Category: Politics

More Cold Water On The Obama Bonfire

John Fund thinks that Barack Obama will sit out the 2008 race. I’m inclined to agree:

In 2004, when Mr. Obama ran for the U.S. Senate, he had the good luck of seeing both Blair Hull, the front-runner for the Democratic nomination, and Jack Ryan, the GOP nominee, self-destruct in sex scandals. Mr. Obama’s eventual Republican opponent, Alan Keyes, was an unserious candidate who won the votes of only 56% of Republican voters. A local Chicago political columnist notes that Mr. Obama is the closest thing to a rookie candidate on the national stage since Dwight Eisenhower and nicknames him “Obambi.” Candidates as green as Mr. Obama make rookie mistakes under the searing scrutiny of a national campaign,

The attraction Democrats have towards Obama is perfectly understandable. They’re looking for the “anti-Hillary” — the person who can reach across the red/blue divide and defeat the strongest Republican candidates. Obama is an orator of extraordinary eloquence, he’s got an excellent life story, and he’s telegenic as anyone. The guy admittedly has charisma not seen since another politician named Clinton.

However, Obama’s is also a doctrinaire left-winger who has never run in a competitive race in his life. Fund is right, someone like him can go from heir apparent to disaster in a heartbeat. A national political campaign is about the most grueling experience there is, and the Hillary smear machine would have a field day pointing out that Obama is an empty suit, at least so far.

Obama could win in 2008, no doubt about it, but there’s also a rather large chance he could lose too. Why bother? Fund is right that a Clinton/Obama ticket would be one of the strongest ones that the Democrats could hope for, and if Clinton wins, Obama gets to be next in line. If Clinton loses, he’s still next in line. Either way, it’s good for Barack Obama.

I think all this Obama-mania is more a reflection on the weakness of Hillary Clinton rather than on the political strengths of Barack Obama — great as they are. Obama hasn’t had to do much other than turn up the charm — which admittedly means a lot in politics, but it isn’t everything. There’s no doubt that Obama could have a very bright political future, but at 45, he doesn’t have to be in any hurry to go for the brass ring quite yet.

Sen. Johnson Recovering

CNN is reporting that South Dakota Senator Tim Johnson is recovering after his brain hemorrhage earlier this week. He remains in critical condition due to postoperative swelling of the brain, but that is typical in cases such as his. The political speculation about his seat, thankfully, appears to be moot. Unless Johnson has a dramatic turn for the worse, even with months of physical therapy, it seems unlikely that he would resign his seat or be so incapacitated that he cannot serve.

Laying The Cards On The Table

John Hinderaker has some rather interesting advice for President Bush as to how to handle the current war in the Middle East.

So here is what you, President Bush, should do: take as a model the Cuban Missile Crisis. First John Kennedy, then Adlai Stevenson, laid before the world the evidence, in the form of aerial photographs, that the Soviet Union was installing nuclear arms in Cuba. The proof was taken as conclusive, and, consequently, the Kennedy administration’s actions enjoyed universal support at home, and widespread support abroad.

Do something similar here. Commandeer a half hour in prime time to tell the American people, and the world, that we have clear evidence of Iran’s involvement in killing American servicemen. Show the captured munitions. Explain exactly how they have contributed to American casualties. Display aerial photos of the training camps. No doubt there is much more evidence that can be presented or described.

You should say that Iran’s supplying of weapons in order to kill Americans is an act of war. In the dramatic finale of your speech, announce that thirty minutes earlier, American airplanes stationed in the Middle East took off, their destination, one of the munitions plants or training camps of which you have shown pictures. That training camp, you say, no longer exists. You say that if Iran does not immediately cease all support for, and fomenting of, violence in Iraq, we will continue to strike military targets inside Iran.

That would certainly get the attention of the mullahs in Iran. Those of us who pay attention to the situation in the Middle East have seen that what is going on is more than just violence in Iraq. Iraq is the battlefield for what amounts to a regional civil war that has been brewing within the heart of Islam for centuries. The old rivalry between Sunni and Shi’ite is exploding once more, and Iran is trying to claim influence for itself. The Saudis are already warning the United States that if the US leaves Iraq, they’ll be forced to defend Iraqi Sunnis. Meanwhile, Iranian-backed militants are massacring Iraqis by the dozens and trying to tear that country apart.

We are facing a regional crisis, and we need a regional solution. On that account, the Iraqi Survey Group was entirely correct: the problem is that neither Iran nor Syria have any interest in negotiating an equitable settlement. Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has become so dangerous that the true rulers of Iran, the Guardian Council and Grand Ayatollah Ali Khameini are trying to sideline him. With the upcoming Iranian elections key to deciding who replaces the ailing Khameini, Ahmadinejad has the opportunity to completely control all elements of the Iranian state. Should Ahmedinejad’s forces do well in this election, it’s likely that his rule will become even more absolute. While there is growing opposition in Tehran, Ahmadinejad is a shrewd politician and is quite popular among the poor in Iran. His political power should not be underestimated.

Ahmadinejad wants Iran to be a nuclear power, and once that happens, he will ignite a nuclear war in the Middle East. He is not the sort of leader who can be deterred. It is simply too risky having someone who may very well believe that the destruction of Israel will usher in the coming of the Imam Mahdi and the rise of a global Islamic caliphate to have the means to commence that apocalyptic vision.

By the time that Iran gains nuclear weapons, it will already have been too late. President Bush must act soon to prevent the Iranians from reaching nuclear capability. The left, which has done everything they can to undermine the President, has left America significantly weaker than before. By attacking the credibility of evidence that was the consensus of every major intelligence service on the globe, including those opposed to the invasion of Iraq, it has weakened our ability to go after future threats. Bush could make this his Cuban Missile Crisis moment, and there is no room for doubt that Iran is acting to destabilize Iraq, but it’s questionable whether Bush has the political capital here or abroad to do anything about it.

I agree with Hinderaker that something must be done. Where my doubts lie is whether this Administration has the political will or the political capital to do it. Not only have we been far too timid in Iraq, which has put a strain on our ability to fight elsewhere, but Bush has lost the support of the American people beyond just the radical left. Boldness does pay off, but it should have happened a long time ago when Bush had a chance to show initiative.

Sooner or later, we’ll have to deal with Tehran. Sadly, I don’t see it happening before things spiral to a point where we’ve absolutely no choice but to react. It’s a sad state of affairs, but it is the result of a lack of leadership from the Administration and the constant politicization of this war.

Then again, I’d love to be proven wrong on this, which is why if nothing else, Hinderaker’s advice should be taken quite seriously.

UPDATE: Military historian Arthur Herman has an interesting piece in Commentary on a realistic military option for dealing with Iran that involves taking control of the key Straights of Hormuz. 40% of the world’s oil (soon to be a majority) passes through that key region, and the Iranians have plans on the table to use it as an economic weapon against the world. The US has already engaged in active hostilities with Iran over the Straights in 1987-1989. We may need to use US naval and air power to keep them open again.

Herman argues that such a campaign would be quite effective in taking down the Iranian regime:

In fact, there is little Iran could do in the face of relentless military pressure at its most vulnerable point. Today, not only are key elements of the Iranian military in worse shape than in the 1980’s, but even the oil weapon is less formidable than imagined. Currently Iran exports an estimated 2.5 million barrels of oil a day. Yet according to a recent report in Forbes, quoting the oil-industry analyst Michael Lynch, new sources of oil around the world will have boosted total production by 2 million barrels a day in this year alone, and next year by three million barrels a day. In short, other producers (including Iranian platforms in American hands) can take up some if not all of the slack. The real loser would be Iran itself. Pumping crude oil is its only industry, making up 85 percent of its exports and providing 65 percent of the state budget. With its wells held hostage, the country’s economy could enter free fall.

A limited war that involves control over the Straights of Hormuz may be our best option for containing Iran at some point – although the Iranians could cause quite a bit of trouble for us by ratcheting up the violence in Iraq and using their Hizballah puppets in Lebanon to cause trouble along the Israeli border. In dealing with this looming crisis we don’t have good options, just options that are less bad than others.

UPDATE: The Washington Note says that Saudi Prince Bandar is pushing for military confrontation with Iran. That isn’t surprising, the Iranians could cripple the Saudi economy by closing the Straights of Hormuz. The rapid departure of Ambassador Turki from Washington suggests that there are deep divisions within the House of Saud as to how to proceed against this threat. Ultimately, if Iran does decide to act, the Saudis would feel the heat more than nearly anyone else, which is why they are quite worried about what Iran may do next.

Johnson In Critical Condition

The Argus-Leader reports that Senator Tim Johnson is in critical condition after surgery to repair a brain hemorrhage. Johnson apparently had a condition called congenital arteriovenous malformation – the Mayo Clinic has some background information on the condition.

It is unclear how long Sen. Johnson may be out of commission, but it could be a long while. His condition is better than initially feared, but the process of recovery could take days, weeks, or even months.

It still seems quite premature to think about the political consequences at this time, there may be plenty of time for that later, and let us all hope that such considerations become unnecessary when Sen. Johnson recovers from his illness.

UPDATE: Apparently there is a 20-30% chance of some brain damage with these bleeding events, depending on where on the brain the bleeding was located. There has been no word on where the bleeding event occurred, although it will take some time for Senator Johnson to recover regardless. I still think it’s early to start speculating about the political consequences, although South Dakota law does allow the governor to appoint a Senator to fill a vacancy. It hasn’t come to that yet, and God willing it won’t.

Sen. Tim Johnson Hospitalized

South Dakota’s senior Senator, Tim Johnson (D) has been hospitalized for a suspected stroke.

Best wishes to Senator Johnson’s family, and here’s hoping for a speedy recovery for the Senator.

The Sioux Falls Argus-Leader has more on the situation. They’re already speculating about what might happen should Johnson be incapacitated — let’s all hope it doesn’t come to that.

UPDATE: Doctors are now saying that Sen. Johnson had neither a stroke nor a heart attack, but there isn’t a diagnosis of what illness he has. More as the situation develops…

The ESPN Candidate?

I was wondering why Barack Obama was ESPN, but was at a restaurant and couldn’t hear what he was saying. However, apparently Obama’s performance got quite a stellar reaction. Right now Obama is being touted as the anti-Hillary, the candidate that the Democrats think can win over the electorate in a way that Senator Clinton cannot. That’s almost undeniable – even without the sound, Obama looked comfortable and seemed like he was having a good time. The guy’s charismatic, for sure.

Obama’s problem, as John Podhoretz points out is that Obama’s appeal comes from his personality, not his politics. Politically, Obama’s as liberal as they come on nearly every issue. Right now he gets to ride high on the anti-Hillary bandwagon, but Podhoretz also points out that getting into a bruising battle with the Clinton smear machine isn’t in his best interests. Why bother when he can knock out Hillary in 2008 and set himself up as the leader of the Democratic Party in the next Presidential cycle?

I agree with Podhoretz. Obama’s not a dumb man. He could beat Hillary, to be sure, but he’s suffer a hell of a lot of scars in the process which would tarnish his superstar image. He has a long and very successful political career ahead of him — why waste that when he can keep his powder dry and wait until his nomination becomes the sort of coronation that Hillary expected?

Barack Obama will almost certainly be one of the superstars of the Democratic Party, and his oratorical skills are some of the best the Democrats could hope to have for a leader. However, he’s also an adept politician, which is why I don’t think we’ll see a serious Obama run in 2008. He’ll fan the flames, but when he has the opportunity to see 2012 fall right in his lap, he’s smart enough not to let that get out of his grasp.

Whenever Obama runs, the Republicans better have one hell of a candidate ready to run against him, because Obama’s going to be a difficult person to beat, even with his liberal policy record. He’s one of the people who has the style necessary to connect with the American people, and that’s golden in politics. Even if he bows out of 2008, it won’t be because he can’t win, but because he knows he can, and he doesn’t need to rush to take the Oval Office if he so chooses.

Reyes: We Need More Troops

Speaker-Elect Nancy Pelosi’s choice for the House Select Committee on Intelligence has told NEWSWEEK magazine that he believes that the US needs more troops to stabilize Baghdad, a position which puts him at odds with the majority of his own party. Rep. Silvestre Reyes (D-TX) has said that he thinks that 20,000-30,000 more troops are required to stabilize Baghdad:

But in an interview with NEWSWEEK on Tuesday, Reyes pointedly distanced himself from many of his Democratic colleagues who have called for fixed timetables for the withdrawal of U.S. troops. Coming on the eve of tomorrow’s recommendations from the bipartisan Baker-Hamilton commission, Reyes’s comments were immediately cited by some Iraq war analysts as fresh evidence that the intense debate over U.S. policy may be more fluid than many have expected.

“We’re not going to have stability in Iraq until we eliminate those militias, those private armies,” Reyes said. “We have to consider the need for additional troops to be in Iraq, to take out the militias and stabilize Iraq … We certainly can’t leave Iraq and run the risk that it becomes [like] Afghanistan” was before the 2001 invasion by the United States.

Reyes also stressed that there needed to be greater “political accountability” demanded of the Iraqi government. But on the core issue of the U.S. commitment, Reyes—a Vietnam War veteran who partially lost his hearing in that conflict—even compared his position to that of another Vietnam vet, Sen. John McCain, a staunch supporter of the Iraq war. Like Reyes, McCain also has called for an increase in U.S. troop strength. When asked how many additional troops he envisioned sending to Iraq, Reyes replied: “I would say 20,000 to 30,000—for the specific purpose of making sure those militias are dismantled, working in concert with the Iraqi military.”

Rep. Reyes is exactly right. We cannot risk Iraq falling into anarchy, and we need more troops to stabilize Baghdad and its environs before we can start working on diplomatic and political fronts. What Rep. Reyes is doing by taking this position is acting in the way a responsible leader should: putting the needs of the nation above partisan concerns. It’s a politically dangerous stand for him to take, but ultimately it’s the right things to do.

The story doesn’t end there, however. The article goes on to state that Pelosi knew of Reyes’ position on Iraq before tapping him for the job. That’s quite an interest revelation in itself: Pelosi, who needs the support of the strongly anti-war Democratic base to stay in power ended up supporting someone who has now gone off and joined the responsible wing of the party. Either this is a sign that Pelosi really does understand the gravity of the situation, or that other political calculations took precedence. To be honest, given the political risks involved in this decision, I’m wondering if Speaker Pelosi might not actually be smarter on Iraq than one would think from her prior positions. The Democrats will, naturally, keep attacking Bush on Iraq, but if their policy is to stabilize rather than withdraw, at least their actions are responsible even if their rhetoric is strictly partisan.

Congressional Republicans should work with their Democratic counterparts on this new emerging consensus that more troops are needed in Iraq. We can sustain those increases for only a few months, which is why that increase needs to be accompanied by efforts to get the Iraqis self-sufficient and ensure that al-Maliki’s government does its part. None of this will be easy, but if the Democrats are willing to act in good faith to stabilize Iraq, the Republicans have an obligation to work with them. The future of Iraq transcends petty partisanship, and since Reyes has taken such a risky yet wise stand, he deserves the support of both sides of the political aisle.

Daschle Faces Reality

Tom Daschle has stated that he will not enter the 2008 Presidential race. That’s a smart move on his part, he simply doesn’t have the support necessary for a viable run. His loss in South Dakota has made him damaged goods politically, and he doesn’t offer enough to set him apart from the rest of the pack. A run for the Presidency would just be a case of throwing money and time down the toilet.

Daschle deserves some credit for facing reality, and has a chance to play the part of the elder statesman — and I’m not so sure that he might not have a chance at winning statewide office in South Dakota if he so chooses.

Losing The South

Jonah Goldberg excerpts from an article advocating that the Democrats abandon the South and concentrate their fortunes elsewhere. The article posits:

Schaller builds this conclusion on one of the most impressive papers in recent political science, “Old Times There Are Not Forgotten: Race and Partisan Realignment in the Contemporary South,” by Nicholas Valentino and David Sears. Running regressions on a massive data set of ideological opinions, Sears and Valentino demonstrate with precision that, for example, a white Southern man who calls himself a “conservative,” controlling for racial attitudes, is no less likely to chance a vote for a Democratic presidential candidate than a Northerner who calls himself a conservative. Likewise, a pro-life or hawkish Southern white man is no less likely—again controlling for racial attitudes—than a pro-life or hawkish Northerner to vote for the Democrat. But, on the other hand, when the relevant identifier is anti-black answers to survey questions (such as whether one agrees “If blacks would only try harder, they could be just as well off as whites,” or choosing whether blacks are “lazy” or “hardworking”), an untoward result jumps out: white Southerners are twice as likely than white Northerners to refuse to vote for the Democratic presidential candidate. Schaller’s writes: “Despite the best efforts of Republican spinmeisters … the partisan impact of racial attitudes in the South is stronger today than in the past.”

What’s more, if Republicans have succeeded by openly baiting a region of the country not really American (the latte-swilling Northeast), Schaller says, “The Democrats need their own ‘them,’ and the social conservatives who are the bedrock of Southern politics provide the most obvious and burdensome stone to hang around the Republicans’ neck.” Democrats should cite “Southern obstructionism as a continuing impediment to the investments and progress the country must make in the coming century.”

Not only is it bad political strategy, but it reflect a profound arrogance. I believe that Goldberg’s analysis is right on in explaining why that “screw the South” strategy is a political loser:

One quick reason why I think demonzing the South the way the GOP demonizes the coasts won’t work, particularly for the Democrats, is that the coasts aren’t merely regions of the country, they are bastions of the economic and media elite. An economically populist party would find it hard to attack poorer regions of the country in ways that didn’t sound simply snobbish. And, let’s face it, while anti-racism surely plays a significant part in Northeast and West Coast liberalism’s anti Southernism so does plain snobbery.

Furthermore, if one looks at successful Democratic politicians, many of them are Southerners. Bill Clinton comes to mind as the most successful Democratic politician since Kennedy. Jimmy Carter was a Southerner. So is John Edwards. And James Webb. The list could go on for some time. A party that refuses to be a national party is not a party that can win in a system with an Electoral College. Accusing an entire region of the country of being a bunch of whitebread bigots is not a way to build a successful political movement.

It’s another example of the latent fault lines in the Democratic Party these days. As Goldberg points out, you can’t be an economic populist like John Edwards while calling the poor people you’re trying to save as a bunch of racist boors who are too stupid to know their betters. At the same time, the liberal coastal elites are terminally out of touch with Middle America. (Note how well John Kerry does in popularity polls – you don’t get more Boston Brahmin than Senator Kerry.)

The Democrats are in control of Congress right now because the Repubicans screwed up their leadership, but the Democrats won thanks to managing to eke by candidates in conservative districts. If the Democrats go far left and embrace the regional sectarianism that many would like to see them do, it will ensure that the Democrats lose power as quickly as they took it. The Democrats didn’t win in November, the Republicans lost. This election wasn’t as much an affirmation of the Democrats as it was a plebiscite on six years of poor leadership from the GOP. If the lesson the Democrats wish to draw from that is that they should abandon and insult an entire region of the country, they are welcome to do so, but it remains a spectacularly arrogant and foolish thing to do.

Well, That Didn’t Take Long

It looks like the Democrats have already broken one of their major campaign pledges. Remember how the Democrats were going to implement all of the recommendations of the 9/11 Commission? Now it appears that they have no interest in doing so.

The Democrats have rejected the recommendation that the Congressional oversight of intelligence be overhauled. The 9/11 Commission recommended that the House and Senate Select Committees on Intelligence be given both oversight and budgetary control — a plan which would mean that lawmakers on the powerful Defense Appropriations Committees would lose a significant amount of authority. Coincidentally, Rep. John Murtha happens to sit on the House Defense Appropriations Subcommittee.

For those wondering why Nancy Pelosi’s failed political maneuvers matter, the Post makes it clear:

Democratic leadership dust-ups this month severely limited the ability of House Speaker-elect Nancy Pelosi (Calif.) to implement the commission’s recommendations, according to Democratic aides.

Pelosi strongly backed Murtha for House majority leader, only to see him soundly defeated by Rep. Steny H. Hoyer (Md.). That chain of events made it difficult for her to ask Murtha, a longtime ally, to relinquish control of the intelligence budget from his consolation prize, the chairmanship of the Appropriations defense subcommittee, according to Democratic sources.

Likewise, a controversy over the choice of a new chairman of the House intelligence committee proved to be a factor in the decision. The Sept. 11 commission urged Congress to do away with traditional term limits on the intelligence committees to preserve continuity and expertise, a recommendation the House implemented in 2003. But in her search for a reason to drop the committee’s most senior Democrat, Jane Harman (Calif.), from the panel, Pelosi fell back on the tradition of term limits. She has decided to pass over the intelligence committee’s second-ranking Democrat, Alcee L. Hastings (Fla.), as well.

To the Sept. 11 commission, the call for congressional overhaul was vital, said former New Jersey governor Thomas H. Kean (R), the commission’s co-chairman. Because intelligence committee membership affords lawmakers access to classified information, only intelligence committee members can develop the expertise to watch over operations properly, he said. But because the panels do not control the budget, intelligence agencies tend to dismiss them.

“The person who controls your budget is the person you listen to,” Kean said.

The Democrats are going to take a lot of political flack for this, especially since the reasons are so clearly political and the breach of the promise so great. The Democrats promised time and time again that they would implement all of the recommendations of the 9/11 Commission, and now they’re going back on their word when it comes to one of the more vital recommendations. The former Commission members are going to push back on this one, and it’s already put the Democrats in a weakened position before they even formally take power.

At this point, one wonders if the long knives aren’t already being drawn for Speaker Pelosi. Her political allies keep suffering defeats, and with the influx of Democrats coming from relatively conservative districts, being tied to a San Francisco liberal is hardly beneficial. With this latest maneuver, the Democrats have made their first truly high-profile mistake. The leadership battles that Pelosi has lost are mainly inside baseball — most voters don’t care. However, when it comes to failing to keep a key campaign promise, that’s hard to spin.