Notes From D. R.

Weekend Box Office: Dollars To Donuts

The Simpsons Movie opens at #1. More from Gitesh Pandya.

Saving The Planets

If you’re ever compiling a list of the most overrated groups of the last twenty years, be sure to place Digable Planets somewhere in the top 5.

The New York-based trio garnered plenty of attention fourteen years ago with their first, and last, good album, Reachin' (A New Refutation of Time and Space), which became a hit on the strength of the popular single “Rebirth of Slick (Cool Like Dat).” You couldn’t turn on a radio in 1993 without hearing “Slick,” a skillful jazz-rap hybrid obviously influenced by A Tribe Called Quest. The album itself was a solid piece of work in the Tribe tradition, with such tracks as “Pacifics,” “Where I’m From,” “What Cool Breezes Do,” and “Escapism (Gettin’ Free)” standing out in particular. There was an inventiveness and sharpness to the lyrics, a creativity that was in woefully short supply in pop music at the time: I couldn’t help comparing the depth of “Slick” to the banality of the singles from Janet Jackson’s then-popular CD janet.

Reachin’ was not a flawless album: “La Femme Fetal,” a pro-Roe v. Wade song that garnered tremendous acclaim from music critics, was a perfectly dreadful tune: I thought the song was over-the-top propaganda when I first heard it, and I was pro-choice at the time! The song appears to have been written with the specific intent of getting positive coverage from those who agreed with the political sentiments, as opposed to being some sort of principled statement on the part of the artists. The song is so absurd that at one point, the lyrics imply that David Souter, of all people, is opposed to abortion. Talk about a track that shouldn’t have made the final cut.

The Planets won a Grammy for “Slick,” and their new fans waited in anticipation for their next album. Of course, once those fans heard that next album, 1994’s Blowout Comb, most of them were wondering what the heck happened to the group. Comb was, quite frankly, an abomination, one of the decade’s worst albums. Instead of the creativity of Reachin’, the lyrics were a mishmash of militancy and mediocrity; it appeared that the Planets were trying to rip off Tribe and Public Enemy at the same time, to little positive effect. The songs “Jettin’” and “9th Wonder (Blackitolism)” were half-decent, but the rest of the album was manifestly worthless. It was as though the Planets failed to realize that faux-militancy never led to quality music: much like De La Soul’s 1993 debacle Buhloone Mindstate, Comb is a lamentable example of talented artists squandering their gift by filling their albums with bizarre sociopolitical rants.

Looking back, a fair case can be made that the Planets weren’t all that in the first place, and that Reachin’ only received so much acclaim because it was released during a time in which pop music had reached a creative nadir. Folks were desperate to hear something that wasn’t cut from the usual hip-hop or “grunge” cloth: critics embraced Reachin’, Liz Phair’s Exile in Guyville, and U2’s Zooropa not because they were classic albums, but because they were better than the garbage that filled the music industry’s recycling bins to capacity in 1993. The industry was still at a creative low tide in 1994, but Comb was so bad that it couldn’t be judged approvingly even under a lesser standard.

The Planets broke up shortly after the release of Comb; after spending years being involved in solo projects or participating in new groups, the group reunited in 2005 and released a greatest-hits album. If they ever put out an album of new material, it will hopefully stand the test of time, instead of receiving exaggerated praise because of the times.

National Security

Will the Democrats demagogue President Bush's new effort to offset the threat posed by Iran? More from the New York Times.

"Don't It Always Seem To Go, That You Don't Know What You've Got 'Til It's Gone..."

If President Bush is concerned about the GOP base never liking him again, he doesn’t have much to worry about. If Hillary Clinton succeeds him as President, conservatives will forget every negative word they’ve ever said about him.

It won’t take long before the conservatives who’ve condemned the President over such political apostasies as the Dubai Ports World deal, the Harriet Miers Supreme Court nomination, and the No Child Left Behind Act find themselves deeply nostalgic for Dubya. The sight of Mrs. Clinton taking the oath will be enough to have Bush’s critics on the right singing that old Cher song: “If I could turn back time…”

I have never quite understood why Bush has taken so much heat from the right over the past few years. The left’s grievance against the President is obvious, but one would figure that the right’s default position would be to strongly defend the President against the left’s harsh criticisms.

It’s amazing that Bush’s critics on the right, many of whom lament public ignorance of history, so often forget recent history when it comes to their condemnations of Bush. It’s as if the public is supposed to forget that Bush never billed himself as a Reagan conservative, frequently rejected the limited-government vision, and always had a “tolerant” attitude when it came to such issues as illegal immigration.

No one’s going to forget 2000 and 2004, when conservatives rightfully argued that Al Gore and John Kerry would send the country on a negative course—and that Bush was the only candidate committed to preserving American greatness. Thus, the odd revisionist history that has taken place on the right with regard to Bush is fundamentally illogical.

It’s not that Bush is infallible. Far from it. There are times when he seems not to understand the frustrations of the conservative base, times when he seems deliberately deaf to their arguments.

However, the right invested in Bush—and he’s a stock they cannot sell off. In 1999-2000, they knew his flaws, his weakness for big government, his discomfort with the Reagan-conservative vision—and they accepted him anyway, feeling that a flawed Bush would be better for the conservative movement than the pseudo-liberal John McCain. In for a penny, in for a pound.

Bush-bashing on the right will be a historical footnote if Hillary recaptures the White House for the Clintons. Conservative blogs and magazines will be filled with lamentations about how much better things were under Bush then they are under Clinton. Those Republicans who attack him now will sing his praises, declaring a desire for the “Bush doctrine” to still be in effect.

I’m convinced that much of the anti-Bush sentiment on the right comes from those who don’t stop to think about what things would have been like under a President Gore or a President Kerry. It’s as if their fears about what would happen under such administrations ended after November 7, 2000 and November 2, 2004, respectively.

Once Clinton implements her foreign and domestic policy initiatives, Bush’s conservative critics will finally understand what those who have stuck by the 43^rd President have been saying all along: that Bush, even on his worst day, was better than the alternatives, and that he deserved our unconditional support. Once we see Clinton’s approach to immigration and national security, it will become clear that those on the right who couldn’t wait to wash their hands of Bush were manifestly mistaken.

There’s so much talk today about Bush’s unpopularity. Perhaps Bush wouldn’t be performing so poorly in these polls if some of the folks who voted for him in ’04 remembered why they voted for him instead of the other guy. Do these folks really believe Kerry would have done a better job than the one Bush is doing right now? If they don’t, then why are they giving the President such a hard time?

Many of the conservatives who’ve criticized Bush over the past few years are quite fond of Ronald Reagan, and justifiably so. One term of Hillary—perhaps even two terms—and these conservatives will tell Bush that all is forgiven, that he deserves to be considered a great President on the level of Reagan, and that they didn’t realize just how good they had it.

Anyone Who Had A Heart

Don't tell me the far-left is wishing ill upon Dick Cheney now...

UPDATE: More from Reuters.

Submission Hold

Congress casts its eye on professional wrestling.

Wet Behind The Ears

Charles Krauthammer on Barack Obama's performance in the recent Democrat debate.

THE RIGHT DECISION

A historic ruling in a heartbreaking case of FBI corruption. More from the Boston Globe, Boston Herald and Boston Phoenix.

UPDATE: More from the New York Times, Boston Globe and Boston Herald.

Down Is Up

If you want to know why conservatives argue that liberals are obsessed with race, read this story.

Supporting The Troops

Improving health care for Iraq War veterans.

The War Against The War

You know what would really be shocking? If Hollywood made a Green Berets-style film supporting the decision to go into Iraq...

Fred Hot

The media scrutiny of Fred Thompson intensifies. More from Power Line, Human Events and the Boston Globe.

How Many Times Do I Have To Tell You?

President Bush again explains the need to stay the course in Iraq--and again gets insulted by Democrats. More from the Washington Post, New York Times and Princella Smith. 

It Takes A Nation Of Millions To Hold Us Back

Bush’s poll numbers are in the toilet. The Iraq War seems to be dragging on forever. The Republican Party has apparently lost all momentum. It’d be ridiculous to think that the GOP could score a third consecutive Presidential victory in 2008, right?

Wrong.

While the notion of a GOP “three-peat” seems laughably absurd now, stranger things have happened. It’s certainly not beyond possibility that the Republicans could pull it off again.

The Republicans will indeed be vulnerable if the country has fundamentally changed between 2004 and 2008. In November 2004, the electorate gave Bush a mandate to continue his prosecution of the War on Terror, and rejected the UN-centric vision of John Kerry. While the polls certainly reflect dissatisfaction with the way Bush has handled the war, those polls may simply reflect a narrowly focused dispute with Bush—not a desire to embrace Democrat philosophy concerning antiterrorism efforts.

Granted, the electorate’s mood has shifted radically before. In 1964, LBJ won by a landslide; four years later, the voters put their trust in Richard Nixon. Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton both took advantage of a public shift in tastes on their way to the White House. However, it’s not clear that the public’s attitudes have changed so dramatically as to guarantee a Democrat victory.

That the Democrats won control of Congress last year does not necessarily mean that the GOP’s proverbial goose is cooked; after all, the Democrats retained control of the House and regained control of the Senate in 1986, only to see Bush’s father conquer Michael Dukakis two years later—and the Republicans’ historic 1994 House and Senate victories didn’t provide enough momentum to dislodge Clinton from the White House two years later.

If terrorism were no longer a major issue, the Democrats would clearly be unstoppable going into the ’08 election. However, the question of how America continues to prevent a second 9/11 has yet to be answered—and the Democrat Party is still perceived as an entity that cannot provide a logical response. The GOP’s position is clear: target terrorists and countries whose leaders approve of their methods. The Democrats have yet to overcome the perception that they believe in a “kid gloves” approach to Islamofascism. So long as this is the case, the GOP will still go into the ’08 elections with a tacit advantage, despite the results of current polls.

However, the Republicans cannot rest on their laurels. It would behoove the major GOP contenders to speak candidly about the problems in Iraq, and to acknowledge that the country hasn’t done enough to neutralize the terror threat. A wise strategy would be to strongly condemn the shoddy treatment some of our wounded veterans have received at our military hospitals, and commit to investing millions to improve the quality of care they receive. Take this issue away from the Democrats before they gain any traction with it—because the treatment of our injured heroes is something that almost every sentient American is concerned about.

The Republicans can win this next election—but only if they don’t make any foolish assumptions. Don’t assume that the GOP base will be so afraid of a Democrat victory that they’ll turn out in droves on Election Day. Don’t assume that one can get away with not acknowledging some of the severe mistakes the Bush Administration has made in terms of foreign and domestic policy. Don’t assume that old controversies involving the country’s last Democrat President can be successfully exploited (some voters do have short memories).

Instead, assume that the country does not agree with you, and that you’re “starting all over again,” as Reagan had to do in the post-Watergate late-1970s. Assume that in order to win, you’ll have to make a fresh, compelling case for conservatism in an increasingly left-of-center culture. Assume that the Reagan legacy is on the line—and that if you don’t win, the Reagan Revolution will have been officially quelled. Assume that you will have to work harder, and perform better, than you’ve ever had to at any previous point over the past twenty-eight years. Because you’ll have to do all of that, and more, to win.

Above all, be optimistic about your chances for victory, despite the party’s current troubles. After all, wouldn’t Reagan want you to be positive?

Foregone Conclusion

Fred Barnes on last night's Democrat debate.

On To The Next One

No, George W. Bush will not be considered the worst President of all-time.

The current demonization of Bush by the left is merely an attempt to exorcise demons, a need to get stress off the chest. Fifteen or twenty years from now, when another Republican President is doing something they don't like, they'll call that President the worst ever, and talk about how Bush was half-decent by comparison.

This always happens. Remember when Nixon was considered the worst scoundrel to ever walk through the gates of 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue? Then Reagan came along and all of a sudden, Nixon was a semi-statesman compared to the man who sent Bonzo to bed. Now the left argues that Reagan wasn't nearly as venal, as pathetic, or as stupid as Bush allegedly is.

In truth, Bush will be remembered as neither the greatest nor the worst President of all-time. He'll either be placed alongside Bill Clinton as a mediocre President, or placed alongside his father as a good-but-not-great one. The left knows Bush is hardly the worst guy to ever lead the free world. Every President we had in the 1970s can objectively be classified as worse.

Even the most fervent Bush-hater knows that, despite the severe problems that occurred after the invasion of Iraq, removing Saddam Hussein from power was a right, just, and moral decision for Bush to make. Even if one is convinced that Bush deceived the American people into supporting the Iraq War, one cannot logically dispute the appropriateness of ending Hussein's tyranny.

It's tough to see "Bush Derangement Syndrome" lasting a decade from now. Yes, there's still a great deal of passionate Nixon- and Clinton-hatred out there, but much of that hatred stems from the personalities of both men. The left regarded Nixon the man as actively malevolent; the right regarded Clinton the man as consciously corrupt. Because Bush's personality is different from Nixon’s and Clinton’s, it's difficult to see Bush continuing to arouse such hatred from his political enemies in his post-White House years. The left will likely regard Bush the same way they regarded Reagan: as a man whose actions were motivated more by foolishness than by evil.

Just as conservatives made tremendous gains under Clinton, progressives have gained strength and power during the Bush years. The liberal blogosphere has acquired tremendous clout; the issue of global warming has moved from left-wing circles into the pop-cultural mainstream; Michael Moore has become a household name; and liberal celebrities now feel empowered as never before to speak their mind on political matters. Let's face it: if it wasn't for Bush's presidency motivating progressives to rise up in opposition, the left would have continued to lose influence in America.

In some respects, the Bush Administration has been a blessing for the left, so why would progressives spend the next several years cursing him? Bush has given them so much "material" to work with. They can use Iraq as the new antiwar catchphrase for years, just as they used Vietnam as an antiwar catchphrase in the 1980s and 1990s. They can now point to post-Katrina New Orleans as an example of American inequality, just as they once pointed to riot-damaged inner cities as testaments to the abandonment of Dr. King's goals. The next time Samuel Alito and John Roberts make rulings they don't like, they can always use those judges as "proof" of the need to vote against future Republican Presidential candidates.

Progressives surely recognize that Bush is not the great ogre they have long made him out to be, and that his actions often had the accidental effect of giving power to the Democrats. Bush has, from a certain perspective, been a good President for both parties. Because of that, the Democrats can't bash him all that much in the future...can they?