May 19, 2008 • Vol. 13, No. 34
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
« December 2007 |
Main
| February 2008 »
This debate was unbelievably boring and anyone who says different don't believe them. The two were intolerably civil to each other, and neither said anything that struck me as remotely controversial. In fact, with each debate the orthodoxy of Obama's positions becomes more pronounced.
We spent the first 40 minutes on health care, and I thought Hillary clearly won that portion of the debate. She understands how difficult any change will be, and more important she understands that not everyone wants change--that those with health care may actually fear it. If Obama holds a similar position, I could not discern it from what he said.
On the war, they are both terrible. Hillary says, "we will end the war in Iraq and we will resolve the war in Afghanistan." The only rule for this debate seemed to be that neither candidate would dare use the word 'victory.' We know they want out of Iraq, but have we now conceded defeat in Afghanistan as well? Our conflict with the Taliban and al Qaeda is to be 'resolved'? When Tony Soprano says he's going to resolve a problem, we know what that means, but what on earth does it mean when Hillary says it?
The low point for Obama came when he said that the NIE on Iran had shown that engagement and talking could lead to the Iranians changing their behavior. This is as spurious a connection as his earlier claim that the 2006 elections led to the reductions in violence in Iraq. Even if one takes the estimate's conclusions at face value, the credible threat of the use of force is the only explanation for why the Iranians suspended their program. But once again, like his health care fix involving nothing so much as his presence and a few cameras from C-SPAN, the solution he offers to this country's decades long confrontation with Iran is all jaw jaw.
I'm not impervious to Obama's charm--he makes me feel all warm and fuzzy--but he lives in a fantasy world. Clinton refused to provide a date certain for withdrawal, making clear that there were scenarios that would demand the continued presence of U.S. troops and outcomes far worse that the status quo. This is the fundamental difference between the two--an acknowledgment of reality.
So while Clinton would be a far easier mark for Republicans in the general election, that doesn't change the fact that she appears more competent than Obama to confront the threats this country now faces. I'm inclined to say Republicans should prefer her because it is in their self-interest, their party's interest, and ultimately--if the worst happens and she actually wins--the national interest.
Vets for Freedom has just announced the launch of their National Heroes Tour, which will take several of the group's members on a coast to coast trip to bolster support for the troops and their mission. One of the guys going is David Bellavia, who was awarded the Silver Star and nominated for the Medal of Honor. I had the chance to speak with Bellavia a couple of months ago about his recently published memoir House to House.
Bellavia served in Iraq in 2004 before returning to co-found Vets for Freedom. He saw the worst of Iraq during his tour, describing his time there as 12 months of "gruesome, house-to-house combat." He was in Fallujah in November 2004, participating in the battle to retake that insurgent stronghold, when his unit walked into an ambush. The house they were clearing was filled with insurgents, but that only became apparent after several bursts of gunfire forced his comrades back onto the street, leaving him trapped in the house. Bellavia said of that day, "they started coming at me on at a time . . . it ended up in a hand-to-hand struggle." There were six terrorists in the house, and Bellavia lived to write the book. As for the bad guys, "72 virgins across the board," Bellavia said. He now sees himself as an "instigator and equalizer countering the doom and gloom" message of the antiwar crowd. "I pacified the jihadists . . . we carried the water, we did the worst of the fighting, and we're back with a positive message."
If you want to hear that message, you can find the tour dates here, and if you want to support these guys financially, which I'm sure would be much appreciated, click here. You can get a copy of Bellavia's book here.
The Senate always moves more slowly than the House, and that is proving true on reforming earmarks as well. But for advocates of fiscal reform, there is some movement on this front. Senate Republican leader Mitch McConnell has appointed a working group to study earmarks and recommend reforms:
Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) said the fiscal reform working group would recommend ways for the Senate to bring about greater transparency and fiscal responsibility to government spending. The group will report findings to the Republican Conference by March 15.
McConnell appointed one of the Senate’s best-known foes of earmarks, Sen. Tom Coburn (R-Okla.), but not Sen. Jim DeMint (R-S.C.), a vocal opponent of lawmakers’ pet projects who has sometimes clashed with party leaders on the issue...
A GOP leadership aide, who said the task force would have a wide jurisdiction, noted it includes members from the Appropriations and Finance committees, as well as a top reformer in Coburn. The broad membership is intended to ensure the best recommendations on earmarks are provided.
And of course, whatever heartburn may be caused among conservatives about Senator McCain's status as the GOP frontrunner, one thing is certain: he's 'right' on pork-barrel spending. If McCain is the nominee, the Democratic candidate will have a hard time attacking him on spending issues, and on this issue at least, he's likely to have the full support of Congressional Republicans.
Reuters reports:
Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama told a French magazine in an interview that if he wins office, he will hold a summit with Muslim countries to better the United States' image in the world.
"Once I'm elected, I want to organize a summit in the Muslim world, with all the heads of state, to have an honest discussion about ways to bridge the gap that grows every day between Muslims and the West," Thursday's edition of Paris Match quoted Obama as saying,
"I want to ask them to join our fight against terrorism. We must also listen to their concerns," Obama said in the French-language transcript.
This is pretty crackpot--and maybe an opening for Hillary in tonight's debate?
PS: Where exactly in the Muslim world would this summit take place? Not that anyone would want to get too bogged down with the details of such a ridiculous idea.
HT: Contentions
McCain is now trading at 83.8. Clinton, at her most inevitable, never traded above 75. Of course, the markets got New Hampshire wrong just as badly as the polls did.
A reader writes:
"Where Obama has campaigned (NOT Michigan and Florida), Senator Clinton's maximum victory margin was 6 percent (Nevada). Neither Obama nor his organization was active in Michigan or Florida, so counting them as Clinton 'victories' (at least by those margins) is deceptive. According to the latest polls, [Obama] is behind an average of only 6 points nationwide. Here in Massachusetts, it appears the margin has shrunk from 37 to seven points. Don't give up on Senator Obama yet."
The dust from the Jan. 29 airstrike is settling, and it appears a senior al Qaeda leader was killed in the attack in North Waziristan, Pakistan. Abu Laith al Libi was killed in the attack, according to a posting at a prominent jihadi website.
The Ekhlaas forum posted a banner praising the martyrdom of al Libi. "We ask God to accept and embrace Shahydna [martyrdom] Libyan Abu Zuhri," a well known poster stated in a thread at the forum.
Al Libi was a prominent al Qaeda leader, but he is not the third or fourth in command of al Qaeda, as CNN has reported. Saif al Adel is currently believed to be al Qaeda's third in command and strategic planner while Abu Ubdaydah al Masri and Matiur Rehman are believed to have split the roles of senior operational leader. Rehman also heads al Qaeda in Pakistan while al Masri commands al Qaeda forces in eastern Afghanistan.
Al Libi is a top-tier al Qaeda leader. He was the leader of the Libyan Islamic Fighting Group and also served as a chief spokesman for al Qaeda. Laith also commanded al Qaeda forces in Afghanistan. As leader of the Libyan Islamic Fighting Group, he announced the terror group's merger with al Qaeda in November 2007.
"Today, Oklahoma Republican National Committeewoman Bunny Chambers announced her endorsement of Governor Mitt Romney."
Poor Mitt. This is getting very sad.
The Las Vegas Review-Journal reports:
Five F-117A Nighthawk jets left Holloman Air Force Base, N.M., on Tuesday bound for their original home at Nevada's Tonopah Test Range as part of an ongoing effort to retire the nation's first stealth jets and close a prominent chapter of aviation history.
Arlan Ponder, a spokesman for the 49th Fighter Wing at Holloman, in Alamogordo, N.M., said the five jets that left Tuesday were preceded by five last week. Five more will arrive Friday at the Tonopah airfield, 140 miles northwest of Las Vegas.
"We've gradually been sending them out," he said about the $45 million planes that, because of their still-classified nature, were spared going to the so-called "boneyard" at Davis-Monthan Air Force Base where rows and rows of outdated military aircraft bake in the Sonoran Desert sun near Tucson, Ariz.
One F-117 is headed to the Smithsonian, just in case you never got a chance to see one.
Bob Novak did some digging on reports last week that John McCain had privately expressed reservations about nominating a conservative like Samuel Alito to the Supreme Court.
I wrote on the subject here, and said, in relevant part:
John McCain came out early in support of Samuel Alito's nomination to the Supreme Court. He worked behind the scenes to generate more support from his colleagues. He pointed to his 2000 campaign promise to appoint conservative judges as one reason he was pleased with the Alito nomination. He spoke on the Senate floor in favor of Alito's confirmation. He even spent several months campaigning for president telling people Samuel Alito was one of the 'finest justices ever appointed to the Supreme Court.'
The inescapable conclusion? A President McCain would not appoint Supreme Court Justices like Samuel Alito.
We know this because in the days before the potentially decisive Florida primary, someone (we don't know who) claimed to have heard McCain (we don't know where) say that he was concerned about Alito's conservatism (we don't know when)...
I called the subsequent firestorm about the report "scurrilous." A friend passed along Novak's column with a note. "Maybe it's not so scurrilous after all." It's at least less scurrilous, I'd say, with the additional sourcing.
Here is Novak, after noting that McCain had denied saying what was attributed to him:
I found what McCain could not remember: a private, informal chat with conservative Republican lawyers shortly after he announced his candidacy in April 2007. I talked to two lawyers who were present whom I have known for years and who have never misled me. One is neutral in the presidential race, and the other recently endorsed Mitt Romney. Both said they were not Fund's source, and neither knew I was talking to the other. They gave me nearly identical accounts, as follows:
'Wouldn't it be great if you get a chance to name somebody like Roberts and Alito?' one lawyer commented. McCain replied, 'Well, certainly Roberts.' Jaws were described as dropping. My sources cannot remember exactly what McCain said next, but their recollection is that he described Alito as too conservative.
Did he say it? Does it trump his campaigning on appointing justices like Alito, who he calls one of the "finest justices every appointed to the Supreme Court?" How you answer that second question is probably a good indication of how you would vote.
I had lunch today at an on-the-record foreign policy briefing sponsored by the Council on Foreign Relations. The panel consisted of Gideon Rose, the managing editor of Foreign Affairs; Council on Foreign Relations fellow, Weekly Standard contributing editor, and McCain adviser Max Boot; and Council on Foreign Relations fellow and author Peter Beinart.
One of Beinart's observations got me thinking. First, he noted that differences on foreign policy issues within the two parties "pale in comparison" with the differences between the two parties. Then he went on to note that the two parties see the world through different "prisms." For the Democrats, Beinart said, the prism remains what it was during Bill Clinton's presidency - globalization, how America deals with a globalized world, and the transnational security and economic threats that arise from it. For the Republicans, Beinart continued, the prism is the war on terror, how America deals with Islamic terrorism, and the potential for an axis (of evil) between terrorist groups and rogue states possessing weapons of mass destruction.
The problem with the Republican approach, Beinart said, is that it focuses almost excusively on national security issues, solutions to those issues that rely heavily on the use of armed force, and issues revolving around one region of the world. The advantage of the Democrats' approach, he said, is that, because it tries to understand the world globally, it can speak to a variety of concerns in a variety of places.
As Max Boot pointed out, just because the Republicans spend a lot of time discussing the challenge radical jihadism poses to the United States doesn't mean they don't have policies concerning the rest of the world. Besides which, Beinart's distinction doesn't take into account how terrorism is a consequence of globalization - Islamic terrorists operate throughout the globe, moving (semi) freely from country to country, just like commodities traded across borders, and using Internet technologies and viral media to communicate with supporters and plan attacks.
What struck me, however, was the extent to which, in Beinart's telling, the Democratic party has "moved on" from the war on terror. For the Democrats, it really is back to the 1990s, and the foreign policy challenges and concerns of that era. One of the overarching questions of election year 2008 is whether the country is ready to move on with them.
From Small Wars Journal: Changing the Organizational Culture, by Lt. Gen. William B. Caldwell.
From Contentions: More in Afghanistan, by Max Boot.
From Real Clear Politics: Schwarzenegger, Giuliani and McCain Republicans, by John McIntyre.
From the Washington Times: Warning Light on Kosovo, by John Bolton, Larry Eagleburger & Peter Rodman.
From the New York Post: Uncle Sam's Latin Challenge, by Peter Brookes.
Richard Starr is even more right than he probably realizes in this post. The book review he cites to describe McCain's "guardian" characteristics puts it this way: "'Guardians' are modern versions of the raiders, warriors, and hunters who once made their livings through sorties into unknown or hostile territories."
The McCain campaign (and some of the reporters covering it) talk about the effort as "the McCain pirate ship." There are conflicting stories about who coined the phrase. McCain's New Hampshire Vice Chair is sometimes mentioned as it's originator. But Steve Schmidt, a senior adviser to McCain who worked previously for Arnold Schwarzenegger and Dick Cheney, is a more likely source. Schmidt recently finished reading Empire of Blue Water, a book about the famous Captain Morgan.
Mitt Romney's campaign, the thinking goes, runs with the precision of a venture capital firm. He is well-manicured, his staff is well-dressed, his campaign is well-ordered, well-organized, and well-funded. Romney's access to the press is occasional and tightly monitored.
The McCain campaign operates on an ad-hoc basis. Because McCain has been playing catch-up since this summer, it has no choice. As soon as a dollar is raised, it is spent (though Florida should ease the cash crunch a bit). There is little paid staff - some of the senior advisers on the road with McCain have not collected a paycheck for seven months - and the campaign's organization in Super Tuesday states is still being pieced together - sometimes hours before McCain is scheduled to arrive.
When Steve "Lobot" Schmidt arrived at the bar Tuesday night wearing a grey, pinstriped suit, his attire triggered several comments and some friendly mockery. Schmidt's defense - it was the only thing he had left that was clean - did little to diminish the badinage.
A friend sends along this link to John McCain's first-hand account of his imprisonment, first published in U.S. News and World Report's May 14, 1973, issue.
From the Tierney Lab:
[T]here’s one very hard piece of evidence that casts doubt on the doomsday predictions: a polar bear jawbone that appears to be at least 110,000 years old, meaning that polar bears have survived eras with considerably warmer temperatures than today.
My colleague Andy Revkin reported in December, at his Dot Earth blog, that the discoverers of the jawbone told him there was “no threat of outright extinction within a century or more” and that “this finding reinforces the idea that they can endure.”
More good news for the polar bears: sea ice extent has returned to "near normal" levels after last summer's "record" thaw, and the Northern Hemisphere has more snow cover right now than at any time in the last decade.
HT: Eastern Weather
That's what Spencer Ackerman reports, much to the delight of the lefty blogosphere. But the numbers he cites are stunning for their insignificance. Think Progress pulls out the two most compelling stats:
According to “Iraq security statistics over the past 13 weeks,” roadside bomb explosions in Baghdad “have ticked up slightly to 131 in January from 129 in December — and the last week of January is not included in these latest figures.” Additionally, “the week ending on January 25 saw seven suicide explosions Iraq-wide, the most since the week ending Dec. 21, 2007.”
So over the last two months, we've seen an uptick in roadside bombs of less than 2 percent? Here are the raw numbers. The number of ethno-sectarian deaths nationwide has dropped from 131 in the first three weeks of November to 76 in the most recent three weeks of January. In Baghdad, the numbers are even more impressive, from 72 in the first three weeks of November to just 18 in the last three weeks. Likewise, civilian deaths are down across the board--and in roughly the same proportions.
The left has ignored the trends of the last six months in favor of comparing December, the surge's most impressive month statistically, to January, which has seen something of a leveling off. But still, the violence is down dramatically--and this is a rather pathetic attempt to demonstrate otherwise.
Do Congressional Democrats believe this is the only thing they were elected for?
Liberal Democratic lawmakers will push House leaders to return the Iraq War to center stage as early as next week.
Rep. Lynn Woolsey (D-Calif.), who co-chairs the Congressional Progressive Caucus, said late Tuesday she is preparing to reintroduce legislation calling for a troop withdrawal from Iraq and will urge leadership to move the measure in the wake of the economic stimulus package that has been the center of attention for several weeks...
“I don’t think it throws it [the agenda] off track,” the [Democratic leadership] aide said, and later added: “Nothing’s been absolutely decided yet.”
House and Senate lawmakers had not been expected to turn their attention back to Iraq until at least March — the fifth anniversary of the war is March 19 — and possibly into the summer months, when another supplemental spending request is expected from the White House.
Congress still needs to complete the funding for the efforts in Iraq and Afghanistan for 2008. The wise political strategy would be to avoid flaunting their ineffectiveness in opposing the war on terror. They have repeatedly caved and provided funding, and they will do so again. So why not quietly pass the measure? Instead, it seems that Democrats will once more raise the hopes of their antiwar base, only to cave.
This looks more and more like Charlie Brown trying to kick the football, with Pelosi and Reid in the Lucy role.
Today's buzz is the showdown between John McCain and Mitt Romney at last night's Republican debate in California, and bloggers are sharply divided on the winner.
The two sparred over each other's conservative credentials and stances on Iraq. Live-blogging at Pajamas Media, Bridget Johnson reports on the evening's many "full-body slams." Chris Cillizza has the video of the Iraq showdown and says, "McCain insisted that Romney had supported a timetable for withdrawal, while Romney bitterly disagreed and accused McCain of 'the sort of dirty tricks Ronald Reagan would have found reprehensible.'" The showdown resulted in McCain's major jab at Romney -- that McCain led "for patriotism, not for profit." More on the "Simi Valley Showdown" from Stephen F. Hayes at the DAILY STANDARD.
Many right-wing bloggers say that this debate made McCain look bad. Hugh Hewitt chides McCain for "his display of bad temper and his rambling filibuster of his wrongful 'timetables' attack on Romney." Paul Mirengoff at Power Line agrees: "McCain not only persisted in his dishonest claim that Mitt Romney supported a timetable for withdrawing from Iraq, he used one evasion after another to try to make it stick."
As for his patriotism/profit comment, Captain Ed says that this won't appeal to many conservatives: "The people McCain wants to lead as President often lead for profit, and won't appreciate the aspersion this phrase that McCain uses in every appearance casts on their own motives." Michelle Malkin agrees. At the Corner, Kathryn Jean Lopez questioned McCain's leadership abilities, and Mark Steyn remarked, "Just because McCain can poke Mitt in the eye is no indication he'll be as effective with Putin." Ross Douthat adds that McCain "kept on behaving as if Romney were the front-runner, and he was the scrappy underdog who needed to bring his rival down a notch."
Still, many bloggers disagree. At the CAMPAIGN STANDARD, Richard Starr says that "this line of McCain's is more than a cheap shot; it actually illuminates a deep and important difference between the two GOP contenders." Scott Johnson at Power Line expands on this line of thought, noting that in today's world of "Vladimir Putins, Osama bin Ladens and Harry Reids," an experienced politician is preferable to an experienced businessman: "This is not a game for amateurs. I think we should recognize that professional politicians bring important experience and skills to the table, and that one of those skills is the ability to knee an opponent in the groin and get away with it."
These bloggers say that McCain was the clear winner of the debate--and is the clear frontrunner. At the Politico, Roger Simon wrote, "McCain stuck to his guns, knowing that, as long as the conversation is on the Iraq war and McCain’s unswerving support for that war, he probably will continue to do well. (Just as long as the war continues to go well, of course.) And when it came to his vulnerabilities, McCain learned how a front-runner handles those: He blows by them." And the bloggers at MSNBC's First Read say that even if McCain did use "dirty tricks," "it should also serve as a comfort to nervous Republicans about McCain's ability to play hardball in the general. McCain may seem like a guy who likes to reach across the aisle, but he's not afraid to get dirty." Daniel Casse says Romney "blew it," and Goldfarb wrote last night that "Romney missed his chance, and it's not clear that he'll get another."
Regardless of your thoughts on the candidates, it looks like the Republican nominee is emerging, and he won't be afraid to get tough with the Democrat.
David Broder:
"On the Democratic side, the battle is more even, but the advantage has shifted back to Barack Obama - thanks to a growing but largely unremarked tendency among Democratic leaders to reject Hillary Clinton and her husband, the former president."
This is true of Democratic and liberal-leaning elites who reside along the Northeast Corridor. But is it true of Democratic voters in general? Not really. Since the Iowa loss, Clinton has mobilized winning coalitions of voters in New Hampshire, Michigan, Nevada, and Florida. Yes, I know Michigan and Florida don't count (at least not until the Clinton campaign strong-arms the DNC into awarding those delegates). But won't Super Tuesday resemble, in some sense, the Michigan and Florida contests? That is, so many states will be voting, so quickly, that it is hard for any candidate to campaign effectively, difficult for the campaigns to build up additional grassroots support. So the results likely will turn on name identification and traditional coalitions of Democratic voters. That's a scenario which favors Clinton. Obama needs a game-changer if he is to score what would be one of the greatest upsets in the history of American politics.
I felt a curious sensation earlier this week when Edward Kennedy, standing before a roomful of shrieking undergraduates in Washington, endorsed Barack Obama for president. It was not the rush of emotion that David Brooks described in the next day's New York Times, or irritation at the standard Kennedy spectacle - although the requisite elements were all there: The red-nosed, Rabelaisian senator, his medicated offspring, and his niece, her grin immobilized by surgery.
No, the sensation was familiar, and took me back 40 years to the winter of 1967-68, when I was working as a student volunteer at Eugene McCarthy headquarters in downtown Washington. My primary task was to open mail, collate documents, and purchase jelly donuts to satisfy the appetite of the campaign's slovenly press secretary, Seymour Hersh.
At the time, it will be remembered, McCarthy had decided to run for president because the sentimental favorite of the antiwar Democrats, Robert Kennedy, could not stir himself to challenge Lyndon Johnson. More profile than courage, it was said at the time. And of course, it was only after McCarthy had come close to defeating LBJ in the New Hampshire primary - prompting Johnson, shortly thereafter, to withdraw from the race - that Kennedy "reassessed" his position and announced his own candidacy.
Among those McCarthy enthusiasts who had "come clean for Gene," and embarked on what had seemed like a suicidal venture (among whom I counted myself), Kennedy was held in considerable contempt: His cute disavowals of interest in running amused no one, and his swift appropriation of McCarthy's capital caused indignation. When Kennedy finally announced he was running in the Senate Caucus Room, with his miniskirted wife onstage and their dozen children crawling among the wires and cameras, it seemed less a political act than a chapter in celebrity melodrama.
Which, to his credit, Kennedy seemed to perceive. He is said to have complained to associates that McCarthy enjoyed the allegiance of the A students while he was left with the B students. Certainly, we campus McCarthyites saw it that way, and noticed that when Kennedy spoke in public he seemed to attract what we called "screamers" - the sort of girls who had greeted The Beatles at the airport, and their slightly bewildered boyfriends - whose interest in Bobby did not seem political. McCarthy was accompanied on the campaign trail by Robert Lowell; Kennedy enjoyed the company of Roosevelt Grier, and Sonny and Cher.
Whether this specimen of Democratic snobbery has any application to the current election cycle I cannot say. Just as Robert Kennedy's crowds were larger and louder than Eugene McCarthy's in 1968, it is undoubtedly true that the saga of the Kennedy family - especially in the half-century since the assassinations of John and Robert - resonates with a certain kind of Democrat in 2008. But it is difficult to say how deeply such emotions run, and whether the excitement of a televised rally translates into anything like political action, conviction, or allegiance.
Barack Obama's appeal, in theatrical terms, is evident enough, and he is lucky to be running against Hillary Clinton. But time passes, enthusiasm wanes, and excitement cannot be sustained indefinitely. Obama seems to inspire in his followers the same sensations that tied Kennedy to his fans. The question is whether this can be translated into millions of votes for president, or is something that can survive and adapt in the aftermath of unforeseen events.
John McCain repeated a line in the debate last night that has infuriated Romney backers more than any other, the one where he contrasts his "leadership" experience with Romney's "managerial" experience, by referring to his Navy service as something undertaken "for patriotism and not for profit."
I can see why a lot of people on the right hate hearing this. It does sound - and McCain may even mean it to sound - dismissive of and condescending towards archcapitalists like Romney. But this line of McCain's is more than a cheap shot; it actually illuminates a deep and important difference between the two GOP contenders. And the distinction McCain's soundbite points toward is one that needn't reflect badly on either of the two men.
McCain is close to being a pure exponent of what Jane Jacobs called the "guardian syndrome." And Romney, for his part, is an almost equally pure exponent of its counterpart, what Jacobs termed the "commercial syndrome." As I can't lay my hands on my copy of Jacobs's 1992 book, Systems of Survival, in which she elaborates in fascinating detail on these two modes of living, I will fall back on Mary Ann Glendon's review for First Things.
Jacobs, writes Glendon,
contends that human beings have developed two and only two basic 'systems of survival': a 'commercial syndrome' and a 'guardian syndrome.' Each of these survival strategies has arisen and persisted, she argues, because it promotes material success in the way of life with which it is associated.
Like the other animals, we find and pick up what we can use, and appropriate territories. But unlike the other animals, we also trade and produce for trade. Because we possess these two radically different ways of dealing with our needs, we also have two radically different systems of morals and values - both systems valid and necessary.
The 'commercial syndrome' has its principal home among peoples who trade or produce for trade (though it is not coextensive with, or limited to, the world of business). The linchpin of the commercial syndrome is honesty, for the very good reason that trading systems don't work without a good deal of trust, even among strangers. Because traders' prosperity depends on making reliable deals, they set great store by policies that tend to create or reinforce honesty and trust: respect contracts; come to voluntary agreements; shun force; be tolerant and courteous; collaborate easily with strangers. Because producers for trade thrive on improved products and methods they also value inventiveness, and attitudes that foster creativity, such as 'dissent for the sake of the task.'
'Guardians' are modern versions of the raiders, warriors, and hunters who once made their livings through sorties into unknown or hostile territories. Today's guardians (usually more concerned with administering or protecting territories than acquiring them) are found in governmental ministries and bureaucracies, legislatures, the armed forces, the police, business cartels, intelligence agencies, and many religious organizations. Guardians prize such qualities as discipline, obedience, prowess, respect for tradition and hierarchy, show of strength, ostentation, largesse, and 'deception for the sake of the task.' The bedrock of guardian systems is loyalty. It not only promotes their common objectives, but it keeps them from preying on one another. They are wary of, even hostile to, trade, for the reason that loyalty and secrets of the group must not be for sale.
I don't think it's a stretch to say that these two constellations of traits match up pretty neatly with what most people would agree are the distinctive virtues of Romney and McCain. Whether McCain's drawing attention to the distinction is ultimately a winning line in a commercial republic like ours is another question.
Ted Kennedy took to the virtual pages of the Daily Kos yesterday to pen an inspiring endorsement of Barack Obama. Showing a surprising facility with the intertubes, Massachusetts' senior senator even managed to embed a YouTube clip into his "diary.
But yesterday was a dark day at the Daily Kos, what with their hero, the lionhearted son of a mill worker named John Edwards, being driven from the race by the forces of greed. Thus, several disappointed Kossacks greeted Senator Kennedy's completely banal essay with a touch of anger.
Many community members noticed a major flaw that infected Kennedy’s endorsement. The second of the 720 comments chided Kennedy, “It would have been nice of you to mention John Edwards today. I'm sorry you did not.”
Another commenter lectured the senator,
“You should have waited until tomorrow to post this. Perhaps you were trying to reach out to all the Edwards supporters as they are most likely here today, but then you should have spoken about Edwards, at least acknowledged that he was dropping out, especially since his campaign has been focused on ending poverty.
I was disappointed that you didn't endorse Edwards, and now I am disappointed that you could be so insensitive today.”
Ted Kennedy insensitive? Now I’ve seen it all! Some were more angry than disappointed.
"John was every bit part of the future as Obama,” wrote ImpeachKingBushII (if that’s his real name). "'Yesterday's news'? Hardly. He didn't officially drop out until this afternoon!" A hair-splitting point for sure, but still a valid one.
"The part of this diary I didn't get," continued ImpeachKingBushII (if that's his real name), "is how presumptuous, pompous, and insensitive Obama supporters apparently are. Don't take our support for granted bucko. I'll use my acidic, razor-sharp tongue just as quickly on him as I have used it on Bush, IF I feel a coronation in the making. One 'His Majesty the King' under 8 years of this despotic Bush regime is more than quite enough for one lifetime. I won't suffer another one, regardless of party. The true test of character is how benevolent the victor is, and how quickly they seek to heal the wounds that divided us, not in how deep they can rub our noses into the bitter ashes of defeat."
Ted Kennedy failing a true test of character? Now I’m really shocked! And now poor Senator Obama, as a result of Senator Kennedy's clumsy insensitivity, will have to risk the wrath of the "acidic razor-sharp tongue" of ImpeachKingBushII (if that's his real name).
One wonders if the Obama campaign can survive this looming challenge.
Quick observations from the debate:
Huckabee was great. He's funny, he's engaging, and if he was at all qualified to serve as commander in chief, he might have won this thing. The self-aware pandering on highways, his first-strike against Anderson Cooper, and his refusal to dishonor Reagan in Reagan's house were all expert. And of course, he now benefits from being a marginal figure and a potential spoiler--no one is going after him.
Romney didn't do enough to change the fundamental dynamic of this race. He scrapped with McCain over the timetables question, but any time Romney spends talking about Iraq is bound to end up a draw at best. No one is under the impression that he now wants out of Iraq, but his statements from late 2006 and early 2007 do not evince strong leadership. And on the merits, I'm not convinced he won the argument. McCain responded that "timetables" was liberal code for retreat, and that Romney should have just said no. It was effective enough.
McCain improved as the evening wore on, and as the conversation shifted to national security. CNN's crack debate team tried repeatedly to push him into a corner, particularly on immigration and the Bush tax cuts. In each instance, he gave answers that were intended to appease his conservative critics. They may not have been terribly effective in that regard, but there was no damage done to him from the exchanges either. And on the issue of global warming--at least he didn't go out of his way to antagonize conservatives. He's committed to cap-and-trade, but in explaining why he emphasized the potential economic benefits of investing in green technologies, and he took great pains to make clear that he might be wrong about climate change.
McCain also got in a great dig in at Romney when he said that he'd led the largest squadron in the Navy and had "done it for patriotism and not for profit." Just seconds later he mentioned his time as a POW--a debate first, I think. John Podhoretz captures the result:
I know it is supposedly a great calling card that Romney ran the Salt Lake City Olympics, but saying it directly after John McCain talked about his time in the Hanoi Hilton might not be the best timing in the world.
In the end, Romney couldn't land the knock out punch. And he didn't say anything that will make it on to the local news tomorrow night. (One wonders just how many Republicans were really watching this affair? Anderson Cooper was insufferable, and Republicans don't like CNN to begin with. Many may have tuned out early.)
So the news tomorrow will be dominated not by debate coverage but by McCain's endorsements, from Rudy and Arnold, by the end of the Edwards campaign, and by the looming battle between Obama and Hillary. Romney missed his chance, and it's not clear that he'll get another.
Yesterdays airstrike against a purported Taliban safe house in Pakistan's North Waziristan tribal agency resulted in 12 killed just as the Taliban and the government are prepared to sign a new peace accord. But the strike may have claimed a high value al Qaeda leader, ABC News reported today.
Pakistani intelligence sources say they believe a "high-value" al Qaeda target was killed in a missile strike yesterday in the country's tribal region bordering Afghanistan. U.S. officials said there was no indication that the target was Osama bin Laden or his deputy Ayman al Zawahri, but one senior official told ABCNews.com the strike was aimed at one particular figure. "We don't know whether we got him yet, we are sorting through it," the official said, indicating the intended target was a top leader of the terror group.
While the Internet is abuzz with the possibility of Osama bin Laden or Ayman al Zawahiri being killed, the likelihood, as ABC News noted, is low. A series of airstrikes in the tribal areas from earlier 2006 onward has yielded only two mid-level a Qaeda operatives: Imam Asad, the chief trainer of the Black Guard, and Mohsin Matawalli Atwa, one of the architects of the 1998 attacks on the U.S. Embassies in Eastern Africa.
Anonymous Pakistani intelligence officials have misled the U.S. officials about the deaths of high value al Qaeda targets in the past. The Pakistanis claimed six senior al Qaeda operatives were killed in a strike in January 2006. These leaders were: Midhat Mursi al Sayid Umar (Abu Khabab), al Qaeda's WMD expert; Abdul Rahman al Maghribi, Zawahiri's son-in-law and an al Qaeda commander; Abu Obaidah al Masri, the Kunar, Afghanistan operations chief; Marwan al Suri, the Waziristan operations chief; Khalid Habib, the commander of southeastern Afghanistan commander; and Abd al Hadi al Iraqi, a member of al Qaeda's military committee. The Washington Post reported almost two years later that they had, in fact, survived the attack. Abd al Hadi al Iraqi was captured while trying to enter Iraq in April 2007.
I noted yesterday that the strike may have been designed to derail the new peace talks, as happened in October 2006 in Bajaur agency. At that time, the government was negotiating with Faqir Mohammed and his local Taliban forces in Bajaur. The government leveled a Taliban training camp at the Chingai madrassa, killing more than 80 Taliban. The peace talks with the Taliban in Bajaur were sabotaged, but a deal was cut six months later in March 2007.
John McCormack does the math over at the Campaign Standard:
McCain's greatest advantage lies in the states that award all of their delegates - 373 in all - to the winner of the statewide popular vote: Arizona (53), Connecticut (30), Delaware (18), Missouri (58), Montana (25), New Jersey (52), New York (101), and Utah (36).
Polls have shown McCain leading in all of these states, except Utah where Romney is up big, Delaware where Giuliani was ahead, and Montana where caucusgoers haven't been polled. If the polls are right, and assuming McCain and Romney split the remaining delegates, McCain would be leading by at least 300 delegates after February 5. And a close look at the rest of the Super Tuesday states makes that a generous assumption in Romney's favor.
Go read the whole thing, he breaks it down even further. Unless something significant happens tonight, Romney isn't going to turn this thing around. And the McCain campaign is acutely aware of how little distance their is between them and the finish line. As Jonathan Martin reports:
NBC invited John McCain and Mitt Romney onto “Meet the Press” Sunday for a final debate before Super Tuesday. Romney, now the underdog and eager for opportunities to take on the frontrunner, immediately accepted. McCain, who appeared on the show last week and is looking to protect a lead, declined.
Sometimes playing not to lose is the prudent course of action.
Congressional Democrats remain unable to bring themselves to authorize intercepts of phone calls by terrorists into the United States. Instead, Congress has cleared legislation to extend such surveillance by just 15 days -- hoping that they can come to agreement on a long-term fix in that time. The only problem is that such a fix has eluded them for months.
The House on Tuesday passed a 15-day extension (HR 5104) of the temporary surveillance law (PL 110-55) by voice vote, with the goal of giving lawmakers in both chambers more time to work on a more comprehensive overhaul. The Senate cleared it by voice vote.
The extension would keep the current law in force until Feb. 16, the day before lawmakers are scheduled to begin their Presidents Day recess.
Bush is expected to sign the bill, after vowing to veto earlier Democratic proposals to enact a 30-day extension.
Do Democrats imagine that national security will not be an important issue in this year's presidential campaign?
Steve Forbes just appeared on Neil Cavuto's show on Fox. He sounded like he will follow his candidate, Rudy Giuliani, and become a McCain supporter, though nothing formal has been announced yet. Asked about Romney's claims that he is a tax cutter, Forbes responded that it depends on the meaning of tax cut. He went on to highlight Romney's record raising fees and implied that there's little difference between fees and taxes. (He's right, of course.)
Forbes said he's less concerned about McCain's votes on President Bush's tax cuts than he is favorably impressed by McCain's promises to cut taxes going forward. When Cavuto noted that he sounds like a McCain man, Forbes responded: "That's where I'm heading now."
For many of us, last night was full of disappointment. Nevertheless, it is not in my nature to wallow. Even when the clouds are darkest, I look resolutely look for silver linings (although my prose takes on an annoying, cliché ridden style).
1) John Edwards has left the race. But just because he is gone doesn't mean he has left us without memories to cherish. Remember when he hired those ridiculously obscene bloggers? And remember when he fired them? And remember when he rehired them? And remember when he fired them once and for all, showing the kind of crisp executive decision making a credible presidential contender needs to have?
Good times. And whenever we're blue, we can always punch up that footage of him primping his hair for two minutes. And it's not like he's going away. He'll be back in 2012 or 2016.
2) Rudy Giuliani has left the race. I liked Rudy – he was my second choice - so I take no joy in his downfall. But I take considerable joy in his foolish campaign schemers getting their comeuppance. McCain stood and fought, and reaped the benefits. Rudy could have done the same, but his strategists decided to cut and run when the battle got toughest. Don't weep for them, though. If Bob Shrum could keep getting work after driving numerous presidential campaigns into the ditch, Rudy's advisors will have no problem getting future gigs. The political consultant industry is a sad victim of the soft bigotry of low expectations.
3) The New England Patriots will finish their quest for “ever” (as Pats linebacker Junior Seau calls it) on Sunday. Some people think Boston sports fans have been obnoxious in this, our era of serial triumphs. Sorry, but we Boston fans feel the right to celebrate after all that we have suffered. The Buckner loss was the most painful in the history of team sports. The Celtics got battered by multiple tragedies. The Patriots were a star-crossed franchise that didn’t manage to win its first playoff game until its 25th year of existence.
When you think about, it's sad that we live in a nation where so many people are unable to appreciate the greatest display of excellence in the history of team sports.
4) Back in my intemperate blogging days, I launched a McCain Campaign Dead Pool shortly after the McCain/Kennedy fiasco. While I continue my efforts to convince the McCain people that it was all just a very bad joke, one that I profoundly regret and not the kind of thing a potential president should be at all vindictive over, I can still console myself that at least I won't have to give out the promised prize to a winner.
5) My cleaning woman came today and excitedly asked if I was following the presidential election while she shooed me out of the den. I told her I was. She then proceeded to tell me how excited she was to vote next week. She's been in this country for many years, but this is the first election she'll be able to vote in. It will be her first time voting since she was in Brazil, where they force you to vote. She's torn between Clinton and McCain. I did my level best to convince her to vote for McCain. (Personal note to Team McCain: See? I'm a team player!)
Her excitement was contagious. Even when you don't particularly care for the results, Democracy is a pretty grand thing.
Edwards adviser Mudcat Saunders says he'll do anything in his power to prevent his boss, who dropped out of the race today, from endorsing Hillary Clinton. Here's the video:
Mudcat, of course, was the subject of this classic Matt Labash profile back in 2005.
(A tip of the homburg to Ben Smith.)
The wheel turns. In 2007, Giuliani led national polls for months and through the third quarter had raised more money from individual contributors than any of the candidates. Then a flurry of bad publicity, a stalled campaign in New Hampshire, and a turn to Florida wiped it all away. Jonathan Martin provides a well-reported assessment of what went wrong.
Thomas B. Edsall goes through the Florida exit poll numbers and concludes: "The Republican Party looks increasingly likely to pass the torch to a candidate powered by decidedly un-Republican constituencies: anti-Bush voters, the non-religious, supporters of abortion rights, and social-cultural moderates."
Another interesting number: McCain won 51 to 15 among Latino Republican voters.
One more tidbit from Edsall's piece: While Florida technically is a "closed" primary, meaning only registered party members can vote, political scientist Nolan McCartney points out that "17 percent of the Republican primary voters identify as independents and McCain carried them handily." It's not that difficult to change your registration in the days before a closed primary, in other words.
All in all, Romney probably will win more than a few states on Super Tuesday, places where traditionally conservative voters dominate. But probably it also won't be enough, as demographer William Frey points out, to counteract McCain's likely dominance in the large, coastal states.
Over at Contentions, here's Daniel Casse:
"If Barack Obama is the Democratic nominee, [some] will argue, persuasively, that Romney may have been a better GOP nominee. Against Obama, McCain is the old man versus the young man, the old way versus the new. Romney, at least, can make a much stronger argument against Obama’s soft-headed economics.
"But if Hillary Clinton is the Democratic nominee, then we really do have one of the great national contests on our hands - and the McCain haters will have no choice but to get on board."
This sounds about right to me, though Obama does have liabilities - his inexperience, and his liberalism - that may make him slightly less unstoppable than people think. The larger point here, though, is the amazing way in which McCain, after winning three out of five early contests with little money and tough opposition, gets absolutely no credit from a variety of pundits. On CNN last night, Bill Schneider was talking about the "hard road ahead" for McCain. Um, not quite.
| | | |
