PoliticalAurora

Is Self-Government Possible In America?

2010-04-28T08:33:00.006-05:00

Pollster Scott Rasmussen recently gave an interview to Kathryn Jean Lopez at NRO regarding the release of his new (very short) book on the American electorate, In Search of Self-Governance (just 88 pages).

In the interview, Mr. Rasmussen describes an influential individual "successful on both Wall Street and in D.C." who spoke after him at a business conference. Mr. Rasmussen described the man as opening his remarks with the following sentiment, indicative of what Mr. Rasmussen calls a "typical political-class attitude":

"The problem with self-governance is that people are so bad at it. They are just too stupid to govern themselves."

In my own view, the sentiment above is not exclusive to either Democrats or Republicans, liberals or conservatives. I know that many liberal Democrats would probably disagree with the above statement, as would many conservative Republicans. Likewise, I suspect that the same cross-ideological diversity holds for those who think that the above statement expresses a profound (if unfortunate) truth about Americans.

The most recent example of this mentality, of course, comes from the left, evidenced by the condescending temper tantrums thrown by some liberal pundits in response to the American public's disapproval of the stimulus package and health care reform bill, among other things.

Earlier this year, frustration over Obama's inability to quickly enact the sweeping social and political change his most ardent followers had envisioned led a number of left-leaning pundits to theorize that perhaps America was simply "ungovernable." Writers like Michael Cohen and Jonathan Chait wrote angry screeds about the "nihilism" and "ignorance" of the Republican Party and the American people, respectively. Slate's Jacob Weisberg put the blame for America's "current predicament" not on the politicians, but rather on "the childishness, ignorance, and growing incoherence of the public at large."

However, conservatives have also had their fair share of the-public-is-too-dumb-to-know-what's-good-for-them moments in past years when the GOP was in power.

So is it simply a case of political opportunism -- each side paying lip service to democratic values but disparaging democracy when it inconveniently clashes with their own ideological views?

Or is the unnamed "political class" VIP above correct? Are Americans too dumb to govern themselves?

Thoughts?

Why Mossad Might Not Have Been Behind Mabhouh's Assassination

2010-02-21T11:16:00.004-05:00

By now, nearly everyone believes that Israel's Mossad was behind the assassination of Muhammad al-Mabhouh, a senior Hamas official, in Dubai last week. Israel's culpability has become near-conventional wisdom in press accounts of the still-unfolding international drama surrounding the murder, and though most journalists have dutifully continued to put the word "alleged" before "Mossad assassination" in their stories, few people have publicly argued that Mabhouh was killed by someone other than Israel.

Even before any details surrounding Mabhouh's death had been released, press accounts already suggested Israel's spy agency as a likely culprit. After all, the operation at the time seemed precise, efficient, and professional -- the hallmarks of previous Mossad hits. Israel also appeared to have motive -- Mabhouh was a senior Hamas official, suspected of organizing smuggled weapons shipments into the Gaza Strip. As details emerged, the suspicion became a near-certainty, with the revelation that several of the assassins on the hit team had forged passports of people who had dual Israeli-European citizenship -- a revelation that has sparked an international diplomatic crisis between Israel and several European countries.

It is true that nearly all of the circumstantial evidence points to Israel. But just for kicks, and because I'm operating under the fairly reasonable assumption that a country should be innocent until proven guilty when it comes to high-profile diplomatic assassinations on foreign soil, I present here a few reasons why Israel might not have been behind Mabhouh's assassination.

Too Sloppy For Mossad

One thing that bothered me as details about this assassination came to light was the fact that it seemed so...well, sloppy. Sure, the forged documents, quick entry and exit, and general efficiency of the operation appear to bear all the hallmarks of a Mossad operation, at least on the surface. But when you get past the stylistic similarities, the actual tactical execution of the operation was decidedly un-Mossad. It is telling that the loudest objections to the charge that Mossad killed Mabhouh have come actually come from former Mossad officials. According to The National, former Mossad official Rami Yigal disputed the allegations on Israeli radio, saying that while the assassins appeared to be "professionals," they were not Mossad, as Mossad would never have approved 'shortcuts' taken by the hit squad, "such as allowing members of the team to be videotaped by security cameras." Former Israeli government minister and Mossad agent Rafi Eitan, who participated in the Mossad's capture of Nazi war criminal Adolf Eichmann, agreed, saying that the sloppiness of the assassins meant that it was more likely that "some foreign service, an enemy of Israel, wanted to taint Israel" by framing it for Mabhouh's killing.

The obvious objection to this defense is to point to Israel's infamous botched attempt to assassinate Hamas leader Khalid Meshaal in Amman, Jordan in 1997, documented in the best-selling book Kill Khalid published last year by journalist Paul McGeough (on my to-read list). In what is widely regarded today as an ill-conceived, amateurish operation, Mossad agents attempted to kill Meshaal by squirting poison in his ear on an Amman street. The attempt went awry, the agents were caught by the Jordanians, and an outraged King Hussein demanded that Israel deliver the antidote to save Meshaal's life in exchange for the return of its assassins. Israel complied.

But to that, I offer a more recent counter-example: the killing of Hezbollah terrorist mastermind Imad Mugniyeh in Damascus car bombing in 2008. This operation too bore all the hallmarks of a Mossad hit -- but the tactical signatures as well. First of all, there was little to no evidence left around to point to the culprit. Unlike the Mabhouh fiasco now playing out very publicly in the press and diplomatic arena, nobody raised a big uproar over Mugniyeh's death. This was probably partly due to the fact that Mugniyeh was a thug -- an undeniably despicable, depraved human being who was directly responsible for (and even physically guilty of) the cold-blooded murder of countless innocent civilians. On the other hand, Mabhouh, however shady and reprehensible his clandestine activities may have been, was not a gun-toting militant. He was a bureaucrat and a financier -- a "diplomat," even in the eyes of some.

But another reason for the relatively muted reaction to Mugniyeh's assassination was the fact that there really wasn't much hard evidence that Israel was involved, regardless of how convinced many observers may have been. It was a clean hit -- the assassins (Mossad or otherwise) were careful to leave no trace of their identity anywhere along the way. By comparison, the Dubai hit was akin to a finger painting. The passports of all the members of the hit squad were identified and released by Dubai authorities within days. The assassins allowed their faces to be captured by numerous security cameras. As Yaron Ezrahi, a politics professor at Hebrew University in Jerusalem, aptly put it: "The fact that so many Israeli citizens were quickly connected to the operation suggests either that the organisers demonstrated great idiocy, or that this was not a Mossad operation."

Too Easily Connected To Israel

Several commentators have marveled at the remarkable speed and efficiency with which Dubai's police services were able to "connect the dots" to unravel the details of the operation. In this Wall Street Journal article, Israeli analyst Ronen Bergman details how numerous miscalculations in the operation have led to a "diplomatic nightmare" for Israel. Bergman highlights several egregious errors in the operation, and goes on to praise the "achievement...of the Dubai police" for their "ability to integrate all the evidence at their disposable into one clear picture...with remarkable speed." Bergman alleges that "whoever sent the hit squad to Dubai was not aware that the police and security services had such advanced capabilities at the ready." Those "advanced capabilities" are described by Bergman as essentially compiling video "surveillance footage into a single timeline with the cell phone records of the individuals in the footage." I find it extremely unlikely, bordering on preposterous, that the planners of the operation were "unprepared" for the effectiveness of Dubai's police forces, especially considering the number of assassins who have been caught in recent years using similar technologies (including by other Gulf law enforcement agencies). I could be wrong, but I find it very implausible that high-ranking Mossad officers would be this egregiously ill-informed about the law enforcement and intelligence capabilities of a Gulf Arab nation.

But let's say, for a moment, that compiling all of the evidence about the assassins within days did require a great deal of hard analytical work. Bergman suggests that Dubai might have gotten some outside help in "putting all the pieces together." But the problem, at least for me, is that those pieces seem to fit together a little too well, and the speed at which they were put together was just a little bit too "remarkable," as Bergman put it. A good intelligence operation -- and especially a targeted killing -- needs to have plausible deniability at the very least. Dubai's police chief told the press last week that he was "99 percent sure" that Mossad was responsible, saying he had surveillance footage, credit card records, and "telephone communications between the suspects" to prove it. Would elite Mossad assassins have been so reckless? Doubtful.

Barely A Success

While early reports painted a picture of a crack hit squad carrying out a flawless, meticulous assassination plan, the reality that has emerged since has altered that depiction significantly. The Dubai authorities and Hamas's own officials have admitted that Mabhouh "made himself an easy target" for assassination. Hamas has admitted that Mabhouh breached security protocol by calling his family from Dubai and openly booking his flight and hotel online. According to GulfNews, even a few basic security precautions by Mabhouh would have easily foiled the assassination:

"Al Mabhouh did not take basic security precautions, and if he had at least one [guard] with him, they [the suspects] would not have been able to kill him. It was clear that he had that feeling that he was anonymous and he was not careful enough, especially that the suspects took the same elevator as him and walked behind him to his room, monitoring his movements easily," he said.

Lt Gen Dahi said it was strange that some Palestinian officials let their leaders move without protection, especially since Al Mabhouh was very important.

Which leads to the even juicier possibility that this was at least partly an inside job. Perhaps related are the reports that are now emerging about two Palestinians being held in custody by Dubai police in connection with the assassination. Not surprisingly, Hamas and Fatah are each blaming the other for being involved in the murder. Hamas alleges that the two Palestinians in Dubai custody are Fatah agents sent to help facilitate Mabhouh's murder in collaboration with the Israelis. Fatah security officials have in turn accused a senior Hamas commander of being involved in Mabhouh's death, perhaps as part of an internal rivalry within the organization (the Hamas commander has denied the allegation).

Cost-Benefit Calculation Doesn't Make Sense

While conceding that Mabhouh was a major fundraiser for Hamas in his WSJ piece quoted above, Bergman wonders about the big-picture strategic questions surrounding this operation: "[D]id Mabhouh constitute an immediate threat? Was eliminating him worth violating international law and risking the ire of so many states at a time when the international community seems to have finally gotten serious on Iran?" Regardless of what you think about the international community's "seriousness" in dealing with Iran, Bergman's point is a good one: given how easily this operation was connected to Israel, was Mabhouh's threat to Israel so grave as to warrant this kind of operation? I think the answer is such an obvious "no" that I find it impossible to believe that any Israeli leader -- even one as hawkish as Benjamin Netenyahu -- would authorize such a risky mission. The cost-benefit analysis of taking Mabhouh out just doesn't make sense. Yes, I'm sure that Israel's leaders would have liked to see Mabhouh taken out -- but there's a big difference between wishing someone was dead and actually authorizing and planning a covert mission to assassinate him in a foreign country.

There are probably hundreds of people who threaten Israel's security in one way or another -- people whose death would probably cause Israel's leaders to sleep a little easier at night. Yet high-profile assassinations are rare, because of the gigantic risk that accompanies even the slightest mistake. There is no room for error. The prize has to be worth the risk.

Critics of this argument would again point to the botched Meshaal assassination attempt in Jordan as proof that Israel's leaders have made serious judgment errors in the past when it comes to targeted killings. I'd disagree. While the Meshaal operation was poorly-concieved and woefully executed, the strategic decision to kill him (while seeming foolish in hindsight) was certainly an understandable calculation at the time. In the late 1990s, killing the charismatic political leader of Hamas (then perceived as a unvarnished terrorist organization without the veneer of political respectability it has since achieved) could have dealt a serious blow to the organization.

Imad Mugniyeh was a terrorist mastermind, a blood-soaked murderer. Khalid Meshaal was the head of Hamas. While Mabhouh was a top Hamas fundraiser and reportedly involved in weapons smuggling, he just doesn't strike me as rising the level of threat that would justify a large-scale operation like this. We are supposed to believe, apparently, that Israel risked seriously jeopardizing its diplomatic relationship with four major European nations (Britain, Ireland, Germany, and France) for this guy? I don't think so.

Conclusion

Taking all of the above into account, I can see only two possible explanations. The first is that Israel's political and security leadership made horrible mistakes, both in the decision to assassinate Mabhouh and the way it was carried out.

The other is that someone else did it, and have managed to do a pretty successful job of framing Israel for it.

The Afghan Surge -- Too little, too late?

2010-01-18T20:10:00.007-05:00

The Pentagon announced Thursday that approval has been given for a plan to speed up the training of Afghan Security Forces (ASF), which will lead to a "substantial increase" in the number of Afghan forces by next year, when U.S. forces are set to begin withdrawing from Afghanistan under the new strategy outlined by President Obama.

Lt. Gen. William B. Caldwell IV, the American officer who leads NATO’s training mission in Afghanistan, told the New York Times that the new training goals would increase the size of the Afghan National Army (ANA) from its current 102,400 personnel to 171,600 by October 2011. This is in addition to a previously-planned increase to 134,000 by October 31, 2010. In addition, Afghan police forces, which now number 96,800, will be increased to 109,000 this year, and U.S. officials hope to further increase that to 134,000 by the end of 2011.

This all sounds very promising, and it is indeed long past time for the ISAF to make the rapid training of Afghan security forces a top priority. But in this case, I'm afraid it might be too little, too late.

If we take the counterinsurgency strategy outlined by General Stanley McChrystal -- or even the "compromise" strategy announced by President Obama in December -- as a guide, it quickly becomes clear that these proposed increases will not be enough to satisfy even the minimum force-to-population ratios required for successful counterinsurgency (COIN) operations.

McChrystal warned in his report to Obama that the key weakness of the ISAF is that it is not aggressively defending the Afghan population. "Pre-occupied with protection of our own forces, we have operated in a manner that distances us -- physically and psychologically -- from the people we seek to protect. . . . The insurgents cannot defeat us militarily; but we can defeat ourselves," he wrote. Obama acknowledged this in his speech, going on to acknowledge that one of his three main objectives was to "strengthen the capacity of Afghanistan's Security Forces and government, so that they can take lead responsibility for Afghanistan's future." He explained:

"The 30,000 additional troops that I am announcing tonight will deploy in the first part of 2010 - the fastest pace possible - so that they can target the insurgency and secure key population centers. They will increase our ability to train competent Afghan Security Forces, and to partner with them so that more Afghans can get into the fight. And they will help create the conditions for the United States to transfer responsibility to the Afghans."

...

"Taken together, these additional American and international troops will allow us to accelerate handing over responsibility to Afghan forces, and allow us to begin the transfer of our forces out of Afghanistan in July of 2011. Just as we have done in Iraq, we will execute this transition responsibly, taking into account conditions on the ground. We will continue to advise and assist Afghanistan's Security Forces to ensure that they can succeed over the long haul. But it will be clear to the Afghan government - and, more importantly, to the Afghan people - that they will ultimately be responsible for their own country."

Unfortunately, the above strategy is unachievable -- at least according to the timetable that Obama has laid down. The recent announcements by the Pentagon on ASF training targets reveal that it will be impossible for the U.S. to "accelerate handing over responsibility to Afghan forces" and begin withdrawing U.S. troops from Afghanistan by July 2011.

Let's take, for example, Obama's reference above to Iraq as an example of a "responsible" transfer of power to local security forces. This analogy is misleading, for several reasons:

McChrystal's (and Obama's) strategy reflects standard COIN doctrine -- that the protection and winning over of the local population is the key center of gravity when fighting an insurgency. Standard COIN doctrine states that in nearly every case, a successful counterinsurgency will require a ratio of counterinsurgents to population somewhere around 20:1,000 (20 counterinsurgents for every 1,000 population). As Gens. McChrystal and Petreaus have pointed out, that ratio is flexible depending on the situation. But anything significantly less than that ratio risks failure, as there will be inadequate forces to protect the population and deny the insurgents sanctuary.
Iraq and Afghanistan have similar population sizes (around 30 million each, though exact numbers are sketchy in both cases). Afghanistan, however, is nearly 50% larger than Iraq -- and has far more inhospitable terrain, which is easier for insurgents to exploit and harder for the counterinsurgents to control. While controlling territory is not as important as winning the population, it is still a vital, if secondary, part of successful counterinsurgency.
Taking the number of US + ISAF + ASF together, we can surmise the total number of counterinsurgents in Afghanistan. In Iraq, we can take the US + Iraqi Security Forces to get the same number for Iraq. When played out, the numbers look like this:

In Iraq, there were 460,000 counterinsurgents in January 2007, when President Bush announced the surge. The Iraqi Security Forces (ISF) already numbered 325,000, in addition to the 135,000 U.S./coalition forces already in Iraq. By the time all five additional U.S. brigades had been deployed to Iraq in July 2007, the number of counterinsurgents had grown to 518,000 (including the training of additional ISF). That's a coutnerinsurgent-to-population ration of about 18:1,000. By By January 2008, just a year later, the number of trained Iraqi Security Forces had grown by 110,000, producing a COIN-population ratio of about 21:1,000, above the minimum. Today, the Iraqi Security Forces are 550,000 strong, and the U.S. is in the process of withdrawing most of its troops, which currently number 112,000. (Technically producing a ratio of 22:1,000, though U.S. troops are now generally playing a supporting role only).

By contrast, in December 2009, there were approximately 285,200 counterinsurgents in Afghanistan. Adding the U.S. surge and allied troop pledges will bring that number to around 318,000 by mid- to late-2010. If we also include the training of Afghan Army and Police, the total number of counterinsurgents would be about 361,500 by the end of 2010. That's a ratio of about 12:1,000. By the end of 2011, when U.S. are supposed to start withdrawing from the country, the total number of counterinsurgents would swell to a maximum of 424,100. That's a ratio of 14:1,000 -- and that's when U.S. troops will start leaving, so that ratio will start moving in the opposite direction (at least temporarily).

The U.S. military hopes to have 400,000 total Afghan Security Forces trained by 2013 -- but that target (three years away) would still be far less than the total number of Iraqi Security Forces that had already been trained by the end of 2008. The counterinsurgent-to-population ratio -- in 2013, much less 2011 -- would not even approach that already achieved in Iraq by July 2007. And under Obama's surge-then-quickly-draw-down strategy, U.S. (and ISAF) troops will presumably continue to withdraw during 2011-2013, leaving a considerable gap between the number of counterinsurgents needed and the number we will actually have available in Afghanistan.

(click to enlarge)

Will it be enough? Gen. McChrystal and Petreaus's public support for the President's plan suggest that they're betting that it will. After all, General Petreaus has often remarked that the 20:1,000 COIN ratio is not set in stone -- just a strong recommendation gleaned from the lessons learned by counterinsurgencies throughout history, subject to adaptation when necessary. But the numbers -- and the parallels to Iraq, highlighted by Obama himself --aren't encouraging.

My Top 11 Albums of 2009

2009-12-28T14:06:00.006-05:00

Yes, folks, it's that time of year again -- my annual review of the top 11 new albums I've enjoyed most during the past year.

In past years, I've always faced a nagging problem: I'll happen to discover amazing albums that were released during the previous year, but which escaped my notice at the time, which always leaves me wishing I could re-do my top 11 albums with the great finds that I inadvertently omitted.

In an attempt to remedy that error, this year I was as diligent as possible about keeping track of when new albums were going to be released and obtaining them as soon as possible. The upside was that I don't think I missed very many albums this time. The downside is that I have to make really tough choices in order to narrow down a list of about 30 albums. Needless to say, competition this year will be the fiercest yet.

Also, I'm introducing a new feature this year...a list of the top 11 songs of 2009 (to highlight some great songs that may have appeared independently or on albums that weren't quite stellar enough to make the cut). Check it out at the bottom.

So, without further ado...

[(Annual) Disclaimer:These selections are not supposed to be "the" top albums of the year, hence the "my" in the title. In no way am I suggesting these albums are better than all other albums that were released this year. These are simply the ones that I liked best.]

1. Aim & Ignite
fun.

I'm not sure if Nate Ruess picked this band name out of a desire for a cheeky indie-sounding moniker, a lack of imagination, or pure laziness, but it also just might be the most appropriate label these guys could have chosen for themselves. Formed in 2008 by Ruess, former frontman of The Format, fun. is a huge upgrade for Ruess, in my opinion. (And yeah, I liked The Format.) The unique arrangements are experimental, free-spirited, and...yes...fun, replete with lush horn and string sections, bright piano riffs, and tastefully accompanying gospel choirs. Lyrically, too, Aim & Ignite impresses throughout, from the opening track "Be Calm," but perhaps best exemplified by the closing track, "Take Your Time (Coming Home)." And no, the fact that this album happened to be released on my birthday did not bias my decision. Much.

2. Daisy
Brand New

The line between insanity and brilliance has always been a razor-thin one, and Brand New fortunately comes down on the latter side of this edge with Daisy. For example, it's hard to describe the bizarre opener, "Vices," which begins the album with over a minute of a scratchy old gospel recording (the second half of which closes the album) before suddenly exploding into a frenzied cacophony of sound behind Jesse Lacey's barely intelligible screaming vocals. Thankfully, the rest of the album is far less erratic, though this album, like Brand New's previous effort, The Devil And God Are Raging Inside Me, takes a few listens before you can really get your mind around it. That said, Daisy is a dark, brooding, blistering masterpiece. Following Brand New's daring musical evolution from album to album has been a breathtaking ride, and Lacey's lyricism in Daisy is the most stunning yet, if also the most grim. An album that is best listened to while sitting in a dark room, or driving home alone at night through the backwoods of the northern Midwest.

3. The Long Fall Back To Earth
Jars of Clay

Jars shows why they continue to be one of my favorite bands of all time with their latest release, these guys prove that 16 years and 10 albums later, they've still got it. Jars has the distinction, in my mind, of being the band that consistently proves that Christian artists can make good music too. Unlike most of the other "original" contemporary Christian artists, Jars has never settled for making the same record twice, re-inventing themselves musically with each album, and succeeding on each step of their rock-pop-folk-bluegrass-electronica evolution. Dan Haseltine's songwriting has never been better ("Closer" taking the #1 spot for songs this year, see below), and the band's maturity shows -- it's pretty hard to put together 12 songs on a single album that are all genuinely awesome, but Jars pulled it off.

4. Ocean Eyes
Owl City

This album just makes me happy. In fact, I think you'd have to have a heart of cold, impenetrable stone to not enjoy this album at least a little bit. Ocean Eyes is the sophomore album that The Postal Service never made, right down to Adam Young's voice, which is eerily similar to Ben Gibbard's. While Young's lyrical abilities aren't quite at the depth of Gibbard's yet, the two do share a knack for penning clever, witty lines. The unbelievably catchy synth and keyboard riffs Young manages to put together for nearly every track aren't too bad either. And you have to admit, for a solo project reportedly begun two years ago in his parents' basement as a result of insomnia -- and with a debut album now certified Gold -- it's pretty impressive.

5. (m)orning / (a)fternoon / (e)vening EPs
Mae

While this isn't technically an "album," per se, Mae's 2009 project deserves some recognition. After losing their keyboardist and bassist in late 2007 after the release of Singularity, Mae was dropped by their record label, and most people probably assumed they'd finish out their tour and then fade into obscurity. But Mae's three remaining members weren't done yet. And so, in 2009, frontman Dave Elkins, along with guitarist Zach Gehring, and drummer Jacob Marshall embarked on an ambitious project -- "12 songs. 12 months. Make a difference." Each month, the band would release a new single on their website, which would be available for a minimum donation of $1. All proceeds would go to various charitable causes sponsored by the band. The proceeds from the songs on the first EP, (m)orning, resulted in the successful completion of a Habitat for Humanity house for a needy family in the band's hometown of Virginia Beach, VA. Freed from the restrictions of making an album, Mae has written the songs they've felt like writing, including several longer than 7 minutes, one with a two-minute guitar solo ("The Fight Song") and even a 14-minute piano instrumental ("Seasons"). While the theft of all the band's equipment and instruments from their trailer in October has delayed the release of the final two songs of the (e)vening EP, Mae's perseverance, selflessness, and dedication to their music -- and their community -- has inspired thousands of fans.

6. Mean Everything To Nothing
Manchester Orchestra

While their 2006 debut album, I'm Like A Virgin Losing A Child, was pretty impressive, Manchester Orchestra has put themselves in another league with Mean Everything To Nothing. While a bit darker and heavier than their previous release, the album hits all the right notes, from the energetic opener "The Only One," to the edgy "Shake It Out," the heavy riffs of "Pride," and the big power chords of "My Friend Marcus." The real highlights, however, are the catchy, rockin' single "I've Got Friends," and the beautiful, driving ballad "I Can Feel A Hot One" (#7 song, see below).

7. 11:11
Rodrigo y Gabriela

Rodrigo y Gabriela are proof that they still do make good music these days. The Mexican acoustic guitar duo of Rodrigo Sanchez and Gabriela Quintero have their jaw-dropping talent on display in full force in their latest release. To really grasp what you're listening to, I recommend checking out a few videos of the two playing live (like this or this), if only to watch in amazement at how fast their hands and fingers are moving. Also, they both used to play in a thrash metal band together, a fact I find both incredible and amusing.

8. New Again
Taking Back Sunday

A lot of TBS fans were unhappy with New Again, but for the life of me I can't figure out why. No, TBS will never make Tell All Your Friends again. Get over it. But I think this is a far better album than every other TBS album besides the debut, including Louder Now. Filled with memorable choruses and crunching guitar riffs, New Again showcases TBS's harder side, particularly on tracks like "Catholic Knees," "Cut Me Up Jenny," and "Carpathia." But it's not only on the high energy cuts like the title track opener or the single "Sink Into Me" -- the band shines on the album's lone ballad, "Where My Mouth Is." The highlight though, is undoubtedly the epic closing track, and one of my now all-time favorite TBS songs, "Everything Must Go." (#9 song below)

9. Everyone You Love Will Be Happy Soon
Quiet Company

With many thanks to a friend for the recommendation, I must say that the discovery of Austin, Texas-based Quiet Company was one of the best finds of the year. Everyone You Love is pure, beautiful, piano-driven indie rock at its best, and with 15 tracks, you're getting your money's worth with this one. The piano of the opening track "A Nation of Two" grabs your attention, secures it with the danceable "It's Better To Spend Money," and pretty effectively keeps it for the remainder of the album, which never gets boring despite the number of tracks. The slow building rock-out at the end of "Well, The Truth Is" is worth checking out, as are the outstanding "On Husbands & Wives" and "On Modern Men."

10. Cycles
Cartel

Amid a plethora of extremely disappointing releases in the pop punk field this year, Cartel's Cycles proves that the genre isn't quite dead yet. While there's nothing especially groundbreaking here lyrically, Cartel still manages to write enough interesting, catchy hooks and sing-able choruses to make this album very much worth listening to. The guitars are big (see "Deep South"), and there are power chords a-plenty, but the band puts together some impressive instrumentation behind Will Pugh's ever-impressive vocals. True, there's some filler sandwiched in the middle between the very good opening and closing few tracks, but this album will definitely get stuck in your head.

11. Say Anything
Say Anything

Let's just forget about that last album, okay guys? Say Anything returns to the catchy hooks of ...Is A Real Boy and finds success with this self-titled effort. Maybe it's because I wasn't expecting anything much from this album, but I was genuinely and pleasantly surprised by how good this album was both lyrically and musically. From the big guitar riffs of the single "Hate Everyone" to the oddly catchy pizzicato string instrumentation of "Do Better," Say Anything fills the album with the savvy, witty lyrics of Max Bemis -- and signals that they're back on the right track.

Honorable Mention:

The Resistance - Muse
Brand New Eyes - Paramore
Swoon - Silversun Pickups
Forget And Not Slow Down - Relient K
Stir The Blood - The Bravery
QU - Sherwood

Top 11 Songs of 2009 (with the help of my last.fm profile)

1. "Closer" - Jars Of Clay
2. "On The Wing" - Owl City
3. "Walking The Dog" - fun.
4. "Destroyer" - Project 86
5. "A Melody, The Memory" - Mae
6. "Sink" - Brand New
7. "I Can Feel A Hot One" - Manchester Orchestra
8. "Finish What You Started" - Every Avenue
9. "Everything Must Go" - Taking Back Sunday
10. "The Few That Remain" (feat. Hayley Williams) - Set Your Goals
11. "Alpha Dog" - Fall Out Boy

282 consecutive words by Barack Obama that I completely agree with

2009-12-10T10:19:00.003-05:00

I wasn't expecting much from President Obama's acceptance speech at the Nobel Center in Oslo today. In fact, I wasn't even sure I wanted to watch it, assuming it would be filled with the same apologizing and self-aggrandizing pomposity that I've become accustomed to. But I braced myself and turned it on. And I must say, a lot of what Obama said pleasantly surprised me.

Sure, there were still the usual obligatory lines about how America must not "insist that others follow the rules of the road if we refuse to follow them ourselves," and the guffaw-worthy self-congratulations for "closing Guantanamo" and "prohibiting torture." However -- and for the first time on the world stage, I believe -- Barack Obama actually took the opportunity to stand up and defend America, rather than apologize for it.

He spoke about the need to acknowledge that sometimes force is necessary to achieve and maintain peace. That it was "the blood of American citizens" and America's military might -- not just international institutions and dialogue -- that has preserved global security for the past six decades. He even unequivocally stated that "evil does exist in the world."

Coming from Obama, the words were as shocking as they were heartening.

Here's the passage I'm referring to, in full:

...I face the world as it is, and cannot stand idle in the face of threats to the American people. For make no mistake: evil does exist in the world. A non-violent movement could not have halted Hitler's armies. Negotiations cannot convince al Qaeda's leaders to lay down their arms. To say that force is sometimes necessary is not a call to cynicism - it is a recognition of history; the imperfections of man and the limits of reason.

I raise this point because in many countries there is a deep ambivalence about military action today, no matter the cause. At times, this is joined by a reflexive suspicion of America, the world's sole military superpower.

Yet the world must remember that it was not simply international institutions - not just treaties and declarations - that brought stability to a post-World War II world. Whatever mistakes we have made, the plain fact is this: the United States of America has helped underwrite global security for more than six decades with the blood of our citizens and the strength of our arms. The service and sacrifice of our men and women in uniform has promoted peace and prosperity from Germany to Korea, and enabled democracy to take hold in places like the Balkans. We have borne this burden not because we seek to impose our will. We have done so out of enlightened self-interest - because we seek a better future for our children and grandchildren, and we believe that their lives will be better if other peoples' children and grandchildren can live in freedom and prosperity.

So yes, the instruments of war do have a role to play in preserving the peace.

Those are 282 consecutive words by Obama that I can completely agree with. More like that, please, Mr. President.

That's not to say I loved everything in the speech. It took Obama 2,913 words to get around to mentioning the protesters in Iran (on International Human Rights day, no less) -- and even then, he limited his comments to a single sentence, followed by a disappointingly weak, equivocating platitude about "hope and history" being "on their side" (apparently he just can't bring himself to say that we are).

His defense of persistent engagement with brutal, authoritarian regimes was also less than convincing:

Let me also say this: the promotion of human rights cannot be about exhortation alone. At times, it must be coupled with painstaking diplomacy. I know that engagement with repressive regimes lacks the satisfying purity of indignation. But I also know that sanctions without outreach - and condemnation without discussion - can carry forward a crippling status quo. No repressive regime can move down a new path unless it has the choice of an open door.

That sentiment is all well and good...but what happens if those repressive regimes slam the door in your face? Repeatedly? Where and when do you draw the line? The lack of any acknowledgment of the limits of engagement (which are already becoming apparent) was disappointing, considering Obama's remarkable frankness elsewhere in the speech.

But, to end on a positive note, I'll conclude with what was undoubtedly the best line in Obama's entire speech:

I understand why war is not popular. But I also know this: the belief that peace is desirable is rarely enough to achieve it.

Truth. Starry-eyed liberals, take note.

UPDATE: I should also mention that I appreciated Obama's show of humility at the opening of his remarks as well:

Compared to some of the giants of history who have received this prize - Schweitzer and King; Marshall and Mandela - my accomplishments are slight. And then there are the men and women around the world who have been jailed and beaten in the pursuit of justice; those who toil in humanitarian organizations to relieve suffering; the unrecognized millions whose quiet acts of courage and compassion inspire even the most hardened of cynics. I cannot argue with those who find these men and women - some known, some obscure to all but those they help - to be far more deserving of this honor than I.

Indeed.

2009 Election Recap

2009-11-04T04:54:00.013-05:00

What a difference a year makes.

Lots of commentators will no doubt spend days scrutinizing the tea leaves, pontificating on the implications (or total irrelevance) of several races.

I won't get into any pointless discussions over whether or not this election was or was not a referendum on Obama, or what, if any, importance these races have for predicting 2010's midterm contests.

But there are a few things I'd like to point out:

Republican comeback in Virginia
- Republican Bob McDonnell defeated the hapless Creigh Deeds by 18 points in the biggest electoral victory for the Virginia GOP in a decade. McDonnell won Virginia with the highest percentage of the vote for a governor since 1961 -- and for any GOP gubernatorial candidate, ever.
- Republicans swept all of Virginia's statewide races.
- The GOP unseated 8 Democratic incumbents in the Virginia General Assembly.

Exit polling: Independents back GOP
- In both the Virginia and New Jersey governor's races, independent voters -- whose support enabled Barack Obama's victory in 2008 -- have switched sides, backing the Republican candidates by an astounding 2:1 margin. (65% of independents backed McDonnell, 34% voted for Deeds; 60% of independents voted for Christie, just 30% for Corzine).
- This is due to many factors -- mostly concern over the economy -- but one thing is certain: Negative. Campaigning. Doesn't. Work. It didn't work for Deeds, who ran one of the most negative campaigns in recent memory in a desperate and pathetic attempt to paint McDonnell as a far-right sexist bigot. And it didn't work for Corzine, who actually ran ads claiming that Christie was pro-cancer. Yes, really.

Jersey blues for the Dems
While most Democrats had probably resigned themselves to the fact that Creigh Deeds was a lost cause in Virginia, Corzine's loss in New Jersey must have been tough to take, whatever the spin today. Even Obama himself was campaigning on Corzine's behalf as late as Sunday.

I must admit that even I didn't think Chris Christie could pull off a win in New Jersey. Polling in the run-up to election day showed the two essentially tied, and Corzine with the momentum. Considering New Jersey's history of fraud and corruption by the Democratic Party, I figured it'd be an unlikely mountain for Christie to overcome. But he did, beating Corzine 49%-45%. Despite the hype, in the end, Daggett (the Independent candidate) didn't siphon off enough anti-Corzine votes to deny Christie his victory.

I don't know if Chistie, or anyone, can salvage the train wreck that New Jersey has become, but here's hoping.

NY-23
The crazy, dramatic, twist-filled race for the vacant House seat in New York's 23rd Congressional district ended with a narrow, hard-fought victory for Democrat Bill Owens -- the one bright spot for Democrats last night. Doug Hoffman, the upstart Conservative Party candidate, took 45% of the vote to Owens' 49%.

However, the nominally Republican candidate Dede Scozzafava -- who dropped out of the race this weekend and endorsed Owens (yes, the Democrat) after collapsing in the polls, still received 5.5% of the vote, probably mostly from loyal, elderly Republican voters who don't pay much attention to the news. Needless to say, those votes could have put Hoffman over the top.

The media and Democrats have been crowing that NY-23 is the start of a disastrous "GOP civil war" and a harbinger of doom for the Republican party, which will tear itself apart over "purity tests" regarding the conservative credentials of GOP candidates. I find these hysterical predictions pretty absurd, considering the extremely unique and special circumstances surrounding this particular race, and not worth discussing here.

Eyebrow-raisers
In Virginia, McDonnell's 18-point landslide margin of victory was not a surprise. But there were a few:

- McDonnell won Virginia voters under the age of 30 by a 10-point margin. In fact, he won every age group.
- McDonnell won Fairfax County (51-49%). Obama won the county by 21 points last year. Even after the Washington Post ran about a hundred stories on the sinister implications of McDonnell's college thesis, and Deeds blanketed NoVa with negative ads and flyers for months in an attempt to convince suburban voters that McDonnell was a scary, sexist, homophobic religious nut. Actually, McDonnell swept all of NoVa, except Arlington and Alexandria City -- counties that all went heavily for Obama and made Virginia go blue in 2008.
- And on that note...McDonnell also won the female vote (54-46%). McDonnell even won among self-described "full-time working women." Maybe due to the fact that 65% of Virginia voters said McDonnell's college thesis did not influence their vote.

I think it's pretty indisputable that Deeds's all-thesis-all-the-time negative attack strategy was a complete and utter failure.

Not only did Chris Christie receive a higher percentage of the vote than the previous two (rare) Republican NJ governors, but he won in New Jersey counties (Middlesex and Gloucester) that had voted for Obama by 10+ point margins last year.

The closest race of the night (as far as I can tell): Ron Villanueva (R) defeated Bobby Mathieson (D) for the Virginia Beach City house seat by just 16 votes out of more than 15,000 cast (49.94% to 49.84%). A good reminder that every vote matters.

John McCain sums up the Afghan strategy debate in less than 90 words

2009-10-26T05:25:00.007-05:00

On CBS's Face the Nation yesterday, host Bob Schieffer asked John McCain what he thought about a potential "hybrid option" of the two opposing Afghanistan strategies currently being considered.

In less than 90 words, McCain pretty accurately and concisely summed up the problem with such an approach:

"It may be a matter of semantics, I don't know. But there has been this ongoing public debate between the so-called Biden counterterrorism strategy and the McChrystal counterinsurgency strategy. I don't know how you make them hybrid. There are elements of counterterrorism in counterinsurgency, but fundamentally [a successful] counterinsurgency will require the implementation of the strategy that General McChrystal has recommended. The counterterrorism strategy -- killing [insurgents] and then returning to base -- has proven to be a very disastrous strategy in Iraq and in other places."

McCain makes a important point here. Obama is known to favor "Third Way" compromises which blend two diametrically opposed political positions or policy recommendations. That's a fine instinct for a politician -- but it's simply not workable when it comes to counterinsurgency.

In counterinsurgency, it really is all or nothing. A buffet-style selection of half-measures will not only be unsuccessful -- it'll actually be counterproductive. Adopting just 50 or 75% of the strategic adjustments necessary for a successful counterinsurgency, but leaving out the difficult parts -- like, for instance, the temporary but substantial increase in U.S. troops that will be necessary for such a policy to succeed -- will end in failure.

That failure would not only leave our allies disillusioned -- and whatever remaining commitment they still have to the mission in Afghanistan would certainly evaporate under the weight of even more massive public opposition -- but more importantly, the Afghan people would become even more jaded and frustrated with the coalition and with their own government...and more sympathetic to the Taliban.

When it comes to Afghanistan, it's time we either go all in, or fold. There's no point in wasting more American (or British, or Polish, or German) lives and resources on an effort that can't be successful -- and if we're not going to give our efforts the full commitment and resources they need, it won't be.

It has been rumored that General McChrystal may well resign if Obama declines to accept his strategy. As Gen. Jack Keane, former head of the Joint Chiefs, explained on "This Week" with George Stephanopoulos recently:

KEANE: I can't speak to what General McChrystal's reaction would be to a presidential decision that opposed him. I can say this: if you're a general on the ground and you believe the recommendation you've made is the winning recommendation in terms of strategy, that will accomplish the goals that you've been assigned, and then you're told you cannot execute that, and ask the troops to go out and do something else, that you don't believe will accomplish those goals, that gets very difficult in terms of a moral dilemma, asking your troops to do something you believe is going to fail.

STEPHANOPOULOS: So you resign?

KEANE: That would be up to him to face that. That's something personal for every general involved--

STEPHANOPOULOS: Is that would you would do in that situation?

KEANE: Probably. Yes, under those circumstances, yes.

I don't envy Obama. Making hard decisions -- especially in which thousands of lives and the future of nations hang in the balance -- is no easy task. But sometimes it's unavoidable.

What the Iraqi parliament has in common with Kinston, NC

2009-10-20T16:59:00.006-05:00

Paralyzed by partisan bickering, the Iraqi parliament has thus far failed to bring a crucial new election law to a vote. Time is running out -- according to Iraq's constitution, the new rules must be in place 3 months in advance of the parliamentary elections scheduled for January 2010. Which means that the law needs to be passed...now.

At the heart of the heated debate is the question of whether or not Iraq's national elections should function according to a "closed list" or "open list" system. In the former (the status quo in Iraq at the moment), Iraqi voters would simply vote for the party or alliance of their choice, and the parties would dole out seats in the National Assembly to whoever they saw fit, based on their proportion of the vote. An "open list," however, would mean that individual candidate's names -- not just the parties -- would be placed on the ballot. Advocates of this system argue that it will enhance democracy and accountability by giving voters greater choice and say in who exactly represents them.

Not surprisingly, support for each option has broken down more or less along partisan, self-interested lines -- those parties that did well in previous elections under a closed list system are against the reforms, figuring they will do well again under the old system. Alternatively, parties that made gains in the recent provincial elections (conducted under an open list system) are in favor of the open list.

We Americans understandably grow impatient with such transparent partisan bickering during a critical time -- especially with the planned withdrawal of 70,000 U.S. troops on the line. We may even scoff at what seems to us a childish, juvenile spat that jeopardizes the progress that has cost so many American and Iraqi lives. It may even seem obvious to the American eye that an individual-based, open list system would be superior. I know I sympathize with all of the above sentiments.

But perhaps we shouldn't be too quick to jump down the Iraqis' throats. From the Washington Times:

KINSTON, N.C. | Voters in this small city decided overwhelmingly last year to do away with the party affiliation of candidates in local elections, but the Obama administration recently overruled the electorate and decided that equal rights for black voters cannot be achieved without the Democratic Party.
The Justice Department's ruling, which affects races for City Council and mayor, went so far as to say partisan elections are needed so that black voters can elect their "candidates of choice" - identified by the department as those who are Democrats and almost exclusively black.
The department ruled that white voters in Kinston will vote for blacks only if they are Democrats and that therefore the city cannot get rid of party affiliations for local elections because that would violate black voters' right to elect the candidates they want.

Yeesh.

While it's true that the Kinston case isn't an exact equivalent of the Iraqi situation -- lives aren't at stake in Kinston, for one -- it is similar in that it is transparently partisan, juvenile, and embarrassing. It is also a humbling reminder that no democracy is perfect (and in fact, democracy by definition is slow, messy, and frustrating).

Should the Iraqi parliament be criticized for their inaction and exhorted to consider the larger issues at stake? Yes. But before we look down our noses too far at the Iraqis, we should remember that we've still got a few democratic kinks to work out ourselves.

Wavering on Afghanistan: Giving Obama the benefit of the doubt

2009-10-14T03:22:00.003-05:00

The prevailing notion among hawkish commentators these days is that Obama's very public vacillations on whether or not to commit to defeating the insurgency Afghanistan (and even whether Afghanistan is worth America's effort) are signs of a lack of backbone and leadership in the face of a challenging situation. Obama was committed to Afghanistan during the campaign, when he could use it to score easy rhetorical points, but once he got into office and realized it was going to be a hard, uphill slog...well, he lost his nerve. Unfortunately, I find that explanation pretty convincing.

But there is an alternative -- though somewhat fanciful -- explanation. What if Obama's dithering on Afghanistan isn't a sign of weakness, but actually an intentional, methodical attempt to lay the groundwork for pressuring the Karzai government to clean up corruption and improve governance?

It stands to reason that any American "pressure" would be of little use if Karzai thinks he can be sure that America will continue to back him (and the mission in Afghanistan) no matter what he does. It is plausible that the Obama administration is intentionally creating doubt about Obama's commitment to Afghanistan in order to show Karzai that America's commitment to Afghanistan isn't rock-solid. Creating this perception (or at least a bit of doubt in Karzai's mind) would mean that American could threaten Karzai -- and that those threats would actually be credible. As Thomas Friedman put it:

If Karzai says no [to cleaning up his act], then there is only one answer: "You’re on your own, pal. Have a nice life with the Taliban. We can’t and will not put more American blood and treasure behind a government that behaves like a Mafia family. If you don’t think we will leave — watch this." (Cue the helicopters.)

Could Bush have pulled that off? Doubtful. Bush's unwavering public commitment to support the Afghan government meant that he never had that kind of credibility with Karzai. The Afghan president knew that no matter how badly his regime behaved, the US would never seriously consider packing up and going home. No matter how loudly the US might yell at him about corruption, mismanagement, and lack of accountability, he was secure in the knowledge that he could always call their bluff. They'd never actually leave him and his government out in the cold to fight the Taliban alone.

But with Obama...can he be so sure?

I believe that Barack Obama is a smart man. However, if Obama is indeed consciously pursuing such a shrewd strategy, I think perhaps he's been a little too convincing -- combined with other foreign policy decisions he's made, the rest of the world -- including Pakistan -- has clearly begun to doubt the strength of America's commitment to its allies. That doubt can be a very dangerous thing for international security. But allowing for a series of pretty hopeful conditional statements -- if Obama is actually pursuing this strategy, and if it succeeds in giving the US the leverage it needs to credibly pressure Karzai to improve governance -- it may pay off. It's a big risk, and it better work -- because if it doesn't, America's credibility and respect around the world will be dealt a pretty devastating blow. And not just in Pakistan.

Though now that I've written all that out, I'm even more unconvinced that this explanation is plausible. Especially considering the proliferation of stories recently about some of the incredibly foolish and short-sighted "alternative strategies" gaining traction in the White House. But maybe -- just maybe -- this won't turn out to be a disaster.

Sarkozy mocks Obama -- yes, really.

2009-09-26T06:58:00.005-05:00

Apparently French president Nicolas Sarkozy mocked Obama's UN speech -- especially his comments on making the world "free of nuclear weapons" -- as a naive fantasy in his own speech to the UN.

We live in a strange, strange world.

As noted on (where else?) Andrew Breitbart's Big Government, Canada's National Post's front page story contrasted these quotes:

Obama: “We must never stop until we see the day when nuclear arms have been banished from the face of the earth.”

Sarkozy: “We live in the real world, not the virtual world. And the real world expects us to take decisions.”

Ouch. Sarkozy continued:

“President Obama dreams of a world without weapons … but right in front of us two countries are doing the exact opposite.

“Iran since 2005 has flouted five security council resolutions. North Korea has been defying council resolutions since 1993.

“I support the extended hand of the Americans, but what good has proposals for dialogue brought the international community? More uranium enrichment and declarations by the leaders of Iran to wipe a UN member state off the map,” he continued, referring to Israel.

The sharp-tongued French leader even implied that Mr Obama’s resolution 1887 had used up valuable diplomatic energy.

“If we have courage to impose sanctions together it will lend viability to our commitment to reduce our own weapons and to making a world without nuke weapons,” he said.

Mr Sarkozy has previously called the US president’s disarmament crusade “naive.”

The full text of Sarkozy's remarks can be found on the French Embassy's website here. It's pretty brutal.

Yet not only has this story not appeared in any American papers...but the National Post has apparently de-linked their own front page story from their website. Curious.

Luckily you can still browse the PDF version of the print edition here.

The only mention of this story I could find in the American press was buried 8 paragraphs into this Boston Globe story, which briefly noted Sarkozy's "we live in a real world, not a virtual world" line. But even more amazingly, the line was characterized by the Globe as criticism of Iran -- not Obama:

"President Nicolas Sarkozy of France was more pointed in his criticism of Tehran, listing offers made by world powers...

“There comes a time when stubborn facts will compel us to take a decision if we want a world without nuclear weapons,’’ he said. “We live in a real world, not a virtual world,’’ and the world must act if Iran does not respond at a crucial Oct. 1 meeting in Geneva."

There's no mention of any of the context that would make it obvious that Sarkozy's speech was ripping Obama's stance.

Meanwhile, Iran has declared to the IAEA that it has been "covertly" building a second nuclear enrichment facility (apparently several Western intelligence agencies have been aware of the facility's existence) inside a mountain near the city of Qom.

Iran vowed today to make the second facility operational as soon as possible.

But hey...let the games continue.

Hold fast

2009-09-21T16:38:00.008-05:00

Obama's "Full Ginsburg" -- appearing on all five Sunday talk shows on the same day -- was supposed to be a "full court press" to advocate the Democrats' health care reform proposals. Yet in the end, his comments on Afghanistan, not health care, proved the most newsworthy. On multiple occasions, Obama expressed doubt about the U.S. strategy in Afghanistan -- the strategy he himself had unveiled just six months ago -- and made headlines by declaring that he was "skeptical" about any proposals to send additional troops to Afghanistan.

To ABC's George Stephanopoulos:

OBAMA: Now, I think we've lost -- we lost that focus for a while and you started seeing a -- a classic case of mission creep where we're just there and we start taking on a whole bunch of different missions.

I wanted to narrow it. I did order 21,000 additional troops there to make sure that we could secure the election, because I thought that was important. That was before the review was completed. I also said after the election I want to do another review. We've just gotten those 21,000 in. General McChrystal, who's only been there a few months, has done his own assessment.

I am now going to take all this information and we're going to test whatever resources we have against our strategy, which is if by sending young men and women into harm's way, we are defeating al Qaeda and -- and that can be shown to a skeptical audience, namely me -- somebody who is always asking hard questions about deploying troops, then we will do what's required to keep the American people safe.

The comments come in the wake of a precipitous decline in popular support for the war in Afghanistan from a battle-weary American public, as well as growing opposition to the mission in Afghanistan from many Democratic politicians and liberal pundits (for example, David Corn in Mother Jones recently claimed that Obama's arguments re: Afghanistan were "...reminiscent of what the Bush-Cheney gang tried to pull off when they were pushing the case for invading Iraq.")

Yet despite all of these troubling developments, one would think that President Obama understands the stakes. In his much-heralded "strategy speech" on Afghanistan and Pakistan back in March, Obama made it clear he understood the gravity of the situation in Afghanistan, using...well, his favorite rhetorical device:

Let me be clear: al Qaeda and its allies – the terrorists who planned and supported the 9/11 attacks – are in Pakistan and Afghanistan. Multiple intelligence estimates have warned that al Qaeda is actively planning attacks on the U.S. homeland from its safe-haven in Pakistan. And if the Afghan government falls to the Taliban – or allows al Qaeda to go unchallenged – that country will again be a base for terrorists who want to kill as many of our people as they possibly can.

Indeed, his commitment seemed unshakable:

So I want the American people to understand that we have a clear and focused goal: to disrupt, dismantle, and defeat al Qaeda in Pakistan and Afghanistan, and to prevent their return to either country in the future. That is the goal that must be achieved. That is a cause that could not be more just. And to the terrorists who oppose us, my message is the same: we will defeat you.

"No cause could be more just." Yet just six months later, that seemingly firm, unyielding conviction has given way to equivocation and uncertainty. Obama is no longer sure that goal is one that must be achieved. He is no longer sure the cause is just. He is no longer sure America can defeat the terrorists who oppose us.

The recent strategy assessment prepared for Obama by Gen. Stanley McChrystal, the top U.S. commander in Afghanistan, makes it clear that without additional troops and resources, the U.S. will almost certainly lose in Afghanistan. But not only is Obama not convinced that more troops are critical to the success of the ISAF's efforts to fight the Taliban -- he's not sure the war is worth fighting in the first place.

Nothing was more unsettling than the president's open admission on Sunday that even he is not really convinced that the war in Afghanistan is worth fighting. On CNN's "State of the Union":

OBAMA: I don't want to put the resource question before the strategy question. You know, the -- because there is a natural inclination to say, if I get more, then I can do more. But right now, the question is, the first question is, are we doing the right thing? Are we pursuing the right strategy?

It's hard to blame our European allies for being reluctant to send more troops to Afghanistan when even the President of the United States isn't so sure the cause is worthwhile.

As a candidate, Barack Obama's commitment to Afghanistan was similarly unambiguous. Obama on 7/15/08: "I will make the fight against al Qaeda and the Taliban the top priority that it should be. This is a war that we have to win."

As Jim Geraghty aptly tweeted: "Obama did not say, 'this is a war we must win... unless, you know, I look at it once I'm in office and it looks a lot harder then.'"

It has been said that "there's nothing more demoralizing than a leader who can't clearly articulate why we're doing what we're doing." By all accounts, America has the most articulate leader in decades. So why do we feel so demoralized about our mission in Afghanistan?

**UPDATE 9/22/09: And today, the Washington Post editorial board makes essentially the same argument: "Wavering on Afghanistan? President Obama seems to have forgotten his own arguments for a counterinsurgency campaign."

**UPDATE 9/23/09: And the Wall Street Journal too:

The critical question here remains one of U.S. leadership...Mr. Obama has an opportunity to use his political capital to persuade his European allies to see the war in Afghanistan through to victory. But he cannot expect NATO to follow where he is increasingly unwilling to lead.

Freedom and fear are still at war

2009-09-11T03:42:00.006-05:00

"Great harm has been done to us. We have suffered great loss. And in our grief and anger we have found our mission and our moment. Freedom and fear are at war. The advance of human freedom -- the great achievement of our time, and the great hope of every time -- now depends on us. Our nation, this generation will lift a dark threat of violence from our people and our future...We will not tire, we will not falter, and we will not fail."

-- President George W. Bush, Speech to Joint Session of Congress, September 20, 2001

Eight years after President Bush spoke those words, Americans should remember that freedom and fear are still at war.

I found this gem today while doing research at work:

"Is Islamism losing its thunder?"

That's the title of a 7,000-word article penned by Max Rodenbeck in March 1998 for The Washington Quarterly.

In it, Rodenbeck argues that the Islamist threat was being grossly overstated by "alarmists" and that the movement was actually in the middle of a dramatic decline. This paragraph was especially jaw-dropping:

A decade ago, the harnessing of Islam to political goals was widely believed to have released an unstoppable force. Alarmists spoke of an "Islamic threat" that would replace communism as the major challenge to the West. Islamists themselves seized on such warnings to validate their claim. Subsequent events - such as the rise of Hamas and Hizballah, the Islamist uprising in Algeria, or the [1993] bombing of the World Trade Center in New York, to name a few - would turn the idea that Islam was a potent counterforce to the values of the Enlightenment from conjecture into conventional wisdom.

And yet, when stripped of the telegenic drama generated by their stridency, their declarative wielding of symbols, and their occasional resort to violence, the Islamists can be seen to have made little headway towards their chief political aim of taking power. The political regimes they challenge have proved unexpectedly resilient. The demands of the Islamist platform, the most important of which is the application of shari'a or religious law, have inspired surprisingly feeble public responses. Perhaps most tellingly, Islamists have largely failed to move beyond opposition rhetoric. They have failed to articulate practical policies appropriate to a complex world in the grip of wrenching change. And countries such as Sudan and Iran, where Islamists have captured power, have failed to project much influence beyond their borders.

Hindsight is 20/20 of course, and it's easy now, on the 8th anniversary of the 9/11 attacks, to look back and criticize Rodenbeck's analysis as -- to put it mildly -- very mistaken. How could he have foreseen al-Qaeda's bombing of the U.S. embassies in Kenya and Tanzania just five months later? Or anticipated their attack on the USS Cole two years later? Or predicted that three and a half years into the future, Islamist militants would execute the most horrific terrorist attack in American history? Or the outbreak of the second Intifada in the Palestinian territories? Or Hamas's crushing electoral defeat of Fatah in 2006? Or the resurgence of the Taliban in Pakistan's NWFP and Afghanistan from 2006-2009? I could go on.

The problem I have is that Rodenbeck's discredited analysis isn't a relic of history. In fact, the argument that the Islamist movement is "in decline" or has been defeated has continued to be made fairly consistently by various analysts for the past 8 years.

Joshua Muravchick absurdly claimed in a Washington Post op-ed earlier this summer that the post-election crisis in Iran spelled "the end of radical Islam." Jason Burke, for the Guardian from Pakistan, made this claim as early as June 2002. It's not just journalists, either -- prominent French Middle East scholars Gilles Keppel and Olivier Roy have been predicting the imminent demise of radical Islam since the early 1990s.

This sort of wishful thinking is just as wrong-headed now as it was in 1998. Militant Islam isn't going to disappear anytime soon, as much as I, and the rest of Western civilization, no doubt would prefer that it would.

It'd be nice to declare the War on Terror over; to return to the nice, comfortable pre-9/11 days when we could treat terrorism as just another crime to be dealt with by routine indictments and subpoenas. After all, the war America has engaged itself in has been costly, both in treasure and American lives. We've got plenty of other problems that could benefit from a reallocation of the attention and resources we've been giving to this struggle. Let's just get on with our partisan debates about health care reform, stimulus bills, cap and trade, and how rude Joe Wilson was during Obama's speech. Forget about this annoying terrorism business. It's distracting us from the "real" issues.

Unfortunately, the world doesn't work that way.

Al-Qaeda and their fellow militant Islamist compatriots are still a grave threat to the United States. Al-Qaeda may have taken a severe beating in the eight years since 9/11 (and it does feel good to type those words), but they are not beaten. They are a patient enemy -- one that views history with a pair of very long-term glasses. They have repeatedly stated very clearly and deliberately that they will not rest until they achieve their goal -- the collapse of the United States, followed by the re-establishment of a global Islamic empire, or caliphate.

“We are patient. . . . Our patience will only end with the collapse of America . . . ”
— Al-Qaeda’s Abu Salma Al-Hijazi, on Islamist internet forum Al-Qal'a, November 2003

Absurd? I think you, and you probably do too. But in the minds of al-Qaeda's leaders, their jihad against the Red Army in Afghanistan during the 1980s led directly to the collapse of the godless Soviet Union. Why should the same not be possible for the United States? One non-Islamic superpower down, one to go:

[O]n April 21, 2009, Islamist websites posted an audio interview with “Islamic State of Iraq” minister Abu Hamsa Al-Muhajir, in which he appealed to Muslim scientists, “The mujahideen today are in great need of chemical, biological and even . . . nuclear weapons. . . . ”

“Abu Qandahar,” moderator of Ansar Al-Suna, wrote on June 7, 2009, “Al-Qaeda has nuclear weapons, praise Allah. This is 100% certain.”

The Global Islamic Front, an online media branch associated with al-Qaeda and other jihadi-salafi groups, published a communiqué by a “Dr. John Boutros” on August 25, 2009, titled “Don’t Worry, Islamic United States Is at the Door.” In it, “Dr. Boutros” promised that the U.S. is only one or two thrusts from “crumbling.” He ridiculed the U.S. Department of Homeland Security: “Hundreds of thousands of soldiers stationed in the streets of Washington and Los Angeles wait for a martyr to cross the continents carrying nuclear, biological, or chemical bombs.”

Despite the setbacks they have suffered at the hands of the U.S. and its allies in the campaigns of the past eight years, al-Qaeda and the international jihadist movement still believes that Islam's final victory over the United States is not only certain, but imminent.

What would reinforce their resolve and their determination more than the U.S. unilaterally ending its commitment to that war?

GWB, 9/20/01:

It is my hope that in the months and years ahead, life will return almost to normal. We'll go back to our lives and routines, and that is good. Even grief recedes with time and grace. But our resolve must not pass.

Well, Bush got the first half of his wish -- eight years later, this country surely has "returned almost to normal." Perhaps too much so. But will President Obama carry on that resolve? That remains to be seen. I sure hope so.

Battlestar Galactica and the health-care debate

2009-09-04T18:34:00.004-05:00

Yes, really.

I was just going to watch an episode of BSG -- I'm currently nearing the end of season 3 -- and go to sleep, but it just so happens that season 3, episode 14 happens to have some very interesting connections to the current debate, particularly when it comes to potential rationing of care under a government-dominated system. And I just had to post a little something about it. Hopefully this will seem just as interesting tomorrow morning as it does right now, at 1:45am.

Quick summary of the episode -- some additional refugees have been taken on to Galactica, and Cpt. Agathon is put in charge of managing them. In the initial scene, we see that an epidemic has broken out among the refugees -- many of whom are (humans) from the planet Saggetaeron (no aliens in BSG -- only humans and robots). The disease can be fatal, but is easily curable if the correct medication is given within 48 hours of the first symptoms. As with most things in BSG, there is a limited supply of the required medication, so they are supposed to only give out doses to those who actually show first symptoms.

Problem: the Saggetaerons don't believe in medicine -- the episode makes vague comparisons to Christian Scientists -- and many won't accept treatment. Admiral Adama wants to respect their traditions, and won't compel them to take the medicine. Many are expected to die.

We quickly understand that the Saggetaerons are the most discriminated-against group of humans. All the characters remark how they find the Saggetaerons' clinging to ancient traditions and poor personal hygiene obnoxious and annoying.

Dr. Roberts is the civilian doctor in charge of treating the quarantined Saggetaerons. He, and Cpt. Agathon, express frustration that so many are needlessly dying. Soon, however, Agathon begins to suspect that Dr. Roberts is intentionally killing Saggetaerons. After lots of drama over this possibility -- i.e. Dr. Roberts ends up (successfully) treating Agathon's infant daughter, who contracts the disease -- it is revealed in the end that Roberts is, in fact, a racist, and murdering Saggetaerons.

The episode is supposed to be about racism -- nobody wanted to believe Agathon's accusations about Dr. Roberts because, frankly, nobody likes Saggetaerons anyway. But the climactic final scene in which Dr. Roberts' guilt is exposed contains this interesting bit of dialogue:

Dr. Roberts [to Agathon]: You oughta be on your knees thanking me for saving your daughter's life. For having the meds to cure her of her illness. Now you know how painful this disease is at the end, and they don't want our help. Now why waste time and meds and space on them, when all of those resources could go to those who really deserve it? Who gets the medication when there isn't enough to go around? The Saggetaeron who won't even raise a finger to save his own race, or a Viper pilot?

Dr. Cottle [the military doctor]: What the hell happened to "do no harm," doctor?

Dr. Roberts: Look, I intervened because someone has to make the tough choices here.

Hmm. Dr. Roberts is right to say that health care is a limited resource, as has been aptly pointed out by many observers. But it should give everyone pause to note that -- racial connection aside -- Dr. Roberts' actions were in fact completely justified, correct, and commendable according to the logic of extreme rationing advocates like Peter "Infanticide" Singer. It is in fact the only logical end result of this argument.

Enshrining centralized state control of a nation's health care system requires rationing by bureaucrats who will need to cut costs and maximize efficiency. Some form of playing God -- "death panels" or not -- will be the unavoidable result.

Yes, yes, I know, it's just a TV show. And normally I am rather disdainful of attempts to draw analogies between fictional situations and real-life ones in order to make arguments. But still, food for thought, at least.

Is Dissent Still Patriotic?

2009-08-10T15:52:00.006-05:00

A number of Congressional representatives have returned to their home districts for the August recess only to be greeted by angry constituents who are upset about a number of things -- the mounting bailouts for shoddily run companies, the gigantic pork-filled $787 billion "stimulus" spending bill, the cap & trade legislation. But the issue that really seems to have gotten some people worked up are the health care reforms proposed by President Obama and Congressional Democratic leaders.

Many of the town-hall and forum-style events organized by these representatives have degenerated into angry shouting matches and have featured disruptive behavior by activists who oppose Obama's health care plan.

A number of commentators around the country have begun lamenting about the "end of rational debate" and shunning the "sickening," "disgusting" behavior of these "angry mobs." We'll leave aside for now the absurdity of the oft-heard Democratic talking point that none of these protests are grass-roots activism or in any way reflect public disapproval of Obama's plan, but are simply a handful of radical activists who have been bought and paid for by the evil health-insurance lobby. Sure.

First, I should say that I agree with these editorial writers, at least to a point. Before I explain why, however, it's important to make a distinction between people who get fired up about the issue and go to these town hall events prepared to ask tough, critical questions of their representatives, and people who just go to shout down their representative and drown out any discussion whatsoever. And there is a difference. Let's not tar everyone with the bad behavior of a few.

As for the second group of people -- do I think their behavior is completely inappropriate? Yes. Do I think it destroys the ability to have a civil debate on this issue? Yes. Do I think it's totally counterproductive? Yes.

But is it "sickening"? Is it "disgusting"? I don't know about that. I think the writers of these editorials and I are working with different definitions of what rises to the level of "disgusting." Like, for instance...this:

"As thousands of protesters trudged up Third Avenue in an attempt to reach the main rally area, which was on First Avenue, three protesters donning massive puppet heads of President George W. Bush, Vice President Dick Cheney and Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld entertained the boisterous crowd by taking turns pretending to have sexual intercourse with each other. After they were finished, they toasted the crowd by pretending to drink motor oil...In San Francisco last week, anti-war protesters defecated outside the city's Civic Center and vomited outside the Federal Building."

or this:

There were a few tense moments, however, including an encounter involving Joshua Sparling, 25, who was on crutches and who said he was a corporal with the 82nd Airborne Division and lost his right leg below the knee in Ramadi, Iraq. Later, as antiwar protesters passed where he and his group were standing, words were exchanged and one of the antiwar protestors spit at the ground near Mr. Sparling."

That, to me, is disgusting. I guess it's a matter of degree -- defecating on government property and spitting on disabled war veterans is one thing -- some aging, belligerent anti-health care reform activists standing with their backs to their congressman or shouting that the government is going to take away their healthcare and institute socialism is quite another.

To me, the blatant hypocrisy from media commentators is the worst part about all this.

"Protest is patriotic!" "Dissent is the highest form of patriotism!"

These battle-cries were heard often, in a simpler America of long ago -- that is, before last November. Back then, protests...were seen - at least in the media - as proof of popular discontent.

When handfuls of Code Pink ladies disrupted congressional hearings or speeches by Bush administration officials, it was taken as evidence that the administration's policies were unpopular, and that the thinking parts of the populace were rising up in true democratic fashion.

But apparently, "'Fired up and ready to go' only works one way," as Rich Lowry put it. In the op-ed above, Glenn Reynolds goes on to cite this story on the reception Republican congressmen faced during the debate over Bush's Social Security reform plan. It should sound very familiar:

By now, Jack Kingston is used to shouted questions, interruptions and boos. Republican congressmen expect such responses these days when they meet with constituents about President Bush's proposal to overhaul Social Security.

Tinkering with the system is always controversial. To make Bush's plan even more so -- political foes are sending people to Social Security forums armed with hostile questions.

By now, Kingston, a Savannah lawmaker and part of the GOP House leadership, has held 10 such sessions and plans at least seven more.

But that was 2005. This is 2009. Back then, the protesters were evidence of broad public disapproval of Bush's dangerous plans to tinker with Social Security. Now, the same mold of protesters are "dangerous, uncivil mobs" who are disrupting legislators' attempts to hold "meaningful, fact-based discussions" on these issues.

Please.

Indeed it's rather eerie how quickly Democratic politicians seem to have abandoned the "dissent is patriotic" anthem once they've gained power. In fact, they seem to be adopting all the authoritarian rhetorical devices they bashed the Republican party for not too long ago.

At this rate, pretty soon leading Democratic politicians will start questioning the patriotism of these activists, or start calling these opponents of Obama's health care plan "Un-American." Oh wait -- that's already happened. Thank you, Nancy Pelosi.

Democratic proponents of Obama's health care plan are quick to paint every activist at these town hall events as a radical conservative Republican. But it's not really accurate to portray opposition to Obama's health care reform plan as universally Republican, or conservative. According to a recent poll:

Currently, 76% of Democratic voters favor the health-care reform plan proposed by Mr. Obama and the congressional Democrats, and they are counting on their representatives to deliver.
But delivering for the Democratic base has the potential to hurt the party’s standing among independents. Among the unaffiliated, 35% are in favor of the Democrats’ health-care reform initiative, and 60% are opposed. Notably, just 16% of unaffiliated voters strongly favor the legislative effort; 47% strongly oppose it."

That means that nearly 1 in 4 Democrats don't support Obama's health care plan. A full 60% of independents oppose it. Democrats in Congress should stop the lame attempts to dismiss or pigeon-hole any opposition and come to grips with the reality that a majority of Americans oppose their health care plan. The numbers can't be ignored.

My point is quite simply this -- democracy means representatives have to convince their constituents that that their preferred policy is going to end up being a net benefit for the country. Quite frankly, they haven't. Lots of people don't like the way Congress has been conducting itself, and they're worried about expanding an already-exploding deficit on a huge program we can't afford and that will end up making our healthcare system worse, not better. It's something that deserves to be challenged, and deserves to be debated.

Is shouting down a congressman "civil, reasoned debate" on this issue? Of course not, and it should be condemned. But neither is the rather odd notion of "civil, reasoned debate" described by Nancy Pelosi in her aforementioned op-ed, in which she seems to argue that "reasoned debate" consists of skeptical Americans sitting down, shutting up, and being informed of "the facts" by Ms. Pelosi, which will apparently put an end to the whole matter. Sorry, but that's not how debate works either.

Both sides need to stop, take a deep breath, and start over if we want to have any hope of enacting meaningful, bipartisan healthcare reform with the broad-based popular support it should require.

**UPDATE: Believe it or not, the Obama administration actually agrees with me:

The White House disagreed this afternoon with the contention by House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., and House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer, D-Maryland, that the disruptions at town hall meetings are "un-American"...

"I think there's actually a pretty long tradition of people shouting at politicians in America," White House deputy press secretary Bill Burton told reporters on Air Force One when asked about the comments.

"The President thinks that if people want to come and have a spirited debate about health care, a real vigorous conversation about it, that's a part of the American tradition and he encourages that, because people do have questions and concerns ...And so if people want to come and have their concerns and their questions answered, the President thinks that's important. Now, if you just want to come to a town hall so that you can disrupt and so that you can scream over another person, he doesn’t think that that's productive. And as a country, we've been able to make progress when people actually talk out what our problems are, not try to shout each other down."

Pleasantly surprising.

The Right Not To Be Offended

2009-08-09T06:06:00.004-05:00

I was forwarded this video of an interview -- over tea, of course -- that the Economist did with human rights activist Shami Chakrabati.

I didn't agree with everything Ms. Chakrabati said, but her clear intelligence and eloquent, captivating way of speaking kept me watching. I'm glad I did -- near the end of the video clip, the Economist interviewer asks her about legislation that bans so-called "religious hate speech":

The Economist: "We have a so-called religious hatred legislation which in its original form might have restricted people's right to express robust forms of faith which were at odds with other faiths."

The question is somewhat awkwardly phrased, but Ms. Chakrabati's answer isn't. In fact, it turns out to be one of the most concise and insightful explanations of governments' attitudes towards religion that I've seen:

Shami Chakrabati: "...It seems to me that societies anywhere have three choices when it comes to this small question of religion. Proposition number one: pick your favorite religion, give it complete dominant status over every other belief system and interweave it with your law and your politics and everything else. Extreme example: Afghanistan under the Taliban, moderate example maybe Britain at earlier phases in its history.

Option number two is in a way the opposite, or mirror image, in which [religion is] all terrible: it's dangerous, divisive, mumbo jumbo, nothing good will come of it and so if we can't ban it all together, we'll chase it from the public sphere. Extreme example, Stalin's Russia, moderate example, Mr. Sarkozy's France. And from those caricatures, I don't support either of those options, and I don't actually think they're very British, at least not for hundreds of years.

And I think here we do instinctively realize that freedom of thought, conscience, and religion is the right to have the faith of your choice, as long as you're not hurting other people, it's the right to have no faith at all -- but it's also the right to be a heretic within your own faith community, and if we remember that and only interfere when it's necessary and proportionate to protect other people from oppression, then I think we're in a pretty sensible place.

I would say to people of faith, and to people who are not of faith, that the one right that none of us should ever have is the right not to be offended."

Indeed.

Obama: The stimulus "has already worked as intended."

2009-07-13T14:41:00.008-05:00

Two interesting stories highlighted on Drudge today; the first, from Bloomberg, has the headline "Obama Says Economic Stimulus Plan Worked As Intended." The second, a Financial Times interview with top White House economic strategist Larry Summers, in which Summers warns that the worst is yet to come.

In the first story, President Obama responds to increasing criticism from Republicans and moderates who allege that the $787 billion economic stimulus package has failed, saying the program has already "worked as intended:"

Obama, in his speech, said the stimulus program is helping state governments save jobs. Were it not for the program, the president said, “state deficits would be nearly twice as large as they are now, resulting in tens of thousands of additional layoffs...

In asking for public patience, Obama said the recovery act “wasn’t designed to restore the economy to full health on its own, but to provide the boost necessary to stop the free fall.”

Enacted in February, the bill “was designed to spur demand and get people spending again and cushion those who had borne the brunt of the crisis,” the president said.

Obama said the measure “was not designed to work in four months -- it was designed to work over two years.”

The spending plan will “accelerate greatly” through the summer and autumn, creating “thousands more infrastructure projects” that will lead to additional jobs, he said.

Wait, so that $787 billion wasn't meant to actually fix the economy? Ah, now you tell me.

Note how Obama uses two conflicting arguments simultaneously: on the one hand, he argues that the stimulus "has already worked as planned" and fulfilled its newly-defined goals of "saving jobs" (however one defines that) and "cushioning" those who had lost their jobs. Yet on the other hand, he's pleading that the stimulus "wasn't designed to work in four months," but "over two years." He asks for more time, promising that a stimulus-driven economic recovery is just around the corner, if only we'd all have a little more patience. It'll "accelerate greatly" in the coming months and help create lots of new jobs, he says. Well, which is it?

And let's remember what Obama promised when signing the bill in February:

When the President signed his $787 billion stimulus package into law, he confidently asserted that unemployment would not exceed eight percent. If Congress hadn't passed it, he warned, it would rise to nine percent by 2010. Well, unemployment reached 9.5 percent last month, meaning, by the President's own logic, that his stimulus package has failed.

In the FT interview, Larry Summers seems to contradict his boss's optimism that job creation, and a recovery, are "just around the corner."

“I don’t think the worst is over ... It’s very likely that more jobs will be lost. It would not be surprising if GDP has not yet reached its low. What does appear to be true is that the sense of panic in the markets and freefall in the economy has subsided and one does not have the sense of a situation as out of control as a few months ago.”

There's a lot more great stuff in that interview, like Summers' praise of Obama for staying committed to pursuing his long-term ideological agenda and not being "distracted" by the "short-term" issues like, you know, fixing the economic crisis.

“He [made it clear that he] would do what he had to to fix the banking system, to get the economy out of the rut in which he was inheriting it. But he had run for president to do long-run, fundamental things, like fixing healthcare, like having real energy policy, like reforming education. And we weren’t going to be distracted from those things.”

Yeah, I don't know...maybe it's just me, but I think solving the economic crisis is pretty "fundamental." I guess I feel bad for all those people who were fooled into thinking that was what we elected him to do.

As for unemployment? Unfortunately, contrary to Obama's assurances, the job market isn't going to see an improvement in the coming months -- most economists are predicting that not only will it soon top 10%, but it could stay in double-digits until 2011.

Soak the doctors

2009-07-12T11:50:00.019-05:00

After taking lots of criticism from Republicans, much of the media, and the public about their failure to figure out how to actually pay for health care reform before announcing it, Congressional Democrats have now announced their solution -- "soak the rich."

Democrats plan to pay for their new public-option government health care plan by introducing $550 billion in new income taxes, which will be targeted at individuals making more than $250,000 a year (or couples making more than $350,000). The increases would result in the effective income tax rate for the top bracket to climb to 45%. Democrats also indicated that they intend to raise taxes even higher if revenues fail to cover the costs. Since the currently proposed tax increase will only pay for about half the projected cost of this program, I think we can safely say that several more rounds of tax increases are on their way.

I saw a post on RedState commenting about how it's sad and ironic that the group of "wealthy" people paying for this healthcare program includes, well, most doctors:

So, who will this hit? Can anyone doubt that it will be doctors themselves? After such a raid into American’s paychecks, it will be doctors that will find that they are being taxed in order to pay themselves further reduced rates by government reimbursements through this new healthcare system.

I chuckled to myself when reading it -- I never really thought of it that way. I decided to look it up, just to see. After a quick Google search, it turns out that the RedState poster is correct:

General surgeons make an average of $291,000. The average neurosurgeon makes $541,000. Cardiovascular surgeon? $558,000. Cardiologists make $403,000. Sure, you might say, but those are specialized fields. Well, the average family practice physician makes $204,000. They would avoid the current proposed tax hike (unless they had a spouse also in medicine, as their combined income would then almost certainly top $350,000). But what about the inevitable second increase to cover the rest of the costs of the program? What if it takes a third increase? Or a fourth? It certainly seems likely that they, too, will soon be considered part of "the rich."

And this highlights the problem I have with the whole Democratic idea of instituting huge tax increases on "the wealthy" to pay for outrageously expensive government programs. The way that Democrats phrase it, you'd think they were talking about taxing some landed gentry class of the 18th century -- a bunch of selfish do-nothings swimming in extravagant, undeserved wealth. It's only fair, therefore, that the government take a portion of their "excessive" affluence and use it to further the good of all society by applying it to the bill for massive government-administered social programs.

But "the wealthy," for the most part, are in fact wealthy because they earned it. Sure, you'll have your occasional nepotistic business executive who inherited the company from his father...but there are also millions of other people who studied and worked really, really, really hard to make six-figure salaries. Should they be penalized for working hard by having to give the federal government 40% or 45% of their income?

Let's just review: Doctors have to go through rigorous biology, physics, chemistry and pre-med courses as an undergrad. They then have to get accepted to medical school -- no easy task. If they get in, they'll attend medical school for 4 more years. Many will drop out. If they make it through medical school, next comes a 1-2 year residency. Then, after about 10 years of this intensive training and study, they can finally enter into practice somewhere. If you want to be a surgeon, you can expect a few extra years on top of that.

And yet Congress wants to raise their taxes, to allow the government to pay them reduced fees for the same services, using the increased revenue from taxes that they themselves are giving the government. Essentially, on a net basis, they will end up paying the government to earn less for providing the services they studied and trained for a decade to master.

For reference: If you're an unmarried general surgeon making $291,000 a year, under the Democratic plan you'll be paying an additional $11,733 per year in federal taxes come 2011.

And yet we wonder why we're facing a shortage of doctors in this country. And it's only going to get worse.

**UPDATE: It has been pointed out to me that not only does it take medical students at least 10 years to finish their education and training, but most will finish with an average of about $150,000 in debt.

Look, Biden...maybe sit the next couple rounds out, ok?

2009-07-10T02:50:00.006-05:00

I have come across several interesting articles over the past week about Vice President Joe Biden. Other than the fact that they all involve Biden, they would seem somewhat unrelated. Viewed together, however, they present an intriguing narrative about perceptions of Joe Biden's foreign policy expertise.

Let's begin this story with a little flashback to the 2008 campaign. I'm sure we all remember the headlines after Obama picked Biden as his running mate -- all the analysts said the same thing. It was generally some variation on this headline: "Biden pick bolsters Obama on foreign policy, national security" (USA Today). Or "Joe Biden's foreign policy skills convinced Barack Obama to make him running mate" (Telegraph). The Telegraph story even included the sub-headline "No Democratic politician has more foreign policy experience and expertise than Senator Joe Biden."

Analysts were virtually unanimous about the "brilliant" political masterstroke -- Biden brought "crucial gravitas" to the Democratic ticket's foreign policy credibility. This paragraph from the Huffington Post is a good representation of the conventional wisdom on Biden's strengths:

Having a skilled diplomat like Biden on hand, who has spent the better part of his career serving on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee -- both as the ranking minority member and, currently, as its chairman -- will undoubtedly be invaluable in bringing foreign leaders to the table and in hammering out new agreements.

Yet those once-high expectations and positive assessments of Biden's foreign policy credentials have since soured considerably. After Biden's infamous slip this week, in which he appeared to give tacit U.S. authorization for an Israeli military strike on Iran, the White House was forced to rush in to do damage control in an effort to prevent a major international crisis. In the face of a flurry of responses from countries in the region, Obama publicly and firmly "clarified" that the U.S. has "absolutely not" given the go-ahead for any Israeli attack against Iran.

This episode was the last straw for exasperated (and liberal) Vanity Fair writer Thomas Kaplan, who declared that there are certain topics that Joe Biden should never again be allowed to speak about in public. And guess what one of them was:

Maybe it’s time to give the vice president some ground rules—say, topics he should not be allowed to address, even if he really, really wants to. Nuclear war and foreign affairs are a given, considering this week’s episode.

Yes, that's right. This is the same man once heralded just a few months ago as the most experienced, most credible Democratic politician on foreign policy.

But it's not just Vanity Fair writers who feel this way. It seems other world leaders are less than impressed by Biden's diplomatic prowess as well. Biden was recently appointed by Barack Obama as the U.S. official in charge of overseeing Iraq policy and assisting with the reconciliation process between Shi'a, Sunnis, and Kurds.

But Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki has declined Biden's offer to help, which Biden announced in a speech on July 4th when he visited troops in Iraq.

Vice President Joe Biden's mission to promote national reconciliation in Iraq was rebuffed Friday by Prime Minister Nouri Maliki, who told him that the issue was a domestic Iraqi affair and that U.S involvement wouldn't be welcome.

Maliki told Biden that "the reconciliation issue is a purely Iraqi issue and any non-Iraqi involvement might have a negative effect," said Maliki's spokesman, Ali Dabbagh. "We don't want the Americans to come and get involved."

Elsewhere, Al-Dabbagh put it a little more directly:

"We don't want other parties to interfere in this matter because it will cause complications," government spokesman Ali al-Dabbagh said on state television, referring to the country's national reconciliation process.

"Iraqis will handle these matters and non-Iraqi entrance on this will be a complication and make problems we don't need," Dabbagh said. "We want to resolve our issues between ourselves."

Okay, okay, maybe I'm being a little too harsh. To be fair, the Iraqis' response was based on a variety of other legitimate factors, most of which had nothing to do whatsoever with the fact that Joe Biden ended up being the one chosen as the U.S. representative to help with Iraqi reconciliation.

But...it probably didn't help, either.

Pearls of Wisdom

2009-07-07T12:57:00.005-05:00

Freelance foreign correspondent Michael Totten has posted a rather remarkable interview --well, more like a conversation, really -- on his website, in which he discusses international relations in the Middle East, particularly those between Israel and her neighbors and the obstacles to peace, with The Atlantic's Jeffrey Goldberg.

Both men are self-described "pessimists" when it comes to peace in the Middle East (although both agree that Goldberg is slightly less so). But the interview is full of so many concise, clear nuggets of wisdom about the Middle East that I feel the need to share a few of them with you here.

I love Michael Totten for his natural ability to cut to the core issues of whatever he's writing about, really allowing the reader to get a clear picture of what the challenges and conflicts are and why they're happening. (Take, for example, his recent devastating critique of an article by Huffington Post blogger Olivia Sterns, who returned from a trip to Syria gushing about Syria's "soft side" and make sweeping conclusions about the prospects for peace.) This piece, too, is indicative of that incisive skill.

We'll start with this, from Goldberg:

The question of Israel is the question of what happens to all minorities in the Middle East. The Arab Muslim Middle East has 300 million people. It has a very hard time treating Coptic Christians with equality, treating Maronites in Lebanon with equality, treating Southern Sudanese in an equal way, treating Kurds in an equal way, and dealing with Jews – not only in their national expression, but even as minorities within their own countries. There was never a golden era for Jews who lived in Arab countries. It wasn’t as bad as living in Poland, but that’s no great shakes.

Immediately following the above paragraph, Totten asks a question: "You have talked to Hamas people. Should the Israelis or Americans talk to them?" Goldberg's short, blunt answer?

Goldberg: I don’t know what they’d get out of it.

MJT: What did you get out of it when you did it?

Goldberg: A first-hand understanding of how they think. People in the United States find it hard to understand how people in Hamas and Hezbollah think. It’s alien. It’s alien to us. The feverish racism and conspiracy mongering, the obscurantism, the apocalyptic thinking – we can’t relate to that...
MJT: It’s shocking to hear.

Goldberg: Of course it’s shocking to hear.

MJT: Sometimes I can’t help but wonder if they really even believe it or if they’re just saying it.

Totten's musing is interesting here because I believe that the view he expresses is the fundamental assumption that the vast, vast majority of foreign policy analysts and Middle East "experts" in the United States make when attempting to understand Hamas and Hezbollah. Hearing Khaled Meshaal or Hasan Nasrallah declare that the stated goal of their organization is to destroy the state of Israel, I think most in the foreign policy establishment, government, and media write it off as "posturing" for "a domestic audience" or "mere rhetoric."

And why shouldn't they? It's only rational. It fits perfectly into the secular, Western model of political economy and political power. We believe in rational actors -- defined by our ideas of rationality. We believe in cost-benefit analyses -- based on our ideas of cost and benefit. We cannot fathom how, or why, any political leader, in any part of the world, could act contrary to those considerations.

But that's just the problem.

Goldberg: I was in Afghanistan in 1998, a week after the first [al-Qaeda] fatwa to “kill all the Jews and Crusaders” came out. I was with a bunch of Americans. They were making light of it because it seemed so ridiculous. They were making light of it, I suppose, partly as a psychological mechanism to allow us to continue staying in Afghanistan.

MJT: (Laughs.) Yeah.

Goldberg: People also made fun of it because it seemed so ridiculous. But it’s not ridiculous. Just because a belief sounds ridiculous to you doesn’t mean it’s not sincerely held....So I think it’s best to err on the side of taking people at their word. That doesn’t mean you can’t analyze it and break it down on the politics, break it down on the psychology, and break it down on the religion. But take them at their word.

But does this mean that there's no hope? Even Totten and Goldberg admit that there still is. Organizations like Hamas and Hezbollah might not be able to change, but individuals can. "It matters what you do, not what you wish," they say. Palestinians and Israelis both might "wish" the other would disappear, but the solution (if there is one) lies in creating conditions to control those violent impulses on both sides.

Back to the reasons why Americans have a hard time understanding the Middle East, Goldberg offers this insightful hint:

Goldberg: The reason American minds can’t really grasp the Middle East is because our minds are trained for concepts that are at variance with the mindset of Middle Eastern fundamentalists – and by that I mean both Muslims and Jews. The importance of today, the importance of pleasure, the importance of compromise, the importance of pragmatism, the relative unimportance of land. We have a house, we sell it, and then we move to another house. We don’t build our houses on top of our fathers’ houses....There are so many concepts we just can’t relate to because we’re Americans. It’s a barrier to understanding.

MJT: It is. Americans also believe there is a solution to every problem.

Goldberg: Yeah. Solutionism is an American religion. That’s the most dangerous one. The other aspects of this are the misunderstandings. We can’t understand why a Palestinian would want his son to become a suicide bomber. It’s because his son is not an individual in the same way Americans are. He’s a valuable instrument in the deliverance of salvation for his people. His desires, dreams, and goals are all selfishness. That’s just Western selfishness. I don’t know. I’ve been trying to work these things through for years. There’s something admirable about Palestinian steadfastness.

There's much more. Totten and Goldberg discuss a host of other issues, from possible responses to Iran's acquisition of nuclear weapons, to Syria, and many others. It's all worth reading. But lastly, I just want to point out this exchange, which I read with a good deal of chagrin:

Goldberg: Anything’s possible. Anyone who acts like they’ve figured out the entire Middle East doesn’t know anything.

MJT: Yeah. It’s a humbling place.

Goldberg: People who tell you they understand and know the answer? Demagogues. They’re either idiots or demagogues. Nobody can understand this.

Great.

It's a long interview, but pretty captivating reading. Totten and Goldberg's analysis is incredibly clear-eyed and informative. In fact, I can almost guarantee that you will learn more about the dynamics of the Israeli-Arab conflict by reading this interview than you would by reading dozens of news articles about these issues. Read the whole thing.

Double standards: Honduras v. Iran

2009-07-01T03:23:00.006-05:00

I just finished watching this interview that National Security Adviser Jim Jones did on the NewsHour with Jim Lehr yesterday. And I must say that I was extremely impressed by Jones' completely unflappable demeanor -- the man is unquestionably a cool cat. Throughout the 16-minute interview, he never looked uncomfortable, never raised his voice, never became agitated, and never seemed -- even for a second -- unsure about anything he said.

My only problem stemmed from a contradiction between Jones's statements on Honduras and Iran. Asked what the U.S. should do about the possibility that exiled former president Zelaya would attempt to return to Honduras, Jones replied:

GEN. JAMES JONES: I think the United States does exactly what the president suggested that we do. We are for democratic processes and democratic change of government when that time comes.

Except for, you know, in Iran. Then we "can't interfere."

Jones is a military man, and obviously loyal to the President. One expects him to be unwavering in his support for the administration's official line. But the administration's official line is so incoherent that the contrast between Jones's comments on Honduras (preceded immediately by questions on Iran) is striking.

In Honduras, the U.S. has no problem taking sides. We condemn the coup, confidently assert that the overthrow of President Zelaya was "illegal," and demand that the ousted president be returned to power immediately. But in Iran? Well...

GEN. JAMES JONES: I think we still need to wait and see...We have taken, as the president said, a measured look at what's going on. We've spoken up to decry violence and loss of life. But I think we'll have to wait and see how it sorts out.

JIM LEHRER: But that's it for the U.S., right? There's nothing else that can be done or will be done?

GEN. JAMES JONES: I don't think there's anything that we could or should have done to materially affect the events on the ground as they unrolled, as they unfolded. I think the world watched. The world is reaching its conclusions. And we'll just have to wait and see how the next government presents itself.

Well that's quite the double standard, isn't it? Even Andrew Sullivan pointed out that the administration made an "unforced error" on Honduras. Sullivan links to this post by Daniel Larison, which offers a scathing indictment of the Obama administration's "non-intervention" hypocrisy:

What is so impressive about the bungling here is that it contradicts every argument the administration has made in support of restraint and caution when it comes to the Iranian protests. Obama didn’t want to insert the U.S. into an Iranian dispute. Iranians, he said, would decide their own future. Hondurans apparently are not accorded the same respect. Their sovereignty isn’t quite as important.

Obama withheld judgment about the legality of what had happened in Iran. In Honduras, he just knows that what the military did was illegal, despite far stronger evidence that it was legal and a result of the proper functioning of their constitutional system. U.S. intervention in Honduras has been no less than it has been in Iran. Indeed, it has been far greater. At least six times in the 20th century beginning in 1907, U.S. forces were deployed in Honduras. For fear that the U.S. might be seen to be replicating the error of 1953, Obama has kept his distance from the Iranian dispute. As ever, Central American nations’ past resentments about frequent U.S. intervention count for little or nothing, and so Obama has dived right in.

Ouch.

The politics of science

2009-06-28T16:06:00.007-05:00

This week the House of Representatives narrowly passed major climate change legislation -- the Waxman-Markey cap & trade bill. I could write an entire post just on the myriad destructive effects this this appalling piece of legislation will have on the already crippled American economy (Obama's grand pronouncements aside). Or another about the shameful way in which it was rushed through the House without even having a final copy of the bill ready while the it was being debated on the floor -- much less giving representatives time to actually read the massive 1,300-page legislation before voting. Or even another pointing out that its ability to actually reduce Americans' impact on climate change -- its entire purpose -- has been admitted by pretty much everyone to be basically nil. And no, sorry, I don't think the "Well-at-least-it's-a-good-framework-to-start-to-advance-climate-change-policy" argument is a valid one.

But let's leave all that aside. There's a bigger problem that's again been brought to the fore with the debate over this bill. It seems to me that the debate over climate change has long since stopped being about science. In fact, it has been so removed from any context or basis in actual science that it has become almost entirely political -- an ideological tug-of-war for power, government funding, and political control over policy.

Recently I came across a good case in point. The EPA commissioned a study of the potential "endangerment" to humans as a result of climate change. After considering the data, the final report, by Alan Carlin (an economist and 38-year veteran of the EPA) and John Davidson (also a veteran of the EPA's National Center for Environmental Economics, and holds a doctorate in physics), found that:

The EPA had conducted no critical analysis of its own about the science on climate change, instead accepting uncritically reports from the U.N.'s IPCC and the CCSP, which relies on studies which are "severely out of date."
Much of the recent scientific research on climate change calls into question the anthropogenic theory for climate change.
It summarizes the recent evidence which shows that humans (via CO2 emission) have at most a very minor impact on overall climate change.
These inconsistencies need to be either a) investigated, analyzed and explained in subsequent independent EPA studies, or b) the EPA's conclusions about anthropogenic climate change need to be changed.

I encourage everyone to at least read the executive summary of the full report for themselves. Much of the rest of the rest of the report delves into the complex task of explaining, analyzing, and correlating recent scientific studies, most of which is admittedly above my head, and the head of anyone not an expert in environmental science.

Here's the problem: the EPA buried the report. They refused to either release it to the public or incorporate it into their analysis of climate change policy. When Carlin and Davidson questioned their superior as to why the report was not being acted upon, and was being kept secret, they were told in an e-mail that:

"I have decided not to forward your comments. The time for discussion of such fundamental issues has passed for this round. The administration has decided to move forward on endangerment, and your comments do not help the legal or policy case for this decision...I can see only one impact of your comments given where we are in the process, and that would be a very negative impact on our office."

In other words, "a negative impact on the administration's policy preferences to push forward on radical climate change legislation." Science, you see, is only acceptable if it advances the president's policy. Otherwise, it's just "not helpful." A subsequent e-mail instructed Carlin and Davidson not to communicate their findings with anyone outside the EPA. The scientists were eventually forced to release the report through a conservative think tank, explaining that they were "tired of waiting for this agency to become transparent."

And that really says something about the way climate change policy is being handled. It isn't science. It's pure, raw ideology. In fact, I find one particular parallel very interesting. Let's assume, for a moment, that all the allegations about the Bush administration "suppressing" pre-war evidence that called into question Iraq's WMD program are all true. Let us say for the sake of argument that it's true that the Bush administration, blinded by a fervent adherence to neoconservative ideology, deliberately suppressed CIA reports that argued that Saddam actually didn't possess stockpiles of WMDs. Such dissenting opinions would pose a problem for the success of their policy goal -- gaining public and Congressional support for war with Iraq.

Yet, ironically and sadly, the same people railed against the Bush administration for allegedly "suppressing" that dissenting intelligence because it didn't conform to their ideology are now the very same ones announcing that the "time for debate about climate change is over," that the connection between human emissions of CO2 and climate change are "rock-solid" and "common knowledge," and any scientific reports that surface questioning this orthodoxy are suppressed and their creators dismissed as nothing more than part of the "right-wing fringe."

Sound familiar?

I'm probably going to infuriate a lot of my liberal friends by saying this, but it needs to be said. To proponents of anthropogenic climate change, the issue has become not science, but doctrine. To question this doctrine is to commit heresy. I have no doubt that Carlin and Davidson will be trashed, maligned, and demonized from the pulpits of the climate change policy elites for the crime of pointing out the inconsistencies between the science and the orthodoxy of climate change. That, sadly, is the sad state of affairs which passes for "debate" on climate change today.

**UPDATE 7/1/09 10:59AM: The Telegraph has a story today about one of the world's top polar bear experts, barred from an international conference on climate change because his views on global warming didn't match up with the rest of the participants:

Dr Mitchell Taylor has been researching the status and management of polar bears in Canada and around the Arctic Circle for 30 years, as both an academic and a government employee. More than once since 2006 he has made headlines by insisting that polar bear numbers, far from decreasing, are much higher than they were 30 years ago. Of the 19 different bear populations, almost all are increasing or at optimum levels, only two have for local reasons modestly declined.
Dr Taylor agrees that the Arctic has been warming over the last 30 years. But he ascribes this not to rising levels of CO2 – as is dictated by the computer models of the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and believed by his PBSG colleagues – but to currents bringing warm water into the Arctic from the Pacific and the effect of winds blowing in from the Bering Sea.
He has also observed, however, how the melting of Arctic ice, supposedly threatening the survival of the bears, has rocketed to the top of the warmists' agenda as their most iconic single cause. The famous photograph of two bears standing forlornly on a melting iceberg was produced thousands of times by Al Gore, the WWF and others as an emblem of how the bears faced extinction – until last year the photographer, Amanda Byrd, revealed that the bears, just off the Alaska coast, were in no danger. Her picture had nothing to do with global warming and was only taken because the wind-sculpted ice they were standing on made such a striking image.
Dr Taylor had obtained funding to attend this week's meeting of the PBSG, but this was voted down by its members because of his views on global warming. The chairman, Dr Andy Derocher, a former university pupil of Dr Taylor's, frankly explained in an email (which I was not sent by Dr Taylor) that his rejection had nothing to do with his undoubted expertise on polar bears: "it was the position you've taken on global warming that brought opposition".
Dr Taylor was told that his views running "counter to human-induced climate change are extremely unhelpful". His signing of the Manhattan Declaration – a statement by 500 scientists that the causes of climate change are not CO2 but natural, such as changes in the radiation of the sun and ocean currents – was "inconsistent with the position taken by the PBSG".

This is exactly what I'm talking about. Richard Fernandez notes this story as well, and restates the point I made above:

Whatever one may think about AGW, "science" that excludes views on the basis of not being "helpful" looks suspiciously like a process of fitting the evidence to the desired conclusion. It should be the other way around. When this fundamental is abandoned, knowledge is replaced by belief and science is supplanted by theology.

Obama's Cairo Speech: Pluses and Minuses

2009-06-06T22:25:00.004-05:00

Just got around to reading the full text of Obama's Cairo speech on Thursday. On the whole, I am pleasantly surprised to say that I liked it. First, there wasn't as much self-flagellation of the United States as I have unfortunately come to expect from this President. There was still some, but for the most part Obama actually took this opportunity to stand up for the United States and forcefully counter some of the accusations and misconceptions in the Arab world about the U.S.

First, the things I liked (and yes, they outnumber the things I didn't like):

Much has been made of the fact that an African-American with the name Barack Hussein Obama could be elected President. But my personal story is not so unique. The dream of opportunity for all people has not come true for everyone in America, but its promise exists for all who come to our shores - that includes nearly seven million American Muslims in our country today who enjoy incomes and education that are higher than average.

This is a refreshing comment, especially considering the fact that the majority of even American news sources still feel compelled to repeat how wonderful Obama's "unique" story is ad nauseum seven months after his election victory. It's nice to see the President note that his story is not actually an outlier -- that the promise of the American dream has indeed come true for millions of Americans, and especially Muslim Americans. I think it's good for everyone -- not just the Arab and Muslim world -- to be reminded of that fact.

Next, a series of quotes that I like when taken together:

In Ankara, I made clear that America is not - and never will be - at war with Islam. We will, however, relentlessly confront violent extremists who pose a grave threat to our security. Because we reject the same thing that people of all faiths reject: the killing of innocent men, women, and children.

...I am aware that some question or justify the events of 9/11. But let us be clear: al Qaeda killed nearly 3,000 people on that day. The victims were innocent men, women and children from America and many other nations who had done nothing to harm anybody. And yet Al Qaeda chose to ruthlessly murder these people, claimed credit for the attack, and even now states their determination to kill on a massive scale. They have affiliates in many countries and are trying to expand their reach. These are not opinions to be debated; these are facts to be dealt with.

...Indeed, none of us should tolerate these extremists. They have killed in many countries. They have killed people of different faiths - more than any other, they have killed Muslims.

Taken together, this is a very intelligent PR strategy for the U.S., and in my opinion (and that of many other observers) one that should have been taken long ago. The U.S. since 9/11 has been trying to win the "hearts and minds" of the Muslim world, through well-intentioned efforts to make people in these regions have a more positive view of the United States. These outreach and diplomatic efforts have, to put it bluntly, been abysmal failures.

This war is, ultimately, a war of ideas. The U.S.'s strategic goal in this war should not be to make itself more "liked." We've been pursuing that goal for seven years to pretty much zero effect. It should instead be to make al-Qaeda and like-minded militant groups hated. The way to do this is not to waste time defending America's foreign policy decisions, or trying to rationalize our support of Israel, but instead emphasizing the death toll on innocent people -- mostly Muslims -- that al-Qaeda's attacks have inflicted. Drawing attention to the innocent victims of terrorist attacks -- especially women and children -- has a powerful affect on people's perceptions of al-Qaeda.

Like all insurgent groups, al-Qaeda needs the support of the Muslim world in order to survive and thrive. By putting them on the defensive, by making them justify their killing of innocent Muslim women and children, the U.S. can help turn the opinion Muslim world against these groups (and in fact, the tide in public opinion is already turning even without the U.S.'s efforts).

Moving to Israel:

America's strong bonds with Israel are well known. This bond is unbreakable. It is based upon cultural and historical ties, and the recognition that the aspiration for a Jewish homeland is rooted in a tragic history that cannot be denied.

I'm glad to see a strong, unqualified reaffirmation of America's alliance with Israel. However, Obama's recent actions and statements criticizing Israel have led many in the American, Arab, and Israeli publics to believe that the President might be seeking to weaken America's ties with Israel. Hopefully these words from Obama will be backed up with stronger support for Israel moving forward.

Palestinians must abandon violence. Resistance through violence and killing is wrong and does not succeed. For centuries, black people in America suffered the lash of the whip as slaves and the humiliation of segregation. But it was not violence that won full and equal rights. It was a peaceful and determined insistence upon the ideals at the center of America's founding. This same story can be told by people from South Africa to South Asia; from Eastern Europe to Indonesia. It's a story with a simple truth: that violence is a dead end. It is a sign of neither courage nor power to shoot rockets at sleeping children, or to blow up old women on a bus. That is not how moral authority is claimed; that is how it is surrendered.

It is here that I must admit that this is one of those moments that I love having a President that is this eloquent. The above paragraph is beautiful. Brilliant, even. No qualifications. I can say quite un-grudgingly that it is indeed refreshing to have a President that can communicate America's ideals this effectively to audiences around the world.

Finally, the Arab States must recognize that the Arab Peace Initiative was an important beginning, but not the end of their responsibilities. The Arab-Israeli conflict should no longer be used to distract the people of Arab nations from other problems. Instead, it must be a cause for action to help the Palestinian people develop the institutions that will sustain their state; to recognize Israel's legitimacy; and to choose progress over a self-defeating focus on the past.

I like this open and bold challenge to the Arab regimes (not the least of which Egypt, the host of this speech), especially the second sentence above. Too many Arab regimes are content to take American aid and support with one hand, while with the other they are using state-run media to broadcast some of the most vile anti-American and anti-Semitic propaganda in order to deflect criticism of these regimes. Egypt is one of the worst offenders.

Elsewhere, Obama surprisingly channeled good old W. when talking about the promotion of democracy around the world -- America cannot "force" a system of government, but all people yearn for certain freedoms, these freedoms are not "American ideas" but "human rights," and America will "support them everywhere."

Much of the rest of his comments (on economic development, education, and gender equality) all sounded very nice, but in my opinion were rather impractical.

Things I didn't like:

On Iraq:

Although I believe that the Iraqi people are ultimately better off without the tyranny of Saddam Hussein, I also believe that events in Iraq have reminded America of the need to use diplomacy and build international consensus to resolve our problems whenever possible. Indeed, we can recall the words of Thomas Jefferson, who said: "I hope that our wisdom will grow with our power, and teach us that the less we use our power the greater it will be."

I'm not going to rehash the Iraq war, but this is just silly. "I believe that the Iraqi people are ultimately better off without the tyranny of Saddam Hussein," but Iraq has reminded America that they "need to use diplomacy and build international consensus...whenever possible"?

That really doesn't make any sense. You can say many things about the advantages of diplomacy in regards to the invasion of Iraq, but one thing you definitely cannot say is that more diplomacy would have led to the removal of Saddam Hussein. Diplomacy would never -- not even if the U.S. had debated the issue on the floor of the United Nations nonstop for ten years -- have rid Iraq of Saddam Hussein. Quite frankly, it wasn't really in the interest of many nations, including those on the Security Council, to see Saddam removed from power. Many were profiting quite richly from his rule. Sometimes -- brace yourselves, this is kind of a radical idea these days -- diplomacy actually can't "resolve our problems." The only way the Iraqi people would have been rid of Saddam Hussein is through force. It's that simple.

On nuclear weapons:

It will be hard to overcome decades of mistrust, but we will proceed with courage, rectitude and resolve. There will be many issues to discuss between our two countries, and we are willing to move forward without preconditions on the basis of mutual respect.

Yeah, that's great, except, well...Iran isn't really interested in talking to us. Obama spoke in his inaugural address about the "open hand" that America is extending to rogue states. Yet Obama's accommodating attitude has been met with defiance. I don't think it gets any clearer than Ahmadinejad responding to Obama's offer of talks with an absurd challenge to debate him face-to-face on the floor of the U.N. and declaring that "The nuclear issue is closed for us," followed promptly by Iran's test-firing of a new missile, the Sejil-2.

I understand those who protest that some countries have weapons that others do not. No single nation should pick and choose which nations hold nuclear weapons. That is why I strongly reaffirmed America's commitment to seek a world in which no nations hold nuclear weapons.

Unfortunately, this kum-bah-yah sentiment won't do much good in the real world. The idea that nuclear weapons can be "abolished" is absurd. Weapons of this magnitude cannot be wished away once created. The genie is most certainly out of the bottle, it has been for decades, and it's not going back in. As Richard Fernandez wrote in the aftermath of the recent North Korea nuclear test:

The alternative to a nuclear monopoly by the great powers isn’t a “world without nuclear weapons”. It’s universal armament.

Like I said though, on the whole, I though it was a pretty good speech.

The Arab-Israeli double standard

2009-06-01T19:18:00.007-05:00

Yes, I know, long time no see. What can I say...it was a busy last semester at William and Mary. In reality, the only person responsible for my lack of posting is the author attached to these fingers. Although to be fair to myself, I did have help...but I won't name any (distracting) names.

I write today because I've been reading quite a bit about President Obama's widely discussed early moves to attempt to resuscitate the flat-lined Arab-Israeli peace plan. Obama made a point during the 2008 campaign of promising to take a more "active" and "personal" role in the conflict, and sharply criticized President Bush's "hands-off" approach to Middle East peace, saying he wouldn't "wait until the waning days of my presidency" to push for progress between the two sides.

Obama has indeed made the Arab-Israeli peace process a top foreign policy priority for his new administration -- today he began his Mideast tour in Saudi Arabia. Obama clearly believes that his presidency can serve as a "blank slate" for the peace process. He is also taking a more critical position in regards to the U.S. relationship with Israel. The logic -- advanced in this typical NYT piece by Roger Cohen -- is that Israel needs to be challenged to make concessions, and if the Arab nations see the U.S. as a more "objective" player rather than a staunch ally of Israel, they will be more willing to seriously negotiate with the U.S. as a moderator.

For example, Obama's relationship with Israeli PM Benjamin Netanyahu has been downright frosty -- Israeli newspaper Ha'aretz claimed that "Israeli-American relations are entering their most serious tailspin in a decade." Obama has called for Israel to immediately halt all construction of new settlements in the West Bank -- an unpopular demand in Israel and one that few Israelis believe will do anything to advance the peace process.

This brings up an interesting question: have Obama's "tough love" moves towards Israel encouraged the Arab players to be more willing to negotiate? The answer has, regrettably but not surprisingly, been "no."

Although it may seem counter-intuitive, Obama's strongly critical stance towards Israel is actually emboldening the Arabs to make less concessions -- not more. Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas responded to Obama's lecturing of Israel with, as Eric Trager puts it, an updated version of the Arab League's "Three No's" -- "No amending the Arab peace plan; No normalization without withdrawal; and no to the Jewishness of the Israeli state." That's hardly indicative of a leader ready for productive negotiations. Abbas's above positions can be summarized, essentially, as an insistence on an unequivocal "right of return" for Palestinians to Israeli territory -- a proposition that no Israeli government, Likud or Labor, would ever accept.

Add to that the Obama administration's blunder when talking about Israel giving up settlements near Jerusalem -- as TNR's Marty Peretz has noted, some of which are communities that Jews have lived in for over 40 years, and which are home to 150,000 of Jerusalem's 500,000 Jewish residents. Obama's grasp of the current situation is, to put it lightly -- a bit lacking, and unfortunately the President is going to have to learn the hard way that intractable conflicts cannot simply be swept away by his charisma and eloquence.

But this whole debate over settlements brings me to my main point: Why is it, as Peretz puts it, "that no Israelis can live in Palestine and that 1.5 million Palestinian Arabs can live in Israel" [as Israeli citizens, no less]? The Center for Security Policy's Frank Gaffney made a similar comment in a recent video, quoting former CIA Director James Woolsey:

"There is the standard that has been established by how Israel now treats its own Arab citizens, a minority about 1/5th of the population. They are allowed to practice their own faith, have their own mosques...they are allowed to have their own schools, their own newspapers, they are allowed to be voters in real parliamentary elections...they are allowed to go to sleep at night secure in the knowledge that their government will not be knocking down the doors and killing them on a wanton and unprovoked basis.

The same ought to apply to Jews living in any areas that the Palestinians might ultimately control...[This] is an important precondition to having a state that is worthy of our support and that will in fact be able to live side by side in peace with Israel. Jews should be not only allowed to live in the Palestinian areas...but they should have their own synagogues, their own newspapers, schools, the opportunity to vote for elected officials to represent them. In the case of the Israeli Arabs, they have a representative on the Supreme Court...the same should apply for Jews living in any future Palestinian state."

As Gaffney notes, that sounds rather absurd and unrealistic, doesn't it? The double standard has become so ingrained in the psyche of Americans (and Westerners) that I'm sure many people reading this never even considered that Jews might be permitted to live in the future Palestinian state, much less granted the same rights as Arab citizens are granted in Israel.

But why is that? Why is Israel held to one standard, and Palestinians to another (much lower) one? Discrimination in Israel against Arab citizens has been condemned by Human Rights Watch, and even by the U.S. State Department and by official Israeli government reports. But despite the inequalities between Arab and Jewish citizens in Israel, does anyone seriously believe that a Palestinian state would consider granting any rights to Jews? Or even that they would be allowed to live there at all?

The more likely eventual scenario, as Peretz concludes:

My guess is that when these issues are settled at a peace conference, probably deep into the future, many Jewish towns and villages will be uprooted because, much as other Arabs do, the Arabs of Palestine like their turf cleansed of Jews.

Sad, but true. The centerpiece of Obama's well-intentioned "outreach" efforts to the Muslim world will be his highly anticipated speech in Cairo tomorrow. In his speech, Obama is supposedly going to "discuss in some detail his view of the [Arab-Israeli] conflict and what needs to be done to resolve it." I do hope that Obama pursues the vaunted "balanced approach" that his foreign policy advisors have been promoting -- an approach that balances the standards to which all sides are held.

Obama meets reality

2009-01-13T18:11:00.011-05:00

To me, Barack Obama's candidacy was always steaming full speed ahead on a collision course with reality. During the campaign, Obama made dozens of outlandish promises, especially in his rhetoric on national security and foreign policy during the Democratic primary campaign.

If elected, I knew that any President Obama would quickly find that such staunch pledges and idealistic promises to the liberal base of the Democratic party would smash headlong into the unforgiving brick wall of reality. As a candidate, it's one thing to promise anti-war zealots that you'll have all American combat troops out of Iraq within 16 months. It's quite another to actually do so when you find yourself seated behind the desk in the Oval Office, bearing the heavy responsibility of the leader of the free world.

The question, then, was this: would Obama, if elected, cling stubbornly to his primary campaign rhetoric? Or would he admit that, well, his rhetoric may have gotten a bit "overheated" and instead make decisions based on more practical considerations? My Obama-supporting friends assured me it was the latter. And so far -- at least on two big issues -- it appears they were right. And so much for the better.

1) Terror detainees
Yes, Obama has announced he will "issue an executive order" to close the Guantanamo Bay detention facility within his first week in office. But "issuing the order" and actually closing Guantanamo Bay are two different things. And as Obama admitted in an interview with George Stephanopolous this week, the problem of closing Guantanamo Bay is a "challenge" -- one that he does not see getting done within his first 100 days in office:

STEPHANOPOULOS: You also agreed on Guantanamo when you say you want to shut it down. You say you're still going to shut it down. Is it turning out to be harder than you expected, will you get that done in the first 100 days?

OBAMA: It is more difficult than I think a lot of people realize and we are going to get it done but part of the challenge that you have is that you have a bunch of folks that have been detained, many of whom who may be very dangerous who have not been put on trial or have not gone through some adjudication. And some of the evidence against them may be tainted even though it's true. And so how to balance creating a process that adheres to rule of law, habeas corpus, basic principles of Anglo American legal system, by doing it in a way that doesn't result in releasing people who are intent on blowing us up.

STEPHANOPOULOS: So not necessarily first 100 days.

OBAMA: That's a challenge. I think it's going to take some time and our legal teams are working in consultation with our national security apparatus as we speak to help design exactly what we need to do.

He went on, of course, to add that "I don't want to be ambiguous" because "we are going to close Guantanamo" -- just as soon as we work out those pesky details like figuring out what to do with the extremely dangerous terrorists interred there. Rather easy to denounce the Bush administration for "illegally rounding people up and throwing them in prison with no regards to their rights" and that Gitmo is a "stain on America's image" that should be "closed immediately"...but reality, it turns out, is a bit more complex. We're in the middle of a war unlike any we've ever been in before, and there are supremely important questions that need to be addressed about how we deal with terrorist combatants captured on the battlefield.

What's encouraging about this decision by Obama is that it opens up the possibility that this country can actually finally have a calm, rational, and exceedingly important debate about what our policy should be in regards to terror detainees. It won't go over well with the netroots, of course, some of whom will no doubt shrilly scream that Obama betrayed them, but it is a long overdue discussion that this country needs to have.

For an excellent example of the form this debate will probably take, check out this extremely informative discussion by legal experts on the NYT's Room for Debate blog, who offer a variety of educated opinions on the matter: "The Challenges of Closing Guantanamo."

2) Iraq
Perhaps my biggest lingering fear after Obama was elected was that his abysmal judgment on Iraq thus far would lead him to actually follow through on his pledge to withdraw all American combat troops within 16 months of taking office -- a plan that top military officials had said was "a logistical nightmare", not to mention horrifically irresponsible.

In the end, I needn't have worried:

President-elect Barack Obama pledged during his election campaign to withdraw all American combat troops from Iraq within 16 months of taking office and shift the focus to Afghanistan to combat a resurgent Taliban and al-Qaida-linked militants.

Since the November election, however, the U.S. and Iraq have signed a new security agreement that provides for all the more than 140,000 U.S. troops to leave by 2012, despite concerns among senior U.S. commanders that Iraqi forces might not be ready by then to ensure stability.

...Biden gave assurances that the new administration will stick to the timetable in the agreement, Al-Dabbagh said.

...as I'd hoped. Though I'm still wary that Iraqi forces will not be quite ready to take over by 2012 (the Iraqi Air Force is still in its infancy and will be barely combat-ready by that time), they will certainly be far more prepared than they would be if they had to take over combat operations completely by May 2010. And although Candidate Obama may have pretended otherwise, I'm glad that President-elect Obama recognizes that reality. Yes, even though it may be labeled as "embracing Bush's Iraq strategy", it's still the best course of action and the correct decision.

So at least so far, Obama has shown encouraging signs that he may indeed be the practical, realistic leader that many of his supporters assured me he'd be. Time will tell -- he's not even in office yet, of course -- but if so, thank goodness for it.

Israel's strike on the UN school in Gaza -- a few things to keep in mind

2009-01-06T15:00:00.008-05:00

The big news today out of Gaza is that the Israeli military attacked a UN school with artillery, killing 30-40 people. Consequently, the international outcry against Israel's military operations in Gaza has been ratcheted up, with condemnations of Israel's "brutality" and "war crimes" against the Palestinians reaching a fever pitch.

Now, any loss of life is a tragedy, and civilian casualties in military conflict are of course deeply saddening. But Israel's hysterical critics would have you believe that the IDF is purposely targeting civilian areas like these UN schools, with arguments that amount to little more than "because they're evil." In this case, they'd argue that the IDF shelled the school for no other reason than because there are large groups of civilians there, and Israel's secret desire is to exterminate all the Palestinians, or maybe because the Israeli soldiers just enjoy watching Palestinians die. Something along those lines.

But consider these facts:

In May 2008, the Israeli military carried out an airstrike that killed Awad al-Qiq, a major rocket maker for Islamic Jihad. He was also the headmaster of a UN school in Gaza.
The Israeli military claimed that its forces were returning fire from mortars that had been fired at them from the vicinity of the school. To support the claim that militants were using the school as a base for attacks, the Israeli Air Force released a video from October 2007 showing Palestinian militants firing mortars from that same school.
The IDF also claims to have killed members of a Hamas mortar team in the strike, including operatives Immad Abu Askar and Hassan Abu Askar.
Hamas has been known to cynically use heavily populated civilian areas and neighborhoods as staging grounds for launching attacks on Israel in order to both deter Israeli retaliation and use any potential civilian casualties as PR against Israel if the IDF does retaliate. This is exactly what the IDF is claiming happened in the case of the UN school. This Associated Press report confirms the Israeli account:

The Israeli army said its soldiers came under fire from militants hiding in the school and responded. It accused Gaza's Hamas rulers of "cynically" using civilians as human shields. Area residents confirmed the account, saying militants were seen staging attacks from the area.

Israeli defense officials told the Associated Press that "booby-trapped bombs in the school triggered the secondary explosions which killed scores of Palestinians on the site." Other accounts also note that "secondary explosions...presumably emanating from munitions stored" on the school grounds caused most of the casualties. Those would be the munitions stored there by Hamas.

One last thing. This New York Times story about this incident, titled "Israeli Strike Hits Refugees Near a U.N. School in Gaza," notes, as just about every news story about this offensive does, the death toll. Palestinian officials estimate that nearly 560 Palestinians have been killed since the fighting began 11 days ago, but even the United Nations' Israel-hostile reports estimate that only a quarter of that number were civilians. (Meaning the rest were Hamas militants).

Considering that Gaza is the most densely populated area on earth, with 1.5 million people packed into about 360 square kilometers (~139 sq. mi, or roughly 10,800 people per square mile), and that Hamas has been known to purposely use civilians as human shields to launch attacks on Israel, I'd say that it's astounding that the civilian casualties in this operation (according to the UN estimate above, about 140) are so low. This is largely due to the fact that the Israeli military has actually been taking extraordinary and historic measures to avoid civilian casualties -- even to the point of calling and text-messaging Palestinians prior to strikes to warn them that the area they are in is about to be targeted.

Just some things to keep in mind.

**UPDATE: On a related note, a French television station has admitted that photos it recently aired that supposedly showed destruction and bodies after an Israeli air strike in Gaza on January 1st were actually from a 2005 incident in which a truck full of explosives being transported by militants blew up in a refugee camp.

The footage aired on Channel 2 on Tuesday afternoon showed dozens of dead bodies, including Hamas gunmen and citizens, which the channel said were killed by an IAF bombing raid on January 1st. It later came to light that the channel had instead aired footage of the devastation caused after a truck full of explosives blew up in the Jabaliya Refugee Camp.

A news editor at France 2 told Le Figaro Tuesday that they had "made a mistake by airing those pictures..."

Israel gets blamed for the deaths of Palestinians killed by Hamas over three years ago? Yeah, I'd say that's quite a "mistake".

**UPDATE 2: And this:

Hamas has set up an independent hospital in the Gaza Strip to treat its operatives wounded in fighting with the IDF - and, according to Israeli estimates, it is pilfering a significant portion of the medicine allowed into the Strip, senior defense officials told The Jerusalem Post on Monday.

Despite this estimate, the Defense Ministry said Monday that it would continue facilitating the transfer of food and medical supplies into Gaza...

On Sunday, Military Intelligence chief Maj.-Gen. Amos Yadlin told the cabinet that Hamas was using mosques, public institutions and private houses as ammunition stores.

And yet somehow, to so many people watching this crisis unfold, Israel is still the villain, not Hamas.

My Top 11 Albums of 2008

2009-01-01T15:55:00.004-05:00

Happy 2009 everyone! To celebrate the new year, I give you my annual list of the top 11 albums I most enjoyed this past year.

2008 was a competitive year. After making an initial compilation of my favorite albums of the year, I found myself with over twenty. Consequently, there were some genuinely fantastic albums that didn't make the cut this year. See "Honorable Mention" at the bottom for those.

[(Annual) Disclaimer: These selections are not supposed to be "the" top albums of the year. In no way am I suggesting these albums are better than all other albums that were released this year. These are simply the ones that I liked best.]

1. Folie A Deux - Fall Out Boy

Say what you like about Fall Out Boy, but you can never, ever accuse these guys of lacking creativity. Folie A Deux is a masterpiece of sonic experimentation, a veritable feast of musical treats for your ears. Success has given FOB the ability to push the boundaries, mixing and blending all sorts of genres, and the guest artists featured throughout the album, from 'Lil Wayne to Elvis Costello, prove yet again that FOB is unafraid to take huge risks musically in order to reap huge rewards. Patrick Stump's singing is stellar -- I find myself frequently shaking my head at his vocal gymnastics. The departure from traditional pop-punk in Folie is even more dramatic than it was in Infinity on High, as FOB masterfully blend in R&B, soul, 80s pop, and many other ingredients, creating a genre-defying sound that is very much unlike anything you've ever heard before. Tracks like "What A Catch, Donnie" and "w.a.m.s." in particular resist traditional conceptions of what "Fall Out Boy" sounds like. FOB has come a long way from Take This To Your Grave -- in fact, so far as to be virtually unrecognizable -- but in every subsequent album their reinvention has paid off. This is the most fun you'll have listening to any album this year.

Standout Tracks: "Disloyal Order Of Water Buffaloes", "I Don't Care", "ِAmerica's Suitehearts", "Headfirst Slide Into Cooperstown On A Bad Bet", "The (Shipped) Gold Standard", "(Coffee's For Closers)", "w.a.m.s.", "20 Dollar Nose Bleed", "West Coast Smoker"

2. Pretty. Odd. - Panic At The Disco

Panic dropped the exclamation point from their name as well as the weird circus stage theatrics for their follow-up to A Fever You Can't Sweat Out, stripping down and starting over, rebuilding their sound from the bottom up. That wasn't the only thing they started over -- in July 2007, the band decided to scrap the entire original album they had written and start over from strach. If there was any doubt as to the musical genius of Brendan Urie, or any suspicion that Panic was little more than a flash in the pan, those were put to rest with Pretty. Odd. The pop-punk is gone, and so are the teen-marketed lyrics, replaced with impressive songwriting (with a much more positive tone) and bright, piano-based ditties that end up sounding more like Sgt. Pepper-esque Beatles than anything else. The results are brilliant.

Standout Tracks: "Nine In The Afternoon", "She's A Handsome Woman", "That Green Gentleman (Things Have Changed)", "Northern Downpour", "When The Day Met The Night", "Folkin' Around", "Mad As Rabbits"

3. Feed The Animals - Girl Talk

Perhaps it is strange that an indie mashup artist's album should make it to #3 on this list...but then again, perhaps not. The genius of fair-use champion Gregg Gillis's vision in Feed The Animals is almost hard to describe without hearing the results for yourself. Where else can you find Michael Jackson, Kanye West, and Radiohead blended together, or a perfect mixture of Ace of Base, Ben Folds Five, and Cassidy? ("Still Here") Or perhaps Phil Collins, Busta Rhymes, and The Police? ("What It's All About") Ever wanted to know what Jackson 5, The Beastie Boys, and Nine Inch Nails would sound like together? Probably something "Like This". Feed The Animals is infectious, addicting, and never fails to spark a dance party whenever it comes on. Yet the album's dynamic, serving-size segments mean that it virtually never gets old or seems overplayed. This album was an unforgettable part of my fall semester.

Standout Tracks: "Play Your Part (Pt. 1)", "Shut The Club Down", "Still Here", "Like This", "In Step", "Here's The Thing"

4. Rise Or Die Trying - Four Year Strong

Easily one of the best new artists of 2008, Four Year Strong's debut album is a perfect blend of hard rock and metal instrumentation with pop-punk-ish vocals, in the style of bands like Fully Down -- but better. Double bass drum pedals and epic, crunching guitar riffs galore, it's almost impossible not to rock out every time you listen to this album.

Standout Tracks: "The Takeover", "Prepare To Be Digitally Manipulated", "Heroes Get Remembered, Legends Never Die", "Catastrophe", "Bada Bing! Wit' A Pipe!", "Maniac (R.O.D.)"

5. The Silver Cord - The Classic Crime

It was going to be hard to top their debut album, Albatross, but the Seattle-based group did a pretty impressive job with their follow-up, The Silver Cord. Expanding their horizons and improving their musicianship (see the Black Parade-esque keyboards on "5805", or the sick guitar solo on "Gravedigging"), TCC manages to keep just enough of the huge, sing-along choruses that characterized their first album. The Silver Cord also has a distinctive structure -- the first 10 tracks on the album, from the somber, mournful opening track, "The End", to the brooding, intense "Medisin") are all written in minor keys and explore themes of despair, depression, and loneliness. Then comes the epic instrumental interlude "The Ascent", which serves as a turning point on the album, and the final four tracks are all written in major keys, with messages of redemption, renewal, and hope, culminating finally with "The Beginning (A Simple Seed)", easily one of the best tracks on the album.

Standout Tracks: "Gravedigging", "The Way That You Are", "5805", "Abracadavers", "Medisin", "Sing", "Everything", "The Beginning (A Simple Seed)"

6. Viva La Vida - Coldplay

No, it wasn't X&Y (#2 for me in 2005). But Coldplay's highly anticipated release was still one of the best albums of the year. Perhaps they've lost a little bit of their edge, and perhaps several of the B-sides that made it onto the Prospekt's March EP should have replaced some lackluster tracks on Viva La Vida, but there is no denying that the album offers some fantastic tracks, from the hip-hop-inspired beat of "Lost!" to the gorgeous piano on "Lovers In Japan," and the crunching guitar hooks of "Violet Hill" to the building crescendo of "Death And All His Friends". Not too shabby, Chris Martin.

Standout Tracks: "Lost!", "Lovers In Japan", "Viva La Vida", "Violet Hill", "Strawberry Swing", "Death And All His Friends"

7. Whisper War - The Cab

Also without a doubt one of the best new up-and-coming artists this year, the 17-year-old members of Las Vegas-based The Cab made a statement with their debut album early this year. If the explosive opening track, "One Of Those Nights" -- featuring guest appearances from a few friends, including Panic's Brendan Urie and Fall Out Boy's Patrick Stump -- doesn't get your attention, then The Cab's roaring guitars, tight vocal harmonies, and infectious blend of rock, soul, pop, R&B -- even a little disco -- on the remaining tracks certainly will. Trendy? Check. Witty, tongue-in-cheek lyrics? "/It's only a crime if I get caught/"...."/Liars turn me on/"...check. But you have to try really hard not to enjoy this album.

Standout Tracks: "One Of Those Nights", "Bounce", "High Hopes In Velvet Ropes", "Take My Hand", "Risky Business", "Zzzzz", "This City Is Contagious"

8. Want - 3OH!3

Let's face it -- 3OH!3 is everyone's guilty pleasure. Sure, the lyrics might be trashy -- see the "pseudo-pornographic" lyrics of "Starstrukk", as my friend put it, for example. But the dance-electronic-pop-punk-hip-hop blend of 3OH!3 is catching on. Don't deny it -- it's just about impossible not to get up and dance to "Don't Trust Me." And everyone loves angrily screaming the lyrics to "I'm Not Your Boyfriend Baby". The synth lead in in "PunkB*tch" is awesome. Plus, who can argue with this advice: "Don't trust a ho / never trust a ho / won't trust a ho / 'cause the ho won't trust me." Plus, "Shush girl, shut your lips / Do the Hellen Keller, and talk with your hips." These two white guys can rap.

Standout Tracks: "PunkB*tch", "Don't Trust Me", "I'm Not Your Boyfriend Baby", "Starstrukk", "Richman", "Holler Till You Pass Out"

9. Fast Times At Barrington High - The Academy Is...

The Academy Is...well, back. Let's just pretend Santi never happened, okay? I knew I had a good feeling about this album when I heard the title -- which comes from a high school about a half hour from my house (the band is from Hoffman Estates, IL) -- and it lived up to my expectations. Everything about the album, from the lyrics to the chord progressions -- screams high school summers...and I mean that in the best possible way. It makes you want to drive around your hometown with your friends in June, with the sun shining and the windows down (and blasting this album, of course). It never takes itself too seriously, and TAI has apparently rediscovered how to write rockin', singable choruses after filling a whole album with forgettable, mid-tempo mush for Santi. William Beckett's soaring vocals are always a highlight, especially in the high-tempo opening track and first single, "About A Girl."

Standout Tracks: "About A Girl", "Summer Hair=Forever Young", "His Girl Friday", "The Test", "Rumored Nights", "Coppertone", "Beware! Cougar!", "One More Weekend"

10. Narrow Stairs - Death Cab For Cutie

A lot of DCFC fans didn't like Narrow Stairs. I am not one of them. I thought it was fantastic. Death Cab branched out, shedding the acoustic emphasis of Transatlanticism and Plans in favor of more synth, more electric guitars, and more electro-pop deliciousness. It's a departure from their traditional sound, but I thought it worked extremely well. I adore "Bixby Canyon Bridge" (dream sequence and all) and the catchy bass guitar riff of "I Will Possess Your Heart" makes it an instant classic. "Long Division" is easily one of my all-time favorites.

Standout Tracks: "Bixby Canyon Bridge", "I Will Possess Your Heart", "Cath...", "You Can Do Better Than Me", "Grapevine Fires", "Long Division", "Pity And Fear"

11. Shudder - Bayside

Bayside's follow-up to The Walking Wounded (#4 in 2007) is only this far down on the list because of all the other incredible albums that have come out this year -- not because it was disappointing. The anthemic opener, "Boy", starts the album off with a bang, and while this album isn't a radical departure from Bayside's standard self-described "gloom pop" sound, it does take a few interesting forays into new territory -- case in point is the closing track, "Moceanu", which features lead singer Anthony Raneri crooning a melancholy dirge in which he spells out many of the lyrics, accompanied by only a sparse, rhythmic keyboard. Jack O'Shea's lead guitar riffs are still impressive throughout, though less noticeable than they were on Walking Wounded.

Standout Tracks: "Boy", "The Ghost of St. Valentine", "What And What Not", "I Can't Go On", "Demons", "Roshambo", "Moceanu"

And as for those additional excellent albums that also deserve some recognition:

- The Glass Passenger - Jack's Mannequin
- Underdog Alma Mater - Forever The Sickest Kids
- State of the Art (EP) - Audiostrobelight
- New Surrender - Anberlin
- Can't Love, Can't Hurt - Augustana
- Day & Age - The Killers

Vote McCain

2008-11-04T00:12:00.006-05:00

Today is Election Day.

After what must surely be the longest and most agonizingly drawn-out presidential campaign in U.S. history, I find it incredible that a significant percentage of Americans -- around 7 percent, according to a Zogby poll last week -- have made it this far without deciding who they're voting for, especially in an election with as many sharp distinctions between the candidates as this one.

Nevertheless, for those of my friends out there who, whether they admit it or not, are still even the slightest bit uncertain about who to vote for today, I wish to present you with the following arguments.

At this point, delving into the minutiae of policy details, proposals, and things like the projected costs of candidates plans or the size of each candidate's promised tax cut is fairly pointless. Any reasonably informed voter who cares enough about these issues has paid enough attention to research each candidate's position and is pretty familiar with all the specifics, bullet points, and numbers by now. If you haven't, I'm afraid the hour is too late (literally and figuratively) for me to take explain them thoroughly to you.

Instead, I want to draw a few general, but inestimably important distinctions between Barack Obama and John McCain:

Their records. It may have been forgotten in this campaign, but both candidates have one. After his military service, John McCain served two terms in the House and has spent over twenty years in the Senate. He has a long list of important votes, accomplishments, and distinctions on which he is running. Yet no one, not even his supporters, can seriously claim that Barack Obama is running on his. And for good reason -- Barack Obama hasn't done anything to run on. His substantive accomplishments in life consist of writing two books about himself and running an extremely successful campaign for president of the United States. He spent his time in the Illinois Senate voting "present," and spent over half his tenure as a first-term, freshman U.S. Senator running his campaign for president.

Barack Obama is a highly educated, brilliant man, with clear ability to motivate and inspire people. But so much more than that is (or should be) required to be President of the United States. Obama's campaign is essentially asking people to place their bet on a completely unproven commodity. "Trust us, Barack can handle it. Look at his leadership potential!" Thanks, but I'll take proven leadership over potential leadership any day.

Since Barack Obama has little to no record to run on, we have no choice but to consider what we do know about him -- and the fact of the matter is that Barack Obama has, during the course of his adult and political life, chosen to surround himself with an alarming number of associates, mentors, and "friends" of dubious reputation, character, and values. The names have become household -- Reverend Jeremiah "God Damn America" Wright, his "spiritual mentor"; unrepentant ex-terrorist Bill Ayers, his partner on education reform; Tony Rezko, the embodiment of Chicago's corrupt political culture...the list goes on. Obama distanced himself from these unsavory characters during the campaign as soon as -- and only when -- they became a political embarassment. And that's not even mentioning Obama's ties with ACORN, currently under investigation in more than a dozen states for massive voter registration fraud, or the blatant, almost arrogant flaunting of campaign finance laws by his campaign.

These are not "distractions," and they're not "irrelevant." Despite the best efforts of the Obama campaign, I continue to cling stubbornly to my belief that you don't judge a candidate by what he says he'll do, but rather that you judge him by what he's actually done. Imagine if the tables were turned. Victor Davis Hanson said it best:

Imagine the reaction...had John McCain’s pastor and spiritual advisor of 20 years been revealed as a white supremacist who damned a multiracial United States, or had he been a close acquaintance until 2005 of an unrepentant terrorist bomber of abortion clinics...

Indeed.

Judgment. I've written about Obama's unforgivably poor judgment on Iraq at length (more here, and here). No need to go over all of that again. Suffice to say this: The dramatic turnaround the U.S. has seen in Iraq over the past 18 months occurred only because of a change in strategy and tactics long advocated by Sen. John McCain. These successes (and the aversion of a disastrous defeat for the United States) could not, and would not have happened if the U.S. had implemented Barack Obama's proposal around that same time to withdraw all U.S. troops by March 2008.

At a pivotal moment, on one of (if not the) most consequential national security decisions of this decade, Obama's judgment turned out to be dead wrong, and McCain's turned out to be right. Take that into consideration when making your choice for President.

Identity. I know who John McCain is. Everyone does. They know what he stands for, they know his values, they know his core beliefs. Yet despite mega-superstar status and celebrity treatment, how many people can say with confidence that they feel that way about Barack Obama?

There's a reason for this. The term "blank slate" as used to describe Barack Obama was not conjured up by some right-wing pundit -- they're Obama's own words, in the prologue to "The Audacity of Hope."

"I serve as a blank screen," Obama writes, "on which people of vastly different political stripes project their own views." He notifies readers that "my treatment of the issues is often partial and incomplete."

This is my biggest problem with Barack Obama. To paraphrase Mark Steyn, many, many people will vote today for the two-dimensional Barack Obama. Millions of people will go to the polls not to vote for the man, not for his policies or proposals, but for an idea. People look at Barack Obama and they see what they want to see. He is to them what they want him to be: the Hope, the Change, the Renewer, the Messiah -- a post-modern mush of emotional drivel and vapid catchphrases.

[Obama] offers “hope, not fear”. “Hope” of what? “Hope” of “change.” Okay, but “change” to what? Ah, well, there you go again, getting all hung up on three-dimensional reality, when we’ve moved way beyond that.

This characteristic is an absolutely fantastic quality to have when you're trying to win an election. It isn't particularly helpful when you're trying to run the most powerful country on earth and lead the free world through some of the darkest days it has yet seen. As Steyn notes: we're not electing an idea. We're electing a leader. A real, living, breathing -- and very human -- individual.

The bottom line is this: I want my President to stand for something, and I want to know what that something is before I vote for him.

In the case of Barack Obama, we can only guess what those "core values" are. But Barack Obama's "post-partisan" campaign has obscured an utterly doctrinaire left-wing political career. Despite his lofty claims to be a "pragmatist," and a "moderate," I strongly believe that Barack Obama is neither. Prior to the launch of his general election campaign in the summer of 2008, Barack Obama's positions have been a paragon of unflinching liberal orthodoxy on nearly every issue, be it abortion, gun control, trade, higher taxes, withdrawal from Iraq, massive increases in government spending, unsustainable new government social programs, or his openly stated desire to "spread the wealth around."

If you want to see America subjected to unchecked liberal government power, vote for Barack Obama. If you believe that the government knows how to spend your money better than you do, and that believing otherwise is "selfish", vote for Barack Obama. If you believe that America can only be a "shining city on a hill" if we lower the common denominator of prosperity in the name of "fairness," vote for Barack Obama.

If you believe in limiting the power of government to act "in your best interest," vote for John McCain. If you believe that you, not a government bureacracy, should decide how your hard-earned money is spent, vote for John McCain. If you believe that America has been the "shining city on a hill" for the world because its spirit of entrepreneurship and innovation has truly made it the land of opportunity, then vote for John McCain.

According to the polls, pundits, and analysts in the media, Barack Obama's likely victory today was a foregone conclusion weeks, even months ago -- after all, it's the only ending that fits their script. But if this election cycle taught us anything, it is that nothing is "inevitable." Nothing is preordained. The only analysis that matters is the one that runs through the mind of every American voter standing in that booth. The only poll that matters is this one.

Vote McCain.

Colin Powell's unimpressive endorsement of Barack Obama

2008-10-22T17:06:00.004-05:00

Now that midterms are (finally) over, I can permit my addiction to following news about the presidential campaign to have free reign over my life once again.

Many of my liberal friends have been excitedly asking me what I thought about Colin Powell's endorsement of Barack Obama over the past weekend, so I thought I'd outline my thoughts here.

First, this is not a "shock." Anyone who has been paying attention knows that rumors were flying about Powell endorsing Obama back in the spring. Powell is a well-known liberal Republican, one of the holdovers from the Bush 41 era, and by no stretch of the imagination a conservative.

What is surprising is that his endorsement of Obama came this late in the game, with only two weeks left until the election. Some would argue that the Obama campaign was hoping for a "knockout" blow here in the home stretch, but I have a feeling Powell was waiting to see who it looked like was going to win. Once the polls appeared to showed Obama pulling ahead with a comfortable 7-10 point-lead, as they had been the last couple of weeks, Powell may have felt it was safe to side with the guy who looked like a lock-in.

His options looked something like this: If he endorses Obama and Obama wins, Powell resurrects his political career, becomes the darling of the media, secures a potential high-up spot in an Obama administration, and erases any memories about his involvement in the Bush administration's case for war in Iraq, especially that whole UN-Security-Council-WMD thing.

On the other hand, if he endorses Obama and Obama loses, Powell looks like a fool and is simultaneously alienated from his own party. Now, if Powell endorses McCain and McCain wins or loses, Powell gets reviled by the media as just another washed-up Bush lackey and will be remembered mainly for the infamous WMD episode in the Security Council.

Once the media narrative became "It's over, Obama's locked in a landslide victory," Powell endorsed Obama. At least, that's how it looks to me. Of course, there's no way to know his true motivations. (However, I do find the "Powell-endorsed-Obama-because-they're-both-black" explanation rather absurd.)

Motivations aside -- and let's give Powell the benefit of the doubt and assume he just genuinely decided to support Obama based on his merits as a candidate for president -- I was completely unimpressed by all of the "explanations" Powell gave for supporting Obama on "Meet the Press."

In order:

1. "In the case of Mr. McCain, I found that he was a little unsure as to deal with the economic problems that we were having and almost every day there was a different approach to the problem. "

Arguably true. But Obama's reaction to the crisis was also far from impressive -- repeating easy, vague partisan attacks on "deregulation" and "Bush's economic policy" haven't exactly evidenced a brilliant grasp of the financial crisis. Obama also vacillated, never taking a position on the AIG bailout, and he showed absolutely zero leadership, either for or against, the Paulson bailout plan. Surely the lackluster performance of both candidates can't have swayed Powell's decision.

2. "The selection of Sarah Palin...She’s a very distinguished woman, and she’s to be admired; but at the same time, now that we have had a chance to watch her for some seven weeks, I don’t believe she’s ready to be president of the United States, which is the job of the vice president.

This still boggles my mind -- I find it absolutely incomprehensible how someone could argue with a straight face that "Sarah Palin is not ready to be president of the United States" as an argument for supporting Barack Obama -- who began his presidential campaign after serving just 134 days as a U.S. Senator. Powell says he came to this conclusion after watching her performance for "some seven weeks" -- but somehow failed to notice the utter lack of readiness of Barack Obama -- who is running for President, not Vice President -- after nearly two years of campaigning.

3. "I also believe that on the Republican side over the last seven weeks, the approach of the Republican Party and Mr. McCain has become narrower and narrower...And I’ve also been disappointed, frankly, by some of the approaches that Senator McCain has taken recently, or his campaign ads, on issues that are not really central to the problems that the American people are worried about."

Negative campaigning? One can argue that McCain's campaign has been much more negative than Obama's only if one ignores all of Obama's negative attack ads, for instance, ones that tell outright lies about McCain's healthcare plan. But even if that were true, are campaign tactics really a good reason to determine who someone as weighty as Colin Powell is going to vote for for president? Certainly his decision-making must have been a little deeper than that.

4. "And the party has moved even further to the right, and Governor Palin has indicated a further rightward shift."

That assertion is just completely untrue -- the Republican party nominated McCain, who was the least conservative of all the major nominees this year. Conservative pundits and talk show hosts like Rush Limbaugh attacked McCain daily throughout the primaries.

And McCain is definitely less conservative than George W. Bush, who Colin Powell endorsed in the past. If anything, conservatives grudgingly settled for McCain as their best bet, while liberals nominated Obama precisely for his adherence to left-wing ideology. Apparently that "leftward shift" in the ideology of the Democratic party doesn't worry Powell, though it should.

As Rich Lowry notes, Powell's "purported reasons for endorsing Obama sound more like excuses." And rather weak ones, at that. I was waiting for Powell to get to the point, the "real" reason he was supporting Obama -- a point that never came.

I still respect Colin Powell and his service to our country, both in the military and as Secretary of State. But this endorsement was thoroughly lackluster.

Obama's "post-partisan" leadership on the bailout plan...or not.

2008-10-01T15:37:00.010-05:00

Today, October 1, 2008, Barack Obama puzzlingly claimed in a speech on the bailout plan in La Crosse, Wisconsin, that:

OBAMA: Even with all these taxpayer protections, this plan is not perfect. Democrats and Republicans in Congress have legitimate concerns about it. I know many Americans share those concerns. But it is clear that this is what we must do right now to prevent a crisis from turning into a catastrophe. That’s why I’ve been reaching out to leaders in both parties to do whatever I can to help pass this plan.

Hmm. That's an interesting claim, considering that yesterday, September 30, 2008, in an interview with ABC News' John Berman, Obama had this to say about the failure of the original bailout package:

Berman: You're a very persuasive man, you have a certain amount of influence with your own party, could you have done more, should you have done more, before the House vote yesterday to lobby for votes?
Obama: Oh, absolutely, not because -- if you think about it, there was a deal struck between [House Speaker] Nancy Pelosi and Republican [Minority House] leader [John] Boehner.
The Democrats were supposed to get 120 votes, they got 140 so there was no sense on the Democratic side that we weren't following through on our commitments and apparently there were some problems on that side. I don't think me calling House Republican members would have been that helpful, I tend not to be that persuasive on that side of the aisle.

Whatever happened to "post-partisan"? That's a pretty stunning admission from a candidate who claimed that we shouldn't be "Democrats or Republicans, but Americans" and promised that he was going to "reach across the aisle" and work with leaders "regardless of party affiliation" to get things done in Washington.

It's almost like Obama's proving John McCain right: Both candidates say they will act in a bipartisan fashion. Only one has a record of actually doing so.

And for those interested: The numbers to back up that assertion are here. During the past two Congresses, Democrats made up 55 percent of John McCain's cosponsors (i.e., he was actually more likely to team up with Democrats to pass bills than Republicans). 45 percent of his bills actually had more Democratic co-sponsors than Republicans.

In contrast, Republicans accounted for only 13 percent of Barack Obama's legislative partners. Republicans only outnumbered Democrats on 4 percent of legislation that Obama co-sponsored. The article has much more...there's really no comparison on the "who's more bipartisan" question.

Twittering the debate

2008-09-26T16:52:00.002-05:00

I'll be Twittering the First Presidential Debate live tonight at 9:00pm EST (It's easier and quicker than trying to live-blog on this site, no offense to Blogger).

The link to my Twitter page is here.

Enjoy the debate!

Thoughts on McCain's decision to suspend his campaign to work on financial crisis

2008-09-24T15:59:00.006-05:00

John McCain announced today that he was suspending his campaign in order to return to Washington to work on passing legislation to address the growing financial crisis, and called on Barack Obama to do the same. He also said he would be working with the Obama campaign and the commission on presidential debates to postpone the first presidential debate scheduled for this Friday until after the crisis has been resolved.

McCain:

"It has become clear that no consensus has developed to support the Administration’s proposal. I do not believe that the plan on the table will pass as it currently stands, and we are running out of time.

Tomorrow morning, I will suspend my campaign and return to Washington after speaking at the Clinton Global Initiative. I have spoken to Senator Obama and informed him of my decision and have asked him to join me.

I am calling on the President to convene a meeting with the leadership from both houses of Congress, including Senator Obama and myself. It is time for both parties to come together to solve this problem.

We must meet as Americans, not as Democrats or Republicans, and we must meet until this crisis is resolved. I am directing my campaign to work with the Obama campaign and the commission on presidential debates to delay Friday night’s debate until we have taken action to address this crisis.

...Following September 11th, our national leaders came together at a time of crisis. We must show that kind of patriotism now. Americans across our country lament the fact that partisan divisions in Washington have prevented us from addressing our national challenges. Now is our chance to come together to prove that Washington is once again capable of leading this country."

Personally, I'm impressed by this bold move -- one that is unprecedented in the history of U.S. presidential campaigns, by the way. In announcing that he will suspend his campaign, McCain is attempting to show voters that he believes that slogans like "country first," "reaching across the aisle," and "and end to politics as usual" are more than just rhetoric for a campaign, and that he's willing to actually act to prove he believes those things (unlike that other guy).

In essence, McCain is proposing that in the midst of the worst financial crisis in at least two decades, the candidates at the very least take a break from the campaign trail and, you know, actually do the jobs that they were elected to do. What a novel idea. Perhaps a certain other candidate who only spent about two years as a full-time U.S. Senator before he started campaigning for the presidency should take note.

Obama's liberal supporters, of course, are scoffing -- calling McCain's announcement "absurd," "desperate," and proof that McCain is "afraid to debate Obama." Obama's campaign has replied by saying they have no intention of suspending their campaign, and that as far as they're concerned, the debate on Friday is still on.

Obama said, "It's my belief that this is exactly the time when the American people need to hear from the person who, in approximately 40 days, will be responsible for dealing with this mess."

I guess they just have different priorities.

But just for kicks, let's take a look at the possible negative explanations for why McCain made this decision, and why they all suffer from serious flaws:

1. The proposal is "absurd" or "disingenuous." Obama supporters put themselves in a bind by using this argument. First, they look obviously partisan; if Obama had announced the same thing, they'd be raving about how wonderful it is that Obama is practicing what he preaches about "post-partisanship," "unity," and "an end to politics as usual."

Clearly it's not "absurd" to propose that the candidates put partisan campaigning on hold momentarily and get together to solve the financial crisis. In fact, I would argue that it's the very sort of thing that was supposedly the foundation of Obama's campaign.

Clearly it's not "disingenuous" -- true, "suspending" a campaign can have a wide variety of definitions, but at this stage in the game, a candidate is making a pretty big sacrifice by at the very least not showing up to speaking engagements.

2. "He's desperate." This is the most common refrain, and I just don't buy it. true, the national lead McCain had enjoyed briefly after the Republican convention has dissipated and Obama is back on top according to national daily tracking polls, but it's certainly still a very close race.

The state-by-state polls don't actually look that bad for McCain, either: he's down by just 3 in Pennsylvania and Wisconsin, 4 in Michigan, 2 in New Hampshire (all within or near the margin of error and states in which Obama had previously held a safe lead), and he's slightly ahead in Ohio, Virginia, Florida, and Nevada.

3. "He's just afraid to debate Obama." This is easily the most absurd argument, for several very obvious reasons. First, there is no possible way someone could argue that McCain is afraid to debate Obama -- after all, it was Obama who turned down McCain's offer in June to hold 10 town-hall style debates before November.

Also, all signs indicate that McCain's campaign worked pretty hard to change the focus of this first debate to foreign policy -- an area that McCain feels is his greatest strength. It makes no sense for McCain to delay an opportunity to debate the issue that he arguably feels most comfortable with -- and which would take the focus off the bad economic news that many analysts feel is hurting him.

"A star is born"

2008-09-03T22:54:00.004-05:00

America, meet Sarah Palin. Wow.

Tonight, at the Republican National Convention, Vice Presidential nominee and Governor of Alaska Sarah M. Palin gave the most important speech of her life.

Video:

[Full Transcript]

How'd she do?

She. Nailed. It.

After taking fire for five days from relentless, vicious, and aggressive attacks by the Democrats and their allies in the media, Sarah Palin needed to get up tonight and silence her critics with the best speech of her life. It needed to be good. But it wasn't just good: it was absolutely phenomenal. Tonight proved that Sarah Palin can dish it out, too.

The quote in the title of this post is the initial reaction not of Republicans or conservatives, but of two anchors: Chris Wallace and Wolf Blitzer, seconds after Palin finished her speech. The left-leaning New Republic's focus group found that Palin's performance was "alarmingly strong." On the conservative side, ecstatic reactions like "Wow, wow, a thousand times wow" are uniform.

Even for someone who already liked Sarah Palin, this speech far exceeded my expectations. I had been slightly worried that Palin would be overshadowed by the other speakers tonight -- Romney, Huckabee, and Giuliani -- but I had no reason to fear.

The speech was brilliant both in content and delivery. It was witty, funny, and introduced the American public to who Sarah Palin is -- and she is undeniably likeable. She was accessible, down-to-earth, and charismatic. At the same time, Palin also hit hard in big ways -- she apologized for nothing, went on the attack, and lampooned Obama with zinger after zinger.

Yet unlike Obama -- who also attacked McCain aggressively in his acceptance speech at the DNCC last week -- Palin didn't come off as mean, bitter, or angry, despite the appalling attacks she and her family have suffered over the past few days. As one commentator put it, she "wielded the knife with a smile on her face."

Palin was commanding, classy, confident, and (sorry for the excessive alliteration) incredibly effective. Palin made huge strides tonight in putting to rest the doubts of undecided Americans who may have wondered whether she has what it takes to handle this position.

And just for kicks, the Obama campaign's response to Palin's speech? "It was written by George Bush's speechwriter." Really? That's the best they can do?

This is going to be a fun two months.

Why I Love Sarah Palin

2008-09-03T20:00:00.000-05:00

I was just as shocked as everyone else by John McCain's recent pick of Alaskan governor Sarah Palin as his running mate. But my initial reaction upon seeing the selection on CNN was one of elation -- Sarah Palin was my favorite of all the contestants in McCain's Veepstakes, though I'll be the first to say I never expected McCain to actually pick her.

I've been meaning to get this post up since Saturday, but here are my belated thoughts:

As a political figure, Sarah Palin is a fresh face -- she wasn't very well-known on the national stage prior to McCain's announcement.

Here's a quick bio: A former beauty queen, Palin is a mother of five who recently gave birth to her youngest son, who was diagnosed during the pregnancy with Down's Syndrome. Palin is a lifetime member of the NRA and an avid hunter -- moose is her specialty. She is also proficient with an M-16 (must-see video here). Her husband is a commercial fisherman and half-Eskimo. Palin's approval rating as governor of Alaska is over 80%.

It's true, Palin has only served as Alaska's governor for a year and a half (she took office in December 2006). Before that, she served two terms as mayor of her small town of Wasilla, Alaska, where she had previously served two terms on the city council. She has also served as the chair of the Alaska Conservation Commission, which regulates Alaska's substantial oil and natural gas resources.

Compared to her Democratic counterpart, Palin's record hardly matches up to Biden's, and Democrats have attacked her relative inexperience vis-a-vis Biden as proof she isn't ready to be president should something tragic happen to John McCain.

In doing so, however, they inevitably remind voters about the nagging questions about the lack of experience of Barack Obama himself. In asking voters to question whether Palin is ready for the #2 job, Democrats forget that it will remind voters to ask themselves whether Obama -- whose equally thin resume hardly outshines Palin's -- is ready for the #1 job.

People ask me how I can criticize Obama for lack of experience or doubt that he will be ready to lead the nation, while I defend Palin's similar weaknesses. The answer is simple. No, I do not believe Sarah Palin is ready to be president on Day 1, just as I do not believe that Barack Obama is ready. The difference is that Palin is (correctly) slated for the number two spot behind the heavy experience of John McCain, who is unquestionably ready to lead. The Democrats, on the other hand, have it backwards.

If you subtract the time Obama has spent campaigning for president, he served about a year and a half full-time in the Senate -- about the same time Palin has served as governor of Alaska. Pointless and hopelessly partisan debates about "which is 'better': a year and a half as first-term governor of Alaska or a year and a half as freshman Senator from Illinois" aside, the fact remains that Palin's experience (on the ACC, as mayor, and as governor) is executive experience -- something that cannot be said about Obama's record (as community organizer, state legislator, and U.S. Senator).

In fact, the only thing Obama has ever "run" -- albeit very successfully -- is his own presidential campaign. I'm amused at the impeccably circular logic that follows -- arguing that "My successful campaign for president has prepared me to be president" isn't the most compelling in Obama's arsenal.

Experience questions aside, here's some quick reasons why I'm excited about Sarah Palin:

She's an exceptional conservative. I love Sarah Palin for many of the same reasons liberals are in love with Barack Obama -- she's brilliant, eloquent, charismatic, passionate, extremely likeable, and right on all the issues. Her sharp wits and fiery energy have even earned her the nickname "Barracuda."

A lot of people consider Palin a lightweight who will be easily blown out of the water by Biden in the VP debates. I think everyone's in for a big surprise. Even Joe Trippi, a Democratic strategist who organized Howard Dean's 2004 campaign, has warned his fellow Democrats not to underestimate Palin.

On the lighter side, also check out Palin Facts (a la Chuck Norris).

Pro-life. Palin is a strong pro-life Republicans -- not only in her politics, but in her own personal life as well. She decided to give birth to her fifth son, Trig, last year even after a pre-natal diagnosis of Down's Syndrome. 90 percent of parents who learn of this condition choose to terminate the pregnancy. Likewise, Palin's teenage daughter, Bristol, is pregnant, but has chosen to have and keep the baby, and is engaged to the father, with the unequivocal and loving support of her parents.

Palin backs up talk with action, and in doing so her family represents an incredibly inspiring pro-life story.

Energy. Palin is pro-drilling (even in ANWR), and a champion of domestic production of energy -- even stronger than McCain on this issue. One of her major accomplishments as governor of Alaska was launching a competitive process for construction of a new, major gas pipeline. Here's a video of Palin ripping Biden's stance on energy.
She represents true "change" -- Obama picked Biden as his running mate -- a safe choice to bolster his ticket's "experience" resume, but also the epitome of a Washington insider. McCain picked Palin -- and I think can all agree, it doesn't get much more "outside the Beltway" than that. As a champion of ethics reform and leader of a popular anti-corruption campaign in her state, no one can accuse Sarah Palin of representing the same old Washington politics. Whereas picking Biden hampered Obama's promise to bring change to Washington, Palin only reinforced McCain's image as a reformer and a maverick.

As far as the political and strategic implications, here's the bottom line: Picking Palin was a risk for McCain. It's an all-or-nothing choice: naming Palin as his VP will either prove brilliant or a blunder that doomed his campaign.

But as the clear underdog in this race, McCain couldn't afford to "play it safe" with this one (like Obama did with Biden). A "typical" conservative choice like Mitt Romney or Tim Pawlenty wouldn't have excited the base or energized McCain's campaign the way that Palin has. So why not go for it? McCain is the heavy underdog in this election. Picking Palin showed gravitas -- McCain and Palin are attempting to take the Obama campaign's central theme: ending politics as usual and bringing change to Washington.

Whether American voters embrace or reject Palin remains to be seen, of course. A lot will hang on Palin's big GOP convention speech tonight, her performance on the campaign trail, and whether or not she can handle herself in the debates.

Obama and McCain at Saddleback Civil Forum

2008-08-16T19:15:00.008-05:00

Rev. Rick Warren's fantastic bestselling book A Purpose-Driven Life was incredibly inspiring and has no doubt changed millions of lives for the better. I'm still not sure how I feel about Warren's involvement in presidential politics in this election cycle, but nevertheless...

Rev. Warren tonight hosted the first-ever Saddleback Civil Forum at his 22,000-member mega-church in Lake Forest, California. The forum was geared towards the so-called "values voters" -- made up primarily of evangelical Christians. Warren has indicated his goal is to "broaden" the electoral attention of evangelicals beyond the abortion issue.

Both Barack Obama and John McCain took hour-long turns on the stage to answer questions from Rev. Warren (they were asked the same questions). Early transcript here.

Obama went first. One of the first questions that stood out to me was each candidate's answers when Rev. Warren asked them to name "a moral failure in their personal life." Both candidates had powerful responses: Obama recalled his experimentation with drugs and alcohol in his troubled youth, and McCain pointed to his first failed marriage.

When Rev. Warren asked Obama to name a time when he had "done something in politics that went against your party or your own self-interest," my interest was naturally piqued -- from what I've seen, self-interest has been rule #1 during Obama's political career.

Obama's reply was, incredulously, to point out his work with John McCain on "campaign finance reform." Rev. Warren did not bother to follow up by asking Obama why he had then decided to reject public financing for the general election after previously pledging to accept it and repeatedly extolling the virtues of the public financing system. To me, that decision was the quintessential example of Obama putting self-interest before all other considerations, and it's either audaciously arrogant or supremely ironic for Obama to choose "campaign finance reform" as his answer to this question.

Another interesting exchange occurred when Obama was asked what Supreme Court Justice he would not have nominated. Obama's answer: Justice Clarence Thomas. After harshly ripping Thomas, Obama went on to add that he would not have nominated Justice Antonin Scalia either.

Now, let's just mention something here. Most liberal critics of Thomas and Scalia's "constructionist" view of the Constitution disagree with the insistence that the Constitution should be read in a "literal" way, or "as the Founders meant it." Instead, they believe that the Constitution should be treated as a "living" document, and interpretations should be "adaptable" to changing times.

After picking on Thomas and Scalia because he "deeply disagreed with the way they interpret the Constitution," Obama went on to say that he was also "troubled" by Chief Justice John Roberts' appointment "because I think [Roberts] has tended to give the executive branch too much power over the other branches, I think much more power than the Founders intended."

To me, this stood out as completely incoherent. It makes little sense to criticize the way Scalia and Thomas (known as the most strictly constructionist justices) interpret the Constitution, and then in the next breath criticize Roberts for allegedly having the opposite tendency in his interpretations. I don't doubt that Obama dislikes John Roberts -- he was one of just 22 liberal senators who voted against Roberts' nomination -- but to explain his opposition as a product of Roberts having insufficient fealty to the Framers' intentions vis-a-vis executive power is laughable.

For the record, McCain said he would not have nominted Justices Breyer, Ginsburg, Souter, and Stephens. According to McCain, the president should pick Justices who have a history of "strictly adhering to the Constitution of the United States and not legislating from the bench." He named Justices Alito and Roberts as his two recent favorites.

One last thing: Obama was asked what he would do to protect religious freedom around the world. His answer included this statement:

"We've got to make sure -- one thing that I think it is very important for us to do on all these issues is to lead by example. That's why I think it's so important for us to have religious tolerance here in the United States. That's why it's so important for us when we are criticizing other countries about rule of law to make sure that we're abiding by rule of law and habeas corpus and we're not engaging in torture because that gives us more or less a standard to talk about these issues."

I'm sorry -- was that in doubt? Is there a question as to whether or not there is religious freedom in America? And sure, there is an ongoing debate about interrogation methods and the legal status of captured terrorists, but is Obama really arguing that those debates mean that America is morally equivalent to countries like North Korea, or Iran, or Russia? That we currently have no right to advocate religious freedom or rule of law in repressive authoritarian regimes? A bit of perspective might be helpful, Senator.

McCain was asked what position he held 10 years ago that he no longer holds today. As Warren was finishing the question, I was sitting there watching thinking "Please say offshore drilling, please say offshore drilling." I grinned when McCain answered "Offshore drilling," and launched into a passionate argument for why the U.S. needs to start expanding its domestic production of energy.

Also interesting was McCain's answer on taxes and the definition of "rich:" After joking that he would define rich as people making more than $5 million (and adding that he was sure that statement would be distorted by his opponent), McCain explained that "in all seriousness, my definition of who's "rich" doesn't matter because I don't want to raise taxes on anybody...I don't want to take money away from rich people -- I want everybody to get rich."

For me, the most illuminating answers were each candidate's responses to the question of "whether evil exists, and whether it needs to be negotiated with or defeated." While saying that evil "needs to be defeated," Obama unbelievably didn't even mention al-Qaeda or radical Islam in his lengthy answer. He managed two instances of evil in the world today: "We see evil in Darfur. We see evil sadly on the streets of our cities." Sudan and American cities? Those are the places that lept to Obama's mind when he was asked whether evil exists? I felt his answer to this question was by far the weakest of the entire evening.

McCain, on the other hand, knocked the question out of the park. He started out his answer by emphasizing his commitment to bring Osama bin Laden to justice, and he went on to argue that defeating the ideology of radical Islam was "the greatest challenge of the twenty-first century." He told a story about al-Qaeda in Iraq strapping suicide vests to mentally handicapped women and remotely detonating them -- "if that's not evil, then I don't know what is."

Overall, I thought McCain's performance far outshined Obama's -- his use of powerful, riveting anecdotes to reinforce a good number of his answers worked very well. While Obama was certainly smooth, charismatic, and charming in his delivery, as far as the substance of each candidate's answers I think McCain definitely had the better evening.

**UPDATE: I totally missed this the first time, but when Obama was explaining why he wouldn't have nominated Justice Clarence Thomas, he almost said it was because Thomas wasn't experienced enough to serve on the Supreme Court. He caught himself mid-word and instead said that he wasn't a "strong enough jurist or legal thinker at the time" and that he didn't agree with his interpretation of the Constitution. (H/t Allahpundit)

From the video, Obama's word-for-word answer is this:

"I would not have nominated, uh, Clarence Thomas. Uh, I don't think that he, uh, I...I don't this that he was expe--I don't think that he was a strong enough jurist or legal thinker at the time, uh, for that elevation, setting aside the fact that I profoundly disagree with his interpretations of a lot of the Constitution."

The McCain campaign would have had fun with that one.

Walk The Line

2008-07-23T21:36:00.005-05:00

Pandering -- defined by Merriam-Webster as "to provide gratification for others' desires" -- is a practice that has been honed to an art form by American politicians on both sides of the aisle. It is a label commonly applied to instances when politicians say things to a certain group while campaigning that either:

a) spins the facts, or their record, to make them appear more appealing to the audience they're speaking to, or;
b) exaggerates certain facts, stances, or actions that would be seen as attractive to that group, while downplaying others that may have the opposite effect

This is true of elections at all levels of democratic government, but especially American presidential general elections, when candidates must appeal to an incredibly broad spectrum of voters to clinch victory.

The 2008 campaign is no different. Obama and McCain have both done their share of pandering already in this election cycle. Obama's speech to the pro-Israel lobbying group AIPAC, seeking to reassure skittish Jewish voters of his support for Israel, is a classic example. Obama -- who has long criticized the Bush administration's hostile attitude toward the Iranian regime -- used uncharacteristically aggressive language towards Iran, saying "The danger from Iran is grave, it is real, and my goal will be to eliminate this threat." During the Democratic primary, Obama had downplayed the threat from Iran as mostly fear-mongering by the Bush administration, saying the country, along with Venezuela and Cuba, "posed no threat." He also infamously told AIPAC that Jerusalem must remain the "undivided capital of Israel," only to backtrack the next day when outrage erupted among Palestinians over Obama's use of that phrase.

McCain has been accused of pandering to the Republican base by shifting his position on illegal immigration and emphasizing tough enforcement of immigration laws and stronger commitment to securing the border. In Congress, McCain has previously and consistently said that improved border security could not be separated from "comprehensive immigration reform," -- tantamount to amnesty for illegals in the eyes of many conservatives. As he battled for the Republican nomination, McCain began insisting that his position was that border security had to be addressed "before" other reforms could begin.

These are two classic cases of pandering. But there is, as one commentator put it, a fine line between pandering and lying.

Speaking in Israel today (anyone notice a pattern here?) Barack Obama answered questions from reporters about his commitment to Israel's safety. Since I dislike it when snippets of quotes are taken out of context and twisted, here's the full exchange:

QUESTION: Senator Obama, you said in AIPAC convention that the (INAUDIBLE) Jerusalem could continue to be the capital city. Then you changed it and clarified later on in the -- (INAUDIBLE) wonder.
How could you be sure if your other statesmen, that you are going to be committed to the security and safety of Israel and you're not going to change it even when you're the President of the United States?

OBAMA: First of all, I didn't change my statement.

I continued to say that Jerusalem will be the capital of Israel. And I have said that before and I will say it again. And I also have said that it is important that we don't simply slice the city in half. But I've also said that that's a final status issue. That's an issue that has to be dealt with with the parties involved, the Palestinians and the Israelis. And it's not the job of the United States to dictate the form in which that will take, but rather to support the efforts that are being made right now to resolve these very difficult issues that have a long history.
Now, in terms of knowing my commitments, you don't have to just look at my words, you can look at my deeds. Just this past week, we passed out of the U.S. Senate Banking Committee, which is my committee, a bill to call for divestment from Iran, as a way of ratcheting up the pressure to ensure that they don't obtain a nuclear weapon.

At first glance, it appears this is simply a typical exaggeration by Obama. Given his extremely thin record of accomplishments in life outside of running for president, he might even be forgiven for trying to beef up his resume.

Obama's use of the word "we" is clearly figurative, since due to constant campaigning, Obama himself didn't play any part in passing the bill out of the Banking Committee. But we might chalk that up to simple exaggeration, and perhaps justifiable -- after all, in 2007, Obama had introduced a bill with similar provisions on divestment from Iran, and he issued a press release that publicly applauded this version of the legislation.

Obama's use of the phrase "my committee" to describe the Senate Banking Committee might have also been forgiven -- as a junior member in the Senate, he's obviously not the chairman of the Committee (that distinction belongs to Chris Dodd, D-CT). But surely his use of the phrase "my committee" simply meant it was a committee that he served on, right?

But it turns out Obama is actually not even a member of the U.S. Senate Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs Committee.

The above quote from Obama, then, is not pandering, spin, or exaggeration -- it is a blatant and flat-out lie.

Nor is this simply a misstatement or slip of the tongue, one of the many "gaffes" made by both candidates weary from the constant campaigning. Obama obviously knows which Senate Committees he serves on (there are four). His claim that "we" passed a bill in the Senate Banking Committee -- "his committee" -- is a deliberate lie to make himself look better in front of an Israeli audience.

I hate to repeat a tired argument, but if John McCain had uttered a falsehood of this magnitude, it would doom his campaign. And rightly so -- there's no excuse for this level of shameless dishonesty.

Obama's plan for Iraq

2008-07-14T20:16:00.005-05:00

In a widely discussed op-ed in the New York Times this morning, Barack Obama laid out his "plan for Iraq."

During the primaries, Obama won over the liberal base of the Democratic Party by trumpeting his long opposition to the war, denying the positive results of the surge, claiming that the war was still a lost cause with no hope of victory, arguing that Iraqis had made no political progress, and sticking to his promise to have all U.S. combat troops out of Iraq within 16 months of his election.

Many pundits from both sides of the political spectrum -- noting that the improving situation on the ground in Iraq made Obama's position and statements seem increasingly outdated and detached from reality -- were predicting that Obama's shift on the issue could come after Obama returns from his long-awaited visit to Iraq later this month.

The theory was that Obama could -- after talking with soldiers and commanders on the ground and seeing progress with his own eyes -- then acknowledge that progress was being made, while using the new positive developments as ever-more reason to draw down U.S. forces, perhaps even taking credit for having "pressured" the administration and the Iraqi government into making the changes that led to success.

But Obama's NYT editorial puts that theory in doubt.

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...

Obama then goes on to cite a list of negative developments and consequences -- not the recent gains and reduction in violence -- related to the U.S. efforts in Iraq as reason to begin his "phased redeployment" plan.

He then makes a rather puzzling argument:

In the 18 months since President Bush announced the surge, our troops have performed heroically in bringing down the level of violence. New tactics have protected the Iraqi population, and the Sunni tribes have rejected Al Qaeda — greatly weakening its effectiveness.

But the same factors that led me to oppose the surge still hold true. The strain on our military has grown, the situation in Afghanistan has deteriorated and we've spent nearly $200 billion more in Iraq than we had budgeted. Iraq's leaders have failed to invest tens of billions of dollars in oil revenues in rebuilding their own country, and they have not reached the political accommodation that was the stated purpose of the surge.

Funny, that's not why Obama said he opposed the surge when it was being debated back in January 2007.

Obama campaign spokesman David Axelrod, interviewed on May 30, said that "[Obama] never disputed the fact that if you throw a surge of American soldiers in an area that you can make a difference."

But when interviewed about his views on the surge back in January 2007, Obama actually said he opposed it because he didn't believe it would have any success in lowering the level of violence:

"We can send 15,000 more troops, 20,000 more troops, 30,000 more troops: I don't know any expert on the region or any military officer that I've spoken to privately that believes that that is going to make a substantial difference on the situation on the ground."

But it most certainly has made a substantial difference on the ground. And on January 10, 2007:

OBAMA: 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."

Right.

Naturally, Obama doesn't mention any of those former positions in the Times op-ed, nor does he point out that his plan to withdraw all U.S. troops from Iraq by March 2008 -- which he had advocated as an alternative to the "escalation" of the surge in January 2007 -- would clearly not have allowed any of the "reduction in violence" or "rejection of al-Qaeda" to occur. The war would have been lost four months ago and the Iraqi government would have collapsed, leaving another failed state and al-Qaeda safe haven -- the exact situation Obama decries in the Afghanistan-Pakistan theater.

Obama then goes on to repeat his 16-month plan for the withdrawal of all U.S. combat troops from Iraq. But ABC News spoke with commanders on the ground in Iraq that said Obama's plan was a "logistical nightmare" -- such a withdrawal could only take place in that time frame if U.S. forces left all their equipment behind.

The military has been redeploying troops for years, and Maj. Gen. Charles Anderson, who would help with the withdrawal, told us as we toured Camp Arifjan in Kuwait, "We have the capacity to do a minimum of two-and-a-half brigade combat teams a month -- can we expand that capacity? Sure. Can we accelerate? It depends. It depends on the amount of equipment that we bring back. And it's going to depend on how fast we bring them out."

It is the equipment that is the real problem.

In the kind of redeployment that Anderson is talking about, the troops head home, but much of their equipment stays behind. Two combat brigades means up to 1,200 humvees in addition to thousands of other pieces of equipment, like trucks, fuelers, tankers and helicopters.

And 90 percent of the equipment would have to be moved by ground through the Iraqi war zone, to the port in Kuwait, where it must all be cleaned and inspected and prepared for shipment. This is a place with frequent dust storms, limited port facilities and limited numbers of wash racks.

While Anderson and his troops have a positive attitude, several commanders who looked at the Obama plan told ABC News, on background, that there was "no way" it could work logistically.

In addition, Obama describes his vision to keep a small, "residual" contingent of American forces in Iraq to perform "limited missions":

After this redeployment, a residual force in Iraq would perform limited missions: going after any remnants of Al Qaeda in Mesopotamia, protecting American service members and, so long as the Iraqis make political progress, training Iraqi security forces.

But even left-leaning anti-war voices like Juan Cole and TMV's Jazz Shaw disagree with this section of Obama's plan, describing it as a pointless half-measure. Juan Cole:

That suggestion is not plausible for several reasons. If there is only a small force in the country, who will rescue them if their helicopter gets shot down or they are ambushed and besieged? Then, how would a small American unit be any good against a terrorist organization operating in remote parts of Sunni Iraq? They don't know Arabic, can't hope for really good intelligence from locals, etc. Wouldn't it be more efficient to let the Special Police Commandos of the Iraqi Interior Ministry take care of this sort of thing?

Jazz Shaw agrees that "the way to get out of Iraq is to get out of Iraq." I think there's some validity to the argument that with Iraq, it's either all or nothing -- either you're in, and committed 100% to victory, or you declare it a lost cause and get out.

If you think Iraq is a failed mission and our continued presence there is counterproductive, then such a force is counter-productive.

If you actually are committed to victory in Iraq, there's little point in rapidly withdrawing combat troops but keeping a "residual force" in Iraq (How big would this force be? Obama doesn't say.) to "go after remnants of al-Qaeda in Mesopotamia," "protect American servicemembers" (that one doesn't even make sense to me, if the rest of them have already been pulled out anyway), and "train Iraqi security forces" -- that's not a serious effort.

My biggest problem with Obama's op-ed is the fact that he's still couching all his rhetoric in the "2006 narrative" -- terms of despair and defeat, of Iraq as the "lost cause." His withdrawal plan is still framed around the conclusion that Iraq is a hopeless disaster from which we need to extricate ourselves as quickly as possible. No mention, acknowledgement, or consideration of any positive gains in Iraq, or how we make those gains sustainable, is allowed. Jennifer Rubin sums up my feelings well:

However, what we don’t hear, and I am beginning to wonder if we will, is any recognition from the Obama that we need to build upon the success of the surge and not allow Iraq to drift back into chaos. From his op-ed in the New York Times the answer appears to be “no.” Notice how he shies from any causal connection between the surge and gains we have achieved: “the Sunni tribes have rejected Al Qaeda.” And why was that? Could it be because the U.S. troops gave them confidence that we would remain and fight to defend the population? And his timetable of 16 months, a little squishier, seems to be in place. (And if his plan is dangerous, as commanders keep telling the media, does that matter?) In his world, Maliki hasn’t gotten his act together, nor does Obama recognize that Al Qaeda is in fact suffering a momentous defeat right there in Iraq.

One last point: Obama's editorial starts off with, and is largely based around, the claim that Iraqi PM Nuri al-Maliki publicly called for a timetable for the withdrawal of U.S. troops. Two problems:

First, Obama is ostensibly going to Iraq later this month in order to "listen to commanders on the ground" and ensure that the withdrawal of troops is "careful" and takes into account the current situation.

But as Tom Brokaw pointed out when interviewing Obama backer Sen. Claire McCaskill on Meet the Press:

MR. BROKAW: But, let me be clear about this, he says he’ll listen to commanders on the ground. He’s going there. But before he goes there, he says, “The day after I’m inaugurated, I’ll have Joint Chiefs in the office with instructions to get them out in 16 months.”

SEN. McCASKILL: But…

MR. BROKAW: So the real question is why even go if you know that you want to do that in advance?

SEN. McCASKILL: Well, of course. He, he has a goal of 16 months, but obviously, the most important thing in getting out…

MR. BROKAW: But that could stretch.

SEN. McCASKILL: …is to do it carefully. It–I mean, obviously, a goal is a goal, and he’s been very clear that that’s a goal. He’s been very clear that he wants to be careful and reasonable about the way–in fact, his phrase is, “I want to be the opposite of what we were when we went in. We were reckless and careless when we went in. We didn’t plan.” And by the way, there is–talk about a shifting position, I mean, John McCain used to be very positive about George Bush’s leadership in Iraq.
...
MR. BROKAW: But for–just so that we can clarify, the 16 months is his goal, not a promise to the American people?

SEN. McCASKILL: Sixteen months is his goal. It would be irresponsible for a commander in chief to set in stone a date. But he believes, based on the best of military advice that he has gotten, that one to two brigades a month is reasonable. And I believe that that is his commitment to the American people, and he will keep that commitment to the American people.

Is 16 months now a "goal"? Or is it a "commitment"? What about the "promise" it was during the primaries? The use of shifting, nebulous semantics makes it almost impossible to conclusively pin down Obama's actual position here.

The second problem with Obama quoting Maliki's statement about a "timetable," as the BBC points out, is that Maliki never actually said that. That's hardly Obama's fault, of course -- Maliki's own office put out a press release that misquoted him, and the story was then repeated by major news outlets around the world.

Iraqi National Security Advisor Muwaffaq al-Rubaie tried to clarify, saying that

...talks were focused on agreeing on "timeline horizons, not specific dates", and said that withdrawal timings would depend on the readiness of the Iraqi security forces.

But that, of course, sounds oddly similar to another candidate's position.

Happy Fourth!

2008-07-03T16:48:00.003-05:00

America turns 232 years old tomorrow, and on that note, I offer this from a recent speech by former Republican presidential candidate Fred Thompson:

Even more important to our future than how we view the candidates is how we view ourselves. Do we see our nation as one in decline, populated by helpless victims for whom every misfortune and every economic downturn is a conspiracy against them?

Or do we still see that we are a people of free will, willing to accept our responsibilities?

Are we a people who -- as generations of American before us did -- believe that our best days are ahead of us?

Will we realize and appreciate what we have and what we have achieved?

Will we remember who we are, what we stand for, and what we represent to the world? That we are free people...who respect life...who love liberty.

I believe we will. And for those who have lost sight, there are the the principles we believe in to guide them.

We've had them for a long time. And these principles do not change. And will not change.

Indeed.

I miss Fred. I wouldn't mind seeing McCain give a speech like that.

Happy Independence Day!

Two Muslim women barred from picture at Obama event

2008-06-18T16:37:00.010-05:00

I think this kind of speaks for itself:

Two Muslim women at Barack Obama's rally in Detroit on Monday
were barred from sitting behind the podium by campaign volunteers seeking
to prevent the women’s headscarves from appearing in photographs or on
television with the candidate.
The campaign has apologized to the women, both Obama supporters who said they felt betrayed by their treatment at the rally.
...Building a human backdrop to a political candidate, a set of faces to appear on television and in photographs, is always a delicate exercise in demographics and political correctness. Advance staffers typically pick supporters out of a crowd to reflect the candidate’s message.
“I was coming to support him, and I felt like I was discriminated against by the very person who was supposed to be bringing this change, who I could really relate to,” said Hebba Aref, a 25-year-old lawyer who lives in the Detroit suburb of Bloomfield Hills.

So what exactly happened?

[T]wo different Obama volunteers — in separate incidents — made it clear
that headscarves wouldn't be in the picture. The volunteers gave different
explanations for excluding the hijabs, one bluntly political and the other less
clear.
In Aref's case, there was no ambiguity.
That incident began when the volunteer asked Aref's friend Ali Koussan and two other friends, Aref's brother Sharif and another young lawyer, Brandon Edward Miller, whether they would like to sit behind the stage. The three young men said they would, but mentioned they were with friends.
The men said the volunteer, a twenty-something African-American woman in a green shirt, asked if their friends looked and were dressed like the young men, who were all light-skinned and wearing suits. Miller said yes, but mentioned that one of their friends was wearing a headscarf with her suit.
The volunteer "explained to me that because of the political climate and what's going on in the world and what's going on with Muslim Americans, it's not good for [Aref] to be seen on TV or associated with Obama," said Koussan, who is a law student at Wayne State University.

That's change we can believe in, I guess.

Of course, it's not really fair to bash Obama. As the Politico story notes, having staffers carefully pick out the people who sit behind the candidate is common practice in American politics. A McCain staffer asked NH Democrat Roberto Fuentes, a Hispanic, to appear behind McCain recently to boost the candidate's image of "diversity" -- Fuentes declined. At a Michelle Obama event in Pittsburgh, the event coordinator reportedly yelled, "Get me more white people, we need more white people."

As blogger Ann Althouse contends:

[S]hould we really be dismayed to learn that the campaign cares about the
look of the people behind the candidate?...It should be done more tactfully, but
wouldn't it be incompetent not to control the backdrop? If this were not done,
opponents of the candidate could wreck photo-ops deliberately.

That's very true. But as one commenter on Althouse's site observed about the above story:

Imagine the fallout if a Republican did it.

Indeed. For starters, this would be on the front page of the New York Times.

Hey Obama: Take A Hint

2008-06-13T16:19:00.004-05:00

In a follow-up to my last post on the remarkable progress in Iraq and possible challenges for Barack Obama's current "I opposed the surge and still oppose it and the war is a failure" stance, I offer in good faith this presentation that senior Brookings Institution fellows Michael O'Hanlon and Kenneth Pollack gave today:

(Note: "Neither man can be accused of shilling for either the administration or John McCain for numerous reasons: both have been strong critics of the war and O’Hanlon opposed the war and still believes on balance it has not made us safer.")

O’Hanlon explained that the last three months has been the “spring of the blossoming of Iraqi security forces” and Iraq is on an “impressive trajectory” although we have not yet “reached a stable end point.” He stressed that the 80% reduction in civilian violence was much better than he thought possible. He went through a detailed review of Basra, conceding that Maliki’s actions took the Americans by surprise and that in the first week things went poorly. However, by the second week two brigades were deployed from Al Anbar (a testimony to massive improvements in Iraq security force logistics) and that the mission was successful, allowing the Iraqi army and national police force to now control the streets of Basra.

Pollack echoed these observations, saying that “The headline was the emergence of Iraqi security forces.” He explained that the fundamental shift from Americans leading with Iraqis in support to Iraqis leading not just “hold” but “clear” operations is now “well underway.” He observes that sectarian divisions within the military are receding as mixed Sunni and Shia units have been successful in Basra and Mosul operations. He sees vast improvement in military leadership which “is one of the main reasons for improvement” in the security situation.
He credits the military success with allowing for a “fundamental rearrangement” of Iraqi politics, observing that Maliki is now “flying high” with new found respect from Sunnis. The big picture take away, he says, it that having achieved remarkable success with major issues we now can begin to address “second and third order problems” such as insuring that military forces “stay in their lane” and do not subvert civilian leadership

Indeed.

When O'Hanlon was asked by Rubin (the author of this article and a conservative commentator) if his previous criticism about Barack Obama being "in denial" about Iraq still stood, both presenters went out of their way to avoid any outright criticism of the Democratic candidate, but offered this advice:

...they were quite tactful and even optimistic that this is a time when political leaders can reorient themselves to new facts. [me: I like that phrasing] Both indicated that it would be a mistake with critical provincial and national elections upcoming in 2008 and 2009 to begin an abrupt withdrawal in 2009. O’Hanlon offered that Democrats could take credit for having pressured Iraqis on a political front with the clear message that out presence would not be indefinite and that they should accept that “the good news is you may be able to leave earlier than proposed based on progress and not on defeat.”

...which is precisely what I suggested in my previous post. Obama has numerous and significant advantages over John McCain in just about every aspect of this election cycle, but I believe he could lose the election over this issue if he refuses to adjust his position to realities on the ground. As Rubin notes:

...the wisdom of the war and the mismanagement of the war for a number of years needs, for the sake of the country’s national security, to be separated from what we do now. As O’Hanlon said “we are where we are.”

I was previously pessimistic about the possibility for Obama to face reality and still save face, but the suggestion that Democrats could "take credit for having pressured Iraqis" is a decent opportunity for Obama.

He should take it.

Don't Look Now

2008-06-07T15:37:00.003-05:00

Don't look now, but American forces and the Iraqi government are quietly winning the war in Iraq.

News coverage of the Democratic primary and beginning of the presidential general election contest between Barack Obama and John McCain has dominated the airwaves and newspapers in recent weeks. Very little has been heard about Iraq during the entire month of May.

Turns out May 2008 might have been the most important month in the entire war, the turning point when American and Iraqi allies solidified their advantage and definitively started winning the war.

Even the Washington Post is astonished at the progress that has been made since April:

While Washington's attention has been fixed elsewhere, military analysts have watched with astonishment as the Iraqi government and army have gained control for the first time of the port city of Basra and the sprawling Baghdad neighborhood of Sadr City, routing the Shiite militias that have ruled them for years and sending key militants scurrying to Iran. At the same time, Iraqi and U.S. forces have pushed forward with a long-promised offensive in Mosul, the last urban refuge of al-Qaeda. So many of its leaders have now been captured or killed that U.S. Ambassador Ryan C. Crocker, renowned for his cautious assessments, said that the terrorists have "never been closer to defeat than they are now."

There's even more good news. U.S. forces suffered the fewest casualties in May since 2003 -- there were only 19 American fatalities in the entire month of May. For a comparison, that's an 86% drop compared to the 126 American forces who were killed in May 2007. Attacks on coalition and Iraqi forces are down dramatically.

What does this mean? Iraqi forces -- finally -- are actually beginning to take the lead on multiple fronts in counter-insurgency and counter-terrorism operations. This was unthinkable as recently as last summer. Iraqi forces are also intercepting Iranian Quds Forces members attempting to infiltrate southern Iraq.

So how did all this start? The Washington Post explains:

Iraq passed a turning point last fall when the U.S. counterinsurgency campaign launched in early 2007 produced a dramatic drop in violence and quelled the incipient sectarian war between Sunnis and Shiites. Now, another tipping point may be near, one that sees the Iraqi government and army restoring order in almost all of the country, dispersing both rival militias and the Iranian-trained "special groups" that have used them as cover to wage war against Americans.

This dramatic improvement means Gen. Petraeus has said he will probably recommend an additional reduction in U.S. forces this fall beyond the five "surge" brigades that were already scheduled to return home.

But does this mean any political progress is being made? Despite the claims of critics, the answer is "yes." The Iraqi parliament has passed numerous groundbreaking pieces of legislation covering many key areas of national reconciliation. The government of Nouri al-Maliki, once weak and lacking the trust of the Iraqi people, now enjoys "unprecedented" levels of public support. This is in no small part due to the impressive growth and successes of the Iraqi government and security forces in taking control of the country.

Even the French have come around.

BAGHDAD (AFP) — French Foreign Minister Bernard Kouchner said on Sunday that the security situation in Iraq was improving and reaffirmed France's willingness to help rebuild the war-ravaged country.

"I have the feeling that things are better. Statistics show a drop in security incidents," Kouchner told AFP after a working lunch with his Iraqi counterpart Hoshyar Zebari on the last day of his two-day visit to Iraq.

There is "an improvement in the situation in Iraq," he said.

Kouchner also voiced satisfaction at efforts by the Iraqis to take charge of their own country, saying they were making "progress."

Yet despite the consistent and dramatic improvement in Iraq in the past 10 months, Barack Obama continues to cling to the same outdated assessment and position he took two years ago. He refuses to take into account any of the dramatically new realities on the ground in Iraq. Obama's website still contains this pronouncement about the surge:

The Surge: The goal of the surge was to create space for Iraq's political leaders to reach an agreement to end Iraq's civil war. At great cost, our troops have helped reduce violence in some areas of Iraq, but even those reductions do not get us below the unsustainable levels of violence of mid-2006. Moreover, Iraq's political leaders have made no progress in resolving the political differences at the heart of their civil war.

That paragraph is completely disconnected from reality. Obama shrugs off any reduction in violence and improvement in security as inconsequential and minimal and continues to deny that Iraq's political leaders have made any progress. He does not even mention the dramatic successes and improvements in the status and performance of the Iraqi Security Forces.

Perhaps worst of all, Obama's Iraq policy is still based on the now-obsolete assessment he made in 2006 that America is losing badly in Iraq and that Iraq is a "lost cause" that we should abandon as soon as possible. Perhaps, as John McCain pointed out, if Obama had bothered to visit Iraq or talk with U.S. military commanders on the ground there in the past two years, he might see the situation differently.

The Washington Post offered this advice to Obama:

[T]he likely Democratic nominee needs a plan for Iraq based on sustaining an improving situation, rather than abandoning a failed enterprise. That will mean tying withdrawals to the evolution of the Iraqi army and government, rather than an arbitrary timetable; Iraq's 2009 elections will be crucial. It also should mean providing enough troops and air power to continue backing up Iraqi army operations such as those in Basra and Sadr City. When Mr. Obama floated his strategy for Iraq last year, the United States appeared doomed to defeat. Now he needs a plan for success.

Commentator Andrew Sullivan, a longtime, die-hard supporter of Barack Obama, offers his candidate this warning:

The trap Obama must not be caught in is one of excessive pessimism. Conditions now favor expeditious withdrawal more than they did only a few months ago. But the manner of withdrawal, its pace, and its concomitant diplomacy now require a different cast, and may require an even different one next February and March. None of this means that this war was not a mistake; it does suggest it need not in the medium term be a catastrophe. Petraeus deserves the lion’s share of the credit; luck and time and the self-defeating nihilism of the Jihadists have helped. But Bush and McCain equally merit points for pursuing the surge, even though the metrics pointed to failure. Obama needs to capitalize on these gains, not dismiss them.

But therein lies Obama's dilemma: it's a huge risk to go to Iraq, or to adjust his assessment to take into account the improved situation. The reason: John McCain has him cornered.

The problem for Obama is that it is hard to see how he can go to Iraq without acknowledging that the surge has succeeded, violence has been reduced, and the Iraqis are making considerable political progress. If he goes to Iraq, he has to meet with generals, soldiers and Marines, and they will tell him these things. But if Obama admits that we are succeeding in Iraq, he is admitting that John McCain was right all along. He can't do that.

For a candidate who attacks the Bush administration for having been "inflexible," "unwilling to admit error" and "divorced from reality," that sure is a rough spot to be in.

Obama's Incomprehensible Iran Stance

2008-06-05T11:10:00.005-05:00

In a speech before the pro-Israel American-Israeli Public Affairs Council yesterday, Barack Obama sought to assuage the concerns that many Jewish Americans have about his stance on Israel. Watching the speech, I was amazed at the words I heard coming out of Obama's mouth -- they were completely at odds with his previous words and actions in the Senate.

In the speech, Obama had this to say about the threat to Israel from Iran:

Our willingness to pursue diplomacy will make it easier to mobilize others
to join our cause. If Iran fails to change course when presented with this
choice by the United States, it will be clear – to the people of Iran, and to
the world – that the Iranian regime is the author of its own isolation. That
will strengthen our hand with Russia and China as we insist on stronger
sanctions in the Security Council. And we should work with Europe, Japan and the
Gulf states to find every avenue outside the UN to isolate the Iranian regime –
from cutting off loan guarantees and expanding financial sanctions, to banning
the export of refined petroleum to Iran, to boycotting firms associated with the Iranian Revolutionary Guard, whose Quds force has rightly been labeled a terrorist organization.

Really? Because last year, Senator Obama opposed the Senate legislation that classified the Iranian Revolutionary Guard as a terrorist organization. The Lieberman-Kyl amendment passed overwhelmingly, 76-22, with prominent Democrats such as New York Senators Hillary Clinton and Chuck Schumer, fellow Illinois Senator Dick Durbin, and Majority Leader Harry Reid voting in favor of the measure. Obama didn't even show up.

Before the vote, Obama voiced his opposition to Lieberman-Kyl's classifying the IRG as a terrorist organization because "[The] Bush administration could use the language in Lieberman-Kyl to justify an attack on Iran as a part of the ongoing war in Iraq." Except Sen. Lieberman specifically removed several portions of the bill in order to address that very concern:

LIEBERMAN: "Because some of our colleagues thought paragraphs three and four of the Sense of the Senate may have opened the door to some kind of military action against Iran, Senator (Jon) Kyl (R-Ariz) and I have struck them from the amendment. ... That is not our intention. In fact, our intention is to increase the economic pressure on Iran and the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps so that we will never have to consider the use of the military to stop them from what they are doing to kill our soldiers."

Still, Obama refused to vote in favor of the bipartisan legislation.

It is indeed strange that now, when he's in front of the AIPAC, Obama would say that the IRG was "rightly" designated a terrorist organization when less than a year ago he opposed the legislation that did just that. If he truly believed

In fact, the entire tone and language of Obama's speech was much tougher on Iran (and in support of Israel) than he has been in the past.

On May 18, 2008 in a speech in Portland, Oregon, Obama said:

"Iran, Cuba, Venezuela...these countries are tiny compared to the Soviet Union. They don't post a threat to us the way the Soviet Union posed a threat to us. And yet we were willing to talk to the SOviet Union at the time when they said "We are gonna wipe you off the planet." And ultimately that direct engagement led to a series of measures that helped prevent nuclear war. Now, that has to be the kind of approach that we take. Iran, they spend one one-hundreth of what we spend on the military. If Iran ever tried to pose a serious threat to us, they wouldn't stand a chance."

The very next day in Billings, Montana, Obama said:

"I've made it clear for years that the threat from Iran is grave."

Yesterday, at AIPAC:

"There is no greater threat to Israel – or to the peace and stability of the region – than Iran.

"The Iranian regime supports violent extremists and challenges us across the region. It pursues a nuclear capability that could spark a dangerous arms race, and raise the prospect of a transfer of nuclear know-how to terrorists. Its President denies the Holocaust and threatens to wipe Israel off the map. The danger from Iran is grave, it is real, and my goal will be to eliminate this threat."

Well, which is it, Barack? Is Iran a "grave" and "real" threat that "supports violent extremists" and "pursues a nuclear capability that could spark a dangerous arms race" and "transfer nuclear know-how to terrorists"? Or is it a "tiny" country that doesn't "stand a chance" of posing a "serious threat"?

His statements (and votes) on Iran are a bit confusing, to say the least.

Either this is a case of shameless pandering to American Jewish voters -- and I believe it is -- or Barack Obama has absolutely no clue if Iran poses a threat or not. The first possibility is disappointing coming from the candidate that promised to "change" the old way of politics. The second is disturbing coming from a man who could very well be the next leader of the free world.

Defensive, are we?

2008-05-18T03:00:00.005-05:00

President Bush gave a speech to the Israeli Knesset commemorating the 60th anniversary of Israel -- an exemplary speech, by the way -- and was immediately assaulted by Barack Obama and other leading Democrats for having made a perceived "veiled" attack on Obama and his policy of negotiating with terrorists.

Context, is, as always, key. The offending section of the speech begins with this:

"The fight against terror and extremism is the defining challenge of our time. It is more than a clash of arms. It is a clash of visions, a great ideological struggle. On the one side are those who defend the ideals of justice and dignity with the power of reason and truth. On the other side are those who pursue a narrow vision of cruelty and control by committing murder, inciting fear, and spreading lies."

This is, essentially, the defining theme of George W. Bush's vision of the War on Terror. Defining the conflict as a prolonged and large-scale ideological clash between freedom and radical Islam (even if here he chooses weak vocabulary and declines to use that label) is something that Bush has been repeating since September 12, 2001.

Specifically in this speech, Bush picks out Hezbollah, Hamas, and Iran as enemies who "reserve a special hatred for the most ardent defenders of liberty, including Americans and Israelis." He explains:

"And that is why the founding charter of Hamas calls for the "elimination" of Israel. And that is why the followers of Hezbollah chant "Death to Israel, Death to America!" That is why Osama bin Laden teaches that "the killing of Jews and Americans is one of the biggest duties." And that is why the President of Iran dreams of returning the Middle East to the Middle Ages and calls for Israel to be wiped off the map."

Hard to argue there -- the passionate hatred by Hamas, Hezbollah, and Ahmadenijad's regime of Israel and the U.S. is pretty obvious. But then comes the offending section:

"There are good and decent people who cannot fathom the darkness in these men and try to explain away their words. It's natural, but it is deadly wrong. As witnesses to evil in the past, we carry a solemn responsibility to take these words seriously. Jews and Americans have seen the consequences of disregarding the words of leaders who espouse hatred. And that is a mistake the world must not repeat in the 21st century.

Some seem to believe that we should negotiate with the terrorists and radicals, as if some ingenious argument will persuade them they have been wrong all along. We have heard this foolish delusion before. As Nazi tanks crossed into Poland in 1939, an American senator declared: "Lord, if I could only have talked to Hitler, all this might have been avoided." We have an obligation to call this what it is -- the false comfort of appeasement, which has been repeatedly discredited by history. (Applause.)"

Note: nowhere in this entire speech does Bush say Obama's name. Nowhere does he even refer to Democrats (except to Harry Truman's recognition of Israel a mere 11 minutes after it declared independence). Nowhere does he make even a reference to "politicians" or "candidates." He uses the broadest possible diction -- "some" -- to describe those that hold the belief that it is possible, via "talk," to somehow persuade enemies who are fanatically committed to our destruction to change their minds.

This is certainly not a false observation -- there is a significant portion of Europeans and Americans (Democrats and Republicans) who believe just that. However, in no way do I see any evidence that these remarks were even implicitly meant to be directed at Obama. The White House has strongly denied that the remarks were in any way directed at Obama.

But media headlines proclaimed otherwise: "Bush takes veiled jab at Obama in speech in Israel."

Obama's campaign, too, felt Bush's remarks were a personal attack against him specifically. Obama called Bush's remarks "sad," "fear-mongering," and an "extraordinary politicization of foreign policy" -- which is amusing considering the Democrats' tendency to do just that on a regular basis for the past 7 years.

I think Obama's hyper-sensitive response to the remarks in Bush's speech -- which by any rational reading of the speech were not in any way directed towards him in particular -- is telling for two reasons: first, I think it's just another example of Barack Obama's "I am the story" mentality. As White House spokeswoman Dana Perino aptly put it,

"I would think that all of you who cover these issues and have for a long time have known that there are many who have suggested these types of negotiations with people that the president ... thinks we should not talk to," she said. "I understand when you're running for office you sometimes think the world revolves around you. That is not always true, and it is not true in this case."

Secondly, I think it is very telling that Obama heard Bush condemning "some" who wish to appease terrorists and immediately assumed Bush was talking about him. Rushing to defend yourself when someone makes a reference to a very broadly-worded generalization about "those wishing to appease terrorists" is a fairly obvious sign of insecurity. Bit sensitive about that, are we?

As Mark Steyn wrote:

It says something for Democrat touchiness that the minute a guy makes a generalized observation about folks who appease terrorists and dictators the Dems assume: Hey, they’re talking about me.

Ouch.

Steyn also writes:

Increasingly, the Western world has attitudes rather than policies. It’s one thing to talk as a means to an end. But these days, for most midlevel powers, talks are the end, talks without end. Because that’s what civilized nations like doing — chit-chatting, shooting the breeze, having tea and crumpets, talking talking talking. Uncivilized nations like torturing dissidents, killing civilians, bombing villages, doing doing doing. It’s easier to get the doers to pass themselves off as talkers then to get the talkers to rouse themselves to do anything. And, as the Iranians understand, talks provide a splendid cover for getting on with anything you want to do. If, say, you want to get on with your nuclear program relatively undisturbed, the easiest way to do it is to enter years of endless talks with the Europeans over said nuclear program.

The in-vogue opinion today is that every geopolitical or international problem or dispute can be solved by "negotiations." Every problem -- no matter how intractable or difficult, and no matter how diametrically opposed the positions and interests of the parties involved -- can be solved by talking it away. There should never be a need to go beyond that; say, to an option involving military action -- ever.

It's a nice sentiment. It's also completely absurd. Sometimes, the sad reality is that two sides have such incompatible interests, and such radically different worldviews, that no amount of "talking" will ever be able to end the conflict. As Steyn points out, Hussein Massawi, the former leader of Hezbollah, stated: "We are not fighting so that you will offer us something. We are fighting to eliminate you." (And shockingly, they've actually backed those words up with actions.) That's not exactly a position that lends itself to negotiations.

That's something Obama would do well to remember when he promises to give a presidential photo-op to man who promises to wipe Israel off the map and seeks to establish a repressive Shi'ite Islamic theocracy in Iraq. Don't worry -- Obama will only meet with Hamas and Hezbollah after they meet certain "conditions." Meeting with their masters in Tehran, though, is of course completely different.

I'm sure those talks will be very productive.

A few thoughts about Pennsylvania

2008-04-23T05:29:00.005-05:00

As was widely expected, Hillary Clinton did pull out a win in Pennsylvania yesterday -- and it wasn't the nail-biter that some were predicting, either -- 55%-45%.

I certainly wouldn't go so far as to say that Obama's controversial statements about the "bitterness" of small-town Americans cost him the primary -- Clinton had been leading by at least 5 points in all the polls even before the statements -- but I think it might have helped ensure that Obama wasn't going to pull off an upset.

My evidence? Though by no means conclusive, the exit polling from PA is illuminating. In the category of "church attendance," those who attended church (in all frequencies: from "more than weekly" to "a few times a year") voted for Clinton -- and those who attended "weekly" voted for her by a margin of 61-39%. Perhaps not surprisingly, Obama won those who "never" attended church 56-44%.

Might Obama's comments about small-town Americans "clinging" to (among other things) religion because of frustration with economic stagnation have had some impact on those numbers? It's certainly not improbable.

[**To be fair, when one looks at other numbers for "vote by religion/attendence," Protestant/weekly attendees actually split 50-50 between Obama and Clinton, though Catholic/weekly were heavily in favor of Clinton, 74-26%, although Clinton has been winning the Catholic vote consistently throughout the primaries.]

In any case, it's something to consider. It is next to impossible to predict how these numbers will play out (and how Obama's statements may affect them) in the general election.

"The facts don't matter, Charlie."

2008-04-18T17:26:00.001-05:00

The Democratic debate, sponsored by ABC and held in Pennsylvania on April 16 might be the last in this Democratic primary contest. It was mostly a joke -- the first 40 minutes passed without a single question on major issues or policies -- and I watched it mostly for entertainment value. However, there were a few questions in the latter part of the debate that really grated on me -- two in particular.

In both cases, the candidate's answers belied a closed-minded adherence to their stated positions -- even when such the moderator (Charlie Gibson or George Stephanapolous) offered facts that put their stance in question.

Full transcript here.
Video here.

The first question that exemplified this tendency (also the first legitimate question of the debate) was on each candidate's policy about the war in Iraq. Hillary's answer was surprising for it's candidness:

GIBSON: So if the military commanders in Iraq came to you on day one and said this kind of withdrawal would destabilize Iraq, it would set back all of the gains that we have made, no matter what, you're going to order those troops to come home?
SENATOR CLINTON: Yes, I am, Charlie. And here's why: You know, thankfully we have a system in our country of civilian control of the military. And our professional military are the best in the world. They give their best advice and then they execute the policies of the president. I have watched this president as he has continued to change the rationale and move the goalposts when it comes to Iraq.

"Yes, Charlie, even if this kind of withdrawal would destabilize Iraq and erase all the gains that our soldiers have made in the past 8 months, I'd still do it." One assumes that she similarly wouldn't be swayed to change her mind if military commanders told her that hundreds of thousands of Iraqis would perish in ethnic violence or if portions of Iraq would turn into al-Qaeda and Iran-run terrorist safe havens.

That answer is, in a nutshell, why for the past three decades the American people have not trusted Democrats with national security.

Obama offered a variation of the same answer. You know, I was wondering how the Democrats were going to rationalize the far-left stance they've been taking on Iraq during the primaries to the wider public in the general election. If this is really the explanation the Democrats have settled on to explain their irresponsible and potentially disastrous Iraq policy -- Yes, our policies could lead to the collapse of Iraq, a humanitarian disaster, and the loss of everything our troops have fought so hard to gain in the past year, but by God, at least we're proving that we have civilian control of the military in this country! -- I seriously doubt the American people are going to buy it.

Hillary continued:

...And I am convinced that it is in America's best interest, it is in the best interest of our military, and I even believe it is in the best interest of Iraq, that upon taking office, I will ask the secretary of Defense and the Joint Chiefs of Staff and my security advisers to immediately put together for me a plan so that I can begin to withdraw within 60 days.

Really? I'd love to hear Senator Clinton explain how "the destabilization of Iraq" and the reverse of "all the gains we've made" in the past year can possibly be "in the best interest of Iraq," much less America or our military.

Charlie Gibson pressed Hillary, making sure he'd heard her answer right:

MR. GIBSON: But Senator Clinton, aren't you saying -- I mean, General Petraeus was in Washington. You both were there when he testified, saying that the gains in Iraq are fragile and are reversible. Are you essentially saying, "I know better than the military commanders here"?
SENATOR CLINTON: No, what I'm saying, Charlie, is that no one can predict what will happen. There are many different scenarios. But one thing I am sure of is that our staying in Iraq, our continuing to lose our men and women in uniform, having many injured, the Iraqi casualties that we are seeing as well, is -- is no way for us to maintain a strong position in the world.
... So the bottom line for me is, we don't know what will happen as we withdraw.

"...and I don't really care" might as well be the end of that sentence. Clinton has the audacity to actually admit that she "doesn't know" what the outcome of her stated policy would be. In fact, she admits that one of the "many different scenarios" might be the destabilization of Iraq and the collapse of the democratically-elected government. It might be a mass ethnic cleansing and bloodshed on a scale far beyond anything we've seen so far. It might be the establishment of an al-Qaeda safe haven. But, incomprehensibly, the outcome apparently doesn't matter to her. She's going to go ahead with a withdrawal regardless of the facts on the ground -- consequences be damned.

And that is that kind of immature, irresponsible attitude towards American national security that will continue to doom the candidates of the modern-day Democratic Party.

The second question was on taxes, and this one went to Obama:

GIBSON: All right. You have, however, said you would favor an increase in the capital gains tax. As a matter of fact, you said on CNBC, and I quote, "I certainly would not go above what existed under Bill Clinton," which was 28 percent. It's now 15 percent. That's almost a doubling, if you went to 28 percent.
But actually, Bill Clinton, in 1997, signed legislation that dropped the capital gains tax to 20 percent.
OBAMA: Right.
GIBSON: And George Bush has taken it down to 15 percent.
OBAMA: Right.
GIBSON: And in each instance, when the rate dropped, revenues from the tax increased; the government took in more money. And in the 1980s, when the tax was increased to 28 percent, the revenues went down.
So why raise it at all, especially given the fact that 100 million people in this country own stock and would be affected?
OBAMA: Well, Charlie, what I've said is that I would look at raising the capital gains tax for purposes of fairness.
We saw an article today which showed that the top 50 hedge fund managers made $29 billion last year -- $29 billion for 50 individuals. And part of what has happened is that those who are able to work the stock market and amass huge fortunes on capital gains are paying a lower tax rate than their secretaries. That's not fair.

...GIBSON: But history shows that when you drop the capital gains tax, the revenues go up.
OBAMA: Well, that might happen, or it might not.

Huh? I find it really hard to grasp Obama's logic here: Yes, it's true that lowering the tax rate on capital gains (among others) leads to increased tax revenues for the government. But I'm going to raise taxes on capital gains, because these lower rates are just "not fair!" Even if raising taxes takes more money out of the pockets of 100 million Americans who have invested in the stock market, well, that's justified because it's only fair that they give a larger percentage of their earnings to the government! Even if that higher tax rate leads the government to have less tax revenue, well, at least it'll be more fair!

And when confronted by Gibson again with the fact that history has shown that lower tax rates on capital gains lead to higher revenues, Obama responds that "that might happen, or it might not." (As Gibson pointed out, it has.) That's strangely similar to Hillary's contention that she "just doesn't know" what will happen if we pull troops out of Iraq, but perhaps even more concerning: Obama was presented with hard historical facts about the issue, but just disregarded them.

Blind adherence to liberal ideology that flies in the face of facts, reality and practical solutions is not really the "change" I envision in Washington. I was thinking of something more along the lines of a candidate who "will not allow dogma to override common sense," and whose stances on policy prove that he means it.

True colors, part 2

2008-04-14T14:45:00.004-05:00

-Updated-

I don't generally do this, but I wanted to respond to a comment on my last post and felt that what I wanted to say warranted a fresh start:

"No Alex. The media says that a whole lot of small-town Americans are supposed to be very offended by what Obama said. Anyone who's offended by what Senator Obama ACTUALLY said, and not what the ridiculous Clinton campaign and media narrative says they should be offended by, probably wouldn't vote for Obama anyways."

Maybe I'm not paranoid enough, but I really don't think that "the media" is behind the conspiracy to construct a "narrative" to "distract" voters from "the issues" Obama is trying to present. I think people are just genuinely offended. I guess we'll find out on April 22 which one of us is right.

As for the assertion that "anyone who was offended...probably wouldn't vote for Obama anyways," I guess I admire your confidence in your candidate. I'm sure Obama probably doesn't need those millions of votes from small-town Americans who are religious, own guns, or oppose amnesty for illegal immigrants.

Whatever happened to the Barack Obama who was going to be "post-partisan" and "post-ideological" and going to "reach across party lines" to build support from across the political spectrum?

I read what Obama "actually" said. I thought it was arrogant and condescending on its face. Nobody had to "explain" it to me. Nobody had to tell me what Obama was "really saying." It wasn't like there was some subtle phrase that one had to be listening carefully to catch.

It's right there in your face:

You go into some of these small towns in Pennsylvania, and like a lot of small towns in the Midwest, the jobs have been gone now for 25 years and nothing's replaced them. And they fell through the Clinton administration, and the Bush administration, and each successive administration has said that somehow these communities are gonna regenerate and they have not.

So it's not surprising then that they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren't like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations.

I find that extremely condescending.

I thought this would be obvious, but here's a quick summary of why I think most people would agree:

1) Obama talks frequently about how important his faith is to him and how it has shaped his life. I have no reason to doubt him. But when he includes "religion" (a good thing) in a list of supposed negative things that people "cling to" -- like racism and xenophobia -- that concerns me.

The spin, of course, is that he meant that people cling to religion in a "good way" (this was his explanation on CNN -- he later added: "The Scripture talks about clinging to what's good") -- whereas all the other the other items on his list were meant to be things that people cling to in a "bad way" (except gun ownership, which Obama described as an example of "important traditions that are passed on from generation to generation." Apparently these "important traditions" do not include racism or xenophobia, the next two items mentioned by Obama.

By looking at the context though, Obama is blatantly equating religiosity with racism in his list of "unfortunate" symptoms of small-town unemployment. No matter how you spin it, lumping people who are "religious" or own guns in with those who have "antipathy towards people who aren't like them," or harbor "anti-immigrant sentiment" is offensive. Period.

2) Even if you ignore the words he used, the very point he is making is inherently condescending. How else could you describe Obama's proposition that people own guns and attend church regularly because of economic stagnation -- not because they just like to hunt, or because they enjoy attending church or have strong faith?

It seems to me that Obama never applies that same psycho-analytical critique to his own views -- and therein lies his arrogance. Unlike those of small-town Americans who may be members of the NRA or be concerned about illegal immigration, Obama's "enlightented" views are apparently inherently correct and clear-headed. In fact, in this very statement, Obama seems to be implying that once employment opportunities start appearing again in these small-town communities, these people will naturally stop "clinging" to such simple-minded beliefs and come around to his point of view.

I find it hard to see how that's not arrogant.

In addition, Obama's responses to criticism over his statements have belied a pattern of a similar condescending attitude. Example:

“Lately, there has been a little, typical sort of political flare-up because I said something that everybody knows is true, which is that there are a whole bunch of folks in small towns in Pennsylvania, in towns right here in Indiana, in my home town in Illinois who are bitter.”

"Because I said something that everybody knows is true?" Obama is incredibly self-assured about his explanation of the motivations for the beliefs of a very large segment of America. Again, the possibility that maybe he might have said something wrong never occurs to Obama. This whole "flare-up" is just a sad knee-jerk reaction to his enlightened analysis. After all, it's not his fault if the masses can't handle the truth.

**UPDATE 4/16/08 10:05pm:

Rich Lowry:

Obama prides himself on his civility, but it has to go much deeper than dulcet rhetoric. A fundamental courtesy of political debate is to meet the other side on its own terms. If someone says he cares about gun rights, it’s rude to insist: “No, you don’t. It’s the minimum wage that you really care about, and you’d know it if you were more self-aware.” But Democrats have an uncontrollable reflex to do just that. Since the McGovernite takeover of their party, they have struggled to work up enthusiasm for Middle American mores. (Since 1980, only Bill Clinton managed it, which is why he was the only Democrat elected president in three decades.)

...Obama brings a special measure of arrogance to the standard liberal critique of Middle America. His candidacy has always been characterized by two paradoxes. How can he be so hopeful at the same time he and his wife, Michelle, portray America as a sink-pit of despair? And how can he claim to be a uniter when he’s an orthodox liberal who has risked little or nothing for bipartisan outreach?

Now, we know. Obama defines hopefulness as liberalism, specifically liberalism as embodied by himself. Only with Obama’s election will America be redeemed from its harrowing false consciousness. We will be unified, not by Obama reaching out to conservatives to hammer out compromises, but by conservatives shedding their bitterness and becoming Obama liberals.

This is the underside of hope: arrogance fading into a secular messianism based on the fallenness of everyone who disagrees with Barack Obama.

True colors

2008-04-12T09:03:00.011-05:00

Barack Obama explained how he really sees small-town Americans in a fundraising speech in San Francisco:

You go into some of these small towns in Pennsylvania, and like a lot of small towns in the Midwest, the jobs have been gone now for 25 years and nothing's replaced them. And they fell through the Clinton administration, and the Bush administration, and each successive administration has said that somehow these communities are gonna regenerate and they have not.

So it's not surprising then that they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren't like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations.

That's right. Obama just described small-town Americans as racist, xenophobic, gun-loving religious nuts -- and it's all because they lost their jobs. I find it hard to believe that's going to play well in Pennsylvania, not to mention the rest of small-town America. This is a display of liberal elitism in its purest form. (The audio can be found here.)

To be honest, I'm shocked -- not that Obama believes those words -- but that he would actually say them publicly. For a candidate who has run, for the most part, and impressive campaign thus far, it was astonishingly stupid.

But these are Obama's true colors. Obama's view is sadly not uncommon among many of his base supporters: upper-class, well-educated, suburban-dwelling liberals who will no doubt agree wholeheartedly with Obama's sentiments. Many will see nothing wrong with those words, sharing the same condescending view of small-town America as largely populated by ignorant, Bible- and gun-toting xenophobic rubes. In fact, I just asked my roommate, an Obama supporter, for his reaction to Obama's description, and he said, "Yeah, well, he's right. They are."

Unfortunately for Obama, most Americans will not agree. They will see Obama's statement as insulting and condescending, and rightly so.

John Podhoretz at Commentary magazine had a particularly eloquent analysis of the liberal elitist mentality as crystallized by Obama:

Barack Obama has done what Democratic candidates for president invariably do — he has revealed the profound sense of unearned superiority that is the sad and persistent hallmark of contemporary liberalism. Obama’s statement today that small-town folk “cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren’t like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations” may be the most distilled example of this train of thought I’ve ever seen.
Obama’s astonishing sentence offers a syllogistic string of superciliousness: Gun ownership is equated with religious fanaticism, which is said to accompany hatred of the other in the form of opposition to immigration and support for trade barriers. It drips with an attitude so important to the spiritual well-being of the American liberal — the paternalistic attitude that says, “Oh, well, people only do things differently from me because they are ignorant and superstitious and backward” — that it has survived and thrived despite the suicidal impact it has had on the achievement of liberal political goals and aims.

For liberal elitists like Obama, rural American culture is unfathomable; why on earth would people want to own guns? What would make them so unabashedly religious? How could they possibly believe that illegal immigration is harmful to our country?

The thought that rational, intelligent people simply have different views or beliefs is incomprehensible. No, instead such people must be simplistic cretins, "clinging," as Obama so appropriately put it, to their anachronistic superstitions and backwards customs. Examples of these are, apparently, enthusiastic belief in God and that puzzling desire to own firearms.

The subsequent fallout from Obama's comments, not surprisingly, has caused quite a negative backlash. McCain's campaign found it irresistible to pile on: "It shows an elitism and condescension towards hardworking Americans that is nothing short of breathtaking," said McCain advisor Steve Schmidt. Hillary Clinton's contention that "Pennsylvanians don't need a president who looks down on them" is laughably hypocritical.

Obama's campaign, furiously trying to spin this, offered a rather weak response, saying "Americans are understandably upset with their leaders in Washington," and reverting to old talking points about McCain supporting "tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans." That's hardly going to cut it.

In addition, I find Obama's "anti-trade" charge amusing for its blatant hypocrisy -- it is Obama who opposes the free trade agreement with Columbia. It is Obama who publicly threatens to renegotiate NAFTA (even while his economic advisers reassure Canadian officials that it's nothing more than campaign rhetoric for the masses.)

John Hinderaker of Powerline thinks Obama just became unelectable. I don't know if I'd go quite that far, but I would say that I think his chances of staging a comeback victory in the April 22 Pennsylvania primary just evaporated.

Trial by fire

2008-03-31T04:39:00.005-05:00

Watching CNN International yesterday -- grudgingly, as always -- I was stunned at the shoddiness of the reporting on the fierce fighting between the Mahdi Army and Iraqi government forces, and the recent announcement of a cease-fire by Moqtada al-Sadr. CNN International portrayed the incident as a random outbreak of renewed violence, cited it as evidence that the surge wasn't working, and portrayed it as a "troubling" development and a "concerning" sign that the Iraqi government couldn't control it's own territory.

This narrative simply ignores crucial facts and context that, when realized, paint a very different picture. As Ed Morrissey explains at Hot Air, the story of how Basra got to this point is very important:

Anyone who follows the news closely in Iraq knew this day would come. The British left a power vacuum behind in the south [when British forces withdrew from Basra] that the Baghdad government could not fill at the time, and Sadr and the Supreme Islamic Iraqi Council’s Badr Brigades filled it instead. They have fought each other and some smaller Shi’ite groups for control of the streets ever since 2005, as Steven Vincent tried to warn people just before they murdered him in Basra. The Iraqi government had no choice but to challenge the militias for control of Basra and the surrounding areas, but they waited until the Iraqi Army had enough strength to succeed.

It has been a confrontation waiting to happen -- a matter of "when," not "if." The crackdown on the Mahdi Army in Basra has been, in a very meaningful way, the first true test of the Iraqi security forces. While the operation was not perfect -- some soldiers defected from the Iraqi army during the fighting, for example -- the Iraqi forces have proved that they can more than hold their own.

But isn't it more of a "stalemate," as the media seems to suggest? The facts say otherwise.

The Mahdi Army has taken significant casualties -- 350 killed, 531 wounded, 343 captured, and 30 surrendered. That's a minimum of 2% of the Mahdi Army's total fighting capacity (using the best-case figures for the MA's numbers). From March 25-29 the Mahdi Army had an average of 71 of its fighters killed per day. Iraqi security forces' casualties, though significant, were far lower.

But which side is "suing for peace?"

Shiite cleric Muqtada al-Sadr offered Sunday to pull his fighters off the streets of Basra and other cities if the government halts raids against his followers and releases prisoners held without charge.

The offer was contained in a nine-point statement issued by his headquarters in Najaf.

An Iraqi government spokesman welcomed al-Sadr’s order, saying it was “positive and responsive.”

Al-Sadr demanded that the government issue a general amnesty and release all detainees. The statement said he also “disavows” anyone who carries weapons and targets government institutions, charities and political party offices.

Hint: When a militia leader starts trying to make deals in order to end military operations against his militia, that's usually a pretty good sign that he's not doing too well. Disavowing anyone with a gun -- re: your own fighters -- is certainly not an action al-Sadr would take if he was the victor.

But al-Sadr didn't wait for the Iraqi government to respond to his conditions -- he unilaterally ordered his fighters to stand down, while still requesting that the government halt raids against his militia.

Shiite cleric Muqtada al-Sadr said Sunday that he was pulling his fighters off the streets nationwide and called on the government to stop raids against his followers and free them from prison.

Bill Roggio reports that al-Sadr has also called for his fighters to lay down their weapons and cooperate fully with Iraqi security forces. Clearly al-Sadr has realized he is in a fight he can't win. The Iraqi government's response is also illuminating: They have welcomed al-Sadr's order for his followers to lay down their arms, but at the same time the government is standing firm, saying that they won't be halting military operations until the Mahdi Army is completely disarmed -- repudiating al-Sadr's earlier demands.

"The order to pull off gunmen off Basra along with all Iraqi provinces and to disavow those who has taken up arms against government offices and security forces is responsive and patriotic," Ali al Dabagh, the spokesman for the Iraqi government, told Voices of Iraq. The Iraqi government has not called for a halt in military operations.

It is not hard to determine which is the stronger and weaker horse in this fight.

Although supported by British air power, the operations are being coordinated and conducted by the Iraqi military. The decision to go into Basra was done on the Iraqi government's initiative (in fact, Americans were only informed of the decision at the last minute). Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki has been physically overseeing operations in Basra during the crackdown, and has just announced he will be staying in the city until the militias and gangs that controlled the city have been crushed. One can reasonably infer that the top Iraqi leader would not risk staying in Basra if it were in danger of falling into Mahdi Army hands.

"Our determination is strong ... those who break the law are punished, and those who draw their weapons in the face of the state are punished," Maliki said on Iraqi state television.

Calling the battle for Basra "a defining moment in the history of a free Iraq," President Bush has publicily supported the Iraqi government's crackdown. His description of the importance of this confrontation is accurate. Even London's Telegraph agrees that the decision to send Iraqi forces to retake control over Basra marks a historic moment -- the Iraqi government asserting it's own authority by taking on the most powerful and dangerous of the Shi'a militias -- those who "draw their weapons in the face of the state."

The battle for Basra is not yet over -- while al-Sadr's cease-fire is a very positive sign for the Iraqi government, there is a long way to go -- and most likely much more blood, ammunition, and lives to be sacrificed -- before we will be able to know if the Iraqi forces will prevail in this test. But if they do succeed-- and things seem to be pointing in that direction -- it will be a definitive sign that Iraq can survive as a democratic nation. It will also bring U.S. forces one step closer to returning home with the knowledge that they have truly accomplished their mission.

Three cheers for common sense

2008-03-29T11:45:00.006-05:00

-Updated-

In a speech delivered this week on the housing crisis, John McCain showcased both an impressive understanding of the situation and good common sense in regards to solutions.

McCain was not the only candidate to give a speech on the economy this week -- both Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama also addressed the topic -- but McCain's showed by far the best analysis of the current crisis in the housing market.

Despite his supposed weakness on economic issues, McCain's remarks were on target, especially when he presented an overview of "how we got here" -- no easy task considering the daunting complexity of explaining the "housing bubble":

A bubble occurs when prices are driven up too quickly, speculators move into markets, and these players begin to suspend the normal rules of risk and assume that prices can only move up - but never down. We've seen this kind of bubble before -- in the late 1990s, we had the technology bubble, when money poured into technology stocks and people assumed that those stock values would rise indefinitely. Between 2001 and 2006, housing prices rose by nearly 15 percent every year. The normal market forces of people buying and selling their homes were overwhelmed by rampant speculation. Our system of market checks and balances did not correct this until the bubble burst.

A sustained period of rising home prices made many home lenders complacent, giving them a false sense of security and causing them to lower their lending standards. They stopped asking basic questions of their borrowers like "can you afford this home? Can you put a reasonable amount of money down?" Lenders ended up violating the basic rule of banking: don't lend people money who can't pay it back. Some Americans bought homes they couldn't afford, betting that rising prices would make it easier to refinance later at more affordable rates. There are 80 million family homes in America and those homeowners are now facing the reality that the bubble has burst and prices go down as well as up.

McCain has a reputation for "straight talk," and his assessment, though correct, is not something that's easy to hear -- especially for millions of Americans who made precisely the mistake McCain describes.

McCain then explained how this problem has come to cause such a widespread crisis that is affecting the entire financial sector:

The other part of what happened was an explosion of complex financial instruments that weren't particularly well understood by even the most sophisticated banks, lenders and hedge funds. To make matters worse, these instruments -- which basically bundled together mortgages and sold them to others to spread risk throughout our capital markets -- were mostly off-balance sheets, and hidden from scrutiny. In other words, the housing bubble was made worse by a series of complex, inter-connected financial bets that were not transparent or fully understood. That means they weren't always managed wisely because people couldn't properly quantify the risk or the value of these bets. And because these instruments were bundled and sold and resold, it became harder and harder to find and connect up a real lender with a real borrower. Capital markets work best when there is both accountability and transparency. In the case of our current crisis, both were lacking.

Because managers did not fully understand the complex financial instruments and because there was insufficient transparency when they did try to learn, the initial losses spawned a crisis of confidence in the markets. Market players are increasingly unnerved by the uncertainty surrounding the level of risk, liability and loss currently in the financial system. Banks no longer trust each other and are increasingly unwilling to put their money to work. Credit is drying up and liquidity is now severely limited -- and small business and hard-working families find themselves unable to get their usual loans.

The net result is the crisis we face. What started as a problem in subprime loans has now convulsed the entire financial system.

To be able to explain such a complicated issue so concisely and clearly (so that even the average listener can understand the root causes of this crisis) is a credit to McCain. He spoke the plain truth of the housing crisis, and didn't gloss over hard realities -- namely, that much of the responsibility for the crisis is due to the fact that people were buying homes they couldn't afford. Irresponsibility -- on the part of homeowners, bankers, and investors -- is to blame for the crisis we now face.

The emphasis on personal responsibility is a refreshing contrast to Barack Obama's explanation of the crisis, the blame for which he placed on shadowy "lobbyists," and "predatory lenders." Obama apparently wants us to believe that these "predatory" lenders "forced" poor hapless Americans to buy homes they couldn't afford, or "coerced" them to take out risky adjustable-rate mortgages. Apparently Obama's fondness for victimizing as many Americans as possible has not diminished.

As for solutions, McCain didn't rush to articulate a myriad of government-based solutions like bailouts or extensive intervention by the federal agencies. Saying he was "open to any and all proposals, based on their costs and benefits," McCain didn't offer a lot of specific plans, and was criticized by Democrats for it. But however tempting the desire might be for the government to just "do something," I find McCain's prescriptions much more reassuring than offering a long list of government "solutions" that will in reality make things worse, not better.

Take for example the plan Obama has co-sponsored with Sen. Dodd, which calls for the Federal Housing Administration to pay lenders a given amount in exchange for these lenders writing down the at-risk mortgages and refinancing them at lower rates. This is -- no matter how much Obama tries to spin it -- nothing more than a taxpayer-funded bailout for lenders and borrowers who acted irresponsibly, gambling that the price of homes would continue to rise indefinitely.

What's more, it would further destabilize the housing market by lowering the down payment needed to acquire further FHA loans -- making risky loans even more likely and re-creating the very circumstances that led to the crisis in the first place. Borrowers with less equity in their loans are even more likely to default on those loans. Obama's plan would therefore make the market less stable, not more.

McCain opposes this approach, recognizing that action for the sake of action can often make things worse and acknowledging that "it is not the duty of government to bail out and reward those who act irresponsibly." He goes on to say that:

In our effort to help deserving homeowners, no assistance should be given to speculators. Any assistance for borrowers should be focused solely on homeowners, not people who bought houses for speculative purposes, to rent or as second homes. Any assistance must be temporary and must not reward people who were irresponsible at the expense of those who weren't.

McCain also opposes the even worse idea proposed by Hillary Clinton, whose plan would in essence completely destabilize the already uncertain lending industry. She proposed freezing the rate on ARMs (adjustable-rate mortgages: in which borrowers pay a low "teaser" rate on their mortgages that reverts to a higher rate at a later date) for five years. Mortgage servicers would probably agree to this plan since they get paid the same no matter what the rate is -- but the lenders who own the mortgages would obviously sue to protect the value of their investments. Clinton offered to give mortgage servicers immunity from such action, rendering the contracts signed between lender and borrower completely irrelevant -- and in doing so completely paralyze the financial market.

In contrast, McCain instead proposes to increase transparency in the financial markets in order to avoid rampant speculation on dubious loans, and to limit the activity of the Federal Reserve to only circumstances in which a crisis seems likely. He also proposed a meeting of top mortgage lenders, in which they would pledge to support "cash-stripped but credit worthy customers," ensuring that they are doing everything they can to keep families in their homes and the economy growing.

Democrats charge that these prescriptions "do not go far enough." In this case, however, less is more when it comes to government intervention.

McCain has said publicly that he does not have as much expertise on the economy as he does in other policy areas -- but he has already demonstrated a far better understanding of how the economy works than either of his Democratic rivals.

**UPDATE 4/8/08 11:00pm: Obama's victimization of America continues. At a speech to the Communications Workers of America, he offered this gem:

"Is it any wonder that our federal government looked the other way when mortgage companies were tricking Americans into buying bigger houses than they could afford?"

Tricking? Really? Apparently Obama would have you believe that Americans were the victims of a terribly clever and sinister scheme to force them to buy something they couldn't afford. Next thing you know, he'll be telling us the debt epidemic in America is the fault of a shadowy partnership between Lexus and Best Buy. God forbid people take responsibility for their own finances.

Running on defeat

2008-03-18T05:49:00.005-05:00

It's true, the Democrats have a natural advantage this election year. From economic woes to an unpopular Republican president, it's very likely that voters will prefer Democrats on most issues.

But Democrats do have one glaring weakness: Iraq.

No matter who the Democratic candidate turns out to be in November, they are going to find themselves facing a very profound and uncomfortable problem: the unenviable position of having to convince the American public that the U.S. is losing the war in Iraq.

In 2006, Iraq was easy fodder for the Democrats: just about everyone seemed to agree that things were going badly there, we were stuck in a sectarian "civil war," and that no real progress was being made on any front. When such a negative view is already widespread among the voters, it's fairly easy to -- as the Democrats did -- run on an anti-war, immediate-withdrawal platform and win.

But the situation in Iraq in 2008 is far, far different than it was in the summer of 2006. Thanks to the new and highly successful counter-insurgency strategy implemented by General David Petraeus and long supported by Senator John McCain, even the most critical analysts have admitted that the U.S. has achieved impressive security gains in Iraq. Sectarian violence has dropped dramatically in the past 8 months, and although al-Qaeda continues to launch attacks on Iraqi civilians, they have been pushed all the way into northern Iraq and have increasingly had to rely on women and even mentally handicapped suicide bombers to carry out these bombings. Progress on the political front has been slower, but the Iraqi parliament has finally passed several pieces of key legislation in recent months.

These successes have been reflected in the polls -- a majority of Americans now believe that things in Iraq are going well. A March 13 Gallup poll found that 40% of Americans believe the troop surge is having a positive effect in Iraq. Only 20% said it was making things worse. This is a huge increase in positive perceptions since July 2007, when nearly half of respondents thought the surge was having a negative impact.

The same poll found that only 18% of Americans were in favor of withdrawing troops from Iraq "as rapidly as possible." 41% favored a gradual and ordered withdrawal, and 35% said we should maintain troop levels until the situation improves.

40-43% of Americans now say that U.S. troops' presence in Iraq is making things better, a dramatic increase from just 34% in November 2007.

[Note: Barack Obama's completely irresponsible position on the war represents a fairly rapid withdrawal -- all combat troops out within 16 months of taking office. That would put him at odds with the views of roughly 76% of Americans. Good luck selling that. In contrast, McCain is against any fixed timetable for withdrawal (instead relying on the assessment of commanders on the ground) and Clinton favors a slower, more gradual drawdown approach (over five years). These are more in line with the mainstream American opinion on Iraq.]

Democrats might counter that Americans just have a mistaken perception of improvement, but don't know what it's like "on the ground."

Also unfortunately for Democrats, Iraqis themselves believe the situation is drastically better than it was even in August 2007.

A new poll of 2,200 Iraqis conducted by ABC News, the BBC, ARD German TV, and the Japanese broadcaster NHK shows much improved attitudes across virtually every aspect of life in Iraq.

The perception among Iraqis that the situation is improving is clear from these numbers.

A clear majority of Americans still believes the decision to send troops to Iraq in 2003 was a mistake. However, tellingly, Americans are looking to the future rather than the past in Iraq. Another Gallup poll found that 65% of Americans believe the United States "has an obligation to remain in Iraq until a reasonable level of stability and security has been reached." 63% believe that al-Qaeda would use Iraq as a base for terrorist operations if the U.S. withdraws troops -- only 20% believed that would happen if we keep troops there. 57% believed that "a greater number of Iraqis would die from violence" if U.S. withdrew troops -- only 27% believed that keeping U.S. troops in Iraq would lead to that outcome.

***

Here's the problem for Democrats: human beings, and especially Americans, tend to want to believe good news, that things are going well. Optimism is a powerful weapon -- as I'm sure Barack Obama's campaign will tell you.

However, the Democratic candidates have refused to adjust their positions on the war even in light of the dramatic changes in the situation in Iraq. They are still running on essentially the exact same message they ran on in 2006 -- the war is a failure, there's no hope for success, no progress is being made, the U.S. needs to get out immediately, regardless of the consequences.

Now, however, they have to persuade people to believe those things. And trying to convince people that things are hopeless in Iraq when all the facts, figures, and trends point in the direction of progress is going to be quite a difficult task.

John McCain will be running on exactly the opposite position -- that the new counterinsurgency strategy which he supported for so long is paying off in Iraq, that security has improved dramatically and that real progress is being made. He will be running on the platform that the U.S. can and must win in Iraq, and that to withdraw would be irresponsible and disastrous. And, for once, the evidence and majority of public opinion will be on his side.

The Democratic candidate will not only be defending an outdated position that has no basis in light of the present reality on the ground in Iraq, but also have to actually hope that things go badly in Iraq between now and November. The Democratic candidates have backed themselves into the worst kind of corner: they now find themselves wishing for America to be defeated in Iraq. They have tied their political fortunes to that outcome.

Which candidate actually has the broadest appeal?

2008-02-26T08:49:00.008-05:00

Despite all the media hype and the frequent claim by Obama supporters that he is a "post-partisan" candidate who has "proven" that he can "reach across the aisle" and gather support from "across the political spectrum," I have been skeptical of this boast. If not manifestly untrue, it seemed to be at least greatly exaggerated given Obama's fairly standard leftist views when it comes to just about every policy.

Turns out that the numbers back up my instincts on this one.

Rasmussen's latest poll on the candidates' support is illuminating:

Thirty-four percent (34%) of all voters say they will definitely vote for John McCain if he is on the ballot this November. Thirty-three percent (33%) will definitely vote against him while 29% say their support hinges on who his opponent is.

Barack Obama has the same number who will definitely vote for him--34%. But, more people are committed to voting against him than McCain. Forty-three percent (43%) say they will definitely reject him at the ballot box. For 18%, their support depends on his opponent.

For Hillary Clinton, 32% will definitely vote for her if she is on the ballot and 46% will definitely vote against. Core opposition to Clinton, the best-known of the candidates as the long campaign season began, hovered in the high 40s through most of the past year.

If you condense all that into an easy-to-read table, it looks something like this:

	Def. Support	Def. Against	Net
Obama	34%	43%	-7
McCain	34	33	+1
Clinton	32	46	-14

Far from drawing support from "across a broad spectrum," 43% of Americans have already decided that they will definitely not be voting for Obama come November. In fact, contrary to his image as a "uniting" figure, core opposition to Obama is nearly equal to that against Clinton.

In fact, it is John McCain, not Barack Obama, who the numbers point to as the candidate with the possibility for the broadest appeal. While the core support of each candidate is deadlocked at 34% each, Obama's opposition numbers are rising, while McCain's are not. McCain's 33% opposition -- the lowest of any candidate -- has been static since December, while opposition to Obama has risen 7 points in that time. Meanwhile, McCain's core support has grown dramatically (from just 20% in November), leading him to a current net positive (+1) in terms of core support vs. opposition. Obama is now at -7, and Hillary at -14.

Granted, it's early. And as I always say, all polls should be taken with a grain of salt. History, and this election season especially, has once again proven the highly dubious value of polling in comparison with actual voting results.

That being said, these numbers do bear out with my suspicions about the limits of Obama's "broad" appeal. My guess is that as the campaign wears on and Obama starts facing serious challenges from Republicans and is forced to talk about and defend his policy positions, there's going to be very little chance for Obama to improve those negative numbers.

Thank You, New York Times

2008-02-24T11:20:00.006-05:00

John McCain has been struggling since January to win over the conservative base of the GOP. Much ink has been spilled about McCain's weakness among conservatives, who are reluctant to support the Arizona senator because of disagreements with him on issues like campaign finance, immigration, taxes, and global warming. With conservative radio hosts regularly blasting McCain's "liberal" positions on such issues and ideologues vowing to stay home in November (or even vote for Hillary), many wondered if this split spelled the "end" of the Republican party.

Then along came the New York Times.

The Times makes it a habit, each election cycle, to start printing story after baseless story, using thin evidence and shoddy reporting, to try and "sink" the Republican nominee. This year, they've started with this disgusting hit piece insinuating that John McCain had an inappropriate romantic relationship with a female lobbyist -- and attempted to tie it to some broad "pattern" of hypocrisy by McCain on ethical issues.

The long-winded article (totaling over 3,000 words with four reporters listed in the byline) attempts to link -- using mainly insinuation and elliptical references, but very thin evidence -- McCain to female lobbyist Vicki Iseman with which he "may have had" a "romantic relationship."

When one examines the substance of the story, however, it's clear that no major newspaper (other than the Times) would have even considered publishing such a poor excuse for reporting -- much less put it as a lead on the front page. And, in fact, the editors of US News and World Report and Time have said they would not have printed the article. The Boston Globe (which is owned by the NYT's parent corporation) is refusing to print the article.

First and foremost:

The story was almost entirely attributed to "people involved in the campaign" speaking "on the condition of anonymity." The Times had only one former McCain adviser who would speak for the record, and his comment did not speak directly to the alleged affair, which was, despite the Times's awkward attempts to pretend otherwise, the most potentially newsworthy aspect of the piece.

For a supposedly explosive story, talked about for months, it was remarkably thin.

"Thin" is putting it lightly. The publication of this story is an embarrassment. Even the Times' ombudsman Clark Hoyte slammed his paper for publishing a story that "offered readers no proof that McCain and Iseman had a romance."

It's not just that the story was appallingly baseless and showcased unbelievably irresponsible reporting techniques; it is also a sad example of how low the New York Times has really sunk. This piece is unfortunately typical of the ideologically-driven rumor-mongering that substitutes for journalism at the Times.

This story is a perfect example of a situation seen so frequently at the Times: once a suitable "story line" has been established -- i.e., McCain had an affair with a female lobbyist -- any evidence, testimony, or facts collected that contradicts the established ideological slant of the story is simply discarded. Immediately after the story broke, McCain's campaign was prepared to publish the statements of "dozens" of McCain staffers and colleagues who had talked to the Times concerning these allegations, but whose statements defended and supported McCain -- all of which were conveniently left out of the final published article.

And it wasn't just Republicans who reacted with revulsion at this story. Even according to Times editor Bill Keller:

"I was surprised by how lopsided the opinion was against our decision [to publish] with readers who described themselves as independents and Democrats joining Republicans in defending Mr. McCain from what they saw as a cheap shot."

In short, the Times' attempt to smear McCain's character was a disaster. But even more than that, the Times may just have given John McCain the biggest gift of this campaign by provoking Republicans to close ranks behind their nominee.

United by their shared hatred of the New York Times, conservative pundits, notably radio hosts like Sean Hannity and Rush Limbaugh, dropped their criticism of McCain and rallied to his defense. Steve Chapman, writing for RCP, explains:

Those who had been angered by McCain's gentle treatment by liberal journalists were angered to see him handled roughly by the same scribes. They quit attacking McCain and began blasting The New York Times, which had given them plenty of ammunition...

And with that, the great Republican civil war was pretty much over. Conservatives will never embrace McCain for his views on immigration, campaign finance or global warming. But they may come to echo what was said about Grover Cleveland when he was nominated for president in 1884: "We love him most for the enemies he has made."

Near the end of his article, Chapman goes even further:

The experience of the last 40 years shows two things. One is that conservatives can never be sure of getting their kind of presidential nominee. The other is that, as far as the fortunes of the party are concerned, it doesn't matter. Once the nomination is assured, the Republican candidate will always embrace conservative themes, and conservatives will close ranks behind him.

How come? Because somewhere between February and November, many things happen to remind them how powerfully they detest the common enemy. Not just the Democratic nominee, but all the Democratic Party elders, interest groups, celebrities and leftish ideologues.

The article has already resulted in a boon for McCain's candidacy, helping to bring in a flush of donations in the wake of the story's publication.

Chapman concludes with this sentence:

...As a rule, mobilizing people in politics is not about giving them someone to love. It's about giving them someone to hate.

Barack Obama's campaign is -- so far -- an obvious challenge to that rule, and it remains to be seen whether or not such a strategy can be sustained effectively in the long term. Perhaps I'm too cynical, or have too dim a view of human nature, but I have a creeping suspicion that it won't.

Campaign Finance: A Lose-Lose for Obama

2008-02-18T13:38:00.002-05:00

Barack Obama is stuck in quite the conundrum. Last year, the junior senator made a pact with the then-struggling GOP candidate John McCain that if each of them were to secure their party’s nomination, they would accept public funding for the general election campaign.

At the time, of course, it seemed rather fantastic – McCain’s campaign was on it’s way to bankruptcy and irrelevance and Obama was trailing the “inevitable” Clinton by double-digits nationwide.

Now McCain is essentially the presumptive Republican nominee, and Obama has an edge over Clinton that makes his winning the Democratic nomination a highly likely possibility.

What does “public financing” mean, exactly? In such a scenario, the presidential candidates of each party accepts a pre-set amount that they may use for campaign spending from the federal government. Supporters of public financing contend that this is the only way to ensure that wealthy individuals and special interest groups do not have undue influence over an election by throwing out massive amounts of cash to political candidates -- at the cost of the voices of ordinary citizens.

This is not necessarily an argument that I agree with. However, John McCain – who has, unlike Obama, actually been a leader in the Senate for “cleaning up” American electoral politics via campaign finance reform – is now calling Barack Obama to follow through on his promise.

As Reid Wilson at RCP notes, no matter what Obama decides in this situation, he loses. By running as the candidate of “change,” and consistently promising to “change the way politics works in this country,” Barack Obama can’t afford to look like a hypocrite by refusing to keep his word on this issue. Failing to follow through on his promise would risk the disillusionment of his starry-eyed supporters who want to see Obama as a leader who can truly move America beyond the old political games of the past.

On the other hand, keeping his word also has negative consequences for Obama. Obama has proven his record-setting fundraising ability during this campaign by accumulating over $100 million in 2007 and $32 million in January of 2008, meaning that if he continues this pace through 2008 he will raise $100 million more than John Kerry did in 2004.

McCain is not known for his fundraising prowess – he raised only $40 million in 2007 (although the fact that his campaign was declared “over” until he started his comeback in October may have affected that number). While McCain is certain to improve as the general election campaign heats up and he gathers support, it’s clear that in terms of fundraising, McCain would be David to Obama’s Goliath, and would be outspent by at least tens of millions of dollars.

Therefore, Obama’s acceptance of his promise to commit to public funding would essentially level the playing field with McCain, a huge advantage for the Arizona senator who would otherwise be overwhelmed by the massive spending of the Obama campaign during the general election.

Additionally, Hillary Clinton has made no such pledge on public financing, knowing that those “special interests” that Obama so publicly denounces are a key source of fundraising for her (and most) campaigns. This lends itself to supporting one of Hillary’s main themes – electability. By not accepting public funding, she could easily outspend McCain in a general election. Her campaign’s argument – one that they are already making – is that Obama’s public financing pledge is a sign of weakness because it gives the Republicans a chance to win. Hillary, of course, promises no mercy.

If he accepts public funding, he will have kept his word, but also gives up one of his most important advantages in a general election if he wins the nomination. If he does not accept funding, he will be attacked as a hypocrite by both McCain and Hillary, potentially costing him crucial votes in the primaries ahead.

In the end, the real question for the Obama campaign comes down to this:

Do they really want to change the way politics works, or do they really want to win? The answer to that question will determine their choice on public financing.

Indeed.

Honor and Respect

2008-02-07T14:31:00.001-05:00

You know, every once in a while in politics one gets to witness a rare thing -- sincerity. Honesty and humility are rare things to see in a politician – but sometimes, if you’re lucky, the politician steps aside and you get to see the man. And even more rare – sometimes that man turns out to be noble, courageous, and selfless.

I saw that that man tonight.

I just happened to switch on CNN at the precise moment that Mitt Romney had begun his speech to the Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC). The subtitle at the bottom of the screen read “Mitt Romney to suspend campaign, GOP sources say.” Those words didn’t jibe with the man I saw speaking at the podium. Romney was absolutely on fire, speaking with energy and passion about his beliefs and the future of the conservative movement and the country. The crowd absolutely loved it. It didn’t look like the speech of a man who was admitting defeat and stepping aside.

As I watched, I realized that this was easily the best speech I have ever seen Mitt Romney give. And as I realized at that moment that the subtitle text must be true – for it is only in realizing that his campaign was over would the real Mitt – the one I have been waiting for all throughout this campaign – shine through. And shine through he did.

Discussing issues from entitlements, to taxes, to keeping America competitive, and especially about the war with Islamic jihadists and the war in Iraq, Romney had the crowd swooning with his sincerity and his energy. They cheered and applauded enthusiastically to almost every line. It is almost a given that if he had been giving speeches like this back in October this campaign would probably have turned out very, very differently.

Then he uttered these words:

"If I fight on in my campaign, all the way to the convention, I would forestall the launch of a national campaign and make it more likely that Senator Clinton or Obama would win. And in this time of war, I simply cannot let my campaign, be a part of aiding a surrender to terror.
This is not an easy decision for me. I hate to lose. My family, my friends and our supporters… many of you right here in this room… have given a great deal to get me where I have a shot at becoming President. If this were only about me, I would go on. But I entered this race because I love America, and because I love America, I feel I must now stand aside, for our party and for our country."

My respect for Mitt Romney has never been greater. Here is a man who has devoted a staggering amount of his time, energy, and resources – nearly $35 million of his own money – to this campaign.

But Romney is above all a businessman. A man who loves crunching facts, numbers, and data, of evaluating cost vs. benefit. And after looking at those numbers, Romney realized they just didn’t bear out for him.

After all he has invested, it would have been easy for Romney to cling on to his dying campaign, dragging out the nomination process for weeks or even months and in doing so further splitting the Republican party and hurting their chances in November. Instead, Romney made a selfless decision. He stepped aside for the good of his party, but even more so for what he – sincerely, as was evident from his speech – believes is the good of this country.

And in explaining and prefacing his decision to drop out by using this particular argument:

"I disagree with Senator McCain on a number of issues, as you know. But I agree with him on doing whatever it takes to be successful in Iraq, on finding and executing Usama bin Laden, and on eliminating Al Qaeda and terror."

Mitt Romney did something that must have been exceedingly difficult for him – he pointed Republican voters’ attention to the centerpiece and strongest part of John McCain’s campaign. By reminding Republicans what is at stake in this election – and that surrender is a near certainty if a Democrat is elected in November – Romney’s call for unity among Republicans was a very gentlemanly tip of his hat to the party’s now-presumptive nominee.

Of course, Romney didn’t actually “endorse” John McCain tonight – not even close. It would have been an impossible feat considering the bitter rivalry between the two over the course of this campaign. It’s no secret that the two are not friends – in fact it’s been obvious that John McCain has a strong personal dislike for the former Massachusetts governor -- but considering the barrage of personal, cheap, and blatantly false attacks he has suffered from McCain’s campaign, Romney’s final act in this campaign was one of honor, and a very gracious gift to the Arizona senator. It is also one that reflects strikingly on the strength of Romney’s character.

Mitt Romney is an exceptional man. It’s a shame more of the Romney we saw today didn’t shine through during the rest of the campaign. It is also striking to me how Romney changed during the course of the campaign. In the early going, it always seemed like Romney was reciting a list of talking points, a little checklist he had prepared with all the right positions on it that he was trying to cover. The result was somewhat awkward. Later on, Romney had clearly absorbed these beliefs and could talk about them effortlessly and eloquently.

But somewhere along the way, Mitt Romney started believing in those conservative principles. They weren’t just words, they weren’t just part of a platform or a strategy. They became part of who he was. They went “from his head to his heart,” as I think I heard one commentator put it. That much was clear from the passion he spoke with today: Mitt Romney believed – truly believed – the things he was saying. What’s more, watching him speak, you believed that he believed them. That is really the difference between Romney in February 2008 and Romney in mid-2007. It really has been a stunning transformation.

I’ll leave my comments and analysis of the merits of John McCain for another day and another post. But suffice to say this: 1) Mitt Romney has my undying respect for his actions today. 2) His message also hit home with me: At this critical moment in the future of our country -- and in a time of war, especially -- unity for the GOP is the key, especially with the Democratic candidates remaining locked a tight and heated battle for the foreseeable future. It is our best hope for victory in November.

For that reason, I have decided that there is no point in sulking. Nothing can be gained by moping or grumbling about McCain’s deficiencies as a conservative, except division and defeat. Some conservatives may choose to sit this one out, but not me. From this day forward, I will look at this campaign with the proper perspective. It’s not about having the “perfect” nominee. It’s about having the nominee that will be far better for the future of the country than the other guys’. As a Republican, I am proud to say that we have that candidate in John McCain.

McCain for President in 2008.

Super Tuesday: The Aftermath

2008-02-05T20:14:00.001-05:00

Well, I woke up at 4:30am this morning to watch election returns on CNN International (they air the live broadcast from CNN's Election Center during times like these) hoping to see Mitt Romney silence the pundits by winning in key southern and midwestern states, perhaps even taking California, where he was purported to be neck-and-neck with McCain.

Much to my dismay, it wasn't Mitt Romney who surprised the pundits last night -- it was Mike Huckabee.

Coming into tonight, everyone was calling it a "two-man race" -- and the media has been calling John McCain the "frontrunner" ever since Florida. The storyline was that McCain had a good shot to "clinch" the nomination, Romney needed a strong showing especially in states like Georgia, Missouri, and California, and Huckabee was expected to take his home state of Arkansas and maybe one or two others but that his campaign was basically over.

None of those things happened.

Huckabee

The good news for him: Huckabee surprised everyone by sweeping the south. Winning Arkansas, Alabama, Tennessee, West Virginia (due to a deal his caucus delegates there struck with McCain's supporters in order to prevent a Romney victory), and even Georgia, Huckabee had a huge night. I'll admit, I was one of those who figured Huckabee's campaign was virtually over. Tonight proved otherwise. His strength in the traditional Republican stronghold region of the south speaks well for his appeal among the base. Although winning the nomination is still, I think, impossible for him, he has demonstrated he has the support of a very large and important faction of the party -- a fact he will no doubt be hoping John McCain remembers when choosing a VP should he win the nomination, especially considering McCain's continuing trouble convincing conservatives to vote for him.

The bad news for him: He's still a candidate with a very, very narrow appeal. Outside evangelical Christians, Mike Huckabee has virtually no support. Sure, he can win in the south...but in the northeast, west, and mountain states, he has no shot. At this point, he's banking on McCain winning the nomination -- their shared hatred of Mitt Romney making them natural allies -- and he's doing his best to make the strongest case he can to be McCain's VP pick, no doubt banking on his ability to "deliver" the votes of southern Republicans for McCain. Personally, the thought of that pair happening makes me shudder for the future of the Republican Party.

CNN's pundits loved this idea (of course...they salivate at the thought of ripping Mike Huckabee apart in a general election campaign). But I don't think it'll work -- as Bill Bennett (the lone conservative on the CNN analytical panel) tried to remind everyone else, Huckabee is not really a strong conservative on taxes, the economy, national security, foreign policy, or education. Huckabee's place on the ticket would make many conservatives outside the south -- myself included -- even less inclined to vote for a McCain ticket, not more.

John McCain

The good news for him: McCain ended up winning big in states across the country, demonstrating his broad national appeal. He didn't quite "seal the deal" as the presumptive nominee, as many thought he would, but he came pretty darn close. Winning the huge delegate-rich states of New York and California, and also pulling out a razor-thin victory in the winner-take-all state of Missouri, McCain can claim momentum and breathe a little easier knowing Mitt Romney's chances of winning the nomination just dropped substantially. Winning California also showed that his weakness with Republicans on the issue of illegal immigration is not necessarily a deal-breaker for Republican voters.

The bad news for him: McCain did not win as definitively as he could have tonight -- he actually ended up winning less than half of the contests. And although he got the big states of New York and especially California and Missouri, he did not "clinch" the nomination.

The real problem for McCain can be seen by looking at Arizona, his home state. Barack Obama carried Illinois by a 32-point margin. McCain won Arizona with just 48% compared to Mitt Romney's 34% -- a mere 14-point victory on his home turf, much closer than expected. It's true that Romney only got 51% to McCain's 41% in Massachusetts -- but it's also the most liberal state in the country.

Even more alarming, exit polling shows that Arizona's self-identified conservatives picked Romney over McCain: 43% for Romney, 40% for McCain. Among those who said "illegal immigration" was the most important issue to them, McCain also lost to Romney (33% to Romney's 44%).

McCain's continuing failure to win over the conservative base of the party is a huge problem for him. Although his speech last night was full of conciliatory overtones to Romney and calls for Republican unity, he has a long, long way to go.

Mitt Romney

The good news for him: He won in Massachusetts, Colorado, Montana, Minnesota, Alaska, Utah, and North Dakota. Not too bad.

The bad news for him: There's plenty. First and most obviously, Romney failed to beat McCain in crucial contested states like California, Georgia, and Missouri, which he needed to generate some badly needed momentum.

Second, he failed to win a single southern state -- when you're running as a strong conservative for the Republican nomination, that's not good. Third, none of the states he won have especially high delegate counts.

Romney just can't win for trying. Whether it's his recently changed positions on key conservative issues or his image problem, he just isn't connecting with enough Republican voters. That's not to say he's not connecting at all -- he has received a significant portion of the vote in the vast majority of primaries. But it's just not enough. As much as I hate to repeat the talking point of media commentators, "silver medals" aren't going to win you the nomination.

Even worse, Romney came in third in two crucial contests: Georgia and Missouri, both of which were extremely tight races (separated by only a few points), but in which Romney was supposed to have a shot at winning. He also came in third in the competitive 3-way races in Tennessee and Oklahoma. When he came in second to McCain, it was generally not a "close" second, even in California (with 87% reporting, he's down by 9) -- guess that goes to show you that Zogby's polling results continue to be highly inaccurate when compared with actual results.

***

I won't say Romney's "finished" -- he's not. There are hundreds of delegates still to be awarded, and dozens of states. Mike Huckabee has virtually no appeal in any of the remaining contests, so Mitt has no excuse not to rally support by posturing himself as the true conservative alternative to McCain.

That being said, I'm gradually coming to accept the likelihood that John McCain will be the
GOP nominee. Romney certainly still has a shot -- but the effectiveness of his campaign thus far does not inspire much confidence for the future. He has a very serious image problem -- again, the lack of "likeability" that most concerned me initially -- in Arizona, for example, exit polling showed that voters who thought "issues" were the most important voted slightly in favor of Romney over McCain; but those who thought "personal qualities" were important preferred McCain by a wide margin (57% v. 28% for Romney). A similar pattern has been repeated across the country. Not good for Romney.

One rather disturbing theory is that it's not Romney's flip-flops or his image that did him in the south, but simply the fact, mentioned by Mark Steyn, that many southern evangelicals couldn't bring themselves to vote for a Mormon. If true even to a small extent, that explanation would be the real tragedy of this election -- the application of a de-facto religious test for a Republican candidate.

On the positive side, Steyn does not think Huckabee as VP for McCain is going to happen and that McCain will ditch Huckabee as soon as he's served his purpose in helping McCain secure the nomination. That's somewhat reassurring.

On the negative, Steyn also notices something that occurred to me last night: on the Democratic side, for all the bitterness that has been developing between the Clinton and Obama campaigns, and especially the hatred that many Obama supporters have for Hillary (at least a dozen have vowed to me that they would vote for McCain over Clinton in a general election) -- despite all that, the Democratic race is between the "super" candidate and the "super duper" candidate, as Steyn put it. It's a battle -- albeit a bitterly fought one -- between candidates of a united party that basically agree on every single issue.

On the Republican side, it's a choice between "weak-and-divisive" vs. "weak-and-unacceptable" (again Steyn's words). Very unlike the Dems, the GOP faithful seem to be agonizing over which candidate would be worse. The difference is monumental.

While I still roll my eyes when commentators talk about the "death" of the Republican party -- and I still think unification behind a single candidate, even McCain, in the face of an Obama or a Hillary presidency is possible -- the current state of affairs does not bode well for Republicans in November.

As for the Democrats, super Tuesday was basically a wash -- the two are virtually tied, although Clinton came away with a slim lead in delegates. The fact that the bitter Clinton-Obama war will most likely drag out for another few months, going all the way to the convention, is the most hopeful news that Republicans can take away from Super Tuesday.