January 2008 Archives

From Kudlow's Money Politic$: McCain Should Reject the NYT Endorsement

Jerry Bowyer e-mailed me this morning with a terrific suggestion: Sen. McCain should reject the endorsement of the New York Times. When Steve Moore called me to say Romney did well in the debate last night, he agreed with the idea. Moore said it would generate a great positive controversy.

In my view, rejecting the editorial would underscore Sen. McCain’s efforts to reinforce his bona-fides to Republicans and conservatives.

Remember, Florida is a GOP primary. There are no independents this time. So there are a host of reasons why a McCain rejection of the Times would appeal to Republicans in this crucial primary. It was the Times that ran the despicable MoveOn.org ad (at a reduced rate no less) about Gen. Petraeus allegedly betraying America in the Iraq surge. It was the Times that leaked the foreign wiretapping and surveillance story that helped our enemies.

Of course, the New York Times has always been against the Iraq war and the successful counter-insurgency troop surge. And the Times is always against pro-growth tax cuts.

If Sen. McCain would stand up and say all this, it would cause a stir. But for him, in the fight of his life down in Florida, it’d be a good stir.

Not a bad idea.

And now the New York Times endorses McCain? The NY Times should butt out and stay on their own side of the aisle. Since their endorsement of Hillary makes almost no news, their endorsement of McCain is obviously intended to be used by Rush and non-national security conservatives (weanies like Hugh Hewitt, Severin, etc.) to axe McCain before he gets a chance to beat the Times' Democrat endorsement, Mrs. Clinton.

Comments welcome on these videos, trying to get in a groove here expressing what I think about McCain.

RealClearPolitics.com head-to-head averages show McCain with victories, while all other GOP contenders lose.

Polls are not predictive, just another interesting finger in the breeze.  Polls suck, don't forget it!

The ultimate determinant in the struggle now going on for the world will not be bombs and rockets but a test of wills and ideas-a trial of spiritual resolve: the values we hold, the beliefs we cherish and the ideals to which we are dedicated.

Ronald Reagan

[Madirishmaninc]

McCain's candidacy highlights the near-treasonous behavior from the Dems throughout the Iraq conflict, and turns it into a voting issue.  Don't forget, the "Dems are defeatist" message worked in 2004 for Bush with a 3+ million vote majority, and the Dingy Harry "The war is lost" left has behaved much worse since then, emboldened by difficulties in Iraq and electoral victories at home, both of which they misinterpreted far too much in favor of their own positions.  We let them have enough rope to hang themselves, as we sat quietly.  No candidate other than McCain can take advantage of this decisive dynamic.

And McCain stands out as a positive leader in this regard even among a Republican field that was generally supportive.  McCain has been a presumptive commander-in-chief for a couple years now, holding a line that would have fallen were it not for McCain's Churchillian steadfastness.  These are qualities Americans can vote in support of only if McCain is the nominee.  Think of the example that is set for our youth and the world if McCain's story is the one we hold up?  Now is the last chance for a man like McCain, who connects us with everything that has made this country great since the nation began.  Sean Hannity and Rush Limbaugh need to wake up on this.  They're not being great Americans or ditto-ing my head.  They're partisan hacks for Romney.

When McCain said "I'd rather lose an election than a war," the doubt in the Republican party disappeared, and everyone fell in line, because they know it's a winning position.  It may have looked like a statement in a political debate, but this is leadership in action in the American democratic process.  This is McCain leading, the political effects of a man displaying real leadership, on the edge, looking forward, and other men falling in line.  McCain's historical significance in leading this struggle is already beyond question, and this will become more clear as the next 10 months roll by. Like a steamroller, baby.

From the primary foreign policy speech on HillaryClinton.com, reflecting her viewpoint on June 27, 2007, just as the surge of forces reached full strength and the change in strategy took effect:

NATIONAL SECURITY: Center for a New American Security

The failed ideology and flawed decision-making that led us into Iraq has had a devastating impact on us here at home and around the world. Iraq continues to steal young American lives and to consume $8.6 billion a month, sapping our military readiness and standing. I traveled to Iraq three times to meet with soldiers and commanders as well as the Iraqi political leaders. There is no doubt that our military has performed heroically and has done what they were asked to do according to the authorization that was passed nearly five years ago.

Not a day goes by that I don't think of our men and women who are over there right now, patrolling the streets of Baghdad, Mosul, and other places, trapped by a failed strategy and sectarian civil war and I never stop thinking about the lives that have been lost and the lives that have been so drastically affected by profound injuries.

Clinton seems to have had little awareness of the reality of the situation at that time, though the strategy had been in the pipeline for more than 6 months and had been ramping up on the ground for several months as well. 

She doesn't appear to have been following the progress at all in fact, let alone offering anything constructive.

But she had no problems scoring political points premised on the idea that American servicemembers have died and are dying in vain.  And to do that, without even knowing the reality of the situation at the time?  Un-American is not the worst word for it.

To politicize failure—to bet on failure—in American foreign policy, as all the remaining Democratic contenders have done, is not acceptable, and dishonors the sacrifices that are made.

More than any other GOP candidate, John McCain's nomination would focus the meaning of the November election along these lines.

[source: HillaryClinton.com]

McCain's web team is doing a great job.  With each new victory or turn in McCain's narrative, the visual look of the site opens up and turns a corner, the path to victory visible on the website.  It's great.

If I'd known the progression was going to be so good, I would have grabbed screenshots and made a real cool post.  If anyone has a way to get those, please get in touch.

See for yourself.  You don't place bets in the other party's primary unless you're scared of losing to someone specific in November.



The Democratic Party, afraid of John McCain.

Elsewhere, the Dems are trying to raise money(democrats.org/100years) by showing a clip of McCain at a rally where he says we may need to have a presence in Iraq for a hundred years.  They act like it's some secret quote they found.  But McCain supporters are not hiding McCain's positions from anyone.  In fact, we think that the policies and principles implied when McCain makes such are positions that will win the support of the American people in Nov '08.

Here's the video:



McCainVictory08 blog With Both Hands has a Democrat fundraising letter that speaks of this video like it's some secret footage every McCain backer wants to hide. In fact, McCain doubled-down on this position during his victory speech in New Hampshire:

The work that we face in our time is great, but our opportunities greater still. In a time of war, and the terrible sacrifices it entails, the promise of a better future is not always clear. But I promise you, my friends, we face no enemy, no matter how cruel; and no challenge, no matter how daunting, greater than the courage, patriotism and determination of Americans. We are the makers of history, not its victims. And as we confront this enemy, the people privileged to serve in public office should not evade our mutual responsibility to defeat them because we are more concerned with personal or partisan ambition. Whatever the differences between us, so much more should unite us. And nothing should unite us more closely than the imperative of defeating an enemy who despises us, our values and modernity itself. We must all pull together in this critical hour and proclaim that the history of the world will not be determined by this unpardonable foe, but by the aspirations, ideals, faith and courage of free people. In this great, historic task, we will never surrender. They will.

Meanwhile, the Dems want to pull out of Iraq, abandon freedom-loving Iraqis to the new Saddam Hussein or al-Qaeda spinoff and claim that Obama is the new JFK. Here's what JFK said in his inaugural speech:

We dare not forget today that we are the heirs of that first revolution. Let the word go forth from this time and place, to friend and foe alike, that the torch has been passed to a new generation of Americans -- born in this century, tempered by war, disciplined by a hard and bitter peace, proud of our ancient heritage, and unwilling to witness or permit the slow undoing of those human rights to which this nation has always been committed, and to which we are committed today at home and around the world.

Let every nation know, whether it wishes us well or ill, that we shall pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe, to assure the survival and the success of liberty.

[...]

We dare not tempt them with weakness. For only when our arms are sufficient beyond doubt can we be certain beyond doubt that they will never be employed.

Somehow I doubt JFK's promises were as empty as Barack Obama's. Whenever I hear Obama speak, I think, "Good speech, pretty obvious, positive stuff." It's what courageous men and women are fighting for in Iraq.

The mantle of acting on the principles laid out here by John F. Kennedy in his 1960 inaugural, in a speech dominated by foreign policy, is held not by Barack Obama, who wants to abandon the Iraqis' struggle for freedom, but by John McCain.

From The Surge Worked, John McCain & Joe Lieberman, WSJ.com

It was exactly one year ago tonight, in a televised address to the nation, that President George W. Bush announced his fateful decision to change course in Iraq, and to send five additional U.S. combat brigades there as part of a new counterinsurgency strategy and under the command of a new general, David Petraeus.

At the time of its announcement, the so-called surge was met with deep skepticism by many Americans -- and understandably so.

After years of mismanagement of the war, many people had grave doubts about whether success in Iraq was possible. In Congress, opposition to the surge from antiwar members was swift and severe. They insisted that Iraq was already "lost," and that there was nothing left to do but accept our defeat and retreat.

In fact, they could not have been more wrong. And had we heeded their calls for retreat, Iraq today would be a country in chaos: a failed state in the heart of the Middle East, overrun by al Qaeda and Iran.

Great insight not only on surge success but also McCain '08 victory strategy. Read the whole thing.

Good move. It looked great.

From Why Hillary Won, Karl Rove, WSJ.com

And Mr. Obama, in his own way, is often as calculating as Mrs. Clinton. For example, he was the only candidate, Democratic or Republican, to use a teleprompter to deliver his Iowa and New Hampshire election-night speeches. It gave his speeches a quality and clarity that other candidates, speaking from notes or the heart, failed to achieve. But what he gained in polish, he lost in connection.

Might be a good idea for McCain's next victory speech, and set up the room for cameras ahead of time. The camera position for Obama's speech was much better, just above the crowd's hands, his face was never blocked, nice lighting, and a good contrast with the background.

From McCain looks ahead, Jonathan Martin, Politico.com

McCain flatly declared: "I will campaign in a way that objective observers will say, 'That's not negative campaigning.'"

And he did seem to recognize that there is danger in indulging his sharp tongue.

While not offering any apologies for his tough shots at Romney in Saturday night's debate, he said he was glad to have not had such exchanges again at Sunday’s forum.

"It was a good thing to say," McCain said of the barbs he hurled at Romney, "but I also think it was a good thing to move on from that and have the kind of discussion at least that I had last night."

Very happy to see McCain not back off here, but still show that he knows it's "over the line." Some things can only communicate using some of the uglier emotions.

I hate to be overly blunt, but even if McCain is lying on his death bed, I want him making the decisions. Campaigning is far more exhausting than being President, but look at this guy go.

Having seen him up close however, I don't think that's going to be an issue for a long time. Let's get him while we can, and get a great VP to back him up.

Just heard this one out of Bill Kristol's mouth: McCain-Romney.  That is a great ticket.  Romney plays George H.W. Bush circa 1980 to McCain's charismatic Reagan.  Think forward over the next 12 years.

The reasoning behind Romney's logic of avoiding verbal attacks on McCain when they are together is becoming apparent.  Romney is a young, healthy guy.  What else is he going to do with his life?  He's thinking towards 2012, and keeping his options open.

And I don't mean for the Olympics in London.

Going into 2012 or 2016 after 4-8 years as McCain's veep has got to be part of Romney's backup plan.

Live chat from the ABC Spin Room during tonight's debate happening now... [UPDATE: now closed]

Hosted by Brad Marston of McCainVictory08, Sheridan Folger of The Mad Irishman’s Conservative Consortium and Evan Lazer from Blogs4McCain.

From Seeking Psychological Victory in the War on Terror, Tony Blankley

Against these costs and terrible human losses, on the credit side, we eliminated a vicious anti-American regime and aborted any future plans they might have had for developing nuclear weapons. We intimidated Libya to give up its surprisingly advanced nuclear program. And if the recent National Intelligence Estimate is to be believed, Iran happened to give up its nuclear program just at the moment that a few hundred thousand American troops occupied Baghdad -- conveniently close to Iran.

These geopolitical facts are precisely evidence of the larger strategic purpose of the war. As I argued in August 2002, in a column in which I predicted that this war would unleash vast hostility against us, I endorsed Henry Kissinger's argument for the war that we had to demonstrate that a terrorist challenge to us produces catastrophic consequences for not only its perpetrators but also its tacit supporters. "We had to break the will and pride of all those in the Islamic world who would dare terrorize us and the international system."

Bin Laden said it best. His people will follow the strong horse. If, after years of stumbling and bumbling, the enduring strength and eventual wisdom of the American people can enter into the belly of the Islamist world, overturn tyrants, empower the Muslim people with peaceable and prosperous ways and intimidate two Islamist nuclear aspirants to renounce their pretensions, we will show ourselves to be the strong horse. Thereby we will hasten the day when the terrorist pretensions will fall on deaf Muslim ears and the threat of Islamist terrorism will begin to recede.

We have it almost in our hands to gain the first strategic psychological victory in the "war on terror" -- and that will have been worth the suffering and the loss.

While Mitt Romney is an impressive candidate from many perspectives, his weaknesses are magnified by the intensity of the general election campaign, during which attacks like this YouTube video could contribute to the "Kerry-ization" of Romney, allowing the winds that are at the back of the Democrats to carry the day.

This assessment is supported by current head-to-head polling between Romney and likely Democratic nominees.

On the other hand, McCain's strengths magnify in the intense, emotional environment created by the general election campaign. Attempts to attack his age will backfire. The winds at McCain's back will likely beat the Democrats' advantage when it counts in Nov '08. His character and qualifications highlight the left's weaknesses better than any other Republican candidate.

McCain is a better general election choice than Romney while retaining far better conservative and national security credentials than Mr. Romney. The McCain vs. Huckabee and McCain vs. Giuliani comparos come up later in January because of the way the primary season is scheduled.

Keep thinking McCain-Giuliani is going to start looking interesting, or maybe even McCain-Thompson. But McCain paired up with Haley Barbour, Gov. of Mississippi is also outstanding.

[Thanks Blogs4McCain for the link to the video]