18/03: Obama Fails to Deliver?
Category: General
Posted by: Tocqueville
National Review has assembled a symposium of critiques and responses to today's speech by Barack Obama. The symposium's participants share the assesment that Obama came up short today. Perhaps the most hard-hitting evaluation comes from Alvin S. Felzenberg:
Today we may have witnessed the beginning of the end of Barack Obama’s once-stunning campaign for the presidency. Not for the first time, the Illinois senator demonstrated, for all to see, that he is not qualified to serve as the nation’s president — at least, to paraphrase Mr. Obama, “not this time.”
See the full assesment here.
Today we may have witnessed the beginning of the end of Barack Obama’s once-stunning campaign for the presidency. Not for the first time, the Illinois senator demonstrated, for all to see, that he is not qualified to serve as the nation’s president — at least, to paraphrase Mr. Obama, “not this time.”
See the full assesment here.
18/03: Obama Delivers?
Barack Obama speaks today, March 18, 2008, "A More Perfect Union."
Uncollected Thoughts:
11:30 a.m. CST. Although I have not seen the speech, the early reviews are strong.
From a learned friend (ftr: I don't think he reads the blog):
"Did you happen to watch the speech Obama just gave to address his relationship with his preacher? It was a hell of a speech. He addressed not only black anger but also white resentment and the historical roots of both. I really like this guy, and I think it’s primarily because I perceive him to be honest about the issues that really matter and to speak sincerely about them. I’m sure his politics are different from you, but do you get that same vibe from him? That he’s honest and sincere, even if he perceives the nation’s problems and their solutions differently than you do?"
That is good news for Obama.
When I read the speech (and watch the video), I will be looking for two things:
1. Did he address the fundamental logistical and legalistic issues of what did he know and when did he know it? Did he present a plausible defense on the main charge?
2. Did he offer a speech and performance captivating enough to encourage his admirers to disregard the specifics and continue to believe in the magic?
Number Two may be the more important question.
I will report back when I know more....
Uncollected Thoughts:
11:30 a.m. CST. Although I have not seen the speech, the early reviews are strong.
From a learned friend (ftr: I don't think he reads the blog):
"Did you happen to watch the speech Obama just gave to address his relationship with his preacher? It was a hell of a speech. He addressed not only black anger but also white resentment and the historical roots of both. I really like this guy, and I think it’s primarily because I perceive him to be honest about the issues that really matter and to speak sincerely about them. I’m sure his politics are different from you, but do you get that same vibe from him? That he’s honest and sincere, even if he perceives the nation’s problems and their solutions differently than you do?"
That is good news for Obama.
When I read the speech (and watch the video), I will be looking for two things:
1. Did he address the fundamental logistical and legalistic issues of what did he know and when did he know it? Did he present a plausible defense on the main charge?
2. Did he offer a speech and performance captivating enough to encourage his admirers to disregard the specifics and continue to believe in the magic?
Number Two may be the more important question.
I will report back when I know more....
Category: US in Iraq.archive.iv
Posted by: A Waco Farmer
This week marks five years of our war in Iraq and counting. Looking back to 2002, those of us who supported American military action against Saddam perhaps expected "an easier triumph, and a result [quite frankly] more fundamental and astounding," but the war persists.
Please read this review of reasons that going into Iraq made sense at the time (re-recycled from previous posts for the sake of consistency). At the conclusion, there is also a question from a year or so ago (pre-surge), which asks, "Now What?" Thirteen months later, in the midst of a tumultuous presidential election year, this interrogatory remains the fundamental decision for our generation. Please read and comment. I would very much like to hear from you all on this.
Why did we have to go?
1. Saddam was bad. He deserved ouster, capture, trial, and execution. Twenty-five million Iraqis deserved an opportunity to take control of their lives free of Saddam's oppressive regime.
2. Saddam was at war with the United States and a threat to regional security. For more than a decade, we flew combat missions over Iraq and drew anti-aircraft fire everyday. Our forces were stationed in Saudi Arabia to neutralize the threat Saddam posed to the region. Our presence in Saudi (part of our essential commitment to preserving the peace) irritated the international Muslim community. In fact, Osama bin Laden cited our presence in Saudi Arabia as the casus belli for war against America in general and 9-11 specifically.
3. Saddam was contained--but only as a result of the costly military commitments cited above. In addition, Saddam was contained as a result of a United Nations sanctions regime. Before the war, several human rights organizations charged that the heartless US-driven sanctions policy had killed upwards of 500,000 Iraqis through malnutrition and lack of adequate medical attention. Later, we learned of massive corruption on the part of the UN in administering the sanctions against Saddam's Iraq. Moreover, by 2002, the flagging resolve of the French and other European powers threatened the entire sanctions program. Containment was a leaky policy taking on more water every day.
4. Saddam unbound meant a return to the status quo ante bellum in which he had threatened his neighbors and worked assiduously to manufacture and deploy weapons of mass destruction.
5. Saddam and 911? It is a long held article of faith in the mainstream media that "911 and Iraq were not connected." This is nonsense. What they mean to say is that Saddam and his regime were not complicit in the terrorist attacks of 911. Those two statements are not the same. Conflation of these two distinct ideas belies a fundamental misunderstanding of the task that confronts us.
Please read this review of reasons that going into Iraq made sense at the time (re-recycled from previous posts for the sake of consistency). At the conclusion, there is also a question from a year or so ago (pre-surge), which asks, "Now What?" Thirteen months later, in the midst of a tumultuous presidential election year, this interrogatory remains the fundamental decision for our generation. Please read and comment. I would very much like to hear from you all on this.
Why did we have to go?
1. Saddam was bad. He deserved ouster, capture, trial, and execution. Twenty-five million Iraqis deserved an opportunity to take control of their lives free of Saddam's oppressive regime.
2. Saddam was at war with the United States and a threat to regional security. For more than a decade, we flew combat missions over Iraq and drew anti-aircraft fire everyday. Our forces were stationed in Saudi Arabia to neutralize the threat Saddam posed to the region. Our presence in Saudi (part of our essential commitment to preserving the peace) irritated the international Muslim community. In fact, Osama bin Laden cited our presence in Saudi Arabia as the casus belli for war against America in general and 9-11 specifically.
3. Saddam was contained--but only as a result of the costly military commitments cited above. In addition, Saddam was contained as a result of a United Nations sanctions regime. Before the war, several human rights organizations charged that the heartless US-driven sanctions policy had killed upwards of 500,000 Iraqis through malnutrition and lack of adequate medical attention. Later, we learned of massive corruption on the part of the UN in administering the sanctions against Saddam's Iraq. Moreover, by 2002, the flagging resolve of the French and other European powers threatened the entire sanctions program. Containment was a leaky policy taking on more water every day.
4. Saddam unbound meant a return to the status quo ante bellum in which he had threatened his neighbors and worked assiduously to manufacture and deploy weapons of mass destruction.
5. Saddam and 911? It is a long held article of faith in the mainstream media that "911 and Iraq were not connected." This is nonsense. What they mean to say is that Saddam and his regime were not complicit in the terrorist attacks of 911. Those two statements are not the same. Conflation of these two distinct ideas belies a fundamental misunderstanding of the task that confronts us.
17/03: The Winter of Our Discontent
Distressing Days in America. Warning: Do not read any further, if you are home alone in the dark.
A tale of three connected articles sent to me by three separate and unconnected friends:
The Worst First: from Spengler, the anonymous columnist from the Asian Times Online, who takes his pen name from the German philosopher of history, Oswald Spengler (1880-1936), who famously chronicled and foretold The Decline of the West.
You see where this is going.
From "Obama's women reveal his secret":
"Be afraid - be very afraid. America is at a low point in its fortunes, and feeling sorry for itself. When Barack utters the word hope, they instead hear, handout. A cynic might translate the national motto, E pluribus unum, as something for nothing. Now that the stock market and the housing market have failed to give Americans something for nothing, they want something for nothing from the government. The trouble is that he who gets something for nothing will earn every penny of it, twice over."
Read the full article here (if you must) and also this piece from today, which briefly, expertly, and depressingly examines the philosophy and scholarship at the heart of Jeremiah Wright's sermonic ejaculations.
A Solution?
Charles R. Kesler, professor of government at Claremont McKenna College and editor of the Claremont Review of Books, in the March 2008 edition of Imprimis, writes: "limited government is not a lost cause."
While Professor Kesler correctly observes that Barack Obama's sloganeering has offered little in the way of substance (merely "change" as a mystical cure-all), he admits that the Republican "dereliction" to their traditional duty is far more troubling.
Kesler: "Utterly missing in this election season is a serious focus on limited or constitutional government."
D'accord.
Kesler feels obliged to reconcile limited government with the need for efficient government in a modern world in great peril.
Insisting that limited government can also be "energetic" government, Kesler envisions a rededication to circumscribing the federal government to "its proper ends," empowered to protect a few "fixed and unchanging human rights."
But which ones?
Kesler loves the Declaration of Independence (who doesn't), which he calls a "great meditation...on republican government...grounded in human nature and operating by law and consent, [designed to protect] and affirm human liberty."
However, his curative is predicated on the notion that Natural Rights are self evident. The Problem of 2008? Natural Law is not self evident--at least not to all concerned parties. To many, the Natural Law argument is a rhetorical fiction designed to put forward a political point of view. In essence, the skeptics are correct. We all subscribe to philosophies that compel us toward the end we seek, and it is often impossible to see what came first: the self evident truth or the goal to which the self evident truth exhorts us.
That aside, What are Kesler's answers? His plan of action?
"Stand up for the flag / and let's all ring the Liberty Bell" (seriously).
To my way of thinking, you can never quote Merle Haggard too much. But even Kesler admits "restoration of constitutional government will require much more from us." Having said that, even as he acknowledges more is needed, Professor Kesler offers only more bromides and the sadly acute observation that 2008 seems unlikely to yield a leader serious about re-embracing the traditions of the framers.
Where's the Beef ?
Some Optimism.
The single ray of hope--such as it is--comes from Stephen E. Flynn, Jeanne J. Kirkpatrick Senior Fellow for National Security Studies at the Council on Foreign Relations. In the March 2008 issue of Foreign Affairs, Flynn writes:
"Resilience has historically been one of the United States' great national strengths. It was the quality that helped tame a raw continent and then allowed the country to cope with the extraordinary challenges that occasionally placed the American experiment in peril."
"Americans have drawn strength from adversity. Each generation bequeathed to the next a sense of confidence and optimism about the future.
"But this reservoir of self-sufficiency is being depleted."
Flynn asserts that we are increasingly "tethered" to modern conveniences, painfully unprepared for emergency, and disastrously dependent on an aging infrastructure.
We (the people) are detached, divided, ignorant, frightened, and impotent--which makes us extremely vulnerable to natural disasters and inviting prey for terrorists.
"These are hazards that can be managed only by an informed, inspired, and mobilized public," says Flynn.
What to do?
Flynn: "Reawaken the spirit of community and volunteerism."
The lesson of 9-11 should not be the horror inflicted on America at the hands of the terrorists who commandeered three planes and drove them into civilian targets of opportunity, inflicting mass carnage and confusion.
The lesson? We should embrace the model of United Flight 93. Citizens accomplished what NORAD could not. Heroism, awareness, and unity of purpose thwarted the terrorists on Flight 93.
Flynn gives a four-step process to restoring American resilience, all of which require awareness, rededication, and national spirit. Like Kesler, he suggests that presidential leadership is essential, and he also calls on the mass media and Hollywood to join the crusade. Good luck. But we will see.
Flynn gets a bit closer to identifying our problem: ignorance, apathy, and disconnect.
What can you do today? Get involved in your community. Fight for truth, justice, and the American way in your neighborhoods, parishes, and precincts--one yard at a time.
Note: thanks to Swabian Prince for Spengler, TF from SoCal for Kesler, and the Martian Mariner for Flynn (fyi: my offline invitation to MM still stands).
A tale of three connected articles sent to me by three separate and unconnected friends:
The Worst First: from Spengler, the anonymous columnist from the Asian Times Online, who takes his pen name from the German philosopher of history, Oswald Spengler (1880-1936), who famously chronicled and foretold The Decline of the West.
You see where this is going.
From "Obama's women reveal his secret":
"Be afraid - be very afraid. America is at a low point in its fortunes, and feeling sorry for itself. When Barack utters the word hope, they instead hear, handout. A cynic might translate the national motto, E pluribus unum, as something for nothing. Now that the stock market and the housing market have failed to give Americans something for nothing, they want something for nothing from the government. The trouble is that he who gets something for nothing will earn every penny of it, twice over."
Read the full article here (if you must) and also this piece from today, which briefly, expertly, and depressingly examines the philosophy and scholarship at the heart of Jeremiah Wright's sermonic ejaculations.
A Solution?
Charles R. Kesler, professor of government at Claremont McKenna College and editor of the Claremont Review of Books, in the March 2008 edition of Imprimis, writes: "limited government is not a lost cause."
While Professor Kesler correctly observes that Barack Obama's sloganeering has offered little in the way of substance (merely "change" as a mystical cure-all), he admits that the Republican "dereliction" to their traditional duty is far more troubling.
Kesler: "Utterly missing in this election season is a serious focus on limited or constitutional government."
D'accord.
Kesler feels obliged to reconcile limited government with the need for efficient government in a modern world in great peril.
Insisting that limited government can also be "energetic" government, Kesler envisions a rededication to circumscribing the federal government to "its proper ends," empowered to protect a few "fixed and unchanging human rights."
But which ones?
Kesler loves the Declaration of Independence (who doesn't), which he calls a "great meditation...on republican government...grounded in human nature and operating by law and consent, [designed to protect] and affirm human liberty."
However, his curative is predicated on the notion that Natural Rights are self evident. The Problem of 2008? Natural Law is not self evident--at least not to all concerned parties. To many, the Natural Law argument is a rhetorical fiction designed to put forward a political point of view. In essence, the skeptics are correct. We all subscribe to philosophies that compel us toward the end we seek, and it is often impossible to see what came first: the self evident truth or the goal to which the self evident truth exhorts us.
That aside, What are Kesler's answers? His plan of action?
"Stand up for the flag / and let's all ring the Liberty Bell" (seriously).
To my way of thinking, you can never quote Merle Haggard too much. But even Kesler admits "restoration of constitutional government will require much more from us." Having said that, even as he acknowledges more is needed, Professor Kesler offers only more bromides and the sadly acute observation that 2008 seems unlikely to yield a leader serious about re-embracing the traditions of the framers.
Where's the Beef ?
Some Optimism.
The single ray of hope--such as it is--comes from Stephen E. Flynn, Jeanne J. Kirkpatrick Senior Fellow for National Security Studies at the Council on Foreign Relations. In the March 2008 issue of Foreign Affairs, Flynn writes:
"Resilience has historically been one of the United States' great national strengths. It was the quality that helped tame a raw continent and then allowed the country to cope with the extraordinary challenges that occasionally placed the American experiment in peril."
"Americans have drawn strength from adversity. Each generation bequeathed to the next a sense of confidence and optimism about the future.
"But this reservoir of self-sufficiency is being depleted."
Flynn asserts that we are increasingly "tethered" to modern conveniences, painfully unprepared for emergency, and disastrously dependent on an aging infrastructure.
We (the people) are detached, divided, ignorant, frightened, and impotent--which makes us extremely vulnerable to natural disasters and inviting prey for terrorists.
"These are hazards that can be managed only by an informed, inspired, and mobilized public," says Flynn.
What to do?
Flynn: "Reawaken the spirit of community and volunteerism."
The lesson of 9-11 should not be the horror inflicted on America at the hands of the terrorists who commandeered three planes and drove them into civilian targets of opportunity, inflicting mass carnage and confusion.
The lesson? We should embrace the model of United Flight 93. Citizens accomplished what NORAD could not. Heroism, awareness, and unity of purpose thwarted the terrorists on Flight 93.
Flynn gives a four-step process to restoring American resilience, all of which require awareness, rededication, and national spirit. Like Kesler, he suggests that presidential leadership is essential, and he also calls on the mass media and Hollywood to join the crusade. Good luck. But we will see.
Flynn gets a bit closer to identifying our problem: ignorance, apathy, and disconnect.
What can you do today? Get involved in your community. Fight for truth, justice, and the American way in your neighborhoods, parishes, and precincts--one yard at a time.
Note: thanks to Swabian Prince for Spengler, TF from SoCal for Kesler, and the Martian Mariner for Flynn (fyi: my offline invitation to MM still stands).
In response to my post, "Obama is in Trouble," in which I suggested that the 527s would have a field day with Barack's incendiary Black Nationalist pastor, this word of caution from the
Swabian Prince:
I agree that he's in trouble, though I am not sure that it will be that easy for the issue to be raised in a general election, even by 527s. November is an eternity away--even the convention seems an eternity away--and eventually the subject will be exhausted. Long before then, people will decide they have heard enough about it, and for those who raise it again, there could be a fierce backlash in store. The OJ fiasco made it clear that almost anything can happen in this country when race is involved or can be plausibly invoked. And Chappaquiddick made it clear that even the most ruinous story can be rendered harmless by the passage of time and careful management, if the subject of the story has the correct political orientation and the media are so disposed.
But what I most worry about is the fact that, if THIS is the thing that brings Obama's candidacy down, it will sit very, very poorly with African Americans across the board. It may in the long run lead to some good effects, such as African Americans' moving away from voting as a bloc for Democratic candidates. But it could also lead to an enormous collective rage, which could in turn be a huge setback to racial harmony in this country.
And then the search will be on to supply an appropriately right-of-center target for that rage. I think that McCain, whatever his motives, has been right to leave the subject alone, so that when the backlash comes, he can avoid being a target of it. But the Clintons will try their best to make the Republicans the ones at fault. And crazy as it sounds, it could work, because think of who is carrying the ball on this issue right now--Limbaugh and Hannity and talk radio, etc.
At the moment the Clinton campaign has, in effect, farmed out its surrogacy to its ideological opponents. It will not be hard to turn and disavow them, when the time comes, and let them be the ones to bear the stain (just as Vietnam somehow became "Nixon's war"). Especially since African American voters are already so profoundly disposed to dislike and distrust conservatives and Republicans.
So this could still play out in ways that will hurt Republicans in what is otherwise looking like a pro-Democratic year. I am not predicting that, only suggesting it as a real possibility. In the end, if HRC gets the nomination, there are a lot of people who will have to be brought back on board. Demonizing the Republicans usually works.
And this: One other note from another astute friend of the Bosque Boys, Steffen Schmidt, aka Dr. Politics, who believes that this imbroglio "gives Mrs. Clinton a second wind," but he also judiciously advises that the breaking "stock market and financial crisis is going to knock Hill and Barack off the front pages" for a while.
Swabian Prince:
I agree that he's in trouble, though I am not sure that it will be that easy for the issue to be raised in a general election, even by 527s. November is an eternity away--even the convention seems an eternity away--and eventually the subject will be exhausted. Long before then, people will decide they have heard enough about it, and for those who raise it again, there could be a fierce backlash in store. The OJ fiasco made it clear that almost anything can happen in this country when race is involved or can be plausibly invoked. And Chappaquiddick made it clear that even the most ruinous story can be rendered harmless by the passage of time and careful management, if the subject of the story has the correct political orientation and the media are so disposed.
But what I most worry about is the fact that, if THIS is the thing that brings Obama's candidacy down, it will sit very, very poorly with African Americans across the board. It may in the long run lead to some good effects, such as African Americans' moving away from voting as a bloc for Democratic candidates. But it could also lead to an enormous collective rage, which could in turn be a huge setback to racial harmony in this country.
And then the search will be on to supply an appropriately right-of-center target for that rage. I think that McCain, whatever his motives, has been right to leave the subject alone, so that when the backlash comes, he can avoid being a target of it. But the Clintons will try their best to make the Republicans the ones at fault. And crazy as it sounds, it could work, because think of who is carrying the ball on this issue right now--Limbaugh and Hannity and talk radio, etc.
At the moment the Clinton campaign has, in effect, farmed out its surrogacy to its ideological opponents. It will not be hard to turn and disavow them, when the time comes, and let them be the ones to bear the stain (just as Vietnam somehow became "Nixon's war"). Especially since African American voters are already so profoundly disposed to dislike and distrust conservatives and Republicans.
So this could still play out in ways that will hurt Republicans in what is otherwise looking like a pro-Democratic year. I am not predicting that, only suggesting it as a real possibility. In the end, if HRC gets the nomination, there are a lot of people who will have to be brought back on board. Demonizing the Republicans usually works.
~~Swabian Prince
And this: One other note from another astute friend of the Bosque Boys, Steffen Schmidt, aka Dr. Politics, who believes that this imbroglio "gives Mrs. Clinton a second wind," but he also judiciously advises that the breaking "stock market and financial crisis is going to knock Hill and Barack off the front pages" for a while.
17/03: Time To Short Obama?
This morning at RealClearPolitics John McIntyre writes a provocative but reasonable piece that suggests that one should (in Wall Street terms) "buy Hillary" (he should have written "go long Hillary and short Obama."). He writes:
The mostly unnoticed switch of Puerto Rico from a caucus on June 7 to a primary on June 1, gives Hillary Clinton a very real opportunity to surpass Barack Obama in the popular vote count. If Senator Clinton can "win" the popular vote, this will provide undecided superdelegates ample rationale to go with the less risky general election option of Senator Clinton.
If that is correct, that is important. Having a slight but indecisive delegate lead becomes a mere argument if the opponent has a lead in the popular vote, which becomes simply another argument -- but, when the issue is clouded, the one with the ostentatiously racist minister has a distinct disadvantage in the argument.
The mostly unnoticed switch of Puerto Rico from a caucus on June 7 to a primary on June 1, gives Hillary Clinton a very real opportunity to surpass Barack Obama in the popular vote count. If Senator Clinton can "win" the popular vote, this will provide undecided superdelegates ample rationale to go with the less risky general election option of Senator Clinton.
If that is correct, that is important. Having a slight but indecisive delegate lead becomes a mere argument if the opponent has a lead in the popular vote, which becomes simply another argument -- but, when the issue is clouded, the one with the ostentatiously racist minister has a distinct disadvantage in the argument.
16/03: Obama is in Trouble
Category: Campaign 2008.10
Posted by: A Waco Farmer
The week before last I wrote:
Most importantly, however, [Mrs. Clinton] must create the impression among party insiders (obviously ultra-strategic thinkers) that she is a better bet in the fall. She must continue to create doubts concerning Obama's readiness. She must have a compelling "moral" argument for the nomination--but, much more importantly, she must convince the princes of the Democratic Party that she is the one who can deliver when it counts.
Why now? We are suddenly aware that Obama is not infallible or unstoppable.
The Bottom Line: If the super delegates believe that Hillary equals victory, they will find a suitable rationale for giving her the nod.
Ten days later? Now more than ever.
Barack Obama is in Trouble.
The Jeremiah Wright question is a killer. Why?
1. Candidate Obama is between a rock and a hard place. Does he abandon the pastor who brought him to Jesus and taught him to believe in the Audacity of Hope? For many of us, this will demonstrate a lack of character. Or does he stick with his friend and spiritual mentor, who just happens to believe that America is a "God-damned nightmare of racism, brutality, exploitation, and oppression? Goodbye mainstream.
When did you stop beating your wife, Senator?
2. Obviously, Obama must renounce and reject Wright (which he has done and, presumably, will continue to do). But this course of action is also highly problematic. Repudiating your pastor of twenty years is no easy assignment. The "I was absent that day" defense is ridiculous, and, more importantly, it is deadly for a candidate whose entire campaign is built on sincerity and extraordinary judgment.
3. Even if Team Hillary and the mainstream media were to award Obama and his Reverend a pass, does anybody think that the GOP will? In the fall, Republican surrogates are going to "527" Jeremiah Wright mercilessly and on a scale previously unimagined.
We are constantly told that Karl Rove and his acolytes mastered "taking away the opponents greatest strength."
Just imagine the ads. You've seen and heard the tapes.
Jeremiah Wright (in full war cry and with the crowd going wild): "U.S. KKK of A....chickens coming home to roost...CIA conspiracy to infect black community with AIDS...God Damn America!!!"
Throw in some Michelle Obama admitting she is proud of her country for the first time, and Americans will be faced with their worst nightmare: a president who may secretly buy into misguided, hate-filled, victimization peddling that promulgates racial division and despair.
So much for hope, reconciliation, and change.
For the first time in a long time: advantage Mrs. Clinton.
Most importantly, however, [Mrs. Clinton] must create the impression among party insiders (obviously ultra-strategic thinkers) that she is a better bet in the fall. She must continue to create doubts concerning Obama's readiness. She must have a compelling "moral" argument for the nomination--but, much more importantly, she must convince the princes of the Democratic Party that she is the one who can deliver when it counts.
Why now? We are suddenly aware that Obama is not infallible or unstoppable.
The Bottom Line: If the super delegates believe that Hillary equals victory, they will find a suitable rationale for giving her the nod.
Ten days later? Now more than ever.
Barack Obama is in Trouble.
The Jeremiah Wright question is a killer. Why?
1. Candidate Obama is between a rock and a hard place. Does he abandon the pastor who brought him to Jesus and taught him to believe in the Audacity of Hope? For many of us, this will demonstrate a lack of character. Or does he stick with his friend and spiritual mentor, who just happens to believe that America is a "God-damned nightmare of racism, brutality, exploitation, and oppression? Goodbye mainstream.
When did you stop beating your wife, Senator?
2. Obviously, Obama must renounce and reject Wright (which he has done and, presumably, will continue to do). But this course of action is also highly problematic. Repudiating your pastor of twenty years is no easy assignment. The "I was absent that day" defense is ridiculous, and, more importantly, it is deadly for a candidate whose entire campaign is built on sincerity and extraordinary judgment.
3. Even if Team Hillary and the mainstream media were to award Obama and his Reverend a pass, does anybody think that the GOP will? In the fall, Republican surrogates are going to "527" Jeremiah Wright mercilessly and on a scale previously unimagined.
We are constantly told that Karl Rove and his acolytes mastered "taking away the opponents greatest strength."
Just imagine the ads. You've seen and heard the tapes.
Jeremiah Wright (in full war cry and with the crowd going wild): "U.S. KKK of A....chickens coming home to roost...CIA conspiracy to infect black community with AIDS...God Damn America!!!"
Throw in some Michelle Obama admitting she is proud of her country for the first time, and Americans will be faced with their worst nightmare: a president who may secretly buy into misguided, hate-filled, victimization peddling that promulgates racial division and despair.
So much for hope, reconciliation, and change.
For the first time in a long time: advantage Mrs. Clinton.
"The President is wrong and I think he knows it."
"The Administration demands immunity...[for] companies for activities [in cooperation with intelligence efforts] about which the President wants only a small number of Members of Congress and no member of the Judicial Branch...to know anything about."
"Why would the Administration oppose a judicial determination of whether the companies already have immunity? There are at least three explanations:
"First, the President knows that it was the Administration's incompetence in failing to follow the procedures in the statute that prevented immunity from being conveyed -- that's one possibility. They simply didn't do it right.
"Second, the Administration's legal argument that the surveillance requests were lawfully authorized was wrong;
"or third, public reports that the surveillance activities undertaken by the companies went far beyond anything about which any Member of Congress was notified, as is required by the law."
This is a rancorous accusation.
The Washington Post notes that the Speaker "all but called the president a liar."
In response, the White House posted this stern retort on its website: FISA Fact Check: Setting the Record Straight on Speaker Pelosi,
and this brief but biting statement regarding the "partisan House bill":
"Today, the House of Representatives took a significant step backward in defending our country against terrorism...[and making] it easier for class-action trial lawyers to sue companies whose only 'offense' is that they are alleged to have assisted in efforts to protect the country after the attacks of September 11."
"The House bill is not a serious...effort to protect our national security. It is a partisan bill designed to give the House Democratic leadership cover for their failure to act responsibly and vote on the bipartisan Senate bill [already passed]."
What is going on here?
I am convinced that the House is not stonewalling merely to curry favor with the Democratic Party's admittedly important trial-lawyer constituency. On the other hand, I am certainly skeptical that the Senate bill is primarily designed to cover the mistakes and perfidy of the White House at the expense of the myriad honest Americans who purportedly gave up their civil liberties in the rush to install Bush's unitary executive regime.
What is really going on here?
1. The House is flexing its Article I muscles, reminding the Executive that we operate under a system in which there are three co-equal branches of government.
2. The House Democrats led by Nancy Pelosi despise this president, and they see an opening to do some damage to him politically.
Is Speaker Pelosi right that the Bushies probably bungled some of this early on? Bet on it. Knowing what we know about this administration (and the nature of humanity), there are likely embarrassing miscues within the process. Thorough investigations and judicial proceedings would undoubtedly produce wonderful opportunities for public recrimination and further humiliations for the Bush White House.
But is that good enough reason to derail this vital national security bill? Political vindication should not trump public policy.
Okay, folks, we understand: you don't like one another. But get this fixed. We have a serious situation on our hands.
Personal Note: my Congressman, Chet Edwards, Democrat from Texas 17, can help. I call on him to play a constructive role in healing this personal (and institutional) rift.
"The Administration demands immunity...[for] companies for activities [in cooperation with intelligence efforts] about which the President wants only a small number of Members of Congress and no member of the Judicial Branch...to know anything about."
"Why would the Administration oppose a judicial determination of whether the companies already have immunity? There are at least three explanations:
"First, the President knows that it was the Administration's incompetence in failing to follow the procedures in the statute that prevented immunity from being conveyed -- that's one possibility. They simply didn't do it right.
"Second, the Administration's legal argument that the surveillance requests were lawfully authorized was wrong;
"or third, public reports that the surveillance activities undertaken by the companies went far beyond anything about which any Member of Congress was notified, as is required by the law."
~~Speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi
This is a rancorous accusation.
The Washington Post notes that the Speaker "all but called the president a liar."
In response, the White House posted this stern retort on its website: FISA Fact Check: Setting the Record Straight on Speaker Pelosi,
and this brief but biting statement regarding the "partisan House bill":
"Today, the House of Representatives took a significant step backward in defending our country against terrorism...[and making] it easier for class-action trial lawyers to sue companies whose only 'offense' is that they are alleged to have assisted in efforts to protect the country after the attacks of September 11."
"The House bill is not a serious...effort to protect our national security. It is a partisan bill designed to give the House Democratic leadership cover for their failure to act responsibly and vote on the bipartisan Senate bill [already passed]."
What is going on here?
I am convinced that the House is not stonewalling merely to curry favor with the Democratic Party's admittedly important trial-lawyer constituency. On the other hand, I am certainly skeptical that the Senate bill is primarily designed to cover the mistakes and perfidy of the White House at the expense of the myriad honest Americans who purportedly gave up their civil liberties in the rush to install Bush's unitary executive regime.
What is really going on here?
1. The House is flexing its Article I muscles, reminding the Executive that we operate under a system in which there are three co-equal branches of government.
2. The House Democrats led by Nancy Pelosi despise this president, and they see an opening to do some damage to him politically.
Is Speaker Pelosi right that the Bushies probably bungled some of this early on? Bet on it. Knowing what we know about this administration (and the nature of humanity), there are likely embarrassing miscues within the process. Thorough investigations and judicial proceedings would undoubtedly produce wonderful opportunities for public recrimination and further humiliations for the Bush White House.
But is that good enough reason to derail this vital national security bill? Political vindication should not trump public policy.
Okay, folks, we understand: you don't like one another. But get this fixed. We have a serious situation on our hands.
Personal Note: my Congressman, Chet Edwards, Democrat from Texas 17, can help. I call on him to play a constructive role in healing this personal (and institutional) rift.
We have been talking about Jeremiah Wright and his church (Barack Obama's home church) for a long time on this blog:
the Okie Gardener's extremely prescient original piece from thirteen months ago,
my analysis of the New York Times feature on Obama, Wright, and Trinity United Church of Christ from last April,
and this comment from a regular reader who asserted:
"A candidate's church shouldn't be an issue unless it is something truly weird or cultish... something that would indicate that the candidate is not of sound mind or character."
We have wondered when or if the bright light of public scrutiny might shine on this facet of candidate Obama's personal history, and we have speculated on the possible political impact of such an examination.
Is this church "weird enough" or sufficiently outlandish to influence the campaign?
How will the Radical Religious Left play in the living rooms of America?
Ross Douthat, a great writer and thinker with a sharp feel for politics and history, thinks the Reverend Wright factor may prove telling in Decision 2008. I tend to agree.
Douthat writes today in the Atlantic :
"So far, Obama has attempted to laugh off Wright's penchant for inflammatory rhetoric, comparing him to 'an old uncle who says things I don't always agree with,' and suggesting that this is 'what happens when you just cherry-pick statements from a guy who had a 40-year career as a pastor.' But as Wright's America-bashing gets more airtime -- and as his Obama-boosting sermons put his church's tax exemption at risk -- Obama may have to go further down the road to explicitly disavowing his pastor. His connection to Wright isn't the equivalent of John McCain's going to Liberty University to make nice with Jerry Falwell. It's the equivalent of John McCain taking his wife and children, most Sundays, to Jerry Falwell's church. And the disconnect between Obama's studied moderation and his congregation's radicalism requires more of an explanation than he's offered so far.
"In an election when many expected that Mitt Romney's fate would be determined by how he talked (or didn't) about his Mormon faith, it may be Obama whose candidacy ends up riding on how he addresses the relationship between his politics and his church."
Bottom Line: the key for Hillary has always been staying power. Could she stick around until the final rounds when her experience, training, and tenacity might prove decisive? As we head into the last phase of this campaign like no other, Mrs. Clinton seems increasingly well-positioned to knock out the kid with a vicious left cross.
UPDATE: Senator Obama responds:
"The statements that Rev. Wright made that are the cause of this controversy were not statements I personally heard him preach while I sat in the pews of Trinity or heard him utter in private conversation. When these statements first came to my attention, it was at the beginning of my presidential campaign. I made it clear at the time that I strongly condemned his comments. But because Rev. Wright was on the verge of retirement, and because of my strong links to the Trinity faith community, where I married my wife and where my daughters were baptized, I did not think it appropriate to leave the church.
"Let me repeat what I've said earlier. All of the statements that have been the subject of controversy are ones that I vehemently condemn. They in no way reflect my attitudes and directly contradict my profound love for this country."
Say what? Pretty weak. In twenty years he never actually heard "any of the statements that have been the subject of controversy"?
Two questions spring to mind:
How regular was his attendance?
How compliant does he expect us to be on this porous explanation?
UPDATE2: Obama Meltdown Begins.
From MSNBC: "Obama’s campaign announced that the minister, the Rev. Jeremiah Wright Jr., had left its spiritual advisory committee after videotapes of his sermons again ignited fierce debate in news accounts and political blogs."
This is big...and O seems to sense exactly how devastating...
the Okie Gardener's extremely prescient original piece from thirteen months ago,
my analysis of the New York Times feature on Obama, Wright, and Trinity United Church of Christ from last April,
and this comment from a regular reader who asserted:
"A candidate's church shouldn't be an issue unless it is something truly weird or cultish... something that would indicate that the candidate is not of sound mind or character."
We have wondered when or if the bright light of public scrutiny might shine on this facet of candidate Obama's personal history, and we have speculated on the possible political impact of such an examination.
Is this church "weird enough" or sufficiently outlandish to influence the campaign?
How will the Radical Religious Left play in the living rooms of America?
Ross Douthat, a great writer and thinker with a sharp feel for politics and history, thinks the Reverend Wright factor may prove telling in Decision 2008. I tend to agree.
Douthat writes today in the Atlantic :
"So far, Obama has attempted to laugh off Wright's penchant for inflammatory rhetoric, comparing him to 'an old uncle who says things I don't always agree with,' and suggesting that this is 'what happens when you just cherry-pick statements from a guy who had a 40-year career as a pastor.' But as Wright's America-bashing gets more airtime -- and as his Obama-boosting sermons put his church's tax exemption at risk -- Obama may have to go further down the road to explicitly disavowing his pastor. His connection to Wright isn't the equivalent of John McCain's going to Liberty University to make nice with Jerry Falwell. It's the equivalent of John McCain taking his wife and children, most Sundays, to Jerry Falwell's church. And the disconnect between Obama's studied moderation and his congregation's radicalism requires more of an explanation than he's offered so far.
"In an election when many expected that Mitt Romney's fate would be determined by how he talked (or didn't) about his Mormon faith, it may be Obama whose candidacy ends up riding on how he addresses the relationship between his politics and his church."
Bottom Line: the key for Hillary has always been staying power. Could she stick around until the final rounds when her experience, training, and tenacity might prove decisive? As we head into the last phase of this campaign like no other, Mrs. Clinton seems increasingly well-positioned to knock out the kid with a vicious left cross.
UPDATE: Senator Obama responds:
"The statements that Rev. Wright made that are the cause of this controversy were not statements I personally heard him preach while I sat in the pews of Trinity or heard him utter in private conversation. When these statements first came to my attention, it was at the beginning of my presidential campaign. I made it clear at the time that I strongly condemned his comments. But because Rev. Wright was on the verge of retirement, and because of my strong links to the Trinity faith community, where I married my wife and where my daughters were baptized, I did not think it appropriate to leave the church.
"Let me repeat what I've said earlier. All of the statements that have been the subject of controversy are ones that I vehemently condemn. They in no way reflect my attitudes and directly contradict my profound love for this country."
Say what? Pretty weak. In twenty years he never actually heard "any of the statements that have been the subject of controversy"?
Two questions spring to mind:
How regular was his attendance?
How compliant does he expect us to be on this porous explanation?
UPDATE2: Obama Meltdown Begins.
From MSNBC: "Obama’s campaign announced that the minister, the Rev. Jeremiah Wright Jr., had left its spiritual advisory committee after videotapes of his sermons again ignited fierce debate in news accounts and political blogs."
This is big...and O seems to sense exactly how devastating...
Category: American Culture
Posted by: A Waco Farmer
I have previously proclaimed my preference for Newsweek over TIME (although, ironically, I subscribe to TIME and not Newsweek--long story).
As I reported earlier this week, I had a chance to pore over the 10 March 2008 edition of Newsweek during a three-hour flight back from Washington, D.C.
In a forthcoming post, I intend to comment on Evan Thomas's essay on bias in the mainstream media, "The Myth of Objectivity," in which he offered some provocative analysis--but falls short of capturing the full extent to which complicated forces and personalities lead to politically slanted news coverage.
But before I get to that, a bit of almost unadulterated praise and sincere admiration: I very much appreciated the cover story marking the passing of William F. Buckley, "HE KNEW HE WAS RIGHT." The Newsweek treatment proved far superior to TIME in terms of providing breadth, depth, and, most importantly, recognition of the historic impact of Buckley's life. The ten-page, heart-of-the-magazine, multi-author, multi-view coverage featured a bio-piece from top political writer and sometime-editor, Evan Thomas himself. Adding to the excellent primary story, the edition offered two fascinating ancillary opinions from Katrina Vanden Heuvel, liberal maven and editor and publisher of The Nation, and Michael Gerson, former George W. Bush speechwriter, regular contributor, and articulate proponent of "compassionate conservatism."
The death of Buckley, quite frankly, left me at a loss for appropriate words. Admittedly, my silence sprang from my unfamiliarity with him as a person. While I certainly knew the celebrated public persona of the quintessentially urbane conservative intellectual, I knew very little about the man behind the iconic presence.
The Newsweek coverage offered a much-needed window into the soul of the warm and compassionate, "sunny and hopeful" (and funny) Buckley.
Responding to Whittaker Chambers and his assertion that the West was doomed, and, therefore, "attempts to save the West [like the National Journal] were also doomed," Buckley responded:
"Yes, well, even so, America needs a journal to argue why we ought to have survived."
When asked what he would do if he won the 1965 New York mayoral race, Buckley answered: "Demand a recount."
More Serious: his political philosophy in two sentences:
"I believe that the duel between Christianity and atheism is the most important in the world. I further believe that the struggle between individualism and collectivism is the same struggle reproduced on another level."
On the other hand, all who know him agreed that Buckley placed friendship over politics and ideology. He was the “civil conservative.”
Wonderful.
I said almost unadulterated praise:
Newsweek (and Vanden Heuvel) offered the two obligatory caveats in a Buckley obituary: he supported McCarthy (the bad one), and he resisted the civil rights revolution. These reminders are appropriate--but, for some context, one might also notice that other prominent and well-meaning Cold War Catholics of the time rallied around Joe McCarthy--think of the Kennedy family, for example. And one might also note, if we truly lived in a society in which we were able to speak freely without fear of reprisal, that the myriad laudable effects of judicially coerced racial equality actually produced a plethora of unintended deleterious consequences within modern society that have nothing to do with equal justice.
One other quibble: Newsweek succumbs to the current media template that asserts that the civil and refined Buckley, if he could, would tell us that Rush Limbaugh and his ill-mannered ilk are destroying the conservative movement, giving back the hard-won gains of the last fifty years.
But, up until last week, Buckley could have told us anything he wanted--and usually did. I think it is fair to assume that Buckley preferred a wholly different style from the right-wing talkers--but that seems beside the point. Buckley left us with no deathbed denunciation of the less-talented and coarser voices of conservatism, and it is disingenuous to attempt to craft such a condemnation posthumously.
As I reported earlier this week, I had a chance to pore over the 10 March 2008 edition of Newsweek during a three-hour flight back from Washington, D.C.
In a forthcoming post, I intend to comment on Evan Thomas's essay on bias in the mainstream media, "The Myth of Objectivity," in which he offered some provocative analysis--but falls short of capturing the full extent to which complicated forces and personalities lead to politically slanted news coverage.
But before I get to that, a bit of almost unadulterated praise and sincere admiration: I very much appreciated the cover story marking the passing of William F. Buckley, "HE KNEW HE WAS RIGHT." The Newsweek treatment proved far superior to TIME in terms of providing breadth, depth, and, most importantly, recognition of the historic impact of Buckley's life. The ten-page, heart-of-the-magazine, multi-author, multi-view coverage featured a bio-piece from top political writer and sometime-editor, Evan Thomas himself. Adding to the excellent primary story, the edition offered two fascinating ancillary opinions from Katrina Vanden Heuvel, liberal maven and editor and publisher of The Nation, and Michael Gerson, former George W. Bush speechwriter, regular contributor, and articulate proponent of "compassionate conservatism."
The death of Buckley, quite frankly, left me at a loss for appropriate words. Admittedly, my silence sprang from my unfamiliarity with him as a person. While I certainly knew the celebrated public persona of the quintessentially urbane conservative intellectual, I knew very little about the man behind the iconic presence.
The Newsweek coverage offered a much-needed window into the soul of the warm and compassionate, "sunny and hopeful" (and funny) Buckley.
Responding to Whittaker Chambers and his assertion that the West was doomed, and, therefore, "attempts to save the West [like the National Journal] were also doomed," Buckley responded:
"Yes, well, even so, America needs a journal to argue why we ought to have survived."
When asked what he would do if he won the 1965 New York mayoral race, Buckley answered: "Demand a recount."
More Serious: his political philosophy in two sentences:
"I believe that the duel between Christianity and atheism is the most important in the world. I further believe that the struggle between individualism and collectivism is the same struggle reproduced on another level."
On the other hand, all who know him agreed that Buckley placed friendship over politics and ideology. He was the “civil conservative.”
Wonderful.
I said almost unadulterated praise:
Newsweek (and Vanden Heuvel) offered the two obligatory caveats in a Buckley obituary: he supported McCarthy (the bad one), and he resisted the civil rights revolution. These reminders are appropriate--but, for some context, one might also notice that other prominent and well-meaning Cold War Catholics of the time rallied around Joe McCarthy--think of the Kennedy family, for example. And one might also note, if we truly lived in a society in which we were able to speak freely without fear of reprisal, that the myriad laudable effects of judicially coerced racial equality actually produced a plethora of unintended deleterious consequences within modern society that have nothing to do with equal justice.
One other quibble: Newsweek succumbs to the current media template that asserts that the civil and refined Buckley, if he could, would tell us that Rush Limbaugh and his ill-mannered ilk are destroying the conservative movement, giving back the hard-won gains of the last fifty years.
But, up until last week, Buckley could have told us anything he wanted--and usually did. I think it is fair to assume that Buckley preferred a wholly different style from the right-wing talkers--but that seems beside the point. Buckley left us with no deathbed denunciation of the less-talented and coarser voices of conservatism, and it is disingenuous to attempt to craft such a condemnation posthumously.
