National Review Online’s [Kathryn Jean Lopez] comments on the passing of National Review founder William F. Buckley Jr.:
I’m devastated to report that our dear friend, mentor, leader, and founder William F. Buckley Jr., died overnight in his study in Stamford, Connecticut.
After year of illness, he died while at work; if he had been given a choice on how to depart this world, I suspect that would have been exactly it. At home, still devoted to the war of ideas.
As you might expect, we’ll have much more to say here and in NR in the coming days and weeks and months. For now: Thank you, Bill. God bless you, now with your dear Pat. Our deepest condolences to Christopher and the rest of the Buckley family. And our fervent prayer that we continue to do WFB’s life’s work justice.
Our thoughts and prayers are with the family of Mr. Buckley, the father of the modern conservative movement. Look what a difference one man can make. An inspiration to many to be sure.
A friend said it best earlier today, “William F. Buckley made his point.”
Sen. McCain just apologized for remarks made by WLW-AM talk show host Bill Cunningham at a Cincinnati McCain rally. The remarks? Cunningham referred to Obama as a, “Chicago Daly political hack” and twice used his middle name. CNN’s John King asked McCain, “Is Barack Obama’s middle name appropriate in this campaign?” Sen. McCain answered, “No. It is not. Any comment that is disparaging…”
Wait a minute. Using Obama’s middle name is considered ‘disparaging’? It’s his middle name! Barack Hussein Obama is the name his father and mother gave him! I’ll go down on record right now as saying that I find it disparaging to consider the use of his middle name disparaging.
In addition to apologizing for Cunningham’s comments, McCain denounced them. Cunningham, a conservative who had only recently, and reluctantly, backed McCain, found McCain’s reaction to his comments as confirmation of all the reasons he was reluctant to endorse him in the first place, and he’s, understandably, moved away from McCain.
The problem is, Bill Cunningham is extremely popular and influential among Ohio Republicans. Many observers credit Cunningham with delivering Ohio, and thus the presidency, to GW Bush in 2004. If Ohio proves to be a battle ground in November, Cunningham’s support, or lack thereof, might be decisive.
The incident has the potential to further alienate conservatives, who are already skeptical of the Senator.
Republicans in Texas and Ohio who are considering crossing over to vote in the Democrat primary to vote for Obama–that’s NOT the play! A vote for Obama does a couple of things that aren’t good for Republicans. First, it ends the Democrat primary. Obama wins. Game over. No more in-fighting amongst Democrats, their guns will be pointed toward John McCain. From the Republican point of view, keeping these two fighting with each other (and not with McCain) for as long as possible. Second, GOP votes for Obama play into the narrative he is trying to establish that portrays him as “able to bring the country together”–part of the evidence of which Obama cites are the Republican votes he’s received.
The real play for Texas and Ohio Republicans is to vote for Hillary Clinton. Putting aside the fact that I never imagined recommending voting for any Clinton under any circumstance, any more than, I’m sure, any of you ever imagined voting for them. However, if they can hold their noses and punch the hole out for Sen. Clinton next Tuesday, they will actually be making the most effective contribution to their cause.
For years conservatives and other thinking folks have struggled with how to refer to the media. We’ve kind of settled on “the mainstream media,” Rush Limbaugh prefers “the drive-by media,” others go for the simplicity (and acute accuracy) of “the liberal media.”
With few exceptions, journalism amongst the so-called mainstream media is dead.
Face it–they’re activists. We already know this. Folks like Brent Bozell have spent a life’s work meticulously documenting this. What’s been fascinating about this campaign cycle is how the liberal media has turned on one of their own. Finally, there’s a liberal in the free fire zone. The Clintons are getting a taste of what we’ve dealt with for years–much at the hands of the Clintons. The vast majority of the media coverage this campaign has been decidedly pro-Obama and anti-Clinton.
The media have chosen to choose sides rather than report the facts. Nothing new there, but add that to the increasing space and time allocated to Britney Spears kind of stories, and a general move toward the National Inquirer / TMZ.com style coverage and I think the time has come to call these clowns what they are. The elite tabloid press.
Don’t let the word ’elite’ scare you away from this moniker. First, we know they long to be elite. They live to be elite. So, let’s call ‘em elite. After all, they’ve taken tabloid journalism to an elite level, no?
Anybody else find this laughable? It’s also telling. Obama clearly sees his life, his story, as extraordinary–annointed by the universe as some sort of chosen one. Harsh? Yes, but how many of us would even think of writing an autobiography a couple years out of college?
Contrast Obama with Sen. McCain who, despite his compelling and heroic story of capture and imprisonment during the Vietnam War, inspiring recovery (genuinely the stuff of movies) and 25 years of accomplishment in the nation’s capitol, didn’t even feel compelled to stop and reflect on his life long enough to put it on paper until 1999, when the Senator was in his 60s.
More and more stories are poppipng up that cast the Obama campaign as messianic, calling those voting for him more followers than supporters. Let’s go to the video:
Many have called the whole thing ”creepy” and I can’t disagree.
The New York Times has published a 3000 word story attacking Sen. John McCain on character and corruption.
The McCain camp says, “The New York Times has lowered it’s standards to engage in a hit-and-run smear campaign.”
Reading more like a National Inquirer “Alien” headline than a lead piece by “the paper of record,” the story doesn’t backup the insinuation it leaves with the reader. In addition to being barely sourced and thin on facts, the timing of the piece is curious. With the campaign of Democratic Party front-runner Barack Obama entering hour 36 of their first real speed bump (see below) as the lead story, a juicy John McCain story would undoubtedly move the elite tabloid press (formerly referred to as the mainstream media) away from the Obama scrutiny.
The NY Times piece would likely be rejected by a first year journalism professor as unsourced, full of innuendo and politically motivated. Even if The Times editorial board deemed these accusations credible and worth further investigation, the details as currently assembled warrant no more than a sentence or two.
Instead, we get a piece three times longer than the average story (source) that even an opposing campaign wouldn’t dare release. The new “charges” imply an affair between Sen. McCain and a 40-something lobbyist, who in addition to sleeping with the Senator, allegedly squeezed legislative favors out of him as well.
Deftly dancing around the lack of sources, evidence, or even actual charges, the authors provide just enough innuendo for readers to draw the conclusions they want them to. Worse, The New York Times uses the “new charges” as an excuse to bring up–in great detail–the story of McCain’s divorce to his first wife and 20 year old charges about the his role in the Keating Five scandal.
Attorney Bob Bennett, who many remember as the guy who got President Clinton off the hook in his perjury trial, appeared on Hannity & Colmes (Fox News Channel) last night to defend McCain. Bennett, the Special Investigator who investigated the Keating Five and, specifically, John McCain for 18 months said, “…This is a real hit job…and…I suspect it’s only because John McCain is winning so much that we are even reading this story.” Bennett, a Democrat, exonerated McCain, recommending that he be removed from the Keating Five investigation.
This is a sad day for journalism in America and an even worse day those associated with The New York Times.
I’ve been thinking about the comments made by Michelle Obama yesterday:
“Let me tell you something, for the first time in my adult lifetime, I’m proud of my country…I have been desperate to see our country moving in that direction and just not feeling so alone in my frustration and disappointment…” (comment @ 0:14)
And for those of you stuck on the word “really” (which isn’t a good defense anyway, since the word “really” in this case seems to mean “actually” as opposed to “very” and if you look at the context and the entire speech Ms. Obama says things like “ahhh” and “um” and “y’know” and “really” numerous times, sort of as nervous interjections) you will see that there are 2 different speeches. One where Ms. Obama didn’t say “really” and the one that followed where somebody obviously corrected her:
It’s been about 24 hours since these comments became the lead story around the globe and as they’ve sunk in a little deeper, they trouble me more and more. Let’s go beyond the Obama surrogates who say, “She didn’t mean that she’s never been proud of America, only that she’s more proud now b/c of voter participation, etc., etc.,” and the Obama opponents who suggest that this isn’t really such a big deal because it’s not the candidate’s thoughts, but those of his wife.
These comments do matter and I’ll tell you why.
What has differentiated the Obama campaign from those of previous Black presidential hopefuls is that the premise of his campaign hasn’t been the wrongs that Black America has suffered at the hands of White America, but a message of hope and optimism, a belief that there is an American dream there for the taking for all who want it and that Barack is living proof of it. Now we begin to see that perhaps there isn’t as much space between the thinking of the Obamas and Jesse Jackson or Al Sharpton.
It troubles me greatly that Ms. Obama harbors these feelings despite having reached such high levels of success, by any definition, in all aspects of her life. Professionally, personally, and in her family life, Michelle Obama is living the American Dream.
A graduate of Harvard and Princeton, Michelle has gone on to become a hospital executive ($200,000+ a year salary) and is reported to be currently pulling down $311,000 a year as a lawyer at one of America’s most prestigious firms. She has said that she did not make it in to these Ivy League institutions based on her grades. This means that somebody believed in her, took a chance on her–was she not “really proud” of her country in that moment?
Are these achievements the cause of her “frustration” and “disappointment?”
She met her husband when he interned at the law firm she worked at. Assigned to mentor him, she eventually acquiesced to his requests for a date and ultimately fell in love with him. She witnessed Barack’s improbable rise–born in poverty, raised by a single mother–from summer intern at her law firm, to State Senator, to keynote speaker at the 2004 Democratic National Convention, to United States Senator. Still, none of those victorious achievements were cause for pride in her country?
Are these testaments to the possibility that lies in front of all of us the reason Ms. Obama finds herself “desperate” for a new direction for her country?
It’s confusing, because Michelle Obama sees an America where there’s little hope on one hand, yet she recoils at the perception that the success her and Barack have enjoyed is the exception. In May of 2007, she told Good Morning America’s Diane Sawyer:
“…In the media we see snippets of our community and distortions of our community so the world has this perspective that somehow Barack and Michelle Obama are different and we’re unique, but we’re not you just haven’t see us before.”
Still, some of her comments on the campaign trail betray a much different take on things:
”We have this window, where maybe we’re just sick and tired of the way things are.” (comment @ 1:33)
So which is it? Are we “sick and tired of the way things are?” Or is the Obamas success nothing out of the ordinary?
While her husband campaigns on the promise of hope and change, implicitly suggesting a lack of hope and unacceptable current state of affairs, Ms. Obama admitted to CNN’s Soledad O’brien that individuals are responsible for their lot in life by virtue of the decisions and choices they make, saying:
“My view of career is that I can always have whatever career I want; that’s why I made these choices and worked hard and got my education.” (comment @ 5:22)
Most of us, of all political stripes, are extremely proud of the progress we’ve made in this country. We find great satisfaction when we see a Black man thisclose to the most powerful job in the world.
At least that man’s wife finds that to finally be a reason to be proud of her country…
Every time Sen. McCain says, “My friends” during a campaign speech, you take a drink.
(Breaking News: Drinking at American Colleges Sharp Increasing!)
On a serious note, McCain’s gentlemanly “Senatorial Speak” comes across as irrelevant, out of touch, elitist, and OLD–especially when juxtaposed against an Obama speech. McCain’s speech following the Wisconsin primary last night was a bit better than usual, but if he’s going to win the general election, there better be a team of communication experts prepared to put him through some sort of 21st Century Relevancy Boot Camp between now and this Fall.
I’m watching a Democrat pundit spin wildly on Hannity & Colmes (my DVR replay.) She’s attempting to persuade viewers that the GOP should be frightened to death because “Obama is attracting Republicans to vote for him.”
Hate to break it to you, but those are called CROSSOVER voters. Misguided Republicans who are so gleeful about the impending end of the Clinton’s political life (see previous post) that they’re trying to expedite “The End.”
I understand the temptation. McCain’s got the GOP nomination nailed down, so why not place a strategic vote in the Democratic primary. Great idea, but they’re voting for the wrong candidate. (see previous post.)
But to brag about Obama getting Republicans to vote for him is to either be naive and/or uninformed, or hopeful that the viewers are.
I’ve been worried as I watch and listen to Republican opinion leaders delight in the demise of Hillary Clinton during the primary season. While I believe that Sen. Obama should be easier to beat in the general election, I’m not in anyway convinced he actually will be. Obama is a paper tiger, but he’s got a silver tongue.
I’m concerned that some of my fellow conservatives are so eager to see the final nail in the Clinton’s political coffin, that they’ve lost sight of the bigger and more important picture. President Clinton would be far less dangerous for this country than a President Obama. Republicans everywhere should have held their noses (and criticism) to allow Clinton to win the Democratic nomination and then beat her (them) once and for all in November.
It’s not too late. Attention: TEXAS Republicans. VOTE HILLARY on March 4th. The Democratic in-fighting can only help the GOP — and it acts as a firewall against an eventuality worse than even a President Clinton, a President Obama.
