THURSDAY,  SEPTEMBER 10,  2009

MORE SPEECH REACTION - AT 8:46 P.M. ET:  I've not seen any credible polls yet on the president's speech performance last night.  A CNN poll reported largely favorable reactions, but the poll reflected the viewership breakdown for the speech, which was heavily Democratic.  Tracking polls should start picking up the scent in a day or two.  I would expect a brief bounce for the president, and then a return to Earth.

But some of the more extreme members of the in-the-tank media are reacting with their usual fire.  The Mother Party is in trouble, after all, and must be saved from the barbarians, who are inside the gate with their low-gas-mileage tanks.  NewsBusters reports on one particularly obnoxious example:

During the 4PM ET hour of live coverage on MSNBC Thursday, co-host David Shuster denounced the behavior of Republicans at President Obama’s address to Congress, declaring: “You look at the image of the Republican Party, all white males with short haircuts. They look sort of angry. No women, no minorities, and it looks like they’ve sort of become unhinged.”

Hmm.  No women?  Does Sarah Palin qualify?  How about Kay Bailey Hutchison of Texas?  And those two female senators from Maine - Snowe and Collins?  In fact, the Bush administration had more women in high places than any administration in history.

Minorities?  The head of the Republican Party is an African-American.  I think Condi Rice is as well.  Eric Cantor, the Republican whip in the House, is a Jewish guy from Virginia. 

Does David Shuster know his subject?  Doesn't he remember how the teacher told us to read, underline key phrases, and take notes on 3x5 cards?  Has he had his vision checked?  You know, you can do it online.  There's a Snellen chart available for computers.  It's here.  Please forward to Shuster if you know his e-mail address.

September 10, 2009   Permalink

THIS SHOW MAY BE CANCELLED - AT 8:12 P.M. ET:  If President Obama had to live or die by TV ratings, he'd be facing cancellation.  Nielsen, who knows what all of us are watching, has published the following, and sent a copy to the president's agent:

As the debate on health care in the U.S. continues, President Obama detailed his vision for health insurance reform in his second address to a joint session of Congress on Wednesday September 9, 2009. The address was carried live from 8:00PM to approximately 9:06PM on 10 television networks. The sum of average audience for those networks was 32,111,596 viewers.

And now the bad news:

Viewership to last night’s address was down 38.6% from President Obama’s first address to a joint session of Congress on February 24, which aired from approximately 9:00PM to 10:30PM.

COMMENT:  I've known network executives.  I've worked with network executives.  Network executives are friends (?) of mine.  And if Obama had to present those numbers, on behalf of his production company, to network executives, he'd be history by tomorrow morning, replaced by "Algerian Idol."

Come to think of it, I'd like to see "Algerian Idol."

Oh, by the way, remember when President Bush made speeches?  They would rarely be carried on TV, except on some cable channels.  The Big Three normally stayed away.

But there's no bias. 

September 10, 2009   Permalink

ANOTHER ONE GONE - AT 7:56 P.M. ET:  Another Obaman has been thrown under the bus, joining Van Jones, who was just getting comfy after his resignation late Saturday night.  The Politico reports:

The communications director for the National Endowment for the Arts is no longer in his job amid a flap over suggestions he suggested artists work to further President Obama's legislative agenda.

A conservative artist writing on the site Big Hollywood first complained that the official, later identified as Yosi Sargent, had been on a conference call with artists aimed at furthering President Obama's legislative agenda -- a bit of a no-no for the agency, which does its best to stay apolitical.

The agency, for now, is keeping it utterly cryptic: Sargent is "currently an employee," said spokeswoman Sally Gifford, who said she couldn't comment on whether he is communications director.

But...

Huffington Post's Ryan Grim reported that Sargent had been "asked to resign," and played it as another scalp -- like Van Jones' -- for Glenn Beck.

COMMENT:  You see, it's all Glenn Beck's fault. Glenn Beck and Bush and Cheney and...we're on the brink of FASCISM, don't you see?

No I don't.

Well, at least this one didn't twist slowly in the wind, so maybe the Obamans are showing some end-of-career compassion for the terminally incompetent.  We're sure, though, that Mr. Sargent's devotion will be well remembered and rewarded by his comrades.  Maybe we shouldn't say comrades.

September 10, 2009   Permalink

RUSSIA ENDS OBAMA'S IRAN ILLUSIONS - AT 7:15 P.M. ET:  The level of contempt that other nations are expressing for President Obama grows by the day.  It's pretty clear that tough-minded foreign ministries, especially in the shadier nations, cannot take this man seriously and are certainly not afraid of him. 

Now Russia is making it clear that it has no intention of going along with Obama's "plan" to impose tougher sanctions on Iran if Iran fails to negotiate seriously over nuclear weapons.  From The New York Times:

MOSCOW — The Russian foreign minister, Sergey V. Lavrov, on Thursday all but ruled out imposing new sanctions against Iran over its nuclear program, brushing aside growing Western concerns that Iran had made significant progress in recent months in a bid for nuclear weapons.

Mr. Lavrov said he believed that a new set of proposals that Iran gave to European nations on Wednesday offered a viable basis for negotiations to end the dispute. He said he did not believe that the United Nations Security Council would approve new sanctions against Iran, which could ban Iran from exporting oil or importing gasoline.

COMMENT:  Will this make any difference to Obama?  Probably not.  He knows that the in-the-tank media will support him, and compare anyone asking for real toughness toward Tehran to Dick Cheney.  If Russia vetoes tougher sanctions in the UN, Obama will probably say he's engaged in "ongoing consultations," or some such phrase, with friendly nations on the "next step." 

He will, of course, rap BUSH (!!) for unilateralism, and make it appear that his multilateral approach will be far more successful.  It won't be, of course, but the parlor goers in Georgetown and Cambridge, Massachusetts, will applaud politely.

We are heading for international trouble, and so few people seem to care.  There was no attention paid to Iran by the TV outlets today, but plenty of time was devoted to that congressman who engaged in an improper outburst during Obama's speech last night.  After all, we must maintain decent priorities.

September 10, 2009   Permalink 

CLOAK AND DAGGER ALL THE WAY - AT 9:37 A.M. ET:  There is an absolutely intriguing story out of Israel.  The prime minister was "missing" for about 12 hours on Monday.  Rumors have circulated that he made a secret trip somewhere, possibly Moscow.  Now the confirmation, from the Jerusalem Post:

A senior Kremlin official confirmed Wednesday to the Russian paper Kommersant that Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu did make a clandestine trip to Russia on Monday.

The Russian newspaper quoted experts speculating that such a trip would only be justified under extraordinary circumstances, "for example, in the case of Israel planning to attack Iran."

The report comes despite a statement Wednesday from the Kremlin press service that "nothing is known" about reports of the visit. Dmitry Peskov, a spokesman for Russian Prime Minister Vladimir Putin, also said he had no information, the Interfax news agency reported.

Nevertheless, there was never any official denial of the report from Moscow.

COMMENT:  We will not speculate, we will not ruminate, we will not make shallow.  We don't know what this was about.  However, the trip was conducted in complete secrecy (which lasted only a while), with the PM flying aboard a leased civilian aircraft. 

Something is up.  Maybe we'll soon find out, with a bang.

September 10, 2009   Permalink

GETTING TO THE TRUTH - AT 9:22 A.M. ET:  A story that caused a seething anger among those devoted to equal justice is back in the news, and we have some hope now that justice will indeed be done.  A Washington Times exclusive:

The Justice Department's Office of Professional Responsibility has begun an official inquiry into the dismissal in May of a civil complaint against the New Black Panther Party and two of its members who disrupted a Philadelphia polling place during the November general elections.

The inquiry is disclosed in an Aug. 28 letter to Rep. Lamar Smith of Texas, the ranking Republican on the House Judiciary Committee who first raised questions about the dismissal in May and asked unsuccessfully that Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr. make available the head of the department's Voting Section of the Civil Rights Division for a closed-door briefing on the decision.

In the letter, Mary Patrice Brown, acting OPR counsel, told the veteran congressman from Texas that the office had "initiated an inquiry into the matter" and that it would "contact you with the results of our inquiry once it is completed." A copy of the letter was obtained by The Washington Times.

COMMENT:  The dismissal was an outrage.  The Black Panthers clearly intimidated people at the polls, much as white supremacists used to do in the pre-Civil Rights South.  The dismissal stunned even allies of the Obama administraiton, although, with characters like Van Jones running around Washington, it shouldn't have been surprising.

Now let's see if the Office of Professional Responsibility will do the right thing, or continue the cover-up.

September 10, 2009   Permalink

QUOTE OF THE DAY - SO FAR - AT 8:44 A.M. ET:  Also on Iran, from David Ignatius in today's Washington Post:

One Iranian political figure has told a Western intermediary that the Obama administration may have unwittingly encouraged the regime's power grab by sending two letters to Khamenei before the June election. The first, delivered through Iran's mission to the United Nations, was a general invitation to dialogue. Khamenei is said to have taken a month to answer, and then only in vague terms. A second Obama administration letter reiterated U.S. interest in engagement. According to the Iranian political figure, this may have emboldened Khamenei and Ahmadinejad to think they had a free hand on June 12.

And this:

Tehran's analysis, according to this second Iranian, is that America has three options for Iran: engage, contain or attack. "The perception in Tehran is that America hasn't made up its mind what it wants," this prominent politician confided. That's probably the right assessment. And on this issue, as with so many others, the administration is nearing decision time.

COMMENT:  Decision time for an administration that took months to define what it wanted in a health-insurance plan, a subject that's been studied for years. 

A recent poll showed that 80% of Europeans are opposed to military action against Iran, even if diplomacy fails, which means that Iran has every reason to make diplomacy fail.  While Americans would undoubtedly be more supportive of a military strike, that support would not extend to the San Francisco Democrats, as Jeane Kirkpatrick called them, who are dominant in the party.  And the president's aversion to real confrontation is well known.  He is running the biggest appeasement operation since Jimmy Carter chewed on peanuts in the Oval Office.

September 10, 2009   Permalink

BACK TO REALITY - AT 8:22 A.M. ET:  This is "deadline" month for Iran, or so we're told by an administration for which vagueness is a national ideal.  An American diplomat has outlined the stakes.  We hope he has his job tomorrow:

Sept. 9 (Bloomberg) -- Iran’s nuclear work is approaching a “dangerous and destabilizing” point at which the Persian Gulf country could build a bomb, the U.S. envoy to the United Nations International Atomic Energy Agency said.

“Iran is now either very near or in possession already of sufficient low-enriched uranium to produce one nuclear weapon, if the decision were made to further enrich it to weapons grade,” Ambassador Glyn Davies said today in a statement prepared for the IAEA’s 35-member board of governors, which is meeting for a third day in Vienna.

This “moves Iran closer to a dangerous and destabilizing possible breakout capacity,” Davies added, in some of the strongest comments yet used by a U.S. official about the threat posed by Iran’s nuclear program. He repeated President Barack Obama’s overtures to Iran for direct negotiations and said the administration in Washington is committed to a negotiated resolution to the international dispute over Iran’s work.

COMMENT:  He had to put in the boilerplate about negotiations, but the first part of his statement was telling.  What will Iran do?  What will Obama do?  Iran has handed Western nations a set of proposals.  We don't know what's in them, but, since the Iranian government has already rejected any serious negotiations over its nuclear program, the content of its proposals is probably irrelevant - unless the Obama crowd wants to use that content just to stall and do nothing.

September is the deadline.  September is a third gone.

September 10, 2009   Permalink

THE SPEECH - AT 7:52 A.M. ET:  In journalism they call this the second-day angle.  What more is there to say about the president's speech?

I don't think there'll be too many second thoughts about the speech.  Obama is not a subtle speaker, nor a particularly provocative one.  You don't feel the urge to re-read his speeches for some hidden meaning or brilliant point that you may have missed.  It's all up front, usually, and last night was no exception, in two to three times the number of words that were necessary.

On balance, it was a generally good speech, as far as it went.  Mr. Obama described problems in the health-care system that most Americans, including conservatives agree on.  His villain was the insurance companies, and, yes, some of the practices he described must be reformed - like canceling coverage for people who get sick, or denying claims because of minor errors on insurance applications.

And I suspect that a bill will emerge that will be aimed at some of the more sordid practices we see today.

But details were missing, as they usually are.  Paying for the president's program remained a vague mystery.  Tort reform, which the president mentioned, was dismissed with a promise of some experimental programs.  (In other words, the trial lawyers can rest easy for a time.)  The guiding principles were fine, the mechanism was only a sketch on an architect's bench, without the plumbing or power put in.

How will the American people react?  I suspect the president will get a bump in the polls that will last for a week.  Then we'll be back to zero.  The doubters were given no reason last night not to doubt further.  There was no clear breakthrough, no moment of clarity where the picture of the president's program was defined with precision. 

Let me also point out one outrage:  As usual, Mr. Obama could not avoid his awful tendency to slap his predecessor.  (He would have been wiser to quote some of President Bush's better lines on compassionate conservatism.  He should certainly have quoted President Reagan on health care.  Reagan also believed that no one should be denied health care because they cannot pay for it.  But invoking the Gipper might have been too much for the Democratic Party's little-red-book wing.) 

In criticizing President Bush, Mr. Obama made an ugly comparison between the projected cost of his health plan and the cost of the Iraq and Afghanistan wars.  It was tasteless and sends the worst possible message to our enemies - that some struggles are too expensive.  We don't put a dollar figure on keeping the nation safe, and the president may soon find that out, painfully, as he faces critical foreign-policy decisions in the months ahead.

September 10,  2009   Permalink

WEDNESDAY,  SEPTEMBER 9,  2009

HILLARY MOVING OUT? - AT 11:09 P.M. ET:  Reader Errol Phillips alerts us to a report at the Weekly Standard that Hillary Clinton is thinking of resigning her marginalized position as secretary of state to run for governor of New York. 

As readers know, I've been speculating here that Clinton might eventually resign, but would do so at a politically convenient time.  I have my doubts, though, about this report.  To run for governor here in New York, Clinton would have to do three things:

1) arrange for the current Dem governor, the vastly unpopular David Paterson, to drop out of the race.  Paterson is African-American.  Hillary learned last year what it's like to oppose an African-American in a Democratic primary.  I'm sure she's not relishing a repeat performance. 

2) arrange for Andrew Cuomo to seek other opportunities.  For whatever reason, Andrew Cuomo, state attorney general and son of former Governor Mario Cuomo, is quite popular here.  If Paterson is out, it's widely understood that Cuomo essentially has the nomination for the asking.  Does Hillary really want to run against him, and possibly lose?

3) convince people that this isn't some cynical maneuver to get into the presidential race in 2012 if Obama falters.  Remember, Richard Nixon lost the race for president in 1960, then ran for governor of California in 1962, and lost again.  I think part of that loss was due to skepticism that he wanted to be governor at all.  People knew the governorship would be just a launching pad for another presidential run.

Tough road for Hillary.  My hunch is that she won't do it, but I won't be shocked if I'm wrong.

September 9, 2009   Permalink

IRAN IN AFGHANISTAN? - AT 10:12 P.M. ET:  There is other news besides the president's speech on health care.  Fox News is reporting that there's now evidence that Iran is involved militarily in Afghanistan:

The discovery of a weapons cache in western Afghanistan has raised concerns that Iran is interfering in the war-torn country, much like it did in Iraq, by supplying weapons used to attack and kill U.S. and coalition troops, U.S. officials tell FOX News.

Afghan and NATO forces uncovered the weapons cache on Aug. 29 in Herat...

...There are questions about when these weapons entered Afghanistan, but a top U.S. military official tells FOX News that an Iranian rocket was recently fired at a base in Herat. Additional intelligence suggests that Iranians have been providing support directly to the Taliban.

Other coalition countries allege the Iranian influence is even deeper and that Iranian intelligence is funneling money to Afghan President Hamid Karzai.

COMMENT:  This comes just weeks before the supposed "deadline" for Iran to start negotiating seriously on its nuclear program.  It appears that Iran wants confrontation.  The question is whether Obama will confront the mullah regime, or let more time pass for "engagement."  Things aren't getting any better.

September 9, 2009    Permalink

ANALYSIS - AT 9:25 P.M. ET:  I've been monitoring the network reactions.  It's clear the president gave a solid speech, but no one seems to think he moved mountains.  There were still too many vague points:

1.  The idea that you can pay for this program through eliminating waste, fraud and abuse is getting ridiculed.  The president wants to convince us that the same government that has allowed this corruption to grow can now, with a snap of the fingers, eliminate it.  Come on.

2.  The president threw a fig leaf to the GOP on tort reform, but he should have been far more forthcoming.  As Karl Rove just said on Fox, the Republicans have a tort-reform plan, in detail.  The president might have adopted at least part of it.

3.  There was far too little "process" in the speech.  What people are asking is this:  "When I go to the doctor now, this is what happens.  How will that change under your plan?"  While the president did provide some detail on his plan, he failed to provide what Walter Lippmann called "the picture in our heads."  Most of you heard the speech.  Can you tell me how this new system will actually work?

More coming on this.

9:02 P.M. ET:  We'll have more commentary later, but we want to hear the Republican response, which is on now. 

I'll say this:  On balance, a good speech by Obama, but marred in too many places by hard partisan lines. 

Let's listen to the Republican response. 

9:01 P.M. ET:  Now comes the tribute to Ted Kennedy and his work for health-care reform.  Okay, that's fair. 

Obama now seems to be demeaning people who criticize him, suggesting that some are small and mean-spirited.  Bad way to end the speech.

Speech over. 

8:55 P.M. ET:  The president says his plan will cost less than the Iraq and Afghanistan wars.  Awful.  Absolutely awful.  You don't compare anything with the cost of protecting the country.  This is typical left-wing stuff.  It brings the speech down.  A bad moment that will send the wrong message to our enemies overseas - that we're counting the pennies in national defense.

8:51 P.M. ET:  Wow.  Mr. Obama now says he favors malpractice reform - tort reform.  He will initiate some kind of demonstration projects.  A start, but not good enough, not nearly good enough.  He's opened the door, but he has to do far more in the current bill. 

8:49 P.M. ET:  Mr. Obama says he will  not sign any bill that adds to the federal deficit.  That's ridiculous.  There's no way to predict these things, and any program would most likely cost far more than predicted. 

The president says a lot of the money to pay for his plan would come from eliminating waste, fraud and abuse.  Fine, but that pledge is made often in government, and we generally find that the savings don't equal the costs. 

8:42 P.M. ET:  The president now proposes a public option. There is great screaming and yelling from the Democratic side.  He now explains the public option, and he makes it sound attractive.  We can't right now examine this because the devil is, indeed, in the details. 

The president says he will not back down on the public option, but there is a bit of vagueness there.  Republicans are silent. 

8:40 P.M. ET:  The president now says he will address criticisms of his health plan.  An uncomfortable moment here as he accuses people of lying.  It would have been much more effective simply to address the issues. 

The president says his plan will not insure illegal immigrants.  A lot of booing and catcalling.  Clearly, some members of Congress don't believe the president on this point.

8:32 P.M. ET:  The president says he'll now discuss details.  About time.  He starts outlining what his plan will do - no denial of coverage because of preexisting conditions, no dropping of insurance if you get sick, etc.  This is the usual list, but it's well presented.  Maybe the White House has learned something.  But we still await critical details - like how we pay for this, and how we keep government out of heath decisions.

8:26 P.M. ET:  Important moment:  Obama concedes that the right way to proceed is to correct problems in the system, not try to build an entirely new system.  This is a correct framework - ironically, it's a conservative position.

The president is now talking about restoring bipartisanship.  Okay, let's hear it.  I want details. 

8:20 P.M. ET:  Obama says we're on the path to economic recovery.  Odd way to start the speech.  But now he's starting to talk about health care. 

The president says we are at the breaking point on health care.  He begins well, outlining some of the serious problems that we actually have.  He has some solid lines, citing individual cases.  Can't deny that this is effective.  But we know about all this.  The question is:  What will he propose?  That's what we're waiting for.

8:15 P.M. ET:  Nancy Pelosi is rapping her gavel.  This is her moment.  It's the one thing she does to at least a C-plus level.

Obama starts.  Everyone is getting health care already.  Our life expectancy has gone up 20 years.  Just kidding.

The president begins by talking about unemployment.  He says he wants Americans to have jobs.  Everyone claps. 

8:07 P.M. ET:  The president has been introduced.  There is lightness.  There is goodness.  There is teleprompting.  He is walking down the aisle, ready for thenext sales pitch.  Of course, everyone is smiling. 

The president kisses Hillary Clinton.  I think he did it twice.  Does this mean she's toast?  Will we find her in a river?

Camera is on the first lady.  She doesn't look happy.  I wonder if she's read the speech and fallen asleep. 

8:01 P.M. ET:  Numerous big shots are entering the House chamber.  Can The One be far behind?  (There are reports of thunder and lightning, and the heavens opening.)  There's Hillary Clinton, looking as if she actually has power.  There's Eric Holder, the attorney general, no doubt looking for rogue CIA agents under every bench.

8:00 P.M. ET:  WE'RE NOW STARTING OUR LIVE BLOG ON THE PRESIDENT'S HEALTH-CARE SPEECH BEFORE A JOINT SESSION OF CONGRESS.

7:05 P.M. ET:  It's less than an hour 'til the president's speech.  I feel my aches and pains going away.  My spirit is renewed.  I look out the window and the oceans are receding.  Well, it's a puddle, but it's symbolic.  Count the minutes.

AND NOW THE NUMBERS - AT 5:18 P.M. ET:   Drudge is reporting the following:

At least 44 more moderate Members of the Democrat Caucus have gone on the record in opposition to the current health care bill in the House, Hill source claims. Likewise, at least 57 liberal Members of the Democrat Caucus have gone on the record saying they will vote against a health care bill without a strong public option. In other words, unless multiple Democrats flip on their stated position on health care, Speaker Pelosi lacks the votes to pass a bill through the House on the strength of Democrat votes alone.

COMMENT:  Chalk this up to poor leadership, especially on the part of a president who believes that leadership comes from the mouth.  No it doesn't, and no he can't.

September 9, 2009   Permalink

5:00 P.M. ET:  It's three hours 'til the president's health-care speech.  Aren't you cured already?  Smile.  It's a government policy.

FEEL GOOD - FOR NOW - AT 8:48 A.M. ET:  The media continues to feature these feel-good pieces about how Obama has improved our relations with Europe.  Of course, these never seem to include the countries of Eastern Europe, which Obama is apparently prepared to throw under the bus to satisfy the Soviet Union.  From the Politico:

President Barack Obama has made significant strides toward repairing America’s strained relationship with Europe, according to an annual transatlantic survey.

Among Europeans, 41 percent — double the number in 2008 — believe that transatlantic ties have improved over the past year and 31 percent of Americans believe the same, triple the amount from one year ago.

Seventy-seven percent of Europeans supported Obama’s handling of foreign policy, a stark contrast to European perceptions of President George W. Bush’s approach.

He is come, he is come.  Hallelujah!

Until you get to the fine print:

“Obama was very popular in western Europe even as a presidential candidate,” said (pollster) Nyiri. “On his trips to Berlin and London, he was seen as a rock star.”

But he's not a rock star.  He's not supposed to be an entertainer.  He's a president, I think.

More fine print:

Despite Obama’s popularity, Iran, climate change and the war in Afghanistan continued to be points of conflict.

Forty-seven percent of Americans supported negotiation, backed by threat of military action, to eradicate Tehran’s nuclear weapons program. But 53 percent of people in the European Union ruled out the use of military force.

Concern over climate change ran considerably higher in the European Union (84 percent) than in the United States (65 percent). And Americans were “less willing to trade off economic growth to slow the warming of the planet,” the poll results reported.

While 63 percent of Europeans were doubtful that the situation in Afghanistan could stabilize, 56 percent of Americans were optimistic.

COMMENT:  What you're seeing is "popularity by not governing," an increasing domestic criticism of Obama.  When he must finally make major decisions on these issues, will he go with popularity abroad, or will he make the right decisions for his country?

The fact that we can't be sure is the fact that is most worrisome.  Popularity has its price.

September 9, 2009   Permalink

PUBLIC REJECTING PUBLIC OPTION - AT 8:32 A.M. ET:  The public increasingly is turning against the "public option," which would create a government-run health plan to compete with private plans:  From The Hill:

Political momentum appeared to swing sharply against the public health insurance option prized by liberals Tuesday, on the eve of President Barack Obama’s address to a joint session of Congress.

Democratic leaders in the House and Senate on Tuesday signaled they are increasingly willing to pass healthcare reform without a public insurance option, even while Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) again insisted it must be included in a House healthcare bill.

One public option the public could accept is the removal of Nancy Pelosi.  Totally out of touch with anything outside the liberal salons of San Francisco.

...a Democratic leadership aide who sat in on an administration briefing Tuesday said that while Obama will offer support Wednesday for a public option, the president will not insist on it.

“He’s going to say it’s the best tool for reducing costs,” the aide said. “I think he’s going to be a bit noncommittal.”

And...

Centrist Democrats, who were skeptical about the public option in July, have hardened into outright opponents after hearing a deluge of constituent complaints...

...House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (D-Md.) on Tuesday reiterated his comments from earlier this summer that he would prefer to pass healthcare reform rather than insist on a public option.

COMMENT:  Too many Democrats simply don't understand why the public is skeptical about a public option.  It isn't that the public doesn't think the government knows how to pay a bill.  Medicare pays bills.  Social Security sends out checks.  It's that the public fears a government takeover of health-care decisions, creating a situation where a patient has no alternative.  Americans have read some of the horror stories coming out of Britain, and that's what they want to avoid.

The problem is, the left wing of the Democratic Party, centered in the California delegation to the House, is increasingly socialist, and has no problem with government control of health care, and a lot more, for that matter.  And the party has not confronted this crowd with lessons on practical politics.

September 9, 2009   Permalink

NEW LOOK AT THE TERRORIST THREAT - AT 8:14 A.M. ET:  A new study by a respected organization paints a picture of an updated Al Qaeda and its methods of operation.  From Fox News:

WASHINGTON -- Terrorists are aiming for hotels and other easier-to-hit targets as security measures at military and government facilities continue to improve, says a global intelligence company.

Continue to improve?  Wasn't there a guy named Bush responsible for some of that? 

Al Qaeda is changing from a centralized organization with global goals to regional "franchises" with more parochial aims and strong grass-roots support, according to a report Tuesday from STRATFOR. These smaller cells get less training and less money, so they set their sights lower.

That doesn't mean they aren't dangerous, "particularly if they are attempting to prove their value or if they are able to link up with someone who is highly tactically skilled," the report says.

According to STRATFOR, the number of attacks on hotels has more than doubled since the 9/11 attacks in 2001 when compared with the eight years before. Injuries and deaths caused by those attacks have increased six times over the same comparison period.

We know, here in New York, that the NYPD is very worried about hotel security.  Hotels are great symbols of major world cities.

A hotel is the ultimate soft target for Islamic extremists: a fixed location, lots of human traffic and shallow security perimeters. Hotels also attract many Westerners, giving militants high probabilities of killing or injuring large numbers of them in a single attack, according to the report.

And...

From a terrorist's perspective, the downside to hitting soft targets is that the attacks don't generate as much "political and ideological mileage" as hitting a hard target such as a better guarded government building or military facility, the report says.

And that is why our total preparation for terrorism must continue.  Somewhere out there a terrror group is dreaming of getting its hands on a nuclear or biological weapon, and using it.

But we've become sleepy.  The very success of President Bush's effort to protect the homeland, and the election of the leftish Obama administration has meant the downgrading of terror in the eyes of the American people.  We will be woken up.

September 9, 2009   Permalink

THE SPEECH - AT 7:44 A.M. ET:  Tonight's speech before a joint session of Congress is being billed, especially by those who seek TV ratings, as the biggest speech of Barack Obama's career.  Hard to say.  We have had, since Obama's inauguration, government by speech, and the public has caught on.  The president is hopelessly overexposed, more a salesman and personality than the chief executive of the most powerful country on Earth.  Indeed, he has seemed increasingly less presidential as his term has worn on.

He will be seeking to salvage health-care "reform."  Some, especially among the professional punditocracy, charge that it's in danger because of distortions and lies by the "right-wing attack machine."  We say that it's in danger because it's poorly drawn up, poorly presented, and contains elements the public simply doesn't like. 

Mr. Obama must tonight do these things:  1)  He must demonstrate that he knows the subject; 2) He must present a coherent reform plan, easily understandable, whose main points are clear, and he must present it quickly; 3) He must show that this plan will help the very people listening to him and is superior to what the nation has now; 4) He must demonsrate practicality; 5) He must include at least some tort reform, showing that he's willing to take on powerful elements in his own party who are holding back reform.

Mr. Obama must not do these things:  1) He must not be arrogant and dismissive, talking down to the American people; 2) He must not blame some sinister force out there, but accept responsibility for the handling of his own plan; 3) He must not sound like a candidate, difficult for a man who's spent most of his career getting the job.

This is different.  Now he must do the job.

We'll be watching the president tonight, and giving readers an instant reaction.  We'll also be watching the Republican response, which must be thoughtful, creative, and contain proposals, not just criticism.

September 9,  2009   Permalink