And Around Again We Go...

In light of the latest media-circus scandal fueled by hysteria and fake outrage, over Harry Reid's inartful, inelegant, and sloppy comments, I just wanted to add some quick thoughts, and this, from the indispensable John McWhorter:

First of all, we need not pretend that by “Negro dialect” Reid meant the cartoon minstrel talk of Amos n Andy. After all, why would Reid, a rational human being under any analysis, be under the impression that any black person talks like Uncle Remus, much less be surprised that one of them does not? My guess is that he said “negro” in a passing attempt to name Black English in a detached, professional way, randomly choosing a slightly arcane and outdated term. Or, consider that Negro English was what scholars called “Ebonics” until the early seventies. Reid likely caught wind of that terminology -- he's been around a while, after all.

and this:

Indeed Reid implied that black dialect is less prestigious than standard, such that not speaking it made Obama more likely to become President. That is, he implied what we all think too: Black English is, to the typical American ear, warm, honest -- and mistaken. If that’s wrong, okay – but since when are most Americans, including black ones, at all shy about dissing Black English? And who among us -- including black people -- thinks someone with what I call a "black-cent" who occasionally popped up with double negatives and things like aks could be elected President, whether it's fair or not? Reid, again, deserves no censure for what he said unless we're ready to censure ourselves too.

and he closes out:

Reid implied that Black English is lesser than standard English and that it’s therefore good that Obama doesn’t use it in public. This is not about whether black people have to sweat to speak standard English; it’s about whether Black English is as good as standard English. Most of America black as well as white is at the exact same point in understanding vernacular speech and its proper evaluation as Reid is.

For which reason most of America should leave him alone about this and move on.

Indeed. Read the whole thing. Now for my money, Reid's comments were a messy, inartful, and off-putting way of touching on a debate that Americans of all colors are having to this day. It would be great if that debate could be furthered somehow, yet as usual, that debate has been replaced by the usual sideshow.


Two things: First off, the GOP equation of this with the Trent Lott incident is spectacularly, mind-numbingly off-base. Can smeone explain to me, even if you shine Reid's comments in tht e worst possible light, how acknowledging the fact that Obama is light-skinned, and doesn't speak Black English, compares to waxing poetically about voting for a segregationist in 1948? It's not even close, and what makes this worse, is that I think the GOP leadership knows this.

Secondly, one could ignore all this, and simply do as Liz Cheney does, and simply see this as liberals excusing other liberals. Or one could be sensible, and acknowledge context, much like unhinged left-winger George Will.

Now, make no mistake, politics is surely involved on the Democratic side as well, as I suspect a substantial factor in the rally behind Reid has to do with needing him in the Senate. That being said, the Dems have the benefit of being right on the merits, while the GOP's political cynicism is so obvious as not need pointing out. Michael Steele's own past efforts are proof of that.

Victory Means Changing Their Minds

You know what, I've come to a realization. I think it's clear that the town hall protestrs by the right are backed by lobbyists and party activists. It's also true that many of these protests have gotten kinda ugly. Oh, and I also believe that a number of the attacks on the health care plan are boundless, hysterical, and also false.

That being said, the Democratic strategy of complaining about all this does nothing to actually get the bill passed. Right or wrong (and I guess I outed where I stand), the GOP strategy is working in some respects. Obama's numbers are going down. To be fair, there are many legitimate concerns about the health plan, and while I think certain people are stoking those fears to the point of hysteria, those fears need to be assuaged. Spending your energy complaining about bogus GOP arguments wastes energy that ought be spent countering those arguments.

Put simply, to complain about being punched in the nose looks like whining, and nobody wants to be the one who looks like they're trying to stop protests. The idea is to fight back, and win, by winning the argument.

Just sayin.'

Once A Starbucks Republican...

Now a Scoop Jackson Democrat. Read on, this is good:

The Democrats are on the right track. They got their problems, and the biggest ones have names like Pelosi and Boxer, but all in all their approach fits my political persuasion. We need to start thinking about public policy again, something that Barack Obama has preached. It isn't about big government or small government, but good government. I think Mike Bloomberg said it best during the financial crisis when he said the question is not do we bailout companies or do we not, but which ones and why.

So why not be an independent? Because it isn't practical. I will continue to vote for Republicans when I see fit, but we are a two party country. The way I see it is that you are either on one side or the other.

Why Scoop Jackson Democrat? Senator Jackson was from Washington State. He was a fiscally responsible, pro national defense, anti-communist social justice crusader who cared deeply about protecting the environment. In other words... my kind of Democrat. The emergence of Obama and other politicians like Jim Webb, Jon Tester, Steny Hoyer, Harold Ford, and many of the pro-gun, fiscally conservative moderates in the Democratic Party, has replaced what was once the Nelson Rockefeller wing of the Repbulican Party. The loss of Congressman Chris Shays was symbolic somewhat... he was the last of a dying bread within the GOP.

Indeed.

The Case for Barack Obama (Or At Least, Why I'm Voting For Him)

This isn't really a secret at this point, but I am voting for Obama tomorrow. I guess this is the official endorsement. I put this off to the end for a variety of reasons, mainly due to a lack of time, but I'm not worried about it being too close to Election Day to influence any votes, as it's clear most here have made up their minds already, and I don't suspect I'll be changing them. No big deal. In effect, this is the answer to the question, "Why are you voting for this guy?"

First off, let's get some preliminaries out of the way. I'm a moderate liberal Democrat, who generally comes from the center-Left, DLC/hawkish end of the Party. I'm pro-life, I think the MoveOn-Kos wing of the party has too much influence, and while I've disagreed with most of his policies, I don't have a pathological contempt for Bush.

Ok, so why Obama? To put it bluntly, I think on most of the core issues that are facing the country right now, I think Obama is best equipped to deal with those issues, meaning he has the policy vision, and temperament to lead. I like the guy. What I saw him in 2004, and in the early days of this campaign, I see in him now. He's got skills. You may not agree with Obama's economic and fiscal policies, but he has been pretty consistent throughout on the key issues, and not just on the economic crisis. McCain on the other hand, has been all over the place. McCain is not Bush, and I do agree that the Dems have used the McCain as Bush meme a bit too much, but with the exception of earmark reform and talks about a spending freeze, he really hasn't clearly laid out how his economic approach will be different than the standard GOP platform. If you're for that platform, that's fine, but a lot of us Dems see things differently. On the recent economic crisis, McCain has been all over the place. First he said everything was fine, the he recognized the crisis, then he was against the bailout, then for it. He suspends his campaign, and tries to postpone the debate, in what has to be called one of the most ill-executed moves in a while. He tries to paint Obama as being on the sidelines, but Obama always argued that one could deal with the crisis and run the campaign. At the meeting with Bush, Obama was engaged, but McCain didn't say much. McCain suspended his campaign, but sat back in the meeting, and when it came time to actually do what he suspended his campaign to do, he didn't get it done. Surely, the bill eventually passed, but it was a more bloated one. What's my point here? While Obama was consistent on the issue, McCain shifted positions several times on this, and then tried to paint Obama has the big spender, while voting for the bill that he once opposed, not mention adding another $300,000 plan to buy bad mortgages. Again, mileage is your own, but I think Obama showed real leadership.

What about foreign policy, you may ask. Let's be clear. I, for all intents and purposes am a supporter of the Iraq war. Obama, for all intents and purposes isn't. I wish he was as I am on this, but he's not. I have noticed though, and I'm not the only one to notice this, that Obama has always left wiggle room on his support for ending the war. He has always resisted the more aggresive pullout approach from the MoveOn crew. In fact, although Obama does get a lot of support from the anti-war faction, if they're looking for a Carteresque dove, they're deluding themselves. Obama has always been on target about Afghanistan, and contrary to McCain's distortions, he has it right on Pakistan.

To be fair, McCain has consistently supported the surge, and did so when it wasn't popular. He has my utmost respect for that. If this election were just about Iraq, or if I genuinely felt that Obama would somehow surrender to terror, things would be different. Obama was wrong on the surge, and he has yet to openly admit that, but he has acknowledged its success, for the most part. On Israel, I'll say again that if I doubted for a second that Obama wasn't committed to Israel, I couldn't vote for him. As to Iran, he did prevaricate on preconditions, but I think he has come around to an acceptable position.

The McCain camp continues to bring up Obama's supposed vote to defund the troops. Obama dealt with this in the first debate, but the charge keeps coming up. The issue at hand was not funding the troops, but timetables. Obama voted for the timetables troop-funding bill, and McCain voted against it, because of tmetables. The non-timetables troop-funding bill Obama voted against, was because of timetables. I suspect Obama voted against it, knowing it would pass either way. I suspect he was trying to make a political statement, and made the same mistake Kerry made in 2004. Honestly, I would've voted against it, because I don't really support artificial timetables, but let's be clear: The issue at hand was timetables, not troop funding. Obama has a consistent record of voting to fund the war, despite his opposition to it, much to the chagrin of many anti-war Lefties.

On the Russia-Georgia conflict, overall I thought Obama handled himself fairly well, with the exception of one pernicious gaffe, which fortunately he has not repeated.

There is of course the question of experience, or rather Obama's lack thereof. compared to McCain. McCain has an impressive record, and is a veteran on the battlefield, and in Congress. He is a man of honor, and sacrificed immensely for his country. Obama doesn't have that resume. He just doesn't, and there's no getting around that, but I believe he does have the temperament, policy vision, and judgment on the key issues, moreso than McCain. Heck, maybe it's just that I agree with Obama more, but I don't think so.

Let me say though, that both these candidates have their flaws. Obama is hardly perfect, and has some issues. I am concerned about the possibility of an unfettered Democratic majority in Congress. The Pelosi-Reid era hasn't exactly lived up to its expectations, and while I don't doubt his sincere belief in bipartisanship, he doesn't have the record that McCain has. McCain has a clear record of bipartisanship, not to mention opposing his own Party, and Bush. Obama doesn't have that much of a legislative record, but he does have good relations with many Republicans (and not just the ones endorsing him), and he has worked with Republicans in the State Senate, as well as the U.S. Senate. He was President of the Harvard Law Review, let's not forget. My concern, to the extent that I am concerned, isn't that Obama won't work with Republicans, but whether he will be able to oppose his own party when necessary. Say what you want about Sarah Palin, she has opposed her own party. The thing is, I'm not really sure about her record of working with Democrats, though. McCain to his credit, has done both. Obama has resisted many of the impulses of MoveOn.org, and he did defy the Party leadership and campaign for Lieberman in 2006. Yeah, it's thin I know, but I'm willing to gamble. After all, how Left can Obama really go, with Blue Dogs in the House, and many Red-state Dems in the Senate?

Again, I'm concerned about the card check bill, and the possibility of the Fairness Doctrine coming back, but I'm willing to take the risk.

As to the negativity of the campaign, I freely cede that neither candidate has been pure. The Obama campaign has put out some questionable ads, and a few that were pretty sleazy. As I see it though, most of Obama's ads have been policy-based, while McCain's ads have been straight-negative for the last three months, and many were just straight up personal attacks. Obama has never questioned McCain's patriotism, or belittled his military service (at least not intentionally). The McCain crew and his supporters have gone personal on everything, and I may be the only one who feels this way, but in last few months, it's been over the top. True, many Obama supporters, and in certain instances Obama himself have brought up the race card, but it seems that they've gone after Obama on everything but race ("palling around with terrorists," real America vs. fake America, Obama is a liar, Obama is a socialist, etc), and it's gone beyond the pale, in my book. I will not lay that blame for the lunatic conspiracies (Obama as Muslim invader, phony birth certificate, Bill Ayers as ghostwriter of Obama's book, Obama's logo, etc) on the McCain campaign, but McCain and Palin have launched some beyond the pale attacks, and frankly it's beneath a man of McCain's character.

This is running long, so I'll wrap this up. As for Obama's alliances, at the end of the day, they don't bother me that much. He did flip on public financing, as I said before, that's the one typical politician move I cannot defend. At the end of the day, though, despite his weaknesses, I believe he is the man we need right now. He is not however, the Messiah. Many of his supporters are drunk with hero worship, but in the end, he's just a man, a mere mortal. If you're expecting him to heal the breaches of the universe, prepare to be disappointed. He may be running as a new kind of politician, but he's still a politician. He's run an impressive and historic campaign, but he's made mistakes.

I was technically undecided up until late September, although to be honest, I've leaned Obama's way most of the time. I've seriously considered backing McCain many times, and I think what took me so long was that I still contend that the choice is between two decent, patriotic men. I say one more time that McCain is an honorable and decent man, and despite my issues with his campaign, he still has my respect. As for Sarah Palin, my view of her has diminished over the last couple of months, but she still seems a decent person, and she does have a record.

Many will justify their votes against Obama because of the pro-Obama bias in the press, and the press has made quite the fool of itself this election cycle, but to borrow a phrase, you punish the press for its failures, not the candidate(s).

If Obama wins, he will be the first black President. As an American, and as a black man, that is a great thing for me, but that's not the reason I'm voting for him. The fact that he's made it this far is proof that the barrier has been torn down, and if Obama loses, it won't be because America is a racist country. It won't be because America didn't want a black man to be President, rather they didn't want this particular black man, for a variety of reasons. Will racism be out there? Surely, but I think most Americans won't stoop to that. Sue me, I'm an optimist.

And that's what I want to end this on. If Obama wins, this republic will survive. Yes, it will. If McCain wins, this republic will survive. If Obama loses, I'll be disappointed, but I'll get over it. If he wins, I won't gloat (although I fear others might).

And that's it. Go vote, if you haven't already.

"When people say how excited they are about this election, I can now say, 'Maybe for you. But I lost my home.'"

Former Obama speechwriter Wendy Button has had with the Democratic Party, and is endorsing McCain:

I was dead wrong about the surge and thought it would be a disaster. Senator John McCain led when many of us were ready to quit. Yet we march on as if nothing has changed, wedded to an old plan, and that too is a long way from the Democratic Party.

I can no longer justify what this party has done and can’t dismiss the treatment of women and working people as just part of the new kind of politics. It’s wrong and someone has to say that. And also say that the Democratic Party’s talking points—that Senator John McCain is just four more years of the same and that he’s President Bush—are now just hooker lines that fit a very effective and perhaps wave-winning political argument…doesn’t mean they’re true. After all, he is the only one who’s worked in a bipartisan way on big challenges.

You know what? I'm for Obama, but I know how Wendy Button feels, to an extent. I've criticized the way the McCain camp and the GOP have conducted themselves as of late, but my Party, at the end of the day hasn't been much better. My view of Sarah Palin has diminished in last few weeks, but the level of contempt, and the lunatic wave of attacks on her by the press and the far-left is a disturbing thing. The Joe the Plumber narrative is not one I've really bought in to, but the way this guy was attacked by the press was just bizzare, and has only made him more of an issue.

Oh yeah, and Obama still refuses to admit he was wrong on the surge. Just sayin.'

HT: Simon

More on The Speeches

I'll have more complete thoughts on the RNC speeches later in the day, but I'll just say for now that Palin did an impressive job, and despite my obvious disagreements with a number of her policies, I like her. I've noted here and elsewhere that the attacks on her by the press and the far-Left are unfair and unfortunate.

I do have one quibble though: What's so bad about being a community organizer? Now admittedly, it doesn't compare to McCain's military record, but I just don't see why Obama being a community organizer is such a point of derision. Palin and Giuilani attacked him on this.

More on that later, but over at Booker Rising, a bit of a mini-ruckus has been raised about my praising of Lieberman's speech Tuesday night. First off, I have not made up my mind yet who I'm voting for yet, although I have leaned various directions throughout this campaign, and I'm leaning a particular way now. I can't really be counted as a firm Obama supporter at this point, but I do like him a lot, and have said so in the past.

Nevertheless, I was attacked by various commenters, as well as Lieberman. No big deal, I can take it (and so can Lieberman), but in the midst of the ad hominem, a few valid points were brought out, namely the fact that Obama campaigned for Lieberman in 2006.

The fact is, he did, and Obama has always counted Lieberman as a mentor. Now, I don't think Lieberman backing the man who he believes is best equipped to lead the country is disloyalty, but Obama can count his support for Lieberman in 2006, against the anti-war forces in his party as an example of bipartisanship, and I'm surprised he hasn't brought it up. Of course, Obama and Lieberman have differed on key issues, namely Obama's opposition to the surge, and his support for premature withdrawal. An argument could be made that maybe Lieberman shouldn't have gone after Obama directly, but he was probably the only speaker that night that actually offered any praise for his Senate colleague, and with all respect to Obama, he did have a point. McCain has clearly more legislative experience than Obama, and a much more significant record of bipartisanship than Obama does.

The fact is, Lieberman made his choice because he believes it's right, and it's not as if he owes his party much of anything, seeing as how the leadership essentially sanctioned his being thrown under the bus. We Democrats owe him our Democratic majority in the Senate, as it is held together by Lieberman's own will. The Dems didn't take LIeberman's speech too well, though, and have already readied his excommunication. It was clear that Lieberman's position as the preserver of the Dem majority kept him the caucus, but it's apparent now, that if they get enough seats that they no longer need him, he's back under the bus.

It's a shame really. Obama could prove himself to be above all this, and stick his neck out for Lieberman, but I doubt it. Let it never be said that opposing your party isn't without consequences.

"You may be thinking of voting for John McCain but you're not sure. Some of you have never voted for a Republican before"

Joe Lieberman made his plea for McCain tonight, and he was good:

Senator Obama is a gifted and eloquent young man who can do great things for our country in the years ahead. But eloquence is no substitute for a record - not in these tough times.

In the Senate he has not reached across party lines to get anything significant done, nor has he been willing to take on powerful interest groups in the Democratic party.

Contrast that to John McCain's record, or the record of the last Democratic president, Bill Clinton, who stood up to some of those same Democratic interest groups and worked with Republicans to get important things done like welfare reform, free trade agreements and a balanced budget.

And this:

Especially at a time of war, we need a president we can count on to fight for what's right for our country - not only when it is easy, but when it is hard.

When others were silent, John McCain had the judgment to sound the alarm about the mistakes we were making in Iraq. When others wanted to retreat in defeat from the field of battle, when Barack Obama was voting to cut off funding for our troops on the ground.

John McCain had the courage to stand against the tide of public opinion and support the surge, and because of that, today, our troops are at last beginning to come home, not in failure, but in honor!

Indeed. I'll tell you straight, that Lieberman damn near persuaded me tonight. It could be based on other things I've been feeling about the election in recent days, and the far-Left pile on Sarah Palin, but let me say that as far as my vote goes, Obama is lucky the election isn't being held tonight.

Obama, Marx, Lieberman, and His "Bitter" Pill

You all must know by now about the kerfuffle over ill-executed and disquieting comments Obama made about small town voters being bitter, and "clinging to their religion and their guns." I'm going to elaborate on this later, but I'm feeling a bit lazy right now, so I'll link to my comment from this post by Tully over at SF, about one possible explanation for Obama's comments.

As I said in my comment ( do read the post, BTW), I don't think Juliette's argument is plausible. Others, namely one Bill Kristol, have a different view, that Obama is in fact, a Marxist, who uses his religious faith as a cover. I think that charge is clearly over the top, and I'll elaborate more later on, as to why.

The thing is though, there is a bit of a controversy brewing over comments Sen. Joe Lieberman made with regards to this. (HT: Sully and ThinkProgress):

NAPOLITANO: Hey Sen. Lieberman, you know Barack Obama, is he a Marxist as Bill Kristol says might be the case in today’s New York Times? Is he an elitist like your colleague Hillary Clinton says he is?

LIEBERMAN: Well, you know, I must say that’s a good question. I know him now for a little more than three years since he came into the Senate and he’s obviously very smart and he’s a good guy. I will tell ya that during this campaign, I’ve learned some things about him, about the kind of environment from which he came ideologically. And I wouldn’t…I’d hesitate to say he’s a Marxist, but he’s got some positions that are far to the left of me and I think mainstream America.

Many, including Sullivan and Think Progress took issue with this statement by Lieberman. IN fairness to Lieberman, who I've come to deeply respect more than ever these past couple of years, perhaps he felt the question of Obama being an elitist was the good question, as opposed to question of him being a Marxist. Lieberman clearly stopped short of calling Obama a Marxist, although some will argue that he was ambiguous in doing so.

The question of him having views to the left of Lieberman and mainstream America is an interesting question. Obama does in fact hold views to the left of Lieberman (and myself, for that matter), at least with regards to foreign policy. He wants to pull the troops out of Iraq a whole lot sooner than Lieberman does, and he's mentioned talks with Iran. As to other issues, Lieberman;s comments are a bit problematic, as I'm not really sure what Lieberman means here, as he and Obama are pretty much on the same page with regards to the other core Democratic issues. As far as mainstream America is concerned, many war critics rightly point out public dissatisfaction with the war, but keep in mind that a lot of those still oppose a premature withdrawal.

At the end of the day, though, I don't think this is that big of a deal, except in the minds of those on the Left who already have a beef with Sen. Lieberman.

Not that Obama being perceived as too far left of the mainstream doesn't help McCain, who Lieberman supports, a fact which really drives many on the Left crazy.

Yeah, This Sounds About Right:

Shay from Booker Rising, on Geraldine Ferraro:

Damn, I check out for one day to attend to family business and another crusty, white feminist Democrat becomes unhinged at the thought that a black person isn't (1) being subservient to white interests and (2) has the audacity to not only not shuffle and move out of their way, but is outdoing them. As a black moderate-conservative feminist, I gotta do a mini-rant. On Monday, it was Sen. Hillary Clinton's condescending, white arrogant appeal for Sen. Barack Obama - who is the Democratic frontrunner - to be her number 2. Now a blast from the past back when I was a kid, Geraldine Ferraro, is cutting up. Ms. Ferraro - who is backing Sen. Clinton for president - yesterday claimed that Sen. Barack Obama wouldn't be where he is in the presidential race if he weren't black.

And this, which hardly anyone else has brought up:

Sen. Obama put Ms. Ferraro in check though, and also said that if someone in his campaign had suggested that Sen. Hillary Clinton "is where she is only because she is a woman" then she and Ms. Ferraro would be offended. Never mind that Sen. Obama has more experience as a legislator than Sen. Clinton has - I don't count sleeping with President Bill Clinton to be significant experience, since Sen. Clinton won't release her First Lady papers - but Ms. Ferraro wants to diss Barack. Oh wait, Sen. Obama has more experience as a legislator than Ms. Ferraro too. Talk about someone who got a vice presidential nod due to race and gender. - that would be Geraldine Ferraro. White girl needs to sit down somewhere and check herself.

Indeed. I'm going to expand on this tomorrow, but let me say that Ferraro's argument is risible and ridiculous. I'm not saying she's a racist, but the idea that Obama is only here because he's black, or because the country wants to elect a black man is insulting to Obama and those who voted for him.

The sexism charge is pretty silly as well. Let me say that if Hillary loses (or wins), it won't have that much to do with her gender, and if Obama loses (or wins) it won't br because he's black, not that being the first black or female President isn't a boost, and momumentally great for the country.

Don't misunderstand me. I'm not saying that Obama's race isn't a factor. There is a strong desire to see a black or female President, but with Obama, the fact that he's black isn't the only thing keeping him at the top. I know Earl Ofari Hutchinson disagrees, but if Obama was white, and still brought the same qualities he has to the race, he'd still be on top.

Now, this is somewhat moot now that Ferraro has stepped down from the campaign, but I don't think she should've been sacked. I'm inclined to agree with the view that this rush to fire people who say things that are offensive is a disquieting impulse. I think we need to be really careful with this. Besides, her argument deserves to be scrutinized and exposed as faulty, not silenced. I also don't expect her to apologize for something she apparently believes in her heart.

A final point on the media coverage. Some of the media coverage of Clinton by certain outlets has been unfair, and Obama probably hasn't been hit has hard in certain respects as he probably should've been. That being said, there has been a lot of dirt, unfair charges, and hype on both sides, and the fact is that a lot of the wounds Clinton has received were self-inflicted.

I mean honestly, who knows, the media is a fickle beast. As to the sexism charge, I'm inclined to agree with this from Camille Paglia, via Althouse:

The cloud of feminist cant about Hillary's struggling candidacy has been noxious.

Uh huh.

Not To Overreact Here,

but I'm inclined to agree with Eric Scheie, and wonder if perhaps it really isn't the best way to show your commitment to working-class and poor people, by broadcasting a debate on a channel that only people with a lot of money can watch?

This is another one of those things that the GOP will seize on, and while ultimately irrelevant, doesn't reflect well. I mean, what is the thinking behind this anyway? Did HDNet pay the DNC big bucks for this or something?

It all seems silly. I just can't figure out what they were trying to accomplish.

HT: Althouse

Cautious Optimism, Versus Cynical Opportunism

Christopher Hitchens, on the good news coming from Iraq. Good all the way through, and a somewhat hyperbolic, but nonetheless valid argument at the end:

As I began by saying, I am not at all certain that any of this apparently good news is really genuine or will be really lasting. However, I am quite sure both that it could be true and that it would be wonderful if it were to be true. What worries me about the reaction of liberals and Democrats is not the skepticism, which is pardonable, but the dank and sinister impression they give that the worse the tidings, the better they would be pleased. The latter mentality isn't pardonable and ought not to be pardoned, either.

True dat.

“Why do you think you didn’t give a speech like this in, say, May or June of 2004?”

Asks E.J Dionne, in response to these recent comments by John Kerry on abortion, and the Democratic Party's position on life issues:


I think we have been guilty in the party and individually at times of being overly pro-choice and this is the way it is and we’re not going to do x, y or z, without honoring the deeply held beliefs that are legitimate that go to the question of the killing of a human being, depending on what you believe. And I understand it depends on what you believe. But if you believe it, I think you do have an obligation to say so in terms of wanting fewer abortions, of trying to say abortion is not good, it’s not a good alternative, and what we need to do is make sure people have other alternatives and other options. That’s where you can find a lot of common ground because there are 1.3 million abortions in this country, and I don’t think anybody would disagree that that is too many.

As Bill Clinton framed it, I thought so effectively, in 1992, it ought to be rare, legal and safe. Rare has been missing from the debate. I think we need to figure out how we’re going to do that, and do it in a more effective way.

I still remember vividly that third debate between Kerry and Bush, when he answered that question on abortion. It was like watching an animal being tortured. I felt literal pain watching that. This is still somewhat nuanced and clunky, but a quantum leap from the fall of 2004. It's much too late at this point (which was Dionne's point), but he does get a lot closer to full coherence this time.

UPDATE: I should mention that for all intents and purposes I am a pro-life Democrat, so I still have some issues with this position, but I still think it is a big step compared to his last statement on the issue.

A Matter of Principle

"Where there is no vision, the people perish."

Proverbs 29:18


"The result by the 1980s was a much weakened liberalism that was no match for a renewed conservative movement. Sapped of energy, liberalism had become, in Paul Starr's words, mostly "defensive" and "oppositional." Liberals tried to stick to the catechism of the older values, but were often pushed off course by the conflicting priorities championed by the cultural left. Liberals lacked any clear conception of first principles or anchoring ideas to guide them. Except for the fact that the Democratic party remained the home of almost all of the intelligentsia, it had now become the "stupid party" of American politics, an honor previously reserved for Republicans. Not even the two Clintons, with their high IQ's and a new generation of policy wonks to serve them, could change this. The "New Democrat" thrust was wholly strategic and practical: to move the Democratic party to the center and to "reinvent" government. Whatever other contributions may be ascribed to the Clinton Democrats, deep reflection about the party's theoretical foundations was not among them."


A must-read article, on the future of liberalism, the Democratic Party, and political discourse at large. Read the whole thing.

HT: Stubborn Facts

The First (and Last) Time I Address The Limbaugh Controversy

OK, I'm only blogging on this once, because I'm already worn out. It's clear that there has a been a susbstantial amount of heat about comments that Limbaugh made regarding soldiers in Iraq, and dissent, and "phony soldiers." The Left has piled on, and the right has piled on the pile on. Let me say this: I don't consider myself a Limbaugh fan by any means, but I think it's clear that his words were at least ambiguous, and most likely didn't mean to assert that troops who oppose the war are phony. That being said, whatever one thinks of his comments, the context of the comments, the justification of ignoring said context based on past statements Rush has made, or whatever, there was no reason whatsoever to bring this foolishness to the floor of Congress. What a spectacular waste of time that was.

Before anyone brings this up, let me say that as vicious and low-class as the MoveOn ad was, I still asserted that it was also something of a waste to bring a resolution condemning it to the Senate floor. Congress has more important things to deal with. It's clear why the Dems chose to do this, to distract from the MoveOn mess, and because Limbaugh is an easy target, being the combative partisan that he is. Keep in mind that there have been other worse instances of attacks on the troops, from the Left (William Arkin, anyone?), and the Right (Limbaugh and others have said worse things in the past), but nothing was done. When the Swiftboating of Kerry was on display, there were no resolutions on the Senate floor. This is going on right now because of politics, and the whole bit of business is silly.

And, I'm done with this.

OK, Hold On A Sec...

You know, I've been hearing a lot about how Gen. Petraeus has somehow made himself a political tool of Bush, or has been forced to become one by Bush. This whole idea reeks of absurdity. Keith Olbermann, on most occasions is level-headed and relatively cool. He's opposed to the war in Iraq sure enough, and he hasn't hidden that fact. His criticisms are often snarky and biting, but most times I say, no big deal. But the rant I heard tonight at the end of his show (I'll post the link as soon as it's available) was, for the lack of a better word, unhinged. For a guy who counts himself as a foe of Bill O'Reilly, he sure managed to channel his spirit of hysterical outrage.

His comments were in response to Bush's admittedly self-serving pile-on about the MoveOn ad( backed up by an equally self-serving stunt resolution in the Senate). He argued that Bush and the GOP are in no moral position to chastise MoveOn, when they were mute on the Swiftboating of Max Cleland, and John Kerry. First off, as a rule, one should never justify bad behavior by other bad behavior, and secondly, Bush and crew may not have any credibility here, but the rest of us do. I condemned the Swiftboat smears. I condemned the smears on Max Cleland, and John Murtha (when they called him a coward), and others. John Cornyn (a guy I have limited respect for) has no moral position, but I do, and the 22 Dems who voted for the resolution do.

The thing is though, Olbermann actually goes on to defend the ad, and asserts that Petraeus has somehow made himself a political operative of Bush, and Bush has hidden behind Petraeus. Olbermann and others forget that it was the Democratic controlled Congress that rightly passed the measure that required Petraeus to testify before Congress. Petraeus is the top commander in Iraq. Based on his views and analysis, he supports the surge, and testified as such in the hearings. I fail to see how he made himself a puppet or a front man for Bush. It seems that those who believe he is a puppet, believe so because they cannot possibly fathom that anyone could possibly support the surge. According to Kos, only "moron dead-enders" still support the war, so when Petraeus says the war is still winnable, and that the surge is working, he must be a liar, and even a traitor.

At least, that's how Olbermann and others see it.

Olbermann comes close to making a valid point when he talks about the military influencing civilian policy, but he totally misses it. Petraeus is not MacArthur, or McClellan setting policy. He's simply doing the job the Senate confirmed him to do. Criticizing Petraeus is fine. But, I think he deserves a whole lot better than to have his loyalty and integrity tarnished, because he believes in his job.

Oh, and Keith, I know it gets on your nerves when the GOP calls the Democratic Party the "Democrat" Party. It irks me too, but you do learn to get past it; to move on, if you will.

What Gives, Mrs. Clinton?

Senate votes to condemn the MoveOn "Betray-us" slander ad 72-25. Hillary votes no. Biden and Obama didn't vote (campaigning?). Hillary, as well as the other 24 Dems have some explaining to do.

To all the sensible Dems who voted to condemn the ad, I say thank you (I'm sure Gen. Petraeus does as well). I have a hard time believing Webb would've voted against condemnation anyway. Still not sure what Kerry was thinking.

The Senate Iraq Showdown Slumber Party In Full Swing

Well, it looks like it's going to happen. The machinery is set, and protests pro and con are already under way.

This all seems awfully familiar...

Discuss. (Actually, I plan on blogging the aftermath tomorrow).

BTW, they really might want to pay attention to this guy. (HT: Stubborn Facts)

Imus as Lefty Scalp?

There's an interesting twist to the Imus controversy brewing. Tammy Bruce argues that Imus was merely a target of the far-left, because Imus represents the centrist wing of the Democratic Party, and the hard-left has placed anyone to the right of them (liberal hawks, Lieberman, DLC, et al) on their hit list. Frankly, I find the assertion that Imus was sacked by the anti-war, activist Left kind of dubious. Don't get me wrong, I count myself as a loyal member of the centrist, Lieberman-Harold Ford-DLC wing of the Party, and I am well aware of the machinery of attack dogs on the Left (as well as the Right, BTW) that have committed themselves to marginalizing and destroying anyone who dares hope for victory in Iraq, doesn't think Bush is pure evil, or dissent from the MoveOn-Kos party line. The civil war is indeed on, and I've felt the wrath.

The thing is, I just don't see Don Imus fitting in to this.

First off, we can debate whether his punishment was too harsh, but it's not as if Imus is the victim here. I fail to see how calling the Rutgers team "nappy headed hos," makes him a standardbearer of the sensible wing of the Democratic Party. FRankly, I find that insulting. Truly, Harold Ford and Imus are friends, and Harold Ford certainly represents the center, but Imus? I just don't see it. Besides, Imus wasn't so much a foe of the liberal elite--in many ways he provided them a forum. All the major Democratic candidates have been featured guests. Even John Kerry just said Imus shouldn't have been fired, and would've have gone back on the show if asked. Kerry isn't exactly a member of the Lieberman camp, is he?

Oh, and Tom DeLay and Ann Coulter as victims? No, I'm not buying that either.

The larger Imus controversy is a story for another post (coming soon, I swear), along with a post on the neccessity of Lieberman Dems. This point was interesting, though:

Relevance: Media Matters had a staffer whose job was to record Don Imus and listen for gaffes. He found one, alerted the media, and the rest is history. For icing on the cake, the Soros-funded group tried to convince everyone that Imus is a conservative. Imus is to Media Matters’ political right, but then again so is the entire country.

Yeah, that's true.

P.S.: The SCOTUS just upheld the ban on partial-birth abortion. You wanna see lefty outrage and hysteria? Follow this story.

See? I told you so.

UPDATE: Imus may not be a lefty scalp, but Jason Whitlock makes a serious case why he's just a sacrifical lamb upon the altar of politics, in order for some black leaders to feel good about themselves, while ignoring the real problem. Let me say this: If Imus' firing was a part of a sincere campaign to redeem the culture, than I'm cool with that, but if were going to stop with him, and this was all a stunt, then Imus needs to get his job back, and this really has been one big sham. I sure hope not.

Is This What It's Come To, Then? Vote Bribes?

You know something, I'm really left speechless by this. I just cannot fathom this. How far has my Party fallen already, when the Democratic leadership would stoop so low as to grease the wheels of the ill-advised, uber-controversial, and wrongheaded Iraq bill, with pet projects in order to cheaply gain votes? This is the same crap the country kicked out the Republicans for, not to mention just plain wrong. Is this going to be the new standard?

If this bill that sets an August 2008 deadline for troop withdrawal is so solid, why not let it pass cleanly? Why do votes have to be extorted? Could it be that many of the leadership know that this bill will not, and should not pass otherwise?

This is not what I had in mind, when they talked about a new direction. This crap needs to stop now.

Hat tip: Centerfield

Which Way Is It Going To Be, Mrs. Clinton?

There is a great piece by Christopher Hitchens in Slate, on the persistent knot Hillary has tied herself into, in trying to reconcile her past support of the Iraq policy, with her current desire to be President, and thus appease the anti-war Democratic base. An excerpt:

At stake, then, is not just the credibility of an ambitious New York senator who wants to be the next President Clinton. At stake, rather, is the integrity of the last President Clinton and of those in his administration who concluded that coexistence with Saddam Hussein was neither desirable nor possible. If the subject was less important, it might be amusing to watch Hillary Clinton trying to "triangulate" her way out of this and find a way of impugning the Bush policy that did not also impugn her husband's own consistent strategy. But the thing cannot be done and can't really even be attempted without raising the suspicion that a major candidate for the office of the presidency is, on the main issue of the day, not just highly unprincipled but also completely unserious.

Indeed. FWIW, I think she was right back then, and in many ways made a better and more articulate case than Bush. She really is going to have to make up her mind on this, and quickly. I'll just leave it at that.