EVENING UPDATE:  MAY 15,  2008

Posted at 6:38 p.m. ET

A BRIT VIEW - SPOT ON

I've written before that some foreign journalists are doing the finest work in covering our political campaign.  One of them is Gerard Baker of The Times of London.  His view of Obama is one of the best things I've read on the subject.  He sees Obama as one of the periodic "redeemers" anointed by the press to save the nation, the world, the universe.  Here are some gems:     

It's been a while coming - neither Al Gore in 2000 (before the luminescence created by his recent joint Nobel/Oscar triumphs) nor John Kerry in 2004 quite fit the bill. But it's fairly clear now that, with the near-certain nomination by the Democrats of Barack Obama everything is in place for the media to indulge in one of the greatest, orgiastic media fiestas of hero-worship since Elvis Presley.

You will not see a finer example of the genre than the cover story of this week's Newsweek, which was entitled “The O Team”. This rhapsodic inside account of Senator Obama's campaign reads a little like a cross between Father Alban Butler's Life of St Francis and the sort of authorised biography of Kim Jong Il you can pick up in any good bookshop in Pyongyang.

Oh dear.  And here's another gem:

The idolatry of Mr Obama is a shame, really. The Illinois senator is indeed, an unusually talented, inspiring and charismatic figure. His very ethnicity offers an exciting departure. But he is not a saint. He is a smart and eloquent man with a personal history that is startlingly shallow set against the scale of the office he seeks to hold. It is not only legitimate, but necessary, to scrutinise his past and infer what it might tell us about his beliefs, in the absence of the normal record of achievement expected in a presidential nominee.

If the past 40 years have taught us anything they have surely taught that premature canonisation is an almost certain guarantee of subsequent deep disappointment.

Read the whole piece.  You will not be disappointed.

May 15, 2008.

IRANIANS?  WHAT IRANIANS?

Another stalwart soldier in the war for truth is Ed Lasky of American Thinker, who always seems to be ahead of the game, probing things the mainstream media chooses to ignore.  Ed refers us to a piece in The Jerusalem Post about OMV, Central Europe's largest oil and gas company, and its deals with Iran.  Included is this little quote from an OMV executive, which tells us that some in Europe are slipping back into the old ways that led the word to tragedy:

OMV spokesman Thomas Huemer told the The Jerusalem Post that "OMV as a company does not have a moral responsibility toward a particular state."

The state, of course, is Israel, and the issue is the genocide promised by the president of Iran.  Apparently, this is not much of a factor to the Austrians who run OMV.  The Austrian government owns almost a third of the company. 

Get this comment from the CEO:

OMV sees time as an ally and is waiting for "political change in the USA," Ruttenstorfer said in response to questions about sanctions against Iran at the stockholder meeting.

Who is the change that he is waiting for?  Hmm.

May 15, 2008.

LATER AFTERNOON POST:  MAY 15,  2008

Posed at 4:19 p.m. ET

TRACKERS

Tracking polls are useful in determining trends.  The latest polls out today confirm two things:  1)  Barack Obama isn't running away with anything;  2)  If the trends continue, this will be a very close race in the fall.

For the Democratic nomination, Rasmussen has Obama up nine over Clinton, Gallup has him up six.  That is hardly a blowout, considering that the press has already buried Clinton and announced the memorial service.  Add to that the fact that the numbers are skewed by the solid support Obama receives from African-Americans, and we come away with the impression of a badly divided party.

The nationals:  Rasmussen has Obama up one over McCain, but Gallup has a tie.  Rasmussen has Clinton tied with McCain, but Gallup has her up three.

We've heard much talk that the polls will change when the Dems finally decide on a candidate.  But they have, in effect, and there isn't much change.  McCain continues to poll far better than his party, showing that voters look at the candidate, not just the label.

I get the sense that a single mistake by either of the national candidates in the fall can decide this contest.  But again I stress that the wild card is the role of the media.  Slanted coverage can count.  So can talk radio, tilted in the other direction. 

May 15, 2008.       Permalink          

AFTERNOON POST:  MAY 15,  2008

Posted at 1:32 p.m. ET

SO SENSITIVE

Democrats are becoming hysterical about a perfectly sane statement President Bush made to the parliament in Israel:

"Some seem to believe we should negotiate with terrorists and radicals, as if some ingenious argument will persuade them they have been wrong all along," the President said to the country's legislative body, "We have heard this foolish delusion before. As Nazi tanks crossed into Poland in 1939, an American senator declared: 'Lord, if only I could have talked to Hitler, all of this might have been avoided.' We have an obligation to call this what it is –- the false comfort of appeasement, which has been repeatedly discredited by history."

Obama apparently believes the president's remarks were directed toward him:

"It is sad that President Bush would use a speech to the Knesset on the 6Oth anniversary of Israel's independence to launch a false political attack. It is time to turn the page on eight years of policies that have strengthened Iran and failed to secure America or our ally Israel. Instead of tough talk and no action, we need to do what Kennedy, Nixon and Reagan did and use all elements of American power -- including tough, principled, and direct diplomacy - to pressure countries like Iran and Syria. George Bush knows that I have never supported engagement with terrorists, and the President's extraordinary politicization of foreign policy and the politics of fear do nothing to secure the American people or our stalwart ally Israel."

Way over the top.  Obama took the bait and simply called attention to the charge.  Pelosi weighs in:

The White House insists that Bush was "referring to a wide range of people, not any single person." But Obama's campaign says it appeared to be a swipe at him, and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said Thursday that Bush's remarks were "beneath the dignity of the office of the president and unworthy of our representation" at the celebration of Israel's 60th anniversary.

Referring to Sen. John McCain, Pelosi said: "I would hope that any serious person that aspires to lead the country, would disassociate themselves from those comments.”

As Pelosi was speaking, House Democratic Caucus Chairman Rahm Emanuel issued a statement in which he said: "The tradition has always been that when a U.S. president is overseas, partisan politics stops at the water's edge. President Bush has now taken that principle and turned it on its head: for this White House, partisan politics now begins at the water’s edge, no matter the seriousness and gravity of the occasion. Does the president have no shame?”

There are pills for reactions like this.  Little pills.  You need a prescription, but privacy is assured. 

What the president said was pretty standard stuff.  All the Democrats have done is point right to themselves as the party people don't trust on national security.  Goody.

May 15, 2008.      Permalink          

THURSDAY:  MAY 15,  2008

Posted at 6:52 a.m. ET

BUYER'S REMORSE?

Ken Blackwell, Ohio's former secretary of state, Republican candidate for governor, and a leading African-American conservative, asserts that the Democrats may develop a very quick case of buyer's remorse by choosing Barack Obama as their nominee:

Even with Hillary Clinton’s wide margin win in the West Virginia primary, Barack Obama will be the Democrat standard bearer in November. However, Democrats may well have buyer’s remorse. Their rush to nominate Mr. Obama, the least vetted presidential candidate in memory, will likely cost them the fall election. The voters, who many believe, Mr. Obama needs for victory in November are trending to John McCain.

And...

Historically, West Virginia’s politics has turned on two things: unions and culture. While the former usually controls electoral outcomes there, the later will likely deliver the state’s Electoral College votes to John McCain, as it did for George W. Bush in 2000 and 2004.

Further...

So how does Barack Obama respond to the clear challenge he has with white working class voters? He insults them and essentially writes them off. He tells them the Appalachian Trail is not his path to the White House. He tells his elite, wealthy financial supporters in San Francisco that such voters “cling” to guns and religion out of bitterness over their lack of economic prosperity. With statements reminiscent of Marx’s “opiate of the masses,” Mr. Obama suggests guns and religion are the emotional crutches blue-collar workers need to cope with reality.

And...

He has placed his electoral bet on other states and voter coalitions.

But this problem is larger than West Virginia and Kentucky. There are millions of similar voters in Pennsylvania, Ohio, Michigan, and other states without which Mr. Obama cannot win the White House. And Mrs. Clinton has beaten Mr. Obama in every single one, often by wide margins.

Liberals and the writers of Saturday Night Live may say these voters will shun Mr. Obama because he is black and they are racist. Nonsense.

Just like high-minded liberals, these voters vote their values and priorities. In West Virginia, they overwhelming chose Mrs. Clinton because she didn’t write them off.

While some of those voters might go for Mr. Obama in the fall, many will not. If Mr. McCain can maintain an authentic contrast on faith, guns and patriotism, he will get more of these Democrat voters than Mr. Obama would like.

Well said.  The wild card, though, as I've written here before, is the role of the media and the degree to which it is willing to prostitute its news pages to advance Obama's campaign, even at the cost of its future credibility.  I fear that the media will try to "elect" Obama through its coverage.  I fear it may work.

May 15, 2008.      Permalink          

THE ARCHITECT ADVISES

Karl Rove is called "the architect" for good reason.  He essentially designed the political victories of George W. Bush.  Now he gives some needed advice to a Republican Party that is foundering:  You have to stand for something, fellas:

Tuesday's election results highlighted challenges for both Democrats and Republicans.

Republicans received a hard shot in Mississippi. Greg Davis (for whom I campaigned and who was a well-qualified candidate) narrowly lost a special congressional election in a district President George W. Bush carried four years ago with 62% of the vote. Democrats pulled off the win by smartly nominating a conservative, Travis Childers, from a rural swing part of the district who disavowed Barack Obama and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and hit Mr. Davis from the right.

We recall that John F. Kennedy ran to the right of Richard Nixon on national defense in 1960, and won.  The press is not emphasizing the fact that conservative Democrats are succeeding, not necessarily liberals.  Rove notes that the Mississippi GOP loss comes after two others:

The string of defeats should cure Republicans of the habit of simply shouting "liberal! liberal! liberal!" in hopes of winning an election. They need to press a reform agenda full of sharp contrasts with the Democrats.

And...

What is clear is that John McCain and Republicans will prevail only if they convince voters that there are profound consequences at stake in Iraq, and that more and better jobs will follow from the GOP's approach of lowering taxes, opening trade, and ending earmarks and other pro-growth policies.

Republicans also face challenges with the young (whose opposition to the war and attraction to Mr. Obama have made them Democrats) and Hispanics (the fastest-growing part of the electorate). A recent survey offers some encouraging news. Mr. McCain is polling as high as 41% with Hispanics – close to President Bush's 44% in 2004.

But Rove points out that Democrats also have problems, and that they are serious:

Democrats shouldn't be complacent after Tuesday. Their problems start with Mr. Obama's 41-point loss to Hillary Clinton in West Virginia. Mr. Obama lost the primary because the rejection of him by blue-collar voters is hardening. The last Democrat to win the presidency without carrying the Mountain State was Woodrow Wilson in 1916.

Finally...

Both parties face major challenges and have little time to alter the dynamics of the election to their advantage. Recognizing underlying problems and correcting them within a matter of a couple of months is one of the supreme challenges in politics. Whichever party does that fast and well will benefit come November.

Anyone listening?

May 15, 2008.      Permalink          

BUSH IN ISRAEL

Sometimes we're led to forget that George Bush is still president.  We're also informed, by our intellectual betters, that he's an ignorant, narrow-minded, bigoted, warmongering clown.  (Have I included everything?)  Yet reading the words of the president, who is visiting Israel, one suspects that this country will someday give thanks for at least a good part of his presidency.  Bush gets it.  Many of his critics do not.  Bush's execution of his policies has been labored at times, his explanations often wanting.  But he does indeed get it.  From his comments in Israel:

US President George W. Bush on Thursday criticized the deadly tactics of extremist groups like al-Qaida, Hizbullah and Hamas and said he looks toward the day when Muslims "recognize the emptiness of the terrorists' vision and the injustice of their cause."

In a speech prepared for delivery the Knesset, or parliament, Bush pledged that the United States has an unbreakable bond with Israel.

"Some people suggest that if the United States would just break ties with Israel, all our problems in the Middle East would go away" Bush said in his prepared address. "This is a tired argument that buys into the propaganda of our enemies, and America rejects it utterly. Israel's population may be just over 7 million. But when you confront terror and evil, you are 307 million strong, because America stands with you."

Bush took special aim at Iran and said the United States stands with Israel in opposing moves by Teheran to obtain nuclear weapons.

Good words, likely to be forgotten.  The mainstream media may rejoice when Bush leaves office.  I suspect their rejoicing will be short-lived.

May 15, 2008.      Permalink          

IRANIAN DILEMMA

The president's mention of Iran underlines the fact that the Iranian regime is a growing threat.  Yesterday I met with my friend Banafsheh Zand-Bonazzi, a leading Iranian activist, and her politically active husband, Elio.  Talk turned to a critical need that is conspicuously ignored by the Western press - the need to destabilize the Iranian mullah regime, something Michael Ledeen has also written about.  Banafsheh noted that the mullahs are constantly at each other's throats.  In recent days we've heard rumblings of some harsh criticism, from factions within the regime, directed at Holocaust-denying president and international good-time guy, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.  Yet, nothing is done in the West to exploit these differences and weaken the regime. 

There's been some hope expressed that the esteemed president would lose next year's election in Iran.  Banafsheh threw cold water on that, noting that the election would likely be rigged.

The centrifuges in Iran keep spinning, yet the West is weak in response.  Countries that should know better, especially Germany, Austria and "neutral" Switzerland, have become major trading partners with Iran, which only bolsters the mullahs.  But if we can split the mullahs, encouraging their going after each other, we might make some progress, without the need for military action that everyone dreads.

Be back later. 

May 15, 2008.      Permalink