I have a new piece up at Hudson New York this morning, called "Losing Quietly."  It's about how America can lose its international struggle quietly by simply giving up its freedoms.  It's here.

TUESDAY,  APRIL 28,  2009

CONGRESSIONAL ELECTION COMING UP - AT 10:48 P.M. ET:  With all the attention focused on the president's first 100 days, we tend to forget that the next great political contest will be the congressional election coming up in fall of next year.  And so today's Rasmussen poll of congressional preference is particularly stunning:

For just the second time in more than five years of daily or weekly tracking, Republicans now lead Democrats in the latest edition of the Generic Congressional Ballot.

A new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey found that 41% would vote for their district’s Republican candidate while 38% would choose the Democrat. Thirty-one percent (31%) of conservative Democrats said they would vote for their district’s Republican candidate.

Overall, the GOP gained two points this week, while the Democrats lost a point in support. Still, it’s important to note that the GOP’s improved position comes primarily from falling Democratic support. Democrats are currently at their lowest level of support in the past year while Republicans are at the high water mark.

COMMENT:  That's good news for now.  However, the key to the future is to build Republican support by developing a program the public will support, not simply waiting for the Dems to falter.  They're already faltering.  The GOP must play offense, not defense.  The Democrats will not take losses in the congressional elections without a brutal fight. 

April 28, 2009   Permalink

A GEM - AT 10:40 P.M. ET:  Ordinarily, this would be published at Snippets, but it's too good a news story to pass up.  Britain's Telegraph reports that "a Muslim-owned jewellery shop has decided to ban customers wearing veils after being targeted by robbers disguised as Islamic women." 

Everyone entering ATAA Jewellers in Glasgow must reveal their faces under planned new rules to protect staff from further attacks.

The store owners decided to act after two Asian men wearing traditional Muslim women's clothes – including niqab veils – made away with thousands of pounds worth of jewellery earlier this month.

The pair, who were also carrying handbags, pretended to be interested in buying some items but attacked staff with pepper spray when cabinets were unlocked.

Now the Sadiq family who run the shop are planning to put up a sign informing customers that they cannot wear any headgear that covers the face.

Any Muslim women who are more comfortable in a niqab will be encouraged to telephone in advance to ensure that a female member of staff is present during their visit, to confirm their identities.

COMMENT:  I'll be on the lookout for any reaction from professional multiculturalists, who will probably be appalled at this concession to reality.  I wonder if the store will be fined. 

I only have two questions:  If the two robbers were so veiled that the store owners couldn't tell that they were males, how do they know they were Asian men?  Also, when the robbers asked to see things, didn't their voices give them away?  I await answers.

April 28, 2009   Permalink 

IF IT HAD BEEN BUSH - AT 9:54 P.M. ET:  From WCBS in New York:

A furious President Barack Obama ordered an internal review of Monday's low-flying photo op over the Statue of Liberty.

CBS 2 HD has discovered the feds will have plenty to question.

Federal officials knew that sending two fighter jets and Air Force One to buzz ground zero and Lady Liberty might set off nightmarish fears of a 9/11 replay, but they still ordered the photo-op kept secret from the public.

In a memo obtained by CBS 2 HD the Federal Aviation Administration's James Johnston said the agency was aware of "the possibility of public concern regarding DOD (Department of Defense) aircraft flying at low altitudes" in an around New York City. But they demanded total secrecy from the NYPD, the Secret Service, the FBI and even the mayor's office and threatened federal sanctions if the secret got out.

COMMENT:  This is one of those "if it had been Bush" stories.  Can you just imagine how the ideological guardians in liberal New York would have reacted if this had happened on Bush's watch?

Let's see if any heads roll.

April 28, 2009   Permalink

I GUESS IT ISN'T THAT WARM - AT 9:43 P.M. ET:  From The Hill:

The House may not vote on a climate change bill this year, according to a high-ranking Democratic leader.

Rep. Chris Van Hollen (D-Md.) told The Hill on Monday that leaders could opt not to bring a climate measure to the floor if the bill has little chance of passing the Senate.

Democrats, including Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.), had previously indicated they would pass a climate bill through the House by the August congressional recess.

COMMENT: You mean Al Gore made that recent trip to Capitol Hill for nothing?

It's dawning on some Democrats that a climate-change bill has real consequences for real people, and they may not be cool consequences.  Also, there are serious scientific questions raised by serious scientists.  The constant, McCarthy-style smear of anyone who disagrees with Gore's position as frauds or "the equivalent of Holocaust deniers" hasn't gone down well.

April 28, 2009   Permalink

FINALLY, BORDER TIGHTENING - AT 9:40 A.M. ET:  From The New York Times:

Countries around the world began tightening their border and immigration controls Tuesday as the number of confirmed cases of swine flu continued to rise.

The number of deaths believed attributable to swine flu climbed to as many as 152 on Tuesday — all of them in Mexico — as news agencies reported the number of confirmed cases of infection in the United States stood at 50 after further testing at a New York City school.

COMMENT:  Amazing.  Someone finally found a reason to tighten our borders.  How long have we been talking about that?

April 28, 2009   Permalink

CONGRESSIONAL DEMS CRANKING UP PRESSURE ON IRAN - AT 8:54 A.M. ET:  While the administration fantasizes that talks with Iran will be a wonder to behold, savvy congressional Dems, and their Republican allies, are pursuing a more adult strategy, as The Politico reports:

Democrats in Congress are joining Republicans in calling for tough new sanctions on Iran and warning the Obama administration that its policy of engagement shouldn’t last too long before turning to harsher steps aimed at halting Tehran’s nuclear program.

This week, as many as 20 senators, including several senior Democrats in the House and Senate, are expected to join in introducing a bill that would authorize sanctions against companies involved in supplying gasoline and other refined petroleum products to Iran.

A similar bill is also in the works in the House. Last month, seven senior Democrats, including Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (D-Md.), warned President Barack Obama against “open-ended engagement with Iran.”

The administration is so far moving on a slower timetable, refusing to commit itself to new sanctions until it sees whether its diplomatic outreach to Iran produces results.

COMMENT:  They sure are moving on a slower timetable, or no timetable at all.  By the time these "negotiations" get started, Chelsea Clinton will be running for president.

Time is critical here.  The Iranian nuke program forges ahead.  The members of Congress are making it clear that they won't go along with just anything the Obaman soft-liners have in mind.

April 28, 2009   Permalink 

RIGHTING THE SELF-RIGHTEOUS - AT 8:04 A.M. ET:  Columnist Dennis Prager, in a first-class column, has a series of very tough questions for the crowd of self-righteous holy warriors (or holy leftists) who have arisen to weep and wail over Bush-era interrogation programs.  A sample:

Given how much you rightly hate torture, why did you oppose the removal of Saddam Hussein, whose prisons engaged in far more hideous tortures, on thousands of times more people, than America did -- all of whom, moreover, were individuals and families who either did nothing or simply opposed tyranny?

And...

Are all forms of painful pressure equally morally objectionable? In other words, are you willing to acknowledge that there are gradations of torture as, for example, there are gradations of burns, with a third-degree burn considerably more injurious and painful than a first-degree burn?

And...

Is any maltreatment of anyone at any time -- even a high-level terrorist with knowledge that would likely save innocents’ lives -- wrong?

And...

If lawyers will be prosecuted for giving legal advice to an administration that you consider immoral and illegal, do you concede that this might inhibit lawyers in the future from giving unpopular but sincerely argued advice to the government in any sensitive area?

COMMENT:  There are more like that, and those listed above are only partial quotes.  Prager provides a foundation for challenging our new class of holy men, who are lofty and above us all.  The Bush administration made a serious error in not fighting back hard against its critics, while it was still in office.  But it's never too late.

April 28, 2009   Permalink

BRILLIANT HANSON, ON THE INTERROGATION ISSUE - AT 7:34 A.M. ET:  Victor David Hanson shows why he's Victor Davis Hanson in the best piece I've read on the prisoner interrogation issue.  Hanson goes back into American history - a subject unknown to many "journalists" today - and demonstrates why any prosecution of Bush officials is way outside our traditions and our values:

First, remember that the Constitution already permits ongoing audit of the executive branch. Watergate prompted Nixon’s resignation in face of impending impeachment. Iran-Contra almost destroyed the Reagan administration. President Clinton’s sexual antics with a female subordinate, and lying about it subsequently (speaking no truth to those without power), prompted his impeachment. Nancy Pelosi, who was briefed on the options of waterboarding in the dark days following 9/11, had ample opportunity to hold congressional hearings on Bush’s overemphasis on homeland security. Her outrage now rings false, an unseemly ploy to hide her complicity in what she once thought was responsible governance. 

And...

Dwight Eisenhower did not open hearings to pave the way for indictment of federal officials of the Roosevelt administration or California lawyers working for Gov. Earl Warren, who in concert planned and carried out the forced internment of American citizens into camps. Much less did he bring Truman & Co. up on charges of using nuclear weapons to incinerate Japanese civilians.

And...

Warren Harding and Calvin Coolidge did not seek indictment of Woodrow Wilson’s Justice Department, which did everything from strengthening segregation to jailing war critics and helping foster the odious vigilantes of the American Protective League. No subsequent administration tried to arrest Lincoln’s Cabinet members for signing off on the suspension of habeas corpus after Fort Sumter — unconstitutional decrees that eventually would mean some 15,000 Americans were held without charges for indeterminate length.

COMMENT:  Wonderful, wonderful.  Read the whole thing.

April 28, 2009   Permalink

THANKS FOR THE BALANCE, GUYS - AT 6:58 A.M. ET:  In a singularly unimpressive debut at The New York Times, "conservative" columnist Ross Douthat argues that Dick Cheney, whom he clearly despises, should have been the GOP candidate for president last year.  The logic here is that Cheney would have lost in a landslide, and the political right would have realized what changes had to be made to make the Republican Party viable again. 

So begins the new career of a "conservative" columnist.  The fact is, The Times fired Bill Kristol, who played that role, and brought in another soft-core conservative, Douthat, to write alongside even softer-core conservative David Brooks, an eminently decent writer, but hardly a torch carrier for rightist ideas. 

What The Times really needs is another William Safire.  But they will not hire anyone in that league.  They really don't want him.  Too effective.

April 28, 2009   Permalink

MONDAY,  APRIL 27,  2009

SHOCKED, SHOCKED, THAT THIS KIND OF THING GOES ON IN JOURNALISM - AT 7:10 P.M. ET: 

The nonpartisan research group Center for Media and Public Affairs along with California's Chapman University released a study that found the nightly newscasts devoted 27 hours, 44 minutes to Pres. Obama's presidency in his first 50 days. That compares to 7 hours, 42 minutes for Pres. George W. Bush and 15 hours, 2 minutes for Pres. Bill Clinton during the first 50 days of their first terms.

Not only has Obama gotten more coverage, but that coverage has been more positive than his predecessors.

On the ABC, CBS, and NBC evening newscasts, 58% of all evaluations of the president and his policies have been favorable, while 42% were unfavorable. That compares with 33% positive in the comparable period of Bush's tenure and 44% positive for Pres. Clinton.

COMMENT:  I never would have guessed.  It may take me hours to absorb the shock.  I can't guarantee that I'll be my usual warm self.

April 27, 2009   Permalink

GM'S BLEAK FUTURE - AT 5:48 P.M. ET:  From the Washington Post:

The U.S. Treasury would own at least a 50 percent stake in General Motors under a plan the company released today to avoid bankruptcy.

The strategy would essentially formalize the government's control over one of the icons of corporate America.

"I'm a believer in dealing in reality," GM chief executive Fritz Henderson said in announcing the new plan. "We've gotten great support from the Treasury. It has viewed this matter from day one as a kind of private equity investment. It has pushed us in a lot of ways."

The announcement came as the company said it would further shrink the number of workers, dealers and types of cars in an attempt to prepare it for a United States shrunken by the recession.

COMMENT:  Could you have predicted this a year ago?  We will have Washington running our largest car company.  And the Washington Post informs us that all this will happen to prepare GM for an American "shrunken by the recession."  Really?  When has America ever been "shrunken" by a recession?  Recessions are temporary.  America has always come back larger and stronger.
But in the new Obama world that may not be the dream any longer.  We must be punished.  We must be more modest in our ambitions.  We must learn from our
European betters. 

Do Americans understand what is happening?   Do they care, or has a generation of post-sixties miseducation prepared them to love this not-so-brave new world? 

April 27, 2009   Permalink

IF BUSH HAD DONE IT - AT 4:54 P.M. ET:  From The New York Times:

An Air Force One lookalike, the backup plane for the one regularly used by the president, flew low over parts of New York and New Jersey on Monday morning, accompanied by two F-16 fighters, so Air Force photographers could take pictures high above the New York harbor.

But the exercise — conducted without any notification to the public — caused momentary panic in some quarters and led to the evacuation of several buildings in Lower Manhattan and Jersey City. By the afternoon, the situation had turned into a political fuse box, with Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg saying that he was “furious” that he had not been told in advance about the flyover.

At 4:39 p.m. Monday, the White House issued an apology for the flyover.

COMMENT:  Can you just imagine the press reaction if BUSH (!!) had done this?  Militarist.  Cowboy.  Recklessly endangering American lives.  Wasting fuel.  Polluting the environment.  Scaring the Statue of Liberty. 

Then there'd be a congressional investigation into harsh flying techniques.

April 27, 2009   Permalink

FAIR IS FAIR - AT 4:20 P.M. ET:  From The Politico:

House Minority Leader John Boehner (R-Ohio) is upping the ante on Speaker Nancy Pelosi — asking the Obama administration to release CIA notes taken during a 2002 briefing session with Pelosi and other Congressional leaders.

Boehner is backing efforts by Rep. Pete Hoekstra (R-Mich.), the ranking member on the House intelligence committee, to release agency's records of meetings with Congressional members from both parties.

The GOP is hoping to spotlight the fact that Pelosi and other Democrats raised few objections when told about details of the Bush administration "enhanced interrogations" of terror suspects.

“Congress and the American people deserve a full and complete set of facts about what information was yielded by CIA’s interrogation program, and they deserve to know which of their representatives in Congress were briefed about these techniques and the extent of those briefings," says Boehner, backing Hoekstra's letter to DNI Dennis Blair.

COMMENT:  Seems reasonable and fair, which is probably why it won't be done.  If Republicans artfully put the pressure on the administration over this issue, exposing the extent of Democratic acquiescence to enhanced interrogation techniques, the subject may suddenly seem less urgent to the Dem majority in Congress.  But look for Democratic attempts to ignore their own involvement and go after Bush and Cheney.  After all, they're still attacking Herbert Hoover, let alone Joe McCarthy.

April 27, 2009   Permalink

BRACE YOURSELVES, IT WILL SOON BE OVER - AT 9:46 A.M. ET:  This week marks Obama's first hundred days in office.  We are bracing for the expected over-the-top worship from the mainstream media, especially MSNBC, to the extent that they can be called mainstream. 

We are also bracing for a flurry of polls announcing that the American people are deliriously in love with their new Maximum Leader, and are willing to go to the wall for him, or at least go to Cuba.  But be careful.  Poll results depend heavily on what is asked, how it's asked, and who is asked.  Reader Jon Dorbecker alerts us to this report, from NRO, on a recent poll claiming that Americans are lining up to support our own Great Leap Forward: 

From the AP this morning: "The percentage of Americans saying the country is headed in the right direction rose to 48 percent, up from 40 percent in February. Forty-four percent say the nation is on the wrong track."

Uh, just wait a minute:

UPDATE: A reader points out this detail in the story, which explains a great deal: "Of those who say the country is on the right track in the AP-GfK poll, 73 percent are Democrats, 17 percent are independents and 10 percent are Republicans."

ANOTHER UPDATE: Another reader points out the partisan breakdown in this poll: "On page 21 covers the party id for the polls sample. 36 D, 18 R, 26 Independents, 18 none. With the leaners it is 46 D 28 R."

Recall that exit polls for the 2008 election had the Democratic advantage in party ID at 7 percent. Not 18 percent.

COMMENT:  Details, details.  All these annoying details.  Why can't these conservatives just join the Long March? 

Because some people are interested in the truth.

Watch carefully how each poll is conducted.

April 27, 2009   Permalink

PAKISTAN ON THE BRINK - AT 8:42 A.M. ET:  We've been following this closely, and I've just gotten a note on the subject from terrific Renee Nielsen, who reported so well from Mumbai, India, during the terror attack there last year.  (Renee and her family are moving on to Riga, Latvia, and we'll be hearing from her.) 

Now the Taliban has spoken up in Pakistan:

ISLAMABAD (AP) -- Taliban militants said Monday their peace deal with the Pakistani government was ''worthless'' after authorities deployed helicopters and artillery against hide-outs of Islamist guerrillas seeking to extend their grip along the Afghan border.

A collapse of the pact would likely please Obama administration officials pressing Islamabad hard for more robust action against extremists threatening Pakistan's stability and U.S. and NATO troops in neighboring Afghanistan.

President Asif Ali Zardari called for more foreign support for cash-strapped Pakistan to prevent any danger of its nuclear arsenal falling into the hands of al-Qaida and its allies.

In another sign of mounting Western concern, British Prime Minister Gordon Brown was due in Pakistan for talks on topics including cooperating against international terrorism, the British Embassy said.

COMMENT:  Saying that "a collapse of the pact would likely please Obama administration officials" is, in my view, hopelessly naive.  It appears that the pact is being rejected by the Taliban, not the Pakistani government.  For the Tals it's two steps forward, one step back.  They could take over the country, which has an estimated 60 nukes.  That could make Iran a lesser issue.

We'll watch carefully.  As said here earlier, this could be the story of the year, bigger than the White House puppy.

April 27, 2009   Permalink 

LOOK WHO'S TALKING, OR NOT - AT 7:52 A.M. ET:  Since the president had virtually no experience in dealing with real-world problems when he came to office, he apparently thought that he could just sit down with foreign leaders, lay on some hands, and make a deal.  But a certain president of Iran has his own ideas, and they are not Obama's, as reported by the Jerusalem Post:

Ahmadinejad went on to say that while the Islamic republic believes "in talking, in negotiating, based on sincerity, respect and justice," the country would not hold talks with the Obama administration unless "a clear-cut framework" and "clear agenda" were agreed upon beforehand.

In the interview, which took place Wednesday in Teheran, Ahmadinejad said that while Iran welcomed the recent overtures from US President Barack Obama, "an administration which, up until yesterday, was saying that I'm going to kill you, and today says that I'm not going to kill you, is that sufficient?"

Ahmadinejad stressed that he had "no reservations when it comes to talking," but that the nuclear program was "a special issue."

COMMENT:  Trust me.  This is very, very important.  What Ahmadinejad is doing is applying a strategy that has been used successfully against the United States in the past - once during the Korean War, and again during the Vietnam War.  He's saying that, before there are negotiations, there have to be negotiations over the negotiations.  Do you hear a clock ticking?  Do you hear someone turning the pages of a calendar - day after day, week after week, month after month? 

During Vietnam, months were spent negotiating the shape of the negotiations table.  Those of a certain age will remember.

We don't have time.  The Iranian nuclear program is forging ahead.  And now the Iranians, known for their negotiating skills, are putting us off.  They haven't rushed in to "engage" the United States.  Apparently the foreign-policy "realists" advising Obama aren't so realistic. 

What will Obama do?  The real smart guys, including members of his own party in Congress, have urged that he put a clear time limit on talks with Iran, recognizing the linkage to their nuclear program.  He hasn't done it, and I doubt if he will.  Might offend, you know. 

The world isn't cooperating.  Lesson one in governing.

April 27, 2009   Permalink 

AND NOW REALITY - AT 7:23 A.M. ET:  When he was president of Harvard, Larry Summers wasn't known for his diplomacy.  He spoke his mind and was a breath of fresh air in the politically correct, party-line precincts of
Cambridge, Massachusetts.  Naturally, he was ousted by those he upset, which included a good chunk of the back-to-the-sixties faculty. 

Now Summers is a key Obama economic adviser.  I heard him speak last year.  He's a brilliant guy whose tailor apparently doesn't measure very carefully.  Now he's speaking his mind again, and the messiah-has-come crowd may not like it:

April 26 (Bloomberg) -- The U.S. economy will continue to contract “for some time to come,” said Lawrence Summers, director of the White House National Economic Council.

“I expect the economy will continue to decline,” with “sharp declines in employment for quite some time this year,” Summers said today on “Fox News Sunday.”

The International Monetary Fund, which held meetings last week in Washington, cut its forecast for each of the Group of Seven economies for this year and next. The IMF, established in 1944 to aid countries in financial crisis, said the U.S. economy would shrink 2.8 percent this year and have no growth in 2010, with unemployment rising to 10.1 percent.

COMMENT:  Pretty soon, Americans are going to start asking why we've spent trillions, where that money is going, and who benefits.  If Republicans get their act together, those questions will be asked before, not after, the 2010 congressional elections.

April 27, 2009   Permalink 

THE INMATES HAVE SEIZED THE ASYLUM - AT 7:16 A.M. ET:  Apparently, releasing CIA interrogation memos, and the backlash that resulted, hasn't deterred some of the nuttier appointees of the Obama administration.  Get this one, as reported by the Los Angeles Times:

Reporting from Washington -- The Obama administration, already on treacherous political ground because of its outreach to traditional adversaries such as Iran and Cuba, has opened the door a crack to engagement with the militant group Hamas.

The Palestinian group is designated by the U.S. government as a terrorist organization and under law may not receive federal aid.

But the administration has asked Congress for minor changes in U.S. law that would permit aid to continue flowing to Palestinians in the event Hamas-backed officials become part of a unified Palestinian government.

COMMENT:  Now, get the logic here:  The Obamans are saying that aid would not flow unless the Hamas members of the Palestinian regime agreed to American requirements that they recognize Israel, renounce violence and agree to follow past Israeli-Palestinian agreements.

Say what?  So they'd be Hamas members of the Palestinian government, but would have to renounce fundamental Hamas principles.

Really?  Hamas would appoint members to the government who renounced Hamas beliefs?  Even Democratic members of Congress who swear by Obama were reportedly dismayed.  And one Republican, the terrific Mark Kirk of Illinois, said, this was akin to supporting a government that "only has a few Nazis in it."

This is foreign policy, Obama style.  The signal it sends is the worst:  Just hold on a little longer, Hamas (and your Iranian financiers), and America will cave. 

We'll follow this, and add it to the long list of concessions by the United States that we're already following. 

You know, this guy Osama bin Laden - maybe an invitation to Washington, a trip to Disney World, lunch at the Pentagon to view the 9-11 memorial.  Why not?  You've got to engage.  You've got to engage.

April 27, 2009   Permalink