THURSDAY,  DECEMBER 17,  2009

DEMANDING JUSTICE - AT 11:08 P.M. ET:  From tomorrow's Washington Times: 

A senior House Republican on Thursday introduced a "resolution of inquiry" that would require the House Judiciary Committee to seek answers on why the Justice Department dismissed a civil complaint against members of the New Black Panther Party who disrupted a Philadelphia polling place in last year's elections.

It's about time.

Rep. Frank R. Wolf of Virginia also said he had language inserted in the Justice Department's annual spending bill requiring that its Office of Professional Responsibility (OPR) provide to the House Appropriations Committee the results of OPR's investigation surrounding the dismissal of the case.

Mr. Wolf, a senior member of the Appropriations Committee's commerce, justice and science subcommittee, and Rep. Lamar Smith of Texas, ranking Republican on the House Judiciary Committee, requested an investigation into the case earlier this year.

COMMENT:  The dismissal of this case was a major Justice Department scandal.  The Black Panthers had engaged in blatant, photographed, voter intimidation.  Had it happened in the Bush administration, and a case against some corporation been dismissed, the press would have gone into fits of hysteria, requiring government-paid hospitalization.

December 17, 2009   Permalink

 

CAN YOU BELIEVE THIS? - AT 11:01 P.M. ET:  It seems that Britain has imported at least one beloved American institution - the lawsuit.  And who benefits?  If this seems like old home week, it is.  From Britain's very leftist paper, the Independent:

The cost of fighting clinical negligence claims against the National Health Service is soaring and most of the payouts are going in the pockets of lawyers, figures show.

In one case, a law firm received 58 times as much as the victim. In each of the past five years there have been examples of lawyers receiving more than 10 times the sum paid to the victim in compensation.

There have been 52,000 clinical negligence claims over the past five years which have cost the NHS more than £8bn. More than one in 10 – 5,500 – has resulted in a legal bill bigger than the victim's payout. On average lawyers received £36,000 per case last year whereas victims received £15,000.

The figures were obtained by the Tories in response to parliamentary questions. Shadow Health minister Mark Simmonds said: "Taxpayers will be rightly angry that hundreds of millions of pounds of their money is being paid out for mistakes in the NHS and that in many cases lawyers get their hands on more of the compensation money than the patients.

"The Government could have saved significant sums of money if they had listened to our proposals for an initial fact finding stage before a case comes to court. This would have resulted in more cases being resolved without costly litigation, and there would have been more money for frontline patient care."

COMMENTS:  You know, I don't want to impose on our British cousins.  But there's a medical-malpractice lawyer here who may want to change residences, and who really is terrrific.  His name is John Edwards.  Used to be a senator, ran for president and vice president.  Has had a few marital problems.  Dynamite in a courtroom.  And if some law firm got 58 times as much as the victim, why John can get 80 times the amount.  If anyone in Britain wants him, just e-mail us.  We'll send the request on to his mistress, uh, office.

December 17, 2009   Permalink 

WARNING TO THE PRESIDENT - AT 3:09 P.M. ET:  Republican senators are warning President Obama about the political realities involved in any commitments he makes in Copenhagen.  From AP:

WASHINGTON — Republican lawmakers are telling President Barack Obama that he needs Congress to deliver on any commitments he makes to reduce global warming gases.

Seven GOP senators said at a news conference Thursday that any pledges Obama makes in Copenhagen will require Senate approval.

The Senate is unlikely to support an agreement that does not include China and other developing countries.

The GOP lawmakers also said they would try to block the Environmental Protection Agency from regulating greenhouse gases.

COMMENT:  The Republicans are essentially invoking the treaty ratification clause of the Constitution, requiring Senate approval of all treaties.  They are correct.

At the same time, the GOP must tread carefully.  Their position, if polls are correct, will have popular support because Americans are growing increasingly skeptical about the "science" of global warming.  But if they reject a Copenhagen agreement, they should quickly present their own environmental and energy programs - imaginative and budget-sensitive.  Ultimately, it's what you're for that gets the troops going.

December 17, 2009   Permalink

 

THE FULL NELSON - AT 3:01 P.M. ET:  Reader Annie Heisenbuttal alerts us to the travails of Democratic Senator Ben Nelson of Nebraska, who's trying to negotiate his way through a health-care bill that is overwhelmingly unpopular back home.  Nelson is up for relection next year:

Nebraska Senator Ben Nelson is getting heat from all sides these days.

But who really has the most influence on The Benator?

President Obama and his tanking personal ratings?
Harry Reid and his tanking Health Care reform bill?
Or is it Nebraska voters (and their pro-life tendencies)?

A Nebraska poll pretty much tells the story:

"In general, do you favor or oppose President Obama’s plan to expand health care coverage to most Americans even if this plan increases the role of the federal government in health care and increases the cost of the deficit?"

Favor: 26%
Oppose: 67%

A bit of a loaded question, maybe, but look at this follow-up:

"If Senator Ben Nelson votes in favor of this plan, would that make you more likely or less likely to support Senator Nelson when he runs for re-election?"

More likely: 26%
Less Likely: 61%

Ouch.  Now we understand Nelson's problems.  Those problems are shared by other moderate Democrats, like Blanche Lincoln of Arkansas and Jim Webb of Virginia.  Lincoln is up next year, Webb is not. 

The sad part of this is that the Democrats likely to be defeated next year are the most responsible members of the party, the moderates.  The leftists are usually from safe districts and states, especially minority districts.  But the moderates are from swing districts and states.  Without them, the Democratic Party will lurch even further to the left, as leftists crave ideological purity.  (I'm sorry to say that there are some on the right with the same suicidal instinct.)  That lurch may damage the Democratic Party, but it hurts the nation.  We need a thriving two-party system, and fringe politics never helps toward that end.

Ronald Reagan framed the "11th Commandment" for his party:  "Thou shalt not speak ill of any other Republican."  The purpose was to prevent the kind of ideological frenzy that can destroy the effectiveness of any political organization. 

December 17, 2009   Permalink

THE MADNESS OF THE BBC - AT 2:55 P.M. ET:  Reader Ken Braithwaite alerts us to the latest example of BBC madness.  This is multicultural sensitivity completely out of control.  From AP:

LONDON – Politicians are criticizing the BBC for inviting debate on whether homosexuals should face execution in Uganda.

The broadcaster launched an on-line debate over a proposed Ugandan law that would punish some homosexual acts by life imprisonment or death.

No matter how you feel about homosexuality, the idea that there can be a serious debate over whether a human being just be executed simply for being gay is sickening.  Now, presumably, the BBC is a left-wing operation.  But the left has a pecking order, and both multiculturalism and fawning over militant Islam rank way at the top.  Gays are under the bus, along with Christians, Jews, and democracy campaigners in Iran.

BBC's "Africa Have Your Say" Web site asked for people's views on whether Uganda has gone too far and whether there should be any laws against gays.

But several British politicians said Wednesday that the BBC should not treat the execution of gays as a legitimate topic for discussion.

Opposition lawmaker Lynne Featherstone has written to BBC executives seeking an apology and end to the Web discussion. "The BBC are only fanning the flames of hatred as many of the comments demonstrate," she says.

Spot on.  What frauds at the BBC.

December 17, 2009   Permalink

 

MORE CLIMATEGATE? - AT 2:41 P.M. ET:  Charges are flying in Britain that add to the atmosphere of Climategate.  From London's Daily Express:

THE Meteorological Office was last night facing accusations it cherry-picked climate change figures in a bid to increase evidence of global warming.

UK climatologists “probably tampered with Russian-climate data” to produce a report submitted to world leaders at this week’s Copenhagen summit, it is claimed.

The Met Office’s study, which says the first decade of this century has been the warmest on record for 160 years, is being used to trumpet claims that man is causing global warming.

But experts at the Moscow-based Institute of Economic Analysis say the British dossier used statistics from weather stations that fit its theory of global warming, while ignoring those that do not.

They accuse the Met Office’s Hadley Centre of relying on just 25 per cent of Russia’s weather stations and over-estimating warming in the country by more than half a degree Celsius.

Last night, leading global warming sceptic Dr Fred Singer, of the Science and Environmental Policy Project, said: “I have long suspected that this selective fiddle took place but have not assembled all the evidence.

COMMENT:  What strikes me about so many of the charges made against the "global warming consensus" is how serious they are, and the fact that they come from serious people.  The standard charge made by the professional warmers is that dissenters all work for oil companies.  Of course, that's been shown to be nonsense.  Many of the dissenters are first-class scientists with outstanding reputations.

I don't know how much longer we'll have to put up with all the posturing before there are calls for major investigatons, and a full, neutral review of the data by scientists of high standing.  Of course, if Republicans take control of either house of Congress next year, they can start their own investigation.  They'd then probably be called McCarthyites.

December 17, 2009   Permalink

 

AS THEY WERE SAYING, THE RECESSION IS OVER - AT 10:21 A.M. ET: 

Dec. 17 (Bloomberg) -- More Americans than anticipated filed first-time claims for unemployment benefits last week, a reminder that the labor market will take time to strengthen and may weigh on the economic recovery.

Initial jobless claims rose by 7,000 to 480,000 in the week ended Dec. 12, from a revised 473,000 the prior week, Labor Department figures showed today in Washington. The number of people receiving unemployment insurance was little changed in the prior week, while those getting extended payments increased.

Federal Reserve policy makers yesterday said weakness in the labor market is restraining consumer spending, which accounts for about 70 percent of the world’s largest economy.

COMMENT:  The recession is far from over.  This began as a Wall Street recession.  That recession is plainly in the past, with zillion-dollar bonuses being paid once again.  But now it's a Main Street recession, with no great signs of easing.  People are hurting, and nothing the federal government is doing seems to be effective in easing the pain, except for the awarding of extended unemployment benefits.

The economy is usually the most powerful issue at election time.  Think 11 months ahead.  It's likely to dominate the 2010 midterms, unless there's some international trauma that strikes.

December 17, 2009   Permalink

 

WOMEN AND THE GOP - AT 9:39 A.M. ET:   Mary Catherine Ham debunks the conventional wisdom that Republicans have a "woman problem," and believes that women can be convinced to vote Republican in 2010.  From the Washington Examiner:

On November 3, Virginia governor-elect Bob McDonnell won women by eight points, 54-46, against Democrat Creigh Deeds. A year before, Obama had won women by seven points; in his historic campaign to turn the state blue, he relied largely on the educated, affluent, suburban vote McDonnell would recover for the GOP. This information was obscured under the CNN headline, "Male, rural, suburban votes boost McDonnell."

Ah, CNN.  We may write further about that "news" network.

In New Jersey, Republican Chris Christie lost women by 5 points, but shrunk McCain's '08 losing margin by 12 points.

And Christie won the governorship of that very blue state.

The exit polls reveal a model for speaking to women voters in 2010: "Here was a guy [McDonnell] who was a conservative, who was not afraid to speak to that," said RNC chairman Michael Steele. "But what he did was he applied it to the issues that were important to the people in his state. He didn't need to run away from it."

Representative Pete Sessions, head of the National Republican Congressional Committee, which has recruited 26 women to run in 2010, agrees.

"The economy and jobs and debt dominate, not just the political landscape, but what people are talking about around their own tables," he said, which was what McDonnell stuck to while Deeds attacked. "The [message] that worked in New Jersey was corruption."

And...

Senate races boast five high-profile GOP women candidates for 2010: Sue Lowden in Nevada, Linda -McMahon in Connecticut, Jane Norton in Colorado, Kelly Ayotte in New Hampshire, and Carly Fiorina in California. As leaders in their communities, business, and politics, several of these women are leading the polls in the early going, and have experience speaking to fellow women, sometimes in powerful ways.

Never let your opposition define you:

In the liberal mind, and in media coverage, the GOP woman seems to exist only as a parody of Sarah Palin--all bumpkin, no brains...

That perception of Sarah Palin is changing, and can change even more if she starts working the policy details.

The Republican party has work to do, especially with single women, but polling suggests women will be willing to listen to the GOP in 2010, and the GOP is working to speak to them, with the help of women in its ranks. The truth is that neither party can afford to treat women as simplistically as the "women problem" narrative does.

COMMENT:  Very well said.  The GOP has a history of giving up on groups, not even trying to get their vote.  A former Republican national chairman, Frank J. Fahrenkopf, Jr., who was chairman during the Reagan presidency, complained about that, even then.

There is no reason why Republicans cannot appeal to women...if they make the effort.  The recruitment of many excellent female Republican candidates for 2010 indicates that the effort is being made.

December 17, 2009   Permalink

 

GOOD FOR OUR SIDE - AT 8:43 A.M. ET:  From Deutsche Welle:

Credit Suisse has agreed to pay the $536 million (372 million euros) imposed by authorities in the United States for violating US sanctions against Iran and several other countries, including Libya, Sudan, Burma and Cuba.

The US Justice Department said the Swiss banking group had processed payments allowing those countries access to American financial institutions - a practice that Washington had banned.

Good for the Justice Department.  The department has done some dumb things recently - like arranging for the mastermind of 9-11 to be tried in a New York civilian courtroom - but this gets our thumbs up.

The penalty marks the biggest such fine in the history of violations of US sanctions and authorities said the bank would have had to pay even more had they not cooperated.

The settlement with US authorities ends a five-year investigation and includes a deferred prosecution agreement that allows Credit Suisse to avoid further penalties providing the bank avoids new violations and cooperates with authorities.

And...

US Attorney General Eric Holder said in a statement that Credit Suisse had even created a "how-to book on committing crime."

"Rather than adhere to the law and decline to serve these customers, Credit Suisse established a business model to allow these rogue players access to US dollars," Holder said. "In both its scope and complexity, the criminal misconduct perpetrated by Credit Suisse in this case is simply astounding."

Good for Holder.  I never thought I'd be complimenting him, but, as we say here, we give credit where it's due.  Now let's straighten out the rest of the department, Eric. 

By the way, isn't it remarkable how often we see bad behavior coming from nations that hold themselves up as noble and superior?  Does the name "Sweden" come to mind?  There are those who accuse Americans of being self-righteous.  We're amateurs compared to some of the European strutters.

December 17, 2009   Permalink

 

DEMS IN DISTRESS - AT 8:22 A.M. ET:  A Wall Street Journal/NBC News poll reveals the Titanic condition of the Democratic Party.  It's hit the iceberg, it's sinking, and the only question is the number of survivors:

WASHINGTON -- Less than a year after Inauguration Day, support for the Democratic Party continues to slump, amid a difficult economy and a wave of public discontent, according to a new Wall Street Journal/NBC News poll.

The findings underscored how dramatically the political landscape has changed during the Obama administration's first year. In January, despite the recession and financial crisis, voters expressed optimism about the future, the new president enjoyed soaring approval ratings, and congressional leaders promised to swiftly pass his ambitious agenda.

In December's survey, for the first time, less than half of Americans approved of the job President Barack Obama was doing, marking a steeper first-year fall for this president than his recent predecessors.

And...

The survey suggests that public discontent with Mr. Obama and his party is being driven by an unusually grim view of the country's status and future prospects.

It is up to presidents to lead and inspire.  Mr. Obama hasn't painted a portrait of a shining city on a hill, but of a slum teeming with injustice and regret.

The biggest worry for Democrats is that the findings could set the stage for gains by Republican candidates in next year's elections. Support from independents for the president and his party continues to dwindle. In addition, voters intending to back Republicans expressed far more interest in the 2010 races than those planning to vote for Democrats...

The enthusiasm gap - a key factor in the 2008 presidential election.

But public displeasure with Democrats wasn't translating directly into warmth for Republicans. Twenty-eight percent of voters expressed positive feelings about the GOP...

Exceedingly important.  This is not a time to gloat.  Saying "no" to virtually everything Obama does is not a policy, it's an attitude.  The GOP must acknowledge the nation's problems and develop creative solutions that work.

Just 35% of voters said they felt positively about the Democratic Party, a 14-point slide since February. Ten percent felt "very positive."

I don't wish to be a political party pooper, but please notice that, despite the slide, the Dems are still seven points ahead of the GOP in the "positive" column. 

Democrats' troubles can be attributed in part to changing feelings among some core supporters. A third of voters 34 and under, a group that turned out heavily for Democrats last year, feel negative toward the Democratic Party. And just 38% of Hispanics feel positive, down sharply from 60% in February.

We'd have to look at the internals of those findings.  Why do younger voters and Hispanic voters feel less favorable toward the Democrats.  That's the key.  Don't assume they'll vote Republican.  They may just stay home, or even vote for third-party candidates.

December 17, 2009   Permalink

CHECKBOOKS OUT - AT 8:10 A.M. ET:  We've made a cash commitment at the Copenhagen hot-air conference, but it's much less than I'd feared.  From Fox:

The United States extended a $100 billion carrot to the rest of world Thursday, when Secretary of State Hillary Clinton told reporters in Copenhagen the United States is willing to commit up to $10 billion a year by 2012, and would support a global fund of $100 billion a year to help developing nations deal with climate change, provided the nations here are willing live up to the 'transparency' demanded by the U.S.

I like the fact that there are strings attached.  I'd expected we'd be in for much more.  If we actually enforce the "transparency" provision, the money might actually do some good.  But there will be those in Congress, on the left, who'll try to strike that provision through legislation, the better to suck up to African dictators.

Clinton said the money was "conditional." Clinton's words were directed at China, which has refused to meet the monitoring and verification requirements requested by the U.S. when it comes to promises of carbon reductions.

Again, good.  "Transparency" and "conditional" are musical words.

Clinton, who is one of six cabinet members accompanying President Obama to the climate summit, said climate change "is an undeniable and unforgiving fact." And the U.S. was willing to work with other nations to reduce C02 emissions, but any agreement here must have "full transparency."

Bad note.  Don't use terms like "undeniable and unforgiving fact."  You may wake up to a scientific surprise.

Critics have accused the U.S. of trying to 'buy' support for a climate treaty that meets U.S. approval.

I would certainly hope we would.  Stiff the critics.

On Wednesday, negotiators from Britain and the developing nations came to agree on the $100 billion figure by 2020, a reduction from $400 billion African and the poorest nations had previously insisted upon.

One of these days we'll ask the question, "How long does it take a 'developing' nation to develop?"  Some of these "developing nations" don't lift a finger to help themselves, and some have among the highest birth rates in the world.

Meanwhile, world leaders starting flooding into Copenhagen on Thursday, even as a Danish official acknowledged that hope was running out for a comprehensive climate deal because the negotiations between rich and poor countries were deadlocked.

The official said the Danish hosts of the U.N. conference had not given up though it appeared unlikely that their ambitious plan for the conference would be fulfilled.

That's probably good news for all involved.  Next time, don't hold a conference shot through with arrogance, scientific hustling, trendiness, and, above all, fashionable leftist politics.  The huge ovations for Hugo Chavez yesterday should tell us just what this crowd is about.  We have no obligation to eat the forbidden fruit.

December 17,  2009   Permalink

 

 

 

WEDNESDAY,  DECEMBER 16,  2009

IDIOTS - AT 9:08 P.M. ET:  Do you want to know who's trying to determine your future at the climate-change conference in Copenhagen?  Examine the delegates' reaction to the philosophical wisdom of Hugo Chavez.  Read on, from Australia's Herald-Sun:

President Chavez brought the house down.

When he said the process in Copenhagen was “not democratic, it is not inclusive, but isn’t that the reality of our world, the world is really an imperial dictatorship…down with imperial dictatorships” he got a rousing round of applause.

When he said there was a “silent and terrible ghost in the room” and that ghost was called capitalism, the applause was deafening.

But then he wound up to his grand conclusion – 20 minutes after his 5 minute speaking time was supposed to have ended and after quoting everyone from Karl Marx to Jesus Christ - “our revolution seeks to help all people…socialism, the other ghost that is probably wandering around this room, that’s the way to save the planet, capitalism is the road to hell....let’s fight against capitalism and make it obey us.” He won a standing ovation.

COMMENT:  Case closed.

December 16, 2009   Permalink

 

SWEET REVENGE, OR NON-SWEET REVENGE - AT 8:33 P.M. ET:  Hillary Clinton isn't known as the queen of sweetness.  But she must be feeling mighty royal today, after a poll showed her far more popular than her boss:

A new poll of avid news watchers shows that Secretary of State Hillary Clinton has a much higher approval rating than the man she once campaigned against and now works for, President Barack Obama.

In the poll of 800 registered voters who are self-identified “news watchers,” Clinton had a 75 percent approval rating and a 21 percent disapproval rating overall. Obama, in contrast, had a 51 percent approval and a 45 percent disapproval rating.

The Secretary of State has conducted several well-received foreign trips in recent months and has not been as closely identified with the more contentious elements of the Administration’s agenda, including the health care fight, the federal deficit and the Wall Street bailouts. And she has not been subjected to nearly the same media and partisan scrutiny as the president. Obama, meanwhile, has been on national television on a daily basis tackling a wide range of difficult issues.

The poll was conducted by the nonpartisan Clarus Research Group from December 7th to the 12th, and it asked for opinions of the top Cabinet secretaries and White House officials. Its finding on Obama and Clinton mirrors that of earlier polls – in October, for example, a Gallup poll found that Clinton had become more popular than the president.

And...

The next highest-rated cabinet secretary in the survey was Defense Secretary Robert Gates, who notched a 69 percent overall approval rate with a 78 percent approval among Democrats and 63 percent among both Republicans and independents.

COMMENT:  I think the analysis in this well-written story is correct, that Clinton hasn't been associated with the controversial elements of Obama's agenda - like the health-care package.  In addition, she projects a tougher image than the president, which doesn't hurt in foreign affairs.

At the same time, a note of caution:  This poll was taken among news junkies.  Those without the addiction may feel differently.

But if more general polling shows the same result, Clinton can be an excellent political position.  Obama's political operatives may, for example, suggest that she replace Joe Biden on the Democratic ticket in 2012.  They might see her as an electoral asset, which Biden is not, and she might see the move as setting her up for a presidental run in 2016, when she'll only be 68.

December 16, 2009   Permalink

 

DEAD HEAT IN THE SUNSHINE STATE - AT 7:41 P.M. ET:  An intense competition is underway in Florida for the GOP Senate nomination, and polls show a dead heat.

Governor Charlie Crist was expected to have the nomination handed to him on a silver platter, or an orange platter, or whatever they use down there.  But Crist is seen as a moderate, and a conservative, Marco Rubio, has mounted a stiff challenge:

MIAMI (CBS4) A new poll has found that Florida Governor Charlie Crist's campaign for the U.S. Senate is currently in deep trouble. The new Rasmussen poll of likely GOP voters found Crist and his Republican opponent, Marco Rubio, are tied with 43 percent of the vote. This is a huge swing from just a few months ago when most experts believed Crist would win in a landslide.

While Crist's numbers have been in an almost free fall, Rubio's name recognition amongst Republicans has rapidly grown. The new poll found 34 percent of GOP voters now view Rubio "very favorably." In the same poll in August, Rubio's "very favorable" ratings were at 18 percent.

On the flip side, Crist's numbers have fallen off a cliff. Only 19 percent of likely GOP voters have a "very favorable" opinion of the governor. According to Rasmussen, that's a double-digit decline since August.

And a Rasmussen poll on the general election shows this:

The latest Rasmussen Reports telephone survey in Florida finds former state House Speaker Marco Rubio leading Democrat Kendrick Meek 49% to 35%. Governor Charlie

Crist leads Meek 42% to 36%.

For Rubio, those numbers are little changes since October and August.
Crist’s edge over Meek is down from a 12-point lead in October.

The reason for the difference is that 79% of conservatives support Rubio but only 62% say Crist can count on their vote. Twenty-four percent (24%) of conservatives say they’d prefer either a third party option or are undecided. If Crist were to win the nomination, it is likely that many of those voters would end up supporting him over Meek.

COMMENT:  This will have to play out further before we get a clear picture of either the Republican nomination contest or the general election.  Rubio is still not that well known, whereas Crist is the governor.  As people get to know Rubio, and his views, his numbers can change considerably.

Kendrick Meek is an African American congressman.  Race may well be affecting his numbers.  If the Democrats choose another candidate, the contest may well tighten considerably. 

December 16, 2009   Permalink 

 

COPENHAGEN AND HOT AIR - AT 7:21 P.M. ET:  Even though we're told this is the last chance to save the planet, and maybe the entire Solar System, the delegates at the climate change conference in Copenhagen are having a tough time doing salvation:

COPENHAGEN (AP) -- The 10-day-old climate talks ran into disputes and paralysis as they entered a critical stage Wednesday, just two days before President Barack Obama and more than 100 other national leaders hope to sign a historic agreement to fight global warming.

That's right.  Barack is coming.  The man can't stay home for more than a week.  Doesn't he like the house?

Poorer nations stalled the talks in resistance to what they saw as efforts by the rich to impose decisions falling short of strong commitments to reduce greenhouse gases and to help those countries hurt by climate change. Conference observers said, however, that negotiators still had time to reach agreements.

And if they don't, Copenhagen will sink into the sea immediately.  Pass it on.

Outside the meeting site in Copenhagen's suburbs, police fired pepper spray and beat protesters with batons as hundreds of demonstrators sought to disrupt the 193-nation conference, the latest action in days of demonstrations to demand "climate justice" -- firm steps to combat global warming. Police said 230 protesters were detained.

I have to go into New York City tomorrow for a briefing on space weapons.  It's expected to be cold and windy.  I am demanding that Mayor Bloomberg produce climate justice...or else.

Earlier, behind closed doors, negotiators dealing with core issues debated until just before dawn without setting new goals for reducing greenhouse gas emissions or for financing poorer countries' efforts to cope with coming climate change, key elements of any deal.

"I regret to report we have been unable to reach agreement," John Ashe of Antigua, chairman of one negotiating group, told the conference.

COMMENT:  It's the "financing poorer countries" that's the big deal.  A lot of this is about money.  If our aid programs to "poorer" nations can serve as any guide, a lot of that money will go down the corruption drain.  But we'll feel good about ourselves.

Doesn't look like this conference is accomplishing much.  Maybe the delegates, like a majority of the American people, are starting to wonder just how much of a "crisis" the world is actually facing.

December 16, 2009   Permalink

 

AND NOW THE TRUTH - AT 10:55 A.M. ET:  Well, finally it's out there, for the world to see.  Many of us knew this, but were waiting for final, scientific confirmation before going public:  The real secret to saving the planet is...cows.

It was always the cows.  But our own bigotry and lack of cultural sensitivity made us blind to the reality.  Now, we've got to get past that dark period.  The truth hurts, as Fox reports:

The United States is counting on cows to help save the planet.

U.S. Secretary Tom Vilsack announced an agreement with the American dairy industry Tuesday to reduce the industry's greenhouse gas emissions 25 percent by 2020, mostly by convincing farmers to capture the methane from cow manure that otherwise would be released into the atmosphere.

"This historic agreement, the first of its kind, will help us achieve the ambitious goal of drastically reducing greenhouse gas emissions while benefiting farmers," Vilsack said at the U.N. climate talks. "(The) use of manure of technology is a win for everyone."

Agriculture accounts for about 7 percent of the greenhouse gas emissions in the United States.

The plan calls for persuading more American farmers to purchase an anaerobic digester, which essentially converts cow manure into electricity. The problem is that, so far, only 2 percent of U.S. dairy farmers are using the technology, mostly because it is too costly for family farmers.

Oh, but now the technology will spread.  And someday, when you see Nancy Pelosi or Harry Reid on some device powered by electricity, you'll understand what's making their voices possible.

You know, historians tell us that Joe McCarthy was advised by his mentors to stop his Congressional hearings and spend his time advancing Wisconsin cows.  If he'd done that, Joe could've been president.  But he had that same demeaning attitude toward cows that the rest of us did, and he went down the wrong path.

It's time to thank a cow.  If a cow moos at you, just say, "Thanks Elsie, and thanks for my microwave oven and vacuum cleaner."

No glass of milk will ever taste the same.

December 16, 2009   Permalink 

 

LATEST POLLS - AT 9:58 A.M. ET:  Although polls differ from pollster to pollster, the general trend cannot be pleasing to the Democratic Party or to the White House:

Rasmussen reports that the Republicans continue their lead in the generic Congressional ballot:

Republican candidates have bounced back to a seven-point lead over Democrats in the latest edition of the Generic Congressional Ballot.

The latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey shows that 44% would vote for their district’s Republican congressional candidate while 37% would opt for his or her Democratic opponent.

Support for GOP candidates is up just one point over the past week, but support for Democrats slipped two points. A week ago, the Republican lead was down to four points from a seven-point margin the last week in November.

Republicans have held the lead on the ballot for over four months now. Democrats currently have majority control of both the House and Senate.

This doesn't mean the Republican Party is all that loved.  Most polls show that the GOP gain has come largely because of the unpopularity of the Democratic Congressional leadership. 

A new ABC News/Washington Post poll shows another drop for President Obama:

Fifty percent of Americans in this ABC News/Washington Post poll approve of the president's work overall, down 6 points in the last month; nearly as many, 46 percent, now disapprove. On the economy, 52 percent disapprove, a majority for the first time. On the deficit, his worst score, 56 percent disapprove.

And the grimness continues:

There are further challenges. Obama's approval rating among independents, the crucial center of national politics, is 43 percent, a new low and down from a peak of 67 percent in the heady days a month after he took office. He's down by 9 points this month among moderates. He's got just 41 percent approval among whites, vs. 76 percent among nonwhites; and just 42 percent among seniors, a reliable voting group (looking to the 2010 midterms) and one particularly disenchanted with health care reform.

We stress that the 2010 midterms are still 11 months away, many lifetimes in politics.  But one thing that we should point out is that the GOP has recruited a number of excellent Senate candidates in many states, a reversal from the party's mediocre recruiting record in recent elections.  You can't beat somebody with nobody, but if you've got somebody, well...you never know.

Early polls, but encouraging.

December 16, 2009   Permalink

 

THE ARROGANCE OF THE LEFT - AT 9:02 A.M. ET:  The Democratic left is becoming increasingly delusional.  The leftists believe they are a huge army, representing the downtrodden, the oppressed, the tofu nation, and those on the dean's list, and that they must fight to the end for their vastly popular goals.

If they continue the way they're going, their next meeting will be held in a closet. 

The Politico reports their latest Alamo-style stand: 

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) has rejected a Senate plan to include amendments to the Patriot Act in a larger Pentagon funding bill covering the soaring cost of the war in Afghanistan, arguing that to do so would lead to a “revolt on the left,” according to Democratic insiders.

Pelosi’s decision, announced at a closed-door leadership meeting Monday, has forced Democrats to go with a backup plan of extending the Patriot Act until early next year, essentially punting the controversial issue into 2010, when a broader agreement with the Senate can be struck. The vote is now scheduled to take place early next year.

Yeah, what's so important about national security?  The left is upset!  Let us treat their troops with appropriate drugs.  I have a few pharmaceutical suggestions myself, but there could be legal complications. 

Some Democratic senators were pushing for quick action, understanding that there are real citizens concerned about real security.

But Pelosi would have none of it, telling her colleagues that the Democratic base across the country is already upset about President Barack Obama’s decision to escalate U.S. military involvement in Afghanistan.

Can you believe that this is the way national-security policy is made?

The Obama administration, in fairness, favors extending the Patriot Act provisions.  But once again the left wing of the House goes its own way.  They're still mourning the American victory in the Cold War.

December 16, 2009   Permalink

 

AN ANNIVERSARY TO OBSERVE - AT 8:28 A.M. ET:  Today is the 65th anniversary of the start of the Battle of the Bulge, also known as the Ardennes Offensive.  On December 16th, 1944, Nazi Germany, only months away from defeat, launched a surprise attack on Allied troops on the western front, hoping to drive a wedge in our line and ultimately wreck the Allied advance into Germany.  The German attack, after bitter fighting, failed.

The Battle of the Bulge lasted a bit more than five weeks.  The United States lost 19,000 men.  We were a nation of about 138 million at the time.  Today the United States has a population of approximately 305 million.  Put in proportion to today's population, the Battle of the Bulge cost the lives of more than 40,000 American soldiers.  It was, for us, the costliest engagement of World War II.

I mention the casualty figures to emphasize what we endured in the Second World War.  Obviously, every life is precious.  To the family that receives a knock on the door from an officer bearing the worst news from Iraq or Afghanistan, there is no such thing as "low casualties."  But the next time you hear one of those whining anchors on CNN talking about our "war-weary" nation, think back to 1944, and the cost of just one five-week battle.  The nation at Christmas in 1944 had a right to be war-weary.  Unless we are part of a military family today, we have no such right.

December 16, 2009    Permalink

   

IRAN TESTS - AGAIN - AT 8:22 A.M. ET:  From The New York Times:

TEHRAN, Iran (AP) -- Iran on Wednesday test-fired an upgraded version of its most advanced missile, which is capable of hitting Israel and parts of Europe, in a new show of strength aimed at preventing any military strike against it amid the nuclear standoff with the West.

The test stoked tensions between Iran and the West, which is pressing Tehran to rein in its nuclear program. British Prime Minister Gordon Brown said it showed the need for tougher U.N. sanctions on Iran...

...Wednesday's test was for the latest version of Iran's longest-range missile, the Sajjil-2, with a range of about 1,200 miles (2,000 kilometers). That range places Israel, Iran's sworn enemy, well within reach, as well as U.S. bases in the Gulf region and parts of southeastern Europe.

COMMENT:  We're impressed by the sheer number of stories about Iran that have appeared in the press in the last week.  President Obama's "deadline" for nuclear talks with Iran to show progress is two weeks away.  So much has been made of this deadline by the administration, especially Clinton and Gates, that any failure to act decisively in January will make the president look foolish and, once again, weak. 

Stand by.  Next month should be very interesting.

December 16,  2009   Permalink