It's May Day.  To the Marxist in our readership, may you enjoy complete equality and a feeling of being at one with the workers.  Oh, those are the guys with the "support our troops" decals on their bumpers.

FRIDAY,  MAY 1,  2009

ABSOLUTELY CHILLING - AT 5:01 P.M. ET:  When we say that we worry about American strength in the future, we're making an argument, although a serious one.  But when we see this in print, it brings it home.  From the Brisbane (Australia) Times:

THE Rudd Government has acknowledged that the supremacy of the US has begun to fade and Australia is preparing for an uncertain future in which it can no longer rely on the protection of its main ally.

In a fundamental shift in defence plans, the Government has explicitly declared that US primacy in the Asia-Pacific - the bedrock of the nation's security since World War II - may be ending. The change, caused by the rise of new great powers such as China, is set to produce growing regional tensions and a "sudden deterioration" in Australia's security.

A 20-year defence blueprint, to be released by the Prime Minister, Kevin Rudd, today, prepares for a multibillion-dollar build-up of naval and air forces to ensure that Australia can defend its northern and sea approaches.

COMMENT:  Australia has been one of our few solid allies.  To read this is like reading an obituary for American power.  We are being confronted with the reality of the age of Obama.  It will bring us no new friends, and the old ones will start to drift away, or at least "adjust" their policies. 

We did see the beginnings of this in the seventies, especially during the pathetic Carter years.  We were saved by Ronald Reagan, whose first priority was the buildup of American defense.  Who will save us now? 

May 1, 2009   Permalink 

SOUTER MAKES IT OFFICIAL, OBAMA COMMENTS - AT 4:41 P.M. ET:  Associate Justice David Souter gave formal notification today that he is leaving the Supreme Court in June.  President Obama appeared at the daily White House briefing to comment on the matter.  The New York Times reports:

Promising to nominate a replacement with “a sharp and independent mind and a record of excellence and integrity,” Mr. Obama, who startled reporters by walking to the lectern for a cameo appearance in the middle of the daily White House press briefing, said that he would look for a candidate for whom the law was not a matter of abstract theory, but a force that affects real people in their daily lives.

COMMENT:  Now that's a nice thought, of course.  We want justices to be sensitive to "real people in their daily lives."  But wait.  Which people?  What kind of lives?  Given the record of this administration on the detainee issue, I fear we may go back to the bad old days of the sixties and seventies, when the rights of criminals outweighed the rights of the innocent, and crime was shrugged off as a "socio-economic problem." 

We await Obama's first nominee.  The terms of Supreme Court justices usually outlast, by many years, the terms of the presidents who appoint them, so the word "legacy" comes into play. 

We also await press coverage.   Will it be detailed and probing?  Or will we be presented with the image of the messiah anointing a disciple?  Which do you think?

May 1, 2009   Permalink 

OUR STATE DEPARTMENT IN ACTION - AT 2:52 P.M. ET:  We can all use a good laugh on a Friday afternoon.  Our government supplies it. 

Reader John Harris alerts us to this quote from a State Department take-a-bow report on the first 100 days of Obamism: 

Secretary Clinton is already the most traveled Secretary of State in a new Administration. The Secretary’s trips have included her inaugural trip to Asia, the Middle East and Europe, Mexico and across the border to Texas, the Hague in the Netherlands, Europe with President Obama, Haiti and the Dominican Republic, the Summit of the Americas in Trinidad and Tobago with President Obama, and to Iraq and Kuwait.

COMMENT:  That travel to Texas was especially tough, especially with the language barrier.

May 1, 2009   Permalink

BECAUSE OF OBAMA'S POLICIES? - AT 9:51 A.M. ET:  From Rasmussen:

Just 42% of likely voters now believe the United States and its allies are winning the War on Terror, according to the latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey.

That’s down from 50% two weeks ago, down from 62% in early February, and is the lowest level of confidence since June 30, 2008.

Twenty-eight percent (28%) now say the terrorists are winning. That’s the highest number offering that pessimistic assessment since October 2007.

COMMENT: Even if the numbers are only ball park, it's a disturbing report.  The drop of 20 points from early February, roughly corresponding to the tenure of the Obama administration, tells a pretty blunt story:  Americans are losing confidence in this president's ability to fight and win against the terror masters. 

That loss of confidence is bound to increase, especially if conditions in Pakistan deteriorate, we continue to appease Iran, and the White House maintains its war against the Bush administration.  Should there be a massive, successful attack against Americans, the Obamans could suddenly find poll numbers that even The New York Times might have to acknowledge. 

May 1, 2009   Permalink

IT'S WHO YOU KNOW - AT 8:43 A.M. ET:  From the Chicago Sun-Times: 

There's a new sheriff in town at Chicago Public Schools, and it's a cousin of Michelle Obama's.

Andres Durbak, director of security for nearly a decade, is out.

In is Michael Shields, a 21-year Chicago Police veteran whom Supt. Jody Weis promoted on his arrival, only to demote him months later.

And...

Shields was a deputy chief in the Detective Division from 2002 to early 2008, when he was promoted by the newly sworn-in Weis to deputy superintendent of the Bureau of Strategic Deployment.

Upon naming his new team, Weis said he'd chosen them based on resumes, interviews and gut feelings. But by December, Shields was kicked off command staff -- demoted to lieutenant at the Belmont Area headquarters, earning far lower pay.

COMMENT:  Merit promotion.

May 1, 2009   Permalink

WHAT'S HE SO SURE OF? - AT 7:51 A.M. ET:  Pakistan, with its nuclear weapons, is a major crisis area for the United States.  What happens if the country falls to the Taliban? 

And yet, President Obama, understanding his vast spiritual powers, was almost sanguine at his press conference about securing the Pakistani nukes.  Others are more skeptical.  The Times of India reports:

WASHINGTON: US President Barack Obama on Wednesday said Washington "can make sure that Pakistan's nuclear arsenal is secure," even as he expressed grave concern over the deteriorating situation in the militancy-stricken country.

At a White House press conference to mark his first 100 days in office, Obama expressed confidence about US control over Pakistan's nuclear weapons, perhaps through military-to-military cooperation, in the face of extremist advances in the country. In the process, he also hinted that Washington had contingency plans to handle the situation if it went out of Islamabad's hands.

Asked if he could reassure the American people that, if necessary, America could secure Pakistan's nuclear arsenal and keep it from getting into the Taliban's hands, Obama replied: "I'm confident that we can make sure that Pakistan's nuclear arsenal is secure, primarily, initially, because the Pakistani army, I think, recognizes the hazards of those weapons falling into the wrong hands."

And...

When the reporter followed up to seek a more precise answer, asking if in the worst case scenario, the US military could secure the nuclear weapons, Obama responded crisply: "I'm not going to engage in hypotheticals of that sort. I feel confident that that nuclear arsenal will remain out of militant hands. Okay?"

COMMENT:  No, not okay.  First question:  Do we actually know where all the nukes are?  Ninety percent is a failing grade.  A few nukes falling into terrorist hands could change a good bit of modern history.  Second question:  Is the president hinting that the U.S. would enter Pakistan with troops to secure the nukes?  Would we be welcome?  Would the nukes remain in the same places? 

Other reports say that General Petraeus is warning that the next two weeks will be crucial for maintaining some semblance of order in Pakistan.  As we've said here before, this could be the story of the year. 

May 1, 2009   Permalink

ANOTHER BLESSING FOR "THE ONE" - AT 7:15 A.M. ET:  President is, reportedly, about to have his first Supreme Court pick.  From The New York Times:

WASHINGTON — Justice David H. Souter plans to retire at the end of the term in June, giving President Obama his first appointment to the Supreme Court, four people informed about the decision said Thursday night.

COMMENT:  Let the fun begin.  Souter was appointed by George H.W. Bush, and was thought to be a reliable moderate conservative.  Once he picked up the robes at the tailor, though, he headed left, and stayed there. 

So, Obama will be replacing one liberal with, presumably, another liberal.  But don't be deceived by stories that say that the switch "won't change the balance."  The Supreme Court is an incubator of ideas.  Its opinions not only have legal standing, they have intellectual influence.  If Obama goes with a practical, respected, liberal judge who understands the purpose of courts and will judge responsibly - that's the best we can hope for.  But if he appoints an academic theoretician, we could be in for a ride bumpier than the one provided by David Souter. 

Politically, Obama would best be served by a Hispanic woman.  Women are clamoring for a second female on the Court, and there has never been a Hispanic appointee.  Obama owes much to the Hispanic community, which voted heavily for him, and is growing into a major Democratic constituency.

May 1, 2009   Permalink

THURSDAY,  APRIL 30,  2009

GREAT MOMENTS IN RHETORIC - AT 7:47 P.M. ET:  From The Politico:

White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs issued an apology Thursday for Vice President Joe Biden’s comments that he wouldn’t recommend taking a commercial flight or riding in a subway car because swine flu virus can spread in confined places.

“Obviously, if anybody was unduly alarmed for whatever reason, we would apologize for that. And I hope that my remarks and remarks of people at CDC and Secretary Napolitano have appropriately cleared up what he meant to say,” Gibbs said during the daily briefing at the White House.

Biden’s office later sought to clarify his remarks by saying he was only urging sick people to avoid planes and trains.

Gibbs said President Barack Obama had not spoken to Biden about his remarks.

COMMENT:  Oh, by the way, under the new Obama health plan, Joe Biden will be chief internist. 

I love his explanation - that he was only urging sick people to avoid planes and trains.  How about buses, elevators, libraries, classrooms, restaurants?  You get the picture. 

April 30, 2009

AUTOS USA? - AT 7:01 P.M. ET:  The president announced the bankruptcy of Chrysler today, assuring us that the company, with a lot of nannying by government, will come out stronger.  (Yeah, right.  Just follow the advice of all those people reading "The Audacity of Hope.")

The New York Times ran a series of interviews with economics gurus, asking whether we even need a car industry.  Disturbingly, only one of five experts mentioned national defense as a reason to maintain our ability to produce cars, and that was Mark Thoma at the University of Oregon.  He said:

But there is another rationale for policies preserving certain kinds of production: protecting industries vital to national defense...

...The question is the degree to which a country can outsource the manufacturing of goods needed for national defense. If we do not have the capacity to produce engines, cars, tractors, and other goods that can be quickly converted to building military vehicles and aircraft, and war breaks out and those supplies are cut off, where does that leave us?

Some goods can be safely outsourced since they aren’t vital to national defense, or because the barriers to restarting production are small. But assembly lines used to produce automobiles cannot be constructed in an instant, so losing this industry would make us more vulnerable.

COMMENT:  The good professor is correct, and will probably now be called a nationalistic warmonger by the anthropology majors.  But the fact that no other interviewee mentioned defense shows how far that critical factor has drifted from public consciousness. 

Every time a defense-related plant closes, we lose expertise, equipment, and innovation.  Defense used to be so central to our thinking as a nation that when President Eisenhower, in 1956, announced the new interstate highway system, he called it the National Defense Highway System.  Today it would be called the Multicultural Reach Out and Touch Someone Community Interconnection Adventure.  You know what I mean.

April 30, 2009

OBAMA POLL NUMBERS - STEADY BUT NOT SPECTACULAR - AT 6:42 P.M. ET:  Rasmussen's 100-day numbers for Obama show him steady, but hardly spectacular.  Percent approving - 54%; percent disapproving - 45%.  That's a difference of only nine points, and an approval rating of 54% after 100 days in office is nothing to brag about.  Ras's presidential approval index - the gap between those strongly approving and those strongly disapproving, has settled back again to two points - 34-32. 

These numbers vary from day to day. Obama was stronger earlier in the week, and he is stronger in other polls.  We use Rasmussen because of his excellent track record and the fact that he polls daily. 

April 30, 2009

OH, THIS IS PRECIOUS - AT 8:02 A.M. ET:  Reader Dennis Losness alerts us to a post by Mary Katherine Ham at The Weekly Standard.  She notes that Jake Tapper of ABC tried to get Mr. Obama to answer a question about "torture" at his news conference:

Obama obfuscated for 5 minutes before answering Jake Tapper's question, but eventually and mercifully used just seven words to wrap things up: "I do believe that it is torture." He also asserted that vital information for preventing terror attacks could have been gleaned from hard-boiled mass murderers through other means, the guidebooks for which are hidden in the sugarplum grove at the foot of the gumdrop tree in the Mythical Forest of Prosperity from which Obama's domestic plans come. Convenient!

COMMENT:  I hope that gets tacked up over many Washington desks.

April 30, 2009   Permalink

IS THIS SERIOUS? - AT 7:45 A.M. ET:  I'm surprised this hasn't gotten more play, but I suspect it will.  Members of Congress, including some of President Obama's closest allies, recently advised him to place a time limit on talks with Iran, to make clear that our patience is limited, and to be sure Iran doesn't use the talks to stall any changes in its ongoing nuclear program.

The White House apparently wasn't listening.  From The Jerusalem Post:

The White House rejected the notion of putting timelines on its engagement with Iran Wednesday and indicated that its efforts could take a significant amount of time.

Say what?

White House National Security Council spokesman Mike Hammer told foreign journalists Wednesday that "it's not appropriate at this time to be trying to establish timetables, but rather seeing how the engagement can move forward."

He said the US was not looking for "talk for the sake of talk," but that "there are opportunities there for us to engage with the Iranian government."

And...get this one:

"We are in a process that we expect will take some time," he said. "We've had a difficult - at best - relationship in the past with Iran, and we're looking to see what is possible. But we're under no illusions that there will be any change in the near term."

COMMENT:  Are these people real?  The president has just telegraphed to our enemies what the limits of our interrogation techniques will be.  Now we hand Iran a splendid victory on a silver platter.  We are saying, "Take your time, we know this isn't easy."  No time limits means no results.  Why should Iran do anything if it now knows it can just run out the clock and develop its bomb?

This is just a ridiculous policy, guaranteed to fail.  The Obama administration is fundamentally saying that it doesn't regard the Iranian nuclear threat that seriously.  I wonder what our allies are thinking, what they're really thinking, not what they're saying publicly.  I can imagine what the Israelis are thinking, and what Arab nations frightened of Iran are thinking. 

Awful, awful, awful.  But let's see if the Obamamaniacs in the mainstream media have any questions today.

April 30, 2009   Permalink 

OBAMA FUMBLES ON INTERROGATIONS - AT 7:28 A.M. ET:  In what the Chicago Tribune calls a "strikingly defensive" explanation of his stand on enhanced interrogations, President Obama fumbled his way through the issue at his press conference last night:

WASHINGTON -- In a strikingly defensive explanation of his stance on Bush-era anti-terrorism tactics, President Barack Obama acknowledged Wednesday that the harsh interrogation techniques he has banned might have yielded useful information but said he was nonetheless willing to rule them out on moral grounds.

Thanks, Barack, for playing with our lives.  You weren't elected to be national philosopher, but to be president.  Remember?

By conceding that intelligence was in fact gleaned from harsh techniques, however, Obama was in effect acknowledging that he may be vulnerable to arguments coming from former Vice President Dick Cheney and other conservatives that his decisions could make the country less secure.

At least one new survey this week showed that Cheney's arguments may have broad support -- and that the shadow of Sept. 11 still looms larger in the public mind than Obama might initially have realized.

A majority of Americans, 53 percent, said they opposed the release of the interrogation memos, while 40 percent supported it, according to an NBC News/Wall Street Journal survey. The poll also found that half of Americans opposed Obama's order to close the Guantanamo Bay prison for terror suspects, and that a clear majority opposed the idea of prosecutions for harsh U.S. interrogations.

And there was this whopper:

"London was being bombed to smithereens [and] had 200 or so detainees. And Churchill said, 'We don't torture,' " the president said. "Churchill understood: You start taking shortcuts, and over time, that corrodes what's best in a people. It corrodes the character of a country."

In war you say a lot of things.  And then you do things.  And you try to understand what war is, its horror.  And then you try to rebuild your civilization after defending it. 

No one wants to torture.  No one wants us morally degraded.  But saving the lives of thousands or millions has its own morality, something the president refuses to address.

(For those interested in the orthodox liberal mindset on this, please read last night's Angel's Corner, where we announced the Pompous Fool Award.)

April 30, 2009   Permalink

THE PRESIDENT SPEAKS, I THINK - AT 7:19 P.M. ET:  Mr. Obama's news conference, or commercial, last night was free of any real news, which is usual for these affairs.  But I think it was revealing in other ways.  Mr. Obama clearly believes he's on a mission from some higher authority - either the Lord or the Chicago City Council, to remake America, to transform what he believes is a society that must learn from our betters.

The most striking part of the performance was Mr. Obama's denial that he really, truly, cross-his-heart, wants to expand government.  He would have been happy to have just a few problems on his plate when he took office, the president said, but economic conditions forced him into sweeping-change mode.  But gosh darn, I don't want to expand government, or run car companies, or manage banks.

Then why, sir, are you doing it?

We have the political equivalent of "the Devil made me do it."  But the Devil didn't make Barack Obama do anything.  By substantial numbers, the American people have rejected, in polls, major parts of his economic program, yet these decisions go unreversed.  He just has to do it.  Nobody knows the trouble he's seen, nobody knows his sorrow.

More and more, you get the feeling that Obama is a gifted, yet cynical Chicago politician who knows how to speak middle and govern left.  Dick Morris has predicted that this cynicism will yet bring Mr. Obama down, as the American people inevitably assess what he's actually done:

...if voters differ so fundamentally with the president on the very essence of his program, why do they accord him high ratings? They are like the recently married bride who took her vows 100 days ago. It would be a disaster for her life if she decides that she really doesn't like her husband. But she keeps noticing things about him that she can't stand. It will be a while before she walks out the door or even comes to terms with her own doubts, but it is probably inevitable that she will.

For Americans to conclude that they disapprove of their president in the midst of an earth-shaking crisis is very difficult. But as Obama's daily line moves from "I inherited this mess" to "There are faint signs of light," the clock starts ticking. If there is no recovery for the next six months - and I don't think there will be - Obama will inevitably become part of the problem, not part of the solution.

Morris isn't always right.  After all, he wrote a book predicting that the 2008 election would be between Condi Rice and Hillary Clinton.  But I think he's right this time.  The question is whether Obama's clear personal appeal, especially to women, will win out over unpopular policies.

April 30, 2009   Permalink