Notes From D. R.

Weekend Box Office: Hard As Iron

Iron Man remains on top.

A Courageous Country

Jeff Jacoby on Israel's 60th birthday.

UPDATE: More from William Kristol.

Labor Pains

Robert Bluey on Barack Obama and labor unions.

Here Comes The Bride

Aren't the media going over the edge with Jenna Bush's wedding? More from the Washington Post and the New York Times.

UPDATE: More from the Washington Times, New York Times and Washington Post.

"It's George Bush's Fault!!!"

The studio that made the anti-Iraq War film In the Valley of Elah goes out of business.

They've Got Issues

Peggy Noonan, Charles Krauthammer and Michael Gerson on Obama vs. Clinton.

You Can't See Me

Newt, you're a brilliant guy and your suggestions for the GOP make a lot of sense, but as long as you're making those strange commercials with Nancy Pelosi, most conservatives will just tune you out.

Ch-Ch-Changes

A split decision for Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton. More from Human Events, the Wall Street Journal and David Brooks.

The Favor

How much will John McCain owe Rush Limbaugh if he wins the 2008 election?

Limbaugh’s “Operation Chaos” angle, ostensibly designed to keep the Democrat primary going as long as possible, seems to be really geared towards extracting some concessions out of McCain if he emerges victorious on November 4. With an unpopular incumbent Republican President, an equally unpopular war, and a shaky economy, McCain’s chances for victory are still somewhat opaque. If Limbaugh’s actions help to clear up the Arizona senator’s Presidential skies, Mr. Maverick will have to pay “El Rushbo” back.

Limbaugh claims not to have ulterior motives, but it’s hard to take that claim at face value. Limbaugh, who seemingly supported Fred Thompson and Mitt Romney earlier in the campaign, is not terribly thrilled with McCain, a figure he regards as a liberal Republican. However, Limbaugh has made it clear that the prospect of either “Mrs. Clinton” or the Illinois Senator replacing George W. Bush as President gives him nightmares.

If “Operation Chaos” weakens the eventual Democrat nominee so severely that he or she loses to McCain, Limbaugh will declare himself single-handedly responsible for the Vietnam hero’s win. He will want some sort of “reward” for delivering the election to McCain.

What will that “reward” be? A President McCain who governs from the right.

McCain knows, or has to know, that if Limbaugh is powerful enough to make him President, Limbaugh is also powerful enough to destroy him as President. What Jeremiah Wright has done to Barack Obama will be infinitesimal compared to what Limbaugh could do to a President McCain if McCain does not lead in accord with Limbaugh’s Reagan-shaped values.

There’s clearly an unspoken deal at work here: Limbaugh will deliver the election to McCain by encouraging the Democrats to destroy each other, but in turn, McCain must abandon the “maverick” malarkey and govern as a true Goldwater/Reagan Republican. We’re already seeing signs of this “deal”: McCain’s rhetoric has become markedly more conservative in recent weeks, as the one-time GOP heretic has praised income tax cuts and denounced judges who legislate from the bench.

Perhaps Limbaugh feels that, like a political Pygmalion, he can remake McCain into the perfect conservative. Limbaugh respects McCain for his military accomplishments, but feels that his political accomplishments aren’t nearly as remarkable, largely because of his need to feel loved by “progressive” reporters.  By effectively forcing McCain to govern as a conservative, Limbaugh apparently hopes to make McCain the politician as noteworthy as McCain the soldier.

Some on the left would consider this a form of blackmail—but in reality, it’s just Limbaugh sticking to his principles. Limbaugh feels that Reagan’s vision works best for this country—and if he can use his power and influence to force McCain to adhere to the Reagan vision as President, so much the better. If Limbaugh can compel McCain to become a true-red conservative, who loses?

Obviously, the folks who wish for a return to “Rockefeller Republicanism” in the GOP won’t be thrilled if McCain reinvents himself as a right-winger at Limbaugh’s behest. Those skeptical of Reagan-style conservatism supported McCain over Bush in 2000 because they hoped McCain would lead the party away from the “neocons” and “Bible-thumpers” whose influence on the GOP was thought to be pernicious. The last thing these guys want is a President McCain who talks of American greatness and proclaims God’s blessing over the country.

Limbaugh has said for years that “blue-blood, country-club” Republicans loathe him every bit as much as committed Democrats do. These Republicans, argues Limbaugh, are not motivated by a commitment to conservative ideas—and have nothing but disdain for socially conservative Republicans. “Blue-blood, country-club” Republicans have long viewed McCain as a comrade-in-arms—and they will be horrified to see a President McCain transformed into a Limbaugh acolyte.

However, it’s not like McCain really has a choice. He can do things the easy way, or he can do things the hard way. The “easy way” is to avoid Limbaugh’s—and, by extension, the conservative movement’s—permanent censure by governing from the right, hewing closely to the Reagan model and avoiding the quasi-conservative Bush/Nixon model at all costs. The “hard way” is to demonstrate political ingratitude by governing as a “maverick” and scorning the views of Limbaugh and his conservative brethren. McCain has done foolish things in the past, but he’s no fool. Limbaugh has made him an offer he can’t refuse—and, if he’s elected President, McCain will, and will have to, hold up his end of the bargain. 

UNSUNG HERO

Mildred Loving, one of the plaintiffs in the lawsuit that led to the 1967 Supreme Court ruling striking down laws banning marriage between people of different races, passes away at 68. It's unbelievable that this woman has essentially been written out of American civil rights history. More from the New York Times.

Back In Time

Thomas Sowell on Jeremiah Wright's grievance industry.

Keep It Rolin'

David Brooks and Fred Barnes on Clinton vs. Obama.

Young Americans

William Kristol on an interesting VP choice for John McCain.

UPDATE: More from the Washington Times.

Don’t Worry, Be Happy

I hope everyone realizes life will go on no matter who becomes the next President.

This doesn’t mean that the outcome of the next election isn’t important. The courts, the war, the economy, the culture—these will all be influenced by the person who succeeds George W. Bush in the White House. Making the wrong Presidential selection will lead to the embarrassment of the country, and the weakening of the free world. A decision made in haste will result in years of pain.

Yet that pain will not be permanent, and the country will survive no matter what. Honest conservatives know that Bill Clinton’s election was not the end of the world, and honest liberals know that Bush’s victory did not presage the downfall of Western civilization. The country is strong enough to survive a President’s mistakes; America would have collapsed long ago without such durability.

Look at what America has endured during the last century alone. The country remained strong even after FDR’s hardheartedness towards Japanese-Americans, JFK’s foreign-policy woes, LBJ’s ineptitude, Nixon’s criminality, Ford’s lack of vision, Carter’s backwardness, and Bush 41’s ideological inconsistency. Clinton’s prevarications and Bush 43’s mistakes haven’t diminished the country’s spirit: the actions of our next Commander-in-Chief won’t either.

A commitment to partisan ideas doesn’t justify unrestrained anger when a politician one likes fails to become President. As much as I want John McCain to supplant Bush as President, I won’t take to the streets in fury if the White House returns to Democrat control. I’ll be disappointed, not only for myself but also for taxpayers, soldiers and unborn children who will be negatively affected by Democrat policies. However, I won’t be angry.

I’ve never understood the logic behind being so livid over the results of a Presidential election that one begins to hold the winner of that election responsible for all the problems in the country, or in the world. Clinton coarsened the culture with his actions in the Lewinsky case, and showed cowardice in his handling of the Elian Gonzales matter, but it would have been ridiculous for someone to hold the Clinton administration responsible for, say, the Oklahoma City terrorist attack or the Columbine massacre. Bush should have had this war won years ago, and should have shown much more skill in his handling of domestic affairs, but his failures do not justify the ridiculous rhetoric of such figures as Cindy Sheehan and Kanye West.

If there’s one thing Americans love to do, it’s bash their President. Clinton caught hell years ago for supporting NAFTA and welfare reform; Bush catches hell now because people think he’s somehow responsible for the skyrocketing gas prices. It would be one thing if we criticized our Presidents for logical reasons—but we have a sad tradition of criticizing our Presidents based on emotion.

It’s easy to blame the President when something goes wrong in our lives; it’s far harder to blame ourselves. We have this mentality that the President is our caretaker, someone who will remove all ills, all injustices, all threats, all dangers. We have been led to believe that the President is a Jesus figure—and when he does not deliver the promised miracles, we become political atheists.

What we as individual Americans do is far more important, and far more relevant, than what any President does. While we should criticize the President when he makes wrong choices, we should not hold him responsible for everything we don’t like about America. There is a dangerous trend in this country of Americans regarding themselves as victims of Washington, pieces on a giant game board controlled by the President. Too few Americans have the mentality that they can succeed in this country in spite of what the President does; too many seem to think that they cannot succeed because of what the President does.

I didn’t like Clinton, but I never thought for a moment that I wouldn’t be able to achieve a goal because he was sitting in the White House. I can’t understand the mentality of those who have spent the 2000s thinking that they couldn’t accomplish anything because of Bush. I don’t get the thought process of those who believe that the election of a President they don’t like will destroy their lives.

No matter who wins this fall, America will go on. A President can hurt the country’s greatness, but a President cannot single-handedly force the country into mediocrity or worse. Americans should remain hopeful no matter who emerges victorious on November 4. It won’t be the end of the world if your candidate loses…just the end of a campaign.