jeffreymark

A ONCE PRINCIPLED PARTY GONE SOUTH

It's getting easier these days to make one's antipathy toward Dems public. In fact, I utterly despise the Dem party particularly those members whose own hatred for the president and any kind of power he may inherit, promps them to lie, make false accusations, and flip-flop on the most salient issues. Former federal prosecutor Andrew McCarthy, refering to a new book by David Horowitz and Ben Johnson, provides this basic characterization of a once principled party:

The descent of a great political party — one whose determined patriotism was critical to the nation’s victory over Nazi Germany and imperial Japan — has been as predictable as it is disheartening. Many of today’s prominent Leftists were, in the sixties and seventies, heavily influenced by Soviet practices. The authors note that Gen. Ion Mihai Pacepa, the highest Soviet intelligence official to defect to the West, has explained that “[s]owing the seeds of anti-Americanism by discrediting the American president was one of the main tasks” of his office. A president cannot rally the public to any great national cause if he becomes the object of distrust and ridicule. Propaganda campaigns toward that end were a Soviet priority.

Continue reading McCarthy here.

DEM'S FEEBLE ATTEMPT TO SWIFTBOAT MCCAIN

Glenn of Instapundit fame offers this provocative post:

DAVID WEIGEL ON Swift Boat Derangement Syndrome: "This is why, when today's Democrats talk about John McCain, they can sound incredulous. After all the crap they took, why is he able to ride his Vietnam record to the GOP nomination? "

Maybe because it wasn't a lie?

OBAMA'S THEOCRACY

Obama's bold new faith based initiatives may make George Bush look like a son of the devil in comparison. Steven Waldman of the W&J compares the two and asks, "What will the liberals who criticized President Bush’s “theocracy” make of Sen. Barack Obama’s speech today..." Mr. Waldman then proceeds to compare the initiatives and finally places the onus on Bush for not following through with his bold faith undertaking.
Read about it here.

Who in the hell is Sott McClellan?

The former press secretary says he might just vote for Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.).

Speaking after an address at the Commonwealth Club in San Francisco last week, McClellan said he hasn't ruled out voting Democratic this year -- or even registering as a member of the anti-GOP. "I haven't made any long- term decisions," McClellan said, according to the San Francisco Chronicle.

McClellan said his presidential choice will depend in part on whether Obama or his opponent, Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.), runs a positive, issues-oriented campaign. One of the themes of McClellan's best-selling book, "What Happened," is that Washington has become paralyzed by negative, winner-take-all politics.

Gee, we're shaking in our boots Mr. McClellan.

HE SOUNDS SO EVANGELICAL

I keep pressing the issue of Obama's apparent evangelical magnetism. He sounds so convincing, so idealistic, so youthful but, when assessing his religion remember these salient points expressed in the Associated Press:

Comments critical of America by Obama's longtime pastor, the Rev. Jeremiah Wright, caused a firestorm during the primaries and brought Obama's brand of faith under scrutiny because of Wright's adherence to black liberation theology. Obama also has battled false but persistent rumors that he is a Muslim; they have been kept alive on the Internet despite his repeated talk about his longtime devotion to Christianity. Conservative Christians make up about a quarter of the electorate, and they helped put Bush in office twice. Many still are likely to oppose the Democratic nominee because of his support for abortion rights, gay rights and other issues. An AP-Yahoo News poll in June found that people who attend church at least once a week support Republican McCain over Obama, 49 percent to 37 percent. Those who attend church less often tend to favor Obama. White evangelical Christians who attend church weekly favor McCain by huge margins.

While Obama would expand Bush's efforts to give religious charities more equal footing when getting federal funding, he also would tweak what he would call the President's Council for Faith-Based and Neighborhood Partnerships in ways that divert from Bush's approach.
He would increase spending on social services, starting with a $500 million-a-year program to keep 1 million poor children up to speed on their studies over the summers. He would increase training for charities applying for funding and make it a grass-roots effort. He would elevate the program to be "a critical part of my administration," a reference to criticism that Bush paid barely more than lip service to his effort.

It adds up to, now are you listening my friends? Come a little closer. It adds up to raising taxes. And how does
one such as Obama do that? The same way New Dealers have always done it-by promoting class envy.

MCCAIN FINALLY PICKS THE RIGHT EVANGELICALS

John McCain has wandered in the desert like a prodigal looking for an evangelical voice, while Obama's biblical knowledge and charisma has swayed a few traditionally Republican evangelicals. McCain finally listen to reason picking the tried and true path when he visited with the Graham boys yesterday:

As Sen. John McCain continues to woo religious conservatives, the Republican presidential contender paid a visit today to Rev. Billy Graham and his son Rev. Franklin Graham at their family home in the Blue Ridge Mountains, near Montreat, N.C.

Sen. McCain had requested the meeting with the elder Rev. Graham, who has been a spiritual adviser to presidents of both parties for decades but is in declining health. The meeting lasted for 45 minutes at the Grahams’ shingled, mountaintop cabin, dubbed Little Piney Cove, which, according to a McCain staffer, has a great view from the living room.

“We had an excellent conversation,” Sen. McCain told reporters after the meeting. “I appreciated the opportunity to meet with” Rev. Graham. Sen. McCain said Rev. Graham recalled visiting the senator’s parents in Hawaii and praying with them when he was a P.O.W. during the Vietnam War.

Sen. McCain said he requested the meeting because “they’ve known my family, they’ve known of me for many years, they’re great leaders in this nation and I appreciate the opportunity to visit with them and I am very grateful for the time they spent with me.”

Because of the scope of Franklin Graham's seemingly commonsensical appeal McCain made a wise choice. Graham offers the perception that not all evangelicals are wild-eyed space cadets ready to beam the faithful up. What's rather comical, however, are some of the space cadet-like comments offered in this particular W$J post. It looks as though a few of the commentators received their talking points from Nurse Ratched.

DEM'S JAMES DOBSON MOMENT

James Dobson of late raised ecumenical dander with his more spiritually targeted judgements against Obama. His less than kosher words failed to score in most political camps be they conservative or liberal. Now it looks as though Wesley Clark might learn a valuable lesson from Dobson's faux pas. Yesterday on Face the Nation Clark said:

I certainly honor his service as a prisoner of war. He was a hero to me and to hundreds of thousands and millions of others in the armed forces, as a prisoner of war. And he has traveled all over the world. But he hasn't held executive responsibility. He hasn't been there and ordered the bombs to fall. He hasn't seen what it's like when diplomats come in and say, I don't know whether we're going to be able to get this point through or not.

Good point to which I agree. McCain's war experience falls short of executive training ground. Yet, when program host Bob Schieffer pressed the issue Clark returned fire with a blank:

Well, I don't think riding in a fighter plane and getting shot down is a qualification to be president.

Again a salient point wrongly worded. People tenaciously and emotionally hang on to war vets. Questioning their service, especially one who suffered in the enemy's hands, invites anger. Emotions trump reason, thus, the messianic fever sweeping Obamaites. In addition to Dobson,Clark and his liberal friends need to learn a lesson from George McGovern's failed candidacy against Richard Nixon in 1972. McGovern flew a B-24 Liberator over Germany during WWI. His heroic deeds under enemy fire earned him the Distinguished Flying Cross. Stephen Ambrose's best selling book The Wild Blue touted the work of the Liberators, in particular George McGovern. Politically savvy opponents never attacked his war record. Instead they debated the issues and defeated him primarily because of his populist views, his opposition to the Vietnam war, and the appearance of pandering to the counter culture crowd.

If Wesley Clark, however, chooses inexperience as a battleground he might rethink that strategy as well. Yes, McCain possesses little executive experience. Senators rarely win Presidential elections (JFK was the last one to do so), precisely because of the experience issue. Yet, Obama falls even way shorter than McCain in that department. Age alone substantiates the fact. In fact Obama's age might provide a good target for those who know how to play it just right. He's already demonstrated an archetypal character flaw of youth who get crowned as best and brightest at an early age-arrogance. We witnessed the fruit of the flaw produced in Bill Clinton. The need to micromanage, manipulate, and surround oneself with "yes" men, inhabits the psyche of a prideful individual. But one may find consolation in Billy Graham who once said the Presidency is a very humbling experience. You go in feeling ten feet tall and come out a midget.

Indeed this election year may become the year of retro politics. With Republicans offering up an old 60s blue-blood liberal, Dems delivering a McGovern/Carter style candidate, pain at the pump, Iraq, and Bush's discretionary spending record, perhaps a case study in Nixonianism, Rockefeller Republicanism, or both would be of some benefit to conservatives. But, attacking candidates for their religion and war record may,as we say in Texas, provide the gun to shoot oneself in the foot.

DOBSON VS. OBAMA

James Dobson's recent diatribe launched against Obama drew fire from a host of Christian leaders. Black United Methodist Pastor Kirbyjon Caldwell has now joined the band of Dobson critics. He recently launched a website entitled James Dobson Doesn't Speak for Me. Caldwell offers this reason for the site:

We are a coalition of pastors and other Christians, led by Pastor Kirbyjon Caldwell who are standing up for our Christian faith and supporting Barack Obama. We are signing in our individual capacities and not on behalf of our churches or denominations.

There was recently a Time Magazine article that implies this website was part of a premeditated plan to attack Dr. James Dobson. Unfortunately, I was never contacted or given an opportunity to comment on the article. Nothing could be further from the truth. This website was created to directly respond to comments made by Dr. Dobson in his June 24 broadcast and to set the record straight about Senator Obama and his deep Christian faith. It was created to respond to Dr. Dobson in a spirit of love and lift up a candidate we think is the best choice for our country. The reason over 10,000 individuals have signed up is because they believe in a positive, affirming vision of the United States, not because they believe in attacking Dr. Dobson.

Sincerely,

- Kirbyjon Caldwell

Of course Caldwell fails to speak for all United Methodists including yours truly. But, he illustrates a salient issue I addressed in a previous article. Obama comprehends evangelical rhetoric and does a yeoman's job at expounding on the bible. His public persona and apparent Christian demeanor appeals to a significant group of Christians, particularly evangelicals. Although I share a theological and social kinship with James Dobson, I believe he and other evangelicals will make a fatal mistake if they attack Obama on religious grounds. Much like then Southern Baptist Jimmy Carter in 1976 Obama seems more at home with Christian leaders than does his opponent. Dobson serves as a striking example of the public predicament awaiting those who attack Obama on religious grounds. It will only serve as fodder for the liberal media who salivates with eager anticipation at the thought of an evangelical demise.

Those opposed to Obama must address his vulnerability on three fronts. First of all, he lacks experience and perhaps wisdom for the massive undertaking of running a country. Victor Davis Hanson recently offered his conservative take on the issue:

Some wrote that I was obsessed with Obama. Curious is a better word. I can’t think (readers help please) of a presidential candidate in the 20th century (not Carter, not Harding) so unprepared to be president.

The comparison with the young Congressman, Senator, student of history, and war veteran JFK proves the opposite.

By the same token, I persist in thinking that the novels, plays, and films comparing Bush to a Nazi or in some way deserving of assassination were both reprehensible and unprecedented, surely more than the hatred expressed for Nixon, Reagan, or Clinton. And I think such genres should and will stop with Obama. Indeed, one of the most startling developments in recent memory will be the utter about-face (compare already the Obama rejection of beloved federal campaign financing, his backtracking on the war timetable, etc.) of the liberal media. It would be incensed if one did to a President OBama what has been done to Bush. Suggesting that the Right in this instance does the same I don’t think is persuasive. Even the mainstream hysterical Clinton haters, here or abroad, did not write columns praying for a John Wilkes Booth to return.

Second Obama speaks like a New Dealer which has now become the old deal, an anachronistic, socialistic political philosophy. Economist and best selling author of The Forgotten Man, Amity Shlaes, had this to say about the matter in a recent interview:

LOPEZ: Does Barack Obama sound like someone who appreciates the New Deal’s shortcomings?

SHLAES: Hardly. The New Deal exists principally on an emotional plane for Obama. To him the New Deal is something you play like a song, to make you or your constituents feel better. Let me be clear: It’s too early to judge Obama on economics. But he does seem unaware of the economic consequences of government expansion that happens under the New Deal name.

Politicians generally act as if there is no cost to reconnecting with voters by building new New Deals. But the whole exercise of writing law out of New Deal nostalgia is a form of national narcissism. Call it New Deal narcissism.

We could afford to burnish our social contracts if there were no competition from abroad. But there is.

LOPEZ: What would The Forgotten Man want us to never forget as we mark this anniversary?

SHLAES: That New Deal nostalgia is expensive. Too expensive for younger Americans to afford.

Finally, we know Obama has a history of surrounding himself with nefarious characters. Critics need to press Obama on these issues and persuade naive evangelicals to see the ominous clouds surrounding New Deal collectivism, immaturity, and wrongheaded mentors. We discovered long ago with Jimmy Carter that born again evangelicals might not always make good presidents.

OBAMA IS JIMMY CARTER

A haunting comparison:

Consider these interesting parallels.

First, Jimmy Carter appeared from nowhere – he was an obscure, though fiercely ambitious, southern governor who, eighteen months before his juggernaut reached full and unstoppable speed, had been hardly noticed and was given little chance of success. But his carefully calculated message wrapped in a resonate promise, “I’ll never lie to you,” had a populist impact that was underestimated by party insiders.

But the most powerful similarity between Jimmy’s run in 1976 and Barack’s today can be seen in what’s happening among Christian evangelicals. Mr. Obama is trying, with some success, to convince these voters that he’s sufficiently one of them, glaring evidence to the contrary notwithstanding.

Jimmy Carter, complete with born again professions, received 48% of the evangelical vote in November 1976 doing exactly what Barack Obama is doing today – talking the talk. The problem is that he never actually walked the walk. Front-loaded euphoria about having a person of “I’ve met Jesus and He’s met me” faith in the White House, gave way to pervasive frustration as it became glaringly clear that Carter was not only in way over his head, but that head didn’t really think like an evangelical.

Jimmy Carter had mastered the God-speak VOCABULARY, but he was using a very different DICTIONARY. Barack Obama has discovered that dictionary. It’s now digitalized and part of his campaign.

And younger evangelicals are on the verge of making the same mistake in 2008 that many of their parents did back in 1976.

POLITICAL CRYSTAL BALL?

Could spring's special elections serve as a political crystal ball? The W$J's Rhodes Cook thinks perhaps this particular season may part company with a history that often answered the million $ question with a resounding "no!"

From early March to mid-May, Democrats won three special House elections in formerly Republican districts, the largest net gain by any party between general elections since the 1970s. Yet it was not just the number of seats the GOP lost in such short order, but where they lost them that has left pundits and politicians alike wondering what might come next.

To be sure, special elections are not always a good harbinger of what lies ahead. In early 2004, the Democrats picked up a pair of previously Republican House seats in Kentucky and South Dakota. But that fall, the GOP handily fended off Democratic efforts to capture either house of Congress.

This year’s special elections, however, may be more prescient. Two seats that shifted from the Republicans to the Democrats were in the Deep South (Louisiana and Mississippi), a region the GOP has owned of late. The other, outside Chicago, included the boyhood home of Ronald Reagan (Dixon, Ill.) and the base of former House Speaker Dennis Hastert. The three districts were typical pieces of the Republican base and supported the re-election of President George W. Bush in 2004 by margins ranging from 11 to 25 percentage points.

A Spike in Optimism

But the backdrop of this year’s election is quite different from 2004. With their recent special election victories, Democratic optimism for the fall spiked from an already high level. The president’s approval rating, outside the Republican Party, is spectacularly low. The GOP has far more open House seats to defend than the Democrats, as well as far more Senate seats. Democrats, for a change, are flush with cash, which they used to good effect in the special elections. And Republican efforts to link Democratic House candidates in these races to Sen. Obama and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi failed to pull out a victory anywhere.

At first glance, this year bears a resemblance to the Watergate election of 1974, which culminated with a Democratic gain of close to 50 House seats. According to Vital Statistics on Congress, the Democrats had a net gain of four House seats that cycle by special elections. Most of the inroads were in the Republican heartland at the time, the Midwest and the Northeast. John P. Murtha was one of the Democratic victors, winning the western Pennsylvania House seat that he holds to this day. But probably the most significant Democratic triumph occurred in Michigan, where Democrats captured the Grand Rapids-based seat vacated by Gerald Ford, who had left Congress in 1973 to become Richard Nixon’s vice president.

Democrats, by comparison, have won not only Mr. Hastert’s district this time, but also the two Deep South districts where the African-American population (according to the 2000 census) is 25% to 35%. That racial composition used to supply the Democrats with many of their Southern House seats before the Republican wipe-out of 1994 turned this type of district from Democratic to Republican.