Letter From The Capitol

Index 5/9/08

Two posts: (1) Nuclear Proliferation: Bush Carterized--Weenie Watch; (2) Race 2008: Drilling Down into the Numbers--The Home Front.

Nuclear Proliferation: Bush Carterized

On April 16 LFTC posted John Bolton and WSJ articles warning of an imminent cave-in by the Bush administration, as to North Korea.  Alas, Bush has indeed caved.  Bolton's May 8 article (published, in unintended irony, on the 63rd anniversary of V-E Day) notes that the White House has essentially accepted ignoring the North's uranium enrichment program, so long as plutonium program progress is halted.  Here are JB's money paragraphs:

For the Bush administration, however, the lack of new data is an excuse to ignore the entire issue of uranium.

On plutonium, the administration seems content to seek vague statements from the North that "account" for the amount of this fissile material we think it has extracted from its Yongbyon reactor's spent fuel rods over the years. Administration briefings reveal little or no interest in how many plutonium weapons exist; whether there are other plutonium-related facilities hidden in North Korea's vast complex of underground facilities; and what the North's weapons-manufacturing capabilities are.

Proliferation? Perhaps the Bush administration's most wondrous act of magic is to make that problem disappear. The State Department argues that North Korea may have proliferated in the past, but that's all behind us. How do we know? The North Koreans have told us.

Since the reactor it helped Syria build on the Euphrates River was pulverized by the Israeli Air Force last September 6, Pyongyang's efforts at and interest in nuclear proliferation may have ceased. Even if true, that should not give us comfort: It took an act of brute military force to bring this about. One need hardly point out that this tactic is not congruent with the administration's current approach to North Korea's nuclear behavior.

Nor does Foggy Bottom seem concerned about Iran.  Bolton explains why they should be:

Some friendly advice to our intelligence services: Think joint venture. Think asset diversification.

Hypothetically, what if the deal had North Korea getting a third of the plutonium produced by the Euphrates reactor, Iran a third, and Syria a third? The North benefits by maintaining open access to a plutonium supply even if Yongbyon remains frozen. Iran gets experience in reactor technologies immune from IAEA scrutiny. And Syria takes a major step toward undisclosed nuclear capabilities. Win-win-win, as that entrepreneurial proliferator A.Q. Khan might have said.

Worse, to add injury to insult--no, make that, to add imbecility to idiocy--Foggy Bottom is, the WSJ editors warn us, undermining its own verification experts, who are supposed to verify the declarations made by the North.  FB even has injected humor into the most unfunny state of affairs: part of the verification duties may well be assumed by...China.  Yes, that China.  The one with 1.4 billion souls, about to host the Summer Olympics.  The one whose technology help A. Q. Khan's Pakistani program (the Pakistanis use a 1966 Chinese Hiroshima-size warhead design).

Meanwhile, Claudia Rosett flags another Bush administration stinker (also done under Clinton): de-linking human rights and nuclear negotiations.  The Reagan administration knew better.  It is not a coincidence that RR has a more successful policy versus the Soviets, than Bush the Younger is having with North Korea & Iran.  More a detailed study of evading nuclear safeguards, the Nonproliferation Policy Education Center has posted Roberta Wohlstetter's classic study of India's 1974 bomb, "The Buddha Smiles" (1977, 257 pages of double-space type printout).  For its part, Moscow announced sanctions, in accord with UN Security Council resolutions, against Iran.

Mavens Henry Sokolski and Gary Schmitt assess the nuclear abolitionist initiative started by former senior officials, written up on LFTC, and find it wanting as to verification.  They note, too, that the NPT was designed for a world when going weapons-grade was harder to do and easier to detect, and suggest the treaty be updated. Also, they note Iran's risible claim of commercial need, when it is literally floating on  a cheaper energy  source, natural gas.

So thus has the resolute Bush II administration been Carterized, on matters of extreme urgency.  Be afraid.  Be very afraid.

Race 2008: Drilling Down into the Numbers

Herewith a deeper assessment of the role racial voting may well play cone November.  Begin with 2004 voting numbers that reveal useful demographic data: (1) blacks were 8 percent of voters in 2000, and 11 percent in 2004, versus their 13 percent share of the population; (2) Hispanics were 8 percent of the 2004 electorate, though they make up 14 percent of the population; (3) first-tie voters were 9 percent of 2000's vote and 11 percent of 2004's; (4) undecideds were 10 percent of 2004's electorate, but are, according to Michael Barone, 36 percent in 2008.

Let's look at the 10 largest states (which I will define as those with 15 or more electoral votes).  To assess the impact potentially arising from African-American votes, plus each state's 2008 Electoral College total (map here) in parentheses: CA (55) - 6.2%; TX (34) - 11.6%; NY (31) - 15.8%; FL (27) - 15.7%; PA (21) - 10.7%; IL (21) - 15.1%; OH (20) - 12.2%; NC (15) - 22.2%; NJ  (15) - 15.0%; GA (15) - 29.4%.  These states total 254 (94 percent) of the 270 EC votes needed to win.  In any state where the black population is greater than their 13 percent share, save for Florida, Obama will have a huge edge: NY, IL, NC, NJ & GA.  A lopsided military vote in NC might save McCain, but among blacks who served in the military, racial pride will trump military record.  Big Mac has a chance in CA & TX, plus perhaps PA.  IL & OH seem out of reach.  Only in FL, 4th largest, with 2 EC votes, does Big Mac seem to have an edge, as the Cuban population will overwhelmingly vote for him.

Figure the 13 percent black share will be topped y their voter turnout, by at least 50 percent, possibly even 75 percent, conceivably twice their share.  Assume Mac gets 5 percent (a generous assumption, as he will likely get less, Hill having managed less than 10 percent in later primary contests).  At 150 percent, the 19.5% black share of the 2008 votes gives Obama an 18-point edge, a 175 percent jump gives Obama a 22-point edge and a doubling gives him at 25-point edge.  It is important to grasp that of the added black turnout, 100 percent is likely to be for racial reasons, and thus all will go to Obama; that is why I calculate that McCain's black vote ceiling is around one percent, no matter what.

Had blacks turned out at 15 percent of the 2004 total, instead of 11 percent, Kerry would have won the election by a few hundred thousand votes.  He won 59 million of 117 million, losing by 3 million.  His 88-11 margin among blacks over Bush means that each added million black votes would give Kerry a 770,000 vote gain.  Thus, 4 million more black votes would have erased Bush's 3 million vote margin.  A 150 percent black turnout would have meant another 7 million black votes in 2004 (you can do the arithmetic for 175 percent and doubled turnouts).

So, Big Mac has a tall order for November.

Index 5/8/08

2 posts: (1) Firing Line Footage: Iraq--Us v. Them; (2) More Election Fallout + Obama's November Nuke--The Home Front.

Firing Line Footage: Iraq

Here is video of an AC-130 Spectre gunship (a converted C-130 Hercules transport plane) that will, in 10 minutes, warm the heart of all Americans.  N.B. the command, right at the start: "Do not fire on the church."  This is riveting footage.

2008: More Election Fallout + Obama's November Nuke

Pundit David Brooks sees 2008 shaping up has a very different election than 2000 & 2004.  The previous two were "base elections"--won by the GOP turning its base out better than did the Democrats.  But 2008 will be, writes Brooks, a contest for the swing-vote middle.Obama has been, essentially, McGovernized--perceived by much of the electorate as more liberal than the country as a whole is (correctly so viewed).  But the GOP cannot simply pull out the GOP anti-liberal playbook, because the GOP is a damaged brand in American politics today.  Key this year: Compared to 10 percent undecided in 2004, a whopping 36 percent of voters in 2008 say they are undecided.

RCP's Jay Cost details Obama's big night.  Hill ran poorer among three core white groups that helped her win Ohio & PA: women, union households and Catholics.  ABC's Jake Tapper offers a to-do list for Hillary between now & June 3, for what meager chance she may have.  The centrality of race to Obama's success is a theme stressed by Jay Carney & Robert Novak in Human Events.

Obama's November Nuke.  No, not a call to "bomb, bomb, bomb, bomb, bomb Iran!" per Big Mac last year.  No, not yet another repudiation of his toxic pastor.  Obama's nuclear option is a huge jump in black turnout, which he may get without inflammatory rhetoric, aiding by a mainstream media that literally lay down for him last week, with his latest strategic time-step re his pastor.  The black vote is 12 percent of the voting electorate.  Blacks comprise about 22 percent of the NC racial demographic yet were 1/3 of the vote in North Carolina.  Thus, blacks turned out May 6, 2008 at a rate 50 percent higher than their population share would indicate.  This, against a white liberal formerly popular with blacks.  Now imagine the fall and a GOP opponent, John McCain, who voted against the Martin Luther King holiday ins 1983.  Yes, Big Mac recanted on King's birthday this year, but how much ice will that cut with black voters?  And how motivated will they be to turn out in the fall?

John Podhoretz notes that Democrats turned out 30 million votes in the 2008 primaries, 50 percent more than showed up in 2004, and that John Kerry, a way-lefty, polled 59 million votes in 2004, second in US history to Dubya's 62 million.  WSJ's Dan Henninger observes that had blacks voted in the same percentage in 2008 as in 2004, Hill would be the nominee.  DH says McCain cannot win by running against Rev. Wright, but should instead stress Obama's naivete re Iran, likening Obama (correctly) to Jimmy Carter.

Highly.  If blacks turn out at 18 percent, 50 percent higher than their national total, as they did in NC, that is 18 percent of voters.  Obama will win over 95 percent, probably, 98 or 99 percent.  So make is 17-1 Obama.  He starts with a 16-point bulge.  For Mac to win, drop 1 percent for fringe candidates, and of the remaining 81 percent Mac needs to win them 49-32, or, in percentage terms, Mac must win 65 percent of the non-black vote.  He figures to lose Hispanics, though narrowly.  Let's say Hispanics, 14 percent of the population, are 14 percent of voters, and Obama wins them 8-6.  Mac needs 43 -24 among the rest (whites & Asians), or 64 percent.  So Mac's white vote share must be at or near 70 percent, which was what Reagan, a hugely popular incumbent, won over Mondale in 1984.  This is a tall order in a year when the GOP is disliked by many voters.

Blacks are concentrated disproportionately in the big cities, so their electoral influence is amplified by their impact on the electoral college arithmetic.  Obama need not openly appeal to them racially.  He can woo independents and still get nearly 100 percent of blacks to turn out for "their own" candidate,.  Blacks will truly be able to say that they put their man in the White House.  And they will expect much in return for same.

Index 5/7/08

4 posts: (1) After Indiana & North Carolina: A Path for Hill?--The Home Front; (2) Obama's Campus Kids & Race--The Home Front; (3) US-China Trade: Who's Afraid?--"It's the Earth Stupid!"; (4) Legal Vanity--The Home Front.

After Indiana & North Carolina: A Path for Hill?

Begin with the latest numbers from IN (72 delegates) & NC (115 delegates).  Hill narrowly won (51-49) IN; Barack solidly (56-42) took NC.  Hill needs 68 percent of uncommitted supers, Barack only 37 percent.  Had Hill upset Barack in NC and won bigger in IN, the complexion of the race would have changed in her favor.  Drilling into the data, though, keep in mind that 1/3 of NC voters are black, versus 1/7 of IN voters.  The 1/7 fraction blacks represent in IN nearly mirrors their share of the population.  Obama takes about 90 percent of the black vote, so that is 30-3 in NC, meaning that Hill led 36-26 among the rest.  In IN Obama's edge would be about 13-1 among blacks, making the tally 51 - 29 for Hill among the rest.  Thus, Hill does at least 3-2 over Obama, among whites.  And she runs better among Hispanics.

Looking ahead, politics maven Jay Cost charts a nomination path, albeit a long shot, for Hillary.  Her strength with downscale white voters Obama may well lose to Big Mac, coupled with a campaign-shifting 30 to 40 point blowout in west Virginia, plus caucus-free arithmetic.  Cost notes that Obama's 154-delegate lead before last night would have been 15 if the 139 caucus delegates Obama carried were excluded.  She could, conceivably, win the delegate count if the caucus results are excluded--even without either Michigan or Florida.  And with Florida she can win the popular vote, too.  Moreover, the caucus states, with two exceptions, are either solidly Democratic or GOP, so that only in two swing states that held caucus, Colorado and New Mexico, might Obama be able to argue that he could win them in November while Hill might not.  She counters by pointing out that she won all big states save Illinois which she can win in November, but that Obama will lose Florida and might lose Pennsylvania to McCain.  All this is of course iffy, but it could happen.

But Obama has a secret weapon, too: potential black voter rage if the final result is seen as shoving aside the first viable black candidate for president.  And they may not settle for Veep.  Dems might find themselves with a less viable candidate in Obama, but better to lose in 2008 than lose black support for 20 years.  The identity politics train-wreck express rolls on.

Obama's Campus Kids & More, on Race

The fictions that Barack Obama's candidacy transcends race is exposed in a Weekend Wall Street Journal front-pager as a figment of mainstream media's imagination.  Campus life is segregated in ways I never knew when attending the University of Miami (1965-1969).  One white female  student who rooms with five female black students puts it succinctly:

There is pressure to be black. The black community can be harsh. People will say there are 600 blacks on campus but only two-thirds are 'black' because you can't count blacks who hang out with white people.

The article is short and highly readable and, to one who grew up hoping that MLK's dream would come true within a generation, depressing.  So much for budding racial harmony.  Mark Steyn's wittily cast column further exposes the phoniness of Obamamania.  The Weekly Standard's Matthew Continetti impales Obama, on the spike of his pastor, citing previous Obama statements that give the lie to Obama's claim of surprise at the Rev. Wright's National Press Club appearance.  Jonah Goldberg adds more on how Wright supplied the "context" that Obama and his supporters says was missing from the March quotations; the context is, that the March quotes were NOT taken out of context, but fairly reflect the views of Wright.  Columnist Clarence Page, for his part, separates Obama from his pastor; I am not convinced, but his piece is well-written and merits a read.

Most intriguing of all, however, is this Newsweek article on why Oprah left the Trinity United Church of Christ, and Obama stayed.  Oprah was, the article says, secure enough in her racial identity not to need Wright or his radical congregation; Obama was not similarly secure.  Obama is thus very much in the tradition of his congregation, even if his initial attachment was strategic, that of a career move as a street organizer.

Michael Barone discerns "ominous signs" in Obama's campaign, despite super-delegates shifting toward Obama, due to the second wave of toxic pastor comments, which have raised Obama's negatives sharply, to near Hillary territory:

But what about the voters? Here there are some ominous signs. The latest Fox News poll, conducted after the Rev. Jeremiah Wright’s appearance at the National Press Club, showed Obama’s favorable/unfavorables at 63 to 27 percent among Democrats, compared to Hillary Clinton’s 73 to 22 percent. Suddenly she’s not the only one with high negatives. And 36 percent of Democrats say they would be disinclined to vote for Obama because of his longtime relationship with his former pastor. There’s more bad news in the Pew Research Center poll of Democrats. Obama’s national lead among Democrats is down from 49 to 39 percent to a statistically insignificant 47 to 45 percent.

These results are not outliers. The Rasmussen tracking poll showed Obama leading Clinton 49 to 41 percent before Wright spoke to the National Press Club. Afterward the numbers were 46 to 44 percent in favor of Clinton. The Gallup Poll had Obama leading Clinton 50 to 41 percent the night before the Pennsylvania primary. The results reported May 1 were Clinton 49 percent, Obama 45 percent.

Obama’s standing as a general election candidate also seems to have taken a hit. Gallup showed him tied with John McCain 45 to 45 percent before the Wright appearance and trailing 47 to 43 percent afterward; at the same time, it shows Hillary Clinton tied with McCain 46 to 46 percent. Similarly, Rasmussen has McCain now ahead of Obama 46 to 43 percent and McCain tied with Clinton 44 to 44 percent.

My Bottom Line on Barack.  Obama says that he has one foot in Martin Luther King's camp, and one in Malcolm X's.  This is nonsense, a the two are fatally inconsistent.  It is like being half capitalist and half communist.  No, Obama has two feet in Malcolm X's camp.  He is--and even more so is his spouse--a racial radical, not a moderate.  Moderate in rhetoric, but not in policy nor in attitude.  His four-stage gradual disengagement from his toxic pastor seals the deal.

US-China Trade: Who's Afraid?

The US-China Business council tracks US-China trade.  The WSJ reports that 406 of 426 Congressional districts saw triple-digit growth between 2000 and 2007, of US exports to China.  Capital goods are the biggest manufacturing export categories, and the US ran a small trade surplus re China, on the services side in 2006.  Try to tell this to Barack and Hill.  Perhaps Big Mac can tell the voters this fall.