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.

TO OUR READERS:  Please click on Urgent Agenda several times during the day.  We hope, in 2011, depending on the news, to put up at least one post during the afternoon hours, so there'll always be something new to read.  So visit us regularly.

I appeared on Silvio Canto Jr.'s excellent Dallas-based talk show yesterday.  The link is here.

JANUARY 18,  2011

A GOOD GUY LEAVES – AT 7:14 P.M. ET:  From The New York Times:

Senator Joseph I. Lieberman will announce on Wednesday that he will not seek a fifth term, according to a person he told of his decision.

Mr. Lieberman, whose term is up in 2012, chose to retire rather than risk being defeated, said the person, who spoke to the senator on Tuesday.

“I don’t think he wanted to go out feet first,” the person said.

A longtime Democrat who lost a bitter primary battle to Ned Lamont in 2006, Mr. Lieberman won re-election as an independent that year, largely benefiting from a weak showing by the Republican candidate, who received less than 10 percent of the vote.

But Linda McMahon, the wealthy pro-wrestling tycoon who spent $50 million on an unsuccessful Senate race last year, has already signaled she may run again in 2012.

COMMENT:  Senator Lieberman is part of a dying breed, the national-defense liberal.  He was severely punished by his party, which had nominated him for vice president in 2000, for his strong pro-defense views, and his understanding that politics stops at the water's edge.

I'm sure the hard-left liberals will now rejoice.  They won't thank Joe Lieberman for the support he has given some of their causes over the years.  These people never thank anyone.  They have no idea what graciousness is.  But they know how to hate, and they sure practiced what they knew on Joe Lieberman.

Lieberman's decision to address the Republican National Convention last year probably doomed any chance he had for reconciliation with his own party.  But, like many things Joe has done in life, it was a decision of conscience.

The Senate will miss Joe Lieberman, just as it missed Barry Goldwater.  There are some public servants who are valuable just because you know they'll tell you what they actually believe.

January 18, 2011       Permalink

OBAMA UP IN RASMUSSEN POLL – AT 5:36 P.M. ET:  All data reported in today's Rasmussen presidential survey was acquired in polling done after the president's Tucson speech, and it appears that Mr. Obama has indeed gotten a bump:

The Rasmussen Reports daily Presidential Tracking Poll for Tuesday shows that 27% of the nation's voters Strongly Approve of the way that Barack Obama is performing his role as president. Thirty-seven percent (37%) Strongly Disapprove, giving Obama a Presidential Approval Index rating of -10.

And...

Overall, 48% of voters say they at least somewhat approve of the president's performance. Fifty-one percent (51%) disapprove.

That's the president's best showing since the exact same numbers were reported on December 27th.  There's no guarantee, of course, that this halo will last, and please note that the numbers are still in negative territory.  They're just a little less negative than usual.

At the same time, Republicans lead in the generic congressional ballot, although the lead has narrowed:

New Rasmussen Reports telephone polling finds that 46% of Likely U.S. Voters nationwide say they would vote for their district’s Republican congressional candidate, while 38% would choose the Democrat instead.

Last week, Republicans posted a 47% to 36% lead over Democrats. The week before Election Day last November, support for Republicans peaked at 51%, the highest level of support either party has enjoyed in the last two years, but it has tapered off slightly since then.

And...

Republicans lead by 16 points among men but run even with Democrats among women. The GOP holds a 22-point lead among voters not affiliated with either major political party.

The Democratic collapse among independents is stunning.  If Republicans can hold the indies, there may be reason for optimism for 2012, if the GOP can find a candidate who is breathing, and has a normal pulse.

January 18, 2011       Permalink

A TALE OF TWO SHOOTINGS – There was another shooting today, this one at Gardena High School in California, which is part of the Los Angeles school district. 

The facts are confused.  We know that an African-American male student had a gun in a backpack and that two students have been wounded, one in the head.

A school spokesman says the shooting was accidental.  In this scenario, the kid with the gun dropped his backpack and the pistol inside went off, with the bullet striking the two students.  A second report has it that the sweet, innocent child pulled the gun from the backpack and that it went off, striking those two students.

Fox News is, from what I can see, the only news source reporting that the police are highly skeptical of the "accident" accounts.  Yeah, I'd imagine. 

There is no discussion about an "atmosphere" of violence, about heated rhetoric, or much of anything else.  The story is being downplayed.

However, I find the "accident" thing a bit hard to take.  I'm speculating now, but dropping a soft backpack shouldn't be enough to make a gun go off.  As far as the "he pulled it from the backpack and it went off" story, that's equally hard to accept.  The gun was obviously pointed at someone's head, since that's where the bullet went. 

The issue is whether any of the witnesses to the shooting would be willing to tell the truth.  There is a heavy penalty for "snitchin'" in some communities.

We'll follow it, but skepticism is the order of the day.

January 18, 2011      Permalink

BAD TASTE AWARD FOR THE DAY – AT 9:53 A.M. ET:  Maybe it's time for the former governor of California to avail himself of the Constitutional right to shut up.  Ahnold, take a vacation. 

LOS ANGELES (CBS) —Arnold Schwarzenegger is pulling no punches in his first formal interview since leaving office, claiming that the highest office in the state left him “addicted” to its power.

An Austrian addicted to power is not a good thing.  Been there, done that.

In a recent sit-down the former governor granted to the Austrian newspaper Krone, Schwarzenegger estimates that his seven years as governor cost him about $200 million – $70 million of that in lost movie roles.  Schwarzenegger also laments the fact that Hollywood salaries have dropped since he left the business.

My heart breaks.  I weep. 

He said his abysmal popularity rankings were “just a snapshot” and that “they would have rocketed to the top” had he not been forced out of office by term limits.

Today low numbers, tomorrow the world.  Isn't that the way it went?

Nowhere in the transcripts from the interview posted on the newspaper’s website did Schwarzenegger face any questions about alleged favoritism in his decision to grant clemency to the son of former Assembly Speaker Fabian Nunez.

Bad move, and will hurt him if he tries to return to politics.  Is there a bodybuilding commissioner?

January 18, 2011      Permalink

A LEGAL POINT  – AT 9:25 A.M. ET:  A delicate point has been raised about Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords, who is, thankfully, recovering from her gunshot wound at an Arizona hospital:  What happens if se cannot quickly resume her duties?  Can she remain in Congress?

CNN has done a well-reported story on the subject, and it's here.  It seems that, under Arizona law, if a public official cannot perform his or her duties for three months, the seat can be declared vacant.  In that case, a special election would be called.

Would this happen in the case of Congresswoman Giffords?  Well, let's put it this way:  Anyone who tried to invoke that statute would become the most unpopular politician in America within minutes.  So I don't think it will happen unless the congresswoman takes a dramatic turn for the worse, and we pray that doesn't happen. 

I would imagine that Gabby Giffords will be given far more than three months to demonstrate that she can get back to work, if only in a limited way.  If she cannot return to her position, I think she has the dignity to withdraw.  But I want to see her back on the House floor.

January 18, 2011       Permalink

VULGAR, JUST VULGAR – AT 8:44 A.M. ET:  Didn't President Obama ask us to tone down the rhetoric?  I think I heard that in the Tucson speech.  Apparently, the word didn't travel to his chief groupie at the Washington Post, Eugene Robinson. 

In an outlandish column, Robinson lashes out irrationally, and with meanness, at Sarah Palin, who has been smeared in the last week in a manner that makes Joe McCarthy look like an amateur. 

To give just a sample of the bizarre craziness in Robinson's attack, consider this:

The way Palin portrayed herself as not only a popular champion but also a martyr reminded me - not for the first time - of Eva Peron. If she chooses this unpromising route to higher political office, I suggest she find a suitable balcony from which to deliver her next address to the nation.

Or perhaps - solely in the interest of civil discourse - that there be no next address.

COMMENT:  Sweet of you, Eugene - comparing an elected American governor to the wife of a Latin American fascist.  Wonder how much you know about the Perons?

And that last line is chilling.  Sarah Palin gives strong speeches, to be sure, but they're mild compared to some of the wild rhetoric of the left, such as calling President Bush a Nazi, and members of the Tea Party racists.  It is appalling that a journalist would ask that someone leave public life simply because he doesn't like her remarks. 

Eugene Robinson is a Pulitzer-Prize winner.  Jimmah Carter is a Nobel-Peace-Prize winner.  Those prizes have been debased.

January 18, 2011      Permalink

QUOTE OF THE DAY – AT 8:27 A.M. ET:  From Jory Goodman, M.D., distinguished psychiatrist and a regular contributor to our Angel's Corner.  Writing after the Arizona tragedy in the Psychology Today blog, Dr. Goodman reminds us of the history of those who commit massacres.  It is a pleasure to quote someone who actually does the research and knows the material:

Indeed, there is a very obvious pattern seen in the life histories, behavioral patterns, psychopathology and violent acts of the perpetrators of most of the massacres of the past decades. They all had histories. They were all known to the police, the schools, and even to the mental health systems but they were not contained, committed, incarcerated, treated or anything else useful safe and productive. They were ignored in the hope that they would just go away. 

That is correct.  It's much easier to blame the guns or political rhetoric.  And Dr. Goodman reminds us of something else:

Please don't be foolish and suggest that episodes of mass violence are more common in the United States than elsewhere because of firearms. They do occur everywhere. But, if you care to examine closely the laws, civil rights, and mental health regulations in the “enlightened European social democracies” you will see that they are dramatically different than ours. Do the homework. I don't want to take up more space with long dissertations about this. In Scandinavian countries serious sex offenders (who by definition are not truly treatable) are surgically or chemically castrated. There aren't a lot of repeat offenders. But these cultures are idealized by the left as some sort of utopian nirvanas. [Do not say I advocate this, it's simply an example.]

COMMENT:  Our national discussions are often unburdened by facts.  Please read Dr. Goodman's column, and you might also want to examine a column, "Crazy People with Guns," that he wrote on his own blog in 2009.  Again, filled with substance.  It's here.

January 18, 2011       Permalink

WHILE WE SLEEP – AT 8:11 A.M. ET:  Obama operatives, especially in the EPA, are busy drawing up new regulations they can impose themselves, without an act of Congress.  After the administration took a beating in the 2010 elections, it was widely predicted that it would try to rule by administrative fiat, since it could no longer get major legislation through the House.  The prediction has come true.  From Fox:

A move by the Environmental Protection Agency to revoke the long-standing permits for a mammoth coal mine in West Virginia sends a strong signal that President Obama plans to implement key parts of his agenda even though newly empowered Republicans can block his plans in Congress.

In the aftermath of the November elections, many political pundits predicted that the once-unchecked Obama legislative machine would turn its energies to federal rulemaking as a way to circumvent Republicans on Capitol Hill. And the EPA’s decision last week suggests that those forecasts were spot-on.

Much to the consternation of the West Virginia delegation in Congress, the coal industry, and the working people of the Mountain State, the agency took the unprecedented step of revoking a mining permit that it had issued four years ago to Arch Coal’s Spruce No. 1 Mine in Logan County, West Virginia.

The revocation prompted unusually harsh responses from West Virginia's two Democratic Senators.

Sen. Jay Rockefeller sent the president a letter which read, in part: "I am writing to express my outrage with the Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) decision to veto a rigorously reviewed and lawfully issued permit at the Spruce Number 1 Mine in Logan County, West Virginia. This action not only affects this specific permit, but needlessly throws other permits into a sea of uncertainty at a time of great economic distress."

Sen. Joe Manchin issued a statement which appeared to mock the EPA's permitting process.

"According to the EPA, it doesn't matter if you did everything right, if you followed all of the rules,” Manchin wrote. “Why? They just change the rules."

COMMENT:  When two members of the president's own party harshly criticize the administration, it is news.  The president seems determined to carry out his 2008 agenda, regardless of the public will or damage to a fragile economy.  And the EPA action doesn't begin to exhaust (oh, maybe that's a bad word) the agency's potential for forcing changes that will drive people out of work.

We all want clean air, water, and soil.  But there's a right way and a wrong way, and administrative fiat is the wrong way.  Maybe the president can give a shout out to all those who'll be thrown out of work.

January 18, 2011     Permalink

JANUARY 17,  2011

OH THANK YOU, MASTERS.  THANK YOU, THANK YOU, THANK YOU, FOR THROWING US A CRUMB – AT 8:01 P.M. ET:  What is it about "professional journalists," that they can't complete a forward pass.

Indeed, if some of these worthies were football players, they'd be reluctant to try a forward pass because its completition might offend the other team.

Mark Hemingway, in the Washington Examiner, has the latest example of spinelessness on parade by the keepers of the flame: 

I guess the Society for Professional Journalists finally decided that handing out awards named for a senile anti-Semite probably isn't the best P.R. move.

And then the grand statement from SPJ:

INDIANAPOLIS – The board of directors of the Society of Professional Journalists voted Friday to retire the Helen Thomas Lifetime Achievement Award.

The vote means the Society will not give out an award for lifetime achievement. The action does not rename the award or remove Thomas’ name.

Real guts.  Just eliminate the award completely rather than rename it for an outstanding journalist.  We must kowtow to Helen's fanatical fans.

Both the board of directors and the executive committee heard from many people inside and outside of SPJ’s membership and journalism. SPJ fully understands the concerns expressed by both sides regarding whether renaming or retiring the award is necessary or improper.

A prominent objection to taking any action was that of Helen Thomas’ free speech rights. SPJ staunchly believes Helen Thomas and all people in the United States have a right to free speech. The Society defends that fundamental legal right as a core organizational mission, even when the speech is unpopular, vile or considered offensive.

Oh please, oh please.  What, precisely, do Helen Thomas's free-speech rights have to do with naming an award for her?  Is there some Constitutional right to have an award named for you?  No, I didn't think so.

This is the garbage put out by the old left.  They claim that they not only have a right to free speech, they have a right not to be criticized.  You get this on college campuses all the time, which is possibly where these "professional journalists" learned it.

As Americans, we have a right to free speech, but not cost-free speech.  Say what you want, but your words have consequences, and people have a right, and a duty, to judge you by those words.  They have a right to withdraw any honors they may have given you.

This is a weak decision, designed apparently to satisfy both sides.  It satisfies neither.  It shows what modern journalism has become.

January 17, 2011      Permalink 

NAILED – AT 6:10 P.M. ET:  One of the great myths circulated by the painstream media is that internet bloggers aren't real journalists, and can't be.  I think that's been disproved several million times.

Today, at Power Line, Johnn Hinderaker practices fine online journalism by nailing the Associated Press, which has been hawking the idea, based on one of its polls, that opposition to Obamacare is weakening:

This Associated Press-GfK poll on health care has gotten a great deal of media attention. Here is how the AP characterizes its own findings:

"As lawmakers shaken by the shooting of a colleague return to the health care debate, an Associated Press-GfK poll finds raw feelings over President Barack Obama's overhaul have subsided."

It appears that what is mostly going on is that the AP-GfK sampled a heavily Democratic group of respondents this month. This is on top of the fact that the survey sampled all adults, not likely voters.

Oh.

Hinderaker publishes the poll details, proving his point.

Democrats and Democrat leaners outnumbered Republicans and Republican leaners by six points, whereas among likely voters in October, Republicans outnumbered Democrats by the same margin. It stands to reason that if you over-sample Democrats, you will get poll data more sympathetic to their policies.

Scott Rasmussen polls on the same subject, and his results, which Hinderaker includes, show continued high opposition to Obamacare. 

The principal difference between this Rasmussen survey and the AP-GfK poll is that Rasmussen surveys likely voters.

They're the people who actually make a difference at the polls.

It is reasonable to assume that Democrats in the press have deliberately promoted the AP-GfK poll in order to deter Republicans from voting for repeal and to encourage Democrats to stick with the administration. It will be interesting to see whether today's Rasmussen survey gets an equal amount of media attention.

COMMENT:  Republicans in Congress understand that any vote to overturn all of Obamacare is symbolic.  What the public wants is a better plan, not no plan.  Republicans must come up to the plate and provide that better plan.  We'll be watching and holding them to account. 

January 17, 2011       Permalink

THE WORDS FLOW – AT 5:44 P.M. ET:  It's Martin Luther King Jr. day, and the words are flowing.  Tragically, they're just words.  We'll be back to the same hypocrisy, the same racial pandering and corruption, tomorrow morning.  And minority kids will be the victims.

Consider this bit of pap:

(CNSNews.com) - In a Martin Luther King, Jr. Day address, U.S. Secretary of Education Arne Duncan said education is “the civil rights issue of our generation” and the “only way” for young people to pursue the American dream.

“I’m just convinced education is the civil rights issue of our generation and we have a lot of hard work ahead of us. If we want our young people to have a chance to enter the mainstream of society and pursue the American dream, they can only do that through education,” he said at National Action Network’s Martin Luther King, Jr. day prayer breakfast, hosted by the group’s founder, Rev. Al Sharpton.

Duncan continued, “We all know the stats, we all know the numbers; I don’t have to go through those. But I just want to take a moment to talk about why I’m hopeful because for all the challenges we faced, we have the solutions here and the President has drawn a line in the sand. He said by 2020 we have to again lead the world in college graduates. We are not going to get there unless many more young people of color are part of the solution unless, until we’re giving them those kinds of opportunities there’s no way to hit the President’s goal.”

COMMENT:  This is just racial boilerplate, delivered at a meeting presided over by that great conciliator and philosopher, Al Sharpton.  After last week's outrage in Arizona, you'd think someone would have pointed out the fact that Sharpton, essentially a small-time local leader with a big ego, has one of the most inflammatory records of anyone on the political stage today.  But there was only silence.

I think Arne Duncan is a decent guy.  But the idea that children of color lack opportunities is nonsense.  The opportunities are there.  What's also there is an insidious culture that has been allowed to develop in black communities that discourages academic excellence.  Black kids can be as accomplished as anyone else, but they need a nurturing culture that treats them, not as victims or as political pawns, but as young citizens with responsibilities.

Duncan might send a message to some African-American "leaders" in a few places who are protesting school districts that are holding class on King Day to make up school time lost because of storms.  Duncan might say that Dr. King would have liked that.  Instead, the grandstanding continues.

And we're not going to improve education in this country unless we recognize and deal with certain truths – that our teacher-training schools are often hopeless centers of ideological propaganda, that teacher unions are far too powerful, that many school systems are top-heavy with political patronage and overpaid administrators, and that "the college education" is too often an oversold package of glorified high-school courses rather than a rigorous course.

Don't hold your breath.

January 17, 2011       Permalink

PRESIDENT PERRY? – AT 9:33 A.M. ET:  There is a boomlet underway for Governor Rick Perry of Texas, as reported by NRO:

To be clear, a Perry White House bid would be a long shot. In mid-November 2008, amid George W. Bush’s dismal approval ratings and Barack Obama’s historic campaign to take the White House, I wrote a column predicting that it would be many years before another Texas politician would be viable as a national candidate. I still think that’s true. But Perry has several things working in his favor. Foremost among them: He can win Texas. Recall that when Obama won in 2008, he was only the third person since Calvin Coolidge to win the White House without prevailing in Texas. The others were Bill Clinton (who, thanks largely to Ross Perot, did it twice) and Richard Nixon (who did it once, in 1968). Second, Perry can see the obvious: a large but weak list of potential Republican candidates, none of whom has emerged as a real favorite.

Perry is a hardline conservative, which is both a blessing and a curse.  It's a blessing because he could convince the party base.  It's a curse because any successful presidential candidate has to appeal to the political middle.

Perry is involved in a huge battle with the EPA, which wants to restrict Texas's right to approve new industrial and energy plants.  It's the kind of struggle that Republicans adore.  If Perry wins, and can solve the state's budget deficit without a tax increase, he may emerge as a serious contender.

But I think the general election would be an enormous hurdle, unless the economy really tanks.  In my view, what the GOP needs is a fresh, young face, a Marco Rubio or a Paul Ryan, or a Susanna Martinez, to negate the image of a party of good ol' boys.  And again, it must get votes from the middle, which is where elections are won. 

Where is Ronald Reagan, now that we need him again?

January 17, 2011       Permalink

RUDY SPEAKS OUT ON TUCSON – AT 9:12 A.M. ET:  No one knows more about crime fighting than Rudy Giuliani, the abrasive former mayor of New York, who actually did something about crime while he was mayor, and changed the face of the city.  Some say he saved it. 

Rudy is agitated over the fact that the Tucson shooter wasn't forced to get mental help, and Rudy is right.  From The Politico:

Former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani said Sunday that the shooting of Rep. Gabrielle Giffords (D-Ariz.) by a gunman many view as deranged should prompt more muscular efforts to force individuals with mental illness into treatment.

It's about time someone brought this up.

News accounts in recent days have described a series of bizarre statements by the accused gunman Jared Loughner and detailed how he repeatedly clashed with authorities, particularly at the community college he attended.

"This man was crying out for someone who needed to be treated. He was being told to be treated. People were saying he was bizarre. People were saying he was frightening. A teacher wouldn't be near him without a guard being there," Giuliani said on CBS's "Face The Nation." "Gosh, you would think, at some point along the way he would have been evaluated."

Yeah, but if you say that you can't blame Sarah Palin, which is what too many in the media want to do.

"The most relevant problem was the lack of an ability to deal with what was apparently paranoid schizophrenia or schizophrenia, that should have been treated," the former mayor said. "We're making a big mistake here not changing our procedures with regard to mental illness."

Giuliani suggested that the shooting incident in Tucson, which claimed the lives of six people, may have been the result of policies that date back to the 1960s that protect individual freedom and make it difficult to force mental-health treatment on those who need it.

Absolutely correct.  What happened in Arizona may well have been a direct result of the "mentally ill have rights" movement, an outgrowth of the "reforms" of the 1960s.  There was a major movement, backed by the "enlightened" segments of our society, to make it almost impossible to commit a mentally ill person without his or her consent.  I'm sure some of these cases worked out well enough.  But a number of seriously ill people were dumped on our streets, many became homeless, and some became dangerous.  Free of constant supervision, the mentally ill could easily go off their medication. 

There simply has to be a point when, with reasonable judiciousness, a person who is seen as a threat to himself or society can be confined without his consent.  When you look at the Arizona shooter's history, it is shocking:  Many encounters with the police or with campus security forces; bizarre, frightening behavior; chilling statements.  Yet, he was permitted to roam free, and could even buy a pistol because his history wasn't in the federal database.  If the law had allowed the material to be in that database, he would have been barred from buying the gun that he allegedly used a week ago Saturday.

January 17, 2011       Permalink

GUESS HU'S COMING TO DINNER – AT 8:41 A.M. ET:  China's big guy is heading to Washington this week.

Americans tend to ignore the rise of China, while buying its products every day.  We haven't had a direct military confrontation with the Chinese since the Korean War, some 60 years ago.   And thus, the huge Chinese military buildup, while reported in the media, doesn't strike the average American with much impact.

But China is a complex mechanism, as The New York Times points out, with different power centers jockeying for influence:

Mr. Hu has repeatedly asserted China’s disinclination to challenge American power; his designated foreign policy coordinator, State Councilor Dai Bingguo, recently wrote an article reaffirming Mr. Deng’s warning, made back when China’s modernization was beginning, that the country should bide its time before seeking a global role.

On Friday, the article was cited by Mr. Obama’s national security adviser, Thomas E. Donilon, who characterized it as “a definitive statement at this point of the leadership’s approach to foreign policy generally and the United States specifically.”

But even Mr. Donilon acknowledged debates “particularly in the blogosphere and in newspapers in China” that urge a far faster, more assertive rise, and that trumpet American decline. He said with some understatement that “following that debate is a very important thing to do.”

COMMENT:  My friend, China expert Gordon Chang, also warns that China may face substantial internal turmoil and chaos in coming years.  The country, with the world's largest population, has sections that are unhappy and largely ungovernable. 

We must, of course, watch the rise of China's economic and military power carefully, but let's not make the Chinese ten feet tall.  We won the Cold War against the Russians, and Japan isn't the economic monster it once seemed.  China will grow, but can easily stumble badly.

January 17, 2011       Permalink

A TALE OF TWO SPEECHES – AT 8:16 A.M. ET:  A warning:  You are going to have a lot of pseudo-history thrown at you this week.  Brace yourselves, cover your ears.

Today is the 50th anniversary of President Dwight D. Eisenhower's farewell address to the nation.  Thanks to the political left, it has become known as the "industrial-military complex" speech.  The left just loved the idea that this former five-star general was warning about a new military-industrial complex...conveniently ignoring the fact that Eisenhower, in the same speech, said that it was necessary.

There will be much pompous foolery – it's already begun – examining the wisdom of Dwight Eisenhower's warning by people who don't realize that the admonition turned out to be a false alarm.  Defense spending, as a proportion of our GNP, is dramatically lower today than in 1961, and we have only a tenth of the men and women under arms than we had in World War II.  We haven't had a draft in almost 40 years.

Thursday will mark the 50th anniversary of President Kennedy's inaugural address, probably the most quoted inaugural since FDR's "the only thing we have to fear is fear itself" first inaugural, delivered in 1933.  Pundits will compare Eisenhower, "the wise old man," with Kennedy, the young idealist.  I'm very curious to see how modern liberals will handle the Kennedy speech, which called, unabashedly, for a powerful military and for America spreading the democratic ideal. 

My suggestion is to ignore the commentary and read the speeches.  Then draw your own conclusions.

Eisenhower's speech is here.  Kennedy's is here.  Enjoy a bit of history by going directly to the sources.

January 17, 2011     Permalinks