Power Line News

Scott’s observations on Obamanations are a good introduction to <a href="http://online.wsj.com/article/SB120398899374792349.html?mod=opinion_main_c

» View the article

Are We Underestimating Obama?

Yes…

Are you OVER-estimating the aged Keating Five Senator?

Yes…

The divide between Obama and McCain is so wide on important issues that the personalities can become a backdrop in this race if McCain’s campaign can successfully decipher those differences to the American people of which, I’m holding my breath.

The last paragraph is the most telling.  Americans simply don’t remember.

Let’s do the numbers.  The high school class of 1972 was the last class that had to face any prospect of a war of significant causalities (this is not to belittle the sacrifices of our servicemen subsequent).  Backtracking 18 years, that would mean, demographically, every American born in or after 1954.  Or, every American 54 or younger.  A vast demographic that did not contemporaneously experience the effects of, say, the 10,000+ casualties--in a single day--of D-Day.

And, even though the class of ‘72 still had eight more years of the 70’s, these were years on the sidelines; in college, grad school, or just starting out a career.  So, by the time the 80’s hit, these were individuals already launched into life ready to ride the economic boom that Reagan launched.

Then we have the high school class of 1980 (Obama as about 19 then).  These are individuals born about 1962 and are about 46 years old.  In addition to the above, this demographic has never known economic hard times.  Additionally, their military and foreign policy experiences were those that came of a robust military and (particularly with Reagan) a fervent belief in the good that is America.

The whole Democratic platform is a conceit that only a nation rich and powerful as ours could afford to contemplate.  Come on!  We’re going to sit down with our sworn enemies in Iran and negotiate over nuclear weapons.  Obama needs to look at a mentor like Truman who had enough sense to know that Iran is a deadly enemy that need to be brought down now. 

A conceit that we will hand the management of a civilizational conflict with Islam to a man, who in my mind, has very troubling associations with Islam.  Israel is the litmus test.  And, here, Obama is unable to unequivocally identify with the one toe-hold of Western Civilization in the middle east.

Only, in a growing economy like ours, can someone contemplate the nationalization of 14 percent of the GDP with out considering the enormous negative consequences that would bring.  Setting aside health care, only the conceit of 28 years of economic good times can you propose that the government is going to now cure your every ill and supply your every want--including universal pre-school.  You can now out-source life. 

Yet, the democrats are playing on the fact that huge swaths of our electorate have forgotten the disaster that was the Great Society.

Obama is a fraud.  If he is as thoughtful as he’s cracked up to be, he would know he is peddling snake oil in the form of a new Great Society.  And, he knows that--the MSM knows all that and is hiding it.  He knows that while the GOP tries to sell the virtue and the economic dicipline that produced the Reagan revolution, he can promise free candy.

The really important election(s) will be electing enough Republicans so Mitch McConnell can hold the line in the Senate.  It’s going to take a Smart! Smart! Stupid! like Obama to mess up Reagan’s legacy for Americans to remember why they voted for a guy like Reagan back in 1980.

Excellent post, doc.

Now ...

Are We Underestimating Obama?

I wouldn’t say so.  Informed Americans have him figured out.

I DO think, however that many people ARE underestimating the gullibility of the American people though.

There isn’t much one can do about that except keep pounding home the fact that Obama is selling venomous snake oil.

.

Agree with the Rocketman: Excellent analysis, doc—you know what’s up! (sorry, couldn’t resist); and Americans are flocking to the snake oil.

Obambi is McGovern with more political smarts and movie-star charisma.  Major Garrett (Fox News) on Laura’s show yesterday said that while a national candidate in a Presidential election might hope to draw 18-20K crowds once a month, Obambi drew three in one week. 

What’s most worrisome, aside from Obambi’s socialist predilictions, is the likelihood he will de-fang our military and turn tail from the Islamists, Russians, and Red Chinese (look at the video Power Line posted today).

Example: Obambi wants to stop the ‘militarization’ of space.  But the Chinese have already demonstrated the capability to destroy an orbiting satellite.  Our military depends on satellites for intelligence, logistics, weapons control, and a host of other functions.  We have to defend them, and we will have to be able to destroy the enemy’s satellites.  So the ‘militarization’ of space is inevitable, unless we want to capitulate in advance to our enemies or potential enemies.

This kind of naivité is extremely worrisome.  We need not fear John McCain on this score, but it is by no means certain that Sen. McCain can defeat Obambi the Prophet in the general election, especially if the Prophet can lead his devotées from the stadia to the election booths.

/Mr Lynn

From the blog post:

Here, though, lies the rub, in my view. Ronald Reagan came to power at a time when America had been carrying out, for sixteen years, an experiment with liberalism that by 1980 had brought the country to the brink of catastrophe. Americans did not adopt conservative principles because they sounded good on first hearing. They adopted conservative principles because of bitter experience with the alternative.

Yes, Mr. Obama is formidable.

The past 7 years of conservative principles in action has brought the country to the brink of catastrophe, and for many Americans it has indeed been a “bitter experience”.

Mr. Obama is, as has been noted, articulate, self-confident, unflappable, optimistic and seemingly able to draw in a vast swath of Reagan Democrats willing to give the Democrats the benefit of the doubt.

I doubt that is due to a lack of institutional memory as the blog post suggests.

Reagan didn’t convince people to adopt conservative principles - He convinced Americans who were weary of the gloom of the Carter years that we still had our best years ahead of us, that working together we could still accomplish great things. He projected an aura of calm good humor that reassured those not inclined to the conservative view, that our ideological differences weren’t insurmountable. He gave us hope for the future.

The similarities to Mr. Reagan should not be overlooked or underestimated. It is precisely his sunny optimism and hopeful outlook - his ability to evoke the “shining city on the hill” - and his ability to convince voters that America’s best days are ahead of her that most brings to mind the Reagan appeal.

Mr. McCain has nothing to compete with that. He is the status quo. He is the third term of GWB minus torture. There is no substantive difference between him and the Bush administration that now hovers around a 30% approval rating. He is not a good speaker. He is not articulate. He is not optimistic. He has tied his campaign to continuing the widely discredited Bush policies and principles and the bitter experience of the past 7 years will work to his disfavor.

If Mr. Obama wins the nomination, he will slaughter McCain in the general election and likely have a long, wide and deep down ticket benefit for the Democrats.

postBot - 27 February 2008 03:10 AM

Scott’s observations on Obamanations are a good introduction to <a href="http://online.wsj.com/article/SB120398899374792349.html?mod=opinion_main_c

» View the article

Would offer that America does not have the luxury of a four-year or more - lesson in Leftism. And that while Reagan was a student of Communism; Obama has been mentored by Communists and carries the essential germ of it.

There is a ‘too late smart’ bottom line when Reason has been usurped by politically-correct thinking that eshews truth.

Plausible. . .not; for America to insure ‘democratic authenticity’ with a man whose inclinations unfold from a messianiac Leftism; and whose wife confirms not a ‘humility’ of power, but rather an arrogance by offering that Obama is capable of leading not only America but ‘the world’. Too dangerous for America to have a Leader, who is unable to recognize the face of our enemies. Not plausible for our Military to be so led by this person.

Not plausible for those around the world, who depend on the superior ‘Good’ of the American political dynamic, for America to ignore what could well be, the irretrievable consequences, of an Obama Presidency.

byline - 27 February 2008 11:20 AM

Would offer that America does not have the luxury of a four-year or more - lesson in Leftism. And that while Reagan was a student of Communism; Obama has been mentored by Communists and carries the essential germ of it.

There is a ‘too late smart’ bottom line when Reason has been usurped by politically-correct thinking that eshews truth.

Plausible. . .not; for America to insure ‘democratic authenticity’ with a man whose inclinations unfold from a messianiac Leftism; and whose wife confirms not a ‘humility’ of power, but rather an arrogance by offering that Obama is capable of leading not only America but ‘the world’. Too dangerous for America to have a Leader, who is unable to recognize the face of our enemies. Not plausible for our Military to be so led by this person.

Not plausible for those around the world, who depend on the superior ‘Good’ of the American political dynamic, for America to ignore what could well be, the irretrievable consequences, of an Obama Presidency.

Very well said, Sir! An Obama, or even a Clinton presidency, we CANNOT AFFORD!

You’re right.  Obama is selling a liberalism that seems “palatable.” This campaign will need to stage an aggresive, yet respectful, attack on liberalism, not Obama.  People need to be reminded of the consequences of liberal programs (as we witnessed in the past).  They need to know the bottom line affect on their tax bills, the evidence that such government programs don’t accomplish the goals they are created to achieve, the effects on the economy, etc. McCain’s running mate will need to be able to understand this and explain it very well (and McCain will need to be given a crash course on economics).  It’s going to be an uphill battle aimed at a populace that doesn’t want specifics. But the devil is always in the details.
Then we will have to redirect liberals’ do-goodism away from expanded government and more to private charitable organizations. Tout organizations like “dontalmostgive.org” which allows you to pick a cause, and then matches you to organizations to which you can volunteer or contribute. And we’ll need something like a “hot-meal-delivered-with-a-hug-is-far-more-meaningful-than-a-government-check” campaign, as I’ve mentioned before (obviously with a more succinct title). We have to convince people that real change requires real work and personal involvement, not just a vote on a Tuesday in November(which is the lazy, intellectually dishonest choice).  We have to convince them that personal money and personal time given directly to charitable organizations has a greater overall impact than expanding a government bureaucracy.  This will be an uphill battle indeed.  It requires convincing a very large group of intellectual children to think like adults.

Tuesday - 27 February 2008 11:41 AM

byline - 27 February 2008 11:20 AM

Would offer that America does not have the luxury of a four-year or more - lesson in Leftism. And that while Reagan was a student of Communism; Obama has been mentored by Communists and carries the essential germ of it.

There is a ‘too late smart’ bottom line when Reason has been usurped by politically-correct thinking that eshews truth.

Plausible. . .not; for America to insure ‘democratic authenticity’ with a man whose inclinations unfold from a messianiac Leftism; and whose wife confirms not a ‘humility’ of power, but rather an arrogance by offering that Obama is capable of leading not only America but ‘the world’. Too dangerous for America to have a Leader, who is unable to recognize the face of our enemies. Not plausible for our Military to be so led by this person.

Not plausible for those around the world, who depend on the superior ‘Good’ of the American political dynamic, for America to ignore what could well be, the irretrievable consequences, of an Obama Presidency.

Very well said, Sir! An Obama, or even a Clinton presidency, we CANNOT AFFORD!

HILLARYNEEDSAVACATION - 27 February 2008 03:11 AM

Are We Underestimating Obama?

Yes…

Are you OVER-estimating the aged Keating Five Senator?

Yes...

H.N.A.V., you have gone on and on about McCain and the Keating 5, seemingly oblivious to the fact that the man was cleared of any wrongdoing years ago.
Can’t you drop it?
If you must pick on McCain, choose something else more timely and valid, please.

Old School - 27 February 2008 10:59 AM

Yes, Mr. Obama is formidable.

The Dem could run an overweight one-eyed cat for POTUS and win, this year. Obama, Clinton, it doesn’t matter. All that matters is - liberal. Same for McCain.

No difference. That’s why McCain can’t possibly win. He’s a Dem pretending to represent Republicans.

The GOP HAVE - TO DUMP McCAIN. It’s the only hope.

Old School - 27 February 2008 10:59 AM

The past 7 years of conservative principles in action has brought the country to the brink of catastrophe

Conservative principle such as bloated government, such as failing to defend the national borders, and so on.

People knew Bush wasn’t conservative in 2000. But he was different, in some ways, than Clinton, and certainly Gore - as we’ve seen.

Old School - 27 February 2008 10:59 AM

Reagan didn’t convince people to adopt conservative principles - He convinced Americans who were weary of the gloom of the Carter years that we still had our best years ahead of us, that working together we could still accomplish great things.

He did convince people that smaller government was better, lower budgets, less taxation, etc. He broke the controllers strike. But he didn’t verify. He trusted, he didn’t verify. Iran and contras. Amnesty. That a Dem Congress would attempt to cut any budget. And he made a mistake pulling out after the terrorist bombing.

All that still fell from the ‘teflon’ that the press never quite stripped from him. What was that ‘teflon’ in the face of constant waves of leftist establishment attacks? It wasn’t merely calm good humor. Obama doesn’t possess that, anyway. It was self-effacing humor, understanding the situation, and wishing to put people at ease - even as he lay with an assassin’s bullet lodged in him. What we saw of Clinton in his private moments - was desperate meanness. Same for his wife. What Reagan showed, was civility, and reason. Obama does not. Obama is a firebrand liberal, a public square orator, a pamphleteer. In our own history, sometimes that served well. But when the rhetoric is merely the same shopworn socialism that should never have infected this nation, it’s a different matter.

Obama isn’t Reagan. Neither is Hillary. Neither is McCain. Each in their own way are the anti-Reagan.

Old School - 27 February 2008 10:59 AM

The similarities to Mr. Reagan should not be overlooked or underestimated. It is precisely his sunny optimism and hopeful outlook - his ability to evoke the “shining city on the hill” - and his ability to convince voters that America’s best days are ahead of her that most brings to mind the Reagan appeal.

That 1630 sermon reference to Winthrop was his demand that as one obeys God, so God blesses the nation, and as one turns against God and morality, so God lifts his protection. Now, one could argue that Winthrop’s idea of God was odd, and that he was an odd sort of Protestant. But just the words, themselves, are pretty clear.

Reagan asked the question of the incumbent, are the American people better off now than four years ago? But in 2008, there is no incumbent.

There is one incumbent policy at issue for the Democrat, Iraq and Afganistan. Whether McCain fulfills his campaign promise, and there’s no reason to believe he would, they would argue that America is worse now for Iraq and Afganistan than four years ago, even eight years ago prior to 9/11.

But it’s a foolish argument, even on its face. The more sensible argument is that international terrorism is eagerly waiting the election of a soft and self-loathing POTUS before they again attempt the ‘last battle’. They remember the choppers in the desert. They remember black-hawk-down. They can tie military failure to liberal administrations. That’s just superstition. But it may be another of theirs. The greenlight comes in November, in other words, if they know a Bush will not oppose them.

Again, it’s the one difference McCain promises between himself and Obaminton. But once in office, and with his desire to please only liberal Democrats and none other, his ‘stay the course’ would likely be in name only. Would he even entirely abandon our base in Cuba?

What difference, really, is there between the three?

Let’s not overestimate Obama either.

To date, he has won in democratic primaries, which are dominated by true believers of the left, particularly “anti-war” absolutists.  Hillary’s failure (besides skipping charm school) was that she thought she had the nomination wrapped up; and so she started playing to the middle too early, alienated the dominant left of her party.

One thing is clear with Obama:  He is consciously imitating the Reagan formula of an affable, optimistic coating on a deeply held philosophy.  This brings out true believers in droves, yet creates a palatable alternative for the less committed.  The essential distinction between the two, however, is that Reagan didn’t have to hide his conservatism, while Obama has to hide is liberalism.  That will be a big distinction in the general election. 

The majority of Americans are not committed to an ignomious withdrawal from Iraq and declaration of mea culpa and “apology” for the invasion - which as absurd as that sounds is what the left wants and what Obama offers.

It’s certainly true that modern conservatism (which would be better described as classical 19th century liberalism) is unpleasant and harsh to the ear, but works, while modern liberalism (which would be better described as 20th century collectivism) sounds wonderful, but doesn’t work, and in practice always leads straight to economic ruin if not totalitarianism in the long, dreary, bloodstained tradition of Joe Stalin, Mao, Fidel, Chavez, Mugabe, and on and painfully on.

And it certainly sounds plausible that, therefore, people who are intelligent and informed about their history choose conservatives while young blindly optimistic Yes we can! fools choose liberalism.

But I dunno.  It also sounds like the kind of bromide you use to cheer yourself up when you’re on the losing end of an election.  Well, at least we’re smarter than those God-damned lemmings.

Maybe so, but I think, actually, there isn’t that much difference in intelligence and understanding of history between the conservatives and the liberals.  The problem is that history is such a Rorschach blot kind of thing, you can read the lessons out of it you want to, easily enough.  Knowing the catastrophic history of socialism can lead you to the conclusion that (1) it’s a dumbass idea, or (2) it’s an idea that hasn’t been properly implemented yet.

Personality, I think, determines whether you pick (1) or (2).  And possibly age.  When you’re young you don’t think your parents did anything right, so you’re inclined to go with (2) inasmuch as it suggests the world has been waiting for your generation to finally Get It Right.

Perhaps what we’re observing is the confluence of a certain fraction of aging boomers trying to recapture their youth and their offspring, all of whom are now young adult voters, eclipsing the Reagan coalition of repentant boomers and Gen X voters.  We’ll have to wait for Gen Z to come back from Iraq before a less narcissistic mood permeates the electorate.

Assuming the Republic hasn’t been completely shipwrecked first, of course.  I think Europe and particularly Great Britain shows that there is a point of no return, past which a narcissistic collectivist culture simply self-destructs and is replaced by some more virile invading culture.

Quadraginta - 27 February 2008 06:50 PM

. . . Assuming the Republic hasn’t been completely shipwrecked first, of course.  I think Europe and particularly Great Britain shows that there is a point of no return, past which a narcissistic collectivist culture simply self-destructs and is replaced by some more virile invading culture.

And that, of course, is what we must prevent.  Obambi is likely to lead this country straight toward the cliff.  That is why it is essential that the disenchanted conservatives put aside their distaste for John McCain and get behind his candidacy.  To wait four years for a conservative on a white horse is to risk running right over the cliff to disaster.

/Mr Lynn