Posted by: Hugh Hewitt at 7:31 PM

The Congressional Republicans' demand for "benchmarks" is becoming the GOP's equivalent of Al Gore's demand years ago for "lockboxes," --an empty term originally intended to convey seriousness of purpose while disguising empty policy prescriptions, but which, by the sheer implausibility of the pose, became a term attracting  deserved disdain.

Republican resolutions calling for "benchmarks" are being understood by people serious about victory in the war as a no confidence lite.  To align with a call for "benchmarks" is to leave the victory caucus.  The Republican leadership should figure this out in a hurry and drop the idea as the genuinely bad idea it was and remains.

Bizzyblog notices.

UPDATE: The Senate GOP still can't agree that victory would be a great option.

The indifference of various Republican senators to the victory wing of the party --which is about 70% of the party, and 90% of the activists-- is nothing short of astonishing.  Senator McCain's decision to abandon his previous unqualified commitment to looking forward and demanding victory will be the first great blunder of Campaign 2008, though there is still time for him to put down the benchmarks and return to his admirable insistence on winning.

Senator McConnell: Phone: (202) 224-2541 Fax: (202) 224-2499E-mail here.

Senator Lott: Phone: 202-224-6253 Fax: (202)-224-2262 E-mail here.

Senator Kyl: Phone: (202) 224-4521 Fax: (202) 224-2207 E-mail here.

Senator Ensign: (202)-224-6244 Fax: 202-228-2193. E-mail here.

Senator McCain: Phone: (202)-224-2235 Fax (202)-228-2862. E-mail here.

Senator Warner: Phone: (202) 224-2023 Fax: (202) 224-6295. E-mail here.

Senator Cornyn: Phone:202-224-2934 Fax: 202-228-2856. E-mail here.

Senator Smith: Phone: 202-224-3752 Fax: 202-228-3997. E-mail here.

Senator Coleman: Phone: 202-224-5641 Fax: 202-224-1152.E-mail here.

 

 
Posted by: Hugh Hewitt at 7:13 PM


 
Posted by: Dean Barnett at 6:28 PM

Writing a memoir can be a dicey thing, doubly so when the author of the memoir is around 30 years old as Barack Obama was when he wrote “Dreams from My Father.” Your typical 30 year-old hasn’t lived enough life to justify penning an autobiography, and any remotely self-aware 30 year-old knows this. Obama certainly did; his modesty is apparent on every page.

A present-day review of “Dreams of My Father” should tackle two separate issues. First, the book ought to be judged on its own merits. Next, since it’s the question that's probably on everyone’s mind, the book should be looked at from the perspective of what it might tell us about its author who, 12 years after writing it, is a top tier contender for president.

AS FOR THE BOOK ITSELF, it falls somewhere in the fair-to-good range. There’s no doubt that Obama writes very well for a politician. But that’s faint praise, the rough equivalent of saying that a house pet plays volleyball very well for a golden retriever. As we are painfully aware, politicians seldom read books, let alone write them.

In truth, Obama writes only okay for a writer. Often, his prose drifts dangerously close to a needlessly purple territory. He describes the onset of a Chicago winter by pronouncing, “Winter came and the city turned monochrome – black trees against gray sky above white earth. Night now fell in mid-afternoon, especially when the snowstorms rolled in, boundless prairie storms that set the sky close to the ground, the city lights reflected against the clouds.”

Such excerpts may leave some readers screaming, “Poetry!” Me, I was closer to screaming, “Get to the point!” Such florid passages litter virtually every page. And there are 444 such pages, primarily because there was no detail so pedestrian that Obama declined to spend a clichéd paragraph or two describing it. This book should have been half as long as it was.

But Obama’s life is definitely a good story, and he certainly has a keen writer’s eye. While he does spend a lot of time on prosaic details, he also sees the telling details. The book’s main problem is more one of authorial discipline and editing than anything else. The details regarding his grandparents were fascinating; the details of wind whipping off the lake less so.

“Dreams from My Father” traces Obama’s unique background and upbringing. His father was a Kenyan who got a PhD. from Harvard, and met Obama only for a brief time when his son was ten. Obama spent formative years in Hawaii, Indonesia, Chicago and Harvard. His parents between them had I think 7 spouses. (I lost count during one of the extended passages describing a tree or something.) He was also partly raised by his maternal grandparents, white natives of Kansas who moved to Hawaii and accepted and loved their bi-racial grandson unconditionally.

Objectively speaking, it’s an interesting saga. For a young guy, Obama had a wealth of unusual experiences. What we don’t ever get from the book is a sense of the author. While ostensibly the book is the story of his life and he is indeed present in every scene, he’s seldom more than a witness. It’s always someone else doing the talking, someone else acting, someone else stirring deep thoughts in the author.

We get no understanding of how the self-described pot-head high school student that Obama was transformed himself into such a successful young man. By the time Obama was commissioned to write “Dreams From My Father,” he had graduated Harvard Law School magna cum laude and been the first black managing editor of the school’s Law Review. These are both magnificent accomplishments, yet accomplishments that he neither mentions in the book nor explains how he made them happen.

The book starts out strong. By the last part where he visits Kenya and meets family members he had never known, it has long since become draggy. Though the author is the protagonist, we learn little about him; Obama was apparently reluctant to write about himself. We hear about few of his actions, and we get a look at even less of his thoughts. Because the protagonist remains a cipher who neither does nor thinks anything, the book has no narrative thrust.

Thus, in the end, the book disappoints. It could have been a fascinating story of self-discovery and accomplishment. Instead, it is an ultimately exhausting recollection of Obama’s many varied family members and acquaintances. Some of the anecdotes are interesting. But for a book to maintain its momentum for over 400 pages, it needs some uniting narrative thread. This is what “Dreams from My Father” lacks.

SO WHAT DOES “Dreams from My Father” tell us about the man who would be president? Not much, I’m afraid. If you’re looking for any bombshells about his personal life, you’ll be disappointed. He does confess to smoking weed and snorting cocaine while in high school, but I don’t imagine those revelations will be a factor in the campaign to come. For what it’s worth, the passages about his time in an Indonesian madrass should end any controversy about his religious identity: Obama is not, nor has he ever been, a Muslim.

What struck me about this book is how modest an effort it was for a future politician. Throughout the book, we get the picture of Obama as a supremely talented but ultimately passive guy. Stuff just seems to happen to him. Some of this is really interesting stuff, like being born to parents who each went through multiple spouses and left Obama with half-siblings scattered across the earth. But it’s almost a little disconcerting that Obama didn’t trace his path from Hawaii to Occidental College to Harvard Law to managing editor of the Law Review.

One thing that was crystal clear from his book that Obama has a unique ability to serve as a vessel for the ambitions and dreams of others. Whether it was his grandparents or his mother or his far-flung African family, they all had a lot invested in their hopes for “Barry.” Suffused in the book was the unstated fact that Obama has an innate characteristic that makes others project their dreams onto him.

Interestingly, on Sunday the New York Times ran a story on Obama’s time at Harvard Law, a subject that both “Dreams from My Father” and Obama’s more recent “The Audacity of Hope” hardly addressed. I found this passage telling:

People had a way of hearing what they wanted in Mr. Obama’s words. Earlier, after a long, tortured discussion about whether it was better to be called “black” or “African-American,” Mr. Obama dismissed the question, saying semantics did not matter as much as real-life issues, recalled Cassandra Butts, still a close friend. According to Mr. Ogletree, students on each side of the debate thought he was endorsing their side. “Everyone was nodding, Oh, he agrees with me,” he said.

Having read Obama’s first book, I’m convinced that this trait has been the key to his political success to date. Others invest their hopes in him, and he rides their investment to victory. In many ways Obama is a pedestrian and orthodox politician; no grand plans or displays of leadership have marked his public life. His ideology is the most hackneyed form of liberalism, the kind that stopped being progressive over a generation ago.

In some ways, Obama almost seems like an accidental presidential candidate. His Senate seat was almost bequeathed to him; his top-tier presidential status was definitely bequeathed to him. On paper, there is nothing that this man has done that would make you say, “He should be president.”

I’ve come away from reading “Dreams From My Father” feeling that Obama is probably a good man, definitely a magnificently gifted man, but also a passive man. The latter characteristic will be his undoing in presidential politics. Bill Clinton was also magnificently gifted. But were it not for his hunger, drive and willingness to do whatever it took to get what he wanted, Clinton never would have become president.

There may be accidental Senators, but no one gets accidentally elected president.

Compliments? Complaints? Contact me at Soxblog@aol.com.

 

 
Posted by: Hugh Hewitt at 5:38 PM

Dr. Thomas P.M. Barnett, author of The Pentagon's New Map, returns for part 4 of our eight hour conversation on the realities of the world in which America is attempting to secure its national security and encourage the spread of freedom.

The transcript of our brief introductory talk is here, and the audio here.

The transcript of part 1 is here and the audio here.

The transcript of part 2 is here and the audio here.

The transcript of part 3 is here, and the audio here.

The transcript and audio of today's interview will be posted later this evening.

 

 
Posted by: Dean Barnett at 10:34 AM

1) Why should I care about John Edwards’ new house?

Well, it’s quite a house. 28,000 square feet of magnificent splendor located in one of North Carolina’s most fashionable counties. This isn’t a McMansion we’re talking about here. This is the real deal – A Mansion!

2) 28,000 square feet? Wow. That’s big. That’s even bigger than your own Soxblog Manor.

Actually, it’s quite a bit larger than Soxblog Manor. And I don’t even pretend to spend my time obsessing about America’s underclass.

3) Put 28,000 square feet in perspective for me.

It’s about 80% the size of a football field, not counting the end zones. To give Edwards some credit for his modesty, The Breakers, the symbol of gilded age prosperity built by the robber-baron Vanderbilt family, is around 60,000 square feet. So if Edwards intends to build a house that will serve as an example of hideous conspicuous consumption that will be visited for decades to come, perhaps he has set his sights a tad low.

4) What about the house’s details? The Breakers, according to Wikipedia, had things “like a 50’ by 50’ great hall marked by six doors which are limestone figure groups celebrating humanity's progress in art, science, and industry: Galileo, representing science, Dante, representing literature, Apollo, representing the arts, Mercury, representing speed and commerce, Richard Morris Hunt, representing architecture and Karl Bitter, representing sculpture.” Surely Edwards can’t compete with that.

Well, he’s trying. According to John Carrington of Carolina Online, the humble Edwards abode will have an indoor recreation building that contains a basketball court, a squash court, two stages, a bedroom, kitchen, bathrooms, swimming pool, a four-story tower, and a room designated “John’s Lounge.” The latter is kind of appropriate when you think about it. While the Vanderbilts paid tribute to Dante, Apollo and Mercury, Edwards will pay tribute to himself.

5) What kind of things do you think will happen in “John’s Room?”

I imagine the Lord of the Manor sitting there drinking snifters of ancient Cognac or Brandy bemoaning the plight of America’s underclass to anyone who will listen,

6) Do Cognac and Brandy come in snifters?

I don’t know. Except for the occasional glass of wine, I’m a tee-totaler.

7) Does Soxblog Manor at least have a “Dean’s Room?”

As a matter of fact, it does. Its stunning architectural features include (but are not limited to) a toilet, a stack of newspapers and a sink. For obvious reasons, I don’t do much entertaining in “Dean’s Room.” I do, however, spend some time there almost every day.

8) This whole FAQ seems like a cheap shot. Big deal. We’re supposed to believe you’re suddenly against conspicuous consumption?

I’m not. Quite to the contrary, I conspicuously consume as much as my meager means allow me to. Furthermore, conspicuous consumption is good for the economy. The design and construction of the Edwards house is no doubt employing dozens of artisans, craftsmen and day laborers.

But I’ve always felt that Edwards is a phony. I don’t call him an empty suit – that’s too generous. I refer to him as a suit filled with anti-matter. It’s a bit hard to believe that someone who is actually obsessed with the plight of America’s downtrodden would devote so much energy and so many resources to building a home fit for a modern Medici. I just don’t buy it.

9) But can’t you live a life of opulent splendor and still care deeply about those less well off?

Yes and no. The construction of this house is deeply revealing. Edwards isn’t a dodo. He had to know that building such a house while running a Huey Long-style campaign would be a jarring contradiction. And yet he went ahead and did it anyway.

The heart of the Edwards message is the class warfare sentiment that the working class should envy the rich. Income disparity is the Homeric theme he hopes to ride to the White House. And then he builds a house that will serve as a living, breathing example of how the “other half” enjoys lives of a completely different sort than working people. It doesn’t add up.

10) Will this hurt him?

Yes. It reveals him to be a phony even more effectively than that video of him combing his hair for over a minute did. By the way, if you haven’t seen that video, you really owe it to yourself to check it out.

Compliments? Complaints? Contact me at Soxblog@aol.com.

 

 
Posted by: Hugh Hewitt at 9:32 AM

One more story from RollCall:

The National Republican Congressional Committee is asking veteran Capitol Hill flacks who now are working in the private sector to volunteer their advice on crafting a communications strategy.

House Republicans’ loss of 30 seats in the previous cycle was compounded by the exit of Carl Forti, who captained both the NRCC’s communications shop and its independent expenditure campaigns, writing TV ads in a number of races over the past two cycles.

Now, Jessica Boulanger, Forti’s replacement as communications director, is setting up an informal advisory group to help the party get back on track. At least 10 public relations professionals with decades of Hill experience among them are meeting with Boulanger on Feb. 8 at the Capitol Hill Club, for the first of what they expect will be regular meetings to plot strategy.

A party punished for insiderism turns to....insiders!

 

 
Posted by: Hugh Hewitt at 9:19 AM

The long-feared pandemic has arrived, but thus far its breakout is limited to Capitol Hill.  Laura Lee Donaho is credited with recognizing the virus, but i uncertain, as are we all, of whether it is a short-lived or fatal infection. 

 
Posted by: Hugh Hewitt at 8:44 AM

From RollCall's story on The Pledge (subscription required):

The Web site — www.thenrscpledge.com — boasted around 30,000 signers as of Monday, and that’s a cause of concern for Senate Republicans.

NRSC spokeswoman Rebecca Fisher said Monday the committee is taking Hewitt’s effort seriously, indicating the NRSC is concerned about the practical implications it might have on fundraising and grass-roots support for GOP Senate candidates.

“Of course we worry about the effect something like this has on online fundraising,” Fisher said. “As we explore different methods of fundraising, we have to be sure that we can effectively take advantage of every available avenue. And with a response like this blog has received, we take notice.”

The Pledge has passed 30,000 signers, but that is only one measure of disgust with Congressional double-mindedness on the war among victory Republicans. Beltway earmuffs appear to have cut off many Republicans from hearing what many of their constituents and supporters are saying, and if the next few weeks and months become attempts to me-to Democratic obstructionism and defeatism on the war, the base that turned out and kept many other Republicans from defeat in November will turn exclusively to the presidential campaign as the only place in which to invest their political energy in support of a candidate who understands the stakes and has a clear grasp of the war and the significance of Iraq within it.

There is also an opportunity for any Republican with what passes for political courage these days to stand up and repeatedly defend the idea of victory.  Denouncing the various resolutions is a great place to start, but spending some time stripping the "last chance" rhetoric of its very thin appeal would be wise as well.

What, exactly, do the last chancers mean?  That if this Iraqi government --less than a year old-- can't somehow defeat the Iranian funded and organized fifth column (which Israel could not do this past summer) or eradicate al Qaeda (which the Karzai government, the U.S. and NATO haven't  been able to do in Afghanistan after five years), that the U.S. will pull up stakes?  That the eight million purple fingered Iraqis will be left to their own devices because a half dozen Congressmen and a couple of senators fear losing their seats?

We have watched for years as Congressman after Congressman rued the abandonment of Rawanda and implied that intervention ought to have been mounted there.  We watched as the Congress sprang to its feet at the mention of Darfur a week ago.  Congress, it appears, is always willing to ride to the rescue when no rescue is being mounted.

But here in Iraq in the heart of the most unstable region in the world, with an expansionist and reckless Iran --led by fanatics and closing in on nukes-- on the border and funding the killing, Congressmen from both parties are declaring "last chances" for Iraq and packing the wagons.  How bitter Iraqis must be when they hear six figure a year men and women declare "last chances" as they hear the sound of car bombs or bullets, and especially when they read about the dilemmas facing  Republicans who had "close calls" in November or who face "tough fights" in '08.

"Benchmarks" are either deadlines after which abandonment looms or poses struck for political cover.  Both are the opposite of what is needed, which is resolve and the communication to the troops, our Iraqi allies, and the enemy that we intend to help the Iraqis get the stability and freedom they deserve.

The Republican Party isn't going to split over victory, but it is going to get a lesson in who deserves to lead it.  And if that lesson is accompanied by diminution or even a collapse in small and medium donors disgusted with round-heeled Republicans, that will be a warning, not an end result, of an even greater abandonment of the effort to rebuild a majority in the Congress. 

The National Republican Senatorial Committee can be e-mailed at  webmaster@gopsenators.com.

The National Republican Congressional Committee can be e-mailed at website@nrcc.org.

 

 

 

 
Posted by: Hugh Hewitt at 8:20 AM

My conversation with House Republican Leader John Boehner is posted hereThe audio is here.

The interview triggered a flood of angry e-mail as the impression grows that Republican leaders are not only not supporting the war, but pretending to do so even as they offer resolutions in both chambers that can only be seen as votes of no confidence in President Bush, Secretary of Defense Gates, General Petraeus and the troops.

One exchange with Congressman Boehner:

HH: What do you think the enemy thinks about your benchmark proposal?

JB: Uh, I think it helps the administration. I think it puts pressure on the Iraqi government to step up. If you look at the President’s proposal, it’s dependent upon the relatively new Iraqi government to step up and do what it has to do. And I think that having these benchmarks out there send a very clear signal to the Iraqis that we’re going to expect them to do what they have to do.

HH: But the question was what do you think the enemy thinks about your resolution?

JB: We’re measuring progress. We’re measuring success.

HH: But do you think the enemy thinks it’s a bad thing that you’ve put this into place?

JB: I don’t think so.

Dean analyzes this below.

 

 
Posted by: Hugh Hewitt at 11:23 PM

My interview with Terry McAuliffe today had many interesting exchanges, as when I asked Terry about his hatred for Rush Limbaugh, or why Juanita Broaddick wasn't mentioned in the book:

HH: Okay. No mention of Juanita Broaddick. Not important to you?

TM: I don’t even know…who was Juanita Broaddick?

Terry's grip on new media is also a little tenuous:

HH: How about the Kos kids. Do they worry you?

TM: The who?

HH: Daily Kos?

TM: What do you mean, worry me?

HH: I mean, are you happy to have them? I mean, they’re vulgar, a little bit stupid, a little bit nutty. Are you happy to have them on your side?

TM: I don’t have…don’t really know, don’t pay any attention to it, so I’m not going to answer something I don’t know anything about.

HH: You don’t pay attention to the blogs?

TM: No.

HH: You don’t read any blogs?

TM: I travel all the time, Hugh. I’m lucky to read two newspapers.

HH: Have you ever heard of a Verizon card?

TM: What?

HH: Do you know what a Verizon card is?

TM: I don’t know what a Verizon card is.

HH: All right, never mind. Let’s go…

TM: Like a Visa card?

HH: No, no, it’s not like a Visa card. I know you know what those are.

TM: I have that. I’ve got…I carry American Express with me, man.

 But I think Catholics will find especially interesting this segment:

HH: You’re an Irish Catholic kid from Syracuse, from St. Anne’s school, right?

TM: Yes.

HH: Now did you do eight years or twelve years of Catholic education?

TM: I did eight years at St. Anne’s grammar school, I did four years of Bishop Ludden High School, I did four years at the Catholic University of America, and three years at Georgetown University Law Center.

HH: Can you name your K-8 teachers?

TM: Yeah.

HH: Give them to me.

TM: Sister Agnes Teresa, Sister Mary Helen, Sister Thomas, Miss Boway, Mrs. Anderson, Sister Esther Thomas, and Sister Margaret Madden…how many is that?

HH: That’s pretty close. So they were lousy teachers?

TM: No, they were great teachers. I was the one that was causing all the trouble, Hugh.

HH: But I mean, you often cite Catholic doctrine in this book, and yet you support late term abortions, and judges who impose them on people. How…did you miss those classes?

TM: Hugh, I don’t cite Catholic doctrine all through the book. I say I’d gone to Catholic schools, Hughie, through the book, and I am pro-choice, no question about it. But I don’t pretend to be a priest, and I don’t pretend to be citing…I don’t cite the Bible once in the book.

HH: Yeah, but you do cite your Catholic faith.

TM: I say that I’m a Catholic, sure. Irish Catholic.

HH: You know, it says here on Page…

TM: Which I am.

HH: Page 165, “It might not quit with the lessons of my Catholic faith, but I don’t mind admitting that I couldn’t have been happier when the news broke on July 30th, 1999, that Linda Tripp had been indicted by a Maryland grand jury.” So you know it’s wrong to glory in the sufferings of others, because of your Catholic faith, your Catholic teachings.

TM: Yeah, but I say I have faults, like many people have faults. I wish I could follow 100% the teachings of the Catholic Church, but believe it or not, much to your chagrin, I am not Jesus Christ.

HH: No, but I mean, the whole abortion controversy, that’s just…you compartmentalize that and put that aside?

TM: I can, as can many Catholics.

HH: But I know many Catholics do, but do you think it’s right…Do you go to Mass and all that stuff, Terry?

TM: I go…yeah, I do.

HH: You do?

TM: In fact, I’m up to be on the Knights of Malta right now. They’ve just asked me to join the Knights of Malta.

HH: Oh, we’d better put out a word.

TM: Are you one of those?

HH: I’ve got friends in the Knights of Malta, yeah. You might not come back from your first trip to Rome.

TM: You need to go into the Knights of Malta.

HH: Huh?

TM: And as you know, the Holy Father himself, John Paul II, blessed my wife’s engagement ring when I wound up being at a private Mass for us in his private chapel.

HH: Nice picture. I know. Did he know about your supporting late term abortions?

TM: Sure, he knew he was.

HH: Is that teaching optional, Terry McAuliffe?

TM: Is what teaching optional?

HH: The Church’s teaching on the sanctity of life?

TM: Hey, listen, I have my views on my religious beliefs, Hugh, you’ve got yours.

HH: But I’m asking, do you think it’s…

TM: And you know, if you want to do a show on religious teaching, that’s fine. I’m talking about my book.

HH: Well, it’s in the book all the time.

TM: I make my statements, you write your book.

HH: No, but it’s in the book all the time about how Catholic you are.

TM: It’s not how Catholic I am. I’m an Irish Catholic kid from Syracuse. It’s probably mentioned five times, Hugh, so please don’t incorrectly characterize my book to your listeners.

HH: Well, it’s in here a lot…

TM: If you want to talk about the book, talk about the facts as they exist. I know you’re a right wing whacko, but don’t make things up.

HH: All right, let’s got to Page 113. Oh, I just quoted to you the page that that was on.

TM: That’s one page. That’s through the whole book? You just said it’s through the whole book, you don’t even remember what you just said. What did you? Go have a martini at lunch or something?