Myth Vaporizing

Gay rights activists' anger with President-Elect Obama's decision to have Rev. Rick Warren deliver the invocation at the Inaugural represents another instance of the Obama myth (held deeply in the hearts and minds of his most liberal supporters) vaporizing. Stung already by his moderate to conservative personnel appointments, the Left must now absorb another body blow to their deepest hopes and expectations.

That the President-Obama actually shares Rev. Warren's position on marriage (officially at least) is immaterial. As Byron York writes, "no matter what Obama says, a number of gay activists appear to believe the president-elect is, deep down, with them on the issue."

For their disappointment his more robotic supporters have no one to blame but themselves, falling prey to the Obama campaign's deliberate nebulosity, which encouraged them to project whatever views they wanted on him, all of which could fit under the umbrella of "change."

But now that he is in a position of action (the Presidency) and not one of talking (a candidate) he has to pull a reversal and project himself, whoever that may be. As Jennifer Rubin writes, "The essence of governing is doing and choosing. Rick Warren or Jesse Jackson? Secretary of Defense Robert Gates or Chuck Hagel? A tax increase or not? At some point your actions make clear your intentions. And inevitably one side or the other, both which thought he was with them, is disappointed."

The upshot is an inevitable conflict. A transition from diplomatic rhetoric to specific actions means that someone is left feeling hurt. You can be all things to all people when all you have to be is a blank canvas for other's disparate projections; you cannot be when you have to project something yourself. Quoting Rubin again,

All of the elevated expectations and conflicting promises might have helped get him elected, but they will make the governing more challenging. As President Obama is forced to choose on issue after issue, the ambiguities will become fewer and the complaints greater. It happens to all politicians, and even President Obama can't change that.

The unhappy truth for the Left is that the PE needs the support of a broad expanse of Americans to be successful, most of which don't share the values of the standard urban or campus liberal, his most robotic supporter. They should prepare themselves for more heartbreak.

The Fed Rate Cut

If the purpose is to raise confidence in an economy plagued by inertia and thereby loosen credit and cash flow, how does the Federal Reserve's rate abolition yesterday accomplish it? It is a tax on credulity to accept that confidence in the health of the economy increases in response to a desperate act by one of the economy's central entities. If the times can be so bleak as to justify such drastic measures then you'd be a fool to feel bully about releasing capital.

Accepting that the Wall Street Journal
is right – as I do – that the basic ailment of the economy is a surfeit of uncertainty, than this gambit hardly suffices as treatment. If anything, it looks like the kind of thing that put us in this mess, which was years of handing out credit like they hand out rosary beads in a Catholic Church.

As the Journal writes, "Banks, consumers and business are dug in their foxholes, conserving their cash until they believe the worst has passed. Meanwhile, investors around the world are deleveraging to reduce risk and cut their losses, a process that the Fed can do little about." Hail Mary's are not going to encourage anyone, and the groundhog will not be enticed from its hole until the mania above has stopped and the terrain has stabilized.

Automaker Bailout II

Edmund Burke wrote that an entity "without the means of change is without the means of its conservation." For such reason do the Detroit 3 and UAW whither.

The bailout package passed earlier by the House collapsed in the Senate last evening because of the Democratic leadership's and UAW's refusal to accept some of the stipulations set out in Sen. Bob Corker's (R-TN) restructuring plan, foremost of which was a requirement that Ford, GM, and Chrysler bring labor costs into line with their foreign-owned competitors by 2009 to receive federal money.

To give a dime to Detroit without such a mandate would negate the very point of the bailout, and would be the equivalent of throwing taxpayers dollars into a flushing toilet. The reason Detroit is here is because it is uncompetitive, and it is uncompetitive because of the exorbitant union-negotiated wages and capital structuring they have in place. An infusion of cash will not alter this dynamic, but only stave off the day of ultimate insolvency for a time. Continue to refuse to alter the wage and capital structure and it will fall into destitution again sooner or later; probably sooner.

The only condition under which it could remotely be appropriate to give taxpayer money to Detroit is in the form of a "bridge loan;" as an infusion of cash following a thorough restructuring as a means to making it through a perilous short-term. As Jim Geraghty points out, the need to reduce costs is all the more essential in a deep recession with low demand for new cars.

Detroit will not survive without changing its business model to reduce labor costs and overhead. Until it does so – and demonstrates a will to live – the stewards of taxpayer dollars shouldn't throw one dollar their way.

Voting ‘Present’

The President-Elect is receiving criticism today for his vague answers and response to questions about his own and his transition's knowledge and role in the Blagojevich Senate sale. Whether or not it's worthy of criticism, this ambiguity is characteristic of the man as a political figure and leader; he simply chafes at certitude and commitment.

In the late campaign his opponents criticized his penchant for voting "present" in the Illinois State Senate. At the Saddleback Presidential Forum in August all he would say about abortion was that "I'm absolutely convinced [there] is a moral and ethical element to this issue." As a candidate he was conspicuously vague about the economy as it crashed, and this has continued as President-Elect. He delayed announcing his selection for treasury secretary for weeks, ignoring the clamor from the markets. As a guest on Meet the Press last Sunday his common answer to questions about the economy was some variation of "my advisors are looking at this."

The person who ran on the empty bottles of "Hope" and "Change" simply does not like to commit himself on record; which entails taking a specific position, which means disappointing or even angering some group of people or another. As long as he floats in nebulosity he can be all things to all people. Should he be decisive he would actually have to descend into the squabbles of mortals, diminishing his transcendence.

If this were to happen, Barack Obama would not be Barack Obama.

An Iran Policy, Please

The latest from the IAEA reports that Iran is quickly approaching the point where it will have sufficient nuclear material to construct an atomic bomb. The very same regime that has threatened to wipe Israel off the map, in other words, will imminently have the means to do so.

Remarkably, the only audible response to this by the United States and the international community is that of crickets chirping in an ominously quiet night. Heretofore these parties have tried the much-hyped tack of diplomacy, with European powers meeting with the Iranian regime since 2005 to try to negotiate some settlement that will stop the Islamic Republic's nuclear mobilization. It very clearly hasn't worked though, and representatives of the regime have recently indicated that they have no intention of pursuing or agreeing to any carrots and sticks package the incoming Obama Administration may propose.

As a result the West is mired in a state of self-induced paralysis. Our treasured notions of soft power and diplomacy have failed, a failure that is shared by everyone. Bowing to criticism of its alleged unilateralism and international bullying (apparently), the Bush Administration decided to let Britain, France, and Germany have a go at negotiations with the mullahs that were doomed to failure from the start. To add injury to futility, no meaningful economic sanctions have been enacted or even pursued by the UN Security Council, which might have actually worked. In essence we pursued a doomed policy with no backup strategy for when it inevitably failed.

Now we are at a crossroads. As the leader of the West and the free world, the United States must make a decision on the fundamental question that we have refused to discuss: is it acceptable for the Islamic Republic of Iran to have a nuclear capacity? Consideration and decision of this question will permit us to do something; either prepare for the management of a state of affairs redefined by Iranian nuclear capacity or prepare a new strategy for preventing that. If not answered almost immediately the question will soon be immaterial, for the regime will have that capacity. Once arrived at this point we will find ourselves in a situation we are unprepared for and unequipped to advantageously respond to.

We need a policy; almost any policy. Whatever it is, it will be better than our present state of paralysis and denial.

The Arrest of Gov. Blagojevich

It is still very early to develop or offer any comprehensive opinion on the arrest this morning of Gov. Ron Blagojevich, Democrat of Illinois. But I can't help but sadly marvel at not only the laundry list of crimes he is alleged to have committed but also his base audacity in the perpetuation of them. For years now he has been under scrutiny for corruption, which a reasonable person might assume would deter him from further criminal commission.

On the contrary, his sewer Chicago politics has continued apace, with the governor wasting no opportunity to use his public trust for personal profit. Not only is this incredibly despicable, but incredibly stupid.

435 Caos

Angh "Joseph" Cao's victory in the Louisiana 2^nd Congressional District special election on Saturday was certainly welcome. It was a GOP pickup, of which there have not been many lately. It sent a virulently corrupt politician home, far away from the public trust he has abused for his own personal profit. And, adding to a year of barrier-breaking, it was the first instance of a Vietnamese-American winning election to the U.S. Congress.

Some grains of salt must be retained though. It was a special election with pathetic turnout. Had it occurred on Nov. 4 – with massive black turnout in a preponderantly black district – the result would have been different. And because it is such a Democratic district the national environment for Republicans is going to have to improve significantly for Cao to stand any chance of reelection in '10.

Nevertheless, I do agree with Patrick Ruffini. "In crafting our 435 district strategy, the lesson is that we don't need to run risk-averse politicians in longshot seats. We need to run everyday heroes like Cao. We need to identify people outside politics who've done things in the community and who can capitalize on the incumbents' mistakes."

The types of candidates Republicans should seek to run under our banner are local heroes. They're the people who didn't run for office once they were out of the cradle and haven't spent their entire adulthood working in government. They're regular folks. They've worked hard, overcome obstacles, and achieved in the private sector. Such individuals and candidates do not simply articulate conservative values and principles, they personify them. That is a verbatim description of Joseph Cao, and we should seek out more variations of him. As Ruffini points out, "Every district has a Joseph Cao."

The Executive to Be

As President-Elect Obama continues to announce the various officials he will be filling his administration with he gives an increasing indication of what type of executive he will be. His appointment of Congressman Rahm Emanuel as White House Chief of Staff is particularly noticeable given his reputation as a cutthroat (though not exceedingly ideological) partisan. This is a conspicuous difference from the image of trans-partisan healer the President-Elect has heretofore fashioned for himself.

Perhaps fitting in with a pattern of the man, some of the subordinates he surrounded himself with as a candidate and the underlying tone and behavior of his campaign didn't precisely fit in with his overall narrative either. His closest aide, David Axelrod, was "an expert at clandestine political attacks," Mark Hemingway writes. "According to BusinessWeek, he is the 'master of "Astro-turfing'" – the art of planting messages on the Internet and elsewhere to make it look like there's a grassroots movement supporting your position."

Further, when a Chicago radio station planned to interview NR writer Stanley Kurtz about the PE's ties to Bill Ayers the Obama campaign sent an action wire to Chicago supporters urging them to pressure the station into dropping the interview. The campaign also tried to use various government agencies to shut down organizations running ads critical of the PE.

While it may be a stretch to call these tactics the beginning of a thugocracy, they are something slightly less than savory. While the campaign and now the administration plays ball in the mud – slinging it around without inhibition – the executive himself conveniently remains disassociated, keeping his hands clean while others get theirs dirty. Call it a kind of good cop/bad cop dynamic, as the editors of National Review have.

Whatever it is, it is not befitting an American president and his administration (especially when the PE and so many of his supporters railed against shadows on the wall of Bush administration malfeasance).

Hopefully the early indicia never bear their poisoned fruit.

This Bailout Farce

If you were to select a word of the year for the nearly-concluded 2008 it would probably be "Change," the ever vacuous and open-ended term that was the byword of the Obama campaign and was used to encapsulate the desire of the American electorate. If you had to turn the dime though and predict the word of 2009 it would be a safe bet to go with "bailout." The term is ubiquitous in political discussions today as the Democratic majorities in Congress and the administration-to-be contemplate bailouts for all manner of entities in this declining economy – the auto industry, the deficit-ridden states, and the country as a whole in the form of a massive stimulus package.

The economy is in a state of extremity, or at least perceived to be, so it is no surprise that the powers that be, desperate to demonstrate they are doing something to solve the problem, are preparing to take extreme measures themselves. In this maelstrom of hysteria we are losing our senses though. The reasons that Detroit and most of the states are so deep in a fiscal quicksand is because they have put themselves there, awarding ridiculous labor compensation that makes them uncompetitive in the case of the former and spending ludicrous sums of their residents' money in the case of the latter.

Throwing federal dollars at them will do nothing but temporarily alleviate the symptoms of an underlying sickness. It will neither rework their business model to make them competitive nor cut their unsustainable and profligate expenditures to balance their budgets. This they need to do on their own, and they are the only ones that can. Ultimately the federal government cannot help them, but it can waste a lot of money trying, which is the added tragedy of this growing farce. Spending money it does not have to give to other entities so they can spend in a manner they couldn't otherwise afford is going to catch up with us sooner or later, and when that day comes whom will be the ones to bail us out? Who are we going to turn to when this country has to satisfy the exorbitant unfunded obligations our government has incurred over the decades?

The federal government is ignoring this nagging question, exacerbating our long-term financial problems for short-term band-aids and political gain. In so doing they are not only kicking the can down the road a little further but also shortening the road still left to kick it down.

Somebody needs to stand up and end this before we sink ourselves. Instead of wasteful bailouts that will not work, the entities demanding them need to get their own house in order and come to terms with the self-created problems that have brought them to pathetic supplication. The federal government needs to do the same, drastically reforming the institutions that we are slowly realizing we can't afford (and never could). And if we want to restore the long-term health of the economy we ought to take our medicine for the national pandemic of reckless lending and borrowing that brought us here and then foster the conditions requisite for economic recovery, which will not be defined by blind, arbitrary government adventurism deep into the wilderness of the economy.

This farce will be over when all of that happens.

RE: The Chambliss/Obama Victory

It is far, far too early to tell, but Sen. Chambliss' double digit victory last night also provides a little evidence that PE Obama's success and popularity is not only a result of his predecessor's deep unpopularity, but of his own unique personality as well, which might not necessarily transfer to Democrats in general when he is not at the top of the ballot in an environment looking to punish the incumbent of the other party. If true (an open if), this would belie the claim that the President-Elect's ascendance is a reformative moment in American politics which has or will secure the Democrats as the republic's dominant party. The groups that constituted a large part of his margin of victory and his competitiveness in Georgia (unusual for a Democrat) – young voters and blacks – scarcely showed up in the run-off after all.

For the reasons mentioned in the previous post not much should be read into that, but it does at least leave the question begging about whether President-Elect Obama has brought these new voters into the party and the electoral process permanently or just to himself when he is on the ballot.

Let's wait until he has been sworn in (at least) before we try and answer this question.

The Chambliss/Obama Victory

Charles Krauthammer posited an interesting theory during the "FOX All-Stars" segment of Special Report today. In his mind the real winner of last night's runoff election contest in Georgia was President-Elect Obama, the reason being that Jim Martin's deficit was three points in the general election when the PE was on top of the ballot but was fifteen points when he was not. This will allow the President-Elect to make the claim to Democrats in Congress, in Krauthammer's estimation, that his political star is carrying them and that they need to get behind him and insure his administration's success to insure their own.

It is an interesting idea, but not especially persuasive. For one, the next President will be able to make that argument anyway as any President eligible for re-election would. The success of the party who holds the White House is determined by how the public perceives its individual occupant. If they view him positively, it helps the party; if they view him negatively, it is a drag, to one degree or another.

Also, run-off elections are notorious for their low turnout because they come after a long campaign after which everyone is usually campaign-weary and not especially keen on voting again. As a result the vote usually goes to the default choice, i.e. to the incumbent or member of the predominant party in the voting area. This is exactly what happened in Georgia, a reliably Republican state where the Republican incumbent won convincingly.

If the result from yesterday tells us anything beyond that it is that President-Elect Obama's convincing victory was almost entirely predicated upon the extreme unpopularity of the outgoing Republican incumbent. For practical purposes now the PE is the President, and so the fuel for his and the Democrats' success is gone, at least for their recent success. Sen. Chambliss was able to run in the last month against a Democratic President and Congress, plausibly billing himself as a needed check against this liberal juggernaut. That's the recipe for success in a state reliably Republican.

MTP's New Moderator

David Gregory is to be the late Tim Russert’s successor as moderator of Meet the Press. A feckless choice really. His brand of pompous, partisan sniping as a means of questioning – too typical among the contemporary Washington media class – will stand as a stark departure from the tough but usually fair questioning Russert greeted his guests with each week.

Besides, Jonah Goldberg is right; MTP ought to live up to its name now and have a diverse panel of media figures moderating each week, which would actually distinguish the program from its Sunday morning brethren and make it a much more compelling watch. As Goldberg points out:

What's wrong with bringing three or four hard-hitting journalists to ask questions the way they used to? This is not only the best way to get a more diverse line of questioning (I would love to see Byron York or Steve Hayes on there asking questions no one else would ask), but it would help forestall some truly awful choices that seem to be in the hopper...David Gregory seems like a terrible choice for among other reasons, he's not very likable on TV (Russert's likeability was a huge asset).

The PE & Iraq

During the press conference announcing his national security team yesterday President-Elect Obama gave mixed signals on his plan for Iraq. At one point he asserted that he remains dedicated to his sixteen month plan while at another he said he’d be flexible and listen to his commanders on the ground, even commending the recent SOF passed by the Iraqi parliament. What’s more, though he initially predicated his entire campaign on his fervent opposition to the war and determination to bring it to a premature end he is retaining the Defense Secretary responsible for implementing the current President’s surge strategy, which the President-Elect never went on record removing his opposition to. As his national security advisor he has even selected an individual who appeared with his opponent during the course of the late campaign.

In reality the requirement on President-Elect Obama regarding Iraq is straight forward and simple: don’t screw it up. The Bush Administration has handed over an Iraq almost completely pacified of al Qaeda and sectarian violence and increasingly stable and functional. In fact, as Rich Lowry points out, "Perhaps never has someone owed so much to a policy he opposed so vehemently. First, the success of the surge diminished the Iraq War as an issue in the general election. Second, it makes it possible to contemplate a responsible drawdown in Iraq."

That is all the next President needs to do for American victory – allow the present policy to proceed and conclude the success it has achieved.

The Gates Retention

Reports are that President-Elect Obama has made the final decision to retain Secretary of Defense Robert Gates for at least the first year of his presidency. This is a commendable act and the President-Elect deserves the fullest praise. Secretary Gates has done a fine job in Defense, stabilizing that Pentagon after the tumult of the Rumsfeld years and overseeing and implementing the surge of forces in Iraq which has led to such a stunning turnaround and level of success there.

The fact is that the world is still a very dangerous place with an increasingly belligerent Russia, a nuclearizing Iran in collusion with Syria and Hezbollah, a still nuclear North Korea, and a myriad of other threats to American security. Keeping the seasoned and wise hands of Secretary Gates in the Pentagon in these circumstances will help provide the continuity and stability America needs to competently respond to its challenges.

Jennifer Rubin is entirely right. Well done, Mr. President-Elect.

Eric Holder Selection

From the perspective of the President-Elect I do not understand the putative selection of Eric Holder as Attorney General. His campaign was predicated on the aura of change and a new politics, yet Mr. Holder carries with him some odious baggage from his stint in the Clinton Justice Department. This is already being hashed out and will continue to be to a greater degree when his confirmation hearings arrive, serving as a distraction and detraction from the themes the new President will be trying to strike.

So then to what point and purpose does he select Mr. Holder? There is nothing evidently superlative in him and he doesn’t offer anything more than any number of other potential Democratic nominees could provide. What incentive is there to go through the extra heartache then?

It’s a curious choice.

Automaker Bailout

The risk assumed in enacting the $700 billion bailout was the creation of a precedent that would encourage the federal government to bailout other industries in the future. Manifestation of this is the bailout Democrats in Congress and the President-Elect – at least at one point – support and are trying to pass.

The legislation is a bad idea, for its sole accomplishment will be to lengthen the long, agonizing death Detroit is slouching towards on its current path. Through coercing excessive and unaffordable compensation packages from the big three automakers, the unions are responsible for this death march, strangling the companies with onerous labor costs that render them uncompetitive with other companies with less overhead. Throwing millions of borrowed dollars at the Detroit three will not alter this, just temporarily delay the inevitable.

This is the outrage. That we should incur further debt to effectively subsidize a failing business model – when doing so won’t actually fix the companies and resolve the circumstances which have brought them to this point – is a gross abuse of the public trust. It is a waste of money that we don’t have.

What the Detroit big three need is bankruptcy and a concurrent fundamental reorganization of their structures. The proposed bailout will only stave off this reckoning for a little while, bailing out some water without fixing the gaping hole in the bottom of the boat.

Steele for the RNC

A reassuring indication that the powers that be in the national Republican party have learned from the previous two elections and intend to genuinely play ball in the Obama Administration would be the election of Michael Steele as RNC Chair. Mr. Steele is a fresh voice, has an impressive life story and experience, and is an effective spokesman for conservative and Republican values. Further, he would help combat the creeping notion that the party is a shrinking group of angry, white, male southerners.

Unfortunately, most RNC committeemen (who are the electorate for the chairmanship) have anonymously snubbed their noses at the notion. They shouldn’t. Any concern that Mr. Steele is not a skilled political tactician really isn’t a concern, for the RNC can easily install one such person directly below Mr. Steele to take care of that sphere while Mr. Steele himself appears as a face and spokesperson for the party, traveling the country recruiting Republican candidates and raising money.

Michael Steele is the right choice to be the next chairman of the Republican National Committee. I can think of few national Republicans who would be as effective publicly responding to the positions and policies of the incoming Obama Administration.

To the President-Elect

Mr. President-Elect:

I am rapidly approaching the point at which I will become responsible for my own living and that of a family of my own, and at that threshold I will inherit the future I looked forward to and prepared for as a child and adolescent. For this I am quite excited and hopeful, but so too am I fearful. I am fearful because my future and the future of my generation is in jeopardy, and with all respect and humility, some of the policies you proposed and supported as a candidate will only increase that peril.

Our country is in a very dangerous moment economically, and as you prepare to assume the presidency in a few months you are no doubt aware of this. How you and the rest of our leaders act in this time (in all levels of government) will determine how America meets and answers these challenges, whether we tackle and solve them or whether we are consumed by them.

In regards to young Americans such as myself, the job market we are soon to enter will be severely harmed should you and the Congress agree to raise taxes on Americans anywhere on the income scale. Taking capital out of the economy at a time when it is already suffering from a lack thereof will reduce business and investment even further, leaving us with fewer jobs and opportunities and higher costs of living. Diminishing free trade with the global community will only aggravate this. As new entrants into the workforce, such a troubled state of affairs would burden young Americans immensely, highly reducing our chances for success and prosperity as we begin to build lives of our own.

Specifically, on the campaign trail you often derided loopholes in the tax code that gave breaks to large corporations such as oil companies. I think you and I can both agree that all taxpaying Americans should pay their fair share under our tax code, but I fervently urge you to refrain from raising taxes on corporations and businesses because, very simply, they do not pay them. An increased tax burden will cause business either to leave our shores for cheaper locales or they will pass their increased costs down to average Americans through job layoffs and/or higher costs for their goods and services. The little people and not big business will, for all intents and purposes, pay for the increases.

Our future is also threatened by the leviathan of debt accrued from years of extravagant spending. This constitutes a crippling obligation incurred by current and past generations that will have to be paid by ours. After decades of short-sighted and mindless appropriation it is time the government put its financial house in order.

The source of much of this debt are entitlement programs that are lavishly expensive and will soon lapse into insolvency if allowed to continue on their current path. If this were to occur Americans would face the unfathomable choice of massive tax increases and/or cuts in benefits. Either choice or a combination of both would be ruinous, and so federal entitlements are in dire need of comprehensive reform. However your programmatic proposals would do quite the opposite, adding more unaffordable entitlements on top of the ones we already cannot afford. This will only hasten the day we face the painful choices mentioned above and increase the severity of the pain on their arrival.

Mr. president-elect, I sincerely commend you for your historic victory and I wish you the very best as the next president of the country you and I love. Your success will be mine and every American’s success, so I will hope and pray for your good fortune as our republic’s chief executive.

But with this said the fact remains that there are many points in your agenda that I cannot in good conscience support, and I regretfully believe that their enactment would have a number of adverse effects on our economy and on our future. I fervently urge you to reconsider them and adopt measures that will grow our economy, reduce our debt, and reform entitlements for the 21st Century. Doing so will strengthen and secure the future for myself and for all Americans.

With the Sincerest Best Wishes,
Geoff Smock

Sec. of State Clinton?

Reports are that President-Elect Obama has offered Sen. Clinton the important post of secretary of state in his new administration. The punditry’s initial response to this is very positive, touting it as an act of political brilliance that will remove a potential rival out of the Senate and (possibly) out of the running for the 2012 Democratic nomination. This is one possibility, but another is that it could be a terrible mistake that will plague his presidency as long as she holds the position (assuming the reports are true).

It’s an incredibly open secret that the relationship between the two has been frigid, and the fact is and always shall remain that the Clintons have their own agenda. Period. We know the Clintonian penchant for vindictiveness and self-interest, so there is a very concrete reason to believe it possible that somewhere in the next four years we will be in receipt of leaks about disagreement and infighting between the President and his chief diplomat, if and when they occur. This specter might even be a probability if the Obama presidency goes through any real period of turbulence, specifically in the realm of foreign affairs. (Remember, it was the vice president-elect himself who predicted that his boss would be tested quickly once in office and that it wouldn’t be, to paraphrase, evident right away that his response would be the correct one.) I essentially agree with Peggy Noonan:

But the downside is equally obvious: To invite in the Clintons—and it's always the Clintons, never a Clinton—is to invite in, to summon, drama that will never end. Ever. This would seem to be at odds with the atmospherics of Obamaland. "Loose cannon," "vetting process," "financial entanglements," questions about which high-flying oligarch gave how much to Bill's presidential library, and what the implications of the gift are, including potential conflict of interest. More colorfully, and nostalgically: people screaming through the halls, being hired and fired, attacking the press, leaking, then too tightly controlling information, then leaking, and speaking in the special patois of the Clinton staff, with the famous dialogue evocative of David Mamet as rewritten by Joe Pesci.

If President-Elect Obama has made this offer to Sen. Clinton and she accepts, he could be removing a potential rival from causing him trouble outside of his administration...or he could be planting a cancer in the very center of his administration. I think the latter scenario is almost as likely as the former, but we shall see.

Sen. Obama's Iraq Pretzel

The Obama Campaign announced today that their candidate will be delivering a “major” address on Iraq tomorrow in Washington. This comes on the heels of Sen. Obama’s op-ed in the New York Times on Iraq today, or more appropriately, on his new and improved Iraq Plan 2.0.

In this piece he conspicuously neglects a few little pieces of truth which are a bit inconvenient to him and his claims of heightened judgment. He opens:

The call by Prime Minister Nuri Kamal al-Maliki for a timetable for the removal of American troops from Iraq presents an enormous opportunity. We should seize this moment to begin the phased redeployment of combat troops that I have long advocated, and that is needed for long-term success in Iraq and the security interests of the United States.

It is true that he has long called for a retreat – euphemistically labeled a “phased redeployment” – from Iraq, but that is not something he ought to go around pounding his chest over, for it demonstrates his poor judgment since – at least – January ‘07. That was the month when President Bush announced his surge of forces, a decision which – for the record – Sen McCain had been calling for since American forces set foot on Iraqi sand. Then, as now, Sen. Obama went on the record and boldly made the following black and white argument:

I am not persuaded that 20,000 additional troops in Iraq is going to solve the sectarian violence there. In fact, I think it will do the reverse. I think it takes pressure off the Iraqis to arrive at the sort of political accommodation that every observer believes is the ultimate solution to the problems we face there. So I am going to actively oppose the president’s proposal…. I think he is wrong, and I think the American people believe he’s wrong.

To his ultimate chagrin however, events (or what Machiavelli called fortuna) would not stand by Sen. Obama. The surge was and has been an unqualified success. That he did not have the judgment to see that this was possible and that he failed to either recognize or acknowledge the surge’s dramatic effect subsequently is something he would like us all to forget, and is something he neglects entirely in his piece. Specifically, in touting his long-held plan of “phased redeployment” he does not mention the policy – which he opposed and consistently preached would fail – that has made it even remotely possible for us to leave Iraq without it being an unmitigated disaster in every conceivable way to do so.

He will never admit it, but as Peter Wehner writes, “It is because President Bush endorsed a counterinsurgency plan which Senator Obama fiercely opposed that we are in a position to both withdraw additional combat troops and prevail in Iraq.” Nor will he admit that it was because Sen. McCain took such a personal and momentous role in seeing that Congress supported – or at least did not thwart – the successful implementation of that surge that Sen. Obama can claim the recalibrated position on Iraq he does today.

Sen. Obama continues in his NYT opinion that “I believed it was a grave mistake to allow ourselves to be distracted from the fight against Al Qaeda and the Taliban by invading a country that posed no imminent threat and had nothing to do with the 9/11 attacks.”

Even if we accept that going into Iraq initially distracted us from our fight against al-Qaeda, that still does not absolve the fact that Sen. Obama recklessly called for American retreat from Iraq after it became the central front in the war on terror. In other words, it may not have been so originally, but the fact is indisputable that Iraq is now the central front – as al Qaeda itself has said – and has been since the end of initial combat there.

Sen. Obama also declares that as president he will “give the military a new mission: ending this war.”

Of course, ending the war has been the goal of everyone on every side of this issue since it was an issue, the disagreement being over the prudent and most effective way of ending the war, not actually whether to end it.

Sen. Obama determined that we ought to get out yesterday, consequences be damned. He sought nothing but ending the war for that sake alone, either neglecting to consider the adverse ramifications that would come as certainly as gravity or callously disregarding them.

Sen. McCain took the opposite tact. He determined that anything less than ending the war in victory would entail costs far more than this country could bear. So he doubled the bet and lobbied for increased force levels which then secured the country and put a strong foot up the collective ass of al Qaeda. As a result, the United States is now courting victory and it is possible for Sen. Obama to advance the one half of his plan that never would have been made possible by the other.

*****

At this point Sen. Obama’s pretzel is complete. After all these months and even years of tearing Sen. McCain to shreds over his judgment on Iraq, he has slowly walked over and taken a position right next to him, secretly adopting the Republican’s positions while still criticizing him every bit as vociferously as before. He has begun to admit – or his surrogates have – that circumstances might render his plans inoperable and has even pledged to consult with commanders on the ground before making any definitive and ill-advised decisions. Ultimately, his “phased redeployment” – now that victory in Iraq is all but achieved – probably isn’t that much different from the process of redeployment currently in operation.

Essentially, Sen. Obama is now the beneficiary of Sen. McCain’s judgement and statesmanship. He scored his political points assaulting Sen. McCain on Iraq and can now enjoy the fruits of those very same policies as a candidate in the general.

Accordingly, I would submit that Sen. Obama ought to thank Sen. McCain, at least when no one is looking. If it weren’t for him he might have had to actually answer for the consequences of his proposals, or would at least have to spend time finding some other way to blame Sen. McCain for the mess in Iraq that in reality his own policies prescripted.

Don’t worry, Sen. Obama; words need not be spoken. On behalf of Sen. McCain and all those who opposed your reckless positions – you’re welcome. Enjoy the pretzel.