Really?

Democrats in Washington -- especially Obama -- are going into conniption fits for George Bush's supposed swipe at the Knesset at Obama for saying he'll have a sit-down with Ahmadinejad. One wonders why Obama and the Democrats are so sensitive, and plenty of ink and radio time will be spilled analyzing their response.  Bush could just as well have been speaking about the Europeans' preferred method of dealing with Iran -- if this is the case, Bush can't say much, since he delegated the responsibility for Iran to the Europeans.  Just as likely, it could have been, as the Democrats assumed, a swipe at Obama.

To me, the more interesting angle is the comment from Rahm Emanuel, as reported by the Politico:

The tradition has always been that when a U.S. president is overseas, partisan politics stops at the water's edge. President Bush has now taken that principle and turned it on its head: for this White House, partisan politics now begins at the water's edge, no matter the seriousness and gravity of the occasion.  Does the president have no shame?

Emanuel offers pretty harsh words ("Does the president have no shame?") for a pretty minor potential swipe.  Why has the cavalry been called in, and why are they bringing the heavy artillery so quickly?  

More importantly, however, is Emanuel's failure to mention the behavior of Democrat ex-presidents (Carter and Clinton, but you already knew whom I was referencing).  Let's think of this like a contract -- the president and other [ex-] politicians will agree to leave partisan politics at the water's edge.  Carter and Clinton long ago breached that contract.  So why must Bush still adhere to the contract?

Of course, we know exactly why the heavy artillery has been brought out and why Emanuel showed no fear of appearing hypocritical.  Obama's ignorant idealism regarding Iran is a serious weakness as the general election approaches, especially, as he is wont to do, Ahmadinejad shoots off his mouth about the destruction of Israel.  So the Democrats needed to quickly frame the issue not as a debate about the wisdom of negotiating with Iran, but as a criticism of Bush for breaching protocol.

Think the media will pick up on that one?

Happy Happy Joy Joy

Obama probably has plenty of pictures over the last few months looking happy on the campaign trail.  Check me if I'm wrong, but have you seen him looking any happier than when he's posing with Jimmy (P.) Hoffa of the Teamsters, an organization that's apparently pushing to have Obama remove its government oversight (which was originally implemented to root out mob influence in the union).  

Check out the photo of Obama with Hoffa (about halfway down).

(Caveat: I realize that this oversight is imposed via a judicial consent decree, and thus there is a question regarding the degree of executive influence on the matter.  Usually, I'd say zero, but there's this oversight board and the fact that the Teamsters are making it an election issue.)

If you don't get the reference in the title to this post, well, you either (1) didn't grow up when I did, or (2) didn't have kids that grew up when I did.  If you're in those classes, here's your assistance.  If you had to click on the link, you don't get this, or this, and you really don't get this.  Okay, so if you do get it, here's a gem.  One more.  Was I insane as a child?

Christian Rock

As you'll notice from this post and the previous one, I've been trolling Slate for a while this morning (don't worry -- I started with Hitchens -- it's his fault!).

I laughed out loud when reading the following passage about Christian rock.  Laughing aloud by myself in my apartment is creepy, so I'm hoping you'll laugh with me.  Below is the exact reaction I have to Christian rock:

Most non-Christians are aware that there is something called Christian rock. We've all had the slightly unsettling experience of pausing the car radio on a pleasant, unfamiliar ballad until we realized … Ahhh. That's not her boyfriend she's mooning over!

Elite Then, Elite Now

Jeff Greenfield over at Slate has a fascinating article comparing the elite Socialists in the late 1930s in England (as described by George Orwell) to the elite Democrats of our day.  I encourage you to read the whole thing, but here are a few snippets:

One key to the movement's lack of popularity, Orwell argues, is its supporters. "As with the Christian religion," he writes, "the worst advertisement for Socialism is its adherents." Then he wheels out the heavy rhetorical artillery. The typical socialist, according to Orwell, "is either a youthful snob-Bolshevik who in five years time will quite probably have made a wealthy marriage and been converted to Roman Catholicism, or, still more typically, a prim little man with a white-collar job, usually a secret teetotaler, and often with vegetarian leanings … with a social position he has no intention of forfeiting. … One sometimes gets the impression that the mere words 'Socialism' and 'Communism' draw towards them with magnetic force every fruit-juice drinker, nudist, sandal-wearer, sex-maniac, Quaker, 'Nature Cure' quack, pacifist and feminist in England." (Think "organic food lover," "militant nonsmoker," and "environmentalist with a private jet" for a more contemporary list.)

Orwell also rails against the condescension many on the left display toward those they profess to care most about. Describing a gathering of leftists in London, he says, "every person there, male and female, bore the worst stigmata of sniffish middle-class superiority. If a real working man, a miner dirty from the pit, for instance, had suddenly walked into their midst, they would have been embarrassed, angry and disgusted; some, I should think, would have fled holding their noses."

. . . 

The perennial struggle of Democratic contenders to appeal to ordinary Americans seems very much of a piece with Orwell's sharp descriptions. Election after election, Democrats argue that once Joe and Jane Sixpack fully grasp the wisdom of the latest six-point college-loan program, or of an 800-page health-care scheme, they will come to wave the Democratic banner. And, sometimes, these voters do just that—provided that the candidate in question has demonstrated a sense that he or she is not treating them as the subject of an anthropological study. Bill Clinton had a full steamer trunk of domestic programs; he also was a product of Georgetown, Oxford, and Yale Law School. But his 18 years in the vineyards of Arkansas politics gave him the tools to compete for support on a more visceral level. Then there were Clinton's obvious tastes for earthly pleasures—from Big Macs to more intimate diversions—which made it very hard to label him as an aloof elitist.

. . . 

And Barack? Ix-nay on the egg-white omelets.

Sound familiar?

A Tree-Hugger Holiday

Hillary Clinton and John McCain have now both proposed a gas-tax holiday.  Obama correctly points out that this won't change anything and won't really help consumers.  It won't address structural issues, it won't have any effect on the long-term price of oil, and it won't help us "reduce our dependence on foreign oil."  (I shouldn't forget to mention that it won't pass Congress any time soon.)

So what can we do that will reduce our pain at the pump?  I propose a tree-hugger holiday.  Now is the time for Republicans to push increased domestic exploration and drilling.  With gas prices where they are, voters probably will be more receptive to the idea than they were during the last ANWAR push.  Perhaps it's time to stop letting extreme environmentalists determine our domestic oil policies.

Further, pushing for increased exploration and drilling puts Democrats on the defensive on what is becoming a key election issue.  Surely, neither Dem candidate will support this idea; both may then appear beholden to the spotted owl saviors at the expense of, to pick a group out of a hat, Reagan Democrats.

If Republicans push this issue, however, they risk looking beholden to the oil companies, who are reported to have made "record profits" on an almost daily basis (they are not reported, however, to be making a record profit margin as compared to gougers in other industries).  This is why (1) Republicans need to cast the proposal in rhetoric about "responsible" drilling -- and perhaps rhetoric criticizing oil companies and (2) other Republicans need to float this idea first as a trial balloon before McCain can pick up on it.

Maybe I'm wrong about voters being receptive to this.  But what does it hurt to have a Republican congressman in a safe seat (or, in the case of a senator, not up for election) float this idea to see if the public is receptive?

UPDATE: apparently, my thoughts aren't so original. Only this morning did I realize that Paul Ryan was in the Journal Sentinel this weekend calling in part for increased drilling for oil.

[Patriotic] Bona Fides

Trey Ellis at HuffPost writes the following about Obama: 

Yikes. Obama needs to take the opportunity of Tuesday night, win or lose, to deliver a major, soaring, apple-pie and Chevy speech on how passionately he loves this country. He's been doing it to small crowds throughout the state of late, playing up his Kansan grandparents and his grandpa's service in WWII. On Tuesday night, regardless of the outcome, he will have the nation's gaze and in an upbeat, energetic and hopeful way he will have to remind us all that this is a land of opportunity; that the folks who've been in Washington too long have lost their way but that we the people are rising up to remind them that we are the good guys, as corny as that sounds, the defenders of liberty, the protectors of the little guy, citizens of the most fertile land on the planet for human potential.

Obama needs to give this speech because, as Ellis reports via the New York Times, only 29% of registered voters view Obama as "very patriotic," as opposed to 40% for Hillary and 70% for McCain.  This perceived patriotism deficit is nothing new, and Republicans have successfully exploited these feelings for years. 

My point here is not that we should vote for McCain because he's more patriotic.  The "patriotism" issue is overblown (even by the the Democrats, who falsely attribute dissent/patriotism quotes to Thomas Jefferson or report for duty at the national convention).  Presumably, Hillama wants to raise entitlements and tax the rich because Hillama thinks it will make this country a better place.  Sure, the Democrat party has more than a fair share of the Blame America First crowd --  a few of these happen to be my close friends -- but I don't doubt that they blame us first because want to improve our country.

Rather, my point is that the Democrats apparently must prove up their patriotic bona fides to win over members of their own party.  This shows how far left the nutroots have taken the party.  As the primary season continues, we more often see Hillama taking shots [of alcohol], ordering a Bud and a bloody mary, failing to operate a coffee dispenser, and trying not to seem like the San Francisco liberals they may be.

Why is Hillama doing this?  They're afraid of losing the Reagan Democrats.  They're afraid that the Blue Collar Democrats will see them as elitist (which they may be) and voting instead for a McCain, who comes off as a normal guy and whose patriotism isn't doubted.  The nutroots has taken the party so far left that they're in danger of more moderate folks defecting.  

So Obama may give a speech to prove up his patriotic bona fides.  Let's hope that, if it works, the awe lasts longer than it did for his Rev. Wright speech in Philly.

One last thought.  Why is speaking about us as "the good guys" and a "land of opportunity" "corny," as Mr. Ellis writes?  Something tells me he thinks more like the nutroots than the Reagan Democrats.

Pandering

Obama says McCain and Clinton are pandering to voters when they propose a gas tax holiday.  He's right, of course.  The only problem is that it rings a bit hollow coming from Obama.  

Here's what Obama had to say:

Clinton and certain Republican presidential nominee John McCain are calling for a holiday on collecting the federal gas tax "to get them through an election," Obama said at a campaign rally before more than 2,000 cheering backers a week before crucial primaries in Indiana and North Carolina. "The easiest thing in the world for a politician to do is tell you exactly what you want to hear."  (emphasis supplied)

Surely Obama realized that the same criticism could be lodged against his anti-NAFTA and anti-Colombian FTA talk -- and probably much else that he's said over the last few months.  (Side note: because everyone was outraged, and rightfully so, about Obama's "bitter" comments, many have seemed to overlook that he said that bitter people also cling to anti-trade sentiments.  Does that comment confirm, albeit indirectly, that the aide-in-Canada debacle was true -- that he did send an aide to Canada to assure them that he was just pandering to voters and that NAFTA was safe?)

What irked me more, however, was this nugget buried 12 paragraphs down:

Obama took a different view on the issue when he was an Illinois legislator, voting at least three times in favor of temporarily lifting the state's 5 percent sales tax on gasoline.

The tax holiday was finally approved during a special session in June of 2000, when Illinois motorists were furious that gas prices had just topped $2 a gallon in Chicago.

During one debate, he joked that he wanted signs on gas pumps in his district to say, "Senator Obama reduced your gasoline prices."

. . . .

When legislation was introduced to eliminate the tax permanently, Obama voted "no." The effort failed, and the sales tax was allowed to take effect again.

Responding to Obama's criticism, McCain campaign spokesman Tucker Bounds said the Illinois senator "does not understand the effect of gas prices on the economy. Senator Obama voted for a gas tax reduction before he opposed it."

Obama claims he doesn't support gas tax holidays now -- perhaps because they'd get in the way of making a grab for the "windfall" profits of oil companies.  (See evidence of his pandering on this issue -- or, at the very least, his false claims about who he's getting money from -- here, here, and here.)

Final note: Before Obama's "bitter" comment, I would have thought his spokesman's Obama = Kerry comment ridiculous.  However, since everybody's heard about Obama's remarks, this may strike a chord for some people (unlike the ridiculous McCain = Bush garbage coming out of the DNC).