Obama wins/McCain wins
If Obama wins, I think most McCain supporters will accept the verdict, and do what they can to make sure their country presses ahead, restores fiscal sanity, and remains strong in a dangerous world—and thus would wish a President Obama, as our shared commander-in-chief, all the best. Once I wrote a Wall Street Journal op-ed supporting Bill Clinton’s foreign policy, despite not voting for him, and was duly impressed with his welfare reform and the surplus that emerged during his presidency.
I know I would do all I could to make sure Obama’s America remains preeminent and that he is successful in running the country. I surely do not think Obama would be as experienced as McCain, and his past disturbs me in no small way; but I think he would be surrounded by a few former Clintonite centrists. Conditions on the ground, both in Iraq, and on Wall Street, would mean that his range of options would be far more limited than his utopian campaign rhetoric suggests—and that the republic would survive fine. He may wish to spend a trillion dollars on more entitlements; but his trillion has already been pledged to make up bad debt, and even he will think twice of raising taxes too high in times of uncertainty.
But is the reverse true?
Given the hysteria, I worry that there is a large group of Obama supporters, who, should he lose, will become unhinged. We see that already with the vitriol against Bush voiced daily on the Huffington Post, the Daily Kos, and MSNBC, which led in naturally to the Palin hysteria and the insurgency tactics against McCain.
We suffer still from the sorry legacy of 1960s guerrilla theater, in which a San Francisco now ponders naming a sewage plant after George Bush, or a Sarah Bernhardt talks of her friends raping Sarah Palin. Again, there was some of this on the right in the 1950s and 1960s, but figures like William F. Buckley took on the John Birch Society, the neo-Confederate/Lost Causers, and the Klan, and they were pruned away from the fringes of the conservative movement.
In contrast, a Michael Moore, Cindy Sheehan, Daily Kos, Air America, Huffington Post, and Moveon.org that all have engaged in smears and slanders have not been marginalized by the Democratic Party or the liberal mainstream. And that is why on any given day one can read the truly outrageous on these blogs, or see a NY Times discounted ad by Moveon.org about “General Betray Us”; or hear that Atlantic Magazine has a problem with a nut photographer, in pornographic fashion, photo-shopping outtakes from her McCain cover shoots, or the son of a Democratic legislator hacking Palin’s email.
The problem is that the ’60s notion of utopian ends justifying crude means is still deeply embedded with the activist wing of the Democratic Party—a boil that has never been lanced. The Nation Magazine may be the flip-side of Rush Limbaugh. Fine. Both advance strongly-held views within certain acceptable parameters. And for every cruel Borking there was also a Clinton-hatred of the 1990s that went way overboard. But again, something has now changed in this campaign cycle, and there is nothing now on the right to quite match the Wild-West crudity of what we’ve seen from the hard left in this election.
Joe Biden’s Great Depression
Most once shared the following feelings about Biden: he will say anything; we will forgive him for anything; he remains a likable Joe, despite streaks of meanness and pomposity.
But such exemption has limits, and, by general consensus, he has now sadly crossed them.
In only a day he all but said that McCain took a $50,000 bribe. He claimed that the AIG bailout was bad, then flipped. He yelled out that we don’t need to burn coal (half our electricity is produced by coal, a fuel, for now, essential to power plug-in electric cars to come); he (or his campaign) suddenly retracted/nullified his apology about the dirty McCain immigration/Limbaugh ad. And then he blurted out that FDR went on television as president in 1929 to address the nation after the stock market crash (after prefacing that remark with pompous statements that leaders must know what they’re talking about). His description of being forced down in Afghanistan by weather sounded as melodramatic as Hillary’s Balkans’ moment.
Same old, same old…
More of the same: Palin was “good looking” and “Lt. Governor” of Alaska. Hillary, he confessed, was the better VP pick than himself. Be patriotic and pay higher taxes—all this evokes his primary remarks about Indians in donut shops, and “bright and clean” blacks. In all this we are reminded constantly of why and how he once plagiarized and fabricated his bio.
Palin as Biden?
Two observations: had Palin done this, she’d be through and the election over; second, something is very wrong with Joe Biden. These are no longer slips, but signs of erratic behavior that raises for the Obama campaign real worries about his competence for the job. We may worry whether being governor of Alaska for two years is the proper prerequisite for the office of VP, but we fret more about a Vice President candidate who issues daily sweeping statements that are either not true, must be retracted within hours, offensive, or simply scary. The truth is, despite media bias, the real VP worry is Biden and always was.
We knew that he did this sort of thing serially as a Senator (his posturing at public hearings was painful to watch). But suddenly he is elevated to national media exposure, and he seems absolutely incapable of self-control. (Note: I don’t buy into conspiracy theory that all this is scripted to allow Biden to leave the ticket and usher in Hillary—as some have suggested).
And then there is Chris Dodd
This is called gumption: He is the Chairman of the Senate Banking Committee. He took $165,000 from Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, and for years resisted more oversight of both those now bankrupt entities. He got discounted mortgages from the now melted-down and bought-out Countrywide financial institution. And? Yesterday he was pontificating about the greed and the need for “oversight,” and his zest to guard the public trust. A screenwriter could not have come up with such a script.
Cui malo?
Whose fault is the Wall Street implosion? On the one hand, conservatives did encourage a sort of hands off attitude in which whatever is technically legal in the world of finance is ethically OK. On the other hand, the Democrats practiced a sort of mortgage affirmative action, turning a blind eye to Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae on the pretext on helping “first-time” buyers, minorities and the poor, when in fact their concern was more cronyism and lavish campaign donations. Here is a quote from Barnie Frank in 2003 from the New York Times:
”These two entities — Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac — are not facing any kind of financial crisis,” said Representative Barney Frank of Massachusetts, the ranking Democrat on the Financial Services Committee. ”The more people exaggerate these problems, the more pressure there is on these companies, the less we will see in terms of affordable housing.”
Like it or not, we are at an impasse where all sides are dirty, and there are no good choices. The medicine of trillion-dollar bailout guarantees is nearly (but not quite) as bad as the disease of mortgage meltdowns. And remember, we, the American people, are not quite innocent. We voted for the present politicians; we have created a culture where there is apparently little stigma in walking away from a house with zero equity, or defaulting on credit card debt. In the last 20 years, there arose a sort of thinking that a Wall Street operator is less than capable when he gets our 401(ks) a good 5% rather than a sky-high 15%. Blame is due all the way around.
The only blue sky? This may sober up the American people. The shock may force McCain to drop talk about more tax cuts, and Obama to jettison more spending, and instead create a consensus for a balanced budget and fiscal restraint, while reminding Americans that if Wall Street hype seems to good to be true, it is. We need to get back to honoring construction, agriculture, mining, engineering, manufacturing, and energy development as the muscular source of our wealth, and cease idolizing those who created fortunes out of hedge funds, derivatives, subprime mortgages and mergers, take-outs and buy-outs. The ruthlessness of the latter may make capitalism competitive and efficient, but the former is what makes life itself go on.
Ayers—so what?
The Obama defense seems to be something like, ‘Do you really think Barack Obama shares Ayers’ terrorist views?’
Of course not. But the issue is still important for four other considerations.
1) Bad judgment. One does not share fora with, and seek help from, an unrepentant terrorist. Period. That is simply stupid, however helpful it may have once been to jumpstart a Chicago political career.
2) Crackpot ideas about education. Ayers’ philosophy about education is puerile, teen-age utopianism— salute the world flag, downplay the US, focus on race/class/gender relativism and oppression rather than Western Civ and basic education. If we were worried about Obama’s clumsy past calls for more “oppression studies” and “reparations”, then we can see the font of all this nonsense in the years spent with Ayers at the Chicago Annenberg Challenge.
3) Lack of honesty. The Obama narrative is that he scarcely knew Ayers who is now supposedly a mainstream distinguished professor. But each week, we learn that, in fact, Obama once served closely with him, helped him dispense millions of dollars to suspect community organizations, and may have known him during his years in New York. Why the silence? Simply explain the relationship and answer questions.
4) Is this “community organizing?” Is this how it works: left-wing organizers hear about a right-wing capitalist who gave hundreds of millions to help education; so they form an agency to snare millions; then pack it with ideologues in order to dispense lucre to cronies and friends in Chicago of questionable skills and more dubious ideologies. The result is a lot of money for insider organizers and activists, but no positive effect at all on the educational levels of at-risk Chicago school children. We know that intensive languages, math, science, and emphasis on history and literature alone improve literacy and knowledge. Neglect of that core in favor of the therapeutic “they did terrible things to me” classes achieve the opposite effect. Would an Obama presidency further the ideology of the Chicago Annenberg Challenge—his first and only brush with executive experience?
So I agree with Obama that he doesn’t share Ayers’ anti-American, pro-terrorist views, but I want him to allay the above anxieties.
Another Press Watch—Another Distortion
From time to time I reply to erroneous press accounts (could be a full-time job), the last from the Monterey Herald. Today in the Los Angeles Times, in a review of a new book on Dick Cheney by a Barton Gellman, the reviewer Tim Rutten writes falsehood:
Another of the details Gellman teases out is Cheney’s propensity for seeking private advice from the conservative fringe. The night after the Senate debate over authorizing force against Iraq, the vice president asked conservative military historian Victor Davis Hanson to address a small dinner salon at his official residence. The topic was to be “the roles of leaders in unpopular wars.” A specialist on the ancient Greeks, Hanson “cited Hellenic philosophy. War was ‘innate to civilizations,’ a terrible thing, but not necessarily unjust. Citizens often faltered, putting leaders to the test.”
Laugh or Cry?
1. Note the quotation marks. Does Rutman really think Gellman has a transcript of the paragraph “the roles of … to the test.”?—as if that is a direct quote from me?
“Teases out” and “Conservative fringe” instead give away the game. At the time in question, I was teaching at the nearby Naval Academy and as now a registered Democrat. Is that the “fringe?” So what does the euphemism “teases out” mean–an on-the-record interview, a written source, collaboration from named sources? Or what we suspect instead—innuendo, creepy hearsay, and lazy internet third-hand googling as part of the usual trash Cheney topos?
2. “Address a dinner salon”. I was asked to go to a dinner in which a television newsman, another columnist, a diplomat, and two members of the Vice President’s staff had a round-table discussion concerning the United Nations and its authorization of the Iraq war. (I respect their privacy; and so their names and conversations of some 6 years ago will remain private).
3. UN. I suggested that going to the UN as was planned was wise and essential, but that it might not lead to authorization given the French and Russian positions; and that one then, without a formal UN resolution, would have to follow and incorporate the Congress’s own 23-point resolution to convince the American people to go to war—and to expect hysteria immediately if the war went sour, since many who were for it, would not soon be if perceptions of victory changed. Nothing since then has convinced me that advice (given in five minutes along with others’ input) was either wrong or short-sighted.
4. War is, of course, a terrible thing. And as Martin van Creveld just noted in his new The Culture of War, it seems to be “innate to civilizations.” And as World War II showed, it really is sometimes “not necessarily unjust.” And leaders like Lincoln often, in fact, are put to the test, when citizens abruptly (read Thucydides Book 2 on Pericles, or cf. the landscape of the Bush’s surge) suddenly blame their politicians for enacting the policies that they once endorsed. All that said, the discussion was not led by me; the topic was not “Hellenic philosophy”, but rather the dilemma of translating House and Senate approval of removing Saddam to international approval via the UN, during a period of then bipartisan consensus and satisfaction with the prior removal of the Taliban.
5. The Vice President was hardly zealous for war. He was instead reflective and wanted views from historians and writers, and asked not the “fringe,” but had made it a policy of seeking out those of all backgrounds to participate in group discussions—something apparently at odds with the now media stereotype of Cheney, the madman in his bunker.
6. A Normal Event. I have been asked about this single dinner on dozens of occasions, and still don’t divulge who spoke or what others said. That said, as far as I am concerned: no, the VP was not in a bellicose mood; no, there was not a lecture advocating war; no, there was not triumphalism, but real debate over the wisdom of the war and the utility of the UN; and this was not a big deal, but one of hundreds of conversations Cheney had with officers, historians, and diplomats—all at odds with the stereotype of a recluse, entrenched, bellicose figure.
7. Engaged. A Vice President is supposed to welcome as many views as he can; and if the reporter had taken the time to find out the guests who over that year went to the VP’s house, he would quickly learn that they were from both parties, of liberal and conservative persuasions, and were in a 2002 bipartisan mood. But again, the post-2004 Cheney is now been recreated into a sort of demon who shoots the innocent with a shotgun, tears up the Constitution with glee, and sent out Scooter Libby to defame Joe Wilson and poor Richard Armitage. Anything less simply won’t do: especially the notion of a VP who, as a realist, not a neocon, had real doubts about the war, wanted as many different voices as possible to be heard, and was quiet, introspective, and engaged, rather than partisan, brooding, or nefarious. Don’t these reporters any more do anything other than just surf the Internet? Or go beyond the Bob Woodward methodology? Or do anything other than call up a favorable source and say “Talk to me and you come off well; don’t and others fill in your blanks for you!”
8. Citations? Note well that neither Mr. Ruten nor Mr. Gellman (whose book I have not yet read) will be able to cite a source to the contrary, because to do so would be to print something untrue. Note especially again “Gellman teases out” which is the equivalent to conjecture without written evidence or named sources.
9. Why is Cheney so demonized? Largely, and now I am conjecturing, because, unlike most past VPs (Biden will be a reporters’ dream), he doesn’t leak. Nor does his staff. He doesn’t seem to enjoy the NY/DC press and doesn’t seem to hide that. He won’t do unnamed sourced “background” and doesn’t like associates who do. He doesn’t report on private conversations and doesn’t like those who do. I respect him and admire him all the more for that, even though it means that anguished reporters in the subsequent news vacuum create fantasy and seek to vilify him for his obstinacy.
10. A necessary task. I mention all this only to correct the LA Times and will keep trying to set the record straight when others insist on distorting it.
Small point: You wrote that, “he suddenly retracted his apology about the dirty McCain immigration/Limbaugh”. I believe this is what you meant. According to media reports, Mr. Biden said a campaign ad that mocked Republican presidential candidate John McCain as an out-of-touch, out-of-date computer illiterate was “terrible” and would not have been done had he known about it. Supposedly after he viewed the add, he changed his position and then went on to attack Mr. McCain for issuing negative ads. I did not find any retraction by Mr. Biden on the Spanish language ad in my Google search. Other than that I agree with your post.
Many people will be very very upset with a McCain-Palin victory for good reason. Because the Republicans are treasonously ineffective at running the country. War with anybody and everybody, a trillion dollar give-away to wall street, torture, and no effort whatsoever to create new energy systems.
The role of government is supposed to be to create an environment conducive to business and “the persuit of happines”. For all Americans. Not just defence contractors and Wall Streeters.
How many times do we have to be kicked in the face by these guys before we see the light?
May I take exception with one observation? I do indeed believe that Senator Obama shares anti-American, and arguably, pro-terrorist views with Ayers. Do I know this from personal experience? of course not, but like you, I believe it is reasonable to make inferences from one’s choices and associations, particularly when those choices and associations are freely made, of long standing, and hushed up or lied about when it is not politically expedient that they be made public.
Considering who Senator Obama has chosen to work with, associate with, worship under, and accept funding from, and considering his statements that clearly indicate, at the very least, a very kind-hearted (utterly uninformed?) disposition toward those who despise freedom and would be just as happy to cut off Obama’s head as that of any infidel, it is hardly unreasonable to believe that he shares the anti-american, pro-terrorist views of those who have surrounded him for decades. Who, after all, would choose such companions, let alone remain in their company, for decades if they were distasteful? No, we associate with those who reflect our beliefs and values.
Surely Senator Obama has done all that he can to distance himself from these people and ideals, even going so far–and this must have been intensely painful–to occasionally wear an American flag pin. But glimpses of the real Obama and his beliefs continue to slip out in unguarded moments. And those glimpses would not appear in the dictionary under “anti-terrorist” or “patriotic.”
Ahmadinajad comes to NYC and thumbs his nose at us. North Korea laughs and fires up its closed nuclear reactor. America sits transfixed by the words of their president, someone they no longer trust. He misreads anger for panic and a run on the banks. Yeah, we’re the ones we’ve been waiting for alright. The builders of the biggest banana republic in the history of the planet. And Wall Street is not the only institution in this country close to failure.
The political leaders responsible for this mess — in both parties — need to be held accountable. And for Wall Street, I’d agree with bailing them out under one of two conditions:
1. Round up all the genius MBA’s responsible for this crisis, sequester them in a secure compound and give them five years to unravel the ridiculous derivative assets they created (and don’t understand) so we can dispose of the underlying loans. Pay them minimum wage and make them stand in a food line for their meals.
2. Take said MBA’s and throw them off the highest building on Wall Street. Really, if they had an ounce of integrity, they’d save us the trouble and do it themselves. Standards in the financial industry have definitely gone down since 1929.
Thank God Saddam Hussein is six feet under. Imagine what he’d be up to right now.
Thank you again for a clear viewpoint. I agree with most everything covered in this article. Because of being a patriarch of sorts, I have observed we are in a period of education that is desperately trying to impress the utopian view of socialism on our younger generation. A veritable Shrine to BO is now in place in the Liberal University of New Mexico. I also was part of the present financial problem, being forced to abide by the ‘fair and Equal’ Federal lending dictates during my years of sales and finance. I and many others saw the end result being as ‘Paying the Piper’ at the end of ‘the Dance’. Well now we are all to ‘pay the Piper’. No matter who wins, the spoils were squandered, are now vastly reduced and will be ‘rationed’ so to speak. History has many examples as Victor well knows. Rhodesia’s ‘Change’ to Zimbabwe, being just one minor example.
A Democracy always gets the leadership it deserves. Of course Colateral damage is to be expected.
All Hell breaking loose, PJM contributors writing about today’s developments, invading each other’s threads like it was steal the flag, and finally, like Cincinnatus/Hesiod he climbs off his Massey Ferguson and comes in from the vineyard to comment. Worth the wait.
“Many people will be very very upset with a McCain-Palin victory for good reason. ”
No sooner than the good Professor brings up the unhinged and how they might react if McCain/Palin win, than one of them shows up to validate this point.
I disagree, I think Obama will be a disaster for America. It will be like putting a giant “Nuke Me” sign on NYC and we will be looking at 3-7 million dead. Obama’s first instinct will be to apologize, offer “reparations” to the nukers, and blame America. Provoking another attack as weakness always does.
We cannot afford Obama — that much is clear.
Here is the thing — Pakistan has 100 nukes. North Korea an unknown amount and is restarting their reactor to make more. Iran is racing towards nukes. North Korea is unstable, Kim may or may not be dead, will sell to anyone. Pakistan is shot through with tribal, regional, clan, religious/sectarian, and other factions. With no real leader who can have his commands obeyed. Tribe and clan are all. Same to a lesser extent with Iran with various factions all working for power.
Khomeni’s lesson is understood by both Pakistani and Iranian factions: create a “war” with the US, whatever you do does not matter, because the US is weak and unable and unwilling to hit back. Use the conflict to put your enemies up against the wall and shoot them. Seize power. Both Iran and Pakistan are filled with ambitious men who want power and will gladly kill 3 million Americans or more to get it. Did I mention, “good news,” Pakistan is enlarging it’s arsenal?
Obama’s constant search for a “strong Black” father figure makes him weak and malleable. His constant Blame-America-first instincts he got from his Mother, Grandparents, and Frank Marshall Davis, Black Communist, and the closest thing to a real father he had, serves him ill when the US is faced with nuclear enemies who count on the US being unable to respond to terrorist nukings.
Obama’s naive view of the Third World, his socialist utopianism, his love of Islam (he can recite the call to prayer in fluent Arabic, word for word, and calls it the most beautiful thing he’s ever heard) and his dislike of America and it’s traditions leave him unable to realistically threaten enemies who will nuke us.
No one in Tehran or Islamabad believes Obama would respond to the nuking of NYC and 3 million dead Americans plus in any meaningful way. At most he’d eventually fire a few cruise missiles at a few sand dunes.
Obama does not love America enough to kill for her, and is not tough enough to kill for her. Given that any single nuclear weapon from Pakistan’s arsenal is enough to kill 3 million Americans without warning, and likely without “proof” that alone guarantees that a President Obama will result in disaster.
He’ll simply not react, and dither and blame America. As did Susan Sontag, Norman Mailer, Bill Maher, Michael Moore, and yes Joe Biden after 9/11. Guaranteeing a follow-on attack and the requirement for pure survival for simply wiping out 173 million Pakistanis, and perhaps also 75 million Persians. Just to be “sure.” To survive.
These are the stakes — we have zilch defense against someone, likely without even Pakistan’s “government” or what passes for it, even knowing much less approving handing over nukes to AQ. We have no response either to deter private actors who bet on our weakness and Obama’s.
This is NOT 1992. With all due respect Dr. Hanson, you don’t seem to understand how nuclear weapons make AQ every bit America’s equal in the ability to kill. A terrible failing for a military historian. If Osama already has a nuke, he possess greater destructive power than the entire US military in WWII. Can’t you grasp this? Weakness is not something we can afford and our lesson in that will not be as “easy” to handle as Beslan.
If I were an English teacher, I’d give “The Doctor” a D- on this one.
Rambling, at times incoherent and, unsubstantiated.
But at least it was “free.”
The only insight I gained from watching Katie Couric ask the candidates questions about their favorite movies (other affirming she is a lightweight who drools in the presence of BHO)was that BHO loved “The Godfather,” not so much in terms of drama and cinematic excellence, but for the way Don Corleone did not tolerate disrespect (BHO used the awful neologism: “disrespected”). I think the comment above by whiskey, mentioning BHO’s search for a strong father figure to fill the void left by his own absentee father, speaks volumes about the potential future behavior of BHO. For all his preaching about living in harmony with the rest of the planet, his personality contains the seeds of a dictator. Look at how he presents himself in public: rock star in front of thousands of screaming fans. Does that remind you of anyone else?
In contrast, McCain’s favorite film was Viva Zapata, portrayal of a tragic hero who gives up everything for a cause. I still think of Katie as a lightweight, but she has unintentionally opened a door through which we can see something not revealed in politically doctored sound bites and staged events.
The world is very perilous. Obama simply does not have the temperment, experience or credentials to be chief executive. He’s like a .112 hitter from single A trying out to be voted into the hall of fame. The enabling media are the sportswriters complicit in voting for him so,just so the first ‘Black President’ can win the big one, proving to their own satisfaction how open minded they can be. Not like those Republithug, wingnut,bigoted, gay-hating, Christianist etc. etc. A very narcissistic motivation, but not surprising in our narcissistic times.
Oh, and Doug, you haven’t seen the light yet. “Dick! pull out his fingernails!” “Larry, beat ‘em with the hose!” (Obscure Fine-Howard-Fine reference.)
Dear Professor,
After all of those tips to help Obama’s campaign and after all of your confessions about being a Democrat… you’re viewed as being on the conservative fringe.
Where ever you are, I’m right behind ya.
“This is NOT 1992.”
Absolutely right. Worse yet, the Democratic contender this year is not a centrist-minded politician either. He appears even more predisposed than Clinton to focus on our “tragic history”, on domestic issues like race, “fairness” and income redistribution. And if he wins, we’ve given him an opening to experiment with all the socialist ideas his associates have been expounding for years. Oh, and he’s a citizen of the world. So don’t worry. Be happy. For he IS every bit as ignorant of national security concerns as was Bill Clinton. We learned how that turned out on 9/11. Of course, since then we’ve managed ourselves to complete Al Queida’s goal of crashing the U.S. economy.
Just who was it, exactly, who won the Cold War? What did we do with that peace dividend? Did we solve some of our domestic problems or just blather platitudes to the masses? Back in the 90′s our political leadership expected Americans — who had been subverted by our politicized education system and our ridiculous pop culture — to believe the most stupid notions of what the future would entail. We crossed that bridge to the 21st Century and what did we get? The Tech bubble — all hype. The housing bubble — all greed. 9/11? An annoyance, easily forgotten by a people given to gluttony and stupidity. John McCain ought to modify Bill Clinton’s ’92 campaign slogan and address it to the American people: It’s the culture, stupid. WE are the architects of our society’s decline. WE are the stupid ones THEY’VE been waiting for. And WE should stop worrying about why THEY hate us. They don’t. They just smell blood, and they’re hungry
Dan,
I didn’t see that Katie Couric interview. Thanks for pointing it out. “The Godfather” is a fairly odd choice for favorite movie. Not to read too much into it, but I suspect Obama was playing up to his gansta wannabee crowd. That back-in-the-hood Chicago street cred gets him a few votes, I suppose. All in all, very juvenile.
The locked-in liberal voters probably got a kick out of that movie choice too. They love a man of action (Ayers, Che, etc.), and in their view maintaining your self-respect in our tribal society is of the utmost importance. Who knows, maybe gangsta Obama even has the cojones to pull off la revolucion. Of course, some of his acolytes may balk when he asks them to pull the lever on the guillotine. That wasn’t in their movie.
Unfortunately, that interview quote will be lost on the Europeans, or they will simply chalk it up to racial prerogative that a man from Southside Chicago, who wants to be president, speaks admiringly of a gangster. I guess there is an upside too. When Ahmadinajad disrespects the world’s wishes, maybe the gangsta American President can take out his nukes with Euro approval. And we can retire that Cowboy image to boot hill where it belongs.
TLM, I agree. A few days ago a friend asked what I thought would happen when Iran gets a nuke. I said:
When they have a bomb, they will rattle the saber, and we will not have the nerve to do anything – the Dems won’t stand for it. Many will say, (repeating wisdom they’ve heard from others) “Well, we have them. Why shouldn’t they have them too?” McCain will be obstructed, and Obama would do nothing in any event. Emboldened by that, they will then use one – on Israel or on us through a terrorist proxy. When an American city is destroyed, many here and more abroad will rejoice that we’ve reaped what we have sown. Faced with that happening again, will we respond in kind or will we kneel and bow towards Mecca (and while we’re bowing will China step in and lop our head off)? If it’s terrorist delivered, whom will we respond to? If it’s Israel won’t cooler and wiser heads just say “It’s none of our business, and we shouldn’t be meddling in the affairs of others.”? And will our fear and indecision cause a Caesar to step forward and push us into the inevitable tyranny that lies at the end of the socialist road we’re following?
We have become a nation where the majority are immature liars, cowards, and thieves. But the real question is whether the rest of us will stand up or roll over and reveal ourselves as no better than the majority? My bet is that even the relatively honest minority won’t have the stomach to put it all behind us and step forward to come what may. The majority of the minority will flinch and cower and hope that it all just goes away somehow. They would be supportive if our military jumped in and magically made it all go away, but if they have to give up their comforts and possessions and risk their lives and the lives of their loved ones, they’ll just bow their heads and hope for a miracle. That’s basically the mode we’re in now – where “We support the troops, but we’re tired of the war. Can’t we all just get along?” Where half or more of the country supports an Obama and is looking for “hope and change”. Where the majority of our citizens are clueless and ignorant and still open to getting their news and view of the world based on the newspaper, the nightly news, and what their friends think (as long as what they think is politically correct).
The Chinese are just biding their time, waiting for their strength to build. The Islamics read our papers and see our TV, and even though militarily they’re getting their posteriors handed to them, they know that if they just keep up a relentless pressure using the ample cannon fodder they have available, that we will continue to whine and that our support for resistance will continue to dwindle. What they don’t realize is that while they’re biting our ankles, and that even if they make us fall to our knees so they can bite us in our privates, the Dragon will soon deal with all of us.
If McCain wins, then (maybe) things will be slowed for a few years; if Obama, then Osama. But it really doesn’t matter that much because the real problem here is the American people – too ignorant, too immature, too cowardly, and too dishonest. Decades of Progressive education, 60′s counterculture mindlessness, and biased media have had their effects on our population to the point that how will we suddenly grow up and overcome years of ignorance and propaganda? We are no longer the people who revolted against the King in 1776. If not for the Chinese and the Islamic extremists, then maybe we’d have time to blunder along and eventually wake up – but I think instead our awakening is going to be a brief and terrifying instant before everything fades to black.
I think in this post that Dr. Hanson is being too generous to Obama and his advisors. And like TLM I think “we have met the enemy, and he is us.”
Mike
‘ must have been intensely painful–to occasionally wear an American flag pin.’
TLM
‘Pay them minimum wage’
Broadsword
‘a .112 hitter from single A trying out to be voted into the hall of fame’
John Work
‘ Dr. Hanson is being too generous to Obama’
This is fun.
Responding to John Work – Some 2000 years ago, Titus Livy, in the introduction to his history of Rome said that his purpose in writing was “to trace the progress of our moral decline, to watch, first, the sinking of the foundations of morality as the old teaching was allowed to lapse, then the rapidly increasing disintegration, then the final collapse of the whole edifice, and the dark dawning of our modern day when we can neither endure our vices nor face the remedies needed to cure them.”
Rome did neither and fell. Hundreds of years of darkness, slaughter and barbarism ensued.
We certainly cannot endure the our vices – the rot of Marxism and the intellectual and moral bankruptcy of modern liberalism. We cannot endure them and remain a free society. It remains to be seen whether or not we can face the remedies – terrible as they may be – necessary to cure us of our vices. We must all decide whether or not our Western Civilization with all of its virtues and failings is worth preserving.
To paraphrase Rand – it is time for Atlas to shrug – and to pick up a gun.
This bailout amounts to economic fascism, the extortion of future generations to pay for the short-sighted risk takers on Wall Street. I am appalled and deeply concerned about the future.
How do you remove a generation of narcissists from power? What do you replace them with if you are in fact able to do such?
If the housing market goes into a free fall, and the credit market gets plugged; how long will this reality last?
If there are winners and losers in the business world, what will this situation mean?
Is this bailout plan also hiding a masking operation wherein some “losers” try to minimize losses, even steal a move or two in order to arrive at a “come out even” position?
So people get kicked out of houses, average home values take a serious dive; don’t the houses still remain? Won’t new buyers come into the market as it readjusts?
At what time in one’s life does he/she leave the “Mommy and Daddy” will rescue me mindset?
Won’t losers just drop all their wastes (fats, luxuries) and begin afresh (lean and mean)? Food lines keep people alive, government can create work: Cleaning up America needs to be done, right?
Isn’t this a time when political systems go toward germinating the seeds for a new world war? Aren’t the bad guys having a grand time greeting each other and making “deals” while we fume over our hardships?
Where’s reality? Why is it so hard to see?
Are we there yet? Are we there yet?
Essential vdh. Ward Dorrity: Great comments hitting the center mark.
”
“Where’s reality? Why is it so hard to see?”
Harder to see because:
1) People have lost trust in their government. Polarization, political spin, Bush Derangement Syndrome, etc. The consequences — Republicans in the House can’t go along willy-nilly with this bailout, proposed by a fiscally Un-conservative president, his Ex-Wall Street Treasury Sec., and backed by the likes of Dodd, Frank, Pelosi et. al. Hard to see how those people are going to protect the tax payers money, especially if you believe the next president will be Obama and both houses of Congress will be controlled by the Dems.
2) People have lost trust in the MSM. Their bias is too obvious, especially during this election. No matter what, they will spin all of McCain’s actions as purely politically motivated. If there’s no deal worked out today, having a debate on national security tonight will give us all a massive attack of cognitive disassociation, as in “Get Real! Who cares about South Ossetia when we’re going bust.” The Media wants a debate tonight regardless of what crisis we’re in. Why?
3) People have lost trust in their fellow Americans. They see too many people getting ahead because of government handouts, government interference, unfair rules etc. The media continues to extol the mindset of “Money for Nothin’”, a la that song from the 80′s band Dire Straits. Working joes see the consequences of that mentality, and they are dire.
Can we all agree that Palin is an awful speaker? I’m voting McCain, but, Christ, did anyone see her in the Couric interview?
I know the press hammers her with obscene “gotcha” traps, but she needs to toughen up and start fighting. Her enemies are determined, very real, and (worst of all) they are winning.
IMHO, demographics will ultimately destroy our nation and it may be just around the corner. Three books collectively illuminate my thinking and are actually interconnected: Plato’s “Republic”, Mark Styne’s “America Alone” and Malcolm Gladwell’s “The Tipping Point”.
According to Plato, democracies begin to fall apart when a sufficient number of the people realize they have the power to vote themselves anything and everything they want, and they do exactly that… usually paying for it by taxing the rich. Sound familiar?
According to Styne, it’s the demographics of a population in a democracy that dictate that democracy’s future course. Within a given population, the group that reproduces at a greater rate than others, will – within a few generations – eventually come to dominate the culture and then vote in great numbers for their version of the “good” society. It’s happening in parts of Western Europe as we speak… don’t be surprised if in the near future France embraces Sharia law.
According to Gladwell, the tipping point is the point at which enough people in a population get the message, believe it and vote for it, with their money or at the ballot box. At that point radical change can be achieved… and it makes no difference if the message is good or bad. Sound familiar?
So, what’s in our future? Again, according to Plato… if a democracy fails, it’s replaced by… drum roll, please… lets hear it for Tyranny!
I couldn’t agree more that Obama’s supporters will be foaming at the mouth should the candidate lose, while those of us voting McCain will probably – for the most part – shrug our shoulders, and get on with our lives.
If Obama does lose, the loudest complaint will be that America somehow “Failed” at its “Chance” to “Put its racist past behind us” – the quoted elements are ones that have all appeared in leftist discussions.
What’s so galling about this is that after all the uproar of the civil rights movement, we were supposed to have emerged with the new understanding that we should in fact *not* vote for or against people based on the color of their skin – and yet, right now, in the America of 2008, we are lectured that we should be doing precisely that.
And thanks for taking down that L.A. times “Review” – your deconstructions are always highly entertaining – almost like the “Angry Reader” entries.
Good debate on the issues. Clearly a difference between these two. No idea how it will play for the voters who matter — undecideds.
Must have been a Sun Tzu strategy on the old warior’s part, but McCain’s shenanigans this past week left Obama looking like he missed his beauty sleep. He looked a little wan, if that’s possible.
I think something else military guys like McCain understand intuitively is a certain weakness on the part of the well-off, well-rested, diet conscious, ride my bike with the safety helmet on crowd. They don’t function as well when you take them out of their physical needs-safety-comfort zone. They’re used to working “hard” then running their 5 miles every day. But it’s always after a good nights sleep on a full belly. Not for nothing does the military subject people to training programs where they push them to their limits physically and psychologically, while starving them as well as depriving them of sleep. Of course McCain had the ultimate course on this in Hanoi. It showed last night. Obama looked like the all-nighters were killing him. But, white hair and all, McCain almost seemed the younger candidate.
The Left’s visceral reaction to Clinton’s welfare reform offers a sobering example of the possible ramifications of a McCain win. People who had never met a social worker (let alone a family on welfare) nor contemplated the toxic conditions of multigenerational dependency were suddenly outraged that Clinton would dare to try to reform welfare. 20 years later, and despite the undeniable success of his plan, he is still being reviled in the Left for “hating” the poor.
Why is it not raining bankers and brokers on Wall Street? Have these people no sense of shame? No pride? They were the captains of American Capitalism, the envy of the world and an inspiration to a generation of Americans. Well, an inspiration to a generation of gung ho narcissistic wannabee investors anyways, all of them itchin’ to “pull the trigger” on that next trade, bank a few mil and retire to the cocaine comforts of their own beach front estate in Costa Rica. But still, how could the Titans of Industry spoil the yuppie wet dream possessed of millions of their fellow citizens, and yet refuse to check out in traditional Street fashion? Must we throw the lot of these greedy, spineless little cretins from the parapets ourselves? Or should we, perhaps, leave them to a more politically correct fate, kowtowing, rice bowl in hand, to their new socialist masters in Washington?
Addendum:
You decide. What punishment should we mete out to that Wall Street gang of thieves that ruined our economy and, possibly, guaranteed an Obama administration? Their RORI (Return On Reckless Investing) should serve as a fitting example to all the other greedy, money-for-nothin’ slackers in this country who participated in this disaster. Please send your suggestions to Comrade Paulson.
Gaisan
What are the alternatives? 1. Monarchy? We don’t think anybody’s that cool and nobody’s pulling swords out of stones. 2. Oligarchy? Who would they be and how would they get there? Possible though. 3. Theocracy? There would have to be a very charismatic Christian or a lot more Muslims. Judaism is probably out of the question. 4. Anarchy is possible in the short run but usually leads to… 5. Totalitarianism? Most likely through threats, intimidation, and violence.
Number 4 probably wins.
TLM
Sadly, it’s a pity that we’d have to find some sort of crime to do anything punitive to them. Mob rule is worse than them beating the system.
In Douglas Feith’s book, he talks about Bush’s decision to fight the terrorist enemy but still not change the system of freedom, rights and privacy, the capitalistic system, checks and balances.
After 911 another president might have made this a martial state depriving us of certain liberties. Many accuse Bush of doing just that. But I think those people are nuts.
So during and after this different yet debilitating crisis, there should be no radical changes in our way of life. Hopefully no panic. Hopefully cool heads. If crimes are found, prosecute.
They took $500 million dollars from Michael Milken and he wasn’t even guilty of much. The east coast banking houses hated him because he carved out and took a whole market for his group. The east coast institutions graduated into governmental positions and the old buddy network did him in.
I just wish McCain would quit campaigning and be a full-time senator indefinitely. He put packages together that some of us conservatives didn’t like but he made a lot of people satisfied a few times.
I wonder how his lightweight opponent is faring in the Senate. I wonder if anybody is paying any attention to him? Actually, I don’t even want to know.
Number 5 wins.
5
Change I can believe in:
1)When the information I receive in order to make informed decisions on national issues of global significance….doesn’t read like a Pravda approved script, that would be change I could believe in.
2)When the information I receive doesn’t include hidden agendas, vast and glaring omissions, intentional deceit, photoshopped pictures, and a strong slanderous undertone about my country, my military, our objectives and our achievements, that would be change I could believe in.
3) When one party ceases to own the information stream and ceases to allow it to be raped repeatedly to advance their social engineering causes and hides their inexorable march toward social democracy as well as their pocket-lining cronyism and earmark slush funds, that would be a change I could believe in.
4) I have absolutely no use for the fringe right in this country. The KKK, Timothy McVeigh and/or their ilk are a shameful addition to our melting pot. But they have very little influence on our culture compared to the fringe left. The fringe left are much more dangerous because they are much more powerful. The information stream is dominated and controlled in Academia, Hollywood, alphabet news stations, major media papers and periodicals as viceroys for the imperial “message” of the Socialist throne.
If we could ever get to a place where exposing this fraud was a part of the national dialogue, that would be change I could believe in.
5)The Iraq theater and the achievements, goals, the threats and opportunities have been slandered since its inception. This intentional deceit presents a myriad of dangers to our country and to my countrymen. The dialogue on these issues of utmost importance has been debased to a depth of cocktail party gossip and infused with a bar stool logic that is at once puerile and yet dangerously destructive at the same time. If we could elevate the discussion and infuse facts instead of slander, that would be change I could believe in.
6)The “bailout” is a leaky bucket on a sinking ship. It seems we are being told (not by any leading economists, by the way…they are AGAINST this move from what I’ve seen…although not by the Pravda media)that this will “save” the financial institutions, “save” our economy, and “save” homeowners from foreclosure. I have my doubts about all of it.
We are going through a market correction…along the same lines as we did with the sugar buzz infused crash after the high…(binge and purge economic bulimia)…of junk bonds, dot coms…and now mortgage junk securities.
The leftists wanted to threaten ECOA suits for giving easy credit on the biggest ticket item to folks who don’t earn enough to qualify under normal underwriting standards. Now…they want to have the diligent and responsible act as “taxpayer trustees” in which the debt for the yet again failed social engineering project is saddled on the poor sap who owns a small business or has succeeded in making a nice living.
All the while, being slapped repeatedly in the face …so, he or she will be DOUBLE TAXED…having every conceivable taxation (inheritance, capital gains etc.)…AND being saddled with paying back a debt he/she didn’t cause, in a crisis he/she didn’t make or contribute to, and EVERYONE ELSE…gets off scot free.
The “rich”, of course…will be blamed…as will the Republicans…who apparently are too weak willed and too clumsy to articulate the truth and fight back against yet another slander. If someone would stand up and say NO MORE…that would be change I could believe in.
7)The current “crisis” is a correction that was badly needed and easily forecasted. The current solution, loaded with earmarks for ACORN and La Raza is a slap in the face.
Sen. Obama has an open ear for fringe leftists his whole life. Frank Marshall Davis, Jeremiah Wright, Louis Farrakhan, Bernadine Dorhn, Ayers, radical professors at college …this is the energy behind the base of his campaign and his upbringing his entire life.
He also has an open ear for very strong anti-Israel sentiments. Brzyzinski, Samantha Power, O’Malley, the late Edward Said, Ali Abunimah, Anthony Lake, Tony McPeak, Susan Rice.
He doesn’t merely “hide” his association with Ayers…he hides (with complicit Pravda arm backing his ploy) his associations and beliefs with all of the above. A frank discussion on those things…would be a change I could believe in.
In summary, I have zero interest in becoming a social democracy. But, at a minimum…I would like to have an open, honest and frank discussion on our inexorable march in that direction. I would like our information stream to not be a Trojan Horse for that march. And I would like accountability for the treasonous villains who have stolen it. That…is the change I could believe in.
“Once I wrote a Wall Street Journal op-ed supporting Bill Clinton’s foreign policy, despite not voting for him, and was duly impressed with his welfare reform and the surplus that emerged during his presidency.”
Clinton’s welfare reform was done by the Republican Congress and Clinton had to be dragged kicking and screaming to the table to sign it.
Further, his “surplus” was an artifact of several factors, none of which was his doing:
* The S&L bailout through the RTC went from a cash outflow under Bush 41, to a cash inflow during Clinton’s regime.
* The “Peace Dividend” from the fall of the Soviet Union just a year and a half before he took office.
* The tech boom that, much a factor of the Reagan years, in many ways Clinton destroyed – his tax hikes and the onerous and idiotic FCC rules on Telecoms.
* A Republican Congress in his last six years. Note that Congress creates yearly fiscal policy. Note, too, that the stock market was flat, from 1993 until almost the day that the Republican Congress was sworn into office in January, 2005.
In hindsight, would Mr. Hanson say Clinton’s foreign policy was a positive, or nearly as much an abject failure as Jimmy Carter’s?
cfbleachers,
Many good points. The right wing fringe elements have been irrelevant since the 90′s, and even then had little sway. Their stupid acts of violence (McVeigh) left them completely discredited. The recent Supreme Court ruling on the Second Amendment will assuage moderately conservative gun-clingers (I’m one of them). I agree we don’t need — and never did — a radical fringe on the Right.
The left wing fringe has always been more surreptitious, at least since the 60′s (Obama’s past is typical in this respect). They now wield a great amount of influence in politics (Democratic party), the media and academia. An honest and frank discussion of where this country is headed is not in the picture for the foreseeable future, I’m afraid.
“Free of Pisistratus, we choose a knave or a eunuch to rule over us.” (Pound)
Is this how we vote – father, son, father, son, in turns?