The Baloney Hits the Fan

Remember when Pres. Obama said he'd negotiate without preconditions? That it was wrong to punish other nations by refusing to negotiate with them?

Mark Landler of the NY Times reports...

But even before Thursday’s vitriolic statements from North Korea, American officials said they were more focused for now on inflicting pain on North Korea than on luring it back to the bargaining table.

“We are not interested in half measures,” Mrs. Clinton said. “We have no desire to pursue protracted negotiations that will only lead us right back to where we have already been.”

Now, to be fair, the part about inflicting pain may be a paraphrase. But the indicators are clear: the Obama administration will not negotiate with North Korea until...when? North Korea grows up?

Is that not a...precondition?

Presidential Experience

Mark Steyn gives a great summary of the rise and fall of Gov. Palin's White House aspirations.

But at the end of his post, he notes...

National office will dwindle down to the unhealthily singleminded (Clinton, Obama), the timeserving emirs of Incumbistan (Biden, McCain) and dynastic heirs (Bush). Our loss.

(On a side note, I'd point out that those categories are not mutually exclusive. Bush, though an heir, was also pretty singleminded. Sec. of State Clinton, though very singleminded, wouldn't have a breath of a chance at the Presidency if she hadn't inherited it from her husband.)

So where do we find qualified men and women to fill the office of President?

I just finished re-reading the second volume of William Manchester's The Last Lion, a three-part biography of Winston Churchill. An absolutely fabulous book, with many general insights into government and politics.

One fact jumped out at me this morning, before I'd read Steyn's post: Churchill filled virtually every possible ministerial position before 1932. When he became Prime Minister in 1940, he had served as Chancellor of the Exchequer (twice), Home Secretary, First Lord of the Admiralty (twice), Secretary of State for War, and Secretary of State for Air. The only major office he hadn't held was Foreign Secretary.

What an amazing record of experience! Exceptional even by British standards. Where do American politicians gain this sort of experience? I can't think of the last U.S. President who had previously served in a cabinet position. I thought it might be FDR, but I looked it up, and he was only Assistant Secretary of the Navy. (I'm discounting the office of Vice President, since it rarely yields real power.) Besides Roosevelt, the only President I know that held high-ranking Federal office would be the senior Pres. Bush, who briefly served as Director of the CIA in 1976-77.

Imagine if Pres. Obama, or Pres. Bush had had some experience in a cabinet-level position. I wonder if either of them would have survived it to become President.

I further wonder if Sec. Clinton's White House ambitions will survive her tenure at State.

(h/t Instapundit)

So Much for the Carter Comparisons

Back in the 70's, Pres. Carter drew criticism for undercutting "friendly" Latin American dictators like Chile's Pinochet and Nicaragua's Somoza. He earned even more criticism for transferring control of the Panama Canal to Panama. Taken all in all, I don't believe the criticism was justified. I think the United States should promote democracy. Sometimes this means making common cause with dictators (see e.g. Stalin, WW2) but U.S. support for Pinochet and Somoza had been pretty egregious. Keeping them in power did nothing for U.S. influence in the region. Ortega and the Sandanistas hurt Nicaragua far worse than they hurt the U.S. Also, transferring control of the Canal helped defuse charges of Yanqui imperialism in that country and in the broader region. In my opinion, Carter's Latin American policy was a net good.

Now comes Pres. Obama, who agrees with Venezuela's Chavez and Cuba's Castro that Zelaya must be reinstated as Honduran President, even though Zelaya was clearly maneuvering to install himself as dictator-for-life.

I never thought I'd want Pres. Obama to be more like Pres. Carter, but here's an instance where I do.

(h/t Insta and Fausta)

Presidental Tracking Numbers

Via Instapundit, I see Rasmussen is reporting that "31% of the nation's voters now Strongly Approve of the way that Barack Obama is performing his role as President. Thirty-three percent (33%) Strongly Disapprove giving Obama a Presidential Approval Index rating of -2."

They also link this handy chart of the trend in Pres. Obama's approval rating...



What explains the drop in approval? Have the Republicans been more effective than anyone realizes? Has the press turned on the President? Republicans have decided not to attack the President directly, so that can't be it. While there are some in the national press beginning to question the Administration's policies, we haven't seen any questioning comparable to what Pres. Bush experienced.

So maybe the progressive agenda isn't as popular as the President thought? Or maybe it's not the agenda, but the aggressive manner in which the agenda is being pushed?

Why I Didn't Vote for McCain

Jeff Zeleny and Helene Cooper of the NY Times report...

“[Pres. Obama] should speak out that this is a corrupt, flawed sham of an election,” Mr. McCain said in an interview on NBC’s “Today.” “The Iranian people have been deprived of their rights. We support them in their struggle against a repressive, oppressive regime.”

How does he know the election is corrupt? Has he revealed some source of information that the rest of us don't have? Also, he seems to assume the protesters want full-on revolution: how does he know that?

Bottom line: I'm not happy with much of Pres. Obama's policies, but when it comes to temperament he's light years ahead of Sen. McCain.