SATURDAY,  MAY 9,  2009

THANKS FOR THE WARMTH, FELLAS - AT 11:31 P.M. ET:  Those who claim to speak for Islam are expressing deep thoughts over President Obama's upcoming trip to Egypt.  From AP:

Egypt's most powerful opposition group, the Muslim Brotherhood, on Saturday called President Barack Obama's upcoming trip to Egypt useless unless the U.S. shows dramatic change in its policies toward Arab and Islamic countries.

The White House on Friday announced that Obama would deliver a speech in Egypt on U.S. relations with the Muslim world on June 4 as he seeks to repair damaged ties between America and Islamic countries.

But the Brotherhood's deputy leader, Mohammed Habib, said he was skeptical about Obama's intentions, according to comments posted on the group's Web site.

"The trip will be useless unless it is preceded by real change in the policies of the U.S. administration toward the Arab and Islamic world," Habib said.

COMMENT:  The Brotherhood is important because of its extensive influence over Islamic fundamentalist movements, including terrorist groups.  We hope that the starry eyed among the president's advisers come down to Earth and understand that there are elements in the Muslim world that will accept nothing less than the eventual subjugation of the West.  And some of us have the nerve to think that would be very bad.

May 9, 2009   Permalink

DON'T THEY CALL THIS GUILT BY ASSOCIATION? - AT 10:55 P.M. ET:  It is almost impossible to believe this, but a leading black candidate for the open Supreme Court seat may be vetoed because she's friendly with...Justice Clarence Thomas.  Her name is Leah Ward Sears, and she's the chief justice of the Georgia Supreme Court.  From The Washington Post:

In naming Souter's replacement, Obama is likely to choose a liberal jurist. Some in the civil rights community are hoping that person will be an African American, such as Sears, to soothe the lingering bitterness over the appointment of Thomas, a conservative who is the court's only black justice.

But if the choice does turn out to be Sears, the nation's first black president would be nominating someone whose closest friend on the court is the very person civil rights activists have accused of failing to represent African Americans' interests.

And...

Four years ago, Thomas was about the only conservative celebrating her rise to chief justice along with Atlanta's cadre of civil rights veterans, and it made for some discomfort. The Rev. Joseph Lowery, the longtime leader of the Southern Christian Leadership Conference, quickly called Sears to congratulate her but also let her know that he would not attend her swearing-in because Thomas would be there.

And...

With Sears, Thomas has gone beyond the subtle -- praising her kindness, calling her a wonderful person and describing her investiture as "a particularly special day and a day when my pride runs deep. . . . I never thought in my lifetime I would be able to witness a black woman as a chief justice of the state of Georgia Supreme Court."

COMMENT:  The subtext of the story is that Sears's friendship with Thomas would pose a problem for the ideologically frozen.  What a sad state of affairs that would be - if a potentially nominee is permitted to be friendly only with those who meet the approval of a certain political class.

May 9, 2009   Permalink

 
THIS IS GREAT - AT 9:55 A.M. ET:  At the recent Americas conference - the one where President Obama did his reach-out to Hugo Chavez - the former president of Costa Rica, and Nobel laureate, Oscar Arias, gave a speech.  It was delivered behind closed doors, but details are leaking out.  In it, Arias snapped back at Latin American "leaders" who blame the United States for their countries' problems: 

"When the Industrial Revolution started in Great Britain, other countries joined that train, including Germany, France, the United States, Canada, Australia and New Zealand. But the industrial revolution passed over Latin America like a comet, and we didn't even notice. We certainly lost an opportunity.

"Fifty years ago, Mexico was richer than Portugal. In 1950, a country like Brazil had a per-capita income that was higher than that of South Korea. Sixty years ago, Honduras had a bigger per-capita income than Singapore. . . . We in Latin America must have done something wrong."

COMMENT:  Please read the whole thing.  It's well worth it.  But be aware that in American colleges, students are subjected to professors who tell them that the United States plundered Latin America, and that's why the Latin American nations are in the shape they're in.  I doubt if Mr. Arias's words will find their way into many American college courses. 

May 9, 2009   Permalink

STICK TO YOUR GUNS, GOP, SAYS MORRIS - AT 9:26 A.M. ET:  When Colin Powell speaks, everyone listens, for some reason I can't understand.  Powell, who endorsed Barack Obama for president last year, recently lectured his "fellow Republicans," asserting that they should become more moderate, more like him.  But Dick Morris takes on Powell and disagrees:

This is a time for the party to stand firm on its principles until this nation again comes around to the GOP's way of thinking. This process will be driven by the consequences of President Obama's program.

The challenge brought by Obama is no longer just theoretical: He means to pass the ultimate leftist agenda and has the votes to do so.

And...

Obama's brave new world will be the subject of the 2010 elections. We believe that his Congress will be swept from power as a result.

And...

All America will be watching the Obama fallout, and Republicans must be seen as a clear alternative -- a strong voice for reversal of the harm the president will have inflicted -- if they are to benefit from this catastrophe.

If the GOP is seen as a moderate force, a party just looking to split the difference, voters will cynically conclude that there is no distinction between the parties.

Finally...

Now another great debate has been born. The thesis is democratic socialism. The antithesis is free-market capitalism.

The Obama Democrats have posed the challenge. It's up to the Republicans to fight along these lines. Compromise is not an option, yet.

At some point, the synthesis will set in. But now is the time for clear alternatives and sharp disagreement. Only later can we hope to extract America from the leftist clutches into which it has fallen.

COMMENT:  Morris has a mixed record on predictions.  He wrote a book predicting that the 2008 presidential election would be between Condi Rice and Hillary Clinton.  But he is also an astute political observer, with a good sense of timing.

I suspect he's fundamentally correct, although he probably overstates the backlash against Mr. Obama's policies.  I don't think anyone can claim that there's a huge, angry tide building, at least not yet.  Rasmussen's generic congressional ballot shows the two parties about even in congressional preference.

And you can't beat somebody with nobody.  Morris makes good points about Republicans sticking to principles, but the recruitment of great candidates to run with those principles is absolutely critical.  We aren't seeing that to any great degree.

May 9, 2009   Permalink

WEIRDNESS IN SOUTH AFRICA - AT 8:50 A.M. ET:  One of the things I dislike most about the left is its obvious trendiness.  It dabbles in a cause, and then "moves on."  After all, why sully oneself with the details or hard work?

A perfect example is South Africa.  Once the trendy fight against apartheid was over, the left fueled up its caravan and moved on.  So few are aware of the mess the country is in.  They have a new president.  You won't believe the guy.  From London's Telegraph:

His political ambitions seemed over when he was sacked as deputy president in 2005, following the conviction of his financial adviser for soliciting bribes for him.

Related charges against Mr Zuma have twice been dropped on technical grounds, he has been acquitted of rape, and he was finally formally elected president earlier this week, having led the African National Congress to victory at the general election with 65.9 per cent of the vote.

And...

Mr Zuma's populist appeal is epitomised by his energetic performances of his trademark anthem Umshini Wami, Bring Me My Machine Gun.

With 19 children, he makes no secret of his polygamy, and was due to be accompanied by all three of his wives for the ceremony, although it is not yet clear which of them, if any, will be designated as the first lady.

And...

He is also divorced from South Africa's outgoing foreign minister Nkosazana Dlamini-Zuma, and another wife, Kate, committed suicide.

COMMENT:  Just a family guy tryin' to do a job for his country.  John Edwards, take heart.

May 9, 2009   Permalink

YOU KNOW WHAT TALKS, YOU KNOW WHAT WALKS - AT 8:35 A.M. ET:  Apparently the television networks, although in love with President Obama, are putting their passions aside and consulting their wallets.  From The Hollywood Reporter:

By and large, they personally forked out for his campaign, they voted for him, and they know he is capable of boosting TV ratings just by making an appearance.

But executives at the Big Four broadcast networks are seething behind the scenes that President Obama has cost them about $30 million in cumulative ad revenue this year with his three primetime news conference pre-emptions.

Now top network execs quietly are hoping that Fox's well-publicized rejection of the president's April 29 presser will serve as precedent for denying future White House requests for prime airtime.

"We will continue to make our decisions on White House requests on a case-by-case basis, but the Fox decision gives us cover to reject a request if we feel that there is no urgent breaking news that is going to be discussed," said one network exec, who, like all, would not speak for attribution fearing repercussions from the administration.

And...

Although Obama's post-election visits to NBC's "The Tonight Show With Jay Leno" and CBS' "60 Minutes" served as major ratings boosts, the love affair between the networks and the Democrat darling actually might be cooling: There are too many demands, and too much money is at stake.

COMMENT:  There are two main issues here:  1)  the president is overexposed; and 2) the news conferences don't produce any news.

During the great Depression, President Roosevelt gave a series of fireside chats, by radio.  Each one told the American people exactly what he was doing to change conditions in the country.  They were far more effective than press conferences, which generally feature a series of not-very-vital questions.  Right now, President Obama runs the risk of wearing out his welcome.

If the president were great at press conferences, it might be a different story.  But he lacks Jack Kennedy's humor and irony.  So the sessions have generally been lifeless.

May 9, 2009   Permalink

FRIDAY,  MAY 8,  2009

OH, HERE WE GO - AT 8:58 P.M. ET:  Okay, start taking the airsickness pills.  We're in for another presidential address beamed to all those people who, if it hadn't been for BUSH (!!) would absolutely adore us and all we stand for.  From The Washington Post:

President Obama will make his promised speech to the Muslim world from Egypt, a White House official said on Friday.

Obama pledged during the campaign to address the Muslim world from a Muslim capital within the first few months of taking office. Picking a site proved challenging for a range of reasons -- from diplomacy to security -- and the decision took longer than expected, with Obama commissioning options from a research team.

Having settled on Egypt, the White House today announced that he is adding a stop there to his early June overseas trip. That trip will also take him to Normandy, France, for the anniversary of D-Day, and to the Buchenwald concentration camp and Dresden, Germany.

Choosing Egypt will inevitably bring comparisons with a major speech that then-Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice gave in Cairo 2005, urging democracy and reform in the Middle East.

COMMENT:  Since we have no text of the speech, we can't comment on it.  But the timing is awkward and may turn out to be inappropriate.  The president will be visiting the invasion beaches at Normandy.  He will be visiting Buchenwald.  These are sacred places.  It's jolting to have the president add to a pilgrimage like that by flying to a dictatorship and making a speech to people who are often taught views barely distinguishable from those of the Third Reich. 

Of course, the president may use his visits to Normandy and Buchenwald to teach a moral lesson as he addresses the Muslim world.  But, so far, his overseas speeches have been embarrassments.  We wait for the text, and hope that Mr. Obama will learn enough from the military cemetery at Normandy to realize that praise for his country's history and heritage, not apology, would be the finest way to begin his address to the world's Muslims. 

May 8, 2009   Permalink

I SAW NOTHING, ABSOLUTELY NOTHING - AT 7:52 P.M. ET:  Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi seems to be getting in deeper and deeper with her denials that she knew, or thought, or had cause to know, or was prompted to think, about controversial interrogation techniques.  The bottom line seems to be that she knew a great deal about the Bush administration interrogation programs, but did not protest them.  Maybe she just didn't understand the vocabulary.  Fox News reports:

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi insisted Friday that she was briefed only once about the "enhanced" interrogation techniques being used on terrorism suspects and that she was assured by lawyers with the CIA and the Department of Justice that the methods were legal.

Pelosi issued a statement after CIA records released this week showed that Pelosi was briefed in September 2002 on the interrogation methods. The briefings memo appeared to contradict the speaker's claims that she was never told that waterboarding or other enhanced interrogation methods were being used.

COMMENT:  Charles Krauthammer, in a TV commentary earlier today, suggested that, by the time everything comes out about what Democrats knew regarding waterboarding and similar methods, the appetite for deep investigations will fade within the Democratic Party.

Pelosi's latest story - that she was assured that certain methods were legal - rings hollow.  If she had serious moral objections, legality would not be an issue.  One can be repelled by something that is completely legal.  It's apparent that Pelosi raised no objections because she had none.  She was briefed in the months after the 9-11 attacks, and preventing another attack was paramount in the minds of most Americans.

And yet, the political left calls for blood - insisting that the Bush administration lawyers who gave honest legal advice about the legality of the interrogation methods be either prosecuted or professionally disciplined.  This is the criminalization of politics, something they do in banana republics.  Oh, excuse me.  "Banana republic" is politically incorrect.  I meant to say, culturally rich nations producing vitamin-rich bananas for the health of the world.

May 8,  2009   Permalink

CORRECT ON SYRIA - AT 4:50 P.M. ET:  The president has made a correct foreign policy call, and is showing some spine, a rarity, but welcome. From The New York Times:

WASHINGTON (AP) -- The Obama administration said Friday it is renewing economic and diplomatic sanctions on Syria, even as two U.S. envoys are in the Syrian capital exploring prospects for improved relations.

In a letter to Congress, President Barack Obama said he was compelled to renew the penalties, which were first imposed by George W. Bush's administration four years ago as diplomatic contact dwindled. Washington has not had an ambassador in Damascus since Margaret Scobey was recalled in 2005.

''The actions of the government of Syria in supporting terrorism, pursuing weapons of mass destruction and missile programs, and undermining U.S. and international efforts with respect to the stabilization and reconstruction of Iraq pose a continuing unusual and extraordinary threat to the national security, foreign policy and economy of the United States,'' Obama said in the letter dated Thursday.

COMMENT:  Eyebrows will be raised because the decision was announced, as the story says, while American diplomats are in Damascus.  But that's okay.  It sends the right message.  Let's hope that the White House is starting to see at least some issues the way they are, not the way the UN sees them.  This will make it clear to Syria that we expect something in return for our diplomatic outreach.

May 8, 2009   Permalink

GREAT ON YOU TUBE - AT 9:01 A.M. ET:  We discussed the joys of You Tube at the Angel's Corner this week.  Here's an example, suggested by a reader.  It's called the "Nanny Tax Rap."  I think you'll like it.

May 8, 2009   Permalink

FROM THE ESPIONAGE BUSINESS - AT 8:20 A.M. ET:    From ABC News:

The president of a non-profit organization that the U.S. government has long suspected of being a front for Iranian espionage and anti-American activities has been indicted on charges that he allegedly destroyed documents just one day after receiving a grand jury subpoena instructing him not to do so.

Farshid Jahedi, president of the Alavi Foundation, which is headquartered in Manhattan, will be arraigned on Friday on charges of obstruction of justice.

The Alavi Foundation has been described by a former CIA official as "totally controlled by the government of Iran," according to court documents related to the New York Police Department's investigation.

COMMENT:  Notice that the investigation is being conducted by the NYPD.  Under the great Commissioner Ray Kelly, the New York Police Department has created a superb anti-espionage capability.  And just a few days ago, Manhattan District Attorney Robert Morgenthau testified before Congress on the danger of Iranian activities.  Not everything that comes out of New York these days is bad, just most of it.

We have said before, and we will say again, that the danger of Iran, especially as it acquires nukes, is greatly underestimated in Washington.  Our government still does not understand the nature of theocratic regimes.  They are not normal.  They are more like the Japanese kamikaze of World War II.  What they say, they often mean.  And what the Iranian government says is generally chilling. 

Will we get the message in time?

May 8, 2009   Permalink

REPUBLICAN FISSURES - AT 8:02 A.M. ET:  There is trouble in Republican ranks, and it better be resolved, or at least papered over, before the 2010 campaign begins.  From The Politico:

Social conservatives are blasting the National Council for a New America, House Minority Whip Eric Cantor’s (R-Va.) nascent effort to rebrand the Republican Party, as a misguided and weak-kneed initiative that is out of touch with the GOP rank and file.

The council, unveiled last week by Cantor and Sen. John McCain, is designed to be a “forward-looking, grass-roots caucus” that formulates policy prescriptions and communicates with voters in a way that could expand the Republican ranks. In announcing the formation of the group, McCain said he hoped the group would attract moderates and “like-minded Democrats” to a series of public forums around the country.

COMMENT:  Eric Cantor is one of the rising stars in the GOP, and, of course, John McCain was the party's presidential candidate in 2008. 

My own sense is that outreach groups are generally ineffective unless you have the policies to go with them.  At the same time, social conservatives must be careful about doing what hard leftists have done to the Democratic Party.  A party must be something of a coalition, as Ronald Reagan brilliantly understood.  Party members will not agree on all things all the time.  The genius of American politics has been that it's practical.

Barack Obama got to be president by convincing Americans that he wasn't the captive of an ideological bloc.  Whether that's true or not is very debatable, but at least he made the argument stick.

What the Republican Party needs right now is a major statement of principles, or a statement of proposed policies, like Newt's "contract with America" in 2004.  It needs something that virtually all members and power centers can accept.  It also needs to recall the famous "Eleventh Commandment," enunciated by leading Republicans in the 1970s - "thou shalt not speak ill of other Republicans." 

The Republican Party is the conservative party.  But within the meaning of "conservative" there's enough wiggle room to build a winning party.  Losing is not helpful.

May 8, 2009   Permalink

OBAMA REVERSES ON IMMIGRATION - AT 7:47 A.M. ET:  From The Washington Times:

On the thorniest of political issues, President Obama has embraced the enforcement-first position on immigration that he criticized during last year's presidential campaign, and he now says he can't move forward with the type of comprehensive bill he wants until voters are convinced that the borders can be enforced.

Having already backed off his pledge to have an immigration bill this year, Mr. Obama boosted his commitment to enforcement in the budget released Thursday. The spending blueprint calls for extra money to build an employee-verification system and to pay for more personnel and equipment to patrol the border.

This security-first stance is not unlike that of President George W. Bush, Bush Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff and Republican presidential candidate Sen. John McCain, who said their immigration bill failed in 2007 because voters didn't trust the government to be serious about enforcement.

COMMENT:  So far, so good.  But the devil will be, as always, in the details.  Will there actually be enforcement, or only spending on enforcement?  We'll be following this.

May 8,  2009   Permalink

RUNNING CALIFORNIA TOO? - AT 7:36 A.M. ET:  The expansion of federal control since The One took office is chilling.  Get this, from the Los Angeles Times:

Reporting from Sacramento -- The Obama administration is threatening to rescind billions of dollars in federal stimulus money if Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger and state lawmakers do not restore wage cuts to unionized home healthcare workers approved in February as part of the budget.

Schwarzenegger's office was advised this week by federal health officials that the wage reduction, which will save California $74 million, violates provisions of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act. Failure to revoke the scheduled wage cut before it takes effect July 1 could cost California $6.8 billion in stimulus money, according to state officials.

COMMENT:  The issue here is not the justice of the cause.  I don't know the details of that.  But the idea that the federal government can set the wages of state workers makes us ask what will come next. 

California is saying that it may run out of money by July.  Will the Obaman now running Chrysler and GM be sent west to run our largest state?  A year ago, that question would have been laughable.  No more.

May 8, 2009   Permalink

HIS KIND OF JUSTICE - AT 7:19 A.M. ET:  Who will Barack Obama pick as his first Supreme Court choice?  Well, we don't have the name, but superb legal journalist Stuart Taylor Jr. has done his research - rare among today's journalists - and come up with some hints as to the kind of person the president might prefer.  This is speculation, but fun:

In his 2006 book, The Audacity of Hope, Obama spoke favorably of "moderate nominees who can garner some measure of bipartisan support." While that can be seen as political positioning, Obama also cautioned against bold judicial social engineering in a 2001 radio interview in which he spoke approvingly of "redistribution of wealth."

John McCain's presidential campaign jumped on that phrase, suggesting that Obama had endorsed judicial redistribution of wealth. This was false. In fact, Obama's complaint was that "the civil-rights movement became so court-focused" as to neglect "political and organizing activities." He added a note of caution against seeing the Warren Court's extraordinarily bold attack on an entrenched system of racial oppression as a precedent for a judge-led war on poverty.

And...

Obama also suggested then that "unelected judiciaries making laws in what is supposed to be a democracy" undermined the legitimacy of their decisions. Former colleagues at the University of Chicago Law School, where he taught, have described the president as skeptical of the courts' ability to improve on the political process in resolving big public policy issues.

COMMENT:  Not bad.  We can hope.

May 8, 2009   Permalink