’08 Election

3 Comments Posted on '08 Election, Democrats, George W. Bush, Liberals

are they serious?

Non-“right wing crazies” also question the Democrats’ (and specifically Obama’s) patriotism.

Like Joe Klein, for example.

This is a chronic disease among Democrats, who tend to talk more about what’s wrong with America than what’s right. When Ronald Reagan touted “Morning in America” in the 1980s, Dick Gephardt famously countered that it was near midnight “and getting darker all the time.” This is ironic and weirdly self-defeating, since the liberal message of national improvement is profoundly more optimistic, and patriotic, than the innate conservative pessimism about the perfectibility of human nature. Obama’s hopemongering is about as American as a message can get — although, in the end, it is mostly about our ability to transcend our imperfections rather than the effortless brilliance of our diversity, informality and freedom-propelled creativity.

That’s what the right is questioning about the Democrats and about Obama. It’s not that he doesn’t wear a flag pin. I could care less whether Democrats or Republicans wear flag pins. The attitude and mindset of a potential President is what’s important here. I want someone who, while admitting the challenges and struggles we face as a country, will also acknowledge the possibility that we can overcome those challenges. I’ve said on several occasions that it’s customary to have the party out of power tell the voters how terrible everything is to win elections, and that both sides do this. However, the Democrats seem to have perfected this particular argument, and it’s often hard for them to admit that the country isn’t doomed, because this ruins all of their stump speeches.

It also damages their push for national health care, pulling out of Iraq — forget for a minute that both Hillary and Obama have flip-flopped on their commitment to immediate withdrawal from Iraq — and all of their other grand social experiments and new government spending. This aversion to Bush has really tied the Dems in knots to the point where they can never give him credit for anything, even when it’s obvious they agree with what he does. According to the Democrats, Bush has ruined this great country, and all the bad things happening to you in your life are indirectly caused by your President. This period of misery will continue under President McCain, because “he’s just like Bush”. McCain will also ruin your life, so the only choice you have is to vote Democratic. That’s their whole argument. McCain = Bush.

At some point, the Democrats will have to make the case for their nominee, and it has to be more than “We’re not like Bush!”. President Bush isn’t running again, and running against him won’t work this time.

5 Comments Posted on '08 Election, Democrats, Liberals

it’s not going to happen

The longer the Democratic primary battle continues, the more difficult it seems to be to keep the Democrats from doing something stupid.  Exhibit A: the possibility that they would end up picking someone no Democrat voted for in 2008.  I’m talking about America’s most revered loser Al Gore.   There is actually a discussion among some “senior” Democrats about tossing out the preferences of Democrat voters and nominating Al Gore as the Democrat who will lose to John McCain in November.  That’s a fabulous idea.  If you want all out civil war in the Democratic party, just try to pull this stunt.  Even if you think that Al Gore actually won in 2000, there’s nothing new or original about him other than his obsession with saving the planet.  He’s Washington establishment through and through and he’s one of those boring white male types we keep electing as President.

It’s over for Al Gore.  He would be better off staying where he is and making outrageous sums of money lying to the public about global warming.  I know the media is easily distracted by shiny objects and candidates not actually in the race, but there’s nothing to see here. I never overestimate the Democrats’ ability to screw up a sure thing, but I can’t believe they would seriously consider nominating Gore over Obama or Hillary.   It takes away the novelty and the advantage either Dem would have in November.  It’s not going to happen.  Al Gore will not be the Dem nominee in 2008.  Get over 2000 and the Clinton years and get on with your lives.  Nominate Obama.  Or you Dems could just struggle and struggle until August or September.   Either way works for me.

Posted on '08 Election, Republicans, UK

be very afraid of president mccain

So says the Financial Times.

McCain is even scarier than Bush because he will start more wars!  He will spread more “democracy by force”!  He’s actually serious about dealing with rogue states!  He really is a neocon, and his “realist” advisors — mere window-dressing.  Be very very afraid of this man.  He’s a close friend of Bill Kristol, who, as the left reminds us, has to be the most terrifying advocate of pre-emptive war EVER.  The Financial Times’ writer, Anatol Leiven, worries that McCain won’t talk to our allies enough before pursuing US foreign policy.  He seems to be fearful that a President McCain would get the UK into another war.  Does he seriously believe that PM Gordon Brown (for as long as he remains PM) and possible successor, David Cameron, have the same instincts as Tony Blair as far as a joint venture in more wars?  I don’t know the answer to that.

I do know what would happen if we let Europe attempt to defend itself.  It would be a miserable failure.  The UK has its own national identity crisis right now. The leadership there is willing to surrender piece by piece the UK’s national sovereignty.  There’s a reason why PM Brown and Labour will not allow the people to have a say on the Treaty of Lisbon, which gives more and more control and authority to the European Union.  It’s not much different from the EU Constitution, which was decisively rejected by several EU member states.  Why do I bring that up?  It’s important to recognize the signs of a fading power in the world.  A country unwilling to protect and preserve its own existence would hardly be a country willing to defend its allies, or to be a useful asset in the pursuit of the terrorists.

All I have to say to those like Leiven is: Be careful what you wish for.  After 4 years of President Obama or President Hillary, you might be sorry that you questioned the wisdom of electing John McCain.

Posted on '08 Election, Democrats, Liberals

something we should all agree on

Chris Matthews is not an objective journalist, and he says some really dumb (some might say a bit creepy) things.

Like this, for example(on Barack’s speech):

We’ll have much more on this momentous day and what I personally view as the best speech ever given on race in this country. One that went beyond “I have a dream,” to “I have lived the dream but have also lived in this country.”

Better than Martin Luther King’s speech? You have got to be kidding.

Or this:

I think this is the kind of speech I think first graders should see, people in the last year of college should see before they go out in the world. This should be, to me, an American tract. Something that you just check in with, now and then, like reading Great Gatsby and Huckleberry Finn. Read this speech, once in a while, ladies and gentlemen. This is us. It’s us with the scab ripped off.

No exaggeration here. A speech Barack felt compelled to give to keep the Wright matter under control is now on par with great literature by F.Scott Fitzgerald and Mark Twain. Uh huh.  Chris Matthews checks his objectivity at the door when he clocks in to work every day.  I don’t know how much more proof we need that he has a glaringly obvious bias to Democrats in general and Barack in particular.

I liked Barack’s speech.  I’ll leave the micro-analysis of it to others, because I have no interest in dissecting every single argument he made yesterday. I will say this, however — if the desired objective was to get the Wright matter settled, I don’t think that his speech achieved that objective.  This will follow him into November, unless the media gets tired of the story.  Don’t be surprised if this happens.  Without new information, stories like this die.  The media is in the tank for Barack, and it will do everything in its power to protect him, including not asking the hard questions of someone who wants to be president of this country.

2 Comments Posted on '08 Election, Conservatives, Republicans

mark sanford is now on the record

sanford.jpg

Mark Sanford, also known as the libertarian/conservative governor of South Carolina, tells conservatives why we should support John McCain in November and work to get him elected. The article is notable in what it doesn’t say. Sanford, like other South Carolina conservatives, has serious problems with McCain’s failed immigration plan, and shares most of the other concerns we have with John McCain — but he does not mention any of those concerns here.  Even though he didn’t endorse anyone when it could have mattered, I suspect Gov. Sanford was secretly backing someone other than McCain.  He’s doing what he feels he should do to support the Republican nominee, but this doesn’t look like someone who wants to be McCain’s VP.

Of course, I would lose much respect for Sanford if he started acting like Lindsey Graham around McCain.  But it is refreshing that even in his request for conservatives to support McCain, he doesn’t try to convince us that all the disagreements we have with him aren’t all that serious. I think Governor Sanford would be an excellent choice by McCain for VP. I know he’s not well-known nationally, but there’s no question conservatives can trust this guy to follow conservative principles because he’s done that as governor of SC. And by the way, I can’t believe McCain would be stupid enough to pick his BFF (Graham) for VP. If it’s not Sanford, I hope McCain’s VP pick is someone conservatives can trust, not a moderate Republican.

Read Governor Sanford’s argument for yourself here.  (It’s all about the fiscal conservatism of John McCain compared to Hillary and Barack’s many new spending proposals and the very real possibility of higher taxes to fund those proposals.) With the economy the way it is, it wouldn’t hurt to have a President committed to reducing spending, and that wouldn’t be either of the Democrats.

Posted on '08 Election, Democrats, Liberals, Random Musings

barack attempts to answer the critics

From RCP (originally posted at HuffPost), here’s Barack’s answer to those who question his relationship with Rev. Jeremiah Wright:

The pastor of my church, Rev. Jeremiah Wright, who recently preached his last sermon and is in the process of retiring, has touched off a firestorm over the last few days. He’s drawn attention as the result of some inflammatory and appalling remarks he made about our country, our politics, and my political opponents.

Let me say at the outset that I vehemently disagree and strongly condemn the statements that have been the subject of this controversy. I categorically denounce any statement that disparages our great country or serves to divide us from our allies. I also believe that words that degrade individuals have no place in our public dialogue, whether it’s on the campaign stump or in the pulpit. In sum, I reject outright the statements by Rev. Wright that are at issue.

Because these particular statements by Rev. Wright are so contrary to my own life and beliefs, a number of people have legitimately raised questions about the nature of my relationship with Rev. Wright and my membership in the church. Let me therefore provide some context.

As I have written about in my books, I first joined Trinity United Church of Christ nearly twenty years ago. I knew Rev. Wright as someone who served this nation with honor as a United States Marine, as a respected biblical scholar, and as someone who taught or lectured at seminaries across the country, from Union Theological Seminary to the University of Chicago. He also led a diverse congregation that was and still is a pillar of the South Side and the entire city of Chicago. It’s a congregation that does not merely preach social justice but acts it out each day, through ministries ranging from housing the homeless to reaching out to those with HIV/AIDS.

Most importantly, Rev. Wright preached the gospel of Jesus, a gospel on which I base my life. In other words, he has never been my political advisor; he’s been my pastor. And the sermons I heard him preach always related to our obligation to love God and one another, to work on behalf of the poor, and to seek justice at every turn.

Continue reading →

31 Comments Posted on '08 Election, Democrats, Liberals, Random Musings

questionable alliances

First it’s former NY Gov Eliot Spitzer and his high-priced call girl. He had to resign and he did.  It’s hard to feel any sympathy for a guy who wasn’t smart enough to recognize that he’s not the only government official capable of busting up prostitution rings.  It’s always annoying when politicians condemn activity they themselves engage in, so Spitzer isn’t getting a free pass by the public and the media.  That said, I’m not sure how strong the legal case is against him going forward.  If all he loses is his political career, that would still be a significant loss, so I’m not sure whether they should go ahead and prosecute him. Now, that’s not to say that cheating on his wife is acceptable behavior, or that politicians shouldn’t be treated the same as everyone else when they break laws. But in this case, I’m not sure there is much benefit to putting the guy in jail.

Side note to my friends on the other side of the aisle:  Democratic hypocrisy is not justified or excused by Republican hypocrisy.

Then the MSM finally gets around to questioning Barack Obama’s relationship with his controversial pastor, Rev. Jeremiah Wright. This is different than people like Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell endorsing Republican presidential candidates with which they only have a passing acquaintance.  As we now know, Obama and Rev. Wright have a closer relationship than that, and it is troubling that Obama doesn’t see the problem with having a friend like this.  Obama says that he doesn’t see his church as controversial.  I think he should get a second opinion on that.  Whether or not Obama shares some or all of Rev. Wright’s views — and for the record I don’t believe that he does — he must distance himself far from this guy, or this friendship will end up hurting him in the general election.

Tags: , , ,

2 Comments Posted on '08 Election, Democrats, Liberals

zombies

From the very quotable Andrew Sullivan:

The Clintons have always had a touch of the zombies about them: unkillable, they move relentlessly forward, propelled by a bloodlust for Republicans or uppity Democrats who dare to question their supremacy. You can’t escape; you can’t hide; and you can’t win. And these days, in the kinetic pace of the YouTube campaign, they are like the new 28 Days Later zombies. They come at you really quickly, like bats out of hell. Or Ohio, anyway.

Heh. There’s something to this analogy, though. It’s hard to believe that Hillary Clinton, who has wanted this job her whole life, would easily surrender her claim to the throne to Barack Obama. As Sullivan points out, the Clintons have been fighting and clawing to gain political power for themselves their whole political lives. Why would it be different now? Hillary and Bill have (so far) refused to believe that the Democratic party has moved on from Clinton nostalgia. This is a wise choice for the Democrats. Despite the overwhelmingly positive views of them by a few lib holdouts, the average Dem knows that their future isn’t with the past. The Clintons aren’t the guiding force behind the party anymore, and it’s a hard realization to make for both of them.

Even though the Clintons don’t have as much political power now as they think they do, it’s still enough to keep Barack from scoring a decisive knockout in the early rounds. Hillary is not to be underestimated. That zombie-like quality she has to keep surviving when people keep counting her out makes her a tough opponent — both to Barack and to John McCain. That’s why I question the wisdom of Republicans who crossed over to vote for Hillary in TX and OH. Did they really want to take the chance that she would get the Democratic nomination? She has destroyed all of her former Senate opponents. Anybody remember Rick Lazio? Jeanine Pirro? Rudy Giuliani (whose Senate and Presidential campaign was over before it began)? Don’t expect her to take it easy on John McCain.

The strategy that works against those evil Republicans doesn’t work against the Man of Hope. Until recently, she hasn’t been able to land any punches on Barack Obama. Wouldn’t it be ironic if that red phone ad questioning Barack’s readiness to be Commander-in-Chief ended up hurting him in the general election? Hillary has no choice but to go for the jugular if she still wants to win. But it’s a tough balancing act she will have to do here. Saying that Barack isn’t as qualified as herself and John McCain is dangerous if she isn’t 100% + sure she will win the Democratic nomination. Whatever happens in this Democratic contest…it will be a lot of fun to watch from the sidelines.

Tags: , , , ,

2 Comments Posted on '08 Election, Democrats, Liberals

barack questions hillary’s experience

About time someone did. This, from the CBS news blog(h/t: kos):

“I have not seen any evidence that she is better equipped to handle a crisis,” he said. “If the only criteria is longevity in Washington, then she’s certainly not going to beat John McCain on that. “

He goes on:

One of the things that I hope people start asking is what exactly is this foreign experience that she’s claiming? I know she talks about visiting 80 countries. It’s not clear, was she negotiating treaties or agreements or was she handling crises during this period of time? My sense is the answer is no.

Heh. Of course they are both less experienced than John McCain. Does this matter as much to Democrats as it does to Republicans? Byron York suggests that it does not.

A Washington Post/ABC News poll, finished a couple of weeks ago, asked Ohio Democrats to name the most important issue in their choice of a presidential candidate. Thirty-four percent said the economy and jobs. Thirty percent said health care. Nine percent said the war in Iraq, by which they most certainly meant a rapid withdrawal of U.S. troops. Three percent said ethics and honesty in government. Three percent said “change.” Two percent said education. And one percent said terrorism and national security. (The Post and ABC asked the same question in Texas, and the answers were similar; one percent named terrorism and national security as the top issue.)

Those numbers are supported by the experience of just walking around in Ohio. I ask a lot of people why they support, or don’t support, Hillary Clinton, and no one tells me it is because she would be a better or worse commander-in-chief than Barack Obama.

The economy will be a major issue for both parties. The depth of the misery is debatable, but Republicans cannot afford to ignore the economy and talk about national security 24/7. Most voters aren’t single-issue voters, even though Republicans see national security as a primary reason to vote McCain over Hillary and Barack. McCain needs to show that he has an alternative plan to deal with the other concerns of voters, including health care and the economy. National security and the fear of liberals screwing up the country wasn’t a good enough argument in the ’06 midterm. It won’t be enough in November.

Tags: , , ,

7 Comments Posted on '08 Election, Democrats, Liberals

atheists to the gospel of hope

This time, it’s the Economist.  They are just a bit skeptical of Obama and his economic views. 

FOR a man who has placed “hope” at the centre of his campaign, Barack Obama can sound pretty darned depressing. As the battle for the Democratic nomination reaches a climax in Texas and Ohio, the front-runner’s speeches have begun to paint a world in which laid-off parents compete with their children for minimum-wage jobs while corporate fat-cats mis-sell dodgy mortgages and ship jobs off to Mexico. The man who claims to be a “post-partisan” centrist seems to be channelling the spirit of William Jennings Bryan, the original American populist, who thunderously demanded to know “Upon which side shall the Democratic Party fight—upon the side of ‘the idle holders of idle capital’ or upon the side of ‘the struggling masses’?”

There is no denying that for some middle-class Americans, the past few years have indeed been a struggle. What is missing from Mr Obama’s speeches is any hint that this is not the whole story: that globalisation brings down prices and increases consumer choice; that unemployment is low by historical standards; that American companies are still the world’s most dynamic and creative; and that Americans still, on the whole, live lives of astonishing affluence.

Both Senator Clinton and Senator Obama speak the same way on this, but it is Barack Obama who is seen as the change agent.  Obama is seen as someone who can fix everything that is broken about America and close the inequities he sees between the working class and the people who employ the working class.  It is a common refrain of the political party trying to gain the White House that the economy is bad and that working people are getting hosed, because, after all — if people are satisfied with the status quo, why change parties?

The Economist goes on to suggest that we ignore what Obama says about the bad rich people, because he’s not really a “capitalist-hating demogogue”.  I agree that he’s not, but it’s hard to listen to Obama, Clinton, and Huckabee talking about corporations as evil and that punishing them would help the struggling middle class.  They all believe that government can fix inequities that government was never meant to fix. This kind of mindset enables the fiscal chaos the federal budget is in. 

The Democrats say that they will be more fiscally responsible, yet they have no plan for reforming the entitlements that keep us from getting a handle on federal spending.  Yes, I realize that spending has been one of President’s Bush’s weaknesses, but I don’t see how Hillary and Barack’s new spending proposals get us where we need to be on the budget. 

Even if we pull out of Iraq, there are still spending cuts and reforms to be made if we really want to see the kind of change Barack promises….

Unless these are the same kind of promises Democrats make (and don’t keep) every 4-8 years.