Click on WORD or PDF below for full content
Bill Kristol says running against Congress will be a winning strategy.
… Given the unpopularity of the current Democratic Congress, given Americans’ tendency to prefer divided government, given the voters’ repudiations of the Republicans in 2006 and of the Democrats in 1994 — isn’t the prospect of across-the-board, one-party Democratic governance more likely to move votes to McCain than to Obama?
So I cheered up once again. For it will become increasingly obvious, as we approach November, that the Democrats will continue to control Congress for the next couple of years. But if the voters elect Obama as president, they’ll be putting Barack Obama, Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid in untrammeled control of our future.
In 1948, a Republican Congress, which had taken power two years before with great expectations after a decade and a half of Democratic control, had become unpopular. Harry Truman lambasted it as a no-good, do-nothing Congress — and he rode that assault to the White House. We’ll soon start hearing more from McCain about the deficiencies of today’s surge-opposing, drilling-blocking, earmark-loving Congress.
And McCain will then assert that if you don’t like the Congress in which Senator Obama serves in the majority right now, you really should be alarmed about a President Obama rubber-stamping the deeds of a Democratic Congress next year. A President McCain, on the other hand, could check Congressional appetites — as well as work across the aisle with a Democratic Congress in a bipartisan spirit where appropriate. …
Byron York says, “What do you mean Obama’s not funny?”
… Last week, Jon Stewart on The Daily Show got an enthusiastic reception from his audience with a routine about Obama’s media entourage. Stewart tossed to the team of reporters who were said to be traveling with the Obama campaign, some of whom had abandoned John McCain to cover the more exciting Democrat. They were positively giddy about Obama.
“The commander-in-chief,” said one.
“Did you see when the president hit that three-pointer?” asked another.
“Nothing but net,” said a third.
Stewart interrupted. “He’s not the president.” Pause.“Barack Obama’s not the president.”
A confused silence. “Are you sure?” the reporters asked.
Stewart wondered whether the reporters were “nervous that this maybe plays into the idea of the press being a little Obama-centric, a little sycophantic.” Not at all, they said, exchanging stories of this or that treasured contact with the Great One. A moment later, Stewart asked what they learned during the trip.
“I’ll tell you something, Jon,” said one. “Barack Obama kinda gives me a boner.”
Stewart dutifully faked embarrassment and exasperation. “Anything else?” he asked. All the others raised their hands. They, too, were, well, thrilled to be in Obama’s presence.
“I’m not talking about boners,” Stewart said.
“Seriously,” said one last reporter. “They should call this guy Barack O-Boner.” …
Ever wonder why Europeans like Obama? VDH has answers.
Let us count the ways:
1) Obama’s tax code, support of big government programs and redistribution of income, and subservience to UN directives delight the European masses—especially at a time when their own governments are trying to cut taxes, government, seek closer relations with the US, and ask a petulant, pampered public to grow up. …
David Harsanyi says media bias won’t win the election.
Once again the ugly shadow of “media bias” is darkening the otherwise wholesome world of partisan politics.
Actually, media bias is so terrible, so unjust, so despicable, just about everyone wants to be offended by it.
Take, for instance, the recent flap over the New York Times editorial page decision to reject a John McCain op-ed regarding Iraq only a week after running a Barack Obama column on the very same topic.
As the adults among us probably already know, “fairness” is only a fairy tale. So The Times had no obligation to publish an opinion it found objectionable.
Yet, for McCain, the snub worked miracles. Rather than being handed another mind-numbing essay on Iraq policy, Republicans were allowed to come together and protest the liberal media’s refusal to publish an op-ed none of them would have taken the time to read in the first place. …
Speaking of media bias, this is a good place to put the second part of the Columbia Journalism Review piece on the NY Times.
Random thoughts from Thomas Sowell.
… When New York Times writer Linda Greenhouse recently declared the 1987 confirmation hearings for Judge Robert Bork “both fair and profound,” it was as close to a declaration of moral bankruptcy as possible. Those hearings were a triumph of character assassination by politicians with no character of their own. The country is still paying the price, as potential judicial nominees decline to be nominated and then smeared on nationwide television.
Some of the most emotionally powerful words are undefined, such as “social justice,” “a living wage,” “price gouging” or a “fragile” environment, for example. Such terms are especially valuable to politicians during an election year, for these terms can attract the votes of people who mean very different‘ and even mutually contradictory‘ things when they use these words. …
John Fund spots a new book ranking presidents.
In November, we will definitively rank our two presidential candidates, but whoever wins the election will eventually be subject to yet another ranking effort — that of historians who, every decade or so, compare all the U.S. presidents from the Founding to the current day. Inevitably, Abraham Lincoln and George Washington end up at the top of such lists, and Franklin Pierce and James Buchanan — both notoriously ineffectual, among other things — at the bottom. But the judgments of historians can often seem arbitrary or recondite, not to mention politically weighted, making the whole effort seem like a mysterious parlor game.
Alvin Felzenberg is not an academic historian, although he holds a doctorate in politics from Princeton. He has also held senior staff positions in Congress and most recently served as the spokesman for the 9/11 Commission. He thinks presidential ratings should be demystified and opened up to laymen with an interest in American history. He wants to restart the conversation about what we want in a leader. It is a good time to ponder such things.
In “The Leaders We Deserved (And a Few We Didn’t),” Mr. Felzenberg draws up a report card for each U.S. chief executive, assigning numerical scores to six categories. …