« April 7, 2008 - April 13, 2008 | Main | April 21, 2008 - April 27, 2008 »
April 20, 2008
The Sharper Image
Spare us, O Lord, from the false allegations of social racism that will come up if—and hopefully when—John McCain defeats Barack Obama this fall.
A McCain victory will likely spark a months-long whinefest from the left, a circus of endless lamentations from “progressives” about how “typical white people” just couldn’t bring themselves to vote for an African-American.
Liberals will try to smear a McCain victory because they will not be able to admit to themselves that Obama’s gaffes and views played a central role in his defeat. Like the paranoia folks who still believe that the 2004 election was “stolen” from John Kerry, the left will forever insist that old-school bigotry blocked Obama from becoming President.
The left has tried this before, attempting to smear Ronald Reagan, George H. W. Bush and George W. Bush as beneficiaries of the electorate’s hidden antiblack sentiments. These allegations were manifestly false, but the left didn’t care: they had to find some way to discredit these Republicans from the moment they won—and what better way to do so than to use race?
The left’s likely attempt to depict McCain as a beneficiary of white racism will result in some unpleasant racial hostilities. November 2008 could be as ugly a time for race relations as October 1995—that perverted month which bore witness to O. J. Simpson’s acquittal and Louis Farrakhan’s Million Man March.
The left will need to set blacks and whites against each other if Obama loses. An Obama defeat will discredit the left: how pathetic will “progressives” look if their hero, their Jesus, becomes the God that failed, a flawed deity who couldn’t defeat a Republican “Devil” in the midst of an unpopular war, economic unease and soaring gas prices?
In order to regain political momentum, the left will have to cast McCain’s win as a resurrection of pre-Civil Rights era hatred. Only the most ignorant and paranoid of Americans will fall for this garbage, of course. However, if enough non-thinking Americans buy into this malarkey, the left will be back in business.
Democrats will be able to obstruct virtually anything McCain proposes by asserting that McCain lacks the legitimacy of previous Presidents; after all, why should we implement the agenda of someone who won because of racist reactionaries? Tom Daschle’s obstruction of President Bush’s agenda during Bush’s first term will be nothing compared to what the Democrats do to McCain.
It will be sad to watch the Democrats spin a McCain win as evidence of racism. It will be sad to watch the Democrats deny the truth: that average Americans don’t like the idea of an inexperienced politician who hangs around with left-wing extremists as Commander-in-Chief.
Obama has been almost thoroughly discredited within the span of just a few weeks. After a series of blunders, he is now generally seen as just another Democrat, another factory-issued hack, another McGovern/ Mondale/Dukakis/Gore/Kerry. Many political observers have noted the similarities between Obama’s campaign and that of his friend Deval Patrick, who used similar “hope and change” rhetoric in his successful 2006 bid to become Governor of Massachusetts. However, there’s one big difference: Patrick never embarrassed himself as badly as Obama has. Patrick never talked about bitter voters clinging to guns and God, and never had to make excuses for the deranged rhetoric of spiritual advisors. Patrick made mistakes on the campaign trail, but they were all minor.
If Obama loses, his defeat will not be due to the color of his skin, but due to the content of his character. Obama was supposed to be something different, a politician who broke the political rules, not a standard-issue Democrat who obeyed all of those rules. Like previous Democrat contenders, Obama has been exposed as a person who has nothing but scorn for middle- and working-class Americans, a person who believes that America’s greatness is due to its government and not its people, a man who believes that left-wing extremism can be rationalized and explained away.
America wanted to vote for Obama—until America realized that what they wanted to buy was an old product in a new package. Americans who decide not to vote for Obama aren’t racist bigots—but that won’t stop the Democrats from falsely trying to say that they are.
Eventually, the racial tensions aroused by Simpson’s acquittal and the Million Man March subsided, at least somewhat. The racial tensions that will be stirred up by the left if Obama loses will also decline with time. What will not decline, however, will be the contempt that decent Americans hold for those who tried to damage McCain with a race-based stain.
April 19, 2008
Arson Squad
Don't Count Me Out
April 18, 2008
Bitter Pill
Peggy Noonan and Kim Strassel on Barack Obama.
UPDATE: More from David Brooks.
April 17, 2008
Lights Out
April 16, 2008
Partisan Review
Like A Prayer
Shine A Light
April 15, 2008
Just The Two Of Us
Can we agree that neither Bill Clinton nor George W. Bush should be considered the worst President of all-time?
The anti-Bush crowd despises Dubya for the same reasons the anti-Clinton crowd despises Bubba: Bush and Clinton are regarded by their critics as arrogant, unscrupulous men who lucked their way into power. The left will always argue that the Supreme Court handed the 2000 election to Bush; the right will always argue that Ross Perot handed the 1992 election to Clinton.
Bush and Clinton are both flawed Presidents: the latter clearly lied under oath in the Lewinsky case, and the former failed to reach his potential as a great President. However, it’s hard to argue that either man deserves consideration as the worst Commander-in-Chief ever.
Was Clinton really worse than Lyndon Johnson, who mishandled Vietnam and who wasted trillions of dollars on an unjust, unnecessary quagmire known as the War on Poverty? Was Clinton really worse than Jimmy Carter, who ruined everything he touched between 1977 and 1981?
Similarly, was Bush really worse than Richard Nixon, who viewed the Constitution the same way O. J. Simpson viewed his ex-wife? Was he really worse than Gerald Ford, who gave us “Whip Inflation Now” buttons and (God help us) John Paul Stevens?
I didn’t like Clinton’s Supreme Court appointments, or his attempt to blame Rush Limbaugh for the Oklahoma City bombing, or his numerous campaign-finance scandals, but he did get a few things right, most notably the 1993 North American Free Trade Agreement and the 1996 welfare-reform effort. Had he not repeatedly lied to the American people, and had he pursued a truly centrist platform during the first two years of his Presidency, he would have been seen as one of our better Presidents.
Much of the Clinton Administration was a circus: the bizarre actions of the Civil Rights Division of his Justice Department, Al Gore’s claim of “no controlling legal authority,” Jocelyn Elders’ curious opinions on abstinence, Janet Reno’s unconscionable actions in the Elian Gonzalez case. Yet Clinton cannot honestly be considered the worst President ever.
Neither can Bush. Yes, the case against Bush is long: No Child Left Behind, the Medicare prescription drug benefit, the absolute refusal to control the borders, the Harriet Miers fiasco, the Dubai Ports World deal, the numerous problems involving the prosecution of the Iraq War. Yet Bush has also had his high points. The national economy, while currently experiencing tremendous strife, has been uncommonly strong for the majority of this decade. Bush appointed two exemplary judges to the Supreme Court. In addition, while it may be a cliché at this point, his controversial national-security actions have indeed prevented a second 9/11-sryle attack.
Like Clinton, Bush squandered his potential for greatness. There was a time between late-2001 and late-2004 in which people talked about Bush as though he could potentially surpass Ronald Reagan as a great President. No one’s talking that way now. Bush has had an absolutely miserable second term: his party lost control of the House and Senate, he lost control of his domestic agenda, and—prior to the surge—he lost control of the war.
When Bush leaves office, the left will celebrate for days on end, just as the right did after January 20, 2001. Then the rejoicing will end, and Bush will likely settle into history alongside his father as a President who could have been great, but missed the mark.
Of course, I think 43 is better than 42, though neither man was as great as 40. Clinton was never truly tested, never forced to face the limits of his courage and spirit; that’s why he never rose above mediocrity as President. Bush was tested by 9/11, and passed with flying colors—but on his second test, Iraq, his scores weren’t as high as they needed to be.
Yet neither man flunked. Clinton was ultimately defeated by his own hubris, but he was not as incompetent as Carter, nor was he as reckless as Johnson. Bush never sank to Nixon’s depths, and never embarrassed himself as extensively as Ford did.
It was wrong for the right to regard Clinton as the worst person ever to step foot in the Oval Office, and it’s equally wrong for the left to view Bush the same way. We’ve seen better, and worse, leaders of the free world. Clinton and Bush never matched the magnitude of the office—but history shows that very few men can.
April 14, 2008
Caught In The Act
Powered by Friendster Blogs
Recent Comments