I've chosen today to place two editorials at the top of Urgent Agenda, where they'll reside for the rest of the day.  One notes the 40th anniversary of the flight to the moon, the other marks six months of the Obama presidency.  Our regular items are below.  We may do this from time to time, if readers like it.

ALERT:  TWO POLL STUNNERS, HERE AND HERE.

MONDAY,  JULY 20,  2009

SPECIAL ESSAYS FOR TODAY:

SIX MONTHS - Barack Hussein Obama Jr. became president of the United States six months ago today. 

He delivered an inaugural address, not one word of which has been quoted in the six months since.  That followed a political campaign in which he delivered a speech on race, billed as the most important ever given by a presidential candidate, and not one word of which has been quoted afterward.

In the half year since inauguration, President Obama has given many, many speeches, all of which, save one, have been forgotten.  The one exception is the address he gave in Cairo to his brothers in the Muslim world, remembered only because so many observers pointed out so many factual errors.

We have learned much about Obama in these six months, and one thing we've learned is the same thing we eventually realized about another well-spoken Illinoisan, Adlai Stevenson, some half century ago - that there is about this man, underneath the golden words, a remarkable shallowness.  As a nation, we like him, but increasingly do not trust him.  We admire him as a personal role model for minority youngsters, but increasingly do not believe in his policies.  We enjoy him as a man, yet increasingly we are losing confidence in him as a leader.

On that bleak day in 1986 when Challenger exploded above Cape Canaveral, an ordinary citizen, reflecting on how President Reagan would respond, assured me, "He knows what to do."  Few use those words about President Obama.  After six months, we are unsure that "he knows what to do." 

And that is the tragedy.  A president who came to office with such promise has produced a foreign policy that projects apology and weakness, and which is achieving nothing.  A president who sought to transform his country, for better or worse, turned his legislative program over to a congressional leadership with a documented history of confusion and failure.  The clearest vision this administration has is a backward view - the insistence that every problem was caused by Mr. Obama's predecessor.

As Americans, we want each president to succeed, assuming we can agree with a president's definition of success.  Today we are watching a president fail, despite all the cheerleading from a press that has become a public embarrassment. 

That is not change we can believe in.  Unless there is improvement, a new maturity, a new competence, millions of Americans will seek to replace the government we have just put in place. 

Can we do it?  Yes we can.

July 20, 2009   Permalink 

FORTY YEARS - Man walked on the moon 40 years ago today. 

Yet, remarkably, one quarter of all young people believe it was a hoax.  What a comment on the "educational" system that serves us, and which has, in the four decades since the depressing sixties, done so much to tear down the image of America in the minds of its young.

But we did go to the moon - unless, of course, you believe that a conspiracy of thousands, not one of whom talked, perpetrated a fraud.  If you believe that, you probably believe 9-11 was an inside job and that the Japanese planes above Pearl Harbor were filled with high-spending tourists.

The flight to the moon celebrated American greatness - imagination, capability, determination.  President Kennedy had set the goal, and the goal was reached.  Few Americans complained about the cost because they understood that there was something larger than material gain in the moon flight - there was a spiritual quest that defines, more than budgets and scientific equations, a great nation.

Are we a great nation today?  Of course we are.  But we are suffering under the weight of failing institutions - our universities, our media - that are diminishing our greatness, and even mocking it.  After all, the most covered story of 1969 was the flight to the moon.  The most covered story so far in 2009 was the death of Michael Jackson.  Please compare.

In 1969 we still had veterans of World War II who were in their forties.  Men and women who'd built and flown propeller planes in the greatest conflict in human history saw their country embark upon, and succeed in, the greatest adventure in human history.  They knew that the emblem placed on the moon was an American flag, rather than a Nazi swastika, because of their sacrifice.

Today there are too many Americans who doubt sacrifice, or even ridicule it.  That attitude was encouraged by some of the social upheavals that, like the moon flight, also defined the sixties.

Which spirit will we have in the future - the spirit of '69, and the flight to the moon, or the other spirit of the sixties, which sought to tear down rather than to build?  It is up to us to reclaim the good and reject the dismal.  That is the new challenge we face, and the outcome is always in doubt.

July 20, 2009    Permalink

----------------------------------------------------------

OUR REGULAR ITEMS:

SHE SPEAKS AGAIN - AT 7:54 P.M. ET:  The New York Times has published the reactions of a number of prominent Americans to the moon landing, 40 years ago today.

Ordinarily, these "I was there" statements are pretty routine, sometimes a bit outlandish, rarely that interesting.  But one stood out in the Times review.  Once again we have the privilege of dissecting the pathetic incoherence of Gloria Steinem.  I was in journalism in New York at the time when Steinem was making herself famous.  Even then I thought, along with many others, that, if it hadn't been for her extraordinary good looks, no one would have cared. 

Agree with them or not, some of the feminist writers of that period had something to say.  Betty Friedan was a Marxist, less than honest, and personally obnoxious, but one could debate her serious ideas.  By contrast, Steinem was the consummate self promoter, dashing out one silly line after another, knowing they'd get attention.  ("A woman without a man is like a fish without a bicycle.")  Like too many feminists, she allowed her hard left ideology to control her.  Even after the attacks of 9-11, she could not manage a word of sympathy for her own country.

Her comments about the moon shot reflected her intellectual limitations, which were extreme:

Huge sums being justified by cold war arguments about militarizing space, and there was no way to vote for using that money to solve big problems on Earth.

I don't recall that the moon shot was about militarizing space, and there were certainly ways to vote down the space program...if one actually had the votes.  Like many Marxists, Steinem believes that she represents "the people" and their interests, but that those ignorant masses just don't realize it.  Hence, the votes were never there.

You would think that a prominent "feminist" would understand the medical and scientific benefits of space exploration, and would acknowledge the role of female astronauts.  But that would require the five or ten seconds of thought that are beyond Steinem's range. 

Steinem's anthem was never really, "I am Woman."  It was more like, "There's No Business Like Show Business."

There's a time to get off the stage.  Some people stay years beyond their time.

July 20, 2009   Permalink

MORE OBAMAN CRAZINESS - AT 4:31 P.M. ET:  It is simply remarkable to see the Obama crowd, in the Honduras crisis, siding with Chavez, Ortega and Castro. 

It really is back to the sixties for the Obamans:

TEGUCIGALPA, Honduras (AP) -- The United States is turning up pressure on the Honduran government installed by a coup -- and the businessmen who support it -- warning that they will face severe sanctions if ousted President Manuel Zelaya is not restored to power.

U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton called interim President Roberto Micheletti to say there would be serious consequences if his government ignores international mediation for Zelaya's return.

Her call on Sunday came as talks mediated by Costa Rican President Oscar Arias stalled due to the refusal of Micheletti's delegates to accept demands for Zelaya's return.

COMMENT:  Nothing like a little bias in that first paragraph.  It wasn't a military coup.  The military only acted on orders from the Honduran Supreme Court.  And businessmen aren't the only ones who support the new government.  This is the journalistic left in full bloom.

Wouldn't it be something if we turned out to be tougher on this new, entirely legitimate government in Honduras, installed by constitutional means, than we are on Iran or North Korea.  But it would fit the apparent instincts of our fearless leader.

July 20, 2009   Permalink

YOU, TOO, HILLARY? - AT 10:45 A.M. ET:  I don't think comments like this do the United States, or Hillary Clinton, much good:

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said North Korea should not receive the attention it is seeking through behavior like missile launches and likened Pyongyang's behavior to that of unruly children.

And...

"And maybe it's the mother in me or the experience that I've had with small children and unruly teenagers and people who are demanding attention -- don't give it to them, they don't deserve it, they are acting out," she said.

Small children don't have access to nuclear weapons or ICBMs.  Very surprised at Clinton, who knows better.

Clinton also downplayed the threat that North Korea poses to the United States, saying: "They don't pose a threat to us. We know that our allies, Japan and South Korea, are very concerned."

COMMENT:  First, North Korea poses a grave threat to us because it proliferates.  Second, yeah, our allies our very concerned, and this administration has shown precious little interest in the feelings of allies, like Japan, South Korea, Britain, France, Germany, and Israel.  Lots of feelings, though, for Hugo Chavez and his close, personal friends.

July 20, 2009   Permalink

ANOTHER POLL STUNNER - AT 10:16 A.M. ET:  We'll be following this.

Drudge is reporting that Rasmussen is about to release a poll showing Barack Obama and Mitt Romney in a dead heat, 45% each, in a 2012 matchup.  Also, Obama 48%, Sarah Palin 42%.  After all the abuse Sarah has taken, that's spectacular.

Stand by.

July 20, 2009   Permalink

POLL STUNNER - AT 9:45 A.M. ET:  Rasmussen has just reported that President Obama's overall approval rating has fallen to 50%, the first time that has happened in the Rasmussen survey. 

Disapproval is at 49%.  The gap is one point.  If the trend continues, Mr. Obama will be in negative territory only six months into his presidency.

One thing is clear:  The novelty of an African-American president has worn off.   Americans are now looking at policies, and how those policies will change their lives.  They don't like what they see.  Unless there is a corrective, the president will face a serious political problem just as the 2010 midterm campaigns are starting.

July 20, 2009    Permalink 

NOW COUGH AND FEEL THE PAIN - AT 9:21 A.M. ET:  Writing in Newsweek, Ted Kennedy and Robert Shrum say this:

We also need to move from a system that rewards doctors for the sheer volume of tests and treatments they prescribe to one that rewards quality and positive outcomes. For example, in Medicare today, 18 percent of patients discharged from a hospital are readmitted within 30 days--at a cost of more than $15 billion in 2005. Most of these readmissions are unnecessary, but we don't reward hospitals and doctors for preventing them. By changing that, we'll save billions of dollars while improving the quality of care for patients.

Writing in Weekly Standard, Bill Kristol shreds that argument:

Now first of all, if there are problems with Medicare, the laws and regulations governing Medicare--a government program--can be changed, without a government take-over of the rest of the system. Second, given that first diagnoses are often wrong or that hospital treatments lead to unanticipated complications, it’s not so clear on the face of it that an 18 percent readmission rate within 30 days for elderly patients is unreasonable. And third, even if the whole $15 billion worth of hospital readmissions were unnecessary (which can’t be case), $15 billion per year is less than 1 percent of our health care spending.

But the most important implication of the Kennedy-Shrum claim--“Most of these readmissions are unnecessary, but we don’t reward hospitals and doctors for preventing them. By changing that, we’ll save billions of dollars.”--is this: The government is going to decide--ahead of time, obviously, since deciding after the fact wouldn’t save any money; and based on certain general criteria, since the government isn’t going to review each individual case--what kinds of hospital readmissions for the elderly are “unnecessary” and what kinds aren’t. And it’s going to set up a system “to reward hospitals and doctors for preventing” the unnecessary ones. That is, the government will reward hospitals and doctors for denying care they now provide, care the government will now deem “unnecessary.”

COMMENT:  Excellent diagnosis.  This is the kind of discussion we should be having about health-care "reform" - not the shove-it-down-their-ignorant-throats approach of the liberal Democrats in Congress.

Fortunately, there are signs that the runaway freight train of "reform" may be stopped before something reckless is passed, if opponents keep up the fight.

We need improvement in the system.  It would be nice to discuss the changes before they wind up costing lives.

July 20, 2009   Permalink

SUNDAY,  JULY 19,  2009

WHO ARE THESE PESTY PEOPLE? - AT 8:01 P.M. ET:  Now President Obama's health-care plan, already in serious trouble in Congress, is under assault from the governors:

BILOXI, Miss. — The nation’s governors, Democrats as well as Republicans, voiced deep concern Sunday about the shape of the health care bill emerging from Congress, fearing that the federal government is about to hand them expensive new Medicaid obligations without providing the money to pay for them.

The role of the states in a restructured health care system dominated the National Governors Association’s summer meeting here this weekend — with bipartisan animosity voiced against the Obama administration’s plan during a closed-door luncheon on Saturday and in a private meeting on Sunday afternoon with the secretary of health and human services, Kathleen Sebelius.“I think the governors would all agree that what we don’t want from the federal government is unfunded mandates,” said Gov. Jim Douglas of Vermont, a Republican who is the group’s incoming chairman. “We can’t have the Congress impose requirements that we are forced to absorb beyond our capacity to do so.”

COMMENT:  Does the word "disaster" come to mind?  The governors should have been consulted right from the start.  Obama basically turned the writing of the health bill over to the liberal Democrats in Congress, that great army of competence.  The result is a shambles, with the American people losing more confidence every day.

A bill still might pass, but someone should remind Washington that we expect more of Congress than we do of a high-school student government.  Of course, we're wrong on that.

July 19, 2009   Permalink

THE NEXT GREAT CRISIS - AT 7:30 P.M. ET:  You might want to review your family emergency procedures before tackling this one.  Seems there's a major human crisis building, as the Washington Post reports:

The baseball field boasts a $50,000 press box, a dugout and a concession stand. The softball field? A faded wood shed and a port-a-potty.

Now C.D. Hylton High School in Woodbridge is under investigation by federal officials for sex discrimination, joining schools in Charles and Frederick counties and 47 other school systems nationwide that are under scrutiny for possible disparities between their softball and baseball facilities.

The schools are being investigated for possible violations of Title IX, the 1972 federal rules governing equity between the sexes. Any educational program that receives federal funding is required to provide equal opportunities and facilities for boys and girls.

In an era when most sports have boys' and girls' equivalents that use the same fields, pools and equipment, high school baseball and softball fields remain separated by the sexes. Softball fields are smaller than those used in baseball, and the two types of field cannot be used interchangeably. The difference can contribute to inequalities.

COMMENT:  I'm all for equal treatment of boys and girls in athletic programs, but this story is absurd.  Baseball and softball are different sports.  Baseball, as the story makes clear, gets far more support in the community, and it has nothing to do with gender.  Yes, some of these schools should probably improve their softball facilities, but this is hardly a discrimination crisis.  Some local fundraising campaigns might be far more effective than one more lawsuit.

July 19, 2009   Permalink

ANOTHER GREETING FROM OUR SOUTHERN FRIENDS - AT 12:44 P.M. ET:  If I recall correctly, President Obama, in the spare time he'll have after reshaping America and remaking the world, wants to establish a better relationship with Venezuela.   He might want to bookmark this article first:

BOGOTA, Colombia, July 18 -- A report for the U.S. Congress on drug smuggling through Venezuela concludes that corruption at high levels of President Hugo Chávez's government and state aid to Colombia's drug-trafficking guerrillas have made Venezuela a major launching pad for cocaine bound for the United States and Europe.

Since 1996, successive U.S. administrations have considered Venezuela a key drug-trafficking hub, the Government Accountability Office report says. But now, it says, the amount of cocaine flowing into Venezuela from Colombia, Venezuela's neighbor and the world's top producer of the drug, has skyrocketed, going from an estimated 60 metric tons in 2004 to 260 metric tons in 2007. That amounted to 17 percent of all the cocaine produced in the Andes in 2007.

COMMENT:  Undoubtedly, this is just another cultural misunderstanding.  Can't we all just get along?

July 19, 2009   Permalink

THE CLOSING GAP - AT 10:02 A.M. ET:  Rasmussen reports this morning the narrowest gap he's yet recorded in approval vs. disapproval of President Obama.  Some 51% approve of the president's performance, while 49% disapprove, a spread of only two points.  Please note, as we always emphasize, that a poll is a snapshot in time, and there is a margin of error.  But still, the overall trend for Mr. Obama is downward.  People like the president personally, but his policies are not winning many converts.

And the president faces a tough Autumn ahead, as the 2010 midterm races are launched.  He's got to show results, both domestically and in foreign policy.  He's getting very little help from foreign nations, and very little adult help from his party in Congress.

July 19, 2009   Permalink

NOT MUCH DEFENSE - AT 9:46 A.M. ET:  I recall that, in the early sixties, pro-defense members of Congress, frustrated at the Pentagon's procurement system, would carry around boards with tools mounted on them.  The boards showed the civilian price for a tool, then the price the Pentagon paid.  The difference was staggering.  I recall a screwdriver that cost the Pentagon hundreds of dollars.

Our procurement system is still broken.  Barry Goldwater railed against it.  So did Admiral Rickover.  Still broken.  John Lehman, President Reagan's secretary of the Navy, writes about the problem and proposes solutions.  If we don't find solutions soon, our defenses might be severely weakened:

When John McCain was shot down over Hanoi in 1967, he was flying an A4 Skyhawk. That jet cost $860,000.

Inflation has risen by 700% since then. So Mr. McCain's A4 cost $6.1 million in 2008 dollars. Applying a generous factor of three for technological improvements, the price for a 2008 Navy F18 fighter should be about $18 million. Instead, we are paying about $90 million for each new fighter. As a result, the Navy cannot buy sufficient numbers. This is disarmament without a treaty.

The situation is worse in the Air Force. In 1983, I was in the Pentagon meeting that launched the F-22 Raptor. The plan was to buy 648 jets beginning in 1996 for $60 million each (in 1983 dollars). Now they cost $350 million apiece and the Obama budget caps the program at 187 jets. At least they are safe from cyberattack since no one in China knows how to program the '83 vintage IBM software that runs them.

COMMENT:  Pretty depressing.  And stories like this give ammunition to the unilateral disarmament crowd and the rest of the left.  Anyone who's pro-defense must be enraged by the chronic, year-after-year mess in the Pentagon.

When he left office, President Eisenhower warned, in a comment usually taken out of context, about the potential danger of an "industrial-military complex."  (In context, Ike was actually talking about the need for an industrial-military complex, but noting that it carried with it dangers.)  The original draft of Eisenhower's speech used the phrase, "the industrial-military-congressional complex," but the reference to Congress was taken out.  Eisenhower's concern was procurement, defense contracting.  Then, as now, politics plays a destructive role.  Weapons are bought because they're produced in some powerful senator's state.  Or, they're bought because components are built in many states, so the weapon gets widespread support.

We must do better.  We are, as John Lehman says, disarming ourselves with an inflated procurement process that is depriving our military of the best equipment, in sufficient quantity to do the job.

July 19, 2009   Permalink

REALISM SEEPING IN - AT 9:38 A.M. ET:  Apparently, the White House is getting the message that changing the entire American health-care system requires a bit of thought, planning and discussion, as The Politico notes:

In his most recent remarks, President Obama has stopped mentioning what had been his mantra — that the House and Senate finish their health-care bills by the August recess — and switched to a less specific call to fast action.

The increased flexibility follows resistance by key senators in both parties to what they have called an "artificial deadline."

A White House aide said the president isn't letting up.

"No change in the timeline," said the aide.

But prodding Congress in speeches on his top legislative priority Friday and Saturday, Obama didn’t mention the August deadline.

COMMENT:  The White House is apparently concerned that more discussion means more confusion, and the chance that insurance companies will come in and muddle the debate out of their own self-interest.

These things are possible, of course.  But the debate should be welcomed, not shunned.  If insurance companies act irresponsibly, hit them in the marketplace of ideas.  (Some deserve to be slapped, others don't.  That's part of what free enterprise is about.)  We should be having a national conversation about health care, with competing plans examined and criticized. 

Part of the failure here lies with the press.  You sometimes get the sense that some outlets have become big obituary pages for celebrities, and nothing else.  But the media should be insisting on a major national discussion, even if it means Michael Jackson won't be mentioned.

July 19, 2009   Permalink