William Katz: Urgent Agenda
SNIPPETS, our daily collection of short items and comments, is here.
---------------------------------------------
Our next subscription drive will be in October. However, readers are invited to subscribe at any time. Subscriptions are voluntary, but are critical to keeping us going. Subscribe in the right-hand column.
--------------------------------------------
Answers to last week's "Current Question" are here. The new "Current Question" is here, in the right-hand column.
--------------------------------------------
GALLUP: GOP COULD REGAIN CONTROL OF HOUSE
(See "In Congress" below)
FRIDAY, SEPTEMBER 12, 2008
UPDATE AT 10:14 P.M. ET: A new Newsweek poll of 1038 registered voters calls the presidential race tied. In general, Obama tends to do better among registered than among likely voters.
Bottom line: A very close race, but there's only one poll published today that shows Obama ahead, and that's by one point. A dramatic change from two weeks ago.
FROM THE FRONT
Posted at 9:01 p.m. ET
We are fighting two wars right now. Urgent Agenda has readers all over the world, and some of them are in the combat areas.
One reader, for example, commenting on our photo of the Army's Stryker combat vehicle, published here yesterday, wrote:
You should see it over here, with additional bar armor all over it, 3-4 machine guns sticking out of each hatch, and other neat stuff. It's cool even for an old jaded guy like me. That said, it also does a pretty good job of protecting our soldiers, and in getting them to the fight.
I sure hope so.
Another reader, a knowledgeable American traveling in the region in an official capacity, writes this about the situation in Afghanistan:
It is Ramazan in Afghanistan (they spell it with a z) and though, in general, things are quieters (mostly because everyone is exhausted by midday) the Taliban are seeking to exploit the quiet on occasion with spectacular attacks. The recent failed but well-coordinated attack by multiple suicide-vesters and the successful attack by the bomber dressed as a beggar are just two examples of what I expect will be several this month, especially around the "Night of Power" a particularly holy night in the third week or so (there are some sectarian disagreements on exactly when) of Ramazan.
Look for increased international and US efforts in Afghanistan soon. Simply too many areas are falling into the grasp of Taliban rebels who are growing bolder in the face of relatively sparse coalition presence (force ratios of solders to populace are startlingly disparate between
Iraq and Afghanistan).
I thought you'd like to hear it, from people who are actually there.
September 12, 2008. Permalink 
UPDATE AT 8:06 P.M. ET: A new Marist College poll gives New Jersey to Obama, 47-40, among registered voters. However, when the numbers are adjusted for likely voters, the spread becomes 48-45 in this heavily Democratic state. That is a less than overwhelming picture for Senator Obama.
Posted at 5:15 P.M. ET
In focusing on the presidential race there's a tendency to ignore Congress. In fact, all of the House and a third of the Senate are up for grabs this November.
Until now the conventional wisdom in the MSM held that the Democrats would sweep Congress, leaving maybe, oh, a Republican senator or two, and about half dozen congressmen, all right wingers who would put women in prison, take away minority voting rights and have Exxon-Mobil rewrite the Constitution. All on the first day.
Maybe not.
Gallup reports that the congressional preference gap has closed considerably. The GOP has an honest shot at turning things around. Although replacing Nancy Pelosi on the speaker's throne is a dream, it's a dream worth pursuing. Gallup:
PRINCETON, NJ -- A potential shift in fortunes for the Republicans in Congress is seen in the latest USA Today/Gallup survey, with the Democrats now leading the Republicans by just 3 percentage points, 48% to 45%, in voters' "generic ballot" preferences for Congress. This is down from consistent double-digit Democratic leads seen on this measure over the past year.
Maybe the voters noticed what Congress accomplished this year. That took a second.
The new results come from a Sept. 5-7 survey conducted immediately after the Republican National Convention and mirror the resulting enhanced position of the Republican Party seen in several other indicators. These range from John McCain's improved standing against Barack Obama in the presidential race to improved favorability ratings of the Republicans, to Republican gains in party identification. The sustainability of all of these findings is an open question that polling will answer over the next few weeks.
Maybe we're seeing more of the Sarah magic.
The positive impact of the GOP convention on polling indicators of Republican strength is further seen in the operation of Gallup's "likely voter" model in this survey. Republicans, who are now much more enthused about the 2008 election than they were prior to the convention, show heightened interest in voting, and thus outscore Democrats in apparent likelihood to vote in November. As a result, Republican candidates now lead Democratic candidates among likely voters by 5 percentage points, 50% to 45%.
And get this. Drumroll please:
If these numbers are sustained through Election Day -- a big if -- Republicans could be expected to regain control of the U.S. House of Representatives.
It's panic time in Aspen, hysteria in Manhattan, a call-the-shrink moment in Beverly Hills. Oh, the joy of it all. Get out the digital camera.
If the current closer positioning of the parties holds, the structure of congressional preferences will be similar to most of the period from 1994 through 2005, when Republicans won and maintained control of Congress.
I'll take it. Bottom line:
Now that the symbolic leadership of the party is shifting away from Bush and toward the suddenly popular Republican presidential ticket of John McCain and Sarah Palin, things may be changing. This shrinks Bush's shadow over the Republicans, revealing more of the Democrats' own shadow stemming from high disapproval of Congress.
Key point made by Gallup: We don't know if this will continue. McCain/Palin and the GOP must fight and fight, and never let up.
September 12, 2008. Permalink
UPDATE AT 2:49 P.M. ET: The new Hotline tracker just released shows Obama up by one point. The poll had McCain up by two yesterday. That's a three-point change in favor of Obama, whereas Rasmussen showed a three-point change in favor of McCain. There's probably a lot of statistical noise here, signifying nothing.
POLLS
Posted at 1:34 p.m. ET
Both our standard trackers for the day have been published. As noted below, McCain picked up three points since yesterday in the Rasmussen tracker, to lead Obama by three.
However, McCain lost a point in the Gallup tracker, which now also has him ahead by three. Two days ago he was up by five.
A new AP poll, just released, has McCain up four. The results are presented by AP as grudgingly as possible.
We always stress that polls are snapshots. However, the trend since the end of the conventions shows a modest lead for McCain, which, so far, he's kept.
Trackers tomorrow should pick up any changes prompted by Sarah Palin's first sit-down interview with major media.
September 12, 2008. Permalink
BULLETIN AT 9:39 A.M. ET: The first tracker of the day is out. Rasmussen reports that John McCain has jumped into a three-point lead over Barack Obama. Rasmussen had the race tied yesterday. However, Rasmussen still has Obama leading in the all-important electoral college, 264-247. It takes 270 electoral votes to win.
QUOTE OF THE DAY AT 9:18 A.M., FROM PEGGY NOONAN, WALL STREET JOURNAL: The mainstream media may themselves come down on Mr. Obama. They like him, but if he doesn't come back and make this a race, he'll embarrass them. They just might be on the edge of getting angry, having been left exposed. Forget what Mr. McCain and Mrs. Palin can do to Mr. Obama: If he embarrasses the media, they'll kill him.
She's got the media right.
IRAN - GOING CRITICAL
Posted at 8:58 a.m. ET
Reports on Iran's nuclear program are increasingly disturbing. Now we might have to say "alarming." Con Coughlin, who follows rogue states and terror dancers for London's Telegraph, reports:
Fresh evidence has emerged that suggests Iran has renewed work on developing nuclear weapons, according to Western security sources.
Nuclear experts responsible for monitoring Iran's nuclear programme have discovered that enough enriched uranium, which if processed to weapons grade level could be used to make up to six atom bombs, has disappeared from the main production facility at Isfahan.
American spy satellites have identified a number of suspicious sites, which the Iranians have not declared to nuclear inspectors, that intelligence officials believe are being used for covert research.
Isn't Isfahan subject to inspection?
The Isfahan complex, which enriches raw uranium "yellow cake" into material that can be used for either nuclear power or atomic weapons, is supposed to be subject to close supervision by the Vienna-based International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA). But the Iranians only allow IAEA inspectors access to the final stage of the production process, where the uranium in gas form - UF6 - is stored.
By conducting a careful study of the amount of material stored at Isfahan, and the amount of "yellow cake" known to have been processed at the plant, nuclear experts believe between 50-60 tons of uranium - which if enriched to weapons grade level would be sufficient to produce five or six atom bombs - has gone missing from the plant.
And...
IAEA officials believe the Iranians have deliberately removed the uranium at a stage in the production process that is not under their supervision. "The inspectors only have limited access at Isfahan, and it looks as though Iranian officials have removed significant quantities of UF6 at a stage in the process that is not being monitored," said a nuclear official. "If Iran's nuclear intentions are peaceful, then why are they doing this?"
Maybe it's just cultural. Maybe we don't understand because of BUSH! That's it.
The Iranians will be asked to give a full account of the missing enriched uranium when the IAEA's board of governors meets in Vienna later this month to discuss the continuing crisis over Iran's nuclear enrichment programme.
And I'm sure they'll get a full, prompt and friendly answer.
This is serious stuff. Washington doesn't seem to have the zeal about confronting Iran that it once did, thanks largely to the destroy-all-zeal stewardship of Condi Rice at the State Department, and the life-is-too-hard mentality at Defense.
Iran is forging ahead, with nothing to stop it. A new president may confront nuclear weapons in the hands of a theocracy that may actually mean what it preaches.
Note the concern of the Palin-pursuing mainstream media.
September 12, 2008. Permalink
CHANGE WE CAN'T BELIEVE IN
Posted at 8:25 a.m. ET
Gerard Baker, of The Times of London, one of our favorite British reporters. dissects the Obama mantra of change, and finds it doesn't quite hold up, for more than a minute or so. If the polls are any guide, more and more Americans are coming to the same conclusion:
Travelling in Britain this week, I've been asked repeatedly by close followers of US politics if it can really be true that Barack Obama might not win. Thoughtful people cannot get their head around the idea that Mr Obama, exciting new pilot of change, supported by Joseph Biden, experienced navigator of the swamplands of Washington politics, could possibly be defeated.
They look upon John McCain and Sarah Palin and see something out of hag-ridden history: the wizened old warrior, obsessed with finding enemies in every corner of the globe, marching in lockstep with the crackpot, mooseburger-chomping mother from the wilds of Alaska, rifle in one hand, Bible in the other, smiting caribou and conventional science as she goes.
They get this stuff from the BBC, another Atlantic institution that our intellectual establishment reveres.
Two patronising explanations are adduced to explain why Americans are going wrong. The first is racism. I've dealt with this before and it has acquired no more merit...
...In a similarly condescending account, those foolish saps are being conned into voting for Mr McCain because they like his running-mate. Her hockey-mom charm and storybook career appeals to their worst instincts. The race is boiling down to a beauty contest in which a former beauty queen is stealing the show. Believe this if it helps you come to terms with the possibility of a Democratic defeat. But there really are better explanations.
But, Gerard, those are the explanations that make the intellectual classes feel comfy.
One is a simple political-cultural one. This election is a struggle between the followers of American exceptionalism and the supporters of global universalism.
McCain believes in the first. Obama believes in the mush of the second.
You can argue the merits of each case. But let me try to explain to my fellow non-Americans why Mr Obama's problems go well beyond that.
And he does.
The essential problem coming to light is a profound disconnect between the Barack Obama of the candidate's speeches, and the Barack Obama who has actually been in politics for the past decade or so.
Speechmaker Obama has built his campaign on the promise of reform, the need to change the culture of American political life
Politician Obama rose through a Chicago machine that is notoriously the most corrupt in the country. As David Freddoso writes in a brilliantly cogent and measured book, The Case Against Barack Obama, the angel of deliverance from the old politics functioned like an old-time Democratic pol in Illinois. He refused repeatedly to side with those lonely voices that sought to challenge the old corrupt ways of the ruling party.
That's a point the McCain people should start driving home.
Speechmaker Obama talks about an era of bipartisanship, He speaks powerfully about the destructive politics of red and blue states.
Politician Obama has toed his party's line more reliably than almost any other Democrat in US politics. He has a near-perfect record of voting with his side. He has the most solidly left-wing voting history in the Senate.
And more...
Speechmaker Obama talks a lot about finding ways to move beyond the bloody battlegrounds of the “culture wars” in America; the urgent need to establish consensus on the emotive issue of abortion.
Politician Obama's support for abortion rights is the most extreme of any Democratic senator. In the Illinois legislature he refused to join Democrats and Republicans in supporting a Bill that would require doctors to provide medical care for babies who survived abortions.
The record is coming into focus.
Here's the real problem with Mr Obama: the jarring gap between his promises of change and his status quo performance. There are just too many contradictions between the eloquent poetry of the man's stirring rhetoric and the dull, familiar prose of his political record.
And a wonderful conclusion. This is why we like Gerard Baker:
It's been remarked that the biggest difference between Americans and Europeans is religion: ignorant Americans cling to faith; enlightened Europeans long ago embraced the liberating power of reason. Yet here's an odd thing about this election. Europeans are asking Americans to take a leap of faith, to break the chains of empiricism and embrace the possibility of the imagination.
The fact is that a vote for Mr Obama demands uncritical subservience to the irrational, anti-empirical proposition that the past holds no clues about the future, that promise is wholly detached from experience. The second-greatest story ever told, perhaps.
It will still be a tough fight, and the Europeans may ultimately get their way and see a President Obama. But we McCain backers may have the last laugh as the European coffee-house crowd starts to realize that Obama doesn't care about Europe, and never even visited when he chaired a Senate subcommittee dealing with European affairs. What will they say when President Obama refuses to stand up to the new Soviets, and Europeans suddenly realize they're in danger?
Maybe they'll say, "This McCain, is he still available? We'll take the girl, too."
September 12, 2008. Permalink
BLUNDERING ON SARAH
Posted at 7:45 a.m. ET
On the heels of Charlie Gibson's often-sneering interview with Sarah Palin, Michael Gerson examines another example of the liberal establishment's blundering in dealing with her. They could ask legitimate questions about her qualifications and background. They have, however, other ideas.
But instead of engaging this issue, liberals have been drawn, helpless and mesmerized -- like beetles to the vivid, blue paradise of the bug zapper -- toward criticizing Sarah Palin's religion. Palin's former Pentecostal church is called a "shout-and-holler tabernacle." Reporters press Palin's former pastor to reveal if she has ever spoken in tongues, the way it was once asked if candidates had ever used drugs. Palin's beliefs are compared to those of the Rev. Jeremiah Wright -- though it turns out that she was caught on tape requesting prayers for the success of her country instead of railing against it. In that sense, Palin sounds most like President Franklin Roosevelt, who prayed on D-Day that, "by Thy grace, and by the righteousness of our cause, our sons will triumph."
And...
There are serious responses to such silliness. If religious beliefs about the dignity of human life were illegitimate as a basis for public policy, there would have been no abolition or civil rights movements. The idea of a divine image found in every human person is one of the main foundations for the American tradition of liberty, tolerance and pluralism. Religious duty motivates millions to love and serve their neighbors -- and thus to respect their neighbor's rights of conscience.
Exactly.
But it is the political effect of these attacks that must have Team McCain shouting and hollering with the joy of a frontier camp meeting. In general, liberal political and media elites demonstrate a religious diversity that runs the spectrum from secularism to liberal Episcopalianism -- all the varied shades from violet to blue. Yet they assume their high church or Mencken-like disdain for religious enthusiasm is broadly shared.
They are shocked to learn that anyone - especially members of the non-coastal peasantry - could possibly disagree with them.
The media treatment of Pentecostalism (Palin's main religious background) and Bible church evangelicalism (her current affiliation) has had the quality of a National Geographic special on a newly discovered Amazon tribe. You might not suspect that Pentecostalism -- grown from the admirable, racially integrated roots of the Los Angeles Azusa Street Revival of 1906 -- is one of the fastest-growing and most influential forms of mainstream Christianity.
But who would want to research religion when one can research the newest UN statement on global warming, and drop a word of encouragement to Al Gore?
And so Democrats and their liberal allies set out a self-destructive mixed message. Democratic politicians press their appeal to blue-collar workers and the working poor -- while liberal intellectuals and pundits express their disdain for the religious values and motivations of the poor and middle class themselves.
Didn't used to be this way. When I was young, Democratic leaders felt as much at home in the pew as in the smoke-filled rooms. And both the pew and those rooms produced some pretty fine statesmen.
While most religious people in America don't speak in tongues, many pray for healing in times of sickness and trouble, and most are offended when sneering elites attack the religious practices of their friends and neighbors...
...All this can only work to Barack Obama's disadvantage, given his cool, aloof manner and his patronizing comments about the bitter and religious. And it has brought an unintended benefit to the McCain-Palin ticket -- a populist, religious appeal that McCain alone did not possess.
Well-written and well analyzed. I suspect that part of the liberal crowd's problem is that they don't know their own country very well, and don't want to. If one hasn't slept in a Yale dormitory, how can one live?
In that sense there's been a role reversal in American politics. Before the mid sixties it was the Republicans who did most of the sneering, looking down at those immigrants, those workers in the fields and factories who could never afford a Buick, those people with rough hands.
Now it is the Democrats. And like those pre-Reagan Republicans, they will probably never learn.
September 12, 2008. Permalink
UPDATE AT 6:51 A.M. ET: From ABC News: Live from New York…it's Sen. Barack Obama, D-Illinois. The campaign confirms that the Democratic presidential nominee will appear on the season premiere of Saturday Night Live, with guest host Michael Phelps.
Comment: He's been on before. A good idea during a campaign for the presidency? I'm not sure. Helps with the kids, maybe hurts with the parents.
FROM ALLESANDRA STANLEY OF THE NEW YORK TIMES, DESCRIBING CHARLIE GIBSON AS HE INTERVIEWED SARAH PALIN: Mr. Gibson, who sat back in his chair, impatiently wriggling his foot, had the skeptical, annoyed tone of a university president who agrees to interview the daughter of a trustee but doesn’t believe she merits admission.
Perfect.
THURSDAY, SEPTEMBER 11, 2008
AIRBRUSHED OUT?
Posted at 8:30 p.m. ET
There's an intriguing bit of speculation making the rounds in e-mails and political gossip, centering on this question: Will Joe Biden make it through the entire campaign, or will he drop out and be replaced by Hillary Clinton in order to save Obama's campaign?
There is a precedent, but not an encouraging one: In 1972, George McGovern named Senator Thomas Eagleton of Missouri as his running mate. It later developed that Eagleton had undergone electroshock therapy for some mental condition. He had to drop out of the race, replaced by R. Sargent Shriver, a member of the Kennedy family. (He was married to Eunice, Jack Kennedy's sister.) Shriver had been the first head of the Peace Corps.
McGovern/Shriver went on to lose in a landslide to the incumbent, Richard M. Nixon.
Could the replacement act be played out again? Well, consider possible scenarios. Biden could decide the issue for himself, call Obama and say, "Barack, I'm not doing you any good. I'll walk the plank. You need Hillary or you'll lose."
Or, Biden could be pressured into it.
Or, Biden could become conveniently ill. "The pain, the pain."
Each party has a quick-action mechanism for replacing a candidate.
So, how would it play? Well, first, Hillary would have to agree, and she might not. She might see it in her interest to let Obama go down the drain. And Obama would have to agree, and he might not. He hasn't shown himself to be a particularly big man.
But let's say, as this is sheer fun, that Hillary agrees to come in and "save" the world from Sarah Palin. And Obama, to save himself, agrees. Would the public accept it? Would it actually save Obama?
I think the answer to both questions is "no." First, unless Biden should suddenly pass on, and they'd have to prove it, it would be seen as beyond cynical. The McCain people would have a field day picturing Obama as a man who blew his first major decision as Democratic nominee. Obama would become just another scheming politician, which is an accurate description in any event.
Second, let's remember that Hillary has more barnacles than the Queen Mary. She may have a base among the Democratic faithful, but she's not universally loved or admired. Her presence, combined with the skepticism it would arouse, could drag the ticket down even further.
You can be sure that, if Obama starts sinking and someone suggests replacing Biden, extensive polling would be done first.
I don't think it will happen.
But it would make terrific theater, almost as good as "24."
September 11, 2008. Permalink
UPDATE AT 7:24 P.M. ET: I've just had a chance to review the first released transcript from Charlie Gibson's interview with Sarah Palin, available here. Gibson asks tough questions, and Palin comes off reasonably well. Not brilliantly, but reasonably well. She clearly has been briefed, as is appropriate and customary, but she doesn't stumble. By contrast, Gibson is somewhat surprising. Both in the transcript and in the brief video snippet that's been released, he comes off as a bit pompous and condescending - eyeglasses down over his nose - which doesn't do him much good. He has a kind of "I'm smarter than you" pose. This is unusual for Gibson. Maybe he felt he had to act this way to satisfy the liberal and feminist crowds in journalism, but a more conversational tone would have served him better. Judge for yourself.
OBNOXIOUS
Posted at 4:57 p.m. ET
The Associated Press, in another example of contemptible bias, is running a story on Sarah Palin's first major interview. Note the tone:
FORT WAINWRIGHT, Alaska (AP) -- Sarah Palin is taking cautious steps out of the bubble she's been in since becoming John McCain's running mate. But not many steps yet.
They are portraying her as a child.
The Alaska governor was sitting down Thursday for her first extended interview after days of preparation by the McCain campaign...
All candidates have preparation. It's standard procedure.
A figure of intense national interest, the 44-year-old Palin has been limited to stages and stump speeches, with little spontaneous interaction with voters -- a star on camera who has been sheltered from questioning to the point of appearing cosseted. Her interview with ABC's Charlie Gibson is the only one scheduled for her to date.
The story conveniently neglects to say that she'll spend two days with Gibson, with no questions off limits. Has Obama done that?
The governor's son is being deployed to Iraq today. There is even sneering about that.
Pentagon officials prohibit politicians from campaigning on military bases and met Wednesday to decide how the governor's appearance should be handled, given her position on McCain's ticket. They decided she could speak as Alaska's governor but her remarks could not be political or related to the campaign.
The event was opened to news coverage. The McCain campaign said earlier it would be closed but had no authority to make the call.
The tone is appalling. The McCain campaign "had no authority to make the call," as if they'd sinned. They probably thought the event would be off-limits to the press because of Pentagon rules, and were wrong. No issue there. As far as Pentagon officials meeting "to decide how the governor's appearance should be handled," come on! Officeholders make speeches at military bases all the time, even during campaigns. They know the rules. There is nothing unusual here.
And get this one:
Palin talks often in her speeches about her son's deployment, using it as an opportunity to promote McCain as a strong commander in chief. Joe Biden, Democrat Barack Obama's running mate, also has a son going to Iraq but rarely brings that up. McCain's son Jimmy, a Marine, returned earlier this year from the war.
In fact, young Biden's deployment was brought up in a speech at the Dem convention.
In military parlance, Track Palin is a ''dismount.'' He operates armored vehicles called Strykers, eight-wheeled trucks that weigh 19 tons.
Really? Trucks? The Stryker is an armored combat vehicle, not a truck. This is the Stryker. Does it look like a pickup to you?
Apparently we have another reporter here who doesn't do "the research thing."
Finally...
Sarah Palin arrived in Alaska on Wednesday to a warm homecoming from a crowd of more than 2,000. It was her first stop without McCain.
She's expected to rejoin him next week and spend much of the fall campaign at his side, even as Biden campaigns independently of Obama. Palin has proved a powerful draw at McCain's rallies, and keeping them together limits media access to her.
Despicable. They're being kept together because it works. It's electric. It has nothing to do with media access.
Ronald Reagan also would not genuflect before reporters. He spoke over their heads, directly to the American people. The people seemed to like it.
This is awful reporting. And the media honchos wonder why their industry is held in such low esteem.
September 11, 2008. Permalink
NOTE AT 3:54 P.M. ET: Reader John Catherwood recalls that Howard Dean was, for many months, the Dem hot property in 2004 - endorsed by a multitude of top names for the presidency, considered by the media fully qualified, almost a shoo-in until his campaign got derailed in the Iowa primary. He was governor of Vermont. Sarah Palin's qualifications are constantly belittled because Alaska has a small population. But, it turns out, Alaska has more people than Vermont. Why the double standard?
COMMENT: Howard Dean went to medical school, which in some rarefied circles makes him qualified for anything. Maybe that's the reason. If only Sarah learned to say, "Stick out your tongue and say 'ah'."
TRACKERS
Posted at 1:32 p.m. ET
Both our standard trackers are out for the day. And we're going to add a third, the Hotline tracker.
As noted below, Rasmussen has the race tied. Obama was up one yesterday.
Gallup has McCain up four. McCain was up five yesterday.
Hotline has McCain up two. It was a tie yesterday.
These are not statistically important changes. However, all three confirm that the McCain convention bounce remains. We'll know more about that next week.
Writing about its results, Gallup says:
These results, based on Sept. 8-10 polling, show McCain continuing to ride his post-convention bounce. He has held a statistically significant lead over Obama in each of the last four three-day rolling averages.
In addition, since Sept. 5 -- the first night after the Republican National Convention -- he has outpolled Obama in each of the last six individual night's polling. That consistent pattern in the night-to-night data suggests that McCain has a stable lead for now.
Progress has been made. But this will be a tough fight.
September 11, 2008. Permalink
UPDATE AT 12:40 P.M. ET: A new Democracy Corps poll of 1,000 likely voters, just published, has McCain up two over Obama. We're awaiting the Gallup tracker.
BULLETIN AT 9:57 A.M. ET: From the Palm Beach Post: Since naming Sarah Palin as his running mate, Republican John McCain has gained among Hillary Clinton’s former supporters in Florida and has taken a 50-to-43 percent lead over Democrat Barack Obama in the state, a new Quinnipiac University poll says.
COMMENT: Critical state. If this lead holds, it's a major plus for McCain. However, the same pollster has Obama leading in Ohio and Pennsylvania. Pennsylvania is no surprise, but the Quinnipiac poll in Ohio seems to differ from other recent polls, and should be considered tentative.
UPDATE AT 9:35 A.M. ET: The first tracker of the day is out. Rasmussen reports a dead heat, at 48-48. He had Obama up one yesterday. This represents no statistical change of importance, but does demonstrate that, so far at least, McCain's convention bounce shows no sign of fading.
----------------------------------------------------------
THE DATE
Posted at 7:41 a.m. ET
Today is September 11th, the seventh anniversary of the terrorist outrages in New York and Washington, and the terrorist destruction of United flight 93 in Pennsylvania . In the seven years since, we have not had a single attack on our soil. This, of course, will be attributed by the usual suspects to luck or some other myth, just as Ronald Reagan's successful ending of the Cold War, in victory, was attributed to 1) more luck, 2) coincidence, 3) Soviet economic problems, or 4) the enlightened wonderfulness of Mikhail Gorbachev. It was Gorbachev who got the Nobel Peace Prize, not Reagan, who actually organized the peace. Reagan, however, began his successful policy by building up American defense, something the Nobel Prize committee apparently frowned upon.
When we think of September 11th, 2008, we should think of 1948. December 7th, 1948, was exactly seven years after the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor - the equivalent of today's distance, in time, from the terrorist attacks. By 1948 World War II was over, the Pearl Harbor attackers and Nazi Germany had been defeated, and Americans were building the post-war world. Pearl Harbor, while memorialized every year, had become a memory.
It is different today. The war is not over, the enemy has not been defeated, and many of this country's elite institutions, which so fervently assisted during World War II, are at best indifferent to and at worst actually hostile to our efforts.
Our media today is run by a generation of editors and news managers who believe that their greatest triumph was the destruction of our effort in Vietnam. Our universities are populated by the intellectual leftovers of that era. ROTC programs are still banned by our most "prestigious" schools. Imagine what the national reaction would have been if Harvard or Yale had banned officer-training programs in World War II?
Many myths have grown since the 9-11 attacks. One of the most pernicious is that America was loved on that day, but allowed that love to turn to hate because of the policies of the Bush administration. In fact, the attacks brought only a momentary respite in the traditional anti-Americanism that permeates Europe, and no respite in the hatred of America that permeates the Arab world. Yes, there were some gestures of sympathy with our country, some signing of condolence books, some playing of our national anthems in the courtyards of foreign governments.
But within two days of the attacks, the BBC was on the air with a vile, anti-American program. The famous French editorial entitled, "We Are All Americans Now," was actually anti-American in its tone. Many nations made it clear very quickly that their sympathy was pro forma, that they actually wanted us to do very little to combat terror or interfere with their financial dealings in the Middle East.
Let us not forget that the vile Jimmy Carter, a severe critic of the Bush administration, was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize in 2002, a year after the attacks. A member of the selection committee openly stated that the award was "a kick in the shins" to President Bush. This was months before Iraq, so that could not have been the excuse.
Now we're told by the Democratic candidate that we must "rebuild" our "broken" alliances. What are we rebuilding from? Many of our "alliances" have proven hollow, especially our alliances within NATO. Yes, NATO has "helped" in Afghanistan, but its help is anemic, and some NATO nations won't even allow their troops to engage in combat. NATO is the United States, maybe Britain. The rest is window dressing.
There is danger that we will lose our will, and lose our sense of our own independence and nationhood. Today we should affirm our right to defend ourselves and our civilization, without the permission of the leftist intellectual elites who often dominate our discussion.
In two months America will have a choice between two visions of America - one the traditional, confident vision of the indispensable nation that has done more to protect human freedom than any other nation in history, the other the clouded vision of a "defective" nation that must be restrained, and become a supplicant to that myth called "world opinion." On that choice may rest the future of this country, and much more.
September 11, 2008. Permalink
"What you see is news. What you know is background. What you feel is opinion."
- Lester Markel, late Sunday editor
of The New York Times.
SUBSCRIPTIONS:
Subscriptions to URGENT AGENDA are voluntary. Why subscribe to something you're getting free? To help guarantee that you'll continue to get it at all. Subscriptions sustain us. Payments are through PayPal and are secure, but you do not have to sign up for a PayPal account. Credit cards are fine.
FOR A ONE-YEAR ($48) SUBSCRIPTION, CLICK:
FOR A SIX-MONTH ($26) SUBSCRIPTION, CLICK:
IF YOU DON'T WISH A SET SUBSCRIPTION, BUT PREFER TO DONATE ANY OTHER AMOUNT TO SUSTAIN URGENT AGENDA, CLICK:
SEARCH URGENT AGENDA:
POWER LINE:
It's a privilege for me to post periodic pieces at Power Line. To go to Power Line, click here.
To link to my Power Line pieces, go here.
THE CURRENT QUESTION
This space will regularly raise questions that relate to the news, but transcend daily headlines. The idea is to stimulate talk about basic issues. Our last question asked:
Last week we asked,
What are the three most absurd positions put forward by Barack Obama?
You can view the answers here.
This question was was suggested by reader Francis Drouillard:
What will Obama supporters do if he loses?
If you'd like to send us your thoughts, click:
response@urgentagenda.com
(Please stay within two or three paragraphs. We try to print every reply, if space allows. Place your name at the end of the message if you wish your name published. This question will stay up through Sunday.)
CONTACT:
YOU CAN E-MAIL US, AS FOLLOWS:
If you have wonderful things to say about this site, if it makes you a better person, please click:
applause@urgentagenda.com
If you have a general comment on anything you see here, or on anything else that's topical, please click:
comments@urgentagenda.com
If you must say something obnoxious, something that will embarrass you and disgrace your loving family, click:
despicable@urgentagenda.com
If you required subscription service, please click:
service@urgentagenda.com
FAVORITE SITES (List will grow)
Power Line
Faster Please (Michael Ledeen)
OpinionJournal.com
Hudson Institute
Bookworm Room
Bill Bennett
Red State
Pajamas Media
Michelle Malkin
Diana West
The Weekly Standard
The New York Sun
Real Clear Politics
The Corner
City Journal
Gateway Pundit
American Thinker