Unbelievable. In the BBC's 10pm coverage of Israel's military tests, the reporter mentioned 'speculation' that George Bush wanted to destroy Iran's nuclear programme before leaving office and then showed the John McCain youtube video of him singing "bomb-bomb-bomb, bomb-bomb Iran" as an example of what he wanted to do. Think of all the things John McCain has said about Iran, and they decide to show the grainy youtube video. Shameful.
What Obama means by 'change'
Thursday, 19 June 2008Victor Davis Hanson (at RCP) questions exactly what Obama means by "change". So far BO is coming up short on everything.
Foreign policy:
Take Obama's foreign-policy pronouncements, which promise a break with the unhappy past. Two doctrines are most prominent. One is to engage our enemies and be nicer to our allies. The other calls for leaving Iraq on a set timetable.(...)The world in January 2009 will not be the same as it was in February 2007. So would a President Obama really engage Iranian President Ahmadinejad just as the Europeans are isolating him, or give up on Iraq when the American military may well gradually draw down in victory, not defeat?
Taxes:
Sen. Obama also wishes to raise trillions in new taxes by upping the capital gains margins, restoring inheritance taxes, raising the income rates on the upper brackets and lifting the income caps on Social Security payroll taxes.
Energy:
...Sen. Obama's change probably wouldn't include more drilling; more nuclear power plants; or fuel extraction from tar sands, shale or coal. Instead, his strategy emphasizes more conservation; mass transit; and wind, solar and alternate green energy. All that is certainly wise and could be a winning combination by 2030, but right now it won't fill our tanks.
Campaigning:
Sen. Obama promises a new style of politics that is issue-based, rather than attack-dog. But so far, he has campaigned in conventional fashion: He's tough on his opponents and as prone to overstatements and mischaracterizations as any other candidate.The take-no-prisoners Moveon.org, which gave us the "General Betray Us" ads, is now an ally running third-party hit pieces on John McCain. Such outside help is customary in an election but seems inconsistent with Obama's disavowals of the hardball politics of the past.
Race:
Sen. Obama has promised a new dialogue on race and tolerance. His own impressive personal journey may make that possible. But his 20-year intimate relationship with the racist Rev. Jeremiah Wright suggests that for years he was heavily invested in the rather tired and predictable identity politics of grievance rather than a vocal advocate of novel racial transcendence.
So what, precisely, does Obama offer that will actually benefit the country? Hope? Maybe...but only for half the country, fear for the other 150 million. The scary thing is that while 'hope' may not be enough to run and protect a country, its more than enough to win an election.
Obama's first ad
Here it is, Obama's first general election ad. Surprise, surprise, it's about pride and American values:
Notice the flag-pin on his lapel and the hug with the old white woman? Pretty smart. All-in-all, a clever way to open up the general campaign.
Governor Rudy?
Wednesday, 18 June 2008It's possible. Patrick Ruffini at The Next Right refers to an article in The Politicker about Giuliani's meeting with Joe Mondello, New York's GOP state chairman. Could be one to watch in 2010.
Rebranding Michelle? Hardly
If anyone has a bizarre obsession with sycophantic journalism then I urge you to read Michael Powell and Jodi Kanter's article in IHT about Michelle Obama and her 'subtle makeover'. I was actually hoping for an honest piece of work and instead got a 2000-word gush-fest. This kind of stuff doesn't belong in a newspaper. Everything she has done in her life seems to necessitate an extra celebration for her triumph over the white establishment, whether against the (obviously) racist institutions of Princeton, Harvard, Sidley Austin (a corporate law firm), or the University of Chicago Medical Center. Naturally, the next establishment she will want to fight against is (ironically) The White House, probably as the first lady from 2008 to 2016, and then presumably as President from 2016 - 2024 (is this really as ridiculous as it sounds? No, I didn't think so).
I don't see how this kind of article can do anything but hurt her (and her husband) with America's working classes. There are few things more annoying than a graduate of Princeton and Harvard Law School, earning more than $300k-a-year, complaining about how hard her life has been fighting against the historical 'whiteness' of America.
This though is perhaps the most telling part of the story:
By 2001, Obama, married for nine years and the mother of two daughters, had taken a job as vice president of community affairs at the University of Chicago Medical Center. She soon discovered just how acrimonious those affairs were.Hospital brass had gathered to break ground for a children's wing when African-American protesters broke in with bullhorns, drowning out the proceedings with demands that the hospital award more contracts to minority firms.The executives froze. Obama strolled over and offered to meet later, if only the protestors would pipe down. She revised the contracting system, sending so much business to firms owned by women and other minorities that the hospital won awards.
I'm confused, is this supposed to be a good thing? Shouldn't the criteria for awarding contracts be effectiveness and efficiency and not skin colour or gender? Had a group of white people disturbed proceedings in such a way, would she have reacted the same? Would she have given white-run firms a similar boost in contracts? I doubt it. Michelle Obama seems to see whiteness, whatever its purpose or function, as an obstructive force in the advancement of minorities.
For all that this article is a poor, polemical, and also vague attempt to elevate Michelle to first lady caliber, it's done nothing other than confirm that she presents a fundamental problem for the Obama campaign that the Republicans can (and will) exploit to the fullest extent.
Swing state polling
RCP Blog has some interesting polling information for Florida (27 electoral votes), Pennsylvania (21), and Ohio (20). Obama is showing a strong lead in all three and is actually winning the white vote in Pennsylvania:
Florida (1,453 LV, MoE +/-2.6%)Obama 47
McCain 43
Undecided 8Ohio (1,396 LV, MoE +/-2.6%)
Obama 48
McCain 42
Undecided 7Pennsylvania (1,511 LV, MoE +/- 2.5%)
Obama 52
McCain 40
Undecided 7
If this holds it'll be a landslide of Celtics - Lakers proportions, like 348 - 190 isn't out of the realm of possibility.
Bail for Abu Qatada
The BBC are reporting that Abu Qatada has been released from prison. I know there's a strain on prisons but come on, is this a guy who should be getting out on bail?:
Abu Qatada, 47, was freed from Long Lartin Prison, in Worcestershire, on Tuesday after winning his fight against deportation to Jordan.The Palestinian-Jordanian preacher will be subjected to a 22-hour home curfew and tight restrictions on his liberty.Abu Qatada has been described as Osama Bin Laden's right-hand man in Europe.(...)Abu Qatada was once described by a judge as a "truly dangerous individual at the centre of al-Qaeda's activities in the UK".He is widely assumed to have had a huge radicalising influence on men who went on to commit acts of violence such as Richard Reid, the convicted shoe bomber, Mohammed Atta, the 9/11 ringleader and Abu Musab Al-Zarqawi, the former al-Qaeda leader in Iraq.
But don't fret because his terrorist friends won't be allowed to visit him:
Police have special permission to enter and search his home, while he is banned from having guests other than family and solicitors without the home secretary's permission.Among the people he is banned from meeting in London is al-Qaeda leader Osama Bin Laden.Others include bin Laden's deputy Ayman al-Zawahiri and Rachid Ramda, who has been convicted in France of masterminding a series of bombings in 1995.Also named is hate preacher Abu Hamza al-Masri.
Great. Nice work, guys. At least Jacqui Smith is taking up the case (the shadow home secretary Dominic Grieve weighed in too):
Ms Smith said she was "disappointed" at the decision to grant him bail.(...)Ms Smith said: "I am appealing to the House of Lords to reverse the decision that it is not safe to deport [Abu] Qatada and the other Jordanian cases."The government's priority is to protect public safety and national security and we will take all steps necessary to do so."Shadow home secretary Dominic Grieve said: "This man should be deported if possible. His presence is offensive."Failing deportation, he should be prosecuted."This is why, for example, we have called on the government to allow the use of intercept evidence - so they have every weapon possible to prosecute these individuals."
I agree, deport him or prosecute him. I don't care if Bin Laden and his boys aren't allowed to go around for tea and scones, this is not someone who should be breathing free air.
Al Gore the hypocrite
In the year since Al Gore took steps to make his home more energy-efficient, the former Vice President’s home energy use surged more than 10%, according to the Tennessee Center for Policy Research.
“A man’s commitment to his beliefs is best measured by what he does behind the closed doors of his own home,” said Drew Johnson, President of the Tennessee Center for Policy Research. “Al Gore is a hypocrite and a fraud when it comes to his commitment to the environment, judging by his home energy consumption.”
In the past year, Gore’s home burned through 213,210 kilowatt-hours (kWh) of electricity, enough to power 232 average American households for a month.
(...)
After the Tennessee Center for Policy Research exposed Gore’s massive home energy use, the former Vice President scurried to make his home more energy-efficient. Despite adding solar panels, installing a geothermal system, replacing existing light bulbs with more efficient models, and overhauling the home’s windows and ductwork, Gore now consumes more electricity than before the “green” overhaul.
Since taking steps to make his home more environmentally-friendly last June, Gore devours an average of 17,768 kWh per month – 1,638 kWh more energy per month than before the renovations – at a cost of $16,533. By comparison, the average American household consumes 11,040 kWh in an entire year, according to the Energy Information Administration.
In the wake of becoming the most well-known global warming alarmist, Gore won an Oscar, a Grammy and the Nobel Peace Prize. In addition, Gore saw his personal wealth increase by an estimated $100 million thanks largely to speaking fees and investments related to global warming hysteria.
“Actions speak louder than words, and Gore’s actions prove that he views climate change not as a serious problem, but as a money-making opportunity,” Johnson said. “Gore is exploiting the public’s concern about the environment to line his pockets and enhance his profile.”
Al Gore should be embarrassed. I thought everyone had to do their bit for the planet? Does that only apply to those of us not profiting so gratuitously from the supposed destruction of the world. This is like something from a movie -- the greatest con of all time, except instead pocketing a diamond or emptying the vault of the Bellagio, he's made off with an Oscar, a Grammy, the Nobel Peace Prize, a $100 million, and has done it all in plain sight, playing the role of Mother Earth's altruistic saviour. I wonder if he's also sending cryptic clues to a disheveled member of the FBI, taunting them about his success? Actually, he's probably sending them to George Bush.
Taking away Obama's teleprompter
Tuesday, 17 June 2008John Podhoretz on Contentions at Commentary Magazine writes about how important it is for Republican hopes to get Barack Obama away from the teleprompter and into Q&A forums where he cripples his message with vagueness and uncertainty:
The November election is, and remains, Barack Obama’s to lose. Usually, candidates whose victories are entirely in their own hands make it through. It is clear Obama’s path to victory is through the teleprompter. Let him give a big speech and he drives it like Tiger Woods hitting a fairway, as he did Sunday with his stunning sermon about the importance of fathers. But let him sit for an interview with a well-prepared reporter who isn’t interested in shilling for him and Obama makes mistake after mistake. This is what happened the other day with ABC’s Jake Tapper, who got Obama to talk about how we need to treat terrorism as a law-enforcement matter — which is exactly what he should not be saying if he wants to solidify those less-liberal Democratic votes in the states where he was shellacked by Hillary Clinton — and how he opposes all forms of school choice — which works against his vague message that he is a vague agent of vague change.
The only problem? Getting Obama to agree to a forum that will shine an unforgiving light on his greatest weakness. The media may end up deciding this election.
Sound Advice
Jennifer Rubin, over at Commentary Magazine's Contentions blog, has some good advice for the Obama campaign:
But really, one wonders if the “A” foreign policy team is ever going to arrive at camp Obama. It would seem he would be best served by several steps. First, stop making up facts. Get it right about the difference between the 1993 world trade center bombing trial and Nuremberg, the precedents for presidental summits, and what language they speak in Afghanistan. Second, get some decent briefings on developments in Iraq from our own military and independent experts, or just read the news. Third, come up with a forward-looking policy that is not based on historical errors or inaccurate facts and let Obama tout himself as the tough realist for the 21st century. And finally, get rid of advisors who make people wonder if he is really ready to sit at the grown-up’s table.
I'm torn. On the one hand, if Obama wins in November then I would hope, beyond hope, that he would get serious about national security and foreign policy. However, if he doesn't take suggestions, such as Rubin's, then he's going to be a heck of a lot easier to beat.
Well, like John McCain says: 'I'd sooner lose the election than lose the war.' Somehow I doubt that Team Barry feels the same way. Which is understandable if you don't really believe we are at war.
Class
From USA Today, via Race42008:
A different kind of politician?:
Rendell, who plans to campaign on Obama’s behalf and raise money for him, said tonight’s event in Philadelphia is a joint fundraiser for Obama and the cash-strapped Democratic National Committee.
But in a sign of the urgency to raise campaign cash, Rendell said Obama didn’t want to reschedule tonight’s fundraiser, even though the governor warned him that many Philadelphia donors were headed to the New Jersey shore for the weekend. Rendell said Obama told him: “We don’t need the people. We just need the checks.”
The Shamelessness of MoveOn.org
MoveOn.org must really hate their country. I was reading the RCP Blog when I saw this video. I'm amazed, is this supposed to be effective?
There are US troops in Germany, yes? They've been there for about 60 years (ever since that conflict back in the 40s, right?), so if Iraq stablises completely and something that helps maintain that is the presence of US (or indeed UN) forces, is that such a bad thing?
This '100 years in Iraq' thing is a pretty flimsy point for MoveOn to latch on to. Maybe it was the right sort of thing to say back in 2006, but this is 2008 and things have changed.
Blake Dvorak makes a good point (and one that is probably shared with a lot of people irrespective of political orientation):
I have an eleven month old baby boy, too, as well as a nine year old boy and a five year old girl. If upon turning eighteen and becoming adults, any of them decided they wanted to serve our country by joining the Armed Forces, I would have nothing but pride and respect for their decision - as I have for every young man and young woman who makes that personal choice. Unfortunately, Moveon.org and other members of the far left don't share the same pride for those who choose to serve America in uniform.
Bush made the world safer
Oliver Kamm in The Guardian (of all places!) writes about how Bush really has made the world a safer place:
For all Bush's verbal infelicity, diplomatic brusqueness, negligence in planning for post-Saddam Iraq, and insouciance regarding standards of due process when prosecuting the war on terror, the world is a safer place for the influence he has exercised.
Sure, it may have a little bite, but the fact of the matter is that the world is a safer place now. And one of the reasons it is safer is because the Bush administration (and the West in general) have identified the enemy that presents the greatest threat to our society:
The most fundamental decision in western security policy in the past seven years has not been the overthrow of Saddam Hussein. It has been the recognition that the most voluble adversaries of western society are not merely a criminal subculture, and still less an incipient liberation movement. Rather, they are a reactionary, millenarian and atavistic force with whom accommodation is impossible as well as intensely undesirable.
I actually feel sorry for Bush; he may not be a great communicator and he's made plenty of bad decisions but he's been one of the most courageous and ambitious Presidents in memory. His hand was forced by 9/11, but he met the challenge with a good heart, strong values and a steadfast belief in the advancement of freedom and liberty. Sometimes what you want isn't always what you need, and as much as a lot of people like to play the 'we wouldn't be in this mess if Gore had won' card, the person the world needed on September 12, like it or not, was George W. Bush.
