Man Bites Blog

Noah Millman writes:

I don’t know if I’ve said this before, but Doug Kmiec would do well to admit that he has backed a ticket that will be absolutely uncompromising in its support for abortion rights. There is no chance whatsoever that Obama will make the slightest gesture in the direction of moderation on this question, and there is no chance that any appointments to the court will not be litmus tested on this question. Bank on it. He showed no inclination to do so before, and now he has powerful political reasons to be absolutely doctrinaire on this question. There are other places where he can bend – gun rights is, I think, the most likely and the most important – but not here.

Ross Douthat agrees. 

Now, I agree that it seems unlikely that Obama will represent a departure from Democratic orthodoxy on abortion policy, but does represent a softening in its approach to pro-life people, which is what inspired my hope that an Obama presidency would help thaw the cultural lines enough that the pro-life argument can gain traction.

That being said, Kmiec’s endorsement of Obama, and the public brickbats he has received for that, put Obama is a somewhat awkward position.  I don’t know how much attention Kmiec’s endorsement, and the fallout from it has gotten outside of my Catholic-politics cocoon, but to me, if Obama were to do as Millman suggests, he would be making a very public fool out of someone who has gone out on limb for him, and could attract votes of people who would have never voted Democrat before.  It seems to me that would be something he would not want to do.

As I’ve mentioned before, in a way, the Wright controversy makes me want to see Obama elected even more, if only to leave the current guilt by association politics behind.

Indeed, if Obama wants to be the transformational figure he says he does, I wish he would confront this, rather than play this, “condemn the words, not condemn the man” game.  He should ask us, “Do you want to be judged by the worst thing one of your close friends has ever said?  Do you want to live in a society where you must vet people’s words before you become friends with them.  Reverend Wright has said some things I disagree with, and I believe he should apologize for them.  But I do not apologize for calling the man my friend and spiritual mentor.  If you wish to vote against me for that reason on Election Day, you may do so, but you will be voting to continue this broken style of politics.  You will be voting for a less free society, where we cannot help people who are doing good work if they also have views we disagree with.  If that is the society you want, then you should vote for my opponent.”

I don’t know if this would win him the election, and from a strategic point of view he might be better off “clinging” to his lead and running out the clock, but if he gets elected by dancing along this line, he will not be a transformational figure, and not much is going to change.

This is his chance to demonstrate some leadership.

I confess that I find myself scrolling past pretty much anything regarding Rev. Wright at this point.  Yeah, I know Obama’s pastor has some kooky views.  I have consumed that information and processed it, and have moved on.

Maybe  it’s only bloggers like me, but I can’t help but think I’m the only one, and it’s probably good for Obama that this is being aired out during the primaries, since when it gets brought up during the general campaign people will roll their eyes.

I think the reason that Obama’s “bitter-cling” comments matter, and a reason the Democratic Party has trouble getting votes of “working class whites” in general is that people fear that a vote for Democrats is a vote for their own cultural marginalization.

If I own a gun for hunting and vote for Obama, will that lead to me being further dismissed as a redneck?  What if I belong to a church that doesn’t favor same sex marriage?  Will I be dismissed as a bigot?  What if I work for a big drug company, and think I’m doing life-saving work?  Will I be lumped in as “Big Pharma?”

Obama has been able to allay these concern with his “big table” approach, and his practice of respectfully summarizing the opposing point of view before offering his own.  People may disagree with Obama, but they’re not dismissed.

I think this is what matters to people more than specific policy proscriptions.  It doesn’t matter to me so much whether the state recognizes same sex marriages as much as it matters that the Catholic Church not be dismissed for only marrying heterosexual couples.

Nobody wants to be cast in the role of yesterday’s KKK members, history’s losers.  Obama had been offering defeat with honor — you may lose the political debate, but not lose cultural face.  The “bitter — cling” comment leads us to question the sincerity of that offer.

McCarthy today:

The Obamas, as they’ve repeatedly emphasized, are not people of great means.  Yet, only a couple of years ago, they chose to give $22,500 of their own money to support Wright and his ministry.  That’s not guilt by association; that’s active, material promotion.  Did anything he said in the speech satisfy you about that?  Me neither.

Who did McCarthy support for the GOP nomination? Why, Rudy Giuliani, Planned Parenthood donor.   You know, the same Planned Parenthood that doesn’t just give incendiary speeches, but actually performs abortions. 

But, yeah, I guess being against the war or the country is worse than actually killing unborn children.

Must Obama banish Wright to become president?  I exlore the question in my latest in Qublit Magazine.

I thought Andrew Sullivan was a little overheated in critizing Mickey Kaus.  But then I read this…

Obama is quoted as saying:

“I have no way of knowing whether I was a beneficiary of affirmative action either in my admission to Harvard or my initial election to the Review. … If I was, then I certainly am not ashamed of the fact, for I would argue that affirmative action is important precisely because those who benefit typically rise to the challenge when given an opportunity.” [E.A.]

<snip>

P.P.S.: Obama did graduate magna cum laude, meaning he got very good grades while running the law review–and as far as I know there was no race preference program in grading. … P.P.P.S.: Obama may not know whether he was a beneficiary of affirmative action. But there should be people who do know–people on the Harvard admissions department, and the editors of the law review who picked him after his first year. Have they been asked?

Emphasis Kaus’s

Why should they be?

The criticism of affirmative action is that it gives undeserving minorities an opportunity that should have gone to a more deserving whites.  Obviously this is not true in Obama’s case, as he made excellent grades, and went on to great success both now and in the future.

Indeed, if it took affirmative action to get Obama into Harvard, then it would be a vindication of affirmative action, not a criticism, as Obama himself said in the unbolded part of the quote. 

Raising it as a campaign issue now makes little sense except to tap into white racial resentment.

Expanding on my post below, I think part of why I find Obama’s exteme but respectful position more appealing (or less repulsive) than a more moderate but intolerant position is that if Obama is elected, it would signal the end of, “you’re an extremist” being a winning argument.  It would be impossible to deny that Obama is an extremist on the pro-choice side, now we can have an honest argument over whether the fetus is a person, and whether it is worthy of protection.

That is a debate I believe the pro-life side can win.  I do not believe that the pro-life side can win an argument based on who is more moderate or less of an extremist.  

Again, I could be deluding myself, but I think the cultural landscape with Obama as president would be more receptive to the pro-life point of view than the current one.

Or I could be wrong, and with the pro-choice movement having a popular and articulate leader, more people move over to that camp.

As a pro-lifer, Obama’s votes and stated policies obviously give me pause.  His record is that of an extremist on the issue, voiting against things like the “born alive” act in Illinois, which passed in the US Senate by a 98-0 margin, criticizing the Supreme Court for not fining a constitutional right to partial-birth abortion, etc.  His position is much more extreme on this issue that politicians like John Kerry, the Carnahan family, or Claire McCaskill, whom I have rejected on the basis of the abortion issue, or his current opponent, Senator Hillary Clinton.

Yet, if the election were held today, I would probably vote for Obama.  How could this be?

In part because in spite of his extreme position, Obama has not expressed contempt for the pro-life position.  This is in contrast to people like Andrew Sullivan, who have a more moderate position (if I’m not mistaken Sullivan favors banning second and third term abortions), but tags anyone to the right of him has a theocratic extremist.  It’s my opinion that the pro-life position has a greater chance to gain currency under the leadership of someone like Obama than someone who has drawn sharp lines.

Am I deluding myself?  What matters more — a candidate’s absolute position or attitude?  Part of the reason I would even consider voting for a Democrat is the Republicans’ lack of commitment to the unborn. 

In other words, there is more than one dimension to consider – there are the checkboxes of what policies a poltician favors and does not favor, but there is also the intensity and arguments the politician uses in support of that position.

What I’m struggling to figure out is the relative weights each of those dimensions should be assigned.

The meme on Obama that Republicans and the Clinton seem to want to gain currency is that, yes, Obama may be a wonderful speakers, but great speeches don’t give people health care, or kill terrorists, and that’s all Obama’s got.

As Matthew Yglesias illustrates, this is mostly bogus, and that it has gained any traction at all is mostly due to laziness and a default assumption that someone who’s outstanding in one area must be deficient in another.    That’s not always the case.  For example, big guys can be great dunkers.  And great speakers can also have detailed policy ideas.

Interesting that this assumption never goes the other way.  A candidate who have lousy speeches wouldn’t be assumed to have great policy ideas.  We’re quite willing to assume somebody is generally crummy.

But even if it were true that Obama’s abilties were limited to his ability to inspire, I’m not certain that’s a disqualifying trait.  Becuase if he truly is inspiring, he will inspire others, who perhaps do have policy talent, to get involved in the government.  I think there’s a lot of great minds right now who would rather do almost anything than work for the government.

That could change with an inspirational President Obama.  Lots of folks might want to be a part of something they believe is truly transformational.  And I think that the way his campaign has been run is evidence of that.

or more accurately, the Democrats’ path to defeat.

• Obama continues to win primaries and caucuses, building a significant but not decisive lead in delegates.
• Clinton wins the nomination on the basis of superdelegates going for her and the Michigan and Florida delegates being seated.
• Nader runs; those disgusted with him who are more moderate go for McCain, leftists go for Nader, and McCain ekes out an electoral victory.

It would seem almost impossible for the Democrats to cede the high moral ground coming into the general election, but if party bosses manage to thwart making Obama the first African American nominee after he had won most of the primaries and caucuses in order to nomiate someone who has already spent eight years in the White House, well, it could get ugly. 

It might make McCain’s problems with consrevatives seem like child’s play.

I guess one key is how Obama would play this.  A Clinton nomination and loss would position Obama very strongly for 2012.   But it seems like anybody who just had the nomination (and more than likely the presidency) taken from him would have a very hard time getting behind the person on whose behalf the stealing was done, whether he wants to transcend politics or not.

I’ve got to believe the Democrats know what a disastrous scenario this is, and won’t let this play out, but this is also the same party that thought Michael Dukakis and John Kerry would be good candidates.

Andy McCarthy writes:

I wonder whether, if [Obama] becomes president, someone will explain to him that the United States Senate does not ratify treaties.  The Senate consents to treaties.  The president ratifies them — and can void them unilaterally.

I don’t know about you, but one of my big concerns in this election is that the president will not have an expansive enough view of the powers of the executive.

I might also suspect that Obama, a constuiitutional law professor, might have a better idea about the separation of power than, say, John Derbyshire,  so I suspect he won’t need such things explained to him.

I’ll tell you, if the Democrats have the opportunity to nominate this guy…

and then decide, “No, we’d rather nominate Hillary Clinton,” they will deserve whatever they get. The land is hungry for this brand of leadership, Democrats. Please give it to us.

For my part, I plan to vote for Obama in Missouri’s open primary on Super Tuesday.

Contrast this with the current whinefest over on the Corner over whether it was “dishonest” of McCain to say that Romney wanted a “timetable” for withdrawal from Iraq, when all he really wanted was “milestones.” Could I care less?