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.

WEDNESDAY,  JANUARY 27,  2010

11:20 P.M. ET:  As with most State of the Union speeches, it's already being forgotten.  My own sense is that the president did very well rhetorically – it was a good, old-fashioned Obama delivery.  But on substance, the speech, in retrospect, was heavily partisan, and was stunningly short on national security and foreign policy.  Foreign policy is usually the one area where a president can shine because it's his preserve.  This president showed little interest, a reflection of the indifferent, often lax foreign policy of his first year in office.

We've asked at Urgent Agenda whether Mr. Obama wants to be a Kennedy or a Carter.  Kennedy learned from his mistakes, and tried to correct them in his second year.  Carter never learned a thing.  I had the feeling tonight that Obama still leans toward the Jimmah jamboree – he's going to tough it out.  My policies, right or wrong.

Mr. Obama suffers from a common malady of the left.  Very often his criticisms are accurate.  There are things wrong in America – from greedy, irresponsible bankers, to a leaky health-insurance system.  It's the prescriptions that the left usually gets wrong, or administers incompetently.  Liberals, historically, have often had trouble governing, even though the public may cheer on their goals.

Republicans must now respond to the president by offering creative solutions to serious problems.  The Republican Party remains unpopular, and will continue to be so until it starts showing that it's the creative opposition, not just the loyal opposition. 

10:52 P.M. ET:  The pundits are now in charge.  By the way, one thing that's already come up several times, both in TV punditry and in some initial e-mails from our readers, is Obama's unprecedented attack on a Supreme Court decision – the decision last week striking down part of the McCain-Feingold campaign finance reform law.  Some observers felt the president was out of line in attacking that decision during a State of the Union message, and in the presence of the justices.  I agree.  Bad taste.  Sometimes he just can't control that instinct. 

10:36 P.M. ET:  McDonnell is speaking.  He is an appealing, effective speaker.  He is cool rather than hot.  He is wise to show agreement with President Obama in some areas, but he clearly defines differences, as in the treatment of terrorists.  I would say, though, that McDonnell needs a bit more energy in his delivery, a bit more sizzle.  But, by and large, this is a good, respectful reply to the president.  The most important thing about a reply to the State of the Union is to avoid being obnoxious. 

McDonnell finishes.  Solid job. 

10:28 P.M. ET:  The Republican response is about to be delivered by newly elected Governor Bob McDonnell of Virginia.  This will be interesting.  Last year the response to Obama's first speech to Congress was delivered by Governor Bobby Jindal of Lousiana, who blew the opportunity with a weak, ineffective delivery. 

10:20 P.M. ET:  Mr. Obama concludes the speech with an inspirational ending.  Perfectly fine, and very well delivered.  The president was at his rhetorical best tonight. 

10:18 P.M. ET:  The president is back to talking about the need for change.  He is speaking reasonably about some challenges and problems – we don't deny that – but once again we wonder if the performance can equal the words.

10:16 P.M. ET:  Did I miss something?  The national security part of the speech went by in record time.  It was barely a footnote.  I'm not encouraged.  The president would have been well advised to reverse the absurd decision to try the mastermind of 9-11 in a civilian court in New York.  Tin ear again. 

10:14 P.M. ET:  The president says we must always be on the side of freedom and democracy.  Well, that's nice to know, but his first year in office is no ornament to that ideal.  To put it mildly.  Mr. Obama calls for an end to "don't ask, don't tell."  Wild applause from his side, appealing to a Democratic constituency. 

10:11 P.M. ET:  Now the president is slipping.  He talks about North Korea being more "isolated," but that hasn't stopped the North Koreans from advancing its nuclear program.  He also promises, one more time, toughness toward Iran.  But the record is poor.  Nothing new here, and nothing to give us confidence that there will be more effective policies.  This is a poorly written, poorly thought out section of the speech.  Get me my pills.

10:08 P.M. ET:  Obama commits again to removing American troops from Afghanistan, starting in 2011.  He reaffirms his plan to have American combat troops out of Iraq this year.  Both are bad moves.  Why give an enemy such a timetable?  The president is appealing to his political left.  He can't seem to help it. 

10:05 P.M. ET:  Obama moves on to national security.  His opening lines are not encouraging – denouncing the politics of "fear," as if reasonable fear of terrorism is something bad.

10:02 P.M. ET:  The president, in a bad moment, just attacked the Republican Party for being a party of "no."  Not a good line.  Should have been left out.

9:54 P.M. ET:  The president proposes a spending freeze, and says he cannot support tax cuts for some corporations and high earners.

9:52 P.M. ET:  Well, the president is back to blaming BUSH (!!) again for problems he inherited.  There may be some truth in this – no one denies there were serious problems – but it gets tiresome. 

9:48 P.M. ET:  Mr. Obama delivered one line that I'd like to note – the importance of colleges and universities lowering their costs.  I believe this will be a growing issue, as more and more families wonder about where all this "education" money is going.  For too long we have treated higher education as a sacred cow.  Send money, don't ask questions.  That attitude must stop, and I think it will.

9:44 P.M. ET:  The president just came out, once again, for health-care reform.  Thank goodness, even the Republicans applauded.  Most people are in favor of reform.  It's the kind of reform we're concerned about.  If the president would open his ears to GOP ideas, he'd get some results.

9:38 P.M. ET:  A word about style:  Whether we agree or disagree with the president, I must say that he's in very good form tonight.  He's using the same rhetorical style that got him elected – which is why I caution regularly about underestimating him when he meets the voters again.

9:34 P.M. ET:  Mr. Obama has just endorsed a new generation of nuclear power plants.  Good.  We agree on that.  He's also hinted at a new approach to offshore drilling, but there are no specifics.

9:28 P.M. ET:  The president is making a series of economic proposals, some of which sound reasonable.  It's impossible, though, to evaluate them now.  The devil will be in the details, how these proposals actually work.

9:24 P.M. ET:  Obama says jobs must be the focus.  It has taken him a year to realize this.  He calls for a new jobs bill.

9:20 P.M. ET:  The president gets big applause from his side by proposing a fee on banks that received bailouts.   Republicans are silent.  One can debate this issue, but I hate to see the GOP, once more, pictured as the party of the big bankers.  Big bankers aren't winning popularity contests.

9:17 P.M. ET:   The president informs us that he's never been more hopeful about America's future.  Nice to know that. 

9:14 P.M. ET:  Well, here we go.  Obama is telling us how much woe there was when he took office a year ago. 

9:08 P.M. ET:  Nancy Pelosi, a legislative official, has just presented the president.  There is sustained applause.  On State of the Union night, there'd be sustained applause for an empty chair.  Or suit.

9:04 P.M. ET:  The president has just been introduced.  He's marching down the aisle, although not in the John Edwards sense.  Everyone smiles.  This is the show biz part.

9:01 P.M. ET:  There is no mention of Scott Brown, the newly elected senator from Massachusetts.  I don't think he's been sworn in yet.  The camera just focused on Attorney General Eric Holder, emerging as the most controversial member of the Obama administration, and a perfect candidate for early departure should sanity prevail.

8:59 P.M. ET:  Most of the big shots are in the House chamber, waiting for the president.  Just think about it:  All these people have government health plans, and we're paying for them.

8:57 P.M. ET:  We now begin our live blogging of the Second Gettysburg Address, which we're about to hear.  Just kidding.

BULLETIN - AT 6:38 P.M. ET:  Obama to seek repeal of "don't ask, don't tell" in State of the Union:

Washington (CNN) -- President Obama will ask Congress Wednesday night to repeal the military's "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy that bars gays and lesbians from openly serving, White House Senior Adviser David Axelrod told CNN.

The request will be included in the president's State of the Union address, Axelrod said.

Oh dear Lawdy.  The guy's in big trouble, and this is the move he wants to highlight?  This is the first issue that Clinton tackled on his first day in office, and it almost sank him immediately.

The president's ears may be big, but they're still tin.  I cannot believe that he'll put this into the speech tonight, at a time when he must prove himself to the American people.  Looks like he's staying hard left.

Oh, by the way, Hillary Clinton is skipping the speech.  She's going to London for a conference.  They're telling us this has White House approval.  I don't know.  Maybe Hillary feels the vibes.

January 27, 2010   Permalink

OBAMA CRUSHES SPACE DREAMS – AT 6:01 P.M. ET:  Great presidents understand that this is a dreaming society.  Americans love to shoot for the stars.  Less than great presidents intellectualize things to death, including dreams.  What do you think we have today?  From the Orlando Sentinel:

NASA's plans to return astronauts to the moon are dead. So are the rockets being designed to take them there — that is, if President Barack Obama gets his way.

When the White House releases his budget proposal Monday, there will be no money for the Constellation program that was supposed to return humans to the moon by 2020. The troubled and expensive Ares I rocket that was to replace the space shuttle to ferry humans to space will be gone, along with money for its bigger brother, the Ares V cargo rocket that was to launch the fuel and supplies needed to take humans back to the moon.

There will be no lunar landers, no moon bases, no Constellation program at all.

President Kennedy must be spinning in his grave at Arlington.

And get this:

In the meantime, the White House will direct NASA to concentrate on Earth-science projects — principally, researching and monitoring climate change — and on a new technology research and development program that will one day make human exploration of asteroids and the inner solar system possible.

COMMENT:  When this nation stops dreaming, it stops being the United States.  So the White House wants NASA to roll up the dreams and concentrate on...climate change.

How veddy intellectual.  Young kids around America, who draw pictures of spacecraft in their notebooks, must be thrilled.

January 27, 2010   Permalink

A BLUNT ALERT ABOUT THE GLOBAL-WARMING INDUSTRY – AT 5:44 P.M. ET:  Polls show that the American people put global warming near the bottom of their list of priorities, and for good reason:  They've caught on, even if the American press hasn't.

Once again The Times of London, which leads the media in exposing the "science" behind global warming, reports an important story.  This time a major figure in British science is confronting the global warmers:

The impact of global warming has been exaggerated by some scientists and there is an urgent need for more honest disclosure of the uncertainty of predictions about the rate of climate change, according to the Government’s chief scientific adviser.

Finally, some major figure whose career intersects science and government has said it.

John Beddington was speaking to The Times in the wake of an admission by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) that it grossly overstated the rate at which Himalayan glaciers were receding.

Professor Beddington said that climate scientists should be less hostile to sceptics who questioned man-made global warming. He condemned scientists who refused to publish the data underpinning their reports.

Many people are not aware that such "scientists" exist.  They say to the world, "Trust us.  We have doctorates."  But thoughtful reviewers want to see the evidence.

This refusal to publish, by the way, extends into other fields as well, especially fields that are politically fashionable.

He said that public confidence in climate science would be improved if there were more openness about its uncertainties, even if that meant admitting that sceptics had been right on some hotly-disputed issues.

Common sense there, I think.

He said: “I don’t think it’s healthy to dismiss proper scepticism. Science grows and improves in the light of criticism. There is a fundamental uncertainty about climate change prediction that can’t be changed.”

COMMENT:  We are making some progress, thanks to the London Times and a few other sources, in bringing some sanity to the global-warming "debate," a debate the global warmers in the land of Al Gore refuse to have. 

We should make them have it, and force them to show up.

January 27, 2010   Permalink

THIS JUST IN – IT ISN'T BUSH'S FAULT - AT 5:21 P.M. ET:  History was made in American journalism today as a mainstream publication printed an article saying something wasn't the fault of George W. Bush.  Some are suggesting that this should now be a national holiday.

From, ahem, Newsweek:

The first increase in teen pregnancy in more than a decade has, unsurprisingly, led many to place blame on Bush’s heavy funding of abstinence-only education. The Guttmacher Institute report that identified the teen-pregnancy increase suggests that it has to do with "the growth of abstinence-only sex education programs at the expense of comprehensive programs." Katie Couric made a similar link on last night’s CBS News, and, over at Feminste, one of the most-read feminist blogs, they're putting it even more bluntly...

...Abstinence-only education is a polarizing issue, and its critics have an easy bandwagon to jump on. But if we take a step back and look at the relationship between funding for abstinence-only education and the teen-pregnancy rate, it’s a difficult conclusion to stand by...

...If abstinence-only education is indeed to blame for the new rise in the teen-pregnancy rate, then it would have made sense to see gains much earlier than 2005. Particularly between 1997 and 1998, when the funding of abstinence-only education increased tenfold, there should have been some indication of an uptick. But there wasn’t: in that year, the teen-pregnancy rate dropped by about 3 percent, pretty similar to drops in other years. Despite a consistent increase in abstinence-only education funds, we did not start seeing an increase in teen-pregnancy rates (or even a slowdown in the rate at which they were decreasing) until the mid-2000s.

COMMENT:  You mean, you mean we can't blame BUSH (!!)?  Apparently not.

Is something changing in American journalism?  Well, one little article is no indicator, but maybe, just maybe, some journalists will start coming to their senses, forced by sheer facts and the declining bottom lines of their once-formidable publications.  George W. Bush and Richard Cheney were not villains.  Disagree with them on specific policies if you wish, but they were officeholders who performed honorably and effectively, and did a great deal of good for their country.

January 27, 2010   Permalink

ANOTHER VOTE OF CONFIDENCE – AT 5:04 P.M. ET:  From the Washington Examiner:

Just when it appeared that the numbers for the Democratic health care proposals passed by the House and Senate couldn't get any worse -- they have. A new poll by CNN and Opinion Research, taken from January 22 to January 24, shows that 69 percent of respondents say Congress should dump the current Democratic health care proposals and either write an entirely new health bill or stop working on the subject altogether.

"What do you think Congress should do on health care?" CNN asked. "Pass a health care bill similar to the legislation that Congress has been working on for the past year, start work on an entirely new bill, or stop working on any bills that would change the country's health care system?" Thirty percent said pass a bill similar to the current ones, while 48 percent said start work on a new bill and 21 percent said stop working on health care. Add it up, and 69 percent say Congress should either write a new bill or stop working on health care altogether. (When CNN asked only about the existing bills, 58 percent said they oppose the bills, while 38 percent say they support them.)

The numbers make it easier to understand why many Democratic lawmakers who voted for the bills in the House and Senate are now running away from the issue. Despite those numbers, however, Democrats remain under pressure from the left to use their last remaining maneuver -- House passage of the Senate bill, followed by revisions passed by the Senate using the 51-vote reconciliation process -- to pass the existing bill.

COMMENT:  The left has the potential to sink the Democratic Party. 

Periodically, our parties have had to be saved by leaders who understood the need for correction.  Dwight Eisenhower saved the Republican Party from itself in 1952, as that party was having difficulty entering the 20th century, and maybe even the 19th.

Bill Clinton, with all his faults, saved the Democratic Party from irrelevance in 1992, although his election was made much easier by Ross Perot's egomaniacal campaign, which took votes from Bush 41.

Who will save the Dems now?  Who will save them from a Congressional faction that actually looks to Fidel Castro for lessons on health care, and which believes 9-11 was just a cultural dust-up?  There's only one current guy who can save them, and he'll be speaking tonight.  The trouble is, the bulb over his head hasn't gone on yet.  No bulb, no salvation.  That's a political rule.

January 27, 2010   Permalink

QUOTE OF THE DAY – AT 10:41 A.M. ET:  From columnist Kathleen Parker:

We're not a nation of red states or blue states, he told us. We are the United States of America. Except we're not -- and that's the problem Obama faces Wednesday night. The emergence of Obama's heretofore-absent pugilist merely adds another layer to the real challenge before him. Is he trustworthy?

For a year now, Obama's visionary, unifying words haven't matched the results. It isn't entirely his fault, but his leftward agenda took him far from center field where he was when optimistic Americans watched his pregame warmup. Since last January, watching him has been like watching a movie where the soundtrack hasn't been synchronized with the actors' lips.

Meanwhile, we have become not a purple, but a Brown nation. As in Scott. Like Obama himself, Brown -- an imperfect candidate under any other circumstances -- was the right man in the right place at the right time.

COMMENT:  Well stated, although I think Brown was more solid as a candidate than Obama ever was.  Brown didn't, for example, have the baggage of Rev. Wright, a bunch of Marxists, and some strange history, trailing him around.  But Obama did have the media picking up after him.

We will look for hints tonight as to whether Obama wants to be Kennedy or Carter.  Kennedy had a sense of history, knew he had failed his first year, and worked to correct the problems.  Carter, the only self-proclaimed deity we had in the White House before Obama, had no sense of history, or even common sense, never recognized a failure that wasn't caused by the sinfulness, sloth and malaise of the American people, and did nothing to change.  He wound up being thrown out of office, with a bunch of hostages in Iran still waiting to be released.

January 27, 2010   Permalink

RASMUSSEN ON OBAMA'S APPROVAL – AT 10:17 A.M. ET:  As we await the State of the Union message, where does President Obama stand with the American public?

Our favorite pollster, Scott Rasmussen, reports his findings this morning:

The Rasmussen Reports daily Presidential Tracking Poll for Wednesday shows that 27% of the nation's voters Strongly Approve of the way that Barack Obama is performing his role as President. Forty-two percent (42%) Strongly Disapprove giving Obama a Presidential Approval Index rating of -15 (see trends)...

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

COMMENT:  Rasmussen polls among likely voters.  So, 42% of likely voters strongly disapprove of the president's performance.  That is a startling figure, only one year after inauguration. 

But remember that Bill Clinton turned a similar situation around, and was reelected in 1996, thanks in part to an absysmal GOP campaign, something that can happen again. 

Recent polling shows, by the way, that the president's foreign policy continues to enjoy reasonable public support, in part because the public backs the sending of more troops to Afghanistan.  That support can easily be eroded, of course, of Obama collapses on Iran and continues to treat terrorists as shoplifters.

January 27, 2010   Permalink

A STORY OF VICTORY – AT 9:01 A.M. ET:  This is terrific, just terrific.  It is wonderful to be able to report a story of victory by the good guys.  Consider this, from the great website, Planet Iran, edited by our friend Banafsheh Zand-Bonazzi:

MUNICH, Germany – German engineering conglomerate Siemens (SIEGn.DE) said on Tuesday it would reject any further orders from Iran as world powers consider imposing wider sanctions on Tehran over its disputed nuclear activity.

Germany, one of six countries seeking to persuade Iran to suspend its atomic work, is one of the biggest exporters to Iran despite three rounds of modest United Nations sanctions prompted by past Iranian evasions of U.N. nuclear monitoring.

Western nations suspect the Islamic Republic of trying to develop nuclear weapons capability, a charge Tehran denies. It says that its uranium enrichment programme is designed solely for electricity generation, not atomic bombs.

Iran ignored a U.S. end-2009 deadline to respond to an offer from world powers of economic and political incentives in exchange for halting enrichment or face more sanctions.
German Chancellor Angela Merkel said on Tuesday Iran was running out of time if it wanted to avoid further sanctions.

Siemens, which is Europe’s biggest engineering conglomerate, was aware of the sensitivities attached to doing business in Iran, Chief Executive Peter Loescher said.

“Some time ago, we reduced our business activities with customers in Iran,” Loescher said, responding to questions at a shareholders meeting.

COMMENT:  Siemens has been one of the great villains in the sale of sensitive equipment to Iran.  Now, if the firm keeps its word, that will stop.

The untold story here is the fine work of a group called STOP THE BOMB, which has a terrific logo:

Represenatives from STOP THE BOMB go to shareholder meetings of offending European companies, and speak out against their corrupt trade with Iran.  And they get results.

I've met one of the leaders of the group, Dinah Simone Hartmann, who operates out of Vienna – a gutsy lady who puts herself at risk for a good cause.  I wish we had a group like that in America.

Congratulations to Dinah and her entire organization.

January 27, 2010   Permalink

AND THEY'RE FIGHTING AMONG EACH OTHER – THE SCOTT BROWN EFFECT – AT 8:48 A.M. ET:  The Democrats are an unhappy bunch today.

Look, I don't know if Scott Brown will be sworn in quickly enough to be at the State of the Union speech tonight.  But, if you're a Democrat, you know that Brown would be a bigger attraction than President Obama.  As the song "America," from "West Side Story," put it, "Smoke on your pipe and put that in."

The Politico notes that the troops are fighting amongst themselves:

President Barack Obama, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid will be all smiles as the president arrives at the Capitol for his State of the Union speech Wednesday night, but the happy faces can’t hide relationships that are fraying and fraught.

The anger is most palpable in the House, where Pelosi and her allies believe Obama’s reluctance to stake his political capital on health care reform in mid-2009 contributed to the near collapse of negotiations now.

But sources say there are also signs of strain between Reid and White House chief of staff Rahm Emanuel, and relations between Democrats in the House and Democrats in the Senate are hovering between thinly veiled disdain and outright hostility.

In a display of contempt unfathomable in the feel-good days after Obama’s Inauguration, freshman Rep. Dina Titus (D-Nev.) stood up at a meeting with Pelosi last week to declare: “Reid is done; he’s going to lose” in November, according to three people who were in the room.

Titus denied Tuesday evening that she had singled out Reid, but she acknowledged that she said Democrats would be “f—-ed” if they failed to heed the lessons of Massachusetts, where Republican Scott Brown won Ted Kennedy’s Senate seat last week.

COMMENT:  Such language.  Ah, how the party of George McGovern and Jimmah Carter has fallen. 

The last time the president addressed Congress, a Republican inappropriately shouted at him, "You lie."  You know, I wouldn't be that shocked if Rep. Titus jumped up and said something along those lines tonight.  I just hope she keeps it clean.

January 27, 2010   Permalink

THE SPEECH – AT 8:21 A.M. ET:  The president delivers his State of the Union address tonight.   We will be covering it.

Don't expect much, unless the president claims that he, not John Edwards, is the father of that illegitimate child.  I'm not betting on that. 

State of the Union messages are usually forgotten rather fast, and they often, as Karl Rove pointed out last night, result in a president's approval ratings going down rather than up.

The president is failing.  He is failing as a policymaker and as a leader.  He is not in control of his own party.  Indeed, as The Politico reports, his party is deeply divided:

President Barack Obama will deliver his State of the Union address Wednesday night to a deeply divided country — and a deeply divided party.

Amid plummeting polls, a wave of retirements and a sobering loss in Massachusetts, Democrats say they’re looking for leadership from the president.

But they want him to lead them in different directions.

Some want him to go down fighting on health care reform. Others say he should try one last time and then move on. Some applaud his plan for a partial freeze on federal spending. Others say it will kill the social safety net. Some say it’s time for Obama to reach across the aisle. Others want him fired up and ready to go all over again, but some wonder whether he’s lost his 2008 campaign magic.

The president's leadership skills are minimal.  Before becoming president, he'd never led anything other than a self-admiration society.

Attention tonight will probably focus on domestic policy.  But it's foreign policy that I worry about most.  A poor domestic policy can do damage, but that can be repaired.  A blind foreign policy can kill us.

What a difference a year makes.  One year ago, this president was being portrayed as a new deity, come to save us from our wicked ways.  Now he is seen as ready for the dustbin of history.

Only he can save himself, but that requires the realization that he must be saved.  I don't think it's dawned on him yet.  Maybe an e-mail from the kids would help.

January 27,  2010   Permalink

TUESDAY,  JANUARY 26,  2010

THEY ARE SO, SO SUPERIOR – AT 11:31 P.M. ET:  My friend James Taranto of The Wall Street Journal's Best of the Web Today blog, writes about the reaction of liberal, better-than-you-are journalists to election results that don't go their way.  There's a long tradition of this kind of thing:

Last week Boston Globe columnist Renee Loth described the election of Scott Brown as "a collective primal scream." It's an old trope, reminiscent of the late Peter Jennings's classic declaration after the 1994 election:

"Some thoughts on those angry voters. Ask parents of any 2-year-old and they can tell you about those temper tantrums: the stomping feet, the rolling eyes, the screaming. It's clear that the anger controls the child and not the other way around. It's the job of the parent to teach the child to control the anger and channel it in a positive way. Imagine a nation full of uncontrolled 2-year-old rage. The voters had a temper tantrum last week. . . . Parenting and governing don't have to be dirty words: the nation can't be run by an angry 2-year-old."

This is a fairly common attitude expressed by those who've never spent time actually traveling the country and speaking to Americans.  Say nothing bad about the dead, but Jennings was an insufferable snob with a clearly low opinion of anyone who dared to disagree with him. 

Echoing this view of the voters as angry, unreasoning and immature is Time's Joe Klein, who in the headline of a blog post describes Americans as "Too Dumb to Thrive":

"Absolutely amazing poll results from CNN today about the $787 stimulus package: nearly three out of four Americans think the money has been wasted. On second thought, they may be right: it's been wasted on them. . . .

"This is yet further evidence that Americans are flagrantly ill-informed...and, for those watching Fox News, misinformed.

"It is very difficult to have a democracy without citizens. It is impossible to be a citizen if you don't make an effort to understand the most basic activities of your government. It is very difficult to thrive in an increasingly competitive world if you're a nation of dodos."

Klein regularly makes a fool of himself, and has become an embarrassment to his profession.  But the arrogance of that statement should win some kind of prize.  James Taranto responds:

Hey, wait! Didn't this nation of dodos elect Barack Obama not 15 months ago? Why yes it did...

And finally...

What's more, there is a particular type of stupidity to which intelligent people are uniquely prone: intellectual snobbery, or the tendency to cultivate an attitude of contempt toward those who are not as bright. This may appeal to New York Times readers or voters in, say, Hyde Park--that is, to people who think they're better than everyone else too. But it may prove Barack Obama's undoing as a national politician.

Well said.  What has always struck me about a certain class of "intellectuals" is how anti-intellectual they actually are.  They have little interest in debate or exploration.  They have found the truth.  They actually do believe they are superior to other people, either because of the job they hold, the school they went to, or how much factual knowledge they've stuffed into their heads. 

I always love to quote an old adage about music, that there isn't a graduate of the Juilliard School in New York who wouldn't give up everything just to write one Irving Berlin song.  There is real talent, and there is put-on talent.  The real intellectuals, not the frauds, are the ones who know the difference.

January 26, 2010   Permalink

THE DEMS DON'T SLEEP – AT 8:24 P.M. ET:  The Democrats are starting to form their strategy for the 2010 midterms.  This should serve as a wakeup call for those in the GOP who think this will be a cakewalk, and that the Dems will just turn over and play dead:

Senate Democrats, seeking to breathe new life into their 2010 electoral prospects after their shocking loss in Massachusetts last week, are unveiling a new war strategy: divide and conquer the GOP.

The Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee passed out a memo Tuesday advising Democratic campaign managers to define their Republican opponents early and to highlight the differences between moderate voters and tea party-style conservatives.

"Given the pressure Republican candidates feel from the extreme right in their party, there is a critical -- yet time-sensitive -- opportunity for Democratic candidates," the DSCC wrote in the memo, which was obtained by FoxNews.com. "We have a finite window when Republican candidates will feel susceptible to the extremists in their party. Given the urgent nature of this dynamic, we suggest an aggressive effort to get your opponents on the record."

The memo encourages Democratic candidates to compel their opponents to answer a series of questions on issues that have helped boost the tea party movement and reveal cracks in GOP unity, including health care, taxes and President Obama's citizenship and ideology.

COMMENT: It seems to me that the Dems have the start of a good strategy.  You want to put your opponent on the defensive.  We've urged here before that readers not underestimate the political abilities of the Obama team.  I've seen too many examples, in the last week, of Republicans already counting the fruits of victory.  That's what President Dewey did in 1948. 

The Dems are assessing the opposition correctly.  There are fissures in the Republican Party, some caused by strains between the party establishment at the Tea Partiers.  If those fissures can be made greater by shrewd Democratic strategy, a certain number of conservative voters might just stay home on election day.

We have to work every day as if we're ten points behind.

January 26, 2010   Permalink

HILLARY DOES THE RIGHT THING – AT 7:26 P.M. ET:  We've seen something remarkable in recent days – foreign countries criticizing the United States for not doing enough in Haiti, or doing it incorrectly. 

It's the standard lecture from more "enlightened" societies.  All this criticism, of course, was supposed to stop once The One took office, but it hasn't.  No matter what we do, we get roasted. 

Now the secretary of state, whom we don't praise here too often, does the right thing by snapping back at all these superior folk who think they know best.  From The Washington Times:

Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton on Tuesday lashed out at foreign criticism of the U.S. response to this month's earthquake in Haiti, saying that Washington's decision to send thousands of troops to the devastated country was "either misunderstood or deliberately misconstrued."

Despite the positive international reaction to President Obama's election in 2008, negative attitudes toward the United States remain in many quarters around the world -- including among longtime U.S. allies -- and the vast relief effort in Haiti has been no exception.

Much of it is based on the reality that the political left controls the news media in these countries, and provides its own "narrative."

"I deeply resent those who attack our country, the generosity of our people and the leadership of our president in trying to respond to historically disastrous conditions after the earthquake," Mrs. Clinton said at a town-hall meeting with State Department employees to mark her first year in office.

Well said.  It's about time we fought back against some of these international creeps.  One of these days they'll call Washington asking for help, and no one will answer the phone.

U.S. officials were not surprised by criticism from countries such as Venezuela, Bolivia and Cuba, which have accused the United States of occupying Haiti. However, they were shocked by comments from a senior Italian official who denounced Washington's earthquake response as "pathetic."

Guido Bertolaso, head of Italy's Civil Protection Agency, said on Sunday that the United States "tends to confuse military intervention with emergency intervention" and that despite the presence of 13,000 American troops in Haiti, "no one is giving orders."

In fairness, the Italian government quickly distanced itself from this guy's comments.  Italy has a very warm relationship with the United States.  This individual handled relief for an earthquake in Italy that killed 300 people.  The quake in Haiti has killed upwards of 150,000.  There's a bit of a difference.

We await a comment from the White House to equal Hillary's strong defense of this country and its armed forces.  And again we wait in vain.

January 26, 2010   Permalink

ANOTHER NEWSPAPER STRATEGY DOES A "TITANIC" – AT 6:41 P.M. ET:  Newsday is the dominant newspaper on Long Island, which is just east of New York City.  Recently it made a move to charge readers for its previously free online content.  And now (trumpets please) the result:

The paper was one of the first non-business newspapers to take the plunge by putting up a pay wall, so in media circles it has been followed with interest. Could its fate be a sign of what others, including The New York Times, might expect?

So, three months later, how many people have signed up to pay $5 a week, or $260 a year, to get unfettered access to newsday.com?

The answer: 35 people. As in fewer than three dozen. As in a decent-sized elementary-school class.

Now, it is true that people throughout America don't grow up with a deep wanting of Newsday.  The paper is today owned by a notably contentious family that has little experience in journalism, and continues to highlight Long Island news.

But the fact is that many papers want to put their content behind a "pay wall," and are looking to see if the Newsday experiment works.  So far it's been a major flop.   Look at the number – 35.  That's not a subscription base.  That's a chain letter.

One of the great things about the internet is that so much news reporting is provided free of charge.  The news organizations, presumably, collect their revenue from advertising and other forms of content.  The pay news sites that do work are business-oriented, like The Wall Street Journal. 

The New York Times will go "pay wall" sometime this year.  Last year they ended an experiment that forced readers to pay for favored columnists.  Apparently the columnists weren't that favored.  I'm guessing this new plan will fade away as well.

January 26, 2010   Permalink

FOX MOST TRUSTED NETWORK – AT 5:48 P.M. ET:  There will be advanced coronary complications throughout mainstream media today, as the result of a PPP poll on public appraisal of the news networks.  Jennifer Rubin at Contentions has the story:

The Democratic polling outfit Public Policy Polling reveals:

"Americans do not trust the major tv news operations in the country- except for Fox News. Our newest survey looking at perceptions of ABC News, CBS News, CNN, Fox News, and NBC News finds Fox as the only one that more people say they trust than distrust. 49% say they trust it to 37% who do not. CNN does next best at a 39/41 spread, followed by NBC at 35/44, CBS at 32/46, and ABC at 31/46."

Look, the mainstream media types won't believe the poll.  After all, no one they know thinks that way.  Who are those peasants in the poll?

This will certainly be unwelcome news to the White House, but it is also further evidence that the Obama administration may have the ability to lift its enemies to new heights of popularity. Perhaps all that vilification from the White House demonstrated that Fox wasn’t the patsy of the administration. Or maybe viewers can judge for themselves — and have long since tuned out the advice of the White House on everything from health care to which news outlet they should watch.

COMMENT:  The American people come through once again. 

January 26, 2010   Permalink

JUST DEVELOPING – AT 9:50 A.M. ET:  News is first coming in about this, but we may have just dodged another terrorist bullet.  From CNN:

A man was arrested Monday after police found an arsenal of high-powered weapons and a map of a U.S. military base in his New Jersey hotel, authorities said.

You know, the kind of stuff everyone has.

Lloyd R. Woodson, 43, was arrested and faces multiple weapons charges after an investigation into his suspicious behavior at a store in Branchburg, New Jersey, said local prosecutor Wayne J. Forrest.

Woodson, wearing a military jacket, went to a store called Quick Chek on Monday afternoon and was acting suspiciously, Forrest said in a statement. The clerk called authorities.

The clerk is a hero, and may have prevented another Fort Hood.

When officers arrived, Woodson ran into the woods. He was subdued after wrestling with officers, the statement said.

During the struggle, officers noticed that Woodson was wearing a bulletproof vest and carrying an assault rifle in his coat.

And here is the intrigue:

Officers searched Woodson's hotel room and found another assault rifle, a grenade launcher, a police scanner, another bulletproof vest, a map of a U.S. military base, hundreds of rounds of ammunition and a Middle Eastern-style headdress, the statement said.

A Middle Eastern-style headdress?  Why, of course, isn't that what we all wear? 

Now, why would a man with that arsenal also have a Middle Eastern-style headdress?  I want to know all about this man.  And yes, I want to know his religious background.

I hope the press stays on this story.  The usual suspects will probably dismiss the Mideast fashion as a coincidence.  After all, who are we to question?  I want a lot of answers.

January 26, 2010   Permalink

BLUNDER OF THE DAY – AT 9:22 A.M. ET:  Historians a few hundred years from now will probably look back and wonder how the residents of the left became so obsessed with an institution known as Fox News. 

You just get the feeling that some liberals jump up in the middle of the night, having been scared by nightmares that include Roger Ailes as the Devil and Bill O'Reilly as the Devil's Disciple.  Sarah Palin will appear next, as Jezebel.   You betcha. 

In a column today, former Secretary of Labor Robert Reich recalls how the Clinton administration reacted to the Democratic loss of Congress in 1994.  Reich writes:

In December 1994, Bill Clinton proposed a so-called middle-class bill of rights including more tax credits for families with children, expanded retirement accounts, and tax-deductible college tuition. Clinton had lost his battle for healthcare reform. Even worse, by that time the Dems had lost the House and Senate. Washington was riding a huge anti-incumbent wave. Right-wing populists were the ascendancy, with Newt Gingrich and Fox News leading the charge. Bill Clinton thought it desperately important to assure Americans he was on their side.

Well, well, well, well, well.  This is what happens when obsession distorts memory.  Will someone gently inform Mr. Reich that Fox News didn't come into existence until October, 1996, some two years after, he assures us, it was leading the charge against Bill Clinton. 

By the way, Fox News is also responsible for the swine flu, low student performance in inner cities, and bad commuter service.  Pass it on.

One of the basic rules of journalism:  Don't do anything from memory.  Look it up. 

January 26, 2010   Permalink

UTTERLY CHILLING – AT 8:37 A.M. ET:  We were worried over the Christmas-day airline bomber.  Let's not forget that an attack like that is small-time stuff compared to what Al Qaeda apparently has in mind.  The Washington Post, in a solid piece of journalism, reports:

When al-Qaeda's No. 2 leader, Ayman al-Zawahiri, called off a planned chemical attack on New York's subway system in 2003, he offered a chilling explanation: The plot to unleash poison gas on New Yorkers was being dropped for "something better," Zawahiri said in a message intercepted by U.S. eavesdroppers.

The meaning of Zawahiri's cryptic threat remains unclear more than six years later, but a new report warns that al-Qaeda has not abandoned its goal of attacking the United States with a chemical, biological or even nuclear weapon.

Why would it abandon that goal?  That's what Al Qaeda is about.

The report, by a former senior CIA official who led the agency's hunt for weapons of mass destruction, portrays al-Qaeda's leaders as determined and patient, willing to wait for years to acquire the kind of weapons that could inflict widespread casualties.

The former official, Rolf Mowatt-Larssen, notes:

"If Osama bin Laden and his lieutenants had been interested in . . . small-scale attacks, there is little doubt they could have done so now," Mowatt-Larssen writes in a report released Monday by the Harvard Kennedy School of Government's Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs.

Not everyone affiliated with Harvard is a cookie-cutter leftist, although the cutter seems to have made many, many cookies.

The report comes as a federal panel is about to release an assessment of our preparedness for a WMD attack:

The review by the bipartisan Commission on the Prevention of Weapons of Mass Destruction Proliferation and Terrorism is particularly critical of the Obama administration's actions so far in hardening the country's defenses against bioterrorism, according to two former government officials who have seen drafts of the report.

Is any reader out there surprised by that conclusion?  Maybe the Obamans think that hardening our defenses would be offensive to certain cultures that are equal in every way to ours, and also have nice music and costumes.

Mowatt-Larssen, a 23-year CIA veteran, led the agency's internal task force on al-Qaeda and weapons of mass destruction after the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks and later was named director of intelligence and counterintelligence for the Energy Department. His report warns that bin Laden's threat to attack the West with weapons of mass destruction is not "empty rhetoric" but a top strategic goal for an organization that seeks the economic ruin of the United States and its allies to hasten the overthrow of pro-Western governments in the Islamic world.

He cites patterns in al-Qaeda's 15-year pursuit of weapons of mass destruction that reflect a deliberateness and sophistication in assembling the needed expertise and equipment.

COMMENT:  Another serious warning, coming at a time when Iran is working vigorously toward nuclear weapons.  It would be comparatively easy for Iran to pass some knowledge on to favored terrorist groups.

And yet, we treat captured terrorists like shoplifters, reading them their Miranda rights. 

There's an old saying that the Constitution is not a suicide pact.  Apparently, many members of the Obama administration didn't get the memo.

January 26, 2010   Permalink

PUBLIC REJECTS DEM CONTROL OF CONGRESS – AT 8:19 A.M. ET:  The political winds are shifting, and public opinion polls are marking the change:

Washington (CNN) - Americans are divided on whether Democratic control of Congress is good for the country, according to a new national poll.

Well, that's a bit of a whitewash.  Read on.

A CNN/Opinion Research Corporation survey released Monday also indicates that 7 in 10 Americans believe that the Democrats' loss of their 60 seat supermajority in the Senate is a positive move for the country.

Forty-five percent of people questioned in the poll said Democratic control of Congress is a good thing, with 48 percent disagreeing. The margin is within the survey's sampling error. But the results are a shift from last June, when 50 percent felt that Democratic control of both chambers of Congress was good and 41 percent felt it was bad for the country.

Democrats control the House 256 to 178, with one seat vacant. Last week's victory by Republican Scott Brown in a Massachusetts special Senate election to fill the final three years of the late Sen. Ted Kennedy's term means that Brown will become the 41st Republican in the chamber, leaving Democrats with 59 senate seats. That's one short of the filibuster-proof supermajority they have held since last spring, when Republican Sen. Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania switched parties.

"The poll provides more evidence of the dwindling appeal of the Democratic party in the wake of last week's special election in Massachusetts," said CNN Polling Director Keating Holland. "Fewer Americans have a favorable view of the Democrats, and fewer support Democratic control on Capitol Hill."

COMMENT:  Now let's see if Republicans can keep that lovin' feeling through the November election.  The verdict on Dem control, though, is getting pretty definitive.

Voters can react in very strange ways, which is why prediction is always a dangerous sport.  In 1942, barely 11 months after Pearl Harbor, President Roosevelt's Democratic Party suffered massive losses in the House.  There was still enough uncertainty over the war, and a residual resentment toward the president for winning a third term, to cause substantial discontent.  Yet, two years later, with Mr. Roosevelt running for, and winning, a fourth term, his party made up some of the 1942 losses.  The war was being won, we were confident, and the Democrats were seen as the "commander-in-chief" party. 

So, as Mort Sahl used to say, "the future lies ahead."  We can't entirely predict it.

January 26, 2010   Permalink

JOIN THE REVOLT! – AT 7:50 A.M. ET:  It often takes a bit of time for the forces of good, decency and the American way to organize, but they eventually get it together.  The revulsion over the lax treatment of the Christmas day bomber is growing, and US senators are pressing for change we can believe in.  Byron York, in the Washington Examiner, chronicles the movement:

A bipartisan revolt is brewing in the Senate over the Obama administration's handling of accused Detroit bomber Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab. A small but growing number of lawmakers is asking the president to undo what many regard as the disastrously wrong-headed decision to grant Abdulmutallab full American constitutional rights. Once he was told he had the right to remain silent, the accused terrorist stopped talking to U.S. investigators, possibly denying them valuable intelligence about the threat from al Qaeda.

And...

The anger on Capitol Hill grew over the weekend, when the Associated Press reported that local FBI agents in Detroit were allowed to question Abdulmutallab for just 50 minutes before he went into surgery for several hours. During that time, Justice Department lawyers in Washington intervened and Abdulmutallab was later read his Miranda rights.

That was bad enough, but what really made lawmakers angry was when White House press secretary Robert Gibbs, appearing on "Fox News Sunday," insisted the 50-minute interrogation had been entirely sufficient for investigators to learn everything they needed to know about the al Qaeda plot to bomb Northwest Airlines Flight 253.

That is complete madness.  Perpetrators are often interrogated for hours on end, and for a number of days running.  A real intelligence-oriented interrogation would have made use of the vast amount of information we collect from intercepts and other sources every day.  "Do you know this person?  Do you know this other person?  Describe your training?  What other targets were discussed?  Did you see photographs of these targets?"

Leading the revolt are Senators Joe Lieberman of Connecticut and Susan Collins of Maine:

On Monday, Lieberman and Collins wrote to Attorney General Eric Holder, as well as top White House terrorism official John Brennan, saying the decision to give Abdulmutallab full American constitutional rights had been a serious mistake, but that "the administration can reverse this error, at least to some degree, by immediately transferring Abdulmuttalab to the Department of Defense ... [which has] the authority and capability to hold and interrogate Abdulmuttalab and try him before a military commission."

Lawyers debate whether it would be possible to transfer the accused to military jurisdiction once the civilian system has asserted control.  There apparently is no definitive answer, and a court would probably have to decide.

Would President Obama go along with the demand for the transfer?

You might think the president would agree. After all, he has said specifically that the United States is "at war against al Qaeda." But changing Abdulmutallab's status would be an admission that his administration got it wrong when confronted by an al Qaeda terrorist determined to kill Americans. And it's not at all clear that that is something the president is prepared to do.

COMMENT:  I think it goes well beyond that.  The president is a leftist lawyer, and leftist lawyers believe that terrorism is, at worst, a law-enforcement problem.  He also is saddled with a number of Justice Department senior officials who come from the very law firms that defended, pro bono, Gitmo detainees.  And when you realize that the profoundly left-leaning former deans of both the Harvard and Yale law schools are high officeholders in his administration, one gets a depressing picture.

January 26,  2010   Permalink