THURSDAY,  AUGUST 20,  2009

AND SO IT BEGINS - AT 7:25 P.M. ET:  Weakness in foreign policy always has consequences.  From the Jerusalem Post:

With the world seemingly unable to stop Iran's nuclear march, other countries in the region are now pushing forward with their own plans to build nuclear power plants.

The Saudi newspaper Al-Watan reported on Thursday that the Saudi minister of water and electricity, Abdullah al-Hosain, said the kingdom was working on plans for its first nuclear power plant. The US inked civil nuclear power deals with Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates last year...

...Over the last two years, Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Bahrain, Oman, Kuwait, the UAE, Yemen, Morocco, Libya, Jordan and Egypt have all indicated an interest in developing nuclear programs, with Israeli officials saying, off the record, that if these countries did not want the programs now for their military capabilities, they wanted the technology in place to keep "other options open" if Iran were to develop a bomb.

COMMENT:  One of the great fears, if Iran isn't stopped, is a Middle East nuclear arms race, just what the world needs.  The Obamans have been very casual about the Iranian nuclear program, although the president says that if Iran doesn't respond positively to American overtures by September, he'll seek further action.  Right.  About as effective as all the other action.

By the way, Iran today did open some of its nuclear labs to more extensive international inspection.  There was big fanfare over the announcement.  However, it seems to be one of those small gestures to ward off criticism.  I wouldn't be shocked if Iran accepted some form of negotiations with the United States in order to run out the clock and get what it wants from its nuclear research.  I also wouldn't be shocked if we went right along with it.

August 20, 2009   Permalink

BUT IF IT WAS SO SUCCESSFUL... - AT 7:02 P.M. ET:  From AP:

WASHINGTON (AP) -- The Obama administration will end the popular $3 billion Cash for Clunkers program on Monday, giving car shoppers a few more days to take advantage of big government incentives.

The Transportation Department said Thursday that the government will wind down the program on Monday at 8 p.m. EDT. Car buyers can receive rebates of $3,500 or $4,500 for trading in older vehicles for new, more fuel-efficient models.

Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood said the program has been "a lifeline to the automobile industry, jump starting a major sector of the economy and putting people back to work." He said the department was "working toward an orderly wind down of this very popular program."

COMMENT:  But wait a second.  If it's so successful, why not extend it?  I can't figure out the logic of these people.  The amounts involved are tiny compared to the trillions this administration has spent on vague projects and "stimulus" fantasies.  There's a disconnect here.

August 20, 2009   Permalink

DEMS IN BIG TROUBLE - AT 6:50 P.M. ET:  The political prognosticators are already looking at 2010.  Democrats are not being given great reason to smile, as The Politico notes:

Charlie Cook, one of the best political handicappers in the business, sent out a special update to Cook Political Report subscribers Thursday that should send shivers down Democratic spines.

Reviewing recent polling and the 2010 election landscape, Cook can envision a scenario in which Democratic House losses could exceed 20 seats.

"These data confirm anecdotal evidence, and our own view, that the situation this summer has slipped completely out of control for President Obama and Congressional Democrats. Today, The Cook Political Report’s Congressional election model, based on individual races, is pointing toward a net Democratic loss of between six and 12 seats, but our sense, factoring in macro-political dynamics is that this is far too low," he wrote.

"Many veteran Congressional election watchers, including Democratic ones, report an eerie sense of déjà vu, with a consensus forming that the chances of Democratic losses going higher than 20 seats is just as good as the chances of Democratic losses going lower than 20 seats."

COMMENT:  What a difference a few months makes.  Back in the Washington spring, the Dems were talking about permanent control, all in the interests of "the people," of course.  Then came health care.

August 20, 2009   Permalink

WE DON'T WANT TO THANK THE ACADEMY - AT 8:03 A.M. ET:  There's a changing of the guard at the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences - the Oscar people - in Hollywood.  But the personalities are far less important than the symbolism.  The academy today is presiding over a creatively dying industry, and seems to know it:

EVERLY HILLS, Calif. — Tom Sherak, a veteran film executive who was long associated with 20th Century Fox and then Revolution Studios, was named president of the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences in a changing of the guard that followed an unusually active tenure by Sidney Ganis, a film producer whose four-year run in the presidency expired on Tuesday.

Okay, congratulations.  Have a nice dinner.  But here is the news:

In an interview shortly before the board vote on Tuesday, Mr. Ganis said his proudest achievement was repositioning the academy as less a show business organization than an advocate for world film.

“This academy is not about Hollywood and not even about America,” said Mr. Ganis. “It’s about international filmmakers and filmmaking.”

Wrong, Mr. Ganis:  The academy is about Hollywood, dammit, and Hollywood is about show business.  And it's about America, and the American vision.  And tell me, Mr. Philosopher, why Hollywood was at its best, and making its greatest films, when it understood that.

Hollywood has been intellectualized to death.  It has replaced talent with education.  It has replaced great stories with plodding propaganda.  Its stars have become smaller than life.  The glamour we loved has been replaced by green vehicles and tributes to Al Gore.  Gary Cooper could blow Sean Penn away without using a gun.  Rita Hayworth could...well, she could just be Rita Hayworth and send us back into the theaters again. 

When they start talking about "internationalizing" an industry,  you know things are going south. 

Hooray for Hollywood?  Not today, dahlings.

August 20, 2009   Permalink 

BRITS GET THE PICTURE - AT 7:34 A.M. ET:  We've said here before that British reporters in Washington often do very fine work in dissecting American politics.  Here, Tim Reid of The Times of London proves the point, providing an excellent analysis of President Obama's deep dilemma:

It is only eight months since he was sworn in on a January morning filled with hope and optimism, but the noise and fury surrounding the healthcare debate today are danger signs for Mr Obama’s presidency.

And...

The polls indicate that he is in danger of losing the electorally vital centre: the elderly, independents and suburban women — critical swing voters — are deserting him.

There are two fundamental reasons for his troubles: the economy — unemployment continues to rise — and signs that Mr Obama might have overinterpreted his mandate.

Yeah, really overinterpreted it - by a country mile.

When he took office Mr Obama and his aides made myriad comparisons with Franklin D. Roosevelt and his New Deal. Yet in 1932 Roosevelt won 42 of 48 states. Last year Mr Obama won 28 but, believing that the scale of the recession compelled him to act boldly, he announced a domestic agenda of staggering ambition, with healthcare as its cornerstone.

He has been telling the public that he can expand coverage and cut healthcare costs at the same time. The independent Congressional Budget Office has contradicted that assertion and an increasing number of voters are skeptical.

And health care isn't, by any means, the only problem Mr. Obama faces:

When Congress reconvenes in September, however, there will be other problems.

Mr Obama will have three months to honour his pledge to close the Guantánamo Bay detention centre; the death toll in Afghanistan will probably still be climbing; and he must also decide whether to get tough with Iran over its nuclear programme.

Winning an election is one thing. Governing, as Mr Obama has discovered, is tougher.

COMMENT:  I have to believe that foreign ministries, despite their trendy penchant for America-bashing and Obama-loving, are privately appalled by the Obama administration, especially its drift and indecision in foreign affairs.  It's pretty clear that many foreign journalists, who earlier may have bought into the president-as-messiah message, are revising their copy. 

We've said before at Urgent Agenda that autumn will be politically hot.  We stand by that statement.

August 20, 2009   Permalink

THE NERVE OF THESE PEOPLE - AT 7:19 A.M. ET:  The North Koreans have come to America to pick up their goody bags:

SANTA FE, New Mexico (CNN) -- North Korea believes it's owed bilateral talks with the United States after the communist government released two detained American journalists this month -- a notion that senior Obama administration officials quickly rejected on Wednesday.

"They feel, the North Koreans, that by giving us the two American journalists, that they've made an important gesture," New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson told CNN Wednesday after meeting with two North Korean diplomats. "And now they're saying the ball's in our court."

Very much out of the North Korean playbook.  They do something very bad, correct it, then expect to be rewarded for correcting something they shouldn't have done in the first place.

But senior Obama administration officials said six-party talks are still the proper venue for such a dialogue, and stressed that Richardson was not negotiating on the president's behalf. Richardson himself said he would only relay the information to the White House.

"Our policy toward North Korea remains today as it has been -- calling for the complete denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula," one of the administration officials said Wednesday. "We believe the six-party talks are the best forum for that. The bottom line is, the ball is in North Korea's court."

COMMENT:  We'll tentatively side with the administration on this, but we note that its tough words have never been followed by anything much.  Unless North Korea understands that it will be punished for its nuclear and missile tests, and its proliferation, none of our statements will ultimately have much effect.  And that, sadly, seems to be the story of the Obama foreign policy.

August 20, 2009   Permalink

AFGHAN VOTE TODAY - AT 7:17 A.M. ET:  Afghanistan goes to the polls today to elect a new president.  Well, at least those Afghans brave enough to face down Taliban threats will go to the polls.  That's the main story, as AP reports:

KABUL — Taliban threats appeared to dampen voter turnout in the militant south Thursday as Afghans chose the next president for their deeply troubled country. Insurgents launched scattered rocket, suicide and bomb attacks, violence that closed some polling sites.

Low turnout in the south would harm President Hamid Karzai's re-election chances and boost the standing of his top challenger, former Foreign Minister Abdullah Abdullah. Turnout in the north appeared to be high, a good sign for Abdullah.

International officials have predicted an imperfect election — Afghanistan's second-ever direct presidential vote — but expressed hope that Afghans would accept it as legitimate, a key component of President Barack Obama's war strategy. Taliban militants, though, pledged to disrupt the vote and circulated threats that those who cast ballots will be punished.

COMMENT:  First reports indicate a turnout dramatically lower than that in 2004, which means that the Taliban threats have been effective.  A stable, believable election is vital to American interests in Afghanistan.  But look for the political left in the United States, and other NATO countries, to ridicule any result.

August 20, 2009   Permalink

PUBLIC SOURING ON AFGHANISTAN - AT 7:15 A.M. ET:  President Obama faces a number of national-security challenges.  One of the most critical will be the public's souring on the struggle in Afghanistan.  The president must do a far better job of explaining our presence there, and why it's important to each American.  From the Washington Post:

A majority of Americans now see the war in Afghanistan as not worth fighting, and just a quarter say more U.S. troops should be sent to the country, according to a new Washington Post-ABC News poll.

This is music to the ears of the Democratic Party's left wing, whose "out of Iraq" congressional caucus is now morphing into an "out of Afghanistan" caucus.  These "anti-war" Democrats are the cream of hypocrisy.  The only wars they're ever against are the ones America has a chance of winning.  They remind me of the "anti-war" demonstrators during Vietnam, whose demonstrations mysteriously ended as soon as the draft ended.

In January, before President Obama authorized sending an additional 17,000 troops to the country, public sentiment tilted more strongly toward a troop increase.

Should Obama embrace his generals' call for even more forces, he would risk alienating some of his staunchest supporters. Although 60 percent of Americans approve of how Obama has handled the situation in Afghanistan, his ratings among liberals have slipped, and majorities of liberals and Democrats alike now, for the first time, solidly oppose the war and are calling for a reduction in troop levels.

These "liberals" aren't liberals any longer.  True liberalism, in its noblest days, always backed a strong national defense.  Think Henry Jackson, Paul Douglas, Jack Kennedy.  Today's "liberals" have their roots in the sixties.

Republicans (70 percent say it is worth fighting) and conservatives (58 percent) remain the war's strongest backers, and the issue provides a rare point of GOP support for Obama's policies.

It shows the basic fairness of conservatives, most of whom have long since abandoned the isolationism of the thirties and forties.  We've had quite a role reversal on national security, with Republicans now advocating policies that Democrats used to advocate, and Democrats advocating chaos.

Work to be done - not only in politics, but in our educational system.  Here is an opportunity for the president to provide thoughtful leadership, and break away from his party's hopeless left.  But will he do it?

August 20, 2009   Permalink

WEDNESDAY,  AUGUST 19,  2009

A MOMENT TO SAVOR - AT 5:56 P.M. ET:  When did you ever expect to read these words at Urgent Agenda - "The BBC has done some good work"?

Well, history is made.  The BBC has done some good work.  The usually, and usually hopeless left-wing news operation has ripped the mask off a leading "environmentalist," with some tough questioning:

The outgoing leader of Greenpeace has admitted his organization’s recent claim that the Arctic Ice will disappear by 2030 was “a mistake.” Greenpeace made the claim in a July 15 press release entitled “Urgent Action Needed As Arctic Ice Melts,” which said there will be an ice-free Arctic by 2030 because of global warming.

Under close questioning by BBC reporter Stephen Sackur on the “Hardtalk” program, Gerd Leipold, the retiring leader of Greenpeace, said the claim was wrong.

“I don’t think it will be melting by 2030. … That may have been a mistake,” he said.

And...

Sackur said the claim was inaccurate on two fronts, pointing out that the Arctic ice is a mass of 1.6 million square kilometers with a thickness of 3 km in the middle, and that it had survived much warmer periods in history than the present.

The BBC reporter accused Leipold and Greenpeace of releasing “misleading information” and using “exaggeration and alarmism.”

Leipold’s admission that Greenpeace issued misleading information is a major embarrassment to the organization, which often has been accused of alarmism but has always insisted that it applies full scientific rigor in its global-warming pronouncements.

COMMENT:  We wonder how many millions of dollars, or tens of millions, or billions, will be spent to combat "global warming," based on junk science like that.  And yet, the trendy left, including the president of the United States, takes this stuff as gospel.

Congratulations to Stephen Sackur and "Hardtalk."

August 19, 2009   Permalink

DEM NUMBERS SLIP, BUT DON'T CELEBRATE YET - AT 5:45 P.M. ET:  The latest Pew survey has bad news for the Democratic Party, but there's a big asterisk:

...the new poll finds favorable ratings of the Democratic Party have declined sharply since spring. Just 49% now say they have a favorable view of the Democratic Party. This compares with a 59% favorable rating for the party as recently as April and 62% shortly before Obama took office in January.

And the asterisk...

Opinion of the Republican Party, which stands at 40%, has not changed all year.

And that, not only the Dem decline, is the real story.  Democratic problems do not automatically translate into Republican gains.  The GOP has an opportunity, a golden one, but isn't taking much advantage of it.  As we've said here before, it has no real program, no exciting ideas, nothing affirmative to bring to the American people.  So far its stance can be summed up as "just say no."  It needs to do far better.

And Pew's report on Obama's approval:

...51% now approve of Obama’s job performance while 37% disapprove. While that is largely unchanged from July (54%), it is down 10 points from June (61%).

Independents, who approved of Obama’s job performance by nearly two-to-one in June (56% to 29%) are now about evenly divided: 45% approve while 43% disapprove.

Again, opportunity presents itself.  But you can't beat somebody with nobody.  The GOP must build presidential candidates, and give them public platforms. Next year's midterms will be a test run for 2012.

August 19, 2009   Permalink

IRAQ TRAGEDY - AT 5:18 P.M. ET:  It was a bad day in Baghdad, with at least 95 apparently killed in coordinated bombings.  The New York Times reports that American troops couldn't help:

BAGHDAD — Insurgents struck at the heart of the Iraqi government on Wednesday in huge and coordinated bombings that exposed a new vulnerability after Americans ceded control for security here on June 30. Nearby American soldiers stood by helplessly — despite the needs of hundreds of wounded — waiting for a request for help from Iraqi officials that apparently never came.

“As much as we want to come, we have to wait to be asked now,” said an American officer who arrived at one blast site almost three hours later and who spoke in return for anonymity because he was not authorized to brief reporters.

Great.  And now Al Qaeda and the other nuthouse groups in Iraq know that they can strike whenever they wish, and American troops can't help unless invited in by Iraqi politicians.

A Defense Ministry spokesman, Maj. Gen. Mohammed al-Askari, was quoted by Reuters as telling American and Iraqi military officers: “We must face the facts. We must admit our mistakes, just as we celebrate our victories.”

And Baghdad’s security spokesman, Maj. Gen. Qassim al-Moussawi, told Iraqiya state television, according to Reuters, that attacks were “a security breach for which Iraqi forces must take most of the blame.”

COMMENT:  At least they admit there were mistakes made in security.  It's a first step.  But Iraq is not won, and it must be won, or at least reasonably secured.  Will the Democratic Party's left allow Obama to do what is necessary, or do we now have one hand tied behind our back?

August 19, 2009   Permalink

GOP LEADS IN GENERIC CONGRESSIONAL POLL - AT 9:51 A.M. ET:  Rasmussen is reporting a solid lead for the GOP in a poll of congressional choices.  The congressional midterm elections are 15 months away:

The latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey shows that 43% would vote for their district’s Republican congressional candidate while 38% would opt for his or her Democratic opponent.

The level of support for Democratic candidates is unchanged this week, but backing for GOP candidates rose one point from a week ago. This is now the eighth straight week Republicans have led on the Generic Ballot.

These findings come at the same time that voters, for the first time in over two years of polling, say they trust Republicans slightly more than Democrats on the handling of the issue of health care.

COMMENT:  It is simply amazing to see how the Dems are blowing it.  Republicans ahead on health care?  Did you ever think you'd see the day?  And the Republicans don't even have a plan.  In effect, the people are voting for "none of the above."

August 19, 2009   Permalink

QUOTE OF THE DAY - AT 9:07 A.M. ET - From Noah Pollack at Contentions.  Noting Yale University Press's disgraceful refusal to publish those Muhammad cartoons that created so much fuss in Denmark a few years ago in a book about the cartoons, Pollack points out that a key player in the censorship is Marcia Inhorn, head of Yale's Middle East Studies department, who wrote this about a trip to the Mideast: 

"I recently returned from a trip to Lebanon, the UAE and Iran—what most Americans would consider a journey into the heart of darkness, a veritable 'axis of evil.'  In fact, the trip was far from perilous, and I was treated as an honoured guest in every setting. . . .I have travelled widely and lived with my family for extended periods of time in Egypt, Lebanon, and the UAE. It saddens me that so few Americans will ever come to know the delights of the Middle East as my family and I have."

To which Pollack properly replies:

What saddens me, by contrast, is how important it is for leftist world travelers to be treated as royalty by their hosts, and how they respond to Potemkin Village–style tours of repressive and dysfunctional countries with hoary tropes about the nobility of the Orient. Because she was treated as an “honoured guest in every setting” in Iran, the fact that the regime promotes war and terrorism around the globe is irrelevant; the fact that it strings up homosexuals from cranes in downtown Tehran doesn’t matter; the fact that it brutally tortures its own dissenters is barely of any concern and neither is the prison rape of young girls before their executions.

COMMENT:  Brilliantly stated.  Inhorn typifies the kind of "scholars" found more and more in Middle East studies departments.  They are front operators for some of the worst regimes in the world, yet they call themselves "progressives," and they teach our children.  The tradition of academic freedom demands that we tolerate their distortions, but let us understand exactly what we are tolerating. 

August 19, 2009   Permalink

I'M SHOCKED, SHOCKED, TO HEAR THIS - AT 8:20 A.M. ET:  We keep cautioning here at Urgent Agenda that we're taking our eye off foreign policy during the raging debate on health care, but the threats are building.  Those who we're supposed to depend on in the "international community" are, surprise, disappointing us:

The world's nuclear weapons watchdog is hiding data on Iran's drive to obtain nuclear arms, senior Western diplomats and Israeli officials told Haaretz.

The officials and diplomats said that the International Atomic Energy Agency under Director General Mohamed ElBaradei was refraining from publishing evidence obtained by its inspectors over the past few months that indicate Iran was pursuing information about weaponization efforts and a military nuclear program.

ElBaradei, who will soon vacate his post, has said that the agency does not have any evidence that suggests Iran is developing a nuclear weapon.

But the sources told Haaretz that the new evidence was submitted to the IAEA in a classified annex written by its inspectors in the Islamic Republic. The report was said to have been signed by the head of the IAEA team in Iran.

The classified report, according to the sources, was not incorporated into the agency's published reports. The details, they said, were censored by senior officials of the IAEA in the organization's Vienna headquarters.

COMMENT:  Great, huh?  ElBaradei reflects the twisted idea that the real problem isn't the Iranian nuclear program, but, rather, our worry about it.  We must stop these hotheaded Yankees from being concerned about their own survival.  How narrow.  How unsophisticated.  This is an idea that is actually spreading, an idea that holds that we must learn to live with the Iranian bomb, just as we lived with the Soviet bomb.  Problem is, the Soviet Union wasn't run by suicidal religious zealots for whom martyrdom is welcomed. 

There is new pressure on the IAEA to release its classified reports on Iran in the fall.  I'm not betting on it.

August 19, 2009   Permalink

OH SPARE US - AT 8:01 A.M. ET:  A new White House strategy on health care may be taking shape.  Actually, it looks like an old White House strategy, as Fox reports:

WASHINGTON -- President Barack Obama, trying to regain control of the health-care debate, will likely shift his pitch in September, White House and Democratic officials said, as he faces pressure from supporters to talk more about the moral imperative to provide health insurance to all Americans.

The word "pitch" is exactly right.  This administration places too much faith in the president's salesmanship.  We know about the moral imperative.  It's the plan we don't know about. 

The president is expected to present a more emotional appeal during a conference call Wednesday with liberal religious groups. A senior White House official said the message would be tailored to the groups' moral emphases, although he cautioned the president's message to religious groups may not herald a broader shift in themes.

"This is such a technical issue, it's easy to get bogged down in the weeds," said Dan Nejfelt, a spokesman for Faith in Public Life, one of the groups scheduled for the Wednesday call. "It's important to have a voice saying, 'This is about right and wrong. This is about honoring faith.'"

COMMENT:  Once again this administration is talking down to the American people.  Americans understand the relationship between faith and caring.  But they also know that, as we learned as children, the road to hell is paved with good intentions.  It's not enough to mean well, you have to do well.  The complaints about the Democratic "reform" plan is that it's too vague, doesn't really reduce costs, and can lead to the government making medical decisions. 

That doesn't mean Americans are in love with insurance companies.  They're not, and most Republicans agree that the health-care system needs improvement.  What Americans need is detail and information, not a moral lecture.

August 19, 2009   Permalink

WHITE HOUSE CONFUSION - AT 7:52 A.M. ET:  Or, what else is new?  The inability of this White House to run things is becoming the stuff of instant legends.  The president is in trouble on health care, and there are good reasons.  He doesn't exactly come off as a leader who inspires confidence:

WASHINGTON -- The White House fell into full retreat yesterday from its earlier surrender of Democratic plans for a massive new government-run insurance agency as part of its health-care reform bid.

The Obama administration now says it remains fully behind the idea of a "public option" for government-run insurance, despite clear signals over the weekend from top officials that the public option is not a deal-breaker and is just a "sliver" of the overall reforms it seeks.

White House spokesman Robert Gibbs blamed the media for misunderstanding the administration's support.

"The administration's position is unchanged," Gibbs insisted in a testy exchange yesterday during which he handed one reporter exact quotes to read from previous speeches.

COMMENT:  They don't seem to realize they have a problem, and it's not just with the press.  It's with leadership.  There is no question but that the White House signalled last week, and over the weekend, that it was open to dropping the public option.  Then the Democratic left went ballistic and refused to take its pills.  Now, a frightened White House is pulling back its earlier position.

Change we can believe in?  We don't even know what the change is.

August 19, 2009   Permalink