Inside Politics

OBAMA’S FOES

“President Obama will finally have a bipartisan piece of legislation passed through Congress because opposition to the troop surge he proposes in Afghanistan is so strong within his own party,” John Fund writes at www.opinionjournal.com.

” ‘The president is going to have to count on getting almost all Republicans to support this funding, because he’s unlikely to get more than half the Democrats, especially in the House,’ notes George Stephanopoulos of ABC News.

“Make no mistake about how badly the Afghan decision is playing among media allies and grass-roots supporters of the president. Several highlighted the contradiction between Mr. Obama announcing the sending of 30,000 more troops to Afghanistan and also insisting he will begin to pull them out in 2011.

” ‘Where’s the hope? … It sounds more Rube Goldberg than “Remember the Alamo,” ‘ was the reaction of MSNBC host Chris Matthews [Tuesday] night. ‘If I were with the Taliban right now, I’d put a little Post-it up on that month in 2011, and say: “This is when we do OUR surge.” ‘

“Pat Caddell, a Democratic pollster who worked for both George McGovern and Jimmy Carter, says liberals in the party will consider the president’s decision ‘a betrayal.’ He notes that Mr. Obama won the Democratic nomination in 2008 in large part because he opposed intervention in Iraq while downplaying the support he’d given to the U.S. commitment in Afghanistan. Liberals were not prepared to have Mr. Obama become a war president in his own right, which is what last night’s speech has made him.

” ‘There was something strange in last night’s speech to liberal ears,’ says Mr. Caddell. ‘I thought it was the best delivered George W. Bush speech he’s ever given.’ Mr. Caddell doesn’t believe liberals will abandon Mr. Obama, but says the White House should be worried about the ‘enthusiasm level’ of its base. ‘It will show up in fundraising, candidate recruitment and turnout in the mid-term elections,’ he says.”

DISAPPOINTING

“President Obamas speech on Afghanistan was disappointing,” Fred Barnes writes in a blog at www.weeklystandard.com.

“Yes, the policy is right: more troops, a counterinsurgency strategy, a stronger alliance with Pakistan. But the personal commitment of the president to pursue the war against the Taliban and al Qaeda until they are defeated was not there. Obama did not take ownership of the war. Its still the war in Afghanistan, not Obamas War,” Mr. Barnes said.

“Maybe the president wants it that way. It may keep him from experiencing the fate of Lyndon Johnson, whose presidency suffered - indeed was all but destroyed - by his failure in Vietnam. But it will also keep him from gaining the vindication that George Bush has earned for his decision to order a ‘surge’ that allowed America to prevail in Iraq.

“I had hoped Obama would declare that nothing will deter him, as commander-in-chief, from prevailing in Afghanistan. But it turns out a lot of things might deter him. He listed a few of them: the cost of the war, its length (if more than 18 months from January 2010), the failure of Afghans to step up to the task sufficiently. He hedged. …

“Despite the shortcomings of the speech, Obama made the right policy decision. He deserves credit for that. It wont go down well with the antiwar, pacifist left wing of his party. Thats not only his base. Its his political home. Up to now, the president hadnt done anything to upset any of the constituency groups of the Democratic party. Now he has. Thank heavens for that.”

BY A THREAD

“The Obama administration and the congressional Democrat leadership are desperately trying to create the false impression that the government takeover of health care now pending in Congress is rolling towards inevitable victory,” Peter Ferrara writes at www.spectator.org.

Story Continues →