Category Archives: The Nation

Scarred fighter vs. Something new

Obama_2008_wartback

Can’t seem to get off the theme of my Sunday column. The WashPost has a story today leading with the very same dichotomy between the two Democratic presidential candidates:

    Democratic presidential hopeful Barack Obama offered himself as "something new" at a pair of spirited, arena-size rallies in Maryland yesterday, while his primary rival, Hillary Clinton, portrayed herself as a "battle-scarred" fighter for the middle class at more intimate events held across the region on the eve of today’s primaries.

Maybe it’s new to the folks in the "Potomac Primary" region. It certainly sums them up — the scarred fighter of the bitter partisan wars vs. someone who would lead us beyond all that. As the WashPost notes in another story today, this is indeed an opportunity for voters to "influence one of the closest presidential nominating fights in memory."

And yet, while the contest may be close, the candidates couldn’t be farther apart on this central difference between them — a new beginning on one hand, more of the same on the other.

Clinton_2008_wartback

The real split in American politics

By BRAD WARTHEN
Editorial Page Editor
LATE ON SUPER Tuesday, I was typing on my blog in one room while Hillary Clinton was addressing her supporters on the TV in another.
    I couldn’t hear every word, but the ones that did cut through were telling:

    Now, we know the Republicans won’t give up the White House without a fight. Well, let me be clear — I won’t let anyone swift boat this country’s future.

    “Republicans.” “Fight.” “Swift boat.” Terms calculated to stir the blood of the Angry Faithful. Then, later: “Together, we’re going to take back America.”
    There was kinder, gentler stuff (if I’m allowed to borrow language from that other side) in the speech, about health care for all and supporting our veterans and helping the powerless. But Barack Obama talks about that stuff, too. Since these primaries are about choosing one or the other, one listens for the differences.
    Between Sen. Clinton and Sen. Obama, the difference lies in those fighting words. It’s a difference set out with great clarity in a recent letter to the editor in this newspaper:

    …(W)hile Sen. Barack Obama is an incredible orator and inspires hope for a post-partisan future, the reality of American politics is partisan. Astute voters realize this and want the candidate who is best suited to fight the Republican Party. Hillary Clinton and her team have gone toe-to-toe with the Republicans and beaten them more often than not.

    The reality of American politics is partisan. And Barack Obama is running on a platform of changing that reality. So, in his own way, is John McCain.
    The Democrats to whom Sen. Clinton appeals don’t despise Sen. Obama (they save that for Republicans), but they don’t see him as having his blood sufficiently up for doing battle with the “enemy.” And they’re right.
    Consider what Sen. Obama said in South Carolina on the night of his primary victory:

    We are up against decades of bitter partisanship that cause politicians to demonize their opponents… it’s the kind of partisanship where you’re not even allowed to say that a Republican had an idea — even if it’s one you never agreed with. That’s the kind of politics that is bad for our party, it’s bad for our country, and this is our chance to end it once and for all.

    In the Republican camp, Sen. McCain has done more than just talk about moving beyond mindless partisanship; he’s risked his political future repeatedly to work with Democrats to achieve goals that put country before party. Last week, he asked the Angry Faithful in his party to “calm down,” and defended his habit of working across the aisle. Self-appointed spokesman for the Angry Faithful Rush Limbaugh responded:

    When did the measure of conservatism… become reaching out to Democrats?… If this were a war, what we’re saying is, “Enemy, come on in, and come be who you are when you get here.”… We view those people as threats to the American way of life, as we’ve always known it…. We view them as people who need to be defeated, not worked with.

    The truly great irony here is that the Angries on the left and the right do work together. In their pas de deux of mutual loathing, they cling to each other so tightly that there’s no room for anyone who’d like to separate them and create a space for rational discourse, or — the gods of left and right forbid — agreement on issues.
    Here’s an example of how the left’s Angries work with their counterparts on the right: The left emotionally demands stem cell research, as Sen. Clinton did in her speech Tuesday. The right cries, No, Never! Ignored are such facts as a) stem cell research is going on, just without federal funding in some areas; b) recent breakthroughs could make embryonic stem cells, the kind being fought over, irrelevant; and c) the man Sen. Clinton seeks to face in the fall, John McCain, favors broadened stem cell research.
    Another example: Last week, the leftists of the Berkeley, Calif., city council dissed the U.S. Marines. Eager warriors on the right (such as our own Rep. Joe Wilson and Sen. Jim DeMint) practically fell over themselves rushing to denounce the Berkeley council. The Marines are a great bogeyman for the loonies in Berkeley; Berkeley is a rare, juicy steak to the right. Call me paranoid, but sometimes I suspect the two sides of working out these stunts between them ahead of time. Everybody comes out on top, except the Marines — and somehow I think the guys who took Iwo Jima will overcome this as well.
    There is indeed a stark divide in this country, but it’s not between the Angry Left and the Angry Right. They just prop each other up. Collectively, they are both the Other Side to me, striving to distract us from realizing the central truth that we’re all in this together.
    On the one hand are the Clinton Democrats and the Republicans who sincerely would rather see Sen. Clinton elected than Sen. McCain. They depend upon each other. They deserve each other.
    The rest of us believe we deserve, for once, a presidential election between candidates who care more about solutions than whether left or right “wins.”
    This is not about affirming some “mushy middle.” You can hardly find two positions farther apart that the McCain and Obama views on Iraq. They have very different ideas on how to fight America’s enemies abroad. But at least neither of them sees the main “enemy” as being their fellow Americans who happen to disagree.

Club for Growth to McCain: Do our bidding

Finally, I have a moment to blog, and so I will now share with you the WSJ opinion piece that three people have pointed out to me today.

The Club for Growth, shocked that neither of the two remaining Republican candidates is the sort who will do their bidding, completely misses the point that, contrary to its own mythology, it is badly out of step with the Republican electorate. That means its last refuge is gone, just as it was prepared to take over the world. Nasty things, reversals.

Therefor the Club’s advice to the man who is getting nominated without it is that he simply must do its bidding in the matter of choosing a running mate. To wit, as set out by Club President Pat Toomey:

    While congratulations are still premature, with Mitt
Romney dropping out of the race yesterday it is now very likely that
the Republican Party will nominate Sen. John McCain for president. If
that happens, the GOP will, for the first time since 1976, select a
candidate at odds with a large portion of its conservative members to
be the standard bearer. At the same time, the party is more estranged
from independent swing voters than it has been for decades.
    This will pose a twin challenge for Mr. McCain. To
meet it, he will have to become the champion of the brand of economic
conservatism that has won national elections for Republicans since 1980…

To which I say, how come? He got past the hurdle that theoretically requires your favor without you. Your views don’t amount to diddly among the independents he has to win now. Sure, the really emotional types who are ticked over the existence of Mexican In Our Midst might stay home and give it to Hillary out of pique. But those fellas have nothing to lose. You are men of business. You may be crazy (politically speaking), but you’re not stupid. Are you?

Anyway, here’s where it really gets wild. Here is also where we find out why the economic libertarian extremists from Wall Street and other foreign parts have devoted so much of their ready cash to South Carolina politics. Obviously, this is the basket that holds 40 percent of their eggs. They have five veep suggestions to make, and two of them are South Carolinians: Mark Sanford and Jim DeMint.

Really. John McCain just wrapped up the nomination his way, with the support of such truly conservative South Carolinians as Bobby Harrell and Henry McMaster, and the Club says he should pick either the state’s most prominent advocate of Mitt Romney, who just proved his lack of appeal; or the guy who is such a nonteam-player, such an anti-team player, that he couldn’t be bothered to back anybody for president. A guy who is so obviously for nobody can expect nobody to be grateful enough to him to ask him to come along for the ride. Why would a candidate think he’d be helped by a guy who couldn’t be bothered to pick up an oar when it counted? Principled disagreement, a la DeMint, a ticket-balancing nominee might go for. But a guy who’s for no one but himself? Fuggedaboudit.

But why go for either of them when there’s an actually attractive candidate out there with vote-getting ability? Enter Mike Huckabee. But that doesn’t suit Mr. Toomey:

    Moving forward, Mr. Huckabee on the ticket would be a disaster. The former governor has a record of raising taxes and increasing spending. Picking him would only make it more likely that conservatives will sit on their hands come November.

What could these fellas have against ol’ Huck? Could it be that he goes all over the country calling them the "Club for Greed"? Could it be that folks who don’t vote for McCain keep voting for the guy who calls them the — let’s say it again — "Club for Greed" (there’s video on this link)?, who says theirs is "a sleazy way to do politics"?

"Fortunately," breathes Mr. Toomey with relief, "there is no shortage of true-blue fiscal conservatives in the GOP" — meaning "guys like us," for the Club is one of those outfits out there that defines "conservative" as "guys who are true-blue to us."

But obviously, "conservatives" by this definition are indeed quite scarce. Out of 49 states, they can only come up with three. The other two they dig up from a state in which McCain and Huckabee won 63 percent of the Republican vote, and the only guy that either of the two guys they dug up supported got 15 percent.

Oh, heck yeah — that’s a BIG help. Thanks but no thanks, Club for Gree-, I mean "Growth."

The Front Page(s)

Doug Ross calls my attention to this cool feature at the Newseum, which is a thing started by Al Neuharth of that other big newspaper company, but it’s pretty cool nonetheless. As Doug describes it:

You might think this is cool…  see the front pages from newspapers across the country just by clicking on dots on a U.S. map… The State is included…

Actually, you see large thumbnails of the pages just by scrolling over those points on the map. You get a larger, more legible version by clicking. Here’s the site again.

By the way — and here I’m going to veer into a plug for my own paper — if you’d like to read your entire newspaper in that format (sort of a cross between the actual paper and the Web version), The State actually sells subscriptions for just that. And you can do a free 7-day tryout. Here’s how:

  • log
    onto www.thestate.com
  • click
    on "NEW! Digital E-State" in upper left hand corner beneath green
    bar.
  • select
    appropriate link in yellow box (one day free pass, subscribe or
    already registered for current online subscribers or registered 7-day
    print subscribers).
  • follow
    directions on subsequent screens to complete process.

And no, I didn’t get paid extra for that. The Newseum thing just made me think about it, and in case y’all were interested, I e-mailed our Circulation department to get the info.

Republicans for Hillary

As you know, I keep struggling with the terminology used to describe those Republicans who keep wanting to strike out at and pull down the man who quite obviously is going to be their party’s nominee, whatever they say or do.

"Conservative" is wholly inadequate for various reasons previously cited, and I’ll add another one here: No "conservative" would do something so reckless and destructive to his own cause. If a "conservative" would do that, the word means nothing at all. Actual conservatives are putting out releases such as this one, which I received this morning (the headline, in case you’re too lazy to click on the link, is "Reaganauts for McCain").

So let’s try this one on: "Republicans for Hillary." This fits in various ways:

  • Only those who want a Democrat to win the election would keep driving a wedge into their own party.
  • Only those who want a Democrat to win the election would do anything to try to delay or prevent the nomination of the only candidate with the independent appeal that is absolutely necessary for them to either Democratic nominee.
  • While Barack Obama could compete with John McCain among those same independents (and folks, we swing voters are the ones who decide elections), Sen. Clinton is far less likely to be able to do so. She alienates such voters. Therefor, if she is the nominee, she would love it if these alleged "conservatives" managed to pull off a miracle for Mitt Romney. But since that isn’t going to happen now, she depends on them to weaken McCain as much as they can — something they seem eager to do.
  • These folks are the natural GOP counterparts to the kind of Democrats who support Sen. Clinton — those who relish polarization and pointless partisan bickering, and put them above all things, certainly above the good of the nation.

Of course, if I get my way on the Democratic side, Sen. Clinton won’t be the nominee. But I don’t think "Republicans for Obama" fits these people; I don’t think they’d be as comfortable backing someone so post-partisan as he. It’s McCain’s very cross-party appeal that they hate about him; it seems unlikely they’d like it any better in Obama.

So "Republicans for Hillary" it is.

Let California do what it will; I’m turning in

Why can’t Californians just get up in the morning like the rest of us and get done that which needs doing?

I’ve had it with waiting for those people. There’s no trend yet I can have confidence in. I had expected Obama and Romney to win there, but now Clinton and McCain are leading — a mixed result, to my way of thinking, either way.

But blast it, that’s just with 19 percent of the vote in. That’s it. Let Jack Bauer stay up all night; I won’t.

No, wait — looks like Hillary won there. No, no, no, I can’t do this; I’m going to bed…

Hillary makes sure we remember what she’s about

While I was typing that last post I was able to sort of half-listen to a Hillary Clinton speech (top of the news hour, you know; don’t want to miss that prime opportunity), and while I couldn’t hear a lot of it, I got the essential message.

There was one sentence in which she got in the verb "fight" and the subject "Republicans," and later she said the usual thing about how she aimed to "take back America," and that’s all she need to say to connect with the sort of Democrats who vote for her rather than Barack Obama. The sort who believe the greatest enemy of all is other Americans with whom they happen to disagree.

For her, the main point in being president seems to be to GET the Republicans, and continue the pointless, nasty bickering that have torn us apart through the Bush-Clinton-Bush years.

A vote for Obama is a vote against all that, which is, as I may have mentioned, why I’m looking forward to a big win for him — to the extent that anyone can have a "big win" tonight. Too bad about the way the Democrats are distributing delegates. No matter who wins in the end, we’ll have to listen to at least a few more speeches of the sort I just half-heard.

I appreciate her mentioning the tornado victims in Tennessee and Arkansas, I will say. It prompted my wife to call kinfolk in Memphis, and things are apparently a mess there and in my old stomping grounds around Jackson. Folks in that part of the country get WAY more than their share of tornados.

Another overused (and ill-defined) word: ‘Conservative’

Having switched to PBS, where apparently they have a larger vocabulary, I’m not hearing "presumptive" so much, so that’s good.

What I am hearing to an absurd degree is the term "conservative," and always used either with no defining context, or with a contradictory context.

For instance — one of the talking heads was going on about how McCain had not yet been declared the winner of his home state some 90 minutes after polls closed (the irony was that McCain was declared the winner while this guy was talking), and saying that exit polls indicated it was because of self-described "conservative" voters.

And what do they mean by "conservative?" Well, apparently no one thought to ask them — which I would certainly do before turning around and reporting that they were conservative, because the word seems to be so malleable and subjective these days.

Anyway, we were told that Mitt Romney was leading among people who wanted to deport all the illegal aliens. Of course, those people are not conservatives — conservatives are sensible folk who don’t entertain fantasies — so that was apparently an unrelated phenomenon.

Then they spoke of voters who were opposed to abortion. OK, I thought, now we’re getting somewhere…. except that these voters were going, NOT for the senator who’s been strongly pro-life his entire public life, but for the ex-governor of Taxachusetts whose position on abortion depends upon what office he’s running for at a given moment. What on Earth is with these people?

Basically, I think newsfolk — so many of them being self-reported "liberals," whatever they mean by that — tend to be very gullible and just take people at their word when they say they’re "conservatives," sort of the way they tend to lump people into the realm of the unintelligible if they happen to be evangelicals (hence their constant surprise whenever Mike Huckabee gets a few votes).

Somebody give these TV people a thesaurus

Here it is early on the night of Super-Duper-Pooper Tuesday, and I’ve already heard the word "presumptive" too many times. Can’t these networks afford a thesaurus?

Sure, I like what the word means — when applied to McCain — but enough is enough.

How about, instead of "John McCain, presumptive…" they were to say, "John McCain, by the grace of God…"

True, the connotation does change. The denotation too, I suppose. But it has a ring to it.

Meanwhile, over in the FREE media department…

Mccain_freemedia

    "I get by with a little help from my friends…"

Up against Mitt Romney and all his media buys, you have John McCain getting the kind of coverage no amount of money can buy. A bunch of busybody meddlers known as the "Project for Excellence in Journalism" (don’t organizations with cheesy names like that make you suspicious? they do me) announces today that it has determined the following:

    With Florida winner John McCain getting about 75% more coverage than Mitt Romney, and with Mike Huckabee almost invisible, the press appeared conspicuously close to turning McCain into the presumptive nominee last week. In that Jan. 28-Feb. 3 period, which ran from the day before the Florida primary to two days before Super Tuesday, McCain generated more coverage than any candidate. And that coverage suggested a media “tiering” of the race, with McCain a heavy favorite over several also-rans. McCain had not necessarily put Mitt Romney away, but the press nearly had.

You can also see here that some rats in the MSM are actually treating this little bit of non-profit grandstanding as news. Ha!

But you know, when you’re caught red-handed, you just gotta own up and say we done wrong. I mean, what were we thinking, making a big deal over the one candidate in either party who may be on the verge of cinching his nomination? Under what stretch of the imagination would that be news? Some people; I tell ya.

You can still buy victory (maybe)

Romney_raise

    Oh, yeah? Well, I’ll see that, and raise you another $7 million…

Those of you who despise John McCain over McCain-Feingold (and sorry, but I don’t think I’m ever going to buy the George Will theorem that Spending=Speech) should be resting easy today. Even though, all across the country, Republicans are accepting and even embracing the Arizonan as their presumptive nominee, Mitt Romney just might prove today that you can still buy your way to victory — even in the biggest market, or bunch of markets, in the country — if you’ve got enough do-re-mi on hand.

Here’s the latest from Zogby, showing McCain winning pretty much everywhere that matters other than California, where Mitt Romney was said to be spending oodles of his own cash.

There is, of course, an alternative explanation I’ve read as to why Romney is leading 40-33 in California is that California Republicans are particularly partisan and ideological. Maybe so. That would explain Reagan, although not Nixon. But why would just the Republicans be that way out on the Left Coast? If it’s in the water, why wouldn’t that rigidity manifest itself among Democrats as well? If it did, Hillary Clinton would be leading there. But she’s not.

Taking Mr. Retske’s ‘Conservatism’ test

Yesterday, one of the first comments on my "Give me that old-time conservatism" column post was from Gene Retske, who proposed the following:

Brad, c’mon, do you really believe that you are a conservative? Do you think that Roe v Wade was improperly decided? Do you think Ronald Reagan was the greatest president of the 20th Century? Do you think America is the model for the world, and is obligated to spread democracy? Do you think America is a country founded on Judeo-Christian principles? Would you leave your wife for Ann Coulter?

If you can’t answer "yes" to all these questions, you may not be a true conservative.

John McCain believes in Duty, Honor and Country, for sure. That these basic criteria are touted as presidential qualities shows how far down we have come. There are over 12 million current and former military who also have these qualities, and are thus more qualified than Hillary or Obama to be president.

Sorry, Brad, you can’t redefine conservatism to your standards, nor can John McCain.

Hey, I’m good at tests! So here we go:

  1. Brad, c’mon, do you really believe that you are a conservative? No. I utterly reject both the "conservative" and "liberal" labels, because the popular, current definitions of those terms describe world views that each contain much that is repugnant to me. One of the main reasons I do this site is to have at least one place in the blogosphere that provides an alternative to the perpetual extreme-left vs. extreme-right argument that tends to predominate in this medium. Traditionally, however, there is much (or perhaps I should say, was much) in both conservatism and liberalism that I see as being of value. The last part of my column Sunday was an evocation of what I see as good in conservatism. As for liberalism — well, there used to be much good in that, too, but it really started to degenerate starting about 1968.
  2. Do you think that Roe v Wade was improperly decided? Yes, absolutely. In fact, you don’t state it nearly strongly enough. It was disastrous, on many levels. First, there is the obvious — more abortions. But then it’s not the job of the Court to decide cases in terms of outcomes (a point on which the admirers of Roe would disagree). Therefore in answer to whether it was "improperly decided" I’ll say this: The ruling was based on a bogus proposition — that the Constitution guarantees a "right to privacy." It does no such thing. (I’ve always been struck by the way the presumption was said to arise from a "penumbra" — suggestive to me of the Shadow of Death.) Finally, I’ll say — and once again, this is irrelevant to whether it was properly decided, but I think it speaks to where you intended to go with this — that this disaster of a ruling is probably more to blame than any other one cause for the nasty polarization of our politics. This country would be a better place in many ways without Roe.
  3. Do you think Ronald Reagan was the greatest president of the 20th Century? Absolutely not. While I don’t dislike him today as much as I did at the time, I think he did much to ruin the sort of conservatism that I have always valued — in particular, he helped instill the imprudent notion that we can have all the blessings of good government (and folks, there’s no such thing as private property — to cite one such "blessing" — without a sound system affirming, protecting and supporting it) without paying for it. The grossly immature Gimme-Gimme wing exemplified by the likes of Grover Norquist is a product of the Reagan era. As for defeating communism — I give him credit for doing his part, as had every president of either party since Truman — and he had the honor to have the watch when it all came tumbling down. If he provided the final push needed to reach the tipping point — which seems to be the consensus, although I have no idea how to measure such things — hurrah for him. He certainly demonstrated resolve — such as the resolve to spend the Soviets under the table. To the extent that’s what did it, hoorah again. But was that "conservative?" Oh, and if you want to talk about "amnesty" for illegals (which I don’t, but a lot of folks who call themselves "conservatives" do) — Reagan went for it; McCain does not. (Let me point out that Sen. McCain, unlike Ronald Reagan and Mitt Romney, has been opposed to abortion his entire career.)
  4. Do you think America is the model for the world, and is obligated to spread democracy? Yep, in many ways (although obviously we’re a poor model on health care). That’s why I’m an unreconstructed interventionist — but then, so were liberals before 1968. In fact, as I’ve often said, the invasion of Iraq was the most liberal thing that George W. Bush ever did — which is probably why he botched the aftermath. Like most conservatives, he doesn’t believe in nation-building. Like liberals of the endangered JFK stripe, I do. I’m assuming you meant to go in that direction. Or perhaps you’re speaking of the "city on a hill" notion of American exceptionalism? I’m for that, too. But again, there’s nothing conservative about that. To the extent that we are a beacon for the world, it’s based on liberal principles — in the sense of advancing liberal democracy. But then, I’m using terminology that has little to do with the post-Reagan definitions of "liberal" and "conservative" in our domestic politics (although, I’m happy to say, the term is still current in an international context).
  5. Do you think America is a country founded on Judeo-Christian principles? I believe it was founded by people whose culture was informed by Judeo-Christian principles, such "freethinkers" as Thomas Paine aside. If it helps you any, I’m much more an admirer of John Adams (he who wrote, "Our Constitution was made only for a religious and moral people. It is wholly inadequate for the government of any other.") than Thomas Jefferson, although Jefferson probably had a greater impact on the development of the country’s self-concept, which is a shame.
  6. Would you leave your wife for Ann Coulter? Certainly not! Nor would I leave her for French Socialist leader Ségolène Royal, who is a LOT more attractive. I would cross a continent to avoid either Ann Coulter or Paul Krugman, either Rush Limbaugh or Frank Rich, or any of those who delight in tearing this country apart. My support for both John McCain and Barack Obama is based in the same principles that cause me to utterly reject the Coulters and Krugmans of the world.

I’ll have to leave it to Mr. Retske to score this. Since it was an essay test (my favorite kind, much better than multiple guess), and since he’s the "teacher" in this instance, I guess he’ll assign whatever values (in every sense) he chooses to each question.

But if I flunk, fine by me. See my answer to question 1.

Give me that old-time conservatism

    My regular readers will recognize this column as having been adapted from a post from late last week. Sorry to be repetitive, but increasingly (and conveniently) I find blog posts to be adaptable into columns. I’ve developed it a bit — cutting some here, adding some there (particularly, a new ending, and therefor a new point). But the inspiration was the same.

    Aside from making my seven-day week a little more manageable, adapting a column such as this one at least exposes it to a slightly more friendly audience. The Blogosphere is more densely populated with the kinds of people who would take exception to the ideas expressed herein. I find that the newspaper’s readership contains more folks who harbor my notion of the best sort of conservatism. Every once in a while, even I would like to get a little encouragement, you know. Speaking of which, thank you, Chief Warrant Officer Libbon. It was good to get your message before the mob started screaming.

By BRAD WARTHEN
EDITORIAL PAGE EDITOR
THE IDEOLOGUES in the Republican Party — you know, the ones who don’t care who can actually become president, as long as their candidate thinks exactly the way they do about everything — don’t know whether to spit or go blind with John McCain as their presumptive nominee.
    And I gotta tell ya, I’m loving it. My happiness will be complete once the “anger” faction of the Democratic Party is similarly discombobulated by having Barack Obama as its nominee. But let’s not get ahead of ourselves on that.
    My other favorite candidate, John McCain (The State has endorsed both him and Sen. Obama), may not quite have the Republican nomination sewn up, but he’s close enough to it to give the more objectionable elements within his party considerable indigestion. True, Mitt Romney is doing everything he possibly can to stop the McCain bandwagon, spending $1 million on ads in California alone.
    But while this moment of promise lasts, let’s savor it.
    A colleague who listens to such things says right-wing talk radio is abuzz with apocalyptic rantings about the End Times for the GOP, which sounds lovely to me, UnParty adherent that I am. But I content myself with reading about it in the papers. Let’s take just one day (Thursday) of one newspaper (The Wall Street Journal) widely associated with Conservative Orthodoxy. Under the headline, “McCain Takes the GOP Lead,” we read:

    Republicans have a clear front-runner in Arizona Sen. John McCain. By nearly all accounts, he is the candidate many Democrats least want to face, the one who would best remake his party’s battered image and draw independent voters needed to win in November.
    But Sen. McCain still confronts a problem both in the remainder of the nomination race, and, if he wins, in the fall: He is simply loathed by many fellow Republicans, often for the very bipartisanship and maverick streak that attracts independents.

    Under “Giuliani Fund-Raisers Sit on Fence for Now,” we learn that while Rudy Giuliani may have pulled out…

    Mr. Giuliani’s well-heeled supporters might not throw their money behind the cash-strapped Arizona senator so fast. “We haven’t decided what we’re going to do,” says T. Boone Pickens, the Dallas tycoon who has raised more than $1 million for Mr. Giuliani, the former New York City mayor, since late 2006…

    Then, on the opinion pages, that font of oracular conservative wisdom, the very lead editorial of the hallowed WSJ itself, under the real-life headline “McCain’s Apostasies,” pronounces the following:

    Mr. McCain’s great political strength has also long been his main weakness, which is that his political convictions are more personal than ideological. He believes in duty, honor and country more than he does in any specific ideas.
    These personal qualities are genuine political assets…. But he is now on the cusp of leading a coalition that also believes in certain principles, and its “footsoldiers” (to borrow a favorite McCain word) need to be convinced that the Senator is enough on their side to warrant enthusiastic support…

    By “ideas,” the Journal does not mean “removing the inordinate influence of money from politics,” or “restraining wasteful spending” or “believing the surge would work” or “life begins at conception” or “maybe we should secure our borders without totally alienating the Hispanic vote.” No, it means such lofty concepts as: “What do you always, always do with a tax? Cut it!”
    Duty, honor and country indeed! What’s conservative about that stuff?
    Speaking of the Gimme-Gimme wing of the party, another newspaper (conservatives should cover their sensitive ears before I name it), The New York Times, reported on Friday that “leaders of the right” have practically been doing backflips trying to adjust to the new reality. My favorite in this regard is Grover “Shrink Government Until You Can Drown it in a Bathtub” Norquist, who goes further than anyone to spin this into a personal victory:
    “He has moved in the right direction strongly and forcefully on taxes,” Mr. Norquist says, adding that he’s been talking to Sen. McCain’s “tax guys” for some time. So you see, not only does this make everything OK, but Grover gets to take credit! Because, as anyone who has ever had cause to regret signing his “No New Taxes” pledge can testify, it’s all about Grover.
    By now some of you think I have it in for all things “conservative.” I don’t. I just grew up with a different concept of it from that which has in recent years been appropriated by extremists. I grew up in a conservative family — a Navy family, as a matter of fact. To the extent that “conservative ideas” were instilled in me, they weren’t the kind that make a person fume over paying his taxes, or get apoplectic at the sound of spoken Spanish. They were instead the old-fashioned ones: Traditional moral values. Respect for others. Good stewardship. Plain speaking.
    And finally, the concept that no passing fancy, no merely political idea, is worth as much as Duty, Honor and Country.

To learn more about the UnParty, go to http://blogs.thestate.com/bradwarthensblog/.

Kathleen Sebelius sounds kind of like UnParty material

Obama_sebelius_wart

Until a couple of days ago, I had never heard of Kathleen Sebelius. That may seem odd since I once had charge of the political reporters at the largest newspaper in Kansas. But that was more than 20 years ago, and I long ago shook the dust of that place from my shoes, thank the Lord.

Then on Sunday, I heard this advance feature on NPR about Gov. Sebelius, who was to give the Democratic response to the State of the Union address. I was ready to be displeased in principle, because I’ve always thought those responses to be an offensive institution in practice as well as in theory. The Constitution requires a state of the union message. The "response" is just partisanship for partisanship’s sake; it has existed mainly to have an argument.

But I was pleased at what I heard about this governor who has "spent years learning how to get along with her political opponents," and the piece on the radio seemed to promise something different this time, more along the collaborative lines of the recent economic stimulus deal.

Then came her actual response the next night, which is worth reading. An excerpt:

Good evening. I’m Kathleen Sebelius, governor of the state of Kansas, and I’m grateful for the opportunity to speak with you tonight. I’m a Democrat, but tonight it really doesn’t matter whether you think of yourself as a Democrat or a Republican or an independent or none of the above…

And so I want to take a slight detour from tradition on this State of the Union night. In this time, normally reserved for a partisan response, I hope to offer something more: An American response. A national call to action on behalf of the struggling families in the heartland and across this great country. A wake-up call to Washington, on behalf of a new American majority, that time is running out on our opportunities to meet our challenges and solve our problems….

Nice beginning. You’ve got this UnPartisan’s attention. Sure, she goes on to give a challenge to the president that is very Democratic in nature, and he as a Republican is bound to take exception to parts of it. And sure, she gets in the usual antiwar licks. But she presents it all in terms that an independent like myself can respect, instead of spewing the usual vile mess we hear out of Washington. I’ve got no problem with Democrats and Republicans setting different sorts of ideas out in competition with one another. I just want them to do it in a way that doesn’t make me want to turn a hose on them.

So — lots of UnParty points for Gov. Sebelius. How could she top that?

Like this: by endorsing Barack Obama, the Democratic candidate for president who embodies the same kind of "One Country" approach that she tried to invoke in her address Monday night.

The only way she could possibly top herself would be to endorse John McCain as well, he being the natural Republican counterpart of Sen. Obama. Sure, I know that’s asking a bit much, like whipped cream on top of hard candy. But just think: If she did that, we’d have to give her the UnParty nomination for president on the spot!

Sebelius_state_of_the_wart

Obama staffer reports good initial results from Edwards pullout

Just talked to Kevin Griffis, lately the S.C. press guy for the Barack Obama campaign. Although he still has his (803) cell phone, he’s now moved on to Virginia.

When I caught him he was walking around the statehouse there, trying to harvest former Edwards supporters for Obama. He says it’s going quite well; he’s finding a lot of receptiveness among lawmakers, particularly from the more conservative parts of the state where they can’t imagine going for Sen. Clinton.

One thing he says he’s not running into in Virginia — any reluctance on the part of white lawmakers to back his guy. But then, he’s come to accept that as a matter of course, since he didn’t run into it in South Carolina, either.

Romney outgunned McCain 10 to 1 in Florida, and still lost

At least we don’t have to worry about whether pore ol’ Mitt Romney was able to get his message out in Florida. Check out this WashPost story, "After Romney’s Barrage, McCain Stands Tall:"

    In Florida, as he did in other early states, Romney blanketed the airwaves with ads financed partly by his own fortune. According to Nielsen Co., Romney ran nearly 4,500 ads in Florida by Monday, compared with 470 by McCain.

How much longer do you suppose it will take Gov. Romney to get the fact that the voters aren’t buying what he’s trying to sell — or perhaps I should say, aren’t willing to sell what he’s trying to buy?

This was brought to my attention by McCain backer Bob McAlister, who observed, "It is absolutely stunning that our guy overcame such odds. I don’t know if that’s ever happened — being outgunned on the air 10 to 1 and still win convincingly. It just shows that character and integrity can still trump glitz."

More good news for Obama: Edwards is getting out

Edwardsquits1

No more splitting the non-Clinton (or anti-Clinton) vote. Or do you have an alternative interpretation? I don’t think there is a significant anyone-but-Obama movement out there the way there is for his opponent, but maybe you’re seeing something I’m not.

Anyway, here’s a link about John Edwards’ decision to accept the inevitable — much too late, but at least he didn’t wait another week.

Put this news together with the unequivocally good news for Obama — the Kennedys and Toni Morrison and Kathleen Sebelius (can Al Gore be far behind?), this adds up to some serious Mo heading into next Tuesday.

Given all the good-news boosts Obama has gotten in the last few days, it makes Sen. Clinton’s trek down to Florida to celebrate her "win" more understandable — how else was she going to get a positive image out there?

P.S. — Edwards has now made his announcement; here’s his speech.

Edwardsquits2

So Hillary can’t make a concession speech in S.C., but she publicly celebrates a meaningless win in Florida?

Hillaryfla

Actually, I just said pretty much all I had to say in the headline.

Saturday night, I initially posted this with the headline saying, "HIllary’s concession speech." Then I realized it was just an e-mailed statement, so I changed the headline to reflect that, expecting the actual speech momentarily. It didn’t come. I saw Edwards give his concession/nonconcession speech (not quitting, although what he’s going on for, I don’t know). But no Hillary.

Did I miss it? I was busy being on live TV and all, so maybe I missed it. Did y’all see it or hear it? I ask because it seemed pretty bizarre for her to be cavorting about on a stage transported by a campaign "victory" that gave her no delegates, in a state which the Democratic candidates had pledged (and I’m using the term "pledge" here loosely) not to campaign in, in a "contest" that was obviously a measure of starting-point name recognition.

If Obama had campaigned there, do you really think she would have run away with it? Seems doubtful, but I’d be interested to hear arguments to the contrary.

Anyway, either I’ve missed something (which is highly probable), or this sequence of events — no concession on Obama’s stunning victory in S.C., celebration of the meaningless win in Florida — would seem to be terra incognita in the Clintons’ exploration of the limits of gracelessness.

I can’t go home ’til McCain wins

Mccainwinfla

Having commandeered one of the HDTV receivers at a 5-Points bar, I’m running a tab on Yuenglings, trying to will McCain over the finish line in Florida.

Thirty-three percent of the vote in, and still neck-and-neck with that mannequin, Romney.

At least tonight will settle Rudy "Florida Strategy" Giuliani’s hash for good. Did you read that strong endorsement of McCain in The New York Times? Way brutal to our boy Rudy…

"…a narrow, obsessively secretive, vindictive man who saw no need to limit police power. Racial polarization was as much a legacy of his tenure as the rebirth of Times Square."

No more Hizzoner in his own country.

Obama’s full victory speech

Obama_victory_speech

Catching up with stuff now I’m back at the office, here is a copy of Barack Obama’s wonderful victory speech from Saturday night. That is, this is a copy of the prepared remarks. You can view the video here:

Remarks of Senator Barack Obama

South Carolina Primary Night

Saturday, January 26th, 2008

Columbia, South Carolina

Over two weeks ago, we saw the people of Iowa proclaim that
our time for change has come. But there were those who doubted this country’s desire
for something new – who said Iowa was a fluke not to be repeated again.

Well, tonight, the cynics who believed that what began in
the snows of Iowa was just an illusion were told a different story by the good
people of South Carolina.

After four great contests in every corner of this country,
we have the most votes, the most delegates, and the most diverse coalition of
Americans we’ve seen in a long, long time.

They are young and old; rich and poor. They are black and
white; Latino and Asian. They are Democrats from Des Moines and Independents
from Concord; Republicans from rural Nevada and young people across this
country who’ve never had a reason to participate until now. And in nine days,
nearly half the nation will have the chance to join us in saying that we are
tired of business-as-usual in Washington, we are hungry for change, and we are
ready to believe again.

But if there’s anything we’ve been reminded of since Iowa,
it’s that the kind of change we seek will not come easy. Partly because we have
fine candidates in the field – fierce competitors, worthy of respect. And as
contentious as this campaign may get, we have to remember that this is a
contest for the Democratic nomination, and that all of us share an abiding
desire to end the disastrous policies of the current administration.

But there are real differences between the candidates. We
are looking for more than just a change of party in the White House. We’re
looking to fundamentally change the status quo in Washington – a status quo that
extends beyond any particular party. And right now, that status quo is fighting
back with everything it’s got; with the same old tactics that divide and
distract us from solving the problems people face, whether those problems are
health care they can’t afford or a mortgage they cannot pay.

So this will not be easy. Make no mistake about what we’re
up against.

We are up against the belief that it’s ok for lobbyists to
dominate our government – that they are just part of the system in Washington.
But we know that the undue influence of lobbyists is part of the problem, and
this election is our chance to say that we’re not going to let them stand in
our way anymore.

We are up against the conventional thinking that says your
ability to lead as President comes from longevity in Washington or proximity to
the White House. But we know that real leadership is about candor, and
judgment, and the ability to rally Americans from all walks of life around a
common purpose – a higher purpose.

We are up against decades of bitter partisanship that cause
politicians to demonize their opponents instead of coming together to make
college affordable or energy cleaner; it’s the kind of partisanship where
you’re not even allowed to say that a Republican had an idea – even if it’s one
you never agreed with. That kind of politics is bad for our party, it’s bad for
our country, and this is our chance to end it once and for all.

We are up against the idea that it’s acceptable to say
anything and do anything to win an election. We know that this is exactly
what’s wrong with our politics; this is why people don’t believe what their
leaders say anymore; this is why they tune out. And this election is our chance
to give the American people a reason to believe again.

And what we’ve seen in these last weeks is that we’re also
up against forces that are not the fault of any one campaign, but feed the
habits that prevent us from being who we want to be as a nation. It’s the
politics that uses religion as a wedge, and patriotism as a bludgeon. A
politics that tells us that we have to think, act, and even vote within the
confines of the categories that supposedly define us. The assumption that young
people are apathetic. The assumption that Republicans won’t cross over. The
assumption that the wealthy care nothing for the poor, and that the poor don’t
vote. The assumption that African-Americans can’t support the white candidate;
whites can’t support the African-American candidate; blacks and Latinos can’t
come together.

But we are here tonight to say that this is not the America
we believe in. I did not travel around this state over the last year and see a
white South Carolina or a black South Carolina. I saw South Carolina. I saw
crumbling schools that are stealing the future of black children and white
children. I saw shuttered mills and homes for sale that once belonged to
Americans from all walks of life, and men and women of every color and creed
who serve together, and fight together, and bleed together under the same proud
flag. I saw what America is, and I believe in what this country can be.

That is the country I see. That is the country you see. But
now it is up to us to help the entire nation embrace this vision. Because in
the end, we are not just up against the ingrained and destructive habits of
Washington, we are also struggling against our own doubts, our own fears, and
our own cynicism. The change we seek has always required great struggle and
sacrifice. And so this is a battle in our own hearts and minds about what kind
of country we want and how hard we’re willing to work for it.

So let me remind you tonight that change will not be easy.
That change will take time. There will be setbacks, and false starts, and
sometimes we will make mistakes. But as hard as it may seem, we cannot lose
hope. Because there are people all across this country who are counting us; who
can’t afford another four years without health care or good schools or decent
wages because our leaders couldn’t come together and get it done.

Theirs are the stories and voices we carry on from South
Carolina.

The mother who can’t get Medicaid to cover all the needs of
her sick child – she needs us to pass a health care plan that cuts costs and
makes health care available and affordable for every single American.

The teacher who works another shift at Dunkin Donuts after
school just to make ends meet – she needs us to reform our education system so
that she gets better pay, and more support, and her students get the resources
they need to achieve their dreams.

The Maytag worker who is now competing with his own teenager
for a $7-an-hour job at Wal-Mart because the factory he gave his life to shut
its doors – he needs us to stop giving tax breaks to companies that ship our
jobs overseas and start putting them in the pockets of working Americans who
deserve it. And struggling homeowners. And seniors who should retire with
dignity and respect.

The woman who told me that she hasn’t been able to breathe
since the day her nephew left for Iraq, or the soldier who doesn’t know his
child because he’s on his third or fourth tour of duty – they need us to come
together and put an end to a war that should’ve never been authorized and never
been waged.

The choice in this election is not between regions or
religions or genders. It’s not about rich versus poor; young versus old; and it
is not about black versus white.

It’s about the past versus the future.

It’s about whether we settle for the same divisions and
distractions and drama that passes for politics today, or whether we reach for
a politics of common sense, and innovation – a shared sacrifice and shared
prosperity.

There are those who will continue to tell us we cannot do
this. That we cannot have what we long for. That we are peddling false hopes.

But here’s what I know. I know that when people say we can’t
overcome all the big money and influence in Washington, I think of the elderly
woman who sent me a contribution the other day – an envelope that had a money
order for $3.01 along with a verse of scripture tucked inside. So don’t tell us
change isn’t possible.

When I hear the cynical talk that blacks and whites and
Latinos can’t join together and work together, I’m reminded of the Latino
brothers and sisters I organized with, and stood with, and fought with side by
side for jobs and justice on the streets of Chicago. So don’t tell us change
can’t happen.

When I hear that we’ll never overcome the racial divide in
our politics, I think about that Republican woman who used to work for Strom
Thurmond, who’s now devoted to educating inner-city children and who went out
onto the streets of South Carolina and knocked on doors for this campaign.
Don’t tell me we can’t change.

Yes we can change.

Yes we can heal this nation.

Yes we can seize our future.

And as we leave this state with a new wind at our backs, and
take this journey across the country we love with the message we’ve carried
from the plains of Iowa to the hills of New Hampshire; from the Nevada desert
to the South Carolina coast; the same message we had when we were up and when
we were down – that out of many, we are one; that while we breathe, we hope;
and where we are met with cynicism, and doubt, and those who tell us that we
can’t, we will respond with that timeless creed that sums up the spirit of a
people in three simple words:

Yes. We. Can.