Noam Scheiber is apparently the one exception among prematurely jubilant Obama supporters:
In the last few days, pretty much every tracking poll I trust (WaPo, Gallup, Rasmussen) and several I either don’t trust (that would be you, Zogby) or don’t have much of an opinion about (Kos, Investor’s Business Daily) has shifted toward McCain, in some cases sharply.
[...]
My immediate concern is twofold: That McCain is getting some traction with his liberal/socialist/redistributionist charge–the WaPo tracker shows McCain narrowing the gap on the economy over the last week–and, in light of this, that Obama is striking his high-note a few days too early.
Bingo. The “liberal/socialist/redistributionist charge” is getting some traction because it’s demonstrably true and deeply troubling. It’s not so much the timing of Obama’s high-note, but the lyrical content, that’s the problem. The man who coasted through two years of saying nothing and saying it very beautifully has been found, at last, actually to say something–and it’s frightening. Nancy Pelosi may have declared the election a done deal, and the New York Times may have called the GOP the “party of yesterday,” but this “charge” is not going away. Here comes the longest week of Obama’s life.
At this late date, why would the New York Times want to start letting facts get in their way?
Obviously, America will remain on the side of liberty. We just won’t be so anxious to impose democracy at gunpoint. Or to use “liberty” as a back-up excuse once our primary casus belli crumbles.
For a group that complains each and every time the name Bush is invoked by the left — “he’s out of office, stop blaming everything on Bush” — you spend an awful lot of time dragging W back into the spotlight. Tip: Although you want to rehabilitate his image, all you succeed in doing is reminding America how lucky we are to be rid of the schmuck.
Did you see the recent C-Span poll of historians: Bush was ranked 36th worst president and something like 41 of 42 in both economic and foreign policy. I’m no math major, but I’m pretty sure 41 out of 42 is bad.
What’s important is NOT that Bush’s freedom agenda preceded Saddam’s removal. It is that Bush embarked on this necessary course post-9/11. It was the right thing to do then. It remains so today.
Bush is Obama’s cultist groupie’s pinata.
#2
The post is a response to a NYT piece, so that’s “dragging W back into the spotlight”. Wehner’s point is that Bush consistently articulated a US goal of Iraqi democracy long before the invasion. Not much doubt about that, even as Baker implies otherwise. Some people believe it is never wrong to correct the utopian mendacities regarding the last eight years or any other time. They welcome the opportunity.
Bush’s legacy is the liberty he spread
#5
Remind me again, which UN resolution was it that demanded Saddam implement democratic reform? Bush went on and on about repeated violations of UN resolutions to justify our actions, right? So they must have had to do with spreading liberty.
And refresh my memory. Did Colin Powell go to the UN to make a case about the Iraqis’ illicit use of mobile voting stations, or was that about some other issue?
Your revisionism is pitiful.
#2, #7 –
There can be more than one reason to do something. Just because Bush and Powell emphasized the UN resolutions while speaking to the UN Security Council does not mean that democracy promotion was not also one of the reasons from the beginning. Read the post – it’s a fact, not revisionism.
As for the judgments of historians, they might want to await history (that’s sort of the idea). Truman also left office with low marks, but now is remembered as one of our best presidents because he put in place an architecture that guided us through the Cold War. Bush’s post-9/11 approach may do the same, or it may not. But it’s certainly too early to tell.
Hey, there’s another Adam here, but I agree with what he said. One more thing: what does Jeff (as a metonymic representation of all Bush hating leftists) want? That Saddam Hussein still be power? That Obama have the chance to engage in direct dialogue with him? To follow up on Adam’s point, have leftists ever noticed that they’re the only people who complain because there are too many good reasons to do something?