Korean Job Discussion Forums

[ytuque]

The Thin Man William Kristol
Mon Aug 25, 11:34 AM ET

This week, the least qualified man to receive a major party nomination for the presidency of the United States in modern times will be anointed by his party. He could well win the general election.

Republicans have held the presidency for the last eight years. On five occasions since the FDR-Truman administration, voters have had a chance to change parties after a two-term presidency. Four of those times (1960, 1968, 1976, 2000), they have done so. The fifth occasion was 1988, when Republicans held the White House after Reagan's two terms. But Reagan's approval rating was then close to 60 percent; George W. Bush's is around 30 percent.

What's more, the Democrats now lead the GOP by about 10 points on the generic ballot. Economic growth this election year will be minimal. And a majority of the public are more focused on the economy than foreign policy. In any case, a majority of the public still think the Iraq war was a mistake.

These are the underlying political conditions. As for the candidates, Barack Obama is the beau ideal of a modern contender--and John McCain is not. As for the campaigns, Obama's will outspend and out-organize McCain's. And all the powers of the old media, the old academy, and old Hollywood--all the forces of political correctness and establishment progressivism--have entered into an alliance to try to ensure an Obama victory.

Only two things stand in the way: John McCain and Barack Obama. John McCain is a man of wide experience, demonstrated courage, and strong character. Can one say the same of Barack Obama?

Here is Obama's r�sum�: an Ivy League law degree, a few years of community organizing, seven years in the Illinois senate, three and a half years as a U.S. senator. Kind of modest. What has he accomplished in any of those jobs? Not much, not much at all.

Has he shown great courage in his political career? Has he shunned the easy path or broken with the conventional liberal pieties of those around him? Has he taken on his own party on a major issue? Nope.

Has he shown exemplary character? He has undoubted skills and abilities. He has always had great potential. But has he followed through on it? Is there a moment in his public life that one looks to and says: Agree or disagree, that was impressive?

His defining moment so far was his keynote speech at the 2004 Democratic convention. If one rereads that speech today, one sees more clearly the emptiness beneath the eloquence, the lack of substance behind the sizzle. But one paragraph does stand out:

Our party has chosen a man to lead us who embodies the best this country has to offer. That man is John Kerry. John Kerry understands the ideals of community, faith, and sacrifice, because they've defined his life. From his heroic service in Vietnam to his years as prosecutor and lieutenant governor, through two decades in the United States Senate, he has devoted himself to this country. Again and again, we've seen him make tough choices when easier ones were available. His values and his record affirm what is best in us.

Leave aside whether John Kerry deserved Obama's encomia. Doesn't Obama's praise of Kerry highlight how thin Obama's own claim to leadership is? After all, Obama has done none of the things for which he praises Kerry. Is he ready to be president of the United States? I think a majority of American voters will conclude not.

What's more, they'll realize that the Democratic party will control Congress for the next two years. There's no chance (unfortunately) that a conservative domestic agenda will be much advanced, no matter who's president. So moderates and independents wary of Republican governance or conservative enthusiasms will have little to fear from a McCain presidency. They may conclude they have quite a bit to fear from the team of Obama-Pelosi-Reid governing unchecked.

And we're at war. We're electing a commander in chief. It's not so much that Obama would, like the Democrats of his youth, blame America first. It's that he would wish away the dangers to America--and react too little and too late to threats to ourselves and our allies.

Obama said in 2004, "We coach Little League in the blue states and, yes, we've got some gay friends in the red states." I suspect Barack Obama would be a great Little League coach--sensible but also inspiring, balanced and empathetic, able to deal with both crazed parents and immature kids. And I suspect that, on November 4, the American people will decide to allow Barack Obama plenty of time to coach Little League in the next four years by keeping him in the Senate, and entrusting the presidency to a major leaguer, John McCain.

--William Kristol

[Ya-ta Boy]

Let�s take a look at what one of the leading conservatives has to say about the nominee of the opposing party:

�the least qualified man to receive a major party nomination for the presidency of the United States in modern times�

A fair criticism, depending on how you define �least qualified�. I also would prefer a more experienced person at the head of the ticket, but the voters chose otherwise. I probably would have thought the same when the GOP nominated John C. Fremont in 1856 and Abraham Lincoln in 1860. I would also have hoped for more qualifications from Warren G. Harding in 1920. To bring it into more modern times, I would have liked to see someone with more qualifications than George Bush in 2000. His only real experience was as a 2nd term governor of Texas. Didn�t he say he�d never been to Europe?

More experience in the Executive Branch would be good. It�s no guarantee of success, but it would reduce some of the �crap shoot� quality of elections. I�m thinking of Herbert Hoover, an enormously famous and popular man who had organized emergency relief for Belgium during World War I and a good deal of Europe after the War. Extensive experience in the worst of circumstances. Then he served as Secretary of Treasury under Harding/Coolidge. That�s pretty good experience, too. Unfortunately, Hoover was a disaster as a president. Grant was also reasonably experienced if you consider 4 years at the head of some fairly big armies as executive experience. I would. He was also a disaster.

Consider McCain�s experience. It is entirely in the Senate, focused on military affairs. Legislative experience in a secondary field. While it�s more than Obama�s, it isn�t really the best experience for the presidency.

For every experienced governor who was a successful president, I can think of one who wasn�t successful. So while I agree that experience is better than not experienced, there are other factors equally important to consider.

�a man of wide experience, demonstrated courage, and strong character. Can one say the same of Barack Obama?�

I think you can.
There are two kinds of courage, physical and moral. It takes physical courage to stand in front of crowds and speak when you know there are millions of guns floating around and one of them could very well be aimed at you. All presidents deal with that. Both candidates pass muster on that count as far as I can see. What about moral courage? McCain has defied his party. That counts as moral courage. Obama, a black man, is running for president of a white-majority country. That takes moral courage. I�d say both men have demonstrated courage.

I tend to mix moral courage with strong character. As far as I know, both are men of integrity. McCain has that one financial scandal in his past but he was never convicted (or even charged as far as I know); as far as I know, there is no scandal in Obama�s past. One thing in Obama�s favor is the �Ivy League law degree� Kristol mentions. He did not come from a privileged past. He earned his way in and out. I think that shows strong character. From what I can tell, both he and Michelle worked in law and made a comfortable nest egg then dedicated themselves to public works, a lot like Benjamin Franklin did. I�d say both McCain and Obama pass on the strong character criteria. I do have to wonder if mentioning Obama�s law degree as �Ivy League� is meant as a subtle reminder to those who resent the �Eastern Liberal establishment�.

It�s interesting that Kristol regards Obama�s �stand-out paragraph� as the one praising Kerry. I doubt very much that that is the paragraph other people remember. I suspect the memorable part of the speech was his Red State/Blue State paragraph where he said we are all Americans. Back to Kerry for a moment�he was a poor candidate but a good man.

Then we�re back to the politics of fear (if the �unqualified candidate� part didn�t succeed). With a divided government we don�t have to fear the conservative agenda but you �have quite a bit to fear from the team of Obama-Pelosi-Reid governing unchecked�. I don�t recall Kristol reassuring people about a Bush/Republican Congress.

At no point does Kristol address the issue of McCain continuing the policies of Bush. This part should have been in the list with experience, courage and character. At least in my opinion, policies are a vital part of the mix. Where does a president want to take us? What ideals does he have that will shape his decisions on the issues of the day? This was not included because this is the one point where Obama wins hands down. Four more years of military adventures and running the debt as high as you can get it?

So on the 4 factors:
McCain gets a slightly higher score than Obama on EXPERIENCE
They are tied on COURAGE and CHARACTER.
Obama wins by a mile on projected POLICIES.

It wasn't within the aims of this article, but it would be interesting to see Kristol's essay on why people should vote for McCain. It would certainly have to be a weak endorsement. Wasn't Kristol one of the conservatives who were saying they'd vote for Hillary Clinton over McCain last spring?

[mithridates]

Ah, good ol' Oftenwrong Kristol.

http://www.thedailyshow.com/video/index.jhtml?videoId=148350&title=fred-thompson-drops-out

http://www.thenation.com/blogs/capitalgames?bid=3&pid=153112

[Nowhere Man]

[Ya-ta Boy]

[ytuque]

So on the 4 factors:
McCain gets a slightly higher score than Obama on EXPERIENCE

McCain has slightly more experience than Obama?

They are tied on COURAGE and CHARACTER.

McCain's 5-1/2 years in a N. Vietnamese prison camp is comparable to anything Obama has been through?

Obama wins by a mile on projected POLICIES.

According to whom?

[ytuque]

[Ya-ta Boy]

[Ya-ta Boy]

David Brooks has a nice piece on Obama:

At the core, Obama�s best message has always been this: He is unconnected with the tired old fights that constrict our politics. He is in tune with a new era. He has very little experience but a lot of potential. He does not have big achievements, but he is authentically the sort of person who emerges in a multicultural, globalized age. He is therefore naturally in step with the problems that will confront us in the years to come.

So as I�m trying to measure the effectiveness of this convention, I�ll be jotting down a little minus mark every time I hear a theme that muddies that image. I�ll jot down a minus every time I hear the old class conflict, and the old culture war themes. I�ll jot down a minus when I see the old Bush obsession rearing its head, which is not part of his natural persona. I�ll write a demerit every time I hear the rich played off against the poor, undercutting Obama�s One America dream.

I�ll put a plus down every time a speaker says that McCain is a good man who happens to be out of step with the times. I�ll put a plus down every time a speaker says that a multipolar world demands a softer international touch. I�ll put a plus down when a speaker says the old free market policies worked fine in the 20th century, but no longer seem to be working today. These are arguments that reinforce Obama�s identity as a 21st-century man.

The rest of it is here: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/26/opinion/26brooks.html?_r=1&hp&oref=slogin

[mithridates]

[ytuque]

[Nowhere Man]

[mithridates]

[ytuque]

http://journalism.org/node/12009

[mithridates]

http://journalism.org/node/4846