Is John McCain even running for President at this point? Peeking about recent campaign coverage, it would be easy to forget that he is at the top of his party’s ticket, and not his folksy sidekick.

Unfortunately for McCain, his candidacy has failed on two fronts: not only has it furthered a split in the Republican Party between its socially conservative rightwing base and its center, but McCain has also failed to energize the moderates, independents, and ‘mavericks’ he needed to win what everyone predicted to be a close election. This failure is likely to expose a rift in the Republican Party that has been a long time coming.
(more…)

John Heilemann has a nice overview of the conservative crisis that’s taken over the Republican Party. It’s all good, but this passage provides a nice summary:

With the prospect of defeat for John McCain growing more likely every day, the GOP destined to see its numbers reduced in both the House and Senate, and the Republican brand debased to the point of bankruptcy, the conservative intelligentsia is factionalized and feuding, criminating and recriminating, in a way that few of its members can recall in their political lifetimes. Populists attack Establishmentarians. Neocons assail theocons. And virtually everyone has something harsh to say about the party’s standard-bearer. Election Day may still be two weeks away, but already the idea-merchants of the right have formed a circular firing squad.

When the weapons of choice shift from pistols to Uzis after November 4, the ensuing massacre will be for Democrats a source of political opportunity, not to mention endless entertainment. But for Republicans it will be a necessary passage toward either the revival or reinvention of conservatism. Nobody serious on the right doubts that the overhaul is at once required and bound to be arduous—but it may take longer and prove even bloodier than anyone now imagines.

This is a debate among pundits, for the most part. We’ll see more commentary and analysis on the conservative way forward in the weeks ahead, and of course post-mortems from all sides in the case of an Obama victory.

Meanwhile, Ross Douthat’s had an exchange with Mark Steyn over the idea of a conservative “cocoon” (the walling-off of various ideological factions within the GOP).

Go back to Heilemann’s piece for more background, for example, on the party’s split over Sarah Palin’s pick as GOP running mate. But here’s Douthat, in any case, on how Palin’s appeal to base conservative illustrates this notion of tribal cocoons:

Sarah Palin’s Alaska is not the conservative cocoon. Neither is Tim Pawlenty’s Minnesota, or Mike Huckabee’s Arkansas, or any other place out in flyover country where a populist conservative became a popular and successful governor. The cocoon is the constellation of mutually-reinforcing conservative institutions - think tanks and advocacy groups, talk-radio shows and websites - that can create the same echo-chamber effect that the liberal media has long produced, and that at times makes it difficult for the Right to grapple with reality. The cocoon is the place where it took an awfully, awfully long time for conservatives to admit that the post-2004 crisis in Iraq wasn’t just a matter of an MSM that wouldn’t report the good news. The cocoon is the place where conservatives persuaded themselves, in defiance of most of the evidence, that the reason the GOP lost Congress in 2006 was excessive spending, and especially excessive pork. And today, the cocoon is the place where conservatives are busy convincing themselves that Sarah Palin’s difficulties handling high-profile media appearances aren’t terribly important, that her instincts are more important than her grasp of national policy, and that the best way to defeat Barack Obama is to start with the lines that Palin has used on the stump - Ayers, anti-Americanism and ACORN - and take them to eleven.

Read the rest of it to get the entire flow of argument.

I like Douthat’s writing, although I think folks are hashing things out more than is necessary. Had the Wall Street crash come after the election, it’s quite likely that Demcratic-leftists would be the ones debating partisan “cocoons.”

As I noted previously, this year’s contest is shaping up to be an electoral earthquake. The economic crisis, and historic lows in “on the right track” polling data, have created the perfect environment for the party out of power. Indeed, it’s counterintuitive that John McCain and the Republicans are doing as well as they are. As I argued, a large pick-up for the Democrats in the Congress - especially a filibuster-proof majority in the Senate - combined with a Barack Obama victory, could signal the kind of electoral change the country experienced in 1860 or 1932.

Even in the absence of a partisan realigment (which would be seen in a succession of Democratic victories over the next few presidential elections), there’s certain to be a substantial change in the public philosphy.

I recall, back in the 1980s, reading Arthur Schlesinger, Jr.’s, The Cycles of American History.

Schlesinger offers a theory of political change that’s less about partisan realignment than about transformations in national visions. Apparently, history moves through generations of private interest versus public purpose, between capitalistic indulgence and democratic involvement. The classic periods of private pursuit were the 1890s and 1920s, which were followed by periods of public purpose in the 1930s, 1950s, and 1960s.

Currently, in many respects we’re still in the long period of private interest that came to fruition during President Reagan’s administration, and hasn’t been shaken loose since. The ideological underpinnings of the Reagan Revolution - limited government domestically, and robust internationalism in foreign policy, with a growing cultural conservative base - are now stretched to the breaking point after two terms of GOP rule, during which George W. Bush discarded any sense of commitment to the small-g conservatism that’s driven much of the activist base of the Republican Party since Barry Goldwater’s campaign in 1964.

In this respect, Barack Obama’s rise to national prominence can be situated in a near-perfect storm of economic dislocations and decreasing public investment in people and infrastructure. The United States remains a center-right nation, but Americans are also pragmatic when dramatic challenges pose dilemmas for the prevailing public ethos.

In that sense, it’s probably less John McCain’s judgment or Sarah Palin’s inexperience, than the overall crisis of conservative ideas and Republican governance, along with the failure to nurture a new conservative philosophy to lift up and revitalize the old.

All this being said, I’m not throwing my hands up at GOP prospects on November 4th. As noted, McCain’s doing better than can be expected, and this year’s got more electoral uncertainties than is usual.

~cross-posted at American Power

Plumber Joe and Barack Obama: The Full Video

This is an excellent video showing the full conversation between “Joe the Plumber” and Barack Obama.  Obama is clearly off script here, because he lets it slip that his tax plan is really to “spread the wealth around” (translation: income redistribution).

Close to 40% of Americans pay no income tax!  So how can someone who pays nothing, get a tax cut?  Answer: They can’t!  It’s really pretty simple.  If you don’t pay taxes, you can’t get a tax cut!

The Wall Street Journal published a fine article this week explaining how Barack Obama plans to give a “tax cut” to 95% of Americans.  It has to do with redefining what a “tax cut” is.  A Barack Obama “tax cut” to someone who doesn’t pay any taxes turns out to be a check from the government.  Call it what you want….welfare, income redistribution, etcetera….but it’s no tax cut.

When you take money from one group and give it to another, it’s called income redistribution and it isn’t American.  Where is the federal government given power to redistribute income?  How do they get to determine how much each person is entitled to?  Why does Barack Obama get to decide what is enough? “$250,000 a year is enough for you, so I’m going to take it from you and give it to someone else.”  I guess the American dream only goes up to $250,000 a year now.

Barack Obama plans to redistribute income and wealth in this country via the tax code and has no business becoming our next president.

The idea of a partisan realignment is a key concept in political science.

In electoral politics, a new partisan era is said to have emerged when the coaltions supporting the parties become disrupted and voters realign their allegiances, with a new party becoming the hegemonic party for decades at the presidency and congressional levels.

There’s a long line of research on this, but the most compelling account of partisan realigment is found in the notion of a “critical election.” In an election contest whereby the political system is facing a fundamental national crisis of catastrophic proportions, voters choose the party out of power and elevate a new, enduring partisan coalition at the levels of the presidency and Congress. The elections of 1860 and 1932 are the key examples. The Republican Party was the dominant party in American politics following Abraham Lincoln’s election at the moment of national crisis precipitating the Civil War; and in 1932, Franklin D. Roosevelt was elected in a New Deal realignment that emerged out of the calamity of the Great Depression.

The Wikipedia page on realignments (which features an excellent review of the scholarship) singles out 1932 as classic case of partisan realigment:

Of all the realigning elections, this one musters the most agreement from political scientists and historians; it is the archetypal realigning election. FDR’s admirers have argued that New Deal policies, developed in response to the crash of 1929 and the miseries of the Great Depression under Herbert Hoover, represented an entirely new phenomenon in American politics.

There’s been little formal discussion of 2008 as a realigment around the blogosphere.

I’ve seen a few articles here and there, but partisan bloggers are more caught up in the scandal of the moment to reflect on the factors in this year’s race that may portend a contest of epochal proportions. Folks say it’s a “Democratic year,” but the concatenation of events in foreign policy, and especially at home with a finanicial crisis (routinely described as the worst since the 1930s), may well result in a victory for Barack Obama and congressional Democrats on November 4 ushering in a new era of Democratic dominance lasting well into the future.

The truth about realignments, however, is that they are historical artifacts and not recurring political phenomena. The current political era is more appropriately known as a “dealignment system,” in which the rise of politically independent voters and shifting electoral coalitions have resulted in neither party holding a long-term lock on both the presidency and Congress on the scale of the GOP from 1860 to 1928 or of the Democrats from 1932 to 1968.

I’ve contemplated the potential for a Democratic realignment for some time, but because of the success of the surge in Iraq, and the nomination of John McCain as the Republican standard-bearer, circumstances have appeared hopeful that the GOP might retain the White House. Not only that, for true dominance, should the Democrats take the presidency, the party would also need to consolidate their hold on Congress with a 60-plus filibuster-proof majority in the Senate. That possibility has long seemed remote.

Until this last month, that is.

The collapse of Wall Street over the last few weeks indeed repesents the kind of catastrophic event that precipitated previous partisan realignments - in other words, the current crisis, with polls showing highest voter dissatisfaction in American history, may well be the catalyst for historic Democratic victories, including a 60-plus margin in the upper chamber of the Congress.

Stuart Rothenberg made a dramatic argument this week, laying out the possibility for a GOP bloodbath:

It’s obvious to all that the national landscape — and the presidential map — shifted dramatically in the Democrats’ favor during the financial crisis. Americans are more dissatisfied with the present and worried about the future, all of which helps Democratic presidential nominee Sen. Barack Obama (Ill.) and Democratic Congressional candidates.

Obama may not be comfortably over the crucial 50 percent mark in polls, but states that McCain hoped to compete in are moving out of reach, while more traditionally Republican states have come into play for Obama. McCain needs to change that dynamic quickly to have any chance of winning.

McCain still has a month to change the focus of the race, and Obama may have peaked too soon. But public concern about the economy isn’t likely to disappear over the next month no matter how much Republicans wish it would.

So far, there is no evidence that Democratic candidates are paying a price for the public’s sour mood, or that the election will be “anti-incumbent.” It is Republican candidates who are feeling the political pain.

The outlook in Senate races continues to deteriorate for Republicans, with Democratic gains at least in the high single digits increasingly likely. Where I once wrote in this space that Democrats had a chance of reaching 60 seats in 2010 (“For Democrats, Time to Pad Senate Majority and Think 60 Seats,” Feb. 12, 2007), I now can’t rule out 60 seats for this November….

Republicans appear to be heading into a disastrous election that will usher in a very bleak period for the party. A new generation of party leaders will have to figure out how to pick up the pieces and make their party relevant after November.

On Thursday, Steven Stark laid out the hypothesis that Rothenberg’s “bloodbath” may indeed result in a fundamental transformation of the party coalitions:

Over the past eight years, the reaction of the Bush administration to both 9/11 and the current financial mess has been, ironically, one that is traditionally Democratic: running huge deficits while creating vast new government interventionist bureaucracies to deal with homeland security and the credit crisis. The current administration also decided that this new era required an expensive, expansionist foreign policy, fighting “terror wars” on various fronts.

Now, the public may be in the process of deciding that, if a new era requires a more activist and expansionist government, Democrats are better equipped to handle these tasks. Voters may also decide that they are willing to accept the “risk” of a far more rapid military withdrawal from Iraq - which is, after all, the major foreign-policy difference between the McCain and Obama candidacies….

And then there’s the credit crisis which has just hit; admittedly, its effects may not be known for months or even years. But if Obama is able to win big because of it, it could serve as the final crystallizing event that allows the Democratic Party to reap the benefit for years to come.

I’m not one to make predictions, and I’m not ruling out that John McCain can pull off a miraculous upset. But if trends on the economy and voter sentiment continue their current trajectory, 2008 may just well turn out to be a genuine critical election.

The key indicator, for me at least, will be what happens in the elections for the Senate, and here’s how Patrick Ruffini describes things:

If you’re a conservative looking at the odds, what should really scare you is not the 80 to 90 percent chance that Barack Obama is the next President. It’s the very real chance that Democrats could get to 60 or tantalizingly close to it in the Senate. President Barack Obama is unfortunate. President Barack Obama with 60 votes in the Senate means a socialist America.

And that would mean a fundamental reorientation in the ideological underpinnings of the American state, not unlike that following 1932.

Each morning, as I watch the news, read the papers, and write my posts, I’m reminded constantly that this is the “worst economic crisis since the Great Depression.”

It remains to be seen if we’ll ever have another crisis on par with the collapse of capitalism in the 1930s (see Nobel Prize-winning economist Gary Becker, for example, “We’re Not Headed for a Depression“).

That said, I might as well admit that I’ve been in a bit of political funk over the news. The ongoing market turmoil is killing the GOP’s chances in November. There’s no other way to spin it … no matter how damaging are Barack Obama’s ties to each and every left-wing oppositional group under the sun.

This morning’s Wall Street Journal, with yet another banner headline, captured the political implications of economic crisis: “Market’s 7-Day Rout Leaves U.S. Reeling“:

Stocks fell for the seventh straight trading day on Thursday, continuing what amounts to a slow-motion crash that has pulled the market down more than 20% over that brief period.

On its way down, the Dow Jones Industrial Average broke through another milestone, closing below 9000 for the first time since 2003, wiping out the bulk of the gains from the last bull market. The decline leaves America in one of its worst bear markets in decades, a slump that is triggering comparisons to long-running declines of the 1930s and 1970s.

Thursday’s decline - the 11th largest in percentage terms in the Dow’s history - put the stock market either in, or nearly in, a crash. A common definition of a crash is a 20% decline in a single day or several days. The Dow’s crash in 1987 was 22.6% in one day. The 1929 crash was back-to-back declines of 12.8% and 11.7%.

On my way to work each day, or after I drop off my boy at elementary school, I look around, taking in all the people hustling to their jobs, all the moms strolling the babies and kissing their little ones goodbye, and all of the beautiful landscaping on all of the fabulous homes that line the drives of nearby neighborhoods in suburban Orange County.

And then I say to myself: “A depression does not look like this.”

Indeed, some economists argue that the banking crisis will not bring down the U.S. economy - that indeed, the fundamentals are sound (see, Professor Casey Mulligan, “An Economy You Can Bank On“).

It’s mass psychology that’s going to matter, however, and people are feeling the stress. A period of three and a half weeks remains a long time in politics. But if we keep getting daily doses of market declines, while consumers and homeowners stress over inflation and dwindling balances on 401k statements, not too much else is going to matter.

Graphic Credit: Wall Street Journal

cross-posted at American Power

Armchair analysts and professional pundits will be dissecting tonight’s presidential debate over the next couple of days. Partisan bloggers, of course, will be spinning their candidates performance and looking for the fatal “gotcha” moments emerging during the exchange.

Frankly, though, both John McCain and Barack Obama performed well, and neither side scored a knock-out punch; nor did either candidate make a major blunder. McCain continues to dominate on questions of national security and he exudes a perennial sense of duty and service to nation. McCain also seemed more intent to launch pointed jabs at the Illinois Democrat; and Obama, in response, refused to take the bait, apparently seeking to stake-out the high-road of a putative front-runner.

Yet, beside the housing bailout and the candidates’ concluding remarks (on the direction for the nation’s future), there was one moment that offered a particularly striking contrast between the candidates.

After a few initial questions on the economy and the federal role in helping Americans through the hard times, moderator Tom Brokaw posed an Internet question on national sacrifice:

Since World War II, we have never been asked to sacrifice anything to help our country, except the blood of our heroic men and women. As president, what sacrifices - sacrifices will you ask every American to make to help restore the American dream and to get out of the economic morass that we’re now in?

Senator Obama’s response offered a revealing window to his essential dismissal of traditional American optimism and the nation’s history of up-by-the bootstraps perseverance:

You know, a lot of you remember the tragedy of 9/11 and where you were on that day and, you know, how all of the country was ready to come together and make enormous changes to make us not only safer, but to make us a better country and a more unified country.

And President Bush did some smart things at the outset, but one of the opportunities that was missed was, when he spoke to the American people, he said, “Go out and shop.”

That wasn’t the kind of call to service that I think the American people were looking for.

And so it’s important to understand that the - I think the American people are hungry for the kind of leadership that is going to tackle these problems not just in government, but outside of government.

And let’s take the example of energy, which we already spoke about. There is going to be the need for each and every one of us to start thinking about how we use energy.

Take note of this …

Obama says each and every one of us must “start thinking about how we use energy.”

This is Obama’s call for national sacrifice: to reduce oil consumption? Sounds more like an economy-killer, and it refects, fundamentally, the kind of “malaise” sensibility that marked Jimmy Carter’s presidency during the 1970s - a presidency of limits, and limited visions.

Recall, President Carter, on July 15, 1979, delivered his “crisis of confidence” speech:

I know … that government actions and legislation can be very important. That’s why I’ve worked hard to put my campaign promises into law - and I have to admit, with just mixed success. But after listening to the American people I have been reminded again that all the legislation in the world can’t fix what’s wrong with America. So, I want to speak to you first tonight about a subject even more serious than energy or inflation. I want to talk to you right now about a fundamental threat to American democracy….

The threat is nearly invisible in ordinary ways. It is a crisis of confidence. It is a crisis that strikes at the very heart and soul and spirit of our national will. We can see this crisis in the growing doubt about the meaning of our own lives and in the loss of a unity of purpose for our nation.

The erosion of our confidence in the future is threatening to destroy the social and the political fabric of America.

President Carter - history will recall - was a failed one-term chief-executive, a president stymied in both domestic and foreign policy, and one who’s disastrous leadership on the economy left a long legacy of inflation and unemployment that wasn’t corrected until the Reagan administration’s economic boom of the mid-1980s.

During tonight’s debate, John McCain - in great contrast to Obama - spoke with assurance on the “sacrifice question,” noting:

Look, we can attack health care and energy at the same time. We’re not - we’re not - we’re not rifle shots here. We are Americans. We can, with the participation of all Americans, work together and solve these problems together.

In other words, there’s nothing we can’t do if we set our minds to it. Americans have risen to the challenge, time and again; and when facing rough times, we keep our chins up and barrel through the hard patches.

Barack Obama, instead, announced that we have to cut back, lower our sights - that government will make health care a right and not a responsibility of personal initiative. Obama wants an expansion of government in economic and energy policy, precisely when polls show the country is not looking for a second New Deal.

The American people witnessed a preview tonight of a 1970s Democratic reprise - the comeback of Carteresque crisis and malaise, absent, so far, the cardigan sweaters and double-digit stagflation statistics.

I need to state, right away, that I respect Senator Joseph Biden. He’s a good man, who, unfortunately, made licentious mistakes earlier in his career, especially on questions of serial plagiarism. Yet, if the Obama/Biden ticket wins in November, frankly, the Delaware Senator’s more qualified to serve in the Oval Office than is Barack Obama.

That said, Senator Biden got pwned by Alaska Govenor Sarah Palin in tonight’s debate at Washington University, in St. Louis.

I mean, let’s face it, things were going along routinely, with each candidate holding their own on taxes and domestic policy, until (alleged) moderator Gwen Ifill shifted topics to foreign policy. Biden went off on how Barack Obama’s on the same page as Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al Maliki, blah, blah … and then, Ifill turned to Governor Palin, asking for her response on Iraq, to which the Alaska Governor replied, directing her answer to Senator Biden:

Your plan is a white flag of surrender in Iraq and that is not what our troops need to hear today, that’s for sure. And it’s not what our nation needs to be able to count on. You guys opposed the surge. The surge worked…

Wham!

I kept noticing, throughout the debate, the big smiles Senator Biden kept flashing - helpless smiles indicating that he was getting hammered!

There was a point, moreover, earlier in the debate, where I think Governor Palin set concrete parameters: Senator Biden was trying to set the record straight on Barack Obama’s record on regulatory policy, where he says:

Gwen, the governor did not answer the question about deregulation, did not answer the question of defending John McCain about not going along with the deregulation, letting Wall Street run wild.

But check out Sarah Palin in response, and with EMPHASIS:

I’m still on the tax thing because I want to correct you on that again … I may not answer the questions that either the moderator or you want to hear, but I’m going to talk straight to the American people and let themmy track record also.

Wham!

Beyond this, I think the debate was pretty much thrust and parry.

Senator Biden knows what he’s talking about. But throughout I was wondering if he actually prepped for this: I mean, really, it was Governor Palin who delivered the memorable lines. I especially thought the “Say it ain’t so, Joe!” line, delivered late in the debate, when Biden was riffing about the middle class, was killer:

Say it ain’t so, Joe, there you go again pointing backwards again. You preferenced your whole comment with the Bush administration. Now doggone it, let’s look ahead and tell Americans what we have to plan to do for them in the future.

These are the exact moments that hit home with Main Street Americans.

Governor Palin made no gaffes. She was in command of the facts and was careful to redirect the debate to talking points comfortable to her experience.

But most of all, Senator Biden seemed on defense through most of the night. At first, it seemed, Governor Palin was nervous … on edge even. But as she got going, her comfort level heightened dramatically, and toward the end she was relishing her rejoinders - I mean nothing - nothing - was out of her league! Iraq? Iran? Show me what you got!

The Baltimore Sun nails it:

It was an unabashedly, one might even say relentlessly folksy and down-home Palin that greeted Americans Thursday night, with phrases like “Doggone it,” ”You guys,” ”Darn right” and, one she must have been saving ’til the end, “Say it ain’t so, Joe!” You became “ya,” change was “comin’” and a class of third-graders even got a “shout-out” from the Alaska governor.

You can bet Barack Obama was biting his knuckles, stressing in his campaign’s inability to put McCain/Palin away.

I’ll have more over the next few days … but I can say now: Expect a decent Palin bounce in the polls. The Alaska Governor exceeded expectations by miles. I mean, c’mon, even Markos Moultisas’ initial evaluation (subject to immediate revision) suggested Palin won. Further, even RawMuslesGlutes was restrained, conceding, “Palin didn’t collapse … ” (and that’s considering RMG’s “Trig-trutherism”!).

Governor Palin captured the essence of complete authenticity in the debate, especially at the conclusion, where she noted:

We have to fight for our freedoms, also, economic and our national security freedoms.

It was Ronald Reagan who said that freedom is always just one generation away from extinction. We don’t pass it to our children in the bloodstream; we have to fight for it and protect it, and then hand it to them so that they shall do the same, or we’re going to find ourselves spending our sunset years telling our children and our children’s children about a time in America, back in the day, when men and women were free.

These are the bedrock values to which middle Americans can relate. We’ll see if she gets a bump, but at the end of the day, Sarah Palin demonstrated that she’s ready to step in as chief executive in an emergency. The McCain campaign did themselves proud in their work preparing Governor Palin for her key moment of the presidential debates.

She exceeded expectations, and the American people saw it, live, large, and down home, baby!

The New York Times reports that Barack Obama leads John McCain 48 to 42 percent in the latest NYT/CBS News poll.

The findings come as a number of other surveys also see Obama emerging as the frontrunner. Today’s Pew Research poll, for example, finds Obama taking a 49 to 42 percent lead among registered voters, and CNN reports that the Illinois Senator’s pulling ahead in a number of key battleground states (Florida, Minnesota, Missouri, Nevada and Virginia).

(more…)

Sarah Palin with the troops

I just watched the first installment of Alaska Governor Sarah Palin’s interview with Charles Gibson, on ABC’s World News Tonight.

Palin gave a confident, intelligent interview. She appeared cool, calm, and perfectly comfortable responding to Gibson’s line of questioning.

Yet, the emerging meme on the left is that Palin was “stumped” on the Bush Doctrine. Granted, Palin seemed to search for a response, but if that’s what Palin’s critics want to focus on, so be it.

The greater significance of Palin’s talk is the way the Alaska Governor offered a ringing confirmation of the basic, underlying ideals that have guided not just the Bush administration’s forward policy of preemptive defense and democracy promotion, but that of America’s foreign policy tradition historically. This came at Palin’s response on the question of God’s will:

(more…)

It’s time to really pay attention to what’s happening at the state level. National polling data are fun to watch, but presidential horse-race snapshots only tell us so much: We will have, in essence, fifty state elections on November 4, and the Electoral College outcome naturally decides the winner.

To win, Barack Obama needs to hold onto every state John Kerry won in 2004, as well as Iowa and New Mexico, two states currently leaning Democratic.

But Obama’s having trouble in Michigan and Pennsylvania, two Democratic states in 2004 that combine for 38 Electoral votes.

(more…)

Progress, yes... But in which direction?

First of all, I think that maintaining the current line the Obama camp is using on Iraq is simply wrong, and stupid.  The American people aren’t dumb.  We can tell that things have shifted in Iraq.  We’re winning.  This is due to the counter-insurgency strategy implemented during the Surge.  It is working and Obama should acknowledge that, and pledge to continue the strategy of Gen. David Petraeus.

Would he appear to be a flip-flopper?  Maybe, but in many respects, he would also appear to be wise enough to follow the best course.  He could still say, “I was against the war from the beginning, but the current strategy of Gen. David Petraeus is working, and it’s the best and most honorable way to bring our troops home.”

He wouldn’t even need to mention Bush, the Surge, etc.  Just the popular general and the popular strategy that is actually, amazingly, finally working…

(more…)

Gripped by fear and horror now that Obamania has utterly collapsed, the hard-left partisans of the Democratic Party have launched a desperate but all-out search for scapegoats to explain the surging presidential ticket of John McCain and Sarah Palin.

The left’s massive scapegoating is the result of the latest polling numbers showing McCain/Palin generating a decent bounce from the Republican National Convention last week. Gallup’s latest numbers show McCain leading Barack Obama in the presidential horse race by 5 points, 49 to 44 percent - a lead that represents a 13 percentage-point shift in Gallup’s tracking data since last Tuesday (McCain is up 7, Obama is down 6).

The response on the left is approaching meltdown territory, as we’re seing a growing number of angry and confused posts across the Democratic leftosphere. Here’s a few:
(more…)

The Los Angeles Times reports that the message from this week’s GOP convention is that the Republicans plan a culture-war campaign that will paint the Democrats as a fringe party:

Speaker after speaker at this week’s Republican National Convention defended small towns from the perceived slights of urban elites. They talked of working people, and ridiculed those with the time to become “community organizers.” They railed against the media, Hollywood and the Washington cocktail circuit.

Cultural affinities, which President Bush played on heavily to paint 2004 Democratic nominee John F. Kerry as elite and out of touch, are now central to the campaign strategy of GOP presidential nominee John McCain.

The Arizona senator appeared to float above the culture wars Thursday night in a nomination acceptance speech that criticized “partisan rancor” and promoted his history of working with Democrats. And he is an unlikely standard-bearer for the forces of family values, given his admissions over the years of his failures as a husband, or for the advocates of small-town living, with his millionaire wife and multiple homes.

But this week’s events demonstrated that McCain’s campaign has settled on its final-stretch strategy to defeat Barack Obama: portraying Republicans as in sync with mainstream America and Democrats as the cultural fringe.

The strategy is inherently appealing, but not without big risks, according William Schneider. He argues that big issues face the electorate this year, and if policy concerns dominate voter decision-making in the end, the GOP’s in trouble. Conversely, if personalities and values dominate, McCain will likely win.

(more…)

A rare moment of peace in an increasingly bitter campaign.

I have to admit, I’m growing weary of this Presidential campaign.  I’m tired of hearing Obama’s middle name uttered like a condemnation; I’m tired of hearing McCain’s name altered to describe various mental states.  I don’t want to hear about the former POW’s lack of courage, or his party days.  Nor do I want to know about Obama’s association with various fringe political figures, pseudo-terrorists, or hear implications of his supposed lack of patriotism.

I just don’t want to walk into 2009 befuddled by smears of our incoming President, haunted by rumors and allegations, forced to run to one side of a bitter fence or another.  I don’t want to be part of one slice of a divided America.

Now, don’t get me wrong–America is and always will be divided based on huge, irreconcilable political differences.  The issues at stake range from the amount of government we want intervening on our behalf to reproductive rights to the nature of our foreign policy.

An Independent’s Perspective

I find myself in the uncomfortable position of not agreeing with either candidate very much.  On social issues I tend to be very liberal, very worried of the encroachment of the State on our personal liberties–especially when the State becomes too heavily influenced by the religious right.  On the other hand, I find the foreign policy stance of the Left utterly confusing.  To leave Iraq now, I believe, would be a disaster, and a human tragedy.

(more…)

I’m sure many engaged in today’s huge controversy over John McCain’s houses believe they’ve found a winning ticket in portraying the Arizona Senator as “elitist” and “out of touch” with average Americans facing economic dislocation.

Barack Obama led the charge himself at a campaign rally today in Chester, Virginia, where he claimed:

I guess if you think that being rich means you gotta make five million dollars, and if you don’t know how many houses you have, then it’s not surprising that you might think the economy is fundamentally strong.

There’s no other way to look at Obama’s outburst (and the left’s piling on) than anything besides rank class warfare.

Maybe this tack will play well in stoking latent working class resentments at inflation, housing instability, and rising unemployment. Maybe this meme will stick if the American electorate is undergoing a fundamental shift in ideological orienation toward the abandonment of free market competition and opportunity-based upward mobility. Or, perhaps Obama’s income-envy will play with those who harbor genuine revolutionary inclinations, and see the Illinois Senator as the vanguard of the proletariat.

More likely, Obama’s attack on McCain’s residential non-recollection reveals the candidate’s subterranean push to resurrect Great Society liberalism in America.

Note that Obama’s quoted in the Wall Street Journal today, regarding his recent statements on health care reform:

‘If I were designing a system from scratch, I would probably go ahead with a single-payer system,” Barack Obama told an audience in Albuquerque on Monday. He was lauding the idea of a health-care market — or nonmarket — entirely run by the government.

Most liberals support single payer, aka “Medicare for All,” because it would eliminate the profit motive, which by their lights is the reason Americans are uninsured….

With good reason, critics often call this a back-door route to a centrally planned health-care bureaucracy. For all his lawyerly qualifications, Mr. Obama has essentially admitted that his proposal is really the front door.

Thus, Obama’s smears this afternoon are of a piece with his larger shift toward leftist ideological transparency.

Indeed, it’s all coming together: Obama has been under fire this week for advocating an abortion position tantamount to infanticide, which has placed him to the left of NARAL. Obama’s also been revealed as nothing more than a two-bit machine politician (rather that some ethereal agent of post-partisan transformation) by reports that he won his first election to the Illinois legislature in 1996 by disqualifying all of his electoral opponents from the ballot. It turns out, moreover, that the Obama camp may be involved in a massive cover up of his failed leadership as board chairman overseeing the Chicago Annenberg Challenge.

In any case, do the Obama people really think this is smart politics? Obama generated big political trouble previously with his bitter comments on working class resentments (remarks that were widely perceived to be based in Marxist sensibilities). The candidate himself resides in a million-dollar mansion, in Chicago’s tony Hyde Park neighborhood (where few people of color reside, not to mention the lumpen proletariat). He purchased his seven-figure abode through the good offices of convicted felon Tony Rezko. And for good measure, the Obamas provide their children with elite private education, at the University of Chicago Laboratory Schools, where the tuition costs from $15,528 for kindergarten to $20,445 for high school!

The truth is that Obama’s had difficulties connecting with average Americans all year, and his appeal to class warfare goes against traditional American support for free markets; current polling indicates that citizens overwhelmingly “prefer that the government focus on improving overall economic conditions and the jobs situation in the United States as opposed to taking steps to distribute wealth more evenly among Americans.”

To top it all off, the left’s attack on McCain is essentially dishonest: “McCain himself doesn’t own any property and isn’t “rich”, and Cindy and her family earned their money honestly.”

After weeks of collapsing numbers in presidential preference surveys, Obama and his left-wing partisans are naturally pumped at the prospect of a potent smear against John McCain. Unfortunately, class warfare has never been a winner in American politics, and even now, in an ostensibly Democratic year, the left’s going to need something bit more powerful than a couple of misplaced condominiums if they hope to retake the White House.

~cross-posted at American Power

Randy Scheunemann, who is John McCain’s top foreign policy advisor, has been in the spotlight this last week due to his past lobbying ties to the Georgian government. Critics have alleged that Scheunemann’s previous dealings have contributed to war in the Caucasus.

This morning’s Los Angeles Times includes a feature story on Scheunemann, with the bottom line being that the revolving door between interest group work and campaign advising is non-controversial:

Ed Davis, director of research at Common Cause, said Scheunemann’s move from lobbyist to advisor is common. Foreign governments, companies, labor unions and other organizations spent a record $2.8 billion to lobby for favorable policies in Washington last year, records show.

“Unfortunately, it’s the way business is done,” Davis said.

But Kathryn Dunn Tenpas, a political scientist at the University of Pennsylvania, contended that it’s unreasonable to ban paid experts from advising candidates. “If you rule out people who lobby, you probably rule out a lot of talent and connections,” she said.

For critics, Scheunemann’s case is less about conflict of interest than it is about his foreign policy positions as a hawk on national defense. He’s seen as a key “neocon” who helped hoodwink the nation on the “disastrous” folly of war in Iraq.

The fact is that the Scheunemann story is small potatoes, and has been pumped up by war opponents hoping for an advantageous gotcha moment against the GOP.

~cross-posted at American Power

By Julian Krasta

First on the list of the Seven Deadly Sins is Pride. Barack Obama’s cup runneth over with SDS No. 1, so much so that his credibility – as well as the trustworthiness of the Democratic Party – is beginning to resemble the bottom of a birdcage.

As demonstrated during his excursion to the Middle East and Europe, Obama’s vainglory character has reached full feather: What we saw and heard was not a paradigm of intellectual prowess or the mountain-moving messiah the media are in desperation pitching the world to believe he is – quite the contrary.

In spite of every attempt to present himself as a deep thinker or an “every man,” the senator remains detached and unprincipled when it comes to giving full credit to our military. He is also cold and hostile, particularly when he is caught unawares by a journalist’s impromptu questions. Absent his teleprompter of pre-arranged homilies and dog-eared clichés, his remarks are a runoff of blatant inaccuracies, such as this “Berra-ism” that would make Yogi proud:

“Let me be perfectly clear: Israel is a strong friend of Israel’s” –

All of which are bells not even the power peacocks of the liberal mainstream media are able to un-ring.

Fairness demands I give credit to Obama. The only credit I believe he deserves is for his flair for dramatic showmanship. Not since P.T. Barnum – spot-lit in the center ring, dressed in coattails and top hat – has anyone effectively impressed and entrapped the hearts, minds and chromosomes of so many.

Put more simply: Obama enchants and entertains children of all ages.

Those he electrifies eagerly dive for every pearl that slips from his lips. Unfortunately, their fascination with him is anything but academic (as compared to John McCain’s feet-on-the-ground, fact-demanding supporters and opponents).

One explanation might be that, once Obama’s gullible herds imbibe of his “wondrous waters,” they become similarly stricken – or further stricken – with his now-trademark languor (which might explain why, when I first heard them chanting “We want change!” I had thought they were actually yelling, “We want pain!”).

Was that fair enough?

Obama’s one trick is he has mastered the art of doling out only cryptic hints of the changes he intends to make if he is elected. Aside from holding to a pattern of delivering sprawling and irregular speeches (which I view as a tribute to Dr. Seuss: “I do not like them in a box. I do not like them with a fox. I do not like them in a house…” – You get the picture), he has yet to convey concrete exemplars of how he would achieve those changes.

More importantly, he has not explained – not even a speck – what those changes would unerringly entail, and just how such changes would diametrically affect Americans, though Republicans and conservatives already know what he has in mind:

It’s a given that Obama would raise taxes across the board in order to provoke the mysterious changes only he envisions. His grandiose illusions of himself have blinded him to the fact that stacking more financial stress on the American people and on American industries, especially now, would only serve to fund a radical attack on our nation’s problems:

Job losses could skyrocket. Personal spending would plummet. The housing market (and residential and commercial development) could collapse entirely. And retirement, investment and savings accounts could go under – to name an important few.

Just those tied together could conceivably cause parents (one or both, or the only one) to hold down a second job in order to make ends meet, which, in turn, would rupture family unity.

Is that what Obama’s wife meant when she heatedly lectured:

“Barack Obama will require you to work. He is going to demand that you shed your cynicism … that you come out of your isolation. Barack will never allow you to go back to your lives as usual, uninvolved … uninformed”?

If that be true, then Obama aims to strip Americans of our freedom of choice. And if we were to lose freedom of choice, it would just be a matter of time before these, too, would be lost:

- Freedom of religion,

- Freedom of speech,

- Freedom of the press (in particular, the conservative press),

- Freedom of intellectual inquiry,

- Freedom of artistic expression, and

- Every other freedom that empowers the individual.

An equally serious setback would be this: If elected his conceit could initiate a power binge that would be a kick in the teeth to the Presidency. This is not a hypothetical in view of his track record of zero accomplishments, and his conspicuous immaturity.

His weaknesses are unlimited. His acuity is less than remarkable. His occupation of the White House would mitigate the muscle of the Commander-in-Chief and thereby exacerbate the broadening spectrum of critical issues facing this nation.

Obama wants so badly to be Le Premier Chef. He claims he has the perfect recipes, including the utensils and pots & pans, for everything he only imagines we need. The plain truth is that with every spurious comment he makes (including his brassbound insistence on delivering Swiss cheese answers to legitimate queries about the ingredients in his recipes), he proves he can’t even boil water.

By Julian Krasta

The intellectual communities all over the world are waiting in an agony of suspense as to whether John McCain or Barack Obama will be elected the next President of the United States. The suspense is rooted in the hope for granite security and the prospect for lasting peace, which could altogether vanish if, in January 2009, the wrong man raises his hand and takes the oath.

Senator McCain is uncomplicated with respect to the leadership and defense of our country. His fearless patriotism was formed and hardened by an irrefutable fact: The American People’s collective resolve coupled with the actions of our awesome military, in their harshest terms, are proof to our enemies – of the past, present and, yes, future – that we play in a bigger and badder league than they could ever dream.

By stark contrast, Obama requires a daily diet of total compliance and idolization. His word salads are a gross national product of cants and fantasies, and is devoted to injecting chaos into the jellied minds of the crowds of people (here and in countries such as Syria) that play into his fantasies. He has successfully accomplished this because his is a cocktail personality, meaning: He senses other people’s vulnerabilities, he reads their personalities, and performs accordingly. It is the classic sign of a sociopath.

Liberals argue that Senator McCain might be too old, too hotheaded, and too off the mark (and some frustrated Republicans and core conservatives chime in with the fear that he is too liberal-minded). In some respects they are all correct – in some respects. There are even those who poke fun at his banal tone. Again, some of their levity is not entirely unjustified. My view of the Senator, which is shared by many, many other conservative advocates, is quite the opposite. To quote an old saying: “Still water runs deep.”

Moreover, John McCain has served our country faithfully as a Navy fighter pilot (a stone-cold truth not even (Ret.) Gen. Wesley Clark can deny or devalue (notwithstanding Clark’s cheap shots to discredit McCain’s leadership qualifications)). He endured horrible physical pain during his imprisonment in Viet Nam. Primarily, he is lock, stock and barrel more transparent than the Democrats’ candidate claims to be because, good, bad or indifferent, Senator McCain has no hidden agendas. Neither does he feign being anything other that what we see.

Barack has an impressive record of political ineptitude: He and his party strive to expand policies such as welfare (to ensure dependence on the government dole by those below the poverty line in order to fortify their votes). Obama opposes privatizing Social Security, which is supported by Senator McCain – a proposition that would be advantageous to taxpayers in that we would be able to invest and manage our benefits.

Obama opposes school vouchers (one means to the end of our children being short-changed in their education). He used the words “ugly and racist” to depict opponents of the 2007 comprehensive illegal immigration bill, yet it is commonplace (and widely accepted by his supporters and conveniently overlooked by the media) when he repeatedly brings into the fray the fact he is black. This comes from the chosen one of the party that went up against the 13^th, 14^th and 15^th Amendments to the Constitution (respectively: abolishing slavery, granting citizenship rights to newly-freed slaves, guaranteeing the right to vote for blacks – Thank you, Larry Elder).

Senator McCain has always been a proponent of nuclear power, and he is calling for no less than 45 nuclear power plants to be built by the year 2030. Barack has said that this might be worth investigating – until he decides to cast his vote in opposition.

Obama possesses a superego and is fully one-dimentional. He has (with the wholesale aid of the liberal mainstream media) caused his supporters, as well as al Qaida and the militant Palestinian group Hamas, to believe that there’s a wizard behind his curtain when, in fact, there is only a brick wall.

Islamist jihadists are determined to dominate this planet, by whatever force necessary, and become our supreme rulers. From the standpoint of their blood-lust adventurism, the very future of the freedoms of the human race has become the issue.

John McCain understands this. Without equivocation, but in peremptory tones, he has said plainly that he is as equally determined to use whatever force is necessary to prevent terrorists from gaining the upper hand and, as President, would not imprudently withdraw our troops from the hot zones.

Obama, on the other hand, is hedonistic with his [politically motivated] litany of “I will end the war” and begin bringing our troops home if he becomes president. This move comes under the heading “Miscalculation and Maladroitness.” It would be as foolish as an impatient homeowner ordering the tent removed from his house before the poisoning process can fully and effectively destroy a vermin infestation “…because the tent is an eyesore.”

This smacks of arrogance and audacity. His myopic presumptions equate to reckless endangerment: gambling with our lives here at home as well as the country we call home to satisfy his aspirations – that is (using another analogy), no less irresponsible as when a parent or guardian leaves a baby or a pet locked in a hot car to go shopping.

Moreover, Obama’s ambition has blinded him to the fact that withdrawing our troops, reducing military spending, and suspending or cancelling defense programs would not only weaken the security of our homeland it would sharply increase domestic unemployment in all related sectors of private, public, and government businesses.

Furthermore, if we lose the strength in numbers of trained military personnel now – or a year or two from now – and our country is attacked again, three to four months would need to p