The Thin-Skinned President

An illuminating exchange between the President and Senator McCain at today's Health Care Charade Summit:

After Sen. John McCain (R., Ariz.) focused on issues in his wheelhouse — the dearth of transparency and wealth of special deals in Obamacare — and chastised Obama for failing to live up to his campaign promises to change the way Washington works and conduct health-care negotiations in front of C-SPAN cameras, the president got testy.

"We're not campaigning any more, John. The election is over," he said.

To which McCain responded, "I'm reminded of that every day."

Prickly, defensive...the President just can't take criticism.

Bush is a piker

It almost makes me long for the days of the "Bush cabal" screeds. The current administration makes Bush look like a piker:

Billions of dollars in federal aid delivered directly to the local level to help revive the economy have gone overwhelmingly to places that supported President Obama in last year’s presidential election. . . . Counties that supported Obama last year have reaped twice as much money per person from the administration’s $787 billion economic stimulus package as those that voted for his Republican rival, Sen. John McCain, a USA TODAY analysis of government disclosure and accounting records shows.

(H/T Instapundit)

Differing Skill Sets

John McCain's economic adviser says Palin not ready to run a large corporation. She then goes on to say:

"But that's not what she's running for. Running a corporation is a different set of things."

Which, if you're going to display any bit of integrity on this point you must agree is true. And that is why businesspeople run large corporations and politicians...do what they do.

John McCain

I've changed my mind.

Oh the Condescenscion we'll See

With apologies to Dr. Suess...

It was only 12 hours late, but we now know who the Democrat VP nominee is. Everybody's favorite blowhard, Joe Biden. On paper, in terms of experience, he's certainly helpful. But then after you start to really look you realize his mouth is a bigger liability than his experience is an asset.

Conservative/Republican reactions include the following:

From the "I wish I'd thought of that" category: One last thought before bed: Imagine McCain picking Gov. Bobby Jindal. First line at the debate, "Senator, before we begin our debate, let me clarify for you that I don't work at a 7-11."

Hugh Hewitt, never a Biden fan, shreds the pick: Rob Long asks "Isn't [Biden] sort of the stupid person's idea of the smart person's candidate?" Yes, he is. But that's not fair to stupid people. Even stupid people who watched Biden embarrass himself during the Alito hearings --remember the "I hate Princeton" moment followed by the donning of the Princeton cap?-- know that Slow Joe is all tenure and no talent.

I was worried that the Dems had pointed out to Obama that his serial gaffing had brought the campaign close to a break point and that he needed Hillary. I was worried he'd actually go find Anthony Zinni or Sam Nunn or someone of accomplishment and purposefulness in foreign affairs. Webb would have been hell on the stump. Kaine or Bayh would have put different states into play. Sebelius was a wild card.

Jim Geraghty again: Man, the attack ads on Obama featuring quotes from his own running mate are just going to be brutal:

ABC’s George Stephanopoulos: “You were asked is he ready. You said ‘I think he can be ready, but right now I don’t believe he is. The presidency is not something that lends itself to on-the-job training.’”

Sen. Biden: “I think that I stand by the statement.”
(ABC’s “This Week,” 8/19/07)

Picture the voice over: "If his own running mate has doubts about whether he's ready for the job... shouldn't you?"

The ever-wimsical Tom Maguire says of it: By way of the Ace we see this image hosted at the Obama website (I am not the most computer-savvy guy going, but I am satisfied this is no spoof.)

Coupled as it is with the Biden announcement, I can only infer that the Obamaites think they laid an egg (no dissent here).

I'll be saving a screen shot, you can bet.

Bigger Media says:

"The candidate of change went with the status quo."


If my pick were Biden...I'd wait until late Friday night to leak it, too. It seems appropriate to wake up to that and Saturday morning cartoons.

RELATED: No Biden bump. In a new Washington Post-ABC News poll completed last night, three-quarters of voters said picking Biden would not sway their votes one way or the other.

Foreign policy experience? How difficult is it to follow the French?

This is gonna be fun...

Biden's mouth is going to do it's level best to talk McCain to a comfortable--landslide?--electoral vote victory. He's like most Democrats in that regard; he can't help himself.

The Other -ism

I'm relieved to hear that the McCain campaign is not guilty of racism:

Republican candidate John McCain's presidential campaign is cynical, not racist, in its efforts to distract voters from real issues, Democratic rival Barack Obama said Saturday.

"In no way do I think that John McCain's campaign was being racist," Obama said in his first meeting with reporters since predicting that McCain and other Republicans would try to scare voters because Obama looks unlike "all those other presidents on the dollar bills" - most of them older white men.

"I think they're cynical," he said. "And I think they want to distract people from talking about the real issues."

Did he let Big Media in on the secret?

Where to Now?

McCain wins Florida and Rudy dropping out...where do conservative voters go now?

I think I'm gonna hurl...

What we're Facing

Or, an ode to Sim:

An e-mail, in response to my McCain thoughts this past week:

Perhaps if Katheryn Jean Lopez feels this country is in mortal danger and needs to continue this war of imperialistic aggression against the Muslim world, she should grab a gun and head for the front. I have had enough of the lunatic right telling us that we need to keep murdering and oppressing a people half way around the world. How many dead and displaced must we produced before we recognize the criminal acts we have committed. We are not buying the scare tactics of the radical right anymore. These Americans aare the true terrorists. This was was foisted upon our country by some very evil men that are currently running the country. Americans are the bad guys. Our country is being used by the energy corporations for our military and national treasure to try to gain profitable, long term access to the middle east oil fields. The charade is over. The American people are not being fooled any longer. Spare us any further propaganda.

Where do you start to argue with that?

Didn't see it coming

There is a gathering storm around Harry Reid and his comments last week about Iraq. Three more Senators went public with criticism of their leader and two went so far as to call for his resignation.

Now certainly there is a political element to all this, especially when you consider that two of the three Senators are Republican presidential candidates. At the same time however, Reid's comments have struck a chord in some circles and angered many. Frankly, I didn't see it coming.

I didn't think America cared at this point. That is the media's tale: we're all tired of Iraq and want to come home. Well, apparently there are still folks out there who get it and care enough to push back.

And in the credit-where-credit-is-due department, kudos to Senator McCain. He's right:

"...Presidents don't lose wars.
Political parties don't lose wars.
Nations lose wars.
And, when nations lose wars, nations suffer."

What to Say

There really is not much to say about such a thing as the events of early today in Blacksburg, other than to note the horrific nature of the entire incident. Regardless of motive or cause.

If I do have anything to say, it would be about the already unfolding analysis of different elements of the story as the day went by. First, it seems to me that any discussion of this needs to understand why it is only for would-be killers or criminals to carry weapons on campus at Virginia Tech.

Not a nice sentiment at this point and it borders on inappropriate only 12 hours later but why on earth would an administration advocate such a policy that leaves thousands of staff, faculty and students vulnerable to just this sort of event?

Moving on, MKH notes the first bits of the political fallout in this: ...to look at their websites, you wouldn't know a thing about what Mitt, McCain, and Rudy think about this national tragedy. It's doesn't mean they're terrible, selfish men, as I'm sure the Left will infer. On the contrary, I'm sure all of their thoughts and prayers are with the kids of Blacksburg, just as all of ours are. But the fact is that the Big Six in the presidential race are huge, public figures who are required, for better or worse, to have a public position on every issue, ever. Today is certainly no exception.

Political web operatives on the Left understand that websites move with the news, and are sometimes the fastest way to move those messages. Today, the Dem candidates' sites reflect that and the Republicans' do not.

I think that Mary Katherine Ham has a valid point here and it is in fact true; the left feels...more and better...it's a key part of the essence of what liberalism is. At the risk of sounding too much like a dittohead, it is what they do.

It's nice as far as it goes and in the immediate aftermath of such a horrid event it is not without meaning or comfort. Sadly however, it doesn't do anything about the problem.

This kind of feel-good rhetoric is what made my hair stand up on end upon first hearing a presidential candidate tell me he felt my pain in 1992. I don't need the government or the people that form it to "feel my pain."

I need them to govern. I need them to create and implement sound policy and to protect me from reasonable threats at the federal, state and local levels.

It is wonderfully compassionate to read of Senators Edwards', Clinton's and Obama's undoubtedly real concern for the lives touched by the tragedy at Virginia Tech but it accomplishes nothing but to tell me what I already knew: they are human beings just like me.

McCain: Have the reports of his demise been premature?

John McIntyre at RCP doesn't buy the notion that I've been peddling this week that John McCain's Presidential campaign may as well be over. In a radio interview this week he did not predict such but would neither rule out a Kerry-esque turn of events in 2008 for Republicans.

Like Kerry in 04, McCain was supposed to be next in line for his party's nomination and like Kerry, McCain is struggling to stay in the top tier of candidates here in the early part of the campaign.

We all know what happened to the Democratic front-runner in '04, and again while not predicting such a scenario, McIntyre wouldn't rule it out. Neither does K-Lo:

I'm Not Putting My Money on This [Kathryn Jean Lopez]

Craig Crawford floats McCain dropping out:

If presidential campaigns had such a thing as an honorable discharge, Sen. John McCain could get one.

The Arizona Republican’s White House bid has gone from bad to worse with this week’s news that he lags well behind leading candidates in both parties for the almighty dollar. McCain’s aides say that he inexplicably held only two fundraisers in the first two months of 2007.
No wonder that his first-quarter earnings put him at $12.5 million in contributions, compared with $15 million for former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani and $20 million for former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney.

In short order, McCain has gone from presumed front-runner to enduring rumors that he might not even stay in the race. If he dropped out, McCain can always blame his support for the unpopular Iraq war — highlighted by his recent trip to the region — and exit with dignity.

McCain: Still dead after all these months

This combined with this story from the other day are a pretty clear indicator that Senator McCain's presidential ambitions are effectively DOA at this point. From Dean:

“Lagging in fund-raising and under fire for his support of the Iraq war, Senator John McCain is overhauling his campaign finance operation and delaying the official announcement of his candidacy, his aides said Tuesday.”

You’ve got to be kidding me. Team McCain has actually concluded that he’s “under fire” for his steadfastness on Iraq? How could they be so obtuse? McCain’s reliability on Iraq is quite frankly the only thing that’s keeping him afloat in conservative Republican circles. Or let’s put it this way – McCain’s not considered viable because of McCain/Feingold, McCain/Kennedy or his reputation as a loyal Republican.

This reads eerily like the mis-interpretation of Bush's approval numbers. When Bush's approval ratings sunk into the low 30's and high 20's, everyone assumed that the country had wised up and everyone was turning on the war; not so.

Here-to-fore steadfast supporters of the war were displeased at the seeming lack of will to prosecute the war. Folks haven't noticed but approval on Iraq has inched up, a result of good news coming from the Surge.

I'm with Dean on McCain. We're seeing the same kind of phenomenon here.

There is no more left-wing/Democratic opposition to Iraq. We see and hear it all, there are no Iraq-war foes in hiding. These people wobbling on McCain are Republicans and the good Senator has given us plenty of reasons to wobble.

But he doesn't have to take our advice (and rarely does). If the Senator wishes to turn left over Iraq, he is welcome to. He'll have no-one to blame other than himself when his numbers tank, however.

Dead but not buried

McCain is toast:

In interviews with The Hill this month, former Sen. Tom Daschle (D-S.D.) and ex-Rep. Tom Downey (D-N.Y.) said there were nearly two months of talks with the maverick lawmaker following an approach by John Weaver, McCain’s chief political strategist.

Democrats had contacted Jeffords and then-Sen. Lincoln Chafee (R-R.I.) in the early months of 2001 about switching parties, but in McCain’s case, they said, it was McCain’s top strategist who came to them.At the end of their March 31, 2001 lunch at a Chinese restaurant in Bethesda, Md., Downey said Weaver asked why Democrats hadn’t asked McCain to switch parties.

Downey, a well-connected lobbyist, said he was stunned.“You’re really wondering?” Downey said he told Weaver. “What do you mean you’re wondering?”

“Well, if the right people asked him,” Weaver said, according to Downey, adding that he responded, “The calls will be made. Who do you want?” Weaver this week said he did have lunch with Downey that spring, pointing out that he and Downey “are very good friends.” He claims, however, that Downey is grossly mischaracterizing their exchange: “We certainly didn’t discuss in any detail about the senator’s political plans and any discussion about party-switchers, generically, would have been limited to the idle gossip which was all around the city about the [Democrats’] aggressive approach about getting any GOP senator to switch in order to gain the majority. Nothing more or less than that.”

Downey said Weaver is well aware that their discussion was much more than typical Washington chit-chat.

“Within seconds” of arriving home from his lunch with Weaver, Downey said he was on the phone to the most powerful Democrats in town. One of the first calls he made was to then-Senate Minority Leader Daschle.“I did take the call from Tom [Downey],” Daschle said in an interview. “It was Weaver’s comment” to Downey that started the McCain talks, he added. Daschle noted that McCain at that time was frustrated with the Bush administration as a result of his loss to George W. Bush in the 2000 Republican primary.

Daschle said that throughout April and May of 2001, he and McCain “had meetings and conversations on the floor and in his office, I think in mine as well, about how we would do it, what the conditions would be. We talked about committees and his seniority … [A lot of issues] were on the table.”

Absolutely not so, according to McCain. In a statement released by his campaign, McCain said, “As I said in 2001, I never considered leaving the Republican Party, period.”

As Dean Barnett puts it: Nevertheless, this incident illustrates a perfect storm of McCain’s shortcomings in a way that none of his other bi-partisan adventures do. The vanity, the immature pique of anger, the utter indifference and disloyalty to the people who voted for him and the party that supported him – they’re all on naked display. And it ain’t pretty.

This story if true, and honestly even if it isn't, demonstrates to Republicans everywhere just why McCain isn't the guy. The problem is that he even appears capable of what The Hill has described, not even whether he actually did actively pursue a switch.

Memo to the good Senator: Party loyalty matters.

First inkling of Intelligence

It's fleeting but it might just be there. The title says it all: "Senators Also Said They Were Beginning To Realize That The Vote, While Nonbinding, Would Be An Important Statement On Congressional Sentiment Regarding The War."

The exhortation: Republican senators up for re-election are beginning to figure out that you can't win with just the supporters of victory in Iraq, but you surely can't win without them. Throwing in with Warner, McCain or any resolution that equivocates on the necessity of victory or implies contingent as opposed to enduring support for victory will not be forgotten by the GOP activists and contributors.

And now on the other hand...

Things started to look up over the weekend in the Senate with this revelation from Republican Minority leader McConnell:

Senator Mitch McConnell's appearance on Face the Nation signaled clear victory for the victory Republicans. No resolution --not Biden's, Warner's or McCain's-- will advance without 60 votes for cloture. The Minority Leader also reminded the audience that General Petraeus made it clear he'd prefer no resolution. And after some nice words about Senator Warner. McConnell also announced he'd be voting against Warner's resolution.

The Pledge is nearing 30,000 signatures, and poll questions have been added on whether Senator Warner should step aside in '08 and on presidential preference among Pledge takers. The key for victory Republicans is to communicate with the Senate that they expect Republicans to support the troops, General Petraeus and victory, and that such support cannot be demonstrated by posturing through hair-splitting resolutions.

So happy days, no?

Well...no. Now the House, for the last two years the last bastion of conservatism in DC shows signs of following in the Senate Republicans footsteps. That is to say, they're contemplating resolutions of their own. At their peril, we might add:

...I strongly disagree with his "benchmarks" proposal, and I think that, like many senators, the House Republican leadership is seriously underestimating the anger in the party at the tactics they are employing on the war. They need to be defending the war, and the troops and General Petraeus, not searching for political cover.

Bill Kristol said it clearly yesterday: Congress has a role to play and the proper way to exercise it is via legislation. If they truly disagree with the President's plan, they have a responsibility to act, not posture in response.

Kate O'Bierne said it last week: Their convictions hold that he has endorsed a wholly unjustified escalation and will be leading troops on a futile mission. They want a role in the conduct of the war and with the need to win Senate confirmation of Gen. Petraeus the Constitution has given them one, but they have taken a pass.

I don't know how to say it any more strongly than this morning; this display of grandstanding, preening and politicking is simply disgusting, and transparently so.

I'm not ready to toss them all overboard because, well, it's all we got and the closest thing to conservative Government that we're going to have anytime soon. At the same time though, if I wanted Democratic policy in place, I'd vote for Democrats.

Show me something guys...stand up and fight or watch the rest of us sit down and sit out '08.

Newt-O-Rama

Daniel Drezner wonders aloud about Newt Gingrich-as-potential-Presidential-candidate:

For the next nine months Gingrich intends to promote sweeping solutions to difficult issues of the day - particularly health care and national security - and then, like Lincoln in 1860, see if the call comes.

While such other GOP candidates as Senator John McCain, former Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney, and former New York City mayor Rudolph Giuliani are hiring consultants and building donor networks, Gingrich has formed a tax-exempt advocacy group to raise money and promote his policies. He will wait until September - the eve of primary season - to announce whether he has the support to make it official.

Gingrich intrigues me -- he's far more complex and interesting a thinker than the nineties stereotype of him suggested. And if Hillary Clinton can remake herself as someone who's learned from past mistakes, I see no reason why Gingrich can't as well.

However, I can't shake the feeling that because I'm so interested in a Gingrich, he's doomed to fail. Can someone who scores well in the blogger wonk demographic really develop mainstream appeal?

Intriguing indeed. At the risk of inviting oodles of hate-mail and right-wingnut diatribes (yeah right, that would mean people are reading), I've loved Newt since the Contract. It was brilliant then, it's still brilliant. He's brilliant.

I would take him in a heartbeat over the likes of Romney, Guiliani and of course McCain. But then again, I'd vote for either and both of my dogs before I voted for McCain...

Kingmaker?

If you read this part of the LA Times feature about the GOP's '08 crowd, you'd almost get the sense that they think Jeb Bush is playing a little bit of Kingmaker:

But the presentation was most notable for what it lacked: There was no photo of Jeb Bush with McCain. The absence of a McCain photo seemed to carry meaning. The presentation, with its implied signal of Jeb Bush's preferences among the GOP presidential field, was played last week for the governor's staffers and state lawmakers, many of whom are being courted by the 2008 contenders.

The presentation was produced by one of the governor's longtime advisors, Sally Bradshaw, who is now a Romney strategist. Bradshaw is so close to Jeb Bush that it is unlikely she would work for any of the 2008 candidates without his blessing. In an interview, Bradshaw said that Jeb Bush only "encouraged me" to meet with Romney, insisting that the Florida governor is not trying to indicate a favorite in the race.

I suppose then it's never too early for Big Media to start pounding on that McCain '08 drum...

Reading is Fundamental

The gentlemen at Hugh Hewitt have, for some time now, been hammering the idea that serious candidates for President and even those running for Congress need to be reading. Specifically, they need to be learning as much as they can from as many sources as they can find about Islam, about Jihad, about Terror in general.

Hugh adds the exclamation point this morning:

...Team Giuliani, Team McCain, and Team Romney plus all the other teams would do well to distribute the six tomes with a note that there will be a test. The coming campaign will very much center on the war, and the challenge in all of its incredible complexity. Five of these books explains aspects of that challenge: Wright provides a genealogy of one-half of the enemy. Steyn tackles the demographics and the vast Stockholm syndrome suffocating the West. Kaplan charts the extraordinary accomplishments of the American military around the globe, and the historians Roberts and Ferguson place the current crisis in its historical context.

And Doris Kearns Goodwin's remarkable read tells us that America has survived much more difficult times, and the sort of leaders who allowed her to do so.

Would-be presidents and their advisors should arrive at the starting gate in January fully prepared to talk early, often and seriously about the war. It is not only the way to win, but the way to deserve to win.

A mind is a terrible thing to waste...

Summarizing McCain

Hugh has a great post here discussing the albatross that hangs around John McCain's neck. Likely the one that costs him any real shot at the Republican presidential nomination in 2008.

It's all about the judges that didn't get confirmed, or for that matter didn't even get a vote. That, barring any surprising incidents over the next 2 years, will wholly define him. Ultimately, whether that's a good or a bad thing for the GOP is debated in the comment thread and makes for interesting reading as well.

Hugh has always been of the mind that the Republican Senate squandered the hard work and effort of the base in '04 when it acquiesced to the Gang of 14 in the Spring of '05. Did that cost us in '06? Certainly some, but it was just one of many things that slowly but surely began to turn the base off and served as the first signal that Republicans had become concerned with something other than acting like conservative Republicans, despite the fact many of us made a point of sending more Republicans to Congress in 2002 and again in '04 for precisely that reason.

I hope the Senator is proud. He appears to be. I only wonder if he truly understands though what a lot of conservatives think it is that he accomplished. Dollars to doughnuts that we have differing views on the subject.

The question is, however, whether in two years time he'll think it still something worth bragging on. My hope is it won't be.

Math challenged

Actually, for that matter, just plain challenged. TM points to part of Senator Kerry's conversation with Don Imus yesterday that flat out, makes zero sense:


KERRY: These guys have failed America. The people who owe an apology are people like Donald Rumsfeld, who didn’t send enough troops, who didn’t listen to the generals, who has made every mistake in the book.

...John McCain has been a cheerleader for a policy that is incorrect. John McCain says we ought to send another 100,000 troops over there. First of all, we don’t have another 100,000 troops. Secondly, if you send them over there, it’s going to do exactly what’s already happened, which is attract more terrorists and more jihadists. Our own generals are telling us that it’s the numbers of troops that are the problem.

Nobody's made that argument since late 2002, early 2003 when we were still discussing issues of an 'American Footprint' in Iraq. Who the hell does Kerry think is arguing that the answer to current violence and better security is fewer US troops?