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.

NEW SUBSCRIPTION DRIVE - CRITICAL!

We launched our first subscription drive of 2010 on Monday.  After a quick, start, things have gotten a bit sluggish.  We're at 70% of our goal for the first three days.  Help needed!

Subscriptions are our lifeblood. Without them, we cannot function. With them, we can fight off all evil. 

We started taking subscriptions about 18 months ago.   As a result, we're about 60% of our way to financial stability.  But we're still not home.  No, we're not in danger of going dark.  But, unless we expand our subscription base, we are in danger of diminishing our service.

You can subscribe by going to the column on the right, just opposite these words.

By subscribing you keep Urgent Agenda alive. You also get The Angel's Corner, our twice-a-week e-mailed publication.  At The Angel's Corner you can join our Forum.  Write on anything you wish, and you're not limited to 140 characters.   Did you know that some Angel's Corner pieces are used in college classrooms?  

And at The Angel's Corner we give the very coveted Pompous Fool award, bestowed on those who meet the highest standards of absurdity.  Recipients have wept at the news that they've won.

Subscribe for a year, or six months, or donate what you wish.  We also have a family plan.  For little more than a year's subscription, you can have a second sent to someone else - like a loved one you want to save from political correctness.

We have a 91% subscriber retention rate - almost unheard of - but, if you want to drop your subscription, the unused portion will be refunded with only a few insults.

Subscribe today. A credit card will do it. Or, we can send you a mail address, if you prefer.

We'll be monitoring the White House health summit – which will actually be held at Blair House – throughout the day.  Drop in periodically.  There's no co-pay.

THURSDAY,  FEBRUARY 25,  2010

UPDATE TO "OUTRAGEOUS," JUST BELOW – AT 10:35 P.M. ET:  Well, the Republicans got results.  We reported at 7:33 p.m. about an outrageous attempt by leftist Dems in the House to insert a provision into a bill that would punish intelligence officers for a long list of infractions, many vaguely defined, and others already covered by law.  There's a new development:

A controversial bill that would have levied criminal punishments on intelligence officers for harsh interrogations was pulled Thursday evening.

House Republicans charged Democrats with trying to sneak a provision into the intelligence authorization bill that would establish criminal punishment for CIA agents and other intelligence officials who engage in “cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment” during interrogations.

Please define "degrading."  On American college campuses that could mean looking at a person of "another culture" the wrong way.

Democrats inserted an 11-page addition into the bill late Wednesday night as the House Rules Committee considered the legislation.

The provision, previously not vetted in committee, applied to “any officer or employee of the intelligence community” who during interrogations engages in beatings, infliction of pain or forced sexual acts. The bill said the acts covered by the provision would include inducing hypothermia, conducting mock executions or “depriving the [detainee] of necessary food, water, sleep, or medical care.”

This provision was clearly inserted to satisfy the hard left of the Democratic Party.

Republican Representative Pete Hoekstra of Michigan nailed it:

"Republicans brought this to the attention of the American people, who were rightly outraged that Democrats would try to target those we ask to serve in harm’s way and with a unified push we were successful in getting them to pull the bill," Hoekstra said in a statement. "The annual intelligence bill should be about protecting and defending our nation, not targeting those we ask to do that deed and giving greater protections to terrorists."

COMMENT:  That's good news.  Obviously, intelligence officers must observe the law and the orders from above.  But this provision was a gratuitous insult, and meant to be.  There are Democrats who simply are nostalgic for the 1960s.  Let them live with their nostalgia and leave us alone.

February 25, 2010   Permalink

OUTRAGEOUS – AT 7:33 P.M. ET:  Another example of Democratic arrogance, and Democratic insistence on pursuing a left-wing agenda, regardless of public opinion.  From The Hill:

House Republicans are charging Democrats with trying to sneak a provision into the intelligence authorization bill that would establish criminal punishment for CIA agents and other intelligence officials who engage in “cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment” during interrogations.

Democrats inserted an 11-page addition into the bill late Wednesday night as the House Rules Committee considered the legislation.

The provision, previously not vetted in committee, applies to “any officer or employee of the intelligence community” who during interrogations engages in beatings, infliction of pain or forced sexual acts. The bill said the acts covered by the provision would include inducing hypothermia, conducting mock executions or “depriving the [detainee] of necessary food, water, sleep, or medical care.”

Outrageous.  None of this is necessary.  It's all covered by existing law.  There's a long list of prohibitions, some of which are hilarious, like playing on a prisoner's phobias.  As one congressman pointed out, that would prohibit an interrogator with suggesting that a prisoner could get a longer sentence unless he cooperates.

And who's behind this little gem?  No surprise:

Intelligence committee Chairman Silvestre Reyes (D-Texas) added the language, originally offered by Rep. Jim McDermott (D-Wash.), to his manager’s amendment, which makes several changes to the bill passed by committee.

McDermott is as far left as you can get without entering little-red-book territory.  He never met a democracy he liked.

The fact that this provision was snuck in without any committee hearings is contemptible.  It reminds us of the successful attempts by the Democratic left in the 1970s to gut the CIA.  This bill, if passed, will make interrogators so gun-shy that they may fail to do their jobs effectively.

The left is trying to get as many changes written into the law as quickly as possible, expecting major losses in November.  They will deserve those losses.

February 25, 2010   Permalink

OBAMA'S PERFORMANCE – AT 7:14 P.M. ET:  One of the striking things about today's health summit was Obama's performance. 

The record shows that the president spoke longer than all the Republicans put together.  In fact, when added to the time he gave to other Dems, the Democrats had twice the amount of time as did the Republicans.  Not exactly fair and balanced. 

In addition, Obama got snippy on several occasions, especially when dealing with John McCain, at one point reminding McCain, who'd challenged him, that the election was over.  It was a disgraceful remark, but McCain remained humble.  Frankly, some Republican should have snapped back at Obama, and I think many Americans would have cheered.  Obama has never quite understood the difference between running and governing, and nothing he did today showed that he's attempting to learn.

Barack Obama has a particular kind of arrogance, born of the belief that he has some measure of undefined gift that all truly good people appreciate.  The only gift I've seen so far is a honey tongue.  The gift for governing was never delivered.

February 25, 2010    Permalink

KUDOS FOR REPUBLICANS – AT 5:51 P.M. ET:  The Republican performance at the health summit today got raves, even from some of the left-tilting pundits at CNN:

CNN’s WOLF BLITZER: “It looks like the Republicans certainly showed up ready to play.” (CNN’s “Live,” 2/25/10)

CNN’s GLORIA BORGER: “The Republicans have been very effective today. They really did come to play. They were very smart.” (CNN’s “Live,” 2/25/10)

BORGER: “They took on the substance of a very complex issue. … But they really stuck to the substance of this issue and tried to get to the heart of it and I think did a very good job.” (CNN’s “Live,” 2/25/10)

BORGER: “They came in with a plan. They mapped it out.” (CNN’s “Live,” 2/25/10)

CNN’s DAVID GERGEN: “The folks in the White House just must be kicking themselves right now. They thought that coming out of Baltimore when the President went in and was mesmerizing and commanding in front of the House Republicans that he could do that again here today. That would revive health care and would change the public opinion about their health care bill and they can go on to victory. Just the opposite has happened.” (CNN’s “Live,” 2/25/10)

GERGEN: “He doesn’t have a strong Democratic team behind him.” (CNN’s “Live,” 2/25/10)

COMMENT:  No one, at least thus far, thinks the Dems carried the day.  And Gergen is right.  The president doesn't have a strong team.  Changes are in order. 

February 25, 2010   Permalink

SUMMIT OVER – AT 5:23 P.M. ET:  The health-care summit is over, and we've been monitoring reaction.

First, it wasn't terribly interesting.  Health care, though vital, is not sizzling subject like beating the terrorists.  No one reading an actuarial table ever said, "I can't put it down."

That being said, the Republicans clearly won the day.  While I was disappointed that they did not bring a single coherent program, wrapped in a ribbon, they did present their ideas intelligently, proving that they have them and are ready to deal.

Also, what did come out of the day was the bipartisan notion that our system is in serious need of reform.  I'm glad to see that the GOP is no longer automatically supporting everything that "free enterprise" does.  Health insurance companies are notoriously unpopular because some are notorious.  Republicans realize that and realize that legal fixes are required.  Good for them. 

What also came out of the day was the impression of a Democratic Party that is unfit to govern.  Health reform, as an issue, is exceedingly popular across the political spectrum, as polls show.  But the Dems have run it into the ground with their extremism and arrogance.  We did not need a 2,000-page bill to introduce needed fixes.  We got one because the left wing of the Democratic Party, the ruling wing, didn't much care if Americans understood what was being done, and really didn't want to discuss their plans.  They knew best, and that was that.

There was no political progress made by either side today.  Now, everything depends on what votes are available in both houses of Congress.  We have some reason to be confident, at least today, that the Democrats don't have the votes to pass their 2,000-page monstrosity, and that smaller measures, targeted at individual problems, will, as Republicans advised, be the route to take.

February 25,  2010    Permalink

SUMMIT UPDATE AT 1:17 P.M. ET:  The summiteers are at lunch, which may be the most useful thing they'll do all day. 

The pundits are pretty much saying what we've been saying here – that all we've had is an exchange of views, all of them well known.  There is one health-related side benefit, though:  Anyone with insomnia will have it instantly cured by tuning in the health summit.  It's one of the great moments in medicine.

SUMMIT UPDATE AT 12:35 P.M. ET:  A sweep of the blogs and news sites shows a consensus that the health summit is going nowhere.

This is not an audience grabber.  Sudanese figure skating would get more viewers.  You just get the feeling that everyone is going through the motions, with no expectation of movement.

However, I would have still like to have seen the Republicans bring a complete plan with some new, surprise elements.  They've got to learn the importance of making news by presenting something positive.

SUMMIT UPDATE AT 12:18 P.M. ET:  The health summit drones on.   There is no real news.

Basically, the two parties are restating previous positions.  No one has come to the table with anything new...unless someone is holding back until later in the day.

There is a risk of terminal boredom, which can drive premiums up.

HEALTH SUMMIT – AT 10:53 A.M. ET:  The health summit is underway.

No bombshell announcements.  The rumor that a baby would be born in the middle of the meeting table, and that John Edwards is the father, turned out to be false.

Lamar Alexander of Tennessee, speaking for the GOP, made the most persuasive comment, noting that Congress doesn't do comprehensive legislation very well, and suggesting that both House and Senate start over on health care, with more modest objectives.

WE'VE BEEN HERE BEFORE – AT 9:55 A.M. ET:  A new poll looks dicouraging for the U.S. on the surface, but not to worry.  From The Washington Post: 

Facing high unemployment and a difficult economy, most Americans think the United States will have a smaller role in the world economy in the coming years, and many believe that while the 20th century may have been the "American Century," the 21st century will belong to China.

These results come from a new Washington Post-ABC News poll conducted during a time of significant tension between Washington and Beijing.

Okay, there is some substance here.  But remember back to 1980, when similar polls among Americans said the same thing about Japan.

"China's on the rise," said Wayne Nunnery, 56, a retired U.S. Air Force employee from Bexar, Tex., who was one of 1,004 randomly selected adults polled. "I don't worry about a Chinese century, but I do wonder how it's going to be for my three sons."

Asked whether this century would be more of an "American Century" or more of a "Chinese Century," Americans divide evenly in terms of the economy (41 percent say Chinese, 40 percent American) and tilt toward the Chinese in terms of world affairs (43 percent say Chinese, 38 percent American). A slim majority say the United States will play a diminished role in the world's economy this century, and nearly half see the country's position shrinking in world affairs more generally.

This is the way Americans react.  We were discouraged at the start of World War II as well.  But don't underestimate American imagination and entrepreneurship. 

The results are consistent with recent polls by Gallup, the Pew Research Center and others that have tracked a significant public concern about China's growing prominence on the world stage, as its economy has expanded into what is arguably the second-biggest in the world. In 2000, for example, when the U.S. economy was booming, 65 percent of Americans polled by Gallup said the United States had the world's strongest economy. By last year, the United States and China ran neck-and-neck on the question.

COMMENT:  Americans can always come out on top, but it will take improvements in our educational system, a low-tax economic policy, and, equally important, substantial improvements in the way we run certain industries.  Disgraces and distortions in the financial sector can do as much damage, or more, as competition from China.

And remember, China has problems, too.  They're substantial.  They may well grow as the Chinese economy grows.  And the country suffers from disunity and discontent.  We tend to make our competitors into supermen.  I haven't encountered any real supermen just yet.

February 25, 2010   Permalink

SOME GOOD NEWS – AT 9:26 A.M. ET:  This zipped in under the radar, but Republicans and Democrats have actually cooperated on a key piece of health-care legislation.  From The Politico:

Republicans joined with Democrats in the House to approve legislation on Wednesday that would repeal a long-standing anti-trust exemption for health insurance companies, an increasingly rare show of bipartisan cooperation -- and on health care, no less.

The measure was the first installment of Speaker Nancy Pelosi's dual-track strategy for passing smaller health care measures ahead of the Democrats' more sweeping bill. If party leaders fail to approve their bigger bill, Pelosi could revive this small-ball approach to make many of the changes they're seeking in the historic health care package.

COMMENT:  Good move for both parties.  That exemption is an obscenity, and violates the most basic principles of true free enterprise. 

No indication yet for prospects in the Senate.  This is something that we can support, and should go to the president's desk.

February 25, 2010   Permalink

IS THIS STRANGE, OR WHAT? – AT 9:01 A.M. ET:  Usually, Hillary Clinton is more astute than this, but, if you remember her campaign for president, she sometimes comes down with tin-ear syndrome.  It's happened again.  From the Washington Times:

President Obama's diminished political power as a result of fights between the White House and Congress has damaged both his and the country's image abroad, Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton said Wednesday.

Even as she thanked Congress for its bipartisan support for many of the Obama administration's foreign policy goals, Mrs. Clinton said during two Senate committee hearings that recent bickering on domestic issues concerns her and that she hopes "we can figure out a better way to address it."

Oh now, come on.  We have a system here called democracy.  It's messy.  It's contentious.  Sometimes it doesn't look as neat and clean as dictatorships.  But don't tell us we have to alter our system to become more "popular" abroad. Not worth it, Hillary.  We're not running a high-school popularity contest, and I wish the Obama administration, with its adolescent mentality, would figure that out.

"We are always going to have differences between the executive and legislative branch, but we have to be attuned to how the rest of the world sees the functioning of our government, because it's an asset," the secretary told the Senate Appropriations subcommittee on state, foreign operations and related programs.

"People don't understand the way our system operates. They just don't get it," she said. "Their view does color whether the United States — not just the president, but our country — is in a position going forward to demonstrate the kind of unity and strength and effectiveness that I think we have to in this very complex and dangerous world."

If they don't understand it, we have to explain it.  A good chunk of the world lives under systems we would never tolerate.  As one comedian used to say, comparing the Soviet Union and the United States:  "They both have freedom of speech.  But in America there's freedom after the speech."  And that's the way we'll keep it.

We should explains the rigors of democracy, not try to put on an artificial happy face.

I'm afraid Clinton's statement reflects more than a bit of elitism – the view of some elites that democracy is a bit too stressful and messy for them.  Choose another line of work. 

While Mr. Obama's approval ratings have been sliding in recent months, Mrs. Clinton has been scoring much higher than the president, according to several opinion polls. One of them, conducted by Gallup, showed this month that 51 percent of Americans approve of the president's job performance, while 43 percent disapprove. Mrs. Clinton's approval rating has been around 70 percent.

That's true, but she's not in the direct line of political fire.  She manages to avoid it.  Put her back in the arena, and she'll take some serious hits.

February 25, 2010   Permalink

OH DEAR, DON'T SHOW THIS TO THE PRESIDENT – AT 8:42 A.M. ET:  From a new CNN poll on health-care legislation:

Twenty-five percent of people questioned in the poll say Congress should pass legislation similar to the bills passed by both chambers, with 48 percent saying lawmakers should work on an entirely new bill and a quarter saying Congress should stop all work on health care reform.

What a vote of confidence in the way things have been handled.  And yet...

"Many provisions of those bills are popular, particularly restrictions on health insurance companies," says CNN Polling Director Keating Holland. "Roughly 6 in 10 would like a bill that prevents insurers from dropping people who become seriously ill or denying coverage to people with pre-existing conditions. Seven in 10 favor requiring large and mid-sized companies to provide health insurance to their employees. Those proposals are popular among Republicans as well as Independents and Democrats. A cap on medical malpractice awards – something on the GOP's wish list that is not in the current legislation – is also popular."

COMMENT:  So, the current bills contain some popular provisions, but only 25% want the bills, or bills like them, passed.  What a botch job!  This administration is almost unique in the way it turned popular proposals into 25% support. 

This is what happens when we elect a president with no experience whatever in commanding things.  The Obamans could turn the public against chocolate ice cream.  And would probably like to.

February 25, 2010   Permalink

TODAY'S THE DAY! – AT 8:28 A.M. ET:  The White House health-care summit, actually to be held at Blair House, starts in less than two hours.

The excitement builds. 

Already President Obama's power on this issue is apparent.  According to reports, last night he placed his hands on Nancy Pelosi's shoulders and intoned "HEAL!"  Her plastic-surgery smile melted away, and she looks human again. 

He placed his hands on Harry Reid's shoulders and intoned "HEAL!" Suddenly, the man had a personality.  "Oh thank you, Dear Leader," he wept, falling to his knees on a copy of the president's 2,000-page health bill. 

Other Democrats, some very sick, are wondering whether to approach the Leader and ask for the laying on of hands.  They may get better, but, on the other hand, they'd be photographed with Barack Obama, a serious occupational disease for which there is no coverage under Obamacare.

The key question:  What will the Republicans bring to the table?  The second key question:  Will Obama be fair to the Republicans present, or try to cut them off? 

It's the Sharks vs. the Jets.  I can hear the score from "West Side Story."  Call it "West Wing Story."  Be there.

February 25,  2010   Permalink

WEDNESDAY,  FEBRUARY 24,  2010

ON THE EVE OF THE HEALTH-CARE SUMMIT – AT 7:05 P.M. ET:  The health-care summit will be held tomorrow.  No one expects much.

The fact is that Democratic defections, not GOP opposition, may well kill the president's bill.  We reported Byron York's head count earlier today, indicating that the bill will probably lose in the House.  Here, from The Hill, is direct evidence from a key House member:

There are 15-20 House Democrats who are withholding their support for President Barack Obama's healthcare proposal, Rep. Bart Stupak (D-Mich.) said Wednesday.

Stupak led a broad coalition of anti-abortion Democrats in November, demanding that House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) include tough abortion restrictions in the lower chamber's legislation lest she lose a chance of passing the bill.

The Michigan Democrat has voiced unhappiness with the president's plan because it upholds the Senate's abortion language, which he says is too loose and could allow federal dollars to pay for abortion procedures.

But Stupak said that the group of 15-20 Democrats oppose it not just because of the abortion provisions.

Asked on Fox News if he thinks the president's fixes will pass the House, Stupak said, "Despite the abortion language, no, there are other problems with this bill...[I have spoken to] probably about 15 or 20 of them in the last 24 hours; they've said there are other problems with this bill."

Stupak's remarks come after House Minority Whip Eric Cantor (R-Va.) Wednesday morning predicted that Democrats would fall 14 votes short of passing the bill.

COMMENT:  This is a great chance for the Republicans to come to the table tomorrow with a bill of their own.  Let's see what they spring.

It's incredible, that a year after Obama was anointed as savior of the nation, he can't get his signature bill through a heavily Democratic congress.  What power.  What influence.  What governing skill.

As head of a student government, Barack Obama is tops.

February 24, 2010   Permalink

EMPLOYMENT NEWS – AT 5:36 P.M. ET:  In this time of high job losses, it's gratifying to find a success story.  And it's wonderful to know that a man's entire background doesn't count against him.  From the Washington Examiner:

Van Jones, Obama's former "green energy czar" forced to resign over endorsing views that President George W. Bush may have deliberately allowed 9/11 to happen as well as controversy over his past as a radical communist, appears to have landed on his feet. Many of his views may have been unacceptable to the vast majority of the American public, but he's more than welcome at an Ivy League university and one of D.C.'s most prominent liberal think tanks:

The Examiner then quotes the Washington Post:

Jones, who has been consulting for companies and nonprofits on environmental issues, will start teaching at Princeton University in June and is rejoining the Center for American Progress, a liberal think tank, next month. On Friday, he will receive the NAACP's President's Award, for achievement in public service, the organization announced Tuesday.

Start teaching at Princeton in June?  Isn't that when the students go home?  Well, maybe he's so exciting that they'll stay for him.

Princeton has had a checkered history.  At one time it was a restricted upper-crust school whose entering classes in 1939 and 1940 voted Adolf Hitler the greatest man in the world.  But in recent decades it's gone hard left, following the academic trends of the time.  We're sure Van Jones will make the same vast contribution to Princeton that he made to the United States Government.

February 24, 2010   Permalink

VOCABULARY BULLETIN – AT 5:20 P.M. ET:  From Fox:

Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano has become the first Obama Administration official to publicly describe last year's deadly shootings at Ft. Hood, Tex., as a terrorist act, according to a search of news clips and transcripts.

"Violent Islamic terrorism ... was part and parcel of the Ft. Hood killings," Napolitano told the Senate Homeland Security Committee on Wednesday morning. "There is violent Islamic terrorism, be it Al Qaeda in Pakistan, Afghanistan, Yemen or anywhere else, [and] that is indeed a major focus of this department and its efforts."

In the months since an Army psychiatrist -- who had been in contact with a radical Muslim cleric in Yemen -- opened fired inside the Army base, many on Capitol Hill have urged administration officials to publicly identify the attack as terrorism.

Those calls have been used by Republicans and others to paint administration officials as weak on terrorism and subsequently unwilling to use the word "terrorism."

COMMENT:  We gladly report this dictionary breakthrough.  The Obama government is staffed by people who would have called the Japanese pilots over Pearl Harbor "flying tourists provoked by American ships."

February 24, 2010   Permalink

I'M SHOCKED THAT THIS IS GOING ON IN OUR WHITE HOUSE – AT 10:37 A.M. ET:  From The Politico:

President Barack Obama’s top advisers are quietly laying the groundwork for the 2012 reelection campaign, which is likely to be run out of Chicago and managed by White House deputy chief of staff Jim Messina, according to Democrats familiar with the discussions.

The planning for now consists entirely of private conversations, with Obama aides at all levels indulging occasionally in closed-door 2012 discussions while focusing ferociously on the midterm elections and health care reform, the Democratic sources said. “The gathering storm is the 2010 elections,” one top official said.

But the sources said Obama has given every sign of planning to run again and wants the next campaign to resemble the highly successful 2008 effort.

Planning to run again?  When did he ever stop running?  This White House is one long campaign.

Anita Dunn, former White House communications director, will be intimately involved, too.

Hey, wait.  Isn't she the one who was forced out for making a fool of herself, like saying kindly things about Chairman Mao?  I guess they think we'll forget.

White House press secretary Robert Gibbs, White House communications director Dan Pfeiffer and senior adviser Valerie Jarrett are likely to remain at the president’s side in Washington, while exercising major influence over the campaign.

And why not?  When people volunteer to go down with the ship, you've got to repay them.

Get this:

The themes for Obama’s campaign are not yet chosen, but a top adviser said not to expect a radical surprise: “He knows who he is."

The trouble is, we don't.

February 24, 2010   Permalink

GATES READS RIOT ACT TO EUROPE – AT 10:06 A.M. ET:  Speaking of differences between the United States and Europe (see post just below), Secretary of Defense Robert Gates has read the riot act to our European dependencies. 

Gates's comments were largely overlooked, but are quite stunning, coming from an administration that values, or says it values, the soft touch: 

WASHINGTON — Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates, who has long called European contributions to NATO inadequate, said Tuesday that public and political opposition to the military had grown so great in Europe that it was directly affecting operations in Afghanistan and impeding the alliance’s broader security goals.

You know NATO?  That's the alliance where an attack on one is considered an attack on all, but an attack on the United States is considered a little less important than an attack on the others.

"The demilitarization of Europe — where large swaths of the general public and political class are averse to military force and the risks that go with it — has gone from a blessing in the 20th century to an impediment to achieving real security and lasting peace in the 21st,” he told NATO officers and officials in a speech at the National Defense University, the Defense Department-financed graduate school for military officers and diplomats.

I'm glad some American official actually said this.  Many informed Americans have thought it for years.

A perception of European weakness, he warned, could provide a “temptation to miscalculation and aggression” by hostile powers.

He means Iran, and even a resurgent Russia.  NATO was formed in 1949, a reflection of the lessons learned from the failure to prevent World War II.  Those lessons are being forgotten as the generation that learned them fades away. 

Mr. Gates’s blunt comments came just three days after the coalition government of the Netherlands collapsed in a dispute over keeping Dutch troops in Afghanistan. It now appears almost certain that most of the 2,000 Dutch troops there will be withdrawn this year. And polls show that the Afghanistan war has grown increasingly unpopular in nearly every European country.

Gee, wasn't Europe supposed to become increasingly supportive of the United States once The One took office and cast his magic spell?  Maybe Obama has had some positive effect in Europe, but of course 14-year-olds can't vote.

Dana Allin, a senior fellow with the International Institute of Strategic Studies in London, called Mr. Gates’s remarks “very striking.”

“Whether this is a conscious statement to sound a real sharp warning, there’s no question that the frustration among the American military establishment is palpable regarding coalition operations in Afghanistan,” he said.

COMMENT:  As usual, it's the U.S., the Brits, the Canadians, and the Australians who bear the brunt.  At some point some Europeans will try to call Washington in a crisis, and no one will answer the phone.

Gates spoke wisely.

February 24, 2010    Permalink

THE AMERICAN STYLE – AT 8:53 A.M. ET:  Michael Barone has a superb piece explaining the psychology of the public's rejection, in every poll, of Obamacare.  Barone is one of our most astute political observers, and his comments are incisive:

You are victims. You are helpless against the wiles of big corporations and insurance companies and you need protection. You need the government to take over and do things you cannot do for yourself.

That is the thinking of what David Brooks calls "the educated class" that favors the Democrats' health care bills...

...it's an argument that has often been appealing to Europeans but that has always been unappealing to Americans.

Why the difference?

Why do Americans reject such policies while Europeans seem content with them? One reason is history. Twentieth-century history -- and 19th- and 18th-century history too -- showed Europeans that they were often the helpless victims of tyrants and total war. That made them content to rely on government for security.

Americans have had a different experience. As scholars like Seymour Martin Lipset have documented, Americans are more likely than Europeans to believe that there is a connection between effort and reward. And to believe that they can improve their situation by their own hard work and ingenuity.

As a result, Americans cherish their independence.

And...

Americans tend to see themselves as independent doers, not dependent victims. They don't like to be told, especially by those with fancy academic pedigrees, that they are helpless and in need of government aid. That's why the politically popular American big-government programs -- Social Security, Medicare, veterans' benefits, student loans -- all make a connection between effort and reward. You get a benefit because you've worked for it.

And other popular programs, like safety standards in cars, or the Centers for Disease Control, often involve life and death issues that have not been addressed adequately in the private sector.

Obama, who has chosen to live his adult life in university precincts, sees...Americans generally as victims who need his help, people who would be better off dependent on government than on their own. Most American voters don't want to see themselves that way and resent this condescension.

Obama hopes to embarrass Republicans at his Thursday summit and persuade Democrats to change the legislative rules and jam through a health care bill. Tactically he's not likely to succeed. But his greater problem, on health care and other issues, is strategic. Most Americans don't share his view that they are victims, in need of protection and supervision by "the educated class."

COMMENT:  By "educated class" Barone means a certain kind of "educated" person – the kind who'd put his College Board scores on his gravestone.  Obviously, there are plenty of thoughtful, highly educated people who think differently.  And, yes, some serve in the government.  There are two highly educated Republican physicians, now United States senators, who will be at the health summit in the White House tomorrow. 

But I think Barone captures a certain attitude that many see among the American elites – elites who increasingly resemble the failed European elites.  Americans are catching on.

February 24, 2010   Permalink

THE OLD MATH DOESN'T ADD UP – AT 8:21 A.M. ET:  The health-care summit at the White House will be held tomorrow.  Aren't you excited?  Do you feel better already?  Throw away those pills.  You are healed!

But you probably won't be healed by Obamacare, the Toyota of health plans – zipping ahead with no one in control.  That's because, according to the count rendered by Byron York at the Washington Examiner, Obamacare may go terminal in the House:

So where are the votes? Start in the House. House Democrats have to do two things. First, they have to pass the health care bill that Senate Democrats passed on December 24 -- Cornhusker Kickback, Louisiana Purchase and all. They could stop there and send the bill to the president's desk, but that, of course, is not going to happen. So they then have to pass a set of agreed-upon "fixes" to the Senate bill that the Senate would then pass by using the reconciliation process. (The fixes will start in the House; reconciliation bills have to originate in the House because all revenue measures have to originate in the House.)

And now for the math problems:

The original House health care bill passed last November by a 220 to 215 margin. But supporters have lost four votes since then.

Deaths, resignations, and one switcheroo.

In addition, it's thought that some number of Democrats who voted for the original bill will likely vote against the Senate version because it lacks the House bill's language on the subject of abortion (the president's proposed compromise doesn't help on that subject, either). Republicans estimate there may be 11 such Democrats. If there are, that takes the number down to 205, which means Speaker Nancy Pelosi will need to find a dozen "yes" votes to make up the difference.

And there's this reality:

And that doesn't begin to consider the Democrats who voted in favor of the House bill last November but have now finally been persuaded, by continued public opposition in the polls, the Senate election in Massachusetts, and the generally worsening political climate for Democrats, that another vote in favor of the wildly unpopular health bill would be suicidal.

Finally...

The bottom line: Pelosi is probably many votes short of being able to pass the Senate bill, along with the still-unwritten fixes. In public Democrats are trying to create a sense of inevitability about the bill -- they've tried to do that at various times during the year-long process -- but there is absolutely nothing inevitable about the passage of their national health care plan.

COMMENT:  Don't tear up your insurance card just yet. 

But the sound you'll hear will be Democrats in the House screaming in pain as their arms are twisted by Queen Nancy and her court.  They may endure the pain this time.  Being defeated in November is worse.

February 24, 2010   Permalink

TRULY THE SUNSHINE STATE – AT 8:03 A.M. ET:  With all the inside talk about the Republican primary for U.S. senator in Florida, matching Governor Charlie Crist against Marco Rubio, we sometimes forget that one of them will face off in the general election.  How is that going?

Rasmussen reports that it's going very well for our side:

While Charlie Crist and Marco Rubio battle it out for the Republican Senate nomination in Florida, one thing is unchanged for now: Regardless of which GOP candidate emerges, the likely Democratic Senate nominee, Congressman Kendrick Meek, has a long way to go.

The latest Rasmussen Reports telephone survey of likely voters in the state shows Meek trailing Crist by 16 points and Rubio by 20 in general election match-ups, margins that are virtually unchanged from a month ago.

While Crist, the state’s current governor, trails Rubio by the widest margin yet among Republican voters, he leads Meek 48% to 32%. Eleven percent (11%) prefer some other candidate, and nine percent (9%) are undecided.

Rubio now holds a 51% to 31% lead over Meek. Seven percent (7%) like another candidate, and 11% remain undecided.

COMMENT:  So the seat, currently held by placeholder George LeMiuex, appointed by Gov. Crist to serve out the term of resigned Senator Mel Martinez, is likely to stay in the right column.

February 24,  2010   Permalink