Advocates of the war received a blow recently when the government of Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki said several times that it would like to see some sort of timetable for a U.S. pullout. For McCain, this was particularly troubling, for it placed the Iraqi government closer to Barack Obama's position (set a schedule for a gradual withdrawal) than his position (stay and win, win, win, and then withdraw). So what's a neocon to do? Simple: attack Maliki.
In The Washington Post, Max Boot, a foreign policy adviser to McCain, wrote:
There is some irony in the fact that Democrats, after years of deriding Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki as a hopeless bungler and conniving Shiite sectarian, are now treating as sacrosanct his suggestion that Iraq will be ready to assume responsibility for its own security by 2010. Naturally this is because his position seems to support that of Barack Obama.
A little skepticism is in order here. The prime minister has political motives for what he's saying -- whatever that is. An anonymous Iraqi official told the state-owned Al-Sabah newspaper, "Maliki thinks that Obama is most likely to win in the presidential election" and that "he's got to take preemptive steps before Obama gets to the White House." By smoothing Obama's maiden voyage abroad as the Democratic nominee, Maliki may figure that he will collect chits that he can call in later.
Giving the Iraqi prime minister an added motive to posture about troop withdrawals, even while he explicitly eschews binding timelines, is that he is engaged in contentious status-of-forces negotiations with the United States. He may figure that threatening to boot us out gives him more leverage over our troops. Beyond the negotiations, there is the imperative of Iraq's provincial elections, supposed to take place this year. Maliki no doubt expects that his Dawa party will reap political benefits from appearing to stand up to the Americans.
Oh my goodness! A political leader making statements and setting policies because of...politics! How dreadful. Boot goes on to diss Maliki: "Keep in mind also that Maliki has no military experience and that he has been trapped in the Green Zone, relatively isolated from day-to-day life. For these reasons, he has been a consistent font of misguided predictions about how quickly U.S. forces could leave."
That is, Boot, who toils as a fellow for the Council on Foreign Relations, knows more about conditions on the ground than Maliki. One need not be a fan of Maliki--who has indeed run a corrupt and inept administration--to note that he's the guy who was selected by Iraqis to be their leader and render such judgments. And that his ineptitude does not allow the United States--or the McCain campaign--to dismiss his decisions. (Can other nations do that regarding George Bush?) And what's the logical extension of Boot's (and McCain's) stance? To lean on Maliki? To support "regime change" in Iraq? To threaten to stay in Iraq no matter what the Iraqi government says. Boot does acknowledge, "Of course, if the Iraq government tells us to leave, we will have to leave." But he's essentially saying, pay no attention to what the Iraqi government is signaling. What a nice lesson for the burgeoning democracy in Iraq.
On the Hill, Republicans have been taking a similar posture. House Minority Whip Roy Blunt told the Post, "I find it interesting that Prime Minister Maliki is now the person to go to." This was a sneering remark. But whom should be gone to? When the Iraqis voted for the new government, supporters of the war hailed the event as a breakthrough justifying Bush's decision to invade a country on false (or inaccurate) pretenses. Oh, what to do when the results of that election produce inconvenient consequences?
It may well be true that Maliki is declaring he wants U.S. troops out to enhance his political standing, as local elections approach. But all politics is local. As local politics in Iraq places Maliki and his government more in sync with Obama than McCain, the McCain camp is left with the Ugly American option of insisting it knows better than the locals. And who's going to buy that?
]]>As John McCain moves to select a running mate, it seems--at least for the moment--that the star of potential veep nominee Bobby Jindal, the Louisiana governor, is rising. This is good news for Democrats.
On one level, Jindal is impressive. The son of Indian immigrants, he's only 37 years old, and he has already been elected a member of the U.S. House and a governor. (Talk about a Junior Achiever!) Yet can McCain, who claims Obama is not sufficiently experienced to become president, say with a straight face that Jindal is prepared to take the helm. And Jindal's record in Louisiana--including his stint in charge of the state health department--has its spotty moments. Then there's that exorcism.
Blogs and news outfits have already picked over a 1994 essay that Jindal, a convert to Catholicism, wrote for a Catholic magazine, describing an exorcism of a friend in which he was an observer/participant. Not only did Jindal and his pals manage to drive the Satanic demon out of their friend; the exercise, Jindal suggested, also cured her skin cancer. The article was entitled, "Physical Dimensions of Spiritual Warfare."
Americans tend to be quite religious. Most tell pollsters they believe in heaven and hell (and assume they are heading upward, not downward, once they expire). Many tend to believe literally in the devil. But how will an amateur exorcism--that violated Catholic law (which allows only certified exorcists to perform the ritual in very limited circumstances)--play with, say, swing voters? No doubt, Jindal will have to discuss the episode. With Oprah perhaps? That would indeed be Must See TV.
Here's one excerpt of his article that an interviewer might want to ask about:
While Alice and Louise held Susan, her sister continued holding the Bible to her face. Almost taunting the evil spirit that had almost beaten us minutes before, the students dared Susan to read biblical passages. She choked on certain passages and could not finish the sentence "Jesus is Lord." Over and over, she repeated "Jesus is L..L..LL," often ending in profanities. In between her futile attempts, Susan pleaded with us to continue trying and often smiled between the grimaces that accompanied her readings of Scripture. Just as suddenly as she went into the trance, Susan suddenly reappeared and claimed "Jesus is Lord."
With an almost comical smile, Susan then looked up as if awakening from a deep sleep and asked, "Has something happened?" She did not remember any of the past few hours and was startled to find her friends breaking out in cheers and laughter, overwhelmed by sudden joy and relief.
As a vice presidential candidate, Jindal would be under great pressure--and ought to be--to make other participants in the event available for interview. In the article, he used fake names. But he insisted every single detail was true. Given that such an event must have had a profound impact on him--he came face to face with a real demon!-- this possible president-in-waiting would be obligated to prove that he got the story right, that he was not exaggerating. (Remember how the press and the GOPers went after Al Gore's claims in 2000 with a vengeance?) And the media, of course, would be on the hunt to find "Susan" to get her side of the tale. (Enquiring minds might want to know if her skin cancer is still gone.)
Is Jindal prepared to disclose more about this exorcism? Is the McCain campaign prepared to see more disclosed? The event is a legitimate target for voter interest and media scrutiny. After all, Representative Dennis Kucinich had to explain his UFO siting. And Jindal should not be allowed to hide behind the cloaks of faith and personal privacy. Barack Obama had no choice but to explain his relationship to a particular minister. He didn't duck the issue by claiming it was a private relationship based on faith. So if Jindal is anointed by McCain, the exorcism will be fair game.
America may or may not be ready for a national political debate about exorcism and Satanic demons. By picking Jindal as a running mate, McCain would give the country a chance to find out.
Barack Obama made the first mistake of his trip, in my judgment, in releasing a statement in which he said exactly what [Iraqi Prime Minister] Maliki had said in those conversations [with Obama]. We have a long tradition in this country that we only have one president at a time. He's the commander in chief and the negotiator in chief. I cannot remember a campaign which a rival seeking the presidency has been in a position negotiating a war that's under way with another party outside the country.
Gergen, counselor to presidents of both parties, was overstating the case. After all, it was Maliki who had told Der Spiegel days before he chatted with Obama that he fancied Obama's call for a phased withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq. Obama was not giving away any big secret by sharing the basics of what he and Maliki had discussed. But Gergen was truly hyping this episode by asserting no presidential contender had ever dared to interfere in wartime policy-making. There was a time when a presidential candidate truly did undermine a president while a war was under way--and Gergen worked for this candidate once he became president: Richard Nixon.
In a 1991 letter to The New York Times, William Bundy, the Assistant Secretary of State for East Asian and Pacific Affairs during the Lyndon Johnson administration, described the "covert operation" mounted during the 1968 presidential candidate by Nixon, the GOP nominee, John Mitchell, his campaign manager, and Anna Chennault, a Republican activist. Bundy noted, as others have, that Chennault became Nixon's secret channel to President Nguyen Van Thieu of South Vietnamese through South Vietnamese Ambassador Bui Diem. (Diem, Mitchell and Chennault met together in Nixon's New York apartment sometime in the summer of 1968). And in the fall of 1968, the Johnson administration learned (via intercepted South Vietnam embassy cables) that Chennault had been conveying "Republican" messages to Thieu, urging him to abort or cripple the peace talks then proceeding between President Johnson and Hanoi. The Nixon camp did not want the Democrats to score a political victory by negotiating a peace agreement right before the election. And the implied or explicit message to Thieu was that Thieu would get a better deal if Nixon were elected president. As Bundy noted, Thieu took actions that impeded the peace talks.
Bundy wrote:
On Nov. 3, two days before the election, Mr. Johnson taxed Mr. Nixon with Mrs. Chennault's activities, and Mr. Nixon categorically denied any connection or knowledge -- almost certainly a lie in light of later disclosures. In the circumstances, Mr. Johnson and Mr. Humphrey decided, separately, not to raise what would surely have been a highly divisive issue so late in a campaign. A year later, Theodore White, describing the episode in his book on the 1968 campaign, rightly called Mr. Humphrey's decision one of the most decent actions ever taken by an American political figure.
What the Nixon crew did was truly unprecedented messing around--actively and secretly undercutting ongoing peace talks to gain political advantage. And Gergen worked in the White House of the fellow whose campaign did this. Before Gergen again claims Obama has broken precedent, he might want to review this ugly episode.
]]>Asked by ABC's Diane Sawyer Monday morning whether the "the situation in Afghanistan in precarious and urgent," McCain responded:
"I think it's serious. . . . It's a serious situation, but there's a lot of things we need to do. We have a lot of work to do and I'm afraid it's a very hard struggle, particularly given the situation on the Iraq/Pakistan border," said McCain, R-Ariz., said on "Good Morning America."
Iraq and Pakistan do not share a border. Afghanistan and Pakistan do.
Okay, he probably meant to say the "Afghanistan/Pakistan" border. But can you imagine if Barack Obama made a similar verbal slip? The McCain camp would declare it proof he is unfit to command. And media commentators would howl. (Have you noticed that much of the media coverage of Obama's overseas trip is framed this way: the trip is fraught with risk....for if he makes any mistake overseas, he's done for?)
Yet with McCain, this is just another....eh, McCain moment. Like when he repeatedly mixed up Sunni and Shia. And when he kept referring to Czechoslovakia (a country that no longer exists). And when he couldn't accurately describe (or remember) his stands on key policy matters. (See the posting below.) How many passes does McCain get? I don't know. But this is one envelope he doesn't want to push.
]]>At times it appears Sen. John McCain's Straight Talk Express should stop and ask for directions.
From signature issues such as immigration and climate change to tax cuts, the presumed Republican presidential nominee sometimes just seems lost as to his own record and his stance on hot-button social issues.
After Mr. McCain said he opposed child adoptions to gay and lesbian couples, his campaign clarified that he wasn't making policy and would leave the issue to the states.
In the past week, the candidate was unable to say whether he thought health care plans that cover drugs to treat impotency also should cover contraceptives. Mr. McCain voted against such a proposal in 2005.
For a candidate who delights in telling audiences that it's time for "a little straight talk," he has given his opponents chances to question that reputation....
Ouch. The piece goes on:
Twice this year, Mr. McCain has said he doesn't support "mandatory" caps on greenhouse gas emissions, even though that is the crux of his proposal to address climate change....
On immigration, Mr. McCain misrepresented his own record on the most important vote of the past 40 years. He told the National Association of Latino Elected and Appointed Officials that he supported the 1986 amnesty. Mr. McCain voted against that bill, telling the Arizona Republic in his hometown that it was racist and would lead to employer discrimination.
So what's the explanation for McCain's constant (to be polite about it) swerving? The article quotes conservative activist and former Reagan administration official Donald Devine: "He's not a detail person. He's not a liar. I think he just can't believe that he would ever do anything wrong. He would think that would be some kind of moral failing, and he just figures there's got to be something that isn't right with what the other person said." How's that for an endorsement? McCain's no liar, he just can't believe he can make a mistake. And he doesn't have a head for details!
McCain better watch out. He's getting quite close to establishing--here comes that buzz word--a narrative. And it ain't a flattering one: it's the story of an older candidate who either (a) cannot remember what he has said or done or (b) misrepresents the facts for political expedience. Neither scenario is in sync with a tale of a straight-talking, independent-minded politician. And the last thing McCain can afford is to come across as discombobulated or confused--especially about his own positions and actions. When The Washington Times takes notice, that's one helluva warning. This is a meme just waiting for MSM attention.
]]>That's not my take. But there's obviously a liberal backlash against Obama, especially among a small cadre of bloggers who were enraged by his vote for the FISA legislation. Liberal voices, such as Arianna Huffington, have slapped or blasted Obama for supposedly moving to the center. My hunch is that these criticisms do not reach the swing, independent, moderate, whatever-you-call-'em voters who don't yet know for whom they're going to vote. (Obama versus McCain--you have to be pretty distant from the political process to have to wrestle over that choice.)
But I suppose one question is whether the left-of-center complaints about Obama provide any drag on his campaign. In 1992, similar criticism of Bill Clinton did nothing to slow down Clinton, who angered (or irked) many liberals with his triangulations and connections to the Democratic Leadership Council, a corporate-backed group that spent much of its time bashing the base of the party. But the more contemporary evidence is Obama's continued success at fundraising. On Friday, his campaign announced that he had raised $52 million in June. That's $30 million more than McCain raked in--and only $3 million less than what Obama raised in his best month (February).
Bottom-line, he's still going strong. At least in June, that is. All this fundraising was before his FISA vote and before the media misreported that he was backtracking on his vow to disengage in Iraq. But the numbers indicate that throughout June, after he became the presumptive nominee, he still was drawing new supporters (Hillary Clinton backers?) and continuing to build an enormous base of donors he can tap for the general election. The July fundraising figures, though, will be interesting--revealing whether the recent outburst of liberal dissatisfaction has spread beyond the blogs (and whether McCain's recent blunders have even further dampened enthusiasm for his campaign).
It's not hard to imagine the calculation going on at Obama HQ: we'll take the grumbling, as long as Obama can still work his magic with voters (especially those in-the-middle uncommitteds) and donors. But at some point, might there be a real cost? Watch the July ticker.
]]>McCain in recent weeks has often repeated dumb mistakes. He mixed up Sunni and Shia--and then did so again and again. His campaign released a list of 300 economists who it claimed supported his economic plan. Yet after Politico reported that several did not back McCainonomics, McCain continued saying that 300 economists were behind him. Then there's this: the guy keeps on referring to a country that does not exist: Czechoslovakia. On Monday, he bemoaned Russia's attempt to reduce "the energy supplies to Czechoslovakia," which ceased to be in 1993 (when it split into the Czech Republic and Slovakia). That slip-up sparked news reports and tittering on blogs. But after all that, on Tuesday, McCain did it again, once more decrying Russia's "reduction in oil supplies to Czechoslovakia."
Sure, all politicians--and all of us--misspeak from time to time. But there is a pattern to McCain's gaffes: after he makes a mistake, he does not correct himself and goes on to restate it. There are several possible explanations for this. One is that because he doesn't use a computer, he does not see the full impact these mistakes have; thus, he does not make an effort to avoid repeating the missteps. After making an error about Czechoslovakia, shouldn't he have made a point to get it right the very next day? Wouldn't you? Another explanation, of course, is that his penchant for repeating gaffes is age-related.
In any event, this apparent McCain trait could come to threaten his campaign. A few more episodes like these--in which he looks discombobulated or out of touch--might give birth to a negative narrative for McCain. (A newsmagazine cover: "How confused is John McCain?") Ronald Reagan, it is true, was a serial mugger of facts, and that did not impede his political career. But McCain is no great communicator, and if voters have questions about his age, this sort of stumbling will reinforce such concerns. So perhaps McCain ought to sign-up for a daily Google alert on himself and check it each night--if only to see what blunders he ought not repeat the next day.
]]>I do think we've encountered one of the funniest moments of the 2008 campaign, which so far has not been much of a laugh-fest. And who would have thought that Phil Gramm would be responsible for it?
The gag was set up when Gramm, a McCain campaign adviser and cochairman, set off a to-do by saying that Americans are "whiners" and that the economy is just fine. (He called all the fuss over the current economic woes a "mental recession.") The McCain campaign threw Gramm under the Straight Talk Express, disavowing his remarks.
"Phil Gramm doesn't speak for me," McCain declared on Thursday "I speak for me."
That same day, Gramm was meeting with the Wall Street Journal editorial board. Doing what? Appearing as a McCain campaign surrogate to explain McCain's economic policies. That is, speaking for McCain.
This really is a joke.
The attention Gramm has drawn for his comments is certainly warranted. And, of course, you can judge a candidate by the advisers he keeps by his side. But there's so much more about Gramm (who has been touted as a possible Treasury secretary should McCain win) that deserves scrutiny. He was a crucial force in deregulating financial instruments that helped cause the subprime meltdown and that allowed Enron to run crazy and create the California energy crisis of 2001. And as I noted elsewhere, Carly Fiorina, the former Hewlett-Packard CEO who is a prominent adviser and surrogate for McCain, has suggested that the deregulation that was pushed by Gramm when he was the Republican chairman of the Senate banking committee is partly to blame for today's economic troubles.
So the joke runs deeper than McCain claiming that a man who literally speaks for him doesn't speak for him. It shows there's policy chaos in McCainland. After all, here's a campaign--led by a candidate who once said he didn't know much about the economy--that has one top economic adviser essentially blaming another top economic adviser for economic woes that the second top economic adviser won't acknowledge. Really makes one yearn for a McCain administration, doesn't it?
]]>Consider this: as I've noted previously, Iraq may be fizzling out as a campaign issue for McCain. One of his strongest arguments against Barack Obama is national security. And he has used Iraq as a battering ram, claiming that Obama is a defeatist who would let the terrorists win in Iraq. Though the war is quite unpopular, McCain and his strategists apparently believe that voters don't want to lose the war and that voters can be frightened into supporting the candidate who promises triumphant victory not tail-between-the-legs extrication. At least, McCain can tout his Iraq stance as evidence that he is tough enough to take on the evildoers and protect the homeland. George W. Bush sort of pulled this off in 2004. Much of the public by then had turned against the war, but Bush and Karl Rove pointed to the war as proof that Bush was willing to everything necessary to defend the United States. The argument was something like this: Bush is so committed to protecting the United States he'll even invade the wrong country. And it worked.
Can McCain's variant--championing an unpopular war to display cajones--succeed? His problem is that the Iraqis may not cooperate. The other day Prime Minister Nouri al-Malki said that there should be a timetable for the withdrawal of U.S. forces. And the negotiations between Baghdad and the Bush administration over the agreement governing U.S. forces in Iraq has bogged down because of the Iraqi demand for a timetable and for stripping immunity from U.S. troops and contractors. A source who recently spoke to the Iraqi foreign minister tells me that the foreign minister was insistent that this agreement contain some sort of timetable.
So if the Iraqis end up endorsing a timetable or asking the U.S. to leave, McCain won't be able to use Iraq as an issue. (And, of course, if the ground reality in Iraq becomes worse, McCain's case will also be weakened.) So what's a hawk to do? Thankfully for McCain, there's Iran. He can bang that drum from now until Election Day. Hype the threat. Promise clear and decisive action--and confrontation, if need be. A warrior candidate needs a war (or near-war). Expect more Iran-slamming from the fellow who has had lots of trouble telling apart Sunni from Shia.
BTW, yesterday I linked to a Reuters article quoting military analysts who said there was no reason to go ballistic over Iran's recent missile tests. It's a point that was lost in all the tough talk that politicians dished out yesterday. So here are some excerpts from that article:
Iran showed footage of missiles on Wednesday it warns could reach Israel and U.S. bases in the Middle East, but military analysts said the damage they could wreak was limited and not enough to deter any would-be attacker....
"This is the Iranians saying: 'We can match you if it comes to that'," said Andrew Brookes of the International Institute for Strategic Studies (IISS) think-tank in London. But, he added, the "possession of some rockets" was not going to stop Israel from going ahead if it felt it must bomb Iran to prevent it from acquiring nuclear arms.
Defence analyst Paul Beaver said Iran's missile programme was fairly advanced but that it still needed to get accuracy and guidance systems right for long distances. "They are some way away yet from threatening Israel or U.S. bases," he said.....
Iran may fire the missiles if it were attacked but its "real strength lies elsewhere," Pieter Wezeman, a researcher at the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI). Analysts say Iran could employ unconventional or "asymmetric" methods to strike back, for example against U.S. forces in Iraq and by disrupting crude supplies vital for the world economy with hit-and-run attacks against oil tankers.
The U.S. political discourse over Iran would be improved by the addition of such cool-headed appraisals. But that would not be in the interest of McCain and the Republicans.
]]>These missile tests demonstrate once again that we need to change our policy to deal aggressively with the threat posed by the Iranian regime. Through its nuclear program, missile capability, meddling in Iraq, support for terrorism, and threats against Israel, Iran now poses the greatest strategic challenge to the United States in the region in a generation. Now is the time to work with our friends and allies, and to pursue direct and aggressive diplomacy with the Iranian regime backed by tougher unilateral and multilateral sanctions. It's time to offer the Iranians a clear choice between increased costs for continuing their troubling behavior, and concrete incentives that would come if they change course.
Is Obama talking too tough? Is Iran really the "greatest strategic challenge" to the United States in the region? Is Obama hyping the supposed Iranian threat in a manner that could help hawkish John McCain, whom Obama will likely not be able to out-hawk in the general election?
Military analysts told Reuters that these missiles did not pose much of a threat. But that doesn't stop them from becoming a top political story. And Obama's in a difficult political spot. If he doesn't use harsh rhetoric in bashing Iran, he will be accused of being soft. If he describes the Iranian challenge in dire terms, he could boost McCain's case for the presidency. After all, which candidate will voters assume to be more likely to use extreme measures--including military action--against Iran? Remember when McCain sang, "Bomb, Bomb Iran"?
For a more nuanced view of the Iran challenge, let's turn to an op-ed written in May by Zbigniew Brzezinski, who was national security adviser for President Jimmy Carter, and retired Lt. General William Odom, a former National Security Agency chief during the Reagan years who died a few weeks ago. The pair noted:
Current U.S. policy toward the regime in Tehran will almost certainly result in an Iran with nuclear weapons. The seemingly clever combination of the use of "sticks" and "carrots," including the frequent official hints of an American military option "remaining on the table," simply intensifies Iran's desire to have its own nuclear arsenal. Alas, such a heavy-handed "sticks" and "carrots" policy may work with donkeys but not with serious countries.....
Consider countries that could have quickly become nuclear weapon states had they been treated similarly. Brazil, Argentina and South Africa had nuclear weapons programs but gave them up, each for different reasons. Had the United States threatened to change their regimes if they would not, probably none would have complied. But when "sticks" and "carrots" failed to prevent India and Pakistan from acquiring nuclear weapons, the United States rapidly accommodated both, preferring good relations with them to hostile ones. What does this suggest to leaders in Iran?
....A successful approach to Iran has to accommodate its security interests and ours. Neither a U.S. air attack on Iranian nuclear facilities nor a less effective Israeli one could do more than merely set back Iran's nuclear program. In either case, the United States would be held accountable and would have to pay the price resulting from likely Iranian reactions. These would almost certainly involve destabilizing the Middle East, as well as Afghanistan, and serious efforts to disrupt the flow of oil, at the very least generating a massive increase in its already high cost. The turmoil in the Middle East resulting from a preemptive attack on Iran would hurt America and eventually Israel, too.
Given Iran's stated goals -- a nuclear power capability but not nuclear weapons, as well as an alleged desire to discuss broader U.S.-Iranian security issues -- a realistic policy would exploit this opening to see what it might yield. The United States could indicate that it is prepared to negotiate, either on the basis of no preconditions by either side...or to negotiate on the basis of an Iranian willingness to suspend enrichment in return for simultaneous U.S. suspension of major economic and financial sanctions.
Such a broader and more flexible approach would increase the prospects of an international arrangement being devised to accommodate Iran's desire for an autonomous nuclear energy program while minimizing the possibility that it could be rapidly transformed into a nuclear weapons program. Moreover, there is no credible reason to assume that the traditional policy of strategic deterrence, which worked so well in U.S. relations with the Soviet Union and with China and which has helped to stabilize India-Pakistan hostility, would not work in the case of Iran. The widely propagated notion of a suicidal Iran detonating its very first nuclear weapon against Israel is more the product of paranoia or demagogy than of serious strategic calculus. It cannot be the basis for U.S. policy, and it should not be for Israel's, either.
Brzezinski and Odom explicitly rejected the carrot-and-stick approach. Brzezinski is a foreign policy adviser for Obama, but it's unclear from Obama's statement how much Obama has been influenced by Brzezinski on this issue. His statement calls for aggressive diplomacy, but it also depicts Iran as an immediate danger and seems to imply Obama's support for a carrots-and-sticks approach (although without specifically threatening military confrontation). Is he raising expectations? Consequently, at some point between now and Election Day, will Obama have to be more specific in detailing those sticks?
Policy aside, can a U.S. presidential candidate get elected denying that Iran is an immediate danger and noting that the United States and the rest of the world could live with an Iran that has developed nuclear power and perhaps even nuclear weapons? (Imagine the negative ads!) This current round of what-to-do-about-Iran demonstrates that Iran will continue to be a tough call for Obama and the issue could become tougher for him to finesse.
]]>But on Iraq the McCainiacs have more to worry about then Obama. They are being undermined by Baghdad. On Monday, Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki said that he wants some sort of timetable for a U.S. troops withdrawal. Though his national security adviser added that any timetable would be conditioned on the ability of Iraqi forces to provide security, this was the first time the PM had mentioned a schedule for disengagement. (All politics is local: Maliki's party faces a stiff challenge in the upcoming provincial elections from Shiite cleric Moqtada al-Sadr, who has called for the departure of U.S. military forces.)
So how can McCain and his gang now accuse Obama of being a defeatist surrender-monkey when his call for a timetable for withdrawal is echoed by the leadership of Iraq? This is a real problem for McCain. He has no edge on Obama when it comes to the economy. His only hope of upstaging Obama--policy-wise--is on national security matters, with the Iraq war front and center. But if the Iraqis don't buy the absolute necessity of U.S. troops remaining in Iraq, what does McCain have to offer? (How do you say nada in Arabic?)
I've been repeating this for a year--sorry to do so again--but the reality on the ground in Iraq in the fall will have an impact on the U.S. election. The connection used to be obvious: bad news there would be bad news for the Republicans here. But there's now another possibility: good news there could be bad news for Republicans here. If there are too many explosions and little political progress in Iraq, McCain could pay a political price on Election Day. But if the Iraqis decide they want to go it on their own with the Americans gone, McCain would have no Iraq policy left. Sure, he could claim the surge worked and try to claim credit. But voters, as the cliche goes, tend not to reward presidential candidates for past actions; elections, the consultants keep reminding us, are about the future. Americans don't want other Iraqs in the future. And without Iraq, McCain is merely a sometimes quirky Republican ex-maverick who has yet to learn how to speak convincingly about the number-one issue, the economy. He needs Iraq. But he needs it not too hot and not too cold--and the stove is far beyond his control.
]]>Breaking the mold of traditional political Conventions, the Democratic National Convention Committee (DNCC) today announced that Senator Barack Obama will accept the Democratic nomination for President of the United States at Denver's INVESCO Field at Mile High. INVESCO Field can accommodate more than 75,000 people and will be the site of the 2008 Democratic Convention's final day of programming on Thursday, August 28, 2008.
So on the final night of what is expected to be a no-news (as is now routinely the case) convention, the Dems will not mount the typical Nominee's Big Speech in the convention arena but hold an Obamapalooza in a stadium, with the seats filled not merely by delegates, operatives, and contributors but by regular folks. That will add some grandeur to the climactic night--which will be occurring on the 45th anniversary, to the day, of Martin Luther King's "I Have a Dream" speech. Talk about big nights. What's John McCain going to do to match all this? Rent a battleship for his acceptance speech? Announce--prematurely--the bombing of Iran?
]]>Barack Obama:
As we head into the 4th of July weekend, today's report that our economy has lost another 62,000 jobs is a stark reminder that far too many Americans will spend this holiday out of work and struggling to provide for their families because of the failed policies of the last eight years.
Our economy has now shed 438,000 jobs over the past six months, while workers' wages fail to keep pace with the skyrocketing cost of gas, groceries and healthcare. The American people are paying the price for the failed economic policies of the past eight years, and we can't afford four more years of more of the same. That is the essential issue of this campaign because Senator McCain has fully embraced the Bush economic agenda. I believe it has to change.
But, as these numbers demonstrate, the American people can't wait another six months. We need action now. That's why I'm calling on Congress and the President to enact real, immediate relief with energy rebates for working families this summer, a fund to help families avoid foreclosure, extended benefits for the long-term jobless, and assistance to states that have been hard-hit by the economic downturn.
As President, I'll move us in a new direction with policies to restore broad-based, bottom up growth that benefits all Americans. I will provide working families with a middle-class tax cut; fight for affordable health care and college tuition; work to help raise workers' wages, and invest in infrastructure, education and a clean energy future to create millions of new jobs. That's the change the American people need."
John McCain:
Americans across this country are hurting and today's job numbers are just the latest indication. From rising gas prices to home foreclosures, families are struggling to meet economic challenges that become greater every day. Washington can no longer abdicate its responsibility to act. Our focus must be clear: enact policies to create jobs today.
To get our economy back on track, we must enact a jobs-first economic plan that supports job creation, provide immediate tax relief for families, enact a plan to help those facing foreclosure, lower health care costs, invest in innovation, move toward strategic energy independence and open more foreign markets to our goods.
The American people cannot afford an economic agenda that will take our country in the wrong direction and cost jobs. At a time when our small businesses need support from Washington, we cannot raise taxes, increase regulation and isolate ourselves from foreign markets. These are the same old siren songs that have failed the American people time and time again.
Notice anything? Obama is in a position to blast current federal policies (i.e., George W. Bush) and to remind voters that over 400,000 jobs have been lost in the past six months of Bush's watch. Thus, change is needed. And who represents change? Well, you know.
McCain, though, bemoans the consequences of the faltering economy but he does not hold any specific player accountable. He merely swings at a generic target: Washington. Of which he has been a part of for decades. His target is not the Bush administration but the "economic agenda" of his unnamed political foe.
Summing up, Obama surveys the economic troubles, and he says that ongoing policies (Bush's policies) are wrongheaded and a new course--his course--must be plotted. McCain looks at the economic mess (which is associated with an administration he supports) and says let's stick with the general approach of the past seven years and don't trust that other guy's solutions. Which message do you think has the better chance of resonating with voters? After all, what's the real problem: "old siren songs" or present policies?
MORE BLOGGINGHEADS.TV. See me and Jim Pinkerton tussle once more on Bloggingheads.tv. On this edition, we ponder whether the Supreme Court is in play in the 2008 election. Is Wes Clark out of play? Has Obama put religion in play? And have the Taliban put Afghanistan in play? And there's more: Pinkerton explains why you should worry about China and India in space--and not global warming. By the way, he wants to build a giant pipeline across the United States--not to carry oil, but water, from East to West. Check it out.
FIRE UP THE BARBECUE. Enjoy your Fourth and all that potato salad. (Hmmmm, potato salad.) I'll be back next week.
This week, McCain took a trip to Mexico and Colombia to highlight, in part, his devotion to free trade. Political strategists of both parties scratched their heads, because this issue is no winner for McCain--especially in the tight states of Ohio, Michigan, and Pennsylvania. But this is a nonpolitical posting, so let's get back to the substance.
On the occasion of McCain's journey to Latin America, the policy people at the Washington Office of Latin America, a nonprofit shop, pulled together a memo on the McCain trip. The paper notes, "The trip follows nearly eight years of neglect toward Latin America under the Bush Administration. Would a McCain Administration be any different?" And it poses some tough questions that the media should ask McCain. Here's a sampling:
Congress just approved $400 million dollars of security assistance to Mexico as part of the Merida Initiative. Yet the United States has made no commitment to address two key catalysts in the violence: steady demand for drugs in the United States, and the illegal flow of weapons into Mexico. Senator McCain has expressed support for the Merida Initiative, but how would he tackle these two domestic problems that contribute to the bloodshed in Mexico?
The Bush Administration has supported the Mexican government's increasing use of the military in anti-drug operations, despite accusations of serious abuses by the military against civilians in the course of these operations. Will McCain back Mexico's use of the armed forces -- instead of the police -- in drug sweeps indefinitely? How would he address the growing reports of human-rights abuses by Mexican forces, and how does he envision rebuilding civilian authority in the drug war in Mexico and throughout Latin America?
Before NAFTA, supporters of the agreement said it would increase employment in Mexico and narrow the gap between U.S. and Mexican wages. Just the opposite has happened. The annual number of undocumented immigrants arriving in the United States from Mexico nearly doubled in NAFTA's first decade. Has the NAFTA experience made McCain rethink his uncritical support for free trade and, if elected, what would he do to address the root causes of economic insecurity in Mexico and elsewhere in Latin America?
These are solid queries that McCain ought to confront. They're certainly more important than a debate over what Wesley Clark said about McCain's military service. What makes me believe they will get less attention?
]]>Wait-a-second. It's not that gutsy when you scapegoat the Pentagon chief but let the commander in chief off easy. Moreover, why should McCain win points for denouncing a failure once it was widely perceived as a failure. Where was this former military man prior to the war. When informed experts--including General Eric Shinseki--were suggesting that the Rumsfeld plan for Iraq was inadequate (because a lot more troops would be needed inside the country after the invasion), McCain did not display prescience and courage by backing them up. I recall no sign of him questioning the planning of the war or the early post-invasion decisions of the Bush administration. Two weeks before the war, he said, "I have no qualms about our strategic plans."
After the invasion, McCain did stand by the administration and Rumsfeld for several years. In March 2004, he said, "We're on the right course." In May of that year, he was backing Rumsfeld, saying it was "premature" to talk of booting Rumsfeld from his job. "He's done a fine job," McCain remarked. In December 2005, he said, "I do think that progress is being made in a lot of Iraq" and called for staying the course. And into 2005, McCain insisted that there were the right number of troops in Iraq--that is, that no surge was needed. (You can find a list of McCain's everything's-going-well remarks here.)
Why award McCain a medal for eventually slamming Rumsfeld and backing a surge? Had he earlier--even before the war--pointed out problems and called for a more effective strategy, he would deserve kudos for both smarts and political courage. He did indeed break with Rumsfeld (not Bush) sooner than some other Republicans. But he rode the Bush-Rumsfeld Express for years. Which leads to this fair conclusion: had he been in charge, he would have made the same mistakes they did.
]]>