Elliott Abrams, longtime COMMENTARY contributor (and my brother-in-law), has an important post on his blog at the Council on Foreign Relations that ought to offer surprising grounds for hope about the future of Syria following the eventual collapse of the Assad regime—there is a working document that offers a map to a democratic future called the “Damascus Declaration.”

In October 2005, a group of brave Syrian democrats—twelve of whom landed in prison for their activities—wrote and issued this call for liberty.  It called the Assad regime “authoritarian, totalitarian, and cliquish” and denounced “the stifling isolation which the regime has brought upon the country as a result of its destructive, adventurous, and short-sighted policies on the Arab and regional levels, and especially in Lebanon”… The Declaration calls for a truly democratic state under the rule of law, and discusses both the role of Islam and the situation of Syria’s Kurdish population in a sophisticated manner. Some day, and tomorrow would not be soon enough, the Assad mafia will be gone and Syria will face the difficult challenge  of building a democracy after decades of bloody repression.  The Damascus Declaration—and the courage of those who wrote it and suffered time in Assad’s prisons for their principles and their patriotism—provides Syrians with the key guidelines to follow, and provides us all with some hope that democracy can indeed be built in Syria.

Read the whole thing.

DNC chair Debbie Wasserman Schultz has been in office for just over a month, but already her gaffes are piling up.bFirst came her fantastic distortions of the GOP Medicare plan, which were quickly torn apart by the three most prominent media fact-checkers. Then came the “anti-women” blunder, the “illegal immigration” stumble, the faux pas with Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu, and the “Jim Crow” flap.

And according to Politico, Democrats are privately growing concerned:

Read More

This is more or less Herman Cain’s moment as a populist favorite among the Republican presidential hopefuls. His charm lies in his straight talking style and common sense business experience. But since he is running for the post of commander-in-chief at a time when the United States is involved in two shooting wars (Afghanistan and Iraq), a NATO intervention in Libya and the ongoing war against international Islamist terrorism, his ignorance about foreign policy isn’t merely embarrassing, it’s pathetic.

You may recall that at the South Carolina GOP presidential debate he said he had no idea what to do about Afghanistan but would consult with experts about it. Later he said he would come up with a plan sometime between his election in November 2012 and his inauguration the following January. Then he was asked about the Palestinian right of return by Chris Wallace on Fox News and had no idea what he was talking about. He later said that he was reading a book about Israel but wouldn’t say what book it was. This week he said he would go to Israel to join a Glenn Beck rally.

Read More

Ron Brownstein has a fascinating column in National Journal, in which writes, “It’s hard to say this spring whether it’s more difficult for the class of 2011 to enter the labor force or for the class of 1967 to leave it.” The Great Recession and its aftermath have created a very high (17 percent) youth unemployment rate. But the meltdown “vaporized” both housing values and retirement plans, forcing aging baby boomers to work longer than they intended. “For every member of the millennial generation frustrated that she can’t start a career, there may be a baby boomer frustrated that he can’t end one,” according to Brownstein. “Cumulatively, these forces are inverting patterns that have characterized the economy since Social Security and the spread of corporate pensions transformed retirement.”

Brownstein goes on to report that what economists call the “idleness rate” is rising. “The share of Americans younger than 24 neither at work nor in school has steadily increased since 2007,” he writes. “That disconnection creates the risk of what Harvard University labor economist Lawrence Katz calls ‘a lost generation.’” Read More

As the New Gingrich campaign implodes, some are asking who would benefit the most from his withdrawal from the race?  While I suppose it must be asked, it’s a silly question. Though his name recognition allowed him to register some support in the polls, Gingrich had no natural constituency in his party. Nor did he have a coherent rationale as to why Republicans should tap an iconic figure from the past whose career as speaker of the house ended in embarrassment ought to be president.

So the easy answer is that there isn’t much, if any, Gingrich support to divvy up among the other contenders. And it is unlikely that he will withdraw from the race that quickly. Until he runs out of money Gingrich may well decide to carry on with this strange ego trip even if all his senior advisors have already left the sinking ship of his candidacy.

It is possible that a Gingrich exit will encourage others to get into the race. But I doubt that either Rick Perry or Rudy Giuliani or some other Republican who decides to jump in sometime this summer was waiting to see how Gingrich did.

Others will say that Gingrich’s crash is illustrative of the weak nature of the Republican presidential field. But to say that is to generalize the specific. Whatever shortcomings the other candidates have, Gingrich’s problems were of a completely different nature. The lessons of this personal disaster apply to no one but himself.

Or at least I assume this has to be spin – right? It certainly makes Weiner seem a bit more sympathetic to the public. And it sure sounds better than the alternative explanation – which would be that he’s gripping on to his congressional seat because he’s just some sort of shameless, power-hungry narcissist:

Weiner has also complained to friends that he wasn’t sure how he would make a living if he were to leave Congress and its $174,000 annual salary. “He’s worried about money and how to pay his bills,” said a Democratic insider. “He’s very concerned about that.” Read More

After paying far too much heed to the Democratic Party’s protectionist wing, President Obama has become a born-again believer in the benefits of free trade. Or has he? As with so many other issues, he can’t help equivocating. Thus, as the Wall Street Journal reports, he has endorsed free trade pacts with South Korea, Colombia, and Panama but he is refusing to send them to Congress for ratification until Republicans agree to spend roughly $1 billion annually for a Trade Adjustment Assistance program designed to help workers who suffer as a result of these deals. As if we really need more deficit spending.

All of these trade deals have already been languishing far too long—the Korea and Panama deals were signed in 2007, the Colombia one in 2006. It is hard to see any substantive reason to wait any longer. The delay is pure pandering to the labor unions, which are (wrongly) scared about the costs of free trade. In point of fact, these free-trade agreements would be of great benefit to the U.S. economy by lifting foreign trade barriers; the South Korea pact alone is estimated to be worth $11 billion a year in new U.S. exports. The national security benefits cannot be underestimated either: these treaties would bind the U.S. more closely to key allies in Latin America and Asia.

If there is any major issue in Washington where the pros and cons are not remotely close, it is free trade—which is why Republican and Democratic presidents alike have consistently backed policies to lift tariffs since World War II. The last Democratic president, Bill Clinton, scored a particularly notable victory in this regard with the signing of the North American Free Trade Agreement, which was far more controversial than any of the trade deals on the table today. The least Obama can do is usher through these deals negotiated by the Bush administration, which matter so much to our key allies—and to our economy.

Herman Cain is popular among certain small groups within the GOP. But some of his views are not only wrong; they are pernicious. Three months ago, for example, Cain said he wouldn’t be comfortable appointing a Muslim either to his cabinet or as a federal judge. He then “clarified” his comments by saying, according to this news report, that he might be willing to name a Muslim who disavows Sharia law — and then added he’s unaware of any Muslim who’d be willing to make such a disavowal. Now Cain, in an interview with Glenn Beck, says he wants to impose a “loyalty proof” on Muslims but not on Catholics or Mormons or any other religious group. Read More

This latest Pew Research Center poll does not hold good news for proponents of strong national defense. According to the findings, 60 percent of Americans believe that the cost of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan contributed “a great deal” to the size of the national debt. In comparison, just 24 percent said increased spending on domestic programs contributed a great deal to the deficit.

Not only does this indicate that the public may be over-eager to slash defense spending, but it also shows that many Americans have been misled about the true source of our nation’s debt.

Since 1965, our national defense spending as a percentage of GDP has actually declined – currently it hovers around 5 percent. But since 1965, entitlement spending has more than tripled, going from 2.5 percent of GDP to its current 10 percent. To say that defense contributes more to our spending problems than entitlement programs is simply inaccurate.

Read More

Being unloaded from a Pan Am plane in 1956, believe it or not, is a computer hard drive. It weighed over a ton and could hold–wait for it!–5 megabytes of data. One of my flash drives (also called a thumb drive because they are about the size of a thumb–on a six-year-old) holds 3,200 times as much data and costs, at a guess, one-millionth as much. I imagine that hooking up that behemoth to a computer system required a lot more than just slipping it into a USB port.

Now if only we could get liberals to notice that the world has changed….

In 2007, the self-proclaimed Quartet of Middle East peace negotiators (comprising the U.S., UN, EU, and Russia) appointed former British Prime Minister Tony Blair as its envoy for the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, financing his salary, office, staff, expenses, etc. Four years later, two conclusions are inevitable. First, the Quartet has been well-served; Blair’s situation assessments are often far more accurate than anything Quartet members seem to get from their own diplomats. Second, the Quartet is wasting its money — because his advice is steadfastly ignored.

This week, for instance, Blair warned that the Arab Spring, far from making Israeli-Palestinian peace talks more urgent, makes them almost impossible. Israel no longer knows what regional threats it may face, he explained, while Palestinian leaders will have trouble making “difficult compromises which will be tough to sell, in circumstances where they don’t know the regional context into which such compromises will be played.”

That should be obvious. After decades of stable peace with Egypt and a quiet border with Syria, Israel today enjoys neither. The past month saw two mass infiltration attempts along the Syrian border, while the signs from Egypt are worrying: The Muslim Brotherhood, as the best-organized political movement, is likely to increase its influence significantly in this fall’s planned election; Egypt has already repeatedly violated one agreement with Israel; even secular, Western-oriented politicians want to “renegotiate” the peace treaty out of existence; and 54 percent of Egyptians want it abrogated altogether.

Read More

In today’s New York Post, I talk to David Mamet, the most successful and celebrated American playwright of the past 40 years and unquestionably the most prominent cultural figure of our time to announce his abandonment of liberalism and his embrace of the ideas of Hayek, Friedman, Sowell, and Whittaker Chambers. He is without question the most prominent ideological convert to the Right ever to emerge from the community of American artists. One point I don’t make in the piece, but which is undeniable, is that Mamet is the first true neoconservative to emerge in decades. His journey takes in all the qualities that led the first generation of neoconservatives to change their views: Increasing discomfort with anti-Americanism, anger at the left’s turn against Jewish nationalism, a growing understanding of the wisdom of markets, and a sense of outrage at the promulgation of ideas like affirmative action that suggest we should judge people as a collective rather than on the basis of their own individual characters and accomplishments:

“Jesus I love this country,” says a president of the United States about to lose his re-election bid in the last line of his hilarious 2009 play, “November.” Mamet, who knows a great deal about the darker recesses of the human heart, has freed himself here to express unambiguous love — love of country, love of tradition, love of his own people and (most exciting in terms of the book itself) the love of a good day’s work.

The piece appears here. You’ll like it. Believe me.

From the beginning of the Obama presidency, the Palestinian Authority has shown that it will never allow itself to accept less than whatever the United States has demanded on its behalf. Thus, when the administration asked Israel for a settlement freeze that became a Palestinian precondition for talking with Israel. When the president decided that building in existing Jewish neighborhoods within Jerusalem was an “insult” to the United States, a freeze in Israel’s capital became another Palestinian precondition.

Now in the wake of President Obama’s decision to demand that the 1967 lines be the starting point for future Middle East negotiations, the Palestinians have adopted that point as their latest precondition for talks. Earlier this week, PA “negotiator” Saeb Erekat stated that they would only return to the talks with Israel that they have largely boycotted for three years, if Netanyahu accepts Obama’s dictat.

Read More

Jon Huntsman has been arguing that his two years as Barack Obama’s ambassador to China was mere public service and ought not to disqualify him for the Republican nomination for president next year. But the former Utah governor’s mealy-mouthed attitude toward the man that all GOP candidates are aiming their barbs at is undermining his effort to present himself as someone Republicans can trust to forcefully oppose the president.

According to Politico, Huntsman is trying out a unique strategy for a dark horse opposition party candidate for president: never mentioning the incumbent he seeks to defeat by name. In his speeches, the upbeat Huntsman talks a lot about what he likes about America but not much about what is wrong with the man currently living in the White House. The administration that he served faithfully seems to appreciate the courtesy, as Obama’s spokespersons have had nothing negative to say about Huntsman in what Politico has dubbed a “de facto non-aggression pact.”

Read More

As John noted on Wednesday, it appears as if Rudy Giuliani has been unable to shake the presidential virus. Like many another politician with presidential fever, the lure of the White House is too much to resist even if the odds are against him. He believes that his 2008 run for the presidency was badly executed and thinks that he not only deserves a second chance but that this time he can win. And given what is considered, perhaps unfairly, a weak field of current candidates running, why shouldn’t he try again?

Of course, unlike many others with this malady, Giuliani has much to offer the country. He is a proven leader, an able administrator and a bold voice on foreign policy even if Democrats mocked his focus on the need to learn the lessons of 9/11.

But the idea that Rudy has learned from his 2008 mistakes is based on a misunderstanding about what happened four years ago. The problem with Giuliani’s candidacy was not just that he was foolish to ignore the early states and concentrate on Florida where he lost anyway. Giuliani enthusiasts tend to forget that the reason why he stayed out of Iowa, New Hampshire and South Carolina was that he and his handlers understood he had little chance to win there. For all of Giuliani’s many virtues, the fact remains that a candidate with a record of being pro-choice on abortion, pro-gay rights and an advocate of the sort of draconian gun control laws that are to be found in New York, is just not going to win the votes of many GOP voters in those states as well as many others.

Read More

Though the evidence that Iran is working on building a nuclear bomb is overwhelming, apologists for the Islamist regime have accepted its cover story that their program is only aimed at peaceful civil uses of the technology. But apparently a website run by the country’s Revolutionary Guard deviated from the party line on April 24.

The Guardian’s security blog reports that on that date Gerdab, the Guard’s website ran a piece anticipating what the day after the successful explosion of an Iranian bomb would be like. The Guardian translation of the piece fairly bubbles with excitement about the happiness in Iran and the “shock and despair” in Israel. The point of the piece is to show that life will go on normally in Iran but that people there will have a “sparkle” in their eyes.

Lest anyone think the hypothetical piece is pure science fiction, the news about the article came the same week that Iran announced that it would triple their production of enriched uranium.

Read More

The state of Alaska is planning to release more than 24,000 e-mails sent by Sarah Palin during her brief governorship today. The move was the result of public records requests first made after her being picked as the Republican vice presidential nominee in 2008. The obvious intent was to hamstring the then governor as part of a Democratic Party strategy to make her life miserable by burdening her with investigations.  It was this pattern of harassment and the burden of legal bills that ensued, as much as anything else (including the financial benefits of life as a one-woman media conglomerate and television celebrity), that led to her resignation in 2009.

Almost three years later, it’s not clear what the point of the e-mail dump is today. But that has not stopped the media from rushing to the Palin e-mails as if it were another gold rush in the Klondike. For example, liberal-leaning MSNBC has teamed with the more openly leftist journalists from ProPublica and Mother Jones to hire a research company to compile a database of the documents. But the mighty New York Times has its own solution: enlist its readers as part of an army of e-mail snoops sifting through the e-mails. The Washington Post is asking their readers to do the same thing.

What motivates these publications and their civilian volunteers to spend so much time going through every Palin communication? The answer is obvious. Leftists who hate Palin will spend days, if not weeks, sifting through boring routine communications as if they were panning for gold in order to find something embarrassing or silly that can then be published in order to humiliate her. Of course, what they are really hoping for is to find is evidence of some unnamed and unproven wrongdoing or corruption. That is because ideologues cannot conceive of a political opponent as being merely wrong but must, instead, try and prove them to be criminal or evil.

I have no brief for Palin. She is a flawed public figure whom I have criticized sharply. But there is something unseemly if not indecent about the way publications like the Times and the Post have embraced this project and sought to involve readers. If Palin has done anything wrong, she should account for her actions. But there is no reason to believe that any of this “investigating” has anything to do with a reasonable suspicion of malfeasance on her part. Rather it is just a crude fishing expedition whose end result will in all likelihood produce evidence of nothing worth writing about.

That Palin’s e-mails should be the object of such abnormal attention is testimony to her celebrity as well as the malice that she provokes in her political foes. It is, in a way, a tribute to Palin’s ability to keep the national spotlight focused on her. But no one, especially not the mainstream newspapers and their civilian collaborators that are taking part in this absurd hunt, should be under any illusion that what they are doing here has much to do with responsible journalism.