Notes From D. R.

Weekend Box Office: Hulkamania

The Incredible Hulk tops the charts.

Demented Dictator

Jeff Jacoby on Robert Mugabe.

No Worries

I guess you have to count me as one of the so-called "black conservatives" (What does that term actually mean, anyway? It's one of these media terms, like "neocon", that has no clear definition) who is not conflicted about the Obama campaign. I respect what Obama has accomplished in his life, and I do agree that if he becomes President, it will mark a profound change in American life, but I'm not voting for him because I don't agree with him on anything. John McCain is closer to my personal views, so that's who I'm voting for.

Where is the logic in voting for someone whose views you disagree with? If I think Obama is going to damage the already troubled economy through income-tax increases, show excessive caution in his antiterrorism efforts, and appoint Supreme Court judges who will make rulings similar to the nonsensical recent ruling that gave Constitutional protections to terrorist suspects being held at Guantanamo Bay, then why would I want to vote for him? For me, voting for McCain over Obama is no different than voting for George W. Bush because I disagreed with Al Gore and John Kerry. No conflicts here.

Swingtown

Dean Barnett on the '08 election.

Happy People/U Saved Me

Singer R. Kelly is found not guilty on child-porn charges. 

The Last Meeting

Legendary NBC News journalist Tim Russert passes away at 58. More from New York Times, Scott Allen Miller, David Broder, Byron York, William Kristol, The Wall Street Journal, Jim Geraghty, Stephen Hayes and the Boston Herald.

Please Recycle

David Brooks on Barack Obama's lack of "change." Plus, more on Obama from Ward Connerly, Linda Chavez, Rich Lowry, Charles Krauthammer, Peggy Noonan and Kim Strassel.

What The Bleep?

In one of the most bizarre decisions of all-time, the Supreme Court rules that terrorism suspects being held at Guantanamo Bay have a right under the Constitution to challenge their detention. More from Power Line, Matthew Continetti and the Wall Street Journal.

It’s In The Way That You Use It

Sorry, Ann, but President Bush is not the man.

While Bush’s critics are wrong to depict him as one of the worst Presidents of all-time, Ms. Coulter is equally wrong to paint him as one of the best ever. Nothing Bush can do in the final months of his Presidency can change history’s inevitable verdict—that he was basically his father with a second term.

Yes, Bush deserves a ton of credit for keeping America safe in the seven years since 9/11. It is true that the otherwise-controversial Iraq War has succeeded in keeping terrorists from hitting our shores again. However, his successes here cannot overshadow his failures in other areas.

Does Coulter seriously think that, when folks look back upon the Bush years, they will not remember the embarrassments and ideological double-crossing that defined this Administration? Will the Harriet Miers nomination, the refusal to secure the border, the Dubai Ports World mess, the No Child Left Behind Act and the Medicare Part D prescription drug benefit just disappear from history’s view?

I appreciate Coulter’s desire to annoy the left, but doesn’t she realize that she’s annoying many on the right as well? Coulter seemingly does not understand that legitimate criticism of the President and hatred of the President are two different things.

Yes, Cindy Sheehan, Keith Olbermann, Michael Moore and virtually every Democrat in the House and Senate went way overboard condemning Bush over the past seven years. Bush has replaced Richard Nixon as the most demonized Republican President in recent memory.   

However, there are nonpartisans—and even some conservatives—who have real gripes with Bush. The 43^rd President needed to show the leadership of the 40^th President—and in so many ways, he did not.

Those of us who voted for Bush in 2000 and 2004 wanted him to match, if not exceed, Ronald Reagan’s accomplishments. If Coulter really believes that Bush has equaled or surpassed Bush, she should try to avoid the lightning bolt headed her way.

Coulter is an unapologetic “thirty-percenter”, someone who still sees Bush as the hero of 9/11, as opposed to the flawed President who has numerous wins and losses on his scoreboard. She seemingly doesn’t understand why a number of folks on the right are tired of Dubya.

Conservatism is about excellence—the pursuit of it, the celebration of it, the desire to reduce the size of government so that more Americans can achieve it in their personal lives. Conservatives revere Reagan because his Presidency defined excellence. Honest members of the right cannot say the same about Bush.

Bush, like his father, was above mediocrity but below excellence. Both Bushes seemed to have no grand vision for the country, no real direction for the “shining city on a hill.” They were effective middle-managers, but they weren’t world-class CEOs.

Coulter loves to tick off “progressives.” It’s a skill, a talent, one she has honed to near-perfection. Yet, she still doesn’t understand that “progressives” are not the only ones alienated by her rhetoric.

Those of us who believe that conservatism should stand for more than merely pointing out the flaws of liberalism are also antagonized by Ann. We wish there was someone who was just as funny, just as intelligent, just as sarcastic as Coulter, but with a willingness to go beyond the political surface. Saying that Bush will be remembered as one of the best Presidents of all-time—despite abundant evidence to the contrary—is akin to saying that all Republicans rule and all Democrats drool. Can’t we do better than that?

David Frum, Ross Douthat, Ramesh Ponnuru and other conservative commentators have argued in recent months that, in order for the conservative movement to survive, its leaders must explain why conservative ideas are better instead of merely attacking “progressive” concepts. One can’t avoid the sense that Coulter regards these commentators as whiners and spoilsports desperate to curry favor with liberals by attacking other conservatives. She’s condemned those she regards as insufficiently conservative before—remember how she attacked her erstwhile colleagues at National Review after her falling out with the publication?—and she’s bound to do so again. However, she cannot silence those who point out the flaws of the Coulter vision.

When Coulter peddles obvious nonsense like the notion that Bush will be remembered as an all-time great, she risks turning herself into the Maureen Dowd of the right. Is that the legacy Coulter wants to leave? If so, it won’t be a great one.

Radio Days

Congressman Mike Pence declares war on efforts to force conservative-leaning talk hosts off the air.

Oh, The Audacity!

The Boston Globe on the newest Barack Obama scandal.

UPDATE: More from Karl Rove, George Will and Larry Elder.

At Large

The Boston Herald once again smears Boston political reporter Jon Keller. What is going on here?

Comeback Kid

Michael Gerson on John McCain.

Money Talks

David Brooks on living beyond one's means.

One On One

John Gizzi on the Massachusetts US Senate race involving John Kerry and Jeff Beatty.

Do You Believe?

William Kristol on McCain vs. Obama.

UPDATE: More from Michael Graham, Pat Buchanan, Thomas Sowell, Star Parker, Robert Novak, David Limbaugh, the New York Times and John Fund.

“That Which Nourishes Me Also Destroys Me”

President Bush just might go out the way he came in.

If Barack Obama becomes the next President, Bush will have been succeeded by a man who exploited the same anti-White House sentiment Bush exploited to win the office. Obama is the Democrat equivalent of the 2000 Bush: a “change” figure who has positioned himself as an alternative to the supposedly unbearable leadership of the last eight years.

The parallels are striking. Bush was embraced by those who could not tolerate the lies of then-current President Clinton concerning the Monica Lewinsky case; Obama is embraced by those who cannot tolerate Bush’s alleged lies about the Iraq War. Bush was backed by online activists who were filled with contempt for all things “progressive”; Obama is backed by online activists whose loathing of all things conservative exceeds normal capacity.

Bush’s 2000 supporters were livid over a failed effort to impeach and remove Clinton. Obama’s supporters are still angry that Democrats never even tried to impeach and remove Bush.

Both candidates have been involved in racial controversies. Bush was raked over the coals for his February 2000 appearance at the then-anti-interracial-dating Bob Jones University; Obama has taken heat for his longtime affiliation with Chicago’s Trinity United Church of Christ, an entity as far to the left as BJU is to the right. (In both cases, the candidates received well-deserved heat.  Bush had no business appearing at BJU; he had to know that the left would seize upon his appearance as “proof” that he was a silent racist. Similarly, Obama should have washed his hands of Rev. Jeremiah Wright’s noxious—and obnoxious—church once he decided that he wanted to be the leader of all Americans, not just grievance-minded blacks.)

Both candidates have a history of being, well, less than skilled when they speak. Bush gave us “Is our children learning?” and “You’re working hard to put food on your family”; Obama has already given us “I’ve now been in 57 states” and “In case you missed it, this week, there was a tragedy in Kansas. Ten thousand people died”—with presumably more to come.

In their respective primaries, both Bush and Obama triumphed over far more experienced candidates. Dan Quayle famously remarked that Bush would need “on-the-job training”  as President; Hillary Clinton has made similarly dismissive remarks about Obama, her current support for him notwithstanding. The Bush-McCain fight for the 2000 GOP nomination was every bit as contentious (though not as long!) as the 2008 Obama-Clinton brawl; those who backed McCain never fully got over their unhappiness with the result, and there are indications that the bitterness awakened by the Obama-Clinton battle will also linger for some time.

Both the 2000 Bush and the 2008 Obama claimed to represent a new style of politics, one that would emphasize what makes Americans similar, not what makes them different. In both cases, such claims were nonsense. Bush and Karl Rove focused primarily on turning out the evangelical and conservative vote: they knew that loyal Democrats were unlikely to cross the aisle, and thus devoted themselves to acquiring as much red-state support as possible. Similarly, Obama and his advisors must know that committed Republicans will never vote for the man who is officially America’s most liberal Senator, and thus the Obama team will have to count on significant “progressive” turnout in order to win.

During his October 11, 2000 debate with Al Gore, Bush claimed that he did not believe “…our troops ought to be used for what's called nation-building.” Obama has already taken the Bush 2000 approach, denouncing the Iraq War (which is now, from a certain perspective, a “nation-building” operation) and vowing to bring American troops home.

Both Bush and Obama had supporters who were, shall we say, irrationally exuberant. In October 2000, Rush Limbaugh proclaimed that Bush would defeat Gore as soundly as Ronald Reagan defeated Jimmy Carter in 1980. Today, Obamaniacs insist that their guy will blow out McCain, never bothering to explain how Obama will win the South and Midwest. Bush’s supporters were convinced that he had what it took to revive the Reagan years; Obama’s supporters clearly believe he is capable of resurrecting the Kennedy era.

Who would have guessed, all those years ago, that Bush would become the Clinton figure in this race—a Commander-in-Chief people are generally tired of, a hyper-controversial figure loathed by his political adversaries, an anchor tied around the neck of the fellow party member trying to succeed him as President?  Americans had their fill of Clinton in 2000, and they’ve had enough of Bush today. Bush took advantage of anti-Clinton sentiment to become the 43^rd President of the United States. Obama is using similar tactics on his way to becoming the 44^th.