SUNDAY,  JUNE 28,  2009

GOP TROUBLES - AT 9:46 P.M. ET:  Republicans are clearly concerned about the future of their party, and for good reason, as The Politico reports:

Two prominent GOP voices on the Sunday talk shows, Senator Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) and Governor Tim Pawlenty (R-Minn.), issued public warnings that the party is losing ground with young people.

"Demographically and with young people we’ve got our work cut out for us," Graham said on NBC's "Meet the Press." "We’ll do well in 2010 but I’m worried about 20 years from now for us to do better—to be a party not a club—we’re going to have to adjust."

Graham didn't elaborate on exactly where those adjustments should be made, but he said he saw young people, who are largely loyal to Obama, paying the biggest price for some of the president's policies.

"The biggest loser for 18-to-34 year olds, is my opinion, the Obama agenda. They’re the ones that are going to have to pay for this massive government. They’re the ones that are going to lose choice in health care," Graham said.

COMMENT:  What the Republican Party must finally confront is the enormous damage done by liberal, and even leftist, control of the education system. In many areas of the country, kids are taught that liberal politics are "normal," whereas conservative politics are, count 'em, 1) racist, 2) sexist, 3) imperialist, 4) militarist, 5) and homophobic.  That is certainly taught in many colleges, and, increasingly, in "progressive" high schools.  There has to be an impact on young minds.

To cite an example, the radical Bill Ayers, tutor to Barack Obama, is considered a respected and influential "educator."

Republicans have been too polite about this.  They won't ask any serious questions about how federal aid to education is being spent.  They should.  They can't depend on the press, which is in the tank for the colleges the journalists attended.  (Who wants to knock his own alma mater in print?)

I hate to quote Hitler, but, sadly, he was a master of propaganda.  He always stressed the importance of controlling the minds of the young.  The left learned that lesson in the U.S.  Conservatives did not.

June 28, 2009   Permalink

HERE IT COMES - AT 10:45 A.M. ET:  Stuff costs money.  Many in Washington don't seem to realize that, and some of the people who vote for them don't realize it either.  But when Washington spends, Washington must tax, even if it means breaking pledges.  From The Politico:

The White House seems to be retreating from President Barack Obama’s campaign promise that he would not raise taxes on families making less than $250,000.

Under persistent questioning from ABC’s George Stephanopoulos Sunday, Obama senior adviser David Axelrod declined to restate the vow and left open the possibility that the president might sign health care reform legislation that taxes high-cost, employer-provided insurance plans which some middle-class families currently receive tax free.

“The president had said in the past that he doesn't believe taxing health care benefits at any level is necessarily the best way to go here. He still believes that, but there are a number of formulations and we'll wait and see,” Axelrod said on ABC’s “This Week.” “The important thing at this point is to keep the process moving, to keep people at the table, to the keep the discussions going. We've gotten a long way down the road and we want to finish that journey.”

COMMENT:  Might as well get the checkbook out.  We know what's coming, despite the doubletalk.

June 28, 2009   Permalink

THE GREAT MAN WAS RIGHT - AT 10:18 A.M. ET:  In his farewell address upon leaving the presidency - the famous "industrial-military complex" speech - Dwight E. Eisenhower demonstrated the wisdom that has caused his stock to rise substantially among historians.  The industrial-military complex part has had the starring role because the political left has twisted it out of shape, and misrepresented it for its own ends.  (Eisenhower was actually talking about the need for an industrial-military complex, but was simply warning of potential dangers.)

But in that speech Eisenhower also warned against the corrupting effects of federal grants to science, where the grant, not the science, controls the direction of the research.  The New York Times has begun a promising series that examines precisely that point.  I wonder if Ike will even be mentioned:

Among the recent research grants awarded by the National Cancer Institute is one for a study asking whether people who are especially responsive to good-tasting food have the most difficulty staying on a diet. Another study will assess a Web-based program that encourages families to choose more healthful foods.

Many other grants involve biological research unlikely to break new ground. For example, one project asks whether a laboratory discovery involving colon cancer also applies to breast cancer. But even if it does apply, there is no treatment yet that exploits it.

The cancer institute has spent $105 billion since President Richard M. Nixon declared war on the disease in 1971. The American Cancer Society, the largest private financer of cancer research, has spent about $3.4 billion on research grants since 1946.

Yet the fight against cancer is going slower than most had hoped, with only small changes in the death rate in the almost 40 years since it began.

COMMENT:  Well worth reading.  Maybe we'll learn that, when money talks, it doesn't always tell the truth.

June 28, 2009   Permalink

IRAN AND EUROPE - AT 9:58 A.M. ET:  One of the most fascinating things about the Iran insurrection is that European countries, including Britain, were sronger in their support for it, at first, than was the United States.  Americans should be embarrassed over our president's sluggish performance at a time when Washington's support for the demonstrators may have made a difference.

But is that changing?  Britain is today protesting the arrest of Iranian employees of its Tehran embassy:

British Foreign Secretary David Miliband on Sunday demanded the release of eight Iranian British Embassy employees detained by Iranian authorities in Teheran, warning Iran that "continued harassment will be met by a strong and united EU response."

Miliband flatly rejected Iranian claims that the embassy employees were involved in anti-government protests in the country.

Well, that's fine, although the "strong and united EU response" part seems a bit vague.  And other voices, the standard European voices of appeasement, are now being heard in the EU:

Contrastingly, the EU remained eager to restart talks with Iran on the country's nuclear program despite its crackdown on protesters following the presidential elections, the bloc's foreign policy chief said Sunday.

Javier Solana said the EU did not want to interfere in Iran's internal affairs, but would continue its criticism of the conduct of the security forces and the arrests of demonstrators.

Still, the EU also wants to leave the door open for the resumption of the dialogue with Teheran on its nuclear program, he said.

COMMENT:  Resumption of dialogue?  This dialogue has gone on for six years, and has gotten nowhere.  Precisely what is it that the professional diplomats want to "resume"?  Sitting at a table?  Having lunch with Iranians? 

Even the Obama administration, where weakness has been a sacred goal, is beginning to get the message from Tehran and is backing off from quick engagement with the regime.  But count on some Europeans to try to get back to business as usual.

Push will come to shove in the fall.  Mr. Obama told us that there must be progress in regard to the Iranian nuclear program by December.  What will happen if there isn't, or were those just words?  And by then the 2010 political campaign will have begun.  Which way will the American people go? 

Crunch time ahead.

June 28, 2009   Permalink

MICHELLE RISING - AT 9:30 A.M. ET:  The Times of London has picked up the Washington buzz that Michelle Obama is making her move into Hillaryland:

Over the past five months Michelle Obama has basked in some of the most flattering reviews ever earned by an American first lady. Yet the first stirrings of discontent are beginning to surface as President Barack Obama’s wife emerges from her newly installed White House vegetable garden in search of a meatier political role.

Reports last week that she is seeking to expand her influence in her husband’s administration set alarm bells ringing among Democratic veterans.

Despite denials from White House officials that Michelle Obama is suffering from “Hillary-itis” — a burning desire to help her husband run the country — her long-running interest in healthcare has raised painful memories of 1994, when Hillary Clinton presided over a political debacle as her health reform proposals collapsed in Congress.

COMMENT:  One key element to watch here is when, or whether, the delicate issue of race begins to fade away, and the Obamas are seen as just another president and first lady.  Reluctance to criticize them has, in some circles, clearly been tied to awkwardness about race.  But I sense that the awkwardness is starting, just starting, to fade. 

Remember that Hillary harbored, and still harbors, presidential ambitions.  Can Michelle be far behind? 

June 28, 2009   Permalink

SATURDAY,  JUNE 27,  2009

OUR CULTURAL VALUES - AT 8:48 P.M. ET:  The grotesque "mourning" over the death of Michael Jackson continues.  The poor taste is phenomenal.  Both Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson have now shown up to get their cut of the TV action.  The Christian Science Monitor reports:

LOS ANGELES - Since news of Michael Jackson's passing, there has been an emotional outpouring not seen perhaps since Princess Diana's death in 1997.

The 24-hour news cycle and social media are probably amplifying the reaction. But the response seems genuinely broad and intense – which may be surprising given the pop star's transformation into something of a bizarre and controversial recluse in his last 20 years.

If the death of a pop star was to be measured by tweets alone, Michael Jackson's would seem to be of monumental importance. About 15 percent of Twitter posts mentioned Jackson when the news broke Thursday evening, noted Harvard researcher Ethan Zuckerman in one tweet, comparing that with hot topics such as Iran and swine flu that never crossed 5 percent.

And this piece of scholarship:

The reason you are seeing this global outpouring of interest is that Michael Jackson is singular in the history of pop culture. No one even comes close," says Professor James Peterson at Bucknell University in Lewisburg, Pa., who teaches hip-hop culture, African-American literature, and sociolinguistics. Mr. Peterson points out that Jackson's achievement of 750 million in global album sales will never again be equaled because of the absolute change in the music business caused by the Internet.

COMMENT:  He teaches what?  Hip-hop culture?  Is there a Ph.D. in that?  I suppose Bucknell charges the usual $42,000 a year per student, but look, where else can you find scholarship about hip-hop?  Be grateful to pay it.

And Michael Jackson is singular in the history of pop culture?  Wasn't there a Frank somebody?  Sinatra or something? 

Never mind.

June 27, 2009   Permalink

THE GOP EIGHT - AT 4:26 P.M. ET:  Paul Mirengoff, at Power Line, lists the eight Republicans who voted for the absurd energy bill yesterday, making life much easier for Democrats:

Eight Republicans voted in favor of the legislation. They are: Mary Bono (CA), Mike Castle (DE), Mark Kirk (IL), Leonard Lance (NJ), Frank LoBiondo (NJ), Chris Smith (NJ), John McHugh (NY), and David Reichert (WA).

COMMENT:  I'm very surprised at Mark Kirk and Chris Smith, usually good guys.  Kirk wants to run for the Senate from Illinois next year, to try to capture Roland Burris's seat.  Maybe this vote was part of that.  I don't know.  I suspect the others come from swing districts where the Republicanism is moderate and the liberalism is fierce, and they just wanted to protect themselves.  Party leaders don't seem particularly angry with them.

June 27, 2009    Permalink

THE WAY THEY VOTED - AT 9:37 A.M. ET:  The New York Times publishes a fascinating map, showing the geographic pattern in yesterday's House vote on the "climate change" bill.   As you can see, opposition to the bill came heavily from the American heartland.  Support, in general, came from New England, the Pacific Coast, and Democratic strongholds in between.

There will be political repercussions.  Any moderate Democrat from a swing district who voted for the bill will be targeted.

June 27, 2009   Permalink

WHERE IS THE OUTRAGE? - AT 9:28 A.M. ET:  The latest crook news, from The Politico:

Monica Conyers, the chairwoman of the Detroit City Council and wife of House Judiciary Committee Chairman John Conyers (D-Mich.), pleaded guilty Friday to federal bribery charges, the latest blow to a city still reeling from the collapse of the U.S. auto industry and the jailing of its former mayor.

Monica Conyers pleaded guilty to conspiracy to commit bribery in connection with a city sludge-hauling scandal. As a member of the Detroit City Council in 2007, Conyers cast the deciding vote in favor of awarding a $1.2 billion contract to Synagro Technologies Inc.

Monica Conyers’s attorney said Friday that she would be sentenced to between 30 and 37 months in federal prison.

COMMENT:  The congressman didn't attend the court session.  Can you just imagine the news coverage if this had been the wife of a Republican committee chairman? 

The key question is, "What did John Conyers know, and when did he know it?"  Did he know nothing about his wife's criminality?  Will anyone in the media ask?

June 27, 2009   Permalink

OUR DISTINGUISHED NEGOTIATING PARTNER - AT 9:07 A.M. ET: The wit and wisdom of the man with whom Obama wants to negotiate.  From AP:

Iran's hardline president lashed out anew at the United States and President Barack Obama on Saturday, accusing him of interference and suggesting that Washington's stance on Iran's postelection turmoil could imperil Obama's aim of improving relations.

"We are surprised at Mr. Obama," Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said in remarks to judiciary officials broadcast on state television. "Didn't he say that he was after change? Why did he interfere?"

"They keep saying that they want to hold talks with Iran ... but is this the correct way? Definitely, they have made a mistake," Ahmadinejad said.

COMMENT:  This kind of statement is psychological warfare, directed at Obama's soft left-wing supporters.  It continues Ahmadinejad's assault on Obama, begun yesterday.  Obama is getting a required education in the reality of dealing with the Iranian regime.  It's a lot different from getting votes at the Iowa caucuses.

June 27, 2009   Permalink

ABSOLUTELY REQUIRED READING - AT 8:58 A.M. ET:  The Washington Post has a superb report on how some of the world's more prominent dictatorships are handling the news of the Iranian revolt:

BEIJING -- Out of fear that history might repeat itself, the authoritarian governments of China, Cuba and Burma have been selectively censoring the news this month of Iranian crowds braving government militias on the streets of Tehran to demand democratic reforms.

Between 1988 and 1990, amid a lesser global economic slump, pro-democracy protests that appeared to inspire and energize one another broke out in Eastern Europe, Burma, China and elsewhere. Not all evolved into full-fledged revolutions, but communist regimes fell in a broad swath of countries, and the global balance of power shifted.

A similar infectiousness has shown up in subtle acts of defiance by democracy advocates around the world this week.

In China, political commentators tinted their blogs and Twitters green to show their support for Iranians disputing President Ahmoud Ahmadinejad's reelection. The deaths of at least 20 people in violent clashes in Tehran have drawn comparisons online to "June 4," the date of the Tiananmen Square crackdown in Beijing in 1989. And a pointed joke about how Iranians are luckier than Chinese because sham elections are better than no elections made the rounds on the country's vast network of Internet bulletin boards.

COMMENT:  Read the whole story, one of the best I've read in recent days.  A discouraging note:  The Chinese Communist Party is charging that the U.S. is behind the Iranian revolt.  China is one of the veto-wielding members of the U.N. Security Council, and would have to approve any new sanctions on Iran. Another is Russia, which sides with the Iranian regime.  So when Obama talks of tougher action against Iran, ask plenty of questions.

June 27, 2009   Permalink