REPORT TO READERS:  Our fourth subscription drive ended last night.  We reached 91% of our goal.  That's actually quite good, as all goals are somewhat arbitrary.  The drive strengthened our financial stability.

We're happy to welcome a number of new subscribers and donators.  We also must acknowledge the increased support given Urgent Agenda by previous contributors. 

Our next drive will be in November. 

Thanks to all.  Now...onward to the rest of 2009 and the critical midterm election year of 2010.

SATURDAY,  JUNE 20,  2009

IRAN AND WOMEN - AT 10:16 P.M. ET:  One of the key issues in the Iranian uprising is women's rights.  I checked some of the leading "feminist" websites just a few minutes ago.  Not a word about Iran.  Not interested.  It's simply another example of the feminist movement's betrayal of women.  The movement is far less interested in women's rights than it is in pushing its pet issues, like abortion, and its leftist agenda.  But the mainstream media will never notice.

June 20, 2009   Permalink   

FURTHER IRAN UPDATE - AT 9:44 P.M. ET:  We have to be very careful here.  The Iranian government has clamped down on journalists, so what we are getting is coming from citizens, Twitterers and others, some with agendas, some with not.

It's apparent that the events of today were far more violent, and widespread, than we were originally led to believe.  There have been fatalities.  How many, we can't be sure.  I've been monitoring the news sources, and get the feeling that the level of violence against the demonstrators increased during the day.  We're also learning that, although there are no demonstrations at night, members of militia groups go through Tehran harassing people they think were involved in the demonstrations.

Several reports say that injured demonstrators are being arrested at hospitals when they seek medical care.

We are getting conflicting reports on what the demonstrators want.  Some say that those in the streets simply want a return to a pure Islamic republic.  Others reject that view, claiming that the young people, in particular, want the end of theocratic rule.  This is a critical question, and news media must address it more thoroughly. 

One news story quoted Iranian "experts" in Washington as admitting that they "missed" the extent of the opposition.  Certainly gives us confidence in these talking heads.  Be careful of "experts."

Still controversial is the reaction of the Obama administration.  The best the president could muster during the day was a written statement with some boilerplate about the right to assemble, etc., etc.  Real lawyer stuff.  The president's defenders say he's keeping a low profile to avoid giving propaganda ammunition to the Iranian regime.   My own sense is that, while there may be some truth in the president's position, it's greatly exaggerated.  After all, as we've pointed out, European leaders have issued far stronger statements, not apparently fearing that they will be blamed for the demonstrations. 

I get the feeling that democracy just doesn't rank very high on this president's scale of values.  He doesn't feel it.  His background, with radical leftist groups, exposed him to the notion that Western democracy is simply a cultural choice, one of many, and not necessarily a better choice than some other system.  If my hunch is correct, it's really too bad, and a sad day for America.

June 20, 2009   Permalink   

OBAMA SPEAKS ON IRAN, BUT, OH, NOT REALLY - AT 3:28 P.M. ET:  The president of the United States spoke out today on Iran, as noted by The Washington Post:

President Obama reacted to the unfolding events in Iran by issuing a statement calling on the government of Iran to "stop all violent and unjust actions against its own people."

The White House said the president had been monitoring the situation during the day, meeting repeatedly with senior advisers. But the statement largely echoed the president's measured response since the election crisis began a week ago.

"The Iranian government must understand that the world is watching," the president's statement said. "The universal rights to assembly and free speech must be respected, and the United States stands with all who seek to exercise those rights."

COMMENT:  That'll show 'em.  Notice the phrase, "issuing a statement," in the first paragraph.  The president who last night was cracking jokes at a White House broadcasters' dinner apparently didn't have the time to step to a microphone today.  He issued a statement.  And there was nothing new in it. 

Can you imagine how Ronald Reagan would have handled this moment?  Well, you don't have to imagine.  There's plenty of history.

How our prestige soars.

June 20, 2009   Permalink

IRAN UPDATE - AT 3:14 P.M. ET:  There are new developments in Iran. Our earlier report, based on first information, suggested that the authorities may have broken the back of the demonstrations.   Later reports tell us that some demonstrators did attempt to mass in the streets, only to be viciously attacked by the mullah's holy warriors, who were also massed.  The New York Times has a good report:

TEHRAN — Police officers used sticks and tear gas to force back thousands of demonstrators under plumes of black smoke in the capital on Saturday, a day after Iran’s supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, said there would be “bloodshed” if street protests continued over the disputed presidential election.

And...

The violence unfolded on a day of extraordinary tension across Iran. The opposition leader, Mir Hussein Moussavi, again called for a recount, as opposition protesters swore to continue pressing their claims of a stolen election against Iran’s embattled and increasingly impatient clerical leadership. Iran’s divisions played out on the streets. Regular security forces stood back and urged protesters to go home and avoid bloodshed, while the feared pro-government militia, the Basij, beat protesters with clubs and, witnesses said, electric prods.

Other reports put the number of demonstrators at about 3,000, far fewer than the hundreds of thousands who braved the streets in recent days.  Clearly, fear is taking its toll.

There's an additional element, reported by London's Telegraph:

Iran's defeated presidential candidate Mir-Hossein Mousavi on Saturday night told his supporters he was ready for martyrdom, and demanded that the entire disputed election be annulled.

and...

A witness told Reuters that Mr Mousavi had called for a national strike if he was arrested.

It was an unprecedented act in defiance of Ayatollah Khamenei, who has declared President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad the winner of the June 12 election and on Friday ordered an end to protests by demonstrators who say Mousavi was the winner.

COMMENT:  This is a continuing story, and we can't draw many conclusions from the sketchy reports available from Tehran.  Mousavi is talking tough, but the question is whether large numbers of his followers will continue to take to the streets in the face of a violent crackdown.

June 20, 2009   Permalink

PRESIDENTIAL NUMBERS - AT 9:54 A.M. ET:  In polling we look for trends, not individual snapshots in time.  The Rasmussen daily tracking poll, which can be erratic at times, has been showing a fairly consistent drift downward for the president since about June 12th, a bit more than a week.  Today's results show 54% of those polled approve of the president's performance as opposed to 46% who disapprove. 

Rasmussen's presidential approval index, measuring the gap between those who strongly approve and those who strongly disapprove, is down to one point, 34-33, same as yesterday.

These results do not take into account the full impact of reaction to Mr. Obama's handling of the Iran eruptions. 

June 20, 2009   Permalink

MORE BAD HEALTH - AT 9:42 A.M. ET:  While Congress is "fixing" the health-care system, the honorable members might contemplate how the system would look without much care.  Apparently, recruiting enough competent physicians in needed areas hasn't been a priority for the "reformers," as The Washington Post points out:

As the debate on overhauling the nation's health-care system exploded into partisan squabbling this week, virtually everyone still agreed on one point: There are not enough primary-care doctors to meet current needs, and providing health insurance to 46 million more people would threaten to overwhelm the system.

Fixing the problem will require fundamental changes in medical education and compensation to lure more doctors into primary-care offices, which already receive 215 million visits each year.

The American Academy of Family Physicians predicts that, if current trends continue, the shortage of family doctors will reach 40,000 in a little more than 10 years, as medical schools send about half the needed number of graduates into primary medicine.

COMMENT:  We face the prospect of a British-style system, complete with long waits, short visits, and whole areas of the country without primary care at all. 

The mistake we're making is allowing the government to increase its presence in the health-care system without any demonstration of competence.  Yes, government may have some role to play in areas where the private sector refuses to take needed action, or cannot solve the problem.  But the shortage of primary-care physicians is not going to be solved by government bureaucrats.  Now, with the prospect of a complicated, government-controlled system, the shortage may get worse. 

I just get the sense that the Obama administration and its friends in Congress are plowing ahead with little real understanding of the complexities involved.  It is true that there are issues involving health coverage that need to be addressed.  It is also true that we need to address the critical issue of costs, especially when those costs are arbitrarily inflated. 

But we must also acknowledge that anyone in America who needs health care can, though some existing program, get it.  It may not be elegant, and there are certainly inequities.  But Americans are not dying in the streets for lack of health care.  Maybe that's the fact with which we should begin the national debate.

June 20, 2009   Permalink

TO YOUR HEALTH, NOT - AT 8:50 A.M. ET:  Even The New York Times could not resist a dig at the grossly irresponsible manner in which our health care is being assaulted by the liberals in Congress:

WASHINGTON — House Democrats on Friday answered President Obama’s call for a sweeping overhaul of the health care system, unveiling a bill that they said would cover 95 percent of Americans. But they said they did not know how much it would cost and had not decided how to pay for it.

Why confuse us with details?  Press reporting on this critical issue has been abysmal, with the press asking few pertinent questions.  Originally, the White House said that Americans could keep their current health coverage if they liked it, but that guarantee is now in jeopardy.

Asked why there was no cost estimate for the bill, the House Democratic leader, Steny H. Hoyer of Maryland, said: “Until we have a final product, we are reluctant to ask the Congressional Budget Office for a score. But whatever we do will be fully paid for.”

House Democrats pledged to offset the cost of their legislation by reducing the growth of Medicare and imposing new, unspecified taxes.

Republicans, who had no role in developing the bill, denounced it as a blueprint for a vast increase in federal power and spending.

“Families and small businesses who are already footing the bill for Washington’s reckless spending binge will not support it,” said the House Republican leader, John A. Boehner of Ohio, who raised the specter of federal bureaucrats’ making medical decisions for millions of people.

COMMENT:  We cannot overstate the recklessness here.  Apparently, the radical liberals want to throw out the baby with the bath water, destroying much that is good about American health care in favor of theories and speculative programs - all dictated by Washington. 

Most political pundits are predicting that some kind of "reform" will pass.  We'll be watching this with two eyes, to the extent that the press is willing to cover the details.

June 20, 2009  Permalink

IRAN - AT 8:21 A.M. ET:  It is difficult to get definitive information out of Iran.  But what we've learned so far is that the demonstrations planned for today have not materialized, and that major squares are filled with heavily armed riot police.

It is possible that the Iranian authorities have broken the back of the protests through sheer intimidation.  If so, then we can only speculate on whether the reform movement will have a next phase, or will simply pass into history.  Given the fact that the feckless Obama administration has made clear its wish to engage the Iranian regime in negotiations over its nuclear policies, reformers can expect no great help from Washington.

There have been periodic reformist movements in Iran since the Islamist takeover of the late seventies, but all have failed.  This current one, today, is apparently on life support.

Assuming that the demonstrations have been broken, what is the next step?  There will certainly be some questions about whether a stronger stand by the United States might have made a difference.  At the same time, you can also be sure that we'll hear calls from the administration to "move on" to talks with the mullahs.  I doubt if the demonstrations of the last week will completely be forgotten, just as Tiananmen Square has not been completely forgotten.  But their memory will have little impact on policy.  And the in-the-tank Obama press, which spent most of the last eight years ridiculing George W. Bush's call for Mideast democracy, can't wait to get back to the fawning game.  They have a president to protect.

But stand by.  The story isn't over.   We can still hope for defiance, and possibly a resurrection of the reform movement later this week.  That is the real audacity of hope, and would be change - for a change - that we can believe in.

June 20, 2009   Permalink

FRIDAY,  JUNE 19,  2009

THE PRESIDENT TAKES OFF THE MITTENS - AT 8:41 P.M. ET: We guess this is as tough as it gets in today's Washington.  President Obama has now spoken out about the demonstrations in Iran.  From Fox News:

President Obama is "very concerned" about the events unfolding in Iran, as the Islamic Republic's supreme leader warned Friday about a coming crackdown on peaceful protesters.

"I'm very concerned based on some of the tenor -- and tone of the statements that have been made -- that the government of Iran recognize that the world is watching," the president told CBS News. "And how they approach and deal with people who are, through peaceful means, trying to be heard will, I think, send a pretty clear signal to the international community about what Iran is and -- and is not."

COMMENT:  Say what?  Has the president been under any illusions about what Iran is?  At least the government?  Is he looking for signals?  Will someone please tell him.

We are not in good hands.

June 19, 2009   Permalink

THE WEEKEND TO COME - AT 8:22 A.M. ET:  This could be a momentous weekend.  The mullahs of Iran have threatened "bloodshed" against demonstrators, but the demonstrators don't look as if they'll back down. 

Eyes are not only on Tehran.  They're on Washington, where a weak reaction thus far has dismayed even some allies of the president.  From The New York Times:

TEHRAN — Taking an unequivocal stand against days of mass protests, Iran’s supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, sternly warned opposition supporters on Friday to stay off the streets and raised the prospect of violence if their defiant, vast demonstrations continued.

He said bluntly that opposition leaders would be “responsible for bloodshed and chaos” if they did not stop further rallies in protest of last week’s disputed presidential election.

And...

The sermon also raised pressures on the Obama administration to abandon its carefully calibrated expressions of concern about violence and the repression of democratic processes while stressing that “meddling” was not productive.

In Washington, both the House and Senate overwhelmingly passed resolutions condemning the Iranian government’s crackdown on the opposition.

COMMENT:  Only one congressman, Ron Paul, voted against the House resolution, although a number of the heroes and heroines didn't vote.  We'll try to get their names for you, but we can probably list them already.

There is no late information available yet on the Senate vote.

And yet, what are the TV networks doing?  They're ramping up laudatory coverage of President Obama in several specials to be aired this week.  Let's not let world events stand in our way.

This could be a historic weekend, not only in Iran, but also in the Pacific, as American ships track a North Korean vessel suspected of carrying nuclear materials.  The question is being asked:  What will President Obama do?  So far, his administration has treated foreign policy as social work.  Can't we all get along?  Now, North Korea and Iran have essentially given him their answer.  No, we can't all get along.  Is there an alternative policy?  Or just an alternative speech to a friendly audience?

June 19, 2009   Permalink 

 
PRESIDENTIAL POLL NUMBERS - AT 11:15 A.M. ET:  Rasmussen's report this morning confirms other polls showing slippage for the president.  According to Ras, some 54% of Americans approve of the job Mr. Obama is doing, compared with 45% who disapprove.  The Rasmussen presidential approval index, measuring the gap between those who strongly approve and those who strongly disapprove, is down to one point, the second lowest rating since inauguration day.

We always stress that polls are snapshots in time, and can vary considerably from week to week.  But two major polls now show presidential approval in the lower fifties, not very good for a messiah.

With crunches coming on North Korea, Iran, and domestic spending and taxes, Mr. Obama will have to maneuver deftly to hang onto the lead he has.

June 19, 2009   Permalink

HEY, IT'S ONLY OUR MONEY - AT 9:59 A.M. ET:  Something else most Americans seem unaware of - Congress is about to complete action on a "cash for clunkers" program that would provide taxpayer money to make it easier for people to buy more fuel-efficient cars.  The Buffalo News has an excellent story on this, with a Q & A about the program.  Is this the way taxes should be spent? 

Among other problems with still one more federal program is a basic reality:  When you start subsidizing a product, there's an incentive for the manufacturers of that product simply to raise their prices.  This happens in education all the time, with tuition grants.  When tuition is subsidized, there's a temptation on the part of schools to raise it.  After all, why should students be the only ones who benefit? 

Cash for clunkers looks like a program that can easily be manipulated:

The federal government’s proposed “cash for clunkers” program, aimed at getting car buyers to purchase more fuel-efficient vehicles and trade in autos with poorer fuel economy, is moving closer to reality. It has passed in the House and awaits a vote in the Senate.

Just how much of a difference it will make in car sales and whether it is a sound economic idea are still being debated.

Its backers view the program as a way to boost slumping new-car sales by offering vouchers of up to $4,500 to take “gas guzzlers” off the road for good, since the eligible trade-ins would be scrapped.

Some critics have questioned whether cash for clunkers is an appropriate use of taxpayer dollars and challenged the qualifying standards applied to the vehicles.

COMMENT:  This will also cause resentment as some people qualify, and others don't.  And how about the provision that the so-called "clunkers" be scrapped?  What a waste.  Even inefficient vehicles can have value.  Why not give them to charities or centers for the elderly?  Yes, the fuel costs to these institutions would be less than ideal, but they'd probably balance that out, at least, by getting free vehicles.

Someone hasn't thought this through. 

June 19, 2009   Permalink 

SNEEZE NOW, YOU MAY NOT BE ALLOWED TO TOMORROW - AT 9:25 A.M. ET:   You'd think Americans would be more interested.  The Democratic-controlled Congress wants to rewrite medical care in the United States, putting the federal government front and center.  Your health-care decisions could wind up being made by someone in Washington whose knowledge was gained in a high-school first-aid course. 

But now some of the high-flying proposals are running into serious headwinds, in part because of the resistance of moderate Democrats. We've noted here before that a coalition of Republicans and moderate Dems is emerging in Congress, and could frustrate the dreams of the far left.  The Politico reports:

President Obama's campaign for health care reform by this fall, once considered highly likely to succeed, suddenly appears in real jeopardy.

Top White House advisers, especially Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel, are still privately predicting massive changes to the health care system in 2009. But for the first time, Democrats on Capitol Hill and in the administration are expressing frank worries about stronger-than-expected opposition from moderate Democrats and worse-than-expected estimates for how much the plan could cost.

Further...

And top Democratic officials tell POLITICO they are increasingly pessimistic about getting any more Republican votes than they did on the stimulus package, with some aides referring to the idea of a bipartisan bill as "fools' gold" — an unattainable waste of time.

COMMENT:  The sad part is that health plans will be debated in Congress during the summer, when Americans are easily distracted.  The subject is complex, involving science, money, insurance, power, and very high emotions.  The mainstream media shows little enthusiasm for real digging or detailed reporting. 

Oh, by the way, the main health bill being proposed exempts members of Congress, who will keep their world-class insurance perks.  It's the rest of us who'll be affected.  What's wrong with that picture?

June 19, 2009   Permalink

KRAUTHAMMER ON IRAN - AT 8:21 A.M. ET:  The outstanding journalistic voice in the United States during the Iran protests has been Charles Krauthammer, which will make him even more hated on the left.  He has truly become the conscience of a journalistic community that increasingly is failing at its responsibilities.  His take on Iran reflects that:

Millions of Iranians take to the streets to defy a theocratic dictatorship that, among its other finer qualities, is a self-declared enemy of America and the tolerance and liberties it represents. The demonstrators are fighting on their own, but they await just a word that America is on their side.

And what do they hear from the president of the United States? Silence. Then, worse. Three days in, the president makes clear his policy: continued "dialogue" with their clerical masters.

It gets worse:

Then, after treating this popular revolution as an inconvenience to the real business of Obama-Khamenei negotiations, the president speaks favorably of "some initial reaction from the Supreme Leader that indicates he understands the Iranian people have deep concerns about the election."

Where to begin? "Supreme Leader"? Note the abject solicitousness with which the American president confers this honorific on a clerical dictator who, even as his minions attack demonstrators, offers to examine some returns in some electoral districts -- a farcical fix that will do nothing to alter the fraudulence of the election.

The multiculturalists must be going batty over this column.  Why, Charles, don't you understand that we must respect the culture aspects of the term, "Supreme Leader"?  Do we want to offend Islamic sensibilities?  Oh, Charles.

Obama totally misses the point. The election allowed the political space and provided the spark for the eruption of anti-regime fervor that has been simmering for years and awaiting its moment. But people aren't dying in the street because they want a recount of hanging chads in suburban Isfahan. They want to bring down the tyrannical, misogynist, corrupt theocracy that has imposed itself with the very baton-wielding goons that today attack the demonstrators.

Oh, these neocons.  Always so upset. 

And where is our president? Afraid of "meddling." Afraid to take sides between the head-breaking, women-shackling exporters of terror -- and the people in the street yearning to breathe free. This from a president who fancies himself the restorer of America's moral standing in the world.

COMMENT:  Krauthammer defines it perfectly.  Obviously, the term "moral standing" means different things to different people.  To the left, it means cozying up to dictatorships, as long as the thug regimes deliver reasonable health care and abortion services. 

The tragedy is that, should the demonstrators be defeated or intimidated, the story of their defiance will disappear in 24 hours.  It is too inconvenient for the in-the-tank Obama press, which is eager to return to their dream of socializing America. 

Incredibly, the left's view of Iran is remarkably similar to the mentality of isolationists of the 1930s.  None of our business.  No threat to us.  Nothing to see here, folks.  Now, about our national car companies...

June 19, 2009   Permalink

IRAN - AT 7:30 A.M. ET:  From Fox:

TEHRAN, Iran — Iran's supreme leader said Friday that there was "definitive victory" and no rigging in disputed presidential elections, offering no concession to protesters demanding the vote be canceled and held again.

In his first public address since demonstrators flooded the streets, Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei said protests should cease and the opposition must pursue its complaints within the confines of the cleric-led ruling system.

He blamed Great Britain and Iran's external enemies for trying to foment unrest but said Iran would not see a second revolution like those that transformed the countries of the former Soviet Union.

COMMENT:  So much for transparency, democracy, and fair process.  Once the top man speaks, that's it.  Now the question is whether the people of Iran will follow the leader.  If they do, out of fear, the demonstrations will end, the "election" results will stand, and the "realists" in Washington, led by the president, will go back to business as usual, pursuing the grand illusion that they can negotiate with these thugs. 

Don't you like the way American "prestige" has been restored?

June 19, 2009   Permalink