South Dakota Politics

Tropic Thunder: A Review

The premise of Tropic Thunder is funny.  Take a bunch of pampered Hollywood stars, put them in a war movie, and then drop them inside a real war zone without their knowledge in order to film the gritty realism.  Add to that the pretentious method actor who is a white man playing a black man to the hilt and you've got a recipe for a hilarious movie.  A bunch of prima donna actors end up lost in the jungle fighting a real war when they think it is just a movie.  That could be funny.  Leave it to the real Hollywood to screw it up. 

I'm not going to say Tropic Thunder is without its laughs.  Matthew McConaughey as Ben Stiller's agent has a singlemindedness about getting his client Tivo on location that brings the laughs.  Robert Downey as Kirk Lazarus, the white man playing a black man, has his moments. But overall this is a film where if you told the screen writers (which includes Ben Stiller and Ethan Cohen) that they couldn't use the f-word or refer to any part of the male anatomy they would have virtually no jokes to tell.  The film is obscenity laced in the worst way, namely living under the delusion that if you have your characters scream "mother f---" enough it mysteriously becomes funny. 

The film inexplicably rejects its premise fairly early on.  Essentially no one except the Ben Stiller character ever really believes they are shooting a movie.  The characters know that things have gone wrong and they are now on their own inside a war zone (to be precise they are attacked by drug lords).  That takes away much of the comedy. It's funny if people think they are making a war movie but in fact it's real.  That allows for a lot of false braggadocio, but in Tropic Thunder you really only get that in one scene. The film could derive jokes from its premise, the pampered nature of the characters, the slick marketing of Hollywood, the ruthlessness of the entertainment world.  But there is precious little of this in Tropic Thunder.  Just oral sex jokes.  It wasn't funny in American Pie and it isn't funny now. 

The movie opens with fake trailers for the actors' other films.  Jack Black plays an actor who stars in a series of lame comedies about the eponymous family "The Fatties." Black's Tropic Thunder character, Jeff Portnoy, plays all the members of a fat family who apparently do nothing but fart.  This is the only joke in the "Fatties" movies.  Sorry to say, but Tropic Thunder's humor is not much more sophisticated than the fart humor the movie makes fun of with "The Fatties." 

The Year of the Political Blogger

The New York Times this morning has a story about political bloggers becoming a widely-accepted form of reporting during the 2008 election cycle.  Increasingly, candidates are making efforts to get their message out across blogs.  This has elevated bloggers to the level of the Old Media and given bloggers spots at the national conventions (via Slashdot).  Excerpt:

Beginning Monday, hundreds of bloggers will descend on Denver to see Barack Obama accept his party’s nomination. Next week, hundreds more will travel to St. Paul to witness John McCain’s acceptance speech at the Republican National Convention. But now these online partisans, many of whom are self-financed, must contend with all the logistical and financial hurdles just to get there — not to mention the party politics happening behind the scenes.

This year, both parties understand the need to have greater numbers of bloggers attend. While many Americans may watch only prime-time television broadcasts of the convention speeches, party officials also recognize the ability of bloggers to deliver minute-by-minute coverage of each day’s events to a niche online audience.

“The goal is to bring down the walls of the convention and invite in an audience that’s as large as possible,” said Aaron Myers, the director of online communications for the Democratic National Convention Committee. “Credentialing more bloggers opens up all sorts of new audiences.”

Words Biden Would Like to Forget

Jim Geraghty:  "The fun thing about an Obama-Biden ticket is that the McCain campaign can point to a new awkward comment by Joe Biden — either on the importance of experience, in praise of McCain, or in support of invading Iraq — that contradicts the stands and qualities of the Democratic nominee for every day from now until Election Day."  Be sure to check out the quotes.

RELATED:  No Biden bump:  "In a new Washington Post-ABC News poll completed last night, three-quarters of voters said picking Biden would not sway their votes one way or the other."

Noonan on Saddleback

Peggy Noonan is worth reading regarding the Saddleback forum.  A taste:

Mr. Obama's upcoming convention speech will be good. All Obama speeches are good. Not as interesting as he is—he is more compelling as a person than his words tend to be in text. But the speech will be good, and just in case it isn't good, people will still come away with an impression that it must have been, because the media is going to say it was, because they expect it to be, and what they expect is what they will see.

Will Mr. Obama dig deep as to meaning? As to political predicates? During the primary campaigns Republicans were always saying, "This is what I'll do." Mr. Obama has a greater tendency to say, "This is how we'll feel." Republicans talk to their base with, "If we pass this bill, which the Democrats irresponsibly oppose, we'll solve this problem." Democrats are more inclined toward, "If we bring a new attitude of hopefulness and respect for the world, we'll make the seas higher and the fish more numerous." Will Mr. Obama be, in terms of programs and plans, specific? And will his specifics be grounded in something that appears to amount to a political philosophy?

As I have said before, Barack Obama is interesting because of who he is; John McCain is interesting because of what he has done. 

New McCain Ad: Biden

Biden Time

The current tea leaves say Joe Biden is Obama's pick for VP.  Earlier this evening when it looked like Evan Bayh, I thought Obama could not have made a better choice.  If Bayh is an "A" pick, Biden is a "B."  Why?  Bayh is a moderate from a swing state who has executive experience (two term governor of Indiana) to go along with his Senate record.  Biden is part of what Obama needs, namely a boring white guy who is plausible as president.  But Biden has never had a job outside of politics, is a life-time Washington insider, and is known for having the biggest mouth and the biggest ego in the Senate, which is saying something.  There is a decent chance that at some point his fall Joe Biden will say something really stupid.  Still, Schaff's Rule on VP picks is "do no harm," and Obama has done that.  Good choice. 

Obama and Personhood

A good friend of mine, having read my American News piece on the Saddleback debate (that's at least one reader!), sent me a dissenting e-mail.  He argued that the beginning of life was a fundamentally mysterious matter, and therefore that government should stay out of it and let private judgment prevail.  That, I gather, was a defense of Obama's non-answer to the abortion question in the Saddleback debate. 

I replied that the beginning of life is not mysterious at all.  As a biological organism, every human being begins when daddy's sperm cell unites with mommy's egg.  That union creates a genetically unique cell that consumes nutrients, produces waste, and divides.  If it eats, grows, and goes potty, its alive.  The line that begins with that Ur-cell is a biological being.  And from the first, it is some kind of being: not a bovine being, or a canine being, but a human being.  The question regarding abortion, then, is not when does human life begin, but when does personhood begin?  Personhood implies rights and interests that other human beings and the state should respect.  To argue in favor of abortion, without ignoring the obvious facts I have just mentioned, you have to argue that human beings exist for some time before they acquire personhood.  But that means that all human beings are not created equal.  Only those who achieve some state of development have "human rights," while others do not; or at least, not yet.  That is a lot to give up.  Pro-life people are willing to take this issue on, while pro-choice people scrupulously avoid it.  My friend was no exception. 

But even if you think that the question of the beginning of life is mysterious, the state will have to step in at some point.  Mom and dad might decide to abort a fetus if test suggest some genetic defect, but the State surely won't allow them to end the life their Down's child when he is ten years old.  So the question is this: when does legal personhood begin?  At what point in the history of the biological being does the state step in and say: this is a person, under our protection?  At viability?  At birth?  That is not a private question.  It is a political question.  Obama's refusal to answer was a forfeit.  It suggests what I have long suspected: that abortion is corrupting.  Obam

Blanchard on Obama in the American News

Here is my essay in today's American News.  It might be poor writing, but perhaps it compares favorably with the previous submissions by Professor Schaff. 

Obama's forum responses too anemic

Published on Friday, August 22, 2008

When Barack Obama was asked "What was the most gut-wrenching decision you have ever had to make?" we can forgive him for not having as good an answer as John McCain.

When the senator from Arizona was asked that same question at the Saddleback Church Forum, he recalled his decision not to accept early release from a North Vietnamese prison. McCain had a friend with him, Ed Alvarez, who was captured two years before he was. According to the military code of conduct, you could accept release only in the order of capture. "So I said no."

Obama couldn't say what is very probably true: That, having been born in 1961, he never had to face a genuinely gut-wrenching decision. Two world wars, Vietnam and the Civil Rights movement, all that was history when he went off to college. Like most Americans born after the middle of the last century, he has led a charmed life. That would at least explain his anemic answer: "I think the opposition to the war in Iraq was as tough a decision as I've had to make."

How does that make sense? Obama acknowledges that there were "political consequences" to consider. He neglects to mention that, in pursuing the Democratic nomination, the consequences were all in his favor. Of course, things would have been different if a massive weapons program had been discovered in Iraq. But if Obama was so sure that no such weapons existed, how hard could the decision have been?

No one can blame Obama for being born in the right half of the 20th century, but he might have squarely faced the most divisive issue in that period of our national history. When McCain was asked "At what point is a baby entitled to human rights?" he answered: "from conception." Whether you agree with McCain or not, he has faced the real issue and he knows what he thinks about it.

Obama's reply was again anemic: "From a theological or a scientific perspective, answering that question with specificity is above my pay grade." Well, isn't he sort of angling for an upgrade just now? And how much would it cost us to get a straight answer?

Without an answer, a coherent position on abortion is impossible. Obama says that he is pro-choice because "Women don't make these decisions casually, they wrestle with these things in profound ways." OK. When a mother decides to punish her child, she might well take the decision very seriously. But the state still gets to decide when punishment crosses the line and becomes abuse. If an adult man is attracted to a 14-year-old girl, he might wrestle with his feelings in profound ways; but it's the state that decides the age of consent.

At what point in the biological life of a human being is the state compelled to recognize that being as a person? At what point do that person's rights become more important than the wishes of his or her parents? If Obama knows what he thinks about this, he isn't telling.

Maybe he doesn't know what he thinks; and maybe the reason is that it's not just Obama who has led a charmed life. It is possible that the young Obama never had a single professor at Columbia University or Harvard Law School who didn't lean left on every political issue. Liberalism was leading a charmed life on our college campuses in the 1980s. Obama never had to ask himself exactly what he believed about abortion or why he believed it. The party line took care of all that. When everyone knows what the right answer is, what need is there to explain oneself?

But if he won't tell us what he thinks, surely he can admit what he has done as a legislator. He insisted at the Saddleback forum that he favored restrictions on late-term abortions. In fact he opposed all such restrictions in the Illinois legislature, even voting against a 2003 bill that would protect children accidently born alive as a result of abortions.

Perhaps he is being less than candid, or perhaps those votes would be too gut-wrenching to acknowledge.

Kenneth C. Blanchard Jr., is a professor of political science at Northern State University. His columns appears occasionally in the American News. Write to him at the American News, P.O. Box 4430, Aberdeen, S.D., 57402, or e-mail [email protected]. The views presented are those of the author and do not represent those of Northern State University.

It's Not Over

Knoxnews:  "A massive e-mail and Internet campaign is under way aimed at derailing the nomination of Barack Obama and making Hillary Clinton the Democratic Party's standard bearer next week at the national convention in Denver."  (h/t to Instapundit)

More on Annenberg / Ayers / Obama

Thomas Lifson:  Obama's Lost Annenberg Years Coming to Light

UPDATE:  What has leaked out.  More here.

Venezuelan Indigenous Affairs Minister Visits Lakota Communities

Indian Country Today:

The Venezuelan vice minister for Indigenous Affairs visited four Lakota communities in early August to explore possibilities for friendship, student and cultural exchanges and other mutually beneficial projects between the Native peoples here and in the South American country.

Aloha Nunez, a member of western Venezuela's Wayuu tribe, spent five days among Sioux Nation people at Cheyenne River, Lower Brule, Rosebud and Pine Ridge. At 25, Nunez is the youngest person to hold a ministerial office in Venezuela. She was accompanied by Yancy Maldonado, a Yekwana tribal representative from Venezuela's Ministry of Indigenous Affairs, and Sabine Kienzl from the embassy of the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela in Washington, who acted as an interpreter.

...

More than 200 people welcomed Nunez to the Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe's reservation, where she spoke about Venezuela's current programs and plans to benefit that country's indigenous communities. She also explained the ministry's goal is to forge unity and solidarity among all the indigenous peoples of the Americas ''in their struggle and resistance for more than 500 years of oppression. Before, we used to be ashamed of our backgrounds. Nevertheless, we are now experiencing a revival of our ancestral roots and traditions.''

Revoke the Games

A petition to revoke the Winter Olympic Games in Russia in 2014.  For the other bloggers out there, you can add a badge to your site if you're interested.

Joel Dykstra: A Man Alone

From the Dykstra campaign:

Mitchell, S.D. -  Senate Candidate Joel Dykstra talked about agricultural policy at Dakotafest on Wednesday in a debate boycotted by Senator Tim Johnson.  Dykstra used the debate to discuss important issues facing South Dakota's farmers and ranchers, and also touched on what he believes are the real reasons why his opponent has ruled out all debates and candidate forums. Dykstra said, "Dakotafest was our first opportunity of the campaign season to engage in a public debate about the real issues of this campaign.  Now South Dakota voters will be denied the right to see us side by side and consider how Senator Johnson and I differ on various policies.  The Senator is depriving South Dakota voters of a traditionally important part of South Dakota elections." 

 

Dykstra also pointed out that Johnson's campaign decision makers would rather avoid all candidate debates than have Johnson defend his 22-year voting record in open forum.  "They're calculating that the public will not hold him accountable for their refusal to let him have that discussion in public and I think that's unfortunate.  I also believe it's wrong."

 

Dykstra talked about how agriculture, the state's number one industry, is being negatively affected by the current energy crisis.   He supports a comprehensive solution that includes expansion of renewable energy especially bio-fuels and wind energy.  "Farmers are part of the solution to the energy problems in America and through increased production of renewable fuels we can reduce our dependence on foreign oil. Instead of exporting billions of dollars that supports hostile dictators who are trying to destroy America we can support South Dakota farmers, ranchers and land owners to produce renewable energy at home."  Dykstra said a comprehensive approach to energy also includes more domestic drilling, something his opponent has repeatedly voted against.

 

Dykstra said there is no sector of the economy that is hit harder by high energy prices than agriculture and that in turn hurts consumers in the form of higher food prices.  "Prices for petroleum based products like diesel fuel and fertilizer are at record highs.  These higher input costs are taking much of the profitability out of the higher market value producers may be receiving for their commodities."

 

Dykstra also addressed other agricultural policy issues such as implementation of the new farm bill, country of origin labeling, international trade agreements and the food verses fuel debate.

The Character of Hillary Clinton

Joshua Green is back, in this month's Atlantic.  Last February I blogged about an earlier piece of his in the same venue.  At that post you can read what I wrote for the American News.  The earlier article was one of the best pieces of campaign reporting I have ever read, until now.  In the current article, Green takes advantage of a mountain of memos, minutes, and e-mails, to tell an appalling story.  That such materials were kept at all suggests the degree of "paranoid dysfunction" that set into the bones and sinews of Hillary. Inc.  You can view most of the material itself at the link Green provides.  What does that pile of material tell us?

Two things struck me right away. The first was that, outward appearances notwithstanding, the campaign prepared a clear strategy and did considerable planning. It sweated the large themes (Clinton's late-in-the-game emergence as a blue-collar champion had been the idea all along) and the small details (campaign staffers in Portland, Oregon, kept tabs on Monica Lewinsky, who lived there, to avoid any surprise encounters). The second was the thought: Wow, it was even worse than I'd imagined! The anger and toxic obsessions overwhelmed even the most reserved Beltway wise men. Surprisingly, Clinton herself, when pressed, was her own shrewdest strategist, a role that had never been her strong suit in the White House. But her advisers couldn't execute strategy; they routinely attacked and undermined each other, and Clinton never forced a resolution. Major decisions would be put off for weeks until suddenly she would erupt, driving her staff to panic and misfire.

Politics is always about character.  The story of the Clintons will remain what it has been since Bill Left office: one of extraordinary talents and will largely wasted by dissolute personalities. 

Vice Presidential What?

Let's hope this is a typo on the part of the AP. Let's not count on it.
From Powerline:

For his part, Republican rival John McCain is seriously considering naming his running mate between the end of the Democratic convention Aug. 28 and the Sept. 1 start of the GOP convention in hopes of stunting any uptick in polls for Obama. McCain has at least three large rallies planned in top battlegrounds Ohio, Pennsylvania and Michigan, before the Republican gathering in St. Paul, Minn.

His top contenders are said to include Minnesota Goy. Tim Pawlenty and former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney. Less traditional choices mentioned include former Pennsylvania Gov. Tom Ridge, an abortion-rights supporter, and Connecticut Sen. Joe Lieberman, the Democratic vice presidential prick in 2000 who now is an independent.

Zogby Poll Shows 15-Point Drop for Obama

The latest Zogby poll reflects the findings of the LA Times/Bloomberg poll, showing that support for Obama has deflated over the summer.  Obama led McCain 47%-40% in July, but now trails his opponent 46%-41%, a fifteen point drop:

In a sharp turnaround, Republican John McCain has opened a 5-point lead on Democrat Barack Obama in the U.S. presidential race and is seen as a stronger manager of the economy, according to a Reuters/Zogby poll released on Wednesday.    

McCain leads Obama among likely U.S. voters by 46 percent to 41 percent, wiping out Obama's solid 7-point advantage in July and taking his first lead in the monthly Reuters/Zogby poll.

The reversal follows a month of attacks by McCain, who has questioned Obama's experience, criticized his opposition to most new offshore oil drilling and mocked his overseas trip.

The poll was taken Thursday through Saturday as Obama wrapped up a weeklong vacation in Hawaii that ceded the political spotlight to McCain, who seized on Russia's invasion of Georgia to emphasize his foreign policy views.

"There is no doubt the campaign to discredit Obama is paying off for McCain right now," pollster John Zogby said. "This is a significant ebb for Obama."

McCain now has a 9-point edge, 49 percent to 40 percent, over Obama on the critical question of who would be the best manager of the economy -- an issue nearly half of voters said was their top concern in the November 4 presidential election.

That margin reversed Obama's 4-point edge last month on the economy over McCain, an Arizona senator and former Vietnam prisoner of war who has admitted a lack of economic expertise and shows far greater interest in foreign and military policy.

I should warn that Zogby should be viewed with skepticism.  Zogby hasn't gained a reputation of being spot-on in its polling, and their results usually tend to be dramatic.  However, Zogby is showing the same change in the electorate's support for Obama that other pollsters are showing.  It should also be noted that this poll sampled likely voters, while the LAT/Bloomberg poll surveyed registered voters. That may account for the dramatic difference between the two.

Nevertheless, the trend continues: Obama's support continues to ebb, putting the Democrats are in a rather weak position leading up to the convention.

Almost Like Reporting

Tom Maguire on what the AP left out of its report on the Obama / Bill Ayers / Annenberg story.

McCain-Lieberman 2008?

The Politico:  "McCain weighs a Lieberman surprise"

John McCain is seriously considering choosing a pro-abortion-rights running mate despite vocal resistance from conservatives, with former Democratic vice presidential nominee Joseph I. Lieberman (I-Conn.) very much in the mix, close McCain advisers say.

Under strong consideration: former Pennsylvania Republican Gov. Tom Ridge, and Lieberman, who was Al Gore’s running mate in 2000.

Multiple GOP sources say that party officials in Washington and in the states have been contacted by the McCain campaign in the past two weeks and asked about the fallout from such a choice. One person familiar with the calls said the party was being instructed to prepare for different candidate prototypes — including one in the mold of Lieberman, who is an independent but still caucuses with the Democrats.

Meanwhile, the media doesn't seem to think too highly of Lieberman anymore.

Free Trial of Amazon Prime

Hunting around on Amazon.com tonight, I noticed that they're offering a free trial of Amazon Prime, normally a $79 per year service where you get unlimited free 2-day delivery on anything with no minimum order, or next day deliver for $3.99 if need be.  Looks like a great deal if you're like me and use Amazon frequently.

Quote of the Day

John Edwards delegate Vinod Thomas:  "The Democratic Party would be in a very tough position now if John Edwards was our nominee."  Well, maybe more like understatement of the year.

BREAKING NEWS

The claim that Big Foot was discovered turned out to be a hoax.  Let the search continue, I suppose.

McGovern in the RMN

Don't miss this lengthy write-up in the Rocky Mountain News on George McGovern reflecting on the 1972 Democratic Convention in Miami.

Obama Trailing McCain in LAT/Bloomberg Poll

A new Los Angeles Times/Bloomberg poll shows Barack Obama has lost ten points in the past two months since he captured the nomination.  In a large poll among registered voters, Obama is registering only a 2-point lead over John McCain in a head-to-head contest (his lead drops to one point if Ralph Nader and Bob Barr are included):

When last we had a L.A. Times/Bloomberg poll to peruse, the result that stood out (aside from Barack Obama’s 12-percentage point lead over John McCain in a head-to-head matchup) was what we termed the “passion gap” that favored the Democrat back in the June survey.

The new, just-released poll not only shows the race between the two dramatically tightening — into a virtual dead heat, with Obama leading in the head-to-head by only 2 percentage points — but it also identifies a distinct McCain asset: a huge advantage on the question of experience.

The survey of almost 1,250 registered voters showed that the vast majority have no doubt McCain is qualified for the White House. Asked if the Republican had the right experience to be president, 80% said yes (with only 14% saying no).

By contrast, close to a majority — 48% — said Obama lacks the experience for the job (with 44% saying yes).

(h/t Ed Morrissey)

PLUS THIS:  From CNN:  "In what could be an ominous sign for Barack Obama just days before he is formally named the Democratic presidential nominee, a new CNN poll of polls out Tuesday shows the Illinois senator's lead over John McCain has been cut in half in recent days."

McCain in the Saddle

It is demonstrable that McCain decisively won the exchange at Saddleback Church in Lake Forest California.  See Professor Schaff's post for a wealth of links to Saturday's encounter.  In the first place, it explains why Obama is so loath to meet McCain in town hall settings: he is pretty good with a memorized speech or teleprompter, but not so hot in thinking on his feet.  In the second place, the Obama campaign immediately whipped up a "McCain cheated" meme (the newly christened "cone of silence" affair) to cover their man's posterior.  According to the later, McCain was secretly allowed to listen to the Obama interview, so that when he went second he could anticipate the questions.  The Reverend Rick Warren, who presented the questions, denies this, and there is no evidence so far to support the charges.  But true or false, the complaint seems so much like whining, and is so obviously designed to excuse an inferior performance, as to amount to a concession. 

The victory is equally clear from the CNN transcripts.  The best moment for McCain was the following exchange. 

WARREN: Well, you just took the -- I had that question later on but now we don't have to ask it. What's the most gut-wrenching decision you've ever had to make? And what was the process that you used to make it?

MCCAIN: It was long ago, and far away, in a prison camp in North Vietnam. My father was a high-ranking admiral. The Vietnamese came and said that I could leave prison early. And we had a code of conduct. It said you only leave by order of capture. I also had a dear and beloved friend, who was from California, named Ebb Alvarez, who had been shot down before me. But I wasn't in good physical shape. In fact, I was in rather bad physical shape. So I said no. Now, in interest of full disclosure, I'm happy I didn't know the war was going to last for another three years or so.

But I said no, and I'll never forget sitting in my last answer, and the high-ranking officer offered it, slammed the door and the interrogator said, "Go back to your cell. It's going to be very tough on you now." And it was. But not only the toughest decision I ever made, but I am most happy about that decision, than any decision I've ever made in my life. (APPLAUSE).

Now that's knocking it out of the ball park.  Of course McCain had an unfair advantage: unlike Obama and myself, for example, he didn't enjoy a consistently charmed life.  There is no way that someone in Obama's position could match that.  But Obama still managed to make a mess of his answer.

WARREN: What's the most significant -- let me ask it this way. What's the most gut-wrenching decision you ever had to make and how did you process that to come to that decision?

OBAMA: Well, you know, I think the opposition to the war in Iraq was as tough a decision as I've had to make. Not only because there were political consequences, but also because Saddam Hussein was a real bad person, and there was no doubt that he meant America ill. But I was firmly convinced at the time that we did not have strong evidence of weapons of mass destruction, and there were a lot of questions that, as I spoke to experts, kept on coming up. Do we know how the Shia and the Sunni and the Kurds are going to get along in a post-Saddam situation? What's our assessment as to how this will affect the battle against terrorists like Al Qaida? Have we finished the job in Afghanistan?

So I agonized over that. And I think that questions of war and peace generally are so profound. You know, when you meet the troops, they're 19, 20, 21-year-old kids, and you're putting them into harm's way. There is a solemn obligation that you do everything you can to get that decision right. And now, as the war went forward, there are difficult decisions about how long do you keep on funding the war, if you strongly believe that it's not in America's national interest. At the same time, you don't want to have troops who are out there without the equipment they need.

So all those questions surrounding the war have been very difficult for me.

This just doesn't make much sense as an answer.  He paints what looks like a convincing argument against the war, if you buy the premises.  Then why was it so agonizing a decision?  This is all campaign speech, and no heart.  And then there is the part on abortion:

WARREN: That was a freebie. That was a gimme. That was a gimme, OK? Now, let's deal with abortion; 40 million abortions since Roe v. Wade. As a pastor, I have to deal with this all of the time, all of the pain and all of the conflicts. I know this is a very complex issue. Forty million abortions, at what point does a baby get human rights, in your view?

OBAMA: Well, you know, I think that whether you're looking at it from a theological perspective or a scientific perspective, answering that question with specificity, you know, is above my pay grade.

That of course is dodging the question.  After all, this guy is clearly angling for pay scale upgrade.  Just how much is it going to cost us to hear him answer the question?  Here's McCain:

WARREN: Let's deal with abortion. I, as a pastor, have to deal with this all the time, every different angle, every different pain, all of the decisions and all of that. Forty million abortions since Roe v. Wade. Some people, people who believe that life begins at conception, believe that's a holocaust for many people. What point is a baby entitled to human rights?

MCCAIN: At the moment of conception. (APPLAUSE). I have a 25- year pro-life record in the Congress, in the Senate. And as president of the United States, I will be a pro-life president. And this presidency will have pro-life policies. That's my commitment. That's my commitment to you.

WARREN: OK, we don't have to beleaguer on that one. Define marriage.

Obama's disciples will talk about how nuanced he was, but this may be more nuance than a candidate can afford.  McCain was as relaxed and comfortable as I have ever seen him.  Obama looked like he had lost his notes. 

More on Anneberg-gate

Steve Diamond:  "Annenberg-Gate" - It's not the crime, it's the cover up"

UPDATE:  Ed Morrissey:  "For a man with such a meager track record, Obama and his friends sure seem anxious about anyone checking into it for his experience — and his associations. A public university operating a public project should provide transparency on these issues, and not stall until after the election."

Dykstra Campaign Office Sent Threatening Letter

Argus Leader:  "A letter that arrived at U.S. Senate candidate Joel Dykstra’s Sioux Falls office today contained baby powder, preliminary tests show.  The letter also contained a threat to either Dykstra’s campaign or Republicans in general, said Jim Sideras, a spokesman for Sioux Falls Fire Rescue."

Veep Stakes

Politico:  McCain to name VP on Aug. 29

History Records Cover Up

Stanley Kurtz:  " In the process of tracing down the Obama-Ayers connection, I located a large cache of documents housed in the Richard J. Daley Library of the University of Illinois at Chicago. These documents are the internal files of the Chicago Annenberg Challenge, a small foundation, founded and inspired by Bill Ayers, for which Obama served as board chairman (almost surely at Ayers’s behest). Although the library initially promised me access to the Chicago Annenberg Challenge records, top library officials mysteriously intervened at the last minute to bar access."  You can find Kurtz's full investigation entitled "Chicago Annenberg Challenge Shutdown?  A Cover-Up in the Making?"

South Dakotans deserve debate in Senate race

So says the American News.

If Sen. Tim Johnson was not recovering from a near fatal brain hemorrhage would South Dakota voters allow him a pass on engaging his opponent in a series of pre-election debates? We think not.

If Sen. Johnson wasn't the incumbent in this U.S. Senate race, would he be running at all? We suspect not.

Despite what the senator's fervent supporters claim, these are legitimate questions to pose to an incumbent senator who has experienced a debilitating medical condition that took him out of the U.S. Senate for eight months in 2007. Regardless of how uncomfortable these questions might appear and regardless that he returned to the Senate a year ago, they are well within the scope of a race for the U.S. Senate.

Unfortunately, the senator and his staff continue to demonstrate an almost arrogance about the senator's condition to South Dakota voters. He's been quick to trot out slick TV ads that might or might not have the authenticity of the Chinese Olympic opening night festivities. His recent decision not to participate in election debates is equivalent to throwing the South Dakota election process - and its voters - under the bus.

McCain and Obama At SaddleBack

John McCain and Barack Obama appeared at a candidate forum at Rick Warren's Saddleback church last night.  Since most of us were watching Michael Phelps, here is the transcript.  Rod Dreher also live blogged both the Obama and McCain sessions.  Here is the CNN story which allows you to view video of the event.  Victor Davis Hansen is worth reading (scroll down) as is Roger Kimball, who takes apart Obama's remarkably weak answer to the question "When does life begin?"  Sayeth Kimball:

I find it difficult to believe that any candid person could regard Obama’s response as anything but an insulting and mendacious equivocation. It is insulting because it ostentatiously evades the question while giving a little wink to his home team: “Oh, these religious morons and their obsession with abortion! Of course, I could care less about it, but I also know it’s impolitic to say so, so I’ll emit a brief rhetoric fog and hope no one will notice.” And it’s mendacious because when it comes to “pay grades,” no one’s is higher than the President’s. If a man who aspires to the highest office in the land cannot respond to a pointed question about an important moral issue without taking refuge in empty sophistries, how will he deal with the myriad difficult issues with which the President is confronted daily? It seems to me that in claiming that it is “above his pay grade” to answer this question forthrightly, Obama essentially admits that he is unfit for the office he covets.

By the way, I think the format of this session was quite good and perhaps should be mirrored in the debate season.  Each candidate got one hour with Rick Warren asking questions to them individually.  McCain went second and was unable to hear the questions asked of Obama.  He then was asked essentially the same questions.  I like this because it allows candidates more time to give extended answers and avoids the silly schoolyard "I know you are but what am I" that typifies all too many presidential debates. 

Al Qaeda & Cucumbers

I know, it sounds like one of those word puzzles.  But it explains why our greatest ally in the fight against al Qaeda might have been al Qaeda.  From the London Telegraph:

Besides the terrible killings inflicted by the fanatics on those who refuse to   pledge allegiance to them, Al-Qa'eda has lost credibility for enforcing a   series of rules imposing their way of thought on the most mundane aspects of   everyday life.

They include a ban on women buying suggestively-shaped vegetables, according   to one tribal leader in the western province of Anbar.

Well, there you have it.  Maybe Bush gets some credit for the collapse of al Qaeda, and maybe al Qaeda did it all by themselves.  If your idea of policy is to keep women from buying cucumbers because they are, well, long and hard, you might expect to wear out your welcome pretty fast. 

The Case for Bush's Foreign Policy

My intelligent and well-informed interlocutor, BB, chided me for my "support" of the Bush administration. 

Your sycophantic support of an administration that regards the constitution as "quaint" and which has done more to impinge upon the rights of man (to the aggrandizement of the ultra wealthy)is reprehensible.

I don't think that there is a sycophantic bone in my body, but this does raise a very good question: is the conventional wisdom regarding Bush's policies correct?  Has his foreign policy in particular been the disaster that many commentators take for granted?  My view is that it has been a rather mixed bag, and that the Bush Administration's biggest decision, the invasion of Iraq, was a very questionable decision.  Contrary to what my readers might think, I never endorsed that decision. I have pointed out on more than one occasion that Bush at least had an Iraq policy, which is more than President Clinton or two successive Democratic presidential campaigns have had.  But it is pretty clear in retrospect that the Bush Administration didn't know what it was doing.  However, politics is more concerned with outcomes than inputs.  One constant criticism of Bush is that he never changes his mind when things don't go as planned.  That one is dead wrong.

Fareed Zakaria writes in Newsweek under the provocative title: "What Bush Got Right."    Here is no sycophantic admirer of the President.  But unlike most of Bush's critics, he has tried to adopt a balanced view. 

Bush's basic conception of a "global War on Terror," to take but the most obvious example, has been poorly thought-through, badly implemented, and has produced many unintended costs that will linger for years if not decades. But blanket criticism of Bush misses an important reality. The administration that became the target of so much passion and anger—from Democrats, Republicans, independents, foreigners, Martians, everyone—is not quite the one in place today. The foreign policies that aroused the greatest anger and opposition were mostly pursued in Bush's first term: the invasion of Iraq, the rejection of treaties, diplomacy and multilateralism. In the past few years, many of these policies have been modified, abandoned or reversed. This has happened without acknowledgment—which is partly what drives critics crazy—and it's often been done surreptitiously. It doesn't reflect a change of heart so much as an admission of failure; the old way simply wasn't working. But for whatever reasons and through whichever path, the foreign policies in place now are more sensible, moderate and mainstream. In many cases the next president should follow rather than reverse them.

Now I think, sycophant that I am, that Zakaria exaggerates the sins of Bush's first term.  And I am very skeptical that Bush's more flexible policies towards North Korea and Palestine will achieve anything worthwhile.  But it is simply false that the Administration has been inflexible in its policies.  And I think Zakaria is right about one big thing: the next President will end up continuing a lot of Bush's policies.  The reason is simply that there are only so many policy options available on many of these fronts, and Bush is has managed to find the least bad policy in most cases. 

A deeper thinker than Zakaria, Edward Luttwak, comes to much the same conclusion in his piece in the British Prospect.   Luttwak compares Bush to Harry Truman: despised as a catastrophic failure when he left office, but recognized as a success today.  Like Zakaria, Luttwak is no sycophant. 

For Bush to be recognised as a great president in the Truman mould, the Iraq war too must become half forgotten. The swift removal of the murderous Saddam Hussein was followed by years of expensive violence instead of the instant democracy that had been promised. To confuse the imam-ridden Iraqis with Danes or Norwegians under German occupation, ready to return to democracy as soon as they were liberated, was not a forgivable error: before invading a country, a US president is supposed to know if it is in the middle east or Scandinavia.

That is a serious criticism of Bush's invasion, but I think it is largely beside the point.  Iraq became a near disaster not because the Iraqis weren't Scandinavians, but because the forces hostile to the United States were much more inventive, much more capable of organized resistance, and much better supported from outside, than anyone guessed.  Resistance from various factions in Iraq should have been expected and Bush should have planned better for it.  The insurgency that did emerge was a genuine and horrific surprise.  All the more impressive, then, is the fact that Bush defeated it. 

But Luttwak points to a much more important fact: that the strategic situation the world over has shifted against our enemies. 

Until 9/11, Islamic militants, including violent jihadists of every sort, from al Qaeda to purely local outfits, enjoyed much public support—either overt or tacit—across most of the Muslim world. From Morocco to Indonesia, governments appeased militants at home while encouraging them to focus their violent activities abroad... 

All this came to an abrupt end after 9/11. Sophisticates everywhere ridiculed the uncompromising Bush stance, "Either you are with us, or you are with the terrorists," as a cowboy stunt, but it was swiftly successful. Governments across the Muslim world quickly changed their conduct. Some moved energetically to close down local jihadist groups they had long tolerated, to silence extremist preachers and to keep out foreign jihadis they had previously welcomed. Others were initially in denial...  Denial did not last.

Luttwak hits nails one point that is perhaps most important of all: the period after 9/11 was very perilous for world civilization.  Astoundingly enough, the village idiot from Texas managed to convert. 

The destruction of the twin towers was.. the most powerful possible call to action. It was quite enough to trigger not just a Madrid, a London or a Glasgow attack, but many more in Europe alone. The main target, however, was bound to be the US itself, as well as American tourists, expatriates, business residents and, naturally, any troops anywhere.

Instead, the global jihadi mobilisation, triggered by post-9/11 enthusiasm for Osama bin Laden, was stopped before it could gain any momentum by all that Bush set in motion: the destruction of al Qaeda training bases in Afghanistan, the killing or capture of most of its operatives, and, most importantly, the conversion of Muslim governments from the support of jihad to its repression.

Jihadism has been largely confined to Iraq and the border zones of Pakistan, where guns are fashion statements and jihad the latest excuse for millennial violence. By contrast, since 9/11, attacks against western ("Christian") targets have been few, with not a single attack in the US and just a handful in Europe. It would not have been so if a less determined, less self-confident president had been in the White House. "You are with us or with the terrorists" was the right slogan and the right policy. The post-victory shambles in Iraq is a sideshow by comparison.

If George W. Bush has achieved a great policy success, it was not necessarily due to any great genius.  If you take a dimmer view of Bush's dimness than I do, you might say it was due precisely to his simple minded grasp of things.  When the Twin Towers went down, Saddam Hussein was still in power in Iraq and the Taliban, along with their al Qaeda allies, were in power in Afghanistan.  Today Hussein and his demented sons are dead, and the surviving remnants of the terrorist coalition are shivering in caves in Pakistan.   That is the sort of thing that the Saudis notice.  Once they have noticed it, what do they do?

As they saw American special forces and long-range bombers smashing the Taliban, the Saudis began to admit responsibility for having spread extremism through the thousands of schools and academies they financed at home and abroad. An agonising reappraisal of their own Wahhabi form of Islam continues. The Saudi king has convened an inter-faith conference of Muslims, Christians and Jews—a huge step given the Wahhabi prohibitions of any form of amity with non-Muslims. Inside the kingdom, only less extreme preachers now receive public support. Bin Laden had been the Saudis' enemy for years, but it was only after 9/11 that they began actively to hunt down his supporters and made their first moves to discourage rich Saudis from sending money to jihadists abroad. More than a thousand Saudis have been arrested, dozens have been killed while resisting arrest, and Saudi banks must now check if wire transfers are being sent to Muslim organisations on the terrorist list.

A less resolute and robust reaction to 9/11 would not have triggered such events.  So here are two non-sycophants who conclude that Bush as been, well, not so much of a disaster as many suppose.  I admit to being a conservative and a Republican, and so I am inclined to pleasure when Bush gets something right.  But I like to get things right myself, regardless of whether they gratify my vanities.  If, as I suggest, the next President continues most of Bush's policies, we will look back on this period as one of general success.