As a rule, I don’t use sources from the Associated Press (for obvious reasons), but their article on Iraq’s role in stabilizing American power in the Middle East is noteworthy, “Stable Iraq Could Influence Mideast” (alternative link here):

Iraq is likely to play a significant role in America’s Middle East policy for decades — even as the Pentagon scales down military operations here and ramps them up in Afghanistan.

The Middle East has long confounded forecasters, and the rosy predictions from the Bush administration that Iraq would emerge as a beacon of Western-style democracy in the Arab world have been long discredited.

However unlikely it may seem today, a relatively stable Iraq would have all the cards necessary to emerge as a major player in the Persian Gulf, where Saudi Arabia and Iran are competing for leadership.

Jules Crittenden’s blown away, frankly, at AP’s confirmation of the basic neoconservative argument on Iraq all along:

The news agency that more terrorists prefer you’ll recall was rather late to the surge table, if not nearly as fashionably late as Obama. The Associated Press and the scribbler of this particular analysis, Robert H. Reid, were still neck deep in body counts and failure-mongering when al-Qaeda was out of Anbar and on the run in Diyala in mid-2007. AP’s Baghdad bureauistas were asiduously scribbling everything they could to avoid or obscure the terrible truth of the surge’s growing success. But despite its shortcomings, Reid’s latest analysis does a relatively good job of laying out our vital interests in Iraq.

I’ll update when we see the terrorist-enabling Newshoggers cover this story - it’s going to be tough to clinch the argument that the Bush administration “paid for” this narrative.

(more…)

The organization originally alleged as hacking into Sarah Palin’s personal e-mail account, known as “Anonymous,” has been identified as a “left wing group” by Caleb Howe (the group was videotaped staging some unusual protests at this year’s Republican National Convention).

There’s some question, however, as to the ideological identification of “Anonymous” as a leftist protest organization.
(more…)

In another sign of how unglued members of the radical left have become, prominent netroots bloggers are blaming “Bush/McCain” for today’s terrorist bombing of the U.S. embassy in Yemen.

Here’s the resident foreign policy expert at Hullabaloo:

Y’know, occasionally I catch some grief by saying I have come truly to despise Bush/McCain and their ideological cronies like Cheney, Addington, Rumsfeld, and so on.

Here’s why: Because the Bush/McCain gang is so ignorant violent, mentally disturbed and powerful, they get hundreds of thousands innocent people killed. Sheer moral hygiene makes it imperative that this country say no to four more years of the same.

Matthew Yglesias add this:

I guess I don’t have a grand point to make about this, but it’s a reminder that if you want to curb radicalism it makes more sense to focus on ways to reduce its appeal in the places where radical movements are already strong (Afghanistan, Pakistan, Yemen, etc.) rather than, say, by invading Iraq.

(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…)

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

One of the hallmarks of netroots politics is for radical partisans to announce their movement represents the mainstream of the mass electorate.

By continually arguing that “progressives” control the “political center,” hardline leftists can disguise their extremist agenda as reflecting the political preferences of a majority of Americans.

I’ve noted regularly the left’s tendency to claim the mainstream, but there’s some recent radical outrage over the media’s declaration that Barack Obama - after wrapping up his nomination - has moved to the political middle. There are differences, naturally, among lefty bloggers as to Obama’s correct location on the spectrum, but what’s not at issue is that for many Obama has violated the progressive creed, which the leftists see as the majoritarian core of the American political universe.

The least compelling argument of this sort comes from Matt Stoller, who simply denounces Barack Obama’s move to the center as a corrupt bargain - a political sellout to the corporate power elite of the Washington establishment. After highlighting the media coverage of Obama’s moderation, Stoller attacks the lobbying practices of Tom Daschle, the former Senate minority leader, who’s mentioned in the Washington Post’s article, “In Campaign, One Man’s Pragmatism Is Another’s Flip-Flopping“: (more…)