Politics Blog

While Barack Obama has had probably the worst week in his political life, and certainly of this presidential primary season,John McCain has had a few more downs then ups that have caused frustration amongst Conservatives, the GOP, (not necessarily the same thing these days), and has given worried Democrat leadership something to focus on.

John McCain’s biggest “sell” to apprehensive Conservatives about his candidacy has been his strength on foreign policy and the Iraq War. But apparently a trip this week to Iraq, a trip GOP critics were against even before the mistake, has created some controversy when McCain got mixed up:

Even before Sen. John McCain got mixed up by saying Sunni al-Qaida terrorists have been brought out of Iraq to be trained in Shiite Iran, Republican insiders felt he was in the wrong place at the wrong time on his visit to the war zone.

GOP critics disapproved of McCain even making the trip to Iraq accompanied by two of his closest Senate colleagues, Republican Lindsey Graham of South Carolina and Independent Democrat Joseph Lieberman of Connecticut. They felt that no political purpose was served by the prospective Republican presidential nominee going halfway around the world to praise President Bush’s troop surge.

Democrats, disheartened by the bitterness of the Clinton-Obama struggle, seized on McCain’s mistake as good news. They say he messed up a key play in his strong suit.

How big is this in the grand scheme of things? Not that big, because Mr. & Mrs. Joe Voter will probably never hear of this, but for insiders, this is getting some play and giving Democrats something new to focus on against McCain’s biggest strength and has given the GOP something to go “uh-oh” about.

The second problem was more internal with McCain’s team vs. Conservatives. Always a concern to the base was McCain’s history, a history that shows McCain to be not so friendly to Conservative initiatives. By inserting a huge liberal Republican in charge of running the National Convention in September, McCain’s campaign continues to poke their finger in the eye of Conservatives:

John McCain’s team that is taking over the Republican Party has decided on Bobbie Greene Kilberg, a liberal Republican from Virginia long detested by conservatives, to run the party’s national convention in St. Paul, Minn., in August.

Kilberg, as an aide to President George H.W. Bush in 1990, promoted White House overtures to gay activists. She won an internal power struggle over gay politics with fellow Bush assistant R. Douglas Wead, who was fired as White House liaison to religious conservatives.

When Kilberg appeared on television by McCain’s side the night of Feb. 12 after he won the Virginia primary, her presence was resented by conservatives as a sign of contempt for them.

One time occurrence or an indicator of things to come and the way Team McCain will be treating Conservatives. McCain’s language says the former, his history and his actions say the latter.

John Kerry attempted to explain his support for Barack Obama, with the usual Kerry missteps:

Remember John Kerry? He was the 2004 Democratic presidential nominee, lauded by his supporters for his intellect and his nuance, as compared with the simpleminded George W. Bush. Having lost the election, he decided to sit out the 2008 contest. He recently endorsed Barack Obama, and earlier this week he sat down with the editorial board of the Standard-Times (New Bedford, Mass.) to make the case for his candidate.

It’s a real jaw-dropper. ABC News’s Jake Tapper sums it up:

Kerry said that a President Obama would help the US, in relations with Muslim countries, “in some cases go around their dictator leaders to the people and inspire the people in ways that we can’t otherwise.”
“He has the ability to help us bridge the divide of religious extremism,” Kerry said. “To maybe even give power to moderate Islam to be able to stand up against this radical misinterpretation of a legitimate religion.”
Kerry was asked what gives Obama that credibility.
“Because he’s African-American. Because he’s a black man. Who has come from a place of oppression and repression through the years in our own country.”
An African-American president would be “a symbol of empowerment” for those who have been disenfranchised around the world, Kerry said, “an important lesson for America to show Egypt, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, other places in the world where disenfranchised people don’t get anything.”

One obvious question: What do the events of this week, involving Obama’s own church, tell us about his ability to “stand up against” a “radical misinterpretation of a legitimate religion"? Nothing very encouraging in this columnist’s view, but many observers view Obama much more charitably in this regard than we do.

What is really striking about Kerry’s case for Obama, though, is that it rests on what may be the crudest stereotyping we have ever observed. Commentary’s Abe Greenwald has a chuckle over Kerry’s racial stereotyping of Obama:

Where is this “place of oppression and repression” in which Obama has suffered “through the years"? Hawaii? Harvard? The Senate? We should find out immediately and do something about this horrific crisis.

But Kerry isn’t just stereotyping blacks. He is stereotyping Muslims too. And he is drawing an equivalence between American blacks, a racial minority in one country, and Middle Eastern Muslims, a religious majority in a whole region.

Never mind that, as Greenwald points out, “Arab Muslims [are] none too happy with their black countrymen in northern Africa.” Never mind that in some African countries, notably Sudan and Mauritania, Arab Muslims still enslave blacks.

To Kerry, it seems, all “oppressed peoples” look alike. The man has all the intellectual subtlety of a third-rate ethnic studies professor.

Chuck Hagel, the retiring Senator from Nebraska, has hinted at not supporting the GOP ticket in the 2008 Presidential elections:

It was a surprise to run into Sen. Chuck Hagel (R.-Neb.) and his wife Lilibeth Wednesday morning at Reagan National Airport. But it was an even greater surprise to learn that Hagel – who is stepping down this year after two terms in the Senate – may not support the Republican nominee for President, his old friend and comrade-in-arms from Vietnam John McCain.

Referring to a recent item in HUMAN EVENTS’ “Capital Briefs” section (March 10) in which we reported how Hagel told CNN’s John King “Chuck Hagel is out of the mix [for ‘08”],” I asked the senator whether that meant he had not yet endorsed McCain for President.

“You heard right,” Hagel replied, “John [McCain] and I have some serious disagreements on foreign policy.” When I asked if this meant their very public difference of opinion on Iraq, Hagel said: “It’s not just Iraq. It’s about the direction of where U.S. foreign policy is going over the next few years.”

Historically, sitting elected officials who buck their parties ticket receive some kind of retribution, however, Hagel is retiring:

Sitting Republican office-holders who refuse to back their party’s nominee for President historically have been either punished through defeat for renomination or they eventually switch parties. Nebraska’s Republican Sen. (1912-42) George W. Norris, to whom the maverick Hagel has been likened to, publicly endorsed Democrat Franklin D. Roosevelt for President at least once and was denied renomination in 1942. Michigan Rep. Don Riegle, a liberal Republican, publicly explored not even voting for President Nixon’s re-election in 1972 and, a year later, became a Democrat. (Reigle was re-elected in ’74, and went on to serve three terms in the Senate as a Democrat).

I’m not sure how much of an impact a retiring Senator, who has rankled the party faithful on other issues besides the Iraq war, will have with voters from his own state, nevermind nationally. He was also facing a strong challenge from a Conservative which led to his decision to retire anyway.

Pop Quiz.

Guess the party of this Michigan Congressman who wants to raise the gas tax on every gallon of gas 50-cents.

Democrat Congressman John Dingell wants to raise every gallon of gas 50-cents to cause Americans to rethink their gas consumption:

A Michigan congressman wants to put a 50-cent tax on every gallon of gasoline to try to cut back on Americans’ consumption.

Polls show that a majority of Americans support policies that would reduce greenhouse gases. But when it comes to paying for it, it’s a different story.

Rep. John Dingell, D-Mich., wants to help cut consumption with a gas tax but some don’t agree with the idea, according to a new poll by the National Center for Public Policy Research.

The poll, scheduled to be released on Thursday, shows 48 percent don’t support paying even a penny more, 28 percent would pay up to 50 cents more, 10 percent would pay more than 50 cents and 8 percent would pay more than a dollar.

“I don’t want to pay more, I don’t think anyone wants to,” said Karen Deacon, a motorist.

“I think that wouldn’t make any sense,” said Frankie Hoe, a motorist. “Ugh … who’s making the money from all this and where is that money going? Is it going to go green? I don’t see any green things anywhere.”

Environmentalists say to bad for the wallet, good for the sick planet!!:

Some environmentalists and economists say pain at the pump may be bad for Americans, but good medicine for a sick planet.

But others say it wouldn’t change much. Even if Americans abandoned their cars, global emissions would fall by less than one percent.

“A tax on gas is a way to reduce dependence on import oil, reduce traffic congrestion and reduce carbon emissions,” said Lester Brown, president of the Earth Policy Institute.

The Earth Policy Institute proposes raising the gas tax 30 cents per gallon each year over a decade and offset with a reduction of income taxes, Brown said.

This issue and apparently this kind of a proposal, taxing carbon use, has a friend in ALL three presidential candidates, yes, even the Republican:

While Dingell’s idea will likely lie dormant until after the 2008 election, the idea of carbon taxes is not. Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama and John McCain all support some type of system that either directly or indirectly will raise prices to penalize polluters.

I just want to make sure I am reading that last party right. Do the three candidates and this Congressman believe that I am a polluter and should be penalilzed just for using my car to go to work, come home and even drive my son to his various doctor and hosptial visits for his barrage of tests? I have to pay an extra 50-cents a gallon for that?

New York GOP Congressman Tom Reynolds has announced his decision to retire from Congress at the end of this current term and will not seek reelection:

Appearing before a crowd of supporters, Rep. Tom Reynolds (R-N.Y.) officially announced his retirement today, becoming the 29th House Republican to announce an exit — or have already left office — this cycle.

“While there is always more to do, elected officials are only temporary stewards of the people’s trust. That’s why today I am announcing that I will not seek and be a candidate for reelection,” Reynolds said.

When asked when he had made his decision to step down, Reynolds said he had been considering but did not arrive at a final decision until earlier this week.

“I wouldn’t call it impulsive, but I finalized my decision between the start of this week and today,” the New York Republican said.

The five-term lawmaker, though, said he was not stepping down because he was worried about losing in November.

“I believe I would win this election. … I would never walk away from a fight,” Reynolds said.

Without even looking at his voting record, I can say that this decision has more to do with Reynolds heading up the NRCC over the last few years rather than his political views. Presiding over the disastrous 2006 mid-term elections and turning a blind eye tothe Mark Foley page scandal has led to this decision more than anything else.

This will help Obama at least a little with the Hispanic vote.

Trying to control the damage caused by comparing his fearful elderly grandmother to an angry race-baiting preacher, Obama clarifies: she’s just “a typical white person.” How’s that phrase going to play for you, Barack? I heard about this first from a friend who’s an Obama supporter, and he looked like a Red Sox fan after the Bill Buckner error.

Addendum: The lesson here is that politicians should shut the hell up about race. There is zero upside to introducing the issue, and even the most eloquent candidate is likely to make stupid, damaging comments. I have a dream that one day politicians will appeal to us based on the content of our character, not the color of our skin.

In brighter news for Obama, though, the Bill Richardson endorsement is big news. Richardson carries a lot of weight as an elder (in maturity if not age) statesman, governor, Southwesterner, Hispanic, superdelegate, etc. Not to mention that he’s an ex-Clintonista and was on everyone’s short list of VP candidates. By turning on Hillary now, he’s saying that this nomination is over.

The Canadian Press:

John McCain’s campaign has suspended a staff member for circulating a video linking Barack Obama to the comments of his controversial former pastor.

The staffer was a low-level aide named Soren Dayton. He sent out a link today to a YouTube video that focuses on the comments of Obama’s spiritual mentor, Reverend Jeremiah Wright.

A McCain campaign spokesman says it’s not “the type of campaign we intend to run.”

Last month, McCain swiftly denounced the comments of a radio talk show host who, while introducing McCain, repeatedly called Obama by his middle name of Hussein.

The Politico newspaper says the two-minute video was the work of a former producer for the Laura Ingraham show, a conservative talk program.

This appears to be the video in question. It’s a good one, and exactly what so many PoliPundit commenters predicted we’d see.

The extreme left of the Democrat Party are at an annual gathering in Washington, D.C., dubbed the “Take Back America” conference, or as I refer to it, the “Take Blame, America” conference, have declared that Global Warming is one of the biggest threats facing America and the world as we know it!!:

(CNSNews.com) - Global warming is one of the greatest threats to U.S. national security and the world, according to a panel of well-known environmentalists who spoke Tuesday at the self-described “progressive” Take Back America conference in Washington, D.C.

In their discussion, “Global Warming: Meeting a Real and Present Danger,” the panelists warned that, despite a rising movement to debunk the theory of global warming as a myth, climate change threatens America’s security. Two panelists also claimed that no matter the outcome of November elections, U.S. environmental policy will improve.

Liberal environmentalists confident that each of the three presidential candidates are willing to discuss the issue and do something about it:

Nonetheless, said Podesta, “I am confident in 2009 we will have government that will take on global warming. At least all three candidates believe there is a problem this time. The next president is going to have to show that this is, overall, a top priority in the government.”

Carl Pope, executive director of the liberal Sierra Club, agreed that pubic opinion will force the next president into action against global warming. “The next president will certainly have to reduce carbon spending,” he said.

But one left-wing activist is tired of just talk and whites calling the shots:

But Adrienne Marie Brown, executive director of the liberal Ruckus Society, which she described as a non-violent direct-action training group, noted the ethnicity of her fellow panelists and said that change will not come through polite requests or through the action of “just white environmentalists.”

“Political movement and requests for government are not enough,” she said. “So far, I think we are being too polite. We are sitting back discussing it and watching people get kicked out the back door. … Power concedes nothing until it receives a demand.”

Miss Brown is co-author of a book called “How to Get Stupid White Men Out of Office.” Can you imagine the outcry if a Conservative made a comment like that, but it wasn’t whites he/she was talking about, or wrote a book and the title was about another color.

After she made those comments, the reaction from the attendees at the conference “cheered and applauded Brown’s remarks.”

Dick Morris:

Will the Gospel According to Jeremiah Wright sink the Obama candidacy? Not very likely.

Let’s start with two basic facts:

(a) Sen. Barack Obama (Ill.) has already won the Democratic nomination. It’s over. Regardless of how the remaining primaries and caucuses go, including Michigan and even Florida, Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (N.Y.) can never catch Obama in elected delegates. His current lead of 170 pledged delegates will not be overcome no matter what happens. Even if Clinton beats him by 10 points in each of these primaries, he will still lead among elected delegates by over 100. The superdelegates will not override the will of the voters unless Obama is in jail. They will not let themselves in for a civil war by overruling a black man who is beloved by the young by going over the heads of the electorate and naming the candidate that lost the primaries as the nominee. Regardless of how damaged Obama may be by the Wright tapes, it will not provide sufficient cover or cause for them to do so.

(b) Wright’s rantings are not reflective of Obama’s views on anything. Why did he stay in the church? Because he’s a black Chicago politician who comes from a mixed marriage and went to Columbia and Harvard. Suspected of not being black enough or sufficiently tied to the minority community, he needed the networking opportunities Wright afforded him in his church to get elected. If he had not risen to the top ofChicago black politics, we would never have heard of him. But obviously, he can’t say that. So what should he say?

He needs to get out of this mess with subtlety, the kind Bill Clinton should have used to escape the Monica Lewinsky scandal — but didn’t. As the controversy continues, Americans will gradually realize that Obama stuck by Wright as part of a need to get ahead. They will chalk up to pragmatism why he was so close to such a preacher. As they come to realize that Obama doesn’t agree with Wright but used him to get started, they will be more forgiving.

While he lets this fact sink in, he needs to continue to distance himself from Wright by characterizing that kind of anger and animosity as a thing of a generation past. He needs to compare the progress of which whites are proud in discarding the racism of our forebears with his own pride at being a post-racial candidate. He needs, again and again, to reject what Wright says and emphasize his belief in America and the validity and morality of the American Dream.

As the controversy matures, he can increasingly depict those who fan its flames as trying to live in the past and re-fight the civil wars of race that have divided America.

All these themes were evident and articulately presented in Obama’s Tuesday speech on race.