SECOND EVENING UPDATE:  JUNE 13,  2008

Posted at 6:21 p.m. ET

BUSH NOSTALGIA?

Gerard Baker of The Times of London is one of the most astute British reporters in Washington. And here he suggests that the Europeans, who proclaim their hatred of President Bush at every turn, may actually come to miss the chap:

I still harbour a conviction that for all their expectation of a brave new dawn, the Europeans are going to miss Mr Bush in ways that they are only beginning to understand.

They'll miss, first, having a villain in the White House. It's a really convenient excuse to avoid doing anything yourself on pressing global concerns. And if Senator Obama wins, while the tone and nuances will sound more mellifluous to Europeans ears, most of those issues won't change, and some might actually become a lot worse.

Despite the heat of Iraq in the presidential campaign now, I doubt that a President Obama will act much differently from President Bush, or for that matter from a President McCain. Conditions will either allow a quick US drawdown or they won't.

If it's Obama...

He is certainly going to want more European effort in Afghanistan. European governments can conveniently hide behind anti-Bush sentiment now to resist those calls, but that won't work when St Barry is in the White House.

What's more, the supposedly more multilateralist Mr Obama might have some unpleasant surprises. He is promising to start a new US-led diplomatic track with the Iranian leadership that could upset the delicate balancing act painstakingly constructed between the US, the EU, Russia and China. And when it comes to free trade he, like the Democratic Party, is decidedly not keen on being nice to foreigners.

And...

As an adviser to Mr Obama noted recently at a transatlantic conference in Washington, the differences for Europe between a first Obama administration and the second Bush Administration will probably be smaller than the differences between the first and the second Bush terms.

Hmm.  I wonder how the leftist European press, currently in love with Obama, will explain that.  They'll probably say that BUSH(!) did so much damage that it will take more than Obama to undo it.  Or that BUSH (!) is still secretly pulling the strings. 

That's true, isn't it?

June 13, 2008.      Permalink          

FIRST EVENING UPDATE:  JUNE 13, 2008

Posted at 5:56 p.m. ET

RUSSERT

Tim Russert has died suddenly.  I think any reasonable review of his work would be heavily positive.  He'd worked in Democratic politics, but made the transition to journalism, and won the respect of people of both parties.  His interviews were tough, and well-researched.  He was fair.

The most important thing about Russert was his understanding that politics isn't only about "ideas" or "vision," but about people.  He had a gut feeling for ordinary neighborhoods, having come from one and having never forgotten it.  He recognized that a college degree was a steppingstone in life, not something to separate the bearer from his past or from his readers or viewers.

He was not flawless.  I do think he allowed some of the idealogues at NBC News to roll over him.  But he was never one of them, and he left a good name. 

June 13, 2008.      Permalink          

AFTERNOON POST:  JUNE 13,  2008

Posted at 2:45 p.m. ET

TRACKERS

The Rasmussen tracker for today shows Obama holding relatively steady, with a five-point lead over McCain. 

However, the Gallup tracker shows a significant decline for Obama, who now leads in that poll by only three points, down from the 6-7 point lead earlier in the week. 

We stress that these polls are only daily snapshots, with a margin of error.  In Gallup's case, the claimed margin of error is two percent.  In Rasmussen's it's four.

Obama received a bounce from his victory last week.  Will the bounce last?  We'll watch the trackers over the next week to see. 

June 13, 2008.      Permalink          

EARLY AFTERNOON POST:  JUNE 13,  2008

Posted at 1:41 p.m. ET

REVENGE

There is trouble brewing in Denmark: 

COPENHAGEN (Reuters) - Al Qaeda is planning an attack in Denmark, the head of the Danish security police said on Friday, two weeks after the network claimed responsibility for a deadly bombing at the Danish embassy in Pakistan.

"We see now -- also in cases not yet public -- a determined steering, training and planning of a terror attack on Danish soil with management from al Qaeda," Security and Intelligence Service (PET) head Jakob Scharf said in an interview published on newspaper Nyhedsavisen's website.

Al Qaeda said earlier this month it was behind a suicide attack on Denmark's embassy in the Pakistani capital Islamabad that killed six and injured 20.

It called the act revenge for the 2005 publication of caricatures of the Prophet Mohammad. Most Muslims consider physical representations of the founder of Islam blasphemous.

Scharf said al Qaeda had a strong desire to carry out an attack in Denmark.

The Danish people have been remarkably resilient in the face of these threats.  Denmark is the West European country that is probably most free of cynicism.  In World War II the Danish resistance saved almost all the country's Jews by slipping them out to Sweden in small boats. 

More:

Scharf said there were "a number of operations running."

"We are looking at people and networks in Denmark which constitute a concrete threat and have the will and the means to carry out an attack," he said.

He said young potential Islamist militants were more professional now than ever.

"They are better, more dedicated and better trained."

A number of Danish Muslim youths have been jailed for plotting attacks in the country over the last four years.

The key question:  Who will stand with Denmark?  When the cartoons were published, an embarrassing number of Denmark's "allies" were either silent or gave only tepid support to the notion of a free press.  Even the United States was less than stalwart.

So who will stand with Denmark if there's an attack on Danish soil?  I know where John McCain will stand.  Senator Obama? 

June 13, 2008.      Permalink          

FRIDAY:  JUNE 13,  2008

Posted at 6:58 a.m. ET

THE AMERICAS

Peggy Noonan reflects on the differences between old America and new America, the America of John McCain and the nation of Barack Obama:

Roughly, broadly:

In the Old America, love of country was natural. You breathed it in. You either loved it or knew you should.

In the New America, love of country is a decision. It's one you make after weighing the pros and cons. What you breathe in is skepticism and a heightened appreciation of the global view.

Old America: Tradition is a guide in human affairs. New America: Tradition is a challenge, a barrier, or a lovely antique.

The Old America had big families. You married and had children. Life happened to you. You didn't decide, it decided. Now it's all on you. Old America, when life didn't work out: "Luck of the draw!" New America when life doesn't work: "I made bad choices!" Old America: "I had faith, and trust." New America: "You had limited autonomy!"

And...

Mr. McCain is the old world of concepts like "personal honor," of a manliness that was a style of being, of an attachment to the fact of higher principles.

Mr. Obama is the new world, which is marked in part by doubt as to the excellence of the old. It prizes ambivalence as proof of thoughtfulness, as evidence of a textured seriousness.

Both Old and New America honor sacrifice, but in the Old America it was more essential, more needed for survival both personally (don't buy today, save for tomorrow) and in larger ways.

And...

A New America answer: He didn't become a rich lawyer like everyone else—and that was a sacrifice! Old America: Five years in a cage—that's a sacrifice!

In the Old America, high value was put on education, but character trumped it. That's how Lincoln got elected: Honest Abe had no formal schooling. In Mr. McCain's world, a Harvard Ph.D. is a very good thing, but it won't help you endure five years in Vietnam. It may be a comfort or an inspiration, but it won't see you through. Only character, and faith, can do that. And they are very Old America.

Noonan reaches this conclusion:

I suspect the political playing out of a long-ongoing cultural and societal shift is part of the dynamic this year.

As to its implications for the race, we'll see. America is always looking forward, not back, it is always in search of the fresh and leaving the tried. That's how we started: We left tired old Europe and came to the new place, we settled the east and pushed West to the new place. We like new. It's in our genes. Hope we know where we're going, though.

Apparently, Noonan believes that Obama will be elected, and has her doubts about him.  Frankly, I'm inclined to agree.  I think McCain has a very heavy burden, fighting uphill in this Democratic year, and fighting a press bias of remarkable proportions.  I hope I'm wrong.  I hope Noonan is wrong.  For I don't think Senator Obama knows where he's going, or how to get there.

June 13, 2008.      Permalink          

OIL

Mr. Obama has handed Senator McCain an opening, but I wonder whether McCain will seize the moment:

KAUKAUNA — As gas prices top $4 a gallon around the Fox Valley, Sen. Barack Obama said a reduction in consumption, not new domestic drilling, will provide relief.

“If we reduce our consumption of oil, that’s what will reduce gas prices. There’s really no other way of doing it,” the presumptive Democratic nominee said in a one-on-one interview with The Post-Crescent during a campaign stop in Kaukauna.

“We can’t drill our way out of the problem because there’s just a finite amount of oil out there and you have got increasing demand from countries like China and India.

“And so the way we are going to see gas prices reduced is when we start using the oil that we get more intelligently than we are doing now.”

Well, excuse me.  I always love these Obama comments that suggest we're not quite as intelligent as he thinks we should be.  I love them even more when he's wrong, which he usually is.  In fact, we have plenty of oil reserves.  But thanks to environmental extremism, we can't, by law, tap them.  If we could, we could drive down oil prices, while, at the same time, starting to move toward alternative fuels.  Oh, one of those fuels can't be nuclear because Mr. Obama's party is against that too.  Too dangerous.  Tell it to the Navy, which has been using nuclear power, without incident, for more than half a century. 

This will be an oil-based economy for some time.  Responsible drilling, and it's done all the time, can help us enormously.  But Mr. Obama refuses to see.

Senator McCain can exploit Democratic blindness, but he's against further drilling in Alaska, and thus has painted himself into the proverbial corner.  He ought to reverse course, declare this a national energy emergency, and come out in favor of extensive new drilling for a definite period of time.

McCain has to seize the moment, and hammer Obama as a captive of the Democratic Party's demons.  Whether he does it will determine the outcome of this campaign.

June 13, 2008.      Permalink           

LET US PRAISE

It's always wonderful to see a public servant fulfill his or her potential, and win praise while still in office.  Robert Gates, the secretary of defense, seems to qualify.  Ralph Peters, who can be crusty when necessary, softens a bit to reflect on Gates, and his success as the successor to Don Rumsfeld at the Pentagon:

MIRACLES do happen: A Bush Cabinet officer has proven not only competent, but wise, honest, independent and courageous.

That man is Defense Secretary Robert Gates - who just may be the best SecDef this country has ever had.

If only he could stay on into the next administration, he might rival our greatest Secretary of War, Elihu Root, the crucial military reformer of the early 20th century.

Gates is just and deliberate, but he's wonderfully tough when it's time to make hard decisions. In his brief tenure - since Dec. 18, 2006 - he's stood up to each of the services when they deserved it.

Even more crucially (and dangerously), he's been willing to face down the plutocrats of the defense industry - the thugs in $3,000 suits who've robbed our military for decades, stealing your tax dollars.

Gates' most-recent demonstration of patriotic guts involved firing the Air Force secretary and chief of staff.

I've also been struck by Gates's decency and absolute dedication to his job. 

He holds the other services accountable, too: Questioning the cost and utility of the Future Combat System - a divisive issue within the Army itself - Gates "went Missouri," demanding evidence of how this $200 billion package would contribute meaningfully to the range of conflicts we face now and will face in the future.

The Navy and Marine Corps have had to answer tough questions, too. Everyone gets a fair hearing, but if Gates remains unconvinced, he'll go high-noon with the vested interests. And his decisions always favor our troops in combat.

When the generals decided not to buy vehicles designed to deflect roadside bombs - since they might not be useful in future conflicts - Gates overruled them. In the view of this SecDef, protecting our troops now is more important than fantasies about tomorrow.

That said, Gates respects his generals just as he values the privates. He just won't tolerate substandard performers. His motto could well be "Never imperious, always curious."

I like the idea, proposed by Peters, that Gates stay on into the next administration.  That would be easy if McCain wins.  And Obama?  It would be a stroke of statesmanship for him to ask Gates to remain, and would demonstrate a bipartisanship that Obama talks about but seldom practices. 

But I suspect that the people around Obama will make it impossible.  Gates has served BUSH, and that is a sin to the Obama legions.  A President, Obama can overrule them, of course, but thus far he hasn't taken a single position at odds with the leftist establishment in his Democratic Party.  I hold not my breath.

June 13, 2008.      Permalink