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.

I appeared on Silvio Canto Jr.'s radio show from Dallas yesterday.  It's here.

MARCH 8,  2011

THE MYTH CONTINUES – AT 9:16 P.M. ET:  One of liberalism's enduring myths is that you can improve education simply by throwing money at it.  The myth is mightily assisted by the reality that, when you toss cash at the education establishment, you help powerful organizations, like the teachers' unions, that in turn support the cash tossers in the Democratic Party.  It's a warm, cuddly arrangement.   Now, surprise, President Obama defends the continuing federal ATM.  From the Washington Times:

Saying the country’s competitiveness was tied directly to the quality of its schools, President Obama on Tuesday said there was “nothing responsible” about cutting federal education spending even as lawmakers on Capitol Hill look to trim a ballooning federal deficit.

During a visit to Massachusetts' TechBoston Academy, Mr. Obama held up the pilot school as a national example of how targeted investments and local flexibility can dramatically improve student performance. The academy, housed in what was once a failing high school, has produced student test scores that have soared since its founding in 2002 with help from the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation.

Mr. Obama’s remarks put him right back in the center of the spending fight in Washington, where he has tried to put education money off-limits from cuts even while promising to get spending under control.

“We cannot cut back on the very investments that will help our economy grow and our nation to compete,” Mr. Obama said after a tour of the school with Mrs. Gates, wife of Microsoft Corp. founder and philanthropist Bill Gates. “There’s nothing responsible about that. There’s nothing responsible about cutting back in our investment in these young people.”

COMMENT:  It's the same old game.  They find one school that works and make it symbolic of "investment" in education. 

The fact is that we invest vastly in education, but don't get anywhere near the return we should.  And we refuse to face basic issues in education – like the refusal of many parents to do their jobs in motivating their children, and the mediocrity of many of our teachers' colleges.  And, of course, none dare mention political correctness, and what it has done to our educational system.

The education establishment isn't shortchanged, it's bloated.  Do we need to "invest" in education?  Of course.  But we need to do it wisely.

As a citizen, I watched, in the 1960s, as the New York City school system, the greatest urban school system in the United States, was destroyed before our eyes – by changes in population, social theories, racial tensions, and a refusal to face reality.  And, naturally, the very people who swung the wrecking ball then demanded more money to fix the problems they'd helped create.  And they got it.  They got it because it was for "the children," one of the great racketeering lines in politics.

Cut education spending and demand more from the schools, and from parents.  If we have some spine, we can do it.

March 8, 2011      Permalink

TIMING IS EVERYTHING, CONT'D – AT 8:05 P.M. ET:  National Public Radio (NPR) executives are expressing shock and dismay – shock and dismay, I tell you – over comments by one of their executives, secretly recorded as part of a journalistic sting operation.  This is making the internet rounds:

An NPR executive was caught on camera lambasting the Tea Party as "seriously racist" and claiming that liberals might be, as a whole, more educated than conservatives.

The comments from Ron Schiller, a senior executive at NPR and president of the NPR Foundation, were made during a meeting with two people posing as members of a fictitious Muslim organization. The two activists, who recorded the February meeting on hidden camera, were trying to convince NPR executives of accepting a $5 million donation -- money NPR apparently refused.

Schiller has since announced he is leaving NPR to join the Aspen Institute in Colorado, though NPR said there is "no connection" between the video of his comments and his departure.

Yeah, there's never a connection.

During the secretly recorded meeting, Schiller lamented how the Republican Party had been "hijacked" by the Tea Party.

"The current Republican Party, particularly the Tea Party, is fanatically involved with people's personal lives," he said.

NPR put out a statement reacting to the comments:

"We are appalled by the comments made by Ron Schiller in the video, which are contrary to what NPR stands for," the statement said.

Are you laughing as hard as I am?  Is NPR telling us that Schiller never expressed these views inside the organization?  What we have here is a classic "Casablanca" moment, in which the NPR honchos are shocked, shocked, to find such opinions expressed by one of their own.

In fact, those opinions pretty much express the mentality of NPR.  You won't find a statue of Ronald Reagan in their lobby.

NPR CEO Vivian Schiller, who is not related to Ron Schiller, delivered a speech Monday in which she rejected claims of bias at NPR.

Yeah, and the Soviet Union was a workers' paradise.  Of course, Vivian Schiller probably believes that.

The timing of this incident is choice.  The NPR budget is up for consideration in Congress.  I'm sure, given the propensity of goofy billionaires to chase after left-wing causes, that the network could find private funding.  As a citizen, I resent having to pay taxes to finance a left-wing propaganda machine.  The nation somehow survived before we had public funding for NPR, or PBS.  We can survive again.

March 8, 2011     Permalink

THIS IS DISGRACEFUL – AT 9:39 A.M. ET:  The line put out by much of the media is that the Obama administration is really moderate, not leftist, and that charges to the contrary are just smears.

Well, watch what they do, not what they say.  And before you watch this, take a tranquilizer:

CNSNews.com) – The United States’ human rights record will be back in the spotlight at the U.N. Human Rights Council next week, when the U.S. delegation provides its response to more than 200 recommendations made by other governments, ranging from liberal democracies to the repressive regimes ruling Libya, Iran, Cuba, North Korea and China.

The idea that we are even dignifying this process is pathetic.  President Bush would have nothing to do with the Human Rights Council.

The recommendations cover a broad range of issues, from combating “Islamophobia” to scrapping Arizona’s controversial immigration law, Senate Bill 1070.

Yes, the country is rushing to imprison Muslims.  Why, haven't you seen the prison vans passing your home?

March 18 marks the final step in the process known as the United States’ first universal periodic review (UPR), an examination supervised by the Human Rights Council that every U.N. member state is expected to undergo every four years.

In a three-hour “interactive dialogue” last November, the U.S. delegation explained its human rights policies and heard comments and criticisms from scores of other country delegations.

Since then, the U.S. has considered a total of 228 recommendations made by various governments, and next Friday it will present the HRC with its response, indicating which recommendations it accepts and will act on, and which ones it rejects.

The council will then vote to adopt the UPR outcome report.

We will be judged by some of the biggest thugs in the world.  But to the American left, they aren't thugs, but "alternative governments" or "anti-imperialist" leaders.

Barack Obama has weakened this country, and his administration's participation in this humiliating farce is a perfeft example. 

March 8, 2011     Permalink

THE WAY THE GAME IS PLAYED – AT 8:47 A.M. ET:  The new Newsweek, just out, and under the editorship of Tina Brown, has a list of 150 women who shake the world. 

Included on the list are such worthies as Kirsten Gillibrand, our U.S. senator here in New York, who, to the best of my knowledge, hasn't shaken much of anything.  Also included is one of our least favorite journalists, Christiane Amanpour, who drifted from CNN to ABC, where her ratings are barely at ground level.  Her two viewers, though, are very loyal.

But Christiane is in a position to bestow a mighty thank-you to Newsweek, as the great site, NewsBusters, points out:

Newsweek and Daily Beast editor Tina Brown flattered This Week host Christiane Amanpour by placing her on a list of 150 women who "shake the world." The ABC anchor responded to this praise by featuring Brown on her Sunday show, touting the females on the list (which described the host as "one of the world's most renowned journalists"). She enthused, "Who could fail to be optimistic?"

On the show, Amanpour never mentioned her inclusion in this profile. Those not featured? Amanpour's ABC News colleagues, World News anchor Diane Sawyer and Good Morning America co-host Robin Roberts, despite the fact that their shows are on five days a week and have higher ratings.

In addition to ignoring her place amongst these women, Amanpour also neglected to note that she will be participating in a panel on the same topic. "And we'll be watching the women's summit, the Daily Beast/Newsweek [sic] that's coming up this week," she vaguely explained at the close of the segment.

The ABC anchor hyped Brown ..."You are also going to show us the new cover of 'Newsweek,' which we're going to put up. And it is about 150 women who shake the world with Hillary Clinton as the cover."

COMMENT:  Amanpour had an absolute journalistic obligation to mention that she was included in the list, so viewers could assess her lavish treatment of Brown more accurately.  But Amanpour doesn't stick to the rules, and never has. 

This backscratching, though, is pretty outrageous.  I wonder if ABC News will have any reaction.

This is the way the game is played.

March 8, 2011      Permalink 

SNIPPET OF THE DAY – AT 8:19 A.M. ET:

KANSAS CITY, Mo. (AP) — The last surviving great-grandson of Ulysses S. Grant has died in a southwest Missouri home brimming with artifacts from the nation's 18th president and commander of the Union forces in the Civil War.  Ulysses S. Grant VI says his grandfather Ulysses S. Grant V died Wednesday at age 90 at his home near the town of Battlefield, named for its proximity to a Civil War clash.

Many American students, products of our current educational system, will read this story and probably ask, "What Civil War?"

March 8, 2011      Permalink

PRICE AT THE PUMP COULD PUT OBAMA IN A SLUMP – AT 8:04 A.M. ET:  We've been saying for months that high gas prices at the pump were a political threat to President Obama in 2012.  Prices have soared in the last few weeks, and are more than four bucks a gallon for regular in some places. 

That's already too high.  They may go higher.  The president, already being compared with Jimmah Carter, certainly knows that one reason for the public's disenchantment with Carter was high gas prices.  From The Hill:

Skyrocketing oil prices are creating new political risks for President Obama, who is considering tapping the Strategic Petroleum Reserve to relieve drivers suffering at the pump.

Republicans, sensing a winning issue, pounced Monday by announcing new hearings on gas prices and warning that tapping the reserves would provide only temporary help to consumers struggling with high gas prices.

Policies backed by the administration and congressional Democrats “have cost jobs, stunted economic growth and stuck American families with higher energy bills,” Rep. Tom Price (Ga.), the chairman of the House GOP Policy Committee, said in a statement Monday.

“The rise in gas prices is not merely the consequence of some temporary disruption and will therefore not be solved by some short-term fix,” he said. “It is a problem that requires an all-of-the-above energy strategy and one that should begin immediately.”

Rep. Doc Hastings (R-Wash.), the chairman of the House Natural Resources Committee, announced his panel would hold hearings to examine how “to develop our own American energy resources and also what has or hasn’t been done since President Obama took office.”

COMMENT:  If the Republicans don't botch it, they have a major issue.  The administration has been pushing "new energy sources," often at the behest of its ideological environmental wing, blind to the reality that these new sources won't be available for years, maybe decades, and require massive technological innovation.

In the meantime we run on oil, and the administration refuses to budge on new offshore drilling, or new, environmentally sensitive drilling in Alaska.  The average American family, not part of the crowd that flies to Aspen each year in private jets for "policy" conferences, is being hurt, and Obama is doing little or nothing about it. 

But there is a difference between 2012 and 1980.  In 1980 the Republicans had Ronald Reagan, although he was doubted by a large chunk of the traditional GOP ("we live to lose") establishment.  I see no Reagan on the horizon.  And so this anemic president might just slip through to reelection, despite the damage he does every day.

March 8, 2011      Permalink 

PLEASE DON'T COME TO MY NEIGHBORHOOD – AT 7:38 A.M. ET:  The exalted Libyan leader is reportedly trying to make a deal to leave:

Tripoli, Libya (CNN) -- Moammar Gadhafi is trying to strike a deal with opposition leaders, saying he will step down as Libya's leader if they can guarantee him safe passage out of the country and promise that neither he nor his family will face prosecution, an official with the opposition said Tuesday.

Musa Ibrahim, a government spokesman, vehemently disputed the claim saying reports of negotiations with the opposition are "lies."

Despite government denials, a member of the opposition says it has submitted counter-offers with several demands. Among them is a stipulation that Gadhafi has to immediately concede he is not the ruler of Libya, said Amal Bugaigis, a member of the opposition group called the February 17 Coalition.

The development comes as Libya enters its fourth week of bloody clashes Tuesday and there was little doubt that the situation had turned into all-out civil war.

COMMENT:  Obviously, this story cannot be completely verified, but it has been reported by several news organizations.  The next step might be for some outside organization, like the Arab League, to offer to escort Gadhafi out of Libya...if a deal with the rebels can be reached.

There are no guarantees here.  Positions can harden, and the civil war can continue and grow.  We don't know who exactly the rebels are, or how fanatical or rational they are.  This is hour-by-hour.

March 8, 2011     Permalink 

MARCH 7,  2011

MILITARY ACTION IN LIBYA? – AT 8:53 P.M. ET:  Reportedly, there are some plans to get a UN Security Council resolution on Libya, but the effort looks vague and anemic, and dependent on Russian and Chinese support.  From Reuters and the Jerusalem Post:

Britain and France are preparing a UN Security Council resolution authorizing a no-fly zone over Libya, and diplomats said on Monday it will be tough but not impossible to get Russia's and China's support.

UK Foreign Secretary William Hague said in London that Britain was working with other countries on a draft. Diplomats in Paris and New York said the work was being done by Britain and France in close consultation with the United States and Germany.

Hague told the British parliament there were "credible reports" that Libyan government forces had used helicopter gunships against civilians as supporters of Muammar Gaddafi try to put down a revolt against his 41-year rule.

Diplomats said a decision by France and Britain to submit a draft resolution to the 15-nation council would depend on whether certain "triggers" for action were met. These, they said, could include a marked deterioration of the humanitarian situation or mass aerial bombardments of civilian areas.

"We just want to be ready should the decision to launch negotiations on such a (no-fly zone) resolution be made so that we can make as rapid progress as possible," a diplomat said.

Some envoys said the NATO alliance could be charged with enforcing the zone. NATO Secretary-General Anders Fogh Rasmussen has said that the alliance would only do so if the UN Security Council authorized it.

COMMENT:  Where is the leadership from the United States?  Need we ask?

This looks awfully weak.  If there's a humanitarian crisis, nations and alliances, such as NATO, can act on their own.  Who needs the cynicism and weakness of the UN? 

I can't imagine Gaddafi feeling too panicked by this.

March 7, 2011      Permalink

SNIPPET OF THE DAY – AT 8:27 P.M. ET:

LOS ANGELES (AP) - Charlie Sheen was fired Monday from "Two and a Half Men" by Warner Bros. Television following repeated misbehavior and weeks of the actor's angry, often-manic media campaign against his studio bosses.  The action was taken after "careful consideration" and is effective immediately, the studio said in a statement. No decision has been made on the show's future without its star, said Paul McGuire, a Warner spokesman.

In the grown-up world someone like Sheen would have been fired years ago.  But Hollywood is not the grown-up world.  You may be sure that, as this is written, other suits in other studios are figuring out a way to get Sheen to work for them...for more money than Warner paid.  Hey, he's hot.

March 7, 2011       Permalink

WITH FRIENDS LIKE THESE – AT 7:58 P.M. ET:  Political Scientist Walter Russell Mead, a good guy and a voice of sanity in the academic world, performs a real service in giving us a list of the characters and institutions that have been supporting Muammar Gaddafi over the years.  Mead calls them "Gaddafi's Toads":

Gaddafi Toad Number One: The “Human Rights Commission” of the “United Nations”

Two: Gordon Brown and His Government

Gaddafi Toad Number Three: Hugo Chavez

Gaddafi Toad Number Four: Nicholas Sarkozy

Gaddafi Toad Number Five: Tony Blair

Gaddafi Toad Number Six: Louis Farrakhan

Gaddafi Toad Number Seven: Silvio Berlusconi

Eight: Fidel Castro

Nine: The London School of Economics

Ten: Delusional American College Professors

Read the article.  It's worth it.  The usual suspects are on that list, but there are certainly some disappointments, like Blair and Sarkozy.  But once again we see the level of collaboration that dictators have enjoyed.

I'd add one more name to Mead's list:  Nelson Mandela, the sainted one, who actually has a pretty dismal human rights record, and has been a Gaddafi pal for years.  Most mainstream media reporting from South Africa ended when apartheid ended, so the American audience has little understanding of the hypocrisy and cynicism that govern South Africa today.  A beacon of light it is not.

March 7, 2011     Permalink

CHRISTIE ON FIRE IN NEW POLL – AT 10:56 A.M. ET:  A new Quinnipiac poll shows powerful support of Governor Chris Christie of New Jersey.  Christie swears he isn't running, but such oaths are meaningless.  He can change his mind later this year.  Bill Clinton, in 1992, got into the race late and won.   

First Lady Michelle Obama gets the warmest rating, with a 60.1 degree mean score, more than 3 degrees hotter than fourth-place President Barack Obama, when American voters rate their feelings about politicians and other national figures in a Quinnipiac University national thermometer poll released today. New Jersey Gov. Christopher Christie is the hottest politician on the thermometer.

At 59.2 degrees, former President Bill Clinton is second place on the thermometer scale by the independent Quinnipiac (KWIN-uh-pe-ack) University poll.

Gov. Christie is third with 57 degrees, topping President Obama who gets 56.5 degrees. But 55 percent of American voters don't know enough about Christie to form an opinion.

Nancy Pelosi, the former speaker of the House of Representatives and now the Democratic leader in the Republican-controlled body, gets the coolest rating from voters. Democratic Senate leader Harry Reid ranks next lowest and former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin ranks third from the bottom.

Among Republican voters, former Minnesota Gov. Tim Pawlenty gets the hottest score among 2012 GOP presidential contenders. American voters don't fire Donald Trump, but they're not fired up about him, ranking him 16th in a field of 23 people.

"New Jersey Gov. Christopher Christie has ruled out running for president next year despite the urging of many Republicans, but he has clearly made a positive impression on the American people, at least the half who are familiar with him," said Peter A. Brown, assistant director of the Quinnipiac University Polling Institute. "It is important to remember that this measure is not any kind of presidential trial heat, but it does reflect how voters feel about national figures, including politicians."

COMMENT:  This is a very rough poll, and I wouldn't wager anything of value on it.  But the fact that Chris Christie, a first-term governor, ranks so high has got to be worthy of some notice.  I do feel he faces obstacles as a candidate, not the least of which being an abrasive manner that is exciting at first, but which can wear thin.  But I hope he's in the race.  It'll liven things up, and provide a sizzle that's been lacking in Republican primary races since 1980, the year of Reagan.

March 7, 2011      Permalink

HUH? – AT 10:03 A.M. ET:  This is completely inappropriate.  From The Politico:

UP FROM DOWN UNDER: Australia's prime minister is paying a visit to President Obama on Monday, but unlike during usual visits by heads of state, they're not scheduled to take reporters' questions after their meetings.

Instead, Obama and Julia Gillard "will deliver statements to the press in the Oval Office," the White House said in guidance to reporters. That's after they talk to each other about "the strong ties between the United States and Australia, our shared political and economic interests in the Asia-Pacific region, and our work together around the world, including in Afghanistan and as members of APEC and the G20.".

COMMENT:  Australia is one of our closest allies.  The Aussies have always been there for us, and without complaint.  And yet, Prime Minister Gillard is being relegated to a press statement.

Obviously, the reason for this is that Obama doesn't want to face reporters' questions.  The man who isn't there wants to be even less there.  But this is no way to treat the prime minister.  And yet, it is consistent with the way Obama treats our closest allies, especially those who have the nerve to speak English.  Maybe our president still bears a grudge about the British Empire.  Time to get over it, Barack. 

We hope Ms. Gillard is given a warm reception by members of Congress to make up for our fearful leader's lack of class. 

March 7, 2011     Permalink

GOP LOOKS STRONG IN NEXT YEAR'S SENATE RACES – AT 9:27 A.M. ET:  The Hill assesses the early signs for next year's Senate races and finds them good for the GOP.  Clearly, if the Republicans can control both the House and the Senate, they can have a decisive impact on Obama's domestic policy, if Obama is reelected, although the effect on foreign policy would be much more uncertain:

An early spate of Democratic Senate retirements has put Republicans in solid shape to retake the majority in the upper chamber next year.

The first edition of The Hill's 2012 race ratings puts five Democratic-held seats in the toss-up column. Republicans need a net gain of at least three seats to win the Senate.

Sens. Jon Tester (D-Mont.) and Ben Nelson (D-Neb.) are the two incumbents that top of the list of vulnerable Senate Democrats in 2012. And, thanks to retirements, another three Democratic-held seats are toss-ups -- the ones held by Sens. Kent Conrad (N.D.), Jeff Bingaman (N.M.) and Jim Webb (Va.).

On the House side, Democrats need to pick up 25 seats to win back the majority and, as a starting point, Dems are targeting 14 of the most Democratic-leaning House seats held by Republican lawmakers.

Among them are freshmen Reps. Allen West (R-Fla.), Robert Dold (R-Ill.), Lou Barletta (R-Pa.) and Ann Marie Buerkle (R-N.Y.). All occupy districts won by both Obama in 2008 and Sen. John Kerry (D-Mass.) in 2004; and all begin the cycle in our toss-up category.

The Hill assesses the most competitive races here.  A third of the Senate will be up for election next year, some 23 Democratic seats and only 10 Republican seats, making the Democrats far more vulnerable right out of the gate.  The Hill rates only eight of those Dem seats as safe and another six as likely Democratic.  Only four lean Democratic and five are toss-ups.  For the GOP, five of their ten seats up for reelection are considered safe.  Three are likely GOP, and only two are toss-ups.  The Hill lists Scott Brown of Massachusetts as a toss-up.  I'd rate him as a bit stronger than that.

Much will depend on the economy.  But much will also depend on the quality of the GOP candidates.  The Republicans could have won control of the Senate, or come razor close, in 2010 except for some poor candidate choices in Colorado, Delaware and Nevada.  This is a mistake to be avoided, and that means keeping the rigid ideologists under control.

March 7, 2011      Permalink

THE OBAMA/CARTER AXIS – AT 8:38 A.M. ET:  We are entering a period of reflection on our actions in the Mideast since the first revolutionary gasp in Tunisia many weeks ago.  There is clearly a growing consensus that Obama simply can't handle events.  They're handling him.  In that sense, he is a kind of Jimmah Carter clone.  At least Carter had gone to the Naval Academy and knew which end of a rifle sends the bullet flying.

Reader Susan Kohen of Connecticut refers us to an excellent piece by Middle East commentator Barry Rubin, who has shown an uncanny sense for what is happening:

I'm worried because others aren't worried. The more they show that they don't understand the dangers, the greater the dangers become.

President Franklin Roosevelt said about the Great Depression that there was, "Nothing to fear but fear itself." That is, Americans should be confident about their abilities to solve problems. But he didn't say, when German forces seized one country after another, that Americans shouldn't be afraid of change in Europe. Nor did he say, as the Japanese Empire expanded, that Americans shouldn't be afraid of change in Asia.

President Harry Truman didn't say that Americans shouldn't be afraid of change in Eastern Europe when the Soviets gained power over the governments there or China became Communist.

These (Democratic) presidents recognized the danger and worked to counteract it as best they could under the circumstances.

In contrast, while giving lip service to the idea that it's a "dangerous time," Obama never points to what the dangers are because, frankly, he has no idea. All the points he makes about these changes are positive, cheerleading.

And...

And so when Obama says:

"I'm actually confident that 10 years from now we're going to be able to look back and say that this was the dawning of an entirely new and better era. One in which people are striving not to be against something but to be for something."

Remember those words. He has absolutely no understanding of the Arabic-speaking world, the Muslim-majority world, or the Middle East whatsoever. How are these new regimes going to stay in power, smite their rivals, and make up for not delivering the material goods to their people? What is the world view of these forces? How do they perceive America, the West, and Israel? These are the questions that should be asked, and answered, in order to understand what the world will look like in a decade.

COMMENT:  Our fear here is that Obama not only lacks understanding of the Muslim world, he is served by people who are even more dense...like intelligence officials who describe the Muslim Brotherhood as moderate and even secular.  (As Charles Krauthammer said, that's a strange name for a secular organization.)

The number of pieces critical of Obama is building up.  Even John Kerry, hardly a warmonger, is advocating that we set up a no-fly zone over Libya and has ridiculed, as has John McCain, the Pentagon's warnings about how tough it might be. 

Where is the international applause for Obama that we were promised?  Where is the godlike wisdom?  Where are all the young people of the world who were supposed to fall in line behind him?  Where is his own party, strangely silent about one of the great convulsions of our time?

Many on the right cautioned in 2008 that Obama was Carter lite.  The assessment was correct, maybe even understated.  He is not leading in this new period in the Mideast.  Sometimes the president doesn't even appear to be there.  Even Ruth Marcus, the diehard liberal columnist for the Washington Post described the administration last week as the "Where's Waldo?" presidency.

So far, Mr. Obama's inadequacy does not appear to be hurting his poll rankings.  Americans don't often vote on foreign policy, but on economic policy.  But foreign policy mistakes can be bloody, or fatal.  I hope we understand that when we go to the polls a year from November.

March 7, 2011       Permalink

LIBYA AT A TURNING POINT – AT 8:25 A.M. ET:  Libya is fast becoming a consuming issue in American foreign policy because it provides such an acid display of the Obama administration's inability to conduct policy under pressure.  More on that later.

This morning the rebels are attempting to regroup after taking a beating yesterday.  From Fox:

RAS LANOUF, Libya -- Libyan rebels said Monday they will regroup and bring in heavy weapons after forces loyal to Muammar Qaddafi pounded opposition fighters with helicopter gunships, artillery and rockets to stop the rebels' rapid advance toward the capital.

An airstrike hit Ras Lanouf, a key oil port held by the rebels, on Monday but there were no casualties. A day earlier, a heavy assault by pro-regime forces stalled the rebel advance.

Mohamad Samir, an army colonel fighting with the rebels, told The Associated Press that his forces need reinforcements from the east after Sunday's setback.

"The orders are to stay here and guard the refinery, because oil is what makes the world go round," said rebel fighter Ali Suleiman, speaking at one of the checkpoints set up around Ras Lanouf.

Sunday's fighting appeared to signal the start of a new phase in the conflict, with Qaddafi's regime unleashing its air power on the rebel force trying to oust the ruler of 41 years. Resorting to heavy use of air attacks signaled the regime's concern that it needed to check the advance of the rebel force toward Sirte -- Qaddafi's hometown and stronghold.

COMMENT:  The good news is that the rebels appear willing to stand and fight, not always the game plan in Mideast conflicts.  The bad news is that major parts of the Libyan military have remained loyal to Qaddafi, at least for now.  The rebels are outgunned, and they apparently have no planes.

As we've said, there may come a point when the West will have to intervene, simply to prevent a catastrophe.  The White House chief of Staff, William Daley of the Chicago House of Daley, tried to throw cold beer on that prospect yesterday, but policy will evolve, we assume, to fit conditions on the ground.

March 7, 2011     Permalink