We've reached 65 percent of our goal in our second subscription drive.  Your subscriptions and donations are deeply appreciated.  But we  must achieve the other 35 percent to help secure a bright future for Urgent Agenda.

It is imperative, especially if we go into political opposition, to have a strong subscriber base.  Otherwise, we cannot maintain the service in the way that you want it.

In two weeks we will probably have a President-elect Obama and heavy Democratic majorities in Congress.   

So please subscribe today.  We want Urgent Agenda to be your online home as we fight for our principles.  Please read the following notice and do subscribe.

TO OUR READERS

Our second subscription drive is on.  Subscriptions are absolutely critical to the survival of Urgent Agenda.  If you like what you see, and our readership growth shows that you do, please subscribe in the column on the right. 

Consider:  A week of Urgent Agenda costs less than a candy bar.  That's right - a week for less than a Milky Way.  We think that's an awfully good deal.

Our main page will always be free.  Subscribers support it because they want to guarantee that it exists at all, and maintains its standards.  But now, new and current subscribers (and donators) will get special benefits.  We will be offering what amounts to an extra day of Urgent Agenda, additional audio reports, and a special e-mail address for subscribers to write to us and make their feelings known.  The "extra day" will be drawn from the research done for Urgent Agenda, and will include subjects we don't cover on the main site.  Special subscriber benefits will be launched soon after the election.

If for any reason you wish to cancel your subscription, the unused portion will be returned to you, upon request. 

On election day, if present trends continue, we will become part of the loyal opposition.  If trends reverse, we will be an honest gadfly to a McCain presidency. 

A voice like Urgent Agenda is needed now, more than ever.  Only you can guarantee that this voice will continue to be heard as we enter very uncertain times. 

We must be a subscription-based service.  Please become a subscriber, and join a very special, self-selected group.

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

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

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

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

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

TO LISTEN TO OUR AUDIO COMMENTARIES, GO HERE.  AUDIO CLIPS ARE POSTED SEVERAL TIMES A WEEK.

(Here is my audio report on Hollywood and politics.  Coming late today or early tomorrow, "Will there be a second Cuban Missile Crisis?")

We are working on podcasts.

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

TUESDAY,  OCTOBER 21,  2008

NOTE AT 7:50 P.M. ET:  Went to a briefing today by energy expert Robert Zubrin, who estimates that, within six years, there will be enough money in OPEC nations to buy a controlling interest in the entire Fortune 500 list.  Encouraging, ay?

He also said that we are spending more on imported oil today than on national defense.  In the early seventies we spent only four percent of what we spent on defense for imported oil.

NOTE AT 7:25 P.M. ET:  Some readers have asked why we don't cover Senate and House races.  It is very difficult to get up-to-date information on congressional races because polls are taken intermittently.  Often you're dealing with only one pollster, whose last poll may have been two weeks ago. So we can only make general estimates, although we might focus on a few races where well-known personalities are involved.

In general, Democrats are expected to do well in both houses.  But remember that "Democrats" is a vague term.  Some are liberal Dems, others are closer to centrists.  That matters as they establish a record they want to take into the next election.

Some fascinating Senate races:  Elizabeth Dole is locked in a tight race, but her opponent, Kay Hagan, is leading in all polls;  Comedian Al Franken, incredibly, is neck and nick with incumbent Norm Coleman in Minnesota; most interesting of all, Minority Leader Mitch McConnell is in real danger of losing his seat in Kentucky.

We'll try to do more on this.

INSANITY

Posted at 6:58 p.m. ET

We are assured by the parishioners in the mainstream media that all the world wants Obama.  They yearn, they pray, they wish for The One. 

Well, not everyone.  There are actually some voices in other countries that think the whole Obama thing is...pick your own negative adjective.  And I suspect there are more than a few foreign leaders and diplomats who wonder what kind of leadership the free world will get from a guy whose career still needs training wheels. 

Gerald Warner in London's Telegraph, carries the banner for the Obamaskeptics.  He is brave for writing this, for it probably means fewer party invitations to better homes with solar power:

"We owe the rest of the world an apology for the last eight years. We can start to make it up by electing Barack Obama." Those words, spoken to a Daily Telegraph reporter by a lawyer interviewed in Tampa, Florida, chillingly illustrate the strain of masochistic insanity that seems to have gripped part of the American electorate.

Good, good.  Don't you like it already?

So, now we know what this election is really about. It is not about helping the Joes - Six-Pack or the Plumber - in Peoria. It is about appeasing the Fritzes in Düsseldorf, the Ivans in Moscow and the Wus in Beijing.

But to the better people, that's just so important.  One wants to travel with ease, after all.

Why the h*** should America apologise to the rest of the world? And why - above all - should it express its unwarranted contrition by handing supreme power to the one man most guaranteed to dismantle that country's greatness and make it a soft touch in global affairs?

As I've said before in this space, some British reporters have a better sense of reality about American politics than do American journalists.

Why should the United States apologise? Is Russia apologising for invading Georgia? Is China apologising for its brutal occupation of Tibet? Is militant Islam grovelling to the West for its atrocities? So, if the most powerful democratic nation on earth turns into a guilt-ridden collective pantywaist, what will that mean for the rest of us? Real and present danger, is the answer. The conduct and standing of the United States affects all of us, around the world, and entitles us to make an earnest plea to the American electorate.

And what is that plea?

Walk tall, America, and proclaim your ideals by electing a president who embodies them.

I wish, I wish, I wish.

October 21, 2008.      Permalink          

UPDATE AT 5:16 P.M. ET:  The Real Clear Politics average of polls is creeping up again for Obama, and now gives him an average lead of 6.9 percent.  Individual polls have Obama up anywhere from one point to ten.  I said earlier at Urgent Agenda that I was skeptical about reports that the race was tightening.  I 'll stand by that.  I don't really see any evidence of it when all information is factored in.  It could still happen, of course.

UPDATE AT 5:11 P.M. ET:  I'm back from a meeting.  The Dow closed down 232. 

UPDATE AT 10:17 A.M. ET:  Dow is off 17.

UPDATE AT 9:41 A.M. ET:  Battleground tracker, just out, shows Obama with only a one-point lead, down from four yesterday.

COMMENT:  Be careful.  There's a margin of error and statistical noise.  Only trends count.

UPDATE AT 9:38 A.M. ET:  The Dow is down 94 at the opening.

UPDATE AT 9:35 A.M. ET:  Rasmussen, just out, has Obama up four, no change from yesterday.  But Zogby has him up eight, up from six yesterday.  Zogby, whose work is controversial, has tracked a large increase in support for Obama over the last week.

COMMENT:  There are reports that the race is tightening, but frankly I don't see enough evidence.  Some polls show it, some show increases for Obama.  There may be slight tightening in some areas, but the reverse in others.  It's still Obama with a solid lead, unfortunately.

SOWELL

Posted at 8:38 a.m. ET

Tom Sowell, the heroic African-American writer, and a brilliant one, reinforces his stand against Barack Obama:

Telling a friend that the love of his life is a phony and dangerous is not likely to get him to change his mind. But it may cost you a friend.

It is much the same story with true believers in Barack Obama. They have made up their minds and not only don't want to be confused by the facts, they resent being told the facts.

And, of course, as they're taught in today's colleges, there's no such thing as truth.  There are just different narratives.

Of the four people running for President and Vice President on the Republican and Democratic tickets, the one we know the least about is the one leading in the polls-- Barack Obama.

Some of Senator Obama's most fervent supporters could not tell you what he has actually done on such issues as crime, education, or financial institutions like Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, much less what he plans to do to stop Iran from becoming a nuclear nation supplying nuclear weapons to the international terrorist networks that it has supplied with other weapons.

The magic word "change" makes specifics unnecessary. If things are going bad, some think that what is needed is blank-check "change."

But that makes things so easy, easier than buying flip-flops.  Right?

But history shows any number of countries in crises worse than ours, where "change" turned problems into catastrophes.

History?  Who studies history?

What specifics do we know about Barack Obama's track record that might give us some clue as to what kinds of "changes" to expect if he is elected?

We know that he opposed the practice of putting violent young felons on trial as adults. We know that he was against a law forbidding physicians to kill a baby that was born alive despite an attempt to abort it.

We know that Obama opposed attempts to put stricter regulations on Fannie Mae-- and that he was the second largest recipient of campaign contributions from Fannie Mae. We know that this very year his campaign sought the advice of disgraced former Fannie Mae CEO Franklin Raines.

Distractions!  Distractions!  We must not think about those distractions!

The public has been told very little about what this man with the wonderful rhetoric has actually done. What we know is enough to make us wonder about what we don't know. Or it ought to. For the true believers-- which includes many in the media-- it is just a question of whether you like him or not.

Think ahead a year.  Chilling, isn't it?

October 21, 2008.      Permalink          

THE AURA

Posted at 7:38 a.m. ET

The Chicago Tribune, true to this year's trendiness, has endorsed Barack Obama, the first time the paper ever endorsed a Democrat.  But an op-ed columnist, Dennis Byrne, in an eloquent piece that should be widely read, will have none of it.  It is called, "The Aura of Mr. Smooth," and it is very good:

Aura: (n.) A general impression produced by a predominant quality or characteristic: air, ambience, atmosphere, feel, feeling, mood, tone.

A single word explains why Barack Obama might be president. Aura perfectly describes the Democratic candidate. An aura, the dictionary says, is the distinctive, but intangible air that surrounds a person. It derives from the ancient Greek, meaning breath or gentle breeze. I particularly like the third definition, which says an aura is "the supposed emanation surrounding the body of a living creature, viewed by mystics, spiritualists and some practitioners of complementary medicine as the essence of the individual and allegedly discernible by people with special sensibilities."

So true, so true.

Those of us with below-average sensibilities can only ponder how Obama has managed to establish a cult of personality the way no other presidential candidate has, except perhaps John F. Kennedy...

...Obama's aura overcomes his inexperience, his most liberal voting record and his outright deceptions (e.g. reneging on his pledge to take public campaign financing, and thereby limiting his campaign advertising).

More truth.

We could have 10 more presidential debates over the differences between Obama and John McCain on foreign policy, Immigration, the economy, government ethics and so on, but it wouldn't matter. Intricate policy differences between the two don't matter, because only aura counts. Because of his aura, Obama can engage in a presidential debate, and his aloofness and one-note message of "change" will be misinterpreted by burbling commentators as thoughtful, calm and intelligent discourse.

Yes, didn't the smooth and aura-equipped Colin Powell comment on Obama's calmness and thoughtfulness?

We are about to elect a president because of how he makes us feel, not how he makes us think.

Anyone care to deny that?  He is the ultimate candidate of the sixties generation.  If it feels good, do it.

Voters, never, ever have elected a president with policies this far to the left; rare, indeed, is the senator or congressman who is further left.

But, wait.  We can't say that.  Why, that's McCarthyism.  Isn't it?

Having aura is fine, but electing a president based on whether he or she possesses it shows curious understanding of how democracy is supposed to work.

Yes, tens of millions of Americans will feel wonderful when Obama is elected and maybe the stock market, the housing market and the rest of the economy will boom from that good feeling. I hope so, because that's just about what has been guaranteed by a vote for Obama, and I can't wait.

He will turn water into Kool-Aid, and we will drink it.

But there's this. After the aura has burned away—like the early-morning summer mist disappears before a rising sun—the president needs to make tough, on-the-run and wise decisions. It is then when a president's basic inclinations surface, about whether to involve the government more in your life, take more of your money or, in the face of our enemies, speak softy and carry a little stick. And then, the pathological definition of aura comes into play: a sensation, as of a cold breeze or a bright light, that precedes the onset of certain disorders, such as an epileptic seizure or an attack of migraine.

Or, more precisely, an attack of a real, actual problem that requires something more than Mr. Smooth.

Very well said.  And all true.

October 21, 2008.      Permalink          

UPDATE AT 6:59 A.M. ET:  WEST PALM BEACH, Fla. (AP) -- Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama is canceling nearly all his campaign events Thursday and Friday to visit his suddenly gravely ill 85-year-old grandmother in Hawaii, a spokesman said.  Robert Gibbs told reporters aboard Obama's plane that Madelyn Payne Dunham, who helped raise Obama, was released from the hospital late last week. But he said her health had deteriorated ''to the point where her situation is very serious.''

COMMENT:  Look, we have to take him at his word.  The woman was in fact in the hospital.  However - and I don't wish to be mean-spirited - but when your 85-year-old grandmother is suddenly gravely ill, you don't wait three days to go and visit her.  You drop everything and run.  I hate to say it, but this has about it the same image of cold calculation that has marked this man's life.  There is something not quite human here.  There is no feeling.  There is only a datebook and a schedule.   Okay, I've said it. 

MONDAY,  OCTOBER 20,  2008

RIGHT SPLIT

Posted at 9:01 p.m. ET

There clearly is a growing rift among Republicans over the tone of the party and who it serves.  Here, Bill Kristol, whose credentials are very elite, casts his vote with the common guy:

According to the silver-penned Peggy Noonan, writing in The Wall Street Journal over the weekend, “In the end the Palin candidacy is a symptom and expression of a new vulgarization in American politics.”

Leave aside Noonan’s negative judgment on Sarah Palin’s candidacy, a judgment I don’t share. Are we really seeing “a new vulgarization in American politics”? As opposed to the good old non-vulgar days?

Politics in a democracy are always “vulgar” — since democracy is rule by the “vulgus,” the common people, the crowd. Many conservatives have never been entirely comfortable with this rather important characteristic of democracy.

I'm afraid that's true.  One of the great strengths of Ronald Reagan was that he was comfortable with the common people.

But is the ignorant crowd really our problem today? Are populism and anti-intellectualism rampant in the land? Does the common man too thoroughly dominate our national life? I don’t think so.

Kristol cites a Pew Research study:

“There is a broad public consensus regarding the causes of the current problems with financial institutions and markets: 79 percent say people taking on too much debt has contributed a lot to the crisis, while 72 percent say the same about banks making risky loans.”

Kristol says:

This seems sensible. Indeed, as Sept. 11 did not result in a much-feared (by intellectuals) wave of popular Islamophobia or xenophobia, so the market crash has resulted in remarkably little popular hysteria or scapegoating.

And considering what has happened, the vulgar public on Main Street has been surprisingly forgiving of those well-educated types on Wall Street — the ones who devised and marketed the sophisticated financial instruments that have brought the financial system to the brink of collapse.

Most of the recent mistakes of American public policy, and most of the contemporary delusions of American public life, haven’t come from an ignorant and excitable public. They’ve been produced by highly educated and sophisticated elites.

Absolutely true.  But we've oversold higher education in America as a cure-all for everything, instead of a personally enriching experience.  It is not a cure-all.

Needless to say, the public’s not always right, and public opinion’s not always responsible. But as publics go, the American public has a pretty good track record.

In the 1930s, the American people didn’t fall — unlike so many of their supposed intellectual betters — for either fascism or Communism. Since World War II, the American people have resisted the temptations of isolationism and protectionism, and have turned their backs on a history of bigotry.

Kristol turns to the elite media, and its obvious wish to dictate the outcome of things - elections, wars, the end of the world:

Why do elites like to proclaim premature closure — not just in elections, but also in wars and in social struggles? Because it makes them the imperial arbiters, or at least the perspicacious announcers, of what history is going to bring. This puts the elite prognosticators ahead of the curve, ahead of the simple-minded people who might entertain the delusion that they still have a choice.

But as Gerald Ford said after assuming the presidency on Aug. 9, 1974, ”Here the people rule.”

One of those people is Joe the Plumber, now famous:

And to Peggy Noonan, who wrote that Joe “in an extended cable interview Thursday made a better case for the Republican ticket than the Republican ticket has made.” At least McCain and Palin have had the good sense to embrace him. I join them in taking my stand with Joe the Plumber — in defiance of Horace the Poet.

Good for Kristol.  The American people, when properly informed, generally make the right decision.  My fear is that an elite media is not properly informing them, and that can twist our future and threaten democracy.

October 20, 2008.      Permalink          

UPDATE AT 8:18 P.M. ET:  John Kerry, today, on running for president:  "I don't know if any of you know what it's like. I do, obviously," Kerry told the crowd. "I've been asked all of those brilliant questions that were repeated this year...Barack got asked the famous boxers or briefs question. I was tempted to say commando...  Then they asked McCain and McCain said, ‘Depends,'" Kerry said.

COMMENT:  Real class.  "Depends," of course, are adult diapers.  Kerry is reported to be on the short list for secretary of state.  He might wish to brush up on his diplomatic skills.

MR. QUALIFIED

Posted at 6:10 p.m. ET

The deeply coherent and thoroughly qualified Joe Biden alerts the followers today to the possibility of major challenges in foreign policy during the opening months of the Obama administration.  Notice the eloquence, the depth of thought, the sheer...oh the experience reflected in every word:

"Mark my words," the Democratic vice presidential nominee warned at the second of his two Seattle fundraisers Sunday. "It will not be six months before the world tests Barack Obama like they did John Kennedy. The world is looking. We're about to elect a brilliant 47-year-old senator president of the United States of America. Remember I said it standing here if you don't remember anything else I said. Watch, we're gonna have an international crisis, a generated crisis, to test the mettle of this guy."

"I can give you at least four or five scenarios from where it might originate," Biden said to Emerald City supporters, mentioning the Middle East and Russia as possibilities. "And he's gonna need help. And the kind of help he's gonna need is, he's gonna need you - not financially to help him - we're gonna need you to use your influence, your influence within the community, to stand with him. Because it's not gonna be apparent initially, it's not gonna be apparent that we're right."

Where's that, he's talkin'?  Emerald City?  Is Biden in Oz?  Well, we all know who he thinks the wizard is, don't we?  He goes on:

"Gird your loins," Biden told the crowd. "We're gonna win with your help, God willing, we're gonna win, but this is not gonna be an easy ride. This president, the next president, is gonna be left with the most significant task. It's like cleaning the Augean stables, man. This is more than just, this is more than – think about it, literally, think about it – this is more than just a capital crisis, this is more than just markets. This is a systemic problem we have with this economy."

If Sarah Palin ever spoke like that, she'd be ridiculed throughout the media as dumb, disjointed, lower class, and far worse.  But Biden gets away with it.  Why?  Because, in the eyes of the media, he's "qualified."  Why is he qualified?  Well, 1)  he was selected by The One, and 2) he's there.  Being "there" is the highest qualification of all in the MSM, and Biden has been "there" in the Senate for 36 years.  Never mind how he voted.  Never mind what he believes.  He's "there."  And, oh, he has lunch with reporters, the second highest qualification.  So don't look for any serious questions.

Does this country realize what it's about to do?

October 20, 2008.      Permalink          

UPDATE AT 4:34 P.M. ET:  The Dow closed up 413.

UPDATE AT 3:56 P.M. ET:  The IBD/TIPP poll has Obama up six.  Most polls are now showing Obama with a four- to six-point advantage.

UPDATE AT 3:47 P.M. ET:  The Dow is up 306.

UPDATE AT 2:15 P.M. ET:  The Dow is up 245.

UPDATE AT 1:07 P.M. ET:  Well, just when we thought the race might be tightening, Gallup comes out with a discouraging tracker.  They report today that, in their "traditional" survey of likely voters, Obama is up five, a gain of two from yesterday.  In the "expanded" survey, taking into account possible gains in registration among selected groups, Obama is up nine, as against seven yesterday.  The Gallup poll has shown dramatic gains for Obama in the last three days.

UPDATE AT 12:54 P.M. ET:  The Hotline tracker, which had Obama up seven yesterday, has him up five today.  A new CNN/Opinion Research poll also has him up five.  The last CNN poll, taken at the beginning of the month, had him up eight.

UPDATE AT 9:36 A.M. ET:  The first trackers are out for Monday.  Zogby has Obama up six.  It was three yesterday.  I don't know about that poll.  It seems to swing a bit too far for my taste. 

Rasmussen has Obama up four, and suggests in his commentary that the race may - I stress may - be tightening a bit.

Battleground also has Obama up four.

AMERICA THE WEAK

Posted at 9:27 a.m. ET

Ralph Peters, who is not a mincer of words, writes a blunt, raw piece for the New York Post.  I was alerted to it by Ed Lasky of American Thinker.  Peters lays out, starkly, the foreign-policy prospects for an Obama presidency.

Foreign policy is usually the province of the president.  Congress can intervene, and does, but presidents normally get their way.  In an Obama administration, that presents a pretty frightening prospect:

IF Sen. Barack Obama is elected president, our re public will survive, but our international strategy and some of our allies may not. His first year in office would conjure globe-spanning challenges as our enemies piled on to exploit his weakness.

Add in Sen. Joe Biden - with his track record of calling every major foreign-policy crisis wrong for 35 years - as vice president and de facto secretary of State, and we'd face a formula for strategic disaster.

Nothing like waking up to good news.  And where would the disasters occur?

Al Qaeda. Pandering to his extreme base, Obama has projected an image of being soft on terror. Toss in his promise to abandon Iraq, and you can be sure that al Qaeda will pull out all the stops to kill as many Americans as possible - in Iraq, Afghanistan and, if they can, here at home - hoping that America will throw away the victories our troops bought with their blood.

And...

Iran. Got nukes? If the Iranians are as far along with their nuclear program as some reports insist, expect a mushroom cloud above an Iranian test range next year. Even without nukes, President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad would try the new administration's temper in Iraq, Afghanistan and the Persian Gulf.

And...

Saudi Arabia. Post-9/11 attention to poisonous Saudi proselytizing forced the kingdom to be more discreet in fomenting terrorism and religious hatred abroad. Convinced that Obama will be more "tolerant" toward militant Islam, the Saudis would redouble their funding of bigotry and butchery-for-Allah - in the US, too.

And...

North Korea. North Korea will expect a much more generous deal from the West for annulling its pursuit of nuclear weapons. And it will regard an Obama administration as a green light to cheat.

Had enough?  There's much more, a whole list of horrors.  Now, it may not all come true, and remember that there's another election in two years.  Obama won't want to be handed a midterm defeat.  But his foreign-policy instincts are appalling, and he may lead us down the path of weakness and defeat.

October 20, 2008.      Permalink          

UPDATE AT 8:04 A.M. ET:  WASHINGTON (AP) -- Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama says that Colin Powell is welcome to campaign for him and might have a place in his administration.  Obama told NBC's ''Today'' show Monday that Powell ''will have a role as one of my advisers.'' Whether Powell wants to take a formal role, Obama said, would be ''something we'd have to discuss.''

COMMENT:  Someone should explain to Obama that you don't offer a man a job immediately after he endorses you.  It's unseemly.  But when you're brought up in the Chicago political machine, I guess the word "payoff" isn't very far from your lips.

TWO WEEKS

Posted at 6:51 a.m. ET

The election is two weeks from tomorrow.  It is absurd to deny our political condition. Assuming the polls are even reasonably accurate, Barack Obama, one of the most unprepared candidates for president in our recent history, will be elected, possibly by a substantial margin.  He will bring in additional Democratic senators and congressmen.

Obama has been campaigning, it seems, forever, and yet we still know so little about him.  Whole parts of his life have been blocked off and are deemed outside proper scrutiny.  His views seem vague and unformed.  His much-vaunted intellect reminds us of Jack Kennedy's description of the State Department, a bowl of Jell-O. 

Can anything be done to turn this race around?

Barring some October surprise that benefits McCain, it's unlikely, in large part because voters aren't getting the full story, the complete discussion.  People don't get their news directly.  They get it through media.  And the media corruption in this campaign has been the greatest I've seen in my lifetime.  The only race comparable, in terms of media bias, was the 1964 campaign pitting President Lyndon Johnson against Senator Barry Goldwater, in which Goldwater was widely portrayed as a fool and an extremist. 

But there is a critical difference between 1964 and 2008.  In 1964 we had, at least generally, a bipartisan foreign policy.  We said that "politics stops at the water's edge," a reflection of the common experience Americans had in World War II and the Cold War.  There were certainly differences in details, and criticism occurred regularly, but it was usually limited to tactics rather than the broad design.

That is not the case today.  To a frightening degree, the Democratic Party has become a true party of the left, increasingly similar to the European parties that American intellectuals love to love.  Many, but by no means all, Democrats are "anti-war," have contempt for the military, and believe that our pulling the plug on South Vietnam in 1975 - a Congressional vote in which Joe Biden participated - was a proud and noble moment.  To them, regimes like Iran's and North Korea's represent, not evil and danger, but "a different narrative."  We must explore their "legitimate grievances."  They believe that "Bush lied, thousands died," no matter how many investigations show that Bush did not lie in the runup to Iraq.  They choke at the word "victory," considering it chauvinistic and simplistic.  Worst of all, they consider it not quite intellectual.

The danger of the Democratic foreign policy is that it leaves reality for our children to deal with.  As 9-11 showed once more, those children grow up very quickly, and it's their blood that's spilled.  Another danger is that Democrats fail to be sensitive to the pace of technology, and how it can equip a small or backward nation with devastating firepower.

And yet, the entire issue of foreign policy has been submerged in this campaign by the economic shock.  Obama's foreign-policy view often seems limited to "talking" to people, as if the Bush administration has shut off the phones.  There is no discussion of what will happen if, and when, diplomacy fails.

There is still another great danger to this campaign.  The press bias itself risks the future of the press.  Make no mistake, the central personality of the press is arrogance.  The press will believe, rightly, that its bias was key to electing Obama, to "making a difference," which is what young journalists were taught to do in colleges and journalism schools.  That bias can become institutionalized, as it is in Europe.  It can get worse, not better.  The difference between European and American journalism is that, in the 20th century, American journalism moved toward greater professionalism, toward an attempt at reasonable, if imperfect neutrality.  That movement has been stopped cold in the shadow of the sixties generation.  What a tragedy for the press, what a greater tragedy for Americans.

We can be wise only if we have correct information.  When that information is filtered through a press that set out to destroy Sarah Palin and Cindy McCain, even to destroy Joe the Plumber, the "informed public" becomes a dream.

Much is at stake in two weeks.  American seem unaware of it.

October 20, 2008.      Permalink          

"What you see is news.  What you know is background.  What you feel is opinion."
    - Lester Markel, late Sunday editor
      of The New York Times.

SUBSCRIPTIONS:

Subscriptions to URGENT AGENDA are voluntary.  Why subscribe to something you're getting free?  To help guarantee that you'll continue to get it at all, and to get the additional features we now offer subscribers.  Subscriptions sustain us.  Payments are through PayPal and are secure, but you do not have to sign up for a PayPal account.  Credit cards are fine.

FOR A ONE-YEAR ($48) SUBSCRIPTION, CLICK:

FOR A SIX-MONTH ($26) SUBSCRIPTION, CLICK:

IF YOU DON'T WISH A SET SUBSCRIPTION, BUT PREFER TO DONATE ANY OTHER AMOUNT TO SUSTAIN URGENT AGENDA, CLICK:

SEARCH URGENT AGENDA:

POWER LINE:

It's a privilege for me to post periodic pieces at Power Line. To go to Power Line, click here.

To link to my Power Line pieces, go here.

THE CURRENT QUESTION

This space will regularly raise questions that relate to the news, but transcend daily headlines.  The idea is to stimulate talk about basic issues. Our last question asked: 

Last week we asked:

What can John McCain do to address the economic crisis in ways that will turn his campaign around?

You can view the answers here.

NEW CURRENT QUESTION

What is Sarah Palin's future in the Republican Party?

If you'd like to send us your thoughts, click:
response@urgentagenda.com
(Please stay within two or three paragraphs.  We try to print every reply, if space allows.  Place your name at the end of the message if you wish your name published.  This question will stay up through Sunday.)

CONTACT:

YOU CAN E-MAIL US, AS FOLLOWS:

If you have wonderful things to say about this site, if it makes you a better person, please click:
applause@urgentagenda.com

If you have a general comment on anything you see here, or on anything else that's topical, please click:
comments@urgentagenda.com

If you must say something obnoxious, something that will embarrass you and disgrace your loving family, click:
despicable@urgentagenda.com

If you required subscription service, please click:
service@urgentagenda.com

FAVORITE SITES

Power Line
Faster Please (Michael Ledeen)
OpinionJournal.com
Hudson Institute
Bookworm Room
Bill Bennett
Red State
Pajamas Media
Michelle Malkin
The Weekly Standard
The New York Sun
Real Clear Politics
The Corner
City Journal
Gateway Pundit
American Thinker