Archives

You are currently viewing archive for September 2008
Category: Politics
Posted by: A Waco Farmer
Commenting on my post, in which I asserted McCain won on foreign policy but nobody cares very much, one of my friends (RB) came away seeing McCain as rigid:

"McCain looked every bit the over-zealous Bomb, Bomb, Bomb,...Bomb, Bomb, Iran candidate with his stiff body language and his even stiffer rhetoric that allows no flexibility for a political world that is far different than the one that McCain grew up in."

BTW, kudos to Obama for inserting McCain's "lighthearted" Dr. Strangelove moment into the debate. It was the only time McCain actually winced. It is obviously an exceedingly embarrassing incident, which Team McCain would rather forget. After last night, not bloody likely. The old clip received a new life in the post-debate coverage.

RB also agreed with me (and the conventional wisdom) "that foreign policy was supposed to be McCain's territory, but it came across as more of a draw...that's not good enough for McCain who has to land knockout punches to overcome...his voting record over the last eight years."

While I actually agreed in large part with RB's analysis in re style, our differences in re substance speak to the human propensity to see these things depending on our predispositions.

Nothing that might have happened in the debate last night was likely to change my opinion or that of RB.

Who were they talking to?

What is the import of these productions?

The big TV debates are meaningful in changing people's minds in two ways:

1. for the very small number of actual voters who are so un-interested in politics that they have not formed an opinion yet, but for some reason tuned in on a Friday night, the TV duel might have made an impact (did I mention this is a very small number).

2. much more important is the buzz (non viewers who will hear who won). This is why whoever wins the spin really won this debate. Right now RB's analysis is emerging as the consensus (another reason why McCain had little advantage in showing up to the debate--although he had no better option).

Without the knockout, or knockdown, or even a stagger--nothing changed. Obama went into the round ahead on points, and he emerged from the round still ahead on points, and he is now one round closer to the conclusion of the contest.

It was a good night for Obama.

See also Tocqueville's addition of Quin Hilyer's take, which also asserts that McCain lost in the perception wars.
Category: Politics
Posted by: A Waco Farmer
Enough with all the talk about whether McCain is going to show up for the debate, whether he made a good political move asking for a postponement, or whether he blinked by relenting.

If this were some ordinary time, all that campaign kibbitzing might be tolerable (perhaps even enjoyable).

If this were some ordinary time, a McCain "snub" of David Letterman might be of some interest and comedic value.

If this were some ordinary time, a televised presidential debate might be a harmless and entertaining diversion.

But clearly this is no ordinary time.

Shame on McCain for giving in to the clamor.

More importantly, shame on us for acting like David Letterman and presidential debates have any substantive importance. Sure, modern TV debates are consequential because they shape perception--and perception is reality--but nothing is ever actually revealed in one of these spectacles. Surely, no one expects either candidate to seriously address substantive issues in a format designed to create soundbites and retain the attention of a serially inattentive nation. Surely, we will discover nothing new about Senators Obama and McCain tonight that any reasonably informed voter did not already know.

But the show must go on.

McCain backed down because his opponents across the aisle and in the media would have likely spun his refusal as cowardice and/or a cynical ploy--but so what? If you truly are genuine about saving the country at any personal price, what does it matter what the dream merchants say about you?

The REAL ISSUE. This economic precipice is a defining moment in American history. We are not treating this crossroads with the seriousness it deserves. Rather, we continue to react to the potentially crippling financial crisis as if it is just one more installment of a melodrama in which the fate of the characters bear no relation to our real lives. Will the Wall Street fat cats bilk the people once again? Will Bernanke and Paulson talk Congress into a deal? Will the House Republicans outsmart the Democrats? "Turn it up, dear, this is getting good." Or, more likely, "what else is on?"

Tune in next week to see if the USA survives.

25/09: Next Move

Category: Politics
Posted by: A Waco Farmer
Quick Thought:

Team McCain should suggest that the VP debate be moved to Friday. This flies in the face of the media template that Sarah Palin must be protected. Let everybody know that Sarah is ready for prime time. Bring on Joe and the pr0bama press volcano.

The VP debate will be a circus. Let the crowds watch the spectacle while the business of government is done in executive session over the weekend.

Plan B:
if Obama insists on showing up on Friday, send Sarah Palin to debate him (while McCain stays "suspended" and engaged in important matters of state).
Category: Politics
Posted by: A Waco Farmer
George Will says it here. I have been thinking it for weeks:

John McCain's best argument for why we should elect him president in 2008 is divided government.

That is, if McCain does not win, prepare yourself for a tsunami of liberal legislation that will make the New Deal and the Great Society look like a day at the beach.

If you believe that government governs best when it governs least, you will want to vote for the contrarian McCain and hope for vetoes.
Category: Politics
Posted by: an okie gardener
When I made this earlier post on Sarah Palin's religious beliefs, I did not know that some already were attacking her on this point. Steve Rempe over at The Institute on Religion & Democracy has this essay in which he quotes from the critics and then counterattacks.

I think that the religious beliefs of a candidate are fair game for questions and discussion. I do, however, prefer intelligent debate to partisan attacks.
Category: Politics
Posted by: an okie gardener
Here.

Daryl Cagle's Professional Cartoonists Index
Category: Politics
Posted by: A Waco Farmer
The Morning After.

Yesterday evening, in real time, I offered a less than glowing reaction to the big interview. At first blush, I found Governor Palin a bit stiff and nervous. On the other hand, I thought she escaped the ambush without a mortal wound.

A few thoughts twenty-four hours later:

After re-watching and re-hearing the conversation all day, I stand by my sober assessment of Palin. I think James Carville had it just about right on GMA this morning: C-. However, my sense that she escaped unscathed is gaining altitude rapidly. Not that Palin has improved with the parade of "reviewings;" rather, the more one watches, the more Charlie Gibson and ABC go into the tank. Gibson's sloppy research, erroneous quotations, and snarky condescension regarding Palin's view of "God and Country" becomes more embarrassing to ABC News as the day progresses. When we consider the misleading edit and the willful ignorance of history on the part of Gibson, the whole affair begins to smell of dishonesty and blatant partisanship.

Newsflash: Mark Levin is leading his broadcast with a reading of Abraham Lincoln's Second Inaugural. If you have never paused to consider this seminal treatise on American civil theology, do yourself a favor and read it ASAP.

The other stinking fish from last night's pop quiz seems to be the "Bush Doctrine" question (which I admitted at the time confused me--that's right, even me).

With the passage of time, Gibson looks more and more like the nerdy hall monitor drunk on authority.

What has happened in the last twenty-four hours is the further polarization of this race. Here is the way we see it: the anti-Chritian, anti-Republican, anti-Red State mainstream media is out to humiliate us by any means necessary (obfuscation, intellectual dishonesty, misdirection, etc.).

Add in some Matt Damon, the ladies on The View, Pamela Anderson, and Susan Sarrandon, and this has been a very good day for the GOP.

If this race comes down to Sarah Palin versus Barack Obama, we are well served. If this race boils down to "ignorant, gun-toting, Bible-reading," America versus the axis of elite liberalism (Hollywood, the mainstream media, and academia)--we win.
Category: Politics
Posted by: A Waco Farmer
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.
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.

Category: Politics
Posted by: an okie gardener
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?
Category: Politics
Posted by: A Waco Farmer
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.

05/09: The Homerun

Category: Politics
Posted by: A Waco Farmer
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.