WEDNESDAY,  SEPTEMBER 2,  2009

BULLETIN - AT 8:46 P.M. ET:  From The Washington Times:

The Obama administration late Wednesday withdrew a recommendation that school children who watch a video featuring President Obama next week write about how they might "help the president" as part of a classroom assignment.

The decision came after conservative critics attacked the plan by federal education officials that teachers supplement the speech with a special curriculum that was designed in concert with the White House.

COMMENT:  Maybe the White House is starting to get the message.  This is the United States.  We don't worship leaders. 

September 2, 2009   Permalink

BUSINESS AS USUAL - AT 7:24 P.M. ET:  Please remember that there's a vacant Senate seat in Massachusetts due to the death of Senator Kennedy.  We recall what happened in Illinois when President Obama vacated his seat to become president.  The fight to succeed him in the Senate turned sordid, to put it mildly, and the nation wound up with Roland Burris.

Now Massachusetts is reverting to standard political form, as The Politico notes:

Most of the prospective contenders for the late Sen. Ted Kennedy’s seat have demurred when asked about their interest, but several are well-stocked for a January special election that figures to spawn an intense, expensive and compressed battle for the Democratic nomination.

As many as seven current or former Massachusetts Democratic congressmen have been mentioned as potential Senate candidates and between them they’ve stockpiled nearly $16 million that could be used to fund campaigns for their party’s Dec. 8 special Senate primary, which will likely determine the next senator from deep-blue Massachusetts.

To be sure, some of the seven have downplayed the possibility that they’d seek the seat and others would face long odds of winning the nomination if they threw their hats into the ring. But national fundraisers, Massachusetts political strategists and sources close to the prospective candidates all agree that having a financial head-start will be a huge advantage in a race where the ability to quickly raise and spend vast amounts of cash could be determinative.

“The money will be a huge factor,” said a Massachusetts Democratic operative, who asserted that to be a viable special election candidate, Democrats will need to raise between $3 and $4 million before December. Others predict the putative entry fee could be north of $5 million—or more for candidates with lower statewide name identification.

COMMENT:  Bought and paid for.  You'd think they'd try to elevate the process in Massachusetts, but money still talks.  It will be business as usual.  The effect of political funerals usually lasts about 24 hours, 48 if they liked the guy.

September 2, 2009   Permalink

OH, NOT AGAIN - AT 5:02 P.M. ET:  As if we weren't blessed enough, we are about to be addressed one more time by the one, the only, the guy we've all been waiting for...Barack!  (Sustained applause)

The president will address a joint session of Congress on the subject of health- care "reform" on September 9th.  This comes one day after he will address the nation's students, in their madrassas, by live TV hookup.  The New York Times announces:

President Barack Obama plans to begin an increasingly personal push for his embattled health care initiative with a televised address before a joint session of Congress next Wednesday night, an administration official said.

The president’s speech is timed for Congress’s return after an August recess that took its toll on his signature domestic issue after opponents disrupted lawmakers’ town hall meetings on the subject and national polls charted slippage in support for Mr. Obama and his proposed overhaul of the health care system.

The administration also is trying to compile a simplified and lower-cost blueprint for legislation that would plainly put Mr. Obama’s stamp on the issue, and more clearly identify it with him. The effort amounts to an acknowledgement that the president’s previous tactics of laying out principles and leaving Congress to fill in the details were no longer working.

COMMENT:  Nothing like a little overexposure.  This is a clear example of how this administration runs things - government by speech.  Obama still believes, despite his experience in recent months, that he can convince people of anything, that only when HE rises to speak do the mountains move and the waters recede.  He recently held a major press conference on health care that the in-the-tank media dutifully covered.  He had precious air time, but couldn't even describe his own health-care program.  And what is the solution?  Another speech.

The president's TV ratings have been going constantly down, along with his poll ratings.  Let's see if this new encore will be any different.

Frankly, I think people are bored with him, as they would be bored by any salesman after the first few pitches fail to work.

September 2, 2009   Permalink 

QUOTE OF THE DAY - AT 10:25 A.M. ET:  From respected political reporter Dan Balz of The Washington Post, on the Obama-Democratic dilemma, as we enter the political season:

For much of the year, White House officials have been cautioning their Democratic allies on Capitol Hill that the party will rise or fall together, that failure is the worst possible outcome of the health-care debate because of what it would say about the Democrats' ability to govern. That remains a powerful motivator among Democrats, and it is one reason to believe that, in the end, Congress will send some kind of health-care bill to Obama for his signature.

But members of Congress and the president are now operating on conflicting political timetables. Obama doesn't have to worry about reelection until 2012, when the world could look quite different. Members of Congress have to face the voters in 14 months and already they are nervous about what they see. Once they start worrying mostly about their own survival, Obama's hold on them will be weakened.

Obama's self-confidence and patience are well known. If he has been rattled by the summer setbacks, he won't show it. But this is not the campaign of 2008. His team of Hill veterans knows that successful legislating is tedious and often comes in small, hard-won victories that ultimately add up to bigger success. That has been and remains their focus.

COMMENT:  Yeah, this governing part is a bummer.  It was so easy when you could have a rally with 10,000 starry-eyed college students, and shout, "Yes we can!"

And remember that Mr. Obama faces large foreign-policy challenges in the fall, as well as a confrontation on his cap 'n trade bill, which is running into fierce opposition in the Senate. 

For Obama, the best news would be a revived economy.  Money in the pocket, or a good job, will change votes, no matter what today's polls show. 

September 2, 2009   Permalink

MORE DEM POLLING WOES - AT 9:59 A.M. ET:  Rasmussen is reporting that the gap in support between Democrats and Republicans is growing:

The latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey shows that 43% would vote for their district’s Republican congressional candidate while 36% would opt for his or her Democratic opponent.

That represents the lowest level of support for Democrats in recent years, while Republicans have tied their highest level of support for the third straight week. The previous low for Democrats over the past year was 37%.

And...

Looking back one year ago, support was strikingly different for the parties. Throughout the summer of 2008, support for Democratic congressional candidates ranged from 45% to 48%. Republican support ranged from 34% to 37%.

COMMENT:  What a difference a year makes.  But remember, things can go in reverse.  A year from now we will be approaching the 2010 midterms.  As the financial people say, today's numbers are not a guarantee of future results.  Republicans must be energetic, creative and practical. 

And we wish some good luck to moderate Democrats.  We need a two-party system, and they are the only ones who can stabilize the Democratic Party and return it to saner times.  The genius of American politics, historically, has been its practicality, not its ideology.  The Dems today are far too ideological, stuck out there on the leftist fringe (mistakenly called liberal). 

If those of our persuasion work hard, field candidates who can do the job, and nurture the Reagan Democrats, we'll do fine.

September 2, 2009   Permalink

MORE ON DEAR LEADER'S ADDRESS TO THE FLOWER OF OUR YOUTH - AT 8:49 A.M. ET:  We've gotten a flood of e-mails over the announcement from the Information and Enlightenment Ministry in Washington that President Obama will take a giant leap in saving our children by addressing all American students, via TV, on September 8th.

Conservative commentator Michael Medved has some thoughts on that:

To prepare for this great event, the Department of Education orders teachers in Grades 7 to 12 to ask their students: Why does President Obama want to speak with us today? How will he inspire us? How will he challenge us? After the great event, the department suggests that teachers of younger students (Pre-Kindergarten to Grade 6) should instruct their students to write letters to themselves about what they can do to help the president. These should be collected and redistributed at an appropriate later date by the teacher to make students accountable to their goals.

For those who consider this an appropriate use of classroom time at the very beginning of the school year, ask yourself the question: how would you respond had President Bush ordered teachers to get students to write letters to themselves about what they can do to help the president?

Inevitably, the brilliant minds behind this magnificent event will say that they're just echoing John F. Kennedy's call to "ask what you can do for your country."  But serving the country, and serving a political leader, are two entirely different things.  We don't serve presidents.  Presidents serve us.   This is the United States, the last time I looked.

A number of teachers have reacted with appropriate indignation to the misuse of public resources and precious school time to encourage the cult of Obama worship. Carole (not her real name), a gutsy middle school teacher in the Midwest, discussed the upcoming speech on my radio show on Monday. Teachers from four different states called in to say that they would follow her example and refuse to devote class hours to watching and discussing the presidential address.

I wonder if the thought police will come after these teachers, and insist that they be sent back to school for "reeducation."

Challenges from parents and taxpayers everywhere could force a change in White House plans. The idea of using government schools to force students to bond with the maximum leader might seem appropriate for Cuba or North Korea, but it’s clearly out of place in a Constitutional republic.

It's time for a protest, a big one.

And it's time for national Republican leaders, and moderate Democrats, to speak out and stop this misuse of children.

September 2, 2009   Permalink

REMEMBER - AT 7:45 A.M. ET:  Today is September 2nd, the anniversary of the formal end of World War II.  The Japanese signed the instrument of surrender aboard the battleship USS Missouri in Tokyo Bay on this day in 1945. 

In remembering September 2nd we should remember the enormity of the sacrifices this country made in past wars.  I mention that because of my contempt for poorly educated journalists who glibly talk about how America is "war weary" today...and yes, every casualty is precious, especially for the family involved.  But consider:  In the last year of World War II...

the United States lost more than 19,000 men at the Battle of the Bulge,

the United States lost almost 7,000 men at Iwo Jima,

the United States lost more than 12,000 men at Okinawa.

Please remember that the next time some fashionably leftist journalist agonizes over our situation today, or sneers at the use of the atomic bomb, which ended the horrors of World War II.

Tonight, at the Angel's Corner, we'll be publishing a fine recollection by reader Claude Williams of his trip through the wartime battle sites of Europe, and how it affected him.  Well worth reading.

September 2, 2009   Permalink

HEALTH CARE - THE EXCITING, HEART-POUNDING SEQUEL - AT 7:28 A.M.  Starring Barack Obama as the young president, Rahm Emanuel as his best friend, with a cast of thousands at town meetings across America. 

It appears that the president has decided to do some governing, or something like it.  You know, general governing.  The New York Times reports that he'll get more active on health care:

WASHINGTON — President Obama is planning for “a new season” of more hands-on advocacy for his troubled domestic priority, an overhaul of the health care system, according to his advisers. Among the likely steps would be a nationally televised speech that close allies have urged, and a 10-year price tag for the overhaul below the $1 trillion mark.

Another speech?  Another illusion that if The One merely blesses the thing, it will be done.  No, sir.

A 10-year price tag below $1-trillion?  What do you think the real price tag will be?  How about $2-trillion, and counting?

Mr. Obama met on Tuesday with advisers including Rahm Emanuel, the White House chief of staff, and David Axelrod, a senior strategist, to prepare for Congress’s return to work next week after a month in which many lawmakers have been spooked by contentious townhall meetings and polls registering slipping support for the president and his health care plans.

“We’re obviously entering a new season here and this issue has been debated and discussed and chewed over at great length now,” Mr. Axelrod said in an interview. “There are a lot of ideas on the table and now it’s time to pull those strands together and finish the work.”

Now it's time?  We're talking about life-and-death issues.  Now it's time?  What about before, when the "plan" was being written?  Welcome to government.  Campaign is over.

And get this breakthrough:

That suggests the president could for the first time put in writing the elements of a health care plan, drawing from the common pieces of measures approved in three House committees and the Senate committee formerly headed by the late Senator Edward M. Kennedy, Democrat of Massachusetts, in an attempt to spur Congressional action.

While they're at it, how about putting into writing 1) how we're going to end the Iranian nuclear threat; 2) how we're going to win in Afghanistan; 3) how we're going to counter North Korea; 4) how we're going to stand with our East European allies on missile defense.

You know, while you've got the fountain pen out, Mr. President, give us more than a few pages.  Pads are available at Staples.  Get a four-pack.

September 2, 2009   Permalink

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