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,  AUGUST 3,  2010

WHAT WAS THAT ABOUT CHANGE? – AT 11:02 P.M. ET:  Deflation is here, the deflation of the Democratic Party, that is.  From the great ambition of just months ago, the party that controls the presidency, the House and the Senate, is but a shadow of what it was.  From The New York Times:

Senate Democrats on Tuesday abandoned all hopes of passing even a slimmed-down energy bill before they adjourn for the summer recess, saying that they did not have sufficient votes even for legislation tailored narrowly to respond to the Gulf oil spill.

Although the majority leader, Harry Reid, Democrat of Nevada, sought to blame Republicans for sinking the energy measure, the reality is that Democrats are also divided over how to proceed on the issue and had long ago given up hope of a comprehensive bill to address climate change.

This is what arrogance gets you.  The people have lost faith in the Democratic Congress, in part because it consistently ignored popular will in the first year of Obama's reign.  Eventually, people get fed up.

Senate Democrats still hoping to pass legislation to aid small businesses with tax breaks and expanded loan programs, as well as to approve aid to states for Medicaid and to help prevent teacher layoffs. But their once ambitious agenda ahead of the summer recess, which begins at the end of this week, has shriveled.

COMMENT:  Either the Democrats misread the 2008 election results, or didn't care.  It's most likely the latter.  The party's congressional wing is led by old liberal stalwarts with safe seats, who pursue their own ideology regardless of what the nation thinks.  And they have not been in a mood to negotiate with, or compromise with, Republicans. 

It doesn't help when the speaker, Nancy Pelosi, a multimillionaire, represents a district in San Francisco that is grossly out of touch with the rest of the country.  San Francisco is to the United States what hip hop is to the Metropolitan Opera. 

The problem for the country is that the seats the Dems will probably lose this November are held by first and second termers, many of them reasonably sane.  The "give me earmarks or give me death" types, often representing districts gerrymandered for them, will be back, ready as always to tax air.

August 3, 2010     Permalink

LOST IN THE SHUFFLE – AT 8:46 P.M. ET:  Lost amidst such stories as Chelsea's wedding and the Earth-shattering saga of Shirley Sherrod (remember?), there's the little matter of Thursday's Senate confirmation vote on Elena Kagan.  The result is preordained, but it's important for Republicans to put up a good fight, if only to educate the public.

The more I look at Kagan's record, the more uneasy I am about sending her to the high court.  She's a political figure whose service to the law was primarily her deanship at the Harvard Law School, an administrative post.  She has made no great contribution to legal thinking and has never been a judge.  She is certainly scholarly and personable, but that isn't enough.  From The Wall Street Journal:

WASHINGTON—The full Senate began debating Elena Kagan's nomination to the Supreme Court on Tuesday, with Republicans continuing to say she was a political nominee who would seek to advance a liberal agenda.

The Senate Judiciary Committee voted 13-6 in favor of Ms. Kagan last month and there is little doubt she will be confirmed when the full Senate votes, likely on Thursday. Already, five Republicans have declared they will vote for her, ensuring she will have more than the 60 votes required to close off debate on her nomination.

But the majority of Republicans are expected to oppose her, citing what they describe as her lack of qualifications and other reasons.

Republican criticism of Ms. Kagan has centered around her policy work in the Clinton White House and her decision to limit military recruiters' access to Harvard Law School students because of the military's "don't ask, don't tell" policy on gays.

Sen. Jeff Sessions (R., Ala.) said Tuesday on the Senate floor that she lacks "real world" experience and would be tempted to engage in "political spin" from the high court.

COMMENT:  I'm afraid Sessions is correct.  We always hope to be pleasantly surprised by Supreme Court judges, and very occasionally we are, but usually the surprise is in the other direction.  I would not vote to confirm her as I think her agenda is political, not judicial, but I'm willing to write her a fan letter if I'm proved wrong.

August 3, 2010     Permalink

OBAMA COLLIDES WITH MORE POLLS – AT 9:51 A.M. ET:  The Gallupers don't have good news for the president this morning:

Only 41% of those surveyed Tuesday through Sunday approved of the way Obama is handling his job, his lowest rating in the USA TODAY/Gallup Poll since he took office in January 2009. In Gallup's separate daily tracking poll, his approval was at 45% Monday.

Can you imagine the psychological impact if Obama's numbers start heading into the 30s?  Were talking Bush country...and that was after eight years of Bush. 

And...

"It's hard to find any positive news that would boost public opinion," says Richard Eichenberg of Tufts University, who studies presidential polling and foreign policy.

That is a major part of the presidential dilemma.  Another part is the fact that Mr. Obama no longer seems to have the personal popularity he once did.  Many Americans have come to see him as arrogant and aloof, and indifferent to their views.  They are correct. 

The drop in support also follows the online posting of more than 76,000 documents by WikiLeaks. Two-thirds of those polled said it was wrong for the website to publish the documents.

And those two thirds are also correct.  Prosecute, prosecute.

The president is in political trouble, but the Republicans have yet to get a coherent national campaign going, so don't break out the champagne, er, organic fruit juice, just yet.

August 3, 2010      Permalink

AS A NEW YORKER, I STAND ACCUSED AND CONVICTED – AT 9:05 A.M. ET:  We are terrible people here.  How do I know?  The leftist think tank, the Center for American Progress, says so.  From the Weekly Standard: 

The quote from the Center for American Progress:

"...let the rest of us understand this: The debate over the Ground Zero Mosque is, in fact, a debate over American values. Those who oppose it don’t have them."

The numbers from Quinnipiac:

New York City voters oppose 52 - 31 percent a proposal by a Muslim group to build a mosque and cultural center two blocks from Ground Zero, according to a Quinnipiac University poll released today. Another 17 percent are undecided.

The mosque at Ground Zero has become a major national story.  If 52 percent of New York City voters, among the country's most liberal, oppose the mosque, I could only imagine what the feelings are in, say, Kentucky.  And Ground Zero is not just a New York site.  It's a national shrine.

The debate over the mosque is healthy, yet ugly.  The usual suspects, of course – the political class, the First Amendment absolutists, the "progressive" left – are perfectly fine with the mosque.  Why, approving it underlines their intellectualism, their rationality, their understanding, their love for "the other."

But most people, me included, oppose the mosque.  As Sarah Palin said, in a few eloquent words, "It tears at the heart."  Of course, language like that is ridiculed by the fashion plates of the wine and Brie crowd.

The reason it tears at the heart is a simple matter of respect.  We will of course defend the right of law-abiding Muslims to worship in America.  But just as Muslims demand respect, they must show it to others, and, sadly, some Muslim groups fail that test.  A mosque should not be built at Ground Zero because we were attacked by Muslim extremists on September 11, 2001, and the mosque will be seen, perhaps unfairly, as an "in your face" expression of Muslim presence and even dominance.  Sometimes respect is shown by just bowing out and saying, "I understand."   Relatives of Ground Zero victims are still mourning, and their approval should be sought before any Muslim institution is built near the funeral pyre that Ground Zero became.

This is a case, like many cases, where the people are wiser than the political class, but the political class refuses to listen.

August 3, 2010      Permalink

THIS COULD BECOME VERY BIG – AT 8:47 A.M. ET:  We have the first small step in the campaign to challenge Obamacare in the courts.  It may be one small step for conservatives, but it could lead to a giant leap for mankind:

In the first substantive legal ruling on President Barack Obama’s health care reform law, a federal judge has rejected the Justice Department’s request to dismiss a lawsuit from Virginia’s state government challenging the reform’s requirement that individuals purchase health insurance.

U.S. District Court Judge Henry Hudson ruled that enough legal issues were in dispute in the case to allow the suit, brought by Virginia Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli, to go forward. At issue is whether the insurance mandate included in the reform exceeds the federal government’s authority under the Constitution — in particular, whether Congress’s ability to regulate commerce allows the federal government to penalize those who decline to buy or obtain health insurance.

The lawsuit is also based in part on a law passed in that state in March seeking to bar the federal government from imposing any mandate to purchase health insurance.

“Unquestionably, this regulation radically changes the landscape of health insurance coverage in America,” Hudson wrote in a 32-page decision filed Monday morning. “Never before has the Commerce Clause … been extended this far.”

Hudson said there was no clear legal precedent allowing the federal government to impose such a rule, even under Congress’s power to require individuals to pay taxes. However, he also conceded there was no clear precedent to the contrary.

COMMENT:  Yes, the Obamans could call it a tax, which would probably make it constitutional.  Trouble is, when the health bill was being debated, the Obamans denied that it was a tax. 

It would be great if this provision failed to pass constitutional muster, and that might happen in the Supreme Court on a 5-4 vote.  If the government can require us to buy health insurance, what else can it require us to buy?  The expansion of federal power involved here is vast, and frightening.

August 3, 2010      Permalink

YOU CANNOT MAKE THIS UP – AT 8:18 A.M. ET:  We now have the Obama administration's official warning about the next great threat to American liberty, personal dignity, and progressive civilization.

You're right.  It's Kindle.  Rotten, miserable, gray-screened, fascist, homophobic Kindle.

I knew it all along.

Byron York in today's Washington Examiner rips bare the Obaman assault on this threat to change we can believe in.

Are you ready?  It seems that in 2009, Amazon announced a pilot program to supply a small number of students at some colleges, Princeton included, with the Kindle, to see if the electronic book-reading device was practical for college students.  With Kindle, you load software into the device, which looks like a picture frame, and read books on the screen.

Seemed like a fine idea...until the colleges got warning letters from the Justice Department's Civil Rights Division telling them they were under investigation for violating the Americans with Disabilities Act.  Thomas Perez, the division's ultra-militant new chief, proudly announced the action:

"We acted swiftly to respond to complaints we received about the use of the Amazon Kindle," Perez recently told a House committee. "We must remain vigilant to ensure that as new devices are introduced, people with disabilities are not left behind."

It seems a group called the National Federation of the Blind complained that there was no way for a non-sighted person to use Kindle.

In subsequent talks, the Justice Department demanded the universities stop distributing the Kindle; if blind students couldn't use the device, then nobody could. The Federation made the same demand in a separate lawsuit against Arizona State.

Curious.  Books are sold, as are newspapers.  Yet, unless they're in Braille, only sighted people can use them.

Some officials at the schools were puzzled. Given the speed of technological development and the reality of competition among technology companies -- Apple products were already fully text-to-speech capable -- wasn't this a problem the market would solve?

That's not Perez's way. To him, keeping the Kindle out of sighted students' hands underscored "the importance of full and equal educational opportunities for everyone."

And...

In early 2010, after most of the courses were over, the Justice Department reached agreement with the schools, and the federation settled with Arizona State. The schools denied violating the ADA but agreed that until the Kindle was fully accessible, nobody would use it.

More rational people were solving the problem.

Early on, Amazon told federation officials it would apply text-to-speech technology to the Kindle's menu and function keys. And sure enough, last week the company announced a new generation of Kindles that are fully accessible to the blind. While the Justice Department was making demands, and Perez was making speeches, the market was working.

Silly Mr. York.  This administration doesn't believe in the market.  Or invention.  Or ingenuity.  It believes in regulations.

Not all advocates for the disabled go along with such craziness.  One was quoted as being appalled by Perez's action, saying,  "It's a gross injustice to disadvantage one group, and it's bad policy that breeds resentment, not compassion."

COMMENT:  We are truly returning to the 1960s under this regressive administration.  The last time this kind of madness surfaced, it produced carloads of Republicans.  May it happen again.

August 3,  2010     Permalink

MONDAY,  AUGUST 2,  2010

TRAVEL ADVISORY FOR THOSE WHO WANT TO TAKE A CHORAL GROUP TO TEHRAN – AT 11:39 P.M. ET:  From Britain's Guardian, which we rarely quote:

Iran's supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, said today that music is "not compatible" with the values of the Islamic republic, and should not be practised or taught in the country.

In some of the most extreme comments by a senior regime figure since the 1979 revolution, Khamenei said: "Although music is halal, promoting and teaching it is not compatible with the highest values of the sacred regime of the Islamic Republic."

Khamenei's comments came in response to a request for a ruling by a 21-year-old follower of his, who was thinking of starting music lessons, but wanted to know if they were acceptable according to Islam, the semi-official Fars news agency reported. "It's better that our dear youth spend their valuable time in learning science and essential and useful skills and fill their time with sport and healthy recreations instead of music," he said.

COMMENT:  Now, of course, the edict doesn't include those rousing toe-tappers like "We Shall Grab the Imperialist Americans by the Neck and Stomp Them Into the Ground," made famous by Little Mohammed and his Singing Ayatollahs.

And certainly Khamenei wouldn't ban that mega-hit, "We Will Defeat the Christian Crusaders and the Zionist Pigs Who Finance Their Surly Aggression."  You can hear that one whistled in the streets of Tehran and the psychiatric wards at Berkeley.

I'm sure that, when clarified, the edict will allow the music that all revolutionaries love.

August 2, 2010     Permalink

NEWSWEEK IS SOLD – AT 7:59 P.M. ET:  Newsweek, which has struggled to find an identity in recent years as its financial situation deteriorated, has been sold to Sidney Harman, the hi-fi equipment magnate.  He is the husband of Democratic Congresswoman Jane Harman of California.

Newsweek announced its own sale to Sidney Harman and said that Jon Meacham, the magazine’s editor for the past four years, was stepping down.

Meacham is a gifted writer and historian, but was less inspired as an editor.

In a Washington Post news release, Mr. Harman said, “Newsweek is a national treasure. I am enormously pleased to be succeeding The Washington Post Company and the Graham family, and look forward to this great journalistic, business and technological challenge.”

Mr. Harman, the 91-year-old audio pioneer, has joined the ranks of Mortimer B. Zuckerman, David Bradley and Laurence Grafstein, who all made their money in ventures outside publishing then chose to take over struggling national publications.

Got to give the man credit.  He's 91 and buying a magazine. 

As the sale process played out over the last two and a half months, The Post and its chairman Donald E. Graham have turned away several potential buyers whom they believed would lead the magazine in a markedly different editorial direction or make deep staff cuts. Mr. Graham, who is said to be concerned not only with the magazine’s legacy but the legacy of his family’s stewardship of the magazine, wanted the sale to be as nondisruptive as possible.

Translated into English:  The magazine will stay liberal. 

COMMENT:  Harman has a very steep challenge.  Newsweek's deterioration began when its liberal editorial views started affecting its reporting.  I was a subscriber for almost 40 years, but finally gave up when I decided the magazine could tell me nothing.  In the last couple of years, Meacham transformed the publication into a liberal opinion magazine, which is fine.  We have no problem with opinion magazines, as long as they're open about it.

Harman must choose a direction for Newsweek, then pump the money in to make his vision work.  He won't only need deep pockets, but infinite pockets.  I have no advice for him except to economize at home and buy Chevrolets.

August 2, 2010      Permalink 

THE LOGICAL IDEA – AT 11:50 A.M. ET:  Former Governor Doug Wilder of Virginia has a suggestion for President Obama.  The idea isn't new – it's been kicked around for months – but this is the first time I've seen a major political figure put it in writing.  It will not make Joe Biden happy: 

Since Obama has expressed admiration for the portrait of Abraham Lincoln that Doris Kearns Goodwin paints in “Team of Rivals,” he could do the 16th president one better: He should name Hillary Clinton as his running mate in 2012. That would be both needed change and audacious.

Clinton has been nothing but a team player who has earned good marks since being asked to serve as secretary of state. She has skillfully navigated the globe and been tough and commanding when the moment called for it (with Iran) and graceful and diplomatic when situations required (navigating complex relations with Russia, Pakistan and China).

Has her time as secretary of state been perfect? No. Has she ended these 18 months with the stature of someone ready and able to be president were the moment to call for it? The answer, unequivocally, is “yes.”

Wilder severely criticizes Vice President Biden, and declares him a liability.

Biden has not distinguished himself, other than to be more prone to gaffes — which had been cited by some skeptics when Obama first announced his choice. Many had hoped a new office and new responsibilities would produce a more serious and sobered reliability in the man. Unfortunately, they have not.

I hope these two don't meet at a party, especially if one or both has a carry permit.

Clinton is better suited as the political and government partner that Obama needs.

I suggest this as one who vigorously supported Obama over Clinton in 2008. In fact, I campaigned across the country and engaged in spirited debates with former colleagues. I don’t regret any of that. Yet, now I think Clinton brings bounty to the political table that few can match.

COMMENT:  Ah, but a question arises:  Would Hillary take it?  The answer is not obvious. 

In an ideal political world, for her at least, Hillary would prefer that Obama walk the plank in 2012, decline to run, making her the odds-on favorite for the presidential nomination.  But, if that doesn't happen, the only reason she'd take the job would be to position herself as the obvious Democratic nominee in 2016, and to crowd out some other vice presidential choice. 

But taking the job can bring political destruction instead of political resurrection.  As secretary of state, she can position herself as "above" the politics of the Obama administration.  She's been masterful at that so far, and her poll numbers show it.  But as vice president, she'd be in the thick of administration politics.  If Obama is reelected, she'd be tarred with every mistake he makes, and a president's second term is usually not elegant.  She'd be Hillary the hack instead of Madame Secretary.  She knows that.  The Clintons are not amateurs in politics. 

It might be better for Hillary, if she wishes to run for president again, simply to resign from her current post and become a private citizen.  Then she can start her campaign when she wishes, she wouldn't be burdened with Obama's record, and the party would certainly owe her.  Nixon became, involuntarily, a private citizen and lawyer, and successfully ran again for president in 1968.

Of course, Obama might pressure Hillary to take the second spot in 2012, arguing that the party needs her.  She could conceivably be seen as disloyal if she refuses.

As noted, it's not a clear-cut decision.

August 2, 2010     Permalink

WEIRDNESS AT THE INSTITUTE – AT 10:29 A.M. ET:  The story behind last week's leak of thousands of classified documents on Afghanistan is growing:

(CNN) -- Adrian Lamo, the former computer hacker who tipped off federal authorities to WikiLeaks suspect Bradley Manning, says two men in the Boston area have told Lamo in phone conversations that they assisted Manning.

Manning is an active-duty U.S. Army soldier, now being held on security-breach charges. 

Lamo said both men attend the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, but he refused to identify them because, he said, at least one of them has threatened him. One of these men allegedly told Lamo they gave encryption software to Manning and taught the Army private how to use it, Lamo said.

Graduates usually refer to MIT as "The Institute."  This is a serious matter, and I assume MIT is fully cooperative with investigative authorities.  When I was in college, some of our engineering geniuses figured out a way around AT&T's long-distance billing system and made free calls...to Moscow.  It was a prank, and I think some of the guys actually wound up working for the phone company, employing their expertise.

This, obviously, is much more serious, and serious punishment is called for.

Manning, an Army intelligence analyst, is being held in solitary confinement at a Virginia detention facility. He is charged with leaking an airstrike video that the whistleblower website WikiLeaks published in April, and Pentagon officials say he is the prime suspect in last week's disclosure of thousands of field reports from the war in Afghanistan to the site.

Lamo claimed both men are working for WikiLeaks. Also, both men are Facebook friends with Lamo and Manning, and at least one continues to post Facebook messages on Lamo's wall, the former hacker said.

COMMENT:  It's now clear from news reports that some real damage was done by the release of those documents.  The documents name Afghans who are secretly working for us.  Their lives, and the lives of their families, are now in mortal danger.  The guy who runs WikiLeaks is a real America hater.  He claims to have other material that he wants to release.

The laws of the United States must be enforced in this case.  Classified information is the property of the American people, entrusted to our representatives and their appointees.  Manning, if guilty, should be convicted and given a life sentence.  The WikiLeaks chief is Australian, and may be outside the reach of our legal system.

August 2, 2010      Permalink

DRAMATIC, WORLD-CHANGING ELECTION RESULTS – AT 9:06 A.M. ET:  The results of the election we discussed yesterday are now in.  Drumroll please:

In the end, the Associated Press scooped the three news organizations vying for the front-row center seat long held by Helen Thomas, while Fox News won the contest to move up to the front of the room.

While Fox, Bloomberg and NPR submitted letters expressing interest in the seat in the in the James S. Brady Briefing Room that opened up when Thomas retired in June, the White House Correspondents Association voted Sunday to give it to the venerable wire, while Fox moved into AP’s former seat in the front row, and NPR moved into Fox’s second-row seat.

"It was a very difficult decision," the WHCA said in a statement. "The board received requests from Bloomberg and NPR in addition to Fox for relocation to the front row and felt all three made compelling cases. But the board ultimately was persuaded by Fox's length of service and commitment to the White House television pool."

COMMENT: We're relieved that the Helen Thomas seat didn't go to NPR, which would have meant replacing one leftist with another.  At least AP pretends to be balanced, although the pretense is too often not matched by the reality.

We're delighted to see Fox in the front row, showing that it gets far more respect from within journalism than you would think from the arrows shot at it by CNN and MSNBC.  Fox does a solid job.  Yes, it tilts right, just as most news outlets tilt left, but its straight-news programs do indeed play it straight.

August 2, 2010      Permalink

WILL WE ATTACK IRAN? – AT 8:36 A.M. ET:  There's been an increasing level of buzz over the possibility that we will attack Iran, even though it seems out of character for Barack "let's reach out and hug" Obama.  Michael Barone writes this morning:

In my July 21 Examiner column I wrote that recent articles by Time’s Joe Klein and the American Interest’s Walter Russell Mead suggested to me that the Obama administration was seriously considering a military strike against Iran’s nuclear facilities. I paid particular attention to these articles because Klein has been an outspoken opponent of such an attack and Mead is by no means an advocate for it. Now comes further evidence, in an opinion article in the Washington Post by Steven Simon and Ray Takeyh. They are by no means right-wingers; Simon worked in Bill Clinton’s National Security Council and Takeyh is described as a former adviser to the Obama administration. Their article takes quite seriously the possibility that the president will order such an attack.

And the very well-connected Benny Avni writes in the New York Post:

Here's welcome news: Key voices in Washington and elsewhere, including even some doves, now acknowledge that an attack on Iran's nuclear installations may be necessary, feasible -- and more likely.

That's encouraging, not only because it suggests that the nightmare of a nuclear Iran is by no means inevitable -- but also because a more credible threat to the mullahs might help convince them to abandon their nuclear chase, ironically making a confrontation unnecessary.

The heightened buzz of an attack is coming from columnists of all political persuasions, Gulf sheiks urging anyone who can stop Iran to do so and Tehran itself vowing fire and brimstone on anyone who dares to try. And America has plans, according to the Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Admiral Mike Mullen, who told NBC yesterday that a military attack on Iran was "one of the options the president has."

Avni adds:

Also last week, the remains of six Israeli airmen -- killed last Monday in a helicopter accident during search-and-rescue drills in Romania -- were buried back home. Although it was a top news story in Israel, only scant information emerged about the previously undisclosed drills in Romania or what the helicopter crews were preparing for. Romania's Carpathian Mountains' terrain resembles the ridges where Iran's nuclear facilities are secreted.

COMMENT:  I have no independent information on this, except for the off-the-record comment I heard recently from a very high-ranking American military officer who said that we "might have some work to do in Iran" if negotiations and sanctions don't stop the Iranian nuclear program.  The other listeners were startled because this chap is known for his discretion.  We'll watch this closely.

August 2, 2010       Permalink

THEY NEVER CHANGE – AT 8:17 A.M. ET:  As the great philosopher, Jerry Lewis, once said, "Bad looks you can change, stupid is forever."  It seems to be true:

As several House Democrats press Rep. Charles Rangel to call it quits over a host of ethics charges, his New York allies reportedly are planning a lavish fundraiser in honor of his 80th birthday.

The Hill reported that New York Sens. Charles Schumer and Kirsten Gillibrand, along with Gov. David Paterson, are putting together an Aug. 11 birthday gala at The Plaza Hotel in Manhattan. Tickets will run from $200 to $2,500.

The party is a sign that Rangel's home-state supporters are willing to let the ethics proceedings play out. The money raised from the gala is reportedly being pumped into his Rangel Victory Fund.

COMMENT:  Do you remember a time when appearances counted?  The guy evaded taxes, and he gets a big shindig at the Plaza, which is truly a high-rent joint. 

This is really showing utter contempt for the public.  It is the mentality of a political class that believes it's entitled to its position.  I hope there's a sharp public reaction.  But it's New York, where corruption of all kinds flourishes, so I won't hold my breath.

August 2, 2010     Permalink