Has The White House Become a Waffle House?

Will Russia change or are they just posturing? Russia holds the key .(See 1 below.)



Amy Goldstein, who worked at The U.N. for years, believes Qadaffi stole the show and we do not understand why. His speech played well among the non-aligned who are seek more control over the Security Council.



Qadaffi is effectively aligning nations ,who violate every principle upon which the U.N. was founded, against the West. These renegade nations have been taking over the machinery of the U.N. as we sit idly by and she believes Obama has downgraded our effectiveness.(See 2 below.)



Netanyahu stands firm and in several interiews repeats what he has been saying. Has Netanyahu's determination forced the White House to become a Waffle House? (See 3 below.



It is nice to be loved but in a tough world it is better to be feared. Obama's initial world tour set the tone and now it is boomeranging in his face.



He is being seen as lightweight and naive president. This, lamentably, from an Australian observer.(See 3a below.)



Obama has oversold and less and less are buying. When you fail domestically it resonates world wide.

It is becoming increasingly evident our youthful president is being judged on his merit and the concept of racial bias is a dog that just does not hunt. Granted, there will always be prejudices whether they be racial or gender or small versus large. That is a human condition that is just what it is.

Many of the credible arguments presented earlier during the campaign, questioning Obama's candidacy, seem to be coming home to roost. The matter of inexperience, the matter of his radical viewpoints, past associations seem not to have been misplaced.

New concerns now revolve around the outgrowth of events pertaining to these aforementioned concerns. From a foreign policy standpoint we have confusion over the war in Aghanistan,we are on a path to reduce our nuclear weapons at the same time we are allowing Iran to press forward with development of their own nuclear arms program. We have flipped and flopped with respect to a defense of our allies. The Middle East is no better off today than when Obama rolled up his sleeves and told Israel they would have to make concessions in order to accommodate Palestinians and the rest of The Arab World.

Domestically unemployment continues to move higher, our debt burdens have gone from extraordinary to enormous and most every policy initiative is steeped in controversy. The economy is stabilizing but at what future cost?

Meanwhile our messiah has appeared on virtually every TV news program and systems except those that has garnered the largest viewing audience - Wallace and Fox. This decision signifies either stupidity and/or meekness. Americans watch Fox so excluding them is a slap in the face. (See 4 and 4a below.)



David Broder weighs in on why Obama is turning out to be a light weight. (See 4b below.)



Dick



1)Ahmadinejad's diatribe against US and Israel countered by Russian openness to sanctions


The Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinjad's excessive oratory, matched by the shuffle of Western delegations led by the US leaving the UN General Assembly chamber, have been a typical feature of every new UN General Assembly session in the last three years. This time, the Iranian president preceded his speech with press interviews in which he tried to sound more reasonable while refusing to answer questions on his denial of the Holocaust and Iran's nuclear program.




But then, on the podium Wednesday, Sept. 23, he declared: “American power has reached the end of the road and is paralyzed. It is no longer possible to inject thousands of billions of dollars of unreal wealth into the world economy simply by printing worthless paper,” Ahmadinejad said, hinting at the ways in which the Obama administration is trying to solve the global economic crisis.




He went to say: “The engine of unbridled capitalism, with its unfair system of thought, has reached the end of the road and is unable to move,” he said, adding:




“The time has come for an end to those who define democracy and freedom and set standards while they themselves are the first who violate its fundamental principles. They can no longer be the judge and executioner.”




In a typical anti-Semitic diatribe, Ahmadinejad said: “Although they are a miniscule minority, they have been dominating an important portion of the financial and monetary centers as well as the political decision-making centers of some European countries and the US in a deceitful, complex and furtive manner.”




Appropriating President Barack Obama's campaign slogan, “Yes, we can”, Ahmadinejad attempted to differentiate between US policy and President Obama's approach, when he said: “Most people, including the people of the United States, are waiting for real and profound changes.”




The Iranian president accused the US and Israel of killing thousands of innocent people in Iraq, Afghanistan and Palestine. Referring to Israel directly, he said: “How can the crimes of the occupiers against defenseless women and children and destruction of their homes, farms, hospitals and schools be supported unconditionally by certain governments and at the same time the oppressed men and women be subjected to the heaviest economic blockade, which denies their basic needs: food, water and medicine, and leads to genocide?”




Shortly before Ahmadinejad's speech US President Obama and Russian President Dmitry Medvedev met on the sidelines of the UN session. Medvedev then repeated the new Russian position, which states that in principle “Russia's position is clear: Sanctions rarely lead to productive results, but in some cases sanctions are inevitable.”




President Obama said that Iran been "violating too many of its international commitments." He committed himself to negotiating with Iran on the issue, but said serious sanctions were a possibility if Iran failed to respond seriously.”




Israeli prime minister Binyamin Netanyahu addresses the session later Thursday in a speech expected to focus on Iran.



2)And the Winner Is ... Moammar

By Amy D. Goldstein




Each year we have one -- some world leader becomes the stand-out speaker at the United Nations General Assembly for both his antics and his message: Kruschev with his shoe; Arafat with his gun; Castro, Chavez, Ahmedinejad. It never fails. This year's winner is ... Moammar Qaddafi.
Following U.S. President Barack Obama, Qaddafi stole the show. The question is: will anyone understand the import of his speech?




To Americans, Moammar Qaddafi is a buffoon. We pay more attention to his pitching a tent than to his rhetorical pitch. But, we should be listening.
To the rest of the world -- especially the developing world -- his words and actions have value and striking symbolism. At the United Nations, his country holds enormous sway in the non-aligned group, which makes up more than half of the body's membership.




Having worked at the United Nations for many years, it is clear to me that his words will give new strength to attempts to wrest power from the Security Council's five permanent members - the United States, France, United Kingdom, Russia and China. It is a campaign that countries like Brazil, India and South Africa have been waging for years, along with Libya.




However, now that Qaddafi has taken it up, expect to see new energy in this regard.




You don't believe me? Look at the Human Rights Council. With the leadership of Libya and other non-aligned countries, the United Nations reformed itself into an even more anti-democratic, anti-Western and anti-Israel body by replacing the UN Human Rights Committee with the current body, which holds more power in the international community.
Now, Libya wants to "reform" the Security Council in the same way.
From non-Western eyes, the call for this reform comes from a man who thumbed his nose at international law, carried out terrorism against the West, and found a way to be forgiven by the West.


Although there is an outstanding arrest warrant for him in New York, he comes openly and gets the coveted speaking spot after the American president.




Although he has killed Americans, he can pitch his tent in Westchester, New York.


Although he has taken responsibility for the Pan Am 103 bombing, he has secured the release of the only person to ever have been jailed for this crime -- and welcomed him back to Libya as a hero. What's more, he did so right before coming to the United States.


In the UN's own corridors, he is able to bully other pro-Western African nations into voting against their own interests of freedom and democracy -- along with his fellow African leaders from Zimbabwe and South Africa.
Understanding how the UN works, he brazenly tears apart the UN Charter - the basic document that UN member states agree to adhere to in order to join the international forum. Among other things, it outlines basic human rights as well as a country's right to self-defense.




We should not be surprised, however. He has never abided by these rules. In this, he is consistent.


Then, he positioned himself as the leader of the powerless and weak by calling on the developing world to overthrow the powerful nations. Qaddafi cites 65 wars that the UN has failed to prevent. Of course, one might ask how many of those wars were conducted against countries adhering to the principles outlined by the UN Charter by states or non-state actors not abiding by those principles. But, that would be beside the point.




Most importantly, he stated that the powerful nations who hold veto power in the United Nations hold the General Assembly and its resolutions in contempt. What he means by this is that he is calling on the majority of the countries in the world - most of which do not uphold the ideals outlined in the UN Charter -- to band together, overthrow the Security Council, and give themselves enforceable resolutions and the power to enforce them with sanctions.


In this speech, at this forum, with this message, accompanied by these actions, Moammar Qaddafi is making a play for leadership of the non-aligned movement within the United Nations. It is very dangerous, and yet will probably go unnoticed until it is too late.




What can be done to stave off this power grab?


America and the European Union must engage in active, steady diplomacy at the United Nations and in capitals - from the lowest to the highest levels - public and private, letting the world know about how much better people live today than they did prior to the creation of the United Nations system -- specifically due to the existence of the international body.




For all of its many faults and rampant corruption -- and they are manifold -- the UN has facilitated bilateral and multi-lateral relationships, development programs in Africa, Asia and Latin America and international standards for human rights. Moreover, without the United Nations there would be no World Food Organization, no UNESCO, no World Health Organization - or other agencies that actually do good works for people around the world.


Indeed, on the same day as Qaddafi's speech, Western countries banded together to defeat an anti-Semitic Egyptian candidate to head UNESCO, in favor of Bulgaria's Irina Bokova. True to form, Farouk Hosny blamed "European countries and the world's Jews" for his loss on the fifth ballot.
But that won't be enough.




It won't be enough because President Obama's administration has degraded American leadership in the world, and has positioned our country as a beggar at the United Nations instead of a leader. The current administration is just happy to be invited to the party, and believes that the force of the President's personality will be enough to slide through. It has no ability to neutralize the appeal of Qaddafi's siren song.


And, the big secret is: American taxpayers support this institution.


That is what Moammar Qaddafi's actions and speech at the United Nations General Assembly have proven. That's why at the end of the day, he'll be the big winner.



3)Netanyahu: No peace until Palestinians accept Israel as Jewish
By Natasha Mozgovaya,




Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu told Haaretz on Wednesday that he would not agree to a Palestinian demand that Israel accept the 1967 borders as a condition for renewing peace negotiations. Netanyahu also gave a condition of his own, saying Thursday that he would never drop his demand that the Palestinians recognize Israel as a Jewish state. "I told Abu Mazen [Abbas] I believe peace hinges first on his readiness to stand before his people and say, 'We ... are committed to recognizing Israel as the nation-state of the Jewish people'," Netanyahu said.

"I will not drop this subject and other important issues under any final peace agreement," Netanyahu said. Netanyahu said that U.S. President Barack Obama's speech to the United Nations General Assembly on Wednesday was "positive" because "he also said something we had been seeking for six months, that we have to meet and begin the diplomatic process without preconditions."



Obama had spoken "clearly about Israel as the nation-state of the Jewish people," said Netanyahu. "I believe that disagreement about this is the root of the conflict."



Netanyahu also pointed out that Obama had made reference to Israeli efforts to improve the Palestinian economy by lifting roadblocks.



Obama's speech on Wednesday was one of many from world leaders, and the American president focused a portion of his talk on efforts toward Middle East Peace.



"The goal is clear," Obama told the General Assembly, "two states living side by side in peace and security - a Jewish State of Israel, with true security for all Israelis; and a viable, independent Palestinian state with contiguous territory that ends the occupation that began in 1967, and realizes the potential of the Palestinian people."



Referring to Obama's statement Netanyahu said, "The things he said about the occupation are not new. He also said them in Cairo, and in fact that is the formula adopted by the road map and it does not say we have to go back to the 1967 borders.



"This is the formula adopted by governments before the one I head, which did not agree to go back to the 1967 borders. We certainly would [also] not agree to that. In the matter of the settlements he also said nothing new. These disagreements should not prevent the beginning of the process which, among other things if it is successful, will also decide this issue."



Netanyahu said Obama, like other American presidents, reflected the deep basic friendship between the American and the Israeli people, and that "he stood in Cairo before the whole Muslim world and said this relationship would never be severed." Netanyahu added he believed the obligation of the United States to Israel's security was total.



When asked about claims that Tuesday's three-way summit with Palestinian Authority chairman Mahmoud Abbas and Obama would become an excuse for foot-dragging, Netanyahu responded, "not on our part."



Netanyahu told Channel 2 that Obama's speech to the the UN regarding negotiations without preconditions and the two state solution was "an important blessing."



"The president said let's come and resume the peace process without preconditions. As you know I have been saying that for nearly six months. I was happy," Netanyahu said.



However, Israelis and Palestinians said Wednesday that their envoys would meet with U.S. officials but not with each other, cementing the impression that the summit had produced little results.



Chief Palestinian negotiator Saeb Erekat said there would be no follow-up session with the Israelis because the two sides hadn't bridged the divides that have prevented them from resuming talks.



"It's not happening because we agreed to continue dealing with the Americans until we reach the agreement that will enable us to relaunch the negotiations," Erekat said.



Israeli government spokesman Mark Regev said Israel would dispatch envoys to meet with U.S. officials in Washington, but there were no plans now to meet again with the Palestinians.



He said, however, that it was Israel's "sincere hope that we will see the restart of direct Israeli-Palestinian talks."



The Palestinians refuse to restart talks until Israel freezes settlement construction. They also want talks to restart where they left off before breaking down earlier this year, something Netanyahu has refused.





'Obama assured commitment to stopping Iran nukes



Netanyahu told several U.S. network television stations late Wednesday that Obama had also assured him he was committed to stopping Iran's nuclear program.



In those interviews, Netanyahu also reiterated that Israel was unwilling to freeze "life" in West Bank settlements.



Answering to whether he knew how long it was before Iran could produce a nuclear weapon, Netanyahu told ABC interviewer Charlie Gibson that he didn't "want to discuss whether we need another week or another month."



"The crucial question is, what's the goal? And the president assured me time and again that the goal is to prevent Iran from developing a nuclear weapon. And I think that's the right goal," the premier said.



The prime minister added that he saw Iran as "the major sponsor of world terrorism. Now, imagine what terrorism could be if the terrorists had a patron that gave them a nuclear umbrella, or worse, if that patron actually gave them nuclear weapons. "



"That's a nightmare scenario, and we all have to ensure that it doesn't happen," Netanyahu told ABC.



Netanyahu also reiterated comments he made recently about what he considered as the instability of the current regime in Tehran, saying he thought "this regime is a lot weaker than people think, and I think the civilized countries are a lot stronger than they tend to think about themselves."



"This regime tyrannizes its own people, guns them down when they peacefully protest for freedom," the prime minister added.



"There are so many reasons, endless reasons why this should not be allowed to happen. And it's time the international community acted in unison to make sure that it doesn't happen,"



Netanyahu said. In an interview to Fox News, Netanyahu commented on the possibility of unilateral action against Iran, saying "any country has and reserves the right for self defense and Israel is no exception but I think the specter of Iran arming itself with nuclear weapons and possibly giving it to terrorists or giving them [is[ sufficiently troublesome for the international community to get its act together and act to stop this from happening."



Answering to the question whether he was convinced Iran wanted a nuclear weapon, the premier asserted: "Yes I am."



Netanyahu: Won't freeze 'life' in settlements



On the subject of renewing peace negotiations with the Palestinian Authority, Netanyahu asserted to NBC interview Matt Lauer that he was "willing to make gestures to help the peace process."



When asked how big a gesture Israel intends to make, the premier said "we'll get there very soon, I suppose."



"But I'll tell you one thing I'm not willing to do. I can't freeze life," Netanyahu added, referring to a possible West Bank settlement freeze, insisted on by Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas.



"There are a quarter of a million people there, in these communities which are called 'settlements', although really most of them are bedroom suburbs of Tel Aviv and Jerusalem".



Echoing the same sentiment, the prime minister said he was looking "to reconcile two things. One is to start the peace process again, something that I'm glad - I hope that we started today."



"And, second, to enable normal life to continue. There are a quarter of a million people living in these communities. You know, they need kindergartens. They need schools. They need health clinics." Netanyahu said. "



They're living. I'm committed not to build new settlements. I am committed not to expropriate additional land for existing settlements. But people have to live. You can't freeze life."



Stressing what he felt as the shared Palestinian responsibility for stalled peace talks, Netanyahu told ABC that "Anytime Israel met an Arab leader who has genuinely committed to peace, such as Anwar Sadat, we made peace," adding that the government who achieved peace with Egypt "was a Likud government under Menachem Begin.



"When Yitzhak Rabin, the Labor prime minister, met the late King Hussein, who wanted peace, we made peace," the premier said, adding that "if the Palestinian leadership says we want peace, we recognize Israel as the Jewish state, the nation state of the Jewish people, just as we're asked to recognize the Palestinian state as the nation state of the Palestinian people."



The prime minister concluded by saying that Israel wanted "a real peace. You know, we don't want a peace where we hand over territory which becomes a base for Iran's proxy so they can fire thousands of rockets on us," adding that Israel was "one of the tiniest countries in the world."



"Now, if you're the size of Monaco or the size of Luxembourg, that by itself doesn?t pose a security problem. But if your neighbors also say, 'We're going to destroy you or throw you into the sea and fire thousands of rockets at you,' that does pose a security problem. So, Israel wants both recognition and security from its neighbors, and this will be the task of the negotiations in the coming months," Netanyahu added.




3a)Lots of People Love Obama, But Does Anyone in the World Really Fear Him?

By Greg Sheridan


It may seem rather unkind to express some serious doubts about US President Barack Obama just now. He is wowing the UN with talk of nuclear disarmament. He is mesmerising the Group of 20 with talk of global recovery. He is leading a policy review that talks of winning in Afghanistan and he will not send more troops in response to the request of the US military commander in Afghanistan, Stanley McChrystal, without deeper talks.




He has stirred hearts in the Middle East with talk of peace between the Israelis and the Palestinians. And from October 1 he will be talking directly with the Iranians in pursuit of his talk of stopping Tehran from getting nuclear weapons.




It's a lot of very impressive talk. And yet, and yet...
Machiavelli said for a prince it is better to be feared than to be loved.
For much of his presidency, most of the world feared George W. Bush. For a brief, shining moment after the 9/11 terrorist attacks, America's enemies feared Bush, while almost all the rest of the world loved him.


That is the perfect situation for any US president. It can't be sustained, of course, and Bush squandered the love part of the equation much more quickly and much more comprehensively than he should have. But he never lost the fear bit.


Here's my worry about Obama. Lots of people love him and he is indeed very lovable. But I wonder if anyone at all, anywhere in the world, really fears him.




Let's move forward a bit from Machiavelli for our strategic guidance. Let's refer instead to the great classic of American strategic pedagogy, Happy Days.




Happy Days pivoted around the friendship between two very different American teenagers, Richie Cunningham and Fonzie Fonzarelli.
Richie was clean-cut, wholesome, an absolute goody-goody, and everybody loved him. Fonzie, especially in the early series, was a tough nut. Greased-back hair, always astride his outlaw motorbike, decked out in Marlon Brando T-shirt, Fonzie inspired fear and envy in men, and swoons among the gals.




Everyone was frightened of Fonzie. He could banish bad guys with a look. In one episode, Fonzie tried to teach Richie his style. Richie practised the grimaces, the flexes, the stares, but alas the bad guys were not impressed and certainly not deterred.




In the midst of a desperate scrape, Richie turned to Fonzie imploringly and asked: Why are my deadly looks, threatening flexes and strategic grimaces having no effect?




Oh yeah, Fonzie replied, I forgot to tell you. For all that to work, once in your life you have to have hit someone. You cannot imagine a deeper strategic insight.




At some point, Obama is going to have to do something seriously unpleasant to someone.




Obama's one serious foreign policy initiative during the presidential campaign was to promise that he would talk productively to America's enemies. It would be easy to mock this; all US presidents, after all, have tried to talk to America's enemies, right up to the point at which they attack the US or its allies or just become unacceptable security risks. Nonetheless, Obama's approach, fortified by his huge global popularity, was certainly worth a try.




Which enemies, by the way, did he have in mind? The following list may not be exclusive but certainly Iran, North Korea, Venezuela, Cuba, the Taliban in Afghanistan and, presumably, Syria all figured on it.




Yet the striking thing, almost a year into the Obama presidency, is how little substantial talk with these enemies has gone on and how what talk has gone on has produced absolutely nothing. Nada. Zip. Diddly-squat.
You see, I don't think any of America's enemies, or indeed any of its friends, fear Obama. I hope they are making a grave miscalculation, but I have my doubts.






The Iranians have made a kind of pantomime dance out of mocking dialogue with Obama. He wants to talk about their weapons-based uranium enrichment and their flouting of International Atomic Energy Agency rules. The mullahs of Tehran fall about laughing at this. They steal an election, bash, murder and rape their opponents into submission and deliberately miss Obama's solemn deadline of September for starting talks.




Obama set the September deadline partly so the Iranians could tremble before the assembled might of this week's UN General Assembly.
The Iranians said the talks would begin on October 1 and that is when they will begin. And the Iranians don't plan to talk about their uranium enrichment program. Instead they will talk about the injustice of supposed US domination of the UN.




Just to make sure everyone is on the same page, the Iranians took a couple of extra measures. They appointed a man wanted by Interpol for his part in blowing up a Jewish centre in Buenos Aires in the early 1990s as their Defence Minister. Then Iran's President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad repeated his sick denial of the Holocaust. If the Iranians behave at the October dialogue as they say they will, then the Americans should persist with it for about 10 minutes before moving to comprehensive sanctions against Iran as the only possible alternative to an Israeli strike on Iranian nuclear facilities, possibly before Christmas.




A genuinely tough sanctions regime on Iran would be the Fonzie moment in Obama's Richie Cunningham presidency.




So far Obama has courted popularity with America's critics by himself criticising America's past and by giving things away.




He gave the Arabs all kinds of rhetorical concessions, many of them factually wrong, in his Cairo speech in June. He gave the Russians a huge concession this month by abruptly cancelling a missile defence system that would have been based in Poland and the Czech Republic. This abrupt cancellation embarrassed and insulted the Czechs and the Poles, who incidentally may never again be as accommodating to the Americans. But they, you see, are America's friends and Obama's target audience is America's critics and enemies.




The action on the missile defence system will have any merit only if the Russians eventually join the most comprehensive sanctions regime against the Iranians.




Obama tried to give the Palestinians, and the Arabs more generally, an Israeli settlement freeze in the West Bank. But the most instructive element of this episode is that even the Israelis, with all their intimate dependence on the Americans, don't feel compelled to give Obama any serious face on this issue. They don't fear him either.




Of course, should Obama finally decide to take real action on Iran, all this soft shuffle and endless sweet talk in advance may have helped establish his bona fides.




I have been in London this week. The Daily Telegraph, a conservative but generally pro-American newspaper, carried a comment piece headlined:



"President is beginning to look out of his depth".
It's too early to make that call, but I'm starting to get worried.


Greg Sheridan is foreign editor of The Australian.





4)The President Risks Getting Stale :Continuous TV appearances can't rescue a bad argument.

By KARL ROVE




It sounded to White House advisers like a good idea. Put President Barack Obama on five Sunday morning talk shows. This would focus attention on health care, re-establish momentum, and show off Mr. Obama's passion, intelligence, and persuasive abilities. It didn't work.


Mr. Obama made a classic mistake of politicians on a downward-bending arc. He jumps out in front of the cameras without having something fresh to offer.

As a result, he was on the defensive and failed to win over the slice of America that opposes his plans. His refusal to sit down with Fox News's Chris Wallace made him look petulant if not fearful, and his answers weakened his credibility.


Take, for example, his dustup on ABC's "This Week with George Stephanopoulos" over whether requiring Americans to buy health insurance or pay a fine was a tax. Legislation in the House and Senate defines it as a tax, and Mr. Stephanopoulos said it fit Merriam-Webster's definition of a tax. But the president insisted it was not a tax. That's because by favoring the mandate Mr. Obama is breaking his pledge not to raise taxes on anyone making less than $250,000 a year. He already signed a cigarette tax increase in February, but this tax could be as much as $3,800 a year for a family and is therefore a more material breach of his promise.




On "Face the Nation" Mr. Obama said he would pay for two-thirds of his health-care proposal by redirecting Medicare funds that are "just being spent badly." "This is not me making wild assertions," Mr. Obama said, "waste and abuse" can provide "the lion's share of money to pay for" health-care reform.




If that is true, Mr. Obama could flip the health-care debate to his advantage by offering a stand-alone bill that would cut the $622 billion from Medicare and Medicaid that he sees as badly spent. Such a bill would show that Mr. Obama can be trusted when he says overhauling health care will be painless. But the White House won't do any such thing because those cuts aren't easy to make. If they were all "waste and fraud" they would have been cut already. And such a bill would force Democrats to either stick with the president or side with constituents who would be hurt by the cuts.




Mr. Obama opened a different can of worms on "Face the Nation" when he told Bob Schieffer health insurers and drug companies "are going to have to be ponying up" more in taxes because "they're making huge profits." Everyone except for the president seems to know that such a tax increase would be, in Mr. Schieffer's words, passed "right on to the consumer." That would drive up health insurance costs for everyone. How does that help the middle class afford health care?


Mr. Obama's dig at profits reveals a certain disdain for markets. Health insurers have a 3.3% profit margin, less than the 4.6% average for all businesses in the country. Drug companies do enjoy, on average, a 17% profit margin. But that's still less than software companies, which earn on average a 22% profit margin. Brewers make 18%. Are these industries the next targets for a revenue hungry Obama administration?




By the way, some of those drug-company profits are now paying for an ad blitz favoring Mr. Obama's health-care plans. There would be a little justice if drug companies succeed at increasing their own taxes.




To turn things in his favor, Mr. Obama needs to start thinking about making substantive concessions that will really improve health care. He could adopt Republican proposals to allow people to buy insurance across state lines, permit small businesses to pool risk to get the same discounts large employers receive, and crack down on junk lawsuits through medical liability reform. By doing so, he'd actually be lowering costs and expanding access instead of just pretending to—and at an infinitesimal fraction of his proposal's cost.




Americans have taken the measure of Mr. Obama's health-care plan and, as his falling poll numbers attest, increasingly don't like it. His health-care initiative is not only losing public support on its own merits; it is diminishing Mr. Obama's credibility. Most amazing of all, the president's constant chattering runs the risk of making him boring and stale. His magic dissipates as he becomes less interesting.




Mr. Obama doesn't need more TV time. He needs a new health-care plan that comes from actual bipartisan negotiation and compromise—one that most Americans see as something that will actually improve their health care. He needs his facts to align with reality.




More talk doesn't automatically lead to greater public support, but it can erode public confidence in your leadership. Mr. Obama is capable of flooding the airwaves with his words. But what he needs most is a message that wins the attention and support of most Americans.




Mr. Rove is the former senior adviser and deputy chief of staff to President George W. Bush.

4a)
Independents desert Obama, putting 2010 in play
By: Chris Stirewalt

Independent voters are turning away from President Obama and his fellow Democrats in droves. And if they can't find a way to get them back, the party could be in deep trouble for 2010 and beyond.

Independents gave Obama the White House last year with a vote for pragmatic competence. They have been repaid with partisanship and dithering. And unlike liberals who Obama has quickly re-energized after their summer doldrums, independents are devilishly hard to win back once they lose faith.

The latest Wall Street Journal/NBC News poll, the Rolls-Royce of public surveys, showed that for the first time, independents disapproved of the president's performance, 46 percent to 41 percent.

For the first few months of the Obama administration, independents, who make up about 43 percent of the electorate, reflected overall public opinion in giving the president consistent approval ratings of about 60 percent. But now, unaffiliated voters are less positive than the overall electorate, which is holding steady at 51 percent job approval for Obama.
More shocking is that independent voters now favor a Republican-controlled Congress by a four-point margin and would overwhelmingly like to see their own member of the House replaced.

Those are the kinds of numbers you see before electoral hurricanes like 1966 or 1994. And if independents are already at that point after so recently enduring the shoddy performance of the previous GOP majority, it's a sign of real dissatisfaction. Democrats have grown very jittery about the congressional elections in 2010.

In 2008, exit polls show Obama won independent voters 52 percent to 44 percent, a dramatic departure from the previous two cycles. John Kerry won 49 percent to George W. Bush's 48 percent. In 2000, Bush won independents 47 percent to Al Gore's 45 percent thanks to Ralph Nader's 7 percent share of the group.

Much of Obama's success can be attributed to the implausibility of the McCain candidacy. The Republican's internal bickering and erratic campaign did not look good against the cool calm of the Obama effort. That played to the independent preference for competence over ideology.
That's why one area of the Journal poll should particularly alarm the president and his handlers. There has been a nine-point drop in public confidence in Obama's goals and polices. That's the competency question and now only 45 percent of people are feeling confident instead of the 54 percent from the spring.

Public approval for the president's handling of the economy has remained steady at about 50 percent, and the personal affection toward the man has remained steadily high at 77 percent.

The cause of the drop is foreign policy, where the approval for the president's performance dropped 7 points since July to 50 percent.
That's big trouble for a president who had to work very hard to convince voters that he was sincere when he said, "I am not opposed to all wars. I'm opposed to dumb wars."

Independents now account for the largest segment of the voting public, a reflection of the skeptical bent of our society. Believing that one party or another is morally superior or has the right answers seems rather quaint in this era. Plus, our geographically and socially mobile nation is producing fewer rock-ribbed Republicans and yellow-dog Democrats.
However cynical Americans become about politics and parties, though, that does not mean that we hold nothing sacred.

Gallup regularly surveys Americans on their confidence in different institutions and right up at the top, ahead of perennial favorites small business and religion, you will consistently find the military.

Already high, confidence in the armed forces climbed to 82 percent this summer as the transition out of Iraq began. Contrast that with confidence in newspapers (25 percent) or big business (16 percent).

That's why Obama was careful to play on the idea that President Bush had not listened to his military commanders about Iraq. It wasn't military adventurism that hurt Bush, it was the belief that he and Donald Rumsfeld ignored commanders' advice about troops and resources.

Now, Obama is ignoring the desperate-sounding pleas of his hand-picked commander in Afghanistan, Army Gen. Stanley McChrystal, for more troops.

We hear that Obama is waiting to see what happens next before deciding to continue with his own strategy of an Afghan surge. His team is reading a book about how the Kennedy administration was led astray by the military and holding a series of meetings about the way forward.

A flip-flop on what Obama called a "war of necessity" just last might well send the independents to the exits for good.
Chris Stirewalt is the political editor of The Washington Examiner.



4b)Mr. Policy Hits a Wall

By David Broder



A brand-new publication came across my desk this week containing an essay that offers as good an insight into President Obama's approach to government as anything I have read -- and is particularly useful in understanding the current struggle over health care reform.




The publication is called National Affairs, and its advisory board is made up of noted conservative academics from James W. Ceaser to James Q. Wilson. The article that caught my eye, titled "Obama and the Policy Approach," was written by William Schambra, the director of the Hudson Institute's Bradley Center for Philanthropy and Civic Renewal.


Schambra, like many others, was struck by the "sheer ambition" of Obama's legislative agenda and by his penchant for centralizing authority under a strong White House staff replete with many issue "czars."


Schambra sees this as evidence that "Obama is emphatically a 'policy approach' president. For him, governing means not just addressing discrete challenges as they arise, but formulating comprehensive policies aimed at giving large social systems -- and indeed society itself -- more rational and coherent forms and functions. In this view, the long-term, systemic problems of health care, education, and the environment cannot be solved in small pieces. They must be taken on in whole."




He traces the roots of this approach back to the progressive movement of the late 19th and early 20th centuries, when rapid social and economic change created a politics dominated by interest-group struggles. The progressives believed that the cure lay in applying the new wisdom of the social sciences to the art of government, an approach where facts would heal the clash of ideologies and narrow constituencies.




Obama -- a highly intelligent product of elite universities -- is far from the first Democratic president to subscribe to this approach. Jimmy Carter, and especially Bill Clinton, attempted to govern this way. But Obama has made it even more explicit, regularly proclaiming his determination to rely on rational analysis, rather than narrow decisions, on everything from missile defense to Afghanistan -- and all the big issues at home.




"In one policy area after another," Schambra writes, "from transportation to science, urban policy to auto policy, Obama's formulation is virtually identical: Selfishness or ideological rigidity has led us to look at the problem in isolated pieces ...; we must put aside parochialism to take the long systemic view; and when we finally formulate a uniform national policy supported by empirical and objective data rather than shallow, insular opinion, we will arrive at solutions that are not only more effective but less costly as well. This is the mantra of the policy presidency."




Historically, that approach has not worked. The progressives failed to gain more than brief ascendancy and the Carter and Clinton presidencies were marked by striking policy failures. The reason, Schambra says, is that this highly rational, comprehensive approach fits uncomfortably with the Constitution, which apportions power among so many different players, most of whom are far more concerned with the particulars of policy than its overall coherence.




The energy-climate change bill that went into the House was a reasonably coherent set of trade-offs that would reduce carbon emissions and help the atmosphere. When it came out, it was a grab bag of subsidies and payoffs to various industries and groups. And now it is stymied by similar forces in the Senate.




Schambra's essay anticipated exactly what is happening right now on health care. Obama, budget director Peter Orszag and health czar Nancy-Ann DeParle grasp the intricacies of the health care system as well as any three humans, and they could write a law to make it far more efficient.
But now it is in the hands of legislators and lobbyists who care much less about the rationality of the system than they do about the way the bill will affect their particular part of it. Everyone has a parochial agenda. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, for example, wants to be sure a new cancer treatment center in Nevada has favored status.






Democracy and representative government are a lot messier than the progressives and their heirs, including Obama, want to admit. No wonder they are so often frustrated.