William Katz: Urgent Agenda
LATER EVENING POST: JULY 14, 2008
Posted at 11:26 p.m. ET
COMMANDER-IN-CHIEF
Earlier today we referred to a Washington Post column analyzing McCain's prospects, as indicated by current polls. The verdict: McCain has a reasonable shot.
Now a new survey is out, tending to confirm those conclusions. ABC News reports:
Americans divide evenly between Barack Obama and John McCain's approaches to the war in Iraq, and rate McCain much more highly on his abilities as commander-in-chief — key reasons the unpopular war isn't working more to Obama's advantage.
Despite broad, longstanding dissatisfaction with the war, just 50 percent of Americans prefer Obama's plan to withdraw most U.S. forces within 16 months of taking office. Essentially as many, 49 percent, side with McCain's position — setting no timetable and letting events dictate when troops are withdrawn.
That division is reflected in another result: While Obama's steadily led on most domestic issues, he and McCain run about evenly in trust to handle Iraq, 45-47 percent in this new ABC News/Washington Post poll.
And...
One reason McCain can push back on Iraq is his advantage as commander-in-chief — a striking one, albeit perhaps not surprising given his military background. Seventy-two percent of Americans — even most Democrats — say he'd be a good commander-in-chief of the military.
By contrast, fewer than half, 48 percent, say Obama would be a good commander-in-chief, a significant weakness on this measure.
Yes, very significant. The importance of this measure will be determined, to some degree, by the news events of October. If foreign threats are in the news, McCain gains. If they're not, he'll have a tougher time reminding voters of his main qualification.
Finally, there is this disturbing finding in the poll:
On Afghanistan, however, independents side more closely with Republicans than with Democrats. 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.
It is hard to read that and not recall the Democratic Party of Roosevelt, Truman and Kennedy. What became of that party? I can understand controversy over Iraq. But we went to Afghanistan to go after the very people who attacked us on 9/11 and the powers that shielded them. And this isn't linked to the eventual defeat of terrorism? I suspect that the Democratic numbers are skewed by a hard-left group that votes Democratic but is actually outside the mainstream of the party. Still, that poll result should not bring comfort to anyone concerned about the national security of the United States.
July 14, 2008. Permalink 
EARLY EVENING POST: JULY 14, 2008
Posted at 7:18 p.m. ET
O CANADA
Sometimes we think of Canada as uniformly liberal, always ready to take a dig at the Yanks, and rather lofty and pure.
It's a stereotype. There are people in Canada, from the conservative prime minister on down, who have a very realistic and mature view of the world. Example: Canadian scientists who have begun to question the received wisdom and religious teachings of the global-warming cult.
Peter Worthington of The Toronto Sun reports on some important pushback going on up north. I doubt if Al Gore is interested:
Go on the Internet to www.friendsofscience.org, the University of Calgary-based non-profit volunteer organization of atmospheric and other scientists who challenge politically inspired concepts that the planet is threatened by climate change due to man's irresponsible misuse of the environment.
The website is replete with data that differs considerably from the Chicken Little "Sky is Falling!" convictions of the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), comprised of 2,500 scientists (of differing disciplines) whose assessments are sorted and selected by another UN body which blends them into a politically acceptable rant.
And...
Another voice of sanity is Lawrence Solomon, a founder of Energy Probe and various environmental bodies. He's authored several respected environmental books and is a columnist for the National Post.
In a extensive interview with Troy Media, Solomon, demolished many of the environmental myths and climate beliefs that infect society today. A few points:
- The media's belief that science is agreed on climate change and the UN's conclusions, is wrong.
- Many climate change advocates see Kyoto as a means of transferring wealth to Third World countries -- especially in the carbon-trading field of developed countries buying credits from less-developed countries' (India and China).
- Many believe CO is a problem. It is not. It may really be a benefit as "nature's fertilizer."
- Science is not unanimous on climate change. Earth has been hotter in the past (1934 was the hottest year of the past century), and Earth is greener today than any time in recent years.
- Imposing carbon taxes is premature. Ethanol is an economic and environmental boondoggle that may produce unclean air. It increases greenhouse gases, while contributing to inflation and rising food prices.
- As a fuel, coal has been made super clean, similar to natural gas. Canada has hundreds of years of coal resources, but politicians fear public anger if they advocate coal.
Read the whole piece. We need some courageous political and scientific leaders to step forward and insist on more research, better-informed opinion and at least a hint of wisdom before we destroy so much of what the developed world has built up, in pursuit of a vague theory that seems to have so many built-in "ifs."
July 14, 2008. Permalink
AFTERNOON POST: JULY 14, 2008
Posted at 4:03 p.m. ET
Gallup has now published its tracker for today, showing Obama up by three, no change from yesterday. With Rasmussen showing Obama up one, that's an average lead of two points. Nothing.
Chris Cillizza, writing in the Washington Post's "The Fix," gives a thorough analysis of where the race stands, and, delightfully for us, gives McCain some prospect of winning, if the stars align correctly.
The relative closeness of the race between the two men has emboldened some Republicans who believe that as long as McCain can stay a few points back heading into the fall campaign -- when casual voters begin paying serious attention to the race -- he has a chance to pull off a major upset.
And...
While each candidate seems to have largely unified his base (McCain take 83 percent of self identifying Republicans, Obama 81 percent of self identifying Democrats), it's among the independent voters where the Arizona senator has gained.
McCain takes 41 percent of the vote among independents to Obama's 34 percent -- a sign that the maverick appeal that McCain demonstrated during the 2000 campaign still resonates with voters who don't closely identify with either party.
And...
McCain's lead among independents may also suggest that Obama's recent moves to the ideological center on the war in Iraq and domestic wiretapping legislation have created some doubts in voters' minds about what he stands for. Asked whether they agreed with the statement that Obama "has changed his positions on key policy issues to try to gain political advantage," 53 percent of Newsweek respondents said they did while 32 percent said they did not.
Finally...
And, if you are a Democrat, the poll also included ominous numbers that suggest that past may be prologue in this race. At roughly this point in the 2004 election, Sen. John Kerry led President George W. Bush by a 47 percent to 44 percent margin in the Newsweek survey; at this point in 2000, the race was knotted between Bush (41 percent) and then Vice President Al Gore (40 percent).
I think that's basically correct. Cillizza does not take into account the heavy press bias in Obama's direction, and I wonder how he'd assess the potentially huge turnout of African-American voters. (He doesn't mention race at all.)
But McCain can do it - if he brings his campaign alive, makes a spirited, news-making choice for vice president, and speaks above the media to the American people. He must also be ready for any move that could push Obama way ahead.
The election is less than four months away.
July 14, 2008. Permalink
LATER MORNING POST: JULY 14, 2008
Posted at 9:36 a.m. ET
TRACKER
The first tracker of the week is out. Rasmussen reports Obama leading by one, when leaners are included. He had the race tied yesterday. However, the trend in the last week is clear: Obama has been losing support. Rasmussen:
The Rasmussen Reports daily Presidential Tracking Poll shows Barack Obama attracting 44% of the vote while John McCain earns 42%. The candidates had been tied at 43% for the past two days.
When "leaners" are included, it’s Obama 47% and McCain 46%. For most of the past month-and-a-half, Obama has led McCain by approximately five percentage points (see recent daily results). Tracking Polls are released at 9:30 a.m. Eastern Time each day (see recent demographic highlights). McCain’s improvement in the polls comes as more Americans believe it is possible for the U.S. to win the war in Iraq.
McCain is now viewed favorably by 56% of voters and unfavorably by 41%. For Obama, the numbers are 54% favorable and 43% unfavorable.
We view polls with caution here. The shifts we see are not large. But, in a Democratic year, Obama should be doing much better.
July 14, 2008. Permalink
MONDAY: JULY 14, 2008
Posted at 7:15 a.m. ET
THE HERO
After saying in February that he was open to supporting school vouchers if research showed they were effective, Barack Obama now tells the American Federation of Teachers that he unequivocally opposes them.
This apparently is another example of Obama's illusions of pander.
However, there may be some hope here. Mr. Obama did not deliver his remarks in person to the group's convention, but did so by satellite, keeping his distance. This offended some members, who did not feel appropriately groveled to.
There was no indication that the plight of American school children, forced to attend mediocre or failing schools, would soon improve. That might require vouchers.
July 14, 2008. Permalink
NO SURRENDER
You have to give them credit, the same kind of credit Japan gave its kamikaze pilots.
Some supporters of Hillary Clinton cling to the hope that she can still win the Democratic nomination. Reading between the lines, they appear to be praying that superdelegates, who are permitted to change their minds, will do so before the August Democratic convention, possibly disillusioned by Saint Barack's unsaintly flip-flops and evasions.
Congressional Quarterly reports:
The senator from New York is said to be negotiating a respectful presence followed by a graceful exit from next month’s Democratic convention, and last week the party announced that Barack Obama would formally accept the party’s nomination in the stadium built for the Denver Broncos. But there are Clinton supporters clinging to the hope that if her name is placed in nomination and the roll call of the states is conducted, she might — might — still win.
Heidi Li Feldman, a Georgetown University law professor, insists there’s still “no way of predicting” the outcome should there be a fair vote. That’s because Obama has not secured enough pledged delegates to ensure the magic number of 2,118 needed to claim victory; the Illinois senator has gone past that benchmark only with the pledges of about 390 superdelegates — and they can change their minds at any time up to the moment they cast their ballots.
“If they had a meaningful vote, I have no idea who would win,” Feldman says. “But I know that if Sen. Obama were sure he would win, there wouldn’t be a negotiation” about Clinton’s role at the convention.
This may be diehard mischief-making, but you never know. In the weeks since he supposedly clinched the Democratic nomination, Obama has not performed brilliantly, and appears to be slipping in the polls.
The chances of a dump-Obama movement succeeding, though, are very slim. First, despite his mishaps and numbing changes of mind, Mr. Obama has not been convicted of a felony, and has not been charged with child molestation. Short of that, it's hard to see the party turning on him, especially since "him" is the first African American destined to lead a national ticket. Can you imagine the response in Harlem and Watts if the Democratic elders suddenly pulled the Oval Office rug out from under him? McCain would win without campaigning.
But Professor Feldman's maneuvers are fun to watch in the dull month of July.
July 14, 2008. Permalink
REPELLENT
Another former CIA officer has stepped forward to announce that we have greatly overstated the threat of Islamic extremism.
Given the track record of these boys, you'd think they'd retire peacefully or go live in Paris. Apparently, the lure of a book contract is just too much.
Glenn L. Carle, who retired in 2007 as deputy national intelligence officer for transnational threats, tells us in the Washington Post that we are just worry warts. I have no idea, by the way, what his title means. He writes:
The "Global War on Terror" has conjured the image of terrorists behind every bush, the bushes themselves burning and an angry god inciting its faithful to religious war. We have been called to arms, built fences, and compromised our laws and the practices that define us as a nation. The administration has focused on pursuing terrorists and countering an imminent and terrifying threat. Thousands of Americans have died as a result, as have tens of thousands of foreigners.
The inclination to trust our leaders when they warn of danger is compelling, particularly when the specters of mushroom clouds and jihadists haunt every debate. McCain, accepting this view of the threats, pledges to continue the Bush administration's policy of few distinctions but ruthless actions.
That is utterly repellent. We lost more people on 9-11 than at Pearl Harbor. Iran, the world's chief sponsor of terror, is working toward a nuclear weapon, unless we believe that its vast, bunker-protected program is designed to recharge iPods.
Osama bin Laden and his disciples are small men and secondary threats whose shadows are made large by our fears. Al-Qaeda is the only global jihadist organization and is the only Islamic terrorist organization that targets the U.S. homeland. Al-Qaeda remains capable of striking here and is plotting from its redoubt in Waziristan, Pakistan. The organization, however, has only a handful of individuals capable of planning, organizing and leading a terrorist operation. Al-Qaeda threatens to use chemical, biological, radiological or nuclear weapons, but its capabilities are far inferior to its desires. Even the "loose nuke" threat, whose consequences would be horrific, has a very low probability. For the medium term, any attack is overwhelmingly likely to consist of creative uses of conventional explosives.
Why am I not encouraged by this last piece of goo? Phrases like "low probability" or "medium term" do not give me confidence about my children's future. It is to prevent the higher probability and make sure we don't get beyond "medium term" that we're fighting this fight. Where has this man been?
Then we get this?
The threat from Islamic terrorism is no larger now than it was before Sept. 11, 2001. Islamic societies the world over are in turmoil and will continue for years to produce small numbers of dedicated killers, whom we must stop. U.S. and allied intelligence do a good job at that; these efforts, however, will never succeed in neutralizing every terrorist, everywhere.
This is the kind of hedging and dodging for which the CIA, which should have been abolished long ago, is justly famous. What, precisely, is this man saying? That some will get through? How many thousands might they kill?
Now we come to the main event, sheer resentful politics:
Why are these views so starkly at odds with what the Bush administration has said since the beginning of the "Global War on Terror"? This administration has heard what it has wished to hear, pressured the intelligence community to verify preconceptions, undermined or sidetracked opposing voices, and both instituted and been victim of procedures that guaranteed that the slightest terrorist threat reporting would receive disproportionate weight -- thereby comforting the administration's preconceptions and policy inclinations.
We must not delude ourselves about the nature of the terrorist threat to our country. We must not take fright at the specter our leaders have exaggerated. In fact, we must see jihadists for the small, lethal, disjointed and miserable opponents that they are.
And Hitler is just a ragtag local leader, and those Japanese can't possibly build a modern plane.
I like the overwhelming attention we've given the terrorist threat. We have punched back, and we haven't been attacked at home since 9-11. I give the "alarmists" a great deal of credit.
July 14, 2008. Permalink