TUESDAY,  SEPTEMBER 1,  2009

OUR LATIN AMERICAN GROVELING - AT 9:47 P.M. ET:  Our attitude toward Honduras continues to be embarrassing.  The president of that country was lawfully removed from office, is an ally of Fidel Castro and Hugo Chavez, and is a threat to Honduran democracy.  Yet, we champion him:

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton plans to meet ousted Honduran President Manuel Zelaya on Thursday, the State Department said as Washington debates formally cutting off aid to the Honduran government.

Despite worldwide condemnation of the June 28 coup against Zelaya, who was whisked into exile in a military plane while still in his pajamas, Roberto Micheletti's de facto government has said it will not be pressured into stepping down.

Micheletti has so far rejected proposals put forward by mediator Costa Rican President Oscar Arias that would have allowed Zelaya to return to power before November elections in the poor Central American nation.

COMMENT:  There was no coup, despite the term being used over and over by the mainstream media.  The military acted only on direction from the Supreme Court.  As far as "worldwide condemnation" is concerned, some of the institutions involved - like the European Union, would never have acted had Obama not slammed Zelaya's removal first. 

What is our interest here?  Democracy?  A democratic procedure was carried out.  Influence?  With whom?  Will Chavez love us more if we help his friend?

Our Latin American policy has shifted decidedly leftward.  Indeed, Eugene Robinson, the African-American columnist for the Washington Post, recently reported that Obama chewed him out personally for suggesting that the White House be tougher on Chavez.  Obama represents that part of the Democratic Party that believes that we can learn a lot from Fidel Castro, and that Chavez is a legitimate, if eccentric revolutionary. 

I hope Cuban Americans are watching carefully.

September 1, 2009   Permalink

DISGRACEFUL - AT 6:27 P.M. ET:  Although our own government has apparently lost interest in the scandal surrounding the release of the Lockerbie bomber, British journalists are pursuing.  Now they have what they believe is the smoking gun.  From London's Telegraph:

Gordon Brown and David Miliband supported releasing the Lockerbie bomber from jail, according to official minutes of a meeting with the Libyan government.

Neither the Prime Minister nor the Foreign Secretary wanted Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al Megrahi to die in Greenock Prison, the documents reveal.

Abdulati Alobidi, the Libyans' minister for Europe, said he was informed of Mr Brown and Mr Miliband's opinion during a meeting with Bill Rammell, who was then a senior Foreign Office minister.

And The Times of London reports:

The Foreign Office position was clearer. Without saying so, its letters suggest that it believed the transfer of al-Megrahi would be beneficial.

A letter from officials this July insisted that the United States was never given an absolute commitment - i.e. one that would bind future governments - that the Lockerbie accused would always be imprisoned in Scotland. And Ivan Lewis, the junior minister, as recently as August 3 said that Britain had never given the US a "definitive commitment."

COMMENT:  I suspect that if George Bush were president, the commitment would have been considered absolute.  But Obama did some damage to the American-British relationship early in his term, and shows no warmth toward Britain.  Actions and attitudes have consequences.

September 1, 2009   Permalink

BIG BRO - AT 6:18 P.M. ET:  Reader Wade Anderson alerts us to the story of an upcoming event that should send a bit of a George Orwell chill up our spines,as opposed to a Chris Matthews tingle down our legs:

On September 8, the Department of Education plans to run streaming video of President Barack Obama into the nation's public school classrooms. Teachers and students are carving time out their learning schedule to hear the President speak. The the exact subject of his speech is unclear at this point, but it's likely to revolve around his signed resolution marking September 11th as a "National Day of Service."

The Department of Ed's Teaching Ambassador Fellows group has put out a pre-K-6th grade "Menu of Classroom Activities" for teachers across the country to follow before, during and after the President's statement:

--Before the speech, build students' background knowledge of President Barack Obama by reading books about him and other U.S. Presidents. Ask students, "Why do you think he wants to speak to you?"

--Ask students what they can do to help in schools?

--Think about why it is "important that we listen to the President and other elected officials"?

--During the speech, teachers can ask students "to write down key ideas or phrases that are important or personally meaningful," and "younger children can draw pictures and write as appropriate."

--Students "could think about the following: What is the President trying to tell me? What is the President asking me to do? What new ideas and actions is the President challenging me to think about?" In addition, "students might think about: What specific job is he asking me to do?"

--"Teachers could ask students to share the ideas they recorded...to discuss main ideas from the speech, i.e. citizenship, personal responsibility, civic duty."

--Finally, "Students could discuss their responses to the following questions: What do you think the President wants us to do? Does the speech make you want to do anything? Are we able to do what President Obama is asking of us? What would you like to tell the government?"

COMMENT:  I can almost hear the chanting and the anthems.  This is over the line in our democracy.

September 1, 2009   Permalink

QUOTE OF THE DAY - AT 10:58 A.M. ET:  David Brooks, a "conservative" op-ed columnist for The New York Times, is often just a lukewarm conservative, but today I think he gets it right:

All presidents fall from their honeymoon highs, but in the history of polling, no newly elected American president has fallen this far this fast.

Anxiety is now pervasive. Trust in government rose when Obama took office. It has fallen back to historic lows. Fifty-nine percent of Americans now think the country is headed in the wrong direction.

The public’s view of Congress, which ticked upward for a time, has plummeted. Charlie Cook, who knows as much about Congressional elections as anyone in the country, wrote recently that Democratic fortunes have “slipped completely out of control.” He and the experts he surveyed believe there is just as much chance that the Democrats could lose more than 20 House seats in the next elections as less than 20.

COMMENT:  One great and legitimate fear is that some commentators will insist on interpreting the president's fall as being racially tinged.  That could create new, unanticipated tensions in American society.  And you can be sure that some will want the race card played.

Another legitimate fear is that the president, in an attempt to reverse his slide, will start to mischaracterize results, especially in foreign policy, as great successes, when they aren't.  For example, there's a report out of the Mideast today that Iran has agreed to restart negotiations on its nuclear program.  Now, this is just procedural, and is probably a stall, but eager Obaman spinsters can start talking about a breakthrough.  Some in Obama's media amen corner will buy it.  Quick international deals, to boost popularity at home, are not unknown, and they often lead to tragedy.

September 1, 2009   Permalink

OBAMA'S POLL DANCE - AT 9:51 A.M. ET:  Two polls show the extent of the political crisis facing President Obama as he returns, or maybe returns, or semi-returns, from his Massachusetts vacation, apparently to spend some time at Camp David.  Guess the air conditioning at the Pennsylvania Avenue cottage isn't working very well. 

Rasmussen, reporting Obama's worst poll numbers yesterday, can do it again today.  Only 45% of likely voters approve of the president's performance, whereas 53% disapprove, a gap of eight points. 

And Zogby is reporting equally grim news for the president:

President Barack Obama's job approval rating is down to 42%, with a decline in approval from Democrats the leading factor.

The latest Zogby Interactive poll of 4,518 likely voters conducted from August 28-31 found 48% disapprove and 42% approve of the job Obama is doing. The poll found 75% of Democrats approve of Obama's performance, a drop of 13 points among Democrats from an interactive poll done July 21-24 of this year. That same poll found 48% of all likely voters approving of Obama's job performance, and 49% disapproving.

COMMENT:  The president is losing ground almost everywhere, but often for entirely different reasons.  Some in his own party think he's not left enough, outside the party they fear he's gone too far in that direction. 

And the 2010 campaigns are about to be launched.  The president returns to work in a position dramatically weakened from where he was only a few months ago, and no real plan to ease the crisis.

September 1, 2009    Permalink

BEHIND THE TOWN-HALL UPROARS - AT 8:50 A.M. ET:  A brief but effective analysis by Fox News holds that the raucous town-hall protests are about a lot more than health-care "reform."  They go deeper, and that is bad news for the party in power:

WASHINGTON -- Recent town-hall uproars weren't just about health care. They were also eruptions of concern that the government is taking on too much at once.

That suggests trouble for the president and his party, and fears of losses in next year's midterm election are likely to shape the Democrats' fall agenda.

At August's town-hall meetings, voters often started with complaints about health care, only to shift to frustrations about all the other things President Barack Obama and the Democrats have done or tried to do since January. The $787 billion economic-stimulus package, the government-led rescue of General Motors Corp. and climate-change legislation all came in for criticism.

"A lot of the anxiety we face here has less to do with health care and everything to do with the overall state of the economy and government," said Rep. Anthony Weiner, a New York Democrat.

"I have seen a level of dissatisfaction and even anger that I haven't experienced in the years that I've been a member of Congress," Sen. John McCain, an Arizona Republican, told an audience at a health-care meeting in Kansas City on Monday.

COMMENT:  Inevitably, that kind of anger focuses on the president.  Clearly, there has been a loss of confidence in the man, a loss that he brought to himself through an above-the-battle aloofness, and a remarkable refusal to provide real leadership, even to his own party.  Sen. Chris Dodd, an Obama ally, criticized him for that just yesterday. 

And a lot of his wild spending didn't help either. 

The president apparently believed that his silver tongue could achieve everything, move mountains, roll back the seas and bring peace on Earth and good will toward men, as well as extend health insurance to everyone and increase tourist traffic at Martha's Vineyard.  We do hope he learns the job by the end of fall.

Please remember that in parliamentary democracies, votes to bring down governments are called votes of "no confidence."  If we had that here, Obama might get a good scare.

September 1, 2009   Permalink

FINANCIAL REFORM MAY BE PUSHED BACK - AT 8:25 A.M. ET:  One effect of the huge health-care debate is to push back financial reform, as The Politico notes:

As the congressional summer recess winds to a close, the debate over health care reform continues to rage hotter than when lawmakers left town. And that could seriously complicate Democratic hopes for revamping the nation’s financial regulations this fall.

Not only does the continued turmoil on health care threaten to burn up all of the bandwidth and floor time on Capitol Hill, but the outcome of the debate could also dictate the success of the regulatory rewrite, analysts say.

What’s more, the political landscape for regulatory reform could shift drastically before the major work gets under way this fall — again, partly because of the dominance of health care reform.

COMMENT:  Now, some conservatives might rejoice in this, but they shouldn't.  Remember that some kind of regulation over commerce is part of the Constitution.  We have regulation.  The issue is how wise each proposal is, how restrictive of economic freedom, and how effective in curing an outrage that Congress should be curing. 

Face it, parts of the financial system failed in the last few years.  The result has been catastrophic.  The idea that Congress can be benign on this is absurd.  Many Republicans voted, for example, for changes in credit-card laws earlier this year because they saw a compelling need (and an angry electorate).  Leftist extremists want to muzzle the whole system because of their contempt for capitalism.  Rightist extremists want to keep their head in the sand while mumbling about the greatness of free enterprise.  The thoughtful center, led, I hope, by people who understand that true free enterprise has been the greatest engine of economic progress in history, want to solve problems where they exist, to protect the American people against predatory and corrupt practices, while letting the system do its job.

September 1, 2009   Permalink

AND WHAT WILL WE DO? - AT 7:55 A.M. ET:  From The Times of London:

Libya is set to flaunt the Lockerbie bomber’s release at the climax of today’s celebrations marking Colonel Muammar Qaddafi's 40 years in power.

The Times of London gained access last night to the dress rehearsal of a spectacular two-hour show which extols Colonel Qaddafi for reviving his country and restoring Arab pride. As the finale approaches, the screen at the back of the giant stage in Tripoli’s Green Square shows Abdul Baset Ali al-Megrahi stepping off the plane which brought him home from his Scottish prison two weeks ago. His arms are raised aloft by Colonel Qaddafi’s son, Saif, as he acknowledges the joyful reception from the crowd below.

Unless it is cut out at the last minute, the clip’s inclusion seems almost calculated to provoke the West.

No word yet from Libya on whether the great finale will go off as rehearsed.  If so, it would be sickening in the extreme.

So far the Obamans have shown only a kind of proper objection to the release of the Lockerbie bomber.  Nothing too strong, no frowning that would be improper in Ivy League circles.  Must not disturb the "outreach" to the Muslim world.

But if this ceremony is done the way the London Times describes, we simply must raise our protest to the highest level, no matter who is offended or annoyed.  The American people, already sensing that the man in the White House is a wimp, will demand it.

September 1, 2009   Permalink

MONDAY,  AUGUST 31,  2009

IRAN PUT ON NOTICE - AT 5:37 P.M. ET:  There is a crunch coming with Iran.  President Obama has said that Iran must respond positively to Western overtures over its nuclear program by mid-September, or face the possibility of greater sanctions.  Problem is, Obama is widely seen as weak.

Now, however, the sanctions threat is being given more substance by the leaders of France and Germany:

BERLIN (AP) -- Germany and France on Monday reinforced a call for Iran to respond to concerns about its nuclear program in September or face tougher sanctions, and said they wanted wide international agreement on those measures.

German Chancellor Angela Merkel pointed to a Group of Eight leaders' agreement in July to reevaluate their position on Iran at a G-20 summit in late September. President Barack Obama has set a Sept. 15 deadline for Iran to respond to U.S. overtures about negotiating over its nuclear program.

''Initiatives must be taken during the month of September which take account of Iran's will or otherwise to cooperate,'' French President Nicolas Sarkozy said after meeting Merkel. If it does not, he said, ''Germany and France will be united in calling for a strengthening of sanctions.''

COMMENT:  Okay, nice words, well put.  But sanctions will require the cooperation of Russia and China, and that's very much in doubt.  Add to that a new, left-wing Japanese government eager to show how it can distance itself from the United States.  And, add to that, an American president who is seriously adrift and is obsessed with some abstract "outreach" to the Muslim world that is going nowhere.

So, the sanctions threat still has plenty of leaks.  This will be a major issue within a month.  Stand by, and observe how Obama handles it, or if he even chooses to do much at all.

August 31, 2009   Permalink

GRIM PROSPECTS FOR DEMOCRATS - AT 4:56 P.M. ET:  The midterm elections are still 14 months away, but the handicapping has already begun.  Given the date, this can best be described as gaming, but it's fun, and illuminates where we are politically.  From The Politico:

After an August recess marked by raucous town halls, troubling polling data and widespread anecdotal evidence of a volatile electorate, the small universe of political analysts who closely follow House races is predicting moderate to heavy Democratic losses in 2010.

Some of the most prominent and respected handicappers can now envision an election in which Democrats suffer double-digit losses in the House — not enough to provide the 40 seats necessary to return the GOP to power but enough to put them within striking distance.

Top political analyst Charlie Cook, in a special August 20 update to subscribers, wrote that “the situation this summer has slipped completely out of control for President Obama and congressional Democrats.”

The sad fact, though, is that the Democratic losses will probably be among moderate Dems, the thoughtful Democrats the country needs to balance the fringe crowd.  They will be running in swing districts that could easily go Republican.

Look, a great deal can happen between now and the 2010 election day.  We haven't even had the 2009 election, where the governorships of New Jersey and Virginia are up for grabs.  And Republicans cannot just sit around and wait to be elected.  They have a history of snatching defeat from the jaws of victory, and they've usually deserved it.  They must have an affirmative program that outlines how they will solve the real problems the nation faces.  And it wouldn't be a bad idea to have some attractive candidates whose closets are free of skeletons.

August 31, 2009   Permalink

QUOTE OF THE DAY - AT 9:55 A.M. ET:  From George Will, appearing in Newsweek:

In August our ubiquitous president became the nation's elevator music, always out and about, heard but not really listened to, like audible wallpaper. And now, as Congress returns to resume wrestling with health care reform, we shall see if he continues his August project of proving that the idea of an Ivy League Huey Long is not oxymoronic.

Barack Obama in August became a Huey for today, a rabble rouser with a better tailor, an unrumpled and modulated tribune of downtrodden Americans, telling them that opponents of his reform plan—which actually does not yet exist—are fearmongers employing scare tactics.

Will goes on to say, in this worthwhile column, that Washington is seriously unserious.  Projected numbers make no sense.  Key legislation isn't doing what it's supposed to. 

The Rasmussen poll, which we've published just below, shows the size of public discontent.  The president's plunge in the polls is not simply a reaction to his health plan, or lack of it.  It's something, in my view, much deeper.  In electing an inexperienced Chicago politician with a silver tongue, Americans knew they were taking a risk.  But many saw in Mr. Obama a kind of redeemer, a man who would cleanse things.  They also saw a symbol of American tolerance and diversity, a thoroughly noble idea.  In one election we could show the world that we are not, at heart, a racist nation.

When expectations are great, and ideals high, the disappointment can be shattering.  No one expected Mr. Obama to solve all the problems of the country in six or eight months, but they did expect him to perform far better than he has.  I get the feeling that many people now doubt Obama's ability to do the job - not to get the job, but to do it.  We know how good he is at getting.

And the racial uniqueness has worn off.  Yes, there are still some Americans who cannot accept a black president or first lady.  And, yes, there are some people who want Mr. Obama to fail simply because of his race.  But I think the number of these misguided souls is smaller than we had a right to expect.  The disillusionment now is among people who have no problem with a very ethnic president, but do have a problem with a man who cannot govern well.

The real test will come in foreign policy.  We used to say that we can take four years of a bad domestic policy, but four years of a bad foreign policy can be fatal. 

That crunch is coming with Iran, Afghanistan and the Mideast in the fall.  Everything up to now has been prelude.

August 31, 2009   Permalink

ANOTHER POLL STUNNER - AT 9:44 A.M. ET:  Rasmussen this morning is reporting the worst approval numbers for Obama since inauguration.  Incredibly, only 46% of likely voters approve of Mr. Obama's performance, whereas 53% disapprove. 

Ras's presidential approval index, measuring the gap between those who strongly approve and strongly disapprove, shows Mr. Obama at minus 11, 30% to 41%.

We always stress that a poll is a snapshot in time, but the trend downward in recent weeks is unmistakable. 

August 31, 2009   Permalink

AND HERE'S THE GOOD NEWS - AT 8:19 A.M. ET:  We are fair here, and look for opportunities to praise President Obama.  We never take the useless, unimaginative position that everything he does must be bad.

And we've found something to like.  The president, it seems, is starting to drive the left crazy.  Oh joy, oh joy:

It is as inevitable in Washington as sweltering summers and steamy sex scandals.

A president is going to be smacked around from the moment he takes office and the uplifting rhetoric of campaign rallies meets the gritty reality of governing.

But the criticism of Barack Obama has turned strikingly personal as some of his liberal media allies have gone wobbly on him. After playing a cheerleading role during the campaign, some are bluntly questioning whether he's up to the job.

If Obama is losing Paul Krugman, can the rest of the left be far behind?

Barack Obama?  Not left enough?  Yeah, that's what some of his supporters are saying. 

"I'm concerned as to whether, in trying to reach out to the middle, he is selling out his base," says Chicago Tribune columnist Clarence Page. "I find myself saying, 'Where's that well-oiled Obama machine we saw last year?' . . . Maybe he's being a little too cool at this point."

And a startling admission in this Washington Post story:

It was liberal commentators, of course, who formed the leading edge of the most favorable coverage that any White House contender has drawn in a generation. Having swooned as they did, some were probably more susceptible to having their hearts broken.

Well, I'm glad someone in a liberal paper admitted that the in-the-tank-for-Obama complaints were accurate.  "The most favorable coverage" indeed.

In today's hyperpartisan atmosphere, liberal pundits are likely to remain in Obama's corner. But for those who once felt a thrill up their leg, the sensation may be wearing off.

COMMENT:  If Obama actually did move toward the center, and I don't think he has done so, he'd be a more effective leader.  The left wing of the Democratic Party represents a small part of the electorate, and makes more noise than policy.  Its foreign policy stands are truly frightening, and sometimes remind us of Republican isolationism during the 1930s.

The liberals regularly turn on their own.  They turned on Hubert Humphrey, "Mr. Liberal," in 1968 and helped elect their nemesis, Richard Nixon.  They never looked back.  Eating your young is an old ultra-liberal tradition.  The complicating factor with Obama is, of course, race.  I doubt if liberals will, in the end, abandon him.

August 31, 2009   Permalink

NO TORT REFORM IN DEM HEALTH BILL, BUT WHY? - AT 8:05 A.M. ET:  The standard reason given for the lack of medical malpractice reform - tort reform - in the Democrats' health bill is the power of the trial lawyers in the Democratic Party.  Even Howard Dean conceded that. 

But just how powerful are they?  The Washington Examiner reports the extent of that clout, and it is truly staggering:

In the ranking by OpenSecrets.org of campaign contributions by the top 100 special interests during the past 20 years, the American Association for Justice (AAJ) – formerly the Association of Trial Lawyers of America – ranks sixth overall. The AAJ is the trial lawyers’ Washington lobbying group, and 90 percent of its $30.7 million in contributions since 1989 went to Democrats. At the other end of this pay-to-play process in the nation’s capitol, AAJ has spent nearly $14 million lobbying Congress just since Democrats won control of both chambers, including $2.3 million thus far this year.

The Democratic focus of the plaintiffs bar is even more obvious from campaign contributions of National Journal’s top 15 class-action trial attorney firms. As the Examiner’s David Freddoso and Kevin Mooney reported last week, those firms have contributed in 2009 more than $636,000, 99 percent of which went to Democrats. And employees of those firms have given more than $236,000 to the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee this year. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid faces an uphill re-election battle, but the top trial lawyers firms are right there for him, with contributions totaling some $54,000 to date.

COMMENT:  Now you know.  We hasten to add, by the way, that trial lawyers also do some very fine and critically important work in this country.  Let's not paint with a broad brush.  But on the issue of tort reform they're self-interested, and doing harm.  As the Examiner points out:

As governors like Texas’ Rick Perry and Mississippi’s Haley Barbour have demonstrated in recent years, capping medical malpractice suits can save billions of dollars by lowering the cost of insurance for providers and increasing access to quality care for patients. Without such caps, trial lawyers stand to continue raking in millions of dollars in fees by bringing suspect suits.

The absence of of tort reform in the Democratic health bill makes a mockery of the claim that it's a piece of "reform" legislation.

August 31, 2009   Permalink

MAJOR CHANGE IN JAPAN - AT 7:48 A.M. ET:  As we reported yesterday, Japanese voters have thrown out the long-standing ruling party and elected a party made up of, well, "beginners" might be the best word, as The New York Times reports:

The party is made up of an inexperienced group of left-wing activists and LDP defectors. It is just 11 years old, and only a handful have served in top government positions.

Just what we need as we confront nearby North Korea over its nuclear and missile programs.  Japanese voters are reportedly frustrated over the weak economy, and the vote is seen more as a "throw the rascals out" action than an endorsement of the new boys, known as the Democratic Party of Japan - as if we required another one.

But there are implications for the United States.  The new party, led by Yukio Hatoyama, who will be prime minister, is far less pro-American than the one it replaces:

Hatoyama has been vocal about distancing Japan from Washington and forging closer ties with its Asian neighbors.

He has said he will end a refueling mission in the Indian Ocean in support of U.S.-led coalition forces in Afghanistan, and wants to review the role of the 50,000 U.S. troops stationed across Japan under a post-World War II mutual security treaty.

But we are given "reassurance":

He is not expected to make any radical departures that would harm relations with Washington, however, and the new U.S. ambassador to Japan said President Barack Obama is looking forward to working with the administration in Tokyo.

Given Hatoyama's leftism, I'm sure Obama is very much looking forward to working with him.  Soulmates.

August 31, 2009   Permalink