Rasmussen: Obama Polls Negative

Rasmussen Reports runs a daily Presidential Tracking Poll which looks at the percentage of voters who Strongly Approve of the president's performance minus the percentage who Strongly Disapprove. Today, for the first time, this Presidential Approval Index has gone negative: 32% strongly approve and 34% strongly disapprove, leaving the Index at a -2. Go here to look at the graph of the trend lines.

The daily fluctuations are less critical than the directionality of the the two lines. Clearly the White House has to be concerned about both the drop in popularity and the increase in strong unpopularity. If they can't turn the trends around, it will be hard for this personally popular president to get his ideas translated into policy action.

Conservatives could be happy about this turn of events. Happy, except that it leaves the levers of policy in the hands of those sad losers: Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi. Ergo, not so happy.

Quote of the Day

John Hinderaker, one of the three guys who write the Power Line blog, waxes philosophical about the role of government:

Does anyone actually believe that when the government gets away from its core competencies--national defense, law enforcement, highway construction--it spends our money more wisely than we would have?

Quote of the Day

Jack Kelly, who writes a column for the Toledo Blade, on Obama and Iran:

When it comes to foreign policy, President Obama is a one-trick pony, and the trick isn't working.

Four years of this will take patience to wait out.

No McGovern

On Tuesday, June 16, I wrote of the Iranian protesters:

I've been wondering all along if the professionals and students who support his opponent Mousavi aren't like the American kids who supported George McGovern and Eugene McCarthy "back in the day." That is, noisy and visible but very far from a majority.

The numbers of protesters on view in the streets of Tehran cause me to have second thoughts about that comment. McGovern never turned out numbers like those. I don't know about "a majority" but clearly there are many Iranians who oppose the incumbent.

Krauthammer Kicks Butt

Charles Krauthammer, who writes a column for The Washington Post, takes on the situation in Iran and our government's reaction thereto. There is no question where he stands on the issue.

All hangs in the balance. The Khamenei regime is deciding whether to do a Tiananmen. And what side is the Obama administration taking? None.

It is a good column. Krauthammer argues we have nothing to lose in backing the protesters. I'm not certain he's correct.

If we back the rebellion with talk, but not with actions, we might end up with an outcome like the Prague Spring of 1968. That is, a result where thousands are killed, the bad guys are left in charge, and we end up looking weak.

Steyn on Europe

Mark Steyn writes here for Macleans about the state of European politics. This one isn't for those merely casually interested in the politics of "Yurp." It presupposes a relatively serious interest in the politics of the U.K. and the Continent.

Still, Steyn is making a good point about declaring various issues "off the table" or racist. The article is not his usual light-hearted romp through the sillier aspects of politics.

Very Strange....

Very strange indeed, CBS News reprinting an article from The Weekly Standard, a conservative source. The article is quite critical of President Obama's reaction to the troubles in Iran:

The tragedy of this moment is that a generation of Iranian reformers is being brushed aside by the leader of the free world.

The strange part of this is that CBS News is very much a part of the MSM, the mainstream media, which has been totally in Obama's pocket. By selecting this article for reprint, they implicitly endorse these views. Do we see evidence of an epiphany here?

Iranian Reality Check

George Friedman writes an interesting analysis of the Iran situation for RealClearWorld.com. His view of Iran and its internal politics is downbeat, grim and, one suspects, right on.

The point he makes is that Ahmadinejad represents the non-English speaking Iranian majority, many of them living outside Tehran. The reasons he gives for this representation make sense to an outsider.

I've been wondering all along if the professionals and students who support his opponent Mousavi aren't like the American kids who supported George McGovern and Eugene McCarthy "back in the day." That is, noisy and visible but very far from a majority.

Poor Taste

Apparently both Dave Letterman and Leon Panetta have apologized, Letterman to Sarah Palin and her 14 year old daughter, and Panetta to Dick Cheney. John Hinderaker at PowerLineBlog.com has the story. I believe his take on why these two doofuses said these stupid things, for which they had to publicly eat crow, is about right. He concludes:

There is virtually nothing that can be said about Republicans, in their world, that will raise a question or objection. (snip) Hence the gaffes that occur when liberals say publicly the sorts of things they are accustomed to saying among friends.

Nicely said. His point: today's liberals tell other liberals the sort of ugly jokes about Republicans that our grandparents used to tell each other about the Polish or the Italians or African Americans or, if Canadian, the Newfies. A sad business.

Obama's Dilemma

As a number of commentators have noted, President Obama faces an interesting dilemma regarding the disputed election results in Iran. On the one hand he wants to be able to negotiate with the Iranian regime, something he said during his campaign he would do without preconditions. On the other hand, the "election" which recently took place there doesn't look much like an honest, fair election.

It is likely that Ahmadinejad will be Iran's president coming out of the conflict, and therefore if Obama wants to be able to talk to him Obama needs to accept the results of his "election." On the other hand, if Obama wants to be seen in "the Muslim world" as an advocate of democracy, he cannot give his support to the beneficiary of such an apparently flawed electoral process.

Trying to split the difference, as Obama seems to be doing, will only alienate both sides. Facing no such dilemma, COTTonLINE supports the courageous young people in the streets of Tehran.

World Is Cooling

Check out this nice summary article in the London Telegraph which brings together many different examples of the world in fact cooling. And yes, it does connect this with the lack of sunspots which is going on now. Snow in Saudi Arabia, and reduced crops around much of the globe too. My guess is that there is a way to make some money investing in grain futures.

Gallup: Conservatives Lead

The mainstream media tell you the Republican Party is moribund. Let's look at the real data. The Gallup polling organization reports recent polling results which show quite positive results for conservatives. They summarize:

Thus far in 2009, 40% of Americans interviewed in national Gallup Poll surveys describe their political views as conservative, 35% as moderate, and 21% as liberal. This represents a slight increase for conservatism in the U.S. since 2008, returning it to a level last seen in 2004.

Remember who won the presidency in 2004? A much-hated Republican named George W. Bush won in 2004; won with a bigger margin than he had in 2000.

With 40% reporting conservative, the GOP only has to get 28% of moderates to vote Republican and you've got a GOP president. That doesn't sound so difficult, you can give up 70% of the moderates and still elect a president. That is definitely doable.

The only thing we have to fear is that "liberal" has become such an ugly label that many Democrats call themselves "moderates." That is a distinct possibility. Still, we keep hearing that the number of independents is growing and they are likely to be found in that moderate group.

The demographic crunchers are writing articles currently warning Republicans that they are in trouble, I believe Gallup's numbers say something quite different. Take heart.

Steyn on Government Health Care

Mark Steyn, writing for the National Review Online, talks about how government health care plans are so complicated that nobody understands them. I suspect he is right.

His point about how the only way government holds down health care costs is by providing less of it (i.e., rationing) is correct. Stories of Canadians crossing the border to get a hip replaced in something like real time instead of waiting 2-3 years are common.

You know the trope "good enough for government work?" U.K. doctors, who work for the National Health Service, treat their work like civil servants everywhere, with nonchalance. U.S. doctors do not.

There is a lovely bit in the early pages of Tom Clancy's novel Red Rabbit that lays out the difference between the work habits of U.S. and U.K. doctors. I know it is a novel, but I believe Clancy has the tone just about right.

If we need to find a way to get health coverage for everybody, let's find a way that doesn't end up with our doctors and other health professionals working for the government.

Brooks on Economics

The New York Times' David Brooks writes about what he calls The Great Unwinding. By that he means getting the U.S. back out of a leveraged, debt-financed consumption economy and into an investment-driven, savings-generating economy.

His column does a nice job of laying out how we've gotten into the problem and what we need to do to get out of it. Only in the last couple of paragraphs does he admit that it is unlikely that we have the political will to do what is needed. He concludes:

Congressional leaders have been fixated on short-term conventional priorities throughout this entire episode. There is no evidence that the power brokers understand the fundamental transition ahead. They are practicing the same self-indulgence that got us into this mess.

We elect Representatives for two year terms and then expect them to take the long view? I don't think so. Getting change to happen will take real leadership, something I don't see on the horizon.

Ebert on Wayne

Go here to read a Roger Ebert retrospective on John Wayne, written for the Chicago Sun Times. If you've watched the Duke, as I have for the last 60+ years, you'll enjoy it a lot. He was one of a kind.

Letterman a Loser

Dave Letterman, CBS late night talk show host, demonstrated a new low in tastelessness when he wisecracked that Sarah Palin's 14 year old daughter got knocked up at a baseball game by one of the players. Then he tried to back out of it by claiming he meant her 18 year old daughter, who did not attend the game. Many comments about this unforgivable comment are on the web, all negative.

If you agree that this was way below the belt, the best way to send a message is to boycott the program. Low ratings are the recipe for an unemployed Dave.

Unions to Blame in CA

See this meaty article in National Review Online concerning the real causes of California's budgetary meltdown. In it Chris Reed, an editorial writer for the San Diego Union Tribune, demolishes the arguments about CA not being able to tax enough. He shows that in fact CA already has some of the highest taxes in the nation. He says of the public employee unions:

Once merely a powerful special interest, these public-sector unions now have a chokehold on the state.

I find it curious that at a time in our history when private sector unions are weak, public sector unions have never been stronger. The incestuous relationship between government employee unions and Democratic politicians is not in the public interest.

Net Worth Nonsense

This Associated Press article describes how:

American households lost $1.33 trillion of their wealth in the first three months of the year as the recession took a bite out of stock portfolios and dragged down home prices.

As noted in my title for this entry, this is nonsense. Yes, it feels like we lost $1.33 trillion but much of that was bubble-inflated, unreal "value."

When our stocks and our homes go up in price, it is psychologically easy to believe that we have earned those increases. "Earned," when in fact we have done no such thing. Those inflated prices simply reflect the fact that temporarily the market values those shares or that property at a higher price. Then the bubble bursts and the market values the same shares or property at a lower price.

How is it that we "earn" the increase in price but "lose" the decrease in price? It is one of the persistent irrationalities of the human species. You earn what you work for: your salary or perhaps the rent you receive on property or money you let others use temporarily. Increases in property or stock value are just winning bets you made on the directionality of the markets. Losses are losing bets.

Betting on stock or property values more closely resembles betting on horse races than casino gambling - that is, knowing something about the way horses have run in the past is helpful. "Helpful" but you can still lose betting on the favorite, the horse that should win.

Similarly, knowing something about the management of firms whose stock you buy, or about the demand for their products, is useful. Knowing something about the evolution of a neighborhood and about population migrations is helpful in buying property. And in both cases you can have the knowledge and still lose.

It is also true that when the entire economy hits a soft spot, most stock prices and most property prices go down in the short to medium run. When the entire economy is booming, most stock and property prices rise, also in the short to medium run.

Ups and downs are in the nature of capitalism. Get over it.

Rove Doesn't Get It

Karl Rove knows politics, but he doesn't know publishing and he demonstrated that lack of knowledge recently. Politico writes of his put-downs of Maureen Dowd, it has Karl saying:

Dowd was a "nasty, snarky person" with a "twisted, bitter little heart."

Karl, come on, get real, "snarky" is what MoDo gets paid the big bucks to do. She fills exactly the same niche on the left side of the aisle that Ann Coulter fills on the right side. True, Coulter usually manages to include some solid fact in her character assassinations but the role is the same: be snarky about the other guys.

We on the right enjoy Ann and the folks on the left enjoy MoDo, maybe we shouldn't but we do. If there is a character flaw here, it is in the audience: us.

Quote of the Day

Phil Bronstein, writing for the San Francisco Chronicle, about the love affair the press has with our new President:

This guy is good. Really good. And, frankly, so far, we're not.

You can't blame powerful people for wanting to play the press to peddle self-perpetuating mythology. But you can blame the press, already suffocating under a massive pile of blame, guilt, heavy debt and sinking fortunes, for being played.

Somebody in the press who sees, and is willing to report, how silly the press has been acting- a rarity.