Belated Commentary on the President’s Oval Office Speech

I am glad to see that President Obama finally found time to say something nice about his predecessor in his most recent Oval Office address to the nation regarding the end of combat operations in Iraq. While President Obama was at it, he could have added the following:

Back when Joe Biden, Hillary Clinton, and I were in the Senate, the Bush Administration instituted a troop surge into Iraq that was part of an overall counterinsurgency strategy to stop the sectarian violence in that country. Joe Biden, Hillary Clinton, and I all trashed the troop surge, and said that it would never work. We also trashed the general who led it; General David Petraeus.

We were wrong to trash the surge, and we were wrong to trash General Petraeus. Of course, my fellow Americans, you have probably figured out the fact that we realize we are wrong, because as you know, we have instituted a troop surge in Afghanistan to be led by none other than General Petraeus. But I think it is high time that I stated, for the record, that Joe Biden, Hillary Clinton, and I made a whopper of a mistake on this issue, and that George W. Bush was right.

Evidently, this simple, entirely accurate admission was too much for President Obama to make on national television.

Jeff Foxworthy Might Say That You Might Be An Unpopular President . . .

If you are shown losing Ohio to George W. Bush less than two years after having won it from John McCain.

Are the Tea Parties Racist?

On today’s episode of Welcome to the Know, The New Ledger’s Brad Jackson and Pejman Yousefzadeh discuss accusations of racism in the Tea Party movement, Jim DeMint, and the listener submitted topic we asked for last week.

Radio New Ledger

Download Podcast | iTunes | Podcast Feed

You can subscribe to our podcast feed by following the links above, and if you’d like to email us, you can do so at coffee[at]newledger.com. We hope you enjoy the show.

Related Links:

TNL: The Tea Parties, Race and the New York Times

Senator Jim DeMint and His ‘Disciples’

The 10 Greatest Fictional Inventors of All Time

Follow Pej on Twitter
Follow Brad on Twitter

No Media Bias Problems To See Here, Move Along . . .

Whatever could give anyone the idea that the integrity of the media might be compromised?

Senior executives, on-air personalities, producers, reporters, editors, writers and other self-identifying employees of ABC, CBS and NBC contributed more than $1 million to Democratic candidates and campaign committees in 2008, according to an analysis by The Examiner of data compiled by the Center for Responsive Politics.

The Democratic total of $1,020,816 was given by 1,160 employees of the three major broadcast television networks, with an average contribution of $880.

By contrast, only 193 of the employees contributed to Republican candidates and campaign committees, for a total of $142,863. The average Republican contribution was $744.

“The Most Ethical Congress in History”

It keeps proving itself anything but:

Longtime Dallas congresswoman Eddie Bernice Johnson has awarded thousands of dollars in college scholarships to four relatives and a top aide’s two children since 2005, using foundation funds set aside for black lawmakers’ causes.

The recipients were ineligible under anti-nepotism rules of the Congressional Black Caucus Foundation, which provided the money. And all of the awards violated a foundation requirement that scholarship winners live or study in a caucus member’s district.

Johnson, a Democrat, denied any favoritism when asked about the scholarships last week. Two days later, she acknowledged in a statement released by her office that she had violated the rules but said she had done so “unknowingly” and would work with the foundation to “rectify the financial situation.”

The reasons for change in November just keep piling up.

Barack Obama – The One Term President

On today’s 25th edition of Welcome to the Know, The New Ledger’s Brad Jackson and Pejman Yousefzadeh discuss Blago, the possibility of a one term Obama presidency and of course some Star Wars.

Radio New Ledger

Download Podcast | iTunes | Podcast Feed

You can subscribe to our podcast feed by following the links above, and if you’d like to email us, you can do so at coffee[at]newledger.com. We hope you enjoy the show.

Related Links:

Rod Blagojevich not ruling out future in politics, Ex Gov. to call Emanuel, other Dems in 2nd trial

Blago at Comic-Con

Does Barack Obama want to be re-elected in 2012?

Barack Obama, Frat-Boy-in-Chief?

Deleted Scene from Star Wars – Luke Constructing his Green Lightsaber

Help us pick a topic for next week’s show. Tweet us a suggested topic to Pej or Brad and we’ll pick one to use on next Monday’s show.

Follow Pejman Yousefzadeh on Twitter
Follow Brad Jackson on Twitter

Priorities

In Los Angeles, there seems to be a lack of them:

Next month’s opening of the Robert F. Kennedy Community Schools will be auspicious for a reason other than its both storied and infamous history as the former Ambassador Hotel, where the Democratic presidential contender was assassinated in 1968.

With an eye-popping price tag of $578 million, it will mark the inauguration of the nation’s most expensive public school ever.

The K-12 complex to house 4,200 students has raised eyebrows across the country as the creme de la creme of “Taj Mahal” schools, $100 million-plus campuses boasting both architectural panache and deluxe amenities.

“There’s no more of the old, windowless cinderblock schools of the ’70s where kids felt, ‘Oh, back to jail,’” said Joe Agron, editor-in-chief of American School & University, a school construction journal. “Districts want a showpiece for the community, a really impressive environment for learning.”

Not everyone is similarly enthusiastic.

“New buildings are nice, but when they’re run by the same people who’ve given us a 50 percent dropout rate, they’re a big waste of taxpayer money,” said Ben Austin, executive director of Parent Revolution who sits on the California Board of Education. “Parents aren’t fooled.”

I recognize, of course, that the recent recession is responsible for a severe budget crunch in California. But so are bad decisions. Like the decision to build a K-12 school for $578 million.

Teh Crazy

In Philadelphia, bloggers have to pay $300 for the privilege of pounding away on their keyboards. While I confess that I wouldn’t mind the existence of economic disincentives to keep Duncan Black & Company from blogging, do I really have to go into detail why the City of Brotherly Love’s plan strikes me as nothing short of insane?

Quote of the Day

I don’t smoke cigars or scotch, and I think I can run faster than him.

Rod Blagojevich on the differences between him and Winston Churchill. Of course, that whole Nobel Prize in Literature, and the success in helping save the world from Nazi tyranny don’t figure into the differences between Churchill and Blago. But give Governor Rod his due: He is quite right in pointing out that he can run faster than a dead man.

If They Did This For the Prequels, the Acting Would Seem Better

The Empire Strikes Back, as it might have appeared at the turn of the 20th century:

By the way, it only takes a little bit of watching to see that silent films are still enthralling. Forcing the audience to read the dialogue, instead of merely listening to it, causes the audience to be far more active in the process of watching the movie. And that heightened level of involvement can make movie-watching more enjoyable in general.

I’ve Said It Before, I’ll Say It Again . . .

If Joe Biden didn’t exist, we would have to invent him.

This post can, of course, be titled “Imagine If George W. Bush/Sarah Palin Made a Crack Like This”.

On Tim Geithner’s Resume

Actually, I would feel better about the Secretary of the Treasury if he had worked more in the privae sector. And that includes work at Goldman Sachs.

The “Likeable Wonk”

A sketch of Mitch Daniels, who I really hope will run for President in 2012:

In 2003 Mr Daniels announced that he would run for governor. Democrats knew he was intelligent. To their horror, he turned out to be likeable too. Sarah Palin is strident and Mitt Romney disconcertingly perfect. Mr Daniels is at ease, an unusual politician who does not seem like one. He criss-crossed the state in an RV decorated with his slogan, “My Man Mitch”, and soon covered with signatures. He ate pork and watched baseball in the shadow of Gary’s steel mills. He stayed in private homes, first to save money on hotels, then because he liked it and his hosts seemed to as well. (He continues this even now, sleeping in children’s rooms, cramped Latino households and even more crowded Amish ones, often riding between them on his beloved Harley.) In November 2004 he won, by 53% to 45%.

Mr Daniels oozed with ideas. He introduced merit pay for public workers and performance metrics for state agencies. Indiana’s counties skittered illogically between two time zones, so he reset the state’s clocks. A toll road was losing money, so he oversaw a $3.85 billion lease to foreign investors. He was not dogmatic. In his first year he proposed a tax increase. He shrank the state workforce but increased the number of case workers for children. He passed a health plan that included private accounts for the poor.

Not everything went smoothly. The road lease and time change were, at first, enormously unpopular. He privatised the state’s welfare system, an unqualified disaster—eventually he cancelled the contract. But by the end of his first term he had transformed a $200m deficit into a $1.3 billion surplus and the state had earned its first AAA credit rating.

It helped that Indiana was faring better than its rusty neighbours. Manufacturing output grew by 20% between 1998 and 2008. Michigan’s slumped by 12% during the same time. The number of bioscience jobs, still small, grew 17.2% from 2001 to 2008. Mr Daniels tried to help, keeping taxes low and investing in infrastructure before it was hip. When the recession began, Indiana’s unemployment rate was lower than the national average.

By 2008 all this had culminated in a simple reality: Indiana liked its man Mitch. Barack Obama won the state, but Mr Daniels trounced his Democratic opponent, 58% to 40%. Some of this was luck. The opponent was lacklustre; the recession had yet to do its worst. But his victory was still notable. He won the young by 51% to 42%, and even picked up 20% of black and 37% of Hispanic voters.

The record may have warts in it, but what record doesn’t? And the warts are vastly outnumbered by the many good things that Governor Daniels has done during his time in office. I don’t know if Daniels will run for President–if I had to bet, I would say that he won’t–but the GOP could do worse than to have someone like him as a standard bearer.

Obama Administration: Poor Job Numbers Are Congress’s Fault

Which would be an excellent argument, if only President Obama’s party didn’t control Congress.

The polling numbers on the midterm elections really have to be looking bad for the Administration to be engaging in such a frantic and desperate round of excuse-mongering.

The New Democratic Message on Health Care

It basically involves having Democrats place their fingers in their ears, and scream “LALALALALALA I CAN’T HEAR YOU!!!!!” anytime anyone even has the temerity to discuss the costs of the health care plan.

Nancy Pelosi said that we had to pass the health care bill to find out what is in it. Now, it appears that efforts aimed at finding out the details of the bill after its passage will be obstructed by Democrats, doubtless with the help of the Obama Administration.

I hope that the people who once were proud of passing this bill now have the decency to be embarrassed by their association with it.

State of the Political Union

1. Presidential fund-raising speeches: Pure pabulum.

2. Defenses offered by Presidential allies: Pure pabulum.

3. It may have to be admitted: When it comes to foreign policy fights, the President appears to be fortunate in his choice of opponents. It takes a certain type of skill to be divided on fundamental foreign policy issues, and to give the Obama Administration much needed breathing room, as it seeks to recover its political equilibrium. The Tea Party appears to possess in abundance that certain type of skill.

4. The state of Washington offers Democrats more reasons to have night terrors.

Priorities

Whatever the symbolic importance of the Ground Zero mosque, Peter Feaver is quite right in pointing out that there are more important issues to focus on. Like, say, flood relief in Pakistan:

. . . Al Qaeda has sought to turn a broad civil war within the Muslim world into a war between Islam and the infidels (everyone else). If al Qaeda ever succeeded in that aim, our prospects for success would dim considerably. In fact, as President Bush and his advisors made clear within hours of the 9/11 attacks, and as leaders from both parties have emphasized repeatedly ever since — and as most Americans have accepted to a remarkable degree — the United States has not viewed the war on terror as a war against Islam. On the contrary, Americans have expended considerable blood and treasure to help protect Muslim victims of al Qaeda and other like-minded terrorist groups. And American leaders have sought, wherever possible, to reach out to the Muslim world and highlight America’s long tradition of religious freedom and unrivaled record as a society that welcomes and integrates immigrants from all walks of life.

President Obama has made this particular aspect of the ideological struggle a personal priority of his and he deserves some credit for doing so.

Yet, all of the focus on the Ground Zero mosque controversy may now be having the ironic effect of distracting us from a much more important and much more urgent issue in that ideological struggle: the vast humanitarian crisis caused by the floods in Pakistan. The human toll is staggering, and that alone ought to be enough to prompt an outpouring of generosity from the American people.

But if you are not moved by the human suffering, perhaps the national-security concerns will prompt you into action. Pakistan is at the epicenter of the war on terror, and it is hard to see how that larger struggle will turn out well if the Pakistani state collapses and the society plunges into anarchy. The country was already teetering on the edge with a bankrupt economy, severe food and water problems, and an ongoing insurgency in Balochistan. And, by the way, al Qaeda and other terrorist networks are primarily in Pakistan, not Afghanistan — indeed, several of the recent attempted terrorist attacks in the United States have originated from or had links to groups in Pakistan. Oh, and Pakistan has a sizable nuclear arsenal.

What? Blaming George W. Bush Isn’t Enough?

There is something unseemly about the White House’s efforts to find a Republican politician on which all bad things can be blamed. I recognize that it is politics to present the public with a convenient villain, but just because it may be standard operating procedure to go around casting for villains doesn’t mean that the behavior is particularly inspired. The President’s efforts to reach out to, and win over the public have largely failed, with Americans being more willing to tune him and his message out. Instead of recalibrating that message, and thinking about how he can win over the American people, President Obama has apparently decided that it is better to go around telling audiences that John Boehner is the source of all of our ills. That is, of course, when the President is not busy blaming George W. Bush for everything that has gone wrong.

I am sure that the President’s supporters will tell us that this behavior constitutes “leadership.” But increasingly, it smacks of desperation.

I Call For Consistency

My position on the Ground Zero mosque is spelled out here. But for those who believe that opposing the construction of the Ground Zero mosque is somehow “un-American,” I expect denunciations of Harry Reid to be issued in short order. Perhaps Anita Dunn can call Reid “intolerant.”

Heck, for that matter, I expect denunciations of Bill Press as well.

Shall He Stay, Or Shall He Go?

That is the question of the moment concerning the fate of Secretary of Defense Robert Gates, who has stated that he wants to leave in 2011–check out this story by Fred Kaplan, along with this interview, both of which served to start up this story–but whose retirement may be in the process of being walked back:

. . . don’t hold your breath that Gates will permanently move back to his home in Washington state anytime soon. His press secretary, Geoff Morrell, tried Monday to tamp down speculation that the Pentagon chief is close to calling it quits.

“Bob Gates has proven to be a miserable failure at retirement,” Morrell said, referring to how President George W. Bush persuaded Gates, 66, to return to public service as defense secretary in December 2006. “It remains to be seen whether his sense of responsibility trumps his desires, as in the past.”

[. . .]

. . . Gates has been dropping hints that he could stick around even longer. At a news conference Aug. 9, reporters pressed the secretary on his plans.

“As far as I’m concerned, all I will say is that I’m going to be here longer than either I or others thought,” he said.

Anything can happen, but my guess is that Gates will likely leave before President Obama’s first term is up. He obviously craves the action, but he appears to crave retirement as well, and he is conscious of the need to make sure that he doesn’t stick around too long, lest he tarnish or ruin part or all of his legacy at the Pentagon. As things stand, Gates has earned a reputation as a throwback to an era of statesmanship when politics stopped at the water’s edge, and when the United States benefited from a more bipartisan, unified approach to foreign, national security, and defense policy. I imagine that Secretary Gates is even now working to make it difficult for his successor to undo the Secretary’s efforts at establishing and implementing a more bipartisan defense policy. Here’s hoping that such a policy becomes Secretary Gates’s most lasting legacy; the American national security community could certainly use a more clear-eyed approach to preserving America’s interests, instead of allowing the implementation of American national security policy to be held hostage to narrow partisan interests.

I don’t know who might possibly succeed Secretary Gates, who has certainly cast a long, and powerful shadow over the Pentagon. Maybe Michèle Fluornoy. Maybe Hillary Clinton will move from State to Defense. But at the end of the day, the best we can likely hope for them, or perhaps for anyone who is appointed to succeed Bob Gates is that they will first do no harm, and that they will, correspondingly, leave Secretary Gates’s legacy alone, and untroubled.

And of course, the worry is that this may be asking too much of any successor under the Obama Administration.

- September 3, 2010 -

MORE LEDGER

ELSEWHERE ON TNL

DAILY READS

MARKETS & POLICY

The WHIP

HEGEMON

CHEQUER BOARD