SECOND EVENING UPDATE:  JUNE 21,  2008

Posted at 10:42 p.m. ET

THE BUSH LEGACY

I think we'll be seeing a number of pieces like this - a sober reassessment of President Bush and his legacy.  And it comes from Britain, where some of the journalism about the American political landscape has been remarkably sharp recently.  This is from Andrew Roberts of The Telegraph:

The overthrow and execution of a foul tyrant, Saddam Hussein; the liberation of the Afghan people from the Taliban; the smashing of the terrorist networks of al-Qa'eda in that country and elsewhere and, finally, the protection of the American people from any further atrocities on US soil since 9/11, is a legacy of which to be proud.

While of course every individual death is a tragedy to the bereaved families, these great achievements have been won at a cost in human life a fraction the size of any past world-historical struggle of this magnitude.

I'm so glad someone finally said it.  Further:

History will also shine an unforgiving light on those ludicrous conspiracy theories that claim that the Iraq War was fought for any other reason than to implement the 14 UN resolutions that Saddam that had been flouting for 13 years.

The CIA and MI6 believed, like almost every other intelligence agency in the world, that Saddam had WMD, and the "Harmony" documents seized and translated since the fall of his regime make it abundantly clear that he was also supporting almost every anti-Western terrorist organisation imaginable.

Historians will appreciate how any War Against Terror that allowed Saddam to remain in place would have been an absurd travesty.

Finally...

Give Iraq five, ten or twenty years, and Bush's decision to undertake the surge - courageously taken in the face of all bien pensant and "expert" opinion on both sides of the Atlantic - will rank alongside some of Harry Truman's great decisions of 1945-53.

If that happens, the time will come when George W Bush will be able to say what Lord Salisbury called the four cruellest yet sweetest words in the English language: "I told you so."

Quite good, I think.  But there's a cloud here:  If we elect Obama, he and his Soros-funded crowd may undo all the good that's been done, partly to prove they were right, and partly because they believe America is wrong.  If that happens, it will take another Reagan to reverse the course. 

June 21, 2008.      Permalink          

FIRST EVENING UPDATE:  JUNE 21,  2008

Posted at 8:32 p.m. ET

BARONE ON GOOD NEWS

Michael Barone, one of our very best commentators, believes that changing facts are coming to the aid of the GOP:

As we enter the second half of the campaign year, facts are undermining the Democratic narrative that has dominated our politics since about the time Hurricane Katrina rolled into the Gulf coast -- most importantly, the facts about Iraq.

During the Democratic primary season, all the party's candidates veered hardly a jot or tittle from the narrative that helped the Democrats sweep the November 2006 elections. Iraq is spiraling into civil war, we invaded unwisely and have botched things ever since, no good outcome is possible, and it is time to get out of there as fast as we can.

In January 2007, when George W. Bush ordered the surge strategy, which John McCain had advocated since the summer of 2003, Barack Obama informed us that the surge couldn't work. The only thing to do was to get out as soon as possible.

That stance proved to be a good move toward winning the presidential nomination -- but it was poor prophecy. It is beyond doubt now that the surge has been hugely successful, beyond even the hopes of its strongest advocates.

And...

I can remember how opponents of the Vietnam War simply tuned out news of American success when at Richard Nixon's orders Gen. Creighton Abrams pursued a new strategy. Opponents of the Iraq war, including Obama, seem to have been doing the same.

Ah yes, I remember it well.  And many of those opponents, including major journalists, still will not admit either the truth or the manner in which they misled this nation.  And some of them are running news organizations today.  Barone:

And the fact of $4 gasoline has undermined the narrative that alternative forms of energy can painlessly supply our needs. Public opinion has switched sharply and now favors drilling offshore and, by inference, in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. Democrats are scrambling to argue that drilling wouldn't make any difference -- and that anyway the oil companies aren't drilling enough on federal land they currently lease.

All of this matters because the rejection of the Republicans in the 2006 elections was a verdict on competence more than ideology. The Republicans seemed incompetent at relieving victims of Katrina, producing success in Iraq and even policing the House page programs. The Democrats could not do worse and might do better. But in the 19 months since November 2006, some important facts have changed.

If George W. Bush was wrong about the surge from summer 2003 to January 2007, Barack Obama has been wrong about it from January 2007 to today. John McCain seems to have been right on it all along. When asked why he changed his position on an issue, John Maynard Keynes said: "When the facts change, I change my mind. What do you do, sir?" What say you, Sen. Obama?

Wonderfully stated.  But there are questions:  Does Senator McCain have the political skill, and the will, to take advantage of the change in facts?  Will the press report the campaign accurately, or continue to give Obama one pass after another?  When Obama goes to Iraq, will he give an honest appraisal of what he finds, or gin up an answer to satisfy the loony left?  Will the press let him?  Finally, will Obama's attractiveness, and his appeal to an appallingly miseducated youth, overwhelm everything else?   

In 1972, an America that had suffered far more in Vietnam than we have in Iraq, refused to hand the keys to the kingdom over to the ultra-liberal George McGovern.  But 2008 is different.  An entire generation is under the thumb of sixties educators and journalists.  Obama's opponent does not have, as Nixon had, the power of incumbency.  The example of the World War II generation has faded away.

For Nixon, it was easy.  For McCain, it will be a struggle.

June 21, 2008.       Permalink          

AFTERNOON POST:  JUNE 21,  2008

Posted at 4:12 p.m. ET

TRACKER

Only Rasmussen posts a new tracking poll today:

The Rasmussen Reports daily Presidential Tracking Poll for Saturday shows Barack Obama attracting 46% of the vote while John McCain earns 40%. When "leaners" are included, Obama leads 48% to 43%. This is the sixth straight day that Obama’s support has been at 48% (see recent daily results). Tracking poll results are updated at 9:30 a.m. Eastern Time each day (see recent demographic notes).

The Rasmussen Reports Balance of Power Calculator shows Obama leading in states with 200 Electoral College votes while McCain leads in states with 174 votes. When leaners are included, it’s Obama 284, McCain 240.

This is a far cry from the 15-point gap reported by a Newsweek poll yesterday, and consistent with what we've seen. 

The key in the next week will be Obama's opposition to offshore drilling - Americans are heavily for it - and his flip-flop on campaign financing.  Let's see if these things affect his numbers.  However, with the primaries over and the summer season starting, the attention of voters will be at a low point.  In September that will change.

The danger, of course, is that Americans now know the candidates pretty well because of the lengthy primary process.  I don't know how much "give" there is in the poll numbers.  McCain has work to do.

UPDATE AT 4:55 p.m. ET:   Gallup now reports, in today's tracker, that Obama has only a two-point lead over McCain.  Averaging Gallup and Rasmussen, we come to a 3.5-point lead for Obama.   

June 21, 2008.      Permalink          

SATURDAY:  JUNE 21,  2008

Posted at 8:20 a.m. ET

THE CARD

I didn't think they'd play the race card so soon.  But Barack Obama, in what is really a quite shocking statement, accused the GOP of preparing a smear campaign against him that will include race:

JACKSONVILLE, Florida (Reuters) - Democratic presidential contender Barack Obama said on Friday he expects Republicans to highlight the fact that he is black as part of an effort to make voters afraid of him.

"It is going to be very difficult for Republicans to run on their stewardship of the economy or their outstanding foreign policy," Obama told a fundraiser in Jacksonville, Florida. "We know what kind of campaign they're going to run. They're going to try to make you afraid.

"They're going to try to make you afraid of me. He's young and inexperienced and he's got a funny name. And did I mention he's black?"

He said he was also set for Republicans to say "he's got a feisty wife," in trying to attack his wife Michelle.

That's just awful.  It really is.  John McCain, in particular, has gone out of his way to avoid personal attacks, and there is nothing to suggest that he would inject race into the campaign.  The only one mentioning it is Barack Obama.

Coming at the same time that Obama did a 180 and rejected public financing of campaigns, despite his previous, vigorous support for it, the image of Obama that emerges is that of a conventional machine politician, not the reformer he claims to be.  The bloom has been off the rose for some time, but the mainstream media insists on painting it back on.  Now, maybe, even some of the in-the-tank-for-Obama crowd will make at least a minimal attempt to climb out.

June 21, 2008.      Permalink          

CASH

It turns out that the the GOP money situation may be far better than previously thought.  Bloomberg reports:

June 21 (Bloomberg) -- John McCain, who was outraised by a 2-1 margin by Barack Obama during the presidential primaries, entered June with almost as much money as the presumptive Democratic nominee.

When combined with the Republican National Committee's bank balance, McCain, the presumptive Republican nominee, had more money to spend than Obama during the three months leading up to the national party conventions.

McCain, an Arizona senator, had $31.6 million as of May 31, compared with $33.3 million for Obama, Federal Election Commission records show. The RNC had $53.5 million to just under $4 million for the Democrats. The party committees act as shadow campaigns, concentrating their efforts on backing the presidential candidates.

Still to be determined is McCain's ability to raise funds for the major push that follows Labor Day.  That's when the race will be decided.  But so far, the GOP seems to be holding its own.

June 21, 2008.      Permalink          

LANDSLIDE JOHN?

The acerbic Jack Kelly is one of my favorite columnists.  He puts himself out there, and makes no attempt to hide.  He thinks McCain could win in a landslide, but must first follow Kelly's advice.  The advice is intriguing.  Consider:

SEN. Barack Obama has the lead for the time being. But three signposts point the way to a McCain landslide in November, in the unlikely event the Arizona senator has the wit to heed them.

What figures to be by far the most important issue this fall is the skyrocketing price of energy and its deleterious effect on the broader economy and national security.

Now that Sen. John McCain has flip-flopped on drilling off our coasts, there is a substantial difference between him and Mr. Obama on the issue. Mr. McCain also supports building more nuclear power plants, which Mr. Obama opposes.

Opinion polls indicate a large majority supports drilling for oil off our coasts and in Alaska. That majority is likely to expand and harden as gas prices rise this summer. But Mr. McCain can't fully capitalize politically on this change in public attitude unless he completes his flip-flop and consents to drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge.

And...

The second signpost is Mr. Obama's clumsy embrace of a Sept. 10 attitude toward the war on terror. The law enforcement approach toward fighting it is precisely what led to 9/11. Fortunately, national security is the one issue Mr. McCain knows something about.

And...

The third signpost was illuminated by the flap over the receipt by the now former head of Mr. Obama's vice presidential selection committee and two prominent U.S. senators of below-market-rate loans from Countrywide Finance, which Mr. Obama has charged is in large part responsible for the subprime mortgage crisis. One of those senators, Chris Dodd of Connecticut, is trying to push through Congress a bill that would, in effect, bail out Countrywide.

This glaring conflict of interest hasn't attracted much attention from the news media because for most journalists, a scandal isn't really a scandal unless Republicans are involved. But it's a tailor-made issue for Mr. McCain.

Finally, get this:

The signposts also indicate who Mr. McCain should choose for his running mate. No Republican can better make the case for drilling than Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin, and no governor has fought harder against corruption, especially in her own party.

So go to ANWR, Mr. McCain. Embrace Sarah Palin there.

Hmm.  Palin is getting some mention.  She'd help with the women's vote, presumably, and she's extremely popular.  Negative:  No foreign-policy background, and not well known outside Alaska.

But Kelly's ideas are fascinating.  I agree that the price of gas at the pump may well emerge as the leading issue, especially if the price goes even higher than it is.  There's that magic number:  Five dollars a gallon.  And the Democrats are hemmed in by their obeisance to the environmental lobbies.  John McCain, listen up.

June 21, 2008.      Permalink