I have a new piece up at Hudson New York this morning, called "Pushing the Reset Button."  For those interested, it's here.

TUESDAY,  SEPTEMBER 8,  2009

SARAH SPEAKS - AT 11:45 P.M. ET:  Look, I can't guarantee that she wrote this herself, or did a second of research, but Sarah Palin has a great column in The Wall Street Journal blasting the Obama health plan.

Given the quality of her acceptance speech before the Republican National Convention last year, I'm going to guess that Palin either did write the column or, at minimum, guided it.  Here's a sample.  It's solid stuff:

Now look at one way Mr. Obama wants to eliminate inefficiency and waste: He's asked Congress to create an Independent Medicare Advisory Council—an unelected, largely unaccountable group of experts charged with containing Medicare costs. In an interview with the New York Times in April, the president suggested that such a group, working outside of "normal political channels," should guide decisions regarding that "huge driver of cost . . . the chronically ill and those toward the end of their lives . . . ."

Given such statements, is it any wonder that many of the sick and elderly are concerned that the Democrats' proposals will ultimately lead to rationing of their health care by—dare I say it—death panels? Establishment voices dismissed that phrase, but it rang true for many Americans. Working through "normal political channels," they made themselves heard, and as a result Congress will likely reject a wrong-headed proposal to authorize end-of-life counseling in this cost-cutting context. But the fact remains that the Democrats' proposals would still empower unelected bureaucrats to make decisions affecting life or death health-care matters. Such government overreaching is what we've come to expect from this administration.

COMMENT:  If she keeps writing material like that, she'll build up a body of work that can take her into a future campaign.  This is serious writing, well argued. 

I'd love to see her interviewed by Katie Couric again, and deck Couric - intellectually, of course.

September 8, 2009   Permalink

OUTRAGEOUS - AT 8:54 P.M. ET:  Some in the media never seem to learn.  Either that, or they have no pride in their work.  Either that, or they're so intent on the next promotion that they'll do anything to get it.

I was monitoring MSNBC in late afternoon, and found myself thoroughly put off by the obvious, in-your-face liberal bias, and the sneering toward anyone who disagreed.  Maybe they now consider themselves an entertainment operation rather than a news service, but there isn't even the pretense of objectivity.

Now we have this, from the Washington Post, a newspaper that has actually improved, in my view, in the last year.  It also has a civilized, liberal editorial page that's responsibly written.  But I guess the subject of religion is too much for some at the paper.  Consider:

The Christian right, facing questions before the presidential election about its continuing potency as a force for cultural and political change, has found new life with Barack Obama in office, particularly around health care.

I resent the term "Christian right."  It's meant to conjure images of Bible thumpers and herds of thoughtless sheep rushing after a pastor.  It's not fair.  Many members of the "Christian right" are among the most charitable people you'll find. 

As the president prepares to address a joint session of Congress on Wednesday night to press for health-care reform, conservative Christian leaders are rallying their troops to oppose him, with online town hall meetings, church gatherings, fundraising appeals, and e-mail and social networking campaigns. FRC Action, the lobbying arm of the Family Research Council, has scheduled a webcast Thursday night for tens of thousands of supporters in which House Minority Leader John A. Boehner (R-Ohio) and other speakers will respond to the president's health-care address.

They're not opposing "him."  They have questions.  Some of them may involve the intersection of religion and health care.  It isn't just politics.  The tone of this piece reveals a complete lack of respect.

After seeing their bread-and-butter issue of abortion take a back seat during the election last year, the Christian right has been a prime force in moving it back to the front row by focusing on it as a potential part of health-care reform.

The reporter could use some sensitivity training.  I would never describe a moral question like abortion as a "bread-and-butter issue."  I mean, please!

This is the same journalistic mentality that will balk at terms like "Islamo-fascism."  Doesn't show cultural sensitivity.  Or, it will portray the leftist National Council of Churches as "mainstream."

Not good, not good.  Cultural bias is as bad as political bias.  There is a tone here that a good editor should have detected, and rejected.

September 8, 2009   Permalink

THE GOLD STANDARD - AT 6:39 P.M. ET:  I was at a Hudson Institute briefing today, given by Dore Gold, Israel's former UN ambassador.  He's just written an excellent book, "The Rise of Nuclear Iran," which is already number three on the Washington Post's bestseller list.

It was good to hear someone who actually knows the subject. 

Gold is worried.  He detects, in Washington and elsewhere, a slackening of interest in Iran's nuclear weapons program.  That shouldn't be shocking given the foreign-policy orientation of the Obama administration, but it's still disturbing to hear from a man with Gold's contacts.  Gold warned that if the West responds weakly to Iran's current defiance, that will simply whet Iran's appetite.  Iran, he said, watches North Korea carefully, and watches our reaction to North Korean missile and nuclear tests.  So far, that reaction hasn't exactly made anyone shudder. 

Gold also cautioned that the Iranians are now very active in infiltrating Latin America. 

Finally, Gold expressed frustration at "intelligence" reports that defy common sense and give a false sense of security.  He cited one report, widely quoted by the don't-bother-us media, that claimed that Iran only had old-fashioned, liquid-fueled missiles, not the more modern, solid-fueled kind.  This report was issued despite published photographs showing Iranian missiles being launched, and trailing white smoke, proof to intelligence analysts of of solid-fuel engines.

Gold said that Iran engages in the "diplomacy of deception," aimed at buying time, and he pointed out that Iran, historically, has been expert at that kind of maneuvering. 

I did not come away from the briefing with an optimistic sense.  We are not winning against Iran, and we have a president in the White House who will not use the word "victory."

September 8, 2009   Permalink

CHANGE WE CAN BELIEVE IN - AT 11:09 A.M. ET:  If Republicans were smart, they'd start looking into a number of Obama appointees.  This is already an ethically challenged administration, and the problem seems to be getting worse, as Fox reports:

President Obama's pick to oversee bioterrorism at the Department of Homeland Security failed to report her role as an adviser for a lobbying group that has pushed for more money on anthrax vaccines and biodefense research, the Washington Times reported Tuesday.

Dr. Tara O'Toole, who is awaiting confirmation as undersecretary of science and technology, did not report her position with the group called the Alliance for Biosecurity, which is funded by the drug industry, in a recent government ethics filing, according to the newspaper.

The group reportedly spent over $500,000 lobbying Congress and federal agencies -- including Homeland Security -- since 2005.

Note the legal excuse:

But Homeland Security officials told the newspaper that O'Toole was not required to disclose her involvement with the alliance on ethics forms because the group is not incorporated.

COMMENT:  Government to the highest standards.  Isn't that what we were promised?  Changing the old ways.

Kind of reminds us of Al Gore's "no controlling legal authority" and Bill Clinton's "I didn't inhale."

There are Republicans who cross the line also, of course.  The difference is, they get investigated by the press.  Immediately.  Faster than immediately.

September 8, 2009   Permalink

ACADEMIC FREEDOM - YEAH, RIGHT - AT 8:44 A.M. ET:  If I could nominate one phrase for the title, "expression that's been most twisted out of shape," it would be "academic freedom."  The term has become almost meaningless, as it's used to justify pretty much anything that goes on, especially on the left, in American universities.  Want to write a book saying Abraham Lincoln was the secret founder of the Ku Klux Klan and was the great grandfather of Dick Cheney?  Hey, no problem. 

But now there's a real crisis of academic freedom at Yale.  And, in the midst of this crisis, when crucial decisions needed to be made, a major journalist disgraced himself. 

The Yale University Press is publishing a book about those Danish cartoons of the Prophet Mohammed that caused such a tumult several years ago among devout Muslims - riots in some cities, buildings set afire, all those civilized things that a religion of peace would do.   The problem is, the cartoons themselves have been dropped from the book, under pressure, rendering the book almost useless.  AP reports the scandal:

NEW HAVEN, Conn. (AP) -- Yale University has removed cartoons of the Prophet Muhammad from an upcoming book about how they caused outrage across the Muslim world, drawing criticism from prominent alumni and a national group of university professors.

Yale cited fears of violence.

In other words, the bad guys win even before a single threat is made.

"I think it's horrifying that the campus of Nathan Hale has become the first place where America surrenders to this kind of fear because of what extremists might possibly do,'' said Michael Steinberg, an attorney and Yale graduate.

Steinberg was among 25 alumni who signed a protest letter sent Friday to Yale Alumni Magazine that urged the university to restore the drawings to the book. Other signers included John Bolton, a former U.S. ambassador to the United Nations under President George W. Bush, former Bush administration speechwriter David Frum and Seth Corey, a liberal doctor.

I love the term "liberal doctor."  Is he the token liberal here? 

Well, maybe not:

Cary Nelson, president of the American Association of University Professors, wrote in a recent letter that Yale's decision effectively means: ''We do not negotiate with terrorists. We just accede to their anticipated demands.''

Probably the most intelligent thing the AAUP has said in years.  Now, get this:

Fareed Zakaria, editor of Newsweek International, a world affairs columnist and CNN host who serves on Yale's governing board, said he told Yale that he believed publishing the images would have provoked violence.

''As a journalist and public commentator, I believe deeply in the First Amendment and academic freedom,'' Zakaria said. ''But in this instance Yale Press was confronted with a clear threat of violence and loss of life.''

COMMENT:  We all know Zakaria.  We see him on CNN all the time, another Amanpour-like "analyst."  Does he understand the implications of what he's saying?  Does he care?

If the implied threat of violence is now causing our major universities to censor themselves, why isn't this a larger story?  Again, the mainstream media lets us down, suppressing anything that might be embarrassing to the "third world" or "oppressed peoples."  The party line marches on.

What Yale did is a disgrace, but I doubt if you'll see many protests on college campuses, and you certainly won't see them in Middle East "studies" departments. 

This is the tip of the iceberg.  Censorship has come to American universities.  Of course, we've had warnings for years, in the form of "speech codes" and political correctness.

Academic freedom indeed.

Zakaria should be sent away to a retreat for a bit of reflection.

September 8, 2009   Permalink

PUNISHING OUR ALLIES - AT 7:55 A.M. ET:  The foreign policy of this administration can be summarized as, "Punish our friends, reward our enemies."  Of course, on the Democratic left there are no enemies, just misunderstood cultures with alternative narratives.

Now, military analyst Peter Brookes warns of another Obama cave-in on foreign policy that can have severe consequences for East European allies who have stood with us since the end of the Cold War:

THE Obama administration is getting ready to throw the proposed Eastern European-based US missile-defense system under the bus. The move is a sop to the Russians (and to lefties here at home) -- but will render us increasingly vulnerable to the growing Iranian nuclear/missile threat.

It's sheer madness -- yet another major foreign-policy fumble in its Pollyanna-ish effort to make everything right with the world.

That says it very well.

...Team Obama will likely can the W-era missile-defense system slated for Poland and the Czech Republic. The system would defend us (and Europe) from Iranian nukes/missiles, but the Russians hate it because it's in their old stompin' grounds.

And good American leftists will always try to please the Russians.  Oh, the nostalgia for the revolution.  Oh, the songs!

Our Polish and Czech allies, who were close to us under President Bush, now increasingly feel Obama is abandoning them as he acquiesces to the growing shadow of Russian hegemony in Eastern Europe -- and elsewhere.

Indeed, they're carping about being in the dark as Washington conducts a review of missile defense, despite all three governments having agreed to move forward with the program last year. (So much for Obama's promise of better foreign relations . . .)

Well, there are important countries and unimportant countries.  Obama's list isn't the one we used for 50 years.

Albert Einstein once said insanity is doing the same thing over and over again, while expecting a different result. But that's what US policy has come to in dealing with Iran on its nukes and missiles -- six-plus years of talks have gone nowhere.

Instead of heeding Einstein's wisdom, Washington will likely ditch our best short-term defense against Tehran's threats in order to appease Moscow -- while hoping against hope to sweet-talk the mullahs into giving up a 20-year effort whose success is finally in sight.

COMMENT:  And we the people may never know the extent of the failure.  Even if Iran gets nukes, we may deny it in the absence of a large-scale test.  Or, we'll start talking Cold War-style deterrence.  By the time Iran develops an important capacity, Obama might well be out of office, and we'll be left with the damage.

September 8, 2009   Permalink

DEMS DEFECTING ON HEALTH CARE - AT 7:37 A.M. ET:  The president will speak on health care Wednesday night in his 23,352nd address to the nation.  But already his own ship is leaking, as The Hill reports today:

At least 23 House Democrats already have told constituents or hometown media that they oppose the massive healthcare overhaul touted by President Barack Obama.

If Republicans offer the blanket opposition they’ve promised, Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) can afford to lose only 38 members of her 256-member caucus and still pass the bill.

Most Democrats opposed to healthcare reform argue it costs too much, imposes a new tax and fines businesses that don’t provide insurance to employees. Some fear that the bill would subsidize abortion.

But wait.  There are other possible Dem defections, for entirely different reasons:

At least 60 liberal Democrats have pledged to vote against a healthcare bill with no public option, which they view as watered-down reform.

Rep. Anthony Weiner (D-N.Y.) has said dropping the public option completely would lose 100 Democratic votes.

COMMENT:  Do you get the sense that the Democratic Party is dysfunctional and requires attention?  It's Congress, so the attention required will be fully covered by a gold-plated health plan.

The president has failed to lead, on this and on a host of other subjects.  He has turned out to be, not the "yes we can" president, but the "well, maybe" president.  Given some of his views, we should probably be relieved. 

We await the president's speech to a joint session of Congress Wednesday night.  The effect will probably last about ten minutes.  That's what overexposure does.

September 8, 2009   Permalink

SECOND QUOTE OF THE DAY - AT 7:01 A.M. ET:  Related to the story below, the Wall Street Journal also hits the issue of Obama's left-wing notions and the resignation of self-proclaimed Marxist Van Jones, and lays out the danger for the president:

No President is responsible for all of the views of his appointees, but the rise and fall of Mr. Jones is one more warning that Mr. Obama can't succeed on his current course of governing from the left. He is running into political trouble not because his own message is unclear, or because his opposition is better organized. Mr. Obama is falling in the polls because last year he didn't tell the American people that the "change" they were asked to believe in included trillions of dollars in new spending, deferring to the most liberal Members of Congress, a government takeover of health care, and appointees with the views of Van Jones.

COMMENT:  The president's leftward drift is bad enough on domestic policy.  But remember that he hasn't faced a real crisis yet in foreign policy.  If he heads left in a confrontation with enemies of the United States, he can really wind up as toast, unless he blames BUSH (!!) and the public buys it.

September 8, 2009   Permalink

QUOTE OF THE DAY - AT 6:39 A.M. ET:  From Hugo Chavez, temporary proprietor of a Latin American country:

"With Obama we can talk, we are almost from the same generation, one can't deny that Obama is different (from Bush). He's intelligent, he has good intentions and we have to help him."

COMMENT:  The problem with the Obama White House is that they think praise like this is good news. 

One of the problems Obama will face this political season is the growing belief that he's far more leftist than he wanted us to know during the election campaign.  The in-the-tank media can try to minimize the damage by, say, ignoring things like the Van Jones scandal, but the truth has a strange way of blogging its way out.

September 8, 2009   Permalink

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