I have a new piece up at Hudson New York this morning, called "Losing Quietly."  It's about how America can lose its international struggle quietly by simply giving up its freedoms.  It's here.

WEDNESDAY,  APRIL 29,  2009

THE BIAS CONTINUES - AT 6:14 P.M. ET:  I regularly monitor the cable news channels during the day to see what they're doing.  I must tell you that the level of bias and unprofessionalism at some outlets has become intolerable.  I switched to CNN today to hear one of its anchors, Rick Sanchez, interviewing a reporter from The Hill, on the Specter spectacle.

You would think that Arlen Specter's defection means the end of the Republican Party, maybe even the two-party system.  Sanchez was absolutely joyous.  Are we in Heaven, or what? 

There was, as usual for today's journalism, no historical perspective.  Party switches occur regularly.  Former Senator Ben Nighthorse Campbell of Colorado switched to the GOP while in office.  Senator Richard Shelby of Alabama did likewise.  The Democratic Party did not collapse.

What is remarkable is that the media joy comes at the same time that Rasmussen, one of the more accurate and responsible pollsters, is reporting that congressional party preference among voters has tilted slightly to the Republicans, placing the party in good shape to make gains next year if it can capitalize on its advantage.  But you'd never know it watching CNN.

April 29, 2009   Permalink   

HE'S DOING WHAT TO AMERICA? - AT 4:48 P.M. ET: 

April 29 (Bloomberg) -- President Barack Obama marked his 100th day in office by telling Americans that “we’ve begun the work of remaking America.”

The president, speaking at a town hall meeting in the St. Louis suburb of Arnold, Missouri, said that while the U.S. still faces challenges in recovering from a recession, the country is making progress.

“We have begun to pick ourselves up and dust ourselves off,” Obama said. “I’m pleased with the progress we’ve made, but I’m not satisfied. I’m confident in the future, but I’m not content with the present.”

COMMENT:  I wonder how many Obama voters in the last election, especially independents, thought they were voting to "remake" America.  I don't recall that in the game plan.

April 29, 2009   Permalink

DOW DETACHED - AT 4:31 P.M. ET:  There was some very bad economic news today, especially the report on dramatic contraction during the last quarter.  And how did the Dow react?  Why, it went up 169 points, to close at 8186.  We seem to be repeating at least part of the pattern of the great Depression.  Between 1933 and 1937 there was a sustained stock market rally, which had absolutely nothing to do with the real economy.  The Wall Street casino proceeds.

April 29, 2009   Permalink

DEMS NOT THRILLED WITH SPECTER DEAL - AT 3:37 P.M. ET:  Reader Joseph J. Gallick alerts us to a report in The Hill indicating not all Dems are happy with the deal welcoming Arlen Specter into the party:

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid’s (D-Nev.) deal to allow Sen. Arlen Specter to retain his seniority after he switches to the Democratic Conference has not been received well by senior senators in the party.

Several Democrats are furious with Reid for agreeing to let Specter (Pa.) keep the seniority accrued over more than 28 years as a Republican senator. That could allow him to leap past senior Democrats on powerful panels — including the Appropriations and Judiciary committees.

"I won't be happy if I don't get to chair something because of Arlen Specter," said Sen. Barbara Mikulski (D-Md.), who sits on the Appropriations Committee with Specter and is fifth in seniority among Democrats behind Chairman Daniel Inouye (Hawaii), Sens. Robert Byrd (W.Va.), Patrick Leahy (Vt.) and Tom Harkin (Iowa). "I'm happy with the Democratic order but I don't want to be displaced because of Arlen Specter," she said.

COMMENT:  Not a good idea to antagonize the senior members of your party, Harry.  Arlen, when you walk into that Dem caucus, check your seat for tacks.

April 29, 2009   Permalink

AND NOW FOR THE REAL NEWS - AT 9:11 A.M. ET:  Seems that predictions of prosperity just around the corner are taking on Hooveresque dimensions.  From The New York Times:

The American economy shrank rapidly in the first three months of the year, the government reported on Wednesday, a signal that the economy is likely to remain a dominant issue as the Obama administration looks beyond its first 100 days.

The gross domestic product shrank at an annual rate of 6.1 percent from January through March, the Bureau of Economic Analysis reported, its third straight quarter of declines.

Economists had predicted a drop of 4.7 percent, and the steep dip could dampen expectations that the pace of economic declines had begun to ebb. The decline was almost as sharp as in the previous quarter, when the economy shrank at a pace of 6.3 percent, its worst drop in a generation.

COMMENT:  Obviously not a report to send anyone on a shopping spree.  It's too early to charge Mr. Obama with this, but clearly his jawboning in the first hundred days hasn't had much effect.  We look forward to his news conference tonight to see if he's challenged on this news.

April 29, 2009   Permalink

WELCOME PONTIFF, BUT WE MAY RIOT - AT 8:43 A.M. ET: 

NAZARETH, Israel (AP) -- A banner across the main square in Jesus' boyhood town condemns those who insult Islam's Prophet Muhammad -- a message by Muslim hard-liners for Pope Benedict XVI during his pilgrimage to the Holy Land next month.

The pontiff may have to tread carefully with his visit to Nazareth. Many Muslims are still angry over a 2006 speech in which Benedict quoted a medieval text depicting the prophet as violent.

Even some Christians are nervous that Benedict could stir up trouble for them. They worry that if he says anything contentious about Islam again, Muslims might lash out.

And...

The banner was put up by followers of Nazem Abu Salim, a radical Muslim preacher, right next to the Church of the Annunciation, where tradition says the Angel Gabriel told Mary she would give birth to Jesus.

It is there for the pope, Abu Salim said. ''He is not welcome here.''

COMMENT:  This is nothing more than a naked threat.  I have no problem with religious groups protesting an insensitive remark by a religious leader.  It happens all the time.  But the suggestion of violence is implied, a common practice among Islamists.  It's been reported that Israeli authorities are concerned about the Pope's security.  We hope this concern is not used as an excuse to cave in to the demands of the most extreme Muslim elements. 

April 29, 2009   Permalink

NORTH KOREA THREATENS AGAIN - AT 8:27 A.M. ET: 

SEOUL, South Korea (AP) -- North Korea threatened Wednesday to conduct nuclear and missile tests unless the U.N. apologizes for criticizing its April 5 rocket launch, dramatically raising its stake in the worsening standoff over its atomic programs.

Pyongyang's Foreign Ministry said in a statement the country ''will be compelled to take additional self-defensive measures'' unless the U.N. Security Council apologizes immediately. ''The measures will include nuclear tests and test-firings of intercontinental ballistic missiles.''

COMMENT:  The North Korean style is to make an agreement, break it over some perceived grievance, then return to the negotiating table to negotiate again about the same things they negotiated about before.  North Korea knows that it has a compliant, talk-obsessed administration in Washington.  Why shouldn't it do what it's doing?  Have there been any consequences?  Will there be any?

April 29, 2009   Permalink 

EMBARRASSING - AT 7:41 A.M. ET:  We urged readers early in the week to brace themselves for the "100 days of Obama" worship party.  It has come, it has come.  And the nation's newspaper of record has now weighed in with its grave, deeply thoughtful assessment.  (That is sarcasm.)

It is sad to see, each day, the deterioration of The New York Times.  But nothing makes that decline more clear than this morning review of the First Obama Centennial.  See the wonder.  See the greatness.  See the messianic vision.  Fall deeply asleep.

Crises, not days, is the first word that comes to mind when we think about the number 100 and Barack Obama’s presidency.

The list of failed policies and urgent threats bequeathed to him by former President George W. Bush could easily be that long.

Nothing like a little sense of proportion.  You know exactly where this is going.

He is trying to rebuild this country’s shattered reputation with his pledge to shut down the prison camp in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, his offer to talk with Iran and Syria, and, yes, that handshake with Venezuela’s blow-hard president, Hugo Chávez.

Shattered reputation?  Among whom?  Yes, among the usual suspects our reputations suffered under George W. Bush.  But elsewhere we actually did rather well.  India, for example, which happens to be the world's largest democracy.  And among the countries of Africa, where Bush is highly regarded for his AIDS program.  And I suspect that many foreign ministries are suffering a bit of buyer's remorse, as they contemplate what a weak American foreign policy might be like.

There are things, of course, that even The Times concedes are standing in Obama's way - like allies:

Mr. Obama’s commitment to Israeli-Palestinian peace is already being tested by Israel’s new prime minister, who says he doesn’t believe in a two-state solution.

Rotten allies.  If only Israel could be more like Hamas and Hezbollah.  And that England!  The old colonialists didn't even appreciate the thought that went into our gift of DVDs to its prime minister. 

The economy?  Close your eyes and predict what The Times might say.  Open.

After eight dismal years, the president’s stimulus bill, his budget and even the flawed bank rescue strategy offer a welcome return to the rational proposition that some problems are so big that the government must step in.

Huh?  Eight dismal years?  I recall that seven of those years featured a vibrant, strong economy, and that the financial crisis was largely a result of a home mortgage racket brought about by Fannie and Fredddie, two Dem institutions.  But never mind.

Oh well, you can read it if you like.  Or, you can pick up a copy of My Weekly Reader, if you want something on a more stimulating level.  The Times concludes.

During the campaign, then-Senator Obama declared that “government cannot solve all our problems, but what it should do is that which we cannot do for ourselves.” In his first 100 days, President Obama has started to show Americans just what he meant.

Actually, it was Lincoln who said that.  But details, details.  In the presence of such a light, who cares about details.

April 29, 2009   Permalink

THE SPECTER SPECTACLE - AT 7:31 A.M. ET:  Arlen Specter has become a Democrat.  All world history has changed.  Specter, senator from Pennsylvania, faced an impossible primary battle in 2010 to keep his seat.  Better, he apparently thought, to switch parties in a state that's trending Democratic anyway. 

Does Specter have a future?  Consider:  He's a new member of his party, and there are other Pennsylvania Democrats who clearly covet a Senate seat.  They will resent giving up their shot so that this newcomer can walk in and claim their party's nomination.  However, it's widely reported that Specter negotiated for some time over his transfer of allegiance, and you can be sure that one of his key demands was that he receive Obama's support for the Democratic nomination for the Senate next year.  Please remember that the governor of Pennsylvania, Ed Rendell, is the former chairman of the Democratic National Committee.  He knows national politics and the pressures that can be applied.  I suspect that old Arlen will get the nomination.

Can he win in the general?  Party statistics in Pennsylvania say yes.  And others have switched parties in other states and gone on to successful careers.  But Specter's switch is clearly based on perceived personal advantage.  Republicans in Pennsylvania will be motivated to defeat him.  Many independents may be repelled by his selfish maneuvering.  Even some Democrats may stay home.

Republicans will nominate a conservative.  The last pure conservative to run for the Senate, two-term incumbent Senator Rick Santorum, was badly defeated. 

It will be one of the most interesting races next year.  My hunch is that Specter still has an advantage, but stay tuned. 

April 29, 2009    Permalink

TUESDAY,  APRIL 28,  2009

CONGRESSIONAL ELECTION COMING UP - AT 10:48 P.M. ET:  With all the attention focused on the president's first 100 days, we tend to forget that the next great political contest will be the congressional election coming up in fall of next year.  And so today's Rasmussen poll of congressional preference is particularly stunning:

For just the second time in more than five years of daily or weekly tracking, Republicans now lead Democrats in the latest edition of the Generic Congressional Ballot.

A new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey found that 41% would vote for their district’s Republican candidate while 38% would choose the Democrat. Thirty-one percent (31%) of conservative Democrats said they would vote for their district’s Republican candidate.

Overall, the GOP gained two points this week, while the Democrats lost a point in support. Still, it’s important to note that the GOP’s improved position comes primarily from falling Democratic support. Democrats are currently at their lowest level of support in the past year while Republicans are at the high water mark.

COMMENT:  That's good news for now.  However, the key to the future is to build Republican support by developing a program the public will support, not simply waiting for the Dems to falter.  They're already faltering.  The GOP must play offense, not defense.  The Democrats will not take losses in the congressional elections without a brutal fight. 

April 28, 2009   Permalink

A GEM - AT 10:40 P.M. ET:  Ordinarily, this would be published at Snippets, but it's too good a news story to pass up.  Britain's Telegraph reports that "a Muslim-owned jewellery shop has decided to ban customers wearing veils after being targeted by robbers disguised as Islamic women." 

Everyone entering ATAA Jewellers in Glasgow must reveal their faces under planned new rules to protect staff from further attacks.

The store owners decided to act after two Asian men wearing traditional Muslim women's clothes – including niqab veils – made away with thousands of pounds worth of jewellery earlier this month.

The pair, who were also carrying handbags, pretended to be interested in buying some items but attacked staff with pepper spray when cabinets were unlocked.

Now the Sadiq family who run the shop are planning to put up a sign informing customers that they cannot wear any headgear that covers the face.

Any Muslim women who are more comfortable in a niqab will be encouraged to telephone in advance to ensure that a female member of staff is present during their visit, to confirm their identities.

COMMENT:  I'll be on the lookout for any reaction from professional multiculturalists, who will probably be appalled at this concession to reality.  I wonder if the store will be fined. 

I only have two questions:  If the two robbers were so veiled that the store owners couldn't tell that they were males, how do they know they were Asian men?  Also, when the robbers asked to see things, didn't their voices give them away?  I await answers.

April 28, 2009   Permalink 

IF IT HAD BEEN BUSH - AT 9:54 P.M. ET:  From WCBS in New York:

A furious President Barack Obama ordered an internal review of Monday's low-flying photo op over the Statue of Liberty.

CBS 2 HD has discovered the feds will have plenty to question.

Federal officials knew that sending two fighter jets and Air Force One to buzz ground zero and Lady Liberty might set off nightmarish fears of a 9/11 replay, but they still ordered the photo-op kept secret from the public.

In a memo obtained by CBS 2 HD the Federal Aviation Administration's James Johnston said the agency was aware of "the possibility of public concern regarding DOD (Department of Defense) aircraft flying at low altitudes" in an around New York City. But they demanded total secrecy from the NYPD, the Secret Service, the FBI and even the mayor's office and threatened federal sanctions if the secret got out.

COMMENT:  This is one of those "if it had been Bush" stories.  Can you just imagine how the ideological guardians in liberal New York would have reacted if this had happened on Bush's watch?

Let's see if any heads roll.

April 28, 2009   Permalink

I GUESS IT ISN'T THAT WARM - AT 9:43 P.M. ET:  From The Hill:

The House may not vote on a climate change bill this year, according to a high-ranking Democratic leader.

Rep. Chris Van Hollen (D-Md.) told The Hill on Monday that leaders could opt not to bring a climate measure to the floor if the bill has little chance of passing the Senate.

Democrats, including Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.), had previously indicated they would pass a climate bill through the House by the August congressional recess.

COMMENT: You mean Al Gore made that recent trip to Capitol Hill for nothing?

It's dawning on some Democrats that a climate-change bill has real consequences for real people, and they may not be cool consequences.  Also, there are serious scientific questions raised by serious scientists.  The constant, McCarthy-style smear of anyone who disagrees with Gore's position as frauds or "the equivalent of Holocaust deniers" hasn't gone down well.

April 28, 2009   Permalink

FINALLY, BORDER TIGHTENING - AT 9:40 A.M. ET:  From The New York Times:

Countries around the world began tightening their border and immigration controls Tuesday as the number of confirmed cases of swine flu continued to rise.

The number of deaths believed attributable to swine flu climbed to as many as 152 on Tuesday — all of them in Mexico — as news agencies reported the number of confirmed cases of infection in the United States stood at 50 after further testing at a New York City school.

COMMENT:  Amazing.  Someone finally found a reason to tighten our borders.  How long have we been talking about that?

April 28, 2009   Permalink

CONGRESSIONAL DEMS CRANKING UP PRESSURE ON IRAN - AT 8:54 A.M. ET:  While the administration fantasizes that talks with Iran will be a wonder to behold, savvy congressional Dems, and their Republican allies, are pursuing a more adult strategy, as The Politico reports:

Democrats in Congress are joining Republicans in calling for tough new sanctions on Iran and warning the Obama administration that its policy of engagement shouldn’t last too long before turning to harsher steps aimed at halting Tehran’s nuclear program.

This week, as many as 20 senators, including several senior Democrats in the House and Senate, are expected to join in introducing a bill that would authorize sanctions against companies involved in supplying gasoline and other refined petroleum products to Iran.

A similar bill is also in the works in the House. Last month, seven senior Democrats, including Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (D-Md.), warned President Barack Obama against “open-ended engagement with Iran.”

The administration is so far moving on a slower timetable, refusing to commit itself to new sanctions until it sees whether its diplomatic outreach to Iran produces results.

COMMENT:  They sure are moving on a slower timetable, or no timetable at all.  By the time these "negotiations" get started, Chelsea Clinton will be running for president.

Time is critical here.  The Iranian nuke program forges ahead.  The members of Congress are making it clear that they won't go along with just anything the Obaman soft-liners have in mind.

April 28, 2009   Permalink 

RIGHTING THE SELF-RIGHTEOUS - AT 8:04 A.M. ET:  Columnist Dennis Prager, in a first-class column, has a series of very tough questions for the crowd of self-righteous holy warriors (or holy leftists) who have arisen to weep and wail over Bush-era interrogation programs.  A sample:

Given how much you rightly hate torture, why did you oppose the removal of Saddam Hussein, whose prisons engaged in far more hideous tortures, on thousands of times more people, than America did -- all of whom, moreover, were individuals and families who either did nothing or simply opposed tyranny?

And...

Are all forms of painful pressure equally morally objectionable? In other words, are you willing to acknowledge that there are gradations of torture as, for example, there are gradations of burns, with a third-degree burn considerably more injurious and painful than a first-degree burn?

And...

Is any maltreatment of anyone at any time -- even a high-level terrorist with knowledge that would likely save innocents’ lives -- wrong?

And...

If lawyers will be prosecuted for giving legal advice to an administration that you consider immoral and illegal, do you concede that this might inhibit lawyers in the future from giving unpopular but sincerely argued advice to the government in any sensitive area?

COMMENT:  There are more like that, and those listed above are only partial quotes.  Prager provides a foundation for challenging our new class of holy men, who are lofty and above us all.  The Bush administration made a serious error in not fighting back hard against its critics, while it was still in office.  But it's never too late.

April 28, 2009   Permalink

BRILLIANT HANSON, ON THE INTERROGATION ISSUE - AT 7:34 A.M. ET:  Victor David Hanson shows why he's Victor Davis Hanson in the best piece I've read on the prisoner interrogation issue.  Hanson goes back into American history - a subject unknown to many "journalists" today - and demonstrates why any prosecution of Bush officials is way outside our traditions and our values:

First, remember that the Constitution already permits ongoing audit of the executive branch. Watergate prompted Nixon’s resignation in face of impending impeachment. Iran-Contra almost destroyed the Reagan administration. President Clinton’s sexual antics with a female subordinate, and lying about it subsequently (speaking no truth to those without power), prompted his impeachment. Nancy Pelosi, who was briefed on the options of waterboarding in the dark days following 9/11, had ample opportunity to hold congressional hearings on Bush’s overemphasis on homeland security. Her outrage now rings false, an unseemly ploy to hide her complicity in what she once thought was responsible governance. 

And...

Dwight Eisenhower did not open hearings to pave the way for indictment of federal officials of the Roosevelt administration or California lawyers working for Gov. Earl Warren, who in concert planned and carried out the forced internment of American citizens into camps. Much less did he bring Truman & Co. up on charges of using nuclear weapons to incinerate Japanese civilians.

And...

Warren Harding and Calvin Coolidge did not seek indictment of Woodrow Wilson’s Justice Department, which did everything from strengthening segregation to jailing war critics and helping foster the odious vigilantes of the American Protective League. No subsequent administration tried to arrest Lincoln’s Cabinet members for signing off on the suspension of habeas corpus after Fort Sumter — unconstitutional decrees that eventually would mean some 15,000 Americans were held without charges for indeterminate length.

COMMENT:  Wonderful, wonderful.  Read the whole thing.

April 28, 2009   Permalink

THANKS FOR THE BALANCE, GUYS - AT 6:58 A.M. ET:  In a singularly unimpressive debut at The New York Times, "conservative" columnist Ross Douthat argues that Dick Cheney, whom he clearly despises, should have been the GOP candidate for president last year.  The logic here is that Cheney would have lost in a landslide, and the political right would have realized what changes had to be made to make the Republican Party viable again. 

So begins the new career of a "conservative" columnist.  The fact is, The Times fired Bill Kristol, who played that role, and brought in another soft-core conservative, Douthat, to write alongside even softer-core conservative David Brooks, an eminently decent writer, but hardly a torch carrier for rightist ideas. 

What The Times really needs is another William Safire.  But they will not hire anyone in that league.  They really don't want him.  Too effective.

April 28, 2009   Permalink