SUBSCRIPTION DRIVE - MOVING ALONG SLOWLY

We have had some encouragement in the last couple of days, but we are behind our goal.  Subscriptions are the lifeblood of URGENT AGENDA. 

Our regular subscribers have come through.  Their devotion is deeply appreciated.  But we need more NEW subscribers.  If we don't double our subscription base, we'll be in trouble, and service may have to be cut back.

We want to keep Urgent Agenda as a daily, high-quality site. 

So, if you intend to subscribe, please do so today.  If you're on the fence, give it a shot.  The weekly cost is less than a candy bar.   Pro-rated money-back guarantee. 

By subscribing or donating, you keep Urgent Agenda alive, and you get our twice-weekly e-mailed publication, The Angel's Corner, where you can participate in our great forum, and learn of our latest Pompous Fool Award, almost as coveted as the Nobel Peace Prize, and with the same low standards.

Please subscribe or donate in the right-hand column.  You're not really getting Urgent Agenda unless you do.  A credit card works.  Or, we can send you a mail address.

And a special thanks to readers who are sending holiday gift subscriptions.  It's a great gift, and it spreads the word.

FRIDAY,  NOVEMBER 13,  2009

MORE ON THE UPCOMING TERROR TRIAL IN NEW YORK - AT 9:54 P.M. ET:   John Hinderaker at Power Line says this about the Khalid Sheikh Mohammed trial that Eric Holder announced today:

Ask yourself this question: suppose that Khalid Sheikh Mohammed's trial results in an acquittal or a hung jury. Would the Obama administration really let him go? If so, they are crazy. If not, why are they holding the trial?

Of course, of course.  If the trial goes rogue - and in a city like New York it's possible have O.J. Simpson II, what will the Obama White House do?  Will they "follow our justice system"?  Or will they find a way to hold this monster.

Hinderaker also points out that The New York Times is already falling in line, referring to Mohammed as a "suspect."  He is not a suspect in any real-world analysis.  He brags about his role in 9-11.  In the real world he's an enemy combatant, and this is war.

A Fox News report notes that there is substantial worry that we will lose a great deal of intelligence information:

Former federal prosecutor Andrew McCarthy, who led the prosecution in the case against Sheik Omar Abdel Rahman for his role in the 1993 World Trade Center bombings, said public trials will provide a "banquet of intelligence information" for the vast Al Qaeda network, especially operatives in Afghanistan.

"It's a massively stupid decision when we're actually at war with them," McCarthy said in an interview with FoxNews.com. "We have to give them all kinds of information about our methods of intelligence that can only make them more efficient at killing us."

And...

...Republican Sen. Jon Kyl of Arizona, said bringing Mohammed to New York was "an unnecessary risk" that would result in the disclosure of confidential information on U.S. intelligence tactics. Kyl maintained the trial of Rahman, the so-called "blind sheik," caused "valuable information about U.S. intelligence sources and methods" to be revealed to the Al Qaeda terrorist network.

And...

Michael Mukasey, Holder's predecessor under the Bush administration, said the decision was not only unwise but based on what he called a refusal to acknowledge that the U.S. it at war -- and that the crimes perpetrated on Sept. 11 constitute war crimes.

Fox points out that some are actually in favor of Obama/Holder's decision on grounds that the attacks of 9-11 were not "military infractions."

Unbelievable. 

November 13, 2009   Permalink

OH DEAR, HE'S AT IT AGAIN - AT 9:37 P.M. ET:  The president simply can't keep himself out of any speech.  He must have a good Hollywood agent, or something.  Consider:

TOKYO -- President Obama said Saturday that he welcomes a robust China on the world scene, but he cautioned that all nations must respect human rights, including religious freedoms.

In a speech to prominent Japanese, Obama called himself "America's first Pacific president" and urged greater cooperation between the United States and Japan and other Asian countries.

"We seek this deeper and broader engagement because we know our collective future depends on it," Obama said.

COMMENT:  Our first Pacific president?  What does that mean?  He lived for a while in Indonesia and Hawaii? 

Hey fella, there are millions of Americans who know the Pacific.  Bush 41 fought there.  Kennedy fought there.  John McCain was imprisoned there.  And Sarah Palin, dammit, was governor of a state that's right out there on the Pacific rim.

So now we've got the first Pacific president, the first African-American president, and, according to some, the first post-American president.  We also may have the first president who has no great feeling for his own country, but let's not talk about that.

November 13, 2009   Permalink

THE OUTRAGE IS BUILDING - AT 7:02 P.M. ET:  In our first item today we reported that the reputed mastermind behind the 9-11 attack, Khalid Shaikh Mohammed, will be tried in New York City, in an ordinary civilian federal court.  He will be tried as a common criminal, not as a man who made war on the United States, resulting in an onslaught that killed more Americans than did the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor.

Through the day, the sense of outrage over this decision started to build, as the realization sank in that the Obama administration, speaking through Attorney General Eric Holder, seems determined to walk us back to the days before 9-11, when terrorism was seen as just a criminal act, another entry on the police blotter.  Don't send the Army.  Send Joe Friday.

Former New York City Mayor Rudolph Giuliani, showing the clarity of thought that made him a great mayor, pointed out what a farce this trial could become.  It could become a show trial, in which the United States could be put on trial by a defense team that, you may be sure, will be heavily influenced by the legal tactics of the hard left.  There could be a hung jury.  There could even be an acquittal.  The very presence of the trial in New York City will make the city, once more, a prime terrorist target.  There could be attempts to call former President Bush as a witness, to humiliate him.  There will be attempts to change the venue, questioning whether a terrorist could get a "fair" trial in New York.  The issue of torture will be brought up, and a judge might throw out all charges on grounds of coercion.

And there are these things, that we add:  Who will the judge be?  Will he (or she) be an experienced federal judge, or someone with "empathy" for the defendants?  Will some groups - like Jews, relatives of policemen, firefighters or military personnel - be excluded from the jury?  Will the defense insist that Muslims be on the jury?  How will classified information be handled?  What kind of intimidation is possible, especially if names of the jurors are made public?

The idea of giving an ordinary civilian trial to a man who's made war on America flies in the face of our history, as readers Rob and Sandy Paton point out in an excellent message to Urgent Agenda:

During his press conference this morning, Attorney General Eric Holder said that  “for over 200 years our nation has relied upon a faithful adherence to the rule of law” in seeking justice. This may be true. However, in the face of historical precedents the Attorney General’s decision to try these terrorists in a civilian court is questionable...
  
 ...In 1942, eight German saboteurs were put ashore by submarine on Long Island and in Florida. All eight agents were captured and tried by a military court. Six were hanged, and the other two, who were imprisoned, had their sentences commuted and were deported to Germany in 1948.
  
In November 1944, two more agents, one of them a disaffected American named William Colepaugh, were put ashore by a German submarine. Even though Colepaugh was an American citizen, the Attorney General referred his case to a military tribunal. President Truman later commuted Colepaugh’s sentence.
  
It seems to us that Holder’s knowledge of American history is as sketchy as that of his boss, the president.

COMMENT:  A great deal of material is pouring in on this issue, and the criticisms of Holder's decision (Or Obama's) are sharp, clear and convincing.  More about this later tonight.

November 13, 2009   Permalink

 DISCOVERY - AT 6:15 P.M. ET:  There is water on the moon.  Now we know:

There is water on the Moon, scientists stated unequivocally on Friday, and considerable amounts of it.

“Indeed yes, we found water,” Anthony Colaprete, the principal investigator for NASA’s Lunar Crater Observation and Sensing Satellite, said in a news conference.

The confirmation of scientists’ suspicions is welcome news both to future explorers who might set up home on the lunar surface and to scientists who hope that the water, in the form of ice accumulated over billions of years, could hold a record of the solar system’s history.

The satellite, known as Lcross (pronounced L-cross), slammed into a crater near the Moon’s south pole a month ago. The impact carved out a hole 60 to 100 feet wide and kicked up at least 24 gallons of water.

COMMENT:  Now, watch:  Nancy Pelosi will tax the water.  Al Gore will claim that if we don't stop global warming, the water will dry up.  Barack Obama will announce an outreach program to convince the water that we are friendly.

And the mainstream media will say that we've done far more to hurt the water than the water has to hurt us.

November 13, 2009   Permalink

GOING THROUGH THE RITUAL AGAIN - AT 10:21 A.M. ET:  In situations like this, you have to feel for the law-abiding Muslims, who are not inolved in terror, but who get sucked into some institution.  We're now going through another one of these rituals, where someone on the inside knows something, but pretends to be a sweet innocent.  From the Houston Chronicle:

The U.S. government on Thursday moved to seize more than $500 million in assets from a New York-based foundation accused of being a front for the Iranian government, including a building that houses the Islamic Education Center of Houston.

The news provoked confusion and anger among Houston's Shia Muslims, many of whom worship at the center's mosque or send their children to an Islamic school that occupies the same large white building at 2313 S. Voss.

Faheem Kazimi, chairman of the board of directors, said IEC leases its building from the Alavi Foundation but no other connection exists.

“The Islamic Education Center is a nonprofit, independent organization, not affiliated with any other organization,” Kazimi said.

He refused to answer any other questions Thursday evening.

The 97-page civil forfeiture lawsuit filed by federal prosecutors in Manhattan alleges that the Alavi Foundation, which files federal taxes as a charitable foundation, is illegally funneling money to the government of Iran.

The U.S. government has accused Iran of financing terrorist organizations and trying to build nuclear weapons.

The foundation released a written statement through an attorney, saying the group was disappointed with the government's legal move.

“The Foundation has been cooperating fully with the Government since the investigation began,” the statement read. “The Foundation intends to litigate the Government's claims and expects to prevail when the litigation is over.”

Citing U.S. policy under several presidents and the International Emergency Economic Power Act, the civil suit alleges that the foundation's property, which includes the Islamic Education Center, is forfeitable as proceeds of violations of laws including money laundering. 

COMMENT:  We proceed carefully here because there may well be innocent people involved.  But, after Fort Hood, Americans will demand an end to political correctness and a mature look into the workings of some Islamic organizations. 

No decent person wants stereotyping of all Muslims.  But there have been too many incidents recently, and too many arrests, for us to become lax or overly tolerant.  Let's get to the facts, stop much of the trendy "sensitivity" that has blinded us, and find the guilty while protecting the innocent.

November 13, 2009    Permalink

AND MORE AGONY FOR THE DEMS - ARE YOU BELIEVING THIS? - AT 9:01 A.M. ET:  Remember that now legendary race in New York's 23rd Congressional District?  You know, it was the race in which the so-called Republican candidate, Dede Scozzafava, pulled out when it was discovered that she was really a liberal, and she then endorsed the Dem candidate, Bill Owens, over the Conservative Party entry, Doug Hoffman.  Owens won.

Or did he?

Reader Joseph J. Gallick reports on the latest twist in this political soap opera: 

Washington -- Conservative Doug Hoffman conceded the race in the 23rd Congressional District last week after receiving two pieces of grim news for his campaign: He was down 5,335 votes with 93 percent of the vote counted on election night, and he had barely won his stronghold in Oswego County.

As it turns out, neither was true.

But Hoffman’s concession -- based on snafus in Oswego County and elsewhere that left his vote undercounted -- set off a chain of events that echoed all the way to Washington, D.C., and helped secure passage of a historic health care reform bill.

Democratic Rep. Bill Owens was quickly sworn into office on Friday, a day before the rare weekend vote in the House of Representatives. His support sealed his party’s narrow victory on the health care legislation.

Now a recanvassing in the 11-county district shows that Owens’ lead has narrowed to 3,026 votes over Hoffman, 66,698 to 63,672, according to the latest unofficial results from the state Board of Elections.

And...

The new vote totals mean the race will be decided by absentee ballots, of which about 10,200 were distributed, said John Conklin, communications director for the state Board of Elections.

What is shocking here is that Owens was sworn in, and helped pass the health "reform" bill, without being officially certified as the winner.  Hey, what's a little totalitarianism, right?

However, Hoffman conceded too early, and did not contest the original result, giving Nancy Pelosi the legal right to swear in Owens.  Big mistake by Hoffman, who's new to electoral politics.

It would still be difficult for Hoffman to overcome the Owens lead with absentee ballots, but it could get razor close, in which case the Hoffman people might challenge the election result on grounds of irregularities.  Stay tuned.

November 13, 2009   Permalink

AND NOW - DEM TROUBLE IN CONNECTICUT - AT 8:47 A.M. ET:  Yesterday, we reported on polls showing Democrats in trouble in the key state of Ohio, a swing state.

But Connecticut isn't a swing state.  It's blue, bright blue, the state where the libs tried to politically execute Joe Lieberman for caring about national defense.  And, as Michael Barone reports, the Dems are in trouble in Connecticut as well:

In Connecticut Democratic Senator Christopher Dodd remains in political trouble. After representing the state for 29 years in the Senate, and having represented the eastern Connecticut 2nd congressional district for six years before that, only 40% of his state’s voters approve of his performance and 54% disapprove. That’s in a state which Barack Obama carried 61%-38%. Dodd’s approval numbers look a lot like those of defeated New Jersey Governor Jon Corzine.

There’s lots of bad news here for Dodd. In a Democratic primary pairing against an utterly unknown opponent he gets only 55% of the vote—a stunningly low number for a longtime incumbent. In general election pairings he loses 49%-38% to former Congressman Rob Simmons and by a 58%-38% margin in the three eastern counties which he has represented in the Senate or House for 35 years. Obama carried those counties by a 59%-39% margin. Interestingly, Dodd is weaker in this downscale, usually Democratic-leaning area than in higher-income Fairfield County, where he runs even against Simmons. Against four other, lesser-known Republican candidates, Dodd does not top 42% of the vote.

Is the health care issue hurting Democrats in key Senate races? Sure looks like it.

COMMENT:  We stress that it's early in the game.  Our next target is the 2010 midterms, and they're a year away.  That's 20 lifetimes in politics.  So nothing is in the bag.  Even where Dems are weakening, they are still very competitive.

I get the feeling that Obama's White House political strategy will have a larger-than-normal impact on how people vote next November.  So far, that strategy, based on results last week, isn't getting any gold medals, or even Nobel Peace Prizes.

Well look, what do you need to get a Nobel Peace Prize?

November 13, 2009   Permalink

WE'RE HAVING COMPANY - AT 8:23 A.M. ET:  Let's do a little special cleaning.  Company is coming, as The New York Times reports:

WASHINGTON — Khalid Shaikh Mohammed, the self-described mastermind of the Sept. 11 attacks, and four other men accused in the plot will be prosecuted in federal court in New York City, a federal law enforcement official said early on Friday.

But the administration will prosecute Abd al-Rahim al-Nashiri — the detainee accused of planning the 2000 bombing of the U.S.S. Cole in Yemen — and several other detainees before a military commission, the official said.

The decisions to give civilian prosecutors detainees accused of the 2001 terrorist attacks and keep the case of the Cole attack within the military system are expected to be announced at the Department of Justice later on Friday by Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr. The official spoke on condition of anonymity because that news conference has not yet taken place.

COMMENTS:  That means the United States Courthouse in Foley Square, site of many famous trials.  For those of you unfamiliar with Manhattan, that's only blocks from Ground Zero, so a fitting place for Khalid Shaikh Mohammed to be tried.

But watch - the ultralibs in Manhattan will try to bring coffee to the defendant every day, or whatever they drink in the caves over there, just to show their multicultural spirit.

November 13,  2009   Permalink

THURSDAY,  NOVEMBER 12,  2009

AT LEAST IT'S A START - AT 7:53 P.M. ET:   Although this has clearly brought some anguish to the Associated Press, whose writer seems to feel the jihadists' pain, the United States has taken some limited financial action against Iran.  From AP:

NEW YORK — Federal prosecutors Thursday took steps to seize four U.S. mosques and a Fifth Avenue skyscraper owned by a nonprofit Muslim organization long suspected of being secretly controlled by the Iranian government.

In what could prove to be one of the biggest counterterrorism seizures in U.S. history, prosecutors filed a civil complaint in federal court seeking the forfeiture of more than $500 million in assets of the Alavi Foundation and an alleged front company.

The assets include Islamic centers in New York City, Maryland, California and Houston, more than 100 acres (40 hectares) of land in Virginia, and a 36-story office tower in New York.

Seizing the properties would be a sharp blow against Iran, which has been accused by the U.S. government of bankrolling terrorism and seeking a nuclear bomb.

No, it's not a sharp blow.  It's a baby step.  This will not stop one centrifuge.

A telephone call and e-mail to Iran's U.N. Mission seeking comment were not immediately answered.

It is extremely rare for U.S. law enforcement authorities to seize a house of worship, a step fraught with questions about the First Amendment right to freedom of religion.

Fraught?  Do you feel fraught?  Are you anguished?  Do you feel the Constitution being shredded? 

Someone please explain to the AP that a house of worship is subject to American laws.  If the laws are broken the "house of worship" is vulnerable. 

The action against the Shiite Muslim mosques is sure to inflame relations between the U.S. government and American Muslims, many of whom are fearful of a backlash after last week's Fort Hood shooting rampage, blamed on a Muslim American soldier.

Sure to inflame?  Are we certain about that, AP?  The story has been out for a while today, and the streets seem surprisingly empty of the inflamed.

And I love the "blamed on a Muslim American soldier," in describing the shootings at Fort Hood, as if the guy was given a bum rap.  You know, the blame game.

Political correctness will take a while to wash away.  Scrubbing needed.

November 12, 2009   Permalink

FINALLY - AT 7:43 P.M. ET:  The president of the United States has taken action.  Well, sort of:

WASHINGTON (AP) -- President Barack Obama has ordered a review of all intelligence related to Fort Hood shooting suspect Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan, and whether the information was properly shared and acted upon within government agencies.

We already know the basic answer, but they've got to go through the motions.

The review will be overseen by John Brennan, assistant to the president for homeland security and counterterrorism. The first results are due to the White House by Nov. 30.

Obama also ordered the preservation of the intelligence. Members of Congress, particularly Michigan Rep. Peter Hoekstra, the top Republican on the House Intelligence Committee, have called for a full examination of what agencies knew about Hasan's contacts with a radical imam and others of concern to the U.S., and what they did with the information.

The FBI confirmed this week that the U.S. government knew about 10 to 20 e-mails between Hasan and a radical imam beginning in December 2008.

COMMENT:  Douglas MacArthur used to say that all military disasters begin with two words:  Too late.

This is a classic example.  The Army knew about this man, knew of his contacts with the enemy, knew of his awful beliefs.  But nothing was done. 

November 12, 2009   Permalink

EVEN LIBERAL CANADA GETS IT RIGHT - AT 7:21 P.M. ET:  Maybe it's because Canada now has a conservative government, but they've gotten a new immigration policy right:

A new guide for aspiring Canadian citizens will warn off "barbaric" cultural practices that physically harm women.

The book, to be officially launched today by Citizenship and Immigration Minister Jason Kenney, contains a special section on "The Equality of Women and Men."

"In Canada, men and women are equal under the law. Canada's openness and generosity do not extend to barbaric cultural practices that tolerate spousal abuse, 'honour killings,' female genital mutilation or other gender-based violence," the document reads.

"Those guilty of these crimes are severely punished under Canada's criminal laws."

The passage was included to promote better integration by newcomers into Canadian society, according to a senior government official.

COMMENT:  Well, at least someone is thinking up there.  Now we have to do that here, and cancel this obscenity about respecting "other cultural narratives."  We don't have to respect anything that, in our moral view, is not respectable.

November 12, 2009   Permalink

 
MORE ON THE SHOOTER - WHAT WE EXPECTED - AT 7:08 P.M. ET:  ABC News is doing a very fine job in probing the background of the Fort Hood shooter.  The more that comes out, the more shocking it is that nothing was done by our "intelligence" agencies or by the Army itself:

United States Army Major Nidal Hasan proclaimed himself a "soldier of Allah" on private business cards he obtained over the Internet and kept in a box at his apartment near Fort Hood, Texas.

Hasan, the alleged perpetrator of last week's fatal shootings in Fort Hood, TX, was charged Thursday with 13 counts of premeditated murder under Article 118 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice, which can carry a sentence up to death or life imprisonment.

The cards make no mention of his military affiliation, but underneath his name he listed himself as SoA (SWT). SoA is commonly used on jihadist Web sites as the acronym for Soldier of Allah, according to investigators and experts who have studied such sites. SWT is commonly used by Muslims as an acronym for Subhanahu Wa Ta'ala, Glory to God.

"He was making no secret of allegiances," said former FBI agent Brad Garrett, an ABC News consultant.

COMMENT:  When this is all over, and justice is done, I'd love some renegade publisher to publish a compilation of all the stories and broadcast transcripts in which "journalists" tried to explain away this guy as someone who was just stressed.

I'm also a bit concerned about the Army trying him.  Decisions by Army leaders will be under investigation, at least by Congressional committees.  There's an inherent conflict of interest, even though a court-martial board is theoretically independent.  The term "command influence" is not unknown in the military. 

We need a lot of oversight here. 

November 12,  2009   Permalink 

 
HIGHER UNEMPLOYMENT AHEAD? - AT 9:29 A.M. ET:  From James Pethokoukis's blog at Reuters:

Gluskin Sheff economist David Rosenberg, formerly of Merrill Lynch, thinks the unemployment rate is going to at least 12 percent, maybe even 13 percent. Optimists, Rosenberg explains, underestimate the incredible damage done to the labor market during this downturn. And even before this downturn, the economy was not generating jobs in huge numbers. If he is right, all political bets are off. I think the Democrats could lose the House and effective control of the Senate. I think you would also be talking about the rise of third party and perhaps a challenger to Obama in 2012.

COMMENT:  Politically, no issue is more volatile in 2010 than unemployment.  If unemployment rises to, say, 12 percent, and underemployment continues to rise, that's a huge chunk of the electorate that's angry and frustrated, and those folks generally blame the party in power.  Add to that the possibility that any health or energy bills that get made into law might actually raise prices or taxes, and the political consequences could get into blowout territory. 

Now, of course, Republicans have developed unique skills over the years for losing elections, so let's not pop the corks just yet.  But if the GOP puts up candidates with pretty strong pulses, this might start looking very good.

Also, you have to be very careful with issues like unemployment.  We are talking about misery, and families that are hurting.  The idea is not to dwell on unemployment, but to solve the problem, and make people's lives better.  As the late Mayor Daley (senior) of Chicago used to say, "Good government is good politics."  Trouble is, he didn't mean it.

November 12, 2009   Permalink

PAIN FOR DEMS IN OHIO - AT 8:59 A.M. ET:  Like Virginia, which went heavily red last week, Ohio is seen as a pivotal swing state.  And the latest poll in Ohio will not bring needed joy to the Democratic Party or the White House.  From NRO:

For the first time, Republican Rob Portman is inching ahead of the two Democrats in the 2010 race for Ohio’s U.S. Senate seat, according to a Quinnipiac University poll released today. Also for the first time, Ohio voters disapprove 50 – 45 percent of the job President Barack Obama is doing, down from his 53 – 42 percent approval September 16 and 49 – 44 percent approval July 7.

In still another first, voters are split 40 – 40 percent on who is doing a better job handling health care, the President or Congressional Republicans, the independent Quinnipiac University survey finds. In a September 16 survey on the same question, Obama was on top 49 – 28 percent.

Ohio voters disapprove 53 – 42 percent of the way the President is handling the economy and disapprove 57 – 36 percent of the way he is handling health care. In September, they approved of his handling of the economy 48 – 46 percent and split on his handling of health care 44 – 45 percent.

COMMENT:  Of course, you know that this is all Bush's fault. 

If Ohio goes the way Virginia went, it's hard to see how the Dems can avoid catastrophic losses in Congress next year.  And Ohio is going in that direction.

Ohio is a political heartbreak state.  After the 1960 election, President-elect Kennedy would show his hand, swollen from thousands of handshakes, to visitors.  "Ohio did that to me," he'd remark.  He'd lost the state.

November 12,  2009   Permalink

WILL OBAMA'S POLITICAL STRATEGY FAIL? - AT 8:34 A.M. ET:   Karl Rove, in The Wall Street Journal, argues that the emerging White House strategy for the 2010 midterm elections may well fail, partly because it is based on a false reading of history:

Over the weekend, White House Senior Adviser David Axelrod tried to calm jittery Democrats who might go wobbly on the president's ambitious agenda by telling NBC's Chuck Todd that next year's congressional elections will be "nationalized." Because they "will be a referendum on this White House," he said, voters will turn out for Mr. Obama. Mr. Todd summed up Mr. Axelrod's plans by saying, "It's almost like a page from the Bush playbook of 2002."

I appreciate the reference. Only two presidents have picked up seats in both houses of Congress for their party in their first midterm elections. One was FDR in 1934. The other was George W. Bush in 2002, whose party gained House seats and won back control of the Senate.

But...

But those midterm elections might not be a favorable comparison for this White House. The congressional elections were nationalized seven years ago largely because national security was an overriding issue...

...Mr. Bush also had a record of bipartisanship that included winning passage of the No Child Left Behind Act with the support of Democrats Sen. Ted Kennedy and Rep. George Miller. And he had a popular agenda of tax cuts, regulatory reform, and sound leadership in the wake of 9/11 that the GOP could run on.

And if the Dems "nationalize" the election, they may be forced to run on unpopular policies and practices:

Instead, the narrative Obama White House officials are writing about themselves is that they are uncompromising, ungracious, and ready to run roughshod over popular opinion. They have mastered the Chicago way of politics: reward friends, punish enemies, and jam the opposition. Voters have a tendency to quickly grow tired of pugnacious governance.

That's only the beginning of Mr. Axelrod's problems. If the 2010 midterms are nationalized, they will be a referendum on Mr. Obama's increasingly unpopular policies. For example, in the newest Gallup survey released on Monday, only 29% say they'd advise their congressman to vote for the health-care bill. This is down from 40% last month. A Rasmussen poll out this week shows that 42% of Americans strongly oppose the bill, while only 25% strongly favor it.

A remarkably different picture than the one we had on inauguration day.

Maybe the Obama inner sanctum realizes that its agenda is unpopular and will cost many Democrats their seats next year but calculates that enough will survive to keep the party in control of Congress. Perhaps they have decided that Mr. Obama's goal of turning America into a European-style social democracy is worth risking a voter revolt.

Many Democrats who will be on the ballot next year may come to a different conclusion. Nationalizing the elections over an unpopular agenda isn't likely to repeat Mr. Bush's feat of picking up congressional seats. It is, however, likely to lead to more Republican congressmen than are there now.

COMMENT:  And there do not appear to be any issues on the horizon that Obama could use effectively against the Republicans.  He has married himself to some unpopular legislation, like the health-reform package that passed the House, and the very unpopular cap 'n' trade "global warming" bill.  In addition, it is hard to see any foreign-policy victories on the horizon.

And Virginia and New Jersey, last week, showed that the Obama coattails are short indeed, which is the case for most presidents.

November 12, 2009   Permalink

McCAIN LEADS GOP IN MAKING FORT HOOD A MAJOR ISSUE - AT 8:05 A.M. ET:  The emerging Republican position is that the administration has a naive approach to terror.  From The Politico:

Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) Wednesday called the Fort Hood killings an “act of terror” and joined a parade of GOP critics in suggesting that “political correctness” might have been a factor in not preventing the shootings.

“We ought to make sure ‘political correctness’ never impedes national security,” McCain said in a speech at the University of Louisville.

McCain’s comments echoed those of a variety of Republican politicians and commentators — as well as Sen. Joe Lieberman (I-Conn) — over the past few days as information about the background of the alleged shooter has surfaced in the media. The criticisms, which initially focused on the failure of the administration and the Army to use the word “terrorism” or “jihadism” in connection with Fort Hood, are now being merged with a larger Republican portrayal of the Obama administration’s approach toward terrorism generally.

COMMENT:  Obviously, the GOP must tread carefully in a situation like this, but it is entirely appropriate for a man respected for his national-defense views to level the charge.  Obama's original reaction to Fort Hood, as we say in last night's Angel's Corner, will be marked as one of the defining moments of his administration.

November 12,  2009   Permalink