The Bosque Boys

As they are wont to do, the Academy eagerly embraced the opportunity to mix business with pleasure last night, voting for Al Gore one more time. Below are my thoughts on the man, his life and his prospects as a presidential candidate (which I am reprising from a post last summer).

Note on the reissue: Back in June, I had not screened An Inconvenient Truth. I have seen it since. Back then I asked: "Is this Al Gore’s 'Churchillian' moment?" Little did I know, Al had already beaten me to that comparison within the film. One needs to be pretty fast on the draw to beat Al Gore to a favorable point in re Al Gore.

From June 7, 2006:


The Strange Career of Al Gore

John Adams purportedly told his son, JQA, that considering all the blessings and advantages that his family and Providence had bestowed upon the younger Adams, it would be his fault alone, if he did not become president of the United States. Although that statement has always struck me as incredibly harsh, perhaps it is the appropriate key in which to begin a discussion of the political life and times of Albert Gore, Jr.

The Harvard-educated, senator’s son and ambivalent Vietnam veteran sampled divinity school, law school and journalism before he won election to Congress from Tennessee’s fourth district in 1976 and then a senate seat in 1984. He ran for the Democratic Party nomination for president in 1988 and lost. He ran for vice president in 1992 and won. He ran for president in 2000 and lost (although he won the popular vote).

During the 1980s, he absorbed criticism (mostly directed at Tipper) from First Amendment advocates who charged that the Gores favored censorship of recording artists. His 1988 campaign for the Democratic nomination seemed to lack purpose and definitely wanted for charisma.

During his tenure as VP, he acquired a national persona as the wonkish, stiff and boring but loyal Clinton sidekick (although he countered that perception with a humorous, self-deprecating comedy bit). But no matter how hard he tried to blend his Southern Evangelical Populist lineage with his Washington-insider and Eastern-educated acculturation, the public never embraced him as much more than a parody of himself. Even the “liberal” media seemed reluctant to give him a fair shake (regularly laughing at him—and only occasionally with him).

In 2000, he ran for a Clinton-Gore “third term” and failed. He came close (only losing by 537 votes in Florida and one vote in the United States Supreme Court); but, nevertheless, he lost, squandering a good political hand.

Then, Gore seemed to slip off the face of the earth during the first few months of the Bush administration and, especially, after 911. He grew a beard. He grew fleshy. He seemed completely dislocated from politics and reality. Even Democrats seemed relieved that he was not president during the unexpectedly pivotal period in American history.

But, just as suddenly, Al Gore is back.

» Read More

Charles Krauthammer, the clinically trained psychiatrist turned conservative columnist, whimsically announced a new mental disorder back in 2003: "Bush Derangement Syndrome." Krauthammer defined the condition as "the acute onset of paranoia in otherwise normal people in reaction to the policies, the presidency—nay—the very existence of George W. Bush" (read the original Post column here).

Consider this recent example of BDS:

"I am writing because we have an emergency."

"There are ten steps that are taken in order to close down a democracy or crush a pro-democratic movement, whether by capitalists, communists, or right-wing fascists. These ten steps, together, are more than the sum of their parts. Once all ten have been put in place, each magnifies the power of the others and of the whole."

"Impossible as it may seem, we are seeing each of these ten steps taking hold in the United States today."

So writes Naomi Wolf in End of America: A Letter of Warning to a Young Patriot, which reveals that the Bush administration is using the events of 9-11 to destroy democracy in America and institute a fascist police state. Most alarming, in her view, the Bush conspirators are not patiently sowing the seeds of a future or incremental conservative coup; Wolf expects a major crackdown on dissent (like locking people up in gulags) within the year.

What of Naomi Wolf and her call to arms?

» Read More

John Adams purportedly told his son, JQA, that considering all the blessings and advantages that his family and Providence had bestowed upon the younger Adams, it would be his fault alone, if he did not become president of the United States. Although that statement has always struck me as incredibly harsh, perhaps it is the appropriate key in which to begin a discussion of the political life and times of Albert Gore, Jr.

The Harvard-educated, senator’s son and ambivalent Vietnam veteran sampled divinity school, law school and journalism before he won election to Congress from Tennessee’s fourth district in 1976 and then a senate seat in 1984. He ran for the Democratic Party nomination for president in 1988 and lost. He ran for vice president in 1992 and won. He ran for president in 2000 and lost (although he won the popular vote).

During the 1980s, he absorbed criticism (mostly directed at Tipper) from First Amendment advocates who charged that the Gores favored censorship of recording artists. His 1988 campaign for the Democratic nomination seemed to lack purpose and definitely wanted for charisma.

During his tenure as VP, he acquired a national persona as the wonkish, stiff and boring but loyal Clinton sidekick (although he countered that perception with a humorous, self-deprecating comedy bit). But no matter how hard he tried to blend his Southern Evangelical Populist lineage with his Washington-insider and Eastern-educated acculturation, the public never embraced him as much more than a parody of himself. Even the “liberal” media seemed reluctant to give him a fair shake (regularly laughing at him—and only occasionally with him).

In 2000, he ran for a Clinton-Gore “third term” and failed. He came close (only losing by 537 votes in Florida and one vote in the United States Supreme Court); but, nevertheless, he lost, squandering a good political hand.

Then, Gore seemed to slip off the face of the earth during the first few months of the Bush administration and, especially, after 911. He grew a beard. He grew fleshy. He seemed completely dislocated from politics and reality. Even Democrats seemed relieved that he was not president during the unexpectedly pivotal period in American history.

But, just as suddenly, Al Gore is back.

» Read More

I wrote this piece for another venue (it was "give a conservative the mike night" at Osler's Razor). But I thought some of you might find it interesting.

Recently, a Saturday Night Live skit skewered Nancy Pelosi, Barney Frank, George Soros, “deadbeat” homebuyers, speculators, and Herb and Marion Sandler for their roles in the mortgage meltdown. Pretty clever. To my great surprise, it proved insightfully critical of Democrats.

Then, last week, without explanation, the clip disappeared off the program's website. Why? According to spokespersons from SNL and NBC, when pressed for answers, the bit "didn't meet [their] standards."

Really!?!

It did not meet SNL standards? Really!?!

What standards exactly? Standards of accuracy? Good taste? Fairness? Standards? Really!?!

Do you remember the one about (fill in your favorite tasteless SNL moment here)? But this one did not meet your standards?

Really!?!

No harm, no foul—I suppose. After a lot of wailing and gnashing of teeth on the conservative blogosphere, the skit is back on the website—but, come now, standards?

REALLY!?!

The Good News: the Tina Fey/Sarah Palin material, evidently, continues to live up to all aforementioned SNL “standards.”

Does the Media lean left? Pretty hard to name a sitcom or drama with a conservative undertone. There is no conservative late night talk show or equivalent to SNL. I cannot think of a conservative David E. Kelly or Aaron Sorkin. Or, for some of us old timers, a conservative Norman Lear. Anybody?

Are there logical reasons for this? Certainly. Creative folks are naturally more prone to a “liberal” sensibility. Entertainment is a product of New York and L.A. Conservatives just aren’t that funny?

Am I whining? I don’t think so. I don’t mean to be. I have come to accept the world as it is. I am not one to rail against the liberal bias of the mainstream media. I am, in fact, a big fan of Saturday Night Live, and I have been, literally, since the very beginning.

I suffer their politics because I enjoy their art. Such is life. The perfect is often the enemy of the good.

Important Confession: I am also a big fan of NPR. I admire their artistry. I acknowledge their left-leaning bias, which often colors their coverage of Republicans and conservatives in unflattering and unfriendly ways. Nevertheless, I appreciate the skill and erudition that permeates every aspect of their operation.

However, there are times when the subtle bias of NPR makes me cringe. The other morning I was listening to a story about a bell-weather county in Indiana in which the poor NPR correspondent, Howard Burkes, dutifully reported on three ignoramuses who wondered whether they could vote for a Muslim. Berkes immediately inserted into the audio narrative, with his well-modulated authority, a correction: “of course, he [Obama] has always been a Christian.” Later, a more enlightened white voter asserted (without challenge): "If Obama were a white man, I'd say he'd be way out in front here and nationally."

According to reputable national polls, approximately 90 percent of voters understand that Barack Obama is a professing Christian. Give national news organizations credit for digging up the ignorant tenth in disproportionate numbers to buttress the obligatory mention of the most famously false accusation in American history. Then, the corrective from Berkes: “he’s always been a Christian.” From birth? Funny—but also a cultural commentary that even this basic fact of Protestant Christianity somehow eluded this top national reporter. This is a mistake you might expect from one trying to make sense of a foreign culture. More importantly, it also omits a telling episode in the life of the candidate (the way in which Obama came to Christ). And then there is the ubiquitous assertion that “race” is somehow holding back this candidate. Presumably, if he were white (like John Kerry, Al Gore, Mike Dukakis, Walter Mondale, or George McGovern), Barack Obama would be fourteen points ahead by now.

As I say, I love NPR—but this story is just another example of the unexamined assumptions that permeate even the best reporting in America.

Again, don’t hear me complaining. But I do get a little frustrated when I hear liberals rail against FOX News and other arms of the conservative media as somehow egregiously biased (compared, presumably, to the mainstream media culture).

FULL DISCLOSURE: I should mention that I do not watch FOX News on a regular basis. Why? I have an ultra-frugal cable package, which, blessedly, does not offer FOX News, CNN, MSNBC, or the Cartoon Network. Thanks be to God. However, my package does come with C-SPAN 1 & 2 (my wife has long suspected some kind of conspiracy regarding that piece of good fortune). FYI: there is no skullduggery involved—I am just lucky that way.

Having said that, I do monitor FOX News—and feel competent to comment on the following question:

How is FOX News different from the other network and cable news organizations?

Fox is not under the delusion of "objectivity." The liberal mainstream media labors under the self-serving certainty that they are reporting the news of the day in an objective way.

No matter how many studies show that an obscenely high percentage of "Beltway" reporters vote for Democratic candidates, mainstream reporters continue to argue that their personal politics do not impinge on their ability to report the news in a detached manner. They are professionals. In their own minds, they are expertly objective.

I have always believed that the FOX News slogan, "fair and balanced," was partly a parody of the mainstreamer’s tortured self-perception.

What do I mean by that?

Most of the Fox pioneers were veteran reporters and producers from the mainstream orgs (think Britt Hume formerly of ABC News). They had toiled in the fields of their oppressors for years. When they broke free and raised their own flag, they signaled their independence and defiance with a series of slogans like "We Report, You Decide" and "Fair and Balanced."

Moreover, they knew well that the competition would see FOX as conservatives reporting the news through a lens of conservatism. But they also knew that their liberal counterparts would NOT see FOX as their mirror image; the established media would continue to see themselves as faithful adherents to the sacred calling of objectivity; they would see FOX News as unwashed infidels desecrating the holy temple of objective journalism.

The FOX News brain trust fully expected that their conservative cable news network would make the mainstream newspersons apoplectic. Furthermore, I am convinced that they think the whole situation is quite hilarious.

Bottom Line: it really comes down to whose ox is getting gored. FOX viewers appreciate a reading and framing of the news sympathetic to conservatism. This makes some non-conservatives very angry. Liberals should calm down, be more generous, and let conservatives have one news outlet.

I am extremely reluctant to comment on the current Gore family crisis. I am a father of two sons, and my heart goes out to Al and Tipper. There But for the Grace of God go I. With all sincerity, I wish the Gores the best. Politics aside, I ask God to bless the Gore family with health, security and happiness in abundance.

However, by his own design, Al Gore is a crucial figure in our national political culture. He has inserted himself in to the very fabric of our national conversation. Why is the arrest of Al Gore III in play? The incident speaks to the cloud of hypocrisy and artificiality (and perhaps rotten luck) that perpetually swirls around the Gore campaigns.

Some brief comments:

The best laid schemes of Mice and Men, gang aft agley. Someone in the Gore camp was media savvy enough to arrange for Al Gore III to drive a hybrid Toyota Prius. However, running your environmentally friendly Prius at 100 miles-per-hour on the freeways of Southern California during the wee hours of the morning while smoking marijuana negates a multitude of forethought and pre-planning on the part of your dad's PR staff.

Reaping what he sowed? We may never know who made the decision, on the eve of Election Day 2000, to release the news that twenty-four years earlier, on a July 4th weekend in 1976, the Kennebunkport Police Department arrested a thirty-year-old George Bush for operating his vehicle under the influence of alcohol. However, the irony (or perhaps the karma) of Al Gore's current embarrassment on the eve of his big moment seems thick.

Previous Bosque Boys musings on the "Strange Career of Al Gore" here.

A few scattered thoughts on the scattered Palin announcement:

1. TRULY UNEXPECTED and disappointing on two fronts: a) quitting is irresponsible and damning; and b) she delivered another less than impressive rhetorical performance (which is merely exasperating).

2. Having said that, her decision was not idiotic.

3. 2012 seems completely out of the question now--but that may not be a bad thing. So much of the immediate punditry and conventional wisdom centered on 2012--but that analysis misses the forest for the trees. Forget about 2012. In fact, taking herself out of the running in terms of the next election is the smart play. Although the ODS wing of our party remains convinced that the GOP is well-positioned to defeat the President in 2012, I disagree vehemently.

More to come on this as we move forward, but beating Obama in 2012 is a very tall order--and unlikely at this point. For a number of reasons, Mitt Romney is the man for 2012. He will probably lose--but he is more than willing to brave the long odds and fight the good fight. He wants his shot. He is well-funded and popular on the right. Give him the ball. We could do a lot worse.

4. What does the future hold for Sarah Barracuda? Palin is a heavy hitter. She will continue to be very successful on the stump. She will continue to be very successful on the lecture circuit. If she makes the difference in a number of tight races in 2010 and 2012 and 2014, she will be an even more formidable national figure.

5. Frankly, she is too impoverished (relatively) RIGHT NOW to make a serious run for the presidency. Politics is an almost impossible business for working-class people (especially for a conservative who must run against the media). She needs to build some wealth, which she can do quite easily by shedding the "ball and chain" of the Alaska governorship. The very least Sarah Palin ought to get for her troubles is to be as rich as David Letterman.

Prediction: Sarah Palin will never be president of the United States.

However, there is no reason why she can't be a Republican Al Gore, beloved and admired on her side of the aisle and reviled and ridiculed by her irate opponents. Remember, Vice President Gore has reportedly earned $100 Million during the years following his defeat in 2000. Like Gore, Palin will always have star power and the ability to draw a crowd. We can expect her to use her influence on the party faithful when needed, and we can also expect her, like Gore, to continually dangle the prospect of running for president before the press and her faithful boosters (but my hunch is, ultimately, she will never pull the trigger again on a all-out run for the big prize).

All she needs now are a "few inconvenient truths."

--------

In conclusion, this very brief analysis from VDH via NRO's the Corner is on the mark and also well worth your time. If she were to be a serious contender for the GOP nomination someday, she would need to follow this path:

In the long run, she can lecture, earn a good income through speaking, develop a coterie of advisers and supporters, take care of her family, not have the constant political warring on all flanks, and invest time in reflecting and studying issues, visit the country, meet leaders, etc. She's not looking at 2012; but in eight years by 2016 she will be far more savvy, still young, and far more experienced. It matters not all that the Left writes her off as daffy, since they were going to do that whatever she did; the key is whether she convinces conservatives in eight year of travel and reflection that she's a charismatic Margaret Thatcher type heavyweight.

UPDATE: big BB welcome to Instapundit readers.

UPDATE-2: big BB welcome to Wizbang readers (another one of our favorites).

UPDATE-3: interesting thread in response to this post on FARK.com--doesn't seem to be many folks actually reading the post, but the idea touched off a heated and sometimes ribald but sometimes funny debate among mostly non-fans of Palin.

Tuesday in the Washington Post :

Bush Meets Al Gore: Effect On Permafrost Unknown

"It must be the season. President Bush tried yesterday to make peace between the Israelis and the Palestinians. And he tried to make peace with Al Gore.

"For the first time since Bush moved into the house Gore coveted, the two adversaries from the tumultuous 2000 presidential election sat down to talk."

"The official purpose of the historic summit was not the Middle East peace conference Bush is also hosting this week but the normally more prosaic photo op the White House typically schedules each year with the latest American winners of the Nobel Prize."

This particular Post story by Peter Baker (in full here) represents a plethora of semi-serious reporting this week noting the Bush-Gore meeting in the Oval Office.

How would the President respond to Al Gore? Would this be an uncomfortable moment? Would the President look nervous? Or make a scene?

No. In fact, the president went the extra mile.

Baker: "[he] decided to go a step beyond duty by meeting with Gore in the Oval Office for 40 minutes before the formal picture-taking. [T]he two reportedly talked about global warming...."

Does this tell us anything about President Bush?

Let Al Gore tell it:

"He was very gracious in setting up the meeting and it was a very good and substantive conversation."

The former-veep is not that spot-on correct very often--but he is exactly right in this particular characterization of events.

Is this a surprise (Bush's behavior, I mean)?

Hardly. We hear constantly that the President is dense, bull-headed, and Manichean in outlook. Gore himself often calls the Bushies "Mayberry Machiavellians," and the list goes on--but there are never any stories about Bush as petulant. No one ever asserts that he is ever anything less than gracious in his personal affairs--even when he has a right to take some revenge.

Peter Baker puts it mildly: "Gore has evolved into one of the [P]resident's toughest critics, condemning the war in Iraq, warrantless surveillance, harsh interrogations and other policies of an administration his team believes was illegitimately installed by the Supreme Court."

Baker should have thrown in a few choice adjectives to better describe the level and volume of Gore's withering criticism--but you get the point.

How has the President responded to the myriad Gore calumnies? He has not. It would be beneath the office. No one can contest his record for executing the duties of his office with great respect and dignity. This meeting is just another example of that pattern of behavior.

The good news: Joe Klein, who spent a career posing as an "objective" journalist and Washington inside-the-Beltway wise man, is finally unmasked . Fortunately, Joe Klein's by-line now appears under the label of "commentary." He is off the streets and safely contained on the op-ed pages of TIME magazine.

The bad news: There are still a host of reporters out there covering national government who are not out of the closet.

From the most recent issue of TIME, Joe Klein's assault on the President:

The Headline: "An Administration's Epic Collapse: In the face of three scandals. Bush offers only more relentless partisanship" (full article here).

Klein: A Pew poll had it about right: a substantial majority of the public remains happy the Democrats won in 2006, but neither Nancy Pelosi nor Harry Reid has dominated the public consciousness as Newt Gingrich did when the Republicans came to power in 1995.

That is probably because Nancy Pelosi is so humble and retiring and does not go looking for ways to place her name on the top of the page--unlike that dastardly megalomaniac, Newt Gingrich. No way is it because the media treatment of Pelosi and Gingrich are as different as lightning and a lightning bug. Hold on, Joe Klein has a better answer:

Klein: There is a reason for that. A much bigger story is unfolding: the epic collapse of the Bush Administration.

Please. Go on.

Klein: The three big Bush stories of 2007...precisely illuminate the three qualities that make this Administration one of the worst in American history: arrogance (the surge), incompetence (Walter Reed) and cynicism (the U.S. Attorneys).

One of the worst in American history? That is a big claim. Thanks, though, for a recap of the DNC talking points. Anything else?

Klein: Iraq comes first, as always. From the start, it has been obvious that personal motives have skewed the President's judgment about the war. Saddam tried to kill his dad...

Is there anything more hackneyed and more facile than this line of argument? Perhaps next week Klein and Rosie O'Donnell can explain the real story behind the 9-11 attacks.

» Read More

Today on Sean Hannity's radio show, wild-haired pollster John Zogby floated the idea of Al Gore as a compromise candidate for the Democratic nomination. The Zogby plan: Jimmy Carter and some other party wise men convince Barack Obama to release his delegates to Al Gore in exchange for the VP slot. The powers that be assure Mrs. Clinton that she would ascend to Senate Majority Leader as part of the deal, and everybody leaves happy.

Really? Al Gore? Really?

One of the most unelectable figures in the history of American politics?

Is John Kerry not available?

What about Walter Mondale? Ted Kennedy, maybe? Unfortunately, Ed Muskie passed away, but I think George McGovern is still alive. What about him?

We appreciate you thinking out of the box, Zog--but perhaps you should go back to the drawing board on this one.

The Accounting: Last week I was "on assignment." More precisely, my day job overcame my avocation.

For those of you who like to keep track of what I do, here are the highlights of the week that was:

Wednesday: In my capacity as student government advisor, I assisted in hosting a Civil Rights lecture in celebration of Black History Month. Baylor's James SoRelle brought a bit of gender equity to the study of the CRM with "Where Have All the Women Gone? Re-imaging the Civil Rights Movement, 1865-1965."

FYI: We are also hosting an African American Literature colloquium this week.

Thursday: I accompanied a dozen student leaders to Austin, where we met with our elected state representatives (Senator Kip Averett & Representatives Jim Dunnam and Charles "Doc" Anderson).

Friday: I once again made the 100-mile jaunt down I-35 to Austin, this time in the company of colleagues for the annual convention of Texas community college teachers. On that assignment, I was able to spend an immensely enjoyable day of conversation and conviviality with friends dedicated to perpetuating the American experiment.

We enjoyed a stimulating and intimate lunch with an emerging superstar in American scholarship: H.W. Brands.

Agenda: I intend to offer some thoughts on all of these events at some point.

But First. We also attended a discussion of the coming 2008 presidential race offered by Thomas Patterson, Bradlee Professor of Government and the Press at the Kennedy School of Government at Harvard. I like Patterson. I heard him speak a few years ago at another convention. He is thoughtful and fair-minded. He has a great line: "the forecasting models indicate (insert prediction here) but I wouldn't bet my house on it." It is an important caveat. He sees this as a Democratic Party year, and I agree with him, but there is a reason we show up for the game even when the odds are prohibitive. On any given Sunday....

Why are the Democrats ahead? Patterson noted that 1952 and 1968 were historical parallels. Stuck in unpopular wars, the parties of Harry Truman and Lyndon Johnson suffered the consequences of presidential unpopularity. Looking at the job approval ratings of the President, the party of Bush groans with dread. The Democrats are currently running an 18-point lead in the generic canvass. There are potential pitfalls for the Dems (looking "anti-American" for one), but right now they have the better hand to play.

Even as there are many strongly persuasive indicators on general elections, the dynamics of the primaries make predictions on party nominations uncertain. Having said that, the nominations are now decided during the "invisible primary." That is, in the era of front-loading, the campaign prior to the first caucus and first primary generally determines the nominee. In a nutshell, this time next year, in all likelihood, we will know our two major party nominees.

Some things to watch:

» Read More

Allow me a few less-than-gracious thoughts on Al Gore and the Nobel Peace Prize:

1. How can anyone take the Nobel Peace Prize seriously again?

2. Kofi Anan, Jimmy Carter, Mohamad el Baradei, and now Al Gore. The conclusion of the Bush administration will necessitate a paradigm shift for the awards committee, as the number one criterion--stick it in the eye of George Bush--will eventually recede as the primary consideration.

Assuming Hillary Clinton wins the Democratic nomination, and she wants Barack Obama to fill out the ticket, will he accept?

The question is predicated on two BIG assumptions, especially in the midst of a campaign in which nobody knows anything--but here goes nothing...

Some things to think about:

1. As a general statement, nobody turns down the vice presidency. Off the top of my head, I can think of only two American statesmen who have demurred. Gerald Ford in 1980. John McCain (from Kerry) in 2004. Both of those instances were extraordinary cases: Ford a former president and McCain a member of the opposition party with presidential aspirations within his own caucus. Any others?

An Update: Thinking about things, Silas Wright declined to run with James K. Polk in 1844. Surely there must be others who famously declined. Help me out. Let's make a contest of it.

2. Why do American statesmen so often accept the VP?

--most American statesmen are committed to service above self aggrandizement (that's their story anyway). The VP is a lowly job but somebody's got to do it. Turning the job down smacks of too much ego and seems almost unpatriotic. Turning the job down would also be seen by many partisans as betrayal of party.

--the VP is a lowly job (John Adams called it "the most insignificant office that ever the Invention of man contrived or his Imagination conceived"). Having said that, the VP is a heart beat away from ultimate power.

--the VP is a platform for ambitious men. True, the office is a gamble. Sometimes the VP prospers and sometimes he fails miserably. But the potential for elevation (both literally and metaphorically) strikes most young men in a hurry as an irresistible gambit.

3. Even in the case of Al Gore, whom both the Gardener and I cite as a person damaged by the administration to which he attached himself, the VP opened up a plethora of opportunity for the former senator from Tennessee. Gore is Gore, Inc. today because he was VP. His association with the Clintons may have lost him the presidency in 2000 (or it may not have), but it is hard to argue that Gore would have even made a run for that nomination without his VP connection. The cult of Gore depends mightily (albeit indirectly) on his eight years in the second slot.

In closing, the VP is hard to turn down for a number of reasons, especially for a young man. If Hillary wins, and if she decides to tap Obama (two big ifs), I say he takes it. He has no real choice.

At least one source is already calling the early box office for Sicko "healthy" ($1.3 million in 441 theaters on Friday).

UPDATE-2: Weekend total: $4.5 million to finish at No. 9. nationwide (full story here via BostonHerald.com).

An aside: these numbers are approximately five-times weaker than the opening for Fahrenheit 9/11--but still very strong for a documentary.

Considering the pre-opening publicity for the film, which began in earnest a month ago, the high profile of the filmmaker, and the plethora of positive reviews, no one should be surprised at the initial interest in Michael Moore's latest offering.

Having said that, my hunch is, in the end, Sicko will fall well short of expectations (however, even if my prediction comes to pass and the picture goes South, don't hold your breath for much critical press coverage).

The feature-length documentary is receiving a big push from the studio and a first-class ride from the film-reviewing fraternity, many of whom are big fans of Michael Moore's politics and like-minded in their basic assumptions about America, big business and evil Republicans.

However, my prediction is that Sicko will not have legs. Once the usual suspects see the film (and go back and watch it again a few times for the team),* who else is really going to care about this film?

In general, American filmgoers are not fans of the documentary genre. In terms of style, if you have seen one Michael Moore film, you have seen them all. Why would Joe Sixpack and family spend thirty-some dollars to go see a serially angry and malcontented demagogue deliver a heavy-handed and patronizing harangue dripping with sarcasm and a depressingly redundant deep-seated cynicism?

In the bluntest terms, it is unlikely that the work will ever appeal to anyone other than the axis of American liberalism (Hollywood, the mainstream media and academia). One great irony is that the biggest fans of this film will be an elite echelon of Americans who actually enjoy the best health care in the world. Even more ironic, there are actually very few of these ostensibly compassionate humanitarians who will be willing to give up their own premium personal care to stand in line in some national health system so that the "unfortunate" might have more access. In the most practical sense, they are as much against "leveling" as William F. Buckley.

In the end, the hype around Sicko will prove to be another self-indulgent exercise of the American Left. Without seeing the picture, I can already tell you that it is a frontrunner for an Academy Award. Barring a late entry from Al Gore, Michael Moore should have a clear path to another statuette. On the other hand, Moore, who too often listens to his own press and the retinue of fools who encourage his antics, is still not a major player in American politics. He is a major player in Hollywood--but he carries very little weight (no pun intended) in fly-over country.

*UPDATE-1: This exhortation from the Daily Kos explains some of what is happening in re the weekend numbers:

Quoting Kos poster "hopesprings":

So if you want to see SICKO stick around and move into more and better venues, go see it this weekend. If you want all of America to be able to see it easily, go see it. See it again. And tell your friends to see it.

Will the campaign generate enough momentum to attract a wider audience? We'll see. But I stand by hunch.

Back in June, when Lionsgate Films released Michael Moore's Sicko, I predicted an "anemic performance." I suppose "anemic" is relative. Fact: Sicko has grossed $24,540,079, which makes it the third highest grossing documentary of all time. It is just ahead of An Inconvenient Truth and tens of millions behind March of the Penguins and Moore's own Fahrenheit 9/11. On the other hand, Sicko did not take the nation by storm like the other three fore-mentioned films.

This week, Sicko hits the DVD racks. We'll see what happens next. Here is my original non-review from June:

"At least one source is already calling the early box office for Sicko "healthy" ($1.3 million in 441 theaters on Friday).

“An aside: these numbers are approximately five-times weaker than the opening for Fahrenheit 9/11--but still very strong for a documentary.

“Considering the pre-opening publicity for the film, which began in earnest a month ago, the high profile of the filmmaker, and the plethora of positive reviews, no one should be surprised at the initial interest in Michael Moore's latest offering.

“Having said that, my hunch is, in the end, Sicko will fall well short of expectations (however, even if my prediction comes to pass and the picture goes South, don't hold your breath for much critical press coverage).

“The feature-length documentary is receiving a big push from the studio and a first-class ride from the film-reviewing fraternity, many of whom are big fans of Michael Moore's politics and like-minded in their basic assumptions about America, big business and evil Republicans.

“However, my prediction is that Sicko will not have legs. Once the usual suspects see the film (and go back and watch it again a few times for the team), who else is really going to care about this film?

“In general, American filmgoers are not fans of the documentary genre. In terms of style, if you have seen one Michael Moore film, you have seen them all. Why would Joe Sixpack and family spend thirty-some dollars to go see a serially angry and malcontented demagogue deliver a heavy-handed and patronizing harangue dripping with sarcasm and a depressingly redundant deep-seated cynicism?

“In the bluntest terms, it is unlikely that the work will ever appeal to anyone other than the axis of American liberalism (Hollywood, the mainstream media and academia). One great irony is that the biggest fans of this film will be an elite echelon of Americans who actually enjoy the best health care in the world. Even more ironic, there are actually very few of these ostensibly compassionate humanitarians who will be willing to give up their own premium personal care to stand in line in some national health system so that the "unfortunate" might have more access. In the most practical sense, they are as much against "leveling" as William F. Buckley.

“In the end, the hype around Sicko will prove to be another self-indulgent exercise of the American Left. Without seeing the picture, I can already tell you that it is a frontrunner for an Academy Award. Barring a late entry from Al Gore, Michael Moore should have a clear path to another statuette. On the other hand, Moore, who too often listens to his own press and the retinue of fools who encourage his antics, is still not a major player in American politics. He is a major player in Hollywood--but he carries very little weight (no pun intended) in fly-over country.”

Orignal post here.

A few more random and half-baked reactions:

1. I ran a Bosque Boys search for "al gore," and I was surprised by the number of entries and the variety of posts. I modestly suggest that the thread offers several essays worth a second look here.

2. The more I think about all this, the harder it becomes to see this award as anything more than "gotcha" politics. Having said that, the Nobel folks can point to a noble tradition of tweaking the powerful and lending support to worthy dissenters. As I mentioned earlier, Lech Walesa won the Nobel Peace Prize in 1983. The Prize committee, undoubtedly, meant to harass and shame the totalitarian, Soviet-controlled Polish government.

In the same vein, the Nobel Peace Prize awarded to Martin Luther King in 1964 was clearly directed at embarrassing the various oppressive American governments clinging to a Jim-Crow past.

Were these awards political? Yes. Were they aimed at goring someone's ox? Yes. But were the recipients deserving? Yes. Do the awards stand the test of time? Yes.

On the other hand:

Do all of the Nobel Peace Prize winners stand up to these standards? Yasser Arafat (translation: No).

Has the Prize diminished in stature and power as a result of frivolous and petty politics? Jimmy Carter. Al Gore (translation: unfortunately, YES).

Last week, in a post I eventually deleted ("Project Big Rock Candy Mountain"), I weighed in on how ridiculous and cruel the world of partisan politics can be to a sitting president. I chose irony as my primary method of expression. On many levels, the piece failed.

ANOTHER TRY: hard, cold and incontrovertible facts as to why much of the criticism leveled at President Bush is the product of political myopia, partisanship and flat-out disingenuousness.

1. George Bush is not dumb. He is one of the best-educated men to hold the office of President of the United States. Every objective measure indicates that he is a man of well-above-average intelligence. Moreover, he is surrounded by the best and the brightest advisors our nation has to offer.

An aside: it should go without saying, of course, that brilliant men often conjure up plans that are not fool proof. And no one will deny that brilliant men are capable of making dumb mistakes. When this happens we should hold our leaders and decision makers accountable.

However, there is a notion that slinks around in these discussions that smart people (Bill Clinton, John Kerry, Jimmy Carter and Al Gore for example) could easily solve the dilemmas that the President faces. This is a ridiculous and insidious political conceit. Those who contribute to or condone this destructive calumny should be ashamed.

» Read More

A few weeks ago, I attended a discussion of the coming 2008 presidential race offered by Thomas Patterson, Bradlee Professor of Government and the Press at the Kennedy School of Government at Harvard.

As I said then, I like Patterson. I heard him speak a few years ago at another convention. He is thoughtful and fair-minded. He has a great line: "the forecasting models indicate (insert prediction here) but I wouldn't bet my house on it." It is an important caveat. He sees this as a Democratic Party year, and I agree with him, but there is a reason we show up for the game even when the odds are prohibitive. On any given Sunday....

With a recent spate of polls and news analysis pieces reinforcing his points, I thought it would be appropriate to re-emphasize the wisdom of Professor Patterson:

Why are the Democrats ahead? Patterson noted that 1952 and 1968 were historical parallels. Stuck in unpopular wars, the parties of Harry Truman and Lyndon Johnson suffered the consequences of presidential unpopularity. Looking at the job approval ratings of the President, the party of Bush groans with dread. The Democrats are currently running an 18-point lead in the generic canvass. There are potential pitfalls for the Dems (looking "anti-American" for one), but right now they have the better hand to play.

Even as there are many strongly persuasive indicators on general elections, the dynamics of the primaries make predictions on party nominations uncertain. Having said that, the nominations are now decided during the "invisible primary." That is, in the era of front-loading, the campaign prior to the first caucus and first primary generally determines the nominee. In a nutshell, this time next year, in all likelihood, we will know our two major party nominees.

Some things to watch for between now and the primaries:

1. Follow the Money. A winning candidate will need to raise hundreds of millions of dollars to win the nomination. George Bush busted the ancien regime, opting out of the matching funds system in 2000. Flush with cash, Bush rebounded after a loss in New Hampshire by swamping the poorly funded opposition on Super Tuesday. Then John Kerry in 2004 reaffirmed that no candidate could afford to stay within the federally funded order. Unable to gain traction, Kerry used his own money to fund his comeback. Limited funds deny candidate flexibility. The more money a candidate possesses, the less lethal any one mistake or setback will be.

2. Follow the Media and the Media Paradox. Media coverage drives popularity. The Media only cover viable candidates. Candidates cannot gain popularity without media coverage. In an era of limited media resources, only candidates with momentum and popular appeal will draw coverage.

The conclusion: It is very difficult for second tier candidates to break into the front-runners. Having said that, it happens: Howard Dean in 2004 for example.

Who will break through this time? Maybe no one in the party of Jackson. Patterson sees the Democratic race fairly fixed. There are three major candidates: a charismatic fresh face with a classically liberal outlook, an experienced DLC centrist triangulator and a populist white guy outlier (Obama, Hillary and Edwards).

The one wild card? Al Gore. He keeps saying he won't run--but Patterson wondered if an Academy Award and a Nobel Prize might create enough momentum to change the course of the primary battle. Sunday night [2-25-07] reinforces Gore's improbable dream. However, based on personal acquaintance with some Gore insiders, and the physical appearance of the former VP, Patterson guesses that Gore stays out.

For the GOP. There are three prominent Republican candidates: Romney, McCain and Giuliani. But they don't strike Patterson as very GOP-like. There may be an opening because the Republicans really need another choice.

UPDATE: Fred Thompson mania may be just the beginning....

If Hillary Clinton is elected in 2008 (and at this moment, she is the most likely person to be the forty-fourth president of the United States--see Part I), America will endure; perhaps, we will even prosper.

Why it's probably going to be okay: What do I mean by "okay"? I mean we will be fine; she will be fine.

A personal aside: A few months back, in two separate off-line discussions on the same issue, I got on the wrong side of my friends, and Bosque Boys regulars, Gossenius and "Tocqueville" (quite a feat; they do not agree on much). I rendered them incredulous arguing that Harriet Miers would "be fine" as a Supreme Court justice (they both argued that she was unqualified).

Gossenius, especially, properly demanded that I explain my statement. At the time, I was at a loss to articulate what I knew in my soul: it does not take a legal genius to serve on the Supreme Court. Antonin Scalia and Ruth Bader Ginsburg are great legal minds, and they advocate brilliantly for their positions. But are they good jurists? Are they honest triers of fact? Or are they merely brilliant proponents of their particular political philosophies. Harriet would have been fine.

I am just enough of a "Jacksonian Democrat" to be increasingly convinced that common sense and integrity are more important qualities in leadership than ideology or conspicuous intelligence. It does not take an Ivy League-educated intellectual to serve as president of the United States. In fact, some of our least successful presidents have been geniuses (Herbert Hoover & JQ Adams, for example).

John Kerry would have been fine. Al Gore: fine. George Bush: fine. Mrs. Clinton will be fine, for she is a dedicated public servant who wants America to prosper and succeed. The presidency will test her, torment her and age her, but it will also demand her very best. I have a whole list of disagreements with Mrs. Clinton, but just like all of her predecessors, she will summon the total of her inner strength and the best elements of her personality to meet the awesome challenges of the office.

More importantly, our nation has the innate capacity to overcome mediocre leaders. Writing in the 1830s, Alexis de Tocqueville observed: "the great advantage of the Americans consists in their [ability] to commit faults which they may afterwards repair." As a corollary, he wrote: "American democracy frequently errs in the choice of the individuals to whom it entrusts the power of the administration; but...the state prospers under their rule."

Why does American democracy prosper in spite of inferior leadership? Tocqueville offered three reasons: 1) the people are vigilant and jealous of their rights; 2) leaders are in power for relatively short periods of time; and, most importantly, 3) the interest of the leaders are more likely to be subsumed in the interest of the people. While aristocratic (or elite) "magistrates" might offer more sterling talents and virtues individually, there is "a secret tendency in democratic institutions that [works toward the good] of the community in spite of their vices and mistakes." Ironically, Tocqueville argues, "in aristocratic governments public men may frequently do harm without intending it; and in democratic states they bring about good results of which they have never thought."

Political passions tend to blind us to the good in American public servants. Looking back over American history, we do not see a pattern of good versus evil (although the partisans of the day certainly cast the contests in that light). The battles between Hamilton and Jefferson were fought on those terms, but we now see that Hamilton and Jefferson both were earnest in their love of country and both essential to our success. The same can be said for Jackson and Clay or McKinley and Bryan. Some Americans live long enough to participate on both sides of the divide. Ronald Reagan began his adulthood as a New Deal Democrat and adherent of Franklin Delano Roosevelt, but he lived to lead a counter-revolution that bears his name. In truth, he was right both times.

America perseveres.

The worst ever? Charles Krauthammer thought so. Maybe.

"Thank you, thank you," the monotone moderator repeated time and time again, lamely signaling that the allotted thirty-second period for candidate responses had concluded.

Two asides:

Nothing irritates me more than a disingenuous "thank you."

Nine people on a stage, only three of whom have a serious chance at being president of the United States, all of them confined to thirty-second sound bites, strikes me as a recipe for a worthless eighty two minutes.

Having said that, the debate offered two big revelations:

1. Alan Keys is running for president again? Seriously?

2. Fred may have finally found his stride. Was this a breakthrough for him? I hope so. While Romney delivered another sharp and optimistic performance, Fred was the story. Like an all-star athlete who skipped spring training, Thompson has looked sluggish and out of sorts for the first few debates. But last night he finally showed up with his game face on.

Too little too late? Maybe. Maybe not. This race still seems very fluid to me. Because the field is so weak, it may not be too late for Fred.

What did Fred do that was so great?

1. He had a mini Ronald ("I paid for this microphone") Reagan moment, when he refused to comply with the "show of hands" on global warming.

--He was right to point out that this issue is more complicated than a "yes or no" answer to a politically driven "trap" question.

--As a Republican, skepticism about global warming hyperbole and hysteria plays well with a whole slew of target voters. McCain and Rudy clamoring to agree with Al Gore did not do them any good with the GOP base.

--And taking on a not very attractive and incredibly annoying media stiff is always a popular thing to do for a Republican candidate.

2. Fred also scored with two humorous retorts: still ostensibly on global warming, Alan Keyes delivered an impassioned speech about everything and about nothing all at the same time, all the while neglecting to address the actual issue explicitly. At which point, Fred interjected: I agree with Alan's position on global warming," which elicited a big laugh from the audience. The other case, which has made all the highlights, Thompson made light of Romney's wealth and his "acting ability." More good laughs.

3. Fred looked presidential and tough. "We can't stand for that," he said once in relation to our friends taking advantage of free trade agreements. I believed him. He clearly wanted to set himself apart from (above) the mad scramble for votes, and he did that (at least for a moment).

"And the irony is, Rudy Guiliani, probably the most under-qualified man since George Bush to seek the presidency ...is here talking about any of the people here...Rudy Guiliani...I mean, think about it...Rudy Guiliani, there's only three things he mentions in a sentence, a noun, a verb, and 9-11..I mean, there's nothing else, there's nothing else...and I mean this sincerely, he is genuinely not qualified to be president."


Is Rudy qualified to be president? This has become a recurring theme (you might even say "talking point") for Democrats and pundits on the Campaign 2008 trail. In truth, this is a misleading and irrelevant conversation.

Qualifications are not paramount to the making of a president. Traditionally, the question of qualifications has always presented a fairly low threshold to overcome for presidential aspirants. Biden's incessant raving about qualifications is mostly wishful thinking and strategy in an attempt to frame the debate in a way he fancies better disposed to his candidacy. And, for the record, by "qualified," Senator Biden simply means which candidate has served the longest in the United States Senate.

Of course, even operating under a more reasonable definition, we have had plenty of "under-qualified" presidents--some of whom have done just fine. More importantly, the public doesn't care much who is the most qualified. No one voted for JFK in 1960 because they thought he was more qualified to be president than Richard Nixon. Or Bill Clinton over George H.W. Bush in 1992. Or George Bush over Al Gore in 2000. This is not the element upon which most elections pivot.

True, without 9-11, it would be impossible to imagine Rudy running for president in 2008. But so what? Ike was viable in 1952 as a result of WWII—but, as in the case of Rudy, his heroic role was merely a starting point. Douglas MacArthur was a non-starter as a presidential candidate in the post-war climate—as was George Pataki in the post 9-11 world.

Ironically, Barack Obama has questioned Mrs. Clinton's credentials: Hillary is only viable because she is the wife of a former president. Is he right? Yes and No.

First No: If it were that easy, why didn't the GOP run Barbara Bush in 1996? Nancy Reagan in 2000? Laura Bush for 2012? Obviously, Mrs. Clinton is uniquely gifted and experienced among first ladies--and her uniqueness is the reason she is where she is today (forgive the circular reasoning--but, hopefully, you take my point). Having said that, is she there as a result of her connection to her former-president husband? Obviously, yes. But, again, so what? That is only a starting point.

Every presidential candidate needs a “hook.” If aspirants don't have a hook, they end up Duncan Hunter or Dennis Kucinich.

Hillary is a restoration candidate. Barack Obama's viability, at its heart, is the product of a well-timed speech. Rudy is Rudy because of 9-11. Mitt Romney is viable because he wanted to be president, and he had enough money, guts, and brains to get him this close (very much like John F. Kennedy). Fred Thompson is viable because of a TV show. Mike Huckabee did it the "old-fashioned way"—but he is the exception that proves the rule.

Bottom Line: Creating an atmosphere of viability is qualification in itself. The public requires no more than that. Of course, qualifications, viability, and positioning do not speak to the much more important element, at least in the long term, of capacity and aptitude.

Who will actually be a good president? On that score, your guess is as good as mine. God save the President!

In terms of disdain generated from the mainstream media and the liberal establishment, Matt Drudge ranks second only to Rush Limbaugh. The Left hates Drudge; they have parodied him, slandered him and attempted to reduce his readership by brutally disparaging his audience.

None of it has worked.

Why? What is the value of Drudge?

Like most of America, I had never heard of the Drudge Report before January 21, 1998. As we all remember, Drudge entered the American political lexicon by breaking a huge story that Newsweek refused to publish: the Monica Lewinsky scandal.

Once I realized that Drudge readers found out on January 17 what I didn't learn until four days later, I decided that Drudge was a necessary supplement to my news diet.

Drudge cuts to the chase with sensational political stories. The recent Al Gore III and John Edwards dust-ups are cases in point. While the establishment outlets wringed their hands and waited for the sensational to become news (because others were reporting it), Drudge reported. Drudge became the one-stop center for Gore news this morning.

Similarly, when George Stephanopoulos mentioned John Edwards's latest hair gaffe this morning on GMA, I clicked around a bit to no avail--and then went to Drudge. Of course, there it was: Top-Right Corner. Easy.

Most times, as in the case of the Edwards story, Drudge is not an investigative reporter; he is not a newshound in the sense of a muckraking journalists, but he is a newshound in terms of highlighting interesting but obscure stories already in play. In the case of Edwards, the story came from an incredibly elite source, the Washington Post. But Drudge made it the story of the day.

Although the field is congested now with imitators on both sides of the divide, Drudge continues to play a vital role in electronic politics. Slap me if I ever get too cultured for the Drudge Report.

I am an admirer of Sean Wilentz as an historian. For months now, it has been my intention to comment on his brilliant synthesis, The Rise of American Democracy: Jefferson to Lincoln (even more so since I began reading Daniel Walker Howe's brilliant rebuttal, from the Whig point of view, and closer to my way of thinking, What Hath God Wrought: The Transformation of America, 1815-1848).

Notwithstanding, Professor Wilentz is a very political historian. And by that I don't mean he is primarily concerned with the history of dead white men; this is also true in part--but that is not my point. Sean Wilentz is an extreme Democratic Party partisan, who does not hesitate to bring his training, reputation, and rhetorical ability to bear in support of his deeply held political beliefs. For example, Professor Wilentz organized the "400 Historians Against Impeachment" back in 1998, which gave scholarly cover to the Clinton campaign to stay in office at all costs.

Almost always I disagree with Professor Wilentz's political crusades, and I have generally criticized his penchant for couching naked politics in scholarly drapery. However, his article published in the New Republic today offers staggeringly insightful analysis (read that to mean he agrees with me). In fact, he even borrows the same title (unknowingly) that I used a few days ago: "Race Man."

An excerpt from the Wilentz piece:

“A review of what actually happened shows that the charges that the Clintons played the "race card' were not simply false; they were deliberately manufactured by the Obama camp and trumpeted by a credulous and/or compliant press corps in order to strip away her once formidable majority among black voters and to outrage affluent, college-educated white liberals as well as college students. The Clinton campaign, in fact, has not racialized the campaign, and never had any reason to do so. Rather the Obama campaign and its supporters, well-prepared to play the 'race-baiter card' before the primaries began, launched it with a vengeance when Obama ran into dire straits after his losses in New Hampshire and Nevada--and thereby created a campaign myth that has turned into an incontrovertible truth among political pundits, reporters, and various Obama supporters. This development is the latest sad commentary on the malign power of the press, hyping its own favorites and tearing down those it dislikes, to create pseudo-scandals of the sort that hounded Al Gore during the 2000 campaign. It is also a commentary on how race can make American politics go haywire. Above all, it is a commentary on the cutthroat, fraudulent politics that lie at the foundation of Obama's supposedly uplifting campaign.”

Read this long article in full here. It is the most trenchant analysis to date concerning this exceedingly important question.

Today some moronic conservative called up and accused Brian of left-wing bias and lumped him in with Chris Mathews and the MSM. I always cringe when I hear someone from my side of the political fence say something that stupid. Of course, Brian was unflappable, patiently hearing him out, and then: "Peoria, Illinois; you're next. What do you think about...."

The truth is, of course, Brian Lamb and C-SPAN have provided the most unrestricted forum for conservative intellectualism in the brief history of electronic media. All the while, they have provided a similar forum for liberal ideas, but with much less impact, as liberal thought already had numerous esteemed channels to disseminate messages.

Today the topics on the viewer call-in hour were the detainee deal and Hugo Chavez. I tend to use C-SPAN calls as a barometer of the radically misinformed in America; that is, citizens who are fully engaged (bless their hearts) but dangerously misguided.

Random thought: kudos to Charlie Rangel for not hugging Chavez.

Even so, as a string of African American callers chimed in to praise the Venezuelan president and agree vehemently with his characterization of George Bush, I had to wonder if Bush's numbers with black voters would appreciate noticeably, if he had run against Hugo Chavez. Maybe not. My guess: Chavez could have done better among African American voters than John Kerry (88 percent) but probably not as well as Al Gore (92 percent).

And, of course, there were the usual number of shaky-voiced zealots calling in to endorse websites offering "the truth" about the Bush conspiracy that organized the attacks of 9-11. "What about Tower #7? Coincidence? I think not..."

Yesterday on C-SPAN, I heard an interesting twist on the usual tale of 9-11 intrigue, which involved the President building a mansion in Jerusalem in which he would await Armageddon. The coverage of "Christian Dominionism" and "Christian Nationalism" and "Christian Zionism" seems to be increasing (at least on NPR's "Fresh Air"). Perhaps we can look forward to a whole new strain of paranoia.

I appreciate the Okie Gardener's recent thoughts on Global Warming (and his prior musings), which always reflect a true respect for the scientific method and classic conservatism, rather than the all too common blow-hard varieties of both.

As was noted earlier this week by a friend who knows me well, my knowledge of science is fairly elementary. Perhaps as a result, the Global Warming jokes are hard to pass up. A few months ago, I noted wryly that I spent the night at Gate C-29 at DFW, snowed-in during early March. I confess that I cannot help but get a chuckle every time an Al Gore conference on Global Warming is canceled on account of a 100-year blizzard. And every morning in May that I wake up in Central Texas with the temperature in the high-40s (and then told Global Warming is actually making things cooler before they get unbearably Hellish), I tend to become more skeptical of the UN, NASA, Brad Pitt, and the Hollywood intelligentsia.

Notwithstanding, I agree wholeheartedly with the Gardener's call for better stewardship of Creation and his exhortation to thoughtfully consider genuinely alarming potentialities despite the asinine alarmists.

Minus my intro concering some Texas football history, I am reissuing this concurring opinion based on what I consider a non-scientific, common-sense approach:

The predicament: Finite resources and exponential population growth equals a problem at some point in human history. Thus far, dramatic advances in technology and an amazingly dynamic and productive economic system have outpaced the inherent difficulty --and made the Malthusian predictions of scarcity during the nineteenth century the butt of modern derision.

However, do we really think that this planet will sustain 10 billion people? Twenty billion? Thirty billion? Do we think the United States will sustain a billion? Two billion? Do we think the American Southwest can continue to meet its water needs in perpetuity?

Does it alarm anyone other than me that we have become accustomed to a luxuriously abundant lifestyle that is predicated on an expanding economy, which is dependent on a growing, building, and expanding civilization, which requires the creation and infusion of more and more inhabitants into an environment with finite resources. There are limits. Where those limits actually exist--perhaps no one can say with certainty. However, undoubtedly, there must be a point at which our demand for potable water, breathable air, and fossil fuels to run our modern world exceeds the planet's capacity to offer them up.

Note: back when I first posted this, Tocqueville directed us to a timeless and provocative piece by Fred Ikle: Growth Without End, Amen. It is a must-read, if you missed it.

This is making the rounds on email and the blogs. After just a touch of superficial checking, it looks like it might even be true.

House 1:

The four-bedroom home was planned so that "every room has a relationship with something in the landscape that's different from the room next door. Each of the rooms feels like a slightly different place. The resulting single-story house is a paragon of environmental planning.

The passive-solar house is built of honey-colored native limestone and positioned to absorb winter sunlight, warming the interior walkways and walls of the 4,000-square-foot residence. Geothermal heat pumps circulate water through pipes buried 300 feet deep in the ground. These waters pass through a heat exchange system that keeps the home warm in winter and cool in summer.

A 25,000-gallon underground cistern collects rainwater gathered from roof urns; Wastewater from sinks, toilets, and showers cascades into underground purifying tanks and is also funneled into the cistern. The water from the cistern is then used to irrigate the landscaping around the four-bedroom home, (which) uses indigenous grasses, shrubs, and flowers to complete the exterior treatment of the home. In addition to its minimal environmental impact, the look and layout of the house reflect one of the paramount priorities: relaxation.

A spacious 10-foot porch wraps completely around the residence and beckons the family outdoors. With few hallways to speak of, family and guests make their way from room to room either directly or by way of the porch. "The house doesn't hold you in. Where the porch ends there is grass. There is no step-up at all." This house consumes 25% of the energy of an average American home.

(Source: Cowboys and Indians Magazine, Oct. 2002 and Chicago Tribune April 2001. Here)

House 2:

This 20-room, 8-bathroom house consumes more electricity every month than the average American household uses in an entire year. The average household in America consumes 10,656 kilowatt-hours (kWh) per year, according to the Department of Energy. In 2006, this house devours nearly 221,000 kWh, more than 20 times the national average. Last August alone, the house burned through 22,619 kWh, guzzling more than twice the electricity in one month than an average American family uses in an entire year. As a result of this energy consumption, the average monthly electric bill topped $1,359. Also, natural gas bills for this house and guest house averaged $1,080 per month last year. In total, this house had nearly $30,000 in combined electricity and natural gas bills for 2006.

(Source: just about anywhere in the news last month online and on talk radio, but barely on TV.)

How about the Tennessee Center for Policy Research? I have never heard of them--but it is a start--here.

The PayOff? You guessed it: House 1 belongs to George and Laura Bush, and is in Crawford, Texas. House 2 belongs to Al and Tipper Gore, and is in Nashville, Tennessee.

Thanks to MB from Westlake Village, CA.

The question of the day on C-SPAN's Washington Journal this morning (January 17, 2007):

Is Barack Obama experienced enough to be President of the United States?

Not surprisingly, Democrats assured us that he is. Republicans hooted at his brief career in national politics.

The truth is that winning the presidency is a combination of timing and likeability. That is, the timing must be right for your brand of change. If you are running against a popular incumbent, the record indicates that a challenger, no matter how smart, no matter how articulate, no matter how handsome, does not fare well. Think Dwight Eisenhower is 1956; Ronald Reagan in 1984; Bill Clinton in 1996. Was there a challenger anywhere in America capable of diverting those landslide reelection victories?

On the other hand, if you are running against a failed incumbent, and the collective sense of the American people is that change is necessary, almost any candidate, no matter how formerly unknown or inexperienced, can win on the first Tuesday in November. After twelve years of Democratic Party rule, any candidate could have beaten Martin Van Buren in the aftermath of the Panic of 1837. Similarly, any candidate could have bested Herbert Hoover, broken on the wheel of economic depression, in 1932.

Much more fluid are elections in which there is no incumbent or heir apparent to an administration in power. We are approaching just such a rare election in 2008.

In these elections (this election), timing will be an important factor; that is, what is the zeitgeist of the American electorate? Does the economy drive the decision? National security? The national debt? Taxes? Integrity? These are all important factors.

But in this election in which there is no incumbent and no heir apparent, all things being equal, likeability will be an extremely strong determinant in the contest.

Do Americans care about experience? Not especially. Al Gore was much more experienced than George Bush, but Bush won the likeability contest by a wide margin (and, of course, John Kerry was incredibly unappealing). Jerry Ford was eminently more experienced and qualified to be president than Jimmy Carter--but Americans were ready for a change.

Henry Clay was the most qualified American statesman to never be president--but his accomplishments did not matter to Americans in 1844 when they elected virtually unknown James K. Polk over the Great Compromiser. J.Q. Adams boasted perhaps the finest record of public service in all our history--but he lost the popular vote in 1824 to the charismatic war hero, Andrew Jackson. JFK and LBJ in the Democratic contest for the nomination in 1960. JFK and Nixon in the general in 1960.

Moreover, add into the 2008 equation friendly media coverage of an Obama campaign, and you can easily envision how his inexperience could be an advantage. Voters tend to project their own views on fresh faces. In fact, during the modern era, extensive voting records have proved debilitating handicaps in media-driven elections.

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 can Barack Obama be elected? Bet the farm on it.

Note: Thanks to Citlalli for her consultation in the development of this post.

Friday morning Tocqueville pointed us to the most recent Peggy Noonan column, which asserted "confusion . . . followed by frustration . . . has turned into resentment" for President Bush, and not just among Beltway sharpies, but among the plain folks in the heart of Texas as well.

Today (Saturday) the Okie Gardener directed us to Scott Johnson of Powerline and his excellent retort: "Season of the Witch."

In light of this conversation, I am exercising my right to revise and extend my original comments from Friday on this topic:

Dateline: Waco, Texas

I stand by my love for Peggy Noonan. Many years ago the Gardener called her a national treasure. I agree wholeheartedly.

And I like the first two sections of her column: 1) frustrating procedures at the airports; and 2) Obama's problems with Middle America,

but the assertion in re Texans and Bush is balderdash.

Noonan: the people of Lubbock, Texas, "the heart of Texas conservatism...dislike President Bush. He has lost them. I was there and saw it."

Translation: "Peggy Noonan dislikes George Bush. He has lost her."

Ms. Noonan (God bless her) has been writing this same essay for two years now.

Here is what I see on the ground in the Waco, Texas (the true HOT):

Texans who are predisposed to like Bush and Republicans continue to admire Bush (albeit more discreetly, perhaps, than they once did).

Texans who are predisposed to hate Bush and all Republicans are much more empowered by the polls and the media to trash Bush in a louder more public way.

Pure Speculation: if Texans had another opportunity to vote for Bush in 2008 for president against Hillary, Obama, Joe Biden, John Edwards, Bill Richardson, Al Gore, or even Bill Clinton, George Bush would garner 60-plus percent of the vote once again.

As for what Ms. Noonan (God bless her) purportedly sees, sometimes "a woman sees what she wants to see and disregards the rest."

You can't just fly in someplace, stay the night, give a speech, and purport to tell me what the folks of that particular hamlet "really think."

Also, as evidence buttressing her point, Noonan relates that her audiences don't challenge her on her Bush-bashing. I have the same experience when I say negative things about the President: a sheepish silence. However, if you look out and say, "but, you know, I still like the guy," you will see a lot (A LOT) of relieved faces and knowing smiles from people who want to tell you that they still like him too.

Is George W. Bush a classic conservative? No. Has he made a ten-gallon hat full of bonehead errors? Yes. Having said that, who was the conservative option in 2000? It is a stumper. Answer: the same candidate who was the conservative option in 2008. Nobody. Do any of us seriously believe that we are not infinitely better off with our current president than with the actual alternatives to George Bush in 2000 and 2004: Al Gore and John Kerry?

You want a real conservative? Go get one elected (you will need to find one first). But until then, show some backbone and be part of the solution. Everybody loves a winner. But sometimes you need to back a flawed but well-intentioned man doing his level best in a damned-near impossible situation--even if it is unpopular.

1. Next year, unless I'm on really good meds, I may destroy store speakers playing Christmas music in October. Market Capitalism has won. Christmas, one of the old and important Christian festivals, in honor of the birth of the Messiah, fully human and fully divine, has been taken over by his archenemy Mammon.

2. I am noticing more and more people celebrating Christmas away from "home" in any sense: resorts, cruises, etc. Christmas started off being a festival of the churches and streets, then in 19th century America was moved into the homes, and now is being moved into entertainment venues. I guess since we now produce so little in the home--at Christmas buying all our candy and cookies and fruitcake and gifts--it is no surprise if we choose to purchase a holiday experience.

3. The weather this year gave more Americans a White Christmas. (Bring on the Al Gore jokes.) One cold winter does not disprove Global Warming. Watch the averages over the years, especially the average lows. Of course the earth's temperature has fluctuated throughout the history of the planet. That is not the issue. The issue is: is human activity affecting planetary temperatures along with natural factors? I am not aware of any scientist who questions the model--Carbon Dioxide helps to retain heat in the atmosphere. And, I do not know anyone who credibly doubts that humans have poured increasing amounts of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere since industrialization started. So, have we put enough CO2 into the air to affect temperatures? That is the question. And since this is our only planet, let's be careful with it and err on the side of caution. In a century or so, saying "oops" could be a very bad thing.

4. I watched several Christmas specials this year, including some I had not seen before such as the movies The Polar Express and Elf. "You've got to believe!" In what? The "spirit of Christmas"? What is that? When Christmas is separated from the Christian Holy Day of Christ's birth, then what is there to be merry about?

Has anybody noticed that many of the most reputable public opinion polls indicate that Barack Obama is set to garner the biggest white male vote for any Democratic Party candidate since Lyndon Johnson in 1964?

According to the Zogby-Reuters-C-SPAN poll, white and male voters are fairly evenly split between John McCain and Obama (both in the forties among "decideds")--with McCain holding a modest edge within both groups.

According to the same poll, 95 percent of African Americans report that they are likely to vote for Barack Obama. A staggering number—but not surprising in that this near monolithic statement of support would signal only a slight uptick from the past two elections: African Americans voted 92 percent and 88 percent for Al Gore and John Kerry, respectively, in 2000 and 2004.

More disappointing--but perhaps not surprising--huge numbers of Hispanics seem likely to vote for Obama as well. Many polls predict a twenty-to-thirty point drop off for McCain in 2008 from the Bush heights of 2000 and 2004. Some of that turnaround must be attributed to Obama's charisma and appeal as a minority candidate, but some of it, undoubtedly, is the mendacious Spanish-language ads depicting John McCain in league with the Talk Radio anti-immigration populist revolution of 2007. If voters had any sense of recent history, they would find these blatant lies so preposterous as to be hilarious. But, unfortunately, that particular "if" is a luxury we don't enjoy this election.

As many of you know, I tend to view George W. Bush as much more astute than the hapless buffoon he plays on TV. He certainly understood better than most that chasing off Hispanic voters was a bad idea for the GOP in the long term. It seems that those chickens are coming home to roost this time around.

But, back to the real point of this post, what does it mean for our "racist nation," if Barack Obama wins more white males than any other Democratic candidate of the post-New Deal era?

As I have said before, the liberal establishment in this country has a huge stake in the accepted notion that I am a racist. Why else would a middle-class American continue to vote Republican? Because I am a simpleton who does not understand my own interests. The GOP waves the bloody shirt of race hatred, homophobia, and evangelical sophistry in front of my face, and I revert to conditioned behavior.

Not too long ago America was "too racist" to elect Obama. But as his election grows more probable, we are now forced to endure the new explanation: white America is so desperate for a competent leader that there is no choice but to accept Obama. Economic fear trumps race prejudice. This assumption, by the way, rests on the well-known fact that Barack Obama is an expert on the economy.

All that noise aside, "whitey" turning out in record numbers to vote for the first serious African American candidate for president in our nation's 220 year history will speak loudly and clearly. Of course, the axis of disingenuousness, so invested in the image of virulent racism lurking in heart of Red-State America, will use every weapon in its vast arsenal to combat the notion of the United States as a place that actually hungers for racial justice and fairness.

At this point, who can bet against them?

Guest Blog: Tocqueville

These two comments appeared under posts over the last twenty-four hours from regular reader and contributor, Tocqueville--but I am convinced we will all benefit from a wider consideration of these two observations.

Hillary and Obama

Obama has proceeded under a golden aura of unquestioned veracity, and I guess it's true that no one in the MSM wants to be the first to point out a few things e.g. the dissonance between his let's-all-get-along sloganeering and his hard-left positions, between the bring-people-together rhetoric and a record empty of actually bringing people together.

Hillary has gotten kind treatment too. Her gaffe on the Pakistani election -- mistakenly assuming that Musharraf was running -- would have had the media screaming for a scalp if Bush or any of this year's R[epublican] candidates had done it. They swept it under the rug. Steinem's piece the other day was absurd -- a woman never is the front-runner, indeed -- the day before Hillary became the front-runner again, as she has been since before she announced! NB: Steinem's preferred candidate is a woman whose husband serially abuses powerless women, and her most important job to know, her qualifying experience if you will, has been the further abuse and if necessary the destruction of those same women. Steinem and Hillary are moral idiots.

John F. Kerry's endorsement of Obama

OK, so John Francois Kerry has endorsed B. Hussein Obama, an announcement for
which we have waited impatiently. Now the suspense mounts unbearably
and the larger and most momentous question becomes: "Whom will Dukakis
endorse?" The Free World awaits breathlessly. Stay tuned for McGovern and Mondale's endorsements.

Tocqueville

One additional thought from a Waco Farmer: perhaps Kerry's endorsement of Obama will carry as much weight as Al Gore's endorsement of Howard Dean during the last cycle.

Anyone for an outlandishly premature prediction?

Hillary vs. Fred in a national campaign that comes down to the wire, with Clinton clipping Thompson by a nose.

The nominees:

Why Hillary? You have heard me on all this before: she has the organization, she is surrounded by the best and brightest brain trust, she is partnered with the ultimate Democratic Party rock star, and she has grit. That is, Mrs. Clinton is more manly (in the nineteenth century, Harvey Mansfield sense) than any of her opponents.

Clinton is NOT the most electable general election candidate in the Democratic primary race. Barack Obama would be virtually unstoppable next November. He is a nearly perfect general election candidate: handsome, fresh, charismatic, and the most credible agent of change. Edwards, too, would have a good chance at winning, as he is appealing, approachable, and telegenic. Under the protection of a mainstream media desperate for a Democratic victory, both of those men would be incredibly difficult to defeat.

But the Democrats don't see things that way. They are awfully hung up on Obama's race, wondering if America can elect a black man as the "Great White Father." As for Edwards, he has not been able to penetrate the two-person duel. At this point, it seems more and more a two-horse race, and Hillary is still the odds-on favorite.

Why Fred? Thompson is not the most conservative of the GOP hopefuls--but he is plenty conservative. He is not the most articulate of the candidates--but he is certainly affable and persuasive. He is not the most handsome man in the race--but his is a stately and sturdy countenance. He is not the most red-state Republican of the nomination contestants--but he speaks fluently the language of the heartland. No dramatic knockout here, but once primary voters add up their scorecards, Thompson wins easily on points. My guess is that Thompson emerges with the nomination as the realization spreads over the Republican faithful that he is the candidate with whom they are the most comfortable.

One cautionary note: no Southern candidate ever won banking solely on the South. The South always comes through for its favorite sons, but the victories down South have often come too little and too late. Think Al Gore in 1988 and John Edwards in 2004. Successful Southerners must necessarily score dramatic wins early in the contest outside the South (Jimmy Carter, Bill Clinton, and George Bush). Bottom line: Fred cannot wait for Super-Duper Tuesday to make his move. He must have momentum (more than merely South Carolina) before February 5.

November 4, 2008? After a plodding race, with Hillary playing conservatively trying not to blow her advantages, and Fred inching up consistently over the course of a methodical and laconic campaign, the final weeks turn frantic. So much on the line. So close.

In the end, like Jerry Ford in 1976, Fred Thompson falls just short: 49.9 to 49.1. Hillary wins Ohio and a comfortable electoral margin of victory.

No guarantees here. But today that's my vision. We'll see what tomorrow looks like.

Amid all the noise in Washington, the President just hit the shot heard 'round the world.

As I noted last Friday, the President has out-maneuvered the Speaker and the Majority Leader and the anti-war, anti-Bush industrial complex. Nevertheless, I did not see any of the end-of-the-week rap-up shows even mention the Iraq funding impasse. The mainstream media are at a loss on how to cover this huge story, as it is so dramatically at variance with the prevailing template of a discredited President in free fall.

Of course, if the standoff had gone the other way, the MSM would have known exactly how to play it (in big, bold type): BUSH CAVES. Troops to Come Home.

As it is, for most of the day, the MSM have been reluctant to cover the impending announcements (hoping for a miracle, I suppose).

The news this morning: No Confidence Vote on Attorney General, THE IMMIGRATION BILL, the immigration bill-inspired conservative insurgency, Michael Moore Is Back, Jimmy Carter Pronounces Bush Worst Ever, AL GORE (and perhaps the Iraq funding bill may be approved without timelines).

Finally, after the formal announcement this afternoon, the NYT and the Washington Post ran front page articles and NPR led with this Harry Reid quote: "For heaven's sake, look where we've come. It's a lot more than the president ever expected he'd have to agree to."

Bottom Line: this is the most important moment of the year in politics thus far. Kudos to the President for standing firm. He is still in the cellar in terms of popularity. He is still opposed by two houses of Congress who want his scalp. He still has miles to go in the Middle East. But, having said that, he could have given up the ghost and lost everything on this showdown. He didn’t. Perhaps we only forestalled disaster, but, thankfully, today we did not lose everything.

Much has been made recently about "not counting the votes" in the 2004 Election. A few weeks ago, we were subjected to the crazy college kid who berated John Kerry for not contesting the re-election of George Bush.

Now Elizabeth Edwards reveals that she too was:

"very disappointed, not just because we did not count the votes, but because we promised people that if they stood in line and fought for the right to vote, that we would fight with them. And I was very disappointed that the decision was made by the campaign, over John’s [presumedly Edwards] objection, not to fight."

Source: the quote comes from an interview on Air America via a post on Politico here.

Reality Check: George Bush beat John Kerry by over 3,000,000 votes.

Granted, the rub is Ohio, where George Bush out-polled John Kerry by a mere 118,599 votes--but come on folks. If the Dems could have somehow gotten that 118, 599 vote advantage thrown out and won Ohio, which would have given John Kerry an electoral college victory, Kerry would have still lost the popular vote by 2,893,897.

Angry Democrats continue to call the Election of 2000--in which Al Gore out-polled Bush by 539,947 ballots but lost by 3 electoral votes--the "stolen" election. It escapes me how Mrs. Edwards and other nutcases can honestly posit that an election they lost by THREE MILLION VOTES was somehow given away in the hectic moments following the tally.

Give it a rest.

From MoveOn.org:

How many houses do you own? Most Americans could answer that question quite easily.

But John McCain couldn't remember yesterday when asked by reporters. It's actually kind of ridiculous. He paused and said, "I think—I'll have my staff get to you." (The correct answer? At least seven.)

This could be an election-defining moment—it's a reminder of just how out of touch John McCain is with the lives of regular Americans. We need to make sure every voter hears about it.

All the networks are gleefully reporting this new line of attack. Is it a "defining" moment? Maybe. Elections are funny things. This thrust is undoubtedly going to enjoy the full support of the prObama mainstream media.

But what's the point, really? Are we now not allowing rich guys to be president?

How many houses does John Kerry have? How many houses does the Kennedy family own? How many houses does Al Gore own? How many houses did FDR own?

Less than seven? More than seven?

Nearly thirty years ago, John McCain married a beautiful young woman from a rich family. Does Barack "I'll take the high road" Obama really think that fact is an election-defining moment?

You never know how these things are going to play--but my guess is that most people will see this desperation shot as embarrassing (to Obama). My second prediction: no one in the mainstream media will see the attack as anything less than legitimate. And that's the way it is.