WEDNESDAY,  OCTOBER 7,  2009

IS THIS IN VAIN? - AT 11:02 P.M. ET:  Karl Rove, writing in the Wall Street Journal, believes that the health-care debate is going the GOP's way.  The question is, if the Democrats have the votes, will public opinion matter?

Passing health-care reform could be harmful to the health of congressional Democrats.

Just look at how President Barack Obama's standing has fallen as he has pushed for reform. According to Fox News surveys, the number of independents who oppose health-care reform hit 57% at the end of September, up from 33% in July. Independents are generally a quarter of the vote in off-year congressional elections.

And...

Among seniors, opposition to ObamaCare hit 63% in last month's Economist/YouGov Poll. But the number from that poll that should spook Democrats is this: 47% of seniors said they "strongly" oppose health-care reform, just 27% "strongly" support it. Seniors are the biggest consumers of health care, and their family members will probably take their concerns seriously. Seniors will likely cast about 20% of the votes next year.

What are the political implications?

In 2006, the year the GOP lost control of Congress, Democrats enjoyed a double-digit lead in several "generic ballot" polls—a measure of voters' party preference. Democrats held that lead until this year. Today, Gallup's generic ballot shows Democrats have a razor thin 46% to 44% edge. According to Gallop's numbers, independents now favor Republicans by nine points.

Here's something we didn't know:

The numbers may get worse for Democrats if they pass a health-care bill. Why? Because Senate Finance Committee Chairman Max Baucus (D., Mont.) wants to frontload the reforms with distasteful things. Under his plan, tax hikes and Medicare and Medicaid cuts kick in immediately, while new benefits are delayed for two-and-a-half years. Voters likely won't warm to reforms that slam them next year while promising benefits down the road.

Rove's conclusion:

This battle is far from over. But what Democrats have to keep in mind is that there are two fights going on here—one over health care and another over which party will control Congress after next year's elections. By waging the first, they may be setting themselves up to lose the second.

COMMENT:  Okay, I'll buy part of that.  One of the problems is that reporting on the health-care plan will be filtered through the mainstream media, which will do everything it can to paint a happy face on the inept plan.

The political impact will really be felt if people see their health-care benefits cut next year, or find that their doctors no longer take Medicare, or see their health premiums rise.  Then there could be a revolt.

But revolts have to be managed, and require leaders.  There are reports this evening that some Republicans in the Senate are ready to cave in on the public option.  Some may even vote for the president's plan.  If Obama can portray the plan as "bipartisan," the GOP argument is cut to shreds immediately.

This is a time for Republican maneuvering and political craftsmanship.  Oh wait.  It's the Republican Party.  Maybe I should scale back my demands.

Big battles ahead.

October 7, 2009   Permalink

QUIET!  HE IS THINKING, HE IS CONTEMPLATING - AT 7:51 P.M. ET:  And who are we, mere citizens, to question him?

The president had another Afghanistan meeting today:

WASHINGTON - President Obama met with his war council Wednesday for another strategy session after receiving a widely anticipated troop request for Afghanistan .

The session followed a meeting Tuesday with congressional leaders that at times was contentious, including a pointed exchange with Sen. John McCain over the pace of deliberations.

The top U.S. commander in Afghanistan, Gen. Stanley McChrystal, is seeking up to 40,000 additional troops but some of the president's war advisers along with some key Democrats are wary of escalating the war.

Obama received McChrystal's troop request from Defense Secretary Robert Gates last Thursday before he flew to Copenhagen for a failed bid to have Chicago host the 2016 Olympics.

And the White House, perhaps reflecting its general level of casualness surrounding issues of war and peace, issued this nutty statement:

Yet White House spokesman Robert Gibbs said Wednesday that Obama wants to get the strategy right first before deciding on the troop request.

Didn't they announce a new strategy just months ago?  You get the feeling that this is about pressure from the left wing of the Democratic Party, not about strategy.

"One has to get a strategy that works, a strategy that has confidence of everyone involved, then get the resources," he said.

Huh?  Get the confidence of everyone involved?  Is the man serious?  How is it possible to have unanimity when Joe Biden wants a reduction of forces and the military wants 40,000 more troops.  Again, a lack of seriousness.

"The president is determined not to do this backwards. ... Once and for all after eight years, we're going to get this right."

Naturally, the mention of "eight years."  Blame Bush.  Blame everything on Bush.  Obama has been president for nine months, and doesn't yet have a strategy in something he called a "war of necessity."  But blame Bush.

October 7, 2009   Permalink

MORE INDOCTRINATION - AT 7:35 P.M. ET:  CNN brought to its studio a group of school kids to sing the praises of health-care reform, and, not incidentally, Barack Obama.  The video is here.

This, of course, comes after recent revelations of kids in New Jersey and elsewhere being forced to sing songs of praise for The One.

One disturbing element is that, so far, the incidents have occurred in predominantly African-American school districts.  Now, as we've said before, it's entirely understandable for people to feel pride when a member of their group becomes president.  That's normal.  We'd all feel it.  But indoctrinating children is something else, and is unacceptable in a democracy.

One of the tragedies of the civil-rights movement, which has had many fine moments, is that it has always been influenced by the far left, and by a "leader first" mentality.  Too often we have seen marches, rallies, and events in which leaders, not people, seemed to be the most important figures.  I'm afraid we're seeing that effect in these indoctrination attempts.  They're consistent with a kind of totalitarian mentality common on the far left (and far right).  It must be exposed, and stopped.

October 7, 2009   Permalink   

SARAH IN ACTION - AT 7:10 P.M. ET:  It's not being reported widely by the mainstream media - I wonder why - but Sarah Palin has become very active in issuing policy statements.  They're well written and well argued, and it's clear that she's trying to build a public record on national and international affairs.  Of course, her book comes out next month, so the statements dovetail well with the expected book tour. 

On Afghanistan she says:

Our allies and our adversaries are watching to see if we have the staying power to protect our interests in Afghanistan. I recently joined a group of Americans in urging President Obama to devote the resources necessary in Afghanistan and pledged to support him if he made the right decision. Now is not the time for cold feet, second thoughts, or indecision -- it is the time to act as commander-in-chief and approve the troops so clearly needed in Afghanistan.

COMMENT:  Great, fine.  We look forward to her book.  If it's a serious book, well written and well argued, it can give Sarah a new platform, although the usual suspects will be right there to tear her down.  Already, Reuters made a headline out of a recent gaffe in which she called Afghanistan "our neighboring country."  She probably meant to say "our allied country," or some such.  When Obama makes gaffes like that, they're covered up.

At some point, Sarah will have to answer questions from the press.  I suspect she'll have to do that when the book comes out, and she appears on TV.  That will be a clear test for her.  I am optimistic.

October 7, 2009   Permalink

BACK HOME AGAIN IN ILLINOIS - AT 10:32 A.M. ET:  Illinois is the gift that keeps on giving, an endless source of news about bad government, shady politics, and a president who didn't get the Olympic games for Chicago.

And now, money woes:

CHICAGO (CBS) — The State of Illinois' pile of unpaid bills has grown to a record-breaking $3 billion. Comptroller Dan Hynes said Tuesday it's never before been this bad at this point in any previous fiscal year. CBS 2 Political Editor Mike Flannery reports that some social service agencies that rely heavily on state reimbursement warn they will soon be forced out of business.

Hynes said that things are likely to get worse before the state's bleak revenue picture begins to improve.

The comptroller reported corporate income tax receipts down $77 million for July through September; sales tax receipts, down $244 million; personal income tax receipts, down $251 million.

COMMENT:  Oh, come on.  With the Daley machine in Chicago, and Roland Burris in the Senate, and no need to spend cash on Olympic stadiums, how bad can it be?  After all, The One is in the White House, and he will deliver for Illinois the way he did in Copenhagen last week.

Oh, by the way, if Illinois had gotten the Olympics, where would the money come from to build all that necessary stuff?  Interesting that this financial report came out after the decision was announced.

October 7, 2009   Permalink

GOVERNMENT BY MOVIE - AT 9:19 A.M. ET:  One of Obama's big headaches on Afghanistan is the hard left of his party, represented, in particular, by the Congressional Black Caucus and by something called the Congressional Progressive Caucus, a code name for people who still have Che Guevara posters on their unpainted bedroom walls.

Donna Edwards, an African-American congresswoman from Maryland, is emerging as one of the new leaders of the "progressives."  She earned her spurs by an anti-Israel vote earlier this year, which quickly got her noticed by the Lenin's Tomb guards.

The Washington Examiner reports the leftist plans on Afghanistan:

Democratic Rep. Donna Edwards, a vice chair of the Congressional Progressive Caucus, attended the premiere of the anti-war film, "Rethink Afghanistan" in Washington last night. In remarks afterward, Edwards quoted a House colleague, whom she did not identify, saying anti-war Democrats must work to rescue President Obama from his commitment to escalate the war in Afghanistan. "As one of my colleagues, who shall remain unnamed, said, 'Indeed, we may have to save this president from himself on Afghanistan,'" Edwards told the audience. "I take that really seriously."

I'm sure she takes it seriously.  Edwards represents a faction that is opposed to all American military action, especially any that would lead to victory.  We know what these people are, but say it loud and clear and you'll be accused of "McCarthyism."

If Obama ultimately decides to send more troops to Afghanistan, Edwards suggested that a large number of majority Democrats will abandon him when it comes time to vote for extended funding of the war. "In order to go forward to continue the funding," she said, "it is going to be largely, I think, a Republican vote that would stand with the president, if that's the decision that he makes."

COMMENT:  What an indictment of the Democratic Party.  But in the mind of Donna Edwards and her crowd, it's a high compliment.  This used to be the party of FDR, Truman and Jack Kennedy.  Now it's the party of Barack Obama, Dennis Kucinich and Donna Edwards. 

October 7, 2009   Permalink

WHAT DO WE ACTUALLY KNOW? - AT 8:35 A.M. ET:  Related to the story just below, how much do we actually know about the Iranian nuclear program?  A story in a London-based Arab newspaper reports that there have been defections from the program:

Two Iranian nuclear scientists disappeared over the past weeks and allegedly defected to the West, the London-based pan-Arabic daily Asharq al-Awsat reported.

According to the report, the first defector is Sharam Amiri, a scientist in Iran's nuclear program who was likely tied to the recently discovered secret uranium enrichment plant near the holy city of Qom.

Amiri disappeared in Saudi Arabia in July while he was on the hajj pilgrimage to Mecca.

And...

The report regarding the second scientist is also strange. Asharq al-Awsat uses only his surname - Ardebili. He was allegedly arrested in Georgia a few weeks ago. Reports say that Ardebili worked in the Iranian nuclear program as well, but the Iranian foreign ministry fervently denies these claims, and maintains that Ardebili was a businessman who was extradited to the U.S. following his arrest.

The conclusion:

If the report is correct and two scientists from Iran's nuclear program indeed defected, it would be a harsh blow to Iran and its nuclear plans on the one hand, and a triumph on the part of Western intelligence on the other.

COMMENT:  Again, we urge caution.  We hope the reports are true.  Even if they are, however, anyone with intelligence experience knows that defector statements must be checked carefully.  Defectors can have a variety of motives, can even be double agents, and what they reveal may not always prove accurate. 

However, if these defectors exist, and are genuine, we can get a treasure trove of information.

October 7, 2009   Permalink

US PREPARING TO BOMB IRAN? - AT 8:25 A.M. ET:  I'm skeptical, given the mentality of this president, but ABC News is reporting that the Pentagon is taking steps that may be related to a possible attack on Iran:

Is the U.S. stepping up preparations for a possible attack on Iran's nuclear facilities?

The Pentagon is always making plans, but based on a little-noticed funding request recently sent to Congress, the answer to that question appears to be yes.

Be careful here.  We're dealing with informed speculation.

...the Pentagon is shifting spending from other programs to fast forward the development and procurement of the Massive Ordnance Penetrator.

That's a weapon described to penetrate deeply into a target and produce a huge explosion.

Why now? The notification says simply, "The Department has an Urgent Operational Need (UON) for the capability to strike hard and deeply buried targets in high threat environments. The MOP is the weapon of choice to meet the requirements of the UON." It further states that the request is endorsed by Pacific Command (which has responsibility over North Korea) and Central Command (which has responsibility over Iran).

The report concludes:

This is not the kind of weapon that would be particularly useful in Iraq or Afghanistan, but it is ideally suited to hit deeply buried nuclear facilities such as Natanz or Qom in Iran.

COMMENT:  We'll watch this, but the $51.9-million contract for the weapon is small, and we really don't know what the target is.  It could simply be a psychological step.  The contract calls for integration of the MOP with the B-2 bombers.

The administration has sent numerous signals playing down the military option with Iran, including the nonsensical observation that bombing would only set the Iranian program back a few years.  It's nonsensical because any attack could be repeated.

We should have a clearer picture by the end of the year of where the talks with Iran are actually going.

October 7, 2009    Permalink

CELEBRATE - AT 7:55 A.M. ET:  There are indeed things to celebrate.  We learned this morning that a Milwaukee-born American, Thomas A. Steitz, of Yale, will share this year's Nobel Prize in Chemistry.  That means that Americans have shared in all three of the 2009 science Nobels announced so far, chemistry, physics, and medicine.

Americans should take pride in the accomplishments of American science.  For a country disparaged in certain circles as anti-intellectual, or even anti-education, we do awfully well in the big leagues. 

These triumphs should increase our wariness, however, at attempts to politicize science, or substitute junk science for real science. 

It would be nice if the White House would note the great week this country has had in the Nobels, but don't hold your breath.  The president might then have to concede that there's something good about the United States.

October 7,  2009   Permalink

TUESDAY,  OCTOBER 6,  2009

MORE DISGRACE - AT 11:03 P.M. ET:  A number of readers have alerted us to another disgraceful action by the Obama administration.  (There are now so many that we'll soon need an index.)  Consider this, from, surprisingly, the liberal Boston Globe:

WASHINGTON - For the past five years, researchers in a modest office overlooking the New Haven green have carefully documented cases of assassination and torture of democracy activists in Iran. With more than $3 million in grants from the US State Department, they have pored over thousands of documents and Persian-language press reports and interviewed scores of witnesses and survivors to build dossiers on those they say are Iran’s most infamous human-rights abusers.

But just as the Iran Human Rights Documentation Center was ramping up to investigate abuses of protesters after this summer’s disputed presidential election, the group received word that - for the first time since it was formed - its federal funding request had been denied.

Another example of the Obama administration's commitment to human rights.

Many see the sudden, unexplained cutoff of funding as a shift by the Obama administration away from high-profile democracy promotion in Iran, which had become a signature issue for President Bush. But the timing has alarmed some on Capitol Hill.

“The Iran Human Rights Documentation Center is at the forefront of pioneering and vitally important work,’’ said Senator Joe Lieberman, a Connecticut independent, in a statement yesterday. “It is disturbing that the State Department would cut off funding at precisely the moment when these brave investigations are needed most.’’

Hillary Clinton should be dragged before the appropriate committee, and answers should be demanded.  The problem is that the "appropriate committee" is foreign relations, headed by John Kerry, whose interest in human rights has generally been hard to locate. 

But the GOP should take up this issue and use it...loudly.

And this is deeply troubling:

...at least three other groups that received funding under Bush’s democracy program for Iran have been told they would not receive funding this year, according to Roya Boroumand, founder of the Bormound Foundation, which works against the death penalty in Iran. Boroumand said her group does not get State Department funds, but that she is in contact with other organizations who do, and all are worried.

“If the rationale is that we are going to stop funding human rights-related work in Iran because we don’t want to provoke the government, it is absolutely the wrong message to send,’’ she said. “That means that we don’t really believe in human rights, that the American government just looks into it when it is convenient.’’

COMMENT:  Isn't this an administration run by "progressives"?  I think that's what they call themselves.  They should be ashamed, but they come from a part of the political spectrum in which shame is not an approved emotion.

October 6, 2009   Permalink

OBAMA APPROVAL HOVERS AT 50% - AT 7:23 P.M. ET:  The latest Gallup tracker shows approval for President Obama at 50%, with disapproval at 43%.  The approval number pretty much corresponds with Rasmussen's findings, but Rasmussen has a higher disapproval number. 

A 50% approval is nothing to brag about, given the hype surrounding this administration and the near-religious zeal surrounding its victory last November.   It shows that even a god can lose favor.

The coming three months will be critical for the president.  There are off-year elections in November, which may be seen as a test of his political pull, especially in Virginia and New Jersey.  He will have a do-or-die moment over health care.  And his foreign policy, increasingly seen as weak and appeasement-oriented, will be tested, both in Afghanistan and Iran, not to mention North Korea.

It's harder than running for office.

October 6, 2009   Permalink

TAX ALERT - AT 6:45 P.M. ET:  They're scheming again.  From The Hill:

A new value-added tax (VAT) is "on the table" to help the U.S. address its fiscal liabilities, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) said Monday night.

Pelosi, appearing on PBS's "The Charlie Rose Show" asserted that "it's fair to look at" the VAT as part of an overhaul of the nation's tax code.

"I would say, Put everything on the table and subject it to the scrutiny that it deserves," Pelosi told Rose when asked if the VAT has any appeal to her.

The VAT is a tax on manufacturers at each stage of production on the amount of value an additional producer adds to a product.

COMMENT:  There will be new taxes, but probably not until new "services" are put in place.  That's the way the game is played.  Put the "services" in place, and then say they'll have to be cancelled unless there's a tax increase to pay for them.  People panic because they've come to depend on those services, and so the increase goes through.

No one ever asks if the "services" are worth what we're paying for them, but that's another story. 

October 6, 2009   Permalink

DEMS GET IT WRONG AGAIN - AT 5:58 P.M. ET:  There was a big meeting at the White House on Afghanistan.  The president invited both Dem and GOP leaders, who dutifully attended, and then made the usual statements to the press afterward.

But the Dems blew it by committing the Republicans to things they'd never agreed to.  When amateurs are at work, it's not a beautiful site to see. 

WASHINGTON (AP) - The top Senate Democrat says lawmakers of both parties assured President Barack Obama on Tuesday that they will rally behind whatever decision he makes on Afghanistan.

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid said that both Democrats and Republicans told the president, basically, "Whatever decision you make, we'll support it."

Uh, apparently not.  Reid may be a good candidate for remedial English when this is over.

Top Senate Republican Mitch McConnell put it differently. In his words: "I think Republicans will be able to make the decisions for themselves." But he did say a significant number of Republicans would back Obama's next move if U.S. military commanders from the region are truly on board.

COMMENT:  That's an awfully huge "if," especially as members of the Obama secretariat have been trying to push our Afghanistan commander, Gen. Stanley McChrystal, under the bus all week, where he'd join several hundred other expendables. 

It may be unfair (not really), but when the president has leaders from both parties to the White House, I get the feeling he's planning something that will make Slick Willie look like Honest Abe.

October 6, 2009   Permalink

QUICK, GET THE BUS! - AT 10:18 A.M. ET:  Looks like another Obaman is going the same route as Rev. Wright, grandma Obama, Bill Ayers, Van Jones, and anyone else who proved an embarrassment to The One in his path to the Divine.  Right under the bus.  From The Politico:

Greg Craig, the top in-house lawyer for President Barack Obama, is getting the blame for botching the strategy to shut down Guantanamo Bay prison by January — so much so that he’s expected to leave the White House in short order.

But sources familiar with the process believe Craig is being set-up as the fall guy and say the blame for missing the deadline extends well beyond him.

Instead, it was a widespread breakdown on the political, legislative, policy and planning fronts that contributed to what is shaping up as one of Obama’s most high-profile setbacks, these people say.

The White House misread the congressional mood – as it found out abruptly in May, when the Senate voted 90-6 against funds for closing the base after Republicans stoked fears about bringing prisoners to the U.S. The House also went on record last week opposing bringing Gitmo detainees here.

COMMENT:  Doesn't matter, doesn't matter.  Someone has to take the blame.  They need a name, a face, so that no one blames Obama.  The deity must never be blamed.

So get that bus ready.  Greg Craig is coming.  Plenty of space underneath, near the rear left axle. 

After the failure at the Bay of Pigs, President Kennedy was asked at a press conference who was at fault.  His reply:  "I am the responsible officer of the government."  Can you imagine this current president saying that?

October 6, 2009    Permalink

LIBERAL COLUMNIST SKEWERS OBAMA - AT 9:33 A.M. ET:  Despite the continuing and overwhelming bias toward The One in the mainstream media, a few courageous liberal columnists, especially at the Washington Post, are starting to jab at Obama and his pretensions.  It's surprising to see Richard Cohen on this list, but he's doing some good work in examining what we, in the election of 2008, did to ourselves.  He focuses on Afghanistan:

Barack Obama's trip to Copenhagen to pitch Chicago for the Olympics would have been a dumb move whatever the outcome. But as it turned out (an airy dismissal would not be an unfair description), it poses some questions about his presidency that are way more important than the proper venue for synchronized swimming. The first, and to my mind most important, is whether Obama knows who he is.

And...

This is the president we now have: He inspires lots of affection but not a lot of awe. It is the latter, though, that matters most in international affairs, where the greatest and most gut-wrenching tests await Obama. If he remains consistent to his rhetoric of just seven weeks ago, he will send more troops to Afghanistan and more of them will die. "This is not a war of choice," he said. "This is a war of necessity. Those who attacked America on 9/11 are plotting to do so again. If left unchecked, the Taliban insurgency will mean an even larger safe haven from which al-Qaeda would plot to kill more Americans." 

And, rather devastating...

...the ultimate in realism is for the president to gauge himself and who he is: Does he have the stomach and commitment for what is likely to continue to be an unpopular war? Will he send additional troops, but hedge by not sending enough -- so that the dying will be in vain? What does he believe, and will he ask Americans to die for it? Only he knows the answers to these questions. But based on his zigzagging so far and the suggestion from the Copenhagen trip that the somber seriousness of the presidency has yet to sink in, we have reason to wonder.

COMMENT:  We certainly do.  But the time for wondering was during the election campaign, when the mainstream media refused to wonder at all.  Now we are stuck with a weak, indecisive president who's starting to inspire derision in the foreign ministries of the world.

But don't worry.  He'll give us the public option.

October 6, 2009    Permalink

THERE IS NO BIAS IN MAINSTREAM JOURNALISM - AT 8:21 A.M. ET:  Keep repeating that phrase as you read the opening paragraph of a book review by By Michiko Kakutani, published in The New York Times:

The Iraq war in David Finkel’s heart-stopping new book is not the Bush administration’s misguided exercise in hubris, incompetence and ideological fervor meticulously chronicled by Thomas Ricks in his benchmark 2006 study, “Fiasco.” It isn’t the bungled occupation run out of the Green Zone bubble, depicted with such acuity by Rajiv Chandrasekaran in his 2006 book, “Imperial Life in the Emerald City.” And it isn’t the foreign-policy imbroglio debated year after year by neoconservatives and liberals, by politicians, Pentagon officials and pundits.

COMMENT:  Yes, I know, I know, it's a book review.  But the sheer arrogance of that paragraph, its sureness about being right, is the attitude that dominates American journalism, the arrogance that allowed the press to openly side with Barack Obama in 2008, and never believe there was anything wrong with its obscenely slanted journalism.

And now that Obama is proving to be the small-time Chicago politician, with a silver voice, that he is, the same press explains away his failures and warns that much of the opposition is "racist."

If you want to know the origins of that arrogance and narrowness, you must examine the schools and universities that produce it.  May I recommend a superb piece published by American Thinker.  It's by Professor Ron Lipsman about his experience in teaching at a major state university.  This is one of the best articles I've read reporting on what goes on in America's halls of "higher learning."  Must reading.  It's here.

October 6, 2009   Permalink

QUOTE OF THE MORNING - AT 7:58 A.M. ET:  From Wesley Pruden, in the Washington Times:

Barack Obama, like the "progressives" he represents, is proud of a mind so open that his brains are forever at risk of falling out.

Uh, yeah. 

I'm always amused at how this crowd calls itself "progressive."  What progress have they ever achieved?  Some of them, especially on the Democratic Party's fringe left, openly support some of the world's worst dictatorial regimes, especially the one in Cuba.  Nothing progressive there.

Pruden also says this, worthy of note:

The war in Afghanistan is in its ninth year, and Americans are impatient. Maybe in the end the president will decide to cut and run. Maybe that will be the popular decision. Maybe "narrowing the focus" is a better strategy. Maybe sending more troops is even better. But further dithering won't impress anybody, and asking an American soldier to be the last man to die in an abandoned cause is too much for any president, no matter how pretty the speech, to ask.

COMMENT:  But pretty speech is what this president is about, and he believes it can move mountains, even if it can't move the International Olympic Committee.

October 6, 2009    Permalink