Try erasing this, Barry

As the surge continues to make Iraq safer and more stable while enabling its armed forces to stand on their own, Barack Obama is working feverishly to erase all evidence that he had opposed it (Jim Geraghty).

He should have known better.

Fun with maps

Blame Doug Mataconis for pointing me to the Predict November site.  Armed only with instinct and the latest Rasmussen polls, I came up with this:

Unlike Doug, I see OH and NJ as competitive.  Even as Obama solidified the nomination for the Democrats and had is now deflated “bounce,” his lead shrank in New Jersey and McCain stayed on the right side of a statistical dead heat in the Buckeye State.

The way I see it, McCain needs to win Ohio and Virginia.  From there, it’s either shore up the west (Colorado, Nevada, and either North Dakota or Montana), or take the risk and go all-in in New Jersey (he’d still need one more state, but I’m guessing ND will fall his way).

In the twenty years I’ve been following politics, every presidential race has a WTF state (as in “What the F***?), a state that goes the wrong way for reasons no one understands at the time (it may or may not make more sense later).  In 1988, that was Maryland, which Bush somehow carried despite a Democratic advantage so strong that it was one of six states that went Jimmy Carter’s way in 1980.  In 1992, the Perot effect created more than a few WTF candidates, but I think Montana was the most surprising (Clinton is the only Democrat since LBJ to win there).  In 1996, it was Arizona (not even LBJ could carry Arizona, but Clinton did).  West Virginia edged out Tennessee for the honor in 2000 (Al Gore’s home state had a history of electing Republicans in close contests, WV hadn’t done that since 1916).  Four years later, even with the red-blue divide nicely predicting almost every state in the union, Bush still pulled an unexpected upset in New Mexico.  Looking back, though, most of the WTF moments can be easily explained (Perot for Montana ‘92; demagoguery on Social Security for Arizona ‘96; social issues and anti-radical environmentalism for West Virginia ‘00; and Bush’s surprisingly strong showing among Hispanic voters for New Mexico ‘04).

This year, I’m thinking New Jersey fits the bill.  President Bush cut his 2000 deficit by more than half (the 5th biggest gain for him in 2004), and McCain is an even better fit for the Garden State.  Moreover, before our politics re-oriented toward the cultural divide that culminated in the red-blue split, New Jersey was the most Republican state in the northeast (besides New Hampshire).  I think it could be again.

Michael O’Hanlon - Democrat - on Barack Obama

Turns out Barack Obama still wants every American out of Iraq - regardless of the situation on the ground - within sixteen months of taking office.  The harshest words in response to that came from - another Democrat (Washington Post):

Michael E. O’Hanlon, a Democratic defense analyst at the Brookings Institutionwho has been an outspoken supporter of the war in Iraq, said he could not believe that Obama would put such a definitive timeline into print before a trip to Iraq, where he is to consult with Iraqi leaders and U.S. commanders.

“To say you’re going to get out on a certain schedule — regardless of what the Iraqis do, regardless of what our enemies do, regardless of what is happening on the ground — is the height of absurdity,” said O’Hanlon, who described himself as “livid.” “I’m not going to go to the next level of invective and say he shouldn’t be president. I’ll leave that to someone else.”

Got ya covered, Mike!

Majority of Democrats think Afghanistan wasn’t worth it

The ABC-Washington Post poll on attitudes regarding the WBK War had an eye-popper on Afghanistan, and unlike last year, they noticed it this time (Wa Po):

A narrow majority — 51 percent — said that the war there has been worth fighting. And 51 percent also said the United States must win in Afghanistan to succeed in the broader terrorism battle . . .

Think about it, nearly half the country (the actual number is 42%) don’t think we need to defeat the Taliban to “succeed in the broader terrorism battle” (The number who believe the war in Afghanistan wasn’t worth it was 45%).

Even more troubling was this little fact (ABC, emphasis added):

Majorities of Republicans and independents think the war in Afghanistan was worth fighting and that the effort there is linked to the eventual defeat of terrorism more broadly. Majorities of Democrats disagree.

In other words, the folks who wouldvote Barack Obama into office don’t think we should be in Afghanistan.  Does anyone really think Obama will ignore them, when they are echoing the views of most of the rest of the world, which didn’t really want us to fight the Taliban in the first place?

Lest anyone forget, this is a candidate so vapid he equates the WBK War to “climate change” and terrorism to ICE raids on illegal aliens (Jim Geraghty). He has talked not only of giving Osama bin Laden a trial, but one before an international court (The Corner).  His statements reveal a man with no sense of the urgency or importance of this war.

We’re supposed to believe he will ensure we win in Afghanistan?  Sorry, but I’m not buying it.

He did it again - McCain has wiped out Obama’s poll lead

The John McCain candidacy refuses to die.

All throughout 2007 he was written off, only to take the lead in New Hampshire right at the end of the year, win the state in January, and become the GOP front-runner overnight.

Then a stumble in Michigan was supposed to open the way for Romney, Huckabee, or Thompson.  Instead, McCain closed it in South Carolina and Florida.

Now, with the Democrats finally settling on Barack Obama as the nominee, his “bounce” was supposed to leave McCain in the dust - forever.

Well, Newsweek, otherwise known as Obamaweek (NRO - The Corner), has admitted that Barack Obama’s lead in their poll has fallen from fifteen to three (a statistical tie when you factor in the margin of error).

Meanwhile, Rasmussen (upon whom I have a lot more faith), released their latest numbers this evening:

The race for the White House is tied. The Rasmussen Reports daily Presidential Tracking Poll for Saturday shows Barack Obama and John McCain each attract 43% of the vote.

After all the “healing,” all the “momentum,” and even Ben Tribbett succumbing to the “O,” John McCain has managed to tie him - again.

Why this election will decide the fate of the War (Part IV)

This is the final part of my series on the election and the war.  The first two dealt with why and how an Obama Administration would lead us to defeat in Iraq and Afghanistan; the third dealt with how John McCain can make it easier for the voters (particularly right-wing voters) to support him.  At the end of the day (or, to be more precise, by the 4th day of November), it will be up to the American people in general (and Republican voters in particular) to have the resolve necessary to win the war.

I know right-wing and center-right voters have their issues with McCain.  That said, I would ask the to keep a few things in mind.

The next four years on economic policy will be driven by calls for tax increases, not cuts: Therefore, McCain’s refusal to support tax increases - including the tax increase that sunset of the 2001 tax cuts wold mean - is far more important than his initial opposition to the tax cuts themselves.

The sweetheart deals and trade restraints that cost the American consumer are the very things McCain has opposed his entire career: Ethanol subsidies, economic tariffs, dairy compacts, there are a whole slew of market interventions that aid special interests.  These are the very things McCain opposes (even when the states have primaries - as Wisconsin voters discovered).

McCain has never backed “cap-and-trade” without increased nuclear power: Most of the “greenhouse gas” debate is centered on the assumption that America must either continue to rely on fossil fuels or shift to uneconomical alternatives.  John McCain does not subscribe to that view.  He is one of the very few people who sees a robust role for nuclear power in our future.  In McCain’s world, it’s mot pie-in-the-sky solar power or windmill power that will enable America to cut back its emissions; it’s nuclear power.

On campaign finance regulation, McCain erred, but he had a lot of help: I am continually surprised at how much McCain is blamed for the President who broke his word and signed campaign finance “reform,” and the Democrats who rammed it through Congress, and the justices on the Supreme Court who twisted the Constitution to allow it.  I’ll agree that it was a terrible mistake, but McCain couldn’t have done it by himself.

On immigration, the alternative is . . . ?  We all know Obama is just as bad as McCain is; the Libertarians are the open-borders party, and Ralph Nader is, well, Ralph Nader.  You have to reach all the way to the Constitution Party (Chuck Baldwin) to find an improvement over McCain.

I mention these issues to address concerns many voters on the right (and especially bloggers on the right) have with McCain, as opposed to other alternatives (namely Barr and Baldwin).  There is, however, one that should trump the rest.  Last, but most,

John McCain is the only candidate who will do what it takes to win the War: Not a single major-party or minor-party opponent is prepared to do that.  Barr has abandoned his previous support for the liberation of Iraq, and his party wasn’t happy with Afghanistan either.  The Constitution Party (Baldwin) was even more dovish on both Afghanistan and Iraq.

So, the painful reality is this: a vote for anyone except John McCain is a vote from someone who is prepared to lose the war.

Now, many voters (and bloggers) may have issues that they consider more important than the war (some have already expressed them publicly); others don’t support the war.  I would disagree with them, of course, but their opinions are their opinions.  I make the statement above to remind voters and bloggers alike that those who support the war, and believe victory is paramount  have no other choice in this election.  To choose another candidate is become enthralled by a distraction (how ever important it may seem); or, that voter or blogger is, in reality, willing to accept defeat.

Again, that is for the voters to decide, although I should note no President was ever elected on the platform of accepting defeat while America was at war.  Furthermore, as I mentioned above (but feel the need to reiterate), this isn’t about throwing votes away or the perfect being the enemy of the good.  When it comes to the war -every candidate not named John McCain supports defeat on some level.  Victory’s champion, by contrast, is McCain, and only McCain.

If the American people keep that in mind, and remember why victory is essential, McCain will win.  He can (and should) make it easier, of course, but that one fact remains unchanged.  It is up to the American voters - especially those of us who have supported the liberations of Afghanistan and Iraq - to decide if we really have the determination to win.  We’ll find out on November 4.

If Bush’s energy bill was so bad, how about we elect the guy who actually opposed it?

The Audacity of Hype had this to say about President Bush’s energy policy (McCain campaign):

When Bush assigned Cheney to create energy policy, he met with the environmental groups once, the renewable energy groups once, he met with the oil and gas companies 40 times. Washington has become so dominated by the powerful, by the well-connected, that the voices of the American people are no longer heard.

Based on that, we should obviously be very upset that the President’s energy policy was voted into law three years ago.  In fact, if we want to be the change we’re waiting for, we should listen to Obama and support the one candidate who voted against it!

Whoops!  Never mind.

McCain didn’t flip-flop on oil drilling; Florida did

The Democrats have become so desperate to divert the issue from their refusal to support offshore oil drilling that they are now claiming John McCain flipped on the issue.  Sadly, most on the right have become so enamored with considering McCain a lefty that they’re swallowing the myth whole.

The fact is, McCain has always supported the same policy on offshore drilling: let the individual states decide.  McCain’s policy never changed; the implications of it changed dramatically.

As late as ten days ago, McCain’s policy appeared similar to an offshore ban.  Irwin Stelzer (Weekly Standard) put it thusly on June 9:

. . . Obama wants to maintain the ban on drilling off-shore, and by leaving it to the governors of those states, McCain effectively favors the same ban.

The reason the policies seemed similar was the widespread assumption that no coastal state would support offshore oil drilling - including the biggest of all swing states: Florida.  The Sunshine State’s opposition to drilling seemed particularly etched in stone (Politico, emphasis added):

A veteran of Florida politics who is not tied to Crist says the gas price-driven poll numbers justify the drilling flip-flop (justify in the political sense, that is):

“[After many years working in the state], I would have told you that it was the single issue that would never, ever, ever change. Ev-uh,” says the source.

Then, the people of Florida affirmed Steyn’s Law (”something always happens until it doesn’t”).  Or, as the source cited by Politico puts it:

But “somewhere between $3.00 and $4.00, the [poll] number literally flipped upside down.”

Translation: oil drilling is now OK (politically) in Florida, meaning McCain’s difference with Obama is an actual difference.

Of course, all of this is merely a distraction from the larger point. McCain is at least willing to expand America’s domestic energy supply (and not just in fossil fuels, he called for a doubling of America’s nuclear capacity - Bloomberg); whereas Obama has presented nothing but flowery words and populist rhetoric.

Now Obama has foot-in-mouth disease

OK, I know some of his critics would say he’s had it for a while, but that aside, here’s the latest example - The Audacity of Hype insists he won’t make Osama bin Laden a “martyr” (Boston Globe):

Democrat Barack Obama said yesterday he would bring Osama bin Laden to justice in a way that wouldn’t allow the Sept. 11 mastermind to become a martyr.

At a Washington news conference after huddling for the first time with a newly formed group of national security advisers, he acknowledged that bin Laden might not be taken alive, but suggested that if he is, the Nazi war crime trials at Nuremberg after World War II would be a good model.

Stephen Schwartz (Weekly Standard) quickly notes the problem:

Uhhh . . . Sen. Obama . . . ummm . . . the main Nuremberg defendants were hanged. Goering and Ley committed suicide, Bormann was tried in absentia, Krupp was too sick to appear, Funk and Hess got life sentences, Donitz, Raeder, Speer, von Neurath and von Schirach got shorter prison terms, Fritszche, subbing for Goebbels, was acquitted, along with von Papen and Schacht.

But the big fish–Frank, Frick, Jodl, Kaltenbrunner, Keitel, Ribbentrop, Rosenberg, Sauckel, Seyss-Inquart, and Streicher–were executed. That is, the main generals, administrators of the Holocaust, and ideologists.

Maybe Obama thinks Osama is just a construction engineer like Osama’s father or Speer.

And the seven main defendants in the Tokyo war crimes trial were also hanged.

He then makes the larger point:

Does anybody in the Obama camp know any history? Do any of them realize that Osama would paint himself as a martyr even if all he got was a life sentence?

Glibness, thy name is Barack Obama.

Well said.

Why this election will decide the fate of the War (Part II)

In yesterday’s post, I presented reasons why I believe an Obama Administration will stop (and therefore lose) the WBK War - not just in Iraq, but Afghanistan as well.  Surprisingly, there hasn’t been much argument, which I take as a humbling reminder that I am not as important as my ego would like, otherwise I’d have more readers!

That said, I’m sure there are some who were surprised to read my assertion.  I stand by it, though, and I believe I can project how President Obama would do it.

It’s 2010; most (if not all) American troops are out of Iraq.  Iran’s proxies and al-Qaeda have likely regrouped and are carving up the place between them.  Meanwhile, outside actors (i.e., neither backed by al Qaeda or Iran) are causing enough mayhem to make it appear that the Sunni-Shia “civil war” has returned (keep in mind, both Iran and al-Q had a vested interest in maintaining the “Iraq civil war” mantra).

Most Americans assume that end of our involvement in Iraq would make the Afghanistan theatre easier.  They would be wrong.  In much of the rest of the world, Afghanistan and Iraq are distinctions without a difference.  As Obama will find out, our withdrawal from Iraq will do nothing to improve our image in the rest of the world.  If anything, about the only nation where a change in view might come is Saudi Arabia, which will be less happy with the United States.

Meanwhile, the pressure to likewise pull out of Afghanistan will become unbearable.  Already, a majority of Canadian Members of Parliament want their troops off the battlefield by 2011.  The Canadian Senate has called for negotiations with the Taliban; Pakistan and Britain are actually conducting said talks.

Finally, there is the al Qaeda-Taliban presence in Pakistan.  Obama has commented about going after them there, no matter what the Pakistani people want.  I would humbly submit that’s a lot of hot air.  Obama has done nothing to show that he would have the gumption to conduct a unilateralwar like that in the face of near-universal opposition (only India would support us, which for the short-sighted, Euro-centric Democratic Party means no one of significance would).  More likely, this vague talk of going after Pakistan is akin to the head-fake he pulled on pro-life Illinois voters during his tenure in the State Senate.  Moreover, once it becomes clear that a war with Pakistan is notwhat his international friends and domestic supporters want, the al Qaeda presence there will be Obama’s excuse for getting out of the Afghan “quagmire.”

From there, the revisionist approach to the last deacde (2001-10) will be swift.  It will go something like this: the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq were “overreactions” by an angry President who didn’t understand the ways of the world; a president who understands “nuance” and “diplomacy” would neverhave been so quick to act without thinking it through; perhaps if we had talked to the Taliban back then, they would have handed over Obama Osama (thank you, Susan Nelson) for trial, but now we’ll never know.

Of course, there will still be talk about “vigilance” and “resisting terror,” even as we hand over Afghanistan to a UN peacekeeping force that was best known as standing by while the Taliban took power the first time.  Also, no one will bother to mention the inconvenient fact that the Taliban appointed bin Laden their military Commander-in-Chief less than two weeks before 9/11, except for Vladimir Putin and the Republicans, who to the new regime and MSM will be just as bad as Putin.

So when the last American leaves Afghanistan (which I assume will be after the last one leaves Iraq), we will hear endless praise for Obama as the man who got us out of “Bush’s wars.”  Foreign capitals will hail the “new era.”  Even the newly rehabilitated Taliban will get in on the fun . . . until we are hit again, and it will be far, far worse.

By then, though, the Wahhabists, Ba’athists, and Khomeinists will know that America, in the long run, is weak.  Maybe there will be war for a few years, but in time, our morale will weaken, our resolve will dissolve, and they will win.  That will be what President Obama teaches them.

That is also why we cannot allow him to be elected.

As readers of this space know, I don’t place much value in “defensive voting,” and despite the above declaration, I still don’t.  If the election comes down to “Obama will lose the war,” he may still have the opportunity to do just that.

It will be far better for the theme of the campaign to be, “John McCain will fight the war, and only John McCain can win the War.”  For McCain, this has the double advantage of not only comparing himself to Obama, but also to allthird-party candidates, each of whom (Nader, Barr, and Baldwin) are prepared to withdraw quickly from Iraq and are likely to support pulling out of Afghanistan as well.

Will that be enough for McCain to win the election?  Perhaps, but there are other things he can do, and other things right and center-right voters can do, to make his election easier.  I’ll get into those in later posts.