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.

FEBRUARY 28,  2011

BUT WE WERE TOLD IT WAS PERFECT – AT 7:01 P.M. ET:  Seeing the handwriting on the iPad, President Obama is starting to make concessions on Obamacare.  Darn.  I guess this means we won't live forever.  From The Hill:

President Obama backed a significant change to the healthcare reform law for the first time on Monday, supporting a plan that could delay the implementation of the mandate to buy insurance by three years.

The president is supporting a plan that would allow states to receive waivers to pursue alternatives to the healthcare reform law, a change that could let states opt out beginning in 2014 from the requirement to buy insurance — one of the most unpopular parts of the law.

Speaking to nation’s governors on Monday morning, Obama said states should be able to request waivers for implementing alternatives to the reform law starting in 2014, rather than in 2017, which is the current timeline.

"If you have a better way of doing it, help yourself,” Obama told the National Governors Association. "Go ahead, take that route."

Obama announced his support for a bill proposed by Sens. Ron Wyden (D-Ore.), Scott Brown (R-Mass.) and Mary Landrieu (D-La.) that would let states opt out of many of the law’s mandates until 2017.

COMMENT:  According to the president's political schedule, that means the states could opt out until the year Mr. Obama leaves office.  If his schedule is disrupted by the 2012 election, and he departs for further employment earlier than he expects, I'd imagine the law would be modified still further.

Mother of mercy, is this the end of Obamacare?  Well, probably not, but if the changes Obama is agreeing to get adopted, there'll be a big dent in the law, leaving the rest of it vulnerable to common sense.

February 28, 2011      Permalink 

LIBYA UPDATE – AT 6:25 P.M. ET:  There are conflicting reports on what exactly is happening in Libya.  Reports on CNN say that the supreme leader is holed up in a small part of Tripoli still under his control.  Fox reports claims by others in the tottering government that they still control most of the country.

We do know that the Libyan air force was turned against some of the protesters today, but we don't yet know the impact of the air action.

At the same time, there is diplomatic action going on, and other action possibly in store.  From London's Telegraph:

David Cameron and other Western leaders are on the brink of ordering military action against Col Muammar Gaddafi amid fears that the Libyan dictator could use chemical weapons against his own people.

The Prime Minister disclosed that he would not rule out “the use of military assets” as Britain “must not tolerate this regime using military forces against its own people”. Britain and America are also thought to be considering arming rebel forces in Libya.

Adding to growing concern about the crumbling regime’s ability to commit last desperate acts of mass murder, British sources have disclosed that Libya still has stocks of mustard gas chemicals.

Mr Cameron told MPs that Britain and its allies were considering using fighter jets to impose a no-fly zone over Libya, patrolling and shooting down Libyan aircraft ordered to attack protesters.

The Pentagon announced that the Americans had begun “repositioning forces” around Libya to provide “flexibility”. The French also announced that they would back a possible military intervention with NATO partners.

COMMENT:  Someone might slip a note to America's ambassador to the UN, Susan Rice, who made a firm statement on TV a few hours ago saying it was premature to consider the use of force.  Of course, Rice believes everything is premature, and does not seem overly concerned about events outside the dinner circuit at the UN in New York.

February 28, 2011       Permalink

GOP REALIZING OBAMA WILL BE TOUGH TO BEAT – AT 10:14 A.M. ET:  Although that shouldn't be surprising.  Incumbent presidents come with built-in advantages, but some have in fact been beaten, as we'ver pointed out here before.  The names Jimmah Carter and George H.W. Bush come to mind.

But the GOP is facing reality.  From The Politico:

Just four months after posting historic election gains, Republicans are experiencing a reality check about 2012: President Barack Obama is going to be a lot tougher to defeat than he looked late last year.

Having gone from despondency in 2008 to euphoria last November, a more sober GOP is wincing in the light of day as they consider just how difficult unseating an incumbent president with a massive warchest is going to be, even with a still-dismal economy.

“I consider him a favorite, albeit a slight favorite,” said former George W. Bush adviser Karl Rove. “Republicans underestimate President Obama at their own peril.”

Much of the GOP realism is rooted in a long-standing truism of American politics – that absent a major crisis of confidence, it’s highly difficult to defeat a sitting president.

COMMENT:  I also believe that the GOP still does not understand the importance of press bias in presidential elections.  Putting it bluntly, the media elected Barack Obama.  Even Evan Thomas of Newsweek said that press bias would have to be worth eight points or so.

The bias was bad in 2008.  It will be worse in 2012 because the press now knows it can get away with it, with no penalty.  Republicans should study how Ronald Reagan spoke over the heads of the reporters, and directly to the American people.  It was one of the traits that led him to victory.  Unless the GOP candidate in 2012 has that ability, he or she will be at a tremendous, possibly fatal disadvantage.

February 28, 2011      Permalink

THE DUKE IS GONE, AN ERA ENDS – AT 9:02 A.M. ET:  For those of us who grew up in Brooklyn, the Brooklyn Dodgers remain in our blood.  They were, of course, the greatest sports team in the history of this or any other world.  When they left Brooklyn for the village of Los Angeles in 1957, we felt a sense of betrayal, never to be equaled. 

No one symbolized the Dodgers more than the great center fielder, Duke Snider.  For me, he has a special place, for he is the only Dodger I ever met personally.  In the old Brooklyn days, before players were paid ten million dollars to pick up a bat, they made extra money by cutting ribbons to open supermarkets, car dealerships, or sports stores.  Duke came out to my town on Long Island to open an A&P.  I actually met him.  I asked him the brilliant question, "Do you think you'll win the pennant?"  He replied, "I hope so."  Immortal words, to a kid.  I still have the autographed picture.

Duke Snider has now died at 84.  Many of his teammates preceded him.  Duke remained as the symbol of the team, and now he has left us as well.

We will not forget number four.  And we will not forget those days at Ebbets Field in Brooklyn, when any of us could get into the stadium for $1.25, and baseball was still a game. 

February 28, 2011      Permalink

IS THE ACT COMING TOGETHER? – AT 8:43 A.M. ET:  Speaking of performances, good and bad, one that recently didn't win any awards was the performance of the Obama administration in handling Libya. 

If you want to see the Obamans taken apart brilliantly, and with English charm, watch Harvard historian Niall Ferguson do the job in an appearance on MSNBC.  It's here, and you'll cheer:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V9sMo-LTdSc

But is the government in Washington finally getting its act together?  A story running at Fox News gives us some reason for very cautious optimism:

GENEVA -- The United States is pressing its European allies to set tough sanctions on the Libyan government, to turn up the heat on Moammar Qaddafi and convince his remaining loyalists to abandon the regime, U.S. officials said. The Obama administration also declared it stood ready to aid Libyans seeking to oust their longtime leader.

It's that last sentence that intrigues me.  What precisely do they plan to do?

Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton will make the administration's case for stronger action to foreign ministers from Britain, France, Germany and Italy when she holds a series of high-level talks Monday in this Swiss city.

Clinton will also look to coordinate future U.S. sanctions on Qaddafi's government with senior officials from Russia, Australia and the European Union so that the international community presents unified opposition to the attacks that have killed hundreds of people in the North African country, senior administration officials said Sunday.

COMMENT:  The Obamans have been slow, sluggish, and vague, and we're still not convinced that sending Hillary, or anyone else, on errands, will have much effect.  But we'll watch the next few days, and see whether anything we do, or the Europeans do, can end the bloodshed and and turn Libya toward a better future.

Again we caution that revolutions usually don't end all that well.  The Arab world has no democratic tradition, and we can easily go from bad to worse if the post-revolution environment is botched, as it often is.  The Islamists wait in the wings.

February 28, 2011       Permalink

OSCAR – AT 8:15 A.M. ET:  There is a national sport in bashing Oscar broadcasts, so I won't do it.  The fact is that, historically, the Oscar show has been long and mostly boring, saved, at one time, by Hollywood glamour and a great comedian like Bob Hope at the helm.  Hope hosted the show for 18 years.

In recent years the glamour faded, replaced by a vulgar youth culture that didn't quite fill the shoes of Gary Cooper, Clark Gable, Cary Grant, Rita Hayworth, Bette Davis, or Natalie Wood.  When Billy Crystal, a very funny guy, dropped out as host, all seemed lost.

However, let me dissent from all the negative comment about last night's show.  It wasn't bad.  Not bad at all.  Not a great show, but quite watchable, and generally free of the moronic political speeches of Hollywood lefties.  I have to admit that I'm a softie for Anne Hathaway, the co-host, who did, in my view, bring back some of that Hollywood glamour I miss, and has an infectious charm.  The other co-host, James Franco, kind of wasn't there, and might have served us better by staying home.

Look, it's an awards show.  How interesting can an acceptance speech for best sound editing be?  I thought most of the women looked reasonably classy, avoiding some of the tasteless costuming that ran Oscar downhill for years.  I have, I must admit, not seen "The King's Speech," but, from what I've heard, it deserved the Oscar for best picture.  I'm personally happy that "The Social Network" didn't win.  It's a good movie, but no more than that, and vastly overhyped. 

One responsibility of being a star is developing the art to leave gracefully.  Johnny Carson, with whom I worked, did it superbly, and with style.  When he left, he left, and that was it.  Last night we saw Kirk Douglas, sick, frail, and old, demonstrate what happens when a man stays too long at the fair.  This virile man and solid actor was a sad spectacle, the picture of a man who should have gotten off the stage years ago.  We want to remember stars as they were.

The old Hollywood, the larger than life personalities, will probably never return.  But I didn't think last night's show was a disgrace, so I can't join all the trendy bashers this morning.  And, if I weren't a happily married man, I'd take Anne Hathaway out to dinner anytime.

February 28, 2011     Permalink 

FEBRUARY 27,  2011

BULLETIN – AT 11:53 P.M. ET:  "The King's Speech" has won the Oscar for best picture.  The president's speech on Libya won for best speech delivered a couple of weeks too late.

February 27, 2011       Permalink

THE AMERICAN INTEREST – AT 9:47 P.M. ET:  A TV commentator said this week that he'd gotten many e-mails complaining about the attention being given Libya.  Don't we have enough at home to worry about? 

We do, but Libya is a story in which America has a vital, and a historical interest.  Consider this, from London's Telegraph, about Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al-Megrahi, the man convicted in the downing of Pan Am 103 in 1988, killing more than 200 Americans.  He was released by Scotland, presumably because he is dying.  Hasn't happened yet.

The Lockerbie bomber blackmailed Col Muammar Gaddafi into engineering his release from a Scottish prison by threatening to reveal that the dictator ordered the devastating attack on Pan Am Flight 103, a former Libyan official has claimed.

Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al-Megrahi allegedly threatened “revenge” on Col Gaddafi unless he was returned home to his family, prompting the dictator to spend £50,000-a-month on lobbying and legal fees in a campaign to secure the terrorist’s release.

The allegation from Mustapha Abdel-Jalil, Libya’s former justice minister, emerged last night as Libya remained in the grip of violence with pro-Gaddafi forces continuing their brutal crackdown on protesters.
It was echoed by the former terror chief Atef Abu Bakr, who claimed last night in a separate interview that Megrahi was ordered by Col Gaddafi to help plan the attack as one of the dictator’s former spies.

The claims will cause further embarrassment for Labour, after declassified documents disclosed earlier this month that Gordon Brown’s government worked behind the scenes to secure the bomber’s release in exchange for lucrative trade deals with Libya.

Megrahi is the only man ever to have been convicted over the bombing, which killed all 259 passengers and crew on board the New York-bound Boeing 747 and 11 people in Lockerbie in December 1998.

COMMENT:   My question is how much the United States knew about Gaddafi's role when it started normalizing relations with Libya several years ago.  The families of Pan Am 103 would, I'm sure, like to know.  They have suffered enough.

February 27, 2011       Permalink

SNIPPET OF THE DAY – AT 11:22 A.M. ET: 

From the L.A. Times:  Ban Ki-moon, the normally buttoned-up Secretary General of the United Nations, swept into Los Angeles during Oscar week playing the role of Hollywood pitchman.  His message: Make global warming a hot issue.  "I need your support," he told entertainment industry insiders during a daylong forum Tuesday that focused on recent heat waves, floods, fires and drought, which scientists link to human-induced climate change.

"Animate these stories!" Ban pleaded. "Set them to music! Give them life! Together we can have a blockbuster impact on the world."

With the Middle East in flames, the secretary general goes to Hollywood.  And why not?  The UN produces as much fiction as Hollywood does.

February 27, 2011      Permalink

LEBANON – ANOTHER TINDERBOX – AT 10:59 A.M. ET:  We watched recently as the extremist organization Hezbollah essentially took over Lebanon.  The Obama administration reacted with its usual dynamic yawn.  Now there are rumblings in this traditionally Western-leaning country:

BEIRUT - Hundreds of Lebanese protested in the capital Beirut on Sunday against the country's sectarian political system.

Emulating protests that have spread across the Arab world in recent weeks, some Lebanese protesters chanted the now-familiar refrain of "The people want to bring down the regime".

Lebanon is governed by a delicate power-sharing system to maintain the balance between the country's many sects. It is unlike many other Arab countries where protests have been against rulers who have governed for decades.

"We are here to bring down the sectarian system in Lebanon because it is more of a dictatorial system than dictatorship systems themselves," said protester Rahshan Saglam.

Lebanon suffered a 15-year civil war which ended in 1990 and killed 150,000 people. Major sectarian violence, threatening to tip the country into a new civil war, also broke out in 2008.

The organizers handed out a leaflet saying they demanded a "secular, civil, democratic, socially just and equal state" and called for an increase in the minimum wage and lower prices for basic goods.

COMMENT:  Lebanon's tragic history of civil war provides a grim backdrop for these new demonstrations.  An explosion in Lebanon could easily suck in neighboring Syria, which has inordinate control over Lebanese affairs. 

Or, to divert attention to internal problems, the controlling forces in Lebanon, especially Hezbollah, might launch a strike at Israel, to the south.  Hezbollah has missiles that could strike Tel Aviv. 

We wait for the administration's reaction.  Maybe it'll come after the next White House rock concert.

February 27, 2011      Permalink

LIBYAN STRONGMAN SQUEEZED FURTHER – AT 10:41 A.M. ET:  From WaPo:

BENGHAZI, LIBYA - Col. Moammar Gaddafi faced fresh setbacks domestically and internationally early Sunday with opposition forces in eastern Libya preparing to dispatch a rebel force to his stronghold in Tripoli and the United Nation's imposing military and financial sanctions while raising the specter that the isolated leader could face charges for crimes against humanity.

Even as the opposition consolidated its grip on the country's second city, Benghazi, a top anti-Gaddafi leader, Brig. Gen. Ahmed Gatrani, said a small force comprising army defectors and rebels has already reached the outskirts of the capital. An attempt to oust Gaddafi in Tripoli on Friday was crushed by pro-regime paramilitaries and soldiers firing indiscriminately at protesters on the streets.

It happened as the wave of civil revolts of recent weeks continued to convulse the Middle East, with even Tunisia and Egypt, two nations where protesters succeeded in ousting longtime authoritarian rulers, seeing heated protests on Saturday that led to violent military crackdowns. In Oman on Sunday, two people were killed in protests, Reuters reported, as police fired tear gas and cordoned off protesters demonstrating for a second day in the city of Sohar.

There's an old saying, from Ralph Waldo Emerson:  "If you strike at a king, you must kill him."  If a rebel could get close enough to Gaddafi, or if a member of his security force turns against him, a single bullet would probably do the job and produce the end of the regime. 

And yes, there are disturbances in other countries as well, but the immediate focus is Libya:

The prospect of a rebel army marching on the capital to confront loyalist members of the same army raised the specter of outright civil war in a country already violently polarized between supporters and opponents of the regime. In another sign of the deepening division, Mustafa Abdel Jalil, the former justice minister who recently defected, announced the formation of an "interim government'' to lead the eastern regions under rebel control.

COMMENT:   There are no guarantees at this moment.  Gaddafi's loyalists have enough weapons and ammunition to do unspeakable harm to the Libyan population.  And there are chemical weapons stockpiled.  Especially given the so-so response of the international community, there is no predictable outcome.

February 27, 2011       Permalink

SENATORS BLAST OBAMA OVER LIBYA – AT 10:26 A.M. ET:  One can only imagine how John McCain would have handled Libya.  We're getting an inkling today:

(CNN) - Two leading U.S. senators were both critical Sunday of President Barack Obama's delay in speaking out over the uprising in Libya.

Sen. John McCain of Arizona, the ranking Republican on the Senate Armed Services Committee, said Obama should "stand up for democracy" and noted that the British prime minister and French president were not hesitant to address the crisis.

True.  Once again some of the leading figures across the Atlantic are ahead of us. 

"America leads," McCain told CNN's "State of the Union" from Cairo. "They're looking to America for leadership, for assistance, for moral support and ratification of the sacrifices they've made in the defense of democracy. America should lead."

We used to lead, but no more.  Obama considers us just another nation, no more important than any other.  And I don't think he likes us too much.

Anti-government protests continued Sunday in Libya, where the nation's leader of more than 40 years, Moammar Gadhafi, clings to power in Tripoli after weeks of protests.

On the same program, Sen. Joseph Lieberman of Connecticut, in independent who caucuses with the Democrats and chairs the Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs, said he understood why the administration initially hesitated in speaking out on the crisis in Libya due to concerns about the safety of U.S. citizens there.

"Frankly I wish we had spoken out much more clearly and early against the Gadhafi regime," Lieberman said, adding "the fact is now is the time for action, not just statements."

Obama is not an action guy.  Presidents have to know how to do things.  This president barely knows what to say, let alone what to do.  The press bears great blame here in selling this small-time Chicago politician to the American people.  Unlike Reagan, who played the big game, Obama plays the small one.

On Saturday, Obama said Gadhafi "has lost the legitimacy to rule and needs to do what is right for his country by leaving now." Secretary of State Hillary Clinton also issued a statement urging the Libyan leader to step down.

Take that, Gadhafi.  And, to paraphrase Groucho, if you're not scared by that statement, we'll issue another one.

February 27, 2011     Permalink