I am spending the weekend with my brother Scott and we are having a lot of interesting discussions. One of his questions has been, “will this pick help McCain?” What is the long-term strategic implication. Some on the left are saying that this pick clinches the presidency for O.
I for one don’t think that is an easy question to answer. I think the “one heartbeat from the presidency mantra” is going to have to be effectively countered by the campaign or it could bite.
But one thing is for sure…the republican base is EXTREMELY energized by her pick.
Here is a great article summing up the response from the base:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/politico/20080831/pl_politico/13016;_ylt=AqEGF41O6SV.RWPx2.cf061h24cA
This is good news.
Seth
Ross Douthat deconstructs Obama’s speech nicely:
But from where I sit, to the right of the political center, Obama the generic Democrat is a big disappointment. He started this campaign with two promises: That he’d tell us what we needed to hear, rather than what we wanted to heart, and that he wouldn’t be captive to the old left-right divide in American politics. But there were no tough choices presented in last night’s speech, no hard truths told. There was just the promise that we can have it all: Energy independence (within ten years, no less!), universal health care, an army of new teachers, tax cuts for the middle class, the working class, and the upper-middle class, zero capital gains taxes on small business owners, a perpetually solvent safety net, plus a dose of protectionism - and all of it paid for by (unspecified) spending cuts, and tax hikes on just five percent of America. Meanwhile, the speech’s concessions to conservatism were largely pro forma - an acknowledgment that fathers matter, that programs can’t solve every problem, and that government “can’t turn off the television and make a child do her homework” - and its proposals for common ground (reduce unwanted pregnancies, keep AK-47s out of the hands of gang members, etc.) were equally thin.
My brother argued with me earlier today in a discussion that Obama is really a Moderate in Liberal clothing. He suggested this despite his voting record, his rhetoric and his writing. But Douthat in his post points to this comment by John Cohn which suggests otherwise:
Indeed. I was (not unpleasantly) surprised by the boldness of Obama’s proposals and the degree to which his campaign–and Democrats more generally–feel that they are free to move sharply to the left on economic issues and the role of government. As the speech wore on, Obama talked more about personal responsibility, but his fundamental message on the necessary role of the state in providing for its citizens struck me as remarkably bold, and rhetorically distinct from the Clinton years…
…Which leads me to a related point: I imagine this speech was frusturating for conservatives. All of Obama’s moves to the center were symbolic, while the policies he actually outlined were decidedly liberal.
(Emphasis mine)
Steve
Sullivan says,
She named two daughters after television witches, and smoked pot when it was legal in Alaska, and inhaled. She’s also very gay-friendly. It makes me like her. I’m not so sure how the most devout in the base will respond. Her Down Syndrome baby will help, I’m sure - and her decision to bring him into the world is a beautiful, beautiful thing.
I totally totally agree. I do think its a huge gamble, probably more slot-machine than blackjack, but it could pay off. Since I have a son with Down Syndrome, I just can’t wait to see this mom of a Down Syndrome baby (and maybe the baby himself) on the national stage.
Scott
Peggy Noonan has some good insights on the speech. I think her conclusion is right:
Mr. Obama left a lot of space for Mr. McCain to play the happy warrior next week. He left the Republicans a big opportunity to wield against him, in contrast, humor, and wit, and even something approximating joy.
Steve
Andrew Sullivan finishes this blog post with this paragraph:
I’d like to support a conservative not beholden to the religious right, not indifferent to fiscal degeneracy, respectful of the constitution, hostile to torture, tough with foreign enemies but eager for new and old allies, and intent on making government smaller and leaner and more effective. Such a conservative is not available, and unless the GOP is reformed root and branch by a new generation, there won’t be one available for a long while.
I agree on all points. He is describing Barry Goldwater Republicanism. And I agree that the Republican party needs reform, “root and branch”. Which is why Sullivan’s support of Obama is puzzling? I suppose that he has made the social issues, which should be tangential but are important to him personally, trump the need for a focused, disciplined, lean and constrained government.
This is the kind of government that Bush could have created. But he squandered the opportunity and, because of that, we have a big chance of having both the legislative and executive branches of government controlled by big government progressives who will bankrupt future generations with programs that would be difficult or impossible to unwind. I blame Bush.
Steve
The name of this post is also the name of this blog which hilariously
details the “cult of personality” issue that I described in my earlier posts. I expect that it will be easy to identify Obama supporter’s come the November election by their shaved heads and flowing robes. Which should make the exit polls easier, “Oh yeah, shaved head… Obama”. Here are a few highlights:
All this slavish devotion would be hilarious if it wasn’t so creepy. Actually, it is hilarious. And creepy.
Go to the blog and read the whole thing. The pictures are really what make it so great.
On the other hand, McCain said the following in February:
I do not seek the presidency on the presumption that I am blessed with such personal greatness that history has anointed me to save my country in its hour of need.
I’ll go with that!
Steve
There is another great post from George Will out today in the Washington Post. Click here to read it.
Here is my favorite paragraph which pretty much sums up the article:
Obama’s rhetorical extravagances are inversely proportional to his details, as when he promises “nothing less than a complete transformation of our economy” in order to “end the age of oil.” The diminished enthusiasm of some voters hitherto receptive to his appeals might have something to do with the seepage of reality from his rhetoric. Voters understand that neither the “transformation” nor the “end” will or should occur. His dreamy certitude that “alternative” fuels will quickly become real alternatives is an energy policy akin to an old vaudeville joke: “If we had some eggs, we could have ham and eggs, if we had some ham.”
Enjoy reading.
Seth
These are all stupid ideas and policies that are widely believed are a good thing by politicians and the populace at large:
- Living Wage and Minimum Wage Legislation
- Rent Control Legislation
- Anti-price gouging legislation
- Union negotiated teacher pay scales
- Farm price supports and subsidies
Question for you readers. All of the above have the same fatal flaw. What is it?
Steve
There’s no question that if you judge the candidates on their actual lives, rather than mythologies, the Obamas are extremely mainstream and conservative. Married for life, great parents, very humble beginnings, driven meritocrats. No divorce or adultery - and regular religious attendance and faith. And yet they are tagged as elitists and radicals. Yes, they’re liberals in policy, although not radically so. But they’re conservatives in their lives.
LINK
George Will has this wonderful column on the Wishful Economics of Obama and progressives. Money quote:
Regarding taxes, Obama says that “we don’t want to return to marginal rates of 60 or 70 percent.” The top federal rate was 70 percent until the Reagan cuts of 1981. It has since ranged between 50 in 1982 and today’s 35. Obama promises that expiration of the Bush tax cuts will restore the 39.6 percent rate. He also favors a payroll tax of up to 4 percent on earnings above $250,000 (today, only the first $102,000 is taxed), most of which also are subject to the highest state income tax rates. When the top federal rate was set at 28 percent under Reagan, payroll taxes were not levied on income over $42,000, so the top effective rate of combined taxes was under 35 percent. Obama’s policies would bring it to the mid-50s for many Americans, close to the 60 percent Obama considers excessive.
There never is a shortage of nonsensical political rhetoric, but really: Has there ever been solemn silliness comparable to today’s politicians tarting up their agendas as things designed for, and necessary to, “saving the planet,” and promising edicts to “require” entire industries to reorder themselves?
In 1996, Bob Dole, citing the Clinton campaign’s scabrous fundraising, exclaimed: “Where’s the outrage?” In this year’s campaign, soggy with environmental messianism, deranged self-importance and delusional economics, the question is: Where is the derisive laughter?
Steve
Dear Scott,
I am sorry to hear that I have made you angry. I want you to know that I love you and appreciate the passion you have for this election and for Obama. I would never let politics divide us or diminish our love for one another.
Having said that, I must confess my own frustration (though not anger) at your pro-Obama posts here at Fat Triplets. You have said that I am “not cutting Obama a break at all and as far as I can tell you’re giving McCain a pass.” And yet I posted a link to John Mark Reynolds Five Things to Like About Obama and agreed with the list although confessing to be more cynical about one or two. I have also been hard on McCain. As a reminder, I said this:
In addition, I don’t love McCain (although he is growing on me). I detest McCain-Feingold. M-F is a vastly more intrusive sacrifice of our civil liberties than anything Bush did. I don’t like Lieberman-McCain, either. And yeah, McCain has this apple pie, patriotic swagger that bugs me. I hate the banner “Country First” at the top of his website. His rhetoric, over the years, has often seemed geared to wanting to restore American pride in Government through his National Greatness conservatism (link). I don’t approve that message.
In the same post I conceded that the war in Iraq was morally problematic and that I would be glad to see Bush go.
So in light of that, I have a question for you? Can you point out to me a similar concession? I know you made this post. So you admit that subsidizing abortion may increase the number of abortions. How about a loud and categorical repudiation of Obama’s stance on abortion. How about this? “While appreciating his desire to institute policies that will reduce the need for abortion, I utterly detest Obama’s support of abortion. Abortion is a heinous abomination and violation of our most sacred human right, the right to life. And his support of taxpayer supported abortions is an egregious violation of the consciences of millions of Americans who consider abortion to be morally reprehensible.”
In addition, while I appreciate your acknowledgment of Obama’s mercurial politicking and flip-flopping in the comments of the post, you fault me for not holding McCain to the same standard. Although, as you acknowledge, I have been critical of McCain, it is true that I have not criticized him specifically about this issue. I may be wrong, but my impression is that McCain has not been as guilty or as flagrant of the sort of “tailoring the message” politicking as Obama. Obama is a populist on trade when talking to unions and blue collar auto workers. He may be, in fact, a reasonably principled free-trade proponent. But his rhetoric has been uprincipled, dishonest and unreasonable. In my circles, integrity is living and speaking according to your principles. By that definition, Obama has problems. I don’t see it as much from the McCain campaign.
You have stated that for you, this election is about Bush. This is a mistake. Bush is not running for President and McCain is not his proxy. This election is about ideas and, although I appreciate that Obama is an intelligent, thoughtful and caring candidate, his solutions and rhetoric frequently run counter to the values that made this country great.
You have stated that you fear that McCain would start WWIII. As I have made clear, I am not a fan of the sabre rattling, National Greatness conservatism of McCain. But I, for two reasons, do not worry that McCain would lead us into war. First, McCain would have no ability to fund a war. The Democratic house and senate that he will have to work with would never approve or fund a war unless the United States was in imminent danger. The second reason is that the American people would never allow it. We, the people, are weary and wary of war. McCain’s self interest runs against war. He wants to leave a positive legacy and he will want to get re-elected.
In contrast, Obama would inherit a house and senate that would probably rubber-stamp anything he wanted. I have said previously, and I mean it, that I could be open to supporting Obama as President but for the President’s ability to nominate SCOTUS justices and, of critical importance, Obama’s inheritance of a Democratically controlled House and Senate.
I fear an Obama President not because he is evil or has evil intentions but because the legislative branch would hand him a blank check signed by congress and paid for by the American Taxpayer. What would he do with that check? I don’t know. I don’t know who the real Obama is. His resume is thin. Even if you believe Obama’s rhetoric about “Change” and a different kind of leadership, what are the incentives that he would face to govern from the center? None that I can think of. Both his record and his rhetoric are consistently progressive and leftist. I believe that Obama would seek to shape the country in a direction in which government is the solution to most of our problems.
Lastly, I surmise from your comment that you have taken offense at my use of the term that you have “drunk the cool-aid”. The term, as I am sure you are aware, refers to the mass suicide of over 900 followers of the Jim Jones’ communist cult, the Peoples Temple, in Guyana in 1978. I do not just use the term for people that disagree with me or about Obama supporters generally. I use the term to describe a support that seems to be driven by the cult of personality rather than a commitment to an ideological or political agenda. Much of your support of Obama has the smell of the cult of personality. Certainly, Obama, cannot win on the weight his ideology. He truly is outside the mainstream of political thought in the US. I suspect that he is outside of the mainstream of your political thought given that you disparaged his leftist agenda. Obama will win by building the perception that he is a larger than life personality, that he is a great man in the vain of FDR and JFK. His political skill and gifts, even his strategy, seem geared toward building a message around personality rather than ideas. Many of your posts do the same. In summary, I will be friendlier in the future, on your posts that point out more than just how pretty the packaging is and are willing to explore what’s inside.
Remember that I care for you.
Your devoted and loving brother,
Steve
I really liked this interview by the Wall Street Journal of Pastor Rick Warren. I am surprised by his clear orthodoxy, political insights and his economic wisdom. Here are a few samples:
On how he is different from Dobson:
“It’s a matter of tone”.
In addition, I would argue that Warren is more apolitical and less of an idealogue since the article makes it clear that he will not publicly endorse a candidate. Dobson, who has marginalized himself with vast swaths of the American public, could not have pulled off the “Forum” for practical and ideological reasons.
On the two candidates approach to government:
…”totally opposite.” “McCain is more of a limited government guy and Obama sees government as the solution to major problems in society.”
On religious people and social problems:
The media assume that when religious people express interest in the problems of poverty and disease, they must have taken a left turn politically. But one can be interested in solving such problems without believing that government is the solution. “Our government has spent trillions of dollars in Africa,” says Mr. Warren, “and the standard of living is worse now than it was 50 years ago.”
On teaching men to fish:
Mr. Warren says that is “not good enough.” He explains, “If all you do is teach a guy to fish, you create a village of fishermen and everybody does the same thing. They all catch the same fish. They all sit on the side of the road. They all sell the same fish. The same fish rots. They go home and they never get above subsistence level.”
As if channeling Adam Smith, Mr. Warren continues, “You have to develop a complex economy, where one says I’ll make the hooks, I’ll catch the fish, I’ll can the fish, I’ll skin the fish, I’ll fry the fish, I’ll do the fish accounting, I’ll build the boats. I’ll franchise the fish markets. The answer to poverty is business development, not charity. . . . Trade, not aid.”
Wow.
The whole article is a quick read and well worth the effort.
Steve
Ive decided to make today “Lighthearted Friday”
Here’s some funnage from Woot.
10 Things To Look For At The Olympic Closing Ceremony
- 200,000 pizzas sent to “Chinese Taipei”
- Ceremonial lighting of the Tibetan monk
- Entire crowd replaced by more photogenic stand-ins
- New technology allows the “completely live” fireworks display to run backward
- Everyone looks under their seat to find a gift bag containing a DVD copy of Watchmen, one of those cans of Coke in a different language, and a female child
- Numerous mistakes by Chinese dancers (but no points deducted by judges)
- Bela Karolyi given Andy Rooney’s old spot on 60 Minutes
- One more silver medal awarded to Shawn Johnson, just to rub it in
- Olympic hostesses return to their docking stations and power down
- Everyone leaves satisfied but then somehow want another Olympics about fifteen minutes later
And Oh Yeah. Please forgive me bro.
When asked what he hopes the American people will take from his choice of VP, he said this -
Hopefully, the same thing that my campaign has told the American people about me. That I think through big decisions. I get a lot of input from a lot of people, and that ultimately, I try to surround myself with people who are about getting the job done, and who are not about ego, self-aggrandizement, getting their names in the press, but our focus on what’s best for the American people.
I think people will see that I’m not afraid to have folks around me who complement my strengths and who are independent. I’m not a believer in a government of yes-men. I think one of the failures of the early Bush Administration was being surrounded by people who were unwilling to deliver bad news, or who were prone to simply feed the president information that confirmed his own preconceptions.
I love that answer.
Scott