Is the Surge really Working?

John McCain has made a big deal out of the notion that he supported the troop surge in Iraq, and that the surge has led to a drop in violence there. He's right about the first part, but is he right about the second? For sure the US troops are doing a fine job there, but there's another factor driving the drop in violence McCain won't talk about. It's the emergence of the Awakening Councils, citizen patrols paid by the US to fight the insurgency.

Talk to Iraqis on the ground, as some American reporters have, and they'll tell you it's the Awakening Councils that have played a key role in lowering violence. The US military says the same thing. There were those who, a the beginning of the relationship between the Councils and the US, had problems with the fact that some Council members were former insurgents. In other words, people who were shooting at Americans were now being paid by Americans. Still, the Councils are 99,000 strong. That's many more than the surge, giving at least some credence to the notion they should receive some credit for the reduction in violence.

However, there are some clouds on the horizon. There have been recent incidents that indicate the Councils are starting to become a problem. There are turf battles, allegations of intimidation, and sometimes, violence. On top of that, a transition is coming. Starting October 1st, 54,000 Awakening members in and around Baghdad will join the payroll of the Shiite led government of Iraq. The patrols are predominately Sunnis. How this transition is made will speak volumes about whether the violence in the country remains low.

The US military is trying to help mediate the transition, but it's a tricky process. There are issues of pay, authority, and lack of trust between Sunnis and Shiites that goes back generations. All this goes on while John McCain keeps trying to hammer Barack Obama about opposition to a surge that itself isn't responsible for the reduction in violence. And even with the violence down, almost no one is reporting that the Iraqi death toll since the start of the war now tops 1 million.

And all the while John McCain refuses to tell America what victory in Iraq means. What does it mean to you?

Will Race Cost Obama?

So now we have a poll that has put a number on racism in this presidential campaign. According to an AP-Yahoo News poll, that number is 6%. In other words, Barack Obama's support would be as much as 6% higher if he wasn't black. The operative question, then, is whether that 6% is enough to cost him the election. Recent polls, even as they swung back his way, would tend to say yes. However, look inside the numbers contained in this poll and there should be little to surprise.

The poll set out to determine why the presidential race is so close between Obama and john McCain. It concluded that Obama's problems aren't just with white Republicans or independents. White Democrats support their nominee at a 70% rate. For John McCain, the corresponding number is 85% of his own party. You've also probably seen the poll numbers that say one third of all Democrats and independents hold at least one negative view of blacks. That group is less likely to vote for Obama than those who don't. Yet among that same group, 58% said they planned to vote for Obama.

The poll suggests there is still a deep vein of racial hostility in America, and that political affiliation does little to mitigate it. However, the poll was taken before last week's economic chaos, so there's no telling how that might affect not racial attitudes, but how people will vote. That a segment of white America might let race get in the way of their own economic interest is old news. The question is, how big is the segment?

There are people inside the Obama campaign who understand the implications of this poll. That's why his supporters have been receiving a great deal of e-mail of late. The appeals are for money at times, but they also ask people to talk about the campaign among family, friends, and co-workers. Because after all, 6% is a small number. One third of white Democrats holding a negative view of blacks means two thirds do not.

Some say these poll numbers could doom the Obama quest for the presidency. I say otherwise. What do you say?

Palin Tears a Page From Bush's Playbook

While it may be true that the McCain-Palin ticket wants no part of our current president on the stump, they certainly know how to follow his example. The campaign has been quietly trying to quash the Troopergate probe in Palin's home state of Alaska, and the tactics they're using are startlingly similar to those used by the Decider-in-Chief when certain congressional committees wanted to look into allegations of wrongdoing.

Palin, who initially supported the bipartisan probe into whether she fired the state's public safety chief because he wouldn't fire her ex-brother in law. Now that McCain has named her as his running mate, not so much. In fact, she's let the McCain people be the ones doing the talking about why, for example, her own husband has refused to testify in the investigation. Sound familiar? It should. Bush told Congress more than once that everyone from Karl Rove to Harriet Miers to Josh Bolten were off limits.

And what exactly does Sarah Palin have to hide? And who allowed her, or McCain for that matter, to determine when an investigation is legitimate and when it's not? Most laughable among the reasons Todd Palin's attorney gave for refusing to testify is that the subpoena is "burdensome", since First Dude is planning to be out of state. And here's the interesting part. The Alaska State Legislature has no power to compel any witness to testify prior to November 4th.

Ah, so that's the important part. Keep this thing on ice until after the election. Now this isn't to say that this sort of thing isn't done in other jurisdictions, and sometimes even by Democrats. Yet in this case the motive is so transparent it's insulting.

By the way, Palin is co-operating with a separate probe into Troopergate. That one she began after she was tabbed by McCain. That probe is being done by Palin appointees.

Bailout Blues

This early in the day, nobody knows whether the nation's financial markets will rebound from the week's earlier losses. One thing is for sure. Fingers will continue to be pointed and blame assessed. Coming as it has in the middle of a presidential race, both candidates will burn the midnight oil trying to convince the public they have the answer. So why does it feel like most of what people are talking about is so short term?

The most dangerous thing that could result from the current crisis is a quick fix solution. Get it off the front page, and all those involved know it recedes from the public consciousness. One person in the eye of the storm is Massachusetts Congressman Barney Frank. He's center stage in all this as chair of the House Financial Services Committee. He's blunt and to the point when he says the nation can't afford to use the Fed to bail out large struggling institutions forever.

And make no mistake, the titans of high finance aren't the only ones looking to Uncle Sam for help. The auto industry is seeking $25 billion dollars in either loans or loan guarantees. With Michigan a battleground state in the upcoming election, how the government answers will have wide implications. Will other troubled suitors, many of whom detest regulation, have to come to that great regulator, the federal government?

Barney Frank's approach is to deal with the problem on several fronts. He told Politico.com the government should pressure financial institutions to ease up on foreclosures. He also said central bankers in allied nations ought to be doing more as well. His committee will be holding a hearing on the mess next Wednesday. No matter what happens in the markets between now and then, that hearing is important if not crucial to the future of the country.

Barney Frank seems to know the right questions, even if he doesn't have all the answers. But does anyone?