Ars Politica: March 2008 Archives

I knew it I knew it I knew it I knew it!!!!!!

Liberal Values almost had me fooled -- Obama is absolutely lethal to what's left of the tradition of individualism, self-reliance, and small government.

Andrew Sullivan of The Daily Dish has this to say:

I went to see Obama last night. He had a fundraiser at H20, a yuppie disco/restaurant in Southwest DC. I was curious about how he is in person. I'm still absorbing the many impressions I got. But one thing stays in my head. This guy is a liberal. Make no mistake about that. He may, in fact, be the most effective liberal advocate I've heard in my lifetime.

The overwhelming first impression that you get - from the exhausted but vibrant stump speech, the diverse nature of the crowd, the swell of the various applause lines - is that this is the candidate for real change. He has what Reagan had in 1980 and Clinton had in 1992: the wind at his back. Sometimes, elections really do come down to a simple choice: change or more of the same? (Andrew Sullivan, The Reagan of the Left?)

A few weeks ago, both Hillary and Roarin' John put nice guy Barack on the defensive by suggesting he had not the needed experience to "man up" under a possible future national security crisis:

Sen. Barack Obama is facing attacks on two fronts on one of the toughest issues facing his campaign: whether he has the experience necessary to be the nation's commander in chief.

Both Sen. Hillary Clinton, his rival in the race for the Democratic presidential nomination, and Sen. John McCain, the presumptive Republican nominee, are arguing that Mr. Obama, who has no military background and few foreign-policy credentials, is ill-equipped to serve as commander in chief. Both say he would stack up poorly next to Mr. McCain, a Vietnam War hero who has been involved in many foreign-policy debates during his Senate career. Mrs. Clinton also has some foreign-policy experience from her time in the Senate and as first lady. (Clinton, McCain Push Experience Button, WSJ, 02 . 21 . 2008)

If Barack's immediate first instinctual response was any indication of his ability to "man up" under an attack, it was beginning to look like Hillary and Roarin' John were right:

Libertarian conservatives are, quite frankly, terrified of the centralized government's growing power and reach, a power and reach that Liberals and the Left either seem not to worry about or -- worse -- outright encourage.

They seem to have a view that some "special" people are so good, so wise -- like a perfect idealized fantasy parent figure --  that no amount of State Power is too much as long as their "hearts" (i.e., their values, their "liberal values") are in the right place and their "minds" (their ability to predict and control the physical external world) are a cut of above the rest. While some liberals debate strategy, as long as these "special people" are pursuing "The Common Good," the ends will ever justify the means, i.e., an ever growing government (E.g., The Liberal Values blog is perversely content to see government grow albeit at a slower pace all the while inexcusably oblivious to the negative relationship between the size of government and economic freedom, human rights, civil liberties, & prosperity: the neocons learned all too well from their distant & estranged left brethren).

Can a president drop F bombs? This has prompted questions about whether his temperament is suited to the office of commander-in-chief or whether it might handicap him in a presidential campaign against either Barack Obama or Hillary Rodham Clinton, who are not known for such outbursts.
I decided I didn't want this guy anywhere near a trigger, former Budget Committee chairman Sen. Pete Domenici told Newsweek in 2000. (McCain’s sharp tongue: An Achilles heel?)

Former Sen. Bob Dole told CNN’s Larry King last night that John McCain does have a…I guess you could say temper. But I always sort of rationalized that because the poor guy had been locked up in a tiny cell for six years . . . [r]ecently, Sen. Bob Corker (R-TN) refused to say whether McCain is temperamentally suited to be President. (Leftword, Bob Dole: McCain has a temper).

[O]thers have outright rejected the idea of a McCain nomination and presidency, warning that his tirades suggest a temperament unfit for the Oval Office. (Leftword, 5 years in captivity made John McCain a hero. It also may have made him nuts).

Everyone knows about John McCain’s famous temper, the same temper that has him dropping F-Bombs in senatorial debates, and what is sometimes viewed as a likely liability in the fall. (Comments From The Left Field, Why IS He So Angry). [Note that CFTLF smartly focuses on the reasons why JM was angry, not on the fact that he expressed anger].

I think far too many people are overlooking the value of is his being huffy, puffy and pissed off -- and that it just may be ONE good reason to vote FOR him.

I'm not kidding.

David Allyn, Ph.D., author of I Can't Believe I Just Did That makes the case that hiding one's emotions in order to be "nice" or "accepted" does way more harm (to you and others) than good.

While John's temper is, admittedly, not that much to have going for him, it's not the liability everyone is making it out to be, and that's my real point here. To understand why, read on:

The left blogsmear (sorry --sphere) has been holding a funeral for Samantha Power: Obama Adviser Critical of Clinton Resigns.

"Critical" is a bit of an understatement: while it's debatable just how far HRC will go to win the nomination, it's perfectly clear how far some Obama supporters will go to tear down a member of their own party. To wit: Liberal Values thinks Samantha Power's only sin was that she spoke "The Truth" out loud and Kyle E. Moore's Comments From The Left Field backs him up.

Unfortuately, they're missing an important angle:

Thank God for true independents, like me. Partisan Obama fetishizers (like Liberal Values) can't seem to see more than 2 inches and 5 minutes in front of themselves.