Squaring the Culture

One of my readers pointed me today toward the following comparison between presidential candidate Barack Obama and Vice Presidential candidate Sarah Palin. I borrowed it from Flopping Aces, who found it on RedState.com.

The most important thing to remember about this comparison is that if McCain gets elected President, Sarah Palin will most likely be chairing the Senate and meeting with functionaries touring the White House, whereas if Obama gets elected, he will be running the government of the most powerful nation on earth. That we’re comparing Palin to Obama (favorably for Palin) rather than McCain to Obama, says everything that needs to be said. Nobody doubts that McCain is ready to lead the nation; if Sarah Palin is not ready to lead, Barack Obama is less so, and he’s the top of the ticket. I have never seen so lopsided a contest in my entire life, and that includes Reagan v. Carter. There is simply no excuse for the Democratic party to proffer such a lame nominee for President; if Democrats are smart, they’ll spend a lot of time trying to understand how it happened.

RedState also drew my attention to yet another miscue by the Obama campaign, wherein the campaign first fired a nastygram at Palin, then tried to reverse field and talk nice. For a man claiming to be expert at least at communication, he’s done this an awful lot of times. Politico counts the ways, noting that Obama’s reflex seems to be to blame it on his staff. How… noble of him. The man is simply incompetent, and of low character to boot.

The following comparison is obviously partisan. However, it is factually accurate. Enjoy.

One fascinating aspect of the Democrats’ response to McCain’s Veep pick is coming from the hard-left feminists; they uniformly are noticing the misogynistic tone toward Palin from Obama’s supporters. There was already animosity because of the sexist tone of the Obama campaign toward Madame Clinton; now the same tone is already being used on Governor Palin, and the result is that the Clinton gender politicians now know without a doubt that the vituperation they heard was not just against Clinton, but against women.

Check out Reclusive Leftist, who provides this tidbit:

It will complete the alienation of the rest of the Hillary supporters from the Obama camp. How? That’s easy — the Obamabots will do it themselves. Go read the Washington Post blog or anywhere online where the Palin pick is being discussed, and you’ll see the trademark Obama misogyny already out in full force. She’s been on the ticket for two seconds and already the Obamabots are saying she “looks like a porn star,” they’re making rude remarks about her childbearing, they’re ridiculing her intelligence.

Keep it up, possums. Keep it up. Just when some Hillary supporters were trying to forget what misogynist freaks you all are, now you’re going to remind us all over again.

Or this, from Shakespeare’s Sister (warning: rough language):

Says Pet: “The slaughter of your gender begins anew!” Sob.

Or this, from Feminist Law Professors:

The Supposedly Liberal Doods threw the most disgusting sexism at Hillary Clinton and her supporters during the Democratic primary. Then Obama picks Joe “no friend of women” Biden as his running mate, rather than choosing somebody who would help build party unity. Now the Supposedly Liberal Doods are back in gear, throwing disgusting sexism at Palin.

Do not underestimate the problem Obama has with Clinton supporters. Roughly a quarter of her 18 million votes have said they are not going to vote for Obama, and that number has not been shrinking. Obama’s going to get an unusually high percentage of the black vote, but that will only be about 10 points above what it usually is, and that’s only within 10 percent of the population. If he gets an unusually low percentage of the female votes — if McCain can make the female vote something close to 50-50 — Obama’s cooked.

What a difference a day makes.

It’s Saturday, fa cryin’ out loud, and still the Democrats’ slime machine has been hard at work all night, producing pictures of downtown Wasilla, AK (a two-story frame beer joint and a tiny strip mall), digging the dirt on the scandal that’s rocking the governor’s administration in Alaska (it’s claimed that she and her husband tried really hard to get an ill-behaved state trooper fired who was divorcing her sister, and later she fired the Police Commissioner who didn’t fire the trooper), screeching “She supported Pat Buchanan!” (apparently because she politely stuck a “Buchanan” button on her lapel when Buchanan visited Alaska in 2000,) and making the point that I seriously can’t believe that they have the chutzpah to make, that she’s too inexperienced to be Vice President (but it’s not a problem that Barack Obama with even less experience wants to be President. Criminy.)

It’s not all “slime,” of course. There are reasons to examine McCain’s choice for Veep, given his age (but then again, his mother is in her mid-90s and is still tough as nails, so there’s some reason to predict he’ll handle two full terms and keep on sailing… but on the other hand, there’s his father…) and given our lack of familiarity with Governor Palin. So, we’ll all get to watch the soap opera play out for a few days, and that’s a pretty good thing.

If you’re still interested in reading about it, Doug Mataconis at Below the Beltway has some interesting background on how the choice was made, and Ramesh Ponnuru throws a little cold water on McCain’s Veep pick (not literally, that would just be rude) over at The Corner.

Two things are certain: 1) McCain’s strategy to get Obama’s convention speech out of the headlines worked really, really well (but at what cost?); and 2) this election season continues to entertain like no other.

Since most of us have barely heard of her before and she’s now on the Republican ticket, I thought it would be helpful to find a few decent articles describing who Gov. Sarah Palin is. So, here ya go:

This brief article at DelawarePolitics.com initiates their attempt to draft Palin for Vice President. I guess it worked. Blame Delaware.

Fred Barnes at the Weekly Standard wrote an informative and highly positive piece about Palin back in July 2007. Note that the pipeline that Barnes reports Palin was soliciting bids to build has just been awarded today to TransCanada Corp. Good job, governor.

The Atlanta Journal-Constitution has reproduced the article about Palin from Alaska’s official web site.

And in case you missed it, here’s the video of McCain announcing his selection of Palin to be his running mate this morning in Dayton, OH, here’s the first video of Palin accepting McCain’s nomination, and here’s the second video.

A bit too much “glass ceiling” nonsense for my taste, but that’s a big part of what she’s on the ticket to address, so I’d better get used to it. She’s also got solid energy experience, bona fides in fighting political corruption, and a 90% approval rating from her state. I don’t know if she’s what the nation needs, but she’s certainly got a lot of things the Republican ticket needs.

Vice President is not a terribly important position in practical American government; beyond chairing the Senate, the VP does what the President allows him or her to do, and that’s it. Still, the conservatives on the blogs are pretty excited about the choice of Palin, and I think for good reason.

All morning I’ve been hearing the wire whispers nattering “It’s Palin!” Governor Sarah Palin of Alaska, clean-government reformer like McCain, hockey mom, younger than Obama, and … a woman.

And immediately, I came across several major blogs making what has to be the dumbest claim I’ve heard this election season, which really is saying something.

From Outside the Beltway:

Aside from being young and hot-for-a-politician, though, Palin undercuts McCain’s entire campaign theme. She’s got less political experience and less foreign policy experience than Obama.

From FireDogLake:

I just saw Mark Halperin wringing his hands on CNN saying Palin, who is younger than Obama, effectively kills McSame’s “not ready” meme.

From The Anonymous Liberal:

All that said, Palin has less than two years of experience in office. She’s only 44. To the extent the Republican party plans to attack Obama for his lack of experience–and it sure seems like that’s their principal attack–Palin clearly undermines that strategy.

I’m sure there are more, but who wants to read them? Honestly guys — she’s the nominee for Vice President! Obama is the nominee for PRESIDENT!!! She doesn’t undercut dick. Rather, she emphasizes the fact — and fact, it is — that if the Democrats had any brains at all, their ticket would be inverted, with Biden at the top and Obama at the bottom. I don’t like either of them, but inverting the ticket would at least defuse the “you can’t possibly be serious” factor.

Well, I guess they had to say something. But honestly, can they possibly be serious?

The wires will be full of interpretations and predictions this morning, but I want to focus on one brief paragraph from Obama’s acceptance speech, one that, in my mind, illustrates the central difference between the Democratic party and the Republican party. In sixty five words, Barack Obama dismissed the best, most powerful feature of the nation as though it were a disaster.

In Washington, they call this the “Ownership Society,” but what it really means is that you’re on your own. Out of work? Tough luck, you’re on your own. No health care? The market will fix it. You’re on your own. Born into poverty? Pull yourself up by your own bootstraps, even if you don’t have boots. You are on your own.

Leave it to the Democrats, and especially to a hard leftist like Obama, to imagine that if a person does not receive help from the government, then he’s “on his own.” There are only two modes in their minds; either government fixes it, or you’re on your own, and out of luck.

I’ve faced very hard times in my life, but I’ve never been on my own. My family helped me. My friends helped me. Strangers helped me. My church — different churches at different times — helped me a lot. And behind them all, God helped me. I have never, for a moment of my life, been on my own.

The thing that makes America such a remarkable place is the liberty we have to achieve what God has put into our minds and hearts to achieve. If you have an idea, there’s nobody with the power to stop you from pursuing it. If you want an education, nobody can stop you from obtaining it. If you want to start a business, nobody can stop you from starting it.

And ultimately, it’s the ideas, the initiative, the energy of each one of us doing what God has put in us that produces the wealth of information, goods, and services that Americans enjoy. And whatever we lack, there’s always somebody with the brains and guts to develop a solution to fill that gap.

Yes, this exposes us to the random hardships of life that can hit us full-force and knock us down, but it’s those hardships that produce the strength, initiative, and creativity that mark the American character. Take away the hardship, and you take away any possibility of greatness.

The Democrats want to replace that society with a society of dependence on government. They would say in reply that they’re not actually targeting independence, they just want to use government to solve social problems, but intend to leave independence unharmed. They’re fooling themselves. You can’t produce government solutions without taking away individual solutions. They’re opposites. Every dime the government takes to achieve some social goal is a dime that’s not available for individual achievement. Every act the government does on our behalf is an act that has been removed from our sphere of liberty. Every time the scope of government increases, the power of individual choice decreases.

I heard Barack Obama promise $150 billion in spending on the development of solar, wind, and biomass energy in the next 10 years. What I heard was “the government is going to limit our choices and initiative to a few, likely ineffective solutions, and waste a huge chunk of money doing it.” These may or may not be solutions to serious problems, but if the government puts that kind of money behind those specific ideas, every other idea gets washed down the drain. The government will have removed any possibility of creativity or initiative, and locked us for the next four or five decades into solutions that are virtually certain to be sub-optimal. That’s not a solution, that’s insanity.

Yes, Barack Obama, when problems strike my life, as far as you’re concerned, I’m on my own, because the government isn’t there to help me. That’s the strength of America. Ending it would be like cutting Samson’s hair. It would take away our strength. I’m going to vote for whichever candidate will ensure the best that I’m on my own when problems occur, as Democrats define “on my own,” because that independence allows me the most room to grow, improve, and solve problems in a manner that suits my needs. Thank God I’m “on my own;” because in actual point of fact, with God, family, and American community, nobody is ever on their own.

I received an email message from Redstate.com regarding flags at the Democratic convention. I’m reproducing the whole message below, exactly as I received it. There are additional photos at the companion post on Redstate.

Here’s what the message said:

For two days RedState has been at the Democratic Convention trying to find American flags.

Sure, when the television cameras come on for prime time network coverage, the Democrats have been passing out flags like candy.

But when the prime time lights are not on, and for the entire time Tuesday night, including during prime time, there have been no American flags: not in the crowd, not on the stage, not in the hallways — nowhere.

Well, we finally found some American flags.

They were in the trash.

Let’s skip, for a minute, that this is supposed to be an environmentally friendly campaign and the flags were thrown in with paper, plastic, food, and other junk. Ignore that.

Just focus on this: The Democrats only pulled out the flags for prime time Monday night and Wednesday night. They have otherwise avoided all displays of the American flag.

After Wednesday night, they threw them in the trash.

Sincerely yours,

Erick Erickson
RedState.com

President Bill Clinton invited us to parse carefully the meanings of the words he uses, and commentator Stephen Green at Pajamas Media does exactly that with Clinton’s speech at the Democratic Convention last night. You have to click over to page 2 to get past his admiring summary of Senator Biden’s speech accepting the nomination for Vice President (Paul Mirengoff at Power Line has a somewhat less favorable evaluation), but when you get there, you discover the subtle ways that Clinton dismissed nominee Obama. I think Green is right; this is classic Bill Clinton, and whatever else I think about the man, Clinton does subtle rhetoric like nobody else. It’s a masterpiece of the “Faint Praise” genre, in which Clinton actually praises his wife more than the nominee. Read it.

Ben Smith at Politico has the text of an Action Line email broadcast sent out by the Obama campaign to instruct campaign workers to disrupt a radio interview of National Review journalist Stanley Kurtz by Milt Rosenberg on WGN radio in Chicago.

The instructions point out one possible inaccuracy in Kurtz’s report on Fox News the previous night (that’s “1″. Uno. Un. Echad. Not 2, nor 3. Four is right out. Five…), claiming that Kurtz exaggerates William Ayers’ role in choosing Obama to chair the Annenberg Challenge, and that this has been “disproved in numerous press accounts.” On this basis, the Obama camp calls Kurtz a “smear-merchant” and denounces his “baseless, fear-mongering terrorist smears.”

Obama campaigners did call the radio show and attempt to discredit Kurtz. Andy McCarthy at The Corner live-blogged them briefly, here and here. They were unable to disrupt or rebut, and mostly complained that there was nobody from the Obama campaign there to rebut Kurtz’s “attacks.” Rosenberg, the host, countered that he’d spoken with the Obama campaign, which is headquartered about a quarter of a mile from the radio station, and the campaign declined to send a representative.

Obama is making a serious mistake attempting to stifle a story like this; he’s only going to draw attention to it, especially given the wild disparity between the tone of the complaint and the actual content, which has not been disproved in any way, and would be a relatively minor quibble even if it had been. However, the truly disturbing take from the incident is the Obama campaign’s choice to respond to awkward stories by attempting to shut down the purveyors. Recall, here, that his campaign also sent threatening letters to the station managers, denouncing them for allowing “smears” on their stations, and also attempted to get the Justice Department to investigate the source of the “smear.” (Michelle Malkin now sports a lengthy reply from the American Issues Project, which is worth a read.) This is something we’ve noted before, and it reminds one of the rising of the Nazi party in 1930s Germany.

Blue Crab Boulevard has a related story: an ABC news reporter was arrested and taken away in handcuffs for attempting to film Democratic Senators and VIP Donors to the Democratic party at a private meeting at the Brown Palace Hotel. ABC News has film of the arrest. The reporters were outside the hotel in public space. It does not appear that the reporter was disturbing the peace or breaking the law, though apparently the hotel complained. Perhaps it was just a misunderstanding, but looks as though the Democratic party does not want the public to associate its name with the sumptuous treatment of super-wealthy donors, and is willing to forfeit freedom of the press in order to maintain the populist fiction of the Democrats being the party of the working man. One wonders how they feel about being associated with reporters being led away in handcuffs.

UPDATE: Guy Benson, who was present in the WGN Studios when Rosenberg was interviewing Kurtz, blogs about the experience on National Review’s Media Blog. He notes that the assault began before the program, with hundreds of calls demanding that the interview not take place. There’s a great deal more here. Read it.

The Democrats are holding their national convention in Denver this week. There, I’ve written about it.

Want to know what I think? Read Stata-Sphere’s analysis, which mirrors my own sentiments.

The most interesting take on all this occurs late in the article: the number of Clinton supporters who are jumping ship and declaring for McCain is increasing. Back in May when the primary campaign was just about petered out for the Democrats, there was not a single pundit I read from either side of the aisle who actually believed the Clintonistas would vote for McCain in the fall. They’re looking less and less certain. Fascinating, and encouraging.