The Bosque Boys

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.