About Me

Name: Michael
Biography
Loading...

Create Your Own Blog Find Other Townhall Blogs

Comments

An Original Bush Bashing

I tend to avoid Bush-bashing because I find it to be the most incredibly tired and cliched aspect in modern America. I prefer to sift through and find the aspects of his administration that have been successes (as rare as those are.) 

Columnist Ron Hart, however, does something original in his criticism of Bush, coming from a humorous libertarian perspective. Starting off with a much needed bashing of NPR:


As giddy with anticipation as a schoolgirl, NPR reports that a record 5 million people will attend Barack Obama's inauguration this month. Ever the inquisitive columnist, I have examined these claims, determined that NPR might be right on this one, and got a nice tote bag from them for my efforts. Worry not about the impact on the economy. Even with 4 or 5 million Obama supporters in Washington for the inaugural festivities, only 28 of them will be missing work.

NPR, as we all know, is National Public Radio, which will be in an enviable position once the Democrats in Congress silence the free market of ideas that is talk radio. NPR is the monotone talking points of the left, subsidized with our tax dollars and pressurized pledge drives that seem to take place 365 days a year. If you are wondering what Congress would like your news and information stream to be like in the future, look no further than Castro's state-owned paper that talks about him in every issue, or Oprah's "O" magazine, dedicated to her and to her struggles with her weight.


Hart's assessment of Bush makes you say "ouch" out loud: 

Now all that is left for him is to pardon a few folks and try to burnish his legacy. To date he has pardoned fewer felons than his predecessors. My guess is that even criminals don't want a pardon from W because they don't want to be too closely associated with him.


If you thought that was harsh, take this one: 

The White House has been called on to answer for the Iraq War, which has been called the worst foreign policy blunder in history. That seems to me to be unfair and premature. Bush still has two more weeks in office.


Ouch squared. Thank goodness I never voted for Dubya. (I voted for Kerry in 2004.)
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Ron Suskind takes on the White House

Ron Suskind, who wrote the book The Price of Loyalty, has written a new book, The Way of the World. One of the chief arguments is this:

The author also claims that the Bush administration had information from a top Iraqi intelligence official "that there were no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq – intelligence they received in plenty of time to stop an invasion."


When I was working as a canvasser for the DNC back in 2004, I remember getting into a debate over Iraq with another canvasser. At the time I believed that there was no justification for the war and basically believed what most leftists believe, that the entire war was launched because Bush had picked Iraq to invade for oil, retribution and other nefarious reasons. The canvasser I was debating made a point that I remembered: Iraqi officials are not credible sources of information. It was a great point, and one that I conceded to.

It's the last year of the Bush administration. We are seemingly about to move into an Obama Administration next year (though things could take a surprising turn). Bush is becoming a larger and larger dartboard, just as his predecessor did, and as a result writers and former officials that feel disiullusioned or just want to cash in are coming out against the administration with regurgitated arguments.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (1) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Interview: S.E. Cupp, co-author of "Why You're Wrong About The Right"

A new book has been released called Why You're Wrong About The Right, written by S.E. Cupp and Brett Joshpe. I interviewed both of them for this blog, and have decided to split those two interviews into two posts. The next one, with Joshpe, will be published tomorrow. If you like what you read, go buy their book on Amazon.

First off is S.E. Cupp:

Tell us a little about the book.


Why You're Wrong About the Right tackles 20 stereotypes about conservatives and/or Republicans...that we're racist, sexist, homophobic, warmongering, uncool, unfunny, bad in bed, and heartless, to name a few. We interviewed dozens of noteworthy thinkers and doers to help us prove the intellectual diversity of the conservative movement and the Republican party. Tucker Carlson, Newt Gingrich, Tony Stewart, Ted Nugent, Laura Ingraham, George Will, Curt Schilling...these are all folks with very different political views and perspectives. The more interesting areas are where we all disagree, and not always where we all come together.

What inspired you two to write Why You're Wrong About The Right?

Brett and I grew up in the liberal Northeast, went to very liberal universities, live in liberal Manhattan, and work primarily among liberals, I at the New York Times and he at a NYC law firm. So we were used to defending ourselves, or at the very least explaining ourselves, to our liberal contemporaries. Most people were surprised to learn we were Republicans...we didn't seem to fit the image they had in their minds about what Republicans were supposed to look like and talk like. After all, we didn't go around stealing babies, clubbing seals and ripping trees out of the ground to whittle into gun racks. People were genuinely surprised by our politics, and then incredibly disappointed.

Do you think conservatives have been badly represented?

Absolutely. The Left, the liberal media and Hollywood have done a fantastic job of uniting in this endeavor. And as such, they have collectively been able to seal into American sediment the image of the Republican as uptight, cold-hearted, stiff, sober, evil, backwards, stupid, fanatical, reckless, money-grubbing, self-absorbed and a whole host of others. But Republicans (and conservatives, to a degree) also haven't done an adequate job of defending themselves, especially in recent years. So we're partly to blame.

Where do you think the stereotypes of conservatives originate from?


It would be hard to pinpoint, as there are so many, with so many different historical birthplaces. But I'd say that the reason they have stuck is that liberals seem to change their cause on a daily basis. Causes du jour are embraced with alacrity and passion, regardless of how capricious or rooted in the moment they are. Though much remains unsettled, conservative ideology hasn't changed much over the past century...it's been honed and nuanced, but most conservatives agree that we want to preserve tradition, limit the size of government and promote individual responsibility. Because we don't ebb and flow so easily with the Zeitgeist, liberals can't really attack our ideology in new and fresh ways, so they attack our collective character. We go after their causes (because there are so many and it's relatively easy) and they go after our so-called nature. 

With such negative images of conservatism in the media, what then leads so many to drift towards the right?

Most conservatives (and Republicans too) that I know aren't "joiners." There's a rebellious streak on the Right that frankly used to characterize the Left but has gone since all the liberals who were at Woodstock and Haight-Ashbury have grown up to be successful bankers and lawyers and country club members. So when the media or Hollywood criticizes Republicans for being (gasp!) Christian, or redneck, or stupid, I think middle America rejects that kind of condescension and characterization out of hand as transparent, manipulative and mean-spirited. The Right is far more tolerant than the Left these days, and that's understandably appealing. 

Journalist Bill Bishop has said that Americans have clustered into regions of people that all for the most part share their worldview. Do you see this as a problem? If so, how should we solve it?

Yes, his is an interesting argument, and not entirely untrue I'm sure. But if it is, there's nothing really new or different there. There have been nomadic tribes, clans, settlers, etc for thousands of years who have grouped together to be among their own kind. The only difference now is that we don't do so for physical survival. But maybe we do it for emotional or social survival. While I enjoy my minority status as a conservative in Manhattan, I absolutely love going to areas I know to be "friendly to my kind." It feels good. Besides, it's understandable that people would want to raise their children around like-minded people.

How do we think we can better expose younger students to conservative and libertarian ideas?

It's not really up to us to expose young people to conservative or libertarian ideas. If parents want to raise their children to be conservative or libertarian, they'll do so. I don't want my child to be influenced by a liberal agenda, so I wouldn't expect to influence others by a conservative agenda. Politics isn't for children. Morality and values are, and those aren't up to me to impart. 

What's some advice you have for conservatives living in liberal areas?

Enjoy it! Use it as an opportunity to refine your own beliefs and maybe even inform someone else's. Develop thick skin and a good sense of humor. Start a "Drill in ANWR" rally at a sporting event. Wear GOP paraphernalia to Whole Foods. Loudly criticize PETA on any college campus in the country. It's only politics.


What criticism has your book been met with?


Plenty. We were attacked by liberal literary agents just for wanting to write this book. There's a good amount of hostility toward two young, urban conservatives who have dared to write a book. It's like we're treading on liberal turf and we're not at all welcome.


What praise has it been met with?


We do press almost every day, and at least once someone on the radio or in an interview will tell us how much they enjoyed the book, how provocative they found it, or how funny it was. The truth is, people want to be engaged by politics, not bored by it. We infused this book with the kind of irreverence and ease that we like to read ourselves.


How should conservatives deal with a possible Barack Obama presidency?


Only half-seriously. While the prospect of President Barack Obama is real, I don't think most voters will feel comfortable entrusting national security, the beleaguered economy, or our overseas endeavors to someone with such little experience and obvious lapses in judgment. Besides that, I think most of middle America finds him elitist and out of touch, and I don't think they're wrong.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

A letter to Obama supporters

You desperately want to re-gain the White House. You’ve endured eight, long years of President Bush, wherein he pushed forth the Patriot Act, soiled our global reputation, got us into an illegal war in Iraq, failed to act while New Orleans was devastated by Hurricane Katrina, cow toed to Big Business, failed to act on global climate change and illegally spied on Americans. 

That is what you believe. And not only that, you want Democratic nominee Barack Obama to win, so that we can finally rejoin the global community, take on climate change and get out of the Iraq quagmire. Achieving that task of getting Obama elected is not as easy as it might sound, and not everyone in the country is buying what Obama has to say. He didn’t get the Democratic nomination easily, leaving a lot of possibly disaffected Clinton supporters, and a lot of people in this historically center-right country who have concerns about this charismatic newcomer.

That means you have to put your money where it counts to get the man you want in the White House to win. There’s very good reasons to trust that Obama will use his campaign resources affectively, since he was able to bring down the Clinton Machine while being a relative newcomer to nationwide politics. You may disagree with Obama’s campaign on a few things, or don’t feel comfortable giving to the Democratic establishment, so you decide to invest in a political campaign organization better aligned with your beliefs, like the 1 million strong Moveon.org.

This is your big mistake. Politics isn’t about talking to constituents like you would your politically similar friends. It’s about convincing the undecided of the merits of your argument by relating to their own lives, something Bill Clinton did and John Kerry failed to do. Ads such as Moveon.org’s recent “Not Alex” ad is exactly an example of something that may be effective to your friends, but is going to be offensive, angering and ineffective to those you’re trying to get on your side.

The campaign ad, which Moveon.org has laughingly called its “most effective ad,” shows a mother holding her young baby, Alex. She is addressing Republican nominee John McCain, speaking about how much she adores her son before saying, “John McCain, when you say you will stay in Iraq for 100 years, were you counting on Alex? Because if you were you can’t have him.” 

First, this ad is dishonest. The 100 years quote came after a questioner in New Hampshire asked him about staying in Iraq for 50 years. McCain replied, “Maybe a hundred. We’ve been in South Korea. We’ve been in Japan for 60 years. We’ve been in South Korea for 50 years or so. That’d be fine with me as long as Americans aren’t being injured or harmed or wounded or killed. It’s fine with me. I hope it’d be fine with you if we maintain a presence in a very volatile part of the world where Al Qaeda is training, recruiting, equipping and motivating people every single day.”

You can view McCain’s “100 years” statement unedited on YouTube at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VFknKVjuyNk.

This quote was used before, not just by Moveon.org but also by the Democratic Party itself in its “100” ad. While watching this ad on TV, an acquaintance of mine praised the ad. I told him it was dishonest, illustrating that they had obviously taken him out of context, to which he replied that it may be dishonest but it is naïve to believe that we can stay in Iraq without anyone being killed. That may be true, but that is not the argument that Moveon.org and the Democratic Party are touting. They are trying to make McCain look like he wants to have a massive war in Iraq like we’ve seen in the previous five years continue for a century, something anyone who pays attention to what McCain actually said can tell is not the case.

Second, the “Not Alex” ad makes no sense. As a grown man of military age, Alex would be legally free to make his own decisions independent of both his government and his mother. He could join the military, he could work at McDonald’s, and he could go to college or work for a presidential campaign, in addition to countless other avenues. There is a volunteer army and no draft, as there presumably would be when Alex is an adult. The ad is intended to grab for emotions and throws reason out the window.

Finally, third, it could very well be taken by those in the military or with family in the military as very insulting, as it insinuates that enlistment is somehow not a voluntary decision. This is a group of people that Obama would benefit greatly from having behind him, and would certainly be harmed by having against him.

On the Moveon.org website, next to a video clip of the “Not Alex” ad, it says, “Our new Iraq ad is the most effective ad we've ever put together. This isn't your average political ad--it lays out the truth about McCain's Iraq policy in a personal and compelling way. We just got the results back and polling shows that voters found it to be more persuasive than any other ad we've tested before.”

If they really believe this is their “most effective ad” they’ve ever put together, then I really wonder what kind of voters they showed this ad too. I can believe that people who voted for Kerry in 2004 and are already inclined towards Obama would cheer it on, but I highly doubt that Bush voters in Ohio, New Mexico, Florida or another swing state who don’t necessarily always vote Republican and are leaning towards Obama would have the same response. 

Barack Obama would be wise to back as far away from Moveon.org as he possibly can if he wants to win over those voters, and those of you who want him to win would be wise to direct your money away from Moveon.org. Otherwise this “most effective ad” and others like it will result in being effective for John McCain’s campaign.

These Moveon.org ads could tilt the election by alienating swing voters. The leftists who make up Barack Obama’s core base will inevitably become convinced, if they manage to lose to Barack Obama after failing to speak to average Americans, wondering how on earth John McCain got elected when Obama was riding so high and the incompetent Republican riding so low. I’m not emotionally invested in an Obama victory, or a McCain victory for that matter, but that would also drive me crazy for at least four years. Even if I’m no longer living in the Bay Area, and have relocated to a more libertarian-friendly city like San Diego or Nashville, I’ll have to hear whacked out conspiracy theories from my family members of how John McCain and the Republican Machine stole the election. I can already hear it in my head, and it’s already annoying.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

The cure for racism is individualism

Due to the actions of the Seattle Public Schools in invoking its race-based bussing, I learned about race at a very young age. Going from a predominantly school in North Seattle to a school in the Capitol Hill area, which was predominantly minorities, I was aggressively introduced to what race was by other students. As a result, I've thought about race relations far more than I believe most white people do. I've read Malcolm X's autobiography twice, seen the bulk of Spike Lee's films, and have immersed myself in black culture.

I didn't end up becoming a racist. Far from it. I was also bullied by white kids, and saw myself acting as a bully without realizing it immediately. Despite the conventional wisdom that we had progressed beyond racism for the most part, I kept seeing remnants of it in one of the most liberal cities in America. Over time, I came to the conclusion that racism is about as relevant as someone's hair color or their shoe size when measuring someone's character. 

This was said better than me by Ron Paul. I was skeptical of him until I saw this quote, which pushed me to vote for him: 

"Racism is simply an ugly form of collectivism, the mindset that views humans only as members of groups and never as individuals. Racists believe that all individual who share superficial physical characteristics are alike; as collectivists, racists think only in terms of groups. By encouraging Americans to adopt a group mentality, the advocates of so-called "diversity" actually perpetuate racism. Their intense focus on race is inherently racist, because it views individuals only as members of racial groups."


The ones who think they are combatting prejudice in the name of diversity have done a great deal of harm. Blacks have had the "victim" label permanently placed on them. Whereas black families were strong even in the face of segregation (the image of Malcolm X's mother, who was intimidating in the face of her husband's execution, the knowledge of her mother's rape and poverty comes to mind), they are now broken, as Barack Obama focussed on in his Father's Day speech. 

Racism remains an elephant in the room in American politics. I believe that the issue of race must be wiped of its importance, so that people of all ethnic groups can move on with their lives without having the victimization of an entire group tied like a ball and chain to their person. The only way I see that happening is for people to focus less on racial groups and focus more on people as individuals. 
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive
« Previous1Next »