Month: July 2008

By Patrick Appel
Obama admitted in an interview that the surge didn’t go as he expected, but that he wasn’t necessarily wrong, since the effects of pulling out earlier are unknowable. He is glomming on to McCain’s more popular arguments, while McCain can’t or won’t adopt Obama’s. Dave Weigel writes:

A debate over how right McCain was/how wrong Obama was over [the surge] is not going to subsume a debate over when to leave Iraq. I don’t see any of this redounding to the benefit of John McCain. McCain’s goading Obama to make this trip stands tall and proud as one of the dumbest blunders of the campaign. He couldn’t have helped the Democrat more if he’d challenged him to a slam dunk contest.

By Patrick Appel
That will buy you four oranges in Zimbabwe. The Economist reports that foreign firms are being pressured to leave the country.

By Patrick Appel
Ross’s take on McCain’s Iraq dilemma:

[McCain is] trying to claim that he, Bush and the Iraqi government are all on the same page about troop withdrawals and Obama’s way out in left field, even as Maliki has moved toward Obama’s position, the Bush Administration has moved toward Maliki’s, and Obama has inched toward McCain’s. There’s still real daylight between two candidates, but the distinction between their respective Iraq policies is increasingly unclear to most voters, and increasingly finessable by the Obama camp. It’s hard to see how McCain persuades the public that success or failure in Iraq is at stake in the difference between Obama’s "refinable" timetable for getting America out of Iraq and the Bush-Maliki agreement on a "general time horizon" for withdrawal.

So what can McCain do? Recently, I argued that where Iraq is concerned, he should be running more on what the recent past – the success of the surge, and Obama’s opposition to it – tells voters about which candidate they can trust on foreign affairs, and less on the specifics of what Obama’s current position on timetables and withdrawal portends for the very immediate future. I think the events of the last week have made that advice look even better than it did. But they’ve also clarified, yet again, how badly McCain needs a domestic narrative – yes, even if it means looking to Hillary Clinton for inspiration.

By Patrick Appel
Tyler Cowen quotes a study:

…the empirical analysis finds that cars that were acquired used required no more maintenance expenditures than those that were acquired new of a similar age.

By Patrick Appel
Drug treatment meets video games.

by Chris Bodenner
"Sen. Obama didn’t support the surge…. I supported it when it was the toughest thing to do. [T]he American people will examine our records, and I will win." That’s John McCain explaining why he’ll win. He’s wrong. He’s leading a loud chorus of conservatives and Republicans desperate to make the surge the defining issue of the campaign. … Yes, McCain heroically pushed for the surge when the war was at its most unpopular point. … That’s all great stuff for McCain’s biographers. But the tragic Catch-22 for the Arizona senator is that the more the surge succeeds, the more politically advantageous it is for Obama. Voters don’t care about the surge; they care about the war. … If [the war] were going worse, McCain’s Churchillian rhetoric would match reality more. But with sectarian violence nearly gone, Al Qaeda in Iraq almost totally routed and even Shiite Sadrist militias seemingly neutralized, the stakes of withdrawal seem low enough for Americans to feel comfortable voting for Obama. Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri Maliki’s support for an American troop drawdown undoubtedly pushes the perceived stakes even lower. … Although the economy will dominate this election, McCain can still press his advantage on foreign policy. But not with I-told-you-sos. Re-arguing the surge is almost as counterproductive as re-arguing the war itself. Elections are about the future," – Jonah Goldberg, National Review.

By Patrick Appel
A reader writes:

Your reader writes: "Sorry to contradict theology with facts, but U. S. refining capacity actually increased by 11% in the last 23 years."

Your reader seems to be omitting an important part of any equation with respect to evaluating US refining capacity decision making by his/her focusing solely on capacity (i.e., supply):

What was the increase in DEMAND over the last 23 years? (Also, one might consider what the forecasted demand increase was, in order to be a bit fairer to the oil company strategic planners).

From Rapier’s study:

"The bottom line on the refinery capacity issue is that yes, refining capacity has been reduced at times. And there were perfectly valid reasons that this happened. It is also true that capacity is short at the moment – if the objective is to maintain sub-$3 gasoline prices. But, reduced investment in refining capacity is indeed a key factor behind the current gasoline price spike. If some want to level the charge that refiners failed to accurately anticipate demand growth, then that charge is accurate. But like the rest of us, refiners don’t have crystal balls."

by Chris Bodenner
To the delight of Obamacons everywhere, Zakaria:

The rap on Barack Obama, at least in the realm of foreign policy, has been that he is a softheaded idealist who thinks that he can charm America’s enemies. John McCain and his campaign, conservative columnists and right-wing bloggers all paint a picture of a liberal dreamer who wishes away the world’s dangers. … These critiques, however, are off the mark. Over the course of the campaign against Hillary Clinton and now McCain, Obama has elaborated more and more the ideas that would undergird his foreign policy as president. What emerges is a world view that is far from that of a typical liberal, much closer to that of a traditional realist. It is interesting to note that, at least in terms of the historical schools of foreign policy, Obama seems to be the cool conservative and McCain the exuberant idealist.

By Patrick Appel
Larison tackles Tony Campbell for suggesting Obama "forget Berlin [and] go to Mecca."