FRIDAY,  OCTOBER 23,  2009

A DEM DILEMMA - IDENTITY POLITICS GONE BAD - AT 6:28 P.M. ET:  We are days away from gubernatorial elections in Virginia and New Jersey.  The Republican has a solid lead in Virginia, the race is essentially tied in New Jersey.  The Democrats have a significant electoral problem in both races, as Fox News points out:

Voter doldrums - especially among blacks far less energized than they were for Barack Obama's historic presidential bid last year - pose problems for Democrats struggling in the governors' races in Virginia and New Jersey.

Pollsters and election analysts expect a steep drop-off of black voters - who historically back Democrats - in the nation's two gubernatorial contests and in congressional races Nov. 3, and they predict it is likely to cast a shadow in 2010 over at least 10 House Democrats with large black constituencies.

It is part of a broader trend of waning enthusiasm among Democratic voters as the country grapples with continued job losses, a mounting federal deficit and uncertainty about Mr. Obama's plan to restructure the health care system.

COMMENT:  In other words, the much-vaunted Democratic political operation in 2008 may turn out to have been a one-time thing, all centered on The One, the near-deity who has brought us all this change we can believe in. 

Apparently, many voters aren't convinced.

October 23,  2009   Permalink

 
FROM A DEMOCRAT? - AT 6:14 P.M. ET:  There are indeed moderate Democrats, and they won't shut up.  Maybe they'll be targeted next, like Fox News:

(CNSNews.com) - Rep. Bart Setup (CD) told CNSNews.com yesterday that he has organized a group of “about 40 likeminded Democrats” who will vote to kill the health-care bill if House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D.-Calif.) does not allow a floor vote on his amendment to prohibit federal funds from going to insurance plans that cover abortion.

Under Stupak’s plan, the approximately 40 Democrats in his camp would join with all House Republicans in voting to defeat the special House “rule” that would set the terms for debating and amending the health-care bill on the House floor when it is brought up for a final vote. If a majority of the House does not first vote to approve this rule, the health-care bill itself cannot be brought to the floor.

COMMENT:  The moderates, or Blue Dogs, are the most frightened Democrats.  Most were elected from swing districts, and they can easily lose their seats next year, when the entire House is up for election.  The liberals and ultra-liberals are almost always from safe districts, and can follow the party line without penalty.

October 23,  2009   Permalink 

STUNNER - AT 9:53 A.M. ET:  It looked like a done deal, but, with Iran, nothing is done.  The mullahs have apparently turned down another generous offer from the West, once again showing the folly of trying to deal with the Tehran terrorists:

TEHRAN (Reuters) - Iran declined Friday to endorse proposals by the U.N. nuclear watchdog to help reduce Iran's stockpile of low-enriched uranium.

It said it was awaiting a "positive and constructive" response from world powers to its proposal on providing nuclear fuel for a Tehran reactor producing medical isotopes, state television reported.

"Now we are awaiting a positive and constructive response on Iran's proposal from the other party on providing nuclear fuel for Tehran's reactor," TV quoted a member of Iran's negotiating team, who attended the Vienna meeting on October 21, as saying.

"The other party is expected to avoid past mistakes in violating agreements ... and to gain Iran's trust," the unnamed official said.

COMMENT:  The Iranians are playing for time.  They will have the bomb.  And they may use it - not necessarily by putting it on the tip of a missile, but by smuggling it into a target country, and setting it off, leaving no fingerprints. 

October 23, 2009   Permalink  

THE PEOPLE SPEAK, AND CONGRESS IGNORES THEM - AT 9:23 A.M. ET:  Byron York, in the Washington Examiner, points out that opinion polls are clear on the public's attitude toward health-care "reform," but that Congress is showing little interest in popular will:

...the American people simply do not share Obama's sense of urgency about health care reform. In a new poll, the Gallup organization asked the following question: "If Congress is going to reform the health care system, should Congress deal with health care reform on a gradual basis over several years, or should Congress try to pass a comprehensive health care reform plan this year?" Just 38 percent of those surveyed want reform now, versus a clear majority -- 58 percent -- who want reform on a gradual basis.

When you break Gallup's results down by political party, you see that Democrats are the only ones feeling any urgency at all. Fifty-nine percent of Democrats want reform now, but 77 percent of Republicans, and 63 percent of independents, want gradual reform. When it comes to health care reform, there is no fierce urgency of now.

The plain fact is, the public's top priority lies elsewhere. "The only issue that people have a sense of fierce urgency about right now is the economy and jobs," says Republican pollster David Winston. "The president is in an uphill battle to try to move the discussion to other topics."

COMMENT:  The arrogance of the administration, and its Democratic allies, is simply breathtaking.  They think that they know what's good for the American people, and that the people themselves don't.  This stems from a sense of superiority.  "We know since we are your betters."  I call it SATitis, a disease that's caused by overly high scores on the Scholastic Aptitude Test.  Very serious.  No cure in sight except practical experience.

October 23, 2009   Permalink  

MORE HEAT ON OBAMA - AT 8:45 A.M. ET:  And it's coming from Secretary of Defense Robert Gates, who earlier in the week also gently prodded his boss publicly over Obama's dithering on Afghanistan. 

BRATISLAVA, Slovakia (AP) -- U.S. Defense Secretary Robert Gates said Friday that NATO allies are moving toward sending more troops and civilian aid to Afghanistan.

Gates said he was ''heartened'' by allies' commitment to the 8-year-old war even as the Obama administration mulls whether to order tens of thousands more U.S. troops to the fight.

The Pentagon chief cited a long-term commitment by NATO partners to remain in Afghanistan until the conflict is successfully resolved.

COMMENT:  I get the feeling, but have no direct evidence to back it up, that Gates is preparing to leave the administration, and has nothing to lose by putting some pressure on the Hamlet-like Obama.  I can't imagine any secretary of defense being pleased with this amateurish student government president. 

If Gates does resign, there are rumors that he'll be replaced by one of Washington's great embarrassments, former Senator Chuck Hagel, a so-called Republican who all but endorsed Obama during the campaign.  Hagel is to national defense what swine flu is to humans.

October 23, 2009    Permalink  

QUICK, THERE GOES ANOTHER ONE UNDER THE BUS - AT 8:28 A.M. ET:  The Obama administration is learning the art of the purge, well practiced during its campaign for president.

Now, a Democratic candidate for governor of Virginia looks like he's next to go under the bus.  From the Washington Post:

Sensing that victory in the race for Virginia governor is slipping away, Democrats at the national level are laying the groundwork to blame a loss in a key swing state on a weak candidate who ran a poor campaign that failed to fully embrace President Obama until days before the election.

The greatest sin - not pledging full allegiance to Dear Leader. 

Senior administration officials have expressed frustration with how Democrat R. Creigh Deeds has handled his campaign for governor, refusing early offers of strategic advice and failing to reach out to several key constituencies that helped Obama win Virginia in 2008, they say.

Democratic strategists said that over the summer, Virginia Gov. Timothy M. Kaine (D) offered Deeds advice on winning a statewide election. Among other things, Kaine, who is also chairman of the Democratic National Committee, told Deeds that he should lay out more of his own vision and stop attacking Republican Robert F. McDonnell so ferociously. But Deeds did not embrace the advice, according to a national Democratic strategist.

COMMENT:  No, it's all his fault.  It couldn't possibly be disillusionment with the Obama administration and the Democratic Party in general.  That would be impossible, for this administration is Divinely guided.  It's Creigh Deeds.  Under the bus isn't good enough for him.  Under a gas-guzzling SUV.  That's his fate!

These guys would have been great during the French Revolution.

October 23, 2009    Permalink  

BULLETIN - ENERGY CRISIS SOLVED! - AT 8:20 A.M. ET:  Well, that was close.  We thought the world was collapsing around us, but a simple piece of advice from a man known for his wisdom and learning has brought us back from the brink.  From London's Telegraph:

Hugo Chavez, the Venezuelan president, has called on his countrymen to stop singing in the shower to help save water and electricity.

The left-wing leader said they should attempt to wash in less than three minutes, and breaking into song distracts them.

"Some people sing in the shower, in the shower half an hour. No kids, three minutes is more than enough. I've counted, three minutes, and I don't stink," he said during a televised Cabinet meeting.  Getting into his stride, he went on to label baths and jacuzzis anti-communist.

"If you are going to lie back, in the bath, with the soap and you turn on the what's it called, the Jacuzzi... imagine that, what kind of communism is that? We're not in times of Jacuzzi," he said, to laughter from his ministers.

COMMENT:  Okay, for those of you ready for your morning shower - three minutes.  We have ways of timing you here at Urgent Agenda, so don't try to get away with anything.

Make yourself part of the solution, not part of the problem.  Three minutes.  Al Gore will thank you.

October 23,  2009    Permalink 

THURSDAY,  OCTOBER 22,  2009

ROTTEN, WARMONGERING, BUSH-LOVING REPUBLICAN RAMBOS! - AT 9:01 P.M. ET:  These Republicans, always asking embarrassing questions.  Why can't they trust our new Russian brothers and sisters, like the Hollywood stars do?  The Washington Times reports the disgraceful Red scare: 

Republicans in the Senate are gearing up to battle the Obama administration over the high-priority plan to finish a new arms-control treaty with Russia before the end of the year.

Sen. Jon Kyl, Arizona Republican and No. 2 Republican Senate leader, recently identified a key issue that is likely to complicate the administration's plan: Russia for years has been violating the current Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (START), which is set to expire Dec. 5.

Mr. Kyl said in a Senate floor speech Oct. 19 that Russia's development of a new multiple-warhead RS-24 missile that was tested as recently as May 2007 violates the current treaty.

"That would be illegal for the Russians to deploy under START. So why are they testing it?" Mr. Kyl asked.

COMMENT:  Another senator who doesn't understand that everything has changed in the world since The One was inaugurated in January.

Or maybe nothing has changed. 

Ronald Reagan and the people around him knew how to negotiate arms-control agreements, and they knew how to say "nyet" when necessary, as when Reagan refused to give up missile defense.  The Obamans don't exactly have the same savvy, to put it mildly.

I'm glad John Kyl is on the case.  This is too important to be left to the kids around Obama.

October 22, 2009   Permalink

THE ROAD TO HELL IS PAVED WITH... - AT 8:15 P.M. ET:  No decent person likes hate crimes or hate speech.  However, attempts to tack the word "hate" onto legislation can come back to haunt us, no matter how pure our intentions:

WASHINGTON — The Senate voted Thursday to extend new federal protections to people who are victims of violent crime because of their gender or sexual orientation, bringing the measure close to reality after years of fierce debate.

The 68-to-29 vote sends the legislation to President Obama, who has said he supports it.

The measure, attached to an essential military-spending bill, broadens the definition of federal hate crimes to include those committed because of a victim’s gender or gender identity, or sexual orientation. It gives victims the same federal safeguards already afforded to people who are victims of violent crimes because of their race, color, religion or national origin.

COMMENT:  We certainly want to punish people who commit those crimes.  The problem comes as we increasingly broaden the definition of "hate."  We've seen what's happened on college campuses where, to avoid "hate," speech codes have been enacted that restrict even legitimate political and social discussion. 

And we've seen the word "hate" used to play favorites with groups.  Criticize a member of one group and it's "hate."  Say the same thing about a member of a less-favored group, and it's "robust speech" (an actual term used by the ACLU).

And, with misguided American support, a unit of the UN is moving toward adoption of a program against "defamation" of religion, which some have interpreted as meaning any criticism of Islam.

Do we want a better, more civil society?  Sure.  But that's a loaded concept, especially when you start punishing people for what they think, or even what they say.  By all means, fight hatred.  But I'm uneasy when colleges, schools, religious institutions and the government get into the act, swayed by whichever group has the largest megaphone.

October 22, 2009   Permalink

CHILDREN MUST PLAY - AT 7:05 P.M. ET:  Sarah Palin's book is about to come out, news that seems to greatly bother an element of the fringe press, as The Politico notes:

Editors from the progressive magazine The Nation are pulling together a book to be released the same day as Sarah Palin’s with a similar title and cover mocking the former Alaska governor’s memoir.

What, precisely is "progressive" about The Nation?  The Nation is Marxist-friendly, never met a left-wing dictatorship it didn't like, and doesn't much care for the United States or any of its policies since George Washington.

And the sick obsession with Sarah Palin is amusing.

The book titled “Going Rouge: Sarah Palin an American Nightmare” is edited by Richard Kim, a senior editor at the weekly magazine, along with The Nation’s Executive Editor Betsy Reed.

The book’s cover displays a picture nearly identical to the photo chosen for the cover of Palin’s own “Going Rogue: An American Life.”

QUESTION:  If a buyer confuses the two and buys the wrong book, will there be a free exchange?  I think there should be.

In both pictures, Palin is wearing red behind a cloudy sky, though the background of “Going Rouge” is dark and gloomy with a lightning bolt come down over Palin’s left shoulder.

The book, being published by OR Books, will contain contributions from twenty-three writers including Joe Conason, Katha Pollitt, and Jim Hightower.

Katha Pollitt, after the attacks of 9-11, publicly expressed her distress that her own son wanted to fly an American flag from his window.  Guess we know the tone this book will take.

October 22, 2009   Permalink

A RASMUSSEN RECORD - AT 9:35 A.M. ET:  The White House will not be tacking this up on the president's bulletin board:

The Rasmussen Reports daily Presidential Tracking Poll for Thursday shows that 26% of the nation's voters Strongly Approve of the way that Barack Obama is performing his role as President. That’s the lowest level of Strong Approval yet measured for this President. Thirty-nine percent (39%) Strongly Disapprove, giving Obama a Presidential Approval Index rating of -13 (see trends).

For the first time during Obama’s time in office, the Approval Index has been in negative double digits for seven straight days.

COMMENT:  I've never seen a president sink this fast.  The American people are catching on.  The suit is empty, the head is half-empty, the policies are less than empty.

October 22, 2009   Permalink

THE DEEP THINKER THINKS - AT 9:09 A.M. ET:  The president continues his casual course on Afghanistan, as American men are in the field.  From The Politico:

President Barack Obama hinted Wednesday that his administration might refrain from announcing a new plan for the Afghan war effort until Afghanistan's presidential runoff election is complete, even as one influential Democrat urged him to wait until after the election campaign before making any firm strategic decisions.

The influential Democrat is Mr. National Defense, John Kerry.

In an interview with NBC News, Obama said he was encouraged by the progress Afghanistan had made toward holding a second round of voting on Nov. 7, but that there was still uncertainty about what the country's government would look like after the election.

"I think we're still finding out how this whole process in Afghanistan is going to unfold," Obama said. "I think it is entirely possible that we have a strategy formulated before a runoff is determined. We may not announce it."

COMMENT:   Former Vice President Cheney severely criticized Mr. Obama last night for his confusion and delay on Afghanistan, and Cheney is correct.  Obama seems overly sensitive to pressures coming from his party's left.  In war, you cannot wait until every condition is perfect.  We fought the Korean War, and saved South Korea, although there was a problematical government in Seoul.  We fought World War II alongside many governments that did not meet our standards.

I get the feeling that the Obama stall has little to do with Afghan elections, and much more to do with his party's radical base.

October 22, 2009   Permalink 

FROM THE WONDERFUL GUYS WHO BROUGHT YOU PEARL HARBOR - AT 8:41 A.M. ET:  Credit for that line must be given to advertising ace Jerry Della Femina.  I'm reminded of it now because, coming in under the radar, we have growing problems with Japan.

Another great foreign policy triumph for the Obama administration is the recent election in Japan of a new government that has a clear hostility toward the United States and the American-Japanese alliance.  Defense Secretary Gates is meeting with the Japanese now to try to work out differences, but the going is rough.  The Japanese people, in electing this new crowd of left-leaning politicians, apparently weren't very moved by Mr. Sweetheart in the White House:

TOKYO - Playing hardball with its closest ally in Asia, the Obama administration warned Japan yesterday of serious consequences if it backs out of a commitment to allow the relocation of a US air base on Okinawa.

Gates’s words, during a two-day visit here, were a blunt challenge to efforts by Japan’s month-old government to carve out a more “equal’’ relationship with Washington.

Prime Minister Yukio Hatoyama and his Democratic Party of Japan won a landslide election in August with a vow to be more assertive and less passive in dealing with the United States, which is treaty-bound to protect Japan in time of war.

COMMENT:  We have no report of President Obama doing anything to set right this historic, and critical, relationship.  You know, he doesn't care much for American allies like Britain, Israel, or, probably, Japan.  But if the new Japanese government becomes increasingly anti-American, he'll warm up.

Just wait for the Tokyo speech on how wrong it was to use the atomic bomb.

October 22, 2009   Permalink

DISTURBING, BUT SATISFYING - AT 8:22 A.M. ET:  We are free enterprise types here, but even we have our limits.  The news that the federal government will regulate the "compensation" of senior executives in companies that received government bailouts makes us uneasy.  You wonder where this is going:

WASHINGTON — Responding to the furor over executive pay at companies bailed out with taxpayer money, the Obama administration will order the firms that received the most aid to slash compensation to their highest-paid employees, an official involved in the decision said on Wednesday.

The plan, for the 25 top earners at seven companies that received exceptional help, will on average cut total compensation this year by about 50 percent. The companies are Citicorp, Bank of America, American International Group, General Motors, Chrysler and the financing arms of the two automakers.

Some executives, like the top traders at D.I.Y., will face tight limits on their pay. In addition, the top-paid employees at all the affected companies will face new limits on their perks.

Uneasy, yes.  And yet, I cannot deny the touch of a smile that I experienced when reading the story.  Joseph Kennedy Sr., the founding father, once said that all businessman are bastards.  Well, all businessmen aren't bastards.  I've known some very fine managers who perform with distinction.  But some businessmen definitely are, and we have a sad crop of them today.

Some of these "executives" have no sense of shame, no sense of loyalty, no sense of leadership, and no respect for what a free market really means.  It means competitive free enterprise, not legal stealing.  Some of these "talented" men (and a few women) have actually added very little to their firms, but have taken bundles in "compensation," often arranged by the friends they put on boards of directors.  (There's a new book on Hollywood that points out that many media "moguls" aren't very moguls, and actually make little contribution to to the value of their "studios.")

The gap between the highest paid and lowest paid worker in a corporation is vastly larger in the United States than in any other country.  The executive excess here is doing enormous damage to the credibility of our economic system.  So, although I generally oppose most (but not all) government intervention in the marketplace, I have no sympathy for the latest targets.  They've had it coming for a long time.

The president of the United States earns $400,000 a year.  There's no shortage of applicants.

I know some readers will disagree with my view, but think of an employee who has given honorable service, is laid off in middle age, with kids about to go to college, and reads that the CEO of the company that fired him will get a $20-million "bonus" for "making the tough decisions," even though the company is failing.

Yuch.

October 22, 2009   Permalink 

THE INCREDIBLE SHRINKING PRESIDENCY - AT 8:01 A.M. ET:  What else can you call it?  The man in the White House, only nine months in office, seems determined to diminish himself and the trust he holds.

How else do we account for this obsession with Fox News?  How else do we account for the president giving valuable face time to Rachel Maddow and Keith Olbermann of MSNBC, two minor leaguers who have fewer viewers than letters in their names?

Fox News dutifully, and with as much neutrality as possible, reports the president's journalistic favor-giving: 

President Obama spoke publicly for the first time Wednesday about his administration's portrayal of Fox News as an illegitimate news organization -- only to say he's not "losing sleep" over the controversy.

Obama, in an interview with NBC, at first attempted to deflect a question about the White House's criticism of Fox News, saying "the American people are a lot more interested in what we're doing to create jobs or how we're handling the situation in Afghanistan."

The interviewer then pressed, noting that Obama's advisers have targeted the network openly.

"I think that what our advisers simply said is, is that we are going to take media as it comes," Obama said. "And if media is operating, basically, as a talk radio format, then that's one thing. And if it's operating as a news outlet than that's another. But it's not something I'm losing a lot of sleep over."

Given the intensity of the White House assault on Fox, apparently he is.

Several top White House advisers have gone on other channels to criticize Fox News' coverage of the administration, dismiss the network as the mouthpiece of the Republican Party and urge other news organizations not to treat Fox News as a legitimate news station.

COMMENT:  True, other presidents have despised particular news organizations.  President Kennedy, for example, cancelled the White House subscription to the old New York Herald Tribune. 

But I think it's fair to say that we haven't seen such a concentrated attack on a news organization as we're seeing now.  If the White House wants to take issue with particular Fox reports, fine.  But to, in effect, delegitimize it as a news organization, is absurd.  It makes this president look small, something he seems to be working at. 

Americans don't like small presidents.  One of Harry Truman's problems was that, although he made some of the weightiest decisions of our age, he often came off as petty.  It was said of him, "He does the biggest things in the biggest ways and the littlest things in the littlest ways."  Obama is starting to look like the small-time Chicago pol that he actually is.  He needs a grown-up to sit down and explain his office to him.

October 22, 2009   Permalink