THURSDAY,  OCTOBER 1,  2009

REMARKABLE DIFFERENCE - AT 9:35 P.M. ET:  If you don't think the wording in polls affects outcome, consider this:  Have you noticed all the attention paid to a recent poll reporting that Americans have lost enthusiasm for our military effort in Afghanistan?  Liberals are using it to reinforce their demand that we withdraw, a demand they seem always to make, no matter what war and what circumstances.

However, please note:

A sizable majority of Americans support the U.S. military action in Afghanistan, and an even larger number think the action there is important to preventing terrorist attacks against the United States, according to a FOX News poll released Thursday.

Six in 10 Americans think the U.S. military action in Afghanistan is "extremely" (25 percent) or "very" (35 percent) important to stopping terrorist attacks against the U.S., and another 27 percent think it is "somewhat" important.

Few Americans -- 9 percent -- think the military action in Afghanistan is not at all important to fighting terrorism at home.

Overall, 64 percent of Americans support the U.S. military action in Afghanistan and 27 percent oppose it. There is a huge partisan gap, as 80 percent of Republicans support the action compared to 49 percent of Democrats. Among independents, 66 percent support it.

What accounts for this dramatically different result?

Previously, when the question was about support for the "U.S. war in Afghanistan," as opposed to the "U.S. military action" the results were notably different: 46 percent were in support and 45 percent opposed (15-16 September 2009).

Ah, what a difference a few words makes.  I wonder if liberals will use this latest result, or pretend it doesn't exist.  What do you think?

October 1, 2009   Permalink

GOP GAINS - AT 7:39 P.M. ET:  Dan Balz of the Washington Post, one of the best political reporters around, analyzes recent poll data pointing to a trend toward Republicans, but there are serious caveats:

Are Republicans at a low ebb or making a comeback?

The question is prompted by the new release from the Gallup organization, which showed that the gap in party identification is now the smallest it has been since 2005. Democrats are still in the lead, but not by the double-digit margins they often enjoyed the past two years.

The report was the second in a month from Gallup to suggest that, eight months into the Obama administration, Democrats are losing favor with at least a portion of the electorate. Republicans are cheering the findings as a sign of a potentially important change in the political landscape. Democratic strategists offer cautionary notes about what is actually happening.

The key change, Balz points out, is not among Democrats and Republicans, but among independents, whom each party needs to be victorious:

As Gallup put it, "There has been no apparent increase in the percentage of Americans who identify as Republicans on the initial party-preference question."

What's behind the narrowing of the gap? The whole shift has come among people who do not initially identify with one of the two major parties. Some are stubbornly independent, but many of these people lean toward one party or another. Over the past few years, more of these leaners have tilted toward the Democrats than toward the Republicans. Not today.

And...

In the first three months of this year, Gallup found that 17 percent of all adults were independents who leaned toward the Democrats, and 11 percent independents who leaned toward the Republicans. Since then, however, Democrats have lost ground with independents and Republicans have gained ground. Gallup's third quarter data showed that 15 percent of adults were Republican-leaning independents, and 13 percent Democratic-leaning independents.

The frustration is that Republicans cannot and do not increase their own numbers.  The party is simply not attractive to most Americans.  It must get rid of its "Dr. No" image, propose imaginative solutions to real problems, and show at least a decent respect for the fact that not everyone in America is a white male.  Those images of Republican leaders at press conferences are devastating.  They may be fine fellows, but they all look alike. 

The party must also develop and promote major figures outside the congressional leadership.  The 2012 presidential campaign will start in 201l, and that's only two years away.  Indeed, Governor Tim Pawlenty of Minnesota announced his PAC just today.  And Sarah's book comes out next month.

Balz concludes:

The Republicans are still in trouble and more evidence is needed to draw real conclusions about the balance of power between the two parties. But if Obama's policies are causing independents, who were critical to Democratic successes in 2006 and 2008, to look more favorably toward the Republican Party, that should be cause for concern at Democratic Party headquarters. 

Republicans, take note.

October 1, 2009   Permalink

WHAT WE ARE UP AGAINST - AT 7:08 P.M. ET:  Apparently, Iran goes to elaborate lengths to conceal its acquisition of parts for its "peaceful" nuclear program.  Well, of course.  The powering of hair dryers and charging of Blackberries requires secrecy, stealth, and a dose of security.

Canada's National Post, which we should really quote more here, tells the story:

Iran has been running a sophisticated procurement operation in Canada to acquire materials for its nuclear and weapons programs, according to a senior Canadian official.

Canadian customs officers have seized everything from centrifuge parts to programmable logic controllers that were being illicitly shipped to Iran through third countries, George Webb said.

"We have anything to do with a nuclear program going to Iran," Mr. Webb, head of the Canada Border Services Agency's Counter Proliferation Section, told the National Post in an exclusive interview.

The latest seizure in Canada occurred just last week, as Iran was in the spotlight for building a secret uranium enrichment facility that some experts say could be used for the production of nuclear weapons.

Customs officers found a shipment of microchips that Department of National Defence analysts have identified as possible navigational chips.

COMMENT:  Navigational chips, as in missile navigational chips.  Of course, we all know that missiles are needed for peaceful nuclear programs.  I mean, you want to deliver the parts quickly, don't you?

This shows the extent of Iran's international acquisition efforts.  Clearly, jokes aside, this is a weapons program.  Peaceful programs don't require any of this stealthiness.

The National Post story is superbly reported.  Try to read it all.

October 1, 2009   Permalink

IRAN TALKS, FIRST DAY - AT 6:39 P.M. ET:  Western nations completed their first day of talks with Iran in Geneva.  The United States was not only present, but American negotiator William J. Burns had a private meeting with the Iranian representative. 

The results?  There is some spin going on suggesting that the first day was "encouraging," although, reading between the lines, the encouragement was more rhetorical than substantive.  President Obama, made a very solid statement after the talks concluded, expressing cautious optimism, but insisting that Iran produce results, and quickly.  We give credit where it's due here, and the president's statement was far superior to the lackluster remarks he made last week revealing the "secret" Iranian nuclear site.  The White House might have been chastised by a new poll showing that the American people want Mr. Obama to be tougher on Iran. 

You might be interested in how three separate news organizations, two liberal, one "fair and balanced," handled the story of today's talks.  From The New York Times:

GENEVA — Iran and the big powers opposed to its nuclear program appeared to make progress Thursday in talks that included the highest-level direct discussions with the United States in many years, with both sides agreeing to hold further negotiations and the Iranians pledging to allow foreign inspectors into a newly disclosed uranium enrichment factory.

The talks, held in Geneva, defused some of the tensions that have escalated rapidly in recent weeks over Iran’s nuclear intentions and represented a victory of sorts for the Iranian government of President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, whose own legitimacy has not been universally recognized since his disputed re-election in June.

President Obama on Thursday afternoon called the landmark talks a “constructive beginning,” but warned Iran that he was prepared to move quickly to sanctions if negotiations over Iran’s nuclear ambitions dragged on.

From The Washington Post:

GENEVA, Oct. 1 -- A senior U.S. diplomat held a rare bilateral meeting Thursday with his Iranian counterpart, and Iran agreed to attend further talks with six major powers on its nuclear program and allow U.N. inspectors to visit a newly disclosed uranium enrichment facility, officials said.

President Obama hailed the breakthrough, saying that the talks in Geneva had been "constructive," and he credited the international community with remaining unified. But Obama warned that the burden now lies with Iran to prove that its intents are peaceful and he demanded "concrete steps" from the regime.

From Fox News.com:

President Obama called Thursday's talks among Iran and six world powers "constructive" but said Tehran must follow up with "constructive action."

"The Iranian government heard a clear and unified message from the international community in Geneva," Obama said at the White House after talks ended earlier in the day in Switzerland. "Iran must demonstrate through concrete steps that it will live up to its responsibilities with respect to its nuclear program."

Obama said Iran must grant international inspectors "unfettered" access to its newly disclosed nuclear facility within two weeks.

COMMENT:  It's interesting that only Fox led with the president's demand, but all three sources had it up high.  Good journalism all around, I think. 

October 1, 2009   Permalink

AFGHAN SCORECARD - AT 10:26 A.M. ET:  Associated Press reports what it claims are the views of top administration officials on Afghanistan. The president has a divided government, flashing a message of uncertainty to ally and enemy alike:

President Barack Obama is confronting a split among his closest advisers on Afghanistan, reflecting divisions in his own party over whether to send in thousands more U.S. troops and complicating his efforts to adopt a war policy he can sell to a public grown weary of the 8-year-old conflict.

The scorecard:

Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton and special Afghan and Pakistan envoy Richard Holbrooke appeared to be leaning toward supporting a troop increase, the official said.

White House chief of staff Rahm Emanuel and Gen. James Jones, Obama's national security adviser, appeared to be less supportive, the official said. Vice President Joe Biden, who attended the meeting, has been reluctant to support a troop increase, favoring a strategy that directly targets al-Qaida fighters who are believed to be hiding in Pakistan.

And...

Adm. Mike Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and Gen. David Petraeus, the top commander for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, both support McChrystal's strategy, Pentagon press secretary Geoff Morrell said. Defense Secretary Robert Gates is on the fence, the spokesman said.

The secretary of defense is on the fence?  Not encouraging, is it?

COMMENT:  With this kind of division, the pressure on the president increases.  But this is what presidents are for.  Yes, of course, the Constitution does provide for the president to fly to Copenhagen to try to get the Olympics for Chicago.  But it also provides for the president to be commander-in-chief.  This president hasn't looked too comfortable in that latter role, and the decisions facing him should have been made weeks ago.

How he handles Afghanistan and Iran in the months ahead may well define the foreign-policy legacy of this administration.  His approach to both has so far been to delay, and ask for time outs.  That's not the way the Super Bowl is won, and this is the real Super Bowl.

October 1, 2009   Permalink

GE TO SELL NBC UNIVERSAL? - AT 9:05 A.M. ET:  Howard Kurtz is reporting in the Washington Post:

NBC Universal executives declined to deny a report Wednesday night that Comcast, the cable giant, is in talks to buy the television and movie company from General Electric.

Comcast also did not deny the report that bankers for the two sides discussed a possible deal Tuesday in New York.

Such talks often lead nowhere, but rumors have circulated for months that GE might be looking to unload the news and entertainment company. NBC is stuck in fourth place among broadcast networks, and Universal Studios is enduring a rough movie season.

"We have no comment," NBC Executive Vice President Allison Gollust said.

They have no programs either.  This story is important because NBC News is involved.  The news division, under GE's ownership, has deteriorated into a branch of the Obama administration.  GE, as a defense contractor, and now a contractor in energy technology, has an inherent conflict of interest in owning a news operation.  If NBC tilted right, you can be sure that the mainstream media would be all over that conflict.  But the only one who seems to focus on it is Bill O'Reilly at Fox News.

NBC needs new ownership.  The news division needs renewed respectability.  MSNBC needs to be abolished, even if it means missing the wit and wisdom of Chris Matthews, or Mr. Depth, as he's never called.

Could be the media story of the year.  We'll watch it.

October 1, 2009   Permalink 

SARKOZY THE IRON MAN - AT 8:46 A.M. ET:  How often can we call a French leader an "iron man"?  But watching French President Nicolas Sarkozy confront Iran gives us confidence in awarding the title.  Sarkozy has become, spiritually at least, the leader of the West on the Iran question, as the Washington Post points out:

PARIS, Sept. 30 -- Under President Nicolas Sarkozy, France has adopted an increasingly hard-edged approach to Iran, often out ahead of the Obama administration with uncompromising language criticizing Iranian leaders and warning that their nuclear program threatens world peace.

Applause, please.

...French analysts said Sarkozy feels that Europe got nowhere with Iran in several years of what was called "constructive dialogue" and that it is time to move on to stronger measures in tandem with Washington.

"In tandem with?"  Let's hope Washington is on board, and that Mr. Softee, cozy in the White House, understands the stakes.

As a result, French diplomats at a crucial meeting Thursday in Geneva are likely to push for swift, punitive sanctions unless Iran pledges unequivocally to open its entire nuclear program to international inspection to ensure Tehran is not developing atomic weapons. Jean-Pierre Maulny, a specialist in European defense at the Paris-based Institute for International and Strategic Relations, said Germany and Britain are likely to agree because they also feel the constructive dialogue bore no fruit and, to some extent, have been aligned with Paris.

COMMENT:  Late reports say the talks are underway at this hour.  There are two key issues:  What will Iran offer, if anything?  How will the Obama administration react?

Obama has already pulled the rug out from under our East European allies on missile defense.  We wonder what he has in store for Britain, France, and Germany.  He's already insulted Britain several times, Germany went right in Sunday's election, which cannot please The One, and on his recent, D-Day visit to France, he seemed decidedly indifferent to the country. 

Stay tuned.  Presumably, Iran has until December to shape up in the nuclear talks.  But Obama throws deadlines under the bus as quickly as he does his friends.

October 1, 2009   Permalink

GOP CANDIDATE MOVES UP IN VIRGINIA GOV RACE - AT 8:05 P.M. ET:  You'd almost never know it, but America votes next month.  There are two critical governorships up for decision, New Jersey and Virginia, both currently held by Democrats.  In Virginia, the Republican candidate, Bob McDonnell, saw his hefty lead reduced after the Washington Post revealed a thesis McDonnell had written 20 years ago, with some decidedly un-P.C. ideas.

But McDonnell seems to have bounced back, with about a month to go before the election.  From the Politico:

Bob McDonnell, Virginia’s Republican nominee for governor, has increased his lead over Democrat Creigh Deeds to nine percentage points, according to a new Rasmussen Reports poll out Wednesday.

McDonnell leads Deeds 51-42 percent according to the Tuesday poll of 500 likely voters. The new survey shows a significant jump for McDonnell, who led Deeds by only 2 percentage points in the same poll two weeks ago.

Rasmussen is the first major poll in recent weeks to show McDonnell expanding his lead over Deeds.

A Washington Post poll last week showed McDonnell leading by only four percent, as did a InsiderAdvantage/Majority Opinion Research poll last Wednesday. McDonnell led by as much as fifteen percentage points earlier this year in the Post poll.

COMMENT:  The GOP candidate is also leading in New Jersey, but take nothing for granted.  New Jersey is a heavily Democratic state.  Virginia is "purple," and has been trending Dem in recent years.  If Republicans can pick up both governorships, we should permit ourselves a slight, Mona Lisa smile.

October 1, 2009   Permalink

QUOTE OF THE DAY - AT 7:40 A.M. ET:  From Karl Rove, writing in The Wall Street Journal:

The responsibility for the outcome of the war in Afghanistan rests squarely with Mr. Obama. Until now, he seems to have treated the conflict as a distraction from his efforts to nationalize our health-care system. But the war is now front and center. He has been told by Gen. McChrystal that America needs more boots on the ground to win...

...It was easy in 2008 to criticize Mr. Bush's war leadership. But winning a shooting war requires a commander in chief's constant, direct and deep involvement. Mr. Obama could show he understands this if he uses his trip to Denmark this week (where he will serve as pitchman for Chicago to get the 2016 Olympics) to make a surprise visit to Afghanistan.

Refusing to provide all the troops and strategic support that his commanders are requesting will be to concede defeat. We'll soon know whether Mr. Obama has the judgment and the courage to win this war.

COMMENT:   "Judgment and courage."  I haven't seen those words applied to Barack Obama.  They seem so much less exciting than "godlike" or "spiritual."  But judgment and courage are what war requires. 

More than 40 Americans have been killed in Afghanistan since General McChrystal first submitted his request for more troops.  The president is taking his sweet time to reply.  If this had been George Bush, the press would have been all over him, printing the names of the fallen each day.  But it is Obama, so this indecisive president is being spun as wise, deliberative, willing to listen.

Step up, Mr. President.  History won't wait, even if you will.

October 1, 2009   Permalink

WEDNESDAY,  SEPTEMBER 30,  2009

BE CAREFUL OF IRANIAN DICTATORS BEARING GIFTS - AT 8:26 P.M. ET:  Iran is seeking to shake up its talks with the West, set to start tomorrow, with a deceptive proposal:

Iran will propose that it is prepared to buy from a third party uranium enriched to the grade it requires for its Tehran reactor rather than carry out the enrichment itself, President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said on Wednesday.

Note the fine print.  The purchase would be for its tiny Tehran research reactor only.  They're giving up nothing, including the right to enrich uranium at other plants.

His remarks, ahead of Thursday talks in Geneva with six major world powers about Iran's nuclear programme, represent the first time Tehran has agreed to discuss specifics of its enrichment operations with the powers.

Some will make something of that.  It's no big deal.  We expected them to dangle some hotel-room keys in front of us.

"One of the subjects on the agenda of this negotiation is how we can get fuel for our Tehran reactor," the president was quoted by ISNA news agency as saying.

"As I said in New York, we need 19.75 percent-enriched uranium. We said that, and we propose to buy it from anybody who is ready to sell it to us. We are ready to give 3.5 percent-enriched uranium and then they can enrich it more and deliver to us 19.75 percent-enriched uranium."

In New York last week, Ahmadinejad said Iran would seek to enrich uranium to 20 percent itself if it could not find the product in the market for its research reactor in Tehran.

I hope the Obamans see this "proposal" for what it is.  The problem, of course, is that some professional talker in the State Department might describe it to reporters as an "encouraging" beginning, setting off the word processors of the Obama choir in the media.

September 30, 2009   Permalink

OUTRAGEOUS - AT 8:07 P.M. ET:  The double standard marches on.  Many commentators agonize over the tone of the current debate over health care, but remained silent at the wild attacks on President Bush - attacks in which he was called a Nazi, a liar, a man who ginned up a war in Texas, and other nice things. 

Now a new episode in the double standards series.  The political world correctly condemned Rep. Joe Wilson for shouting, "You lie," at President Obama during the State of the Union message, and Wilson's Republican colleagues joined in the condemnation.  But an outrage just as serious brings hardly a criticism from the liberal commentariat or the perpetrator's Democratic comrades:

WASHINGTON (AP) -- Seeking payback from a recent reprimand of one of their own for heckling President Barack Obama, House Republicans want a Democratic lawmaker to apologize or face a reprimand for saying the GOP wants Americans to ''die quickly'' if they get sick.

Amid the bitter political bickering, Rep. Alan Grayson of Florida stood firmly behind his comments.

The first-term lawmaker returned to the House floor Wednesday afternoon and mocked Republicans' call for an apology by citing a study being published in the American Journal of Public Health that found nearly 45,000 people die each year for lack of health insurance.

''I would like to apologize ... I apologize to the dead and their families that we haven't voted sooner to end this Holocaust in America,'' he said.

COMMENT:  Grayson's wild accusation against the GOP deserves reprimand.  It is a lie, and a big one.  And his use of a Holocaust analogy also deserves reprimand.  (Of course there won't be one).

And I seriously doubt a study saying that 45,000 people die in America each year for lack of health insurance.  We have programs in place to treat people, regardless of their means.  The system needs improvement, of course, but figures like that need to be looked at with two eyes.  Unless people are refused care on economic grounds, they are not dying for lack of health insurance. 

As for Grayson, I saw him on TV today.  He's an embarrassment, but in the precincts of the left, he's mainstream.

September 30, 2009   Permalink

END OF A BRAND - AT 5:29 P.M. ET:  This will certainly not help the employment picture in America's shrinking industrial sector.  From The New York Times:

DETROIT — General Motors said Wednesday that it now planned to close its Saturn brand after Penske Automotive abruptly called off an agreement to acquire the division.

Penske said in a statement that it could not proceed with the purchase because another manufacturer, which it did not identify, rejected plans to build vehicles that would be distributed under the Saturn brand name.

COMMENT:  Another sad day.  At one time General Motors symbolized American industry.  It was "The General."  GM, now essentially under federal control, now only has Cadillac, Buick, Chevrolet and its truck division.  Saturn was supposed to be the "independent" division, doing things in a new way.  Apparently, that didn't have much effect.  It never could develop the aura of the Japanese cars (many of which are made right here). 

I wonder whether, if we ever have a large international conflict, we will have the industrial base left to sustain the effort.  Whoever thought we'd be wondering about something like that?

September 30, 2009   Permalink

QUOTE OF THE DAY - AT 5:07 P.M. ET:  From the increasingly important Stephen Hayes of the Weekly Standard:

The fundamental problem with the Obama administration's approach to Iran is that it treats the nature of the regime as an unknown. Back in June, after a week of mayhem and murder by the regime in the streets of Tehran, Obama said: "I'm very concerned, based on some of the tenor and tone of the statements that have been made, that the government of Iran recognize that the world is watching. And how they approach and deal with people who are, through peaceful means, trying to be heard will, I think, send a pretty clear signal to the international community about what Iran is-and is not."

He was right. And the signal was clear to everyone but those determined to ignore it: The Iranian regime is corrupt, despotic, and willing to use terror internally and externally to achieve its goals. And the lesson of its repeated lies about its nuclear program is equally clear: The Iranian regime will stop at nothing to acquire nuclear weapons.

In some respects, the news of the second Iranian facility makes it harder for Obama to pretend that the Iranian regime is something it's not.

COMMENT:  Hayes is correct, but the Obama administration, led by a supreme egotist, is determined to prove that it can negotiate with anyone, and succeed. 

My great fear is that Iran will agree to something we seek, drag out negotiations over details for months, then sign some kind of deal, allowing Obama, umbrella in hand, to return to the United States bringing us "peace in our time."   Meanwhile, the Iranians will cheat, hide and deflect, and do exactly what they would have done with no agreement.

September 30,  2009   Permalink

THE WELL-TIMED LEAK - AT 11:14 A.M. ET:  The British, like the French, are clearly not pleased with the quality of U.S. intelligence analysis on Iran.  Today we have another well-timed leak, reported by Reuters:

British officials suspect Iran has been seeking nuclear weapons for the past few years, differing from a U.S. view that Tehran halted work on design and weaponization in 2003, a UK security source said on Wednesday.

Last week's revelation of a second nuclear plant in Iran only served to support international suspicions about an Iranian cover-up to mask nuclear weapons designs, the source said.

A U.S. National Intelligence Estimate published in December 2007 judged with high confidence that Iran stopped its nuclear weapons program in the autumn of 2003 and had not restarted it as of mid-2007.
The estimate defined the phrase nuclear weapons program to mean nuclear weapon design and weaponization work and covert uranium conversion-related and uranium enrichment-related work.

"We didn't share the U.S. assessment and still do not," the British source said.

"That's what we felt in 2003. So (our concern) goes back to then. We're still not convinced and last week's developments have simply supported that skepticism."

COMMENT:  There is widespread suspicion that the American assessment was politically motivated.  It is hard to believe that Iran is developing medium- and long-range missiles, which it clearly is doing, to deliver conventional explosives.  That's an awfully expensive small bang. 

France also ridicules the American assessment.  The leaks are coming.  And they are likely to continue, especially if Obama continues his weak policies.

September 30, 2009   Permalink

MORE THUMBS DOWN - AT 9:55 A.M. ET:  A week of mingling and talking at that great student government known as the United Nations hasn't done a thing for President Obama's poll numbers.

In fact, a new Rasmussen poll out this morning shows that those who strongly approve of Obama's performance are at the lowest level since September 7th.  Only 28% strongly approve, while 39% strongly disapprove.

In overall approval, the president stands at 49%, as opposed to 51% who disapprove. 

This is a poll of likely voters, with all polling taking place after the announcement on Friday of the secret Iranian nuclear plant.  The American people apparently aren't rallying 'round the flag flown by this president. 

September 30, 2009   Permalink 

FADING LIBERALISM? - 9:51 P.M. ET:  What always strikes me is the way liberals cooperate in their own destruction.  From the ignoring of the crime issue in the 1960s to the contempt for national defense in the decades since, liberals seem willing to do so much, in their warm, cozy way, to win the loving contempt of the American people.  And they destroy other liberals who don't go along with the leftist party line, especially those liberals, like Joe Lieberman, who care about defending the country.

But is the liberal hour passing?  Some poll results show, as Byron York points out, that it may be:

A new Gallup poll shows a sharp increase in the number of people who say they want the government to promote "traditional values."
Gallup's question was simple: "Some people think the government should promote traditional values in our society. Others think the government should not favor any particular set of values. Which comes closer to your own view?" In the new poll, taken in the first days of September, 53 percent of respondents say they want the government to promote traditional values, while 42 percent say they do not want the government to favor any particular set of values. Five percent do not have an opinion.

Here is the trend:

Last September, when Gallup asked the same question, the public was split down the middle on the issue, 48 percent to 48 percent.

This reinforces what Frank Luntz told our group yesterday - that traditional values still rank strongly with the American people. 

...Gallup writes. "The results by party and ideology…suggest that respondents understand traditional values to be those generally favored by the Republican party."

Again, we see that great opportunity opening for Republicans, if only they can seize it. 

And we also see that independents are turning against the current regime, something picked up in other polls:

The recent change in favor of traditional values has been most pronounced among independents, among whom Gallup says there has been a "dramatic turnaround." Last year, independents were overwhelmingly in favor, by 55 percent to 37 percent, of the government not favoring any set of values. In the new survey, those numbers are almost reversed, with 54 percent saying the government should promote traditional values and 40 percent saying it should not.

York's conclusion:

The Gallup numbers also suggest that Barack Obama and the Democratic leadership in the House and Senate have fundamentally misread their own victories. Did voters elect Democrats because they desperately wanted national health care? Sprawling and expensive environmental regulation? Federal deficits triple the size of just a few years ago? No. The voters elected Democrats because they were sick of Bush and Republicans. Now Bush and the GOP are gone and out of power. Democrats are doing what they thought the voters wanted. And it turns out the voters didn’t want that at all.

COMMENT:  York, I think, fundamentally gets it right.  The revulsion toward President Bush and the GOP was largely a creature, I believe, of the national press.  The Republicans must learn what Ronald Reagan practiced - the ability to speak over the heads of the pressmen, directly to the American people. 

The values debate is heading in our direction.  But the trend must be turned into electoral victory next year, and that means good candidates, a good platform and well-run campaigns that defy the media.  We must not depend on public opinion polls to boost our morale.  Only numbers on election day can do that.

September 30, 2009   Permalink

AREN'T YOU EXCITED? - AT 8:28 A.M. ET:  We're only one day away from President Obama's trip to Copenhagen to snare the Olympics for the incorruptible, peaceful city of Chicago.

Oh, wait, that's another story.  Roll it back.  We're only one day away from the Obama administration's first big meeting with Iran.  You'd think, by all the hype, that it's the first time since the overthrow of the Shah in the late 70s that we've met with the Iranians.  But the great Michael Ledeen points out what a farce that notion is:

The Obama administration's talks with Iran—set to take place tomorrow in Geneva—are accompanied by an almost universally accepted misconception: that previous American administrations refused to negotiate with Iranian leaders. The truth, as Secretary of Defense Robert Gates said last October at the National Defense University, is that "every administration since 1979 has reached out to the Iranians in one way or another and all have failed."

And yet, although we're now dealing with the toughest, most ideological gang in Iran since the Shah's departure, the Obamans think they can part the waters.  Today health care, tomorrow Iran.

Ledeen points out something journalists seem to have forgotten:

Most recently, the administration of George W. Bush—invariably and falsely described as being totally unwilling to talk to the mullahs—negotiated extensively with Tehran. There were scores of publicly reported meetings, and at least one very secret series of negotiations. These negotiations have rarely been described in the American press, even though they are the subject of a BBC documentary titled "Iran and the West."

At the urging of British Foreign Minister Jack Straw, the U.S. negotiated extensively with Ali Larijani, then-secretary of Iran's National Security Council. By September 2006, an agreement had seemingly been reached. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and Nicholas Burns, her top Middle East aide, flew to New York to await the promised arrival of an Iranian delegation, for whom some 300 visas had been issued over the preceding weekend. Mr. Larijani was supposed to announce the suspension of Iranian nuclear enrichment. In exchange, we would lift sanctions. But Mr. Larijani and his delegation never arrived, as the BBC documentary reported.

And...

Negotiations have always been accompanied by sanctions. But neither has produced any change in Iranian behavior.

Ledeen, reflecting the knowledge and common sense that has always marked his position, prescribes the only tactic, short of war, that can work:

Thirty years of negotiations and sanctions have failed to end the Iranian nuclear program and its war against the West. Why should anyone think they will work now? A change in Iran requires a change in government. Common sense and moral vision suggest we should support the courageous opposition movement, whose leaders have promised to end support for terrorism and provide total transparency regarding the nuclear program.

And yet, when the democracy movement erupted recently in Tehran, the president of the United States took days to wander up to a microphone and announce, meekly, that, yeah, democracy was nice.  That was the extent of the support.

We're on a slow boat to nowhere.

September 30, 2009   Permalink

OBAMA'S STYLE - AT 7:58 A.M. ET:  There's a lot of chatter on the internet about Obama's governing style, especially the manner in which he's approaching decisions on Afghanistan.  Michael Gerson reports in the Washington Post, for example, that some military men are impressed by the president's deliberate approach to military decisions.  Others fret that the debate is too public, allowing an enemy to try to influence the outcome by sudden, violent actions.

We would be well to remember the advice that General of the Army Douglas MacArthur's father, also a general, gave him - that councils of war breed defeatism.  People sit around and talk, and talk, and talk, and, by the time they've finished, they've intellectualized the problem to death, figuring out everything that could go wrong, and becoming hesitant and discouraged.

Obama's deliberate style doesn't impress me at all.  I find it ahistorical and dangerous.  Great leaders understand that war is, by definition, a calculated risk.  As the military says, all planning is obsolete on first contact with the enemy, for the enemy also has a brain, and will do everything to wreck our best-laid plans.  Great leaders make the best decisions they can, find the best people they can, give those people the resources they need, and let them do their job, always knowing that there can be bad days as well as good. 

Great leaders also have an objective, and are relentless in pursuing it.  Lincoln went through general after general before finding Grant, but he never wavered in his goal.

And great leaders believe in the nobility of winning. "In war," MacArthur said, "there is no substitute for victory."   Obama, by contrast, has a visceral dislike for the word.  Maybe he thinks it's too macho or too American.

Finally, great leaders understand the need to lead and inspire their nation toward the ultimate goal, even in the face of ridicule.  Churchill, as Edward R. Murrow pointed out, mobilized the English language and hurled it at the enemy.  But when the leader believes that he is above his nation, better and wiser, he ignores the need to lead, and withdraws into his own wonderfulness.

Which is why Barack Obama can never be a great leader.

September 30, 2009   Permalink