Please note that you can leave a comment on any of our posts at our Facebook page.  Subscribers can also comment at length at our Angel's Corner Forum.

APRIL 13,  2011

PENTAGON WORRIED – AT 11:07 P.M. ET:  You're all now aware of President Obama's unexciting speech today laying out his plan for debt reduction.  It sounded more like an appeal to the Democratic base than a true plan of action.  Obviously, any plan is going to be modified many times, and may not be recognizable a year from today.

One of the most troubling aspects of the President's plan involves cuts in defense, something that will cheer the hearts of the representatives from San Francisco and Cambridge, Massachusetts.  But the Pentagon is clearly worried:

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The United States may have to scrap some military missions and trim troop levels if President Barack Obama sticks with his goal of saving $400 billion on security spending over a 10-year period, the Pentagon said on Wednesday.

Arms makers' shares sold off after Obama made a speech on the budget deficit in which he called, in effect, for holding growth in the Pentagon's core budget, excluding war costs, below inflation through 2023, starting in fiscal 2013.

The squeeze on the Pentagon's budget, which has roughly doubled since 2001, is part of a larger drive to cut the budget deficit by $4 trillion over the 10-year period.

Standard & Poor's aerospace and defense index declined 0.9 percent on Wednesday, underperforming the S & P 500 index, which closed up .02 percent. Lockheed Martin Corp, the Pentagon's No. 1 supplier by sales, dropped 2.6 percent to close at $80.37 on the New York Stock Exchange.

"It's not just a math exercise which is 'cut $400 billion'," said Geoff Morrell, the Pentagon press secretary. "It's 'let's review our roles and our missions and see what we can forgo, or pare down, in this age of fiscal constraint, where we are all collectively trying to work with the deficit problem.'"

COMMENT:  I have an idea:  Before we cut anything, let's figure out how this country can be safeguarded as threats against us increase.  Isn't that radical?  I mean the idea that the defense budget may have something to do with national defense may not go down well with the current administration crowd, but somehow I think ordinary Americans might be interested.

April 13, 2011       Permalink

THE GOOD NEWS AND THE BAD NEWS – AT 10:40 P.M. ET:  I went to a briefing today by a key figure in MEMRI, the Middle East Media Research Institute, which is based in Israel.  MEMRI was founded to solve the problem of Arab leaders saying one thing in English to the West, and something entirely different in Arabic to their brethren.  MEMRI is a translation service that informs Western journalists what the Arabs are saying in their own language.  It's been a revelation.

Of course, MEMRI is disparaged by chic Western journalists, who regularly accuse it of being just a branch of the Israeli lobby, but it's translations have proved impeccable and are used all over the world.

The gentleman today had good news and bad news.  The good news was his feeling, based on what's being said in the Arab world, that the revolutions now in progress will be good for the United States and other Western countries.  He based this on a unique interpretation of events – that Arabs are now turning inward, trying to improve their own societies, and hostile to the usual excuses.  As a result, they will have little appetite for ideological foreign adventures, or campaigns directed against us.

Also, the gentleman said, the threat of the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt is exaggerated.

He said that hatred toward the West, and toward Christians and Jews, will probably last for centuries, but that it will be benign because there'll be no incentive to act on it.  Not the greatest deal, but better than people planting bombs.

That's the good news.  The bad news, and it was surprising to me, involved Jordan.  Of all Arab countries, Jordan has probably been closest to the United States.  The late King Hussein was a friend who also made peace with Israel.  His son, the current King Abdullah, seems similarly disposed.  But the man from MEMRI warned that Islamists are rapidly taking over Jordan, and the brand of Islamism involved is Al Qaeda.  The implications for us are enormous should this trend continue.  Jordan has always been dependable, and a bulwark against extremism.  No more, according to this source.

It's always fascinating to listen to someone who actually reads Arabic, and isn't housed in one of the "Middle East Studies" departments of American or British universities.

April 13, 2011       Permalink

PRAISE HILLARY? – AT 9:49 A.M. ET:  We don't agree with Hillary Clinton too often here, and I wouldn't trust her with the family jewels, but she gave a gutsy speech to an Islamic gathering, and we're happy to applaud what she said:

Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton decried the marginalization of women in the Islamic world Tuesday night, calling women’s empowerment key to true democracy in the Middle East.

Mrs. Clinton made the remarks in a wide-ranging speech at the 2011 U.S.-Islamic World Forum. She noted “troubling signs regarding the rights and opportunities of women” in Egypt and Tunisia following their recent revolutions.

“So far, women have been excluded from key transitional decision-making processes,” Mrs. Clinton said.

“When women marched through Tahrir Square to celebrate International Women's Day in their new democracy, they were met by harassment and abuse.”

We're glad that Ms. Clinton is getting that information.  Our government is often short on human intelligence.

“You can’t claim to have a democracy if half the population is silenced,” she added.

Mrs. Clinton cited the United Nations’ first Arab Human Development Report in 2002, which found the political and economic participation of women in the region to be the lowest in the world.

“Successive reports have shown little progress,” she said, quoting the 2005 edition’s contention that women’s empowerment is “a prerequisite for an Arab renaissance, inseparably and causally linked to the fate of the Arab world.”

COMMENT:  Okay, at least someone in the administration is showing some spine.  She might lend some to her boss, who's in desperate need of a spinal transplant. 

A former Israeli prime minister said that Golda Meir was the best man in his cabinet.  Maybe Barack will be saying the same about Hillary.

April 13, 2011      Permalink

WOMEN MARCH IN SYRIA – AT 8:45 A.M. ET:  Even some journalists are commenting that we're taking our eyes off the Mideast just as new eruptions are occurring.  One of the most critical Mideast countries is Syria, Iran's strongest ally in the Arab world, and a place where the government doesn't hesitate to fire into crowds of protesters.

Now women of Syria are taking to the streets. It's always news when Arab women, often seen by the masters of their societies as little more than property, begin taking political action.  From Reuters:

AMMAN - Hundreds of women from a Syrian town that has witnessed mass arrests of its men marched along Syria's main coastal highway on Wednesday to demand their release, human rights activists said.

Security forces, including secret police, stormed Baida on Tuesday, going into houses and arresting men aged up to 60, the activists said, after townsfolk joined unprecedented protests challenging the 11-year rule of President Bashar al-Assad.

The women from Baida were marching on the main highway leading to Turkey chanting slogans to demand the release of some 350 men who have been arrested, the Syrian Observatory for Human Rights said.

"The women of Baida are on the highway. They want their men back," the organization said.

Women demonstrated in support in the nearby Mediterranean city of Banias, it said.

A human rights lawyer earlier said security forces had arrested 200 residents in Baida, killing two people.

There is more bloodshed coming in Syria.  Please notice the silence of "human rights activists" on the political left in the West.

We received a note from retired Army Major General Frank J Schober Jr, who writes as follows:

"I was in Syria a couple of years ago. Everywhere, throughout the capital of Damascus, were 'big brother' mega-sized photos of the 'dear leader' Assad.  I saw frightened people then.  Now those same people are out on the street, fighting for freedom and for their dignity as human beings."

Well said.  Gen. Schober also refers us to this YouTube video depicting what is happening in Syria right now.  It is in Arabic and is, ironically, from Al Jazeera, but you'll get the picture:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qBs1T_zwNsc

Syria is critical.  So is Egypt, and news from Egypt each day gets more and more depressing, as Islamist forces make their political moves. 

Don't take your eyes off the Mideast.

April 13, 2011      Permalink

TROUBLE ON THE RIGHT – AT 8:24 A.M. ET:  We began a discussion about this yesterday.  Republicans in the House are scheduling a symbolic vote on Paul Ryan's courageous budget proposals.  Not a good idea, I think.  The Ryan plan has zero chance of passing the Senate, and voting for it in the House adds nothing to the Republican record. 

By contrast, the flaws in the plan, and there are some serious ones, will be used against any Republican in a swing district who votes for it.  So where are the political benefits in a symbolic vote?

The main problem is the Medicare segment of the plan.  Although I got some serious flak from readers, I will say again that it's a non-starter, as it requires seniors to give up current benefits in exchange for a voucher to buy private health insurance.  The emotional strain on seniors, aside from the dubious economic considerations, will send millions of angry seniors to the polls, and you know how they'll vote.  The story in The Politico emphasizes that point:

Some Republicans are already squirming over a vote that provides a ready-made campaign ad for their opponents: Rep. Paul Ryan’s fiscal 2012 budget, which will restructure Medicare, alter Medicaid funding and slash $6 trillion from federal spending over 10 years.

Whether they’re new lawmakers in formerly Democratic seats or House veterans who represent districts with large elderly populations dependent on Medicare, a significant number of Republicans realize that embracing the Ryan plan may be one of the most treacherous votes of the year.

Don't take the vote just to satisfy the Tea Party.  As readers know, I believe elections are fought to be won, and budget proposals are introduced to be signed into law.  I am not interested in philosophical victories and symbolic back slapping. 

So rather than taking a strong stand, they’re hedging during the leadup to the roll call.

Rep. Tim Murphy, a fifth-term Republican who represents a western Pennsylvania district south of Pittsburgh with roughly 17 percent of residents older than 65, is still undecided. Susan Mosychuk, Murphy’s chief of staff, said it’s a “high-profile vote” that they are “still taking a look at.”

Rep. Gus Bilirakis, a Republican from western Florida with a district in which roughly 20 percent of its residents are older than 65, is “still looking it over and trying to decide.”

“Last I talked to him [Monday] night, he was still trying to figure out what all is in it and what might be affected,” said his spokesman, Creighton Welch.

Rep. Sean Duffy (R-Wis.), one of the most high-profile freshmen, said he’s undecided. Rep. Steve Southerland, a Republican who took Democrat Allen Boyd’s northern Florida seat, is in the same place as Bilirakis. So is Ohio freshman Rep. Jim Renacci.

The message is being sent, even by conservative Republicans:  Redo the Medicare part.  One way is to provide choice.  Seniors could be given a choice of the Ryan plan, or the choice to stay with the current system, with greater efficiencies and controls. 

If the GOP pushes the Medicare segment of the Ryan plan, the party will face an electoral disaster in many states.  And to what end?

This is what political debate is for.  Back to the drawing board, Mr. Ryan.  Many of us see you as a potential president.  Don't ruin it by ideological rigidity. 

April 13, 2011       Permalink

DEAR LEADER SPEAKS TO SUBJECTS TODAY – AT 7:58 A.M. ET:  President Obama, in office more than two years, will finally address the issue of debt reduction in a speech today.  Advance notices are not promising.  From Fox:

Washington (CNN) -- President Barack Obama enters politically tricky territory Wednesday when he outlines his plan for reducing long-term deficits and the national debt amid a climate of tense budget negotiations.
Obama's speech at George Washington University will follow White House talks in the morning with congressional leaders who are staking out positions on upcoming issues, including approval of last week's budget deal for the rest of the current fiscal year, increasing the federal debt ceiling and crafting a budget for fiscal year 2012.

For Obama, the speech is a response to a Republican budget plan for next fiscal year released last week by House Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan, R-Wisconsin, that would overhaul the Medicare and Medicaid government health care programs for the elderly while reforming the tax code to lower rates and eliminate loopholes.

And...

A White House official said Obama's speech would emphasize "shared prosperity and shared responsibility," advocating a balanced approach to control expanding deficits while protecting vital spending for education, innovation and clean energy.

Yeah, yeah, yeah.  You can see what's coming.  "It's for the children."  I have no problem with "spending for education" if someone could show me that the dollars are well spent, which they're not.  We already spend more per student than any country in the world except Switzerland and possibly Norway.  What, precisely, are we getting?  And why should we have to subsidize Ivy League universities that already have huge endowments? 

And I worry when words like "innovation" and "clean energy" are used.  Will someone show us what "clean energy" dollars have produced at the federal level?  Has anything worked?  I'm willing to be convinced, but details are always scarce.

According to the official, Obama will call for holding down domestic spending, cutting defense spending, reducing costs while strengthening Medicare and Medicaid, and tax reform.

Cut defense spending?  There's a fish thrown to the militant left of the Democratic Party, a wing that doesn't even believe in national defense.  Okay, I'll listen.  Yes, there is waste in the Pentagon.  But what are you going to cut, Mr. President?  We have pilots flying planes that are older than they are.  The Navy's carrier fleet is rapidly aging beyond usefulness.  And we have growing, not declining, threats all over the world.

Sounds like the usual suspects in the White House have come up with the usual proposals.  NGE.  Not good enough.

April 13, 2011     Permalink

APRIL 12,  2011

A CRITICAL STATE – AT 10:50 P.M. ET:  A new poll shows President Obama lagging in the key state of Florida.  From CNN:

Washington (CNN) - Dogged by a 34 percent approval rating among independents in Florida, a new poll out Monday indicates President Barack Obama would have a tough time beating either Republicans Mitt Romney or Mike Huckabee in that crucial campaign state.

According to the new survey from Sachs/Mason Dixon, Obama trails both past and potential presidential 2012 candidates in head-to-head matchups in the Sunshine State, losing to Romney, the former Massachusetts governor, by a 48-43 percent margin and lagging behind Huckabee, the former Arkansas governor, by a 49-44 percent spread.

Among all voters, Obama's approval rating in the Sunshine State stands at 43 percent, with 56 percent saying they are unhappy with his performance as commander-in-chief. That's consistent with a Quinnipiac University survey released last week that placed Obama's approval rating at 44 percent in the Sunshine state. The Quinnipiac survey also indicates that just over half of Florida voters don't think the president deserves re-election.

The new Florida poll may save its worst findings for former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin, who loses to the president by a sizable 51-39 margin. That's a worse showing than business mogul Donald Trump, who lags 8 points behind Obama with a 48-40 percent spread.

COMMENT:  What this poll tells us simply is that Obama is beatable.  And I like the fact that the survey names actual Republican opponents.  It is going to be a tough, even brutal campaign, with racial overtones.  The Republicans will need a candidate who can take Obama on, yet keep cool in the process. 

The Palin numbers represent a downward trend for the former Alaska governor.  I get the sense from her movements and statements that she doesn't intend to run, which would be a good thing.  I've always believed she made a terrible decision in resigning as governor.  As a sitting governor she has a certain status.  As a resigned governor who served only a few years she looks like an opportunist going out for the big cash kill.  She's a great fundraiser and motivator, but I think the public has passed her by.  The attention is shifting to Michele Bachmann.

April 12, 2011       Permalink

THOSE PESKY ELECTIONS – AT 10:27 P.M. ET:  Democracy is such a bore, especially when one loses.  The embarrassment.  The inconvenience.  Why even bother?  That great philosopher Nancy Pelosi contemplates the nature of the human race.  From The Weekly Standard:

Perhaps it's sour grapes, or perhaps it's a recent reawakening, but in a speech by Nancy Pelosi at Tufts University earlier this week, the former speaker of the House had some advice for her Republican colleagues in particular and some reflections on elections in general:

"To my Republican friends: take back your party. So that it doesn’t matter so much who wins the election, because we have shared values about the education of our children, the growth of our economy, how we defend our country, our security and civil liberties, how we respect our seniors. Because there are so many things at risk right now -- perhaps in another question I'll go into them, if you want. But the fact is that elections shouldn't matter as much as they do...But when it comes to a place where there doesn't seem to be shared values then that can be problematic for the country, as I think you can see right now. "

This seems like a bit of change for Pelosi, who in 2009 suggested that the results of a special election in the 23rd Congressional District of New York were a big win for health care.

COMMENT:  There are people who only believe in democracy if they win.  If they lose it must be because of some sinister force, like a fraudulent count in Florida or faulty voting machines in Ohio.  These are people who believe they have found all truth, all goodness, all decency, and all of it resides within them.  They are fools.

April 12, 2011      Permalink

SNIPPET OF THE DAY - AT 11:49 A.M. ET:

From Sunshine State News:  If you know anything about the White House Correspondents Associaton Dinner, then you know that the networks vie to claim the nation's brightest stars as their own -- and bring those stars with them to the Saturday, April 30 dinner.  This year ABC will put Florida Sen. Marco Rubio on its arm and show him off at one of Washington's biggest social events of the year...Said one Washington-based ABC official, "Everybody in the city these days wants to be around Marco Rubio. I guess we do, too."

Sign of things to come?

April 12, 2011      Permalink

THE THIRD RAIL – AT 10:27 A.M. ET:  Social Security is sometimes called the third rail of American politics.  Touch it and you die.  Well, part of that third rail, maybe on a siding at the end of the railroad yard, is Medicare.  Bottom line, Medicare is a popular program that actually works reasonably well.  And let's be blunt about it:  Even conservatives use it, and make it part of their financial plan. Touch it and you may not die, but you'll remember the jolt.

The costs of Medicare, though, are spinning out of control, and must be addressed.  I have some problem with the term "entitlement program" to describe it because we do pay Medicare premiums.  Like Social Security, it is an insurance program that is rapidly running out of money.

How we address Medicare is crucial to any reform.  The Dems probably won't do anything, acting as the hero to the elderly, and letting Republicans do the dirty work.  Medicare was established by the Democrats in the early sixties and was made part of the Social Security system, using an existing and functioning system.  That was a wise administrative decision, and is one of the reasons why the Medicare program functioned fairly well and was popular from the start.

Last week Congressman Paul Ryan of Wisconsin issued a Republican budget that addressed Medicare by proposing drastic changes in the system.  Ryan would change Medicare from a reimbursement-for-service system to a voucher program where each beneficiary would receive a voucher each year to buy medical insurance from private insurers.

I have enormous admiration for Ryan and his courage in even taking on the issue of Medicare reform.  However, I must dissent from his proposal.  Politically, it's just a non-starter.  Americans like Medicare in part because it's a simple system and has actually paid the bills over the years.  To ask elderly people to start looking around for private health insurance, using a voucher that most experts now say would not cover what Medicare covers, is just not going to get much support.  And remember, insurance companies, especially health-insurance companies, are not beloved institutions.  I haven't seen too many "I love Aetna" buttons recently.

What's interesting here is that Republicans, while giving Paul Ryan high marks for his effort, aren't exactly flocking to support the Medicare part of it.  This is one that has to go back to the drawing board.  It is impractical, and goes against the grain.  I think Republicans can do better in reining in Medicare costs without starting a war with beneficiaries.  It will be tough, but no program has any value unless it can pass Congress, and we're not there yet.

April 12, 2011       Permalink

REMEMBER LIBYA? – AT 9:20 A.M. ET:  Is there some kind of war going on in Libya?  You'd never know it from the way it's dropped out of the news.  Once dear leader pulled American planes from the effort, many (but not all) American journalists lost interest. 

But combat is ongoing in that oil-producing country, with France now moving into a leadership role and asking for more firepower.  Qaddafi remains in power, with little indication that he plans a permanent trip abroad.  From Fox:

AJDABIYA, Libya -- Muammar Qaddafi's forces shelled the only major city in the western half of Libya that remains under partial rebel control Tuesday as France said NATO should be doing more to take out heavy weaponry targeting civilians.

Weeks of fierce government bombardment of Misrata have terrorized the city's residents, killing dozens of people and leaving food and medical supplies scarce, according to residents, doctors and rights groups.

"Unfortunately, with the long-range war machines of Qaddafi forces, no place is safe in Misrata," a medical official in Misrata told The Associated Press. Six people were killed Monday and another corpse was brought in Tuesday, he said.

French Foreign Minister Alain Juppe said NATO's actions are "not enough" and that the alliance should be firing on the weapons being used by Qaddafi's troops to target civilians in Misrata.

Juppe spoke on France-Info radio, the day after Libyan rebels rejected a cease-fire proposal by African mediators because it did not insist that Qaddafi relinquish power.

"NATO has to play its role in full. NATO wanted to take the military command of the operations," Juppe said. He also urged the EU to do more to get humanitarian aid to Misrata.

COMMENT:  It's pathetic, absolutely pathetic.  Last night, as I reported here, I listened to a former (and prominent) British jihadist describe how Obama's weakness is encouraging jihadism and stiffening its morale.  Obama's listless, yawning behavior regarding Libya will only lead to the perception that he is a soft, indecisive president who lacks the heart of a leader.

Obama has said that Qaddafi must go.  Qaddafi has stayed.  If he continues to stay, we lose, and that's the way it will be seen.  If I were Osama bin Laden, or all the other worthies in the violent jihad clubhouse, I'd be laughing my head off.

April 12, 2011      Permalink

RECALLING FDR – AT 8:37 A.M. ET:  President Roosevelt died 66 years ago today, in Warm Springs, Georgia. At his side was his companion/lover/whatever Lucy Mercer Rutherfurd, with whom he'd had a "relationship" going back decades.  Somewhat stronger terms have been used to describe this relationship.

Roosevelt, of course, was the only American president to be elected for more than two terms.  He had just started his fourth when he died.  He was succeeded by Harry S. Truman who, contrary to political myth, was not an obscure former senator from Missouri, but a prominent former senator who'd been on the cover of TIME in 1943. 

One can debate Roosevelt's policies, but he was, as Ed Murrow described him, the central pivot of 12 years of American history, leading the nation through the Depression and World War II.  He is considered by most historians one of the great American presidents, often ranked third behind Lincoln and Washington.  His policies did not end the Depression, but Roosevelt gave Americans a sense of hope and a sense that he cared, and that he understood the impact of the economic disaster on the ordinary American.

FDR invented the modern presidency, for better or worse.  He was the first to use mass media, addressing the nation frequently by radio in his fireside chats.  He was the first to fly to a political convention.  And he became an internationalist in an age of isolationism.  He was not a great intellect, nor was he impeccably honest (to put it mildly), but it is hard to think of American history without him.  He had the sense to appoint Republicans to high positions to help fight World War II, symbolic acts that established, at least for a time, a bipartisan foreign- and defense policy.  His bond with Winston Churchill during World War II was one of modern history's great partnerships.

The decision, in 1944, to replace the naive left-wing vice president, Henry Wallace, with Harry Truman on the Democratic ticket was an act of political genius, although the Congressional leadership probably had more to do with it than Roosevelt himself.  And that act, based on Truman's actual performance in the Senate, demonstrated the enormous value of listening to people who actually know a candidate for high office.  It was a far cry from today's "democratic" primary system, where people vote for candidates who may have little actual experience, and who have not been examined by those who understand the pressures of the presidency. 

It's remarkable to think that in 1944 the Democratic Party had on its ticket Roosevelt and Truman, two men later seen as great presidents.  Compare please to today.

April 12, 2011      Permalink

SETBACK – AT 8:27 A.M. ET:  The liberal Ninth Circuit strikes again.  From the Washington Times:

A federal appeals court ruled Monday that Arizona overstepped its bounds with last year’s immigration enforcement law, handing the Obama administration another victory as it tries to squelch states’ efforts on immigration enforcement.

A three-judge panel of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, ruling 2-1, upheld a lower court’s decision that Congress doesn’t want states meddling in immigration. The appeals court said that nullifies Arizona’s attempt to empower local police to detain and question those they suspect are in the country illegally.

“Foreign policy is not and cannot be determined by the several states,” Judge John T. Noonan Jr. wrote in his concurring opinion. “Foreign policy is determined by the nation as the nation interacts with other nations. Whatever in any substantial degree attempts to express a policy by a single state or by several states toward other nations enters an exclusively federal field.”

COMMENT:  We are in never-never land on policy involving illegal immigrants.  Our southern border is unsealed.  The violence of Mexico's drug cartels is spreading to the United States.  Americans legitimately fear that weapons, including WMD's, can be carried across our border, and not much is being done.  Arizona's noble attempt to bring some reasonable enforcement mechanism to the issue is being shot down.

April 12, 2011     Permalink