William Katz: Urgent Agenda
SNIPPETS, our daily collection of short items and comments, is here.
---------------------------------------------
Our next subscription drive will be in October. However, readers are invited to subscribe at any time. Subscriptions are voluntary, but are critical to keeping us going. Subscribe in the right-hand column.
--------------------------------------------
Answers to last week's "Current Question" are here. The new "Current Question" is here, in the right-hand column.
--------------------------------------------
Apologies to readers. We are flooded with e-mails, and I'm a bit behind in answering. Every e-mail is read when it comes in, though, so the points you make are absorbed.
------------------------------------------
COMING THIS WEEK TO URGENT AGENDA - AUDIO COMMENTARIES. I HOPE YOU'LL LIKE THEM.
SUNDAY, SEPTEMBER 28, 2008
BAILOUT
Posted at 8:47 p.m. ET:
The bailout bill is the major event of the moment, indeed of many moments, yet there is little news about it. The Politico reports that both presidential candidates may find a way to skip the vote on the bill when it comes up in the Senate, possibly tomorrow:
DETROIT, Mich.— The financial crisis is the only thing Barack Obama and John McCain talk about these days.
But neither nominee would commit Sunday to actually returning to the Senate this week to vote on the $700 billion bill aimed at preventing widespread economic collapse.
The dichotomy between their campaign trail rhetoric and their absence in the Senate is nothing new in this presidential race. Both nominees have spoken extensively in their travels over the last 20 months about bills on which they do not vote because they could not make it back to the Senate.
Yet no other piece of legislation has dominated the debate in this election cycle nearly as much as the financial bailout.
The fact is that John McCain tried to get the housing mortgage system reformed in 2005, but failed. Obama, as usual, has no record of helping to solve any problem, let alone this one. Yet, he is likely to be elected president.
Some wit made the comment that this may be the first presidential election where the winner demands a recount. The problems facing a new president, from economic catastrophe to the rise of a nuclear Iran, are overwhelming. Even former Democratic Senate leader Tom Daschle has suggested that the new president may only be permitted by the voters to serve one term because the chances of success are so small. Yet, these problems provide a great opportunity for a political extremist, a demagogue, especially one helped along by a blind, ask-no-questions press. The radical depends on conditions being very, very bad. He also depends on shutting down serious questions.
Consider recent attempts by the Obama legions to shut down a Chicago radio station's interviews with Stanley Kurtz, who was investigating Obama's ties to radical Bill Ayers. Consider suggestions from Democrats in Congress to reinstate the fairness doctrine in broadcasting, which could easily kill talk radio by requiring stations to give equal air time to differing points of view, a quick road to bankruptcy. Consider reports out of Missouri - and here I'm indebted to many readers who've alerted me - that Obama's forces are organizing law-enforcement officials to take some unspecified actions against those who "distort" Obama's record.
I don't believe that every negative event should be labeled a crisis. We overuse the word. But I do sense we are present at a dangerous moment in history. Edward R. Murrow once said that the New Deal, which he favored was, like the surgeon's scalpel, "dangerous." This new bailout package is dangerous. The potential election of a man like Obama, whose views expressed in the campaign are strangely different from the views he's expressed most of his life, is dangerous. The collapse of the mainstream media is dangerous.
Franklin Roosevelt's great gift was that he gave the American people confidence. One could agree or disagree with individual policies, but his leadership abilities in times of despair were remarkable, as one of his opponents said upon learning of his death in 1945. Barack Obama gives us no confidence. He doesn't even seem, at times, to believe in his own country, and his wife's opinions have been stated quite bluntly. John McCain, with all his faults, inspires us to believe again in our greatness. The American people, in weeks, will decide whether they accept that belief, or whether they'll turn their backs on John McCain and elect a silver tongue mounted atop an empty suit.
September 28, 2008. Permalink 
UPDATE AT 3:17 P.M. ET: WASHINGTON (AP) -- Democratic presidential nominee Barack Obama said Sunday his Republican rival deserves no credit for helping to forge a tentative agreement on the $700 billion bailout of Wall Street. Instead, Obama said he deserves credit for making sure the proposal includes safeguards for taxpayers. Obama said he is inclined to support the bailout because it includes increased oversight, relief for homeowners facing foreclosure and limits on executive compensation for chief executives of firms that receive government help.
COMMENT: Nice guy, this Obama. Wasn't he the one, just a few days ago, who ridiculed John McCain for rushing back to Washington to do the job of a US senator? Wasn't he the one who said that those coping with the crisis could call him, Obama, if they needed him? Now, after laughing at McCain, Obama wants the credit.
UPDATE AT 2:07 P.M. ET: The Hotline tracker, just out, has Obama up five, same as yesterday. So, two of the three trackers published today show no change, although Gallup has a gain of three for Obama over yesterday's result.
If McCain can ease Obama back to a lead of 3-4 points by the end of the week, victory is still possible, although very difficult. Much is riding on Sarah Palin's performance in the debate Thursday. I suspect it will draw a larger audience than did the presidential debate. One thing Sarah has going for her: They can't edit her remarks the way Gibson and Couric did. One negative for her: The moderator, Gwen Ifill, is a highly partisan liberal. Sarah may just come through for us.
UPDATE AT 1:09 P.M. ET: The Gallup tracker, just out, has Obama up eight points, a gain of three since yesterday. This includes one full day of polling since the debate Friday night. We are in grim territory.
UPDATE AT 9:34 a.m. ET: The Rasmussen tracker just out has Obama up by six, same as yesterday. Well, at least he didn't increase his lead. Battleground won't publish today, but Hotline and Gallup should be out later. We'll be looking to see if the race has stabilized.
The Rasmussen poll includes surveys done yesterday, which means that part of the polling was conducted after Friday's debate. The report on Tuesday will consist of polling done entirely after the debate.
SCANDALOUS
Posted at 9:32 a.m. ET
Faking a story is one of the most serious offenses in journalism, and normally results in a writer being fired. Jason Blair, the now-famous faker at The New York Times, faked some stories and was eventually shown the door. A Pulitzer Prize winner at The Washington Post was found to have made up her winning story, and was similarly escorted out of the compound.
There are several ways to fake a story. You can make up facts, you can leave out critical information to give a false impression, or you can edit the story in such a way as to twist it out of shape.
There's been plenty of buzz about Sarah Palin's poor performance in her interviews with Charlie Gibson and Katie Couric. I'm not here to make excuses for some of her inadequate answers. However, it turns out that a number of her answers were actually far more adequate than what we saw on television. There are two remarkable articles on this. The first is by Frank Miele of the Daily Inter Lake of Montana. Miele is an excellent columnist who went west from the East Coast and has acquired a fine journalistic reputation. The second is from the Iris Blog, which I'm using for the first time.
These articles can't be summarized. There's too much vital detail. But both examine the Gibson and Couric interviews and reveal, stunningly, how they were edited to make Sarah Palin look ridiculous. These writers have the goods. They compare the original transcript of the interviews to the edited versions that we saw on TV. They prove their point about deceptive journalism beyond any reasonable doubt.
I urge you to read these pieces. You won't regret it. They will give you an insight into the dry rot that is eating away at much of the mainstream media. Miele deserves a Pulitzer for his story. He won't get it.
September 28, 2008. Permalink
THE REAL OBAMA
Posted at 8:41 a.m. ET:
I've always believed that under the silky exterior, Barack Obama is a tough, ruthless political operator, and not a man particularly bound to the truth.
Now we have some certified proof of that, stemming from Friday's debate. Just get this, from the great NewsBusters site:
Barack Obama played the "me too" game during the Friday debates on September 26 after Senator John McCain mentioned that he was wearing a bracelet with the name of Cpl. Matthew Stanley, a resident of New Hampshire and a soldier who lost his life in Iraq in 2006. Obama said that he too had a bracelet. After fumbling and straining to remember the name, he revealed that his had the name of Sergeant Ryan David Jopek of Merrill, Wisconsin.
Shockingly, however, Madison resident Brian Jopek, the father of Ryan Jopek, the young soldier who tragically lost his life to a roadside bomb in 2006, recently said on a Wisconsin Public Radio show that his family had asked Barack Obama to stop wearing the bracelet with his son's name on it. Yet Obama continues to do so despite the wishes of the family.
It shows Obama's contempt for the military.
Radio host Glenn Moberg of the show "Route 51" asked Mr. Jopek, a man who believes in the efforts in Iraq and is not in favor of Obama's positions on the war, what he and his ex-wife think of Obama continually using their son's name on the campaign trail.
Jopek began by saying that his ex-wife was taken aback, even upset, that Obama has made the death of her son a campaign issue. Jopek says his wife gave Obama the bracelet because "she just wanted Mr. Obama to know Ryan's name." Jopek went on to say that "she wasn't looking to turn it into a big media event" and "just wanted it to be something between Barack Obama and herself." Apparently, they were all shocked it became such a big deal.
But, he also said that his ex-wife has refused further interviews on the matter and that she wanted Obama to stop wearing the reminder of her son's sacrifice that he keeps turning into a campaign sound byte.
Can you imagine how the press would react if a Republican had done such a thing? The word "exploitation" would have been the most popular word in journalism for at least two days' running. But there is only media silence on Obama's callousness.
When President Obama visits a military base, if he gets around to it, I wonder how he'll be received? Courteously and respectfully, of course, considering his office. But I wonder what they'll really think.
September 28, 2008. Permalink
UPDATE AT 8:01 A.M. ET: From the Washington Post: Congressional leaders and the Bush administration this morning said they had struck an accord to insert the government deeply into the nation's financial markets, agreeing to spend up to $700 billion to relieve Wall Street of troubled assets backed by faltering home mortgages.
COMMENT: There are reports that John McCain was heavily involved in organizing Republicans to move this along. There are no reports of Barack Obama lifting a finger to ease this grave economic threat. I guess if he becomes president, and someone decides to fire a dozen missiles at us, he'll tell the Defense Department to call him if they need him.
SATURDAY, SEPTEMBER 27, 2008
BIDEN'S WORLD
Posted at 8:47 P.M. ET
Ed Lasky of American Thinker alerts us to a superb piece by Anne Bayefsky about the foreign policy views, or wrecks, of Joe Biden. You'll notice that there's been absolutely no vetting of Biden. That is because he has the highest qualification for public office of all - he regularly lunches with Washington journalists. What else could possibly match that?
Bayefsky:
Obama, the lightweight on foreign policy, got off to a bad start when it came to matters of state. His “tiny” Iran speech brought Joe Biden onto the ticket to do the heavy-lifting on the presidential function of defining interactions with other governments. When we wonder what a President Obama might do at 3:00 A.M., Sen. Biden answers the call...
...The world vision of Obama/Biden has the following characteristics — that ought to scare the pants off Americans from diapers to Depends:
First:
An inability to recognize the enemy when it stares them in the face.
“When the Senate votes to designate a large part of Iran's military a “terrorist” organization... the main result is to increase tensions with Iran.” (Joe Biden, December 6, 2007)
Second:
The lack of straight talk about American values and the assault which has been launched upon them.
“I don’t believe in a clash of civilizations.” (Joe Biden, March 10, 2005) Perhaps he should attend the UN Human Rights Council...
Third:
Prioritizing optics over substance.
“The way we position ourselves, we’re made to look like the bad guys.” (Joe Biden, July 9, 2008) News flash: America is made to look like the bad guy for doing anything at all — that’s the burden of having power and using it.
Fourth:
Treading lightly on Russia.
“We need…Russia’s help on Iran… Pushing too hard, too fast on democracy risks alienating governments whose help we need.” (Joe Biden, March 10, 2005)
Fifth:
Naiveté about Russian and Chinese intentions.
“Direct U.S. engagement with Iran is something that the European Union, Russia, and China have told me they would welcome. In exchange, we should insist on firm commitments from those governments to impose serious sanctions.” (July 9, 2008)
Sixth:
Showcasing America as weak and unwilling to use force.
“The Folly of War: War with Iran is not just a bad option. It would be a disaster …Even talk of war is counter-productive to our interests.” (Joe Biden, December 6, 2007)
Seventh:
Putting the feelings of mobs and despots above the interests of the United States and its democratic allies.
“Air strikes can set back Iran's nuclear program, but … imagine the consequences beyond Iran …enraged Muslim populations would make it much harder for moderate leaders to cooperate with us ...” (Joe Biden, December 6, 2007)
Eighth:
Grossly underestimating the enemy.
“My concern is not that a nuclear Iran some day would be moved by messianic fervor to use a nuclear weapon…My worry is that the fear of a nuclear Iran could spark an arms race in the Middle East…” (Joe Biden, December 6, 2007)
Ninth:
Turning diplomacy into an instrument of self-destruction, where cheap talk gives the enemy legitimacy and time.
“In 2005, while the Bush Administration was shunning Iran's reformist President [Khatami], I held the highest-level meeting in 25 years between any U.S. and Iranian official when I met with Iran's foreign minister.” (Joe Biden, December 6, 2007)
Tenth:
No pre-conditions for talks with Iran and hand the enemy the tools he needs to run out the clock.
“First, let’s end this false argument about “pre-conditions.” Senator Obama is right that the United States should be willing to engage Iran on its nuclear program without insisting that Iran first freeze the program.” (Joe Biden, May 20, 2008)
Eleventh:
A long-time love affair with the United Nations.
“The United States and other countries should commit military forces to the exclusive use by the United Nations’ Security Council.” (Joe Biden as reported October 29, 1992)
Sufficiently concerned?
Question: Why did it take a great reporter like Anne Bayefsky to pull all this together? Why haven't other reporters asked a single serious question of Barack Obama's "expert" in foreign policy, Joe Biden?
The fact is that Biden has been wrong on virtually every major foreign-policy question of his generation. If the Bidens had their way, the Cold War would still be on, America would have a second-rate military, Saddam Hussein would still be on his throne, and John Kerry would be finishing his first term.
But don't expect The New York Times to notice.
September 27, 2008. Permalink
UPDATE AT 7:35 P.M. ET: From the Deseret (Utah) News: If Congress manages to pass a bailout to stop a financial meltdown, Sen. Bob Bennett, R-Utah, says Republican presidential nominee John McCain should get much of the credit. Bennett — who was in most of the key meetings Thursday before and after negotiations fell apart — said House Republicans essentially had bolted from all bargaining. But McCain convinced them to return and work seriously on Friday.
COMMENT: I've noticed, in news reports today, that Republicans are starting to give John McCain some credit for his work on resolving this crisis. Senator Obama is doing nothing, which Senator Obama does so well.
UPDATE AT 5:10 P.M. ET: From the Abu Dhabi press: "DAMASCUS // Iraqi insurgents have said they hope Barack Obama is elected as the next US president because he is more likely than his rival John McCain to withdraw American troops and restore peace."
COMMENT: Just thought you'd like to know.
UPDATE AT 2:11 P.M. ET: WASHINGTON (AP) -- A pair of one-night polls gave Barack Obama a clear edge over John McCain in their first presidential debate. Fifty-one percent said Obama, the Democrat, did a better job in Friday night's faceoff while 38 percent preferred the Republican McCain, according to a CNN-Opinion Research Corp. survey of adults...
...In a CBS News poll of people not committed to a candidate, 39 percent said Obama won the debate, 24 percent said McCain and 37 percent called it a tie. Twice as many said Obama understands their needs than said so about McCain.
COMMENT: Unfortunately, that's pretty much the way I think public opinion will go on that debate. But let's wait for the later polls. We know this will be very tough, but a month is ten lifetimes in politics, and McCain can turn it around, with skill, and with much luck.
TRACKERS
Posted at 1:44 p.m. ET
The three trackers for Saturday have been published. (Battleground doesn't publish on weekends.) As reported below, Rasmussen has Obama up six. Gallup has him up five, a two-point gain from yesterday. Hotline has him up five as well, as loss of two from yesterday. All trackers were taken before the debate, but do reflect McCain's decision to suspend his campaign and return to Washington to work on the financial crisis.
There's still more than a month to go before the election. Can McCain turn it around? Yes, he can. But something has to change for him to do so, and it's tough to figure out what that might be. The debate was at best a draw for him. The vice-presidential debate, this Thursday, will probably be difficult, as Sarah Palin has not shown herself adept at anything but set speeches. The next two presidential debates are on subjects on which Obama has the edge. Last night, Obama clearly aimed at making the nation feel comfortable with him, and succeeded. The only way to deal with that performance is to raise questions as to whether that was the real Obama. Deception is part of his game.
Press bias, which we've said for months is a key to this campaign, is greater than ever. Any step McCain takes will be seen as "desperation" or "erratic." There is no shame left in the press. Their sixties dream is about to come true, and they will not be denied.
The financial crisis will still dominate the news, a minus for McCain. His party, wrongly, is blamed for the whole thing. The Dems will milk it. Any bailout package will be resented by the American people, properly so, even if McCain gets credit for improving it.
And still, no reporter asks about the strange timing of this financial crisis.
So for McCain, the road back is very tough. If I were him, I'd go on a Truman-style whistlestop, with Sarah Palin, across the country. I'd also raise the gravest doubts about Obama, even if the press cries "smear." It will cry it no matter what he does.
And, if I were McCain, I'd hope that the good sense of the American people prevails, and that voters start to wonder whether, in a time of crisis, they want to turn the United States of America over to a young man from Chicago street politics whose currently stated "views" seem entirely inconsistent with his unusual and troublesome political past.
September 27, 2008. Permalink
UPDATE AT 9:34 A.M. ET: The Rasmussen tracker, just published, shows Obama up six points, a one-point gain from yesterday. This matches Obama's biggest lead yet. Please note that this poll reflects samples taken Wednesday through Friday, but ending before the debate. It also reflects the enormity of the damage done to the McCain campaign by the financial crisis and its convenient timing.
THE RACE
Posted at 8:03 p.m. ET
The punditocracy is going full blast, evaluating the debate performance of McCain and Obama. The only reaction I personally care about is that of the American voter, and we really won't know the full extent of that reaction for two or three days, as the tracking polls are taken.
Some initial reaction, reflected in a focus group and a CBS poll, gave the debate to Obama. Debates are about impressions rather than substance, and on impressions I'm inclined to agree with this first response. At minimum, Obama was reassuring. He did not stumble through answers, as he frequently has. He had the play well memorized. Urgent Agenda reader Linda Gordon said it best: "Obama made me think of an A student who has crammed really well for the big test." He was thoroughly post-racial. If you listened on radio, you would not have known you were listening to an African-American. This was not Al Sharpton up there. And to white Americans (and probably many African-Americans as well), that was reassuring.
Obama sounded as if he could be president. At the same time, reflecting on Linda Gordon's comment, he sounded as if he were telling us everything he knew.
McCain, by contrast, lacked Obama's smoothness, his elegance. He doesn't have an easy facility for words. Yes, he was far more genuine, more substantive, wiser, more experienced, and at times a bit too combative. He is an intense man. Obama is, on the surface, a cool man. The late media analyst Marshall McLuhan taught us that television is a cool medium, and cool usually wins.
As a citizen, I would trust McCain's instincts far more than Obama's. But voters are often given to more basic, even emotional reactions. And so I have my fears about how this debate turned out.
It has been a bad time for John McCain. He was gaining nicely when the financial crisis hit, conveniently, as we've pointed out, in the midst of the campaign. His decision to return to Washington and work the problem was exactly right for a US senator, but, filtered through a biased press, was seen by some as impulsive and erratic. His own party, displaying the brilliant sense of unity and imagination that has marked the GOP recently, gave him almost no support. He is the leader of the party, but you'd never know it from the behavior of Republican members of Congress.
There is precedent here. Just after John F. Kennedy was nominated in Los Angeles in 1960, there was a special session of Congress. I don't recall the exact purpose. But there was Kennedy, the new presidential candidate, strolling into the U.S. Senate - and his party almost completely ignored him. Maybe it's jealousy, maybe it's a reminder to a potential president to know his place. But McCain got the Kennedy treatment.
So McCain, battered by a financial crisis that Americans blame on the Republican Party, has slipped in the polls. I can't imagine the debate doing anything to improve that situation, but moods can change. If an acceptable financial deal is reached between Congress and the Administration this weekend, and if McCain is seen as having improved it for the people, maybe he'll get some credit.
McCain has another problem. The Sarah miracle has turned into the Sarah headache. Let's be frank about it: She's not performing very well. Yes, she's wonderful on the stump. I love her. I admire her. But her sit-down with Katie Couric was a disaster, and prompted conservative writer Kathleen Parker to editorialize that she should leave the ticket. I reject that - it would doom the campaign and advertise that McCain's first decision as a presidential candidate was wrong - but I understand the thinking. Increasingly, conservative writers have questioned Palin's abilities. My own sense is that she is very capable, with great instincts, but has trouble articulating those instincts when not given a prepared script.
This Thursday Palin will debate Joe Biden. Some of our partisans have anticipated the debate with joy. Sarah will be great, they say. I'm not so sure. I don't look forward to it. She doesn't exhibit a "feel" for the material. But maybe she'll surprise us. All she has to do is hold her own, and she'll be fine. If she doesn't, and voters feel she can't handle the job, that fact alone could destroy the McCain campaign - not because vice-presidential choices have proven that important in the past, but because this one has drawn so much attention.
September 27, 2008. Permalink
UPDATE AT 6:35 A.M. ET: From ABC News: Former Secretary of State Henry Kissinger came to the defense of longtime friend Sen. John McCain following Friday's presidential debate saying he "would not recommend the next President of the United States engage in talks with Iran at the Presidential level."
"Senator McCain is right. I would not recommend the next President of the United States engage in talks with Iran at the Presidential level. My views on this issue are entirely compatible with the views of my friend Senator John McCain. We do not agree on everything, but we do agree that any negotiations with Iran must be geared to reality," Kissinger said in statement issued by the McCain campaign.
"What you see is news. What you know is background. What you feel is opinion."
- Lester Markel, late Sunday editor
of The New York Times.
SUBSCRIPTIONS:
Subscriptions to URGENT AGENDA are voluntary. Why subscribe to something you're getting free? To help guarantee that you'll continue to get it at all. Subscriptions sustain us. Payments are through PayPal and are secure, but you do not have to sign up for a PayPal account. Credit cards are fine.
FOR A ONE-YEAR ($48) SUBSCRIPTION, CLICK:
FOR A SIX-MONTH ($26) SUBSCRIPTION, CLICK:
IF YOU DON'T WISH A SET SUBSCRIPTION, BUT PREFER TO DONATE ANY OTHER AMOUNT TO SUSTAIN URGENT AGENDA, CLICK:
SEARCH URGENT AGENDA:
POWER LINE:
It's a privilege for me to post periodic pieces at Power Line. To go to Power Line, click here.
To link to my Power Line pieces, go here.
THE CURRENT QUESTION
This space will regularly raise questions that relate to the news, but transcend daily headlines. The idea is to stimulate talk about basic issues. Our last question asked:
Last week we asked,
What should John McCain's strategy be until election day?
You can view the answers here.
How would you explain to an angry, disillusioned foreigner why Barack Obama lost the election?
If you'd like to send us your thoughts, click:
response@urgentagenda.com
(Please stay within two or three paragraphs. We try to print every reply, if space allows. Place your name at the end of the message if you wish your name published. This question will stay up through Sunday.)
CONTACT:
YOU CAN E-MAIL US, AS FOLLOWS:
If you have wonderful things to say about this site, if it makes you a better person, please click:
applause@urgentagenda.com
If you have a general comment on anything you see here, or on anything else that's topical, please click:
comments@urgentagenda.com
If you must say something obnoxious, something that will embarrass you and disgrace your loving family, click:
despicable@urgentagenda.com
If you required subscription service, please click:
service@urgentagenda.com
FAVORITE SITES
Power Line
Faster Please (Michael Ledeen)
OpinionJournal.com
Hudson Institute
Bookworm Room
Bill Bennett
Red State
Pajamas Media
Michelle Malkin
The Weekly Standard
The New York Sun
Real Clear Politics
The Corner
City Journal
Gateway Pundit
American Thinker