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 - HELP!

After a quick start, our new subscription drive has slowed. We must do better to maintain our service level.  Please read this notice.  You're not getting all you should from Urgent Agenda unless you're a subscriber. 

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.  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.

FRIDAY,  FEBRUARY 26,  2010

THE DROP-OUT LIST GROWS AGAIN – AT 7:29 P.M. ET:  Scandal-plagued and governmentally challenged Governor David Paterson of New York has announced that he will not run for a full term.

You may recall that, in this soap opera, Paterson succeeded Governor Eliot Spitzer when Spitzer was forced to resign in a prostitution scandal.  Paterson is being forced out by a series of revelations about improper influence surrounding an aide's domestic violence problems.  One thing about New York:  When we have scandals, they're intimate and gossipy.  None of this mishandling of public funds nonsense. 

Paterson's withdrawal paves the way for Attorney General Andrew Cuomo, son of former Governor Mario Cuomo, to become the Democratic nominee.

Is it an opportunity for Republicans?  Not really.  New York is heavily Democratic, and, unless it's revealed that Cuomo is secretly married to John Edwards, he should win easily in November.  His probable opponent will be ill-fated former Republican Congressman Rick Lazio, last seen in a losing fight against Hillary Clinton for a Senate seat several political generations ago.

There's also a Senate seat up again in New York, which could provide an opportunity for Republicans, but so far no credible candidate has stepped forward.  The GOP in New York is weak and unimaginative.  The party tends to be owned by the highest-ranking Republican official in the state.  It used to be Nelson Rockefeller's toy.

So, for now, New York stays blue unless someone on a white horse rides in.

February 26, 2010    Permalink

STRANGENESS IN IRAN – The Iranians are doing strange things with their uranium, and no one can figure out why.  The New York Times's excellent David Sanger has the story:

WASHINGTON — When Iran was caught last September building a secret, underground nuclear enrichment plant at a military base near the city of Qum, the country’s leaders insisted they had no other choice. With its nuclear facilities under constant threat of attack, they said, only a fool would leave them out in the open.

So imagine the surprise of international inspectors almost two weeks ago when they watched as Iran moved nearly its entire stockpile of low-enriched nuclear fuel to an above-ground plant. It was as if, one official noted, a bull’s-eye had been painted on it.

Why take such a huge risk?

That mystery is the subject of fervent debate among many who are trying to decode Iran’s intentions. The theories run from the bizarre to the mundane: Under one, Iran is actually taunting the Israelis to strike first. Under another, it is simply escalating the confrontation with the West to win further concessions in negotiations that have dragged on for months. The simplest explanation is that Iran has run short of suitable storage containers for radioactive fuel, so it had to move everything.

The debate reflects the depth of confusion about the intentions of a badly divided Iranian leadership. Since October, when Iran agreed in principle to ship much of its nuclear stockpile out of the country so that it could be converted to fuel for a medical reactor, there have been a series of unexplained actions.

COMMENT:  Historically, the Iranians are excellent negotiators, stemming from the Persian tradition.  This is pure speculation, but this movement of uranium can be some kind of negotiating ploy, the nature of which is still to be seen.

One thing is clear:  So far, Iran has beaten us badly in the negotiating game.  They've given up nothing, and gotten everything.  Mr. Obama, who fancies himself a man of brilliance and an international actor of high tone, seems unable to do a thing about it. 

February 26, 2010   Permalink

SCRATCH ANOTHER ONE – AT 10:07 A.M. ET:  It looks like Scott Brown country may lose another far-left Dem congressman, with an opportunity opening up.  From the Boston Herald:

U.S. Rep. William Delahunt blew nearly $560,000 in campaign cash last year - much of it on lavish meals and a family-friendly payroll that includes his ex-wife, son-in-law and daughter - stoking speculation the Quincy Democrat is emptying his war chest and won’t seek re-election.

Nickolai Bobrov, who is married to Delahunt’s daughter Kara, has raked in $47,732 since landing on the payroll as the congressman’s campaign manager in July, including a $10,000 payment that month marked retroactive for “consulting services April-July,” according to campaign finance records.

Bobrov also is listed as treasurer of Delahunt’s Campaign for Change political action committee, according to the Center for Responsive Politics.

COMMENT:  We are moved by this affirmation of family values.  Why, the congressman is just showing us what a little warmth can do.

Delahunt is one of the most left-leaning members of Congress.  He took a major hit recently when it was revealed that he had been the D.A. who dropped the ball in 1986, when Amy Bishop (who recently murdered three fellow professors at the University of Alabama) killed her brother with a shotgun.  The shooting was put down as an accident, despite the fact that Bishop fired the gun three times.  Had Delahunt done his job and properly prosecuted the case as a murder, the recent Alabama tragedy might have been avoided. 

Scott Brown did well in the district Delahunt represents.  If Delahunt pulls out, it could provide another opening for a strong Republican.

February 26, 2010   Permalink

PAYBACK FROM THE VOTERS – AT 9:37 A.M. ET:  Rasmussen reports this morning that President Obama's poll numbers are awful:

The Rasmussen Reports daily Presidential Tracking Poll for Friday shows that 23% of the nation's voters Strongly Approve of the way that Barack Obama is performing his role as President. Forty-three percent (43%) Strongly Disapprove giving Obama a Presidential Approval Index rating of -20. For President Obama, the Approval Index has been lower only once.

And...

Overall, 44% of voters say they at least somewhat approve of the President's performance. That matches the lowest level of total approval yet measured for this President. Fifty-five percent (55%) disapprove.

COMMENT:  What is remarkable is that the White House has no real answers to this abysmal showing.  The president seems determined to push on with policies that are distinctly unpopular with the American people.  Now, at times that can be a sign of courageous leadership, especially in foreign and defense policy.  President Truman, pursuing policies that ultimately contributed mightily to our winning of the Cold War, did so in the face of considerable public scorn.

The difference is that Obama's policies defy what we have learned about what works and what doesn't, and show no signs of actually succeeding.  Unlike Truman, who based his beliefs on experience and history, Obama bases his on ideology...in a distinctly non-ideological country.

Truman studied history because, as he said, it prevents a leader from having to start from scratch.  Obama doesn't study history, doesn't seem to know much about it, and doesn't seem to care much.  When you're a demigod, who needs books?

The midterms are little more than eight months away.  The question is whether the American people will apply the brakes to Obama, and do so before more real damage is done.

February 26, 2010   Permalink

ANOTHER FOREIGN-POLICY FLOP – AT 8:55 A.M. ET:  Almost under the radar, the United States has returned its ambassador to Syria.  We have not had an ambassador in Damascus since 2005.

Syria did absolutely nothing to win this concession from the United States.  Enemy states apparently need do nothing to get a reward under the Obama administration.

And how has Syria responded to this new opportunity to heal relations with Washington?  How do you think?  Superlative reporter Benny Avni reports for the New York Post:

How many times does the Obama administration have to get bitten before it stops leading with an "open hand"?

Hillary Clinton this week called on Syrian President Bashar Assad to respond to recent US overtures by distancing his country from Iran. Yesterday, Assad responded by signing a new friendship pact with a grinning Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. More, he mocked our secretary of state: "We must have understood Clinton wrong because of bad translation or our limited understanding, so we signed the agreement."

The latest US overture was the naming of Robert Ford last week as our next ambassador to Syria, five years after we recalled our last ambassador to protest Syria's suspected involvement in the murder of former Lebanese Prime Minister Rafik Hariri.

And...

Meanwhile, Assad calmly pockets every gift we shower on him, then thumbs his nose at us. We've yet to get a single meaningful concession.

Five years after the (American-supported) peaceful Cedar Revolution drove Syrian troops out of Lebanon, that nation is back under near-complete Syrian control. Lebanon's new prime minister, Hariri's son Saad, recently had no choice but to go and pay obeisance to Assad -- kissing the ring of his father's killer.

Can you name a single foreign-policy success for this administration?  I can't.

But I'm told that some Obama advisers are harder-headed -- starting with Hillary herself, whatever she has to say in public. Assad's show of solidarity with Ahmadinejad yesterday should bolster the skeptics' case. And there are more skeptics in Congress: Robert Ford's Senate confirmation could prove problematic for the administration.

A great place for the GOP to take a firm stand. 

Avni suggests that Obama, for once, show some backbone, using as a hook one of Syria's latest acts of defiance, its refusal to open its nuclear program to international inspection.

He has enough reason now to announce that, until Syria opens up its nuclear facilities for inspections, no US ambassador will be returning to Damascus.

That won't happen.  It might "offend" the Arab world, and we wouldn't want to do that, would we?  We must show how much more sophisticated we are than BUSH (!!).

And yesterday the administration indicated that sanctions on Iran, promised for the first of the year, may not happen until April, and that assumes we can get the UN on board.

The president is great at showing toughness when dealing with Republicans.  When dealing with foreign enemies, it's an entirely different story.

February 26, 2010   Permalink

BRITS GET OBAMA BETTER THAN WE DO – AT 8:27 A.M. ET:  As you know, we often turn to British journalists to nail the truth about Obama.  Today, Toby Harnden of the Telegraph observes The One's behavior at the health summit, and comes to appropriate conclusions:

It did not take long for the bipartisan health care summit to degenerate into the kind of bickering and points-scoring that has created a crescendo of anger about the conduct of politics in Washington.

President Barack Obama preached that the White House health care summit should not be "political theatre where we're just playing to the camera" or about trading "respective talking points". Then he reminded his 2008 opponent John McCain: "We're not campaigning any more. The election is over."

The barely concealed message was: "I won and you lost, buddy." When Mitch McConnell, the Senate Minority Leader, grumbled that Democrats had talked for 52 minutes and Republicans just 24, Mr Obama shot back: "I'm the President. I didn't count my time."

From the moment Mr Obama crossed Pennsylvania Avenue to Blair House (which is normally occupied by visiting diplomats) flanked by aides and Secret Service agents, it was clear the President meant business. He looked like an extra from Reservoir Dogs – only the shades were missing.

When the garrulous Vice President Joe Biden was a little tardy getting to his seat, Mr Obama chided him: "Come on, Biden!" Reprising the message that the voters of Virginia, New Jersey and Massachusetts had rejected overwhelmingly, Mr Obama made the case that a trillion-dollar overhaul of the American health-care system was essential to rescue the ailing economy.  His opening remarks were a campaign speech in all but name.  He had little new to say, even admitting: "I'm telling you things all of you already know."

COMMENT:  That's the best description of Obama's Oscar-losing performance yesterday that I've read.  We saw Obama at his Chicago City Council best.  All we needed was the "They bring a knife, we bring a gun" line. 

One term?  If the GOP can come up with a presidential candidate who can pass an EKG, that could be Obama's future.  Back to community organizing.

February 26, 2010   Permalink

NANCY'S PLACE – AT 8:14 A.M. ET:  What is it about these Democrats?  Didn't any of them learn in student government?  From The Politico:

For a few hours Thursday night, the House of Representatives was in chaos.

Shortly after dinnertime, New York Democrat Charlie Rangel emerged from his private hideaway after news broke that he would be admonished by the House ethics committee.

Yet reporters in the Capitol rushed right past Rangel to ask House Democratic leaders about a critical intelligence bill that had just been pulled over a torture provision. The language had been inserted in defiance of leadership by House Rules Committee Chairwoman Louise Slaughter (D-N.Y.).

At the same time, Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) was slated to meet with leaders of the Congressional Black Caucus to try to salvage a routine, $15 billion jobs bill that turned into a piñata for progressives, the moderate Blue Dog Coalition and members of the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee.

Any of these three issues – a floundering jobs bill, a hastily scotched intelligence authorization or an ethics committee admonishment of the powerful chairman of the tax-writing Ways and Means Committee – would qualify as mid-level crises.

Together, these incidents illustrated a chamber in a mini-meltdown near week's end.

COMMENT:  Ignore this.  It's obviously far-right propaganda inserted by Sarah Palin and her children.  These are just the people you want to run your health care.  Why?  Because they fail, and they learn from their failures.  By the time they get to decide whether you live or die, they'll be wise and perfect. 

Nancy?  Charlie?  How can Washington and Jefferson compare to them? 

February 26,  2010   Permalink

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