First, a major hat tip to the folks at the leftie blog, Think Progress, for posting the video embedded below.  General David Petraeus, them man widely admired on the right, the man who, we believe, was the real man of the year in 2007 and who, I believe, would make a fine presidential candidate in two years time, now says “the time has come to consider a change to Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell,”

The good general is exactly right that this should be done in a “thoughtful and deliberative manner,” not the willy-nilly manner in which the the Clinton Administration tried to enact it..

According to the folks at Think Progress:  ”This week, the Pentagon’s Office of the General Counsel is also expected to release the results of its 45-day review of how Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell could be implemented in a fairer manner.” Seems the process has been pretty deliberative so far.  Let’s hope it leads to repeal before the year is out.

Those who read this blog know that I’m a strong supporter of the Governor of Alaska.  Aware of her accomplishments, standing up–and defeating–many of the corrupt politicians in the Last Frontier, all of them male,* I know Sarah Palin is capable of the Herculean task of cleaning the Augean stables iof our nation’s capital, made ever more squalid by the “stimulus.” 

That said, given her relative youth (she’s just 45) and her limited knowledge of national issues, I believeshe should wait to run for president.  Moreover, the more experience she has as chief executive of the nation’s (geographically) largest state, the more she will demonstrate her leadership capacity.  And she’ll have more time to become well-versed on issues of which she demonstrated only a cursory understanding in the 2008 campaign.

Unlike Barack Obama in 2008, there’s no fierce urgency for Sarah Palin to run for president in the election immediately following her “debut” on the national stage.  Obama had to run last year when the memory of his 2004 Democratic National Convention speech was still fresh.  The more time passed since that speech, the more manifest would his absence of accomplishments become.

Palin had already made significant accomplishments when John McCain tapped her last August as his running mate.  Indeed, it was those accomplishments which drew her to his attention.

She only need continue to govern in the manner she has governed.  If her record is any guide, her accomplishments will increase with her time in office.  

To secure her place on the national stage, she need supplement her leadership by doing what she began in the campaign, familiarizing herself with national issues.  She has shown herself to be a quick study.  The more time she devotes to these issues, the better prepared she will be handle aggressive media interviews and so convince more Americans of her readiness to lead.

* (more…)

When a leading liberal pundit and frequent Bush-critic writes that it’s “no longer a close call: President Bush was right about the surge,” we know that the success of the surge has passed from established fact to conventional wisdom.

Not just that, it says something that distinguishes the outgoing president, that, at least on matters of national security, George W. Bush is a man who learns from his mistakes.  And the two different stories from Iraq, apparent failure in 2005-06 but success in the two years after that helps us see our nation as the land of second chances.

As I read Ancient and European history, I note how many armies forfeited military advantages through strategic or tactical blunders.  Occasionally, they recover from their “self-created” setbacks, but more often than not, these mistakes lead to eventual defeat (and sometimes and even dismemberment of nations or empires).

Just over two years ago, it seemed we were losing in Iraq.  We had won the initial stages of the war, but had not effectively adjusted our strategy to meet the changing circumstances on the ground.  European moralists (or one of their imitators in American universities, think tanks and on liberal editorial boards and blogs) writing about the war (as many of them did) in 2006 (and into 2007 and even ’08), would have defined our “adventure” in Iraq as a failure caused by an arrogant assumption of a bellicose Administration confident that military might alone were enough to secure success.

Americans, however, believe that we can turn a failure into an opportunity and even success.  We are, to be sure, not the only ones to believe this, but it is a defining aspect of our character.  We don’t see one failure as determinant of the final outcome.

Not believing that the deteriorating state of the war ensured defeat, George W. Bush, against great odds and much opposition, shifted course in Iraq, perhaps the boldest move of his Administration.  As a result, his new strategy, dubbed “the surge,” effected in Charles Krauthammer’s words “the most dramatic change in the fortunes of an American war since the summer of 1864.”

There is a lesson in this.  And not just for political leaders.  It applies to our own lives as well.  It suggests that when we’ve made a mistake or suffered a setback, we too can turn things around just as President Bush and General Petraeus did in Iraq.

We’re Americans.  We believe in second chances.  One mistake does not necessarily doom us to failure.  To paraphrase George Eliot’s maxim “It’s never too late to be what you might have been,” it’s as if we believe it’s never too late to succeed where once you have failed.

Related:  We’ve won in Iraq, but will W get any credit? Will McCain?

When I followed Glenn’s link to these five ideas for the future of conservatism, I thought the student who penned pixeled them was onto something.

Or maybe that’s just because he recommends that David Petraeus run for president in 2012. That great general is my man for the GOP nomination.  He accomplished more in 2007 alone–and under most unfavorable circumstances, political as well as military–than did the president-elect in his entire political career.

That is, unless, you count election to office as an accomplishment.

While I share Armin Rosen’s (the author) enthusiam for Petraeus, I think his best point is his second, “DON’T GIVE UP ON SOCIAL CONSERVATISM. BUT DON’T EMPHASIZE IT EITHER.”  Anyone who has worked in GOP politics outside the coastal areas knows the energy and enthusiasm social conservatives bring to Republican campaigns. While I disagree with Rosen’s characterization of Rove-Palin “divide-and-conquer policies,” I agree when he writes that

conservatives have a lot to lose from giving up on them [social conservaives] altogether. A “hate the sin, not the sinner” tack should win back to the social center that’s been voting blue in recent years: basically, conservatives should promote traditional values without championing measures that would punish those who don’t.

Exactly.

In many ways, his point reminds me of a theory I have on how the party’s attitude toward gays will determine our success. It’s not that we’re likely to crack more than 35% of the gay vote (well, maybe 40%). But, to win back the suburbs, Republicans can’t alienate suburbanites. And anti-gay attitudes don’t resonate with individuals who have known gay people in college –and maybe even in the workplace–and even in their own families.