A few months ago, commenting on the Obama-Wright affair, I wrote:
"I find significant discomfort in the parade of conservatives, who, in our pursuit of Obama and his pastor, have adopted the language of the politically correct Left. If we have any hope of returning to sanity on the issue of speech, we must break the cycle of acrimonious sanctimony. Perhaps we should take the initiative and offer grace rather than vengeance while we hold the upper hand in one of these disgusting and frightening public spectacles."
"The repeated accusations of racism, sexism, and anti-Semitism are inflicting great injury on our body politic. Accepting the proposition that "hate" and "intolerance" are the ultimate unpardonable sins is an unwise long-term strategy for conservatives; this invidious protocol is a rigged game invented by liberals that we can never ultimately win."
Why were we so relentless and uncompromising in our quest for satisfaction in that sickening affair?
We have suffered great abuse. For a brief moment, the tables were turned, and we wanted our pound of flesh.
Do I exaggerate the circumstances of our trauma?
Not by much. Many of us labor in a culture of extreme intolerance for any hint of intolerance.
Even as the collective rhetoric of the American intelligentsia purports to prize nonconformity, critical thinking, and dissent as the most admirable of all public virtues, the shock troops of nonconformity stand ready to intimidate and punish public figures and private individuals who fail to conform to our most sacred cultural creed, the ideology of tolerance.
The charge of "racism" has become the most stigmatizing condemnation in our society, often signaling a painful and potentially career-ending ordeal for accused public figures and/or academics.
This poisonous theater in the culture war has exacted a high price over the years:
Republicans lost a Senate seat in 2006 (and probably a fairly decent fellow), when George Allen uttered one word: "macaca" (the exact meaning of which remains mysterious to me still). The Party of Lincoln cashiered a Senate Majority Leader in 2005 after he stooped to praise an ancient political warrior on the occasion of his 100th birthday and impending retirement. Even the great conservative hero of our generation, Ronald Reagan, a man praised by objective chroniclers for his unflinching sense of fairness (racial and otherwise), still faces the specter of evil intentions for an ambiguous sentence spoken at a county fair near Philadelphia, Mississippi, in 1980.
Any fair-minded observer will admit things have been tough for conservatives over the past few decades, and, even more importantly, the mainstream media has prosecuted a merciless double-standard.
What about the "lipstick and the pig" comments?
We must abandon this theatrical display of victimization immediately. We sound too much like DemocRATS (remember that one?).
Obama called Palin a pig? Sort of? Maybe. Close enough? I am always suspicious of "coded" race and/or sex baiting. Sometimes a cigar really is just a cigar. Even if it was the real thing, SO WHAT? Suck it up. Good one, Obama. Bite me! Pretty pathetic attempt at a burn, actually. We'll see you chokers in the playoffs.
But let's stop demanding apologies. It makes us look like the pusillanimous party.
If this were going the other way, you say, they'd have our asses. Pretty much. Can't argue with you there. If someone had said something like, "this really is the pot calling the kettle black," all Hell would have broken lose. But the double-standard be damned--I don't want to win that way. Let's walk it off. Pin the quote up in the locker room and take it out of their hides on the field of play.
Is she the new Reagan? If she is, she's going to laugh off this desperate slight and say, "Well, Barack, there you go again," and then counter with a rhetorical sharp right cross to the jaw.
UPDATE: a hearty Texas welcome to Instapundit readers.
"I find significant discomfort in the parade of conservatives, who, in our pursuit of Obama and his pastor, have adopted the language of the politically correct Left. If we have any hope of returning to sanity on the issue of speech, we must break the cycle of acrimonious sanctimony. Perhaps we should take the initiative and offer grace rather than vengeance while we hold the upper hand in one of these disgusting and frightening public spectacles."
"The repeated accusations of racism, sexism, and anti-Semitism are inflicting great injury on our body politic. Accepting the proposition that "hate" and "intolerance" are the ultimate unpardonable sins is an unwise long-term strategy for conservatives; this invidious protocol is a rigged game invented by liberals that we can never ultimately win."
Why were we so relentless and uncompromising in our quest for satisfaction in that sickening affair?
We have suffered great abuse. For a brief moment, the tables were turned, and we wanted our pound of flesh.
Do I exaggerate the circumstances of our trauma?
Not by much. Many of us labor in a culture of extreme intolerance for any hint of intolerance.
Even as the collective rhetoric of the American intelligentsia purports to prize nonconformity, critical thinking, and dissent as the most admirable of all public virtues, the shock troops of nonconformity stand ready to intimidate and punish public figures and private individuals who fail to conform to our most sacred cultural creed, the ideology of tolerance.
The charge of "racism" has become the most stigmatizing condemnation in our society, often signaling a painful and potentially career-ending ordeal for accused public figures and/or academics.
This poisonous theater in the culture war has exacted a high price over the years:
Republicans lost a Senate seat in 2006 (and probably a fairly decent fellow), when George Allen uttered one word: "macaca" (the exact meaning of which remains mysterious to me still). The Party of Lincoln cashiered a Senate Majority Leader in 2005 after he stooped to praise an ancient political warrior on the occasion of his 100th birthday and impending retirement. Even the great conservative hero of our generation, Ronald Reagan, a man praised by objective chroniclers for his unflinching sense of fairness (racial and otherwise), still faces the specter of evil intentions for an ambiguous sentence spoken at a county fair near Philadelphia, Mississippi, in 1980.
Any fair-minded observer will admit things have been tough for conservatives over the past few decades, and, even more importantly, the mainstream media has prosecuted a merciless double-standard.
What about the "lipstick and the pig" comments?
We must abandon this theatrical display of victimization immediately. We sound too much like DemocRATS (remember that one?).
Obama called Palin a pig? Sort of? Maybe. Close enough? I am always suspicious of "coded" race and/or sex baiting. Sometimes a cigar really is just a cigar. Even if it was the real thing, SO WHAT? Suck it up. Good one, Obama. Bite me! Pretty pathetic attempt at a burn, actually. We'll see you chokers in the playoffs.
But let's stop demanding apologies. It makes us look like the pusillanimous party.
If this were going the other way, you say, they'd have our asses. Pretty much. Can't argue with you there. If someone had said something like, "this really is the pot calling the kettle black," all Hell would have broken lose. But the double-standard be damned--I don't want to win that way. Let's walk it off. Pin the quote up in the locker room and take it out of their hides on the field of play.
Is she the new Reagan? If she is, she's going to laugh off this desperate slight and say, "Well, Barack, there you go again," and then counter with a rhetorical sharp right cross to the jaw.
UPDATE: a hearty Texas welcome to Instapundit readers.
Category: America and the World
Posted by: an okie gardener
For my money, Michael Yon is doing the best reporting from on the ground in Afghanistan. Here is his report on the successful transport of a large electrical generating turbine.
07/09: The Indian Vote for McCain
Category: Politics
Posted by: an okie gardener
Overheard this week, quite a bit of political talk among my Indian parishioners and locals on the presidential campaign. I do mean "overheard" because while I am very vocal about issues, I do not talk politics in the parish in the sense of parties or candidates.
Native Americans usually vote Democrat. But Palin's nomination has some Indian women rethinking their vote for this fall.
Native Americans usually vote Democrat. But John McCain has a good reputation among our local Indians. Recently I heard a significant figure in tribal politics, usually a Democrat, declare to a group that he was going to vote for McCain, because of McCain's record on Native American issues.
Here in Oklahoma, the state will go for McCain with or without the Indian vote. But in New Mexico we may see a McCain win in November because of the reservation vote.
I have not heard Obama's color mentioned publically around here, but our local Indians tend to be prejudiced against blacks. My suspicion is that some will not vote for Obama because of his race.
For my previous post on the Indian vote this fall, see here.
Native Americans usually vote Democrat. But Palin's nomination has some Indian women rethinking their vote for this fall.
Native Americans usually vote Democrat. But John McCain has a good reputation among our local Indians. Recently I heard a significant figure in tribal politics, usually a Democrat, declare to a group that he was going to vote for McCain, because of McCain's record on Native American issues.
Here in Oklahoma, the state will go for McCain with or without the Indian vote. But in New Mexico we may see a McCain win in November because of the reservation vote.
I have not heard Obama's color mentioned publically around here, but our local Indians tend to be prejudiced against blacks. My suspicion is that some will not vote for Obama because of his race.
For my previous post on the Indian vote this fall, see here.
The registration requirement was suspended in April 1975. It was resumed again in 1980 by President Carter in response to the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan. Registration continues today as a hedge against underestimating the number of servicemen needed in a future crisis. Source: the official website of the Selective Service Administration.
and
Mr Obama was asked by George Stephanopoulos of ABC's "This Week" programme whether he'd ever thought about military service and replied: "You know, I actually did. I had to sign up for Selective Service [a means of conscription in case of war] when I graduated from high school.
"And I was growing up in Hawaii. And I have friends whose parents were in the military. There are a lot of Army, military bases there.
"And I actually always thought of the military as an ennobling and, you know, honourable option. But keep in mind that I graduated in 1979. The Vietnam War had come to an end. We weren't engaged in an active military conflict at that point. And so, it's not an option that I ever decided to pursue." Source: The Telegraph
I am puzzled. Obama states that he graduated from high school in 1979. And, Obama states that he registered for selective service when he graduated from high school. But, there was no Selective Service registration in 1979. Perhaps it was a slip of the tongue, having no teleprompter or notes to consult. He seems not to have anticipated the question. He is not good at thinking on his feet when forced off his talking points: witness his mispeak "my Muslim faith" in the same interview.
If George Stephanopoulos can rattle Obama into misstatements, how will B.H. Obama do with Tsar Vladimir?
and
Mr Obama was asked by George Stephanopoulos of ABC's "This Week" programme whether he'd ever thought about military service and replied: "You know, I actually did. I had to sign up for Selective Service [a means of conscription in case of war] when I graduated from high school.
"And I was growing up in Hawaii. And I have friends whose parents were in the military. There are a lot of Army, military bases there.
"And I actually always thought of the military as an ennobling and, you know, honourable option. But keep in mind that I graduated in 1979. The Vietnam War had come to an end. We weren't engaged in an active military conflict at that point. And so, it's not an option that I ever decided to pursue." Source: The Telegraph
I am puzzled. Obama states that he graduated from high school in 1979. And, Obama states that he registered for selective service when he graduated from high school. But, there was no Selective Service registration in 1979. Perhaps it was a slip of the tongue, having no teleprompter or notes to consult. He seems not to have anticipated the question. He is not good at thinking on his feet when forced off his talking points: witness his mispeak "my Muslim faith" in the same interview.
If George Stephanopoulos can rattle Obama into misstatements, how will B.H. Obama do with Tsar Vladimir?
06/09: Is She Reagan?
I am seeing all kinds of Ronald Reagan-Sarah Palin comparisons careening around the blogoshere over the last seventy hours (perhaps the most eerie from Mike Reagan). Any validity? Maybe. I see some similarities.
Truly, she has a Reagan-like gift for communication. She talks, we listen, and we understand exactly what she means. Moreover, we admire her style even as we process her message. She feels at ease with us--and vice versa. She is confident, sincere, and approachable. Those are rare qualities that Reagan possessed in spades.
A member of the Bosque Boys community, "speakerofdacommoner," recently compared Palin to John Kennedy:
"She is bright, enthusiastic, matter of fact, and easy on the eyes! JFK was able to appear like a regular Joe each time he took center stage – almost as if he were having a conversation with just you. Palin did a remarkable job of appearing as real and rooted as anyone since Reagan. She seems trustworthy, honest, and tough – yet strikingly feminine: assertive without outright aggression."
"Speaker" is right to NOT shy away from her appealing appearance. The sheer physical beauty of Reagan and Kennedy should not be overlooked in explaining their political allure. Most of us are naturally drawn to beautiful people. Of course, you need to do more than look pretty (ask John Edwards). But an attractive countenance seems a wonderful starting place for a public figure.
One other comparison to Reagan (and this may be important):
She is polarizing. Just about half of us have already fallen in love with Sarah Palin--but the other half seems intent on ripping her heart out. If you remember the Reagan days, you will recall how much the left hated the Gipper. Even as there is a new energy and sense of great expectation on our side about her, our opponents are overflowing with fulmination. You could feel an uneasiness and dread on the part of the Obama nation and the almost intuitive and collective desire on the left to crush Palin immediately. This lady Hercules needed to be killed in the cradle, but, instead, she showed up on Wednesday night smiling and joyfully taunting her tormentors with the carcasses of the unsuccessful character assassins.
One thing about Reagan, the more you disparaged him, the more he smiled. "Well, Jimmy, there you go again." She smiles a lot--even when she is giving her opponent the business. Put me down and I will laugh good-naturedly--but you better be ready for my comeback. You make fun of me for being a small-town mayor, I've got a joke that puts you in your place, buster. And when it is all over, you will wish you had never opened up that can of worms.
One more thing I like: she doesn't look off into space; she looks directly at me through the television set.
One note of caution: we met Ronald Reagan the politician in 1964. We watched him for sixteen years before we elected him president, which included eight years as governor of the most populous state in the Union and two unsuccessful campaigns for president.
We met Sarah Palin eight days ago.
Truly, she has a Reagan-like gift for communication. She talks, we listen, and we understand exactly what she means. Moreover, we admire her style even as we process her message. She feels at ease with us--and vice versa. She is confident, sincere, and approachable. Those are rare qualities that Reagan possessed in spades.
A member of the Bosque Boys community, "speakerofdacommoner," recently compared Palin to John Kennedy:
"She is bright, enthusiastic, matter of fact, and easy on the eyes! JFK was able to appear like a regular Joe each time he took center stage – almost as if he were having a conversation with just you. Palin did a remarkable job of appearing as real and rooted as anyone since Reagan. She seems trustworthy, honest, and tough – yet strikingly feminine: assertive without outright aggression."
"Speaker" is right to NOT shy away from her appealing appearance. The sheer physical beauty of Reagan and Kennedy should not be overlooked in explaining their political allure. Most of us are naturally drawn to beautiful people. Of course, you need to do more than look pretty (ask John Edwards). But an attractive countenance seems a wonderful starting place for a public figure.
One other comparison to Reagan (and this may be important):
She is polarizing. Just about half of us have already fallen in love with Sarah Palin--but the other half seems intent on ripping her heart out. If you remember the Reagan days, you will recall how much the left hated the Gipper. Even as there is a new energy and sense of great expectation on our side about her, our opponents are overflowing with fulmination. You could feel an uneasiness and dread on the part of the Obama nation and the almost intuitive and collective desire on the left to crush Palin immediately. This lady Hercules needed to be killed in the cradle, but, instead, she showed up on Wednesday night smiling and joyfully taunting her tormentors with the carcasses of the unsuccessful character assassins.
One thing about Reagan, the more you disparaged him, the more he smiled. "Well, Jimmy, there you go again." She smiles a lot--even when she is giving her opponent the business. Put me down and I will laugh good-naturedly--but you better be ready for my comeback. You make fun of me for being a small-town mayor, I've got a joke that puts you in your place, buster. And when it is all over, you will wish you had never opened up that can of worms.
One more thing I like: she doesn't look off into space; she looks directly at me through the television set.
One note of caution: we met Ronald Reagan the politician in 1964. We watched him for sixteen years before we elected him president, which included eight years as governor of the most populous state in the Union and two unsuccessful campaigns for president.
We met Sarah Palin eight days ago.
05/09: Best Movie President?
Instapundit links to a fun discussion on best portrayals of a real president by an actor in a movie or TV miniseries. Some of the suggestions include
Anthony Hopkins as Richard Nixon in Nixon
Paul Giamatti as John Adams in John Adams
Bruce Greenwood as JFK in Thirteen Days
I am partial to William Devane as JFK in The Missiles of October
and Ralph Bellamy as FDR in Sunrise at Campobello and in the miniseries The Winds of War and War and Remembrance.
Any thoughts? The role must be major in the plot of the movie, not a brief appearance.
Anthony Hopkins as Richard Nixon in Nixon
Paul Giamatti as John Adams in John Adams
Bruce Greenwood as JFK in Thirteen Days
I am partial to William Devane as JFK in The Missiles of October
and Ralph Bellamy as FDR in Sunrise at Campobello and in the miniseries The Winds of War and War and Remembrance.
Any thoughts? The role must be major in the plot of the movie, not a brief appearance.
05/09: The Homerun
Due to a debilitating and painful combination of injuries, Kirk Gibson came to bat only once during the 1988 World Series. His single plate appearance transpired at the conclusion of Game One with one man on and two out in the bottom of the ninth; the scrappy Los Angeles Dodgers trailed the mighty and heavily favored Oakland A's by one run. Painfully limping into the batter's box, Gibson faced the American League "Rolaids Relief Man of the Year," ALCS MVP, and future hall of famer, Dennis Eckersley.
Dodger announcing legend, Vin Scully, with the call:
"...and all year long, he [Gibson] answered the demands, until he was physically unable to start tonight——with two bad legs: The bad left hamstring, and the swollen right knee. And, with two out, you talk about a roll of the dice... this is it."
Fifty thousand Dodger fans waited breathlessly at Chavez Ravine, while millions of white-knuckled fans crowded over TV sets all over the City of Angels. Gibson quickly fell behind in the count (two strikes, no balls). On the sixth pitch, as Gibson worked his way back to 3-2, the runner on first, Mike Davis, stole second base placing him in position to score the tying run with a base hit. However, it also allowed Eckersley and the A's the opportunity to intentionally walk the normally heavy-hitting Gibson in favor of the next batter, Steve Sax. No way. The brilliant pitcher and the sagacious manager, Tony LaRussa, saw Gibson as wounded and vulnerable. This was the opportunity to put away the nettlesome Dodgers.
Scully: "the game right now is at the plate."
The three-two pitch.
Scully: "high fly ball into right field, she i-i-i-is... gone!!!"
Scully again: "In a year that has been so improbable... the impossible has happened"
Jack Buck on CBS radio: "Unbelievable! A home run for Gibson! And the Dodgers have won the game, 5 to 4; I don't believe what I just saw!"
None of us could. Dodger Stadium erupted in a way never witnessed before or duplicated since. The streets of Los Angeles resounded with a cacophony of car horns and primal screams of sheer jubilation.
The Dodgers went on to win that series in five games. Gibson did not appear again. Orel Hershiser won the Most Valuable Player. Orel was tremendous, shutting out the A's in Game Two and Game Five. Nevertheless, I have always believed that Gibson deserved MVP honors for his single at-bat. Life is made up of moments. Gibson with one incredibly heroic and unlikely swing of the bat changed the trajectory of that series. Without that turning point, it is impossible to imagine the Dodgers overcoming the opening game loss at home. But with that win, the impossible suddenly seemed within their grasp--and it was.
Sarah Palin
Her stunning address to the Republican Convention and thirty-seven million television viewers on Wednesday night was a walk-off homerun. Under intense pressure, and against all odds, Sarah Palin delivered a game-changing swing of the bat. It does not mean the Republicans will win the series--but they have won Game One--a feat nearly unimaginable two weeks ago.
The Palin Homerun automatically stands as one of the Greatest Political Moments of All-Time.
Dodger announcing legend, Vin Scully, with the call:
"...and all year long, he [Gibson] answered the demands, until he was physically unable to start tonight——with two bad legs: The bad left hamstring, and the swollen right knee. And, with two out, you talk about a roll of the dice... this is it."
Fifty thousand Dodger fans waited breathlessly at Chavez Ravine, while millions of white-knuckled fans crowded over TV sets all over the City of Angels. Gibson quickly fell behind in the count (two strikes, no balls). On the sixth pitch, as Gibson worked his way back to 3-2, the runner on first, Mike Davis, stole second base placing him in position to score the tying run with a base hit. However, it also allowed Eckersley and the A's the opportunity to intentionally walk the normally heavy-hitting Gibson in favor of the next batter, Steve Sax. No way. The brilliant pitcher and the sagacious manager, Tony LaRussa, saw Gibson as wounded and vulnerable. This was the opportunity to put away the nettlesome Dodgers.
Scully: "the game right now is at the plate."
The three-two pitch.
Scully: "high fly ball into right field, she i-i-i-is... gone!!!"
Scully again: "In a year that has been so improbable... the impossible has happened"
Jack Buck on CBS radio: "Unbelievable! A home run for Gibson! And the Dodgers have won the game, 5 to 4; I don't believe what I just saw!"
None of us could. Dodger Stadium erupted in a way never witnessed before or duplicated since. The streets of Los Angeles resounded with a cacophony of car horns and primal screams of sheer jubilation.
The Dodgers went on to win that series in five games. Gibson did not appear again. Orel Hershiser won the Most Valuable Player. Orel was tremendous, shutting out the A's in Game Two and Game Five. Nevertheless, I have always believed that Gibson deserved MVP honors for his single at-bat. Life is made up of moments. Gibson with one incredibly heroic and unlikely swing of the bat changed the trajectory of that series. Without that turning point, it is impossible to imagine the Dodgers overcoming the opening game loss at home. But with that win, the impossible suddenly seemed within their grasp--and it was.
Sarah Palin
Her stunning address to the Republican Convention and thirty-seven million television viewers on Wednesday night was a walk-off homerun. Under intense pressure, and against all odds, Sarah Palin delivered a game-changing swing of the bat. It does not mean the Republicans will win the series--but they have won Game One--a feat nearly unimaginable two weeks ago.
The Palin Homerun automatically stands as one of the Greatest Political Moments of All-Time.
03/09: Better Than Obama
Perhaps the best I have ever seen.
[The Palin Nomination Acceptance Speech.]
[The Palin Nomination Acceptance Speech.]
How will John McCain and Barack Obama perform in the face of Gustav? Their reaction to this crisis may well determine the course of this campaign—perhaps even the outcome of the election. Right now McCain holds the initiative. The national spotlight is directed upon him, and he enjoys a structural advantage in terms of access to the business end of the government relief effort. But hurricanes and presidential campaigns oftentimes defy human agency or prognostication. Will this force of nature prove advantageous to either candidate? Time will tell.
Perhaps even more significant, Gustav potentially offers George Bush an opportunity to come in from the cold after his three-year political storm.
By the way, it is worth noting that Democrats are not only shocked and horrified that a major American political party would nominate a relative novice to a national ticket, now it turns out that they are also revolted at the thought of partisans taking political advantage of a natural disaster (such as a Gulf Coast hurricane).
Really?
ITEM ONE: Some historical context.
Hurricanes have played major roles in presidential elections. Before there was a FEMA, Secretary of Commerce Herbert Hoover, a 1928 presidential candidate, proved to be a one-man federal emergency management administrator when he personally took control of relief efforts along the lower Mississippi following the catastrophic Flood of 1927. Hoover's actions pioneered the concept of federal relief for natural disasters on that scale and cemented his reputation as a great organizational genius at the disposal of humanity.
More recently, Hurricane Andrew (1992) not only wreaked havoc on Florida (the worst American natural disaster up until that time), but the sluggishness of George H.W. (41) Bush's FEMA, in the wake of the devastating storm, also inflicted great damage on the Bush re-election effort that fall.
Ironically, and almost forgotten, a series of Florida hurricanes in 2004 allowed George Bush (43) and his FEMA (headed by Michael Brown) an opportunity to perform with high proficiency and rally to the aid of buffeted Floridians. If you think hard enough, you may remember the images of a fatigued but smiling George Bush dressed in dungarees slinging hash for displaced neighbors. Not unconnected, President Bush took the perennial toss-up Sunshine State with ease that November.
ACT TWO: 2005
Of course, when we think of George Bush, Michael Brown, and a hurricane, we think of KATRINA, the devastating super storm that pummeled New Orleans and the Mississippi coast and beyond. Katrina proved a disastrously debilitating public relations nightmare for the Bush Administration. Undoubtedly, the President and his team misjudged and mishandled the natural disaster. In fairness, however, the Category Four deluge overwhelmed the best laid schemes of mice and men. While it is tough for us to admit our limitations as all-powerful humans, in truth, the natural force of Katrina simply over-matched even the power of the President of the United States.
Notwithstanding, the media and the opposition party piled on the President, de-emphasizing the unprepared Democratic governor of Louisiana and the not-ready-for-prime-time local leadership in New Orleans--also ignoring, for the most part, the more successful response in Mississippi spearheaded by a Republican governor.
Regardless of the complicated web of events and the multiple actors and motives, Katrina became the symbol of a failed presidency. Katrina exposed Bush “cronyism” and incompetence, GOP corruption and a systemic lack of compassion, and, perhaps most importantly, the international embarrassment of Katrina crystallized public frustration regarding our dreadfully dispiriting position in IRAQ. Although the judgment had been percolating for some time, suddenly, the Bush fortunes dropped precipitously (and gas prices rose just as abruptly)--and stayed there. Over the last three years, George Bush has suffered the lowest sustained approval ratings in the history of the American presidency.
ACT THREE: ENTER GUSTAV
How will this storm be different?
I do not know the name of the current director of FEMA, but, whoever he is, his boss, Michael Chertoff, chief of Homeland Security, is onsite in Baton Rouge directing operations for the feds. The old governor of Louisiana is gone. The new governor is everywhere, appearing ultra-competent, breathtakingly articulate, and exceedingly telegenic. He is on every newscast and flawlessly in command of the situation, comfortably discussing any possible contingency. The old mayor of New Orleans is a new man, reborn and on top of an almost comprehensive evacuation of the Big Easy.
Where is George? He is on his way to Texas (and assuredly South Louisiana as soon as he gets the go-ahead to go in). He is conspicuously monitoring the situation, eschewing all invitations to birthday soirees, GOP conventions, and any celebrations that might include a Mexican hat dance. All systems go.
Added to the additional preparation and experience at every level, Gustav is almost certain to be less powerful, less lethal, and, as a result, much less catastrophic than the tragedy of three years ago. Ironically, for many casual observers (even as the mainstream media takes every opportunity to roll the tape of the Katrina abomination), this less calamitous episode will translate into better storm management on the part of the government.
EPILOGUE: An Opportunity to Forgive George Bush?
Much has been made of the fact that Gustav has blown George Bush and Dick Cheney off the GOP stage in St. Paul today. That helps politically--without a doubt. The Democrats have placed most of their eggs in the "McSame" basket. It was always a strained and disingenuous line of attack, but the lack of a Bush-Cheney primetime appearance at the McCain nominating convention helps to make the connection even more attenuated.
Perhaps even more significant, however, is that the government performance in the face of Gustav may offer the President a modicum of redemption. Could the American people, after three years of sustained anger directed at the White House, take this opportunity to forgive and re-assess a bit? Just as the Katrina failure seemed to typify the larger fiasco playing out in this administration that included Iraq of 2005, the potential triumph over Mother Nature, in light of the much more successful Iraq of 2008, might finally stanch the President's long, slow, three-year bleed.
The Lagniappe: In a tight race for president, even a slight upward re-evaluation of the Bush years would help John McCain tremendously.
Perhaps even more significant, Gustav potentially offers George Bush an opportunity to come in from the cold after his three-year political storm.
By the way, it is worth noting that Democrats are not only shocked and horrified that a major American political party would nominate a relative novice to a national ticket, now it turns out that they are also revolted at the thought of partisans taking political advantage of a natural disaster (such as a Gulf Coast hurricane).
Really?
ITEM ONE: Some historical context.
Hurricanes have played major roles in presidential elections. Before there was a FEMA, Secretary of Commerce Herbert Hoover, a 1928 presidential candidate, proved to be a one-man federal emergency management administrator when he personally took control of relief efforts along the lower Mississippi following the catastrophic Flood of 1927. Hoover's actions pioneered the concept of federal relief for natural disasters on that scale and cemented his reputation as a great organizational genius at the disposal of humanity.
More recently, Hurricane Andrew (1992) not only wreaked havoc on Florida (the worst American natural disaster up until that time), but the sluggishness of George H.W. (41) Bush's FEMA, in the wake of the devastating storm, also inflicted great damage on the Bush re-election effort that fall.
Ironically, and almost forgotten, a series of Florida hurricanes in 2004 allowed George Bush (43) and his FEMA (headed by Michael Brown) an opportunity to perform with high proficiency and rally to the aid of buffeted Floridians. If you think hard enough, you may remember the images of a fatigued but smiling George Bush dressed in dungarees slinging hash for displaced neighbors. Not unconnected, President Bush took the perennial toss-up Sunshine State with ease that November.
ACT TWO: 2005
Of course, when we think of George Bush, Michael Brown, and a hurricane, we think of KATRINA, the devastating super storm that pummeled New Orleans and the Mississippi coast and beyond. Katrina proved a disastrously debilitating public relations nightmare for the Bush Administration. Undoubtedly, the President and his team misjudged and mishandled the natural disaster. In fairness, however, the Category Four deluge overwhelmed the best laid schemes of mice and men. While it is tough for us to admit our limitations as all-powerful humans, in truth, the natural force of Katrina simply over-matched even the power of the President of the United States.
Notwithstanding, the media and the opposition party piled on the President, de-emphasizing the unprepared Democratic governor of Louisiana and the not-ready-for-prime-time local leadership in New Orleans--also ignoring, for the most part, the more successful response in Mississippi spearheaded by a Republican governor.
Regardless of the complicated web of events and the multiple actors and motives, Katrina became the symbol of a failed presidency. Katrina exposed Bush “cronyism” and incompetence, GOP corruption and a systemic lack of compassion, and, perhaps most importantly, the international embarrassment of Katrina crystallized public frustration regarding our dreadfully dispiriting position in IRAQ. Although the judgment had been percolating for some time, suddenly, the Bush fortunes dropped precipitously (and gas prices rose just as abruptly)--and stayed there. Over the last three years, George Bush has suffered the lowest sustained approval ratings in the history of the American presidency.
ACT THREE: ENTER GUSTAV
How will this storm be different?
I do not know the name of the current director of FEMA, but, whoever he is, his boss, Michael Chertoff, chief of Homeland Security, is onsite in Baton Rouge directing operations for the feds. The old governor of Louisiana is gone. The new governor is everywhere, appearing ultra-competent, breathtakingly articulate, and exceedingly telegenic. He is on every newscast and flawlessly in command of the situation, comfortably discussing any possible contingency. The old mayor of New Orleans is a new man, reborn and on top of an almost comprehensive evacuation of the Big Easy.
Where is George? He is on his way to Texas (and assuredly South Louisiana as soon as he gets the go-ahead to go in). He is conspicuously monitoring the situation, eschewing all invitations to birthday soirees, GOP conventions, and any celebrations that might include a Mexican hat dance. All systems go.
Added to the additional preparation and experience at every level, Gustav is almost certain to be less powerful, less lethal, and, as a result, much less catastrophic than the tragedy of three years ago. Ironically, for many casual observers (even as the mainstream media takes every opportunity to roll the tape of the Katrina abomination), this less calamitous episode will translate into better storm management on the part of the government.
EPILOGUE: An Opportunity to Forgive George Bush?
Much has been made of the fact that Gustav has blown George Bush and Dick Cheney off the GOP stage in St. Paul today. That helps politically--without a doubt. The Democrats have placed most of their eggs in the "McSame" basket. It was always a strained and disingenuous line of attack, but the lack of a Bush-Cheney primetime appearance at the McCain nominating convention helps to make the connection even more attenuated.
Perhaps even more significant, however, is that the government performance in the face of Gustav may offer the President a modicum of redemption. Could the American people, after three years of sustained anger directed at the White House, take this opportunity to forgive and re-assess a bit? Just as the Katrina failure seemed to typify the larger fiasco playing out in this administration that included Iraq of 2005, the potential triumph over Mother Nature, in light of the much more successful Iraq of 2008, might finally stanch the President's long, slow, three-year bleed.
The Lagniappe: In a tight race for president, even a slight upward re-evaluation of the Bush years would help John McCain tremendously.
Category: Politics
Posted by: A Waco Farmer
There's talk on the street; it sounds so familiar
Great expectations, everybody's watching you
People you meet, they all seem to know you
Even your old friends treat you like you're something new
Remember that fellow Barack Obama? He was the young man with the winning smile who could do no wrong. The nice boy who was all the rage for a while. What ever happened to him?
Seriously, when the McCain campaign called Obama the "biggest celebrity in the world," they had it exactly right. The assertion: the Obama boom has had much more in common with the career arc of Britney Spears than Abraham Lincoln. The mainstream prObama press, so desperate for McCain to go negative, pounced on the fairly innocuous but absolutely penetrating assessment with enthusiasm. Team McCain was right to suspect that the hubris of the Obama campaign (movement) would not brook such blasphemous drivel. The Obama nation took the bait with gusto. Dirty campaigning! Karl Rove! Lee Atwater! Alex Castellanos! How dare you compare our Redeemer to a Messiah! How dare you compare our Deliverer to a cinematic Moses! And, for the first time in this campaign, the McCain needle moved a bit. The truth (albeit said in jest--but finally said) resonated.
Next Phase: how do you combat the star power of Paris Hilton? Invite Lindsey Lohan and her lesbian girlfriend to your party.
What is the genius of the Sarah Palin pick?
1. She is a new even more outlandish storyline for the celebrity-driven mainstream media. Somebody told me that Barack Obama made a speech a while back and drew a pretty good crowd. I vaguely remember that--but last Thursday seems like a month ago. Did you know that Sarah Palin earned her nickname, "Baracuda," as the point guard for her state championship high school girls basketball team? Was that before or after she was a runner up in the Miss Alaska pageant? Her husband seems dreamy. I wonder what he is really like?
You're walking away and they're talking behind you
They will never forget you 'til somebody new comes along
Advantage McCain. Of course, a big difference in Obama and Palin is that the mainstream prObama press will not be nearly as friendly to this new star bursting onto the scene. Sarah Palin will need to watch her back and carefully think out every move she makes. One misstep and this campaign is over. Talk about pressure. If she can walk this tightrope, she is more than up to handling the pressure of executive responsibility. However, as long as it lasts, Obama's star is diminished somewhat.
2. McCain has tricked the Obama boosters into making experience the central issue of this campaign. This woman, Sarah Palin, is not ready to lead on day one. Hmmm. This woman, Sarah Palin, is not ready for a three a.m. phone call. Really? The attack on the inexperienced veep candidate from the inexperienced presidential campaign seems tantamount to sacrificing your queen for the other fellow's bishop.
Message to Democrats: she's rubber and you're glue. Anything you say bounces off her and sticks to you.
3. She has a chance to become America's sweetheart. I said earlier she is Mrs. Smith Goes to Washington, but she may also be Rebecca of Sunnybrook Farm--Mary Pickford. The righteous woman gone to Babylon, taking on the powerful and the underhanded and the dastardly, and finding a way to triumph in the end. It's a compelling narrative. Will it take hold? Hard to say. To repeat, she is not going to have a friendly mainstream media to "boom" her story--but, if all the stars align just right, it might just catch on anyhow.
But, until a negative consensus actually forms in the mind of the American people organically, the Palin persecutors snipe at her at their own peril. There is bound to be a lot of ugliness directed her way. How cruel it is, and how well she handles it (she needs to be tough but not shrill to be truly sympathetic), will go a long way in determining who we decide she really is.
Developing...
Great expectations, everybody's watching you
People you meet, they all seem to know you
Even your old friends treat you like you're something new
Remember that fellow Barack Obama? He was the young man with the winning smile who could do no wrong. The nice boy who was all the rage for a while. What ever happened to him?
Seriously, when the McCain campaign called Obama the "biggest celebrity in the world," they had it exactly right. The assertion: the Obama boom has had much more in common with the career arc of Britney Spears than Abraham Lincoln. The mainstream prObama press, so desperate for McCain to go negative, pounced on the fairly innocuous but absolutely penetrating assessment with enthusiasm. Team McCain was right to suspect that the hubris of the Obama campaign (movement) would not brook such blasphemous drivel. The Obama nation took the bait with gusto. Dirty campaigning! Karl Rove! Lee Atwater! Alex Castellanos! How dare you compare our Redeemer to a Messiah! How dare you compare our Deliverer to a cinematic Moses! And, for the first time in this campaign, the McCain needle moved a bit. The truth (albeit said in jest--but finally said) resonated.
Next Phase: how do you combat the star power of Paris Hilton? Invite Lindsey Lohan and her lesbian girlfriend to your party.
What is the genius of the Sarah Palin pick?
1. She is a new even more outlandish storyline for the celebrity-driven mainstream media. Somebody told me that Barack Obama made a speech a while back and drew a pretty good crowd. I vaguely remember that--but last Thursday seems like a month ago. Did you know that Sarah Palin earned her nickname, "Baracuda," as the point guard for her state championship high school girls basketball team? Was that before or after she was a runner up in the Miss Alaska pageant? Her husband seems dreamy. I wonder what he is really like?
You're walking away and they're talking behind you
They will never forget you 'til somebody new comes along
Advantage McCain. Of course, a big difference in Obama and Palin is that the mainstream prObama press will not be nearly as friendly to this new star bursting onto the scene. Sarah Palin will need to watch her back and carefully think out every move she makes. One misstep and this campaign is over. Talk about pressure. If she can walk this tightrope, she is more than up to handling the pressure of executive responsibility. However, as long as it lasts, Obama's star is diminished somewhat.
2. McCain has tricked the Obama boosters into making experience the central issue of this campaign. This woman, Sarah Palin, is not ready to lead on day one. Hmmm. This woman, Sarah Palin, is not ready for a three a.m. phone call. Really? The attack on the inexperienced veep candidate from the inexperienced presidential campaign seems tantamount to sacrificing your queen for the other fellow's bishop.
Message to Democrats: she's rubber and you're glue. Anything you say bounces off her and sticks to you.
3. She has a chance to become America's sweetheart. I said earlier she is Mrs. Smith Goes to Washington, but she may also be Rebecca of Sunnybrook Farm--Mary Pickford. The righteous woman gone to Babylon, taking on the powerful and the underhanded and the dastardly, and finding a way to triumph in the end. It's a compelling narrative. Will it take hold? Hard to say. To repeat, she is not going to have a friendly mainstream media to "boom" her story--but, if all the stars align just right, it might just catch on anyhow.
But, until a negative consensus actually forms in the mind of the American people organically, the Palin persecutors snipe at her at their own peril. There is bound to be a lot of ugliness directed her way. How cruel it is, and how well she handles it (she needs to be tough but not shrill to be truly sympathetic), will go a long way in determining who we decide she really is.
Developing...
