EVENING UPDATE,  APRIL 8,  2008

Posted at 7:48 p.m. ET

THE RIGHT THING

The White House is now hedging on President Bush's plans to attend the opening ceremonies of the China Olympics:

WASHINGTON (CNN) — For the first time, White House spokeswoman Dana Perino Tuesday left the door open to President Bush skipping the opening ceremonies of the Olympics in Beijing to protest China's crackdown in Tibet and human rights record.

Asked by CNN at an on-camera briefing if Bush will specifically attend the opening ceremonies in Beijing, Perino would not be definitive. "We haven't provided any schedules on the president's trip," she said.

Pressed on whether Bush's decision to attend the Olympics is "irreversible" or could be affected by developments, Perino hedged. "Any time the president — the president can always make a change," she said. "But the President has been clear that this is a sporting event for the athletes and that pressuring China before, during and after the Olympics is the best way for us to try to help people across the board in China, not just Tibetans."

What the president has not been clear on is whether or not he will attend the opening ceremonies, which are typically a major showcase for the host country. Bush has only said he will attend the Olympics in general, stressing he's a sports fan who wants to support U.S. athletes at the games.

Looks like the president is moving toward the right decision.  Good.

April 8, 2008.      Permalink              

ALSO GOOD

The McCain forces are right on top of the latest flap involving an Obama groupie.  Team McCain is handling it well.

It seems that Senator Jay Rockefeller of West Virginia lost control of his tongue, or his mind, in an interview, and said this:

"McCain was a fighter pilot who dropped laser-guided missiles from 35,000 feet. He was long gone when they hit. What happened when they (the missiles) get to the ground? He doesn't know. You have to care about the lives of people. McCain never gets into those issues."

Brilliant, real brilliant.  I guess if your name is Rockefeller you can just buy the Senate seat.  The brain isn't important.

At least Rockefeller has now apologized, and done so graciously.

But what about Obama?  Once again one of his crowd has said something dumb, now a weekly occurrence.  And again Obama merely sent out a spokesperson to say the candidate disagreed with the comment.  The McCain side isn't buying: 

CNN) – John McCain’s campaign said an apology from Barack Obama’s team for comments from West Virginia Sen. Jay Rockefeller, who supports the Illinois senator’s presidential bid, was not enough, calling for a response from the candidate himself.

“It was a spokesperson. Just as with the situation with liberal attack artist Ed Schultz, Obama refused to reject the statements personally. It’s a trend that undermines Barack Obama’s credibility when he makes calls for a ‘new’ more ‘accountable’ debate,” said McCain spokesman Tucker Bounds.

And...

“Barack Obama’s silence is giving his surrogates a license to make attacks that don’t contribute to the dialogue on the issues,” said Bounds.

“As long as people affiliated with Barack Obama’s new brand of politics continue to make gutter attacks, we are going to call on Barack Obama to do something about it. And so far he’s done nothing.”

Right.  Good!  Now the McCain people are starting to snap back.  They must begin to paint Obama as the man he is - a Chicago machine politician in a pretty package, and someone lacking in courage.  Obama stays above the fray, but lets his surrogates do the dirty work.  That's not a new brand of politics.  That's the stale old stuff, which is why I've said that Obama isn't a man of the future, just a throwback to the past.

April 8, 2008.       Permalink             

GROVEL TO THE LEFTIST BASE

Obama's spinelessness was on full display today, as he groveled to his party's surrender wing in statements that seemed almost bizarre.  Notice that he blames the enemy for absolutely nothing.  It's all our fault:

Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama on Tuesday called for a "diplomatic surge" including talks with US foe Iran, to help stabilize the situation in Iraq.
The Illinois Senator battling Hillary Clinton for his party's nomination called for more pressure on the Iraqi government to embrace political reconciliation and a regional "diplomatic surge that includes Iran."

"We should be talking to them as well," Obama told the top US General in Iraq David Petraeus and US ambassador to Baghdad Ryan Crocker.

"I do not believe we are going to be able to stabilize the situation without that" said Obama, adding that a plan for US troop withdrawals was needed to force Iraqi factions to work together.

"I think that increased pressure in a measured way, in my mind, and this is where we disagree, includes a timetable for withdrawal. Nobody is asking for a precipitous withdrawal."

Obama has taken fire from his Democratic rival Hillary Clinton and Republican presumptive nominee John McCain for his offer to talk, if elected president, with the leaders of several US foes including Iran.

He used his question period during the crucial Senate hearing to restate his initial opposition to the war in Iraq, which Clinton voted to authorize.

"We all have the greatest interest in seeing a successful resolution to Iraq," Obama told Petraeus and Crocker.

"I continue to believe that the original decision to go into Iraq was a massive strategic blunder, that the two problems you pointed out, Al-Qaeda in Iraq and increased Iranian influence in the region are a direct result of that original decision.

"That's not a decision you gentlemen made. I will not lay it at your feet. You are cleaning up the mess afterwards."

Oh, it's so nice of you, Senator Obama, with your zero experience in foreign- and defense policy, not to blame the general and the ambassador.  Real fine of you.  But occasionally it might be encouraging if you blamed the Saddam Hussein regime, the weakness of the UN, the terrorist groups, and the appeasement crowd in the West. 

It must be a morale booster for troops in Iraq to hear the probable Democratic nominee describe their mission as a massive blunder.  But Obama's audience isn't a soldier in Baghdad.  It's a wine connoisseur in Manhattan or a tofu consumer in Beverly Hills.  The average American.

And I'll be back tomorrow, sooner if events warrant.

April 8, 2008.      Permalink              

MORE AFTERNOON POSTS,  APRIL 8,  2008

Posted at 4:42 p.m. ET

ABSOLUTELY

Remember the Absolut Vodka story, reported here Sunday?  The Swedish company, imagining ideal scenarios as part of a campaign called "In an Absolut world," put out a bottle in Mexico with an 1830s map showing Mexican control of what is now the southwestern United States.  Michelle Malkin and others reacted with appropriate rage.  The company's explanation?

Absolut said the ad was designed for a Mexican audience and intended to recall "a time which the population of Mexico might feel was more ideal."

Such sensitivity and intelligence.

Now reader John R. Primm, who has given Urgent Agenda a number of excellent leads, alerts us to an excellent cartoon response by the terrific Tom McMahon:

Nothing else need be said.

April 8, 2008.       Permalink              

AFTERNOON POSTS,  APRIL 8,  2008

Posted at 4:17 p.m.  ET

POLLING

The respected Quinnipiac poll shows a bit more slippage for Hillary Clinton in Pennsylvania, which votes two weeks from today.  However, she still leads Obama, 50 to 44.  The mess that Clinton has made of her campaign in the last three weeks has clearly hurt. 

The poll also shows this:

As a backdrop to today's Senate testimony by Gen. Petraeus and Ambassador Crocker, 84% of likely Democratic voters in PA think Iraq was a mistake. Fifty-eight percent would like to see us set a timetable for withdrawal from Iraq, while 29% would like to see us get all troops out of Iraq immediately.

The Democratic Party thus continues its march from the real world.

In the national trackers, Rasmussen has McCain up two over Obama.  The news is that Gallup has Obama up one over McCain, the first time Obama has led in that poll in recent days.  Obama is clearly gaining, if slowly, and McCain is easing back.  McCain has been on a biographical tour, and has performed well, but I must say that the physical contrast between this man of 71 and Obama is striking.  I'm afraid the image may be having its effect.

Rasmussen has McCain up four over Clinton, Gallup has them tied, the first time Clinton has tied McCain in a while.

Two things stand out:  McCain's slippage in the nationals and the fact that Clinton, despite her recent missteps, continues to hold her own against McCain.

April 8, 2008.      Permalink            

TUESDAY,  APRIL 8,  2008

Posted at 6:58 a.m. ET

MEANWHILE, IN IRAN

The Iranian regime has announced:

TEHRAN (Reuters) - Iran has started to install 6,000 advanced centrifuges at its uranium enrichment facility, President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said on Tuesday, an expansion of nuclear work the West fears is aimed at building bombs.

Diplomats in Vienna told Reuters last week that Tehran was installing advanced enrichment centrifuges at the underground Natanz facility, accelerating activity that could give Iran the means to make atom bombs in the future if it chose to.

Iran, the world's fourth largest oil exporter, says it wants nuclear technology to generate electricity.

And...

Nuclear analysts say around 1,500 centrifuges would be needed for Iran to manufacture the minimum 20 kg (45 kg) of highly enriched uranium needed for one crude warhead.

Just thought you'd like to know.  Now, would some enterprising reporter ask the presidential candidates how they'd handle this development?

April 8, 2008.       Permalink             

YOUNG FANATICS FOR OBAMA

I can confirm that this is happening because I hear it from friends.  Some kids are so delirious about Barack Obama that they've made it their mission to convert their parents:

As the race for the Democratic presidential nomination continues, youthful volunteers for each candidate have been campaigning with bright-eyed brio, not only door-to-door but also at home. But the young supporters of Mr. Obama, who has captured a majority of under-30 primary voters, seem to be leading in the pestering sweepstakes. They send their parents the latest Obama YouTube videos, blog exhortations and “Tell Your Mama/Vote for Obama!” bumper stickers.

And...

“Our kids are probably more precious to us than any previous generation of parents,” said Dan Kindlon, a Harvard child psychologist. “We have fewer of them, we’re relativists, and we’re more swayed by them. A lot of parents are a little afraid of their kids.”

For many parents, this campaign season also feels like a fond flashback: in their children’s unvarnished idealism, many see a resurrection of their own youthful political passions.

“It’s something you can brag to your friends about,” said Professor Kindlon, who writes about child-rearing and adolescents. “ ‘My kid is involved in politics.’ ”

Get this, about Democratic Governor Jim Doyle of Wisconsin:

The two adult sons of Governor Doyle, 62, both black and both adopted, spoke to him with fervor about Mr. Obama’s vision of a multiracial country. Then Mr. Doyle’s young grandson piled on.

“He’s a complete Barackomaniac,” Mr. Doyle said in a phone interview. “When I asked him why, he said, ‘I think he’s really going to work hard for us.’ I thought, that’s it through the eyes of a 7-year-old. ‘He’ll work hard,’ and ‘for us.’ ”

I don't expect much political sophistication from young people, and we don't get much.  But I'm uneasy over the whole Obama phenomenon.  It's taking on the form of a cult.  He is our leader.  We follow him.  We don't question.

We haven't had anything quite like this.  People compare Obama to Jack Kennedy, but Kennedy never developed this kind of passionate following among young people.  At best he had the
"jumpers," young girls, below the then-voting-age of 21, who'd scream and jump as he went by.

The Obama thing is something very different.  Young people seem more passionate about the personality than about the issues.  We should look at this much more closely.  I don't think it's healthy.

April 8, 2008.      Permalink            

DISGRACEFUL

On a related theme, this story should have been killed before it got off the ground.  Martha Raddatz, who's always struck me as a relatively sane but clearly liberal reporter for ABC, went a-polling among G.I.s in Iraq.  And what did she find?  Well, of course.  Almost all of them are for Obama!  Aren't you excited?  The quote:

Though the military is not supposed to engage in partisan political activity, these soldiers spoke out about their personal endorsements, and their opinions are likely to matter. In 2004, 73 percent of the U.S. military voted for a presidential candidate, and officials believe it may be even higher this time around.

Every soldier quoted in the piece was for Obama, with one exception, who was for Clinton.

You mean not one soldier was for soldier-friendly John McCain? 

Any good editor would have spiked this story unless Raddatz was able to find a balance of opinions to report.  Apparently she's so in the tank for Obama that she didn't realize what this story looks like, or just didn't care.  I fear this is the kind of journalism that we're going to see as we get into the general-election campaign, and that it will elect Obama.  We have an entire army of reporters who went into journalism to "make a difference," and this is the difference they want to make.  They are not concerned about the messy issue of details.

April 8, 2008.       Permalink             

GLOBAL WARMING?  COOLING?  ANYTHING?

It seem to me that highly expert skeptics of the Church of the Global Warming are becoming more vocal, buoyed perhaps by developments that appear to support their case.  Some of them are concerned that we're brainwashing our children.  Given the children's crusade for Obama, they may be right:

William Gray, the well-known Colorado State University hurricane forecaster, routinely uses the annual National Hurricane Conference as a platform to bash global warming. In a statement to Florida Today, Gray argued that the scientific consensus on global warming is bogus — and "a mild form of McCarthyism has developed toward those scientists who do not agree" that mankind is in danger.

"We are also brainwashing our children on the warming topic. We have no better example than Al Gore's alarmist and inaccurate movie which is being shown in our schools and being hawked by warming activists with little or no meteorological-climate background," Gray wrote.

Some scientists believe global warming will actually decrease — not increase — the number of hurricanes that form over the Atlantic Ocean each year. Last Friday, in the final session of the hurricane conference, a pair of climate experts said rising sea-surface temperatures in and near the Caribbean could strengthen vertical wind shear. Robust wind shear is the bane of hurricanes, as it tends to tear apart cyclones during their formative stages.

That's not exactly what we're being told by missionaries of The Warming.  And skeptic David Deming, in The Washington Times, reviews the history of false gods:

Maryland Gov. Martin O'Malley recently warned that failure to take action on global warming could mean the extinction of the human race. Over the last few years, we've been repeatedly warned we are in the midst of a climate crisis that threatens our survival. Al Gore calls it a "planetary emergency."

We might take this concern more seriously if the doom-mongering wing of the environmental movement weren't burdened by a long history of false prophecies.

Deming then goes through the "population bomb" prophecy - that we'd all be doomed in the 1970s by a growing population that would cause mass starvation  Never happened.  In fact, he says, obesity is becoming a problem even in the third world.

Deming then notes:

In 1975, the news media informed us that a new Ice Age was imminent. An article in the Chicago Tribune titled "B-r-r-r-r: New Ice Age on way soon?" noted "It's getting colder." The Tribune interpreted a number of ordinary weather events "as evidence that a significant shift in climate is taking place — a shift that could be the forerunner of an Ice Age." The New York Times chimed in, warning their readers that "a major cooling may be ahead." Famed science reporter Walter Sullivan announced "the world's climate is changing ... a new ice age is on the way."

Within 10 years, the imminent calamity of global cooling was replaced by global warming.

I am not a climate scientist.  I am merely an informed citizen.  But I'd like to see far more evidence before this nation commits itself to programs that can cost trillions, produce nothing, and do so to chase a "problem" that may be far less significant than we're being told by a former vice president.

April 8, 2008.       Permalink             

STONE COLD

Finally, Oliver Stone is making a movie about President Bush.  He hopes to rush it out in time for the election.  Since Bush isn't running, I wonder why.  The movie will star Josh Brolin as Bush.  Brolin is the son of Mr. Barbra Streisand.

Some historians, however, are raising doubts about the accuracy of the script.  I know this will shock you.  After all, can't the man who made "JFK" be trusted?  Well, no:

President George W. Bush is a foul-mouthed, reformed drunk obsessed with baseball, Saddam Hussein and a conflicted relationship with his dad. Or at least that's how he's portrayed in the script for Oliver Stone's upcoming feature "W."

But how accurate is that depiction?

As the film preps for its April 21 start date, The Hollywood Reporter sent a copy of the screenplay to four Bush biographers for their comments.

And...

Reactions to the script from the biographers were mixed. They said specific scenes are largely based in fact but noted that the screenplay contains inaccurate and over-the-top caricatures of Bush and his inner circle.

"It leaves you with the impression that the White House is run as a fraternity house with no reverence for hierarchy, the office itself or for the implications of policy," said Robert Draper, author of "Dead Certain: The Presidency of George Bush." "Everybody calling everybody else nicknames and chatting about whether to go to war as if they were chatting about how to bet on a football game really misses the mark of how many White Houses, including this one, are run."

Jacob Weisberg ("The Bush Tragedy") was skeptical about Stone's claim that he wants to make "a fair, true portrait" of Bush. "His saying he is going to be fair to Bush is like Donald Trump saying he is going to be modest," Weisberg quipped.

This will be seen by our children. 

I'll be back later.

April 8, 2008.       Permalink