July 15, 2008

7/15: The Politics Of The Surge

As Barack Obama prepared to deliver his major policy address on Iraq and national security, conservative bloggers laid out the welcome mat. First, they slammed Obama's New York Times op-ed on Iraq, calling it "breathtakingly dishonest" and accusing Obama of (among other things) failing to acknowledge the political progress facilitated by the surge. Second, they mocked Obama after the New York Daily News reported that Obama's campaign "scrubbed his presidential Web site over the weekend to remove criticism of the U.S. troop 'surge' in Iraq."

In their effort to portray Obama as wrong on the surge, righty bloggers are highlighting several of his statements from the past year and a half -- including a statement from Jan. '07 in which Obama expressed doubt that the surge would "make a significant dent in the sectarian violence" in Iraq. Obama has since acknowledged that violence has decreased in Iraq and instead emphasizes that Iraqi leaders "have not reached the political accommodation that was the stated purpose of the surge". It remains to be seen whether the debate will hinge on whether the reduction in violence has been substantial (which appears indisputable) or whether the resulting political progress has also been substantial (which is less clear). If the former, then Obama's earlier statements (such as the one above) could prove problematic. If the latter, than Obama appears to be on safer ground.

Meanwhile, liberal bloggers (and a few conservative ones) are calling attention to the fact that John McCain reversed his position on the DREAM Act during his appearance before the National Council of La Raza yesterday. McCain said yesterday that he supports the DREAM Act (which allows undocumented high school students to gain legal status if they attend college or join the U.S. military), but last year he told conservative bloggers that he opposed the Act. Thus far, however, McCain's reversal has been overshadowed by Obama's big Iraq speech.

OBAMA: You Wanna Talk About Judgment?

Conservative bloggers are blasting Obama's 7/14 New York Times op-ed describing his plan for Iraq:

• Power Line's John Hinderaker: "Even by Obama's standards, the piece is breathtakingly dishonest. [...] Obama bet the farm on his prediction that General [David] Petraeus and the American military would fail. He was as spectacularly wrong as John McCain was spectacularly right. But his op-ed somehow twists this history into vindication on the theory that Afghanistan has deteriorated, the Iraq war has been expensive, and Iraq's political leaders 'have not reached the political accommodation that was the stated purpose of the surge.'"
• Townhall's Hugh Hewitt: "Obama can and has conned the MSM but our enemies know retreat when they see it. Obama disingenuously cites the Iraqi demand for a timetable as proof that he is following the same path as the Iraqis, but of course an unknown timetable negotiated with us by the Iraqis over an unknown number of years to an unknown number of troops and subject to their revision if they see the need to slow or halt it is completely different from the defeat on a schedule penned by Obama today. It is a testament to the op-ed's dishonesty that Obama asserts that it is 'good news' that 'Iraq's leaders want to take responsibility for their country by negotiating a timetable for the removal of American troops,' as though that somehow supports his proposed jam-down of defeat."
• Commentary's Peter Wehner: "[Obama] still cannot bring himself to say that the mission in Iraq is success, even when success is clearly within our grasp. For Obama the mission is, and since his presidential announcement in February 2007 has been, to end the war, even if it means an American loss of epic proportions. And if Obama had had his way, that is exactly what would have come to pass."
• RedState's Pejman Yousefzadeh: "[Obama's] predictions were totally and completely wrong regarding the impact of the surge and the counterinsurgency strategy -- a fact that few people have called Obama on. [...] Of course, the 'reality-based community' likes to put forth the shibboleth that it cares about facts and evidence while its opponents ignore the data when they make their policy decisions. Obama's intellectual outlook on the issue of Iraq helps him live up to the very portrayal that the 'reality-based community' likes to put out concerning its opponents."

NRO's Jim Geraghty: "We never know what the future holds, and those who supported the invasion of Iraq made their own erroneous predictions -- about WMDs, etc. But less forgivable to deny progress as it's occurring right in front of you. That suggests the candidate is wedded to ideology and oblivious to the consequences of policy changes. And a candidate who has the...well, audacity to claim that he always said the surge would result in an 'improvement in the security situation and a reduction of violence' when he said the opposite many times thinks that A) voters are gullible and B) the media have the attention span of an over-caffeinated ferret."

OBAMA II: Nice Try, Barack

Conservative bloggers are mocking Obama after the New York Daily News reported that Obama's campaign "scrubbed his presidential Web site over the weekend to remove criticism of the U.S. troop 'surge' in Iraq":

• Power Line's Scott Johnson: "Obama's 'down the memory hole' approach to his critique of the surge is the perfect accompaniment to his dishonest New York Times op-ed."
• RedState's Erick Erickson: "When the situation in Iraq was going badly, Barack Obama wanted us to retreat. When the surge took hold and the situation in Iraq improved, Barack Obama wanted us to retreat. No turn in Iraq went unstoned in Obama's commitment to retreat and surrender. Not any more. Obama has thrown his old positions under the bus. And, for a guy whose campaign claims to get the net, he's done an extremely dumb thing -- he purged his website of his former positions. Apparently he's never heard of a cache. [...] Is there no position this man will not take that he will later repudiate? Is there nothing this man will not say or do to get elected?"
• Glenn Reynolds: "More airbrushing at the Obama website. It's become a pattern. Does this tell us anything about how an Obama Administration would operate?"
• Hot Air's Ed Morrissey: "The scrubbing took place this weekend, and it may signal more changes — or it may just be a way to prep for his upcoming trip to Iraq. If Obama appeared before the troops who defeated the terrorists in western Iraq, he may not get the reception he wants if his website kept discounting their hard work in the face of a despicable enemy. While the Sunni sheikhs have been a critical part of the success in Iraq, it was American tenacity which convinced them to switch sides. [...] What changes will we see on the Obama site when he returns from Iraq? And will we have to compare caches in order to discover them, as the Daily News apparently did?"

OBAMA III: Triangulate At Your Peril, Obama

Liberal bloggers continue to criticize Obama for what they perceive to be his shift in tone and/or policy:

• MyDD's Todd Beeton: "I hope the tightening we are seeing nationally is real, so Barack Obama might learn the lesson he should learn from the last two weeks: a Democrat sounding like a Republican, especially in 2008, is a losing strategy. Let's set aside the question of whether or not he is actually shifting his positions to the center as most voters now think he is, but just on its face, Obama is sounding more and more like a Republican. Whether it be on the DC handgun ban, on late term abortion, certainly on FISA and even on Iraq, his rhetorical shift is clear and if Obama's loss in support nationally is real, it should be seen as a direct result of this."
• Open Left's Matt Stoller: "In a week in which McCain should have dropped like a stone and his main economic advisor called Americans a bunch of whiners, Obama is also having trouble in the polls. Rasmussen shows the race tied, and Pollster.com has the race continuing to tighten. The reaction from Obama partisans is to blame progressives. Harvard sociologist Theda Skocpol and Stanford Law Professor Larry Lessig both accuse progressives of engaging in childish behavior. [...] Don't expect great things from Obama. Don't expect anything, really, except blame when he screws up. It's our fault, since we didn't clap hard enough. Still, there's the Supreme Court, so I'll probably end up giving and volunteering at some point later. Not now, though, I don't like being lectured by Ivy League wankers who tell me it's my fault when Obama lies to me. That'll have to blow over."

Arianna Huffington: "In the last two weeks, there has been a flurry of stories, both in the traditional press and in the blogosphere, that has tried to portray criticism of Barack Obama's recent stands as the sole province of disenchanted members of 'the left'. [...] I am not 'angry' or 'outraged' or 'howling that Mr. Obama is selling out the left'. And his 'policy switches' haven't given me 'whiplash'. I am not offended that he isn't marching in lockstep with progressives. I'd be worried if he was marching in lockstep with anyone. Other than himself. And that is the point I was trying to make. My problem isn't that Barack Obama doesn't always agree with me. My problem is that Barack Obama has started to not always agree with himself -- falling prey instead to the Conventional Wisdom sirens. [...] As for the media: Not everyone is approaching everything in this campaign from a right vs left perspective. Stop trying to force everything into that tired old way of looking at American politics."

MCCAIN: Hey Now, Hey Now, Don't DREAM It's Over...

Liberal bloggers are accusing McCain of flip-flopping after he told the National Council of La Raza that he would support the DREAM Act, which allows undocumented high school students to gain legal status if they attend college or join the U.S. military. Although McCain missed the vote on the DREAM Act last October, he told conservative bloggers at the time that he would have voted against bringing the bill up for a vote because he "got the message and the American people want the borders controlled first":

• The Carpetbagger Report's Steve Benen: "The man is just shamelessly dishonest. McCain co-sponsored the Dream Act, then refused to vote for it, then promised to oppose it, then promised to support it. [...] Now, under normal circumstances, one might wonder whether McCain will be pressed to explain himself today, maybe with a clarifying press conference. But that's almost certainly not going to happen. Part of this, I suspect, is because the media just prefers to go easy on McCain. But the other part of the problem is, I have a hunch reporters aren't following the race as closely as we are. That may sound silly -- they are paid media professionals on the campaign beat -- but I genuinely believe they're not especially well informed. When I heard McCain vow to support the Dream Act, I immediately knew he was abandoning a pledge he'd made during the primaries. When the reporters who travel with McCain heard it, did they notice the same problem? Do they even know what the Dream Act is?"
• MyDD's Todd Beeton: "I imagine Senator McCain's conservative blogger friends might have a few words for him. If in fact his statement today was sincere, though, I commend Senator McCain for his support of the DREAM Act. [...] But...call me crazy...something tells me a press conference is in the offing wherein John McCain will tell us he actually does not support the DREAM Act and that his 'Yes...yes...' was taken out of context or some other variation on his tendency to tell us he did not say what he actually said. How long do you give him?"
• Firedoglake's David Neiwert: "John McCain just can't help himself -- especially when it comes to immigration. Today he flopped again -- or was that a flip? [...] Guess we can just get used to calling him ole Two-Face McCain."

MCCAIN II: McAmnesty Reveals His True Colors

Several conservative bloggers also criticized McCain for reversing his position on the DREAM Act:

• Michelle Malkin: "For a stark illustration of McCain's double talk at La Raza/The Race yesterday, here he is telling an audience member that he'll support the DREAM Act -- after telling conservative bloggers that he would have voted no on cloture for the bill 'because he "got the message" this summer that Americans want the border secured before we "go on to the rest"'. Uh-huh."
• Right Wing News' John Hawkins: "John McCain was one of the Senate's biggest advocates of comprehensive immigration reform. [...] The American people rejected that plan and conservatives were on track to reject John McCain's candidacy when he flip flopped on the issue and started supporting a security first position. [...] But then, after winning the primaries, McCain broke his promise and started advocating comprehensive immigration reform again. After he was attacked by conservatives who were angry that he had broken such a huge campaign promise, he started weaving back and forth. In one appearance, he'd promise comprehensive immigration reform. In another, he'd promise security first. Well now, McCain seems to have settled on a new lie: he has started promising both security first and comprehensive immigration reform, which is what he did yesterday when he talked to the vile racist group, La Raza. This is sort of like promising to be keep people dry and wet at the same time -- and it makes no sense."
• Hawkins continues: "Now some people will say that conservatives should turn a blind eye to John McCain's outrageous lies on this subject, but that's the wrong approach. This is a guy who has made the words 'Straight Talk' central to his campaign and meanwhile, he's breaking a pledge as big as George Bush's 'Read My Lips, No New Taxes' promise BEFORE the election. That's not to say that Obama isn't a shameless liar, too, because he is. But, what should be kept in mind is that if John McCain catches any political hell for being a dishonest man, that's a situation he created by being dishonest, not a situation created by those of us who are pointing it out."

Ed Morrissey defends McCain's immigration stance: "I know most Hot Air commenters hotly oppose McCain on immigration, and have demanded that he commit to border security. He did so in perhaps the most unfriendly confines for such an announcement, and even fired back at an activist [Enrique Morones] who demanded open borders in a forceful and direct manner. Opposite McCain, we have a candidate who cheers the same activist for his work in promoting open borders. That seems like a rather significant difference to me."

MEDIA CRITICISM: What Happened To The AP?

As we documented last week, liberal bloggers have lately been criticizing the Associated Press, which they perceive to be biased in favor of McCain. Liberal bloggers are now directing much of their criticism at the AP's Washington Bureau Chief, Ron Fournier, following the publication of a Politico article detailing Fournier's controversial plan to move the AP away "from its signature neutral and detached tone to an aggressive, plain-spoken style of writing that Fournier often describes as 'cutting through the clutter.'"

• TPM's Josh Marshall: "As you know, we've been keeping tabs on the Associated Press's atrocious campaign coverage this year. And now The Politico's Michael Calderone has a potential answer to the question of why the premier wire service's coverage this year sucks so bad: Ron Fournier, the new head of the AP's Washington Bureau."
• Benen: "In principle, I couldn't be more pleased [with Fournier's approach]. I've long believed one of the reasons more news consumers turn to blogs is that traditional news outlets refuse to 'cut through the clutter.' Dems said A, Republicans said B. Who's right? That's not the media's job. If the AP wants to change the game, I'd be thrilled. But I've seen the results of Fournier's work lately, and while the idea may have merit, there's a problem in the execution. I suppose the first time I noticed this 'new' AP came in March, when Fournier wrote an item -- whether it was a news article or an opinion piece was unclear -- that said Barack Obama is 'bordering on arrogance,' 'a bit too cocky,' and that the senator and his wife 'ooze a sense of entitlement.' To substantiate the criticism, Fournier pointed to...not a whole lot. It was basically the Republicans' 'uppity' talking point in the form of an AP article. But the AP's coverage has deteriorated since -- and it goes beyond just the AP giving John McCain donuts and McCain giving the AP barbecue. There was the slam-job on Obama that read like an RNC oppo dump, followed by a scathing, 900-word reprimand of Obama's decision to bypass the public financing system in the general election, filled with errors of fact and judgment. When Obama unveiled his faith-based plan, the AP got the story backwards. When Obama talked about his Iraq policy on July 3, the AP said he'd 'opened the door' to reversing course, even though he hadn't. [...] At this point, the AP isn't 'cutting through the clutter'; it's adding to it. This isn't 'accountability journalism'; it's weak journalism."
• Obsidian Wings' publius: "Ron 'Fightin'' Fournier achieved something I once thought impossible -- he's made me appreciate the 'he said/she said' template for journalism."
• Atrios: "What's weird about Sucky Ron Fournier's vision for the Associated Press is that while I'm one who generally doesn't like the stylistic conventions of contemporary mainstream journalism, if there's one place they seem to be pretty appropriate it's in the national wire services."

MEDIA CRITICISM II: Ron And Karl, Sitting In A Tree

Liberal bloggers stepped up their criticism of Fournier following TPM Muckracker's discovery of the following 2004 email exchange between Fournier and Karl Rove (which appears in the House Oversight Committee's report on Cpl. Pat Tillman and Pvt. Jessica Lynch):

"Karl Rove exchanged e-mails about Pat Tillman with Associated Press reporter Ron Fournier, under the subject line 'H-E-R-O.' In response to Mr. Fournier's e-mail, Mr. Rove asked, 'How does our country continue to produce men and women like this,' to which Mr. Fournier replied, 'The Lord creates men and women like this all over the world. But only the great and free countries allow them to flourish. Keep up the fight.'"

Yesterday, Fournier addressed his 2004 email exchange with Rove:

"I was an AP political reporter at the time of the 2004 e-mail exchange, and was interacting with a source, a top aide to the president, in the course of following an important and compelling story. I regret the breezy nature of the correspondence."

Liberal bloggers are criticizing Fournier for telling Rove to "keep up the fight":

• Firedoglake's Attaturk: "Keep up the fight? With who Ron? Certainly not with the Republicans. Thanks for not even 'buying in' there Ron, you just went and gave it away. The 'Lord' apparently saw fit to make Pat Tillman an atheist who opposed the Iraq invasion too. [...] Ron Fournier encourage not 'just the facts' reporting for the AP, but 'opinion' and instant analysis. A news bureau of Fred Barnes level non-thinking. Or as it is known in the trade now, reporting. Awesome Ron, just awesome. Enjoy the barbecue...with sprinkles."
• AMERICAblog's Joe Sudbay: "The donuts are starting to make more sense. Last month, at the Associated Press meeting with the presidential candidates, Obama was referred to as 'Osama' -- McCain got a box of donuts from [AP reporter] Liz Sidoti and her boss, Ron Fournier. They got the right kind: 'Dunkin Donuts with sprinkles.' And, McCain got coffee 'with a little cream and a little sugar' the way he likes it, too. Sidoti explained that she and Fournier used to spend a lot of time on the bus with McCain. Jed has the the video. It was a bizarre, but telling exchange. [...] Fournier was also involved in another bizarre, yet telling exchange back in April of 2004 -- right after Pat Tillman died in Afghanistan. TPM Muckraker revealed that Fournier and Karl Rove were email pals. Oh, sure, Rove emailed with a lot of reporters. But, how many reporters wrote to Rove 'Keep up the fight.' This e-mail was dated April 23, 2004 -- right smack in the middle of the presidential campaign. The Associated Press: In 2004, 'Keep up the fight.' In 2008, 'Dunkin Donuts with sprinkles.'"

THOUGHT OF THE DAY: Is Obama Running Low On Cash?

The Next Right's Patrick Ruffini thinks so:

"Matt Stoller got a call from an Obama telemarketer. When he brought up the FISA issue, the caller was armed with talking points designed to smooth over Obama's position. This is significant on a few levels. First, I think this is first-hand evidence that Obama's money crunch is real and is being impacted by his moving to the center on FISA and Iraq. [...] The Obama campaign wouldn't target a call like this to the netroots, because of the extreme likelihood that it would be blogged. It's likely that this is their general telemarketing script, and FISA pops enough as an issue with Obama's wide universe of donors to be included. That means, as Soren [Dayton] has written, that Obama may actually be killing the goose that lays the golden eggs.

It's also interesting that Obama is using telemarketing, usually the least efficient form of direct to market fundraising. Though he has to have used it at some other point in the campaign, I'm sure there was a great hope that the transition to online would obviate the need for more expensive fundraising techniques like mail and phones. [...] So, it looks like they're trying to squeeze out cash any way they can.

Combine that with the David Plouffe video, and the fact that Obama is actually holding back on ad spending (getting outspent by McCain three to one), and we can start to come to certain conclusions.

LEST WE FORGET: Going To Tops Of Things Still Favored By Nation's Tourists

From The Onion:

"NEW YORK -- According to a report released Monday by the American Tourism Society, going to the tops of things is still the preferred activity among the nation's tourists. 'Although driving past things and swimming in things have both grown in popularity over the last decade, going to the tops of things still surpasses both by nearly 30 percent,' said ATS president Kimberly Davis [...]. 'In 2008, tourists remained committed to standing in long lines at the bottoms of things, paying upwards of $20 to gain access to the tops of those things, and then staring at other smaller, more distant things for a few minutes before descending, often to have funny pictures of themselves drawn incorporating the things in the background.' Davis added that, perhaps as a consequence of the declining economy, the purchasing of miniature representations of the things that tourists enjoy going to the tops of has dropped by 14 percent."

Posted by Ian Faerstein at July 15, 2008 02:16 PM