The Bosque Boys

Tocqueville thinks this guy is on to something. I agree.

From the Insta-punk:

Race as a "three-edged" sword:

"If every gaffe or unpleasantness committed by the Obamas on the campaign trail is going to be shushed up or suppressed to spare their racial sensitivities, resentment is bound to grow like mushrooms in the dark. If that's the strategy, the third edge will cost Obama the election."

The politically correct perils of an Obama presidency:

"If the Clintons can't make a dent in the campaign of a coolly ambitious, non-African-American, Ivy League Chicago machine politician, what will any of of us be able to do if he turns out to be inept, short-sighted, vengeful, corrupt, or actively seditious? If some clumsy American politician accidentally says something to offend his 300K-a-year Princetonian executive wife, for example, will we all have to apologize -- or pay in some other coin? If he violates his vow to uphold the Constitution, will we have the recourse we would have with mere politicians? Or will every voice -- in politics and the press -- fall silent, because raising an objection of any kind is tantamount to a hate crime?

"What stories will not be pursued by the already horrifyingly cowardly PC media? What legitimate policy objections will not be posed by senators and congressmen who are already living in daily fear that their most inadvertent verbal slip will bring down 400 years worth of resentment on their heads?"

Provocative. Post in full here.

Last week I voted (early) for John McCain in the Texas primary. Barring some unforeseen calamity or epiphany, I will vote for John McCain again in the fall. However, I seriously considered requesting a Democratic ballot in order to vote for Hillary Clinton for the nomination of her party.

Why did I waive my right to "cross over," as we refer to it here in the Lone Star State?

--I very much wanted to vote for one specific Republican, "Doc Anderson," down the ballot in the GOP canvass.

--To vote Democratic, the procedure requires a promise to refrain from any Republican Party activity for a calendar year. Although I am not a very active Republican, I would have felt uncomfortable making that declaration. And, as it was designed to do, the promise gave me pause intuitively.

--Most importantly though, I know a number of Republicans have advocated a vote for Hillary Clinton as a method of sabotage; that is, vote for Hillary to extend the internecine Democratic Party fight for a few more weeks or months. Many of these Republicans also see Mrs. Clinton as a more vulnerable opposition candidate in November. For the record, in my view, they are right to worry that the Obama juggernaut is unprecedentedly powerful and unique as a political force.

Notwithstanding, I abhor sabotage. I ultimately demurred from wading into the Democratic primary because I would have invited suspicion among my friends in the other party, who might have wondered whether I really had their best interest in mind. I did not want even the hint of impropriety or the suggestion that I attempted to deprive Democrats of their best candidate. And, in the end, for that reason, I determined that my vote would do Hillary Clinton more harm than good.

Having said that, I have always participated in my own private Democratic primary, mentally supporting a candidate that I wanted to win the nomination--based not on who would be easiest to beat in my opinion, but based on who, if elected, would make the best president. Examples: Joe Lieberman in 2004; Paul Tsongas in 1992 (although I had a soft spot of Clinton that year also); Henry Jackson (and then Jimmy Carter) in 1976.

Here is a less than complete list of reasons (and something of a review) of why I think Hillary Clinton is the best Democratic Party alternative this time around:

1. I believe Hillary is a tough-minded, no-nonsense person. She is a hard-boiled realist, who understands national vital interests as well as political necessities. She will throw rhetorical bones to the left but govern in the center, because she will want to be reelected. She will employ the traditional American foreign-policy making establishment and pursue a moderate-to-firm course in international relations. She will not be exactly what I want, but neither will she bring about a socialist revolution or a unilateral retreat from American interests abroad.

John Edwards was fairly close to reality when he said a "vote for Hillary Clinton is a vote for the status quo."

2. This is really a more specific extension of #1: if Hillary remains faithful to her record and rhetoric, her election will commit the Democratic Party en masse to the global war on terror. Just as Harry Truman and the Democrats owned the Cold War until Dwight Eisenhower came along and embraced the policy, the War on Terror at this moment is a unilateral Republican policy. It is vital for American survival that the Democrats have a partisan interest in our success in the larger war on terror.

Note on style for some of my Democratic friends in re "war on terror": I understand that this articulation is problematic for some—but, in order to avoid the less than constructive semantic argument, suffice it to say, we face a worldwide movement to create chaos, which must be addressed in a bipartisan way.

From Tocqueville:

The New York Times informs that "if Mr. Obama becomes the Democratic presidential nominee, he is sure to face an onslaught from Republicans and their allies [read Swift boaters] that will be very different in tone and intensity from what he has faced so far." For much of this year, we are told, "Obama has been handled with relative care by Mrs. Clinton . . ."

So, when some Republican uses his real middle name (and forget that George Herberrrrrt Walkerrrrrr Bush stuff, that didn't count) or leaks a picture of him in a turban, or accuses him of rigging the Nevada caucuses, peddling dope, or being a slum lord, this will all be different in tone and intensity than the love fest that was Barack Obama's contest with Lady Macbeth. Let's make a note.

Because it is a "reminder that should Mr. Obama win the nomination, he will be playing on a more treacherous political battleground as opponents -- scouring through his record of votes and statements and his experiences before he entered public life -- looking for ways to portray him as out of step with the nation's values, challenge his appeal to independent voters and emphasize his lack of experience in foreign affairs and national security."

That'll be a new experience! No one did that to him in the primaries.

"Some of this will almost certainly take the shape of the Internet rumors and whispering campaigns that have popped up against Mr. Obama since he got into the race, like the false reports that he is Muslim."

And it's all true. McCain's aides "said that their first line of attack will be to portray Obama as liberal, and they have already begun pointing to a rating in the National Journal, based on his votes, of Mr. Obama as the most liberal member of the Senate."

FOUL PLAY!!!

A Waco Farmer: Mendacity. There is mendacity in this house.

From Tocqueville on Judicial Confirmations.

Just for the record:

One year into the 110th Congress, six circuit court judges have been
confirmed and the prospects are dim for the others. Thus are the
wages of McCain's "Gang of Fourteen." By comparison, fifteen
appellate court judges were confirmed during Clinton's last two
years. And I see that Fourth Circuit nominee Jim Haynes has retired
from his service at the Pentagon, with respect to which Quin Hilyer
writes:

"[E]very good wish to Jim Haynes, retiring as Chief Counsel for the
Pentagon, as he re-enters private life. This is a man who had served
his country literally for decades, and who gave up highly lucrative
employment for the last seven years in order to do so. He served well
and honorably in extremely difficult times and circumstances, and has
done yeoman's work to keep our country safe from international
terrorists. Yet he remains the only Republican judicial nominee ever
flat-out Borked by fellow Republicans. It was a travesty of justice
that we should never forget or forgive. The lead Borker was the
execrable Sen. Lindsey Graham of South Carolina, and his wingman was
putative presidential nominee John McCain. If McCain has any class,
he will issue a statement thanking Haynes for his service to our
country. (But I won't hold my breath for McCain to show any class.
Strength and patriotism in serving the country he loves, yes; class,
not a bit.) But I digress. This is a note about Haynes. Because he
did not shrink from the service of his country, he truly, in Thomas
Paine's words, 'deserves the love and thanks of man and woman.'"

Hilyer comments posted on CONFIRMTHEM.

A Waco Farmer: Tocqueville and I disagree somewhat on this issue, and he writes in response to some of my previous posts on the topic, one of which was Setting the Record Straight on the Gang of Fourteen.

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

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

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

An excerpt from the Wilentz piece:

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

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

A prediction: as more and more liberal commentators and newsreaders castigate McCain for being a conservative, the more conservatives will develop warm feelings for him. Many of us hate him as a result of the people who seem to fawn over him. Ironically, by November, most of us will like him in reaction to the same coterie of jackals, who will excoriate him relentlessly for his admirable lifetime record of defending the things we hold dear.


The mainstream media barrage upon the presumptive Republican nominee has officially begun--albeit with a surprising lack of subtlety.

Page One of the New York Times, the paper of record for the axis of liberalism in America, charges today that John McCain engaged in an inappropriate relationship with a beautiful female lobbyist thirty-years his junior.

The New York Times evidently sat on this story since December. Why?

The main thrust of the story--McCain and the young femme fatale--allegedly transpired nearly a decade ago. Again, why now?

An Aside: according to the Times, this relationship reached its peak during the year prior to McCain's unsuccessful run for the White House in 2000. If true, the Bushies, who ran the most "despicable whispering campaign in the history of American politics," somehow missed this major story that the Times somehow uncovered through good solid investigative journalism. Kudos to the Gray Lady. They must be smoking big fat cigars over there on Eighth this morning.

Okay. So what?

Here is how the Times will try to play this story? They have already floated the idea that conservative opponents of McCain were shopping this scandal. Perhaps this is true. Of course, the Times must contend with the question as to why the same story was unworthy of publication back when the revelation might have helped some of McCain's Republican opponents--but it is now in the public interest to air all of this now that McCain's opponent is most likely Barack Obama--who, ironically, is currently in minor trouble with the press for the first time in his magical campaign.

So, in a perfect New York Times world, this story will further torpedo McCain with social conservatives, while at the same time affixing guilt for the bloody work on them as well.

We will see how well that works. It will be a hard sell--but the Huffington Post crowd will surely swallow the double-reverse conspiratorial narrative hook, line, and sinker.

Why do I subscribe to TIME and not Newsweek? It is a long story unworthy of telling--but, suffice it to say, it makes no sense.

The editorial team of Evan Thomas and Jon Meacham make Newsweek, while not perfect, the historian's news magazine of choice. If it is true that journalism is the first draft of history, I predict that the thoughtful and careful Thomas and Meacham manuscripts will require minimal revisions. Kudos to these fellows.

Thomas's latest article details the complicated relationship between the Clintons and the Beltway press corps. It is spot-on and well worth the read:

Poison Dynamic: The Clintons have long had a rocky relationship with the media

His thesis: the modern presidency and the modern press are irreconcilably antagonistic. Why does Hillary get the short end of the coverage during Campaign 2008? She is the object of residual antipathy from her previous days in the White House.

There have been plenty of ups and downs, but Thomas points to the irony that graying Bill Clinton is the old new kid in town and the vibrant Barack Obama is the new new kid in town.

Earlier this season I quoted All About Eve, when I cautioned: "buckle your seatbelts, we are in for a bumpy ride."

In re Bill Clinton, another Eve quote: "Nothing is forever in the Theatre. Whatever it is, it's here, it flares up, burns hot and then its gone."

One quibble: Thomas is loath to assert that the press coverage does have a bias toward liberal candidates (although I have heard him say as much in other venues). On this occasion, however, he seems unwilling to admit that a subsequent contest between two current media darlings, Obama and John McCain, will inevitably fall to the most stalwartly liberal of the two: Obama.

Read the Evan Thomas piece. Absolutely brilliant.

From the LA Weekly News. Story here. Link from Drudge.

Jeremy Bernard thinks he has been sucked into a time warp. Only five months ago, he was sitting shoulder to shoulder with U.S. Senator Barack Obama in the back of a black SUV, speeding through West Hollywood on Santa Monica Boulevard, talking about the fine points of gay and lesbian federal legislation. An hour later, the Democratic presidential candidate was hitting every detail they had discussed in the car, but this time on network television. For Bernard, it was mind-blowing. The key fund-raiser for the Obama campaign was seeing his issues dramatically migrate from a personal chat to the national stage.
. . .
During this long and bare-knuckled presidential-primary season, a campaign will get nowhere without very big money. And next to New York City, Southern California — more precisely, the Westside of Los Angeles — is the land cash-hungry politicians never ignore. But only a handful of people in this town have the contacts and relationships to deliver the big checks. It's an elite world, and one that Jeremy Bernard and Rufus Gifford are capable of dominating.
. . .
Bernard and Gifford understand their make-or-break roles. It's the prime reason they went into fund-raising. Gay issues are central to their own political agendas, and they know from years of experience that money gives them unique and up-close access to power. They have the luxury, after climbing to the top, of throwing their deep-pocketed connections only behind candidates who closely match their politics. "We work for candidates who we ourselves would be willing to give money to," says Gifford.

Once the checks are rolling in, Bernard and Gifford then have the full attention of a congressional or presidential candidate, giving them the chance, behind the scenes, to promote their own political issues. It's a level of access gays once only dreamed of, but they are living it.

"Being gay makes you inherently political," says Gifford, comfortable with using his proximity to power to influence the candidate. "You see what's right and what's wrong, and you need to do something about it."

Will this story matter in the Democrat primaries. I don't think so. Except, it illustrates how the Clintons are unable to hang on to some constituencies they need.

But, in the General Election, I suspect this story will get discrete use, if Obama is the nominee.

To beat the rush, I wrote my tribute to Rudy Giuliani about a month ago. Kudos to Rudy for a career of service and an honorable and inspiring campaign for the nation's highest office.

From December:

"As I have averred numerous times previously, Rudy is not a good fit for the Republican nomination. Having said that, he is a good man who possesses a thoroughly American story. He is worthy of our gratitude and our imitation. More importantly, the upcoming conclusion to his drive to be president of the United States should not end his career as an important and ultra competent public servant.

Well done, Rudy."

"Rudy: Some Final Thoughts" in full here.

Today Richard Baehr (a McCain advocate) of the American Thinker offers a corrective to the oft-repeated criticism that the Gang of 14 somehow stabbed conservatism in the back. He writes:

"To put it plainly, the critics of the deal are flat out wrong. Conservatives should thank John McCain and the other Senators who were part of the Gang of 14 for getting three Appeals Court nominees who had been held up, Janice Rogers Brown, William Pryor, and Priscilla Owen, approved quickly and Brett Kavanaugh approved a bit later, and for Samuel Alito making it onto the Supreme Court without a filibuster blocking his way. And they should thank John McCain for preserving for the Republican Party the use of the filibuster on judicial nominations that might be made by a Democratic President beginning in 2009 or later" (essay in full here is worth reading).

For the most part, I agree. Back in the late spring of 2005, I wrote an op-ed piece for the local Waco paper regarding the so-called Gang of Fourteen and the then-controversial compromise over President Bush's judicial appointments.

From May 2005:

Last week, a bipartisan collection of fourteen moderates in the United States Senate caucused together to defuse an impending showdown over the ideological composition of the federal judiciary. Striking an eleventh-hour deal on the brink of political holy war, the self-selected centrists likely averted an injurious redefinition of established practice.

» Read More