NBC correspondant Andrea Mitchell held no punches in her criticism of the Obama campaign’s staged nature from an interview with Chris Mathews:

MITCHELL: Let me just say something about the message management. He didn’t have reporters with him, he didn’t have a press pool, he didn’t do a press conference while he was on the ground in either Afghanistan or Iraq. What you’re seeing is not reporters brought in. You’re seeing selected pictures taken by the military, questions by the military, and what some would call fake interviews, because they’re not interviews from a journalist. So, there’s a real press issue here. Politically it’s smart as can be. But we’ve not seen a presidential candidate do this, in my recollection, ever before.

Mitchell then adds more in response to Mathews’ query about the overall atmosphere:

MITCHELL: I can’t really say that. Being a reporter who was not present in any of those situations, I just cannot report on what was edited out, what was, you know, on the sidelines. That’s my issue. We don’t know what we are seeing

This has been a criticism of Obama for some time that he is not accessible to reporters. He rarely takes questions, if ever, and sticks to teleprompters. He’s scheduled to have a presser with Gordon Brown in England.

Its becoming clear that Obama knows he does not do standard Q & A settings well at all. He failed miserably on Fox with his interview with Major Garrett after the Reverend Wright story broke. Contrast this with John McCain who is having another town hall meeting now in New Hampshire.

Writing in the Weekly Standard, Peter Wehner, quotes a dozen Democrat leaders uld the surge be a faiually. Some have actuatlly attempted to misinterpret what’s actually happened. Whener points that the worst offenders of denial are Nancy Pelosi and Bill Richardson.

In February of this year, Speaker Nancy Pelosi was asked by CNN’s Wolf Blitzer about the success of the surge in Iraq. “Are you not worried, though, that all the gains that have been achieved over the past year might be lost?” Blitzer asked.

“There haven’t been gains, Wolf,” Pelosi replied. “The gains have not produced the desired effect, which is the reconciliation of Iraq. This is a failure. This is a failure.”

And as recently as last month, Governor Bill Richardson, when asked if he was ready to concede that John McCain had been right in proposing the surge because it seemed to be having a positive impact, answered, “Absolutely not.”

Wow. Thats rich. But at some point Democrats will have a price to pay for willfully attempting to mislead the country.

They embraced with religious zeal the belief that the Iraq war was lost; they therefore viewed the success of the surge as a terribly inconvenient development, one they sought to deny to the point that they looked silly and out of touch. Worse, Democrats acted as if they had a vested interest in an American defeat.

Rarely has a political party been so uniformly wrong, in such an obvious way, on such an important matter. And when Americans cast their vote on November 4, they should carefully consider how Barack Obama and the entire Democratic party fought ferociously and relentlessly to undermine a policy that has worked extraordinarily well and may yet prove to be among the most successful military plans in modern times.

H/T: Real Clear Politics

One of my favorite blogs is NRO’s The Tank. Writing yesterday, Gregory S. McNeal, a law professor and retired Army officer, pens a sharp and damning critique of Obama’s poor leadership qualities. McNeal makes the case that not only has Obama never actually led anything, but that when he’s had opportunities to provide leadership, he’s failed miserably.

The theme that is emerging here is an Obama who is quite an effective politician, but whose calculating political maneuvering is impacting his credibility. His inconsistencies are also calling into question his decision-making. What we are beginning to see is someone who lacks sufficient time in any position and who is always looking to the next political accomplishment (remember that 2 years 12 days in the Senate). As a consequence of that political ambition, he lacks the core judgment to make principled non-political decisions and he lacks the humility to know when he should accept the advice of those with more experience. Obama can give great motivating speeches, but when the shroud of generalties and bombast is stripped away, his inexperienced core is revealed. The fact that the wheels are starting to come off the Obama campaign wagon in July, rather than October, is a blessing for the McCain campaign (consider the Newsweek poll) and is probably a reason why the Obama campaign ran away from town hall meetings. They know their candidate can’t “take the heat” (thanks to HRC for that one). The recent debate over Obama’s changing, contradictory, and politically motivated positions on Iraq and Afghanistan highlight his inexperience, his poltical opportunism, and his arrogance.

McNeal points specifically to Obama’s role as chairman of the US Senate Foreign Relations Subcommittee on European Affairs:

He could have sponsored bills supporting the troops (something he opposed), and he could have held hearings (he didn’t). As chairman of the United States Senate Foreign Relations Subcommittee on European Affairs, he could have held hearings about Afghanistan and our NATO allies. In fact, given his dearth of leadership experience, one would think Obama would have embraced his one chance to lead. Hearings would have provided him with some valuable information from true experts on the conflict and the region and would have signaled his personal interest and the interest of the Senate in conducting oversight regarding foreign affairs in this critical area of the world. Moreover, it would have demonstrated his willingness to listen to the opinions of others before making early and ill-informed political decisions.

McNeal concludes with a critique of Obama’s actions over the last few days:

Which brings us to the developments of the last two days. Obama has shown that his inconsistent policies and his lack of leadership in the Senate were not isolated events but are symptomatic of his political ambition and his unwillingness to place the good of the country over his own political gain. These aren’t “flip-flops”; these are political calculations born of inexperience and arrogance. It is clear that Obama will say whatever he must to win and he’ll do so with no desire to actually learn the facts surrounding his “policies.” He opposed the surge in Iraq, and once the surge was successful he began to purge his website of his prior statements. He arrogantly wrote a plan for withdrawal from Iraq without even considering whether that plan would work.

Are these just leadership questions? No. When Bill Bradley became one of the first prominant democrats to break from the Clintons and endorse Obama, he cited Obama’s judgement. The Obama’s recent decisions (see Brandenberg Gate speech) and his changing narrative on the war the last are faulty judgement on display. This combined with an inablity to lead aren’t characteristics America can have in its presidents. Certainly not now. But not at any time.

This is an issue that Obama has been solid. For the past year, he has been supporting this idea. See here, here and here.

I have no idea why Obama is taking this position as its a lose-lose with the powerful teachers unions. Both the union hierchies and the rank-and-file membership don’t want.

It was voted on by my own districts union and trounced. The district’s board agreed with us. Florida’s teachers were given the opportunity to vote on it and only a handful of counties opted in. The devil’s in the details.

For example, I teach freshman Biology to average learners. A class for advanced learners exist as well. Its hard to imagine comparing my success to that of my colleague who teaches Honors - let alone someone who teaches 3rd graders.

Both teachers and districts agreed that there is no plausible way to establish an equitable plan to administer. Districts agreed on this and also knew that a very expensive beauracracy would have to be created to administer pay.

Some reports say that Obama was actually booed at the NEA convention. Perhaps he doesn’t realize that all teachers don’t agree it politically, but for the most part all teachers agree that merit pay is a non-starter. Its not outside the realm of possibilty that some stauch liberal democrat teachers would be disuaded from voting for Obama on this one issue.

Writing in the American Thinker, Randall Hoven sites the AP story that I commented on earlier today that the yellowcake uranium that had been in Saddam Hussein’s possession is being shipped out of the country. What will never be told is that the very existance of Saddam’s yellowcake stash totally discredits Val Plame and Joe Wilson and the whole basis of the persecution of Scooter Libby. How do Plame’s handlers in the Senate like Chuck Schumer handle this? Its certain that members of the Senate Intelligence Committee like Jay Rockerfeller had to have known about the existance of the yellowcake yet he personally helped advance the theme that the President lied. Will they have to face these questions? Nevermind being held accountable. Along with many Republicans, I wonder when the American electorate will realize that Democrtats have been putting the priorities of their party ahead of that of American security interests. Will their own honesty be called into question with anyting resembling the same fury that the President was subjected?

…..about WMDs in Iraq.

Well, there were 16 points and one was about Sadaam’s reported attempts to acquire yellowcake uranium. As this point was ammended (wrongly in my opinion) at the time the MSM/left/Dem leadership mantra became Bush lied about WMDs. Well, here it is.

H/T: Lucianne

More from Atlas Shrugs

…on Independence Day.

Victor Davis Hanson is one of our times greatest writers. I cannot add anything I’d feel is worthy. Here’s a bit:

On this Fourth of July of our discontent — with spiraling fuel prices, a sluggish economy, a weak dollar, mounting foreign and domestic debt, continuing costs in Iraq, a falling stock market, and a mortgage crisis — we should remember two truths about America. First, the United States remains the most free and affluent country in the history of civilization. Second, almost all our problems are lapses of complacency, remain relatively easily correctable, and pale in comparison to past crises.

By almost any barometer, the United States remains the most fortunate country in the world. We continue to be the primary destination of immigrants, who risk their lives to have a chance at what we take for granted. Few in contrast are flocking to China, Russia, or India. The catalyst for immigration is primarily a phenomenon of word of mouth, of comparative talking among friends and families about the reality of modern-day living, not of scholarly perusal of social or economic statistics.

How true. Here’s what he says about today’s problems:

In that regard, most of our present pathologies are self-created. In fits of utopianism we felt we could be perfect environmentalists, no longer develop our ample oil, coal, and nuclear resources, maintain our envied lifestyle, mouth platitudes about “alternative energies,” and yet be immune from classical laws of supply and demand. In truth, with a little national will, within a decade we could both be using new sources of energy and producing our entire (and decreasing) appetite for oil without importation at all of foreign supplies. When our petroleum runs out, we will find other sources of energy; when a Saudi Arabia’s or Venezuela’s fail, so goes their entire national wealth as well.

Please read the whole thing.

Hugh Hewitt has prepared a how-to guide.

…in four swing states. From the Weekly Standard Blog comes polling that indicate voters in Colorado, Minnesota, Michigan and Wisconcin favor keeping troops in Iraq until its stable as opposed to Senator Obama’s plan to withdraw with 18 months. Maybe these are the sort inner polling data that drives Senator McCain’s priorities on the campaign trail.

David Brooks has a fascinating column on the rise in the careers of several conservative writers. He asserts that they have acheived this through blogging.

These writers came of age as official conservatism slipped into decrepitude. Most of them were dismayed by what the Republican Party had become under Tom DeLay and seemed put off by the shock-jock rhetorical style of Ann Coulter. As a result, most have the conviction — which was rare in earlier generations — that something is fundamentally wrong with the right, and it needs to be fixed.

Moreover, most of these writers did not rise through the official channels of the conservative or libertarian establishments. By and large, they didn’t do the internships or take part in the young leader programs that were designed to replenish “the movement.” Instead, they found their voices while blogging. The new technology allowed them to create a new sort of career path and test out opinions without much adult supervision.

As a consequence, they are heterodox and hard to label. These writers grew up reading conservative classics — Burke, Hayek, Smith, C.S. Lewis — but have now splayed off in all sorts of quirky ideological directions.

There are dozens of writers I could put in this group, but I’d certainly mention Yuval Levin, Daniel Larison, Will Wilkinson, Julian Sanchez, James Poulos, Megan McArdle, Matt Continetti and, though he’s a tad older, Ramesh Ponnuru.

But Brooks saves his highest praise for two others whom he knows well.

Ross Douthat and my former assistant, Reihan Salam, are two of the most promising. This pair has just come out with a book called “Grand New Party: How Republicans Can Win the Working Class and Save the American Dream.”

There have been other outstanding books on how the G.O.P. can rediscover its soul (like “Comeback” by David Frum), but if I could put one book on the desk of every Republican officeholder, “Grand New Party” would be it. You can discount my praise because of my friendship with the authors, but this is the best single roadmap of where the party should and is likely to head.

Several years ago, Tim Pawlenty, the Minnesota governor, said the Republicans should be the party of Sam’s Club, not the country club. This line is the animating spirit of “Grand New Party.” Douthat and Salam argue that the Republicans rode to the majority because of support from the Reagan Democrats, and if the party has a future, it will be because it understands the dreams and tribulations of working-class Americans.

They open the book with a working-class view of recent American history. Douthat and Salam write admiringly about the New Deal. They mention Roosevelt’s economic policies, but they also emphasize the New Deal’s intense social conservatism. Self-conscious maternalists like Eleanor Roosevelt and Frances Perkins ensured that New Deal programs were biased in favor of traditional two-parent families.

Liberals write about economic inequality and conservatives about social disruption, but Douthat and Salam write about the interplay between values and economics and the way virtue and economic security can reinforce each other.

I love Govenor Pawlenty’s metaphor about Sam’s Club. It speaks a bit to why even many solid Democrats are puzzled by many of its party’s congressional leaders go after Wal Mart to curry favor with labor unions. I’d imagine many families whose bread winners are in labor unions - I am - shop at Wal Mart. It might be wise of Republicans to review Obama’s involvement with the Wal Mart wars that have occurred in Chicago.

Brooks continues with support for Grand New Party’s emphasis.

In the 1950s, divorce rates were low and jobs were plentiful, but over the next few decades that broke down. The social revolutions of the 1960s and the economic revolution of the information age have emancipated the well-educated but left the Sam’s Club voters feeling insecure.

Gaps are opening between the educated and less educated. Working-class divorce rates remain high, while the mostly upper-middle-class parents of Ivy Leaguers have divorce rates of only 10 percent. Working-class kids are unlikely to complete college, affluent kids usually do.

Liberals have a way to address these inequalities — the creation of a Denmark-style welfare state. Conservatives have offered almost nothing. The G.O.P. has lost contact with its own working-class base. This is the intellectual vacuum that “Grand New Party” seeks to fill.

The heart of the book is the last third, where Douthat and Salam lay out a series of policy ideas to help working-class families cope with economic, health care, neighborhood and family insecurity.

“What all these ideas, from the sober to the speculative, have in common is a vision of working-class independence — from bosses, from bureaucracy, from entrenched interests of all kinds,” Douthat and Salam write. This is not compassionate conservatism (which flattered the mind of the compassionate donor), it’s hard-work conservatism, which uses government to increase the odds that self-discipline and effort will pay off.

I’m not sure how quickly the G.O.P. can swing behind this working-class focus and this vision of government-enhanced social mobility. But the McCain campaign really needs to. So far, McCain’s platform is like an omnibus spending bill — lots of decent ideas thrown together with no larger social vision.

Its hard not to agree with Brook’s assessment of the McCain campaign. Its been boring, uninspiring and without firm clarities.

This being said McCain’s stances on two issues are supported by recent events. First, the success in Iraq and the war against AQ. Second, his advocacy for the appointment of SCOTUS appointees who will strictly enforce the constitution. The recent decison to allow terrorists kept at Gitmo access to our legal system indeed sends chills through the majority of Americans.

McCain’s people must know this and the only reason they are holding fire right now is that they just don’t want to use these bullets right now.

I’d like to add two more favorite conservative bloggers that I hope one day will be writing books of their own - Betsy Newmark and Ed Morrissey.

H/T: Lucianne