Whatever their political affiliations, Americans are going to feel good about the Obama victory, which is a story of youth, possibility and unity through diversity — the primordial themes of the American experience.Huckabee won't be the nominee, Brooks assures us. The Huckabee earthquake will only shake up the Republicans and revitalize them in some way, before one of the more appropriate candidates takes over.
And Americans are not going to want to see this stopped. When an African-American man is leading a juggernaut to the White House, do you want to be the one to stand up and say No?...
On the Republican side, my message is: Be not afraid. Some people are going to tell you that Mike Huckabee’s victory last night in Iowa represents a triumph for the creationist crusaders. Wrong....
४ जानेवारी, २००८
I've never seen two political earthquakes in one night.
David Brooks opines from Ottumwa, Iowa:
याची सदस्यत्व घ्या:
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा (Atom)
पोस्ट्स
४६ टिप्पण्या:
Since I brought the Brooks column to your attention about 4 posts previous to this, I also especially like what Brooks says at the end of that column:
Will Huckabee move on and lead this new conservatism? Highly doubtful. The past few weeks have exposed his serious flaws as a presidential candidate. His foreign policy knowledge is minimal. His lapses into amateurishness simply won’t fly in a national campaign.
So the race will move on to New Hampshire. Mitt Romney is now grievously wounded. Romney represents what’s left of Republicanism 1.0. Huckabee and McCain represent half-formed iterations of Republicanism 2.0. My guess is Republicans will now swing behind McCain in order to stop Mike.
Huckabee probably won’t be the nominee, but starting last night in Iowa, an evangelical began the Republican Reformation.
"And Americans are not going to want to see this stopped. When an African-American man is leading a juggernaut to the White House, do you want to be the one to stand up and say No?"
It makes no difference whatsoever that Obama is black. He should be judged by what he says, what he does and what he believes. Even people more positive about Obama than me ought to be repelled by Brooks' statement. When an African-American man who is wrong is leading a misguided juggernaut towards the White House, I'm going to stand up and say no as readily as I do if a woman who is wrong is leading a misguided juggernaut towards the White House, a Mexican-American man who is wrong is leading a misguided juggernaut towards the White House, or even when a white dude from the heartland who is wrong is leading a misguided juggernaut towards the White House.
One thinks yet again of Scalia's touchstone concurrence in Adarand - why is it that people who'd like to think of themselves as post-racist do so much to "reinforce and preserve for future mischief the way of thinking that produced race slavery, race privilege and race hatred. ... [W]e are just one race here. It is American." Obama is a dreadful candidate, and anyone who silences their criticism of him because of his race ought to be keelhauled - as, by the way, should anyone whose reason for opposing him is his race. There are legitimate reasons to oppose Obambi, and there are popularly-accepted reasons to support him, but none of them have to do with the color of his skin.
"Leading a Juggernaut"?
The 40-ton chariot of Jagganatha that often breaks loose squashing Hindu festival goers?
I thought Obama was Muslim or Christian, not Hindu.
Truly, he is all things to all people.....
His foreign policy knowledge is minimal. His lapses into amateurishness simply won’t fly in a national campaign.
We elected Bush (not once but twice) didn't we. Even after he demonstrated he didn't have a clue on how to handle foreign policy, we reelected him with some people (like Ann) mistaking his incompetence and cluelessness for strength, determination and focus.
I am reminded of Twain's Huckleberry Finn and Jim, adrift on a raft on a long, strong river proffering hope and common sense to the rabble on the banks who clamor only for cheap meat and drink - it's a little too idyllic to be real for long for them both..
"Romney is now grievously wounded ... My guess is Republicans will now swing behind McCain in order to stop Mike."
If it weren't for the suspicion that if McCain's going to do well anywhere it'll be New Hampshire, and the fact that New Hampshire is next, I'd think that was a really rather odd statement given that McCain finished far behind Romney and functionally tied with Thompson.
Too many...posts...too much politics...uuuuggghhhh...need comments on Dancing with the Stars...
Whatever their political affiliations, Americans are going to feel good about the Obama victory, which is a story of youth, possibility and unity through diversity
Pure liberal googoo gobbledegook. American unity doesn't come from bullshit leftwing "diversity", it comes from commonality of ideals. Obama is a career politicianwith more in common with the elite, select few of Congress than the vast majority of ordinary Americans of any pursuasion.
the primordial themes of the American experience.
This crap is over the top. This is ONE primary in a state which hardly reflects the rest of us.
You people (and Brooks) just crack me up. Everything that you just love about Bush is suddenly just the most awful thing in the world when it comes to Huckabee.
Huckabee is the uber-Bush. Except of course he isn't pretending to be the aw-shucks good 'ol boy from the country (when in fact he is a prep school northeastern Yalie). He is the real deal.
The Republican party has reaped what it has sown.
As for Obama. He is as fine a candidate as any. Yes, I would prefer someone with more experience. But he is preferable to Hillary who would just perpetuate the status quo.
Even after he demonstrated he didn't have a clue on how to handle foreign policy, we reelected him with some people (like Ann) mistaking his incompetence and cluelessness for strength, determination and focus.
And yet, like FDR, after the disaster of Corregedor and other battles which saw 4000+ troops killed in minutes, the ones who want to win the war press on with a new plan and succeed, which you will never aknowledge as you are hopelessly invested in the "incompetence" meme and have no real firm grasp on the reality of warfare. For you, it really isnt about winning; it's about your ideology.
That you support the party that wants to surrender Iraq to terrorist thugs financed by Iran and Al Quaeda tells me all I need to know about those that think like you, Freder.
Will the Obama earthquake shake up the Democrats and revitalize them in some way so that one of the more appropriate candidates takes over?
The ghost of Clarence Thomas past is going to visit poor Obama - some floozy wanting her name in print is going to claim inappropriate eye contact on his part at some rally or convention.
And yet, like FDR, after the disaster of Corregedor and other battles which saw 4000+ troops killed in minutes
You're exagerrating the scope of the early defeats in World War II (where we never had a battle where 4000+ troops were killed in minutes) in an attempt to favorably compare Bush to FDR.
After Pearl Harbor, FDR didn't tell people to go shopping. He didn't pretend the war could be won without sacrifice or inconvenience. He asked the American people to pay for the war, and in fact the war was mostly funded by the American people themselves (65% of the money the U.S. government borrowed to fund the war effort came from war bonds).
So don't even mention Bush and FDR in the same sentence unless it is something along the lines of: "Bush is no FDR".
A few things I suspect.
1) Those who think Huckabee cannot win the GOP nomination are wrong.
2) Those who think Huckabee cannot win the Presidential election are wrong.
3) Those who think I'll vote for Huckabee if he is the GOP nominee are wrong, unless somehow the Democrats nominate Edwards.
If Huckabee comes out and says he is for free trade, for lower taxes for all, a strong national defense, and says man-made catastrophic global warming is a probably a hoax, I will vote for him. Of course I would vote for Obama or Clinton if they stood for these principles also.
So don't even mention Bush and FDR in the same sentence unless it is something along the lines of: "Bush is no FDR".
You mean about the part where FDR called for "unconditional surrender" which resulted in the unnecessary deaths of 50,000+ American soldiers, millions of civilian deaths, and the enslavement of more millions to the Soviets.
No one ever talks about the 40,000 Americans who fled to Canada to avoid Roosevelt's draft during the good war of World War II.....They were all traitors I guess.
If the holocaust had never occurred, our involvement in World War II (the european theater) would today in hindsight be viewed as too costly and not worth it.
We elected Bush (not once but twice) didn't we. Even after he demonstrated he didn't have a clue on how to handle foreign policy, we reelected him with some people (like Ann) mistaking his incompetence and cluelessness for strength, determination and focus.
So then what you're saying is since we screwed up with Bush lets screw up with Obama? That's a rather childish comeback, somewhere along the lines of well since Johnny mom lets him smoke pot, why can't I?
Experience aside, I'd be more comfortable knowing the president isn't an expert as long as he surrounds himself with some.
It is so satisfying seeing all the republicans and "moderates" now bitch about Huck.
Where were you when Bush was strutting around?
Essentially the same character except one is authentic and one is a phoney.
And you all voted for the phoney.
What will you do with the evangelical monster you all tolerated over the past 7 years.
You should be thankful the Bush and Rove strategy has gained the evangelical vote they so desperately wanted.
And yet gays can still marry and now have civil unions in more states now than when Bush became president.
The difference between Bush and FDR, is that FDR, through denial of oil to Japan, forced their hand to facilitate our entry into the war on the fully rightous side. Entering the war was correct and necessary in Europe, but not necessary at the time with Japan. While the lunatic fringe may assert 9-11 was an inside job, Bush (nor his predecessor) did nothing to force Bin Laden to act against us, even though that was the impetus for our current war in Iraq. In both instances, our entry into the war was premature leaving us both strategically and materially unprepared. In 1941, we did not have the ability to produce enough planes and tanks and did not have any experienced troops. After retooling our factories, producing tanks and planes by the tens of thousands, training pilots, building the army, etc., the opposition had no ultimate hope. In 2003 we did not have enough troops to secure Iraq after toppling Saddam. Same scenario. Finally with more troops and General Petraeus, we are doing what we could not before.
"Huckabee is the uber-Bush. Except of course he isn't pretending to be the aw-shucks good 'ol boy from the country (when in fact he is a prep school northeastern Yalie). He is the real deal."
Precisely. The Huckster is compassionate conservatism on steroids as NRO stated. And he's more of an Open borders fanatic than Bush II.
Elect Huckabee and you might as well give Ted Kennedy a White House Office, they'll be cutting deals and writing legislation together.
Essentially the same character except one is authentic and one is a phoney.
Well then I guess as the song goes, 'we don't want to get fooled again'. Huck is not a conservative by any stretch of the imagination nor is Bush. Supporting victory in Iraq does not translate support for Bush. Absent Iraq, I'd think he'd be the darling of the liberal set with his support for more government spending and open borders.
Elect Huckabee and you might as well give Ted Kennedy a White House Office, they'll be cutting deals and writing legislation together.
What's wrong with ideas from both sides of the aisle entering into laws that are being passed? Are you suggesting that things went swimmingly when the Republicans had a lock on the House, Senate and White House?
Freder--
Bush has a far worse situation than FDR. He has had to go to war and struggle with multiple excruciating diplomatic problems.
We have 'friends' who are simultaneously our enemies, i.e. Saudi Arabia and Pakistan (and maybe China, too). We can't seem to do much about Syria, Iran, or N. Korea except talk and act tough.
In many respects, Bush is pushing our problems with Iran and Pakistan and others down the line. Washington did the same when the British harassed US shipping while he was president. Adams did the same when the French held our emissaries hostage and demanded bribes. Neither president went to war. Both muddled. They hoped that our position would improve and we could again defeat the British militarily and deal with the French, ultimately by buying Louisiana.
And, Professor, you say we did nothing to force bin Laden to act against us. Not so--he knew that we wanted him dead; therefore, he had every reason to try to simultaneously decapitate our legislative and executive branches of government, our military leaders, and the center of Western capitalist trade.
Had he taken out the Pres., VP, the Joint Chiefs, and Congress...what would have happened then????
Sgt Ted..."the ones who want to win the war press on with a new plan and succeed"
Put the cool-aide glass down Ted. Just put it there on the counter.
If we have "won", why are the troops still there? Why isn't it at occupation force levels? What would happen, now that we have "won", if we left? How long would this "peaceful" state last?
The people of Iowa sent a very clear message that they are NOT buying what the Geo-Pee-Rs are selling. You do realize that Obama's 39% (of 240,000 if we want to translate turnout/percentage to voting support) is roughly the amount of TOTAL Geo-Pee-R's who voted for all candidates combined?
That is the earthquake. The Huckleberry earthquake is that you are close to nominating bumpkis who's stirling platform rests on a background cross with AK47s leaning against it.
It is so satisfying seeing all the republicans and "moderates" now bitch about Huck.
Since some people on here seem to be confused as to what conservatives are looking for in a President, allow me to share with you the main points:
Someone who sets policy that allows the individual to chart his own course in life without the burden of government. I don’t want tax and spend and I don’t want tax cut and spend, I want fiscal responsibility. I don’t mind helping out the poor but I expect the poor to start helping themselves. I want a President who will insist on using our own natural resources rather than telling me I need to drive a smaller car. I want a strong national defense. I support immigrants. I don’t support illegal immigrants; it’s not that hard of a distinction to understand. I respect any President’s religious faith but I really don’t care what it is. I want a President who understands that free trade goes both ways. I want a President who understands that this nation was built on rugged individualism and not a Federal program. I want a President that understands that it doesn’t take a village to raise a child, it takes a mom and dad.
Those are pretty much illustrate my personal conservatism. I’m thinking I’m probably not far off the mark with most others.
George said...
"Bush has a far worse situation than FDR. He has had to go to war and struggle with multiple excruciating diplomatic problems."
I gather from the above that history was not one of your strong suits. Right George? I suppose Japan occupying half of southeast asia and the germans occupying most of europe while America is digging out of 10 years of depression didn't hit your radar?
then you said: "Had he taken out the Pres., VP, the Joint Chiefs, and Congress...what would have happened then????"
Well we have a constitution that takes into account these disasters and there would have been considerably less lying I guess.
hdhouse said The people of Iowa sent a very clear message that they are NOT buying what the Geo-Pee-Rs are selling.
Well considering Bush barely won Iowa last election and they pretty much went full blown Democrat for the last oh, 4 presidential elections, this isn't as earth shattering as you think.
madisonman saidWhat's wrong with ideas from both sides of the aisle entering into laws that are being passed?
I think his point is that Huckabee doesn't represent the GOP side of the aisle.
Someone who sets policy that allows the individual to chart his own course in life without the burden of government. I don’t want tax and spend and I don’t want tax cut and spend, I want fiscal responsibility. I don’t mind helping out the poor but I expect the poor to start helping themselves. I want a President who will insist on using our own natural resources rather than telling me I need to drive a smaller car. I want a strong national defense. I support immigrants. I don’t support illegal immigrants; it’s not that hard of a distinction to understand. I respect any President’s religious faith but I really don’t care what it is. I want a President who understands that free trade goes both ways. I want a President who understands that this nation was built on rugged individualism and not a Federal program. I want a President that understands that it doesn’t take a village to raise a child, it takes a mom and dad.
Yes, thats about it. Its what Reagan believed in. I think Thompson is the closest to this Philosophy.
When an African-American man who is wrong is leading a misguided juggernaut towards the White House
Is the Obama juggernaut more misguided than the Edwards juggernaut or the HRC juggernaut? In what ways?
If we have "won", why are the troops still there? Why isn't it at occupation force levels? What would happen, now that we have "won", if we left? How long would this "peaceful" state last?
We still have troops in Germany and Japan and we won. And what in the devil are "occupation force levels?" I'm former military and I haven't a clue what you mean by that. Is it a magic number?
HoosierDad: After I posted, I read what you wrote the minute before, and rcocean's meaning clicked.
I think, though, that the new reality is that Huckabee is the GOP now. The GOP is all about Social Conservatism. Fiscal Conservatism? Small Governments? Lower Taxes? Not so much. Of course, I'm sure the Social Conservatives in the party will throw those out as breadcrumbs to keep the Old-Guard Republicans in the Big Tent.
The nation surely must be ready for a 3rd party that combines strong defense, fiscal sanity, and respect for individuals.
These campaigns are far from over. Just as much as the media, and the campaigns themselves, will spin a 'crushing' Clinton defeat, or a Huckabee 'shakeup' they will just as easily spin a Clinton 'comeback' or a Romney 'rebound' later. It's an expectations game and the campaigns will now spin expectations in New Hampshire and the circus starts again.
I tend to take a longer view. Let's see who is left standing after South Carolina and Nevada.
By that point will have had a decent cross-section of each parties differing factions and probably one or both parties will have a true head-to-head contest, if not an outright legitimate front-runner.
Clinton and Guliani are the 'national' candidates, and their machines are entrenched. They key for them in the early states is survival, and getting one opponent heads up on a national stage.
I wasn't surprised by any of the results last night, except perhaps that Thompson did better than I thought he would, and that more of the non-evangelical votes didn't move more toward Romney when McCain and Thompson and others failed to reach a delegate viability.
80% of Huckabee's support came from the strong Iowa Evangelical machine, he'll need to broaden his base beyond that to compete in the Midwest and West, but if he can do that, he should show strong in the South...he could win the nomination.
Obama's win seems more broad-based, which I think is the best message to carry forward. The caucus rules always skew the results somewhat, but my take is that Clinton probably had very little 'second' choice votes, so her 29% is a solid number. I think Obama got a great deal of the second choice votes so that might account for his edge. Edwards really needed a win last night, and I think he's the one who lost the most. He finished second in '04 by a point, and this time by 7%...that's a backward step that if he doesn't find something in New Hampshire and if he should lose his 'home' state of South Carolina I think he's done.
Your mileage may vary.
We still have troops in Germany and Japan and we won. And what in the devil are "occupation force levels?"
Will you give "we still have troops in Germany and Japan" a rest. I need to find a link to the Status of Forces Agreements for those countries just to show what a dishonest comparison it is. If an American soldier attempted to use his official capacity to so much as touch the hair on the head of a German citizen it would create an international incident. When was the last time you heard about the Marines shelling a Japanese Village?
I think, though, that the new reality is that Huckabee is the GOP now. The GOP is all about Social Conservatism. Fiscal Conservatism? Small Governments? Lower Taxes? Not so much.
Well if that is the case, then in my eyes the current Republican Party as I know it will go the way of the Whigs. The Huckabee faction may want to take the party in that direction but I don't think many true conservatives will be takers.
I do find it intersting some of the disparaging comments by Democrats on here regarding Huckabee since outside of his stance on abortion, I don't see a whole lot of difference between him and Hillary and Co.
George said...
"And, Professor, you say we did nothing to force bin Laden to act against us."
Clarification: the commenter "althouse too" isn't Ann, it's someone else who happens to share that last name.
I'm with hoosier daddy. You want to bitch about Bush being elected and re-elected? Our choice was Bush or Kerry. If I could vote again, I would vote the same way. We were never under the impression that Bush was a conservative, you guys were the ones under that impression. If you are just noticing us complaining about Bush then you have not been paying attention, or you are only hearing things thru the Iraq war filter. When give a choice in who to vote for last time we knew that you wanted to raise our taxes. You wanted to run out of Iraq, tail between our legs and the USA to be taught a lesson. You wanted to crank up the entitlements and take more of my money to prop up SS. Given that choice, of course we vote Bush. Do we only have the choice here between Huckabee and your side? Not yet we don't, so of course we are going to bitch about him. I thought you guys were the master of the nuance? Why such shallow thinking all of a sudden?
What Brooks never says is that the results of the Iowa caucuses are hardly any kind of bellwether. Just about as often as not Iowa fails to pick the candidates who ultimately go on to get their party's nomination.
The truth is that the Iowa Caucuses have never been significant until the 24-hour cable media decided to pretend like they were this year.
If we have "won", why are the troops still there? Why isn't it at occupation force levels? What would happen, now that we have "won", if we left? How long would this "peaceful" state last?
I didn't say we have won yet. So, don't put words in my mouth. My point is that you and others supporting Democrat candidates, don't want to win.
Also, the only reason I have supported Bush at all has been his steadfastness on fighting the war to a successful conclusion. Otherwise, Bush might as well be a Democrat.
My point is that you and others supporting Democrat candidates, don't want to win.
Including Obama. But it's a losing position. The majority of people do not want to cut and run from Iraq. Like I said in another thread, as long as Obama says that he'll immediately pull all troops out of Iraq he has no chance of winning the general election.
Hoosier Daddy said...
"I think his point is that Huckabee doesn't represent the GOP side of the aisle."
oh? really? and what party did he run in? was that some sort of fakeroo GOP in disguise? Some fantom party? Were those magic grits? Do the laws of physics cease to apply to grits on your stove? Were those jack in the beanstalk grits?
he ran to the GOP base that Mr. Bush assembled. He had 60% evengelicals in his support. What is the other base? Blacks? Hispanics?
Sometimes you say things that are pretty silly.
hdhouse said:oh? really? and what party did he run in?
hdhouse, just because you call yourself a republican doesn't mean you really are one. Other than being anti-abortion, I don't find his policies much different than Obama or Hillary; big government, more taxes, more spending. Last time I checked that was your side of the aisle.
he ran to the GOP base that Mr. Bush assembled.
And what base is that? The GOP lost Congress because they simply failed to adhere to the principles which got them there in the first place. It wasn't Iraq because if it was, we'd be out of there already.
Sometimes you say things that are pretty silly.
No house, I think you have that covered pretty well cause even your snark isn't snarky. You simply have nothing but contempt for conservatives that you can't see anything past your own hatred. So much for diversity of thought right?
Do the laws of physics cease to apply to grits on your stove? Were those jack in the beanstalk grits?
Save the movie lines for Trooper. He does them so much better.
Re-reading the Brooks piece, I wonder if what he's really getting at is the launch of a new 'moral populism' which actually isn't far from what many in the Democratic Party have been writing about for a while now to some degree.
I guess the sort of traditional populism suggests that there is (or should be) a moral component to economic policy from the end of the policy back. In other words, create a political-economic system that takes care of the lessers, as a point of moral justice.
But what Huckabee is arguing is that moral decisions outside of political-economic systems have dramatic effects on the types of policies we must create.
If Brooks is right, then Huckabee is merging traditional threads of liberalism and conservatism in a way that perhaps GW Bush aimed for with his 'compassionate conservatism'.
I'm just not sure Brooks IS right. At times what Huckabee (and Bush for that matter) seem to offer is merely the same government paternalism but with a different partisan label.
Yeah, big earthquake for Obama when 63% of the liberal Democrats at a caucus vote AGAINST him.
I realize the media's pro Obama spin but they can't even get the facts right.
Considering Obama has received more positive free media than any candidate in US political history including Colin Powell it's no surprise that the media drenched minds of the celebrity fixated younger voters will go for the media's Golden Boy/Great Black Hope.
It's also not surprising that the Republicans went for the flat earth Huckster in such large numbers considering the large number of evangelical wing nut voters and the appeal of a genial, Andy of Mayberry type.
The two guys in their respective parties that I can't stand the most won and I can't stand it. And I especially can't stand what these two knuckleheads represent to their respective cult followers.
Come on Romney get the Mormon mafia to take out Huckster and that McCain goof ball. If they can take over the richest man in the world back in the 1970s why can't they handle those two.
Come on Mormons save America!!
Too many...posts...too much politics...uuuuggghhhh...need comments on Dancing with the Stars...
lol
Hope Brooks is right. It's depressing that Huck's doing as well as he is. And embarassing.
If there is a tie in the primary between Romney and Huckabee, do the have to have a Huck off.
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा