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.

SUBSCRIPTION DRIVE - MIDWAY

38%

Our subscription drive is half over, and we've barely reached 38% of our goal.  We did have a spurt in the last few days, but it came largely from our regular subscribers, who added to their subscriptions.  This is wonderful, and shows the loyalty of Urgent Agenda readers. 

But, in truth, we really need new subscribers.  So, if you haven't subscribed, please don't leave it to the other guy.  It's just not right.  We hope you'll join us today, and help keep us moving.

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.  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.

------------------

I have a new piece up at Power Line on the death of Kathryn Grayson.  For those who may be interested, it's here.

------------------

THURSDAY,  MARCH 4,  2010

THE HARD PART IS AHEAD – AT 8:05 P.M. ET:  We keep warning here about Republican overconfidence.  The November elections are not in the bag. 

Proof comes in the form of a new poll in usually Republican Texas.  Incumbent Republican Governor Rick Perry won a smashing victory in the gubernatorial primary on Tuesday, but a Rasmussen survey warns that the general election will be much tougher.  Andrew Malcolm, at the L.A. Times's Top of the Ticket blog, reports:

Now Perry's bid for an unprecedented third term confronts Democrat Bill White, who also easily won his party's primary even in a crowded seven-candidate field.

But how is Perry gonna tag his opponent as a Washington outsider when White is the three-term mayor of Houston which, despite some suspicions up in Dallas, is still within Texas?

A new poll out Thursday afternoon indicates that's gonna be a tougher challenge for....

...Perry. A Rasmussen Reports telephone survey of likely November voters, finds Perry leading White by six points, 49-43. Back in January when White recalibrated his political ambitions from a Senate seat to a high-backed chair in Austin, Perry led him by 10 points in a hypothetical match-up.

And...

Republicans hope to pick up several governorships (i.e. Oklahoma), as they did last November in New Jersey and Virginia. But they also need to hold their own existing state capitols. Connecticut looks like a real problem now. What can you say about California? And, for the moment, Texas is close.

COMMENT:  The lesson is that each state is different.  Republicans must run a 50-state campaign.  If it's close in Texas, it's going to be close in other places.  And, despite the GOP lead nationally, the overall race will probably tighten as November approaches. 

March 4, 2010   Permalink

REINCARNATION BULLETIN – AT 7:20 P.M. ET:  "If we get some mattresses and plug up that hole, Captain Smith, the Titanic will arrive on time."  From The Washington Times:

The former John Edwards aide whose recent tell-all book chronicles the former Democratic presidential candidate's extramarital affair and then fall from grace said Thursday that Mr. Edwards still believes he has a political future.

"He still has a sense of being bulletproof," former aide Andrew Young told The Washington Times' "America's Morning News" radio show. "He thinks . . . he's going to come back and have something to offer the world."

Yeah, but the world doesn't want to get pregnant.

Mr. Young spoke the same day the National Enquirer reported a North Carolina grand jury will indict Mr. Edwards, 56, in connection with using campaign funds to pay mistress Rielle Hunter and cover up the affair.

COMMENT:  He was always a fake.  But he believes his golden voice will always save him.  Hmm.  Isn't there another politician like that?

The only place John Edwards could get elected is Hollywood, where his kind of talent is admired.

March 4, 2010   Permalink

IT HAPPENED IN RIO – AT 6:47 P.M. ET:  This morning we reported that Hillary Clinton has been rebuffed even by Brazil in trying to get stronger sanctions against Iraq.  The Christian Science Monitor reports on just how strongly rebuffed we were:

The visit by US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton in Brazil Wednesday was billed as an effort to forge ties with a country that is increasingly emerging as a recognized global power.

But the rhetoric of partnership came easier than the reality. Brazil rebuffed Ms. Clinton's efforts to win support for more sanctions on Iran's nuclear program.

The Brazilian foreign minister, Celso Amorim, said it bluntly:

"We will not simply bow down to the evolving consensus if we do not agree."

Please note the tone.  We will not "bow down."  This isn't about Iran, it's about standing up to the United States.  That's been the trendy thing to do recently in Latin America, a style led by Hugo Chavez, with a hat tip to the Castro brothers in Cuba.  And it's a lot easier when a marshmallow inhabits the Oval Office.

Brazil is just one of several countries, such as China, that the US is lobbying. But getting Brazil on board would be particularly helpful to the US effort, as Iran has long held the position that only the US and some European nations support a tougher stance against Tehran.

Brazil knows that, and isn't coming on board.  There is no report of President Obama intervening with a phone call to Brazil.  Too busy, too busy.  Let Hillary hang out to dry.

Clinton also met with President Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva, who had earlier warned against "pushing" Iran into a corner.

He's a leftist, but acted responsibly toward the United States when Bush was in power.  Recently, despite the Obaman rhetoric, he's gotten more hostile.

But the most tensions have emerged over Iran, especially after Mr. Ahmadinejad was warmly welcomed in Brazil in November. Critics of da Silva, who is often referred to as Lula, in Brazil and the US, have called Brazil’s position an attempt to flex its muscle and show that it does not have to bow to US or European desires.

COMMENT: I guess this is more change we can believe in.  My, how the American people were taken for a ride in the 2008 elections.  Everyone was supposed to love us, and cooperate with us, once Barack Obama got the keys to the mansion.  Not so.

March 4, 2010   Permalink

SANITY PREVAILS – AT 11:04 A.M. ET:  We reported last night that Charlie Rangel's replacement as chairman of the ultra-powerful House Ways and Means Committee, which writes tax legislation, would be Pete Stark of California, a charter, gold-card member of the lunatic fringe. 

However, either Stark got a message from above, or above just shoved him out.  His chairmanship lasted less than 24 hours, as the Washington Times reports:

The fallout from the ethical troubles of Rep. Charles B. Rangel, New York Democrat, continued Thursday as his successor chairman on the Ways and Means Committee stepped down just a day after becoming acting chairman.

Rep. Pete Stark, California Democrat, resigned in a letter to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, which was read on the chamber floor just after the House convened Thursday morning.

His move clears the way for the committee's No. 3 Democrat, Rep. Sander M. Levin of Michigan, to take over.

Some Democrats said Mr. Stark, among Congress's more liberal members, was too far to the left to run the panel, which is seen as one of the more business-friendly committees in Congress. Mr. Stark also has a history of making contentious comments.

Contentious comments?  The man is out of control.  Powerful medicines are required.  Want proof?  It's here.

The Dems did something sane, for a change.

March 4, 2010   Permalink

A CLINTON BLUNDER – AT 9:20 A.M. ET:  Talk-show host Mike Scully alerts us to a sharp column by Nile Gardiner, in Britain's Telegraph, on still one more foreign-policy blunder by the Obama administration.

Hillary Clinton was just in Argentina.  Argentina and Britain are feuding again over the Falklands, the small island chain just off Argentina's eastern coast, but owned by Britain.  The U.S. has, properly, taken a neutral position on the dispute.  But Clinton seemed to change that position in a way that downgraded Britain, which this administration does as a hobby:

The transcript of Hillary Clinton’s press conference in Buenos Aires with Argentine President Kristina Kirchner last night, has just been released by the State Department, and it is a real eye-opener. Her remarks represent an astonishing propaganda coup for the Peronist regime in its dispute with Britain over the Falklands, with Washington brazenly backing its position.

Argentina has been pressing for negotiations.  Britain has said, in effect, that there's nothing to negotiate.  The Falklands, Whitehall says, are British territory. 

But Clinton's comments in Argentina clearly put the U.S. in the Argentinian camp:

"...we want very much to encourage both countries to sit down. Now, we cannot make either one do so, but we think it is the right way to proceed. So we will be saying this publicly, as I have been, and we will continue to encourage exactly the kind of discussion across the table that needs to take place."

Gardiner comments:

The secretary of state, a highly skilled political operator, knows exactly what she is doing here. She is giving her full support for the official stance of Buenos Aires, despite the fact that Great Britain has made it clear that the sovereignty of the Falklands is non-negotiable. She makes no reference at all to the fact that Argentina recently threatened a blockade of the Falklands, or that its close ally Venezuela has been threatening war against Britain.

Hillary Clinton’s dire performance in Buenos Aires was not only an appalling display of appeasement towards a corrupt and authoritarian anti-American regime, which barely has the support of 20 percent of the Argentinian people. It was also an astonishing betrayal of the United Kingdom by her closest ally, and yet another slap in the face for Britain from the Obama administration.

COMMENT:  Let's face it.  Obama has no use for Britain, which he associates with past colonialism.  It's interesting that he doesn't seem to have the same hang-ups about some of the world's dictatorships, including those of Latin America.

We must, of course, be sensitive to the feelings of Latin Americans, but this heavy-handed, blundering approach was not the way to do it.

March 4, 2010   Permalink

AMERICANS TAKE IRAN MORE SERIOUSLY THAN DOES OBAMA – AT 8:58 A.M. ET:  From Fox:

A majority of American voters think military force will be necessary to stop Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapons program, and many think it will be “a disaster” if Iran gains nuclear capabilities.

A Fox News poll released Tuesday finds that 60 percent of voters think force will be required to stop Iran, while 25 percent think diplomacy and sanctions alone will work.

Just over half of Democrats (51 percent) and independents (51 percent) think force will be necessary, as do three-quarters of Republicans (75 percent).

I'm stunned that more than half of Democrats take a hard line, and a bit disappointed that only 51% of independents do so.  Republicans, of course, are stalwart. 

If Iran were to obtain the capability to use nuclear weapons, 56 percent think that would be “a disaster,” while 37 percent call it “a problem that can be managed” and 3 percent say it wouldn’t be a problem at all.

I suspect Americans are following the news about Iran, and aren't happy with what they're seeing, and what their own country is doing.  For good reason.  Consider this, from AP:

China said Thursday it will continue to push for a diplomatic resolution to the Iranian nuclear standoff, rebuffing efforts by Western powers to introduce a new set of sanctions against Iran.

"We've been making diplomatic efforts and we believe they have not been exhausted, and we will continue to work with other parties to push for a settlement to this issue," said Foreign Ministry spokesman Qin Gang.

As Sarah Palin might have asked, "How's that changey feeley stuff workin' out on Iran?"

Not well.

With China's firm rejection of new sanctions – China has a veto at the UN – our policy has just about collapsed.  The only alternative is to try to get nations independently to apply sanctions, outside the UN framework, which would mortify Obama's leftist supporters. 

Secretary of State Clinton has even been rebuffed on sanctions by Brazil, a non-permanent member of the Security Council.  Increasingly, nations do not take American requests seriously.

March 4, 2010   Permalink

ANNIVERSARY – AT 8:18 A.M. ET:  Today is the 77th anniversary of the first inauguration of Franklin D. Roosevelt. 

Roosevelt shaped the Democratic Party that most of us knew growing up, although I think he'd be appalled by its ineptitude and arrogance today.  And I think he'd be especially appalled at the foreign policy attitudes that have crept into the party, starting in the late sixties.

It was Roosevelt, not a Republican, who was Ronald Reagan's political hero, and for good reason.  Reagan understood the need to speak directly to the American people, over the heads of the press, and in terms people can understand, and no one did that better than Roosevelt.  And Reagan also understood what Barack Obama doesn't, and that is that a certain warmth in the voice, a connection with the public, is critical to a modern president. 

Roosevelt was the first president to use radio effectively and extensively.  He gave a series of "fireside chats" in which he discussed the crises before the nation.  The first was given on March 12, 1933, barely a week after his inauguration.  Here are the first paragraphs:

I want to talk for a few minutes with the people of the United States about banking -- to talk with the comparatively few who understand the mechanics of banking, but more particularly with the overwhelming majority of you who use banks for the making of deposits and the drawing of checks.

I want to tell you what has been done in the last few days, and why it was done, and what the next steps are going to be. I recognize that the many proclamations from State capitols and from Washington, the legislation, the Treasury regulations, and so forth, couched for the most part in banking and legal terms, ought to be explained for the benefit of the average citizen. I owe this, in particular, because of the fortitude and the good temper with which everybody has accepted the inconvenience and hardships of the banking holiday. And I know that when you understand what we in Washington have been about, I shall continue to have your cooperation as fully as I have had your sympathy and your help during the past week.

The tone of that was just right.  Explanation, not condescension.  Disciplined delivery, not rambling.  And a thank you to the American people for their support in his first week in office.

And there was a respect for the nation in Roosevelt's voice. 

Whether you agree or disagree with FDR's policies, his relationship with the people was critical to forging the modern presidency.  Obama could learn from listening to his speeches.  So, might I add, could some Republican leaders.  After all, the greatest Republican leader of our time listened very carefully, and learned a great deal.

March 4, 2010   Permalink

WHAT A CONCEPT!  CREATIVE GENIUSES  – AT 7:53 A.M. ET:  There was the president of the United States.  The subject was health care.

And, clearly, the creative juices were flowing at the White House.  Behind the president – can you just conjure the originality – were people in lab coats.  Maybe they were doctors and nurses, or maybe they just played them on TV.  Never saw that before.  What a breakthrough.  This is Hollywood on the Potomac.   (The last time the president made a speech on health care at the White House, his staff actually had lab coats on hand to be given out.)

As for substance, Mr. Obama was tough.  No real compromises.  Full steam ahead, even in the face of public opposition.  There may have been a few boilerplate lines about bipartisanship, but that's all.  Health care has become the iconic issue for liberal Democrats, and they're going to slam it through, regardless of how flawed their plan is.

But there is danger here for Republicans.  No matter how unpopular Mr. Obama's plan may be, Republicans lose if they seem to be 1) simply opponents and 2) blind worshippers of "free enterprise," when applied to health insurance.  If the Republicans think they're going to become electoral heroes by championing insurance companies, they're delusional.  Every poll shows that Americans, across the board, Republicans included, believe the health- insurance system requires reform, and that insurance companies must adhere to certain standards. 

Republicans must come up with a comprehensive plan, widely and constantly presented to the American people, that fixes what's wrong, retains choice, and yet reduces costs.  Some excellent GOP ideas, like tort reform, have gotten lost in the political meat grinder. 

I have the sickly feeling that the Dems will get something passed.  Once passed, remember, Americans may change their attitude from opposition to, "Let's see how it works."  It's happened before.  This is a time for Republican creativity, not Dewey-like contentment.

March 4,  2010   Permalink

WEDNESDAY,  MARCH 3,  2010

SO YOU CAN SLEEP BETTER TONIGHT – AT 8:30 P.M. ET:  Career advancement news from Fox:

LASHKAR GAH, Afghanistan — A man freed from Guantanamo more than two years ago after he claimed he only wanted to go home and help his family is now a senior commander running Taliban resistance to the U.S.-led offensive in southern Afghanistan, two senior Afghan intelligence officials say.

Abdul Qayyum is also seen as a leading candidate to be the next No. 2 in the Afghan Taliban hierarchy, said the officials, interviewed last week by The Associated Press.

The story of Abdul Qayyum could add to the complications President Barack Obama is facing in fulfilling his pledge to close the prison at Guantanamo by sending some prisoners back to their home countries or to other willing nations, while putting others on trial.

U.S. intelligence asserts that 20 percent of suspects released from the Guantanamo Bay prison have returned to the fight and the number has been steadily increasing.

Qayyum's key aide in plotting attacks on Afghan and international forces is another former Guantanamo prisoner, said the Afghan intelligence officials as well as a former Helmand governor, Sher Mohammed Akundzada. Abdul Rauf, who told his U.S. interrogators he had only loose connections to the Taliban, spent time in an Afghan jail before being freed last year.

He rejoined the Taliban, they said. Akundzada said he warned authorities against releasing both him and Qayyum.

COMMENT:  Can't blame it on Obama.  These guys were released under Bush, who fell under the influence of his father's foreign-policy crowd during his second term. 

The real world, the serious world, the adult world, must be laughing at us.

March 3, 2010   Permalink

FROM BAD TO WORSE AT NANCY'S HOUSE – AT 7:17 P.M. ET:  I'm sure that what they're saying around the House of Representatives tonight is, "At least Charlie was a nice guy."

Ethically overwhelmed Charles Rangel has asked for a leave of absence as chairman of the Ways and Means Committee as he fights off a series of serious ethics charges, some of which could escalate to legal charges. 

The problem is that there is nothing in the House rules that allows for a leave of absence.  You either have the job or don't.  It's expected by observers that something will be worked out, but that Rangel is essentially gone.

His replacement, though, at least for now, is likely to be Pete Stark of California, a man suffering from terminal obnoxia.  Stark is one of the most disliked members of the House, a man whose face even a mother would reject.  He has been known to get into pushing matches with fellow members.  You won't find him on Mount Rushmore anytime soon.  Maybe Mount Revolting. 

It's hard to believe the Democrats would want to keep Stark as chairman of the committee that writes our tax laws.  I mean, the image itself is awful, and there's at least an 80% chance that Stark will blow up at a news conference. 

So, another great moment in government, starring Nancy and Her Gang.  Be inspired.

March 3, 2010   Permalink

WE'LL BE WATCHING THIS CLOSELY – AT 7:00 P.M. ET:  From London's Daily Mail:

Three men were arrested in dawn raids this morning, taking to four the number being held over allegations of terrorism fundraising.

It follows the arrest on Thursday of a 30-year-old British Airways employee in Newcastle. A second BA staff member was among the group arrested this morning.

The three men, aged 31, 32 and 43, were seized by police at 5am today in Slough.

The men are now being questioned about a plot to fund a terrorist attack.

Police refused to clarify what positions the two BA employees had within the airline. Sources said the latest arrests were 'significant'.

And...

Scotland Yard said today: 'Three men were arrested in Slough for alleged offences of terrorist fundraising. The men were arrested at separate addresses by officers from the South-East Counter Terrorism Unit. As part of a joint operation with the Met’s Counter Terrorism Command, the men were taken to a central London police station.'

COMMENT:  I wonder if the guys from the Yard told them, "You have a right to remain silent," as we apparently do here, in Eric Holder's Justice Department.  Why don't I think so?

What strikes me is the relentlessness of the terror-related activity over the past year.  Sooner or later, one of these plots is going to make it through.  Even Obama's voice can't stop it.

March 3, 2010   Permalink

AND, FOLLOWING ON THE STORY JUST BELOW, HERE'S ANOTHER SAN FRANCISCO TREAT – AT 6:53 P.M. ET:  From the Chicago Tribune:

Nothing succeeds in the travel industry like a bad idea. The latest hidden mandatory add-on is a "health" charge added to restaurant bills. As far as I know, this scam cropped up first in San Francisco, but you can count on it to spread.

The rationale for this one is to cover the employers' mandatory contribution to the City's "Healthy San Francisco" health-coverage system. The charge actually is levied on employers, but at least some restaurants are adding a few dollars or percentage points to each customer's bill to cover this charge.

The restaurants' excuse for assessing this charge separately is to let customers know how much they're paying for employees' health coverage.

And...

The restaurants adding this fee self-righteously proclaim, "It's not hidden; we print a notice on our menus." But that, too, is nonsense: Presumably, restaurants could apply that same rationale for extra fees to cover the cost of electricity, heat or linen service.

COMMENT:  What happens in San Francisco should stay in San Francisco.  That 1906 earthquake must have had a permanent effect on judgment.

March 3, 2010    Permalink

GARBAGE IN, GARBAGE OUT – LEAVE IT TO SAN FRANCISCO TO COME UP WITH ANOTHER AWFUL IDEA – AT 6:40 P.M. ET:

Your tax dollars at work.  From the S.F. Chronicle:

San Francisco high school students, just months out of middle school, can start earning San Francisco State college credit this fall through a ninth-grade ethnic studies course.

None of that math, science or English stuff.

At a school board meeting last week, the head of the university's Ethnic Studies program also promised that students would earn up to six college course credits for the high school freshman course - a rare opportunity for a 14-year-old.

I can imagine how challenging the work will be.

The program is designed for students who might not otherwise be considering college as an option, said Jacob Perea, dean of the School of Education, who runs the Step to College program at San Francisco State.

"We're not really looking for the 4.4 (grade point average) students," he said. "We're looking for the 2.1 or 2.2 students."

Wait a second.  These are the ones who are going to do college-level work, at 14?  Am I reading this right.

Students cannot fail the class. They either receive a "pass" grade or are withdrawn from the course if it appears they cannot pass, Perea said.

Oh, so that's the trick. 

But can ninth-graders really produce college-level work?

Perea acknowledged that asking them to write at a 12th- or 13th-grade level could be difficult, but added: "I doubt that we've ever had a student come through the program who shouldn't have."

I'd be happy if they could write at their own level.

"I don't ever learn about the accomplishments and contributions of the people who look like me and the members of my family," said Balboa High School freshman Monet Cathrina-Rescat Wilson during public comment at Tuesday's school board meeting. "How can I know who I can be if I don't know who I am? Ethnic studies provides me with the foundation to learn who I am."

I'm sure she wrote that line herself.

Appalling. 

March 3, 2010    Permalink

EMERGING IRAQ – AT 8:49 A.M. ET:  Look, it's not going to be perfect, but, as the great Fouad Ajami writes, Iraq is emerging as a young democracy, and we can thank George W. Bush:

Forgive Vice President Joe Biden the audacity of claiming last month on CNN's "Larry King Live" that Iraq is destined to be "one of the great achievements of this administration." The larger point he made—that a representative government is taking hold in Baghdad—is on the mark.

As Iraq approaches its general elections on March 7, we should take yes for an answer. The American project in Iraq has midwifed that rarest of creatures in the Greater Middle East: a government that emerges out of the consent of the governed. We should trust the Iraqis with their own history. That means letting their electoral process play out against the background of the Arab dynasties and autocracies, and of the Iranian theocracy next door that made a mockery out of its own national elections.

Wonderfully stated.

Nor is it true that a sister republic of the Iranian theocracy is emerging in Baghdad, as some American officials have suggested. This is a slur on Iraq and Iraqis, and on the vast Shiite majority to be exact.

So Iran has designs on Iraq. Well what of it? A long border, the traffic of centuries in faith and commerce, runs between the two countries. But no Iraqi project in the offing contemplates making Iraq a satrap of the Persian state. The Iraqis are neither Lebanese seeking outside patronage, nor Palestinians in need of money and guns from foreign donors. They are a tough breed, they have their own material means, oil aplenty, and a determination to keep their country whole and theirs.

And...

Iraqis of all stripes are wary of Iran. In the provincial elections of 2009, pro-Iranian candidates were trounced and Iraqi nationalists carried the day.

There plays upon Iraqis the hope that their country can make its own way, defying the obituaries of doom written for their new order in neighboring lands and beyond. There is a transparent parliamentary culture in Iraq, and we for our part ought to be proud of what we have given birth to.

And let us not forget, as they take credit for all the good that's emerging, that the Obamans were dead set against our operations in Iraq.  Don't let them forget it, and don't let the American voter forget it.

Leave it to the Egyptians and the Arabs of the Peninsula and the Persian Gulf to belittle the new order in Iraq. They threw everything at it but it managed to survive. Peace has not settled upon Baghdad, but this Iraq, even in its current condition, is a rebuke to the dynasties and the dictatorships of the Arab world.

It is also a rebuke to the leftist intellectuals of America and Europe, including a number in the media and the academy.

Some miss the days when, they say, Saddam Hussein acted as a buffer to Iran:

There is a better way of "balancing" Iran: a regime in Baghdad endowed with the legitimacy of democratic norms. Of all that has been said about Iraq since the time that country became an American burden, nothing equals the stark formulation once offered by a diplomat not given to grandstanding and rhetorical flourishes. Said former U.S. Ambassador Ryan Crocker: "In the end, what we leave behind and how we leave will be more important than how we came."

We can already see the outline of what our labor has created: a representative government, a binational state of Arabs and Kurds, and a country that does not bend to the will of one man or one ruling clan.

COMMENT:  Don't expect Fouad Ajami's optimism to be taught to our college students, any more than our college students are taught what happened to South Vietnam after it was "liberated" by the North.  But the truth has a way of getting out.

March 3, 2010   Permalink

RANGEL AS HISTORY – AT 8:18 A.M. ET:  Charles Rangel, chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee, the committee that writes tax legislation, may soon be Mr. Former Tossed-Out Chairman.  The New York Times has the unemployment news:

WASHINGTON — Caught in a swirl of ethics inquiries, Representative Charles B. Rangel, the dean of the New York Congressional delegation, appeared to be losing his grip on his powerful post as chairman of the tax-policy-writing Ways and Means Committee on Tuesday as Republicans planned to force a vote to remove him from his position.

The House ethics committee last week admonished Mr. Rangel, an ally of Speaker Nancy Pelosi, for violating Congressional gift rules by accepting corporate-sponsored trips to the Caribbean in 2007 and 2008.

The ethics panel is still investigating more serious accusations regarding Mr. Rangel’s fund-raising, his failure to pay federal taxes on rental income from a villa he owns in the Dominican Republic and his use of four rent-stabilized apartments provided by a Manhattan real estate developer.

And with Republicans preparing to force a vote Wednesday seeking to oust Mr. Rangel from his chairmanship, support among his fellow Democrats appeared to be crumbling. He huddled in a meeting with senior party leaders, including Ms. Pelosi, and officials said Democrats were urging him to step down, at least temporarily.

COMMENT:  The story notes that Rangel insists he isn't stepping down, but that's what they always say.  A number of stories this morning report that enthusiasm for among among fellow Democrats is worse than limited.  They're in a tough enough position before the November elections, and they don't need a scandal surrounding the guy in charge of our tax laws in the House.

I'd imagine a new chairman is being prepared.  Oh well, he'll still be a liberal.

March 3, 2010   Permalink

ECONOMIC WARNING – AT 7:49 A.M. ET:  The administration keeps telling us the economy is improving.  I'd like to see some hard evidence.  Meanwhile, a bipartisan group of economists is warning about another economic shock.  From what's left of ABC News:

Even as many Americans still struggle to recover from the country's worst economic downturn since the Great Depression, another crisis – one that will be even worse than the current one – is looming, according to a new report from a group of leading economists, financiers, and former federal regulators.

In the report, the panel, that includes Rob Johnson of the United Nations Commission of Experts on Finance and bailout watchdog Elizabeth Warren, warns that financial regulatory reform measures proposed by the Obama administration and Congress must be beefed up to prevent banks from continuing to engage in high risk investing that precipitated the near collapse of the U.S. economy in 2008.

The report warns that the country is now immersed in a "doomsday cycle" wherein banks use borrowed money to take massive risks in an attempt to pay big dividends to shareholders and big bonuses to management – and when the risks go wrong, the banks receive taxpayer bailouts from the government.

"Risk-taking at banks," the report cautions, "will soon be larger than ever."

COMMENT:  The Constitution tasks Congress with regulating interstate commerce.  Both parties agree that further regulation is needed, but they disagree on the form.  We have, by the way, received a number of warnings like the one above. 

It is true that Wall Street seems to be reverting to its old tricks.  We don't much like government intervention in the economy, but the Constitutional mandate must be carried out.  Clearly, there are powerful financial institutions whose irresponsibility contributed to the meltdown of 2008.  If carefully crafted regulation is required to prevent another obscenity, we'll have to pass it. 

This is one of those situations where a part of the enterprise system, often aided and abetted by reckless government-sponsored entitites like Fannie and Freddie, has failed the nation.  And once again they give the enemies of free enterprise all the ammunition they need.

March 3, 2010   Permalink

WE CANNOT WAIT, PINS AND NEEDLES TIME – AT 7:39 A.M. ET:  Obamacare, the Toyota of health-care plans, has apparently been recalled because of out-of-control acceleration of spending.  The White House promises to unveil Obamacare II today.

We are told, from various sources, that the plan will be 1) smaller than Obamacare; 2) the same size as Obamacare; 3) a compromise between the Senate and House versions; 4) no compromise; 5) will contain GOP ideas; 6) will contain only token mention of GOP ideas; 7) will save more money than the original; 8) will cost the same.

Maybe we should just wait for the unveiling, which is what one usually does with gravestones.  I think the comparison is apt.

The health-care mess reveals the unique inability of this White House to govern, which is presumably what winning elections is about.  But the Dem strategy is now obvious – to patch together something, almost anything, to pass some kind of bill, even if it means using reconciliation in the Senate to do so.

Don't underestimate these guys.  They do control both houses of Congress.  All they have to do is get a one-vote margin in the House, and use reconciliation in the Senate, and we may be stuck with a monster, despite overwhelming public opposition. 

We await the unveiling.

March 3,  2010   Permalink