If you want to figure out what a politician is up to, pay attention to what he accuses his opponents of doing. Chances are, the accuser is probably doing it himself.
It is with that thought in mind that we take a look at President Barack Obama’s now infamous determination from afar that the police in Cambridge, Massachusetts, “acted stupidly,” in arresting Harvard Professor, and Obama friend, Henry Louis Gates. The president has since re-calibrated that remark, offering in his pre-eminent law enforcement opinion that Gates should not have been arrested for verbally assaulting Sgt. James Crowley and causing a public scene in front of his home in protest of the police coming to protect him and his property from potential vandals.
But the “acting stupidly” comment still hangs over the incident and over the White House like a dark cloud. Obama put it there with his inability to restrain himself from commenting on the Gates affair at last week’s White House press conference. And in so eagerly labeling the Cambridge Police, Obama has unwittingly provided the lens through which to view his first six months as president. For the Obama Administration has been acting stupidly almost since the very first day of his presidency.
President Obama came into office with perhaps more political capital than any president in recent history. Following an administration and a president that had become widely – if unfairly – unpopular, Obama took the office after a campaign based on broad themes of hope and change. Americans of all ideologies earnestly hoped that the country would thrive under his leadership, even if like Rush Limbaugh they wished his more liberal policy initiatives to fail. Supported by a press corps heavily invested in his election and his Administration’s success, and coupled with enlarged Democratic majorities in both houses of Congress and a Republican minority looking for areas in which to cooperate with the popular new president, the young Administration had everything going for it.
Until it was time to govern.
The trouble began even before the inauguration with a series embarrassing tax problems for Administration nominees. Nominee after nominee was withdrawn for their failure to fully and completely pay their fair share, some might say their patriotic share, of income taxes. The most famous of these is former Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle. Others, like Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner, survived their tax woes, with the support of the president. The entire episode, however, would have been avoidable were it not for a stupid oversight of the vetting committee. Just days after the inauguration, Obama was forced to admit, “I screwed up.”
On policy, the Obama Administration has acted no less stupidly than it did on personnel. President Obama’s guiding principle of his first 100 days in office can be summed up in this: If George W. Bush did it, it must be bad. Therefore I must undo it. There doesn’t seem to be much more to it than that. From reversing the ban on funding of family planning groups that counsel and conduct abortions overseas to ordering the closing of the terrorist detention center at Guantanamo Bay, the first weeks of the Administration were characterized by a reflexive rejection of any and every policy instituted by the Bush administration.
Particularly in the case of Guantanamo Bay, the Administration has come to regret those heady days of its youth, when all Obama had to do was be the anti-Bush to win plaudits from his sycophantic press corps. Guantanamo has turned out to be thorny issue, on which Obama has had to eat his words. Not long after declaring that the prison would close within a year, Obama has had to admit that some of the detainees would have to remain incarcerated indefinitely, without charge or trial. It was unquestionably stupid of Obama to issue a definitive proclamation on the fate of the prison without considering the real world consequences of that decision, and he has been burned for it.
Legislatively, Obama has not fared much better, either. On his signature program to date, the economic stimulus bill, President Obama allowed the appropriators in Congress to write the bill with little guidance from the White House. The predictable result was a bill so laden with such obviously wasteful spending items, that Republicans were able to coalesce almost unanimously against it. But the real stupidity on the part of the Administration came when Obama invited Congressional Republicans to the White House for negotiations on the package. Instead of paying lip service to Republican concerns and perhaps throwing them a bone or two, in the spirit of bipartisanship, Obama stupidly and arrogantly dismissed Republicans with a curt “I won.”
The insult galvanized opposition to the bill and resulted in not one single Republican member of the House voting for it. Similarly, only three liberal Senate Republicans sided with the Administration on passage of the measure, and one of those is now a Democrat. Now that the stimulus bill is not working as advertised and the economy has gotten worse not better, there are only Democrats and the Administration to blame. Republicans have been so emboldened by their successful opposition that some are openly speculating that the GOP can take back the House in the 2010 mid-term elections.
Now comes the health care debate, and President Obama is displaying the hallmark of truly stupid behavior: the refusal to learn from one’s mistakes. Obama has once again allowed Congress to write the legislation with little guidance and the resulting bills have been disasters. Republicans are once again united in opposition while Democrats are fractured along ideological lines. As with the stimulus, the Administration has rejected all Republican initiatives on health care reform, to the point of claiming that Republicans have not offered a plan of their own.
As public support for the plan has cratered, the Obama Administration has panicked, insisting on an August recess deadline for passage of a plan and exposing the legislation’s Achilles Heel. Republicans have been successful at forcing Democrats to miss that deadline, and are on the precipice of killing the plan outright.
Meanwhile, Obama has only made things worse, holding his disastrous prime-time press conference at which he stupidly decided to weigh in on a minor law enforcement matter in Cambridge, Massachusetts. Incredibly, unable to admit his mistake, Obama first doubled down on his remarks, then invited Crowley and Gates to the White House for a beer, thereby guaranteeing another week of bad press from the incident.
There are more examples - the much-hyped lobbyist ban that the White House broke the very next day after the president signed it comes to mind – but the point is clear. Any of these stumbles on their own might be chalked up to the growing pains that accompany a transition of power. But all of them taken together, and in such a relatively short time, could be said to constitute stupidity in governance. The next time President Obama is tempted to label a public servant’s actions as stupid, he would do better to look a little closer to home.
Showing posts with label Barack Obama. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Barack Obama. Show all posts
Thursday, July 30, 2009
Tuesday, June 9, 2009
Not So Wise
Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayor has come under fire for the following controversial comment that she made in prepared remarks at the University of California-Berkeley.
Both the Obama Administration and the nominee herself have said that the comments would have been better “restated.” If by “restated” the Administration meant “repeated,” then the revelation that Sotomayor made nearly the exact same remark twice before and twice after the 2001 Berkeley speech would not be a surprise. As it is, however, Sotomayor’s views on the role of gender and ethnicity in her judicial decision making process has never been in more doubt.
More trouble for Sotomayor has come to light recently as a result of her filing an incomplete Senate Judiciary Committee questionnaire. The White House boasted that Sotomayor turned in her questionnaire, “faster than any nominee in modern history,” just nine days since her nomination. She may have wanted to hold onto it a bit longer.
Sotomayor did not mention a memorandum she signed as a member of a Puerto Rico Legal Defense Fund task force on the reinstatement of the death penalty in New York State in 1981. In the memo, the group argues that the death penalty, “…is associated with evident racism in our society.” Sotomayor, signature on the document is another indication of her apparently incessant and ingrained tendency to see race and ethnicity first, and facts second.
Both the additional speeches and the omission of the memo underscore the decidedly unwise manner in which the Obama Administration, and Sotomayor herself, have handled the nomination, the nominee’s characterization of herself notwithstanding. Whether the Administration did not anticipate the level of scrutiny that would be visited on its first Supreme Court nomination, or whether it is simply trying to rush the nomination through before all the facts can be ascertained is not known. But questions about what the Administration knew and when about the speeches and the memo are now bound to be a feature of her confirmation hearing. As are other as yet undiscovered controversies in Sotomayor’s professional career.
With 59 Senators and a high personal approval rating, President Obama should have been able to drive Sotomayor’s nomination through the Senate with little or no question. However, the Administration’s ham-handed attempts at crisis management, and it’s juvenile pursuit of some superfluous record has brought greater scrutiny on Sotomayor than otherwise may have been expected. This has provided Republicans with an opportunity to define Sotomayor and President Obama at the confirmation hearings. They should take full advantage of the Obama Administration’s missteps, and Sotomayor’s omission, to give her a thorough examination.
“I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn’t lived that life.”
Both the Obama Administration and the nominee herself have said that the comments would have been better “restated.” If by “restated” the Administration meant “repeated,” then the revelation that Sotomayor made nearly the exact same remark twice before and twice after the 2001 Berkeley speech would not be a surprise. As it is, however, Sotomayor’s views on the role of gender and ethnicity in her judicial decision making process has never been in more doubt.
More trouble for Sotomayor has come to light recently as a result of her filing an incomplete Senate Judiciary Committee questionnaire. The White House boasted that Sotomayor turned in her questionnaire, “faster than any nominee in modern history,” just nine days since her nomination. She may have wanted to hold onto it a bit longer.
Sotomayor did not mention a memorandum she signed as a member of a Puerto Rico Legal Defense Fund task force on the reinstatement of the death penalty in New York State in 1981. In the memo, the group argues that the death penalty, “…is associated with evident racism in our society.” Sotomayor, signature on the document is another indication of her apparently incessant and ingrained tendency to see race and ethnicity first, and facts second.
Both the additional speeches and the omission of the memo underscore the decidedly unwise manner in which the Obama Administration, and Sotomayor herself, have handled the nomination, the nominee’s characterization of herself notwithstanding. Whether the Administration did not anticipate the level of scrutiny that would be visited on its first Supreme Court nomination, or whether it is simply trying to rush the nomination through before all the facts can be ascertained is not known. But questions about what the Administration knew and when about the speeches and the memo are now bound to be a feature of her confirmation hearing. As are other as yet undiscovered controversies in Sotomayor’s professional career.
With 59 Senators and a high personal approval rating, President Obama should have been able to drive Sotomayor’s nomination through the Senate with little or no question. However, the Administration’s ham-handed attempts at crisis management, and it’s juvenile pursuit of some superfluous record has brought greater scrutiny on Sotomayor than otherwise may have been expected. This has provided Republicans with an opportunity to define Sotomayor and President Obama at the confirmation hearings. They should take full advantage of the Obama Administration’s missteps, and Sotomayor’s omission, to give her a thorough examination.
Sunday, June 7, 2009
A Question of National Character
This piece originally appeared in the American Spectator. Thanks to Jim Antle and Caleb Howe.
Speaking to a French reporter while on his Middle East trip, President Obama said that the United States would be “one of the largest Muslim countries,” if its Muslim population was the measure. Jake Tapper fact checked that claim and reports that the White House used the CIA World Fact Book as a source for Obama’s erroneous statistic that there are seven million Muslims in the U.S. The actual size of the Muslim population in America, according to the CIA, is 0.6% of the total, or just under 2 million.
Tapper points out that the president did not say, and does not believe, that the United States is a Muslim nation, as some have lamented. As evidence for this, he recalls Obama’s speech of April 6, in Turkey, in which the president said that America, “does not consider itself a Christian nation, a Jewish nation, or a Muslim nation.” While Tapper may be correct on the literal meaning of the president’s words, the rationale behind them is utter nonsense.
The idea that America would be one of the largest Muslim nations is silly not just because the president’s figures were grossly over-inflated. It is silly because population size is not what makes a nation inherently Muslim, Christian, or Jewish. Culture does.
Take India as an example. India has the second largest population in the world at just under 1.2 billion people. Of them, the CIA says that 13.5% are Muslim. That gives India a Muslim population of over 162 million. Compare that to the largest Muslim nation of Indonesia, which has 200 million. Yet no one would think to claim that India is a Muslim nation, or that it is even, “one of the largest Muslim countries,” based on that number alone. India’s culture is as unique as it is ancient. In modern times, India’s culture and society may have been shaped by Muslims, but they are undoubtedly rooted in a history that long predates the introduction of Islam.
Similarly, America has a history rooted in Western European civilization, which is undeniably Christian. The Founders were Christian men who, guided by their Christian faith, stitched together a nation. Although they had the restraint to forbid the government from sponsoring a particular religion, to say that the United States is not a Christian nation is to deny both its history and the present reality. Indeed, with roughly one tenth of the worldwide Christian population, by the president’s own logic the United States would be one of the world’s biggest Christian nations, if not the biggest.
One aspect of the United States’ Christian culture is its acceptance of other religions. This is simply not the case in many Muslim nations, where Christians and Jews are shunned, discriminated against, and even driven out. A powerful example is the systematic marginalization of the minority Coptic Christian community in the president’s host nation, Egypt.
It is understandable that President Obama wants better relations with the Muslim world. It has been, after all, the source of many of America’s problems for the past 30 years. But to deny the very nature of the county in that effort is not outreach, it is obsequiousness. America’s relationship to Muslims should be predicated on mutual respect, understanding, and tolerance of one another. That means Muslims must understand and accept that America is at its root a Christian nation, just as they must realize that America’s actions in the world are not guided by that fact. The president does his cause no favors by pretending otherwise.
Speaking to a French reporter while on his Middle East trip, President Obama said that the United States would be “one of the largest Muslim countries,” if its Muslim population was the measure. Jake Tapper fact checked that claim and reports that the White House used the CIA World Fact Book as a source for Obama’s erroneous statistic that there are seven million Muslims in the U.S. The actual size of the Muslim population in America, according to the CIA, is 0.6% of the total, or just under 2 million.
Tapper points out that the president did not say, and does not believe, that the United States is a Muslim nation, as some have lamented. As evidence for this, he recalls Obama’s speech of April 6, in Turkey, in which the president said that America, “does not consider itself a Christian nation, a Jewish nation, or a Muslim nation.” While Tapper may be correct on the literal meaning of the president’s words, the rationale behind them is utter nonsense.
The idea that America would be one of the largest Muslim nations is silly not just because the president’s figures were grossly over-inflated. It is silly because population size is not what makes a nation inherently Muslim, Christian, or Jewish. Culture does.
Take India as an example. India has the second largest population in the world at just under 1.2 billion people. Of them, the CIA says that 13.5% are Muslim. That gives India a Muslim population of over 162 million. Compare that to the largest Muslim nation of Indonesia, which has 200 million. Yet no one would think to claim that India is a Muslim nation, or that it is even, “one of the largest Muslim countries,” based on that number alone. India’s culture is as unique as it is ancient. In modern times, India’s culture and society may have been shaped by Muslims, but they are undoubtedly rooted in a history that long predates the introduction of Islam.
Similarly, America has a history rooted in Western European civilization, which is undeniably Christian. The Founders were Christian men who, guided by their Christian faith, stitched together a nation. Although they had the restraint to forbid the government from sponsoring a particular religion, to say that the United States is not a Christian nation is to deny both its history and the present reality. Indeed, with roughly one tenth of the worldwide Christian population, by the president’s own logic the United States would be one of the world’s biggest Christian nations, if not the biggest.
One aspect of the United States’ Christian culture is its acceptance of other religions. This is simply not the case in many Muslim nations, where Christians and Jews are shunned, discriminated against, and even driven out. A powerful example is the systematic marginalization of the minority Coptic Christian community in the president’s host nation, Egypt.
It is understandable that President Obama wants better relations with the Muslim world. It has been, after all, the source of many of America’s problems for the past 30 years. But to deny the very nature of the county in that effort is not outreach, it is obsequiousness. America’s relationship to Muslims should be predicated on mutual respect, understanding, and tolerance of one another. That means Muslims must understand and accept that America is at its root a Christian nation, just as they must realize that America’s actions in the world are not guided by that fact. The president does his cause no favors by pretending otherwise.
Wednesday, June 3, 2009
Obama Met Secretly with Jeremiah Wright During Campaign
Last May, in the heat of the Democratic primary and coming off of a disastrous showing in the Pennsylvania primary, Barack Obama reversed course and publicly denounced his controversial pastor, Rev. Jeremiah Wright, after refusing to do so the month before. In his now famous Philadelphia speech on race relations, Obama said he could no more disown Wright than he could disown the black community. Wright then made an appearance at the National Press Club on April 28th, one week after the Pennsylvania primary, in which he refused to recant his controversial sermons, the revelation of which had brought pressure on the Obama campaign. Soon after, Obama would disown him, using the pretext of Wright's affirmation of his sermons as the reason for his change of mind.
Wright disappeared from the campaign after that, disproving speculation that he was out to destroy Obama's campaign out of anger at his former charge's repudiation. At the time, I questioned whether it was all a set up. Did Obama and Wright conspire together to get Wright and the controversy surrounding Obama's 20-year attendance at his Trinity United Church out of the news in advance of the crucial North Carolina and Indiana primaries? Now, there may be proof.
This is what I speculated on May 2nd, three days after Obama denounced his former pastor:
In his forthcoming book on the 2008 campaign, Richard Wolfe reports that Obama and Wright met between the Pennsylvania and North Carolina primaries at Wright's home in suburban Chicago. The Obama campaign set up the meeting with the express goal of getting Wright to end his public appearances. The meeting was not reported in the press.
Wolfe's account of the discussion between the besieged pastor and the beleaguered candidate leaves plenty of questions. Wolfe says Obama, "adopt[ed] the tone of a concerned friend giving advice," and tried to, "nudge [Wright] in the right direction by making him aware of what was about to happen." The account is silent about whether the two men discussed the campaign. But coming off a loss in a heavily rural state, and heading into two more contests in heavily rural battleground states, is it really much of a stretch to surmise that Obama asked Wright to get out of the way?
The proof, of course, is that Wright did exactly that. He made no more public appearances after his National Press Club speech. There was no attempt to destroy Obama's campaign. And thanks to Republican John McCain's decision not to make Wright an issue, Obama did not have to face serious questions about his former pastor again during the campaign.
Complicit in this deception is the mainstream media, which clearly was not paying close enough attention to Obama to know of the meeting. Considering the intensity of the Wright story and the Democratic primary, the meeting would have been blockbuster news. Somehow, Obama was able to meet with the most controversial figure in the campaign, at his home, on the cusp of two critically important primaries, and not one media outlet reported on it.
All of this calls into question whether Obama was telling the truth in his embrace of Wright in Philadelphia, or in his denunciation of him the following month; and whether Wright's National Press Club appearance and Obama's subsequent distancing from him was part of a quid pro quo designed to allow Obama to appear more moderate without explicitly denying his radical preacher. Had news of the meeting been reported, that question may have been explored, at least in the conservative blogosphere. Instead, the public was deprived of the context necessary to make a true judgment about Obama's relationship to Wright. But perhaps a clue to Obama's motivations in both speeches can be found in the words of Wright himself.
Wright disappeared from the campaign after that, disproving speculation that he was out to destroy Obama's campaign out of anger at his former charge's repudiation. At the time, I questioned whether it was all a set up. Did Obama and Wright conspire together to get Wright and the controversy surrounding Obama's 20-year attendance at his Trinity United Church out of the news in advance of the crucial North Carolina and Indiana primaries? Now, there may be proof.
This is what I speculated on May 2nd, three days after Obama denounced his former pastor:
Here’s how the theory goes. When Wright’s controversial sermons...were made public, the Obama campaign took the occasion to have the candidate make a big speech on race relations. The speech was delivered in Philadelphia, the better to help Obama calm the fears of rural, white, working-class Democrats, to whom he now looked a little more like a sixties radical than an agent of a new kind of politics. It was expected that Obama would distance himself from his firebrand pastor. But he didn’t...Far from distancing himself, Obama drew closer to Wright. [...]
Obama lost Pennsylvania by 10 points on April 22nd...Faced with the sudden realization that his campaign was foundering among rural whites, and with four heavily rural states next to vote, Obama needed a way to reach out to that crucial Democratic demographic.
But for the post-partisan Obama to suddenly turn on his pastor, mentor, and friend of more than 20 years would have seemed too opportunistic, too old politics. He needed to find a way to denounce Wright without having it be seen as politically motivated. [...]
Less cynical observers say that the new Wright controversy is too damaging for Obama’s campaign to be a political ploy...But it has been three days since Obama’s dismissal of Wright, and there has been no word from the Reverend. If Wright remains silent through Monday, consider it a certainty that he is executing a plan designed to give Obama the political cover to opportunistically deny him. There may never be proof of coordination, but there seems to be a lot of winking and nodding going on.
In his forthcoming book on the 2008 campaign, Richard Wolfe reports that Obama and Wright met between the Pennsylvania and North Carolina primaries at Wright's home in suburban Chicago. The Obama campaign set up the meeting with the express goal of getting Wright to end his public appearances. The meeting was not reported in the press.
Wolfe's account of the discussion between the besieged pastor and the beleaguered candidate leaves plenty of questions. Wolfe says Obama, "adopt[ed] the tone of a concerned friend giving advice," and tried to, "nudge [Wright] in the right direction by making him aware of what was about to happen." The account is silent about whether the two men discussed the campaign. But coming off a loss in a heavily rural state, and heading into two more contests in heavily rural battleground states, is it really much of a stretch to surmise that Obama asked Wright to get out of the way?
The proof, of course, is that Wright did exactly that. He made no more public appearances after his National Press Club speech. There was no attempt to destroy Obama's campaign. And thanks to Republican John McCain's decision not to make Wright an issue, Obama did not have to face serious questions about his former pastor again during the campaign.
Complicit in this deception is the mainstream media, which clearly was not paying close enough attention to Obama to know of the meeting. Considering the intensity of the Wright story and the Democratic primary, the meeting would have been blockbuster news. Somehow, Obama was able to meet with the most controversial figure in the campaign, at his home, on the cusp of two critically important primaries, and not one media outlet reported on it.
All of this calls into question whether Obama was telling the truth in his embrace of Wright in Philadelphia, or in his denunciation of him the following month; and whether Wright's National Press Club appearance and Obama's subsequent distancing from him was part of a quid pro quo designed to allow Obama to appear more moderate without explicitly denying his radical preacher. Had news of the meeting been reported, that question may have been explored, at least in the conservative blogosphere. Instead, the public was deprived of the context necessary to make a true judgment about Obama's relationship to Wright. But perhaps a clue to Obama's motivations in both speeches can be found in the words of Wright himself.
"Politicians say what they say and do what they do based on electability, based on sound bites, based on polls...He does what politicians do."
Tuesday, June 2, 2009
Sotomayor Obfuscates on "Wise Latina" Comment
Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayor made the rounds on Capitol Hill today, meeting with Senators of both parties. According to Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Pat Leahy (D-VT), Sotomayor addressed her controversial "wise Latina" remarks from 2001 during their meeting. Leahy would not say whether the nominee acknowledged that she misspoke when she made the comments, but her attempt to explain them only adds more confusion.
Here is what Sotomayor said in a prepared speech to a University of California Berkeley audience:
Here is what Sotomayor said in a prepared speech to a University of California Berkeley audience:
“I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn’t lived that life.”
Last week, the White House said that Sotomayor chose her words poorly when making the speech, adding that the judge was, "making the point that personal experiences are relevant to the process of judging." President Obama endorsed that line, saying that the controversy over the remarks was "nonsense." Still, the nominee spouted a completely different explanation in her meetings with Senators today.
"Sotomayor told Leahy that what she meant is that people have different backgrounds but 'there is only one law,' and 'ultimately and completely' she would follow the law.
Leahy didn't clarify whether Sotomayor acknowledged misspeaking, as even President Barack Obama has. Leahy said Sotomayor talked about her judicial philosophy, which can be guided by experiences but at the end of the day it comes down to rule of law." [emphasis added]
To clarify, Sotomayor now says that when she said life experiences matter to the process of judging, she was really saying that life experiences don't matter to the process of judging.
The "ultimately and completely" formulation came up again in a meeting with Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-AL), the ranking Republican on the Judiciary Committee, in what is clearly a White House supplied line to try and put the "nonsense" controversy behind the nominee. But rather than clear things up, Sotomayor's and the Administration's denial of the clear meaning of her words only creates more questions about what she meant when she made the speech.
Sotomayor, Obama, and the Felon Vote
Welcome American Spectator readers. Thanks to Quin Hillyer for the kind words and the link. -MI
Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayor is an advocate of allowing felons to vote. "Advocate" is a loaded word when referring to a judge, and with good reason. Judges are not supposed to allow their personal preferences to influence their interpretation of the law and the facts at issue in a given case. But their really is no other way to describe Sotomayor's dissenting opinion in Hayden v. Pataki, a case brought by inmates in New York State under the federal Voting Rights Act.
The inmates were suing the State of New York for the right to vote, alleging New York's prohibition of felon voting was discriminatory based on race and ethnicity. Sotomayor sided with the inmates in a four-paragraph long opinion, holding that the Voting Rights Act prohibited states from disenfranchising felons because the majority are black, Hispanic, and other minorities.
The Washington Times excoriates Sotomayor for her shoddy legal reasoning pointing out that the Constitution grants states the right to deny felons the vote in the Fourteenth Amendment. The Times rightly characterizes her opinion in the case as a product of her inability to see past race and ethnicity and apply the law as written.
Unsurprisingly, as a Senator, President Obama was a co-sponsor of the Count Every Vote Act, a bill which would have restored the right to vote to all ex-felons nationwide, according to a description of the legislation the president provided during the campaign on an NAACP questionnaire. It's not likely that he was pandering. But what about as a Constitutional law professor? Does the president endorse the position Sotomayor expressed in her brief dissent on felon voting rights? How about Sotomayor's interpretation of the Voting Rights Act and the Fourteenth Amendment?
This is a question on which it seems that Sotomayor is very vulnerable. First, her legal reasoning – that Congress can trump the Constitution by statute – if that's what we must call it, is highly uninformed. Second, Sotomayor only took four paragraphs to elucidate her opinion. That leaves precious little room for justifications grounded in past precedent or legal analysis. It smacks more of an, "I like it, therefore it must be," approach to judging, at least in this case. Worse, the apparent lack of effort Sotomayor put into the decision suggests a lack of respect for the process that will not serve the country well were she to be confirmed. Justices must bring more heft than a curt, "Because I said so!" when ruling on matters of national impact.
Republicans should press Sotomayor hard on this case, and others, in private and at her confirmation hearings. They should also demand that the White House answer for nominating a judge who could not be bothered to explain her extra-Constitutional reasoning in Hayden v. Pataki, and who refuses to be bound by the Constitution or the law in attempting to implement her, and the president's, favored outcomes.
Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayor is an advocate of allowing felons to vote. "Advocate" is a loaded word when referring to a judge, and with good reason. Judges are not supposed to allow their personal preferences to influence their interpretation of the law and the facts at issue in a given case. But their really is no other way to describe Sotomayor's dissenting opinion in Hayden v. Pataki, a case brought by inmates in New York State under the federal Voting Rights Act.
The inmates were suing the State of New York for the right to vote, alleging New York's prohibition of felon voting was discriminatory based on race and ethnicity. Sotomayor sided with the inmates in a four-paragraph long opinion, holding that the Voting Rights Act prohibited states from disenfranchising felons because the majority are black, Hispanic, and other minorities.
The Washington Times excoriates Sotomayor for her shoddy legal reasoning pointing out that the Constitution grants states the right to deny felons the vote in the Fourteenth Amendment. The Times rightly characterizes her opinion in the case as a product of her inability to see past race and ethnicity and apply the law as written.
"Ms. Sotomayor is thus in the position of asserting that Congress can prohibit New York from doing something the Constitution itself specifically endorses. It's as if she thinks that black and Hispanic felons are convicted in order to deny them the vote, rather than being denied the vote as a result of being duly convicted. Her position ignores the fact that it is these convicts' own actions, their crimes – not any state-based racial discrimination – that make them ineligible to vote.
[Sotomayor's] dissenting opinion in Hayden v. Pataki is another example of her taking racial grievance mongering to absurd new depths. They are depths unbecoming a Supreme Court justice."
Unsurprisingly, as a Senator, President Obama was a co-sponsor of the Count Every Vote Act, a bill which would have restored the right to vote to all ex-felons nationwide, according to a description of the legislation the president provided during the campaign on an NAACP questionnaire. It's not likely that he was pandering. But what about as a Constitutional law professor? Does the president endorse the position Sotomayor expressed in her brief dissent on felon voting rights? How about Sotomayor's interpretation of the Voting Rights Act and the Fourteenth Amendment?
This is a question on which it seems that Sotomayor is very vulnerable. First, her legal reasoning – that Congress can trump the Constitution by statute – if that's what we must call it, is highly uninformed. Second, Sotomayor only took four paragraphs to elucidate her opinion. That leaves precious little room for justifications grounded in past precedent or legal analysis. It smacks more of an, "I like it, therefore it must be," approach to judging, at least in this case. Worse, the apparent lack of effort Sotomayor put into the decision suggests a lack of respect for the process that will not serve the country well were she to be confirmed. Justices must bring more heft than a curt, "Because I said so!" when ruling on matters of national impact.
Republicans should press Sotomayor hard on this case, and others, in private and at her confirmation hearings. They should also demand that the White House answer for nominating a judge who could not be bothered to explain her extra-Constitutional reasoning in Hayden v. Pataki, and who refuses to be bound by the Constitution or the law in attempting to implement her, and the president's, favored outcomes.
Obama Silent on First Terror Attack Since 9/11
Those wondering how long it would take for the first act of terrorism to be perpetrated on American soil under President Barack Obama did not have to wait long. The murder of a U.S. military recruiter by a Muslim convert in Arkansas yesterday marks the return of the war on terror to America after just four months of the new Administration's systematic dismantling of the policies and programs that kept the nation safe for over seven years under the Bush Administration.
Some may take issue with that characterization, noting the slaying of abortionist George Tiller by an apparently militant domestic terrorist on Sunday. President Obama certainly was quick to condemn that killing; and his Administration quick to take action to protect other abortion providers. Tiller's murderer, though a cold-blooded killer, is not a terrorist of the kind that the United States has been fighting since the September 11th attacks. If every murderer were a terrorist, the United States would have to invade most liberal-run cities to put down the violence.
Abdulhakim Mujahid Muhammad, formerly Carlos Bledsoe, is, however, exactly the kind of terrorist that has been prevented from carrying out acts of violence against Americans, until now. Still, the president has not made a statement about the killing. He has not expressed "shock and outrage" as he did at Tiller's murder; has not offered condolences to Pvt. William A. Long's family or Pvt. Quinton Ezeagwula, the other soldier injured in the attack; and has not expressed the nation's resolve - to say nothing of his Administration's - to continue to fight radical Islamic terrorists wherever they may be found.
To Obama, the Arkansas shootings were an isolated incident carried out by a deranged individual, not part of a worldwide effort to kill Americans with the aim of bringing the country to it's knees. Indeed, it cannot allow the attack to be viewed as such – even though we know Muhammad was radicalized in prison, trained in Yemen, and was upset about the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan – lest Obama bear some responsibility for watering down the programs that could have prevented it.
Some may take issue with that characterization, noting the slaying of abortionist George Tiller by an apparently militant domestic terrorist on Sunday. President Obama certainly was quick to condemn that killing; and his Administration quick to take action to protect other abortion providers. Tiller's murderer, though a cold-blooded killer, is not a terrorist of the kind that the United States has been fighting since the September 11th attacks. If every murderer were a terrorist, the United States would have to invade most liberal-run cities to put down the violence.
Abdulhakim Mujahid Muhammad, formerly Carlos Bledsoe, is, however, exactly the kind of terrorist that has been prevented from carrying out acts of violence against Americans, until now. Still, the president has not made a statement about the killing. He has not expressed "shock and outrage" as he did at Tiller's murder; has not offered condolences to Pvt. William A. Long's family or Pvt. Quinton Ezeagwula, the other soldier injured in the attack; and has not expressed the nation's resolve - to say nothing of his Administration's - to continue to fight radical Islamic terrorists wherever they may be found.
To Obama, the Arkansas shootings were an isolated incident carried out by a deranged individual, not part of a worldwide effort to kill Americans with the aim of bringing the country to it's knees. Indeed, it cannot allow the attack to be viewed as such – even though we know Muhammad was radicalized in prison, trained in Yemen, and was upset about the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan – lest Obama bear some responsibility for watering down the programs that could have prevented it.
Friday, May 29, 2009
Gibbs Walks Sotomayor Back into a Corner
White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs today began the Obama Administration's walkback of controversial comments made by Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayor. At today's press briefing, the perpetually over matched Gibbs attempted to explain away Sotomayor's comment that a "wise Latina" would necessarily make better judicial decisions than a "white male" judge because of her gender, ethnicity, and life experience. But Gibbs never learned the first rule of being in a hole, and his explanation raises more uncomfortable questions for the nominee.
But Gibbs wasn't done digging, and used a quote from Justice Samuel Alito to try and bolster his position.
The obvious differences between Alito's quote and Sotomayor's, however, is that Alito did not assert that he was a better judge because of his family's experiences. Alito did not allege that because of his family's story that he would reach more just conclusions than a Latina woman. And Alito did not say that say that his decisions were based in part on his personal history. Sotomayor did all those things in her remarks.
President Obama also defended Sotomayor today, calling the criticism of her remarks, "nonsense." But the fact that the White House is talking about this, and trying to explain it away, proves that the controversy is anything bu nonsense. The Administration knows it could have a real problem with Sotomayor's nomination if it does not move to stem the growing backlash against her for those statements. Gibbs' botched defense is the first crack in the White House's management of Sotomayor's nomination.
"I think she’d say her word choice in 2001 was poor. She was simply making the point that experiences are relevant to the process of judging. Your personal experiences have a tendency to make you more aware of certain facts and certain cases, that your experiences impact your understanding."The only facts that a judge has any business considering, of course, are the facts at issue in the case before the court. Gibbs' assertion is an admission that the Administration wants judges who will decide cases not based upon the facts and the law, but on their personal preferences.
But Gibbs wasn't done digging, and used a quote from Justice Samuel Alito to try and bolster his position.
"When a case comes before me involving, let's say, someone who is an immigrant...I can't help but think of my own ancestors, because it wasn't that long ago when they were in that position…. I do say to myself, ‘You know, this could be your grandfather, this could be your grandmother. They were not citizens at one time, and they were people who came to this country.’…When I get a case about discrimination, I have to think about people in my own family who suffered discrimination because of their ethnic background or because of religion or because of gender. And I do take that into account."
The obvious differences between Alito's quote and Sotomayor's, however, is that Alito did not assert that he was a better judge because of his family's experiences. Alito did not allege that because of his family's story that he would reach more just conclusions than a Latina woman. And Alito did not say that say that his decisions were based in part on his personal history. Sotomayor did all those things in her remarks.
President Obama also defended Sotomayor today, calling the criticism of her remarks, "nonsense." But the fact that the White House is talking about this, and trying to explain it away, proves that the controversy is anything bu nonsense. The Administration knows it could have a real problem with Sotomayor's nomination if it does not move to stem the growing backlash against her for those statements. Gibbs' botched defense is the first crack in the White House's management of Sotomayor's nomination.
Tuesday, May 26, 2009
Obama's Supreme Distraction
President Barack Obama nominated Second Circuit appeals judge Sonia Sotomayor as his first nominee to the Supreme Court. Sotomayor, when she is confirmed, will become only the third woman and the first Hispanic to serve on the Court, replacing the retiring Justice David Souter. No word yet on the reaction from Pyongyang.
Pyongyang? Yes, Pyongyang. North Korea test fired not one, not two, not even three, but five new missiles yesterday and today in response to the United Nations Security Council's condemnation of its recent nuclear test. The two moves have sparked a new international nuclear crisis that has implications for Asia, the Middle East, and the United States. This is North Korea week in capitals around the globe from Tokyo, to Beijing, to Seoul, to London, Moscow, and even Tehran. But not in Washington. The Obama Administration's response is essentially to change the subject and distract media and public attention from the subject it does not want to talk about, foreign policy.
Pyongyang? Yes, Pyongyang. North Korea test fired not one, not two, not even three, but five new missiles yesterday and today in response to the United Nations Security Council's condemnation of its recent nuclear test. The two moves have sparked a new international nuclear crisis that has implications for Asia, the Middle East, and the United States. This is North Korea week in capitals around the globe from Tokyo, to Beijing, to Seoul, to London, Moscow, and even Tehran. But not in Washington. The Obama Administration's response is essentially to change the subject and distract media and public attention from the subject it does not want to talk about, foreign policy.
Saturday, May 23, 2009
New York Terror Cell Radicalized in Prison
Where demanded by justice and national security, we will seek to transfer some detainees to the same type of facilities in which we hold all manner of dangerous and violent criminals within our borders -- namely, highly secure prisons that ensure the public safety.
President Barack Obama, May 21, 2009
Authorities in New York have discovered that the four alleged terrorists arrested last week while planning to blow up a synagogue and shoot down a U.S. military plane were all converted to Islam while in prison. The four were attendees at a Newburgh, NY, mosque, where Imam Salahuddin Muhammad is the spiritual leader. Muhammad also serves as a Muslim prison chaplain.
The revelation comes just two days after President Obama uttered the words above, announcing his plan to bring some of the terrorist detainees currently held at Guantanamo Bay into the United States to be held in the U.S. prison system. The president assures that no one has ever escaped from one of the federal Supermax prisons. But as the case of the New York terror cell demonstrates, escape is not the only issue.
Friday, May 22, 2009
Big Speech, Small Man
It is fitting that President Barack Obama’s much-hyped and anticipated speech on his plan for the detainees currently held at Gunatanamo Bay was delivered in the rotunda of the National Archives building. Throughout his speech, the arguments of a petulant child stubbornly refusing to accept any responsibility for his actions could be heard echoing around the marble hall. The president’s speech was not courageous, uplifting, or forward looking. It was a small speech, especially in comparison to former vice president Dick Cheney’s address immediately after, and revealed the true stature of the man giving it.
President Obama is the master of the political trick of decrying a given act while engaging in it. Throughout this speech, Obama made overtures to looking ahead all the while dwelling on the past. He said he did not want to engage in re-fighting the battles of the last eight years over enhanced interrogations and Guantanamo Bay, then proceeded to do just that, explicitly and implicitly criticizing decisions of the Bush Administration as misguided, illegitimate, and “hasty.”
Of his own decisions to close the terrorist detention center at Guantanamo, the president offered no substantive defense, choosing instead to speak in platitudes and point fingers. His refusal to accept responsibility for his decision, and thus the consequences that may flow from it, was complete, and is best summarized by this passage.
“Indeed, the legal challenges that have sparked so much debate here in Washington in recent weeks would be taking place whether or not I decided to close Guantanamo. For example, the court order to release 17 Uighars – 17 Uighar detainees, took place last fall when George Bush was president. The Supreme Court that invalidated the system of prosecution at Guantanamo in 2006 was overwhelmingly appointed by Republican presidents – not wild-eyed liberals. In other words, the problem of what to do with Guantanamo detainees was not caused by my decision to close the facility; the problem exists because of the decision to open Guantanamo in the first place.“
President Obama offered no rationale for his decision other than the unprovable assertions that Guantanamo has served as a recruiting tool for terrorist groups, likely “creating more terrorists than it ever detained,” and that the facility’s existence has made the United States less, not more, safe. This is the presidential equivalent of pointing at another kid and yelling, “He made me do it!” when the teacher comes. It is not the act of a statesman, nor the argument of a man of stature. It is a dodge, a misdirection, a plea for avoiding the consequences of one’s actions.
At other points in the speech, President Obama presented half-truths and self-serving descriptions designed not to justify the closing of Guantanamo, but to cloud the issue enough in an effort to avoid responsibility for his decision. He took pains to detail the number of detainees released from Guantanamo versus the number convicted, but he did not allude to the reason for the relatively low conviction rate. Part of it certainly has to do with the efforts of “civil liberties” and “human rights” groups to tie the detentions of terrorists at the facility up in court. These are efforts that the president presumably would have supported, given his belief that the detentions were against American law. The effect is to paint a picture of a dysfunctional process for trying detainees, “a mess,” as he so eloquently called it, that only closing the facility can clean up. In truth, however, the mess is as much if not more a creation of the hysterical and unfounded claims and charges leveled against the Bush Administration’s plan for trying the detainees by some of President Obama’s biggest supporters.
In another willful distortion, President Obama insisted that the federal Supermax prisons can handle the detention of hardened terrorists, pointing out that no one has ever escaped from one of the maximum security facilities. But escape is not the issue. Security is. Bringing terrorists who were not already in America to America necessarily makes the country less safe. Housing terrorist detainees in the US makes the locality in which they are housed a terrorist target. This argument of Obama’s, which seeks to deny the reality of his decision, is like a child insisting he did not take the cookies, even as his face and hands are covered in chocolate. It is not accountable and it is not transparent.
President Obama’s address, like most of the rest of his speeches, was long on rhetorical flourish and short on actual details. It was internally contradictory – as when he said that the Bush Administration’s decision on indefinite detentions was wrong, only to announce that his own Administration would be adopting the same practice – self-serving, and petty. And that tells the listener something about the man who delivered it. President Obama showed in this address, more than he ever has, that he is a man of beautiful prose and little substance. Perhaps with more time in office, President Obama will acquire the knowledge and self-confidence that allowed Dick Cheney to deliver the statesman-like address that followed. Our president still has a lot of growing up to do.
Monday, May 18, 2009
Does Barack Obama Want Nancy Pelosi to Fail?
As the scandal over House Speaker Nancy Pelosi's and other top Congressional Democrats' bald-faced lies to the American people about what and when they knew of enhanced interrogation techniques enters its second week, questions are beginning to be raised about the Obama Administration's role in the release of information contradicting Pelosi's account of briefings she received. Specifically, inquiring minds are wondering whether the White House signed off on CIA Director Leon Panetta's internal agency memo responding to Pelosi's accusation that the CIA had misled Congress in its briefings on the techniques.
That question has been answered. The White House knew about the memo, and alerted Pelosi that it was going public.
White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs was asked today whether President Obama had confidence in Pelosi as speaker. "He does," Gibbs answered, which could not have inspired much confidence in Pelosi since Obama has shown time and again that his confidence, like his promises, come with an expiration date. Usually that day comes sooner rather than later.
More than words, however, there are actions Obama could be taking to relieve some of the media pressure on Pelosi, who has gone into full backtrack and bunker mode after last week's torturous press conference. There are at least two guaranteed ways Obama could change the news cycle tomorrow, knocking Prevarigate™ off the evening news and relegating it to the inside pages of the newspapers: he could name a Supreme Court nominee to replace David Souter; and he could reverse himself and release the pictures showing the alleged abuse of prisoners in U.S. custody.
In the case of the Supreme Court, announcing a nominee would instantly change the news cycle to one of analysis of the president's pick, and the drama that is sure to surround his confirmation. The pictures would not change the news cycle. However, they would refocus the press on allegations of mistreatment of prisoners by U.S. soldiers under the Bush Administration. The Pelosi story - which let's be honest the press doesn't really want to report anyway - would pale in comparison to either of these and would give the Speaker the breathing room she is desperately seeking.
So why would the Obama Administration want to see Pelosi twist in the wind? To be sure, bare knuckles politics plays a role. There is no doubt a little of the White House showing Pelosi and Congress who is boss. But there is someone close to the president who may have a personal motive to see Nancy Pelosi laid low: Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel.
Emanuel gave up his safe Congressional seat and a place in the leadership in the House to become White House Chief of Staff. But he has not given up on his dream of becoming Speaker. Furthermore, Pelosi, Emanuel's former boss, pulled a power play on him when he took the new position, reportedly letting Emanuel know in no uncertain terms that she was running the show on the hill and would have no input from him or the White House. Now it appears that the high-heel is on the other foot, and Emanuel may be advising President Obama to send an equally strong message up Pennsylvania Avenue.
No doubt, all is not sweetness and light for Speaker Nancy Pelosi right now. Some Republicans are beginning to call for her resignation as Speaker, although the leaderhship has not joined them, yet. The Obama Administration, led by the president himself, is not helping. Worse, the White House appears to be feeding the media frenzy by word and lack of action. Pelosi's fate may hang on how badly President Obama believes he needs her to shepherd his agenda through Congress, and whether she is willing to swallow her pride and give Rahm Emanuel a foot in the door of the House.
That question has been answered. The White House knew about the memo, and alerted Pelosi that it was going public.
"The Central Intelligence Agency gave House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., advanced warning before CIA Chief Leon Panetta sent a memo to employees at the spy agency that countered Pelosi's claim that the agency lied to Congress about waterboarding.Now, new questions are raised. Pelosi must surely be wondering why a president of her own party is allowing the release of information that will make her look bad in the press; why he is remaining silent on the issue; and why he is taking no action to try and stem the feeding frenzy surrounding her.
A CIA official, but not Panetta, made the call to Pelosi. [...]
The aide said Pelosi protested Panetta's memo on the call to no avail."
White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs was asked today whether President Obama had confidence in Pelosi as speaker. "He does," Gibbs answered, which could not have inspired much confidence in Pelosi since Obama has shown time and again that his confidence, like his promises, come with an expiration date. Usually that day comes sooner rather than later.
More than words, however, there are actions Obama could be taking to relieve some of the media pressure on Pelosi, who has gone into full backtrack and bunker mode after last week's torturous press conference. There are at least two guaranteed ways Obama could change the news cycle tomorrow, knocking Prevarigate™ off the evening news and relegating it to the inside pages of the newspapers: he could name a Supreme Court nominee to replace David Souter; and he could reverse himself and release the pictures showing the alleged abuse of prisoners in U.S. custody.
In the case of the Supreme Court, announcing a nominee would instantly change the news cycle to one of analysis of the president's pick, and the drama that is sure to surround his confirmation. The pictures would not change the news cycle. However, they would refocus the press on allegations of mistreatment of prisoners by U.S. soldiers under the Bush Administration. The Pelosi story - which let's be honest the press doesn't really want to report anyway - would pale in comparison to either of these and would give the Speaker the breathing room she is desperately seeking.
So why would the Obama Administration want to see Pelosi twist in the wind? To be sure, bare knuckles politics plays a role. There is no doubt a little of the White House showing Pelosi and Congress who is boss. But there is someone close to the president who may have a personal motive to see Nancy Pelosi laid low: Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel.
Emanuel gave up his safe Congressional seat and a place in the leadership in the House to become White House Chief of Staff. But he has not given up on his dream of becoming Speaker. Furthermore, Pelosi, Emanuel's former boss, pulled a power play on him when he took the new position, reportedly letting Emanuel know in no uncertain terms that she was running the show on the hill and would have no input from him or the White House. Now it appears that the high-heel is on the other foot, and Emanuel may be advising President Obama to send an equally strong message up Pennsylvania Avenue.
No doubt, all is not sweetness and light for Speaker Nancy Pelosi right now. Some Republicans are beginning to call for her resignation as Speaker, although the leaderhship has not joined them, yet. The Obama Administration, led by the president himself, is not helping. Worse, the White House appears to be feeding the media frenzy by word and lack of action. Pelosi's fate may hang on how badly President Obama believes he needs her to shepherd his agenda through Congress, and whether she is willing to swallow her pride and give Rahm Emanuel a foot in the door of the House.
Saturday, March 21, 2009
The Permanent Campaign Gets Creepy
Imagine that the President of the United States is sending personal representatives to the homes of private citizens and asking them to sign a "pledge of support" for his Administration's policies. Imagine that those representatives are asking citizens for their names and e-mail addresses so that the "post-election" organization set up by the president can follow up with them; perhaps taking the addresses of those who refuse to sign. Imagine what the reaction of the online left would be to such activity. Cries of "Fascism!" "Police state!" and "Voter intimidation!" would ring out from the online left in opposition to the Republican Administration's tactic.
Now imagine that the president doing this is not a Republican, but is President Barack Obama.
But the Bush/Cheney election campaign's actions were positively mild compared to this effort by the sitting Obama Administration. Privacy advocates should be screaming from the rafters about the prospect of a quasi-official representative of the government asking citizens to sign a pledge of support. Voting rights groups should be fretting about government intimidation of the electorate. But no. Instead, we get election experts marveling at the community organizing skills of the new Big Brother president.
The linked article tries to compare President Obama's efforts to those of other presidents to drum up support for their initiatives. Those efforts have all involved the president himself embarking on a publicity tour. Obama has done that, too. But no president has ever launched a signature pledge drive utilizing an army of volunteers tied to his official campaign organization outside of a reelection campaign.
However shrewd and revolutionary it may be from an organizing standpoint, the government is not, and ought not be a community organizing group. It's creepy. Campainging is what Obama does best, however. We are likely to see many more pledge drives like this one, and equally likely to hear absolutely nothing about it from the media and the left.
Now imagine that the president doing this is not a Republican, but is President Barack Obama.
President Obama's appearance on "The Tonight Show"...was only a small part of the president's so-called permanent campaign. A bigger move comes Saturday, when Obama will ask 13 million people on his campaign e-mail list to go door-to-door to raise support for his agenda.During the 2004 campaign, attendees at Bush/Cheney events were asked to sign a form endorsing President Bush for reelection. The forms were an attempt by the Republican Party to keep Democratic operatives from infiltrating campaign events and disrupting the campaign's message. Democrats and the Kerry/Edwards campaign derided Republicans for requiring the forms, saying that it was an effort to shield the president from difficult questions.
The Pledge Project Canvass is an unprecedented effort by a president to reach beyond Congress and tap grassroots supporters for help. Volunteers recruited online by Obama's Organizing for America, a post-election group, will ask citizens to sign a pledge in support of the president's policies on energy, health care and education.
Those who pledge will be asked for their e-mail addresses so the Obama-ites can keep in touch.
"This is just the beginning for us," said Jeremy Bird, deputy national director of Organizing for America, in an online video to Obama supporters this week.
But the Bush/Cheney election campaign's actions were positively mild compared to this effort by the sitting Obama Administration. Privacy advocates should be screaming from the rafters about the prospect of a quasi-official representative of the government asking citizens to sign a pledge of support. Voting rights groups should be fretting about government intimidation of the electorate. But no. Instead, we get election experts marveling at the community organizing skills of the new Big Brother president.
"What Obama is doing is a very new approach," said Lawrence Jacobs, director of the Center for the Study of Politics and Governance at the University of Minnesota.And where is the left blogosphere on this? Surely, they did not approve of President Bush's endorsement entry requirement from 2004. Do they now align themselves with the idea of a sitting administration asking citizens to pledge their loyalty to one man's policies? Do they approve of jack-booted, clipboard-wielding, presidentially-authorized canvassers fanning out across the country collecting signatures and taking names? Markos? Josh? Arianna? Anybody?
That approach began during the campaign, when Obama tapped into an array of social networking tools on sites such as Facebook and Twitter to rally voters and raise funds. This weekend's effort is the next logical step, Bird said in an interview.
"This is taking that online social networking and moving it to offline social networking," he said.
The linked article tries to compare President Obama's efforts to those of other presidents to drum up support for their initiatives. Those efforts have all involved the president himself embarking on a publicity tour. Obama has done that, too. But no president has ever launched a signature pledge drive utilizing an army of volunteers tied to his official campaign organization outside of a reelection campaign.
However shrewd and revolutionary it may be from an organizing standpoint, the government is not, and ought not be a community organizing group. It's creepy. Campainging is what Obama does best, however. We are likely to see many more pledge drives like this one, and equally likely to hear absolutely nothing about it from the media and the left.
Thursday, August 28, 2008
DNC Day Three: Obama Sighted
The Democratic Convention has finally gotten around to discussing the nominee, Sen. Barack Obama. Tonight was a good one for Democrats in general, although the performance of the Vice-Presidential nominee, Sen. Joe Biden, left much to be desired.
Credit the Democrats, they managed to turn the Hillary Clinton/Barack Obama nomination controversy into a positive. The roll call of the states provided the backdrop. Sen. Hillary Clinton strode onto the floor of the arena to move that the convention nominate Obama by acclamation. It was good political theater, timed to occur during the evening news broadcasts. The roll call would not have been carried by the networks, so the stagecraft allowed Democrats to get Obama's historic nomination covered. Political junkies appreciate that kind of strategy.
Soon after came the speakers. Bill Clinton wowed the crowd like only he can at a Democratic convention. But the other main speakers of the night once again disappointed. So the nominee himself showed up in the arena to brighten things up, and take the focus off of his running mate.
President Clinton was introduced to raucous applause from the arena. He asked the crowd to "sit down" at least five times before beginning his speech. It was an excellent convention speech. None other than Karl Rove would later say that President Clinton "made the best case for Obama that has been given at this convention." Clinton declared Obama ready to be president, something Sen. Clinton could not or would not do last night. There was a lot of exaggeration and omission in Clinton's address. No mention of 9/11, for example. But his purpose was to drop the sword on the shoulders of Obama, and he accomplished that very well. Unfortunately, that was the end of the politically competent portion of the program for the Democrats; and for the second straight night, the speaker most talked about the day after will be a Clinton.
Sen. John Kerry spoke not long after Clinton and gave one of his characteristic downer speeches. His was an extremely bitter address, chock full of references to the 2004 election, which Kerry clearly has not gotten over. It must be a hard thing to lose the presidency, but it does not have to drive one to madness. Kerry has clearly chosen the latter. Of his great friend John McCain, who Kerry practically begged to run with him on the Democratic ticket four years ago, he had this to say.
Kerry's performance was surpassed by Vice-Presidential nominee Joe Biden, but only barely. Biden was warmly and touchingly introduced by his son Beau, the Attorney General of Delaware. He may have been better off though, if he had come out, waved to the crowd, said thank you, and walked off. His speech was halting, replete with stumbles, and mined with dud applause lines. The audience never connected with him. To say that his description of America was not hopeful is an understatement.
Biden's attacks on McCain were not sharp. They were the same recycled accusations that McCain represents a third Bush term. The Democrats may have settled on that as their message coming out of this convention, but voters know John McCain as an independent minded politician who has bucked his party time and again. This attack dog VP nominee just won't hunt.
After the speech, Sen. Obama staged a walk-in to the arena, stepping on his running mate's time in the spotlight. He told the crowd that the convention had gone "pretty well so far" and informed them that the festivities would be moving to "Mile High Stadium," which was demolished in January 2002. At least Obama knew to come to Denver for the convention. Tomorrow is his acceptance speech. After two less than stellar days at the Pepsi Center, and an average Joe performance by his VP choice, the change of venue might be just what the Obama ordered.
Credit the Democrats, they managed to turn the Hillary Clinton/Barack Obama nomination controversy into a positive. The roll call of the states provided the backdrop. Sen. Hillary Clinton strode onto the floor of the arena to move that the convention nominate Obama by acclamation. It was good political theater, timed to occur during the evening news broadcasts. The roll call would not have been carried by the networks, so the stagecraft allowed Democrats to get Obama's historic nomination covered. Political junkies appreciate that kind of strategy.
Soon after came the speakers. Bill Clinton wowed the crowd like only he can at a Democratic convention. But the other main speakers of the night once again disappointed. So the nominee himself showed up in the arena to brighten things up, and take the focus off of his running mate.
President Clinton was introduced to raucous applause from the arena. He asked the crowd to "sit down" at least five times before beginning his speech. It was an excellent convention speech. None other than Karl Rove would later say that President Clinton "made the best case for Obama that has been given at this convention." Clinton declared Obama ready to be president, something Sen. Clinton could not or would not do last night. There was a lot of exaggeration and omission in Clinton's address. No mention of 9/11, for example. But his purpose was to drop the sword on the shoulders of Obama, and he accomplished that very well. Unfortunately, that was the end of the politically competent portion of the program for the Democrats; and for the second straight night, the speaker most talked about the day after will be a Clinton.
Sen. John Kerry spoke not long after Clinton and gave one of his characteristic downer speeches. His was an extremely bitter address, chock full of references to the 2004 election, which Kerry clearly has not gotten over. It must be a hard thing to lose the presidency, but it does not have to drive one to madness. Kerry has clearly chosen the latter. Of his great friend John McCain, who Kerry practically begged to run with him on the Democratic ticket four years ago, he had this to say.
"I have known and been friends with John McCain for almost 22 years. But every day now I learn something new about candidate McCain. To those who still believe in the myth of a maverick instead of the reality of a politician, I say, let's compare Senator McCain to candidate McCain.That may have felt good for a little while, but the quick rebuke Kerry drew from Liz Mair, Online Communications Director for the Republican National Committee, is going to leave a mark.
Candidate McCain now supports the wartime tax cuts that Senator McCain once denounced as immoral. Candidate McCain criticizes Senator McCain's own climate change bill. Candidate McCain says he would now vote against the immigration bill that Senator McCain wrote. Are you kidding? Talk about being for it before you're against it."
"John Kerry devolved into self-parody tonight, when he explained that he was actually for John McCain before he was against him. At some point bitterness becomes a sickness."Kerry questioned McCain's judgment on national security issues, claiming that Barack Obama was right on, of all things, the war in Iraq, and John McCain was wrong. That is the kind of boomerang political attack that only John Kerry can deliver. Anyone who is paying any attention knows that the troop surge John McCain advocated for a full year before it was implemented, and which Sen. Obama opposed and said would fail, has practically won the war in Iraq. But then, no one ever accused John Kerry of paying attention.
Kerry's performance was surpassed by Vice-Presidential nominee Joe Biden, but only barely. Biden was warmly and touchingly introduced by his son Beau, the Attorney General of Delaware. He may have been better off though, if he had come out, waved to the crowd, said thank you, and walked off. His speech was halting, replete with stumbles, and mined with dud applause lines. The audience never connected with him. To say that his description of America was not hopeful is an understatement.
Almost every night, I take the train home to Wilmington, sometimes very late. As I look out the window at the homes we pass, I can almost hear what they're talking about at the kitchen table after they put the kids to bed.Nothing like a positive uplifting vision to win over votes.
Like millions of Americans, they're asking questions as profound as they are ordinary. Questions they never thought they would have to ask:
Should mom move in with us now that dad is gone?
Fifty, sixty, seventy dollars to fill up the car?
Winter's coming. How we gonna pay the heating bills?
Another year and no raise?
Did you hear the company may be cutting our health care?
Now, we owe more on the house than it's worth. How are we going to send the kids to college?
How are we gonna be able to retire?
That's the America that George Bush has left us, and that's the future John McCain will give us. These are not isolated discussions among families down on their luck. These are common stories among middle-class people who worked hard and played by the rules on the promise that their tomorrows would be better than their yesterdays.
Biden's attacks on McCain were not sharp. They were the same recycled accusations that McCain represents a third Bush term. The Democrats may have settled on that as their message coming out of this convention, but voters know John McCain as an independent minded politician who has bucked his party time and again. This attack dog VP nominee just won't hunt.
After the speech, Sen. Obama staged a walk-in to the arena, stepping on his running mate's time in the spotlight. He told the crowd that the convention had gone "pretty well so far" and informed them that the festivities would be moving to "Mile High Stadium," which was demolished in January 2002. At least Obama knew to come to Denver for the convention. Tomorrow is his acceptance speech. After two less than stellar days at the Pepsi Center, and an average Joe performance by his VP choice, the change of venue might be just what the Obama ordered.
Wednesday, August 27, 2008
DNC Day Two: Hillary's Convention
The second night of the Democratic National Convention prior to Sen. Hillary Clinton's speech was nearly as unmemorable as day one. And an interesting pattern has emerged in all of the main speakers' remarks. Barack Obama is an accessory, an add-on, a superfluous reference tucked in on the end of a litany of the speaker's accomplishments and beliefs. There is almost no discussion of the nominee as a man separate and distinct from the speaker. Rather, he is a concept, an ethereal being, an abstraction. It is almost as if the speakers are deliberately trying to distance themselves from Obama, at his own convention.
Hillary Clinton was the star of the evening in a big way. So much so that she appears to have taken the convention by force, and will hold it for at least one more day.
Sen. Robert Casey of Pennsylvania got things started with a thoroughgoing and dull speech in which he mostly talked about his father. Casey gets credit for mentioning his disagreement with Obama on abortion; and he at least tried to rile up the crowd with some decent attacks on the Bush Administration and John McCain. But the crowd wasn't entirely into it. They were anticipating greater things to come. Two hours in, David Gergen was once again on CNN, lamenting the lack of anything memorable happening in Denver.
Former Virginia Governor and likely its next Senator Mark Warner was the keynoter and he was dreadfully awful. It is actually hard to put into words just how bad, boring, and trivial his speech was. Warner must think he is a Senator already as his speech was full of incredible nothingness. He prattled on about how this was an election about the future, which he said is more important than a presidential election. He talked about his tenure as governor, praised his management of the state, bragged on his success in business, and just for good measure tossed in an Obama every couple of paragraphs or so. There was no energy in the arena during his address. Many view Warner as the 2012 front runner in the event of an Obama loss in November. Viewed in that light, this speech was his 2012 concession.
With Warner finished, anticipation in the hall began to grow for Sen. Clinton, the real headliner of the night. Before she took the stage, however, there was a speech from Kansas Governor Kathleen Sebelius, who demonstrated completely why she is not Barack Obama's running mate. There was also a surprise keynote from Montana Governor Brian Schweitzer. His was an energy packed speech about energy policy. He was animated, connected with the crowd, and genuinely fun to watch. It was not the keynote listed in the schedule, but it was far and above a better one that Warner managed to deliver.
Then it was Hillary's turn. Clinton delivered a real stemwinder of an address, recounting her primary campaign, and pointedly not conceding. She delivered the requisite declarations of support for Sen. Obama. But in a twenty minute plus speech, Clinton only managed to mention him by name 10 times. Like the rest of the speakers, the mentions of Obama came not in the context of anything he would actually do as president, but in a "him too" kind of way. The typical formulation can be seen in this passage from the prepared text.
Barack Obama has no presence at this convention. He is not physically there, and he is not oft discussed. His name is used like a drug to placate the seething masses of delegates, administered in small enough doses to keep them wanting for more. But it never comes. Clinton stepped into this atmosphere, and took over. The convention is now about her. She is who everyone is talking about; and she will continue to be the topic after tomorrow night, with the roll call of the states and former President Bill Clinton's speech. Tonight, Clinton laid down a marker on 2012 and a gauntlet for Thursday night, when Obama will have to equal her performance. He had better be good or he will leave Denver with the nomination, but without the mantle of leader of the Democratic Party.
Hillary Clinton was the star of the evening in a big way. So much so that she appears to have taken the convention by force, and will hold it for at least one more day.
Sen. Robert Casey of Pennsylvania got things started with a thoroughgoing and dull speech in which he mostly talked about his father. Casey gets credit for mentioning his disagreement with Obama on abortion; and he at least tried to rile up the crowd with some decent attacks on the Bush Administration and John McCain. But the crowd wasn't entirely into it. They were anticipating greater things to come. Two hours in, David Gergen was once again on CNN, lamenting the lack of anything memorable happening in Denver.
Former Virginia Governor and likely its next Senator Mark Warner was the keynoter and he was dreadfully awful. It is actually hard to put into words just how bad, boring, and trivial his speech was. Warner must think he is a Senator already as his speech was full of incredible nothingness. He prattled on about how this was an election about the future, which he said is more important than a presidential election. He talked about his tenure as governor, praised his management of the state, bragged on his success in business, and just for good measure tossed in an Obama every couple of paragraphs or so. There was no energy in the arena during his address. Many view Warner as the 2012 front runner in the event of an Obama loss in November. Viewed in that light, this speech was his 2012 concession.
With Warner finished, anticipation in the hall began to grow for Sen. Clinton, the real headliner of the night. Before she took the stage, however, there was a speech from Kansas Governor Kathleen Sebelius, who demonstrated completely why she is not Barack Obama's running mate. There was also a surprise keynote from Montana Governor Brian Schweitzer. His was an energy packed speech about energy policy. He was animated, connected with the crowd, and genuinely fun to watch. It was not the keynote listed in the schedule, but it was far and above a better one that Warner managed to deliver.
Then it was Hillary's turn. Clinton delivered a real stemwinder of an address, recounting her primary campaign, and pointedly not conceding. She delivered the requisite declarations of support for Sen. Obama. But in a twenty minute plus speech, Clinton only managed to mention him by name 10 times. Like the rest of the speakers, the mentions of Obama came not in the context of anything he would actually do as president, but in a "him too" kind of way. The typical formulation can be seen in this passage from the prepared text.
I ran for President to renew the promise of America. To rebuild the middle class and sustain the American Dream, to provide the opportunity to work hard and have that work rewarded, to save for college, a home and retirement, to afford the gas and groceries and still have a little left over each month...Except that when she delivered it, she left out the last line. Sen. Clinton's speech was about her campaign, not the coming one. When it was over, Bill Kristol called it a "shockingly minimal endorsement of Barack Obama."
Most of all, I ran to stand up for all those who have been invisible to their government for eight long years.
Those are the reasons I ran for President. Those are the reasons I support Barack Obama. And those are the reasons you should too.
Barack Obama has no presence at this convention. He is not physically there, and he is not oft discussed. His name is used like a drug to placate the seething masses of delegates, administered in small enough doses to keep them wanting for more. But it never comes. Clinton stepped into this atmosphere, and took over. The convention is now about her. She is who everyone is talking about; and she will continue to be the topic after tomorrow night, with the roll call of the states and former President Bill Clinton's speech. Tonight, Clinton laid down a marker on 2012 and a gauntlet for Thursday night, when Obama will have to equal her performance. He had better be good or he will leave Denver with the nomination, but without the mantle of leader of the Democratic Party.
Tuesday, August 26, 2008
DNC Day One: Where was Barack Obama?
The first night of the Democratic National Convention is (mercifully) over, and even for a political junkie, this was difficult to watch. The after show reviews are coming in and a consensus appears to be building that this was a wasted night. CNN's David Gergen was the first to remark on this around 9 PM Eastern.
The night was supposed to showcase a unified party rallying around the theme "One America." It was also supposed to belong to Michelle Obama, who addressed the convention in the prime speaking slot. But one man who was curiously absent from the festivities, even from his wife's speech, was the man for whom all of this grand production is supposed to have been planned: the actual nominee, Barack Obama.
Soon after Gergen's lament, Caroline Kennedy appeared to introduce a video tribute to Sen. Edward Kennedy. Her speech and the video were not much to write home about. But Sen. Kennedy wowed the assembled delegates when he came out and gave a very good, classic Kennedy speech full of vim and vigor. He pledged to the delegates that he would be in the Senate in January when President [McCain] is sworn in. Kennedy would become the star of the night.
Between Kennedy and Michelle Obama, however, the convention was turned over to a parade of dullards. Former Iowa Rep. Jim Leach (R-IA) gave a very long, very boring speech on the great societal debates in American history. Somehow, the Civil War, the New Deal, the nuclear age, and the Reagan revolution have all combined to bring us to Barack Obama. Sen. Claire McCaskill's three very nice looking children came out to introduce their mother. The two girls flanked their brother, who did all the talking. So much for women's lib. McCaskill herself kept talking about the view from Missouri and gave an otherwise uninspired speech. She mentioned, oddly, that Barack Obama has "fought for equal pay for women," forgetting that the women on his own Senate staff are paid less than their male counterparts.
Last to speak was Michelle Obama. After a brief video introduction, and a short spoken one from her brother, Obama came out to thunderous applause and proceeded to begin talking about: herself, her family, her mother, her father, her kids, her job, her leaving her job, her hopes for the future, her policy proposals, her love for the country, her, her, her. Sen. Obama, the nominee, was almost nowhere present in this speech, except for when his wife was making it quite clear that he has a lot to live up to in her dad, or when she was dragging him along for the ride on her litany of beliefs. There were a lot of "I's" and not nearly enough "he's."
Halfway through the speech, one wondered just who is running for president, Michelle or Barack. Her line, "I love this country," received the greatest applause, a fact that should give Democrats pause. If you get a rousing standing ovation simply for declaring your love of country, something must be wrong. When she finished, Sen. Obama finally appeared, by video from Kansas City, although Carl Cameron later noted that at first he said he was in St. Louis.
At the end, the critics were left largely unimpressed. Juan Williams was overcome by the symbolism of it all. A female African-American on stage giving that speech, and the model black family that appeared afterwards drove him almost to tears. Bill Kristol remarked that Michelle Obama did not do a good job of introducing America to her husband. Nina Easton said the speech as too liberal. Fred Barnes, however, said that she was there to sell herself, not her husband, and she certainly accomplished that. Chris Wallace declared the first night "wasted." James Carville and David Gergen agreed. Karl Rove called it "a missed opportunity." He said that Michelle Obama gave a stump speech, and not a particularly good one. He correctly pointed out that viewers are not interested in Michelle Obama's favored policy positions. She isn't on the ticket. She was supposed to humanize her husband in the way only a wife can, and she failed to do that. Rove said that no one learned anything new about Barack Obama from his wife's speech, and that there was no feeling of warmth between the two of them that came through. That was her primary job, and she didn't deliver.
The next two nights of the convention do not promise much more exposure for Obama. Hillary Clinton speaks tomorrow, and Bill Clinton speaks on Wednesday. The Clinton's are not exactly known for their proclivity to share the spotlight. With tonight's performance leaving even Barack Obama himself wondering just where he was, Obama may have to get to Denver early just to get a little face time from his own convention.
"We're two hours into this and so far, nothing of substance, nothing memorable."That came after the tribute to Jimmy Carter and a brief appearance on the podium from the man from Plains. Carter did not speak. Earlier, Nancy Pelosi gaveled the convention to order with a speech that she must have deliberately written to take all the air out of the room. Unbelievably, her delivery was worse than her words, and it was all down hill from there.
The night was supposed to showcase a unified party rallying around the theme "One America." It was also supposed to belong to Michelle Obama, who addressed the convention in the prime speaking slot. But one man who was curiously absent from the festivities, even from his wife's speech, was the man for whom all of this grand production is supposed to have been planned: the actual nominee, Barack Obama.
Soon after Gergen's lament, Caroline Kennedy appeared to introduce a video tribute to Sen. Edward Kennedy. Her speech and the video were not much to write home about. But Sen. Kennedy wowed the assembled delegates when he came out and gave a very good, classic Kennedy speech full of vim and vigor. He pledged to the delegates that he would be in the Senate in January when President [McCain] is sworn in. Kennedy would become the star of the night.
Between Kennedy and Michelle Obama, however, the convention was turned over to a parade of dullards. Former Iowa Rep. Jim Leach (R-IA) gave a very long, very boring speech on the great societal debates in American history. Somehow, the Civil War, the New Deal, the nuclear age, and the Reagan revolution have all combined to bring us to Barack Obama. Sen. Claire McCaskill's three very nice looking children came out to introduce their mother. The two girls flanked their brother, who did all the talking. So much for women's lib. McCaskill herself kept talking about the view from Missouri and gave an otherwise uninspired speech. She mentioned, oddly, that Barack Obama has "fought for equal pay for women," forgetting that the women on his own Senate staff are paid less than their male counterparts.
Last to speak was Michelle Obama. After a brief video introduction, and a short spoken one from her brother, Obama came out to thunderous applause and proceeded to begin talking about: herself, her family, her mother, her father, her kids, her job, her leaving her job, her hopes for the future, her policy proposals, her love for the country, her, her, her. Sen. Obama, the nominee, was almost nowhere present in this speech, except for when his wife was making it quite clear that he has a lot to live up to in her dad, or when she was dragging him along for the ride on her litany of beliefs. There were a lot of "I's" and not nearly enough "he's."
Halfway through the speech, one wondered just who is running for president, Michelle or Barack. Her line, "I love this country," received the greatest applause, a fact that should give Democrats pause. If you get a rousing standing ovation simply for declaring your love of country, something must be wrong. When she finished, Sen. Obama finally appeared, by video from Kansas City, although Carl Cameron later noted that at first he said he was in St. Louis.
At the end, the critics were left largely unimpressed. Juan Williams was overcome by the symbolism of it all. A female African-American on stage giving that speech, and the model black family that appeared afterwards drove him almost to tears. Bill Kristol remarked that Michelle Obama did not do a good job of introducing America to her husband. Nina Easton said the speech as too liberal. Fred Barnes, however, said that she was there to sell herself, not her husband, and she certainly accomplished that. Chris Wallace declared the first night "wasted." James Carville and David Gergen agreed. Karl Rove called it "a missed opportunity." He said that Michelle Obama gave a stump speech, and not a particularly good one. He correctly pointed out that viewers are not interested in Michelle Obama's favored policy positions. She isn't on the ticket. She was supposed to humanize her husband in the way only a wife can, and she failed to do that. Rove said that no one learned anything new about Barack Obama from his wife's speech, and that there was no feeling of warmth between the two of them that came through. That was her primary job, and she didn't deliver.
The next two nights of the convention do not promise much more exposure for Obama. Hillary Clinton speaks tomorrow, and Bill Clinton speaks on Wednesday. The Clinton's are not exactly known for their proclivity to share the spotlight. With tonight's performance leaving even Barack Obama himself wondering just where he was, Obama may have to get to Denver early just to get a little face time from his own convention.
Sunday, August 24, 2008
Obama Playing Defense with Biden
Geography enthusiasts who watched the big Obama-Biden rally in Springfield, Illinois, yesterday were probably a bit curious to hear the town of Scranton, Pennsylvania, mentioned so often in relation to a man from Delaware. Together, Sen. Obama and Sen. Biden mentioned the town five times.
Joe Biden has roots in Scranton. He was born there in 1942. But Joe Biden hasn't lived in Scranton since 1953, 55 years ago. Joe Biden lives in Wilmington, Delaware, and has represented his home state in the Senate for 35 years. He grew up there, went to school there, raised his family there, and has become a fixture there in Wilmington-two and a half hours, 142 miles from Scranton.
So why is the Obama campaign trying to pass off a man from Wilmington, Delaware, as a Scrantonian? The answer may be Hillary Clinton.
Back in the Democratic primaries, Obama had a six-week layoff between the Texas and Ohio primaries and the Pennsylvania contest. He had six weeks to make the case to Pennsylvania Democrats that he was the best candidate for the nomination. Prior to losing Ohio and Texas, Obama had won eleven contests in a row and had Sen. Clinton reeling. But Clinton was able to resurrect her campaign in the working class and Midwestern towns of Ohio and Texas and looked to continue the comeback in Pennsylvania.
In the intervening six weeks, the Rev. Jeremiah Wright story broke which Obama addressed in his now famous speech on race relations. That address was delivered in Philadelphia. A second major gaffe came to light before the primary when Obama was quoted as telling a San Francisco fund-raiser audience that small-town people were "bitter" and "cling to "religion and guns and antipathy to people who aren't like them."
Obama lost Pennsylvania by 10 points on April 22nd. But more revealing was the way he lost. In every rural county in the state, Clinton bested Obama by at least 60-40. He lost whites in every age category, he lost churchgoers of every denomination and frequency of attendance, he lost every age group over 40, and he lost Catholics by as much as 50 points. The trend begun in Ohio and Texas carried through Pennsylvania to West Virginia and Kentucky. Obama was and remains very weak with working class whites.
That weakness is why the Obama campaign literally-to borrow a favorite Bidenism-tried to change the geographic map in its rollout of Joe Biden. The emphasis on Biden's Scranton birth, rather than his Wilmington life, are meant to give Biden the working-class street cred he will need to help Obama hold Pennsylvania. Obama performed very poorly in the Pennsylvania primary among voters that Democrats need to win in November. Joe Biden needs to win them back.
But as with many things in the Obama campaign, the campaign got it all wrong. Biden is the wrong messenger to send to the union halls of Scranton, Akron, Wheeling, and Flint. There is another prominent Democrat who hails from Scranton. One who has the qualities and connections with working-class whites and high school educated blue collar workers. One who has demonstrated an ability to draw those voters in large numbers, even after the ultimate result of the primaries was all but assured. That Democrat is Hillary Clinton. But Obama didn't, couldn't choose her for his running mate. That would have been too big an admission that he has no earthly idea how to connect with the lunch pail crowd. Better to try and redraw the map.
The Obama campaign is worried about Pennsylvania. The state went for Gore in 2000 by four points, and for Kerry in 2004 by 2.5. The Real Clear Politics average shows Obama leading by just under six points. But the last three polls put the race in the state under 5 points with the most recent showing a three point Obama lead. Obama is playing defense in Pennsylvania by picking Biden and trying to play him as a native.
Joe Biden has roots in Scranton. He was born there in 1942. But Joe Biden hasn't lived in Scranton since 1953, 55 years ago. Joe Biden lives in Wilmington, Delaware, and has represented his home state in the Senate for 35 years. He grew up there, went to school there, raised his family there, and has become a fixture there in Wilmington-two and a half hours, 142 miles from Scranton.
So why is the Obama campaign trying to pass off a man from Wilmington, Delaware, as a Scrantonian? The answer may be Hillary Clinton.
Back in the Democratic primaries, Obama had a six-week layoff between the Texas and Ohio primaries and the Pennsylvania contest. He had six weeks to make the case to Pennsylvania Democrats that he was the best candidate for the nomination. Prior to losing Ohio and Texas, Obama had won eleven contests in a row and had Sen. Clinton reeling. But Clinton was able to resurrect her campaign in the working class and Midwestern towns of Ohio and Texas and looked to continue the comeback in Pennsylvania.
In the intervening six weeks, the Rev. Jeremiah Wright story broke which Obama addressed in his now famous speech on race relations. That address was delivered in Philadelphia. A second major gaffe came to light before the primary when Obama was quoted as telling a San Francisco fund-raiser audience that small-town people were "bitter" and "cling to "religion and guns and antipathy to people who aren't like them."
Obama lost Pennsylvania by 10 points on April 22nd. But more revealing was the way he lost. In every rural county in the state, Clinton bested Obama by at least 60-40. He lost whites in every age category, he lost churchgoers of every denomination and frequency of attendance, he lost every age group over 40, and he lost Catholics by as much as 50 points. The trend begun in Ohio and Texas carried through Pennsylvania to West Virginia and Kentucky. Obama was and remains very weak with working class whites.
That weakness is why the Obama campaign literally-to borrow a favorite Bidenism-tried to change the geographic map in its rollout of Joe Biden. The emphasis on Biden's Scranton birth, rather than his Wilmington life, are meant to give Biden the working-class street cred he will need to help Obama hold Pennsylvania. Obama performed very poorly in the Pennsylvania primary among voters that Democrats need to win in November. Joe Biden needs to win them back.
But as with many things in the Obama campaign, the campaign got it all wrong. Biden is the wrong messenger to send to the union halls of Scranton, Akron, Wheeling, and Flint. There is another prominent Democrat who hails from Scranton. One who has the qualities and connections with working-class whites and high school educated blue collar workers. One who has demonstrated an ability to draw those voters in large numbers, even after the ultimate result of the primaries was all but assured. That Democrat is Hillary Clinton. But Obama didn't, couldn't choose her for his running mate. That would have been too big an admission that he has no earthly idea how to connect with the lunch pail crowd. Better to try and redraw the map.
The Obama campaign is worried about Pennsylvania. The state went for Gore in 2000 by four points, and for Kerry in 2004 by 2.5. The Real Clear Politics average shows Obama leading by just under six points. But the last three polls put the race in the state under 5 points with the most recent showing a three point Obama lead. Obama is playing defense in Pennsylvania by picking Biden and trying to play him as a native.
Thursday, August 14, 2008
Obama's Song of Himself
Ever since then Governor Bill Clinton answered the "boxers or briefs" question, presidential campaigns have from time to time become pre-occupied with pop-culture questions designed to demonstrate the candidate's hipness. Generally, they are harmless curiosities, even if they may actually provide some small subset of voters a reason to support or oppose a particular candidate.
But sometimes a candidate's answer to the iPod playlist question or the favorite book question can reinforce a narrative against him. And that is exactly what Barack Obama did when he submitted a list of his ten favorite songs to Blender magazine.
Obama used this to great effect during the primaries, when he chastised Sen. Hillary Clinton and former Sen. John Edwards for their self-serving answers to a debate question.
But now that he is the nominee, Obama has fallen into the same trap. The list of Obama's favorite songs is mostly unremarkable, until you reach the last entry. Here's the list:
Maybe Obama doesn't know 10 songs, and threw in the ode to the Senator from H.O.P.E.™ just to fill out the list. Maybe some staffer got a little carried away filling out the questionnaire. Or maybe the explanation is a bit more telling: namley, that Obama is quite arrogant. That observation was made by Blender's own resident political analyst, Girl Talk.
You go, Girl Talk!
Nothing against Girl Talk. He is probalby a pretty smart guy. But if he can notice that Obama couldn't help but express his enormously overinflated opinion of himself and his comparatively minor accomplishments, average voters can certainly notice as well. And that helps to set the emerging narrative on Obama.
The public does not really have a good handle on who Obama is despite the media coverage of his campaign. Voters will look to any little snippet of information they can find about Obama to try and get a handle on just what makes him tick. This little list, should it get some play, will have an impact. Voters will read that list and begin to wonder just what Obama has done that makes him so full of himself. And that will be a much tougher question for Obama to answer.
But sometimes a candidate's answer to the iPod playlist question or the favorite book question can reinforce a narrative against him. And that is exactly what Barack Obama did when he submitted a list of his ten favorite songs to Blender magazine.
Obama used this to great effect during the primaries, when he chastised Sen. Hillary Clinton and former Sen. John Edwards for their self-serving answers to a debate question.
Obama poked fun at John Edwards and Hillary Clinton for their response to the "what is your weakness" question at the MSNBC debate. Obama said that he answered the question as an "ordinary person."The exchange helped Obama reinforce the narrative that Clinton and Edwards were typical Washington politicians, unable to answer a simple question without trying to gain some political advantage.
"Folks, they don't tell you what they mean!" exclaimed Obama.
"I thought that they meant 'what’s your biggest weakness?!' So I said 'well you know I don’t handle paper that well, you know, my desk is a mess, I need somebody to help me file and stuff all the time.'"
"So the other two they say well my biggest weakness is 'I'm just too passionate about helping poor people.' I am just too impatient to bring about change in America.'"
Obama joked, "If I had gone last I would have known what the game was. I could have said 'well you know I like to help old ladies across the street. Sometimes they don’t want to be helped. It’s terrible.'"
But now that he is the nominee, Obama has fallen into the same trap. The list of Obama's favorite songs is mostly unremarkable, until you reach the last entry. Here's the list:
1. Ready or Not FugeesObama actually listed a song written about himself and his campaign as one of his favorites.
2. What's Going On Marvin Gaye
3. I'm On Fire Bruce Spingsteen
4. Gimme Shelter Rolling Stones
5. Sinnerman Nina Simone
6. Touch the Sky Kanye West
7. You'd Be So Easy to Love Frank Sinatra
8. Think Aretha Franklin
9. City of Blinding Lights U2
10. Yes We Can will.i.am
Maybe Obama doesn't know 10 songs, and threw in the ode to the Senator from H.O.P.E.™ just to fill out the list. Maybe some staffer got a little carried away filling out the questionnaire. Or maybe the explanation is a bit more telling: namley, that Obama is quite arrogant. That observation was made by Blender's own resident political analyst, Girl Talk.
Weirdest pick?
Girl Talk: I couldn’t tell if it was cool or creepy for Obama
to have "Yes We Can." Maybe he’s in love with himself and wants to hear his
speeches over and over as collaged by will.i.am.
You go, Girl Talk!
Nothing against Girl Talk. He is probalby a pretty smart guy. But if he can notice that Obama couldn't help but express his enormously overinflated opinion of himself and his comparatively minor accomplishments, average voters can certainly notice as well. And that helps to set the emerging narrative on Obama.
The public does not really have a good handle on who Obama is despite the media coverage of his campaign. Voters will look to any little snippet of information they can find about Obama to try and get a handle on just what makes him tick. This little list, should it get some play, will have an impact. Voters will read that list and begin to wonder just what Obama has done that makes him so full of himself. And that will be a much tougher question for Obama to answer.
Tuesday, August 5, 2008
Barack Obama's Three and a Half Day Cure
The media coverage of yesterday's energy speech by Sen. Barack Obama has focused mainly on Obama's flip-flop on opening up the Strategic Petroleum Reserve. But that is really a dog-bites-man story. Hardly a day goes by anymore that Obama does not abandon one or another of his "consistently" held positions. Looking a little closer at the proposal, anathema to the press, reveals that Obama's plan to release 70 million barrels from the reserve is as insulting as it is cynical.
During the primaries, Sen. Clinton and Sen. McCain joined forces to call for a suspension of the 18.4 cent federal gasoline tax for the summer. Obama, the big populist, derided that proposal.
“We're arguing over a gimmick that would save you half a tank of gas over the course of the entire summer so that everyone in Washington can pat themselves on the back and say they did something.” [...]
“Well, let me tell you, this isn't an idea designed to get you through the summer, it's designed to get them through an election.”
Now, however, with his own election prospects dimming, Obama has made a proposal every bit as shallow and meaningless as he claimed the gas tax holiday was.
Let's run the numbers.
According to the Energy Information Agency, the United States uses about 20 million barrels of oil a day. Obama called for 70 million barrels of oil to be released from the SPR to help lower prices. Furthermore, he dressed up his proposal by specifically calling for light crude to be released, on the theory that it could be more easily refined into gasoline and thus have the greatest impact on prices. 70 million divided by 20 million is 3.5. So, Obama's answer to high gasoline prices is to release three and a half days worth of oil from the nation's emergency reserves.
But looking deeper, it gets worse. The helpful people at the EIA say that one barrel of oil makes about 20 gallons of gasoline. 70 million times 20 gallons equals 1.4 billion gallons of gasoline that would be added to the market by Sen. Obama's proposal. The Federal Highway Administration says that there were 199 million licensed drivers in the United States in 2004. That number went up by about 4 million drivers a year in the 1990s and 2000s, so we can safely assume that the actual number this year is at least 210 million. 1.4 billion divided by 210 million is 6.67. That is how much gasoline per driver that Sen. Obama would create by releasing 70 million barrels of oil from the SPR.
The average gas tank holds about 16 gallons of gas. Therefore Sen. Obama's proposal would provide each licensed driver with about 40% of a tank of gas. If Sen. McCain's gas tax holiday was worthless because it would only save consumers about "half a tank of gas over the course of the entire summer," how much worse is Obama's plan to give drivers less than half a tank once, and for only three and a half days? Moreover, the average price of a gallon of gasoline, according to the EIA, is about $3.90. That means that Obama's plan would save the average driver about $26. That is less than the $30 that Obama said the gas-tax holiday would save the average driver.
Sen. Obama would have been better off not flipping on the issue of releasing oil from the Strategic Petroleum Reserve. The numbers don't lie. By his own standards, Sen. Obama's proposal is less than insignificant, worse than cynical, and dishonest in the extreme. Obama told the American people that releasing oil from the reserve would have an impact on gas prices in about two weeks. But that claim counts upon the ignorance of the audience. Like most liberal giveaways, Obama's largess is calculated to be just enough to make him look good, but not nearly enough to solve the problem.
Friday, August 1, 2008
David Axelrod Admits it's All About Race [UPDATED]
Barack Obama's chief campaign strategist David Axelrod went on Good Morning America this morning to address McCain campaign manager Rick Davis' asertion that Obama is playing the race card. Interviewer Chris Cuomo played Obama's comments from yesterday in reaction to McCain's brilliant "Celeb" ad in which Obama's readiness to lead the country is brought into question. Obama said, "What they're [Bush and McCain] going to do is try to scare you about me. He's not patriotic enough. He's got a funny name. You know, he doesn't look like all those other presidents on the dollar bills." Cuomo asked Axelrod what Obama meant by that.
But Axelrod's answer (1:35) contained a little more truth than he may have liked to admit. Axelrod was trying to explain that Obama was not saying McCain would use his race against him. Instead, he admitted that Obama himself has been using his race as a justification for his candidacy all along.
UPDATE 16:30: The Obama campaign now admits Obama was talking about race when he accused McCain and Republicans of trying to scare voters.
But Axelrod's answer (1:35) contained a little more truth than he may have liked to admit. Axelrod was trying to explain that Obama was not saying McCain would use his race against him. Instead, he admitted that Obama himself has been using his race as a justification for his candidacy all along.
CUOMO: "What does that mean if it's not a suggesiton that his race is going to be used against him?"Those are the three justifications for Obama's candidacy, according to its chief architect, David Axelrod. Obama should be elected president because he's young, he's inexperienced, and, "yes he's African-American." Just don't call Obama on it. That would be using his race against him.
AXELROD: "Well...look he's said...and by the way he's said this repeatedly as you've mentioned all across the country, he's not from central casting when it comes to candidates for President of the United States...he's young, he's new to Washington, yes he's African-American, and...uh so this is nothing new."
UPDATE 16:30: The Obama campaign now admits Obama was talking about race when he accused McCain and Republicans of trying to scare voters.
Obama's camp initially denied the remark was a reference to Obama's race. [...]
"He was referring to the fact that he didn't come into the race with the history of others," Obama spokesman Robert Gibbs said Thursday. "It is not about race."
But Obama's chief strategist, David Axelrod, acknowledged on "Good Morning America" Friday that the candidate was referring, at least in part, to his ethnic background. When pressed to explain the comment, Axelrod told "GMA" it meant, "He's not from central casting when it comes to candidates for president of the United States. He's new to Washington. Yes, he's African-American."That seemingly obvious reference sparked the first real fireworks between the two camps as backers of both candidates accused the other of trying to subtly inject race into the presidential contest.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
