About Those Benchmarks...

Fred Barnes focuses in Iraqi political progress over at the Weekly Standard:

A year ago, when neither the war nor political reconciliation was going well, the Bush administration reluctantly agreed to 18 benchmarks for judging progress in Iraq. And the Democratic Congress eagerly wrote the benchmarks into law, also requiring the administration to report back in July and September on whether the benchmarks were being met.

Despite the surge of additional American troops and a new counterinsurgency strategy, the reports found little progress on the political benchmarks requiring tangible steps toward reconciliation between Shia and Sunnis. Democrats insisted this meant the surge had failed.

They had a point, but not anymore. The surge, by quelling violence and providing security, was supposed to produce "breathing space" in which reconciliation could take place. Now it has, not because President Bush says so, but based on those same benchmarks that Democrats once claimed were measures of failure in Iraq.

Last week, the Iraqi parliament passed three laws that amounted to a political surge to achieve reconciliation. Taken together, the laws are likely to bring minority Sunnis fully into the political process they had earlier boycotted and to produce a new class of political leaders....

When the second benchmarks report was released last September, Democrats jumped on it. Senate Democratic leader Harry Reid said the report "shows the president's flawed escalation policy is not working." According to Democratic senator Joe Biden of Delaware, "all it does is point out the failure." Democratic senator Jack Reed of Rhode Island said the Iraqi government "is not making progress .  .  . with respect to these benchmarks."

Now, the facts on the ground have changed dramatically, and so has progress on the benchmarks. Will Democrats acknowledge this? Or will they continue to claim the surge has failed and demand rapid withdrawal of our troops? So far, Democrats have reacted with silence.

It's not just the Democrats.

Neo-Neocon argues that the major media are shortchanging the story as well:

The Iraqi Parliament has passed some new and potentially significant laws.

This particular event should have been the lead article on the front page of every newspaper. It should have been the big subject of all the talk shows. It ought to have been acknowledged by every critic of the surge—you know, the ones who initially said the surge wouldn’t work before it even began. The ones who then said Petraeus was lying about the drop in casualties. The ones who then said that it didn’t mean anything anyway because after all, the Iraqi legislature hadn’t met the proper benchmarks that would indicate political progress and reconciliation.

This is some of the biggest news on the media and national security politics to come out since David Petraeus was overlooked as "Man of the Year" in late-2007.

But the left-wing forces won't touch it.

Clearly the Democratic congressional majority, throughout 2007, was bested by the administration on war strategy. Now the antiwar base is up in arms over the Pelosi-Reid "capitulation" to the administration's "surge" in Iraq.

Iraq will be a big issue next November, despite the left-wing establishment's best efforts to avoid it.

Neoconservatives and Iraq

Want a clear-headed appraisal of neoconservative influence on the Iraq war? Peter Berkowitz's essay at this morning's Wall Street Journal is a good place to start:

Neoconservatism was never a well-developed school of foreign policy like realism or idealism. Nor is it a reflex, like isolationism or multilateralism. It was only with the Iraq war that neoconservatism came to be falsely identified by its critics with a single crude foreign policy idea -- that the United States should use military force, unilaterally if need be, to overthrow tyrants and to establish democracy.

Of course, isolating this idea from other considerations -- including the price tag of military intervention, our capacity to rebuild dictator-ravaged and war-torn states, the effect of our actions on regional stability and world opinion -- is a recipe for disaster. At least so would counsel the neoconservative tradition. In crafting policy, it is contrary to the spirit of neoconservatism to select from the variety of goals that commands the nation's attention some single one, and pursue it heedless of costs. Neoconservatism has its origins in a critique of policy making -- in both domestic and foreign affairs -- that fails to take consequences into account.

Two seminal documents, both of which stirred up storms in their day, typify the neoconservative sensibility. In 1965, 38-year-old Daniel Patrick Moynihan, then assistant secretary of labor for policy in the Johnson administration, produced a report on a highly sensitive aspect of poverty in America. In "The Negro Family: The Case for National Action," Moynihan argued that the black family in inner- city ghettos was crumbling, and that "so long as this situation persists, the cycle of poverty and disadvantage will continue to repeat itself"....

In 1979, Commentary magazine published an ambitious essay by Georgetown University professor Jeane J. Kirkpatrick entitled, "Dictatorships and Double Standards." The article led Ronald Reagan in 1981 to appoint the Democrat as ambassador to the United Nations. Contrary to Carter administration foreign policy assumptions concerning Nicaragua and Iran, Kirkpatrick argued that democratization is not always the answer to authoritarian regimes -- particularly if they are friendly to the U.S. and laying foundations for freedom and prosperity, while those seeking revolutionary change are communist or Islamic totalitarians....

The Moynihan report and the Kirkpatrick essay made decisive contributions to the forging of the sensibility that came to be known as neoconservatism. That sensibility evinces a fierce pride in American constitutional government. It insists that government policy should be judged not by the hopes of advocates and intentions of decision makers, but by real world consequences. It holds that freedom and democracy depend on qualities of mind and character that do not arise automatically, but must be cultivated by the family and civil society. It recognizes that government, while often part of the problem, can also be part of the solution by finding ways to strengthen both family and civil society. And it knows that America advances its interests by maintaining and expanding an international order that, to the extent possible, is composed of states that respect individual rights and are based on the consent of the governed.

The neoconservative sensibility, in short, is a powerful blend of ideas that have their roots in the larger liberal tradition, particularly the conservative side developed by Madison, Hamilton, Burke and Tocqueville. No doubt that blend and tradition should have counseled greater caution in the run up to the war in Iraq. It should have encouraged a keener awareness, particularly in light of 40 years of neoconservative criticism of the grandiose ambitions of social engineers, that implanting democracy in Iraq was among the greatest feats of social engineering ever conceived by a modern nation-state. It therefore demanded sustained attention to the likely impact of regime change on Iraqi society.

So what went wrong? The most likely explanation is one advanced by John Hopkins University political scientist Francis Fukuyama. Mesmerized by the rapid collapse of communism in Eastern Europe and then in the Soviet Union, he argued, neoconservative thinking drew a false analogy to the very different cultural circumstances of Arab and Muslim Iraq.

Still, the failure of today's neoconservatives to anticipate the challenges of postwar reconstruction does not discredit neoconservatism....

Neoconservatives faced up to, as few of their critics have, the grave threat posed by Saddam Hussein and the spiraling costs of our containment of his regime. They did not turn a blind eye to the conclusion of all major Western intelligence agencies that Saddam was developing weapons of mass destruction. They did not dismiss the real danger that Saddam, in a post-9/11 world, would transfer WMD to al Qaeda or other jihadists. They did not look away from Saddam's flagrant violation of international agreements and international law. They did not forget about the tens of thousands, mainly children, who were dying each year because Saddam was stealing Oil-for-Food money to prop up his military machine.

Neoconservatives did not ignore the destabilizing consequences of positioning American forces in Saudi Arabia to protect the Kingdom from Saddam's imperial ambitions. When the reconstruction of Iraq went badly, they did not kid themselves about the probable consequences of premature American withdrawal of troops, including the deaths of perhaps hundreds of thousands of Iraqis in an al Qaeda- and Iran-fueled civil war.

Things are now looking up, thanks to President Bush's steadfastness, Gen. David Petraeus's counterinsurgency strategy, and our extraordinary men and women in uniform. But this hasn't prevented neoconservatives from appreciating the need for the U.S. to make a long-term commitment to achieving stability and decent government in Iraq.

Our errors in Iraq provide a painful reminder that prudence is, as Edmund Burke proclaimed and the best of the neoconservative tradition emphatically insists, "the God of this lower world." The problem for those of us who analyzed the challenge of Saddam's Iraq from the perspective of neoconservative principles was not that we were too neoconservative, but that we were not neoconservative enough.

Now, for the drive-by antiwar BDS types who'll never agree with such a principled argument, be sure to read Fred Barnes' "Remember Those Benchmarks? Unheralded Political Advances in Iraq," and Reuel Marc Gerecht's, "A New Middle East, After All: What George W. Bush Hath Wrought."

For all of the mistakes in Iraq - faulty assumptions, planning, and so forth - the same qualities of perseverance and resolve in the face of threat that moved the U.S. to topple Saddam in 2003 are the same qualities that are contributing to American victories abroad today.

At home, neoconservatism is being vindicated in the surge of John McCain toward the GOP presidential nomination.

Meanwhile, the attacks against neoconservative ideas are moving more completely beyond the realm of the unhinged left, into the highest halls of academe and onto the pages of our most esteemed foreign policy journals.

Neoconservatism, for example, is being attacked as the latest manifestation of America's "illiberal temptation." But as Berkowitz so well points out here:

The neoconservative sensibility, in short, is a powerful blend of ideas that have their roots in the larger liberal tradition, particularly the conservative side developed by Madison, Hamilton, Burke and Tocqueville.

The latest attacks arguing the alleged illiberalism of neoconservatism - as sophisticated as they may be - are beyond counterintuitive to the point of ideological reaction and extreme marginalization.

Success on the ground in Iraq and neconservative success in campaign '08 are demonstrating a strong tide for neoconservative ideas going forward. Neoconservative principles are picking up steam.

Hezbollah, the "A-Team" of Terrorism, Plans U.S. Attacks, FBI Warns

This morning's Los Angeles Times reports on FBI warning of Hezbollah retaliations against the U.S.:

The FBI and Department of Homeland Security sent a bulletin Friday to state and local law enforcement authorities advising them to watch for potential retaliatory strikes by Hezbollah, one day after the Lebanese militia group vowed to avenge the death of a top commander by attacking Israeli and Jewish targets around the world.

"While retaliation in the U.S. homeland is unlikely, Hezbollah has demonstrated a capability to respond outside the Middle East to similar events in the past," said the intelligence bulletin sent to about 18,000 state and local law enforcement officials late Friday afternoon.

The FBI also said it was intensifying its domestic intelligence-gathering efforts to identify any potential Hezbollah threats in the United States in the aftermath of Tuesday's car-bomb assassination of Imad Mughniyah in Syria.

On Wednesday, the FBI sent a confidential internal bulletin to its 101 Joint Terrorism Task Forces across the country warning of the possible domestic consequences of Mughniyah's killing. As part of that effort, FBI officials at headquarters told the bureau's field offices and multiagency task forces to increase monitoring and surveillance of suspected Hezbollah operatives and to conduct fresh interviews with sources and informants about the U.S.-designated terrorist group, according to two FBI officials.

U.S. authorities have long described Hezbollah as the "A-Team" of terrorism, with far more discipline than Al Qaeda, vast financing from the government of Iran, and a global network of sleeper operatives who could be called on to launch an attack at any time. Various federal investigations and prosecutions have uncovered dozens of Hezbollah fundraisers and supporters in the United States, but few people are believed to be actual "bomb throwers," according to a senior FBI counter-terrorism official who focuses on Hezbollah....

Mughniyah, the former Hezbollah security chief and military commander, was one of the world's most wanted fugitives, accused by the United States and other nations of masterminding attacks that killed hundreds of Americans in Lebanon in the 1980s. Mughniyah also was in charge of international operations for Hezbollah, and in that capacity was believed to have inspired tremendous loyalty from a large number of operatives, fundraisers and supporters in Europe, the United States, Southeast Asia, West Africa and South America.

On Thursday, Hezbollah leader Sheik Hassan Nasrallah told thousands of fist-waving mourners in a videotaped eulogy in Beirut that the killing of Mughniyah merited a violent response because it occurred outside the "natural battlefield" of Israel and Lebanon. "You have crossed the borders," he said, in a reference to Israel and supporters of the Jewish state. "With this murder, its timing, location and method - Zionists, if you want this kind of open war, let the whole world listen: Let this war be open."

Open war?

There should be no confusion on what such a conflict entails.

For more on the background of Imad Mughniyeh, check out Great Satan's Girfriend, "Revenge," and CNN, "Report: Reputed Terrorist Long Sought by CIA Killed in Explosion."

Obama's Substance

Recall in my earlier post, "Barack Obama's Extraordinary Detail," Andrew Sullivan's quoted as arguing "What people fail to understand is that in politics, words are also substance."

That may be true, but as ace commenter Wordsmith notes:

I seriously remain numb to Obama's speeches with anecdotal stories galore about teachers so poor they have to hold two jobs and buy erasers for underfunded schools, blah, blah, blah with the heartstring tugging stories.

Let's listen in to that effect, in this Obama victory speech, via YouTube:

See also, Mark Steyn, "Obama the Muzak Messiah of the Pseudo-Revolution."

Democrats Hone Anti-Capitalist Attacks

Clarity burns ever brighter on the Democratic agenda, as greater media attention is paid to what we might expect under a left-wing adminisration next year.

This Wall Street Journal report indicates that Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama are sharpening their attacks on business as the primary election campaign draws towards it denouement (and the stakes grow in attracting the protectionist vote):

As the Democratic presidential contest moves to the distressed industrial Midwest, Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama have ratcheted up their antitrade, anticorporate rhetoric.

The candidates have made broad attacks on corporate wealth and tax cuts they say tilt toward the rich, along with more specific attacks against health insurers and oil companies, among other industries. On Friday, Mrs. Clinton began airing a TV spot in Wisconsin in which she says, "The oil companies, the drug companies, have had seven years of a president who stands up for them.... It's time we had a president who stands up for all of you."

Both candidates increasingly sound like former North Carolina Sen. John Edwards as they pursue his endorsement and the voters -- particularly union members -- who were drawn to the populist candidate before he dropped out last month. Illinois Sen. Obama got a boost toward that goal Friday with the backing of the Service Employees International Union, one of the most politically powerful labor organizations.

SEIU long was too divided to make a national endorsement, but Mr. Edwards's withdrawal and Mr. Obama's momentum made a choice easier. Now the union has organizers on the ground working for the Obama campaign in Wisconsin, which holds the next primary Tuesday. "It has now become clear the members of our union and the leaders of our union think that it is time to become part of an effort to make Barack Obama the next president of the United States," said Andy Stern, the union's president, during a phone conference with reporters.

I've expressed my views on trade and interdependence on occasion.

Free trade is good for the U.S. and good for the international economy. A Democratic shift to increased trade protection, combined with tax increases and redistributive economic policies, will slow the economy and foster beggar-thy-neighbor policies within the global system of trade.

Strongest Possible Content Warning! Taliban Boy Beheads Hostage

The Jawa Report has video of one the most barbaric atrocities humanly possible: The video shows a 12 year-old boy beheading a hostage.

I want to warn readers that the video is the most graphic portrayal of violence and human depravity imaginable.

Here's the text from the post:

Some time back we brought you news that the Taliban had reached new lows and were now circulating a propaganda video, produced by the Taliban themselves, showing a 12 year old boy beheading a hostage. Censored video of the horrific act eventually made it to the internet, but we showed some screencaps from the uncensored version in order to show just how horrible the enemy we fight in Afghanistan really are.

How bad are the Taliban? I thought I had seen horrible videos produced by al Qaeda, the Taliban, and other Islamist organizations. I'd seen the depth of their depravity when they beheaded Daniel Pearl. Experienced what I thought was the highest form of righteous indignation possible when they murdered dozens of other hostages. Felt like I knew what wrath was.

None of it even comes close. The images we posted earlier were bad. Add video and sound of a child - a child - slowly hacking away at a man's head while he lives on.....no words can describe it.

Strongest possible content warning: Proceed with extreme caution!

Bloodcurdling, repulsive, and shocking are terms too mild to describe the raw emotions these images elicit.

The post continues:

Strongest possible content warning: You are about to see the true face of our enemies. This is not an American propaganda video, it was made by the Taliban themselves. This is why we fight. This is why we must win.

We'll see how long the video lasts...

Update: NY Times ignores atrocities of the most disgustingly vile enemy the U.S. has faced since the Nazis, instead outraged by blindfolding suspects in Iraq. That's right, blindfolding.

This is the religion of peace?

As horrendous as these images are, they should be distributed widely to disseminate the true evil of our enemies.

See also my post, "Religion of Victory: Understanding Islam."

Barack Obama's Extraordinary Detail

Andrew Sullivan argues for right-wing ignorance in the conservative punditocracy's discussions of Barack Obama's policy proposals (via Memeorandum):

The notion that Obama has not released details and specifics on economic policy is a fantasy. It's a product of pundit laziness. The cocoon right seems to believe that because they haven't done their homework, Obama hasn't....

And because Obama actually inspires with oratory, they also assume he doesn't have substance. The premise is that you cannot be inspiring and detailed at the same time. Two words: Why not?

What people fail to understand is that in politics, words are also substance. The ability to inspire people is not inherently a dangerous phenomenon. It is sometimes critical to effective governance. Conservatives used to understand this. Perhaps Churchill's greatest actual weapon was the English language. It did things no bureaucrat, soldier, armament, or policy could do. The core of Ronald Reagan's success was his rhetorical ability to reach over the heads of the Washington process to the people who can force Washington to change: the American people. And I don't recall conservatives decrying the rhetoric of hope reacting to George W. Bush's inspired speeches after 9/11.

His remarks are in response to this piece by Victor Davis Hanson, which suggests:

Under pressure to produce some facts and specifics, the Obama team is beginning to release a little on the economy, taxes, and new entitlements. But the problem is that Obama himself seems not familiar with the details, and still prefers talking only about hope and change. Wonks releasing details doesn't solve the problem. And it won't, until he, the candidate, can talk in serious fashion ex tempore about the specifics he wants to achieve.

Hanson's probably the last conservative pundit one wants to call lazy. Not only that, one might say Sullivan's lackadaisical in his manner of quotation.

Hanson's talking context. I haven't had the chance to sit through hours of Obama stump speeches. I have read his foreign policy proposals and I don't forget his past declarations of failure in Iraq; and Obama's recent campaign victory speeches, it's hard to deny, have been more uplift than bureaucratic detail (or at least the one's I've seen).

Sullivan's got a crush on Obama, in any case.

It's understandable. Take a look at Elizabeth Wurtzel's description of the Obama phenomenon:

If candidates were reading material, Barack Obama would be pornography -- he's got everybody aroused, fired up and ready to go. He's turned on the body politic as no one else has in my lifetime. And it's great fun. It's good for politics, it's good for democracy, it's good for America, it's good for messianism. Young people are excited, old people are nostalgic, middle-aged people are invigorated. People are so enthralled with Mr. Obama just because it's so easy to be enthralled with him.

Which is to say, there's no accounting for charisma. Some people are simply gifted, and the only way to respond is to clear the way and let them do their magic. But this collective cathexis that created Obamamania is obviously a deep desire for authenticity, and he is the natural repository of our hidden hopes.

Mr. Obama is what the future looks like: a biracial child of divorce, schlepped halfway around the world by a conscientious but confounded single mother, abandoned by a wayward but winning Kenyan father, international but somehow still all-American, a party-hardy Harvard Law graduate. That is, an ordinary extraordinary guy, the dreamiest of all our dreams. If only every kid from a broken home could turn out to be such a fine gentleman! How can we not love him? With a million other things he could be doing, Mr. Obama actually wants to lead us. Us? What did we do to deserve him?

That's how lucky Barack Obama makes us feel.

Obamamania?

I'm not manic about Obama's language of class warfare and international retreat.

The truth is the Illinois Senator's language is achingly detailed on the key issues of the day. The more he waxes extraordinaire, the less ignorant I get.

Big Government Campaign: The Clinton-Obama Fiscal Nightmare

Kimberley Strassel, at the Wall Street Journal, notes that both Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama are unabashedly campaigning as big-government liberals (via Blue Crab Boulevard):

In the middle of an election that is supposed to be about "change," the country is instead being treated to the most old-fashioned of economic debates. The fun of it is that neither side is being shy about where it stands, which has only sharpened the old choice: higher taxes and bigger government, or more economic freedom and reform. With health care, entitlements and education all on the agenda, the stakes are huge.

We don't have a Democratic nominee yet, but in terms of this battle it matters little. Mrs. Clinton and Mr. Obama both dropped major economic addresses this week, and their most distinguishing feature was that they were nearly indistinguishable. Just ask Mrs. Clinton, whose campaign complained that Mr. Obama had copied her best ideas (even as it simultaneously complained he offered no "solutions" -- go figure).

Republican frontrunner John McCain certainly sees no differences, and his frontrunner status has allowed him to begin training his economic guns on the Clintbama approach. The battle lines are, as a result, already taking shape.

This is going to be an old-fashioned fight over taxes. Whatever they may have said on CNN, Mr. Obama and Mrs. Clinton aren't foolhardy enough to embrace wholesale tax hikes. Like John Kerry and congressional Democrats before them, both are instead proposing raising taxes on only "the rich." Both campaigns made an early bet that the Republicans' broad tax-cutting message had gone stale, and that Americans were frustrated enough with rising health-care and education costs that they'd embrace redistributionist tax policies.

Maybe. But the economic landscape has changed from last year, and even frustrated Americans have grown jittery of tax-hike talk. Mr. Obama has already shifted, and started placing more emphasis on his promise to return some of his tax-hike booty to "middle-class" Americans via tax credits. Both Democrats are already justifying their hikes by pointing out that Mr. McCain voted against the Bush tax cuts in the past.

Mr. McCain's challenge - which he's already embraced - is to keep the tax focus on the future. His campaign is going to play off polls that show the majority of Americans are still convinced that political promises to soak the rich translate into higher taxes for all. He will use the gobs of other proposed Democratic tax hikes to make that point, noting, for instance, that higher taxes on dividends and capital gains are in fact punitive to a broad swath of middle-class investors who have become reliant on those equity returns - in particular during this credit crunch.

The more one looks at the Democratic model for '08, it becomes increasingly clear what we can expect under a left-wing administration next year: creeping socialism at home and foreign policy surrender abroad.

Gaius at Blue Crab Boulevard adds some nice analysis:

The tax increases required for [Clinton-Obama spending proposals] will stop the economy dead in its tracks. And there is still the looming demographic nightmare of the boomers retirements. The word "rich" will have to be defined lower and lower. Don't believe it? Remember when Bill Clinton pushed his huge tax increases through, the rich were those earning over $200k. In the Rangel tax proposal that is already out on the table, the rich are defined as earning $150k - despite more than a decade of inflation. The rich just keep getting poorer.

Yet, Rush Limbaugh's not talking about that.

Former President Bush to Endorse McCain

An ex-president's endorsment ought to be a weighty prize. Thus I'm eager to see how the expected endorsement of George H. W. Bush for John McCain will play among far-right conservatives.

Bush 41 might be dismissed as a "Rockefeller Republican," and his own apostasies - like breaking his "read-my-lips-no-new-taxes" pledge - might be used by MDS conservatives to further impugn the Arizona Senator's conservative credentials:

Former president George H.W. Bush will endorse Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) in Houston on Monday during a media availability at 9:30 a.m. Texas time, Republican sources say....

The endorsement by the former president does two things that are crucial to McCain as he tries to capitalize on the potential advantages of being the nominee when Democrats are still fighting it out:
— It begins to make former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee look like he’s not being a team player, raising expectations that he should drop out or run a quieter campaign.

— It also undercuts Republicans who are reluctant to fully support McCain because of his past differences with the party’s right wing.

The father's endorsement follows former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush's decision to back McCain. Former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney had warm relations with both men and had hoped their endorsements would ignite his candidacy, which he ended last week.

The Bush machine is one of the most powerful in American conservative politics, especially on the fundraising side. The ex-president's expected endorsement further consolidates McCain's virtually ineluctable momentum.

Mixed Poll Averages Risky as Handicapping Tool

Carl Bialik takes a look at the prevelence of "mixed poll averages" this election season, raising a red flag on their validity, at the Wall Street Journal:

In the month leading up to last week's delegate-rich California primary, at least a dozen polling firms canvassed the state, collectively calling tens of thousands of households.

Political junkies tracking television, newspaper and online coverage of the voting also heard the names of two main providers of polling data that didn't place a single call: Real Clear Politics and Pollster.com. Both are mashing up surveys from various sources this election year to produce composite numbers meant to smooth out aberrant results. Their methods are criticized by statisticians, but their numbers are embraced by news organizations eager for a way to make sense of conflicting polls.

Numbers from Real Clear Politics, which has been averaging polls since the 2002 congressional races, are used regularly on Fox News, MSNBC's "Hardball," and the Web sites of CBS News and the Washington Post. Pollster, which started combining polls in 2006 and attempts a more complicated mix than a straight average, is featured on Slate and the political Web site, Talking Points Memo.

Stirring disparate pollsters in one pot has its critics. "That's dangerous." says Michael Traugott, professor at the University of Michigan, and author of a recent guide to election polls. "I don't believe in this technique."

Among the pitfalls: Polls have different sample sizes, yet in the composite, those with more respondents are weighted the same. They are fielded at different times, some before respondents have absorbed the results from other states' primaries. They cover different populations, especially during primaries when turnout is traditionally lower. It's expensive to reach the target number of likely voters, so some pollsters apply looser screens. Also, pollsters apply different weights to adjust for voters they've missed. And wording of questions can differ, which makes it especially tricky to count undecided voters. Even identifying these differences isn't easy, as some of the included polls aren't adequately footnoted.

Read the whole thing.

I've cited RCP's numbers in some of my entries, although I don't like mixed averages so much - especially since any old poll seems to be included in the averages, from respectable organizations or not.

Nevetheless, I've focused on general trends in my analyses, sticking mostly to the Republican side, noting potential survey biases or other discrepancies as warranted.

It's probably more reliable to look at a large number of surveys, comparing findings, predicted margins, sampling methods, etc., and then making rough assessments on likely electoral outcomes.

Mixed averaging won't be going away any time soon, you can bet. Horse-race handicapping is too fun for that.

McCain-Obama Race Highlights November Electoral Math

With Barack Obama's strength among African-Americans, and conservatives hedging in their support for likely GOP nominee John McCain, a McCain-Obama matchup in November promises to make for a less pre-determined Electoral College arithmetic this year:

In recent presidential elections, the electoral map largely has been fixed, with certain regions predictably loyal to one party or another and the competition narrowed to fewer than 20 battleground states.

But Barack Obama's success in rallying African-Americans and John McCain's difficulty with conservative evangelicals raise an intriguing question: Would a general election between the two put additional states -- particularly in the South -- into play?

Mr. Obama is still locked in a race with Hillary Clinton for the Democratic nomination. A general election between her and Mr. McCain could also draw lines in new ways, given Mrs. Clinton's strong appeal to women and Hispanics.

If Mr. Obama wins the nomination, it is far from certain that he could claim even a single Southern state. But even making the race there competitive would be a victory of sorts by forcing Mr. McCain to spend time and money defending states that other Republicans, including President Bush, were able to take for granted.

"It's certainly likely some of these Southern states are going to be much more competitive than before," said Merle Black, an expert on Southern politics at Emory University.

I don't think this analysis necessarily implies an Obama advantage.

McCain's alleged apostasies on issues such as immigration could make him all the more attractive in other parts of the country. For example, California might see the most competitive general election campaign in recent years. Here's more on that:

Mr. McCain might enter a race versus Mr. Obama with an advantage among Hispanic voters. During the primaries so far, Mr. McCain has done well with Hispanics, while Mr. Obama has not. That could change the calculations in the Rocky Mountain West, Republican territory where Democrats have seen an opening.

It's going to be a great contest!

See also my previous entry, "McCain's General Election Advantage."

Cases in MDS: Limbaugh May Endorse Obama

As readers may have noticed, I've been getting back into my more normal blogging routine, with posts ranging a bit more widely on congressional politics, culture, and national security.

But that darned Rush Limbaugh keeps pulling me back into the far-right's self-implosive fit over John McCain!

Perhaps Rush's truly hurting for ratings, given that recent survey data indicate that talk radio's reach is quite small. Or, perhap's Limbaugh's indeed suffering from McCain Derangement Syndrome.

Whatever the case, the Rushbo's now suggesting he'll back Barack Obama's presidential bid in the fall:

Rush Limbaugh took his show on the road this week, forsaking his main broadcast studio in Palm Beach, Fla., for one in Midtown Manhattan. But the change of scenery did nothing to dampen the Republican-on-Republican smackdown he has been waging from afar against Senator John McCain, the party’s likely presidential nominee, whom Mr. Limbaugh considers too moderate.

As he opened his radio program Wednesday, Mr. Limbaugh lobbed yet another grenade.

“I would like today to announce a tentative decision — I’m still thinking about it — to endorse Barack Obama,” he said, his head cocked slightly toward his 18-karat-gold-plated microphone, his hands spread wide like the wings of his sleek G4 jet.

Mr. Limbaugh then listed nearly a dozen qualities he said he found admirable in Mr. Obama. “Barack Obama is pro-life,” he began. “Barack Obama is a tax-cutter extraordinaire.”

If neither statement was descriptive of Mr. Obama, a liberal Democrat, nor was there much hope for what followed. “Barack Obama will establish a college football playoff, once and for all,” Mr. Limbaugh said. “Barack Obama will offer free-beer Fridays.”

His point, Mr. Limbaugh said, was that Mr. Obama represented “a blank canvas upon which anyone can project their fantasies and desires.”

But implicit in his “endorsement,” however tongue-in-cheek, was this: Mr. Limbaugh, who draws more than 13.5 million listeners a week, considers Mr. McCain to have so betrayed conservative principles by voting against tax cuts and not being as tough as Mr. Limbaugh would like on illegal immigrants that the commentator was openly flirting with the enemy. (Later, Mr. Limbaugh dangled the possibility of endorsing Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton.)

In an interview after his show, seated behind the black granite desk from which he had done the broadcast, Mr. Limbaugh held out little hope that Mr. McCain could sway him to his side.

“It’s entirely possible I will go the distance without saying I support a candidate,” he said, still sweating from his three-hour performance, his blue-and-white striped dress shirt untucked and draped over dark dress slacks.

The effect of Mr. Limbaugh’s resistance could be substantial, serving, at the least, to reinforce doubts among other conservatives about Mr. McCain, who would seem to need the party’s conservative base to turn out in force in November.

Maybe this is just comic relief. Who knows?

Perhaps Limbaugh's so afflicted by his McCain-hatred that he's grasping desperately for some kind of relief, anything, no matter how unhinged.

See also my previous "cases" entry, "Cases in MDS: Coulter Endorses Clinton."

Sheehan Backs Radical Islamist Terrorists

Cindy Sheehan, the (in)famous American antiwar activist, has joined an Egyptian anti-government protest movement supporting the release of members of the country's largest Islamic terrorist organization.

Abe Greenwald, over at Commentary, provides some perspective on the latest in the Sheehan follies:

In lending her activist services to the Muslim Brotherhood, Cindy Sheehan has finally embraced the core of Islamist terror and the true nature of her own passions. Sheehan, had she wanted to get behind a group of serial human right violators, had a number to choose from, even in Egypt. But she chose one of the most virulently anti-Western and anti-Israel group of terrorists in the region. This, however, should only come as a revelation to those who’ve never read this statement from Sheehan:

Am I emotional? Yes, my first born was murdered. Am I angry? Yes, he was killed for lies and for a PNAC Neo-Con agenda to benefit Israel. My son joined the army to protect America, not Israel. Am I stupid? No, I know full well that my son, my family, this nation and this world were betrayed by George Bush who was influenced by the neo-con PNAC agendas after 9/11. We were told that we were attacked on 9/11 because the terrorists hate our freedoms and democracy . . . not for the real reason, because the Arab Muslims who attacked us hate our middle-eastern foreign policy.

The anti-war crowd has had to adapt to a succession of debunked myths: blood for Israel, blood for oil, blood for Halliburton, Bush lied, the war is lost, etc. With Sheehan declaring her support for some of the most committed jihadists around, the Cindy-Sheehan-as-sympathetic-hero meme is no longer sustainable. Which isn’t quite the same thing as saying it won’t be sustained.

Frankly, I agree with many of the arguments about Sheehan suggesting she was a pawn of the radical left's antiwar agenda. Indeed, I can sympathize with her grief over the loss of her son, Casey.

Yet, I'm deeply troubled by her repeated expressions of anti-Ameircanism, and I see in Sheehan's case elements of the most disturbing examples of the contemporary radical left (see here for photos).

Unfortunately, variations of Sheehan's views form the agenda of many of those within the Democratic Party interest group umbrella (recall MoveOn's "Betray Us" attack on General David Petraeus).

It's not unreasonable to suggest that the Democratic Party - given its hopeless pandering to the antiwar base - would move closer to this tacit alliance of socialism and Islam in the event of a Democratic victory in November.

Marital Status and Party Preference

Non-married individuals, or those who by circumstance or choice fall outside of traditional family structures, are more likely to identify as Democratic, according to new survey data from the Gallup organization:

It's not clear whether love and politics go together, but a special Valentine's Day review of Americans' party affiliation shows there is a strong relationship between marital status and party affiliation. Unmarried Americans are more likely to identify as Democrats than as independents or in particular Republicans, while married Americans tilt toward the GOP. Among all Americans who identify as Republicans, the married vastly outnumber the unmarried. Since both marriage and gender are related to party identification, their effects build on each other, such that married men are the most likely to identify with the Republican Party and unmarried women are the most likely to identify with the Democratic Party.

These results are based on an analysis of data from Gallup Poll Daily tracking, conducted Feb. 1-12, 2008, including interviews with more than 12,000 Americans aged 18 and older.

The majority of U.S. adults -- 57% according to the tracking results -- are currently married. Among this group, slightly more identify as Republicans (35%) than as independents (32%) or Democrats (32%). But among Americans who are not currently married -- including those who have never married, or are divorced, widowed, separated, or living with a partner-- 41% consider themselves Democrats, 38% independents, and just 19% Republicans.

Just some interesting food for political thought...

Happy Valentine's Day!!

The Obama Doctrine of Extremist Diplomacy

I've recently discussed the dangers of a Barack Obama presidency for the direction of American foreign policy (see here and here).

Not only is Obama inexperienced, but, as I've noted, his call for greater engagement with extremist regimes would "open uncritical diplomatic arms to our enemies, placing America's hard-fought gains against the world's nihilist henchmen at risk."

Apparently Michael O'Hanlon of the Brookings Institution agrees in an article at today's Wall Street Journal, "Obama as Diplomat in Chief":

Applied categorically, this would be a bad idea. Meeting with enemy heads of state is neither as original as Mr. Obama implies, nor as promising as he claims. As a specific option for dealing with difficult regimes, it has potential merit on a case-by-case basis, and should always be considered -- but only after a careful assessment of what the United States believes it can get out of such meetings and dialogues.

The would-be Obama doctrine has understandable roots. Upon becoming president, George W. Bush ended American efforts to promote a peace process in the Middle East, and Israeli-Palestinian violence worsened. He turned a cold shoulder to Kim Jong Il and North Korea wound up with perhaps eight more nuclear bombs. His administration successfully worked out a modus vivendi with Iran at the Bonn conference on Afghanistan in 2001, but Mr. Bush's subsequent "Axis of Evil" speech, pre-emption doctrine, and termination of contact with leadership in Tehran led to a deterioration in relations that has haunted us in Iraq and that worsened when President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad took office in 2005.

However, just because Mr. Bush went too far in one direction does not mean these situations would be rectified by going to the other extreme. U.S. negotiations with difficult regimes may sometimes be catalyzed by presidential engagement, but they only tend to work when we are in a commanding negotiating position or when we are prepared to make trades with foreign leaders that serve their interests as well as ours. Implying otherwise risks being labeled as naïve in the fall elections, with Democrats sounding like they believe ruthless dictators would behave better if only we took the time to try to understand them.

In fact, the U.S. has a long history of talking to unsavory extremist leaders. Sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn't....

Mr. Obama is not wrong about the utility of negotiations with unsavory regimes. They are often useful, and they need not amount to appeasement or even a false raising of hopes. If handled carefully, they can be done in a manner that minimizes the prestige accorded a foreign leader we do not wish to risk strengthening. But such high-level contact is not a new tool of American foreign policy, nor does it guarantee success.

If elevated to a doctrine, reliance on presidential-level diplomacy is a mistake. It risks rewarding foreign leaders who cause the most trouble, creating perverse incentives for those desiring the attention of the U.S. It also can confuse us about the nature of diplomacy. Foreign leaders, nice or not, make deals based on assessments of their interests, and any new diplomatic doctrine that fails to recognize as much would ignore centuries of history and potentially damage American security.

I've omitted O'Hanlon's case-study analysis at the core of the article.

I don't have any big disagreements, however. I'd only add that Obama's also speaking more and more to the language of retreat in Iraq, and by implication the larger war on terror. It's not just his apparent bear-hug approach to our most implacable enemies (a highly ill-considered gambit), but that he's also been one of the Democratic congressional majority's biggest boosters of U.S. failure in Iraq.

The Illinois Senator's badly out of sync with our tough progress on the war. His pronouncements that Iraq's been a complete failure discredit the mission and our service personnel in the theater.

On diplomacy and war, Obama's shown he's unfit for command.

See more at Memeorandum.

McCain and the Conservatives: A Look at the Numbers

Gallup's Frank Newport examines the polling data surrounding John McCain's conflict with the conservative base, over at USA Today.

McCain's got some problems, to be sure, although one can quibble with Newport's analysis:

McCain's percent of support among national Republicans has been going down over the last several days rather than up (in our Gallup Poll Daily Tracking). This suggests that he has yet to "close the sale" and move to the point where the vast majority of Republicans say they support him as their party's nominee. Right now that number is just about the 50% mark -- and, as noted, going down, not up.

Second, just 51% of Republicans in the weekend USA Today/Gallup poll say they would be satisfied if John McCain ended up the winner in the Republican race. Almost as many say they would have preferred to see one of the ohter Republican candidates win.

Third, a tepid 34% of Republicans say that McCain is the best presidential candidate in 'your lifetime" or better than most candidates in your lifetime. I say that's tepid because the comparable number among Democrats about Barack Obama is 60% and among Democrats about Hillary Clinton is 62%. The Dems are in love with their candidates; the Repubs appear to be "in like" with theirs.

This all suggests that the problem for McCain may not just be that he displeases high profile conservatives. It may be that he displeases too many Republicans period.

Still, to some degree conservative Republicans are the Republican Party. Sixty-one percent of Republicans in the USA Today/Gallup poll call themselves conservative (the rest all almost all moderates; there are very few liberal Republicans). So it would be very difficult for McCain to be enjoying the relatively large lead that he has – 26 points over Mike Huckabee in the weekend Poll – if he didn’t have the support of a good number of conservatives.

Indeed, the facts of the matter are that McCain gets 53% of the support of all Republicans and 50% of conservative Republicans. Not a big difference. Among that smaller percent of Republicans who are moderate (and the few that are liberal), McCain’s support jumps to about 60% support.

So there is a slight tendency for conservative Republicans to be somewhat less likely than moderate Republicans to support McCain, as expected. Conservative Republicans haven’t abandoned McCain by any means. But their support is not overwhelming, and is below the level of moderate Republicans.

So McCain's standing obviously would go up if he made conservative Republicans happier. It would also go up if he made moderate Republicans happier. In general, it seems that McCain at the moment has the challenge of convincing any and all members of his party that he's an exciting candidate they should rally behind. Whether frantically focusing on attempts to burnish his bona fides as a conservative is the right (or only) way to do it is unclear.

Now, for the quibbles:

For one thing, it's an exaggeration to say that "conservative Republicans are the Republican Party." Hell, if that's the case, why do we call party fundamentalists the "conservative base."

Besides, if the conservative cohort is truly "the party," they've been taking an extended vacation this primary season! Somehow a RINO's stormed the gates of "the establishement" to snag the mantle of "presumptive nominee."

(And don't forget Nicholas Confessore's analysis last weekend, "The Vanishing Establishment," where he notes that the hardline conservative movement's overestimated its own importance.)

Not only that, Newport's sticking with his own Gallup data, which offer a limited view of the total opinion environment. Recall that Pew's new survey shows a plurality of respondents seeing McCain as a genuine conservative.

Further, exit polling from the Maryland and Virginia primaries last night found just one-third of voters identifying as "very conservative," and the Arizona Senator's decisive victories yesterday cast further doubt on the claims that McCain's not conservative enough for the Republican electorate.

Base conservatives will come around to McCain's ascendency in the party.

Rush Limbaugh's already backing off his McCain attacks, amid growing evidence that far-right talk radio's got little power after all.

In the Eye of Conservatives

Wordsmith, a bloggin' buddy o' mine whose homestead's over at "Sparks on the Anvil," 's been doing some of the best analysis available on the far-right's McCain controversy.

Here's a bit from his post up today, "Poking My Thumb in the Eye of Conservatives for Their Own Good":

The commonly held belief amongst self-described Reagan footsoldiers, is that John McCain is a conservative apostate, who enjoys sticking his thumb in the eye of conservatives. Maybe he does enjoy his "maverick" reputation a little too much; maybe his 5 1/2 years as a POW knocked a few screws loose and instilled a certain "mean-spiritedness" in him. Maybe he was born this way.

But a conservative apostate?!

He may not be the conservative we like; nor the kind of conservative we can all trust, on all issues; yet, conservative he is, and the conservative we are all stuck with.

I do not get this need for conservatives to "disown" each other. Who is to say who a true conservative is? According to the Ron Paul Reverists, we are all conservative apostates and betrayers of the original intent of our Founding Fathers if we don't heed the whinings of their Constitutional Pied Piper. Then there are the self-proclaimed Reagan conservatives, who romanticize this notion that they are the caretakers of "true conservatism" and "Reaganism". Today, they criticize those conservatives who aren't sufficiently pure, be it Huckabee, Giuliani, McCain, and even Romney. By their impossible standards, Ronald Reagan would not be Reagan enough. Some of the bandwagon jumpers are the same conservatives who criticized Reagan before America's 40th president was deified. I'm also finding that rather than merely disagreeing with fellow conservatives that were rather well-respected prior to expressing support (Michael Medved) or sympathy (Victor Davis Hanson) for McCain, a lot of emotional, angry conservatives have renounced those conservatives as well.

One has to wonder-before Romney suspended his campaign and before McCain appears to have all but wrapped up the GOP nomination: How is it that at least 17 prominent, staunch conservative Senators have thrown their support to John McCain? How is it, that over 100 Admirals and generals along with Norman Schwarzkopf have endorsed the Senator from the great state of Arizona? They couldn't all be RINOs, could they? How is it that 100 individuals who served in the Reagan Administration have endorsed John McCain?

Many leaders of the Reagan Revolution – Jack Kemp, Senator Phil Gramm, Senator Dan Coats, General Alexander Haig, George Shultz and many more – proudly back Senator McCain. The conservative Senators who know McCain best – John Kyl, Tom Coburn, Sam Brownback, Lindsey Graham, Trent Lott – support his presidential campaign after working with him in the Senate for years and seeing his commitment to Reaganism. During the six years he served in Congress under President Reagan, McCain supported the administration as one of its most effective “foot soldiers.” Unlike many of his critics, McCain echoes the Reagan approach – not the Buchanan approach – to free trade and immigration reform.

How does one reconcile with the fact that Nancy Reagan privately endorsed McCain, as well? One begins to ask oneself, "Who would Reagan endorse?" And the reality of the response should be, "No one knows." And it's dishonest for anyone to presume to speak for Reagan, and channel his vibes to validate their own personal political views.
If John McCain is not a "true" conservative then how does one explain the fact that his ACU lifetime ranking is 82.3% (for you Fredheads, Fred Thompson's lifetime average is 86%- with his support of campaign finance reform apparently knocking off anywhere from 4%-12% from his rating)? In 2006, yes it was 65%. Putting him in 47th place among Senators, for that year. But for his quarter century service in the Senate, how can people claim he has not been conservative? Maybe not the kind of conservative we wish him to be, but a conservative, nonetheless.

Wordsmith's also a "deputized blogger" at "Flopping Aces." He's got a dandy post up over there on McCain's alleged heresies, "John McCain: Republican Apostate?"

Well now, saddle on up and head over t' them thar' parts. I'm sure a friendly word or two'd be mighty welcomed!

Holding Fire! Limbaugh Softens on McCain Attacks

Rush Limbaugh, in an interview with Jay Carney at Time, practically sounds like a mild-mannered, senior-citizen impartial observer when talking about his role in the far-right's McCain conservative constroversy:

Jay Carney:

Is there anything John McCain can do to persuade you he's acceptable?

Rush Limbaugh:

I don't think he should even try. He's got to be who he is. I don't think he needs to reach out. His job is not to be acceptable to a single person. I'm not sitting here demanding that. I don't have that kind of sense of power or existence. That's one of the things that sort of amuse me about all this. You know, he had Bob Dole send that letter. And Phil Gramm has called. Phil Gramm was in Davos. But Phil just [said], "Let me tell you why I'm for McCain." Pure and simple. He didn't persuade or arm twist. I don't think Senator McCain ought to do anything but be who he is and let the chips fall. Because that's his strength. And if he starts doing anything that appears to be pandering to people, then he's going to lose, I think some — I don't know, respect — but some people are going to question it. Because he's never pandered. At least his image is that he's never pandered. He's a maverick. He's out there on his own and he's going to ride the trail wherever it takes him, in the direction he wants to go. I wouldn't expect it.

You know, when it comes down to a general election — looks like it's going to be Obama versus McCain — any number of ways of playing this, and one of them, I don't necessarily have to tout McCain, but I certainly will be critical of Obama. Once we get down to the general, you start examining what this guy's policies are. Right now [Obama is] saying nothing better than anybody has ever said it. At least in my lifetime. It's going have to get specific at some point.

I said this on the radio yesterday. I really do take all this seriously in terms of the future of the country and where we're headed. And liberalism to me, based on its history, portends disastrous things for the future of the country. I think liberals in a political sense need to be defeated, not accommodated, not reached across the aisle and hugged, not walked across the aisle and accommodate them and bring them in. And I certainly don't want the Republican Party to be redefined by becoming victorious on the basis of a bunch of liberal Democrats being attracted to the party as liberal Democrats. I'd love to have them if they are converted to our side. But we're missing genuine conservative leadership, so that's not going to happen.

I'll have plenty to talk about. When Bush 41 was elected in '88, people said, 'Well, that's it for Limbaugh; he's going to have nothing to say.' Well, Wrong! The liberals were out there starting with global warming. The spotted owl was going nuts back then. There are always going to be liberals to rail against no matter who's in the White House.

"I don't necessarily have to tout McCain..."

Well, that sounds firm and decivise... Go Rush!! You're really firing up the base!!

In any case, read the whole thing.

Rush's got his finger on the pulse of the far-right talk radio bureaucracy, and it's barely beating. My guess is he's paving the way for an inevitable reconciliation with the maverick "RINO" from Arizona.

See also my previous entry, "Talk Radio's Limited Impact"

Talk Radio's Limited Impact

A new Pew Research survey shows that conservative talk radio's reach is not as substantial as many might think. The findings provide statistical correlation to arguments I've made on the growing irrelevance of the Malkin-tents and Rush-bots on Republican Party dynamics this year:

Barely a quarter of Americans (27%) are aware that many conservative talk radio hosts are opposing John McCain's campaign for president. Another 7% mistakenly believe hosts like Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity support McCain's candidacy.

Even among Republicans, awareness of the arguments against McCain is limited. Only 31% know about the opposition to McCain on talk radio. Even among Republicans who are following the campaign "very closely" only 42% know that these hosts disapprove of McCain.

The survey also found a 46% plurality of Republican-identified respondents rejecting the notion "that McCain is not a strong conservative."

As I've said before, for all their sound and fury, the talk radio mandarins are having less impact on things than their self-importance would suggest.

Assessing Republican General Election Chances

I noted in a couple of recent entries (here and here) that GOP general election chances are good this year.

Now Fred Barnes, over at the Wall Street Journal, makes the case for the GOP in November. He suggests Republicans have no need for despair:

True, the outcome isn't entirely in their hands. But Republicans can significantly improve their chances of winning by making smart campaign decisions. And events must also go their way, just as they did for John McCain, now the presumptive Republican presidential nominee.

Let's start with what Republicans need to retain the presidency. Mr. McCain has the biggest role, but other Republicans must help, including President Bush.

- Independent voters. Conservatives unhappy over Mr. McCain's emergence as the Republican nominee have gotten lavish media coverage. But while they love to grumble and grouse, conservatives tend to be loyal Republicans who wind up voting for their party's candidates.

It was the defection of independents, not conservatives, that caused the Democratic landslide in the congressional elections in 2006. Their preference for Democrats jumped to 57% in 2006 from 49% in 2004. Mr. McCain must win many of them back, since independents constitute roughly one-third of the overall electorate.

Mr. McCain is well-positioned to do this, but it won't be easy. What independents like about Mr. McCain -- his maverick style and willingness to deal with Democrats -- is exactly what infuriates conservatives. He must walk a fine line, emphasizing issues like spending cuts and entitlement reform that appeal to both independents and conservatives.

- A volunteer army. Mr. McCain needs one at least as large and powerful as President Bush's was in 2004. Against all odds, Mr. Bush's army of over more than two million volunteers overwhelmed the aggressive, well-financed Democratic effort to drive up voter turnout.

But 2008 is different story. Democrats relied on paid workers in 2004 and can do the same this year so long as rich liberals like George Soros are willing to foot the bill again. The Bush volunteers were motivated by a strong commitment to the president -- a commitment that doesn't extend to Mr. McCain. He'll have to recruit his own army, perhaps by enlisting veterans.

- The right vice president. If elected, John McCain will be 72 when he takes office. (Ronald Reagan was a mere 69 on his first inauguration.) For obvious reasons, this makes Mr. McCain's choice of a vice presidential running mate all the more important.

His pick must not only be credible as a possible president, but also someone viewed by Republicans as a successor should Mr. McCain decide to serve only one term. And that's not all. His running mate must connect with economic and foreign policy conservatives -- and especially with social conservatives. In all likelihood, Mr. McCain will concentrate on attracting independents and downplay issues such as abortion and gay rights. Social conservatives, for whom these issues are crucial, will need a champion.

- President Bush. Given his unpopularity, Republicans don't want the election to be a referendum on the Bush administration. In fact, one of former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush's reasons for staying out of the 2008 race is to prevent Democrats, just because a Bush is on the ticket, from doing exactly that.

But the president does have an important campaign role. On national security issues, he speaks with considerable authority and with a big megaphone. And there are bound to be opportunities for him to criticize or correct the Democratic nominee on the war on terrorism, terrorist surveillance, Iran, Iraq and the surge, Russia, and much else. The trick will be for Mr. Bush to pick his spots wisely (and infrequently) and not overplay his hand.

So far so good. Next, though, Barnes discusses factors neither McCain nor the GOP can control. One of the most important? Iraq:

Iraq won't be a good Republican issue in 2008.

Why?

Continued security gains are not guaranteed, says Barnes, and political progress is slow, giving the Democrats a wedge issue.

I'm going to disagree here.

John Podhoretz made an interesting argument at Commentary on the GOP and Iraq in '08. The Iraq issue looks good for the Republicans:

It is a great irony that the best political news for Republicans in a notably unfavorable election year—with the public telling pollsters that it is desirous of change and prefers Democratic stands on most issues by margins ranging from ten to twenty points—may come out of Iraq. Should the surge’s progress continue and deepen, the Democratic nominee may find himself or herself in a very uncomfortable position come autumn. The Democratic base will not have changed its mind about the war’s evil, and it will not be happy with a leader who does. So the nominee will find it almost impossible to embrace the surge, and certainly not after having disparaged it caustically in the past. But if the nominee does not embrace the real possibility of victory in Iraq, he or she will run the risk of appearing defeatist, or worse, in the eyes of the same independent voters who fled the GOP in droves in 2006.

Meanwhile, the candidate most associated with the surge, John McCain, will (assuming he becomes the nominee of the Republican party) be uniquely well situated to deploy an accusation he has been leveling at the Democratic frontrunners for nearly a year. “I was very disappointed to see Senator Obama and Senator Clinton embrace the policy of surrender by voting against funds to support our brave men and women fighting in Iraq,” McCain said about a vote the two Democrats cast in May 2007. He called this “the equivalent of waving a white flag of surrender to al Qaeda.”

As his campaign took off in January 2008, McCain sharpened the dagger:

Candidate Clinton has called for surrender and waving the white flag. I think it’s terrible. I think it’s terrible. . . . For us to do what Senator Clinton wants us to do—that is to wave the white flag—I cannot guarantee United States security in the region or in the United States.

This is the ground—as tribunes of an American victory in Iraq—on which Republicans will have no choice but to stand in November 2008. They may not be able to prevail with it, but they have no hope of prevailing without it.

If McCain's defeated in November, it won't be on national security.