EARLY EVENING POST:  JULY 12,  2008

Posted at 7:03 p.m. ET

THE PASSION THING

Ron Brownstein of National Journal is a great beat reporter who actually speaks with voters, and not just those who live three blocks from an Ivy League auditorium.  He came away from a series of interviews believing that McCain's chances are tied to his raising doubts about Obama.  In other words, as other pundits have said, it's really all about Obama, and the lack of passion for McCain.  (Full disclosure:  Brownstein's wife has had a professional association with McCain.)

LAKEWOOD, Colo.--Sherry Shutts usually votes Republican, and four years ago she pulled the lever for President Bush. But when Democratic Rep. Ed Perlmutter, who represents this older suburb just west of Denver, knocked on her door while campaigning for re-election last week, Shutts surprised him by reporting that she wasn't yet committed to John McCain, the presumptive GOP nominee.

Shutts, who is in her 60s and keeps the books for her husband's construction business, told Perlmutter she wants change and is dubious that McCain can deliver it. "He just doesn't seem very dynamic," Shutts said. "I keep waiting for him to come forward with something that makes me think he's going to do a good job." But Barack Obama, the presumptive Democratic nominee, hasn't won her loyalty either. "He gives an elegant speech," she said, "but ... he hasn't been there very long."

Such ambivalence was voiced frequently during the two days I spent interviewing nearly 60 voters in the Denver suburbs around the Fourth of July.

Brownstein reports interviews with some Bush voters who are going for Obama.  He also, however, reports this:

But among blue-collar men, Obama faced pervasive skepticism about his qualifications and priorities. "With a war going on, to have someone as commander-in-chief who had not been in the military is a little scary," said Ken Turley of Littleton, who works in a granite shop. Another man, who described himself as a veteran but would give his name only as Matt, offered a more visceral objection: "I can't vote for a guy whose middle name is Hussein. I can't trust that guy."

Such doubts about Obama were by far McCain's strongest asset. Some voters praised McCain's military service. But only a handful expressed any excitement about his candidacy.

And...

Enough former Bush supporters seem open to Obama to provide him an edge in Colorado--and perhaps nationwide. But that tilt isn't so pronounced, or settled, that McCain couldn't reverse it. This contest may pivot on the many voters like Shutts who appear simultaneously concerned that Obama offers too much change and McCain offers too little. And those voters have made the least progress toward solidifying their decisions in a race that remains little more than distant thunder for most people here.

There's a road map for McCain, if he'll follow it:  1) Provide a clear, dynamic vision of the future; indeed, make yourself the candidate of the future and Obama the candidate of the sixties; 2) Raise doubts about Obama at every turn.  Paint a portrait of the man as he is, a reaching Chicago politician, out of his depth.

Will McCain do it?  He might, but he must overcome his campaign's own shortcomings and a media that yearns for Obama as it has never yearned before.

July 12, 2008.      Permalink          

SECOND AFTERNOON POST:  JULY 12,  2008

Posted at 5:33 p.m. ET

GAS PAINS

We noted yesterday an absurd L.A. Times piece comparing the price of gasoline in the U.S. to prices around the world.  Presumably, we were, after reading the article, supposed to feel fortunate that we're getting away cheaply.  I doubt if any of you did.

Reader David Lange informs us of some of the things that the L.A. Times missed:

The base price of energy is the same in Europe and the U.S. The LA Times fails to note that the reason gas is over $10 dollars a gallon in Europe is because the Europeans tax it at a much higher rate. Seventy percent of the price of gas in Europe is taxes; taxes account for roughly ten percent of the price of a gallon gas in the U.S. And when you factor in the historically low value of the dollar versus the euro, any comparison between Europe and the U.S. that uses dollars will be extreme.

Regards from Heidelberg,

D. Lange

Nice to hear from someone who's actually there and knows the facts.  And the truth is that, despite all the hype about "new energy sources," ours will be a petroleum-based economy for decades, and we'd better do something about increasing our supply, or we face a difficult future.  Getting realistic about energy, and and starting to drill and refine, is change we can believe in.

July 12, 2008.      Permalink          

AFTERNOON POST:  JULY 12,  2008

Posted at 2:01 p.m. ET

TRACKERS

Both our standard trackers are out today, and both show declines for Obama, although by small amounts.  Gallup has Obama up four over McCain, a decline of two from yesterday.  Rasmussen has Obama up only one, a decline of one since yesterday.  Averaging, we get an Obama lead of 2.5 points.

Keeping in mind our standard caution about having pollsters interpret their own results - a process requiring them to accept and defend their work - here is what Rasmussen says: 

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. When "leaners" are included, Obama holds a statistically insignificant 47% to 46% advantage. Today is the first time that McCain’s support has moved above 45% since Obama clinched the nomination on June 3. It’s also the first time the candidates have been tied since Obama clinched the Democratic nomination.

For most of the past month-and-a-half, Obama has led McCain by approximately five percentage points. It remains to be seen whether this recent tightening of the race reflects real change or is merely statistical noise.

And Gallup:

The current figures, based on July 9-11 polling, exactly match the averages for each candidate over the past two weeks of Gallup Poll Daily tracking. During this time, Obama's support has ranged between 46% and 48% in each three-day rolling average, while McCain's has registered between 42% and 44%.

While the candidates continue to campaign in earnest and attempt to draw distinctions between themselves and their opponent, the public may not be paying the same rapt attention it was during the primaries. Thus, voter preferences appear to be fairly well locked in for the moment, with Obama as the front-runner. -- Jeff Jones

All current polls now show Obama with less than a five-point lead.  However, please note that he has a major foreign trip coming up, and will receive fawning publicity from the traveling press.  And the conventions have not yet been held.  We know the Dem convention will be spirited and upbeat.  Let's see if the McCain camp can rise above the dynamics of sleep.

July 12, 2008.      Permalink          

SATURDAY:  JULY 12,  2008

Posted at 7:58 a.m. ET

R.I.P.

Former White House news secretary Tony Snow has died at 53.  Details at this hour are sketchy, but we can reasonably assume he died from the cancer he's been fighting for years.

Tony Snow gave the White House news operation a clarity and eloquence it had sorely lacked under his predecessor, the bumbling and now turncoat Scott McClellan.  Snow wrote no gossip book after his departure from the administration, showing the class he had always shown.

Much too young.

July 12, 2008.      Permalink          

THE HIGHEST FORM?

I'm glad someone wrote this column.  Like many Americans, I've grown weary listening to those who vaguely glorify "dissent" as some noble form of patriotism.  Well, sometimes it is, and sometimes it isn't.  Sometimes "dissenters" have been shown to be right, and other times, as in some "anti-war" movements, they've been shown to be cynical, selfish and corrupt.

Ralph Peters, who has emerged as a knowledgeable and caustic writer on military affairs, says it well today:

We've all heard humorless America-haters promote themselves by announcing, As Thomas Jefferson said, "Dissent is the highest form of patriotism."

The first problem with that self-righteous bull is that Jefferson never said it. On the contrary, he warned of the dangers of political dissension carried to extremes.

The earliest traceable provenance of the slogan goes back to an obscure 1960s lefty who just made it up (long before activist-historian Howard Zinn commandeered it).

My fellow Americans, let me ask you: Were Abby Hoffman, Jerry Rubin and Sen. Barack Obama's Weatherman Underground pals (who bombed their own country) really more patriotic than those who served in Vietnam? Was trashing the campus records office truly the "highest form of patriotism?"

Oh dear.  Are we allowed to get this close to the truth in a modern newspaper?

Then there's that other, even-more-famous line so inexhaustibly satisfying to the left: "Patriotism is the last refuge of the scoundrel." Dr. Samuel Johnson did say that...

...History has seen its share of scoundrels posing as patriots for personal advantage. But the all-inclusive tone of Johnson's quip is just plain wrong. I'd rephrase the line to read: "Attacks on patriotism are the last refuge of the coward."

And now for the main course:

Nor can all of the hipster slogans used to avoid debates be blamed on the ancients. The latest example of utter nonsense is Obama's contribution, "The Audacity of Hope."

My fellow Americans, there is nothing audacious about hope. Hope is what makes people buy lottery tickets instead of paying the bills. Hope is for the old gals feeding the slots in Atlantic City. It destroys the inner-city kid who quits school because he hopes he'll be a world-famous recording artist.

Yes, hope can work to positive effect, sustaining us in the face of grave misfortunes. But there's nothing audacious about it. "The audacity of hope" is blubbering gobbledy-gook.

Audacity is for innovators, risk-takers and crusaders - for those willing to stand in the fire of public opinion and tell a million people they're wrong and here's why. Audacity's not for the passive mob hoping government will fix everything (while blaming government for everything).

Hope is the opposite of audacity. It's passive, an excuse for inaction.

And, this week, Jesse Jackson would probably agree.

Peters writes wisely.  Next time you hear a slogan, think about it.  Some slogans sound awfully good until you look at what the words actually mean.  In that sense, you might start examining the word "change."  Awfully popular these days.

July 12, 2008.      Permalink          

FACTS?  ANYONE?

As if to ratify the Peters principle on the misuse of words, The Washington Post today runs a "think" piece without much thinking, one that can drive you up the wall with its presumption, and its contortion of fact.  It seems any attack on George W. Bush will do today, and all someone has to do is declare the assault to be his "narrative," and all is forgiven, especially in academe. 

The piece is by Derek Chollet and James Goldgeier and is called "Kennan Had a Vision:  Things aren't so Clear Now."

You mean, they were that clear then, in George Kennan's day?  I don't recall that.  Do you?  Then we have this whopper:

During the Cold War, Americans grew accustomed to presidents having big, broad doctrines to organize their thinking. Sometimes these were tailored to particular places, such as Jimmy Carter's vow to protect U.S. interests in the Persian Gulf, by force if necessary, after the 1979 Soviet invasion of Afghanistan. Other doctrines were more sweeping, such as Harry S. Truman's determination to support free peoples against communist usurpers or Ronald Reagan's pledge to assist anticommunist insurgencies worldwide. All these principles were proclaimed within the context of Washington's overarching Cold War strategy to contain Soviet communism, famously articulated in 1947 by the legendary diplomat George F. Kennan.

Uh, wait a second.  Didn't Truman's opposition to Soviet Communism take form in 1946, about the time Winston S. Churchill made his famous "iron curtain" speech in Missouri?  Yeah, I think so.  That was a year before Kennan's memo on containment.

And what's this about Reagan's policies fitting within the Kennan scheme?  Didn't Reagan oppose containment?  You know, that's what I remember.  Am I wrong? 

Then we have this:

Over the almost 20 years since the fall of the Berlin Wall in November 1989, foreign policy experts have all aspired to be the next Kennan. But that communal nostalgia for the supposed simplicity of the Cold War and elegance of Kennan's containment doctrine is misplaced. A single template was one thing during the long twilight struggle against a single heavyweight rival. But since the collapse of communism, the effort to impose one grand theory on global politics has proven deeply frustrating -- and foolish.

A single template?  The USSR and China were allies during the first part of the Cold War.  Then they became enemies.  Did we have a single template to handle this change?

A single rival?  We fought China in Korea.  We never fought the USSR directly.

Look, it goes on like this.  History treated rather casually.  Push the facts into a theory.  Some editor should have looked at this and said, "Maybe next time."  It's an example of a piece that needed far more work before it made it into the Post.

July 12, 2008.       Permalink