Robert A. George's ruminations on politics, race, pop culture, sports, comic books & various other sundry temptations of the human condition. Yes, he writes for the New York Post, but the views here are solely his own.
Sunday, November 18, 2012
RAG on WSJ: Obama's Presser & Romney "Gifts"
On Thursday, The Wall Street Journal's Jason Riley and I discussed President Obama's first post-election press conference and Mitt Romney's conference call with his donors. This was the now much-criticized session where Romney blamed his loss on the various "gifts" that he distributed to various parts of the electorate.
Jason and I both shared our horror at Romney's comments -- not merely because of the content, but also because of the political foolishness demonstrated by allowing the press in on a call to one's donors! Apparently, there was more than one lesson Romney failed to pick up in the fallout from the "47 percent" debacle!
In any event, here's the video:
A rather perceptive observation on the "gifts" statement was also made by my former boss Newt Gingrich. If it was all about "gifts," why did Republicans do worse with Asian-Americans than they did with Hispanics? ("Right, seventy-three percent of Asian-Americans, seventy-one percent of Latinos," the Texas Tribune's Erik Smith corroborates.)
Gingrich follows up: "This is the hardest working and most successful ethnic group in America, okay. They ain’t into gifts. Second, it’s an insult to all Americans. It reduces us to economic entities who have no passion, no idealism, no dreams, no philosophy..." Some might want to jump on Gingrich by implicitly buying into the notion that the other groups Romney are into gifts, but put that aside. But his overall point is simply dead-on. If you go by the stereotype of Asian Americans being as family-oriented as Latinos and even more entrepreneurial, why would they be so hostile to the GOP (or friendly to Obama/Democrats, if you will). I would argue that this may well be considered "collateral damage" of Romney and the GOP's immigration problem.
The party's blocking of comprehensive immigration reform didn't just send a signal of being tough on immigrants coming across the Southern border. It also made things remain difficult for those trying to enter the country for either education or technology jobs. A significant number of those, duh, are coming from Asia. If all Asian Americans see is a GOP seemingly opposed to overall immigration reform -- and hear its presidential nominee talking more "self-deportation" than actual policy -- it's only logical they might conclude that this is a party that isn't so friendly to their presence either. Yes, elections have consequences. So, does the combination of ill-focused strategy and thoughtless rhetoric. I think the same conclusion has come to Bobby Jindal -- the nation's first governor of South Asian descent. This may explain why, perhaps moreso than any other outraged Republicans, he's been the most vocal in denouncing Romney's "gifts" comments. And Jindal doesn't sound like he's just making a rote "distance myself from our recent embarrassing party standard-bearer." He seems genuinely appalled. And I think there's a reason for that. This is as much personal as it is political for Jindal. The contrast with Marco Rubio's going rather easy on Romney is fascinating. These different post-election statements may be tactical moves by young Republican leaders who will be the ones seeking to define the party in the coming years.
My alter-ego, Jason Riley of the Wall Street Journal and I chatted yesterday about the second presidential debate, including overtures to women, Romney's "binders" comment and the possible element of race in President Obama's rhetorical and political efforts.
Wall Street Journal editorial board member Jason Riley and I have another one of our regular conversations. Our topic Thursday was -- what else? -- gay marriage! A nice, polite, give and take -- looking at the political ramifications from President Obama's historic decision/blatantly political flip-flop (take your pick):
This started as a response to Tim Phares's comment over on Facebook, but it's important enough to flesh out why Bristol Palin's blog post on Barack Obama and gay marriage incenses me so much. For people who've been reading this space off-and-on since at least 2008, none of this should seem new.
I noted that Bristol said, "In general kids do better growing up in a mother/father home.." To which, I sarcastically responded, "Like, less chance of a teen pregnancy, right?"
Tim (mentioned above) said, "Go, Bristol." To which I said, "Bristol Palin can 'go' alright -- go STFU. Here's a girl who became a "celebrity" because she was the pregnant daughter of a vice-presidential candidate. She then got "rewarded" with a contract to be an abstinence spokesman, a People magazine cover, a spot on Dancing With the Stars and a book contract and, of course, her own "reality" show! "Life's A Trip" (oooh, see what she did there?)!
It should be noted that NONE of these benefits would have come her way had she either 1) not gotten pregnant or 2) gotten married and THEN gotten pregnant. She's the actual incarnation of "Murphy Brown" that conservatives of a previous generation condemned: A young lady who, because she was in the right place at the right time, far from "paying" for her mistakes -- like other teen girls of lesser circumstances -- has actually profited from it.
Indeed, she managed to perfectly game our modern corrupt culture -- but SHE now presumes make a case for a "mother/father home" and uses it as an attack line to go after Obama's lack of leadership? GMAFB!! There are any number of people -- from activists on the gay left to activists on the social right -- who can and should call him out on how he's handled the gay marriage issue.
Sorry, but Bristol ain't one.
This is 10th-level bullshit and no one should fall for it.
Comedy matters in our political life – and it should respect no sacred cows
PHOTO:Martin H. Simon/Landov
In 2012, at the intersection of comedy and politics, one is just as likely to find a punching bag as a punch line. Just ask Jimmy Kimmel, who headlines tonight’s White House Correspondents’ Dinner.
The ABC late-night host made the critical error Wednesday, telling Reuters that “it’s hard to make fun of Obama in general because he’s a cool character. Outside of his ears, there’s not a whole lot.”
Given that attitude, one assumes that much of the political humor at what has come to be known as Washington, D.C.’s annual “Nerd Prom” will be at the expense of — surprise! — Republicans (and conservatives)! Sure enough, in the same interview, Kimmel previewed six jokes about GOPers, including favorite whipping girl Sarah Palin (who didn’t run this year) and Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia (hardly a household name).
Ideology aside, Kimmel arguably broke a cardinal rule of comedy: There can be no sacred cows. If certain public figures are seen as “cool,” that should be all the more reason to double up and find ways to poke fun at them.
Besides, despite President Obama’s “slow-jamming” the news Tuesday night with Kimmel’s NBC late-night rival Jimmy Fallon, it’s hard to give the POTUS a pass on the “coolness” factor. Has Kimmel so soon forgotten the image of Obama throwing out the first pitch at the 2009 All-Star Game wearing — gasp! — “mom jeans”!?!
Or how about his urging young urban men to “pull up their pants”?
Cool? Well, in a Cliff Huxtable sort of way (a comparison “Saturday Night Live” noted earlier this year).
Even if a comic agrees with a president ideologically, he can’t let that get in the way of giving the appropriate mocking that all in power deserve. Last year, Kimmel’s WHCD predecessor, Seth Meyers — head writer on “SNL” — figured this out: “You know who could beat Obama in 2012? Obama from 2008,” he said, turning to Obama on the dais. “You would love him.” Without being insulting, Meyers wittily expressed the frustrations of many Americans. Jimmy K., take note.
But does any of this really matter in the end? After all, it’s just comedy, right? Must we take it so seriously?
Oh, most definitely.
More than ever before, comedy is a valuable tool in the political and cultural message wars. Obama used his “stand-up” turn at 2011’s WHCD to simultaneously humiliate Donald Trump and essentially destroy the “birther” meme.
More significantly, Comedy Central’s Jon Stewart and Stephen Colbert have turned the art of political comedy and satire into a force independent of the traditional news media — yet able nonetheless to influence it. In our post-modern century, many young people now only learn about a political issue after Stewart and Colbert have mocked it. Stewart often uses his “Daily Show” platform to deconstruct political narratives — and then engages in serious debate with his conservative frenemy Bill O’Reilly on the latter’s talk show.
Colbert launched his own “super PAC” — Americans For A Better Tomorrow Tomorrow — to mock the big-money nature of politics.
From the conservative standpoint, Rush Limbaugh’s success for two decades stems from his use of a tactic similar to Stewart and Colbert: being knowledgeable enough about politics and policy so he can effectively skewer the pre- and mis-conceptions of the mainstream media.
But this approach has limits, as seen in the uproar over Limbaugh’s “prostitute” comments about Georgetown law student Sandra Fluke during the birth-control funding debate. Limbaugh was forced to apologize and (temporarily) lost some advertisers.
But the fallout in the broader comedy-political world couldn’t be ignored. Once Limbaugh was chastened, a pound of flesh had to be taken elsewhere. And so, liberal-ish Louis CK’s decidedly non-PC jokes about women caused enough controversy that he withdrew as the entertainment for the Radio & TV Correspondent’s Dinner (the WHCD’s less glamorous cousin). Liberal comedian Bill Maher came under plenty of fire as well.
All of this exposes an obvious reality: While conservatives have long dominated talk radio, liberals have had the upper hand in the comedy part of popular culture. Kimmel’s implicit kowtowing to Obama just highlights that.
So hungry are conservatives for an alternative to the Stewart/Colbert hegemony that many can be found still up as late as 3 a.m. EST weeknights to tune into the sardonic libertarian mockery of Fox News Channel’s “Red Eye.” (Fox shares a parent company with The Daily.)
Eschewing the “fake news” approach of Stewart and Colbert, host Greg Gutfeld, sidekick Andy Levy and rotating guests take snarky approaches to politics and current events. Levy quickly noted after Kimmel’s comment about Obama that a “cool” president wouldn’t raid marijuana dispensaries or still be “evolving” on gay marriage. (Full disclosure: This author has appeared on “Red Eye.”)
In addition to “Red Eye” — and conservative humor sites like Iowahawk and Duh Progressive — a handful of “SNL” veterans in recent years have “come out of the closet” as conservatives (or at least non-liberal). They include Victoria Jackson, now a tea party activist; Dennis Miller, now a radio host; and, arguably, anti-liberals Norm MacDonald and Colin Quinn. And this week, an audio clip of Jon Lovitz profanely slamming Obama over his soak-the-rich policies went viral.
Regardless of who headlines the “Nerd Prom” each year, clearly one major “benefit” of America’s currently polarized politics is humor and mockery coming from more directions than ever before.
That’s definitely something worth smiling about.
Robert A. George is a New York Post editorial writer and occasional stand-up comic.
The conventional wisdom on Mitt Romney in a general election contest is that his creation of a broad health-care program in Massachusetts makes it difficult to make the case against "ObamaCare." Indeed, Rick Santorum calls him the "worst candidate" to take that fight to the president.
But that's the case now.
What happens if -- as seems likely after arguments this week -- the individual mandate is struck down? And, with it, possibly the entire ObamaCare structure? What then?
Democrats make the case that if the entire law is struck down, it could blow up in the face of the GOP:
I’d argue, however, that on the margins at least, a decision invalidating the individual mandate would change the dynamics of the general election in ways that might prove uncomfortable to the GOP. Currently the Republicans “Repeal!” position is attractive, or at least not repellent, to a wide range of people with a wide range of concerns about ObamaCare, including those who would strongly support for more aggressive federal efforts to expand health care coverage or ban discrimination by private health insurers. If the individual mandate goes down, and with it prospective prohibitions on prexisting condition exclusions, the health care debate during the general election campaign will shift from scrutiny of ObamaCare from what, if anything, Republicans are prepared to offer. In effect, the much-dreaded and highly divisive intra-GOP debate on the “Replace” part of its “Repeal-and-Replace” agenda will be accelerated into the present tense. And at the same time, Republicans will be denied the base-energizing power of the passionate desire to repeal ObamaCare, which has become the default-drive unifying force among conservatives of every hue.
The corollary to this view is that liberals would be energized and furious at the Court for striking down the law. They'd turn out to vent their fury on the GOP.
The problem with this view, however, is that it works from a framework that the entire law is popular. It's not. Indeed, the individual mandate is the most unpopular part of the entire structure. Thus, the groundswell to "fix" it just might not be there. And, after the contentious nature of the original health care fight, there's not going to be enough will in Congress to revisit this in the middle of a presidential election year.
Conversely, a Supreme Court invalidation puts President Obama in an awkward position -- and Mitt Romney able to make an argument that he hasn't been able to clearly articulate during the GOP primary. And that may change the political "dynamics," as Ed Kilgore puts it.
Mitt Romney can say, repeatedly, "I brought broad health-care reform to the state of Massachusetts -- and I did it constitutionally. President Obama, a constitutional law professor, spent 18 months of the nation's time, while the economy was collapsing and millions were losing their job on an ideological scheme that has been proven unconstitutional. Is the economy slowly getting better? Yes, but think how much further we would have been if President Obama and Democrats in Congress hadn't been obsessed with pushing an unconstitutional agenda that the American people clearly didn't want?"
That's a powerful argument and it puts the responsibility for the uncertainty over coverage and pre-existing conditions that would follow with the loss of the individual mandate squarely on the president. The chaos wouldn't exist if he hadn't pursued, again, an unconstitutional path.
Combine that framing with conservatives energized over having won a major fight over the policy that helped bring forth the Tea Party and you have a completely transformed political framework going into the fall. The right will be just as -- if not moreso -- pumped to turn out than the left. Yes, broader factors like the overall economy and job creation will play into the election calculus, but there probably hasn't been an election upon which one major piece of legislation has played such a major role since the 1960s (Civil Rights Act) -- or perhaps the Great Depression.
It may not have seemed it at the time, but if Mitt Romney somehow squeaks out an upset win over Barack Obama in the fall, observers may look back at this week as the moment when everything changed.
After letting the White House spokesman make an initial statement on the killing of Trayvon Martin earlier in the week, President Obama weighed in personally on Friday, in a statement that concluded:.
But my main message is to the parents of Trayvon Martin. If I had a son, he'd look like Trayvon. And I think they are right to expect that all of us as Americans are going to take this with the seriousness it deserves, and that we're going to get to the bottom of exactly what happened.
While most applauded Obama's comments (delivered following an unrelated Rose Garden event), they didn't completely escape controversy. Washington Post blogger Jennifer Rubin calls the words, "cloying," adding, "Why is it always about him? I thought the president — like all of us — is supposed to care about those who look like his kids and those who don’t."
“What the president said, in a sense, is disgraceful,” Gingrich said on the Hannity Radio show. “It’s not a question of who that young man looked like. Any young American of any ethnic background should be safe, period. We should all be horrified no matter what the ethnic background.
“Is the president suggesting that if it had been a white who had been shot, that would be OK because it didn’t look like him. That’s just nonsense dividing this country up. It is a tragedy this young man was shot. It would have been a tragedy if he had been Puerto Rican or Cuban or if he had been white or if he had been Asian American of if he’d been a Native American. At some point, we ought to talk about being Americans. When things go wrong to an American, it is sad for all Americans. Trying to turn it into a racial issue is fundamentally wrong. I really find it appalling.”
Appalling? Disgraceful? Absurd.
Sorry, but this is one of the most frustratingly disappointing statements I've ever heard my former boss utter (and there've been more than a few over the last year leading into and including the presidential campaign season).
Obama's statement was completely appropriate. To the extent that anyone felt them overly personal and racial, it's because they didn't read/hear the entire statement! The president said, in full:
Well, I'm the head of the executive branch, and the attorney general reports to me, so I've got to be careful about my statements to make sure that we're not impairing any investigation that's taking place right now.
But obviously, this is a tragedy. I can only imagine what these parents are going through. And when I think about this boy, I think about my own kids. And I think every parent in America should be able to understand why it is absolutely imperative that we investigate every aspect of this, and that everybody pulls together - federal, state and local - to figure out exactly how this tragedy happened.
So I'm glad that not only is the Justice Department looking into it, I understand now that the governor of the state of Florida has formed a task force to investigate what's taking place. I think all of us have to do some soul-searching to figure out how does something like this happen. And that means that examine the laws and the context for what happened, as well as the specifics of the incident.
But my main message is to the parents of Trayvon Martin. If I had a son, he'd look like Trayvon. And I think they are right to expect that all of us as Americans are going to take this with the seriousness it deserves, and that we're going to get to the bottom of exactly what happened.
Obama begins with a cautionary observation about not saying too much so as not to interfere with either Justice Department or ongoing state investigations into the killing. So, he is thus recognizing who he is as national leader -- not as a black man.
He then uses a word that everyone can agree on to describe what occurred: "Tragedy" carries moral weight, but not legal. So, again, he's not mucking up the investigative part of the episode.
Then, most importantly, he gets as universal as is possible: "I can only imagine what these parents are going through. And when I think about this boy, I think about my own kids. And I think every parent in America should be able to understand why it is absolutely imperative that we investigate every aspect of this, and that everybody pulls together - federal, state and local - to figure out exactly how this tragedy happened.'
He speaks as father and explicitly of "every parent in America should be able to understand" the need for an explanation of "how this tragedy happened." How on earth can anyone not see that as the president addressing the universal nature of what happened -- speaking to white, black, Asian parents and letting them know that they have a stake in this as well?
It is only at the very end that Obama, offering a "main message to Trayvon Martin's parents" that he invokes the personal. He is, at that point, speaking as a black man to black parents who have lost a child in a tragedy, that may not have been a racist act, but in which Trayvon's race almost definitely played a role.
President Obama spoke in three roles Friday: as chief executive of the nation's laws, as president noting the universal nature of the tragedy -- and only at the end as a public leader speaking empathetically to those whom the tragedy has hit closest. Yes, Obama went further than the generic "I feel your pain" stance, because, frankly the circumstances called for it.
as Newt Gingrich himself seemingly recognized earlier this year,
saying “I’m prepared if the NAACP invites me, I’ll go to their convention and talk about why the African American community should demand paychecks and not be satisfied with food stamps."
Again, after first speaking to all American parents, Obama then stepped out as an empathetic black parent addressing grieving black parents. Besides being a factual statement (not just because of race, one could picture a son of Barack Obama resembling the slender athletic Trayvon Martin), he helped universalize the special fears that black parents have of losing sons prematurely to random violence (no matter the race of a potential assailant).
While that's one community's unique pain (specific), the particular way it manifested itself in a Florida town one month ago, is nonetheless -- for reasons already articulated -- one that "all of us as Americans" (universal) take seriously enough to demand resolution.
Far from appalling, that's an essential message that hopefully all Americans heard.
A world in which Osama bin Laden is no longer alive is a very different one than 24, 48 or 72 hours before. However, the change felt today because of the news delivered yesterday evening should force a rapid re-think of what occurred over the last few days.
On Saturday evening, like many other journalists, I was in Washington, DC, at the White House Correspondents Dinner. As several people recalled last night, comedian Seth Meyers made an Osama bin Laden joke (the last in a series about not many people watching C-SPAN: "We're still looking for Osama bin Laden; but how many people know that every day he hosts a show at 4 PM on C-SPAN"). The (yes) C-SPAN camera caught President Obama reacting to the joke. This was one day after he had approved the operation to take out bin Laden.
Seeing that picture reminded me of something. As I mentioned to a couple friends post-dinner, the president seemed a little "off" in his comedic remarks. Not that they weren't funny; they were (his take out of Donald Trump was done quite well, but the "Lion King" "live video of my birth" killed). However, I've seen Obama several times do these kind of stand-up gigs and, previously, there was always an endearing "tic" in his performances: After a particularly amusing line, he would pause and laugh at his own joke -- almost as if he were hearing it for the first time (which might have been the case). In fact, I've mentioned this before. In any event, that tic wasn't there Saturday. He was just locked in to deliver his jokes with a surgical efficiency. I just put it down to the fact that he was still pissed off over the whole birth certificate issue from the previous few days. He had looked more than a bit petulant at the "birth" presser on Thursday (the 28th).
Of course, now everyone knows that that the OBL mission was coming to a head throughout last week. The ultimate meeting of the national security council OBL team was that same Thursday -- presumably right before the birther-presser, because he headed off to Chicago for a seeming awkwardly-timed Oprah appearance. Yeah, that one, right after he said, "We’ve got better stuff to do. I’ve got better stuff to do. We’ve got big problems to solve. And I’m confident we can solve them, but we’re going to have to focus on them — not on this."
Again, now we know that it wasn't the economy and the budget and awful weather down South that were the "big problems" Obama was thinking about while lashing "carnival barkers" and the media. It was bin Laden. And, yeah, he knew he had to "perform" in front of the press on Saturday, but he couldn't let anything slip as to what was really going on. So, his focus caused his comedic "tell" to disappear. It's quite possible he concentrated on the "performance" a bit more this year, just because there were so many weighty matters on his mind.
And that weight carries on from here.
Getting Osama bin Laden is a great military and intelligence achievement. As the spontaneous celebrations that emerged at Ground Zero, outside the White House and around the country show, this was also a much-needed emotional catharsis for the entire country (but, darn it, did we have to bury the body at sea so quick? Cue mics for those who now think bin Laden wasn't really killed). One is tempted to use Gerald Ford's line, delivered in a very different context: "Our long national nightmare is over," though the 9/11 hangover has lasted twice the time Watergate did. However, the president disabused Americans of that temptations in his address Sunday night: "Yet [bin Laden's] death does not mark the end of our effort. There’s no doubt that al Qaeda will continue to pursue attacks against us. We must –- and we will -- remain vigilant at home and abroad."
But the dynamics of the effort are changed. Al Qaeda Prime is now leaderless and there will be inevitably a struggle for who gets to run the terror network -- and those wouldbe bin Ladens may try to outdo one another in producing the most impressive strike against the West. However, is it merely coincidence that OBL was taken out one day after NATO targeted Moammar Khadafy's Tripoli compound (and reportedly killed members of his family)? What message does the OBL takeout send to Khadafy? Is he more likely to sue for peace -- and forced retirement? On the other hand, what are the Libyan rebel forces -- who are believed to have strong connections to al Qaeda's North African franchise -- thinking? Will they get the lesson that -- even if they evict Khadafy -- it might be beneficial to have good relations with the United States. At least for a while.
Does this mean that Obama can now actually fulfill his promise of beginning the Afghanistan drawdown this summer? Everyone presumed that the July deadline was going to be "honored" in the breach. Now, does the US cut a deal with the Taliban and then actually start moving out. If so, wither Hamid Karzai?
Lots of questions to resolve. But this is a real "game changer, that puts President Obama in an enviable position. It does not guarantee his reelection, contrary to what some in Twitterland proclaimed. George H.W. Bush hovered around 90 percent approval after the end of Gulf War I. He was turned out of office with 38 percent 18 months later. That said, Obama undoubtedly gets a few days new honeymoon after this great "get." He further buys himself more time to look like a unifying non-political figure -- regardless where gas prices might be. He can then try praying that the economy and jobs market start picking up. If they don't, he'll be toast -- just like the elder Bush.
But, those concerns aside, if Republicans weren't worrying before, they should now -- not for policy reasons, but for political ones. The first GOP debate is just days away. The field is still unsettled -- and now the debate will be held in the wake of this great accomplishment in the war on terror (or whatever it has now been renamed). The optics don't look good for the GOP. But more importantly -- drawing the exact opposite conclusion I did a couple days ago -- it's the Republican base that should worry about its political arm. In barely three days, Barack Obama has gone from seeming to be on the defensive in releasing his birth certificate to looking like he has the deadliest poker face outside of Las Vegas. Not only did Obama school Donald Trump -- at both the press conference and the Correspondents Dinner -- but it's so obvious now that he was juggling some very serious things while appearing to look dithering and superficial.
The GOP is dealing with a man who has pure ice in his veins. Someone who gives neither media nor opposition any hint at the cards he has yet to play. Oh, and he may raise $1 billion for his re-election campaign. This combination should make Republican partisans very nervous.
President Obama launched his re-election campaign two weeks ago. If one is a Democrat, should you begin to get concerned about those re-election prospects? Not because of the actual objective policy issues and economic factors (gas prices, anyone?) that are in play. But because whether the Obama political operation -- which was so ruthlessly smooth during the 2008 presidential campaign -- is rather, well, less so now.
Mediate's Tommy Christopher has, in my view, the best political take on yesterday's big "long-form" birth certificate story: Why address a completely stupid conspiracy theory that was doing more damage -- in my view -- to Republicans than to the president? Maybe the Obama team had private polling showing that the story was bleeding from the GOP base into the independent bloc, and so they had to respond to the story. But why essentially engage with a loudmouth buffoon like Donald Trump whose been promoting (in basic subtext) the idea that Obama not only isn't a real American, but that he's done nothing to deserve the office he holds? Why allow Trump a victory lap (yeah, I get the idea that this could help Obama by elevating Trump to the detriment of others in the GOP, but it still strikes me as too clever by half)? And, releasing the long-form obviously puts an end to the story, right? As if. Either some still doubt the veracity of the document -- or criticize Obama for not releasing it beforehand. If it's a no-win, why engage at all -- when the legal, recognized short-form had been released three years ago?
Why release the documents personally (as opposed to having a White House flunky do the job)? Why step all over the big story of the day -- the shaking up of the national security team? And, if you're going to say that the birth certificate controversy is taking you away from "bigger issues," why immediately jet off to be interviewed by Oprah in Chicago and attend three fundraisers in New York?
Does the president's political team really not understand these optics? If it doesn't that suggests big problems over the next 18 months in dealing with a ramped-up presidential campaign environment.
Using a variation of the old adage, "If you can't say something nice, say nothing at all," I found myself at a point this week where there was nothing I could add on this blog that would contribute anything positive to the noisy sturm und drang that exploded literally hours after the awful murder and mayhem in Tucson Saturday afternoon.
The rhetorical piling on from the Left on the rhetoric of the Right wasn't just repugnant given that, literally, the bodies hadn't been buried. It was also politically stupid, because there were actual valid points to be made about some rhetorical bombast coming from the Right over the last two years. None of these statements set off Jared Lee Loughner, but they shouldn't have been said at the time. On the other hand, the Left's "Palin's mouth and map caused this" was completely abominable and eradicated the space for any legitimate points that could have been made.
In any event, I elected not to take the bait. Instead, please take note of my friend Heather Mac Donald's even-handed post on the excesses of political rhetoric. Cheers also to my former boss John Podhoretz's take on Sarah Palin's answer to her critics, delivered early Wednesday morning, 13 hours or so before the president delivered his address. I readily confess to having a blind bias spot when it comes to all things Palin, so there was no way I could address her speech -- with the "blood libel" stuff tossed in -- without completely losing it. Pod, however, said all that needed to be said.
And then came the President of the United States, who gave one of the best addresses of his term on Wednesday. Indeed, it compares favorably to his debut on the national stage at the 2004 Democratic National Convention. I didn't watch it live -- a friend had a reception that I was obligated to attend. So, I watched it a few hours later (thanks to my DVR already having been set to record -- God help the irony -- FOX's "The Human Target").
As many others have pointed out, the atmospherics were weird: Set in a college auditorium, with many students there, the "memorial" seemed more like a pep rally. Yes, at first blush, that was rather unseemly. But then, it occurred to me, this wasn't, explicitly speaking, a memorial service. The event was both a reflection of those that died, but also a celebration of those that survived -- and an applauding of those that helped save them. That those that survived were recovering -- Gabrielle Giffords, in particular -- was an inspirational element that seemed worth cheering.
With that backdrop, the president hit a home run in delivering a speech that honored the dead, comforted the survivors, applauded the everyday heroes -- and exhorted the nation to embrace civility in the wake of unspeakable tragedy. The address -- see below -- was put together perfectly. Given the bitter partisanship of the last few days, it was very wise of Obama (or his writers) to start off the list of the murdered with Republican federal judge John Roll. It allowed him to note that Roll was suggested for the federal bench by Obama's 2008 presidential rival John McCain -- and nominated by President George H.W. Bush. Those facts helped deliver some needed bipartisanship to the affair -- as did his nod to one of the older victims, Phyllis Schneck, who the president noted was "a Republican [who] took a liking to Gabby, and wanted to get to know her better."
The president completed his listing of the deceased by eulogizing nine-year-old Christina Taylor Green, the Child of 9/11 who has become, in many ways the face of the Tucson tragedy. Obama effectively used (and I mean that in the most generous, non-judgmental, way possible) Christina as a symbol of all the optimism and boundless joy found expressed in youth, "undimmed by the cynicism or vitriol that we adults all too often just take for granted."
He effectively then transitioned to deliver the big news of the night -- that Rep. Giffords had, just hours before, opened her eyes for the first time, information that sent an already exuberant audience into euphoria. Obama followed that up by delineating the heroic actions of intern Daniel Hernandez, who helped stanch Giffords bleeding, the brave seniors who rushed Loughner, "before he could reload," the president underscored. (I must admit that this was the one moment that my politically cynical side tried to assert itself: While this was a factual recitation of the events of the day, isn't it possible that the word "reload" right there couldn't send a slight reminder and contrast to some of Sarah Palin's now-notorious "Don't retreat, reload" line? No, I will try to do as my president suggests and not succumb to easily-taken-for granted cynicism. But, again, I try to be honest on this page and I have to admit that the thought did cross my mind.)
That said, the president wound his speech down by admonishing the lack of civility in contemporary politics (seemingly directed slightly more to his allies on the left than his foes on the right) and then offered a challenge to all -- partisans and non-partisans -- in Christina's name, to proceed in the days ahead to do the work of democracy in a charitable fashion:
I want our democracy to be as good as Christina imagined it. I want America to be as good as she imagined it. All of us — we should do everything we can to make sure this country lives up to our children’s expectations.
The words may not long survive the inevitable contact with reality as Congress gets back to its business next week. But this was an uplifting note to end a truly inspirational address.
"First of all, he's not capable of being like Clinton [who's] much more cued in to normal American behavior than Obama." "[Obama is] a very aloof kind of personality," whose "ability to cue off normal Americans is very limited."
“Clinton found out about the Gingrich affair and called Newt over to the White House for a private meeting between the two of them,” Armey said in an interview with the World Magazineposted Thursday. “Clinton said, ‘You and I are alike.’ Which meant, shut up about Monica or I'll start telling your story,” Armey said. “Newt and Clinton actually developed sort of a bond over it.”
Ah, that good old normal American behavior. Mr. President, forget about remaining faithful to Michelle! That's just not normal American behavior! Besides, if you hook up with some White House 20-something hootchie-mama and get the goods on Speaker Boehner's jump-off -- who knows, you might have a bonding experience!
(Democratic) Debacle: Biggest GOP wave this century. Only thing preventing takeover of the Senate was three foolish Republican picks in Nevada, Delaware and (arguably) Colorado.
Dereliction (of basic political common sense): In the worst economic crisis since the 1930s, the party in power forgot the Clinton '92 campaign mantra, "It's the economy, stupid." Passed an ineffective stimulus -- and then just crossed fingers that things would magically turn around.
Diagnosis: Suicidal health-care. Related to the above, President Obama and Democratic Congress allowed a complicated health care reform to dominate political scene for more than a year. The more a public already rattled over economy learned about it "reform", more public rebelled.
Diversity: Despite the "Tea Party is racist" meme that Democrats, NAACP and some parts of the media tried to push, this GOP wave "looked more like America" than its 1994 counterpart. That's a good thing for the party and the country.
Citing a recent Forbes article by Dinesh D’Souza, former Housespeaker Newt Gingrich tells National Review Online that President Obama may follow a “Kenyan, anti-colonial” worldview.
Gingrich says that D’Souza has made a “stunning insight” into Obama’s behavior — the “most profound insight I have read in the last six years about Barack Obama.”
“What if [Obama] is so outside our comprehension, that only if you understand Kenyan, anti-colonial behavior, can you begin to piece together [his actions]?” Gingrich asks. “That is the most accurate, predictive model for his behavior.”
“This is a person who is fundamentally out of touch with how the world works, who happened to have played a wonderful con, as a result of which he is now president,” Gingrich tells us.
“I think he worked very hard at being a person who is normal, reasonable, moderate, bipartisan, transparent, accommodating — none of which was true,” Gingrich continues. “In the Alinksy tradition, he was being the person he needed to be in order to achieve the position he needed to achieve . . . He was authentically dishonest.”
“[Obama] is in the great tradition of Edison, Ford, the Wright Brothers, Bill Gates — he saw his opportunity and he took it,” Gingrich says. Will Gingrich take it back in 2012? “The American people may take it back, in which case I may or may not be the recipient of that, but I have zero doubt that the American people will take it back. Unlike Ford, the Wright Brothers, et cetera, this guy’s invention did not work.”
“I think Obama gets up every morning with a worldview that is fundamentally wrong about reality,” Gingrich says. “If you look at the continuous denial of reality, there has got to be a point where someone stands up and says that this is just factually insane.”
"Kenyan, anti-colonial behavior"? Really??
Actually, change my opening statement that. I think I know exactly what he's trying to do -- and it depresses me to no end. I'll discuss more on this later. In the interim, I hope to try and forget how insane the world has gone by having a few pints with my Sunday football.
(By the way, clicking on the above link may not bring up the actual story. I tried it this morning and ended up only at NRO's Corner. May just be temporary glitch -- since we all know that nothing ever truly disappears from the 'Net).
