TUESDAY,  MARCH 25,  2008

THE POLLS

If anything, John McCain seems to be strengthening his lead over Barack Obama, and holding his lead over Hillary Clinton in a general-election matchup:

Rasmussen tracking:

McCain   50

Obama    41

Gallup tracking:

McCain  47

Obama   44

Averages out to a six-point McCain lead.

Rasmussen tracking:

McCain  49

Clinton  42

Gallup tracking:

McCain  47

Clinton  45

Averages out to a 4.5-point McCain lead.

Obviously, these are snapshots.  Rasmussen's poll included March 23rd.  Gallup's went through the 22nd.  These numbers can, and probably will, fluctuate rapidly.  But the Democratic Party is not where it should be in a presumably Democratic year.  The conventional wisdom is that the nomination battle within the party is producing these numbers.  Not so, in my view.  Obama was well ahead of McCain a month ago, when the fight was just as furious.  The real problem is that Obama isn't quite as appealing today, now that his identification with Rev. Jeremiah Wright Jr. has been disclosed.  The Democrats will have to face the fact that their probable nominee no longer walks on water, and that the canoe he currently needs to get across the river is leaking.   

March 25, 2008.  Permalink

OBAMA THE HUMANITARIAN?

There's an extremely disturbing story at American Thinker that should give pause to any of the dreamy editorialists who believe that Barack Obama is the Second Coming, and will bring us serenity, unity, and the saving of Medicare.

Richard L. Benkin, a writer and scholar, has championed the cause of anti-Islamist Muslim journalist, Salah Uddin Shoaib Choudhury, now imprisoned for his views in Bangladesh.  Benkin went to Congress seeking bi-partisan support for action to free the dissident, and he got it...with an asterisk:

A really telling incident occurred not long before the 2006 election when I approached two senators at about the same time. Senator Dick Durbin (D-IL) is about as far on the left as we can find. Then Senator Rick Santorum (R-PA) is about as far on the right as we can find. Both men responded with identical support and public action. I later suggested to Santorum that it might have been the only time that he and Durbin agreed on anything.

In fact, I approached about 15 percent of the House and a handful of Senators: Democratic, Republican, left, right, moderate; you name it. And every one of them reacted with support; every one of them, that is, except one. Who was the one lawmaker that took a pass on saving the life of an imprisoned US ally and opponent of Islamist extremism? That's right, my own Illinois Senator Barack Obama.

Not good, not good.  Benkin goes on, recounting a meeting with Durbin and Obama:

I spoke with to both him and Obama, who at his best moments looked quizzical and confused. While Durbin later sent a formal protest to the Bangladeshis, Obama never responded; nor again did he or his staff reply to my subsequent entreaties.

It gets worse:

I spoke with Obama one other time about Shoaib's case, less than six months later. I reminded him or our last encounter, gave him an update on the case, and asked for his support in one of any number of ways. He hesitated a moment then held out his hand and said, "Well, we're sure happy for all the work you are doing." Propriety prevents me from verbalizing what I was thinking then. I offered to send him more information, which he asked me to do. And, guess what, I never heard back despite the reams of evidence I did send.

Barack Obama wants us to think that he has a special sensitivity to injustice and that his entire life has been about combating it. Yet, in this one concrete situation he faced, he failed to act. The fact that not one of the dozens of other lawmakers failed speaks volumes. The fact that support was never contingent on ideology speaks volumes. I often wondered if his refusal to act was strategic, ignorant, or simple cowardice. No matter, the impact on Shoaib Choudhury was the same, as it would be on any freedom fighter.

When speaking about this, I ask potential voters this question. If Barack Obama does not have the ability to stand up against injustice in Bangladesh, where is he going to find the moral courage to stand up to Iran, North Korea, or China?

The more I hear about Obama, the less impressed I become.  When we were kids we had an expression - NATO:  No Action, Talk Only. 

What, precisely, recommends this man for the presidency?

March 25, 2008. Permalink

OBAMA THE UNITER?

More examination of Obama's actual record.  Robin Toner in The New York Times writes a fair-minded piece exploring Obama's claim that he can unite the country.  Now, please remember that democracies, by their nature, are not about unity.  Democracy invites dissent and even a bit of chaos.  So when someone comes along and says he's going to unite us, skepticism is automatically in order.  In Obama's case, I recommend taking that skepticism and multiplying by about sixty:

Mr. Obama, in an interview that was conducted on March 15, in the midst of that controversy, said he was confident that Americans were eager for a new kind of politics and were convinced that “a lot of these old labels don’t apply anymore.”

He said he was a progressive and a pragmatist, eager to tackle the big issues like health care and convinced that the Democrats could — and should — rally independents and disaffected Republicans to their agenda. Only then, he said, could the party achieve what it has so rarely won in modern presidential elections: a mandate to do big things.

As my grandmother said, that's nice.

Mr. Obama’s rise has been built in part on the idea that he represents a break from the established identities that have defined many of the nation’s divisions. To many, he embodies a promise to bridge black and white, old and young, rich and poor — and Democrats, Republicans and independents.

Even so, Mr. Obama does not come to the campaign with a reputation as one of the most accommodating bridge-builders in the Senate. And while he promises a very different politics from Mrs. Clinton, their voting records in the Senate last year were not strikingly different.

Why is it that, whenever we look at Obama's actual record, we come away disappointed?  Gee, I wonder why.

Mr. Obama said: “What I’m certain about is that people are disenchanted with a highly ideological Republican Party that believes tax cuts are the answer to every problem, and lack of regulation and oversight is always going to generate economic growth, and unilateral intervention around the world is the best approach to foreign policy. So there’s no doubt the pendulum is swinging.”

Still, he added: “The Democrats have to seize this opportunity by showing people in very practical terms how a different set of policies can deliver solutions that will actually make a difference in their lives. I think the jury is still out right now.”

Mark Penn, the chief strategist for Mrs. Clinton, said Mr. Obama’s Senate career did not back up his promise of being able to forge a new governing coalition across party lines.

“It’s a great promise,” Mr. Penn said. “But are the actions consistent with the words? I don’t see it.”

Yeah, that old consistency problem.  Penn is right. 

So far, Republicans give every indication of planning to portray Mr. Obama as just another big-government liberal.

“When you’re rated by National Journal as to the left of Ted Kennedy and Bernie Sanders, that’s going to be difficult to explain,” said Danny Diaz, a spokesman for the Republican National Committee.

Lots of explanations coming.  Many, many, many.  None of them accurate.

March 25, 2008. Permalink

WE TALK, THE ENEMY LISTENS

A recent Harvard study has gotten very little attention.  When you learn its conclusions, you'll understand why.  It's amazing it ever saw print.

The results:

Researchers at Harvard say that publicly voiced doubts about the U.S. occupation of Iraq have a measurable "emboldenment effect" on insurgents there.

Periods of intense news media coverage in the United States of criticism about the war, or of polling about public opinion on the conflict, are followed by a small but quantifiable increases in the number of attacks on civilians and U.S. forces in Iraq, according to a study by Radha Iyengar, a Robert Wood Johnson Scholar in health policy research at Harvard and Jonathan Monten of the Belfer Center at the university's Kennedy School of Government.

The increase in attacks is more pronounced in areas of Iraq that have better access to international news media, the authors conclude in a report titled "Is There an 'Emboldenment' Effect? Evidence from the Insurgency in Iraq."

The researchers studied data about insurgent attacks and U.S. media coverage up to November, tracking what they called "anti-resolve statements" by U.S. politicians and reports about American public opinion on the war.

"We find that in periods immediately after a spike in anti-resolve statements, the level of insurgent attacks increases," says the study, published earlier this month by the National Bureau of Economic Research, a leading U.S. nonprofit economic research organization.

Burn it!  Burn that study!  Pay no attention!  These people want to take away our rights!  They want to make us into militaristic robots!  They want...

No they don't:

The researchers conclude that the increases in attacks are a necessary cost of the way democratic societies fight wars and say they are concerned that the research may be seized upon by the Iraq war's supporters to try and silence its critics.

"We are a little bit worried about that," Mr. Monten said in an interview. "Our data suggests that there is a small, but measurable cost" to "anything that provides information about attitudes towards the war."

The researchers are simply providing facts.  The same facts surfaced after the Vietnam War.  We know from their own official history that the North Vietnamese monitored American opinion carefully, and that what they found was factored into their strategy.

We must maintain the freedom to dissent.  But it's reasonable to ask people, especially public figures, to be careful.  When Barack Obama says that the Iraq war should never have been fought, he is providing powerful incentives to the enemy.  Does he care?  Hmm.  I don't know.   But if he cared, why does he keep saying it?

March 25, 2008. Permalink

TODAY'S CONFESSIONS

Finally, I honor my promise to keep you up to date on the political follies here in New York.  Our new governor, who replaced the old governor, who resigned in disgrace, now has admitted his own disgraces.  They begin with marital infidelity.

But the man is a bottomless pit of rotten behavior and confessions of same.  We glory in his "coming forward" and "reaching out," and doing all the stuff the shrinks say we should do.  His latest, brought to you nonjudgmentally of course:

NEW YORK -- New York's new governor, who disclosed last week that he and his wife both committed adultery several years ago, said Monday that he used cocaine in his 20s and smoked marijuana when he was younger.

In reference to cocaine, Gov. David Paterson, 53, said in a television interview that he "tried it a couple of times" when he was "about 22 or 23."

"And marijuana probably when I was about 20," he said on the NY1 cable news station. "I don't think I touched marijuana since the '70s."

"More Americans have tried a lot more during that period of time and gone on to lead responsible lives and hopefully have lived their lives to their fullest," he said.

Paterson was lieutenant governor under Gov. Eliot Spitzer, who resigned last week amid a prostitution scandal.

Last week, Paterson and his wife, Michelle Paterson, disclosed they each had strayed from the marriage years ago. The couple were separated for a "couple years" at the time, David Paterson said Monday.

Did he inhale?  I don't know.  Clinton says he didn't inhale.  I guess that's the standard, and, as a voter, I demand that Paterson be held to it.  We are an ethical state.

Stay tuned.  David Paterson probably has more to tell.  Knowing New York, he'll probably get more attention from literary agents than from prosecutors. 

And I'll be back later.

March 25, 2008. Permalink