Captain Ed Joins Hot Air!

In January I was perplexed by Captain Ed Morrissey's counterintuitive endorsement of Mitt Romney for the GOP presidential nomination.

Not only was the Captain's logic in the endorsement strained - considering how it was largely based on Romney's purported superior (but questionable) conservative creditials - it looked as well to perhaps have been motivated more by material interests than the ideological. As I noted at the time:

I respect Ed Morrissey tremendously. He's an outstanding political analyst (wrong only on occasion), and frankly I'm blown away by his blogging fecundity and intellectual scope.

But I can't help wondering if his selection of Romney reflects the path of least resistance.

I mean, he's among the top voices on the right side of the blogosphere, and he's apparently got some pretty big aspirations in radio broadcasting. So why rock the boat? The Rush-bots are unforgiving, you know...one wouldn't want to alienate those bedrock conservatives!

Well, in all humility, let me just say I nailed that one: Michelle Malkin's announced this morning that the Captain will be joining Hot Air, one of the premier conservative blogging platforms on the web, as a regular contributor.

Here's the story, from Michelle:

Hot Air is proud to welcome blogger extraordinaire Ed Morrissey of Captain’s Quarters to the staff. He’ll start cross-posting here today and we’re opening up comment registration to help bring CQ members into the fold. (Go here to register.) In the next few weeks, Ed will close down CQ and make Hot Air his exclusive home.

Ed began blogging at Captain’s Quarters in 2003. During the past five years, his work has been published in the Washington Post, New York Post, New York Times, Weekly Standard, and other national publications. In 2007, Ed made the leap to full-time employment in New Media when he became political director for Blog Talk Radio. You can see all of his past work in the archives at Captain’s Quarters.

Ed has lived in Minnesota for more than ten years after leaving his native California. He and his wife have a son and daughter-in-law finishing their college education and a beautiful five-year-old granddaughter. He has a weekly radio show on Minnesota’s AM 1280 The Patriot every Saturday afternoon.

Ed has been a friend and kindred spirit since I entered the blogosphere. He brings keen political insights, boundless energy and optimism, and invaluable investigative skills/enterprise reporting to the team. His pioneering citizen journalism helped expose government corruption in Canada and brought down a rotten Canadian Liberal Party administration. He’s been the subject of moonbat cartoonist Ted Rall’s class bigotry and a target of Vanity Fair jerk James Wolcott’s snobbery. Ever the gentleman, Ed joked in response: “Success is when all the right people hate you.”

Hot Air now has two of the hardest working men in the blogosphere on board full-time– and one very lucky boss. As has been the case from launch, we’ll agree on many issues. But not all. We have an eclectic mix of conservative-to-libertarian perspectives, distinctive interests, life experiences, and styles. What unites Allah, Ed, and me: Hot Air’s company goal of informing, entertaining, and keeping you plugged in with piping hot blog commentary, headlines, political analysis, original reporting, video and other multimedia offerings all day, every day.

Learn. Enjoy. Laugh. Share. Vent. Mobilize. And always stay tuned.

I want to first wish the Captain a hearty congratulations!

Being on Malkin's team clearly provides the entree needed to move up in the growing conservative media community in radio and alternative journalism platforms on the web (for more on similar media developments, see the New York Times' story on progressive blogger Josh Marshall of Talking Points Memo, via Memeorandum).

But I'd also note further that the Captain's new voyage raises important questions of blogging journalism and integrity. Malkin's brand is perhaps the most in-your-face style of take-no-prisoners conservatism around. Ed Morrissey, on the other hand, is a voice of conservative reason who often works hard to pull right-wing bloggers back from the brink of extremism.

So it's not unreasonable to speculate as to how things will work out for both Morrissey and Hot Air.

The Captain obviously will now have an even bigger venue for the distribution of his political commentary, which is frankly some of the best on the web.

Yet at the same time, with the nature of Hot Air's centrality in the far-right echo chamber (and its considerable contributions to phenomena like the recent outburst of "McCain Derangement Syndrome"), there's some risk that Morrissey might lose his critical stance of right-of-center moderation, getting pulled - as in quicksand - down into Malkin's right-wing vortex.

On the other hand, Morissey might have the opposite offect on Hot Air. While he's not likely to turn Michelle Malkin into a Rockefeller Republican anytime soon, those conservatives who like good, incisive commentary - and those who realize that purity at the expense of victory this November would be a colossal mistake - the Captain might succeed in adding a tone of conservative statesmanship to the debates among the right-wing commentariat.

Let's hope things develop along this second track I've laid out.

See also Morrissey's farewell post at Captain's Quarters: "The Road Goes Ever On," as well as the additional commentary at Memeorandum.

GOP to Combat Charges of Racism, Sexism

The Republican National Committee is researching possible strategies to rebut likely allegations of racism and sexism as party officials prepare to campaign against the nation's first black or woman presidential candidate.

From the Politico:

Top Republican strategists are working on plans to protect the GOP from charges of racism or sexism in the general election, as they prepare for a presidential campaign against the first ever African-American or female Democratic nominee.
The Republican National Committee has commissioned polling and focus groups to determine the boundaries of attacking a minority or female candidate, according to people involved. The secretive effort underscores the enormous risk senior GOP operatives see for a party often criticized for its insensitivity to minorities in campaigns dating back to the 1960s.

The RNC project is viewed as so sensitive that those involved in the work were reluctant to discuss the findings in detail. But one Republican strategist, who asked that his name be withheld to speak candidly, said the research shows the daunting and delicate task ahead.

Republicans will be told to “be sensitive to tone and stick to the substance of the discussion” and that “the key is that you have to be sensitive to the fact that you are running against historic firsts,” the strategist explained.

In other words, Republicans should expect a severe backlash if they say or do anything that smacks of politicizing race or gender. They didn’t need an expensive poll to learn that lesson, however.

This should not be surprising.

Last week's news of Michelle Obama's senior's thesis at Princeton generated considerable talk of affirmative action, quotas, and accusations of right-wing conservative bigotry.

Afghanistan and Iraq: The Long-Term Commitments

Anthony Cordesman, of the Center for Strategic and International Studies, can hardly be considered a neoconservative war-booster. His analyses of the Iraq war have more often been of the glass-half-empty variety than not.

This makes it all the more important that his recent strategic assessments have been increasingly upbeat (for example, see his new report, "The Situation From Iraq: A Briefing From the Battlefield").

Over at the Washington Post, Cordesman makes the case that both Afghanistan and Iraq are "winnable wars," with the U.S. military in a commanding position in every province in Iraq, while at the same time facing the increasing possibility of a Taliban victory in Afghanistan.

Both wars remain winnable, argues Cordesman, although much depends on American public support, and especially the strategic dispositions of U.S. political leaders:

What the situations in Iraq and Afghanistan have in common is that it will take a major and consistent U.S. effort throughout the next administration at least to win either war. Any American political debate that ignores or denies the fact that these are long wars is dishonest and will ensure defeat. There are good reasons that the briefing slides in U.S. military and aid presentations for both battlefields don't end in 2008 or with some aid compact that expires in 2009. They go well beyond 2012 and often to 2020.

If the next president, Congress and the American people cannot face this reality, we will lose. Years of false promises about the speed with which we can create effective army, police and criminal justice capabilities in Iraq and Afghanistan cannot disguise the fact that mature, effective local forces and structures will not be available until 2012 and probably well beyond. This does not mean that U.S. and allied force levels cannot be cut over time, but a serious military and advisory presence will probably be needed for at least that long, and rushed reductions in forces or providing inadequate forces will lead to a collapse at the military level.

The most serious problems, however, are governance and development. Both countries face critical internal divisions and levels of poverty and unemployment that will require patience. These troubles can be worked out, but only over a period of years. Both central governments are corrupt and ineffective, and they cannot bring development and services without years of additional aid at far higher levels than the Bush administration now budgets. Blaming weak governments or trying to rush them into effective action by threatening to leave will undercut them long before they are strong enough to act.

Any American political leader who cannot face these realities, now or in the future, will ensure defeat in both Iraq and Afghanistan. Any Congress that insists on instant victory or success will do the same. We either need long-term commitments, effective long-term resources and strategic patience -- or we do not need enemies. We will defeat ourselves.

Of all the strategic analysts I study, I place tremendous trust in Cordesman assessments. He's just scrupulous in his even-handedness - a quality that's hard to deny, even when I disagee with his conclusions.

In this case, for example, I'm obviously more bullish on Iraq (having at least once declared victory in the war), and on Afghanistan I see the picture one more of resources and will than of any long-term military disadvantage.

But I have no disagreement on Cordesman's main point here: We need historic, long-term commitments on Afghanistan and Iraq, no less important than those we made after World War II. The price of peace in this sense appears staggering - especially for those blinded by antiwar derangement - but such costs are not unusual in the history of American foreign policy. We can and should pay the bills.

Photo Credit: New York Times, "Choosing Which War to Fight."

Right Wing Bloggers to Vote McCain

A fascinating but absolutely non-scientific survey of right-wing bloggers finds 75 percent indicating they'll vote for John McCain in November.

From Right Wing News:

Right Wing News emailed more than 240 right-of-center bloggers and asked them to answer 9 questions. The following 59 blogs responded:

Aaron's CC, Absinthe & Cookies, The Absurd Report, Argghhhh!, AtlanticBlog, Baldilocks, Betsy's Page, Blonde Sagacity, Bluey Blog, Keith Burgess-Jackson, Lorie Byrd, The Captain's Journal, Conservative Grapevine, Dispatches from Blogblivion, Classical Values, Dr. Melissa Clouthier, Conservatives With Attitude (Hank), Conservatives With Attitude (Michael), Dr. Helen, Eckernet, Musings, Cassy Fiano, Fraters Libertas, David Frum's Blog, Jeff Gannon - A Voice of the New Media, GayPatriot, GraniteGrok, Mary Katharine Ham's Blog, JackLewis, (Brian) Liberty Pundit, Likelihood of Success, Midnight Blue, Moonbattery, mountaineer musings, The Jawa Report, Newsbeat1, Nosiy Room, No Oil For Pacifists, (Buckley) The Nose On Your Face, (Potfry) The Nose On Your Face, Pal2pal, Pirate's Cove, QandO, Reformed Chicks Blabbing, Riehl World View, Right Thinking From The Left Coast, Right Wing Rocker, Samizdata, Say Anything, Don Singleton, Sister Toldjah, Slobokan's Site Of Schtuff, The Smallest Minority, Solomonia , Southern Appeal, dcthornton.com, Townhall (Katie), Trying To Grok, WILLisms.

The bloggers were asked to select answers to the following questions...[see original post].

Right Wing News also queried the bloggers on McCain's ideological credentials: "Do you consider John McCain to be a conservative?" Sixty-six percent said "no."

So, are conservatives rallying to McCain? It's too early to tell.

A look at the list indicates a few conservative heavyweights responding to the questionnaire, although the poll suffered significantly from a steep non-response rate.

Nevertheless, hats off to Right Wing News for putting out considerable effort to survey top conservative bloggers. The results aren't definitive - although a decent statistically-insignificant baseline, at the least.

Republicans Rallying to McCain?

The spin on the post-NYT smear campaign against John McCain is that the GOP pre-nomination rift is healed.

Sure, the Politico reports that the right's rallied only eluctantly behind the Arizona Senator; and I've noted previously that some of the far-right's talk radio mandarins exploited the McCain blow-up to their own advantage.

Still, I do think we're seeing the GOP starting to finally pull together behind the party's nominee-in-waiting. Steve Chapman makes the case that the Times' hit piece episode marks the turning point in the Republican race:

Those who had been angered by McCain's gentle treatment by liberal journalists were angered to see him handled roughly by the same scribes. They quit attacking McCain and began blasting The New York Times, which had given them plenty of ammunition. Note to the Times: When Sean Hannity sounds like the voice of responsible journalism, you've done something wrong.

And with that, the great Republican civil war was pretty much over. Conservatives will never embrace McCain for his views on immigration, campaign finance or global warming. But they may come to echo what was said about Grover Cleveland when he was nominated for president in 1884: "We love him most for the enemies he has made."

The closing of the rift should come as no surprise. After eight years in which they were about the only people to stick with the Republican president, conservatives have gotten used to thinking of the GOP as a wholly owned subsidiary of the right. In reality, though, they have never gained full control of the party, and as the pending McCain nomination suggests, they probably never will.

The party has long consisted of two groups, who might be called Eisenhower Republicans and Goldwater Republicans. In their narrative, conservatives relate a straight line of succession from Barry Goldwater to Ronald Reagan to George W. Bush. In fact, the party took some major detours on the way.

After Goldwater in 1964, it veered toward the center, settling on Richard Nixon and then Gerald Ford. When Reagan neared the end of his presidency, GOP voters could have elevated any of several conservative candidates, including Jack Kemp, Paul Laxalt and Pat Robertson. Instead, they chose George H.W. Bush, long considered the embodiment of bland, moderate, East Coast Republicanism.

In 1996, the party faithful passed up Pat Buchanan, Steve Forbes, Phil Gramm and Dan Quayle in favor of Bob Dole, whom Reaganites once branded the "tax collector for the welfare state." Even in 2000, George W. Bush raised some suspicions on the right, due to his centrist pedigree and his habit of calling himself a "compassionate conservative," lest anyone mistake him for that other kind.

In the end, Bush won over conservatives, partly thanks to opposition from their nemesis, John McCain. But polls then showed that most Republicans, far from embracing Bush's support of tax cuts, preferred to concentrate on reducing the national debt. Theirs was, and is, a conservative party, but not that conservative. Hence, McCain.

The experience of the last 40 years shows two things. One is that conservatives can never be sure of getting their kind of presidential nominee. The other is that, as far as the fortunes of the party are concerned, it doesn't matter. Once the nomination is assured, the Republican candidate will always embrace conservative themes, and conservatives will close ranks behind him.

Some Malkin-tents are still getting in their digs, but overall we're seeing a recession of McCain Derangement Syndrome: Conservatives do seem to be closing ranks, although I'm not holding my breath for the likes of Coulter, Ingraham, Limbaugh, or Malkin.

If these contingents really vote Hillary or sit out the election, purity will indeed have prevailed over reason.

Nader's Presidential Bid a Boon to GOP

I pretty much expected Ralph Nader to enter the race for the presidency at some point, and I'm glad he did (as long as he can't win anything!).

He's more likely to draw votes from the Democrats than the Republicans (the 2000 Florida results attest to that).

Here's the Politico with more on the story (via Memeorandum):

Ralph Nader announced on NBC's "Meet the Press" that he'll run as a third-party, anti-corporate candidate for president this fall, which would be likely to drain votes from the Democratic nominee and provide a huge boon to Republicans.

Democrats say they will work behind the scenes — and use court challenges, if necessary — to try to thwart his access to ballots.

The longtime consumer activist said on "Meet the Press" that Washington has become "corporate occupied territory" and that none of the current presidential candidates are sufficiently addressing corporate crime, labor rights or Pentagon waste.

"In that context, I have decided to run for president," he told host Tim Russert.

Nader’s comments mirror those made in an interview with Politico last month, when he said he was considering a candidacy around "the overriding issue of corporate control, of our political economy and anything else the dogma of commercialism wants to latch on to."

Democrats and bloggers are already reacting with fury, fearing a rerun of 2000, when Nader drained crucial votes from Al Gore.

"'Loathe' isn't a strong enough word," said a senior adviser to the Clinton campaign.

The immediate question for Democrats is whether they'll be as ruthless as they were in 2004 in throwing procedural obstacles in the way of Nader's access to the ballot in key states.

Nader has a pending lawsuit against the Democratic National Committee on the issue and recently told Politico that he would make ballot access a central cause of a presidential campaign, which he restated on television Sunday morning.

He also said Sunday that he saw some overlap between his positions and those of libertarian-leaning Republican presidential candidate Ron Paul.

"His position on corporatism is taking some people who think the overriding political issue is corporate domination," he said. "But he has positions which are not acceptable — like he wants to abolish the regulatory agencies I helped create."

From the looks of this, the Democrats will need to siphon resources to fight Nader on ballot access issues, which helps the GOP as the party seeks to narrow the gap on measures like party finance and voter enthusiasm.

Nader's stated ideological affinity for Ron Paul is freaky. Thank goodness he's got a snowball's chance of winning anything.

Who's the Election's Neoconservative Standard-Bearer?

Candidates talk a lot about change, and this year's no exception. But once in office we often see the implementation of policies different from prominent campaign pledges.

If that's so this year, we might see the candidate who's elected sticking with the country's basic direction if foreign policy, and thus the Bush administration's neoconservative ascendency may get a fresh squall of wind at its back.

Jacob Heilbrunn examines which candidate is the most neonconservative this year, at the National Interest:

On the surface, McCain easily wins that contest. He’s a longtime pal of William Kristol, who, along with David Brooks, has been flogging his candidacy on an almost weekly basis in the New York Times, admonishing conservatives that they need to get behind McCain. McCain exemplifies the kind of Winston Churchill figure that the neocons worship—a warrior turned politician, who also writes books on the side. For the neocons, who want to, as they put it, "remoralize" America, McCain is the genuine article, at least in terms of his talk of valor and manhood. McCain advisor Randy Scheunemann, former president of the Committee for the Liberation of Iraq, has been working overtime to defend him against the charge that’s he’s soft when it comes to Israel. But whether McCain is himself a neocon is another matter. He has both realist (Henry Kissinger) and neocon advisors (Robert Kagan). He may talk tough about stopping Iran from getting nuclear weapons, but there’s no certainty that McCain would actually attack it. Still, if McCain becomes president, it would be a field day for the neocons, as fellow-travelers like former UN ambassador John Bolton are likely to get top posts and battle the realists for influence in the administration.

What about Senator Hillary Clinton (D-NY)? To judge from her numerous detractors on the left of the Democratic Party, she’s a neocon in all but name. The truth is that the border between liberal hawk and neocon has always been a murky one, and Hillary’s advisors, including Richard Holbrooke and Michael O’Hanlon, are no shrinking violets when it comes to the use of force abroad. O’Hanlon might even be called a professional sanitizer of neocon views, given his recent, rosy assessment of the Iraq War.

And Hillary herself, of course, has taken a tough line on Iran, including voting on September 27, 2008 for a nonbinding resolution that declares the Iranian Revolutionary Guard a terrorist organization. She wouldn’t hesitate to bomb Iran if she thought it was necessary; according to Gail Sheehy’s account in Vanity Fair a few years ago, Hillary was pushing Bill to attack the Serbs militarily. She and Madeleine "The Indispensable Nation" Albright are chums and probably see eye to eye on foreign policy. But forget about high politics for a moment. Perhaps Hillary resembles a neocon most in her character: she doesn’t hesitate to impugn the motives of her opponents, sees the world as filled with personal enemies, surrounds herself with a cabal, lacks credibility and is constantly plotting to increase her own power. In addition, many pundits view her with suspicion and hostility, which has also become the fate of the neocon movement.

So at first glance, Barack Obama might appear to be the least likely candidate to maintain the neocon crusade. He’s been espousing the Rodney King theory of international relations—can’t we all just get along? But Obama is pushing an idealistic vision that bears some neoconservative imprints. He’s pushing his own kind of democratization crusade, based not on weapons, but on the notion that the United States can set an example for the rest of the world, which is to say he appears to believe in American exceptionalism. He’s left no distance between himself and pro-Israel Democrats. And with Samantha Power as an advisor, the question about the distance between liberal hawks and neoconservatives once again emerges. Power, as her Pulitzer Prize–winning book A Problem From Hell indicates, believes that the real problem in American foreign policy is that the United States has not been active enough in halting human rights abuses around the world. An Obama administration, no less than a Clinton one, would almost surely view America as the indispensable nation and might well yield to the temptation to intervene abroad militarily in the name of humanitarian missions.

Whether such impulses are neoconservative or simply older American Wilsonian traditions is probably a matter of semantics. For now it’s enough to watch what the candidates promise—knowing that the results of what they actually do may be rather different, which is something, come to think of it, that neoconservatives have developed a specialty in.

Heilbrunn's provided an excellent opening for a discussion of the foreign policy diferences among the candidates.

Yet it's odd he's omitted what both Clinton and Obama would do on Iraq: Implement an immediate withdrawal.

Clinton's repeatedly promised to initiate a troop withdrawal within sixty days of taking office, and Obama's stump speeches have become more shrill in his denunciations of the war effort. Both candidates spent 2007 demonizing General David Petraeus.

Still, I agree that Clinton's personal characer is basically neoconservative, but Heilbrunn leaves out one key element: She's like silly putty in the hands of the Democratic Party's activist base. She'll twist and turn on an issue to satisfy any constituency.

She's John Kerry's evil twin on Iraq, classically voting for the war before she was against it. I doubt she'll be as firm on Iran as Heilbrunn suggests. If her husband's administration is any indication of a renewed Clintonesque foreign policy, we'll see lofty rhetoric, perhaps an airstrike here or there, but any longer term commitment - especially involving a sustained role for ground troops - will likely be out of the question.

The truth is, on Iraq McCain's unbeatable, which has largely neutralized national security as a campaign issue.

What about America's larger role in the world? Are all the candidates equally neoconservative?

Again, I'm surprised at Heilbrunn, who's just written a book on the movement, for his failure to clarify differences on international institutions.

Neoconservatives are suspicous of multilateral institutions, preferring the exercise of raw hegemomic power to the Lilliputian effects of action under the auspices of U.N.-type organizations.

This is why Heilbrunn's point about Samantha Power and Obama is particularly interesting. Power, a Harvard human rights specialist, has been AWOL on the Iraq war, instead pumping up - George Clooney-style - a U.S.-led multinational incursions into countries like the Sudan.

The feeling here is that the exercise of American military might for humanitarian purposes is fine, but the deployment of American capabilities for the power politics of national-security regime change is pretty much off the table.

In this sense, then, McCain remains the true neoconservative in the race. On the basis of his Churchillian eloquence and his staunch record as a national security hawk, McCain's neoconservative aim is true.

Republicans Emerge As Country's Coalition Party

Fred Barnes makes the case for a reversal of roles between the two major parties. The Democrats have long been a party of fissiparous interests, pulling and tugging their candidates every which way. The Republicans, on the other hand, are known for their small number of key contingents who pull together to rally around a frontrunner.

The parties have traded places this year:

In 2008, the parties have reversed roles. You merely have to watch a Democratic presidential debate to realize Democrats are now the consensus party. On everything that matters--Iraq, taxes, immigration, health care, the war on terrorism--Democrats basically agree. Their debates sound like an echo chamber.

In contrast, Republicans have become a party of squabbling ideological groups that John McCain must bring together if he is to win the presidency this fall. With McCain as their nominee--one with whom many conservatives have disagreements-- Republicans have become the coalition party.

I've made similar arguments (see especially, "McCain Forging New GOP Coalition), but I particulary liked Barnes' discussion of Barack Obama's sheltered political existence in the Democratic Party's ideological echo chamber:

In his brief political career, Obama has experienced the easy life. He's rated by the National Journal as the most liberal member of the Senate, but he's never had to defend his liberal views. Certainly in the 18 televised Democratic debates this year, including last week's Texas faceoff with Hillary Clinton, he hasn't. The debates have been liberal lovefests.

Hillary Clinton argues that she'd be a better Democratic nominee because she has been forced to deal with what she calls "the Republican attack machine," and he hasn't. She has a point. Perhaps Obama, if he's the Democratic nominee, will be able to dismiss Republican attacks as easily as he's brushed off Clinton's criticism of him on minor points and peripheral issues. But I doubt it.

Obama has barely had to respond to Clinton at all, since their disagreements are so trivial. She says some of his words are "change you can Xerox" because he plagiarized a tiny portion of his stump speech. His answer in last week's debate was, "C'mon." That won't suffice when McCain insists Obama's plan for Iraq would amount to pulling defeat out of the jaws of victory.

Iraq is an example of a major issue that Obama has not been forced to think through because of the Democratic party's consensus. He has made no adjustment for the success of the surge in Iraq, scarcely even acknowledging that the violence-wracked, politically polarized country of a year ago is no longer the Iraq of today.

The surge isn't a problem for McCain. Getting Republicans to coalesce around him is. Since Ronald Reagan was the party's presidential candidate in 1980, Republicans have lined up reflexively behind their usually conservative nominee. But McCain is anything but a reliable conservative.

So he must, first, attract strong conservatives, including the talk radio hosts who've often zinged him for being insufficiently conservative. McCain has little margin for error. He needs to win the overwhelming backing of social and religious conservatives, too. He must attract the relatively small contingent who've supported Ron Paul to prevent Paul from running as a third party libertarian candidate for president. (Paul says he has no plans to do this.)

It took no effort for McCain to round up Republican moderates. He's their guy. And he's gotten the George Bush wing with endorsements from Jeb and the elder George.

Conservatives may not admit it, but their failure to nominate one of their own may turn out to be a godsend in 2008. It's precisely the things they don't like about McCain--things I'm not crazy about either--that make him a tough target for Democrats: torture, Guantánamo, global warming, guns, stem cells.

Then there's bipartisanship or, as Obama puts it, bringing us together. This is the core of Obama's appeal. It allows him to campaign not from his ideological home on the left but from somewhere above the fray, somewhere in the heavens.

McCain, alone among Republicans, can bring him back to earth. Obama talks about crossing the partisan aisle and ending polarization, but he's never done it in any serious way. McCain specializes in it--one more thing infuriating many Republicans. He's joined with Democrats on campaign finance reform, immigration, global warming, judicial nominations, and a lot more.

Imagine a presidential debate this fall between McCain and Obama, the coalition candidate versus the consensus candidate. McCain, for sure, would skewer him on national security, the war on terrorism, taxes, and spending. Would Obama dare invoke his signature response and claim McCain is being divisive and partisan and we must rise above such disagreements? If he did, would it work?

Many hardcore McCain opponents among the conservative base hate to admit this, and many remain committed to sitting out the election.

But on the key issues faces us this year - on fiscal policy, healthcare, personal responsiblity, and the war in Iraq - the differences between the candidates are stark.

The left hoped for a Mitt Romney nomination, a candidate they could have torn to shreds on ideological inconsistencies and inexperience. Not so with the Arizona Senator: McCain's an endless nightmare to the big government surrender forces of the America-bashing, nihilist left.

The West is Best

Ibn Warraq argues for the superiority of the West, at City Journal:

The great ideas of the West—rationalism, self-criticism, the disinterested search for truth, the separation of church and state, the rule of law and equality under the law, freedom of thought and expression, human rights, and liberal democracy—are superior to any others devised by humankind. It was the West that took steps to abolish slavery; the calls for abolition did not resonate even in Africa, where rival tribes sold black prisoners into slavery. The West has secured freedoms for women and racial and other minorities to an extent unimaginable 60 years ago. The West recognizes and defends the rights of the individual: we are free to think what we want, to read what we want, to practice our religion, to live lives of our choosing.

In short, the glory of the West, as philosopher Roger Scruton puts it, is that life here is an open book. Under Islam, the book is closed. In many non-Western countries, especially Islamic ones, citizens are not free to read what they wish. In Saudi Arabia, Muslims are not free to convert to Christianity, and Christians are not free to practice their faith—clear violations of Article 18 of the United Nations’ Universal Declaration of Human Rights. In contrast with the mind-numbing enforced certainties and rules of Islam, Western civilization offers what Bertrand Russell once called “liberating doubt,” which encourages the methodological principle of scientific skepticism. Western politics, like science, proceeds through tentative steps of trial and error, open discussion, criticism, and self-correction.

Read the whole thing.

Another excellent defense of the West, from the British perspective, is Tony Blair's, "A Battle for Global Values."

Happy reading!

Americans See China as World Economic Leader

Public opinion pollling in recent months has found Americans to be increasingly pessimistic on the direction of the country.

One of the most recent indicators of such sentiment is the new Gallup finding that a plurality of Americans sees China as the world's dominant country in global economic relations:

In a sharp turnaround from eight years ago, Americans no longer believe the United States is the world's leading economic power. They are now more likely to bestow that mantle on China.

According to Gallup's annual World Affairs survey, updated Feb. 11-14, 2008, 4 in 10 Americans consider China to be the world's leading economic power; only 33% choose the United States. By contrast, in May 2000, the United States dominated public perceptions on this question, with 65% saying it was No.1.

Nearly all of the movement away from the United States as the perceived leading economic power has gone toward China. The percentages today choosing Japan, the European Union, and India are about what they were in 2000.

The United States' drop on this measure is nearly as sharp as the decline in U.S. consumer confidence over the same period. In a May 2000 Gallup Poll, when the country was still riding the dot-com boom, 66% of Americans rated economic conditions in the country as "excellent" or "good." Today, with the country poised on the edge of recession, only 23% are positive about the economy.

Eight years ago, most Americans (55%) were confident the United States would retain its No. 1 economic positioning for at least the next two decades. Few believed China, Japan, or the EU would overtake the United States. Now, when asked to look ahead 20 years, more Americans predict China, rather than the United States, will be the world's leading economic power.

Notably, not many more Americans think China will advance to the economic superpower position in 20 years (44%) than think it is already there (40%). About a third believe the United States will be the top economic power, similar to the percentage naming it as the leading economic power today. Relatively few Americans expect Japan, the EU, India, or Russia to emerge as the top economic superpower.

Appropriately, the Gallup piece puts public opinion in perspective. The fact is the U.S. is not likely to be overtaken by China soon, nor has China's growth knocked other international peer competitors from the top ranks of the great powers:

When considered against the backdrop of China's enormous population, the story of China's explosive economic growth over the last few decades (averaging 9.6% annual growth in GDP since 1978) can seem formidable. According to a recent Newsweek article, "In 2007 China contributed more to global growth than the United States, the first time another country had done so since at least the 1930s."

Still, according to the most recent World Bank figures, the United States leads the world in economic output (as measured by GDP), and by a substantial margin over second-ranked Japan. China has been making impressive strides in climbing the rank order of national economies, rising from sixth in the world in 2000 to fourth in 2006, but still falls below the United States, Germany, and Japan.

Americans' misperceptions about the economic rank order of nations also overlook Japan's stature on the economic playing field, ranking second worldwide. Also, although few Americans mention the EU as an economic powerhouse, 5 of the EU's 27 member countries, including third-place Germany, rank in the top 10 of the world's largest economies.

Gallup notes simply that Americans are in a funk, which contributes to the likely findings that China's taken the lead in the global economy.

See also Daniel Drezner's recent piece, "The Eagle Still Soars: Reports of America's Demise Have Been Greatly Exaggerated."

The General Election Begins

It's been clear this last couple of weeks that Barak Obama's got ineluctable momentum. Things became pretty certain after the Illinois Senator swept the Potomac primaries, and a sense of Obama inevitability was confirmed with his win in Wisconsin the following week.

Michael Barone discusses the shift in focus away from Hillary Clinton to Barack Obama, and how we're increasingly seeing in essence a general election matchup between Obama and John McCain. It's fairly clear by now that Clinton's not likely to make a comeback (despite her claims she's not conceding the race):

She could win the nomination only with the votes of super-delegates or by counting the results in Florida and Michigan, where the national party commanded candidates not to compete.

Either move will strike many Obama enthusiasts -- and others -- as profoundly unfair. The way Clinton has run her campaign -- like the way she ran health care reform in 1993-94 -- undercuts her claim to be ready for the presidency from day one. In both cases, she had no fallback strategy, no Plan B, in case her best-case scenario failed to come to pass. She started campaigning in Wisconsin only last Saturday and had to cancel her events because of a snowstorm. Didn't anyone check weather.com?

If you look at the numbers, if the general election were held today, Barack Obama would beat John McCain by a solid margin. (McCain would beat Clinton -- another reason the super-delegates are unlikely to foist her on the party.) But the performances of the candidates on primary night -- and the performances of their wives on Monday and Tuesday -- suggests that may not always be the case.

Obama's cut-and-paste job does respond to the complaint that he is without substance. But it's hard to mix poetry and prose and come up with an appealing product. Particularly when, as columnist Robert Samuelson points out, there's not much that's interesting about the substance.

Then there are the wives. In Milwaukee on Monday, Michelle Obama, who has spoken frequently in the campaign, said: "Hope is making a comeback, and let me tell you, for the first time in my adult life, I am proud of my country. Not just because Barack is doing well, but I think people are hungry for change."

For the first time in her life? Coming from the realm in which Michelle Obama has lived her adult life -- Princeton, Harvard Law, a top law firm, a $342,000-a year job doing community relations for the University of Chicago hospital system -- this may not sound out of the ordinary. As Samuel Huntington has pointed out, people in this stratum tend to have transnational attitudes -- all nations are morally equal, except maybe for ours, which is worse.

This is not, to say the least, the view of most Americans, including very many who regularly vote Democratic. And it undercuts Barack Obama's most appealing rhetoric, which emphasizes what Americans have in common.

Cindy McCain, who ordinarily doesn't speak in public, picked up on this immediately. On Tuesday, she made a point of saying, several times, that she has always been proud of America. On election night, John McCain said he was "proud, proud of the privilege" of being an American.

I remember the electric feeling in the hall, at the first Republican National Convention I attended, in 1984, when Lee Greenwood belted out his country hit, "I'm proud to be an American." I don't believe that I've heard it at any Democratic National Convention, and I'm pretty sure that some nontrivial number of the delegates would find it off-putting, even obnoxious.

Barack Obama has explained that his wife was just saying that she was proud for the first time of her country's politics. But that's not what she said, and said with considerable emphasis. Tuesday night seemed to be the beginning of the general election campaign. But what was said on Monday may prove to be just as important.

I've made a similar point here. While some commenters have suggested that it's hasty or unproductive to focus on Michelle Obama's statements, I see them as part and parcel to the larger Obama message.

Barack's last few victory speeches have been considerably dour, for example, calling for unconditional surrender in Iraq.

McCain's message - muddled as it's been by recent media controversy - is likely to resonate with that great majority of Americans who love their country and want strong, seasoned leadership in the White House.

If the Obamas keep playing things the way they have, the Democratic Party can forget about reversing the GOP advantage in the conservative states of the Electoral College.

New York Times Hit Piece Pumps McCain Rally

The New York Times' wacky smear against GOP nominee-in-waiting John McCain has boomeranged to the Arizona Sentator's advantage:

Senator John McCain declared the battle over on Friday morning, but by then his lieutenants believed he had already won the war.

Conservative radio talk show hosts who had long reviled Mr. McCain, the Republican presidential candidate from Arizona, had rallied to his defense. Bloggers on the right said that this could be the start of a new relationship. Most telling, Mr. McCain’s campaign announced Friday afternoon that it had just recorded its single-best 24 hours in online fund-raising, although it declined to provide numbers.

Both sides traced the senator’s sudden fortunes to an unusual source, The New York Times, which on Wednesday night published on its Web site an article about Mr. McCain’s close ties to a female lobbyist who did business before the senator’s committee. That evening, two of the senator’s top advisers, Mark Salter and Steve Schmidt, flew to an emergency strategy session in Toledo, Ohio, where Mr. McCain was campaigning.

By Thursday morning, when the article appeared in the print editions of The Times, the McCain campaign had begun an aggressive attack against the newspaper, calling the article a smear campaign worthy of The National Enquirer. It was a symphony to the ears of Mr. McCain’s conservative critics.

Operating on the principle that the enemy of my enemy is my friend, many conservatives who had long distrusted Mr. McCain on a variety of issues, including his peculiar fondness for talking to reporters for hours on end, rallied to see him at war with a newspaper they revile as a voice of the left. (In fact, Mr. McCain said only that he was “disappointed” with the newspaper, and left the incendiary attacks to his surrogates.)

“This is the most despicable act of liberal bias that I have seen in my life,” Sean Hannity, the conservative talk show host, said Thursday about the Times article. “They wanted you to come to a conclusion, and that is that Senator McCain had some kind of relationship with a female lobbyist and did special favors for her. It is beyond disgusting and despicable.”

Charles Black, a senior McCain adviser who had taken heat from conservative friends after the editorial board of The Times endorsed Mr. McCain in the Feb. 5 New York primary, was pleased. Thursday, Mr. Black said, “was the first day in the campaign that McCain won the day on conservative talk radio.”

Later that afternoon, the McCain campaign began using The Times in an fund-raising appeal sent by e-mail to supporters. “Well, here we go,” the letter from Mr. McCain’s campaign manager, Rick Davis, began, then outlined what it characterized as the newspaper’s smear campaign. Mr. Davis quickly got to the point: “We need your help to counteract the liberal establishment and fight back against The New York Times by making an immediate contribution today.”

By Friday, the campaign was tracing its jump in fund-raising directly to the article in The Times. “Thank you,” Mr. Schmidt said to a Times reporter on Mr. McCain’s campaign plane as it headed back to Washington from Indianapolis. Then he added to a group of reporters, “There was a lot of outrage across the country on the story, and the campaign has raised a lot of money in the last 24 hours.”

Even those conservatives who did not rush to embrace Mr. McCain said his campaign’s condemnations of The Times might have given him an indirect boost, although some were not yet ready to support Mr. McCain’s campaign.

Even those who didn't rush to embrace McCain? You mean the ones who couldn't say "I told you so" fast enough as they sought to attack two opponents with one stone?

See also, "McCain Turns Tables on Times."

Photo Credit: New York Times

The Audacity of Victory

Disaster, quagmire, catastrophe, failure. Like witches cackling about a bubbly cauldron, critics and critiques enchant and re enchant a totally cursed cacophony. A pox on Pax Americana, defeat, retreat and repeat.

Such inappropiate (and boring) wickedness summoned something more than shades, spectres and hissing dissing daemoneocon denounciations.

It also requires a retarded redux more see through than Lindsay's see through Marilyn redux.

Decorated ex Combat historian and all around America Rocks y'all! PHD Bevin Alexander prophesied that chairborne handwringers, ex and future (maybe?) policy makers, are either educated doofuses, in heat with defeat or (even worse) - academic deceivers

"Many critics of American foreign policy - both at home and abroad - assert
that the United States has overextended herself unnecessarily in other
nations affairs. Some liberal critcs even chastise the United States for
becoming an "Imperial Power."

These criticisms are completely off the mark. Those who worry about America's projection of power are overlooking how America got to the position she occupies at this moment in history: the world's dominant political and military, the only nation that will actually go into the world and strike down evil."

This is significant. For Great Satan, "National Interest" is not a 'geo mapi - graphical' phrase (well maybe for trade and enviro regulating) it is global. Tiny and small nations might appropiately feel that their nat'l interest begin and end at the border. Natch, their foreign policy would most likely be defensive only.

A larger nation has more extensive interests - by design. Like Soviet Union time Russia and Great Satan today - collective ID is ideological, big boys have ideological interests in addition to purely materialistic concerns.

Sans something weird and unheard of, Great Satan will always feel bound and obliged to defend any democracy under the gun from unfree, unhinged and undemocratic threats - external or internal.

*********

Read the rest at Great Satan's Girlfriend.

Women's Studies is History?

Diplomatic and military historians may be getting the last word on the culture wars in academe. Women's studies may be on the way out:

Women's studies is about to disappear as an undergraduate degree in the UK. But is it because it is no longer relevant or because it has done its job by putting the issues in the mainstream? Esther Oxford weighs up the arguments.

It is all a far cry from the heyday for women's studies in the late Eighties and early Nineties. In the past two decades, departments across Britain have been forced to integrate into other departments or to close outright. Only MAs and PhDs appear to be surviving the cull.

One problem has been the sustained attack on women's studies as a "soft" subject appealing to fringe elements and perpetuating old-fashioned, irrelevant debates. Women and society have moved on, say critics, but women's studies remains framed by the politics of a particular time, namely the feminist movement of the Seventies.

"The work of women's studies classes is very sophisticated," counters Mary Evans, professor of women's studies at the University of Kent and also a visiting fellow at the London School of Economics. "There has been a great deal of openingup of ideas that weren't previously discussed and a lot of diverse conclusions as a result of the pedagogy of women's studies."

Jackie Stacey, who was director of the now-defunct Institute of Women's Studies at the University of Lancaster, says women's studies courses are "far from being confessional or intellectually sloppy" and that universities lose out by closing women's studies programmes. "I would say to vice-chancellors: you clearly misunderstand the centrality of feminism and its relevance in global debates such as the West versus Islam and world security."

But women's studies has many detractors, including some high-powered female critics. Christina Hoff Summers is former professor of philosophy at Clark University in the US and author of Who Stole Feminism? She argues that women's studies encourages "paranoid theories about patriarchy" and "gets its power from false statistics on how bad things are for women".

Far from coming up with new, invigorating ideas, women's studies professors tend to be "a little intellectually cohesive clique that has never recovered from the Seventies, when that rhetoric of oppression - women as subordinate class - was fashionable," Hoff Summers said in an interview with The Dartmouth Review.

Hoff Summers argues that women's studies appeals to a person who is "hypersensitive and chronically offended" and who wants to view women as a "subordinate class" and men as "oppressors". As a result of this rhetoric, she suggests, students have come to associate feminism with women who are intellectually stilted and angry with men. Feminism has lost its force as a mainstream political movement.

Karen Lehrman, a US author of a book on post-ideological feminism, has also been a pointed critic of some approaches to women's studies. She attended classes at institutions in the US, including Dartmouth College, the University of California, Berkeley, and Smith College, and was disappointed at the "confessional" nature of a "therapeutic pedagogy" that valued students' feelings and experiences "as much as the texts themselves".

That's an interesting development.

Now, if we could just get more conservatives academe!

Michelle Obama's Thesis on the Racial Divide

Michelle Obama's senior thesis at Princeton University has been taken out of circulation by university librarians until November 5. The decision's not unusual during a presidential campaign, although speculation's mounted as to what potentially titilating extracts the manuscript might contain.

Well it turns out that the Politico's obtained a copy, as Jeffrey Ressner explains (via Memeorandum):

Michelle Obama's senior year thesis at Princeton University, obtained from the campaign by Politico, shows a document written by a young woman grappling with a society in which a black Princeton alumnus might only be allowed to remain "on the periphery." Read the full thesis here: Part 1, Part 2, Part 3, Part 4."

My experiences at Princeton have made me far more aware of my 'blackness' than ever before," the future Mrs. Obama wrote in her thesis introduction. "I have found that at Princeton, no matter how liberal and open-minded some of my white professors and classmates try to be toward me, I sometimes feel like a visitor on campus; as if I really don't belong. Regardless of the circumstances underwhich I interact with whites at Princeton, it often seems as if, to them, I will always be black first and a student second."

The thesis, titled "Princeton-Educated Blacks and the Black Community" and written under her maiden name, Michelle LaVaughn Robinson, in 1985, has been the subject of much conjecture on the blogosphere and elsewhere in recent weeks, as it has been "temporarily withdrawn" from Princeton's library until after this year's presidential election in November. Some of the material has been written about previously, however, including a story last year in the Newark Star Ledger.

As you can see, the Politico's posted links to the online manuscript. I haven't read it, although I'm intrigued by Ressner's final two paragraphs in his story:

To research her thesis, the future Mrs. Obama sent an 18-question survey to a sampling of 400 black Princeton graduates, requesting the respondents define the amount of time and "comfort" level spent interacting with blacks and whites before they attended the school, as well as during and after their University years. Other questions dealt with their individual religious beliefs, living arrangements, careers, role models, economic status, and thoughts about lower class blacks. In addition, those surveyed were asked to choose whether they were more in line with a "separationist and/or pluralist" viewpoint or an "integrationist and/or assimilationist" ideology.

Just under 90 alums responded to the questionnaires (for a response rate of approximately 22 percent) and the conclusions were not what she expected. "I hoped that these findings would help me conclude that despite the high degree of identification with whites as a result of the educational and occupational path that black Princeton alumni follow, the alumni would still maintain a certain level of identification with the black community. However, these findings do not support this possibility."

In other words, the hypothesis of increased feelings of racial alienation as students moved through their college experience at Princeton - an institutional bastion of the white power structure - was not confirmed. One might expect that research showing an acceptable level of integration among college students at prestigious university might be cause for celebration, despite the limited sample and marginal generalizability.

Of course, Michelle Obama's a 44 year-old woman today, and one shouldn't make too much of the youthful racial/philosophical ideas of a 20-something college senior.

Still, it's an interesting question as to why a black student at one of the nation's premier universities - in a higher-educational system that by 1985 had begun to bend over backwards in expanding opportunities for previously disadvantaged groups - felt so compelled to confirm research suggesting increasing racial alienation.

But even more intriguing is that Michelle Obama's essentially rejected her own findings on acceptable levels of integration in adopting the left's stereotypical hardcore anti-American ideology. That is, Obama's moved more toward an oppositional ideological position as she's become even more successful in a system her own research showed to be reasonably tolerant.

As I've noted in a number of posts (see here and here), the Obamas are among the nation's black elite. They've enjoyed the fruits of the American dream, only to turn around to denounce the very system that has placed them on the verge of ultimate political power.

Only in America!

See also, "Looking for Substance in a Dangerous Left-Winger," on the myth of Barack's empty platform.

Looking for Substance in a Dangerous Left-Winger

Gerard Baker at the Times of London gets right down to the nitty-gritty on the Obama campaign's anti-Americanism. Is America ready for this dangerous leftwinger?

For most ordinary Americans, those not encumbered with an expensive education or infected by prolonged exposure to cosmopolitan heterodoxy, patriotism is a consequence of birth.

Their chests swell with pride every time they hear the national anthem at sporting events. They fill up with understandable emotion whenever they see a report on television about the tragic heroics of some soldier or Marine who gave his life in Iraq or Afghanistan.

Foreigners don't have to like America - and they've certainly exercised that freedom in the past few years. But most Americans can distinguish between the transience of policy failure and the permanence of the national ideal.

And surely even critics of the US could scarcely deny that there have been real causes for American pride in the past 25 years....

But not, apparently, Michelle Obama, wife of the man who is now the putative Democratic candidate for US president, and at this point favourite to succeed to that job. In what might be the most revealing statement made by any political figure so far in this campaign season, Mrs Obama caused a stir this week. She said that the success of her husband Barack's campaign had marked the first time in her adult life that she had felt pride in her country.

It was not a gaffe, Baker reminds us, and there are lessons to be learned in Mrs. Obama's words:

First, it reinforced the growing sense of unease that even some Obama supporters have felt about the increasingly messianic nature of the candidate's campaign. There's always been a Second Coming quality about Mr Obama's rhetoric. The claim that his electoral successes in places like Nebraska and Wisconsin might transcend all that America has achieved in its history can only add to that worry.

Secondly, and more importantly, I suspect it reveals much about what the Obama family really thinks about the kind of nation that America is. Mrs Obama is surely not alone in thinking not very much about what America has been or done in the past quarter century or more. In fact, it is a trope of the left wing of the Democratic party that America has been a pretty wretched sort of place.

There is a caste of left-wing Americans who wish essentially and in all honesty that their country was much more like France. They wish it had much higher levels of taxation and government intervention, that it had much higher levels of welfare, that it did not have such a “militaristic” approach to foreign policy. Above all, that its national goals were dictated, not by the dreadful halfwits who inhabit godforsaken places like Kansas and Mississippi, but by the counsels of the United Nations.

Though Mr Obama has done a good job, as all recent serious Democrats have done, of emphasising his belief in American virtues, his record and his programme suggest he is firmly in line with this wing of his party.

This, I think, not his inexperience in public office, is the principal threat to Mr Obama's campaign. His increasingly desperate opponent, Hillary Clinton, keeps hammering away that his message is all talk and no substance - and she was joined this week by Mr Obama's likely Republican opponent in the November general election, John McCain.

But if you listen to Mr Obama's speeches, it is not the lack of substance but the quality of it that ought to worry Americans. His victory speech after his latest primary win in Wisconsin this week was a case in point.

You know, it's really gratifying to read these words, as I've been making essentially the same case on this blog for the last week or two.

Look at what Obama says. Far from bereft, there's real substance to his talk of American failure at home and abroad.

See my entries, "Barack Obama's Extraordinary Detail," and "Obama's Substance."

Considering Hillary Clinton nearly conceded in her debate summation last night, an increased focus on Obama's substantive positions is all the more vital.

The Case of the Vanishing Reuters Headline

Abe Greenwald, over at Commentary, sheds some light on Reuters' shady practice of pumping up apparent setbacks in Iraq - a classic hardline retreatist news angle - then burying the story once contradictory information surfaces:

Reuters, the news agency with a policy forbidding the word “terrorist” from their stories and a penchant for printing doctored photos as evidence of Israeli aggression, has done it again.

Yesterday, Reuters posted a story entitled “Sadr Expected to End Truce”, implying it was likely that Iraqi Shiite leader Muqtada al Sadr would end his Mahdi Army’s six-month ceasefire in Iraq. I can’t offer the URL of that story because once their cynical prediction was proved immediately wrong (today, Sadr announced that he’d be extending the ceasefire another six months) the link started bringing me to a new Reuters story entitled (surprise, surprise) “Iraqi Cleric Sadr Extends Militia Ceasefire.” Soon after that, the original headline disappeared from internet searches altogether. The only place on the web I’ve been able to find the old headline (which links to the new story) is way down in the comments section of the firedoglake blog.

For Reuters, flesh-and-blood events of global importance seem to be no more than malleable bits of code. Stories are offered, embellished, and pulled at their discretion. Moreover, this lack of regard for a news-hungry public reveals a consistent bias: deception is okay when expressing opposition to the hopes and aims of the U.S.

The "global importance" Greenwald mentions is exacty the kind of strategic reality the far-left can't face.

One thing I noticed here is how Greenwald's obviously's been spending some time reviewing Firedoglake's nihilist comments section.

I thought I was just about the only neocon willing to wade into the lion's den!!

Unwavering Commitment: Democrats Dug In on Iraq Retreat

There's no progress in Iraq that will satisfy the antiwar left.

Just this morning, Michael Kinsley, for example, argues the "Surge Doesn't Equal Success." Meanwhile, last night's Democratic debate showcased Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama gasping for a breath in their race to see which candidate will surrender faster.

Charles Krauthammer offers his take on this, "Democrats Dug In For Retreat":

"No one can spend some 10 days visiting the battlefields in Iraq without seeing major progress in every area. . . . If the U.S. provides sustained support to the Iraqi government -- in security, governance, and development -- there is now a very real chance that Iraq will emerge as a secure and stable state."

-- Anthony Cordesman,

"The Situation in Iraq: A Briefing From the Battlefield," Feb. 13, 2008

This from a man who was a severe critic of the postwar occupation of Iraq and who, as author Peter Wehner points out, is no wide-eyed optimist. In fact, in May 2006 Cordesman had written that "no one can argue that the prospects for stability in Iraq are good." Now, however, there is simply no denying the remarkable improvements in Iraq since the surge began a year ago.

Unless you're a Democrat. As Joe Lieberman (I-Conn.) put it, "Democrats have remained emotionally invested in a narrative of defeat and retreat in Iraq." Their Senate leader, Harry Reid, declares the war already lost. Their presidential candidates (eight of them at the time) unanimously oppose the surge. Then the evidence begins trickling in.

We get news of the Anbar Awakening, which has now spread to other Sunni areas and Baghdad. The sectarian civil strife that the Democrats insisted was the reason for us to leave dwindles to the point of near disappearance. Much of Baghdad is returning to normal. There are 90,000 neighborhood volunteers -- ordinary citizens who act as auxiliary police and vital informants on terrorist activity -- starkly symbolizing the insurgency's loss of popular support. Captured letters of al-Qaeda leaders reveal despair as they are driven -- mostly by Iraqi Sunnis, their own Arab co-religionists -- to flight and into hiding.

After agonizing years of searching for the right strategy and the right general, we are winning. How do Democrats react? From Nancy Pelosi to Barack Obama, the talking point is the same: Sure, there is military progress. We could have predicted that. (They in fact had predicted the opposite, but no matter.) But it's all pointless unless you get national reconciliation.

"National" is a way to ignore what is taking place at the local and provincial level, such as Shiite cleric Ammar al-Hakim, scion of the family that dominates the largest Shiite party in Iraq, traveling last October to Anbar in an unprecedented gesture of reconciliation with the Sunni sheiks.

Doesn't count, you see. Democrats demand nothing less than federal-level reconciliation, and it has to be expressed in actual legislation....

Despite all the progress, military and political, the Democrats remain unwavering in their commitment to withdrawal on an artificial timetable that inherently jeopardizes our "very real chance that Iraq will emerge as a secure and stable state."

Why? Imagine the transformative effects in the region, and indeed in the entire Muslim world, of achieving a secure and stable Iraq, friendly to the United States and victorious over al-Qaeda. Are the Democrats so intent on denying George Bush retroactive vindication for a war they insist is his that they would deny their own country a now-achievable victory?

The answer is yes, obviously.

Throughout 2007, top Democrats - on the campaign trail and in Congress - repeatedly denounced Iraq as a failure and declared the surge a diversion from the priority of an immediate surrender.

The Democratic denunciations and denials continued last night in Texas. Hillary Clinton spun the surge as a be-all-end-all prod to instantaneous Iraqi political reconciliation:

The rationale of the surge was to create the space and time for the Iraqi government to make the decisions that only it can make....

But the fact is that the purpose of it has not been fulfilled. The Iraqi government has slowly inched toward making a few of the decisions in a less than complete way, but it hasn't taken advantage of the sacrifice and the losses of life and billions of dollars that have occurred since the surge began.

And here's Obama, with an even bigger attack on America's democratization project in Iraq:

I think it is indisputable that we've seen violence reduced in Iraq....

But this is a tactical victory imposed upon a huge strategic blunder.

Actually, experts note Iraq's turning out to be a huge strategic victory.

Not for the antiwar types.

As I've noted, it's becoming clearer by the day that Democratic Party claims of support for the troops are hollow: The leading contenders for the nomination can't beat it fast enough for the ignominous exit of strategic retreat.

So much for the costs and sacrifices Americans have paid for the overthrow of tyranny and the consolidation of democracy in a region filled with autocrats and monarchs.