FRIDAY,  AUGUST 15,  2008

THE NEXT THREE

Posted at 8:14 p.m. ET

Excellent political reporter Dan Balz projects ahead, and gives us a preview of the next three weeks and their importance:

In the modern era, there has never been quite as concentrated a dose of potentially campaign-altering events as the coming three weeks could produce. By the end of that period, Obama and McCain will have announced their vice presidential running mates, staged four-day infomercials for their candidacies and delivered what are likely to be the single most important speeches of the general election.

And...

Normally these events have stretched over six weeks or more and generally have taken place much earlier in the summer. Voters have had time to fully digest each one before the next has occurred. That changed this year because the Democratic and Republican parties decided to hold their conventions back-to-back, and later than ever before. It also changed because, despite much speculation to the contrary, Obama and McCain have waited until just before the conventions to name their vice presidents.

And...

The competitiveness of the Obama-McCain contest now argues for safe vice presidential choices. Neither is in a position to risk -- nor does either need -- a running mate whose selection dramatically changes perceptions of their candidacies.

Well, maybe.  On the other hand, there's the temptation to go for the gold and choose someone who will attract excitement.  But the conventional wisdom is with Balz's analysis.

Obama and McCain each have convention narratives that will require deft management. For Obama, it is the inevitable drama with Hillary and Bill Clinton. Both camps suggest that everything is on track for a harmonious week in Denver...

...Perhaps all that will work out as the organizers hope. Still, there are at least a few veterans who understand the unpredictable dynamics of a convention floor. They worry that the plan to put Clinton's name in nomination could spin in directions neither Clinton nor Obama anticipates.

Oh, let us hope!

McCain's narrative presents even trickier management. Can he simultaneously lock down the base and send signals to the independents he desperately needs to win in November that he's different? Can he embrace parts of Bush's presidency and reject others and do so with a consistency and conviction that will resonate with those voters?

Yes he can.  As of today he's running within one point of Obama.  Finally...

The presidential campaign has produced a three-week moment fully worthy of what this new, 24/7 media age demands -- a stretch of days that will generate a non-stop string of words, images, commentary and speculation. Three weeks from today, it will all be over, and the sprint to November will be underway, leaving the candidates to wonder whether they were as fully ready for what just transpired as they should have been.

This is blogger heaven.  Can't wait.

August 15, 2008.      Permalink          

HITCH?

Posted at 6:39 p.m. ET

Would you like to waste some time?

The following image is being widely circulated on the internet.  It's a frame from Alfred Hitchcock's classic film, "North by Northwest." 

Now, the pressing issue is this: Some bloggers argue that this is Alfred Hitchcock himself, who made a cameo appearance in each of his films.

What do you think?

I think it's nuts.  First, it doesn't look much like him.  Second, each of his cameos was clear-cut.  You couldn't doubt that it was Alfred Hitchcock.  His cameo was his signature.  Third, Hitchcock already had a cameo in "North by Northwest," occurring as the film began.  He is plainly seen trying to board a bus.  In the published script, which I have, there is a footnote on page 1, reading, "During the credit DIRECTED BY ALFRED HITCHCOCK, Alfred Hitchcock is shown running after a bus which pulls away without him."

This is Alfred Hitchcock.  Note the shape of the face, and compare to the image above.

Case closed.

Why do people do this?

August 15, 2008.      Permalink          

GALLUP - RACE TIED!!

Posted at 1:35 p.m. ET

Welcome back to the villa, Senator Obama.  Memo waiting from the Gallup guys:  The race is tied.

Both trackers are out for the day.  Rasmussen, as we reported earlier at SNIPPETS, has Obama up two. 

But Gallup, which had Obama up six only two days ago, now shows a tie.

Again, we stress that these are snapshots, and that only trends over time will tell the story. 

The average of Rasmussen and Gallup has Obama leading by only one point, and this is a week and three days before his convention opens in Denver.  This is not where he expected to be. 

There'll undoubtedly be other polls in the coming days, but the convening Democrats are savvy enough to know that ordering new furniture for the White House might have to be put off.   And Obama has given Hillary and her people major time at the convention. 

Will there be a revolt?  Stay tuned.  Such fun.

August 15, 2008.      Permalink          

THE GEORGIA ISSUE

Posted at 8:05 a.m. ET

Michael Ledeen, now housed at the Foundation for the Defense of Democracies, also notes the 1930s (see the next story down), in his examination of our response to the Georgia crisis.  He finds it wanting:

Over and over again, in tones ranging from annoyance to paternalistic, the pundits tell us that “there is no military option” with regard to the Russian invasion of Georgia. And in case you missed the point, they will tell you that we’re not going to war with Russia over this particular crisis. Not for little Georgia, so unimportant, so far away. It’s very hard to find any of the leading commentators who thinks otherwise.

It’s an odd way to formulate the issue, since Russia has gone to war with us. Georgia is our ally...

...If you expand your vision of the strategic board from the Caucasus to include the Middle East, you see that the Russians are working in close tandem with other countries that are waging war on us. Syria uses Russian weapons and is installing Russian anti-aircraft systems, as is Iran...

...But there, too, the pundits and the policy makers have concluded that there is no military option, that we’re not going to war over this particular crisis. Not to stop Iran from going nuclear. Others have the bomb, after all. And Iran is so far away.

Do you get a sense of some clarity here?  And now, back to the thirties:

Many others have noticed the grim similarity between such comments and Chamberlain’s historic remarks about the Nazi invasion of Czechoslovakia. Few have quoted Churchill, whose words should be posted on every computer in the National Security Council: “(Chamberlain) had a choice between war and dishonor. He chose dishonor, and he got war.”

Ledeen argues that, even before Georgia, we've had war - Afghanistan, Somalia, Iraq, Lebanon, Israel, northern Africa:

Insofar as America is seen as weak, our enemies will redouble their actions and our friends will hold back, fearing that association with us will not protect them, and single them out for attack.

His argument continues:

The Russians think they have shown that it’s costly to be a friend of the United States. We need to show that there can be a high price for friendship with the bear. It is long past time for us to strike at the terrorist training camps inside those two nasty Russian allies, Syria and Iran. Moreover, we have political weapons the Russians can’t use, namely support for freedom. Their friends and allies are tyrants, and their subjects are on our side of the political divide. Support for the repressed peoples of Russia’s buddies — also long overdue — can, at a minimum, compel the tyrants to worry about their own survival rather than the destruction of our security interests. And we have every chance of success, without firing a shot or dropping a bomb.

There's a whole crowd in Washington that always talks about "soft power."  I've felt that, for many of them, it's a bit of a dodge.  Notice that group is silent again, even though Ledeen points out how soft power can be used.  Will his advice be followed?  Will Barack divorce Michelle to marry Hillary?

Finally...

So instead of the incantation “we won’t go to war over this,” serious people in the West must accept the fact that the war is on, and we must find ways to win it. We have enormous advantages, there’s no excuse for the years of dithering.

But I'm afraid we're in dithering mode again, and an Obama administration will make dithering a national ideal.  Even the gossip that a man like Chuck Hagel could be made secretary of state chills anyone who looks, with some sobriety, at the world. 

For some the word "victory" is old-fashioned.  But if you value the security of the United States, and the advance of a truly civilized civilization, find me an alternative?

August 15, 2008.      Permalink          

RETURN TO THE THIRTIES?

Posted at 7:11 a.m. ET

Distinguished historian Victor Davis Hanson has always defied the trendies.  Among other things, the trendies ridicule some conservatives for warning that events today are reminiscent of the 1930s.  Hanson says that, yes, they're reminiscent of the 1930s, and he goes about proving it:

Russia invades Georgia. China jails dissidents. China and India pollute at levels previously unimaginable. Gulf monarchies make trillions from jacked-up oil prices. Islamic terrorists keep car bombing. Meanwhile, Europe offers moral lectures, while Japan and South Korea shrug and watch -- all in a globalized world that tunes into the Olympics each night from Beijing.

"Citizens of the world" were supposed to share, in relative harmony, our new "Planet Earth," which was to have followed from an interconnected system of free trade, instantaneous electronic communications, civilized diplomacy and shared consumer capitalism.

But was that ever quite true?

In reality, to the extent globalism worked, it followed from three unspoken assumptions:

Hanson says that the three were 1) the U.S. economy would keep importing goods to drive international growth; 2) the U.S. would keep the sea lanes open and act as global sheriff; and 3) the U.S. would remain engaged with the world.  But, says Hanson...

...there have been a number of indications recently that globalization may soon lose its American parent, who is tiring, both materially and psychologically.

The United States may be the most free, stable and meritocratic nation in the world, but its resources and patience are not unlimited.

And the result of the parent turning away?

But as the United States turns ever so slightly inward, the new globalized world will revert to a far poorer -- and more dangerous -- place...

...what a richer but more critical world has forgotten is that in large part America was the model, not the villain -- and that postwar globalization was always a form of engaged Americanization that enriched and protected billions.

Yet globalization, in all its manifestations, will run out of steam the moment we tire of fueling it, as the world returns instead to the mindset of the 1930s -- with protectionist tariffs; weak, disarmed democracies; an isolationist America; predatory dictatorships; and a demoralized gloom-and-doom Western elite.

Finally...

If America adopts the protectionist trade policies of Japan or China, global profits plummet. If our armed forces follow the European lead of demilitarization and inaction, rogue states advance. If we were to treat the environment as do China and India, the world would become quickly a lost cause.

If we flee Iraq and call off the war on terror, Islamic jihadists will regroup, not disband. And when the Russians attack the next democracy, they won't listen to the United Nations, the European Union or Michael Moore.

Brace yourself -- we may be on our way back to an old world, where the strong do as they will, and the weak suffer as they must.

It would be wonderful if we had more historians with the clarity of Victor Davis Hanson.  That doesn't mean he'll be right on everything, or that those things he predicts will go in a straight line.  History meanders, fools us, then travels on again.  An impatient America must realize, as our parents realized, that all problems will not be solved in an hour, or even in one president's administration. 

But many in America do seem to be turning inward.  It's understandable.  We get no thanks for our efforts, and many nations, including allies, seem too eager to undo the good we often do. 

There will attempts, especially if Obama is elected, to cut national defense, something we've done before with catastrophic results.  There will be the usual line that we can't pursue an active foreign policy and take care of domestic problems at the same time.  We can.  We did in the late forties.

The events in Georgia in the last week remind us that history is not about to leave us alone.

August 15, 2008.      Permalink