Please note that you can leave a comment on any of our posts at our Facebook page.  Subscribers can also comment at length at our Angel's Corner Forum.

OUR DAILY SNIPPETS ARE HERE.

FRIDAY,  APRIL 2,  2010

OBAMA SINKS IN ANOTHER POLL – AT 8:08 P.M. ET:  The polling data gathered by a number of polling organizations this week cannot be denied – the president continues to be in trouble, although today's guardedly optimistic employment report may help him. 

There's a real anger out there, and the president is taking his share of it.  From CBS News:

Last week, President Obama signed historic health care reform legislation into law -- but his legislative success doesn't seem to have helped his image with the American public.

The latest CBS News Poll, conducted between March 29 and April 1, found Americans unhappier than ever with Mr. Obama's handling of health care - and still worried about the state of the economy.

President Obama's overall job approval rating has fallen to an all-time low of 44 percent, down five points from late March, just before the health bill's passage in the House of Representatives. It's down 24 points since his all-time high last April. Forty-one percent of those polled said they disapproved of the president's performance.

General approval ratings, when you combine polls, are hovering in the mid-40s.  Disapproval ratings tend to very more widely, with Rasmussen showing disapproval in the low 50s.

When it comes to health care, the President's approval rating is even lower -- and is also a new all-time low. Only 34 percent approved, while 55 percent said they disapproved.

And...

Just 42 percent said they approved of how President Obama is handling the economy, only one point above January's all-time low. Half of the public disapproves.

COMMENT:  Well, if the election were held today, Obama might well be calling the moving vans.  But, as an old political wag liked to say, "If the election were held today...I'd be very surprised."  We have seven months to go, the Democrats are raising more money than the Republicans again, and the perpetual campaign run from The White House is moving into major gear. 

Don't be lulled by polls.  The results are pleasing...today.  But the Republican Party remains unpopular, and its leadership is shaky.  The press hasn't yet  unleashed the kind of bias bomb we saw in 2008, but the planes have taken off.

Fight as if you're 20 points down.

April 2, 2010   Permalink

AND THEN THERE'S BRITAIN – AT 7:50 P.M. ET:  As the Obamans smile upon our enemies, they continue to heap subtle and not-so-subtle abuse on our friends.  While the Israeli prime minister was distinctly humiliated in Washington recently, no ally has been more "dissed" in the last year than Britain, to the utter indifference of most of the Washington press corps.

Charles Krauthammer notes the record, and also notes that another member of the Commonwealth is getting the cold shoulder from The One:

Obama visits China and soon Indonesia, skipping India, our natural and rising ally in the region -- common language, common democracy, common jihadist enemy. Indeed, in his enthusiasm for China, Obama suggests a Chinese interest in peace and stability in South Asia, a gratuitous denigration of Indian power and legitimacy in favor of a regional rival with hegemonic ambitions.

Oh Charles, get over it.  India is so...so past.  I mean, dearie, they've gone capitalist.  How can we cheer the new oppression?  And they haven't crashed planes into American buildings.  Have they no pride?

The humiliation of Winston Churchill's homeland began as soon as Obama took the oath:

What is it like to be a foreign ally of Barack Obama's America?

If you're a Brit, your head is spinning. It's not just the personal slights to Prime Minister Gordon Brown -- the ridiculous 25-DVD gift, the five refusals before Brown was granted a one-on-one with The One.

Nor is it just the symbolism of Obama returning the Churchill bust that was in the Oval Office. Query: If it absolutely had to be out of Obama's sight, could it not have been housed somewhere else on U.S. soil rather than ostentatiously repatriated?

Perhaps it was the State Department official who last year denied there even was a special relationship between the United States and Britain, a relationship cultivated by every U.S. president since Franklin Roosevelt.

How to explain this?  After all, as noted, Obama has treated many allies badly.  However...

...the Brits, our most venerable, most reliable ally, are the most disoriented. "We British not only speak the same language. We tend to think in the same way. We are more likely than anyone else to provide tea, sympathy and troops," writes Bruce Anderson in London's Independent, summarizing with admirable concision the fundamental basis of the U.S.-British special relationship.

Well, said David Manning, a former British ambassador to the United States, to a House of Commons committee reporting on that very relationship: "[Obama] is an American who grew up in Hawaii, whose foreign experience was of Indonesia and who had a Kenyan father. The sentimental reflexes, if you like, are not there."

What?  You mean we're permitted to discuss such things?  After years of Americans being told by the coastal elites that culture was pretty much everything, we were instructed during the 2008 campaign that it would be "racist" to mention it in relation to the man who would be president.  Why, he was just like all of us.

Finally...

How can you explain a policy toward Britain that makes no strategic or moral sense? And even if you can, how do you explain the gratuitous slaps to the Czechs, Poles, Indians and others? Perhaps when an Obama Doctrine is finally worked out, we shall learn whether it was pique, principle or mere carelessness.

COMMENT:  I suspect principle.  And, given the taking over of 1/6th of the American economy through Obamacare, and the acquisition of General Motors, I think it may get much worse.  Quite a guy we elected.

April 2, 2010   Permalink

WE ASSUME WASHINGTON IS WATCHING – AT 7:23 P.M. ET:  For decades the Russians have wanted to make inroads in South America.  The end of the Cold War did not reduce their appetite. 

Last week the Obamans announced, with great fanfare, that they'd come to a new arms-control agreement with Moscow, and hailed the "reset" of our relationship with the old reds.  But Vladmir Putin, no admirer of baseball and apple pie, already had travel plans:

CARACAS, April 2 (Reuters) - Russian Prime Minister Vladimir Putin visited Venezuela on Friday to discuss oil, defense and nuclear energy cooperation with Latin America's main leftist foe of the United States, President Hugo Chavez.

They were to launch a $20 billion venture between Russian firms and Venezuelan state company PDVSA to pump 450,000 barrels a day -- almost a fifth of the OPEC member's current output -- from the vast Orinoco heavy oil belt.

Putin's 12-hour visit provides a welcome lift for Chavez, who is facing domestic and international criticism for failing to solve Venezuela's economic woes and attempting to silence opposition to his 11-year rule.

Now, let us see if the environmentally obsessive American left shows the slightest concern over this massive oil deal, with the attendant pumping and potential for a mess.  When Obama announced the tiniest oil exploration program off our own coasts this week, the left went ultra-ballistic.  Psychiatrists and wiccan priestesses were on call.

Hey Danny Glover, Sean Penn – any interest?

Russia is moving heavily into South America, and today's actions are far more serious than any dabbling that Khruschev did with Fidel Castro, who also, like Chavez, spent an inordinate amount of time hosting film actors. 

There have also been many reports recently of Iran developing a close relationship with Venezuela.  And Bolivia, under a pro-red regime, has also become a problem.

Has the White House noticed?

April 2, 2010    Permalink

OBAMA AND THE INDEPENDENTS – AT 10:24 A.M. ET:  One of the most overlooked political stories this year is the rapid deterioration in the support President Obama receives from independents.  Unless he can reverse this, all his political efforts will fail because the numbers simply won't be there.  From The Washington Times:

President Obama and congressional Democrats face an uphill climb to reclaim the support of independent voters who vaulted them to the White House and huge majorities in Congress in 2008.

At the end of the bitter, intensely partisan battle to pass Mr. Obama's health care overhaul plan, independent voters, once captivated by hopeful campaign promises, are feeling burned and appear eager to oust Democrats in November's midterm elections.

"There is an overall sense of frustration that no one is listening," pollster Scott Rasmussen said about a problem that has plagued the political party in power for decades.

Mr. Rasmussen said the more pressing issue for Democrats is that swing voters are not just anxious about health care; they're also angry about the stimulus package and auto industry bailouts.

"It is gathering steam in the sense that the longer the frustration goes unanswered, the more it grows," said the founder and president of Rasmussen Reports.

In 2008, Mr. Obama's hope and change messages seemed to win over independents, and he captured about 52 percent of the independent vote in the election that year.

Self-identified independents continued to back Mr. Obama through June, with about 60 percent saying they approved of his job performance. But as the year wore on and the health care battle gained steam, their approval of the president plummeted and hardened in the low 40s, according to Quinnipiac University polls.

COMMENT:  One of the most intriguing aspects of the president's decline is that people seem to like him less as an individual, and to have less confidence in him than they once had.  He had a magnetism (at least to some) during the campaign, but the aura has worn off.  Auras don't come easily, and they're hard to put back.   

Maybe the public expected too much.  We were sold a god and we got a silver-tongued local pol.  There's bound to be some buyer's remorse, but we still have to pay off the full four years of the contract.  After that, we talk.

April 2, 2010   Permalink

BEWARE THE HYPE – AT 9:42 A.M. ET:  We're always happy to have good news about America, but be careful with this one, and work the details.  From The New York Times:

The American economy added 162,000 jobs in March, offering some hope that the labor market, after shedding millions of jobs during the recession, had reached a turning point.

The Labor Department said Friday that the unemployment rate held steady at 9.7 percent. It is expected to worsen later this year as discouraged workers re-enter the labor force.

That's the key point.  The unemployment rate hasn't changed, and the underemployment rate has actually gone up. 

The pace of job growth in March was the best in three years, bolstering hopes that the still-sputtering recovery was gaining momentum.

But economists sounded a cautious note, pointing out that a sizable portion of the growth came from the government’s hiring of 48,000 census workers. There were clear signs, however, that the private sector was slowly gaining strength: over all, it added 123,000 jobs last month.

Deduct the census hires, temporaries, and the figure looks far less impressive.

From Bloomberg:

The so-called underemployment rate -- which includes part- time workers who’d prefer a full-time position and people who want work but have given up looking -- increased to 16.9 percent from 16.8 percent.

The report also showed an increased in long-term unemployed Americans. The number of people unemployed for 27 weeks or more rose as a percentage of all jobless, to a record 44.1 percent.

We hope for the best, but we'll need many months of gains just to begin to get us out of this mess.  And with the economic burdens of Obamacare starting to hit big corporations, we should be skeptical of those who wish to break out the champagne.

April 2, 2010   Permalink

SAD, AND ENRAGING – AT 8:55 A.M. ET:  This is one of those stories that, inevitably, leads us to think about the past.  For some of us, but only the males, the past goes way back:

FREMONT, Calif. (AP) - The last car has rolled off the production lines at California's sole auto plant.

Workers are trickling out of the New United Motor Manufacturing plant in Fremont as they complete their tasks and the plant readies to shut down.

Nearby, job centers have been set up to help the newly unemployed figure out benefits, retraining and other options.

The plant made Toyota Tacoma trucks and Corolla sedans. The last Tacoma rolled off the assembly lines last week, and Corolla production ended Thursday.

The plant began 25 years ago as a joint venture between Toyota Motor Corp. and General Motors Co. GM pulled out last year, and Toyota later announced it would halt production, eliminating about 4,700 jobs.

State officials are pursuing federal grants to help those impacted by the closure.

COMMENT:  Once the golden state, wasn't it?  Soldiers of World War II who passed through California on their way to the Pacific came back to make it their home and fueled the great California post-war boom.  That boom was also fired by industry, by real manufacturing.  California made things.  Cars and, especially, planes.  The dream factory in Hollywood was only part of the story.

Today California is nearly bankrupt.  The factories are largely gone, many driven out by the high cost of doing business and by a left-wing legislature that doesn't seem to care, really.  Yes, Apple Computer, the shining star of the new technology – its iPad is all the rage this week – is in Cupertino.  But check the place of manufacture of any Apple product.  Asia. 

There aren't too many dreams coming out of the dream factory these days, either.  More like nightmares.  At ten bucks a ticket, plus five if you want some popcorn.  Ronald Reagan tried to talk sense into Californians, but he only had two terms as governor in which to do it.  The golden state has faded, overrun by illegal immigrants – oh, I'm sorry, I meant to say adventurous sojourners – and by state programs that have grown far too fat and expensive. 

There used to be a saying that what started in California would eventually sweep across the country.  At one time we welcomed it.  Times have changed.  We hope that a new, conservative governor will be elected this fall who will make a down payment at setting things right, and will probably be ground up in the process.

April 2, 2010   Permalink

THOSE NAUGHTY PEOPLE – AT 8:27 A.M. ET:  The Politico reported yesterday that the White House is crafting Mr. Obama's political strategy for this year.  One part of that strategy, and, I believe, a major part, is on display this week.  Consider just one comment from Mr. Obama, in reply to a question from ultra-sympathetic interviewer Harry Smith:

"I do think that everybody has a responsibility — Democrats or Republicans — to tone down some of this rhetoric, some of these comments. …It used to be that someone who said something crazy, they might be saying it to their next door neighbor or it might be on some late night AM station at the very end of the radio dial and now with the blogs, it ends up getting a lot more attention and you guys end up covering it a lot more. It's not as if there haven't been a lot of crazy things said out and about over the years, it's just that it gets much more magnified much more quickly."

COMMENT:  There's now a concerted effort to portray the president and his party as the responsible adults, as compared to the shouting, screaming, barn-burning extremists of the GOP and its tea-drinking friends, especially that beauty-contest runner-up from what's-it's-place, Alaska? 

There is nothing new here, but the strategy could be effective today, as it's been in the past.   Once you get tarred with the "extremist" label, it's hard to shake it.  This is what might be called an issue multiplier.  After all, who controls what "incidents" are shown on TV?  The mainstream media.  The mainstream media was key to putting Barack Obama in the White House.  If Obama makes "decency" a hallmark of this year's campaign, who do you think is going to be shown, the greater proportion of the time, acting badly?

Right.  You guessed it.   A theme like "we're decent and they're not" is ready-made for the in-the-tank media, and you're already seeing the effects.  Tea partiers are accused of racial rants when there were none.  One commentator said that a conservative talk-show host called the president a Nazi, but no one can find any such quote.  Watch for this trend.  The strategy is to make the other side radioactive, and it often works.

April 2, 2010   Permalink

THE WORST DOUBLE-TALK – AT 8:07 A.M. ET:  It's getting to the point where you have to examine every presidential word to try to figure out what Obama means, if he means anything.  Today he spoke out on Iran, one of the gravest challenges we face.  The result, when you look at it closely, was disturbing:

Evidence shows Iran is attempting to develop nuclear weapons, U.S. President Barack Obama told CBS on Friday, adding that he felt his administration should continue the pressure on Tehran to cooperate with the international community over its contentious nuclear program.

In an interview to "The Early Show" Friday, Obama said "all the evidence indicates" that Tehran is trying to get the "capacity to develop nuclear weapons."

With such a capability, Obama said that Iran could "destabilize" life in the Mideast and trigger an arms race in the region, adding that, for that reason, he felt "the idea here is to keep on turning up the pressure."

"We're going to ratchet up the pressure and examine how they respond but we're going to do so with a unified international community," Obama said.

COMMENT:  Please notice that, after all the tough-guy rhetoric, the most important word in that statement was "but" – "but we're going to do so with a unified international community." 

They must be celebrating in the Iranian Ministry of Pure Thoughts and Long Skirts today.  The president essentially gave up the idea of any unilateral American action, even though everyone over the age of six knows there won't be any unified international community...unless you define unity as agreement to frown at the Iranians, and little more.

China has been stressing all week that it opposes tough sanctions on Iran, and China holds veto power in the Security Council.  It absolutely opposes military action against Tehran.

An Iranian diplomat, visiting China, said yesterday that his country sees sanctions as an opportunity, and he's probably right.

Again, Mr. Obama believes his mouth can solve a major international problem, or at least explain it away.  Think of the Mideast ten years from now, with Iran a nuclear power.  That is the proper reply to the president.

April 2,  2010   Permalink

THURSDAY,  APRIL 1,  2010

OBAMA SLAMMED IN GALLUP/USA TODAY POLL – AT 11:26 P.M. ET:  The president, despite periodic bumps upward, continues to suffer in public opinion.  Our first two items this morning dealt with his and his party's stormy time.  Here are some further findings from a new survey by Gallup and USA Today:

In the survey last Friday through Sunday, the president gets tough treatment:

• Obama's standing on four key personal qualities, including being a strong and decisive leader and understanding the problems Americans face in their lives, has dipped. For the first time since the 2008 campaign, he fails to win a majority of people saying he shares their values and can manage the government effectively.

• Twenty-six percent say he deserves "a great deal" of the blame for the nation's economic problems, nearly double the number who felt that way last summer. In all, half say he deserves at least a moderate amount of blame.

The blame directed at his predecessor, former president George W. Bush, hasn't eased, however: 42% now give Bush "a great deal" of blame, basically unchanged from 43% last July.

• By 50%-46%, those surveyed say Obama doesn't deserve re-election.

Obama's approval rating on handling the economy, foreign affairs and the federal budget deficit hasn't significantly changed from February. It has risen a bit on health care, though he doesn't get majority approval on any of the categories.

COMMENT:  It's terrible the way people treat a demigod today.  Never used to be that way.

Before we go all smiley, though, please note that Republican congressional leaders rank lower than the president.  The Republican Party is not loved, and we have to do a great deal to enhance the party's romantic appeal.  I understand there are pills.

April 1, 2010   Permalink

BLUNT BOLTON – AT 7:44 P.M. ET:  John Bolton is one of our heroes here at Urgent Agenda, a man of great public integrity who sacrifices career points to tell us exactly what he thinks.  And, unlike most placeholders in the foreign-policy establishment, he is indeed capable of thinking.

You may recall that Bolton was appointed our ambassador to the UN by President George W. Bush, but the Senate, including some emotionally challenged Republicans, refused to confirm him, apparently fearing that he told the truth.  He served as ambassador for a year on a recess appointment, and distinguished himself.

Now, true to form, John Bolton is not holding back on President Obama's Iran fantasies, as the Washington Times reports:

Former United Nations Ambassador John R. Bolton said Thursday that President Obama is "naive" in thinking more sanctions against Iran will stop the country from acquiring a nuclear arsenal.

Bolton is being uncharacteristically polite.  I would have preferred that "naive" been replaced by "cynical" or even "dishonest."  Obama knows the score, but doesn't seem to care who wins the game.

"This additional round of sanctions will have no material impact," Mr. Bolton told The Washington Times's "America's Morning News" radio show. "The test is, can you pass a sanctions resolution that will stop Iran from continuing to pursue nuclear weapons, and the unambiguous answer is no. This continued talk about sanctions is counterproductive because it gives people the kind of a warm and fuzzy and comfortable feeling that we're doing something when in reality we're not."

And our inaction has allowed the Iranians to forge ahead with their nuclear program, unafraid that the deity in the White House would actually do something.

The United Nations Security Council imposed a round of sanctions two years ago. On Wednesday, China announced it would begin to negotiate with the United States and other world leaders on new sanctions.

But the Chinese are making it clear, in every statement, that they "prefer" talking with Iran.  Translated:  Weak, ineffective sanctions are the only thing we'll get.

"We're way, way behind the curve. Iran is much further along in getting nuclear weapons," he said. "We had 14 months of a naive and inexperience president. I just worry that the administration at bottom thinks it can deal with Iran. That's a fantasy."

COMMENT:  I don't recall John Bolton ever being wrong on any major issue.  He became estranged from the Bush administration during Bush's second term when he warned that we were becoming too soft – a warning, in effect, that Bush was being captured by his father's crowd.  That warning was accurate.

The fantasies are growing again in Washington.  Most of the reports we read here indicate that Washington, privately, has given up on preventing an Iranian nuclear bomb, and is turning its attention to deterrence. 

And, just today, John Kerry, his hair as beautiful and rigid as ever, pronounced in the Mideast that Syria was serious about peace – just a few days after Syria publicly advised the Palestinians to give up the peace process and return to violence.  I guess Kerry just doesn't want to spoil his perfect foreign-policy track record – wrong on everything. 

To think that John Bolton is sidelined, like Churchill in the 1930s, and that we have to go with the fourth string.

April 1, 2010   Permalink

BOXER – DOWN FOR THE COUNT? – AT 7:28 P.M. ET:  Senator Barbara Boxer, not renowned for her I.Q. or her personality, may need to contemplate the joys of retirement if the polling trends in California continue.  I don't know what the Senate would do without her, except maybe applaud.  From Fox:

Ever since she was elected to the U.S. Senate 18 years ago, Barbara Boxer has faced little competition in winning another term. But this year, it won't be that easy.

Polls indicate that the California Democrat may be about to meet her match – who will be determined in a June primary. According to one poll, Boxer is neck and neck with all three of the Republicans who hope to run against her in the general election: former Rep. Tom Campbell, former Hewlett-Packard CEO Carly Fiorina and state Assemblyman Chuck DeVore.

In the latest Rasmussen Reports from last month, Boxer led Campbell 43 to 41 percent and was beating Fiorina and DeVore 46 to 40 percent.

COMMENT:  I'd love to see her on a permanent vacation at a tofu ranch, but my joy is tempered by the reality of the GOP field.  Campbell is the consummate Republican in Name Only, and Carly Fiorina was shown the door at Hewlett-Packard after a tenure as CEO that will not get her on corporate America's Mount Rushmore.  I don't know much about DeVore. 

I wish the GOP, in the state that produced Ronald Reagan, could come up with a bit more star power.  At least Ah-nold is entertaining.

April 1, 2010   Permalink

IT'S CANADA, SHE REASONED, SO IT'S SAFE – AT 7:14 P.M. ET:  Hillary Clinton continues to disappoint as secretary of state.  I think she's taken on a bit of Obama's royal aura.  While in Canada, whose conservative leader is aloof to abortion, Mr. Clinton apparently felt it was safe to deliver a lecture:

Secretary of State Hillary Clinton spoke out in favor of health care coverage for abortions during a trip to Canada this week, taking a position at odds with Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper on a maternal health issue scheduled for discussion at the upcoming G-8 summit in Ontario.

“I’m not going to speak for what Canada decides, but I will say that I’ve worked in this area for many years,” Clinton told reporters. “And if we’re talking about maternal health, you cannot have maternal health without reproductive health. And reproductive health includes contraception and family planning and access to legal, safe abortion.”

Well, I'm relieved that she's not going to speak for Canada.  That was a close one. 

Harper has said that abortion would not be a focus of the June summit’s conversation on maternal health. But in an interview with the CBC, Clinton argued: “We should be beyond arguing about family planning. Rich women in every culture have access to family planning. It’s poor women who don’t. And I’ve always believed if it’s good enough for a woman of education and affluence, then why isn’t it good enough for a woman who is struggling to raise the children she already has? So family planning, to me, should be just obvious and available.”

Take that, you snow-dwelling, English-speaking figure skaters!

Hillary, like her boss, is very gutsy with allies.  But notice her silence on women's rights when she's hangin' with the Muslim leaders.  Oppressed women?  What oppressed women?  Did you see any?

A number of stories we've read point out that Western leaders are increasingly disgusted with the Obama administration for the disrespect it shows allies, and its groveling toward enemies.  If Hillary were smart, she'd exit right now.  But I think she likes the state dinners a bit too much.

April 1, 2010   Permalink

ELITE SHOCK – AT 9:46 A.M. ET:  The American elites, often echoing their European counterparts, generally assume that the common folk aren't interested in anything but violent sports, war movies, and chocolate fudge.  And so, when the common folk show an interest in things political, the elite reason that they must have sinister motives.  Note the number of times the charge of "racism" is hurled at the tea partiers.

Dan Heninger, in the Wall Street Journal, gives a more rational analysis of what is motivating the mini-revolt we see among so many Americans today:

The left-wing critics are right: The rage is not about health care. They are also right that similar complaints about big government were heard during the New Deal and the Great Society, and the sky didn't fall.

But what if this time the sky is falling—on them.

What if after more than a century of growth in the national government, starting with the Progressive Era, the American people are starting to push back. Not just the tea partiers or the 13 state attorneys general seeking protection under the 10th Amendment and the Commerce Clause. But something bigger than that.

Sounds interesting so far.

The American people can and do change the nation's collective mind on the ordering of our political system. The civil rights years of the 1960s is the most well-known modern example.

And...

The tea party movement is getting the most attention because it is the most vulnerable to the standard tool kit of mockery and ridicule. It is more difficult to mock the legitimacy of Scott Brown's overthrow of the Kennedy legacy, the election results in Virginia and New Jersey, an economic discomfort that is both generalized and specific to the disintegration of state and federal fiscs, and indeed the array of state attorneys general who filed a constitutional complaint against the new health-care law. What's going on may be getting past the reach of mere mockery...

...The political issue rumbling toward both the Supreme Court and the electorate is whether Washington's size and power has finally grown beyond the comfort zone of the American people.

Where is the public right now?

My reading of the American public is that they have moved past "concerns." Somewhere inside the programmatic details of ObamaCare and the methods that the president, Speaker Pelosi and Sen. Reid used to pass it, something went terribly wrong. Just as something has gone terribly wrong inside the governments of states like California, New York, New Jersey, Michigan and Massachusetts......

...the current edition of the Democratic Party has disconnected itself from the average American's sense of political modesty. The party's members and theorists now defend expanding government authority with the same arrogance that brought Progressive Era reforms down upon untethered industrial interests.

In such times, this country has an honored tradition of changing direction. That time may be arriving.

On the other side they say, "The times they are a-changing."  Goes our way, too.

Faced with a challenge to his vision last week, President Obama laughingly replied to these people: "Go for it."

They will.

As to the condescension and sniffing left-wing elitism this opposition seems to bring forth from Manhattan media castles, one must say it does recall another, earlier ancien regime.

COMMENT:  A very thoughtful, well-written analysis.  My only quibble is that Heninger may underestimate the ability of liberal government to buy off the citizenry, or scare them into submission by spreading the word that their benefits may be taken away.  That can happen in any period, but especially during economic hard times. 

Do we not live in interesting times?

Just wait 'til 2012 when, according to the Mayan calendar, the world will come to an end.  It won't.  But the Obama administration will, if we work at it.  Well, come to think of it, to the liberals that's the end of the world.  So, they'll go away mumbling, "The Mayans, from that wonderful culture to the south, were right.  Very fine people.  Very fine.  Much better than we Yanquis."

April 1, 2010   Permalink

THIS IS HAPPENING IN THE 21ST CENTURY – AT 8:12 A.M. ET:  From The Times of London:

A Muslim woman sentenced to be caned for drinking beer has had her punishment commuted, in a surprising turnaround for a high-profile case that raised questions about Malaysia's Islamic laws.

Kartika Sari Dewi Shukarno, a 33-year-old mother of two, received a letter yesterday from the Pahang state Islamic department informing her that the state's sultan has decided to spare her the caning.

The order is likely to cool down a fiery debate over whether Islamic laws should intrude into people's private lives in this Muslim-majority country. Many people had condemned the punishment, saying it shows conservative Islamists are gaining influence over the justice system.

Her lawyer, Adham Jamalullail, said: “As a substitution for the caning, the sultan has ordered Kartika to perform community service for three weeks."

COMMENT:  Now remember, students, don't be judgmental.  After all, who are we to criticize another set of cultural choices, especially with our 1) racist, 2) oppressive, 3) capitalistic, 4) warmongering, 5) football crazy, and 6) Fox News-controlled, culture? 

That's the right line, isn't it?  If I got something wrong, please tell me. 

At least there's a debate permitted in Malaysia, and apparently a vigorous one.  Sadly, in many Muslim countries, no debate over Sharia (Islamic law) is allowed.

Notice, however, the absolute silence of Western "feminists," except for a small, courageous minority.  Feminist groups have sipped the Kool-Aid, and remain silent when another "culture" is involved.  If they did speak out, and shout occasionally, I suspect they'd save the lives of many women in Muslim countries.  Maybe that's just not a priority these days.

April 1, 2010   Permalink

THE NO-BOUNCE BOUNCE – AT 7:51 A.M. ET:  Again we turn to British reporter Toby Harnden of the Daily Telegraph for a discerning view of the strange non-bounce bounce that President Obama got after the passage of Obamacare:

To listen to the pundits and soak up what the media is saying here in Washington DC, you’d think that President Barack Obama is running at about 70 per cent in the polls and cruising towards being re-coronated in 2012.

The polls, however, tell a different story...

...Obama’s personal popularity briefly popped up over the 50 per cent mark but is now down again to 48 per cent, close to his low of 46 per cent – the kind of favourability rating which, with more two and a half years to go before his bid for re-election, is an early alarm bell.

More like a five-alarm fire.

This contrast between media coverage and the actual views of most Americans is another example of the perennial disconnect between Washington DC, where 93 per cent voted for Barack Obama in 2008, and the rest of the country. In DC, it’s hard to find someone who doesn’t support the new health care law, which leads all too easily to a failure to understand how any thinking person could oppose it. And such theories as “they oppose health care reform because they’re racist“.

It’s a version of the “Pauline Kael syndrome”, named after the New York movie critic who supposedly said after the 1972 wipeout when the Democratic nominee lost in 49 states: “How could McGovern lose? Everyone I know voted for him.”

Obama might get some benefit from the health bill, Harnden says, but it depends on how he uses the moment:

The political value of the health-care win is that it gives him an opportunity to change the new-Jimmy-Carter narrative that was building. But it’s only an opportunity and we’ll see how skillful he is in exploiting it. Amid all the chattering-class curve that Obama’s getting, it’s worth remembering that the short-term political benefit of health care reform has proved to be, as Politico notes, minimal.

COMMENT:  The problem with the bill is the same problem as with Obama – the more people see, the less they like.  Dick Morris, who is sometimes right and sometimes not, theorizes that Obama knows he must move to the center to restore himself politically, thus the grudging move yesterday to approve some oil and gas exploration off our East Coast.  It will take a lot more than that, though, to convince independent voters to rejoin the Great Crusade.

April 1, 2010   Permalink

GOP GALLOPS AHEAD IN GALLUP SURVEY – AT 7:30 A.M. ET:  Apparently, it's the passage of Obamacare that did it:

PRINCETON, NJ -- Registered voters now say they prefer the Republican to the Democratic candidate in their district by 47% to 44% in the midterm congressional elections, the first time the GOP has led in 2010 election preferences since Gallup began weekly tracking of these in March. 

Gallup only started the preference survey for 2010 last month.  Rasmussen has been showing the GOP in the lead for some time.

The Republicans lead, 47% to 44%.

The March 22-28 results were obtained after the U.S. House's passage of landmark healthcare reform legislation on March 21. The shift toward Republicans raises the possibility that the healthcare bill had a slightly negative impact on the Democrats' political fortunes in the short run.

Yeah, when you pass a bill the people don't like, you don't get voted Miss Congeniality.

A Republican advantage among all registered voters in midterm elections has been rare in Gallup's 60-year history of tracking congressional voting preferences, happening only a few times each in the 1950, 1994, and 2002 election cycles -- all years in which Republicans had strong Election Day showings.

The election is seven months away.  Anything can happen, but I've rarely seen the GOP have such an opportunity.  It's theirs to lose.  Maybe I shouldn't encourage that idea. 

April 1,  2010   Permalink