Grand Delusions: From McCain’s Defeat to “Victory” in Iraq

Amidst this week’s rationalizations by numerous Republicans of John McCain’s forthcoming defeat, one in particular is especially tragic. Michael Gerson, who once wrote speeches for President George W. Bush, explains that McCain will lose the election because he --- and Gerson --- were right about the surge in Iraq whereas Barack Obama is completely wrong.

Forget, for the moment, that Gerson’s explanation ignores what happened in Iraq between 2003 and 2007 in the aftermath of the war he supported. Gerson is flat-out wrong on what is happening in Iraq, wrong not only in description but in what is likely to happen in Iraq in forthcoming months.

Listen to podcast

Tales From The Presidential Campaign

Election Talk: The Republican Alamo

Some Republicans were talking up a slight bump in the polls this weekend for McCain-Palin --- translation: instead of being 5-6 points down in national surveys, they were "only" 4-5 points down.

FiveThirtyEight.com, excellent as always, put this in perspective by noting that to overhaul Obama, McCain would have to keep picking up a half-point each day, every day to the election. There's a more important point, however: at this point, it's not a question of the national poll but the numbers in each "swing" state.

So, to get to the nitty-gritty, McCain's limited national gain plays out at state level with a movement back to him in places like West Virginia and Indiana, which now lean back to the Republicans. These states, however, should never have been in question --- at least in any scenario where the GOP has a chance of winning --- they should have been "safe". So, to be blunt, McCain is only clawing back a bit of his lost territory.

Contrast this with the important "swing" areas. McCain-Palin - in my humble opinion - have no hope of taking any state that went Democratic in 2004. In three states which were seen as possible Republican gains only a month ago --- Michigan, Wisconsin, and Minnesota -- Obama is up 10-12 points in polling.

That means McCain has to hold all but two (and possibly all but one) states that Bush took four years ago. But in eight of these, McCain is trailing by a clear margin in three (Virginia, Colorado, New Mexico) and down 2-4 points in five (Missouri, North Carolina, Nevada, Florida, and Ohio). And this doesn't even include Indiana and, bizarrely, North Dakota which could still be in play.

The media line over the last 48 hours is that the Republicans may make a last grandstand effort by throwing resources into Pennsylvania to pray that state away from the Democrats. If true, this is either desperation or mad genius, as Obama is up 11 points in latest polling.

More likely is the scenario that the Republicans are going to the Alamo - a last, frantic defense to keep the eight states listed above. But there are tales that they have given up on Colorado, which means it comes down to clinging onto the other seven.

Possible? In a politics of "never say never", sure. But you do know what happened to the defenders of the Alamo.

Election Talk: The Backfire of the Culture Wars

The immediate furour over Colin Powell's weekend endorsement of Barack Obama missed a key dimension of the reasons for his decision. The issue was not just Obama's "proving himself" or, conversely, the inexperience and weaknesses of Sarah Palin but the Republican strategy of pitting "good Americans" against others:

Now, I understand what politics is all about.  I know how you can go after one another, and that's good.  But I think this goes too far....I'm also troubled by, not what Senator McCain says, but what members of the party say. And it is permitted to be said such things as, "Well, you know that Mr. Obama is a Muslim." Well, the correct answer is, he is not a Muslim, he's a Christian.  He's always been a Christian.  But the really right answer is, what if he is?  Is there something wrong with being a Muslim in this country? The answer's no, that's not America.  Is there something wrong with some seven-year-old Muslim-American kid believing that he or she could be president?  Yet, I have heard senior members of my own party drop the suggestion, "He's a Muslim and he might be associated terrorists." This is not the way we should be doing it in America.

I feel strongly about this particular point because of a picture I saw in a magazine.  It was a photo essay about troops who are serving in Iraq and Afghanistan.  And one picture at the tail end of this photo essay was of a mother in Arlington Cemetery, and she had her head on the headstone of her son's grave.  And as the picture focused in, you could see the writing on the headstone.  And it gave his awards--Purple Heart, Bronze Star--showed that he died in Iraq, gave his date of birth, date of death.  He was 20 years old. And then, at the very top of the headstone, it didn't have a Christian cross, it didn't have the Star of David, it had crescent and a star of the Islamic faith.  And his name was Kareem Rashad Sultan Khan, and he was an American. He was born in New Jersey.  He was 14 years old at the time of 9/11, and he waited until he can go serve his country, and he gave his life.

I still Powell has a lot to answer for, notably his failure to stand up to others in the Bush Administration and stop the mad quest for executive power and a war in Iraq, but I think his words should be a prominent reply to the political poison of "us" v. "them", a poison which has not only threatened electoral politics but wreaked havoc in the name of US foreign policy.

And there are other encouraging signs. Sarah Palin has finally apologised -- well, kind of - for her  praise of "pro-American" parts of the United States (presumably those favouring the Republicans) and implication that other areas were just a bit suspect. Minnesota Congresswoman Michele Bachmann's call for her colleagues to be investigated and classifed by the media as "pro-American" and "anti-American" has given a boost to her opponent both in finances and polling.

American fingers crossed that this continues.

Election Talk: McCain's Fightback- An Unexpected Endorsement

"Al-Qaeda will have to support McCain in the coming election," said a commentary posted Monday on the extremist Web site al-Hesbah, which is closely linked to the terrorist group. It said the Arizona Republican would continue the "failing march of his predecessor," President Bush.

Tuesday Buffet: Obama, Khomeini, and the Chavez-McDonald's War

A Footnote to the Election Talk: The Sublime....

I neglected to say in Monday's Buffet that, in contrast to some of the media witterings over the Colin Powell endorsement, Juan Cole's detailed reading is almost as effective as the former Secretary of State's simultaneous promotion of the Democrats and demolition of McCain-Palin.  A reader, noting the Cole column, helpfully adds that Powell's endorsement is just as valuable in offsetting Obama's supposed weaknesses, namely, his lack of foreign policy experience, as it is in pushing Obama's positives to uncommitted voters.

And The Ridiculous: Barack Obama- The Next Ayatollah Khomeini A reader  points us to Baron Boddissey's Islam-bashing website Gates of Vienna. There you can find this masterpiece, "Understanding Obama: The Making of a Fuehrer":

I must confess I was not impressed by Sen. Barack Obama from the first time I saw him. At first I was It is surreal to see the level of hysteria in his admirers. This phenomenon is unprecedented in American politics. Women scream and swoon during his speeches. They yell and shout to Obama, "I love you." Never did George Washington, Abraham Lincoln, Franklin Roosevelt. Martin Luther King Jr. or Ronald Reagan arouse so much raw emotion. Despite their achievements, none of them was raised to the rank of Messiah. The Illinois senator has no history of service to the country. He has done nothing outstanding except giving promises of change and hyping his audience with hope. It's only his words, not his achievements that is causing this much uproar.

When cheering for someone turns into adulation, something is wrong. Excessive adulation is indicative of a personality cult....During 1979, when the Iranians were tired of the dictatorial regime of the late Shah, they embraced Khomeini, not because they wanted Islam, but because he promised them change. The word in the street was, "anything is better than the Shah." They found their error when it was too late.... Listening to Obama... it harkens back to when I was younger and I used to watch Khomeini, how he would excite the crowd and they'd come to their feet and scream and yell.

And the Surreal: "I Can See Russia in My Name" "Publius" notes Monday's story in The Times of London, "I Can Live with Defeat, Says McCain", and comments, "In the guise of America's "who cares who came second", to talk about defeat tells me his internal polling is really bad news." Sprinkling a bit of salt on the wound, he takes on McCain's declaration that "Mr Obama was seeking to buy the election with his massive fundraising and spending" with the rejoinder, "The chutzpah of 'Obama's buying the election' when McCain did not avail himself of McCain-Feingold, the law [on campaign finance reform that] he championed, is just too much."   However, it is Publius's afterthought that concerns me, either for his well-being or that of America under GOP leadership: "If the name of McCain's VP is spelled S. Palin, try removing the P and inserting a T."  

Saying the Unsayable? The US and Iran Flynt Leverett, who handled Middle Eastern affairs for the National Security Council, and Hillary Mann Leverett, a National Security Council staffer who was involved in the "unofficial" dialogue with Iran over Afghanistan between 2001 and 2003, propose a US-Iranian "Grand Bargain". Contending  that "as a result of a dysfunctional Iran policy, among other foreign policy blunders, the American position in the region is currently under greater strain than at any point since the end of the Cold War", they argue:

It is clearly time for a fundamental change of course in the U.S. approach to the Islamic Republic. By fundamental change, we do not mean incremental, step-by-step engagement with Tehran, or simply trying to manage the Iranian challenge in the region more adroitly than the Bush administration has done. Rather, we mean the pursuit of thoroughgoing strategic rapprochement between the two nations.

Update: Hugo Chavez v. Ronald McDonald A reader from Alabama offers this nostalgic reflection on the Venezuelan Government's temporary shutdown of McDonald's outlets:

In 1989 there was a general strike in Venezuela. Really eerie to have the entire city absolutely silent on a weekday- the only traffic were occasional security vehicles. I played city editor from home because we were allowed only a certain number of workers- two reporters and photographers or something like that- until after daytime working hours.

McDonald's and, I believe, certain banks were just about the only ones to remain open in defiance of the strike. The banks I understood because of bankers' political beliefs, but McDonald's wasn't making any friends. Remember, though, that McDonald's at least then was a relatively pricey meal there.

Goon squads ... er, labor committees made sure people stayed closed and ended up at one of the McD's in Caracas. A garbage can ended up going through the plate glass and, by the end of the day, there was a tank and soldiers in the parking lot protecting the restaurant. Very weird.

McD's in Caracas, unlike Burger King or Tropi Burger, was different than your normal fast-food experience. It always was spotless, the food fast and fresh. And the wholesome kids who worked there -- it was like stepping into a television ad! You expected them to break out into song. Clearly, pay must have been decent and upwardly mobile student-types were their main counter help (janitorial, of course, was another story). They were probably all the Venezuelan equivalent of the College Republican Club and the Future Business Leaders of America.

Anyway, McDonald's always was crowded. Before and after the strike.