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.

SUNDAY,  JANUARY 31,  2010

THE SCANDAL GROWS BY THE DAY – AT 7:55 P.M. ET:  The march of global-warming "science."  Hear the bands playing, the people cheering, the money flowing.  From London's Telegraph: 

The United Nations' expert panel on climate change based claims about ice disappearing from the world's mountain tops on a student's dissertation and an article in a mountaineering magazine.

Hey, I get information about my computer from Macworld.  What's the difference?  Who are these people to question?

The revelation will cause fresh embarrassment for the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), which had to issue a humiliating apology earlier this month over inaccurate statements about global warming.

No it won't.  These people are incapable of embarrassment.

...it can be revealed that one of the sources quoted was a feature article published in a popular magazine for climbers which was based on anecdotal evidence from mountaineers about the changes they were witnessing on the mountainsides around them.

The other was a dissertation written by a geography student, studying for the equivalent of a master's degree, at the University of Berne in Switzerland that quoted interviews with mountain guides in the Alps.

The revelations, uncovered by The Sunday Telegraph, have raised fresh questions about the quality of the information contained in the report, which was published in 2007.

It comes after officials for the panel were forced earlier this month to retract inaccurate claims in the IPCC's report about the melting of Himalayan glaciers.

COMMENT:  What is stunning is the silence of the American media.  Fortunately, through the internet, we're able to pick up the best British reporting.  Although much of British journalism is standard left-wing stuff, there's still an island of sanity remaining.

One story I'd like to see reported is the degree of intimidation in science.  You know:  Take the right position, or lose your government grant.  President Eisenhower worried about this almost half a century ago.  But it seems to be the unspeakable issue.

It is very hard, in the United States, to root out corruption in universities, a situation implied in stories that question global-warming "research."  Loyal alumni who want to maintain the glitter of their degrees, members of Congress who depend on universities for political support, and economic forces, including powerful trustees, combine to provide a solid wall of defense.  But my sense is that a day of reckoning is coming, prompted by the huge fees that colleges and universities charge today.  People, including those ordinary unlettered peasants out there, are starting to ask questions.  They should.  All the time.

January 31, 2010   Permalink

MORE GOOD ADVICE; AGAIN, WILL THEY TAKE IT? – AT 6:55 P.M. ET:  Former CIA director Michael Hayden challenges the Obama administration's approach to the war on terror.  Obamans don't seem to learn too quickly.  Maybe they'll learn from this:

We got it wrong in Detroit on Christmas Day. We allowed an enemy combatant the protections of our Constitution before we had adequately interrogated him. Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab is not "an isolated extremist." He is the tip of the spear of a complex al-Qaeda plot to kill Americans in our homeland.

In the 50 minutes the FBI had to question him, agents reportedly got actionable intelligence. Good. But were there any experts on al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula in the room (other than Abdulmutallab)? Was there anyone intimately familiar with any National Security Agency raw traffic to, from or about the captured terrorist? Did they have a list or photos of suspected recruits?

And here's an important lesson on intelligence gathering, some of the best background information we've had so far on the subject:

When questioning its detainees, the CIA routinely turns the information provided over to its experts for verification and recommendations for follow-up. The responses of these experts -- "Press him more on this, he knows the details" or "First time we've heard that" -- helps set up more detailed questioning.

Remember that paragraph the next time Eric Holder reads a terrorist his Miranda rights five minutes after they rip the bomb from his body.

The root of our current problem:

Two days after his inauguration, President Obama issued an executive order that limited all interrogations by the U.S. government to the techniques authorized in the Army Field Manual. The CIA had not seen the final draft of the order, let alone been allowed to comment, before it was issued. I thought that odd since the order was less a legal document -- there was no claim that the manual exhausted the universe of lawful techniques -- than a policy one: These particular lawful techniques would be all that the country would need, at least for now.

In a phrase, that paragraph tells us why elections are important.  The wrong guy won.

In August, seemingly again in contradiction to the president's policy of not looking backward and over the objections of the CIA, Justice pushed to release the CIA inspector general's report on the interrogation program. Then Justice decided to reopen investigations of CIA officers that had been concluded by career prosecutors years ago, even though Panetta and seven of his predecessors said that doing so would be unfair, unwarranted and harmful to the agency's current mission.

Add this to the entire, sorry record of Eric Holder's Justice Department in the last year.

Intelligence officers need to know that someone has their back. After the Justice memos were released in April, CIA officers began to ask whether the people doing things that were currently authorized would be dragged through this kind of public knothole in five years. No one could guarantee that they would not.

Does the term "leftist lawyers recruited by Eric Holder" come to mind?  The former dean of the Harvard Law School is solicitor general.  The former dean of the Yale Law School gives legal advice to the State Department.  These are not conservatives.

Some may celebrate that the current Justice Department's perspective on the war on terrorism has become markedly more dominant in the past year. We should probably understand the implications of that before we break out the champagne. That apparently no one recommended on Christmas Day that Abdulmutallab be handled, at least for a time, as an enemy combatant should be concerning. That our director of national intelligence, Denny Blair, bravely said as much during congressional testimony this month is cause for hope.

Blair doesn't seem to have any power.  Went to the wrong school. 

The final insult:

There's a final oddity. In August, the government unveiled the High Value Detainee Interrogation Group for questioning al-Qaeda and announced that the FBI would begin questioning CIA officers about the alleged abuses in the 2004 inspector general's report. They are apparently still getting organized for the al-Qaeda interrogations. But the interrogations of CIA personnel are well underway.

That reflects the values of the administration, the law schools and firms from which it recruited senior personnel, and the McGovern wing of the Democratic Party.  And they show no signs of changing.

January 31, 2010   Permalink

GOOD ADVICE, BUT WILL THEY TAKE IT? – AT 6:30 P.M. ET:  The Republicans are giving the Dems some good advice on health care, but will the Dems see the light, or only the left (pun intended)?  From the Washington Post:

As senior Democrats struggled to rescue their health-care legislation, Republicans urged President Obama and congressional leaders to give up on the unpopular bill and launch bipartisan talks on a new consensus approach.

Ever since Senate Democrats lost their filibuster-proof majority with the Massachusetts special election, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (Calif.) and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (Nev.) have explored using special budget rules to fix the Senate version of the bill before passing it through the House.

It's a highly unusual and risky manuever, albeit the most direct route to Obama's desk, and Pelosi and Reid already have run into numerous internal problems as they search for Democratic votes. Liberals want to strip out the primary source of funding in the Senate bill -- an excise tax on high-cost insurance plans -- and are pressing to add a public insurance option. Yet Democratic moderates are reluctant to take another partisan vote on health care, whatever the bill's contents.

COMMENT:  The Republican approach is correct and creative.  Start from scratch.  Take on four or five changes that will bring real reform to the health-care system.  One of those changes should be tort reform. 

The Republicans are giving the Dems a way out, and certainly know that the Dems will take any credit for what results.  The Republicans are acting like statesmen.  The Democrats?  We'll see in the next few weeks.  Don't hold your breath.

January 31,  2010   Permalink

HUH?  ARE WE READING THIS RIGHT? – AT 12:17 P.M. ET:  Just when we thought it was safe to go back to New York...

The press has been filled with reports, in the last few days, that the Obama administration has given up plans to try the mastermind of 9-11 in an ordinary New York civilian courtroom.  We've been told that the Obamans are searching for alternative sites, including military bases.  But now the White House news secretary tells us that the whole thing is up in the air.  This is pretty unbelievable.  From The Hill:

White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs said Sunday that the despite reports of mulling new locations to try 9/11 terrorism suspects, the administration still very much wants Khalid Sheikh Mohammed tried in the Big Apple.

"He's going to meet justice," Gibbs said on CNN's "State of the Union" Sunday morning. "He's going to meet his maker. He's likely to be executed" for the "heinous" crimes of the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks. Mohammed has claimed he was the al-Qaeda mastermind behind the terrorist attacks on New York and Washington.

Is this weird, or what?  You mean all the stories are untrue? 

And what about statements that KSM is "likely to be executed"?  Any defense lawyer will use that to claim that the terrorist can't get a fair trial because the atmosphere has been contaminated by prejudicial statements coming from the White House.

When pressed about the location of the trial, as the plan to try KSM in Manhattan has drawn fire from many New Yorkers and Republicans, Gibbs said Attorney General Eric Holder felt that the "best place" to try 9/11 suspects would be in an "American courtroom."

"We are talking with the authorities in New York," Gibbs said. "We understand their logistical concerns and their security concerns that are involved."

"We want to see this man tried and brought to justice in the place where this crime was committed," Gibbs said.

What's going on here?  Did the Democratic left wing get to the White House to demand its New York show trial, which would give KSM the greatest media megaphone in the world, which is what a lot of people on the trendy left would like?

The administration is in disarray.  No headline there.  You'd think they'd nail this down. 

But Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell is quoted later in the story as saying that support for the trial being held in New York is collapsing.  Congress can cut off the funds.  No matter what Gibbs says, KSM will have to meet justice somewhere else.

January 31, 2010   Permalink

THE BBC MISSES IT AGAIN – AT 10:27 A.M. ET:  Our wonderful contributor, Renee Nielsen, alerts us to the fantasyland of the BBC, the world's most overrated news organization. 

The arrogance and ignorance of this piece are breathtaking.  It proves that the BBC either knows nothing of the United States, or prefers not to know.  Or, it knows, and distorts, the better to serve the leftist party line.   By the way, Renee recommends that you also listen to the audio version, which is more complete, and gives the full patronizing flavor of the BBC report.  That's here.

From the BBC:

Political scientist Dr David Runciman looks at why is there often such deep opposition to reforms that appear to be of obvious benefit to voters.

When you see the word "obvious" in story, run in the other direction.  The floodgates of arrogance are now open.  Can't these fools see what we superior people see?

But it is striking that the people who most dislike the whole idea of healthcare reform - the ones who think it is socialist, godless, a step on the road to a police state - are often the ones it seems designed to help.

In Texas, where barely two-thirds of the population have full health insurance and over a fifth of all children have no cover at all, opposition to the legislation is currently running at 87%.

Did it ever occur to the BBC that Americans don't think the "reform" bill is reform at all?  But, of course, what could the peasants know?  Do they brush their teeth?

Also, will someone drop a note to the "reporter" informing him that Texans get health care whether formally covered or not.  What true reformers want is to improve the system, end bad practices, and make access easier.  But people do not die in the streets, which is the image the Beeb would like to project.

Instead, to many of those who lose out under the existing system, reform still seems like the ultimate betrayal.

Why are so many American voters enraged by attempts to change a horribly inefficient system that leaves them with premiums they often cannot afford?

Why are they manning the barricades to defend insurance companies that routinely deny claims and cancel policies?

Boy, are you getting this?  One of the reforms Americans do want is the ability to buy insurance across state lines, vastly increasing competition and driving the bad guys out.  We don't love insurance companies. 

Inefficient system?  Say what?  Compare please to the British system, where people can wait weeks or months for an operation, or even to see a specialist.  Our system needs improvement, but, if you need a serious operation here, you'll have it that night.

But, incredibly, the BBC does show a glimmer of understanding:

If people vote against their own interests, it is not because they do not understand what is in their interest or have not yet had it properly explained to them.

They do it because they resent having their interests decided for them by politicians who think they know best.

There is nothing voters hate more than having things explained to them as though they were idiots.

Don't get too excited.  The story reverts back to a patronizing view of Americans.  But at least the reporter understands that health care is deeply personal, and that the American people resent the way they've been treated during the debate. 

Back to the patronization:

The Republicans have learnt how to stoke up resentment against the patronising liberal elite, all those do-gooders who assume they know what poor people ought to be thinking.

Right-wing politics has become a vehicle for channelling this popular anger against intellectual snobs. The result is that many of America's poorest citizens have a deep emotional attachment to a party that serves the interests of its richest.

Huh?  More Wall Street money was raised by Obama for the last election than by McCain.  True, the GOP can get too cozy with big business, but Dems haven't been far behind.  Both have indulged the corporations.   

And Americans vote on a whole list of values, and have felt, especially since the sixties, that the Democrats may not represent those values.  These include national defense and a respect for standards in education. 

The BBC writer does make an honest effort to understand Americans, and does, we must concede, recognize that their anger is directed at snobbish political elites.  But what gets you in this piece is the belief that, somehow, Americans are angry people blinded to their own interests.  Yes, I suppose that sometimes happens.  Lincoln said that you can fool all the people some of the time.  But one wishes that the Beeb would study how liberal politicians fool people, especially minorities, and do so regularly.  We've seen it with our own eyes here in New York, which is why New York City, with a four-to-one Democratic registration, hasn't elected a Democratic mayor since 1989.  People do notice, and they're not stupid.

January 31, 2010   Permalink 

STRENGTHENING THE MUSCLE – AT 10:17 A.M. ET:  Washington is taking some action to show a bit of spine to Iran.  But it will take a lot more than this.  From The New York Times:

WASHINGTON — The Obama administration is accelerating the deployment of new defenses against possible Iranian missile attacks in the Persian Gulf, placing special ships off the Iranian coast and antimissile systems in at least four Arab countries, according to administration and military officials.

The deployments come at a critical turning point in President Obama’s dealings with Iran. After months of unsuccessful diplomatic outreach, the administration is trying to win broad international consensus for sanctions against the Iranian Revolutionary Guards Corps, which Western nations say control a covert nuclear arms program.

Mr. Obama spoke of the shift in his State of the Union address, warning of “consequences” if Iran continued to defy United Nations demands to stop manufacturing nuclear fuel. And Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton publicly warned China on Friday that its opposition to sanctions was shortsighted.

The news that the United States is deploying antimissile defenses — including a rare public discussion of them by Gen. David H. Petraeus — appears to be part of a coordinated administration strategy to increase pressure on Iran.

COMMENT:  I'm glad it's coordinated.  Hurrah, hurrah.  But the reality is that China, with a veto at the UN, continues to oppose sanctions on Iran.  While Russia has shown a bit more flexibility, we don't really know how far Moscow will go. 

And what if a watered-down round of new sanctions is ignored, as were all the sanctions on Iran in the past?  Is there a plan, or will we wake up one day to an Iranian bomb, with the "realist" crowd then telling us, "We must adjust to new circumstances"?

We are taking bets.  

January 31, 2010    Permalink

DEMS ARE BOUNCING – AT 10:01 A.M. ET:  Rasmussen reports that the president continues to get a bounce from his State of the Union speech.  However, it comes almost entirely from his own party:

The Rasmussen Reports daily Presidential Tracking Poll for Sunday shows that 33% of the nation's voters Strongly Approve of the way that Barack Obama is performing his role as President. Forty percent (40%) Strongly Disapprove giving Obama a Presidential Approval Index rating of -7 (see trends).

This is the first update based entirely upon interviews conducted since the State-of-the-Union Address and it reflects a bounce for the President. The number who Strongly Approve is the highest in more than four months (since September) and the overall Approval Index rating is the best in more than three months (since October).

And now the details:

The bounce comes almost entirely from those in the president’s party. Sixty-four percent (64%) of Democrats now Strongly Approve, up from 50% before the speech. However, the speech appears to have had the opposite impact on unaffiliated voters. Among those not affiliated with either major party, 50% now Strongly Disapprove. That’s up from 42% before the speech. The next few days should give an indication as to whether these changes will fade or if they signify the beginning of a new phase in the political environment.

So the president has, at least temporarily, strengthened himself among his base.  I suspect the coming weeks will show slippage again.  Also, the fact that the president actually lost support among independents as a result of the SOTU has to have the White House worried.

Overall, 50% of voters say they at least somewhat approve of the President's performance. That’s up four points since the morning of the speech and is the first time his approval has reached 50% among likely voters since November 16. Fifty percent now (50%) disapprove.

Not exactly impressive.  The bounce in his own party didn't even get Obama over 50%. 

Finally, the president did not indicate any change of direction, although change could, of course, come through actions.  Unless the voters see change they can actually believe in, Mr. Obama's numbers will go Titanic again.

January 31,  2010  Permalink

SATURDAY,  JANUARY 30,  2010

THE SMOKING GUN – AT 9:12 P.M. ET:  Gallup reports a fascinating statistic regarding approval of President Obama:

PRINCETON, NJ -- Barack Obama's job approval rating, which has averaged 50% since Dec. 1, continues to be significantly above that average among Americans with postgraduate education (58%). Among educational groups, only postgraduates show a rating above the majority level.

Send 'em to graduate school, and that's what happens.

Since July, when Obama last registered an approval rating of 60%, the gap in his approval rating between postgraduates and other educational groups has grown, with his support declining proportionately less among postgraduates than among the other groups.

Okay, I admit it, some of this is due to the fact that a large proportion of postgraduates go into education, a notoriously liberal field.  That probably tilts the numbers.  But, still, we have a Constitutional right to view with alarm and ask what kinda learnin' is goin' on.

January 30, 2010   Permalink

ANOTHER COLLINS SPEAKS – OH DEAR LAWD – AT 8:01 P.M. ET:  We quote Senator Susan Collins, below, making a terrific statement about terrorism.  Now we switch to another Collins – Gail Collins, op-ed writer and former editorial page editor of The New York Times. 

Ms. Collins, ultra-feminist, sixties monument, and otherwise dependable flake, gives us an insight into the kind of thinking that led The New York Times to sink to the position it's in now.  She's upset, Ms. Collins is, about the reversal, in the last day, of the decision to try the mastermind of 9-11 right in the heart of New York City.  Despite overwhelming public and political opposition, led by Mayor Bloomberg of New York, Gail Collins knows best, and she also knows what really motivated those who demanded the reversal:

...the Justice Department is backing down. The trial will happen somewhere else. People in Lower Manhattan will breathe a sigh of relief.

But this feels very wrong.

Yeah, how dare those people living right near the courthouse express an opinion.

The Bloomberg rebellion fits right into the sour, us-first mood that’s settled over the country. It’s part of the same impulse that caused Senator Ben Nelson of Nebraska to decree that a historic overhaul of the country’s messed-up health care system was not going to happen unless his home state got a special exemption from sharing the costs.

Talk about a stretch.

Or the Not-in-My-Backyard uprising that followed President Obama’s attempt to move the Guantánamo prisoners into American maximum-security lockups. No matter how remote the prison, local politicians said that the danger was too great to bear. Both of Montana’s Democratic senators immediately decreed that their entire state was a no-go zone.

All those selfish New Yorkers, not wanting a terrorist bulls-eye painted on their backs again.  All these ridiculous fears.  Why can't they just go along with Eric Holder and his wise lawyers.

It’s all part of a cult of selfishness that decrees it’s fine to throw your body in front of any initiative, no matter how important, if resistance looks more profitable.

Ms. Collins apparently forget to get her Zoloft refilled.

The economy has a lot to do with this. So does Washington’s increasing confidence that Barack Obama can be rolled. We’re currently stuck in a place where people no longer feel as though they need to be part of the solution.

Maybe it's been weeks since the bottle was emptied.

Democrats are starting to join the Republicans’ call to toss out the Constitution and try suspected terrorists in military courts.

This is a medical emergency.  Pills!  Pills!

New York’s sudden resistance certainly wasn’t about safety, even though Dianne Feinstein, chairwoman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, sent a whiny letter to the White House saying a trial in Manhattan could “add to the threat.”

A classic example of the way ultra-feminists treat other women who don't go along with every comma in the party line.  Suddenly DiFi, one of the real adults in the Senate, is "whiny."

COMMENT:  So, we're terrible people.  But we're really not.  Americans have always been willing to sacrifice, and to put themselves on the line.  But they ask for some serious reason.  If they take a risk for a cause, they want it to be a good cause.  Trying the mastermind of 9-11 in a New York City courtroom is not a good cause.  It's a show.

The people are right.  Gail Collins is wrong.  What else is new?

January 30, 2010  Permalink 

QUOTE OF THE DAY – FROM SENATOR SUSAN COLLINS OF MAINE, REGARDING OUR HANDLING OF THE CHRISTMAS-DAY AIRLINE BOMBER – AT 6:19 P.M. ET, VIA THE L.A. TIMES'S TOP OF THE TICKET BLOG:

Less than one hour. That’s right, less than one hour.

In fact, just fifty minutes.

That’s the amount of time that the FBI spent questioning Abdulmutallab, the foreign terrorist who tried to blow up a plane on Christmas Day.

Then, he was given a Miranda warning and a lawyer, and, not surprisingly, he stopped talking.

And...

President Obama recently used the phrase that "we are at war" with terrorists. But....

... unfortunately his rhetoric does not match the actions of his administration.

The Obama administration appears to have a blind spot when it comes to the War on Terrorism.

And, because of that blindness, this administration cannot see a foreign terrorist even when he stands right in front of them, fresh from an attempt to blow a plane out of the sky on Christmas Day.

There’s no other way to explain the irresponsible, indeed dangerous, decision on Abdulmutallab’s interrogation. There’s no other way to explain the inconceivable treatment of him as if he were a common criminal.

COMMENT:  Very well said, and spoken by a moderate Republican who feels free to side with the administration if she thinks they're right.  Those are harsh words from Susan Collins, and a warning to the Obamans to straighten up and fly right.  And get a new attorney general.

January 30, 2010   Permalink

UNBELIEVABLE – AGAIN, ONCE AGAIN, THE LONDON TIMES NAILS IT ON THE GROWING CLIMATE-CHANGE SCANDAL – AT 5:58 P.M. ET:

And, once again, the disgraceful American press remains silent.  We like to think that the British and European media are stuck in political correctness, and many outlets often are.  But the British press in particular, on some issues (only on some), has shown an admirable independence lately.  From The Times:

The chairman of the leading climate change watchdog was informed that claims about melting Himalayan glaciers were false before the Copenhagen summit, The Times has learnt.

Rajendra Pachauri was told that the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change assessment that the glaciers would disappear by 2035 was wrong, but he waited two months to correct it. He failed to act despite learning that the claim had been refuted by several leading glaciologists.

The IPCC’s report underpinned the proposals at Copenhagen for drastic cuts in global emissions.

Dr Pachauri, who played a leading role at the summit, corrected the error last week after coming under media pressure. He told The Times on January 22 that he had only known about the error for a few days. He said: “I became aware of this when it was reported in the media about ten days ago. Before that, it was really not made known. Nobody brought it to my attention. There were statements, but we never looked at this 2035 number.”

COMMENT:  It turns out he knew last November.  He is the UN's key guy on climate change.  Why does he still have his job?  He has lied, he has deceived.  Fortunately, Copenhagen was a flop, with delegates giving their greatest applause to Hugo Chavez's call for the end of capitalism. 

But the climate-change crowd is still royalty within the Obama administration.  The rising body of evidence against much of the "science" of climate change is ignored.  There are careers to protect, and social goals to achieve. 

The leading Marxist academic of the 1960s, Herbert Marcuse, said that the truth is what supports progressive causes.  We are seeing that played out here.

January 30, 2010   Permalink

GOP ADOPTS MODIFIED LOYALTY OATH – AT 11:15 A.M. ET:  We've been following this.  There's a faction in the GOP that wanted the party to adopt a rigid, drive-voters-away loyalty oath for its candidates.  Sanity prevailed, and a modified structure has been adopted by the Republican National Committee, as the Washington Times reports:

In an unprecedented move, the Republican National Committee on Friday unanimously called on its chairman,Michael S. Steele, to "carefully screen" candidates for their adherence to conservative values before granting them RNC financial help.

The resolution specifically calls on the national chairman to take into account the voting records and statements of all GOP candidates for evidence that they support the "core principles and positions" of the party's national platform, widely regarded as a highly conservative document.

"The brilliant part of the resolution is that it is tied to the party platform ... that has been thought out, debated and passed unanimously at our national convention," North Dakota GOP Chairman Gary Emineth told The Washington Times after he and his fellow RNC members passed the resolution.

COMMENT:  Frankly, I wish they hadn't passed anything like this.  It's not necessary.  Leave the sorting out to primary voters in the several states. 

But, having taken the step, at least the GOP left plenty of loopholes.  Decisions will be up to the national chairman, who's not ideologically rigid, and state parties. 

The procedure might actually do some good if it screens out the small number of crackpots and hopelessly unqualified candidates who slip through each year.  It also reminds us that reasonable adherence to basic principles is necessary in a political party.  The term "core principles and positions" is important.  It doesn't require adherence to every comma and period. 

We'll have to see how this works out.  I'll be writing in coming days of two Republican aspirants for U.S. Senate seats who don't deserve party support.  They'll be test cases. 

January 30, 2010   Permalink

RASMUSSEN ON POST SOTU POLLING – AT 10:37 A.M. ET:  Scott Rasmussen has examined the polls taken after the president's State of the Union message, and gives us his report:

Looking only at interviews conducted on the two nights following the speech, it is clear that the President enjoyed a bounce in the polls and that the bounce came from members of his own party. On the morning of the speech, 50% of Democrats Strongly Approved of the President’s performance. On the two nights following the speech, that number jumped to 65%. There was essentially no change among Republican and unaffiliated voters.

This could suggest that the President’s “pivot” following the Republican upset in Massachusetts is a pivot towards energizing his party base more than reaching out for support from unaffiliated voters. In Massachusetts and the two Governor’s races last fall, a lack of enthusiasm from Democrats contributed to the party’s defeats.

COMMENT:  I suspect that Rasmussen has it right.  Nothing that the Obama administration has done since the speech signals any move toward the center, except possibly the decision to cancel plans to try major terror suspects in New York City.  And that came only after a huge uproar, a good part of it from Democrats in Congress.

And yet, the numbers are against this "dig in" strategy.  The president's victory in 2008 came largely because he could attract independent voters, and even a respectable number of Republicans.  If independents, the unaffiliated, didn't move toward him as a result of his Wednesday night speech, we must conclude that Mr. Obama is still in deep political trouble, with no real strategy for solving the problem.

January 30, 2010   Permalink

THIS IS DEAD SERIOUS – AT 10:18 A.M. ET:  The actual New York Times headline reads:

New Teams Connect Dots of Terror Plots

No, I mean it.  That's the actual headline.  Apparently, in the ten years since 9-11, the federal government has decided, after many committee meetings, that a special team is needed that has a particular knack for dot connecting.

As you know, dot connecting is a rare specialty – only three Ph.D.s were given in the subject last year, and we're lucky to have people who know just how to do this.  From The Times:

WASHINGTON — The nation’s main counterterrorism center is creating new teams of specialists to pursue clues of emerging terrorist plots as part of a rapid buildup that will sharply increase its analyst corps, perhaps by hundreds of people over the next year, intelligence officials said Friday.

Nice to see some urgency.

The action by the National Counterterrorism Center is one of the furthest reaching by the government so far to address the failings of several federal agencies in the case of a 23-year-old Nigerian man charged with boarding a Detroit-bound airliner on Christmas Day with explosives sewn into his underwear.

Michael E. Leiter, the center's director, made the breathtaking announcement:

“We’ve been very good at chasing down those threats that come out of Afghanistan and Pakistan,” Mr. Leiter told the Senate Homeland Security Committee last week. “We’re going to be better now at chasing down those small bits of information that come out of Yemen or North Africa or East Africa.”

We hope they're better at chasing down the info that comes out of Yemen or Africa than they were in chasing down the threat bursting out of Afghanistan on 9-11.

Time flies, doesn't it?  Why didn't this happen nine years ago?

January 30, 2010   Permalink

ELIMINATE THE MIDDLEMAN – AT 10:21 A.M. ET:  A great idea, actually imported from Britain, may now surface here.

I'm referring to the president's appearance yesterday before House Republicans, in a special meeting.  The questions were respectful, but sharp, and the president gave at least a fair number of substantive answers.  I hope you saw it on TV.

This resembled Prime Minister's Question Time, carried often by CSPAN, in which the British prime minister answers questions from Commons.  The breath of fresh air factor is the elimination of the media.  They get their shots at other times, but the back-and-forth between the chief executive and the loyal opposition is informative, and often entertaining.

One pundit suggested that the president do this once a month.  I agree.  I think it would do more to change the atmosphere in Washington than any other quick and easy step.  And, considering that the questions are usually better than those asked by the press, the media might learn a few things.

January 30,  2010   Permalink