31 posts tagged “president”
I have been working at a new job recently, and I have had little energy for blogging. But today I took the time during lunch to pen a few thoughts on the Barack Obama problem.
Additionally, my wife found my first gray hair this evening. I am ecstatic, having desired a touch of gray since I was 17 or so. I think that optimally I would affect a George Clooney or a Reed Richards, one or t'other. Now, without much ado, my first bloggable thought in weeks.
********************
Lately I've been ruminating on the specter of an Obama candidacy. Hillary is not done yet, but it looks grim. The Democrats have decided that they can safely abandon Mrs. Clinton in favor of the charismatic Senator from Illinois. Obama presents some unique obstacles to a reasonable discourse. No criticism of the man seems to be allowed to stand...for this, that or the other reason. He was handled with kid gloves during the early part of the primaries.
The crux of the issue with Barack Obama is that he is an inexperienced candidate who has some very questionable associations that may affect his ability to lead us, but we are being prevented from seriously exploring his weaknesses because of a heightened sensitivity to matters of race and identity.
There is a legitimate fear that his association with avowed anti-American radicals as well as his long membership in a church which prides itself on being the cutting edge of black liberation theology are less a circumstance of his political upbringing and more a reflection of his own personal beliefs. Americans, I feel it safe to say, want in their President a basic quality - that of the ultimate Spokesman. To my thinking, a President should at the very least be altogether in love with America. Not blithely accepting this or that policy as sacred, no, but echoing Stephen Decatur's toast:
Our country! In her intercourse with foreign nations, may she always be in the right; but our country, right or wrong.
A man who could share this sentiment looks clearly at things and sees the plain truth that America, for all her faults, is a force for good in the larger world. A President of the United States should ever and always be the first to sound the praises of America, even as he claims to chart a new course.
Obama's attempts to avoid jingoism and immodest displays of patriotism bespeak a very cool attitude towards the country he thinks he is qualified to lead. The question again intrudes upon us: what exactly are his beliefs about America? We must have an answer, but we are consistently thwarted in our attempts to procure one.
I am inclined to believe, as are others, that Obama's immaculate status is preserved by unfair means. Why is it legitimate, even mandatory, to question Cindy McCain's tax returns, but entirely unfair to bring up the subject of Obama's radical colleagues and mentors? If there is a scale of relevance, Mrs. McCain ranks in the bottom quarter...or eighth.
But, as ever with liberals, we find that when it comes to their pet causes every action is judged on a sliding scale - a relative measure. Obama is spared from deserved criticism because he is held to a different standard. I posit that this is due to his race.
It is not a direct relationship. Obama is not spared because he is black. But he is. What we have to understand is that the culprit in this case is the very worst sort of identity politics.
Think about it. To liberals, a person's identity takes center stage. Every aspect of that person makes up the very essence of who they are, their identity. This is opposed to character, which can be judged to be good or bad. Criticizing a person for their character flaws, long thought to be acceptable as a means of improving character, has of late been replaced with a drive to affirm the individual's sense of identity. Iconoclasm is the new old vogue, and so to criticize a person like Barack Obama is to violate a taboo of liberalism.
Another thing that makes up your identity, as opposed to your character, is your race. So, to criticize Obama's actions is to criticize his identity. And to criticize his identity is to criticize, however tenuously, his race. And thus we are faced with the uncomfortable realization that criticizing Barack Obama has a slight odor of racism about it. I doubt Obama intentionally cultivates this, but he certainly benefits from it. And I'd liken the scent to a manufactured odor, sort of the way that Febreze doesn't really smell like fresh linens hanging on a line.
When we view Obama through a lens of identity, it is not possible to judge him fit or unfit for the Presidency. When we look at him through the prism of character, it is eminently doable. This is the great problem we face in our current political climate: Identity politics is the order of the day, and until we distinguish between the false, relative view of identity and true personhood we will never be free of it.
I think the time has come for me to stop fighting it. Over the past few months I've been arguing with everyone around me about the political candidates, which one is better and which one would be death for this country. And I've been taking it for granted that I should support a Republican.
But I am so tired of the fighting. I finally watched the speech Barack Obama gave the other week. You know, the one I ridiculed earlier. Well...I listened to the man and he spoke to my soul.
I've decided to vote for Barack Obama.
Now I didn't come to this decision lightly, I want you to be quite aware of that. In fact, I went back and watched Obama's speeches from the past few months. All of them. And it was just like, wow. One thing after another just resonated with me and I started to ask myself why we aren't all working together on our problems. Why can't we just unite behind this man and follow his lead. He's a proven leader in the Senate and he's an inspiring, charismatic guy who just might impress our enemies with his willingness to actually talk to them for a change.
Maybe he'll also crap a rainbow. Then we can all hold hands and slide down it into a pot of free healthcare, citizenship for illegals and the end of all those nasty gun rights. If we fall off (rainbows are fickle, you know) we'll find a cushion in the piles of aborted babies that Obama considers punishment. It's a testament to my lack of conviction in my writing that I couldn't keep up this pathetic joke any longer. I could almost taste the vomit.
If we elect Barack Obama it will show that the American republic has been corrupted by democracy. The base impulses of the electorate are to serve self, first. Any politician who tells you exactly what you want to hear has you marked as a rube. I guarantee that the old talk about the electoral college comes up again this year.
Up with Electors!
Occasionally, e-mail forwards are worth reading. But only rarely.
Dream Team
Last night I had the strangest dream. It was so real, so life-like and so
vivid. Let me describe it to you briefly...1. Hillary wins the Democratic Party nomination for President of the
United States
2. Naturally, she wants to choose as her running mate someone with a lot
of knowledge and experience in government and foreign affairs, someone who
is a seasoned campaigner who could bring a lot of strength to the ticket.
Who better than Bill, her husband?!!!
3. Hill and Bill go on to win the election in November and the Democrats
maintain control of the House and the Senate.
4. Hillary is sworn in as President on January 20, 2009. The next day,
after all the inauguration parties are over, she calls a press conference to
make an announcement: she is resigning as President!!! Bill, as the Vice
President, immediately becomes President!!! This is all perfectly legal
under the 22nd Amendment to the Constitution, for it states that 'no person
may be elected as president more than twice'.Bill is not being elected for a third term but is merely serving out the
remainder of Hillary's term---all 4 years of it.
5. But wait! There's more! The following day Bill calls a press conference
to make an announcement. He has chosen someone to fill the now-vacant office
of Vice President. Guess who he p icks? Why, Hillary, of course!!!
6. And one last thing, Bill could resign just before the elections and
that would make Hillary the incumbent President. She could run for
re-election and we could do it all over again and she would never serve out
her two terms... Bill could be President for life....
Please forward this e-mail to all of your Republican friends and to as
many others as you wish to cause sleepless nights...
I think this paragraph from Jonah Goldberg of National Review is a tidy summation of my feelings on what some have called "one of the finest speeches ever."
Why do voluptuaries of racial argy-bargy want yet another such dialogue? For some, it’s to avoid actually dealing with unpleasant facts. But for others — like La Raza or the college professors scrambling to follow Obama’s lead — when they say we need more conversation, they really mean their version of reality should win the day. Replace “conversation” with “instruction” and you’ll have a better sense of where these people are coming from and where they want their “dialogue” to take us.
Ultimately, Obama's speech is nothing so momentous, so awe-inspiring. In fact, Obama's refusal to distance himself personally as well as professionally from the man who condemned America in no uncertain terms while giving an award to real hate-mongers like Louis Farrakhan is troubling. Is it weakness of character, which might be forgivable, or is it that Mr. Obama finds the words of his pastor not particularly offensive?
One thing I think we can agree upon is that the President of the United States cannot be too patriotic. He is not only our leader in matters foreign and domestic, he is also America's preeminent spokesman. When a man tolerates sentiments such as Jeremiah Wright's and refuses for years to repudiate them, that man is demonstrating a quality that no President should possess.
Is Obama's speech really a call to dialogue? That remains to be seen. Currently, it amounts to nothing more than a grand changing of the subject.
Can anyone, anyone tell me just what is so great about Barack Obama? From what I've seen of him, he's got nothing to recommend him for the presidency and his whole campaign has been based on indistinct notions of "hope" and "change" that really don't mean anything.
I see the news, and I read things like this by Mark Steyn and the "Obama-rama" just doesn't make sense. Why, why, why would anyone with a brain be supporting Obama for the presidency? Let's just say you are in fact a liberal and you want to see liberal policies enacted. Great. Why not vote for Clinton, who will quite frankly be better positioned both in Congress and abroad to meet those liberal goals?
You read Obama's ideas on the issues and they are so much fluff. How, pray tell, would President Obama "secure all loose nuclear materials in the world within four years" if he is also committed to withdrawing our forces from the enemy's home turf of the Middle East? Does Obama mean to say that he will continue American Interventionism, only that his version will be specifically targeted against nuclear weapons, or Al-Qaeda, or whichever problem? How will he accomplish this without violating the rights of your friendly neighborhood fifth-column terrorist?
How do you fight an enemy that uses a cellphone to communicate? Eavesdrop. How do you foil a plot to attack a country that is planned entirely via e-mail? Hack. How do you make this happen if your agents are not empowered to search within our own borders? Further, how do you intend to make sure that our legal system is not taxed by the influx of "enemy combatants" who would be granted representation by your closing of Guantanamo?
It's this expectation of greatness that I can't stand. Why would he be a great President? Because he's got one of the most liberal records (short as it is) in Congress? Because he's a "first?" Because he can say something inane without sounding like a total moron? Because he makes people faint?
Where is the Democrat who will look at this Barack Obama and say, "Sir, you are no Jack Kennedy?" It is my opinion that being compared to Kennedy is no great honor, but liberals seem to like him. And at least he spent 14 years in Congress before being elected. Obama is, at this point in his career, just a pretty face with a nice voice and some good speech writers. When you get past the cult of personality surrounding the man, you realize that his politics are pretty scary if you don't live in Europe and would damage our ability to defend ourselves from a terrorist attack. Of course, if one of those should occur who do you think would be blamed? Not the sitting president, no way! Not the Congress...why, it must have been President Monkey-face McStoopid the War Monger and his policies that made those nice Muslims mad enough to attack us again.
He's not qualified for the job, and I question the commitment to rational thought of anyone who seriously believes that he is.
John McCain made a stop in Norfolk, VA today to discuss foreign policy issues and receive some glowing praise from a number of his colleagues. Always keen to learn more about international relations and, well, see famous people, I managed to weasel my way in and was treated to a sensible, realistic acknowledgment of the threat of radical Islam. This is from some of the most knowledgeable authorities on national security in Congress.
Chief among these in my eyes was John Warner. A Southern gentleman in the truest sense, Senator Warner has been a strong advocate for the military and if he believes that John McCain will do well as the President then I am prepared to believe him.
The major point today was that we absolutely must confront radical, militant Islam. I agree with that sentiment 100%. Senator Sam Brownback made some very excellent statements, bringing the focus onto Africa where a significant amount of Muslim extremism is fomented. Brownback is also extremely prominent in the pro-life community. His endorsement of McCain puts any doubts about McCain's pro-life credits to rest.
In addition to these two men, the endorsement of former Secretaries of the Navy William Ball and John Lehman spoke volumes about their beliefs in McCain's strong military stance. Rebuilding the military is key, as the Clinton years saw too much military reduction. Rumsfeld made an error before Iraq and Afghanistan by not focusing more effort on building up force levels to avoid long, repeated deployments. But another point made today was that we must maintain the All Volunteer Force by increasing recruitment and increasing opportunities for soldiers. As McCain said, there is a market out there and young people have to know their needs will be met should they choose military service.
It is well within the interests of my region of Virginia to elect a man like John McCain.
McCain is strong on the social issues. Period. McCain is obviously strong on foreign policy (his strong language regarding Iran was particularly impressive), though conservatives still need more assurance about the illegal immigration issue. When I informed my good friend W that I was in attendance, he cut to the heart of the matter quite succinctly: "...if they serve lunch order the enchiladas. I hear they taste really good with a side of amnesty." No lunch, but it is important to keep from getting star-struck. Thanks W!
On a side note, I just saw myself on TV. Some guy blocked my handshake with McCain and the annoyance on my face is pretty obvious. I wish I had a picture. It's ok, because I did get to shake Sam Brownback's hand and let him know I appreciate his pro-life stance. He said we've got to push harder on that issue. Agreed.
I got a picture of McCain answering questions from the press, which I have provided. Forgive the quality. I didn't think I'd actually be allowed inside and neglected to bring a camera! If I can locate a bit of that video with my handshake fiasco, I'll post that too. UPDATE: Here's that video...Note the disappointed looking young man at 56 seconds in. That old guy in front of me was such a fanboy, he jostled me out of the way just to tell McCain something the man wouldn't remember in 10 seconds anyway.
"If I fight on in my campaign, all the way to the convention, I would forestall the launch of a national campaign and make it more likely that Senator Clinton or Obama would win. And in this time of war, I simply cannot let my campaign, be a part of aiding a surrender to terror," Romney told the Conservative Political Action Conference in Washington.
Well, the writing has been on the wall since Tuesday, I think. After Romney's loss in California on Tuesday my mood has been one of resigned acceptance of John McCain as the Republican pick.
That, and a brimming displeasure with Mike Huckabee for playing the destabilizing factor in this race. I have never understood the frustration with evangelical voters until this very year. Huckabee has nothing to recommend him for the Presidency, but he has been propelled by pandering to evangelicals and by downplaying his inexperience. He is gunning for that VP spot right now, but I am confident he will not get it. A VP has to be much more than just a replacement these days. He has become an assistant to the President in many ways. Huckabee's lack of experience again comes into play here.
While Huckabee has certainly outmaneuvered Romney politically (throwing the "no whining" comment in Romney's face was somewhat triumphalist and nasty), it is obvious to me that he has been outclassed.Mitt Romney has exited this race in the way that Mike Huckabee should have done long ago. His acknowledgment of the more pressing issue of our time, the fight against radical Islam, and his willingness to close ranks in the face of inevitability is an indication that he is a man of character and principle.
John McCain is doing exactly what I needed him to do. In speaking to the CPAC, he is as I write addressing his record and telling us what he plans to do. He is telling us that he will listen, which is all we can hope for in a leader. His conservatism is real and his deviations from it are forgivable. I believe him when he says he'll do his best, and now that he has been straight with me and other conservatives I can support him.
Well, with Fred Thompson gone it's time for me to pick a new candidate. I've chosen Mitt Romney for his economic experience, his stated commitment to pursuing our foreign interests, his executive credentials and because he's just so gosh-darn presidential looking.
I believe his conversion on the pro-life issue is genuine and I am willing to give this man my support. Of the remaining Republican candidates he offers the best hope of winning in November. You can go to his site, here, and explore the issues.
Of course, I am certainly up for a discussion on his relative merits. I will need practice defending/promoting him, so let's get started, Vox friends.
You may fire when ready.
1. If Thompson places third tonight in South Carolina, he will drop out of the race.
2. If Thompson places second, he may stay in for a little while.
3. If Thompson stays in and continues his campaign as he has, he will remain a factor in the race but is unlikely to make serious waves.
4. If Thompson stays in and continues his rhetoric from the past few days, of which it has been asked, "Where was this six months ago," then there is a very good chance that he can oust Huckabee.
5. If Thompson ousts Huckabee, I see him as Romney's Vice President. This would shore up Romney's conservative credentials and Thompson could draw McCain supporters to the ticket.
At present, nobody is willing to make the call. It appears McCain will take the state, with Huckabee in second. But Thompson may surprise by breaking out of third and upsetting Huckabee...fingers crossed.
UPDATE: Not a chance. Thompson polled 16%, with Huckabee taking 30% and McCain 33%. How depressing.
UPDATE 1/22: Thompson has officially withdrawn from the race. My predictions which followed from the first are therefore unverifiable and since the first came true, I have a 100% accuracy rating thus far.
I am the one who sainted Reagan, days ago...VDH has only become more intelligent by imitating me.
This is a great message for the GOP candidates. While Reagan was a great leader, this is not Reagan's America. This is 2008, not 1980. Republicans must show that they can emulate Reagan instead of ape him. The principles are constant, but the particulars are by necessity different.
St. Reagan
Idealizing ideological purity.By Victor Davis Hanson
Ronald Reagan’s presidency was a great success. He rebuilt a chaotic U.S. military and helped end the Cold War. Reagan’s radical tax cuts in 1981 spurred economic growth and redefined the relationship between U.S. citizens and their government. And he appointed conservative federal judges and bureaucrats who tried to roll back the half-century trend of expanded governmental control over our lives.
Reagan’s nice-guy charm made it difficult for even his critics to stay angry with him for long. But he was no mere smiling dunce, as liberal intellectuals used to snicker. His private papers and diaries instead reveal that he was widely informed, read voraciously, drew on a powerful intellect and was an effective writer.
It is no wonder that conservative leaders — especially the current crop of Republican presidential hopefuls — now constantly evoke Ronald Reagan’s successful presidency. In contrast, they rarely hearken back to the uprightness of the one-term Gerald Ford, or praise the foreign-policy accomplishments of the two Bush Republican presidencies.Instead, the candidates try to “out-Reagan” each other by claiming they alone are the true Reaganites while their rivals in the primaries are too liberal, flip-floppers, or without consistent conservative principles.
In short, Ronald Reagan has been beatified into some sort of saint, as if he were above the petty lapses and contradictions of today’s candidates. The result is that conservatives are losing sight of Reagan the man while placing unrealistic requirements of perfection on his would-be successors.
They have forgotten that Reagan — facing spiraling deficits, sinking poll ratings and a hostile Congress — reluctantly signed legislation raising payroll, income, and gasoline taxes, some of them among the largest in our history. He promised to limit government and eliminate the Departments of Education and Energy. Instead, when faced with congressional and popular opposition, he relented and even grew government by adding a secretary of veteran affairs to the Cabinet.
Two of his Supreme Court appointments, Sandra Day O’Connor and Anthony Kennedy, were far more liberal than George W. Bush’s selections, the diehard constructionists, John Roberts and Samuel Alito.
Reagan’s 1986 comprehensive immigration bill turned out to be the most liberal amnesty for illegal aliens in our nation’s history, and set the stage for the present problem of 12 million aliens here unlawfully.
Republicans forget all this — but so do Democrats, who for their own reasons want to perpetuate an unflattering myth of Ronald Reagan as an extremist right-wing reactionary.
In foreign affairs, Reagan was not always sober and judicious. He shocked Cold Warriors by advocating complete nuclear disarmament at his Reykjavik summit with Michel Gorbachev.
In the middle of Lebanon’s civil war, he first put American troops into a crossfire. Then, when 241 marines were blown up, he withdrew them. That about-face, and the failure to retaliate in serious fashion, helped to embolden Hezbollah’s anti-American terrorism for decades.
The Iran-Contra scandal exploded when a few rogue administration officials sold state-of-the-art missiles under the table to Iran’s terrorist-sponsoring theocracy, and prompted opposition talk of impeachment.
In other words, a great president like Ronald Reagan made mistakes. He sometimes reversed positions, played politics, and baffled his conservative base — some of the very charges now leveled against Mike Huckabee, Rudy Giuliani, John McCain, Mitt Romney, and Fred Thompson.
When a candidate today says, “Reagan would have done this or that,” he apparently has a poor memory of what Reagan — the often lonely, flesh-and-blood conservative in the 1980s — was forced to do to get elected, govern, and be re-elected. While in office, he proved more often the pragmatic leader than the purist knight slaying ideological dragons on the campaign trail.
So what is the real Reagan legacy? It is mostly the Great Communicator’s uncanny ability to distill complex problems, offer a more conservative solution than America was used to or ready for, and then inspire and enact difficult change through a brilliant “Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall” turn of phrase.
But 2008 is a different world from a quarter-century ago, when Reagan began his presidency. Amnesiac candidates need to separate the myth of Reagan — the perfect conservative — from the real man when stridently chastising their rivals for their past fudging on taxes, illegal immigration or the size of government.
The current pack of five serious Republican candidates should call on the spirit and principled inspiration of Ronald Reagan for guidance about new problems in the way they evoke Abraham Lincoln or Teddy Roosevelt.
But these candidates only do his memory — and their own careers — a disservice by claiming sainthood for Ronald Reagan, and thereby demanding a standard of immaculate conservative conduct that neither Reagan nor they could ever attain.
--Victor Davis Hanson is a senior fellow at the Hoover Institution and author, most recently, of A War Like No Other: How the Athenians and Spartans Fought the Peloponnesian War.
(C) 2008 TRIBUNE MEDIA SERVICES, INC.
