SECOND EVENING UPDATE:  JUNE 24,  2008

Posted at 10:25 p.m. ET

POWER TO THE PEOPLE

Once again Barack Obama and his merry men are giving John McCain an opening, if McCain would only seize it.  Obama said this in Nevada.  Note the pandering, note the lack of any real ideas:

LAS VEGAS (Reuters) - U.S. presidential candidate Barack Obama on Tuesday criticized his rival John McCain's proposal to encourage the building of 45 new nuclear reactors by 2030.

Obama, a Democrat, said the Republican candidate lacked a plan for storage of the waste. It was among several energy-strategy ideas that Obama said were "not serious energy policies."

Obama was speaking in Nevada, a state where proposals to build a nuclear waste disposal site at Yucca Mountain have generated strong opposition.

He also took aim at McCain's plan to allow more offshore U.S. oil drilling.

"It doesn't make sense for America," Obama said. "In fact, it makes about as much sense as his proposal to build 45 new nuclear reactors without a plan to store the waste some place other than right here at Yucca Mountain," the Illinois senator said.

No, it makes a lot of sense.  Americans now want offshore drilling.  A majority now wants nuclear power.  The waste problem can be solved.  Americans understand that alternative fuels may take a long time, and some may not even work.  They want solid, practical, realistic solutions that can be employed as quickly as possible.

Then there's this:

ABC News' Bret Hovell and James Gerber Report: The largest assemblage of protestors to gather at a McCain event this election cycle greeted the Arizona Republican this morning in Santa Barbara, California.

The group of about 100, largely assembled to protest McCain’s environmental policies, awaited him outside the Santa Barbara Natural History Museum, where McCain is set to deliver remarks and receive a briefing on the environment.

McCain has received flack in recent days for reversing his position on U.S. off-shore oil drilling. The presumptive Republican nominee has long opposed it but switched positions this month, citing the need for relief from high gas-prices for American families.

If I were McCain's media adviser, I'd work that protest into campaign ads.  McCain is going up against the environmental theocrats and Obama is caving to them.

I'm part of that list of people who believe energy policy can win this election for McCain, if he hits it hard and shows how his plans bring quicker relief. 

June 24, 2008.      Permalink          

FIRST EVENING UPDATE:  JUNE 24,  2008

Posted at 6:58 p.m. ET

CHARACTER

Richard Cohen, the generally liberal columnist for The Washington Post, has a rather surprising column today in which he essentially gives the edge for character in the presidential race to John McCain. 

The Democratic nominee reversed himself on the public funding of presidential campaigns and decided that he would, after all, raise the money himself. The reason for this reversal is that Obama is going to raise much more money on his own than the $84 million the government is prepared to give him. This is the kind of math even I can understand, and I forgive Obama for valuing victory over consistency.

But what is far less forgivable is the socialist realism language he used to rationalize his decision. He couched his selfishness as the essence of civic duty. He explained that he had to adapt to an exigency that was there all along but that he had somehow not foreseen when he pledged to accept public financing: to respond to those slimy campaign committees of the type that Swift-boated poor John Kerry.

Conceding that McCain has also done some flip-flopping, Cohen goes on:

But here is the difference between McCain and Obama -- and Obama had better pay attention. McCain is a known commodity. It's not just that he's been around a long time and staked out positions antithetical to those of his Republican base. It's also -- and more important -- that we know his bottom line. As his North Vietnamese captors found out, there is only so far he will go, and then his pride or his sense of honor takes over. This -- not just his candor and nonstop verbosity on the Straight Talk Express -- is what commends him to so many journalists.

Obama might have a similar bottom line, core principles for which, in some sense, he is willing to die. If so, we don't know what they are. Nothing so far in his life approaches McCain's decision to refuse repatriation as a POW so as to deny his jailors a propaganda coup. In fact, there is scant evidence the Illinois senator takes positions that challenge his base or otherwise threaten him politically. That's why his reversal on campaign financing and his transparently false justification of it matter more than similar acts by McCain.

Hmm.  Well put.  Finally...

A presidential race is only incidentally about issues. It's really about likability and character. Obama is, to paraphrase what he said about Hillary Clinton, more than "likable enough" -- in fact, so much so that he is the most charismatic presidential candidate I've seen since Robert F. Kennedy. But the character question hangs -- not because of any evidence to the contrary and not in any moral sense, either, but because he is still young and lacks the job references McCain picked up in a North Vietnamese prison. McCain has a bottom line. Obama just moved his.

Well, that's a breath of fresh air.  You know, I've felt for a time that The Washington Post might - long shot, but might - remain neutral in this election, or even endorse McCain.  The paper is liberal, but the editorial page is sane.  It has been a leader in reasoned commentary about Iraq.  Maybe these reasonable editorial writers might conclude that Obama is just not ready, just not forthright enough, just not presidential enough.  That would be a great day.

June 24, 2008.      Permalink          

SECOND AFTERNOON POST:  JUNE 24,  2008

Posted at 4:24 p.m. ET

FOR THE TRENDIES

Pass this on to your trendy liberal friends, so they can drop it into their conversation at the next wine-tasting party.  There's a new, required term to learn:  "Climate Justice."  Now, take a second to memorize it.  Spell it out loud.  "Climate justice."

How do I know?  Because Kofi Annan told me.  You remember, don't you?  U.N. secretary-general, anti-Bush, oil-for-food scandal.  That Kofi. 

He's into a new cause, and is available for speaking engagements:

Former UN secretary general Kofi Annan on Tuesday called for 'climate justice', saying that it was polluters who should pay for the effects of climate change, and not the poorest and most vulnerable.

He said funding should be made available to help disadvantaged communities adapt to the effects of global warming as he urged for the international community to focus on adaptation measures.

"We must have climate justice. As an international community, we must recognise that the polluter must pay and not the poor and vulnerable," said Annan at the first high-level meeting of his new humanitarian forum.

During the two-day conference, the Global Humanitarian Forum brings together luminaries from the worlds of politics, business, diplomacy and development to discuss how best to adapt to climate change -- the issue that Annan has called "one of the most significant humanitarian challenges of our time."

Yeah, right.  And after this one is tapped out, they'll find another one.  Just send the checks, folks. 

And if you're a polluter - you know, one of those companies that generates the world economy, provides power, grows food, transports people - send even more. 

Remember - "climate justice."  Let's get those party invitations out.

Look, as I've said here before, I don't know much about global warming.  But the certainties being thrown around are frightening and militantly anti-intellectual.  Before we start wrecking the economy and spending trillions on someone's theory, let's be sure we have the science right.  And I don't mean political science.

June 24, 2008.      Permalink          

AFTERNOON POST:  JUNE 24,  2008

Posted at 2:24 p.m. ET

TRACKERS

The tracking polls are reasonably steady.  Rasmussen has Obama up five over McCain, whereas Gallup has him up three.  Averaging that, Obama is up four points. 

There has not been much movement in the polls over the last week.  That could mean nothing, of course.  People aren't yet focused on the election.  It's summer.  The conventions haven't yet been held.  On the other hand, it could mean that very few are undecided and that positions are hardening.  If it's the latter case, it's ominous for Senator McCain.  As reported on Power Line a few days ago, and repeated here, polls taken in June have, over the years, become increasingly close to the final election result.

One issue to watch in the coming weeks is Iran.  Mike Mullen, our chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, is making a sudden visit to Israel, a visit that comes just after a massive Israeli air exercise in the eastern Mediterranean.  Is something planned?  I have no way of knowing.  But Obama's recent comment that Iran isn't a serious threat may come back to haunt him.

And anger over gas prices should grow over the summer, the vacation season.  Energy could be the winning issue for McCain if he'd hit it hard, come up with a sweeping program, and nail the Democrats for their obsessive devotion to the environmental lobbies.  John, we await thee.

June 24, 2008.      Permalink          

TUESDAY:  JUNE 24,  2008

Posted at 5:58 a.m. ET

BOLTON ON ISRAELI STRIKE

John Bolton believes an Israeli strike against Iran will occur between our election and inauguration day:

Israel is likely to attack Iran in the time between the November presidential election in the US and the inauguration of the new president, former US ambassador to the UN John Bolton told the Daily Telegraph in an interview published Tuesday.

But he said he did not believe the US would take part in such a strike. "It's clear that the administration has essentially given up that possibility," he said. "I don't think it's serious any more. If you had asked me a year ago I would have said I thought it was a real possibility. I just don't think it's in the cards."

"The Israelis have one eye on the calendar because of the pace at which the Iranians are proceeding both to develop their nuclear weapons capability and to do things like increase their defenses," Bolton said.

"They're also obviously looking at the American election calendar. My judgment is they would not want to do anything before our election because there's no telling what impact it could have on the election."

And...      

Waiting for a new president, however, would cause problems for Israel, according to Bolton. "An Obama victory would rule out military action by the Israelis because they would fear the consequences given the approach Obama has taken to foreign policy," he said. "With McCain they might still be looking at a delay."

Bolton said that the Arab world would publicly denounce such an attack but would privately be pleased.

Hard to know, of course, how to evaluate this.  I would imagine that Israel would need at least some American cover for such a raid - if only a wink-and-nod okay from President Bush.

The scenario is filled with danger.  First, the raid might fail.  Second, it might succeed only partially.  Third, it would certainly result in Iranian retaliation against Israeli, American and other Western targets, as reported by Eli Lake in today's New York Sun.  Whatever the result, it is likely to spark a large increase in the price of oil, which could make Israel unpopular in the U.S. just before a new president takes office.  If it's President Obama, as I fear it will be, it could give him the excuse to turn on Israel that some of his advisers would probably like to have.

On the other hand, Americans love guts and success.  A successful raid, even if it spikes the oil price and shakes things up, could inspire Americans, who have a wonderful way of responding to adversity with idealism.  Americans would probably also understand that a nuclear-armed Iran is as much of a threat to the West, and to Western interests, as it is to Israel. 

June 24, 2008.      Permalink          

IRAN DEFIANT

As if to give Israel more pretext for an attack, Iran slapped down the latest European sanctions, just imposed:

TEHRAN, Iran — Iran condemned new sanctions imposed on it by the European Union and made clear they would not slow Tehran's nuclear activities, an Iranian news agency reported Tuesday.

Iranian foreign ministry spokesman Mohammad Ali Hosseini has said in a statement that the "carrot and stick policy" by the 27-nation bloc won't stop Iran's "pursuit to realize its nuclear rights."

"Such illegal and paradoxical behavior .... is meaningless and strongly condemned," the Fars News Agency quoted the spokesman saying.

Hosseini said the new sanctions would only damage European interests in Iran. A copy of his statement was made available to the AP on Tuesday.

Well, they've said it before and they're saying it again.  The nuclear program will go ahead.  The Israelis are being given all the incentive they need to take it out.

A major complication here, of course, is that our leading presidential candidate, Senator Obama, has said that he'd negotiate with the Iranians without preconditions.  That doesn't give the Iranians much to fear, as Obama's position is even to the left of Europe.  Why should Iran do a thing when a new American president might be so accommodating?

Obama hasn't won one electoral vote, and he's already doing damage.

June 24, 2008.      Permalink          

BROOKS ON BUSH

David Brooks, the moderately conservative op-ed writer for The New York Times, has, I think, a pretty fair view of how President Bush's personal traits have influenced his conduct of policy.  See if you agree:

Bush is a stubborn man. Well, without that stubbornness, that unwillingness to accept defeat on his watch, he never would have bucked the opposition to the surge.

Bush is an outrageously self-confident man. Well, without that self-confidence he never would have overruled his generals.

In fact, when it comes to Iraq, Bush was at his worst when he was humbly deferring to the generals and at his best when he was arrogantly overruling them. During that period in 2006 and 2007, Bush stiffed the brass and sided with a band of dissidents: military officers like David Petraeus and Raymond Odierno, senators like John McCain and Lindsey Graham, and outside strategists like Fred Kagan of the American Enterprise Institute and Jack Keane, a retired general.

And...

The additional fact is that Bush, who made such bad calls early in the war, made a courageous and astute decision in 2006. More than a year on, the surge has produced large, if tenuous, gains. Violence is down sharply. Daily life has improved. Iraqi security forces have been given time to become a more effective fighting force. The Iraqi government is showing signs of strength and even glimmers of impartiality. Iraq has moved from being a failed state to, as Vali Nasr of the Council on Foreign Relations has put it, merely a fragile one.

The whole episode is a reminder that history is a complicated thing. The traits that lead to disaster in certain circumstances are the very ones that come in handy in others. The people who seem so smart at some moments seem incredibly foolish in others.

And...

The cocksure war supporters learned this humbling lesson during the dark days of 2006. And now the cocksure surge opponents, drunk on their own vindication, will get to enjoy their season of humility.

Finally...

But before long, the more honest among the surge opponents will concede that Bush, that supposed dolt, actually got one right. Some brave souls might even concede that if the U.S. had withdrawn in the depths of the chaos, the world would be in worse shape today.

Life is complicated. The reason we have democracy is that no one side is right all the time. The only people who are dangerous are those who can’t admit, even to themselves, that obvious fact.

Feels good, doesn't it?

June 24, 2008.      Permalink