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.

TUESDAY,  JANUARY 26,  2010

THEY ARE SO, SO SUPERIOR – AT 11:31 P.M. ET:  My friend James Taranto of The Wall Street Journal's Best of the Web Today blog, writes about the reaction of liberal, better-than-you-are journalists to election results that don't go their way.  There's a long tradition of this kind of thing:

Last week Boston Globe columnist Renee Loth described the election of Scott Brown as "a collective primal scream." It's an old trope, reminiscent of the late Peter Jennings's classic declaration after the 1994 election:

"Some thoughts on those angry voters. Ask parents of any 2-year-old and they can tell you about those temper tantrums: the stomping feet, the rolling eyes, the screaming. It's clear that the anger controls the child and not the other way around. It's the job of the parent to teach the child to control the anger and channel it in a positive way. Imagine a nation full of uncontrolled 2-year-old rage. The voters had a temper tantrum last week. . . . Parenting and governing don't have to be dirty words: the nation can't be run by an angry 2-year-old."

This is a fairly common attitude expressed by those who've never spent time actually traveling the country and speaking to Americans.  Say nothing bad about the dead, but Jennings was an insufferable snob with a clearly low opinion of anyone who dared to disagree with him. 

Echoing this view of the voters as angry, unreasoning and immature is Time's Joe Klein, who in the headline of a blog post describes Americans as "Too Dumb to Thrive":

"Absolutely amazing poll results from CNN today about the $787 stimulus package: nearly three out of four Americans think the money has been wasted. On second thought, they may be right: it's been wasted on them. . . .

"This is yet further evidence that Americans are flagrantly ill-informed...and, for those watching Fox News, misinformed.

"It is very difficult to have a democracy without citizens. It is impossible to be a citizen if you don't make an effort to understand the most basic activities of your government. It is very difficult to thrive in an increasingly competitive world if you're a nation of dodos."

Klein regularly makes a fool of himself, and has become an embarrassment to his profession.  But the arrogance of that statement should win some kind of prize.  James Taranto responds:

Hey, wait! Didn't this nation of dodos elect Barack Obama not 15 months ago? Why yes it did...

And finally...

What's more, there is a particular type of stupidity to which intelligent people are uniquely prone: intellectual snobbery, or the tendency to cultivate an attitude of contempt toward those who are not as bright. This may appeal to New York Times readers or voters in, say, Hyde Park--that is, to people who think they're better than everyone else too. But it may prove Barack Obama's undoing as a national politician.

Well said.  What has always struck me about a certain class of "intellectuals" is how anti-intellectual they actually are.  They have little interest in debate or exploration.  They have found the truth.  They actually do believe they are superior to other people, either because of the job they hold, the school they went to, or how much factual knowledge they've stuffed into their heads. 

I always love to quote an old adage about music, that there isn't a graduate of the Juilliard School in New York who wouldn't give up everything just to write one Irving Berlin song.  There is real talent, and there is put-on talent.  The real intellectuals, not the frauds, are the ones who know the difference.

January 26, 2010   Permalink

THE DEMS DON'T SLEEP – AT 8:24 P.M. ET:  The Democrats are starting to form their strategy for the 2010 midterms.  This should serve as a wakeup call for those in the GOP who think this will be a cakewalk, and that the Dems will just turn over and play dead:

Senate Democrats, seeking to breathe new life into their 2010 electoral prospects after their shocking loss in Massachusetts last week, are unveiling a new war strategy: divide and conquer the GOP.

The Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee passed out a memo Tuesday advising Democratic campaign managers to define their Republican opponents early and to highlight the differences between moderate voters and tea party-style conservatives.

"Given the pressure Republican candidates feel from the extreme right in their party, there is a critical -- yet time-sensitive -- opportunity for Democratic candidates," the DSCC wrote in the memo, which was obtained by FoxNews.com. "We have a finite window when Republican candidates will feel susceptible to the extremists in their party. Given the urgent nature of this dynamic, we suggest an aggressive effort to get your opponents on the record."

The memo encourages Democratic candidates to compel their opponents to answer a series of questions on issues that have helped boost the tea party movement and reveal cracks in GOP unity, including health care, taxes and President Obama's citizenship and ideology.

COMMENT: It seems to me that the Dems have the start of a good strategy.  You want to put your opponent on the defensive.  We've urged here before that readers not underestimate the political abilities of the Obama team.  I've seen too many examples, in the last week, of Republicans already counting the fruits of victory.  That's what President Dewey did in 1948. 

The Dems are assessing the opposition correctly.  There are fissures in the Republican Party, some caused by strains between the party establishment at the Tea Partiers.  If those fissures can be made greater by shrewd Democratic strategy, a certain number of conservative voters might just stay home on election day.

We have to work every day as if we're ten points behind.

January 26, 2010   Permalink

HILLARY DOES THE RIGHT THING – AT 7:26 P.M. ET:  We've seen something remarkable in recent days – foreign countries criticizing the United States for not doing enough in Haiti, or doing it incorrectly. 

It's the standard lecture from more "enlightened" societies.  All this criticism, of course, was supposed to stop once The One took office, but it hasn't.  No matter what we do, we get roasted. 

Now the secretary of state, whom we don't praise here too often, does the right thing by snapping back at all these superior folk who think they know best.  From The Washington Times:

Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton on Tuesday lashed out at foreign criticism of the U.S. response to this month's earthquake in Haiti, saying that Washington's decision to send thousands of troops to the devastated country was "either misunderstood or deliberately misconstrued."

Despite the positive international reaction to President Obama's election in 2008, negative attitudes toward the United States remain in many quarters around the world -- including among longtime U.S. allies -- and the vast relief effort in Haiti has been no exception.

Much of it is based on the reality that the political left controls the news media in these countries, and provides its own "narrative."

"I deeply resent those who attack our country, the generosity of our people and the leadership of our president in trying to respond to historically disastrous conditions after the earthquake," Mrs. Clinton said at a town-hall meeting with State Department employees to mark her first year in office.

Well said.  It's about time we fought back against some of these international creeps.  One of these days they'll call Washington asking for help, and no one will answer the phone.

U.S. officials were not surprised by criticism from countries such as Venezuela, Bolivia and Cuba, which have accused the United States of occupying Haiti. However, they were shocked by comments from a senior Italian official who denounced Washington's earthquake response as "pathetic."

Guido Bertolaso, head of Italy's Civil Protection Agency, said on Sunday that the United States "tends to confuse military intervention with emergency intervention" and that despite the presence of 13,000 American troops in Haiti, "no one is giving orders."

In fairness, the Italian government quickly distanced itself from this guy's comments.  Italy has a very warm relationship with the United States.  This individual handled relief for an earthquake in Italy that killed 300 people.  The quake in Haiti has killed upwards of 150,000.  There's a bit of a difference.

We await a comment from the White House to equal Hillary's strong defense of this country and its armed forces.  And again we wait in vain.

January 26, 2010   Permalink

ANOTHER NEWSPAPER STRATEGY DOES A "TITANIC" – AT 6:41 P.M. ET:  Newsday is the dominant newspaper on Long Island, which is just east of New York City.  Recently it made a move to charge readers for its previously free online content.  And now (trumpets please) the result:

The paper was one of the first non-business newspapers to take the plunge by putting up a pay wall, so in media circles it has been followed with interest. Could its fate be a sign of what others, including The New York Times, might expect?

So, three months later, how many people have signed up to pay $5 a week, or $260 a year, to get unfettered access to newsday.com?

The answer: 35 people. As in fewer than three dozen. As in a decent-sized elementary-school class.

Now, it is true that people throughout America don't grow up with a deep wanting of Newsday.  The paper is today owned by a notably contentious family that has little experience in journalism, and continues to highlight Long Island news.

But the fact is that many papers want to put their content behind a "pay wall," and are looking to see if the Newsday experiment works.  So far it's been a major flop.   Look at the number – 35.  That's not a subscription base.  That's a chain letter.

One of the great things about the internet is that so much news reporting is provided free of charge.  The news organizations, presumably, collect their revenue from advertising and other forms of content.  The pay news sites that do work are business-oriented, like The Wall Street Journal. 

The New York Times will go "pay wall" sometime this year.  Last year they ended an experiment that forced readers to pay for favored columnists.  Apparently the columnists weren't that favored.  I'm guessing this new plan will fade away as well.

January 26, 2010   Permalink

FOX MOST TRUSTED NETWORK – AT 5:48 P.M. ET:  There will be advanced coronary complications throughout mainstream media today, as the result of a PPP poll on public appraisal of the news networks.  Jennifer Rubin at Contentions has the story:

The Democratic polling outfit Public Policy Polling reveals:

"Americans do not trust the major tv news operations in the country- except for Fox News. Our newest survey looking at perceptions of ABC News, CBS News, CNN, Fox News, and NBC News finds Fox as the only one that more people say they trust than distrust. 49% say they trust it to 37% who do not. CNN does next best at a 39/41 spread, followed by NBC at 35/44, CBS at 32/46, and ABC at 31/46."

Look, the mainstream media types won't believe the poll.  After all, no one they know thinks that way.  Who are those peasants in the poll?

This will certainly be unwelcome news to the White House, but it is also further evidence that the Obama administration may have the ability to lift its enemies to new heights of popularity. Perhaps all that vilification from the White House demonstrated that Fox wasn’t the patsy of the administration. Or maybe viewers can judge for themselves — and have long since tuned out the advice of the White House on everything from health care to which news outlet they should watch.

COMMENT:  The American people come through once again. 

January 26, 2010   Permalink

JUST DEVELOPING – AT 9:50 A.M. ET:  News is first coming in about this, but we may have just dodged another terrorist bullet.  From CNN:

A man was arrested Monday after police found an arsenal of high-powered weapons and a map of a U.S. military base in his New Jersey hotel, authorities said.

You know, the kind of stuff everyone has.

Lloyd R. Woodson, 43, was arrested and faces multiple weapons charges after an investigation into his suspicious behavior at a store in Branchburg, New Jersey, said local prosecutor Wayne J. Forrest.

Woodson, wearing a military jacket, went to a store called Quick Chek on Monday afternoon and was acting suspiciously, Forrest said in a statement. The clerk called authorities.

The clerk is a hero, and may have prevented another Fort Hood.

When officers arrived, Woodson ran into the woods. He was subdued after wrestling with officers, the statement said.

During the struggle, officers noticed that Woodson was wearing a bulletproof vest and carrying an assault rifle in his coat.

And here is the intrigue:

Officers searched Woodson's hotel room and found another assault rifle, a grenade launcher, a police scanner, another bulletproof vest, a map of a U.S. military base, hundreds of rounds of ammunition and a Middle Eastern-style headdress, the statement said.

A Middle Eastern-style headdress?  Why, of course, isn't that what we all wear? 

Now, why would a man with that arsenal also have a Middle Eastern-style headdress?  I want to know all about this man.  And yes, I want to know his religious background.

I hope the press stays on this story.  The usual suspects will probably dismiss the Mideast fashion as a coincidence.  After all, who are we to question?  I want a lot of answers.

January 26, 2010   Permalink

BLUNDER OF THE DAY – AT 9:22 A.M. ET:  Historians a few hundred years from now will probably look back and wonder how the residents of the left became so obsessed with an institution known as Fox News. 

You just get the feeling that some liberals jump up in the middle of the night, having been scared by nightmares that include Roger Ailes as the Devil and Bill O'Reilly as the Devil's Disciple.  Sarah Palin will appear next, as Jezebel.   You betcha. 

In a column today, former Secretary of Labor Robert Reich recalls how the Clinton administration reacted to the Democratic loss of Congress in 1994.  Reich writes:

In December 1994, Bill Clinton proposed a so-called middle-class bill of rights including more tax credits for families with children, expanded retirement accounts, and tax-deductible college tuition. Clinton had lost his battle for healthcare reform. Even worse, by that time the Dems had lost the House and Senate. Washington was riding a huge anti-incumbent wave. Right-wing populists were the ascendancy, with Newt Gingrich and Fox News leading the charge. Bill Clinton thought it desperately important to assure Americans he was on their side.

Well, well, well, well, well.  This is what happens when obsession distorts memory.  Will someone gently inform Mr. Reich that Fox News didn't come into existence until October, 1996, some two years after, he assures us, it was leading the charge against Bill Clinton. 

By the way, Fox News is also responsible for the swine flu, low student performance in inner cities, and bad commuter service.  Pass it on.

One of the basic rules of journalism:  Don't do anything from memory.  Look it up. 

January 26, 2010   Permalink

UTTERLY CHILLING – AT 8:37 A.M. ET:  We were worried over the Christmas-day airline bomber.  Let's not forget that an attack like that is small-time stuff compared to what Al Qaeda apparently has in mind.  The Washington Post, in a solid piece of journalism, reports:

When al-Qaeda's No. 2 leader, Ayman al-Zawahiri, called off a planned chemical attack on New York's subway system in 2003, he offered a chilling explanation: The plot to unleash poison gas on New Yorkers was being dropped for "something better," Zawahiri said in a message intercepted by U.S. eavesdroppers.

The meaning of Zawahiri's cryptic threat remains unclear more than six years later, but a new report warns that al-Qaeda has not abandoned its goal of attacking the United States with a chemical, biological or even nuclear weapon.

Why would it abandon that goal?  That's what Al Qaeda is about.

The report, by a former senior CIA official who led the agency's hunt for weapons of mass destruction, portrays al-Qaeda's leaders as determined and patient, willing to wait for years to acquire the kind of weapons that could inflict widespread casualties.

The former official, Rolf Mowatt-Larssen, notes:

"If Osama bin Laden and his lieutenants had been interested in . . . small-scale attacks, there is little doubt they could have done so now," Mowatt-Larssen writes in a report released Monday by the Harvard Kennedy School of Government's Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs.

Not everyone affiliated with Harvard is a cookie-cutter leftist, although the cutter seems to have made many, many cookies.

The report comes as a federal panel is about to release an assessment of our preparedness for a WMD attack:

The review by the bipartisan Commission on the Prevention of Weapons of Mass Destruction Proliferation and Terrorism is particularly critical of the Obama administration's actions so far in hardening the country's defenses against bioterrorism, according to two former government officials who have seen drafts of the report.

Is any reader out there surprised by that conclusion?  Maybe the Obamans think that hardening our defenses would be offensive to certain cultures that are equal in every way to ours, and also have nice music and costumes.

Mowatt-Larssen, a 23-year CIA veteran, led the agency's internal task force on al-Qaeda and weapons of mass destruction after the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks and later was named director of intelligence and counterintelligence for the Energy Department. His report warns that bin Laden's threat to attack the West with weapons of mass destruction is not "empty rhetoric" but a top strategic goal for an organization that seeks the economic ruin of the United States and its allies to hasten the overthrow of pro-Western governments in the Islamic world.

He cites patterns in al-Qaeda's 15-year pursuit of weapons of mass destruction that reflect a deliberateness and sophistication in assembling the needed expertise and equipment.

COMMENT:  Another serious warning, coming at a time when Iran is working vigorously toward nuclear weapons.  It would be comparatively easy for Iran to pass some knowledge on to favored terrorist groups.

And yet, we treat captured terrorists like shoplifters, reading them their Miranda rights. 

There's an old saying that the Constitution is not a suicide pact.  Apparently, many members of the Obama administration didn't get the memo.

January 26, 2010   Permalink

PUBLIC REJECTS DEM CONTROL OF CONGRESS – AT 8:19 A.M. ET:  The political winds are shifting, and public opinion polls are marking the change:

Washington (CNN) - Americans are divided on whether Democratic control of Congress is good for the country, according to a new national poll.

Well, that's a bit of a whitewash.  Read on.

A CNN/Opinion Research Corporation survey released Monday also indicates that 7 in 10 Americans believe that the Democrats' loss of their 60 seat supermajority in the Senate is a positive move for the country.

Forty-five percent of people questioned in the poll said Democratic control of Congress is a good thing, with 48 percent disagreeing. The margin is within the survey's sampling error. But the results are a shift from last June, when 50 percent felt that Democratic control of both chambers of Congress was good and 41 percent felt it was bad for the country.

Democrats control the House 256 to 178, with one seat vacant. Last week's victory by Republican Scott Brown in a Massachusetts special Senate election to fill the final three years of the late Sen. Ted Kennedy's term means that Brown will become the 41st Republican in the chamber, leaving Democrats with 59 senate seats. That's one short of the filibuster-proof supermajority they have held since last spring, when Republican Sen. Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania switched parties.

"The poll provides more evidence of the dwindling appeal of the Democratic party in the wake of last week's special election in Massachusetts," said CNN Polling Director Keating Holland. "Fewer Americans have a favorable view of the Democrats, and fewer support Democratic control on Capitol Hill."

COMMENT:  Now let's see if Republicans can keep that lovin' feeling through the November election.  The verdict on Dem control, though, is getting pretty definitive.

Voters can react in very strange ways, which is why prediction is always a dangerous sport.  In 1942, barely 11 months after Pearl Harbor, President Roosevelt's Democratic Party suffered massive losses in the House.  There was still enough uncertainty over the war, and a residual resentment toward the president for winning a third term, to cause substantial discontent.  Yet, two years later, with Mr. Roosevelt running for, and winning, a fourth term, his party made up some of the 1942 losses.  The war was being won, we were confident, and the Democrats were seen as the "commander-in-chief" party. 

So, as Mort Sahl used to say, "the future lies ahead."  We can't entirely predict it.

January 26, 2010   Permalink

JOIN THE REVOLT! – AT 7:50 A.M. ET:  It often takes a bit of time for the forces of good, decency and the American way to organize, but they eventually get it together.  The revulsion over the lax treatment of the Christmas day bomber is growing, and US senators are pressing for change we can believe in.  Byron York, in the Washington Examiner, chronicles the movement:

A bipartisan revolt is brewing in the Senate over the Obama administration's handling of accused Detroit bomber Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab. A small but growing number of lawmakers is asking the president to undo what many regard as the disastrously wrong-headed decision to grant Abdulmutallab full American constitutional rights. Once he was told he had the right to remain silent, the accused terrorist stopped talking to U.S. investigators, possibly denying them valuable intelligence about the threat from al Qaeda.

And...

The anger on Capitol Hill grew over the weekend, when the Associated Press reported that local FBI agents in Detroit were allowed to question Abdulmutallab for just 50 minutes before he went into surgery for several hours. During that time, Justice Department lawyers in Washington intervened and Abdulmutallab was later read his Miranda rights.

That was bad enough, but what really made lawmakers angry was when White House press secretary Robert Gibbs, appearing on "Fox News Sunday," insisted the 50-minute interrogation had been entirely sufficient for investigators to learn everything they needed to know about the al Qaeda plot to bomb Northwest Airlines Flight 253.

That is complete madness.  Perpetrators are often interrogated for hours on end, and for a number of days running.  A real intelligence-oriented interrogation would have made use of the vast amount of information we collect from intercepts and other sources every day.  "Do you know this person?  Do you know this other person?  Describe your training?  What other targets were discussed?  Did you see photographs of these targets?"

Leading the revolt are Senators Joe Lieberman of Connecticut and Susan Collins of Maine:

On Monday, Lieberman and Collins wrote to Attorney General Eric Holder, as well as top White House terrorism official John Brennan, saying the decision to give Abdulmutallab full American constitutional rights had been a serious mistake, but that "the administration can reverse this error, at least to some degree, by immediately transferring Abdulmuttalab to the Department of Defense ... [which has] the authority and capability to hold and interrogate Abdulmuttalab and try him before a military commission."

Lawyers debate whether it would be possible to transfer the accused to military jurisdiction once the civilian system has asserted control.  There apparently is no definitive answer, and a court would probably have to decide.

Would President Obama go along with the demand for the transfer?

You might think the president would agree. After all, he has said specifically that the United States is "at war against al Qaeda." But changing Abdulmutallab's status would be an admission that his administration got it wrong when confronted by an al Qaeda terrorist determined to kill Americans. And it's not at all clear that that is something the president is prepared to do.

COMMENT:  I think it goes well beyond that.  The president is a leftist lawyer, and leftist lawyers believe that terrorism is, at worst, a law-enforcement problem.  He also is saddled with a number of Justice Department senior officials who come from the very law firms that defended, pro bono, Gitmo detainees.  And when you realize that the profoundly left-leaning former deans of both the Harvard and Yale law schools are high officeholders in his administration, one gets a depressing picture.

January 26,  2010   Permalink

MONDAY,  JANUARY 25,  2010

GEEZ - AT 10:51 P.M. ET:  We suspected the president has an out-of-control ego, but this is the gun, and it is smoking.  Heavy, thick smoke.  Congressman Marion Berry of Arkansas, as reported in the Arkansas Democrat-Gazette, via The Politico:

Berry recounted meetings with White House officials, reminiscent of some during the Clinton days, where he and others urged them not to force Blue Dogs “off into that swamp” of supporting bills that would be unpopular with voters back home.

“I’ve been doing that with this White House, and they just don’t seem to give it any credibility at all,” Berry said. “They just kept telling us how good it was going to be. The president himself, when that was brought up in one group, said, ‘Well, the big difference here and in ’94 was you’ve got me.’ We’re going to see how much difference that makes now.”

COMMENT:  Yeah, we got you, babe.  And we're all so thrilled.

I'd love to be a fly on the wall, listening to Bill Clinton's reaction as he reads that Obama comment.  Clinton, as you'll recall, was the president we had in 1994.

January 25, 2010   Permalink

NEW ALERT ABOUT IRAN – AT 8:42 P.M. ET:  Reader Joseph J. Gallick alerts us to this report from Germany, which is spreading rapidly around the internet.  It deals with new intelligence information from Iranian defectors, and other sources:

The West has long been suspicious of Iran's nuclear program. SPIEGEL has obtained new documents on secret tests and leadership structures that call into question Tehran's claims to be exclusively interested in the peaceful use of the technology...

...The new information, say American experts, will likely prompt the US government to reassess the risks coming from the mullah-controlled country in the coming days and raise the alarm level from yellow to red. Skeptics who in the past, sometimes justifiably so, treated alarmist reports as Israeli propaganda, are also extremely worried. They include the experts from the United Nations International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), whose goal is prevent the spread of nuclear weapons.

I love the little nasty comment about Israel.  If these European "sophisticates" had listened to Israeli intelligence, and indeed some Arab intelligence agencies, years go, they'd be in a much better position.

And the document that Spiegel, a German magazine, has apparently seen?

According to the classified document, there is a secret military branch of Iran's nuclear research program that answers to the Defense Ministry and has clandestine structures. The officials who have read the dossier conclude that the government in Tehran is serious about developing a bomb, and that its plans are well advanced.

This comes as no shock to anyone with common sense.  The Iranians didn't build all those plants and underground facilities because they needed power to recharge iPods.  This has been a military program from the start.

The trouble is, nothing has been done to stop it.  The sanctions applied to Iran thus far have been laughed at.  The Chinese, who have veto power in the UN Security Council, are militantly against new sanctions, and it's unlikely we could even get some European countries, with extensive commercial ties to Iran, to go along:

This leaves the military option. Apart from the political consequences and the possibility of counter-attacks, bombing Iran's nuclear facilities would be extremely difficult. The nuclear experts have literally buried themselves and their facilities underground, in locations that would be virtually impossible to reach with conventional weapons.

While even Israeli experts are skeptical over how much damage bombing the facilities could do to the nuclear program, the normally levelheaded US General David Petraeus sounded downright belligerent when asked whether the Iranian nuclear facilities could be attacked militarily. "Well, they certainly can be bombed," he said just two weeks ago in Washington.

COMMENT:  I doubt if Obama, strapped in tight by the left wing of his party, has the stomach for military action, which would have to be sustained.  That leaves the real possibility that the mullahs of Iran will have the bomb.  And if they are in danger of being overturned, they might just give it to some allies.

This is an extraordinary dangerous situation.  Some say the mullahs can be deterred, as were the Soviets.  But the Soviet Union, with all its horrors, was rational.  The leaders wanted to live.  The Iranians, with their religious fanaticism, may be more like the Japanese kamikaze.

We look to Obama, probably in vain.

January 25, 2010   Permalink

HOME SALES DIVE – AT 5:58 P.M. ET:  The idea of an economic "recovery" took a big hit last month, as home sales tumbled:

WASHINGTON (AP) -- Sales of previously occupied homes took the largest monthly drop in more than 40 years last month, sinking more dramatically than expected after lawmakers gave buyers additional time to use a tax credit.

The report reflects a sharp drop in demand after buyers stopped scrambling to qualify for a tax credit of up to $8,000 for first-time homeowners. It had been due to expire on Nov. 30. But Congress extended the deadline until April 30 and expanded it with a new $6,500 credit for existing homeowners who move.

"It's 'exit stage left' for first-time homebuyers," wrote Guy LeBas, an analyst with Janney Montgomery Scott.

December's sales fell 16.7 percent to a seasonally adjusted annual rate of 5.45 million, from an unchanged pace of 6.54 million in November, the National Association of Realtors said Monday. Sales had been expected to fall by about 10 percent, according to economists surveyed by Thomson Reuters.

The report "places a large question mark over whether the recovery can be sustained when the extended tax credit expires," wrote Paul Dales, U.S. economist with Capital Economics.

COMMENT:  This will continue unless new jobs are generated, the credit markets return to normal, and people become sane about home values.  One of the worst things that happened economically in this country over the last 25 years is that the American people started believing that their fortunes were in their homes.  They are not.  They are in their work, their savings, and their financial plans. 

Home prices are a function of many things, but home prices that are too high can actually do devastating damage to an economy, as they have in New York.  The high cost of living in New York has turned it into an out-migration state, and the people leaving are the most productive citizens.  Reasonable, and sane, housing policies attract young people, entrepreneurs, and businesses.

This recession is far from over.  What some economists fear is a "double dip" recession, with the second dip occurring later this year.

January 25, 2010   Permalink

WHEN WILL THE BAD NEWS FOR OBAMA END? – AT 5:05 P.M. ET:  Or, when will the White House start shooting the pollsters?  A new poll shows how extensive the disillusionment with The One has become.  From the Washington Times:

Only 43 percent of Americans would vote to re-elect President Obama, fully 10 percent lower than the percentage that put him into office just more than a year ago.

Fifty percent think it's time for someone new to be president, according to the latest poll conducted by Zogby International from Jan. 19 to 21, when the president completed his first term in office.

Among independent voters, only 30 percent would vote to re-elect Mr. Obama, and 60 percent say it is time for someone new.

COMMENT:  Obviously, this is very, very preliminary.  The president isn't up until 2012, and we haven't even had the 2010 elections.  But the figure among independents has got to worry the White House immensely.   Mr. Obama rode to power largely because of his strength among independents.  That strength is now gone, at least for now.

January 25, 2010   Permalink

BULLETIN:  MAJOR MOTION PICTURE NEWS – AT 3:34 P.M. ET:  From the BBC:

The world's first film shot entirely by chimpanzees is to be broadcast by the BBC as part of a natural history documentary.

The apes created the movie using a specially designed chimp-proof camera given to them by primatologists.

The film-making exercise is part of a scientific study into how chimpanzees perceive the world and each other.

It will be screened within the Natural World programme "Chimpcam" shown on BBC Two at 2000GMT on Wednesday 27 January.

Making the movie was the brainchild of primatologist Ms Betsy Herrelko, who is studying for a PhD in primate behaviour at the University of Stirling, UK.

COMMENT:  You can be sure that this will be far more accurate than any other BBC documentary in recent memory. 

Now watch:  BBC's next project will be a chimp-made anti-American documentary.

January 25, 2010   Permalink

NEW TERROR WARNING – AT 10:06 A.M. ET:  The Brits are on the case, as some new and disturbing developments emerge:

Two men were stopped boarding US-bound planes at Heathrow days before Britain's terror threat was raised to "severe".

News of the incidents came hours after Home Secretary Alan Johnson lifted the threat level amid fears that al-Qaeda is planning an attack.

The new level, which means an attack is reckoned "highly likely", is second only to "critical".

Security sources say an Egyptian was stopped last Saturday as he tried to board an American Airlines flight to Miami. A man from Saudi Arabia was banned from boarding a United Airlines flight to Chicago the next day and sent back to Saudi.

The incidents and the raised threat level follow the failed Christmas Day bombing on a plane over Detroit.

And this is especially worrisome:

Anti-terror officials said the past week had seen an "unusually high" number of people on their no-fly list trying to board US-bound planes.

And...

Security is being tightened in Britain ahead of high-level meetings which will see world leaders including Hillary Clinton heading to Britain this week. The US Secretary of State and other leading foreign ministers will be in London on Wednesday and Thursday for summits on Yemen - thought to be a terror haven - and Afghanistan.

COMMENT:  The president's state of the union message is Wednesday.  Amidst all the new and improved posturing over the economy, let's see if he says anything about national security.  He might begin by reminding his own Justice Department that reading terrorists their Miranda rights may not be the highest priority at the moment.

January 25, 2010   Permalink

WELL, WHAT DO YOU KNOW?  SOME REAL REALISM – AT 9:30 A.M. ET:  A foreign-policy realist gets realistic.

I've never been impressed by the "realists" in foreign policy.  They always seemed to be the most unrealistic chaps of all.  Their "realism" never seems to work for more than five minutes, and always manages to shame us.

Now, Richard Haass, one of the most prominent "realists" – a favorite of Bush 41, which tells you everything – has had an epiphany.  In foreign policy, that's like having triplets.  In a Newsweek piece, he concedes that our "realist" policy toward Iran has failed, that we face a major crisis, and that a major change is needed.  He is correct:

The nuclear talks are going nowhere. The Iranians appear intent on developing the means to produce a nuclear weapon; there is no other explanation for the secret uranium-enrichment facility discovered near the holy city of Qum. Fortunately, their nuclear program appears to have hit some technical snags, which puts off the need to decide whether to launch a preventive strike. Instead we should be focusing on another fact: Iran may be closer to profound political change than at any time since the revolution that ousted the shah 30 years ago.

The authorities overreached in their blatant manipulation of last June's presidential election, and then made matters worse by brutally repressing those who protested. Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei has lost much of his legitimacy, as has the "elected" president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. The opposition Green Movement has grown larger and stronger than many predicted.

And...

The United States, European governments, and others should shift their Iran policy toward increasing the prospects for political change.

That is what scholars like Michael Ledeen have been advocating for years, only to be met with ridicule by the self-proclaimed intellectual establishment. 

Leaders should speak out for the Iranian people and their rights. President Obama did this on Dec. 28 after several protesters were killed on the Shia holy day of Ashura, and he should do so again. So should congressional and world leaders. Iran's Revolutionary Guards should be singled out for sanctions. Lists of their extensive financial holdings can be published on the Internet. The United States should press the European Union and others not to trade or provide financing to selected entities controlled by the Guards.  

That's where the problem comes.  Money talks.  The Germans, in particular, have been obscene in their trading policies with Iran.  And China is unspeakable. 

Just as important as what to do is what to avoid. Congressmen and senior administration figures should avoid meeting with the regime. Any and all help for Iran's opposition should be nonviolent. Iran's opposition should be supported by Western governments, not led. In this vein, outsiders should refrain from articulating specific political objectives other than support for democracy and an end to violence and unlawful detention. Sanctions on Iran's gasoline imports and refining, currently being debated in Congress, should be pursued at the United Nations so international focus does not switch from the illegality of Iran's behavior to the legality of unilateral American sanctions.

Finally...

Critics will say promoting regime change will encourage Iranian authorities to tar the opposition as pawns of the West. But the regime is already doing so. Outsiders should act to strengthen the opposition and to deepen rifts among the rulers. This process is underway, and while it will take time, it promises the first good chance in decades to bring about an Iran that, even if less than a model country, would nonetheless act considerably better at home and abroad. Even a realist should recognize that it's an opportunity not to be missed.

COMMENT:  Solid argument.  Sadly, there will be other "realists," especially those associated with the "it's our fault" school, who will not go along.  But I'm hopeful that Haass's piece reflects real change in the realist camp.

Of course, his prescription requires that the Obama administration actually do something, which is not its greatest strength.

January 25, 2010   Permalink

POLITICAL STUNNER – AT 8:51 A.M. ET:  The Rothenberg Political Report is one of the most respected political sources in Washington.  This morning it published its latest judgments, reinforcing the New York Times story we quoted just below, and adding some juicy details:

After a stunning GOP Senate win in Massachusetts and a slew of new polls showing many Democratic incumbents in trouble, it’s hard to argue with the obvious: the Republicans unquestionably have momentum as 2010 begins.

We are adding a dozen new seats to our list of districts “in play” – all of them currently held by Democrats. In addition, we have moved 16 districts within our list – two held by the GOP and the rest currently represented by a Democrat. All of the moves benefit the GOP, either because Republican districts now look safer or Democratic districts appear more vulnerable.

Given that we expect more Democratic retirements in the next few months and anticipate that more Democratic-held districts will increase in vulnerability between now and the fall, we are raising our target for GOP gains to 24 to 28 seats, with higher Republican gains possible. Of course, changes in the national mood between now and November could also benefit Democrats.

COMMENT:  A word of caution:  Districts and states are fought one by one by one.  They're not fought as a mass.  Many Americans find the Republican Party unattractive because, let's face it, many of its leaders would not win a political beauty contest, or any other kind.  GOP congressional leaders hold news conferences, and the image is one of tired white guys.  No women.  No minorities.  Scott Brown showed that an attractive candidate, articulate and determined, can change that picture.  He's a white guy, but he's certainly not tired or average.

The party's success in November will be decided heavily by the quality of the candidates it recruits.  It will also be decided by its ability to avoid any hint of extremism or nuttiness.  These are serious times.  People want real answers, not ideological readings.

January 25, 2010   Permalink

SEIZING THE INITIATIVE – IT'S ABOUT TIME – AT 8:42 A.M. ET:  Traditionally, one hasn't looked to the Republican Party for a lot of electoral energy.  You sometimes had the feeling that the party needed constant treatment by paramedics, especially right before elections.  But there may be change we can believe in coming.  From The New York Times, which must be experiencing pain in reporting the story:

WASHINGTON — Republicans are luring new candidates into House and Senate races, and the number of seats up for grabs in November appears to be growing, setting up a midterm election likely to be harder fought than anyone anticipated before the party’s big victory in Massachusetts last week.

It's great to have good news on a Monday morning.

Republicans still face many obstacles, not least a number of potentially divisive primaries in coming months that will highlight the deep ideological rifts within the party.

That is correct.  We wrote about it here just yesterday.  Some heads may have to be knocked together.  And the purists may have to be taught some basic math:  In politics, you can get 75% of something, or 100% of nothing. 

But in the days since Republicans claimed the Senate seat that Edward M. Kennedy had held for decades, upending assumptions in both parties about the political landscape for 2010, they have seen not just a jolt of energy and optimism but also more concrete opportunities to take on Democrats.

Just since Tuesday, half a dozen Republicans have expressed interest in challenging Democrats in House races in New York, Pennsylvania and potentially Massachusetts, party officials said.

The bottom line:

Republicans need a net gain of 40 seats to regain control of the House. That still seems unlikely, though hardly impossible.

COMMENT:  It was a pipe dream only two months ago.  But the election isn't being held today, and the White House political team is not dumb.  Much can happen between now and November, which is why the GOP must run as if tomorrow is election day.

The sleeper issue:  National security.  The economy will be the major "talked about" issue, but polling in Massachusetts last week showed that national security was a major factor in Scott Brown's election.

January 25, 2010   Permalink

AMBUSH AT APPROVAL GAP – AT 8:17 A.M. ET:  Gallup is reporting another new record for President Obama, not the kind he will post on the Oval Office wall:

PRINCETON, NJ -- The 65 percentage-point gap between Democrats' (88%) and Republicans' (23%) average job approval ratings for Barack Obama is easily the largest for any president in his first year in office, greatly exceeding the prior high of 52 points for Bill Clinton.

My question is this:  Precisely what is it that Democrats approve of?  You get the sense that this is all personal.

Overall, Obama averaged 57% job approval among all Americans from his inauguration to the end of his first full year on Jan. 19. He came into office seeking to unite the country, and his initial approval ratings ranked among the best for post-World War II presidents, including an average of 41% approval from Republicans in his first week in office. But he quickly lost most of his Republican support, with his approval rating among Republicans dropping below 30% in mid-February and below 20% in August. Throughout the year, his approval rating among Democrats exceeded 80%, and it showed little decline even as his overall approval rating fell from the mid-60s to roughly 50%.

And...

In fact, his 88% average approval rating from his own party's supporters is exceeded only by George W. Bush's 92% during Bush's first year in office. Obama's 23% approval among supporters of the opposition party matches Bill Clinton's for the lowest for a first-year president. But Clinton was less popular among Democrats than Obama has been to date, making Obama's ratings more polarized.

COMMENT:  The only thing that can possibly change here is that Dems might start losing faith.  I can't imagine moderate Democrats continuing to support this president. 

The figures are not only startling, they're discouraging.  This kind of polarization is dangerous for the country, and reflects a failure of leadership. 

The survey did not measure support for Obama among independents, which has dropped dramatically, and which will make him a one-term president if there are no corrections.

January 25,  2010   Permalink