« February 2008 | Main | April 2008 »
March 29, 2008
The Wages Of Identity Politics
Victor Davis Hanson offers a devastating analysis of the cumulative effects of the long-term practice of identity politics by liberals, effects which have been catalyzed by the Reverend Jeremiah Wright's recent remarks. (I guess I should amend that to the recent exposure of his remarks: Wright has been dealing his well-developed "theories" for years now.)
Watching the parade of apologists for Rev. Wright’s hatred—“garlic noses”; “KKK of A;” “God Damn America;” “Condamnesia;” the U.S. deserved 9/11; America is no different from al-Qaeda; we caused the AIDs virus; Israel is a “dirty word” and sought an Arab and black ethnic bomb, etc—is, well, depressing. [...][T]he net message from the African-American liberal establishment, at least I fear, seems to be something like the following: ‘Wright is not going to offer an apology and we aren’t embarrassed about his ranting, which is not ranting at all, but rather historical and biblical exegesis which we endorse. And the problem is yours, not ours, since we expect exemption—given the history of race in this country—from your so-called norms of public discourse.’ [...]
I think VDH is quite correct in noting the reaction of the black churches; and as I have pointed out, there's also a not insignificant portion of the left that agrees with Wright's politics. After all, a group who is long-accustomed to making excuses for ideologies like Marxism will have no trouble with rationalizing Wright. But VDH believes there is a historical precedent that predicts how the voters will react to Obama's inability to put Americans' minds at ease over Wright's hate speech. He concludes by saying:
Barack Obama is on his way to a McGovern candidacy.
It is widely observed that Obama's voting record in the Senate makes him the most left-leaning presidential candidate since George McGovern. And of course, McGovern also ran against a centrist, even liberal, Republican who wasn't warmly endorsed by conservatives.
Will history repeat?
March 26, 2008
The Audacity Of Hiding One's Past
The reliably brilliant Thomas Sowell writes on Barack Obama's past:
Barack Obama's own account of his life shows that he consciously sought out people on the far left fringe. In college, "I chose my friends carefully," he said in his first book, "Dreams From My Father."These friends included "Marxist professors and structural feminists and punk rock performance poets" -- in Obama's own words -- as well as the "more politically active black students." He later visited a former member of the terrorist Weatherman underground, who endorsed him when he ran for state senator.
Obama didn't just happen to encounter Jeremiah Wright, who just happened to say some way out things. Jeremiah Wright is in the same mold as the kinds of people Barack Obama began seeking out in college -- members of the left, anti-American counter-culture. [...]
Nor has Obama changed in recent years. His voting record in the U.S. Senate is the furthest left of any Senator. There is a remarkable consistency in what Barack Obama has done over the years, despite inconsistencies in what he says.
As Sowell goes on to note, it is highly ironical that Obama is now projecting an image of a post-racial healer and uniter, and worrisome that Obama's polished skill has obscured his past so completely. Just the ticket for those who vote from their gut, and heart.
Posted at 09:06 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)March 19, 2008
Wise Words
I mountain biking friend of mine asked:
I wonder if it would be OK that after attending KKK meetings for the last 20 years all one would have to do is condemn what was said at those meetings and everything would be fine?
That is a very good question. And the answer is: of course not. Whatever were you thinking?
Posted at 12:35 PM | Permalink | Comments (5) | TrackBack (0)March 14, 2008
The Reverend Wright: Some, No Doubt, Think He's Right
Barack Obama's pastor, Jeremiah Wright, has been the focus of quite a bit of outrage since his "God damn America" tirade hit the blogosphere. Yesterday, John Derbyshire at The Corner wondered what all the fuss was about--he contends that Wright's views are not "unorthodox", at least by the standards found in a lot of black churches.
Here is a 2005 poll showing that:Almost half of all African-Americans believe that HIV, the virus that causes Aids, is man-made, more than a quarter believe it was produced in a government laboratory and one in eight think it was created and spread by the CIA, according to a study released by Rand Corporation and the University of Oregon.I have no doubt that non-black Americans would be willing to vote for a black American as president. Not many of us, however, would be willing to vote for a candidate who thought of himself as black first and American second. That such people exist is proved by the success of Jeremiah Wright — and by the applause of his congregation.Is Barack Obama such a person? If he is not, why has he been such a loyal member of that congregation, making five-figure donations to Wright's church at least as late as 2006? Calling on Wright to bless his marriage and his house, and baptize his children? Using a passage from one of Wright's sermons as the title of his second book?
I've been thinking along the same lines, though not specifically about the community of black churches: there is a large segment of the liberal/Left who no doubt believes that the reverend is correct, too. I can easily imagine the following conversation:
Incredulous conservative laughs to leftie: “Did you hear Obama’s pastor thinks that America invented the AIDS virus, and the we’re the number one killer in the world? What a maroon.”Posted at 04:31 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)Unsmiling leftie stares back: “Well, I don’t doubt it in the least.”
March 13, 2008
Spitzer's Wife: Standing By Your Man?
One thing I've taken away from the Spitzer debacle is a realization that I'm utterly disgusted with politicians of either party who, when busted for some scandal, trot out their wives to stand next to them during their mea culpa press conference. It's insulting and demeaning for these women (whatever faults they may have of their own) to be required to attempt to preserve the charade. Never mind that everyone except the sweating pol at the mike knows that his career is a pile of smoking ash.
A reader of The Corner got it just right:
What I would like to see, however, is a politician show up without his wife and say: (1) she wanted to stand here with me; (2) I am grateful for her support; but (3) I told her "no" - I'm the one who failed and I'm the one who should bear the public scorn.
In truth, this reader was not ready to condemn the wife for appearing next to her husband, which I'll grant--but she is quite correct in placing the responsibility on the initiator of the scandal.
March 05, 2008
The Allure Of Subversion
Regarding my urge to channel my inner Abbie Hoffman and vote for HRC in the Democratic primary, Kathryn Jean Lopez has this:
K-Lo, writing here from Austin, Texas.Not sure why the networks haven’t picked up on this, but there is definitely a sizable portion of the vote in Texas tonight comprised of Republican voters looking to “game” the Democratic primary. I spoke with numerous friends today, who claim to be Republican, who said they voted for Sen Clinton with the thought that it will prolong the Dem in-fighting and therefore benefit Republicans. I won’t debate the merits of their argument here, but the phenomenon (Republicans voting for Sen Clinton to gain the system) is real and I think material to the results. I’m surprised I haven’t seen anyone reporting it and just how large the impact might be. I’m sure it is contributing to the number of voters deciding in the final three days to support Sen. Clinton. Would be curious to hear your contributors comment on this dynamic. The VRWC conspires to save the Clinton campaign?
As Sgt. Schultz says, "I know nothink!"
UPDATE:
Here's another letter to the Corner, from a fellow Houstonian:
K-LoGreetings from the great state of Texas. I am a conservative in Houston who voted for Hillary in the Texas democratic primary. I did not conspire with any fellow conservatives nor did I know that Rush was suggesting Republicans vote for Hillary.
My goal is to have Hillary win the democratic nomination because I believe McCain has a better chance of beating her vs. Obama. Not that I am very happy that McCain won the Republican nomination.
Why Hillary? Her negatives are much higher than Obama. If she beats Obama it will hurt her with the black vote. She will not get the "guilty white" vote like Obama. Hardcore Liberals are solid for Obama but might stay home if Hillary wins.
I didn't write this, but I could have. I can't see anything there I disagree with.
Posted at 09:33 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)All Together Now: "Yes, We're All Individuals"
Mark Hemingway over at The Corner conveys his fatigue in hearing yet another of Obama's "Yes, we can!" call and response speeches:
Everytime I hear his audience say "Yes, we can" it reminds me of that bit in the Monty Python's Life of Brian where Brian, having been mistaken for the messiah, tries to discourage the crowd following him around from hanging on his every word. Exasperated, he admonishes his would be followers, telling them "You're all individuals!" In unison, they respond, "Yes, we're all individuals!"
I don't think individualism is at the forefront of the "Progressive" agenda.
Posted at 12:19 AM | Permalink | Comments (1) | TrackBack (0)March 03, 2008
I Wonder...
if I should go vote for Hillary in the Texas primary.
<snicker>
Posted at 10:36 PM | Permalink | Comments (4) | TrackBack (0)