What was George Washington's middle name?
Trick question. The first president of the United States to have a middle name was John Quincy Adams. He was the sixth decider-in-chief. He was elected in the disputed election of 1824 (over two-namer, Andrew Jackson), and he served from 1825-1829.
During the nineteenth century, presidents with middle names were the exceptions rather than the rule:
William Henry Harrison
James Knox Polk
Hiram Ulysses Grant, who, according to legend, changed his name to Ulysses Simpson Grant upon entering West Point because he preferred the sound of U.S. Grant to the initials H.U.G.
Rutherford Birchard Hayes
James Abram Garfield
Chester Alan Arthur
Stephen Grover Cleveland dropped his first name and subsequently went on to fame and political fortune with the trimmer handle.
For the most part, twentieth century presidents were rich with middle names.
Technically, Teddy Roosevelt was the sole exception, although, like Cleveland, Thomas Woodrow Wilson and John Calvin Coolidge dropped their assigned first names when they hit adulthood.
Franklin Delano Roosevelt (FDR) was the president who made it all matter. Then JFK and LBJ.
Jimmy Carter tried to forget his middle name was Earl. Bill Clinton seemed to revel in his middle name: Jefferson. Opponents of George Bush-41 attempted to make hay out of his four-banger, upper-crust-sounding family name: George Herbert Walker Bush. His son, Bush-43, has been called simply "W." by many, as a shorthand distinction between him and his father, as well as a low-grade measure of disrespect.
Is it "the ultimate fear bomb" to call Barack Hussein Obama by his full name?
Presumably, the unfortunate moniker was given to him with the best of intentions by his parents who loved him and wanted the best for him.
Sometimes names turn out to be unforeseen obstacles or annoyances.
A Personal Aside: my parents affixed me with a perfectly sophisticated, cultured, and fairly uncommon given-name back in 1964 (Ashley). During the 1980s, my first name became popular as a feminine given-name. I wish I had a dollar for every early-twenty-something who has asked me over the last fifteen years: "how come you got a girl's name?"
But it's my name. I am who I am.
My advice to BHO: Deal with it.
Trick question. The first president of the United States to have a middle name was John Quincy Adams. He was the sixth decider-in-chief. He was elected in the disputed election of 1824 (over two-namer, Andrew Jackson), and he served from 1825-1829.
During the nineteenth century, presidents with middle names were the exceptions rather than the rule:
William Henry Harrison
James Knox Polk
Hiram Ulysses Grant, who, according to legend, changed his name to Ulysses Simpson Grant upon entering West Point because he preferred the sound of U.S. Grant to the initials H.U.G.
Rutherford Birchard Hayes
James Abram Garfield
Chester Alan Arthur
Stephen Grover Cleveland dropped his first name and subsequently went on to fame and political fortune with the trimmer handle.
For the most part, twentieth century presidents were rich with middle names.
Technically, Teddy Roosevelt was the sole exception, although, like Cleveland, Thomas Woodrow Wilson and John Calvin Coolidge dropped their assigned first names when they hit adulthood.
Franklin Delano Roosevelt (FDR) was the president who made it all matter. Then JFK and LBJ.
Jimmy Carter tried to forget his middle name was Earl. Bill Clinton seemed to revel in his middle name: Jefferson. Opponents of George Bush-41 attempted to make hay out of his four-banger, upper-crust-sounding family name: George Herbert Walker Bush. His son, Bush-43, has been called simply "W." by many, as a shorthand distinction between him and his father, as well as a low-grade measure of disrespect.
Is it "the ultimate fear bomb" to call Barack Hussein Obama by his full name?
Presumably, the unfortunate moniker was given to him with the best of intentions by his parents who loved him and wanted the best for him.
Sometimes names turn out to be unforeseen obstacles or annoyances.
A Personal Aside: my parents affixed me with a perfectly sophisticated, cultured, and fairly uncommon given-name back in 1964 (Ashley). During the 1980s, my first name became popular as a feminine given-name. I wish I had a dollar for every early-twenty-something who has asked me over the last fifteen years: "how come you got a girl's name?"
But it's my name. I am who I am.
My advice to BHO: Deal with it.
William F. Buckley died at his desk at his home in Stamford, Connecticut last week; he was 82. I agree with George Nash, who called Buckley "the preeminent voice of American conservatism" during the latter half of the twentieth century.
Please consider this excerpt from Peggy Noonan's fitting tribute to the conservative sage:
"Buckley was a one-man refutation of Hollywood's idea of a conservative. He was rising in the 1950s and early '60s, and Hollywood's idea of a conservative was still Mr. Potter, the nasty old man of "It's a Wonderful Life," who would make a world of grubby Pottersvilles if he could, who cared only about money and the joy of bullying idealists. Bill Buckley's persona, as the first famous conservative of the modern media age, said no to all that. Conservatives are brilliant, capacious, full of delight at the world and full of mischief, too. That's what he was. He upended old clichés.
"This was no small thing, changing this template. Ronald Reagan was the other who changed it, by being a sunny man, a happy one. They were friends, admired each other, had two separate and complementary roles. Reagan was in the game of winning votes, of persuading, of leading a political movement that catapulted him to two terms as governor of California, the nation's biggest state, at a time when conservatives were seemingly on the defensive but in retrospect were rising to new heights. He would speak to normal people and persuade them of the efficacy of conservative solutions to pressing problems. Buckley's job was not reaching on-the-ground voters, or reaching voters at all, and his attitude toward his abilities in that area was reflected in his merry answer when asked what he would do if he won the mayoralty of New York. "Demand a recount," he famously replied. His role was speaking to those thirsting for a coherent worldview, for an intellectual and moral attitude grounded in truth. He provided intellectual ballast. Inspired in part by him, voters went on to support Reagan. Both could have existed without the other, but Buckley's work would have been less satisfying, less realized, without Reagan and his presidency, and Reagan's leadership would have been more difficult, and also somehow less satisfying, without Buckley."
I recommend reading all of Noonan's excellent essay in full here.
Please consider this excerpt from Peggy Noonan's fitting tribute to the conservative sage:
"Buckley was a one-man refutation of Hollywood's idea of a conservative. He was rising in the 1950s and early '60s, and Hollywood's idea of a conservative was still Mr. Potter, the nasty old man of "It's a Wonderful Life," who would make a world of grubby Pottersvilles if he could, who cared only about money and the joy of bullying idealists. Bill Buckley's persona, as the first famous conservative of the modern media age, said no to all that. Conservatives are brilliant, capacious, full of delight at the world and full of mischief, too. That's what he was. He upended old clichés.
"This was no small thing, changing this template. Ronald Reagan was the other who changed it, by being a sunny man, a happy one. They were friends, admired each other, had two separate and complementary roles. Reagan was in the game of winning votes, of persuading, of leading a political movement that catapulted him to two terms as governor of California, the nation's biggest state, at a time when conservatives were seemingly on the defensive but in retrospect were rising to new heights. He would speak to normal people and persuade them of the efficacy of conservative solutions to pressing problems. Buckley's job was not reaching on-the-ground voters, or reaching voters at all, and his attitude toward his abilities in that area was reflected in his merry answer when asked what he would do if he won the mayoralty of New York. "Demand a recount," he famously replied. His role was speaking to those thirsting for a coherent worldview, for an intellectual and moral attitude grounded in truth. He provided intellectual ballast. Inspired in part by him, voters went on to support Reagan. Both could have existed without the other, but Buckley's work would have been less satisfying, less realized, without Reagan and his presidency, and Reagan's leadership would have been more difficult, and also somehow less satisfying, without Buckley."
I recommend reading all of Noonan's excellent essay in full here.
02/03: More Thoughts on Obamamania
Category: Politics
Posted by: A Waco Farmer
Tocqueville thinks this guy is on to something. I agree.
From the Insta-punk:
Race as a "three-edged" sword:
"If every gaffe or unpleasantness committed by the Obamas on the campaign trail is going to be shushed up or suppressed to spare their racial sensitivities, resentment is bound to grow like mushrooms in the dark. If that's the strategy, the third edge will cost Obama the election."
The politically correct perils of an Obama presidency:
"If the Clintons can't make a dent in the campaign of a coolly ambitious, non-African-American, Ivy League Chicago machine politician, what will any of of us be able to do if he turns out to be inept, short-sighted, vengeful, corrupt, or actively seditious? If some clumsy American politician accidentally says something to offend his 300K-a-year Princetonian executive wife, for example, will we all have to apologize -- or pay in some other coin? If he violates his vow to uphold the Constitution, will we have the recourse we would have with mere politicians? Or will every voice -- in politics and the press -- fall silent, because raising an objection of any kind is tantamount to a hate crime?
"What stories will not be pursued by the already horrifyingly cowardly PC media? What legitimate policy objections will not be posed by senators and congressmen who are already living in daily fear that their most inadvertent verbal slip will bring down 400 years worth of resentment on their heads?"
Provocative. Post in full here.
From the Insta-punk:
Race as a "three-edged" sword:
"If every gaffe or unpleasantness committed by the Obamas on the campaign trail is going to be shushed up or suppressed to spare their racial sensitivities, resentment is bound to grow like mushrooms in the dark. If that's the strategy, the third edge will cost Obama the election."
The politically correct perils of an Obama presidency:
"If the Clintons can't make a dent in the campaign of a coolly ambitious, non-African-American, Ivy League Chicago machine politician, what will any of of us be able to do if he turns out to be inept, short-sighted, vengeful, corrupt, or actively seditious? If some clumsy American politician accidentally says something to offend his 300K-a-year Princetonian executive wife, for example, will we all have to apologize -- or pay in some other coin? If he violates his vow to uphold the Constitution, will we have the recourse we would have with mere politicians? Or will every voice -- in politics and the press -- fall silent, because raising an objection of any kind is tantamount to a hate crime?
"What stories will not be pursued by the already horrifyingly cowardly PC media? What legitimate policy objections will not be posed by senators and congressmen who are already living in daily fear that their most inadvertent verbal slip will bring down 400 years worth of resentment on their heads?"
Provocative. Post in full here.
When picking a president, do Americans care about experience?
I have asked and answered that question on this blog several times. My answer thirteen months ago? Not especially.
In truth, winning the presidency is a combination of timing, availability, and likability.
Shortly after Obama announced, I asserted:
I make no definite prediction here, but in answer to the question of whether Americans will elect an inexperienced person whom they like and to whom they can attach their optimism and desire for a change? Or, in other words, can Barack Obama be elected? Bet the farm on it.
I stand by that analysis. Experience is something of a threshold question (you need to seem presidential to merit consideration), but experience has not generally played the ultimate deciding role in choosing a president.
Can Obama win? Yes.
But "can he win?" and "can he succeed?" are separate and fundamentally different questions. Some of us seem to be conflating the two.
If elected, can he be a great president? Nothing says he cannot; on the other hand, of course, there is nothing necessarily constructive about his lack of seasoning.
TIME Magazine asks this week: "Does Experience Matter in a President?"
They go on to prove scientifically that "experience" is virtually irrelevant.
It is increasingly trendy for smart people to proclaim that the presidency is a position of authority and responsibility wholly unlike any other; therefore, there is no prior experience for being chief executive of the United States. While that statement is true on its face, it seems intended to lay a predicate for an erroneous implicit conclusion: prior experience is irrelevant to the presidency. This is sophistry.
An aside: I am an historian and not a social scientist for two main reasons:
--I believe history is art--not science.
--And I do not believe I have the capacity to predict the future.
Human events (elections and presidential administrations, for example) are the product of multiple motives, unique political moments, and complicated webs of contingency. They generally do not conform to prescribed models or necessarily follow historical patterns.
For the record, there is a kernel of wisdom in the self-serving TIME coverage, which comes from one of America's great historians, Richard Norton Smith:
"Experience never exists in isolation; it is always a factor that coexists with temperament, training, background, spiritual outlook, and a host of other factors. Character is your magic word, it seems to me — not just what they've done but how they've done it and what they've learned from doing it."
But what of Obama?
I have repeatedly asserted that he is set to be the least-experienced, least-known president ever selected by the American electorate. We know almost nothing about him except that we like him. But, in truth, I don't necessarily hold that against him. The more interesting question, for me, has been why we like him? Why do we like him so much?
But as I have also said repeatedly, I can certainly feel the attraction. I like the guy too. It is okay to vote for this person based on instincts. We don't have to go through this tortured dance, twisting reason and history into logical knots in order to rationalize our emotionally charged desire for him to be president. You have my permission to vote for this man. No more elaborate arguments are necessary.
My nagging major reservation. What bothers me most about Obama?
We disagree on much--but it is Iraq that bothers me most. He has used his opposition to Iraq to get where he is today with the Democratic base. He has crafted a winning image as the authentic candidate of impeccable integrity. He will continue to espouse his out-of-Iraq rhetoric until Election Day, and will very likely win the race by a comfortable margin. And he will be committed to withdraw.
If not for Iraq, I could enjoy this moment without a feeling of impending doom. For another time...
I have asked and answered that question on this blog several times. My answer thirteen months ago? Not especially.
In truth, winning the presidency is a combination of timing, availability, and likability.
Shortly after Obama announced, I asserted:
I make no definite prediction here, but in answer to the question of whether Americans will elect an inexperienced person whom they like and to whom they can attach their optimism and desire for a change? Or, in other words, can Barack Obama be elected? Bet the farm on it.
I stand by that analysis. Experience is something of a threshold question (you need to seem presidential to merit consideration), but experience has not generally played the ultimate deciding role in choosing a president.
Can Obama win? Yes.
But "can he win?" and "can he succeed?" are separate and fundamentally different questions. Some of us seem to be conflating the two.
If elected, can he be a great president? Nothing says he cannot; on the other hand, of course, there is nothing necessarily constructive about his lack of seasoning.
TIME Magazine asks this week: "Does Experience Matter in a President?"
They go on to prove scientifically that "experience" is virtually irrelevant.
It is increasingly trendy for smart people to proclaim that the presidency is a position of authority and responsibility wholly unlike any other; therefore, there is no prior experience for being chief executive of the United States. While that statement is true on its face, it seems intended to lay a predicate for an erroneous implicit conclusion: prior experience is irrelevant to the presidency. This is sophistry.
An aside: I am an historian and not a social scientist for two main reasons:
--I believe history is art--not science.
--And I do not believe I have the capacity to predict the future.
Human events (elections and presidential administrations, for example) are the product of multiple motives, unique political moments, and complicated webs of contingency. They generally do not conform to prescribed models or necessarily follow historical patterns.
For the record, there is a kernel of wisdom in the self-serving TIME coverage, which comes from one of America's great historians, Richard Norton Smith:
"Experience never exists in isolation; it is always a factor that coexists with temperament, training, background, spiritual outlook, and a host of other factors. Character is your magic word, it seems to me — not just what they've done but how they've done it and what they've learned from doing it."
But what of Obama?
I have repeatedly asserted that he is set to be the least-experienced, least-known president ever selected by the American electorate. We know almost nothing about him except that we like him. But, in truth, I don't necessarily hold that against him. The more interesting question, for me, has been why we like him? Why do we like him so much?
But as I have also said repeatedly, I can certainly feel the attraction. I like the guy too. It is okay to vote for this person based on instincts. We don't have to go through this tortured dance, twisting reason and history into logical knots in order to rationalize our emotionally charged desire for him to be president. You have my permission to vote for this man. No more elaborate arguments are necessary.
My nagging major reservation. What bothers me most about Obama?
We disagree on much--but it is Iraq that bothers me most. He has used his opposition to Iraq to get where he is today with the Democratic base. He has crafted a winning image as the authentic candidate of impeccable integrity. He will continue to espouse his out-of-Iraq rhetoric until Election Day, and will very likely win the race by a comfortable margin. And he will be committed to withdraw.
If not for Iraq, I could enjoy this moment without a feeling of impending doom. For another time...
Category: Media and Politics
Posted by: A Waco Farmer
Quick Hitter from the Martian Mariner:
Something I found especially ironic: the New York Times feigning indignation at a media leak.
"Until Thursday, that is, when the Drudge Report, citing an article in an obscure Australian magazine, gleefully broke the news on its Web site. 'Prince Harry Fights on Front Lines in Afghanistan,' it reported, spoiling the carefully orchestrated deal under which British news organizations had been given details about the prince’s deployment in exchange for not telling anyone.
"The awkwardly timed dissemination of such juicy information had a number of very quick repercussions."
So now it's "gleeful" little Drudge screwing up what even British tabloids were able to keep a lid on. Apparently, the NYT limits its leaks to more important matters having no impact on human life - like the leak of bin Laden's satellite phone in 1998. And it never makes any "awkwardly timed disseminations," such as last week's juicy bit about McCain and his lobbyist girlfriend.
Nope, the NYT wouldn't do that, and not even British tabloids would do that - and that's why established media should have the lock on presenting the news. Because these blogs simply don't know "how it's done" - they'll print what isn't "fit to print."
Give me a break.
Something I found especially ironic: the New York Times feigning indignation at a media leak.
"Until Thursday, that is, when the Drudge Report, citing an article in an obscure Australian magazine, gleefully broke the news on its Web site. 'Prince Harry Fights on Front Lines in Afghanistan,' it reported, spoiling the carefully orchestrated deal under which British news organizations had been given details about the prince’s deployment in exchange for not telling anyone.
"The awkwardly timed dissemination of such juicy information had a number of very quick repercussions."
So now it's "gleeful" little Drudge screwing up what even British tabloids were able to keep a lid on. Apparently, the NYT limits its leaks to more important matters having no impact on human life - like the leak of bin Laden's satellite phone in 1998. And it never makes any "awkwardly timed disseminations," such as last week's juicy bit about McCain and his lobbyist girlfriend.
Nope, the NYT wouldn't do that, and not even British tabloids would do that - and that's why established media should have the lock on presenting the news. Because these blogs simply don't know "how it's done" - they'll print what isn't "fit to print."
Give me a break.
~~Martian Mariner:
Category: Politics
Posted by: A Waco Farmer
Last week I voted (early) for John McCain in the Texas primary. Barring some unforeseen calamity or epiphany, I will vote for John McCain again in the fall. However, I seriously considered requesting a Democratic ballot in order to vote for Hillary Clinton for the nomination of her party.
Why did I waive my right to "cross over," as we refer to it here in the Lone Star State?
--I very much wanted to vote for one specific Republican, "Doc Anderson," down the ballot in the GOP canvass.
--To vote Democratic, the procedure requires a promise to refrain from any Republican Party activity for a calendar year. Although I am not a very active Republican, I would have felt uncomfortable making that declaration. And, as it was designed to do, the promise gave me pause intuitively.
--Most importantly though, I know a number of Republicans have advocated a vote for Hillary Clinton as a method of sabotage; that is, vote for Hillary to extend the internecine Democratic Party fight for a few more weeks or months. Many of these Republicans also see Mrs. Clinton as a more vulnerable opposition candidate in November. For the record, in my view, they are right to worry that the Obama juggernaut is unprecedentedly powerful and unique as a political force.
Notwithstanding, I abhor sabotage. I ultimately demurred from wading into the Democratic primary because I would have invited suspicion among my friends in the other party, who might have wondered whether I really had their best interest in mind. I did not want even the hint of impropriety or the suggestion that I attempted to deprive Democrats of their best candidate. And, in the end, for that reason, I determined that my vote would do Hillary Clinton more harm than good.
Having said that, I have always participated in my own private Democratic primary, mentally supporting a candidate that I wanted to win the nomination--based not on who would be easiest to beat in my opinion, but based on who, if elected, would make the best president. Examples: Joe Lieberman in 2004; Paul Tsongas in 1992 (although I had a soft spot of Clinton that year also); Henry Jackson (and then Jimmy Carter) in 1976.
Here is a less than complete list of reasons (and something of a review) of why I think Hillary Clinton is the best Democratic Party alternative this time around:
1. I believe Hillary is a tough-minded, no-nonsense person. She is a hard-boiled realist, who understands national vital interests as well as political necessities. She will throw rhetorical bones to the left but govern in the center, because she will want to be reelected. She will employ the traditional American foreign-policy making establishment and pursue a moderate-to-firm course in international relations. She will not be exactly what I want, but neither will she bring about a socialist revolution or a unilateral retreat from American interests abroad.
John Edwards was fairly close to reality when he said a "vote for Hillary Clinton is a vote for the status quo."
2. This is really a more specific extension of #1: if Hillary remains faithful to her record and rhetoric, her election will commit the Democratic Party en masse to the global war on terror. Just as Harry Truman and the Democrats owned the Cold War until Dwight Eisenhower came along and embraced the policy, the War on Terror at this moment is a unilateral Republican policy. It is vital for American survival that the Democrats have a partisan interest in our success in the larger war on terror.
Note on style for some of my Democratic friends in re "war on terror": I understand that this articulation is problematic for some—but, in order to avoid the less than constructive semantic argument, suffice it to say, we face a worldwide movement to create chaos, which must be addressed in a bipartisan way.
Why did I waive my right to "cross over," as we refer to it here in the Lone Star State?
--I very much wanted to vote for one specific Republican, "Doc Anderson," down the ballot in the GOP canvass.
--To vote Democratic, the procedure requires a promise to refrain from any Republican Party activity for a calendar year. Although I am not a very active Republican, I would have felt uncomfortable making that declaration. And, as it was designed to do, the promise gave me pause intuitively.
--Most importantly though, I know a number of Republicans have advocated a vote for Hillary Clinton as a method of sabotage; that is, vote for Hillary to extend the internecine Democratic Party fight for a few more weeks or months. Many of these Republicans also see Mrs. Clinton as a more vulnerable opposition candidate in November. For the record, in my view, they are right to worry that the Obama juggernaut is unprecedentedly powerful and unique as a political force.
Notwithstanding, I abhor sabotage. I ultimately demurred from wading into the Democratic primary because I would have invited suspicion among my friends in the other party, who might have wondered whether I really had their best interest in mind. I did not want even the hint of impropriety or the suggestion that I attempted to deprive Democrats of their best candidate. And, in the end, for that reason, I determined that my vote would do Hillary Clinton more harm than good.
Having said that, I have always participated in my own private Democratic primary, mentally supporting a candidate that I wanted to win the nomination--based not on who would be easiest to beat in my opinion, but based on who, if elected, would make the best president. Examples: Joe Lieberman in 2004; Paul Tsongas in 1992 (although I had a soft spot of Clinton that year also); Henry Jackson (and then Jimmy Carter) in 1976.
Here is a less than complete list of reasons (and something of a review) of why I think Hillary Clinton is the best Democratic Party alternative this time around:
1. I believe Hillary is a tough-minded, no-nonsense person. She is a hard-boiled realist, who understands national vital interests as well as political necessities. She will throw rhetorical bones to the left but govern in the center, because she will want to be reelected. She will employ the traditional American foreign-policy making establishment and pursue a moderate-to-firm course in international relations. She will not be exactly what I want, but neither will she bring about a socialist revolution or a unilateral retreat from American interests abroad.
John Edwards was fairly close to reality when he said a "vote for Hillary Clinton is a vote for the status quo."
2. This is really a more specific extension of #1: if Hillary remains faithful to her record and rhetoric, her election will commit the Democratic Party en masse to the global war on terror. Just as Harry Truman and the Democrats owned the Cold War until Dwight Eisenhower came along and embraced the policy, the War on Terror at this moment is a unilateral Republican policy. It is vital for American survival that the Democrats have a partisan interest in our success in the larger war on terror.
Note on style for some of my Democratic friends in re "war on terror": I understand that this articulation is problematic for some—but, in order to avoid the less than constructive semantic argument, suffice it to say, we face a worldwide movement to create chaos, which must be addressed in a bipartisan way.
Category: Politics
Posted by: A Waco Farmer
From Tocqueville:
The New York Times informs that "if Mr. Obama becomes the Democratic presidential nominee, he is sure to face an onslaught from Republicans and their allies [read Swift boaters] that will be very different in tone and intensity from what he has faced so far." For much of this year, we are told, "Obama has been handled with relative care by Mrs. Clinton . . ."
So, when some Republican uses his real middle name (and forget that George Herberrrrrt Walkerrrrrr Bush stuff, that didn't count) or leaks a picture of him in a turban, or accuses him of rigging the Nevada caucuses, peddling dope, or being a slum lord, this will all be different in tone and intensity than the love fest that was Barack Obama's contest with Lady Macbeth. Let's make a note.
Because it is a "reminder that should Mr. Obama win the nomination, he will be playing on a more treacherous political battleground as opponents -- scouring through his record of votes and statements and his experiences before he entered public life -- looking for ways to portray him as out of step with the nation's values, challenge his appeal to independent voters and emphasize his lack of experience in foreign affairs and national security."
That'll be a new experience! No one did that to him in the primaries.
"Some of this will almost certainly take the shape of the Internet rumors and whispering campaigns that have popped up against Mr. Obama since he got into the race, like the false reports that he is Muslim."
And it's all true. McCain's aides "said that their first line of attack will be to portray Obama as liberal, and they have already begun pointing to a rating in the National Journal, based on his votes, of Mr. Obama as the most liberal member of the Senate."
FOUL PLAY!!!
A Waco Farmer: Mendacity. There is mendacity in this house.
The New York Times informs that "if Mr. Obama becomes the Democratic presidential nominee, he is sure to face an onslaught from Republicans and their allies [read Swift boaters] that will be very different in tone and intensity from what he has faced so far." For much of this year, we are told, "Obama has been handled with relative care by Mrs. Clinton . . ."
So, when some Republican uses his real middle name (and forget that George Herberrrrrt Walkerrrrrr Bush stuff, that didn't count) or leaks a picture of him in a turban, or accuses him of rigging the Nevada caucuses, peddling dope, or being a slum lord, this will all be different in tone and intensity than the love fest that was Barack Obama's contest with Lady Macbeth. Let's make a note.
Because it is a "reminder that should Mr. Obama win the nomination, he will be playing on a more treacherous political battleground as opponents -- scouring through his record of votes and statements and his experiences before he entered public life -- looking for ways to portray him as out of step with the nation's values, challenge his appeal to independent voters and emphasize his lack of experience in foreign affairs and national security."
That'll be a new experience! No one did that to him in the primaries.
"Some of this will almost certainly take the shape of the Internet rumors and whispering campaigns that have popped up against Mr. Obama since he got into the race, like the false reports that he is Muslim."
And it's all true. McCain's aides "said that their first line of attack will be to portray Obama as liberal, and they have already begun pointing to a rating in the National Journal, based on his votes, of Mr. Obama as the most liberal member of the Senate."
FOUL PLAY!!!
~~Tocqueville
A Waco Farmer: Mendacity. There is mendacity in this house.
28/02: The Fire Next Time
We are on the precipice of electing the least-accomplished president (in terms of resume) in the 220-year history of the United States. As I have said before, Barack Obama is a man about whom we know almost nothing--but upon whom we find it easy to project our most optimistic collective aspirations. He is part philosopher king and part American Idol.
But what if we lose our nerve between now and the First Tuesday in November? What if we awake from our trance at some point during the hard-fought days of October and suddenly ask ourselves: "What in the Hell are we doing?"
Could that happen? I think so. Bill Clinton was absolutely right. Electing Obama is "rolling the dice." We know almost nothing about him other than we like him. This phenomena is not completely unprecedented in American politics—but, as I say, it is hard to think of an instance in which we (the people) have elected a lesser-known, less-experienced president than he. Of course, inexperience does not necessarily disqualify a person (it is my hunch that he would actually be okay, in a big picture, long term sense). But personal history and preparation ought to be a consideration, and it is possible that we just might get cold feet at some point.
Of course, I understand Obama-mania. I too am charmed and intrigued by the man from the Land of Lincoln.
He is tall and handsome. He is a stemwinder. He is a good family man. He appears extraordinarily virtuous. Evidently, we share the same religious orientation.
But let us be honest. Race is key to his meteoric rise to fame and political fortune. We are about to elect this most unlikely person to the highest office in the land not in spite of his race--but because of it. The election of Barack Obama would be a great point of national pride. If we as a people can elect a person of color to the highest, most cherished, and most respected of all national offices, we finally fulfill, in a demonstrably practical way, our national creed and sacred aspiration: a land of the free in which all men are created equal.
So, what is the problem? What scares me the most about Obama winning the nomination? Aside from his league-leading liberal voting record?
What if he loses?
There is a very real possibility that he will lose in the general election (on this, I am increasingly persuaded that his elevation is no sure thing). As I indicated above, when decision time comes, many Americans are going to develop legitimately serious doubts concerning this person about whom we know so little. What if he loses? What will that do to us?
There are myriad good reasons to vote for John McCain over Barack Obama. A McCain win in November would actually be the most logical choice on so many levels considering our present reality. Having said that, if Obama loses this upcoming general election to a white candidate, there will be many Americans who will believe in their heart of hearts that he lost because of his race. This will be bad for all of us. Very bad.
I am convinced that we are ready for a woman president. I am convinced that we are ready for an African American president. But I think we all owe it to ourselves to place before the electorate a person who is fully qualified and vetted. I worry that sending up an inexperienced Barack Obama as this first opportunity for most Americans to vote for a black man for president is a reckless move.
A more studied alternative? Why not let this relatively young man take his turn as understudy and emerge from a Clinton administration at fifty-four (still incredibly youthful in political years) and undeniably seasoned and better prepared to assume the most influential office in the world.
Moving so heedlessly at this point strikes me as risky cultural business. The Democratic Party seems intent on daring us to question the bona fides of this candidate. And, if we do, we all understand the racial minefield that we will face.
If Barack Obama secures the nomination, this is likely to be a very ugly election.
But what if we lose our nerve between now and the First Tuesday in November? What if we awake from our trance at some point during the hard-fought days of October and suddenly ask ourselves: "What in the Hell are we doing?"
Could that happen? I think so. Bill Clinton was absolutely right. Electing Obama is "rolling the dice." We know almost nothing about him other than we like him. This phenomena is not completely unprecedented in American politics—but, as I say, it is hard to think of an instance in which we (the people) have elected a lesser-known, less-experienced president than he. Of course, inexperience does not necessarily disqualify a person (it is my hunch that he would actually be okay, in a big picture, long term sense). But personal history and preparation ought to be a consideration, and it is possible that we just might get cold feet at some point.
Of course, I understand Obama-mania. I too am charmed and intrigued by the man from the Land of Lincoln.
He is tall and handsome. He is a stemwinder. He is a good family man. He appears extraordinarily virtuous. Evidently, we share the same religious orientation.
But let us be honest. Race is key to his meteoric rise to fame and political fortune. We are about to elect this most unlikely person to the highest office in the land not in spite of his race--but because of it. The election of Barack Obama would be a great point of national pride. If we as a people can elect a person of color to the highest, most cherished, and most respected of all national offices, we finally fulfill, in a demonstrably practical way, our national creed and sacred aspiration: a land of the free in which all men are created equal.
So, what is the problem? What scares me the most about Obama winning the nomination? Aside from his league-leading liberal voting record?
What if he loses?
There is a very real possibility that he will lose in the general election (on this, I am increasingly persuaded that his elevation is no sure thing). As I indicated above, when decision time comes, many Americans are going to develop legitimately serious doubts concerning this person about whom we know so little. What if he loses? What will that do to us?
There are myriad good reasons to vote for John McCain over Barack Obama. A McCain win in November would actually be the most logical choice on so many levels considering our present reality. Having said that, if Obama loses this upcoming general election to a white candidate, there will be many Americans who will believe in their heart of hearts that he lost because of his race. This will be bad for all of us. Very bad.
I am convinced that we are ready for a woman president. I am convinced that we are ready for an African American president. But I think we all owe it to ourselves to place before the electorate a person who is fully qualified and vetted. I worry that sending up an inexperienced Barack Obama as this first opportunity for most Americans to vote for a black man for president is a reckless move.
A more studied alternative? Why not let this relatively young man take his turn as understudy and emerge from a Clinton administration at fifty-four (still incredibly youthful in political years) and undeniably seasoned and better prepared to assume the most influential office in the world.
Moving so heedlessly at this point strikes me as risky cultural business. The Democratic Party seems intent on daring us to question the bona fides of this candidate. And, if we do, we all understand the racial minefield that we will face.
If Barack Obama secures the nomination, this is likely to be a very ugly election.
Category: Friends of the Bosque Boys
Posted by: A Waco Farmer
In reaction to the Sean Wilentz article in TNR, (which asserted that the Clintons have become victims of reverse "race baiting"), and in response to my previous post on that essay, a wise friend shared these insights with me via email. With permission, and under the sobriquet, Swabian Prince, I am very pleased to present this powerful analysis:
While Sean Wilentz makes some plausible points about the rather shameless non-innocence of the Obama people, in other areas the argument is tissue-thin. How can he seriously expect us to believe that Billy Shaheen’s remarks were “innocent”? Just on his say so? And I myself read the interview with Mark Penn, in which he WENT OUT OF HIS WAY to use the word “cocaine.” And the explanation of WJC’s comparison to Jesse Jackson is pathetic. In short, I don’t find any of his exonerations at all persuasive. The Clintons are not more ethical than their opponents, just more clumsy. No pair has more richly deserved the fate that now apparently awaits them. (Though even defeat will not mean the end of them. She will stay in the Senate forever. And I fully expect them to pull for McCain, if they can find a way to do so, so that she will have a second chance at the top slot.)
Where he is right is about the political use of the tactic of accusing others, preemptively, of “race-baiting.” But which party invented that tactic and specializes in its use? As far as I’m concerned, this is chickens coming home to roost. At one point Wilentz says that the Obama campaign was prepared to launch the anti-race-baiting even before the primaries began. True enough. But good Lord, EVERY Democratic campaign of any prominence is prepared to launch an anti-race-baiting campaign 24 hours a day. That is their bread and butter.
Wilentz does not mention the other form of identity politics in which the Clinton campaign has indulged itself with a dishonesty that rivals anything they are accusing Obama of. I’m talking about gender. For a perfect example of it—a pellucid example—see the quotation from Hillary in this [Jennifer Rubin post in Commentary]. The parallels are pretty exact. Just as Obama is running as the History-Making black candidate who is also post-racial (see David Hollinger’s embarrassing piece in the CHE), so Hillary is the History-Making woman candidate who is running strictly on her competence. Yeah right.
What we’re having right now is one of those “totems in collision” moments on the left, when two different articles of political correctness come into conflict. Generally, whenever race and gender come into collision that way, race wins. That was one of the many lessons of the OJ trial, and for that matter, the Clarence Thomas controversy. But of course, as the example of OJ suggests, the rest of us have to suffer from this. To Sean Wilentz I say, join the club. Now you know how it feels to be on the receiving end of the tactics your party has perfected.
While Sean Wilentz makes some plausible points about the rather shameless non-innocence of the Obama people, in other areas the argument is tissue-thin. How can he seriously expect us to believe that Billy Shaheen’s remarks were “innocent”? Just on his say so? And I myself read the interview with Mark Penn, in which he WENT OUT OF HIS WAY to use the word “cocaine.” And the explanation of WJC’s comparison to Jesse Jackson is pathetic. In short, I don’t find any of his exonerations at all persuasive. The Clintons are not more ethical than their opponents, just more clumsy. No pair has more richly deserved the fate that now apparently awaits them. (Though even defeat will not mean the end of them. She will stay in the Senate forever. And I fully expect them to pull for McCain, if they can find a way to do so, so that she will have a second chance at the top slot.)
Where he is right is about the political use of the tactic of accusing others, preemptively, of “race-baiting.” But which party invented that tactic and specializes in its use? As far as I’m concerned, this is chickens coming home to roost. At one point Wilentz says that the Obama campaign was prepared to launch the anti-race-baiting even before the primaries began. True enough. But good Lord, EVERY Democratic campaign of any prominence is prepared to launch an anti-race-baiting campaign 24 hours a day. That is their bread and butter.
Wilentz does not mention the other form of identity politics in which the Clinton campaign has indulged itself with a dishonesty that rivals anything they are accusing Obama of. I’m talking about gender. For a perfect example of it—a pellucid example—see the quotation from Hillary in this [Jennifer Rubin post in Commentary]. The parallels are pretty exact. Just as Obama is running as the History-Making black candidate who is also post-racial (see David Hollinger’s embarrassing piece in the CHE), so Hillary is the History-Making woman candidate who is running strictly on her competence. Yeah right.
What we’re having right now is one of those “totems in collision” moments on the left, when two different articles of political correctness come into conflict. Generally, whenever race and gender come into collision that way, race wins. That was one of the many lessons of the OJ trial, and for that matter, the Clarence Thomas controversy. But of course, as the example of OJ suggests, the rest of us have to suffer from this. To Sean Wilentz I say, join the club. Now you know how it feels to be on the receiving end of the tactics your party has perfected.
~~Swabian Prince
Category: Politics
Posted by: A Waco Farmer
From Tocqueville on Judicial Confirmations.
Just for the record:
One year into the 110th Congress, six circuit court judges have been
confirmed and the prospects are dim for the others. Thus are the
wages of McCain's "Gang of Fourteen." By comparison, fifteen
appellate court judges were confirmed during Clinton's last two
years. And I see that Fourth Circuit nominee Jim Haynes has retired
from his service at the Pentagon, with respect to which Quin Hilyer
writes:
"[E]very good wish to Jim Haynes, retiring as Chief Counsel for the
Pentagon, as he re-enters private life. This is a man who had served
his country literally for decades, and who gave up highly lucrative
employment for the last seven years in order to do so. He served well
and honorably in extremely difficult times and circumstances, and has
done yeoman's work to keep our country safe from international
terrorists. Yet he remains the only Republican judicial nominee ever
flat-out Borked by fellow Republicans. It was a travesty of justice
that we should never forget or forgive. The lead Borker was the
execrable Sen. Lindsey Graham of South Carolina, and his wingman was
putative presidential nominee John McCain. If McCain has any class,
he will issue a statement thanking Haynes for his service to our
country. (But I won't hold my breath for McCain to show any class.
Strength and patriotism in serving the country he loves, yes; class,
not a bit.) But I digress. This is a note about Haynes. Because he
did not shrink from the service of his country, he truly, in Thomas
Paine's words, 'deserves the love and thanks of man and woman.'"
Hilyer comments posted on CONFIRMTHEM.
A Waco Farmer: Tocqueville and I disagree somewhat on this issue, and he writes in response to some of my previous posts on the topic, one of which was Setting the Record Straight on the Gang of Fourteen.
Just for the record:
One year into the 110th Congress, six circuit court judges have been
confirmed and the prospects are dim for the others. Thus are the
wages of McCain's "Gang of Fourteen." By comparison, fifteen
appellate court judges were confirmed during Clinton's last two
years. And I see that Fourth Circuit nominee Jim Haynes has retired
from his service at the Pentagon, with respect to which Quin Hilyer
writes:
"[E]very good wish to Jim Haynes, retiring as Chief Counsel for the
Pentagon, as he re-enters private life. This is a man who had served
his country literally for decades, and who gave up highly lucrative
employment for the last seven years in order to do so. He served well
and honorably in extremely difficult times and circumstances, and has
done yeoman's work to keep our country safe from international
terrorists. Yet he remains the only Republican judicial nominee ever
flat-out Borked by fellow Republicans. It was a travesty of justice
that we should never forget or forgive. The lead Borker was the
execrable Sen. Lindsey Graham of South Carolina, and his wingman was
putative presidential nominee John McCain. If McCain has any class,
he will issue a statement thanking Haynes for his service to our
country. (But I won't hold my breath for McCain to show any class.
Strength and patriotism in serving the country he loves, yes; class,
not a bit.) But I digress. This is a note about Haynes. Because he
did not shrink from the service of his country, he truly, in Thomas
Paine's words, 'deserves the love and thanks of man and woman.'"
~~Tocqueville
Hilyer comments posted on CONFIRMTHEM.
A Waco Farmer: Tocqueville and I disagree somewhat on this issue, and he writes in response to some of my previous posts on the topic, one of which was Setting the Record Straight on the Gang of Fourteen.
