Bipartisanship is Marketing

To those who believe that Obama's attempts at bipartisanship demonstrate abandonment of political advantage (as if the stimulus bill would sail through if not for Obama's outreach to Republicans?) or misguided (in the manner of David Broder's apparent belief that a solution reached through compromise is always better, even when one side to an argument is clearly wrong), I say the following: When a politician refers to "bipartisanship", the politician should be seen as either admitting that he doesn't have the political clout to carry an issue without help from the minority party, or because he feels that the public wants him to appear bipartisan.

The difficulty for Obama is that he's dealing with a minority party that has decided (probably correctly) that its power lies in obstructionism, and the media is packed with people like Broder who can't or won't admit that you don't need to compromise in the face of obstructionism. Granted, had Obama not played up to the public belief that bipartisanship is a good thing and that he would be a bipartisan leader, he would be better positioned to say, "This isn't the time for bipartisanship." But had he done that, he probably wouldn't be President.

It's Been Almost a Day....

Why isn't everything fixed yet?

Update: The low expectations continue.

Congratulations, Mr. President

And relax. It's not like the expectations are high.

I've never liked this song, but it seems appropriate for the occasion. I'm thinking... A Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi duet outside the window of the Lincoln Bedroom?

No Blackberry?

Apparently they're a security risk. (I blame.... Paris Hilton.)

Choosing the Surgeon General

Quick - name a surgeon general.

Dr. Koop? That was easy. Name another.

Sorry, Elders didn't get the job. Got a second? I'm waiting....

Perhaps I'm being unfair in your case, but we've really only had one celebrity Surgeon General. And since Koop retired, Presidents have seemed happy to keep it that way. So, other than to provide fodder for bad jokes, why is Obama apparently choosing somebody who is already a celebrity for that job?

I suspect that there are several reasons, but that they all tie together.

1. Gupta has incredible media access and connections. When he makes an announcement, he's pretty much guaranteed that it will get ample news coverage.

2. He has a popular persona of being trustworthy and competent. He has already been introduced to the American public, and he has an established, good reputation.

3. When necessary, he has enough personality and public access to bypass the media and take his message directly to the public.

This choice, to me, suggests that Obama truly intends to initiate sweeping healthcare reforms, and Gupta is going to be the public face of reform.

Despite his relatively conventional choices for most positions, I personally expect Obama to follow the model of his campaign, using community organizing techniques and Internet outreach to bypass traditional media and even political channels, in order to get public sentiment behind proposals that face opposition - Republican or Democratic opposition. In that context, with health care reform being an exceptionally thorny and controvercial subject, Obama's choice of Gupta makes perfect sense.

The Sound of Silence

I've read quite a few commentaries declaring that Obama has some form of moral duty to speak out on Israel's invasion of Gaza, ranging from the cautionary, to the cynical, to the hostile. This criticism comes in two forms: The first assumes that Obama secretly supports the invasion, and the second assumes that Obama has secret criticisms or concerns but is blind to "obvious" benefits of stating them now rather than keeping them to himself.

The former assumption, to me, seems silly. There is no political downside in this country for Democratic leaders who take a 100% pro-Israel stance on any aspect of the conflict, devoid of any framework in historic fact. Just ask Nancy Pelosi or Harry Reid. Or Senator Clinton, as opposed to the tight-lipped Secretary of State-Designate Clinton. Obama's silence may not indicate disagreement, but given how easily he could express unreserved support it should not be assumed to indicate agreement.

The idea that Obama loses credibility on the Arab street by not speaking out? Quite interesting, really, but last I checked he didn't stand for election as President of the Arab street. More to the point, what comments would satisfy the Arab street? Even if we assume for the moment that some of the more bizarre anti-Obama allegations made during the election are true - he's a secret Muslim, out to destroy Israel. Let's imagine his throwing aside this (imagined) life-long cloak of deception, and calling for "Death to Israel". Whatever the reaction of the Arab street, that would be the last moment he had any chance of affecting or resolving the conflict. If we return to reality, what type of statement do the critics anticipate? Something ranging between, "I support Israel's right to defend itself, but I disagree with their tactics," to "I support Israel's right to defend itself, but this military action against Gaza is wrong."

Further, it ignores Israel's position in Gaza, prior to this invasion:

Israel has given up any claim to Gaza. It has pulled out its settlers. It isn't trying to win hearts and minds, or create democracy. And it's in an ugly position - it knows that by the time its missiles strike the civilian neighborhoods where Hamas "militants" were launching rockets, the "militants" will almost certainly be gone. So they're striking civilian infrastructure (and perhaps civilians) because the alternatives are to either do nothing or send in ground forces, either of which probably worsens things for Israel and the latter of which generally kills and injures even greater numbers of civilians.

Sure, we could reiterate the ugly history of mistakes, bad acts, and missed opportunities that led to the now-former status quo, but finger-pointing won't change the fact that it was the status quo. Even with new Palestinian elections, there was no realistic chance of Fatah being able to assert control over Gaza and, even overlooking that reality, no realistic chance that a Fatah-governed Gaza would be able to stop Hamas rockets. So what advice should Obama have given? "Stop the invasion, ignore the rockets, wait until I'm President, then we'll work on this"? And when Israel ignored that advice, how much credibility would Obama have on either the Arab or the Israeli streets?

There's a reason that there's near universal support within Israel for "doing something" in Gaza, and it's understandable why the government is choosing a military option that it hopes will work as opposed to one that results in a quick return to the status quo. But unless you're willing to tell Israel, "That status quo, with rockets coming into Israel from Gaza, is one we expect you to live with," there is no other viable short-term option. The tragedy is, this one probably won't work, and stands a good chance of making things worse for everybody.

The most cynical interpretation I might offer of Obama's silence is that he's waiting to see what happens. If this "works" to the point that Hamas is crushed, the rockets stop, new Palestinian elections can be held, Fatah wins and successfully reasserts control over Gaza, and everybody happily returns to the negotiating table, well, great. If it doesn't work, it's difficult to say what comes next. But Obama's going to inherit what he inherits, and nothing he says is going to have any impact on Israel's actions. (As Moshe Dayan once quipped about U.S.-Israeli relations, "We take the money, we take the arms, and we decline the advice.") So why not take a "wait and see" approach?

Further, what's the benefit of attacking Israel's current leadership? If you were hoping that the next election would bring to mind Israel's apparent succession of incompetent, corrupt leaders, how do I break this to you. One way or another, Olmert's going to be gone, taken down by his ineptitude and criminality. But who's waiting in the wings to take over? Bibi Netanyahu. Somebody who is apt to condemn any military action taken against Arabs or Palestinians (other than his own) as being far too restrained. What statements can Obama make that reinforce his credibility on the Arab street, without simultaneously helping Netanyahu win the election? After which time the odds of any meaningful resumption of peace talks drop to about zero.

The Clinton-Obama silence on this incursion, to me, doesn't suggest either support or condemnation. It suggests that they don't want to say or do anything that may poison their planned efforts to bring the parties back into negotiation and, ideally, negotiate a resolution that brings this conflict to something reasonably approximating an end. Right now, realistically, what could Obama say that would help him achieve positive long-term goals for this multi-generational conflict?

Please, Not Centralized Planning....

David Brooks arguesthat there's a popular trend toward community,

If you asked people in that age of go-go suburbia what they wanted in their new housing developments, they often said they wanted a golf course. But the culture has changed. If you ask people today what they want, they’re more likely to say coffee shops, hiking trails and community centers.

Brooks declares,

To take advantage of the growing desire for community, the Obama plan would have to do two things. First, it would have to create new transportation patterns. The old metro design was based on a hub-and-spoke system — a series of highways that converged on an urban core. But in an age of multiple downtown nodes and complicated travel routes, it’s better to have a complex web of roads and rail systems.

Second, the Obama stimulus plan could help localities create suburban town squares. Many communities are trying to build focal points. The stimulus plan could build charter schools, pre-K centers, national service centers and other such programs around new civic hubs.

In other words, Brooks would have us spend tens or hundreds of billions of dollars on new roads, and would favor public transportation that can move small numbers of people, slowly, over short distances as opposed those that would quickly move large numbers of people over longer distances. Brooks would also encourage muncipalities to "build on today’s emerging patterns", then stick their hands out for billions from Obama to pay for their plans. Does Brooks think this is likely? No.

But alas, there’s no evidence so far that the Obama infrastructure plan is attached to any larger social vision. In fact, there is a real danger that the plan will retard innovation and entrench the past.

What "past" is Brooks talking about? The "golf course community" past of, say, five years ago? The "big cities, few suburbs" past of a century ago? The past that, five years ago, Brooks would have been writing while lamenting that the President's vision didn't focus on building the golf courses that people wanted as part of their new social landscape?

To put it mildly, Brooks' idea is bad. Here's an anecdote I previously related,

Later today I will be driving past a large, unattractive cement building, owned by a national newspaper chain. That location of that building will seem peculiar - it is, after all, a relatively new building, but its location will be on the main road to downtown, where it is apparent that many shops and homes once stood. It also is the sort of building that one would expect to be in an industrial park, or at the outskirts of a town, not right at the edge of downtown.

It seems that this town had a brilliant idea some decades back that it would "renew" its downtown area. It set about acquiring a large tract of property, with the goal of clearing off the old homes and businesses and building a large shopping mall. After the land was acquired and cleared, somebody finally asked the important question - "If we build it, will they come?" Okay, so that wasn't the actual question - "Private projects of this type and magnitude don't break ground until they have their anchor tenants signed to leases. Do we even have any potential anchor tenants who have expressed interest, let alone any who have signed leases?" Perhaps you have anticipated the answer to that question.

So the city was left with an empty stretch of land, once occupied by homes and buildings, and a revitalization plan which was not commercially viable. The best offer they got from a private enterprise for the land was from the newspaper company, hence the cement behemoth.

Meanwhile, in the city where I live, after an initial purchase price in the millions, hundreds of thousands of taxpayer dollars are being expended in relation to what is now a vacant lot because the city's desire for low-income housing on that land have failed to come to fruition. Almost next door in Ypsilanti, the city has struggled for a decade to reinvent an area near downtown into the very type of community Brooks claims everybody wants.

I don't particularly trust municipalities to plan the specifics of redevelopment of a community redevelopment - or even in relation to single lots. I have no problem with a municipality zoning or rezoning areas to encourage the development of more vibrant downtown areas. I have no problem with the federal government joining with cities to clear abandoned buildings and clean up environmental problems, creating brownfields where development will not otherwise occur. But do I want cities to try to impose a David Brooks vision of downtown centers including "restaurant and entertainment zones, mixed-use streetscape malls, suburban theater districts, farmers’ markets and concert halls" on the public? No, I don't.

I can walk downtown and enjoy several such zones - e.g., a Main Street area zone that is dominated by restaurants and upscale and specialty retail with a popular live music venue, the Kerrytown area with its farmer's market and upscale food and specialty shops, or the State Street/Liberty/South University area with its abundance of restaurants, coffee shops, boutiques, movie theaters, and live theater. I appreciate that the city's zoning allowed for that development to occur, and that the University of Michigan's budget allows for a lot of theater and cultural options that would otherwise be missing from this city. But had the city tried to dictate how those areas developed instead of leting them evolve, just as with its troubled effort to turn a single vacant lot into low-income housing, it would likely have impeded or prevented the successful development of those areas.

As for pretending that having "a complex web of roads and rail systems" helps prepare us for a future in which people are not dependent upon cars? While I respect the idea that public transportation should make it quick and easy to get from "point a" to "point b", and that hub and spoke systems can create delays and inconvenience that force people who would happily take a bus to instead drive a car, Brooks seems to be paying no heed to the cost of developing, operating and maintaining the "complex web" he desires. It's almost as if he's demanding, "Build a public transportation system I would use," without considering either the needs of others, or how in fact such a system could be created and operated in a cost-effective manner. (Or maybe that's exactly what he's demanding.)

Bush Didn't Make Any Mistakes, But Obama Should Learn From Them

As part of his continuing series of columns in which he demonstrates his eagerness to be invited to Bush's new Dallas home for supper, Michael Gerson shares more thoughts on the incoming Obama Administration.

Part of the appearance of security is rooted in seven years without additional terrorist attacks in America - itself a triumph against violence. It is difficult for a leader to take credit for a negative achievement - for the absence of failure. But here credit is due.

Apparently we're talking about international terrorism, in which case the seven years Gerson sees as warranting credit to Bush represent almost as much time as the eight year period between the first and second attacks on the World Trade Center. Gerson's correct that the passage of seven years doesn't justify complacency, but so far Bush's track record isn't better than Clinton's. If a terrorist attack were to occur in 2009, is Gerson more likely to pen a column describing the failure of Bush's policies, or to accuse Obama of taking his eye off the ball? As if Obama had warnings from the outgoing administration about the threat of al-Qaeda, and a memo on his desk declaring that they intended to attack within the United States, but focused on other priorities?

But there's another way to look at this: After supposedly ramping up to deal with large-scale terrorist attacks, the consequence of which could mirror the effects of a natural disaster, how did the Bush Administration perform? If anything should move us away from complacency, it's that track record.

Gerson sees the Congressionally approved tools used to combat terrorism as non-controversial, but finds room to learn from Bush's excesses:

Yet some methods designed for exceptional cases, such as waterboarding, were ethically disturbing and eventually counterproductive - causing self-inflicted ideological wounds in a largely ideological struggle.

I had almost forgotten that torturing people is "ethically disturbing". It's good to have a "compassionate Christian" around to remind us of that.

And there is little doubt that some administration claims of executive power invited a judicial backlash and undermined the power of future presidents.

Others might argue that the level of judicial deference to Bush is more problematic than the few cases that went against him. Gerson's right that future Presidents will have to remember that their office has limits, and those limits will at times be enforced by the courts. But he's confused about the source of those limits, as they in fact arise from a document the President is sworn to uphold, the Constitution. Gerson continues to explain the consequence of Bush's extra-constitutional actions:

If the administration had sought congressional backing for military commissions in 2001, and later for rules to hold combatants, the resulting legal framework would probably have been upheld by the courts - and would probably have been closer to administration goals than the eventual result.

So had Bush respected the Constitution and separation of powers, and acted accordingly, there would have been less litigation and the outcome would have been closer to what he wanted? That's the consequence Gerson sees from a "judicial backlash [that] undermined the power of future presidents"? The horror!

Gerson is apparently concerned that "enhanced" forms of interrogation won't be available to the CIA:

Or should the CIA be allowed to employ still-classified "enhanced" techniques short of torture? During his campaign, Obama promised the universal application of the Defense Department approach - but that is easier for a candidate than a president to pledge.

Sure, and Obama will have access to classified information that will help him make that assessment. But if we look at the interrogation techniques that worked in finding and killing Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, not only was torture unnecessary, by all appearances it would have been counter-productive. If one is needed, the fact that the result of the investigation was a bombing run intended to kill al-Zarqawi is a reminder that warfare carries a very different set of ethical balances than peace. But it's one thing when you are forced to make tough decisions that challenge your values due to the realities of war, and quite another to repeatedly make ethical concessions out of loyalty to a particular politician or administration without examining the reasoning behind those policies or considering their efficacy.

The hardest issues concern detained terrorists. Guantanamo will and should be closed as a public diplomacy nightmare. Perhaps half of the detainees will be sent home, leaving about 100 exceptionally dangerous men.

Well, so far that doesn't sound very hard. Why, though, do we still have 250 detainees at Guantanamo if it's so easy to sort out the "really bad ones" from the rest, and to send the others home?

The Obama administration will need to decide on a format for trials - much improved but politically discredited military commissions, ordinary civilian courts or some kind of national security courts created by Congress and supervised by the federal judiciary.

But the administration will not be able to try everyone. Some detainees will be too dangerous to release but too difficult to convict in a normal court setting using unclassified evidence. And any president will need the ability to hold and question newly captured terrorists outside the procedures designed for American criminals.

The reality is that you're unlikely to find any of that 100 who cannot be convicted and sentenced to life in prison based upon less sensational charges that don't require public disclosure of classified evidence or investigative technique. Remember John Walker Lindh, who if convicted at trial could have received up to three life sentences plus an additional 90 years in prison? There are many charges that can be brought against those defendants that will prevent them from ever again stepping outside the walls of a federal prison.

But let's assume for a moment that there are a few whose trials would somehow require public disclosure of material that would undermine our continuing efforts to fight wars and combat terrorism. That no number of court orders or protective measures could allow a fair trial without disclosure of that information. What would Gerson suggest then?

Unless Obama returns to a simple exertion of executive authority, he will require congressional authorization to detain people.

So Gerson is suggesting that Obama can spare himself a lot of headaches and better protect the nation by eschewing Bush's unilateralism in favor of constitutional process?

And this will expose a major tension between the new president's military responsibilities and the views of supporters who believe that detainees should be held only in preparation for trial.

Assuming, in fact, it's necessary for Obama to request extraordinary power in relation to some of the detainees. But you know what? There aren't many Obama supporters who actually fit the description Gerson provides - there may not even be any. The vast majority of Obama's supporters have always acknowledged the reality of the situation. Extending habeas corpus rights to detainees held in U.S. prisons is not the same thing as saying "detainees should be held only in preparation for trial" - it relates to whether or not detention is justified. It's a check on abuses and the potential for abuses. You shouldn't have to be much of a student of history to understand why the Founding Fathers were sufficiently concerned about that potential that they inserted habeas corpus rights into the body of the Constitution.

Governing Like Bush?

Michael Gerson's the latest to pen an "OMG! He's Just Like Bush!" column about Barack Obama - the type of column that suggests that his only sources of information about Obama are party memos and McCain's campaign ads.

Conservatives have generally feared that Obama is a closet radical. He has uniformly voted with liberal interests and done nothing to justify a reputation for centrism.

Until now.

Because there is no evidence that Obama is a cautious politician with a history of working from consensus and not making waves. Oh, wait. I guess there is plenty of evidence if you base your analysis of Obama's record on, you know, his record. I believe Larison overstates his case in respect to the implications of this:

Most people in the broad “middle” seem to be relieved by Obama’s moves in the last few weeks, so I have to conclude that they don’t have much of a problem with conventional Washington thinking, either. The majority is not just getting the government they deserve, but apparently it is also the government they want. When it fails them, as it is going to do, I don’t want to hear them complaining about the problems of the status quo.

Our system is constructed to impede radical change. If you want disappointment, elect your ideological hero in the form of a Dennis Kucinich or a Ron Paul, and see how his agenda for reform never even gets out of the starting blocks. But that aside, it's always been readily apparent that Obama's far from being the socialist revolutionary the McCain campaign, and portions of the right-wing punditocracy, attempted to argue. But back to Gerson:

Obama's appointments reveal not just moderation but maturity - magnanimity to past opponents, a concern for continuity in a time of war and economic crisis, a self-confidence that allows him to fill gaps in his own experience with outsize personalities, and a serious commitment to incarnate his rhetoric of unity.

Again, which part of this wasn't apparent from Obama's record?

Obama is benefiting from being the only player on the stage - all his pretensions of moderation could be quickly undermined by a liberal Congress, unhinged by its expanded majority. And Obama's social liberalism could still turn Washington into a culture-war battlefield.

I suspect that Gerson means this as a caution, or as a distinction from G.W. - But if you look at the history of G.W.'s administration, perhaps instead he's warning us that Obama's first term could look like G.W.'s administration, during his first eight months and starting again with his reelection, where his popularity plummeted and he ran both his administration and (with their active complicity) his party into the ground.

Though Obama's campaign savaged the administration as incompetent and radical, Obama's personnel decisions have effectively ratified Bush's defense and economic approaches during the past few years. At the Pentagon, Obama rehired the architects of President Bush's current military strategy - Gates, Gen. David Petraeus and Gen. Raymond Odierno. At the Treasury Department, Obama has hired one of the main architects of Bush's current economic approach.

This continuity does not make Obama an ideological traitor. It indicates that Bush has been pursuing centrist, bipartisan policies - without getting much bipartisan support.

Good grief, does Gerson pay attention to anything? When Obama launched his campaign, we were told of the superiority of Bush's war policy, and that Obama's call for ending the war and fixing a date for withdrawal of the troops was defeatism that would reward terrorists. Around that same time, Bush brought in Gates to replace the disastrous leadership of Donald Rumsfeld and within months "every single one of the top commanders running the war ha[d] been replaced." Bush has since negotiated a timetable for the withdrawal of U.S. forces from Iraq. That is, in the face of significant public opposition to his war and his policies, Bush shifted his position from his prior (failed) partisan policies to something to what he would formerly have described as letting the terrorists win.

Gates was appointed by the Senate in a 95-2 vote. When Bush started moving from partisanship toward the positions shared by the majority of Congress and the majority of the American people, he got plenty of support. It isn't Obama who has shifted on these issues - it's Bush.

In terms of treasury, Gerson is apparently talking about Timothy Geithner. There's good reason to believe that Geithner has worked with Henry Paulson to fashion the response to the present crisis in the financial industry, but... you know, funny thing, you would expect the president and CEO of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York to be involved in this sort of crisis. Although I am not at all impressed with Paulson's inconsistent approach to this crisis, or his tendency to indiscriminately and unconditionally throw money at banks while refusing to hold bank executives responsible for their incompetence, he's clearly been given a lot of discretion to respond to this crisis. To some degree you have to credit Bush with giving him that discretion, but Bush's desperation is hardly reflective of centrist policy. In normal times, the political center would be horrified by what Paulson has been doing - actually, it's hard to imagine any segment of the political spectrum that wouldn't be horrified. So again, this is a horrible example of Bush's supposed centrism.

Particularly on the economy, Bush has never been a libertarian; he has always matched a commitment to free markets with a willingness to intervene when markets stumble.

I'm not sure what Bush has been "on the economy", other than a failure by the measure of the political left, political right, job market, stock market, housing market.... But I'll grant, he's no libertarian.

Third, Obama is finding the limits of leading a "movement" that never had much ideological content.

This notion of a "movement" seems to emerge from two separate phenomena - the fact that some individuals and loose-knit groups projected their own political goals onto Obama (as, frankly, happens with pretty much any new, charismatic political leader who builds a coalition sufficient to win a national election), and the caricature advanced by people like Gerson. But you know, there's one person whom I've not once heard speak of Obama as a leader of a cohesive "movement" - Barack Obama. And there's a guy who has been willing to disappoint large groups of his supporters on issues such as Iraq policy and FISA, even before he was elected. (Can Gerson guess his name?) But then, Gerson was apparently taken surprise that Obama reappointed Gates, despite, you know, Obama promising to reach across the aisle when composing his cabinet.

Reappointing Gates is also politically savvy, as it makes it harder for Republicans to blame Obama if the Iraq phase-down goes poorly. But whatever Obama's motivations, take a step back and think about what it means for Gates to be accepting this reappointment. He had the alternative of cashing in, big time with a book deal, private sector jobs... think Cheney at Halliburton. It's a testament to his character that he's continuing in the job, and a testament to Obama that he's again willing to disappoint supporters who wanted a clean break from past war policy in order to retain somebody who may in fact be the best available choice for the job. So with regard to Gates, although my reasoning is different, I'll accede to Gerson's conclusion - That's centrism we can believe in.

As for Gerson's having his hopes raised by Obama's "disappointing the ideologues", he may be onto something. After all, had Bush been more willing to stand up to factions exemplified by PNAC, the Club for Growth, the domestic energy industry, etc., his administration might not have been such a miserable failure.

It Was Only Eight Years Ago....

That, as G.W. Bush became President Elect of the United States, I commented that he was inheriting a gloomy financial picture and that I didn't envy anybody who was taking over as President, and wondered if either candidate could have looked forward to more than a single term presidency. And from day one until the day history took over, G.W. seemed intent to prove me right.

Looking back, it's amazing how good things were - exceptionally good - as contrasted with the gaping chasm left for Obama by the Bush Administration. Is there anything Bush touched that didn't turn to, um, lead?

Put the audacity on hold - it is time to hope, but perhaps more modestly, that we've reached a point where there's nowhere to go but up. I don't actually believe that - things could get much worse - so I guess that's where the hope comes in.

Graceful vs. Graceless

Michael Gerson attempts a graceful concession to Obama's victory and, other than spinning the fiction that Obama has no mandate and whining about the evils of bloggers¹, largely succeeds. You can't, however, sensibly deny that a candidate who openly runs on a platform of ending the war in Iraq and laying the foundation for universal health insurance, then wins with a majority of the popular and a decisive majority of the electoral vote, has no mandate to implement those policies. No matter how many people are assumed to have voted for Obama "even though" he made those promises, as opposed to "because" he made those promises, there was nothing hidden about his agenda and it's more than reasonable for him to assert that he has a mandate to carry it out.

Barack Obama's first years may well be dominated by a recession and a swiftly arming Iran. Some conservatives will be tempted to take joy from his inevitable struggles; others to spin conspiracy theories from his background and associations. It will be easy to blame every emerging challenge on the faults and failures of an inexperienced young president. But it will be more difficult for me.

* * *

There is a tremendous sense of history and responsibility that comes with serving in the White House. You gain an appreciation for the conflicted choices others have faced - and for the untamed role of history in frustrating the best of plans. It becomes easier to understand a president's challenges and harder to question his motives. Ultimately, I believe that every president, and the staff he hires, feels the duty to serve a single national interest. And, ultimately, we need our presidents to succeed, not to fail for our own satisfaction or vindication.

This presidency in particular should be a source of pride even for those who do not share its priorities. An African American will take the oath of office blocks from where slaves were once housed in pens and sold for profit. He will sleep in a house built in part by slave labor, near the room where Lincoln signed the Emancipation Proclamation with firm hand. He will host dinners where Teddy Roosevelt in 1901 entertained the first African American to be a formal dinner guest in the White House; command a military that was not officially integrated until 1948. Every event, every act, will complete a cycle of history. It will be the most dramatic possible demonstration that the promise of America - so long deferred - is not a lie.

On the other hand, Melanie Phillips is off her meds:

America’s belief in itself as defending individual liberty, truth and justice on behalf of the free world will now be expiated instead as its original sin. Those who have for the past eight years worked to bring down the America that defends and protects life and liberty are today ecstatic. They have stormed the very citadel on Pennsylvania Avenue itself.

Millions of Americans remain lion-hearted, decent, rational and sturdy. They find themselves today abandoned, horrified, deeply apprehensive for the future of their country and the free world. No longer the land of the free and the home of the brave; they must now look elsewhere.

So you're asking yourself, "Who's Melanie Phillips"? She's a British author, who lives in a town she has deemed Londonistan. Apparently, when you're as brave and free, lion-hearted, decent, rational and sturdy as she is, you don't even have to live in the U.S. - so if you share her politics, call her up and see if you can bunk on her sofa.
____________
1. Gerson suggests that bloggers who oppose his political agenda live in "an ideological world of their own creation, viewing anyone outside that world as an idiot or criminal". I've never found a home with the likes of the Kossacks, but I can tell Gerson this much: I think he's the dumbest person to hold a regular, syndicated column at a national newspaper because, by all appearances, he is. Gerson's brand of "compassionate Christianity" is far less offensive than Krauthammer's brand of thoughtless obstreperousness, he doesn't lose himself in a narcissistic haze like Bill Kristol, and he's more intellectually consistent than George Will, but he's still by all appearances the least intelligent of the lot. Sorry. (I once described Gerson as "the feeling man's Republican" - I still think that's apt.)

Fred Hiatt's Last Minute Potshot

Remember Fred Hiatt's execrable column on how everything's coming up roses in Iraq? His editorial page mindlessly regurgitates his views today, in a last minute potshot at Obama. But apparently, this time around nobody wanted to sign the thing.

You Only Have To Fool Enough of the People...

The magic Palin brings to the McCain campaign is her remarkable ability to lie about pretty much everything. Apparently, Matt Drudge dredged up a January interview where Obama describes how carbon emission "cap and trade" works, and now Palin's hard at work lying about it:

• Lie: "You hear Barack Obama talking about bankrupting the coal industry" - Truth: You hear Obama state, "this notion of 'no coal', I think is an illusion" given its huge role in powering the U.S. and even greater role in powering China. He raises the question of how we can use coal without creating greenhouse gases. He observes that under a cap and trade system, if cleaner methods of producing coal energy are not developed, new coal power plants will not be economically viable. It's the person who ignores the carbon tax and builds a dirty coal plant who goes bankrupt, not the coal industry.

  Obviously, under any cap and trade system, sources of energy that produce high levels of carbon emission may lose their viability - that's the point of cap and trade - so the coal industry's focus needs to be on developing cleaner energy technology.

• Lie: "John McCain and I, we will not let that happen to the coal industry." - Truth: John McCain also supports a strong "cap and trade" system for carbon emissions, and if he's telling the truth about that his policies will produce exactly the same outcome as Obama's.

• Lie: Palin's demand to know why the video was "withheld from the electorate" suggesting a conspiracy by the media - Truth: "audio of the interview has been available on the web site of the San Francisco Chronicle since mid-January, when Obama made the comments in an interview with the newspaper's editorial board."

They say that when you've got nothin', you've got nothin' to lose. And I guess, when you've given up your honor, you've got nothin'.

Entrepreneurship and Taxes

Although there are some valid points buried within, it is hard to discern why ABC News deemed this editorial by Michael Malone worthy of publication. Although I agree with him, that entrepreneurship plays an enormous role in the success of our economy, and that laws and government regulations are nonetheless constructed in a manner that is favorable to large businesses, and in many ways unfavorable to small businesses and start-ups. I don't think that it can be reasonably disputed that this has become worse under G.W., who right now is trying to gut antitrust regulations on his way out the door.

But a lot of what he claims is just plain stupid. Platitudes like, "Sen. Barack Obama, being a Democrat, seems to have very little idea of how the economy actually works" and "Sen. John McCain, being a Republican, has a marginally better understanding of the economy and the role of business - but his attention, as usual with GOP elders, is focused upon established companies, which undergird our economy, but do little to create new jobs or new wealth" - as if McCain's expressions about the limits of his understanding of economics are reduced to vapor by his party affiliation, or as if Obama would have an economic epiphany if he switched parties. Facts? Evidence? Who needs those when you have stereotypes and caricatures.

Malone's observations about entrepreneurship are similarly trite,

Meanwhile, established and big companies understandably hate entrepreneurship and will do almost anything to slow the progress of entrepreneurs - like all of those onerous regulations described above. And it has worked: This year has seen almost no high tech company IPOs, traditionally that moment when entrepreneurs gained their freedom and rewarded their teams.

A low level of high tech IPO's can, it seems, only result from start-ups being stifled and crushed by the iron fist of established companies. It has nothing to do with, for example, their number, the economy, or their state of readiness for going public. Malone also forgets how rare it is for a company to go public, and glosses over the fact that, once public, they're well on their way to being one of the "established and big companies" that supposedly "hate entrepreneurship".

These days, the only recourse for a hot start-up company is to sell out to an established company - further consolidating power and wealth. And meanwhile, of course, those older companies find it much more pleasant to buy these new competitors than compete with them.

It's not the only recourse, but obviously when the economy is bad it can become a superior alternative to trying to ride out a recession - not every company is Google. But really, prior to the original dot-com bubble, how many software companies dreamed of an IPO rather than, for example, being purchased by Microsoft? How many V.C.'s, investing in these companies, expect every company in their portfolio to end up going public as opposed to accepting favorable buy-outs from established companies? And sometimes a buyout is the best option for a company that has no viable stand-alone business model. How many start-ups like YouTube can afford to operate at an extremely high cost indefinitely, while their owners struggle to come up with a way to monetize their content? For that matter, what's so bad about being purchased by a major player, whether pre-IPO or post-IPO?

Nothing in McCain's campaign suggests that he understands any of this, or will change the status quo. To look more hip and in-the-know about the tech world, the senator likes to point to the fact that eBay's Meg Whitman is his campaign's advisor on business.

She is, in fact, one of the finest business executives I know, but Meg is not an entrepreneur.

Wait - didn't Malone just tell us that an understanding of the economy can be inferred party affiliation alone? Okay, so even he knows that's bunk. But to attack McCain's association with Meg Whitman, as an attempt to "look more hip" because, although one of the best business executives in the nation who helped elevate eBay from a start-up to a titan, she didn't personally start eBay? Of all of the companies that have rapidly risen from start-up to multi-billion dollar enterprises, how many have done so without bringing in professional management? How many entrepreneurs are their who are considered to be word-class, great, or dare I say even good CEO's once their businesses went public? (I'm only half-joking here - Ford, Jobs (in the latter part of his career), Ellison... Do I need both hands to count them?) For the most part, professional managers don't start businesses, and entrepreneurs reach a point where they need to bring in professional management.

And this suggests that a McCain presidency is not going to come to the aid of America's entrepreneurs - and that the best we can hope for is that it will get out of the way, at least when it comes to taxes. That may work, but it will be a long, slow recovery.

So we've switched back from high tech to the more generic category of "entrepreneur", with a lot of entrepreneurs being decidedly low tech, most employing only themselves, and almost none earning so much as to not benefit from Obama's tax cut. But no, neither candidate is going to give the type of tax relief that would make a typical entrepreneur smile - relief from self-employment taxes, or (something that could benefit all wage earners) eliminating the double- and triple-taxation of income that results from payroll taxes.

Surely here Malone is focusing solely on capital gains taxes, something that would be a pressing issue for a minority of entrepreneurs - those seeking venture capital, with capital gains taxes figuring into the V.C.'s calculation of return on investment, and those giving out stock options and intending to go public. (I'm not overlooking other circumstances where capital gains taxes can arise; but most small businesses aren't actively looking for investors or buyers, and they typically don't fall from the sky.)

As for Obama, leaving aside all of his other proposals for massive social change, the single most frightening plank in his platform is his plan to increase the capital gains tax. If there is one single factor in the U.S. economy that defines the rate of new company creation, it is taxation on capital gains - in particular, the differential between the capital gains and regular tax rates. To understand the long Reagan/Bush/Clinton boom of 1980-2000, you need only look at Reagan's slashing of that differential.

Leaving aside for the moment the "sheer terror" of a 20% capital gains tax, did it occur to Malone that he should actually read Obama's tax proposal before attacking it?

The Obama plan will ... Eliminate capital gains taxes for small businesses, cut corporate taxes for firms that invest and create jobs in the United States, and provide tax credits to reduce the cost of healthcare and to reward investments in innovation.

Truly terrifying.

Assuming that his comments about "corporate greed," etc. indicate that he has no intention of getting rid of Sarbanes-Oxley or any other crippling corporate regulation, then Obama's plan to raise the capital gains tax will all but kill creation of new companies - especially new tech companies - in America.

Yeah, "raising" the capital gains tax to zero will do that.... But let's pretend that Malone has a point - let's pretend that we're entering a business environment where the capital gains tax rate will be 20% instead of fifteen percent:

No new Apples or Facebooks or Twitters, no explosive new industries spinning off endless amounts of money and jobs, no new competitive advantages in the global economy.

That first example is fascinating. Apple, Inc., of course, was founded in 1976. You know, when the maximum capital gains tax rate was 49%. And yet Jobs and Wozniak still started their company? Amazing. Well, they reportedly incorporated on April Fool's day, so maybe they just didn't "get" that they were supposed to wring their hands and fret about their eventual capital gains tax exposure instead of starting their company.

Then Reagan came along and saved the world by cutting capital gains taxes to... fifteen percent? You're joking, right?

The late 1970s and early 1980s brought decreases to the top rates for both ordinary income and capital gains. The top tax rate on ordinary income dropped 20 percentage points to 50 percent in 1982. The capital gains exclusion increased from 50 percent to 60 percent in 1979. As a result of the exclusion and rate cut, capital gains tax rates fell from a maximum of 39.875 percent including an add-on minimum tax, which was widely applicable in 1978, to 20 percent in 1982.

The tax rate differential was eliminated by the Tax Reform Act of 1986 (TRA86) at the same time that top ordinary income tax rates were slashed to 28 percent. When tax rates on ordinary income increased in 1991, the top capital gains tax rate was held fixed at 28 percent. It was subsequently cut to 20 percent in 1997 and to 15 percent in 2003. In comparison, the top tax rate on ordinary income is now 35 percent.

Well there you have it - and don't go believing your lying eyes - we had no boom in tech start-ups, tech IPO's, or flood of so much money into tech businesses that we created a dot-com bubble, because the capital gains tax rate was at or above 20% until 2003. And we've had a boom in tech start-ups, IPO's, etc., since that time because... no, wait, Malone insists we haven't, and that it's a real problem. How is that possible? Maybe he's looking for his answers in the wrong place?

Now about those new Facebooks and Twitters? Those are Malone's best examples of businesses that might not have been started under a 20% capital gains tax, that should go public, or where it would be somehow a tragic loss if they were purchased by an established company? It sounds like Malone is trapped in a time warp - it's 1999, and all a tech company needs to justify a multi-billion dollar valuation and an IPO is a large user base. A business model? A path to profit? An ability to so much as break even? That's so old-school.

Facebook reminds me of the housing bubble. Back when things looked good, people were talking about its being worth $15 billion, and it was spurning proposals for acquisition by companies like Yahoo!, reportedly in the $billion range. Various companies wanted to buy in; Microsoft purchased a 1.6% share of Facebook for $246 million, suggesting a market value in excess of $15 billion. And it tried, and tried, and tried to turn its huge volume of user eyeballs into profit, and the result of those efforts?

As most of Facebook’s growth is outside the US, you’d expect that most of their revenue comes from advertisers targeting international audiences, as well. But that’s not the case. As TechCrunch pointed out months ago, many, many countries generate little to no advertising revenue per user.

* * *

Despite raising probably over half a billion in cash over the last two years, cash reserves are quickly depleting the future may be even more grim for Facebook as the economy slows. Advertising dollars may be one of the first things to be cut. However, as TC points out, Facebook CFO Gideon Yu is in Dubai, looking for more funding for the company.

Facebook grew quickly upon fantastic speculation about its possible future value, spent investor money like a drunken sailor, and is looking at a future where it may not be able to raise enough cash to sustain its operations. So are you thinking, "Why isn't this company going public", or are you thinking, "It needs to be bought out by somebody who has deep pockets and a way to either turn it into a money-maker or to use it to augment their existing money-making operations"?

Twitter is a clever concept, and it has a devoted user base, but it has no obvious path to profitability. Meanwhile, dare I say "established" companies like Facebook have added Twitter-like features to their user interface, to keep those eyeballs on their own sites. And they're having trouble with reliability - with their bandwidth exceeding their capacity - forcing the implementation of policies that may alienate some of their users.

Malone may have a point, that investors paying capital gains taxes at 20% won't invest in companies like pets.com, webvan, eToys.com, kozmo.com, Flooz.com, boo.com, mvp.com, kibu.com, Go.com, Twitter and Facebook, because the marginally lower potential return on investment makes it less desirable to invest in a company that may never develop a viable business model. He may also see companies like Twitter and Facebook as those most likely to turn into corporate giants after an IPO, rather than crashing and burning when they can't even hit a break-even point and run out of money. But let's not pretend that history supports him.

Basicaly, Malone misdirects uninformed attacks at both candidates, gets basic facts wrong, has no clue about the history of the capital gains tax, and seems to know just about nothing about, well, anything. And you know what? If you read the parts of Malone's piece I didn't discuss, you may conclude that I'm being too easy on him.

Premature Obituaries

I'm not personally going to declare a winner until after the election, but it's interesting to read the premature obituaries being penned about the McCain campaign and the Republican Party.

On the right, Clark Stooksbury describes the Republican Party as the "Party of Delusion", calling for an honest assessment of the reasons for the party's failure from inside, but expressing doubts about Republican-oriented conservatives' ability to do so:

A good example is this post from Robert Stacy McCain, who was engaged in some preemptive complaining about media spin of next week’s election. McCain describes the GOP as “the party of low taxes, limited government, traditional values and strong defense.” Only the part about taxes is accurate. the GOP would be more accurately described as the party of tax cuts, debt, cronyism, aggressive war and cultural resentment. The formula that worked for a couple of election cycles, but the party’s chickens have come home to roost.

In the referenced post, McCain also seems to expect that (the other) McCain will lose, but has words of criticism only for the mainstream media. Dan Larison is more in tune with Stooksbury,

Endorsing Obama is a vote of no confidence in the Republican Party, but in a weird way it is also an expression of what is probably utterly misguided hope that the Republicans will learn from the defeat and adjust to new political realities.

He seems to regard it as foolish to vote for Obama to "punish the GOP" out of hope "that there is some small chance that the GOP might change its ways", but presents no alternative. If you concede, as Larison does, that from a conservative standpoint "the GOP has failed so badly that it has made the unthinkable [a vote for Obama] mundane and ordinary", how could you possibly justify a Republican vote? While I recognize that there are third parties, and would not be surprised if Larison ends up voting for a third party candidate, the fact remains that our system is heavily biased against third parties and, in this election and into the foreseeable future, the two dominant parties will remain dominant.

On the left, Paul Krugman speculates on what the Republican Party will look like ("assuming that McCain doesn’t pull an upset"), suggesting,

the GOP that’s left after this election will probably be even further off in right field, even further out of touch with the rest of the country, than before.

If the Republican Party heeds those conservative intellectuals who call for it to reexamine its platform and priorities, that might be avoided. Or not. There's a possibility that if various conservative factions were invited to try to impose their brand of ideological purity on the Republican Party, the ensuing bloodshed would actually harm party unity, or that the bizarre, hybrid consensus version of conservatism emerging from the process would be a cure worse than the disease. Also, the branding issue would remain, as even a fruitful meeting of the party's best minds would have to overcome recent experience - "We're the Republican Party, and this time we really mean all those things we've been telling you we stand for all these years.... Trust us!"

But again, I'm not going to write the party off before it even loses, or after. Similar things could have been said about the Democratic Party many, many times over the past thirty years. They could have been said a year ago. No, actually, they have been - for most of the past year we've been hearing about how this election should be easy for the Democratic Party, how Obama can't "close the deal" and how the Democratic Party's only real strength lies in its ability to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory. If Obama weren't ahead in the polls, people would be saying them right now. If Obama loses, well, I don't have to tell you, do I.

When a party seems to be destined to lose, its pessimists expect the party to be reduced to ashes and its optimists expect a phoenix to rise, but a more likely outcome is that the party somehow manages to hobble itself together, keeps its "party faithful" in the fold, and gets the benefit both of time making people forget its past, and the other party's overreaching making them once again seem like the "lesser of two evils" to the block of "swing voters" that ultimately decides elections.

If I were to speculate as to what future path the Republican Party might take that would help keep it in the minority, at risk of trying to get rich by overestimating the intelligence of our nation's people, it would be the path endorsed by Robert Stacy McCain, who offers an unabashed "defense of ignorance". For example, McCain argues,

Palin's honest ignorance of presidential-level issues was held up as evidence that she is, or was, unprepared for the vice-presidency - as if years of studying such issues were in itself qualification for the office. Evidence contradicts this idea.

Even if we assume that "evidence" contradicts the idea that years of serious study of foreign policy better qualify somebody to serve as Vice President, that does not automatically mean that foreign policy ignorance is an equal qualification to foreign policy study, let alone make ignorance a qualification for the job. And it's more than being unschooled - somebody who has lived a lifetime demonstrating disinterested in a particular subject, to the point that in her forties she is described by her supporters as "ignorant", is unlikely to ever achieve proficiency. Is it possible? Sure, but that's a gamble. McCain's observation that Palin is "a very popular and for all I know a very good governor" is fascinating - before urging the party to jump on her bandwagon, might it not make sense for him to learn enough about her that he doesn't have to qualify his endorsement of her record?

Sarah Palin is extraordinarily shrewd and is a natural as a politician. She figured out early on that some people on the McCain campaign are profoundly incompetent (hello, Tucker Bounds) and that other people on the McCain campaign are selfish and arrogant beyond words (you know who you are, sweetheart).

So if you can identify Tucker Bounds - this Tucker Bounds - and Michael Goldfarb - this Michael Goldfarb - as less than the best, you're "shrewd"? That seems like a pretty low bar - as low as the ground level bar set for Palin in the Vice Presidential debate. So really, what's the reason McCain likes (the other) McCain's pick so much?

Sarah's shortcomings on Aug. 29 have been rapidly remedied, and by 2011 could be remedied entirely. Considering that she is the strongest, most viable alternative to Jeb Bush, I would suggest that some of her conservative critics should try to befriend her, and not merely join the sneering snobs.

The only other choice being Jeb Bush, and the Bush brand having been burned so badly by his brother that, despite his having what appear to be far superior credentials, experience, intellect and interest in national and international affairs, you should saddle up the unknown horse and hope for the best?

Truly, J.S. McCain has a limited memory if he believes that the presidential nominee or eventual president can be spotted four years out. The Republican party doesn't have to hope, so much as it should expect new leadership to emerge over the next four years. If Palin turns out to be the best of the bunch, without wishing to caricature her, diminish her accomplishments, or underestimate her political skills and charisma, the party has a lot to worry about... assuming it loses on Tuesday.

But again, the election ain't over 'till it's over.

Bomb Bomb Bomb, Bomb Iran?

Clifford Orwin serves up plenty of nothing in an editorial that refuses to endorse either Obama or McCain, but attempts to attack Obama who Orwin clearly expects to win.

Fact No. 1 is that the new president will face very bad times. Already last spring, when lecturing at a leading U.S. political science department, I learned that a majority of my colleagues there, regardless of their leanings, held that each party should hope the other won this race. And that was before the financial meltdown.

Is Mr. Obama the man for such a dire moment?

Orwin attempts to insulate himself from criticism of this point by refusing to endorse McCain, but the obvious retort is, "Is McCain?" or "Is anybody?" As Orwin notes,

Already last spring, when lecturing at a leading U.S. political science department, I learned that a majority of my colleagues there, regardless of their leanings, held that each party should hope the other won this race. And that was before the financial meltdown.

So what we have here is not really so much a point about Obama or his qualification as Presidency, but Orwin setting himself up to say "I told you so" if things don't quickly come up roses without actually having to put his neck on the chopping block by suggesting how McCain might be more qualified or what a candidate might do to make roses grow from the fertilizer into which G.W. has transformed most aspects of American government.

Look at Mr. Obama's domestic plans. Behind his rhetoric of unity shelter the same old Democratic policies that the two parties have wrangled over for four decades. If that's what Mr. Obama means by Change We Can Believe In, well then Yes We Can.

So Democrats support Democratic policies, and believe that implementing Democratic policies in the place of Republican policies constitutes change? Is Orwin unfamiliar with the meaning of the word, "change"?

Now if he means to argue that the Democratic policies he chooses not to identify are somehow worse than the Republican policies they would replace, I'm eager to hear the argument - to me, that's red meat and, as with pretty much any policy debate, a robust debate can follow with valid points to be made on both sides. But the way Orwin goes about this? It's a cop-out.

Orwin's only specifics come in relation to "foreign policy", by which he apparently means war, war, and only war:

Here, the best news is that not even Mr. Obama's own advisers believe he intends an early withdrawal from Iraq.

Given Orwin's open support for the Iraq war, and ability to find self-vindication in any outcome, it's no surprise that he apparently finds perverse pleasure in the difficulty of ending that war. But what nonsense:

Al-Qaeda has declared again and again (contra Mr. Obama) that the main theatre of its struggle with the United States is not marginal Afghanistan but geopolitically crucial Iraq. Lately, it has been absorbing a royal beating there. Nothing would delight it more than for the Americans to abandon Iraq prematurely to chase Osama bin Laden. Handed a new lease on life in Iraq, it would press on with renewed confidence in Kandahar.

This man is a political scientist who has been writing for years in favor of the Iraq war, yet he is ignorant of Al-Qaeda's actual goals? In their wildest pipe dream, Al-Qaeda doesn't imagine gaining control of Iraq, and it's absurd and dishonest for Orwin to pretend otherwise. Their unambiguous goal has been to drag the U.S. into a perpetual conflict that bankrupts us as a nation, in much the same manner as Russia's war in Afghanistan contributed to its own collapse. Orwin tells us that we're in "an era of shrinking resources" that would force us to forego policies that might improve the lives of Americans - well, you know, that's kind of what Al-Qaeda wants, isn't it.

If Orwin were more honest, or is it more knowledgeable, he would be aware that a Shiite-dominated Iraq is not going to tolerate Al-Qaeda. They'll be vastly less tolerant than Hussein's Sunni government and, despite various specious efforts to tie Hussein to Al-Qaeda, they weren't connected. Odds are they'll be significantly more ruthless in rooting it out, once the U.S. is gone and they are no longer limited by western sensitivities or insistence upon "reconciliation".

Even if we assume that Orwin is engaged in the all-too-typical sleight of hand, conflating Al Qaeda in Iraq (AQI) with Bin Laden's Al Qaeda, really, does he think that the Shiite government is going to make any sort of home in Iraq for an aggressively expansionist, militaristic, fundamentalist brand of Sunni Islam, openly dedicated to its overthrow? Where in the Shiite world is Al-Qaeda tolerated, let alone welcomed? Meanwhile, there's a real price being paid for turning Iraq into a proving ground for AQI and other terrorist groups:

Despite debate over the extent to which AQI fighters are dispersing to new battlefields, there's little question that the organization's methods are increasingly being employed outside of Iraq. The number of suicide attacks, for example, rare in Afghanistan and Pakistan before 9/11, has grown exponentially; according to Pakistan's intelligence service, in the first eight months of this year, there were 28 suicide attacks in Pakistan and 36 in Afghanistan, together claiming over 900 lives. (During that same period, for the first time, suicide bombers killed more people in Pakistan than in Iraq: 471 versus 463.) "Whether or not the actual people migrate, the tactics and techniques are [migrating], and they're going to change the nature of warfare," says [Bruce Hoffman, a counterterrorism expert at Georgetown University]. "The people coming from Iraq have expertise almost across the board in insurgency, from suicide tactics to force-on-force attacks to sophisticated standoff attacks with remote-controlled missiles or rockets to IED types of technologies. It just means that the learning curve for insurgents is now short, and they're able to learn from previous experience and adapt almost immediately, almost in real time."

The disingenuous nature of Orwin's argument is only amplified by his suggestion that Obama's policy in Iraq would "hardly differ from Mr. McCain's". If that's true, what happens is going to happen under either leader.

So far, Orwin's offerings have been pretty generic. At best, he can be said to be criticizing Obama for offering "change" that doesn't involve ideas that are new enough, while refusing to endorse McCain who I guess we are to infer is offering "more of the same". So what's the one point of distinction that Orwin is willing to openly make?

Which brings us to Iran, whose impending nuclear weapons (in tandem with its global terrorist network, advanced ballistic missile systems and proneness to messianic delusions) is the real sum of all fears confronting the next U.S. president. Mr. Obama has declared that a nuclear Iran is absolutely unacceptable to him, and I believe him. I believe that he'll talk just as hard as he can to prevent it, "without preconditions" if necessary. But what will he do once talking has failed?

I guess we are to presuppose that McCain would bypass any attempt to resolve Iran's nuclear ambitious through diplomacy, and would skip straight to the song and dance? If Orwin wants us to go to war with Iran, without bothering with so much as an attempt at diplomacy, he should have the courage and honesty to say so. If not, then we're first going to take steps short of war.

What Orwin appears to offer here is his disappointment that Obama isn't going to advance domestic policies that he prefers (but won't specify), and that neither candidate is likely at this point to endorse a never-ending war in Iraq or expanding that war into Iran.

The Cost of the Candidates' Health Care Proposals

The Washington post, demonstrating astonishing credulity, tells us about the McCain and Obama health care proposals:

Overall Price Tag

Obama

Says his plan would cost $50 billion to $65 billion a year when all elements are phased in. Money would come from ending tax cuts for people with incomes exceeding $250,000.

McCain

Says his plan would be budget-neutral over 10 years.

How hard would it be to find somebody else's estimates - devoting about five seconds to searching with Google, I came up with this from the Wall Street Journal:

The Tax Policy Center, which is affiliated with the Brookings Institution and the Urban Institute, projected the Obama plan would cost $1.6 trillion over 10 years, and the McCain plan would cost $1.3 trillion. Lewin Group had different figures putting the cost at $2.1 trillion for McCain’s plan and $1.2 trillion for Obama.

So if you ask anybody outside of Obama's campaign, you're likely to hear that he's probably (at best) halving the likely cost, and if you ask anybody outside of McCain's campaign you're likely to get a "He's claiming what?!"

Not that I'm suggesting that you shouldn't take political candidates at their word, but... No, wait, that's exactly what I'm suggesting.

Aren't People Embarrassed To Make This Argument?

... Yet it inevitably comes:

If rewards for America's entrepreneurs and firms are reduced through higher marginal tax rates, their incentives to earn, invest and create jobs will be diminished. Americans will have less incentive to save, and firms will have less incentive to pay dividends. Tax avoidance will become more profitable. A smaller capital stock will mean a less productive economy and lower wages for middle-class and other workers. These disincentive effects also mean that the revenue gain is likely to be smaller than Obama envisions.

Even assuming it ever becomes reality, where in recorded human history have the wealthy thrown up their hands and stopped trying to make money because they faced a 4.6% income tax increase? When in recorded history did a <40% tax on a nation's highest income earners (before deductions) cause entrepreneurs to close up shop?

Despite the authors' effort to offshift the notion onto Obama, there's also a huge element of "Who is Obama to interfere with our free lunch" in this type of argument. Obama's tax and spending proposals are not consistent with what I would do. I wouldn't struggle to slash spending or balance the budget during a recession, but my long-term view would be toward fiscal responsibility. Yet by all accounts, McCain's proposals are even worse for our long-term fiscal picture - the Tax Policy Center estimates that McCain's tax plan will add $5 trillion to the national debt while Obama's plan will add $3.4 trillion.

It also gets into the pie-eyed wishful thinking that we can deficit spend, in increasing amounts, forever. If we're to support McCain's larger deficits because Obama will impose a modest tax increase on the wealthy, this argument isn't, "We can't raise taxes on the rich." It's, "We can never raise taxes at all, and we should deficit spend until the end of time." They argue that middle class tax cuts must be accompanied by spending cuts - but leaving aside the short-sightedness of that notion as we enter what appears to be a serious recession, haven't they notices the giant hole that their boy, G.W., burned in our pocket? Or the even bigger hole McCain is eagerly proposing to burn? You don't even get into Grover Norquist-style nonsense about drowning the government in a bath tub - the authors aren't even pretending to oppose McCain's out-of-control spending proposals and massive deficits.

Funny... it took three people from the American Enterprise Institute, a fount of low-quality anti-Obama hit pieces, to write this claptrap. Three? And this is the best they can do? Well, if it's good enough for Fred Hiatt and the Washington Post, it should be good enough for everybody. Right?

Now That's Desperation....

You're not terrified that McCain won't win the election? Then perhaps you would like a nice tall glass of Kool-Aid. I'm sure you've already encountered the breathless accusation that Obama is a socialist, backed up by mendacious distortions of a comment he made to "Joe the Plumber" and tendentious interpretations of a segment from a seven-year-old radio call-in show.

What? You're not shivering in your boots? Well, then, Pat Buchanan is racing to the rescue with an effort so frantic, it makes Chicken Little look like a Zen Master. Border security? None of that - the border with Mexico will be wide open, and all illegal immigrants will be given amnesty. Taxes will be raised on the wealthiest 5% of Americans, in order to "redistribute" it to the bottom 40%. He'll somehow magically rewrite the Constitution, such that homosexuals have equal rights in all areas of life (the horror), affirmative action can be instituted based on quotas, and we'll have something just shy of forced abortions in every state ("America will become the most pro-abortion nation on earth"). Oh yes - and outrageous deficit spending that didn't get in the way of Buchanan's endorsement of G.W. back in 2004? It's once again a valid issue.

I hope you've drained your Kool-aid glass and are ready for your next helping, courtesy of Steven Calabresi in the Wall Street Journal. You may be thinking, "Republicans have appointed federal judges for twenty of the past twenty-eight years, and have pretty solid majorities throughout the federal judicial system, including the Supreme Court." But no - Obama will be able to appoint two - count them, two - judges to "the most important lower federal court in the country: the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit," G.W. having personally named a "only four". This will apparently cause the world to end. Presenting one of the most bizarre extrapolations I've heard to date of the Obama radio interview, Calabresi writes,

[Obama] he noted that the U.S. Constitution as written is only a guarantee of negative liberties from government -- and not an entitlement to a right to welfare or economic justice.

This raises the question of whether Mr. Obama can in good faith take the presidential oath to "preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution" as he must do if he is to take office.

It does? How?

Does Mr. Obama support the Constitution as it is written, or does he support amendments to guarantee welfare?

Well, there's no evidence that he has proposed or endorsed any such amendments, and even somebody whose knowledge of the Constitution barely meets the level of a high school civics class knows that the President cannot unilaterally amend the Constitution. (And anybody with a whit of sense knows that a "right to welfare" amendment would have a zero percent chance of passing.) But as you know, when you're trying to create hysteria you need not let facts or common sense get in the way.

Is his provision of a "tax cut" to millions of Americans who currently pay no taxes merely a foreshadowing of constitutional rights to welfare, health care, Social Security, vacation time and the redistribution of wealth?

That's right, Steve... Keep pouring the Kool-Aid....

If Mr. Obama wins we could possibly see any or all of the following: a federal constitutional right to welfare; a federal constitutional mandate of affirmative action wherever there are racial disparities, without regard to proof of discriminatory intent; a right for government-financed abortions through the third trimester of pregnancy; the abolition of capital punishment and the mass freeing of criminal defendants; ruinous shareholder suits against corporate officers and directors; and approval of huge punitive damage awards, like those imposed against tobacco companies, against many legitimate businesses such as those selling fattening food.

Ooh - let's not forget open borders and amnesty for all illegal aliens! And everybody will be forced to learn a second language!

But what about the war on terror? Buchanan doesn't mention Iraq, perhaps because he doesn't want to remind people that he's an isolotionist who opposes the entire Iraq venture. (Like deficits, the Iraq war also didn't stop Buchanan from endorsing Bush over Kerry.) And apparently (surprisingly?) Calabresi doesn't anticipate a Constitutional amendment that will make it illegal for us to fight wars against our enemies.

But don't worry - the WSJ is still serving up the Kool-Aid. Here's Pete Du Pont: It seems certain that "The U.S. military will withdraw from Iraq quickly and substantially, regardless of conditions on the ground or the obvious consequence of emboldening terrorists there and around the globe." You know, because Obama has made clear that he will consider conditions on the ground and is committed to focusing on the real threats to our nation's security around the world. When you write for the WSJ, it seems, every day is "opposites day".

It also "seems clear" that we'll become economic isolationists (is he trying to calm Pat Buchanan down), labor unions will be stronger, there will be more federal regulation (probably foisted on us by radical left-wingers like Alan Greenspan), we'll be "Europeanized" (perhaps there will even be a law that makes us give our kids Europeanized names like "Pierre") with "nationalized health care, Kyoto-like global-warming policies, and increased education regulation and spending" (something no conservative President would ever do, right?), and:

Free speech will be curtailed through the reimposition of the Fairness Doctrine to limit the conservative talk radio that so irritates the liberal establishment.

With the evidence in support of that being... er, being... No, stop thinking and start fearing. (And they say that the WSJ editorial page is full of drek - well, they've showed you now, haven't they.)

So much to be afraid of... I can barely stop shaking in my boots. It makes me long for the good old days, when I was "only" supposed to be terrified of Obama because he's secretly Muslim and is "palling around with terrorists".

Krauthammer's Late To The Party

Months ago, Peggy Noonan lamented that it would be difficult to attack Barack Obama because many of the attacks on him would be construed as having racial overtones. Her column made it appear that she wished to use attacks with racial overtones, so I guess she was doubly vexed. But then the whole Rev. Wright thing blew up, and it appeared that her concerns were misplaced. And then, whodaguessedit, Obama pulled through.

Now, Charles Krauthammer is in one of his trademark tizzies because the McCain campaign didn't follow his advice of "Smear, smear, and smear some more." You know, Charles, some useful advice you could have given to McCain? "Don't underestimate Obama. Don't assume that you'll win just by showing up." Except, you know, underestimating Obama is Krauthammer's other theme.

Krauthammer's thesis, that McCain could win if only he would get down in the gutter and smear Obama, has two huge flaws: First, it would require McCain to abandon the public persona that he has carefully built over the last couple of decades, risking both that he would alienate his more moderate supporters and look desperate, and second, polling showed that the smear tactics employed by "independent" groups are not working. Does it need to be said? It's counterproductive to tarnish your own image through tactics that do not diminish your opponent's support. Further, as Krauthammer has to know, there has been a concerted effort made to attack Obama's character and associations through Sarah Palin, resulting in negative media attention and perhaps contributing to Palin's diminishing approval rating with independents.

Krauthammer takes umbrage over this New York Times editorial, which dares to accuse the McCain-Palin team of "race-baiting and xenophobia". That editorial notes some of Palin's antics:

Ms. Palin, in particular, revels in the attack. Her campaign rallies have become spectacles of anger and insult. “This is not a man who sees America as you see it and how I see America,” Ms. Palin has taken to saying.

That line follows passages in Ms. Palin’s new stump speech in which she twists Mr. Obama’s ill-advised but fleeting and long-past association with William Ayers, founder of the Weather Underground and confessed bomber. By the time she’s done, she implies that Mr. Obama is right now a close friend of Mr. Ayers — and sympathetic to the violent overthrow of the government. The Democrat, she says, “sees America, it seems, as being so imperfect that he’s palling around with terrorists who would target their own country.”

Now perhaps the Times is reading too much into how some of the people at McCain-Palin rallies have responded to statements like that - "Kill him", "Terrorist", etc. - while Krauthammer is happy to divorce the campaign tactics from those responses. But how would he characterize those dishonest attacks? Or does he endorse them?

Krauthammer proceeds to attack Bob Herbert, pointing to Herbert's misinterpretation of some of the imagery in McCain's "celebrity" ad.

He took to TV to denounce McCain's exhumation of that most vile prejudice, pointing out McCain's gratuitous insertion in the ad of "two phallic symbols," the Washington Monument and the Leaning Tower of Pisa.

Except that Herbert was entirely delusional. There was no Washington Monument. There was no Leaning Tower.

The truth is a bit more amusing.

Herbert mistook the images flashed across the ad behind Obama as being of landmarks that were more familiar to him.

Krauthammer's apoplectic that people see racial overtones in "the Republican attack on ACORN". You know, the organization McCain lavished with praise a couple of years ago. Maybe Krauthammer is correct that this is political opportunism and the racial element is purely coincidental, but you don't have to be a genius to see how an attack on Acorn, particularly one replete with misrepresentations and distortions, is likely to be perceived.

What makes the charges against McCain especially revolting is that he has been scrupulous in eschewing the race card. He has gone far beyond what is right and necessary, refusing even to make an issue of Obama's deep, self-declared connection with the race-baiting Rev. Wright.

Here, Krauthammer is attempting to blow out of proportion and generalize the Times editorial's criticism of the tactics of the McCain-Palin campaign, and most notably of the tactics employed by Palin, as an unfair broadside against McCain. It seems too easy to point out that McCain has to know about, and should be held responsible for, the tactics of his vice presidential candidate. Otherwise, how could we not infer that he's so out of touch that he is completely incapable of governing a nation? But more to the point, Krauthammer is doing what he's accusing others of doing - taking an isolated comment, blowing it out of proportion, then suggesting that the exaggerated version he presents is typical of McCain's critics.

It is not. McCain's favorables have slipped, certainly, but that appears to relate to his performance in the debates, his simultaneous floundering and grandstanding on the fiscal crisis, and his (as far as independent voters are concerned) poor choice of a running mate. There's no evidence that he's being affected by racial issues, and there's reason to believe that his eschewing Krauthammer's chant of "Smear, baby, smear" has saved him from further erosion of his support.

Even at this point, Krauthammer can't bring himself to cut his losses. He has to accuse Obama of having played "the race card" against McCain. For this he resorts to the Obama comment that inspired some of McCain's campaign staffers to accuse Obama of "playing the race card", in what turned out to be a severe and premature overplaying of their own hand. Those poor tactics, still endorsed by Krauthammer, got media play, but their limited effect on poll numbers likely play a role in McCain's reluctance to again delve into race issues.

And Obama has shown no hesitation in [deploying the race card] to McCain. Weeks ago, in Springfield, Mo., and elsewhere, he warned darkly that George Bush and John McCain were going to try to frighten you by saying that, among other scary things, Obama has "a funny name" and "doesn't look like all those other presidents on those dollar bills."

That's all he has? Obama's joking about how he has a "funny name", even as McCain supporters continued and continue to make Obama/Osama comments, or emphasize that his middle name is Hussein? Or that he doesn't look like other presidents on the dollar bill? You mean, like this McCain web ad illustrated even before Obama made that comment? Obama's response to the "race card" nonsense was to point out that it was nonsense. Krauthammer's case against Obama here seems far weaker than the one he is attempting to refute against McCain. (And let's just say, some of McCain's backers aren't helping.)

All in all, I suspect Krauthammer's tantrum will play well with some factions on the far right, but will do nothing to help McCain with the voters he needs to win over. But that's no surprise - other than their mutual underestimation of Obama, one place McCain has demonstrated a great deal of sense is in consistently rejecting Krauthammer's notions of what it will take to win the race. The obstacle before McCain is not insurmountable, although I suspect it will quickly become so if Krauthammer takes the lead on his campaign.