We've been flooded with e-mails in recent days.  I try to answer each one, but I've fallen behind. I'll make every effort to reply to every e-mail that requires a reply.       

WEDNESDAY,  NOVEMBER 25,  2009

ANOTHER POTENTIAL SCANDAL - AT 7:32 P.M. ET:  Brought to you, apparently, by the same wonderful folks who brought you Major Hasan:

Navy SEALs have secretly captured one of the most wanted terrorists in Iraq — the alleged mastermind of the murder and mutilation of four Blackwater USA security guards in Fallujah in 2004. And three of the SEALs who captured him are now facing criminal charges, sources told FoxNews.com.

The three, all members of the Navy's elite commando unit, have refused non-judicial punishment — called a captain's mast — and have requested a trial by court-martial.

Ahmed Hashim Abed, whom the military code-named "Objective Amber," told investigators he was punched by his captors — and he had the bloody lip to prove it.

Now, instead of being lauded for bringing to justice a high-value target, three of the SEAL commandos, all enlisted, face assault charges and have retained lawyers.

A bloody lip?  A bloody lip?  That's the damage?  And for that we ruin the careers of three courageous men?

Oh, come on.  After Fort Hood, and the political correctness it revealed, you'd think someone in the Navy would have some common sense.

The lawyer for one of the SEALS, Neal Puckett, said it best:

“I don’t know how they’re going to bring this detainee to the United States and give us our constitutional right to confrontation in the courtroom,” Puckett said. “But again, we have terrorists getting their constitutional rights in New York City, but I suspect that they’re going to deny these SEALs their right to confrontation in a military courtroom in Virginia.”

Yeah, the terrorists are getting more rights than our own service people. 

These American sailors will not have a happy Thanksgiving.  Think about them.

November 25, 2009   Permalink

COMING SOON TO A SCREEN NEAR YOU - AT 6:16 P.M. ET:  The president has chosen West Point as the backdrop for his Afghanistan speech Tuesday.  From AP, via Fox:

President Obama will address the nation on his new strategy for the war in Afghanistan Tuesday night from the U.S. Military Academy at West Point.

At least AP got the name right.  I've been infuriated today, while checking the news channels, at the number of times it's been referred to as "the West Point Military Academy," which sounds like a training school for difficult boys.  It's the United States Military Academy.  It's proper to refer to it simply as West Point, just as the Naval Academy is called "Annapolis."  But it definitely is not the West Point Military Academy.

The president is expected to lay out his plans for expanding the Afghan conflict and, ultimately, ending America's military role.

The U.S. will not be in Afghanistan for another eight or nine years from now, White House spokesman Robert Gibbs said Wednesday when asked whether the Obama administration had an exit strategy.

Bad approach.  You want to achieve your objective as quickly as possible, but, when you start talking about time limits publicly, you flash a schedule to enemies, who then know how long they'll have to hold out before we leave. 

The president and his top military and national security advisers have held 10 meetings to discuss America's future steps in Afghanistan. Though the top general in Afghanistan, Gen. Stanley McChrystal, has asked the president for about 40,000 troops, military officials expect the president will deploy about 35,000, starting next year.

Why not give the general what he wants?  If it's 35,000, it looks like the president is throwing a bone to the political left, saying, in effect, "I didn't go along with McChrystal."  Silly.

The president says the American people will support his strategy once they understand the perils of losing the war.

Question:  Why wasn't that explained earlier in this administration?  Does a president wait ten months to explain why we're fighting?

We'll watch Tuesday night.  It better be good.  The president's numbers are sinking, and his indecision on Afghanistan is one of the reasons.

November 25, 2009   Permalink

SAD - AT 6:07 P.M. ET:  The Washington Post is contracting:

NEW YORK, Nov 24 (Reuters) - The Washington Post is closing its last U.S. bureaus outside the nation's capital as the money-losing newspaper retrenches to focus on politics and local news.

"At a time of limited resources and increased competitive pressure, it's necessary to concentrate our journalistic firepower on our central mission of covering Washington and the news, trends and ideas that shape both the region and the country's politics, policies and government," the newspaper's top editor, Marcus Brauchli, wrote in a memo to employees that was obtained by Reuters.

The Post will close its bureaus in Chicago, Los Angeles and New York, effective Dec. 31.

The news comes after the Post told several employees at its website that they would be laid off, and follows several rounds of buyouts in recent years.

The Post, like nearly every other U.S. newspaper, has been battered by falling advertising revenue and circulation as readers get more news online for free.

With a circulation of more than 582,000 copies, the Post is the fifth most read daily newspaper on weekdays, according to figures released by the Audit Bureau of Circulations. It is the third most read Sunday paper, with paid circulation of more than 822,000 copies.

COMMENT:  We don't rejoice here in the financial decline of any newspaper.  There are employees involved - families.  And we need a variety of voices in journalism.  Further, depending on the internet for news carries risk.  The internet is a delicate mechanism, and we don't know what restrictions may be placed on distribution in the future.  There are plenty of forces, mostly on the political left, that would like to control the internet and use it to advance only their interests.

At the same time, newspapers must expand their understanding of why they're in decline.  It isn't just the internet, or the recession.  It's the way many of them have presented the news for a generation - too often with a smug, leftward slant, and a certain contempt for their own readers.  Does anyone doubt that the editorial opinions of The New York Times have drifted onto its news pages?  A number of readers have been turned off, and they drop out.  A better, more balanced product, may not save mainstream newspapers, but it would put them back in the fight.

November 25, 2009   Permalink

A GOP PICKUP, IN NEW YORK? - AT 9:41 A.M. ET:  Now what have we here?  What we have is a finding by Rasmussen that Rudy Giuliani, if he runs for the Senate next year against incumbent Democrat Kirsten Gillibrand, would defeat her by double digits.  Gillibrand was appointed by Governor David Paterson to fill out the term of Hillary Clinton, who resigned from th e Senate to become secretary of state:

Democratic incumbent Kirsten Gillibrand may have a serious problem on her hands if Rudy Giuliani gets in next year’s race for the U.S. Senate in New York State.

A new Rasmussen Reports telephone survey of voters in the state finds Giuliani, the former Republican mayor of New York City, leading Gillibrand by 13 points – 53% to 40%. Four percent (4%) like some other candidate, and just two percent (2%) are undecided.

News reports that Giuliani has ruled out a run for governor next year and is interested In the Senate race could turn Gillibrand’s bid to fill out the rest of Hillary Clinton’s term from a close struggle to an uphill climb.

If this race happens, it will be spectacular.  However, these cautionary notes: 1)  Gillibrand, an appointed senator with very little built-in support around the state, might be pushed aside and possibly offered a post by Obama, with a more credible candidate taking her place; 2) Giuliani will be subjected to one of the greatest smear campaigns you can imagine.  He was an extraordinarily successful mayor, but he is despised by the left, a powerful force in New York and in the New York media.

There will also be underlying racial tensions.  Giuliani, through his effective and enlightened anti-crime programs, saved more black lives than all mayors of New York put together, but never got any credit from the black community.  The reason?  He refused to genuflect before black leaders.  They will be coming after him. 

There is the corruption factor:  Giuliani's last police commissioner, boosted by Giuliani to become secretary of Homeland Security, is going to prison on corruption charges.  This fact alone will give opponents a field day.

There is the personality factor:  The fact is that Giuliani, whose work I admire immensely, isn't known as a nice guy.  It sometimes comes through.  He apparently has a poor relationship with his children. 

But, bottom line, Rudy is the GOP's best shot at gaining a Senate seat in New York, if he can run a good campaign.  His campaign for president was lackluster.  He'll be running in a heavily Democratic state.  But he was elected may of New York City twice, and the city has a lopsided Democratic registration.

This, if it happens, will be a great race.

November 25, 2009   Permalink

QUOTE OF THE DAY - AT 9:23 A.M. ET:  From Washington Post economic reporter Steven Pearlstein:

What really sticks in our craw, however, is that while most of the country is hunkered down, Wall Street continues to feast on a bounty of trading profits. You'd expect that a new liberal Democratic president would find a way to give voice to this populist outrage and constructively channel this public anger. But too often, the response from the administration has been to try to convince us that there's little we can do, or should do, to ensure that the economic harvest is more equitably distributed. Now, the White House and congressional leaders find themselves scrambling to get ahead of a growing political backlash that threatens to upend their carefully calibrated agenda, not to mention their political fortunes.

COMMENT:  No matter what your politics, the vast contrast between the economic distress of most of America and the huge profits (and bonuses) on Wall Street must be a matter of concern.  We can repeat all the clichés about our having the best economic system in the world, but the system must work, and it must work for enough people enough of the time for it to retain support. 

One problem is that Wall Street interests now have substantial influence in both political parties.  And let us not forget that one of Obama's chief backers is George Soros, the somewhat shady Wall Street genius.

Watch this situation carefully.  Economic disillusionment, and a sense of gross unfairness, can fuel a social and political revolution, especially if conditions in most of the country worsen.  That is when demagogues get going. 

The Democrats are hopeless.  Their economic education came from their junior years abroad.  But now is the time for the GOP, if it has any imagination at all, to propose a new contract with America that will expand economic opportunity and build the economy.  And the GOP must shake the image of being "the party of big business."  It really hasn't been for years, but it still has that image.  If it can show that its policies help the greatest number of Americans, it will have a future.  If it can't, it won't.

November 25, 2009   Permalink

 
THE PRESIDENT AND THE POLLS - AT 8:38 A.M. ET:  We've been reporting on the president's steady slippage in the polls.  Byron York, at the Washington Examiner, goes inside the latest Gallup Poll to show just where the damage is:

Among age groups: For the first time in the White House, Obama is below 50 percent with every age group of Americans except those between 18 and 29. He's at 48 percent with people in the 30-49 range; 46 percent with people in the 50-64 range; and 42 percent with people 65 and over. Among those 18-29, he's at 61 percent.

Churchill once said that anyone who isn't a liberal at 20 has no heart, and anyone who isn't a conservative by 30 has no head.  What we're probably seeing in the 18-29 exception is the traditional liberalism of young people.  However, what we may also be seeing is the effect of the educational system, which has tilted increasingly to the left.  We've seen that this malady often gets worked out with age.

Among racial groups: For the first time in the White House, Obama support among white Americans has fallen below 40 percent. He's at 39 percent among whites; 91 percent among blacks, and 70 percent among Hispanics.

Not really shocking.  Blacks, understandably, have an affinity for Mr. Obama.  Whites have been trending away from the Democrats, even under white presidents.  If there's any surprise, it's the high approval number for the president among Hispanics, who haven't always had the best relationships with blacks.  But the GOP is seen as tough on immigration, which is having its effect on Hispanic voters.

Among income groups: For the first time in the White House, Obama is below 50 percent with every income group except those making less than $2,000 a month.

Although he does smashingly in Beverly Hills and Manhattan. 

For the first time in the White House, Obama is below 50 percent with everyone who goes to church.

During the campaign, in a statement he didn't know was being recorded, Mr. Obama decried Americans who cling to their religion and their guns.  Apparently, they're not clinging to him.

Of course, these numbers can change dramatically.  It's not in the bag for Republicans.  Mr. Obama is still personally liked by a majority of Americans.  But he is political trouble because of his policies, and his perceived weakness.  It's being reported that those around Mr. Obama worry that he can become another Jimmy Carter. 

The question is whether the president, not known for modesty, is equally worried...or equally unimpressed by Jimmah. 

We may get some hint of where the president's head is in his Afghanistan speech next Tuesday. 

November 25, 2009   Permalink

THE PROCLAMATION - AT 8:08 A.M. ET:  This is the day before Thanksgiving.  The president will, I believe, issue some kind of proclamation.  It is his first Thanksgiving in the White House.

This proclamation should be a beaut.  After all, his wife said during the campaign that this was the first time she was proud of America.  So what's there to be thankful for?  Barack?  That appears to be it.

And then of course there's the delicate matter, the president will tell us, of "those who, understandably, cannot give thanks."  We will then hear about the Indians, er, native Americans, first Americans, abused native peoples, native victims of the greed, disease, and lust brought by colonialist Europeans living in luxury aboard the ocean liner Mayflower. 

The president will say that their descendants should be tried in civilian courts, not the military tribunals set up by BUSH (!!). 

Mr. Obama will apologize for our history, but say that we should give thanks that we have the freedom to apologize and make amends.  He will sign a symbolic bill granting health insurance to all native peoples alive in 1620.  Free visits to the sorcerer.  Inoculations against all the illnesses brought by the Pilgrims, especially seasickness.

The president will then pardon a couple of turkeys, then go prepare for tomorrow's Thanksgiving dinner - tofu with all the trimmings. 

I can't wait.

November 25,  2009   Permalink

TUESDAY,  NOVEMBER 24,  2009

WHEN YOU FLASH "WEAK," THIS IS WHAT HAPPENS - AT 11:25 P.M. ET: Britain is presumably this country's closest ally, but President Obama hasn't exactly embraced the Brits since taking office.  Some grudge about Kenya, maybe. 

Now the British defense secretary, in an extraordinary statement, is getting a bit of revenge.  Coming from an ally, this is, as the Brits say, a bit of bother:

Bob Ainsworth, the defence secretary, has blamed Barack Obama and the United States for the decline in British public support for the war in Afghanistan.

Mr Ainsworth took the unprecedented step of publicly criticising the US President and his delays in sending more troops to bolster the mission against the Taliban.

A “period of hiatus” in Washington - and a lack of clear direction - had made it harder for ministers to persuade the British public to go on backing the Afghan mission in the face of a rising death toll, he said.

Senior British Government sources have become increasingly frustrated with Mr Obama’s “dithering” on Afghanistan, the Daily Telegraph disclosed earlier this month, with several former British defence chiefs echoing the concerns.

But Mr Ainsworth is the first Government minister to express in public what amounts to personal criticism of the US president’s leadership over the conflict which has so far cost 235 British lives.

COMMENT:  Well, there you have it - open criticism from Britain.  And the pundits thought George Bush was the only one who could alienate allies and enemies at the same time.

In fact, Bush's relationship with many of our allies was better than Obama's,  and his relationship with enemies was appropriate.  At least he didn't bow down.

November 24, 2009  Permalink

GO, BE GONE WITH YOU - AT 7:14 P.M. ET:  Another fall from grace.  South Carolina Governor Mark Sanford used to be considered a possible GOP candidate for president.  But he cheated spectacularly on his wife, and, if the current charges against him are correct, pretty much abused his office.

COLUMBIA, S.C. — Over the protests of Gov. Mark Sanford’s lawyers, South Carolina lawmakers on Tuesday began the preliminary steps of a process that could lead to the governor’s impeachment and removal from office.

A subcommittee of the House Judiciary Committee, made up of four Republicans and three Democrats, held its first meeting to review a resolution to impeach the governor for secretly leaving the state in June to see a woman in Argentina with whom he was having an extramarital affair.

Members voted unanimously to broaden the review to include 37 ethics charges that accuse the governor of misusing state aircraft for personal or political reasons, repeatedly violating a policy that requires officials to use coach class airplane tickets, and misappropriating campaign funds.

In a separate action, the state ethics commission will hold hearings on the 37 allegations early next year.

Sometimes it's best for a man to resign and contemplate his future. 

But there is hypocrisy here.  When ethics charges are brought against Republicans, they seem to be taken much more seriously than when brought against Democrats.  Charlie Rangel, a tax cheat, among other things, is still a major committee chairman in the House.  There is serious talk of Eliot Spitzer, who was forced to resign the governorship of New York over another sex scandal, returning to politics.

As a general rule, and there are exceptions, I think conservatives take personal ethics more seriously than liberals, who too often regard themselves as a bit above these trivial considerations. 

Sanford, I assume, will soon be gone.  He disappointed us.  Goodbye.

November 24, 2009   Permalink

CLIMATEGATE? - AT 6:58 P.M. ET:  The exposure last week of some e-mails from Britain's East Anglia University scientists shook up the self-assured world of "climate" science.  The e-mails suggested that some of the "science" of global warming was being manipulated.  Shock.

The story has largely faded away.  It does not fit the party line of those journalists who entered their profession to "make a difference," and who are sure that Earth is about to be set on fire by the exhaust fumes from Buicks.

But some in the British press are having a field day with the purloined e-mails.  They see it as Climategate, a major scandal, which it certainly appears to be.  From James Delingpole in London's Telegraph:

If you own any shares in alternative energy companies I should start dumping them NOW. The conspiracy behind the Anthropogenic Global Warming myth (aka AGW; aka ManBearPig) has been suddenly, brutally and quite deliciously exposed after a hacker broke into the computers at the University of East Anglia’s Climate Research Unit (aka CRU) and released 61 megabytes of confidential files onto the internet.

When you read some of those files – including 1079 emails and 72 documents – you realise just why the boffins at CRU might have preferred to keep them confidential. As Andrew Bolt puts it, this scandal could well be “the greatest in modern science."  These alleged emails – supposedly exchanged by some of the most prominent scientists pushing AGW theory – suggest:

Conspiracy, collusion in exaggerating warming data, possibly illegal destruction of embarrassing information, organised resistance to disclosure, manipulation of data, private admissions of flaws in their public claims and much more.

Oh, but what does it matter when one is saving the world?  In fact, the whole solar system. 

An example of one e-mail:

"The fact is that we can’t account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can’t. The CERES data published in the August BAMS 09 supplement on 2008 shows there should be even more warming: but the data are surely wrong. Our observing system is inadequate."

Yeah, I'd say it's inadequate.  Yet, people who doubt "scientists" like this are sometimes compared to Holocaust deniers. 

Read the other e-mails.  They're juicy.

This story must not be allowed to die.

November 24, 2009   Permalink

OBAMA ANNOUNCES HIS ANNOUNCEMENT - AT 5:26 P.M. ET:  The president said today he would "finish the job" in Afghanistan.  Reminded me a little of Churchill's appeal to FDR before America's entry into World War II:  "Give us the tools and we will finish the job."   Not that Obama reminds anyone of Churchill.

The New York Times has the story:

WASHINGTON — President Obama said on Tuesday that he will announce his decision on how many more troops to send to Afghanistan next week, and that it is his intention to “finish the job” that began with the overthrow of the Taliban government in the fall of 2001.

Mr. Obama, offering a tantalizing preview of what looms as one of the momentous decisions of his presidency, said he would tell the American people about “a comprehensive strategy” embracing civilian and diplomatic efforts as well as the continuing military campaign.

Although the president is inexcusably late in making his decision, there may be reason for cautious optimism that he'll get it reasonably correct:

While he avoided any hints of the new troop levels he foresees in Afghanistan, the president signaled that he will not be talking about a short-term commitment but rather an effort muscular enough to “dismantle and degrade” the enemy and ensure that “Al Qaeda and its extremist allies cannot operate” in the region.

COMMENT:  We'll see next Tuesday night.  As always, we wish for the president - any president - to make a decision that advances the national interest.  So far this president has been a major disappointment, when applying that standard.  He can, if he has the will and wisdom, improve the record.

November 24,  2009   Permalink

STUNNING, JUST IN - AT 9:40 A.M. ET:  Rasmussen has just published its daily tracker, showing Barack Obama with the lowest rating yet recorded in Ras's presidential approval index.  The index records the gap between those who strongly approve and those who strongly disapprove of presidential performance:

The Rasmussen Reports daily Presidential Tracking Poll for Tuesday shows that 27% of the nation's voters Strongly Approve of the way that Barack Obama is performing his role as President. Forty-two percent (42%) Strongly Disapprove giving Obama a Presidential Approval Index rating of -15. This is the lowest Approval Index rating yet measured for President Obama.

One analyst said last night that the president has become "radioactive" in a number of swing districts.

Overall, 45% of voters say they at least somewhat approve of the President's performance. That matches the lowest level of total approval yet measured for this president. Eighty-one percent (81%) of Democrats approve as do 33% of unaffiliated voters. Eighty-three percent (83%) of Republicans disapprove.

Among all voters, 54% now disapprove.

We should note that other polls have the president somewhat higher, but not by much.  The overall trend is dramatically down.  What is worse for President Obama is that the passion of those against him far exceeds the passion of those for him. 

V.O. Key, the great political scientist of Yale, famously remarked that the voters aren't idiots.  Sometimes, of course, they can be conned, as they were in 2008.  But, eventually, they find out the truth.  It's pretty clear that an increasing number don't like what they see. 

We are little more than a month away from 2010, which could turn out to be as important a political year as 2008.

November 24, 2009   Permalink

ANOTHER GREAT ECONOMIC IDEA - AT 9:19 A.M. ET:  The creativity of certain Democrats in Congress never ceases to amaze.  From The Politico:

Call it “pay as you fight.”

After months of listening to conservatives caterwaul over deficits and health care, senior House Democrats want a graduated surtax on individuals and corporations to pay for another big drain on the treasury: the Afghanistan war.

That'll certainly help us get out of the recession.

Three full committee chairmen — including the House’s top tax writer, Ways and Means Committee Chairman Charles Rangel (D-N.Y.) — are backing the initiative together with the chair of the party caucus, Rep. John Larson (D-Conn.), and close allies of Speaker Nancy Pelosi.

The speaker has been silent thus far, and many dismiss the idea as more rhetoric than real legislation. But with President Barack Obama due to make a final decision soon on adding more U.S. troops, the initiative testifies to the growing restlessness among Democrats over the costs of the American commitment in Afghanistan.

Amazing how the Dems have suddenly gotten so concerned about paying for things - but only when it concerns national defense.  These are the people who voted themselves a trillion-dollar "stimulus" package that was mostly pork.

“We’re not trying to insult anybody. We’re just trying to keep in the forefront what the financial costs are,” House Appropriations Committee Chairman Dave Obey (D-Wis.) told POLITICO. “We felt conscience bound to speak up”

Oh, please.  I can just see these guys wrestling with their conscience.  Must have taken ten seconds for their conscience to lose.

“It’s conditional, but if we’re going to add 40,000 troops, people ought to know what the costs are,” said House Financial Services Committee Chairman Barney Frank (D-Mass.). “It’s important for people to understand how these wars are adding to our deficits.”

As if that's how you decide whether to go to war.  Frank, a flake, must think that war is a hobby of some kind.

One of the things that some Dems are pushing is the idea that wars make it impossible for us to do anything else because of their cost.  Well, of course there's some truth to that.   But Americans, mature Americans, understand that sometimes we must fight.  Whether we should fight is, of course, the primary decision.  But, once made, we must bear the cost.  It's pretty arrogant, though, for a party that has broken the bank so many times in the last year, and is ready to break it again over health "reform," to suddenly sound oh so sober when it comes to the cost of national defense.

November 24, 2009   Permalink

HE WILL SPEAK TO US, WE AWAIT HIM - AT 8:53 A.M. ET:  Almost four months after getting Gen. McChrystal's recommendation on troop strength in Afghanistan, President Obama is apparently ready to reveal the depths of his thoughts on the matter, as The New York Times reports:

President Obama has conducted a final meeting on his military review for Afghanistan, administration officials said, and he is planning to explain his decision in an address to the nation next Tuesday.

“After completing a rigorous final meeting, President Obama has the information he wants and needs to make his decision and he will announce that decision within days,” Robert Gibbs, the White House press secretary, said Tuesday morning.

Now wait a second, wait a second.  It appears from Gibbs's statement that he hasn't actually made the decision, just that he realizes he needs to make a decision.  But if he hasn't made it, how does he know he can reveal it next Tuesday?

Are you seeing smoke and mirrors?  At least the smoke.

And I love Gibbs's reference to a "rigorous" final meeting.  Is this in contrast to non-rigorous meetings?  Chit-chats?  Increasingly, the language of this administration sounds like high school.

The president’s military and national security advisers came back to the president with answers he had requested during previous meetings, most of which focusing on these questions: Where are the off-ramps for the military? And what is the exit strategy?

How about:  What is our objective and how can we achieve it?

And how can the American people be made more safe?

And the beat goes on:

Mr. Obama did not announce his specific decision to his advisers. He is scheduled to stay at the White House over the Thanksgiving holiday to finish making his decision, as the White House plans to prepare for what could be Mr. Obama’s first prime-time address to the nation from the Oval Office.

"Finish" making his decision?  So finishing making the decision is a scheduled event?  Do you get the feeling of amateurism here?  When have you ever said, "Well, I'll start making the decision on Wednesday, finish making it on Thursday, after dinner"?

Oh, wait.  A possible change:

But the venue of the announcement has not been finalized. While an Oval Office address fits the gravity of the moment, one official said Tuesday that a full-length speech – rather than a short message, delivered as the president sits behind a desk – is a more likely way for Mr. Obama to explain one of the most important decisions yet in his presidency.

No, this isn't an academic lecture or a classroom discussion.  The president sitting behind the desk in our Oval Office is just right.

As the White House prepares for how the president will explain his decision to the nation, the president is trying to allay deep concerns inside his own party.

Translated into English:  He's got to satisfy the wing of his party that likes to visit Fidel Castro and get flu shots in Cuba.

Oh wait, another possible change:

The White House is preparing for the president’s announcement to take place next Tuesday evening, aides said, which would likely be followed by hearings in the House and Senate. But the date could be changed, one official said, depending on briefings with Congress and allied leaders.

And this depressing thought:

While the president is expected by several of his advisers to announce sending more than 20,000 new troops – perhaps closer to the 40,000, as recommended by Gen. Stanley A. McChrystal – the White House is working to make the announcement more than simply a number of troops. It will include an outline of an exit strategy, officials said.

Hey, a little something for everyone.  Send the troops, and prepare to get them out.

This passes for strategy. 

It's pathetic.

How would you like to have a son or daughter serving in Afghanistan under this president?

November 24, 2009   Permalink

HEALTH BILL TANKS WITH THE PUBLIC - AT 8:16 A.M. ET:  Just as the Senate takes up the health "reform" bill, guaranteed to cure us all and let us live forever (but only if we vote right), it appears that the public isn't buying.  Scott Rasmussen's survey reveals some pretty persuasive numbers:

Just 38% of voters now favor the health care plan proposed by President Obama and congressional Democrats. That’s the lowest level of support measured for the plan in nearly two dozen tracking polls conducted since June.

The latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that 56% now oppose the plan.

This poll should be circulated to every member of the Senate, with large-print copies given to those
"moderate" Democrats who are moderate until the liberal leadership either 1) turns up the heat or 2) opens its checkbook.

Public opinion is building, yet Congress is defying it.  This isn't entirely shocking.  One of the building blocks of liberalism is the belief that "we know best."  The public, in this view, is made up of rough-hewn inferiors who fly American flags from radio antennas.  What could they know about health care?

Prior to this, support for the plan had never fallen below 41%. Last week, support for the plan was at 47%. Two weeks ago, the effort was supported by 45% of voters.

Intensity remains stronger among those who oppose the push to change the nation’s health care system: 21% Strongly Favor the plan while 43% are Strongly Opposed.

The changing numbers indicate how engaged the public is.  Once again, the people are smarter than the politicians, and watching what they do.

They don't like what they see.  I hope they remember next November.

November 24,  2009   Permalink