SATURDAY,  MAY 16,  2009

HEAVY-HANDED - AT 8:48 P.M. ET:  New York is an Obama stronghold.  He could probably be elected king here.  The academics fawn over him, the intellectuals hang on his words, the minorities all claim him.

Maybe that's why the president thought he could get away with a stunt that is raising Democratic eyebrows even New York.  He has interfered with an upcoming election to the U.S. Senate, something presidents just don't do.  From Fox News:

If President Obama didn't have enough on his plate already, he's now thrust himself into the middle of a statewide race that has sparked growing resentment among some New York Democrats.

Sens. Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) and Bob Menendez (D-N.J.) asked Obama to implore Rep. Steve Israel (D-N.Y.) against challenging New York Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand in the Democratic primary next year, FOX News has learned.

Israel was poised to announce his candidacy until the president intervened with a Friday afternoon phone call in an effort to clear the field for Gillibrand, a source told FOX News, calling the move "messy."

And...

It's rare for a president to inject himself into statewide politics. And a host of New York political insiders with ties to several House Democrats say they're angry that the president even got involved.

"What? You can't have a primary? It's decided in backroom deals?" asked a source who spoke to FOX News on the condition of anonymity. "What if someone told Obama he couldn't have a primary and Hillary (Clinton) would just be the nominee? Where would he be? It's an outrage."

And...

"I can't imagine why (Obama) would do this," said one source, referring to the president's request to Israel to step aside. "I am sure that it will upset many (New York) delegation members."

COMMENT:  This is heavy-handed stuff, and the fact is that Obama didn't ask other potential contenders to stay out.  The whole incident is shrouded in mystery.  We have an enterprising reporter in New York named Fred Dicker, who works for the New York Post.  I suspect he'll get to the root of the story.  But the palpable anger toward Obama in the New York delegation is startling. 

Why is Gillibrand that important?  Most people in New York don't even know her, even though she was appointed to the Senate to replace Hillary Clinton.  Does she know something?  Was some deal made?

We'll follow this.  Presidents don't normally call congressmen, asking them not to run for another office.

May 16, 2009   Permalink 

VERSION 1,602 - AT 6:08 P.M. ET:  Nancy Pelosi, no doubt striving for complete historical accuracy, has once again refined and perfected her story about what she knew and when she knew it.  It is rare in government to have high scholarship like this.  We should be grateful:

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi has backed down slightly in her fight with the CIA, saying that she really meant only to criticize the Bush administration rather than career officials.

"My criticism of the manner in which the Bush Administration did not appropriately inform Congress is separate from my respect for those in the intelligence community who work to keep our country safe," Pelosi said in a statement.

Pelosi caused an uproar Thursday when she accused the CIA of lying to her about its use of waterboarding – which she considers torture – on terrorism suspects.

Her comment came after President Obama's CIA director, Leon Panetta, challenged her version of events, insisting that his agency told her the truth in a controversial September 2002 briefing.

COMMENT:  A story is circulating that Nan will be available each day at 5 p.m. to read fairy tales to kids visiting the Capitol.  She is said to have vast experience.

May 16, 2009   Permalink

THEY CALL IT PREEMPTION - AT 10:02 A.M. ET:  Showing that his political shrewdness has stayed with him, President Obama named a new ambassador to China today.  Via The Politico:

President Barack Obama on Saturday named Utah Gov. Jon M. Huntsman Jr., a rapidly rising star in the Republican Party, as his pick for ambassador to China, at a joint White House appearance.

The move is freighted with political intrigue. Huntsman, who speaks fluent Mandarin Chinese, quickly emerged after November as one of the leading moderate GOP voices.

At their appearance together at the White House, Obama said of Huntsman, a co-chair of McCain's presidential campaign, "This wouldn't be the easiest decision to explain to some members of his party," and praised the governor for his "willingness to move beyond the old ideologies and stale debates."

COMMENT:  Huntsman has been mentioned by the Great Mentioner as a potential GOP candidate, and this essentially takes him out of the running for 2012.  I suspect the political advisers in the White House saw him as a serious rival.

As the story says, this makes it easier for Mitt Romney and Minnesota's rising governor, Tim Pawlenty. 

The appointment itself is solid.  Huntsman has a solid background in Chinese affairs.  But the political ramifications are more juicy. 

Now watch - Sarah Palin as ambassador to Russia.  No, I didn't mean that.

May 16, 2009   Permalink 

IS THIS THE REAL OBAMA - AT 9:47 A.M. ET:  I don't often agree with Jacob Weisberg, who writes for Slate and Newsweek, but he has an fascinating observation about President Obama that I wanted to pass on.  As they used to say in school, discuss.  See if you agree with him:

In a recent interview with the New York Times, Obama described his economic policy as "ruthless pragmatism." Interesting choice of modifiers. Obama has a healthy disdain for the overrated virtue of political loyalty. Around the nomination process, this has been slightly chilling to watch. If you're useful, you can hang around with him. If you start to look like a liability, enjoy your time with the wolves. Before the inauguration, Christopher Hitchens described Obama as feline in his demeanor. The president is catlike also in his lack of evident affection for the people who take care of him. His cracks at the White House Correspondents' Dinner about Hillary Clinton being an envious loser, Larry Summers' woman problem, and training his dog not to pee on Tim Geithner skirted cruelty. Obama's jokes about himself were about how great everyone thinks he is.

COMMENT:  I think there's a lot here.  Remember that Roosevelt was famously described as a lion and a fox.  Someone said of Truman that he did the biggest things in the biggest ways and the littlest things in the littlest ways.  Even Ronald Reagan could have a cold aloofness.  And do we need review the self-serving tactics of Bill Clinton. 

The true character of this president is emerging.  We have judged him harshly here, and will, I suspect, have plenty of reason to do so in the future.  But wouldn't it be remarkable if he shifts rightward and redefines himself, the better to get reelected.  We can hope.  Conniving seems to be his favorite sport.  So let us temper our hope with a realistic understanding of his political roots.

May 16, 2009   Permalink

OBAMA AND THE NUTROOTS - AT 9:21 A.M. ET:  The AP, which at times has had a passionate romance with the current president, gives us today a surprisingly sober analysis of Mr. Obama's problems with his left wing, and the Democratic Party's splintering on national security.

At one time, in the forties, fifties, and early sixties, the Democratic Party was a national-security stalwart, often nudging isolationist Republicans and taking the actions, like the formation of NATO and the decision to resist Communist aggression in Korea, that defined our stance in the Cold War.  In 1960, John F. Kennedy actually ran to the right of Richard M. Nixon on national defense.

Ah, those were the days.  Vietnam changed that, and changed the Democratic Party:

Democrats just can't seem to get on the same page on national security -- and it could cost them dearly on an issue Republicans have dominated for decades.

Increasingly, President Barack Obama and Democrats who run Congress are being pulled between the competing interests of party liberals and the rest of the country on Bush-era wartime matters of torture, detention and interrogation of suspected terrorists.

And...

As Democrats splintered, Republicans watched with glee.

The irony is these are the same wartime issues created by Bush and the GOP-led Congress that Democrats successfully campaigned against in 2006 and 2008. The conflicting Democratic positions threaten to undercut the party's gains on national security; polls last fall showed Democrats had drawn even on national security issues long dominated by the GOP.

And...

Obama is facing the same predicament that confronted and confounded other recent Democratic presidents. While governing as centrists, Bill Clinton and Jimmy Carter bent over backward on issues of war and peace, working to appease the party's left wing without being held hostage by it.

Yeah, we noticed.  We're still paying the price for both of them, and maybe moderate Democrats have started to notice.

Answering liberal complaints, White House press secretary Robert Gibbs said: ''First and foremost, the president does what is in the best security interest of the United States.''

Obama is betting that liberals will forgive him for changing course on these issues. He does have several years to make it up to them before his likely re-election campaign.

Today's brand of liberal never forgives.  Never.  I saw what the left did to Hubert Humphrey in 1968, insuring the election of Nixon.  The only thing Obama has going for him with this crowd is race.  They will be reluctant to take on "the first."

But we can also ask, legitimately, whether Obama has the spine to continue taking actions, like maintaining military tribunals, that infuriate his leftist base, especially the California House delegation.  On that question may determine his presidency.

May 16, 2009   Permalink

FRIDAY,  MAY 15,  2009

$42,000 A YEAR - AT 8:37 P.M. ET:  That's what "top" colleges charge for their services these days.  Those services too often include four years of liberal indoctrination.  And if that's what you're looking for, you get your money's worth, right up through graduation, as Fox News reports:

It's not enough that Democrats have command of some key real estate in Washington. This month, they've also got the ear of just about every college student in the country.

Vice President Joe Biden, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and White house chief of staff Rahm Emanuel all have multiple invites to be keynote speakers at graduations this spring.

And while President Obama is pulling a hat trick at Notre Dame, Arizona State and the U.S. Naval Academy, you won't see one of that last institution's most famous graduates on stage anywhere this year.

John McCain ... Sarah Palin ... Mitt Romney ... Rudy Giuliani ... they aren't on anyone's program in 2009. Rush Limbaugh or Newt Gingrich? Persona non grata, thank you very much.

So whatever happened to conservatives?

Education watchdogs say it's nothing strange for conservatives to be shunned from the academy, and that the one-sided invitations have become a permanent fixture of the ivory tower.

COMMENT:  Colleges receive millions in federal aid each year, yet many of them have become propaganda mills.  Yet, there are no questions asked in Washington. 

Imagine, Oprah Winfrey can be graduation speaker at Duke, but John McCain, who served this country with such distinction, can't get a major invitation.  During World War II, it was common for college presidents to instruct their charges in their obligations to their country.  Today, such sentiments are mocked, and called "stupid." 

Of course, there are still many fine college instructors and courses.  But enough has gone wrong to warrant some serious soul searching.  But who will do the searching?  And in what condition are their souls?

May 15, 2009   Permalink

REMARKABLE POLL RESULTS - AT 5:41 P.M. ET:  There will be major protests when President Obama addresses the graduating class at Notre Dame on Sunday.  As you know, some graduates feel it was wrong for the Catholic university to invite a man, even the president, who runs afoul of Catholic teachings about abortion.

The controversy erupts at the same time that two stunning polls are out.  Gallup reported that, for the first time in the 15 years the firm has polled on the subject, the majority of Americans consider themselves pro-life.  The numbers reinforce Fox News polls showing similar results:

Fifty-one percent of Americans consider themselves "pro-life," the first time a majority of the country has stated a personal objection to abortion since Gallup polls began tracking the data 15 years ago.

The numbers correspond with FOX News polls this month showing 49 percent of Americans as pro-life and 43 percent as pro-choice on abortion. Last year the numbers were essentially the reverse of the current findings: 41 percent were pro-life and 49 percent were pro-choice in September 2008.

The Gallup poll released Friday also marks a massive shift from one year ago, when 50 percent of Americans called themselves pro-choice, and just 44 percent said they were pro-life. Today 42 percent say they are pro-choice, by far the lowest level of support for abortion ever measured by the Gallup poll.

Despite that change in opinion, most Americans still believe that abortion should remain legal. Yet Gallup reports that the new numbers come in stark contrast with the last four years, when polls found a strong tilt of public opinion in favor of unrestricted abortions, which is now declining.

COMMENT:  Difficult to know what caused this, and it's much too early to predict political consequences.  Abortion has probably been the single most controversial issue of our time.  With two polls showing a major shift on the subject, some good investigatory journalism is required.  Is it possible that the weak, sometimes catastrophic economy has forced people to think about basic, religious values?  That is pure speculation, but the numbers are fascinating. 

May 15, 2009   Permalink

AND NOW GM - AT 5:17 P.M. ET:  It was widely predicted.  (Please see our 6:43 a.m. post.)  GM has now lowered the boom on 1,100 of its dealers, as CBS reports:

CBS/AP) A day after Chrysler LLC moved to eliminate nearly 800 dealerships, General Motors Corp. on Friday told about 1,100 U.S. dealers their franchises will be terminated late next year.

The cuts are part of a larger GM plan to slash 2,600 of its 6,200 dealerships as the automaker tries to restructure to become profitable again. The moves likely will cause the loss of thousands of jobs across the U.S. Local governments will lose thousands of dollars in tax revenue as dealerships are forced to close.

The dealerships notified will have until October 2010 to close out their businesses, reports CBS News correspondent Jeff Gilbert.

COMMENT:  The history of the auto industry shows that car companies do go out of business.  Stanley Steamer is no longer around, and neither are Packard or Studebaker.  But the extent of the economic calamity brought on by the virtual collapse of GM and Chrysler is unprecedented in the industry's history.  And there is some serious question as to whether either company can actually survive.  Who will buy their cars?  This is big trouble.

May 15, 2009   Permalink

BARONE - AT 5:01 P.M. ET:  I just returned from a briefing by Michael Barone, who probably knows more about politics than anyone else in the country.  He feels that we may - repeat may - be entering an era of open field politics, where the country can shift either toward the Dems or the GOP.  He doesn't believe that the 2008 election results are set in stone, or that the Republican Party faces certain death.

He said something else that I thought was especially perceptive.  He noted the tremendous majorities built up by Barack Obama among young voters.  He got two thirds of the under-29 vote.  But he also noted that the lifestyle of these young people contradicts the nanny state approach of many of Obama's policies, and he wondered whether there's a built-in clash of values coming.  He pointed out that the young generation is fiercely independent and suspicious of people giving orders.  They don't even accept what the music industry gives them.  They create their own playlists on iPods.  If Barone's hunch is correct, they may, especially as they get older, turn against the New Dealism of the Democratic Party.

May 15, 2009   Permalink 

GM WILL FOLLOW - AT 6:43 A.M. ET:  Despite a few good signs, most of the economic indicators are depressing.  We learned today that Europe's economy has contracted at the fastest pace in 13 years.  And here at home, one of the great names in American industry is in agony:

DETROIT — The historic downsizing of the American auto industry swept through new-car showrooms on Thursday, as dealers across the country, from Fuller Jeep in Rockland, Me., to Island Dodge in Hawaii, learned that they would be forced to close their doors.

In all, nearly 800 dealers selling various Chrysler brands were given notice Thursday that they would be cut off next month. Meanwhile, General Motors is preparing to close up to 2,600 more of its dealers by next year.

Dealers like Ward Drennen, who runs the business his great-grandfather opened 101 years ago near Birmingham, Ala., learned of their fate in letters delivered Thursday morning by U.P.S.

“I had a small crowd around me when I opened it, all hoping for the best,” said Mr. Drennen, who took over ownership of Don Drennen Chrysler Jeep from his ailing father only a few days ago.

COMMENT:  The total dealer closings, including those of GM, are expected to cost about 187,000 jobs.  That is a staggering loss. 

We have yet to see any evidence that the president's "stimulus" package is stimulating anything but a lot of pork spending by Congress.  We have serious problems, and a precarious international situation.  It's a time for vigilance, and for a minimum of false economic platitudes.  If our economic plight continues, the mid-term election campaign could be one of the most combative, and bitter, in recent memory.

May 15, 2009   Permalink 

A REMINDER OF WAR - AT 6:23 A.M. ET:  Most of the military men I've known have had the most sober and mature view of war.  They know what those weapons can do, and they understand what happens on battlefields after the folks at home give their cheering sendoffs.  Understanding war is critical to understanding the current debate over harsh interrogation techniques.  So I commend to you a piece by historian Warren Kozak in today's Wall Street Journal.  Kozak deals with Gen. Curtis LeMay, not a man known for kindness in war:

On Sept. 12, 2001, it is highly doubtful that any member of Congress was worried that our government would be too harsh in its treatment of terrorists. When countries are threatened, basic survival trumps civil liberties not just for enemy combatants but for citizens as well. Our priorities change.

We saw that with the attack on Pearl Harbor. Days before Japanese warplanes destroyed the U.S. Pacific fleet on Dec. 7, 1941, 80% of Americans did not want to go to war against either Germany or Japan. The day after the attacks, those numbers reversed themselves. Over the next four years, the United States did things it would never do in normal times -- Japanese-Americans were placed in prison camps, press reports and the mail of American soldiers were censored by the military, and the FBI tapped phones without court orders.

No one claims that these were wonderful things.  A sergeant once told me that people see things in war zones that no human being should ever see.  But LeMay, a young general in the Army Air Force, and later head of the Strategic Air Command, understood the nature of war, and did what he could to bring the war against Japan to a quick conclusion.  His air raids on Japan were ghastly by any account.  He himself said that, had America not won, he probably would have been considered a war criminal.

In the strange calculus of war, LeMay helped prevent an estimated one million American casualties and upwards of two million Japanese by helping push Japan's Emperor Hirohito to surrender before the invasion. Killing large numbers of people to save even more lives is not a decision most of us would want to make. But at the time, the majority of Americans were thankful that LeMay was willing to do it.

Today, some question whether the ends justified the means. In 1945, no American with a husband, brother or son serving in the military did. For them, the speediest end of that horrible conflict was the only goal.

COMMENT:  That is the point.  No civilized human being takes the subject of war, or the brutal treatment of prisoners, lightly.  But the current discussion of enhanced interrogation techniques is unreal, simplistic and adolescent.  I don't want my country engaged in torture, but I do want my countrymen to survive.  That does not mean a blank check, but it does mean an understanding of what war entails. 

May 15, 2009   Permalink   

CONGRESS SHOULD ACT - AT 5:38 A.M. ET:  But won't.  The CIA has turned down a perfectly proper request from the former vice president.  Washington Post:

The CIA has rejected a request from former vice president Richard B. Cheney to release documents that he says show that the agency's harsh interrogation methods helped thwart terrorist plots.

A letter released by the CIA today cites pending legal action as the sole reason for keeping the documents under seal.

"For that reason -- and that reason only -- CIA did not accept Mr. Cheney's request for a mandatory declassification review," agency spokesman Paul Gimigliano said.

COMMENT:  There may be technical legal reasons why the CIA cannot release the documents, but it sure looks funny.  They were releasing a whole truckload full of memos just a few weeks ago.  Sherwood Forest was required just to provide the paper.

Congress can act on this, but of course it won't.  It could legislate the release, which would be the fair thing to do, and would thus inform the American people on the effectiveness, or lack of it, of the techniques defended by the Bush administration.  This refusal to release documents, combined with Nancy Pelosi's increasingly ludicrous explanations of what she knew and when she knew it, is not helping the image of the Democratic Party on national security issues.  The problem is, the people who run the party don't seem to care.

May 15, 2009   Permalink

ONWARD TO THE PAST - AT 5:09 A.M. ET:  Pretty soon this crowd will be speaking with Texas accents.  New York Times reports:

WASHINGTON — President Obama has decided to keep the military commission system that his predecessor created to try suspected terrorists but will ask Congress to expand the rights of defendants to contest the charges against them, officials briefed on the plan said Thursday.

COMMENT:  As believers in the Judeo-Christian ethic, I feel it's incumbent on all of us to feel a tug of sympathy for our good friends on the political left.  It has been a bad week for them.  Let us count the ways:

First, the president changed his mind on releasing a bunch of prison photos.  The left went into depression.

Second, the president apparently set a deadline for negotiations with Iran to produce results.  The left became hysterical.

Third, the administration went ahead with a command shakeup in Afghanistan, and will pursue an active military strategy.  The left started forming the word "fascist" on its lips.

And now this.  If you see a leftist today, please kiss a little.  If you're concerned about the flu, send him an ethnic hi-five.

May 15, 2009   Permalink