Obama KLAMs Up

The World's Greatest Orator is the worst communicator of recent times.

JAMES TARANTO

(Best of the tube this weekend: We'll be on the political panel of "Lou Dobbs Tonight," 7 p.m. ET tonight on Fox Business Network, and discussing Libya and Wisconsin on "The Journal Editorial Report," 2 and 11 p.m. ET Saturday on Fox News Channel.)

Gallup found a striking result in a survey this week: Only 47% of American adults approve of "the current U.S. military actions against Libya." That is a plurality (37% disapprove), but it is also the lowest proportion at the outset of any military action of the past three decades. Even the second-least-popular, Kosovo in 1999, had majority (51%) approval.

Here's a number that should be worrying the president's political team: While majorities of both Democrats (51%) and Republicans (57%) approve of the Libya action, only 38% of independents do, vs. a 44% plurality who disapprove.

Associated Press

You're talkin' a lot, but you're not sayin' anything.

By contrast, when Ronald Reagan bombed Tripoli in 1986, 71% approved. To be sure, lots of today's adults hadn't even been born then, but it's hard to believe those young voters, who supported Barack Obama so ardently, were unmoved by the president's speech the other day in which, among other things, he rehearsed Moammar Gadhafi's history of terrorism against Americans.

Haha, we're pulling your leg! Actually, it's easy to believe, because Obama gave no such speech. His administration is speaking with many voices, including that of national security aide Ben Rhodes, who, as the Washington Examiner reports, memorably described the Libya campaign not as war but as "kinetic military action."

In fairness, this ridiculous bit of jargon is not an Obama-era coinage; Bushies were using it way back in 2002, as Slate smart aleck Tim Noah noted at the time. In unfairness--and in honor of France's leadership--we are going to start referring to the Libya effort by the Frenglish acronym KLAM, for Kinetic Libyan Action Militaire.

Don't hold your breath waiting for that Obama speech. Politico reports that the president is clamming up about the KLAM:

Obama is resisting pressure to deliver an Oval Office speech explaining his policy on Libya--in part, because he doesn't want to equate what he regards as a smaller, time-limited mission with the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Administration officials haven't ruled out a big speech, but Obama is reluctant to make a major address on Libya until the United States hands over most command and combat duties to its allies.

That's not to say the president won't talk about Libya over the next few days, aides say, but he's not likely to succumb to pressure to deliver a long, explanatory address to outline his elusive endgame to the nation until the path ahead becomes clearer.

What makes this such a head-scratcher is that Obama was supposed to be the World's Greatest Orator. The other day at lunch, a Brazilian lady observed that the president had been a big hit in her country, because "he's so well-spoken." This made us incredulous until we jogged our memory and remembered that, oh yes, they used to say that about him here too.

And it's true that Obama is good at expounding sweet nothings: One America, two America, red America, blue America, that sort of thing. His 2004 Democratic National Convention speech and his 2011 Tucson memorial speech were memorably good. The crowds in Rio probably got something similar.

Obama's indifferent performance in taking the country to war--sorry, to KLAM--can be explained by his indifference to the topic. By all accounts, he followed the lead of Hillary Clinton and her kettle of hawk hens, just as America followed the lead of the French, the British and the Arab League.

But Obama cared about ObamaCare, and he couldn't sell the public on that either. Has he ever managed to convince anyone of anything of substance?

The Wisdom of the Insiders
"When it comes to policy, the political class doesn't have a lot of faith in the public's IQ," National Journal reports:

In the latest National Journal Political Insiders Poll, a solid majority of political operatives--59 percent--said the public didn't "know enough about the issues facing Washington to form wise opinions about what should be done."

Republican insiders have a higher opinion of the public, with 52% answering "yes," vs. just 28% of Democrats. But what kind of opinion should you have of political insiders?

Another National Journal piece, by Charlie Cook, reports that "GOP strategists privately admit that the president has a good chance of winning reelection in 2012."

He observes that "the truism that the Republican Party is hierarchical, that Republicans inevitably nominate whomever's turn it is, does not appear to be the case this time." That is because there is nobody whose turn it is.

His main point, which he gleans from "conversations with GOP strategists, donors, and activists"--political insiders!--is that "the bullishness that pervaded the Republican Party's efforts to capture a majority in the House and the sense of Democratic vulnerability that existed a year ago is not so obvious today." He concludes by summing up why:

The lack of ebullience among Republicans for their 2012 presidential prospects is probably a combination of Obama looking less vulnerable than before and the unprecedented lack of clarity in their own field. Although GOP enthusiasm will likely build once the campaign begins in earnest, it is remarkable that it's taking so long, given Obama's polarizing effect among conservatives and Republicans.

With the election still more than 19 months away, there undoubtedly will be an ebb and flow, a series of peaks and valleys of optimism and pessimism. Economic and foreign-policy events will help drive the narrative of just how vulnerable Obama really is, and will be, in November 2012.

But things really have changed since last year.

How much does a subscription to National Journal cost? If you have to ask, you can't afford it, but it's in the four figures. "Political insiders" are people who pay thousands of dollars a year to read blindingly obvious insights like the ones we've just quoted. And they think you're dumb!

Paul Krugman's Senior Senator
Hey, how's that "civility" thing going? Blogger Jordan Rickards has video of Sen. Frank Lautenberg, a New Jersey Democrat, speaking at a rally for Planned Parenthood, a government-subsidized group that performs abortions and other services. Quoth Lautenberg:

The Tea Party Republicans in Washington claim they're concerned about the budget balance. But it's a disguise! It's not true! It's a lie! That's not [what] they want. They want to--they want other people not to be able to have their opinions. They don't deserve the freedoms that are in the Constitution, but we'll give them to them anyway.

In one sense, "They don't deserve the freedoms that are in the Constitution" is a trivial truth. Those freedoms are a matter of right, not desert. But Lautenberg's emotional message is unmistakable. He resents that his political opponents have constitutional rights--and he says so just before complaining that "they want other people not to be able to have their opinions." Projection, anyone?

It's a Scandal After All?
Yesterday we laughed at the Capital Times of Madison, Wis., for its "editor's note" explaining that reporter Steven Elbow, who wrote a long story on a suddenly hotly partisan (though officially nonpartisan) state Supreme Court race, had donated $5 to de facto Democratic candidate JoAnne Kloppenburg in December, which he asked to have returned after his editors found out so as "to avoid the appearance of bias."

It turns out, however, that a $5 donation may be a more serious matter than the sum itself would indicate. This is because of a Wisconsin statute with an Orwellian name, the Impartial Justice Act, which provides for taxpayer financing of judicial campaigns.

As a memo from the state's Government Accountability Board explains:

To become eligible for the public financing benefit, a candidate must receive qualifying contributions, ranging from $5 to $100, from at least 1,000 separate contributors, for a total of at least $5,000 and no more than $15,000, during the qualifying period.

The qualifying period ended Jan. 4, so that Elbow's donation would have counted toward the "benefit," which is $400,000 in taxpayer money: $100,000 for the primary and $300,000 for the general election. On a pro rated basis, then, Elbow's $5 contribution would have enriched Kloppenburg's campaign to the tune of $405. So it turns out the Capital Times, far from being overly fastidious, was not even fully forthcoming about the help its reporter gave the candidate he's covering.

Beer and PIzza
Yesterday we noted a new report that claims 1 in 4 Americans have a "criminal record," making it hard for them to find work. We were skeptical of the claim--and we were right to be. Here's the explanation from the report, conducted by the National Employment Law Project, which describes itself as "a national advocacy organization for employment rights of lower-wage workers":

NELP based the estimate of U.S. adults with criminal records on the following methodology. According to a 2008 survey of states, there were 92.3 million people with criminal records on file with states, including those individuals fingerprinted for serious misdemeanors and felony arrests. . . . In some states, misdemeanor arrests for less serious crimes do not require fingerprinting, thus this figure is likely an undercount of people with criminal records.

To account for individuals who may have records in multiple states and other factors, and to arrive at a conservative national estimate, the 92.3 million figure was reduced by 30 percent (64.6 million). . . . The rise in people with criminal records may significantly be attributed to the increased arrests associated with the "War on Drugs."

No numbers are given to support the assertion about "the increased arrests associated with the 'War on Drugs,' " or even the claim that the proportion of people with "criminal records" has increased.

It occurs to us, though, that while "arrests associated with the 'War on Drugs' " may account in substantial part for the size of the prison population. a more common reason for "criminal records," as NELP defines it, is arrests for driving under the influence of alcohol.

NELP complains that "some of the nation's largest companies have imposed overbroad background checks," such that "people with criminal records 'need not apply.' " One of those companies: "Domino's Pizza (170,000 employees worldwide)." Would you want a DUI veteran speeding to deliver your neighbor's pizza in 30 minutes or less?

Out on a Limb

• "Raising Interest Rates Will Help Some, Hurt Others"--headline, The Wall Street Journal, March 25
• "Monster-Truck Death at Strip Club Raises Safety Issue"--headline, USA Today website, March 24

Sonia Sotomayor for Guide of the First of September Great Revolution of the Arab Libyan Popular and Socialist Jamahiriya!
"If the Obama administration genuinely wants to see Gadhafi defeated, it must take affirmative action instead of waiting around to see what happens next."--Daily Gamecock (University of South Carolina), March 24

Life Imitates Diplomacy

• "Mr. Eagleburger is married to the former Marlene Ann Heinemann. He is the father of three sons--Lawrence Scott, Lawrence Andrew and Lawrence Jason."--American Academy of Diplomacy biography of former secretary of state Lawrence Eagleburger
• "Iron Dome is designed to defend against rockets at a range of 4-70 km and each battery consists of a multimission radar manufactured by Israel Aerospace Industries and three launchers, each equipped with 20 interceptors named Tamir."--Jerusalem Post, March 24

Life Imitates 'The Office'
"Keller @ Large: High-Paid Official Caught Loafing by Paper"--headline, WBZ-TV/AM website (Boston), March 22

There Once Was a Haughty, French-Looking Massachusetts Democrat From Nantucket
"Second-Half Kerry Blast Too Much for Limerick"--headline, Irish Examiner, March 25

It All Went Wrong With the 19th Amendment
"Ill. Treasurer: 'Testosterone' Needed to Solve States' Fiscal Woes"--headline, WSJ.com, March 24

At Least We're Not Going Bankrupt!
"Dementia: A Silent Crisis That May Bankrupt America"--headline, Puffington Host, March 24

There Is Unrest in the Forest, There Is Trouble With the Trees
"Plants Face New Worries"--headline, The Wall Street Journal, March 24

'Cause the Boy With the Cold Hard Cash Is Always Mr. Right
"Madonna's Charity Fails in Bid to Finance School"--headline, New York Times, March 25

Is That What They Call It Now?
"Target Sues Gay Rights Group to Stop Activists From Canvassing Outside San Diego County Stores"--headline, Associated Press, March 25

The Lonely Lives of Archaeologists
"Archaeologists Discover Saber-Toothed Vegetarian"--headline, Associated Press, March 24

It's Luckey the Plane Landed Safely
"With no one answering in the tower, security layers designed to ensure that jets don't stray from their path and that passengers are protected from acts of terror are frayed, says Stephen Luckey, a former airline pilot who operates a security consulting firm. . . . The two jets, which were carrying 165 people, landed after pilots were advised by a controller at a regional facility in nearby Warrenton, Va., that it would be OK to do so. 'That's just not a good idea, especially with the White House right there,' Luckey says."--USA Today, March 25

That's What Yeast Is For
"China Sees Food Need Rising"--headline, The Wall Street Journal Asia, March 25

It Didn't Go With His Robe
"Judge Returns Texas Beauty's Crown"--headline, Arizona Republic, March 25

Of Complications From Being Sawed in Half
"Dorothy Young, Houdini's Stage Assistant, Is Dead at 103"--headline, New York Times, March 25

Somebody Call 911 Already!
"Triangle Shirtwaist Fire Still Burns a Century Later"--headline, Chicago Sun-Times website, March 25

'You Don't Know Where Those Tourists Have Been'
"Shark Bites Cancun Tourist in Surf Despite Warning"--headline, Associated Press, March 25

Questions Nobody Is Asking
"What Will Sarah Palin Whine About, if Not the 'Liberal Press'?"--headline, Vanity Fair website, March 24

Answers to Questions Nobody Is Asking
"Why I'm Quitting Blogging at the Huffington Post [sic]"--headline, LeeStranahan.com, March 24

Look Out Below!

• "Charlie Sheen Drops His Book Agent"--headline, Gather.com, March 25
• " 'Spider-Man' Is Said to Drop Greek Chorus of Narrators"--headline, New York Times, March 25

Too Much Information
"Gaddafi's Entourage Sends Out Secret Peace Feelers"--headline, Reuters, March 24

News You Can Use

• "How to Reinvent Your Personal Brand When Your Personal Brand Is Sex"--headline, Forbes.com, March 24
• "Make Love, Not Time-Limited, Scope-Limited Military Actions"--headline, ABCNews.com, March 24

Bottom Stories of the Day

• "Gay Bar Mourns Elizabeth Taylor"--headline, New York Times, March 25
• "Boyfriend Accused of Waking Woman Up"--headline, News-Star (Monroe, La.), March 23

Let's Move!
"The federal government says more overweight Americans are squeezing onto buses, and it may have to rewrite bus safety rules because of it," USA Today reports:

The Federal Transit Authority [sic, actually Administration] (FTA) proposes raising the assumed average weight per bus passenger from 150 pounds to 175 pounds, which could mean that across the country, fewer people will be allowed on a city transit bus.

The transit authority, which regulates how much weight a bus can carry, also proposes adding an additional quarter of a square foot of floor space per passenger. The changes are being sought "to acknowledge the expanding girth of the average passenger," the agency says.

Where's Michelle Obama when you need her? A much better solution would be to limit the size, not the number, of passengers. Let the weightiest walk and you'll deal with the source, rather than the symptom, of the problem.