Of course, Matt Stoller is outraged.  Baseless, emotional appeals such as this one make perfect sense to folks like him (appeals to America’s national security populism are pretty common from both sides).  Let’s ignore the fact that the kid appears to be no older than 12 months; placing his service eligibility somewhere around 2026.  Barring some kind of constitutional amendment (and a few advances in medicine), I don’t think John McCain would be in any position at that time to “have” this woman’s baby, even if he wanted adorable and vulnerable little Alex.  There are a few other reasonable interjections–such as the absence of a draft, America’s volunteer military, etc.–but I think the unlikelihood of a McCain dictatorship in 2026 should suffice.  The ad is simply stupid, and it treats Americans like idiots.

But remember, the activists and careerists like it that way.  Policy is incidental to them.  For them, it’s about mobilizing voters and scaring the crap out of them enough so that they not dare vote Republican ever, ever again.  Reminds me of a certain presidential “brain”/FNC contributor I know of. 

John McCain is the wrong man for president in 2008.  Democrats shouldn’t have to run like jackasses to prove it, and they certainly don’t need fringe groups like MoveOn screwing it up.

More at memeorandum

First of all, Jindal’s successes to this point are still mostly a game of expectations.  Beyond signing some important reform legislation in Louisiana, Jindal hasn’t really done much yet.  As Douthat points out, the Obama rationale doesn’t really apply to him.  He’s shoring up a ticket rather than defining it, which means he’ll need to fit McCain’s message and strategy.  Perhaps one could make the case that Jindal’s domestic health care resume compliments a foreign policy-oriented nominee, but not much else. 

And for Jindal, it could only hurt him to leave Lousiana now and become a marginal “national” figure.  Jindal is establishing a political base and a record of reform which could make him top ticket material one day.  Timing plays an important role in electoral politics, and we tend to publicly punish “rising stars” who overreach too early (see Dan Quayle). 

More at memeorandum   

I’ve addressed this before, and it’s worth revisiting: What we’re seeing is a confusion between tactics and challenges.  If we intend to chase every band of “extremists” lurking in caves and spider holes around the world, we’ll get nowhere.  It would be like treating cancer with aspirin.  If you can’t even say who the enemy is, than how do you target the states and other actors that are bankrolling these people?

This is yet another departure from the Bush Doctrine, if such a thing every truly existed.

I find myself torn on this notion.  As a conservative I do not think (or do not want to think) of McCain as the future of the party.  Four years spent rebuilding the Republican brand, making the tax cuts permanent, and replacing Stevens and Ginsburg on SCOTUS would constitute a wildly successful presidency in my estimation.  McCain already says he is “older than dirt”.  In 2012 he’ll be older than dirt +4 years.  To pledge a single term may insure he wins in November with an ambivalent electorate. 

That said, declaring that you will only serve one term will embolden congressional Democrats to thwart legislation and bottle-up judges in committee.

Electorally speaking, I think this could be a brilliant maneuver for McCain.  I think it would help him tap into the same independent energy that Senator Obama has managed to unearth during his meteoric rise.  It’s consistent with McCain’s message, and while two Democrats are essentially fighting over the future of their party’s leadership, McCain could pledge to put country first for four years.  You want change?  Well, a selfless politician would be a good start.

The GOP could use this time, as Miller notes, to rebuild their brand and elect party puritans to Congress in 2010 (provided McCain’s approval doesn’t tank).  It also plays into the Eisenhower image, a caretaker who’s “above” party stepping in to clean up a mess made by politicians. 

[/horserace]   

 The “Liberals think you’re too stupid to make choices” argument is very safe territory for Republicans; which Hillary Clinton should keep in mind as she jumps all over this.  But distinctions aside, I have to believe McCain is laughing it up over all this, especially considering the “100 Years” distortion he has had to endure. 

“Really, Senator Obama?  People are taking your words out of their appropriate context?  Spinning them, perhaps?”

(Insert maniacal laughter)

More at memeorandum 

Philip D. Zelikow, a former top adviser to Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice who is not working for Mr. McCain, said it was not surprising that there were worries among the realists about the presumptive Republican nominee.

“It’s partly because McCain hasn’t settled himself in one camp, and hasn’t told Rich, you’re my man, Rich, you’re the lodestar,” said Mr. Zelikow, referring to Mr. Armitage. “But if you’re in McCain’s position, is it in his interest to settle the argument now? It’s in his interest to embrace the largest number of Republicans and not declare that he is in favor of one faction or another.”

Zelikow is, however, the only interjection of sanity in what struck me as a rather pointless and generic summary on the differences between Realists and Neo-conservatives.  In truth, John McCain has just as much diversity of thought advising his campaign as both Senators Obama and Clinton do.  The obvious assumption made throughout the article is that there are two camps in conservative circles; those who mistrust the world, and those who wish to blow it up.  I expect such silly distinctions from the far, far Left, but it would be nice if the Paper of Record could do as Mario Cuomo once advised, and write in fine-quill pens rather than broad strokes that insult their readership.

More at memeorandum    

According to the California secretary of state’s office, California has a current voter registration that is 43.0 percent Democratic, 33.3 percent Republican and 19.4 percent independent (technically listed as “decline to state”). Which means that California is, indeed, a blue state, but with enough independents to shift the balance.

Will they go for McCain? In an interview last year, I asked Schwarzenegger if an anti-abortion-rights Republican such as John McCain could win his state.

“I think he can,” Schwarzenegger said. “What is important is that you look at the overall picture. What does he have to offer for California and for the country? I am not saying it is not a challenge. But the bottom line is I would not, because of [this] one issue, discount anybody.”

The last pro-life Republican to win California, as Simon notes, was George H.W. Bush in 1988.  Anti-choice candidates don’t generally win in California, but McCain could cause just enough problems for the Democratic nominee that it would force him or her to fall back and guard the rear.  Simon lists all of the things McCain will have in his favor (a very friendly governor, a driver’s license issue to exploit, etc.), however, I find the senator’s chances in California to be slim mostly in part to the massive cost of running and winning in the state.  The media markets out there are huge, and everybody is in the mail and radio business due to the frequent ballot initiatives in every single election cycle.

McCain could make the state more competitive, but can a campaign so obviously hampered in the cash department really score a win there?

More at memeorandum

McCain’s habit of putting this at the center of his foreign policy agenda reveals not just poor strategic thinking on the underlying merits of the concept, but an extraordinary detachment from the realities of the contemporary world. The idea that Canada and France and Brazil and India and South Korea are all just chomping at the bit to join a new McCain-initiated, America-led war club is ludicrous and anyone who thought about it for five minutes could see that.

Pure silliness.  I doubt McCain believes this is something that will see complete fruition during his presidency, but that shouldn’t hinder him from getting the ball rolling if it’s a good idea.  Of course such a thing would take time, but it will obviously take time to A. Clean up the bureaucratic mess created by the UN, and B. Hammer out all of the institutional bylaws and whatnot.  But you have to start somewhere, just as the United Nations did. 

Furthermore, it may be counter-productive to reinvent the wheel on this thing, if it’s something McCain is serious about creating.  I think some medley of the G8 and NATO is a good start; something with a foundation in solid ideals such as free elections and freer markets.  The question of legitimacy is a canard, because the UN’s legitimacy is still to this day challenged repeatedly.  We only got to invade Korea because Stalin boycotted the Security Council vote.     

The first problem is that neither do a terribly good job.  Klein, Joe attempts to lecture McCain on the differences between Iraq and Korea.  Well, yeah, there are obvious differences between Iraq in 2008 and Korea in 2008.  Perhaps, however, we should instead compare the current state in Iraq to the state of Korea in, oh, I don’t know, 1953!?  From 1951 to 1953, conflict continued despite attempts at negotiation.  Communists and anti-communists killed each other, and it took South Korea decades to get things right.  They suffered through coups, uprisings and assassination.  Sure, none were as entirely bloody and sectarian as Iraq, but to diminish the volatility of the Korean peninsula is misleading and revisionary.  I think a struggling republic right at the front door of the Communist world is a pretty volatile place to be, if you keep the context and the time lines straight.

Same goes for Klein, Ezra.  He takes McCain’s comment as a “betrayal” of what kind of global American footprint we would see under a McCain presidency.  It would be great if these two would place Senators Obama and Clinton on the couch as well; perhaps offering equal scrutiny to Obama’s comments on Pakistan, or maybe Hillary’s war vote.  These, apparently, were just regrettable errors, or words taken out of context.  But with McCain, well, there must be something deeper going on there.  It’s either ignorance or malevolence, but boy howdy, aren’t both scary? 

We know that McCain’s opponents aren’t stupid.  The comment was given to them on a silver platter and they had to take it.  I understand the strategy, but to look any deeper into it than that is just shadow boxing.  If keeping an American presence in Iraq reveals a level of “comfort” with military power, than Clinton and Obama appear to be just as comfortable with it.  Both advocate an American presence there; maintaining the option of troops either in or near Iraq to strike when necessary.