MONDAY,  SEPTEMBER 28,  2009

THE "NEW" CHENEY - AT 11:15 P.M. ET:  The buzz is starting about Liz Cheney, one of the former vice president's two daughters.  Some of you may have seen her on television - articulate, strong, and, most important of all, informed.  She doesn't back down, she has her facts straight, and there's no babble.  Many Republicans see a bright future for her.  Her liability, of course, is that a good chunk of the media will view her as the daughter of the Devil, and treat her accordingly.  The New York Times has a portrait:

NASHVILLE — Liz Cheney looks nothing like her father, but it is clear who he is. She was introduced as “our favorite vice president’s daughter” at a recent gathering of conservative women here. She kept invoking him in her speech, conveying his best regards, and likes to share cute stories about Dad trying to master his new BlackBerry.

Like her father, Ms. Cheney speaks in understated, almost academic cadences, head veering down into her notes. She also shares his willingness to pummel President Obama in stark, disdainful tones, not so much criticizing as taunting him.

“Mr. President, in a ticking time-bomb scenario, with American lives at stake,” she said, “are you really unwilling to subject a terrorist to enhanced interrogation to get information that would prevent an attack?”

By speech’s end, the crowd was standing, and the former vice president’s daughter was being mobbed for photos and hounded to run for office.

Liz Cheney is “a red state rock star,” declared Rebecca Wales, one of the organizers of this event, the “Smart Girls Summit.”

COMMENT:  When Harry Truman left office, his approval ratings were in the low twenties.  Republicans relished in the line, "To err is Truman."  But later, Truman's stock rose and rose, as Americans realized he had made very tough decisions on national security, and usually got them right. 

I hope that Dick Cheney's stock rises as well, as Americans - and maybe even a handful of "journalists" - realize that he was basically correct.  And I hope Liz Cheney follows her instincts, for the ideas she espouses have stood the test of time.

September 28,  2009   Permalink

 
TERROR ACCOMPLICES ARE KNOWN - AT 7:56 P.M. ET:  In what is being widely described as the most serious domestic terror case since 9-11, authorities now say there are accomplices still at large, but that their identities are known.  We dodged a bullet this time.  From Fox News:

NEW YORK — After interrupting what they believed was a terrorist plot on New York City with a series of raids and arrests, authorities have intensified their focus on possible accomplices of the suspected Al Qaeda associate at the heart of the case, a law enforcement official said Monday.

The official, who spoke on condition of anonymity because the investigation continues, confirmed that investigators know the identities of at least three people believed to be in on a bombing plot they say might have targeted mass transit in the New York area.

Authorities released a flurry of terrorism warnings for sports complexes, hotels and transit systems even while saying the plot was disrupted before it become an immediate threat. But many questions remain unanswered, including the whereabouts of co-conspirators and whether any may be cooperating with the probe.

COMMENT:  Are we at greater risk from terrorists, now that Obama is in the White House?  I personally think we are, but I stress that this is only an opinion:  One thing we learned about the 9-11 attacks is that Al Qaeda was stunned by the size and scope of our military reaction.  They had gotten used to the Clinton style - grim looks, noble statements, ineffective tactics. 

Bush and Cheney changed that style, much to the horror of the velvet-parlor crowd.  Now, though, Obama is sending signals that we're going back to the 90s, or even worse.  I believe that this can embolden terror groups once more, giving them the sense that even a major attack may not bring sizable consequences, that America is going soft again. 

No one can prove this conclusion, but we've had three terror plots unmasked in the last two weeks alone.  Many Americans don't realize it, but in one, the bomb was already placed and set.  Fortunately, law enforcement had infiltrated the plot and supplied fake explosives. 

We've been good, and we've been lucky.  But there's a law of averages here, and those statistics turn against us if terror groups grow more aggressive.

September 28, 2009   Permalink 

MINNESOTA TURNING AGAINST OBAMA - AT 7:23 P.M. ET:  Minnesota went for Obama last year, and also elected, by a whisker, comedian Al Franken to the equally comedic United States Senate.  That was then, this is now.

New polling shows Obama's standing in Minnesota has dropped considerably, possibly an indicator of national trends in Democratic-leaning states:

President Obama's once-robust support in Minnesota has dwindled sharply as he confronts a sluggish economy and significant unease about a health care overhaul that has split Democrats and Republicans in Congress, according to the latest Star Tribune Minnesota Poll.

At 51 percent, Obama's overall approval rating in Minnesota has shrunk 11 points since April, with close to half -- 45 percent -- expressing disapproval of his handling of health care policy, his signature domestic priority.

Just 39 percent said they approve of the president's handling of health care, while 16 percent were undecided.

COMMENT:  The Obama mystique is clearly gone.  Americans are looking at the president's governing ability now, and the verdict is, at best, mixed.  He seems, at times, to be running a perpetual campaign.  As one commentator noted, he has spent more time on David Letterman than with our commander in Afghanistan, Stanley McChrystal.

Republicans have a magnificent political opportunity, one that will likely grow as Obama's foreign policy shows little or no result.  But the Republican Party remains unpopular, and must come up with clearly defined alternatives to make the most of its current chances.

September 28, 2009   Permalink

SUPPORT FOR (COUGH) HEALTH REFORM SAGS - AT 6:58 P.M. ET:  Rasmussen is reporting that support for the Obama health-reform program is at its lowest level yet:

Just 41% of voters nationwide now favor the health care reform proposed by President Obama and congressional Democrats. That’s down two points from a week ago and the lowest level of support yet measured.

The latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that 56% are opposed to the plan.

Senior citizens are less supportive of the plan than younger voters. In the latest survey, just 33% of seniors favor the plan while 59% are opposed. The intensity gap among seniors is significant. Only 16% of the over-65 crowd Strongly Favors the legislation while 46% are Strongly Opposed.

COMMENT:  If this passes in the current form, Obama better have those death panels ready, because seniors could become his worst political nightmare.  They think, they read, they vote.  Therefore, they will probably leave the Obama coalition.

There is, of course, no guarantee that anything will pass.  The blue dog Dems may save us yet, and save their own party.

September 28, 2009   Permalink

WAIT, A CONTRADICTION, ISN'T IT? - AT 4:55 P.M. ET:  Mr. Obama will travel again:

President Obama has decided to travel to Copenhagen to support the Chicago bid team seeking the 2016 Summer Games, a development that many expect could swing the vote for Chicago in Friday's selection.

"President Obama and First Lady Michelle Obama symbolize the hope, opportunity and inspiration that makes Chicago great, and we are honored to have two of our city's most accomplished residents leading our delegation in Copenhagen," Chicago Mayor Richard M. Daley said in a statement.

COMMENT:  Wait a second.  Doesn't this contradict Obama's stated belief that we Americans aren't unique, that we deserve no special privileges, that we owe apologies to the world?  I mean, why Chicago?  Why not Caracas?  That would make the left happy, wouldn't it? 

This is the same president who refused to intervene in Chicago to make sure the man who succeeded him in the U.S. Senate was worthy of the post.  But off to Copenhagen for the Olympic selection.  Afghanistan can wait.

Of course, if Chicago does get the Olympic games, ACORN will build the stadium.

September 28,  2009    Permalink

WHAT? - AT 10:08 A.M. ET:  Remember, Afghanistan is the good war, the necessary war, the war to protect Americans, the war George Bush ignored, the war we must win.  From The Washington Times:

The military general credited for capturing Saddam Hussein and killing the leader of al-Qaeda in Iraq says he has only spoken to President Obama once since taking command of Afghanistan.

“I’ve talked to the president, since I’ve been here, once on a VTC [video teleconference],” General Stanley McChrystal told CBS reporter David Martin in a television interview that aired Sunday.

“You’ve talked to him once in 70 days?” Mr. Martin followed up.

“That is correct,” the general replied.

This revelation comes amid the explosive publication of an classified report written by the general that said the war in Afghanistan “will likely result in failure” if more troops are not added next year. Yet, the debate over health care reform continues to dominate Washington’s political discussions.

Former U.S. Ambassador for the United Nations John Bolton said this was indicative of President Obama’s misplaced priorities.

COMMENT:  I'm shocked, but not surprised.  When will Americans wake up and realize that Barack Hussein Obama Jr. isn't interested in national defense, believes most of the problems of the world are our doing, and never really thought that Afghanistan was the necessary war?

Obama is playing a dangerous game.  The question is whether, with all the protection of the media around him, he'll be caught in time.

September 28, 2009   Permalink

OH DEAR, WHAT'S A MULTICULTURAL PRESIDENT TO DO? - AT 9:02 A.M. ET:  It's becoming clear that many foreign observers, especially in allied countries, are catching on to Barack Obama.  What they see, a number of them don't like.  The discontent is centered in Britain, but it's spreading. 

President Bush brought India, the world's largest democracy, closer to the United States than it's ever been.  But get this, from the New Delhi newspaper, The Pioneer:

He may not relish the comparison but it is now becoming increasingly obvious that Mr Barack Obama is the most hostile American President for India since Richard Nixon. In the eight months he has been in office, Mr Obama has snubbed India more than once. He has sent repeated signals that New Delhi is not integral to his Asian security architecture. Partly as a result of his country’s economic crisis, he has bent over backwards to accommodate China. His open advocacy of protectionism has been most visibly targeted at outsourcing of technology jobs to India. He headlined anti-trade legislation by saying it would punish those who created jobs in Bangalore rather than Buffalo, a special mention that was extraordinarily impolitic and did not go unnoticed in India.

Gee, but he makes such good speeches.

This past week, the Obama team reversed a decade of American nuclear pragmatism and went back to an outdated non-proliferation agenda that should have died, really, in the 1990s. Once more, India has been asked to give up its nuclear weapons and sign the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty as a second-tier power. Most alarmingly, Mr Obama has swung wildly on Afghanistan-Pakistan (AfPak). At various points his diplomats and Generals have said different things. Yet, in all this the overarching political message has been missing.

COMMENT:  Oh, they're so spoiled.  Why can't these Indians praise Obama the way Hugo Chavez did?  We must be stern with these allies left over from the BUSH (!!) days.  If we don't, they'll get the idea that we're on their side.

But the fact is, this is serious.  Obama treats friends like enemies, and enemies like friends.  The reason, of course, is that he doesn't much like our friends, just as he doesn't much like his own country.  As for enemies, why, they're just misunderstood victims of our Cold War mentality.

September 28, 2009   Permalink

DIAGNOSIS:  POLICY FAILURE - AT 8:03 A.M. ET:  With all the foreign trauma around us, let's not forget that a health-care "reform" package, aimed at impacting a sixth of the American economy and the life of every citizen, is making its way through Congress.  It's been talked about for months.  At the end of this time, what do the American people think about it?  From The Politico:

You could forgive a typical poll-driven pool for being driven around the bend by health reform.

Legislators hoping to learn what their constituents think about the issue — and how to vote to keep them happy — face a dizzying deluge of hard-to-reconcile data, some of which suggests that voters are more than a little confused, as well.

What to make of it, for example, when one poll finds that 63 percent think “death panels” are a “distortion” or “scare tactic,” and only 30 percent think the issue is “legitimate,” while another finds that 41 percent believe that people would die because “government panels” would prevent them from getting the treatment they needed?

Or when one survey finds that 55 percent of Americans support the public option, while another says 79 percent favor one — but also notes that only 37 percent people surveyed actually knew what “public option” meant?

COMMENT:  Glib story, but read it with two eyes.  The wording of polls affects the result.  But, just as important, the story points to the catastrophic failure of the Obama administration, and its allies in Congress, to explain their own health plan, to the extent that they ever had a complete plan. 

Why is that many, if not most, people can tell you the general provisions of their health insurance, but don't know what the president of the United States is proposing?  The liberals will blame it on Rush Limbaugh, or Glenn Beck, or whoever the Villain of the Week is.  But the reality is that I can't recall any issue this critical that has been so poorly handled or explained by those in Washington who presumably should know.

Something is going to come out of Congress, unless moderate Democrats join with Republicans to put the brakes on.  We'd better find out what that "something" is.

September 28, 2009   Permalink

AND AGAIN - AT 7:45 A.M. ET:  As if to emphasize its defiance, Iran has now fired a second set of missiles in a weekend.  These, though, are more ominous than the first group, as The New York Times reports:

Locked in a deepening dispute with the United States and its allies over its nuclear program, Iran was reported Monday to have test-fired long-range missiles capable of striking Israel and American bases in the Persian Gulf in what seemed a show of force.

The reported tests of the Shahab-3 and Sejil missiles by the Revolutionary Guards were not the first conducted by Iran, but they came at a time of high tension, days after President Obama and the leaders of France and Britain used the disclosure of a previously secret nuclear plant in Iran to threaten Tehran with a stronger response, including harsher economic sanctions.

And...

There was no indication whether the testing of long-range missiles — often taken in the west as a sign of potential hostile intent by Iran — was timed to coincide with the Jewish holiday of Yom Kippur.

Oh, come on.  Of course it was.  The Iranians are masters of symbolism.  Today is Yom Kippur, so Iran tests a missile capable of hitting the Jewish state, eventually with nuclear weapons.  Not a coincidence. 

And the Russian reaction?  From Reuters:

A Russian Foreign Ministry source told Interfax news agency on Monday, however, that Russia was urging restraint from the international community in reaction to the Iranian missile launches.

"We should not give way to emotions now," the source said. "We should try to calm down and the main thing is to launch a productive negotiations process [with Iran]."

Yup.  Obama sure got Moscow to toughen up over Iran.  Just read the steel in that statement.

It's sickening.

September 28, 2009   Permalink

THE CRUNCH - AT 7:36 A.M. ET:  The internet is filled with a sense of despair over Barack Obama's foreign policy, or lack of it.  There is a recognition that crunch time is coming, and coming fast.  It is evident, for example, that the Iranian regime, which is seeking nuclear weapons, is not terribly impressed by Mr. Obama's pencil-rattling.  Minds are focusing on the reality of policy, not rhetoric, which means we are entering an area - action and result - for which the president of the United States is substantially unequipped.  We can't even be sure that he's really interested.

Elliot Cohen of Johns Hopkins, which houses some of the few remaining sane scholars in international studies, has written a superb piece on the actual choices Obama faces with Iran.  This is not comic-book reading, and one does not come away with a yearning for another Obama speech.   Cohen is blunt:

Pressure, be it gentle or severe, will not erase that nuclear program. The choices are now what they ever were: an American or an Israeli strike, which would probably cause a substantial war, or living in a world with Iranian nuclear weapons, which may also result in war, perhaps nuclear, over a longer period of time.

That recalls Churchill's admonition to Chamberlain upon the latter's return from Munich:  "You were given the choice between war and dishonor. You chose dishonor and you will have war."  I get the feeling we're heading down the same path.

At the heart of the problem is not simply the nuclear program. It is the Iranian regime, a regime that has, since 1979, relentlessly waged war against the U.S. and its allies. From Buenos Aires to Herat, from Beirut to Cairo, from Baghdad to, now, Caracas, Iranian agents have done their best to disrupt and kill. Iran is militarily weak, but it is masterful at subversive war, and at the kind of high-tech guerrilla, roadside-bomb and rocket fight that Hezbollah conducted in 2006. American military cemeteries contain the bodies of hundreds, maybe thousands, of American servicemen and servicewomen slain by Iranian technology, Iranian tactics, and in some cases, Iranian operatives.

This, of course, is conveniently forgotten by "policy" makers who regard such rough talk as beneath them, not quite the jargon one finds in the velvet salons of Georgetown.

Cohen is no automatic warrior.  He recognizes the great limitations of an Israeli air strike.  As for an American action, Cohen's assessment of the Obama administration's will is devastating:

More to the point, it is difficult to believe that the Obama administration has the stomach for war. Its appalling public case of nerves over the war in Afghanistan—a "war of necessity," as of only a few months ago—is indicative of its true temper. And if President Obama does not have the courage to accept hazards and ugly surprises, and if he cannot bring himself to deploy his rhetorical skills to the mobilization of opinion at home and abroad, he should not start a shooting war, even if the Iranians are already waging one against us.

Oh, come now, Eliot.  You can't mean something so harsh about our The One, can you?

Yeah.

What is Cohen's sad conclusion?

It is, therefore, in the American interest to break with past policy and actively seek the overthrow of the Islamic Republic. Not by invasion, which this administration would not contemplate and could not execute, but through every instrument of U.S. power, soft more than hard. And if, as is most likely, President Obama presides over the emergence of a nuclear Iran, he had best prepare for storms that will make the squawks of protest against his health-care plans look like the merest showers on a sunny day.

COMMENT:  The tragedy, one of many, is that, even if Obama fails miserably, he will still maintain his base of support in the universities, among the chattering classes, and on the fashionable media left.  They will never abandon him because they live in a world of symbols, not of bombs.  Like children, they never believe that the bombs are meant for them.

September 28,  2009   Permalink

SUNDAY,  SEPTEMBER 27,  2009

CLINTON CONFRONTING OBAMA? - AT 10:40 P.M. ET:  Someone once said that Golda Meir was the best man in the Israeli cabinet.  The meaning, of course, was that she was the strongest figure, the toughest member.

Some say that's true of Hillary Clinton.  With all her faults - volumes one and two - she has a reputation for toughness, and for taking a harder line on foreign policy than her starry-eyed boss, the president, who sees the world as one big student government. 

Now Clinton is taking a tougher line on Iran than Obama:

NEW YORK — The United States doubts Iran can convince the international community next week that its nuclear program is peaceful, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said in an interview broadcast Sunday.

The chief US diplomat also told CBS television that Iran would not have long hidden its second uranium enrichment plant, which the United States and other powers revealed Friday, if it had been for peaceful purposes.

Interviewed in New York on the sidelines of the UN General Assembly, Clinton lowered expectations for a meeting October 1 in Geneva involving Iran, the United States, Russia, China, Britain, France and Germany.

She has said the plant's discovery gives a sense of urgency to the talks.

"They (the Iranians) have to come to this meeting on October 1st and present convincing evidence as to the purpose of their nuclear program," Clinton said.

COMMENT:  I've wondered at Urgent Agenda, several times, how long Hillary will last.  At what point does she become exasperated with a wimpy president?  At what point does she ask herself whether she wants to be blamed for failures in foreign policy.  Remember, Obama never blames himself.

We don't make predictions here, but I wouldn't be shocked if Hillary gives up the keys to the office safe in less than a year.

September 27, 2009   Permalink

THE PRESIDENT AND THE GOVERNOR - AT 9:58 P.M. ET:  There's a remarkable conflict going on between the president and the governor New York.  Both are African-Americans.  Indeed, David Paterson of New York is one of only two black governors, the other being Deval Patrick of Massachusetts.

Paterson's problem is that Barack Obama wants him to take a walk, right off the plank.  Paterson became governor upon the resignation of Eliot Spitzer, who was caught, literally, with his pants down - in a prostitution scandal.  But Paterson has performed with all the skill of the Syrian Air Force, and his poll numbers are in the basement.  There's a gubernatorial election next year.  Obama fears that if Paterson runs to keep his job, even in heavily Democratic New York, he not only will lose, but will bring down other Dem candidates.  So, there have been some not-so-subtle hints, delivered via surrogates, that maybe running a nice gift shop would be a good career move.

Trouble is, Paterson ain't goin'.  He is fighting, and the display is unseemly:

A beleaguered Gov. Paterson defied President Obama on a national stage this morning, insisting that New Yorkers "are the ones who should choose their governor" during an appearance on NBC’s "Meet the Press."

In the nine-minute interview with host David Gregory, the Democratic executive said that the White House never gave him an "explicit indication" to drop out of the 2010 race for governor, although he admitted that the Obama administration had relayed concerns about his political prospects.

"I’m blind, but I’m not oblivious," said Paterson, who’s legally blind. "I realize that there are people that don’t want me to run, but I have never gotten an explicit indication authorized from the White House that I shouldn’t run." The host responded with a vain attempt to pin the governor down.

"I just want to be clear on this point," Gregory said. "They certainly sent the message that you would not have their support if you ran. They had concerns about you running, that you should not run." Paterson ducked the question.

"They certainly sent the message that they had concerns," he said. "But let me just tell you at the outset that I am running for governor in 2010."

COMMENT:  What's a president to do?  Now, it's true, Obama has a history of throwing friends under the bus and embracing enemies, so maybe this doesn't upset him all that much.  But the other friends have gone under the bus willingly.  Paterson is pulling a Rosa Parks.

Obama favors Andrew Cuomo, currently attorney general of New York, and the son of former Governor Mario Cuomo.  But what if Paterson won't drop out, and there's a primary?  Does Obama reject a sitting Democratic governor, and an African-American at that?

You've got to give Paterson credit.  He's an incompetent governor, but he has some spine, and he's facing a spineless president.  This has the makings of a great political drama that can affect the entire Dem ticket in New York next year, which means House seats.  Stay tuned, and may the better spine win.

September 27, 2009   Permalink

EDITED TAPES? - AT 5:55 P.M. ET:  I have an almost visceral reaction to conspiracy theories.  I think most of them are insane, often devised to make money, are sometimes politically motivated, and often do damage to historical understanding.  The conspiracy theories surrounding the JFK assassination, especially the notion that the CIA did it, were particularly damaging.  Oliver Stone's reckless film, "JFK," misled its youthful viewers.  Even the History Channel has fallen prey at times.

However, I'm willing to listen if someone comes forward with real evidence.  I've always been uneasy about the Oklahoma City bombing in 1995, believing that we may not know the full story.  Once a "right-wing" conspiracy was identified, journalists seemed perfectly content to leave it at that.  All talk of other connections was shut down rather quickly. 

Now, 14 years after the event, there's a new development that may - I stress may- be of significance.  It appears that some of the surveillance tapes that caught the bombing were edited.  The AP picked up the story:

Long-secret security tapes showing the chaos immediately after the 1995 bombing of the Oklahoma City federal building are blank in the minutes before the blast and appear to have been edited, an attorney who obtained the recordings said Sunday.

A Southwestern Bell security camera recorded people fleeing the building in the seconds after the Oklahoma City bombing. The time on the recording is slightly behind the established time of the explosion -- 9:02 a.m. April 19, 1995.

"The real story is what's missing," said Jesse Trentadue, a Salt Lake City attorney who obtained the recordings through the federal Freedom of Information Act as part of an unofficial inquiry he is conducting into the April 19, 1995, bombing that killed 168 people and injured hundreds more.

Trentadue gave copies of the tapes to The Oklahoman newspaper, which posted them online and provided copies to The Associated Press.
The tapes turned over by the FBI came from security cameras various companies had mounted outside office buildings near the Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building. They are blank at points before 9:02 a.m., when a truck bomb carrying a 4,000 pound (1,815 kilogram) fertilizer-and-fuel-oil bomb detonated in front of the building, Trentadue said.
"Four cameras in four different locations going blank at basically the same time on the morning of April 19, 1995. There ain't no such thing as a coincidence," Trentadue said.

He said government officials claim the security cameras did not record the minutes before the bombing because "they had run out of tape" or "the tape was being replaced."

"The interesting thing is they spring back on after 9:02," he said. "The absence of footage from these crucial time intervals is evidence that there is something there that the FBI doesn't want anybody to see."

COMMENT:  Well, maybe, maybe not.  There may be a valid technical explanation.  Also, Mr. Trentadue has a personal interest in the case, as the story shows.

Still, this is something that good investigative journalists should follow.  Blanks on tapes are often causes for real concern.  The 18-minute gap in a tape made by President Richard M. Nixon's secretary, Rose Mary Woods, was a key piece of evidence in the Watergate investigations.  A blank in tapes made of children helped convince journalists in the 1980s that a child-abuse case was fraudulent. 

Care must be taken.  I've never seen a conspiracy theory pan out.  But any indication of tampering with evidence - like editing a tape - must be examined.

September 27, 2009   Permalink

SAFIRE GONE - AT 4:53 P.M. ET:  William Safire has died at 79.  He was a superb conservative columnist for The New York Times op-ed page, who could state the conservative position clearly and elegantly.  He was also an expert on the English language.

I recall when Safire was hired by The Times in the early 70s.  There was a mini-revolt among some of the staff because he had written speeches for Richard Nixon.  The purity of The Times was being threatened!  To his credit, the publisher, Arthur Ochs Sulzberger, known as "Punch," refused to heed the revolutionaries.  The result was an excellent association between a liberal paper and a conservative columnist. 

September 27, 2009   Permalink

GREAT!! - AT 3:14 P.M. ET: 

Sept. 27 (Bloomberg) -- German Chancellor Angela Merkel won re-election with enough support to switch coalition partner and govern with the pro-business Free Democrats, freeing her to push ahead with an agenda of tax cuts and labor-market deregulation.

“We’ve done something fabulous,” Merkel told supporters at her Christian Democratic Union’s headquarters in Berlin today. “We said we wanted another government to maximize growth and with that jobs. We can really celebrate tonight.”

COMMENT:  This is terrific.  With Sarkozy in France, and the conservatives poised to win big in Britain in the spring, we might well have what we could not have imagined just a few years ago - a counterbalance to the Most High in the White House.

Merkel's large victory gives her the chance to name a foreign minister from her own party, replacing the current leftist who was forced on her by her coalition. 

This makes our own 2010 elections even more significant.  Conservatives must make gains, neutralizing liberal control of Congress, and bringing some control to the runaway liberal train we see going by right now.

September 27, 2009   Permalink

FIRM AND CLEAR ON NATIONAL DEFENSE - AT 11:52 A.M. ET:  The Obama administration seems hopelessly confused and directionless on Afghanistan.  (You remember Afghanistan, don't you?  According to our president, at least during the campaign, that's the good war, as opposed to Iraq, the bad war.  Definitions are tentative and are not guaranteed to last.) 

Administration mouthpieces apparently didn't talk to each other before appearing on talk shows:

Top administration officials appear to be reading from different scripts on top Gen. Stanley McChrystal‘s request for more troops, which he hand delivered to Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Admiral Mike Mullen on Saturday.

Defense Secretary Robert Gates, in an interview taped Friday on ABC's “This Week With George Stephanopoulos,” said that a decision will be made in “a matter of a few weeks.”

But Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, in a “Face the Nation” interview on CBS, also taped on Friday, seemed to take a different position, saying that “we have to wait” until after the contested presidential election in Afghanistan, “hopefully very soon." But With the harsh Afghan winter -- which would significantly delay any new round of election -- and no resolution in sight, that would likely take months if there’s not a political deal hashed out in the meantime.

National Security Adviser and retired Gen. Jim Jones, in an interview with Bob Woodward published in Sunday's Washington Post, seemed to side with Clinton, saying “I don’t have a deadline in mind.”

COMMENT:  The president has been in office eight months.  He's declared that we must win in Afghanistan, but his indecisiveness now must be a terrible blow to the military that has to fight the war.  Virtually every day this amateurish administration sends a message of weakness and confusion to our enemies.  They will respond accordingly.

September 27, 2009   Permalink

DISASTER FOR YOUNG AMERICANS - AT 10:22 A.M. ET:  Economic statistics, apparently buried in other reports, paint an extremely bleak picture for young Americans, and make talk of a recovery almost ridiculous.  From The New York Post:

The unemployment rate for young Americans has exploded to 52.2 percent -- a post-World War II high, according to the Labor Dept. -- meaning millions of Americans are staring at the likelihood that their lifetime earning potential will be diminished and, combined with the predicted slow economic recovery, their transition into productive members of society could be put on hold for an extended period of time.

And worse, without a clear economic recovery plan aimed at creating entry-level jobs, the odds of many of these young adults -- aged 16 to 24, excluding students -- getting a job and moving out of their parents' houses are long. Young workers have been among the hardest hit during the current recession -- in which a total of 9.5 million jobs have been lost.

"It's an extremely dire situation in the short run," said Heidi Shierholz, an economist with the Washington-based Economic Policy Institute. "This group won't do as well as their parents unless the jobs situation changes."

COMMENT:  That figure of 52.2% is staggering.  The potential for social upheaval, especially in large cities, is great.  But what is especially bizarre is the fact that the stock market is doing well when 52.2% of young Americans are out of work.

The political implications are harder to measure.  On the one hand, there could be rage against an administration that promised the moon.  On the other hand, many of these young people are probably liberal, many are probably minorities, and they may see more hope in the Democratic Party.  But this is a segment of the population that is hurting badly.

September 27, 2009   Permalink

RESPECT FOR OBAMA'S BACKBONE - AT 10:06 A.M. ET:  Iran continues to show its deep respect for our president' resolve and firmness.  You know, they must be shaking in their boots.  From Fox News:

After claiming to successfully test-fire two short-range missiles during drills Sunday by the elite Revolutionary Guard, Iran will test-fire a missile on Monday that could have the capability to hit Israel and U.S. bases in the Gulf region, Reuters reported.

The drills are a show of force days after the U.S. and its allies condemned Tehran over a newly revealed underground nuclear facility that was being constructed secretly

The Guards on Monday will test-fire the surface-to-surface Shahab 3 missile, which Iranian officials say has a range of around 1,240 miles, potentially putting Israel and U.S. bases in the Gulf within reach, according to state radio. It has been tested several times before.

COMMENT:  We will be sitting down with the Iranians on Thursday.  On our side of the table they will see Barack Hussein Obama Jr., a man who openly said this week that he does not seek "victory" in the confrontation with Iran. 

How frightened do you think the Iranians will be?

September 27, 2009   Permalink

OBAMA SUDDENLY DOWN IN RASMUSSEN POLL - AT 9:38 A.M. ET:  Normally, when a president engages the world, his poll numbers go up.  It's the "rally 'round the flag" effect.  We support the president when he's dealing with foreign nations.

For whatever reason, and we stress that this is a daily snapshot, President Obama's numbers have taken a sudden turn for the worse, even after a week of heavy diplomacy and endless international handshakes. 

Rasmussen has the president's overall approval this morning at 48%, but his disapproval at 51%, his most negative showing in nine days.

In Ras's presidential approval index, measuring the gap between those who strongly approve and those who strongly disapprove, Obama is at minus 10, his worst showing since September 8th.

We'll follow this.  It can turn around tomorrow.  But if today's result is indicative of a trend, it could signal a rejection of Obama's foreign policy.  Together with his domestic problems, that is Advil territory.

September 27, 2009   Permalink

QUOTE OF THE DAY - AT 9:27 A.M. ET:  I haven't seen the wreckage of the Obama foreign policy expressed better than this, the best two paragraphs I've read recently.  From Abe Greenwald at the Weekly Standard:

With last Wednesday's decision to scrap plans for a promised missile defense system in Poland and the Czech Republic, President Obama put the finishing touches on a new and dangerous entity: post-allied America. With his declaration a week later before the UN General Assembly that "alignments of nations rooted in the cleavages of a long gone Cold War" no longer apply, he justified his creation. As a string of headlines from Central and Eastern European capitals makes plain, the U.S.'s most reliable democratic partners see the administration's decision for what it was: a historic shift in America's priorities. Adversaries' wishes now enjoy equal baseline footing with the needs of friends. Whatever may tip Washington in this or that policy direction, a history of cooperation or shared ideology will not be a factor. The Obama administration believes, ahistorically, that this will turn bad actors good.

The implications are disastrous. Small democracies, like Poland and the Czech Republic, may fall prey to aggressive, expansionist neighbors like Russia. Rogue and autocratic regimes will go unchecked as they ratchet up various proscribed initiatives. The U.S. will lose access to valuable partnerships, thus halting our ability to roll back dangers and maintain global stability. Already fading is American credibility. How can the U.S. hope to shame China out of abetting totalitarian North Korea when President Obama himself has just agreed to snub the pro-Democracy Dalai Lama out of deference to China? One-time allies will be forced into expedient relationships with our ideological antagonists. Democracy may see worldwide retreat.

COMMENT:  No comment needed.

September 27,  2009   Permalink