Please check in regularly during the day and evening.  We're experimenting with new ways to keep you informed, but we're guided by the number of visits we receive.

WEDNESDAY,  MAY 13,  2009

CORRECTION:  In our first post today we reported that Jimmah Carter testified yesterday before the Senate Armed Services Committee, chaired by John Kerry.  It was, of course, the Foreign Relations Committee.  Urgent Agenda regrets the error as much as it regrets Mr. Carter.

JACOBY ON POWELL - AT 8:53 P.M. ET:  Jeff Jacoby, the lone conservative columnist on the financially ailing Boston Globe, eloquently takes on Colin Powell, who has been giving a heap of advice to Republicans recently.  Jacoby clearly does not think much of the advice:

Powell's antipathy to the GOP's Reaganite roots has gone beyond the point of reason and reflection. What kind of Republican, after all, preaches that Americans "do want to pay taxes for services" and "are looking for more government in their life, not less"? (The opposite is true: In a nationwide poll last month, 62 percent of respondents said they prefer a government that offers fewer services and lower taxes; only 28 percent preferred more services and higher taxes.) What kind of Republican calls John McCain "my beloved friend" and acknowledges that he "would be a good president" -- then turns around and endorses the most liberal Democrat ever nominated for president?

COMMENT:  About time someone said it, and Jacoby says it very well.  Powell's military service was apparently admirable, but his civilian service has been less distinguished.  He was not an outstanding secretary of state.  Nor has Powell ever struck me as a particularly imaginative man. 

I recall, after the terrorist attacks on New York and Washington, that Powell referred to them as the "events of September 11th," as if they were athletic defeats.  I don't think he has ever visited Ground Zero in New York, even though New York is his home town.  He has about him an aloofness. 

Powell has benefited mightily from the affection of Republicans toward him.  He has never returned that affection.  I believe there is plenty of room in the Republican Party - indeed both parties - for a variety of views.  A party, if it is successful, must be a coalition.  And no one is throwing Powell out.  But he seems detached from, even hostile to, the basic beliefs of the GOP, those fundamental principles that go on decade after decade.  One suspects that he no longer, privately, considers himself a Republican.

May 13, 2009   Permalink 

NO RECOVERY YET - AT 6:05 P.M. ET: 

WASHINGTON (AP) -- Retail sales fell in April for a second straight month, dashing hopes that consumer spending was starting to revive and would help end the recession.

Economists said families who are worried about layoffs and unpaid job furloughs are saving more and spending less, delaying the start of a sustained recovery.

The disappointing report helped send stocks down on Wall Street, where the Dow Jones industrial average slid 184 points -- more than 2 percent. Other major indexes fell even more sharply.

Retail sales fell 0.4 percent last month, worse than the flat performance many economists had expected, the Commerce Department reported Wednesday.

COMMENT:  We're getting many "expert" opinions on the direction of the economy.  The numbers, though, are not encouraging.  If conditions continue, next year can turn out to be the political reverse of 2008.

May 13, 2009   Permalink

HIGH COURT TALK - AT 5:01 P.M. ET:  This must be labeled informed speculation:

WASHINGTON (AP) - A source tells The Associated Press that President Barack Obama is considering California Supreme Court Justice Carlos Moreno and more than five other people as nominees for the Supreme Court.

An official familiar with Obama's decision-making said others include Solicitor General Elena Kagan, Michigan Gov. Jennifer Granholm, Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano and U.S. Appeals Court judges Sonia Sotomayor and Diane Pamela Wood—people who have been mentioned frequently as potential candidates.

COMMENT:  It's almost vulgar, but we discuss these things today almost as ethnic entitlements.  I'd rule out Elena Kagan.  She just got her new job as solicitor general, and she's a Jewish woman.  The Court already has one, Ruth Ginsburg.  Also, she's former dean of the Harvard Law School, which the Obamas attended.  Looks too inside.

I think Napolitano is a stretch, although she has a legal background.  She was Arizona attorney general and was a lawyer for Anita Hill!!  She meets the "female" requirement.  She is Italian-American, but there are already two Italian-Americans on the Court, Antonin Scalia and Sam Alito. She's gotten off to a rocky start as secretary of homeland security, and why should Obama want to move her, unless he wants to get rid of her?  Hmm.

Jennifer Granholm presides over an economic train wreck as governor of Michigan.  She was state attorney general.  She was born in Canada, which may count against her.  She's considered America's second "hottest" governor, behind Sarah Palin.  Meets the female test, but no other, except that, as governor, she has "practical" experience as well as a legal record, something Obama mentioned as desirable. 

Sonia Sotomayor is a Hispanic female with a great life story.  If Oprah were making the choice, Sotomayor would be chosen.  There have been suggestions that she isn't as brainy as Obama would like, but, after all, he did pick Joe Biden.

Diane Wood was a distant colleague of Obama's at the University of Chicago Law School.  Female and brainy, but doesn't do a thing in the ethnicity department.  A sitting federal appeals court judge.  Went to the University of Texas Law School, which may give her some "heartland" appeal. 

All these potential nominees are generally liberal, but that's what we expect.  Of course, the president can go outside this list.  None of the candidates here strikes me as an obvious choice.

May 13, 2009   Permalink

BULLETIN - AT 3:22 P.M. ET:  President Obama has made a correct decision involving national security that will infuriate the lunatic fringe of his party.  From The New York Times:

President Obama is seeking to block the release of photographs that depict American military personnel abusing captives in Iraq and Afghanistan, his spokesman said Wednesday, fearing the images could spark a hostile backlash against United States troops.

“The president reflected on this case and believes they have the potential to pose harm to our troops,” Robert Gibbs, the White House press secretary, said Wednesday afternoon.

The action reverses Mr. Obama's earlier statement that he agreed with a Pentagon decision to release the photos, with no further legal appeal, following a federal court judgment calling for them to be released.  The president's new policy implies that the court order will be appealed, possibly up to the Supreme Court.

The original case demanding release was brought, natch, by the American Civil Liberties Union, a group that is, to civil liberties, what Britney Spears is to virtue. 

Releasing these photos now would be an outrage.  The behavior depicted was inappropriate and humiliating to prisoners.  Everyone, including the American military, agrees on that.  But the conditions have been corrected and the offending personnel have been punished.  To release these photos would inflame the Muslim world and act as a major recruiting tool for our enemies.  It would make it difficult, if not impossible, for some governments, possibly including the government of Pakistan, to work with us.  It would, of course, also provide fodder for the leftist fifth column in our own country.

We are at war.  Photos like this can safely be released after a war is successfully concluded.  But we do not help an enemy in wartime, and that's what a release would do.  The court decision was made by a federal appeals judge, so the case can now be appealed directly to the Supreme Court, seeking reversal.  Do it.

May 13, 2009   Permalink

LATEST POLLS - AT 8:58 A.M. ET:  This comes from the Chinese news agency Xinhua, so we're a little cautious.  But they run a fascinating site.  Their home page is here.

TEHRAN, May 12 (Xinhua) -- A recent poll shows that Iran's president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is leading Iran's presidential election poll by big margin, Iran's satellite Press TV reported on Tuesday.

A recent nationwide poll showed that the Iranian president's popularity has grown among the electorate, while support for his rival, Mir-Hossein Mousavi has remained unchanged, the report said.

"The opinion poll conducted in Tehran as well as 29 other provincial capitals and 32 important cities on May 3-4, indicates that 58.6 percent will cast their ballots in favor of Ahmadinejad, while some 21.9 percent will vote for Mousavi."

COMMENT:  From a purely Machiavellian viewpoint, it's probably better for us if Ahmadinejad continues as president.  He presents a clear-cut bad-guy picture.  If the other guy won, he could be sold to Americans by the foreign-policy establishment as a moderate, which he ain't.

May 13, 2009   Permalink

FROM PAKISTAN - AT 8:25 A.M. ET:  We're following events in Pakistan closely.  We all have memories of Cuba slipping into the Communist orbit, and South Vietnam going down the drain in 1975, largely as a result of our cutting off aid.  Each day in Pakistan seems to bring mixed news.  On the one hand, the Pakistani army has launched an offensive against the Taliban.  On the other hand, the extremist attacks continue.  From AP:

PESHAWAR, Pakistan -- Suspected Taliban militants stormed a depot in northwest Pakistan that handles supplied for NATO troops in neighboring Afghanistan on Wednesday and torched eight trucks, police said.

Elsewhere in the region, the Pakistani army battled militants in an offensive that has sent hundreds of thousands fleeing.

Attacks on terminals and trucks rolling through the Khyber Pass toward Afghanistan have intensified since last year, adding to concern that more regions along the Afghan border are slipping from government control and into the hands of Taliban and al-Qaida.

Afghan President Hamid Karzai warned Wednesday that the threat militants pose to both countries was very real.

"Terrorists and extremists are extending their reach in whole areas of our countries," Karzai told a regional economic conference in the capital, Islamabad.

COMMENT:  This is now Obama's war.  The new strategies being put in place are his, and he must take responsibility for them.  No more "BUSH did it!"  We wish the president well.  We want to win.  There used to be a time when politics stopped at the water's edge.  That spirit was destroyed by the left during the Vietnam War, but we still believe in it.  If the president succeeds, we will cheer him.  If he fails or falters, we will have other things to say.  I think most Americans agree with that approach.

May 13, 2009   Permalink

SOME LIBERALS NEVER LEARN - AT 8:12 A.M. ET:  Historians tend to remind us that, from 1938 onward for a number of decades, Congress was essentially run by a coalition of Republicans and moderate Democrats.  Now the behavior of some liberals is making a similar coalition possible again.  This must be regarded as a major political development, and it centers on one of the most significant legislative initiatives this year - the drive for "reform" of the health-care system.  Roll Call reports:

The fiscally conservative Blue Dog Coalition likely holds the key to enacting a universal health care plan this year, but so far the Democratic bloc feels like it’s being cast aside.

Forty-five Blue Dogs, led by Rep. Mike Ross (Ark.), on Monday warned that they need to be part of the writing of health care legislation in a sharply worded letter to Energy and Commerce Chairman Henry Waxman (D-Calif.), Ways and Means Chairman Charlie Rangel (D-N.Y.) and Education and Labor Chairman George Miller (D-Calif.).

The Blue Dogs pronounced themselves “increasingly troubled” at the lack of involvement in the writing of the massive bill and said their limited role is “especially concerning in light of the collaborative approach taken by our Senate colleagues.”

Well, look who the moderates are writing to.  These are three of the most liberal members of Congress.  George Miller is so far over in left field that he's almost at the foul line.

Ross made clear that the success of the health care overhaul was at risk...

...“We speak with 51 votes, and we expect to be involved in helping draft the legislation. And if we’re not, I see a lot more complications down the road on health care than what the leadership experienced on cap-and-trade,” Ross said in an interview Tuesday.

The power of the blue dogs will only grow if President Obama's popularity erodes, as it may well. 

Many of the Democrats elected to the House last year are from moderate districts.  They will demand to be heard and listened to.  Their reelection chances depend largely on their ability to convince voters of their independence from the liberals who run the Democratic Party.  A smart leadership would involve them, and recognize the power in their 51 votes. 

Roll Call reports that the Dem leadership is now pledging to involve different factions of the Democratic Party in health-care legislation.  We'll see if that promise is kept.  House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer is an ally of the blue dogs, and no great ally of Speaker Nancy Pelosi.  There is potential for harmony here, but plenty of potential for sparks.  The Democratic Party has a history of sparking.

May 13, 2009   Permalink

COMMON SENSE - AT 7:31 A.M. ET:  As we leave the world of Jimmy Carter (see story just below) and re-enter the adult world, the Wall Street Journal takes note of an event almost entirely ignored by the mainstream press, but critical to our future:

A bipartisan Congressional commission on U.S. nuclear strategy released its report last week, and it deserved more attention than it got. It delivered a candid message that not many want to hear: We're a long way from a nuclear-free world.

Led by former Defense Secretaries William Perry and James Schlesinger, the commission is blunt on this point: "The conditions that might make possible the global elimination of nuclear weapons are not present today and their creation would require a fundamental transformation of the world political order." Until then, the report says, the U.S. must have a strong and credible nuclear deterrent.

To do so, the U.S. must maintain its triad of nuclear-delivery systems -- bombers, missiles and submarines -- a course of action that will require some "difficult investment choices." It also calls for modernization of the U.S. nuclear stockpile and the "transformation" of the aging physical and intellectual capital of the national nuclear laboratories.

And...

The commission warns that "we may be close to a tipping point" as more countries seek to go nuclear, in part because they may not have confidence in the reliability of U.S. nuclear weapons or that the U.S. would be willing to use them.

COMMENT:  What?  You mean there are people who can read and write who can actually question the wisdom of Barack Obama on nuclear weapons?  Yes they can.  Obama speaks of a nuclear-free world, and certainly we must work toward reducing the threat of nuclear war.  But we're a long way from that nuclear-free world, and maintaining our deterrence will actually help us reduce the chance of a nuclear tragedy, as a strong deterrence always does.

May 13, 2009   Permalink

VULGAR - AT 7:20 A.M. ET:  Is there any end to Jimmy Carter's vulgarity.  The former president testified before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, mostly on energy policy, and Dana Milbank of The Washington Post reports on the greatness of the moment - as Carter reveled in the false praise committee members gave him, and even Code Pink applauded his appearance.  When Code Pink approves of you, you're in trouble with rational people, but Carter didn't seem to notice.  Major vulgarity alert:

Calling Jimmy Carter to testify about energy security, it might seem, is a bit like calling Michael Vick to testify about pet care.

But John Kerry is a gambler, and the new chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee invited the 39th president to talk to his panel about his cardigan-wearing days in the White House -- and why the nation, 30 years later, still hasn't solved its energy problems.

For a resurgent Democratic Party, the move risked all kinds of unpleasant imagery: gas lines, fuel shortages, the Iran hostage crisis, malaise. Even members of the committee staff joked about whether the former president would show up wearing a sweater, as he did when he appeared on television to urge Americans to lower their thermostats.

John Kerry and Jimmy Carter in the same room.  Can you stand it?

Milbank says:

Carter's reputation has soared since his star-crossed presidency, and yesterday he tried to settle some (very) old scores.

As they say, depends on who you ask.  Carter has conspicuously interfered with American foreign policy, led us astray on North Korea, undercut American efforts against terror masters, become a major-league Israel hater (which is why Code Pink applauded him), and has been unable to control his ego. During his committee appearance he bragged incessantly about his wisdom on energy.

It might be nice if Mr. Carter would finally admit that we are still paying the price for his reckless foreign and defense policies.  It might be nice if he would finally acknowledge his successor's (Ronald Reagan's) role in restoring national morale and ending the Cold War essentially on our terms.

It might be nice, but it will never happen.

May 13, 2009   Permalink 

TUESDAY,  MAY 12,  2009

RELUCTANTLY AGREED?  IS THIS SERIOUS? - AT 8:58 P.M. ET:  Payback time at the old corral:

WASHINGTON (AP) — The House majority leader reluctantly agreed Tuesday that congressional hearings should investigate Speaker Nancy Pelosi's assertion that she wasn't informed, more than six years ago, that harsh interrogation methods were used on an al-Qaida leader.

Rep. Steny Hoyer, D-Md., called Republican challenges to Pelosi's assertion a diversion from the real question of whether the Bush administration tortured terrorist suspects. Nonetheless, he acknowledged the controversy should be resolved.

Democrats will hold a series of hearings on Justice Department memos released last month that justified rough tactics against detainees, including waterboarding — simulated drowning — and sleep deprivation.

COMMENT:  Oh weep, weep, sniff, sniff.  Hoyer and Pelosi have, to put it mildly, no mutual affection.  Pelosi tried to derail Hoyer's rise to majority leader, preferring instead that dynamic straight arrow, John Murtha.  I doubt if Steny Hoyer, who's a decent guy, and sane, feels any particular loyalty to Speaker Pelosi.

May 12, 2009

HOW DARE THESE CIA TYPES TELL THE TRUTH - AT 7:52 P.M. ET:  Bizarre, from The Politico:

Democrats charged Tuesday that the CIA has released documents about congressional briefings on harsh interrogation techniques in order to deflect attention and blame away from itself.

“I think there is so much embarrassment in some quarters [of the CIA] that people are going to try to shift some of the responsibility to others — that’s what I think,” said Sen. Carl Levin (D-Mich.), who sat on the Senate Intelligence Committee and was briefed on interrogation techniques five times between 2006 and 2007.

COMMENT:  Translated into plain American:  We're guilty, but what gives these civil servants the right to say so?  I mean, we have titles, and staffs, and a gym... 

This is getting weird.

May 12, 2009

AMERICAN CAR COMPANY? - AT 7:24 P.M. ET:  Apparently the new GM won't quite be the American company we've known.  Is this what the bailout is about?  From Fox News:

The latest twist in Detroit’s do-over has General Motors becoming the first automaker to import Chinese-built cars into the United States, according to Automotive News.

Citing a leaked document shown to lawmakers who are overseeing the restructuring of the auto giant, the newspaper reports that GM is planning to market made in China cars to American consumers as early as 2011, the same year the company’s heralded Chevrolet Volt electric car goes on sale.

General Motors is currently the best-selling foreign automaker in China, and Buick is number one brand overall, part of the reason that the nameplate was saved during a recent round of cuts that included the elimination of Pontiac. As an example of the growing influence of that marketplace on the company, the interior of the upcoming replacement for the Buick LaCrosse sedan was designed at a GM studio in Shanghai.

COMMENT:  With the differential in labor costs, we have to believe that this is only the initial step in the "internationalization" of GM.  But how will this go down with the United Auto Workers, a union with a powerful presence in Washington?  Look for an uproar.

May 12, 2009

YOU CANNOT MAKE THIS UP - AT 3:13 P.M. ET:

(CNSNews.com) -- The National Institute of Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism (NIAA), a part of the National Institutes of Health (NIH), will pay $2.6 million in U.S. tax dollars to train Chinese prostitutes to drink responsibly on the job.

Dr. Xiaoming Li, the researcher conducting the program, is director of the Prevention Research Center at Wayne State University School of Medicine in Detroit.

COMMENT:  I am not tackling this one.

May 12, 2009   Permalink

SOMETHING ELSE TO LOOK FORWARD TO - AT 3:05 P.M. ET: Fortune Magazine picks up another serious rut in the economic road ahead.  This is a good lesson for people - and you know who - who want to put their futures in the hands of government.  Not great hands:

(Fortune Magazine) -- Even as the nation's economy is showing some tentative signs of bottoming out, another calamity looms: the public pension bomb.

For years, states nationwide have shortchanged the retirement programs that cover teachers, police, and other public employees; now the stock market plunge has wiped out billions of dollars from already underfunded plans. California, New York and Illinois are among the states scrambling to plug multibillion-dollar holes in their pension systems. The growing obligations raise the specter of higher taxes, diminished services, or even another round of costly federal bailouts.

COMMENT:  I'm afraid we'll go the bailout route, as local pols tell their national parties they can't survive if they raise taxes or cut services.  So look forward to more billions from Washington, and more Washington control. 

These pensions are usually parts of union contracts.  Don't look for great union flexibility.

May 12, 2009   Permalink

WE'RE IN SUCH GREAT COMPANY - AT 2:42 P.M. ET:

UNITED NATIONS (AP) -- The United States won a seat on the U.N. Human Rights Council for the first time Tuesday along with four countries accused of serious human rights violations -- Cuba, Saudi Arabia, China and Russia.

Former President George W. Bush's administration boycotted the council over its repeated criticism of Israel and its refusal to cite flagrant rights abuses in Sudan and elsewhere.

But the United States announced in late March that it would seek to join the council to help make it more effective, reflecting President Barack Obama's desire to create a ''new era of engagement'' with the international community.

COMMENT:  The Bush administration was right.  Without the U.S., this corrupt operation simply languishes.  Now that we're there to "improve" things, the Council gets a new life and vastly increased publicity.  And what will be the result?  Well, we get one vote, along with the likes of Saudi Arabia, China and Russia.  You calculate.

May 12, 2009   Permalink

NOT OUT OF THE WOODS - AT 2:29 P.M. ET:  The administration and its soldiers in the press give us "signs" that the economy is improving.  Unfortunately, most of the signs seem to be pointing in the other direction:

May 12 (Bloomberg) -- Home prices in the U.S. dropped the most on record in the first quarter from a year earlier, led by California and Florida, as banks sold foreclosed properties.

The median price fell 14 percent to $169,000, the National Association of Realtors said today. Prices dropped in 134 of 152 metropolitan areas, with the deepest declines in Cape Coral and Ft. Myers, Florida, followed by San Francisco and San Jose.

COMMENT:  We're not going to get out of this economic mess unless there is major job creation.  The Obamans are trying to sell the idea that their stimulus package will do it.  But we're not seein' it.  We're looking at continued losses, and, just as bad, attempts by states and localities to raise taxes, one of the worst things you can do in a recession.

May 12, 2009   Permalink

WHY WAS SHE RELEASED? - AT 2:22 P.M. ET:  The great Michael Ledeen, who probably has a clearer view of Iran than any Western scholar, also dismisses the nonsense that Iran released the American journalist it was holding because "pro-negotiations with the U.S." elements won out.  (See our 7:31 a.m. post.)  He writes on NRO's The Corner:

Why does the Mafia release hostages? Because they have collected the ransom. So to all those who are looking for subtle reasons for the Saberi release, take it from someone who has been there. Iran collected its ransom. The mullahs aren't subtle, they're mafiosi. We probably won't know for a while what they got, who delivered it, and who worked the deal. But anyone familiar with the workings of the Islamic Republic has to assume that there was a payoff.

I don't know of a single case in which the mullahs released a hostage for any other reason.

COMMENT:  Fascinating.  We'll be looking for hints.

May 12, 2009   Permalink

TROUBLE FOR GOP STALWARTS - AT 10:26 A.M. ET:  John McCain and Governor Charlie Crist of Florida are two popular office holders who will stand for election again next year - McCain for reelection to the Senate, and Crist for election to the Senate seat currently held by retiring Senator Mel Martinez, another Republican.  Yet both men are having problems within their own parties.  Rasmussen reports on McCain:

Arizona Republican voters don’t see Senator John McCain having much trouble winning the GOP Senate Primary next year, but 50% believe he has lost touch with his party’s base. Conservatives are even more critical of the longtime incumbent.

Forty-three percent (43%) of Arizona Republican voters offer a more positive assessment and say McCain has done a good job representing GOP values, according to a new Rasmussen Reports telephone survey in the state.

And The Politico reports on Crist:

The expected announcement Tuesday by Florida Gov. Charlie Crist that he’s running for the Senate would seem to be a rare bit of good news for beleaguered Republicans.

But while Crist is a brand-name recruit with sky-high approval ratings and bipartisan appeal, his path to keeping the seat of retiring Sen. Mel Martinez in GOP hands has at least one significant roadblock: Sunshine State conservatives.

Despite Crist’s widespread popularity, he faces a primary in which he will have to make his case to a restless GOP base dissatisfied with his high-profile advocacy for President Barack Obama’s stimulus and his handling of the state’s budget woes.

COMMENT:  McCain is odds-on favorite to win any primary challenge and win reelection.  But Crist will have to fight to win his primary and keep the Martinez Senate seat in GOP hands.  The Politico reports that Crist's predecessor in the governor's chair, Jeb Bush, is cool to Crist and may help his primary opponent.  The party does not need splits like this.

May 12, 2009   Permalink

NANCY, GET A LAWYER - AT 9:11 A.M. ET:  The speaker of the House has told so many different stories about when she knew about enhanced interrogation techniques and what, if anything, she did about the information that we routinely wait for Pelosi V - The Next Sequel.  Susan Sarandon and Jane Fonda are vying for the role.

Now Nancy comes up with still one more whopper.  From The Politico:

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi learned in early 2003 that the Bush administration was waterboarding terror detainees but didn’t protest directly out of respect for “appropriate” legislative channels, a person familiar with the situation said Monday.

Oh come on.  If any reader believes that, he or she should stop reading this website immediately and seek help.  I mean, when has Nancy Pelosi ever respected "appropriate" legislative channels?  And what precisely are those channels?  It goes on:

The Pelosi camp’s version of events is intended to answer two key questions posed by her critics: When, precisely, did she first learn about waterboarding? And why didn’t she do more to stop it?

Pelosi has disputed a CIA document, released last week, that shows she was briefed in September 2002 on the “particular” interrogation techniques the United States had used on Al Qaeda leader Abu Zubaydah. Pelosi has said she was told then only that the Bush administration was considering using certain techniques in the future — and that it had the legal authority to do so.

COMMENT:  And the beat goes on.  Bottom line, she knew about it, didn't protest, and now has joined the ranks of the self-righteous, seeking to appease the rabid leftists in her party who want Bush people prosecuted for condoning the rough techniques. 

If more comes out about other Dems who knew what was going on, the Dem enthusiasm for this issue will fade away.

May 12, 2009   Permalink

YOU MEAN THE BANKERS HAVE WOKEN UP? - AT 8:04 A.M. ET:  I knew there were some dimwits in the Wall Street banking "community" - I love that crooked term - but this is carrying dumbness too far.  It seem the Dems are suddenly finding that campaign contributions from Wall Street folk just aren't what they used to be.  It's the recession, the official line reads.  But more sophisticated observers report that the big bankers, apparently after many meetings and expert examinations, have concluded that the left wing of the party they love absolutely despises them.  It took them all this time to figure it out.  And you thought a home-loan decision took too long.  The Hill reports:

Senate Democrats are losing their fundraising edge on Wall Street, seeing less money for candidates at a time when the party’s liberal wing is demonizing billions of dollars in taxpayer bailouts to banks.

The Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee (DSCC) raised $10.4 million through the first three months of this year, compared with $9.6 million raised by its Republican counterpart during the same quarter.

That’s a much narrower margin than last election cycle, when the DSCC raised $163 million compared to the National Republican Senatorial Committee’s (NRSC) $94 million.

Why, some Dems won't even accept contributions from the Wall Street capitalist warmongering imperialist ruling-class scum that they were embracing only months ago:

This flip has occurred at a time when liberals are bashing Wall Street as the root of the economic recession and Democratic senators are keeping investment bankers at arm’s length.

Steve Elmendorf, a high-powered Democratic lobbyist who represents Citigroup, a major contributor in the past, said that Democrats are shunning money from his client because it has taken billions in federal bailout funds.

“People I raise money for are not accepting money from PACs of TARP recipients or senior executives of companies that took TARP funds,” said Elmendorf.

COMMENT:  Harry Truman said it best:  In Washington, if you want a friend, get a cocker spaniel.  Just make sure the dog doesn't have any dog relatives owned by Wall Street bankers.  You can tell by the bark.

May 12, 2009   Permalink

WELCOME TO SPINOBAMA, THE ORIGINAL AND ONE AND ONLY - AT 7:34 A.M. ET:  Again, oh the immodesty, I must say that we told you so. But we don't claim predictive powers here, so I humbly admit that this "prediction" could have been made by anyone who reads My Weekly Reader and above:

The Court of Obama is spinning the release of the American journalist held by Iran as a great and famous victory for the "engage the Americans" faction in Iran.  We caution you.  This is pure speculation bordering on baloney.  We say again that the release was part of a well-practiced diplomatic game and represents no change in Iranian policy.  The New York Times dutifully reports the spin of the favored president:

American officials said Iran’s handling of the Saberi case underlined a deepening divide within its leadership about how to respond to President Obama’s recent overtures. It also reflects domestic politics a month before Mr. Ahmadinejad faces a critical election, according to analysts.

“Those who are trying to engage the U.S. won out,” said a senior administration official, who spoke on condition of anonymity because he was not authorized to speak publicly. “There wasn’t going to be any major new administration initiative toward Iran without this case resolved.”

Come on, guys.  The only people who win out in Iran are those favored by the ruling mullahs.  It gets worse:

American officials and outside analysts believe Ms. Saberi’s arrest was politically motivated, at a time when the Obama administration is reaching out to Iran after nearly three decades of hostility. The Iranian government, some analysts said, sought to use the arrest of a journalist to gain leverage in talks with the United States over its nuclear program and other matters. 

And...

But with Mr. Obama and Mrs. Clinton both taking up Ms. Saberi’s cause, analysts said, the political cost of keeping her in prison may have come to seem too high.

COMMENT:  We don't buy a word of that stuff.  It wasn't the arrest that the Iranians thought would buy them leverage, it was the release of the journalist. Are "analysts" actually saying, with a straight face, that the Iranians didn't realize that high officials of the U.S. government would take up Saberi's case?  The Iranians play the West like a violin.  Indeed, The Times does quote one analyst who provides a bit of sobriety:

Some analysts warned the United States against drawing too much comfort from Iran’s decision.

“They pushed her to the verge of a nervous breakdown for a transient political purpose,” said Abbas Milani, director of Iranian studies at Stanford University. “It shows the difficulty the Obama administration will have in negotiating with a regime that has so little value for the lives of its citizens.”

That is true.  And the administration was restrained in its reponse to the release, never thanking Iran.  But Mr. Milani is right.  The learning curve for this administration in dealing with a country that has a history of shrewd diplomacy is just beginning.

May 12, 2009   Permalink

GET TOUGH ON ENGLAND! - AT 7:25 A.M. ET:  Don't mess with these Obamans.  They're tough as nails on people they don't like.  Just ask the Brits.  The Washington Times tells it like it is:

The Obama administration says it may curtail Anglo-American intelligence sharing if the British High Court discloses new details of the treatment of a former Guantanamo detainee.

A court filing from the British Foreign Office released recently includes a letter from the U.S. government, identified as the "Obama administration's communication." Other information identifying the U.S. agency and author of the letter appears to have been redacted.

The letter says:

"If it is determined that [her majesty's government] is unable to protect information we provide to it, even if that inability is caused by your judicial system, we will necessarily have to review with the greatest care the sensitivity of information we can provide in the future."

COMMENT:  Well, this should provide a jolly diplomatic flap.  The administration is right, but seems to have a knack for humiliating the British.  When do we humiliate the North Koreans or the Iranians? 

Maybe Michelle can use her influence with the queen and get this issue resolved.

May 12, 2009   Permalink