And… They’re Off!
D.A. Ridgely on Sep 5th 2008
Based on what little of the Republican National Infomercial I managed to catch (read: failed to avoid), their message is strong and clear: America needs a president whom only the Republicans can provide – a man who can make America once again safe, secure, prosperous and free after eight years of a disastrous and failed, um, Republican presidency. While not quite rising to the remorseful, tear-soaked morning-after promises thuggish husbands tell their battered wives, there’s nonetheless something that’s almost as thrillingly brazen as it is breathtakingly desperate about this gambit.
And it just might work.
Mind you, as far as I can tell, Barack Obama is an empty vessel with paper-thin qualifications (if any are really necessary, which I doubt) into which voters foolish enough to expect good things from government can pour their hopes and dreams. He’s a smooth talkin’ son-of-a-gun and mighty good lookin’, too. Just the sort of guy for the nation to get its next teenage girl crush on. And just as likely to end in heartbreak as all the others before him, too, but never mind all that! The guy’s a dreamboat!
In fact, Obama’s major qualification as a candidate is precisely that he is (still!) an unknown. (Libertarian Party VP candidate Wayne Allyn Root is the sort of guy who gives the LP the reputation it so richly deserves, but this is both funny and weirdly significant.) Hey, even if it does turn out that there really isn’t that much there there, that to hardly know him is to know him well, well, better the devil you don’t know, sometimes. After all, that’s how we got Bill Clinton and does anyone honestly think he wouldn’t still be in office but for that pesky 22nd Amendment? (My guess is that at this point we’d not only welcome him back but lure him with a lifetime supply of kneeling interns if that’s what it took.)
Meanwhile, did anyone even so much as mention George W. Bush at the Republican bash? I don’t know, I really didn’t follow it all that much, but it felt like being at a family reunion where, on the one hand, everyone avoids mentioning Uncle Fred ever since his NAMBLA membership became public knowledge but, on the other, everyone feels a bit of silent relief they no longer have to pretend he really isn’t a pervert. (And let’s not even get started about Vice President “He-Who-Must-Not-Be-Named.”)
Back to the Republicans’ message, though: The world is a dangerous place (and McCain intends to see to it that it stays that way), taxes are too high (most Americans are so crippled by their tax burden that they can actually remember how many homes they own, or used to), federal programs are too intrusive and expansive (except maybe when it comes to money pouring into Alaska and restrictions on the funding of political speech), all life is sacred (at least until it’s born), borders should be open to the free flow of goods (but not people) and the rest of the world deserves American style democracy and John McCain is just the sort of guy to see to it that they get it, good and hard.
Meanwhile, I did tune in the other night to watch the rollout of their new 2008 Palin. Okay, so there wasn’t as much research, development or testing, either in the lab or the field, of this new major Republican brand as the federal government would require of something more dangerous than a Vice President like, say, a hair dryer or a child’s toy. But I disagree with some of my co-bloggers here and think the unveiling and initial product pitch went very well.
And then there’s John McCain, himself. The man’s a hero, there’s no question about that. He’s exactly like John Wayne was if only John Wayne really had been a hero and John McCain really could act. (Okay, so John Wayne really couldn’t act, either. But he did the best John Wayne in the business, and that’s pretty close to acting.) And so what if according to every single insider source McCain really does have the fly-off-the-handle temper problem of an abusive husband around staff and just about everyone else when the cameras aren’t rolling? It isn’t like either the Republicans or the Democrats in Congress would just roll over and let the president go around, oh, say, invading other nations just because of a handful of bearded guys living in caves, is it?
I have no idea how Sarah Palin will play out over the next two months, but two months isn’t a long time. I remain frankly amazed that McCain hasn’t yet revealed his own darker side, so what do I know? So, too, I’d be among the first to acknowledge that Obama has some (Bill) Clintonesque charm and rhetorical skills that may dazzle come “debate” time. Biden? *shrug* I doubt he’ll help Obama all that much or hurt him much, either. Based on her acceptance speech, however, Palin’s addition to the McCain ticket raises the stakes on the vice presidential debate dramatically. As matters stand today, that might prove to be the pivotal campaign event. *yet another shrug* We’ll see.
Filed in The Bureau
I was glad to hear McCain admit that the Republicans had screwed up. After having the Presidency and control on Congress, we come away with a larger government.
The Republicans don’t deserve to hold the Presidency, but I’m still hopeful they will. When faced with a candidate who promises to grow the federal government and candidate who promises to cut back, the decision is easy for me.
Both candidates are now campaigning for “change”, but each wants change going in a different direction.
You can’t ever fully trust a politician, but at least there’s more history on McCain to better estimate how he will follow through in office.
[...] D.A. Ridgley om Republikanernes budskab til de amerikanske vælgere: “The world is a dangerous place (and McCain intends to see to it that it stays that way), taxes are too high (most Americans are so crippled by their tax burden that they can actually remember how many homes they own, or used to), federal programs are too intrusive and expansive (except maybe when it comes to money pouring into Alaska and restrictions on the funding of political speech), all life is sacred (at least until it’s born), borders should be open to the free flow of goods (but not people) and the rest of the world deserves American style democracy and John McCain is just the sort of guy to see to it that they get it, good and hard.” Mikkel Kruse E-mail: FJERNDETTEmikkelkruseolsen@gmail.com Hjemmeside: http://liberalisternesungdom.dk Mikkel Kruse studerer biologi ved Københavns Universitet. [...]
So, too, I’d be among the first to acknowledge that Obama has some (Bill) Clintonesque charm and rhetorical skills that may dazzle come “debate” time.
I’m curious to know how you’d handicap the perception of who should “win” the debates. “W” was always supposed to be way more stupidider than Gore/Kerry, and ended up winning by not getting creamed. Will we be on more level ground here, or is there a favorite?
Good question, Matt, but I don’t think I’d hazard a guess yet. Both tickets are jockeying now to frame the race and how the debates go will be driven by how successful either side is in doing that framing. Whether it’s Republican spin or a legitimate, albeit backhanded, sign of racial progress, the fact that there’s buzz about the black guy being the elitist this election is pretty amazing. We live in interesting times.
Quoting Mr. Ridgely:
I thought Jon Stewart’s put this really well while interviewing Huckabee on “The Daily Show” last night: “So you feel like your party is the only one that can fix the damage … that your party caused.”
Even with a preview I forgot to edit out the apostrophe s while moving around sentences in that comment. Feh.
Oy. Is everything about “spin,” as if it’s all about cheating the game? It is for many or most Americans, but here?
Aside from my friendship with Jonathan Rowe, I’ve always liked this blog because I consider libertarians the honest brokers of American politics. When in a neutral forum [or any forum really, if I'm trying to convince the other guy], my source of choice is Reason magazine.
And what I’d admired most from principled libertarians is that they don’t give in to the cynicism of “not a dime’s worth of difference between the two parties.” There are real differences, social conservatism vs. collectivism, both of which libertarians despise, and they tend to make the call as to which is the less pressing evil at any given time.
Which I’m good with because on the whole, the tide of social conservatism seems on the wane whereas the tide of collectivism never seems to. [As bloghost Kuznicki and commenter Huisman each note, respectively, on other threads.]
As to November 2008, Jon Stewart has a point, but the most effective criticism of the Bush administration is on its incompetence, and of the 1995-2007 GOP congress for selling out its mandate for fiscal modesty.
I do believe McCain has addressed both forthrightly, and these are the linchpins of his candidacy. There is no logical reason why Obama/Biden’s new/old ideas are a necessary antidote to the GOP’s now-confessed lack of prudence. This is nihilism in my view, or as I’m fond of saying—anyone who thinks things can’t get any worse has no imagination.
Now, if y’all think that the current terrorism countermeasures are worse than terrorism itself, I can respect that. I have always looked to libertarians for their sense of perspective, the rarest political commodity of all. I yield the floor, and thank you.
Well, Mr. Van Dyke, I suppose I should begin by noting that I can’t recall the last time anyone even hinted that I might be considered a principled libertarian, although I am fond of saying that I have so many principles I haven’t even used some of them yet. As for my personal cynicism level — and I’d certainly never presume to speak here for my co-bloggers — I am reminded of a line from one of Lily Tomlin characters long ago: “No matter how cynical you get, it’s just never enough.”
I certainly hope I’ve given no cause for anyone reading my comments here to infer I think the overall political agenda Obama would, if elected, pursue would be a good thing. A number of my fellow libertarians live in (I think naive) hope that he might at least roll back some of the hegemonic excesses of the Bush Administration. I know, also, that one or two of my co-bloggers here are varyingly aghast over Bush’s Supreme Court nominees and hopeful an Obama Administration would somehow “do better.” I remain dubious about that and think that, on balance, the jurisprudential nutcases conservatives have been packing the courts with as quick as they could for years now are merely the pendulum swinging back after the jurisprudential nutcases liberals previously packed the courts with for decades. Some or all of you may disagree. *shrug*
But I’m certainly no fan of McCain’s avowed ‘National Greatness’ conservativism, if it’s even worthy of that name. His admirable war record aside, every time I hear any politician calling on American citizens to sacrifice for their nation (not even for each other, mind you, but for the nation) I find my mind’s eye pointing my imaginary deer rifle straight at their strutting crotches.
Chuck Colson once said he’d run over his own grandmother for Richard Nixon. After Colson’s Christian conversion, G. Gordon Liddy quipped “If he felt that strongly about Nixon, imagine what Chuck would be willing to do for Jesus!” Just trying to imagine what a man like McCain thinks is the appropriate level of my sacrifice for the good of the nation sends chills down my spine. And not the good kind, either.
Of course things can get worse. And they will.
Thank you, Mr. Ridgely. I was more focused on political philosophies of the two parties, coupled with my opinion that social conservatism is on the wane whereas the push for economic collectivism seems to be a constant.
If you feel the individuals at the top of the GOP are unworthy and unsalvageable, I understand. My friends on the left agree, so I guess I can go chat with them if I want to talk about people.
I did want to state my high regard for Reason magazine types as agents of clarity in American politics. I do think they [understandably] underestimate their beneficial effect on the US polity and I wanted to explain why I was a regular reader of this blog.
Mr. Van Dyke:
I think your observation about what you call social conservatism and economic collectivism is accurate. Speaking of the folks at reason, my friend for longer than either of us like to admit, Ron Bailey and I have often lamented that the relationship between conservatism and liberalism in America is not a see-saw but a ratchet. Liberals push for reform, conservatives stop them after a limited amount of “progress.” Rarely, however, is any such “progress” actually rolled back. It does happen as, e.g., with welfare reform. But it’s rare.
I’m happy to have readers for any reason at all, and I do appreciate your comments. Keep them coming!