MONDAY,  DECEMBER 21,  2009

THE DISGRACE - AT 8:57 P.M. ET:  It is a wonder that Chris Matthews remains employed.  There was a time when only a fringe news organization would have a staffer with so little self discipline.  But MSNBC apparently has more modern and with-it standards. 

Newsbusters reports Matthews's latest outrage:

On this evening's Hardball, Chris Matthews called Dick Cheney "the bath-tub ring of the Bush administration."

Chris' calumny came in reaction to the news that the estimable Human Events magazine has named the former VP Conservative of the Year.

CHRIS MATTHEWS: Those soldiers of the right over at Human Events magazine came out today with their Conservative of the Year Award. They gave it to the bath-tub ring of the Bush administration himself, that residue of eight years that won't leave us, Dick Cheney.

What style, what intellect. 

John Bolton, at Human Events, explained the award in terms that Mr. Matthews apparently can't comprehend:

How is it, therefore, that someone who has no political ambitions can cause so much angst at the White House and in the mainstream news media? The irrefutable answer is that what Cheney is saying, primarily on foreign policy, defense and anti-terrorism, makes sense to more and more American citizens growing increasingly worried by the Obama Administration’s insouciance when U.S. national interests are threatened, both at home and abroad.

COMMENT:  That is correct.  The left-wing media hates Cheney because he's so good at what he does, and so articulate in expressing his beliefs.  He is a devoted public servant who never sought personal popularity or aggrandizement in office.  And he doesn't vacation in Aspen.

December 21, 2009   Permalink

RUDY OUT - AT 7:12 P.M. ET:  Fox News is reporting that former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani will not run for the U.S. Senate next year.

That's too bad.  The seat that's up is currently held by nondescript Kirsten Gillibrand, appointed to fill out the term of Hillary Clinton.  New York is a Democratic state, but polls have shown Rudy beating Gillibrand handily.  I don't know of any other Republican who can.

I suspect that this may end Rudy's political career.  He ran a poor campaign for president in 2008, and is out of the public eye.  He's already declined to run for governor next year.  No one thinks of him as a presidential candidate in 2012.  After a time, his accomplishments as mayor of New York will be forgotten.  No one who has sat in the New York mayor's chair has ever achieved higher office.

It's just speculation, but I wonder if this is Rudy's wife's decision.  An informed source tells me that Rudy has become a bit, well, henpecked.  More vivid language can be used.  It was hoped, recently, that he'd address a rally to oppose the civilian trial of the 9-11 mastermind in New York.  But he didn't show, reportedly because his wife doesn't like him doing things like that on weekends.  Hey, Judy, that's when a lot of that stuff gets done.

So, unless he gets some appointed office, Rudy Giuliani may soon be a name from the past, which is too bad, given his talents.

December 21, 2009   Permalink

COLLISION COVERAGE - AT 6:08 P.M. ET:  The great Michael Barone writes of the situation that's developed, in the age of Obama, when liberal dreams collide with public opinion.  The result is not pretty, even if you're in good hands:

In the Bella Center on the south side of Copenhagen and in the Senate chamber on the north side of the Capitol, we’re seeing what happens when liberal dreams collide with American public opinion. It’s like what happens when a butterfly collides with the windshield of a speeding sport utility vehicle. Splat...

...Barack Obama, who seemed so confident of his powers as he prepared for his inauguration, evidently believed that he could persuade Americans to support left-of-center policies that they had never favored before.

Yeah, that's the problem, isn't it?  Those nasty citizens out there.   With opinions.  Is that legal?

The Copenhagen conclave seems to be unable to produce the promised binding treaty committing 100-plus nations to reduce carbon emissions. It seems likely to kick the can down the road to 2012.

One reason is that the leaders of China and India are unwilling to slow down the economic growth that has been lifting millions out of poverty in order to avert a disaster predicted by climate scientists who, we now know from the Climategate e-mails, have been busy manipulating data, suppressing evidence and silencing anyone who disagrees.

Another is that American voters have shown a growing skepticism of such predictions. The cap-and-trade bill that Obama hoped to brag about in Copenhagen now clearly has no chance of passage in the Senate.

And that is one of the key pieces of legislation in the Dem library.

There is still some chance that Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid can corral 60 Democratic votes for whatever health care bill he unveils. But it’s looking increasingly unlikely — and increasingly politically suicidal for some of those 60 Senate Democrats.

Bill Clinton has told those Democrats that they’d be better off politically passing something rather than nothing. But his own job rating swelled only after his health care proposals failed to pass.

Hmm.  A bit of forgotten history.

“What’s really exceptional at this stage of Obama’s presidency,” writes Andrew Kohut, the Pew Research Center’s respected pollster, “is the extent to which the public has moved in a conservative direction on a range of issues. These trends have emanated as much from the middle of the electorate as from the highly energized conservative right. Even more notable, however, is the extent to which liberals appear to be dozing as the country has shifted on both economic and social issues.”

By the way, that last development is actually an old story.  We even saw it in the 1950s.  Once many liberals got over their infatuation with Adlai Stevenson, who lost to Eisenhower in both '52 and '56, they essentially dropped out of politics.  I mean, my dear, what is there left after Adlai?  Working people?  People who don't read The Times?  People who eat hamburgers?

Obama first came to national attention in 2004 by promising to heal partisan, ideological and racial divisions. Like the other two Democratic presidents elected in the last 40 years, he campaigned in the center and started off governing on the left. In Copenhagen and on Capitol Hill we are seeing the results. Splat.

COMMENT:  And may the splat continue to splatter through next year's elections.

December 21, 2009   Permalink

QUOTE OF THE DAY - AT 5:50 P.M. ET:  From the Republican governor of Nebraska, Dave Heineman, on the switcheroo pulled by his fellow Nebraskan, Democratic Senator Ben Nelson:

"Nebraskans did not ask for a special deal, only a fair deal. Under no circumstances did I have anything to do with Senator (Ben) Nelson's compromise. I, along with governors all across America, have expressed concern about the unfunded Medicaid mandate. I have said all along that this bill is bad news for Nebraska and bad news for America. Additionally, I criticized Senator (Harry) Reid when he got a special deal for Nevada that didn't apply uniformly to all states. Senator Nelson negotiated this special deal, rather than a fair deal for both Nebraska and America. The responsibility for this special deal lies solely on the shoulders of Senator Ben Nelson."

COMMENT:  Some people in Hollywood or Manhattan reading that statement would probably express wonderment that those people out there - the flyover people - can actually write English.  When did this happen?  My gawd.

It's a fine statement.  Republicans are asking a simple and devastating question:  If this health "reform" bill is so good, why have so many private deals with individual senators been needed to pass it?  So far, there's been no answer.

December 21, 2009   Permalink

AND THE POLLS KEEP HEADING SOUTH - AT 10:20 A.M. ET:  Another milestone in Rasmussen's Barack Obama saga:

The Rasmussen Reports daily Presidential Tracking Poll for Monday shows that 26% of the nation's voters Strongly Approve of the way that Barack Obama is performing his role as President. Forty-three percent (43%) Strongly Disapprove giving Obama a Presidential Approval Index rating of -17 (see trends).

Today’s update shows the highest level of Strong Disapproval yet recorded for this President. It comes as the Senate is preparing to pass health care reform legislation initiated by the President and opposed by most voters. That latest Rasmussen Reports tracking, released earlier today, shows that 41% support the health care legislation and 55% are opposed.

COMMENT:  Wait 'til they get to cap-and-trade.  And let's see if Obama fails on Iran.  And then of course there's "immigration reform."  From today's vantage point, it appears that it would take an economic boom next year to get the Democrats out of trouble.  Of course, then they'd tax it and jump right back into the doghouse. 

By the way, there are actually suggestions floating around Washington political circles that President Obama offer a guaranteed job to any Democratic member of Congress who volunteers to run next year in a difficult district, and is defeated.   But...isn't that the way the system works already?

You'll know the president is really in trouble when the kids come home from school with biographies of Dick Cheney.

December 21, 2009   Permalink

HARRY'S HOORAH - AT 10:05 A.M. ET:  Senator Harry Reid got his 60 votes last night, in a test vote on health-care "reform."  Not a single Republican went along:

WASHINGTON — After a long day of acid, partisan debate, Senate Democrats held ranks early Monday in a dead-of-night procedural vote that proved they had locked in the decisive margin needed to pass a far-reaching overhaul of the nation’s health care system.

The roll was called shortly after 1 a.m., with Washington still snowbound after a weekend blizzard, and the Senate voted on party lines to cut off a Republican filibuster of a package of changes to the health care bill by the majority leader, Harry Reid of Nevada.

The vote was 60 to 40 - a tally that is expected to be repeated four times as further procedural hurdles are cleared in the days ahead, and then once more in a dramatic, if predictable, finale tentatively scheduled for 7 p.m. on Christmas Eve.

Probably the only time in history when a Christmas gift is delivered, and the recipient doesn't know what he's got even when it's unwrapped.

Robert Samuelson, in today's Washington Post, sums up the damage:

Obama's plan amounts to this: partial coverage of the uninsured; modest improvements (possibly) in their health; sizable budgetary costs worsening a bleak outlook; significant, unpredictable changes in insurance markets; weak spending control. This is a bad bargain. Health benefits are overstated, long-term economic costs understated. The country would be the worse for this legislation's passage. What it's become is an exercise in political symbolism: Obama's self-indulgent crusade to seize the liberal holy grail of "universal coverage." What it's not is leadership.

COMMENT:  Elect amateurs, get amateurish results.

December 21,  2009   Permalink

A FUNERAL IN IRAN - AT 9:10 A.M. ET:  Major demonstrations in Iran, following the death of dissident Grand Ayatollah Hossein Ali Montazeri, who opposed the hard liners and advocated greater political freedom and rights for women. 

Some experts on Iran are predicting that the regime could actually be overthrown by popular action in 2010.  Today's demonstrations have got to frighten the boys in the Tehran government offices.  From The New York Times:

One Iranian Web site, Jaras, said that hundreds of thousands of people had come to Qum for the funeral, according to Reuters. The report could not be independently confirmed because foreign journalists have been barred from traveling to the holy city of Qum.

Iranian opposition Web sites said there had been clashes outside Mr. Montazeri’s home between security forces and mourners, who threw stones, The Associated Press reported. Another report said members of the Basij militia had torn down funeral banners at Mr. Montazeri’s home. The Iranian authorities had been bracing for a showdown: there were reports on Sunday of riot police gathering there, and Iranian news sites said the government was planning to close the main highway between Tehran and Qum.

And from the indispensable new website, Planet Iran, which is live-blogging events in Iran:

Buses filled with mourners heading to Qom have been blocked and returned. People have begun to chant: “This month is the month of blood, Yazid is going to be overthrown“, “Compassionate Montazeri, your path will continue, even if the dictator rains bullets on us“, “Honorable spiritual man, felicitations on your liberation“, “Death to the Dictator“….and the green slogans continue.

Not only has Ahmadinejad not sent a message of condolences to the Montazeri family but Sadegh Larijani, the head of the judiciary, Ali Larijani, the head of the Majles (Islamic parliament) and members of the Majles have also refrained from conveying their sympathies to Montazeris.

We have not yet recorded any reaction by the Obama administration to the huge outpouring of support for human rights. 

I guess our new messiah isn't too high on freedom.

December 21, 2009   Permalink

EINSTEIN - THE GUY AND GLOBAL WARMING - AT 8:37 A.M. ET:  Last night I watched a pre-recorded History Channel program, "Einstein."  I strongly recommend that all readers see this program when it's rebroadcast. 

I'm no longer a great enthusiast of the History Channel.  Shows like "Ice Road Truckers" and "Pawn Stars," while very entertaining, don't strike me as great history.  But "Einstein" is superb...because it's so relevant to the debate over global warming.  The program examines Einstein's efforts to get his general theory of relativity accepted, and shows us how real science proceeds.  It isn't a "consensus."  It isn't a bunch of idealogues meeting in Copenhagen.  It isn't a new American president waving his Chicago-trained hand and rolling back the oceans.  It's proof and observation.

Einstein, after all, was trying to overturn part of the work of Sir Isaac Newton.  He was trying to reverse hundreds of years of accepted physics. 

The program takes us through Einstein's struggle, and demonstrates how the theory was finally proved, by a scientific experiment using a camera directed at a solar eclipse. 

I felt a sense of anger while watching this program - noting how real scientists, almost a century ago, went about proving or disproving Einstein's theory, and comparing it to today's publicity machines surrounding global warming. 

The program also teaches what is perhaps the most valuable lesson in examining global warming, or any other theory - that science is often wrong, that an inaccurate idea can be accepted for centuries, and that only real science, subjected to the most scrupulous examination, is worthy.

December 21, 2009   Permalink

FOLLOW THE MONEY - AT 8:12 A.M. ET:  That's one of the first rules of journalism.  Good journalists always look at the money trail in any issue.  Lazy journalists don't.  Biased journalists refuse to, fearing where the trail may lead - like the trail that goes from Mideast treasuries to Jimmah Carter's house.

As the magnifier is applied, day by day, to "global warming," we are amazed at what the money trail tells us we follow the yellow-brick-of-gold road.  From London's Telegraph:

No one in the world exercised more influence on the events leading up to the Copenhagen conference on global warming than Dr Rajendra Pachauri, chairman of the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and mastermind of its latest report in 2007.

Although Dr Pachauri is often presented as a scientist (he was even once described by the BBC as “the world’s top climate scientist”), as a former railway engineer with a PhD in economics he has no qualifications in climate science at all.

What has also almost entirely escaped attention, however, is how Dr Pachauri has established an astonishing worldwide portfolio of business interests with bodies which have been investing billions of dollars in organisations dependent on the IPCC’s policy recommendations.
These outfits include banks, oil and energy companies and investment funds heavily involved in ‘carbon trading’ and ‘sustainable technologies’, which together make up the fastest-growing commodity market in the world, estimated soon to be worth trillions of dollars a year.

What?  Are we questioning the integrity of this brave, international public servant?

Yeah.

Today, in addition to his role as chairman of the IPCC, Dr Pachauri occupies more than a score of such posts, acting as director or adviser to many of the bodies which play a leading role in what has become known as the international ‘climate industry’.

Ditto Al Gore.  Ditto a lot of other people who have suddenly discovered that the sky is falling, but will stay in place if only we allow them to cash in.

The money behind "global warming" is worth a major journalistic investigation.  Will we get one?  Fox News did an investigative report on the global warming issue last night, and it was solid.  But Fox seems a deer in the wilderness.  What we need is something massive. 

There is something very ugly going on, and the public has a right to know.

December 21,  2009   Permalink 

SUNDAY,  DECEMBER 20,  2009

DON'T CANCEL YOUR DOCTOR APPOINTMENT JUST YET - AT 8:55 P.M. ET:  Despite all the bravado coming from Harry Reid's office - for a man who seems at death's door, he sure makes a lot of noise - the final passage of health-care "reform" is anything but certain.  There are still powerful forces in contention, as The Politico reports:

Despite a last-minute weekend deal that put the Senate on the brink of passing health care reform this week, liberal and moderate Democrats remain on a collision course over the bill, as both sides dug in Sunday for the next phase of negotiations.

President Barack Obama’s liberal base and powerful union leaders once hoped the expected House-Senate conference would partly undo a year of retreats and compromises, with Obama weighing in to nudge the moderate Senate bill to the left.

But the titanic struggle to lock in Sen. Ben Nelson (D-Neb.) as the 60th senator for the first key test vote early Monday morning has changed all that. The need to hold Nelson and other moderates in line means major changes on the public option, abortion, taxes, Medicare and Medicaid are unlikely — and that the Senate’s vision of health reform is likely to prevail over the House’s in the final talks.

“It is very clear that the bill — the final bill — to pass in the United States Senate is going to have to be very close to the bill that has been negotiated here,” Sen. Kent Conrad (D-N.D.) said on “Fox News Sunday.” “Otherwise, you will not get 60 votes in the United States Senate.”

And...

House Democrats acknowledge that they will be limited in how far they can tweak the Senate compromise. But House leadership also knows that its rank and file need to force some changes, however small, before they will accept the final package — as a face-saving measure to be able to swallow late changes to the bill in the Senate, most notably the decision to eliminate a public option.

COMMENT:  I love it when they fight among themselves.  And yet, let's not be too gleeful.  Even if the whole thing does go down in the end, the American people will have a question:  Okay, Republicans, what's your solution?  Republicans better have one. 

Remember, in 1948, Harry Truman ran against the "do nothing" Republican Congress, and he won with that line, and others.  Voters may dislike the Democrats, but Republicans don't yet have them on board as lovers.

December 20, 2009   Permalink

HILLARY IN 2016? - AT 8:36 P.M. ET:  It's much too early to be discussing the presidential election of 2016.  Or is it?  This column is pure speculation, but it's an entertaining, and discerning British look at Hillary Clinton, and her prospects for that year:

Having elected Barack Obama amid near national euphoria, America is experiencing something akin to buyer's remorse.

Obama's popularity is the lowest of any American president at the end of his first year in office since polling began. Yet as his approval ratings have nose-dived, those of his Secretary of State have curved elegantly upwards.

A recent poll by the Clarus Research Group found that Hillary Clinton had a 75 per cent approval rating compared to 51 per cent for the man who defeated her in their epic battle for the Democratic nomination.

Okay, there are many caveats, but let's go along for this ride.  At minimum, it's fun.

During the past year, Mrs Clinton has done just what she did when she entered the Senate in 2001 - knuckled down to the hard grind of policy while building relationships with wary sceptics.

The woman who was one of the most polarising figures in American politics now has a glowing 65 per cent approval rating among Independents and healthy 57 per cent among Republicans.

Even sworn enemies on the Right marvelled at her toughness in refusing to concede to Obama until the bitter end in the summer of 2008 and now view her as more hawkish than the president.

It's the "hawkish" part that's most intriguing.  Valuable in a general election, but no asset in today's Democratic party, whose base probably thinks Harry Truman was an atom-bomb-dropping monster.

Mrs Clinton, moreover, has lived in Arkansas and won over conservatives in upstate New York as well as trouncing Obama in states like West Virginia and Pennsylvania - establishing a connection with Middle America that has eluded the president.

Again, great in the general election, but the Aspen-addicted party elite will frown.

Mrs Clinton can afford to be assiduously loyal because her critique of Obama - "a lot of talk, no action" is how she acidly described him in March last year - is already out there and increasingly resonant. She now has unassailable credentials in the one area where she appeared weak in 2008 - foreign policy.

This assumes no foreign-policy disasters.  Given the man in the Oval Office, that's quite an assumption.

Two months ago, Mrs Clinton answered, straight-faced, with a flat "no" when asked if she would ever run for president again, even adding that "it never crosses my mind".

Perhaps that patently implausible denial was the surest indication of all that Mrs Clinton is better placed than ever to become America's first female president - and she knows it.

COMMENT:  Okay, all right, as we said, this is pure speculation.  Many, many things, including the stark reality of biology, can intervene. 

But let me add something:  Why think only of 2016?  What about 2012?  What if Obama, facing catastrophic poll numbers, decides not to run again?  While his ego will probably nullify any rational decision, it could still happen, especially if Michelle prevails upon him.

One thing I certainly don't think will happen will be a Clinton challenge to Obama for the party's nomination, reminiscent of Ted Kennedy's challenge to Carter in 1980.  If Clinton attempted to challenge Obama, the African-American community would never forgive her, would stay home on election day, and cost her the election.

But hey, you never know.

December 20, 2009   Permalink

IT ISN'T JUST NEWSPAPERS - AT 7:30 P.M. ET:  There's a myth that it's only the print press that's in trouble.  Not true.  From The New York Times:

The Citadel Broadcasting Corporation, one of the biggest radio companies in the United States, filed for bankruptcy on Sunday in New York after reaching a pact with its creditors over an accelerated Chapter 11 filing.

Radio companies like Citadel and Clear Channel Communications have struggled with mounting debt woes and declining advertising revenue.

The troubles of Citadel, which owns 223 stations across the country and syndicates Don Imus’s radio show, have been well documented over the last year. Its chief problem has been coping with debt acquired in a 2006 merger with the Walt Disney Company’s ABC Radio.

In its most recent regulatory filing, made last month, Citadel reported a 16 percent drop in operating income, to about $38 million. The company also warned then that it was likely to breach certain financial covenants early next year.

COMMENT:  Again, the issue is debt.  Another big deal gone wrong.  And we keep increasing our national debt, as if there are no consequences down the road.  There are.  Happy birthday, kids.

December 20, 2009   Permalink

READ THE FINE PRINT - AT 5:28 P.M. ET:  Admiral Mike Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, is sounding stern toward Iran, but you have to read the fine print.  From AP:

The administration is now beginning a push to get international support for additional penalties against Iran as a result, and Mullen suggested he thinks that backing was there.

''I think signals are very clearly in the air that another set of sanctions, another resolution, that that's coming,'' he said.

''I grow increasingly concerned that the Iranians have been non-responsive. I've said for a long time we don't need another conflict in that part of the world,'' he said. ''I'm not predicting that would happen, but I think they've got to get to a position where they are a constructive force and not a destabilizing force.''

COMMENT:  Yeah, yeah, yeah.  The issue isn't sanctions.  There already are sanctions on Iran.  The issue is the kind of sanctions.  Hillary Clinton has spoken of "crippling" sanctions, but what are the real chances that Russia or China would go along with them?

I suspect that, after all the yapping, it will come down to a decision to attack, or not to attack.  Bottom line:  The Iranians will probably get the bomb, but maintain ambiguity about having it.

December 20, 2009   Permalink

A WARNING FROM THE YARD - AT 12:24 P.M. ET:   The British health-care system may be falling apart, choked by its socialist model, but at least British counter-terror operatives are awake.  The warning from Scotland Yard is in contrast to the Obama administration's description of terror attacks as "man-caused disasters."  From The Times of London:

Scotland Yard has warned businesses in London to expect a Mumbai-style attack on the capital.

In a briefing in the City of London 12 days ago, a senior detective from SO15, the Metropolitan police counter-terrorism command, said: “Mumbai is coming to London.”

The detective said companies should anticipate a shooting and hostage-taking raid “involving a small number of gunmen with handguns and improvised explosive devices”.

The warning — the bluntest issued by police — has underlined an assessment that a terrorist cell may be preparing an attack on London early next year.

It was issued by the Met through its network of “security forums," which provide business leaders, local government and the emergency services with counter-terrorism advice.

During a “commando-style” raid by 10 gunmen on hotels and cafes in Mumbai in November 2008, 174 people were killed and more than 300 injured over three days.

Of course, we must not be culturally insensitive enough to ask who might be planning such an attack.  No, no, no, it's all a misunderstanding.

Officials now report an increase in “intelligence chatter” — communications captured by electronic eavesdropping agencies. One senior security adviser said the police warnings had intensified and become much more specific in the past fortnight.

“Before, there has been speculation. Now we are getting what appears to be a definite plot to carry out a firearms attack on London,” he said.

Earlier this year, police, military and intelligence services held an exercise in Kent to see whether they could defeat a commando raid in London by terrorists.

“The exercise brought out to those taking part that the capability doesn’t exist to deal with that situation should it arise,” said a military source.

COMMENT:  Given the number of terror-related incidents on American soil in the last year, including the rampage at Fort Hood, the same warning can probably apply to the United States.  There are so many potential targets.  A hotel, in particular, is one of the softest targets imaginable.  All the terrorists have to do is check in.  That is a particular danger with "homegrown" terrorists, who speak with no accent and appear to be ordinary citizens. 

December 20, 2009   Permalink

WELCOME TO OUR HEALTH-CARE FUTURE - AT 11:32 A.M. ET:  The dream of the left is for us to have a "single-payer" health-care system.  That's government speak for socialized medicine, where the government pays the bills...and makes the rules.

Here is a story from Britain, where they have the mother of all single-payer systems.  This may be our future:

Women with signs of breast cancer are waiting months for a diagnosis amid the failure of one of Labour's key manifesto pledges, the Government's cancer tsar has admitted.

All patients with symptoms of the disease should be seen by a specialist within two weeks of visiting their GP, following a promise made before the last election.

Labour said the NHS would meet the pledge by 2008 – a deadline it later extended to the end of this month.

Now the Government's cancer tsar Prof Mike Richards has disclosed that the health service is about to miss that target, with thousands of worried women waiting weeks and sometimes even months to see a hospital specialist.

COMMENT:  Note the term "cancer tsar."  Ah, for the good old Soviet days.  How some people miss the big red star. 

You would think that women's groups - the so-called "feminists" - would be in an uproar over this.  But are they?  Of course not.  Modern feminism - as opposed to true women's rights movements - has its origin on the far left.  And modern feminism has made its peace with the left, and has accepted its third-rate status on that same left.  It's disgraceful.

December 20, 2009   Permalink

NEBRASKA CIVIL CONFLICT - AT 10:49 A.M. ET:  Senator Ben Nelson (D-Neb) is catching it back home for his cave-in on health care.  True, he got some dollars for Nebraska, but there still are some people with pride left.  From the Lincoln, Nebraska, JournalStar:

Sen. Ben Nelson's dramatic decision Saturday to vote for enactment of historic health care reform ignited a predictable firestorm.

Nelson negotiated a number of concessions that will strengthen health care services in rural Nebraska and lift an expanded Medicaid funding burden from the state.

But the anti-abortion funding language in the agreement leading to his support triggered some political dynamite.

In a stunning choice of words, Republican Sen. Mike Johanns described the abortion compromise negotiated by his Nebraska colleague as "reprehensible."

"If you are pro-life," Johanns said, "you cannot vote to end debate on this bill."

During a telephone interview moments later, Nelson said he believed it's "not appropriate for someone to cast any aspersions on someone else's principles and whether they're pro-life enough."

Well, Ben, that's exactly what your Senate colleague from Nebraska did.  And he wouldn't have done it without knowing what people back home were thinking.

National Right to Life rejected the compromise and warned it will consider any votes supporting the bill as "votes in favor of legislation to allow the federal government to subsidize private insurance plans that cover abortion on demand."

The organization said the abortion language is "light years removed" from stricter anti-abortion funding legislation approved by the House.

Silvio Canto Jr., on whose radio show I appear frequently, has an excellent wrapup of the full Nelson betrayal here.  Silvio notes that, for Nelson, this was a "profile in courage" moment.  Not much courage.

Nelson, a Democratic senator from a Republican state, is a major Republican target in next year's midterms.  The target just got bigger.

December 20, 2009   Permalink

PRESIDENT REMAINS IN POLL DOGHOUSE - AT 10:27 A.M. ET:  What strikes us about the polls is the president's inability to reverse them, no matter what he does...or says.  And "saying" is a big deal with this non-silent president. 

In recent weeks the president has 1) spoken at West Point, announcing a decision to intensify the Afghan war; 2) picked up the Nobel Peace Prize, accompanied by what was probably the best - at least the most pro-American speech - of his career; 3) gone to Copenhagen to try to get a global warming agreement.

And yet, his poll numbers remain steady or continue to sink.  This is not good news for this very political White House.  Today's Rasmussen report has 46% of likely voters approving of Obama's performance, with 53% disapproving.  While those are not the president's worst numbers in Rasmussen, they are close.

While some pollsters assure us that President Obama remains personally popular, instinct tells us that his poor performance ratings must be do in part to an increase in personal dislike.  He is overexposed on television, and often seems cold and disengaged. I would like to see pollsters ask this question:  "If there were a major international crisis today, do you trust Barack Obama to do the right thing for the United States?  High level of trust?  Moderate trust?  Little trust?  No trust?

Just asking.

December 20,  2009   Permalink