| 30.08.2008 |
|
||||||||
| SAINT PAUL, Minn. -- There’s more out there about Sarah Palin and her foreign policy experience/views Saturday than Friday. Let’s review it, vague though it may be: --On Iraq, she made some remarks about not knowing “what the plan is to ever end the war,” but it’s hard to read too much into that. Thinkprogress.org, though, does have some thoughts on the subject. What’s more, Andrew Sullivan turned up an interview where she expressly said she wasn’t doing much thinking about the war, and said “I want to know that we have an exit plan in place.” --It’s true she hasn’t visited Iraq, a subject over which McCain and surrogates were rather critical of Barack Obama. But she has visited nearby Kuwait. Other than that, her travel of the world is very limited – a stop in Ireland and Germany. She didn’t have a passport until 2007, according to the New York Times. --There’s some speculation about whether, as a Pat Buchanan backer, Palin was somehow endorsing Buchanan’s critical point of view toward Israel. So far, though, even the amount of Palin’s backing of Buchanan is in question. And as governor of Alaska, she had signed a basic resolution affirming Alaska’s support of Israel. --She has in the past indicated that she does not think global warming is a manmade phenomenon. At this rate of revelation, it seems fair to guess that we’re not going to get much else on Palin’s foreign policy experience or statements. Her paper trail is very short. Whether that matters or not is inevitably going to vary from voter to voter. P.S. Laura Rozen, an excellent reporter, is publishing her own work on the intelligence records of the two presidential nominees yesterday as well. She took a different approach than I did, zeroing in on one of the more fascinating elements of McCain’s views on spying, and next week will tackle Obama’s record. The first of the two stories is here. |
||||||||
|
||||||||
| 30.08.2008 |
|
||||||||
| SAINT PAUL, Minn. -- With John McCain’s selection of Sarah Palin as his running mate, both presidential candidates have selected vice presidential nominees whose records reflect their exact criticism of their opponents. Barack Obama picked Joe Biden, who voted for the Iraq War like McCain, despite Obama’s attacks on McCain for that very vote; McCain selected Palin despite his focus of Obama for his lack of foreign policy experience. What has Palin said about foreign policy? Virtually nothing. Foreign Policy’s survey turned up positions only on energy issues, where Palin supports drilling in the Alaska National Wildlife Refuge even though McCain currently does not. At ontheissues.org, she comes up “no issue stance yet recorded” on not only “foreign policy,” but also “war and peace," "immigration" and "free trade." And arguments from some conservatives that she has foreign policy credentials by virtue of Alaska’s proximity to Russia are a bit of a stretch, since it’s hard to find anything she’s ever said about the country. --The Republican platform is now online. It gives surprisingly little attention to foreign policy, with just 13 of its 55 pages devoted to the topic, although it does give it chapter I treatment, unlike the Democratic platform, and it packs a lot into relatively little space, including positions on several continents and major countries from Ireland to India. The Republican document asserts that it is the president’s role to decide on matters of war, leaving no role for Congress to influence matters – which is as much a foreign policy issue as it is a question of the proper role for the branches of government. It classifies immigration as a national security issue, which has ramifications for how legislation might come to fruition. And it gives some attention to intelligence, even suggesting reforms to Congress’ oversight structure, which is in keeping with McCain’s stance – but it’s still interesting to see the party taking a position on the topic. I recently wrote a comparison of McCain and Obama’s intelligence views for Congressional Quarterly here. *I will be in Saint Paul all week covering the Republican National Convention for Congressional Quarterly and filing blog entries for Across the Pond as well. |
||||||||
|
||||||||
| 28.08.2008 |
|
||||||||
| Via Ben Smith, a statement Barack Obama issued about whether the U.S. still needs a special envoy to Northern Ireland caused a bit of a dust-up recently -- first in the Irish press, then when John McCain came out in favor of the envoy. There are a sizable number of Americans who trace their roots back to Ireland -- about 34 million -- but it's unclear to me how many of them pay attention political issues related to their country of heritage the same way some other immigrant groups do. Fortunately for Obama, the Irish Echo offered a warmer view of his running mate, Joe Biden. |
||||||||
|
||||||||
| 27.08.2008 |
|
||||||||
| Hillary Clinton gave the convention speech Tuesday night that tried to answer the question that, no matter how many interviews I read with her supporters, I've never seen anyone really address. That is: If you backed Clinton, but oppose Barack Obama, are you thinking clearly about what would happen if John McCain became president? So many of the answers from Clinton supporters about their distaste for Obama have been of the "Obama never considered Clinton for vice president" variety. Clinton, in arguing that supporting Obama would be supporting the goals she and her supporters believed in, didn't touch much on foreign policy -- fitting, for a convention that looks like it's going to spend almost all of its time on domestic issues. She did say that McCain would mean "more war and less diplomacy" while "we know President Obama will bring the troops home responsibly [from Iraq]... and repair our alliances around the world." A McCain presidency would translate, she said, into "more jobs being shipped overseas," contrasted with what Democrats would do. Perhaps some Democrats bought into the other argument Clinton made against Obama, that she and McCain had the experience to make the right calls in a foreign crisis and Obama was a question mark. But policy-wise, backers of Clinton's views of international affairs have more in common with Obama than they do McCain. Maybe Bill Clinton, whose convention speech is expected to focus on national security (to his rumored dismay), will draw those contrasts more starkly. |
||||||||
|
||||||||
| 26.08.2008 |
|
||||||||
| If the Republican National Convention appears designed to highlight national security, the Democrats' platform appears designed to de-emphasize it. That's the conclusion reached by the Wall Street Journal here about the Democrats' document, and it's a fair one. The 2004 party platform used 19 of its 39 pages to discuss national security and related foreign policy issues. The 2008 platform, approved Monday, nearly 17 of its 57 pages (not counting the index) are about national security and foreign policy. Party platforms, of course, are usually more important to the party base than the broader public. "But it offers clues to shifting priorities or a rethinking of stances," the Journal writes, and those signs all point to a party emphasis that has changed from national security to domestic concerns. WSJ's piece makes several key points, but leaves out a primary difference between the 2004 platform and this one: Iraq. The 2004 document noted that "people of good will" can disagree on whether the war should have been waged at all; the 2008 document calls it a "strategic blunder." The 2004 document makes no real mention of ending the war; the 2008 document repeats the call to end it "responsibly" several times over. The platform's here, and it addresses foreign policy-related topics as diverse as Iran and immigration. You can compare it to the 2004 platform here. |
||||||||
|
||||||||
| 25.08.2008 |
|
||||||||
| You rarely see vice presidential candidates speak out against their running mates, but the policy differences between #1 and #2 on the ticket can matter for any number of reasons, most notably that the opposition will use the VP nominee's remarks against the rival presidential candidate. That's sort of what's been happening already with Republican ad campaigns featuring Joe Biden's sometimes-critical remarks of Barack Obama. The focus has been on Biden's comments about Obama's experience level, but soon enough, some of the other differences between the two may come back to haunt the Democratic slate. Here are four areas where Biden and Obama have diverged on foreign policy. Iraq: Biden voted in favor of authorizing military force in Iraq, which Obama opposed. As Michael says, this inconsistency weakens Obama's judgment-based argument against John McCain, but the effect policy-wise is negligible now that they both support removing U.S. troops. They have differed before on voting for continued war funding and Biden's proposal to divide Iraq into three states, although they are now essentially on the same page on the latter. Trade: Biden voted in favor of NAFTA, but since has come around to Obama's position that the deal should be renegotiated. Canada is worried. Biden appears to be trending toward more protectionist sentiments overall, having voted against two recent trade deals. Cuba: Biden has supported the economic embargo. Obama has supported removing some restrictions. Darfur: Biden has gone a little farther than Obama on Sudan; he supports sending U.S. troops, whereas Obama's chief foreign policy adviser has in the past expressed similar thoughts even if Obama himself apparently has not. |
||||||||
|
||||||||
| 22.08.2008 |
|
||||||||
| Liberal bloggers have pounced on John McCain's agreement with a town hall participant on a long list of things she said, a list that included her belief the United States should reinstate the national military draft if it wants to catch Osama bin Laden. Marc Ambinder gives McCain the benefit of the doubt that he meant something else. Liberal bloggers say that's typical of the media's kid glove treatment of McCain. My two cents: McCain has, indeed, frequently received the benefit of the doubt from the media. And if you piece together enough of McCain's disparate comments -- his argument that it would take a complete World War III to reinstate the draft, another remark he made about our current proximity to World War III, etc. -- I can kind of see why they would think McCain sincerely wants to restore the draft. But McCain has been fairly consistent in his record of opposing the reinstatement of the military draft. That's where he said he was in 2000. It's where he's said he is in 2008. His answer to the audience member looks more like a careless remark than an actual sincere statement of his policy. If thinkers and activists on the left wants to make a big deal out of what he said, they could try to relate it to McCain's history of gaffes, or his age. They could even argue that, with the degree that he has talked tough against any number of countries and forces, he would have to reinstate the draft to act on any of his threats. But they really have to stretch to make it look like McCain's de facto, unstated policy is that he supports reinstating the draft, and that his recent remarks accidentally revealed his true stance. But the left still has a point that it demands some follow-up. McCain, after all, didn't disagree with his audience member, so a clarification wouldn't hurt. Said Think Progress: "Considering this record, journalists should be inquiring further about McCain’s views on the military draft rather than automatically assuming McCain didn’t mean what he actually said." |
||||||||
|
||||||||
| 21.08.2008 |
|
||||||||
| You can take a lot of messages from the Republicans' choices of speakers and themes for their national convention, but among them is surely an emphasis on security. I think it once again illustrates a campaign-long dilemma about whether John McCain is going to be focusing on his strengths -- his foreign policy experience -- over what voters say they want to hear about most -- the economy. On Day 1, "Service" is the theme. The idea is to highlight McCain's service to the country, and that will inevitably mean a lot of talk about his record as a Vietnam War veteran and how that is one of his qualifications to be president, not to mention his lengthy Senate tenure, which has been heavily focused on security. Speaking is Sen. Joe Lieberman, an independent whose primary ideological affinity for McCain is on topics like the Iraq War, and President Bush and Vice President Cheney, whose two terms have focused heavily on national security. Day 2's theme is "Reform," but that day's biggest-name speaker, and the keynoter for the entire convention, is Rudy Giuliani. Besides Bush, no one is more closely linked in his political identity with the Sept. 11 terror attacks than the former New York City mayor. And Giuliani's speech in 2004 to the convention was very much about security. Day 3 is about "Prosperity," and this should be the biggest day off for national security issues -- unless McCain's running mate, expected to speak that day and not yet named, turns out to be someone whose primary credentials are a background in foreign policy, the military, or something like that. And Day 4's theme is "Peace," which very clearly is about national security. It's in the name. The speakers aren't people clearly affiliated with national security above all -- Govs. Tim Pawlenty and Charlie Crist, for instance -- except for, well, McCain himself. |
||||||||
|
||||||||
| 21.08.2008 |
|
||||||||
| A few months ago, one of Barack Obama's foreign policy advisers made an ill-advised trip -- strategically-speaking, and perhaps in other ways -- to meet with leaders of Hamas. Wednesday, John McCain's campaign tried to make an issue out of another Obama foreign policy adviser's visit with the president of Syria. The attack, issued via conference call with reporters, didn't have much to it. Unlike with Hamas, Obama has always said he'd be willing to meet with the leader of Syria, so an adviser doing the same thing on his own in what Obama's spokespeople called a non-campaign trip isn't as strange. And the Obama campaign was quick to point out McCain's own visit to meet with Syria's then-president in 1984, among other similar gestures. Questions the McCain campaign raised about side issues -- whether the meeting should have been disclosed, whether Obama has too many foreign policy advisers, etc. -- were maybe more on target, but still, in the end, secondary to the thrust of Wednesday's attack. The attack backfired in at least one other way. The conference call led reporters to question Rudy Giuliani's own business associations with unpopular foreign leaders and Randy Scheunemann's lobbying ties with foreign countries. One aggressive questioner got cut off, and the call ended up being rather short. Whether the attack is substantial may be beside the point. Lynn Sweet makes the case that it was primarily designed to weaken Obama's support among Jewish voters in key states like Florida, and Jewish donors around the country. |
||||||||
|
||||||||
| 19.08.2008 |
|
||||||||
| With Barack Obama as little as one day away from announcing his vice presidential choice, it's worth revisiting the field vis-a-vis the whole "Obama should pick someone who bolsters him on foreign policy" argument. Two intriguing potential running mates, Sam Nunn and Chuck Hagel, have in the past couple days done or said the kind of things that indicate they won't be the choice. Nunn, the former Senate Armed Services chairman whose name is synonymous with ridding the world of one of its greatest threats -- loose nuclear material -- said in an article published yesterday that his finances have not been vetted by the Obama campaign. Hagel, "a leading Republican voice on international affairs and an outspoken critic of the war in Iraq," per CNN, last week said the he would not endorse Obama or John McCain. In the case of Nunn, it's almost impossible for the Obama campaign to vet his finances as quickly as they would need to by this week. In the case of Hagel, it's hard to imagine the Obama camp selecting a VP nominee who wouldn't even endorse him. Among top foreign policy hands on the list of speculative nominees, that leaves, primarily, Joe Biden (respected long-time Senate Foreign Relations' top Democrat) and Bill Richardson (he of the extensive diplomatic resume). Biden, of course, recently visited Georgia as something of a representative for Obama. And Richardson's home state of New Mexico was on Obama's schedule this week. There are some other nominees who could make some kind of foreign policy experience-related claim, but none quite like Nunn, Hagel, Biden or Richardson. For instance, Evan Bayh, one of the top names being mentioned, has focused a good deal on national security during his Senate career, but that career has been rather short, comparatively. And, of course, there's a chance Obama has some seasoned foreign policy hand on his list no one even imagined he did. |
||||||||
|
||||||||
| 18.08.2008 |
|
||||||||
| One of the lesser-noticed aspects of the Russia/Georgia conflict is how it highlights differences between John McCain and Barack Obama on missile defense. My CQ colleague Josh Rogin broke it down amid a piece he did on how the conflict would affect the congressional debate on the United States' attempts to place missile sites in Europe. McCain appears to believe his more hawkish, pro-missile defense stance could benefit him, because he put out a statement recently praising the U.S.-Poland pact. Since that pact is very related to the Russia/Georgia struggle, it allows McCain to keep his position on the conflict -- which has generated positive coverage for him -- at the forefront. Per CQ, speaking of congressional advocates of the sites: "Leading those advocates is presumptive Republican presidential nominee Sen. John McCain , R-Ariz., who sees the sites as a badly needed component of the American strategic presence in the region. He is quick to link their necessity to Russia’s increasingly aggressive posture. 'Russia’s objections (to the sites) have never been based on anything more than trying to define a sphere of influence in Europe and on the territory of existing NATO members,' said McCain’s top foreign policy advisor Randy Scheunemann, 'Senator McCain believes that is unacceptable — especially in the aftermath of Russia’s brutal invasion of Georgia.'" (Interestingly, here's what McCain said in his Poland statement about Russia: "Threatening attacks against Poland, a NATO ally, is a wholly inappropriate response to an agreement that is not aimed at countering Russia.") Obama's office has, in recent days, remained more skeptical, which is consistent of Obama's record. “Congress will not and should not fund a system until testing has proven that it works, and that testing will not be completed until 2010 at the earliest,” said Wendy Morigi, an Obama spokeswoman. For more on the differences between the candidates on these and related issues, read on here. |
||||||||
|
||||||||
| 16.08.2008 |
|
||||||||
| Liberals are mocking John McCain and other conservatives for talking up the threat of Russia after not so long ago talking up the threat of Muslim fundamentalists and Iran, but the fact remains that whether McCain or Barack Obama is the next U.S. president, the commander in chief will almost certainly be dealing with a significantly more contentious United States-Russia relationship. And, what's more, that has other ramifications for America's relationship with other parts of the world, like Europe. |
||||||||
|
||||||||
| 14.08.2008 |
|
||||||||
| What happens in U.S. presidential races can, theoretically, have an impact on the world. Example: because of the speculative nature of energy prices, there were some who believed Hillary Clinton's remarks about how the United States could "obliterate" Iran had a chance of affecting the cost of gasoline. To my knowledge, that didn't happen. But an adviser to Barack Obama adviser has raised questions in recent days about whether John McCain's early "belligerent" statements about Georgia and Russia exacerbated the conflict. McCain, asked about this at a Wednesday news conference, sidestepped the question by saying now is not the time for partisanship. Into the breach stepped National Review, answering that because a different Obama adviser had said Obama and McCain were basically on the same page after the early reaction, it must be the case that Obama was making the situation worse too, right? Nonetheless, a third Obama adviser raised the possibility that soothing statements might have had more of an impact. Per The Washington Post: "Obama's more nuanced tone may reflect the debate going on among his advisers, who say they must bear in mind the messy geopolitical reality that America relies on Russia on a host of issues, from Iran to nuclear proliferation to energy and climate change. 'Part of the reason we don't have leverage is that we don't have a U.S.-Russian relationship. It has been adrift,' Michael McFaul said. Referring to McCain, he added, 'It's easy to say something belligerent about Russia. I'm no friend of Vladimir Putin, and cheap shots about tough talk are all well and fine. But what are you doing to actually make the situation better?'" A whole different question, more speculative even than the question I'm asking here and that I'll leave to Porch Dog: Might conversations between McCain and members of his camp -- one of whom had very close ties to Georgia and top Bush administration neoconservatives -- and the president of Georgia actually contributed to the escalation? In the end, said one expert, tough talk from neither Obama nor McCain matters. "This type of bluster is fairly counterproductive because it is a bluff, there's nothing we can do about this," Clifford Gaddy of the Brookings Institution told the Washington Post. My own observation: It's hard to imagine that Vladimir Putin cares much what was said by McCain, a possible future president, because so far, he's not given many indications that he cares what anyone thinks. And while McCain has been at the forefront of harsh rhetoric against Russia since the conflict began, pretty much the entire Western world has condemned what Russia's been doing, so what difference can one presidential candidate make by condemning it more? |
||||||||
|
||||||||
| 14.08.2008 |
|
||||||||
| For a few days, Michael and I have been trying to forecast how, or if, the Russia/Georgia conflict will have any impact on the presidential race. I think we both raise relevant and important points, but I'm giving up, for now. First off, the situation's too fluid. One of the things I cited in my argument against the conflict making a difference domestically was Russia's stated acceptance of a ceasefire. Of course, that apparently didn't last very long, if Russia ever even ceased fire even for a minute. There are things neither Michael nor I have discussed in detail, such as a John McCain adviser lobbying ties with Georgia, which could lead voters to question his character, or the way McCain said the Christian nature of Georgia warrants U.S. interest, which could bolster his appeal with a very active voter group, the evangelicals, that has been skeptical of him. More things that pop up during the conflict could further affect the race in an unforeseen way. Second off, it's straying too far from what I think political journalism ought to be about. There's nothing inherently wrong with examining polls, or trying to ascertain key moments in a race, or anything like that. But I've spent too much time on it of late, and that preoccupation is where political journalists don't help anyone. It's back to the policy shed for me, starting tomorrow. |
||||||||
|
||||||||
| 13.08.2008 |
|
||||||||
| Answering my own question, it now looks like the candidates' responses to the Georgia/Russia conflict probably won't have much impact on the race. Why not? A few reasons. --One of the best arguments for how the race could end up affecting people in the United States is that there was an oil pipeline in the region, and that gasoline prices could climb. Instead, they fell. --While John McCain got some good press for his early, hawkish reaction toward Russia's aggression -- not to mention his historically hawkish stance toward Russia, which once was viewed by foreign policy experts as overly hostile but now looks prescient -- it really only reinforced his previous pluses. Much as Barack Obama needed, with his overseas trip, to bolster his foreign policy credentials to go along with strong polling on domestic issues, McCain needs to bolster his domestic policy credentials to complement his international affairs advantage. --In the end, the two candidates' stances were mostly indistinguishable. McCain's rhetoric was harsher throughout, while Obama was more cautious to begin with, but their prescriptions for how the problem needed to be fixed were similar by Monday. --With the conflict subsiding at least temporarily, the possibility of U.S. lives being lost diminishes, and therefore voters' interest are probably not likely to be aroused substantially unless that changes. |
||||||||
|
||||||||
| 11.08.2008 |
|
||||||||
| I'm not disputing that the reaction of the presidential candidates to the Georgia/Russia war has been a positive news story for John McCain. I'm just thinking out loud here: As much as the war has been in the news, are there any voters who really are going to be more inclined to favor one candidate over the other because of how he reacted to a distant conflict that involves, to this point, no American lives? |
||||||||
|
||||||||
| 10.08.2008 |
|
||||||||
| There's an indirect foreign policy angle to plenty in this campaign. Gasoline prices may on the surface be a domestic/economic issue, but because it's so closely related to the United States' dependence on overseas oil, it's foreign policy-related whether voters want the candidates to emphasize foreign policy issues or not. (They don't.) In two new ads, the Barack Obama campaign has gone after John McCain on two foreign policy-related issues that are in the backyards of Nevada and Ohio voters. The first attacks McCain in Ohio on an issue Michael blogged about recently, DHL, which involves a German company. The second attacks McCain in Nevada over his stance in favor of opening Yucca Mountain for nuclear waste, which is part of his proposal for reducing America's dependence on foreign oil. I'm guessing most voters -- i.e., those mentioned in the afore-linked poll who say they want the candidates to focus on domestic issues -- aren't thinking about the ways in which domestic and foreign policy are so interrelated. Either way, Obama's brought it to their home states. |
||||||||
|
||||||||
| 09.08.2008 |
|
||||||||
| I'll just come straight out with it and issue a correction. Not so long ago, I argued that there was hardly any way that Iraq could be a problem for Barack Obama, since the wide consensus was that the war should never have begun and Obama had some built-in flexibility in his plan. But a new poll shows John McCain has the edge on the topic -- "One in four voters are 'very confident' McCain will make the right decisions on Iraq, while just 14 percent say the same of Obama." Obama gets more people who are "somewhat confident," but he also has higher "not confident" ratings. Why is this? Without any interviewing of the people polled, I would have to guess it's McCain's "commander in chief" credentials and the possibility that even if people don't like the war, they may not want to leave prematurely. Obama and McCain are far more alike in their Iraq positions than when the Obama-Hillary Clinton showdown ended, but McCain favors "conditions on the ground" first over "timetables," and it's the other way around for Obama. The poll has some other fascinating foreign policy figures. Polls, of course, are not predictors, and with how frequently they're taken, they are little more than snapshots of a moment in time. But they can contain valuable information and shape how candidates behave. Among the foreign policy highlights of the full poll: --Sticking with Iraq, only 17 percent of people think it is the most important issue to discuss, second-most behind voters who prefer the candidates discuss the economy, 36 percent. People are growing much more optimistic about how the war is going: 45 percent now, compared to 22 percent about a year ago. Voters' perceptions of the impact of the troop surge surely has helped -- 46 percent say it's making things better, compared to 17 percent about a year ago. Most of this is excellent news for McCain, who was a major backer of the surge. --Domestic issues are blowing away foreign policy issues in the category of "what the candidates should focus on more." Only 8 percent picked foreign policy issues, compared to 77 percent for domestic. With the economy pinching people's wallets, that's only natural. But while most of the poll results on Iraq were good for McCain, the fact that people are so much less interested in Iraq and foreign policy issues in general favors Obama. --That Obama overseas trip did not appear to do the trick, if one of the ideas was bolstering his own "commander in chief" credentials. His numbers actually went down there, compared to before the trip, but then, so did McCain's. Did McCain's negative ad campaign about the trip do damage to both Obama and himself? --Economic growth in China and India isn't a rising tide that lifts all boats, according to those polled. Sixty-two percent said it was hurting the U.S. economy. Like I've written before, this plays to Obama's advantage because of his more skeptical view of free trade. China does better in the poll than I expected -- 64 percent of voters support President Bush going to the opening ceremony, something both McCain and Obama have said they would not have done as president. And 60 percent of voters say China is "friendly, but not an ally." --No surprise that voters want more offshore drilling -- 64 percent of them. But the number of Democrats who support it is slightly surprising -- 49 percent. Obama and McCain have both shifted their positions to varying degrees in the last couple months toward more offshore drilling. --A majority, 46 percent, believe U.S. support for Israel is about right, but that's down from a couple years ago, when it was 54 percent. Hard to say who that helps, if anyone. |
||||||||
|
||||||||
| 05.08.2008 |
|
||||||||
| In the spirit of equal time, I thought I'd devote a blog entry to John McCain's energy speech Tuesday after spending Monday on Obama's. Unlike Obama, though, McCain offered very little news. So let's review some past thoughts on McCain's energy plan, and touch on what news there is. If Obama's position on offshore drilling -- from "no" to "if it's part of a bigger package" -- is a shift, then McCain's is a shift of an even greater degree -- from "no" to "yes, yes, yes." Marc Ambinder calls Obama's position more of a "gesture," really, aimed at future negotiations. That's a fair enough description. McCain, though, has undertaken a complete reversal. Then there's McCain's call for increased use of nuclear power. As I've written before, this would probably take a rather monumental public relations campaign in the United States, of the kind France conducted. However, it may not, if one recent example is a broader indicator. There has been relatively little protest of a proposed new reactor in Maryland, which some have taken as a sign that rising energy costs may be warming the U.S. public to the idea of nuclear power. Of course, that doesn't mean safety risks won't rear their head amid a serious national push. McCain toured a nuclear facility Tuesday that once had a partial meltdown. And while McCain has boasted of the Navy's record with nuclear-powered submarines, the AP points out that "recent events somewhat undercut that message. Last week, the Navy announced that one of its nuclear-powered submarines, the USS Houston, had leaked minimally radioactive water into harbors since March as the sub traveled around the Pacific." And most believe that McCain's proposals to suspend the gas tax and offer $300 million as an incentive to build breakthrough cars are totally backwards and useless, respectively. If there was any development in today's energy feuding, it was McCain's comeback to Obama that McCain voted against a 2005 energy bill that contained tax breaks for oil companies that Obama supported. And that Obama has decided to greet McCain's mockery with some mockery of his own, stating strongly in response to GOP attacks on his suggestion that people properly inflate their tires, "It's like these guys take pride in being ignorant." (P.S. Did anyone else find it amusing that McCain gave a speech on energy at that paeon to debaucherous energy consumption, the Sturgis motorcycle rally?) |
||||||||
|
||||||||
| 05.08.2008 |
|
||||||||
| Set aside, if you can, the frivolous allegations of Republicans "playing the race card" (which came in for some mockery tonight on The Daily Show) or the frivolous personality-based attacks against the Democratic candidate (which came in for some mockery tonight on The Colbert Report). There's some serious talk from the candidates happening on energy... although with a side helping of silliness, of course. Barack Obama on Monday outlined his energy plan. John McCain will outline his Tuesday. Because much of Obama's energy plan had been unveiled before, his proposal to tap the Strategic Petroleum Reserve got the bulk of the attention. CNNMoney.com, which has done an excellent job covering the substance of this campaign's policy proposals, goes in-depth on whether that would help gas prices, coming up with an answer that I can summarize as "basically, yes." Obama's call amounts to a shift, of sorts, as was his statement recently that he could tolerate some offshore drilling as part of a larger package. As for the silliness: McCain continues to mock Obama for his factual, expert-endorsed suggestion that properly inflated tires could help reduce the impact on motorists' wallets. Porch Dog takes on McCain's war with accurate information here. One hopes voters are smart enough to see through this. Obama may have exaggerated the impact of properly inflated tires, as ABC's fact check discerned, but it is simply undeniable that it would help, and it is false to assert that the tire-inflation suggestion is the sum total of Obama's energy policy. If Republicans had focused on one part of what Obama had said -- specifically, the degree to which properly inflated tires would help -- they would be on safer ground. The race, it seems, has crossed the line it showed the early promise of never doing -- that is, the point where attacks on the other candidate are dominating the headlines. Obama released his first attack ad against McCain on the energy front, after dealing with the first direct attack ads from McCain. At least Obama's ad keeps a little of the focus on issues over personality, but it looks like it only gets worse from here on out. |
||||||||
|
||||||||
| 04.08.2008 |
|
||||||||
| Bloomberg writes of the warm U.S.-China relationship that President Bush is leaving behind for his successor, be it John McCain or Barack Obama. It's a comprehensive piece, even if it fails to note that Bush has, at times, behaved contrarily to China's wishes, such as his meetings with the Dalai Lama or Chinese dissidents -- not the norm, certainly, but worth a "although Bush has occasionally..." kind of clause. It's fair to say both Obama and McCain have been more critical of China, not that Bush wasn't early on himself. McCain's recent meeting with the Dalai Lama drew some anger from China, and Obama's supportive letter to the religious figure threw a little more fuel on the fire. Obama was quite critical of China on trade issues during the presidential primary, while McCain has advocated keeping China out of the G-8. But both also have been friendly toward China at times. Even though McCain just made a confrontational gesture toward China himself by meeting with the Dalai Lama -- and even though McCain (and Obama) said he wouldn't have gone to the Olympics' opening ceremony in Beijing as president -- the GOP candidate recently urged Bush against being "confrontational" on his China trip. Last year, Obama, who has rejected McCain's viewpoint on China and the G-8, said: "In Asia, the emergence of an economically vibrant, more politically active China offers new opportunities for prosperity and cooperation, but also poses new challenges for the United States and our partners in the region." |
||||||||
|
||||||||
| 02.08.2008 |
|
||||||||
| Barack Obama now says he can live with an increase in offshore drilling, if it's part of a broader energy legislation compromise. It's interesting that he says this is not "really a new position;" it certainly is, by my reading of the record. His other justification for it is far more defensible -- that is, a group of bipartisan senators have included offshore drilling as part of a bigger proposal, and it's better to have something than nothing: "If we've got a plan on the table that I think meets the goals that America has to set and there are some things in there that I don't like, then obviously that's something that I would consider because that's the nature of how we govern in a democracy." Here, Obama could have learned something from John McCain, who, asked recently about why he had once voted against making Martin Luther King Day a holiday, simply explained it by saying: "I was wrong." He won applause before a black audience for saying so, which is surely as risky a group to have tried out that approach with as he could have found. Voters probably can live with "flip-flops" if candidates just fess up to them. Of course, Obama was bound to get criticism on this point no matter what. McCain's camp, on the receiving end of a lot of "it's nice to see McCain now views things Obama's way" responses on his conflicting Iraq remarks, now has an opening to say the exact thing back to Obama. Which they have. And it feeds into another line of attack McCain's camp has been pushing, which is that Obama's not as genuine as he makes himself out to be and will say anything to get elected. Politically, just from the standpoint of the polls, Obama's shift might have been a smart move; the GOP has really been pressing the offshore drilling line with voters, given its apparent popularity amid soaring gas prices. But he probably helped McCain walk him into the second line of attack with the way he handled accusations he'd changed his position. |
||||||||
|
||||||||
| 02.08.2008 |
|
||||||||
| Here's a piece I'm surprised the neoconservatives aren't flipping out about yet. They've been angry about what they've seen as State Department meddling with some of their favorite policies, like completely isolating Iran, that they see as undermining John McCain's presidential campaign. Now, Time magazine quotes a "senior State Department official" who says Foggy Bottom is indeed trying to "push things as far as they can go" with what Time calls "Bush's diplomacy surge." And get this: Condi Rice has been chatting with (gasp) Barack Obama. Ultimately, it's not that surprising that the State Department would be pushing diplomacy. It's really not even that strange for Rice and Obama to have some talks, although the piece makes it sound like the two are friendly. There's plenty of other good, new material in the article, as well as a run-down of all the Obama-like shifts of late from Bush, so I commend you to read it in full. It concludes on this interesting note: "No one expects Rice's diplomatic surge to work in every case--or even to produce visible results before the year's end--but the last-minute moves are already changing the landscape the next President will inherit... It may prove bittersweet to watch as a new President gets credit for policies she and Bush have promoted, but that is the price of embracing diplomacy so late in the game. At least, says the Obama aide, she can expect the phone calls to continue." And here you thought Obama was a one-Rice candidate (senior foreign policy adviser Susan). |
||||||||
|
||||||||
| 01.08.2008 |
|
||||||||
| Over at the Wall Street Journal, trade advisers to the two presidential candidates are having a moderately interesting debate on free trade. You can read it here (h/t CFR). It offers a little of what Barack Obama did not on his overseas tour. A few points of summary: --On the recently collapsed WTO talks, there is relatively little disagreement between the advisers. The adviser to John McCain, Philip Levy, used McCain's opposition to the farm bill as a way to argue he'd be better equipped on the world stage to lead productive talks, since the U.S. farm bill isn't popular with other countries. The adviser to Obama, Daniel Tarullo, used the apparent domestic unpopularity of free trade against McCain, who's more pro-trade than Obama. The two differed only on whether talks should resume soon. Levy leaned no, Tarullo appeared to lean yes. Then, strangely, on a follow-up question, Tarullo deferred comment. --On whether there's a connection between income inequality and the rise of free trade, both advisers said "maybe, maybe not," with Tarullo leaning "at least a little" and Levy leaning "probably not much." Then they talked about other things, like tax and education policy, that they argued were related to income inequality. --Things got a little snippier on the what to do with NAFTA. Levy argued that barriers to trade needed to be lowered further, while Tarullo made the case for increasing labor and environmental standards under the agreement. Levy got a second rebuttal, for some reason, and used it to argue that Obama's position could lead to increased natural gas prices because Canada may reduce exports in that category, should NAFTA be reopened. Given how much trade was at the forefront of the Democratic primary, it's remarkable that some of the most substantial discussion in the general election on globalization has come via an online debate on a newspaper blog between two non-candidates. Sure, trade is probably a bigger concern for unions that tend to support Democrats than it is for general election voters, and the polls don't show much benefit for McCain in highlighting his position, but it's a big issue that's getting short shrift. |
||||||||
|
||||||||