We've been flooded with e-mails in the last three or four days.  I try to answer each one, but I've fallen behind. I'll make every effort to reply to every e-mail that requires a reply.       

TUESDAY,  NOVEMBER 24,  2009

WHEN YOU FLASH "WEAK," THIS IS WHAT HAPPENS - AT 11:25 P.M. ET: Britain is presumably this country's closest ally, but President Obama hasn't exactly embraced the Brits since taking office.  Some grudge about Kenya, maybe. 

Now the British defense secretary, in an extraordinary statement, is getting a bit of revenge.  Coming from an ally, this is, as the Brits say, a bit of bother:

Bob Ainsworth, the defence secretary, has blamed Barack Obama and the United States for the decline in British public support for the war in Afghanistan.

Mr Ainsworth took the unprecedented step of publicly criticising the US President and his delays in sending more troops to bolster the mission against the Taliban.

A “period of hiatus” in Washington - and a lack of clear direction - had made it harder for ministers to persuade the British public to go on backing the Afghan mission in the face of a rising death toll, he said.

Senior British Government sources have become increasingly frustrated with Mr Obama’s “dithering” on Afghanistan, the Daily Telegraph disclosed earlier this month, with several former British defence chiefs echoing the concerns.

But Mr Ainsworth is the first Government minister to express in public what amounts to personal criticism of the US president’s leadership over the conflict which has so far cost 235 British lives.

COMMENT:  Well, there you have it - open criticism from Britain.  And the pundits thought George Bush was the only one who could alienate allies and enemies at the same time.

In fact, Bush's relationship with many of our allies was better than Obama's,  and his relationship with enemies was appropriate.  At least he didn't bow down.

November 24, 2009  Permalink

GO, BE GONE WITH YOU - AT 7:14 P.M. ET:  Another fall from grace.  South Carolina Governor Mark Sanford used to be considered a possible GOP candidate for president.  But he cheated spectacularly on his wife, and, if the current charges against him are correct, pretty much abused his office.

COLUMBIA, S.C. — Over the protests of Gov. Mark Sanford’s lawyers, South Carolina lawmakers on Tuesday began the preliminary steps of a process that could lead to the governor’s impeachment and removal from office.

A subcommittee of the House Judiciary Committee, made up of four Republicans and three Democrats, held its first meeting to review a resolution to impeach the governor for secretly leaving the state in June to see a woman in Argentina with whom he was having an extramarital affair.

Members voted unanimously to broaden the review to include 37 ethics charges that accuse the governor of misusing state aircraft for personal or political reasons, repeatedly violating a policy that requires officials to use coach class airplane tickets, and misappropriating campaign funds.

In a separate action, the state ethics commission will hold hearings on the 37 allegations early next year.

Sometimes it's best for a man to resign and contemplate his future. 

But there is hypocrisy here.  When ethics charges are brought against Republicans, they seem to be taken much more seriously than when brought against Democrats.  Charlie Rangel, a tax cheat, among other things, is still a major committee chairman in the House.  There is serious talk of Eliot Spitzer, who was forced to resign the governorship of New York over another sex scandal, returning to politics.

As a general rule, and there are exceptions, I think conservatives take personal ethics more seriously than liberals, who too often regard themselves as a bit above these trivial considerations. 

Sanford, I assume, will soon be gone.  He disappointed us.  Goodbye.

November 24, 2009   Permalink

CLIMATEGATE? - AT 6:58 P.M. ET:  The exposure last week of some e-mails from Britain's East Anglia University scientists shook up the self-assured world of "climate" science.  The e-mails suggested that some of the "science" of global warming was being manipulated.  Shock.

The story has largely faded away.  It does not fit the party line of those journalists who entered their profession to "make a difference," and who are sure that Earth is about to be set on fire by the exhaust fumes from Buicks.

But some in the British press are having a field day with the purloined e-mails.  They see it as Climategate, a major scandal, which it certainly appears to be.  From James Delingpole in London's Telegraph:

If you own any shares in alternative energy companies I should start dumping them NOW. The conspiracy behind the Anthropogenic Global Warming myth (aka AGW; aka ManBearPig) has been suddenly, brutally and quite deliciously exposed after a hacker broke into the computers at the University of East Anglia’s Climate Research Unit (aka CRU) and released 61 megabytes of confidential files onto the internet.

When you read some of those files – including 1079 emails and 72 documents – you realise just why the boffins at CRU might have preferred to keep them confidential. As Andrew Bolt puts it, this scandal could well be “the greatest in modern science."  These alleged emails – supposedly exchanged by some of the most prominent scientists pushing AGW theory – suggest:

Conspiracy, collusion in exaggerating warming data, possibly illegal destruction of embarrassing information, organised resistance to disclosure, manipulation of data, private admissions of flaws in their public claims and much more.

Oh, but what does it matter when one is saving the world?  In fact, the whole solar system. 

An example of one e-mail:

"The fact is that we can’t account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can’t. The CERES data published in the August BAMS 09 supplement on 2008 shows there should be even more warming: but the data are surely wrong. Our observing system is inadequate."

Yeah, I'd say it's inadequate.  Yet, people who doubt "scientists" like this are sometimes compared to Holocaust deniers. 

Read the other e-mails.  They're juicy.

This story must not be allowed to die.

November 24, 2009   Permalink

OBAMA ANNOUNCES HIS ANNOUNCEMENT - AT 5:26 P.M. ET:  The president said today he would "finish the job" in Afghanistan.  Reminded me a little of Churchill's appeal to FDR before America's entry into World War II:  "Give us the tools and we will finish the job."   Not that Obama reminds anyone of Churchill.

The New York Times has the story:

WASHINGTON — President Obama said on Tuesday that he will announce his decision on how many more troops to send to Afghanistan next week, and that it is his intention to “finish the job” that began with the overthrow of the Taliban government in the fall of 2001.

Mr. Obama, offering a tantalizing preview of what looms as one of the momentous decisions of his presidency, said he would tell the American people about “a comprehensive strategy” embracing civilian and diplomatic efforts as well as the continuing military campaign.

Although the president is inexcusably late in making his decision, there may be reason for cautious optimism that he'll get it reasonably correct:

While he avoided any hints of the new troop levels he foresees in Afghanistan, the president signaled that he will not be talking about a short-term commitment but rather an effort muscular enough to “dismantle and degrade” the enemy and ensure that “Al Qaeda and its extremist allies cannot operate” in the region.

COMMENT:  We'll see next Tuesday night.  As always, we wish for the president - any president - to make a decision that advances the national interest.  So far this president has been a major disappointment, when applying that standard.  He can, if he has the will and wisdom, improve the record.

November 24,  2009   Permalink

STUNNING, JUST IN - AT 9:40 A.M. ET:  Rasmussen has just published its daily tracker, showing Barack Obama with the lowest rating yet recorded in Ras's presidential approval index.  The index records the gap between those who strongly approve and those who strongly disapprove of presidential performance:

The Rasmussen Reports daily Presidential Tracking Poll for Tuesday shows that 27% of the nation's voters Strongly Approve of the way that Barack Obama is performing his role as President. Forty-two percent (42%) Strongly Disapprove giving Obama a Presidential Approval Index rating of -15. This is the lowest Approval Index rating yet measured for President Obama.

One analyst said last night that the president has become "radioactive" in a number of swing districts.

Overall, 45% of voters say they at least somewhat approve of the President's performance. That matches the lowest level of total approval yet measured for this president. Eighty-one percent (81%) of Democrats approve as do 33% of unaffiliated voters. Eighty-three percent (83%) of Republicans disapprove.

Among all voters, 54% now disapprove.

We should note that other polls have the president somewhat higher, but not by much.  The overall trend is dramatically down.  What is worse for President Obama is that the passion of those against him far exceeds the passion of those for him. 

V.O. Key, the great political scientist of Yale, famously remarked that the voters aren't idiots.  Sometimes, of course, they can be conned, as they were in 2008.  But, eventually, they find out the truth.  It's pretty clear that an increasing number don't like what they see. 

We are little more than a month away from 2010, which could turn out to be as important a political year as 2008.

November 24, 2009   Permalink

ANOTHER GREAT ECONOMIC IDEA - AT 9:19 A.M. ET:  The creativity of certain Democrats in Congress never ceases to amaze.  From The Politico:

Call it “pay as you fight.”

After months of listening to conservatives caterwaul over deficits and health care, senior House Democrats want a graduated surtax on individuals and corporations to pay for another big drain on the treasury: the Afghanistan war.

That'll certainly help us get out of the recession.

Three full committee chairmen — including the House’s top tax writer, Ways and Means Committee Chairman Charles Rangel (D-N.Y.) — are backing the initiative together with the chair of the party caucus, Rep. John Larson (D-Conn.), and close allies of Speaker Nancy Pelosi.

The speaker has been silent thus far, and many dismiss the idea as more rhetoric than real legislation. But with President Barack Obama due to make a final decision soon on adding more U.S. troops, the initiative testifies to the growing restlessness among Democrats over the costs of the American commitment in Afghanistan.

Amazing how the Dems have suddenly gotten so concerned about paying for things - but only when it concerns national defense.  These are the people who voted themselves a trillion-dollar "stimulus" package that was mostly pork.

“We’re not trying to insult anybody. We’re just trying to keep in the forefront what the financial costs are,” House Appropriations Committee Chairman Dave Obey (D-Wis.) told POLITICO. “We felt conscience bound to speak up”

Oh, please.  I can just see these guys wrestling with their conscience.  Must have taken ten seconds for their conscience to lose.

“It’s conditional, but if we’re going to add 40,000 troops, people ought to know what the costs are,” said House Financial Services Committee Chairman Barney Frank (D-Mass.). “It’s important for people to understand how these wars are adding to our deficits.”

As if that's how you decide whether to go to war.  Frank, a flake, must think that war is a hobby of some kind.

One of the things that some Dems are pushing is the idea that wars make it impossible for us to do anything else because of their cost.  Well, of course there's some truth to that.   But Americans, mature Americans, understand that sometimes we must fight.  Whether we should fight is, of course, the primary decision.  But, once made, we must bear the cost.  It's pretty arrogant, though, for a party that has broken the bank so many times in the last year, and is ready to break it again over health "reform," to suddenly sound oh so sober when it comes to the cost of national defense.

November 24, 2009   Permalink

HE WILL SPEAK TO US, WE AWAIT HIM - AT 8:53 A.M. ET:  Almost four months after getting Gen. McChrystal's recommendation on troop strength in Afghanistan, President Obama is apparently ready to reveal the depths of his thoughts on the matter, as The New York Times reports:

President Obama has conducted a final meeting on his military review for Afghanistan, administration officials said, and he is planning to explain his decision in an address to the nation next Tuesday.

“After completing a rigorous final meeting, President Obama has the information he wants and needs to make his decision and he will announce that decision within days,” Robert Gibbs, the White House press secretary, said Tuesday morning.

Now wait a second, wait a second.  It appears from Gibbs's statement that he hasn't actually made the decision, just that he realizes he needs to make a decision.  But if he hasn't made it, how does he know he can reveal it next Tuesday?

Are you seeing smoke and mirrors?  At least the smoke.

And I love Gibbs's reference to a "rigorous" final meeting.  Is this in contrast to non-rigorous meetings?  Chit-chats?  Increasingly, the language of this administration sounds like high school.

The president’s military and national security advisers came back to the president with answers he had requested during previous meetings, most of which focusing on these questions: Where are the off-ramps for the military? And what is the exit strategy?

How about:  What is our objective and how can we achieve it?

And how can the American people be made more safe?

And the beat goes on:

Mr. Obama did not announce his specific decision to his advisers. He is scheduled to stay at the White House over the Thanksgiving holiday to finish making his decision, as the White House plans to prepare for what could be Mr. Obama’s first prime-time address to the nation from the Oval Office.

"Finish" making his decision?  So finishing making the decision is a scheduled event?  Do you get the feeling of amateurism here?  When have you ever said, "Well, I'll start making the decision on Wednesday, finish making it on Thursday, after dinner"?

Oh, wait.  A possible change:

But the venue of the announcement has not been finalized. While an Oval Office address fits the gravity of the moment, one official said Tuesday that a full-length speech – rather than a short message, delivered as the president sits behind a desk – is a more likely way for Mr. Obama to explain one of the most important decisions yet in his presidency.

No, this isn't an academic lecture or a classroom discussion.  The president sitting behind the desk in our Oval Office is just right.

As the White House prepares for how the president will explain his decision to the nation, the president is trying to allay deep concerns inside his own party.

Translated into English:  He's got to satisfy the wing of his party that likes to visit Fidel Castro and get flu shots in Cuba.

Oh wait, another possible change:

The White House is preparing for the president’s announcement to take place next Tuesday evening, aides said, which would likely be followed by hearings in the House and Senate. But the date could be changed, one official said, depending on briefings with Congress and allied leaders.

And this depressing thought:

While the president is expected by several of his advisers to announce sending more than 20,000 new troops – perhaps closer to the 40,000, as recommended by Gen. Stanley A. McChrystal – the White House is working to make the announcement more than simply a number of troops. It will include an outline of an exit strategy, officials said.

Hey, a little something for everyone.  Send the troops, and prepare to get them out.

This passes for strategy. 

It's pathetic.

How would you like to have a son or daughter serving in Afghanistan under this president?

November 24, 2009   Permalink

HEALTH BILL TANKS WITH THE PUBLIC - AT 8:16 A.M. ET:  Just as the Senate takes up the health "reform" bill, guaranteed to cure us all and let us live forever (but only if we vote right), it appears that the public isn't buying.  Scott Rasmussen's survey reveals some pretty persuasive numbers:

Just 38% of voters now favor the health care plan proposed by President Obama and congressional Democrats. That’s the lowest level of support measured for the plan in nearly two dozen tracking polls conducted since June.

The latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that 56% now oppose the plan.

This poll should be circulated to every member of the Senate, with large-print copies given to those
"moderate" Democrats who are moderate until the liberal leadership either 1) turns up the heat or 2) opens its checkbook.

Public opinion is building, yet Congress is defying it.  This isn't entirely shocking.  One of the building blocks of liberalism is the belief that "we know best."  The public, in this view, is made up of rough-hewn inferiors who fly American flags from radio antennas.  What could they know about health care?

Prior to this, support for the plan had never fallen below 41%. Last week, support for the plan was at 47%. Two weeks ago, the effort was supported by 45% of voters.

Intensity remains stronger among those who oppose the push to change the nation’s health care system: 21% Strongly Favor the plan while 43% are Strongly Opposed.

The changing numbers indicate how engaged the public is.  Once again, the people are smarter than the politicians, and watching what they do.

They don't like what they see.  I hope they remember next November.

November 24,  2009   Permalink

MONDAY,  NOVEMBER 23,  2009

OBAMA AND THE WORLD - AT 6:47 P.M. ET:  Victor Davis Hanson, noting that even some liberals are griping over the non-results of Obama's Asian travels, wonders why.  Obama, Hanson argues, is merely pursuing the foreign policy he promised us, the change we can believe in:

From the trivial expressions like bowing to the more fundamental one of deferring to the Chinese Communist leadership, Obama is merely establishing the outlines of the promised new foreign policy.

France will be as prominent as we are in the Mideast negotiations; Russia will adjudicate regional disputes with former Soviet republics and interests in eastern Europe; progressive nations like Venezuela, Nicaragua, Cuba, Ecuador, Peru, and others will establish a Latin American consensus that favors a statist, anti-capitalist, and less democratic paradigm of indigenous governance. China, naturally, will insidiously begin to shape the regional futures of the Koreas, Taiwan, Japan, and the Philippines. Turkey can sort out its problems with Greece. The UN Human Rights Council will be the proper forum in which to express unhappiness with human-rights transgressions abroad.

This new consensus is what Obama promised, and it is what Obama is doing his best to deliver.

And it goes further:

Exceptional American support for human rights, preeminent worry about a nuclear Iran, democracy abroad, tilts to old friends like Britain and Israel, security guarantees to democratic allies, American enforcement of global commercial and trade protocols — all that was included under the old American notion of exceptionalism and, logically, should expire with it. The Asian tour should have delighted Obamaites as the proper expression of Obama's philosophy: two equal nations, neither one more exceptional than the other (or any other), their systems merely "different," not better or worse, simply chatting about mutual concerns.

COMMENT:  There are plenty of certified members of America's elite - especially on college campuses - who have no problem with any of this.  It's what they've been teaching their students for years.

Fortunately, there are some signs, especially in opinion polls, that many Americans are starting to worry about this trend.  Unfortunately, there are other Americans who will just go along, especially if Obama can deliver enough government money to their mailboxes. 

The changes Obama is making in our foreign policy are the most profound since the United States emerged from isolationism.  That change was necessary, and allowed us to protect this nation effectively.  Obama's changes are not necessary, not wise, and endanger the country the president is sworn to protect.

November 23, 2009   Permalink

THERE IS NO SHAME LEFT - AT 6:10 P.M. ET:  There is no shame left in the Democratic Party.  Legal Insurrection, which is on our blogroll of recommended sites, shows how the game is played.  Senator Mary Landrieu of Louisiana, shows how it's definitely played, Louisiana style:

Yesterday, Mary Landrieu closed the deal for a payoff to Louisiana in exchange for her vote to let Harry Reid's health care restructuring bill go to Senate floor debate. The deal had been negotiated over weeks, with initial reports putting the price tag at $100 million, only to have Landrieu brag that the real price was $300 million.

Now, it turns out that Landrieu has agreed to hold a fundraiser for Reid in New Orleans:

Sen. Mary Landrieu, D-La., will host a fundraiser for Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., in New Orleans next month, an event that comes on the heels of Reid's assistance getting Louisiana a windfall of Medicaid money in the health care reform bill.

The event was planned "several weeks ago," according to Landrieu's office. She and political consultant James Carville will host a brunch on Dec. 12 at the St. Charles Avenue home of David Voelker, an investor who chairs the Louisiana Recovery Authority and was a supporter of Barack Obama's presidential campaign.

I am sure the two are not connected. Just like Landrieu's vote had nothing to do with the payoff.

COMMENT:  It is on things like this that your future health care may depend.  Welcome to change we're supposed to believe in.

November 23, 2009   Permalink

POLLING IMPLICATIONS - AT 5:47 P.M. ET:  Even The New York Time is starting to acknowledge that President Obama has become poll-deficient, a political malady for which there is no definitive cure.  In a fair-minded piece, Adam Nagourney considers the implications of the president's declining numbers:

History suggests that Mr. Obama’s approval rating could be one of the key factors in determining how his fellow Democrats fare in the mid-term election. It is an urgent concern for the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, which has distributed a slide-show presentation to supporters that charts the correlation between a president’s rating and his party’s performance in mid-term congressional elections. For the past 50 years, almost without exception, the party has lost seats whenever its president’s average approval rating in September and October before the election dropped below 50 percent.

Republicans, at least as of today, are envisioning trying to tie Mr. Obama to Democrats in marginal districts who would prefer not to be too closely associated with him and his policies, the way Democrats used Mr. Bush against Republican candidates — a development that would have seemed farfetched six months ago.

Nagourney points out that the president's numbers are, ironically, more a problem for his party than for him.  The Democratic Party faces a critical mid-term election next year.  Mr. Obama has three years to repair his damaged standing.  Both Presidents Reagan and Clinton saw low presidential poll numbers drag down their parties early in their terms.  But both men cruised to easy victories when they ran for reelection.

So, Republican optimism for next year is reasonable.  To assume that the tide will continue to run favorable through 2012, based on today's numbers, is a stretch.

However, if the GOP can actually field a strong candidate in 2012 - unlike Walter Mondale, who lost to Reagan in 1984, or Bob Dole, who lost to Clinton in 1996 - we could be smiling for quite a time.

November 23, 2009   Permalink

OBAMA IN THE POLL DOLDRUMS - AT 4:07 P.M. ET:  The president just returned from a major trip to Asia, on which he accomplished nothing.  Maybe there was a nice Chinese dinner, but that was about it.  The polls continue to reflect the president's lack of accomplishment, and the fact that this miracle worker cannot perform miracles.  Rasmussen reports:

The Rasmussen Reports daily Presidential Tracking Poll for Monday shows that 28% of the nation's voters Strongly Approve of the way that Barack Obama is performing his role as President. Forty-one percent (41%) Strongly Disapprove giving Obama a Presidential Approval Index rating of -13 (see trends).

For the first time in the Obama Administration, the Approval Index has been in negative double digits for nine straight days. Among men, the President’s Approval Index rating is -20. Among women, it is -7.

And...

Overall, 46% of voters say they at least somewhat approve of the President's performance. Fifty-three percent (53%) now disapprove.

That's a seven point spread, nothing to sneeze at.  I haven't seen too many sneezes coming from the White House.  Some nervous coughing, but no sneezes.

The president is in trouble.  Does he know?  Does he believe his speechifyin' can get him out of this?

November 23, 2009   Permalink

OH, THE POMPOSITY - AT 9:30 A.M. ET:  The New York Times is going pompous on the discovery of those e-mails between "environmental" scientists in Britain, suggesting collusion to suppress the truth.  Michael Goldfarb in the Weekly Standard notes the Times's position, and its stellar hypocrisy:

With the release of hundreds of emails by scientists advocates of global warming showing obvious and entirely inappropriate collusion by the authors -- including attempts to suppress dissent, to punish journals that publish peer-reviewed studies casting doubt on global warming, and to manipulate data to bolster their own arguments -- even the New York Times is forced to concede that "the documents will undoubtedly raise questions about the quality of research on some specific questions and the actions of some scientists." But apparently the paper's environmental blog, Dot Earth, is taking a pass on publishing any of the documents and emails that are now circulating. Andrew Revkin, the author of that blog, writes:

The documents appear to have been acquired illegally and contain all manner of private information and statements that were never intended for the public eye, so they won’t be posted

This is the position of the New York Times when given the chance to publish sensitive information that might hinder the liberal agenda. Of course, when the choice is between publishing classified information that might endanger the lives of U.S. troops in the field or intelligence programs vital to national security, that information is published without hesitation by the nation's paper of record. But in this case -- the documents were "never intended for the public eye," so the New York Times will take a pass. I guess that policy wasn't in place when Neil Sheehan was working at the paper.

As a journalist, there is no greater glory than publishing materials that were not meant to be published. If I could, I would only publish emails and documents that were never meant to see the light of day -- though, unlike the New York Times, I draw the line at jeopardizing the lives of American troops rather than jeopardizing the contrived "consensus" on global warming.

COMMENT:  There is nothing more self-righteous than a journalist on the defensive.  The Times is rising to the occasion.  The greatest wish of the media establishment, of course, is that this story would go away.  It won't.  It's the tip of the global-warming iceberg, even a melting iceberg.  The "science" behind global warming is open to too much question to allow it to go unchallenged.  A mistake could cost trillions, and set the economies of the world back decades.

November 23,  2009   Permalink

QUOTE OF THE DAY - AT 9:15 A.M. ET:  From former New York Times columnist and government official Les Gelb:

President Obama’s nine-day trip to Asia is worth a look back to fix two potent problems, past and future. First, the trip’s limited value per day of presidential effort suggests a disturbing amateurishness in managing America’s power. On top of the inexcusably clumsy review of Afghan policy and the fumbling of Mideast negotiations, the message for Mr. Obama should be clear: He should stare hard at the skills of his foreign-policy team and, more so, at his own dominant role in decision-making. Something is awry somewhere, and he’s got to fix it.

Well, at least someone outside conservative ranks said it.  Our foreign policy is a mess, and the people running it seem to have gotten most of their experience in student government.

Secondly, the Asia trip presented an important opportunity to carve out a new American leadership role in the world’s most dynamic economic region, and Mr. Obama missed it. He only scratched the surface in his calls for multilateralism and mutual understanding. He needs to paint pictures of how Washington will help solve regional security and trade problems. Otherwise, most Asian nations will continue their unwanted drift toward China and away from the United States.

Gelb makes the entirely valid point that presidents should not travel abroad unless agreements are nailed down in advance:

Obama’s travels were a chance to settle or make concrete progress on thorny issues like greenhouse-gas emissions, and the fate of U.S. bases on Okinawa, which the new Japanese government insists on moving. It was time to announce ways to gain fixes of the U.S.-South Korean trade treaty, long stalled in Congress. It was a moment to show that Beijing would actually make some mutually beneficial compromises on exchange rates or economic sanctions against Iranian and North Korean nuclear programs. Absent guarantees of progress on issues such as these, Mr. Obama should have taken a well-deserved vacation in Hawaii.

And...

The White House might try to blame the State Department (such an easy and delicious target) for the missteps. But State’s role in the conceptual planning of the trip was not central, and the department’s senior Asia hand, Kurt Campbell, surely knew better. It’s also hard to tar the National Security Council’s own senior Asia expert, Jeff Bader, another pro like Campbell. Perhaps even higher officials at the NSC dropped the ball. Perhaps Mr. Obama might take responsibility himself, as President Kennedy did after the Bay of Pigs fiasco in 1961. Now, that would truly clear the air—and open the door to some obvious and necessary changes in the administration’s decision-making machinery.

COMMENT:  Well said.  We have amateurs in charge, and trendy amateurs at that.  And we are still, presumably, at war in Iraq and Afghanistan, with struggles looming over Pakistan. 

It proves that having a president who went to the "right" schools is not enough, not nearly enough.  This administration has much to learn, but apparently doesn't realize it.  When you've been told all your life how bright you are, and you think your College Board scores are the most important numbers in your life, this is the result.

November 23, 2009    Permalink

STRANGE CONFLICTS IN HOLDER'S JUSTICE DEPARTMENT - AT 8:43 A.M. ET:  With his decision, undoubtedly approved by the White House, to try the mastermind of 9-11 in New York, more and more attention is being focused on Attorney General Eric Holder and his newly appointed staff at the Justice Department.  Some of this isn't pretty, as the Washington Times reports:

The Obama Justice Department is having problems prosecuting terrorist cases because top department attorneys have conflicts of interest.

According to documents obtained exclusively by The Washington Times, Associate Attorney General Thomas J. Perrelli, No. 3 official in the Justice Department, had to recuse himself on at least 13 active detainee cases and at least 26 cases listed as either closed or mooted...

...Mr. Perrelli's recusals presumably stem from the work that either he or his former firm, Jenner & Block LLP, did on behalf of detainees while Mr. Perrelli served on the firm's management committee and on its appellate and Supreme Court practice groups. And Mr. Perrelli is just one official; a number of other Justice Department officials apparently did private-sector work on detainee cases.

People are entitled to a legal defense, but this makes you wonder what kind of individuals Eric Holder is appointing.  A lawyer is not required to pursue terrorist cases.  The Washington Times makes a great point:

This is an important topic. Even if each official who did prior work on detainee cases has indeed properly recused himself from those cases while at the Justice Department, there could be such a large number of affected officials that the department's prevailing ethos could be tilted strongly in the detainees' favor.

Personnel selection in any government department is critical to policy, especially at the middle level, where policy is often carried out.

None of this is to say that Mr. Perrelli did anything wrong. His recusals are proper, but the extent of the recusals raises questions about whether the attorney general has enough unbiased advisers around him to have made good judgments about how to try Khalid Shaikh Mohammed and other detainees. He certainly did seem terribly ill-informed when asked basic questions at the Senate Judiciary Committee hearing on Wednesday about how Miranda rights for detainees would be treated in civil courts and if any enemy combatant from a foreign battlefield had ever been tried in American civil courts. Columnist Charles Krauthammer justly called Mr. Holder's responses "utterly incoherent." If the incoherence stems from an inherent bias among President Obama's appointees at the Justice Department, senators and the American public have the right to know it.

COMMENT:  Our great fear is that there is some real sympathy for the detainees, indeed for radical Islam, in some precincts of the Justice Department.  This is a leftist administration, the most leftist in the nation's history.  The overall philosophy is affecting Justice, the most sensitive department in the government.  We have reason to be worried, very worried.

November 23, 2009   Permalink

SARAH SURGING - AT 8:09 A.M. ET:  Laugh now, Obamans.  Andrew Malcolm, in the L.A. Times's Top of the Ticket blog, reports that the polling gap between President Obama and the ever-ridiculed Sarah Palin has narrowed dramatically.

Not that it matters politically because obviously she's a female Republican dunce and he's a male Democrat genius.

But Sarah Palin's poll numbers are strengthening.

And Barack Obama's are sliding.

Guess what? They're about to meet in the 40's.

Depending, of course, on which recent set of numbers you peruse and how the questions are phrased, 307 days into his allotted 1,461 the 44th president's approval rating among Americans has slid to 49% or 48%, showing no popularity bounce from his many happy trips, foreign and domestic.

Yeah, the emperor has no political new clothes.

Riding the wave of immense publicity and symbiotic media interest over her new book, "Going Rogue," and the accompanying promotional tour, Palin's favorable ratings are now at 43%, according to ABC. That's up from 40% in July.

One poll even gives her a 47% favorable.

It remains a struggle.  Sarah's unfavorables still top 50%, but they are declining.  She's a polarizing figure, but, if the polling is accurate, an increasingly popular one.  She brings out passions, positive and negative.

November 23,  2009   Permalink