71% - FINAL WEEK

We are at 71% of goal in our subscription drive, which ends Friday.  Unless you subscribe, you're only getting a fraction of Urgent Agenda.

FOURTH SUBSCRIPTION DRIVE

Subscriptions are the lifeblood of Urgent Agenda.  Without them, we cannot function.  With them, we're in the fight.

By subscribing you keep Urgent Agenda going.  You also receive The Angel's Corner, our twice-a-week e-mail publication dealing with all kinds of things - politics, show business, even tech stuff.  The Angel's Corner, published Wednesday night, featured:

1.  PRESSURE ON THE PRESIDENT
2.  SARAH, SARAH
3.  SMART PHONES
4.  THE FORUM

A new Angel's Corner was just published early Saturday morning.  The subjects?

1.  ALFRED HITCHCOCK EXPLAINS THE WORLD
2.  A HITCH LESSON IN IRAN

At The Angel's Corner we also give the very coveted Pompous Fool award, bestowed on those who meet the highest standards of mediocrity.  And at the Angel's Corner forum you can publish your thoughts on anything.

Subscribe for a year, or six months, or donate what you wish.  At the request of readers, we're also launching a family plan.  For little more than a year's subscription, you can have a second sent to someone else - like a kid at school whom you want to save from sinful ideas.

So please subscribe in the column on the right.  Should you ever want to drop your subscription, the unused portion will be refunded with only a few insults and comments about your ancestors.

By the way, you don't need a PayPal account.  When you click on one of our subscription buttons, look toward the bottom of the first screen.  There's a choice for standard credit-card subscriptions. 

You're needed.  I think we are too.

MONDAY,  JUNE 15,  2009

HOW MANY WEEKS DID THIS TAKE? - AT 9:51 P.M. ET:  David Letterman, involved in a controversy over a joke he'd told at the expense of Sarah Palin's younger daughter, has surrendered and apologized:

David Letterman directly apologized to Gov. Sarah Palin and her daughters on his program Monday night, saying he took responsibility for a joke that had offended Ms. Palin, her family and her supporters.

Mr. Letterman opened the desk portion of his show with the apology, in which he said he wanted to say he was sorry to “the two daughters involved, Bristol and Willow, and also to the governor and her family and everybody else who was outraged by the joke.” Two weeks ago on his “Late Show” program on CBS, he had joked about Governor Palin’s attending a Yankee game with her daughter.

The joke, in which Mr. Letterman seemingly confused Willow, who is 14 and attended a Yankee game with Governor Palin that week, with Bristol, who is 18 and an unwed mother, had to do with the Yankee slugger Alex Rodriguez impregnating Ms. Palin’s daughter.

COMMENT:  Does this mean there's hope for our negotiations with Iran? 

Look, Letterman finally did the right thing, but it took much too long, reflecting the remarkable double standard in the media.  If that joke had been told about a liberal's daughter, the roof would have come in, and Letterman would have been explaining himself to a firing squad led by Anita Hill.  Remember her?

June 15, 2009   Permalink

OBAMA ON IRAN - AT 8:56 P.M. ET:  President Obama has now commented on the situation in Iran.  This is what he said, reported by Jake Tapper at ABC:

...it would be wrong for me to be silent about what we’ve seen on the television over the last few days and what I would say to those people who put so much hope and energy and optimism into the political process, I would say to them that the world is watching and inspired by their participation regardless of what the ultimate outcome of the election was."

COMMENT:  Well, it wasn't exactly "Give me liberty or give me death," but, given the rhetorical mush of this administration, we could have done worse, although not much worse. 

The president went on to say that the election mess in Iran won't interfere with his attempt to engage that country in what he called "diplomacy without illusions," a phrase that I suspect had its origin in President Kennedy's reference to himself as an "idealist without illusions."  The difference is that Obama has illusions, and they can kill us.

June 15, 2009   Permalink

AND NOW FOR THE GOOD NEWS - AT 8:25 P.M. ET:  Things aren't all bleak for our side.  A new Gallup poll confirms that Americans aren't jumping off the leftist deep end just yet.  In fact, it turns out that the left really isn't all that popular.

Conservatives, according to Gallup's research, are the largest single political belief group.  Some 40% of Americans describe themselves as conservatives, while only 21% call themselves liberals.  Some 35% label themselves moderates.  So the conservative/moderate bloc accounts for 75% of the country.

So how does that explain the election of Barack Obama, possibly the most liberal man ever made president?  Well, it doesn't.  But personal appeal and popularity count for a great deal in our system.  And Obama was able to convince millions of Americans that he really is a kind of active centrist.  He is not, but people believed it. 

The essential moderation in America is proved by the general unpopularity of Obama's policies, as contrasted with Mr. Obama's personal appeal.  And Obama is dragged down by a congressional party that sometimes makes the Mafia look elegant. 

So take heart.  The graveyards in Chicago can't provide that many votes.

June 15, 2009   Permalink

THE IRAN DILEMMA - AT 6:46 P.M. ET:  Anyone hoping for a firm American response to the Democratic uprising underway in Iran received a disappointment this afternoon when the White House said that the United States would deal with the Iran we have, not the Iran we'd hoped for.  That's standard diplomatic prune juice for "Nothing has changed."  Our "engagement" with the regime will continue.  Hey, what's a stolen election and some rioting in the streets?  If Chicago can do it, so can Tehran!

Michael J. Totten, who's done such wonderful online reporting from Iraq, weighs in with a thoughtful analysis of our dilemma, published at Contentions:

Right now the regime may be sticking its proverbial finger in the wind to sense what a foreign reaction to a more ferocious domestic response might look like. It’s somewhat surprising that the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps hasn’t already gunned down a substantial number of people. Surely its commanders have at least considered massacring dissidents as in Tienanmen Square. If they feel they might get away with it because no one outside Iran is willing to stop them – which is exactly what happened in Burma last year – silence from the White House might actually increase the likelihood of something monstrous happening.

COMMENT:  The Obamans are trapped by their own words.  They spent a good chunk of the last two years, lounging in their pseudo-sophisticated university parlors, laughing at George W. Bush for trying to promote democracy.  Now, when democracy can use a boost, they are essentially silent.  They will promote this as "realism."

June 15, 2009   Permalink

POLITICS AS USUAL - AT 10:01 A.M. ET:  You'd think, with all their yapping about health-care reform, that the administration's soldiers would have thought out all the details by now, or even all the generalities.  Apparently, the truth is that it's improvise-as-you go, as Fox News reports:

The Obama administration is willing to consider reforms that could help protect doctors from lawsuits in a bid to win support for a comprehensive health care overhaul from doctors and Senate Republicans.

President Obama and White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel told lawmakers in a private meeting they would accept some malpractice liability reform if it means progress on health care reform, senior White House officials told FOX News.

What do they mean by "accept some malpractice liability reform"?  That should be a central theme of any health plan.  There are, of course, legitimate malpractice suits, but a troubling number are distorted, based on exaggerated claims, or even on junk science.  The effect is to discourage physicians, drive malpractice insurance through the roof, which raises medical costs dramatically, and force doctors to abandon certain specialties or areas of the country.  There are, for example, whole counties with no obstetricians.

One lawyer who specialized in medical malpractice suits is a certain John Edwards, late of presidential campaigns.

Any health plan must be attractive to physicians.  One of the great problems of some of the nationalized health systems of other countries is that they discourage people from entering medicine, producing immediate doctor shortages.  This in turn leads to those now-famous waiting lists, and a breakdown of the system.

One top Obama adviser told FOX News the White House understands Democrats may object to malpractice reforms, but that a health care deal requires movement on all sides and if doctor and GOP buy-in can be achieved this way, Obama will not hesitate to pursue it.

Great way to plan something that deals with life-and-death issues.  Just Washington politics.  Who needs talk about cutting-edge drugs or advanced surgery?  Such bores.

June 15, 2009   Permalink

THE RETURN OF SARAH - AT 9:06 A.M. ET:  We've noted several times our doubts about Sarah Palin.  When she was chosen as vice-presidential nominee by Sen. John McCain last fall (seems like years ago, doesn't it), it seemed that a star was born.  Her speech to the Republican National Convention was a gem.  And she clearly had an appeal to the male contingent.

But Sarah quickly ran into the media buzz saw, and she was unprepared for what followed.  Biased journalists like Charlie Gibson and Katie Couric did their thing.  But one thing in politics worse than biased journalists is not being ready for them.  It's part of the tool kit.  And Sarah wasn't.

Now she's back, and we watch, as she continues to turn voters on or off.  The Anchorage Daily News has a well-reported, neutral and careful story about the return of Sarah:

Gov. Sarah Palin returned to the national stage in a big way this past week, rocketing back into the national consciousness with her David Letterman feud, slams on the Obama administration and drama with national Republican leaders.

While Palin won't say if she is running for national office, there is no shortage of people offering advice and declaring her to be an inspiration or making her a punch line. Her trip to the Lower 48 over the past week has the country again fascinated.

And fascination brings press.  And press, hopefully a good press, brings the money and the excitement.

"She is who people are talking about," said Matthew Dowd, a former top strategist for George W. Bush and Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger. "That trip demonstrated that whatever people's feelings about her, she is a point of conversation. So depending upon her, she has the potential to emerge as a leader of the Republican Party."

"Potential."  One of the most dangerous words in politics.  Many a concession speech has been given by politicians with "potential."  The question in Sarah Palin's case is whether her potential can be translated into acceptance across a wide enough part of the political spectrum to get her elected.

You really have to think of her on a debating stage opposite President Barack Obama to realize the climb she has before her.  And the only position, realistically, that she can hold between now and 2012 is governor of Alaska, which didn't exactly bowl over the country last fall.

But as in the presidential campaign, Palin continues to be very polarizing. On the national level, many seem to either love her or deeply dislike her. Her supporters will hear a Palin speech or interview and declare her brilliantly in touch with regular Americans and their values. Critics dismiss her as not being presidential material -- and worse.

And, finally...

Greg Mueller, a national Republican consultant, said Palin has a huge grass-roots network and will have no problem raising money.

He said Palin is a "softer version of Margaret Thatcher." She can unite the social, limited-government and foreign policy conservatives, he said, and could be just what the voters are looking for after they are disillusioned with the Obama years.

"The more she is attacked by the Washington establishment and elite media and people like David Letterman, the more people are going to come out and support her," he said.

He suggested Palin follow a Ronald Reagan model, leaving Alaska when appropriate, giving speeches in smaller towns and talking to local press.

"Katie Couric doesn't have a lot of fans in Des Moines, Iowa, and Manchester, New Hampshire," Mueller said. "Sarah Palin does."

We'll see.  Endlessly fascinating.

June 15, 2009   Permalink

THE REAL REALISTS - AT 8:01 A.M. ET:  It must be tough when your campaign was based on the slogan, "Yes we can," and increasingly it appears that "no you can't."  President Obama made foreign policy look easy when he stared into the faces of starry-eyed kids during his election rounds.  Why, a little talking here, a little outreach there, a bit 'o foreign aid around that tree.  Hey, yes we can!

As The Politico reports, other people around the world actually have their own ideas:

The notion of an “Obama effect” sweeping the Middle East appeared to collide with the realities of the Islamic Republic of Iran Saturday, as the country’s confrontational, anti-American president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, celebrated a landslide victory in Friday’s election amid wide doubts about the honesty of the official vote count.

What Obama effect?  There isn't any, anywhere in the world, it seems. The notion of an Obama effect is based on the false image of "world opinion," some monolithic bloc that can be swayed by an American president.  As my great teacher, Hans Morgenthau, used to tell us, there's no such thing as world opinion.  There are only individual national opinions, and they are based, not on an attractive figure in Washington, but on the perceived national interests of the countries involved. 

Iran will do what believes is in its interest.  Right now, that means developing nuclear weapons.  Any "negotiations" will be limited by Iran's bottom line.  And Iran, clearly, is not the only problem:

Analysts across the political spectrum – including staunch supporters of Obama’s pledge to engage Iran in respectful negotiations – said that a second Ahmadinejad term seems to dash hopes of a warmer relationship with Tehran and complicate President Obama’s hopes of reaching a deal to stop Iran’s nuclear program by his own deadline of the end of this year. It comes as another target of Obama’s hopes for new engagement, North Korea, is defiantly threatening to test a nuclear weapon, in a dramatic weekend for two countries President George W. Bush placed in an “Axis of Evil.”

Gee, you don't feel that Bush was...right, do you?  Do you think a few people are thinking that in Washington, Manhattan, and Cambridge, Massachusetts?  Oh, don't ask, don't tell.

Illusions die hard.

June 15, 2009   Permalink


BRING IN AL GORE'S LAWYERS - AT 7:43 A.M. ET:

TEHRAN, Iran -- Iran's supreme leader ordered Monday an investigation into allegations of election fraud, marking a stunning turnaround by the country's most powerful figure and offering hope to opposition forces who have waged street clashes to protest the re-election of President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.

COMMENT:  On what basis is this a "stunning turnaround"?  What "hope" is offered to the opposition forces?  Investigations are held all the time in dictatorships, with the results decided in advance.

We've seen an eruption of violence in Iran in response to Friday's "election."  The strength and courage of the opposition is one major story here.  The other is the Obama administration's remarkable indifference to the democratic yearnings of millions of Iranians.  Are they afraid that uttering the words, "We support you," will disappoint the realists?  Sound too much like Bush?  Be "unsophisticated," possibly the worst label the Obamans fear?

Indeed, the administration seemed to be at pains to suggest that the election, and its violent aftermath, would have no real effect on Obama's desire to "reach out" to Iran.  When policies don't change in the face of persistent facts, those are no longer policies.  They're ideologies.  That is what we must fear about this administration, that it is stuck on ideology, and pursuing it with the zeal of a teenager who's had no experience in life.

Act II is coming.

June 15, 2009   Permalink 

LITERARY NEWS - 7:31 A.M. ET:

NEW YORK (AP) - Another Obama relative has a book deal.
A memoir by George Obama, the president's half brother and a resident of Huruma, Kenya, will be published by Simon & Schuster in January 2010. George Obama, 27, shares the same father with his famous, older half sibling, although George and Barack Obama—20 years apart in age—did not grow up together and did not meet as children.

George is the youngest of the senior Obama's seven children and was born six months before his father died.

COMMENT:  Suggestions for an opening sentence that would make this the biggest bestseller in political history:  "My brother was born in Kenya."

No, no, no.  I didn't mean that.  But, potentially, this book can be an important event.  No presidential personal history is shrouded in as much mystery as is Barack Obama's.  There are whole gaps.  His years at Columbia University, for example, are clouded out, and I don't recall any interviews with anyone who remembers him there.  (Readers, correct me if I'm wrong.)

Maybe George knows something, maybe not.  I'm guessing one thing, though - that he will be visited by someone sent discreetly by the president, and certain suggestions will be made.

Simon & Schuster executives are caught in a bit of a bind here:  The New York publishing industry is overwhelmingly pro-Obama, yet only a tell-all, with some less-than-flattering portraits of the president, would really sell.  Many party invitations to S&S executives hang in the balance. 

June 15, 2009   Permalink 

SUNDAY,  JUNE 14,  2009

REAL POLITICS - AT 9:38 P.M. ET:  We're seeing more and more of this - congressional Democrats willing to defy President Obama and chart their own course.  Most of them are moderates who defeated Republicans in the last two elections in generally moderate districts.  They have no interest in being beaten at the polls.  But there are some liberals who now are willing to defy the president, in part because of personal ambition, generally an important trait in Washington.  From The Politico:

He’s riding high in the polls among his fellow Democrats, but President Barack Obama’s political sway within his own party is about to be tested.

Two House Democrats, Joe Sestak of Pennsylvania and Carolyn Maloney of New York, are poised to defy the unambiguous wishes of Obama and challenge incumbent senators of their own party.

Both indicated to POLITICO that they were likely to run — and would do so regardless of what Obama said.

Sestak, a second-term Philadelphia-area congressman and retired admiral, said he was just over a month away from announcing his intention to challenge Republican-turned-Democrat Sen. Arlen Specter...

...Asked directly if a plea from Obama would make any difference, Sestak shook his head and said: “No.”

Presidents only serve for a maximum of eight years.  Congresspeople and senators can serve for much longer.  What member of Congress would enthusiastically let a president stand in the way of a political dream...unless there was a huge promise made?

But, as intriguing as these career moves are, it is on issues that Mr. Obama faces his greatest pushback from members of his own party.  His leftism is well beyond the safe zone for a large chunk of Democrats.  Unless the president can produce results very quickly, he may hear some Democrats, running for reelection next year, ask, "President who?"

June 14, 2009

AFTER THE MOST CAREFULY CONSIDERATION - AT 7:40 P.M. ET:  Are these Obamans real?  As noted earlier, they're starting to sound like kids in school.  The vice president of the United States (and all its associated territories and possessions) has now given us the benefit of his many years of international experience in assessing the Iranian elections:

Vice President Biden said Sunday that there are "real doubts" about whether Iran's presidential election was free and fair, but the United States has to "accept" Mahmoud Ahmadinejad as the winner for now.

For now?  For now, Joe?  You mean sometime down the line we might take the issue to the Supreme Court to see if Mahmoud passes the Florida test? 

The vice president, speaking on NBC's "Meet the Press," stressed that monitors and officials do not yet have enough information to gauge whether the results are accurate but said several factors raise serious questions about the credibility of the vote.

Yeah, like the numbers.  But look, Joe, don't say it too loudly.  I mean, the guy you work for comes from a city where people who died in Teddy Roosevelt's time are still voting for good government today.  And each one gets a friendly greeting at the polls.

Biden acknowledged the U.S. was disturbed by the Iranian government's suppression of free speech and crackdown on crowds protesting Ahmadinejad's re-election.

That's good to know.  I will sleep more soundly tonight.

Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said Saturday she hoped the outcome reflects the "genuine will and desire" of Iranian voters.

She would have said the same when Hitler was elected.  Another great product of a values-free education.

June 14, 2009

THE PRESIDENT IS EXCITED - AT 12:06 P.M. ET:  The president of the United States, on Friday, gave us his student-level analysis of the situation in Iran, before the vote result was known:

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - President Barack Obama said on Friday he was hopeful the robust debate taking place in Iran's presidential election would advance his administration's efforts to engage longtime U.S. rival Tehran in new ways.

"We are excited to see what appears to be a robust debate taking place in Iran," Obama told reporters when asked about the Iranian election during an event at the White House.

"Whoever ends up winning the election in Iran, the fact there has been a robust debate hopefully will advance our ability to engage them in new ways," he said.

COMMENT:  Back to the playpen.  This president's childish approach to foreign policy is placing us in danger.  Time is not on our side, not when rogue nations are fooling around with nuclear energy.  The idea that a "robust debate" advances engagement is absurd.  The mullahs run Iran, not the debating societies. 

Once again the president proves that he's not ready for life outside school.

June 14, 2009   Permalink

THIS JUST IN - AT 10:10 A.M. ET:  Be assured that editors and reporters worked hours to come up with this insightful, breaking-news headline in today's Washington Post:

Obama's Spending Plans May Pose Political Risks

Yeah, I'll buy that. The Post goes on to say:

After enjoying months of towering poll numbers, legislative victories and well-received foreign policy initiatives, the White House has become increasingly concerned that President Obama's spending plans, which would require $9 trillion in government borrowing over the next decade, could become a political liability that defines the 2010 midterm elections.

I'd quibble over the "well-received foreign policy initiatives."  By whom?

But the rest is accurate.  "Issue" polls show increasing resistance to President Obama's programs.  He went ahead with the takeover of GM and Chrysler in the face of clear, strong public opposition.  If his policies work, and the economy improves substantially, the American people will probably forgive him.  But if it doesn't, he and his party will be vulnerable to a Republican attack next year, assuming someone does the attacking.

Results from a Gallup survey released last week show that although more than six in 10 Americans approve of Obama's overall job performance, fewer than half say they approve of how he is handling the deficit and controlling federal spending. The poll also shows a decline from the previous month in the percentage of Americans who approve of Obama's handling of the economy, although a majority still does.

Even Democrats are starting to ask very public questions.  Senator Kent Conrad of North Dakota, chairman of the Senate Budget Committee, said:

"People know we have an overall situation here that doesn't add up."

If Americans agree with that, and if they add a foreign policy that doesn't add up either, unless you're a hostile country, the Democratic Party can be looking at unexpected lean years.

June 14, 2009   Permalink

POSSIBLE RUDDER ISSUE IN AIR FRANCE 447 - AT 9:22 A.M. ET:

RIO DE JANEIRO (AP) -- A burst of last-minute automatic messages sent by Air France Flight 447 includes one about a problem with a rudder safety device but that does not explain what sent the jet plunging into the Atlantic Ocean, an aviation expert says.

The industry official, who has knowledge of the Air France investigation, told The Associated Press that a transcript of the messages posted on the Web site EuroCockpit is authentic but inconclusive.

COMMENT:  We continue to follow this story because of the mystery involving the cause of the crash, and the possibility, distant at this point, of terrorism.  The rudder has been a periodic issue on Airbus aircraft.  You may remember that, on November 12, 2001, two months after the 9-11 attacks, an American Airlines Airbus crashed just after takeoff in Queens, New York.  The National Transportation Safety Board, in its report on the accident, said this:

The National Transportation Safety Board determines that the probable cause of this accident was the in-flight separation of the vertical stabilizer as a result of the loads beyond ultimate design that were created by the first officer's unnecessary and excessive rudder pedal inputs. Contributing to these rudder pedal inputs were characteristics of the A300-600 rudder system design and elements of the American Airlines Advanced Aircraft Maneuvering Program.

We'll continue to follow this carefully unless and until terrorism is absolutely ruled out.

June 14, 2009   Permalink

WELL SAID - AT 9:15 A.M. ET:  Excellent comment on American foreign policy in today's New York Post editorial:

But all indications are that foreign policy is being made directly -- and solely -- in the White House. And this president's foreign policy increasingly seems predicated on America's turning its back on its most reliable traditional allies.

Like Britain and Israel -- both of which have long been viewed as having a "special relationship" with Washington.

It's all well and good that Obama wants to cultivate the Third World and improve America's relations with countries in Asia, Latin America and the Muslim world.

But that can't be accomplished at the cost of turning Israel and the nations of Western Europe each into merely one among equals with the rest of the world.

During his campaign, Obama spoke of the need for increased diplomacy and of enlisting world public opinion behind US policies.

But when it comes to, say, confronting the nuclear ambitions of Iran and North Korea, he'll need more than Cuba, Venezuela and Saudi Arabia at his side.

COMMENT:  And the president hasn't even begun to deal with countries like India, the world's largest democracy, which has moved closer to the U.S. in recent years.

There is a theory in politics that Americans don't care about foreign policy.  I've always rejected that.  I think enough people are interested to swing any election, if the argument is well made.  It's up to the Republicans to start making it.  The foreign policy of this administration is shallow, adolescent, and based on theories and wishes, rather than clear observation of real conditions.  It is dangerous, and thus far has not produced a single advance, except a broad smile from Hugo Chavez.

June 14, 2009   Permalink