Please note that you can leave a comment on any of our posts at our Facebook page.  Subscribers can also comment at length at our Angel's Corner Forum.

OUR DAILY SNIPPETS ARE HERE.

SUNDAY,  APRIL 4,  2010

DEMOCRATIC KAMIKAZES – AT 7:58 P.M. ET:  Blanche Lincoln is the moderate Democratic senator from Arkansas.  Being moderate from a moderate state isn't enough to satisfy the leftist enforcers in the Democratic Party.  She's impure, she won't stick to the script.

Now the left is taking on Lincoln in a primary.  They reason that she's grown so unpopular that she'll lose in November anyway, so why not run a genuine Democrat who's been cleared by the Inquisition.  From the Washington Post:

Backed by national labor unions and Democratic activists, Lt. Gov. Bill Halter is attacking Lincoln from the left as an uncertain senator who too often tilts right on issues from Wall Street and health care to the environment.

Halter contends that the seat is as good as lost to resurgent Republicans if the centrist Lincoln wins the May 18 primary. He said after leaping into the race last month, "My sense is that people want somebody to fight for them."

To paraphrase the immortal Bill Clinton, it depends on what "people" means.  You get the feeling that Halter defines "people" as the top five percent of Ivy League graduating classes, and the law firms they're headed to.

Halter's challenge, which came as little surprise to the Arkansas political establishment, quickly became a national story. Liberal Democrats, frustrated with President Obama and Congress, cheered the chance to make Lincoln pay for her opposition to a government-run health insurance option and the Employee Free Choice Act that would make it easier for workers to organize.

I'm no Blanche Lincoln fan, but it would be good for the two-party system if she beats back this onslaught from the left.  The Democratic Party is getting narrow enough.  It doesn't need a revolutionary from Arkansas.

While Arkansans are "very moderate," Lincoln said, Halter's support "comes from the far left of our party, whether it's the labor unions or the MoveOn.orgs or some of the others out there who think he's the end all, be all. I think he's wrong."

You'd think, in reading this piece, that there won't be any Republican candidate in November.  There will be, and there's a good chance for a turnover to our favor, no matter which kind of Democrat gets the nomination.

April 4, 2010    Permalink

EXACTLY THE RIGHT WORDS – AT 7:26 P.M. ET:  We've said many times at Urgent Agenda that one of the noblest things you can do in politics is to keep your movement honest.  It's one of the hardest things as well because it often means taking on friends.

Representative Kevin McCarthy, Republican of California, today showed how it's done, as he confronted current problems at the Republican National Committee.  From The Politico:

Rep. Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.), the recruitment chairman of the National Republican Congressional Committee, said on Sunday the Republican National Committee needs to clean up its house in the wake of news that it spent nearly $2,000 at a bondage club in Hollywood.

“The RNC does have some challenges they need to correct — not only do the American people request it, but the Republicans request it as well … If we’re going to show the American public we believe in accountability back to Washington, we need to make sure the RNC has accountability just the same,” McCarthy said on "Fox News Sunday."

Precisely.  Speaking gently, without meanness, McCarthy frames the issue as one of responsibility and credibility.  He also understands that, contrary to the sneering observations of some elitists, the American people are indeed watching, and do indeed care. 

When Fox host Chris Wallace noted that McCarthy didn’t give RNC Chairman Michael Steele a vote of confidence, McCarthy suggested that Steele needed to implement reforms at the committee.

“Michael Steele has worked very hard," McCarthy said. "When you find the challenges going forward this past week, he was not at the location. He’s trying to correct it. But you’ve got to bring the trust back, and that may mean shaking up some roles within the RNC as well.”

COMMENT:  Most movements and parties that fade away are not destroyed from the outside.  They destroy themselves.  Although Democrats have won some recent elections, their party is weaker nationally today than it was in its heyday – the period from the 1930s through the early 60s – because it has conceded far too much power to reckless factions.  We saw that at work as Democrats bullied Obamacare through the House, thoroughly indifferent to public opinion.  The Democrats have not disciplined their own party.

McCarthy's warning should be taken seriously.  He has the interests of his party, and his country, at heart.

April 4,  2010    Permalink

THE LOST OPPORTUNITY – AT 11:35 A.M. ET:  The great Michael Barone, one of our best political analysts, examines the lost opportunity that is the Obama administration, and what its failed policies mean for the younger generation.  Is that generation getting the hope and change it wants?

It seems that some young Obama voters have decided it isn't. The Pew Research Center's poll of the millennial generation, which voted 66 to 32 percent for Obama in 2008, found that they identify with Democrats over Republicans by only a 54 to 40 percent margin this year.

Perhaps they are coming to realize that the burdens the Obama policies are placing on the private sector economy are reducing their choices for the future...

...We've had such an economy before, in the second half of the 1930s, and Americans didn't much like it. And not just because they weren't making enough money. Because in such an economy it's much harder to find satisfying work, work that can give you a sense of what American Enterprise Institute President Arthur Brooks in his forthcoming book "The Battle" calls "earned success." We get such satisfaction when we believe the work we are doing -- in workplaces and in community activities and voluntary associations -- is serving interests broader than our own.

And...

Democrats argue that their policies transfer money down the income scale and provide a safety net for individuals. But a nation with an ever larger public sector and an inhibited-growth private sector is a nation with fewer openings for people who want work that will benefit others. Fewer opportunities for young people who want to choose their future, just as they choose their iPod playlists and Facebook friends...Change, maybe, but not much hope.

COMMENT:  The one sector of the economy that hasn't lost jobs in the last few years is the public sector, where the average employee now earns more than his or her counterpart in private industry.  That setup is defended by a powerful union that has, essentially, veto power within the Democratic Party. 

We're not against good, honest unions here.  I'm a union member.  We have many, many readers who are union members.  Ronald Reagan was a union president.  When unions have influence in the private sector, that's one thing.  But when they have influence over the public purse, that is something entirely different.

Barone is right.  The choices available to young people are narrowing.  Of course, that is exactly what the left wants, and has always had at the center of its dreams.  The fundamental position of the left is that its leaders know best what is good for people, and should have the power to enforce their opinions. 

Americans have always recoiled against that notion of government.  Today, though, even many public schools have been infiltrated with leftist thinking.  Will we, as a nation, continue to resist centralization?  On that our future will largely depend.

April 4, 2010   Permalink

DIPLOMATIC AND SOCIAL NEWS – AT 11:05 A.M. ET:  Reader Joseph J. Gallick alerts us to news of a new get-together in the Mideast.  I know you'll want to put it on your calendar:

Iran announced Sunday that it will host an international nuclear disarmament conference later this month.

That's like Bill Clinton hosting a virgins convention.

The country's top nuclear negotiator said China will participate in the talks aimed at promoting nuclear energy for peaceful purposes.

The two-day conference is set to begin April 17, four days after the conclusion of an international nuclear security summit being held in Washington.

Chinese President Hu Jintao is expected to attend the U.S. conference.

Wait.  Now wait a second.  Didn't Hillary Rodham Clinton just inform us that China was cooperating with us on sanctions?  What a way to cooperate – for the president of China to hang with the mullahs in Tehran.

China has resisted efforts to impose new sanctions on Iran over suspicions about its nuclear program.

The U.S. and its allies accuse Iran of working to enrich uranium to develop nuclear weapons, which the Islamic Republic denies.

Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said in a televised speech Saturday that he rejected U.S. diplomatic efforts regarding his country's nuclear program. Mr. Ahmadinejad said that additional sanctions will only make Tehran more determined.

COMMENT:  Iran also disclosed today that it will have a new nuclear announcement on April 9th, this Friday.  And the administration continues to hand us the line that all is well.  Obama himself said he expects new sanctions on Iran in a matter of weeks.  Isn't that just before the Titanic arrives in New York?

April 4, 2010   Permalink

THE WAR ISN'T OVER – AT 10:47 A.M. ET:  Americans have lost interest in Iraq.  Led by a president who will not admit, to this day, that anything was accomplished by the removal of Saddam Hussein, we forget that there is still an enemy determined to prove Barack Hussein Obama right.  From The New York Times:

BAGHDAD — The Iraqi capital echoed with explosions on Sunday, with three suicide car bombings killing dozens of people around Baghdad. Other bombs and rockets went off at widely scattered locations, paralyzing traffic and disrupting communications throughout the city.

An official in the Interior Ministry said there were three suicide bombers who had targeted the Iranian embassy as well as the residences of the Egyptian chargé d’affaires and the German ambassador, all in the Mansour District and nearby on the western side of the city. Officials said that at least 32 people were killed in all, with dozens more seriously wounded. Separately, a police official in Kerrada, a neighborhood in eastern Baghdad, said that a fourth would-be suicide bomber targeted the offices of the government’s embassy protective services but policemen shot and wounded the driver before he could detonate his bomb.

COMMENT:  There have been a number of major attacks in Baghad recently, and we've barely taken notice.  Our enemies know that we are leaving Iraq.  The president has, out of the common courtesy of appeasers and leftist intellectuals, given a pretty precise timetable.  The blasts are aimed at weakening democratic government in Iraq, and those setting off the charges know there will soon be no American force in the country to smoke them out and beat them.

Of course, we all hope the Iraqis, on their own, can build a sane democracy.  It is difficult enough anywhere, more difficult in a culture where there is no democratic tradition.  And more difficult still when the president of the United States has done all in his power to disparage our mission there.  Success, if it comes, will belong to George W. Bush and David Petraeus, but you can be sure that Barack Obama will take the bows. 

If there is failure, the mainstream media will blame Bush alone.

April 4, 2010   Permalink 

WHAT RASMUSSEN REVEALS – AT 10:14 A.M. ET:  The Rasmussen daily tracker has been absolutely fascinating for the last two weeks.

We see, for example, a dramatic improvement in respondents who "strongly approve" of the job President Obama is doing.  It's up to 32%, from a low in the low 20s not many weeks ago.

And yet, when you look at overall approval ratings, the president's numbers have hardly budged:

Overall, 46% of voters say they at least somewhat approve of the President's performance. Fifty-three percent (53%) disapprove.

That, obviously, is a seven-point spread, which is a significant gap.

What explains this seeming disparity is that a larger number of Democrats, who have always approved of Obama, now strongly approve of him, largely because of the passage of the health bill. 

Will this impact the election in November?  Yes, and it could be an important impact.  The thing that gets people to the polls is enthusiasm, or, its opposite, anger.  We know about the anger on the right, and in the center.  But if enthusiasm for Obama grows among his traditional base, more of that base will go to the polls.  Now, that may not matter much in sections of Chicago, where Democratic voters are counted whether voters show up or not, but it can make a big difference in close congressional elections, and there are bound to be many of them.

Karl Rove taught Republicans that they have to take care of their base and bring it out on election day.  Democrats have apparently absorbed the wisdom.  The proverbs of Karl live.

Now the GOP must drag its base, and the angry independents, to the polls as well.  It's not hard.  Just place your hands around a neck, and pull hard.

April 4,  2010   Permalink

SATURDAY,  APRIL 3,  2010

THE GAME IS ON – AT 9:14 P.M. ET:  The "threat" game is rapidly becoming a part of the 2010 campaign.  We discussed it this week at Urgent Agenda.  It's pretty clear that the Democrats will attempt to frame the opposition as dangerous, radical, violent, and racist.  Welcome to the 1960s.

Harry Reid gives us an example, as reported by Fox Nation:

Sen. Harry Reid of Nevada canceled giving his testimony at an LDS fireside last Sunday night because of angry calls, e-mails and even threats. The Democratic Senator is a member of the LDS Church and was invited to offer remarks at an LDS fireside at the Tule Springs Stake in Las Vegas. The fireside on “Why I Believe” was canceled after the threats were made. His press secretary said there were no threats of violence initiated against Reid but he canceled because of the threats against his invitation to speak. Sen. Reid received a warm welcome at BYU in October, 2007 and stands firm on his religious and political views.

COMMENT:  Why, why, the man can't even speak!  He had to cancel to protect people around him!  Terrible, terrible.  Those people in white sheets!

The fact is, politicians get threats all the time.  I've listened to endless numbers of politicos, almost always on the left, reporting "death threats."  Now, by definition, these people are still alive. 

We certainly don't condone crude behavior or physical threats here.  But canceling an appearance because of "threats" is a bit much.  It's part of the political game.  Do we really want to elect those thugs?  And be prepared for heavy charges of "racism" if Obama runs again in 2012. 

I wrote at the Angel's Corner last night that charges of crude behavior against opponents are almost always based on the opponents' beliefs, rarely the behavior itself.  I haven't heard Reid or any Democratic leader expressing concern over wild-eyed behavior on the left. 

The trouble, of course, is that bad behavior is a magnificent subject for the in-the-tank media, as they can usually find some jerk to show on TV.  It's an ideal issue for the Dems and their ink-stained allies to work together.

April 3, 2010   Permalink

ANOTHER OPENING, ANOTHER SHOW – AT 6:44 P.M. ET:  Justice John Paul Stevens, who tilts to the liberal side of the Supreme Court, has given a public hint as to his retirement plans:

WASHINGTON – Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens says he "will surely" retire while President Barack Obama is still in office, giving the president the opportunity to maintain the high court's ideological balance.

Stevens said in newspaper interviews on the Web Saturday that he will decide soon on the timing of his retirement, whether it will be this year or next. Stevens, the leader of the court's liberals, turns 90 this month and is the oldest justice.

His departure would give Obama his second nomination to the court, enabling him to ensure there would continue to be at least four liberal-leaning justices. The high court is often split 5 to 4 on major cases, with the vote of moderate Justice Anthony Kennedy often deciding which side prevails.

"I will surely do it while he's still president," Stevens told The Washington Post.

COMMENT:  Some will say that a Stevens retirement, followed by an Obama anointment, will not change the Court's ideological balance. 

Not necessarily true.  There are liberals, and then there are super-liberals.  Stevens is a liberal voice, but he's hardly a flamethrower.  My own sense is that Obama, who only needs a majority in the Senate to push through a nominee, dreams of a real ideologist on the bench.  Some of his lower-court appointments have been disturbing. 

Of course, if the GOP takes over the Senate in November – a long shot – all will be different.  Even if it doesn't, the tiny number of Democratic moderates who are left could block an extreme appointment, although the term "Democratic moderate" now seems like a contradiction-in-terms, given how most of that crowd caved during the health-care fight.

I'd expect another minority-group appointment, possibly an African-American, who would provide leftist balance to Clarence Thomas, whose existence as a human being the left barely recognizes.

April 3, 2010   Permalink 

GOP HEALTH-CARE STRATEGY EMERGING – AT 12:25 P.M. ET:  We've said here many times that the GOP must have a positive strategy.  It can't simply be the party of "no."  Nothing will be more important than developing a program for dealing with, and pushing back, Obamacare.  One seems to be emerging:

Repealing the entire healthcare bill "probably" will not happen with President Barack Obama in the White House, the Senate's top Republican said Friday.

Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (Ky.) said at a speaking engagement that a full repeal may be unlikely, but that the GOP could be able to repeal parts of it in the fall, even if they don't win back majorities in both houses.

And...

"...this (legislation) is very complex, it’s got a lot of moving parts, many of them have not yet kicked in, won’t kick in for several years. And so the goal would be to repeal it and replace it with something more modest directed at the cost problem, which is what I think most of this whole debate was about in the beginning.”

And...

McConnell has touted a "repeal and replace" strategy since healthcare reform became law just over 10 days ago. Under the plan, opponents would get rid of the law supported by only Democrats and would replace it with new reform legislation...

...Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) said Thursday that Republicans are considering ways to work around a presidential veto. His plan would still be subject to a veto, though a politically tougher one for Obama to enact.

The GOP, in recent years, hasn't exactly been a fountain of creativity.  The intellectual vigor on the right has been in magazines, think tanks, and books.  That must change.  Voters, in November, won't be voting for a column in The Weekly Standard, but for people and plans.  Plans please.  And put on some speed.

April 3, 2010   Permalink

I DO WISH THE PRESIDENT WOULD DEVELOP A SENSE OF HUMOR – AT 11:05 A.M. ET:  We don't have royalty in America, but the president is chief of state, and some presidents have had difficulty matching the personality to the position.

Carter was a small-minded, mean-spirited man who never quite filled the Oval Office.  Clinton, a gifted politician, did fill the Oval Office – with young women. 

Then came The One.  And The One takes criticism very seriously.  Occasionally, he might consider dealing with his critics with some humor, and maintain the dignity of the office.  But he hasn't figured that out, as The Politico reports:

Barack Obama’s tongue-lashing of conservative talk-show titans Rush Limbaugh and Glenn Beck this week could prove a winner for both sides.

The president gets a boost with his base and may win over some independents by tying his political opponents to two of the nation's most polarizing figures.

But the conservative talkers get presidential confirmation that they're at the center of the political debate — together with a collection of sound bytes that will fuel their shows for days to come.

In an interview that aired on CBS’s "Early Show" Friday, Obama said the rhetoric employed by the chief chatterers of the conservative movement is “troublesome” — and he cast Limbaugh and Beck as demagogues who cash in on the fears of Americans struggling through a rough economy.

Limbaugh fired back in an email to POLITICO, arguing that his ratings are just fine in good time and bad — and accusing Obama of "purposely" governing "against the will of the people."

It's not the first time a president has gone after conservative talk radio; in the days after the Oklahoma City bombing, President Bill Clinton said that "promoters of paranoia" on the airwaves "must know that their bitter words can have consequences."

COMMENT:  Look, both Rush and Glenn can, at times, go over the top.  But both are talented broadcasters who express their views no more vigorously than do some of Mr. Obama's left-wing supporters and media fronts. 

The president has, at times, seemed obsessed with Fox News.  Now, true, presidents before him have also become frustrated by the media.  John F. Kennedy famously cancelled his subscription to the old New York Herald-Tribune, in its day a rival to The New York Times.  But Kennedy, when called upon at a press conference to assess his treatment by the press, quipped, in a takeoff on a cigarette commercial of the time, "I'm reading more and enjoying it less."

Obama might try that approach.  Attempt a little wit.  Can't hurt, might help.  Might also assist in softening the image of his administration as a group of Chicago street pols, previously invested in who gets a traffic light on the corner, who can't stand the national heat. 

But there's a question:  Does the president have a wit, or do demigods leave that quality behind when they ascend to their lofty heights?

April 3, 2010   Permalink

ONE GENERATION AWAY – AT 10:27 A.M. ET:  Ronald Reagan liked to say, and my friend Silvio Canto Jr. reminds us each day at his site, that freedom is only a generation away from extinction. 

As we watch the polls, and maybe draw some solace from Obama's declining approval, let's not forget that elections in democracies are won by 50% plus one at the polls.  You can have 49.99% of the nation thinking the leader is a complete disaster, but it doesn't matter if he's able to patch together enough interest groups to win the office.

Let's not forget that the British people, whom we like to think of as resolute and stalwart, turned Winston Churchill out of the prime minister's post in mid-1945, before the war in the Pacific was even over.  Let's not forget that Jimmah Carter was ahead in the polls for most of the 1980 campaign.  Had that trend persisted, no one would remember Ronald Reagan today. 

Rasmussen is reporting this morning that the president's support, which increased a bit in his survey last week, is surging among Democrats.  Yes, I know – neither Dems nor Republicans are a majority.  But if either party can pick up enough independents, it can win and take power.  And it can strangle the next generation through fiscal chaos, which is what we're heading toward. 

So I worry that the increasing enthusiasm of Democrats for the "victories" of Obama, like Obamacare, will bring us closer to the day when the nanny staters will have a rock-solid base, and only need a relatively small number of disgruntled independents to hang on to power.  That has happened in Europe.

And it can happen here. 

One generation away.

April 3, 2010   Permalink

IRAN SPEAKS – AT 10:02 A.M. ET:  Do you sometimes get the feeling that the president of Iran is a child, and that the president of the United States is his rag doll?  From Reuters:

(Reuters) - Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad rejected a renewed call from the United States to engage diplomatically to overcome the nuclear standoff, saying he saw no change in Washington's hostile policy.

Speaking at a factory inauguration on Saturday, Ahmadinejad said a message by President Barack Obama to mark the Iranian new year last month contained "three or four beautiful words" but nothing new of substance.

"They say that 'we have extended our hands to the people of Iran but the government of Iran and the people of Iran pushed it back'. What hand did you extend toward us?" Ahmadinejad said in a televised speech.

"What changed? Your sanctions were lifted? The adverse propaganda was stopped? The pressure was alleviated? Did you change your attitude in Iraq, Afghanistan and Palestine?"

And...

Iran would easily cope with any new sanctions on petroleum imports, Ahmadinejad said, adding that such measures would only serve to strengthen his people's resolve.

"You should know that the more hostile you are, the stronger an incentive our people will have, it will double," he said.

COMMENT:  If I were the president of Iran, I'd say exactly the same thing.  What does he have to lose?  The Iranians, historically, have been superb negotiators, and they've basically backed us into a corner.  What do we do now?  Iran has rejected our overtures.  Iran has rejected European negotiations for seven years.  Iran's nuclear program forges ahead.  The Chinese have already said they won't vote, at the UN Security Council, for anything more than cosmetic escalation of sanctions.  And Hillary Clinton, apparently reverting to her 1960s childhood, has essentially ruled out military action.  (Hillary is on a sixties roll:  Yesterday she determined, after much thought and prayer, that there was no military solution to the Arab-Israeli conflict.  In fact, Israel has survived for 62 years precisely because of its military strength.)

So why should Iran do a thing except spin its centrifuges and laugh?  It took the president of the United States, Chicago semi-tough guy Barack Obama, four days to cruise up to a microphone and denounce the suppression of Iranian democracy demonstrators.

How do you spell FAILURE?  That describes our Iran policy.  Washington is already planning for a nuclear Iran.  I wonder how Hillary and the Wizard of Pennsylvania Avenue will explain that away.

April 3,  2010   Permalink