TUESDAY,  JULY 28,  2009

QUOTES OF THE DAY - AT 9:38 P.M. ET:  From Harry Stein in the Manhattan Institute's City Journal, on President Obama's "teachable moment":

This time, more than ever, we’re learning other lessons. One of them: for all the talk from his starry-eyed acolytes, in the media and elsewhere, about Obama’s being “post-racial,” the president clings to the discredited and deeply damaging view of America as fundamentally racist, seeing his fellow blacks as perpetual victims justifiably suspicious of cops and other establishment authority figures. So when it comes to race, it’s facts be damned.

And...

Perhaps the most telling media moment during the Gates brouhaha was the observation by an NPR anchor—only slight paraphrasing here—that opinion was divided over whether the police were to blame or there was fault on both sides.

Very insightful.  It was beyond the NPR guy's comprehension that some people might think there was a third possibility - that only Professor Gates was to blame.  Ideas like that would not be acceptable at National Public Radio.  Would you want this guy on a jury?

July 28, 2009    Permalink

PAWLENTY MOVING - AT 9:09 P.M. ET:  There's been a heavy focus on former Governor Sarah Palin, but watch Republican Governor Tim Pawlenty of Minnesota.  Skillful and appealing, he's making his move for 2012:

In a twin boost to his growing national political profile, Gov. Tim Pawlenty got a new bully pulpit Monday and issued a joint report on health care with a U.S. Republican House leader.

Pawlenty, who has already crammed his schedule full of national appearances, was elected vice-chairman of the Republican Governors Association, a post he can use to boost the campaigns of 39 GOP candidates in elections this year and next.

The visibility of the position also allows him to burnish his own credentials as a next-generation Republican leader -- and possibly help him position himself for a presidential run in 2012.

Pawlenty has decided not to run for reelection next year, clearing his schedule for a presidential run in 2012.  Along with Mitt Romney, Sarah Palin, and possibly Mike Huckabee, he has to be considered in the front rank of contenders.  Nationally, he would be a fresh face.

The 2012 election is many, many political lifetimes from now.  Anything we say in July of 2009 is pure speculation.  But it appears that we can count Pawlenty in.

July 28, 2009   Permalink

UTTERLY DISGRACEFUL - AT 6:31 P.M. ET: 

OCOTAL, Nicaragua (AP) - The U.S. government said Tuesday it has revoked the diplomatic visas of four Honduran officials, stepping up pressure on coup-installed leaders who insist they can resist international demands to restore the ousted president.

Coup-installed leader?  When, precisely, was there a coup?  The army did not act until ordered to do so by proper constitutional authority.  This is either lazy journalism, or slanted journalism, but there's no third possibility.

The U.S. State Department did not name the four, but a Honduran official said they included the Supreme Court magistrate who ordered the arrest of ousted President Manuel Zelda and the president of Honduras' Congress.

Last time I looked, the ousted president's name was Zelaya, not Zelda.  Zelda is my aunt.  Is this great journalism, or what?

The State Department is also reviewing the visas of all officials serving under interim President Roberto Micheletti, department spokesman Ian Kelly said.

Micheletti's Deputy Foreign Minister Marta Lorena Alvarado said Supreme Court Justice Tomas Arita and Congressional President Jose Alfredo Saavedro were among those whose visas removed.

Arita signed the order for Zelaya's arrest several days before soldiers whisked him out of the country on June 28.

Hey, they got the president's name right.

COMMENT:  This is an outrage.  We are openly siding with Castro, Ortega and Hugo Chavez, who are allies of this former president, Zelaya, who was ousted by legal action of the Honduran government. 

It took days for the president of the United States to finally drag himself to a microphone to support the pro-democracy demonstrators in Iran, who were being beaten and killed by the mullahs.  He explained the delay by saying that he didn't want to "meddle" in Iranian affairs.  And here we are, diving into Honduras to support a hard leftist, an ally of our enemies.

Tells you where the president's heart lies, doesn't it? 

You may recall that Obama ran as a centrist.  Remember?

July 28, 2009  Permalink

WE JUST THOUGHT YOU'D LIKE TO KNOW - AT 12:15 P.M. ET: 

WASHINGTON (AP) -- The chief White House spokesman said a Thursday meeting of the president, a Harvard University scholar and the policeman who arrested him will be ''about having a beer and de-escalation.''

Robert Gibbs said Tuesday that the session, weather permitting, is planned for 6 p.m. at a picnic table outside the Oval Office. ''The president wants to continue to take down the temperature a bit,'' Gibbs said.

COMMENT:  This truly symbolizes the adolescent character of the Obama administration.  The president should have apologized for his outrageous remarks condemning the Cambridge police for having acted "stupidly," and then gotten out of the case entirely.

This "picnic" just trivializes the whole situation, but is indicative of the Obama belief that all problems can be solved by just a little talking, a little beer drinking, some negotiation, and treating all sides as morally equal.  Certainly is working in his foreign policy, isn't it?

Please remember that Gates plans to make money on the case by filming a documentary, and that the police officer still faces an investigation in a town known for its leftist bias.

July 28, 2009   Permalink 

MESSAGE FROM OBAMA:  DON'T YOU DARE SUCCEED - AT 9:46 A.M. ET:   Incredible.  Unbelievable.  But this is the liberal mentality at work:  If you don't at first fail, try, try again. 

To some liberals, success is suspect, unless of course it's their own success at becoming fabulously wealthy through Hollywood accounting or Wall Street gimmicks.  Now we find that the New York Police Department, the symbol of crime-fighting victories in the last decade and a half, and the department that has done more to fight terror than any other police unit, is being denied federal funds.  Why?  Because it's too successful.  In the immortal words of Captain Queeg, "I kid you not."  The Politico has the madness:

New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg, whose police force has reportedly been denied due to insufficient crime and budgetary problems, released a blunt statement:

"The decision to deny New York City funding from the COPS grant program is disappointing, to put it mildly. To punish our police department because they have driven down crime with fewer resources shows the backwards incentive system that is sometimes at work in Washington. Denying that funding because New Yorkers have already dug into their pockets to maintain our City’s sound fiscal stewardship and pay for our exceptional policing doesn’t make sense. Lastly, the attacks on New York City were attacks on the nation and we should be receiving strong federal support for the NYPD to fight terrorism in the nation’s largest city."

Well said.  And New York's already legendary police commissioner, Ray Kelly, added his two cents. It would have been four cents, except for budgetary restraints:

"After two successful terrorist attacks at the heart of the nation’s financial center, there should be substantial and continuing federal support for the NYPD in its counterterrorism and conventional crime fighting missions. We shouldn’t be penalized for succeeding on both counts, and mainly on our own dime, over the last seven and a half years."

COMMENT:  Can you believe that?  Do well and get punished.  Now, question:  Do you really want the Obama administration handling 1) health care, 2) education, or 3) relations with our most loyal overseas allies?

Hands please. Up high.  I count...no hands.  Good.  I knew our readers were intelligent.

July 28, 2009   Permalink

TERROR THREAT IN GERMANY - AT 9:25 A.M. ET:  With all that's happening in the United States, it's easy to be distracted from the wars going on around the world, and the war on terror.  Since the Obama administration doesn't use "war on terror," apparently because it's too Bushian, maybe we can employ another phrase like, "vigorous disagreement with those representing an alternative, sometimes upsetting philosophy."  That should satisfy the Harvard Crimson. 

Germany is openly admitting that it's a major target.  Why?  There are three reasons.  First, Germany has a national parliamentary election on September 27th, and a terror attack might be launched to try to change the outcome.  Al Qaeda and similar groups recall with great fondness how a terror attack in Spain led to the expulsion of a pro-American government and the installation of a socialist government hostile to Washington.

Second, Germany is the weak link in the Afghan chain.  After the U.S. and Britain, Germany has more troops in Afghanistan than any other NATO nation, but the Afghan commitment is strongly unpopular with the German public.  A terror attack might push public opinion over the edge, and lead to a withdrawal of German troops.

Third, Germany is a major trading partner of Iran, and has resisted American requests for increased sanctions on that terror-directing country.  A terror attack in Germany could remind Germans of the consequences of ever succumbing to American pressure.

Spiegel Online, a major German publication, has the stark facts:

A recent routine police operation uncovered a possible terror suspect. The development illustrates just how tense the security situation is in Germany, with the government issuing the clearest warnings yet of a possible attack by Islamist terrorists. How much do the country's security officials know?

Apparently quite a bit...

German security authorities, especially the Interior Ministry, have rarely spoken as often and openly about a supposedly imminent attack as they have this summer. They have both a preventive plan -- what the authorities intend to do prevent this attack -- and an emergency plan that would be implemented if an attack actually does take place.

The government is fluctuating between alarmism and reassurance.

And...

Of course, the news currently unfolding behind the scenes is far from comforting. A delegation of officials from the Federal Office of Criminal Investigation (BKA), the Office for the Protection of the Constitution, Germany's domestic intelligence agency, and the BND, the country's foreign intelligence agency, recently visited several countries in North Africa. The officials returned convinced that al-Qaida had declared Germany a target for attacks.

COMMENT:  The Obama administration, in another brilliant stroke of foreign policy, has made little effort to firm up our alliance with Germany.  In fact, there have been many reports of friction between President Obama and the generally conservative German chancellor, Angela Merkel.  That lack of support by Washington could wreak havoc with German policy if there's a major terror attack, as Germans look around and weigh the value of their relationship with the United States.

July 28, 2009   Permalink

HEALTH DEAL NEAR? - AT 8:09 A.M. ET:  Supporting our post just below, there's been some apparent progress on health-reform legislation, because the centrists are now being included.  From Fox:

WASHINGTON -- A bipartisan group of senators is closing in on a health care compromise that omits key Democratic priorities but seeks to hold down costs, as lawmakers on both sides of the Capitol labor to deliver sweeping health legislation to President Barack Obama.

After weeks of secretive talks, three Democrats and three Republicans on the Senate Finance Committee were edging closer to a compromise that excludes a requirement many congressional Democrats seek for large businesses to offer coverage to their workers. Nor would there be a provision for a government insurance option, despite Obama's support for such a plan, officials said.

The Finance senators were considering a tax of as much as 35 percent on very high-cost insurance policies, part of an attempt to rein in rapid escalation of costs. Also likely to be included in any deal was creation of a commission charged with slowing the growth of Medicare.

"We're going to get agreement here," Sen. Max Baucus, D-Mont., the Finance Committee chairman, said Monday. "The group of six really wants to get to 'yes."'

COMMENT:  Conservatives, if they're smart (not always) should already be planning how they can emphasize to the public their role in shaping responsible legislation, instead of letting Obama take all the credit, which he'll surely try to do. 

Indeed, this could be a major conservative moment if the American voter understands what has been achieved, and, yes, what has been prevented by the actions of the moderate and conservative members of Congress.  Americans are listening, especially on health care.  It is not a sin in politics to toot one's horn, if there's something worth tooting about.

July 28, 2009   Permalink

THE AWAKENING MODERATE DEMOCRATS - AT 7:48 A.M. ET:  One of the major stories in these past few weeks has been the flexing of muscles by the Democratic Party's moderate wing - sometimes known as the Blue Dog Democrats.  It is reminiscent of the time, from roughly 1939 through, very roughly, the late sixties, when Congress was controlled by a coalition of northern Republicans and Southern Democrats.  John Whitesides reports for Reuters:

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - With friends like these, President Barack Obama may not need enemies.

Obama's hopes for passing an initial version of healthcare reform by August are dead in the Senate and on life support in the House of Representatives -- and his fellow Democrats played a big role in their demise.

A House group of Democratic fiscal conservatives put the brakes for now on Obama's top domestic priority in a fight over how to curb rising costs, sparking a sharp and highly visible party feud on Friday.

How did this happen?  Just months ago we were assured by much of the pundit class that this was the liberal hour.  Delirious in their joy that the spirit of the late sixties had touched us again, there were visions of any manner of social schemes, flower-decorated designer jeans, and a reining in of military power.

So what happened?  Distinguished political science Professor Steven E. Schier, of Carleton College, co-editor of "The American Elections of 2008," explains it this way:

"A big majority is a diverse majority, and Democrats do not have the ideological homogeneity to just march in lock step with the president."

Schier goes on to say:

"A big majority can be a blessing or a curse -- and in this case it's a curse for Obama," Schier said. "A lot of Democrats are getting nervous about this."

COMMENT:  It was Will Rogers who famously said, "I'm not a member of any organized political party, I'm a Democrat."  The Democratic Party traditionally was raucous and divided.  Then, in the 1960s, as a result of Democratic support for civil rights, the party started faltering in large parts of the South, where Republicans gained strength.  (This was despite the fact that Republican votes in Congress had been critical to the passage of major civil-rights legislation.)  The liberal wing of the Democratic Party became dominant, at least in the image that the party projected.  Now, with a comfortable majority, the old divisions among the Democrats are starting to show again.

This, I believe, is good for the country, and even good for the Democratic Party, whose leaders are learning that there's a world outside Beverly Hills, Manhattan, and Georgetown.

July 28, 2009   Permalink 

MONDAY,  JULY 27,  2009

THE OTHER GATES SPEAKS - AT 8:11 P.M. ET:  Secretary of Defense Robert Gates is in the Middle East talking tough about Iran...but with some important asterisks:

AMMAN, Jordan - U.S. Defence Secretary Robert Gates says the United States will seek much tougher United Nations sanctions on Iran if that nation spurns the offer of talks on its disputed nuclear program.

Gates says President Barack Obama hopes Iran will come to the table. The United States and several nations want Iran to come clean about what the West suspects is a bomb-making program, and have offered economic and political incentives to get talks started.

Obama has set a rough deadline of this fall for an answer. Gates says the next step would be harsher and might include a number of punitive measures simultaneously. That would be a departure from the current international policy of gradual sanctions with punishments getting tougher each time Iran falls short.

COMMENT:  Yeah, yeah, yeah.  Note that the U.S. will "seek" tougher UN sanctions if Iran doesn't cooperate.  Oh, right.  Such stalwarts as Russia and China, whose votes we'd need to go tougher are surely going to cooperate.  If you believe that...

And the next steps?  Well, they "might" include such and such.

Boy, the mullahs in those Tehran condos must be quaking in their turbans.  The seeking of this, the might do that.  No wonder Obama's foreign policy has been so spectacularly successful.

It's going to be a very interesting autumn, just as the 2010 midterm campaigns get started.

July 27, 2009

GATES CALLS RELEASED - AT 5:40 P.M. ET:  Cambridge (Mass.) police have now released tapes of the 911 call and police communications surrounding the arrest of now world-famous Professor Henry Louis Gates of Harvard.

The drama.  The heartbreak.  The racism.  The violence.  Beats "Birth of a Nation" anytime.  And you can hear it here and here. 

Soon to be three or four TV specials.  And endless college classes in the Ivy League.  An immortal story even greater than the Civil War.

I can't go on.

July 27, 2009   Permalink

YOU WON'T BELIEVE - AT 5:32 P.M. ET:  Look, I can't confirm this, but on a muggy Monday afternoon we can use a laugh.  From Drudge:

Face-lifts, tummy tucks and hair transplants could be hit with a new tax to help finance the trillion-dollar healthcare overhaul plan, CONGRESS DAILY reports.

The Senate Finance Committee has discussed imposing a 10% excise tax on cosmetic surgery deemed unnecessary for medical purposes.

DAILY's Peter Cohn reports: The idea was broached in a meeting with OMB Director Orszag in mid-July, after which Senate Finance Chairman Max Baucus told reporters he had heard some "interesting," "creative," and "kind of fun" ideas.

COMMENT:  Well, there goes the Democratic base in California.  No more fundraisers in Beverly Hills.  We never knew Congress could be this cruel.  What's a liberal to do?  Ten percent on a $12,000 makeover is $1,200.  You know what kind of a neat handbag that buys on Rodeo Drive?   Well, at least a wallet.

There is disillusionment in the mansions today.  Every personal trainer will be working overtime just to settle the nerves of his trainees.

July 27, 2009   Permalink

ANOTHER GREAT MOMENT IN HUMAN FREEDOM - AT 4:50 P.M. ET: 

HAVANA (Reuters) - The United States has turned off a news ticker at its diplomatic mission in Havana that had long irritated the Cuban government, in another sign of efforts to improve relations with Havana, western diplomats said.

The ticker, which streamed news, political statements and messages blaming Cuba's problems on the country's communist system and socialist economy, had infuriated former President Fidel Castro when it was turned on in January 2006 at a moment of high political tension with Washington. President Raul Castro took over from ailing elder brother Fidel last year.

COMMENT:  This will undoubtedly inspire the thousands of political prisoners in Castro's jails.  Once again, the naive Obama administration believes gestures like this actually count for something in a Soviet-style state.  They haven't learned from Iran.  They haven't learned from North Korea.  They just haven't learned.

July 27, 2009   Permalink

MORE GRIMNESS FOR THE WHITE HOUSE - AT 10:19 A.M. ET:  Rasmussen this morning continues to report weak poll numbers for the president.  But what's startling is this finding, demonstrating how astute Americans are, and how they can cut through the media haze:

Obama is now seen as politically liberal by 76%. That's up six points from a month ago, 11 points since he was elected, and the highest total to date. Forty-eight percent (48%) now see him as Very Liberal, up 20 points since he was elected.

COMMENT:  This is grim news indeed for a president who tried to convince us, during the campaign, that he's really a centrist.  More Americans call themselves conservatives than call themselves liberals.  A liberal can't get elected without a major appeal to the center.  If Obama loses that center, he might as well call the moving van and start packing.  And he is losing the center right now.  A major blow can come in foreign policy, where Obama's "We apologize and now let's talk" approach has yielded no results.  Another apology and many voters may tune him out entirely.

July 27, 2009   Permalink 

DEM GOVERNORS IN TROUBLE - AT 9:45 A.M. ET:  Superb political analyst Michael Barone points out that the Democratic Party's sudden problems extend to the governor level, where a number of Democratic governors have run to heavy flak:

With polls showing a drop in Barack Obama's job rating and sinking support for the Democrats' health care plans, there is evidence of collateral damage where you might not expect to find it, in the standing of Democratic governors. Pennsylvania's Ed Rendell is suddenly getting negative job ratings in both the Quinnipiac and the Franklin and Marshall polls -- his lowest marks in seven years as governor. Ohio's Ted Strickland, who has spent most of his first term working amicably with Republican legislators, scores under 50 percent in the latest Quinnipiac poll and has only tenuous leads over two Republicans, John Kasich and Mike DeWine, who may run against him next year.

Taking back Ohio is key for Republicans.  And...

In the two governor races being contested this year, Republicans seem to have an advantage. Republican Bob McDonnell has led Democrat Creigh Deeds in all but one poll and picked up the support of Black Entertainment Television billionaire Sheila Johnson, one of the biggest contributors to the incumbent, Democratic National Chairman Tim Kaine. New Jersey incumbent Jon Corzine, who spent more than $100 million on narrow wins for senator in 2000 and governor in 2005, is 15 points behind Republican Chris Christie. Corzine will not be helped by the indictment of multiple Jersey pols, most of them Democrats, in a case initiated by Christie when he was U.S. attorney.

What does all that mean?

When you put these results together with Obama's slide in the polls, they suggest trouble for big-government Democrats. Pollster Scott Rasmussen now shows Obama with only 49 percent job approval; when he asked voters which party they'd like to represent them in the House, Republicans came out ahead of Democrats.

COMMENT:  Democrats must reflect on why Americans, even at a time of economic distress, are turning away from big government, something they didn't do during the great Depression.  The reason, I think, is clear:  While some liberal government programs remain popular - social security, Medicare, unemployment insurance, those public school systems that are well run - others, especially those launched in the sixties, have been catastrophic failures.  Many seem run for the benefit of those who run the programs.  Others, like the new "cap 'n trade" weirdness that passed the House, are based on trendy "science" that often turns out to be wrong.

Also, the best liberal programs are the ones that meet a clear and pressing need that cannot, in the practical world, be met by private means, and do the job simply, often delivering services directly to individuals.  Eisenhower understood that and refused to go along with some in his party who wanted to "repeal the New Deal."  Ronald Reagan understood it as well, referring to the "great American safety net."

In recent decades, liberals have forgotten the fundamental of any program, private or public:  It has to work.  Problem is, that often means going up against the hacks who run liberal operations, especially in big cities.

The "blue dog" Democrats, the moderates, speak common sense.  Look how they're treated by the party elites.

July 27, 2009   Permalink

MORE FACTS ON THE GATES CASE - AT 8:12 A.M. ET:  Since we're on the subject of facts, or the lack of them, in reporting (see the item just below), we note the emergence of a critical fact in the now-famous case of the arrest of Professor Henry Louis Gates Jr.  From the Boston Globe:

The woman whose report of a possible house break-in led to the arrest of Harvard professor Henry Louis Gates Jr. said she never mentioned race during her 911 call and is “personally devastated’’ by media accounts that suggest she placed the call because the men she observed on the porch were black, according to a lawyer acting as her spokeswoman.

The woman, identified in a police report on file in Cambridge District Court as 40-year-old Lucia Whalen, saw the backs of both men and did not know their race when she called 911, said Wendy J. Murphy, a Boston lawyer from New England School of Law. Whalen phoned police, Murphy said, because she was aware of recent break-ins in the area.

In an interview last night, Cambridge Police Commissioner Robert C. Haas said it was accurate that Whalen did not mention race in her 911 call.

There are tapes of the 911 call:

Hass said yesterday that he expects some version of the tapes to be released in the next few days.

Some version?  What does that mean?  We should hear the tapes - all of them.  This whole episode is ridiculous enough as it is.  It increasingly appears that race, which we certainly concede plays a role in other cases, played no role in this one, until Gates himself brought it up.

July 27, 2009   Permalink

THE NEW YORK TIMES TELLS IT LIKE IT WASN'T - AT 7:43 A.M. ET:  Reader Tom Wharton alerts us to a superb piece in the Columbia Journalism Review, which in turn reprints a remarkable correction published by The New York Times about a story written by its columnist, Alessandra Stanley:

An appraisal on Saturday about Walter Cronkite’s career included a number of errors. In some copies, it misstated the date that the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. was killed and referred incorrectly to Mr. Cronkite’s coverage of D-Day. Dr. King was killed on April 4, 1968, not April 30. Mr. Cronkite covered the D-Day landing from a warplane; he did not storm the beaches. In addition, Neil Armstrong set foot on the moon on July 20, 1969, not July 26. “The CBS Evening News” overtook “The Huntley-Brinkley Report” on NBC in the ratings during the 1967-68 television season, not after Chet Huntley retired in 1970. A communications satellite used to relay correspondents’ reports from around the world was Telstar, not Telestar. Howard K. Smith was not one of the CBS correspondents Mr. Cronkite would turn to for reports from the field after he became anchor of “The CBS Evening News” in 1962; he left CBS before Mr. Cronkite was the anchor. Because of an editing error, the appraisal also misstated the name of the news agency for which Mr. Cronkite was Moscow bureau chief after World War II. At that time it was United Press, not United Press International.

The Times calls itself the newspaper of record.  Depends, I guess, on how accurate you want the record to be.

One thing about journalistic "corrections":  The press is perfectly willing to "correct" minor mistakes, even if there are several within a story.  It is entirely unwilling to correct major errors.  Reader Joseph J. Gallick refers us to Diana West, writing in The Washington Examiner, who notes, after all the eulogies to Cronkite, that the often-distinguished journalist got it wrong in his famous broadcast from Vietnam declaring a "stalemate," yet never corrected the record:

What may -- may -- have resulted from forgivable misimpressions due to the "fog of war" long ago crystallized into obdurate lies. Cronkite never clarified the record, never admitted that the Tet offensive -- the Vietcong's surprise holiday attack on cities across South Vietnam -- resulted in a military and political fiasco for North Vietnam.

This was becoming apparent even before the dust had settled in 1968, as we learn in Peter Braestrup's indispensable "The Big Story", one of the signal historical works of the 20th century, which meticulously analyzes the media's failure to assess Tet correctly as a defeat for North Vietnam.

COMMENT:  West is correct.  For more than four decades, Americans have lived with the myth that the Tet Offensive of 1968, which changed public opinion on the war, was a defeat for the United States and South Vietnam, when it actually was a spectacular victory.

When leaders in a profession get away with it, they are teaching a terrible lesson.  Judging by the journalism we have today, the lesson has been absorbed.

July 27, 2009   Permalink