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.

TUESDAY,  APRIL 20,  2010

RUMBLINGS – AT 8:02 P.M. ET:  In the post just below we reported on a revolt within the Democratic Party over immigration reform.  But that is small when compared to the larger revolt brewing over Iran.

This morning we noted that a leaked Defense Department document predicts that Iran may well have an ICBM capable of hitting the U.S. by 2015.  Over the weekend we learned, from another leak, that Secretary of Defense Bob Gates had warned the White House in January that this country does not have a strategic plan to deal with a nuclear Iran.

I doubt if these leaks are coincidental.  One senses that a power center has opened up in the Defense Department, at odds with the prevailing wisdom (or ignorance) of the Obama administration that Iran can be managed through "outreach."

An insurrection like this is fairly common in American history.  We've gone through periods when military men are at odds with the administration, or, more often, with each other.  And the grinding of the parts can be heard throughout Washington.

We had Billy Mitchell's revolt in the 1920s, on behalf of greater development of air power.  Mitchell, although court-martialed for insubordination, was proved correct 

We had the "revolt of the admirals" in the late 1940s, when senior Navy brass balked at plans to reduce this country's dependence on aircraft carriers.  They also were proved correct. 

We had the Army revolt in the 1950s, against a president who'd been a five-star general, over the so-called "new look" in defense, which reduced emphasis on ground forces.  We later learned, to our pain, that dependence on ground forces was still critical in any conflict.

Now there's a new rumbling.  The critics have ready allies in the Republican Party and amidst the conservative punditry. 

One thing to look for in the coming months is the position of Gates within the administration.  It's pretty clear that he has some doubts about Obama's direction.  Besides questions about Iran, it's well known that Gates fought hard for a new generation of nuclear warheads, and was rebuffed.

Will Gates survive?  Will he be forced out and replaced by a compliant airhead like Chuck Hagel?  Or will his hand be strengthened by events?  Obama probably understands that he's seen as a weak president on defense matters.  That image could erode further if he tries to force out a respected defense secretary.  On the other hand, Obama has shown himself to be pretty ruthless, and a semi-skilled player at Chicago-style politics.

Stay tuned.  This could get very interesting, and dangerous.

April 21, 2010     Permalink

FEAR HIM NOT – AT 7:44 P.M. ET:  President Obama must now put down a revolt within his own party, and instigated by a fellow Illinoisan.  The cause?  Immigration reform, one of the most boiling of the hot-button issues.  The revolt demonstrates that people in his own party no longer fear Obama, a weakening president.  From Fox:

Forget the Tea Parties. President Obama and Democratic leaders in Congress have another rebellion on their hands -- led by a fellow Democrat from Obama's home state.

Illinois Rep. Luis Gutierrez is turning up the volume on his already piercing criticism of the Obama administration for failing to tackle immigration reform and is now threatening to rally Hispanics to stay home on Election Day.

When a Chicago Democrat threatens to hold back voters, dead ones or living ones, that is news.

Gutierrez took his criticism a step further Tuesday, holding a news conference on Capitol Hill with other Latino lawmakers to slam a bill making its way toward the governor's desk in Arizona that would give state officials broad new powers to arrest people suspected of being illegal immigrants -- a bill Gutierrez blames in part on Obama.

Gutierrez said the measure will only lead to "violations of people's basic fundamental civil rights" and called on the president to make clear that federal policy preempts "all state laws."

COMMENT:  Now it is true that Gutierrez is a firebrand, somewhat to the left of Vlad Lenin, but this challenge to the president is extraordinary, especially coming from a representative of a sympathetic ethnic caucus.  Politicians can sense weakness and vulnerability.  It is being sensed.

April 21, 2010    Permalink

GEORGE W. BUSH SPEAKS – AT 2:52 P.M. ET:  And it's a breath of fresh air.  George Bush left office reviled by the elites and even by the voters.  But his wisdom, often expressed in rough-hewn language, is showing itself.  He was far from a perfect president, but compared to what we have now, well...  From Contentions:

I’m in Dallas, Texas, attending the George W. Bush Institute’s “Conference on Cyber Dissidents: Global Successes and Challenges.” There will be various discussions involving dissidents from five countries rated “not free” by Freedom House: China, Cuba, Iran, Syria, and Russia, as well as two countries rated “partially free” by same: Venezuela and Colombia.

Unfortunately, that is not language used by this White House.

Laura Bush just offered some introductory remarks and singled out the Burmese regime for jailing democrats and enacting a “systematic campaign of rape and abuse.”

President Bush then spoke frankly about the disturbing change in the country’s attitude toward freedom and democracy abroad. “I am concerned about isolationism,” he said. It was a reifying moment to hear the president so closely associated with the promotion of freedom and human rights state plainly that we must “fight off isolationism,” which is making a return in the public consciousness and policy circles.

He was referring to the appeasement Democrats and the Ron Paul "Republicans."

None of the “false choice,” gray-area equivocation that we’ve come to hear day in and day out over the past year. “If we allow isolation to become a dominant philosophy we forget our own past,” he said. America’s long-active role as engine and projector of freedom abroad is indeed being forgotten with news of each cynical “reset” and every panicking ally.

COMMENT:  I wish the former president would speak out more frequently, and make a major speech on foreign policy.  He's very much the gentleman, and wants to give Obama a chance, but there should be limits.

April 20, 2010    Permalink

RUDY DOES THE RIGHT THING – AT 2:38 P.M. ET:  There is growing concern in sane circles about the Kentucky GOP primary for the U.S. Senate.  It features a responsible guy against a guy who, well, may need some help with reality.  From The Politico:

Former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani is the latest national Republican to weigh in on the Kentucky Senate race, endorsing Secretary of State Trey Grayson in the GOP primary as the candidate who "understands the great threat posed by our enemies abroad."

"Trey Grayson is the candidate in this race who will make the right decisions necessary to keep America safe and prevent more attacks on our homeland. He is not part of the 'blame America first' crowd that wants to bestow the rights of U.S. citizens on terrorists and point fingers at America for somehow causing 9/11," Giuliani said, in a clear swipe at Grayson's primary opponent, Rand Paul.

Rand Paul is the son of the certifiable Congressman Ron Paul of Texas.  Ron Paul, who runs as a Republican, really isn't.  He's a hopeless reactionary who would drag the GOP back to its dark, isolationist days.  True conservatives run from him, and are now running from his son. 

Giuliani's backing could help Grayson amplify his message on national security. The secretary of state has attacked Paul for "wonder[ing] whether 9/11 was our fault" and picked up the support of former Vice President Dick Cheney earlier in the campaign.

On Friday, former Pennsylvania Sen. Rick Santorum also endorsed Grayson, calling him a strong opponent of abortion.

Santorum's endorsement should ease any conservative concerns.  He doesn't give endorsements freely.

Still, Grayson appears to have a challenging task ahead of him in the final weeks of the race: a SurveyUSA poll released last week showed him trailing Paul by 15 points, and his opponent won the support of retiring Sen. Jim Bunning.

That is the sad part.  Either there's a pretty hopeless faction of the GOP at work here, or voters just haven't concentrated yet on the campaign.  Also, in a rare but major political blunder, Sarah Palin endorsed Rand Paul early, apparently unaware of his national-security views, which are much more consistent with the far left than with the Republican Party.  Sarah should withdraw her endorsement.  As for Bunning's endorsement of Paul, it's meaningless.  Bunning was pressured by the GOP establishment to vacate his Senate seat, and this is retaliation.

We cannot blindly support anyone with the Republican label, and we will not.  Rand Paul, because of his national-security views, does not belong in the Senate, and the people of Kentucky should not send him there.  There are other Republicans who worry us as well.

There is a small, but influential faction within the conservative movement that rejects Ronald Reagan's world view.  Be careful of them.

April 20, 2010    Permalink

GOP ROMPS IN RASMUSSEN POLL – AT 9:52 A.M. ET:  Scott Rasmussen has been tracking the generic Republican vs. Democrat ratings, and finds the GOP in a strong position:

Republican candidates now hold a 10-point lead over Democrats in the latest edition of the Generic Congressional Ballot, tying the GOP's high for the year recorded the second week in March and their biggest lead in nearly three years of weekly tracking.

A new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that 46% of likely U.S. voters would vote for their district's Republican congressional candidate, while 36% would opt for his or her Democratic opponent.

COMMENT:  Other polling organizations show lower numbers.  Gallup has the GOP generic lead at three points.  We lean toward Rasmussen because he polls likely voters rather than registered voters or all adults, and we've found the likelies give the most accurate result.

Obviously, if Ras's numbers hold, that could mean a landslide.  But the election is more than six months away.  And the Dem fear machine is getting revved up. 

April 20, 2010     Permalink

OBAMA DOES IT AGAIN – AT 9:32 A.M. ET:  You have to admire the man's consistency.  When it comes to insulting allies, Barack Obama is the champ.  The man never fails.   He is The One, and very possibly godlike...in this little area.

You'll recall that Mr. Outreach was scheduled to attend the funerals of Poland's president and first lady, killed in an air crash last week.  But the ash cloud over Europe, we were told, forced the leader of the free world to cancel his trip.  And what did he do as a substitute?  Memorial service in Washington?  Solemn trip to the Polish embassy?  Speech on TV to the Polish people?  Nah.  That's so old-time.  When Barack Obama has some free hours, he plays golf.  Publicly.  Photo ops for the press.

That certainly went down well in Poland:  From the Warsaw Business Journal:

Other world leaders found ways to attend the funeral, including Estonian Prime Minister Andrus Ansip, who made an 18-hour drive, while Czech Republic President Vaclav Klaus travelled by car and train. Russian President Dmitry Medvedev and Ukrainian President Viktor Yanukovych also attended.

The late president's close friend, Georgian President Mikheil Saakashvili, also managed to attend, flying in from Georgia through Rome.

Look, someone explain to these people:  Our president doesn't do trains.  Not cool, not cool.  And there's no golf on the train. 

COMMENT:  Again, Obama shows his disregard for America's friends. 

We're told that America's image in the world has improved since the president took office.  I'd like to see the internals of those polls and find out exactly who's saying what.  I'll be willing to bet that the Brits, the French, the Israelis, the Japanese, the Indians, the Canadians, the Poles and the Czechs aren't jumping up and down with glee.

But he's very large in Yemen.

April 20, 2010      Permalink

PRIMARY NEWS – AT 8:43 A.M. ET:  Florida's Republican Governor Charlie Crist has confirmed publicly what everyone knew, that he's weighing an independent bid for the U.S. Senate, now that his primary campaign against Marco Rubio is sinking.  From AP:

TALLAHASSEE, Fla. | Gov. Charlie Crist said Monday he is considering an independent Florida Senate bid despite growing pressure from top Republicans to drop out of the race if he thinks he can't win a GOP primary.

Mr. Crist told the Associated Press in a phone interview that he wants to listen to Florida residents as he makes up his mind whether to stay in a Republican primary against Marco Rubio or run without party affiliation.

"I want to be very, very thoughtful and deliberate," Mr. Crist said. "I want to listen to the people and do what I think is in the best interest of Florida."

His comments came after the executive director of a national group that helps Republicans get elected to the Senate e-mailed consultants and said he thought there was "zero chance" Mr. Crist would stay in the GOP primary.

Major Republicans are jumping ship on Crist.  Mitt Romney endorsed Rubio yesterday, as if anyone cares at this late date.  Once again Romney looks like the guy who waits until the water is 75 degrees to jump in. 

But a word of caution:  Charlie Crist is the sitting Republican governor.  By most accounts, he's done a credible job.  A year ago he was considered a shoo-in for the Senate nomination.  This is a time for his opponents within the GOP to be magnanimous.  If the Republicans want to start eating their own, the way Democrats tried to eat Joe Lieberman in Connecticut, they could wind up with an independent Senator Crist. 

Treat Crist with respect, while urging him to stand aside and wait for a better day.  He still has many supporters among Florida Republicans.  Turning him into an enemy with demeaning or insulting remarks makes no sense.

April 20, 2010     Permalink

AND NOW FOR THE REAL THREAT – AT 8:27 A.M. ET:  As Iran works on its nuclear program, it's simultaneously developing a chilling array of missiles.  Even if never used, these weapons are great persuaders, especially to nations in the region that don't have them:

(Reuters) - Iran may be able to build a missile capable of striking the United States by 2015, according to an unclassified Defense Department report on Iran's military sent to Congress and released on Monday.

"With sufficient foreign assistance, Iran could probably develop and test an intercontinental ballistic missile (ICBM) capable of reaching the United States by 2015," said the April report, a copy of which was obtained by Reuters.

A classified version was also submitted to Congress.

The timing of advances in Iran's long-range missile technology is being closely watched in Washington, which accuses Tehran of pursuing nuclear weapons and is pushing for a new round of sanctions. Iran denies the charges and says its nuclear program is for peaceful purposes.

Worrisome, to put it mildly.  I'm actually more concerned, in operational terms, about a bomb slipped into an American harbor and detonated by a suicide crew.  But the missiles will give Iran a negotiating clout and feeling of immunity that most nations only dream of.

And then of course there's this:

"Iran's nuclear program and its willingness to keep open the possibility of developing nuclear weapons is a central part of its deterrent strategy," the report said.

I love it.  Even this report goes PC, referring to a "deterrent strategy."  I'm not concerned about Iran's deterrent strategy.  I'm concerned about its offensive ability, and the potential willingness of a fanatical religious regime to use it. 

I wonder how the White House will react to this report.  I suspect they'll assure an apprehensive nation that "talks" are underway and "options" are being reviewed. 

Sleep well tonight.

April 20, 2010     Permalink

QUOTE OF THE DAY – AT 8:08 A.M. ET:  From Byron York of the Washington Examiner, on the attempt to brand all tea partiers as violent racists:

Hate groups do exist across the political spectrum, and have for a long time. But they have nothing to do with the expressions of frustration over deficits, taxes and Obamacare that we have heard at so many Tea Party gatherings. That frustration, felt by Republicans, independents and even some Democrats, is an entirely mainstream reaction to the sharply activist course the president and congressional leadership have taken. While the level of frustration is indeed a threat, it is a political threat. Ask Democrats running in this November's elections.

It's important to distinguish between a political threat and a physical one.

COMMENT:   York points out that former President Bill Clinton is the "leading voice" of this ugly narrative, Clinton suggesting that the political tone of the tea partiers reminds him of the days leading up to the 1995 Oklahoma City bombing. 

York also points out that the Southern Poverty Law Center, which "monitors" extremist activity, is consistently warning that the threat of violence is growing.  SPLC has done some good work, but it raises its funds by scaring people, and the "growing threat" picture is at the heart of the scare.

In fact, it took no mass political movement for Tim McVeigh to bomb the Murrah building in Oklahoma City.  And the threat that's been growing in America is the threat of Islamic extremism.  There are certainly hate groups on the right fringe, but what strikes us in the years since Oklahoma City is their (thank goodness) relative ineffectiveness.  Clearly, the ones who are violence-prone must be watched, but to compare the tea partiers to these elements is disgraceful.

April 20, 2010    Permalink

MONDAY,  APRIL 19,  2010

IS THIS SERIOUS? – AT 9:38 P.M. ET:  Once again we see how this White House treats the citizenry.  Level with us?  Are you kidding?  From Fox:

The White House pushed back Monday on a report that administration officials had examined the impact of a national sales tax as a way to help close the federal budget's gaping deficit.

"The president has not proposed this idea nor is it under consideration," White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs said.

Not under consideration?  Then where did all this talk about VAT come from?  Did the tooth fairy deliver it last night?

Talk of the tax was kicked up earlier this month when White House economic adviser Paul Volcker said the government should consider imposing the so-called value-added tax. The New York Times then reported Sunday that President Obama's economic team had calculated the impact of a 5-percent VAT.

Oh, now I understand.  Volcker had gone batty and The Times made up the story.  Sure, sure.  I get it.

But the White House denied the claim, saying such calculations are "widely and publicly available" from outside analysts, and that the administration had not done any number-crunching of its own.

White House spokesman Matthew Vogel told Fox News that Obama "is not proposing to cut the deficit at the expense of middle-class families."

I'd love to know how many readers believe that last statement.

Still, while Obama has pledged to eliminate deficit spending by 2015, many doubt he is willing to make the spending cuts necessary to achieve that and suggest he'll be tempted to turn to new taxes like the VAT.

COMMENT:  It's reached the point where you can't believe anything this administration says.  I think in semi-totalitarian countries they call this "guided democracy."  Elect them, then they guide you, whether you want to be guided or not.

Welcome to our children's future.

April 19, 2010     Permalink

GETTING THE FACTS ON FORT HOOD – AT 7:29 P.M. ET:  It hasn't been easy.  The Fort Hood shootings on November 5th, 2009, in which an Army major with ties to Islamic extremists murdered 13 Americans, was a major terror event.  You'd never know it by some of the reaction.

At first the usual suspects in the media played it down, preferring the "narrative" that this was an "isolated incident," like the other several dozen "isolated incidents" involving Islamic extremists that have occurred in the United States since 9-11.  Amazing how isolated these people are.

Then President Obama, in another expression of his great compassion, brilliance, and wisdom, cautioned us not to "jump to conclusions," even though the conclusions didn't require much jumping. 

And then the administration started stonewalling Congress.  Washington Post reports:

Sens. Joseph I. Lieberman (I-Conn.) and Susan Collins (R-Maine) issued the first congressional subpoenas of the Obama administration Monday for witnesses and documents about the Fort Hood shootings.

The senators, the chairman and ranking minority member of the Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee, have accused the White House of stonewalling their demand for five months. The Nov. 5 shootings at the largest Army base in the United States left 13 dead.

The senators want documents including the personnel file of the alleged shooter, Army psychiatrist Maj. Nidal M. Hasan, and his communications with Yemeni cleric and suspected terrorist Anwar al-Aulaqi.

In a letter accompanying the subpoena letter, delivered Monday, the senators gave the Justice and Defense departments one week, until April 26, to respond, or face a committee vote to take the administration to court, sources said.

Now we're getting serious.  The Democratic Party tried to destroy Joe Lieberman.  Fortunately, they failed.  And Susan Collins has been stalwart on this. 

"Given the warning signs of Major Nidal Malik Hasan's extremist radicalization and growing hostility toward the U.S. military and the United States generally, why was he not stopped before he took thirteen American lives, and how can we prevent such a tragedy from happening again?" Lieberman and Collins wrote in the letter, one that they said followed four other formal letters to the Pentagon and two to the Justice Department. "Unfortunately, it is impossible for us to avoid reaching the conclusion that the departments simply do not want to cooperate with our investigation," they wrote.

Of course they don't.  Getting at the facts might "offend" the wrong people, with their delicate sensitivities.

April 19, 2010     Permalink

NEW RIGHTS ALERT – AT 7:18 P.M. ET:  We provide this as a service for any readers who might be looking for new rights to assert here in the backward, militaristic, tea-partying USA, which doesn't yet have the progressive touch of Europe.  From The Sunday Times (London):

AN overseas holiday used to be thought of as a reward for a year’s hard work. Now Brussels has declared that tourism is a human right and pensioners, youths and those too poor to afford it should have their travel subsidised by the taxpayer.

Under the scheme, British pensioners could be given cut-price trips to Spain, while Greek teenagers could be taken around disused mills in Manchester to experience the cultural diversity of Europe.

The idea for the subsidised tours is the brainchild of Antonio Tajani, the European Union commissioner for enterprise and industry, who was appointed by Silvio Berlusconi, the Italian prime minister.

The scheme, which could cost hundreds of millions of pounds a year, is intended to promote a sense of pride in European culture, bridge the north-south divide in the continent and prop up resorts in their off-season.

COMMENT:  I'd like a subsidized trip to Disney World to explore the cultural aspects of Mickey Mouse.  After that, I want a subsidized trip to European Union headquarters in Brussels to examine exactly what a Mickey Mouse outfit looks like. 

If you have a suggestion for new rights that we at Urgent Agenda might advocate, please let us know.

April 19, 2010      Permalink

BE QUIET, BUBBA.  JUST BE QUIET – AT 9:57 A.M. ET:  Former President Clinton, who's become increasingly foolish recently, now seems to have a big problem with American democracy:

WASHINGTON (AP) -- Former President Bill Clinton says he worries that the world perceives an America too immersed in its own internal political squabbles.

You know, all this election stuff.  They don't do it in the really chic places, like Saudi Arabia.

Clinton tells NBC that's one reason he likes the image of working with former President George W. Bush to lead fundraising efforts for earthquake-stricken Haiti.

Well, then, we'll just have to have more earthquakes.  We must keep the guy busy.

In an interview with Bush's daughter Jenna, broadcast on Monday's ''Today'' show, Clinton said high-decibel political fights at home are a turnoff for many in the world. He says, ''People are just sick of all of us fighting all the time. It's a reminder that there are some things that are just beyond politics.''

Yeah, bubba, but the problem is this:  In a lot of those countries you like, everything is beyond politics.  You're showing your sixties mentality again.

Clinton also said he's hopeful that Haiti can recover from the tragedy and be a stronger, more cohesive society.

Brilliant concept.  Stronger.  More cohesive.  I never would have thought of that. 

Recently, we've caught Clinton again trying to link the tea party movement with the threat of domestic terrorism.  And he's lecturing us on high-decibel political fights? 

Look, when you've got Hillary at home, who needs more combative voices?  Right?

April 19, 2010     Permalink

OBAMA AND AMATEURISM – AT 9:21 A.M. ET:  Joel Mowbray, one of the best diplomatic reporters around, examines President Obama's amateurish approach to Middle East peace, and explains why it's headed for the junk heap of history:

Should Mr. Obama embark on the quixotic quest of Middle East "peace," there will be no oxygen left in the national discussion to focus on threats far more insidious to U.S. national security, such as the resurgent Taliban in Afghanistan, teetering democracy in Iraq, an ascendant al Qaeda in Yemen and, most significant, the Iranian mullahs' nuclear ambitions.

The argument in favor of putting all hands on deck for striking an Israeli-Palestinian deal is that it would be the first domino that would rally the Arab states to prevent Iran from obtaining nukes and somehow pacify our enemies elsewhere by persuading them that they misjudged America.

This is absurd. Arab dictators already want to stop Iran, as they fear the political dominance the mullahs would achieve across the region should they acquire nukes. As for Islamic extremists battling our soldiers, it's patently naive to think a peace deal would persuade them to lay down their arms.

Then why is Obama pursuing this pipe dream?  Left-wing ideology.

And...

Mr. Obama's Middle East domino theory is also flawed because peace is not possible in the short term. As close as experts now say a deal was during the Clinton administration, the only end result from those negotiations was Palestinian terrorism.

That's something the in-the-tank media would like to forget.  Every time peace appears to be near, Islamic terrorism has actually increased.  What the Obamans can't accept is that our enemies are opposed to a peace agreement, not for it.

Simply put, ordinary Palestinians are not ready to accept peaceful coexistence with a Jewish state of Israel. Various polls over the years have shown clear majority support for rocket attacks and suicide bombings, and those who disagree publicly do so on strategic - not moral - grounds.

Is a society where no one speaks out against the depravity of brainwashing its children to become mass murderers ready to embrace peace?

The answer should be obvious...if one cares about the facts.  If one cares only about ideology, the answer becomes blurred.

And Obama's Mideast policy is one big blur.

April 19, 2010     Permalink

CALIFORNIA, HERE HE COMES – AT 8:52 A.M. ET:  As a former California governor might have said, "There he goes again."  President Obama is flying out for a visit...but not to the people of the state.  From Andrew Malcolm at the L.A. Times's Top of the Ticket blog:

The good news for California Democrats is that their hero President Obama is returning to the Golden state this afternoon.

The bad news is once again they'll have to hand over big money to see or hear him.

Common Californians -- including the increasing 12.6% of whom are now unemployed -- will be unable to hear the president address the economy or mounting fears over his healthcare bill and its costs because his announced events on this West Coast trip Monday are political and closed to all but donors.

Again.

Let 'em eat cake...dietetic of course.

Just FYI for Obama critics out there, you should know your recent demonstrations have entertained the 44th president. In Miami last week Obama told another crowd of donors ($2.5 million) that he was "a little amused" at the sight of so many tax protests across the country.

On his previous stop in California the Smoker in Chief only appeared with....

...Speaker Nancy Pelosi at two high-priced Democratic fundraisers in San Francisco. Those two raked in $3 million there in one night together. So he's still a good dinner draw despite poll numbers drooping below 50% now.

The dollar haul could well exceed that sum in LA tonight between Obama's $2,500 speech and the $17,600 per plate dinner-speech later.

COMMENT:  That's $17,600 for dinner...for one.  Does your spouse get half off?  I heard there were coupons. 

Let us remember that the Democrats are the party of the people.  Of course, they don't say which people, but the dinner tab should tell us that.

April 19, 2010     Permalink

AMERICANS INCREASINGLY SKEPTICAL OF GOVERNMENT – AT 8:25 A.M. ET:  You know, it's really amazing when Americans show so little gratitude toward Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid and Barney Frank. 

I don't know what kind of country we're becoming.  Shouldn't we be thanking our public representatives for doing all those wonderful things they do?  Well, maybe not.  From Andrew Kohut in the Wall Street Journal:

By almost every conceivable measure, Americans are less positive and more critical of their government these days. There is a perfect storm of conditions associated with distrust of government—a dismal economy, an unhappy public, and epic discontent with Congress and elected officials.

These are among the principal findings from a new series of Pew Research Center surveys. Rather than an activist government to deal with the nation's top problems, these surveys show that the general public now wants government reformed and a growing number want its power curtailed. With the exception of greater regulation of Wall Street, there is less of an appetite for government solutions to the nation's problems—including greater government control over the economy—than there was when Barack Obama first took office.

The public's hostility toward government seems likely to be an important election issue favoring the Republicans this fall. But the Democrats can take some solace in the fact that neither party can be confident it has the advantage among such a disillusioned electorate. Favorable ratings for both major parties, as well as for Congress, have reached record lows. Opposition to congressional incumbents, already approaching an all-time high, continues to climb.

And...

The public is now divided over whether it is a good idea for the government to exert more control over the economy than it has in recent years. Just 40% say this is a good idea, while a 51% majority says it is not. Last March, by 54% to 37%, more people said it was a good idea for the government to exert more control over the economy. The exception here is the undiminished support for the government to more strictly regulate the way major financial companies do business. This is favored by a 61% to 31% margin.

COMMENT:  Republicans tend to rejoice in polls that show Americans want smaller government, but the Wall Street finding must be a wake-up call to the GOP as well.  Voters are furious, understandably, with Wall Street.  A number of conservative commentators, usually wary of regulation, are urging the party to participate actively in tightening federal oversight of the Wall Street casino.  Americans will no longer accept love letters to "the free enterprise system" as a substitute.  What has been happening on Wall Street often has nothing to do with "free enterprise," and everything to do with gimmickry, legal stealing, and a mocking of the market.  And remember, these "capitalists" were the first to come hat-in-hand to the government for bailouts when they got into well-deserved trouble.  Some free enterprise.

As we've said repeatedly here, Republicans will have to earn their victory in November, not simply assume it.  They must show that they can be problem solvers, not just the party of "no."

April 19, 2010     Permalink

OUR CULTURALLY SENSITIVE PRESIDENT – AT 8:12 A.M. ET:  President Obama was scheduled to fly to Warsaw yesterday to attend the funerals of Poland's president and first lady.  But the ash cloud over Europe made flying impossible, so Obama cancelled.

Now, common sense tells us that the president should have extended some gesture to the Polish people to substitute for his presence in Warsaw.  Holding a service at the White House would've been nice, and respectful.  Or, going to the Polish embassy and delivering a eulogy might've worked.

But this was Poland, a friend, not an enemy.  Who needs 'em?  From the Washington Times:

A massive volcanic plume covering most of Europe forced President Obama to cancel a Sunday trip to Poland to attend the funeral of the nation's president. But the last-minute change left an opening in his schedule, so the president headed to the links for a round of golf instead.

On a cool but sun-drenched Sunday, the president and three golfing companions went to Andrews Air Force Base to play 18 holes. It is the 32nd time Mr. Obama has played golf since taking office Jan. 20, 2009, according to CBS Radio's Mark Knoller.

After canceling the Poland trip on Saturday, the White House announced that Mr. Obama had no public schedule for Sunday. He was to have arrived in Krakow in the morning, attend the 2 p.m. funeral and leave for home by 5 p.m., arriving back at the White House after midnight.

Polish President Lech Kaczynski and his wife, Maria, along with dozens of top Polish government officials were killed April 10 when their airplane went down in heavy fog after clipping a tree on approach to Smolensk, Russia.

Mr. Obama has not gone to the Polish Embassy in Washington since the accident, but Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton and Vice President Joseph R. Biden Jr. both have. There, they signed a condolence book.

COMMENT:  We like to think that presidents grow in office.  This one shrinks.

April 19, 2010    Permalink