The latest Fox poll showing John McCain at 48%, Mitt Romney at 20% and Mike Huckabee with 19% is interesting for more than just the confirmation of the frontrunner bounce McCain has received. If Huckabee were not in the race McCain would lead 62% to 29%. (Yes, 62%.) So much for the theory that Huckabee hurts Romney.
On the head-to-head match ups, McCain leads Hillary Clinton by one point and trails Barack Obama by one point. (Both, obviously, are a statistical tie.) Romney trails Clinton by 14 points and by Obama by 18 points. But Romney has Ann Coulter in his corner. (By the way, in the most delicate way possible, Romney spokesman Eric Fehrnstrom said in response to my question whether Romney agreed with Coulter’s comments that conservatives should vote for Clinton if McCain were the nominee, “She has her opinion. Mitt Romney has a different opinion.”)
Well, at least hopefully the media will stop using the term neoconservatism, because they in general never knew what it even means (mostly because the MSM is full of very, very ignorant people, tragically).
You are in deep denial. The AP article Abe cited only quotes Biden reiterating Obama’s campaign pledge to withdraw from Iraq responsibly. It in no way says that Obama will abide by the timeline in the SOF agreement (which was forced on Bush by Obama and Iraq anyway). At the same time, Gen. Petraeus is signalling that he is preparing to accelerate the drawdown in Iraq (and reassignment of troops to Afghanistan), ostensibly to meet the demands of the incoming administration. Obama has not publicly deviated from his plan to pull one or two combat brigades out of Iraq every month over a 16-month period. Obama has said he will consult with commanders and the Iraqis but that he thinks 16 months is still about the right timeframe.
If there is one thing less likely to be re-evaluated by historians than Bush’s legacy, it is the utter failure and bankruptcy of neoconservatism. Now, will we have to stake its stinking corpse occasionally to keep it from re-animating? Sure. Just as there are occasional flareups of naziism, communism and other ideological plagues, I’m sure a neoconservative outbreak will erupt from up from time to time, probably after a national crisis, when hearts are fearful and conscience is weak.
Artless projection, projection, projection. The One’s handlers know that they are helpless, and are striving desperately to represent their policies and actions as capable of dealing with the problems the world brings to them. Reality-based community all over again.
And what the hell is “naziism,” artless? And you dare use the word conscience??
Neoconservatism is one of those words that lazy people use to seem smart. Trouble is the definition of the term has been so distorted it no longer means anything. Except as an epiphet where its meaninglessness is quite useful.
I am heartened to hear Obama met with Charles, Bill, and Brooks at George Will’s house. Let’s hope they discussed the war in Gaza. Maybe next time Jennifer and JPod will be invited too!
And we see that Art never bothered to teach himself what neoconservatism means either. Which at least puts him on par with 99% of the staff of the New York Times, so he’s got that going for him…
Hopefully, Obama does have some kind of a plan. But I guess I was out moose hunting on the day that he or the media took the time to explain his background in military thinking. Is he going to approach the middle east using the ideas of Clausewitz or maybe Ghandi? Or is there a third book coming out with his insights on mutual assured destruction? I’m assuming that there is some kind of a coherent philosophy.
Obama said he would meet with america’s enemies with no preconditions. I guess he was serious
Iraq means that the fundamental premises of neoconservatism are dead in American politics. Realism will dominate international policy so that there will be no more wars in favor of “imposing democracy.” Obama the Wise knows how to flatter, domesticate and thereby neuter Books, Krauthammer and the lesser Himmelfarb from screaming their heads off. But no one at the Pentagon, State, Congress or the new White House ever intended to listen to these bobos anyway.
O.K., I’ll bite, what are the fundamental premises of neoconservatism?
Chuck Martel:
Every day I enjoy your posts more. Please keep them up!
I share your apparent confusion on the “fundamental premises of neoconservatism”. Many years ago, when I first started reading the output of the folks who are identified (or identify themselves) with this label, I thought that these people made real sense, and I should be one of them. But I was then told that you have to be Jewish, and as an unrepentant Catholic, I just don’t qualify. And that actually became a bit comforting when it became apparent that the “neoconservatives” were no more able to come to a dogmatic consensus on what they were than the talmudic scholars themselves.
So now I just don’t pay much attention to labels. But I do like both the posters and (some) of the commenters on this site.
“Only yesterday, as Abe noted on this blog, Vice-President Elect Joe Biden affirmed a continuation of Bush’s strategy in Iraq for at least the next three years.” — Daniel Halper
Daniel,
If you continue to get your information from Abe Greewald, you are virtually guaranteed to look silly.
New York Times:
“WASHINGTON — Military commanders are drawing up plans for a faster withdrawal of American troops from Iraq in anticipation that President-elect Barack Obama will reject current proposals as too slow, Pentagon and military officials said Wednesday.”
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/15/us/politics/15policy.html?_r=1
Indeed. Hours after the article’s publication, President-Elect Barack Obama himself went some way toward shelving this most recent obituary by dining with several of America’s leading neoconservatives. The ideas of Bill Kristol, David Brooks, and Charles Krauthammer clearly carry enough weight to warrant a personal powwow with the President-elect.
Obama is not a neoconservative (nor was President George W. Bush or Vice-President Cheney, for that matter), but the apparent incorporation of neoconservative thought into his foreign policy prescriptions leaves Clarke’s thesis looking a little worse for the wear.
No, what Obama did was show that he is willing to talk to anyone without preconditions, no matter what kind of fools they might be.