SUNDAY,  MAY 17,  2009

OH DEAR, DID SHE HAVE TO SAY IT? - AT 11:45 P.M. ET:  Hillary Clinton is no longer senator from New York, but she strangely still feels the need to prove that she's a genuine New Yorker, and that she also knows something about baseball.  This, from her commencement address a few days ago at New York University:

You know, when the Yankees moved in to their old stadium next door in 1923, there was only person on the roster from west of St. Louis. Their team mostly looked the same, talked the same, and came from the same kind of cities and towns and rural areas across America. Think about the team that plays in this new stadium. It includes players from Mexico, Japan, Taiwan, Panama, four other countries. The Dominican Republic alone is home to seven Yankees.

COMMENT:  Yes, Hil, and we're sure that the Yankees signed all of them to make a statement about the beauty of diversity.  Right.  Let's see those hitting stats, amigo.

May 17, 2009   Permalink

GENERAL ERROR - AT 11:02 P.M. ET:  The Washington Times, not a liberal paper, alerts us to a problem involving the general who's now been appointed to lead our efforts in Afghanistan.  This is one of those frustrating stories about the right man for the right job, but one with a cloud over him.  The questions are entirely legitimate, and must be answered.  The old adage applies:  The higher the rank, the more we demand in competence and integrity.  The story:

The general picked to command U.S. forces in Afghanistan privately warned superiors in 2004 that Army Ranger Cpl. Patrick Tillman may have been accidentally killed by his comrades, even as he approved a Silver Star recommendation that inaccurately portrayed the ex-football star as having died from enemy fire, documents show.

Lt. Gen. Stanley McChrystal was cited by a Defense Department inspector general's report for being "accountable for the inaccurate and misleading assertions" contained in the medal citation, but he escaped punishment in an episode that scarred the Pentagon's credibility and upset the Tillman family.

Now five years later, the late soldier's father wants Congress to demand answers of Gen. McChrystal as part of his ascension to a new role on one of America's most important battle fronts.

"I still don't have all the facts," Patrick Tillman Sr. told The Washington Times in a short phone interview on Friday.

COMMENT:  The air should be cleared before the general takes command.  This, on a more serious level, reminds us of Patton's famous "slapping" incident.  Treatment of enlisted personnel is a serious issue in military leadership.  The family involve here is entitled to know the facts.

May 17, 2009   Permalink

PAKISTAN DESCENDS - AT 10:21 P.M. ET:  We've said in this space that Pakistan may turn out to be the biggest story of the year.  Today's well-reported piece in The New York Times only reinforces that belief:

WASHINGTON — Members of Congress have been told in confidential briefings that Pakistan is rapidly adding to its nuclear arsenal even while racked by insurgency, raising questions on Capitol Hill about whether billions of dollars in proposed military aid might be diverted to Pakistan’s nuclear program.

Adm. Mike Mullen, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, confirmed the assessment of the expanded arsenal in a one-word answer to a question on Thursday in the midst of lengthy Senate testimony. Sitting beside Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates, he was asked whether he had seen evidence of an increase in the size of the Pakistani nuclear arsenal.

“Yes,” he said quickly, adding nothing, clearly cognizant of Pakistan’s sensitivity to any discussion about the country’s nuclear strategy or security.

And...

Bruce Riedel, the Brookings Institution scholar who served as the co-author of Mr. Obama’s review of Afghanistan-Pakistan strategy, reflected the administration’s concern in a recent interview, saying that Pakistan “has more terrorists per square mile than anyplace else on earth, and it has a nuclear weapons program that is growing faster than anyplace else on earth.”

COMMENT:  This is why it's wise to downplay all those false assurances we're given that Pakistan's nukes are "safe."  We don't even know how many there are, and how many are in the pipeline.  We may even be paying to manufacture them.  Pakistan's accounting system makes Hollywood's look honest.

May 17, 2009   Permalink

WONDERFUL, WONDERFUL - AT 9:05 A.M. ET:  Victor Davis Hanson is always reliable.  Now he presents us with the first 100 days of a Sarah Palin presidency, as the American press would report it: 

WASHINGTON (AP) — The first 100 days of the Palin presidency, according to a consensus of media commentators, have proven a near disaster. Perhaps it was Palin’s scant two years’ experience in a major government position that has eroded her gravitas, or maybe it was her flirty reliance on looks and informal chit-chat. In any case, the press has had a field day, and it is hard to see how President Palin can ever recover from the Quayle/potatoe syndrome. Here is a roundup of this week’s pundit mockery.

COMMENT:  Read the rest.  Good for a Sunday laugh, which we desperately need.

May 16, 2009   Permalink

MODERATES ASSERT - AT 8:55 A.M. ET:  Both Republicans and moderate Democrats are starting to find their voice, Republicans mostly on national security and moderate Dems on just about everything.  One of the lightning-rod issues to come up soon is health-care "reform," pushed by the president and his allies in Congress.  But, as The Politico reports, there are warning lights:

Two powerful groups of moderate Democratic lawmakers have met with their House leaders to warn against pushing health care reform proposals too far to the left.

The New Democrat Coalition and the Blue Dogs met separately Thursday with Democratic leaders to push for legislation they could embrace.

"We made it pretty clear that there are 51 of us, and if they want our vote on health care reform, we're going to be pretty involved in writing the bill," said Rep. Mike Ross (D-Ark.), chairman of the Blue Dogs' health care task force.

The first-of-their-kind meetings signaled that it could be more difficult than many expected for the House to pass a more progressive bill as a counterweight to a more moderate version expected to come from the Senate.

COMMENT:  This pushback from the center is bound to increase.  The moderate Dems' 51 votes provide the balance of power in the House.  They are not going to go down to defeat in next year's election just to satisfy the leftist fringe of the party.

Polls show that the president is far more popular than his policies.  Members of Congress read polls.

May 16, 2009   Permalink

BRACE YOURSELVES - AT 8:49 A.M. ET:  For some politically correct journalism.  First, the president speaks at Notre Dame today.  He is being politely protested by a number of committed Catholics who feel it was wrong for a Catholic university to honor a pro-choice president.  Some in the press, though, cannot restrain their contempt for the protesters.  As often happens, the best commentary comes from Britain, in this case from Damian Thompson of the Telegraph:

This is how Time Magazine chooses to begin its coverage of Barack Obama's humiliating PR problem at Notre Dame. "At the rate things are going, Pope Benedict XVI may find his next trip to the U.S. dogged by airplanes overhead trailing banners with images of aborted fetuses."

This grotesque purple flourish serves as the introduction to a thoroughly biased article by Amy Sullivan which dismisses the unprecedented Catholic opposition to Obama's commencement address as the work of, wouldn't you just know it, "a small but vocal group of conservative Catholics."

"Small but vocal group" is the the media's code for a protest that offends them. You rarely see small but vocal groups of liberals described thus. Then there's this gem: "Among those most eager to drive a wedge between the President and rank-and-file Catholics are Catholic Republicans."

That says it.  Who are these people who dare to exercise their First Amendment rights?  Why, haven't they ever heard of politeness, of respect?  Attitudes like that are coming from the same people who, a little while back, gave us BushHitler and similar constructions.

Now, also, the prime minister of Israel arrives in Washington today for talks with President Obama.  Brace yourselves again, for you are about to be bombarded with...

1) the term "hard-line."  It will be everywhere.  It will be in almost every news story.  The leads will read, "Israel's hard-line prime minister, Benjamin Netanyahu..."

Now, the president of an entity called Palestine is a man named Mahmoud Abbas, who wrote in his doctoral dissertation of " "the Zionist fantasy, the fantastic lie that six million Jews were killed."  Mr. Abbas will soon be visiting Washington.  Try to find a single news source that will introduce him as "Palestine's Holocaust-denying president, Mahmoud Abbas..."  He will be called a "moderate."  It's the way of journalism.

Be on guard.

May 16, 2009   Permalink

SATURDAY,  MAY 16,  2009

HEAVY-HANDED - AT 8:48 P.M. ET:  New York is an Obama stronghold.  He could probably be elected king here.  The academics fawn over him, the intellectuals hang on his words, the minorities all claim him.

Maybe that's why the president thought he could get away with a stunt that is raising Democratic eyebrows even New York.  He has interfered with an upcoming election to the U.S. Senate, something presidents just don't do.  From Fox News:

If President Obama didn't have enough on his plate already, he's now thrust himself into the middle of a statewide race that has sparked growing resentment among some New York Democrats.

Sens. Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) and Bob Menendez (D-N.J.) asked Obama to implore Rep. Steve Israel (D-N.Y.) against challenging New York Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand in the Democratic primary next year, FOX News has learned.

Israel was poised to announce his candidacy until the president intervened with a Friday afternoon phone call in an effort to clear the field for Gillibrand, a source told FOX News, calling the move "messy."

And...

It's rare for a president to inject himself into statewide politics. And a host of New York political insiders with ties to several House Democrats say they're angry that the president even got involved.

"What? You can't have a primary? It's decided in backroom deals?" asked a source who spoke to FOX News on the condition of anonymity. "What if someone told Obama he couldn't have a primary and Hillary (Clinton) would just be the nominee? Where would he be? It's an outrage."

And...

"I can't imagine why (Obama) would do this," said one source, referring to the president's request to Israel to step aside. "I am sure that it will upset many (New York) delegation members."

COMMENT:  This is heavy-handed stuff, and the fact is that Obama didn't ask other potential contenders to stay out.  The whole incident is shrouded in mystery.  We have an enterprising reporter in New York named Fred Dicker, who works for the New York Post.  I suspect he'll get to the root of the story.  But the palpable anger toward Obama in the New York delegation is startling. 

Why is Gillibrand that important?  Most people in New York don't even know her, even though she was appointed to the Senate to replace Hillary Clinton.  Does she know something?  Was some deal made?

We'll follow this.  Presidents don't normally call congressmen, asking them not to run for another office.

May 16, 2009   Permalink 

VERSION 1,602 - AT 6:08 P.M. ET:  Nancy Pelosi, no doubt striving for complete historical accuracy, has once again refined and perfected her story about what she knew and when she knew it.  It is rare in government to have high scholarship like this.  We should be grateful:

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi has backed down slightly in her fight with the CIA, saying that she really meant only to criticize the Bush administration rather than career officials.

"My criticism of the manner in which the Bush Administration did not appropriately inform Congress is separate from my respect for those in the intelligence community who work to keep our country safe," Pelosi said in a statement.

Pelosi caused an uproar Thursday when she accused the CIA of lying to her about its use of waterboarding – which she considers torture – on terrorism suspects.

Her comment came after President Obama's CIA director, Leon Panetta, challenged her version of events, insisting that his agency told her the truth in a controversial September 2002 briefing.

COMMENT:  A story is circulating that Nan will be available each day at 5 p.m. to read fairy tales to kids visiting the Capitol.  She is said to have vast experience.

May 16, 2009   Permalink

THEY CALL IT PREEMPTION - AT 10:02 A.M. ET:  Showing that his political shrewdness has stayed with him, President Obama named a new ambassador to China today.  Via The Politico:

President Barack Obama on Saturday named Utah Gov. Jon M. Huntsman Jr., a rapidly rising star in the Republican Party, as his pick for ambassador to China, at a joint White House appearance.

The move is freighted with political intrigue. Huntsman, who speaks fluent Mandarin Chinese, quickly emerged after November as one of the leading moderate GOP voices.

At their appearance together at the White House, Obama said of Huntsman, a co-chair of McCain's presidential campaign, "This wouldn't be the easiest decision to explain to some members of his party," and praised the governor for his "willingness to move beyond the old ideologies and stale debates."

COMMENT:  Huntsman has been mentioned by the Great Mentioner as a potential GOP candidate, and this essentially takes him out of the running for 2012.  I suspect the political advisers in the White House saw him as a serious rival.

As the story says, this makes it easier for Mitt Romney and Minnesota's rising governor, Tim Pawlenty. 

The appointment itself is solid.  Huntsman has a solid background in Chinese affairs.  But the political ramifications are more juicy. 

Now watch - Sarah Palin as ambassador to Russia.  No, I didn't mean that.

May 16, 2009   Permalink 

IS THIS THE REAL OBAMA - AT 9:47 A.M. ET:  I don't often agree with Jacob Weisberg, who writes for Slate and Newsweek, but he has an fascinating observation about President Obama that I wanted to pass on.  As they used to say in school, discuss.  See if you agree with him:

In a recent interview with the New York Times, Obama described his economic policy as "ruthless pragmatism." Interesting choice of modifiers. Obama has a healthy disdain for the overrated virtue of political loyalty. Around the nomination process, this has been slightly chilling to watch. If you're useful, you can hang around with him. If you start to look like a liability, enjoy your time with the wolves. Before the inauguration, Christopher Hitchens described Obama as feline in his demeanor. The president is catlike also in his lack of evident affection for the people who take care of him. His cracks at the White House Correspondents' Dinner about Hillary Clinton being an envious loser, Larry Summers' woman problem, and training his dog not to pee on Tim Geithner skirted cruelty. Obama's jokes about himself were about how great everyone thinks he is.

COMMENT:  I think there's a lot here.  Remember that Roosevelt was famously described as a lion and a fox.  Someone said of Truman that he did the biggest things in the biggest ways and the littlest things in the littlest ways.  Even Ronald Reagan could have a cold aloofness.  And do we need review the self-serving tactics of Bill Clinton. 

The true character of this president is emerging.  We have judged him harshly here, and will, I suspect, have plenty of reason to do so in the future.  But wouldn't it be remarkable if he shifts rightward and redefines himself, the better to get reelected.  We can hope.  Conniving seems to be his favorite sport.  So let us temper our hope with a realistic understanding of his political roots.

May 16, 2009   Permalink

OBAMA AND THE NUTROOTS - AT 9:21 A.M. ET:  The AP, which at times has had a passionate romance with the current president, gives us today a surprisingly sober analysis of Mr. Obama's problems with his left wing, and the Democratic Party's splintering on national security.

At one time, in the forties, fifties, and early sixties, the Democratic Party was a national-security stalwart, often nudging isolationist Republicans and taking the actions, like the formation of NATO and the decision to resist Communist aggression in Korea, that defined our stance in the Cold War.  In 1960, John F. Kennedy actually ran to the right of Richard M. Nixon on national defense.

Ah, those were the days.  Vietnam changed that, and changed the Democratic Party:

Democrats just can't seem to get on the same page on national security -- and it could cost them dearly on an issue Republicans have dominated for decades.

Increasingly, President Barack Obama and Democrats who run Congress are being pulled between the competing interests of party liberals and the rest of the country on Bush-era wartime matters of torture, detention and interrogation of suspected terrorists.

And...

As Democrats splintered, Republicans watched with glee.

The irony is these are the same wartime issues created by Bush and the GOP-led Congress that Democrats successfully campaigned against in 2006 and 2008. The conflicting Democratic positions threaten to undercut the party's gains on national security; polls last fall showed Democrats had drawn even on national security issues long dominated by the GOP.

And...

Obama is facing the same predicament that confronted and confounded other recent Democratic presidents. While governing as centrists, Bill Clinton and Jimmy Carter bent over backward on issues of war and peace, working to appease the party's left wing without being held hostage by it.

Yeah, we noticed.  We're still paying the price for both of them, and maybe moderate Democrats have started to notice.

Answering liberal complaints, White House press secretary Robert Gibbs said: ''First and foremost, the president does what is in the best security interest of the United States.''

Obama is betting that liberals will forgive him for changing course on these issues. He does have several years to make it up to them before his likely re-election campaign.

Today's brand of liberal never forgives.  Never.  I saw what the left did to Hubert Humphrey in 1968, insuring the election of Nixon.  The only thing Obama has going for him with this crowd is race.  They will be reluctant to take on "the first."

But we can also ask, legitimately, whether Obama has the spine to continue taking actions, like maintaining military tribunals, that infuriate his leftist base, especially the California House delegation.  On that question may determine his presidency.

May 16, 2009   Permalink