MONDAY,  SEPTEMBER 7,  2009

QUOTE OF THE DAY - AT 7:41 P.M. ET:  From conservative Congressmen John Shadegg and Pete Hoekstra.  Conservatives have been accused, sometimes fairly, of not having ideas on health care.  But these two have written a very fine column, filled with ideas, for The Wall Street Journal, and well worth reading.  It contains this quote:

Government has caused the problems we face in health care. Our tax code incentivizes employer-provided health care, rewards health insurance companies by insulating them from accountability, and punishes those who lack employer-provided care.

Every night on television there are dozens of commercials from Geico, Progressive, Allstate and other companies offering us better auto insurance at lower costs. But there are virtually no commercials for health insurance. This is because the federal government protects health insurance companies from real competition. Insurers don't have to market to consumers. They only have to satisfy employers. In addition, a person living in New York, for example, is currently only permitted to purchase individual insurance in New York. Allowing competition across state lines would drive down cost tremendously.

We believe the solution to this problem is patient choice. What appears to be a free market in health care today is not. The health-care market is a stacked deck that favors insurance companies rather than patients.

COMMENT:  The Obama administration and its allies in Congress have done an abysmal job of shaping health-care "reform."  Conservatives must have an intelligent reply to have any credibility in the debate.  Just saying "no" is not good enough.  This column is a great start.

September 7, 2009   Permalink

UTTER VULGARITY - AT 7:28 P.M. ET:  Venezuelan thug Hugo Chavez is being feted by the professional airheads at the Venice Film Festival.  And chief among the airheads is Oliver Stone, "American" director and friend of dictators everywhere:  This requires calming pills:

VENICE, Italy (AP) - Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez received a movie star welcome Monday at the Venice Film Festival, where he walked the red carpet with director Oliver Stone for the premiere of the documentary "South of the Border."

Hundreds of admirers, some chanting "president, president," gathered outside of the Casino for the leader's arrival. A few held up Venezuelan flags and a banner in Spanish that read "Welcome, president."

Chavez threw a flower into the crowd and touched his heart, and at one point took a photographer's camera to snap a picture himself. Security outside the Casino was tightened in advance of his arrival with military police checking bags.

Chavez praised Stone's work for depicting what he said were improvements made across Latin America.

COMMENT:  Chavez just returned from Iran, where he embraced a government that recently murdered its citizens in cold blood in the streets of Tehran.  Apparently, that bothered neither Chavez nor Oliver Stone.  Chavez also pledged gasoline shipments to Iran if new sanctions on that country include cutting off its fuel supplies.  Hmm.  We wonder whether President Obama would have the guts to intercept Venezuelan ships, or whether he would seek to "engage" Chavez.

Chavez's appearance at Venice coincides with large demonstrations against him in Latin America, over the weekend.

Oliver Stone is the lowest form of Hollywood.  An American red, he regularly sides with enemies of the United States.  He made films like "JFK," which give a completely distorted view of history.  Incredibly, Showtime has just commissioned him to do an American history documentary series, which is like asking Osama bin Laden to do a documentary history of Christianity.  The commission indicates just how far left Hollywood has become.  It is no longer an American industry.  It's now just part of an "international" community of "artists."

Kids in school today are taught that the Congressional investigations into Communist influence in Hollywood in the late 40s and early 50s were frauds and jokes, part of the "McCarthy" era.  Well, there were certainly problems with those investigations, and they may have done more harm than good, but the basic premise - that the left is powerful in Hollywood - was true then, and it's more true now.

September 7, 2009   Permalink

CREATING CONFUSION TO END THE CONFUSION - AT 10:37 A.M. ET:  The president on Wednesday will address a joint session of Congress on health care.  The ostensible purpose of the speech is to make clear what his health plan consists of, and to argue for it.  He's off to a roaring start:

WASHINGTON -- The Obama administration's bottom line on a government health insurance option blurred Sunday as White House officials stressed support but stopped of short of calling it a must-have part of an overhaul.

As President Barack Obama prepares for a Wednesday night speech to Congress in a risky bid to salvage his top domestic priority, no other issue is so highly charged. Obama's liberal supporters consider the proposal for a public plan to compete with private insurers do-or-die.

Republicans say it's unacceptable. It's doubtful the public plan can pass the Senate.

White House political adviser David Axelrod said Obama is "not walking away" from a public plan. But asked if the president would veto a bill that came to him without the option, Axelrod declined to answer.

The president "believes it should be in the plan, and he expects to be in the plan, and that's our position," Axelrod told The Associated Press.

Asked if that means a public plan has to be in the bill for Obama to sign it, Axelrod responded: "I'm not going to deal in hypotheticals. ... He believes it's important."

COMMENT:  Well, that sure clarifies things.  It's very sad, because both thoughtful liberals and thoughtful conservatives realize that the health-care system needs substantial improvement.  We pay more per capita for health care than any other nation in the world, and don't get the return.  But the administration, weighed down by liberal ideologues in the House, has botched the chance.  It refuses, for example, to push for tort reform, which could save vast amounts each year.

We'll look forward to the president's speech, and will treat it fairly.  But I'm not expecting brilliance, based on the record thus far.

September 7, 2009   Permalink

GETTING UGLY - AT 9:36 A.M. ET:  Those readers who've been following the scandal surrounding Scotland's release of the Lockerbie bomber have probably been wondering when the spotlight would turn on Washington.  Were we entirely out of the loop on this one?  Apparently not, at least according to new reports out of the U.K., which are not designed to put the Obama administration in a good light:

Downing Street has hit back at Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton for attacking the decision to release the Lockerbie bomber.

President Obama and the US Secretary of State fuelled a fierce American backlash against Britain, claiming Abdelbaset Al Megrahi should have been forced to serve out his jail sentence in Scotland – but a senior Whitehall aide said their reaction was ‘disingenuous’.

British officials claim Mr Obama and Mrs Clinton were kept informed at all stages of discussions concerning Megrahi’s return.

The officials say the Americans spoke out because they were taken aback by the row over Megrahi’s release, not because they did not know it was about to happen.

‘The US was kept fully in touch about everything that was going on with regard to Britain’s discussions with Libya in recent years and about Megrahi,’ said the Whitehall aide.

‘We would never do anything about Lockerbie without discussing it with the US. It is disingenuous of them to act as though Megrahi’s return was out of the blue.

COMMENT:  So much for building trust among allies.  I'll have to go with Britain on this one.  The American "shock" over the release always struck me as false.  The Brits understood American feelings on this subject.  In the end they released the bomber anyway, apparently for commercial reasons, which is disgraceful.  But the Obama administration doesn't have clean hands. 

Obama seemed to go out of his way in the early days of his administration to damage our relationship with Britain.  Maybe there's a little payback here.

September 7, 2009   Permalink

THE GATHERING STORM - AT 9:18 A.M. ET:  That was Churchill's phrase to describe events leading up to World War II.  It applies to the building confrontation with Iran. 

Iranian President Ahmadinejad has now given his latest response to President Obama's "outreach" to Iran.  From AP:

TEHRAN, Iran — President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said Monday Iran will neither halt uranium enrichment nor negotiate over its nuclear rights but is ready to sit and talk with world powers over "global challenges."

His statements came as the international nuclear watchdog warned of a "stalemate" over Iran's nuclear program. Members of the U.N.'s International Atomic Energy Agency began meetings in Vienna that could set the stage for a toughening of sanctions against Iran.

Ahmadinejad also said Iran will present a package of proposals for talks to the five permanent members of the U.N. Security Council plus Germany but rejected any deadline for such talks.

He said the package would "identify challenges facing humanity ... and resolve global concerns."

COMMENT:  In other words, no change.  And why should Iran change?  What has happened to the Iranian government as a result of its defiance over its nuclear program?  Essentially nothing, except some tough words and an occasional post card to Tehran with some vague warnings.

Time is not on our side, and the administration is now weakened by declining public support.  The president has given Iran until the end of this month to respond positively to his insistence that Tehran negotiate seriously over its nuclear future.  What then?  A promise of "tougher" sanctions.  Iran doesn't seem concerned.  Ahmadinejad has just named as defense minister a man wanted by Interpol for terrorism.  You'll notice the international uproar.  Again we ask:  Why should Iran change?

September 7, 2009   Permalink

WHY DID JONES RESIGN? - AT 8:57 A.M. ET:  As reported yesterday, the spin machine is in full whirl, as the administration tries to explain why radical crackpot Van Jones resigned Saturday night as the president's "green jobs" czar.  From CNN:

The resignation of Obama administration figure Van Jones, following controversies over a petition he had signed and his comments about Republicans, did not come at the request of the president, the White House senior adviser said Sunday.

"Absolutely not -- this was Van Jones' own decision," David Axelrod told NBC's "Meet the Press" when asked if the president had ordered the resignation.

COMMENT:  Not a good image.  Axelrod is an adept political adviser, and he's trying to balance interests here - the outrage most sane people felt that a man with Jones's views could be part of the president's administration, and the anger over Jones's departure felt by the nutbag wing of the Democratic Party, which for years has celebrated people like Van Jones, or, at the very least, has given them a pass. 

But the image created by Axelrod's statement is one of presidential indecision and weakness - a growing problem for this administration.  The president, as Fred Barnes recently wrote, often comes off as weak.  The best statement in the Jones case would have probably been one that left the decision to Jones, but made plain the president's substantial dismay at Jones's views - in other words, a public hint at what the president really wanted.

September 7, 2009   Permalink

SUNDAY,  SEPTEMBER 6,  2009

THEY WANTED TO KILL WHO? - AT 11:24 P.M. ET:  You really can't make this up.  From the Jerusalem Post:

The leader of an al-Qaida-inspired group in the Gaza Strip revealed on Sunday that his men recently tried to assassinate former US president Jimmy Carter and Quartet Middle East envoy Tony Blair.

Mahmoud Taleb, a former commander of Hamas's armed wing, Izzadin Kassam, also threatened that his supporters were planning to launch attacks on Hamas.

Taleb, who is wanted by Hamas's security forces, has been in hiding for more than two years. Several attempts by Hamas to arrest him have failed, prompting the movement to detain many of his friends and relatives.

A veteran journalist in the Gaza Strip described Taleb as the Palestinian Osama bin Laden. The journalist said that Taleb's group was seeking to establish an Islamic "emirate" in the Gaza Strip.

COMMENT:  The idea of a Palestinian group trying to assassinate Jimmy Carter reminds us of the word "ingratitude."  I mean, Carter is practically Palestinian himself.  All he needs is a suicide belt and a faculty appointment at San Francisco State. 

A movement is in trouble when it can't tell the players even with a scorecard.

September 6, 2009   Permalink

A TROUBLING RACIAL DIVIDE - AT 8:57 P.M. ET:  It hasn't been emphasized, but a troubling racial divide, normally present in American politics, is widening further: 

WASHINGTON — After a summer of health care battles and sliding approval ratings for President Barack Obama, the White House is facing a troubling new trend: The voters losing faith in the president are the ones he had worked hardest to attract.

New surveys show steep declines in Obama's approval ratings among whites, including Democrats and independents, who were crucial elements of the diverse coalition that helped elect the country's first black president.

Among white Democrats, Obama's job approval rating has dropped 11 points since his 100-days mark in April, according to surveys by The Pew Research Center for the People & the Press. It has dropped by nine points among white independents and whites older than 50, and by 12 points among white women — all voter groups that will be targeted by both parties for support in next year's midterm elections.

“While Obama has a lock on African-Americans, his support among white voters seems to be almost in a free fall,” said veteran Republican pollster Neil Newhouse. 

COMMENT:  This is sad, but probably inevitable.  For understandable reasons, African-Americans will stick with Obama.  But other Americans, who do not have an emotional ethnic attachment, will not.  Inevitably, racial tensions will rise, which would be a tragic legacy for the Obama administration.

September 6, 2009   Permalink

AND THE SPIN IS ON - AT 8:22 P.M. ET:  Today is normally one of the slowest news days of the year.  But news never stops in the Age of Obama.  Now that Van Jones, resident red and confirmed crackpot, has resigned from the administration, the spin is on.  The Politico gives us the mainstream media position:

With the resignation of green jobs adviser Van Jones, the conservative firing squad is setting its sights on other White House czars.

The resignation of Jones — who stepped down from his post as the White House green jobs adviser early Sunday morning, citing a "vicious smear campaign" waged against him by "opponents of reform" — was a win for conservative politicians and pundits who waged a months-long campaign hammering him for comments he made in his previous post as an environmental activist for poor and minority communities.

Right next to this depiction of Jones as victim-of-the-day, there's a warm, fuzzy picture of him.  Just your average smiling guy, friend of all.  How could you not love him?

Now, right-wing politicians and pundits are looking for other White House czars with controversial pasts. "Van Jones is the tip of the iceberg. As VJ has said, "'Personnel is policy,"" conservative pundit Glenn Beck Twittered on Friday. Attacking Obama’s advisers, conservatives believe, will raise questions about the judgment of their popular boss.

COMMENT:  You'll notice that "conservative" has now been upgraded to "right wing."  And it's a bit much to suggest that conservatives are now "looking for" other czars with difficult pasts.  Conservatives have been talking about some of them for months.

And I love the term, "popular boss."  The writer apparently hasn't been following the polls.

It won't be long before the Obama White House labels all this a "distraction."  But personnel is indeed policy.  Early on, some conservative Obama watchers warned that it's the middle-level appointments that are often most troubling in an administration.  It's at the middle level that policy is often made and carried out.

Of course, the whole subject is a bit awkward, as there are many things about the president that we don't know.  But the media's apparent position on that is, "Don't ask, don't tell."

September 6, 2009   Permalink

WONDERFUL, WONDERFUL - AT 12:10 P.M. ET:  For those of you old enough to remember Jack Webb and "Dragnet," reader Ray Cleveland recommends this YouTube lecture from Sergeant Joe Friday to a certain modern political figure with messianic visions:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m4r6YCUtxfs

Great.

September 6,  2009   Permalink

JIMMY CARTER IS NUTS - AT 10:19 A.M. ET:  Now, I hate to use such harsh rhetoric - we're such a civilized site - but what's true is true.  There's something not quite right about the man.

Today, in the Washington Post, Carter expounds on his well-known views of the Arab-Israeli conflict.  Naturally, he goes through his usual Israel-bashing routine, now so familiar, but he tops it with something utterly bizarre:

A more likely alternative to the present debacle is one state, which is obviously the goal of Israeli leaders who insist on colonizing the West Bank and East Jerusalem. A majority of the Palestinian leaders with whom we met are seriously considering acceptance of one state, between the Jordan River and the Mediterranean Sea. By renouncing the dream of an independent Palestine, they would become fellow citizens with their Jewish neighbors and then demand equal rights within a democracy. In this nonviolent civil rights struggle, their examples would be Mahatma Gandhi, Martin Luther King Jr. and Nelson Mandela.

They are aware of demographic trends. Non-Jews are already a slight majority of total citizens in this area, and within a few years Arabs will constitute a clear majority.

COMMENT:  Say what?  The goal of Israeli leaders is one state in which Arabs will be a clear majority?  I mean, that's what the man actually says here.

Now we all understand, as if we didn't already, why no thoughtful person can take Jimmah Carter seriously.

The problem is, he was president, and we are still paying the price for his buffoonery.  Ask the people of Iran.

September 6, 2009   Permalink  

THE DISGRACE CONTINUES - AT 10:09 A.M. ET:  Even though America lost more citizens than any other country in the Lockerbie bombing of Pan Am 103, it has been the British press, not ours, that has relentlessly pursued the story of why the Lockerbie bomber was recently freed and sent back to his native Libya.  We now know, based on British reporting, that money was indeed a factor - trade deals with Libya - even though the publicly stated reason for the release was compassion, that the bomber is dying of cancer.

Now, even the compassion argument is being blown up.  Apparently, the medical reports were bought and paid for.  Banafsheh Zand-Bonazzi alerts us to this:  Britain's Telegraph reports:

The British, Scottish and Libyan governments connived to free Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al-Megrahi on compassionate grounds The Sunday Telegraph can disclose.

Medical evidence that helped Megrahi, 57, to be released was paid for by the Libyan government, which encouraged three doctors to say he had only three months to live.

The life expectancy of Megrahi was crucial because, under Scottish rules, prisoners can be freed on compassionate grounds only if they are considered to have this amount of time, or less, to live.

And...

Professor Karol Sikora, one of the examining doctors and the medical director of CancerPartnersUK in London, told The Sunday Telegraph: “The figure of three months was suggested as being helpful [by the Libyans]..."

COMMENT:  Nice, huh?  And our government's response?  Aside from some initial, and very muted, grumbling, there hasn't been much.  Another part of our "outreach," presumably, to the Muslim world.

Makes you proud of your government, doesn't it?

September 6, 2009   Permalink

JONES DEPARTS - AT 9:54 A.M. ET:  Van Jones has resigned as the president's "green jobs" czar.  Resignation came Saturday night on a holiday weekend, when three journalists were working.  As readers know, Jones was unmasked as a self-proclaimed Communist, 9-11 conspiracy theorist, racialist, all-around vulgarian, and clown. 

Now he will probably get a lot of money for making speeches, and can a Van Jones Foundation be far behind?

Naturally, some in the press are desperate to portray this as a right-wing hit job:  The New York Times was particularly disgraceful:

In a victory for Republicans and the Obama administration’s conservative critics, Van Jones resigned as the White House’s environmental jobs “czar” on Saturday.

Controversy over Mr. Jones’s past comments and affiliations has slowly escalated over several weeks, erupting on Friday with calls for his resignation.

Appointed as a special adviser for “green jobs” by President Obama, Mr. Jones did not go through the traditional vetting process for administration officials who must be confirmed by the Senate. So it was not until recently that some of Mr. Jones’s past actions received broad airing, including his derogatory statements about Republicans in February and his signature on a 2004 letter suggesting that former President George W. Bush might have knowingly allowed the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks to occur in order to use them as a “pre-text to war.”

Apparently, it's only conservatives who were concerned that Mr. Jones is a certified whack job.  And get this:

Mr. Jones’s involvement in the 1990s with a group called Standing Together to Organize a Revolutionary Movement prompted recent accusations by conservative critics that he associated with Communists.

Wrong.  He's a self-described Communist.  Bit of a difference.

Well, he's gone now.  So a czarship is open.  Apply at the White House.  Sanity not required.

September 6, 2009   Permalink