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.

OUR DAILY SNIPPETS ARE HERE.

THURSDAY,  MARCH 25,  2010

NEW BIN LADEN THREAT – AT 8:16 P.M. ET:  While Obama was busy bashing an American ally, our enemies were active.  Osama bin Laden has made another threat, and this one is completely credible:

(March 25) -- Osama bin Laden leveled a new threat against the U.S. in an audio recording released today, saying al-Qaida will kill American captives if the U.S. executes Sept. 11 mastermind Khalid Sheikh Mohammed or other terror suspects in its custody.

Bin Laden named Mohammed specifically in the 74-second recording aired on Al-Jazeera television.

"The White House announced they intend to sentence them to death," he said on the recording. "When the U.S. takes that decision, it means they will take a decision that any hostage who falls in our hands will be sentenced to death."

And...

It remains unclear whether there are any U.S. captives in al-Qaida custody. In December, the Haqqani group of the Pakistan-based Taliban faction released a video of a U.S. soldier they captured in Afghanistan in June.

COMMENT:  You can be sure that bin Laden is planning ways to grab American hostages, and it isn't all that difficult.  It can be done on the streets of a city, especially one in Pakistan.  That's the way Danny Pearl was captured.  He was later beheaded.

If bin Laden can grab a couple of Americans, especially servicemen, we're checkmated on the death penalty for terrorist detainees, and may even have to release some to save American lives.  The enemy is not without his means.  He's low tech, and determined.  We're high tech, with a president who really wants us to beg forgiveness for our imagined sins.

March 25, 2010   Permalink

SEND BACK THE CLOWNS – AT 7:45 P.M. ET:  The damage done by Barack Hussein Obama Jr. to our relationship with Israel is already having its negative effects, as anyone familiar with the Mideast knew it would.

Despite statements by both the U.S. and Israel that progress was made during Prime Minister Netanyahu's visit to Washington, Palestinian spokesmen now claim that no progress was made.  This is the old Arab technique of moving the goalposts.  Give them something that they hint will satisfy them, and they immediately move the goalposts and ask for more.  Say there's progress, and they declare no progress.  The president, who has no real experience in foreign policy, doesn't know this or doesn't care.

Whatever one thinks of Benjamin Netanyahu, and my feelings are mixed, he is the elected leader of an ally, as is Gordon Brown (UK) and Nicolas Sarkozy (France.)  All these men have been humiliated at one time or another by Barack Obama.  Netanyahu should not have been subjected to the constant humiliations he was handed during his trip to Washington.  Even some writers who've been critical of Israeli policy have been appalled.  We watched today as the foreign minister of Pakistan, a nation with so-so relations with the United States, was given the dignity of a joint news conference with Secretary Clinton, a routine gesture of respect denied to the prime minister of Israel.

Obama clearly has a hostility toward American allies, and a certain sympathy for our enemies.  That fits in well with his profoundly left-wing upbringing and, despite all denials, his Muslim heritage.  We can respect that heritage, and demand that it not be used against the president in racist or unsavory ways, but we have a perfect right to discuss it.  Believe me, if Obama were an evangelical Christian, we'd be hearing about it from CNN every day. 

So now we have a mess with Israel.  It is, I fear, the first step toward Obama trying to impose his own settlement on the Arab-Israeli conflict, something he may dream will get him a second Nobel Peace Prize.  (I can just see him standing up there in Oslo saying, "This one I earned.") 

The United States is at its best in the Mideast when it gives Israel the confidence, through our backing, to allow the Israelis to demonstrate reasonable and mature flexibility.  But Washington has now pulled the rug out from under Israel, in an act of naked appeasement toward the Palestinians, who are divided and aimless.  Let's see how our national interest is served.

March 25, 2010   Permalink

FORECLOSURES – AT 7:32 P.M. ET:  Some economists are predicting a new foreclosure crisis this year, and the Obamans are reacting with a proposal.  From the Washington Post:

The Obama administration plans to overhaul how it's tackling the foreclosure crisis, in part by requiring lenders to temporarily slash or eliminate monthly mortgage payments for many borrowers who are unemployed, senior officials said Thursday.

Banks and other lenders would have to reduce the payments to no more than 31 percent of a borrower's income, which would typically be their unemployment insurance, for up to six months. In some cases, administration officials said, a lender could allow a borrower to make no payments at all.

The new push, which the White House is scheduled to announce Friday, takes direct aim at the major cause of the current wave of foreclosures: the spike in unemployment. While the initial mortgage crisis that erupted three years ago resulted from millions of risky home loans that went bad, more recent defaults reflect the country's economic downturn and the inability of jobless borrowers to keep paying.

The administration's newest push also seek to more aggressively help borrowers who owe more on their mortgages than their properties are worth, by encouraging lenders to cut the loan balances of millions of these distressed homeowners and possibly refinance into loans backed by the Federal Housing Administration. The problem of so-called "underwater" borrowers has bedeviled earlier administration efforts to address the mortgage crisis as home prices plunged.

COMMENT:  Let's try to sort this out.  Once again, as in the health-care farce, the administration mixes together good ideas with bad ones, with an overall drift toward more federal control of the economy.

It's reasonable that banks come up with creative measures to save the homes of people who are legitimately unemployed.  There could certainly be forgiveness for a number of months, or just paying interest for those months, or reductions for a period of time.  I'd much prefer that those things be negotiated privately, and they often are.  If the federal government enters the picture, with its heavy hand, you can have a foreclosure problem leading to a bank liquidity problem, if the income of small banks is suddenly cut.  Compassion and understanding, of course.  But these things must be linked to practices that avoid another banking crisis.

On the second point, helping borrowers who owe more on their homes than their homes are worth...excuse me, but where is it written, as they say, that the government should guarantee profits in real estate?  For too many years, Americans were told that you can't lose money on real estate.  Now the government wants to guarantee that proposition. 

Homeowners, like anyone else – investors, business owners, professionals setting up a practice – must understand that there are risks involved.  The irresponsible, adolescent mentality that governed real estate for too long cannot be permitted to become national policy.  If you help one sector to maintain profitability, what about other sectors?  Do we nationalize real estate, the way we nationalized part of the auto industry?  And, by the way, if homeowners in some distress get bailed out by Peter, what is to prevent Paul, in the form of utility companies, phone companies, and local taxing authorities, from raising their rates, knowing that their customers are in a better position to pay them?

What we have here is a circular firing squad.  We see it in "federal aid to education" all the time.  The federal government gives out education grants, and the colleges respond by raising their prices, which they call tuition.  Hey, kids are getting federal money, aren't they?

Look at these proposals with two eyes.  Yes to compassion and aid to those truly in need, no to financial gimmicks that can easily backfire.

March 25, 2010   Permalink

REPEAL, THEY SAY – AT 10:01 A.M. ET:  Scott Rasmussen has been monitoring public opinion on what we should do about the health bill.  The answer is pretty clear:

Just before the House of Representatives passed sweeping health care legislation last Sunday, 41% of voters nationwide favored the legislation while 54% were opposed. Now that President Obama has signed the legislation into law, most voters want to see it repealed.

The latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey, conducted on the first two nights after the president signed the bill, shows that 55% favor repealing the legislation. Forty-two percent (42%) oppose repeal. Those figures include 46% who Strongly Favor repeal and 35% who Strongly Oppose it.

In terms of Election 2010, 52% say they’d vote for a candidate who favors repeal over one who does not. Forty-one percent (41%) would cast their vote for someone who opposes repeal.

COMMENT:  So far, so good.  These figures can go even further in our direction once Americans realize that most of the benefits in the bill won't kick in for years. 

The health system, by common consent, requires reform and repair.  It's just that the Dems chose the worst way to do it.

March 25, 2010   Permalink

CHICAGO POLITICS – AT 9:05 A.M. ET:  Democratic leaders have spent the last few days complaining about the roughness in America's current political culture.  Maybe some of their own operatives didn't get the memo.  You think?  From The Politico:

Senior White House and organized labor officials are warning the handful of House Democrats who supported health care legislation last year only to oppose the final measure on Sunday that they shouldn’t expect assistance for their reelection campaigns this fall.

The five who switched from yes to no — Reps. Michael Arcuri of New York, Marion Berry of Arkansas, Daniel Lipinski of Illinois, Stephen Lynch of Massachusetts and Zack Space of Ohio — have so annoyed top Democrats that there is also open talk of finding opponents to ensure they pay a steep political price for changing their vote.

“We’re looking at candidates we can trust to run against them, either through a primary or in the general election,” said Service Employees International Union Secretary-Treasurer Anna Burger, noting that recruitment conversations were already under way.

Of the five who switched, Burger said flatly, “They should not expect help from us.”

COMMENT:  You'd think, now that the health bill has passed, that Democratic leaders and their allies would try to unify the party and realize that some members had serious problems with the bill.  But these are hardline machine politicians.  The Service Employees International Union represents public employees, who are rapidly becoming one of the most powerful forces in society.  This is a bad brew, bad for the Democratic Party, for democracy, and for the country.  Not that they care.

March 25, 2010   Permalink

AND ANOTHER DISGRACE – AT 8:34 A.M. ET:  I sometimes feel there's a celestial camera aimed at the Obama administration, and the lens becomes more and more focused every day.  Now, as the focus gets even sharper, the image reveals still one more disgrace for our country.  From Fox:

VIENNA -- The U.S. has backed away from pursuing a number of tough measures against Iran in order to win support from Russia and China for a new United Nations Security Council resolution on sanctions, according to people familiar with the matter.

Among provisions removed from the original draft resolution the U.S. sent to key allies last month were sanctions aimed at choking off Tehran's access to international banking services and capital markets, and closing international airspace and waters to Iran's national air cargo and shipping lines, according to the people.

Why bother with anything?  The softer sanctions aren't worth the non-acidic paper they're written on.  Maybe 16-pound yellow draft paper.

The U.S. and allies are trying to force Iran to rein in a nuclear program that they worry is aimed at developing atomic weapons. Tehran says its nuclear activities are peaceful. The U.K. and Germany, concerned that Russia and China would reject the resolution outright and preferring to turn up pressure on Iran gradually, persuaded U.S. officials to drop or soften several elements, including some of the document's harshest provisions, the people said.

I love it.  They prefer to "turn up the pressure on Iran gradually."  They've been negotiating with the Iranians for more than seven years, with no result.  How much more "gradual" can this get?

U.S. officials said they wouldn't comment on the day-by-day negotiations taking place among the Security Council members. But they stressed that the Obama administration is seeking the toughest measures possible against Tehran while maintaining unity among the five permanent members of the Security Council and Germany, which are drafting the sanctions.

Oh please.  Oh please, please.  How dumb do the Obamans think we are?  They're seeking the "toughest measures possible against Tehran while maintaining unity among the five permanent members..."

Translated into English:  We'll be tough until someone says no.

The late Gen. Lauris Norstad, a NATO commander in the 1950s, once observed that toughness is not a policy.  You have to decide what to be tough about.  We've apparently decided, and then reversed the decision.  Great.  The Iranians must really be impressed. 

So, to sum up the foreign policy of The One in the last few weeks:  Cancel trips to Indonesia and Australia, bash Israel, order American troops to march in Red Square, and soften proposed sanctions on Iran.

Aren't you proud?

March 25, 2010   Permalink

HUH? – AT 8:20 A.M. ET:  We almost missed this.  Fortunately, our friend, Scott Johnson, at Power Line, alerted us to one of the more curious developments we've seen in American foreign policy:

MOSCOW — The British Embassy says British, French and U.S. troops will march with Russian soldiers on Red Square to mark the 65th anniversary of the defeat of Nazi Germany.

It said in a statement Thursday that the May 9 parade will include a Royal Air Force band and a detachment of Welsh Guards.

The statement said the parade may mark the first time British troops have marched in Red Square.

The U.S. Embassy confirmed that U.S. soldiers will take part in the parade.

As Kim Zigfeld writes at Pajamas Media:

All part of the now infamous Obama “reset” on Russia. Next stop for U.S. troops? Maybe a similar parade in Tehran?

Make no mistake about how Russians will understand this event. Putin will say to them: “You see, not only will they not help you fight for democracy, they will march against you. They will help me crush you.” Meanwhile Russian propagandists lose no opportunity to divide and conquer the West, even going so far as to buzz Alaska with nuclear bombers on a routine basis.

COMMENT:  I find this sickening – American soldiers marching in Red Square, honoring the Russian regime.  What makes it doubly bad is the possibility, not yet firm, that the Kremlin may once again mount huge posters of Joe Stalin around Moscow so that the old reds can remind frightened Russians who the boss once was.

So, now we have it:  The president of the United States humiliates Britain, France and Israel, but has American soldiers march in the symbolic capital of old Communism.   I'm sure the troopers will love it.  Maybe Mr. Obama should ask some Korea or Vietnam vets to march as well, and see what their reaction is.

Russia is no friend of the United States and is certainly far from an ally.  Our real allies in Eastern Europe, having been stripped of their promised anti-missile protection by Obama, will be watching.  You don't have to wonder what they'll be thinking.

March 25, 2010   Permalink

SYMBOLISM – AT 8:05 A.M. ET:  The Republicans in the Senate have scored a minor, and temporary, victory, but we caution that it will probably have no ultimate significance.  From the Washington Post:

Senate Republicans have successfully identified two minor violations of reconciliation rules in the final piece of the health-care package. The violations will force the Senate to change the reconciliation bill and ship it to the House of Representatives for final passage.

But Democratic leaders said the provisions that will be struck -- from the part of the bill dealing with Pell Grants for college students -- do not significantly affect the student loan program or the health care bill overall.

The corrected legislation most likely will not be subjected to additional challenges when it is sent back to the House, Democratic staffers said, and is expected to receive final approval before the weekend.

COMMENT:  It's time for Republicans to move on, and realize that the bill is passed and signed, and that the reconciliation package, fixing the original bill, will be signed by early next week.  Polls show that Americans are still heavily skeptical of the health plan, and that is what the GOP should build on.  The new Republican mantra is "repeal, replace and reform," and that is exactly right. 

The Republicans did not do the full, required job in the health-care debate.  While some fine ideas came from the Republican side, there was never a complete plan, wrapped up in a red ribbon.  And in today's media world, you need the ribbon. 

The GOP must go to the people in November with a full plan, far more attractive, and far less expensive, than the one that was just adopted.  When Americans find out the true cost of what's just been done, the Republican challenge will be easier.  But since Republicans have a nasty history of snatching defeat from the jaws of victory, take nothing for granted.

March 25,  2010   Permalink

WEDNESDAY,  MARCH 24,  2010

POLL:  AMERICANS WANT HEALTH PLAN FOUGHT – AT 8:57 P.M. ET:  A CBS poll, out today, offers encouragement to those who believe that our side should continue to resist the new health bill:

A CBS News poll released Wednesday finds that nearly two in three Americans want Republicans in Congress to continue to challenge parts of the health care reform bill.

The Senate version of the legislation was passed by the House Sunday night, and President Obama signed it into law on Tuesday. The House also passed a separate reconciliation bill, which cannot be filibustered, that is now being debated in the Senate. That bill would make changes to the bill already signed into law.

Senate Republicans are now challenging whether the bill is truly a budget reconciliation bill (which is what makes it filibuster-proof) and inserting amendments designed to slow down passage. Republican attorneys general are also planning to challenge the constitutionality of the law.

The poll finds that 62 percent want Congressional Republicans to keep challenging the bill, while 33 percent say they should not do so. Nearly nine in ten Republicans and two in three independents want the GOP to keep challenging. Even 41 percent of Democrats support continued challenges.

COMMENT:  Once again the key problem for Obama is that he's lost the support of independents.  Two thirds of them want Republicans to keep challenging the health bill.  If that loss of independent support lasts into November, we could see a major turnaround in both houses of Congress.

March 24, 2010   Permalink

BUMBLING CLOWNS – AT 8:18 P.M. ET:  What can we say about the conduct of American foreign policy under Barack Obama and his little poodle, Hillary?  The ideological rigidity, joined by a lovely incompetence, makes for a package that we show off to the world.

Nothing exposes the sheer blundering of this crowd than the handling of Israel, one of our closest allies, in the last two weeks, and, indeed, since Obama took the oath.  It rivals Obama's humiliation of Britain, which has been an outrage.  Jackson Diehl of the liberal Washington Post expresses his dismay at a president who wants to be more Palestinian than the Palestinians:

So it’s now been two weeks since President Obama chose to seize on a poorly-timed Israeli announcement about new Jewish housing in Jerusalem to launch another public confrontation with the government of Binyamin Netanyahu...

...Meanwhile, Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas has adopted Obama’s original demand as his own: He’s saying he won’t begin even the indirect, “proximity” talks he previously agreed to until Israel accepts the Clinton terms on Jerusalem. How could he do otherwise? The Palestinian leader cannot be less pro-Palestinian than the White House. But Abbas cannot climb down from his position so easily -- which means that, for the second time in a year, the Middle East peace process has been stalled by a U.S.-engineered deadlock.

The Palestinians oppose Israeli settlements on the West Bank, but that never stopped them from negotiating...until Barack Obama came to office and made settlements an obsession.  Big, big mistake.

Finally, Obama has added more poison to a U.S.-Israeli relationship that already was at its lowest point in two decades. Tuesday night the White House refused to allow non-official photographers record the president’s meeting with Netanyahu; no statement was issued afterward. Netanyahu is being treated as if he were an unsavory Third World dictator, needed for strategic reasons but conspicuously held at arms length. That is something the rest of the world will be quick to notice and respond to. Just like the Palestinians, European governments cannot be more friendly to an Israeli leader than the United States.

At least the Brits probably feel they have company now.  This is obnoxious behavior for an American president.  Even presidents who were somewhat distant from Israel, like Carter and Bush 41, never behaved this way.

U.S. pressure on Netanyahu will be needed if the peace process ever reaches the point where the genuinely contentious issues, like Palestinian refugees or the exact territorial tradeoffs, are on the table. But instead of waiting for that moment and pushing Netanyahu on a point where he might be vulnerable to domestic challenge, Obama picked a fight over something that virtually all Israelis agree on, and before serious discussions have even begun. As the veteran Middle East analyst Robert Malley put it to The Post’s Glenn Kessler, “U.S. pressure can work, but it needs to be at the right time, on the right issue and in the right political context. The administration is ready for a fight, but it realized the issue, timing and context were wrong.”

And Malley tends to be sympathetic to the Arabs.

A new administration can be excused for making such a mistake in the treacherous and complex theater of Middle East diplomacy. That’s why Obama was given a pass by many when he made exactly the same mistake last year. The second time around, the president doesn’t look naive. He appears ideological -- and vindictive.

COMMENT:  He is both.  And peace will pay the price.  Small timers don't make it in international diplomacy.

March 24, 2010   Permalink

A LITTLE LANGUAGE PROBLEM – AT 7:47 P.M. ET:  As they used to say in the Army, "Sorry about that."  It turns out that one of the big promises made in the health-care bill may evaporate because of sloppy drafting.  You can't make this up:

You've seen a lot of hype about a provision in the health bill that will bar insurance companies from rejecting children with pre-existing conditions, to be effective this fall.  Uh, apparently, there's a bit of bother with the language in the bill, and the provision is actually effective in 2014. 

How many months did they work on this bill?  How many months?

So now the White House is scrambling to come up with an explanation, and assurances that the problem will be fixed.  But it reflects the mess that we've seen in the creation of this not-so-brave new world.

UPDATE:  Just an update on the health saga.  The Senate, later tonight, will begin what's being called a vote-a-rama, about nine hours of voting that will presumably vote down every Republican amendment offered to the reconciliation package.  The package is designed to fix things in the health bill that the House didn't like.  It doesn't look like the GOP will be able to stop the plan.

March 24, 2010   Permalink

ARTIFICIAL DRAMA – AT 7:19 P.M. ET:  The Democrats are milking every ounce out of the story that some House members have gotten death threats because they voted for health-care "reform."  They're also milking the story, about which there are real doubts, that black members of Congress were subjected to racial catcalls on Saturday.

Some members of the House are increasing their security, and the FBI is investigating some of the threats.

Look, no one, obviously, should make death threats.  Sadly, threats occur all the time.  There are always some nuts out there, as the Secret Service knows very well.  The Republican leadership has already denounced any such threats, which is the proper thing to do.

However, the obvious attempt by the Dem leadership to link threats to Republicans, to the tea party groups, or to opposition to the health bill, is dishonest.  It's a throwback to the "we are victims" mentality of the 1960s, and once again we see an attempt by the left wing of the Democratic Party to return to that era, for which it is plainly nostalgic.

There is also increasing criticism of conservative talk-show hosts for "extreme" language.

Do some hosts on the right go overboard?  Yes.  Do some on the left?  Yes.  Both should stop it.

I'd be a lot more generous toward these complaints of extremism if they were made equally - denunciations of both right and left for going over proper limits.  I was monitoring the cable news networks today, and saw resident leftist Rick Sanchez of CNN report on this story, telling us only about threats against liberals.  But there have been any number of threats against conservatives who've tried to speak on college campuses, and the bleeding hearts are entirely indifferent to them. 

When we get some equal reporting, then we'll talk.

March 24,  2010   Permalink

IT'S THE ECONOMY, BARACK – AT 10:14 A.M. ET:  Amidst all the White House euphoria over the passage of health-care "reform," with its attendant price tag, attention has been diverted from the continuing economic crunch:

March 24 (Bloomberg) -- Sales of new homes in the U.S. unexpectedly fell in February to a record low as blizzards, unemployment and foreclosures depressed the market.

Purchases decreased 2.2 percent to an annual pace of 308.000, figures from the Commerce Department showed today in Washington. The median sales price climbed by the most in more than two years.

The new-home market is vying with foreclosure-induced declines in prices for existing homes in an economy where unemployment is forecast to average 9.6 percent this year, close to a 26-year high. Treasury Secretary Timothy F. Geithner yesterday said it would take a “long time” to repair the housing market as the administration takes steps to overhaul real-estate financing and regulation.

“It’s going to be a long, slow slog and the lagging sector will be new home sales because they have to compete with existing sales and foreclosures,” Bill Hampel, chief economist at the Credit Union National Association in Washington, said before the report. “New home sales probably have until the fourth quarter until they start recovering.”

COMMENT:  It's hard to know where the money to pay for Obamacare will come from unless the economy improves dramatically.  And there doesn't seem to be any real improvement in the actual economy.  Yes, Wall Street has shown some progress, but it showed progress in the depths of the Great Depression as well. 

The unemployment rate still approaches 10%, and that doesn't include the underemployment rate, as desperate people take jobs far below the ones they've lost, or employees see their income and hours cut back. 

It might have been wiser for The One, saint though he be, to concentrate on the economy before tackling surgical procedures.

March 24, 2010   Permalink

THE DEM DEVIL IS IN THE DETAILS – AT 9:32 A.M. ET:  The Rasmussen tracker continues to show some gain for the president as a result of the health care vote.  But when you look at the details, the gain may be less significant than it appears:

The Rasmussen Reports daily Presidential Tracking Poll for Wednesday shows that 31% of the nation's voters Strongly Approve of the way that Barack Obama is performing his role as President. Forty-two percent (42%) Strongly Disapprove giving Obama a Presidential Approval Index rating of -11 (see trends).

The Approval Index rating today represents a seven-point gain for the President compared to a week ago. The bounce comes entirely from increased enthusiasm among Democrats. Today, 60% of Democrats Strongly Approve while only 9% Strongly Disapprove. A week ago, those figures were 46% Strongly Approve and 14% Strongly Disapprove.

Among Republicans, the President’s Approval Index was at -66 a week ago and is the same today. Among voters not affiliated with either major party, the President’s Approval Index rating was -25 a week ago and -26 today.

These results are based upon daily telephone interviews and reported on a three-day rolling average basis. As a result, one-third of the interviews for today’s update were completed before the House of Representatives passed health care legislation on Sunday.

COMMENT:  So, the bounce comes entirely from Democratic enthusiasm.  That may, of course, ultimately mean more Dems coming to the polls in November.  But without an improvement in independent support, which is really down the drain for The One, it's hard to see how the Dems can avoid major losses.

Wait, I know one way – if the Republican Party becomes overconfident, its traditional problem, and doesn't do the job.  Now is the time for Republicans to run as if they're 20 points behind.

March 24, 2010   Permalink

ALL ABOUT OUR LEADER – AT 8:21 P.M. ET:  Michael Goodwin, of the New York Post, is one of the most clear-headed conservative columnists around.  He has the aura of an old-fashioned newspaperman, not "journalist," who feels the streets and the people who walk them.  He knows what, and who, Obamacare is about.  It is about Obama:

Don't think for a second the whole last year was about reducing the deficit or bending the cost curve. Nor was it ever really about helping Americans who need better medical care. A handful of those poor souls were there again yesterday, human props for his show.

As he smugly read the roster of predecessors who tried and failed, from T.R. to Bill and Hillary, there was no pretense of modesty. This was about him...

..."You're the reason we're here," Vice President Joe Biden said obsequiously to his boss. Never has a phrase been more pregnant with double meaning.

The whole notion of "The One," the deity come to save us, was back.

Obama is also the reason more than half the country could feel uninvited to the party in the people's house. They made clear every chance they had -- from elections to polls to demonstrations -- that they were voting no.

For their trouble, they were ignored and often demonized. Their government does not represent them.

Their government represents itself.

Their disconnect from the people who pay for their imperial courts is now complete. They acted like children at a birthday party, oblivious to the pain in a nation where perhaps 15 million are out of work.

Obama's the reason they are unbothered. He has reduced the jobless to a statistical annoyance.

And...

The new entitlement will create a gusher of red ink and there is a very good chance the world's finest health system will be diminished by longer waits, shoddy care and higher costs.

This is Obamaism. It is sold with claims so false they are odious.

Finally...

Washington is now a one-party town, determined to work its will on a nation increasingly united against it.

It is not the change Americans want.

If we are smart and brave, the good change, the change that will rescue the nation, comes in November. Oh, hurry.

Yes, hurry.

March 24, 2010   Permalink

FASCINATING FOREIGN VIEW – AT 8:01 A.M. ET:  Reader Jean Spik alerts us to a column in Germany's Spiegel Online, expressing one foreign view of Obamacare and its impact on America's standing in the world. 

Of course, there is the usual gloating.  The big, bad, behind-the-times United States has finally become at least semi-civilized and turned to its government for health care.  Europe couldn't be more pleased by this affirmation of European superiority, even as Europe, with falling birth rates, troubled economies and massive Muslim immigration, heads toward its own self-destruction.

But then there's the sober second thought.  The writer, Gregor Peter Schmitz, worries that the total focus on Obamacare, the exhaustion in passing it, will damage American foreign policy:

The debate will dominate the next few months -- and will no doubt also have an impact on the other projects that Obama is finally planning to tackle. The attention that the president will have to continue to pay to health care, in fact, makes further successes that much more doubtful.

Every other issue has become a sideshow, particularly those outside the borders of America. The Afghanistan mission: of marginal interest. Protecting the environment: postponed. Peace in the Middle East: off in the distance. Sanctions against Iran: delayed. Europe: not even worth a trip.

The one remaining global superpower has succumbed to navel gazing. The nature of Obama's hard-fought victory means little will change in the near future. On the contrary: Now he must explain to the country and to his own party why the entire health care journey, as all-encompassing as it turned out to be, was worth it in the end. He will have little time for anything else.

Such a realization should not spoil the celebration over health care for the Americans themselves. But the rest of the world won't be joining the party quite so enthusiastically.

COMMENT:  What?  You mean the rest of the world really wants a strong United States to act internationally?  What a strange idea.

I just wonder how many officers in foreign ministries around the globe are privately saying, "You know, that Bush wasn't so bad.  A bit abrasive, with that cowboy style.  But I'm not so sure this Obama can protect us.  What do we do?"

I don't know what the "sophisticates" abroad, especially in the Europe that is not even worth a presidential trip, can do.  They invested so much in a rock star.  Maybe next time they should put their money on a statesman.

March 24, 2010   Permalink

VULGAR – AT 7:50 A.M. ET:  As the nation absorbs the meaning of our depraved new world of health care, one thing has become certain:  Many liberal commentators are not inclined to show the slightest "in victory, magnanimity," posture recommended by Winston Churchill.

In fact, some of the comments by the usual suspects are downright vulgar.  Consider this, from Maureen Dowd, who had actually been showing some signs of reform in the last year:

Some base members of the Republican base showed themselves as the racist Neanderthals they are.

Protesters outside the Capitol on Saturday called two black congressmen, the civil rights hero John Lewis of Georgia and Andre Carson of Indiana, a racial epithet as they walked by. Another, Representative Emanuel Cleaver of Missouri, was called that epithet and got spit on. Barney Frank of Massachusetts was called an anti-gay slur. The anti-abortion Democrat Bart Stupak was called a “baby killer” by Texas Republican Representative Randy Neugebauer, who says he’s had a “tremendous outpouring” of support for his outburst.

It was disgusting. And for the Democrats who had battled each other through every twist and turn of health care, it was unifying.

Dowd accepts as fact a number of charges that seem dubious at best.  We have a number of videos of the famous walk of the black congressmen.  No microphone on any of the videos recorded any racial slurs.  Now, of course, it's possible that a few nutbags did mutter some unacceptable things, but we have no direct evidence of it, and to link them with the Republican base is outrageous. 

Bart Stupak was not called a "baby killer."  Representative Neugebauer, for better or worse, labeled the bill a baby killer.  There was nothing personal. 

The use of the term "racist Neanderthal" is itself a slur, but Dowd uses it freely, and will not be challenged by The New York Times, her newspaper.  She is one of a number of liberal writers who are using the passage of Obamacare to paint the opposition in the most vulgar ways.  That has become accepted practice.

At the Angel's Corner tonight we will give the coveted Pompous Fool Award to another one of these liberal writers.

March 24,  2010   Permalink