A Happy 4th to everyone. Believe me – I would have liked to have prepared a Required Reading that was appropriately and perhaps tritely thematic, but there was too much other good stuff out there.

1) From the New York Times, “New and Not Improved” by the editors.

Hell hath no fury like a Grey Lady scorned. Disappointed over Barack Obama’s latest evolutions, the Times has lashed out with a furious editorial, lamenting, “We are not shocked when a candidate moves to the center for the general election. But Mr. Obama’s shifts are striking because he was the candidate who proposed to change the face of politics, the man of passionate convictions who did not play old political games.” And then to really twist the knife, the editors conclude with the observation, “This country needs change it can believe in.” Meow.

Now, if you’ll pardon my French, what in tarnation is the Times talking about when it says Obama “was a man of passionate convictions?” Where and on what issues exactly did he manifest those convictions? Favoring Hope/Change, however strongly, really doesn’t qualify as a conviction.

2) From BarackObama.com, “Why I Screwed the Left on FISA*” by Barack Obama.

(*Actually, the essay was untitled, so I tried to give it a title that fit)

Obama goes to Greenwaldian lengths to explain one of this week’s many betrayals of the left. Since I know no one will follow the link, I’m going to provide a lengthy excerpt so that you may best wallow in the equivocations and intellectual confusion:

This was not an easy call for me. I know that the FISA bill that passed the House is far from perfect. I wouldn't have drafted the legislation like this, and it does not resolve all of the concerns that we have about President Bush's abuse of executive power. It grants retroactive immunity to telecommunications companies that may have violated the law by cooperating with the Bush Administration's program of warrantless wiretapping. This potentially weakens the deterrent effect of the law and removes an important tool for the American people to demand accountability for past abuses. That's why I support striking Title II from the bill, and will work with Chris Dodd, Jeff Bingaman and others in an effort to remove this provision in the Senate.

But I also believe that the compromise bill is far better than the Protect America Act that I voted against last year. The exclusivity provision makes it clear to any President or telecommunications company that no law supersedes the authority of the FISA court. In a dangerous world, government must have the authority to collect the intelligence we need to protect the American people. But in a free society, that authority cannot be unlimited. As I've said many times, an independent monitor must watch the watchers to prevent abuses and to protect the civil liberties of the American people. This compromise law assures that the FISA court has that responsibility.

Know shamelessness!

3) From the Iowahawk, “A Clarification” by Barack Obama.

Channeling Obama, the Iowahawk delivers Senator Hope/Change’s hidden strategy behind his Iraq evolution:

Let me be crystal clear: if elected president, my first act will be to call for the immediate withdrawal of all American troops from Iraq. I have always been consistent and forthright in this position, and I want to reassure my supporters that my recent statement backtracking from it was just some bulls**t my staff came up with to tack to the center for the general election. To win this election, it will be critical to appeal to the dwindling but stubborn group of idiots who cling to fantasies of American "victory" in this tragic disaster. It's an unfortunate part of the complicated game of presidential politics, but let's face it: I can't stop this war if I'm not in the White House. However, you should know by now that whatever I may say from now until November, once elected I will immediately pull the rug from these gullible pro-war rubes.

Or will I? We have the terrorists on the run, and it would obviously be crazy for us to pull our troops from the region just as we are on the verge of victory. And it is equally obvious that everything I said in the previous paragraph was designed to placate the naive hipster moonbats I brilliantly exploited to destroy the Clintons. (You're welcome.) Now that the nomination is in the bag, I am finally free to stake out my genuine pro-victory Iraq position, and have a good laugh while the dKos morons screech like a bunch of apoplectic howler monkeys.

See what I mean? That previous paragraph should be a signal to all of you in the progressive community just how committed I am to an immediate troop withdrawal.

I urge you to read the Iowahawk’s entire essay right after reading the thing Obama wrote about his FISA reversal. If you’re of a certain age, you’ll be asking yourself, “Which one is live and which one Memorex?”

4) From the New York Post, “Price of Freedom” by Ralph Peters.

An outstanding and moving essay.

“Without men willing to take up arms and fight for the freedoms the Founding Fathers asserted, the words themselves would have secured us nothing… Unless etched in the blood of patriots, noble words evaporate. Yet, for all too many Americans today, words have becomea substitute for sacrifice. We vow that our fallen heroes shall not be forgotten. Then we forget them.”

In my brief five day career of doing the Required Reading, I’ve never said “read the whole thing.” But I’m saying it now – read the whole thing.

5) From Army.Mil News, “1215 Service Members Re-Up in Iraq” by Marine Cpl. Frances L. Goch (HT: HotAir.com)

A perfect complement to Peters’ column, and a perfect place to direct our thoughts on this 4th of July. David Petraeus said of the re-enlistees, “You and your comrades here have been described as America’s new greatest generation, and, in my view, you have more than earned that description. It is the greatest of honors to soldier here with you.”

The video below is a little over one minute long. On this day especially, please watch it – you’ll be glad you did.

If you're looking for some Independence Day-related writings, please see William Kristol's latest column on Thomas Jefferson’s letter to Roger Weightman of June 24, 1826.

With regret, the 83-year-old Jefferson wrote that his ill health compelled him to decline the invitation to travel to Washington for the celebration of the 50th anniversary of American independence. But then, perhaps knowing this would be his final word, Jefferson sets forth in stirring prose his faith in the universal significance of the Declaration of Independence:

“May it be to the world, what I believe it will be, (to some parts sooner, to others later, but finally to all,) the signal of arousing men to burst the chains, under which monkish ignorance and superstition had persuaded them to bind themselves, and to assume the blessings & security of self-government.”

Andrew Ferguson's essay in First Things "Lincoln and the Will of God" is also well worth your time this Fourth of July:

The question of why Providence should have willed such a calamity is foreshadowed in one final fragment to consider, written (most likely) in the early days of the war. In it Lincoln plays with the figure from Proverbs 25:11: "A word fitly spoken is like apples of gold in a setting of silver."

To Lincoln, the image illuminates the distinction between the picture and the frame, between a thing contained and that which contains it. In his reading, the Union is the frame that contains the golden principle: the proposition of liberty and equality—that all men are created equal—advanced by the Declaration of Independence. "The assertion of that principle, at that time [of the Revolution], was the word, 'fitly spoken' which has proved an 'apple of gold' to us. The Union, and the Constitution, are the picture of silver, subsequently framed around it. The picture was made, not to conceal, or destroy the apple; but to adorn, and preserve it. The picture was made for the apple—not the apple for the picture."

Read together, the fragments show Lincoln's mind as it matures toward his two greatest utterances, the fullest expressions of his most fundamental ideas. These are, of course, the Gettysburg Address and the Second Inaugural. They are not merely works of statecraft but homilies in a civil religion of his own devising, steeped in the cadences and rhetoric of the King James Bible. They were the consequence of Lincoln's deepest contemplation and belief, arrived at with some care and (we may suppose) discomfort. At Gettysburg, Lincoln explained why the country—the Union—was worth preserving. It was not any Union that was being ­preserved, it was a particular kind of Union: a Union dedicated to a timeless proposition that existed before the Union was even conceived.

Barack Obama recently told a Christian magazine he opposes late-term abortions performed because of mental health problems of the mother. "I don't think that 'mental distress' qualifies as the health of the mother. I think it has to be a serious physical issue that arises in pregnancy, where there are real, significant problems to the mother carrying that child to term," Obama said.

But the Supreme Court's ruling in Roe v. Wade's concurrent case, Doe v. Bolton, held that "medical judgment may be exercised in the light of all factors--physical, emotional, psychological, familial, and the woman's age -- relevant to the wellbeing of the patient. All these factors may relate to health."

Doe v. Bolton is the reason that abortion remains legal throughout all 9 months of pregnancy for essentially any reason.

Unless Obama intends to appoint Supreme Court justices who will overturn that decision, his opposition to late-term abortions performed for mental health reasons is meaningless.

If you were confused by Obama's remarks on Iraq yesterday, Iowahawk has a clarification from the Illinois senator:

Let me be crystal clear: if elected president, my first act will be to call for the immediate withdrawal of all American troops from Iraq. I have always been consistent and forthright in this position, and I want to reassure my supporters that my recent statement backtracking from it was just some bullshit my staff came up with to tack to the center for the general election. To win this election, it will be critical to appeal to the dwindling but stubborn group of idiots who cling to fantasies of American "victory" in this tragic disaster. It's an unfortunate part of the complicated game of presidential politics, but let's face it: I can't stop this war if I'm not in the White House. However, you should know by now that whatever I may say from now until November, once elected I will immediately pull the rug from these gullible pro-war rubes.

Or will I? As is obvious to all but the most deluded HuffPo retard, the surge in Iraq has produced dramatic improvements in security throughout Iraq, and the roots of a stable pro-American democracy. We have the terrorists on the run, and it would obviously be crazy for us to pull our troops from the region just as we are on the verge of victory. And it is equally obvious that everything I said in the previous paragraph was designed to placate the naive hipster moonbats I brilliantly exploited to destroy the Clintons. (You're welcome.) Now that the nomination is in the bag, I am finally free to stake out my genuine pro-victory Iraq position, and have a good laugh while the dKos morons screech like a bunch of apoplectic howler monkeys. Let's face it: at the rate I'm heading right on national security, I'll be raining nukes on Tehran by February.

Read the whole parody here.

In light of Sen. Jesse Helms's passing early this morning, we've posted on the homepage Fred Barnes's 1997 profile of the senator.

Republicans didn't steal patriotism. Some Democrats just started believing that loving one's country meant trashing it. Being proud of the United States is certainly not a prerequisite in their mind. To the contrary, it is downright unpatriotic to love one's country unconditionally. The definition they most often cite is the Marxist Paul Robeson's: "The patriot is the person who is never satisfied with his country."

Anyone who walks across a college campus will see evidence of this somewhat Orwellian thought-process on a popular t-shirt that reads, "Dissent is patriotic." (Of course dissent should be tolerated, and sometimes it is admirable--but is it necessarily patriotic?) This sentiment was also very much reflected in Obama's decision to stop wearing the American flag lapel pin. Recall what he said:

"You know, the truth is that right after 9/11, I had a pin," Obama said. "Shortly after 9/11, particularly because as we're talking about the Iraq War, that became a substitute for I think true patriotism, which is speaking out on issues that are of importance to our national security, I decided I won't wear that pin on my chest."

Of course, what Obama really meant when he said "speaking out on issues" is opposing the administration.

An oddly interesting collection of links for the day prior to a long weekend:

1) From the New York Times, “Obama Might ‘Refine’ Iraq Timeline” by Jeff Zeleny. (Scare quotes in original.)

When I was on a panel at Blog World in Vegas last fall, the prevailing sentiment among the prominent lefty bloggers was that if a Democratic president didn’t get us completely out of Iraq within a year of taking office, they would crash the gates once more, this time with feeling. One of the progressives felt so strongly about this point, she even quoted Country Joe and the Fish to amplify her passion on the subject. (John Hinderaker of Powerline, much to his credit, made fun of the Country Joe and the Fish reference within seconds of it being uttered.)

I can only imagine the anguish this blogger feels about Barack Obama’s latest ‘evolution’ on the situation in Iraq: (Scare quotes my own.)

FARGO, N.D. – Senator Barack Obama said Thursday the United States cannot sustain a long-term military presence in Iraq, but added that he would be open to “refine my policies” about a timeline for withdrawing troops after meeting with American military commanders during a trip to Iraq later this month…

“I’ve always said that the pace of withdrawal would be dictated by the safety and security of our troops and the need to maintain stability. That assessment has not changed… My guiding approach continues to be that we’ve got to make sure that our troops are safe and that Iraq is stable.”

Iraq can be “stable?” How is this possible, what with the surge having failed and the war having been lost years ago? As always with Obama, this latest evolution raises one question: Were his original and oft-repeated comments regarding Iraq reflective of his ignorance of the events on the ground or was he being mendacious in order to better woo gullible Democratic primary voters?

I usually opt for the ignorance option, but this time that’s a hard case to make. After all, the surge’s success made all the papers, even the New York Times.

2) From Daily Kos, “CT-Sen: Still Buyer's Remorse” by Markos Moulitsas.

Kos commissioned a Research 2000 poll and found out that Ned Lamont would swamp Joe Lieberman if they held a rematch today. Which reminds me – I commissioned a Rand Group study that concluded if Super Bowl XLII were replayed today, the Patriots would beat the Giants, 38-2. In recognition of my study, the Patriots will be having a parade through Copley Square over the weekend where they’ll receive their Super Bowl rings.

On a more serious note, I understand that critical introspection isn’t exactly the Netroots’ bag. But shouldn’t they be asking themselves, “How did our guy manage to lose to someone so out of step with his state on the critical issue of the day?” Lamont isn’t exactly a polarizing guy (although the argument over whether he was a lightweight or an empty suit did in fact polarize some voters). And yet at the Netroots’ begging, he became associated with a starkly polarizing campaign that probably cost him the victory.

The bad news? The Netroots are learning and are a lot more politically savvy than they were back in the good old days when they were putting Joe Lieberman in blackface.

3) From Investor’s Business Daily, “The Down Beat Goes on in the Media” by the editors.

Buried deep within this editorial is a critical poll finding: “More Americans — 57% — think we're winning in Iraq vs. 51% when we last asked the question in November. One of the biggest changes was among Democrats, 45% of whom now think we're winning vs. 34% last fall.”

Obviously Barack Obama knows which way the wind is blowing and is adjusting his positions accordingly. Whether Country Joe and the Fish will do the same remains to be seen.

4) From the Wall Street Journal, “The Politics of Can’t-Possibly-Do” by Daniel Henninger.

One of America’s best op-ed columnist not named Krauthammer points out that nearly seven years after 9/11, Ground Zero remains a hole in the ground. How did this happen (or not happen)? “The answer lies with a people who have to choose between politics that moves its system forward or a politics that just wants to have fun.”

As much as I respect Henninger, I think his conclusion sails wide of the mark. Regardless of how ennobling a society’s politics are, there are some things that governments just don’t do well. If the various governmental “stakeholders” of the Ground Zero project had outsourced it to Larry Silverstein or some other capable private sector developer, it would be done by now. Governments don’t excel in complicated projects with a varied tangle of “stakeholders,” some of whom have competing interests. They never have. For more on this phenomenon, please see “Canadian Health Care System.”

5) From the Washington Times, “Down on the Pharms” by Henry Miller.

I would have included this story just for its great title, but Miller points out several things that will come as news to our pharmaceutical-demonizing presidential candidates. To wit:

In 1999, the National Institutes of Health thoroughly investigated whether its research funding commonly leads to the development of pharmaceuticals, the profits from which taxpayers might be entitled to share…

Among the 35 drugs and drug classes, which encompass every major group and individual medicine, private-sector research was responsible for "central advances in basic science for seven, in applied science for 34, and in the development of drugs yielding improved clinical performance or manufacturing processes for 28."

Who would have thunk it? Free markets work!

Sen. Chuck Hagel recently said he wasn't ready to endorse John McCain. That makes him the Republican Joe Lieberman, except in one respect. There has been no hysterical outcry from his party. Republicans haven't declared Hagel a traitor or a Judas. (Admittedly, that might change if he and Obama were to kiss.) They haven't treated him like Stalin did Trostky, which is to say, marginally better than Democrats have acted toward Joe Lieberman.

That the Obama campaign has taken deliberate aim at Lieberman, ludicrously suggesting Lieberman is somehow complicit in rumors that Obama is Muslim, reveals the outright vitriol with which the left greets any dissent in its own ranks. For the record, I have not received a single communiqué from the RNC or McCain campaign trashing Hagel. That's because none have been sent. Despite all the blame heaped on President Bush for making Washington, D.C. so highly polarized, Hagel/Lieberman underscores the place the left now occupies in this culture.

In Fargo, N.D., Barack Obama was asked if he's considering changing his policy on Iraq. He said:

my position has not changed but keep in mind what that original position was. I have always said that I will listen to commanders on the ground;

I’ve always said that the pace of withdrawal would be dictated by the safety and security of our troops and the need to maintain stability.

That assessment has not changed and when I go to Iraq and I have a chance to talk to some of the commanders on the ground, I’m sure Ill have more information and will continue to refine my policies.

Major Garrett reports that Obama "was then asked if this meant he was open to a timeline for troop withdrawals that might take longer than 16 months."

Obama answered:

I mean we can chase this around you know for a long time.

What I’ve said repeatedly is that my goal is to end this conflict in a responsible way as quickly as possible. My 16-month timeline, if you examine everything I’ve said, was always premised on making sure that our troops were safe. I said based on what the information we had received from our commanders that 1-2 brigades per month could be pulled out safely from a logistical perspective. And my guiding approach continues to be that we’ve got to make sure that our troops are safe, and that Iraq is stable. And I’m going to continue to gather information to find out whether those conditions still hold and you know my job is to make sure that the strategic issues that we face, not just in Iraq but in Afghanistan in Iraq, and Pakistan that those are all taken into account and dealt with in a way that enhances Americas national security interest over the long term.

Perhaps the McCain campaign should schedule a meeting between the two:

“I’ve never even met the man, never spoken to him,” Limbaugh said. “I’m sure there are things about him I’d like if we meet. This isn’t personal.” He then delivered a litany of the presumptive nominee’s personal failings — too old, too intense, too opportunistic, too liberal. But, he assured me, he would be with McCain in the fall. “It’s like the Super Bowl,” he told me. “If your team isn’t in it, you root for the team you hate less. That’s McCain.”

Obama's new ad claims: "He worked his way through college and Harvard Law," but FactCheck.org reports that's a "real stretch"

The only back-up the campaign provided for this claim was a quote from Obama's book "Dreams from My Father" having to do with a construction job he had one summer while he was in college, and an article mentioning his job as a summer associate one year at a big Chicago law firm. We asked campaign spokesman Tommy Vietor if Obama held jobs during the school year, or other summer jobs, but he said only, "He had the two jobs I told you about." Unless Obama had a good bit more employment than his spokesman was able to describe for us, it's a real stretch to claim he "worked his way" through school.

Hat Tip: Jim Geraghty

Charges of flip-flopping do play a big role--perhaps too much--in the rapid response operations of both campaigns. There are obviously a lot of reasons a candidate might alter his position that have nothing to do with political opportunism. After 9/11, for example, President Bush's foreign policy changed in a dramatic way. I don't think anyone--save perhaps Ron Paul--implored President Bush on 9/12 to stick with the neo-isolationist talking points of his campaign. Flip-flopping is very relevant, however, when it demonstrates a candidate either doesn't know what he believes or is willing to set aside any conviction for political advancement.

In Obama's case, I'm not sure which is true, but it is patently obvious from the speed and frequency with which his flip-flops seem to come that principle is not playing any role. Just consider his evolution in a single month: Obama opposed welfare reform, and now he supports it. Obama supported the D.C. handgun ban, and now he believes it was unconstitutional. Obama said he would accept public financing, and now he won't. Obama opposed immunity for telecommunications companies involved in terrorist surveillance, and now he supports it. Obama opposed the death penalty in all cases, and now believes it is justified in certain extreme instances. Obama supported immediate withdrawal from Iraq, and now he'll listen to the commanders on the ground if they tell him to phase out the troops slowly.

Nothing has fundamentally changed with any of these issues. The only thing that has changed is that Obama became the presumptive nominee. Andrew Sullivan says, "Sometimes a flip-flop is a sign of real maturity in a politician responding to new events or facts." That's only true however, when a candidate acknowledges and explains why he's changing. Principle plays no role when the pol instead self-righteously asserts that there has been no change at all, and it also doesn't play a role when a candidate claims that everyone simply misunderstood his previous position--as with the meaning of "negotiate with Iran without precondition"--even when the so-called misperception was widely reported and the candidate did nothing to correct it for many months.

Aside from charging the other side with flip-flopping, one other job typically assigned to a campaign's war-room is correcting media reports that mischaracterize their candidate's position. That Obama's staff was apparently sitting on its hands shows Obama either meant what he said or wanted people to believe that he did.

I guess this means the campaign fired the poor staffer whose job was to etch everything Obama said into stone:

Sen. Claire McCaskill says Sen. Barack Obama’s commitment to withdraw troops from Iraq has not changed — although the timetable might be adjusted “based on circumstances” in that country. “Barack Obama has never said this is written in stone,” the Missouri Democrat told reporters in Kansas City on Wednesday. “He’s always said ‘I will obviously’ take into account what commanders on the ground say.”

In Colorado Springs on Wednesday, Barack Obama issued a call to national service. He lamented that after 9/11 "We were ready to step into the strong current of history, and to answer a new call for our country. But the call never came."

"We need to ease the burden on our troops, while meeting the challenges of the 21st century. That’s why I will call on a new generation of Americans to join our military, and complete the effort to increase our ground forces by 65,000 soldiers and 27,000 Marines," said Obama.

In May, Obama delivered the commencement address at Wesleyan University on the theme of public service, but, as William Kristol wrote in the New York Times:

he goes on to detail — at some length — the “so many ways to serve” that are available “at this defining moment in our history.” There’s the Peace Corps, there’s renewable energy, there’s education, there’s poverty — there are all kinds of causes you can take up “should you take the path of service.”

But there’s one obvious path of service Obama doesn’t recommend — or even mention: military service. He does mention war twice: “At a time of war, we need you to work for peace.” And, we face “big challenges like war and recession.” But there’s nothing about serving your country in uniform.

In response to Obama's remarks in Colorado Springs, McCain spokesman Brian Rogers said: "It was refreshing to hear Barack Obama laud military service in his speech today. We hope this will be the tone we hear from him, his campaign and his surrogates from now on."

Clearly Rogers's statement was aimed at Wesley Clark, but it also highlights Obama's hypocrisy for blaming Bush for allegedly failing to call on Americans to serve their country, when Obama himself recently neglected to mention the military as one of the "so many ways to serve".

I have to tell you, the pickings on the internets were slim today. Normally I have twenty open windows from which to choose the Required Reading list. Today, I had three. As you may have inferred, that means some of what follows isn’t exactly pressing business.

1) From the blog “Just One Minute,” We Interrupt This Orgy of Self-Congratulation...” by Tom Maguire.

If you’re not reading Maguire every day, you should be. Here, he deconstructs a research paper that concludes that more lefties read conservative blogs than righties read liberal blogs. The study begs an obvious conclusion, and one much celebrated in the liberal blogosphere – liberals are better people than conservatives. Sadly, Maguire shows that the study’s reasoning is flawed in a number of areas.

But cheer up, lefties – just because the study stinks doesn’t mean you’re still not better people than conservatives! After all, who’s more likely to care about keeping the ANWR pristine, regardless of what such environmental zeal does to Americans on the economic margins?

2) From the Wall Street Journal, “Bush’s Third Term” by the editors.

The Journal comments, “Most Presidential candidates adapt their message after they win their party nomination, but Mr. Obama isn't merely ‘running to the center.’ He's fleeing from many of his primary positions so markedly and so rapidly that he's embracing a sizable chunk of President Bush's policy. Who would have thought that a Democrat would rehabilitate the much-maligned Bush agenda?”

Lest everyone get too carried away with this meme, let me be the first to point out that contrary to rumors now swirling about the blogosphere, Obama remains very much in favor of Hope and Change.

3) From the Boston Globe, “Grim Proving Ground for Obama’s Housing Policy” by Binyamin Applebaum. (Yes, I know the story is almost a week old - have I mentioned how we had slim pickings today?)

Read how Senator Hope/Change, back in his community organizing/state legislating prime, brought even more blight to an already blighted neighborhood while his friends profited! Serious academic exercise for anyone needing to test their mind this weekend: When is the last time there has been a presidential finalist with so few tangible accomplishments in his adult life? (I guess Obama does have two bestsellers on Warren Harding.)

4) From the Pew Poll, “As Gas Prices Pinch, Support for Energy Exploration Rises” by some guy who works for the Pew Poll.

Or as I like to think of it, the ‘Death to the Caribou Movement’ gains momentum. 50% of people now favor drilling in the pristine paradise/national treasure that is the ANWR. That’s up from 42% in February. You know, a smart politician running for national office might spy an opportunity there.

5) From the Wall Street Journal, “Daily Diversion: ‘Pineapple Express’ Makes Huey Lewis Cool Again” by Michelle Kung.

This piece represents the kind of laziness that gives all of journalism a black eye. I was in the prime of my teenage years in the early/mid 1980’s when Huey Lewis frequented the top of the charts. I not only had a Member’s Only jacket, I even saw Huey Lewis in concert.

If a dork like me was part of Huey’s core audience, you can be sure of the following – he was never cool. Thus he can’t be cool again. (He is however a fine golfer and an extremely nice guy.)

Minutes after President Ronald Reagan was sworn in on January 20, 1981, Iran released the 52 U.S. diplomats it had been holding hostage for more than a year. Hours after John McCain arrived in Colombia today, U.S. hostages held by FARC are freed. McCain may work in hours as opposed to minutes, but the parallels are clear.

Via James Taranto, the folks in Findlay, Ohio, are none too happy with the Washington Post story on the false anti-Obama rumors allegedly infesting their fair city:

The Washington Post did a hit job on Findlay in its Monday edition. The story, "In Flag City USA, False Obama Rumors Are Flying," holds up this city and in particular, a few older residents of College Street, as prototypes of the sort of ultra-conservative, racist ignorance that Sen. Barack Obama is sadly forced to battle in his quest for the White House.The Post article by Eli Saslow shows the local people he interviewed as white, working-class, flag-waving patriotic, xenophobic — and utterly opposed to change.

With any luck, the Post will alienate voters in every swing state by November.

Lindsey Graham takes aim at the Republican nominee:

Graham and Joe Lieberman are traveling with McCain on his two-country tour of Latin America, but this morning were shunted to the press boat (think of kids and the small table at Thanksgiving) for a tour by the entourage of the Port of Cartagena. McCain was in another vessel -- a faster, drug-interdiction speedboat called the Midnight Express (which for the moment could have been called the Straight Talk at Midnight Express).

The press boat chugged alongside McCain's boat for about 10 minutes as the presidential candidate and his wife, Cindy McCain, were briefed by port officials. Then both boats cruised out to open water, where they separated a bit. Graham, hopefully out of earshot of the Secret Service detail, pointed across the waves to McCain's craft and said, "Sink that boat!"

He then added: "I could get the nomination if you sink that boat."

Harry Reid has topped the YouTube charts with this little ditty: "the one thing we fail to talk about is those costs that you don't see on the bottom line. That is coal makes us sick, oil makes us sick; it's global warming. It's ruining our country, it’s ruining our world. We’ve got to stop using fossil fuel.”

A Rasmussen poll released today asks: "Does relying on coal for energy make us sick?"

Only 22 percent of Americans say yes, while 52 percent say no. When the same question is posed about oil rather than coal, the results are similar: 31 percent agree with Reid, but 50 percent do not believe that relying on oil for energy makes us sick.

Rasmussen also finds:

Thirty-nine percent (39%) of Democrats favor quitting fossil fuels, but 38% disagree. By contrast, Republicans reject that idea 67% to 18%. For unaffiliated voters, 50% are pro-fossil fuels, with 33% against.

In other energy news, a Pew poll finds that a majority of Americans now want to drill in ANWR:

The latest nationwide survey by the Pew Research Center for the People & the Press, conducted June 18-29 among 2,004 adults, also finds that half of Americans now support drilling in Alaska's Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, up from 42% in February.

Hat Tip: John J. Miller

From alien killer to alien worshiper, Will Smith is starting a new school to bring the teachings of L. Ron Hubbard to impressionistic young people. I'm sure parents will be eager to send their kids, because Smith is such a great judge of character and has said yes to aliens. As long as children are studying Battlefield Earth and not the Bible, no one in Hollywood should get too upset.

Yesterday, I had the audacity to suggest that the lack of any terror attacks on American soil since 9/11 represented an accomplishment for the Bush administration. Frankly, I thought this was a rather banal assertion. Nevertheless, many Bush haters took issue with the contention – much to my surprise.

First of all, mea culpa. Make that mea maxima culpa. The way I worded things allowed for a surfeit of blogger mirth. Some overly clever types eagerly pointed out that since the Clinton administration saw several years of no terror attacks on American soil after the 1993 attempt to take the World Trade Center down, then it too had to qualify as a success.

Once again, I apologize for providing careless wording that would inevitably serve as catnip for Bush critics. Yet I assume the critics’ playfulness wasn’t really meant to serve as a serious argument that the Clinton administration had effective anti-terror policies. Yes, it’s true enough that after the ’93 attack there were no more Jihadist incidents on American soil for over seven years. But there was the attack on the Cole, the embassy bombings and a general growing of the Jihadist menace that went unchecked and culminated on 9/11.

For what it’s worth, I’ve never been one who thought the Bush administration deserves a pass for 9/11. Several administrations’ neglect made 9/11 possible, and the second Bush administration was part of the malfeasance. This administration came to office with a Secretary of Defense who talked about two things – transformation and asymmetrical threats. So there was at least one high ranking guy who perceived the danger.

And yet the administration did nothing of substance until the towers fell. One can chalk this failing up to Washington inertia or the possibility that America never would have tolerated traveling without its precious box cutters until something dramatic had happened. Still, the fact remains the Bush administration did little (or more likely nothing) to address the dangerous dynamic that had developed under his predecessors until 9/11 shook the entire body politic out of its torpor.

Back to the preset day - the issue of whether or not the administration deserves any credit for the subsequent lack of terror attacks reveals a fundamental philosophical divide in our current politics. Fareed Zakaria’s article in Newsweek today is in its own strange and confused way enlightening on that matter:

“It is by now overwhelmingly clear that Al Qaeda and its philosophy are not the worldwide leviathan that they were once portrayed to be. Both have been losing support over the last seven years. The terrorist organization's ability to plan large-scale operations has crumbled, their funding streams are smaller and more closely tracked.”

Later in his article, Zakaria generously allows that the administration deserves “some credit for its counterterrorism activities.” Still, the wording that I quoted above is interesting. Note how Zakaria mentions that Al Qaeda’s abilities “have crumbled.” It’s as if he’s suggesting that the “crumbling” was the result of nature or perhaps old age. The notion that American policies had something to do with the “crumbling” is strangely absent from his brief history on the battle with Al Qaeda.

There are dire implications to this way of thinking. There’s a revisionist school of thought that posits that the best way to treat the war on terrorism is as a law enforcement matter. Barack Obama saluted this approach a couple of weeks ago, citing the 1993 World Trade Center bombing and its aftermath as a template for how to deal with terrorism. This is a remarkable position. Assume for a minute that the 1993 attack had succeeded, and that one tower had toppled into the other killing 50,000 people. Would the presence of a few Jihadists in jail cells really qualify the whole incident as a success?

Let’s get back to Zakaria. In his piece, he states, “The neoconservative Weekly Standard finally recognizes that ‘the enemy,’ as it likes to say ominously, is much weaker now, but quickly notes that Bush deserves all the credit.” Personally, I don’t recall anyone in these pages insisting that “Bush deserves all the credit.” It’s a tad surprising that a careful writer like Zakaria either failed to provide a quote to support such a bold assertion or indulged in some distorting hyperbole.

Speaking just for myself, I think the administration’s policy of treating Jihadist terror as a matter of war rather than a matter for the constable has contributed to our safety. Al Qaeda has not spontaneously “crumbled.” It has been gravely harmed by effective administration policies.

I realize those are debatable assertions, and I mean debatable in its most literal sense. This entire matter is one that should be debated and argued over. We haven’t had a terrorist attack on American soil since 9/11. The public’s concern about terror attacks is at its lowest point since 9/11. These are not developments that anyone foresaw in 9/11’s immediate aftermath. Not even Fareed Zakaria.

How we got to this point is an important matter. The question of “Why have we been safe?” is worthy of serious debate and discussion. To give Zakaria his due, in his piece today he stakes out certain intellectual positions in this conversation. They may be intellectual positions that I find ahistorical and politically convenient, but at least he makes an argument and concedes the undeniable point that “the administration deserves some credit.”

The following may be a rather banal assertion, but then again I'm the guy who thought saying the Bush administration deserves some credit for the lack of terror attacks on American soil since 9/11 was banal: The next administration ought to take a look at the things the Bush administration has done right. The next administration will want to emulate them. In other words, it will be a very bad thing if the next administration and its intellectual supporters start with the intellectual fantasy that the Bush administration has done literally everything completely wrong,

A key issue in the eight years of Bush’s faith-based initiative has concerned the authority of religious entities as employers: May they take religion into account when hiring people to do the work that government funds? On numerous occasions Bush has asked Congress to pass legislation confirming such authority--on the argument that otherwise the character and mission of faith-based organizations would be compromised. With Congress refusing to do that, Bush has used executive orders to try to secure that authority. In announcing his faith-based initiative yesterday, Obama made clear that he sides with Congress. Which is to say that under Obama religious charities would not be allowed to consider religion when making their hires. In other words, a Methodist charity could not hire only Methodists or otherwise make Methodism a ground for an employment decision.

Obama’s position on this matter is likely to weaken his effort to appeal to religious conservatives. Especially since he also supports the Employment Non-Discrimination Act (known as ENDA), which would make sexual orientation a forbidden basis for employment decisions--including, necessarily, those made by religious charities taking federal dollars.

For comment on Obama’s position, the New York Times went to Richard Cizik, vice president for governmental affairs for the National Association of Evangelicals: “For those of us who believe in protecting the integrity of our religious institutions, this is a fundamental right. He’s rolling back the Bush protections. That’s extremely disappointing.”

Of course, those who believe in protecting the integrity of our religious institutions might decide never to apply for a government grant under any circumstances. Which is to say regardless of what federal employment law says.

The AP dares to ask: which candidate would you rather grill burgers with?

People would rather barbecue burgers with Barack Obama than with John McCain.

While many are still deciding who should be president, by 52 percent to 45 percent they would prefer having Obama than McCain to their summer cookout, according to an Associated Press-Yahoo News poll released Wednesday.

Men are about evenly divided between the two while women prefer Obama by 11 percentage points. Whites prefer McCain, minorities Obama. And Obama is a more popular guest with younger voters while McCain does best with the oldest.

Via Powerline, Wesley Clark was busted in a CNN interview yesterday afternoon:

ROBERTS: But when it comes to that same type of qualification, you were very robustly behind John Kerry's military experience...

CLARK: Absolutely.

ROBERTS: ... in your speech at the Democratic National Convention in 2004, where you talked about his experience of being there under mortar fire.

CLARK: Right.

ROBERTS: And let's listen to the way that you summed that up.

CLARK: Right.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

CLARK: John Kerry's combination of physical courage and moral values is my definition of what we need as Americans in our commander in chief.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

ROBERTS: So, you said it's what we need in a commander in chief. And I'm wondering how different was John McCain's experience from John Kerry's?

CLARK: Well, a lot, because John McCain basically served honorably and well in uniform. He did everything the country could have asked.

What John Kerry did is John Kerry got out of the uniform. He took a judgment, a judgment I didn't agree with at the time, but he had the moral courage to stand up for himself and oppose the conflict in Vietnam.

ROBERTS: But where was the executive experience that you talked about?

CLARK: The executive experience wasn't the issue there, because John Kerry wasn't claiming that he had some special executive experience on national security against George Bush.

John Hinderaker writes: "So Kerry's military experience was better than McCain's because after serving for four months in Vietnam, he returned to the U.S. and falsely accused his fellow servicemen of being war criminals."

Clark's reference to Kerry's "physical courage" clearly shows that Clark was arguing that Kerry's service in Vietnam counted as a qualification to be president.

Watch it here (about 4 minutes in):

A couple people inquired about this piece I posted yesterday, forecasting potential electoral outcomes in U.S. House races this fall. I reported on a recent analysis by Jim Ellis of PRIsm Information Network. Ellis notes that only 18 House races fall into the “up for grabs” category that could go either way this November (he categorizes the remaining 415 districts as either “safe, likely, or lean” toward one party or the other). Some readers wanted to know the partisan and incumbency breakdown (whether the incumbent is running for reelection or if it is an open seat) of those 18 seats.

The 18 toss-up districts break right down the middle in terms of party control--9 Republicans and 9 Democrats. That’s the good news for Republicans. But the incumbent/open seat mix tilts heavily in favor of Democrats. I reorganized Ellis’s district list below, breaking it down by party and incumbency. Political parties always have a better shot at holding a district where an incumbent is running, compared to an open seat where the incumbent is retiring. Some research suggests that incumbents begin with about a 10-point advantage, all other things equal. As Fred Barnes noted this week, the Republicans’ dim prospects of retaking the House in 2008 contributed to many of these retirement decisions, which in turn leads to the self-fulfilling prophesy of an ongoing Democrat majority.

Here is the GOP's challenge:

Democrat Open Seats:
AL-5 (Rep. Cramer retiring)

Republican Open Seats:
AZ-1 (Rep. Renzi retiring)
NJ-3 (Rep. Saxton retiring)
NJ-7 (Rep. Ferguson retiring)
NM-1 (Rep. Wilson retiring)
OH-15 (Rep. Pryce retiring)
OH-16 (Rep. Regula retiring)

Democrat Incumbent Running:
AZ-5 (Rep. Mitchell)
FL-16 (Rep. Mahoney)
KS-2 (Rep. Boyda)
NH-1 (Rep. Shea-Porter)
PA-10 (Rep. Carney)
PA-11 (Rep. Kanjorski)
TX-22 (Rep. Lampson)
WI-8 (Rep. Kagan)

Republican Incumbent Running
AK-AL (Rep.Young)
NC-8 (Rep. Hayes)
NV-3 (Rep. Porter)

Some very disturbing plans:

In an interview with the Financial Times, Anthony Lake, a former US national security adviser who has worked with Mr Obama since the start of his campaign, also urged the US to learn lessons from its traumatic withdrawal from Vietnam regarding pulling out of Iraq. “The most dangerous crisis we are going to face potentially in the next three to 10 years is if the Iranians get on the edge of developing a nuclear weapon,” he said. “If I were the Europeans I would much rather put on the table more sanctions, together with bigger carrots, and have that negotiation than I would face that crisis down the road.”

Mr Obama and his advisers stress the Democratic candidate’s readiness to sit down with Iranian leaders without ­conditions. “Unless you assume that [Iranian negotiators] have IQs less than those of eggplants, they are not likely to make major concessions for the privilege of speaking with us. So the question is: what is your strategy for the talks?” Mr Lake said. “Do you believe that simply sanctioning them can drive them into concessions before you talk, or do you believe that you need to have the sanctions there as a stick at the heart of negotiations?”

So we learn Obama is once again in favor of meeting with Iran without preconditions and that one of his top advisers doesn't think Iran is on the verge of obtaining nuclear weapons. We also learn that Lake doesn't seem to know that diplomats have been promising Iran more and more carrots over the last five years just to negotiate. There has only been one precondition: Iran had to suspend its uranium enrichment for the duration of talks. Can the Obama campaign cite some critical carrot, unknown to the world, that would persuade Iran to negotiate? Can it explain what effect sanctions could possibly have at this point given how little time they have to work?

Lefty blogger Glenn Greenwald does a nice job documenting Barack Obama's serial betrayals of the last two weeks:

The choices Obama makes about how he campaigns and the positions he takes are extremely consequential in how political issues in this country are perceived. In the last two weeks alone, Obama has done the following:

*intervened in a Democratic Congressional primary to support one of the worst Bush-enabling Blue Dogs over a credible, progressive challenger;

* announced his support for Bush's FISA bill, reversing himself completely on this issue;

* sided with the Scalia/Thomas faction in two highly charged Supreme Court decisions;

* repudiated Wesley Clark and embraced the patently false media narrative that Clark had "dishonored McCain's service" (and for the best commentary I've seen, by far, on the Clark matter, see this appropriately indignant piece by Iraq veteran Brandon Friedman);

* condemned MoveOn.org for its newspaper advertisement criticizing Gen. Petraeus;

* defended his own patriotism by impugning the patriotism of others, specifically those in what he described as the "the so-called counter-culture of the Sixties" for "attacking the symbols, and in extreme cases, the very idea, of America itself" and -- echoing Jeanne Kirkpatrick's 1984 RNC speech -- "blaming America for all that was wrong with the world";

* unveiled plans "to expand President Bush's program steering federal social service dollars to religious groups and -- in a move sure to cause controversy . . . letting religious charities that receive federal funding consider religion in employment decisions," a move that could "invite a storm of protest from those who view such faith requirements as discrimination" -- something not even the Bush faith programs allowed.

That's quite a two weeks.

Here's what I don't get: Obama spent the entire primary season showing a shocking breadth of ignorance on a staggering array of issues. As I've written many times, he has never come across as a man who has given policy matters much serious thought. It was a telling moment when he was photographed with Fareed Zakaria's latest book. While I thought the book was weak, even if one thought otherwise it still inarguably wasn't exactly groundbreaking in any scholarly or philosophical sense. It was the thinly footnoted ramblings of a Newsweek columnist. Little in it would have been new (except for the fact that America is defintiely in decline because we no longer have the world's biggest Ferris Wheel) to a wonk or a big-brained Harvard law grad who had been pondering significant matters for decades. The fact that Obama had possibly turned to it as a potential repository of deep thoughts was equal parts disturbing and laughable.

The point is this: Whatever positions Obama has espoused have not been the result of a hard-earned and rigorously arrived at political philosophy. As such, his positions will inevitably prove malleable as he goes through the process of familiarizing himself with policy debates. To put it another way, can you really flop if you never flipped in the first place?

Or try another formulation: Is Obama such an attractive figure and his hope/change shtick so alluring that we should just give him the presidency and let him figure out where he stands once he gets into office?

So Obama would create what he calls "a new President's Council for Faith-Based and Neighborhood Partnerships." Sounds a lot like Bush's White House Office of Faith-based and Community Initiatives. But Obama wants a fresh start. Announcing his plans today after a tour of a food bank in Zanesville, Ohio, Obama said that Bush's office "was used to promote partisan interests" and wound up failing to sufficiently empower smaller congregations and community groups. Obama implied that partisanship will not infect his council (make note of that promise now), and he announced a plan to have larger faith-based groups who know how to win government grants (Catholic Charities and Lutheran Services, he gives as examples) teach the smaller congregations and groups how to supplicate successfully (imagine the jobs program this could entail). Taking a shot at those (mainly found in his own party) "who bristle at the notion that faith has a place in the public square," Obama defended the idea of enlisting believers alongside nonbelievers in the effort to ameliorate stubborn social problems. That idea, as he acknowledged, has long has broad support in both parties (the details being where things get controversial--details that Obama largely passed over).

Obama's faith-based council may be seen as part of a strategy to cut into the Republican advantage with voters who attend church at least once a week. Yet the real story from Zanesville came at the end of Obama's remarks. (It's called "burying your lede" in journalism.) For it turns out that the new council "will help set our national agenda." Thus, faith and the values it commends will provide "the foundation of a new project of American renewal." Which, encompassing a new assault on "extreme poverty" at home and contemplating nothing less than an end to genocide and the scourge of HIV/AIDS abroad, is what Obama "[intends] to lead as President of the United States." Sounds like the country's being offered another faith-based presidency, one of considerable ambition. What was it that Obama said in churches in South Carolina, back in January? Oh yes: "I am confident that we can create a Kingdom [of God] right here on Earth."

I was a little disappointed with today’s quiz results. Mr. Starr will be returning next week and he will be informed.

From Commentary, “1948, Israel and the Palestinians” by Efraim Karsh. Facts are stubborn things. Too bad more people aren’t aware of them.

From Politico, “Who’s Smearing Whom” by James Kirchik. Know hypocrisy!

From Lileks.com, “The Movie 'Wall-E’ is Really, Really, Really, Really, Really Good” by James Lileks. Lileks is such a good writer, he threatens to send me into a self-defeating spiral of jealousy and self-loathing.

From USA Today, “Obama’s Real Patriotism Problem” by Jonah Goldberg. Does Obama love the potential of America more than the real thing? There is a difference, you know. Try telling your wife how much you’ll love her after she loses a few pounds and learns to dress as stylishly as the lonely housewife down the street. You’ll see what I mean.

From AmericaBlog, “Honestly, Besides Being Tortured, What Did McCain Do to Excel in the Military?” by John Aravosis. Sorry – this isn’t a parody. And Aravosis is part of the lefty blogosphere’s aristocracy. But at least he shows an unimpeachable expertise regarding military matters:

“It's not like McCain rose to the level of general or something.”

A tough point to rebut. Anyone who’s worth anything in the Navy makes general.

From Daily Kos, “Rewarding Good Behavior” by Markos Moulitsas. Kos is hitting Obama where it hurts – right in the old wallet. In response to Obama’s serial perfidies of the past week, Kos has decided to withhold his contemplated $2300 contribution to the Obama campaign. Politicians without core principles (other than Hope/Change) will throw anyone and everyone under the bus. Shocking that the left is having to relearn the lessons of the Clinton years so soon.

In celebration of Quebec's 400th anniversary, France created a special hybrid animal that reflects the dual French and North American heritage of the city:

"The Vachibou is a hybrid animal with a very short lifespan," quipped a spokesman for the French consulate. The peculiar mascot, designed for the quadricentennial and dubbed "Vachibou" -- combining the French word for cow with the name for local wild reindeer -- was unveiled by former French prime minister Jean-Pierre Raffarin in February. The chimeric hybrid, crafted by a young French graphic designer, was meant to invoke the dairy cattle of Normandy, where Quebec's first settlers originated, and the wild caribou that roam Quebec's tundra.

As descendants of the French, it goes without saying Quebec officials did not accept the gift gracefully. Rather, they "pointed out that the antlers atop the mascot belonged to a moose, not a caribou." The Vachibou has endured so much mockery that officials reveal it has apparently gone into hiding. No doubt it is looking at itself in a mirror, screeching, "I'm hideous! Why couldn't I have been born a liger?"

Bush-loathing scholar Andrew Bacevich has taken to the Boston Globe to pen a screed documenting the horrible misdeeds perpetrated by the administration. Bacevich even ordered his complaints in a tidy little list:

The administration's many failures, especially those related to Iraq, mask a considerable legacy. Among other things, the Bush team has accomplished the following:

• Defined the contemporary era as an "age of terror" with an open-ended "global war" as the necessary, indeed the only logical, response;

• Promulgated and implemented a doctrine of preventive war, thereby creating a far more permissive rationale for employing armed force;

• Affirmed - despite the catastrophe of Sept. 11, 2001 - that the primary role of the Department of Defense is not defense, but power projection;

• Removed constraints on military spending so that once more, as Ronald Reagan used to declare, "defense is not a budget item";

• Enhanced the prerogatives of the imperial presidency on all matters pertaining to national security, effectively eviscerating the system of checks and balances;

• Preserved and even expanded the national security state, despite the manifest shortcomings of institutions such as the CIA and the Joint Chiefs of Staff;

• Preempted any inclination to question the wisdom of the post-Cold War foreign policy consensus, founded on expectations of a sole superpower exercising "global leadership";

• Completed the shift of US strategic priorities away from Europe and toward the Greater Middle East, the defense of Israel having now supplanted the defense of Berlin as the cause to which presidents and would-be presidents ritually declare their fealty.

By almost any measure, this constitutes a record of substantial, if almost entirely malignant, achievement.

First of all, I don't concede all of Bacevich's points and consider some of them pretty darn obtuse. But just for the sake argument, let's say that I agree with his list in its entirety (which once again, I don't). Generally speaking, I’m the first to mention what is to me the inconvenient fact that the president and his minions have made oodles of errors. Okay, I’m not the first – with a lefty blogosphere constantly on outrage patrol, how could I be?

But even with the all the Bushie missteps, can we not acknowledge one accomplishment that is far from "entirely malignant?" Since 9/11, there has not been a terrorist attack on American soil. Surely Bacevich has noticed this. And surely he understands that it isn’t the kindness of the Jihadist soul that has made this happen.

Some on the left argue that the multiple Bush depredations to our civil liberties etc. haven’t been worth the increase in safety. At least this is an intellectually honest argument. I would even encourage the people making such an argument to bring it before the electorate in November. It wold be great if they quantify their thinking with some metrics, e.g., “I would be willing to allow x 9/11’s as a tradeoff for closing the Guantanamo Bay detention center."

Bacevich’s argument, oddly enough, is actually the fundamentally frivolous one. By failing to assess the accomplishments of the past eight years and what role the administration had in them, he beclowns himself. By failing to take into account a level of success regarding homeland security that no one foresaw some seven years ago, he implies that future administrations should ignore the Bush administration's legacy even in an area where it is undeniably strong.

Page Six reports that Taki recently traveled to Brussels to defend his World Judo Championship title:

Taki Theodoracopulos, the elitist co-founder of The American Conservative, won the US National Judo Championship last year in Miami in the 90-kilo weight class and 70-75 age group. So last week, the aristocratic former playboy went to Brussels to compete in the World Judo Championships, a five-day event featuring 1,600 contestants from 29 countries. After winning nine three-minute matches, but losing two fingernails and suffering a black eye, Taki took the title. "Now I quit. I'll never do it again," he told Page Six. "I'm very banged up." Nothing a little R&R on his yacht in St. Tropez won't cure.

I do take issue with the characterization of Taki as a "former playboy." I'm sure Taki is every bit the playboy of his youth.