SATURDAY,  AUGUST 22,  2009

A PERSONAL FAILURE - AT 11:48 P.M. ET:  The press and broadcast outlets are filled with analysis of why the president is suddenly doing so poorly.  All presidents, of course, go through bad patches, but what is happening to Mr. Obama is extraordinary.  Disagreement with his policies has turned to visceral anger, and some of that anger is directed against a man who, only months ago, was considered a modern Mr. Congeniality.  Fred Barnes, in the Weekly Standard, hits it on the head: 

For Obama, there's still worse news. Not only has he lost ground, but public support for his health care proposal has collapsed to the point that a majority of Americans prefer no reform at all to his plan. And the more he stumps for it, the less support it attracts. Rather than a peripheral phenomenon, the noisy opposition in congressional town hall meetings turns out to be a reflection of the deep national suspicion of Obamacare.

Two conclusions are inescapable. The first is that Obama is not Mr. Persuasive, a compelling orator like FDR, swaying public opinion with his words. Quite the contrary, he has failed to sustain public backing for his economic stimulus package, his decision to shut down Guantánamo, his proposed spending, the takeover of General Motors, bailouts in general, and now health care reform.

And...

The second conclusion to draw is that Obama has been dragged down by his health care policy. The more he's identified himself with it, the less the public likes him. There's nothing irrational about this. Why should people without a partisan allegiance to Obama hang with him when they dislike his signature policy? There's no good reason.

Besides, it shows the public is paying serious attention to a national issue. This doesn't happen often. Democrats and Obamaphiles may not like the drift of the debate over health care, but it was Obama who prompted it. Now it's exposed his lack of persuasiveness.

COMMENT:  Hmm.  That's not a great recommendation to a college of Obama's choice.  Ironically, the very characteristic that propelled Obama to power - his ability to make a good speech - is now hurting him.  It's hurting him because, as president, he's not as good at it as he was when a candidate.  And it's hurting him because it's overused.  As Barnes points out:

In our televised age, the public quickly grows tired of political leaders. When Obama spent a half inning in the broadcast booth at the baseball All-Star game in St. Louis on July 14, he was pressing his luck. Americans routinely boo politicians when they're introduced at sports events, where they don't belong. This is a healthy habit that Obama and his entourage may be unaware of.

Well said.

August 22, 2009   Permalink

LEFTIST WEIRDNESS - AT 7:48 P.M. ET:  You would think the left in America would finally realize that 75% of something is better than 100% of nothing.  No such luck.  Even as the Obama health plan sinks into the mud, facing a wave of popular resistance, the so-called "progressives," who are really regressives, are demanding that the most disliked part of the proposed "reform" plan be included:

Through most of the summer, opposition to President Obama and his health-care initiative has come almost entirely from the right. In the past week, however, the president has been trying to tamp down a noisy uprising on the left.

The immediate cause for the rebellion is growing concern among Obama's progressive allies that he is prepared to deal away the public insurance option to win passage of a health-care bill. Obama insists that he still prefers the public option as part of any legislative package, but some friends on the left now clearly doubt his resolve.

COMMENT:  Look, very few people love their health-insurance company, but the objections to the public option are serious, and based on experience.  Yet, the left demands it as a price for support.  Once again the left demonstrates that what it's really interested in is not real reform, but control.  We often see this in eduational programs in large cities.  The left is more interested in who controls the programs than in their impact.

There is a good chance that the left wing of the Democratic Party will wreck the possibility for any serious compromise, and set real reform, practical reform, back years.

August 22, 2009   Permalink

NO HOORAYS FOR HOLLYWOOD - AT 6:57 P.M. ET:  The financial reports out of Hollywood, always presented breathlessly, are simply another indication of the decline of our popular culture.  From the Washington Post:

If 2009 is remembered for anything in American cinema, it might be as the year grown-ups and Hollywood finally agreed to call it quits.

This is the year when such slick, star-driven, adult-oriented movies as "State of Play," "Duplicity," "The International" and "The Taking of Pelham 1 2 3" underperformed at the box office. And when talking-toy movies like "Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen" and "G.I. Joe" raked in millions.

Suddenly, movies for grown-ups are in the cross hairs. "I'm caught up all in it," Spike Lee said recently with a rueful laugh, noting that the sequel to his 2006 thriller "Inside Man" is hanging in the balance. "I'm waiting on Universal," he said.

COMMENT:  Hardly a news story.  Hollywood has been driving adults out of movie theaters for more than a generation, and the exclusion campaign has worked.  So-called "youth-oriented" films became the craze in the late sixties, and the definition of "youth" seems to be getting younger every year.

Hollywood's executive suites are filled with a management type best described by writer Larry Gelbart as "a fetus in a three-piece suit."  Not the best judge of grown-up movies.

How do you get mature adults into movie theaters?  With well-made films containing great plots, strong characters and good writing, films that are entertaining.  Not too many around. 

Hollywood today is a highly educated industry.  Isn't it interesting that, as the level of education has gone up, the quality of the films has gone down?   We kind of see that in journalism, too, don't we? 

August 22, 2009   Permalink

AND NOW THE SEQUEL - AT 11:15 A.M. ET:  Tea parties are coming back, this time targeting the Democratic health-care "reforms."  Fox News reports:

If Democratic lawmakers thought all the furor over President Obama's health care plan expressed this month at town hall meetings was dying down, they might be in for a surprise Saturday.

That's when citizens are planning anti-"Obamacare" rallies across the country Saturday in all 435 congressional districts.

And their message is clear: We will not stand for socialized, government-controlled health care.

The same groups who made the "tax tea parties" possible in April are behind this weekend's movement. American Liberty Alliance, FreedomWorks and Americans for Prosperity are working with The Sam Adams Alliance, among others, to stage the rallies.

COMMENT:  It is remarkable to see the amount of political activity we're having in August, when politics often shuts down, except for political conventions.  But it is critical that this push be extended into September and October.  The administration still has the media on its side, and it's easier for the president to organize a PR push, with TV coverage, than to get hundreds of thousands to come to rallies.  Don't let up.

August 22, 2009   Permalink 

DON'T TELL THE PRESIDENT - AT 10:26 A.M. ET:  Look, the guy's on vacation.  He won't want to know this:  Rasmussen is reporting that his presidential approval index - measuring the gap between those who strongly approve and strongly disapprove of the president - is in negative double digits for the first time since July 31st. 

Some 39% strongly disapprove, and 29% strongly approve.  Rasmussen polls among likely voters, which we take to be the most accurate measure.  These are the people who actually decide who's president.

Obama's ardent campaigning this month has either made no difference, or has had a negative impact.  He's overexposed.  People are getting tired of the slogans.  They still can't get a clear picture of what's in the health plan. 

Now the Obamas have flown to Martha's Vineyard, symbolic playground of the liberal elites.  Who said this White House is politically sharp?

August 22, 2009   Permalink

THE QUEEN, TOO? - AT 10:09 A.M. ET:  The scandal surrounding Scotland's decision to release the Lockerbie bomber, and his hero's reception in Libya, continues to grow:

LONDON (AP) -- Britain's leaders faced strong pressure Saturday to account for any role they might have had in the release of the Lockerbie bomber after Moammar Gadhafi credited senior British officials and members of the royal family for influencing the decision.

He actually did credit the queen.  Now, Gadhafi's mind doesn't always hit all cylinders, but a statement like that has to be investigated. 

Britain has condemned the scenes of jubilation in Tripoli at the return of bomber Abdel Baset al-Megrahi and has flatly denied there was any trade deal linked to his release.

AP is also reporting that Gadhafi hugged the guy publicly, despite repeated warnings from tough-as-nails President Barack Obama.  I guess our next step is to send a letter from the teacher.

But opposition politicians say comments from Gadhafi's son -- who said the release was often brought up during trade talks -- should be examined.

''It is very important, I think, for the reputation of our institutions of justice that it is made clear beyond any doubt that this was not connected with some political trade,'' David Lidington, the opposition Conservative Party's spokesman on foreign affairs, told the BBC.

COMMENT:  This is a can of worms.  But given British "sensitivity" to Muslim feelings, and given the fact that Libya has a lot of oil, and given Obama's "outreach" to every thug who has an oak desk, and given the mention of the queen, I'd bet against any extensive probe.  An outrage has taken place, but "it's time to move on" will soon be heard.

August 22, 2009   Permalink

ROOTS OF FAILURE - AT 9:51 A.M. ET:  As Johnny Carson used to say, "You know you're in trouble when..."

A president knows he's in trouble when analysts accept as a premise that he's in trouble, and move on to try to find the origin of the problem.  It's kind of an advance political autopsy.  The Politico is doing the cutting:

Barack Obama’s Big Bang is beginning to backfire, as his plans for rapid, once-in-a-generation overhauls of energy, financial regulation and health care are running into stiff resistance, both in Washington and around the country.

The Obama theory was simple, though always freighted with risk: Use a season of economic anxiety to enact sweeping changes the public likely wouldn’t stomach in ordinary times. But the abrupt swing in the public’s mood, from optimism about Obama’s possibility to concern he may overreaching, has thrown the White House off its strategy and forced the president to curtail his ambitions.

Some Democrats point to a decision in June as the first vivid sign of trouble for Obama. These Democrats say the White House, in retrospect, made a grievous mistake by muscling conservative Democrats in swing districts vote for a cap-and-trade energy bill that was very unpopular among their constituents.

Those moderate Dems are paying for that vote, and they're not feeling warm toward those liberal Dems who pressured them.

“The majority-makers are the freshman and sophomores from conservative districts where there’s this narrative building about giveaways, buyouts and too much change at once,” said a top House Democratic strategist, who requested anonymity to discuss internal politics candidly. “There’s this big snowball building in those districts. That’s why those folks are so scared."

Ah, a snowball in this time of "global warming."  Don't you just love it?

And what is the liberal response?  They're claiming Obama isn't liberal enough. You know, you go to bed with liberals, you wake up with socialists.

August 22, 2009   Permalink

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