BYRON YORK: White House: People Who Criticize Us Are Helping Al Qaeda. They told me if I voted for McCain we’d see for-us-or-against-us jingoism from the White House — and they were right!
Search Results
HEY, WAIT A MINUTE: Surveillance Society: Obama Takes a Blue Pencil to the Bill of Rights. They told me if I voted for McCain we’d live an Orwellian nightmare of surveillance and repression — and they were right!
THEY TOLD ME IF I VOTED FOR JOHN MCCAIN, government agencies would be keeping secret dossiers on peaceful protesters. And they were right!
THEY TOLD ME IF I VOTED FOR MCCAIN, we’d see constitutional rights suspended in the face of flimsy claims of “emergency.” And they were right!
FINANCIAL POST: The War On Toyota. “The attack on Toyota, at this time of U.S. economic weakness and populist excess, is fast turning into a great American nationalist assault on a foreign corporation, an economic war.”
They told me if I voted for McCain we’d be attacking foreigners just to distract voters from problems at home. And they were right!
ABSTINENCE EDUCATION: May actually work, got funding cut anyway.
UPDATE: Reader Thomas Williams writes:
“They told me that if I voted for McCain, scientifically proven programs would be defunded for ideological reasons, and they were right!”
That formula of yours is really endlessly useful.
It is, isn’t it?
MARK WHITTINGTON: “To paraphrase a line often made by Instapundit’s Glenn Reynolds, they told me that if I voted for John McCain we would see a massive push for nuclear power—and they were right! It seems that President Obama has embraced nuclear energy.”
GDP UP: This is good news, if the numbers hold up.
UPDATE: On the other hand: Wages and benefits rise in 2009 by smallest amount on records going back 27 years. They told me that if I voted for McCain, business would be golden while the working man took it in the neck. And they were right!
ANOTHER UPDATE: Oops, it’s not even that good. “However, almost two-thirds of it came from a slowdown in liquidation of inventories, leaving an anemic 2.2% of actual growth.”
KENNETH ANDERSON ON THE OBAMA ADMINISTRATION’S POLICY OF Targeted Killing Aimed at a US Citizen Abroad. They told me that if I voted for McCain we’d see “extrajudicial murder” as U.S. policy — and they were right!
ANN ALTHOUSE WILL BE LIVEBLOGGING the State Of The Union. And Jason Pye emails that the folks at UnitedLiberty will be liveblogging, too.
Stephen Green, of course, will be drunkblogging it, and has links to various State Of The Union drinking games. Jim Treacher will be liveblogging, too, and while it isn’t formally “drunkblogging,” well, informally it just might be . . . .
The country’s in the very best of hands. Our future’s so bright, we gotta wear shades. So sit back, relax, and watch!
Plus, Sandy Levinson on a SOTU catastrophe. “If we really do believe that there is, say, a 1% probability that a successful attack will take place on the Capitol when everyone gathers for the State of the Union address, that’s a good reason either to revert to an earlier tradition, when Presidents delivered written messages, or, at the very least, telling most of the Cabinet and Justices, for starters, that they can, like the rest of us, watch it on TV. (I note that Dick Cheney did not attend the immediate post-Sept. 11 address to Congress, but did seemingly attend all of the States of the Union address thereafter. But why? I ask this as a fully serious, and not cheap-shot, question.)” Well, Hillary isn’t attending tonight, but not as a security holdout. What does that mean?
UPDATE: More liveblogging from a panel of experts at the Cato Institute.
Also the inimitable Dana Loesch.
Plus, Jules Crittenden is doing the drinking games.
From the Cato Liveblog: “The assertions about the Depression we would have had are outrageous. Their forecasts of the stimulus’s impact have been horrible, so how can they have any credibility on this kind of issue? ” I think it’s full speed ahead, here, credibility be damned. Plus this: “Bastiat is spinning in his grave.”
The “stimulus” didn’t produce any jobs, but if we pass a new stimulus and call it a “jobs bill,” it will!
On Facebook, Alex Lightman writes: “I was looking forward to the State of the Union speech. Then I read most of it, and got depressed. It’s as if he’s running for office, not holding office. I didn’t hear anything about what’s going to be cut. Anyone can make promises to spend other people’s money.”
Reader C.J. Burch writes: “‘The worst of the storm has passed.’ Forget Green and Crittenden, what the Hell is Obama drinking?”
More from Cato: “Wonderful, more government-directed investment. That worked really well with Fannie and Freddie.” Plus this prediction: “He’ll pivot from a new $100 billion jobs bill to cutting the deficit.”
Ann Althouse: “Small businesses are good. (Come on, talk to them.) Big business sucks though. We want to help small business grow… so it can become big business and then we can hate it.”
Seems pretty much like a recycled campaign speech to me.
And not just recycled campaign speech — the Cato folks note this:
“Through stricter accounting standards and tougher disclosure requirements, corporate America must be made more accountable to employees and shareholders and held to the highest standards of conduct.”
–George W. Bush, 2002 SOTU
They told me if I voted for John McCain we’d see a third Bush term. And they were right! [LATER: Tad DeHaven keeps running quotes from Bush SOTUs that match what Obama's saying tonight.]
More from Cato: “He has decided to run against lobbyists. The populist turn again. Carter did that too.” Those guys are on fire. Just head over there to catch all the gems. But here’s one more: “This is the most awful anti-trade position of any president in a long time.”
More liveblogging from Jason Van Steenwyk.
Ed Driscoll: The Semiotics Of The Anointed.
Stephen Green: “’Our approach would bring down the deficit by as much as one trillion dollars over two decades.’ Fine. But when those two decades mean another 20 or 30 trillion dollars of debt, you’re talking about scooping pee out of the ocean with sieve.”
Plus this: “’Let me know.’ Dude, the voters of Massachusetts just did.”
And: “The guy who just bragged of his (mysterious) 25 tax cuts just ragged on the Bush tax cuts.”
An Obama speech word cloud.
“But we took office in a crisis — and never let a crisis go to waste!” Okay, I kinda interpolated the second part. . . .
Hey, does this sound familiar?
Many of you have talked about the need to pay down our national debt. I listened, and I agree. We owe it to our children and grandchildren to act now, and I hope you will join me to pay down $2 trillion in debt during the next 10 years.
It’s from George W. Bush’s 2001 SOTU.
A reader emails: “Oh for heaven’s sake. It’s a freaking stump speech. You’ve been elected all ready Mr. President. Now you have to do things. See the difference?”
The freeze starts next year? And I start my diet tomorrow.
From Dan Mitchell at Cato: “We’ve all done something very naughty if this is the government we deserve.”
Now Obama, after delivering an hour-long stump speech, criticizes the perpetual campaign. Luckily for him, most people will be watching Teen Mom on their Tivo by now.
A reader sends a link to Reagan’s 1982 State Of The Union by way of comparison.
The Insta-Daughter: “He needs to quit referring to Bush. It’s weird.”
Nick Schulz: The Definition of Chutzpah.
John Samples at Cato: “I agree with Chris. It is surprising how unsurprising this speech has been, particularly for a president in deep political trouble.”
More liveblogging at Reason. Radley Balko: “wow. no none is better at trivializing opponents’ arguments than obama.”
A call to repeal Don’t Ask Don’t Tell. I’m for it, but I’ll bet there’s not much follow-through.
Stephen Green: “’I have embraced the vision of John F. Kennedy and Ronald Reagan.’ Okay. Except you embraced the competence of Jimmy Carter & Herbert Hoover.”
Jim Harper at Cato: “Following through on his transparency promises would be a great way to actually deliver change.”
Matt Welch: “8-year-olds sending money to the president don’t make me all tingly inside.”
Reader Rob Lain emails:
Others have probably done this already, but I just ran these numbers:
Obama SOTU 2010 First Person Singular Pronoun Count
I – 96 times
me – 8 times
Bush SOTU 2008 First Person Singular Pronoun Count
I – 39 times
me – 2 times
Think this may wind up correlating to their relative contributions to the national debt, when all is said and done?
I dunno, but what’s funny is that I think Obama was restraining himself here . . . .
Okay, it’s over. My sense is that he was trying a bit too hard. Comparing the mood to last year, the Democratic applause and cheering seemed rather forced, too. Plus, I don’t think his public scolding of the Supreme Court was very Presidential — or, for that matter, very smart.
Krauthammer is noting that Obama treats “Washington” as a pejorative, but that he is Washington now.
Matt Welch: “I think I’ve forgotten it already. Except for the I WON’T QUIT part. Don’t worry, it *is* about you, etc.”
Reader Matt Barger writes: “There has never been a SOTU as patronizing as this. God help us.”
C.J. Burch emails again: “A brittle speech by a brittle administration. He’s done as a political force, I think. If not now, soon.” We’ll see.
And Stephen Green concludes: “We’re into the Big Finish… but there’s no new here. For a guy who got his bottom handed to him in three big elections, he’s strangely reluctant to change course. In fact, he’s not even willing to change tone. Which means, whatever you thought of Bush’s lousy last three years, Obama has already outdone him in being tone-deaf. Let me restate that. This guy hasn’t gotten one single thing done since Porklulus was passed 11 months ago, and he just doubled down. Well, you know what? Who cares how much is in the pot when it’s other people’s money?”
Reader Allen S. Thorpe writes: “It is probably better to think of it as a State of My Presidency speech and it’s probably the best chance he’s had since his Inauguration to speech to this size of an audience. He’d better be in campaign mode, because he’s losing the election right now. From the back of my memory, some familiar words are floating up: ‘Lipstick on a pig.’”
Gerard van der Leun emails with praise: “Excellent digest. All the hot liveblogging lines with none of the screen refreshing tedium.”
Thanks! As Leon Lipson once said, “Anything you can do, I can do meta.” But really, follow the links to the other blogs as this is just the merest skim of cream.
And there’s always the Zomby translation.
Plus, Richard Fernandez weighs in. “Since the current administration is doing all these good things, it will stay the course. It won’t let the aforementioned saboteurs and wreckers stand in the way.”
The McDonnell reponse? The bar for these things is low — and he was certainly infinitely better than Jindal last year. But the big story is the subtext: “I was just elected in a state Obama carried, even though Obama campaigned against me. Whatever he may say under the lights, he can’t save you come election day.” Likewise, the Scott Brown mention.
And from Meryl Yourish: Breaking the Obama Code:
Tonight, he addressed the American people, and he addressed Congress. Go back and look at the speech. He was earnest, and his chin was down, his head relatively level, when speaking to Congress. When he spoke to us, his chin rose, and he talked down to us—literally.
Go ahead. Take a look. Note his posture. You’ll see it, too. You and I, we are not his equals. He is above us.
That’s what sets my teeth on edge every time I listen to him.
That’s almost worth rewinding the DVR for, but . . . no, I’ve suffered enough.
Some extensive thoughts from Dan Riehl, including this: “Obama praised the concept of separation of powers, then immediately turned to question the Supreme Court’s recent decision on campaign finance reform. That tendency caused much of speech to ring hollow throughout.”
Alex Castellanos writes: “There were too many Barack Obamas tonight, making too many promises to too many interests. The same president who said he wasn’t interested in relitigating the past . . . did exactly that for over an hour. The same president who yearned for less partisanship also resorted to it without hesitation, often just a few sentences afterwards, blaming his problems on his predecessor one long year into his own administration.”
Jim Geraghty: On His Last Day in Office, Obama Will Still Be Talking About What He Inherited.
More from The Anchoress:
You know, one could argue that President Bush “inherited” Al Qaeda from Bill Clinton, who did little-to-nothing in response to all of Al Qaeda’s provocations throughout the 1990’s and unto the USS Cole bombing. But never, not once, did Bush ever say, “I inherited this…” It’s time for Obama to become a man.
Much more at the link.
John Podhoretz: “One liberal trope after the speech, voiced by Chrystia Freedland of the Financial Times on Charlie Rose, is that Obama is putting Republican politicians on notice he will go after them as the do-nothing impeders of progress. Republicans should pray this is the case, and it may be the case.” In New Jersey, Virginia, and Massachusetts he’s proven impotent. Why should people fear him more now, when he’s weaker?
And reader Eric Naft writes:
You posted a CATO link that mentioned Bastiat, but do you realize exactly how precisely delicious that observation is? In extolling the virtues of the stimulus, President Obama cited several small businesses, including a “window repair company” in Philadelphia.
Having read Bastiat’s influential “That Which Is Seen & That Which Is Not Seen: The Unintended Consequences of Government Spending,” I don’t think he could have chosen more poorly (or perhaps more aptly?). The opening vignette of Bastiat’s seminal work, which demolishes the notion that government spending stimulates anything, is subtitled, “The Broken Window.” It explains that paying to repair broken windows doesn’t help the economy at large because the money used to pay for the repair is money that can’t be used to buy a shirt or to do whatever else the private citizen may be inclined to do with his money.
Has nobody in the administration’s speech-writing team ever read basic economics? Never mind. I think I know the answer to that.
Yes, I do realize. But heck, forget the speech-writing team. What about the economic team?
Plus, what the voters think about Obama’s speech points.
Chris Matthews on Obama: ‘I Forgot He Was Black For an Hour’.
Good grief. Why is this guy still on the air? Oh, wait, he’s not — he’s on MSNBC . . . .
And reader Scott Blanksteen writes:
Obama’s comments about the Supreme Court’s decision enabling foreign corporations to donate in US campaigns are particularly ironic given that it was his campaign that mis-configured their credit-card acceptance software in a way for which the only purpose would be to enable foreign donations!
More on that here, here, and here.
Jules Crittenden: “But seriously, we have just witnessed an extraordinary exercise in presidential oratorical animation that may be without peer or precedent. Can it be said that any American president has ever tried to blame so much on other people, or has been willing to so rapidly abandon his own principles for the betterment of his standing with the people, to seize up the banner against himself in our nation’s time of need, that this nation should not stand against him? For this, the president deserves our unabashed, gaga-eyed astonishment.”
CONSPIRE AGAINST THE CONSPIRACY THEORISTS! That’ll show ‘em.
They told me if I voted for John McCain we’d see a federal government with creepy police-state thinking on the rise. And they were right!
UH OH: America slides deeper into depression as Wall Street revels. They told me that if I voted for John McCain the interests of ordinary Americans would suffer while financial fatcats raked it in. And they were right!
THEY TOLD ME IF I VOTED FOR MCCAIN, THE WHITE HOUSE WOULD BECOME AN OLD BOYS’ CLUB — AND THEY WERE RIGHT! NOW President on President Obama’s All-Male Athletic Outings: ‘It’s Troubling’.
Related: Obama’s White House Boys’ Club: “Obama has played golf more times than George W. Bush did in his first 2 years. But there’s something even more interesting: Obama didn’t include any women in these golf rounds until last weekend, at which time he golfed with a woman once. . . . If there is any serious feminism left in this country — by which I mean the kind of feminism we had back before the Clinton presidency — it would ream a man who sought credit for inclusiveness toward women by referring to the fact that he had a wife and daughters in his household. . . . So maybe it’s a little like the post-racial America we were supposed to get — but didn’t get — after Obama was elected. It’s the post-gender America. No one needs to notice who’s male and who’s female anymore. So the inner circle is all male? You’re not supposed to even see it!”
Related: Exciting new growth sector in feminism: bashing women.
HOPE AND CHANGE: Democrats Challenge Obama Signing Statement. They told me if I voted for John McCain we’d have a President who used signing statements to rewrite legislation according to his whim. And they were right!
OBAMA VOTERS WILL PAY THE PRICE: “When Congress decides how to pay for President Obama’s signature healthcare initiative, some of his strongest political bastions may be footing a heavy bill. And in a political irony, states that went for Obama’s Republican rival, Sen. John McCain of Arizona, in 2008 are among those likely to benefit most from Democratic healthcare policies.” They told me if I voted for John McCain I’d be protecting myself from high healthcare taxes — and, apparently, they were right!
THEY TOLD ME THAT IF I VOTED FOR JOHN MCCAIN, bluenoses would be outlawing sex between consenting adults. And they were right!
THEY TOLD ME THAT IF I VOTED FOR MCCAIN, the White House would be taken over by “Christianists.” And they were right! “Barack Obama invokes Jesus more than George W. Bush did.”
HUFFINGTON POST: Let Women Wear the Hijab: The Emptiness of Obama’s Cairo Speech. “It betrays a naiveté, perhaps feigned, about how the Arab world works.”
Hot Air: Obama’s Cairo speech: Surprisingly good. They told me that if I voted for McCain, we’d get a President whose speeches on Islam were praised at Hot Air and criticized at the HuffPo. And they were right!
Full text here, so you can make up your own mind.
THEY TOLD ME IF I VOTED FOR JOHN MCCAIN, thugs would drag screaming journalists away from Air Force one. And they were right! Kicking & Screaming: Journo Dragged From Near AF1. “A reporter for a small newspaper was forcibly removed from a press area near Air Force One shortly before President Barack Obama arrived at Los Angeles International Airport to depart California early Thursday.”
UPDATE: Reader Paul Harper writes: “A self-described ‘Roman Catholic priestess’ has no business anywhere near Air Force One, much less POTUS. The Secret Service did right and seem to have been extremely professional, as we’d expect. Her second career as a blogger/reporter is irrelevant.” Several other readers agree, but that doesn’t spoil the joke. And look at the photo of a black woman being dragged off by Secret Service agents with Air Force One in the background and think about how it would have been played under the Bush Administration . . . .
HOPE AND CHANGE! Army chief says US ready to be in Iraq 10 years. “The Pentagon is prepared to leave fighting forces in Iraq for as long as a decade despite an agreement between the United States and Iraq that would bring all American troops home by 2012, the top U.S. Army officer said Tuesday. . . . He spoke at an invitation-only briefing to a dozen journalists and policy analysts from Washington-based think-tanks. He said his planning envisions combat troops in Iraq and Afghanistan for a decade as part of a sustained U.S. commitment to fighting extremism and terrorism in the Middle East.” They told me if I voted for McCain we might still be in Iraq in 2020 — and they were right!
TOM MAGUIRE: “They told me that if I voted for McCain we’d have a buffoon for a Vice President. And they were right!”
THEY TOLD ME IF I VOTED FOR JOHN MCCAIN, WE’D BE SPENDING UNACCOUNTABLY ON DEFENSE. AND THEY WERE RIGHT! Pentagon’s Black Budget Grows to More Than $50 Billion.
ANDY MCCARTHY: “I wonder if AG Eric ‘Rule of Law’ Holder is going to investigate his Justice Department’s unethical leaking of the details of an ethics investigation — y’know, consistent with his fearless commitment to ‘follow the evidence wherever it takes us, follow the law wherever it takes us.’”
UPDATE: A reader emails:
Leaks? You’re talking about leaks? Someone at Treasury or its regulatory handmaidens has engaged in gross market manipulation by arbitrarily dribbling out the results of the bank “stress tests”, which were supposed to have been made public en masse after the stock markets closed.
They told me if I voted for McCain, the govt financial apparatus would be controlled by insiders leaking confidential information to their pals on Wall St….
It seems to me that there’s a prospect for a lot of criminal investigation — and private securities litigation — as a result of all these bailout shenanigans.
THEY TOLD ME IF I VOTED FOR JOHN MCCAIN, PROMISING STEM-CELL TREATMENTS WOULD BE BLOCKED BY FEDERAL REGULATION. And they were right! “The purpose of employing autologous cells is to prevent rejection of histo-incompatible cells by the patient’s immune system. But it’s also possible that these new therapies could slip from our grasp, at least in the US. If we’re not careful, these therapies could become the exclusive domain of the pharmaceutical industry, as regulated by the Federal Food and Drug Administration (FDA). This could push the availability of this tool kit 15 to 20 years into the future. The opportunity-cost in terms of morbidity and mortality could be catastrophic.”
THEY TOLD ME IF I VOTED FOR MCCAIN THIS WOULD HAPPEN. AND THEY WERE RIGHT! Political Extremism Infiltrates the Pentagon.
UNHAPPINESS WITH OBAMA’S D.O.J. at TalkLeft. Hey, he promised change. And this is change! (Alternative take: They told me that if I voted for John McCain, we’d have a Department of Justice that would make unprecedented inroads on the rights of the accused. And they were right!).
THEY TOLD ME THAT IF I VOTED FOR JOHN MCCAIN, we’d have rampant domestic spying. And they were right! “Two FBI workers are accused of using surveillance equipment to spy on teenage girls as they undressed and tried on prom gowns at a charity event at a West Virginia mall.”
THEY TOLD ME IF I VOTED FOR MCCAIN, WE’D SEE JOURNALISTS ARRESTED IN THE STREETS FOR REPORTING. And they were right!
THEY TOLD ME IF I VOTED FOR MCCAIN, BIG BUSINESS WOULD BE SQUASHING DISSENT. AND THEY WERE RIGHT! Goldman Sachs hires law firm to shut blogger’s site. “Goldman Sachs is attempting to shut down a dissident blogger who is extremely critical of the investment bank, its board members and its practices.”
You know, the great thing is that I don’t even have to do the work anymore — just come up with the idea and let others run with it. . . .
JAMES JOYNER: “They told me if I voted for McCain we wouldn’t see the end of big contracts going to Halliburton. And they were right!”
HOPE AND CHANGE: U.S. to Get the Boot from Central Asia Base? “Stunning news from Moscow: Russian news agencies are reporting that the government of Kyrgyzstan will close Manas Air Base, a vital conduit for U.S. troops in Afghanistan.” I thought once Obama was President everyone was going to like us.
UPDATE: Reader Jeff Weimer emails: “I was told that if I voted for McCain, our ability to work with other nations to achieve our goals would falter. They were right!”
ANOTHER UPDATE: Ouch: “The Russians are managing to screw us in Afghanistan as badly as we screwed them 20 years ago.”
MORE: From Bob Krumm, an “I told you so.”
And is this a Russian about-face? “It certainly appears that they’re twisting the screws and testing President Obama.”
It’s also possible that there’s more to this story than we’ve gotten so far, and that it’s not as bad as it looks. I certainly hope so, and I imagine President Obama does, too.
THEY TOLD ME THAT IF I VOTED FOR MCCAIN, we’d wind up drafting young Americans to fight endless wars abroad. And, well . . . .
GEE, DO YOU THINK? Richardson withdrawal leaves gap in Cabinet picks. Plus, reader Jim McKee emails: “They told me if I voted for McCain, I’d have a President who didn’t properly vet his nominees–and they were right!”
UPDATE: Burris heads to Washington.
“NO COMMENT AND NO-DOZ:” Dana Milbank is unimpressed with Obama’s press conference performance. Plus this:
A month from now, the nation will say farewell to its sports-obsessed president who doesn’t like tough questions. And it will replace him with, well, another sports-obsessed president who doesn’t like tough questions.
They told me that if I voted for McCain, we’d get a third Bush term. And, well . . . . (Via Dan Riehl, who can’t wait for unedited transcripts “with all the ‘uhs’ intact.”)
POLITICO: Liberals Voice Concerns About Obama: “Liberals are growing increasingly nervous – and some just flat-out angry – that President-elect Barack Obama seems to be stiffing them on Cabinet jobs and policy choices. Obama has reversed pledges to immediately repeal tax cuts for the wealthy and take on Big Oil. He’s hedged his call for a quick drawdown in Iraq. And he’s stocking his White House with anything but stalwarts of the left. Now some are shedding a reluctance to puncture the liberal euphoria at being rid of President George W. Bush to say, in effect, that the new boss looks like the old boss.” They told me that if I voted for John McCain, we’d get a third Bush term. And they were right!
THEY TOLD ME THAT IF I VOTED FOR MCCAIN, WE’D SEE A THIRD BUSH TERM. Obama drops proposal for windfall profits tax.
NOW THEY TELL US: Obama’s “Not Black,” according to a piece in the Washington Post. Hmm. Gates reappointed at Defense, an Iraq-Hawk Secretary of State, keeping the tax cuts, and now the next President turns out not to be black — hey, they told me if I voted for McCain we’d get a third term for Bush, and I guess they were right!
JOHN MCCAIN CONCEDES: The crowd boos Obama, but he silences them. “His success alone commands my respect for his ability and perseverance. . . . This is a historic election. . . . Let there be no reason now for any citizen to fail to cherish their citizenship in this, the greatest nation on earth.” The crowd cheers.
He calls Sarah Palin “One of the best campaigners I have ever seen, and an impressive new voice in our party for reform and the principles that have always been our greatest strength. . . . We can all look forward with great interest to her future service to Alaska, the Republican party, and our country.”
UPDATE: Mark Levin: “John McCain just gave a classy concession speech. If McCain had won, we were told of possible riots.”
ANOTHER UPDATE: Jim Geraghty: “I have many, many disagreements with Barack Obama. But tonight I congratulate him on his victory. I have seen a few critics say, ‘he won’t be my president,’ but that is nonsense. He will be my president, and I will wish him well, particularly as he takes on the duty of protecting the American people in a dangerous world.”
MORE: Bill Daly writes:
I can remember being enthusiastic about Kennedy winning the 1960 election. It was the last time in my life that I was ever enthusiastic about a Democrat winning. I’ve voted a couple of times for the Democrat in the meanwhile, but they lost, so there was nothing to celebrate. Massachusetts will do that to you.
Anyway, I’ll go on record as predicting that Obama will be almost totally ineffectual as President. He appeared to think during the campaign that the office of President held absolute power in the US, but that is not the case. The big winner, unfortunately, was Congress. I doubt that even a majority of Democrats in Congress are actually socialist, and while they will support tax increasses big time, there’s very little else of Obama’s agenda that they’re likely to back.
At least, we won’t have to worry about McCain being blamed for the inevitable screwups.
Question: what is the likelihood that in 2012, Iraq will still be an ally of the US?
Stay tuned. We’ll see.
STILL MORE: Hard feelings.
But Obama’s acceptance speech was classy. If he governs in that spirit, he’ll do well. Will he?
HAPPY ELECTION DAY: Now get out and VOTE!
UPDATE: Reader Andrew Morriss did, and reports:
I vote in a small, rural, conservative, Republican town in Illinois. There is nothing major for either state or local on the ballot. I waited 20 minutes to vote at 6:30 a.m. and the elderly poll workers said they had never seen an election like this before, even when there was a major local issue on the ballot.
I take some hope from this – I think all those people were there, just as my wife and I were there, to vote against Obama when it won’t make a difference at all, since he’ll easily carry Illinois based on Chicago. As my wife noted, the folks in the Remington caps were unlikely to be Obama voters.
And reader David Klug reports from Florida: “I showed up at the polls in Jacksonville 15 minutes before they opened to find this long line already formed. By the time they opened the doors the line was well on its way to tripling in length. In my experience this is unusual the opening. Another observation – of the dozen and a half poll workers, only two of them were people of pallor. Interesting in that the district is predominantly white. None of the usual white haired ladies were there. Not sure why that is but I found it interesting.”
At right is a photo he sent of the line. If the turnout doesn’t match the polls’ models, of course, the results might turn out to be different than the polls predict.
ANOTHER UPDATE: A report of massive turnout “even in GOP-friendly states.” And reader Thomas Pfau emails:
I first voted around 1980 and have been voted in every major election since the early 90’s. For the first time I can remember I had to stand in line to vote this morning. The parking lot was full and the firehouse was fairly packed at 7:30 this morning.
I passed another overflowing parking lot on the way there. I believe that location was being used as a voting center for the neighboring town. I’ve never seen so many cars there.
Please tell me high turnout favors Republicans.
Well, probably not in New Jersey. But what do I know? And reader George Stege writes:
I reside in Republican DuPage county right outside of Cook County and the economic black hole of Chicago. At 6:30AM, over 60 people were voting or in line when I got there. Took 25 minutes to complete my voting. The large turnout at that time probably does not bode well for McCain, even though he is strong in Villa Park and the county. I hope I am wrong, but tomorrow is the wife’s birthday so I have great reason, regardless of who wins, to put on a happy face and get back to the grind of keeping our economy chugging along.
I don’t think anything could deliver Illinois to McCain. But someone who knows more than I do ought to look at the turnout reports around the country and compare them to what the poll models are based on.
STILL MORE: Reader Michael Newton writes: “Heavy turnout favors McCain. Remember how we were told that Obama supporters were more energized? But the closer we get to 100% turnout, the less ‘energy’ has to do with who will win.” Hmm. Makes sense to me, but I’m no polling expert.
ANDREW SULLIVAN is calling Zell Miller a “Dixiecrat.” Actually, given that the Dixiecrats were a movement that briefly took place within the Democratic Party back in 1948, when Miller was 16, that seems rather misplaced. And if Miller’s history is so bad, why did Bill Clinton choose him as his keynoter in 1992?
But I think the answer to this formulation appears as a question, when you search “Zell Miller Dixiecrat” on Google.
UPDATE: Some readers, who seem to think that I was being “coy” in my earlier discussion of Miller’s speech want to know what I thought about it. I was most struck — as I said in my post before, and as Virginia Postrel noted as well — by the unvarnished Jacksonianism of the speech. As Virginia says:
Zell Miller sure is pissed off at John Kerry–and at the entire post-Vietnam Democratic party. His speech was, as Glenn says, a pure expression of Jacksonian America, complete with unashamed accent (an accent that probably is like fingernails on a blackboard to lots of folks north of the Mason-Dixon line). . . . I’m guessing Miller’s been mad for a long time.
I suspect the style was a bit offputting to some people who aren’t familiar with (old-fashioned) southern politics, since you normally only see someone speak that way in the movies if he’s an Elmer Gantry style bad guy. In fact, it’s not that way: Many of the old-line Democratic heroes in Tennessee (none of whom were “Dixiecrats”) spoke that way. I’m too young to have seem anything but the tail end of that generation of politician: people like Ned Ray McWherter, Doug Henry, and John Jay Hooker. But they — especially John Jay — could give that kind of a stem-winder too, and it’s only bigotry or ignorance that associates that sort of speaking style with racism and nothing else. This was probably the last speech in that style we’ll ever see on the national political scene.
On the merits: It was hard-hitting. There’s a legitimate question (which Chris Matthews might have succeeded in raising if he had been less ham-handed and insulting) about how much you can tell from legislative votes, which often as not are structured to allow people to conceal or misrepresent their true leanings, and which are thus easily misrepresented by opponents. On the other hand, we’re told that people aren’t supposed to criticize Kerry’s Vietnam or post-Vietnam antiwar actions because doing that is a “smear,” so if you can’t talk about his Senate votes either, what’s left? His time as Lieutenant Governor? Kerry’s defenders seem a bit quick to call any kind of criticism unfair.
The upside of being a Senator running for President is that you get easy access to the national media, and to national money. The downside is that you have to explain your votes. You have to take the bitter with the sweet, and Kerry’s already taken the sweet. This was pretty bitter, but it’s part of the deal.
How well did it work for the Republicans? Beats me, but this may be an indication. And Luntz’s swing-voter focus group liked it more than I expected last night, because it did seem a bit harsh to me. (But I’m often wrong about these things). There are a lot of Jacksonians out there. Best line, from the item linked above:
Emerging theme of the Democratic response to the Republican convention speeches:
Schwarzenegger is not a Republican
McCain is not a Republican
Zell Miller is not a Democrat
Heh. I’m not particularly a fan of Jackson (partly because of my Cherokee ancestry, but more because of, well, who he was). But, you know, the Democrats are supposed to be the party of Jackson. Zell Miller delivered that, but what he really seems upset about is the absence of Wendell Willkies.
ANOTHER UPDATE: Read James Lileks’ take, too. There are a lot of Jacksonians out there, even in Minnesota.
MORE: A reader asks for an explanation of “Jacksonian.” Guess I shouldn’t have taken that for granted. Here’s an interview with Walter Russell Mead, who coined the term as part of an explanation of four traditions of American foreign policy. Short summary: “[The idea is]: “Don’t bother with people abroad, unless they bother you. But if they attack you, then do everything you can. . . . When somebody attacks the hive, you come swarming out of the hive and you sting them to death. And Jacksonians, when it comes to war, don’t believe in limited wars. They don’t believe, particularly, in the laws of war. War is about fighting, killing, and winning with as few casualties as possible on your side. But you don’t worry about casualties on the other side. That’s their problem. They shouldn’t have started the war if they didn’t want casualties.”
A much more sophisticated discussion can be found in Mead’s book, Special Providence. It’s also worth looking at David Hackett Fischer’s book Albion’s Seed: Four British Folkways in America — which meshes rather interestingly with the 4 styles of foreign relations that Mead identifies.
STILL MORE: Dead Parrots has the Kerry response. No word on whether he voted for this stuff before he voted against it, but presumably that will all come out.
LARRY DIAMOND offers a lengthy critique of Bush Administration policy in Iraq.
If Kerry had an Iraq policy that made sense, perhaps he could be making hay out of this. In fact, I want to offer a clipping from a parallel universe, one much like our own except for a different John Kerry campaign strategy:
EAST HAMPTON, NY (IP) — Democratic Presidential nomineee John Kerry laughs when told that most voters don’t realize that he served in Vietnam, winning three purple hearts, a bronze star, and a silver star.
“Why should they? That’s several wars ago,” Kerry laughs. “Old stuff. I’d much rather people be talking about my detailed plan to rebuild Iraq, using an oil trust mechanism that would give the Iraqi people a stake in reconstruction. That’s why I focused on that in my acceptance speech at the Democratic Convention. What was I going to do, rehash events from 35 years ago?”
Kerry’s friends say that, like other veterans, he’s been known to tell a few tall tales about his service over beers with others who served, but that he seldom talks about his combat experience otherwise. “He’s put that behind him,” says his wife Teresa. “And he thinks it would be unbecoming to make a big deal about his service when others, like [Senator] John McCain or [former P.O.W.] Paul Galanti went through so much more.”
“I would have invaded Iraq regardless of the WMD issue,” Kerry observes. “Saddam Hussein was a threat, and a menace to his own people. And a free, democratic Iraq will be the first step toward addressing the ‘root cause’ of terrorism — despotic Arab regimes that spew hatred to distract their people from their own tyranny. But as I said last year, the reconstruction needed more resources. That was why I voted for the $87 billion in reconstruction money, but urged the Bush Administration to ask for more, to do it right.”
Kerry also takes a dim view of leftist filmmaker Michael Moore. “I think that his film ‘Fahrenheit 9/11′ was scurrilous and dangerous to the morale of our troops. That’s why I asked that he be excluded from the Democratic Convention, despite Jimmy Carter’s wishes. And that’s why he wasn’t seen there. In a time of war, we don’t need guys like that. We can win this campaign based on our ideas, not propaganda films. That’s also why I told Chris Matthews to ’stuff it’ when he tried to make an issue out of President Bush’s National Guard service.”
Kerry’s detailed plans for Iraq, and for carrying the war on terror to Al Qaeda and its backers elsewhere, seem to have left the Bush Administration floundering. Sources close to the Bush campaign say that some Bush operatives are considering an attack on Kerry’s Vietnam record, but many are skeptical. “I don’t think that’ll work,” says cyber-pundit Glenn Reynolds, who calls Kerry’s Iraq plan promising. “Most voters have no idea Kerry was even in Vietnam. He never talks about it, so where’s the traction? It’s ancient history.”
Others are even harsher. “They can’t attack the message,” says Matthew Yglesias of The American Prospect, a liberal publication. “So they’re attacking the messenger. That’s because they don’t want to talk about Kerry’s real accomplishments, the ones Kerry touted at the Convention, like his role in busting BCCI, the terrorists’ money laundry. Kerry’s talking about that, and his plans for Iraq, and they’re talking about Vietnam? Who cares about that? Pathetic.”
I’d actually prefer that parallel universe.
UPDATE: Tom Carr observes: “The Kerry ‘Parallel Universe’ wouldn’t be so parallel if you replaced all the instances of Kerry w/Lieberman…including on the ballots. *sigh*”
Yeah. And reader Dave Schuler emails: “You’ll make me weep. Why can’t our reality be more like that beautiful fantasy?”
Beats me. Because Kerry couldn’t have gotten the nomination if he’d sounded like Lieberman?
ANOTHER UPDATE: N.Z. Bear comments on this scenario.
MORE: Chris Lawrence: ” Left unpondered is whether or not ‘parallel Kerry’ has one of those cool-looking goatees like Spock did in ‘Mirror, Mirror.’” Yeah, definitely.
