The Other Shoe

Let's see, Mubarak, bad and he must go. Gaddafi, bad and he must go, and we'll send in the military to make it so. On the other hand, Iran, not so bad; nuking up and killing civilians notwithstanding. Syria, not so bad; nuking up, killing civilians, arming terrorists, notwithstanding. Is there a pattern here?

The Gaddafi one is the puzzle, not least because the Crazed One is not doing much more to his people than Iran did to the Green Revolution of 2009. Why is our President so willing to intervene militarily this time? But then I remember that this tin-pot dictator, thug, and murderer of the last 20 some years turned over a new leaf somewhere around 2005. He gave us all of his nuclear materials and has been a major, major source of intel and help in our fight against al Qaeda. In other words, he has been an ally, just like Mubarak. An ally who is now being pressed, not by "freedom fighters," but by al Qaeda backed forces.

Toss in the public contempt this Administration has shown for Israel over the last few years, and the puzzle pieces fall into place. America's allies, America's national security interests, the very underpinnings of American Middle-East strategy the last decades, are all being thrown under the bus. Does he really want the likes of Iran and Syria to dominate the region? Does he really think that would make things better in the world?

It really doesn't matter what he thinks, because we know what he is doing. And I think Saudi Arabia and others are following very closely Obama's other shoe - when will it drop and in what direction?

Sigh

Peter Wehner weighs in on the latest Presidential horse-race poll, and sadly veers off into increasingly tiresome peevishness.  There is a certain type of conservative who just can't abide Sarah Palin, which is to say, they can't abide any conservative who is high-profile enough to merit serious mainstream media push-back.  Chris Christie is a delightful exception to this rule, which Mr. Wehner makes abundantly clear, but I dare say if the Governor does enter the Presidential sweepstakes and the media does inundate him with 1/2 of the vitriol they have poured on Ms. Palin, Mr. Wehner will suddenly discover that Mr. Christie lacks the maturity" or the "temperament" or the "seriousness of purpose" required to top the Wehner like-o-meter.

Mr. Wehner concludes:

Ms. Palin has also suffered in contrast to other Republicans, and most especially Republican governors, many of whom embody a maturity, a proper governing temperament, and a seriousness of purpose. Compared to what Christie, Mitch Daniels, Scott Walker, Bob McDonnell, Bobby Jindal, and other lawmakers are doing, Palin seems to be shrinking before our eyes.

For what it's worth, I would ask Mr. Wehner to take a seriously objective look at Ms. Palin's career both before and after she was tapped for the Vice-Presidency and the national spot-light, and he might find the very definition of maturity, temperament, and seriousness of purpose. He might start with the way she took on the entrenched governing elite of her own party and won. Then he might take a look at the way she broke the back of the corporatist oil lobby in Alaska and successfully put together one of the largest pipeline projects on record - all to the benefit of her State and it's citizens. Then he might ... well, again, just look at her record.

Mr. Wehner's problem is not that he has a problem with Ms. Palin. It's that he brings to his analysis of the poll a non sequitor. Governor Christie is doing remarkable work in New Jersey; but instead of lauding the Governor, Wehner focuses instead on tearing down Ms. Palin. Why are her poll numbers down near Reid and Pelosi? There are myriad reasons, not least of which is that she herself has withdrawn from the public spotlight. For a politician as canny as she is, this ought to give a serious pundit pause to wonder. But instead of enlightening us with some learned speculation, Mr. Wehner resorts to two year old cliches that she lacks "basic knowledge about public policy," and WTF claims that she is unable "to articulate a compelling case for conservatism."

Again, just look at her record, and also the compelling performances she gives that draws crowds of conservatives in numbers never before seen. She makes the case for conservatism, boy and how!

Sigh.