Sunday, September 14, 2008
The British doing the work that Americans will not do
If you are going to read something this morning, Gerard Baker's column ought to be it. Fair-use excerpt:
This election is a struggle between the followers of American exceptionalism and the supporters of global universalism. Democrats are more eager than ever to align the US with the rest of the Western world, especially Europe. This is true not just in terms of a commitment to multilateral diplomacy that would restore the United Nations to its rightful place as arbiter of international justice. It is also reflected in the type of place they'd like America to be - a country with higher taxes, more business regulation, a much larger welfare safety net and universal health insurance. The Republicans, who still believe America should follow the beat of its own drum, are pretty much against all of that.
You can argue the merits of each case. But let me try to explain to my fellow non-Americans why Mr Obama's problems go well beyond that. Even if you think that Americans should want to turn their country into a European-style system, there is a perfectly good reason that you might have grave doubts about Mr Obama.
The essential problem coming to light is a profound disconnect between the Barack Obama of the candidate's speeches, and the Barack Obama who has actually been in politics for the past decade or so.
Speechmaker Obama has built his campaign on the promise of reform, the need to change the culture of American political life, to take on the special interests that undermine government's effectiveness and erode trust in the system itself,
Politician Obama rose through a Chicago machine that is notoriously the most corrupt in the country. As David Freddoso writes in a brilliantly cogent and measured book, The Case Against Barack Obama, the angel of deliverance from the old politics functioned like an old-time Democratic pol in Illinois. He refused repeatedly to side with those lonely voices that sought to challenge the old corrupt ways of the ruling party.
Speechmaker Obama talks about an era of bipartisanship, He speaks powerfully about the destructive politics of red and blue states.
Politician Obama has toed his party's line more reliably than almost any other Democrat in US politics. He has a near-perfect record of voting with his side. He has the most solidly left-wing voting history in the Senate. His one act of bipartisanship, a transparency bill co-sponsored with a Republican senator, was backed by everybody on both sides of the aisle. He has never challenged his party's line on any issue of substance.
Speechmaker Obama talks a lot about finding ways to move beyond the bloody battlegrounds of the “culture wars” in America; the urgent need to establish consensus on the emotive issue of abortion.
Politician Obama's support for abortion rights is the most extreme of any Democratic senator. In the Illinois legislature he refused to join Democrats and Republicans in supporting a Bill that would require doctors to provide medical care for babies who survived abortions. No one in the Senate - not the arch feminist Hillary Clinton nor the superliberal Edward Kennedy - opposed this same humane measure.
Here's the real problem with Mr Obama: the jarring gap between his promises of change and his status quo performance.
Of course, this line of thinking runs the great risk of moving the "conversation" away from Sarah Palin, which is exactly what Barack Obama needs right now. Instapundit reader C.J. Burch:
[Sarah Palin] wouldn't be such a rock star if the Dems and the press didn't despise her so viciously. They're going to get worse. She's going to get more popular. (link added)
The question is, when will the press get a clue that they are hurting their candidate rather than helping him?
8 Comments:
By 
, at
Sun Sep 14, 11:37:00 AM:
Clearly there is going to be a change in Washington this time whether it's the D or the R who gets in. This President Bush's VP didn't run and neither did anyone else who could even remotely be said to stand for the current administration (much to the chagrin of the Dems who still try unsuccessfully to make this a race about the current President).
The problem for him is that nobody needs to vote for Obama if all they want is change. Voting for McCain accomplishes the same thing. And since Washington is as much a Democrat town as it is a Republican one, it's just as easy to dismiss Obama's chances for accomplishing any meaningful change as it is to do the same for McCain.
By 
BrendaK, at
Sun Sep 14, 11:48:00 AM:
The question is, when will the press get a clue that they are hurting their candidate rather than helping him?
Shhhhhhhhhhh!
By Dawnfire82, at
Sun Sep 14, 12:27:00 PM:
"Clearly there is going to be a change in Washington this time whether it's the D or the R who gets in."
I'm not confident about that at all. Given Obama's comfort and complacency in Chicago, there's nothing beyond vague promises to make me believe he'll stand up to congressional corruption. At least the Republican candidates have some sort of record of reform. (breaking up Republican old boys' system, and a principled stand against pork)
By Andrew X, at
Sun Sep 14, 01:03:00 PM:
"when will the press get a clue that they are hurting their candidate rather than helping him?"
Around the time that monkey gets a clue, that if he will only unball his fist and let go of the tasty nut, he can escape the monkey trap.
(Expl: The monkey hunters put a worthless shiny stone in the coconut, big enough to ensure the monkey's hand cannot come out while clinching the stone. The monkey is curious. He is attracted to the shiny object he spots inside the hole. Sticks in his hand and grasps the shiny, worthless pebble. Now he is possessive. He won't let go. The coconut is anchored to the tree. The monkey hunters come. The monkey is screaming in fear, but he is captured, because he is holding onto a shiny, worthless pebble which becomes more important to him than his freedom.)
http://www.new-life.net/favrt038.htm
By Sweating Through fog, at
Sun Sep 14, 08:27:00 PM:
"They're going to get worse. She's going to get more popular. "
The extreme leftists can't control themselves, and Obama can't control them either. The woman represents everything they hate, and they can't keep themselves from attacking her personally. Every personal attack on her alienates more of the voters that identify with her values. And these are disproportionately swing state voters.
I wonder if McCain was lucky in his choice, or if he knew this would happen all along. If it is the latter, he is a political genius.
By Roy Lofquist, at
Sun Sep 14, 08:55:00 PM:
Everybody is misconstruing Obama's position on the born alive bill.
Obama's church is a member of the United Churches of Christ. UCOC is partnered with another church association (Lutherans if I remember correctly) which run a foundation that owns and operates a hospital that also performs abortions. In the debate on the floor he cites a concern for the extra liability exposure of doctors and the hospital.
His position on the bill has nothing to due with his views on abortion. As is the way of that cesspool someone sent him.
Regards,
Roy
By davod, at
Sun Sep 14, 09:24:00 PM:
"In the debate on the floor he cites a concern for the extra liability exposure of doctors and the hospital."
So Obama's objection to protection of babies born alive as a result of a botched abortion is that it might cost money?
How callous. How like a lawyer.
I hope Obama fixes the problem with an ad explaining this.
Even NARAL didn't contest the bill.
By Roy Lofquist, at
Sun Sep 14, 10:22:00 PM:
Dear Davod,
That is precisely the case and it's as common as complaints about the weather. Legislators are quite frequently freed from the party's position if the party is sure to prevail and the member needs to vote the other way or miss the vote to please his constituents or his contribution sources.
Every once in a while this leads to a brouhaha when the floor whip miscounts. Almost all of the Obama "present" votes were because of this very reason. He did not want to risk alienating any of his minders when his vote was not important.
It is not indecision or lack of political consistency. It is cowardice.
Regards,
Roy
