Urgent Agenda begins its third year today.  We thank our readers, and especially our subscribers, who have brought us this far.

FRIDAY,  JANUARY 8,  2010

TOOTING OUR HORNS, APPROPRIATELY – AT 7:19 P.M. ET:  Meeting in secret, the great minds of the Dem leadership in Congress are fashioning the final health "reform" bill that will be slammed through the House and Senate, despite wide public opposition.

One argument they'll use is that the system is "broken."  Well, okay, the system needs improvement.  No one denies that.  But broken?  Maybe it's time to look at some basic facts, as the Wall Street Journal does, about the greatness of the American health-care system:

The comparative ranking system that most critics cite comes from the U.N.'s World Health Organization (WHO). The ranking most often quoted is Overall Performance, where the U.S. is rated No. 37. The Overall Performance Index, however, is adjusted to reflect how well WHO officials believe that a country could have done in relation to its resources.

The scale is heavily subjective: The WHO believes that we could have done better because we do not have universal coverage. What apparently does not matter is that our population has universal access because most physicians treat indigent patients without charge and accept Medicare and Medicaid payments, which do not even cover overhead expenses. The WHO does rank the U.S. No. 1 of 191 countries for "responsiveness to the needs and choices of the individual patient." Isn't responsiveness what health care is all about?

Some very good information there, correct?  Then why don't we hear it from the mainstream media?  You don't think they're...they're...?  No, I don't want to accuse.

...cardiac deaths in the U.S. have fallen by two-thirds over the past 50 years. Polio has been virtually eradicated. Childhood leukemia has a high cure rate. Eight of the top 10 medical advances in the past 20 years were developed or had roots in the U.S.

And I haven't seen too many bodies in the streets.

...our country ranks first or second in the world in kidney transplants, liver transplants, heart transplants, total knee replacements, coronary artery bypass, and percutaneous coronary interventions.

Take that, UN!

But the issue is only partly about quality. As we have all heard, the U.S. spends a higher percentage of its gross domestic product for health care than any other country...

...So what does this money buy? Certainly some goes to inefficiencies, corporate profits, and costs that should be lowered by professional liability reform and national, free-market insurance access by allowing for competition across state lines. But the majority goes to a long list of advantages that American citizens now expect: the easiest access, the shortest waiting times the widest choice of physicians and hospitals, and constant availability of health care to elderly Americans. What we need now is insurance and liability reform—not health-care reform.

But we will get health-care "reform" because the leftist agenda demands it, as a matter, not of health, but of ideology.  Only 20% of Americans consider themselves liberals, yet look what's being done by the "representatives" of the people.

Finally...

Perhaps it's not that America spends too much on health care, but that other nations don't spend enough.

COMMENT:  Quite true.  But you'll never hear it from the UN, or from the trendy media.  After all, how can any decent person insult Sweden?  That's a leftist felony.

January 8, 2009    Permalink

THEY'LL LOVE THIS AT THE WHITE HOUSE – AT 5:41 P.M. ET:  Charles Hurt, in the New York Post, asks the question many Democrats must be asking quietly:  Was Hillary Clinton right about Barack Obama?  We can imagine Hillary bookmarking this on the office computer:

WASHINGTON -- Turns out Hillary Rodham Clinton was right all along.

During the nastiest battle of the entire 2008 presidential race, she aired an alarming television commercial warning voters that they would come to regret nominating Barack Obama to occupy the White House.

If -- in a national security crisis -- the "red phone" rang at 3 a.m., the ad intoned, Obama would not hear it.

Or he would fail to answer it.

Or he would be on vacation.

Ah yes, I remember it well. 

Obama lashed out at Clinton, dismissing her and accusing her of desperation and playing upon people's fears.

"Sen. Obama says that if we talk about national security in this campaign, we're trying to scare people," replied Clinton, appropriately mystified.

Well, yesterday those chickens came home to roost.

Well, we can't say chickens.  Might be sexist.  Let's just say, "those intellectual concerns."

On a day when the administration desperately hoped to calm America's fears that a soft-headed, bumbling raft of politically correct peaceniks had taken over and fallen asleep at the national security switch, there wasn't much to see in the White House other than bungling of previous bungles.

Wonderfully stated.

In the future, Obama said, "we must follow the leads that we get."

You think?

"We can't sit on information that could protect the American people."

Seriously?

"We must do better in keeping dangerous people off of airplanes."

You don't say!

But why should we be surprised?

Never will be forgotten Obama's trip to Cairo last year to address the Muslim world, when he said that he believes it is "part of my responsibility as president of the United States to fight against negative stereotypes of Islam wherever they appear."
Forget for a moment that such folly appears nowhere in the American president's job description.
If you have time for such nonsense, then you are not spending enough time thinking about how to thwart this enemy.

But it is not like we weren't warned by Hillary Clinton.

I have to admit it, I have to concede it.  I never thought I'd commit such heresy.  Am I spiritually lost?

We know we're in trouble when we look to a sixties radical feminist, anti-war activist for guidance on national security.  But she was right.

January 8, 2009   Permalink

THIS JUST IN – AT 5:31 P.M. ET:  Headline from the Associated Press:

Attacks show al-Qaida-inspired groups target West

Well, that settles that.  Now that the AP confirmed it, we know it's true.

January 8,  2009   Permalink

AMERICANS FAVOR PROFILING – AT 10:02 A.M. ET:  The term "profiling" is inflammatory in certain circles.  For some, it conjures up images of racism and bigotry.  But, in fact, law enforcement uses modified forms of profiling every day because, with reasonable protections, it makes sense.  The American people agree, as Rasmussen found out:

The Christmas Day terrorist attempt by a Nigerian Muslim on a U.S. airliner has reignited the debate on racial and ethnic profiling in airports, but most Americans agree that profiling is necessary to ensure airline safety.

The latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that 59% of adults say factors such as race, ethnicity and overall appearance should be used to determine which boarding passengers to search at airports. Twenty-six percent (26%) say these factors should not be used to determine which passengers to search. Another 15% are not sure.

Interestingly, however, even more Americans (71%) believe such profiling is necessary in today’s environment. Eighteen percent (18%) disagree and see profiling as an unnecessary violation of civil rights.

COMMENT:  I suspect there's far more profiling going on than authorities admit.  They have to profile.  If most car thefts, say, are committed by blond-haired men in their twenties, it makes sense, if you're hunting a car thief, to focus extra attention on blond-haired men in their twenties. 

The Israelis, who believe that you fight terror by looking at the individual first, not devices, profile regularly, but do it professionally.  A catastrophe aboard one of their airliners was averted by careful questioning of a passenger, who was being used, without her knowledge, to carry a bomb. 

Only when we get past our obsession with not "offending" will we make real progress in strengthening our security.

January 8,  2010   Permalink

QUOTE OF THE DAY – AT 9:12 A.M. ET:  From John Lehman, secretary of the Navy under Ronald Reagan, and a member of the 9-11 Commission, on Obama's anti-terror policy.  From NRO:

"President Obama continues to totally ignore one of the important thrusts of our 9/11 recommendations, which is that you have to approach counterterrorism as a multiagency intelligence issue, and not as a law-enforcement issue. He’s made a lot of commission members angry for dismissing our report and ignoring key recommendations.” Obama, he adds, has taken a “lawyer-like, politically-correct approach” to national security issues like terrorist watchlists and no-fly lists. “You got to blame the president for enforcing the politically-correct and legalistic policies that led to these failures.”

COMMENT:  Exactly right.  Members of the government take their cue from the president.  For a year that cue has been that terrorism is a law-enforcement problem, that it's been exaggerated, and that part of it is our fault.  Great for the morale, huh?   And, of course, one of the first steps Attorney General Eric Holder took upon assuming office was to launch an inquiry into the actions of CIA agents during the Bush administration – no doubt a superb recruiting tool for the agency.

Former Prime Minister Tony Blair, a stalwart American ally who hasn't gotten the credit he deserves for standing with us in tough times, said this about terror today:  "Personally I think we will defeat this terrorism when we understand it is one battle, one struggle. This is a global movement with an ideology."

Again, exactly right.  The president, even yesterday, dragged in the old leftist chestnuts about "poverty" and all kinds of social ills as causes of terrorism, forgetting that many of the most prominent terrorists come from middle-class or wealthy families, and that some have even been physicians.

Terror originates, not with social conditions, but with ideas.  And those ideas extend well beyond Al Qaeda, which is just one group.  The president yesterday finally said that we were at war with that group, but mentioned no one else.  That must have brought great relief to the Taliban, Hamas, Hezbollah, and all the other worthies that Mr. Obama and his Ivy League cohorts apparently haven't noticed.

January 8, 2010   Permalink

NO STIMULATION FROM THE STIMULUS – AT 8:55 A.M. ET:  The jobs picture for December, hyped in advance as a probable gift from the gods, turned out to be no such thing, as the Washington Post reports:

WASHINGTON -- The economy lost more jobs in December and the unemployment rate was unchanged, as a sluggish economic recovery has yet to revive hiring among the nation's employers.

The Labor Department says employers cut 85,000 jobs last month, worse than the 8,000 drop analysts expected.

A sharp drop in the labor force, a sign more of the jobless are giving up on their search for work, kept the unemployment rate at 10 percent, the same as in November. Once people stop looking for jobs, they are no longer counted among the unemployed.

COMMENT:  And in the midst of this, Congress is about to break the bank with a hugely expensive health-care package, only months after passing a hugely expensive stimulus plan.  The stimulus didn't stimulate many jobs, apparently, except maybe at ACORN, which is always hiring. 

Barring a catastrophic terror attack, the economy will be the big issue in the 2010 midterms.  So far, the Dems get an F.

January 8, 2010   Permalink

DID YOU EVER THINK YOU'D SEE THIS? – AT 8:15 A.M. ET:  Reader Joseph J. Gallick alerts us to a remarkable front page from a German leftist newspaper:

Yes, you've got that right.  It's Barack Obama morphing into George W. Bush.  If someone told you a year ago that a European paper would print that, would you have believed it?

It seems that the German left is upset with the new messiah because he hasn't turned out to be the Marxist pacifist they'd expected.  The newspaper above writes:

"Barack Obama has never -- not even during his electoral campaign -- made a secret of the fact that he does not rule out war as a political tool. Otherwise he would not have been elected. Those in Europe who believed that his statement wasn't serious, and was accompanied by a knowing wink towards the pacifists, only have themselves to blame. Military strength and the willingness to use it, are fundamental in the United States, which has not had territorial wars since the mid-19th century."

"You don't have to like it, but ignoring this global political reality ... reveals naivete. Whoever saw Obama as a prince of peace has made a mistake. He is a rational military commander. But at least he is rational, and honest -- at least as far as we have seen so far. Both of these traits set him apart from his predecessor."

COMMENT:  Oh dear, oh dear.  It's the same thing in Europe as in the U.S. – a left-wing paper must get in a dig at BUSH (!!).  Otherwise, the presses freeze in place. 

As for the substance, the paper apparently believes that Obama is more rational than Bush.  Seriously?  Bush understood the enemy; it took Obama a year to figure it out.  As for honesty, the German left editors might note Obama's pledge to open health-care hearings to CSPAN.  Compare please with reality.

Europe has always had its illusions.  Those illusions just continue.

January 8, 2010   Permalink

OH, THOSE ULTRA-HIGH STANDARDS – HOW WILL WE EVER MEET THEM?  –  AT 8:03 A.M. ET:  The New York Times ran a story on the tightening Senate race in Massachusetts between Democrat Martha Coakley and Republican Scott Brown, which will end in a special election on January 19th.  In the middle of the story is this:

The poll that suggested Ms. Coakley’s lead was narrowing, which was conducted by Rasmussen Reports and does not meet the polling standards of The New York Times because it relied on automated telephone calls, suggested Mr. Brown had strikingly strong support among independent voters. But most of them are unlikely to come out for a special election at an odd time of year, Ms. Marsh said.

COMMENT:  "Does not meet the polling standards of The New York Times.."?  What standards would those be?  It might be just lovely if The Times would take a look at Rasmussen's track record, which is one of the best in the industry.  That determines the value of a polling organization. 

Now, as for the comment by a certain Ms. Marsh, presumably some kind of expert, that independents are unlikely to vote in a special election at "an odd time of year," one becomes baffled.  Rasmussen specifically polls among likely voters, which is why his polls are so accurate.  And voters have been known to show interest, even in January, although it is such an odd month.

Nose out of the air, Times.  Your story doesn't make sense.

January 8,  2010   Permalink

THURSDAY,  JANUARY 7,  2010

IS THIS SERIOUS? – AT 8:13 P.M. ET:  At one time, this would have been considered an April Fool's joke.  But it's actually serious, and it's a classic example of left-wing journalism presented without shame, or even a wink.  The publication is Britain's fashionably left Guardian.  The writer, Suzanne Goldenberg, has been following the party line for years.  You can't make this up:

America's love affair with the automobile could be sputtering to an end. Some 14m cars were taken out of action in 2009, 4m more than rolled off the assembly lines and onto the roads, a report from the Earth Policy Institute said today.

Whaa?  We don't love our cars anymore?  As Johnny Carson used to say, "I did not know that."  Do you think the recession might have something to do with those figures, Suzanne?  Or Suzie?  Or Ms. Marx, or whatever? 

Of course, you see "Earth Policy Institute" and you know where this stuff comes from.

It was the first time more cars were scrapped than sold since the second world war, reducing the size of the US car fleet from an all-time high of 250m to 246m.

That's less than two percent. 

Last year was an extraordinarily bad year for the US auto industry. Two of the three big car makers — GM and Chrysler — went through bankruptcy and were bailed out by the US government. Sales fell 21.2% from 2008 and the total sales volume was the lowest since 1982. Many consumers held off buying new cars because of fears of losing their jobs.

Ah, she got something right.  Recession.  Recession.  And yes, our car makers are in trouble.  But what about that worker's paradise, Sweden, once known for great cars?  Volvo is now owned by the Chinese, and Saab is pretty much history.  And maybe Suzanne should look at her own country, Britain.  Who owns Rolls-Royce this year?  I think it's the Germans, the guys we beat not many decades ago.

This is the worst economic downturn since the great Depression.  But Americans don't love their cars any less. 

The Obama administration's efforts to spur demand by offering motorists up to $4,500 on trade-ins of older cars and pick-up trucks saw 700,000 older models taken off the road. But that did not affect the total number of vehicles on the road because consumers could only take advantage of the scrappage scheme if they replaced their old clunkers with new more efficient vehicles.

Lester Brown, president of the Earth Policy Institute, said the slump in car sales goes beyond the economic recession. Americans may finally have decided that — with cars — enough is enough. The country now has 246m licensed cars for 209m licensed drivers.

Yes indeed.  Haven't you all heard your friends and relatives saying, "Enough is enough.  Down with these miserable, capitalist gas burners.  I'll walk!"  Why, I hear it every day.  And of course teenagers are shunning cars, and moving toward bikes.  I know it, I know it.

"This is not a one-time event. We expect the shrinkage to continue into the indefinite future," Brown told a conference call today.

The automobile is one of the greatest instruments of equality in history – allowing people of average means to do what only the wealthy once could.  Maybe that's why all these snotty elitists hate it so much.  Who are those peasants out there who want to do what we do?

Remember, if you want to get invited to the trendiest parties, say something nasty about your car today.  And declare that you won't go to Disney World unless you can travel by hydrogen-powered bus. 

Then start waiting.

Yuch.

January 7, 2009   Permalink

PERSONNEL MANAGEMENT 101 – AT 7:37 P.M. ET:  You would think, given recent events, that the Obamans would be ultra-careful about someone they'd nominate for an anti-terror position.  Think again.  Poor vetting, which has cursed this administration, is back with us, as Fox News reports:

There's more trouble ahead for President Obama's nominee to lead the federal agency in charge of airport security.

Seven Republican senators on Wednesday wrote to the White House demanding information about the conflicting accounts nominee Erroll Southers gave Congress over background checks he ran on his then-estranged wife's boyfriend two decades ago.

Sen. Jim DeMint, R-S.C., previously had held up Southers' confirmation over concerns that he would unionize screeners at the Transportation Security Administration. Even after the failed bombing of a Northwest Airlines flight on Christmas led lawmakers to call for Southers' swift approval, DeMint stood by his objections.

The questions raised about the background checks added to his concerns -- DeMint joined six other senators in raising the issue with the White House.

"It's just part of a pattern of we are not vetting these candidates clearly," DeMint told Fox News. "I think more and more senators are concerned that this is not the kind of person we want leading, probably at the most vulnerable point we are as a nation as far as keeping our people secure."

Southers wrote to senators last week clarifying "inconsistencies" in his recollection of the background checks. The former FBI agent originally wrote in an October affidavit to a Senate committee that he asked a San Diego police employee to run a background check on his estranged wife's boyfriend and was censured by the FBI 20 years ago for it. He called it an isolated incident.

But after the committee approved his nomination and sent his name to the Senate, Southers wrote back and said that he actually personally ran background checks twice.

COMMENT:  The usual game played in these situations is for an administration to say something like, "These events occurred two decades ago.  The nominee acknowledged his error and has grown since."

The problem is, the inconsistencies in Southers's "recollection" of the events occurred only weeks ago.  And who can really believe a man who says that he doesn't recall looking, personally, for information about his estranged wife's boyfriend?  That's not something someone forgets.

This involves the integrity of a man chosen for a sensitive national-security position.  He should depart.

January 7, 2009   Permalink

THE CONSERVATIVE RESURGENCE – AT 7:18 P.M. ET:  A new Gallup Poll has good news for conservatives:

PRINCETON, NJ -- The increased conservatism that Gallup first identified among Americans last June persisted throughout the year, so that the final year-end political ideology figures confirm Gallup's initial reporting: conservatives (40%) outnumbered both moderates (36%) and liberals (21%) across the nation in 2009.

More broadly, the percentage of Americans calling themselves either conservative or liberal has increased over the last decade, while the percentage of moderates has declined.

And...

The rather abrupt three-point increase between 2008 and 2009 in the percentage of Americans calling themselves conservative is largely owing to an increase -- from 30% to 35% -- in the percentage of political independents adopting the label.

COMMENT:  It seems to me that the key figure is the small percentage of Americans who call themselves liberals, contrasted with the vast power that liberals have in Washington today.  Only 21%, according to Gallup, are liberals.  (And that number is probably smaller among actual voters.)  And yet, liberals control the White House and Congress, and are pushing through an agenda that most Americans oppose.

Conservatives plus moderates equal 76% of the Gallup sample.  By any reasonable standard, that 76% should have far greater power in Washington.  We look forward to a corrective in November.

January 7, 2009   Permalink

THE PRESIDENT TAKES RESPONSIBILITY – AT 5:40 P.M. ET:  President Obama spoke to the American people today, summarizing reports, which he'd ordered, focusing on how a terrorist boarded a plane on Christmas day and tried to blow it up, even though our government had been warned about him. 

We all know that the president is a superb speaker – as long as you don't look too carefully at the substance, or don't expect any great use of language.  He's an impact speaker.  Fine voice, clear delivery, someone who can move an audience by his presence.  Those traits were on display today.  Mr. Obama went through all the failings in our system that allowed the Christmas bomber to come close to success, stopped only because the bomb he carried malfunctioned.  And the president took personal responsibility.  You know, "the buck stops here" kind of statement.

The statement lacked the grace of President Kennedy's after the Bay of Pigs.  When asked by a reporter whose fault it was, Mr. Kennedy replied simply, "I am the responsible officer of the government."  Kennedy had a great understanding of how to use the right phrase at the right moment.  Obama speaks in a kind of modified legalese, taking ten words where three would do.  But, in his own way, the president did acknowledge that he bore ultimate responsibility, or something like that.

Obama said that a number of new steps would be taken to tighten security.  Then, sadly, his speech degenerated into the usual stuff about not giving up our values – as if anyone has suggested that – and avoiding partisanship, as if it's somehow unpatriotic to criticize an administration performance that he'd just admitted was pathetic. 

He did say that we are "at war" with Al Qaeda.  Good.  But if we are at war, the Christmas bomber is a soldier in that war, a combatant.  And yet, the president avoided the obvious question that follows logically from our being "at war":  Why was the bomber read Miranda rights, and told that he had a right to remain silent, as if he were a shoplifter?  No enemy soldier is read Miranda rights, and no enemy soldier, in the grown-up world, is allowed to get lawyered up. 

So the president's statement, in part eloquent, ultimately failed to satisfy those demanding a mature view of the war against terror.  It's apparent that Mr. Obama still has a pre 9-11 mentality, and regards this "war" as, essentially, a law-enforcement problem.

President Harry S. Truman sought originally to apply a similar standard to the Korean War, calling it a "police action."  That phrase enraged the American people, who knew a shooting war when they saw one.  Our soldiers were being killed just as dead in Korea as in World War II.  Mr. Obama might do well to recall the Truman case, and challenge his own lawyer's mentality.

January 7, 2009   Permalink

WILL THIS HEAD ROLL? – AT 9:48 A.M. ET:  This is one of those "hard to believe" stories, but it's apparently true.  We were alerted to it by Jim Hoft at Gateway Pundit.  From the New York Daily News:

WASHINGTON - The top official in charge of analyzing terror threats did not cut short his ski vacation after the underwear bomber nearly blew up an airliner on Christmas Day, the Daily News has learned.

Michael Leiter, director of the National Counterterrorism Center since 2007, decided not to return to his agency's "bat cave" nerve center in McLean, Va., until several days after Christmas, two U.S. officials said.

"People have been grumbling that he didn't let a little terrorism interrupt his vacation," said one of the sources.

The NCTC, the post-9/11 clearinghouse for intelligence to detect terror plots against the U.S., is under intense scrutiny for failing to "connect the dots" on Nigerian bomber Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab.

Leiter's spokesman declined to say when the terror-center chief returned to Washington and fully retook the helm of his analysis agency, which is near CIA headquarters just outside the nation's capital.

COMMENT:  Behavior like that sets him up for being the ideal sacrificial lamb.  Also, Leiter doesn't seem to be a member of any group that will scream if he's fired.  This head is meant for rolling.

January 7, 2009   Permalink

STRANGE MANEUVERINGS – AT 9:13 A.M. ET:  The administration, in the person of its national security adviser, is shrewdly preparing the American people for the bad news contained in a report to be issued later today.  From Fox News:

James Jones, a retired four-star Marine general, says Americans will feel "a certain shock" when a report is released today detailing the intelligence failures that could have prevented the Christmas Day attack.

Americans will feel "a certain shock" when a report is released today detailing the intelligence failures that could have prevented the alleged Christmas Day airline bomber from ever boarding the plane.

In an interview published Thursday in USA Today, White House national security adviser James Jones said President Obama "is legitimately and correctly alarmed that things that were available, bits of information that were available, patterns of behavior that were available, were not acted on."

"That's two strikes," he was quoted as saying, referring to the failed Northwest jet attack and the shooting massacre at Fort Hood, Texas, in November. The Army base attack left 13 dead after officials failed to act on intelligence identifying suspected gunman Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan as a threat to fellow soldiers.

Jones, a retired four-star Marine general, told the paper that Obama "certainly doesn't want that third strike, and neither does anybody else."

Oh good, I'm glad the president doesn't want a third strike.  And I'm genuinely glad that Jones mentioned Fort Hood, a successful attack that didn't have to happen, and which has been forgotten in all the bother over the Christmas airliner attack.

Now, will someone please utter the following declaration:  "There will be no more political correctness."

Political correctness is choking our intelligence efforts, just as it is choking our universities and elements of the press.  If there's a blessing in disguise here – and, to use Churchill's phrase, the disguise is very thick indeed – it's that we may finally be willing to confront the disgrace and danger of political correctness.

After Fort Hood, the first reaction of the Army's chief of staff was to worry publicly that the attack might hurt diversity in the military.  The officer involved, General George Casey, should have been handed his retirement papers.

Maybe there's change coming that we can believe in.  I'll believe it when I see it.

January 7, 2009   Permalink

THE NEW MASSACHUSETTS MIRACLE – AT 8:28 A.M. ET:  Something quite remarkable is happening in Massachusetts.  A Democratic candidate is getting criticized by the liberal press.

There'll be a special election in Massachusetts on January 19th, less than two weeks away, to fill the U.S. Senate seat vacated by the death of Edward M. Kennedy.  The Dem candidate, Massachusetts Attorney General Martha Coakley, who has a history of imperious behavior, apparently believes the seat is properly hers, and that no effort should be required of her.  Her unknown GOP challenger, Scott Brown, was within nine points of her in a recent poll, but that hasn't gotten her off the throne.

Even writers at the veddy veddy liberal and proper Boston Globe have become disgusted.  Brian McGrory, a Globe columnist, put it bluntly: 

If you're a registered voter in Massachusetts, your friendly Democratic Senate candidate, Martha Coakley, is sticking her thumb in your eye.

Coakley, in exquisitely diva-like form, is refusing all invitations to debate her Republican opponent in the race, Scott Brown, unless a third-party candidate with no apparent credentials is included on the stage. She may also require a crystal bowl of orange-only M&Ms in her dressing room, but we haven't gotten that far yet. Her demands have led to an astonishing result: there will be just one -- that's one -- live televised debate in the Boston media market this general election season.

The sad fact is that it may not matter.  The election will probably be closer than most in Massachusetts, but the place is filled with people who pull the Dem lever automatically.  And the many college towns will be out in force for Martha.  Odds are that she'll win. 

This is all part of a Coakley pattern. When she ran for attorney general, she didn't allow even the Republican candidate on a debate stage. In fact, she refused to debate at all.

And yet they keep electing her.  Liberal.  Female.  Feminist.  Who could ask for anything more? 

In fact, Coakley has a dark side.  She was involved in one of the greatest miscarriages of justice in recent memory, the despicable Amirault case, in which clearly innocent members of a family were falsely imprisoned on trumped-up child-abuse charges during the child-abuse madness of the 1980s.  Coakley has consistently refused to help right the wrongs, which were exposed by the great Dorothy Rabinowitz of The Wall Street Journal.  A great lawyer Coakley is not.

For that matter, let's take a look at Coakley's campaign schedule for today. Well, actually, we can't. There isn't one. She isn't doing anything in public -- no meetings with voters, no debates, no public appearances. For all we know, she's spending much of her time at home with the shades drawn waiting for Jan. 19, Election Day, to come and go.

Which is the real problem with all this. Voters want their political candidates to earn the position -- with hard work, innovative ideas, and a hearty nod to the process. The funny part about a good campaign is that voters not only get to meet the candidate, but the candidate gets to meet the voters and learn what's on their minds.

In Washington, senators don't get to dodge their opponents. Right now, dodging looks like the Coakley way.

So the question must be asked:  In the light of Coakley's queenly behavior, does Scott Brown have a shot?  As we said above, Coakley will probably win.  And the Republican National Committee, reflecting its usual lack of imagination, isn't giving Brown much help.  But there could be a miracle in the offing if enough members of the public get good and angry at being taken for granted.  And even a close call in Massachusetts would be some kind of statement.

If I were the Republican leaders in Washington, I'd go all out for Scott Brown.  Hey, you never know.  With liberals criticizing Coakley, the GOP could benefit from stay-at-homes who don't have the enthusiasm to come out and vote for her.

But, alas, the remnants of the Kennedy family will do their duty today and endorse Coakley, which will give her a boost in some circles.  What a sad end to the legacy – to see the family endorsing a candidate who won't even fight for the job.

January 7, 2009   Permalink

TERROR NEWS – AT 8:10 A.M. ET:  Isn't it remarkable how terror has made a comeback?  The Obama revolution was supposed to relegate this Bushian thing to the rear burner, but the terrorists wouldn't cooperate.  It's a cultural thing.

Two stories this morning grab our attention.  Yemeni authorities confirm contacts between the Christmas day bomber and a radical imam, as The New York Times reports:

SANA, Yemen — A senior official here confirmed on Thursday that the young Nigerian man accused of attempting to bomb an airliner approaching Detroit on Christmas Day had met with Al Qaeda operatives and with Anwar al-Awlaki, a radical American-born Internet preacher, in Yemen before setting out on his journey.

No shock there.  And...

Mr. Awlaki was also linked to an American officer, Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan, who is accused of a shooting spree at Fort Hood, Texas, in which 13 people were killed last November.

Say what?  Accused?  Even in careful journalism it's permitted to drop the "accused" or "alleged" when there is no reasonable doubt.  He did it.  He doesn't deny it.  The only issue is the nature of his defense.

Mr. Awlaki, whose calls for holy war resonate among Al Qaeda sympathizers, exchanged e-mails with Major Hasan before the Fort Hood shootings.

And we knew about it, too.  Presumably, the administration is investigating what went wrong, but for some reason the Christmas day bomber is getting far more publicity, although no one died.

And another story.

(CNN) -- Al Qaeda has claimed responsibility for the suicide bombing in Afghanistan last month that killed seven CIA employees and contractors and a Jordanian military officer, according to a statement posted on Islamist Web sites.

Al Qaeda is resurgent.  Terror is resurgent.  This attack occurred in Afghanistan, but a third of all terror attacks mounted against the United States since 9-11 occurred in 2009, on Barack Obama's watch.

Mustafa Abu Yazid, al Qaeda's commander of operations in Afghanistan and its No. 3 man, said the attack avenged the death of Baitullah Mehsud, leader of the Taliban in Pakistan who was killed in a missile strike last August, and al Qaeda operatives Saleh al-Somali and Abdullah al-Libi.

The December 30 blast at a U.S. base in Khost, in southeastern Afghanistan, killed seven CIA operatives including two from private security firm Xe, formerly known as Blackwater. The eighth victim was Jordanian Army Capt. Sharif Ali bin Zeid, a cousin of Jordan's King Abdullah II.

A former U.S. intelligence official identified the suicide bomber as Humam Khalil Abu-Mulal al-Balawi, a Jordanian doctor who acted as a double agent. He was recruited as a counterterrorism intelligence source, according to a senior Jordanian official.

Have you noticed how many terrorists, and terror leaders, are physicians?  What do they teach in the medical schools over there?  This is an interesting issue, and someone should look into it.

COMMENT:  I suspect we'll have more stories like this as 2010 unfolds.  Already, the usual suspects in the media are lining up to defend Obama's anti-terror record, but if a few attacks are successful, the comparison with the Bush years will be inevitable.  Despite the media's efforts, Bush may well come out on top in public opinion, at least on national security.

January 7,  2009   Permalink