Brendan Loy charts Obama's post-candidate "calling"

I just read a post from Brendan Loy ("Obama rejects, denounces & disowns Wright"-- via ACK at "Post Politics") that raises several issues. Loy writes:

"Right now, at this very moment, we have an African-American candidate for president who commands overwhelming support within the black community, who has just explicitly and firmly denounced the radical and hateful nonsense that is all too often accepted and repeated without question within that selfsame black community. That's a very good thing. Wright will undoubtedly dismiss Obama's comments as, in Al Sharpton's words, 'grandstanding in front of white people,' but the truth is that Obama is speaking to black people, too -- he's speaking to everyone -- and he is sending a very clear message: enough with the bulls**t. Haven't conservatives been waiting for a black leader to do that for, like, forever?

. . . .

You can parse his words and question his timing, and you'll find plenty to criticize. But ultimately -- again, big picture, people -- he's doing the right thing, and it's a very important 'right thing.' Either his heart's n the right place, or, if you want to be all cynical about it, he's pretending that it is, and his overall message demands that he continue to do so, which is almost as good. Either way, the Barack Obama who spoke today is the natural ally of anyone who has ever despaired over the blame-whitey victimhood culture within the black community. No, he's not quite channeling Bill Cosby. He wouldn't be in this position if he were. No, he didn't throw Jeremiah Wright under the bus last fall. It's a delicate and difficult tightrope he's walking. He's not perfect. But no one is, and Obama is trying harder than anyone else has, on this stage, ever before. Be reasonable!

I'm not saying how we got here is entirely unimportant, but I think recognizing where we are now is vastly more important. And I think it would be a shame if Obama is now effectively crucified by both sides: the political right (and its newfound ally, Hillary Clinton), for not saying this sooner; and radical elements of the liberal-black community, for saying it at all. Rightly or wrongly, the takeaway lesson, if such a two-front assault destroys him, would be that a black politician cannot succeed on the national stage, at least until the baby boomers die off. Conservatives ought not let the perfect be the enemy of the good. (That's liberals' job!) Obama is doing the right thing here, and if he's a little late to the party, slap him on the wrist and then defend him against the coming Wright/Sharpton/etc. onslaught. And then beat him in November on security issues or whatever. But he's on the right side of this issue, and if he loses because of it, it will be a shame for everyone -- principled conservatives included."

First, I see that he also is referring to this as Obama's "Reverend Wright Moment" (a term I'm also hearing from other, various quarters this a.m.), and I also noticed that he predicted folks like me would say "better late than never." I think he's right on both points.

That being said--here's point number two, I think that Loy is not fully appreciating the meaning behind the term "Sister Souljah Moment." It is the Clintonian, purely-political-posturing aspect of the SSM maneuver that saps it of credibility--not to mention honor. While I commend Loy for his novel proposition, as a Conservative, I'm not buying it. With me at least, this one press conference has not established Obama's "speaking truth to (black) power" bona fides. I'm more than willing to cheer him on in this new calling after he--like Al Gore, becomes the man who used to be the "next President of the United States."

Oh, that Reverend Wright!?! Updated

News today that U.S. Senator Barack Obama has denounced reiterations, er, statements made by Reverend Jeremiah Wright yesterday. (here) Obama is denouncing the (previous but persistent) statements as being "divisive and destructive" . . . tell us about it, Senator.

It seems that the final straw may have been the Reverend's "politician" swipe. Apparently Wright doesn't realize that Obama is a new kind of leader . . . not a politician.

As for Obama's stance today, better late than never, I guess.


Update: I'm sorry, but I'm incredulous. I just watched Obama's statement concerning his Reverend's Monday TV appearance. If Obama has "spent [his] entire adult life trying to bridge the gap between different types of people," then he must have been sleeping in church his entire adult life. As I said over at Music City Bloggers, this may go down in (political) history as Obama's Brother Wright* moment.

If you can't beat 'em, denigrate them.

Thomas Sowell nails one of the more common Lefty fallacies:

Speaking privately to supporters in heavily left-liberal San Francisco, Obama let down his hair and described working class people in Pennsylvania as so "bitter" that they "cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren't like them."

Like so much that Obama has said and done over the years, this is standard stuff on the far left, where guns and religion are regarded as signs of psychological dysfunction -- and where opinions different from those of the left are ascribed to emotions ("bitter" in this case), rather than to arguments that need to be answered.

Rule of law and ruling out Presidential candidates

After reading this poignant Thomas Sowell quote about the McCain candidacy,

"Senator John McCain could never convince me to vote for him. Only Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama can cause me to vote for McCain,"

this Jonah Goldberg op/ed ("Courting Disaster" on National Review Online) was pretty timely:

"What is staggering, or at least should be, is that Stevens freely admits that he no longer considers “objective evidence” or even the plain text of the Constitution determinative of what is or isn’t constitutional: “I have relied on my own experience in reaching the conclusion that the imposition of the death penalty” is unconstitutional.

Justice Antonin Scalia, in a blistering response, justifiably exclaimed that, “Purer expression cannot be found of the principle of rule by judicial fiat.”

I say “justifiably” rather than “accurately” because I think we hear purer expressions of the principle that “good” judges are those who make it up as they go along all the time. Consider Barack Obama. The Democratic front-runner and former lecturer on constitutional law at the University of Chicago has explained his thinking toward judicial appointments thusly: “We need somebody who’s got the heart, the empathy, to recognize what it’s like to be a young teenage mom, the empathy to understand what it’s like to be poor or African-American or gay or disabled or old — and that’s the criteria by which I’ll be selecting my judges.”

When defending his vote against Justice John Roberts’ confirmation, Obama explained that the standard for a justice must be “one’s deepest values, one’s core concerns, one’s broader perspectives on how the world works, and the depth and breadth of one’s empathy.”

Now that is a pure expression of the principle of judicial fiat."

. . . .

Five of the last seven presidents have been Republicans at least nominally committed to appointing conservative justices. Some have fallen short in that department (though not President George W. Bush), which is why the Supreme Court today hangs in the balance. John McCain could conceivably make the mistake of appointing a Souter or a Stevens or some other justice who sees the Constitution as an ink blot. But the key difference between McCain and his Democratic rivals is that he promises not to appoint such justices. Clinton and Obama consider it among their top priorities. That’s at least one reason for saying this is one of the most important elections in a very long time.

At least one reason for a Clinton supporter to support the Surge

Sidney Blumenthal was driving while intoxicated on the night before the NH primaries--and police say he was traveling 70 mph in a 30 mph zone.
Clinton aide, Blumenthal, accepts deal in DWI case:

"Blumenthal pleaded guilty March 28 to a standard, misdemeanor DWI charge. He was fined $900, and his driver's license revoked for 10 months. Blumenthal can seek to get his license restored after 120 days, however, if he completes and alcohol education program in Washington, D.C., court records show.
. . . .

Police negotiated a plea bargain in part because the arresting officer, Christopher Ditullio, was called up for service in Iraq, and would not have been available to testify, [Capt. Peter] Segal said."

Redstate of mind

Here's some good news for Tennesseans, and it reflects what is becoming apparent to me: that McCain's strengths match up well with the weaknesses of either Democratic candidate. Rasmussen--Tennessee: McCain Leads Both Democrats by Double Digits."

AirAmerica and Rhodes rage

You've probably heard that AirAmerica (yes, it's still broadcasting . . . somewhere) hostess Randi Rhodes has been suspended for calling Hillary "a f***ing whore" in the context of shilling for Barack Obama. As is noted at National Review Online, this is reflective (perhaps) of political activists in general, but it is definitely true of Liberal political activists, who fight for keeps, baby.

There's something rather heartening about this for those of us on the right who've been on the receiving end of the left's vehemence: Apparently there really is nothing personal about it. You can be a chickenhawk warmonger racist homophobe mysogynist Bush shill or a pro-feminist pro-gay pro-black icon of progressive politics for a generation, but, if you cross the likes of Randi Rhodes, you're all the same and you merit the same four-letter words and KKK slurs. The left's Discoursometer is like one of those shower units where the slightest nudge turns it to scalding.

pocket change we can believe in

Here's an interesting comparison of charitable giving of the self-identified "Progressive" Obamas and their cousins the self-identified "Conservative" Cheneys ("Arthur C. Brooks on Charitable Giving & Barack Obama"--National Review Online). The article reports that the Obamas gave in the low single digits until the last two years (for which we have returns) when they gave 5% and 6%. From the article:

"The Obamas got rich in 2005. Their income increased sevenfold from 2004 to 2005, mostly because of Mr. Obama’s book royalties, and stayed very high in 2006 for the same reason. In 2006, another wealthy political couple with significant book royalties was Mr. and Mrs. Cheney, who had a combined income of $8.8 million, largely due to Mrs. Cheney’s books and the couple’s investment income. Just how much did the Cheneys give to charity from their bonanza? A measly 78 percent of their income, or $6.9 million. (No, that is not a misprint.)

This last fact does not generally square with the well-cultivated liberal trope of the blackhearted Cheneys. Unless, that is, you believe that private charity is not an important value that defines one’s character, compared with government taxation and welfare spending (which Mr. Cheney generally opposes, despite the profligate ways of the Bush White House)."

Wow. The article continues:

In 1996, the General Social Survey asked a large sample of Americans whether they agreed that, “The government has a responsibility to reduce income inequality.” Those who “disagreed strongly” with this statement gave an amazing twelve times more money to charity per year, on average, than those who “agreed strongly.” People disagreeing strongly also gave nine times more to secular causes than those agreeing strongly, and even gave more to traditionally progressive causes, such as the environment and the arts.

The article has a "charitable" explanation for the differences.

How is this not "newspeak"?

Just perusing my daily email from the City Paper, I noticed a story that seemed "new" because I hadn't heard anything about it previously. "Dean-backed nondiscrimination bill passes" on Nashville City Paper. Despite Dean's seeming ambivalence about homosexual issues when running for Mayor, I thought that perhaps he had pushed a bill making persons-who-engage-in-homosexual-acts a protected class." Well, it turns out that "non-discrimination" (related to "procurement" programs) means "affirmative action." From the story:

"The Metro government non-discrimination bill — the first key piece of legislation supported by first-year Mayor Karl Dean — was passed into law by Metro Council at its meeting on Tuesday.

The bill amends Metro Code to establish a procurement non-discrimination program within Metro, which aims to give minority- and women-owned businesses an equal opportunity to secure contracts on Metro projects.

. . . .

Dean appointed an advisory council last October to identify initiatives Metro could take to help minority- and women-owned businesses receive a fair share of Metro contracts."

(emphasis added). And how do we decide what is the "fair share" of these contracts?

Politics as usual

From Gore's 60 Minutes interview, Lesley Stahl reports (Al Gore's New Campaign, Tells 60 Minutes That Doubting Global Warming Is Man-Made Is Akin To Believing Earth Is Flat - CBS News):

"[Gore] says he's fallen out of love with politics. He's selling a cause now, and there are no consultants telling him what to say or how to dress."

A "cause" vs. "politics"? Give me a break. Wait, Gore's derisive view of "politics" may explain a lot about how he lived out his prior profession.

History lesson for Stahl

Lesley Stahl, in her 60 Minutes interview with Al Gore this past Sunday (Al Gore's New Campaign, Tells 60 Minutes That Doubting Global Warming Is Man-Made Is Akin To Believing Earth Is Flat - CBS News), mistakenly implies that Al Gore hardly had time to get his boxes unpacked in his Belle Meade Mansion before the nattering nabobs started in:

"They bought an 18-room mansion in Nashville. After they moved in, they were criticized because the house 'Mr. Global Warming' lived in used 20 times more energy than the average American household. Since then, they have retrofitted everything, including installing 33 solar panels on the roof."

Actually, the Gores bought the house soon after he lost in 2000 and 6+ years later the report about his obscene energy consumption came to light.

Civics lesson for Stahl

Lesley Stahl, in her 60 Minutes interview with Al Gore this past Sunday (Al Gore's New Campaign, Tells 60 Minutes That Doubting Global Warming Is Man-Made Is Akin To Believing Earth Is Flat - CBS News), ignores the inconvenient truth of the Electoral College, not to mention the fact that Gore didn't win the popular vote in Florida:

"Tipper says that Al's survival after his defeat in 2000 depended on his immersing himself in the climate cause. The year 2000 was of course when he won the popular vote, but lost the presidency when the Supreme Court ruled in favor of George Bush."