• IN THIS SECTION

June 6, 2008

Exclusive: Friday, June 6

Presidential Watch

As for the Substance...

Jonah Goldberg, NRO.com

While it was beautifully and powerfully delivered, this is an enormous gust of gassy nonsense:

"The journey will be difficult. The road will be long. I face this challenge with profound humility, and knowledge of my own limitations. But I also face it with limitless faith in the capacity of the American people. Because if we are willing to work for it, and fight for it, and believe in it, then I am absolutely certain that generations from now, we will be able to look back and tell our children that this was the moment when we began to provide care for the sick and good jobs to the jobless; this was the moment when the rise of the oceans began to slow and our planet began to heal; this was the moment when we ended a war and secured our nation and restored our image as the last, best hope on earth. This was the moment - this was the time - when we came together to remake this great nation so that it may always reflect our very best selves and our highest ideals. Thank you, God bless you, and may God bless the United States of America. "

Who knew we never cared for sick people or provided good jobs to the jobless until this very moment?

Oh: One last thing: I don't want to come together with anyone to remake this country. Improve this country? yeah. Fix some problems? Sure. But this country doesn't need "remaking." Read article.

A New Electoral Map: In the General Election, McCain Leads in Electoral Votes Against Both Clinton and Obama

Michael Barone, JWR.com

I've been writing, repeatedly, that the voting alignments in this general election could look quite different from those that prevailed in 2004 and 2000 (and, for that matter, 1996). And that the voting alignments could be quite different depending on whether Barack Obama or Hillary Clinton is the Democratic nominee. The Clinton campaign is now arguing, in a lengthy memo, that its candidate would run stronger against John McCain than Obama would, and Gallup shows Clinton running stronger than Obama in primary/caucus states won by Clinton and running about the same as Obama in primary/caucus states won by Obama.

National elections are decided not by popular vote but by electoral votes. So I decided to take a look at all the statewide polls, conveniently gathered by Pollster.com, that have been conducted starting in February. That seemed to be the best time to start, since McCain effectively clinched the Republican nomination on Super Tuesday, February 5.

I calculated the average percentage margin for McCain over (or under) Obama and Clinton in each state and compared it with George W. Bush's percentage margin over (or under) John Kerry in the 2004 general election. I used whole integers: no value in the spurious precision of tenths of a percentage in analyzing the results of polls with a considerable margin of error. I have used pluses to indicate McCain leads and to indicate an increase in the McCain margin over the Bush margin and minuses to indicate Democratic leads and to indicate decreases in the McCain margin over the Bush margin. Read article.

Irrelevant Apologies

Thomas Sowell, Townhall.com

It is amazing how seriously the media are taking Senator Barack Obama's latest statement about the latest racist rant from the pulpit of the church he has attended for 20 years. But neither that statement nor the apology for his rant by Father Michael Pfleger really matters, one way or the other. Nor does Senator Obama's belated resignation from that church.

For any politician, what matters is not his election year rhetoric, or an election year resignation from a church, but the track record of that politician in the years before the election.

Yet so many people are so fascinated by Barack Obama's rhetorical skills that they don't care about his voting record in the U.S. Senate, in the Illinois state senate, the causes that he has chosen to promote over the years, or the candidate's personal character and values, as revealed by his actions and associations.

Despite clever spin from Obama's supporters about avoiding "guilt by association," much more is involved than casual association with people like Jeremiah Wright and Father Pfleger. Read article.

Obama says, 'Believe.' In what?

Chelsie West, Chieftain.com

I am asking Pueblo to re-evaluate our political foundations before we, and the rest of our country, make a mistake. This all came to me this spring semester in my World History class. What I discovered has been haunting me ever since. We were learning about the rise of Adolf Hitler and the Nazi Party in Germany and about Hitler's methods for gaining popularity and strength.

My instructor highlighted three main factors that swayed people to follow Hitler: 1) The state of the German people after World War I, feeling hopeless and divided, looking for a leader; 2) Hitler's promise of change and prominent nationalism and 3) Hitler's rhetoric and charisma.

This sounded familiar. I turned to my very vocal, very liberal friend in the class and said, "Did he not just describe the tactics of Barack Obama?" Even she, an Obama fanatic, couldn't ignore the striking similarities. She said, "Yeah, but Obama's not gonna do that. That can't happen."

I am not claiming Obama is a fascist. I am saying Obama does not have as much to offer the United States or Pueblo County as his avid supporters believe. But, Obama doesn't give us any substance. Where's the beef? Read article.

Living on Obama's Collective Farm

IBD Editorials.com

In a commencement speech at Wesleyan University, Barack Obama advised graduates not to pursue the American dream of success. Ivy League graduates who live in big homes can be selfish, you know.

President Kennedy once spoke of a rising tide that would lift all boats. Obama wants us to pull into shore and tie them to a dock.

Worse than that, a disturbing pattern of rhetoric indicates he will not only counsel a draconian lifestyle, but also mandate it.

The man who made over $4 million last year, who lives in a $1.65 million house and who probably doesn't get his great suits off the rack, advised graduates: "You can take your diploma, walk off this stage and chase only after the big house and the nice suits and all the other things that our money culture says you should. But I hope you don't." I got mine.

So far, Obama's idea of hope and change sounds an awful lot like the Marxian vision of taking from each according to his ability and giving to each according to his needs. Though we're already the most charitable and giving nation in history, Obama doesn't seem to think volunteerism is part of it. Read article.

Obama: See No Evil

Cal Thomas, Townhall.com

Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama is the polar opposite of John F. Kennedy.

Judging from recent comments, Obama apparently would pay no price, bear no burden, forsake any hardship, support any foe and oppose any friend that wished to pursue liberty. Kennedy understood that evil exists in the world. He saw it in World War II as his generation defeated the evil that gripped Europe and Japan. And he witnessed it as president when Nikita Khrushchev approved the building of the Berlin Wall and the installation of Soviet missiles in Cuba, acts that flowed from Khrushchev's perception that the young president was weak and inexperienced.

Obama thinks he can negotiate with evil and transform evil into something else. Initially his foreign policy platform was a naive pledge to meet "unconditionally" with the leaders of Iran, North Korea, Syria, Cuba and other nations dominated by dictators. In recent days he has changed his tune somewhat. He would still meet with the heads of these mini evil empires without preconditions, but "there must be careful preparation. We will set a clear agenda."

This leads to an important question: On what basis does a free nation negotiate with nations that are not free? Does Obama expect leaders who got where they are by undemocratic, even violent means, to embrace press freedom, religious liberty, political pluralism and rights for women? What would evil leaders demand of him? Read article.

Barack Obama has a lot to learn

Michael Goodwin, NY Daily News.com

Nothing describes Barack Obama better than the cliche about a man facing good news/bad news. The good news for Obama is that he is getting a first-rate education on what it means to be commander in chief. The bad news - his teacher is John McCain.

Even before he clinches the nomination, a flurry of McCain attacks over Iran, Iraq, Cuba and military leadership has exposed Obama's soft underbelly on national security. The effective barrage is a testament to how the primary battles never tested the rookie Democrat on whether he is ready to be commander in chief.

In Prof. McCain's class, Obama is slowly making progress, but remains far below grade average. It's not certain he can catch up by November's final exam, where the threshold issue is the public's confidence a candidate can and will defend America. Perceived weakness is a disqualifier. Read article.

Lobbyists & Lies - What McCain Exposés Miss

Jennifer Rubin, NY Post.com

The New York Times, Washington Post and other "prestige" papers have been all atwitter over lobbyists working for (or leaving) the McCain campaign - as if they were uncovering some great hypocrisy. But their "exposés" never show any sign that the lobbyists actually sway John McCain. In fact, the record clearly shows that he's less prone to such influence than Barack Obama.

When papers cite specific lobbyists and specific votes, the McCain camp so far has dutifully pulled out evidence that the senator either rejected the lobbyist's entreaties or voted in keeping with his longstanding policy positions.

It's sometimes hard to fathom the point of these stories. If McCain, as recounted in a Washington Post report about an incident in the late '90s, threw then-lobbyist Charlie Black and his client out of his office, doesn't it show the lack of lobbyist influence on him? Read article.

Daschle: McCain Sought to Join Democrats

NewsMax.com

Former Democratic Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle said that several years ago John McCain came close to leaving the Republican Party and caucusing with Senate Democrats.

During Daschle's appearance Sunday on MSNBC's "Meet the Press," host Tim Russert noted that Daschle said in February, "It's true that we were once close to bringing John McCain into the Democratic caucus. There are many who can verify that." Russert asked, "John McCain almost became a Democrat?"

Daschle answered: "Never a Democrat, but an independent. He was so angry at the way he was treated and the problems he had with the Bush administration in 2001, Tim, that he came to us and said, ‘Look, I'm seriously considering becoming an independent and caucusing with you. Let's talk about it.' And we did."

"Aligning himself with the Democrats in the Senate?" Russert asked.

"Exactly," Daschle replied. Read article.

LBJ's Secret Israel Tapes

Robert David Johnson, NY Sun.com

On March 24, 1968, President Johnson telephoned his ambassador to the United Nations, Arthur Goldberg. The previous few weeks had been among the most difficult of Johnson's presidency. In late January, the Tet offensive undermined public support for the Vietnam War. In early March, Johnson barely edged longshot Eugene McCarthy in the New Hampshire primary. Four days later, the senator of New York, Robert Kennedy, announced that he would seek the Democratic nomination.

Johnson told Goldberg that he had grown more sympathetic to Israel's plight as his own political fortunes had declined. "They haven't got many friends in the world," the president said, and "they're in about the same shape I am. And the closer I got - I face adversity, the closer I get to them.

Johnson's approach toward Middle Eastern affairs did not come as a result of a differing strategic vision. Like Eisenhower and Kennedy, Johnson's chief ideological goal was containing Soviet diplomatic influence, especially in Jordan and the Persian Gulf.

Instead, Johnson's policies stemmed more from personal concerns - his friendship with leading Zionists (such as Abe Fortas, Abe Feinberg, and Arthur Krim), his belief that America had a moral obligation to bolster Israeli security, and his conception of Israel as a frontier land much like his home state of Texas.

In 2008, policy toward Israel has attracted more attention than in any presidential campaign in American history. It's not hard to see why - Jewish voters could decide the outcome not only in Florida, but also in swing states such as Nevada and even Colorado.

Earlier this spring, the presumptive Republican nominee, John McCain, traveled to Israel, visiting the besieged city of Sderot, whose civilians regularly face Hamas rockets fired from Gaza. The likely Democratic nominee, Barack Obama, has aggressively wooed both Jewish voters and the Jewish press, reaffirming his support for Israeli security. Read article.

McCain Takes Obama to School on Iraq

David Limbaugh, David Limbaugh.com

On Monday, John McCain wisely urged Barack Obama to join him in visiting Iraq, something Obama hasn't done since 2006, when he declared the war lost. This is exactly what McCain ought to be doing: taking it to Obama on an issue that appears to favor Obama but in reality favors McCain.

In thrashing President Bush over Iraq since before we invaded, the mainstream media and the Democratic Party have succeeded in convincing much of the public that the war is a failure and that we must withdraw immediately. The propaganda effort has been so relentless that this perception remains to a great extent, even after the dramatic turnaround occasioned by the surge. But this is primarily because the media do their best to suppress any good news coming out of Iraq.

Can you imagine what public opinion would look like if the MSM were closer to neutrality on this issue and the Democratic Party were dedicated to the long-term best interests of the United States instead of its own partisan aggrandizement?

But even with the propaganda against the war and in favor of immediate withdrawal, a significant majority of Americans understand we do have a major stake in Iraq and that you can't precipitously withdraw without negative consequences. Read article.

Liberals & Libertarians ‘Dead' Wrong on National Security

JB Williams, NMJ.us

Hillary Clinton was for the war on terror including in Iraq, before she had to become against it to attract her Code Pink feminazi core for a White House bid. Barack Obama says he would have been against it from the start, had he been out of his political diapers at the time those tough decisions had to be made. Both are running on ideological hindsight and campaign rhetoric.

But 300 million Americans expected President Bush alone to make certain that there would be no second 9/11. He has done just that, no matter how politically uncomfortable leftists have made it for him in their quest for political power at any cost.

Libertarians like Ron Paul and Pat Buchanan are equally foolish in their isolationist blame America first and often national security rhetoric.

Since these mental midgets have such big mouths on such an important subject that they clearly know nothing about, it's time to KISS national security, keep it simple stupid, before the American voter makes a treacherous mistake this November.

Playing Defense

Both liberals and libertarians seem to have missed their security 101 courses, even the basics learned by the average voter before they reach the 3rd grade. Defense alone won't win anything. Winning anything requires an offense.

Name your analogy...

The most talented baseball players with the best training and the best equipment cannot defeat even the worst teams in the league if they only take the field in a defensive posture, pitching and catching while refusing their turn at bat. Read article.

Conservatives, fear not

Jonah Goldberg, USA Today.com

"Cheer up," advised writer Philander Johnson, "for the worst is yet to come."

That's good advice for conservatives these days. Things are grim, particularly for the GOP. The share of Americans who describe themselves as Republicans is plummeting so quickly, pretty soon more voters will call themselves Hobbits than Republicans.

While Barack Obama is surprisingly weak given all of the Democrats' advantages, the smart money remains that the Democrats will capture the White House and expand their majorities in Congress considerably.

The issue climate is arguably even worse. From Social Security to health care to the environment, Democrats have the wind at their backs. If Obama continued to run from the left and won in November, Democrats would be able to claim the biggest mandate for liberalism since 1964.

Democrats would be able to dispatch a cavalry of young judicial reinforcements to renew the effort to push the courts ever further to the left. Some form of socialized medicine would be implemented. President Obama would in all likelihood fulfill his pledge to pull out of Iraq. Taxes would go up. Farm subsidies increase. State-level efforts to establish gay marriage by undemocratic fiat would find eager accomplices in Congress and the Justice Department.

Draconian taxes on energy use - often hidden behind cap-and-trade schemes - would be implemented in the name of combating global warming. The "Fairness Doctrine" might be restored to silence conservative media. There are even rumors that House Speaker Nancy Pelosi is pondering legislation that would require dogs to take orders from cats. Read article.

You Can't Appease Everybody

Ann Coulter, Human Events.com

Liberals view talk as an end in itself. They never think through how these talks will proceed, which is why Chamberlain ended up giving away Czechoslovakia. He didn't leave for Munich planning to do that. It is simply the inevitable result of talking with madmen without a clear and obtainable goal. Without a stick, there's only a carrot.

The only explanation for liberals' hysterical zealotry in favor of Obama's proposed open-ended talks with Ahmadinejad is that they seriously imagine crazy foreign dictators will be as charmed by Obama as cable TV hosts whose legs tingle when they listen to Obama (a condition that used to be known as "sciatica").

Because, really, who better to face down a Holocaust denier with a messianic complex than the guy who is afraid of a debate moderated by Brit Hume?

There is no possible result of such a meeting apart from appeasement and humiliation of the U.S. If we are prepared to talk, then we're looking for a deal. What kind of deal do you make with a madman until he is ready to surrender?

Will President Obama listen respectfully as Ahmadinejad says he plans to build nuclear weapons? Will he say he'll get back to Ahmadinejad on removing all U.S. troops from the region? Will he nod his head as Ahmadinejad demands the removal of the Jewish population from the Middle East? Obama says he's prepared to have an open-ended chat with Ahmadinejad, so I guess everything is on the table. Read article.