FRIDAY,  AUGUST 21,  2009

MAYBE SOME GROUP THERAPY IS IN ORDER - AT 7:40 P.M. ET:  The Dems are clearly coming apart on health care.  Here is the latest in the family food fight, from The Politico:

A day after House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said that health reform won’t get through the House without a public option, House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer said Friday that the public option may have to go in order to get a bill passed.

Pelosi and Hoyer are, as they say, not close.  Pelosi opposed Hoyer for majority leader, favoring anti-war favorite John Murtha, king of the earmarks.  Hoyer always struck me as a good guy, and sane. 

In San Francisco on Thursday, Pelosi said: "There's no way I can pass a bill in the House of Representatives without a public option.”

The seemingly contradictory comments highlight the pressure on some Democratic members, particularly those from conservative districts. Members have faced rowdy crowds in town hall meetings across the country during the August recess.

COMMENT:  Looks like we'll have an interesting autumn.  Today's news that the aggregate federal deficit over the next ten years is projected to be nine trillion, not the former seven trillion, will make it even harder for the public-option crowd.  But they are fanatics and will seek to pass it anyway. 

The only way you get out of a deficit like that is through inflation, which destroys the value of money and also destroys the next generation.  But, hey, what's a little destruction when you can have all those pork projects? 

The president goes on vacation to Martha's Vineyard today.  Maybe he should stay awhile.

August 21, 2009   Permalink

PREVIEW OF COMING ATTRACTIONS - AT 7:12 P.M. ET:  The breathtakingly incompetent governor of New York, who took office when the breathtakingly dishonest Eliot Spitzer resigned over a prostitution scandal, now explains the source of the public's discontent with his work:

ALBANY - Gov. Paterson said Friday he knows the reason behind the "crescendo" of calls for him not to seek re-election next year: it's because he's black.

Speaking on a morning radio show hosted by Daily News columnist Errol Louis, an angry Paterson blamed the white-dominated media for pushing him to step aside next year.

"The whole idea is to get me not to run in the primary," he said. Paterson complained there are not enough "black" media outlets to counteract the push.

And get this...

And he suggested that Massachusetts Gov. Deval Patrick, the country's only other African-American governor, also is under fire because of his race.

"We're not in the post-racial period," Paterson said.

"The reality is the next victim on the list, and you can see it coming, is President Barack Obama, who did nothing more than trying to reform a health care system."

Absolutely outrageous.  Barack Obama and Deval Patrick were elected to their jobs.  So was Paterson, as part of the Spitzer ticket in New York.  Now, if racism is behind public discontent, how did these guys ever get elected in the first place?

Look, I have no doubt whatsoever that there are racists out there, and that they'll give any black official a hard time.  But the reality is that we have overcome, and the non-racists vastly outnumber the bad guys.  African-American officials, though, must take the same responsibility for their actions as anyone else.  Otherwise, they make it harder for other African-Americans.

Paterson's comments are absurd.  He's a gross incompetent and shouldn't even run again.  But you can be sure that there is a core group of leftists and race industry activists who will slap the "racist" label on anyone who will criticize, say, President Obama.  It's already happening.  It makes the fight against real racism that much harder, which is the sadness.

August 21, 2009   Permalink

THIS MAN MUST KNOW - AT 5:55 P.M. ET:  The son of Libya's undisputed leader of the people, savior and general picker-upper, has spoken about the release of the Lockerbie bomber.  AFP reports:

The release of Lockerbie bomber Abdelbaset Ali Mohmet al-Megrahi was linked to trade deals with Britain, Seif al-Islam, the son of Libyan leader Moamer Kadhafi, said in a interview broadcast Friday.

COMMENT:  This should be pursued by the media.  I suspect some journalists will do their jobs.  If the claim is true, it warrants a major investigation within Scotland and probably England as well.

August 21, 2009   Permalink

MAN OF STEELE - AT 10:24 A.M. ET:  The Republican national chairman is doing an Eastwood and daring Democrats to pass health-care "reform" on their own, as Fox News reports:

LITTLE ROCK, Ark. -- Republican National Committee Chairman Michael Steele on Thursday dared Democrats to try a one-party push to overhaul the nation's health care system.

Steele told reporters that he thinks if Democratic senators think they have the votes, they should try a tactic that would allow them to get around a bill-killing filibuster without the 60 votes usually needed. Steele said he didn't think Democrats would do it because of potential voter backlash.

"Get it to the floor. Up or down, baby," Steele said at a news conference at the state GOP headquarters. "Put it on the table. And if you don't think you've got enough votes to get to 60, you've got the nuclear option. You've got 51."

And...

"You want it done? Pass the bill," Steele said. "But they know it's poisonous and they know the American people will not tolerate it. They're scrambling now and they're beginning to turn on each other because they've got a big problem, a political one, and they can't solve it."

COMMENT:  A big problem indeed.  But the Republicans also have a problem - a perception that they're all about "no" and not about "solving."  Steele should be urging his party to come up with practical alternatives to the Democrats' "Marx wasn't entirely wrong" health plan, and present those alternatives to the American people.  That's how you win.  Right now the GOP is simply hoping for the Dems to lose.

August 21, 2009   Permalink

VULGAR, DISGUSTING AND A WARNING TO US - AT 8:57 A.M. ET:  This should serve as a warning to the starry-eyed and graduate-degreed among us, who have intellectualized that we can make peace with anyone and dance safely with devils.  As most of you know, the only person convicted in the downing of Pan Am 103, which killed 270 people, has now been released by Scotland and sent home to Libya after serving only eight years.  The public explanation for the release is that this lowlife is dying of cancer.  (Strange, but people convicted of lesser crimes die in prisons all the time.  Why is this different?)  Many skeptics believe that the real reason for the "humanitarian" act is financial pressure from oil-producing Libya.

But it's what happened in Libya when the thug returned that is truly sick:  From London's Daily Mail:

The Lockerbie bomber tonight landed in Libya to a hero's welcome as thousands greeted him at the airport waving flags and posters.

Hours after leaving jail, Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed Al Megrahi boarded a plane back to his homeland. 

His release prompted a furious reaction from America with Barack Obama branding it a mistake.The US president's pleas for Tripoli to refrain from idolising Megrahi when he landed on home soil went unheeded.

Instead, he was greeted by a mob who had descended on Mitiga Airport brandishing placards and cheering.

Some displayed Megrahi's face on their t-shirts while others waved Libyan and Scottish flags.

COMMENT:  We recently normalized relations with Libya.  Happy?

The families of the victims of Pan Am 103 are furious, and the Scottish parliament will reportedly be called back into session to debate the release.

We await someone coming forward to lecture us that we must understand "other cultures."

August 21, 2009   Permalink

MULLAH MUDDYING - AT 8:32 A.M. ET:  We've cautioned about recent "signs" of flexibility from Iran regarding its nuclear program.  The mullahs have now invited UN inspectors back to a reactor from which they'd been barred, and have allowed a few new inspections elsewhere.

The left will probably regard these tiny gestures as major breakthroughs that will bring peace on Earth and good will toward men, women, and the transgendered.  Don't be deceived.  London's Telegraph has a story on this sudden march of the doves, and the paper is a bit more realistic about reporting what's probably behind it: 

The IAEA (International Atomic Energy Agency) is due to publish a report on Iran's nuclear activities within the next two weeks. The agency is reported to be having an internal debate about whether to make its findings public.

COMMENT:  And Iran is trying to influence that debate.  Also, it was authoritatively reported early this week that Western nations believe the IAEA has withheld damning information about Iran.

The mullahs do only what is in their interest.  Their interest now may be to send out some "moderate" signals for a time to ward off any further sanctions or criticism.  But, remember, the nuclear centrifuges in Iran keep spinning through all of this.

August 21, 2009   Permalink

OBAMA POLL DANCING - AT 8:14 A.M. ET: A new Washington Post/ABC News poll provides still more bad news for the president.  The honeymoon is over.  The time for marriage counseling has begun:

Public confidence in President Obama's leadership has declined sharply over the summer, amid intensifying opposition to health-care reform that threatens to undercut his attempt to enact major changes to the system, according to a new Washington Post-ABC News poll.

Among all Americans, 49 percent now express confidence that Obama will make the right decisions for the country, down from 60 percent at the 100-day mark in his presidency. Forty-nine percent now say they think he will be able to spearhead significant improvements in the system, down nearly 20 percentage points from before he took office.

And...

The president's overall approval rating stands at 57 percent, 12 points lower than its April peak, as disapproval has ticked up to 40 percent, its highest yet.

COMMENT:  This is no longer a rejection of specific policies, which is what we were starting to see months ago.  When only 49% believe the president will make "the right decisions for the country," that is a rejection of the president himself.

The approval numbers are still better than those reported in the Rasmussen poll, probably because of the way the Post/ABC News poll was conducted:

The poll was conducted Aug. 13-17 among a random national sample of 1,001 adults on both conventional and cellular telephones. The margin of sampling error is plus or minus three percentage points.

Rasmussen polls among likely voters, in our view a more useful sample.  It's the voters who count in elections.

August 21, 2009   Permalink

A GREAT MOMENT IN JOURNALISM - AT 7:46 A.M. ET:  Andrew Malcolm's Top of the Ticket blog at the Los Angeles Times alerts us to an act of maturity, responsibility, and journalistic due diligence at that paper.  All praise:

Here is an actual correction from Page A4 of today's print edition:

FOR THE RECORD:

TV listings: The Prime-Time TV grid in Thursday's Calendar section mistakenly listed MTV's "Jackass" show on the MSNBC cable schedule at 7 and 10 p.m. where instead MSNBC's "Countdown With Keith Olbermann" should have been listed.

It's not the Worst Mistake in the World.

But without this kind of correction, online too, a few thousand people might have tuned into MSNBC, the Obama administration's favorite cable channel, expecting to see a "Jackass" show and instead they'd have found Keith Olbermann.

Worse, what if nobody noticed the difference?

COMMENT:  No difference to notice.

August 21, 2009   Permalink 

THURSDAY,  AUGUST 20,  2009

AND SO IT BEGINS - AT 7:25 P.M. ET:  Weakness in foreign policy always has consequences.  From the Jerusalem Post:

With the world seemingly unable to stop Iran's nuclear march, other countries in the region are now pushing forward with their own plans to build nuclear power plants.

The Saudi newspaper Al-Watan reported on Thursday that the Saudi minister of water and electricity, Abdullah al-Hosain, said the kingdom was working on plans for its first nuclear power plant. The US inked civil nuclear power deals with Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates last year...

...Over the last two years, Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Bahrain, Oman, Kuwait, the UAE, Yemen, Morocco, Libya, Jordan and Egypt have all indicated an interest in developing nuclear programs, with Israeli officials saying, off the record, that if these countries did not want the programs now for their military capabilities, they wanted the technology in place to keep "other options open" if Iran were to develop a bomb.

COMMENT:  One of the great fears, if Iran isn't stopped, is a Middle East nuclear arms race, just what the world needs.  The Obamans have been very casual about the Iranian nuclear program, although the president says that if Iran doesn't respond positively to American overtures by September, he'll seek further action.  Right.  About as effective as all the other action.

By the way, Iran today did open some of its nuclear labs to more extensive international inspection.  There was big fanfare over the announcement.  However, it seems to be one of those small gestures to ward off criticism.  I wouldn't be shocked if Iran accepted some form of negotiations with the United States in order to run out the clock and get what it wants from its nuclear research.  I also wouldn't be shocked if we went right along with it.

August 20, 2009   Permalink

BUT IF IT WAS SO SUCCESSFUL... - AT 7:02 P.M. ET:  From AP:

WASHINGTON (AP) -- The Obama administration will end the popular $3 billion Cash for Clunkers program on Monday, giving car shoppers a few more days to take advantage of big government incentives.

The Transportation Department said Thursday that the government will wind down the program on Monday at 8 p.m. EDT. Car buyers can receive rebates of $3,500 or $4,500 for trading in older vehicles for new, more fuel-efficient models.

Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood said the program has been "a lifeline to the automobile industry, jump starting a major sector of the economy and putting people back to work." He said the department was "working toward an orderly wind down of this very popular program."

COMMENT:  But wait a second.  If it's so successful, why not extend it?  I can't figure out the logic of these people.  The amounts involved are tiny compared to the trillions this administration has spent on vague projects and "stimulus" fantasies.  There's a disconnect here.

August 20, 2009   Permalink

DEMS IN BIG TROUBLE - AT 6:50 P.M. ET:  The political prognosticators are already looking at 2010.  Democrats are not being given great reason to smile, as The Politico notes:

Charlie Cook, one of the best political handicappers in the business, sent out a special update to Cook Political Report subscribers Thursday that should send shivers down Democratic spines.

Reviewing recent polling and the 2010 election landscape, Cook can envision a scenario in which Democratic House losses could exceed 20 seats.

"These data confirm anecdotal evidence, and our own view, that the situation this summer has slipped completely out of control for President Obama and Congressional Democrats. Today, The Cook Political Report’s Congressional election model, based on individual races, is pointing toward a net Democratic loss of between six and 12 seats, but our sense, factoring in macro-political dynamics is that this is far too low," he wrote.

"Many veteran Congressional election watchers, including Democratic ones, report an eerie sense of déjà vu, with a consensus forming that the chances of Democratic losses going higher than 20 seats is just as good as the chances of Democratic losses going lower than 20 seats."

COMMENT:  What a difference a few months makes.  Back in the Washington spring, the Dems were talking about permanent control, all in the interests of "the people," of course.  Then came health care.

August 20, 2009   Permalink

WE DON'T WANT TO THANK THE ACADEMY - AT 8:03 A.M. ET:  There's a changing of the guard at the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences - the Oscar people - in Hollywood.  But the personalities are far less important than the symbolism.  The academy today is presiding over a creatively dying industry, and seems to know it:

EVERLY HILLS, Calif. — Tom Sherak, a veteran film executive who was long associated with 20th Century Fox and then Revolution Studios, was named president of the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences in a changing of the guard that followed an unusually active tenure by Sidney Ganis, a film producer whose four-year run in the presidency expired on Tuesday.

Okay, congratulations.  Have a nice dinner.  But here is the news:

In an interview shortly before the board vote on Tuesday, Mr. Ganis said his proudest achievement was repositioning the academy as less a show business organization than an advocate for world film.

“This academy is not about Hollywood and not even about America,” said Mr. Ganis. “It’s about international filmmakers and filmmaking.”

Wrong, Mr. Ganis:  The academy is about Hollywood, dammit, and Hollywood is about show business.  And it's about America, and the American vision.  And tell me, Mr. Philosopher, why Hollywood was at its best, and making its greatest films, when it understood that.

Hollywood has been intellectualized to death.  It has replaced talent with education.  It has replaced great stories with plodding propaganda.  Its stars have become smaller than life.  The glamour we loved has been replaced by green vehicles and tributes to Al Gore.  Gary Cooper could blow Sean Penn away without using a gun.  Rita Hayworth could...well, she could just be Rita Hayworth and send us back into the theaters again. 

When they start talking about "internationalizing" an industry,  you know things are going south. 

Hooray for Hollywood?  Not today, dahlings.

August 20, 2009   Permalink 

BRITS GET THE PICTURE - AT 7:34 A.M. ET:  We've said here before that British reporters in Washington often do very fine work in dissecting American politics.  Here, Tim Reid of The Times of London proves the point, providing an excellent analysis of President Obama's deep dilemma:

It is only eight months since he was sworn in on a January morning filled with hope and optimism, but the noise and fury surrounding the healthcare debate today are danger signs for Mr Obama’s presidency.

And...

The polls indicate that he is in danger of losing the electorally vital centre: the elderly, independents and suburban women — critical swing voters — are deserting him.

There are two fundamental reasons for his troubles: the economy — unemployment continues to rise — and signs that Mr Obama might have overinterpreted his mandate.

Yeah, really overinterpreted it - by a country mile.

When he took office Mr Obama and his aides made myriad comparisons with Franklin D. Roosevelt and his New Deal. Yet in 1932 Roosevelt won 42 of 48 states. Last year Mr Obama won 28 but, believing that the scale of the recession compelled him to act boldly, he announced a domestic agenda of staggering ambition, with healthcare as its cornerstone.

He has been telling the public that he can expand coverage and cut healthcare costs at the same time. The independent Congressional Budget Office has contradicted that assertion and an increasing number of voters are skeptical.

And health care isn't, by any means, the only problem Mr. Obama faces:

When Congress reconvenes in September, however, there will be other problems.

Mr Obama will have three months to honour his pledge to close the Guantánamo Bay detention centre; the death toll in Afghanistan will probably still be climbing; and he must also decide whether to get tough with Iran over its nuclear programme.

Winning an election is one thing. Governing, as Mr Obama has discovered, is tougher.

COMMENT:  I have to believe that foreign ministries, despite their trendy penchant for America-bashing and Obama-loving, are privately appalled by the Obama administration, especially its drift and indecision in foreign affairs.  It's pretty clear that many foreign journalists, who earlier may have bought into the president-as-messiah message, are revising their copy. 

We've said before at Urgent Agenda that autumn will be politically hot.  We stand by that statement.

August 20, 2009   Permalink

THE NERVE OF THESE PEOPLE - AT 7:19 A.M. ET:  The North Koreans have come to America to pick up their goody bags:

SANTA FE, New Mexico (CNN) -- North Korea believes it's owed bilateral talks with the United States after the communist government released two detained American journalists this month -- a notion that senior Obama administration officials quickly rejected on Wednesday.

"They feel, the North Koreans, that by giving us the two American journalists, that they've made an important gesture," New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson told CNN Wednesday after meeting with two North Korean diplomats. "And now they're saying the ball's in our court."

Very much out of the North Korean playbook.  They do something very bad, correct it, then expect to be rewarded for correcting something they shouldn't have done in the first place.

But senior Obama administration officials said six-party talks are still the proper venue for such a dialogue, and stressed that Richardson was not negotiating on the president's behalf. Richardson himself said he would only relay the information to the White House.

"Our policy toward North Korea remains today as it has been -- calling for the complete denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula," one of the administration officials said Wednesday. "We believe the six-party talks are the best forum for that. The bottom line is, the ball is in North Korea's court."

COMMENT:  We'll tentatively side with the administration on this, but we note that its tough words have never been followed by anything much.  Unless North Korea understands that it will be punished for its nuclear and missile tests, and its proliferation, none of our statements will ultimately have much effect.  And that, sadly, seems to be the story of the Obama foreign policy.

August 20, 2009   Permalink

AFGHAN VOTE TODAY - AT 7:17 A.M. ET:  Afghanistan goes to the polls today to elect a new president.  Well, at least those Afghans brave enough to face down Taliban threats will go to the polls.  That's the main story, as AP reports:

KABUL — Taliban threats appeared to dampen voter turnout in the militant south Thursday as Afghans chose the next president for their deeply troubled country. Insurgents launched scattered rocket, suicide and bomb attacks, violence that closed some polling sites.

Low turnout in the south would harm President Hamid Karzai's re-election chances and boost the standing of his top challenger, former Foreign Minister Abdullah Abdullah. Turnout in the north appeared to be high, a good sign for Abdullah.

International officials have predicted an imperfect election — Afghanistan's second-ever direct presidential vote — but expressed hope that Afghans would accept it as legitimate, a key component of President Barack Obama's war strategy. Taliban militants, though, pledged to disrupt the vote and circulated threats that those who cast ballots will be punished.

COMMENT:  First reports indicate a turnout dramatically lower than that in 2004, which means that the Taliban threats have been effective.  A stable, believable election is vital to American interests in Afghanistan.  But look for the political left in the United States, and other NATO countries, to ridicule any result.

August 20, 2009   Permalink

PUBLIC SOURING ON AFGHANISTAN - AT 7:15 A.M. ET:  President Obama faces a number of national-security challenges.  One of the most critical will be the public's souring on the struggle in Afghanistan.  The president must do a far better job of explaining our presence there, and why it's important to each American.  From the Washington Post:

A majority of Americans now see the war in Afghanistan as not worth fighting, and just a quarter say more U.S. troops should be sent to the country, according to a new Washington Post-ABC News poll.

This is music to the ears of the Democratic Party's left wing, whose "out of Iraq" congressional caucus is now morphing into an "out of Afghanistan" caucus.  These "anti-war" Democrats are the cream of hypocrisy.  The only wars they're ever against are the ones America has a chance of winning.  They remind me of the "anti-war" demonstrators during Vietnam, whose demonstrations mysteriously ended as soon as the draft ended.

In January, before President Obama authorized sending an additional 17,000 troops to the country, public sentiment tilted more strongly toward a troop increase.

Should Obama embrace his generals' call for even more forces, he would risk alienating some of his staunchest supporters. Although 60 percent of Americans approve of how Obama has handled the situation in Afghanistan, his ratings among liberals have slipped, and majorities of liberals and Democrats alike now, for the first time, solidly oppose the war and are calling for a reduction in troop levels.

These "liberals" aren't liberals any longer.  True liberalism, in its noblest days, always backed a strong national defense.  Think Henry Jackson, Paul Douglas, Jack Kennedy.  Today's "liberals" have their roots in the sixties.

Republicans (70 percent say it is worth fighting) and conservatives (58 percent) remain the war's strongest backers, and the issue provides a rare point of GOP support for Obama's policies.

It shows the basic fairness of conservatives, most of whom have long since abandoned the isolationism of the thirties and forties.  We've had quite a role reversal on national security, with Republicans now advocating policies that Democrats used to advocate, and Democrats advocating chaos.

Work to be done - not only in politics, but in our educational system.  Here is an opportunity for the president to provide thoughtful leadership, and break away from his party's hopeless left.  But will he do it?

August 20, 2009   Permalink