TUESDAY,  MAY 5,  2009

TAHERI - AT 11:35 P.M. ET: Just returned from a Hudson New York briefing by Amir Taheri, a superb writer on the Middle East, often quoted at Urgent Agenda.  He reviewed the reasons why he thinks the Obama administration is delusional on Iran, especially noting the fact that no negotiation with the mullah regime has ever succeeded.

But it was another point that Taheri made that is especially telling.  He said that the worst anti-Americanism he's seen originates not in the Middle East, but in the United States.  We export our anti-Americanism, written by such worthies as Noam Chomsky.  The product put out by American anti-Americans reinforces the hatred of America in other countries by giving it a false aura of authenticity. 

This was troubling to hear, but rings true.

May 5, 2009   Permalink

THE BAD JOKE CONTINUES - AT 4:45 P.M. ET:  The Iranians are playing us like the proverbial violin:

TEHRAN, Iran (AP) -- An Iranian court will hear the appeal of an American journalist convicted of spying for the United States next week and will open the proceedings to experts from the country's bar association, the judiciary spokesman said Tuesday.

The advance notice was the latest sign that Iran may be trying to lower tensions with the U.S. over the case, after Washington called the charges against 32-year-old Roxana Saberi ''baseless.''

COMMENT:  It is one of the oldest diplomatic games.  First, do something thoroughly outragious.  Then, in an act of "humanitarianism," ease the outrage.  Then watch as the grovelers, professional appeasers and assorted leftists, praise you for your "enlightened" actions. 

This woman will probably be released.  The Obama team will call it a great victory for "engagement."  Iran will suddenly look reasonable.

And it will be a farce.

May 5, 2009   Permalink

OH, NO, NO, NO - AT 3:01 P.M. ET: Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid has spoken on the subject of President Obama's Supreme Court pick:

WASHINGTON (AP) -- Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid says he hopes President Barack Obama will make an unconventional choice for a Supreme Court justice to succeed Justice David Souter.

Why? 

He said he hopes Obama goes outside the existing legal system and finds a former governor or senator, or someone who has ''real life experiences.''

You mean judges don't have "real life experiences"?  Did they go to school?  Do they know from supermarkets?  Get married?  Have kids?  Drive cars?  What kind of experiences is Harry talking about?

And get this one:

Reid said that ''I feel comfortable that his choice will be as good as his Cabinet choices.''

In other words, a justice with tax problems.

May 5, 2009   Permalink

AMERICANS WANT LESS GUN CONTROL - AT 2:53 P.M. ET:  From the Houston Chronicle:

Amid a wave of publicity about school shootings and drug-related gun violence along the Mexican border, more Americans than ever oppose government efforts to regulate guns, Gallup's top pollster said today.

Frank Newport, the editor-in-chief of the Gallup Poll, told a breakfast meeting of reporters hosted by the Christian Science Monitor that "every bit of data is showing us that Americans are getting more conservative about gun control."

Newport cited polling conducted by Gallup, the Pew Research Center and CNN to back up his contention that "attitudes toward gun control have become more conservative -- not wanting more gun control."

The veteran pollster said the growing opposition to gun control is "counterintuitive" because of the heavy media focus on the use of assault weapons to kill police officers and school students, as well as the coverage of drug-cartel lawlessness in Mexico.

COMMENT:  This is fascinating, and consistent with reports of dramatically increased sales of guns and ammunition.  I suspect Americans fear some move against the Second Amendment by the administration, or fear an outbreak of crime that a liberal government may do little to curtail.

I'd love to see the Gallup survey broken down by region and age. 

May 5, 2009   Permalink

NATIONAL SECURITY RISES IN U.S. WORRIES - AT 9:10 A.M. ET:  Rasmussen reports a sharp rise in Americans' concern about national security:

The economy remains the top issue for most Americans, but national security and the War on Terror are considered very important by 70% of voters nationwide, the highest level found since September 2007.

That’s up from 64% in April and 60% in February, according to the latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey.

Another 24% say national security is somewhat important. Only five percent (5%) say the issue is not very or not at all important.

And in another Rasmussen poll, Americans show their concern over Pakistan:

Eighty-seven percent (87%) of U.S. voters are now at least somewhat concerned about the security of nuclear weapons in Pakistan as the radical Islamic Taliban continues to make gains in that country. Sixty percent (60%) are Very Concerned.

Just 10% are not concerned about Pakistan’s nuclear weapons in the latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey.

The level of overall concern is unchanged from last August, following Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf’s resignation from office, but the number of those Very Concerned has jumped 15 points.

COMMENT:  This can't be good news for the Obama administration, widely perceived as weak on national security.  This an area of great vulnerability for Obama.  Although his hardened base may not be moved much by security concerns, the great American middle is moved.  Even one serious setback can have its impact, especially if it occurs as we're entering next year's election season. 

May 5, 2009   Permalink

QUOTED - AT 8:22 A.M. ET:  We don't do much self-hype here, except during subscription drives, but I think readers will be pleased to learn that I'm quoted (twice) in Larry Sabato's new book, "The Year of Obama," which is an excellent report on how Barack Obama won the White House.  The quotes come from a piece I did at Power Line called "Tina Fey, Kingmaker."  The piece is here.  The quotes, which deal with the impact of show business on the 2008 campaign, are as follows:

The most decisive moment in Hollywood's attempt to influence the election was Oprah Winfrey's introduction of Barack Obama on her daytime television show.  This simply had never happened before...But Oprah not only introduced Obama, she vouched for him, she gave him what Joan Crawford once called "the big okay," her seal of approval.  Almost instantly, Winfrey transformed Obama from an ambitious young politician into a cultural star.  He suddenly rocketed beyond politics.  He bacame larger than all that.  And there he remained, all through the campaign, and up to election day, a man who was as much culture as candidate.

And...

Tina Fey never "did" Sarah Palin.  She took certain traits of Palin's, even traits Palin was simply assumed to have, then exaggerated them.  Because Palin wasn't that well known, Fey had close to a blank slate, a rare advantage in the world of impressionists.  And because her impression was entertaining and funny, it drew us in.  But the impression ridiculed Palin, and went far to define her in the public mind as someone not quite up to the job, a political airhead.  It wasn't the only factor, of course, but it played an important role in sending Palin from her starring role at the Republican convention, crashing down to her later image as someone grasping for respect.

Delighted to be quoted in a Larry Sabato book.

May 5, 2009   Permalink

THERE'S NO RETURN DESK - AT 7:41 A.M. ET:  The Specter switch is running up against the Rule of Unintended Consequences.  From The Politico:

Nearly a week after Democrats welcomed Pennsylvania Sen. Arlen Specter into the fold and Republicans got acquainted with Specter’s prospective challenger, Pat Toomey, both sides are showing signs of buyer’s remorse.

Suddenly Specter’s path to reelection as a Democrat is looking far from certain, as progressives recoil at some aspects of Specter’s voting record and two prominent candidates refuse to bow out. On the GOP side, the more Republicans look at the Pennsylvania political landscape, the more questions they have about whether Toomey is the right fit against Specter in a general election.

Specter’s initial warm welcome from his new party has given way to a more tepid greeting, as liberal groups chafe at Specter’s continued opposition to key elements of the party agenda — like the $3.4 trillion budget, which he voted against last week, and the Employee Free Choice Act.

COMMENT:  If the GOP plays its cards right, it might pull off a pickup in next year's Pennsylvania Senate race.  Nobody likes a turncoat, and Specter's switch of parties was entirely self-serving.  Specter has the unique ability to get both the Republicans and Democrats furious with him at the same time.  Some people never know when to get off the stage.

May 5, 2009   Permalink

NO FREE LUNCH FOR THE FREE PRESS - AT 7:29 A.M. ET:  Apparently, bailing out newspapers isn't yet on the Obama agenda.  From The Politico:

Asked in his Monday briefing if the White House would consider bailing out the newspaper business, White House press secretary Robert Gibbs told reporters the government may not have the power to reverse the industry’s decline.

“I don’t know what, in all honesty, government can do about it,” Gibbs said in response to a question about the Boston Globe’s financial struggles.

Noting that it's a "bit of a tricky area to get into," given the relationship between the White House and the media, Gibbs said President Barack Obama “believes there has to be a strong free press" and expressed "concern and sadness" over the state of the industry.

COMMENT:  Of course he's expressing concern and sadness.  It's the industry that put him in the White House.

But breathe easier, at least for now.  We won't soon have the Daily Obaman, Michelle Obama, editor, on our doorstep, paid for by our tax dollars.  A small step forward.

May 5, 2009   Permalink

SOME EATING OF CROW - AT 7:19 A.M. ET:  As reported here yesterday, Defense Secretary Bob Gates is on a magical mystery tour of the Mideast, assuring our scared-to-death allies that America isn't going soft on Iran, even though it is.  Many of the Arab countries have deep fears about Iran, and our recent groveling hasn't helped matters.  Thus Gates's reassurance tour:

CAIRO, Egypt (AP) -- Defense Secretary Robert Gates said Tuesday there is ''no grand bargain'' with Iran as the United States tries to bolster relations with the Tehran government.

Asked by reporters what kind of progress the U.S. is hoping for with Iran, Gates said he didn't know what was possible.

The U.S. is still waiting to see how the Iranians respond to President Barack Obama's outreach, Gates said, but so far the rhetoric from Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has been ''not very encouraging.''

''We're not willing to pull the hand back yet because we think there's still some opportunity,'' the Pentagon chief said. ''But I think concerns out there of some kind of a grand bargain developed in secret are completely unrealistic.''

COMMENT:  The Mideasterners have plenty to worry about.  Judging by Obama's performance so far, Iran can spray tear gas in his eyes and he'll call it a positive gesture, since tear gas isn't lethal. 

May 5, 2009   Permalink

WELL, ISN'T THIS RICH - AT 7:09 A.M. ET:  Apparently, even Democrats in Congress are starting to realize that presidential rhetoric isn't enough to solve the problems of the nation.  Fascinating, from The Wall Street Journal:

WASHINGTON -- Top House Democrats raised tensions with the White House on a key foreign policy goal, rebuffing a request for funding to begin closing the U.S. prison camp in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.

President Barack Obama has sought $80 million to begin the process of closing the controversial detention facility, as part of broader legislation needed to continue funding for the U.S.-led wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Unveiling the House version of war spending bill, House Appropriations Chairman David Obey (D., Wisc.) didn't include the funds, complaining that the administration has not yet developed a clear plan to wind down operations at Guantanamo and relocate the detainees, either abroad or in the U.S.

"When they have a plan, they're welcome to come back and talk to us," Mr. Obey said.

COMMENT:  The party-line left in Congress, led by the California delegation, will of course follow Obama anywhere.  But maybe some Dems are waking up the reality that this administration is awfully short on specifics.  And watch what happens when the Obaman Miracle Workers try to run car companies. 

As 2010 approaches, watch for more resistance from some of the congressional Dems elected to Congress in 2008 from moderate districts.  Their survival instinct will take over, and Obama is likely to be less popular as the midterm elections approach.

May 5, 2009   Permalink

MONDAY,  MAY 4,  2009

CHANGE WE CAN'T BELIEVE IN - AT 7:16 P.M. ET:   'Tis a new day in Washington, with purity and goodness all around, and not a thought about profit or advantage.  Oh yez, oh yez.  From The Washington Times:

Democratic lawmakers who spent much of the Bush administration blasting officials for letting energy lobbyists write national policy have turned to a coalition of business and environmental groups to help draft their own sweeping climate bill.

And one little-noticed provision of the draft bill would give one of the coalition's co-founders a lucrative exemption on a coal-fired project it is building.

Such trivia, such trivia.

The exemption would save Duke Energy -- along with other firms now building new coal power plants -- from having to spend millions of dollars outfitting its Cliffside, N.C., power plant currently under construction with "clean coal" technology.

Just a little fine print, folks.  Just some fine print.  Nothing to see.

May 4, 2009   Permalink

 
SHOCKED, SHOCKED, THAT THIS IS GOING ON - AT 5:23 P.M. ET:  Big frauds from little acorns grow: 

Nevada authorities are accusing the political advocacy group ACORN and two former employees of illegally paying canvassers to sign up new voters last year.

Attorney General Catherine Cortez Masto filed charges Monday alleging the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now had a handbook and policies requiring employees in Las Vegas to sign up 20 new voters per day or be fired.

Nevada Secretary of State Ross Miller and Masto say that's voter registration fraud, and it violates state law banning quotas for registering new voters.

COMMENT:  Acorn gets some payments under the Democrats' stimulus package.  Well, you do need money to pay defense lawyers, so I guess it's okay.

May 4, 2009   Permalink

MORE ON PAKISTANI NUKES - AT 4:31 P.M. ET:  We noted earlier today a New York Times report on apprehension in Washington over the security of Pakistan's nuclear weapons.  Now, possibly as a response to that
Times piece, the chairman of the joint chiefs of staff is out with one of those "on the one hand, on the other hand" statements on the subject:

WASHINGTON — Adm. Mike Mullen, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said Monday that he was comfortable that Pakistan’s nuclear weapons were secure, but that he was “gravely concerned” about the progress the Taliban had made inside both Pakistan and Afghanistan.

In a news briefing at the Pentagon, Admiral Mullen offered a mixed assessment about security in the region in advance of three-way meetings this week between President Obama and President Asif Ali Zardari of Pakistan and President Hamid Karzai of Afghanistan.

Admiral Mullen, who was in the region last week, said that he did not think for now that the United States had to worry that militants would get hold of Pakistan’s nuclear arsenal. “We all recognize, obviously, the worst downside with respect to Pakistan is that those nuclear weapons come under the control of terrorists,” Admiral Mullen said. “I don’t think that’s going to happen. I don’t see that in any way imminent whatsoever at this particular point in time.”

COMMENT:  No problem now. No crisis imminent.  No issue at this particular point in time.

Feel reassured?  Stock that shelter.

May 4, 2009   Permalink

JEB BUSH BACK IN ACTION - AT 9:40 A.M. ET:  Former Governor Jeb Bush of Florida is back in political action, lending his weight to getting the GOP back in fighting shape:

Former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush said Saturday that it's time for the Republican Party to give up its "nostalgia" for the heyday of the Reagan era and look forward, even if it means stealing the winning strategy deployed by Democrats in the 2008 election.

"You can't beat something with nothing, and the other side has something. I don't like it, but they have it, and we have to be respectful and mindful of that," Mr. Bush said.

The former president's brother, often mentioned as a potential candidate in 2012, said President Obama's message of hope and change during the 2008 campaign clearly resonated with Americans.

"So our ideas need to be forward looking and relevant. I felt like there was a lot of nostalgia and the good old days in the [Republican] messaging. I mean, it's great, but it doesn't draw people toward your cause," Mr. Bush said.

COMMENT:  There's some wisdom in what Jeb is saying.  Ronald Reagan always looked forward ("it's morning in America"), not back.  We have to remember that Americans 20 and under were born after Reagan left office, and those under, say, 30, probably don't recall him at all.

At the same time, you can't turn off the middle-aged and older voters who are part of the GOP base.  It's a careful balancing act.

As for Jeb running in 2012, I don't know.  The Bush brand has been unfairly damaged by awful press reporting and the recent president's own failings in explaining himself and defending himself.  I'm not sure the party wants to go back to that family again.  And yet, of all the Bushes, Jeb is the most attractive.  Watching him maneuver will be high political sport. 

Jeb Bush is part of a listening tour, gauging public attitudes toward Republicans, and collecting suggestions.  That's a good idea.  There's a congressional election next year, and I firmly believe that, with clearly articulated policies and a positive message, the GOP can begin a serious comeback.

May 4, 2009   Permalink   

PATHETIC - AT 8:32 A.M. ET:  The very liberal New York Times owns the even more liberal Boston Globe, and is trying to pressure Globe unions to make concessions to save their paper.  But Howard Kurtz, in today's Washington Post, reports that things are looking grim:

The New York Times Co. said last night that it is notifying federal authorities of its plans to shut down the Boston Globe, raising the possibility that New England's most storied newspaper could cease to exist within weeks.

After down-to-the-wire negotiations did not produce millions of dollars in union concessions, the Times Co. said that it will file today a required 60-day notice of the planned shutdown under the Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification law.

The move could amount to a negotiating ploy to extract further concessions from the Globe's unions, since the notice does not require the Times Co. to close the paper after 60 days. The deadline, however, would put the unions under fierce pressure to produce additional savings, and the Boston Newspaper Guild promptly called the step a "bullying" tactic by the company.

COMMENT:  So it goes in organizations that weep loudly about the "common man."

We've said before, we'll say again, that many of the newspapers in trouble don't understand the source of their problems.  Yes, the internet is a factor, as is the recession.  But the fundamental flaw is that these newspapers have lost the confidence of many, many readers.  They have veered too far to the left, and have allowed editorial opinions to bleed onto their news pages.  They've hired "journalists" who have little interest in reporting the news, but a profound interest in "making a difference."

If you are a traditional Catholic in Boston, you'll be repelled by the Globe.  If you are an un-trendy working stiff in the outer boroughs of New York, beyond Manhattan, you won't care much for what The New York Times has become.  But these two newspapers, like others that have already closed, refuse to acknowledge the reasons that readers have drifted away.

One of the most important statistics in politics today is that 46 percent of Americans who went to the polls last November voted for John McCain, even in the midst of a major economic collapse that had already begun.  You would never know it reading many of our "leading" newspapers.  You'd think the entire nation was Obamaland.  The narrowness of the liberal elites who run these papers is damaging their product, but they cannot face up to it.

May 4, 2009   Permalink

QUOTE OF THE DAY - AT 8:09 A.M. ET:  From Mideast expert Amir Taheri, whom I will hear tomorrow at a Hudson Institute meeting, writing in the Wall Street Journal:

Tehran plays a patient game. Wherever possible, it is determined to pursue its goals through open political means, including elections. With pro-American and other democratic groups disheartened by the perceived weakness of the Obama administration, Tehran hopes its allies will win all the elections planned for this year in Afghanistan, Iraq, Lebanon and the Palestinian territories.

"There is this perception that the new U.S. administration is not interested in the democratization strategy," a senior Lebanese political leader told me. That perception only grows as President Obama calls for an "exit strategy" from Afghanistan and Iraq. Power abhors a vacuum, which the Islamic Republic of Iran is only too happy to fill.

COMMENT:  Relate, please, to the stories below.  Taheri refers to the "perceived weakness" of the Obama administration, and the view that Obama isn't interested in democratization.  Tehran is responding to those perceptions.  And can the Islamists who dream of taking over Pakistan and its nuclear weapons be far behind?

Some argue that Mr. Obama's outreach policy is simply a tactic to get other nations on our side and that, in the end, he will understand that tough actions may need to be taken.  The problem is that a perception of weakness tends to build, and nations start to distance themselves from the United States in the belief that the weakness will continue.  There may be a point where reversal becomes almost impossible.  Carter never recovered from the perception (and reality) that he was weak internationally.  We hope Obama is more adept than Carter, which is setting a rather low standard.

May 4, 2009    Permalink

THOSE PAKISTANI NUKES - AT 7:38 A.M. ET:  Readers know that we've been covering this rather closely.  Pakistan has operational nuclear weapons, and the country is increasingly unstable.  Last week, at his news conference, President Obama gave a bland, and, I thought, somewhat irresponsible assurance that the weapons were secure.  David Sanger, in an excellent New York Times piece, says, in effect, "not so fast, Barack."

WASHINGTON — As the insurgency of the Taliban and Al Qaeda spreads in Pakistan, senior American officials say they are increasingly concerned about new vulnerabilities for Pakistan’s nuclear arsenal, including the potential for militants to snatch a weapon in transport or to insert sympathizers into laboratories or fuel-production facilities.

The officials emphasized that there was no reason to believe that the arsenal, most of which is south of the capital, Islamabad, faced an imminent threat. President Obama said last week that he remained confident that keeping the country’s nuclear infrastructure secure was the top priority of Pakistan’s armed forces.

But the United States does not know where all of Pakistan’s nuclear sites are located, and its concerns have intensified in the last two weeks since the Taliban entered Buner, a district 60 miles from the capital. The spread of the insurgency has left American officials less willing to accept blanket assurances from Pakistan that the weapons are safe.

COMMENT:  Pakistan's record of accuracy in giving assurances about the security of its nuclear program is poor, and President Obama has got to face that fact.  Pakistan assured us repeatedly that the father of its nuclear program, Abdul Qadeer Khan, wasn't selling nuclear technology on the black market.  That assurance turned out to be patently false.

We've said before that Pakistan could turn out to be the story of the year.  Nothing in that assessment has changed.

May 4, 2009    Permalink

NICE TO KNOW IT, BOB - AT 7:01 A.M. ET:  Apparently, the concerns of Mideast nations over our "outreach" to Iran have finally registered with the Obama team.  This should have happened much earlier, but at least there's finally a response:

ABOARD A U.S. MILITARY AIRCRAFT (AP) -- Defense Secretary Robert Gates, seeking to soothe Mideast allies worried about Tehran's reach, said Sunday that efforts to bolster U.S. relations with Iran may still ultimately face what he called ''a closed fist.''

Gates was flying to Egypt, the first stop on a Mideast tour that continues in Saudi Arabia. He said part of his mission will be to assure Saudis that any U.S. outreach to Iran aims to increase security throughout the region.

And...

''There's probably some concerns in the region that may draw on an exaggerated sense of what's possible,'' Gates said. ''And I just think it's important to reassure our friends and allies in the region that while we're willing to reach out to the Iranians, as the president said, with an open hand, I think everybody in the administration, from the president on down, is pretty realistic and will be pretty tough-minded if we still encounter a closed fist.''

COMMENT:  The problem, of course, is that we probably won't encounter a closed fist, but one slightly open - just open enough to continue negotiations and drag them out.  That's the real nightmare scenario, for every day that goes by brings Iran closer to a nuclear weapon. 

Recently, the administration handed Iran two gifts:  Gates himself essentially took the military option off the table, a major strategic blunder, in my view.  It wasn't necessary and wasn't called for.  And the State Department announced that it wasn't placing any time limit on talks with Iran, something that key members of Congress had recommended that it do.  Again, that was neither necessary nor called for. 

So Iran now knows that the military pressure is off and that, officially at least, we're not watching the clock.  If you were Tehran, what would you do?  I suggest that extending the slightly open fist would be the wise strategy - talk, smile a bit, and concede nothing.

The Persians are known, historically, as superb negotiators.  I suspect they're about to prove it once more, at our expense.

May 4, 2009   Permalink