Is This Week the End of Prime Minister Netanyahu?
Morning Jolt March 16, 2015
Good morning. Putin's alive. Is This Week the End of Prime Minister Netanyahu?We'll know soon whether this is the Washington Post reading too much into standard campaign rhetoric, or an accurate sense of a big shakeup coming this week. Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu warned supporters at a rally here Sunday that he and his Likud party may not win Tuesday's election, a potentially dramatic fall for a consummate political survivor whose nine years in office transformed him into the public face of contemporary Israel. A loss by Netanyahu — or a razor-thin win and the prospect that he would be forced to enter into an unwieldy "government of national unity" with his rivals — would mark a sobering reversal for Israel's security hawks, in a country where the electorate has been moving steadily rightward for the past 15 years. A detail in that poll they're citing: "A majority of Israelis answer they want Netanyahu for Prime Minister, but they have issues with the Likud." It's easy to see foreign election results through our domestic political lens, but other countries' voters make their decisions by their own criteria. A lot of news that's big over there never makes a ripple over here. For example, the Netanyahus are getting flak for spending taxpayer money on cleaning services, take-out food, and so on. Remember how the Obama administration's big objection to the Bibi Netanyahu speech to Congress was that it represented an inappropriate sense of the American government taking sides in Israeli politics? (Note we're talking the American government, not Americans. Sure, Obama's aides, like Jeremy Bird, are working on campaigns to replace Netanyahu. Haters gonna hate, and political consultants gonna consult. It's a free country -- two, really -- and if Bird wants to work for opposition groups, he's free to do so. Of course, if I were a foreign-intelligence service interested in either the United States or Israel, political consultants would make an exceptionally tempting target, because they're close to the leaders of the country and yet usually don't have security clearance and aren't familiar with counter-surveillance techniques.) But doesn't Obama's visible, visceral contempt for Netanyahu make it pretty obvious that our government is already taking sides in Israeli politics? The administration goes to Jeffrey Goldberg and calls Netanyahu "chicken****, recalcitrant, myopic, reactionary, obtuse, blustering, pompous, and 'Aspergery.'" (Yes, "Aspergery." No one in this administration gets to accuse anyone else of insensitivity to others, ever.) In light of all that . . . a speech to Congress is going to suggest that the American government is taking sides in the Israeli elections? Really? That horse left the barn somewhere in Obama's first term. Our Quin Hillyer points out that it's not like a new prime minister is going to dramatically change the way Obama sees Israel: Americans should be embarrassed, even mortified, that Obama has tried so hard to undermine both Netanyahu and the entire case for Israel's legitimate, existential interests. We should recognize that Israel -- entrepreneurial, humane, and free -- is a bellwether for civilization itself, and we should not let our own House and Senate members, Republican or Democrat, forget it. Because of Obama, the Israeli election has been roiled by questions about how the Obama–Netanyahu quarrels will affect Israel's security. But Obama's real quarrel is not with Netanyahu personally, no matter how much Obama pretends it is, but with Israel itself. He dislikes Netanyahu only because Netanyahu stands so strongly for Israel. Hey, look, the choice is up to the Israelis. But we all know how those who detest Israel will greet a Netanyahu defeat. In their eyes, a Netanyahu loss is a win for them, not Israelis' future.
Welcome to March Madness. The President Will Get Back to You Next Monday. In the most recent pop-culture podcast with Mickey, I referred to March Madness as "our giant national loss in productivity," as everyone spends the week working on their bracket sheets for the office pool instead of actually working. Okay, maybe it only seems like slackers are doing that . . . According to a new research paper, this is a particularly good time for a company to put out bad news: Each year, the NCAA basketball tournament (March Madness) is a daytime distraction for millions of people, providing a largely exogenous shock to investor attention. We investigate whether March Madness influences the market response to earnings by diverting investor attention away from earnings news. We find that the price reaction to earnings news released during March Madness is muted. This result generally holds across several samples and additional analyses. We also find that the result is more muted for low institutional ownership firms, consistent with the effect being driven by less sophisticated investors. Further, we find that it takes the market 30 to 60 days to correct for the distraction effect. Steve Forbes to the GOP Field: Time to Get Serious, Gentlemen I'm told that two-time presidential candidate and Forbes magazine CEO Steve Forbes "wants to keep the feet of the potential 2016 presidential candidates and Congress to the fire." He's re-launching a policy organization, Americans for Hope, Growth and Opportunity (AHGO), to urge Congress and the potential 2016 presidential candidates to advocate for a pro-growth agenda that will get America's economic engine going again and free Americans from the chokehold of some of the most suffocating regulations ever seen coming out of Washington. Forbes will be speaking at the Heritage Foundation at 12:00 noon today, discussing strategies for Americans' economic growth going forward. If you're wondering what he considers a pro-growth agenda, here's a preview: "Tax, regulatory and monetary policies coming out of Washington have a chokehold on American businesses, workers and our economy. America needs a pro-growth agenda for the 21st century that restores fairness by taxing at one low rate, gives people back control of their health care choices, pursues sound monetary policy through the gold standard, and an agenda that provides relief from the most tax, spend and regulatory environment ever seen in Washington," Forbes said.
Back in 1996, Steve Forbes hosted Saturday Night Live: "Just like any average Joe out there, I get frustrated when I lock my cars inside my helicopter." FOIA: Frustrate, Obfuscate, Ignore Appeals Not exactly a shock: Cause of Action's 2015 Grading the Government Report Card assigned grades to all 15 cabinet departments for their average response times in fiscal year 2014 to requests submitted under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA). Eleven out of the 15 agencies received a "C" or worse letter grade, with the Departments of Treasury, Homeland Security, and Education each receiving an "F" because they failed to comply with FOIA in submitting the required information. The State Department, which recently displayed its flawed approach to records retention in connection with former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton's e-mails, received a "D" grade. ADDENDA: Hate to be a downer, but taxes are due in a month.
|
Comments
Post a Comment