Suddenly Sarah

I’ve been struggling with what to say about the conventions and the VP picks….

Obama had a good convention, but not a great one. His stump speech was good, but Bill Clinton’s was better. The speeches were all good, but they had to be good to recover from the worst mistake that Obama has made in the last 18 months: Joe Biden. Biden is a career politician in the way that fungus is career mold. He represents everything that Obama was running against. It would have been hard to imagine him picking a Democrat who less represented Hope™ and Change™ or who was more Old White Guy.™

But if Biden was a bad choice two weeks ago, he’s a near disaster now.

The Sarah Palin selection was simply, utterly, fantastically, amazingly brilliant.

Unlike Biden, Palin reinforces McCain’s brands. She’s a Maverick™ and an Outsider.™ She projects the same no-nonense Straight-Talk Express™ that McCain has built his career on, and more importantly, she’s not an Old White Guy.™

Her selection as the VP gave McCain a viable shot in the general election. The early polls now show McCain with a slight lead over Obama, and I expect that trend to continue for at least the rest of this week.

Palin absolutely dominated the convention cycle. The Republican convention was the smaller of the two, was accompanied by a smaller media footprint, and the conventional wisdom leading up to the conventions was that the GOP would be swamped by the Obamathon in Denver. Palin ended up swamping Obama. (Her speech was seen by more people than Obama’s.)

Palin did everything that McCain needed and then some. She energized the Republican base in a way that McCain never could. The conservative base will come out and vote for McCain/Palin in a way that they never would have for McCain/Romney. But beyond that, her selection really does look to be the single most important moment in the general election.

And beyond this cycle, Palin will be a political force for years. If McCain loses this year, expect Palin to run again in 2012–for the top spot.

The best measure of Palin’s impact is the degree to which she has induced PDS, Palin Derangement Syndrome. Charlie Martin has a roundup of the worst examples of that syndrome here. Martin debunks most of the worst Palin rumors (book banning, affairs, hidden pregnancies, etc…)

The big question, of course, is how well will the very conservative Palin actually appeal to independent voters and dissafected Hillary supporters?

On this question, I’m a bit more skeptical than many. I think that Palin’s choice to run with a special needs infant will fail to resonate with some women and I think that she’ll likely remain anathema for ideological liberal voters. She is fundamentally a conservative Christian woman, and for many women voters, that’s simply a non-starter.

However, Palin will appeal to a great many voters. Her appeal will be particularly strong among independent male voters.

From Will Wilkinson, (read the whole thing!)

First, let me just get it out of the way: I think she is a tremendously sexy woman. How this will effect the race, I have no idea, but it’s just got to. It’s not an issue of glamour so much as a kind of Paglian chthonic sexual power. Set in that context, her unabashed embrace of her fecundity and motherhood as a kind of qualification makes a lot of sense. Megan O’Rourke’s post on Palin’s political eros has it right, and I think she may even be on to something when she says we got a “glimpse of a novel problem for a presidential candidate: sexual tension with his VP.”

But she’ll also appeal to many women:

Tammy Bruce,

In the shadow of the blatant and truly stunning sexism launched against the Hillary Rodham Clinton presidential campaign, and as a pro-choice feminist, I wasn’t the only one thrilled to hear Republican John McCain announce Gov. Sarah Palin as his running mate. For the GOP, she bridges for conservatives and independents what I term “the enthusiasm gap” for the ticket. For Democrats, she offers something even more compelling – a chance to vote for a someone who is her own woman, and who represents a party that, while we don’t agree on all the issues, at least respects women enough to take them seriously.

Virtually moments after the GOP announcement of Palin for vice president, pundits on both sides of the aisle began to wonder if Clinton supporters – pro-choice women and gays to be specific – would be attracted to the McCain-Palin ticket. The answer is, of course. There is a point where all of our issues, including abortion rights, are made safer not only if the people we vote for agree with us – but when those people and our society embrace a respect for women and promote policies that increase our personal wealth, power and political influence.

Make no mistake – the Democratic Party and its nominee have created the powerhouse that is Sarah Palin, and the party’s increased attacks on her (and even on her daughter) reflect that panic.

As for me, this says it best:

From Robert Bidinotto (who is very enthusiastic about Palin):

I therefore need to reiterate emphatically that my only reason for supporting the McCain ticket — especially now that Palin is aboard — is that national-greatness progressivism represents a far-less-damaging and more mixed alternative to the utterly destructive, anti-American, left-Wilsonian “progressivism” of Obama. This is especially the case on the paramount issues of national security and energy production. Sadly, in this political environment, stopping Obama requires us to sign on to a philosophically chaotic and often damaging Republican candidate. The Palin pick indicates that free-market, limited-government influences at least will have a seat at the table in a McCain administration, tending to blunt his worst inclinations.

Things to do in Denver?

Well, it appears that my prediction of a Hillary victory was incorrect. Obama seems to have secured the Democratic nomination. Barring some unexpected turn of events (like the appearance of the mythical “Whitey” video), the DNC will nominate Barack Obama for the office of President of The United States of America.

Much has been made of the contest between an African-American and a Woman, but little has been said about the real battle lines that this contest represented: hard-left vs. middle-left. 16 years ago, Bill Clinton moved the Democratic party to the middle. Obama promises to move the party to the left. Way left. Way, way left.

Way, way, way left.

And that will be his biggest problem in the general election. Obama is the farthest left of every other Senator. There is simply no other politician on the national stage who is farther from the center than Barack Hussein Obama. All of the controversies that will surround Obama in the coming months; his relationships with unrepentant former terrorists, his willingness to meet with dictators and terrorist sponsoring tyrants, his desire to bomb allies, his refusal to acknowledge progress in Iraq, his steadfast refusal to even consider listening to military commanders in the field before making far-reaching strategic war-time decisions, his relationship with the worst parts of the black segregationalist movement, and his seeming inability to muster any reasonably authentic display of pride in America all spring from the same well: his deeply progressive political ideology. Jeremiah Wright isn’t the problem for Obama, it’s the ideology that makes Wright possible.

To make matters worse, Obama is inexperienced as a politician. Compared to McCain, Obama’s lack of experience is comical. To combat that lack of experience, Obama will argue — as he has been — that he has better judgment. But when his history is littered with the likes of Ayers, Wright, and Rezko, when his major foreign policy decisions have ranged from the simply ludicrous: bomb Pakistan, to the simply wrong: the surge won’t work, to the simply awful: unconditional meetings with Iran and North Korea, his judgment seems to be rather powerfully flawed. All those lapses in judgment spring from the same well: his deeply progressive political ideology.

Obama needs to move to the center, and he needs to move quickly. To win the general election, Obama needs to win over independent and moderate voters in Florida, Pennsylvania, Ohio, and Michigan. He needs to appeal to the exact same voters that voted for Bush over Kerry. And he needs to win them back. That bears repeating, because while it’s the line that Clinton has been singing to the superdelegates, it’s a line that hasn’t gotten much play in the major media. To win in the general election, Obama needs to win over the white suburban women who voted for Bush instead of Kerry.

Will making Hillary his VP help bring those voters over?

Or will those voters turn to a politician with decades of experience and a strong commitment to national defense? As Victor Davis Hansen put it, the Democrats have nominated the only candidate they had that could lose this election and the Republicans have nominated the only candidate they had that can win it.

Things to do in Denver?

Obama and Race

I’ve been reading a number of responses to Obama’s Big Speech; in particular, I thought Timothy Sandefur’s comments were excellent. I also liked Jeff Jacoby’s response in the Boston Globe.

I was as offended as a lot of people when Obama tossed his Grandmother under the bus, and I found his later “conciliatory” remarks about her being a “typical white person” equally troubling. I, like a lot of people, noticed that Obama’s refusal to denounce Wright–or leave the church–significantly undercut the strength and force of his repudiation of the Rev’s comments. And I was certainly not the only person to have noticed the essential difference between Wright and Obama’s poor Grandmama: that where Grandma’s racism is instinctive, unreflective, and surely tinged with at least some degree of remorse, Wright’s venom is the product of considered thought and careful deliberation, and more importantly, was delivered for the express purpose of moving his congregation to further hate, and is clearly remorseless.

Obama’s defense of his relationship with Wright came down to this: He’s a good but misguided man; I disagree with him on many things, but the strength of our shared beliefs is strong enough to counter our disagreements. Yes, he may have appalling views, but a lot of good people have appalling beliefs and we can not exclude them from the national conversation. Just as we don’t choose our family, we don’t choose our national polity. That, after all, is the point of a national “conversation on race.” If there is a racial divide and a racial wound that needs healing, then we should come together as a broad national polity. The problem is that Obama doesn’t ask for that.

Where he understands that any meaningful “conversation about race” has to involve the full participation of the black community and a full acknowledgment of that community’s legitimate grievances, he fails to see that a corresponding understanding of the white community’s grievances is equally necessary. To be sure, he pays lip-service to concerns about the fairness of racial preferences and issues of basic justice, but ultimately he ends up rejecting those concerns while ignoring legitimate problems. Now, I know how absurd–and offensive–it is to assume that there is anything like a unified “black” or “white” community, but these are the divisions that Obama referenced in his speech. Obama’s rhetoric plays into the inevitability of the racial divide and he certainly implied that the two communities were largely uniform and separable; in other words, this is his vision.

The failing in that vision, is that regardless of how civil or informative this supposed “conversation about race” could possibly be, he’s already drawn his conclusions–and they’re the same boilerplate progressive conclusions that the have been policy and law for the last forty years; more racial preferences, more set-asides, and more wealth transfer. Nowhere is there any semblance of change or any reason to hope. (They’re also exactly the same conclusions that Hillary Clinton draws, by the way).

He implored the black community to spend more time with children, to read more, and to remain optimistic. He said that the White community must address the legacy of discrimination “not just with words, but with deeds” by investing, providing and enforcing. Essentially, Obama asked the black community to become more responsible and he asked the white community to foot the bill. He also exempted the black community from any requirement to action.

What kind of responsible change is Obama asking of the black community if he continues to associate with and support the kind of considered hate that Rev. Wright trades in? Obama’s refusal to leave Wright’s church and his refusal to disown Wright was a telling symbolic gesture. He showed the black community that no matter how outrageous, provocative, or hateful any of its members become, they will be tolerated, embraced and sheltered.

Obama talked about the anger that roils in the black community. He advised us that, “the anger is real; it is powerful; and to simply wish it away, to condemn it without understanding its roots, only serves to widen the chasm of misunderstanding that exists between the races.” He’s right. The anger is real and it’s pervasive. Reverend Wright’s sermons are not philosophical outliers in the black community–they’re not the marginal rantings of an obscure minority: they’re mainstream. The anger that drives Wright’s vision of the world is of a piece with the anger that drives the celebration of the gangsta’ lifestyle, it’s the same anger that fuels a crippling anti-intellectualism, and it’s the same anger that drives the deep and virulent misogyny and racism in rap and hip-hop music. The anger that Obama referred to has–unfortunately–become the cultural and political anchor of the black community.

Obama did not, as other prominent black figures have done (Bill Cosby) roundly denounce this ridiculous celebration of anger in black culture, rather he appeared–especially in the context of his association with Wright–to accommodate and validate it. He told us that to turn his back on the source of that anger would be to turn his back on himself. Obama was telling us, in no uncertain terms, that unfocused and hotly passionate anger has become an essential part of the modern black political identity. Far from renouncing the debilitating anger of the black community, Obama embraced that anger and made it a part of himself. This is not a call to responsibility and progress, but is in fact is a refusal to accept responsibility.

In any honest conversation on the state of race relations in America, two things must be openly and honestly discussed: 1) The enduring legacy of slavery and systematic discrimination that polluted centuries of American history, and 2) That black American culture has quickly become the single greatest obstacle to black advancement.

Barack Obama had an opportunity to defy racial categories–the promise of his campaign was largely that; he was a candidate that happened to have dark skin. But no more. He had an opportunity to renounce the corrupt and debilitating prejudices that Rev. Wright embodied, but he did not. He had an opportunity to embrace a real conversation on the merits and dangers of wealth transfers and dependence, but he did not. He had an opportunity to ask everyone to take a principled stand for responsibility and change, but he did not. He had a unique opportunity to transcend race himself, to not phrase the conflict as one between “us” (blacks) and “them” (whites), but he did not.

Instead, he asked Americans to ignore naked racism and hate. Instead, he begged us all to become victims. Instead, he asked that we further define ourselves as pieces of the black community or the white community.

Race is now the issue for Obama, and he ultimately has only himself to blame for that.

Update: Christopher Hitchens has an excellent article up at Slate. His conclusion:

To have accepted Obama’s smooth apologetics is to have lowered one’s own pre-existing standards for what might constitute a post-racial or a post-racist future. It is to have put that quite sober and realistic hope, meanwhile, into untrustworthy and unscrupulous hands. And it is to have done this, furthermore, in the service of blind faith. Mark my words: This disappointment is only the first of many that are still to come.

Obama vs. Truth

The problem with pandering during a campaign is that it gets easier the more you do it, and if you do it often enough, you’ll eventually discover that you’ve made conflicting promises. And if you’re not careful, the people you’re making those promises to might suddenly begin to doubt your sincerity. This is the problem that Obama suddenly finds himself in. He’s been trying hard to be all things to all people and it’s beginning to make him look like a kind of a sleazebag.

First, he told the voters that he’d pull out of NAFTA if he couldn’t win certain concessions from the Canadians. But of course he knows that pulling out of NAFTA would be insane and impossible so his campaign goes to the Canadian embassy to assure them that he doesn’t really mean what he’s been saying to the voters. Nudge, nudge. Wink, wink.

Obama promised to pull out of Iraq within 16 months if he’s president. Now I think that’s nuts. Committing yourself to a military strategy 24 months in advance, with absolutely no idea of what the situation will be like when you take office is clearly insane. But Obama was courting the fringe left and had to distinguish himself from Hillary, so he made the 16 month commitment. But maybe not…. his campaign adviser, Samantha Power, said this:

“What he’s actually said, after meting with the generals and meeting with intelligence professionals, is that you – at best case scenario – will be able to withdraw one to two combat brigades each month. That’s what they’re telling him. He will revisit it when he becomes president,” Power says.

The host, Stephen Sackur, challenged her:”So what the American public thinks is a commitment to get combat forces out in 16 months isn’t a commitment isn’t it?”

“You can’t make a commitment in March 2008 about what circumstances will be like in January of 2009,” she said. “He will, of course, not rely on some plan that he’s crafted as a presidential candidate or a U.S. Senator. He will rely upon a plan – an operational plan – that he pulls together in consultation with people who are on the ground to whom he doesn’t have daily access now, as a result of not being the president. So to think – it would be the height of ideology to sort of say, ‘Well, I said it, therefore I’m going to impose it on whatever reality greets me.’”

“It’s a best-case scenario,” she said again. (Politico.com)

So, Obama was pandering, we all knew he was pandering… right? I mean, he got caught in a bit of electoral shenanigans right? What Power lays out is reasonable and understandable, right?

Maybe not. Power resigned and apologized (although she resigned and apologized for calling Hillary Clinton a monster, not for trying to be reasonable about foreign policy).

Obama campaign manager David Plouffe disagreed Friday with the suggestion that it would be responsible to leave “a little wiggle room” when establishing the date by which all U.S. combat troops should be out of Iraq.

“He has been and will continue to be crystal clear with the American people that if and when he is elected president, we will be out of Iraq in – as he said, the time frame would be about 16 months at the most where you withdraw troops. There should be no confusion about that with absolute clarity,” said Plouffe. (ABC News)

OK! Finally! So Power was out of line! “There should be no confusion about that with absolute clarity,” that seems pretty hard and fast, right? Well…..

“And you pull out according to that time table, regardless of the situation? Even if there’s serious sectarian violence?” CBS’s Kroft asked.

“No, I always reserve as commander in chief, the right to assess the situation,” Obama replied.

Ahhhh…… clarity.

Hillary Wins

CNN won’t do it, and neither will Fox. I’m going to scoop all the major news outlets. I’m calling the Democratic nomination. Hillary will win. All she has to do is stay in the race.

It won’t be decided until the convention and the super delegates will certainly play a deciding role, but I don’t think the floor fight will be very bitter. Obama will struggle initially but will graciously accept the inevitable–especially if he’s given the VP nomination. Here’s my thinking:

Hillary Clinton’s campaign for the Democratic nomination received more than just a reprieve yesterday after winning both the Texas and Ohio primaries. Although Clinton didn’t make much headway in the delegate count, the margin of her victory in Ohio gives her hope that she can win Pennsylvania by as wide a margin, and continue to chip away at Obama’s delegate lead in the coming months.

Of course, the conventional thinking says that the math is just too difficult, that the margins that Clinton would need to win by are impossible. But I think that’s misleading. First, Clinton demonstrated in Ohio that she can win by large margins, and if she can continue to carry the larger states, she’ll continue to cut into Obama’s delegate lead. She may not erase it entirely, but she can reduce it.

And remember — there’s still Michigan and Florida. Clinton won Michigan handily (Obama wasn’t on the ballot) and she won Florida handily as well. She’d likely do very well in both states even if they both voted again. And even if they delegates aren’t seated (which I think is unlikely), Clinton will argue that the Super Delegates should take the results of the Michigan and Florida primaries into consideration (after all, the nominee will have to win Florida in the General election). But ultimately, Clinton can argue that the voters in Michigan and Florida should not be disenfranchised. Whether the states violated party rules or not, the argument to intentionally and deliberately disenfranchise millions of voters is not an argument that the Obama campaign will want to make very strenuously. The Michigan and Florida delegates will be seated at the convention and Hillary will have a significant majority of them.

Finally, there’s still seven weeks till the Pennsylvania primary. Then more weeks and months after that as every possible delegate is fought over tooth and nail. While the length of this primary campaign initially worked in Obama’s favor, allowing him to surprise a complacent Clinton campaign, that’s not the case anymore. Obama can only be hurt by a prolonged campaign at this point. The Rezko trial is just starting and we haven’t heard the last about NaftaQuiddick.

The NAFTA gaffe–the campaign’s assurances to the Canadian Embassy that Obama didn’t really mean what he was saying in the primaries–will continue to haunt Obama. It’s the kind of mistake that has the potential to completely unravel his campaign. After all, if Obama is a lying, sleazy politician, what makes him any different?

Obama is also a young, inexperienced campaigner. Hillary isn’t. Obama will make more mistakes over the coming months than Clinton will. All Clinton needs to do is sit tight, stay on message, smile, and slowly pick away at Obama. She doesn’t need to dazzle, she doesn’t need to shine, she just needs to stay the course–and get Michigan and Florida. Obama, on the other hand, does need to dazzle because when Michigan and Florida are counted, Obama is the one who’s trailing.

So, Hillary will win the nomination (as long as she stays in long enough to get Michigan and Florida seated and in). That’s my prediction, for what it’s worth. (Not much.)

Of course, the cost of the extended primary may be devastating to the democratic ticket in the general election. If I were John McCain, I’d start laying the groundwork for the general campaign, but I’d stay well out of the spotlight for a few months.

Race and Democrats

Susan Estrich, writing for Fox News, tries to be courageously honest about the Democratic primary:

No one doubts, or at least no one who is honest does, that both racism and sexism come into play as people decide between Clinton and Obama, but could it be that people are more willing to admit that they won’t vote for the woman than that they won’t vote for the black?

If this is happening even among us good Democrats, what does that say about Obama’s strength in a general election? Not pretty questions. Not a fair world.

Hmm.

Is race/gender/shoe size the ONLY reason why a “good Democrat” would vote for a candidate? There couldn’t possibly be other reasons, right? Couldn’t it be that some people think that Obama might be a tad inexperienced (Hillary, after all, has been married to a president), or couldn’t it be that some voters actually trust Hillary more than Obama?

OK… maybe it is all about race. But what does that say about the Democratic party? Have they swallowed so much of their own identity politik that they are no longer able to see any other part of the world? Are race and gender the only issues that matter any more? Is the Democratic primary now nothing more than a race to the bottom to see who can claim to be the lowliest victim? It seems so… depressing.

Jonah Goldberg has a good article up addressing the same issue,

The Republican party is a mess, absolutely. Conservatives are sorting out what they believe, what heresies they can tolerate and on which principles they will not bend. At times this argument is loud, ugly and unfortunate. But you know what? At least it’s an argument about something. On the Democratic side, if you strip away the crass appeals to identity politics, the emotional pandering and the helium-infused rhetoric, you’re pretty much left with a campaign about nothing.

But put the race-baiting aside, and I find another insidious sentiment in Estrich’s column.

If this is happening even among us good Democrats…

“Then what hope do you troglodyte republicans have?” Democrats = Good. Everyone else = Racist Misogynist Pigs. Nice, that.

I don’t live in a perfect world, so I don’t expect much honesty or rationality from politicians. But I would dearly like it if more people approached politics as a competition between different ideas and not just a high-school charm competition. Ha. I know… silly me.

There’s this gem: Che posters in Obama offices. It would be like discovering a big David Duke poster in a McCain office. (For more on Che, check this out.) It says volumes about the kind of ideological support that Obama is generating. I’m not saying that Obama aspires to be a mass-murdering despot, or that, like Che, he wants to make homosexuality a capital crime, or that he believes that cultivating an all-consuming hatred of the enemy is a political virtue. But maybe his supporters do? You know, “us good Democrats?”

Or maybe not. Maybe, like Che, he’s dreamy… and that’s as much as thought as goes into it.

Romney Quits

Romney suspends his campaign. McCain will be the republican nominee.

Romney is reported as saying that a continuing primary battle will weaken the chances of a Republican victory in November. More than anything, Romney withdrawing now means that there won’t be a brokered convention–at least on the Republican side.

I’m not a fan of this result. I think nominating John McCain on the heels of two Bush administrations signals the final descent of the Republican party into populist pandering and big government social engineering. Was it ever any different ? Probably not.

In other news, James Lileks has a wonderful post up about the entries for a six-word slogan for America. Very funny, and very much worth reading.

The Day After

So, after Super Tuesday, Obama and Clinton remain effectively tied. No surprise there. It does look like the Democratic Convention should be interesting.

McCain has taken a decisive lead in the Republican race, and we’ll now see whether or not the anti-McCain forces can leverage enough votes for Romney in the coming contests to force a brokered convention. There has been a ton of anti-McCain vitriol pouring out of all corners of the Republican party, including this piece by Robert Bidinotto.

I sympathize with Robert’s position — McCain is not a positive choice for the country. But I don’t fear for the soul of the Republican party. A party that seriously entertains presidential bids from both Mike Huckabee and John McCain is not a party worth supporting.

Robert is right that McCain represents a progressive vision at odds with the individualism that both he and I support. But individualism has never been the unifying vision of the Republican party. The Reagan coalition included the “small-government” American conservative bloc, but that was only one part of the coalition. The other pillars of the coalition, the evangelicals and the socially conservative progressives, are inherently inimical to liberty.

The Republican party has sold its soul for votes. That’s done. It’s over. Any serious commitment that the Republican party had to Federalism and Individualism has long since expired. After three terms of Bushes, the failure of the Contract with America, and the viability of the Huckabee and McCain campaigns, we should have the grace to pull the shroud and put away the defibrillator.

As for the Democrats, well…. they’ve been on a downward spiral since Thomas Jefferson. They opposed the abolition of slavery and the adoption of F.D.R.’s New Deal sundered the last vestigial connections they had with the ideas and ideals of their founders (not to mention the Constitution). Far from taking principled positions on individual liberty, personal choice, and economic responsibility, the Democratic party now represents the worst kind of statism and populism.

Much has been made lately of the latent fascism in the American left (universal health care, the Americorps, progressive taxation, etc… etc…). But much attention should also be paid to the fascist ideology that underlies many of McCain and Huckabee’s favorite projects. The point is simple and it should be plain: both parties now represent the ascendancy of populist fascism in modern America.

We need a new party. (To put it mildly.)

I know I have been promising some thoughts on a platform, and I’ll get to that, I promise. Tomorrow or the next day at the latest.

Bill Quick has also set up a site, The American Conservative Party, to address some of these issues, and has invited people to help him. Check it out!

Super Tuesday

It’s Super Tuesday. There’s a very good chance that we’ll know who the nominees are tonight… or maybe not. Personally, I’m hoping that the day ends with everyone tied. That’s because I’m still hoping that at least one party will have a meaningful convention, where the nominee is decided in some arcane, decidedly undemocratic fashion.

Partly that’s because it would be fun to watch. Just imagine for a moment that Obama and Clinton go into the convention in a dead heat and that the DNC ends up nominating Clinton by a wide margin. Where is the Democratic convention this year? It’s not Chicago is it? Intrade has Clinton at 51.7 and Obama at 48.

On the other side of the aisle, Intrade has McCain at 89. and Romney. I truly hope that Romney does well and forces the GOP to decide at convention, then there’s some small hope that they could nominate someone else. I’m on record as not believing that McCain could ever win the GOP nomination, and part of me still finds it hard to believe that he’s running in first. (It’s as if Rosie O’Donnel was back on the View — sure, you can see how it could happen, but she’s so angry and weird and she pissed so many people off…. Just like McCain.)

So we’ve come to this: McCain, Romney, Obama, or Clinton.

They’re all bad. Of course, some are far, far worse than others, but they’re all poor choices. And what’s most depressing is that they seem to be the front-runner because they’re the worst possible choices.

Mitt Romney will say anything to anyone at any time. He’s a man of your convictions, just tell him what they are and he’ll discover a passionate commitment to those causes for as long as he’s in the room. I’d say he’s a good looking Zelig, but that seems too kind. He’s not; he’s a Mormon John Kerry.

Obama is charismatic and oh, so very dreamy. He sounds great, he looks good, and he represents “change.” That’s powerful stuff, “change.” It makes us all quivery with excitement. He’s different. Well, his domestic policy isn’t so much different than Hillary’s as sort of really kind of the same, but don’t pay attention to that. Obama represents “change.” And I guess he is after a change of sorts. Bomb your allies, make peace with your enemies; that would be a change. Seriously. He wants to invade Pakistan and have peace talks with Iran…. Think about that for a moment. I mean, really think about it. For all of her faults, and there are plenty, Hillary isn’t nuts. Obama’s foreign policy is nuts… no it’s worse than nuts, it’s dangerous.

McCain is a fighter. He’s tough. He was tortured. His foreign policy isn’t nuts, it’s sensible, reasoned, and well thought out. I trust McCain when it comes to war and terrorism. The problem is, McCain isn’t so fond of the constitution. See, the thing is… free speech is really, really important. It really is. It’s the lifeblood of democracy. John McCain has done more to kill free speech in this country than any other politician in recent memory. Add to that the terrifying awfulness of his anti-profit populist pandering and he’s…. well, he’s scary too.

Clinton is… well, she’s Hillary Clinton. She’s Bill’s wife. Now, I don’t so much mind the sleazy back-room politics, or the cheap demagoguery, or the win-at-all-costs mentality. But the pay-to-play sliminess of the Clintons’ political life is appalling… the earmarks, the favored legislation, the gentle whispers of encouragement in the right place. There’s just too much to ignore. I will give Hillary credit for understanding foreign policy better than any of the other Democratic nominees, but anyone should see that as damning with faint praise. The biggest problem is that Hillary is a tyrant. Her plan for universal health care? She wants to make it illegal to be uninsured. That’s her solution. Insure everyone by criminalizing the uninsured.

That’s why I’m hoping today’s votes don’t clarify anything. That’s why I’m hoping for some shady back-room deal at a convention.

Because that’s the only hope left.

Update:

I just came across this post, Three Reasons to Vote for Obama. Needless to say, I disagree. But in particular, I think this passage illustrates the worst kind of political thought, and the primary reason why I emphatically do not support Obama:

…if you’re a moderate who just wants to see the government make some damn progress on these issues at last, it’s a reason to give him a shot. Maybe his programs won’t work, but on the other hand, maybe they will — and on some of these issues, aren’t we at the point where it’s better to try something than continue to do nothing? I’m well aware of the Law of Unintended Consequences, and that good intentions aren’t necessarily enough (the road to Hell, etc.). But it’s not like Obama is proposing anything all that radical, and if given a choice between eight more years of triangulation and gridlock (Clinton) vs. eight years of a different approach (Obama), doesn’t the latter seem at least a little bit appealing?

It’s just not enough to acknowledge that you might be wrong and then dismiss concerns about the merits of your approach with a plea to “just do something.” Fixing problems means fixing problems. It doesn’t mean just trying different things until you find one that sticks. A bad solution isn’t just a hiccup, it makes the problem worse. You don’t solve Social Security by increasing taxes, that makes the problem worse. You can’t lower the cost of health care by mandating universal insurance coverage (that will raise costs). You can’t improve access to health care by rationing it, you can’t improve security by bombing your allies, and you can’t cut the deficit by increasing spending.

“Maybe his programs won’t work, but on the other hand, maybe they will.”

That’s a complete abdication; it’s ignorant voting. Public Policy isn’t guesswork, it’s not alchemy or magic. There’s no secret or special solution that we just have to hit on. Some proposals are better than others — some plans work, others don’t. But it’s not random.

Obama’s platform is “change” but change for the mere sake of change is an idea that appeals only to the lazy, the reckless, and the foolish. It’s the hallmark of adolescence, but it’s not the hallmark of good governance.

Update2:

Michael Chabon, a gifted novelist, has a column up today at the Washington Post stumping for Obama. I liked The Amazing Adventures of Kavalier & Clay, but spinning a good yarn isn’t really the same as being president. Chabon seems to think otherwise:

To support Obama, we must permit ourselves to feel hope, to acknowledge the possibility that we can aspire as a nation to be more than merely secure or predominant. We must allow ourselves to believe in Obama, not blindly or unquestioningly as we might believe in some demagogue or figurehead but as we believe in the comfort we take in our families, in the pleasure of good company, in the blessings of peace and liberty, in any thing that requires us to put our trust in the best part of ourselves and others. That kind of belief is a revolutionary act. It holds the power, in time, to overturn and repair all the damage that our fear has driven us to inflict on ourselves and the world.

Chabon seems to be saying that by electing Obama, a nice man who speaks well and looks good, we elect a representative of our better nature. In Obama we find the candidate as we wish our candidates to be, and we should elect him becuase he represents what we aspire to be. In essence, Chabon is saying that Obama’s story is the right story. It’s a good story; a story of hope and rebirth and change and peace and repair and comfort and other things that feel warm and fuzzy.

I don’t dispute any of that. Obama is warm and fuzzy and I think he’s probably sincere in his fuzziness (unlike Edwards or Clinton or Romney). But the fact that he’s sincere doesn’t mean that he’s right. The problem isn’t that Obama is young or inexperienced or that he’s too hopeful… the problem is that Obama is wrong on too many the the important issues. His foreign policy is dangerous; his health care plan is costly, ineffective and ruinous; his Social Security plan will only make the problem worse; and his economic policies are built on empty populist rhetoric and simple demagoguery.

Don’t get me wrong, Clinton is no better. On many issues (like health care) she’s actually worse (and that’s saying something!). The problem is that neither of these two supporting articles (they’re representative of the kind of support that Obama is receiving) pay any attention whatsoever to the particulars of Obama’s policy’s, and that’s dangerous. Obama may be a man with a vision, but those who support him seem blinded.

Libertarian Loonies

In the wake of my Ron Paul posts, I received a message from from the George Phillies campaign. What? You haven’t heard of his campaign? Me either. Mr. Phillies is the Chair of the Libertarian Party in Massachusetts, and he’s running for the Libertarian Party Nomination. Of course… he’s not mentioned on the LP website as a candidate for the nomination. And that can’t be a good thing… especially when the bar appears to have been hung pretty low: Jim Burns is listed as a candidate for the nomination and the site proclaims that Jim has raised a grand total of $40 for his campaign. (This is the national site, mind you. Lp.org.)

My message was from Carolyn Marbry, and Carolyn has the best title ever for a campaign worker. She’s the “National Mobilization Facilitator for Electronic Operations.” Wow. I was almost prepared to support George based solely on his ability to hand out cool titles. Just think, instead of a poor, drab, Secretary of State we could have the National Master for Advice and Counsel in Matters Pertaining to the States, Various.

Cool titles aside, I checked out George’s website. (Did that mean I was being electronically facilitated? Maybe I was electronically mobilized….)

Now, George is a smart guy. He’s a professor of Physics at Worcester Polytechnic Institute. According to the website, Professor Phillies, “has attained international recognition for his scientific studies of light scattering, soaps, and polymer solutions.” Cool. I like science. And I’m glad that we have smart, liberty minded people teaching 19 year olds how light scatters, what the heck polymers are, and why soap is important. But I’m not prepared to support Mr. Phillies in his presidential aspirations.

Let’s see where Dr. Phillies stands on the issues:

If elected, I will immediately end our occupation of Iraq. Our forces with their supplies and equipment will move as rapidly as possible through peaceful Kuwait to await shipment home.

Ahhhhh….. naturally! We’re tired, let’s go home. Oh… what? The Iraqi people? Screw ‘em.

George has already lost me. George isn’t a career politician, so I’ll be kind enough to assume that this isn’t mere political pandering, but rather a deeply held belief. Of course that fact that an immediate withdrawal would be catastrophically stupid, would further destabilize an already unstable region, would stand as an engraved invitation for Iran to invade, would ignore our moral responsibility to support the Iraqi government that we created, and… oh to the hell with it. If Prof. Phillies doesn’t get this, then he’s confusing people with polymers. We’re not plastic and neither are the Iraqis.

But let’s move on:

George says,

Our only hope is a President who points at Federal program after Federal program, corporate welfare scheme after corporate welfare scheme, and says the same four words “We can’t afford that.” Those words got our grandparents though the Great Depression. Those are the words that will restore fiscal sanity to our Republic.

Well, I was hoping for a president who would do a little more than point and whine, but hey…. maybe it would work. You know, in the same way that FDR decided in the 1930′s that we just couldn’t afford to start any new government prog…. Wait, what the f**k is George talking about?

I will order all Executive branch employees to comply enthusiastically with all Congressional requests for documents and testimony.

Your smile isn’t wide enough, buddy. Wider! Be more enthusiastic!

Uncle Sam has no legitimate role in the abortion issue, and neither does your state government.

What? Then who does? I don’t care where you stand on the issue, pro-life or pro-choice, George’s position is just nuts. Unless George actually has an uncle named Sam, in which case… I still don’t get it. Either it’s a federal right or it’s not. If it’s not, then it’s up to the States. Sorry, George but the local zoning board doesn’t get a say.

At times, Professor Phillies is maddeningly vague. On energy and the environment, he’s long winded and says virtually nothing. When discussing health care he has this howler, “Cost transfers should be made illegal: Your insurance should only pay for your care.” Which, of course, would mean that it’s not insurance…. “cost transfer” is just a weird way of saying “spreading risk.” The problem isn’t that the insurance companies spread the risk around (what else would they do?) it’s that the government requires them to include extremely high risk populations in the pool, thus increasing the cost of everyone’s premiums.

When he starts in on immigration he’s just plain evasive (or horribly populist, take your pick):

All too often, we hear claims that we must import foreign workers because Americans won’t do those jobs. ‘Those jobs’ in question are hard, physically demanding, outdoor work that require constant, careful attention to detail. Those jobs should be receiving a wage premium, not be barely-minimum-wage sources of employment. There are jobs that Americans won’t do, notably in the sciences and engineering; we allow foreigners to come here to study, but then require them to leave. Mr. Bush’s foreign guest worker scheme is a corporate welfare deal at the expense of the American worker.

OK…. So… your solution is… what again? Is he saying that the government should impose a minimum-wage on farm work? How else are we to interpret “Those jobs should be receiving a wage premium” in this context? And what are those jobs in science and engineering that American’s won’t do? Really? Won’t?

To be fair, Prof. Phillies is correct on some issues, but like the major parties, his is a shotgun approach to policy. Some hits and some misses. There’s no consistent and principled line of argument here. It’s a hodge-podge of surrender, price controls, abdication, and populism. I think I’m most frightened by his call for a more enthusiastic bureaucracy….

Ms. Marbry emailed me to convince me I shouldn’t take Ron Paul as representative of mainstream libertarianism. But her implication is that Prof. Phillies is that representative. If that’s true, we’re no better off.

But is he representative?

I checked out Wayne Allyn Root’s website (he’s listed first on the LP homepage as he’s raised a whopping $14K).

First off I’m struck by this:

Libertarian Presidential hopeful Wayne Allyn Root will appear on many of Europe’s biggest TV and radio stations during his UK media tour this week.

OK… so…. Wait a minute, I’m still processing this. OK… I would have thought this would be obvious, but here goes: It’s helpful to campaign in this country if you want to win. I’m just saying….

As I begin scanning, Wayne seems OK on the issues, but that might be only because he’s not saying much at all. The devil is always in the details, and as soon as we get a detailed plan we get one of those odd, counter-productive reforms that so many libertarians are fond of:

I will ask Congress to give the Government Accountability Office real power by elevating its chief, the Comptroller General of the United States, to a cabinet-level executive branch officer, with oversight over all federal programs and agencies. Under my plan, the Comptroller would have the ability to take government agencies to court to compel their efficient performance and to forcibly remove waste and pork.

Separation of powers, checks and balances… they’re so antiquated. “…compel their efficient performance and to forcibly remove waste and pork,” sounds an awful lot like a line-item veto for the executive branch. This is nothing more than a disgusting power grab. He wants to take the independent and non-partisan GAO and make it part of his cabinet. Who needs oversight? Don’t you trust him? Come on… trust him! Trust him!

A few lines down we get the actual statement:

I support the Line Item Veto. I will push relentlessly and tirelessly to make this a crucial part of the President’s arsenal to fight the deficit, cut waste, and balance the budget.

So much for the Constitution.

I support Voting ballots in English-only. My goal is to reduce the cost of government. Therefore we must stop wasting taxpayer money by printing ballots and administering elections in multiple languages.

Federalism stinks! More power to the Federal government! This is one of those absolute howlers… elections aren’t run by the feds, Wayne. At some point, the Constitution should actually matter.

I will sign a pledge to NOT raise tax rates-PERIOD!

I support Internet Freedom. I support the legalization, regulation & taxation of Online Gaming (just like U.K.). Prohibition has been proven a failure. Let’s legalize, regulate and tax this growing industry- thereby bringing in billions of dollars in new tax revenues that we can use for deficit reduction, homeland security, or the war on terror.

He said he wouldn’t raise taxes. He didn’t say anything about new taxes. (He’s also clearly pretty fond of the U.K….)

It’s not flip-flopping. It’s nuanced. Like this:

I believe abortion is a matter of personal choice and not intended for federal government intervention. Let’s get the federal government out of a woman’s right to choose what to do with their own body- this will prevent the death of innocent women at the hands of butchers in back-alleys.
BUT I also support common sense limitations on abortion- no late term or partial birth abortion (unless a mother’s life is endangered)…no federal funding of abortion…and I support Parental Notification for underage girls.

Get the Feds out!Well, OK, not out so much as deeply involved. This kind of stuff drives me crazy. Just say what you mean. Saying things like this means that you think voters are stupid and gullible.

I am opposed to Yucca Mountain- I do not think nuclear waste should be transported across the country, thereby posing a greater security, accident or terrorist threat. I also believe the choice of a nuclear storage site near Las Vegas is completely irresponsible and reckless. Yucca Mountain was chosen at a time when Las Vegas was a small anonymous town. It is downright foolish, shortsighted and dangerous to risk a nuclear disaster near any booming metropolis.

Wow! Now that’s a new one! I haven’t seen any candidate talk about Yucca Mountain. I wonder what Phillies thinks about this, he’s a physicist after all. This is one of those issues where it would be really great to have an independent, non-partisan agency to do some fact checking. You know, like the GAO. Oh… right.

Let’s show our true colors by requesting that the Iraqi people vote on America’s role in Iraq. We are supporters of Democracy. We went to Iraq to build a Democracy. Let’s support an Iraqi national vote on whether the Iraqi people want U.S. troops to stay or go. If they vote “Go” we should leave. PERIOD.
If the Iraqi people vote for U.S. troops to stay, we should still make plans to get out of Iraq as soon as possible- but first make sure our friends and allies in the Iraq government can defend their young Democracy. We cannot punish our Iraqi partners and allies who took our word and stood by us- or America’s word will mean nothing in the future to our allies.

Wayne manages to squeeze a little waffling in on this issue too. I think Wayne’s just trying to cover his bases. I mean, cover his cricket wickets… sorry old chap.

Wayne is a candidate who takes a lot of hard, line-in-the-sand positions. Well, you know…. sort of.

Next I went to Michael Jingozian’s website. Clarity isn’t his strong suit. “Reset America” is his campaign slogan. It’s catchy and it’s hip. It conjures images of a violent and catastrophic change, a sudden loss of work, a painful period while we wait for the system to reboot…. Oy.

“Do over!” is not an inspiring political message.

Mike doesn’t seem to take any clear stand on the issues but he’s big on five year plans and prosecuting political opponents for war crimes. That’s not usually a good combination.

Oh… he also likes “integrity” and “sustainable” political practices. And there’s a picture of him thinking deep thoughts. You know he’s thinking deep thoughts because he’s rubbing his chin. Or maybe he has a pimple. Either way, he has a bunch of charts. Like this. Enough said.

Next up, Bob Jackson. I start out liking Bob. Bob’s a family man. Bob’s an Eagle Scout. Bob was an engineer. Bob knows how “things” work. (More on “things” later.) He has this to say on energy policy:

The most important scientific advancement facing us is the development of totally pollution free Fusion reactors. This requires the development of room temperature electrical super conductive materials to make the powerful magnets needed to harness the fusion process.

Oh great.Again, I find myself wishing Prof. Phillies were around…. Bob goes on,

The country needs a president with an energy plan, environmental concern and personal ethics of an Eagle Scout. Bob is the only candidate with such credentials and plan.

Bob’s an Eagle Scout. Not just a cub, or a bear, or any other piddling kid-stuff scout. We’re talking eagle. Bob has the chops. He knows all about fusion. He’s prepared. Bob will get those scientists in line. (You listening George? We’re talking to you!) Maybe he’s going for the fusion merit badge.

Bob’s Iraq plan looks better than some of the other candidates. But only in comparison. Bob’s a fan of the three-state plan. I can see it’s attraction, but I think it’s probably too late in the game to scrap the current Iraqi government and try to start over with three separate ones. (This raises a question…. Saying “I told you so” isn’t a helpful political position. Does Bob actually think this is a workable policy? Can you imagine the meeting with the Joint Chiefs? “OK… So here’s the plan. We’re calling it, Operation Do-Over. Mike Jingozian here will fill you in on the rest.”)

Bob’s also big on sealing the U.S. border. Most of the candidates are. When did this become mainstream libertarianism? I’m just asking…. Did I miss the memo on xenophobia?

Bob’s pro life and wants to devolve abortion to the States and he’s consistent about it. None of this, you get to decide, so long as you decide the way I want you to stuff. Points for sticking to principle, Bob.

So far, I like Bob the best. He seems the least off-kilter of the candidates I’ve checked out. Of course, Bob’s a libertarian, so there’s this:

Our standard of living is based literally on two factors, emotions and a multitude of “things”. Emotions (thoughts, love, hate, greed, values, religion, etc) are actually free. All humans since caveman days have all, and sometimes more, emotions that can be handle rationally. All “things” that form our physical standard of living must be produced and that requires energy.

I like “things.” Religion is an emotion? What about the Boy Scouts? Are they an emotion? And what about that knock on our paleolithic ancestors? Did they not have emotions? I know they didn’t have the Boy Scouts, but I think they probably had some emotional life. But maybe not. Maybe they were different. Maybe their standard of living was based figuratively on stuff.

The last website is for Daniel Imperato. Things get weird here. Dan’s not real big on the whole “individual” part of individual liberty, he likes “we the people.” Apparently as in, “We, the people, know better than you. Get stuffed.”

He wants to restrict your charitable donations (so you can give more to Social Security).

I propose a new charity system, where the only charity that can receive unlimited contributions is the Social Security 501(c)3 Charitable Fund. That way, wealthy Americans, who wish to have the largest tax deductions through charitable donations, will donate back to the American people and the Social Security Charitable Fund that will be run by we the people.

And then,

I propose an approval fee on all FDA approved drugs to be contributed by the drug companies to the US healthcare system. In addition, a percentage will be added to the wholesale costs of the drugs that are sold around the world that will be contributed back to the healthcare system.

Hmmm…. what’s his party affiliation? Libertarian? This can’t be right. Hey, wait! He has more new government programs!

One of my major initiatives will be a US online education system, which I have already began to develop, with an education platform that will be supported by a shared computer portal of educational courses and content. It will be provided by a large number of universities, one program at a time. These programs and classes will be installed on our educational portal, and it will represent a gesture of moral and social responsibility by and between all universities. This will collectively create the greatest online free education system in the world, for the people who can’t afford education run by we the people.

It will be provided for by a large number of universities (not all, just a “large number”). It will be great. It will “represent a gesture.” What does that mean? Could anything be more vague? Which gesture is he thinking of? I know which gesture I’m thinking of….

I propose joint manufacturing programs, expansion of labor unions and organized labor into Latin America. This will help the people, teach the people, and organize the people, to compete around the world for a Better Americas.

Wow. I don’t even know where to begin with that one. Dan is starting to look a lot like a fascist.

My strategy for Iraq is to implement an immediate cease fire, strengthen our troop base, and join with the Arab states for a long-term peace solution.

You know, because we’ve been refusing so many requests for a cease fire. Day after day we have terrorists coming to us with reasonable and rational pleas for a cease fire. Let’s just stop all the shooting already! Can’t we all just get along? We can join hands with Saudi Arabia and Iran and the Sudan and sing songs of solidarity.

Dan wants to, “bring back his country — The United States of America — to the straight and narrow.” What with Wayne off campaigning in Britain, Dan seems to think we need to reminded about which country is his. There’s no indication that he means “straight and narrow” as a stand for family values… his website crashed so I couldn’t delve any deeper. But I saw enough, Dan’s not an advocate of individual liberty. He’s not even close.

The problem, of course, is that they all claim to be libertarians. Because being a libertarian can mean anything. More subsidy, less subsidy. Raise taxes, lower taxes. No nukes, more nukes. Open the borders, close the borders. Out of Iraq, stay in Iraq. More freedom, less freedom.

It’s a mess and it’s absurd. Of all these candidates, I liked Bob Jackson, Eagle Scout the best. But that’s only because Bob doesn’t really say that much. Bob’s also the only one who didn’t seem to descend into rank populism (although none were as bad as Imperato).

These are the people that represent libertarianism. But they don’t represent me.