President Bush @ MindSay

John McCain is on easy-street these days, and if his recent appearance on Saturday Night Live is to be taken seriously (it is), he likes it that way just fine.  He's enjoyed the past several months relatively free of media scrutiny thanks to the ongoing Democratic Primary race.  So how long will he be able to enjoy the calm winds and smooth sailing of this year's presidential race?

As soon as the Democratic nominee is decided, all eyes will be on McCain, and it won't be pretty.  Here's what will do him in in November.

1. Failure to fully unite the Republican base.  This past Tuesday, Congressman Ron Paul got 15% of the vote in the Oregon Republican Primary, and has consistently gotten double digits in the most recent several contests.  Even after they were both out of the race officially, Mike Huckabee and Mitt Romney still received votes.  It may not seem like much of a big deal, but John McCain cannot win in November with only 75-85% of the Republican Party behind him.
2. Close association with President Bush.  George W. Bush is now one of the most unpopular presidents in U.S. History.  This guy is right up there with Herbert Hoover, Warren Harding, and Richard Nixon (who at least had the decency to resign).  He's a pampered boy of privilege who sees the world as a game of "cowboys and indians."  George W. Bush is the modern day Nero, the idiot child who fiddled while his country burned. McCain has accepted his endorsement, and many voters will see a John McCain administration simply as a third Bush term.
   
3. A Pro-War stance.  Whether or not you agree with the War in Iraq, you definitely have to admit that it is extremely unpopular.  For many it is in the top five of their election issues.  John McCain is on the wrong side of the issue.  He is on the wrong side because he wants to appeal to his largely pro-war base: the uneducated, white working-class of the midwest and deep south.  He needed this tactic to win the primary, but it will not translate to the general election.
4. Old Age.  Though we would like to think something like this wouldn't matter, it does.  Big Time.  Throughout history, any time an elderly candidate is pitted against a younger, better-looking candidate, the younger one always wins.  The only exception to this is Michael Dukakis' defeat in 1988 to George H. W. Bush, the vice president of the extremely popular Reagan administration.  We saw it with Kennedy vs. Nixon in 1960, we saw it with Clinton vs. Bush and Clinton vs. Dole, we saw it with Bush vs. Kerry, and we'll see it again with Obama vs. McCain.  The Republican party continues presenting us the next ghastly geriatric in line every 4 years, and this is why they lose.  The only time they ever got it "right" was 2000 and 2004, when they gave us that frat-boy governor we all thought was a real conservative.  The fact is undeniable.  Every 4 years when America picks a president, we follow the news, blogs, and debates with baited interest, checking voting records and discussing the talking points.  Then, on the first Tuesday in November, we promptly elect the cuter one.
5. A campaign that will push the status quo.  "Stay the course" and "thousand points of light" didn't work for Bush the elder in 1992, and it won't work for McCain in 2008.  Most Americans believe our country is on the wrong track.  By burying his head in the sand, McCain is showing off his ivory tower mentality.  He's telling people who have lost their jobs to China that "it's not that bad."  Yes John McCain, it is "that bad."
6. Admitted weakness on the number one issue in the election.  John McCain freely admitted that he isn't strong on the economy, which poll after poll widely establishes that the economy is the number one issue among voters this election. 
   
7. Being in the wrong party at the wrong time.  History has shown that in times of economic distress, the current party will almost never hold on to power.  Voters see the "R" next to a politician's name as a sign that they are responsible for the last 8 years.  Even I personally this year and not necessarily voting for the Democrats, I'm voting against the Republicans.  All the Democrats have to do is ask "are you better off than you were 8 years ago?" and all the work is done for them.

Petraeus promotion keeps nation on its war course

By ROBERT BURNS, AP Military Writer
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080424/ap_on_go_ca_st_pe/war_commanders

WASHINGTON - President Bush is promoting his top Iraq commander, Army Gen. David Petraeus, and replacing him with the general's recent deputy, keeping the U.S. on its war course and handing the next president a pair of combat-tested commanders who have relentlessly defended Bush's strategies.

Bush will nominate Petraeus to replace Navy Adm. William J. Fallon as chief of U.S. Central Command, Defense Secretary Robert Gates announced Wednesday. The command's area of responsibility features some of the most vexing military and foreign policy problems facing this administration and its successor — including Iran, Pakistan, Lebanon, parts of Africa and Afghanistan in addition to Iraq.

Fallon resigned last month, saying news reports that he was at odds with the White House over Iran policy had become a distraction. He was the first Navy officer to lead Central Command; the Petraeus choice represents a return to the more common practice of making it an Army slot.

Petraeus would be succeeded at a pivotal time in Baghdad by Army Lt. Gen. Ray Odierno, who was the No. 2 commander in Iraq for 15 months. He has been credited by many with deftly managing security gains that Petraeus told Congress this month have opened a pathway for potential political progress in the country.

Gates said he hoped the Senate would act on both nominations by next month and expected Petraeus to switch to the Central Command job, which is based in Tampa, Fla., by late summer or early fall.

That is the point at which Petraeus is likely to make an initial recommendation to Gates and to Bush on whether conditions in Iraq are stable enough to permit a further reduction in U.S. troop levels.

The United States has about 160,000 troops in Iraq and about 28,000 in Afghanistan. The strain of those wars has taken a heavy toll on U.S. ground forces.

Among the politically sensitive questions Petraeus would face as head of Central Command is whether the military focus on Iraq is limiting what U.S. and allied forces can accomplish in Afghanistan. And he would be pressed on the matter of using military force against Iran.

The next president taking office in January would not be compelled to keep either Petraeus or Odierno, but normally the lineup of senior commanders — as well as the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff — is not changed with administrations.

"There is no precedent in U.S. tradition for a new president changing these kinds of officers," said Stephen Biddle, a senior fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations and an occasional adviser to Petraeus. "For an incoming president to change them (in 2009) would be a real statement."

Many Republicans, including all-but-certain presidential nominee John McCain, are enthusiastic Petraeus supporters. Democrats on Capitol Hill are not expected to oppose either Petraeus or Odierno, but they are likely to raise tough questions during confirmation hearings.

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid noted after Gates' announcement that any war commander must be committed to "implementing major changes in strategy" if directed to do so by a new president.

"The Senate will carefully examine these nominations, and I will be looking for credible assurances of a strong commitment to implementing a more effective national security strategy," said Reid, D-Nev.

John Batiste, a retired Army two-star general who was a division commander in Iraq in 2004-05, said in an e-mail exchange that he has confidence in the abilities of Petraeus and Odierno, but he questions whether their experience and expertise can make the crucial difference in the U.S. war on terror.

"The best military in the world ... cannot redeem a national strategy which fails in the more important diplomatic, political and economic components of strategy and when the nation is not mobilized behind our incredible service men and women," wrote Batiste, who was among the retired officers who spoke out against the war two years ago in what became known as the revolt of the generals.

At a Pentagon news conference, Gates said he did not foresee that the new lineup at Central Command and in Iraq would mean any changes in the way the U.S. is approaching the issue of Iranian influence in Iraq. Petraeus and Odierno have both accused Iran of aiding rebels opposing U.S. troops.

"It's my belief that General Odierno and General Petraeus and Admiral Fallon were all in exactly the same position when it came to their views of Iranian interference inside Iraq," Gates said. "And it is a hard position. Because what the Iranians are doing is killing American service men and women inside Iraq."

Petraeus will face broader aspects of the Iran issue if he is confirmed as Fallon's replacement. A number of U.S. officials, including Adm. Michael Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, have asserted that Iran also is supplying arms or otherwise supporting the Taliban rebels in Afghanistan.

Earlier this week, Gates said that while war with Iran would be "disastrous on a number of levels," the military option cannot be abandoned so long as the Iranians remain a potential nuclear threat.

Many had seen a strong possibility that Gates' senior military assistant, Army Lt. Gen. Peter Chiarelli, would replace Petraeus in Baghdad if Petraeus were nominated for the Central Command job.

Asked why he had recommended Odierno, Gates said, "General Odierno is known recently to the Iraqi leadership, he's known to the Iraqi generals, he is known to our own people, he has current experience," and so the odds of a smooth transition in Baghdad "are better with him than with anybody else I could identify."

Odierno, currently commander of the Army's 3rd Corps at Fort Hood, Texas, served as the No. 2 commander in Iraq from December 2006 to February 2008. Chiarelli, who preceded Odierno in that post and then joined Gates' staff, will be nominated as the next vice chief of staff of the Army. Bush had nominated Odierno for that job some months ago; Gates said that nomination will be withdrawn.

The current Army vice chief of staff, Gen. Richard Cody, is expected to retire this summer.

smurfy reports on an interesting holiday initiative.  From democracyinaction:

"With your help, CCR will flood the Oval Office with copies of the Constitution this holiday season. If you sign this letter, CCR will send it along with a copy of the Constitution to the White House as a seasonal reminder that the Constitution needs to be upheld ; not destroyed. We hope to send President Bush more than 5,000 copies of the Constitution by January 2008."

Apparently more than 3,000 folks have already signed up.

President Bush is officially the most disliked President in history, since the Gallop polling system began. captainamerica reports:

According to a recently released gallop poll, sixty-four percent of Americans now disapprove of the job Bush is doing. For “the first time in the history of the Gallup Poll, 50% say they ’strongly disapprove’ of the president.  Richard Nixon had reached the previous high, 48%, just before an impeachment inquiry was launched in 1974.”

Bush is now officially the most disliked President in the history of our country and the Gallop polling system.

 

Fred Kagan writes about the significance of President Bush arriving in Iraq on America’s Labor Day Holiday. Kagan notes the American dignitaries that the President brought with him and Iraq dignitaries that joined him. And most importantly Kagan writes of the significance of the location within Iraq of this coalition of high government dignitaries of America and Iraq – Anbar Province.

 

And thus Kagan is comparing the Presidential visit to Anbar as a historical Presidential visit to Gettysburg: a point in time when the fortunes of war are turning to the favor of the legitimate representatives of Government as opposed to the representatives of rebellion and illegitimate authority.

 

JRH 9/4/07

*************************

 

The Gettysburg of This War
This Bush visit could well mark a key turning point in the war in Iraq and the war on terror.

By Frederick W. Kagan
September 3, 2007 5:00 PM
National Review Online

President Bush’s Labor Day visit to Iraq should have surprised no one who was paying attention. At such a critical point in the debate over Iraq policy, it was almost inconceivable that he would fly to and from Australia without stopping in Iraq. What was surprising was the precise location and nature of the visit. Instead of flying into Baghdad and surrounding himself with his generals and the Iraqi government, Bush flew to al Asad airfield, west of Ramadi, the capital of Anbar Province. He brought with him his secretaries of State and Defense, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and the commander of U.S. Central Command. He was met at al Asad by General David Petraeus and Ambassador Ryan Crocker, as well as Iraqi Prime Minister Nuri Kemal al Maliki, Iraqi President Jalal Talabani, and Vice Presidents Adel Abdul Mehdi and Tariq al Hashemi. In other words, Bush called together all of the leading political and military figures in his administration and the Iraqi government in the heart of Anbar Province. If ever there was a sign that we have turned a corner in the fight against both al Qaeda in Iraq and the Sunni insurgency, this was it.

Anbar, as everyone knows, has been one of the hotbeds and the most important base for both the Sunni rejectionist insurgency and al Qaeda in Iraq since 2003. It has been one of the most violent provinces in Iraq, and one of the most dangerous for American soldiers and Marines, until recently. Now it is one of the safest — safe enough for the war cabinet of the United States of America to meet there with the senior leadership of the government of Iraq to discuss strategy. Instead of talking about how to convince the Anbaris that the Sunni will not retake power in Iraq any time soon, Bush, Maliki, Petraeus, Talabani, and Crocker talked about how to get American and Iraqi aid and reconstruction money flowing more rapidly to the province as a reward for its dramatic and decisive turn against AQI and against the Sunni rejectionist insurgency. In any other war, with any other president, this event would be recognized for what it is: the sign of a crucial victory over two challenges that had seemed both unconquerable and fatal. It should be recognized as at least the Gettysburg of this war, to the extent that ... More at SlantRight