THURSDAY,  AUGUST 27,  2009

THE CLASS OF THE HOUSE - AT 10:24 P.M. ET:  The warm feelings within the Democratic Party are something to behold.  The loyalty, the comradeship, the mutual respect.  Consider this scene:

WASHINGTON -- A key House liberal suggested Thursday that party moderates who've pushed for changes in health care legislation are "brain dead" and out for insurance company campaign donations.

Moderate Blue Dog Democrats "just want to cause trouble," said Rep. Pete Stark, D-Calif., who heads the health subcommittee on the tax-writing Ways and Means Committee.

"They're for the most part, I hate to say brain dead, but they're just looking to raise money from insurance companies and promote a right-wing agenda that is not really very useful in this whole process," Stark told reporters on a conference call.

COMMENT:  Now, it's true that Pete Stark is one of the most volatile members of the House, known even for scuffling with other members.  But calling colleagues in your party "brain dead" is not endearing, and reveals the utter bigotry of the liberal wing of the Democratic Party.  To this crowd, anyone who disagrees or even asks questions is "stupid." 

And yet, that wing controls almost all the committee chairmanships in the House, and most in the Senate. 

We are living in ugly times, presided over by ugly people.

August 27, 2009   Permalink

WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION BULLETIN - AT 6:13 P.M. ET:  French experts are swinging into action against a major threat to our civilization, our way of life, our deepest beliefs:

France's consumer affairs minister will meet a director of Apple France for talks on Friday after half a dozen cases in which iPhones are said to have spontaneously exploded or cracked up.

Herve Novelli will meet Apple France's commercial director Michel Coulomb to discuss the incidents, which are being investigated by France's competition, consumer affairs and fraud watchdog, the DGCCRF, the finance ministry said.

They will "examine what steps to take in response to the DGCCRF's questions about the implosion of these devices, and what measures the agency could take," said a statement from the ministry.

Novelli will also remind the US technology giant of its general safety obligations towards consumers.

COMMENT:  I for one will sleep better tonight knowing that Herve Novelli is out there protecting the West. 

Charles de Gaulle is smiling down.

August 27, 2009   Permalink

WHITE HOUSE TIN EARS - AT 6:08 P.M. ET:  A recreation report from Martha's Vineyard:

After a mid-August trip to America's national parks and a weeklong vacation on Martha's Vineyard, President Obama plans ...

... to take a little more time away from the office next week.

Obama will head to Camp David on Wednesday, Sept. 2, and stay through the weekend, White House spokesman Bill Burton told reporters in a Thursday briefing.

Joking that it may have been "wishful thinking" to suggest Obama's current trip out of Washington would coincide with a news-free week, Burton quipped that the president needs a "break from his vacation."

COMMENT:  There are no words.

August 27, 2009    Permalink

ANOTHER LOW - AT 5:54 P.M. ET:  Maybe the president's vacation among the liberal elites isn't going down too well with the public.  Gallup registered another new low for Mr. Obama today.  According to Gallup, only 50% of Americans now approve of Obama's performance, while 43% disapproves. 

The president is in trouble.  He still has a strong base of support, especially in minority communities and faculty lounges, but that base is dwindling.  At the same time, aside from pushing an unpopular health-care program, he's pushing a dismantling of the war on terror and an investigation into those who kept us safe after 9-11.  How popular is that?  Rasmussen reports:

Forty-nine percent (49%) of U.S. voters disagree with the Justice Department’s decision to investigate the treatment and possible torture of terrorists during the Bush administration, according to a new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey.

Thirty-six percent (36%) agree with Attorney General Eric Holder’s naming of a veteran prosecutor to probe the CIA’s handling of terrorists under the previous administration. Fifteen percent (15%) are undecided. 

And...

Fifty-five percent (55%) of Democrats now support the investigation of the CIA, while 70% of Republicans and 54% of voters not affiliated with either party are opposed.

Poll after poll shows that the president is losing the independents, the key to political dominance.  It's too early to call Obama a one-term president, but we can dream.

August 27, 2009   Permalink

THE BODY ISN'T EVEN COLD - AT 10:22 A.M. ET:   Look, it's politics.  Kennedy is gone.  They'll bury him at Arlington on Saturday.  As we said yesterday, the race to succeed him has already started.  In fact, it's probably been going on for months.  The Politico covers:

The course of the Senate race, however, may be determined by the intentions of other Kennedy family members who may have an interest in succeeding the patriarch— with his widow, Vicki, and his nephew, former Democratic Rep. Joseph Kennedy II, most often mentioned as possible contenders.

I don't know.  Is the brand still that hot?  Some think it is:

“They’re not merely the shoe to drop. They’re the whole shoe store,” said Tufts University political science professor Jeffrey Berry. “The race doesn’t begin until they declare whether they’re in or out. If one of them runs, they’d suck up all of the oxygen in the room.”

And some think it isn't:

Earlier this year, Caroline Kennedy withdrew from consideration for the vacant Senate seat in New York after receiving negative press while testing the waters. Kathleen Kennedy Townsend and Mark Shriver recently lost campaigns in Maryland.  Businessman Chris Kennedy recently turned down recruitment efforts for him to run for the Senate in Illinois.

I lean toward the second position.  I think recent history shows the Kennedy brand is fading.  All political brands do.  The Roosevelt name really didn't last very long after FDR's death, although the behavior of some of his kids didn't help.  And there's no great public wanting of another Bush.  The Longs of Louisiana are history.  Americans, after love affairs with families, turn away from dynasties.

So we'll wait for the list of candidates.  No one stands out as obvious.

August 27, 2009   Permalink

AND IN THE REAL WORLD - AT 9:25 A.M. ET:  There's so much economic hype coming out of the White House, it's hard to know what's really happening...unless you go to good sources.  What's happening is grim:

The real US unemployment rate is 16 percent if persons who have dropped out of the labor pool and those working less than they would like are counted, a Federal Reserve official said Wednesday.

"If one considers the people who would like a job but have stopped looking -- so-called discouraged workers -- and those who are working fewer hours than they want, the unemployment rate would move from the official 9.4 percent to 16 percent, said Atlanta Fed chief Dennis Lockhart.

The underemployed, and those who have given up, are the real story here.  We can easily have a jobless recovery, with a lot of hurt for those this administration claims to care about. 

Meanwhile, the bonuses on Wall Street are flowing again, into the millions, and even into the tens of millions.  We've said before that these people will never learn, and that they'll go back to doing exactly what they did before, leaving the public and their shareholders to pick up the tab.  But they write big checks to political campaigns, which is why they often get away with it.  They give free enterprise a bad name.

And here's some further sobering economic news:

NEW YORK (AP) -- The government agency that guarantees you won't lose your money in a bank failure may need a lifeline of its own.

The coffers of the Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. have been so depleted by the epidemic of collapsing financial institutions that analysts warn it could sink into the red by the end of this year.

Hey, welcome to the recovery.  Plan your trip to Martha's Vineyard now.

August 27, 2009   Permalink

QUOTE OF THE DAY - AT 8:31 A.M. ET:  I didn't think we'd ever be quoting Howard Dean here for our quote of the day, but occasionally even the daffiest among us make sense.  Dean, former Democratic national chairman, governor of Vermont, and a physician, was at a town meeting discussing health care, with Rep. Jim Moran of Virginia, one of the real basement-level Dems in Congress, a real bad piece of work.  But a truth came out.  From the Washington Examiner:

Whatever else he said Wednesday evening at the town hall hosted by Rep. Jim Moran, D-VA, former Democratic National Committee chairman and presidential candidate Howard Dean let something incredibly candid slip out about President Obama's health-care reform bill in Congress.

Asked by an audience member why the legislation does nothing to cap medical malpractice class-action lawsuits against doctors and medical institutions (aka "Tort reform"), Dean responded by saying: “The reason tort reform is not in the [health care] bill is because the people who wrote it did not want to take on the trial lawyers in addition to everybody else they were taking on. And that’s the plain and simple truth.”

Dean is a former physician, so he knows about skyrocketing medical malpractice insurance rates, and the role of the trial lawyers in fueling the "defensive medicine" approach among medical personnel who order too many tests and other sometimes unneeded procedures "just to be sure" and to protect themselves against litigation.

COMMENT:  Well, at least it comes out.  The issue of malpractice reform should be getting much more attention.  Reforming the tort system could possibly save upwards of $200-billion a year, but it won't be done for exactly the reason Dean stated. 

And then the Dems have the nerve to try to sell their health-care package as true "reform," when it lacks one of reform's most important elements.

August 27, 2009   Permalink

AMERICA AT RISK - AT 8:05 A.M. ET: - Part II:  Very rarely do we do two-part posts, but national security is critically important.  Below we reported on a fine piece by Michael Goodwin.  In today's Wall Street Journal, Dan Henninger continues the theme - that Obama is damaging the national security of the United States:

Shakespeare wrote, “The first thing we do, let’s kill all the lawyers.” As we know, that didn’t happen. Four hundred years later, they’re killing us with the smothering pillow of hyper-proceduralism. Now the lawyers are about to smother the war on terror.

And...

In a May speech at the National Archives, President Obama, mirroring Kenny MacAskill's remarks, said we had to "update our institutions" to deal with terrorism but "do so with an abiding confidence in the rule of law and due process."

That "update" is upon us. The smothering pillows have arrived.

Attorney General Holder named Connecticut prosecutor John Durham to conduct an investigation into whether interrogations by CIA employees warrant a criminal inquiry. It has been shown repeatedly the past 25 years that an office of independent counsel or special prosecutor nearly always puts in motion an Inspector Javert-like hunt for an indictable defendant.

And...

The day of Mr. Holder's announcement, CIA Director Leon Panetta said his agency received "multiple written assurances its methods were lawful." It's now clear that even playing by the rules cannot stop erosion by legal challenge.

But erosion is exactly what the left wants.  It wants the war on terror destroyed, as it wanted the war in Vietnam destroyed.  It believes America is the cause of evil, rather than the opponent of evil.

To supervise future interrogations, the administration is creating something called a High Value Detainee Interrogation Group. Interrogation techniques will be limited to those in the Army Field Manual or that are "noncoercive," which suggests more constrained than a big-city police department...

...This means that the class of person who blows up skyscrapers, American embassies or the USS Cole would spend less time under a bare light bulb than a domestic robbery suspect.

Finally...

The message of...the Holder decision is that the will born in the wake of 9/11 is waning. The war on terror is being downgraded to not much more than tough talk. Al Qaeda, the Taliban and the Iranians, not yet converts to the West's caricature of its own legal traditions, will take note. In time, they will be back. The second war on terror is in the future.

COMMENT:  I'm glad to see that some journalists are speaking out.  But how many?  On television, Fox will certainly join the combat on the correct side.  But CNN?  NBC?  Come on.  They think this new administration is just fine, "enlightened" the way people who attend Manhattan dinner parties (organic) are enlightened.

They will weep crocodile tears the next time Americans are victims of mass killing.  And then, a day later, they will be back at the same old stand, looking for the "root cause," and finding that it was us.

August 27, 2009   Permalink

AMERICA AT RISK - AT 7:45 A.M. ET - Part I:  With America distracted by the health-care debate, the death of Senator Kennedy and the president's ice-cream tastes at Martha's Vineyard, we forget that this administration is slowly dismantling the war on terror.  Michael Goodwin of The New York Daily News is following our new national insecurity policy:

Pull together the loose threads of recent events and President Obama's vision for fighting the war on terror becomes one very scary picture. Scary, that is, for innocent Americans.

From interrogation to adjudication, the White House plan offers more legal protections to terror suspects and less to our nation. It's a kinder, gentler tilt that favors bad guys and raises the risk of attack at home because it compromises national security to promote other concerns and values.

And...

One thread is Attorney General Eric Holder's misguided decision to appoint a special prosecutor to investigate whether CIA agents broke the law in aggressive questioning of suspects captured in Iraq and Afghanistan...

...Another scary thread is the plan to take the job of terror questioning away from the CIA and move it to a new group in the FBI. The move is part of an effort to treat terror as just another law enforcement problem, a downgrade that led the White House to drop the words "war on terror." ....

...Scary thread No. 3 is the plan to close the Guantanamo Bay prison and move some of the worst terrorists to American prisons and give some detainees trials in civilian courts. Playing by the legal rule book raises the chance mad killers will walk free because of the vast defendant protections built into our criminal justice system.

Finally...

Obama often insists that keeping Americans safe is his most important duty, yet his actions and those of Holder say otherwise. By tying our nation's hands against an enemy that knows no rules or boundaries, the President is adding to the already considerable chance we will suffer a national catastrophe.

COMMENT:  And you can be sure that, if we do suffer another national catastrophe, Obama will blame it on BUSH (!!). 

Will the American people wake up?  I have to believe they will.  They woke up to Carter.  They rejected McGovern.  But years have passed, and a new generation, miseducated in our leftist universities, has grown.  They will be critical to determining our fate. 

August 27, 2009   Permalink

WEDNESDAY,  AUGUST 26,  2009

OUR ALLY AND VERY CLOSE PERSONAL FRIEND - AT 7:36 P.M. ET:  Can you believe this guy?  This is one of those people often described, by those with financial interests, as a friend of the United States.  Yeah, right.  From Australia's Sydney Morning Herald:

WASHINGTON: Saudi Arabia's former ambassador to the US, Prince Turki al-Faisal, has criticised the Obama Administration for promoting energy independence, calling the campaign to curb oil consumption an affront to the kingdom.

''This 'energy independence' motto is political posturing at its worst - a concept that is unrealistic, misguided, and ultimately harmful to energy producing and consuming countries alike,'' the prince wrote in an article published on Foreign Policy magazine's website.

Prince Turki, a member of the Saudi royal family and a former director of Saudi intelligence and ambassador to Britain, called energy independence ''little more than code for arguing that the United States has a dangerous reliance'' on Saudi Arabia. The kingdom, the largest oil exporter, ''gets blamed for everything from global terrorism to high gasoline prices'', he said.

COMMENT:  Look, your highness, or oilness, or whatever it is - your religious schools produced a whole generation of extremists.  Most of the 9-11 murderers came from your country.  Your rollicking royal family was the guiding force behind the oil shocks of the 1970s.  You won't allow Christians or Jews to practice their religion on your soil.  Your kingdom is the major power in OPEC.  Understand why your photo isn't on the wall of every American household?

But don't sweat.  You have one of the most powerful lobbies in Washington.  You have former American diplomats on your payroll.  You own whole departments of Middle East studies in American universities.  Jimmy Carter adores you.  You'll get by.

August 26, 2009   Permalink

ANOTHER POLL STUNNER - AT 6:10 P.M. ET:  Gallup today has more bad news for the president, and states it rather bluntly:

PRINCETON, NJ -- Barack Obama's latest job approval rating is 51%, according to Aug. 23-25 Gallup Daily tracking. Should his rating continue its downward trend and fall below 50%, he would -- like most post-World War II presidents -- have less-than-majority approval at some point in his presidency. However, Obama, in his eighth month in office, could hit this mark in a shorter time than has typically been the case. If his rating falls below 50% before November, it would represent the third-fastest drop to below majority approval since World War II, behind the declines for Gerald Ford (in his third month as president) and Bill Clinton (in his fourth month).

Gallup has Obama's disapproval rating at 44%.  But there's a cautionary note here:

However, falling below 50% would hardly mark a point of no return for Obama. All presidents went back above the 50% mark after their initial loss of majority public support. And Clinton and Reagan, who dropped below majority approval faster than most other presidents, easily won second terms in the subsequent election.

COMMENT:  And that's the point.  You can't beat somebody with nobody, and with nothing.  Elections are about choices, with no prize for second place.  Even candidates with approval ratings below 50% have won. 

We have continued work to do.

August 26, 2009   Permalink

INCREDIBLE - AT 3:48 P.M. ET:  The Lockerbie bomber was released by Scotland last week on "compassionate" grounds, because he had, according to Scottish authorities, only three months to live. 

Now there are doubts about that.  From The Scotsman:

JUSTICE secretary Kenny MacAskill was last night under pressure to reveal more details of the medical evidence that led to the release of the Lockerbie bomber, after it emerged that only one doctor was willing to say Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al-Megrahi had less than three months to live.

Labour and Conservative politicians have demanded the Scottish Government publish details of the doctor's expertise and qualifications, amid suggestions he or she may not have been a prostate cancer expert.

The parties have also raised questions over whether the doctor was employed by the Libyan government or Megrahi's legal team, which could have influenced the judgment.

And...

Mr MacAskill has said he based his decision to release Megrahi on the opinions of a range of experts.

But this is contradicted by a decisive report sent to Mr MacAskill on 10 August.

While it noted that four prostate cancer specialists – two oncologists and two urologists – were consulted, the summary said: "Whether or not prognosis is more or less than three months, no specialist would be willing to say."

The report suggests that only one doctor was willing to support the claim that Megrahi had just weeks to live.

COMMENT:  This is a major scandal, but must be pursued, either by political figures or by the British press.  The Obama administration seems to have dropped the subject after some perfunctory expressions of "outrage."  Let's not say anything that could be "misinterpreted" in the Muslim world.

By the way, it would not be above Libyan authorities to hold a mock funeral for this guy in two months, claim he's dead, then spirit him away somewhere.  Faking deaths, as we've seen regularly in Arab culture, is a routine technique.  The so-called "Jenin massacre," on the West Bank, was proved to be a fraud.  The incident that fueled the second Palestinian "intifada," in which a young boy was allegedly shot by Israeli authorities, while cradled in his father's arms, was also proved to be a fraud, in a French court of law.  During Israel's 2006 war in Lebanon, Arab "casualties" suddenly got up and walked away. 

Will Britain, in its greed for Libyan contracts, be the next victim of a hoax?

We'll follow this story.  Grieving American families, relatives of the victims of Pan Am 103, which went down in Lockerbie, are involved.

August 26, 2009   Permalink

THE OPPORTUNITY - AT 9:53 A.M. ET:  The latest Rasmussen poll of generic preferences shows the continuing opportunity available to the GOP in the upcoming congressional elections:

This summer brought a significant shift in voter preferences in the Generic Congressional Ballot. As Republican Congressional candidates once again lead Democrats by a 43% to 38% margin this week, this is now the ninth straight ballot the GOP has held a modest advantage.

Over the past nine weeks, Republicans have held a two-to-five point advantage over Democrats every week. It is important to note, however, that the recent shift is not only because Republicans have been gaining support, but that Democrats have slipped in support. While support for Republican candidates ranged from 41% to 43%, support for Democrats ranged from 37% to 39%. 

And...

Looking back one year ago, support was strikingly different for the parties. Throughout the summer of 2008, support for Democratic congressional candidates ranged from 45% to 48%. Republican support ranged from 34% to 37%.

COMMENT:  It's an opportunity, and only that.  Republicans must exploit it, and, critically important, learn to speak over the heads of the media directly to the American people.  That was one of Reagan's gifts, and it helped propel him to the White House.

The Obamans ran a brilliant campaign last year.  They can do it again.  Nothing is in the bag.

August 26, 2009   Permalink

WHA?  READ THIS WITH TWO EYES - AT 9:24 A.M. ET:  There are reports all over the internet this morning about a possible "breakthrough" (the 458th) in the Arab-Israeli peace process.  Fox News reports:

President Obama is on the brink of a breakthrough deal that would allow him to announce the resumption of long-stalled Middle East talks, Britain's Guardian newspaper reported, citing unnamed officials.

According to the paper, U.S., Israeli, Palestinian and European sources close to the discussions have said the announcement of resumed peace talks would come within a month.

Key to the deal is a U.S. promise to take a harder line with Iran over its nuclear weapons program, the Guardian said. The U.S., along with Britain and France are planning to push the U.N. Security Council into expanding sanctions to include Iran's oil and gas industry, which would cripple the nation's economy, the newspaper reported.

The Israeli government, in return, would be expected to impose a partial freeze on settlement construction in the West Bank.

COMMENT:  In the immortal words of that great philosopher, George Gobel, wait a gosh-darned second.  So, the way it appears, the U.S. "promises" to take a harder line on Iran "in return" for Israeli concessions on settlements.

Do I have that right?

Israel had to, basically, force the U.S. to take a harder line on Iran?  Isn't a harder line, and possibly more, in the American national interest?   Do these parlor-party "intellectuals" around Obama really believe that America isn't Iran's ultimate target? 

If this story is true, and it appears to be well sourced, it says something awful about American foreign policy under this head-in-the-sand administration.  It says that the only time we'll take a truly realistic stand against our adversaries is if someone forces us to do it.

Of course, it's possible that the Obamans just can't find the time to take hard action against Iran, so busy are they investigating our intelligence people.  You know, there are priorities, dearie.

This story follows a number of notes in the media expressing a growing cynicism about Obama's foreign policy.  We will watch carefully.  We share the cynicism.

August 26, 2009   Permalink

OUTRAGE GROWING OVER CIA PROBE - AT 8:53 A.M. ET:  It took only a day or two to get started, but we sense a growing outrage over Attorney General Eric Holder's decision to resurrect ancient investigations into CIA treatment of terror detainees early in the Bush administration.  American soldiers are in the field, CIA agents are on the front line, rogue regimes are growing increasingly defiant, and Americans are investigating themselves.  Sounds like a grade C Hollywood comedy. 

Victoria Toensing, a conservative Washington lawyer who's worked on terrorism issues in the executive and legislative branches, has some tough words for this administration in NRO Online.  She writes of the interrogators who stepped forward to help this country in the harrowing days after the September, 2001, attacks, and are now under scrutiny and threat:

Even though an earlier investigation by career prosecutors reviewed the same conduct and refused prosecution of all but one contract employee who was brought to trial in 2007. Even though congressional leaders had knowledge of the interrogation techniques and made no attempt to stop them. Even though the conduct is more than six years old. Even though the CIA has taken administrative action against some of the personnel involved in the interrogations. Even though being just a target of a criminal investigation costs thousands of dollars in legal fees. Even though being just a target of a criminal investigation takes a horrendous mental toll. Even though the morale of the CIA will plunge to the depths it did in the wake of the Church Committee attacks. Even though the release of the names of those being scrutinized will make them terrorist targets for the rest of their lives. Even if they are cleared.

COMMENT:  But the people behind this new series of investigations don't care.  They represent the left wing of the Democratic Party.  Harry Truman threw their kind out of the party in 1948, and they then rallied around Henry Wallace, an otherwise decent man who was naive enough to crawl into bed with genuine, certified reds.  (He later distanced himself from them.)  Their ideological comrades came back in the sixties and seventies, and have had an inordinate influence in the party ever since. 

The fault lays squarely with Barack Obama.  He could stop these reckless and damaging probes, which are likely to shatter the morale of our intelligence services, and at least damage the morale even of our armed forces.  But the fact is that he doesn't really want to.  Barack Obama likes this sort of thing.  It represents who he really is...and the American people are finding out.

August 26, 2009   Permalink

KENNEDY'S SUCCESSOR - AT 8:07 A.M. ET:  The body is still warm, but speculation has already begun about Ted Kennedy's successor.  Virtually all the talk centers on Democrats.  As usual, the Republican Party doesn't have any candidates who have a reputation beyond the local ice-cream shop.  Yes, there's Mitt Romney, who was governor, but he has his eyes on the White House, and a Senate run would be seen as cynical.

Under Massachusetts law, a special election must be held.  Before his death, Kennedy recommended that the law be changed, allowing the governor to make an interim appointment.  (The gov, Deval Patrick, is a Democrat.)  That has not been done, but could be.  It would, however, go down badly with a major chunk of the public, which would see it as simply a Democratic Party maneuver.

Some speculation centers on other Kennedys.  Again, I wonder if there's enough political juice for this dynasty to continue.  There are no Massachusetts Kennedys left with real stature, and sending in a cousin may not work this time.  Other speculation surrounds the ultra-liberal Democratic congressional delegation.  And, of course, the governor can run.  He is African-American, a friend of Barack Obama's.  Hard to know how that will play.

Chances are, bottom line, that we will have another liberal from Massachusetts.

August 26, 2009   Permalink 

THE DEATH OF TED KENNEDY - AT 7:58 A.M. ET:  Ted Kennedy has died.  Like many in my generation, my early interest in politics paralleled the rise of the Kennedys in American political life.  I recall when Ted Kennedy first ran for the Senate, propelled entirely by his family name, and the outrage many felt at his sense of entitlement.  I recall when he was presiding over the Senate when the news of President Kennedy's assassination came through.

His legacy, as an honest obituary in today's New York Times points out, is mixed.  On the one hand, he started as a privileged lightweight with no qualifications, his legacy and future marred by Chappaquiddick in 1969, when a car he was driving ran off a bridge, killing one of his female assistants.  His failure to come to her aid as the car went down forever tainted Kennedy's reputation.

On the other hand, give the man his due.  By testimony across party lines, he developed into a respected senator who could work with legislators of all points of view.  He must be praised for championing the least among us, something men of his class don't often do.  We can disagree with his prescriptions, but his concern for those at the bottom always struck me as genuine. 

It seemed odd to me that Kennedy didn't show more interest in foreign policy, a departure from his family's tradition. 

Over the years, some have said that Ted Kennedy was the best of the Kennedy brothers, the one with the largest heart and deepest commitment.  It's hard to say.  He died at 77.  His brothers died young.  No one knows how they would have evolved.  One of my revered mentors, Senator Paul Douglas of Illinois, once described Jack Kennedy to me as "brilliant but cold," which I think applies.  No one ever called Ted brilliant, but he seemed to have a warmth that the other Kennedys lacked.

There will be a series of tributes.  Some will be tasteful, others not.  Some will be self-serving.  A few buildings and institutions will undoubtedly be named for Ted Kennedy, and appropriately so. 

There will, also, probably be an attempt to get health care "reform" passed as a living tribute to Kennedy, and I wouldn't be surprised to see the bill renamed for him - something like "The Edward M. Kennedy Universal Coverage Health Bill."  That won't have much effect.  Historically, Americans are perfectly prepared to name some concrete for a major figure who's passed on.  But they're not willing automatically to accept that individual's policies. 

President Obama will make the most of Kennedy's death.  That's the way it works in politics.  But, after a few weeks, the old debates will rage again, with little change.

August 26, 2009   Permalink