Sen. Chuck Schumer is being “showered” with Wall Street money. “The industry’s giving pattern this year may upend the traditional notion of Republicans as bagmen for Wall Street.” Well, it turns out Democrats are willing to carry water for Wall Street despite “the Democrats’ populist rhetoric.”
Obama’s former Afghanistan analyst sides with Obama’s current Afghan commander Gen. Stanley McChrystal as well as Gen. David Petraeus and Brookings strategic guru Michael O’Hanlon (who called the surge correctly long before any other Democrat did). But Obama has Joe Biden on his side.
Republican governors are going after Sen. Max Baucus’s health-care plan. “‘The current proposals, both in the House and Senate, will expand the Medicaid program at additional costs paid not by the federal government, but passed down to the states,’ Barbour wrote earlier this month. Republicans are touting an editorial in Monday’s Wall Street Journal titled, ‘Max’s Mad Mandate.’ The op-ed called Baucus’s bill ‘the mother—and father and crazy uncle—of unfunded mandates.’” Democratic governors may have a hard time explaining why they are going along with this.
Bill McGurn on Obama’s tricky position in the two gubernatorial races this year: “On the one hand, the White House wants Democrats to win these two governorships. On the other, it doesn’t want to get so close to these two candidates that if they go down in flames, the president gets burned too. It makes for interesting politics. In Virginia, the White House took a hit when former Democratic Gov. Doug Wilder revealed that he had rejected a personal appeal from Mr. Obama to endorse Mr. Deeds. . . . Each race is still too close to call. In the end, the experts may well be correct that the presidential factor will have little to do with the outcome of either contest. But with Mr. Obama’s health-care bill stalled, and his popularity declining, you can bet the last thing the administration wants is to wake up the day after the election to stories suggesting that the Obama magic is gone.”
How’s “engagement” going? Not so well: ”Iran reported Monday that it successfully test-fired its most advanced and powerful medium-range missiles as part of war games it said were intended to deter the country’s enemies.”
You know things are bad when Obama’s squishiness as commander in chief is too much for Richard Cohen to bear: “Sooner or later it is going to occur to Barack Obama that he is the president of the United States. As of yet, though, he does not act that way, appearing promiscuously on television and granting interviews like the presidential candidate he no longer is. The election has been held, but the campaign goes on and on. The candidate has yet to become commander in chief.”
Republicans extend their list of vulnerable House Democrats.
The New York Times has figured out that Liz Cheney “at a minimum, has become a rallying point for conservative views on national security. In a broader sense, she is being promoted as a rising star of the Republican Party, one who is hardly shying from the Cheney brand.” The Times and its devoted followers no doubt are convinced that “Cheney” is a toxic name. But since both Cheneys had it right on Guantanamo and enhanced interrogation techniques, to name just two issues, it may be that the voters see things quite differently.
Marty Peretz has lost patience with Obama. On the “discovery” that Iran is out to acquire nuclear weapons and the pronouncement that closing Guantanamo is “more complicated” than the Obama team imagined: “The first of these revelations is especially significant. What does it say about the president’s adventures in sympatico diplomacy? This is hard to say: but I believe it’s an utter failure.”