We will be blogging through the president's speech tonight, no matter how great the pain.  (The pain will be treated at the nearest Obamacare storefront clinic.)  Speech is at 8 o'clock EST.

I have a new piece up at Hudson New York called "Pushing the Reset Button."  For those interested, it's here.

WEDNESDAY,  SEPTEMBER 9,  2009

HILLARY MOVING OUT? - AT 11:09 P.M. ET:  Reader Errol Phillips alerts us to a report at the Weekly Standard that Hillary Clinton is thinking of resigning her marginalized position as secretary of state to run for governor of New York. 

As readers know, I've been speculating here that Clinton might eventually resign, but would do so at a politically convenient time.  I have my doubts, though, about this report.  To run for governor here in New York, Clinton would have to do three things:

1) arrange for the current Dem governor, the vastly unpopular David Paterson, to drop out of the race.  Paterson is African-American.  Hillary learned last year what it's like to oppose an African-American in a Democratic primary.  I'm sure she's not relishing a repeat performance. 

2) arrange for Andrew Cuomo to seek other opportunities.  For whatever reason, Andrew Cuomo, state attorney general and son of former Governor Mario Cuomo, is quite popular here.  If Paterson is out, it's widely understood that Cuomo essentially has the nomination for the asking.  Does Hillary really want to run against him, and possibly lose?

3) convince people that this isn't some cynical maneuver to get into the presidential race in 2012 if Obama falters.  Remember, Richard Nixon lost the race for president in 1960, then ran for governor of California in 1962, and lost again.  I think part of that loss was due to skepticism that he wanted to be governor at all.  People knew the governorship would be just a launching pad for another presidential run.

Tough road for Hillary.  My hunch is that she won't do it, but I won't be shocked if I'm wrong.

September 9, 2009   Permalink

IRAN IN AFGHANISTAN? - AT 10:12 P.M. ET:  There is other news besides the president's speech on health care.  Fox News is reporting that there's now evidence that Iran is involved militarily in Afghanistan:

The discovery of a weapons cache in western Afghanistan has raised concerns that Iran is interfering in the war-torn country, much like it did in Iraq, by supplying weapons used to attack and kill U.S. and coalition troops, U.S. officials tell FOX News.

Afghan and NATO forces uncovered the weapons cache on Aug. 29 in Herat...

...There are questions about when these weapons entered Afghanistan, but a top U.S. military official tells FOX News that an Iranian rocket was recently fired at a base in Herat. Additional intelligence suggests that Iranians have been providing support directly to the Taliban.

Other coalition countries allege the Iranian influence is even deeper and that Iranian intelligence is funneling money to Afghan President Hamid Karzai.

COMMENT:  This comes just weeks before the supposed "deadline" for Iran to start negotiating seriously on its nuclear program.  It appears that Iran wants confrontation.  The question is whether Obama will confront the mullah regime, or let more time pass for "engagement."  Things aren't getting any better.

September 9, 2009    Permalink

ANALYSIS - AT 9:25 P.M. ET:  I've been monitoring the network reactions.  It's clear the president gave a solid speech, but no one seems to think he moved mountains.  There were still too many vague points:

1.  The idea that you can pay for this program through eliminating waste, fraud and abuse is getting ridiculed.  The president wants to convince us that the same government that has allowed this corruption to grow can now, with a snap of the fingers, eliminate it.  Come on.

2.  The president threw a fig leaf to the GOP on tort reform, but he should have been far more forthcoming.  As Karl Rove just said on Fox, the Republicans have a tort-reform plan, in detail.  The president might have adopted at least part of it.

3.  There was far too little "process" in the speech.  What people are asking is this:  "When I go to the doctor now, this is what happens.  How will that change under your plan?"  While the president did provide some detail on his plan, he failed to provide what Walter Lippmann called "the picture in our heads."  Most of you heard the speech.  Can you tell me how this new system will actually work?

More coming on this.

9:02 P.M. ET:  We'll have more commentary later, but we want to hear the Republican response, which is on now. 

I'll say this:  On balance, a good speech by Obama, but marred in too many places by hard partisan lines. 

Let's listen to the Republican response. 

9:01 P.M. ET:  Now comes the tribute to Ted Kennedy and his work for health-care reform.  Okay, that's fair. 

Obama now seems to be demeaning people who criticize him, suggesting that some are small and mean-spirited.  Bad way to end the speech.

Speech over. 

8:55 P.M. ET:  The president says his plan will cost less than the Iraq and Afghanistan wars.  Awful.  Absolutely awful.  You don't compare anything with the cost of protecting the country.  This is typical left-wing stuff.  It brings the speech down.  A bad moment that will send the wrong message to our enemies overseas - that we're counting the pennies in national defense.

8:51 P.M. ET:  Wow.  Mr. Obama now says he favors malpractice reform - tort reform.  He will initiate some kind of demonstration projects.  A start, but not good enough, not nearly good enough.  He's opened the door, but he has to do far more in the current bill. 

8:49 P.M. ET:  Mr. Obama says he will  not sign any bill that adds to the federal deficit.  That's ridiculous.  There's no way to predict these things, and any program would most likely cost far more than predicted. 

The president says a lot of the money to pay for his plan would come from eliminating waste, fraud and abuse.  Fine, but that pledge is made often in government, and we generally find that the savings don't equal the costs. 

8:42 P.M. ET:  The president now proposes a public option. There is great screaming and yelling from the Democratic side.  He now explains the public option, and he makes it sound attractive.  We can't right now examine this because the devil is, indeed, in the details. 

The president says he will not back down on the public option, but there is a bit of vagueness there.  Republicans are silent. 

8:40 P.M. ET:  The president now says he will address criticisms of his health plan.  An uncomfortable moment here as he accuses people of lying.  It would have been much more effective simply to address the issues. 

The president says his plan will not insure illegal immigrants.  A lot of booing and catcalling.  Clearly, some members of Congress don't believe the president on this point.

8:32 P.M. ET:  The president says he'll now discuss details.  About time.  He starts outlining what his plan will do - no denial of coverage because of preexisting conditions, no dropping of insurance if you get sick, etc.  This is the usual list, but it's well presented.  Maybe the White House has learned something.  But we still await critical details - like how we pay for this, and how we keep government out of heath decisions.

8:26 P.M. ET:  Important moment:  Obama concedes that the right way to proceed is to correct problems in the system, not try to build an entirely new system.  This is a correct framework - ironically, it's a conservative position.

The president is now talking about restoring bipartisanship.  Okay, let's hear it.  I want details. 

8:20 P.M. ET:  Obama says we're on the path to economic recovery.  Odd way to start the speech.  But now he's starting to talk about health care. 

The president says we are at the breaking point on health care.  He begins well, outlining some of the serious problems that we actually have.  He has some solid lines, citing individual cases.  Can't deny that this is effective.  But we know about all this.  The question is:  What will he propose?  That's what we're waiting for.

8:15 P.M. ET:  Nancy Pelosi is rapping her gavel.  This is her moment.  It's the one thing she does to at least a C-plus level.

Obama starts.  Everyone is getting health care already.  Our life expectancy has gone up 20 years.  Just kidding.

The president begins by talking about unemployment.  He says he wants Americans to have jobs.  Everyone claps. 

8:07 P.M. ET:  The president has been introduced.  There is lightness.  There is goodness.  There is teleprompting.  He is walking down the aisle, ready for thenext sales pitch.  Of course, everyone is smiling. 

The president kisses Hillary Clinton.  I think he did it twice.  Does this mean she's toast?  Will we find her in a river?

Camera is on the first lady.  She doesn't look happy.  I wonder if she's read the speech and fallen asleep. 

8:01 P.M. ET:  Numerous big shots are entering the House chamber.  Can The One be far behind?  (There are reports of thunder and lightning, and the heavens opening.)  There's Hillary Clinton, looking as if she actually has power.  There's Eric Holder, the attorney general, no doubt looking for rogue CIA agents under every bench.

8:00 P.M. ET:  WE'RE NOW STARTING OUR LIVE BLOG ON THE PRESIDENT'S HEALTH-CARE SPEECH BEFORE A JOINT SESSION OF CONGRESS.

7:05 P.M. ET:  It's less than an hour 'til the president's speech.  I feel my aches and pains going away.  My spirit is renewed.  I look out the window and the oceans are receding.  Well, it's a puddle, but it's symbolic.  Count the minutes.

AND NOW THE NUMBERS - AT 5:18 P.M. ET:   Drudge is reporting the following:

At least 44 more moderate Members of the Democrat Caucus have gone on the record in opposition to the current health care bill in the House, Hill source claims. Likewise, at least 57 liberal Members of the Democrat Caucus have gone on the record saying they will vote against a health care bill without a strong public option. In other words, unless multiple Democrats flip on their stated position on health care, Speaker Pelosi lacks the votes to pass a bill through the House on the strength of Democrat votes alone.

COMMENT:  Chalk this up to poor leadership, especially on the part of a president who believes that leadership comes from the mouth.  No it doesn't, and no he can't.

September 9, 2009   Permalink

5:00 P.M. ET:  It's three hours 'til the president's health-care speech.  Aren't you cured already?  Smile.  It's a government policy.

FEEL GOOD - FOR NOW - AT 8:48 A.M. ET:  The media continues to feature these feel-good pieces about how Obama has improved our relations with Europe.  Of course, these never seem to include the countries of Eastern Europe, which Obama is apparently prepared to throw under the bus to satisfy the Soviet Union.  From the Politico:

President Barack Obama has made significant strides toward repairing America’s strained relationship with Europe, according to an annual transatlantic survey.

Among Europeans, 41 percent — double the number in 2008 — believe that transatlantic ties have improved over the past year and 31 percent of Americans believe the same, triple the amount from one year ago.

Seventy-seven percent of Europeans supported Obama’s handling of foreign policy, a stark contrast to European perceptions of President George W. Bush’s approach.

He is come, he is come.  Hallelujah!

Until you get to the fine print:

“Obama was very popular in western Europe even as a presidential candidate,” said (pollster) Nyiri. “On his trips to Berlin and London, he was seen as a rock star.”

But he's not a rock star.  He's not supposed to be an entertainer.  He's a president, I think.

More fine print:

Despite Obama’s popularity, Iran, climate change and the war in Afghanistan continued to be points of conflict.

Forty-seven percent of Americans supported negotiation, backed by threat of military action, to eradicate Tehran’s nuclear weapons program. But 53 percent of people in the European Union ruled out the use of military force.

Concern over climate change ran considerably higher in the European Union (84 percent) than in the United States (65 percent). And Americans were “less willing to trade off economic growth to slow the warming of the planet,” the poll results reported.

While 63 percent of Europeans were doubtful that the situation in Afghanistan could stabilize, 56 percent of Americans were optimistic.

COMMENT:  What you're seeing is "popularity by not governing," an increasing domestic criticism of Obama.  When he must finally make major decisions on these issues, will he go with popularity abroad, or will he make the right decisions for his country?

The fact that we can't be sure is the fact that is most worrisome.  Popularity has its price.

September 9, 2009   Permalink

PUBLIC REJECTING PUBLIC OPTION - AT 8:32 A.M. ET:  The public increasingly is turning against the "public option," which would create a government-run health plan to compete with private plans:  From The Hill:

Political momentum appeared to swing sharply against the public health insurance option prized by liberals Tuesday, on the eve of President Barack Obama’s address to a joint session of Congress.

Democratic leaders in the House and Senate on Tuesday signaled they are increasingly willing to pass healthcare reform without a public insurance option, even while Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) again insisted it must be included in a House healthcare bill.

One public option the public could accept is the removal of Nancy Pelosi.  Totally out of touch with anything outside the liberal salons of San Francisco.

...a Democratic leadership aide who sat in on an administration briefing Tuesday said that while Obama will offer support Wednesday for a public option, the president will not insist on it.

“He’s going to say it’s the best tool for reducing costs,” the aide said. “I think he’s going to be a bit noncommittal.”

And...

Centrist Democrats, who were skeptical about the public option in July, have hardened into outright opponents after hearing a deluge of constituent complaints...

...House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (D-Md.) on Tuesday reiterated his comments from earlier this summer that he would prefer to pass healthcare reform rather than insist on a public option.

COMMENT:  Too many Democrats simply don't understand why the public is skeptical about a public option.  It isn't that the public doesn't think the government knows how to pay a bill.  Medicare pays bills.  Social Security sends out checks.  It's that the public fears a government takeover of health-care decisions, creating a situation where a patient has no alternative.  Americans have read some of the horror stories coming out of Britain, and that's what they want to avoid.

The problem is, the left wing of the Democratic Party, centered in the California delegation to the House, is increasingly socialist, and has no problem with government control of health care, and a lot more, for that matter.  And the party has not confronted this crowd with lessons on practical politics.

September 9, 2009   Permalink

NEW LOOK AT THE TERRORIST THREAT - AT 8:14 A.M. ET:  A new study by a respected organization paints a picture of an updated Al Qaeda and its methods of operation.  From Fox News:

WASHINGTON -- Terrorists are aiming for hotels and other easier-to-hit targets as security measures at military and government facilities continue to improve, says a global intelligence company.

Continue to improve?  Wasn't there a guy named Bush responsible for some of that? 

Al Qaeda is changing from a centralized organization with global goals to regional "franchises" with more parochial aims and strong grass-roots support, according to a report Tuesday from STRATFOR. These smaller cells get less training and less money, so they set their sights lower.

That doesn't mean they aren't dangerous, "particularly if they are attempting to prove their value or if they are able to link up with someone who is highly tactically skilled," the report says.

According to STRATFOR, the number of attacks on hotels has more than doubled since the 9/11 attacks in 2001 when compared with the eight years before. Injuries and deaths caused by those attacks have increased six times over the same comparison period.

We know, here in New York, that the NYPD is very worried about hotel security.  Hotels are great symbols of major world cities.

A hotel is the ultimate soft target for Islamic extremists: a fixed location, lots of human traffic and shallow security perimeters. Hotels also attract many Westerners, giving militants high probabilities of killing or injuring large numbers of them in a single attack, according to the report.

And...

From a terrorist's perspective, the downside to hitting soft targets is that the attacks don't generate as much "political and ideological mileage" as hitting a hard target such as a better guarded government building or military facility, the report says.

And that is why our total preparation for terrorism must continue.  Somewhere out there a terrror group is dreaming of getting its hands on a nuclear or biological weapon, and using it.

But we've become sleepy.  The very success of President Bush's effort to protect the homeland, and the election of the leftish Obama administration has meant the downgrading of terror in the eyes of the American people.  We will be woken up.

September 9, 2009   Permalink

THE SPEECH - AT 7:44 A.M. ET:  Tonight's speech before a joint session of Congress is being billed, especially by those who seek TV ratings, as the biggest speech of Barack Obama's career.  Hard to say.  We have had, since Obama's inauguration, government by speech, and the public has caught on.  The president is hopelessly overexposed, more a salesman and personality than the chief executive of the most powerful country on Earth.  Indeed, he has seemed increasingly less presidential as his term has worn on.

He will be seeking to salvage health-care "reform."  Some, especially among the professional punditocracy, charge that it's in danger because of distortions and lies by the "right-wing attack machine."  We say that it's in danger because it's poorly drawn up, poorly presented, and contains elements the public simply doesn't like. 

Mr. Obama must tonight do these things:  1)  He must demonstrate that he knows the subject; 2) He must present a coherent reform plan, easily understandable, whose main points are clear, and he must present it quickly; 3) He must show that this plan will help the very people listening to him and is superior to what the nation has now; 4) He must demonsrate practicality; 5) He must include at least some tort reform, showing that he's willing to take on powerful elements in his own party who are holding back reform.

Mr. Obama must not do these things:  1) He must not be arrogant and dismissive, talking down to the American people; 2) He must not blame some sinister force out there, but accept responsibility for the handling of his own plan; 3) He must not sound like a candidate, difficult for a man who's spent most of his career getting the job.

This is different.  Now he must do the job.

We'll be watching the president tonight, and giving readers an instant reaction.  We'll also be watching the Republican response, which must be thoughtful, creative, and contain proposals, not just criticism.

September 9,  2009   Permalink

TUESDAY,  SEPTEMBER 8,  2009

SARAH SPEAKS - AT 11:45 P.M. ET:  Look, I can't guarantee that she wrote this herself, or did a second of research, but Sarah Palin has a great column in The Wall Street Journal blasting the Obama health plan.

Given the quality of her acceptance speech before the Republican National Convention last year, I'm going to guess that Palin either did write the column or, at minimum, guided it.  Here's a sample.  It's solid stuff:

Now look at one way Mr. Obama wants to eliminate inefficiency and waste: He's asked Congress to create an Independent Medicare Advisory Council—an unelected, largely unaccountable group of experts charged with containing Medicare costs. In an interview with the New York Times in April, the president suggested that such a group, working outside of "normal political channels," should guide decisions regarding that "huge driver of cost . . . the chronically ill and those toward the end of their lives . . . ."

Given such statements, is it any wonder that many of the sick and elderly are concerned that the Democrats' proposals will ultimately lead to rationing of their health care by—dare I say it—death panels? Establishment voices dismissed that phrase, but it rang true for many Americans. Working through "normal political channels," they made themselves heard, and as a result Congress will likely reject a wrong-headed proposal to authorize end-of-life counseling in this cost-cutting context. But the fact remains that the Democrats' proposals would still empower unelected bureaucrats to make decisions affecting life or death health-care matters. Such government overreaching is what we've come to expect from this administration.

COMMENT:  If she keeps writing material like that, she'll build up a body of work that can take her into a future campaign.  This is serious writing, well argued. 

I'd love to see her interviewed by Katie Couric again, and deck Couric - intellectually, of course.

September 8, 2009   Permalink

OUTRAGEOUS - AT 8:54 P.M. ET:  Some in the media never seem to learn.  Either that, or they have no pride in their work.  Either that, or they're so intent on the next promotion that they'll do anything to get it.

I was monitoring MSNBC in late afternoon, and found myself thoroughly put off by the obvious, in-your-face liberal bias, and the sneering toward anyone who disagreed.  Maybe they now consider themselves an entertainment operation rather than a news service, but there isn't even the pretense of objectivity.

Now we have this, from the Washington Post, a newspaper that has actually improved, in my view, in the last year.  It also has a civilized, liberal editorial page that's responsibly written.  But I guess the subject of religion is too much for some at the paper.  Consider:

The Christian right, facing questions before the presidential election about its continuing potency as a force for cultural and political change, has found new life with Barack Obama in office, particularly around health care.

I resent the term "Christian right."  It's meant to conjure images of Bible thumpers and herds of thoughtless sheep rushing after a pastor.  It's not fair.  Many members of the "Christian right" are among the most charitable people you'll find. 

As the president prepares to address a joint session of Congress on Wednesday night to press for health-care reform, conservative Christian leaders are rallying their troops to oppose him, with online town hall meetings, church gatherings, fundraising appeals, and e-mail and social networking campaigns. FRC Action, the lobbying arm of the Family Research Council, has scheduled a webcast Thursday night for tens of thousands of supporters in which House Minority Leader John A. Boehner (R-Ohio) and other speakers will respond to the president's health-care address.

They're not opposing "him."  They have questions.  Some of them may involve the intersection of religion and health care.  It isn't just politics.  The tone of this piece reveals a complete lack of respect.

After seeing their bread-and-butter issue of abortion take a back seat during the election last year, the Christian right has been a prime force in moving it back to the front row by focusing on it as a potential part of health-care reform.

The reporter could use some sensitivity training.  I would never describe a moral question like abortion as a "bread-and-butter issue."  I mean, please!

This is the same journalistic mentality that will balk at terms like "Islamo-fascism."  Doesn't show cultural sensitivity.  Or, it will portray the leftist National Council of Churches as "mainstream."

Not good, not good.  Cultural bias is as bad as political bias.  There is a tone here that a good editor should have detected, and rejected.

September 8, 2009   Permalink

THE GOLD STANDARD - AT 6:39 P.M. ET:  I was at a Hudson Institute briefing today, given by Dore Gold, Israel's former UN ambassador.  He's just written an excellent book, "The Rise of Nuclear Iran," which is already number three on the Washington Post's bestseller list.

It was good to hear someone who actually knows the subject. 

Gold is worried.  He detects, in Washington and elsewhere, a slackening of interest in Iran's nuclear weapons program.  That shouldn't be shocking given the foreign-policy orientation of the Obama administration, but it's still disturbing to hear from a man with Gold's contacts.  Gold warned that if the West responds weakly to Iran's current defiance, that will simply whet Iran's appetite.  Iran, he said, watches North Korea carefully, and watches our reaction to North Korean missile and nuclear tests.  So far, that reaction hasn't exactly made anyone shudder. 

Gold also cautioned that the Iranians are now very active in infiltrating Latin America. 

Finally, Gold expressed frustration at "intelligence" reports that defy common sense and give a false sense of security.  He cited one report, widely quoted by the don't-bother-us media, that claimed that Iran only had old-fashioned, liquid-fueled missiles, not the more modern, solid-fueled kind.  This report was issued despite published photographs showing Iranian missiles being launched, and trailing white smoke, proof to intelligence analysts of of solid-fuel engines.

Gold said that Iran engages in the "diplomacy of deception," aimed at buying time, and he pointed out that Iran, historically, has been expert at that kind of maneuvering. 

I did not come away from the briefing with an optimistic sense.  We are not winning against Iran, and we have a president in the White House who will not use the word "victory."

September 8, 2009   Permalink

CHANGE WE CAN BELIEVE IN - AT 11:09 A.M. ET:  If Republicans were smart, they'd start looking into a number of Obama appointees.  This is already an ethically challenged administration, and the problem seems to be getting worse, as Fox reports:

President Obama's pick to oversee bioterrorism at the Department of Homeland Security failed to report her role as an adviser for a lobbying group that has pushed for more money on anthrax vaccines and biodefense research, the Washington Times reported Tuesday.

Dr. Tara O'Toole, who is awaiting confirmation as undersecretary of science and technology, did not report her position with the group called the Alliance for Biosecurity, which is funded by the drug industry, in a recent government ethics filing, according to the newspaper.

The group reportedly spent over $500,000 lobbying Congress and federal agencies -- including Homeland Security -- since 2005.

Note the legal excuse:

But Homeland Security officials told the newspaper that O'Toole was not required to disclose her involvement with the alliance on ethics forms because the group is not incorporated.

COMMENT:  Government to the highest standards.  Isn't that what we were promised?  Changing the old ways.

Kind of reminds us of Al Gore's "no controlling legal authority" and Bill Clinton's "I didn't inhale."

There are Republicans who cross the line also, of course.  The difference is, they get investigated by the press.  Immediately.  Faster than immediately.

September 8, 2009   Permalink

ACADEMIC FREEDOM - YEAH, RIGHT - AT 8:44 A.M. ET:  If I could nominate one phrase for the title, "expression that's been most twisted out of shape," it would be "academic freedom."  The term has become almost meaningless, as it's used to justify pretty much anything that goes on, especially on the left, in American universities.  Want to write a book saying Abraham Lincoln was the secret founder of the Ku Klux Klan and was the great grandfather of Dick Cheney?  Hey, no problem. 

But now there's a real crisis of academic freedom at Yale.  And, in the midst of this crisis, when crucial decisions needed to be made, a major journalist disgraced himself. 

The Yale University Press is publishing a book about those Danish cartoons of the Prophet Mohammed that caused such a tumult several years ago among devout Muslims - riots in some cities, buildings set afire, all those civilized things that a religion of peace would do.   The problem is, the cartoons themselves have been dropped from the book, under pressure, rendering the book almost useless.  AP reports the scandal:

NEW HAVEN, Conn. (AP) -- Yale University has removed cartoons of the Prophet Muhammad from an upcoming book about how they caused outrage across the Muslim world, drawing criticism from prominent alumni and a national group of university professors.

Yale cited fears of violence.

In other words, the bad guys win even before a single threat is made.

"I think it's horrifying that the campus of Nathan Hale has become the first place where America surrenders to this kind of fear because of what extremists might possibly do,'' said Michael Steinberg, an attorney and Yale graduate.

Steinberg was among 25 alumni who signed a protest letter sent Friday to Yale Alumni Magazine that urged the university to restore the drawings to the book. Other signers included John Bolton, a former U.S. ambassador to the United Nations under President George W. Bush, former Bush administration speechwriter David Frum and Seth Corey, a liberal doctor.

I love the term "liberal doctor."  Is he the token liberal here? 

Well, maybe not:

Cary Nelson, president of the American Association of University Professors, wrote in a recent letter that Yale's decision effectively means: ''We do not negotiate with terrorists. We just accede to their anticipated demands.''

Probably the most intelligent thing the AAUP has said in years.  Now, get this:

Fareed Zakaria, editor of Newsweek International, a world affairs columnist and CNN host who serves on Yale's governing board, said he told Yale that he believed publishing the images would have provoked violence.

''As a journalist and public commentator, I believe deeply in the First Amendment and academic freedom,'' Zakaria said. ''But in this instance Yale Press was confronted with a clear threat of violence and loss of life.''

COMMENT:  We all know Zakaria.  We see him on CNN all the time, another Amanpour-like "analyst."  Does he understand the implications of what he's saying?  Does he care?

If the implied threat of violence is now causing our major universities to censor themselves, why isn't this a larger story?  Again, the mainstream media lets us down, suppressing anything that might be embarrassing to the "third world" or "oppressed peoples."  The party line marches on.

What Yale did is a disgrace, but I doubt if you'll see many protests on college campuses, and you certainly won't see them in Middle East "studies" departments. 

This is the tip of the iceberg.  Censorship has come to American universities.  Of course, we've had warnings for years, in the form of "speech codes" and political correctness.

Academic freedom indeed.

Zakaria should be sent away to a retreat for a bit of reflection.

September 8, 2009   Permalink

PUNISHING OUR ALLIES - AT 7:55 A.M. ET:  The foreign policy of this administration can be summarized as, "Punish our friends, reward our enemies."  Of course, on the Democratic left there are no enemies, just misunderstood cultures with alternative narratives.

Now, military analyst Peter Brookes warns of another Obama cave-in on foreign policy that can have severe consequences for East European allies who have stood with us since the end of the Cold War:

THE Obama administration is getting ready to throw the proposed Eastern European-based US missile-defense system under the bus. The move is a sop to the Russians (and to lefties here at home) -- but will render us increasingly vulnerable to the growing Iranian nuclear/missile threat.

It's sheer madness -- yet another major foreign-policy fumble in its Pollyanna-ish effort to make everything right with the world.

That says it very well.

...Team Obama will likely can the W-era missile-defense system slated for Poland and the Czech Republic. The system would defend us (and Europe) from Iranian nukes/missiles, but the Russians hate it because it's in their old stompin' grounds.

And good American leftists will always try to please the Russians.  Oh, the nostalgia for the revolution.  Oh, the songs!

Our Polish and Czech allies, who were close to us under President Bush, now increasingly feel Obama is abandoning them as he acquiesces to the growing shadow of Russian hegemony in Eastern Europe -- and elsewhere.

Indeed, they're carping about being in the dark as Washington conducts a review of missile defense, despite all three governments having agreed to move forward with the program last year. (So much for Obama's promise of better foreign relations . . .)

Well, there are important countries and unimportant countries.  Obama's list isn't the one we used for 50 years.

Albert Einstein once said insanity is doing the same thing over and over again, while expecting a different result. But that's what US policy has come to in dealing with Iran on its nukes and missiles -- six-plus years of talks have gone nowhere.

Instead of heeding Einstein's wisdom, Washington will likely ditch our best short-term defense against Tehran's threats in order to appease Moscow -- while hoping against hope to sweet-talk the mullahs into giving up a 20-year effort whose success is finally in sight.

COMMENT:  And we the people may never know the extent of the failure.  Even if Iran gets nukes, we may deny it in the absence of a large-scale test.  Or, we'll start talking Cold War-style deterrence.  By the time Iran develops an important capacity, Obama might well be out of office, and we'll be left with the damage.

September 8, 2009   Permalink

DEMS DEFECTING ON HEALTH CARE - AT 7:37 A.M. ET:  The president will speak on health care Wednesday night in his 23,352nd address to the nation.  But already his own ship is leaking, as The Hill reports today:

At least 23 House Democrats already have told constituents or hometown media that they oppose the massive healthcare overhaul touted by President Barack Obama.

If Republicans offer the blanket opposition they’ve promised, Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) can afford to lose only 38 members of her 256-member caucus and still pass the bill.

Most Democrats opposed to healthcare reform argue it costs too much, imposes a new tax and fines businesses that don’t provide insurance to employees. Some fear that the bill would subsidize abortion.

But wait.  There are other possible Dem defections, for entirely different reasons:

At least 60 liberal Democrats have pledged to vote against a healthcare bill with no public option, which they view as watered-down reform.

Rep. Anthony Weiner (D-N.Y.) has said dropping the public option completely would lose 100 Democratic votes.

COMMENT:  Do you get the sense that the Democratic Party is dysfunctional and requires attention?  It's Congress, so the attention required will be fully covered by a gold-plated health plan.

The president has failed to lead, on this and on a host of other subjects.  He has turned out to be, not the "yes we can" president, but the "well, maybe" president.  Given some of his views, we should probably be relieved. 

We await the president's speech to a joint session of Congress Wednesday night.  The effect will probably last about ten minutes.  That's what overexposure does.

September 8, 2009   Permalink

SECOND QUOTE OF THE DAY - AT 7:01 A.M. ET:  Related to the story below, the Wall Street Journal also hits the issue of Obama's left-wing notions and the resignation of self-proclaimed Marxist Van Jones, and lays out the danger for the president:

No President is responsible for all of the views of his appointees, but the rise and fall of Mr. Jones is one more warning that Mr. Obama can't succeed on his current course of governing from the left. He is running into political trouble not because his own message is unclear, or because his opposition is better organized. Mr. Obama is falling in the polls because last year he didn't tell the American people that the "change" they were asked to believe in included trillions of dollars in new spending, deferring to the most liberal Members of Congress, a government takeover of health care, and appointees with the views of Van Jones.

COMMENT:  The president's leftward drift is bad enough on domestic policy.  But remember that he hasn't faced a real crisis yet in foreign policy.  If he heads left in a confrontation with enemies of the United States, he can really wind up as toast, unless he blames BUSH (!!) and the public buys it.

September 8, 2009   Permalink

QUOTE OF THE DAY - AT 6:39 A.M. ET:  From Hugo Chavez, temporary proprietor of a Latin American country:

"With Obama we can talk, we are almost from the same generation, one can't deny that Obama is different (from Bush). He's intelligent, he has good intentions and we have to help him."

COMMENT:  The problem with the Obama White House is that they think praise like this is good news. 

One of the problems Obama will face this political season is the growing belief that he's far more leftist than he wanted us to know during the election campaign.  The in-the-tank media can try to minimize the damage by, say, ignoring things like the Van Jones scandal, but the truth has a strange way of blogging its way out.

September 8, 2009   Permalink