The Redhunter

OBAMA: You know, Jake, I have to say I completely disagree that people have been walking back from anything. They may be correcting the characterizations or distortions of John McCain or others of what I said. What I said was I would meet with our adversaries including Iran, including Venezula, including Cuba, including North Korea, without preconditions but that does not mean without preparation.

TAPPER: Well, what's the difference?

OBAMA: There's a huge difference. When you talk about Iran, for example, the Bush administration's position has been we won't have talks with Iran until they agree to everything we want to them to agree to. That's not diplomacy. That's asking them to do what they say and then acknowledge we are willing to meet with them. That's not how diplomacy works. That's not how Ronald Reagan operated with Gorbachev or Kennedy with Khruschev or Nixon with Mao.

His advisor, Susan E. Rice, is also trying to spin the "preparations" angle. From The New York Times (via LGF)

Susan E. Rice, a former State Department and National Security Council official who is a foreign policy adviser to the Democratic candidate, said that "for political purposes, Senator Obama's opponents on the right have distorted and reframed" his views. Mr. McCain and his surrogates have repeatedly stated that Mr. Obama would be willing to meet "unconditionally" with Mr. Ahmadinejad. But Dr. Rice said that this was not the case for Iran or any other so-called "rogue" state. Mr. Obama believes "that engagement at the presidential level, at the appropriate time and with the appropriate preparation, can be used to leverage the change we need," Dr. Rice said. "But nobody said he would initiate contacts at the presidential level; that requires due preparation and advance work."

Now, that last bit about "nobody said" there would be contacts at the presidential level without "preparation and advance work" is recently added spin, as we shall see.

Obama is talking out of both sides of his mouth. Nothing in his (new) "preparations" spin suggest that he'd require a darn thing from any of these dictators before meeting with them. Iran would still be killing American troops in Iraq as a President Obama met with President Ahmadinejad. Wonderful.

He's spinning in circles and he knows it. The bottom line is that he has said nothing to indicate that he'd be less than willing to meet with dictators who are working toward our demise without their agreeing to anything beforehand.

And of course his implication that what he wants to do is similar to how "Ronald Reagan operated with Gorbachev or Kennedy with Khruschev or Nixon with Mao" is ridiculous, and here's why

First up, Rich Lowry on Kennedy and Khrushchev

The earnest, young American president wanted to forestall any possibility of misunderstanding and to win Khrushchev's commitment to the international status quo. The blustery, risk-taking Soviet premier wanted to bludgeon Kennedy into making concessions that would further the Soviet goal of global revolution. With such clashing objectives, the two leaders didn't exactly hit it off.

When Kennedy thought he was being accommodating, Khrushchev thought he was being weak. He pocketed rhetorical concessions by Kennedy and demanded more. Afterward, Kennedy called it "the roughest thing in my life." Kennedy adviser George Ball later said that Khrushchev had perceived Kennedy as "young and weak," and Kennedy confidant Gen. Maxwell Taylor thought Khrushchev concluded he could "shove this young man around." Vienna was the backdrop for Soviet assertion in the Cold War flash points to come.

Not exactly the type of meeting we want to repeat, Senator Obama. Best you bone up on your history before talking about diplomacy again.

Obama partisans will claim that he will do better than Kennedy. Perhaps. But nothing he says shows that he understands just how risky these unscripted meetings are. What is striking about his statements is that he shows no knowledge of what actually happened at these summits. He just keeps repeating the mantra that "Kennedy met with Khrushchev, and Reagan with Gorbachev," as if that alone settles it.

Further, what exactly does he plan on saying to these dictators that will persuade them to change their policies? He never says. All we hear about from his partisans is the mantra about the "need for talk" and "aggressive personal diplomacy", but never a word about what he will actually say

Apparently we are to simply believe that the magic of Obama will be enough to carry the day, because he is, well, Obama. Details are not necessary.

Lowry then take on Reagan-Gorbachev

Reagan believed in personal diplomacy, but concluded upon taking office that it was pointless to talk to Soviet hard-liner Leonid Brezhnev. In stiffening U.S. defenses and pursuing the Strategic Defense Initiative, his administration sought to convince Moscow, in the words of Secretary of State George Shultz, that restraint "was its most attractive, or only, option," while pressuring the tottering Soviet economic system.

When Mikhail Gorbachev came to power, the administration thought it had the strategic upper hand, and a man it could work with. Reagan met with his counterpart in Geneva and Reykjavik. Keenly aware of his inability to keep pace in a high-tech arms race, Gorbachev wanted any deal contingent on prohibiting SDI. Reagan said "no." Out of his weakness, Gorbachev eventually gave the Reagan administration the kinds of arms cuts it wanted and openings in the Soviet system. The Cold War was about to end.

Note also that Reagan never met with Leonid Brezhnev, Yuri Andropov, or Konstantin Chernenko believe he did not believe it to be worth doing so. So he didn't just rush off and meet with every Soviet leader, as Obama implies.

Lastly, if you need it here he is actually saying he'd meet with Ahmadinejad

And from last year's YouTube debate, he said he'd meet without preconditions.

QUESTION: In 1982, Anwar Sadat traveled to Israel, a trip that resulted in a peace agreement that has lasted ever since.

In the spirit of that type of bold leadership, would you be willing to meet separately, without precondition, during the first year of your administration, in Washington or anywhere else, with the leaders of Iran, Syria, Venezuela, Cuba and North Korea, in order to bridge the gap that divides our countries?

OBAMA: I would. And the reason is this, that the notion that somehow not talking to countries is punishment to them -- which has been the guiding diplomatic principle of this administration -- is ridiculous.

And here's the video (h/t LGF)

Go and read the whole transcript if you want context. Nothing else he says changes the fact that he said that he'd meet with the leaders of Iran, Syria, Venezuela, Cuba and North Korea without preconditions. He didn't say anything about "preparations". That's all just recently added spin.

Oh, and it's also on his website

Diplomacy: Obama is the only major candidate who supports tough, direct presidential diplomacy with Iran without preconditions. Now is the time to pressure Iran directly to change their troubling behavior. Obama would offer the Iranian regime a choice. If Iran abandons its nuclear program and support for terrorism, we will offer incentives like membership in the World Trade Organization, economic investments, and a move toward normal diplomatic relations. If Iran continues its troubling behavior, we will step up our economic pressure and political isolation. Seeking this kind of comprehensive settlement with Iran is our best way to make progress.

Again, nothing about "preparations".

Update

From an article last year by Frank Gaffney on why negotiating with Iran is a bad idea

First, such negotiations will legitimate one of the most dangerous regimes on the planet. By acceding to the pressure to accord the mullahocracy in Tehran the status of equal partners and members in good standing of the "community of nations" -- especially against the backdrop of its increasing aggressiveness, we reward that bad behavior. It should come as no surprise that there will be more of it in the future.

Second, embracing Ahmadinejad and his mullahs in this way can only alienate our natural allies: the people of Iran. They have lately been demonstrating a growing willingness to challenge the Islamofascists who have oppressed them for so long. The intensifying economic pressure of recent months -- a product of efforts to divest the stocks of publicly traded companies doing business with Tehran, the declining price of oil and international economic sanctions (such as they are) -- has helped make the Iranian regime even more unpopular at home. Now, it is inevitable that such pressure will be alleviated, as governments and businesses seize on the new diplomatic opening to rush in and prop up Ahmadinejad.

Third, the adoption of the negotiating track effectively forecloses other options for dealing with the danger posed by the Iranian regime. In particular, efforts to bring about its downfall will be precluded. Diplomats predictably will insist that nothing be done -- for example, through covert operations, more far-reaching and effective economic sanctions, military preparations, or political warfare -- that will jeopardize the prospects for successful negotiations.

The cumulative effect of these three repercussions will be to buy more time for the mullahs in Iran. They will use this time not to slacken their efforts to destabilize Iraq and hand the United States an epic defeat there, to suspend (let alone dismantle) their nuclear-weapons programs or to terminate their active and generous support for terrorist organizations like Hezbollah, Hamas, and al Qaeda.

Posted by Tom at 10:30 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

May 19, 2008

Obama's "Global Test"?

Now Senator Obama wants to hand over our energy and environmental policies to other nations.

"We can't drive our SUVs and eat as much as we want and keep our homes on 72 degrees at all times ... and then just expect that other countries are going to say OK," Obama said.

"That's not leadership. That's not going to happen," he added.

So... it's "leadership" to ask other countries to approve the temperature we set our thermostats at, or what size cars we buy and how often we drive them?

Talk about nanny-state government.

And to think that this is coming from a guy who's party accuses the right of wanting to "impose your values" on everybody.

These liberals want to tell you where to set your thermostat. Don't think it can happen? They proposed just that in California last year. Regulators wanted to mandate installation of a radio-controlled thermostat in everybody's house that they could control. Yes I know it didn't pass, but one thing's for certain, these liberals are nothing if not determined. And it looks like Obama may have bought into their plan as well.

Posted by Tom at 9:36 PM | Comments (1) | TrackBack

More Obama Follies on Iran

Not only is his idea of dealing with Iran to engage in "aggressive personal diplomacy", but he doesn't even think them to be a threat.

First, the Kennedy-Khruchshev talks were a disaster; for President Kennedy. The Soviet leader sized him up as a weakling and concluded that he could put nuclear missiles in Cuba, an event that almost brought about a war.

Reagan's meetings with Gorbachev are also problematic. The two met four times, and all but one were carefully scripted affairs. The one time they met without a prior agreement was in October of 1986 at Reykjavik, Iceland. This was a risky meeting for both leaders, and was widely viewed as a failure at the time, and is controversial to this day.

So previous presidents just didn't meet willy nilly with "our enemies". Most of their meetings were pre-planned events where they confirmed the results of months of behind-the-scenes negotiations. Further, Ahmadinejad is no Gorbachev or Brezhnev. He's more like Khruchshev, and unpredictable bully who can say just about anything, and for whom it's just about impossible to really prepare.

But the most silly part was when he said that "Iran may spend 1/100th of what we spend on the military," and that "If Iran ever tried to pose a serious threat to us, they wouldn't stand a chance."

And to think that this man might just become president.

Apparently the term "asymmetrical warfare" has never entered Obama's lexicon. Can he truly be unaware that Iran is killing our soldiers in Iraq? That they have sent in Quds Force agents and EFPs and do so to this day?

And outside of Iraq, does he imagine that Iran will only attack us in a traditional manner? Perhaps he's never heard of Operation Praying Mantis, the 1988 event in which the U.S. Navy sank half the Iranian fleet, an embarrassment they are wise enough not to repeat? If they do go after Navy again, it will be with unconventional tactics like the "swarm", which they practiced on three U.S. warships this past January.

And if Iran hits us around the globe, it will be through their terrorist proxies, making tracing difficult and time-consuming.

But suppose they do hit us directly with one or more nuclear weapons. Suppose that they don't hit the U.S., but one of our military installations in the region.

Would Obama respond? Would the liberal peace-at-any-price-nutroots-Movon.org crowd let him?

But don't just take it from me. The invaluable Victor Davis Hanson nails it

Talking with an Iranian theocrat like Mahmoud Ahmadinejad per se might not necessarily constitute appeasement. But continuing such talks without preconditions that made no progress in curbing Iranian nuclear agendas, or support for Hezbollah terrorists and Shiite militias in Iraq would not only be futile, but encourage further Iranian adventurism -- by the assurance that negotiations were infinite and there would be few lines in the sand and little chance of military opposition to follow. In our era, the locus classicus of appeasement is the near decade of negotiations, empty threats, and drawnout diplomacy with Slobodan Milosevic, in which with virtual impunity he butchered thousands of Croats, Kosovars, and Bosnians -- until a belated bombing war forced him to capitulate.

I'd say that's just about right.

Posted by Tom at 9:07 PM | Comments (1) | TrackBack

May 16, 2008

Bush in Israel and the Democrat Melt Down

Well well, so Senator Obama and a whole slew of Democrats are all bent out of shape over what President Bush said in Israel. Here's the part of his speech before the Knesset yesterday that has them all in a tizzy:

Some seem to believe that we should negotiate with the terrorists and radicals, as if some ingenious argument will persuade them they have been wrong all along. We have heard this foolish delusion before. As Nazi tanks crossed into Poland in 1939, an American senator declared: "Lord, if I could only have talked to Hitler, all this might have been avoided." We have an obligation to call this what it is -- the false comfort of appeasement, which has been repeatedly discredited by history. (Applause.)

Note, of course, that no Democrat is actually named. If the currently outraged Democrats had been thinking, they would have issued statements that went something like this:

"One thing all Americans agree on is that appeasement doesn't work. As president, I will engage in tough, principled, and direct diplomacy just like Kennedy, Nixon and Reagan before me. And of course, no American president will engage with terrorists, least of all those who seek to destroy our stalwart ally, Israel. I look forward to celebrating the 65th anniversary of Israel's independence."

But nooooo, they had to all go off and through a big hissy fit.

Senator Obama showed why he'll never be qualified to be president:

I'm a strong believer in civility and I'm a strong believer in a bipartisan foreign policy, but that cause is not served with dishonest, divisive attacks of the sort that we've seen out of George Bush and John McCain over the last couple days

and

That's exactly the kind of appalling attack that's divided our country and that alienates us from the world

"Divisive"? This from a senator who's party wants to force "gay marriage" on us through the courts; the most undemocratic branch of government? That is in bed with Movon.org, one of the most "divisive" groups out there? That panders to the nutroots crowd who regularly deride Bush and Cheney in the most vile terms?

Mark Salter nails Obama's M.O.

We have all become familiar with Senator Obama's new brand of politics. First, you demand civility from your opponent, then you attack him, distort his record and send out surrogates to question his integrity. It is called hypocrisy, and it is the oldest kind of politics there is.

Rich Lowry lists Obama's "rules", and what is "off limits"

He can't be called a "liberal" ("the same names and labels they pin on everyone," as Obama puts it); his toughness on the war on terror can't be questioned ("attempts to play on our fears"); his extreme positions on social issues can't be exposed ("the same efforts to distract us from the issues that affect our lives" and "turn us against each other"); and his Chicago background too is off-limits ("pouncing on every gaffe and association and fake controversy").

Should we on the right take Obama up on his stated desire to have an oh-so-clean campaign?

We could take Obama's rules in good faith if he never calls John McCain a "conservative" or labels him in any other way. If he never criticizes him for his association with George Bush. If he doesn't jump on his gaffes (like McCain's 100-years-in-Iraq comment that Obama distorted and harped on for weeks). And if he never says anything that would tend to make Americans fearful about the future or divide them (i.e., say things that some people agree with and others don't).

Oh, and he would have to stop lying about the meaning of Senator McCain's "100 years in Iraq" statement.

Obama's not alone, though, in his whining. Michael Goldfarb, blogging at The Weekly Standard, has usefully compiled a list of reactions. Here's one

(Senator Joe) Biden again did not mince words when discussing Bush's remarks, accusing the president of engaging in "long-distance swiftboating" with his speech in Israel. Biden also cited numerous examples of the Bush Administration reaching out to unfriendly regimes in Libya, North Korea and Iran, arguing that Bush's insinuation that the Democrats were soft on terrorism was "truly delusional ... and truly disgraceful."

The Democrats can sure dish it out but they can't take it.

So What of Appeasement?

The Democrats claim that they're not appeasers of dictators and terrorists. Are they?

Since Senator Obama is the one in the limelight, let's look briefly at his record:

Senator Obama: yesterday "George Bush knows that I have never supported engagement with terrorists..."

Senator Obama November 1, 2007: "I would meet directly with Iranian leaders. I would meet directly with Syrian leaders. "

A quick look at the relevant website for the State Department confirms what we already know

Iran remained the most active state sponsor of terrorism....

Since Syria's 1979 designation as a state sponsor of terrorism, it has continued to provide political support to Palestinian terrorist groups.....

What really is the difference between meeting with Hamas, Hezbollah, and the leaders of those who sponsor them? Neither group could survive were it not for their sponsors.

Want more? Here's Obama at one of the Democrat debates last year:

Asked if he would be willing to meet separately "without precondition" during the first year of his administration with the leaders of Iran, Syria, Venezuela, Cuba, and North Korea, Obama said, "I would."

Here he is again:

"The notion that somehow not talking to countries is punishment to them...is ridiculous," Sen. Obama said in a debate last year. "One of the first things that I would do in terms of moving a diplomatic effort in the region forward is to send a signal that we need to talk to Iran and Syria."

What's ridiculous is the notion that such a meeting will not be trumpeted as a victory by the Jihadists. What Obama does not seem to realize is that the United States is not just an average run-of-the-mill nation. The President, Democrat or Republican, is not called "the leader of the free world" for nothing. Simply meeting with the President will be interpreted as lending legitimacy to regimes that are illegitimate and worried about it. Dictators, by their very nature, have no real legitimacy. The pseudo-elections in Iran and Venezuela (they probably have them in Syria, Cuba, and North Korea too) change this not at all.

So even if nothing is decided at these "talks", they will be portrayed as a victory by the other side. We can say all we want that no, they're not a victory for Iran/Syria/Cuba/North Korea/Venezuela, but it won't matter. The propaganda organs of our opponents will be out in full force, and in one of Bush's biggest failings he hasn't beefed up ours, so there won't be much of a response.

Not Just Obama

It's not just Sen. Obama who is an appeaser. Kathryn Jean Lopez has helpfully compiled a list of other Democrats the President could have been talking about, such as

Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi, freelance diplomat, who in December 2007 said: "the road to Damascus is a road to peace."

Or, perhaps he meant Speaker Pelosi in April 2007: "I believe in dialogue. As my colleagues have said over and over again, unless you communicate, you cannot understand each other. You cannot reach agreement."

Or maybe he meant recent Obama endorser and former North Carolina senator John Edwards, who, according to his own press release in February of last year, believes "the U.S. should step up our diplomatic efforts by engaging in direct talks with all the nations in the region, including Iran and Syria."
...

Or former Democratic presidential candidates and senators Chris Dodd and John Kerry, who met with Syria's al-Assad and said: "As senior Democrats on the Foreign Relations Committee, we felt it was important to make clear that while we believe in resuming dialogue, our message is no different: Syria can and should play a more constructive role in the region ...

Liberals typically bring up the fact that U.S. presidents from Roosevelt to Reagan met with Soviet leaders. This is true, but misleading. These were meetings well scripted out in advance, with little being left to chance. Reykjavik in 1986 was the exception, not the rule.

Further, Obama seems blissfully unaware that unscripted high-level meetings are highly risky. As often as not they backfire. Reykjavik backfired on Gorbachev. Khrushchev sized up Kennedy as a "weakling" in their initial meeting, prompting the former to believe he could get away with sneaking nuclear-armed missiles into Cuba. It's widely thought that Stalin snookered Roosevelt at Yalta. If nothing else, Obama should read Khrushchev's rants at Eisenhower or Nixon during some of their meetings. That alone would give him second thoughts.

So should we not "talk" with these regimes? I hate to sound Clintonian, but it depends on what you mean by "talk". A meeting with an Iranian representative in the back room of the Canadian embassy in Madrid? No problem. President-to-President talks surrounded by thousands of reporters? Hold your horses.

Lastly, in fairness I will say that President Bush's tough talk hasn't extended to the Saudis, who's export of Wahhabism is designed to destroy the West. Also, our dopey Secretary of State has been "pressuring Israel to meet with Hamas representatives". Side

On the upside, Senator John McCain tells it like it is

If Senator Obama wants to sit down across the table with the leader of a nation that calls Israel a stinking corpse--what is it that he wants to talk about with him?

Nothing.

Meaningful negotiations could take place if they stop sponsoring terrorist organizations...those are the preconditions for sitting down with the Iranians.

Exactly right.

Update

This is the guy who wants to negotiate with the dictators of Iran, North Korea, Venezuela, and Cuba (h/t Dagney's Rant)

I'm sure they'll all take him very seriously after he destroys our ability to respond to anything militarily.

What we need to do is spend more money on weapons, not less.

Posted by Tom at 8:00 PM | Comments (8) | TrackBack

April 23, 2008

Hurray for Hillary

Yes, I actually wrote "Hurray for Hillary" as the title to this piece. What's more, I meant it.

It's hard to believe that it's come to this, but I am actually rooting for Hillary Clinton to win the Democratic primary. And it's not because I think she's the easier candidate to beat. At one time I thought she'd be the easier one to beat, but now I'm not so sure.

No, the reason I say "Hurray for Hillary" is that if a Democrat does get elected in November, I want it to be her. Or more precisely, I really don't want it to be Barack Obama. As such, I'm happy that she won big in Pennsylvania yesterday.

My opinion on Obama has changed considerably over the past several months.

On August 14th of last year, after he said something I disagreed with I wrote that

I almost hate writing these posts about Obama because I do like the guy. He's the only one of the Democrat candicates that I can imagine having a beer with and discussing politics. Hillary is the ice queen, Edwards is a phony, Dodd is too old, and Kucinich is too nutty. Obama seems like a genuinely nice guy, and sincere in what he says.

On January 8 of this year, after the "Hawkeye Caukeye", I wrote that

Obama is an awfully nice guy, and comes across as genuine, as I think he is. He's the only one of the Democrats that I can imagine having a real conversation with. Too bad he's completely wrong on all of the issues.

All that seems like ancient history now.

I'm sure you've already seen them, but if not here are the results from yesterday's primary in Pennsylvania

Candidate____total votes___%____Delegates

Sen Clinton __1,260,208 ___ 55% ___ 81

Sen Obama _ 1,045,444 ___ 45% ___ 69

If you calculate it out, Clinton really got about 54.6% and Obama 45.4%, so technically she didn't quite win by double digits. But everyone rounds these things, and so she can claim a double digit victory, and in a way perceptions count.

However, she still trails in committed delegates 1331 to Obama's 1487, with 2025 needed to win. Although she looks close, in reality their proportional system of awarding delegates means it'll be almost impossible for her to win in a straight-out manner.

As such, what she's no doubt hoping for is to convince the superdelegates that Obama can't win the general, and as such to support her. Given recent events, this is not an implausible scenario. Unlikely, but not implausible. For the superdelegates to give her the nomination would create civil war in the party. A delicious thought for Republicans, but Chairman Howard Dean will move heaven and earth to keep that from happening.

How Did We Get To This Point?

Barack Obama came out of nowhere. One day he's a state senator in Illinois, and the next he's running for U.S. Senate. When his Republican opponent, Jack Ryan, dropped out, leaving the gadfly Alan Keys to run in his place, most of us tuned out. I remember hearing that this Obama fellow gave a good speech but I didn't give him much thought. The next thing, though, I hear he's running for President. "Awfully presumptuous", I think, given his inexperience, but whatever. Lo and behold, the guy takes off like a bat out of hades. He beats Hillary Clinton time and again in the primaries.

But we hardly knew anything about him. As I wrote above, he seemed like a nice guy, if wrong on the issues.

Then the wheels started to come loose; his bizarre pastor Jeremiah Wright, associations with the terrorist William Ayers, we find out he attended at the Million Man March, various utterances of his wife, and finally his own remarks about "bitter" Americans "clinging to their God and guns"

But Obama cannot close the deal with Democrat voters.

The thing is, there's hardly a dime's worth of differences between Obama and Clinton. The issues are that 1) each side had built-up a base of hard-core supporters before the primary even began, and these supporters are not willing to give up. 2) There are grave doubts about Obama based on his past associations and statements. He is charismatically shallow and people are beginning to see this.

The problem with Obama is both that his associations are so questionable and that he thinks it beneath himself to have to defend against these charges. At the last debate, he reacted to questions from George Stephanopoulos and Charlie Gibson with an attitude of "how dare you ask me these questions". You wouldn't know it given the whining from the left, but Stephanopoulos and Gibson are hardly right-wingers. And at least with Stephanopoulos, his questions to Obama on William Ayers were so gentle as to be almost softballs. Yet the left has gone into fits of rage over even this. It's one thing to say that you will be above gutter politics, another to be so arrogant and elitist to think that you don't have to answer questions about your past associations.

If you're against Obama you're against "hope" and "change".

Obama and his defenders claim that Clinton is simply engaged in "negative politics". In other words, they don't like any criticism of their candidate. Obama supporters can dish it out but can't take it. We all know that if McCain had sat in a church for 20 years listening to a racial hate-monger, or had known an abortion-clinic bomber, he'd be booted out of the Senate, let alone the presidential race.

Obama thinks that he can simply slough off talk about his associations and comments and only discuss the issues he wants to discuss. But to voters, and not just Republican ones, character matters. People don't like what they see in Obama. They're increasingly uncomfortable with him. There's a sneaking suspicion that "he's not who we thought he was". Worse, if you're a Democrat, you can hardly switch to Hillary if character is your main issue. They're caught in a bind.

Obama says that he doesn't take money from "lobbyists". But that's almost false advertising. It's been illegal for 100 years to take money directly from oil companies. Also, his definition of "lobbyist" is pretty narrow. Will he take money and support from civil rights and environmental groups? Why don't they count as "lobbyists"? The ACLU and GreenPeace don't represent anyone but their own members.

In the wake of all this new criticism, he's off his game. His concession speech last night sounded bitter to some. He flubs answers in press conferences and debates. It seems that he's only comfortable when he's on top, but can't handle stress or dissension. He only looks good in staged appearances where he's got a teleprompter and thousands of adoring fans.

If he's flustered so easily by a campaign, how can he possibly handle the the everyday events that come with the presidency, let alone a world crisis?

He also abandoned his "new style" politics. He lies about McCain's "100 years in Iraq". He said to The Washington Post today that he was going to bring up the old Clinton Scandals. The magic, it seems, is gone.

Obama doesn't realize that the problem is with Hillary Clinton, or with bitter middle Americans clinging to their Bibles and guns. The problem is that people are not comfortable with him. There are questions about his associations and positions, and worse he doesn't appear to want to address them.

As for McCain, he's following the old aphorism of "when your opponents are in the process of destroying themselves, get out of the way". I say, let them continue to destroy themselves.

Posted by Tom at 8:11 PM | Comments (5) | TrackBack

April 14, 2008

Obama and Clinton at the Compassion Forum

Yesterday evening presidential candidates and Senators Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton participated in a "Compassion Forum" at Messiah College in Grantham Pennsylania. Messiah College is a private Christian institution. CNN broadcast the event. Here's what amounts to a mission statement from the website

Now more than ever, Americans motivated by faith are bridging ideological divides to address domestic and international poverty, global AIDS, climate change, genocide in Darfur, and human rights and torture. The Compassion Forum will provide the opportunity for candidates to discuss how their faith and moral convictions bear on their positions on these important issues.

The Compassion Forum will be a unique and unprecedented event. Each candidate will participate in a separate substantive conversation. This will not be a debate. Questions will be posed by co-moderators Jon Meacham, editor of "Newsweek," and Campbell Brown, anchor of CNN's Election Center.

This is not the first time the Democrats have openly discussed religion in such a forum. Last June, Obama, Clinton, and Edwards participated in a "Presidential Forum on Faith, Values and Poverty" that was sponsored by the Sojourners, a very liberal Christian group. I thought that Clinton and Obama did well in that one, but didn't much care for what Edwards had to say.

Let's see how the Democrat candidates did this time.

But first, let's state the obvious:

If Republicans did this the left would scream that they were "pushing their religion" on the country, and that if elected they would declare a theocracy and (somehow) force everyone to be a Christian. Yet in this presidential season the Democrats have participated in not one but two faith-based forums, and I haven't heard boo about it. If you think that these forums are an aberration and that it is only the right that "mixes politics with religion", just do some basic research on churches and associations like the Sojourners, the World Council of Churches, National Council of Churches, Presbyterian Church USA, Episcopalian Church USA, The Unitarian Universalist Association, Christian Peacemaker Teams.... and there are many more.

As I said in my post on the Democrats first forum, I was glad to see that they are not afraid of talking about faith. This is good. What we now have to do is get people to recognize that yes Republicans can and should talk about it too, and no, doing so does not portend the coming of a theocracy.

Both the religious left and religions right think that faith should play a role in public life, and that it should influence what you think about matters of public policy, and thus how you vote. The left is primarily concerned with what they call "social justice", and the right social conservatism (I can't think of an equivalent term so if you have an honest suggestion please leave it in the comments). This is how it should be.

Ok now that I've said that let's move on to the forum. CNN has helpfully posted a transcript.

Read the whole thing, but the parts about abortion are the parts I found the most interesting

MEACHAM: Senator, do you believe personally that life begins at conception?

CLINTON: I believe that the potential for life begins at conception. I am a Methodist, as you know. My church has struggled with this issue. In fact, you can look at the Methodist Book of Discipline and see the contradiction and the challenge of trying to sort that very profound question out.

But for me, it is also not only about a potential life; it is about the other lives involved. And, therefore, I have concluded, after great, you know, concern and searching my own mind and heart over many years, that our task should be in this pluralistic, diverse life of ours in this nation that individuals must be entrusted to make this profound decision, because the alternative would be such an intrusion of government authority that it would be very difficult to sustain in our kind of open society.

And as some of you've heard me discuss before, I think abortion should remain legal, but it needs to be safe and rare.

And I have spent many years now, as a private citizen, as first lady, and now as senator, trying to make it rare, trying to create the conditions where women had other choices.

I have supported adoption, foster care. I helped to create the campaign against teenage pregnancy, which fulfilled our original goal 10 years ago of reducing teenage pregnancies by about a third.

And I am committed to doing that. And I guess I would just add from my own personal experience, I have been in countries that have taken very different views about this profoundly challenging question.

Some of you know, I went to China in 1995 and spoke out against the Chinese government's one child policy, which led to forced abortions and forced sterilization because I believed that we needed to bear witness against what was an intrusive, abusive, dehumanizing effort to dictate how women and men would proceed with respect to the children they wished to have....

On to the other senator

REV. SAMUEL RODRIGUEZ, PRESIDENT, NATIONAL HISPANIC LEADERSHIP CONFERENCE: Senator Obama, the vast majority of Americans believe that abortion is a decision to be made by a woman, her family and her doctors. However, the vast majority of Americans similarly believe that abortion is the taking of a human life.

The terms pro-choice and pro-life, do they encapsulate that reality in our 21st Century setting and can we find common ground?

OBAMA: I absolutely think we can find common ground. And it requires a couple of things. Number one, it requires us to acknowledge that there is a moral dimension to abortion, which I think that all too often those of us who are pro-choice have not talked about or tried to tamp down. I think that's a mistake because I think all of us understand that it is a wrenching choice for anybody to think about.

The second thing, once we acknowledge that, is to recognize that people of good will can exist on both sides. That nobody wishes to be placed in a circumstance where they are even confronted with the choice of abortion. How we determine what's right at that moment, I think, people of good will can differ.

And if we can acknowledge that much, then we can certainly agree on the fact that we should be doing everything we can to avoid unwanted pregnancies that might even lead somebody to consider having an abortion.

And we've actually made progress over the last several years in reducing teen pregnancies, for example. And what I have consistently talked about is to take a comprehensive approach where we focus on abstinence, where we are teaching the sacredness of sexuality to our children.

But we also recognize the importance of good medical care for women, that we're also recognizing the importance of age-appropriate education to reduce risks. I do believe that contraception has to be part of that education process.

And if we do those things, then I think that we can reduce abortions and I think we should make sure that adoption is an option for people out there....

MEACHAM: Senator, do you personally believe that life begins at conception? And if not, when does it begin?

OBAMA: This is something that I have not, I think, come to a firm resolution on. I think it's very hard to know what that means, when life begins. Is it when a cell separates? Is it when the soul stirs? So I don't presume to know the answer to that question. What I know, as I've said before, is that there is something extraordinarily powerful about potential life and that that has a moral weight to it that we take into consideration when we're having these debates.

Oh please.

Both of these Democrats talk in circles and split hairs. Obama's fine words can't hide his radical left voting record on the issue. Clinton is no better. Both claim to want to reduce the incidence of abortion but their records say just the opposite. To them it's all a matter of providing enough condoms and "eduction" and maybe the pesky right-wingers will go away. Their real audience is the abortionist crowd who doesn't want the slightest restriction on their activities. Judging from this forum, they got what they wanted.

Tuesday Update

Some commentary I was reading today over at The Weekly Standard brought up this exchange

MEACHAM: Senator, we've heard about HIV/AIDS. Many people here are concerned about Darfur and a number of other humanitarian issues. Why do you think it is that a loving God allows innocent people to suffer?

CLINTON: Well...

(LAUGHTER)

MEACHAM: And we just have 30 seconds.

CLINTON: Yes. You know, that is the subject of generations of commentary and debate. And I don't know. I can't wait to ask him. Because I have...

(LAUGHTER)

CLINTON: I have just pondered it endless endlessly.

(APPLAUSE)

CLINTON: But I do want to just add that what that means to me is that in the face of suffering, there is no doubt in my mind that God calls us to respond. You know, that's part of what we are expected to do.

For whatever reason it exists, it's very existence is a call to action. Certainly in, you know, our...

There's no need to "ponder" the matter, Senator Clinton. The Bible is very clear on the subject, and it says that there are three reasons why God allows suffering:

1) The original sin of Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden as told in Genesis 3

2) Heavenly events about which we know nothing about, as told in Job 1-2

3) Punishment for sin, much of the OT, but the book of Lamentations spells it out best

The catch is that we humans can never know which of the three applies to any given situation. Only a prophet can tell us such things, and there are no living prophets.

Posted by Tom at 9:00 PM | Comments (3) | TrackBack

March 22, 2008

"The Speech: A Brilliant Fraud"

Of all the editorials I've seen on Senator Barack Obama's recent speech, Charles Krauthammer's is the best. Writing on The Washington Post on Thursday:

The beauty of a speech is that you don't just give the answers, you provide your own questions. "Did I ever hear him make remarks that could be considered controversial while I sat in church? Yes." So said Barack Obama, in his Philadelphia speech about his pastor, friend, mentor and spiritual adviser of 20 years, Jeremiah Wright.

An interesting, if belated, admission. But the more important question is: which"controversial" remarks?

Wright's assertion from the pulpit that the U.S. government invented HIV "as a means of genocide against people of color"? Wright's claim that America was morally responsible for Sept. 11 -- "chickens coming home to roost" -- because of, among other crimes, Hiroshima and Nagasaki? (Obama says he missed church that day. Had he never heard about it?) What about the charge that the U.S. government (of Franklin Roosevelt, mind you) knew about Pearl Harbor, but lied about it? Or that the government gives drugs to black people, presumably to enslave and imprison them?

Obama condemns such statements as wrong and divisive, then frames the next question: "There will no doubt be those for whom my statements of condemnation are not enough. Why associate myself with Reverend Wright in the first place, they may ask? Why not join another church?"

But that is not the question. The question is why didn't he leave that church? Why didn't he leave -- why doesn't he leave even today -- a pastor who thundered not once but three times from the pulpit (on a DVD the church proudly sells) "God damn America"? Obama's 5,000-word speech, fawned over as a great meditation on race, is little more than an elegantly crafted, brilliantly sophistic justification of that scandalous dereliction.

His defense rests on two central propositions: (a) moral equivalence and (b) white guilt.

(a) Moral equivalence. Sure, says Obama, there's Wright, but at the other "end of the spectrum" there's Geraldine Ferraro, opponents of affirmative action and his own white grandmother, "who once confessed her fear of black men who passed by her on the street, and who on more than one occasion has uttered racial or ethnic stereotypes that made me cringe." But did she shout them in a crowded theater to incite, enrage and poison others?

"I can no more disown [Wright] than I can my white grandmother." What exactly was Grandma's offense? Jesse Jackson himself once admitted to the fear he feels from the footsteps of black men on the street. And Harry Truman was known to use epithets for blacks and Jews in private, yet is revered for desegregating the armed forces and recognizing the first Jewish state since Jesus's time. He never spread racial hatred. Nor did Grandma.

Yet Obama compares her to Wright. Does he not see the moral difference between the occasional private expression of the prejudices of one's time and the use of a public stage to spread racial lies and race hatred?

(b) White guilt. Obama's purpose in the speech was to put Wright's outrages in context. By context, Obama means history. And by history, he means the history of white racism. Obama says, "We do not need to recite here the history of racial injustice in this country," and then he proceeds to do precisely that. What lies at the end of his recital of the long train of white racial assaults from slavery to employment discrimination? Jeremiah Wright, of course.

This contextual analysis of Wright's venom, this extenuation of black hate speech as a product of white racism, is not new. It's the Jesse Jackson politics of racial grievance, expressed in Ivy League diction and Harvard Law nuance. That's why the speech made so many liberal commentators swoon: It bathed them in racial guilt while flattering their intellectual pretensions. An unbeatable combination.

But Obama was supposed to be new. He flatters himself as a man of the future transcending the anger of the past as represented by his beloved pastor. Obama then waxes rhapsodic about the hope brought by the new consciousness of the young people in his campaign. Then answer this, Senator: If Wright is a man of the past, why would you expose your children to his vitriolic divisiveness? This is a man who curses America and who proclaimed moral satisfaction in the deaths of 3,000 innocents at a time when their bodies were still being sought at Ground Zero. It is not just the older congregants who stand and cheer and roar in wild approval of Wright's rants, but young people as well. Why did you give $22,500 just two years ago to a church run by a man of the past who infects the younger generation with precisely the racial attitudes and animus you say you have come unto us to transcend?

Exactly right.

Posted by Tom at 9:08 AM | Comments (9) | TrackBack

March 18, 2008

Obama's Big Speech

So Senator Obama gave a speech today in an attempt to do some damage control. The Senator, you see, has a "pastor problem", and the situation is threatening to get out of hand.

A few months ago I could not have imagined this would have happened. I figured that he might get tripped up saying something stupid about foreign policy, or that Sen McCain would best him in a debate. At most there will be a few controversial people on his staff, and there would be the usual story of the week but that would be that. I did not imagine that it would be revealed that for 20 years he sat in the pews of a church listening to a pastor saying the types of things that we have heard his pastor say.

I used to like Barack Obama, and have said so several times on this blog. He seemed like a decent enough fellow, sincere if wrong. But with this incident I now see him in a different light, and it's not a good one.

I think at this point we've all seen or heard the good Rev. Jeremiah Wright, recently retired as pastor of Trinity United Church of Christ in Chicago, in action. If not, you can start here and here.

Some months ago Mitt Romney gave a speech in which he addressed the issue of religion. Some will try and draw a comparison between Romney's speech and Obama's, but it's a false one. Romney's issue was akin to that of then-Senator John F Kennedy; there were and are people out there who didn't like him simply because he chose a religion different than there own. There was some "aren't Mormon's kind of weird?" stuff out there and he had to show otherwise.

But this was different. What Rev Wright said was downright hateful. The man spewed forth one nutty conspiracy theory after another. He went on and on and on. And the crowd loved it.

In his speech today Senator Obama somehow needed to convince us that 1) What Rev Wright said was a one-time thing, and/or that 2) he managed to attend this church for 20 years without knowing about Wright's true beliefs. Did he succeed?

I'm not going to go through his entire speech, but there are a few key parts that caught my attention.

First, though, what is notable is that Obama spent most of the speech not discussing the subject at hand; his relationship with Rev. Jeremiah Wright. He goes on and on about the subject of race, slavery, the founders, poverty, economic opportunity or the lack thereof, the immigrant experience, and of course, "change". All in all, he spends very little time discussing Wright. I think what he tried to do is hide the issue of Wright in the midst of all a lot of rhetoric and hope that we forget about him.

As such, most of the speech was simply irrelevant. Apparently we're all supposed to be so impressed with his soaring rhetoric that we just won't worry about who he's been listening to for 20 years.

Cutting out all of the fluff here are some of the critical parts

...we've heard my former pastor, Rev. Jeremiah Wright, use incendiary language to express views that have the potential not only to widen the racial divide, but views that denigrate both the greatness and the goodness of our nation -- that rightly offend white and black alike.

I have already condemned, in unequivocal terms, the statements of Rev. Wright that have caused such controversy. For some, nagging questions remain.

Did I know him to be an occasionally fierce critic of American domestic and foreign policy? Of course. Did I ever hear him make remarks that could be considered controversial while I sat in church? Yes. Did I strongly disagree with many of his political views? Absolutely -- just as I'm sure many of you have heard remarks from your pastors, priests or rabbis with which you strongly disagreed.

But the remarks that have caused this recent firestorm weren't simply controversial. They weren't simply a religious leader's effort to speak out against perceived injustice.

Instead, they expressed a profoundly distorted view of this country -- a view that sees white racism as endemic, and that elevates what is wrong with America above all that we know is right with America, a view that sees the conflicts in the Middle East as rooted primarily in the actions of stalwart allies like Israel, instead of emanating from the perverse and hateful ideologies of radical Islam.

He says he's condemned the views of Rev Wright. Ok, I accept that. I'll take him at his word here. And he's certainly right that the Rev Wright's views are "profoundly distorted".

The attempt at equivalence, though, "just as I'm sure many of you have heard remarks from your pastors, priests or rabbis with which you strongly disagreed." is absurd. We're not talking about how to fund social security, or your views on abortion, Senator Obama.

As such, Rev. Wright's comments were not only wrong but divisive...

Ah "divisiveness". I've noticed that this is a favorite of liberals, to claim that people who disagree with them are "divisive". And in this sentence Obama seems to be saying that being "divisive" is worse than being wrong.

Why associate myself with Rev. Wright in the first place, they may ask? Why not join another church?

Finally, the real question gets asked. Let's see what he has to say.

And I confess that if all that I knew of Rev. Wright were the snippets of those sermons that have run in an endless loop on the television and YouTube, or if Trinity United Church of Christ conformed to the caricatures being peddled by some commentators, there is no doubt that I would react in much the same way

That's where he lost me. I don't buy the notion that he sat in those pews for 20 years and never heard Wright say the things he has said in the videos in question.

And of course the videos are played a lot, Senator. If the left had equivalent video or audio about a Republican running for president, don't you think they'd play it over and over too?

Next we have the "but Mussolini makes the trains run on time" justification.

But the truth is, that isn't all that I know of the man. The man I met more than 20 years ago is a man who helped introduce me to my Christian faith, a man who spoke to me about our obligations to love one another; to care for the sick and lift up the poor.

He is a man who served his country as a U.S. Marine, who has studied and lectured at some of the finest universities and seminaries in the country, and who for over thirty years led a church that serves the community by doing God's work here on Earth -- by housing the homeless, ministering to the needy, providing day care services and scholarships and prison ministries, and reaching out to those suffering from HIV/AIDS.

It is invalid to justify what Wright said because he did good elsewhere. It doesn't work that way.

Like other black churches, Trinity's services are full of raucous laughter and sometimes bawdy humor. They are full of dancing, clapping, screaming and shouting that may seem jarring to the untrained ear.

Uh, that wasn't the issue, Obama. I think we all know that religious worship in most black churches is different than that in most white churches. We all accept cultural differences. But once again Obama is trying to hide. The issue is that the audience was cheering Wright on as he said awful things. What he said was no surprise to them, because they've heard it before.

I can no more disown him than I can disown the black community. I can no more disown him than I can my white grandmother -- a woman who helped raise me, a woman who sacrificed again and again for me, a woman who loves me as much as she loves anything in this world, but a woman who once confessed her fear of black men who passed by her on the street, and who on more than one occasion has uttered racial or ethnic stereotypes that made me cringe.

If he had disowned Wright he could have gotten at least a partial approval from me and others. But despite all of his soaring rhetoric, in the end he couldn't do it. And why not?

Shelby Steele, writing in the Wall Street Journal, has the best take, I think, on Obama and the issue of race. Be sure to read the whole thing, but here's a snippet

The fact is that Barack Obama has fellow-traveled with a hate-filled, anti-American black nationalism all his adult life, failing to stand and challenge an ideology that would have no place for his own mother. And what portent of presidential judgment is it to have exposed his two daughters for their entire lives to what is, at the very least, a subtext of anti-white vitriol?

What could he have been thinking? Of course he wasn't thinking. He was driven by insecurity, by a need to "be black" despite his biracial background. And so fellow-traveling with a little race hatred seemed a small price to pay for a more secure racial identity. And anyway, wasn't this hatred more rhetorical than real?

But now the floodlight of a presidential campaign has trained on this usually hidden corner of contemporary black life: a mindless indulgence in a rhetorical anti-Americanism as a way of bonding and of asserting one's blackness. Yet Jeremiah Wright, splashed across America's television screens, has shown us that there is no real difference between rhetorical hatred and real hatred.

The invaluable Victor Davis Hanson, writing at National Review, also, echoing my theme at top that Obama spent most of his time not talking about the issue at hand.

Obama chose not to review what Wright, now deemed the "occasionally fierce critic." said in detail, condemn it unequivocally, apologize, and then resign from such a Sunday venue of intolerance -- the now accustomed American remedy to racism in the public realm that we saw in the Imus and other recent controversies.

Instead, to Obama, the postmodernist, context is everything. We all have eccentric and flamboyant pastors like Wright with whom we disagree. And words, in his case, don't quite mean what we think; unspoken intent and angst, not voiced hatred, are what matters more.

Rather than account for his relationship with a hate-monger, Obama will enlighten you, as your teacher, why you are either confused or too ill-intended to ask him to disassociate himself from Wright.

We'll end with Juan Williams lowering the boom on Obama.

Posted by Tom at 10:00 PM | Comments (4) | TrackBack

February 6, 2008

Super Tuesday

The results are in, and while it's all pretty much over on the GOP side, the Democrats are in a dead heat.

The Republicans

1,191 delegates are needed to win. Here is what each candidate has so far

680 McCain
270 Romney
176 Huckabee

Even though McCain barely has half the delegates he needs to win, he has all the momentum and unless a miracle occurs will win the nomination.

By all rights McCain should not by the Republican candidate. That he did speaks volumes about the weakness of the Republican field. There was simply not a single viable conservative with broad national appeal in the bunch.

Once Thompson dropped out, conservatives spent a lot of time pushing Mitt Romney. It should be clear by now that he can't win in November. That he lost the south on Super Tuesday proves it. Whether this was due to the presence of Huckabee, anti-Mormonism, or lack of "authenticity" on his part is irrelevant. Romney simply couldn't connect with voters. He came across as a programmed ken doll who would say whatever it took to get elected.

By the same token, however, McCain didn't win the south either. The big states that he won (CA, NY, IL, NY & NJ) were those that will go Democrat anyway. He could pick Huckabee as his veep to try and shore up his support in the south, but Huckabee would be the wrong guy to pick. He needs a solid conservative, one without Huckabee's baggage (preacher, one-liners, "too christian").

The problem conservatives have with McCain isn't so much his overall record, which is more conservative than many are now giving him credit for. He has an 82% lifetime rating from the American Conservative Union, which has to count for something. It's more his attitude towards us than anything else. He enjoys being a "maverick"; i.e. unpredictable. He seems to enjoy sticking it to us, and abandoning us on hot-button issues like immigration. It's not that he "reaches out to the other side", it's that he does so gleefully and as if he likes working with Ted Kennedy more than his fellow Republicans. He glows in the media spotlight, which fawns over him.

Further, the hard truth is that McCain's appeal is mostly based on a cult of personality. His persona is the war hero, the guy who endured 5 1/2 years in the Hanoi Hilton. He has exploited this more than any other politician I can think of, and that even includes John Kerry. While George McGovern and Bob Dole famously refused to use their war records in their presidential campaigns, John McCain uses his relentlessly. Yet is is far from clear that military service makes for a better president, even a wartime one. Our two best wartime presidents, Lincoln and FDR, never served.

McCain now has an obligation to reach out to conservatives, and to make a herculean effort to unify the party. When I got home tonight I listened to a robocall on my answering maching from Senator McCain. He spoke about "securing the border first" and appointing Supreme Court justices "like John Roberts and Samuel Alito", as well as the "right to life". These are all important issues for conservatives, and I for one appreciate this first step he took to getting us on board.

The question now is whether conservatives will come together and support McCain if he wins the nomination. If we do, then we stand a chance, at least against Clinton. If not, we're doomed. Conservatives can either pout, sit at home, and put a Democrat in the
White House, or they can grow up and accept that even though McCain leaves a lot to be desired he's much better than any Democrat.

If conservatives want to hold out until the next round of primaries, hoping against hope that Romney (or even Huckabee) can stage an upset that's fine. But the time is fast approaching when it'll all be over.

The Democrats

2,035 delegates are needed to win. Here is what each candidate has so far

818 Clinton
730 Obama

Unlike the situation in the GOP, this race is far from settled.

My heart says that I want the Democrats to keep fighting it out as long as possible. I'de love a brokered convention in which nasty barbs were traded. I'd love to see liberals spend all their money on the primaries.

My head, however, tells me that the infighting among the Democrats is something of an illusion. The Democrats had a huge turnout in their primaries. The Republicans had low turnout. This speaks volumes about how the Democrats are excited about their candidates while the Republicans are not thrilled about any of theirs.

Despite the sniping between Obama and Clinton, the reality is that ideologically there's not a dimes worth of difference between them. Their differences are simply the result of identity politics. In all likelihood they'll unit once they choose their candidate.

On the other hand, there were and are bigger ideological differences between the GOP candidates. There also seems to be more animosity between the various camps. This means that conservatives will have a hard time accepting McCain, whereas ideologically liberals can accept Obama or Clinton.

Conclusion

This race is the Democrats to lose. They can, however be beaten. Despite the undeniable excitement among Democrat voters, both Obama and Clinton have serious libabilities that, if properly exploited, could prove fatal.

But this will only occur if the Republican party units. Conservatives can pout for a time, but sooner or later will have to decide if putting Obama or Clinton in the White House is worth sitting this election out. I think such a decision to be absolutely nuts, and will explore why in future posts. For now we are still in the primary season.

Posted by Tom at 7:00 PM | Comments (5) | TrackBack

January 29, 2008

The Florida Primary

At 10:30 PM EST, both CNN and Fox are reporting that McCain and Clinton have won Florida

The Republicans

36% McCain
31% Romney
15% Guiliani
13% Huckabee
3% Paul

What I'd say to each of them:

John McCain: Congratulations on your victory. Half of me loves you, and half irritates me. When it comes to Iraq and foreign policy you stand tall. When it comes to many domestic issues I cringe. You alienate conservatives so much I suspect that if you win the nomination half the time I'll cheering you and half the time cursing you. Ditto if you win the White House. You also seem to have a temper, which you better learn to keep under control, especially if you win the nomination and go up against Barack Obama. You'll come off as old and cranky against a guy who's new and fresh.

Mitt Romney: You are the one I'll vote for if you survive long enough for the Virginia primary on Feb 12. You are right on all the issues, and I believe your reasons for changing what you did are sincere. You are the most knowledgeable of all the GOP leaders, and can hit the "competence" ball out of the park. You're well spoken without any personal blemishes. Yet you seem to have trouble connecting with voters. Rich Lowry wrote about this in the January 28 print edition of National Review (digital subscription required). You just need to warm up to people personally instead of immediately leaping into the technicalities. The good news is that this is easily curable, the bad news is that it might be too late. I certainly hope you can pull it off on Super Tuesday.

Rudy Giuliani: You've got a lot of strengths and in many ways would make a fine president. That you cleaned up New York City alone puts you head and shoulders above most politicians, never mind your leadership on and after 9-11. However, you needed to make a strong showing in Florida, and you didn't. It's looking like your strategy of waiting for the late primaries didn't work.

Mike Huckabee: Hopefully you've figured out by now that being the "Christian candidate" isn't enough to get you the nomination. Heck, many evangelicals, myself included, aren't comfortable with you.

Ron Paul: You're in this for the same reason that Dennis Kucinich is; because you believe so strongly in your cause that you just want to make a point. I can respect that. Your supporters, though, are an embarrassment.

The Democrats

50% Clinton
33% Obama
15% Edwards

What I'd say to each of them:

Hillary Clinton: So you won. Was it worth it? You and your husband have disgraced yourselves once again. Democrats are just now figuring out that you'll do and say anything to win, something we on the right have known for 15 years.

Barack Obama: You're an awfully nice guy, sincere, and decent man. Too bad you have to go up against the Clinton machine. They're trying to drag you down into the mud with them. Don't take the bait. You're only 47, so if you lose this time you can run again in 4, 8, or even 16 years.

John Edwards