Our subscription drive is over.  The next one will start in late January.  But we always welcome subscriptions, and our Subscriber Services have now begun.  You can subscribe in the right-hand column.

-----------------------------------------------------

SNIPPETS, our daily collection of short items and comments, is here.

--------------------------------------------- 

Answers to the last "Current Question" are here. The new "Current Question" is here, in the right-hand column.

----------------------------------------------------

Audio commentaries are posted periodically.

THURSDAY,  NOVEMBER 13,  2008

ENCORE

Posted at 7:51 p.m. ET

It is with pride and humility that we present an encore performance by the winner of our first Pompous Fool Award, details available in Subscriber Services.  Nicholas Kristof, of The New York Times, richly deserves the award for his contributions to both pomposity and foolishness.  Today he demonstrates that, although he's won the coveted prize, he hasn't lowered his standards:

The United States is the only country in the industrialized world where children are less likely to graduate from high school than their parents were, according to a new study by the Education Trust, an advocacy group based in Washington.

True.  No problem with citing that.  But we simplistic readers would hope that Kristof, and others along the Manhattan cocktail circuit, would try to understand why.  No such luck.  He writes about the brilliant growth in American education during much of our history, but says:

Then in the 1970s, the United States education system began to stagnate, with high-school graduation rates stuck at about three-quarters of all students. Probably as a result, income inequality increased again.

Why?  Isn't that an important question?  Well, being a good and fashionable leftist, Kristof gives us an answer, the wrong answer, but the acceptable one:

Meanwhile, the rest of the world invested heavily in education and caught up with, and in some cases surpassed, us. As Fareed Zakaria notes in his terrific book, “The Post-American World,” the problem with American education is not the good schools. White suburban schools still offer an excellent education, comparable to those in Singapore, which may have the best education system in the world.

Note the word "invested."  Kristof, who tends to be thirty years out of date, still believes that money is the problem.  No, Mr. Kristof, it's not.  Washington, D.C. spends more per capita than any school district in the country, and produces the worst results.  But why be bored with facts?

A study by the Hamilton Project, a public policy group at the Brookings Institution, outlines several steps to boost weak schools: end rigid requirements for teacher certification that impede hiring, make tenure more difficult to get so that ineffective teachers can be weeded out after three years on the job and award hefty bonuses to good teachers willing to teach in low-income areas. If we want outstanding, inspiring teachers in difficult classrooms, we’re going to have to pay much more — and it would be a bargain.

Kristof would have been a great dancer, for he dances around things better than any other columnist.  Some of those recommendations are good, but they barely touch the issue.

So Mr. Obama, let’s give others the chance to board the escalator that you and your father enjoyed. Let’s pick up where we left off in the 1970s and mount a national campaign to make high-school graduation truly universal, and to make a college education routine.

As Dana Carvey used to say, isn't that special? 

There are several real reasons for our educational decline, none of which Mr. Kristof wants to touch.  First, and foremost, is culture.  Why is that wherever Asian-Americans move, the schools get better?  Why is it that New York City's special high schools, the elite secondary schools of the nation, like the "Fame" school, are flooded with qualified Asian-Americans, yet have trouble attracting other groups?  Culture.  Education begins in the home, not the school.  The parent is the first teacher.  If that parent is absent, or not interested, the child won't excel.

Yet, we are not permitted to discuss culture.  It's not politically correct.  I once asked a guidance counselor from an inner-city Los Angeles school if he could tell in advance which parents would come to PTA meetings.  "Of course," he replied.  "It's the parents of the A and B students."  He then paused and said, "That's why they're A and B students."

The second reason for failure is that we've turned many schools into political instruments of the left.  Consider bi-lingual education, now a complete failure.  Why does it take eight years for a Hispanic child to learn English, whereas a new immigrant to Israel learns Hebrew in six months?  Politics.  It's not in the interest of the Hispanic political establishment for that child to learn English.   Once the child does, he or she is no longer dependent on that establishment. 

But Kristof won't go there either.  He gives us the bromides about spending, suggesting that we're cheap with education.  In fact, we're very generous.  But spending can't overcome culture, and we'll never address that issue unless we acknowledge it, and acknowledge that political corruption can destroy education, no matter how many dollars are thrown at the schools.

Kristof gets an F, but keeps the award.

November 13, 2008.      Permalink          

UPDATE AT 7:04 P.M.  Bill Ayers (remember him?), the radical extremist whose relationship with Barack Obama played a role in the campaign, has written a new afterward to his memoir, "Fugitive Days."  The Chicago Tribune says the "new description of the relationship seems to contradict Obama's statements."

COMMENT:  We find this out, of course, after the election.  Ayers will appear on ABC, which did not show any notable interest in him when his connection with Obama was hurting The One.

UPDATE AT 6:35 P.M. ET:  CHICAGO (CBS) — The warning is out – Mayor Richard M. Daley says a parade of corporate chief executives have told him huge layoffs are planned around the city and will carry into next year.

COMMENT:  Their guy is moving into the White House.  How many billions do you think will flow to Chicago?  Class? 

UPDATE AT 4:15 P.M. ET:   Incredibly, the Dow closed up 552.  I'm sure the "experts" you see on TV can explain this, the way they explain everything else.  But imagine being a member of the public, watching the Dow go up this much in the face of bad news, and then go down the same amount the next day, when the news doesn't change.  Great confidence builder.  The casino plays on.

UPDATE AT 2:47 P.M. ET:  The Dow is up 196.  There is no rhyme or reason for this.  It's a casino.

BRITS ON ICE

Posted at 2:42 p.m. ET

The president elect has said that "global warming" will be a major concern of his administration.  It's also a major concern of the scientific community, some of whose members are starting to wonder whether we've gotten it right at all.

Now some researchers at the University of Edinburgh, which is not exactly a slouch school, are saying that some really chilling things - and I mean chilling - things could happen to the UK, despite all the hoopla about "warming":

It has plagued scientists and politicians for decades, but scientists now say global warming is not the problem.

We are actually heading for the next Ice Age, they claim.

British and Canadian experts warned the big freeze could bury the east of Britain in 6,000ft of ice.

Do not tell Al Gore.  He gets upset easily.  Ditto Barbra and maybe even Barack.

But, according to these scientists, parts of Britain could look like this:

Not exactly a foggy day in London town.

Lead author Thomas Crowley from the University of Edinburgh and Canadian colleague William Hyde say that currently vilified greenhouse gases – such as carbon dioxide – could actually be the key to averting the chill.

Look, there have to be prisons for people like this.  There just have to be.  I hope they don't allow them to teach students.  Do they?

The team says we are approaching a turning point, in the next 10,000 to 100,000 years, which will lead to the new ice sheets smothering much of Europe, Asia and South America.

Well, at least Barney Frank will be retired, and won't be able to mess it up.

The theory, which is based on computer models, suggests ice sheets will also slash sea levels by up to 300m, so Russia and Alaska will be connected by land.

See, Sarah was right.  She'll see Russia from her house.

Professor Crowley said the stark findings do not mean we should stop fighting warming.

But he urged: ‘Don’t push the panic button.’

‘There’s no excuse for saying “we’ve got to keep pumping carbon dioxide into the atmosphere,”’ he told Reuters.

‘Geologically it’s tomorrow, but we have lots of time to argue about the appropriate level of greenhouse gases.’

Look, I'm no expert on this.  These boys can be way off.  But they raise serious questions.  Many of the "global warning" scares ar based on the same kind of computer modeling represented here.  And more and more scientists are expressing doubts.

"Fight global warming" is a phrase, not a scientific conclusion.  It involves vast sums of money.  Before we start to fight, and write the checks, maybe we should be sure what exactly we're fighting, why, and on whose behalf.

November 13, 2008.      Permalink          

UPDATE AT 1:43 P.M. ET:  The Dow has rebounded somewhat and is down only 41, at least for now.

UPDATE AT 1:09 P.M. ET:   From WaPo:  In the six weeks since lawmakers approved the Treasury's massive bailout of financial firms, the government has poured money into the country's largest banks, recruited smaller banks into the program and repeatedly widened its scope to cover yet other types of businesses, from insurers to consumer lenders...

...Yet for all this activity, no formal action has been taken to fill the independent oversight posts established by Congress when it approved the bailout to prevent corruption and government waste. Nor has the first monitoring report required by lawmakers been completed, though the initial deadline has passed.

COMMENT:  Do you see a backlash coming?  Wait 'til some news organization catches some executives lounging at a pool...on your money.  It's a matter of time.

UPDATE AT 12:55 P.M. ET:  The Dow is down 162. 

THE PEOPLE'S REPUBLIC AUTO COMPANY

Posted at 12:54 p.m. ET

Mr. Obama, breaking from his pledge not to get involved in policy making until sworn in, is pushing a policy designed to "save" the auto industry, apparently from itself.  Bloomberg reports:

Nov. 13 (Bloomberg) -- President-elect Barack Obama is pushing Congress this year to approve as much as $50 billion to save cash-starved U.S. automakers and appoint a czar or board to oversee the companies, a move that would require President George W. Bush's support, people familiar with the matter said.

Obama's economic advisers are now convinced that if General Motors Corp. doesn't get a financial lifeline soon, it will have to file for bankruptcy by the end of January. And if the companies don't get almost $50 billion, Obama will be dealing with the issue again by next summer.

I don't know which is worse, bailing them out or having America's most symbolic industry run by a board appointed by a leftist administration.

The president-elect also wants the Federal Reserve to extend emergency loans to General Motors, Ford Motor Co. and Chrysler LLC, according to Obama aides who spoke on condition of anonymity.

The failure of those companies would likely bring down parts-makers, dealerships and suppliers in addition to inflicting a deep psychological blow.

If the plan were to offer no strong guarantees against layoffs it would likely draw fire from unions. But Obama advisers have been persuaded that the impact on current workers and retirees would be staggering if the companies went into bankruptcy.

Any auto czar or committee would presumably have the job of overseeing a restructuring of the auto industry.

You know, as Jack Benny used to say, I was thinking...

We didn't hear about any of this before the nominating conventions.  Then came the very conveniently timed economic meltdown, guaranteed to elect Obama.  Now we're talking moves that border on real socialism.  How did all this happen so fast, and at this particular time?  I'm not into conspiracy theories, but I wouldn't be opposed to a team of independent investigative reporters, if one could be found, looking into some of these remarkable coincidences.

``The auto industry is too big to fail,'' said Nariman Behravesh, chief economist at IHS Global Insight Inc. in Lexington, Massachusetts. ``While the Obama administration can wait until Jan. 20 to address other matters, on this one they need to move quickly.''

...A GM bankruptcy could send the U.S. jobless rate as high as 9.5 percent, up from a 14-year high of 6.5 percent in October, and produce a recession comparable in length to that of 1980-82, according to Behravesh.

``If it does collapse, it could make the recession deeper and longer,'' he said.

Questions:  What happens after the bailout?  What happens if they still can't produce cars Americans want?  Is this fair to other companies who have made quality cars with American workers, like Toyota and Honda?   And who audits the "chump change," like those hundred-thousand-dollar weekends in the Bahamas for "executives" who must meet there to project their grand visions...like the ones that wrecked their companies? 

November 13, 2008.       Permalink          

UPDATE AT 12:32 P.M. ET:  From InstaPundit:  JAKE TAPPER WILL BE ABC'S senior White House correspondent for the new Administration. That bodes well for non-in-the-tank coverage, as Tapper was more willing than most to report bad things about Obama during the campaign.

COMMENT:  Correct.  It's a good choice...if he's allowed to do his job.  And that's a big if.  

UPDATE AT 12:22 P.M. ET:  The Dow is down 105, after a morning during which it was relatively stable.

UPDATE AT 9:40 A.M. ET:  From The New York Post:  CBS anchor Katie Couric thinks Sarah Palin has a thing or two to learn about politics before she contemplates a White House run in 2012. "I think she should keep her head down, work really hard and learn about governing. But I'm not anyone to give advice to anyone about anything," she told Page Six at Glamour Magazine's 2008 Women of the Year Awards dinner at the Essex House.

COMMENT:  I believe Ms. Palin is a high-rating governor and Ms. Couric is a low-rating anchor.

UPDATE AT 9:01 A.M. ET:   BANGKOK, Thailand (AP) – Asian stock markets tumbled Thursday as more signs of a sharp downturn in the U.S. economy spurred investors to dump shares of exporters like Sony and resource companies like BHP Billiton.

COMMENT:  Day by day economic declines eat at the political scene like a virus.  The political vacuum in Washington as a result of the election isn't helping.  Obama can't take direct action yet, but he can appoint an economic team to give some reassurance of competence.

UPDATE AT 8:25 A.M. ET:  From The New York Times:  DETROIT — Momentum is building in Washington for a rescue package for the auto industry to head off a possible bankruptcy filing by General Motors, which is rapidly running low on cash.  But not everyone agrees that a Chapter 11 filing by G.M. would be the disaster that many fear. Some experts note that while bankruptcy would be painful, it may be preferable to a government bailout that may only delay, at considerable cost, the wrenching but necessary steps G.M. needs to take to become a stronger, leaner company.

COMMENT:  Follow this carefully.  We wrote last night at Urgent Agenda about growing doubts.  At some point the American people may actually want to know where their money is going...and into whose pockets.

The president-elect of the United States makes a phone call.  Immedidately thereafter, all 4,926 of his foreign-policy advisers advised him that it would sound better if he spoke into the other end of the phone.

NOTE:  THE ABOVE PICTURE IS A HOAX, BUT WE'LL LEAVE IT UP AS AN EXAMPLE OF WHAT'S FLOATING AROUND.  THE WHOLE THING IS EXPLAINED HERE.  THANKS TO LOYAL READER JEAN SPIK, WHO SENT US ALL THE RELEVANT MATERIAL 

SEE NEXT STORY ABOUT ANOTHER HOAX, THIS MORE SERIOUS.

THE OTHER HOAX

Posted at 7:17 a.m. ET

You mean - wait a minute - you mean she does know that Africa is a continent and not a country?

Uh, well, yeah, maybe.

One of the worst smears against Sarah Palin is that she's stupid.  This was reinforced by the "report" that, during preparations for her debate with Joe Biden, she said that Africa was a country, not a continent.

Apparently, the report was a hoax.  The New York Times, and we grudgingly applaud its courage, has the story this morning.  It will give you such confidence in the fact-checking that the media did when dealing with Governor Palin:

It was among the juicier post-election recriminations: Fox News Channel quoted an unnamed McCain campaign figure as saying that Sarah Palin did not know that Africa was a continent.

Who would say such a thing? On Monday the answer popped up on a blog and popped out of the mouth of David Shuster, an MSNBC anchor. “Turns out it was Martin Eisenstadt, a McCain policy adviser, who has come forward today to identify himself as the source of the leaks,” Mr. Shuster said.

Trouble is, Martin Eisenstadt doesn’t exist. His blog does, but it’s a put-on. The think tank where he is a senior fellow — the Harding Institute for Freedom and Democracy — is just a Web site. The TV clips of him on YouTube are fakes.

And none of the ace reporters who have risen to the pinnacle of their profession apparently knew this.

The perps are two guys - Eitan Gorlin and Dan Mirvish.

(For what it’s worth, another reporter for The New York Times is an acquaintance of Mr. Gorlin and vouches for his identity, and Mr. Gorlin is indeed “Mr. Eisenstadt” in those videos. He and his partner in deception, Dan Mirvish, have entries on the Internet Movie Database, imdb.com. But still. ...)

There is no apology rendered:

They say the blame lies not with them but with shoddiness in the traditional news media and especially the blogosphere.

“With the 24-hour news cycle they rush into anything they can find,” said Mr. Mirvish, 40.

Mr. Gorlin, 39, argued that Eisenstadt was no more of a joke than half the bloggers or political commentators on the Internet or television.

Out of the mouths of hoaxters, like babes, the truth comes.

Last month Eisenstadt blogged that Samuel J. Wurzelbacher, Joe the Plumber, was closely related to Charles Keating, the disgraced former savings and loan chief. It wasn’t true, but other bloggers ran with it.

Among those taken in by Monday’s confession about the Palin Africa report was The New Republic’s political blog. Later the magazine posted this atop the entry: “Oy — this would appear to be a hoax. Apologies.”

But the truth was out for all to see long before the big-name take-downs. For months sourcewatch.org has identified Martin Eisenstadt as a hoax.

You have to ask what other false stories are out there?  And why so little is done about them?

And then there is William K. Wolfrum, a blogger who has played Javert to Eisenstadt’s Valjean, tracking the hoaxster across cyberspace and repeatedly debunking his claims. Mr. Gorlin and Mr. Mirvish praised his tenacity, adding that the news media could learn something from him.

“As if there isn’t enough misinformation on this election, it was shocking to see so much time wasted on things that didn’t exist,” Mr. Wolfrum said in an interview.

Yeah.  This story should be on the desk of every journalism student in America. 

November 13, 2008.      Permalink          

FEELINGS

Posted at 7:15 a.m. ET

It is no insult to the president-elect to say that many who voted for him did so out of emotion, rather than reason.  It's usually that way.  Emotion plays an enormous role in politics, something, I'm afraid, that our side didn't quite master in this campaign.  Well, maybe Sarah Palin mastered it, but not many others did.

Ronald Reagan mastered it.  "Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall!" is an emotional chant, not an intellectual pursuit of policy.

Franklin Roosevelt mastered it. "With confidence in our armed forces, with the unbounding determination of our people, we will gain the inevitable triumph. So help us God," was a rallying cry, not a statistical projection.

Barack Obama mastered it.  "Yes we can!" meant nothing, but it had impact.

Here at Urgent Agenda we often print stock-market bulletins.  We don't do it because we're economists who can interpret the market.  We do it because the market has an emotional impact on the American people, and therefore on politics. 

Mitchell Parrish, pictured left, was a distinguished lyricist who wrote the words to "Stardust," Moonlight Serenade" and other standards.  Some years ago his work was featured at a series in New York that honored lyricists.  Just before the program began, Parrish addressed the audience.  He said, "When you hear my lyrics, don't analyze them, feel them."  We know what he meant.

We are facing tough times.  A new president soon takes office.  But don't look only at policy pronouncements, numbers, and quotes by Ivy League professors.  Look, and feel, the way the emotions of the nation are flowing.  They will determine, as much as policy, how the new president is perceived by the public.  Some of those emotions may seem completely divorced from facts, and floating on their own.  But not everything can be dissected or analyzed.  Please recall what Oscar Hammerstein II wrote in "South Pacific," trying to explain why people fall in love:  "Fools give you reasons, wise men never try."

Many fools will try to explain everything that will happen in America in the coming era.  Wiser men will be more careful.

November 13, 2008.      Permalink          

WEDNESDAY,  NOVEMBER 12,  2008

UPDATE AT 8:53 P.M. ET:  From AP:  WASHINGTON – Congressional Democrats are pushing legislation to send $25 billion in emergency loans to the beleaguered auto industry in exchange for a government ownership stake in the Big Three car companies.

Welcome to Europe.  And...

DETROIT (AP) -- Advocates for the nation's automakers are warning that the collapse of the Big Three -- or even just General Motors -- could set off a catastrophic chain reaction in the economy, eliminating up to 3 million jobs and depriving governments of more than $150 billion in tax revenue.

COMMENT:  This will be one of the biggest stories of the last quarter century.  Will it mark America's decline, or will we simply see a helping hand toward an economic rebirth?  Keep both eyes open.

UPDATE AT 8:44 P.M. ET:  From CNN:  In an interview that will be airing this afternoon on CNN's "Situation Room," Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin leaves open the possibility that she could run for the United States Senate if a special election was held to replace scandal-plagued Sen. Ted Stevens (R-Alaska):

I believe that I have — I feel I have a contract with Alaskans to serve. I’ve got two more years in my term. I’m going to serve Alaskans to the best of my ability. At this point it is as governor.

Now if something shifted dramatically and if it were, if it were acknowledged up there that I could be put to better use for my state in the U.S. Senate, I would certainly consider that, but that would take a special election and everything else. I am not one to appoint myself or a member of my family to take the place of any vacancy.

COMMENT:  It may turn out to be moot.  Stevens's challenger, Mark Begich, has pulled ahead in the count by three votes.

NOTE AT 8:38 P.M. ET:  We give the Pompous Fool Award in our new Subscriber Services department today.  The great Thomas Sowell has a quote about the class of pompous fools.  I thought you'd might like it:

How have intellectuals managed to be so wrong, so often? By thinking that because they are knowledgeable-- or even expert-- within some narrow band out of the vast spectrum of human concerns, that makes them wise guides to the masses and to the rulers of the nation.

But the ignorance of Ph.D.s is still ignorance and high-IQ groupthink is still groupthink, which is the antithesis of real thinking.

COMMENT:  I've known some great academics, superb people.  And the first thing about a great academic that you notice is humility.  A true intellectual, or scholar, is always aware of what he or she doesn't know.  We have too few real intellectuals.

BAMWATCH - DAY 2

Posted at 8:19 p.m. ET

When Samantha Power came down from the fifth floor of a Harvard academic building carrying the Tablets of the Left, Commandment VI was, as it is written, "Thou shalt not build missile defense nor do stuff that will offend our misunderstood Russia friends."  The King Barack version differs slightly, stating "build" as "rush," scholars believing that McGovern, blessed be he, meant to give his flock some flexibility, and appear to have an interest in national security.'

Now we are met at a crossroads, testing whether that Commandment, or any so stated, can long endure. 

The president-elect had a phone chat with the president of Poland last week, and chat turned to flap.  The gentleman from Poland said after the talk that Mr. Obama had endorsed missile defense for Poland, as agreed to by President Bush.  But Mr. Obama's team issued a statement denying the president-elect had made such a commitment.  Thus the way in which strong alliances are maintained.  Right.

Now our missile-defense czar weighs in, publicly urging Mr. Obama not to abandon the field.  He'll be leaving his post imminently.  If his departure hadn't already been planned, this public statement would have guaranteed it: 

WASHINGTON (AP) — The Air Force general who runs the Pentagon's missile defense projects said Wednesday that American interests would be "severely hurt" if President-elect Obama decided to halt plans developed by the Bush administration to install missile interceptors in Eastern Europe.

Lt. Gen. Henry A. Obering III, director of the Missile Defense Agency, told a group of reporters that he is awaiting word from Obama's transition team on their interest in receiving briefings.

They haven't asked?  Shame, shame.

"What we have discovered is that a lot of the folks that have not been in this administration seem to be dated, in terms of the program," he said. "They are kind of calibrated back in the 2000 time frame and we have come a hell of a long way since 2000. Our primary objective is going to be just, frankly, educating them on what we have accomplished, what we have been able to do and why we have confidence in what we are doing."

Asked whether he meant that Obama or his advisers had an outdated view of missile defense, Obering said he was speaking more generally about people who have not closely followed developments in this highly technical field.

General, forget that dream of a fourth star.

Obering said he is confident in the technology needed to make the European leg of the missile defense system work.

"In terms of any recommendations for the future, I would say that if we were to walk away from these proposed deployments to Europe, that it would severely hurt, number one, our ability to protect our deployed forces in that region and our allies and friends from what we see as an emerging threat. Number two, I think it would severely undermine U.S. leadership in NATO."

Good statement.  Technology moves ahead.  Our capabilities expand with each day.  (So do the capabilities of countries like Iran.) 

We'll be intrigued to see what Mr. Obama does - whether he maintains American leadership on this, or succumbs to the demands and threats of leftists, including Congressional leftists.  It may be one of his first tests.  If he doesn't pass it, we'll be loud and clear.

November 12, 2008.      Permalink          

UPDATE AT 4:34 P.M. ET:  The Dow closed down 411.  A headline in Bloomberg says, "Obama Will Act Quickly on Global Warming Upon Taking Office, Adviser Says." 

COMMENT:  As Johnny Carson used to say, "Aren't we lucky."  Mr. Obama better get his priorities straight. 

UPDATE AT 3:30 P.M. ET:  The Dow has dropped 350.  The only reply the Democrats, now the power party, has to offer is more government money.  We wait for voter remorse to set in.  Sooner, rather than later.

NOTE AT 2:55 P.M. ET:  The Dow is down 308.  Do you have a sense, a week after the Obama euphoria, that a certain reality is setting in?  We are in serious soup, and the adolescent Obama-worship of some left-wing European intellectuals won't help us a bit.

UPDATE AT 2:35 P.M. ET:  Via Bloomberg, comment by Senator Richard Shelby of Alabama, top Republican on the Senate Banking Committee:

``The financial situation facing the Big Three is not a national problem, but their problem,'' Shelby said in a statement. ``I do not support the use of U.S. taxpayer dollars to reward the mismanagement of Detroit-based auto manufacturers in such a way that allows them to continue and compound their ongoing mistakes.''

We sense a growing resistance to the fast hustle going on in Washington, much of it engineered by industry and labor lobbyists.  We're moving toward socialism, and a whole generation of Americans, miseducated in our schools, doesn't seem to understand the implications.  American Express today put in its bid to be saved by the government.  "Where does this stop?" Congressman Spencer Bachus of Alabama asked.  A lot of Americans are asking the same thing.  This can get very bloody.  Both parties are to blame.

UPDATE AT 1:33 P.M. ET:  The Dow is down 274.  The election of Obama has not brought any optimisim.  Indeed, there does not seem to be any real confidence in the incoming administration's economic plans, to the extent that we know them.

UPDATE AT 8:10 A.M. ET:  From The Politico:   Arms control advocates and anti-war activists are ratcheting up pressure on President-elect Barack Obama to dump Defense Secretary Robert Gates and replace him with a more strident anti-war voice.  Nominating Gates to stay, “would be a violation of the mandate for change that Obama says he represents,” said Medea Benjamin, cofounder of the anti-war group CodePink.A better bipartisan fit for Obama, they say, is Sen. Chuck Hagel (R-Neb.), who brings out what they like about Gates – his ability to deal with Russia, Iran and Syria – without the direct link to Bush’s policies.

COMMENT:  I hope this story kills Hagel's chances.  He's an embarrassment.  Let us pray that Meda Benjamin endorses him publicly.

REALITY CHECK

Posted at 7:58 a.m. ET

Amazing what a week as president-elect can do to soaring rhetoric, Heavenly promises and a general aura of saintliness.  Apparently, Barack Obama and company, lately seen walking on water, have now started to come down to the world where the rest of us reside.

The Los Angeles Times reports on the march to reality:

The president-elect who promised to overthrow Washington's partisanship and cronyism is turning to seasoned veterans -- even lobbyists -- in an apparent effort to avoid rookie mistakes.

Reporting from Washington -- Now that the confetti has fallen, the nascent administration of Barack Obama has come face to face with one of its biggest challenges: living up to the exceptionally high expectations his thrilling campaign produced among supporters and long-suffering Democrats.

Long-suffering and angry. 

So it goes as Obama makes the rocky transition from campaigning to governing.

While campaigning, he frequently decried the polarizing politics of years past.

"I am in this race because I don't want to see us spend the next year re-fighting the Washington battles of the 1990s," he said in a typical speech in South Carolina a year ago. "I don't want this election to be about the past, because if it's about the future, we all win."

Future?  Did he say future?

But his government-in-waiting is rife with officials from the Clinton administration. Podesta was a senior Clinton White House aide, as was Obama's choice for chief of staff, Rep. Rahm Emanuel (D-Ill.).

Warren Christopher, who served as President Clinton's first secretary of State and is a partner at the law firm of O'Melveny & Myers in Los Angeles, is heading up the transition for the State Department, and former Sen. Sam Nunn (D-Ga.) is preparing things at the Pentagon.

It's starting to look as though Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton's family empire is living on, even though she lost the Democratic primary.

Ouch.  She's lovin' it, lovin' it.

On the campaign trail, Obama cast himself as a fresh-faced alternative. One stock line was: "It's time to turn the page."

In a speech last year in New Hampshire, the Illinois senator said: "There are those who tout their experience working the system in Washington. But the problem is that the system in Washington isn't working for us and hasn't for a long time."

That was then.  Now the Obama people are people who need people, and look at the people they need:

But with the campaign won, Obama seems eager not to repeat the mistakes of Democratic predecessors who left the party mandarins feeling marginalized.

Imagine!  The One is going to the mandarins.  The sound you hear is his picture being taken down at MoveOn offices all over the country.

To burnish Obama's reformist credentials, Podesta on Tuesday rolled out what he billed as a tough set of ethics rules targeting professional lobbyists. But there was a loophole: Lobbyists could work on the transition as long as they stayed away from the policy areas that their lobbying involved.

As a candidate, Obama's language when it came to lobbyists was far more emphatic. "I have done more to take on lobbyists than any other candidate in this race -- and I've won," he said in the South Carolina speech. "I don't take a dime of their money, and when I am president, they won't find a job in my White House."

I'm reminded of the classic Hollywood story of the screenwriter who meets a producer on the back lot.  "Your script is perfect," the producer says.  I'm looking forward to the changes."

Obama's campaign was perfect.  Now we're getting the changes.

November 12, 2008.      Permalink          

ONE-TERM WONDER?

Posted at 7:08 a.m. ET

We're usually shy about speculation here.  It's so easy, and it's usually wrong.  But James Pethokoukis of U.S. News has written a fascinating piece, thoughtfully reported, on why Obama might be a one-term president.  He makes good points:  Herewith:

It's the battered economy, after all, that will be President Obama's greatest domestic policy challenge. As such, it will also be his greatest political challenge, too -- but one where failure may already be baked into the cake.

That's right, the "O" in "Obama" may stand for "One Term." For starters, there's a strong chance that when voters head to the polls on Nov. 2, 2010, they likely will still think the economy is awful. Not much debate about that. (Good chance the Democrats' two-election winning streak comes to an end.)

Okay, so he may suffer setbacks in the mid-terms.  But what about 2012?

And while voters may be somewhat patient for two years, patient for four years? Really unlikely. If history is any guide at all, voters may still be terribly cranky about the economy when they cast their ballots on Nov. 6, 2012 and thus likely choose the 45th president of the United States -- be it Mitt Romney, Sarah Palin, Bobby Jindal or some other Republican without "Bush" for a last name. Once again a "change" election for an impatient America. The same bad economy that doomed John McCain in 2008 will have sunk Obama, as well.

Keep this column away from Michelle.  She won't be proud of her country anymore.

See, it takes a while for people to really perceive that an economy has turned around, especially if unemployment is high. Bill Clinton won the 1992 election on the economy ("it's the economy, stupid") even though GDP had been growing for six full quarters. According to Gallup, 88 percent of Americans thought the economy was "fair" or "poor" in October 1992 with some 60 percent saying the economy was "getting worse." Two years later, it was the Democrats turn to feel the brunt of widespread economic anxiety as the Republicans captured both the House and the Senate. Even though the economy had then been growing for 14 straight quarters and the unemployment rate was down to 5.8 percent, 72 percent of Americans still thought the economy was "fair" or "poor" and 66 percent though the nation was headed in the wrong direction.

This man has done his research, a rarity in journalism.

And then there's this: The 2008-09 recession may actually be far nastier than its 1990-91 twin. Every day, Wall Street forecasts worsen. Jan Hatzius, chief U.S. economist at Goldman Sachs, expects a jobless rate of 8 1/2 percent by the end of 2009 and drifting a bit higher in 2010 for the biggest cumulative rise in unemployment since the Great Depression. And over at JP Morgan Chase, economists are predicting the economy will shrink 4.0 percent this quarter and 2.0 percent during the first three months of 2009. And on top of all that, you have the $7 trillion of lost national net worth. (Think higher investment and business taxes will help?)

Plus the fact that the bailouts, which will be administered on Obama's watch, are hugely unpopular and resented.

Obama's election is often compared to that of Ronald Reagan's in 1980. Both gentlemen were voted in to fix an ailing economy. But the 1982 recession took a huge chunk out of the Gipper's popularity. He had just a 35 percent job approval rating at the start of 1983, just two months after Republicans lost 27 seats in the House in the midterm elections. But Reagan's presidency was saved by an amazing economic rebound. The economy surged at a 4.5 percent pace in 1983 and at a mind-blowing 7.2 percent clip in 1984 as unemployment dropped from a high of 10.8 percent in December 1982 to 7.2 percent in November 1984. The Long Boom was underway.

Finally...

Reagan worked his magic with tax cuts. Obama is trying to do the same with government spending. But stimulus packages are only supposed to keep the recession from getting worse or morphing into a mini-depression. I don't think anyone expects that $500 billion in hot money to return America to prosperity. Only time (and the private sector) can do that, especially with a downturn caused by a credit crisis and deflating asset bubble.

Someone said, before the voting, that this might be the only presidential election in American history where the winner asks for a recount.  Obama has a staggering job ahead of him, with very little experience behind him.  He also has an angry Democratic Party and interest groups who will demand their chunk of the organically produced pie.

And there is something else.  Economic stress almost always leads to ugly recrimination, often directed against minorities or "businessmen."  Will a President Obama, under intense political pressure, be able to avoid joining in the finger pointing?  If he slips into it, he might be seen as divisive as is (unfairly) George W. Bush.

There is nothing more unpredictable than a presidency.  When the minds of many mainstream journalists reach voting age, they may begin to see the complexities and dangers ahead, and bring an end to the sixties-style mindlessness that has surrounded the election result.

November 12, 2008.      Permalink