Please note that you can leave a comment on any of our posts at our Facebook page.  Subscribers can also comment at length at our Angel's Corner Forum.

NEW SUBSCRIPTION DRIVE - CRITICAL!

We're launching our first subscription drive of 2010.

Subscriptions are our lifeblood. Without them, we cannot function. With them, we can fight off all evil. 

We started taking subscriptions about 18 months ago.   As a result, we're about 60% of our way to financial stability.  But we're still not home.  No, we're not in danger of going dark.  But, unless we expand our subscription base, we are in danger of diminishing our service.

You can subscribe by going to the column on the right, just opposite these words.

By subscribing you keep Urgent Agenda alive. You also get The Angel's Corner, our twice-a-week e-mailed publication.  At The Angel's Corner you can join our Forum.  Write on anything you wish, and you're not limited to 140 characters.   Did you know that some Angel's Corner pieces are used in college classrooms?  

And at The Angel's Corner we give the very coveted Pompous Fool award, bestowed on those who meet the highest standards of absurdity.  Recipients have wept at the news that they've won.

Subscribe for a year, or six months, or donate what you wish.  We also have a family plan.  For little more than a year's subscription, you can have a second sent to someone else - like a loved one you want to save from political correctness.

We have a 91% subscriber retention rate - almost unheard of - but, if you want to drop your subscription, the unused portion will be refunded with only a few insults.

Subscribe today. A credit card will do it. Or, we can send you a mail address, if you prefer.

TUESDAY,  FEBRUARY 23,  2010

EMPLOYMENT NEWS – AT 10:09 P.M. ET:  This is a classic example of failing upward.  From The Times of London:

The former head of the UN’s nuclear watchdog has rocked Egypt’s political landscape by saying he will try to run against the country’s President of 29 years in next year’s elections.

Mohamed ElBaradei arrived home last week to a raucous reception after 30 years living overseas and 12 years as head of the International Atomic Energy Agency, a post that he left in November.

The Nobel Peace Prize winner was met with a crush of hundreds of supporters so dense that he was forced to use an alternative exit from the airport terminal.

Since then, Mr ElBaradei — who has yet to announce his candidacy formally — has given a series of televised interviews strongly criticising conditions in Egypt. He said yesterday that he would be willing to run against President Mubarak, 81.

COMMENT:  ElBaradei was a colossal failure as head of the IAEA, and his Nobel Peace Prize was a farce, almost on the same level as Al Gore's or Jimmah Carter's.  In fact, the first IAEA report on Iran, following ElBaradei's departure, was dramatically more alarming than anything ElBaradei ever allowed to be released.  We also learned that ElBaradei had withheld some critical information that reflected badly on Iran.

But so what?  Hey, what are some differences of opinion among friends, right?

And if you mess up the IAEA, why not try running Egypt?

International politics increasingly look like Hollywood studios – where a guy who's made a series of flops gets an even higher job because he's "learned from experience."  He then makes more flops, and is finally eased out.  But, because he's "seasoned," he gets an independent production deal worth more than his previous jobs.  And then he gets a lifetime achievement award.

February 23, 2010  Permalink

SANITY – AT 8:04 P.M. ET:  Some in the "global warming community" of Great Britain are showing signs of sanity and intelligence.  From Fox News:

At a meeting Monday of 150 climate scientists, representatives of Britain's weather office proposed that the world's climatologists start all over again and produce a new trove of global temperature data that is open to public scrutiny and "rigorous" peer review.

Compare please to the testimony of our environmental protection chief, in the story just below, who announced that the science was settled.  No questions needed.

After the firestorm of criticism called Climate-gate, the British government's official Meteorological Office has decided to give its modern climate data a do-over.

At a meeting on Monday of about 150 climate scientists in the quiet Turkish seaside resort of Antalya, representatives of the weather office (known in Britain as the Met Office) quietly proposed that the world's climate scientists start all over again on a "grand challenge" to produce a new, common trove of global temperature data that is open to public scrutiny and "rigorous" peer review.

It's about time.

Please notice that they're meeting in a Turkish resort.  This, of course, is necessary for detailed scientific thinking.

Of course, the authors of the proposal do not admit any fault, and indeed say that they don't expect much change in conclusions.  That, however, is face-saving. 

The proposal must be looked at with two eyes.  And the key will be in how it's executed.  We've seen too many examples of "studies" that are rigged in advance, or conducted by "experts" with conflicts of interest.  The global warming crowd has been ruthless in suppressing dissent and smearing anyone who disagrees.  So this proposal for a "do-over" is only a first, tentative step. 

But here is a chance for scientists to act like real scientists, not political scientists.  We hope the international community of scientists agrees to go back to the drawing board, in a fully transparent manner, and under impeccable supervision, and show respect for the thoughtful skeptics who've come forward.

February 23, 2010   Permalink

ARROGANCE – AT 7:26 P.M. ET:  This administration is heading off a cliff, and arrogance is the main cause. 

Consider global warming.  Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Lisa Jackson, an Obaman through and through, appeared before a Senate panel today.  You'd think, after all the recent climategate scandals, that there would be, on her part, some humility and reflection.  Think again:

U.S. EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson today defended the science underpinning pending climate regulations despite Senate Republicans' claims that global warming data has been thrown into doubt.

"The science behind climate change is settled, and human activity is responsible for global warming," Jackson told the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee. "That conclusion is not a partisan one."

Boy, I must really be dumb.  I thought scientists debate these things all the time.  Science, of course, is never settled.  If it were, you'd never know the name Albert Einstein.

Senate Republicans used the hearing as a platform to blast EPA over its plans to begin rolling out greenhouse gas regulations next month after it determined last year that the heat-trapping emissions endanger human health and welfare.

Sen. James Inhofe (R-Okla.), the panel's ranking member, called on EPA to reconsider that determination after recent reports have revealed errors in the reports from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) that were used to underpin EPA's finding and a recent controversy surrounding e-mails stolen from climate scientists that some have dubbed "Climategate."

But no, no, no, James.  It isn't about that.  It's about a new secular religion.  And one does not doubt a religion. 

And get this, from self-proclaimed socialist Bernie Sanders of Vermont:

Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) angrily blasted his Republican colleagues for their implications that global warming science had not been settled. "This country faces many many problems, not the least of which, we have national leaders rejecting basic science," Sanders said. "I find it incredible, I really do, that in the year 2010 on this committee, there are people who are saying there is a doubt about global warming. There is no doubt about global warming."

Thank you, Senator Sanders, for that deeply intellectual statement.  You're a role model for students of science the world over.

Not.

February 23, 2010   Permalink

INCREDIBLE ALL-NEW BULLETIN – AT 6:03 P.M. ET:  I knew you'd want to read of our dramatically new policy toward Iran.  From AFP:

The United States warned Iran on Tuesday that "time and patience is running out" with its nuclear program, saying Tehran had shown no interest in allaying world fears.

White House spokesman Robert Gibbs said Iran's recent pronouncements showed "they have no interest in building international confidence that their nuclear program is for peaceful means."

Gibbs reiterated US warnings of "consequences" if Iran continues to develop uranium enrichment capabilities, adding, "Time and patience is running out."

COMMENT:  Wow!  Time running out!  Patience running out!  Consequences! 

We have never heard this before...or have we?  Like 10 or 20 times? 

Well, let's see:  There was a deadline for Iran in September of last year.  Time running out!  Consequences.  Well, you know how things are.

Then there was another deadline at the end of the year.  Patience exhausted!  Consequences!  Well, we have to talk to our allies.

Then February, we were told, was the month for really big punishment.  Time running out!  Consequences!  Well, we haven't finished all our talks with our friends.

I'm sure they mean it this time.

Choke.

February 23,  2010   Permalink

HEALTH PLAN ALREADY ON LIFE SUPPORT – AT 10:58 A.M. ET:  The president unveiled, the way you unveil a gravestone, his new, revised, Simonized health-care plan yesterday.  We've already reported that Scott Brown promises to stand like a stone wall (okay Civil War buffs, I know there was only one) against it.  Apparently, it isn't making a hint with some other crucial folks either.  From The Politico:

The White House opened its last-ditch push for health reform Monday by releasing a $950 billion plan that signaled a new phase of hands-on presidential involvement.

But by day’s end, President Barack Obama was staring down all the same old problems.

Republicans called it a retread of the same bills Americans have panned, even though it included some GOP ideas. “Déjà vu all over again,” said Sen. Judd Gregg (R-N.H.).

Democrats and labor unions didn’t rush to embrace the plan, either, though by Monday night, Democrats were sounding more receptive to it, despite the lack of a public health insurance option. Congressional Democratic aides also complained of being left in the dark by the White House, asking for a preview of the bill Friday, only to be denied by White House aides, according to multiple sources.

And Obama’s plan did nothing to answer the central question facing Democrats: how to get a bill through the Senate — now one vote shy of a filibuster-proof majority — in one of the most toxic environments for incumbents in recent memory. Even with the first presidential plan on the table, there was no guarantee Democrats could pull off health reform this year.

There is also the volatile matter of abortion funding.  The president's plan apparently provides for it, which will alienate a chunk of moderate Democrats in the House who are facing reelection in swing districts.

After a year of keeping his distance from the legislative process, Obama plunged in ahead of Thursday’s bipartisan health care summit with a sweeping plan that laid to rest any question about whether he would scale down his ambitions. Following the Massachusetts defeat, Obama floated the idea of a smaller bill, but even skeptics of the comprehensive approach argued the bill was too interrelated to break apart.

By stepping forward now, Obama hoped to set the agenda for the summit — making his own bill the starting point for any discussions and trying to force Republicans to come to the table with a single plan.

COMMENT:  The Republicans don't have to dance to the president's tune, but they do have to come up with imaginative and easily explained ideas of their own.  Their objective should be to capture the debate and grab the spotlight. 

The president has the bully pulpit, and he retains his speaking ability, although he's clearly worn out his welcome with a large chunk of the public.  Republicans must counter him.  Occasional press conferences just won't do.

This is a critical weak, with the health summit at the White House coming up Thursday.  I hope the GOP springs something spectacular.  Alas, they're not known for it.

February 23, 2010   Permalink

SMART MOVE – AT 9:31 A.M. ET:  Mitt Romney, clearly a candidate for president in 2012, is endorsing the reelection campaign of John McCain in Arizona:

(CNN) - Mitt Romney endorsed Sen. John McCain, one of the former Massachussetts governor's main competitors for the 2008 Republican presidential nomination, for re-election to the U.S. Senate on Tuesday.

"Senator McCain's record of service and sacrifice for America is honored by all," Romney said in a statement. "But I believe that it is his core values of courage, faith and honor – forged in battle and confirmed by a lifetime of service to America – that make Senator McCain's leadership in the United States Senate so necessary in these perilous times."

Romney said it is "hard to imagine the United States Senate without John McCain."

McCain faced off with Romney in 16 Republican primary debates but bowed out of the primary race after the Super Tuesday contests.

McCain faces a primary challenge from former Rep. J.D. Hayworth.

COMMENT:  Smart move on Romney's part, smart and gutsy.  I'm aware that John McCain doesn't always please us.  I'm aware that he ran a poor presidential campaign, although it's hard to see how any Republican could have won in 2008 with the media deck stacked so completely against him. 

But McCain, with all his faults, is a symbol of something very special in American life – American courage and greatness.  You don't throw a man like that overboard, especially to choose the ethically challenged J.D. Hayworth.  And you don't knife your presidential nominee.  Parties that do that, especially when you're talking about a man like McCain, are not held in high regard by the public.

Romney understands McCain's symbolism.  He also realizes that McCain, if running against Obama today, might well win, and the voters have now seen the real Obama.

In 1968, when Hubert Humphrey ran against Richard Nixon, I received a postcard from one of my mentors, former Senator Paul Douglas of Illinois, a card sent to many.  Humphrey was behind in the polls.  A cold-war liberal, he had served as vice president and U.S. senator honorably, especially in the fight against Communism. (He had also been Barry Goldwater's closest friend in the Senate.)  But a group of petty left-wing Democrats – the kind who later took over the party – were trying to undercut him because he favored the war in Vietnam.  Mr. Douglas asked, "How can you turn your back on this man?"

I ask the same question about McCain. 

February 23, 2010    Permalink

GENIUSES AT WORK – AT 8:53 A.M. ET:  The distinguished philosopher, Jerry Lewis, once remarked, "Bad looks you can change, stupid is forever."

And so it is.  And once again we see that some of our "major executives," the keepers of capitalism, are doing their very best to advance the prospects for socialism in the United States.  Is there any limit to the buffoonery of some "bankers" who seem constantly to be holding a sign up to the American people saying "'Regulate me before I bank again"? 

The dumbness this time is the attempt to trick people into messing up their accounts so severe penalty fees can be charged, fees that have brought in billions to the banks.  Maybe an alternative, like intelligent, service-oriented banking that satisfies customers, might be a better choice.  Y'think? 

From The New York Times:

As the government cracks down on the way banks charge fees for overspending on debit cards, the industry is mounting an aggressive campaign aimed at keeping billions of dollars in penalty income flowing into its coffers. Chase and other banks are preparing a full-court marketing blitz, which is likely to include filling mailboxes with various aggressive and persuasive letters, calling account holders directly, and sending a steady stream of e-mail to urge consumers to keep their overdraft service turned on.

So many people now dip their balance below zero that banks generated an estimated $20 billion from overdraft fees on debit purchases and A.T.M. transactions in 2009, according to Michael Moebs, an economist who advises banks and credit unions. All of this revenue is potentially at risk, since these are the two areas that the new Federal Reserve regulations cover. (Banks generate an extra $12 billion by covering checks and recurring bills; under the new rules, they can still cover those and charge fees without customers’ consent.)

And...

Given the billions at stake, consultants are urging banks and credit unions to hire them to help. “Your fee income will take a substantial ‘hit’ if you don’t start getting consumers to ‘opt-in’ for POS/ATM overdrafts NOW!” Mike Sobba, president of Strunk & Associates, a financial institution advisory service, warned banks in a pitch on the company’s Web site.

Some are even lobbying banks to focus their pitch on the minority of customers who are responsible for the vast majority of overdraft fees. According to a Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation study in 2008, 93 percent of overdraft fees come from the 14 percent of people who exceed their balances five times or more in a year.

Nice, huh?  Your friendly, neighborhood banker. 

Amid a growing public outcry over these fees, several large banks announced changes to their overdraft policies last year. Bank of America said it would not charge a fee when customers exceeded their balance by $10 or less per day and would limit overdraft fees to four per day. At the end of March, Chase is eliminating overdrafts for customers whose accounts are overdrawn by $5 or less and has already limited overdrafts to three per day.

But even with those changes, customers could still incur more than $100 in fees a day if they opt to take overdraft coverage.

At least one credit union is using the new Fed rules to try to differentiate itself from its competitors. On its Web site, the UW Credit Union in Madison, Wis., says, “While we expect some financial institutions may aggressively market the idea of a consumer ‘opt in’ within the boundaries of this regulation, we have no such plans.”

COMMENT:  When banks make their money from penalty fees, there is something wrong with the banking system.  Banks are becoming increasingly unpopular with consumers, and dramatically so.  You've all seen the commercials on television depicting a banker trying to cheat little kids.  (It's the commercials in which a little girl tries to ride a bike outside a predetermined small box, and another child is tricked out of a pony.)  The commercials are run by a bank that claims it doesn't indulge in such practices. 

Some creative banking, please.  Let's get back to basics.

February 23, 2010  Permalink

A LITTLE REMINDER FROM A PRO – AT 8:23 A.M. ET:  One of the reasons conservatism has succeeded in the last 30 years is that it's had a core of writers and commentators who constantly struggle to keep the proper focus, and not allow the fringes to take over.

And one of the most remarkable developments in the past week has been the willingness of some of these stalwarts to step forward and caution about mistakes they see.  Frank Gaffney Jr. has been a rock of support for a strong national defense as president of the Center for Security Policy.  Like others on the right, he's been concerned at the lack of vigor he's seen in putting forward the Reaganesque argument for defense and national power.  He's correct.  Some conservatives are dropping the ball on foreign policy, and reverting back to the bad old days, when it was an afterthought.  From the Washington Times:

Ronald Reagan the actor once famously screamed on-screen "Where's the rest of me?" after waking in a hospital to discover that a sadistic surgeon had amputated both of his legs. My guess is that Ronald Reagan the national leader would express similar horror at what is happening to his beloved conservative movement as some in its ranks seek to sever from its agenda the priority "the Gipper" consistently gave to national security.

One need look no further than the various functions held in the Washington area last week to see why Mr. Reagan would be so alarmed. On Wednesday, I joined a group of prominent conservatives assembled for the purpose of unveiling a document dubbed "the Mount Vernon Statement." It was intended to emulate an earlier articulation of the principles that unite the right issued 50 years ago at the Sharon, Conn., home of William F. Buckley Jr.

But something was missing...

the Mount Vernon document made no mention at all of today's totalitarian ideology - what authoritative Islam calls Shariah - or the threat it poses to America, let alone declare that victory should be our purpose in dealing with this menace.

And we have to ask why.  Is there a faction seeking to return conservatives to the hopeless isolationism of the past, which made the right almost irrelevant for years?

Still, the Mount Vernon Statement is a paragon of robust national security-mind- edness in contrast to what took place in the succeeding three days at the annual Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC). With a few notable exceptions - including powerful addresses by former U.N. Ambassador John R. Bolton and former Sen. Rick Santorum - the program was bereft of the focus one would think 10,000 people who cherish the memory of Ronald Reagan would have demanded, especially in the midst of a global war with two active combat fronts.

Incredibly, there was but one panel held in the plenary hall that had as its principal subject the question of national defense.

We noticed that here.  In the era of President Weakness, you'd think the "protect America" theme would be front and center.  It was not, and many are outraged.

As a result, it came as little surprise to this attendee that libertarian Rep. Ron Paul won 31 percent of the vote in the CPAC straw poll. In the absence of the sort of serious attention to national security that was emblematic of the conservatism of Bill Buckley and Ronald Reagan, why shouldn't those present feel free blithely to endorse a man who is committed to small, cheap government even if his positions on foreign and defense policy are so extreme and so critical of America as to make Barack Obama's look responsible, if not hard line?

Wonderfully stated.  True, as we've reported, only 25% of the participants voted in the poll, but the mainstream media, doing its mischief, has focused on that nutty vote.

And Paul's foreign-policy comments sadly remind us of another time, another place, when some on the right (and extreme left) had an uncomfortable "understanding" of our enemies.

Even if a robust security-policy platform were not, on the merits, the right stance for the right, it has proven repeatedly to be the winningest stance politically, especially in times when our countrymen properly feel insecure. Sen. Scott Brown of Massachusetts was wildly acclaimed by the CPAC masses, yet he would be the first to acknowledge that some 64 percent of his voters supported him because of his rejection of Mr. Obama's fecklessness on terrorism.

Yup.  That's what the polls showed.  And that was in one of the most liberal states of the Union.

In time of war, the American people deserve at least one party/movement/team that is unabashedly Reaganesque in its commitment to the national security of the United States. If conservatives and Republicans fail to articulate and demonstrate such a commitment, it is a safe bet that - even in an election season seemingly so promising - they will wake up on Nov. 3 screaming, "Where's the rest of me?"

COMMENT:  I'm glad someone said it, and Gaffney said it well.  National defense is what I call a "foundation" issue.  It's basic.  People may not always articulate their feelings about it all that well, but it's always there, and always counts in voters' calculations. 

Some on the right are forgetting first principles.  We're here to remind them.

February 23, 2010   Permalink

HITTING THE GROUND RUNNING – AT 8:11 A.M. ET:  If anyone thought Scott Brown would come to Washington and recede into the "learning curve" mode, think again.

Brown has already thrown down the gauntlet on health care, and emerged as an instant leader.  From the Boston Herald:

Sen. Scott Brown yesterday warned the Obama administration against using the “nuclear option” of ramming through Congress a revised $1 trillion health-care bill outlined yesterday by the White House.

The administration unveiled what’s already being called “Obamacare II” - a mix of already approved House and Senate health-care legislation aimed at expanding coverage for 31 million Americans.

Obama’s plan also includes caps on excessive insurance-premium increases, similar to measures Gov. Deval Patrick proposed two weeks ago in Massachusetts.

A spokesman for Brown, whose dramatic Senate victory last month halted Capitol Hill momentum for health-care reform, said Democrats better not try to use a reconciliation strategy to pass the bill with a simple Senate majority.

Brown vowed during his campaign that he would be the crucial “41st vote” to kill reform legislation under the Senate’s supermajority-vote rules.

“If the Democrats try to ram their health-care bill through Congress using reconciliation, they are sending a dangerous signal to the American people that they will stop at nothing to raise our taxes, increase premiums and slash Medicare,” said Brown spokesman Colin Reed in a statement. “Using the nuclear option damages the concept of representative leadership and represents more of the politics-as-usual that voters have repeatedly rejected.”

COMMENT:  Great statement.  And, most important, a very clear statement, defining what could happen to the American people if the administration forges forward.   At a time of mush, people are looking for clarity.

Brown is a natural leader.  Talk of 2012, however, is premature and can only hurt him.  Yesterday, he actually voted with Dems on a jobs bill, which, although he said it was imperfect, was good enough to get his support.  He's a shrewd operator with a fine sense of timing.

February 23,  2010   Permalink

MONDAY,  FEBRUARY 22,  2010

ANOTHER "GESTURE" GONE BAD – AT 7:07 P.M. ET:  We report a great deal about Britain here, and we often quote British journalists.  Britain does things that are wonderful – the Brits are always with us in the end – and terrible. 

Go back to the U.K. of the late 30s, and into 1941, and you'll see the same pattern.  Britain fought alone, and valiantly, against Nazi Germany until the United States joined the war, but a chunk of its "elite" was pro-Nazi.  Fortunately, the good guys prevailed.

You may recall that, last year, the Brits released the Libyan Lockerbie bomber – the man convicted of helping to bring down PanAm Flight 103 over Lockerbie, Scotland, in 1988, killing 270 people.   They did so on "humanitarian" grounds after it was determined he would die soon of cancer.  And the upshot?  From The Telegraph:

The man convicted of the Lockerbie bombing is living with his family in a luxury villa in Libya six months after he was released from jail on compassionate grounds because he had less than three months to live.

Maybe there was a mistake in the calendar.

Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al-Megrahi, who is suffering from terminal prostate cancer, no longer receives hospital treatment after ending the course of chemotherapy that he had been given after returning to his homeland last August.

Professor Karol Sikora, the London-based doctor who examined Megrahi and predicted he would be dead by last October, admitted this weekend that the fact the bomber is still alive might be "difficult" for the families of the 270 victims of the attack.

Yeah, I would think so.

Most did not want Megrahi released and they suspected he would live longer than the predicted three months.

The Sunday Telegraph revealed last September that the Libyan government had paid for the medical evidence which helped Megrahi, 57, to be released. The Libyans had encouraged doctors to say he had only three months to live.

The life expectancy of Megrahi was crucial because, under Scottish rules, prisoners can be freed on compassionate grounds only if they are considered to have this amount of time, or less, to live.

COMMENT:  Great Britain has lucrative contracts with Libya.  And what are the feelings of 270 families, most of them American, compared to that?

Sickening.

February 22, 2010   Permalink

BROWN VOTES – AT 6:56 P.M. ET:  Newly minted Senator Scott Brown has cast a vote, and some conservatives won't be happy.  From the Washington Post:

The Senate voted Monday to advance a $15 billion jobs-creation measure, giving Democrats a key victory as they seek to reverse their declining political fortunes by emphasizing legislation to boost the economy. The chamber is now poised to pass the measure later this week.

Five Republicans, including new Sen. Scott Brown (Mass.) joined 57 Democrats in voting to proceed on the jobs bill, after a suspenseful buildup in which members of both parties wondered whether Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) could cobble together enough votes to proceed.

Reid lost the public support of several Republicans after discarding an $85 billion jobs package negotiated by Sens. Max Baucus (D-Mont.) and Charles E. Grassley (R-Iowa) in favor of a narrower bill. GOP leaders complained that Reid had spurned a bipartisan deal negotiated in good faith.

Republicans Christopher Bond (Mo.), Susan Collins (Maine), Olympia Snowe (Maine) and George Voinovich (OhIo) joined Brown in deciding to back the bill anyway. Sen. Ben Nelson (Neb.) was the lone Democrat to vote against the measure, which advanced, 62 to 30.

COMMENT:  No need to panic.  Look at the numbers.  Brown's vote was not decisive.  The Dems needed only 60 votes.  Without Brown, they would have had 61. 

Brown is involved in a balancing act, and he's a smart guy.  He represents one of the most liberal states in the country, and must keep to his pledge to work across the aisle whenever possible.  His vote did not make a difference in the outcome, and was a symbol of "bipartisanship."  Forgiven.

February 22, 2010   Permalink 

BY WAY OF WARNING – AT 6:25 P.M. ET:  A guilty plea in New York shows how close we've come to another catastrophic terror attack.  From The New York Times:

Najibullah Zazi, the Afghan immigrant who was a key player in what the federal authorities have said was one of the most serious threats to the United States since the 9/11 attacks, pleaded guilty on Monday to terrorism charges after admitting to a plot to blow up the subways.

He admitted that he came to New York around the anniversary of the Sept. 11 attacks to kill himself and others on the subway, to draw attention to the killing of Afghan civilians by the United States military.

Mr. Zazi appeared before Judge Raymond J. Dearie at Federal District Court in Brooklyn. He pleaded guilty to charges of conspiracy to use weapons of mass destruction, conspiracy to commit murder overseas, and providing material support for a terrorist organization. He faces a sentence of life in prison.

COMMENT:  We were lucky.  We stopped this one.  We've stopped a number of them.  But sooner or later, an attack is going to succeed.  We are not ready, psychologically or physically. 

February 22, 2010   Permalink

TOYOTA'S DISGRACE – AT 10:43 A.M. ET:  Apparently, there is more to Toyota's plunge than some bad engineering.  The New York Times reports:

Toyota estimated that it saved $100 million by negotiating with regulators for a limited recall of 2007 Toyota Camry and Lexus ES models for sudden acceleration, the same problem that has since prompted it to recall millions of cars, documents turned over to a Congressional committee showed Sunday.

The estimate was in a confidential presentation from July 2009 listing legislative and regulatory “wins” for the company. The presentation was among thousands of pages of documents provided as a result of subpoenas by the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, one of three panels holding hearings in the next two weeks on Toyota’s safety problems.

The carmaker’s chief executive, Akio Toyoda, is set to testify before the oversight panel on Wednesday. The House Energy and Commerce Committee opens the round of hearings on Tuesday, while a Senate committee will meet on Toyota next week.

COMMENT:  This deserves a thorough airing.  Over the years, we have glorified Japanese companies.  They're not perfect, and some aren't even wonderful.  At the same time, we've tended to downplay American firms, even when they've done a fine job.  To some Americans, especially on the coasts, the word "imported" has a kind of absurd magic.

Let everything come out, and let Toyota take its lumps.

February 22, 2010   Permalink

STARTLING – AT 9:53 A.M. ET:  We've reported here that not all conservative-leaning folks were thrilled by the CPAC (Conservative Political Action Conference) convention.  Indeed, some major figures, like Sarah Palin, didn't show up.  Others expressed an uneasiness at what they considered some elements of extremism.

Now Mike Huckabee, a very shrewd political operator, adds to the doubters.  He's casting his political lot elsewhere.  From Politics Daily:

Former Arkansas governor and Republican presidential candidate Mike Huckabee said on Fox News that he didn't attend this year's Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC) because it had become dominated by libertarians and was far less relevant since the Tea Party movement began, Politico reports.

Confirming at least one part of Huckabee's analysis, Texas Congressman Ron Paul, known for his outspoken libertarian views, carried the CPAC straw poll with 31 percent. Mitt Romney came in second with 22 percent, while Huckabee only made a single-digit showing.

We should note, as we did yesterday, that only 25% of the attendees cast ballots in the straw poll.

But Huckabee, who has often spoken at the annual conference, said it mattered less than ever this year. "Where CPAC was historically the event, the Tea Parties are having their own events all over the country and a lot more truly grassroots people are getting involved because of the Tea Parties," Huckabee said.

COMMENT:  You can call it sour grapes, but we've seen a number of articles from credible conservative sources in the last few days expressing dismay at the raucous atmosphere and lack of intellectual discipline at the CPAC meeting.  Some have been especially harsh on Glenn Beck's wild presentation, in which he appeared to blame Republicans and Democrats equally for the nation's dilemma.

Parties run in elections.  Movements don't.  The CPAC meeting began well, with some effective speeches by Dick Cheney and Marco Rubio.  The convention kind of went downhill from there.  I don't think it attracted many people at home, which must be the objective of a political gathering. 

Look for some splits on the right.  They're inevitable.  How they're handled will have a great impact in November.

February 22, 2010   Permalink

WAIT, WAIT, THERE'S A NEWS BULLETIN – OBAMA TO CHANGE – AT 9:02 A.M. ET:  The Politico is reporting this morning that change he can believe in is coming to the Obama strategy desk.  Try to contain your excitement:

President Barack Obama, after weeks of private talks, is putting the finishing touches on a new election-year strategy that replaces sweeping "change" with incremental reform, according to senior White House officials.

“Reform is the new change,” a senior aide told POLITICO.

Yeah, and sixty is the new fifty, and this is the new that.  Why is it that, in reading this story, I started humming, "There's No Business Like Show Business"?

The revamped 2010 plan focuses extensively on new reform efforts, starting with a “competitiveness” push, a call for tighter campaign finance laws and renewed attention to Obama’s open-government agenda.

I'm overwhelmed.  Wasn't this what we were supposed to get originally? 

The strategy involves heavy use of presidential statements and Obama's White House platform to position him as an agent of popular change, with less reliance on a complicated legislative agenda.

Huh?  You mean we haven't heard enough from Obama?  He's as overexposed as a Playboy centerfold.

Less reliance on a complicated legislative agenda?  Guess they're getting ready to lose Congress.

A close adviser said that Obama plans to increase his travel in the country, including mini-campaigns built around “a series of small but highly visible policy debates that clearly put the Democrats on the side of middle-class families, with lobbies for special interests on the other side.” Two likely targets: student-loan servicing organizations and banks.

Just a second here.  Isn't this what he's been doing?  This is one long campaign.

Finally, in an effort to reclaim the “change” mantle even though he now runs the government, Obama plans to emphasize his “transparency” agenda -- such measures as releasing White House visitor logs; posting specific projects funded by the stimulus bill; and signing an Open Government Directive requiring federal agencies to achieve milestones in transparency, participation, and collaboration.

I'm so excited.  Get me my pills. 

COMMENT:  This doesn't look like much, but, once again, we caution against underestimating Obama, especially the campaigning Obama. 

Some themes may well resonate, and appropriately so, with the American people.  Both parties concede that there are areas that cry out for reform, and that includes aspects of our health-insurance system.  So, Republicans must counter Obama with ideas of their own, not simply with rejection letters.

With Obama beginning this new crusade, it's a perfect time for the GOP to come out with a new Contract with America, and start to show the superiority of its approach.  If it doesn't, it will leave the field to the president.  Don't assume that poll results today will be reflected in election results in November.  Liberal Democrats don't sleep.

February 22, 2010   Permalink

IT'S SOMETHING YOU CAN'T LEARN IN SCHOOL – AT 8:11 A.M. ET:  No question is asked more in politics today than "What happened to Barack Obama?"  Michael Barone, one of our most astute observers, believes that the president simply lacks the "intuition" to govern.  From the Washington Examiner:

No president enters office knowing everything he needs to know...

So presidents must rely on something else, something intangible and unquantifiable, in determining what is within the realm of possibility and what is a bridge too far: intuition.
Great leaders have it, though it sometimes fails; failed leaders don't, though their plans sometimes succeed...

...Barack Obama, so far, seems to belong in the second category. Like everyone who gets elected president, he entered office brimming with confidence, convinced he could end the hostility of the Iranian mullahs, Islamist terrorists, the leaders of China and Russia, and the likes of Hugo Chavez.

At least so far, that confidence has proved to be dreamy. Obama now knows their hostility was rooted not just in distaste for George W. Bush's Texas twang but to the fundamental character of the American people. A Muslim middle name hasn't made much difference.

And...

At home, Obama, like many others and not just in his own party, believed that economic distress would move Americans to favor government direction of the health care and energy sectors and to support sharply increased federal spending.

That intuition now seems unfounded. As does the intuition that the Senate would pass hugely important legislation on a party-line vote with not one vote to spare.

The intuition needed to whip up an already friendly crowd during a political campaign, and the intuition to govern are two different things.  The mainstream media missed that, in part because many journalists today don't believe in intuition.  They believe in elite educations as a kind of cure-all for the world's problems.

Having had the privilege of an "elite" education, I can testify that, while a fine thing to have, it doesn't cure anything.

Obama's two predecessors also suffered from failures of intuition. Bill Clinton recovered and got deserved credit for the 1996 welfare reform and the 1997 balanced-budget deal. George W. Bush recovered and deserves credit (though Joe Biden is claiming it now) for the success of the Iraq surge strategy.

Obama too may develop better intuition than he has shown so far. But first he has to acknowledge that a successful presidency requires more than the confidence conferred by a high IQ and fancy degrees.

COMMENT:  Barone is on target again.  Lincoln had only one year of schooling.  FDR was called "featherduster" by some because he was seen as an intellectual lightweight.  But both men had superb instincts.

So did Ronald Reagan, who understood the American people, unlike Jimmah Carter, his predecessor.

Again, I don't in any way disparage a fine education.  We certainly put a great deal of emphasis on formal education for our daughters.  But it just isn't enough, and too many members of our elite classes think it is. 

February 22, 2010   Permalink

WE'RE IN DUTCH – AT 7:48 A.M. ET:  A decision in The Netherlands is further evidence that Barack Obama's foreign policy just isn't working.  The Dutch government has collapsed...over Afghanistan.  NRO reports:

Then-candidate Obama, back in May of 2008: "Right now, we don't have enough troops, and NATO hasn't provided enough troops because they are still angry about us going into Iraq. "

The news, today:

"A day after his government collapsed, Prime Minister Jan Peter Balkenendesaid Sunday that he expected Dutch troops to come home from Afghanistan before the end of the year.

"A last-ditch effort by Mr. Balkenende to keep Dutch soldiers in the dangerous southern Afghan province of Oruzgan instead saw the Labor Party quit the government in the Netherlands early Saturday, immediately raising fears that the Western military coalition fighting the war was increasingly at risk.

"Even as the allied offensive in the Taliban stronghold of Marja continued, it appeared almost certain that most of the 2,000 Dutch troops would be gone from Afghanistan by the end of the year. The question plaguing military planners was whether a Dutch departure would embolden the war’s critics in other allied countries, where debate over deployment is continuing, and hasten the withdrawal of their troops as well."

So here's a country with about 2,000 troops in Afghanistan. Iraq is calmer, our troops are gradually leaving that country, we've elected a president who opposed the war, and who spent two years pledging to carefully listen to allies. And now, they're not only not sending reinforcements, they're preparing to quit entirely. In retrospect, our NATO allies' disinclination to send more troops to Afghanistan for much of the past decade had very little to do with Iraq or George W. Bush, and a whole lot to do with their own populaces' de facto pacifism and isolationism. The Dutch people aren't convinced that this is their fight.

COMMENT:  Obama completely misled the American people in his foreign-policy pronouncements and pledges during the 2008 campaign.  He has gotten essentially nothing out of our allies, and less than nothing out of our enemies. 

How to you like the way Iran has abandoned its nuclear-weapons program because The One has demanded it?  What persuasion.  What charisma.  What...let's move on.

The Dutch don't see Afghanistan as their fight because NATO, with the exception of the Brits and Canadians, has largely been a one-way street.  It's the U.S. doing the heavy lifting and the Europeans accepting the lift.  True, some NATO members have done some things in Afghanistan, but, again with Britain and Canada being the exceptions, they've been minimal. 

The Dutch withdrawal is a major blow.  It will probably be followed by others.  The impact of our sending 30,000 additional troops will be eroded. 

Obama, how about doing some of that convincing that you promised us.

February 22,  2010   Permalink