Posts filed under 'Uncategorized'
The Obama Campaign announced today that their candidate will be delivering a “major” address on Iraq tomorrow in Washington. This comes on the heels of Sen. Obama’s op-ed in the New York Times on Iraq today, or more appropriately, on his new and improved Iraq Plan 2.0.
In this piece he conspicuously neglects a few little pieces of truth which are a bit inconvenient to him and his claims of heightened judgment. He opens:
The call by Prime Minister Nuri Kamal al-Maliki for a timetable for the removal of American troops from Iraq presents an enormous opportunity. We should seize this moment to begin the phased redeployment of combat troops that I have long advocated, and that is needed for long-term success in Iraq and the security interests of the United States.
It is true that he has long called for a retreat – euphemistically labeled a “phased redeployment” – from Iraq, but that is not something he ought to go around pounding his chest over, for it demonstrates his poor judgment since – at least – January ‘07. That was the month when President Bush announced his surge of forces, a decision which – for the record – Sen McCain had been calling for since American forces set foot on Iraqi sand. Then, as now, Sen. Obama went on the record and boldly made the following black and white argument:
I am not persuaded that 20,000 additional troops in Iraq is going to solve the sectarian violence there. In fact, I think it will do the reverse. I think it takes pressure off the Iraqis to arrive at the sort of political accommodation that every observer believes is the ultimate solution to the problems we face there. So I am going to actively oppose the president’s proposal…. I think he is wrong, and I think the American people believe he’s wrong.
To his ultimate chagrin however, events (or what Machiavelli called fortuna) would not stand by Sen. Obama. The surge was and has been an unqualified success. That he did not have the judgment to see that this was possible and that he failed to either recognize or acknowledge the surge’s dramatic effect subsequently is something he would like us all to forget, and is something he neglects entirely in his piece. Specifically, in touting his long-held plan of “phased redeployment” he does not mention the policy – which he opposed and consistently preached would fail – that has made it even remotely possible for us to leave Iraq without it being an unmitigated disaster in every conceivable way to do so.
He will never admit it, but as Peter Wehner writes, “It is because President Bush endorsed a counterinsurgency plan which Senator Obama fiercely opposed that we are in a position to both withdraw additional combat troops and prevail in Iraq.” Nor will he admit that it was because Sen. McCain took such a personal and momentous role in seeing that Congress supported – or at least did not thwart – the successful implementation of that surge that Sen. Obama can claim the recalibrated position on Iraq he does today.
Sen. Obama continues in his NYT opinion that “I believed it was a grave mistake to allow ourselves to be distracted from the fight against Al Qaeda and the Taliban by invading a country that posed no imminent threat and had nothing to do with the 9/11 attacks.”
Even if we accept that going into Iraq initially distracted us from our fight against al-Qaeda, that still does not absolve the fact that Sen. Obama recklessly called for American retreat from Iraq after it became the central front in the war on terror. In other words, it may not have been so originally, but the fact is indisputable that Iraq is now the central front – as al Qaeda itself has said – and has been since the end of initial combat there.
Sen. Obama also declares that as president he will “give the military a new mission: ending this war.”
Of course, ending the war has been the goal of everyone on every side of this issue since it was an issue, the disagreement being over the prudent and most effective way of ending the war, not actually whether to end it.
Sen. Obama determined that we ought to get out yesterday, consequences be damned. He sought nothing but ending the war for that sake alone, either neglecting to consider the adverse ramifications that would come as certainly as gravity or callously disregarding them.
Sen. McCain took the opposite tact. He determined that anything less than ending the war in victory would entail costs far more than this country could bear. So he doubled the bet and lobbied for increased force levels which then secured the country and put a strong foot up the collective ass of al Qaeda. As a result, the United States is now courting victory and it is possible for Sen. Obama to advance the one half of his plan that never would have been made possible by the other.
*****
At this point Sen. Obama’s pretzel is complete. After all these months and even years of tearing Sen. McCain to shreds over his judgment on Iraq, he has slowly walked over and taken a position right next to him, secretly adopting the Republican’s positions while still criticizing him every bit as vociferously as before. He has begun to admit – or his surrogates have – that circumstances might render his plans inoperable and has even pledged to consult with commanders on the ground before making any definitive and ill-advised decisions. Ultimately, his “phased redeployment” – now that victory in Iraq is all but achieved – probably isn’t that much different from the process of redeployment currently in operation.
Essentially, Sen. Obama is now the beneficiary of Sen. McCain’s judgement and statesmanship. He scored his political points assaulting Sen. McCain on Iraq and can now enjoy the fruits of those very same policies as a candidate in the general.
Accordingly, I would submit that Sen. Obama ought to thank Sen. McCain, at least when no one is looking. If it weren’t for him he might have had to actually answer for the consequences of his proposals, or would at least have to spend time finding some other way to blame Sen. McCain for the mess in Iraq that in reality his own policies prescripted.
Don’t worry, Sen. Obama; words need not be spoken. On behalf of Sen. McCain and all those who opposed your reckless positions – you’re welcome. Enjoy the pretzel.
July 14th, 2008
This past week it was announced that McCain senior advisor Steve Schmidt would be taking over day to day operations of Sen. McCain’s presidential campaign. The change is welcome. As Rick Klein et al wrote on ABC.com’s The Note yesterday, Mr. Schmidt “brings discipline, decisiveness, and determination to his new role — and most importantly, the perception of all three qualities for the journalists and GOP insiders who were almost ready to give up on McCain…No more silly backdrops, whiffed opportunities, and bad travel decisions; instead, a taste of the Bush/Arnold swagger for the final four-month stretch.” Finally, we should begin to see Sen. McCain’s disparate domestic policy proposals condensed within a coherent theme and narrative attractive to the American people.
To that end, Yuval Levin crafted a compelling narrative for Sen. McCain a few weeks ago in The Weekly Standard that I would personally advise his campaign to adopt. Mr. Levin writes that many of this republic’s problems are ultimately attributable to the incapacity of its institutions to adapt and operate within the twenty-first century. In response, “McCain should paint a picture for the public of the moment we are in: confronted on the one hand with a justified crisis of confidence in our institutions and on the other with proposals from the Democrats driven by a set of liberal ideological commitments that would exacerbate the problem by carelessly expanding government.”
More specifically, Democrats see the failure of American institutions and propose more gasoline for the fire–expanding our failing institutions instead of reforming and fixing them. Sen. McCain ought to call them on it and counter that “what we need is not more government but a government better suited to the times and to the concerns of the American family,” i.e. health care, education, the child tax credit, etc. (Emphasis added)
He can name this agenda “Reforming America’s Institutions to help America’s families.”
July 4th, 2008
With gas prices rising there is a growing frustration with Congress because of their lack of action. What would help reduce energy prices? Production - basic supply and demand dictates that if supply increases then prices drop. There is debate about where drilling is appropriate, but cutting off all sources of new drilling makes the U.S. more dependent on foreign oil. The Democratic Congress has essentially blocked new drilling or delivery on new sources of oil. Even if Anwar and the Everglades are taken off the table due to environmental concerns, blocking all new drilling clearly restricts supply and increases prices.
Energy production could also be assisted with the use of alternate energy sources. Ethanol has promise, and Brazil has a large supply available for export at reasonable prices. However, ethanol subsidies take this form of alternative energy off the table. The rules stating that ethanol must be corn based limits ethanol’s potential. From grasses to sugar, ethanol can be developed from numerous natural sources. It has even been argued that deforestation could be reduced if tree based ethanol was a viable product. However, ethanol subsidies create a myopic focus on corn, ignoring the potential for alternatives, and manipulating the market in a way that ensures ethanol’s failure. Secondly, the high tax on Brazil’s ethanol prevents a less expensive energy source from entering this country cutting off another valuable energy supply.
Finally, nuclear has potential as a clean fuel source. Several environmental groups are starting to view nuclear as the energy of the future. While some have safety concerns, it is clean and nuclear plants have made advancements over the years and can be run safely.
So why the frustration with Congress? Because they are ignoring these sources of energy. The Democrats are against drilling and against nuclear energy, and they support corn based ethanol subsidies and the ethanol import taxes. The trouble in the economy has been caused mainly by high energy costs, and the Democrats are more interested in a windfall profits tax, which has not been proven effective, and ignore the need for supply. The increased enery costs hurt the middle and working class the most, as it acts essentially as a tax increase. The Democrats say these are the people they are most interested in looking out for, but that is not reflected in their energy policy.
*Clarification - Ethanol subsidies do not disallow use of other forms of ethanol. It’s an import tarriff that makes Brazilian ethanol economically unfeasible.
Energy: Supply and Demand Ignored
Tags: alternative energy, drilling, drilling for oil, energy, energy policy, middle class, supply demand
June 16th, 2008
In what will surely be our perpetual effort to prognosticate the outcome of the present presidential campaign, the commentariat will and already has looked into our republic’s history to discern which one of those elections of yesteryear most resembles this one. In one blog post alone two separate elections were mentioned—1968 and 1980.1 If you ask me—and even if you do not—2008 is or looks to be 1976 redux. Witness the parallels:
—The last time the Republican Party was as unpopular as it is now was in the course and aftermath of Watergate and President Ford’s (correct but unpopular) pardon of President Nixon. What year was the first presidential election following this period of darkness? 1976
—The Republican Candidate that year—President Ford—was a relative moderate who had made a career in the halls of Congress and had earned a reputation for his principle and personal integrity. The same could describe Sen. McCain.
—That year a little known governor from Georgia came from nowhere to capture the Democratic nomination on the strength of his personal charm and his evangelicalism for a new type of politics. Remind you of anyone?
—Examine the politics and worldview of President Carter and Sen. Obama and you will see that they are disconcertingly liberal and hopeless.
—By the time of the Republican convention that summer that southern governor—Jimmy Carter—had stretched his lead over President Ford in the polls to a whopping thirty points. It won’t be thirty points this time, but after finally securing the Democratic nomination in ‘08 Sen. Obama will, and already has, garnered a lead of five to ten points—at minimum—over Sen. McCain.
Then-Gov. Carter’s thirty point August lead was made of vapor however, for as the campaign progressed into the fall and Americans increasingly came to scrutinize their two choices his lead in the polls gradually dissipated, leaving him with a scant two point victory on election day.
There is reason to believe the same might be the case with Sen. Obama, if for no other reason than the fact that we have seen this same phenomenon with him already. There were two or three points in the late primary campaign where Sen. Obama was on the cusp of knocking Sen. Clinton out only to be thwarted by increased scrutiny which penetrated beneath the veneer (and the foundation for his success) of his pleasing rhetoric. By the end he was essentially panting as he crossed the finished line.
What’s more, as Peter Wehner writes, “Barack Obama will be the focal point of this election. If Americans find him to be an acceptable choice for president, he will probably win, given all the factors that are working in his favor. But if the doubts that have persisted about him begin to grow and metastasize – if large numbers of Americans come to believe that the Obama appeal is, at its core, a mirage – then McCain has a real chance to prevail. And if he does, the Democratic party and liberalism will have a nervous breakdown unlike any we have seen.”
Sen. Obama has to preserve his facade to win. If American voters look beneath the word and focus on man and deed his decided liberalism, inexperience, dearth of previous accomplishment, and basically repulsive associations will only hinder his candidacy. As one intelligent e-mailer put it to Rich Lowry, “In approach-avoidance choice conflicts, ultimately the negative elements carry increasingly disproportionate weight as the time of decision draws nearer causing a tendency to favor the safer alternative. Given the negatives Obama has accumulated thus far, with more likely to come, I would predict a strong move to McCain in late October.”
Of course if 2008 truly is 1976 reincarnate it will ultimately be to Sen. Obama’s favor. President Carter only won by two points that year, but he ultimately won by two points. The disadvantages of his opponent and his inverse advantages were a wave just large enough to carry him to shore. It is at least even odds that the same will hold true for Sen. Obama thirty-two years later. If this is indeed to be then let us hope and pray the historical parallel ends with the election, for no one wants to go through another Carter administration.
June 13th, 2008
YouTube Clip of Susan Rice’s Statement
Unfortunately, Susan Rice’s statement regarding the Kennedy Khrushchev meeting, “Thank God he did because if he hadn’t we would have not been able to resolve the Cuban Missile Crisis” is completely false. In fact historians agree that this meeting fueled the Cuban Missile Crisis.
The Weekly Standand, in detailing the Kennedy Khrushchev meeting, quotes NYT columnist James Reston who interviewed President Kennedy right after his meeting with Khrushchev,
“Reston reported that Kennedy said just enough for Reston to conclude that Khrushchev “had studied the events of the Bay of Pigs” and that he had “decided that he was dealing with an inexperienced young leader who could be intimidated and blackmailed.” Kennedy said to Reston that Khrushchev had “just beat [the] hell out of me” and that he had presented Kennedy with a terrible problem: “If he thinks I’m inexperienced and have no guts, until we remove those ideas we won’t get anywhere with him. So we have to act.”
Kennedy responded to the meeting with a congressional request for a dramatic increase in defense spending, and a significant increase in the size of the military. Khrushchev responded to Kennedy’s actions with above ground nuclear testing and erecting the Berlin Wall. The tensions between the US and Soviet Union dramatically increased due to the Kennedy Khrushchev meeting; the Cuban Missile Crisis followed.
Susan Rice’s statement is simply false. There is no historical record of the Kennedy Khrushchev meeting being at all helpful in resolving the Cuban Missile Crisis and actually the exact opposite true that an inexperienced leader was bullied into an arms race.
First Published at Purple People Vote
Tags: cuban missile crisis, experience, foreign policy, john lehman, Obama, obama advisor, obama foreign policy, susan rice
June 11th, 2008
Hope all of you loyal readers are having an enjoyable and pleasant weekend thus far.
Yesterday Sen. Clinton officially suspended her campaign for President in a speech before supporters in Washington D.C., thus ending the primary that at times seemed like it never could end. Mark Hemmingway reports that a number of Clinton supporters in attendance were not too pleased at the name of Sen. Obama, only further indicating that one of the major storylines in this presidential campaign will be if, when, and to what degree erstwhile supporters of Sen. Clinton get aboard the Barack Obama Hope-and-Change Express.
For his part, Dick Morris posits some conspiratorial and hard to take seriously theories regarding why Sen. Clinton, though endorsing Sen. Obama, has not released her convention delegates to him.
Professor of American Politics Michael Barone analyzes the dynamics and potential result of the now official McCain-Obama matchup. As always with Mr. Barone it is well-worth your read.
Politico.com’s Mike Allen has the low-down from the McCain campaign.
Finally, if you haven’t done so already, make sure to stop by the recently relaunched John McCain 2008 website and look around. Throw the campaign a buck or two as well if you’d like.
June 8th, 2008
Older Posts
