A Misplay of the Change in Iraq Strategy
Whatever Bush's rationale, the Democrats were handed a gift, with a razor-thin edge in the Senate: they could have declared victory over "stay the course" and imposed tough conditions (i.e., benchmarks) on Congressional funding; if the Bush revised policy had not worked, they could have argued a good faith effort and then cut off funding. Instead, they read Bush's actions as a sign of weakness and decided to go for broke: an unconditional withdrawal. All of the Dem Senate hopefuls for President--Obama, Clinton, Dodd, Biden, etc.--inexplicably fell in line, probably because of the political need to placate the highly motivated, leftist/anti-war wing of the party. This was a risky move because it gave these candidates a vested interest in the failure of the surge and put their credibility and judgment on the line, not to mention the chilling effect on our alliances and an unconstitutional breach into Commander in Chief responsibilities.
The fact is that a benchmark package did carry Congress, and as the surge policy has undoubtedly worked in drastically cutting down military and civilian casualties and wiping out Al Qaeda throughout Iraq. Iraq stopped being front-page news, and the Democratic candidates were forced to backtrack, lamely arguing that success is still a work-in-progress on the Iraq political front or exaggerating the role of the Awakening in Anbar Province in terms of the surge's success across Iraq, the critical mass achieved in rebuilding the Iraq military and police, the crackdown on the Shiite militia, and ongoing transition of stabilized provinces to Iraqi military control. The Dems also want to give credit to the surge to the ground troops vs. Gen. Petraeus and the military command; this also seems to be disingenuous--apparently the military leadership took all the blame for the Iraqi stalemate, but deserves none of the credit for the success of the revised strategy.
This tendency of Obama and other high-profile Democrats to refuse to acknowledge what even the liberal media conceded several months ago is a core credibility problem. Bill O'Reilly, in a recent televised interview with Obama, even served it up on a silver platter, allowing Obama to save face by having the "judgment" as a state senator (without intelligence briefings) to have opposed the war but to admit the surge worked. At one point, Obama concedes military actions have been successful (although he takes pains to ensure McCain doesn't get credit for his courageous political stand in favor of the surge), but he is still in a state of denial and getting him to concede facts that have already been corroborated by independent sources is like trying to pull teeth. This is a problem.
So is Obama's uncharacteristic attempt to sound hawkish on Afghanistan and Pakistan, which I'm sure thrills his leftist/anti-war backers, by arguing the "real" story is the fight in Afghanistian and his patently absurd suggestion that Bush and McCain are following his lead. We need to understand the delicate situation in Pakistan right now, where the Pakistani people feel that terrorist attacks on the civilian population are payback for their cooperation with the US war on terror. Obama is trying to paint the issue that the "real" enemy is in Afghanistan and Pakistan. That Al Qaeda and other terrorist recruits, chased out of Iraq, might be deployed elsewhere should not be surprising.
I would agree that we need to deploy, in conjunction with the new Pakistan government, similar anti-insurgency and troop footprint tactics proven to work in Iraq and explore face-saving ways for US and Pakistan forces to stabilize western Pakistan. But let's recognize Barack Obama's real aim here, which is political expediency by arguing two fronts is a zero-sum game. This would be like arguing that the WWII European theater campaign was a distraction from the war in the Pacific, because Japan attacked us, not the Nazis. But the fact is that Obama can't turn the tables on McCain: McCain has supported the Afghanistan effort from the get-go, but he has shown the judgment that Obama doesn't have, i.e., Obama's aggressive stand regarding Pakistan has been denounced by Pakistan's leaders, including the late Benazir Bhutto.
Obama has completely misplayed his hand in terms of how to convince moderates and independents he would make a legitimate Commander in Chief. He should have voted to fund American troops--especially when it was clear that the votes were there to carry it. (It would have been difficult for his Senate colleagues to attack him given the fact of his 2002 speech against going to war in Iraq; once the invasion is a fact, you are playing a different hand, including your moral obligation not to leave the country in a state of chaos. He should have visited the Iraq war theater multiple times and consulted in-depth with Gen. Petraeus and others on an ongoing basis. This would have sent out the message that he was open-minded and processing points of view different from his own.
Finally, he should have flatly agreed that the surge worked; no matter how the Democrats try to rationalize things, what was at stake in 2007 was not whether political reconciliation and other issues were working--it was the situation on the ground, the war. The American people know it. It doesn't matter whether the Democrats had a laundry list of criticisms; an Iraqi democracy, like any government, is going to be imperfect, and Iraqi citizens are not going to rubberstamp Democratic Party imposed priorities.
Obama's failure to acknowledge the success of the surge and his failure to join McCain, whom advocated for a larger troop footprint to stabilize Iraq from the get-go, deprives him of McCain's key distinction from Bush on the conduct of the war. Obama's argument against Bush could have been as McCain's is: Why did it take so long for Bush to make the right decisions? Even Biden at one time, I believe, agreed with McCain's argument for more troops. The problem with both Obama and Biden, though, is when the President proposed the surge policy, the Dems argued it couldn't work. That directly reflects on their competency to assume the role of Commander in Chief.
The Biden Choice for Veep
This may seem like a conventional criticism, but I'm making a larger point. When Hillary Clinton talks about those 18M cracks in the glass ceilings, i.e., votes for her, very few pundits are pointing out the elephant in the room. Hillary Clinton's principal virtue in the later primaries were not people voting for Hillary: they were principally voting AGAINST Barack Obama. Hillary Clinton had her own problems, including the huge credibility problems caused by her claims of having been pinned down by sniper fire in a visit to Bosnia, which was thoroughly disproven and (like Obama) she was attempting to fluff up a meager resume by repeatedly and disingenuously claiming "35 years" of experience, when, in fact, she was elected to the Senate in 2000 as a carpetbagger, has had almost no bipartisan record of accomplishments--or any notable legislation on her own merits, and has had virtually the same voting record as Obama and her main Senate competitors. In addition (prior to Palin's selection), there is no one person whom could have motivated the Republican base more than Hillary Clinton on the national ticket.
I think Obama's refusal to seriously consider putting Hillary Clinton on the ticket was a huge mistake, not so much in terms of Democratic unity and the gender issue, but in terms of his own persona and judgment. Right now Hillary Clinton's political future is tied in terms of how well she plays her current role as Obama cheerleader. However, the Senate's most liberal senator picked the third most liberal senator, a Washington insider whom has spent over 35 years in the Senate, hardly by any stretch of the imagination a change candidate. What Obama needed to pick was somebody with a more moderate record and some administrative experience. I mentioned in earlier posts I thought he would have been better served with someone like Bill Richardson or Evan Bayh. He couldn't have picked someone from outside Washington, which would have meant just 3 years of national experience for the overall ticket.
If I'm a Republican this year, the ticket I would have really feared would have been a ticket among Evan Bayh, Bill Richardson and/or Harold Ford (although Richardson's "I'm more pro-withdrawal than the rest of you" stand really undercut his credibility). These are more moderate Democrats with some red state appeal whom would have been much tougher for McCain to beat.
Obama's Character Issue
I have to laugh at the Democrats' indignation at McCain campaign manager Rick Davis' comment that the election "is not about issues". Each year the sparrows return to Capistrano, and the Democrats claim they own the issues. What Davis is really saying is that the election is not going to be decided by wedge single-issue voters like anti-war (Democrats) or pro-life (Republicans), but on a composite view of the candidates--not only can they talk the talk, but can they walk the walk. In other words, do you have confidence in his ability to lead and for him to deliver on his promises?
Barack Obama has come across as arrogant, elitist, obstinate, and defensive. His running down President Bush and American policy in front of cheering European crowds, his "we are the moment" excesses, his repeated assertions about his political opponents "not getting it" or "they must think you're stupid" or that heartland Americans are "bitter", clinging to guns and Bibles, and voting against their own self-interests, his above-cited refusal to admit the success of the surge, which he claimed would not work, or to visit Iraq or to meet with General Petraeus over most of the prior 2 years (despite running on Iraq). And, of course, Obama was in a state of denial over Rev. Jeremiah "The Audacity of Hope" Wright, until Rev. Wright held a press conference criticizing his protege--at which point Obama promptly threw him under the bus. His repeated assertions of phantom allegations of Republicans questioning his patriotism, that McCain will play the race card, etc., are growing tiresome. In particular, for some reason McCain's choice of Sarah Palin has gotten under his skin, and over the past week he seems to be going out of his way to compare himself with Palin, which is very puzzling for the front-runner on a ticket.
Obama's judgment also came into his play on his mishandling of the energy issue by implying our structural trade imbalance in energy supplies was simply an auto maintenance issue. What he never addressed was why it's OK to import offshore or other oil at over $100/barrel from other parts of the world, instead of developing our own offshore resources, generating good American jobs in the process. Right now we're importing about 60% of our oil used. There is no doubt we're going to need to cut down our daily use of about 20M barrels per oil per day. But whereas we were used to buying up most of the surplus oil on the market, we now have competition. Barack Obama doesn't seem to understand that reducing that 20M barrels per day is going to take time and technological breakthroughs. In the meanwhile, oil prices are doing to depend on supply/demand of surplus oil production. With many production fields beginning to mature, not to mention the possibility of wars disrupting oil shipments, it is critical we ramp up American energy resources. We cannot afford Democratic analysis paralysis. If there is a prolonged energy supply disruption throwing the American economy into a great depression, the Democratic Party will cease to exist. You can argue all you want disputing how much oil exists and how long it will take to become commercial, that you can't drill your way out of it. It's not the point. We are running on borrowed time, we need to expedite production while we vigorously look at reducing oil demand. Even if we just ramp up from 8 to 12M barrels, those are 4M barrels we are no longer competing for on the open market, which will ease pricing pressure.
Barack's Choice of Issues
When Obama gave his Barackpolis address a couple of weeks ago, I was stunned--but not exactly surprised--to see him rattle off a laundry list of same old same old Democratic "solutions". There was the New Deal, then the New Society: you would expect more than simply trying to break through a backlog of retread solutions of protectionism, class warfare, attacks on Big Business, socialized health care, etc.
The Reaction to Sarah Palin
I look at all the reactions to John McCain's pick of Sarah Palin, and I have to smile--because it was pure John McCain. I NEVER for a second bought that Lieberman was going to be McCain's pick; a lot of pundits are arguing it was because of a potential party revolt and the like. I wrote a number of posts before McCain's selection and I never put him on the list. The Democrats will never forgive the fact that he refused to step aside after a marginal loss to an anti-Iraq candidate for the nomination. Right now he's the deciding vote that keeps the Democrats in control of the Senate. If the Democrats pick up at least one net seat in the election, which is almost a sure thing, Lieberman will be stripped. What are Lieberman's options? I think John McCain would want Lieberman to remain in the Senate because if he was to resign his seat, it's likely he would be replaced by yet another liberal on defense issues. But McCain has already signaled he would recruit Democrats to his cabinet, and I would not be surprised to see Lieberman and Richardson on his list. But as to Veep, if McCain forces were leaking things like his consideration of a pro-abortion choice candidate, I never seriously believed that to be more than a decoy, to maximize the swerve, which is just pure maverick McCain. I'm convinced he had Palin in mind all the time.
There have been three candidates I considered McCain Republicans: Bobby Jindal, Tom Pawlenty, and Sarah Palin, based on a reformist/bipartisan agenda. I did think on paper Mitt Romney made a credible choice, especially given his business experience and dealing with health care in Massachusetts. However, as soon as Biden was picked and I saw the McCain campaign go after Biden's differences with Obama, it was clear Romney was no longer in play. I had ruled out Palin fairly early, mostly because I had read a blurb about so-called Troopergate, didn't research the details and assumed McCain didn't need this Alaskan issue play out in the middle of his campaign. Jindal had also ruled himself out fairly early. Pawlenty was a good choice--but I think what tipped me off McCain might be heading in the direction of a woman was when he mentioned Meg Whitman as a person he would listen to during the Saddleback Civic Forum. But I never really thought McCain would pick a woman for the sake of picking a woman. I suspected, like Meg Whitman, it would be a female administrator.
I mentioned in my first post after the Palin announcement that Obama spokesman Bill Burton had taken a disrespectful swipe at Governor Palin, ridiculing her mayoral experience and ignoring her experience as governor. Barack Obama seemed to attribute that statement to hair-trigger responses in the heat of a political campaign. But this appears to be a rather obvious game of 'good cop'/'bad cop', because on a subsequent interview with CNN host Anderson Cooper (quoted in an earlier post), Barack Obama HIMSELF ridiculed Palin's mayoral experience, comparing the city's budget to running his campaign, which equates administrative experience with campaign operations--patently ludicrous and circular reasoning (i.e., any candidate is an administrator by definition). Obama also ignored Palin's gubernatorial experience.
One could argue that on its face, 2 years as governor is not sufficient grounds to be President, although we can point to a number of Presidents with no prior federal experience: Carter, Reagan, Clinton, and GW Bush. But one can argue there's a qualitative difference between what Palin and other governors have done. Palin basically had to bust the good old boy network, including the GOP state chairman, the GOP attorney general, and the incumbent Republican governor. She passed an ethics reform law, got a vendor agreement to set up a natural gas pipeline under much more favorable terms than had been advanced by her predecessor, hiked oil taxes, cut property taxes, vetoed several spending bills, slashed budgets and had put through an energy rebate. That, by itself, is more than many governors do in two or more terms. In short, Sarah Palin has shown the ability to get things done and has a track record. Barack Obama has nothing remotely similar to Sarah Palin's record in his 3 years in the Senate, no matter how he tries to fluff up his record on Senate ethics reform (McCain, who initiated reforms on Senate ethics and immigration legislation, considered Obama's participation in the process too partisan and counterproductive) and a couple of minor noncontroversial measures with Senator Luger and others.
Now the Democrats are trying to make an issue over the fact that Sarah Palin as mayor and governor has made use of federal earmark money, claiming McCain is contradicting himself. Nonsense! It REALLY takes chutzpah for somelike like Barack Obama, who has applied for and received multiple earmarks, e.g., for the hospital system where his own wife works and General Dynamics, with an Obama fundraising board member, to bring up Palin. First of all, Obama's use of earmarks violates the spirit of ethics reform, something ironically he's trying to take credit for--and which is business as usual in Washington (vs. McCain, who as a matter of principle, refuses them). Second, even if Palin advocated or used earmarks as an Alaskan local or state politician, she doesn't have the ability to deliver on those promises: she has no votes in Washington. Only Alaska's US representative and senators can. Now if McCain had picked one of the Alaskans with a vote in Congress, that would be questionable. Alaska, in fact, does very well when you factor in tax money sent/received, but Alaska has unique infrastructure challenges.
No comments:
Post a Comment