Obama gave a speech yesterday at the Disabled Veterans of America Conference. It was another disturbing example of Obama’s refusal to embrace fully his role as commander in chief. On the Iraq war, in what should have been a moment of triumph, a high point in our war against Islamic terrorists, he still could not bring himself to use the term victory or to explain the long-term significance of a unified, democratic Iraq. The best he could do was this:
As a candidate for President, I pledged to bring the war in Iraq to a responsible end. (Applause.) Shortly after taking office, I announced our new strategy for Iraq and for a transition to full Iraqi responsibility. And I made it clear that by August 31st, 2010, America’s combat mission in Iraq would end. (Applause.) And that is exactly what we are doing — as promised and on schedule. (Applause.)
Already, we have closed or turned over to Iraq hundreds of bases. We’re moving out millions of pieces of equipment in one of the largest logistics operations that we’ve seen in decades. By the end of this month, we’ll have brought more than 90,000 of our troops home from Iraq since I took office — more than 90,000 have come home. (Applause.)
Today — even as terrorists try to derail Iraq’s progress — because of the sacrifices of our troops and their Iraqi partners, violence in Iraq continues to be near the lowest it’s been in years. And next month, we will change our military mission from combat to supporting and training Iraqi security forces. (Applause.) In fact, in many parts of the country, Iraqis have already taken the lead for security.
Obama was very concerned about reminding the crowd that he had kept his campaign promise. He was far less interested in explaining that a great victory had been achieved. And he was even less interested in explaining how we won. He preferred to credit the troops rather than the strategy or the president who championed it (over Obama and the left’s objections): “When invasion gave way to insurgency, our troops persevered, block by block, city by city, from Baghdad to Fallujah.” No, he didn’t use the word surge or even mention Gen. Petraeus’s name. Shocking, really.
Then on Afghanistan, he was surprisingly brief. He explained — in contrast to his muteness on Iraq — why we are there and what is at stake. That’s commendable. But on the fighting itself, he said only this:
We will continue to face huge challenges in Afghanistan. But it’s important that the American people know that we are making progress and we are focused on goals that are clear and achievable.
On the military front, nearly all the additional forces that I ordered to Afghanistan are now in place. Along with our Afghan and international partners, we are going on the offensive against the Taliban — targeting their leaders, challenging them in regions where they had free reign, and training Afghan national security forces. (Applause.) Our thoughts and prayers are with all our troops risking their lives for our safety in Afghanistan.
And on the civilian front, we’re insisting on greater accountability. And the Afghan government has taken concrete steps to foster development and combat corruption, and to put forward a reintegration plan that allows Afghans to lay down their arms.
The best he could come up with is “achievable goals”; he is apparently allergic to the word victory.
The major part of his speech had to do with veterans’ benefits. Even the Washington Post noticed the imbalance:
White House officials billed Obama’s remarks to the veterans group as a significant Iraq policy address, but a relatively small part of the roughly 20-minute speech was devoted to the subject. The president spoke most passionately about veterans benefits and received the most applause when he did.
Veterans’ benefits is an important topic. But it is all too apparent that this president is most comfortable when talking about social services and quite uncomfortable talking about victory in war. For those who hoped he would grow into the job of commander in chief, this is yet another sober reminder that he still doesn’t comprehend or excel at the most critical aspect of his job.
As noted before, it is amazing the extent to which the major media outlets have all taken it upon themselves to rigorously police the “honesty” of the McCain campaign. It is a rather ingenious ploy: Under the guise of neutrally serving the public’s interest in truth and accuracy, the media is actually attempting to reign in McCain’s criticisms of Obama (no matter how legitimate), while at the same time turning a blind eye to all of Obama’s attacks on McCain (no matter how scurrilous). The only hitch in this plan is that the media is so obviously in the tank for Obama that they cannot plausibly pass themselves off as honest brokers in this self-assigned task.
A few days ago I heard, on MSNBC, a reporter from Time and an MSNBC reporter refer to themselves as “referees” in this process. If that’s what they are, they should show us the rule book from which the make their determinations (I’d bet the author is Marx).
This is incredibly frustrating, yet I do not see the McCain campaign reacting, with force, with their surrogates in news shows, and with ads. They must react… I volunteer and I contribute… what else can we do in the sidelines?…
Gallup has him only one point from The One now too, 47-46.
#2,
Yeah, I think these people should read up on the Constitution when it comes to their right of “freedom of the press”. For some reason, I don’t think they will do that.
Mr. Greenwald, it seems you’ve been “organized” as well: the clip of Romney is from the Republican primaries, responding to McCain’s accusation that he supported a timetable for withdrawal from Iraq (v. http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=24799).
The question is not whether the press is in the tank for Obama but whether this strategy is in the process of effecting a change in the narrative of the campaign. McCain has hurt himself by the dumb sex ed ad (appeals only to a narrow base that is already excited and is a stretch) and the hyped up sexist stuff. These are small time exaggerations compared to the relentless repetition of the “too old,” “dishonest,” too temperamental,” “cares nothing for the oppressed middle class,” “100 year war” themes raised against McCain on a daily basis by the Obama campaign. These are indeed vicsious personal attacks on the man’s honor (so is questioning Obama’s patriotism btw) and are far more offensive than the exaggerations of the McCain campaign.
What to do? I am no campaign strategist but a Memo from the McCain staff hardly seems an appropriate response to sucn a viscious attack. And saying Obama lies too is not going to be effective. But a strong response is necessary and a delay would be campaiogn malpractice.
I am confident that the American people know the difference between honor shaped and displayed over decades of real actions and positions at odds with the popular mood and campaign ads. There is onlty one candidate that has that kind of courage and, yes honor, and we all know who it is.
Romney, apparently, has determined that McCain will lose, hoping that as the Republican Party “goes forward” it will choose to be led by him. After viewing that clip I for one will not be one of the followers. That’s all I ever want to see of Romney, for now or ever. For all those who were hoping that Romney would be chosen as VP, time to thank McCain again. What a simp.
I was wrong in a post yesterday suggesting that McCain should rise “above the fray.” The Dems/MSM seem to be gaining traction with the “liar” agendum, and it needs to be stemmed. With apologies to Montgomery Burns, time to “release the hounds.”
Until Palin’s comment on lipstick there was no political conversation about lipstick. When Obama a week later said that after putting lipstick on a pig the pig is still a pig the audience understood well that Obama was talking about Palin . He thought he was clever by using an old saying that I for one had never heard of. I haven’t seen any polls on the subject but I dare say most people thought he was referring to Palin.
The one thing McCain and the McCainiacs shouldn’t do, and have thusfar successfully restrained themselves from doing, is getting on a soapbox and shouting “We are not liars!” This isn’t McCain’s first clam-bake. Remember how ahead of the Florida primary virtually all of the Republican smart-pantses and doyens of “fair” campaigning stood on Romney’s side over the “Mitt was weak-kneed on the surge” argument? How’d that one work out?
McCain is under pressure, and being steady. That’s the image he wants. At some point, he or Palin or both may need to talk about what happens when reformers start getting somewhere, in kind of a heart-to-heart with the voters mode. The attacks become hysterical, and virtually everything they’ve ever done is turned on its head. If you fire a corrupt manager, you’re accused of contributing to unemployment. If you point out your opponent’s questionable votes, you’re called the greatest liar in all history, and the “referees” conduct themselves like they’re on the take.
“That’s par for the course, and we never expected this to be easy, but here’s what we’ve done and are going to do” is a much better response to these attacks than “Oh we’re hurt by your hurtful hurtfulness, you’re wrong wrong wrong, not to mention hateful radicals aided by the evil MSM.”
I was just reading the latest CAPTAIN ALATRISTE novel to be translated into English. There’s a scene where the title character is asked to torture a man for information. Instead, Alatriste holds a candle to the flesh of his own arm, inflicts an ugly burn on himself, then says, “If I would do that to myself, imagine what I would do to you.” McCain has a lot of self-inflicted burns to point to. Might be much better than trying to put Obama on the rack.
WH: Thanks for clarification (I still think he’s a simp–always did).
#7,
THE CLIP OF ROMNEY IS SIX OR SEVEN MONTHS OLD.
Geesh. The sad part of this whole brouhaha is that conservatives are now deriding Romney, who has been exceptionally loyal to McCain and the party.
Guys, I think we just have to trust that McCain’s campaign is run by pros. They either have a strategy to avoid conflict on this, or they’re going to hit back. I expect they’re trying to fine-tune the message. All we can do is wait. My guess is Barry will be outflanked before he scream “Racist!”
Mr. WH,
Thanks.
I hope you’re right, Fresh Air. I just have this nagging fear that the Obama cultists have hit on a winning strategy – forget about argument, just go directly to reality manipulation. The One says McCain is the biggest liar in human history, and his media acolytes say yea, and thus it is so.
CK rocks as usual!
In support of Fresh Air, and to add to CK, I think McCain knows what he is doing. I remember a post from Max Boot from about 5 months ago. He thought McCain would be down by 15 points, and could maybe pull off a 4th quarter comeback. Now, we know the numbers, and I still think Boot was onto something here. Save everything you got to the 4th quarter. Let Obama look “strong” in the 3rd, give him back that false sense of confidence again, wait for the mistakes, and then go for the touchdown with no time left on the clock. McCain is a military man, he keeps his eyes on the prize, whether its the Surge or the Presidency. Things looked a lot worse in 2006 for America, its only a little shaky in 2008 for the Presidency. McCain is steady.
Historically, Obama practiced his community organizing in church communities, and there’s no question he’s adept at exploiting the mystical inclinations of true believers.
…said the writer for the ultra-Zionist rag. Hilarious.
CK: Why aren’t the McCain people doing this, then? Why not throw something into their stump speeches indicating that the elevated vehemence is evidence that the Dems and entrenched powers-that-be are aware that McCain/Palin intend to follow through with their reform agenda? At least make some effort to frame the attacks for the voters? Better done with civility and calm, yes, but something has to be launched in return.
It goes to the heart of what the populace is willing to beleive vs what it is not. Calling a politician, any politician a “liar” is believable and therefore any charge of “liar” will stick.
It’s pretty clear the MSM has its talking points from the Obama campaign, since they were all “on message” yesterday. Disgusting, really, that they would claim to be the impartial referee, just sorting out the claims and counter-claims of the two campaigns.
Still no word on Kurtz’s research into the Chicago Annenberg Challenge? He seems to be the ONLY journalist/researcher working on this (and it takes on some added importance with the surfacing of old videos where Obama DID use that executive stint as a key part of his resume in the Democratic primary years ago).
Guys, McCain has sophisticated pollsters and image guys working for him. I think he’s aware of what will work and what won’t. Give him another day. You will see.
I don’t doubt that the McCain campaign and its strategists (who have done wonders so far) know what they are doing. i don’t think anyone is suggesting that McCain start screaming “I am not a liar!” But a well-crafted response that doesn’t focus on the “pow card” as part of an overall strategy that puts Obama and his team on their heels again would be a good idea. No reason to panic but even a big lie becomes truth if repeated often enough.
Well – I don’t know for a fact that they aren’t, since I rarely get the entirety of a stump speech. Since I made the suggestion, however, I of course consider it genius, and since you seem to agree with it, and have boiled it down so nicely, I’d say that makes you a genius, too! Obviously, the McCain campaign should be in the process already of incorporating the suggestion, and cutting some checks to us for consulting. If they’re not, then they’re falling down on the job a little. I never said they were perfect!
If Obama had truly regained the upper hand, the usual trolls (SwampFox, Raj C., etc.) would be here to gloat about it, and “Jim Conway” would be back to tell us why it’s in McCain’s own interest to drop Palin from the ticket.
AG:
What is the effect of this in recent polls? Do you see it as a cause for McC drop on the national polls?
( note he has gained however on ever single state except possibly VA).
And what do you suggest McCain do? I am frustrated at the refusal fo the MSM to discuss
BO’s jobs at the Woods and Annenberg Challenge Foundations:
http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/obama-and-the-woods-fund/
Jennifer Rubin’s article is excellent; yet noone is touching this. Why?
Why isn’t the McCain camp bringing this up at all?
Lets be honest, Mr. Greenwald is as clueless as the rest of us.
McCain’s mistake is to accuse Obama of WANTING to teach sex education to kindergartners.
That’s a MUCH harder sell to ‘undecideds’ than accusing Obama of incompetence and the unintended consequences that inexperience brings. The theme of Obama not being ready needs to be a drumbeat.
The Illinois bill that Obama supported had the effect of making sex education mandatory unless the parents opted out with written notice. But how many parents really know what their kids are being taught? Most assume its the traditional kindergarten curriculum.
How do you explain to kindergartners about the dangers of inappropriate touching? That is, beyond the obvious 30 second caution? How do you explain to a six year old about HIV?
“The fact is, the bill’s intention was to mandate that issues like contraception and the prevention of sexually-transmitted diseases be included in sex-education classes for children before the sixth grade, and as early as kindergarten.” http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=NzI3ZDUzOTE0ZThlMTU3MTY0MDI4ZTY0MTZhY2I2MGY=&w=Mw==
I’ve seen the Democrats trot out the “Republicans are sleazy liars” trope every four years for as long as I’ve followed politics. If you want to know how much success they’ve had all you need to do is ask ex-President Dukakis.
Like so much else they attempt, I think this is also something that acts to their detriment more than benefit. American voters are well aware that politicians as a species tend to shade the truth. They’re well aware that both candidates are likely to be lying about something so pointing it out – even if you’re right – tells the electorate absolutely nothing. And pointing up the fact that politicians are as a whole a bunch of crooks only turns people against the party that claims politicians are the solution to all our problems. As the party of those who tend to see politicians as the source of our problems, Republicans should benefit from a general drop in respect for political candidates.
one thingf i know for sure is that any attempt to bring in the Ayres connection and other suspicious ties will not be an effective counter attack. These concerns play to the people who already support McCain and will potentially be viewed by independents as too tenuous to be relevant or, worse, ugly politics. No, a more straight forward approach that puts the lie to the description of McCain as a man without honor is called for. Uncommitted people should be put off by claims that a man like McCain, with his history as well known as it is, is dishonorable. the exact expresson of that idea i leave to others.
jfeder:
I disagree and suggest you read a bit more about what the Woods & Annenberg Challenge did: these were
the only “executive” experience BO had. Why do you think that when people
say he doesn’t have “any executive experience” he does not bring up his leadership of these Foundations??
BO talks a lot about Education these days and I grant you that Dems. would be shocked to learn what
BO did as chairman of teh board (95-99) and member of the board (99-02) of the CAC (Chicago Annenberg Challenge) with teachers and schools.
Highlights of tehir “work” at the tune of $160 Million dollars (that “disappeared”) include:
1) the use of CAC money to support work of Ayers’ SDS comrade Mike Klonsky
2) the “teacher bashing” quality of the CAC’s programs
3) the failure of the CAC to produce any impact on student outcomes
4) the attempt by Ayers and Obama to prop up Local School Councils in the face of intense political opposition from Mayor Richard M. Daley, Jr.
http://globallabor.blogspot.com/2008/09/highlights-of-obamaayers-chicago.html
His relationships with Ayers, Wright and Rezko were ANYTHING but “tangential” (as BO put it) or “suspicious ties” they were real, strong and lifetime long. They are the crux of who BO is and how he
became a pol running for POTUS today.
You all must not become fixated upon national polls. They are all subject to error, especially when taken on weekends. In addition, they are still underweighting Republicans, as they have done almost every year since there has been polling.
Watch the McCain camp’s behavior. Their internals will show you where the race is. For now, they look pretty confident.
I think there is probably dissension within Mac’s advisers as to whether the Ayers, et al bunch is something to bring up at this point. I think it’s probably better to bring people into his camp by attraction, rather than driving them out of Barry’s camp by repulsion. At least for a few more weeks.
“any attempt to bring in the Ayres connection and other suspicious ties will not be an effective counter attack. These concerns play to the people who already support McCain and will potentially be viewed by independents as too tenuous to be relevant or, worse, ugly politics.”
Many independents are unaware of how deep the Ayers connection goes. 527′s can address that. It is a potential minefield but can be handled adroitly:
Open with the picture of Ayers standing on the American flag:
Text:
Bill Ayers is an unrepentant domestic terrorist who escaped prosecution on a technicality.
He willingly posed for this photograph and during the interview just before 9/11 he stated, “I think we didn’t do enough” but the terrorists were constructing a bomb to set off at a USO dance when it blew-up and killed Ayers girlfriend and two other terrorists. Ayers spent many years on the run.
Cut to Obama standing next to Hillary in the primary debate claiming that Ayers is “just a guy in the neighborhood”.
But the facts are that;
When Michelle Obama was assigned as a mentor to Barak Obama at a Chicago law firm during his summer internship, Ayer’s terrorist wife Bernadine Dohrn was working with the Obama’s.
Ayers made Barak Obama the Chairman of the Board of the Annenberg Challenge, a 100 million+ enterprise. Obama was 33 and had no executive or administrative experience.
They worked together for over 4 years.
Ayers LAUNCHED Obama’s political CAREER at a fundraiser in Ayers HOME.
They’ve served on boards together and given speeches together.
Close the ad with the picture of Ayers standing on the flag and the words:
“Is Bill Ayers really ‘just’ another ‘guy’ in the neighborhood?”
Is Barak Obama really telling ALL the truth about Bill Ayers?
Modification:
Ayers LAUNCHED Obama’s political CAREER at a fundraiser in Ayers HOME.
They’ve served on boards together and given speeches together.
Repeat the Obama clip “just another guy in the neighborhood”
Close the ad with the picture of Ayers standing on the flag and the words:
“Is Bill Ayers really ‘just’ another ‘guy’ in the neighborhood?”
Is Barak Obama really telling ALL the truth about Bill Ayers?
Geoffrey–
I don’t know how to copy TV clips onto iMovie, but I bet a viral ad that looks just like this would be damn simple to make.
Why is anybody questioning McCain when the other guy has not even answered some very fundamental ones like these:
http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=16aBNduAyQ4
I will repeat myself. The Ayres stuff is going to convince no one who isn’t already convinced about Obama. It will not, in my judgment be a game changer for the undecideds. It does risk putting those people off. Rezko is a little different because that smacks of graft or at least abysmal judgment. whatever the merit of the ayres counters they will come across as wacky in my humble opinion.
I dunno. Ayres plus Michelle plus Frank Marshall Davis plus Barry’s no-flag-pin plus Jeremiah Wright plus Phleger and you’ve got a whole lot of radical blood running through this guy’s worldview. Who is this guy? Can he be trusted? These were the points Fred Thompson raised. They were valid then, and will be valid later. I do think a viral ad would do wonders. Look at the SwiftVets.
If he doesn’t win, CNN knows exactly who to blame, because a liberal riding on the MSM horse could never honestly lose.
http://caffertyfile.blogs.cnn.com/2008/09/16/obama-race-a-factor/
GB, there is in prospect an even harder-hitting McCain ad. It’s only a prospect because it requires the Dem-led Congress to rescind its offshore-drilling ban before the election. I believe they are going to lift the ban because the pressure on individual Democratic Congressmen is enormous going into the election.
Assuming that they do, we might expect a $5/bbl drop in oil prices (about what occurred when Bush lifted the Executive ban). Let’s see, the Dems COULD have rescinded the ban before their break at the beginning of August. Let’s see further: $5/bbl x 25 million bbls/day [what the US uses] = $125 million/day. Multiply by 7 weeks x 7 days/wk gives $125 million/day x 49 days = 6 billion, 125 million dollars!
Over six billion dollars virtually thrown away because Pelosi and Reid delayed doing what they could have done nearly two months ago – and the number keeps rising. It’s no secret just who was forced to throw away that sum because the Dems were unable to put the campaign contributions of the environmental lobby before the interests of the nation.
Anyone who still believes the MSM at this stage can’t be reached through a rational argument.
Joe NS – that makes some sense, except the pricing argument is actually, as I think you know, a lot more complicated, and made less compelling by the drop in oil prices already from their highs.
I haven’t heard any follow-up from the rumor reported at the Corner that McCain was planning to endorse the Gang of N compromise. After my initial sense of panic, I began to game out the potential scenarios. As we know, the devil’s in the details, and there are situations in which McCain could seek credit for endorsing a “compromise” in the interests of moving forward more aggressively later, then be in an even better position to excoriate the Dems if they obstruct it. This approach would upset the base, however – and rightly – if it attached McCain to something resembling the latest outlines I’ve heard associated with Pelosi (total denial of royalties to states, new taxes, new banned areas, and so on).
Like you, I think, my reading is that a united front from the Republicans on a cut-the-knot/let-the-ban-expire position could be a winning position, but only if the front really would stay united, only if we’re right about how much pressure the Dems are under, and possibly only if the Dem leadership continues to insist on poison pills.
jfeder: “The Ayres stuff is going to convince no one who isn’t already convinced about Obama.”
I strongly disagree. They’ve clearly decided that Ayers, etc. material should be used, and will be used, in October. Possibly after the debates or in the middle of them. Sooner or later, Obama is going to have to answer these questions.
CK: Nice of you to notice!
I really do, though, think a simple “sheriff’s coming to clean up Dodge City” kind of ad would work (and I’m still waiting for that ad with Sarah Palin in a hardhat, hair wafting lightly in the wind, oil field in the background. If they send a check for that one I’ll send you half).
CK, there is this whole concept of “scarcity rent” that entersd into oli prices. In brief, as I understand it, the price of a barrel of oil has built into it an estimation by the invisible hand of the market as to how much oil is avaiable for exploitation irrespective of whether the oil is being exploited. The point is that”scarcity rent” constitues a markup in oil price at ANY price level, be it $150/bbl or $90/bbl. Any increase in availability, and 80 million barrels is a helluva increase by anybody’s standards, I’d argue, should show up rather quickly.
Will it be $5/bbl? I can’t say; but that it will be nothing, I seriously doubt. Whatever it is, it represents a complete an wholly avoidable waste of money these past seven weeks while Pelosi, Obama, et al took the environmentalists for another waltz round the dance floor. Talk about a taxi dance!
If, on the other hand, the Dems don’t lift the ban (without simultaneously instituting other bans or laying on regulatory offal that would make it nugatory), then I agree with you, the Republicans, with MCCain and Palin at the megaphone, should hang tough and hand ‘em high.
PS: The exact number to be ascribed to that markup is a matter of some controversy among economists – and you’ll believe me when I tell you I’m no economist – but a certain amount of it is psychological, and I believe that’s what we saw when Bush lifted the Executive ban.
CORRECTION: That’s 80 BILLION, not million, offshore barrels of oil awaiting drilling
I think it is obvious that Obama’s “lipstick on a pig” attempt at humor was a nasty allusion to Sarah Palin. However, the McCain campaign ad erred in describing it as such. The ad should simply have shown both Palin and Obama delivering their lines, and then asked the viewers to decide for themselves which of the two was the funniest. The viewers could also then decide for themselves what the intent of the lines were.
jfeder: “The Ayres stuff is going to convince no one who isn’t already convinced about Obama.”
That’s a valid viewpoint but it misses the point.
It’s valid if we are talking about convincing someone.
But we are NOT talking about making a ‘convincing’ argument.
We ARE talking about creating REASONABLE DOUBT about Obama in people’s minds.
In seeking the highest office, Obama because of his inexperience, thin resume and eye opening associations is in a particularly precarious position.
The level of doubt does not have to be high, it just has to be enough.
It just has to be ‘troublesome’.
As example; as an independent with at that time residual liberal leanings (PBS watcher who hadn’t yet awoken to MSM bias) I voted for Perot
because the MSM raised doubts in my mind about Bush seniors ability to lead, (remember grocery scanners?)
The economy was ‘bad’ and I had enough doubt about Bush to vote for Perot which helped to throw the election to Clinton.
The way you do create REASONABLE DOUBT is by running ads that expose Obama and by anticipating the likely rebuttals by Obama. When ads are basically factual, creating effective follow up ads that confirm the first ad is easy because facts can be confirmed and the charges in my ad are factual. It is then easy to show independent sources, which devastates the attempted rebuttal and confirms in the mind of the voter the veracity of the charges.
That establishes doubt and once doubt is established it’s very hard to regain trust.
Yes, Abe, it takes phenomonal executive skill to convince the Obamamedia to smear Senator McCain. The Anointed One is clearly “scary smart.”
In related news, the Sun sets in the West, the media are slanted left and $hit stinks.