EVENING UPDATE:  APRIL 9,  2008

Posted at 7:21 p.m. ET

THE McCAIN APPEAL

Earlier today I quoted Chuck Todd's excellent piece on how John McCain could win.  Now Jonathan Martin at The Politico has a story examining McCain's appeal.  Remarkably, Martin quotes a leading Democrat, Will Marshall, of the Democratic Leadership Council, a group of moderates trying to keep their party sane:

But McCain also has a substantive asset that's helping him defy political gravity: his reputation as a military hero and security expert. As a new Democracy Corps poll documents, these attributes appeal to a significant swath of voters - including many Democrats - who have lingering doubts about Democrats' respect for the military and willingness to use force when necessary.

These voters, 12 percent of the electorate, want to support a Democrat for president but hold back because of such qualms. As a result, McCain leads both Clinton and Obama in the D-Corps survey (although other polls show the race a dead heat). The bad news for Democrats is that most of these voters are defectors: 57 percent describe themselves as moderate-to-conservative Democrats, while 29 percent are independents.

Marshall understandably believes the Democratic future is in the middle ground:

According to the D-Corps poll, a majority of voters (52-44) believes the surge was a mistake that prolonged the U.S. military engagement in Iraq to no strategic purpose. And most Americans side with Democrats, rather than McCain, in desiring a responsible and gradual withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq. Only 18 percent of Americans favor the anti-war left's demand for an immediate and total pullout. In fact, Democrats should emphatically distance themselves from the left's antics and excesses, such as MoveOn.org's sophomoric attack last fall on "General Betray Us."

But as the D-Corps poll shows, Democrats cannot count on Iraq alone to establish their credentials for national security leadership. They must also seize every opportunity to reassure Americans that their opposition to the Bush-McCain quest for an ill-defined "victory" in Iraq in no way implies disrespect for the U.S. military, or an unwillingness to use it vigorously to keep Americans safe.

I'll buy part of that, but I have some doubts about that poll's numbers on Iraq.  Other polls seem to show that Americans, when pressed, want to win.  And the surge has clearly had a positive effect.  But Marshall is right about the Democrats' problem.  It's been a problem since 1968, when the party was re-invaded by the leftist crowd that had been pushed out years before.  It will continue to be a problem, especially if Obama is the candidate.  The sad fact is that many Democrats want it to be a problem, win or lose.

The only time the left ever favored a strong national defense was during World War II, and only because their socialist paradise was our ally.  The left turned against national defense as soon as the Japanese whipped out their fountain pens aboard the USS Missouri in Tokyo Bay. 

The key is whether the young generation shares the older generation's suspicion of the Democrats.  On that may depend our political future.

April 9, 2008.      Permalink          

HANSON

Wonderful, wonderful.  Victor Davis Hanson, who actually knows history, demonstrates with appropriate sarcasm the rhetorical mess we've gotten into with the ritual denunciations of the Bush foreign policy:

We know the critique of present American foreign policy under George W. Bush — unilateralist and preemptive — and to some extent we know Sen. Obama’s promised corrective — multilateral and reflective. So let’s take a serious look at what exactly is wrong with the former, and how things would substantially improve under the latter.

Let’s start with India. Indians poll pro-American by wide margins — due no doubt to America’s unnecessary coddling of the world’s largest democracy. If Sen. Obama acts on his complaints about the outsourcing of U.S. jobs to India and institutes his anti-NAFTA preferences in U.S. trade relations, India may finally receive the tough love it has been needing. After all, didn’t President Bush give away the nuclear game with India? Perhaps a President Obama will back out of existing agreements in order to ensure that India does not receive advanced nuclear technology. (In recompense, they’ll have little reason to complain, relatively speaking: Sen. Obama has suggested the U.S. should preemptively invade our ally Pakistan in order to hunt down Osama bin Laden.)

Ouch.  But there's more:

Since it is self-evident that the absence of another 9/11-like attack here at home was a fluke — and had nothing to do either with Guantanamo, the Patriot Act, wiretaps, the destruction of al Qaeda bases in Afghanistan, or the annihilation of Wahhabi terrorists in Iraq — President Obama will be free to shut down all such legally dubious homeland-security measures. All that will reassure Americans and Europeans that those efforts were both unnecessary and antithetical to our values. There never was, and won’t be, any danger of another 9/11.

Juicy, juicy, juicy.  Read the whole thing.  If you can vote for Obama after doing so, you haven't read carefully enough.  Hanson demonstrates what is becoming evident:  In foreign policy, Obama is the Original Amateur Hour.  Problem is, when amateurs make mistakes in the international arena, people die, and nations lose.  And all the imagery of a President Obama will not be able to change that.

April 9, 2008.       Permalink          

NO ORIGINALITY

Finally, there's a story out of Germany about a waiterless restaurant.  New, they say.  Exciting, they say.  A real breakthrough.  The folk like it.

So why do I feel I've been there before?  Because I have.  Read on:

Germany's reputation for efficiency has been taken to a new level after an inventor and amateur chef dispensed with the need for waiters by designing an automated restaurant.

The restaurant, in the southern town of Nuremberg, has caused such a sensation since it opened that its owner says it is now booked out for weeks in advance.

"On weekends we are booked out five times a day," said owner and inventor Michael Mack.

"People have a lot of fun, it's a real event."

While Michelin starred restaurants aspire to greatness with staff for a diner's every need, the Nuremberg eatery 'S Baggers is seeking accolades by dispensing with the human touch altogether.

Instead, its tables are fitted with touch screen computers which customers use to send orders directly to a kitchen installed above them, underneath the restaurant's roof.

There, human chefs whip up the order before placing the finished dish on a ingenious rail system, which uses the power of gravity to guide the order unerringly to the customer who placed it.

Mr Mack said he first came up with idea 10 years ago while rushing to and from his kitchen while serving guests at a dinner party.

Oh please!

When I was a kid we had something called Horn & Hardart Automats.  No waiters.  You walked up to a wall lined with little compartments with glass doors.  You looked at the food, decided what you wanted, threw in some coins and the door opened. 

Also, we had this place called - I think this is the name - Hamburger Express.  They put the hamburgers on a train and it ran around the place delivering the orders.  Never failed.

This new German hangout looks like a computerized version of the same thing, with much higher prices.

I'll take Yankee ingenuity.

And I'll be back tomorrow, earlier if events warrant.  I think I'll take a ride over to the waiterless McDonald's.

April 9, 2008.      Permalink          

ADDITIONAL AFTERNOON POST,  APRIL 9,  2008

Posted at 5:37 p.m. ET

HOW McCAIN WINS

We reported the latest poll numbers (see the next story down) earlier today, and now Chuck Todd, political director of NBC, comes out with a very authoritative piece on how McCain can pull it out in November.  Consider:

Currently polls show McCain either narrowly ahead or even with both Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama. It is impressive considering how poorly the GOP, and specifically the president, are viewed by the public.

But it is a faux lead. If the de facto Democratic nominee is clear within the next 4-6 weeks, that person will see a poll bounce. And according to GOP pollster Steve Lombardo, it could be one heck of a bounce, like post-convention. He anticipates the Democratic candidate will move up 10 points once the primary race is over.

And...

If McCain’s is hanging in, behind by 10 or so points, then it is clear he will have a shot. If the bounce pushes the Democratic nominee to as much as a 15 point lead, it may be very demoralizing to the GOP. The sooner McCain can absorb this inevitable negative poll news, the longer he has to recover.

And...

Getting the bounce out of the way isn’t the only reason McCain needs the Democrats’ race to end as soon as possible. It is also because he will run two very different campaigns depending on whom he faces.

He will either be the steady hand in uncertain times vs. Obama, or he'll be the breath of fresh air and openness in a campaign against Clinton.

And...

In addition to message, geographically the battleground will be different depending on who he’s running against.

If Clinton is the foe, McCain will be using a target map that looks very similar to the one George Bush pursued in '00 and '04. The emphasis will be on the Midwest and West, as he may be able to pick off a few blue states like Oregon or Wisconsin.

If Obama is the foe, McCain's geographic emphasis is likely to shift East to the Rust Belt, Michigan and Pennsylvania in particular, and even to the Northeast.

Todd goes on, examining the strategies McCain might choose.  This is well worth reading because Chuck Todd actually knows what he's talking about, which is rare in journalism these days.  I suspect he's even seen the inside of a voting booth.

April 9, 2008      Permalink          

AFTERNOON POSTINGS,  APRIL 9,  2008

Posted at 3:47 p.m. ET

POLLING

There has been a change in the national tracking.  Barack Obama has now pulled ahead of John McCain in the Rasmussen and Gallup polls.  Rasmussen has Obama up by one, Gallup by two. 

Rasmussen has McCain leading Clinton by three.  Gallup calls it a tie.

What's worrying here is not the specific numbers, but the trend.  Over a two-week period Obama has steadily gained ground against McCain, and now takes the lead.  McCain has been out there alone, campaigning, looking presidential, not being challenged.   Still, he slips. 

Of course, Obama is spending important money in several key primary states, like Pennsylvania, North Carolina and Indiana, and it's possible this is having a spillover effect in the national poll results.  McCain is traveling, but running few ads.

But it's also possible that Obama has recovered from the Rev. Wright affair and has regained momentum.  That surely is true in Pennsylvania, where he's substantially closed the gap with Clinton in a race that ends with a vote on April 22nd.  The latest poll in Pennsylvania has Clinton up only three.  Rasmussen's tracker has her up five.  Survey USA, in a late poll, has her up 18, but that appears to be an anomaly.

We must use the phrase, "If present trends continue."  If they do, Obama will get the Democratic nomination, and will clearly be a very tough competitor in the fall, made tougher by his vast treasury and the fact that the press will do its part for him.

I watch the TV coverage carefully.  Senator McCain looks his age.  It's sad, but that's a factor.  I wish he could do a little polishing up, without making it appear awkward. 

Tough campaign ahead.

April 9, 2008.     Permalink          

WEDNESDAY,  APRIL 9,  2008

Posted at 7:28 a.m. ET

THE SEETHING ISSUE

It's remarkable that it hasn't already become a major issue in the campaign, but I believe it will.  The price of gasoline at the pump is expected to hit four dollars a gallon in some areas this summer:

Gasoline prices could break the $4 barrier in some places this summer despite falling demand in the United States, the world's largest oil consumer, the government's energy forecasting agency said yesterday.

Diesel prices already have soared past $4 a gallon, and prices for regular gas are verging on $4 in high-cost states like California. By Memorial Day, more regions will see spikes above $4, the Energy Information Administration (EIA) said, although the average price nationwide will probably peak around $3.60 in May or June.

The U.S. has rarely had to contend with record gas prices at a time when the economy is in recession.

It's cynical to blame the Bush administration because Congress hasn't done a thing to solve the nation's dependence on foreign oil.  All three presidential contenders are members of Congress.  However, the Democrats, if they're smart, will demonize the oil companies and claim that the Republicans are much too close to the oil boardrooms to do anything about the problem.  It may work, especially as the incumbent president has a history in the oil business.  McCain does not, but the Democrats will try to lump him with the Bush crowd.

The price of gasoline is one of those below-the-radar issues that can erupt at any time, especially if there are sudden shortages and price spikes in hot weather.  I can't see how this can benefit the GOP.

April 9, 2008.      Permalink             

OBAMA'S WEAKNESS - WEAKNESS

I often disagree with the political analyst, Dick Morris, and feel that his animus toward the Clintons can cloud his judgment.  However, he's written a perceptive piece on Senator Obama's major problem, and one that the Republicans can easily exploit - the perception that Obama is weak.  Morris examines some recent poll results and concludes:

So Obama won the traditional Democratic (and female) virtues of understanding problems and caring about people. McCain won the usual Republican (and male) virtues of strong leadership and efficient management.

In an age of terrorism, weakness is a capital crime. McCain needs to base his campaign on establishing Obama's weakness and his own strong leadership by comparison.

It is in this context that we must analyze Obama's problems with the Rev. Wright and his emerging problems with former terrorist Bill Ayers. The American people are not about to judge Obama guilty by association, even with a lowlife type like Ayers and an anti-American like Wright. But they will see, in Obama's tentativeness in handling these controversies and his "decency" in refusing to cut off his relationships and condemn these men, a sign of weakness that will hurt his campaign.

There is in Obama something of the Democratic candidate for president in the 1950s, Adlai Stevenson. Both from Illinois, they share an eloquence that lifts them above normal political figures and a profundity of thought that lies behind it. But each was seen as weak, and Stevenson as indecisive. Obama's over-intellectualization of issues and of the problems that crop up in his campaign will increasingly harden into a perception of a lack of sufficient strength to deal with America's problems.

That's pretty blunt.  I remember Adlai Stevenson well, and Morris is right.  Obama has much of Stevenson in him, except that Obama has a sharper mind.  Stevenson was a shallow man who sounded good.  But both Stevenson and Obama flash weakness.  It isn't only Obama's over-intellectualization that hurts him, or his relationships, but his constant ducking of hard issues or hard moments.  The record shows that he often avoided tough votes in the Illinois legislature.  When confronted with surrogates or supporters saying dumb things, he sends a spokesperson out to express his disagreement.  Why can't he do it himself and show some spine?  And, of course, he has no military record or a record that shows any interest in the military.

Obama will probably try to figure out some way to appear "strong."  Attempts like that usually fail, as when Democratic candidate Michael Dukakis took a ride in a U.S. Army tank during the 1988 campaign, and looked ridiculous.  Obama looked equally absurd when he tried to bowl last week. 

President Kennedy used to practice his golf swing in private so he'd look graceful out on the public links.  It takes practice to develop an image, and Obama doesn't give us the sense that he's had much practice at "strength."

April 9, 2008.     Permalink          

BEFORE WE TALK...

Senator Obama, in a move that also flashes weakness, says that we should talk to almost anyone in the world.  Hey, why not?  Can't hurt, right?  Wrong, according to Lee Smith, writing in The New Republic.  The New Republic is a liberal magazine, and would be expected to accept Obama's edict - all talk, all the time.  But Smith warns that reckless engagement can have catastrophic consequences, and he proves his case:

It's practically accepted wisdom that Barack Obama's plan to talk directly to dictators will help rehabilitate U.S. foreign policy. But as the case of Syria demonstrates, non-engagement can sometimes be the wisest course--and the most diplomatic.

And...

...the present situation in Syria shows the folly of Obama's idea. First, as Syrian President Bashar al-Asad's unctuous welcome of Nancy Pelosi a year ago proves, for the U.S. simply to talk to its enemy was a victory of a type for Syria, and one that worked against the U.S.'s larger strategic goals. And secondly, the situation in Syria indicates that sometimes isolating an enemy can be the smartest and most effective diplomatic solution--by not alienating our allies or undermining a precarious multilateral strategy of non-engagement.

And...

So, it was not doctrinaire anti-diplomatic tendencies that led the Bush administration to curtail relations with Syria. The administration's outreach had done nothing to alter Syria's behavior, and to keep talking would merely demoralize anxious American allies in Lebanon, which has become one of the U.S.'s most valuable assets.

This is a valuable piece that shows that "negotiations" can often produce negative results, and that avoiding them can often be positive.

There is also the psychological aspect.  Do Americans really want to see their new president sitting down with the Holocaust-denying president of Iran, or the little thug who runs North Korea, or Hugo Chavez?  These are tough, experienced operators, and they may run right over President Obama, just as Nikita Khrushchev ran over John F. Kennedy at the Vienna conference in 1961.  Kennedy's stature was severely hurt by the encounter, and he remained wounded until his triumph in the Cuban Missile Crisis of October, 1962.

April 9, 2008.     Permalink          

HE'S BACK

Speaking of foolish talk, or talk by fools, or something like that, one of the great talking fools is about to take flight.  It is reported that Jimmah Carter, hero of the Norwegian parliament, darling of the anti-Israel conspiracy theorists, will soon venture to Syria to meet with the head of Hamas, that inspiring group of Palestinian scholars and sports fans:

NEW YORK CITY — Former President Jimmy Carter is reportedly preparing an unprecedented meeting with the leader of Hamas, an organization that the U.S. government considers one of the leading terrorist threats in the world.

The Arabic-language newspaper Al-Hayat reported Tuesday that Carter was planning a trip to Syria for mid-April, during which he would meet with Khaled Meshal, the exiled head of the Palestinian terror group Hamas, on April 18.

Deanna Congileo, Carter’s press secretary, confirmed in an e-mail to FOXNews.com that Carter will be in the Mideast in April. Pressed for comment, Congileo did not deny that the former president is considering visiting Meshal.

“President Carter is planning a trip to the Mideast next week; however, we are still confirming details of the trip and will issue a press release by the end of this week,” wrote Congileo. “I cannot confirm any specific meetings at this point in time.”

Meshal, who lives in Syria to avoid being arrested by the Israeli government, leads Hamas from his seat in Damascus, where he is a guest of Bashar al-Assad's regime.

This is despicable.  Carter has no sense of shame, and possesses no dignity.  This trip simply undercuts American foreign policy, something the peanut farmer has done repeatedly since being escorted from the White House by Ronald Reagan.  Carter seems to think he's now president of the world, and I suspect that's what some of his friends and relatives tell him.  He might actually win that election, if only terrorists, pacifists and America haters were allowed to vote.

He can only do harm.  Why don't I think he cares?

April 9, 2008.     Permalink          

IF IT MAKES THE MAN HAPPY...

While he's in the Middle East, our former president can check out this little scene.  A major purchase has been made.  Maybe Carter can personally congratulate the buyer:

ABU DHABI (AFP) - The crown prince of the United Arab Emirates of Dubai has bought a female camel for a record 2.72 million dollars, an organiser at a camel beauty pageant said on Monday.

Sheikh Hamdan bin Mohammed bin Rashed al-Maktoum "bought camels... worth 16.5 million dirhams (4.49 million dollars), including a female camel... for 10 million dirhams (2.72 million dollars)," Hamad bin Kardoum al-Amiri said.

Amiri, quoted by the official WAM news agency, made the remarks on the sidelines of the nine-day beauty pageant which opened on Wednesday in the UAE capital of Abu Dhabi.

I just don't know what to say.  A nine-day camel beauty pageant?  Is there a talent competition?  A Miss Congeniality?   Does the winning camel get a scholarship?

Don't you want to know more?

No.

I'll be back later. 

April 9, 2008.     Permalink