Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Archive for the ‘Primary’ Category

Daniel Larison makes a very strong point:  the world does not like the US because of its policies, and the symbolism of an Obama presidency will do little to heal the rifts and unavoidable tensions with the rest of the world:

As I have said before there is scarcely a more disrespectful, condescending attitude towards the rest of the world than the assumption that they can be bought off or won over with something as superficial as a U.S. President with a mixed racial background.  If the Obama fans actually believe their candidate has some legitimate policy changes to introduce, that might be a reason for other nations to respond favorably to him, but on the whole the changes on offer are, like so much else in this campaign, symbolic and aesthetic.  In the end, Obama fans project their own fantasies about “racial reconciliation” into the international sphere, implicitly likening the majority of the world to our minority populations, which is to belittle them a second time.  This relieves them of the obligation to critique seriously U.S. foreign policy, which is the source of some significant part of anti-U.S. animus, since they have already concluded that America’s reputation can be repaired in some measure simply through the election of one man. 

It sure doesn’t help that Obama knows he’s weak on foreign policy and sometimes plays the hawk, like an in-over-his-head manager playing the tyrant to rattle and silence his subordinates.  His appearance and background will do little to help him with counterparts ranging from China to Pakistan to Russia, and his lack of experience and interest in foreign affairs will provide an additional burden if he becomes the President.  George W. Bush is a good example of this problem in action: he could care less about world affairs before he became President, he’s been unduly influenced by idealistic-sounding idiots like Wolfowitz and Rumsfeld, mucking things up mightily because his ability to think critically about the sometimes conflicting advice he’s getting is severely compromised.

Read Full Post »

This super-delegate calculator makes it plain why Hillary cannot win.  Essentially, she would need two thirds of the unpledged superdelegates and double digit wins for the remainder of the primaries to pull it off.  I don’t think she’ll quit, though, perhaps through some small hope that a Sirhan Sirhan figure will perepetrate a deus ex machina and sort out this Obama impediment once and for all.

Read Full Post »

McCain’s mind works as follows: all situations are divided between good and evil. No one is simply mistaken, confused, immature, unwise, or, perhaps, correct in a way that McCain cannot yet perceive.  Though it’s become a bad word, there is such a thing as nuance, and it’s particularly valuable when we’re talking about relations with a large country that we’re not at war with that happens to have thousands of nuclear weapons. McCain seems to think that doubling down on the aggressive policy in the Middle East is good and brave and heroic, so he’s seeking expensive and risky confrontations with China and Russia halfway around the globe, even as he shies away from securing our own frontiers with nearby Mexico.  The latter is prosaic and humdrum, while crusades for democracy in the Caucuses, well, that’s the stuff history is made of.  (Unfortunately, that history will be entitled the Decline and Fall of America.)

McCain has the following in mind:

President George W. Bush said in 2001 that he had looked Russian leader Vladimir Putin in the eye and “was able to get a sense of his soul.” Senator John McCain says he looked into Putin’s eyes “and saw three letters: KGB.”

McCain, 71, the presumptive Republican presidential nominee, favors expelling Russia from the Group of Eight club of industrial powers. He calls for forging a “League of Democracies” to confront Putin and hand-picked successor Dmitry Medvedev, who takes over tomorrow, on Russian threats against former Soviet republics and rollbacks of domestic freedoms.

The candidate’s approach to Russia signals that he has aligned himself with hard-line foreign-policy advisers who favor democracy promotion above all and rejects advocates of doing business with authoritarian regimes when it suits U.S. interests.

This election should be treated as a referendum on open borders with Mexico and a policy of quasi-war with Russia. As bad as Clinton and Obama are, neither of them is so uncompromisingly single-minded and ideological about these two very stupid passions of John McCain.

Read Full Post »

I’ve often thought the reflexive invitation to “talk it out” is a bit over-rated.  After all, in close relationships, as in the broader discussions of our communities, knowing when not to communicate is often just as important as communication itself. 

Consider Obama’s call for a “national dialogue on race.”  He doesn’t want this.  He certainly doens’t want to hear whites bitching about the petty grievances they have against minor incivilities of urban blacks, and he especially does not want to hear about the very real and very raw feelings of whites who have suffered under violent black criminals.  Most important of all, he sure doesn’t want to hear the rantings and ravings of his pastor, Jeremiah Wright, even though the pastor’s statements in recent weeks are identical to what Obama’s heard for the last 20 years, as Steve Sailer reminds us today of by quoting a lengthy passage from Obama’s first book.

Gregory Rodriguez makes a very good point that Obama is quickly running away from the very dialogue he claimed America needed.  Rodriguez writes:

Right about now, his much-heralded tutorial on race relations is looking more like Richard Nixon’s “Checkers” speech than the Gettysburg Address. Because, after last Tuesday’s formal renunciation of his ties to Wright — and presumably also his white grandmother and all blacks — Obama looks not only tardy but thoroughly hypocritical. Didn’t Obama’s vaunted speech call for an open national dialogue on race, a subject he said was too important to ignore? Didn’t he urge us to address those “old wounds” that still fester today? Whether you agree with him or not, isn’t that exactly what Wright was doing last week when he reappeared in public to make more provocative statements on race and politics?

That’s no way to start a dialogue, Mr. Obama. You don’t call on people to talk and then renounce someone for speaking his mind. Because Wright didn’t really say anything new last week, it seems that his only new sin is that he called Obama’s bluff and, well, sparked another national dialogue on race. Which, of course, points to the absurdity of Obama’s call for more racial dialogue in the first place.

Obama is, if nothing else, audacious!

Read Full Post »

If you think America is fine alternating between corporatist Democratic Presidents and semi-socialist, open borders Republicans, then what I’m about to say will make no sense. But if you think America is on the wrong course, that its people are demoralized, that its schools are corrupt and ineffective, that its people are more and more indebted and unrealistically materialistic, that mass immigration is fracturing our identity, that Christianity is wrongly marginalized in the culture, and that crime, disorder, incivility, and servile habits of every kind are getting worse with each passing year, then you recognize something extreme must happen. There must be an awakening. Conservative minded and patriotic Americans must be pushed to the brink, abandoning their false hopes, and approach politics in the future on the basis of hard-headed appraisals of reality. And a big part of that reality is that America is changing, its demographics engineered by mass immigration, its minority communities resentful and alienated, and the pride of its white majority sapped by a constant drumbeat of lies and exaggerations about the past under the rubric of “multiculturalism.”

Many Americans have no idea how much rage, resentment, and racism exists in America’s Hispanic and black communities. The Reverend Wright episode has allowed the general public to peer into this malevolent universe. This glimpse has frightened people that grew forgetful of why they or their parents left cities for orderly and gated suburban communities. Four years of an Obama presidency will be the best possible thing for honesty and clarity to return to America’s public life. Consider how much more forthrightly mainstream conservatives are talking about Obama and his line of bulls**t about his reverend of 20 years.

National Review’s Jonah Goldberg–not exacly a man living in Jared Taylor’s universe–had the following to say:

I am so sick of hearing talking heads saying that Wright’s sermons are nothing unusual in black churches as if that somehow makes what he says ok. It’s as if something disgusting and untrue is outrageous if one person believes it, but it’s suddenly respectable if lots of people — or lots of black people — believe it. Hogwash.

Michelle Malkin took things a step further. She mocked Obama’s campaign as the “Jive Talk Express” and said the following:

It was just this March, in his Philadelphia racial reconciliation speech, that Obama was urging us not to dismiss Wright as a “crank or a demagogue” and protesting that he could “no more disown him than I can disown the black community.”

Now, realizing how gravely his self-serving association with Wright has wounded his campaign, Obama himself has attempted to do both those things — and expects the American public to believe him when he weakly and belatedly asserts that “when I say I find [Wright’s] statements appalling, I mean it.”

As those of us with non-European brains might put it: You be trippin’, Barry.

The formula of race relations since the 1960s goes something like this: when blacks misbehave, the source must be found in white racism. The worse the behavior, the worse whites must be. Black rioting in New Orleans after Katrina . . . George Bush’s fault, plus decades of “white” neglect. L.A. Riots . . . 12 years of neglect. O.J. Simpson kills two white people . . . Mark Fuhrman made racist remarks and framed O.J. Crack-powder cocaine disparity . . . whites are guilty of “institutional racism” by punishing blacks harshly who try to get rich quick in the drug trade.

This is all nonsense. There are many causes of black misbehavior and failure, but racism is no longer a significant factor in minority failure and hasn’t been for over 30 years. In spite of this, black resentment is at an all time high, inflamed by agitators like Reverend Wright. Limited government conservatism requires whites to reject this formula. It’s no longer accurate, and it’s exacerbating black failures that could be reduced by white and black elites standing shoulder to shoulder and providing moral leadership. This new generation of leadership won’t emerge, so long as whites demur to black leaders, their lame leaders consist chiefly of useless demagogues like Sharpton, Wright, and company.

It’s good that mainstream conservatives are speaking plainly about Wright, black racism, and the various lies used to support the superstructure of “white guilt.” It’s good they’re calling McCain out on pulling punches in the face of this nonsense. Four years of this trend will propel someone like me well into the middle of the conservative mainstream, and that would be a good thing. Obama’s presidency will stress and purify the conservative movement, leading to clarity on issues of culture, the welfare state, demographics, and racism that it has lost in the fog of “compassionate conservatism” under President Bush.

Read Full Post »

Even Obama’s white supporters were starting to get put off by what Reverend Wright implied about Barack Obama. But they’re all back on board now . . . most especially, Andy Sullivan.  The candidate of few accomplishments–legislative or otherwise–calmed them down once again with the right words. 

He’s the candidate of hopeful words, after all.  His speech at the 2004 Democratic National Convention propelled him into the limelight.  Since then he’s carefully–oh, so carefully–positioned himself for the national run.  He’s avoided controversial votes and controversial people.  Wright was the exception; he needed Wright back in the day to get an entree into South Side Chicago politics, and, Obama was loyal to him for this reason.  Obama also had an emotional connection with Wright: the reverend and the scene at Trinity gave Obama the authentic blackness he has obsessed about since high school. 

But Obama’s essentially a pundit running for president.  Where leadership, tough choices, and tangible work were required–with Wright, in the Senate, as a law professor–Obama’s nowhere to be found.  He makes mistakes of judgment because he’s unwilling to take risks.  But his true believers are always willing to be sweet talked back into his arms.  All is forgiven; in this case, 20 years of membership in a black racist church coupled with the unbelievable alibi that he never heard any of this crazy nonsense from Wright until recently, even though his talk is a core expression of black liberation theology. 

In the meantime, conservatives are castigated for suspicious that these words were opportunistic, too late, slightly dishonest, and the product of political necessity.  In the minds of Obama’s true believers, something is wrong with us for being skeptical about a smooth-talking, liberal, Chicago politician seeking national office.

Read Full Post »

We have three very bad candidates for President. One is an angry, open borders fanatic. One is a black nationalist and smooth-talking charlatan. One is an crude and unaccomplished ladder-climber whose only qualification is her association as putative spouse of an ex-president.

Which of these three losers will best rally conservatives? One argument for either Hillary or Obama is that conservatives will become united, thwarting these presdients’ worst proposals, and rethinking policy and principles based on the damage of the Bush Presidency. But have the horrors and mistakes of the Bush presidency caused a rally of real conservatives?

It seems like his faux populist war talk instead creates a kind of false consciousness, where memories of the anti-war movement counterculture of the Sixties and the pussilanimity of the Democrats during the Cold War made instinctual conservatives mistakenly support all the unthinking talk of war in the Middle East.   The distraction of the Iraq War let conservatives forget about all the ways this president is, in fact, advancing the Sixties agenda, i.e., open borders, big government, silence on various culture issues.

A friend writes an interesting point about how the “unity” of a Clinton or Obama presidency may give us false hopes:

As far as the Conservative movement goes, I still choose having someone in office who will appoint decent judges and protect the country even if it means a slightly smaller chance the conservative movement will regenerate, which I am not even sure is the case. Consider that an Obama or Clinton (or Gore) presidency would give anyone to the right of Lenin plenty to complain about, and it might actually serve to paper over significant differences among the right that need to be hashed out. Think about some of the conspiracy theorists that got thrown into the conservative movement during the Clinton presidency. And look who we elected President afterwards. It doesn’t seem like a Democratic presidency was all that helpful to the Conservative movement (I know that Bill was more moderate than these goons, but still).

All of these candidates are so bad, it’s hard to decide who will be worst.  We can only think now of who will accomplish the least, be the least bad, or, if bad, do the most to unify conservatives.  I think more and more that person is Obama, because our biggest national hang up is confusion about equality, the role of government, and race.  He, more than a McCain or Clinton, I believe will be ideological, supporting open borders equally with McCain, but also supporting divisive minority set asides and various symbolic embraces of black barbarism.  Can you imagine a President Obama during black riots or a foreign attack on Americans?  He’s never faced these kinds of issues, and, to the extent he has, has been an apologist for or associated with the most extreme anti-American leftism. 

Becoming accustomed to criticizing this man, seeing his errors, realizing he’s a charlatan (a process already underway), and taking note of his conflicting loyalty to his tribe over the people as a whole will be a cleansing process, albeit a painful one.  I think he’ll be less likely to win than McCain or Clinton, but I think his victory would be the best hope for a conservative revival.

Read Full Post »

Older Posts »