RealClearPolitics - Cross Tabs Blog

The Future of Conservatism

2008-11-21T00:14:33Z

National Review and Hillsdale College hosted a panel yesterday entitled 'The Future of Conservatism' with panelists Ross Douthat of The Atlantic, David Bobb of Hillsdale College, Gene Healy of the CATO Institute, and Ramesh Ponnuru and Jonah Goldberg of National Review.

Underscoring the influence of David Brooks' bi-weekly column, the parameters of the debate revolved almost exclusively around Brooks' column from November 10 entitled 'Darkness at Dusk' in which he described the current debate amongst conservatives as split between 'Reformists' and 'Traditionalists.' Brooks wrote of the Traditionalists as conservatives who believed the Republicans sold out their small government principles to win elections, which ironically caused them to lose. Reformers, said Brooks, seek a modernized conservatism willing to use government "to address inequality and middle-class economic anxiety." David placed Ross Douthat, Ramesh Ponnuru, himself, and a few others in the Reformist group and placed Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity as leaders of the Traditionalists (perhaps to imply something about the latter group's intellectual capacity).

Ross Douthat described his own 'Reformist' philosophy as pro-family - with the philosophy that government can be used to strengthen this bedrock of American society. In the process more Republican voters would form as single and divorced individuals vote overwhelmingly Democratic. Douthat outlined three traps facing the right: Demographically, Douthat said the Judis/Teixeira theory of an Emerging Democratic Majority may ultimately prove true. The McGovern coalition of educated whites and minorities are increasingly Democratic, while Republican groups such as white men are declining. Douthat argued that the second trap, socio-economic, is the result of an economic growth in America that has caused high inequality and stagnant wages among the working class - good news for political liberals. Third, Douthat said conservatives have failed to apply old views to new principles. In debates such as climate change and public school reform, conservatives have largely stayed out of the debate while the only struggle has been between liberal reformers and entrenched special interests.

Gene Healy, the token Libertarian of the group - and thus a Traditionalist - admitted he knew nothing about winning elections and didn't care how to win them. Conservatives, he argued, should try to convince people of their views, not try to be relevant or cool. His arguments were summarized by his question, "When did it become the public intellectual's role to see what ideas can pass politically?"

Ponnuru, shifting back to the reformist viewpoint argued that conservatives forget that innovation is a conservative tradition. Reagan adjusted from Goldwater on taxes, socialism and others. Citing Reagan's famous quote, "Government is not the solution to our problem, government is the problem," Ponnuru noted that conservatives forget Reagan's preface, "In this present crisis..." Something is wrong with a political movement, he claimed, that deems our economy as great while wages remain stagnant. This election was a case study, he explained, of how out of touch Republicans and conservatives are with problems of everyday Americans.

Jonah Goldberg, who will probably be the first and last conservative panelist ever to cite 'Jaws 2' in making an argument, rebuked what he saw as the Reformist tendency to act as an army of 'Karl Roves' rather than pushing politics to the right as conservatives, not Republicans. The purpose of conservatives, echoing Healy, is to say what's true even if the result is defeat. Goldberg also noted that the failure of George W. Bush (he could have also mentioned John McCain) had already proven that the Reformists' desire for bigger government conservatism does not work politically or in implementing policy.

Despite this overwhelming negativity about the current state of conservatism, there was one point of optimism touched on by both Douthat and Goldberg. As Douthat noted, the Democratic tent has grown enormously larger over the last eight years. It now encompasses (especially among the young) almost any individual opposed to Bush's performance as president. There is hardly a unified set of principles from which these various factions agree on. As Peter Beinart wrote in Time last week, there are cultural issues in Obama's coalition that will significantly divide different groups. Obama, as many have agreed, was a blank slate from which people placed their differing desires for change. Thus, the argument goes, the overflowing Democratic tent is now bound to see real fissures open up as Democrats finally implement their own ideas. Goldberg inadvertently touched on this point when he used this quote from Edmund Burke: "Example is the school of mankind." While the Democrats have grown with the unpopularity of Bush, Goldberg seemed giddy with his declaration, "Okay Democrats, now govern."

In summation, Brooks noted that the panelists displayed a greater detachment from the Republican Party than he'd seen in years past. But it was the Reformist/Traditionalist debate among conservatives that appears likely to continue as long as conservatives remain in the political wilderness.

Greg Bobrinskoy is an Associate Editor at RealClearPolitics.

Keep Your Friends Close (and Your Enemies Under Your Thumb)

2008-11-16T01:40:51Z

Secretary of State Hillary Clinton? That's what reports are saying. According to officials, Obama has narrowed the possibilities for secretary of state and Senator Hillary Clinton is among those being strongly considered. Some officials are even calling her the favorite.

Obama offering Clinton the position of secretary of state exemplifies the notion of keeping your friends close and your enemies -- not just close -- but under your thumb. The last thing Barack Obama wants is a supercharged Hillary Clinton potentially causing trouble in the Senate. (The last thing Hillary wants is to be under a man's thumb, I thought). If she accepts the job, she's shackled to his administration, which is smart if he wants to fend off attacks from the Clintons in 2012 -- a win for Obama and Democratic Party unity.

It's all politics, shrewd politics. So is Obama's upcoming meeting with John McCain. The President elect ran on bi-partisanship. Now the onus is on him to deliver. But most importantly, he wants shore up two terms early. And he can do that by mollifying his detractors and appeasing potential opponents.

If Hillary doesn't accept the job she looks like a sore loser, unwilling to cooperate. But Obama is smart enough not to publicly ask her without knowing she'll accept.

I'm not sure why she would want the position. Sure it's prestigious, but if she signs on Obama will own her. She will serve at his pleasure. In the Senate, nobody owns Hillary, especially now. She is poised to assume the role of lioness in the Senate in Ted Kennedy's absence. And secretary of state may seem old hat for the former First Lady. She likely considered herself Madeline Albright's boss when Bill was Commander in Chief.

To the Senator's credit, she is the most hawkish out of the names being floated thus far.

My hunch is the Clintons have already brokered a deal with President elect Obama. The question is, is this it?

Andrea Tantaros is a Republican political commentator and Foxnews.com contributor. Her commentary can be a found at Foxnews.com and www.andreatantaros.com.

Palin is the Future of the GOP

2008-11-14T00:47:26Z

The next generation of the Republican Party is Governor Sarah Palin, despite the political malpractice of the McCain camp, and the current rumblings of the old guard (emphasis on old) of the GOP establishment.

In this year's election she was our most valuable player, and like any MVP her political athletic ability is a force to be reckoned with. She has youth on her side which will make her viable for the next two decades (at least). She possesses the supernatural ability to draw tens of thousands to a rally. Her fundraising potential is boundless and her biography is politically seductive.

She is slightly damaged from the Presidential election, not by anything she did, which is why it is possible to overcome the hurdles, the naysayers and heal her two biggest bruises:

First, the one trick ponies on the McCain campaign tried to staff her as they did George W. Bush: as a propped up, stilted, artificial attack dog and full throated conservative, because McCain needed that base to succeed. But this is not the real Sarah Palin. Most Alaskans will vouch for that, especially the Republicans.

Palin is a populist powerhouse who has spent years taking on her own party's corruption. She seemingly works better with Democrats to put points on the board for the benefit of her state rather than get locked in the partisan gridlock and posturing that cripples male politicians. She is razor sharp and savvy when it comes to maneuvering. (Too bad she outmaneuvered her McCain handlers too late).

Second, Team McCain was fairly anemic when it came to assets this election cycle, but one thing they did have on their side was time. Instead of choosing Palin earlier in the summer which would have given her weeks for preparation on issues like national security and the economy, they shoved her into the fray before she spent sufficient time grappling with complex national issues. Imagine the Couric murder board taking place in early summer and not late fall?

Time is now on her side. Here's what she needs to do:

Give major policy speeches. She dazzles the audience when she addresses the energy issue. This is a logical starting point.

Campaign and fundraise on behalf of Republicans. It will be imperative for her to build an army of allies. The next RNC Chair should be her first priority.

Begin to harness the power of her grassroots support. I'm fairly certain Palin doesn't have access to the McCain fundraising and grassroots lists of this past election, which is why she needs to create her own. Palin has millions of Americans at her beck and call. She needs to start organizing this asset by collecting names, emails and phone numbers.

Write a book (on substance, not moose chili). It's time to get serious. The snowmobiling was cute for a while but the current state of our nation requires thoughtful policy and real deal solutions. We're faced with crisis of ethics. As someone who cleaned up Alaska, she should write about the lessons she learned and apply them to kitchen table concerns.

Get some ink in her passport. Obama has very little but was somehow inoculated from criticism after he took a highly publicized trip east. She should do the same, frequently.

Do a weekly radio address. The topics should be major issues of national importance. She should do the research and writing herself.

Appoint herself to the US Senate. If Senator Ted Stevens is elected -- and then kicked out of the Senate by his colleagues as is widely expected, which can be accomplished with a simple majority vote -- Stevens' temporary replacement would be appointed by Governor Palin. Imagine Hillary, McCain and Palin on Capitol Hill and Obama and Biden in the White House? It would be Shakespearian! What better way for her to shake up the Senate, stay on the national stage and keep an eye on the party?

With the doom and gloom of the current economic climate and total Democratic rule set in place to govern, the ground will be seeded for a Palin comeback in 2012, though it won't be easy. She'll have the far right behind her, but she must run as herself this time, as the pragmatic, centrist reformer she is to truly be successful.

Andrea Tantaros is a Republican political commentator and FoxNews.com contributor. Her commentary can be found at FoxNews.com and www.andreatantaros.com.

The GOP's Growing Latino Problem

2008-11-12T23:42:31Z

Dramatic Republican losses in the past two election cycles have been attributed to various factors. Yet the Republicans' decreasing support among Latinos should be among the most important problems to Republicans fearful of remaining in the political wilderness.

According to the Pew Research Center, whites represented 57% of Americans in 2005 with Latinos bypassing African Americans to become 14% of the population. By 2050, Latinos are projected to double in population to 29% with whites representing 47%. In the 2004 election, President Bush performed very well among Latinos for a Republican nominee, gaining 44% of their vote to Kerry's 53%. This year, Obama crushed McCain among Latino voters by a margin of 67 to 31 percent. The number of Latino voters increased by almost 25 percent compared to four years ago. According to the AP, 28% of Latinos polled had voted for the first time, compared to 12% for the entire electorate. Among these new Latino voters, Obama won by a resounding 76 to 23 percent.

One example of the power of the Latino vote is their influence in heavily blue states like Illinois and California. In 2004, Bush won a majority of white voters in both states despite losing them by double digits overall. The reason Bush lost was that he carried only 32% of the Latino vote in California and a meager 23% in Illinois. In the crucial state of Florida, however, Bush won the Latino vote 56 to 44 percent and carried the state.

In an increasingly diverse nation, Republican nominees will have to start winning astronomical percentages of the white vote to keep up with their drastically low support among Latinos and other minorities. Obama increased Kerry's percentage of the white vote by only 2%. He increased African American support from Kerry's 88% to 95%. Yet in states such as North Carolina and Virginia - where the African American percentage of the vote was high - their proportion of the vote was actually slightly less than 2004. Along with their increased percentage of the population and their rising voting numbers, Latinos were highly represented in key battleground states such as Florida, New Mexico, Colorado and Nevada.

In Florida, for example, there are many reasons Obama won the state other than increasing his support among Latinos. As the Miami Herald reported, Obama's campaign registered 200,000 new voters, put in 50 field offices, brought in 600,000 volunteers and poured $40 million into the state. However, we can see that by comparing Florida's results in 2004 and 2008, it was the Latino vote that turned Florida from red to blue.

In 2004, Bush won Florida 52 percent to Kerry's 47 percent. This year, Obama won the state 51 to 49 percent. Obama's support among Florida's white voters was the same as Kerry's in 2004. In the tables below we can see that if McCain had maintained Bush's share of Florida's Latino vote, he would have won Florida despite Obama receiving 10 percentage points more of the African American vote than Kerry.

2004 Florida	White-70%	Black-12%	Latino-15%	TOTAL
(R) Bush	57%	13%	56%	52%
(D) Kerry	42%	86%	44%	47%

2008 Florida	White-71%	Black-13%	Latino-14%	TOTAL
(R) McCain	56% (-1)	4% (-9)	42% (-14)	49% (-3)
(D) Obama	42% (-)	96% (+10)	57% (+13)	51% (+4)

2008 FL Revised	White-71%	Black-13%	Latino-14%	TOTAL
(R) McCain	56% (-1)	4% (-9)	56%	51%
(D) Obama	42% (-)	96% (+10)	44%	49%

In Colorado, McCain actually outperformed Bush's percentage of the Latino vote. Yet this was hardly cause for McCain to celebrate. Bush lost Colorado's Latino vote 68-30, while McCain lost their vote 61-38. To make matters worse for McCain, Latinos increased their percentage of the Colorado electorate from 8% in 2004 to 13% in 2008. In 2004, Bush won Nevada 51%-48%, this year Obama won the state by double digits, 55% to 43%. Latinos increased their percentage of the vote by 5 points, from 10% to 15%. And while Kerry performed well among Latinos in Nevada, winning over the demographic 60-39, Obama crushed McCain 76 to 22 percent. Once again, McCain's percentage of the white vote was only slightly changed from Bush's percentage in 2004 when Bush won the state. Obama changed Nevada from red to blue because of the Latino vote.

The most obvious case of McCain suffering from low support among Latinos is New Mexico. In 2004, Bush won New Mexico 50% to 49%. This year, McCain lost New Mexico in a landslide, receiving just 42% of the overall vote to Obama's 57%. What explains this 16 point turnaround for the Democrats? Hint: It's not the white vote. Bush won among New Mexico's white voters 56-43, with white voters compromising 57% of the vote. McCain was able to keep up with Bush's 56-43 margin among white voters with a 56-42 margin over Obama. But in 2004, New Mexico's Latino vote made up 32% of the vote and voted for Kerry 56-44. In 2008, Latinos increased their percentage of the electorate by 9 points up to a dramatic 41% of the vote. They also gave Obama a 13 point boost from four years ago for a 69-30 percent blowout. White voters comprised only 50% of the New Mexico vote this year, down 7 points from 4 years ago. In summation, although McCain was able to win by double digits among New Mexico's white voters as Bush had in 2004, McCain was still routed by 15 points because of the shift by Hispanics to the Democratic candidate and their surge in the percentage of the vote. Once again it was the Latino vote that proved the crushing blow for McCain.

Had McCain, the Republican Party's most Latino-friendly candidate, not won the nomination of his party this year, we might assume that Obama would have performed even better than he did among Latinos. This data speaks volumes about the future of the Republican Party in an increasingly racially diverse America. When Bob Dole lost to Bill Clinton in 1996, white voters made up 83% of the electorate. This year, white voters compromised 74% of the vote. Latinos are still voting at disproportionately low numbers in comparison to their percentage of the population. One can assume that as Latinos become more assimilated in American society, the higher their percentage of the electorate will become. The future of the Republican Party depends on winning back their dwindling support among Latinos.

Greg Bobrinskoy is an Associate Editor at RealClearPolitics.

Obama Victory the GOP's Best Hope

2008-11-04T19:37:59Z

Win or lose on Election Day, one truth is absolute: The Republican Party needs a rebirth. I'm not talking about a few deep breaths, a reboot or even a makeover; I'm proposing one giant housecleaning.

Our identity is lost. When it comes to fresh ideas, we're bankrupt. Our strategies are stale, our talking points robotic and regurgitated, and our direction is unclear. We've forgotten how to communicate with the American people. Our message is adrift and our messenger-in-chief, George W. Bush, is bloodied and badly bruised. Scratch that: We don't even have a messenger (thank God for Rush Limbaugh, our wise political Sherpa).

The future of the Republican Party depends on an Obama victory. There, I've said it. I waited this entire cycle to express my concern, and I'm glad I did, because I now believe more than ever that my hypothesis is true. Call it tough love, call it treason; I call it the truth.

The campaign of John McCain has only solidified my argument. From day one it has struggled to find a clear and rationally persuasive theme. It has operated under an outdated playbook that focuses on personal associations (bafflingly, even in the throes of an economic meltdown). These moves worked in 2004, but to take one's eyes off the ball--that being the economy--for one moment in this election was truly his gravest error.

Sadly, the campaign has operated with gimmicky stunts, a snarky tone and the most stomach-churning of sarcasm. What did we expect? McCain's advisors are Bush's old guard. They're tired, divorced from reality and devoid of creativity. They failed to capitalize on McCain's strengths and grossly mismanaged Palin.

I find it all too perfect that it took a plumber to unclog the McCain machine's message constipation. Joe may have helped in the short term, but the need for major renovations remains. And here's how we'll do it:

As my Greek father always says: "The fish stinks from the head." If the Republican party is the stinky fish, then George Bush is its head. The nation doesn't have faith in how our party governs, thanks to its management - or perceived mismanagement - of Katrina and the war in Iraq. Republicans somehow got the black eye from a housing crisis that was caused by the Democrats' belief that every man, woman, child, dog, cat and goldfish has a right to a home, whether they can afford one or not. How did we get this black eye? Because we are the party in power - and the head stinks ... at communicating. Failing to correct the record would have been bad enough. But our inability to correct the record was a failure of monumental proportions.

The hybrid, hapless Bush/McCain operation isn't the only case for reform. Congressional Republicans are equally as guilty for our demise. To turn the ship around, Congress should be our starting point. All the bridges to nowhere, the support for bloated spending bills, entitlement expansion and unethical practices must be replaced with fiscal responsibility; a zero-tolerance policy on corruption and a one-strike-and-you're-out mantra. Yes, Senators Stevens, Craig and Vitter: I'm talking to you.

With McCain as President or back in the Senate, The Grand Old Party needs a new attitude, a new guard and a mobilization of the next generation. We must repackage our core values and ideals of limited government, fiscal discipline and personal responsibility. Into this platform, we must incorporate new planks on alternative energy and rising college tuition costs. And we must have the cajones to take on retirement security.

Our agenda should involve reviving seductive issues like medical malpractice and American exceptionalism in education. We must churn out the best, most educated workforce in the world, but not through greater federal involvement and tired singsong saw of mo' money, mo' money. It is also critical that we expand our outreach and invest in talent recruitment to harvest a new crop of diverse candidates to seek office. The party of the old, white male needs to finally be over - so over.

Republicans, if we lose this election we cannot run off and skulk. We must fight (much harder than we are fighting today) for what we believe, and be vigilant and focused on holding the Democrats accountable.

Our nation will suffer under the trio of doom: Pelosi, Reid and Obama. Their incompetence will be showcased very quickly to the electorate and because of it Republicans will re-emerge stronger than ever in four years. I've never been one to believe we must lose an election in order to win, but only if we recalibrate and regenerate will we have a chance to rise again and lead this great nation.

To be clear, this is not an endorsement of Barack Obama. This is recognition of an opportunity for our party. I believe Senator Obama is troublingly unqualified. His punitive wealth-transfer dogma will lead our country into further economic ruin and his ingenuous, popularity-contest approach to foreign policy will jeopardize our global gravitas.

John McCain is tested and ready, and though I suspect he'd have a challenging time governing as President while simultaneously leading the Republican Party further into the wilderness, he is a much more comforting and sensible option.

The GOP has suffered from adversity, but lucky for us, adversity never leaves people where it finds them. It's up to us to control our fate. Now is the time to conduct an honest self-evaluation on the state of our union and stand ready to perform significant alterations, win or lose the White House.

The right's been getting it wrong. An Obama Presidency presents us with a chance to change, not our values, but our behavior and the way we govern. It's up to us to have the courage to do it.

Get ready. A renaissance is in order.

Andrea Tantaros is a Republican Political Commentator and Fox News.com contributor. Her columns can be found at www.andreatantaros.com and at FoxNews.com.

John McCain's Immigration Achilles

2008-11-04T01:04:58Z

When John McCain won his party's nomination earlier this year, many conservatives reacted disapprovingly. They had not voted for McCain. They had split their votes so evenly among the other conservative nominees (especially in South Carolina and Florida) that McCain won by default. However, some of these Republicans kept themselves upbeat, or were told not to sit this election out, because McCain's electability in the general election was said to be far higher than his Republican opponents.

A key component to McCain's electability was his moderate stance on the immigration issue; a stance which would allow him to heavily contest the Latino vote as President Bush did with 44 percent of their vote in 2004. Bush's increased support from Hispanics was crucial to his victory over Kerry. In Illinois and California, Bush was trounced by 9 and 11 percentage points, respectively. Yet Bush still won a higher percentage of the white vote in both these states. The reason he lost was because Kerry won an overwhelming percentage of the Hispanic vote. In California, Bush won only 32% of the Latino vote, in Illinois he won a meager 23%. Yet in Florida, a state Bush pulled out a crucial victory in, he won the Hispanic vote by a 56-44 margin.

Many hypotheses have been given for why McCain's primary campaign collapsed last summer. Explanations range from blaming McCain's campaign manager Terry Nelson for creating a bloated apparatus it could never financially support to McCain's history of low fundraising dating back to the 2000 Presidential campaign. But the key reason McCain's campaign fell apart was that it directly coincided with his bold stand for comprehensive immigration reform in the face of extremely strong resistance from conservative Republicans in Congress, conservative talk radio, and the conservative electorate. Conservatives publicly opposed what they deemed the 'amnesty bill' more than almost any other bill in recent memory and it was McCain who took more of the blame than any other Republican.

When McCain's political career had been in jeopardy, he chose to stand by the Latino/moderate-Republican community and took on the conservative base he would desperately need to run for President. Conservatives stopped donating to his campaign and his once front runner-like operation fell apart. But for a variety of reasons, mostly pure luck, McCain came back and eventually won his party's nomination. There was no reason to believe that if Obama was to be his opponent, McCain could not garner significant Latino support.

In February, when McCain had won Florida and looked to have become the presumptive nominee, Kimberley Strassel of the Wall Street Journal wrote that McCain was the best pick for his electability. He could "stem the flood of Hispanics from the GOP. His new immigration strategy was on display in this week's debate: He'll talk about the importance of securing the border, and say no more. With this he hopes to mollify conservatives, and will leave it to others to remind Hispanics of his record. Florida was a useful test case, with Mr. McCain winning more than half the Hispanic vote. Another quarter went to Rudy Giuliani, who has since thrown in with Mr. McCain. Mr. Romney got 14%."

Now, a day before Election Day, the Latino vote is polling heavily against McCain. A Zogby poll showed 21 percent supporting McCain with 70 percent for Obama. Another poll by the Pew Hispanic Center found 23 percent supporting McCain and 66 percent supporting Obama. The man who has won numerous awards from Hispanic organizations in his political career and garnered 70 percent of the Hispanic vote in his last Senate race is set to lose this election when stronger support from the Latino community, especially in states such as Nevada, New Mexico, Colorado, and Florida, would place him in much better position to win.

The theory that Latinos who heavily favored Clinton over Obama in the Democratic primaries would move to McCain has not materialized. If anything, the primary seems to have strengthened their self-identification with Democrats. The lack of support from Latinos is not the only reason McCain may lose tomorrow. But it's a very significant one.

Greg Bobrinskoy is an Associate Editor at RealClearPolitics.

Fox News vs. Obama for Next 4 Years?

2008-10-28T13:43:55Z

Watch Megyn Kelly go off on Obama press secretary Bill Burton.

It's pretty stunning.

Is it me or she yelling almost the ENTIRE time.

Also, do the folks over at Fox really believe that their news is fair and balanced?

One thing's for sure...Fox News will be VERY popular the next four years. An Obama presidency is the best thing that could have happened to them.

Justin blogs daily at Donklephant.com

Jeffrey Goldberg's Relativist Extremism

2008-10-28T13:43:19Z

Jeffrey Goldberg provides an excellent example of the contrast between those who take seriously the threat to the West from global Islamic terrorism and those who discount the danger in favor of a moral-relativist strategic epistemology.

At issue for Goldberg is the alleged cabal of Jewish extremists behind the political documentary movie, "Obssession: Radical Islam's War Against the West":

If you read Goldberg's essay, he lays out not so much a criticism of the movie itself, but of the temerity of the movie's backers and cast to adopt an attitude of Western exceptionalism.

Goldberg's project is to focus on the background of the film's producers as Likud-backing totalitarians, and then to throw out the red-herring of Nazi Germany's industrial-scale extermination:

The tragedy of "Obsession" is not that it is wrong; the tragedy is that it takes a serious issue, and a serious threat - that of Islamism - and makes it into a cartoon. Its central argument is that the "Islamofascism" of today is not only the equivalent of Nazism, but worse than Nazism. This is quite a thing for a Jewish organization to argue. One of the featured speakers in "Obsession" is a self-described "former PLO terrorist" named Walid Shoebat, who argues on film that a "secular dogma like Nazism is less dangerous than Islamofascism is today."

With the exception of Stalin's murder of tens of millions in the Soviet Union, there's never been anything like the industrial killing of Hitler's Reich. And what the Soviets made up in pure scale is not matched in Hitler's program a racial eliminationism.

But for Goldberg to lay it out as he does is really a ploy to cut off discussion of the genuine existential danger that radical Islam poses to the West.

The point for Goldberg really isn't to debate the legitimate threat of global jihad to the survival of the Western democracies, but to preempt criticism of Barack Obama:

The film is meant to suggest that Obama will provide aid and comfort to Islamism, or is an Islamist himself. There is not one shred of proof on this planet that Barack Obama is anything other than an Israel-supporting Christian. Yes, he went to party with Rashid Khalidi. So did I. Does that make me a member of Hezbollah?

I actually have another idea for a film: I would call it "Obsession" as well, but it would be about the poor souls who believe that Obama is a radical Muslim, that Israel has a right to expel Arabs from its lands, and that America should declare war on all of Islam.

Actually, this is not what the film says at all.

The opening credits declare that the film is not directed at the great majority of Muslims worldwide who are peaceful and abhor terrorism. Viewers can judge for themselves if folks like Carolyn Glick are extremists, but to take such a narrowly partisan view of an issue of great importance, to dismiss it with the same cartoonishness that he decries, shows Goldberg as no more than a blind partisan hack intent to demonize his alleged demonizers, and to dismiss as conspiracy the deep, underlying sympathy that Barack Obama holds for those who have long committed themselves to the destruction of the United States.

Donald blogs at American Power

How Will Obama Govern?

2008-10-21T14:01:14Z

For undecided-but-sane voters (e.g. those uninterested in guilt-by-association smears, endorsements from self-serving pols, and other campaign ephemera), that's among the key lingering issues about the frontrunner as voting day approaches. It's a question McCain tried to push in the final debate last week, by challenging Obama to name issues where he has stood up to the majority view of his party and it's special-interest lobbies. And those of us who think charter schools - a grassroots experiment in what public schools can achieve when freed from the onerous rules and ham-handed resistance to reform of teacher unions - offer hope of positive change and real opportunity for underpriveleged kids and their families were thrilled to hear Obama cite them as Exhibit A.

"I support charter schools and pay for performance for teachers. Doesn't make me popular with the teachers union. I support clean coal technology. Doesn't make me popular with environmentalists. So I've got a history of reaching across the aisle," said Obama. A bit later, he returned to the subject, noting that he and McCain agree on expanding the reach of charters: "I doubled the number of charter schools in Illinois despite some reservations from teachers unions. I think it's important to foster competition inside the public schools."

Great news! Bill and Hillary Clinton were also charter school advocates going back to their Arkansas days, but it's especially gratifying to hear the Democratic nominee on national TV in the campaign's waning days wear his bold support of charters as a badge of honor.

But this being the harvest season for spin, I decided to double-check Obama's claim about the Illinois charter bill, actually an expansion of charters in Chicago, home to scores of wretched conventional public school .

Here is the summary of what happened from the Illinois legislature's web site. As you can see, while the bill does indeed double the number of charters allowable under law in large Illinois cities, it places strict caps on the total number of charters allowed instead of allowing parental demand to define the supply, and bars for-profit entities from the chance to run charters, a setup that has resulted in quality educational opportunities for students elsewhere around the country. And Obama did not "reach across the aisle" to pass this bill; its chief sponsors (a month before Obama signed on) were a roll call of the Democratic leadership in the Illinois Senate, including the senate president and two of the assistant majority leaders.

There's certainly nothing wrong with what Obama did here. Given the teacher-union establishment's avowed intent to strangle charters in their cribs whenever possible, any support for them is welcome, however half-baked. But if this is really Obama's prime evidence of how he'll stand tall against party orthodoxy, it's disappointing, to say the least.

Jon Keller blogs regularly for WBZ-TV Boston at Keller @ Large

We Done All Lost Our Minds!

2008-10-09T17:02:01Z

Last night, I mentioned to my wife that I thought nationalizatin of the banking industry, at least in the near term, was "highly unlikely." I was wrong. Very, very wrong.

What most disturbs me about this is that, after the last 8 years of warrantless wiretapping and various other abuses of government power through proxy corporations and private enterprises (Blackwater, anyone?), it is many liberals and progressives most loudly supportive of this move (notably, I do not at this moment believe Obama has expressed support for it, and I have noticed several prominent lefty bloggers who appear openly skeptical of it).

Liberals/Progressives ought to rethink their support of nationalizing the banking industry. If we are talking only short-term nationalization, then so be it, as long as there is a clear date by which government dumps its ownership (not that I support even short-term nationalization; I just don't think it would be completely disastrous). But if we are talking about something more long-term, then this creates a severe potential for true corporatism/fascism.

To demonstrate, I simply point out how the warrantless wiretapping program began - the administration approached the phone companies about instituting the program. Those who agreed to do so were rewarded; those who didn't, not so much. Now imagine the danger created when government decides which businesses do and do not get credit, which is so often a necessary requirement for business growth and survival, both large and small. Isn't it rather easy to imagine large corporations getting loans conditioned on their willingness to go along with the ruling administration's "Policy X"? Nationalization of the banking industry, in this sense, allows the ruling administration to do an end run around the Constitution by getting corporations and business to "voluntarily" do things on behalf of the government that the government would otherwise be prohibited from doing itself.

At a minimum, long term nationalization of the banking industry creates a situation that is rife for corruption. Take a look at some of what occurred in South (yes, South) Korea in the 1980s, where, IIRC, only one of the 30 largest corporations refused to play along with the ruling party's demands (for bribes, kickbacks, and IIRC compliance with party policy preferences). That one corporation suddenly found, amongst other things, that it was no longer able to obtain credit.

Perhaps a President Obama would be rather benevolent in his use of these powers afforded by nationalization, and maybe he would try to ensure that his underlings were in fact fair and neutral in making determinations on the issuance of credit. Problem is that: 1. there is no guarantee he will win, 2. we have no idea who will be in power 4 or 8 years from now, and 3. even the most benevolent of leaders will be tempted to use this tremendous power as a way of serving his concept of the "greater good" under the view that the ends justify the means.

Indeed, point 3 is precisely what has been the problem the last 8 years. While I think the Bushies have dramatically overstated the threats we face to national security, I also don't doubt that they believe those threats are real and severe. And therein lies the rub - because they view the "greater good" of national security as so important, however honestly, almost anything done in service of that "greater good" can be justified.

Admittedly, the details of the takeover plan have not been announced yet, and it does not appear that the government will be taking a controlling interest in the banks (as the Fed did with AIG). If the details contain a plan to divest the government of whatever interest it takes in the banks over a period of time (and that plan is complied with) and it does not exercise control over day-to-day decisions on issuance of credit, then perhaps there is not much to worry about. But if the details are otherwise....well, Switzerland is looking better by the day.

Mark blogs regularly at Publius Endures

McCain's Bailout Blunder

2008-10-08T00:30:24Z

John McCain botched the biggest issue of this election cycle and passed up the most important way to differentiate himself from Barack Obama: the financial crisis.

First, suspending his campaign was strange. Heading back to Washington wasn't a bad idea, but if you're going to supposedly return to a town burdened by gridlock to help solve a crisis you still need a cogent message. The message should have been THIS BILL STINKS. McCain didn't have one. All we saw was footage of him sitting silent at a White House meeting. And if he had an opinion on the bailout, we certainly didn't hear it.

Then there was the notion McCain wouldn't debate unless a bill was passed. That, too, seemed odd. Why wouldn't he want to address the nation with his opponent in front of millions of Americans? McCain has always been on the right side of this mess. In 2005 he called for a tough, independent regulator for Freddie and Fannie and he could have made the case on a national stage for proper regulation and personal responsibility. Unfortunately, the only pre-debate dialogue perpetuated on the cable news channels and in print was whether McCain was going to actually show up in Mississippi. Not fruitful, if you ask me.
When he did show up Senator McCain and Senator Obama were prodded by moderator Jim Lehrer on the rescue bill and current state of the U.S. economy. Neither one would address it head on, a giant blunder. Obama isn't known for his cajones. His shtick is ducking tough issues and taking the easy road as not to expend political capital and offend voters. McCain is known for just the opposite. And at time when the country was looking for a hero like McCain to reassure them and display leadership and hope he did not.

Last week when it was time for a vote in the Senate John McCain folded and voted for the bill even though he had an opportunity to differentiate himself from Obama, congressional Democrats and his Achilles heel, President Bush, and be on the side of the American people by voting against this measure. The bill was also laden with what some called pork, but what were actually tax credits for such ridiculous things as wool research and wooden arrows for children. McCain has fundamentally been opposed to special interest legislation and this was his chance to show it and showcase that he is opposed to government spending.
Voting against the bailout would have been risky, but worth it. We don't even know if this bill will work. Yesterday the market still looked bleak. What we do know is Americans are angry about it. They know government is the reason we're this mess. We shouldn't give them more control or our tax payer dollars. McCain could have stood out, and stood up, for the principles and people he is running to represent that echo this sentiment. McCain appears to be puffing off the same pipe as the rest of them.

The Obama camp is now calling McCain a "big spender." McCain is a lot of things, but a big spender he is not. But ever since he voted for the bailout he IS a big spender, so the label works. A pretty tough blow to the maverick just four weeks out.

Tonight McCain needs to address the financial crisis and the economy head on while he toots his own horn on being right in 2005 on Freddie and Fannie. He needs to debunk this highly propagated Democratic urban legend that deregulation is bad and call for proper regulation and responsibility going forward. Channeling Reagan is essential: offer a clear, inspiration vision, and then draw contrasts with whatever and whoever disagrees. The Mac needs to shoot holes through the misleading proposals of Barack Obama and explain why his Santa Claus like list of promises to the American people is a bunch of baloney. He needs to reveal the most liberal candidates we've seen since Carter. Obama is the political equivalent of a new iPod - exceptionally well marketed and sold in cool packaging, entertaining, but empty. Or in Obama's case just filled with some really bad tunes. Reveal it.

Finally, lose the grimace, McCain. And please give Obama some eye contact this time. You reminded us of a fuming father who would speak to you but not look at you when you're in trouble (I know the face well). I think you lost women, swing voters and Independents because of your mug in the last debate.

History is not on your side, but the facts are. Use them.

Andrea Tantaros is a Republican political commentator, media consultant and columnist. Her writing can be found at www.andretantaros.com.

To Attack or Not to Attack

2008-10-07T21:27:00Z

This is the dilemma facing John McCain heading into tonight's town hall debate. Should John McCain, sliding quickly in the polls, go after Obama with questions about his background and personal associations - questions the McCain campaign has made clear it plans to raise for the remainder of the race. Should McCain follow Palin's lead and unload an Ayers/Rev. Wright/machine-politics missile at Obama in the hope of raising fear and unease about a candidate much of the public still knows little about.

The problem with such an attack, described well today by John Dickerson at Slate, is that McCain runs the risk of being criticized by an audience member (during the audience's question-answer segment) for going negative and not focusing on 'real' issues. Such was the circumstance for George H.W. Bush in the 1992 town hall debate. As Dickerson puts it, "You don't want Joe Six Pack calling you out."

The McCain camp has to assume that tonight's audience members have not been living in a box for the last few days. They know of the McCain camp's new strategy to go negative - and perhaps there's an Obama-leaning member of the crowd who wouldn't mind humiliating McCain with a devastating zinger. Such an attack from a 'Regular Joe' in the audience, rather than an 'elitist' reporter, would be a disaster. Furthermore, David Axelrod announced today that should McCain unleash a personal attack, Obama will be ready with a counter punch.

But perhaps this dilemma for McCain has been oversimplified by the media. There is a third route McCain can take tonight. If we assume it is too risky to attack Obama on Ayers, Wright, etc., and we assume the McCain campaign is not dumb enough to play this debate straight-laced with simple policy answers to Tom Brokaw's questions, then McCain is left with the possibility of combining these two strategies together.

McCain should be on the attack from the get-go on every policy question he receives, pounding Obama relentlessly. With each question, McCain can time and time again bring up a specific scenario in which he himself worked across the aisle to get something done. The attack will be the tricky part.

The McCain campaign seems to believe that their sole challenge is to attack and change the subject from the economy. But what McCain also needs to drastically improve is the cohesion of his attacks. As James Carville noted this morning on Good Morning America, attacks from McCain and the rest of the campaign have been flying out from all different directions. Obama is either too liberal, too inexperienced, has relations with despicable people, or lacked good judgment on the surge, etc. There simply hasn't been a core theme with which these attacks can be unified into a core case against Obama.

If McCain is to be effective tonight he will pick one overlying theme with which to hit Obama. For example, experience. With each question McCain answers he needs to show why his experience will make him the better president and why Obama's lack of experience would make his Presidency a disaster.

Steve Schmidt has not received the amount of credit he deserves for turning around what was only a few months ago an abysmally dysfunctional campaign. But Schmidt has not solved the message problem. While David Brooks and other conservatives have argued that McCain lacks a unifying economic and policy message as well, McCain needs to use a core attack message unrelated to the personal attacks of late. Voters need to leave the debate with a specific reason for uneasiness about an Obama Presidency lingering in their minds.

If Obama comes away the clear victor tonight, this race is likely over.

Greg Bobrinskoy is an Associate Editor at RealClearPolitics

Lazarus in Lipstick

2008-10-03T19:39:47Z

Sarah Palin won the debate because she exceeded expectations and connected with the American people on a personal level, but neither candidate crushed the other. I'm also not convinced either one reached out to sway the valuable undecided voter. Governor Palin breathed life into the McCain campaign and rectified public opinion about her competency, which was crucial.

Republicans, heave a sigh of relief.

Palin's strengths: Using Biden's own words about Obama and McCain against him. Brilliant. She was able to relate to a majority of Americans, and her body language was authentic, warm and direct. Like Obama, she spoke directly to the American people and came off much more likeable than her opponent. Unlike Hillary she has the gift of appearing shrewd without being shrill.

Palin's weakness: Failing to tell Americans the real deal on the housing crisis. Republicans are tiptoeing around this issue in order to avoid being called politically incorrect. It was a missed opportunity to go after the Democrats and their insistence to protect Freddie and Fannie and their belief that every man, woman, child, dog and goldfish should own their own home even if they cannot afford it.

Best line (with regard to the fiscal crisis) "Never again."

Biden's strength: He's polished (as anyone would be after spending the last three decades in the Senate). There is no question his handle on foreign policy is exceptional. He's smooth and a much better liar than Palin. Practice makes perfect, I suppose.

Biden's weakness: He is completely divorced from honesty. Either he knows he's lying and doesn't care or he isn't aware and is just plain ill informed. His body language was off-putting. Like McCain, he appeared angry and contemptuous. That phony smile is nauseating. Senator: watch a tape of Palin and Obama for pointers.

Worst line: "listen folks." That's what I call nuclear condescension.

Palin and McCain seem to relish in the underdog role and have the ability to deliver when the stakes are sky high. Though many cast doubt, I've called Palin McCain's secret weapon since the day he selected her. After tonight, should she be underestimated? Never again.

Andrea Tantaros is a Republican political commentator, media consultant and columnist. Her columns can be found at www.andreatantaros.com.

Sarah: Speak Plainly, Carry a Big Stick

2008-10-02T16:41:14Z

It's game time for Biden and Palin. Though it's been a rough couple of weeks for the Governor of Alaska, prompted by visceral attacks from the left and pockets of bias from the often slanted media, she's still standing. Tonight is a big test.

Biden, on the other hand, hasn't made much news, though he should have. For every head scratch invoking comment the left has accused Palin of making, Biden has made his own. From his comments about Roosevelt being on television before the boob tube was invented, to his false gunfire hallucination, Biden's foot has been lodged in his jaw quite a few times; it's just not getting coverage.

As pollsters and pundits try and spin this evening's outcome, there is no question that Biden has more experience than Palin, though no real executive experience. The senator is lacking, however, in common sense. He's been on the wrong side of most issues since the start of his long career. An agent of change he is not. And relatable to most voters? Not quite. The Pennsylvania coal country shtick isn't fooling this Pennsylvania girl. At the debate, Biden's most difficult hurdle will be using restraint not to act like an arrogant blowhard.

Palin, on the other hand, has many hurdles to surmount. Governor, here's your to do list:

Your plain talk is a strength. Embrace it. The McCain campaign often suffers from message constipation. As of late you've been a victim of this ailment, but it's not your modus operandi. Get back to what you do best: telling it like it is. Obama might be comfortable pushing bull and spouting hot air, but you are not. Make sure to can the baffling beltway jargon that McCain incessantly uses: earmarks, pork, DOD, etc.

Get Biden comfortable. The more relaxed you can get Joe Biden on that stage, the more he lies, babbles, reverts to old school politics, and let's be frank, says really, really dumb stuff.

Keep off defense. Assail the top of the Obama ticket on his crushing tax plan, his gargantuan spending proposals that would ruin our already shaky economy and his nonsensical foreign affairs positions. Highlight his failure to lead in the Illinois Senate, the US Senate, and now, as a candidate for President. Obama's motto has always been: "when the going gets tough, the tough vote present." Expose it.

Mobilize your echo chamber. If you say something unscholarly, have your campaign and their surrogates armed and ready to stop the bleeding. Liberals are better organized this time around and are ready to assault you en masse. You need your own army of staunch defenders willing to fight and explain that, like most Americans, you are more comfortable speaking to a local rotary club than to the Harvard alumni association.

Run against Washington. You are the only one on either ticket who can believably embrace the true political outsider mantra. Tie Washington to Obama/Biden and promote yourself as unscathed by the corruption and circus of Capitol Hill. There is no better time to be out of the loop. By loop, I mean the beltway. Tout it.

Motivate by reason, persuade through emotion. The Palin family has been through tough times. Your husband has been out of a job. You've had difficulty affording healthcare and paying bills. Use your story to inspire. Bring difficult questions back to a personal level. Give this nation the pep talk only a mom can give.

Be yourself. Inject humor and charm. Be pithy and to the point. Never let them see you sweat. I understand you've been surrounded by some of the dullest, most defensive staffers on the planet. Ignore their tired talking points and blaze your own message trail.
I watched some footage from your debates in Alaska. You were a confident, capable candidate. I hope that woman shows up tonight. Carpe Diem, sister.

Andrea Tantaros is a Republican political commentator, media consultant and columnist. Her columns can be found at www.andreatantaros.com.

Blankley Likens Media to Nazis

2008-09-29T14:32:37Z

In a loathsome Washington Times column attacking reporters' treatment of Barack Obama, Tony Blankley likens the mainstream media to the official Nazi newspaper Völkischer Beobachter and to "Goebbels' disciples":

The mainstream media have gone over the line and are now straight out propagandists for the Obama campaign. While they have been liberal and blinkered in their worldview for decades, in 2007-08 for the first time, the major media are consciously covering for one candidate for president and consciously knifing the other. This is no longer journalism -- it is simply propaganda. (The American left-wing version of the Volkischer Beobachter cannot be far behind.) And as a result, we are less than seven weeks away from possibly electing a president who has not been thoroughly and even half way honestly presented to the country by our watchdogs -- the press.

...The mainstream media ruthlessly and endlessly repeats any McCain gaffes, while ignoring Obama gaffes. You have to go to weird little Internet sites to see all the stammering and stuttering that Mr. Obama needs before getting out a sentence fragment or two. But all you see on the networks is an eventual one or two clear sentences from Mr. Obama. Nor do you see Mr. Obama's ludicrous gaffe that Iran is a tiny country and no threat to us. Nor his 57 American states gaffe. Nor his forgetting, if he ever knew, that Russia has a veto in the United Nations. Nor his whining and puerile "come on" when he is being challenged. This is the kind of editing one would expect from Goebbels' disciples, not Cronkite's.

Blankley also engages in one of the most bizarre attempts at guilt by association that I've ever seen:

But worse than all the unfair and distorted reporting and image projecting, is the shocking gaps in Mr. Obama's life that are not reported at all. The major media simply has not reported on Mr. Obama's two years at Columbia University in New York, where, among other things, he lived a mere quarter mile from former terrorist Bill Ayers-- after which they both ended up as neighbors and associates in Chicago. Mr. Obama denies more than a passing relationship with Mr. Ayers. Should the media be curious? In only two weeks the media has focused on all the colleges Mrs. Palin has attended, her husband's driving habits 20 years ago and the close criticism of Mrs. Palin's mayoral political opponents. But in two years they haven't bothered to see how close Mr. Obama was with the terrorist Ayers.

Bill Ayers lived "a mere quarter mile" away when Obama was at Columbia? So did tens of thousands of other people -- it's Manhattan!

Brendan blogs at Brendan-Nyhan.com