Category: Politics
Posted by: A Waco Farmer
15 April 2008:
Back in February of 2007, I reissued an economic-historical post from the summer of 2006. At the risk of going to the well a few times too often, I am convinced that this thought deserves reconsideration today:
[FROM FEBRUARY 2007:] In light of the Stock Market uncertainty [2008: and banking crisis, slight up-tick in unemployment and bankruptcies, housing sales, and food riots in foreign lands],
I am reprising this analysis piece from the summer [of 2006]:
From July 2006:
I refuse to push the panic button on the economy, and I hate Vietnam parallels, but a growing chain of events gives me cause for concern.
2008: It is now most likely an appropriate time to voice concern over the economy--although I am still not pushing the panic button.
The stagflation and misery of the 1970s arrived, in part, as a result of the belief that we could have "guns and butter" without sacrifice. During an extended and expensive overseas military expedition, the US attempted to leverage the Vietnam War and the Great Society with little concern for revenue. At the same time, American manufactures suffered from an increased period of competition from emerging industrial nations. And, finally, the American economy, heavily dependent on foreign oil, suffered mightily from the rise of OPEC, which attempted to punish the United States for its support of Israel.
I firmly believe that history does not repeat itself--but sometimes the present is eerily reminiscent of the past.
We are in the midst of a protracted and expensive military engagement, a huge event on which we are divided but strangely detached. We continue to run-up budget deficits to pay for the war and our pampered national lifestyle. Our manufacturers are in much worse shape than thirty-five years ago, evidenced by our ever-increasing trade deficits and changing labor reality. Add Israel and oil to this equation, during a time when we are more dependent on foreign fuel than ever before, and there are serious reasons for concern.
2008: Although Israel seems fairly pacific these days (though always subject to change), nevertheless, oil closed at $113 per barrel today. Even without war and reprisal, our oil crisis is upon us.
You have heard my numerous exhortations in the past to stay the course in Iraq. I am not backing away from that line of thinking. But there is real danger ahead. Although the President's approval ratings in general (and on Iraq specifically) have turned dismal, his initiative in the Middle East has moved forward despite its diminishing popularity (mainly because Iraq seems disturbing but peripheral to most Americans).
Added commentary [Feb 2007: The above is obviously much less true in the early months of 2007 than it was last summer.
But an economic crisis would end all that. A deep recession would completely break America's will for war. The Iraq commitment survives precariously on the crest of this fortuitous economic wave. If this economy is as fragile as some have speculated, then the support for the war is just that tenuous.
More added commentary [Feb 2008]: Even more so today, an economic downturn would bring the war effort to a panic stop.
Think about it.
Back in February of 2007, I reissued an economic-historical post from the summer of 2006. At the risk of going to the well a few times too often, I am convinced that this thought deserves reconsideration today:
[FROM FEBRUARY 2007:] In light of the Stock Market uncertainty [2008: and banking crisis, slight up-tick in unemployment and bankruptcies, housing sales, and food riots in foreign lands],
I am reprising this analysis piece from the summer [of 2006]:
From July 2006:
I refuse to push the panic button on the economy, and I hate Vietnam parallels, but a growing chain of events gives me cause for concern.
2008: It is now most likely an appropriate time to voice concern over the economy--although I am still not pushing the panic button.
The stagflation and misery of the 1970s arrived, in part, as a result of the belief that we could have "guns and butter" without sacrifice. During an extended and expensive overseas military expedition, the US attempted to leverage the Vietnam War and the Great Society with little concern for revenue. At the same time, American manufactures suffered from an increased period of competition from emerging industrial nations. And, finally, the American economy, heavily dependent on foreign oil, suffered mightily from the rise of OPEC, which attempted to punish the United States for its support of Israel.
I firmly believe that history does not repeat itself--but sometimes the present is eerily reminiscent of the past.
We are in the midst of a protracted and expensive military engagement, a huge event on which we are divided but strangely detached. We continue to run-up budget deficits to pay for the war and our pampered national lifestyle. Our manufacturers are in much worse shape than thirty-five years ago, evidenced by our ever-increasing trade deficits and changing labor reality. Add Israel and oil to this equation, during a time when we are more dependent on foreign fuel than ever before, and there are serious reasons for concern.
2008: Although Israel seems fairly pacific these days (though always subject to change), nevertheless, oil closed at $113 per barrel today. Even without war and reprisal, our oil crisis is upon us.
You have heard my numerous exhortations in the past to stay the course in Iraq. I am not backing away from that line of thinking. But there is real danger ahead. Although the President's approval ratings in general (and on Iraq specifically) have turned dismal, his initiative in the Middle East has moved forward despite its diminishing popularity (mainly because Iraq seems disturbing but peripheral to most Americans).
Added commentary [Feb 2007: The above is obviously much less true in the early months of 2007 than it was last summer.
But an economic crisis would end all that. A deep recession would completely break America's will for war. The Iraq commitment survives precariously on the crest of this fortuitous economic wave. If this economy is as fragile as some have speculated, then the support for the war is just that tenuous.
More added commentary [Feb 2008]: Even more so today, an economic downturn would bring the war effort to a panic stop.
Think about it.
15/04: Brilliant!
Category: Politics
Posted by: A Waco Farmer
Michael Ramirez,
Editorial Cartoonist for Investor's Business Daily.
This is perhaps the most cogent political cartoon of the season; it will be interesting to see if it makes it into the various "best of the week" round-ups.
Into the wee hours of Wednesday morning I watched the C-SPAN replays of the two Petraeus/Crocker Senate hearings from Tuesday. Sitting on my sofa, bleary-eyed and jotting down a note or two, catching a few winks every now and then, I probably missed more than I saw, but, nevertheless, I came away with a few impressions.
A note on style: I am on the road with student government this weekend, working off a laptop, thinking about national politics during the cracks, and writing with my beefy fingers on a small keyboard. In that vein, here are a few less than polished observations:
--Unfortunately, I missed what was easily the best line of the day, Joe Lieberman: "see no progress, hear no progress, speak no progress." Brilliantly succinct and devastatingly accurate.
--A General Impression: I like Ryan Crocker. I mean I really like Ryan Crocker. Of course, we love Petreaus (and, of course, Secretary of Defense Robert Gates); Petraeus and Gates are Grant and Stanton (with Ph.D.s)--they even have an "Anaconda" Plan.
But Ryan Crocker is less immediately appealing; he is less obviously brilliant. He is more working class. He does not have a Ph.D. from Princeton or Georgetown--rather, a BA from a low-profile college in Washington (as in state not District). Almost every one of his sentences begins with "ah, ah, ih, ih" and features an "um, um, um" somewhere in the middle of the thought, but so what? This non-descript fellow with the halting delivery gets things right. He is not especially smooth--but he is unflappable. He is quietly competent and, evidently, incredibly talented at getting to the crux of any challenge. Crocker is an acquired taste--but I think I finally get him.
In the face of the most turgid, self-serving, and inherently antagonistic questioning, Crocker stood his ground, speaking truth to politically informed ignorance and under-stating simple truths:
--this is tough and complicated
--AQI is reeling, which is a good thing
--much is left to do, and it will not be easy, but it is worth doing
Part II Preview:
--My number one pet peeve with the Senate hearing format?
--Opposition Talking Points.
--Where did we get those GOP Foreign Relations Committee members (nearly all duds and newbies)? Among other problems, the Party of Lincoln is desperately low on talent. We lost a lot of intellectual force and personality in 2006. But back to my point: with friends like these...
More to come...
A note on style: I am on the road with student government this weekend, working off a laptop, thinking about national politics during the cracks, and writing with my beefy fingers on a small keyboard. In that vein, here are a few less than polished observations:
--Unfortunately, I missed what was easily the best line of the day, Joe Lieberman: "see no progress, hear no progress, speak no progress." Brilliantly succinct and devastatingly accurate.
--A General Impression: I like Ryan Crocker. I mean I really like Ryan Crocker. Of course, we love Petreaus (and, of course, Secretary of Defense Robert Gates); Petraeus and Gates are Grant and Stanton (with Ph.D.s)--they even have an "Anaconda" Plan.
But Ryan Crocker is less immediately appealing; he is less obviously brilliant. He is more working class. He does not have a Ph.D. from Princeton or Georgetown--rather, a BA from a low-profile college in Washington (as in state not District). Almost every one of his sentences begins with "ah, ah, ih, ih" and features an "um, um, um" somewhere in the middle of the thought, but so what? This non-descript fellow with the halting delivery gets things right. He is not especially smooth--but he is unflappable. He is quietly competent and, evidently, incredibly talented at getting to the crux of any challenge. Crocker is an acquired taste--but I think I finally get him.
In the face of the most turgid, self-serving, and inherently antagonistic questioning, Crocker stood his ground, speaking truth to politically informed ignorance and under-stating simple truths:
--this is tough and complicated
--AQI is reeling, which is a good thing
--much is left to do, and it will not be easy, but it is worth doing
Part II Preview:
--My number one pet peeve with the Senate hearing format?
--Opposition Talking Points.
--Where did we get those GOP Foreign Relations Committee members (nearly all duds and newbies)? Among other problems, the Party of Lincoln is desperately low on talent. We lost a lot of intellectual force and personality in 2006. But back to my point: with friends like these...
More to come...
Category: Politics
Posted by: A Waco Farmer
The independent cult film, The Tao of Steve (2000), follows the exploits of "an underachieving, overweight, overeducated former philosophy student turned Kierkegaard-quoting kindergarten teacher," lead character, Dex, whom women, inexplicably, find irresistible.*
How does an abdominous public school teacher so effortlessly seduce beautiful women?
Actually there is an explanation: The Tao of Steve.
Who is Steve?
"Steve is the prototypical cool American male. Steve McGarrett [Hawaii Five-O], Steve Austin [Six Million Dollar Man], Steve McQueen. [H]e's the guy on his horse, the guy alone. He has his own code of honor, his own code of ethics, his own rules of living. He never, ever tries to impress the women--but he always gets the girl."
How do you become Steve?
There are rules.
The first rule of Being Steve:
Eliminate your desire. "If you're out with this girl and even THINKING about sexual intercourse, you're finished, as women can smell an agenda...."
Enough said. There is not a man alive who doesn't understand this.
The second rule of Being Steve:
Be excellent in her presence. You must do something that somehow demonstrates your worthiness.
Evolutionary biology, perhaps. Something primordial draws women to men who are good at something--not necessarily something important in the grand scheme of things--but in an eco-system that favors the fittest, one must exhibit some trait worthy of natural selection.
A Personal Aside: I happily met and courted my beautiful wife (a brilliant history major) while I was king of the history geeks (two years earlier I would not have warranted a second glance). When she eventually brought me home to meet the family, it just so happened that I excelled at one of their favorite pastimes (trivial pursuit). I was Steve. Needless to say, I never let her see me dance or roller skate until after we were married.
The third rule of Being Steve:
Withdraw. According to Dex, Heidegger asserted: "We pursue that which retreats from us."
Dex: "Both men and women are interested in one another. It's natural, except we're on different timetables. Women want us, like, y'know, fifteen minutes after we want them, so alright, if you hold out for twenty she'll be chasing you for five."
Presidential Politics? Really? The connection?
In many ways, this is also the Tao of George...Washington, that is.
The old style of running for president (in the mode of the Father of our Country) was not to run at all.
After demonstrating worthiness, a proper candidate would convince all concerned that he had no desire for the office (standing rather than running--allowing the electorate to find him, rather than actively campaigning). And, finally, the statesman would withdraw to his front porch to await the call of the people--would he accept or decline their invitation? We held our breath in anticipation of the answer.
Do any of the current candidates meet this standard?
An Emphatic NO! Times have changed. The front-porch campaigns were always a bit disingenuous, but we completely abandoned that charade in the early twentieth century.
Another Aside: if the old regime were still in place, we might be getting ready for President Thompson--the person who clearly wanted to be president least.
But we are now operating under an entirely new set of rules. No one can deny that Hillary Clinton desires the Oval Office. Obviously, John McCain very much wants to be president. And, for the most part, we are okay with that. For the most part--although an overly zealous suitor may still strike us as unseemly in our deep collective subconscious.
Does Obama violate the first rule of George in an egregious manner? Perhaps. From the moment Senator Barack Obama ascended Capitol Hill, he has suffered from a severe case of Potomac Fever. Without a doubt, one day one of his biographers will entitle this chapter of his life: "Young Man in a Hurry." For as long as we have known him, this forty-six-year-old, half-term senator has shown himself too eager for elevation.
Will that hurt him with anyone other than historians of nineteenth-century American politics? Hard to say.
Less serious--but not insignificant. Last week in Pennsylvania, Candidate Obama indirectly violated the Second Rule of Being Steve: he looked foolish in front of the electorate.
To demonstrate his "regular-guyness" for some Quaker State hardhats, he bowled.
The Bad News: he bowled a 37 in seven frames. The pictures were horrible. He looked goofy in his shirtsleeves and necktie, bowling gutter balls and making excuses. For the first time in this campaign, he looked like a pathetic poser.
Full disclosure: I bowl about as well as I golf--which is not very impressive. But on a typical night, not having bowled for a couple of years, and drinking a beer or two during the course of the evening to loosen up, I am going to bowl between 100 and 140. That won't make it on the PBA Tour--but it generally puts me in the running for top male performer and usually beats the girls. Obama? For perspective, the last time I went bowling with family friends, their teenage daughter rolled a 37.
Bowling is a working man's game. Obama looked very much like a Harvard pansy ineptly pandering to the yokels. Although he probably won't get this conceit--he bowled a turkey without ever rolling a strike. I tend to think this tip-toe through the bowling alley may prove more damaging than most aristocratic pundits appreciated last week. In short, for that particular moment, Barack was very un-Steve.
Note: the quote from the first sentence comes from the Wikipedia entry for The Tao of Steve.
How does an abdominous public school teacher so effortlessly seduce beautiful women?
Actually there is an explanation: The Tao of Steve.
Who is Steve?
"Steve is the prototypical cool American male. Steve McGarrett [Hawaii Five-O], Steve Austin [Six Million Dollar Man], Steve McQueen. [H]e's the guy on his horse, the guy alone. He has his own code of honor, his own code of ethics, his own rules of living. He never, ever tries to impress the women--but he always gets the girl."
How do you become Steve?
There are rules.
The first rule of Being Steve:
Eliminate your desire. "If you're out with this girl and even THINKING about sexual intercourse, you're finished, as women can smell an agenda...."
Enough said. There is not a man alive who doesn't understand this.
The second rule of Being Steve:
Be excellent in her presence. You must do something that somehow demonstrates your worthiness.
Evolutionary biology, perhaps. Something primordial draws women to men who are good at something--not necessarily something important in the grand scheme of things--but in an eco-system that favors the fittest, one must exhibit some trait worthy of natural selection.
A Personal Aside: I happily met and courted my beautiful wife (a brilliant history major) while I was king of the history geeks (two years earlier I would not have warranted a second glance). When she eventually brought me home to meet the family, it just so happened that I excelled at one of their favorite pastimes (trivial pursuit). I was Steve. Needless to say, I never let her see me dance or roller skate until after we were married.
The third rule of Being Steve:
Withdraw. According to Dex, Heidegger asserted: "We pursue that which retreats from us."
Dex: "Both men and women are interested in one another. It's natural, except we're on different timetables. Women want us, like, y'know, fifteen minutes after we want them, so alright, if you hold out for twenty she'll be chasing you for five."
Presidential Politics? Really? The connection?
In many ways, this is also the Tao of George...Washington, that is.
The old style of running for president (in the mode of the Father of our Country) was not to run at all.
After demonstrating worthiness, a proper candidate would convince all concerned that he had no desire for the office (standing rather than running--allowing the electorate to find him, rather than actively campaigning). And, finally, the statesman would withdraw to his front porch to await the call of the people--would he accept or decline their invitation? We held our breath in anticipation of the answer.
Do any of the current candidates meet this standard?
An Emphatic NO! Times have changed. The front-porch campaigns were always a bit disingenuous, but we completely abandoned that charade in the early twentieth century.
Another Aside: if the old regime were still in place, we might be getting ready for President Thompson--the person who clearly wanted to be president least.
But we are now operating under an entirely new set of rules. No one can deny that Hillary Clinton desires the Oval Office. Obviously, John McCain very much wants to be president. And, for the most part, we are okay with that. For the most part--although an overly zealous suitor may still strike us as unseemly in our deep collective subconscious.
Does Obama violate the first rule of George in an egregious manner? Perhaps. From the moment Senator Barack Obama ascended Capitol Hill, he has suffered from a severe case of Potomac Fever. Without a doubt, one day one of his biographers will entitle this chapter of his life: "Young Man in a Hurry." For as long as we have known him, this forty-six-year-old, half-term senator has shown himself too eager for elevation.
Will that hurt him with anyone other than historians of nineteenth-century American politics? Hard to say.
Less serious--but not insignificant. Last week in Pennsylvania, Candidate Obama indirectly violated the Second Rule of Being Steve: he looked foolish in front of the electorate.
To demonstrate his "regular-guyness" for some Quaker State hardhats, he bowled.
The Bad News: he bowled a 37 in seven frames. The pictures were horrible. He looked goofy in his shirtsleeves and necktie, bowling gutter balls and making excuses. For the first time in this campaign, he looked like a pathetic poser.
Full disclosure: I bowl about as well as I golf--which is not very impressive. But on a typical night, not having bowled for a couple of years, and drinking a beer or two during the course of the evening to loosen up, I am going to bowl between 100 and 140. That won't make it on the PBA Tour--but it generally puts me in the running for top male performer and usually beats the girls. Obama? For perspective, the last time I went bowling with family friends, their teenage daughter rolled a 37.
Bowling is a working man's game. Obama looked very much like a Harvard pansy ineptly pandering to the yokels. Although he probably won't get this conceit--he bowled a turkey without ever rolling a strike. I tend to think this tip-toe through the bowling alley may prove more damaging than most aristocratic pundits appreciated last week. In short, for that particular moment, Barack was very un-Steve.
Note: the quote from the first sentence comes from the Wikipedia entry for The Tao of Steve.
Category: Politics
Posted by: A Waco Farmer
Peter Wehner, a former deputy assistant to President George W. Bush, and currently a senior fellow at the Ethics and Public Policy Center, writing this morning in the Wall Street Journal, asserts that Barack "Obama's record reveals him to be a doctrinaire liberal." Mr. Wehner picks up on a point with which Bosque Boys readers are familiar, but furthers the discussion with an enumeration of offensive policy positions and a helpful analysis of how the Republican candidate, John McCain, might address this unexpected opportunity:
"Mr. McCain needs to present a compelling case on the foundational beliefs that divide liberalism and conservatism – on matters like the size and role of government, competition and accountability in education, health care, and whether higher taxes encourage or retard economic growth. Mr. McCain also needs to force a debate on the proper role of the judiciary, the protection owed to unborn children and the rights owed to unlawful enemy combatants, and whether promoting liberty should be a central aim of American foreign policy in combating militant Islam.
"Mr. McCain needs to become an educator-in-chief on matters of political philosophy. He won't be able to fulfill that role nearly as well as Reagan, who was a philosophical conservative in the way that Mr. McCain (and most other Republican politicians) is not. And Mr. McCain himself has, until now, been sui generis on matters of conservatism. His challenge is to make his case well enough to convince Americans not only that Mr. Obama is a liberal, but that having a liberal in the White House would do real damage to our country."
We welcome this constructive addition to this increasingly vital and relevant conversation.
"Mr. McCain needs to present a compelling case on the foundational beliefs that divide liberalism and conservatism – on matters like the size and role of government, competition and accountability in education, health care, and whether higher taxes encourage or retard economic growth. Mr. McCain also needs to force a debate on the proper role of the judiciary, the protection owed to unborn children and the rights owed to unlawful enemy combatants, and whether promoting liberty should be a central aim of American foreign policy in combating militant Islam.
"Mr. McCain needs to become an educator-in-chief on matters of political philosophy. He won't be able to fulfill that role nearly as well as Reagan, who was a philosophical conservative in the way that Mr. McCain (and most other Republican politicians) is not. And Mr. McCain himself has, until now, been sui generis on matters of conservatism. His challenge is to make his case well enough to convince Americans not only that Mr. Obama is a liberal, but that having a liberal in the White House would do real damage to our country."
We welcome this constructive addition to this increasingly vital and relevant conversation.
01/04: Unconventional Wisdom
Michael Barone, perhaps the nation's foremost political pundit, has made a most unusual prediction: Hillary wins the popular vote, but Obama wins the delegate count.
Category: Politics
Posted by: A Waco Farmer
One of my favorite pundits, Dean Barnett, wrote today that the big problem with Barack Obama is that he is a man of inaction—all rhetoric and no ability to perform worthy deeds.
If only...
As a conservative in the most classic American sense, I would rejoice in the assurance that Obama plans to do nothing but talk.
Liberal administrations govern best that govern least.
I could rest much easier if I thought an Obama presidency portended merely lofty flights of empty rhetoric. However, an eloquent but harmlessly passive President Obama strikes me as unlikely.
If not his tendency to prefer oratory over action, what is my biggest concern with Barack Obama?
His willingness to abide deranged purveyors of scary black nationalism?
His inexperience?
His ties to shady Chicago power brokers? His slipperiness? His lack of respect for his "average white lady" grandmother?
No. Those are distractions. What is actually most troubling about Obama?
He is too liberal.
He owns the most liberal voting record in the United States Senate. According to the National Journal, he is more liberal than Ted Kennedy, John F. Kerry, Russ Feingold, Dick Durbin, and Barbara Boxer.
Under ordinary circumstances, he is way too liberal to win election as president of the United States. Generally, the “ultra-liberal” label equals certain defeat in a national election. But, unfortunately, these are not ordinary circumstances.
The Democratic candidate in 2008 will run buoyed by intense George W. Bush fatigue, restlessness over an unpopular five-year war with no end in sight, and uncertainty in the face of an economy perceived to be tenuous at best---or, even worse, on the brink of cataclysm.
The Democratic candidate in 2008 will run against a presumptive Republican nominee who is seventy-one-years-old, admittedly inexpert in economic policy, who bravely advocates extending the five-year war indefinitely, if need be.
This is a good year to run as a Democrat.
The base of the Democratic Party understands this moment. And, this time, they will not be easily intimidated into selecting a moderate candidate who will seem more appealing to centrists and independents in the fall. They just don't think they need to play things "safe" this time around. They think they are running down the court for a slam dunk. They can nominate any reasonable candidate and win. Why not pick the guy they really like--the anti-war, post-racial, Kennedyesque liberal orator?
This turn of events devastated Hillary, of course, who spent years preparing to run as a moderate, national security Democrat whom you could trust at 3:00 a.m.
As noted, the dismal unpopularity of Bush, the failing economy, and the troubles that accompany a protracted and unsatisfying military engagement make this particular political season particularly irregular.
However, even with all that, Obama still might have run into trouble, save for the "concept." Americans fell in love with this symbol for an age.
But, if Obama gets by Hillary (which I am not ready to concede), he will arrive virtually unstoppable in the General. And, if elected, I expect him to skillfully translate his electoral triumph into a mandate for liberal action. With a Democratic majority in Congress, and the Fourth Estate abuzz with adoration, we are likely to see the most active and most prolific legislating president since Lyndon Johnson.
Make no mistake, President Barack Obama could be the most transformative American political figure of our lifetimes. My worry is that the transformation is going to prove as disastrous as the last attempt at creating a so-called Great Society.
If only...
As a conservative in the most classic American sense, I would rejoice in the assurance that Obama plans to do nothing but talk.
Liberal administrations govern best that govern least.
I could rest much easier if I thought an Obama presidency portended merely lofty flights of empty rhetoric. However, an eloquent but harmlessly passive President Obama strikes me as unlikely.
If not his tendency to prefer oratory over action, what is my biggest concern with Barack Obama?
His willingness to abide deranged purveyors of scary black nationalism?
His inexperience?
His ties to shady Chicago power brokers? His slipperiness? His lack of respect for his "average white lady" grandmother?
No. Those are distractions. What is actually most troubling about Obama?
He is too liberal.
He owns the most liberal voting record in the United States Senate. According to the National Journal, he is more liberal than Ted Kennedy, John F. Kerry, Russ Feingold, Dick Durbin, and Barbara Boxer.
Under ordinary circumstances, he is way too liberal to win election as president of the United States. Generally, the “ultra-liberal” label equals certain defeat in a national election. But, unfortunately, these are not ordinary circumstances.
The Democratic candidate in 2008 will run buoyed by intense George W. Bush fatigue, restlessness over an unpopular five-year war with no end in sight, and uncertainty in the face of an economy perceived to be tenuous at best---or, even worse, on the brink of cataclysm.
The Democratic candidate in 2008 will run against a presumptive Republican nominee who is seventy-one-years-old, admittedly inexpert in economic policy, who bravely advocates extending the five-year war indefinitely, if need be.
This is a good year to run as a Democrat.
The base of the Democratic Party understands this moment. And, this time, they will not be easily intimidated into selecting a moderate candidate who will seem more appealing to centrists and independents in the fall. They just don't think they need to play things "safe" this time around. They think they are running down the court for a slam dunk. They can nominate any reasonable candidate and win. Why not pick the guy they really like--the anti-war, post-racial, Kennedyesque liberal orator?
This turn of events devastated Hillary, of course, who spent years preparing to run as a moderate, national security Democrat whom you could trust at 3:00 a.m.
As noted, the dismal unpopularity of Bush, the failing economy, and the troubles that accompany a protracted and unsatisfying military engagement make this particular political season particularly irregular.
However, even with all that, Obama still might have run into trouble, save for the "concept." Americans fell in love with this symbol for an age.
But, if Obama gets by Hillary (which I am not ready to concede), he will arrive virtually unstoppable in the General. And, if elected, I expect him to skillfully translate his electoral triumph into a mandate for liberal action. With a Democratic majority in Congress, and the Fourth Estate abuzz with adoration, we are likely to see the most active and most prolific legislating president since Lyndon Johnson.
Make no mistake, President Barack Obama could be the most transformative American political figure of our lifetimes. My worry is that the transformation is going to prove as disastrous as the last attempt at creating a so-called Great Society.
18/03: Obama Delivers?
Barack Obama speaks today, March 18, 2008, "A More Perfect Union."
Uncollected Thoughts:
11:30 a.m. CST. Although I have not seen the speech, the early reviews are strong.
From a learned friend (ftr: I don't think he reads the blog):
"Did you happen to watch the speech Obama just gave to address his relationship with his preacher? It was a hell of a speech. He addressed not only black anger but also white resentment and the historical roots of both. I really like this guy, and I think it’s primarily because I perceive him to be honest about the issues that really matter and to speak sincerely about them. I’m sure his politics are different from you, but do you get that same vibe from him? That he’s honest and sincere, even if he perceives the nation’s problems and their solutions differently than you do?"
That is good news for Obama.
When I read the speech (and watch the video), I will be looking for two things:
1. Did he address the fundamental logistical and legalistic issues of what did he know and when did he know it? Did he present a plausible defense on the main charge?
2. Did he offer a speech and performance captivating enough to encourage his admirers to disregard the specifics and continue to believe in the magic?
Number Two may be the more important question.
I will report back when I know more....
Uncollected Thoughts:
11:30 a.m. CST. Although I have not seen the speech, the early reviews are strong.
From a learned friend (ftr: I don't think he reads the blog):
"Did you happen to watch the speech Obama just gave to address his relationship with his preacher? It was a hell of a speech. He addressed not only black anger but also white resentment and the historical roots of both. I really like this guy, and I think it’s primarily because I perceive him to be honest about the issues that really matter and to speak sincerely about them. I’m sure his politics are different from you, but do you get that same vibe from him? That he’s honest and sincere, even if he perceives the nation’s problems and their solutions differently than you do?"
That is good news for Obama.
When I read the speech (and watch the video), I will be looking for two things:
1. Did he address the fundamental logistical and legalistic issues of what did he know and when did he know it? Did he present a plausible defense on the main charge?
2. Did he offer a speech and performance captivating enough to encourage his admirers to disregard the specifics and continue to believe in the magic?
Number Two may be the more important question.
I will report back when I know more....
05/03: The Rock of Cuyahoga County
Category: Politics
Posted by: A Waco Farmer
"For everyone here in Ohio and across America who's ever been counted out but refused to be knocked out, and for everyone who has stumbled but stood right back up, and for everyone who works hard and never gives up, this one is for you."
Very Briefly: I have been predicting that Hillary would become the next president of the United States for a long time. I came to that conclusion based on her superior organization (which included her access to the best talent), her ability to out-raise and, therefore, out-spend any potential opponent, and her lock on the Democratic Party establishment.
Well, I was wrong about almost everything (maybe everything--only time will tell). But I was certainly wrong about all those insurmountable advantages. As she faces perhaps the most enthralling candidate for president in the last one hundred years, she is losing the money race, she has lost the party bigwigs, and it turns out that her staff were mere mortals. But there she stands, like a stone wall, in the face of withering opposition.
She does it on guts.
She is Hillary Clinton, and she does not give an inch.
Love her or hate her, but admit that she is one tough S.O.B.
Old "Blood and Guts" Hillary Clinton
Very Briefly: I have been predicting that Hillary would become the next president of the United States for a long time. I came to that conclusion based on her superior organization (which included her access to the best talent), her ability to out-raise and, therefore, out-spend any potential opponent, and her lock on the Democratic Party establishment.
Well, I was wrong about almost everything (maybe everything--only time will tell). But I was certainly wrong about all those insurmountable advantages. As she faces perhaps the most enthralling candidate for president in the last one hundred years, she is losing the money race, she has lost the party bigwigs, and it turns out that her staff were mere mortals. But there she stands, like a stone wall, in the face of withering opposition.
She does it on guts.
She is Hillary Clinton, and she does not give an inch.
Love her or hate her, but admit that she is one tough S.O.B.
What was George Washington's middle name?
Trick question. The first president of the United States to have a middle name was John Quincy Adams. He was the sixth decider-in-chief. He was elected in the disputed election of 1824 (over two-namer, Andrew Jackson), and he served from 1825-1829.
During the nineteenth century, presidents with middle names were the exceptions rather than the rule:
William Henry Harrison
James Knox Polk
Hiram Ulysses Grant, who, according to legend, changed his name to Ulysses Simpson Grant upon entering West Point because he preferred the sound of U.S. Grant to the initials H.U.G.
Rutherford Birchard Hayes
James Abram Garfield
Chester Alan Arthur
Stephen Grover Cleveland dropped his first name and subsequently went on to fame and political fortune with the trimmer handle.
For the most part, twentieth century presidents were rich with middle names.
Technically, Teddy Roosevelt was the sole exception, although, like Cleveland, Thomas Woodrow Wilson and John Calvin Coolidge dropped their assigned first names when they hit adulthood.
Franklin Delano Roosevelt (FDR) was the president who made it all matter. Then JFK and LBJ.
Jimmy Carter tried to forget his middle name was Earl. Bill Clinton seemed to revel in his middle name: Jefferson. Opponents of George Bush-41 attempted to make hay out of his four-banger, upper-crust-sounding family name: George Herbert Walker Bush. His son, Bush-43, has been called simply "W." by many, as a shorthand distinction between him and his father, as well as a low-grade measure of disrespect.
Is it "the ultimate fear bomb" to call Barack Hussein Obama by his full name?
Presumably, the unfortunate moniker was given to him with the best of intentions by his parents who loved him and wanted the best for him.
Sometimes names turn out to be unforeseen obstacles or annoyances.
A Personal Aside: my parents affixed me with a perfectly sophisticated, cultured, and fairly uncommon given-name back in 1964 (Ashley). During the 1980s, my first name became popular as a feminine given-name. I wish I had a dollar for every early-twenty-something who has asked me over the last fifteen years: "how come you got a girl's name?"
But it's my name. I am who I am.
My advice to BHO: Deal with it.
Trick question. The first president of the United States to have a middle name was John Quincy Adams. He was the sixth decider-in-chief. He was elected in the disputed election of 1824 (over two-namer, Andrew Jackson), and he served from 1825-1829.
During the nineteenth century, presidents with middle names were the exceptions rather than the rule:
William Henry Harrison
James Knox Polk
Hiram Ulysses Grant, who, according to legend, changed his name to Ulysses Simpson Grant upon entering West Point because he preferred the sound of U.S. Grant to the initials H.U.G.
Rutherford Birchard Hayes
James Abram Garfield
Chester Alan Arthur
Stephen Grover Cleveland dropped his first name and subsequently went on to fame and political fortune with the trimmer handle.
For the most part, twentieth century presidents were rich with middle names.
Technically, Teddy Roosevelt was the sole exception, although, like Cleveland, Thomas Woodrow Wilson and John Calvin Coolidge dropped their assigned first names when they hit adulthood.
Franklin Delano Roosevelt (FDR) was the president who made it all matter. Then JFK and LBJ.
Jimmy Carter tried to forget his middle name was Earl. Bill Clinton seemed to revel in his middle name: Jefferson. Opponents of George Bush-41 attempted to make hay out of his four-banger, upper-crust-sounding family name: George Herbert Walker Bush. His son, Bush-43, has been called simply "W." by many, as a shorthand distinction between him and his father, as well as a low-grade measure of disrespect.
Is it "the ultimate fear bomb" to call Barack Hussein Obama by his full name?
Presumably, the unfortunate moniker was given to him with the best of intentions by his parents who loved him and wanted the best for him.
Sometimes names turn out to be unforeseen obstacles or annoyances.
A Personal Aside: my parents affixed me with a perfectly sophisticated, cultured, and fairly uncommon given-name back in 1964 (Ashley). During the 1980s, my first name became popular as a feminine given-name. I wish I had a dollar for every early-twenty-something who has asked me over the last fifteen years: "how come you got a girl's name?"
But it's my name. I am who I am.
My advice to BHO: Deal with it.
