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.

WEDNESDAY,  FEBRUARY 17,  2010

QUOTE OF THE DAY – AT 8:12 P.M. ET:  Victor Davis Hanson points out that, a year ago, the media thought we were on the verge of a New Utopia, led by demigod Barack Obama. 

But Obama raised up his hands, blessed us...and nothing happened.  There's rarely been a meltdown quite like this.

Hanson notes the liberal response to the melting.  It's not too thoughtful:

The implosion of the Obama administration is newsworthy, but not as astonishing as this petulant liberal reappraisal of both popular political participation and the structure of American government.

Given that the people apparently don't want bigger deficits, more stimulus, statist health care, cap and trade, or "comprehensive" immigration reform, and given that the most influential members of the Obama administration think the people either do or should want those things, we are apparently left with blaming George Bush, or self-righteously blaming the people for their stupidity, selfishness, brainwashing, or racism. Yet all of those assumptions only exacerbate the problem, and if continually voiced will turn a mid-term correction into an abject disaster for Democrats.

COMMENT:  During my lifetime there's been a role reversal in American politics.  At one time the real liberals acted like real people, and the Republican establishment acted like members of the Royal court.

Now it's the reverse.  Republicans are much closer to the people – Reagan proved that – and the Dems believe they're part of the royal class.  If they're Manhattan, Beverly Hills, or Georgetown Dems, they believe they're above the royal class, and well into the Divine group.

The mighty have fallen, and aren't getting up.

February 17, 2010    Permalink

TROUBLE IN IRAQ – AT 7:33 P.M. ET:  The United States is slowly withdrawing from Iraq.  We now have fewer than 95,000 troops in that country.

Iraq is about to hold an election.  That itself is a success story.  But there are things about the election that are troubling to American commanders.  We should take notice.  The Obama administration just wants out, but it would be a tragedy not to work with the Iraqis to correct mistakes that can reverse the years of progress.  From The Washington Times:

The Iraqi official in charge of a commission that blocked more than 300 politicians from running in next month's elections is working closely with Iran's Quds Force, prompting the top U.S. general in Iraq to voice concerns about Tehran's meddling in Iraq's fragile democracy.

Gen. Raymond T. Odierno, in a speech, accused Ali Faisal al-Lami, the executive director of the Accountability and Justice Commission along with Ahmad Chalabi, the panel's chairman, of being "clearly influenced by Iran."

Chalabi used to be an American ally, or at least claimed to be.

Gen. Odierno said both men, according to intelligence reports, were in close contact with Abu-Mahdi al-Muhandis, the top Iraqi adviser to Iran's Quds Force commander. The Quds Force comprises Iran's unconventional military units, which have orchestrated anti-U.S. paramilitary and political operations in Iraq.

In July, the Treasury Department issued a notice to designate Mr. al-Muhandisas an insurgent leader, saying he "facilitated the entry of trucks — containing mortars, Katyusha rockets, [explosively formed penetrators] and other explosive devices — from Iran to Iraq that were then delivered to JAM Special Groups in Sadr City, Baghdad."

U.S. officials in the past have quietly criticized the decisions of the Accountability and Justice Commission to disqualify a little more than 350 candidates from the election based on suspected ties to Saddam Hussein's Ba'ath Party, but Gen. Odierno's remarks represent a rhetorical escalation.

COMMENT:  Speeches like Odierno's aren't normally given without clearance from above.  If Iraq falls into the Iranian orbit after we leave, clearly that would negate most of our effort in freeing Iraq from Saddam Hussein. 

We have to watch the Obama administration carefully, in the months ahead, as we draw down our troop level.  Obama opposed the Iraq War, but has a responsibility to protect our gains.  Will he?  Odierno's speech is a warning we have to heed.

February 17, 2010   Permalink

MORE SARAH SHREWDNESS – AT 7:05 P.M. ET:  We reported this morning on Sarah Palin's rise in American politics, and how even some crusty commentators have started to notice. 

That doesn't mean Sarah is free of her baggage.  She is not.  She has a distance to travel.  But she a savvy lady, as demonstrated by her gutsy comment today to the tea party movement, reported by The Politico:

Former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin urged tea party activists on Tuesday night to “start picking a party.”

In remarks to a fundraising dinner for the Arkansas Republican Party reported by CBS News, Palin praised the anti-tax tea party activists for their independence, but urged the “grand movement” to start thinking about joining one of the two political parties.

“Now the smart thing will be for independents who are such a part of this tea party movement to, I guess, kind of start picking a party,” she said.

Palin suggested the grass-roots activists consider “Which party reflects how that smaller, smarter government steps to be taken? Which party will best fit you?”

“And then because the tea party movement is not a party, and we have a two-party system, they’re going to have to pick a party and run one or the other: ‘R’ or ‘D,’” she said.

COMMENT:  Smart move.  Palin understands that we have a two-party system, and that her future lies, not with a movement, but with a party.  She also understands that her followers in the tea party movement can only help her cause if they get within the Republican tent.  She further understands that tea partiers who get swelled heads, and try to run third-party candidates in some states, can only hurt the overall cause.

Palin has a great gift – she knows how to build loyalty, a following.  Now she is guiding that following to work in ways that are most effective.

Criticize her in any way you wish, but no one else does this quite as well.

February 17, 2010   Permalink

MAYBE CHRISTIANE AMANPOUR CAN SING, OR DANCE, OR DO SOMETHING – AT 5:56 P.M. ET:

CNN is having a terrible time in the ratings.  All cable systems are being hurt by the Olympic coverage at NBC, but CNN is being tortured.  From TV Newser:

CNN hit new low viewership totals during prime time Friday night (8-11pm) in both Total Viewers and A25-54 viewers.

Up against NBC's Olympic Opening Ceremony coverage, CNN averaged just 85,000 A25-54 viewers during Campbell Brown (8p), Larry King (9p) and Anderson Cooper (10p). An average that low has not been seen since May, 23, 2001. And the Total Viewer average of 382,000 was the lowest since Dec. 23, 2005.

And while all the cable news channels saw reduced viewing levels due to the massive audience that flocked to NBC -- only CNN saw its audience cut in half from Thursday night in both younger viewers and Total Viewers.

COMMENT:  CNN has just become unappealing.  Wolf Blitzer still runs a pretty good show, but the rest of the operation seems very routine and even lazy at times.  Criticize Fox all you want, but the place is alive, and its news broadcasts, as opposed to its commentary shows, play it straight.

CNN is in desperate need of ideological diversity.  There's a stultifying atmosphere about its operations.  Like a dull novel, you can put it down.

February 17, 2010   Permalink

UNINFORMED, MISERABLE, NON-IVY PEASANT CLASS SAYS TO START OVER ON HEALTH REFORM – AT 9:48 A.M. ET:  From The Washington Times:

The American public wants Congress to start the health care debate over from scratch - just as Republicans have been pushing - amid growing talk among Democrats about the need to use a procedural end run to ram through a revised overhaul bill.

A Zogby International poll released Tuesday shows that 57 percent of Americans do not like either of the competing health care bills produced by the Senate and House and say Congress should start over, as a group of bipartisan lawmakers head to a health care summit with President Obama next week.

White House officials say they plan to unveil their revised proposal ahead of the summit, prompting Republicans to question whether the meeting is an attempt at real negotiation or just strong-arming.

Neither Republicans nor Democrats seem to seriously think the event will produce a meaningful negotiation. In fact, four Democrats asked Majority Leader Harry Reid on Tuesday to pursue reconciliation - a complicated procedural move that would allow the Senate to pass a bill with 51 votes and bypass the chance for Republicans to filibuster.

COMMENT:   What are we going to do with those miserable citizens out there?  What right do they have to criticize what the better people of Washington have decided for them?

Aren't those the same people who have doubts about the settled science of global warming?  Why do we even let these people speak?  Can't the First Amendment be restricted to people who have proper educations?

February 17, 2010   Permalink

THE NATURE OF THE ENEMY – AT 9:09 A.M. ET:  There has been much talk recently about bringing the Taliban into the Afghan government.  Before we issue invitations, maybe we'd better consider who we're dealing with.  From Fox:

MARJAH, Afghanistan — Taliban insurgents are increasingly using civilians as human shields as they fight allied troops trying to take the militants' southern stronghold of Marjah, an Afghan official said Wednesday as military squads resumed painstaking house-to-house searches.

About 15,000 NATO and Afghan troops are taking part in the offensive around Marjah, which has an estimated 80,000 inhabitants and was the largest town in southern Helmand province under Taliban control. NATO hopes to rush in aid and public services as soon as the town is secured to try to win the loyalty of the population.

With the assault in its fifth day, insurgents are firing at Afghan troops from inside or next to compounds where women and children appear to have been ordered to stand on a roof or in a window, said Gen. Mohiudin Ghori, the brigade commander for Afghan troops in Marjah.

COMMENT:  Let's see the reaction of "human rights" organizations.  Let's see the reaction of trendy American journalists who were so anguished over a comparatively minor scandal at an American prison in Iraq. 

And, of course, let's see the reaction of "feminist" organizations, whose interest in women's rights seems a thing of the past.

The Taliban is a very bad crew.  They gave shelter to Al Qaeda.  Can we seriously trust them with any kind of power?

February 17, 2010   Permalink

SARAH'S RISE – AT 8:42 A.M. ET:  Sarah Palin has taken her political lumps, including some skepticism from this website – but not only is she undeterred, she is winning new respect. 

True, a recent poll reported that 71% of Americans think that she's unqualified to be president.  But Andrew Malcolm of the L.A. Times's excellent Top of the Ticket blog points out that Sarah's rise is occurring a bit under the kind of radar equipment employed by the mainstream media.  But it is occurring:

What base does anyone see coalescing around other potential GOP competitors?

While vocal Palin-haters reveled in her awful recent national poll numbers about presidential qualifications, they missed a fact: if she decides to run for anything, the first goal is to become the GOP nominee. And the voters Palin needs to convince about that are state-by-state Republicans, 69% of whom still see her favorably.

Anyone who's talked to her GOP supporters in recent weeks or watched her work a crowd comes away with a powerful sense of the Palin fervor. The more she's derided by others or in the media, the more convinced her fans are that she is like them -- a regular person derided by so-called elites, often unfairly. Translating such energy ultimately into votes is the key.

And as Malcolm reports, some discerning columnists have started to take note:

And by an impressive coincidence two political experts with wise eyes and decades of experience studying and observing American politics and its transient characters have recently tapped out favorable reviews of this self-defined political rogue who unexpectedly overthrew the entrenched GOP establishment in Alaska when none of the regulars gave her a chance.

The veteran Jules Whitcover of the Baltimore Sun wrote a column this week headlined: "Sarah Palin as GOP nominee in 2012? Don't laugh it off."

"Sarah Palin may come off as a bit ditzy," he said, "but stupid she is not."

Whitcover noted that polls show the highest voter anger or dissatisfaction with the federal government in a decade (about two-thirds).

Then, he recalled another political outsider who followed a one-term Democrat, Ronald Reagan, once also derided as a mere entertainer, who "30 years ago successfully rode a similar dissatisfaction with Washington by promising to 'clean out the swamp' there."

The other columnist, whose observations we reported last week, is David Broder, who, after observing Palin carefully, gave his verdict:

The lady is good.

Malcolm concludes:

We'll see exactly how good she is in coming months. What is certain right now is that as good as Obama was at ultimately reaping $750 million and winning the White House, no one was paying this kind of attention -- positive or negative -- to him this far ahead of his 2008 nomination or election.

COMMENT:  One of Palin's strongest points, of course, is that she continues to intrigue.  Anyone who thought she'd fade away, or be laughed off the stage, has been proved wrong.

February 17, 2010   Permalink

THE POLITICAL LANDSCAPE – BUMPS FOR DEMS – AT 8:04 A.M. ET:  Michael Barone, one of the very best political analysts around, surveys the current political scene, and finds it incredible.  From the Washington Examiner:

The political numbers tell a grim story. In five decades of closely following American politics, I have never seen the Democratic Party in worse shape. Democrats trail in polls in 11 of the 18 Democratic-held Senate seats up this fall and lead in polls in none of the 18 Republican-held seats.

And they sit around and talk about the good old days – 2008.

Republicans currently lead Democrats in most generic polls — which party’s candidate will you support for the House of Representatives? — even though Democrats have almost always held the lead since Gallup began asking the question in 1950. Incumbents usually lead in individual House race polls. But polls have shown Democratic incumbents trailing Republican challengers in Arkansas, Indiana, Massachusetts and North Dakota.

Of course opinion can change, and the balance of enthusiasm, which currently favors Republicans, could shift. But if the election were held today, the numbers tell me that Democrats would fare worse than they have in any election since 1946.

I guess they didn't bring change we can believe in.

But Barone also has a warning.  If Republicans win in November, they'll have to come up with a legislative plan, and that could be hazardous to their political health.  Barone's advice?

Americans have rejected the Europeanizing policies of the Obama Democrats. Republicans may get a chance to put us on a better American path. They need to be prepared to do so.

If they win and fail, we'll be writing about the new Democratic majority in 2012.

February 17, 2010   Permalink

ANOTHER SHOCK IN ALABAMA MURDER CASE – AT 7:50 A.M. ET:  I wrote a few days ago that we'd follow closely the case of the murder of three University of Alabama professors, allegedly by another faculty member, on Friday.

We don't normally do murder here, but let me remind readers that this case is important for its public-policy implications.  We learned on Friday that Amy Bishop, a Harvard-trained biologist, shot and killed three faculty members, and wounded another three, at a meeting of her department at the University of Alabama, Huntsville.  We later were stunned to learn that, in 1986, she shot and killed her brother in Braintree, Massachusetts.  Although she fired the weapon three times, the killing was ruled "accidental."  And we later learned that she was a suspect in the attempted pipe bombing of a Harvard professor, whom she feared would give her a bad report card.

And now there's more, according to a well-reported story in The New York Times:

Also Tuesday, The Boston Globe reported that Dr. Bishop was charged with assault in 2002 after punching a woman in the head at an International House of Pancakes in Peabody, Mass. According to a police report, Dr. Bishop was angry that the woman had taken the last booster seat in the restaurant, which Dr. Bishop wanted for one of her children, The Globe said. It added that Dr. Bishop was sentenced to probation and that prosecutors recommended she take anger management classes, though it is not clear whether she did.

What is disturbing is that the University of Alabama, when it hired Bishop, knew nothing of her violent history.  Call it Massachusetts justice.  She did no time for shooting her brother at point-blank range, nor, as it's now reported, for trying to commandeer a car at gunpoint after that shooting:

In the hours after the shooting death of her brother, Dr. Bishop tried to use the shotgun to steal a car from a nearby Ford dealership, said Tom Pettigrew, an employee of Dave Dinger Ford at the time. In an interview on Tuesday, Mr. Pettigrew said a woman who he soon realized was Amy Bishop approached him with a shotgun and told him to put his hands up.

“She was distraught,” Mr. Pettigrew said. “She was hyperaware of everything that was going on. She said: ‘I need a car, I just got into a fight with my husband. He’s looking for me, and he’s going to kill me.’ ”

She was cleared of the Harvard bombing, but there are doubts about that investigation.  And she did no time for punching a woman in the head in 2002.

Ray Garner, a spokesman for the university in Huntsville, said that the university knew nothing of Dr. Bishop’s violent past when she was hired, and that there were no indications of trouble in her personnel file.

“We did the normal academic background checks,” Mr. Garner said, adding that Dr. Bishop had letters of recommendation from Harvard and elsewhere. “She seemed pretty impeccable.”

COMMENT:  Three professors are dead, allegedly at the hand of Ms. Impeccable.  As The Times points out:

Had Dr. Bishop been charged with the serious crimes listed by the district attorney on Tuesday, their presence on her record might have changed the course of her career, even if she were eventually acquitted.

The district attorney in the case of her brother's death was William Delahunt, now a very leftish Democratic congressman from Massachusetts.  The investigation into that shooting will now probably be reopened.  Congressman Delahunt was recently spoken of retiring. 

Scratch him.

February 17,  2010   Permalink

TUESDAY,  FEBRUARY 16,  2010

OH, DEAR, MUST WE ENDURE THIS? – AT 6:58 P.M. ET:  The Washington Post made some fine appointments to its op-ed page recently, but one that definitely is not fine is Katrina vanden Heuvel.

Vanden Heuvel, in my view a certifiable nutbag, is editor of The Nation, a magazine wrongly described by some as "liberal."  The Nation is not liberal.  The New Republic is liberal.  The Nation is far left, and often floats among the debris of the far-left fringe.  Vanden Heuvel is a very rich lady – she comes from the family that founded Universal Studios – who is often seen in leather pants.  Genuine leather, I'm sure. Her editorship of The Nation got so bad that, in the months after 9-11, apparently to prove that she was at one with the pro-jihadists, The Nation started running Holocaust denial ads, until her own staff stopped her.

Now WaPo has her on its op-ed page.  Today she honors her world of insanity by viciously attacking retiring Senator Evan Bayh of Indiana, from all accounts a decent guy, for not being partisan enough.  Yes, that's just what America is demanding, through Katrina's brain – more partisanship:

So Evan Bayh, the Senate's poster boy for bipartisanship, is, in the immortal words of the Jackson 5, "goin' back to Indiana." The senator explains, "There is too much partisanship and not enough progress [in Congress] -- too much narrow ideology and not enough practical problem-solving." Bayh is correct -- there isn't enough practical problem-solving in Congress. But his brand of bipartisanship should not be mourned. In fact, the country would be better off with a lot less bipartisanship, in any form, right now.

What wisdom.  Of course, quoting the Jackson 5 demonstrates that Katrina once listened to a black group.  A required credential.

Bayh's idea of bipartisanship, it would seem, was to call oneself a Democrat in the caucus while promoting center-right policies in the chamber. He worked to turn the Democratic Party into a kinder, gentler version of the GOP. And although the conventional wisdom is that his departure is bad news for Democrats, the caucus arguably would be stronger with 54 or 55 senators who would get real about governing and work to reform the anti-democratic filibuster than with a supermajority dependent on "conservadems" such as Bayh.

Earth to Katrina:  It takes two thirds to abolish the filibuster.  That's 66 senators.  So 54 or 55 couldn't do it.  That's math.  Okay, it's my mathematical point of view.  On the far left that's only an opinion, an alternative narrative forced on us by the oppressor class. 

Earth again to Katrina:  Bayh was elected from Indiana, a conservative state.  You ought to be thankful that any Democrat could be elected from Indiana.  You would have run an ultra-liberal in the Indiana election, lost by 25 points, and been proud of yourself. 

Achieving progress through "practical problem-solving" shouldn't mean legislating as the wolf in sheep's clothing. And milquetoast conviction isn't what most of us want out of our senators. After all, even a fifth grader, charged up with public-school patriotism after reading Johnny Tremain, could tell you that compromised convictions in the name of "bipartisanship" are not what Esther Forbes had in mind when she closed her historical children's novel with, "A man can stand up."

Oh, dear.  A man can sure stand up.  But it helps to have the country with you.  Vanden Heuvel really believes that her far-left crypto-socialism is what the people yearn for.  If only the peasants out there understood!

Oh Katrina, go back to the big co-op on Manhattan's West Side.  Have a party.  Serve healthy foods and bemoan what you undoubtedly consider Obama's conservatism.

February 16, 2010   Permalink

POLL GRIMNESS FOR OBAMA – AT 6:29 P.M. ET:  A new CNN poll will not be served at dessert tonight at the White House.  Real Clear Politics reports: 

An eye-opening result from the new CNN/Opinion Research survey:

6. Do you think Barack Obama deserves to be reelected, or not?

All Americans
Yes: 44%
No: 52%

Registered Voters
Yes: 44%
No: 52%

President Obama's job rating is slightly better, though still in negative territory. Forty-nine percent approve of the job he's doing while 50% disapprove.

And then there's Congress:

...the GOP leads the Democrats by 2 points in the generic congressional ballot, 48 to 46.

COMMENT:  Obviously, the 2010 midterm elections are many months away.  But what is striking is the relentlessness of the president's decline, as well as the decline of his Congressional party. 

And there does not appear to be anything on the horizon to reverse the trend. 

But if Republicans are smart, and there are doubts about some of them, they'll run as if they're 20 points behind, and will critique their campaign every day.  Nothing is in the bag. 

February 16, 2010   Permalink

ABSOLUTELY DISGRACEFUL – AT 6:01 P.M. ET:  Trouble with another Obama appointee, apparently another radical.  Do you see a pattern here?  From Fox:

President Obama's new envoy to the Organization of Islamic Conference, Rashad Hussain, is at the center of a controversy over remarks attributed to him defending a man who later pleaded guilty to conspiring to aid a terrorist group.

The Washington Report on Middle East Affairs quoted Hussain in 2004 as calling Sami al-Arian the victim of "politically motivated persecutions" after al-Arian, a university professor, was charged in 2003 with heading U.S. operations of the Palestinian Islamic Jihad.

The United States has designated the Palestinian Islamic Jihad as a foreign terrorist group as far back as 1997. At the time of al-Arian's arrest, then Attorney General John Ashcroft called it "one of the most violent terrorist organizations in the world."

Al-Arian pleaded guilty in 2006 to conspiracy to aid Palestinian Islamic Jihad and was sentenced to more than four years in prison.

Ah, but wait, the whitewash crew goes into action:

The White House says the controversial remarks defending al-Arian two years earlier were made by al-Arian's daughter -- not by Hussain. Both were part of a panel discussion at a Muslim Students Association conference, but the reporter covering the event told Fox News she stands by the quotes she attributed to Hussain, who was a Yale Law student and an editor of the Yale Law Journal.

It would be pretty hard to confuse the guy with al-Arian's daughter.

The White House also attributes the quotes to Laila al-Arian.

A White House official who talked with Hussain on Tuesday said he acknowledged attending the event to discuss civil rights in a post-9/11 world but has "no recollection" when it comes to the comments attributed to him.

"No recollection."  Where have we heard that before?

Another screwball appointed to a high post in the Obama administration, envoy to the Organization of Islamic Conference.  He'll be among friends.

February 16, 2010   Permalink

IMPLICATIONS OF BAYH – AT 9:53 A.M. ET:  As a matter of principle, we refuse to use such constructions as "Bye Bayh" at Urgent Agenda.  We have pride.  We have standards. 

But the story itself, Evan Bayh's decision not to seek reelection to the Senate from Indiana, has major implications.  The Washington Post's "The Fix" reports:

The national implications of Bayh's retirement are considerable. Political handicapper Charlie Cook now carries 10 Democratic-held seats in his most competitive categories, meaning that if Republicans run the table and don't lose any of their own vulnerable seats they could take back the Senate. With so little room for error, however, it's still a long shot for Republicans to take over the upper chamber. To expand their chances, the GOP must continue to expand the playing field, with Senate races in Wisconsin and Washington State the most likely possibilities.

COMMENT:  The key is good candidates, always good candidates.  And not all of the GOP bench is glowing.  There are some great ones, and some real clunkers, like John Hostettler, the extremist former congressman, thrown out of office by his own conservative voters in Indiana, and now vying for the Senate nomination, in an apparent bid to fail upward.  So this will be hard work.

February 16, 2010   Permalink

QUOTE OF THE DAY – AT 9:31 A.M. ET:  We're alerted to this by reader Ken Braithwaite:

Nigerian Nobel laureate in literature, and democracy advocate, Wole Soyinka, has a few choice words about Britain.  I love Britain, and things British, but I share the dismay of many others at what's happening to the United Kingdom.  From the Daily Beast:

"England is a cesspit. England is the breeding ground of fundamentalist Muslims. Its social logic is to allow all religions to preach openly. But this is illogic, because none of the other religions preach apocalyptic violence. And yet England allows it. Remember, that country was the breeding ground for communism, too. Karl Marx did all his work in libraries there."

Why is Britain the way it is? "This is part of the character of Great Britain," Mr. Soyinka declares. "Colonialism bred an innate arrogance, but when you undertake that sort of imperial adventure, that arrogance gives way to a feeling of accommodativeness. You take pride in your openness." And so it is, he says, that Britain lets everyone preach whatever they want: It confirms a self-image of greatness.

Not everything Soyinka says is wise.  For example, he thinks well of the Nation of Islam in the United States, which is run by Louis Farrakhan.  But his analysis of Britain rings true.  The Brits almost always come through in the end, however the nation has been dragged down by elements that take up or tolerate the worst ideologies.  Let us not forget that fascism took root in parts of British society in the 1930s.  And the BBC is hopelessly left-wing.

And yet, there is Churchill, the RAF, the debates in Commons, Maggie Thatcher, Tony Blair, and other good stuff.

February 16, 2010   Permalink

FINANCIAL CRISIS II – AT 9:17 A.M. ET:  We Americans, concentrating on the home court, and on the Olympics, haven't been focused on the financial crisis sweeping Europe.  But it can have an enormous impact here. 

The first result, however, has been positive for the U.S., as the Wall Street Journal reports:

A dramatic turn in sentiment in favor of the dollar and against the euro continued Monday, with lingering fears of a possible European debt crisis pushing the greenback to its highest point in nine months.

Among investors, the question a few months ago wasn't whether the U.S. dollar would decline in value, but rather how far and how fast.

The currency's surge is throwing a monkey wrench into the plans of corporations and investors who were betting on a weak dollar..

...Sentiment has flipped on the world's two major currencies. Greece's woes amid a soaring deficit have exposed the fragility of the 16-nation euro zone's government finances and the Continent's recovery, overshadowing any nervousness about the American economy and the massive U.S. budget deficit.

The European Central Bank is now seen as having to delay interest-rate increases in order to prop up growth, while the Federal Reserve appears on track to begin tightening credit sooner rather than later. Higher rates tend to draw investment into a currency, all things being equal, thus boosting the dollar's prospects over the euro's.

COMMENT:  The Greek economy is in desperate trouble, and it's affecting all of Europe.  The world is nowhere near out of the economic woods.  Some economists are predicting a double-dip recession in the United States.  Housing prices in Britain may well collapse again in the face of new pressures.

The White House has no credible answers.

February 16, 2010   Permalink

THUNDER IN MASSACHUSETTS – AT 8:41 A.M. ET:  We've been following the truly bizarre case of the Harvard-educated Alabama professor who shot three colleagues dead on Friday, apparently after being denied tenure. 

We don't normally "do murder" here, but the implications of this case stretch far beyond Alabama.  As previously reported, the professor, Amy Bishop, shot her brother to death in 1986 in liberal Braintree, Massachusetts, a shooting officially ruled an "accident," even though she pulled the trigger of a shotgun three times. 

Bishop was later a suspect in the attempted pipe bombing of a Harvard professor with whom she was having a dispute.  Cleared again, with no one ultimately charged.

To demonstrate the implications, the case may now claim the career of a Massachusetts Democratic congressman, who was district attorney at the time of the "brother shooting."  The Boston Globe reports:

US Representative William Delahunt said yesterday that he is considering retiring from his congressional seat representing the South Shore and Cape Cod, although he portrayed his deliberations as routine and said they are not related to challenges from Republicans who are energized by Scott Brown’s upset victory in last month’s special Senate election.

But being linked to the 1986 shooting, which he failed to prosecute, could push a fella over the edge.

Delahunt, one of the most left-leaning members of Congress, who has an uncomfortably close relationship with Venezuelan thug Hugo Chavez, has been repeatedly accused of being soft on crime.  The 1986 case of Amy Bishop's fatal shooting of her brother will now almost certainly be reopened in light of Bishop's alleged murder of three on Friday.  Hard to see how Delahunt can come out well.

Retirement, on a Congressional pension, has its benefits.  The belief of political observers in Massachusetts is that Republicans have at least a decent shot at picking up his generally liberal district, but it may take a Scott Brown-quality candidate to seal the deal.

February 16, 2010   Permalink

CLINTON CLARITY, WHITE HOUSE MUSH – AT 8:20 A.M. ET:  We find ourselves in the heretical position of praising Hillary Clinton.

The fact is, her statements on Iran during her current Mideast trip have been tough, pointed, unyielding, and just right.  Whether they will lead to anything concrete is another story.  But one wishes she'd get some greater public backing from the pot of mashed potatoes known as the White House.  Alas, we wait for Mr. Obama to be firm on something.

Ms. Clinton has accused Iran of marching toward a military dictatorship.  Iran, apparently wounded by the unloving comment, has responded sharply, as The New York Times reports:

Locked in a sharpening confrontation with the United States, Iran on Tuesday rejected an assertion by Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton that it was becoming a military dictatorship, saying America itself answered to that description.

The foreign minister, Manouchehr Mottaki, “raised questions about the United States military dictatorship in the region,” the English-language Press TV broadcaster said, accusing Washington of practicing “modern deceit” and using “fake words” to disguise its intentions in the Persian Gulf area.

On Monday, Mrs. Clinton said Washington fears that Iran is drifting toward a military dictatorship with the Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps assuming ever greater political, military and economic power.

But, in Tehran on Tuesday, Mr. Mottaki said: “We are regretful that the U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton tries to conceal facts about the stance of the U.S. administration through fake words,” Press TV said.

Not exactly stirring words.  Hillary must have touched a nerve.

Adding to the regional weirdness, Saudi Arabia, which we'd thought was on board with new sanctions on Iran, is now balking, but no one can quite figure out the Saudi position.  From AP: 

RIYADH, Saudi Arabia – Saudi Arabia's foreign minister on Monday expressed doubts about the usefulness of more sanctions on Iran over its nuclear program.

Prince Saud al-Faisal told a news conference in the Saudi capital that the threat posed by Iran's nuclear ambitions demands a more immediate solution than sanctions. He described sanctions as a long-term solution, and he said the threat is more pressing.

More immediate?  The foreign minister didn't ask, didn't tell.  But "immediate" has a very military ring to it.

Stand by for more.

February 16,  2010   Permalink