102 Comments

newguy40:

Your summary of what we can expect from an Obama presidency articulated my thoughts and fears very well.

Obama’s presidency will make Carter’s look… well… good. (G__ help us.

Feb 22, 2008 - 4:16 pm A Young Republican:

The reasons for his rise and racial atonement aside I, as a young Republican, do not dislike Obama. He seems to me, a man of morals. During the debate in LA , surrounded by Hollywood elites, he said “I don’t want to see offensive ads while watching American Idol with my kids.” I thought Rob Reiner was going to faint.
Maybe I am too young to know what true liberalism can do to a country, but I don’t see it ruining my life. Free or reduced health care, schooling and entitlements? Why not? It may be self-serving and against the grain of a “Boot Strap” mentality, but trickle down tax breaks are invisible to me, $300.00 monthly medical insurance is not.
I do however fear “Change” of strategies in the campaigns against terror in Iraq, Afghanistan and, God forbid, Iran (anyone remember the Suicide Brigades?) So I will be casting my vote for Sen. McCain when the time comes.
Thanks to Dr. Hanson for his wide-lens insights into current affairs.

Feb 22, 2008 - 11:46 pm Allison Aller:

Obama is NOT going to win. I am surprised you think he will. Americans could not go for McGovern when push came to shove, and that was against Nixon!
The battle will be ugly, however, because of the racial overtones. Hopefully McCain and his wife (yes, she counts; the spouse’s persona is a huge factor with women voters)will address the issue of race directly…in an enlightened and positive way, of course.

Feb 23, 2008 - 8:39 am richard everett:

Professor:
I have finally decided that what I am watching is a nation commit suicide, while i stand in horrified fascination. Sort of like watching a low-motion train wreck.
As for electing a Euro-socialist, as I told my barber’s son, why would we want to become like a morally bankrupt and eviscerated Europe, when our ancestors came here for the freedom and opportunities America offered?

Feb 23, 2008 - 11:56 am Jimmy J.:

Obamania is quite a phenomenon. IMO it is his voice that is his primary weapon. Not quite Richard Burton’s or James Earl Jones’s but nonetheless deep and resonating. It lends authority to everything he says. And it is mesmerizing enough that the inexperienced believe that they have heard something of great moment.

His claims about the distresses of America would seem ludicrous to even the inexperienced if made by a speaker such as say, President Bush.

I fear seeing him in debates with Senator McCain. The contrast would be stark. On one hand an old man with average speaking and debate skills. On the other hand a young, vigorous man with the VOICE. So far it has not mattered what Obama plans to do. His voice comes down as if from on high bringing a message of salvation. People are mesmerized as if he were a G_d-like figure.

Hopefully, at some point the differences in policy and the consequences thereof will begin to register with enough voters that the spell will be broken. Your writing and speaking out on this is greatly appreciated as your voice influences many people.

Feb 23, 2008 - 4:18 pm Trudy B. Taylor:

Dear Young Republican:
I wish you a happy life and a good job.In order for you and all in your generation who want good jobs, productive lives,and an optimistic domestic future, I desire a country which does not stifle business growth.

May you have your pick of invigorating, profitable jobs that allow you to give back to your community in proportion to what you receive in opportunity. Therefore I wish you a country that does not strangle businesses with over-the-top entitlement requirements a la union expectations.

I wish you the opportunity to change jobs when it becomes economically advantageous for you to do so. Therefore, I hope that I’ll live to see the day when individual health care plans are not tied to jobs as a form of entitlement but can be bought and carried from job to job by young vibrant workers like you.

As my father was prone to say , nothing is “free”, not schooling, not health care, not anything. Unfortunately, when it comes to the federal government “free” is code talk for raising YOUR taxes and businesses’ taxes.

Feb 23, 2008 - 4:28 pm Jim Rockford:

Rasmussen has McCain up over Obambi 46-43. FWIW.

I am less than impressed with Obama. He makes lots of errors that endears him to Progressive blogs but causes problems. He’s winning and now Hillary is accusing him of lying about her record in mailers. For no reason at all he meets with and takes money from William Ayers, convicted Weatherman terrorist. He has national aspirations yet belongs to a racialist church and has a nutty, Farrakhan loving preacher.

Obama has nothing to attract middle class voters. No Sistah Soljah moment, no middle class panders and buyouts and money. It’s all hard-left down the line. With gaffes on Afghanistan fighting, pledge of allegiance, flag pins, and more.

What Obama does have through his rise is the weird happening of sex scandals involving opponents. Jack Ryan’s divorce papers become public. A rumor about John Edwards cheating on his dying wife with bar-girl Rielle Hunter makes the National Enquirer. Rumors fly about Hillary Clinton and aide Huma Abedin. Rumors make the NYT about McCain and a female lobbyist. While primary opponents favored to win drop out, mysteriously.

At no point has Obama actually won on issues, policies, or anything of that nature.

To me this seems like a Democratic Party desperately trying to avoid issues that endanger their coalition of rich yuppie voters and various minority groups. Issues over Affirmative Action turf battles: who wins, Hispanics or Blacks? Over Affirmative Action and it’s waning support as fewer whites means more pain for them (white guys lose as they’re passed over for minorities). Over “Green” movements versus manufacturing jobs. Over cultural issues threatening families: defining marriage to include gay marriage, polygamy, whatever, media pollution, anything goes sexual mores, lack of patriotism and distrust amongst “diversity.”

Over what to do about Jihad.

So Dems chose the West Wing fantasy meets “Wayne Palmer” on “24.” A guy who will talk his way past conflicts.

Dems are moving towards a McGovern style blowout. For all the wedge issues above. Because, well the issues ARE divisive, and Dems are on the short end of the counting on all of them.

Feb 23, 2008 - 10:56 pm Stephen Rittenberg:

I hope Jim (above) is correct, but fear Professor Hanson is. I suspect the “issues” won’t matter–because no one believes the content of what politicians say; they understand that hired pollsters determine their public positions. I fear that Obama, in addition to “the voice” and the charm is a lot smarter than we conservatives give him credit for being. Although I tremble for our country, I can’t help being grateful that the Clinton dynasty has been brought low by a young Chicago pol.

Feb 24, 2008 - 4:28 am Ivanhoe:

One of the reasons I enjoy Dr. Hanson’s writings, and visit his websites more or less on a daily basis, is not because I totally agree with his views on everything, although I feel he is dead-on in his assessment of our back-asswards agricultural policies. I am still skeptical that overthrowing Sadaam Hussein was vital to the security of the United States, or that the entire Middle East is worth the time, blood and treasure we have, and will continue to, spend there. It seems to me we spend entirely too much on our military and on the welfare state in general. Obviously, many disagree, or we wouldn’t have a half-trillion dollar military budget, and a gazillion dollar welfare budget. I’m certainly open to being convinced otherwise. Do any of you know of any works, written in laymen’s terms that may disabuse me of my notion that we have way too many military commitments around the world? Or why it seems to fall to an increasingly financially shaky America to protect and police the rest of the West’s comfortable behind? As an otherwise conservative “Fortress America” sort of guy, I don’t get it and perhaps that is what Dr. Hanson is alluding to in his second point.

Anyway, Dr. Hanson has succinctly captured in his first four bullet-points why the nation will in all probability have to endure Obamanomics, and possibly a catastrophic withdrawal from Iraq in the next couple years.
One way to avoid this impending fiasco, and every time I find myself mad at McCain I remind myself of this, is for small government, fiscal conservatives, like myself to “grow up” and stop waiting for perfection in any candidate. The alternative is grim; a disjointed and ineffective conservative movement that will have all the holding power of the levees in New Orleans in stemming the socialist flood that will take place if Obama wins.

Feb 24, 2008 - 5:24 am BMOOn:

As Kathy Parker at WaPo and others are astutely pointing out, Obama’s nascent rise reflects uncomfortably on who we are..”We are the change!”…as a nation, both the good -optimistic, reasonably messianic, idealistic, good-natured, generous, progressive - ….and the bad - pathologically narcissistic, spoiled, fatherless, rootless, undiscerning, selfishly pragmatic (”Hey, free health care? Sounds good to me! Why not?”) Obama somehow manages to combine the two sides, with a very toxic result, where Americans ca project onto him whathever wish-fulfillment occurs in their self-absorbed minds.

Feb 24, 2008 - 6:07 am cfbleachers:

What Brought Us Here?

I believe three major factors have us on the brink of Euro-Socialism infecting every nook and cranny of our political landscape.

a)We have done precious little to take back the information stream from the leftists, who grabbed it in the 60’s, honed their tactics in the 70’s, put a stranglehold on it in the 80’s, put a candidate in the White House in the 90’s, and have been increasingly aggressive in attempting to be the message ever since. Up to and including whole cloth fabrications, doctored photographs, doctored records, and the creation of a playing field so unleveled, it has split the country in two.

b)Non-Socialists, of every type have been woefully inadequate on the world stage and even domesticallly at exposing the fraud that has been fomented with what I call “chic self-loathing” and placed on the global menu on a daily basis for consumption by other countries.

Like the primordial slime from the Ghostbuster’s movie, it feeds off of its own negative energy.

Our leftists tell the world how horrible we are, that our motives are impure, their news agencies eager to lap this up in turn broadcast to each other and our enemies, it eventually makes its way back to us as a Worldview.

Then our leftists point to it with sanctimonious breast-beating and wide-eyed innocence and declare that non-socialists are not nuanced enough to understand the “deserved reputation” we have around the world.

c)We tend to be, as Americans, preconditioned to champion the underdog. Pioneering spirit, entrepreneurship, freedom from tyranny, breaking from tradition are imbedded in our soil as a nation.

But we swing on a precarious pendulum when it comes to Election Day, lest we swing too far from tradition toward incessant rebellion.

This is what has kept us from becoming a banana republic. We love independence, even have a Declaration of it. But trying to jam rebellion down our national throats will cause a backlash. We are layered in our change, we like to fix things rather than break things.

On election day, or in election years, therefore, we tend to replace the “trait” that defines the problem with the last guy and “fix” it with the trait of the next guy.

Nixon was beady-eyed, paranoid, unlikeable. Ford was extremely likeable, but portrayed as an affable stumbling buffoon who could work the aisles as an insider.

So we needed a rocket scientist, or at least nuclear scientist who was not an insider.

Of course, that led to a national malaise, because he was weak, timid and the human equivalent of a Quaalud.

To replace Carter’s weakness and depression, we needed the strength and uplifting message of Reagan.

Reagan was portrayed as dim, sleepy, unaware, so the Ivy League educated Bush SR. became our “fix”.

Bush the Elder represented elitism according to the left and he was out of touch with the “common man”, so we needed someone who was more populist.

Clinton was a hounddog and we needed more family values so “W” became the choice.

Now, “W”, he is not a great orator. His command of the language is less than a strong suit. And he was someone who got in the face of our enemies, giving the leftists a galvanizing tool to beat him on a daily basis.

So, we now have come to this. An orator with a charismatic and easy way with words, no matter how empty. And someone who does not get in the face of adversaries, but looks to have us all get along.

He is the SuperSocialist. He has the charm of Clinton, the leftist leanings of Carter, (and the ties to anti-Israel leanings as deep or deeper than Carter), his election “cleanses” us of our guilt over misdeeds past and present.

He acts Democratic, speaks centrist, votes Socialist. A little something for everyone likely to even consider him.

How did we get here? It was almost inevitable.

Feb 24, 2008 - 7:38 am Sue:

As an atheist, it comes to mind that America is sort of in the same position as Jesus Christ on the cross when he says: Lord, lord forgive them for they know not what they do! May someone’s god out there save not only America, but especially the world because of what it will become completely without America as a beacon of hope!

Feb 24, 2008 - 8:04 am Velma Williamson:

This makes for very interesting and informative reading,I can’t hardly wait for what is coming next!

Feb 24, 2008 - 8:42 am austin:

Let’s not forget how Obama won his IL Senate race:

“In his first Illinois State Senate race, all of his contenders withdrew or were forced off the ballot because of voter signature challenges. ”

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/discussion/2007/12/09/DI2007120901180.html

Feb 24, 2008 - 8:58 am Richard Lubens:

I do not particularly fear Obama in Nov.He is a house of cards. Currently he is what the voter wants him to be. Against McCain he will have to take sharper defined positions than against another Dem. He hasn’t had to respond to substantive issues let alone been vetted in a national campaign. He fails to understand the value, to petty dictators and tyrants, of meeting with an American president for example. To toss that away for nothing is naive. The Dems won’t go after those kind of things, or bombing Pakistan, for fear of losing African-American support. His close relationship to his African liberation church and its pastor, his spiritual advisor, is among many things not vetted, but which will be issues in the fall.

Feb 24, 2008 - 9:02 am Lawrence:

Jimmy J., et. al.: I recently read a reference to the malignant political activist Jerry Rubin, who observed during a television interview in London: “Television creates bigger myths than reality.” [Apparently he was espousing the theory that an event *happens* when it airs on broadcasts and becomes “myth.”] Rubin continued, saying: “The way to understand television is to shut off the sound. No one remembers any words they hear; the mind is a Technicolor movie of images, not words. The pictures are the story.”

Unfortunately, this perception is quite true–and those who still traffic in words seem to be fighting a losing battle. Fantasy is taking over; and it is a far greater threat to what is called civilization than any other, more ostensibly destructive forces. Historically, civilizations have been wrecked by outside forces moving in; in socio-political fantasy, its proponents create, spread, and support their own barbarians, enacting a national death-wish.

I, for one, will NEVER catch Obama fever.

Feb 24, 2008 - 9:08 am Verinder Syal:

I think that President Bush’s “compassionate conservatism” is a pseudonym for “less liberal”, meaning we will spend a lot but less than the other fellows. This lesser of the two evils approach, along with spend thrift Republican Congressmen, has eaten away at the notion that the Republicans stand for less government. They surely do not stand for fiscal prudence anymore.

The second mistake that the President made was not understanding that the bigger war was at home - for the mind and souls of the citizens of America. With his inability to articulate clearly the main stream press has eaten him alive so that defeat is being snatched from victory.

Finally, as to Mr. Obama there appears to be a great angst among native born citizens to somehow expatiate the guilt of their forefathers. The Jesse Jacksons and Al Sharptons have ridden this ambulance all the way to riches, notoriety, and psuedo leadership. As a legal immigrant turned naturalized citizen, this farce is hard to swallow; reasonably intelligent people have taken leave of their senses to follow a star they know not to a destination even he knows not.

Feb 24, 2008 - 9:17 am jummy:

Recent revalations of his connection to the radical marxist payroll operation, The Woods Foundation, and his persistent coalition with the domestic terrorist William Ayers and his wife, which began when Obama had to visit their apartment and kiss Ayers’ ring, demonstrates that Obama has only ever been a stealth radical. He cannot be allowed to helm our republic.

Feb 24, 2008 - 9:36 am Jeffrey S. Neher:

Dr. Hanson has hit another grand slam with this spot-on analysis of the “Obama-mania cult” that is attempting a “spiritual coup” if you will of this nation. With such a complete breakdown impossible to add upon, I will aim my remarks at the “Young Republican”.

The first mistake anyone can make is to solely identify themselves with a political party. You have to develop your own political philosophy. One hopes this is done through diligent research of facts and life experience. Logic is vitally important to this process. As an example of logic, I understand completely that the more money governement takes from people the less the people will have. The less money they will have, the less material needs they will have, and the less responsibility and freedom they will have. I am a conservative/libertine. That is how I identify myself first and foremost. For the last thirty years, the party that has represented that philosophy has been the GOP. But, I am not married to the GOP. If my beliefs were to be discarded by the GOP and picked up by the Dems, then my votes would surey follow. This is the problem too many conservatives now find themselves dealing with. Too many have sacrificed their ideals for the sake of party, for the sake of victory. They now identify themselves party-first rather than by their principles. The natural result is that they have rendered themselves irrelevant. They are now routinely taken for granted. The same thing has happened to the black community in the dem party. The party looks around and says “where are you going to go”? Conservatives find this to be true today in the GOP. Where do we go? For me, I will try to bring the GOP back to it’s conservative principles and it’s conservative senses. But if I fail, I will go where I am wanted and needed….be it third party or fourth or whatever the case may be.

Remember this Young Republican, there is no such thing as being “a little pregnant”. A little health-care is just as mythical and will be ruinous(just ask the Brits). Another true saying, there’s no such thing as a free lunch. You will always pay for your health-care, as you should. The million dollar question is, do you want to pay more for less? And, do you want to also pay for illegals and those who refuse to accept the responsibilites of life? We already do, but you want to double that amount, triple it? Government is never the answer, rather, almost always the problem….

Feb 24, 2008 - 9:57 am Ernesto:

The taliban is not gone. We can’t take credit for Lebanon. But I will admit Bush’s relatively amateur attempt at statecraft DID, in fact, clearly align Germany and France with American interests. He did this while strengthening our relationship with Britain. I wish he would have paid more attention to Japan, where they are ready to begin shedding the pacifism from their constitution, but on the European front Bush has been a success.

Feb 24, 2008 - 10:37 am djl130:

Does anyone suppose that one perk of Obama winning will be the fact that the cry of racism won’t be tossed around like a hot potato anymore? Or will it only be the ‘progressives” who will be forever free from the label? Will Conservatives earn the eternal damnation of being considered racists because we voted for McCain? What will the whiners do without the ability to scream racist?

Feb 24, 2008 - 10:52 am DavidS:

I’m amazed/bemused to think that anyone expects a person from a middle-class home with a privileged education who has become rich and powerful by working his way up the Chicago Democrat machine is going to be an engine of change.

Feb 24, 2008 - 10:58 am Jeff:

I’m a lifelong republican. I’ve sent oodles of money to the RNC.

They betrayed me.

Spending. We got Republican in control of Congress and the White House. They spent our tax money like drunken Democrats in a Shanghai whorehouse.

H-1b. They literally set up a private labor market for the SPECIFIC purpose of depressing labor prices. They intervened in the private market like FDR.

National Defense. They hobbled our warfighters with restrictive rules of engagement that literally prevented them from shooting back.

Diplomacy. They let Europe run over us with their International Courts and de facto sanctions against the Iraq war. They subsidize European defense with OUR money, and then accept a ration of shit from the Old World. Wussies.

I vote straight Democrat now. Republicans ARE socialists. The choice now is for a socialism that benefits me, or one that just benefits big business. I’m voting for me. Screw my old party.

I didn’t leave the Republican Party. It left me.

Feb 24, 2008 - 11:15 am Jimmy J.:

Ivanhoe,
To understand our involvement in Iraq, you need to read “THE PENTAGON’S NEW MAP,” by Thomas P. M. Barnett. He is a grand strategic thinker who used to work for the Naval War College. His theory of the grand strategy going forward is that globalization will eventually bring the undeveloped nations of the world into becoming developed nations that maintain peaceful and successful trade with other nations.
However, he and other strategic thinkers do not think this will happen if the developed nations stand passively by. He advocates dragging these less developed nations into the system through aid, diplomacy, and, where necessary, miltary intervention. This is what we are attempting to do by bringing democracy and free market economics to Iraq and Afghanistan. Barnett never claimed this would be easy, but he anticipated that the U.S. would get more help from our allies. It is, after all, in the interest of all developed nations to spread democracy and free market economics as widely as possible.

I agree with Barnett’s basic ideas, but see the application of them as being far more difficult than even he originally believed. IMO 50 to 100 years would be a decent timetable for bringing this about. The other problem is that our leaders, and I fault President Bush for not being able to make the case more clearly, need to get the American people on board so there is support for this long and difficult task.

I hope this provides some food for thought on the issue.

Feb 24, 2008 - 11:38 am Barbara Bennett:

Dear Young Republican:

You are 100% correct. Like you I was once a young Republican but after witnessing what happened to the Republucan Party over the last eight years, I am not longer.

Articles like these mean one thing - they are scared. Obama will be the next president and they know it and regret it.

The Republican Party has become a shameful bastion of selfish beaurocrats interested in self interest and lobbyists and America finally understands.

After 8 years of Bush and Cheney with Rove, Coulter, Hannity, Limbaugh, Savage, and every other loud mouth opinionated moron thrown in for some nauseating good measure, America has gotten it. They understand that this party has not only lost it’s direction and so called values, those running it have lost their minds before the American people.

For some reason the Republican party became the war party in more ways than one. They now seem to always have to have liberals to pick on and abuse, get that lib, or they need to lay waste to those who disagree. Rupert Murdoch has succeeded in reducing the party to a Vince McMahon production. Full steel cage matches with metal chairs. America gets it loud and clear and they are not amused.

I do not believe the New York Times had any right to run the story on McCain, but on the other side of the coin McCain has no right to be cozying up with lobbyists in general, if he expects to be our next president. They dominate his whole campaign and his co chair was indicted on Friday. Again, more of the same from the Republican Party.

When Obama becomes President he will have a huge mess to clean up from this administration, but he will do it and the United States of America will survive and shine on in her full glory.

Just wait and see, God is with us on this one and remember he works in mysterious ways. I just wish the GOP, with all of it’s sanctimonious pandering for Evangelicals and the bragging about being the party of values, would at least have a vague clue about that.

They did not and they do not..

Feb 24, 2008 - 11:43 am Teapot Dome:

“Forget that the Taliban and Saddam are gone.”

I wish it were so, but you might want to check on the Taliban part of your statement. Last I heard they were coming back because Bush thought securing Afghanistan would be easy. Says a lot about his knowledge of history.

Feb 24, 2008 - 11:49 am Frank Morley:

To the Young Republican:

If you think health care is expensive now, wait until it’s free.

Feb 24, 2008 - 12:11 pm Ann C:

“As my father was prone to say , nothing is “free”, not schooling, not health care, not anything. Unfortunately, when it comes to the federal government “free” is code talk for raising YOUR taxes and businesses’ taxes.”

And giving you much less for your dollar than if you bought the same service on the free market.
I wish people would do more research and see what people in other countries were really getting for “free”. I guess it’s all the “free” education not equipping people with the skills to look into things for themselves, and how unfortunate it is that this is infecting the party that is supposed to be for liberty (as A Young Republican demonstrates).

Feb 24, 2008 - 12:15 pm Trudy B. Taylor:

Jim rockford, you’re wrong that Obama has nothing to offer middle class voters, at least when it comes to white middle class voters. He holds out the not so subtle promise of forgiveness for our historical white racism.

If one votes for Obama one might free oneself of the stain of historical white racism we have labored under during the decades of race based politics since Dr. King’s civil rights movement transmogrified into collective white guilt and black entitlement.

I’ve begun to think that the cause of the mesmerizing “swoon factor” of predominantly white crowds at Obama rallies is a subconscious desperation to atone. Middle class whites are so tired of carrying this load of diffuse guilt for events occurring over 100 years ago. How convenient to wash the guilt away with just one vote.

This message is implicit in most of Michelle Obama’s stump speeches, and it is seeping into more of Barack’s appearences too.

Feb 24, 2008 - 12:31 pm Junius:

The Democratic Party usually nominates the articulate candidate over the experienced aspirant. In 1896 with the coinage of silver the burning issue, they nominated Wm J. Bryan, a young (36) two term ex-Congressman who gave a great speech, over the older (61) front runner, Richard P. Bland, who had two decades of experience in Congress pushing silver legislation (e.g. the Bland Allison Act).

In 1912 Woodrow Wilson triumphed over the front runner, House Speaker Champ Clark.

In 1960 the JFK, without much of a legislative record, easily defeated the more effective LBJ and Hubert Humphrey.

The election will turn on this issue: with no executive or military experience, and only less than 3 years in the U.S. Senate before he started running for President, does Obama have the depth to be Commander in Chief?

Feb 24, 2008 - 12:46 pm Lori:

Young Republican: I’m not sure how young you are but if you are not a smoker and your paying $300.00 a month in healthcare premiums, you are getting taken for a long ride. Check out Cigna’s website, you can get it for about $100 a month. That would be a $200 raise for you. Excellent I say. As for Obama, I would like to ask him if he is such an agent for change, what has he changed in Illinois during his years as an Illinois Senator as well as a U.S. Senator for Illinois. Nothing is the answer. It’s still as corrupt as it ever was.

Feb 24, 2008 - 1:04 pm newscaper:

Young Republican said…
“Maybe I am too young to know what true liberalism can do to a country, but I don’t see it ruining my life. Free or reduced health care, schooling and entitlements? Why not?”

You wonder “Why not?” because you have mistakenly absorbed (even if you are unaware) the leftist post-modern claptrap that nothing is real but power relationships. Therefore, public policy has nothing to do with the hard realities of economics, but rather is only about who’s calling the shots.

That way lies gullibility and ruin.

Feb 24, 2008 - 1:14 pm Mister Snitch!:

You wrote a good piece, Victor. Lots of whistling past the graveyard in the comments section. Doesn’t matter how much hand-wringing over Obama the Republicans do – McCain has no chance. And frankly - the behavior of the party in recent years doesn’t merit one.

Feb 24, 2008 - 1:25 pm charles:

I have a sneaking suspicion that some of this Obamamania is really disguised relief that there is an option besides Hillary. Once she is out of the picture, I firmly believe Obamamania will drop down to the true believers and the racialists.

Feb 24, 2008 - 1:25 pm Mike K:

“I’m certainly open to being convinced otherwise. Do any of you know of any works, written in laymen’s terms that may disabuse me of my notion that we have way too many military commitments around the world?”

You might read “The Sling and the Stone.”

Barbara, I don’t believe you were a Republican. Those are seminar talking points if I ever heard them. You may well get Obama next year and that will make me relieved that I am 70 and will not have to live long with what he does. He will make Carter look decisive.

Feb 24, 2008 - 1:33 pm James:

Sir,

Do you not perhaps think that an Obama presidency would be just the thing that this country needs?

We need a President to bow to every European and UN demand, just to prove them wrong with the real consequences of thier “worldview”.

We need a President to negotiate with Iran and buy into Russian and Chinese stall tactics until finally, Iran tests a nuclear device, not in the mountains outside of Tehran, but over Tel Aviv. It seems only real blood, instead of warnings by “neocons”, will shake the Left to action.

We need a President to nationalize health care just to prove how misguided and unsustainable it is. We don’t seem to need to look at the numerous (failed) examples around the world.

Finally, we need a President to expose the myths of the Left for what they are….empty slogans that require spoiled brats to suffer for themselves

Feb 24, 2008 - 1:39 pm David H Dennis:

The question of how we got here has two basic sub-questions:

- How did we get Obama as the Democratic nominee?

I expected this from the beginning, because I believe Hillary simply does not have the likability quotient needed to become President. She is shrill and sounds like fingernails over a blackboard.

So any candidate with any sense of charisma would win over here. It happened to be Obama.

Incidentally, some of the values behind his speeches sound downright Republican. For example, he talks about how great it is for people to come up from nothing through hard work. He’s actually running against Hillary on the right on the health care issue, which is interesting.

On the other hand, “Yes, we can” is downright spooky. When I heard that speech on the TV I felt I was watching a Castro or Hitler speech. Ugh.

- How did we get McCain as the Republican nominee?

This is bizarre. Most Republicans I know of don’t like him at all and in particular loathe his positions on many things, starting with his idiotic campaign finance reforms.

I think Mark Steyn was right when he said that McCain is a tonal Republican, if not an ideological one. People who pay more attention to the tone than beliefs like the guy.

Furthermore, ideological Republicans were split between Huckabee and others.

Why did Giuliani sink so fast? I still think he would have been the best President among our candidates.

D

Feb 24, 2008 - 1:55 pm Barbara Bennett:

Lori :

FYI - one’s insurance premiums depend on what state they live in as to how much one pays.

Huckabee supporte derulating the industry over state lines.

Feb 24, 2008 - 1:57 pm Sandra Mendoza:

The press, currently fascinated by “face reading” and “body language” seems to have become dismissive of the importance of real language. Michelle Obama’s “I’m proud of my country for the first time in my life” comment revealed volumes about the Obamas who may become a Blame America First Family.

We can’t rely on the press to tell us much about their favorite candidates until it’s too late to vote for someone else (Bill Clinton’s flagrant infidelities) so we have to rely on clues: Obama on flag pins, not putting his hand over his heart during the pledge of allegiance, belonging to a Farrakan supporting Africa-centered Black church and with a communist childhood mentor, Just clues, but linked to his spoken “floating abstractions” and left wing position papers, telling clues.

Will McCain be able and willing to point out Obama’s youth and inexperience and total lack of qualification for the job of Commander In Chief? He doesn’t have to replay Reagan’s famous debate joke. He just has to ask the questions which will show up Obama for the military and foreign policy neophyte he is.

Lastly, I mentioned Mrs. Obama’s comment to an undecided Democrat, a union member. Wow!! Turned out to be an America-loving flag waver. I think (Reagan?) Democrats who were never taught the evils of America, capitalism and our military in our madrassa-like universities can be peeled away from Obama,

Feb 24, 2008 - 1:59 pm may mok:

Obama vs. McCain: Republicans and pundits are already saying that McCain’s experience in the Vietnam war would sink Obama. Wait a minute. In the last republican primaries, McCain ran against George Bush, a mediocre candidate who dodged the draft and never had a real job in his life. They massively voted against McCain. His experience did not matter then. Now they are suddenly brandishing his experience. What makes them think his experience matters now that he is running against a brilliant and inspiring candidate? Is this a case of hypocrisy, arrogance or having double standards?

Feb 24, 2008 - 1:59 pm David:

“chic self-loathing”

Hint: it’s not the self that is loathed.

The “self” loathing is a stealth strategy on the part of elites to denigrate the American ideal and its concomitant social mobility, thereby debilitating that mobility and more readily maintaining their status.

Feb 24, 2008 - 2:16 pm Dan Friedman:

Brilliant up this point: “probably electing”??!!

I seriously doubt it. In fact, if Obama does get the nomination, the Dems will have picked the weaker of two evils, and the one McCain will have the easier time defeating. Now, let us pray.

Feb 24, 2008 - 2:23 pm MarkJ:

Given his incomprehensibly stupid views on terrorism, Obama (and his supporters) should worry less about being a “one-term President” than the possibility he might not even complete his first term.

That’s what Obama seemingly can’t, or won’t, understand: he may want to take a “holiday from history,” but history won’t take a holiday from him. If, or (May God Forbid) when Obama enters the Oval Office, he’ll have two huge swords, each in the shape of the Twin Towers, hanging over his desk chair. If we suffer another major terrorist attack (especially with WMD’s), Obama’s political career won’t be worth a bucket of warm spit regardless of how many uplifting and inspiring speeches he tries to make. Even most of the Democratic faithful will turn to him and exclaim, “You lied to us. You promised this wouldn’t happen, but it still did.”

Obama has now assumed the mantle of Messiah. That’s swell, except for the minor fact that, in doing so, he’ll have already painted himself into a rhetorical corner from the second he finishes taking the oath of office. Messiahs can’t/don’t make mistakes and everything they touch turns to gold. That means Obama will have to keep the miracles coming on a daily basis for, if he loses his mojo, then, hey, he won’t be viewed as a messiah anymore, will he? When that happens, it’ll be nothing but “stall and spiral” for His Changiness.

Feb 24, 2008 - 2:26 pm James Raider:

Now we’re getting somewhere in the analysis of this phenomenon… the one shoving a virtual unknown and inexperienced individual, into the White House. Here is a perspective the Clintons and McCain are incapable of understanding, it appears …..…

http://pacificgatepost.blogspot.com/2008/02/obama-social-phenomenon.html ….

Once in, he will not be able to deliver any promises that cost money. There is money left.

Feb 24, 2008 - 2:27 pm Bob:

Buy ye your guns while ye may.

Feb 24, 2008 - 2:29 pm Adam Sullivan:

RE: The timing of the NYT McCain “story”

The angle of the timing is subtle but effective - It is the lapse of the FISA compromise that Democrats in congress allowed in order to protect the interests of the trial lawyers.

How does that figure in?

The alleged mistress is a telecom lobbyists. The exemption from lawsuits in the extension was for the telecom industry.

McCain cannot come out swinging on Dems allowing terrorists to call into contacts in the US unmonitored. If he does, the Dems create the sense of substance around the NYT smear by asking their doltish “Who benefits?”

McCain did not take the bait, even though he has conservatives wondering why he hasn’t taken Pelosi to task on FISA yet. It was a trap that the NYT helped set and he avoided.

Feb 24, 2008 - 2:35 pm Chuck:

Most interesting point of VDH’s post is the almost utter lack of “Progressives” and their feeble attempts to discredit what he has written.

Good post VDH, damned good post.

Feb 24, 2008 - 2:37 pm Pete:

If only Republican leaders had not gotten carried away with greed-encouragement, we might be having an easy ride of it today. We might have thought for at least a moment that, for example, the cost of health insurance is prohibitive to those of middle class income. For example, it costs nearly 2k per month to buy a single pay HMO policiy for a family in NY. Did we even bother acknowledging this in any meaningful way? Nope. We weren’t going to put our feet on the throats of any of our base, and so we lost a huge potential base in favor of Health Insurers, Big Oil, Pharmaceuticals and radical faux theocrats who were exposed as hypocrits almost monthly in the news. I myself became ashamed to be a Christian on more than one occasion under the tutelige of faux family values.

If we had only given the middle ONE modicum of peace and relief, we wouldn’t be running scared from an empty-suited candidate who is off the left cliff, says nothing, and stands for nothing but giant giveaways to the lazy, giveaways similar to the giveaways we provided to the corporations. What will this produce for us? Nothing. But the truth is, we caused this anger that is so strong as to possibly result in the nomination of a true socialist–just because we spent the last seven years sticking our fingers in our ears and humming loudly while the middle class got angrier and poorer. We caused a huge imbalance that was so painful as to result in a con man with a good voice possibly succeeding in doing us in.

We have turned the more moderate Clinton woman into poison next to this candidate. Our fear of her resulted in something intrinsically worse. We Republicans have achieved that. To make matters worse, we have selected a candidate who appears daily to have one foot in the grave, offers the same don’t-bother-me attitude to the middle class and, even worse, admits he doesn’t know squat about our economy. What exactly do we expect from this candidacy in a country that is now officially railing against a war, if only because we ignored their needs so bearishly and so completely?

We Republicans have no one to blame but ourselves.

Feb 24, 2008 - 2:50 pm Jim Rockford:

How did we get to Obama as the Dem nominee? Because of the extraordinary weakness of Democratic contenders. Who have to negotiate the demands of the rich yuppie class and racial/ethnic groups. Which tends to be a loser in general elections.

You’ll note that on the Democratic side there was not one “Blue Dog” Dem ala Jim Webb or Harold Ford. No one espousing conservative values on sex, abortion, guns, patriotism, economics, etc.

Against any halfway competent Lee Atwater campaign, Obama is toast. Unlike McCain who has a long public image and awareness to insulate him from attacks (or Hillary for that matter), Obama is undefined other than a gauzy speaker.

His refusal to say the pledge of allegiance and striking visuals of him slumping down onstage. His refusal to wear the lapel flag pin. His refusal to act respectfully during the national anthem. His extensive ties to the Nation of Islam. His extensive ties to the Weathermen terrorists, soft-on-Iran and friendly to Ahmadnutjob statements, can devastate him.

Cut to: Farrakhan ranting about “White Devils.” “Scary” music and images of Obama’s preacher Wright, with excerpts of his statements on whites, Jews, etc. Or pictures of Obama plainly refusing to act respectful to the Flag. Asking if he can’t respect the Flag why is he running for President. Cut to McCain as POW, statement “I endured torture for the flag” etc.

It is RIDICULOUSLY easy to paint Obama as a hard-left extremist because he is. That’s the danger of running as a rookie.

The Willie Horton ad was effective because it told middle class voters that on essential issues that were no brainers, Dukakis would value PC over their interests. It was simple, symbolic, and easily grasped as a proxy for a whole host of positions.

Don’t forget — Dukakis ALSO refused to say the pledge of allegiance and that cost him.

Feb 24, 2008 - 2:55 pm s sommer:

Ah, well. I will vote for McCain & not be sooo unhappy, since I believe he will be the best President our military has had to support it in a very long time.

He is most likely one of the “least dirty” of the Republicans, based on what little any of us can really know about that.

At least the country seems to be agreeing that most of us “collectively” had enough of the Clintons. Whew.

W is a horrible speaker, but so is Hillary… I am tired of dreading hearing the president speak.
Even if I disagree with Obama, I would rather listen to him speak than any of the others.

If Obama does win, so much for any minority using “prejudice” as an excuse for anything, any more. Whew! What a change!

I will vote for McCain, but I am furious with him about his immigration non-solutions. How could Obama be worse on THAT issue?!

If Obama wins, he will still have to deal with the Congress and the public, like any other President. We have to keep involved….

I am very tired of the Clintons & just as tired of W. Yeah, “change” sounds refreshing…. weren’t we looking for better values in our leadership? And, better governance?

Still looking!

By Nov. will any of us want to hear one more word about any of them? Will we even care?

Feb 24, 2008 - 2:56 pm Dave Begley - Omaha:

Some readers may not know that Prof. Hanson’s mother was a judge. He learned well from his mother.

The Harvard Law grad and University of Chicago law professor needs to be vigorously cross-examined by someone.

The adversary system works.

Dan Henninger of the WSJ had an op-ed about two weeks ago on this point: strip out the style and there is little substance to Obama’s speeches.

Feb 24, 2008 - 3:06 pm Moneyrunner:

If Obama wins the nomination it will have less to do with him than with the Clintons.

Here is what I wrote a few days ago:
Barack Obama has carried a near-empty hand to triumph”

Let’s be honest. Barak Obama may be an inspiring speaker mouthing empty platitudes, but the real reason he is the leading contender for the Democratic nomination is the fact that the heir-apparent to the nomination got her husband involved. The Clintons were under the impression that the country could hardly wait for the return of Team Clinton. But things have changed since Bill and Hillary took the White House furniture and departed for Chappaqua.

For one thing, Bill Clinton lost his “charm” and showed the mean streak that was carefully cloaked during his first presidency. Combine that with the fact that Hillary by herself is has all the rhetorical skills of a high school valedictorian; when the Deadly Duo hit the campaign trail and exposed themselves to the American people the response was “anyone but Billary.”

Click on link for more…

Feb 24, 2008 - 3:07 pm BikernAz:

I’m a registered Independant and as yet have not had the chance to vote for a candidate. John McCain is the govenor of my state and I have a lot of respect for him. He
has scared me off with his statements on Iraq. I am leaning Democratic at this time and the light at the end of the tunnel is looking a little dim. Ron Paul is OK but he doesn’t have enough horse power and Nader does’nt have a horse at all. Obama rallies look like a scene from “Dawn of the Dead”-a bunch of slack jawed zombies following a black guy through cities toward an unknown destination. That is something I refuse to become. That leaves me with Hillary Clinton and if she can’t get some things going it looks like I may owe John McCain an apology.

Feb 24, 2008 - 3:14 pm Wascally Wabbit:

Barbara Bennett,

So - given that you told A Young Republican that he was “100% correct”, will you then be voting for John McCain in November?

Read the second-to-last line of his post. I suspect you haven’t up to this point.

Feb 24, 2008 - 3:17 pm EvilDave:

Here is what will happen if Obama wins …
The Democrats will run every possible minority candidate they can find.
The lesson of Obama will be that if you run a minority candidate the other side can’t attack you or else they get called racist. The Dems will have figured out the perfect Kevlar for political debates.
And of course, non-Dem minority candidates will be considered race-traitors.
This door only swings one way.

The Reps biggest long term strategic error was not moving the good minority appointments (Powell, Rice, etc.) into elected positions. Even when they have run minority candidates (Steele), they manage to lose.

The problem is that it is tough for Rep minority candidates to get up to speed. In Blue states, Rep minority candidates aren’t considered minority. In Red states the fact that they are part of a minority doesn’t matter as ideas matter more. What was needed was to spring board a minority candidate with a national appointment and then a regional elected office.
The Reps should have made running female and black candidates for national visibility offices a priority, just lie Reagen appointed judges to the District/Appellate level to give them a track record for the SC.

McCain winning will show that race isn’t a free pass. It may happen, but I am not holding my breath.

Feb 24, 2008 - 3:53 pm Jabba The Tutt:

Jeesh, seminar commenters. How pathetic can you get? To be a young Republican today, means that you have to go against the current, do the hard thing, educate yourself against the easy socialism promoted in schools, on the news and in the pop culture.

So, when a young Republican says that: “Maybe I am too young to know what true liberalism can do to a country, but I don’t see it ruining my life. Free or reduced health care, schooling and entitlements?” I call BS. To be young Republican, means that you DO know how liberalism ruins a country. It means you have read “The Road to Serfdom”.

What are the chances of it, that with a few commenters, we have not one former Republican, but two.

Hi, Barbara Bennett, no Republican would ever say something like this: “When Obama becomes President he will have a huge mess to clean up from this administration, but he will do it and the United States of America will survive and shine on in her full glory.”

This sounds like a 9 year old on the playground: My Daddy can beat up your Daddy. We’re richer than you are.

This is really pathetic.

Feb 24, 2008 - 3:57 pm Cassius King:

I am reminded of the stupid party and the evil party premise I first heard of 15 years ago. While the Dems use the issue of abortion to convince us that they are for choice, the only choice we really get from them is the choice to kill babies. The right to keep and bear arms, school choice, the choice to believe that global warming is a hoax and the choice to drill for our own oil are not choices that they are prepared to allow us. In fact, those stances are proof that we are from the stone age. Meanwhile RU-486 should render their only semblance of “choice” to be a moot point. The stupid party cannot compete with the evil party as long as they cannot sell simple common sense solutions and arguments day in and day out. Bush 41, Bob Dole, GW Bush and now Juan McCain are hardly articulate spokesmen when it comes to embracing, let alone selling any visionary solutions. I truly fear that we will be stomped by a wave of public school educated idiots that cannot think critically this cycle because there is no proof that enough Americans care about the war hero that cannot sell good ideas. We have tried this “change” that BO is selling before and it did not work. It appears as though we will have to re-learn that tough lesson very soon. The four GOP pols listed above have systematically undermined the country and squandered the hard work of Goldwater, Reagan and Newt (when he was still a believer). We need 2 more parties and something along the lines of term limits to rid our nation of the professional governing class that holds us in contempt. Get ready for $5 gas coming to a neighborhood near you in ‘09. Lord help this great land.

Feb 24, 2008 - 4:30 pm Libertarian Pete:

shed no tears for the end of the Clinton era. win or lose, the next chapter will surely be Chelsea entering the electoral arena. why hasn’t some savvy pundit picked up on this and started writing about it? like michael myers in Halloween, it won’t die. VDH, wade in.

Feb 24, 2008 - 4:30 pm Jon Motherwell:

You forgot one point — which is that Sen Obama was faced in the Democratic primaries by an especially cynical and unlikeable opponent. As his candidacy too off, she resorted to an ever more cynical message — that words, ideals, and idealism do not matter in politics. It is truly a surprise that the politics of the 1960s should have produced this.

Feb 24, 2008 - 4:36 pm Ray:

A left speaking liberal is still … a left speaking liberal! Quite frankly I want less government in all areas of my life outside of national security and border related issues - and socialized anything is exactly that - socialism. America’s swim toward a larger cultural socialism would increase under an Obama presidency - and becoming more like Europe is exactly what we do not want to see happen. Our enemies are watching … and waiting for America to make the wrong decisions by putting a political light weight like Obama in the White House. This is no time for ‘populism’ but rather true leadership around the centrality of our declaration of independence and constitution. Let Mr. Obama give his speeches - in the end they ring vacant and hollow and are replete with cirucular reasoning.

Feb 24, 2008 - 4:37 pm joated:

What brought us here? Having 40% of the electorate pay no income taxes and therefore have no stake in the money our government spends is what I see as a major factor in creating our current situation.

That 40% only sees the “free” in the free lunch. They never grasp the real cost of that “free” part.

Feb 24, 2008 - 4:38 pm Tom Grey:

Obama is scary on Iraq — terrible. I’ll go with McCain.

But, because presidents want to “do something”, and that something is always much easier if it’s the something the Other Party wants (like Clinton’s Welfare Reform or NAFTA), most presidents most of the time do, in practice, more of the policies of the other party. (This since JFK).

Notice how anti-Reps often argue about how big gov’t gets under Bush, or Reagan? But they never then agree that, if they want bigger spending gov’t, they should vote a Rep for President — it’s always, but correctly, voting for a Rep for Pres. means more spending.

I’m sorry that’s the truth, but that IS, generally the truth. With Obama AND a huge (60+ Senators?) Dem majority, that could change.

Feb 24, 2008 - 4:41 pm peter blogdanovich:

The demographic that most characterizes republicans over Democrats is whether one has children or not. People with children overwhelmingly vote republican. The Dem’s have apparently decided it is swimming against the tide for them to attract this vote which is rapidly growing. It’s growing because republicans with kids are making more kids, who grow up to be republicans with kids. Also, Hispanics who have kids, a rapidly growing demographic, identify with republicans.
Instead, they are attempting to expand the participation of remaining voters. Young people with no kids yet, and special interest blocks who are historically of marginal importance in elections because they don’t show up to vote. Watch for B.O. to direct his efforts at people with children. Without a lot of them, he has no chance in Nov.

Feb 24, 2008 - 4:42 pm Tom Grey:

May Moc — in 2000, Bush said he was against “nation building”. That was before 9/11 — before the terrorists successfully attacked us.

Before Obama voted in favor of keeping Saddam in power in Iraq.

Feb 24, 2008 - 4:59 pm Partisan:

@Trudy B. Taylor

“He holds out the not so subtle promise of forgiveness for our historical white racism.”

How about the about 700,000 dead during the Civil War?

That’s should be more than enough to earn forgiveness. I’d guess that the freed slaves understood this.

Feb 24, 2008 - 5:00 pm David Thomson:

“McCain ran against George Bush, a mediocre candidate who dodged the draft and never had a real job in his life.”

I am not exactly an unhesitating supporter of George W. Bush. Still, he was the governor of Texas for two terms. The second one he won by a landslide! President Bush also served in the National Guard. Barack “Barry” Obama does not have this sort of executive experience listed on his resume.

Feb 24, 2008 - 5:20 pm John Van Amburg:

If I may interject a “liberal” viewpoint into this conservative pow-wow.

I will be voting for Obama this fall. While that obviously will strike many here as outrageous, I have to say I am struck by the misunderstanding that most of you seem to share regarding the separation of powers in our Constitution. Obama, as president, will not get to decide what your taxes are, how your health care is administered, or what the minimum wage is. Only Congress can do that (subject of course to the President’s veto power).

Sidenote on health care: what is this right-wing obsession with efficiency? I’ll acknowledge a nationalized system would be less efficient than a private system. But is efficiency really the highest goal to strive for? A judicial system in which each case was decided on the flip of a coin would certainly be efficient, but we would reject it out of hand. Why? Because fairness and equality counts too. Why should a sick child’s access to health care be dependent on whether he was wise enough to choose wealthy parents?

Back to my main point. The president’s most important job is acting as our chief executive in our dealings with other nations. In that regard, Obama is far superior to McCain, and light-years ahead of the Bush Administration. He seems to understand (unlike most in the Republican party), that you cannot run roughshod over your allies when it serves your interests and then expect them to jump on board to help you out in times of need. We cannot meet the challenges of today’s world by acting alone. Bush cannot even get his NATO allies to stick with their commitments to Afghanistan. If you think that his flouting of international law (in the form of the invasion of Iraq, the use of torture, and the endless detention without trial at Guantanamo Bay) has nothing to do with his inability to get cooperation from NATO, you are sadly mistaken.

Additionally, Obama, unlike Bush, McCain, and many who have posted here, understands that America cannot (and should not) seek to re-shape the world as she sees fit. The difficulties that we are experiencing in Iraq were completely foreseeable to anyone with a sufficient understanding of world history and an ounce of humility. Bush had neither (neither, I fear, does McCain), and Obama has both. Whether you admit it or not (and whether Obama is elected or not), Iraq is lost. We should never have gotten into in the first place. I’m voting for Obama not because he says he wants to get out of Iraq, but (partly) because he acknowledges that we need to get rid of the ideology that led us into this debacle.

Obama seems to understand that our ability to unite our allies represents the greatest projection of American power. When we have done so, we have overcome great challenges (think: Cold War, Cuban Missle Crisis, Bosnia). When we have failed, so has our mission (think: Vietnam, Iraq, and possibly Afghanistan).

You would do well to stop seeing every Obama supporter as some sniveling, handout-seeking, America-loathing wimp without the cojones necessary to do any dirty work. The right-wing has governed for eight-years, and America is not happy. We on the left have another vision for this country, and it seems most Americans are willing to embrace it.

Feb 24, 2008 - 5:47 pm John M.:

I want to echo the people upthread who are blaming the current situation on a betrayal of Republican principles. I’m currently a serious, focused Obama supporter and have been for the last year and a half. But there’s no reason it needed be that way. I’m 26 now, and you know what I’ve learned from the administrations I’ve been old enough to remember? That Democrats are the party of balanced budgets and Republicans are the party of massive deficit spending. That both parties have their share of personal scandals, but Republicans have more scandals and engage in more influence peddling. That Republicans, not Democrats, are the ones eager to engage in foreign intervention at the drop of a hat. (And while I’m at it, why the heck didn’t we have some special forces follow OBL into Pakistan and finish him off back in 2002?) That Republicans talk a big game about competition but underinvest in the scientific research that gives us our biggest competitive edge.

It’s true that I side with the Democrats on social issues and healthcare (spending a much higher fraction of our GDP on healthcare than anyone else in the world is just as inexcusable as the failures of single-payer systems.) But if the Republicans still stood for conservative principles, I’d be truly conflicted. Good luck reversing the 65/35 D/R ratio in my age demographic.

Feb 24, 2008 - 6:09 pm Lee Smoot:

I found your comments insightful. The U.S. press has been giving Obama a free ride as well as the soft balls that have been pitched to all Democratic candidates in their debates. I read one response that Obama is a house of cards, and I agree. His Senate voting record is going to become a center topic, especially all the times he voted “Present” on something could cause a controversy in a Presidential election. Another thing, what has he actually done? His own supporters can’t come up with accomplishments done by Obama when asked. Michelle Obama is under some delusion America is somehow held her down, the woman attended Princeton and Harvard, two ivey league schools that are held in high regard.

While I agree with Obama that we need a change in our government, the inability of Republicans or Democrats to compromise has me sick to my stomach with both parties. Obama has voted Democrat party way on every vote except for those “Presents” I mentioned earlier. Obama has done nothing bi-partisian. I’m suprised that no one has mentioned that our gun’s will be at risk with “President Obama”, because he’s going to try to take them from us. Plus higher taxes, open borders, and a end to the war on terrorism which will only embolden our enemies.

Here’s a news flash. America will have enemies no matter what. And to think it will be different is worse than niave, it’s a threat to national security.

Feb 24, 2008 - 6:17 pm garyry:

VDH, you are a national treasure. You couldn’t be more spot on.

Feb 24, 2008 - 6:21 pm NikFromNYC:

Nigga08! Where do I guy this t-shirt?

1. I agree with.

2-4? Spending, yes, but what’s the alternative? Old people want medicines. Some of my best friends are old people. Such as my dad. He’s 85. Just went legally blind. Has prostate cancer. Cost to treat it? Thousands a years. Cost for the helicopter ride from Southern Utah, to get to the specialist to fix his eye (half-successfully)? Untold. At least $10K.

Lack of experience? He made it to become a Senator on his own. She didn’t. And, most of all, black, white, woman, or other USA minorities? Matters not. It’s always the tallest guy who wins, until the cycle repeats with some short guy, in other words, the most sexy person wins.

Rhetorical question: is Obama (and his Hillary-like wife) sexier than Hillary, Bill and McCain combined? Which porn DVD would sell better on Amazon? Unlike any of the other candidates, Obama is the only one who not only looks he can still have sex, but actually does so, McCain’s trophy wife and Viagra be damned.

We all (on the psychedelic right) wanted Condi Rice, and that is no joke. President of a university was she, and in the White House just as long as Hillary was, more or less, but in a real role rather than a “we are the president” one.

Feb 24, 2008 - 7:52 pm punditius:

Who knows what will happen in November? That’s 8 months from now.

It looks like Hillary has been eliminated. Who would have thought that 8 months ago?

Like Yogi said, it’s not over till it’s over.

Feb 24, 2008 - 8:08 pm Dasher:

“His political races were against other liberals or a weak conservative.”

Is an understatement. In his first race for state senate… he challenged and had all the primary candidates tossed off the ballot, and ran unopposed in the general. Ran virtually unopposed in bit for US Senate. Out of stater Alan Keyes as a token candidate with 86 days to go in the election does not count.

Feb 24, 2008 - 9:13 pm Barry Dauphin:

Obama was not expecting to be here. He was running for the future and expected an inevitable Hillary. He can’t believe his good fortune, because he hasn’t prepared to run on anything save his rhetoric and charisma, setting the stage for later. But now is the time. He does not and will not know what to do or how to handle it. That is partly why Hill & Bill are hoping to get this thing to the convention. They hope time will show BO’s weaknesses and put Hillary back in play.

Feb 24, 2008 - 9:34 pm doctorfixit:

It’s going to be enjoyable and satisfying to see McCain’s carcass ripped apart by the media dogs that he empowered with McCain-Feingold. Let this be a lesson to all RINOs - collaboration with the lib-fascists will be rewarded only with treachery.

Feb 24, 2008 - 9:46 pm Dan Graver:

What concerns me most about this irrational infatuation with Obama, if it continues and spreads, is that he will be unable to deliver what people think he is promising should he be elected. Perhaps because his rhetoric is soothing and so full of uplifting platitudes, people project their political desires upon him. When he has to act, rather than talk, those who voted for him are going to be dangerously disappointed. The reaction will dwarf the bitterness after the 2000 election.

Feb 24, 2008 - 9:53 pm conrad:

Doesn’t it all come down to Obama’s race? Is that one factor not why the liberal establishment (academics and their students; the urban elite) and the press have rallied behind him? Just imagine how well a white candidate otherwise exactly like Mr. Obama might have fared. His style helps him, certainly; it would not have done much for a white democrat.

His party would be mad to nominate Clinton now that they see what a free ride Obama is getting from the media. Obama’s one great accomplishment as a politician thus far has been to out-triangulate Hillary Clinton, no small task. He hews to the liberal line and then talks bipartisanship and “change,” playing to the vote-em-all-out crowd. And yet the press is not interested in debunking this message, not interested in stating the simple facts that as a senator he votes with the democrats more than 95% of the time and that he is very much a liberal on immigration policy (ironically, perhaps the main concern of the vote-em-all-out party). What would a real “change candidate” look like? He might begin by not trafficking in vague, misleading cliches and cheap uplift. Meanwhile, we are constantly reminded by the media of Obama’s supposed authenticity!

Lastly and most importantly, no matter what the media consensus may be, the clearest indication of what we’re getting with this candidate is his refusal to wear the flag lapel pin and his wife’s comments about her lack of national pride. For those of us who are familiar with the common characteristics of members of the far Left — the true blame-America-first crowd — these are telling indications indeed.

Feb 25, 2008 - 12:19 am conrad:

Also, why isn’t the right saying more about Obama’s CRAZY church’s doctrines? Just a sample from their “Black Value System” document, humorously labeled “scholarship:”

“Disavowal of the Pursuit of ‘Middleclassness’

“Classic methodology on control of captives teaches that captors must keep the captive ignorant educationally, but trained sufficiently well to serve the system. Also, the captors must be able to identify the ‘talented tenth’ of those subjugated, especially those who show promise of providing the kind of leadership that might threaten the captor’s control.”

I mean, where to begin …? Better if Obama actually were a moderate Muslim.

http://www.tucc.org/scholarship_pdf/black%20value%20system.pdf

Feb 25, 2008 - 12:40 am stuart williamson:

The best analysis of the Obama threat I have read anywhere.

Obama is indeed a Messiah -for Socialism. The Socialist Party is moribund; they do not bother to run candidates any more, not even for local dog-catcher. The Socialist Party has morphed into the Democrat Party, its ranks filled by three generations of graduates of Social Science departments of our colleges and universities. And now they have found their voice, their Rain Maker, their Pied Piper, their Messiah to lead us into their Utopia - a Euro-style Socialist U.S.A. And he could do it, just as Trudeau led Canada: they voted Liberal and wound up Socialist.

We must stop talking about “liberals” and “progressives” and “the left”, and call them what they are - by-the-book SOCIALISTS.

I believe the best strategy for the conservative
nominee is to go after Obama strictly on his well established record as a Socialist, who’s “Hope”e is to “Change” us into the USSR, and whose foreign policy is to play directly into the hands of followers of a primitive religion which has is openly and admittedly engaged in open warfare, which we euphemistically call “terror”,

I know that your voice is listened to in high places, and am hopeful that you pursue the perspective that you have so well defined here.

Feb 25, 2008 - 1:07 am Ronald Wagner:

I will be voting for the old man, Mc Cain if he lives long enough. I am 62, and think that would be a little old for a new president. I believe Mc Cain would be 72 by the time he took office. I just hope he picks Romney or Huckabee to have a younger man in the wings.

Obama has a lot of magnetism, that could lead us to the European mold. I actually think this will happen. I think he will win due to the demographic cultural changes. Also to the domination of media, schools, government workers etc. by liberals.

Hispanics are the number one minority, and are falling into line with African Americans. Whites will soon be a minority, but we will also, be a lot more racially and culturally mixed. I am part Hispanic myself. Many Hispanics are conservative, but many are swayed by concern over new illegal immigrants, and relatives either here or elsewhere. African American conservatives are a breath of fresh air, but are too few and not acknowleged by the mass media.

I fear we are doomed to Europization, and Europe is doomed to some degree of Islamification if it does not resist strongly.

Feb 25, 2008 - 4:28 am Tim O'Connor:

David’s comment [2/24 @ 02:16 PM] that the so-called self-loathing is really “a stealth strategy on the part of elites to denigrate [social mobility]… more readily maintaining their status”, reminded me of the following, by the painter and art critic Fairfield Porter:

“Social Realism is the art of the intellectual in control of the economy. It is the art of any state, the security of whose power depends on its ability to freeze the class struggle into immobility. Superficially the Social Realist artist pretends a partisanship with the wage worker. Underneath this he says something different. …

“The art of the professional not yet in control, is ’social consciousness.’ It is the art for those professionals who envy their privileged Russian brothers, those engineers of the soul whose pay is commensurate with public esteem. Social consciousness devalues everything except revolutionary activity. It devalues itself, like those toys that destroy themselves. In saying that what is, is bad, it inhibits the artist’s experience, and causes him to fall into the habit of using cliches from previous styles. The artist knows everything and uses his eyes only to keep his hand from slipping.”

From “Class Content in American Abstract Painting”, 1962.

Feb 25, 2008 - 5:28 am KE Strayhorn:

Prof. Hanson -

A minor point but as an editor of 30 years I must point out that the culprit in the NYT affair spells his name “Jayson Blair.”

I particularly enjoyed your reference to the lost of “craftmanship” in journalism. I see it every day. You may be relieved to know that editors - on discussion forums, in email, etc. - debate this very topic in an attempt to bring professionalism back to the newsroom.

As editors discuss this situation they are in almost unanimous agreement about one thing: the main problem with the NYT and indeed most other major news organizations (the so-called mainstream media) is the loss of basic skills. We can only assume that students today spent more time in diversity awareness classes instead of classes devoted to writing, math, logic, and (in my view most important) history.

Some days I believe we can stop and correct this rot. Other days I interview recent J-school grads and throw up my hands in frustration.

Feb 25, 2008 - 5:39 am Trudy B. Taylor:

conrad: obama is not just getting “a free ride” from the media. He’s getting a free ride from a wide swath of mainstream white america ,because he’s perceived to be the anointed one who can forgive us our historical white racism if we just vote for him.

kudos to dan graver

and to john m: where were you on 9-11, sleeping in that morning? dont congratulate your collective self on the 65/35 d/r split for your age group. i dont suppose you’re heard the one that goes, “if you’re not a liberal when you’re young you have no heart, and if you’re not a conservative when you’re grown, you have no brain. rest assured, you’ll come around. if obama makes it in, you’ll be coming around rather faster than any of us expect, i suppose…

Feb 25, 2008 - 7:27 am JBH:

Obama will be the best thing to ever happen to conservative causes since Carter. Just as the current G.Bush is the best thing that happened to liberal causes.

Feb 25, 2008 - 7:42 am willis:

Dr. Hanson,
I really don’t think the New York Times article is the opening shot to begin the campaign of slander against Sen. McCain. Instead, I think the New York Times knows of, or fears, a genuine such scandal awaits Sen. Barack and is attempting to de-fang it by creating an outcry against such revealations.

Feb 25, 2008 - 8:29 am Jeff:

America is stuck in a political cross-jam, because both the major parties embody political coalitions that are becoming anachronistic.

The Republican Party is an alliance of social conservatives (many but not all of whom are religiously motivated), fiscal conservatives, and national-sovereingy/national security voters. Allied with them in the Party are certain big busines interests and the old ‘Ford Republicans’. Some overlap exists, of course.

The Democrats are an alliance of social liberals, blue-collar working class voters, various organized minority groups, and upper class white technocrats (who overlap a lot with the social libs).
There are business groups allied with the Democrats, too.

Each party is riven by increasingly conflicted interests among its component factions. At the top, in the GOP are the business/economic conservatives (not the same as fiscal conservatives), they actually set most of the policies of the Party.

Among the Dems, the dominant faction is a pro-business DLC group allied with social liberals who have learned the hard way to keep their heads down, since they alienate voters when they come out in the open.

The dominant elite in each Party actually agrees with the elite of the other on a lot. We currently have a bipartisan elite consensus in America that we need open borders and amnesty, cheap labor, social liberalism, and a globalist vision.

The Right elite wants global economic policy unrestrained, the Left wants global political power centered in the UN, but they agree that national sovereignty is not a big deal.

The top circles of each Party believe in free trade, for ex, though the Dems talk against it a lot for the sake of their blue-collar base. Likewise, there is a consensus at the top on issues like abortion, though the GOP leaders pretend to oppose it for the sake of their social conservative base.

(Thare are exceptions, of course, but judging by their _actions_ that’s where the elite consensus is.)

That cross-aisle consensus is getting stronger. For example, there is now a broad preference in the business community for a national health-care program, because they want to offload their health-care benefit costs onto the state. The social liberal/business alliance in favor of nationalized health care is the _same one_ in favor of unlimited open-borders immigration (since the business community also wants the cheapest possible labor).

The elite in each party in very, _very_ secular, which keeps them from fully grasping the motives of the Islamists or the religiously motivated voter in America. There is a deep reluctance in America’s current governing class to even admit that Islamism is a big problem, because it’s so _inconvenient_ in terms of their own vested interests, and because the motivations of the Islamists seem so bizarre and incomprehensible to the governing class of both Parties.

Bush, to his credit, seems to have some grasp of the danger, but he seems unable to make the connection between it and economic globalization, for example, or to recognize that national identity is tied intimately up into the whole issue.

The rest of the GOP leadership doesn’t even seem to grasp the amount of it that Bush does.

At ground level, factions such as the social conservatives, the ‘blue collar’ Democrats, national sovereingty voters, and others are correctly recognizing that the elites are freezing them out, joining hands with their opposite numbers to try and maintain what is, for them, a comfortable _status quo_.

This election has worked out in such a way as to give us three _status quo_ candidates. Hillary and Obama are doctrinaire liberal/radicals (they won’t _say_ what they really want, because it would be electoral suicide, but they wouldn’t be where they are if they didn’t fit the mold), and McCain represents the GOP elite.

True, McCain has been solid on the need to win in Iraq, but look who his chief Senate allies are, the familiar old RINOS: Susan Collins, Olympia Snowe, Lugar, Voinoich. He’s for open borders immigration and he tried hard three times to reach out to Teddy Kennedy to implement it.

The reason there’s so much frustration this year, especially on the GOP side, is that there was nobody to vote for who didn’t emobody, in some way, either the _status quo_ or else was unelectable.

Someone asked above what went wrong with Rudy’s campaign: it was simple. He tried to be too clever with his plan to focus on Florida, but even moreso he was a social liberal and even Republican voters who weren’t social conservatives themselves knew he would split the Party. There can’t, mathematically, be a Republican majority without the religious right on board.

Likewise, the Democrats can’t win without the blue-collars, so they have to pay lip service to them. But it’s easy to see where the elite priorities are, simply by looking at what they try to _do_.

Feb 25, 2008 - 11:43 am Bill:

There’s still 8+ months til election day. 8 months ago, Rudy Giuliani and Hiliary were considered inevitable nominees. Overidealized messiahs like Obama don’t have 8 month shelf lives in our culture. If he’s going to win, he’ll need to do it on the merits of his proposals and his resume of experience. He falls way short in both. If McCain stays healthy, he wins.

Feb 25, 2008 - 12:42 pm dickmulliken:

regarding you opening paragraph: Indeed we may wonder, but then we did it. His name was Lincoln

Feb 25, 2008 - 2:02 pm DensityDuck:

I hate those open boders, going around boding all the place. And right out there in public where we can all see! Boding should be done in PRIVATE, preferably in some sort of lair.

Feb 25, 2008 - 2:29 pm A Young Republican:

Apologies for moving the discussion off course, but I want to say that I am not a “seminar commenter”.
I don’t remember Reagan and the Wall. I am a Republican because of men like George Bush, standing on the rubble telling the world there would be consequences. Not because of Hayek and Friedman.

Feb 25, 2008 - 4:28 pm Laura:

obama is not the least bit moral, he is a divisive racist and antisemite. Or at least he certainly feels comfortable in such company. I’m not impressed by the fact that he doesn’t want to see offensive adds during “American Idol”. Please get your priorities straight “Young Republican”.

And yes it should be open season on obama’s personal life, especially if he is holding himself up as moral.

Feb 25, 2008 - 4:52 pm Grace's Dad:

I am a BLUE DOG Democrat, and let me just say, there is no possible way for any candidate….anyone….to bring about universal healthcare. It won’t happen. Americans, by and large, do not mind sensible regulation. However, Americans do not want some Jeffersonian vision of “equality” that ends up taxing them to death.

As far as this election and the GOP. The Republicans have managed to “Democrat” themselves out of power. Their spending and lack of restraint has killed their chances at a lasting majority. They lost in 06 and they will lose BIG in 08 in the Congress. I for one think that the Congressional situation is a much more serious threat to the country. While public opinion polls suggest that Congress has “never been less popular,” I believe that is because people see it as a “do nothing” Congress. Well, our forefathers would tell you that Congress “doing nothing” is that way by design. Its when they start doing something, while the majority enjoys a monopoly with the Executive Branch, that everything gets all FUBAR.

In other words, forget McCain (he’s a lost cause) go volunteer for your local GOP congressperson. They need the help.

Feb 25, 2008 - 5:49 pm oxman:

@Trudy B. Taylor:

“Middle class whites are so tired of carrying this load of diffuse guilt for events occurring over 100 years ago.”

Umm….I guess if by “events” you mean “slavery”, then yeah, it has been kind of a long time. But I seem to remember some stuff going down more recently. Like, I don’t know, Jim Crow. Then again, maybe I got the dates wrong.

Feb 25, 2008 - 11:31 pm Trudy B. Taylor:

oxman: make no mistake about it, the engineers of post-King black identity and black entitlement politics need only resurrect the historical ghoul of bondage to trigger a near reflexive desire to placate the wounded (historically) minority in many well meaning non black americans. no other incident in our national history comes close to produceing this level of collective guilt.

any post reconstruction societal backlash, such as the infamous jim crow “laws” are a spit in the bucket compared to the original sin of slavery. these demeaning and counter-productive examples you have brought up engender a weakened version of this guilt and only in certain parts of the country (the south). so, i stand by my original text.

im sure that sarcasm does not become you.

Feb 26, 2008 - 7:11 am Naomi:

I wouldn’t vote for Obama if he was the last dog standing. And, it is not because I am a racist. It is becauses he just doesn’t have it to be president. Great article.

Feb 26, 2008 - 7:57 am cfbleachers:

chic self-loathing”

“Hint: it’s not the self that is loathed.”

David, your point is well taken. I should have coined it faux self-loathing. In order to be true self-loathing, I suppose, one has to identify with the “self” in the first place.

Of course, my outline of the “how to” for Euro-Socialists sought to explain the motivation. They denigrate America at every turn on the world stage, then express shock and dismay at the fact that we are considered to have impure motives by the very people who form their opinions based upon Euro-Socialist mendacity.

“The “self” loathing is a stealth strategy on the part of elites to denigrate the American ideal and its concomitant social mobility, thereby debilitating that mobility and more readily maintaining their status.”

Indeed. The circle game of self-fulfilling prophecy should not be as stealthy as it is though. My complaint is that it has not had a light shined on it, to have it scurrying beneath the baseboards.

Feb 26, 2008 - 2:11 pm David:

Oxman….your notion of inherited guilt, no matter how recent the social wrong, holds no water. I may have inherited baldness or a sudden temper, but neither you nor I have inherited responsibility for the misdjudgements (no matter how hateful) of our forebears. We are not absolutely obligated to sacrifice ourselves to right those wrongs by a teeth gritting, pretentious vote for Obama– as if that would, in fact, ameliorate past social sins. Electing Obama will not clear consciences any more than it will rectify Original Sin or man’s flawed nature.

Only by implication in Obama’s slick and shallow rhetoric can it be so. What nonsense and, in fact, what an easy way out for the priviledged and elite! Better for them to sell their worldly goods and give to the poor. Chances are they’ll just vote instead and keep those worldly goods.

Feb 26, 2008 - 3:32 pm gs:

If Republicans had governed competently from 2001 through 2006, Obama’s general-election prospects would be meager.

VDH, I completely agree with your pointing out Republican errors–which are in their power to correct–before discussing Obama’s deficiencies. Because criticizing your own side might lead to the loss of some speaking engagements and the like, I salute your forthrightness.

If the GOP tries to focus on Obama’s shortcomings without cleaning up its own act, it invites a blowout in November. Unfortunately the Republican establishment is persisting in behavior that lost Congress in 2006.

Feb 26, 2008 - 5:58 pm Dave:

What brought us here? How about republicans masquerading as conservatives and starting expensive pre-emptive wars and eviscerating the constitution instead of defending the nation (OBL is STILL at large) and reeling in government bloat. The GOP has nobody to blame but ourselves. When we don’t stick to principles, we leave a vacuum that any socialist with a resonant voice and genteel demeanor can take advantage of.

And don’t get me started on McCain, if the NYT story hadn’t mentioned the sex angle (and there are dozens of damaging articles about him that don’t, check the LA Times) there wouldn’t be half the uproar because the truth is we all know McCain is a sanctimonious hypocrite.

Feb 26, 2008 - 7:50 pm J. Weston Woods:

Here in Dallas we had a race problem. Then the predominately white electorate of Dallas elected (black) Ron Kirk to the office of Mayor. Permanent end of that particular problem. I opposed Kirk’s election, but in the end he did no lasting damage, and we now have something very different (Leppert, who I also opposed). I don’t want Obama to be my President, but if that happens, at least we can expect a significant amount of racial healing.

Feb 26, 2008 - 9:03 pm Trudy B. Taylor:

sorry david, the “inherited guilt ” idea was mine, not oxman’s. he was merely responding to it.he was stating that many other racist factors have come into play in the US since actual slavery (i.e. segregation and jim crow laws).
as for this “inherited guilt” question, i also like to think that i am immune to it. i suppose that on one level you and i can will ourselves to rise above the incessant drumbeat of “you were born white, so you were born racist” that is present in identity politics right now (and for the last 40 yrs or so). however, it is fatiguing and many succumb to it. that is all im saying.
to many people,who are tired of carrying the implied load of-yes-inherited guilt,obama represents a transcendent figure. he is the embodiment of integration. these folks like to feel,nay dream, that he can unite us in alll other ways too. when they realize that he cannot (quite possibly after the election), we shall have hell to pay.

Feb 27, 2008 - 9:45 am David:

Indeed, Barack would deserve a very large cigar if he we able to “unite” me, or many of the posters here, or anyone right-of-center with his political/world view and appararent policies. He is a voice so far off-center it seems ironic that he should claim himself to be an agent of unity.

Feb 28, 2008 - 6:42 am

Write a Comment

Name:	(required, displayed)
Email:	(required, not publicized)
URL:	(optional, displayed) remember personal info?
Comments: