among softer Republican voters—like married women in the suburbs and moderates. The Chicago Tribune poll, which showed Rauner narrowly ahead, reported that his gains had "been driven primarily by white suburban women, a voting bloc considered socially moderate but fiscally conservative."
Indeed, Rauner is part of a leading wave of candidates who are beginning to engage in minority outreach, even if it doesn't render immediate political dividends. Republican National Committee chairman Reince Priebus has prioritized minority outreach in the run-up to the 2016 presidential election, and has opened field offices meant to reach African-American voters in Ohio, North Carolina, Michigan, and Florida.
In Louisiana, Republican Senate candidate Bill Cassidy has discussed his work as cofounder of free dental and health care clinics for the uninsured—many in heavily black neighborhoods. Cutting into Sen. Mary Landrieu's huge support within the black community would be devastating to her already tenuous reelection hopes. Early in the cycle, Sen. Marco Rubio's political action committee aired Spanish-language ads in support of Republican Cory Gardner in the Colorado Senate race. Representing a swing seat, Republican Rep. Mike Coffman has become omnipresent throughout his cosmopolitan suburban Denver district, from Korean community meetings to Hispanic groceries.
"When I worked for Rudy Giuliani, we recognized we never were going to get the votes from the Dominican community, but we did that outreach because it was important to do. Doing well while doing good. It's the model that Rauner's picked up," said Republican media strategist Rick Wilson, who cited the former New York City mayor as one of several Republicans to aggressively engage in minority outreach in the late stages of a campaign. "You know [they] may not vote for us, but it shows we're listening. It doesn't cost you much to see you're on a long march."
Quinn isn't taking the threat against his base lightly. President Obama headlined a mid-October campaign rally in Illinois earlier this month at Chicago State University, designed to bring black voters to the polls for the governor. "You got to find cousin Pookie. He's sitting on the couch right now watching football—hasn't voted in the last five elections. You've got to grab him and tell him to go vote… And then tell them to vote for Pat Quinn," Obama said. Obama's numbers are barely above water even in his home state, but he's still an effective surrogate for turning out African-American voters.
For Republicans, the outreach to minorities is as much out of necessity as it is out of beneficence. Mitt Romney scored an historic high for a GOP presidential challenger by winning 59 percent of the white vote in the 2012 presidential election, but his dismal showing among minorities relegated him to just 47 percent of the overall vote. With the share of minority voters increasing over time, Republican officials recognize they are destined to struggle unless they can make real inroads into communities that don't traditionally vote for them.
At the same time, if Republicans are able to take even a small bit of constituent groups that are overwhelmingly Democratic, it could be the basis for a longer-term winning coalition. Democratic struggles with working-class white voters have cratered in the second term of Obama's presidency, and have given Republicans an opening to win over disaffected voters who don't usually vote for their party.
"We need to position the black community to take advantage of the opportunities that will emerge as Republicans will need to broaden their appeal," said the Rev. Marshall Hatch, a friend of Al Sharpton's, who regularly votes for Democrats but is backing Rauner in this election. "Illinois has become like a one-party state, and it's not healthy. We need to be more sophisticated in our politics. We can't be effective if we're in the hip pocket of one party."
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Administration Staffer the A.H. from which his alleged C.S Comment Came! We Already Know His Boss Is A Liar!



===
Everything is relative or so said Einstein:

Husband Store

A store that sells new husbands has opened in New York City, where a woman may go to choose a husband. Among the instructions at the entrance is a description of how the store operates:You may visit this store ONLY ONCE! There are six floors and the value of the products increase as the shopper ascends the flights. The shopper may choose any item from a particular floor, or may choose to go up to the next floor, but you cannot go back down except to exit the building!
So, a woman goes to the Husband Store to find a husband. On the first floor the sign on the door reads:
Floor 1 - These men Have Jobs
She is intrigued, but continues to the second floor, where the sign reads:
Floor 2 - These men Have Jobs and Love Kids.
'That's nice,' she thinks, 'but I want more.'So she continues upward. The third floor sign reads:
Floor 3 - These men Have Jobs, Love Kids, and are Extremely Good Looking.
'Wow,' she thinks, but feels compelled to keep going.
She goes to the fourth floor and the sign reads:
Floor 4 - These men Have Jobs, Love Kids, are Drop-dead Good Looking and Help With Housework.'Oh, mercy me!' she exclaims, 'I can hardly stand it!'
Still, she goes to the fifth floor and the sign reads:Floor 5 - These men Have Jobs, Love Kids, are Drop-dead Gorgeous, Help with Housework, and Have a Strong Romantic Streak.
She is so tempted to stay, but she goes to the sixth floor, where the sign reads:
Floor 6 - You are visitor 31,456,012 to this floor. There are no men on this floor. This floor exists solely as proof that women are impossible to please.
Thank you for shopping at the Husband Store.

PLEASE NOTE:
To avoid gender bias charges, the store's owner opened a New Wives store just across the street.
The First floor - has wives that love sex.The Second floor - has wives that love sex and have money and like beer.The third, fourth, fifth and sixth floors have never been visited.
 ===
Returning home from work, a blonde was shocked to find her house ransacked and burglarized. She telephoned the police at once and reported the crime.
The police dispatcher broadcast the call on the radio, and a K-9 unit, patrolling nearby was the first to respond.
As the K-9 officer approached the house with his dog on a leash, the blonde ran out on the porch, shuddered at the sight of the cop and his dog, then sat down on the steps
Putting her face in her hands, she moaned, 'I come home to find all my possessions stolen.  I call the police for help, and what do they do?  They send me a BLIND policeman.'
 ===
Placing trust in Obama is like dancing with a bear - do so at the risk of being clawed to death.  (See 1 below.)

Top Administration Official refers to Netanyahu as "Chicken Shit."

Priebus responds: “This administration consistently gets it wrong on foreign policy. Instead of taking the ISIS threat seriously, President Obama called them the ‘JV’ team. Now, instead of working with our allies in the region to protect democracy and innocent lives, the administration is hurling expletives at Prime Minister Netanyahu.”

Meanwhile, Ari Fliescher said a staffer would not have said it had it not  first been said by the president.

My own observation is the staffer is the ass hole from which the alleged 'chicken shit 'came.

As for Obama, we already now he is an unmitigated  liar. (See 1a, 1b, 1c and 1d below.)
===
We gave our son and daughter in law a weekend at The Hershey Hotel for their tenth anniversary and Daniel reported on their visit to The Hershey School.  Fascinating. (See 2 below.)
===
Obama soaks the rich and drowns the middles class. (See 3 below.)
===
Political campaigns take more and more money and thus, patronizing to contributors and raising money now drives policy. (See 4 below.)
===
Reid has protected Obama and his party and after the Nov. election, like Pelosi said, we will find out more about what Obama has in store for what will be left of America after his change attack.  (See 5 and 5a below.)
===
Dick
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1) U.S., Iran Relations Move to Détente

Interests Align Over Fight Against Islamic State, Other Policies


By Jay Solomon and Maria Abi-Habib


The Obama administration and Iran, engaged in direct nuclear negotiations and facing a common threat from Islamic State militants, have moved into an effective state of détente over the past year, according to senior U.S. and Arab officials.

The shift could drastically alter the balance of power in the region, and risks alienating key U.S. allies such as Saudi Arabia and United Arab Emirates who are central to the coalition fighting Islamic State. Sunni Arab leaders view the threat posed by Shiite Iran as equal to or greater than that posed by the Sunni radical group Islamic State, also known as ISIS or ISIL.

Israel contends the U.S. has weakened the terms of its negotiations with Iran and played down Tehran’s destabilizing role in the region.

Over the past decade, Washington and Tehran have engaged in fierce battles for influence and power in Iraq, Syria, Lebanon and Afghanistan fueled by the U.S. overthrow of Iraqi strongman Saddam Hussein and the Arab Spring revolutions that began in late 2010. U.S. officials still say the option of military action remains on the table to thwart Iran’s nuclear program.

But recent months have ushered in a change as the two countries have grown into alignment on a spectrum of causes, chief among them promoting peaceful political transitions in Baghdad and Kabul and pursuing military operations against Islamic State fighters in Iraq and Syria, according to these officials.

The Obama administration also has markedly softened its confrontational stance toward Iran’s most important nonstate allies, the Palestinian militant group Hamas and the Lebanese militant and political organization, Hezbollah. American diplomats, including Secretary of State John Kerry , negotiated with Hamas leaders through Turkish and Qatari intermediaries during cease-fire talks in July that were aimed at ending the Palestinian group’s rocket attacks on Israel, according to senior U.S. officials.

U.S. intelligence agencies have repeatedly tipped off Lebanese law-enforcement bodies close to Hezbollah about threats posed to Beirut’s government by Sunni extremist groups, including al Qaeda and its affiliate Nusra Front in Syria, Lebanese and U.S. officials said.

“This shows that although we see Turkey and Arab states as our closest allies, our interests and policies are converging with Iran’s,” said Vali Nasr, dean of the School of Advanced International Studies at Johns Hopkins University and a former Obama administration official. “This is a geostrategic reality at this moment, more than a conscious U.S. policy.”

Obama administration officials stressed they’re not directly coordinating their regional policies or the war against Islamic State with Iran. They also said pervasive U.S. economic sanctions remain in place on Tehran, Hamas and Hezbollah.

Still, these officials said the intensive negotiations the U.S. has pursued with Iran since last year on the nuclear issue could help stabilize the Mideast and have improved understanding.

“The world is clearly better off now than it would have been if the leaders on both sides had ignored this opening,” Wendy Sherman, the lead U.S. negotiator with Iran, said last week.

Iranian officials, including President Hasan Rouhani, have said there could be more cooperation with the U.S. in the war on Islamic State, but only if a nuclear accord is reached.

Administration critics, including Israel and Arab states, see the White House as determined to seal a deal with Iran as a monument to President Barack Obama’s foreign policy record.

“The Iranian regime is revolutionary and can’t get too close to us. So I’d be wary of any rapprochement,” said Scott Modell, a former Central Intelligence Agency officer now at the Center for Strategic and International Studies in Washington. “I think they are hell bent on pursuing a number of courses that run counter to U.S. interests.”

Iraq has been at the center of a regional proxy war between the U.S. and Iran since the George W. Bush administration invaded Baghdad in 2003.

Iran’s elite military unit, the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, established and trained a network of Shiite militias that attacked U.S. and coalition troops stationed in Iraq over the past decade, according to U.S. defense officials. Tehran, according to U.S. officials, also introduced into Iraq the most dangerous kind of improvised explosive devices, the roadside bombs that the Pentagon says were the largest single cause of deaths among American servicemen who fought in the war.

Since the U.S. resumed military operations inside Iraq in August, however, the Revolutionary Guard, or IRGC, has explicitly ordered its local proxies not to target American military personnel conducting and coordinating attacks against Islamic State from bases around Baghdad and Iraq’s Kurdish region, according to U.S. officials who have tracked Iranian communications.

Gen. Qasem Soleimani, the commander of the Guard’s overseas operations known as the Qods Force, specifically instructed Iraqi Shiite militias long at war with the U.S., such as the Mahdi Army and Kata’ib Hezbollah, that American efforts to weaken Islamic State were in the long-term interests of Tehran and its allies, said these officials.

“It has gone quiet because these guys have been told by the IRGC not to attack,” said a U.S. intelligence officer who tracks Gen. Soleimani. “The Iraqi Shiite groups went to Soleimani and said they wanted to go after the American embassy and target Americans. Soleimani said: ‘No, No, No. Unless they get into your areas of control, don’t attack.’”

Meanwhile, the U.S. military is planning to play down and avoid publicity for the annual minesweeping exercise being organized by U.S. Navy’s Fifth Fleet. In past years, the exercise has been used to highlight unified opposition to Iranian activities in the Persian Gulf, according to a U.S. official.
Some officials say de-emphasizing deterrence against Iran could be destabilizing, signaling to the Revolutionary Guard that the U.S. isn't going to take steps to counter their measures.

However, the U.S. now has gone beyond the use of signals. American officials said the Obama administration has passed messages to Tehran by using the offices of Iraq’s new Shiite prime minister, Haider al-Abadi, as well as Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani, one of Shiite Islam’s most senior clerics.

The U.S. has also made it clear to Tehran that its stepped-up military strikes against Islamic State targets in Syria won’t be turned on forces loyal to Syrian President Bashar al-Assad, according to U.S. officials.
Mr. Assad is Iran’s closest Arab ally. And the Revolutionary Guard and Gen. Soleimani have mobilized Iranian military personnel and Lebanese and Iraqi Shiite militiamen to fight inside Syria in support of the Damascus regime. Any U.S. strikes on Mr. Assad’s security forces could end up hitting Iranian or Hezbollah soldiers and military advisers, sparking a broader conflict, U.S. and Arab officials said.

“They [the U.S.] want to focus on ISIL and they are worried about antagonizing the Iranians, which they say may cause them to react or the Shiite militias in Iraq to react against our embassy and interests in Iraq and derail the [nuclear] talks,” said a senior U.S. defense official working on Iraq. “They are articulating in high-level interagency meetings that they don’t want to do anything that’s…interpreted by the Iranians as threatening to the regime.”

The détente that has taken hold is filtering into other theaters of traditional American-Iranian conflict, said U.S. and Arab officials.

Washington for years has sought to weaken Hezbollah’s political and military power in Lebanon through sanctions and the backing of rival political parties in Beirut. But the threat posed by Islamic State, Nusra Front and other Sunni extremist groups to Lebanon has changed the security dynamics there, said U.S. and Arab officials.

U.S. intelligence agencies on a number of occasions have provided tips on terrorist threats to Lebanese security agencies that are known to be close or under the sway of Hezbollah, said U.S. and Arab officials. Among them is the intelligence unit, known as the General Security Directorate, which has arrested Nusra Front cells in Beirut and northern Lebanon over the past two years.

The Obama administration’s indirect diplomatic engagement with Hamas has unnerved Israel and allied Arab states. Washington maintains a policy of no direct talks with the Palestinian group, which is designated a terrorist organization by the U.S. and European Union. But Mr. Kerry and other U.S. officials regularly conveyed messages to Hamas’s political chief, Khaled Meshaal, through Qatari and Turkish diplomats during cease-fire talks this summer.

Israeli and Arab officials argued this engagement strengthened Hamas’s profile at the expense of the moderate Palestinian leadership led by Mahmoud Abbas.

The regional truce playing out between Washington and Tehran is fragile and could easily be reversed, said U.S., Arab and Iranian officials.

The two sides have set a late November deadline to conclude a comprehensive agreement aimed at curtailing Iran’s nuclear program in exchange for an easing of Western sanctions. U.S. officials say the prospects for the accord remain only 50/50 and that tensions between the two sides could quickly ratchet up in the wake of a diplomatic failure.

“There is no question that, if everything goes away, escalation will be the name of the game on all sides, and none of that is good,” Ms. Sherman said last week.
—Julian E. Barnes contributed to this article.


1a) Who’s ‘Chickensh*t’? The Goldberg Variation
BY ROGER L. SIMON
In an already much talked about article for The Atlantic, “The Crisis in U. S. – Israeli Relations is Officially Here,” Jeffrey Goldberg quotes a senior administration official accusing  Benjamin Netanyahu – among a long list of unpleasant things — of being a “chickensh*t.”

Never mind for a moment the absurdity of an (of course anonymous) Obama official calling the Israeli PM a coward when Netanyahu has been personally under fire in two wars, volunteering for the second after having been wounded by a gun shot in the first (his brother, as many will remember, was killed during the raid on Entebbe — both Netanyahus were in Sayeret Matkal) at approximately the time the official’s boss Barry was lulling on a balmy Hawaiian beach smoking “choom” with his gang. What’s the right word for this?  Hypocrisy is a bit weak, isn’t it?  Or is it simply the desperate rumblings of a failed administration?
In any case, Goldberg was a “good boy” for transmitting it and I hope he gets another opportunity for a “hard-hitting” interview with POTUS. I further hope the author achieves his ambition and restrains those bellicose Israelis from renting or buying apartments in Arab East Jerusalem.  After all, the Arab countries have been so welcoming to their Jewish populations. Oh, wait… they’re Judenrein, barely a single Jew in evidence.  And Abu Mazen has refused ever to have Jews living within a future Palestinian state. My mistake.  Never mind again.  I’m sure Goldberg omitted all this by accident.
Actually, ninety percent of his article is on the level of dog bites man.  We all know Obama et al don’t like the Israelis, not just their prime minister and his supposedly loose-lipped defense minister Yaalon, and probably a whole host of other officials of the Jewish state, not to mention a vast percentage of the Israeli populace. This opprobrium on Obama’s part has been going on for a long time, even before he took office.  (Remember the still mysterious Khalidi tape?)

1b)

RNC: Administration Insult of Netanyahu ‘Inexplicable and Dangerous’

By Bridget Johnson


Republican National Committee Chairman Reince Priebus just issued a statement firing back at a senior administration official calling Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu “chickenshit” in an interview with The Atlantic.
“ISIS is on a rampage through the Middle East, slaughtering innocents and committing mass murder while plotting to kill more Americans,” Priebus said. “The priority of the Obama administration should be defeating our enemies; instead they are once again insulting our allies. It’s inexplicable and dangerous.”
“This administration consistently gets it wrong on foreign policy. Instead of taking the ISIS threat seriously, President Obama called them the ‘JV’ team. Now, instead of working with our allies in the region to protect democracy and innocent lives, the administration is hurling expletives at Prime Minister Netanyahu.”
One week out of Election Day, in a midterm where foreign policy has gotten more air time than in previously years, the RNC chairman stressed, “Americans should not accept this.”
“We should never betray our ally Israel. We need a foreign policy that is focused, not fumbling. The country is increasingly concerned about our national security, yet the administration is not inspiring confidence,” Priebus said.
Haaretz got reaction from Economy Minister Naftali Bennett, who noted that “such severe curse words against the Israeli prime minister are harmful to millions of Israeli citizens and Jews worldwide.”
“The prime minister is not a private person, but the leader of the Jewish state and the Jewish world,” Bennett said, adding that it wasn’t Bashar Assad, “who slaughtered 150,000 of his citizens,” nor the leader of Saudi Arabia, “who stones women and homosexuals,” who earned the title “chickenshit” from the Obama administration — but the leader of  ”the only democratic state in the Middle East.”


1c)Feathers Fly Over “Chickensh*t” Interview

Already strained US-Israel ties became even more frayed when an anonymous “senior Obama administration official” launched unusual and undiplomatic attack on Benjamin Netanyahu. Here’s what he told Jeffrey Goldberg:
“The thing about Bibi is, he’s a chickenshit,” this official said, referring to the Israeli prime minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, by his nickname.

“The good thing about Netanyahu is that he’s scared to launch wars,” the official said, expanding the definition of what a chickenshit Israeli prime minister looks like. “The bad thing about him is that he won’t do anything to reach an accommodation with the Palestinians or with the Sunni Arab states. The only thing he’s interested in is protecting himself from political defeat. He’s not [Yitzhak] Rabin, he’s not [Ariel] Sharon, he’s certainly no [Menachem] Begin.He’s got no guts.”

I ran this notion by another senior official who deals with the Israel file regularly.This official agreed that Netanyahu is a “chickenshit” on matters related to the comatose peace process, but added that he’s also a “coward” on the issue of Iran’s nuclear threat
Netanyahu rebuffed the comments; a White House spokesperson said the comment was, as you’d expect, “inappropriate and counter-productive,” though no apology was made. Roger Cohen and Ari Fleischer had the most interesting tweets.



Since Barack Obama became president, The Atlantic’s Jeffrey Goldberg has been a reliable indicator of administration opinion about foreign-policy issues. Like some other journalists who can be counted on to support the president, he has been the recipient of some juicy leaks, especially when the White House wants to trash Israel’s government. But Goldberg and his “senior administration sources” reached a new low today when he published a piece in which those anonymous figures labeled Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu a “chickenshit” and a “coward.” The remarks are clearly not so much a warning to the Israelis to stop complaining about the U.S. push for appeasement of a nuclear Iran and the administration’s clueless approach to the conflict with the Palestinians. Rather the story is, as Goldberg rightly characterizes it, a genuine crisis in the relationship. That much is plain but where Goldberg and the talkative administration members are wrong is their belief that this is all Netanyahu’s fault. Their attacks on him are not only plainly false but are motivated by a desire to find an excuse that will be used to justify a drastic turn in U.S. foreign policy against Israel.

The administration critique of Netanyahu as a coward stems from its disgust with his failure to make peace with the Palestinians as well as their impatience with his criticisms of their zeal for a deal with Iran even if it means allowing the Islamist regime to become a threshold nuclear power. But this is about more than policy. The prickly Netanyahu is well known to be a tough guy to like personally even if you are one of his allies. But President Obama and his foreign-policy team aren’t just annoyed by the prime minister. They’ve come to view him as public enemy No. 1, using language about him and giving assessments of his policies that are far harsher than they have ever used against even avowed enemies of the United States, let alone one of its closest allies.

So rather than merely chide him for caution they call him a coward and taunt him for being reluctant to make war on Hamas and even to launch a strike on Iran. They don’t merely castigate him as a small-time politician without vision; they accuse him of putting his political survival above the interests of his nation.

It’s quite an indictment but once you get beyond the personal dislike of the individual on the part of the president, Secretary of State Kerry, and any other “senior officials” that speak without attribution on the subject of Israel’s prime minister, all you have is a thin veil of invective covering up six years of Obama administration failures in the Middle East that have the region more dangerous for both Israel and the United States. For all of his personal failings, it is not Netanyahu—a man who actually served as a combat soldier under fire in his country’s most elite commando unit—who is a coward or a small-minded failure. It is Obama and Kerry who have fecklessly sabotaged a special relationship, an act whose consequences have already led to disaster and bloodshed and may yet bring worse in their final two years of power.
It was, after all, Obama (and in the last two years, Kerry) who has spent his time in office picking pointless fights with Israel over issues like settlements and Jerusalem. They were pointless not because there aren’t genuine disagreements between the two countries on the ideal terms for peace. But rather because the Palestinians have never, despite the administration’s best efforts to tilt the diplomatic playing field in their favor, seized the chance for peace. No matter how much Obama praises Palestinian Authority leader Mahmoud Abbas and slights Netanyahu, the former has never been willing to recognize the legitimacy of a Jewish state no matter where its borders would be drawn. They also chose to launch a peace process in spite of the fact that the Palestinians remain divided between Abbas’s Fatah and Hamas-ruled Gaza, a situation that makes it impossible for the PA to make peace even if it wanted to do so. The result of their heedless push for negotiations that were bound to fail was another round of violence this summer and the possibility of another terrorist intifada in the West Bank.

On Iran, it has not been Netanyahu’s bluffing about a strike that is the problem but Obama’s policies. Despite good rhetoric about stopping Tehran’s push for a nuke, the president has pursued a policy of appeasement that caused it to discard its significant military and economic leverage and accept a weak interim deal that began the process of unraveling the international sanctions that represented the best chance for a solution without the use of force.
Even faithful Obama supporter Goldberg understands that it would be madness for Israel to withdraw from more territory and replicate the Gaza terror experiment in the West Bank. He also worries that the administration is making a “weak” Iran deal even though he may be the only person on the planet who actually thinks Obama would use force to prevent an Iranian nuclear weapon.

So why is the administration so angry with Netanyahu? It can’t be because Netanyahu is preventing peace with the Palestinians. After the failure of Kerry’s fool’s errand negotiations and the Hamas missile war on Israel, not even Obama can think peace is at hand. Nor does he really think Netanyahu can stop him from appeasing Iran if Tehran is willing to sign even a weak deal.

The real reason to target Netanyahu is that it is easier to scapegoat the Israelis than to own up to the administration’s mistakes. Rather than usher in a new era of good feelings with the Arab world in keeping with his 2009 Cairo speech, Obama has been the author of policies that have left an already messy Middle East far more dangerous. Rather than ending wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, his decision to withdraw U.S. troops and to dither over the crisis in Syria led to more conflict and the rise of ISIS. Instead of ending the Iranian nuclear threat, Obama is on the road to enabling it. And rather than manage an Israeli-Palestinian standoff that no serious person thought was on the verge of resolution, Obama made things worse with his and Kerry’s hubristic initiatives and constant bickering with Israel.

Despite the administration’s insults, it is not Netanyahu who is weak. He has shown great courage and good judgment in defending his country’s interests even as Obama has encouraged the Palestinians to believe they can hold out for even more unrealistic terms while denying Israel the ammunition it needed to fight Hamas terrorists. While we don’t know whether, as Goldberg believes, it is too late for Israel to strike Iran’s nuclear facilities, it is Obama that Iran considers weak as it plays U.S. negotiators for suckers in the firm belief that the U.S. is a paper tiger that is not to be feared any longer.

If there is a crisis, it is one that was created by Obama’s failures and inability to grasp that his ideological prejudices were
out of touch with Middle East realities.

The next two years may well see, as Goldberg ominously predicts, even more actions by the administration to downgrade the alliance with Israel. But the blame for this will belong to a president who has never been comfortable with Israel and who has, at every conceivable opportunity, sought conflict with it even though doing so did not advance U.S. interests or the cause of peace. No insult directed at Netanyahu, no matter how crude or pointless, can cover up the president’s record of failure.

Jonathan S. Tobin is senior online editor of COMMENTARY magazine and chief political blogger at www.commentarymagazine.com
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2)-1.        Hershey was the son of a of a serially failed entrepreneur, Henry Hershey.  Milton went to 7 schools by the 4th grade as the family chased the next big opportunity and moved to avoid creditors.

2.       By the time he was 30, Milton was following the same path having declared bankruptcy 4 times.

3.       In 1887 The bank initiated foreclose proceedings on His 5th business as well, the Lancaster caramel company.  When the banker came to reposes the assets, Hershey presented a contract from an importer in England who had placed an order the day before that if filled, would rescue the business.  The local banker was so impressed that he stopped the foreclosure and co-signed on the business loan to Hershey.

4.       In 1900 the sale of the Lancaster caramel company and founded the Hershey Chocolate company which as of 2013 employs 14,800 people around the globe.

5.       The Milton Hershey School, a free private learning institution for qualified underprivileged and impoverished students ages 4-18 has an enrollment of 2,500 students and is growing.  It has the largest endowment of any private academic institution in the world with a 78% controlling interest in the Hershey company and 100% ownership of the Hershey Hotel, Chocolate World visitor center and Hershey Park.  It has an additional $7.8 billion in outside investments and cash.  It spends more per capita ($111,000 annually) on each student than any other private academic institution in the world.  It is not funded with any public dollars

6.       Hershey provided millions in subsidized housing and services to employees and suppliers in Pennsylvania as well as Cuba and parts of west Africa (from where a majority of their supply of cocoa comes)

7.       In 1933 Hershey funded public works projects with his own private and company money including the Hershey hotel and a major expansion of the park and gardens so that none of his employees lost their jobs in the great depression.

8.       When he died in 1945 he didn’t have a penny to his name having contributed everything to charity.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
3) Obama Soaks the Rich, Drowns the Middle Class

The ripple effect of the president’s tax hikes is swamping take-home pay.


The curse of the U.S. economy today is the downward trend in “take-home pay.” This is the most crucial economic indicator for most Americans, but when President Obama said in a recent speech at Northwestern that nearly every economic measure shows improvement from five years ago, he conspicuously left this one out.

Most workers’ pay has not kept up with inflation for at least six years. Even as hiring picked up over the past year, wages and salaries have inched up by 2%, barely ahead of inflation. This probably explains why half of Americans say the recession never ended. They are experiencing what Federal Reserve Chair Janet Yellen last week described as “stagnant living standards for the majority.”
Why aren’t wages rising? There are several reasons, including that many jobs today don’t pay as well as the ones lost during the recession. ObamaCare has made health insurance more expensive for businesses—as the nation’s biggest employer, Wal-Mart , recently reported—and that takes a bite out of take-home pay. Yet one factor is often overlooked: the tax increase on “the rich” at the beginning of 2013.
 How could higher taxes on the top 2% or 3% hurt the middle class? Part of the answer is that when upper-income Americans spend their money on vacations or cars, they are taxed only once, after they earn it. But if they put their money to work by, for example, building out a family business, they got socked a second time by higher investment taxes. And this discourages the investments that grow the economy.
Although the Obama administration argues otherwise, these tax hikes were not minor. The tax rate on capital gains for high-income earners shot up to 23.8%—20% plus the 3.8% ObamaCare investment surtax. Ditto for the tax on dividends. So taxes on business investment rose by nearly 60% in 2013 and are nearly 20% higher
than in the Clinton years.

For estates more than $5.3 million in value, the estate tax in 2013 rose to 40% from 35% in 2012. This tax is a confiscatory double tax on a lifetime of savings, and the money reinvested in stocks or a family business.
The overall effect of the 2013 tax hike was not minor. The highest income-tax rate on small business income has risen to almost 42% from 35%. That’s a 20% spike in the small business tax for successful companies. When the government takes more, there is less to plow back into the business or invest elsewhere.
This may help explain the paradox that even as American businesses today are generally efficient and highly profitable, they aren’t reinvesting in new plants, equipment and technology or hiring more workers at the pace they normally would. Business investment was up last quarter—a hopeful sign—but over the recovery the trend has been sluggish.

A comparison with the Reagan years when investment taxes were cut tells the story. From 1983 to 1988, private investment averaged 12% of GDP, one-third faster than the 9% since 2009 under Obama. In the aftermath of the Kennedy, Clinton and George W. Bushcapital-gains tax cuts (1998-2006), the investment rate rose sharply and immediately.

What does investment have to do with stagnant wages? Everything. As Paul Samuelson, the premiere Keynesian economist who sold more economics textbooks than anyone in history, once explained: “What happens to the wage rate when each person works with more capital goods? Because each worker has more capital to work with, his or her marginal product [or productivity] rises. Therefore, the competitive real wage rises as workers become worth more to capitalists and meet with spirited bidding up of their market wage rates.”
History bears this out. Workers did very well in jobs and rising incomes in the 1960s, 1980s and late 1990s when capital gains and dividend taxes fell.

The high corporate tax rate is also holding the economy back. Twenty years ago the U.S. rate was about at the international average, but now we are about 15 percentage points above the rate of most of our competitors and nearly three times higher than countries like Ireland. The American Enterprise Institute has found that “a 1% increase in corporate tax rates is associated with nearly a 1% drop in wage rates” because when corporations invest less here at home, worker productivity suffers.

Mr. Obama’s investment tax hike was designed to soak the rich. But it is the middle class who have taken a bath. Republicans should be telling American wage-earners that the best way to increase their take-home pay is to repeal Mr. Obama’s tax hikes and chop the corporate tax rate to the international average, so more and better jobs are created on these shores, not abroad.

Mr. Kyl, former Republican senator from Arizona, is a visiting scholar at the American Enterprise Institute and senior counsel at Covington & Burling LLP. Mr. Moore is chief economist at the Heritage Foundation.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
4) The ‘Permanent Campaign’ = Perpetual Paralysis

For starters, make House terms four years and junk the primary system.


Campaigning is one thing, governing another. Politicians seek office to advance agendas they lay out during the campaign. If victorious, they do their best to turn promises into policy. Toward the end of their terms, the people pass judgment on their performance.

That is the textbook theory of representative democracy. It sounds hopelessly old-fashioned, because it is. Today, the distinction between campaigning and governing has collapsed, and governing has been reconstructed along campaign lines, with endless survey research playing a pivotal role. The consequence for our politics has been catastrophic, and we don’t know what to do about it.

You might think, for example, that next week’s midterm elections would create an interval for serious policy-making. And they may. But those intent on getting down to work will have to defy a Washington establishment—including much of the media—that will swiftly shift its focus to the 2016 elections. Legislators who want to take on tough issues such as immigration and taxation will have to buck leaders worried about the consequences for potential presidential nominees.

This situation has been four decades in the making. In December 1976, Patrick Caddell, president-elect Jimmy Carter ’s pollster, drafted one of the most fateful memos in modern political history. He summarized its thesis in nine lapidary words; “Governing with public approval requires a continuing political campaign.” Four years later, journalist Sidney Blumenthal codified this thesis in “The Permanent Campaign,” a title that became an enduring trope of political discourse.

This new view of American politics followed the political explosion of the late 1960s and early 1970s, which led both parties to shift control of presidential nominations away from party leaders toward popular elections—primaries and caucuses. Jimmy Carter was the first candidate to “come out of nowhere,” seize the nomination from well-known establishment figures such as Sen. Henry Jackson, and win the presidency. Mr. Carter would not be the last.

A candidate without strong party ties, elected through a popular mobilization that may prove fleeting, has little choice but to attend closely to public opinion. He has no other base of support. The consequence is a shift from strategy to tactics, from future-oriented policies to the daily news cycle, from the politics of consensus-building to a “war room” approach.

Reflecting on these developments in 2000, political scientist Hugh Heclo asked the crucial question: Why should we care? His astute answer: “Because our politics will become more hostile than needed, more foolhardy in disregarding the long-term, and more benighted in mistaking persuasions for reality.” Sadly, seven congresses and two presidential administrations have done little to disprove his prediction.

At the risk of sounding hopelessly old-fashioned, I offer a Madisonian reflection: There is a difference between the vagaries of public opinion and the long-term interests of the people, and it is the task of representative democracy to reflect that difference. Pursuing the people’s long-term interests may sometimes require elected officials to disregard the kinds of preferences that the people reveal in public-opinion surveys or even in elections. Changes in the political system that make it more difficult for elected officials to give adequate weight to the long-term are changes for the worse, however “democratic” they may appear.

As Madison insisted, we will wait in vain for public-spiritedness to become a pervasive motive in our politics. Instead, we must create—and if necessary re-create—institutions that channel human nature as it is toward promoting the permanent interests of the community. If representative institutions move too far in the direction of government by plebiscite, we need an era of institutional reform to renew them.

Renewal does not mean restoring the vanished past. It means accepting certain changes as irreversible and rethinking old institutions in light of new circumstances. Here are three ideas.

First: Whatever may have been the case in the 18th century, today two-year House terms condemn 435 representatives to permanent campaigns. To create more opportunity for governing, we should change to four-year terms.

Second: Low and variable participation in formal elections increases the influence of plebiscitary devices such as surveys. To strengthen the former and weaken the latter, we should consider instituting the system of mandatory voting that Australia adopted nearly a century ago.

Third: Our current presidential nominating system tends to reward candidates who are talented campaigners. Only if we get lucky do effective campaigners turn out to have a capacity for governing. Can anyone seriously contend that the ability to win the Iowa caucuses or the New Hampshire primary is a good leading indicator of the capacity to serve as chief executive? The worst system of all is an unrepresentative plebiscite, but that is what the past four decades have yielded.

It is time for both political parties to reflect on the consequences of the system they have created and to draw the necessary conclusions. If they are unwilling or unable to undertake this task, it may be time for the federal government to step in, to the extent the Constitution permits.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------5) The Senate Referendum

The Reid-Obama Democrats face an election reckoning.


With Election Day approaching, so is the democratic day of reckoning for the Democratic Senate class of 2008. Those are the Senators who gave President Obama and Nancy Pelosithe accidental 60-vote supermajority they needed to pass the burst of liberal legislation in 2009-2010 that had been pent-up for a generation—especially ObamaCare.

Now these Senators are all again on the ballot, most of them pretending in one way or another that they have had little to do with that agenda, or want to reform it, or are really the solution to gridlock.
The truth is that they are the main Washington problem. As President Obama said last week, they “are all folks who vote with me; they have supported my agenda.”

They have also been handmaidens to Harry Reid , the Majority Leader who has devoted the last four years to protecting Mr. Obama while turning the Senate into the world’s least deliberative body. Next Tuesday’s vote is above all a referendum on whether the Senate will spend two more years in this Obama-Reid dead zone.
Start with the unlikely way some of them won election in 2008. Alaska Democrat Mark Begich barely beat Ted Stevens after Justice Department lawyers withheld exculpatory evidence in a corruption case against him. A jury found Stevens guilty eight days before the election. Mr. Begich won by 47.8% to 46.5% on false pretenses and deserves defeat now on those grounds alone.

But there’s also his record, or lack of one, including the startling fact that he has never been allowed a roll-call vote on an amendment he has offered. Not once in six years. This is because Mr. Reid has deliberately blocked the normal flow of Senate debate so Democrats won’t have a voting record that folks at home might notice.
Or take Minnesota’s Al Franken, who trailed Republican Norm Coleman on Election Day but strong-armed a legal challenge to win the recount by 312 votes. He then became the 60th vote for ObamaCare, and now he is running for re-election by claiming he wants to repeal the law’s medical devices tax that is unpopular in Minnesota. Too bad Mr. Reid has blocked a binding vote on repeal so Mr. Franken and other Democrats can claim to favor repeal without having to do it.

Then there’s Jeanne Shaheen, the New Hampshire Democrat who won in 2008 by opposing the war in Iraq and embracing all things Obama. She too was the decisive vote for ObamaCare. Now she too claims to want to fix it, not that she has succeeded in getting a vote to do so.

Amid the health-care rollout in February, Ms. Shaheen said “I think we need to fix the things that are not working, and that’s what I am committed to.” But by Oct. 22 she had backtracked to proposing merely “an independent CEO and advisory committee that would oversee the health-care website, because we saw some issues with the rollout of the website.” Translation: If she wins, she’ll do whatever Mr. Obama asks.

We could continue down the list: Kay Hagan of North Carolina, Mark Pryor of Arkansas,Mary Landrieu of Louisiana, Mark Udall of Colorado. They are all Mr. Obama’s children and Mr. Reid’s lieutenants.

In the media’s telling, gridlock in Washington is due to tea party pressure on House Republicans to resist Mr. Obama’s agenda. There is some of that, reflecting different views of government. But at least the House debates and votes in plain sight. Mr. Reid won’t allow the normal give and take of democratic voting and accountability that is the reason to have a legislature.

The Reid shutdown runs even to the core legislative function of funding the government. The House has passed seven of 12 annual appropriations bills, most with big bipartisan majorities. Chairman Barbara Mikulski has passed eight of the 12 out of her Senate Appropriations Committee, and Republicans wanted to debate. Mr. Reid blocked a floor vote on every one.

The GOP has wanted to put Democrats on record on Mr. Obama’s regulatory overreach, such as targeting coal for extinction, or on the Administration’s refusal to fast-track approval for natural gas exports that might help Europe become less dependent onVladimir Putin . No votes allowed.

Wyoming Republican John Barrasso kept a running tally of Mr. Reid’s amendment blockade through July. In the previous 12 months Senators introduced 1,952 amendments—1,105 from Republicans and 847 from Democrats. Mr. Reid blocked all but 19.

Legislation? Mr. Reid has blocked at least 10 bills sent to him by the House that passed with notable bipartisan support. Some 35 House Democrats voted with Republicans to delay ObamaCare’s employer mandate; 46 Democrats voted to expedite the approval of liquefied natural gas exports; 130 Democrats voted for patent-reform legislation; 158 Democrats voted to expand access to charter schools; and 183 Democrats voted (in a bill that passed 406-1) to exempt certain veterans from the ObamaCare employer mandate. Mr. Reid’s response: No debate, no vote.

***

As the election nears, many voters are asking if a Republican Senate would make a difference. The Beltway media line is that it wouldn’t, which ignores that Mr. Reid’s tactics are an historic aberration. How could the Senate possibly be any worse? Mr. Obama would retain his veto against legislation passed by a Republican House and Senate, but at least the legislators would have to vote and be accountable. At least Congress would again resemble a democracy.


5a) Obama’s Post-Election Policy Blowout

Decisions on immigration, Iran and other hot issues that were delayed for political reasons will be coming soon.

By Charles Lipson

With the midterm elections looming, the White House has delayed controversial decisions and appointments. That makes sense politically. The administration doesn’t want to force Sen. Kay Hagan of North Carolina, Sen. Mark Pryor of Arkansas, Michelle Nunn, who is running for the U.S. Senate in Georgia, or other embattled Democrats to defend presidential actions right now, or worse, to oppose them publicly. But as soon as the voting is done (perhaps after runoffs in Louisiana and Georgia), several big shoes will drop. Here are the most likely ones.

1) Immigration. How many millions will the president let in? On what terms? One hint: The Department of Homeland Security recently ordered more than four million green cards and visas for next year and says it might order another 29 million for future years. The cards would give immigrants who are here illegally the right to continue living and working in the U.S. legally—and perhaps receive a variety of federal and state benefits. Should the president unilaterally issue these cards, there will be a brutal debate over the wisdom of this policy, whether it extends to welfare benefits, and whether the president has the constitutional authority to issue so many cards without specific congressional approval.

2) The next U.S. attorney general. The president wants a crusader on progressive causes and a reliable firewall to protect him, just as Eric Holder has done. Rumor has it that he wants Labor Secretary Tom Perez, who has been the point man on racial preferences.

Mr. Perez’s most controversial, and constitutionally questionable, position is his support for “disparate impact” as a measure of discrimination. According to this theory, if fewer blacks or Hispanics are hired than their percentage of the “relevant” population, then the employer must have discriminated, even if all hiring procedures were fair and racially neutral. If the president nominates Mr. Perez, expect a nasty confirmation fight. Even if the president nominates someone less controversial, tough hearings are almost certain.

3) Keystone XL Pipeline. Given his druthers, the president almost certainly would prefer to kill this project and appease his environmentalist supporters. But he won’t do that before the final votes are tallied for Louisiana Sen. Mary Landrieu , who is running for re-election. She is in favor of the project, and her campaign hinges on the perception that, as chairwoman of the Senate Energy Committee, she actually affects policy.

4) Bergdahl. The Pentagon has completed a long-delayed report on Army Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl but won’t tell us what it says. Sgt. Bergdahl walked away from his unit in Afghanistan, was taken in by the Taliban, and was finally swapped for five Taliban leaders who were detained at Guantanamo Bay. If Sgt. Bergdahl is found to have deserted his post, the report will be bad news for the White House. People will ask why the president gave up so much for a turncoat and why the president held a Rose Garden celebration to mark Sgt. Bergdahl’s return.

5) Iraq and Syria. No one knows what the president will do with regard to Islamic State; in fact, it is now virtually impossible to tell who our “friends” are since America’s opposition to ISIS, a Sunni group, makes the U.S. effectively a partner of its Shiite opponents in Tehran and Damascus. The Saudis, who lead the Sunni coalition, are livid and wonder if the U.S. has switched sides in the Persian Gulf, flipping from its longtime partnership with Saudi Arabia to a de facto one with Iran. Everyone wonders what the president’s strategy really is and whether he will stick to it after the election.

6) Iran. This is the big enchilada. If the president cuts a major deal on Iran’s nuclear-weapons program—which will surely include major concessions on U.S. economic sanctions, he will face a storm of controversy among the public and on Capitol Hill. Worse, Mr. Obama might refuse to submit the deal to Congress, claiming that it is an agreement and not a treaty requiring Senate approval. That could generate a true constitutional crisis.

The crucial actor here is Sen. Robert Menendez , the tough-minded New Jersey Democrat and Foreign Relations Committee chairman. Sen. Menendez’s position is vital because Majority Leader Harry Reid will give the president a pass, as he has for six years. Sen. Reid’s genuflection to the White House raises serious issues because it fundamentally undermines James Madison ’s vision of how the Constitution limits overweening government power.

The problem, as the Founders saw it, is to prevent the president or Congress from acquiring unchecked power, as they will inevitably try to do. The solution was to divide powers between the executive and the legislature and hope that they would be constrained by countervailing institutional interests. But Harry Reid is a “party man,” not a “Senate man.” The question is whether Sen. Menendez and perhaps other senior Democrats with strong foreign-policy credentials, such as New York Sen. Charles Schumer and California Sen. Dianne Feinstein, chairwoman of the Select Committee on Intelligence, will break ranks with Sen. Reid and the White House.
All of these matters have been high-profile and potentially deeply divisive. That is precisely why the White House is postponing any announcements. When the administration finally does speak, it will unleash a political storm, even if Democrats hold the Senate. If Republicans win, those winds will reach hurricane force, since the president will likely try to ram everything through a lame-duck Congress. If that happens, consider boarding up the windows.

Mr. Lipson is a professor of political science and director of the Program on International Politics, Economics, and Security at the University of Chicago.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------