Picture the person you consider to the greatest American President. Picture them campaigning for the office where they would distinguish themselves to their people and to posterity. Visualize them facing a financial crisis that is considered to be extremely serious. Picture this person being asked to come to Washington to help confront this crisis, and saying this:
“[I] don’t want to infuse Capitol Hill with presidential politics.”
I’m guessing your greatest President would not have said that.
Once, there was a man. A young man. He was blessed. He had great charisma, burning ambition, and a talent for communicating with people. He was a Slick Talker.
The Slick Talker was very popular. He was very gifted. He had a talent for examining actions, for breaking them down into their essential pieces, and for communicating them in a way that people could understand.
This man toiled in the trenches, learning about the system, dreaming of how he would run things if he was the boss. One day, some wealthy men offered him the chance of a lifetime. The Slick Talker would be able to address an audience of millions, to display his talents to the world. The man saw his opportunity. He grabbed it.
The Slick Talker shined before the camera. His talent with words brought him fame and followers. The wealthy men who hired him were pleased. Even wealthier men were even more impressed. One of them, one of the wealthiest of them all, saw in our Slick Talker a vision of the future. One day, this man put the Slick Talker in charge.
There were some problems. The Slick Talker had never accomplished anything of note in his field. He was foolish and inexperienced, but prideful and boastful. He did not believe that he had anything to learn. He believed that the force of his greatness and his charisma could make him a success. The Slick Talker believed that he knew better than the people around them who had been doing the job for years. His wealthy benefactor agreed, confident that the Slick Talker’s confidence and beautiful words would lead his people to glory.
The newspapers supported the Slick Talker, hailing as a new voice from a better future. The television stations supported him, declaring his plan to be “change we can believe in.” Some people believed this, and ignored their misgivings in the hope that maybe the Slick Talker could make things better. The Slick Talker talked, and the press believed.
However, the job proved to be above the Slick Talker. He refused to learn from mistakes. He was unwilling to accept criticism. When the press began to question him, he shut them out. As things got worse and worse, he became increasingly isolated. Still he talked, but his honeyed words meant nothing. The Slick Talker hired new minions, and fired new minions, but his failure remained the same. In his foolishness, he left things worse than he found them. The damage the Slick Talker did would take years to undo.
The Slick Talker’s name was Matt Millen. Who did you think I was talking about?
If Barack Obama is the foreign policy expert that he claims to be, if he is the intellectual colossus that his supporters assert that he is, then why does he need to continue his desperate debate cramming at the expense of attempting to solve the crisis that he called “the most serious financial crisis since the great depression?”
Poor Joe Biden has been catching heat lately for his comments, even earning a public rebuke from the Messiah himself for daring to contradict the all-knowing and all-holy on clean coal technology. While Joe’s torment, corporeal and spiritual, at the hands of the wrathful savior must be truly terrifying, I’d like to take a moment to stick up for Senator Biden.
I’m not a fan of the guy’s politics. I agree with Joe Biden on…well…I kind of like the Delaware Blue Hens, so there is that. However, I would not argue that Biden is a bad guy. The problem is, that is what is getting him in trouble now.
You see, when in doubt, Biden has a tendency to tell the truth, regardless of the talking points. He also seems to have a core of basic moral decency. As a result, when he thinks that an attack is unfair, he says so. When he knows that their administration would not allow clean coal technology to proceed, he strays from the talking points and says so. That’s why he is in trouble.
Joe Biden is simply not an evil guy. For Barack Obama, that is simply not good enough.
Barack Obama and his associates identify themselves as progressives, the agents of progress. Let’s examine that claim.
Insomuch as we can determine the broad trends of history, the narrative of humanity since the time of the American Revolution has been one of individuals gradually acquiring greater control of their own lives. Since the outbreak of World War II, free people somewhere have been in continuous struggle with the forces of reactionary despotism, against Hitlers and Mussolinis, Lenins and Stalins, Pol Pots and Mao Zedongs. From the Ghetto of Warsaw to the slaveships of Magadan to the caves of Tora Bora, slowly but surely humanity has pushed back against those who have sought to deny their brothers free will. The forces of despotism are far from defeated. The heirs of Chairman Mao no longer seek to turn day into night and to starve their people in the service of abstract theory, but they still rule over their nation with a firm if slipping grip. Kim Jong Il still tramples his people and threatens free Korea. The Iranian revolution blazes on, warping the tenants of religion to justify the murder of innocents. Vladimir Putin tries to reconstruct a hollow echo of the Soviet Empire that once held the world in awe and terror. And al Qaeda still lurks, having lost the battle for the hearts and souls of the Arab world in the deserts of Iraq, seeking nothing now but body counts and press coverage.
These forces survive, but they are all fading. They are on the wrong side of history, and nothing and no person, no matter how clever, can change that.
Barack Obama is also on the wrong side of history. Obama promises the American people less control over their lives than the presently enjoy. He promises to raise personal taxes, taking control from individuals as to how their money is used.* He promises to raise corporate taxes, meaning less jobs and opportunities. He promises more regulations. He promises more federal control over health care. Schools. He promises to control the nation’s youth with his forced volunteerism program. He promises to be your keeper.
How about FISA? The USA PATRIOT ACT? Don’t hear much about repealing those, do you? Obama is not the type to give up power once he has acquired it, or hopes to acquire it. It’s much easier to remake our souls, as Michelle Obama has suggested, if you have the coercive power to do it.
History is trending toward greater freedom for the individual, not less. We are living in a golden age of expression and opportunity, which, if you are reading the words of this author, a nobody who scribbles off posting in his free time, you should already recognize. Here, in America, we have achieved a level of freedom and opportunity such as the world has never known. Some people are very threatened by this.
Why do you think that the agents of reaction in this world, the Daniel Ortegas, the Hugo Chaves’, the Qadaffis, the Ahmadinejads, to a man, are for Obama? Are they on your side? Do they want people to have more freedom, or less? If Obama is an agent of progress, why do these relics of the past support him?
Because they see in him a kindred spirit, a man dedicated to slown the march of real progress, of human liberty, and believe that he will join them in pushing back against the liberties of the great mass of people.
Obama promises to turn back the clock, to derail the train of progress. He promises to return us to a time of less personal control, less opportunity, and less individual liberty. Obama does not represent change, and progress still less. Obama is a reactionary.
*Obama’s claim that he will give tax cuts to the lower 95% and raise taxes on the top 5% is bunk. What do you think the rich will do when their taxes go up? They didn’t get rich by being stupid (or, if they did, they have enough money to hire smart people to keep them rich). They will hide their money, make less, or ship it overseas, and tax revenues will fall. Then what do you think will happen? Where do you reckon all that money for all of these new social welfare programs (health care, etc.) will come from? If you answered “me,” you get a prize! Well, I would give you one, but I need my money to pay my new taxes. And I don’t make 250K a year.
The response of the two Presidential candidates last week during the fallout from the Fannie Mae/Freddie Mac crisis should illustrate to undecided voters why Obama is dangerously inexperienced, shows amazingly poor judgment and is unfit to be President.
In the wake of the implosion of Lehman Brothers and AIG, Treasury Secretary Paulson declared “adult swim” in the financial markets, and Barack Obama, Harry Reid, and Nancy Pelosi obediently jumped out of the pool. John McCain, Sarah Palin, and Joe Biden, however, showed that they were responsible statesmen and continued doing the people’s work. Let’s review:
Barack Obama: declares the crisis as equivalent to the Great Depression (how does that show steady leadership?), voted present on the bailout plan, met with his financial advisors and determined that he had no plan of his own worth offering.
John McCain: attempted to calm market panic (and was criticized by Obama for it), offered his critique of the Paulson plan (refusing to blindly follow) and offered his own ideas.
Obama’s surrogates in the media are trying to portray his cringing befuddlement as a calm and measured reaction. That is bull. Imagine a great leader in that situation. What would FDR do? FDR told us that we have nothing to fear but fear itself, he calmed people down, he did not stir them up. Same with JFK. Lincoln. TR. Reagan.
Obama responded like other leaders. Carter. Hoover. Buchanan. He ran away and hid.
Obama failed, and failed mightily. He is an embarrassment to the country, to his party, and to our people.
Credit to the Bigg Nugg for the “Adult Swim” analogy. The opinions represented above and any errors contained therin are responsibility of the author alone.
…even if it sometimes takes 40 years: http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-oe-radosh17-2008sep17,0,490961.story
Interestingly, one of the Rosenberg apologists cited in this article is radical historian Eric Foner, expert on Reconstruction, buddy of Bill Ayres, and running dog of Barack Obama.
Even more telling, in a way, than Obama’s friendship with radicals and anti-Americans is the near-unanimous support he receives in radical and anti-American circles.
Make of that what you will.
Pundits and talking heads, Republicans included, have been at a loss to offer a convincing explanation of the reason that Sarah Palin’s Vice Presidential nomination has so electrified a wide range of Republican factional constituencies. Left wing media commentators have generally fallen back on interpreting Palin as a base pick to appeal to religious conservatives, while old school conservative commentators like William Kristol, Charles Krauthammer and Peggy Noonan, along with a number of Alaska Republican friends of aspiring felons Ted Stevens and Frank Murkowski, have been puzzled by Palin’s popularity. These commentators miss the point. Sarah Palin’s popularity is founded not on her religious conservatism but on her ability to represent an older and more powerful political tradition in the GOP: that of the Rough Rider Republican.
Political commentators of both parties tend to analyze the parties as homogenous blocs (“the base’), or, among the more sophisticated, as groupings of ideological factions. However, parties are more complex than this. Groupings exist within each party of constituencies that are defined as much by political culture as ideology, and these political cultures exist across ideological and demographic lines. The reason that Sarah Palin is able to elicit excitement across such a broad swath of the Republican (and Independent) electorate is that she appeals strongly to the Rough Rider political culture that has existed in the party before the Presidency of Theodore Roosevelt, though it is most commonly associated with him.
Rough Rider Republicans are not defined by strict adherence to an all-encompassing ideology, but on a populist approach to politics that stresses the need to reform government to limit the influence of business and other interests upon it. This does not mean that they are anti-business. Rather, they are anti-malfeasance. Just like Theodore Roosevelt was able and willing to work closely with most business interests to promote economic growth while simultaneously engaging in trust-busting, Sarah Palin’s record in Alaska has been largely defined by her willingness to work closely with the oil and natural gas industry while at the same time limiting their influence with the Alaska government and stopping projects that she has felt were unfair to the state. Indeed, in the way she has approached government in Alaska, Palin has been almost the definition of a Rough Rider Republican. Rough Riders are:
- Populist.
- Nationalist.
- Reformist.
- Hate political machines.
- Pro-business.
- Anti-corruption.
- Have a romantic, but highly partisan, view of politics.
- Particularly hostile to corruption in own party.
- Believe in reform from within the system.
While these principles do not constitute a consistent worldview (by nature it is rather subjective), it likewise is not irreconcilable with other ideologies. For example, a Rough Rider can appeal to religious conservatives not because they have introduced policies religious conservatives favor (indeed, Governor Palin vetoed a ban on same sex benefits on state employees, and favors having popular referendum on abortion policies if Roe vs. Wade were to be overturned), but because religious conservatives are sympathetic to clean government initiatives and hostile to elites and political machines, and are receptive to the Rough Rider’s vision of political reform as a moral struggle.
Rough Rider political culture is nothing new in the Republican Party. While Theodore Roosevelt is the classic example of this approach to politics, aspects of it are also powerful in the careers of Abraham Lincoln, both Robert LaFollettes, and Ronald Reagan. However, it is a tradition that has tended to recede into the background during long periods of Republican administration, only to reappear suddenly as the party becomes more comfortable as the party of power. This has certainly been the case this year.
Palin represents the newest iteration of this political culture. While religious conservatism is a powerful force in Palin’s personal life, her policies as a public official have been more defined by civil libertarianism than by religious conservatism, as evidenced in the same-sex benefits veto. Indeed, many Alaska Republicans (allies of the Stevens machine, mostly) have been all over the airwaves denigrating her conservative credentials. The Republican old guard, columnists like Charles Krauthammer and Peggy Noonan have likewise been lukewarm. Like Mark Hannah, they worry whether McCain might ruin the party by putting “that damned cowboy” so close to the Presidency. They are right to be afraid, because Rough Riders by definition do not defer to the old guard.
If the elite interpretation of Sarah Palin were correct, I for one should be seriously off put by her. After all, I am generally socially liberal (pro-choice, think gay marriage should be decided by states, etc.) and have little on common ideologically with religious conservatives aside from the conviction that the United States is the only true hope for human progress. Yet I have been excited about Sarah Palin since I heard about her defeat of Murkowski, and have been openly rooting for her candidacy. Why? Because her Rough Rider message speaks to me more powerfully than any ideological differences we may have. For me, the primary difference between Republicans and Democrats is that Republicans stand up to authority, while Democrats crave more of it. I want more Republicans willing to take on the establishment, even if that establishment is Republican. Republicans of all ideological stripes are sick of leaders enthralled to interests, and hungry for leaders who, to paraphrase Mark Hannah’s complaint about Teddy Roosevelt, “won’t stay bought.” When we hear our leaders speak, we want to walk away hearing the Battle Hymn of the Republic, our party’s anthem, in our ears. We want bold leaders, brave leaders, and independent leaders. Sarah Palin, the next Teddy Roosevelt, gives us all of that, as well as confidence in the future.
It looks like Barack Obama and Joe Biden are following John McCain’s lead and are opening the possibility of launching into a civil, honest, and serious discussion about serious issues.
Biden was the first Democratic leader to take note of the obvious yesterday, and to offer the hand of civility:
“I just think some of the stuff said has been over the top, totally unfair, and has been sexist and I think the way the governor has handled it has been admirable,” the Delaware senator said on ABC’s “Good Morning America.” “I think this stuff about how can she be a governor and vice president and raise three kids, c’mon, whoever those folks are don’t know any strong women.”
Good for Joe Biden! I have been pretty harsh on him, which I don’t feel the need to retract. But I do think that the guy does have basic empathy, and I believe that it is the reason he has sustained his tenure in Washington as long as he has. You have to respect that, even if you think the guy is best suited to the office he currently occupies.
Barack Obama also sent a positive signal yesterday, finally acknowledging that the surge worked. “I think that the surge has succeeded in ways that nobody anticipated,” though he still refused to retract his opposition to it. Still, it is a move toward a fact-based approach to debate on his part, which is the critical factor if we are to have an honest and valuable debate this fall. Obama also extended an olive leaf to Governor Palin: “I’ll let Governor Palin talk about her experience, I’ll talk about mine.”
Of course, the cynic in me believes that the impetus for this newfound commitment to issues to be closely related to political calculation, specifically the calculation by Obama and Biden that neither of them are as capable of hurting McCain and Palin the way that Palin tore them up on Wednesday. If so, it is a smart calculation, because neither of them seem likely to win a knife fight against the Alaska Governor, and a wonkish debate seems their only hope of neutralizing her. Even if this is true, however, Biden and Obama still deserve credit.
I say we all answer John McCain’s original call for a debate on the issues. If this election is going to hinge on plans for the future, we are going to win.
Jonathan Alter proves why he gets paid the big bucks with his withering insight. Writing about Sarah Palin, Alter wonders “whether her real-life experience is any preparation for assuming high office.”
The answer, Mr. Alter, is yes. Real life experience is indeed the best preparation for assuming high office, even better than inexperience or the fake experience of his preferred candidate.
The New York Times, on the other hand, gives us reason to wonder if they are second guessing which Presidential candidate is the messiah:
“Among those mingling over cocktails and fine French food with Mr. McCain and his wife, Cindy, were Tom Brokaw, Peter Jennings, Bob Schieffer, Maureen Dowd, Tim Russert [!!!!!]— “our people,” as an old campaign hand reminisced on Wednesday.
Here is the screen capture if they scrub it:
Would but this were true! Russert’s absence has been sorely missed in this election cycle, as his willingness to pitch up and in on Democrats and Republicans alike was a testament to his character and integrity.
Nice fact checking, multicolored lady.
