History, as the saying goes, has an eerily and ironically consistent way of “repeating itself”. With the understanding that some of the details are unique, let’s look at the broad pattern in which we find ourselves. The first version of the story is a pro-Democrat version, the second is pro-Republican. Travel back with me…(cue blurry effect on TV screen)…
1. The year was 1976. We were approaching the conclusion of an eight year term of a Republican administration. The outgoing incumbent (okay, I know he left in 1974, work with me here) was extremely unpopular, governed as a moderate and, at times, a left-of-center president. His successor, another moderate Republican, was seeking to be (re)elected. We were recovering from the aftermath of a despised war and questionable foreign policy, and economic indicators were negative. The moderate Republican successor faced strong opposition in the primaries but eventually secured his party’s nomination. After a heated general election contest, the moderate Republican nominee, who followed a moderate Republican President, was defeated by a virtually unknown, ultra-liberal Democrat with no experience in Federal Government.
For those who need it, the cast in this comedy of errors is…
President Richard Nixon, played by…….George W. Bush!
President Gerald Ford, played by………..John McCain!
Governor Jimmy Carter, played by………Barack Obama!
Again, some of the details are different. After all, Senator Obama has spent all of one and one-half years in the Senate.
2. The year was 1908, one hundred years ago, and a moderate Republican with a strong military record was running against his Democrat challenger. This moderate Republican was an environmentalist who placed conservation as one of his highest domestic priorities. The Democratic National Convention was held in DENVER, Colorado (as it was in 2008), and the Democrats nominated a populist, anti-business lawyer/politician known for his platitude-laden oratory abilities, particularly his “Cross of Gold” speech in 1896. The only problem with his speaking ability, however, was that critics felt he lacked substance. In fact, one critic likened him unto the Delta of the Mississippi River, saying he was “One mile wide at the mouth, but only three inches deep.” Ultimately, the moderate, pro-military, pro-environmentalist Republican won, leaving the Democrat nominee alone with his legacy as a political preacher.
The cast:
President Theodore Roosevelt (I'm stretching history for story's sake (Taft won in 1908, but TR was his predecessor)
played by……......................John McCain! (who LOVES T. Roosevelt)
William Jennings Bryan, played by………………….Barack Obama!
Yes, this may be a little eerie, but perhaps there is a reason our elections are held so close to St. Hallows Eve.
Saturday, November 15, 2008
Op-Ed Submission to the Omaha World Herald
Notwithstanding the historic nature of Thursday night’s debate not much occurred outside the norm of the bellum verborum for prospective vice-presidents. Much to the chagrin of political ambulance chasers desiring to pronounce the premature death of the political career of Governor Palin, she exited the debate hall having achieved the desired end for the apotheosis of presidential surrogates. She held the line against the shoddily structured format from moderator and (sycophantic author) Gwen Ifill, and refused the attempt of Senator Biden to dictate the terms and boundaries around which the debate would be centered. Though there were times she could have landed that ever so evasive oratorical uppercut to the chin, she exceedingly surpassed the cynical expectations of detractors and partisans alike.
So what now? With polls gaining apparent stability, we must patiently anticipate the next two debates between the respective lead candidates, and wonder if they or any other catalyst will impact the current electoral standing from now until the only poll that truly matters: the one on November 4th.
What is glaringly obvious is the early Christmas gift delivered to the McCain-Palin camp from the unwitting (or should I say desperate?) hands of Senator Biden. He found himself at times cornered on Thursday night, and in process of escaping his predicament, committed a handful of whoppers measurable only on a 1990's scale. His capricious revelation on the beatific expedience of clean coal technology is either the most violent positional tergiversation in recent history or is indeed the boldest example of shameless lies told during a political campaign. The McCain campaign exploited almost immediately the gaffes committed by the would-be vice-president, juxtaposing, in advertisement form, his campaign trail positions to those he assumed during his serial epiphany during the debate. There was also the embarrassing video in which the senior Senator rebuked the Senatorial Neophyte, et al, for their votes to withhold funding for our troops in Iraq and Afghanistan, labeling it, accurately so, as a politically influenced vote that would have resulted in undue loss of American lives.
Even prior to the debate, there was Senator Biden’s disapproval of his boss’s approval of the campaign ad portraying John McCain as “out of touch” since he cannot operate a keyboard due to war injuries. The in-house dispute was tempered and Senator Biden, as cited by Lisa Wangsness of the Boston Globe, had to admit he never saw the advertisement.
Then there was the now infamous incident in which the Senator displayed his grasp on history when he informed the nation that FDR, as president, in 1929, calmed the nation’s fears post-Stock Market crash by appearing on television and talking to the citizenry.
Immediately following the debate Thursday night, on ABC World News’ version of “fact check”, it was pointed out that Senator Biden fallaciously accused John McCain of voting, like Barack Obama, to raise taxes on households annually earning as little as $42,000. It turned out that Senator McCain was in Pennsylvania when the final vote was held.
The question now stands as to whether or not Senator Biden’s value to the campaign outweighs his detraction. Undoubtedly, the gravitas (and non-Clintonian surname) with which he supposedly equips the Obama campaign was the most attractive quality that propelled Senator Biden to the apogee of the vice-presidential short-list, but perhaps he has mislabeled his trademark logorrhea as an asset, when in reality, it might be more precisely labeled as a liability. His belligerence has proven to contain a professionally destructive quality in the past, but unlike judicial nominees and political opponents, in this instance, the victim of the Senator’s wrath, insofar as careers are concerned, may in fact be the Senator himself.
So what now? With polls gaining apparent stability, we must patiently anticipate the next two debates between the respective lead candidates, and wonder if they or any other catalyst will impact the current electoral standing from now until the only poll that truly matters: the one on November 4th.
What is glaringly obvious is the early Christmas gift delivered to the McCain-Palin camp from the unwitting (or should I say desperate?) hands of Senator Biden. He found himself at times cornered on Thursday night, and in process of escaping his predicament, committed a handful of whoppers measurable only on a 1990's scale. His capricious revelation on the beatific expedience of clean coal technology is either the most violent positional tergiversation in recent history or is indeed the boldest example of shameless lies told during a political campaign. The McCain campaign exploited almost immediately the gaffes committed by the would-be vice-president, juxtaposing, in advertisement form, his campaign trail positions to those he assumed during his serial epiphany during the debate. There was also the embarrassing video in which the senior Senator rebuked the Senatorial Neophyte, et al, for their votes to withhold funding for our troops in Iraq and Afghanistan, labeling it, accurately so, as a politically influenced vote that would have resulted in undue loss of American lives.
Even prior to the debate, there was Senator Biden’s disapproval of his boss’s approval of the campaign ad portraying John McCain as “out of touch” since he cannot operate a keyboard due to war injuries. The in-house dispute was tempered and Senator Biden, as cited by Lisa Wangsness of the Boston Globe, had to admit he never saw the advertisement.
Then there was the now infamous incident in which the Senator displayed his grasp on history when he informed the nation that FDR, as president, in 1929, calmed the nation’s fears post-Stock Market crash by appearing on television and talking to the citizenry.
Immediately following the debate Thursday night, on ABC World News’ version of “fact check”, it was pointed out that Senator Biden fallaciously accused John McCain of voting, like Barack Obama, to raise taxes on households annually earning as little as $42,000. It turned out that Senator McCain was in Pennsylvania when the final vote was held.
The question now stands as to whether or not Senator Biden’s value to the campaign outweighs his detraction. Undoubtedly, the gravitas (and non-Clintonian surname) with which he supposedly equips the Obama campaign was the most attractive quality that propelled Senator Biden to the apogee of the vice-presidential short-list, but perhaps he has mislabeled his trademark logorrhea as an asset, when in reality, it might be more precisely labeled as a liability. His belligerence has proven to contain a professionally destructive quality in the past, but unlike judicial nominees and political opponents, in this instance, the victim of the Senator’s wrath, insofar as careers are concerned, may in fact be the Senator himself.
Experience: The Definitive Presidential Qualification
Much has been made over the course of this political season (tedious and laborious as it has been) about the qualifications of presidential candidates. Whether or not it TRULY matters to voters is a question only a scientific pollster can answer. What we common citizens can consider, however, is recent electoral history. Consider this, no candidate has won the presidency while serving at the time of his election as a U.S. Senator since 1960 (JFK). This leaves a succession of vice-presidents and governors who have won the coveted prize in the last 48 years. Not possible? Check the facts.
- Lyndon Johnson - 1964 - Re-elected President after assuming the role upon President Kennedy's death.
- Richard Nixon - 1968 - Vice-President in the Eisenhower administration.
- (Ford was never Elected)
- Jimmy Carter - 1976 - Governor of Georgia
- Ronald Reagan - 1980 - Former Governor of California
- George H.W. Bush - 1988 - Vice-President in the Reagan administration
- Bill Clinton - 1992 - Governor of Arkansas
- George W. Bush - 2000- Governor of Texas
What does this reveal? Are Vice-Presidents and Governors more likeable? Not necessarily. But it reveals a trend that voters tend to lean toward the candidate with experience as an executive. Even Kennedy, the last sitting Senator to be elected, was lieutenant in the Navy, serving as the commander of a patrol torpedo (PT) boat. This leaves Herbert Hoover (1928) as the last President to have no service as an executive at the time of his election.
So what do we make of this with two Senators bearing the standard of our major parties? Something's gotta give right? Sure. But like Kennedy, John McCain served as a leader in the Navy. He was a captain and served as the commanding officer of a flight squadron. The only (or one of two if you count Joe Biden) person with NO experience as an executive in this election is the Junior Senator from Illinois: Barack Obama.
So when you hear people say Governor Palin has more experience than Obama, they're not exactly correct. Experience in and of itself is a fleeting and subjective concept. What they should say is that the Republican Vice-Presidential Nominee has more executive experience (the kind that presidents need) than the nominee of the Democratic Party.
- Lyndon Johnson - 1964 - Re-elected President after assuming the role upon President Kennedy's death.
- Richard Nixon - 1968 - Vice-President in the Eisenhower administration.
- (Ford was never Elected)
- Jimmy Carter - 1976 - Governor of Georgia
- Ronald Reagan - 1980 - Former Governor of California
- George H.W. Bush - 1988 - Vice-President in the Reagan administration
- Bill Clinton - 1992 - Governor of Arkansas
- George W. Bush - 2000- Governor of Texas
What does this reveal? Are Vice-Presidents and Governors more likeable? Not necessarily. But it reveals a trend that voters tend to lean toward the candidate with experience as an executive. Even Kennedy, the last sitting Senator to be elected, was lieutenant in the Navy, serving as the commander of a patrol torpedo (PT) boat. This leaves Herbert Hoover (1928) as the last President to have no service as an executive at the time of his election.
So what do we make of this with two Senators bearing the standard of our major parties? Something's gotta give right? Sure. But like Kennedy, John McCain served as a leader in the Navy. He was a captain and served as the commanding officer of a flight squadron. The only (or one of two if you count Joe Biden) person with NO experience as an executive in this election is the Junior Senator from Illinois: Barack Obama.
So when you hear people say Governor Palin has more experience than Obama, they're not exactly correct. Experience in and of itself is a fleeting and subjective concept. What they should say is that the Republican Vice-Presidential Nominee has more executive experience (the kind that presidents need) than the nominee of the Democratic Party.
Reflections on the Passing of William F. Buckley, Jr.
To say that William F. Buckley, Jr., has had an immeasurable impact on American political and intellectual thought is quite an understatement. To say that he was a man who transcended the limitations of his day to spawn the birth of a movement, who laid the groundwork for the candidacy of Senator Barry Goldwater in 1964, who laid the solid foundation for the movement that ushered in the Presidency of Ronald Reagan, who today is being mourned by Conservatives and intellectuals in this country, and who will be sorely missed for decades by his proteges and students, begins to scratch the surface.
Personally, I have been grossly ignorant of the true impact of this man until the last two days. I have known that he was one of the "leaders" of the modern American Conservative movement, but I was naive of his true intrinsic and manifest value. It was not until yesterday, when reading and listening to individuals reflect on his impact, followed by some independent research, that I have begun to understand his contribution.This was the man who was conservative before it was acceptable to be so. He was the first conservative on television, and provided the intellectual foundation upon which the movement was to stand. After graduating from Yale, he was recruited to serve in the Central Intelligence Agency, then in 1955 founded the National Review, the first major conservative publication of the twentieth century (of which I am aware). He also hosted his own debate/interview show called "Firing Line", the significance of which cannot be underestimated. The fact that we as political enthusiasts can enjoy Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Hannity and Colmes, Glenn Beck, Hardball with Chris Matthews, Crossfire, and the like, can be credited to the trail blazed by Bill Buckley. The commentators and hosts of those shows stand on the shoulders of this man. Even Ed Shultz, Al Franken, and the Air America types owe the format of their medium to the progess instituted by Buckley.
His countless books, articles, and editorials leave for us a treasure of intellect and history at our disposal; truly timeless, and still relevant for today. With his wit, matchless vocabulary, intellect, and that unmistakable New England brogue, he captivated a generation and simultaneously laid the foundation for two major political revolutions in the United States.To label him a "conservative author and commentator" does not do justice to his manifest value and significance. Simply put, the man was right. He was one of the first to espouse the reality that lowering tax rates creates growth, and thereby increases revenue. He was more than an idealogue, more than a commentator, he was a true intellectual giant.
He loved his country, his nation, his America. While others, including Chomsky, Robert Kennedy, and the like, were spouting all the reasons why America was wrong, why America should be changed, and why, in Chomsky's case, why America was the cause of much of the world's evil. Those thinkers never bothered to talk about one topic: what was right about America, and the fact that America, by the power of God Himself, was the catalyst for the vast majority of GOOD in the world.What other nation, kingdom, or empire, in less than 235 years has taken the sole place of leadership in the world. A world, mind you, that contains the U.N., the European Union, NATO, etc. We are the scourge of tyranny, and the hope of those who desire freedom. Are we perfect? By no means, but unlike his political opponents, Buckley chose to not blame America first as the source and cause of the evils of the world.
For those of us born after the "Reagan (Buckley) Revolution" and those of us who barely remember the Republican (Reagan [Buckley]) Revolution of 1994, it will take us years, perhaps decades, to process and understand the true impact of William F. Buckley, Jr. This being an election year, we will have to wait and see the results of what I am predicting will be a pivotal point in American history, in the vein of 1968 and 1980. Nonetheless it will take time for us to comprehend the legacy and impact of this man. He will be missed, not just by conservatives, but by Americans.
Personally, I have been grossly ignorant of the true impact of this man until the last two days. I have known that he was one of the "leaders" of the modern American Conservative movement, but I was naive of his true intrinsic and manifest value. It was not until yesterday, when reading and listening to individuals reflect on his impact, followed by some independent research, that I have begun to understand his contribution.This was the man who was conservative before it was acceptable to be so. He was the first conservative on television, and provided the intellectual foundation upon which the movement was to stand. After graduating from Yale, he was recruited to serve in the Central Intelligence Agency, then in 1955 founded the National Review, the first major conservative publication of the twentieth century (of which I am aware). He also hosted his own debate/interview show called "Firing Line", the significance of which cannot be underestimated. The fact that we as political enthusiasts can enjoy Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Hannity and Colmes, Glenn Beck, Hardball with Chris Matthews, Crossfire, and the like, can be credited to the trail blazed by Bill Buckley. The commentators and hosts of those shows stand on the shoulders of this man. Even Ed Shultz, Al Franken, and the Air America types owe the format of their medium to the progess instituted by Buckley.
His countless books, articles, and editorials leave for us a treasure of intellect and history at our disposal; truly timeless, and still relevant for today. With his wit, matchless vocabulary, intellect, and that unmistakable New England brogue, he captivated a generation and simultaneously laid the foundation for two major political revolutions in the United States.To label him a "conservative author and commentator" does not do justice to his manifest value and significance. Simply put, the man was right. He was one of the first to espouse the reality that lowering tax rates creates growth, and thereby increases revenue. He was more than an idealogue, more than a commentator, he was a true intellectual giant.
He loved his country, his nation, his America. While others, including Chomsky, Robert Kennedy, and the like, were spouting all the reasons why America was wrong, why America should be changed, and why, in Chomsky's case, why America was the cause of much of the world's evil. Those thinkers never bothered to talk about one topic: what was right about America, and the fact that America, by the power of God Himself, was the catalyst for the vast majority of GOOD in the world.What other nation, kingdom, or empire, in less than 235 years has taken the sole place of leadership in the world. A world, mind you, that contains the U.N., the European Union, NATO, etc. We are the scourge of tyranny, and the hope of those who desire freedom. Are we perfect? By no means, but unlike his political opponents, Buckley chose to not blame America first as the source and cause of the evils of the world.
For those of us born after the "Reagan (Buckley) Revolution" and those of us who barely remember the Republican (Reagan [Buckley]) Revolution of 1994, it will take us years, perhaps decades, to process and understand the true impact of William F. Buckley, Jr. This being an election year, we will have to wait and see the results of what I am predicting will be a pivotal point in American history, in the vein of 1968 and 1980. Nonetheless it will take time for us to comprehend the legacy and impact of this man. He will be missed, not just by conservatives, but by Americans.
"The Next President" by WFB
In light of the current political landscape, I feel it would be appropriate to reflect upon one of the innumerable gems of wisdom spoken by the founder of the modern American conservative movement and the founder of National Review magazine, William F. Buckley, Jr. This came from a televised point-counterpoint style debate with Gore Vidal regarding the election of 1968. The specifics are particular to 1968 conditions, but the principles conveyed remain pertinent for today. Let me stress - in case the plagiarism police are around - these are the words of WFB, not me!
“The next President of the United States would ideally combine the best features of Julius Caesar, Albertus Magnus, Thomas Jefferson, Napoleon Bonaparte, Abraham Lincoln, and Eleanor Roosevelt. Which is why it is really unprofitable to talk about Camelot since we don’t live in Camelot, but in the good old USA, and that’s all right, Jack, at least, all right by me. It is more profitable to think in terms of what the next President should not be. He shouldn’t be too naïve, for instance, when the president of the Soviet Union informs him that the Communists desire world peace, the next President would ideally tell him to “cut the horse feathers.” He shouldn’t crave the idolatry of world opinion, for instance, when criticized by the United Nations for taking a position he feels he needs to take in the best interests of his country, he should feel free, quite ostentatiously, to turn off the national earphone. He shouldn’t form too high an opinion of himself, for instance, he should recognize that America is a great deal that has nothing to do with the presidency; millions of men, women and children who deserve the opportunity to dream their dreams without any reference at all to the man who occupies the White House. The best-run country in the world is Switzerland, and I have often amused myself while there by asking casually ‘what is the name of the president of Switzerland?’ Inevitably there is an embarrassed silence; no one can remember his name. And finally, the next President should not aspire to too much ‘extra-Americanism,’ to the myth of himself as the leader of the world, for instance, he should not reject his role as an American, proud of America’s past, hopeful for America’s future, confident of America’s resources, respectful of other people’s differences, disposed to live and let live, and grateful to Providence that he was born in America and will have now the supreme opportunity to serve his country. This is William F. Buckley, Jr., in New York.”
“The next President of the United States would ideally combine the best features of Julius Caesar, Albertus Magnus, Thomas Jefferson, Napoleon Bonaparte, Abraham Lincoln, and Eleanor Roosevelt. Which is why it is really unprofitable to talk about Camelot since we don’t live in Camelot, but in the good old USA, and that’s all right, Jack, at least, all right by me. It is more profitable to think in terms of what the next President should not be. He shouldn’t be too naïve, for instance, when the president of the Soviet Union informs him that the Communists desire world peace, the next President would ideally tell him to “cut the horse feathers.” He shouldn’t crave the idolatry of world opinion, for instance, when criticized by the United Nations for taking a position he feels he needs to take in the best interests of his country, he should feel free, quite ostentatiously, to turn off the national earphone. He shouldn’t form too high an opinion of himself, for instance, he should recognize that America is a great deal that has nothing to do with the presidency; millions of men, women and children who deserve the opportunity to dream their dreams without any reference at all to the man who occupies the White House. The best-run country in the world is Switzerland, and I have often amused myself while there by asking casually ‘what is the name of the president of Switzerland?’ Inevitably there is an embarrassed silence; no one can remember his name. And finally, the next President should not aspire to too much ‘extra-Americanism,’ to the myth of himself as the leader of the world, for instance, he should not reject his role as an American, proud of America’s past, hopeful for America’s future, confident of America’s resources, respectful of other people’s differences, disposed to live and let live, and grateful to Providence that he was born in America and will have now the supreme opportunity to serve his country. This is William F. Buckley, Jr., in New York.”
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
