A Letter to Andy
by Lee
I just emailed this to Andrew Sullivan, and thought it would make a good discussion topic.
Andrew, I notice that you have been quite positive towards some of the things Obama has been saying lately. (See remarks on affirmative action and terrorism for examples.) In many ways he’s an impressive candidate, and he says a lot of the things that voters want to hear.
That’s the problem. Anyone can say what voters want to hear.
Allow me to remind you of another candidate who said a lot of things that voters wanted to hear, the one who is now our president. A lot of us were wowed by his compassionate conservatism, or his claim to be a Reagan-style conservative. Other than what he accomplished as governor of Texas, the only thing we had to judge the candidate on were his speeches and other campaign rhetoric. His legislative record was, to put it politely, “thin.”
We both know how well that turned out.
So now we have Obama. Admittedly he’s a far more impressive candidate than Bush just in terms of his presence. He’s almost larger than life, sort of a modern day RFK. The problem is that, just like candidate Bush, has has virtually no legislative paper trail to show how he would vote on a particular issue.
Do I need remind you what candidate Bush said about nation building?
My point is that Obama talks a hell of a game. He’s someone inherently likable, someone you want to trust. But if we learn one lesson from the disaster of the Bush years it is this: any candidate, regardless of party, will take any position on any issue to get elected. The only means we have to judge the veracity of a candidate’s campaign pledges is by comparing them to their legislative paper trail. And Obama’s paper trail is as scant as Bush’s was in 1999, if not more so.
I can understand why you are enamored with Obama. There isn’t a chance in hell my Libertarian soul would vote for him, but I think he’s an astonishingly impressive candidate. But without a paper trail we have nothing to do by other than his word. If the Bush years taught us nothing else, it’s to only nominate candidates with long, clear legislative records.
Romney proves my point. We can’t trust Romney because his legislative record says one thing while the candidate says another. How do we know we can trust Obama? His word? “Obaba said he’d do A, B, and C.” Perhaps its my curmudgeonly nature, but I’m way too jaded to actually trust anything a politician says any more.
To sum up, I can see why people are excited about Obama. But really, how the hell do you know what this man actually stands for?
We don’t. And I don’t trust him. This is the lesson of the Bush years, don’t elect anyone who doesn’t have a significant paper trail to back up their campaign rhetoric.
Comments
I think you’ve made a slight mistake-people look for presidents with executive, not legislative, experience.
Fair enough. But what I meant by legislative experience is “involvement in the political process.” A political paper trail, something you can look at and say “You say you’re a Christian, but six years ago you voted for a bill to teach atheism to Belgians. Can you explain that?”
Maybe he just thinkg Obama is super cute! i keed, I keed
Oh jezuz I can see the Sullivan - Obama jokes flying. How long until he starts getting called Obottom?
Maybe Sully wants Obama to Barack his world! Or go all Barackback Mountain on him?
Sullivan wants to Barackade Obama in a dark room and let him have his way with him…
The only problem here is Sullivan doesnt have a funny name.
Baracks gonna Sully Andrews face with his dna
Granted, I don’t think there’s a politician alive who hasn’t taken a policy simply to satisfy a constituancy, but I don’t understand exactly why that applies to Obama in particular.
Even granting he has less ‘experience’ or less of a track record, this does not mean we neccesarily have less of a picture of how he would govern. For one, the office of the presidency is different in many ways than a governorship or seat in the senate, so the comparison is not entirely clear to begin with.
And, of course, even if we have a candidate with a longer track record or previously well-defined positions, there is no reason he would be limited to governing in the same way; he could simply claim the ‘situation has changed, and I’m changing with it,’ or what have you.
I’d put a little more creedence in what the candidates are saying *now*, in that they - or their parties - are much more likely to pay a political price for blatantly going back on campaign promises - the hypocracy is both more blatant and newsworthy - than a candidate would in governing, say, contrary to his mid 80s senate votes.
’d put a little more creedence in what the candidates are saying *now*, in that they - or their parties - are much more likely to pay a political price for blatantly going back on campaign promises - the hypocracy is both more blatant and newsworthy - than a candidate would in governing, say, contrary to his mid 80s senate votes.
I would say it has allot to say where the person comes from than where they are now. Because as we all know.
I don’t think there’s a politician alive who hasn’t taken a policy simply to satisfy a constituancy
Exactly, howco, meaning the only way we can actually rely on what they say is when they pay a price for going back on their word.
And the point I was making is that a candidate stands to pay a much heavier price for going back on a promise he just made during the campaign than he does for flopping on a vote he made X number of years ago in a different setting.
I agrree largely with what you say here - Obama is very much an unknown quantity. Given the recent hawkishness of his statements, I am beginning to think he is running for the wrong party.
My guess is his advisers have said: if you get the nomination, the dems are going to vote for you anyway, so go get the middle, who supported the Bush war on terror (or at least they did until it literally turned into the moshpit at an Anthrax concert).
Sheesh....
Why don’t you and sully get a room?
If he is thinking of taking Obama as a serious candidate, how can that mesh with his supposed “conservatism”? “Not being Bush” seems to be the most desireable thing about him.
[Obama] has has virtually no legislative paper trail to show how he would vote on a particular issue
Oh come on. He’s a common big-government statist; a paper trail isn’t even remotely necessary. He’ll vote every time to raise taxes. He’ll vote every time to increase spending. He’ll vote every time against the 2nd and 10th Amendments. He’ll vote every time to uphold the status quo on the “War” on Drugs. He’ll vote every time against free market medicine.
The bottom line is that he’ll vote every time to further empower the Imperial Federal Government in any way possible.
If he is thinking of taking Obama as a serious candidate, how can that mesh with his supposed “conservatism”? “Not being Bush” seems to be the most desireable thing about him.
You guys should read his blog. You know, you might have answers to some of your preconceived notions.
Hell, *I* think Obama is an impressive candidate. NOTE FOR THE FUCKING STUPID PEOPLE OUT THERE. Saying someone is an impressive candidate, or sounds presidential, DOES NOT MEAN that you plan on voting for that candidate. I think Obama looks and sounds very presidential, but I sure as hell aren’t planning on voting for the guy.
I’m going on vacation for a few days, so let me get my two cents in on this:
Lee, I agree with a lot of the letter, but if anyone didn’t get the fact that GWB was a moderate before he won the Presidency, you were not looking. He is a federalist-leaning centrist, and was not ever a guy who ran on foreign policy items. He just happened, however, to be to the right of both Al Gore and John Kerry.
However, if Andrew Sullivan agrees with Obama’s foreign policy, he’s insane. Obama’s positions on terrorism are post-nationalist and naive, to say the least. He’s a 60’s leftist where those things are concerned. It might appeal to strict libertarians and European-ish thinkers (like Sullivan), but the idea of taking nukes off the table when dealing with rogue states is insane.
Sullivan is simply being reflexively anti-Bush, yet again. People have to see this by now in what he writes.
Sullivan is simply being reflexively anti-Bush, yet again. People have to see this by now in what he writes.
Actually, you’re being reflexively anti-Sullivan, yet again. Perhaps if you actually read his blog you’d understand some of his positions and thinking.
I realize, though, that it’s far easier to simply dismiss anyone who disagree with as being “reflexively anti” something or to have some kind of “derangement syndrome.”
For one, the office of the presidency is different in many ways than a governorship or seat in the senate, so the comparison is not entirely clear to begin with.
Being governor of a state is about as close as you are going to get (works with a legislative body, deals with budgets, can be judged on his actions in an emergency-natural or man made-, and has veto power) why do you think so many ex governors became president?
And I don’t see why you think Obama is so impressive. His only task has been to out Hilliary Hilliary on the issues. I’m sure he knows alot about xbox, myspace, or iphone featues, and he can put two cogent sentences together (all those handlers around him arne’t for nothing) But acting tough about his planned invasion of Pakistan, meeting face to face with the dictators of the world, and taking all nuclear exchanges off the table does not make him a foreign relations expert. Nor does having enough ambulances and busses around if we are attacked again make him a WOT expert.
Oh, he will soak the rich and the american corporations and redistribute some of their wealth down to those more deserving, he will put his fat collective hands to work in creating more government programs for that is truely the answer to societies ills.
To follow up on what I wrote earlier, anyone without Sullivan Derangement Syndrome (SDS™) can clearly see that all he is doing is evaluating the candidate on (a) his rhetoric, and (b) his performance. Read what Obama said about terrorism and tell me that you fundamentally disagree with what he said. I think it’s right on the money. Obama is an impressive candidate, I think he’s extremely presidential. But that was the point of the original post.
It’s really easy for a candidate to talk about what they WOULD do or WILL do. But without a long record of legislative or other political accomplishments, all we’ve got to go on is their word. And if the Bush years have taught us anything it’s that candidates should never, ever, be taken at their word.
Now, in the world of people with SDS, merely mentioning that a Democrat candidate is impressive in any manner is PROOF, SEE THERE’S THE PROOF, I TOLD YOU HE WAS A PINKO GODDAMNED FAG COMMIE LIBERAL WHO HATES AMERICA.
Obama is actually about the scariest kind of candidate you can have. He is extremely well spoken. He is well educated. He is a talented debater. He has a degree of teflon, because of his race (as Hillary does because of her sex - people think twice about criticism because they’re afraid of getting labeled racist/sexist).
And he is insanely naive.
Nothing demonstrated that more clearly than “hell, let’s just go bomb Pakistan” comments this week. Like the situation in Pakistan isn’t sensitive enough, he needs to stir things up?
He demonstrated naivete in both military strategy (bomb them back to the stone age!) and international diplomacy.
I’ve largely ignored Obama, because he’s just way too liberal for me. But this weeks silliness actually scared the crap out of me.
But this weeks silliness actually scared the crap out of me.
I detected no naivete in his words, just a little bit of red herring regarding the Caliphate.
There is no imminent risk of the restoration of the Caliphate for a few reasons:
1) It was dissolved by the reigning Caliph, Ataturk, to give Turkey a progressive, Western-style government. While this was great for Turkey, the rest of the Middle East is left stuck without a democracy OR Caliph.
2) The option to restore the legitimate Caliph is up to the very same, progressive, Republic of Turkey. Very unlikely to happen.
3) The rest of the Muslim world is headed by various Kings and faux Caliphs making it up as they go along. The attempted implementations of Sharia in these countries are run by despotic regimes that have no idea what they are doing. These dictators will not give up their power easily to a legitimate Caliph, no matter how much they may claim to want it. Assloads of oil only makes it that much harder.
The die was cast on today’s turmoil in the aftermath of WWI. Only Turkey got a new deal; the rest of the Muslim world was left to fend for itself. Throw in some Jewish conspiracy theories and formation of Israel and stir.
Turkey is an example of how it can be done, but Ataturk ran a tight ship as a more or less benevolent dictator. He made a lot of reforms that weren’t always popular, starting with abolishing the Caliphate and other traditional Muslim trappings like fezzes and caftans. Each and every Muslim country will have to do the same amongst the constant threat of jihad from the fundamentalist resistance to ever hope to keep terrorism at bay.
This is why I continue to say that success in Iraq is really not the key to success in the Middle East. Turkey is already right next door, having had a republic shoved down its throat over 75 years ago. It has not caught on in the rest of the region.
I think Lee’s phrase for this mess is unintended consequences. Ataturk could not have forseen what cutting the Muslim world loose without a net would do all this many years later. The Caliphate isn’t coming back.
Umm, I was referring to Obama telling people that he’d go into Pakistan after the terrorists, unilaterally (e.g. http://tinyurl.com/26xuez).
Speaking at Woodrow Wilson Center on Wednesday, Obama said that, as president, he would not hesitate to order unilateral military action against al-Qaeda inside Pakistan if he had intelligence information that warranted a strike.
I’m pretty sure that I never mentioned Turkey. What are you talking about?
My apologies. I was referring to his saying that the terrorists were trying to restore the Caliphate. I was explaining how that issue is a red herring. Sorry if I didn’t relate it well to your post.
I think that he is right about Pakistan, but he may be premature in threatening them.
I think that he is right about Pakistan
So, he wants to make nice with our enemies but attack our friends........sounds like presidential material to me.
If Pakistan is harboring dangerous terrorists, how are they our friends? He is not talking about going in just because it might be fun. His words are “if there is actionable intelligence” that there are terrorists in Pakistan, he would authorize a military strike. How is that different from the Bush policy?
Because Bush acted directly against the governments (Taliban and Saddam). Musharref is an ally (friend may be too strong a word). Obama is foolish to speak out like this, because it strengthens Musharref’s opposition. If Musharref is overthrown, going in and taking out that new regime might be called for. Musharref asking for help and us assisting him would likely be called for. Going into a sovereign, friendly nation to blow up bad people is bad policy. No two ways around it. It’s the kind of thing I’d expect Dubya to say (zing!)
If Pakistan is harboring dangerous terrorists, how are they our friends?
There are several countries harboring dangerous terrorists, Algeria, Egypt, Morocco, Turkey, Jordan, and about 25 others that I could rattle off, should we be invading these countries as well?
Obama’s saber rattling is pathetic on two fronts. First, it insults his audience who he thinks can be whipped up into a patriotic frenzy with such a simple notion. Second, it shows his ignornace of Pakistan diplomacy.
President Mushariff, for all his faults, is a trusted ally on the W.O.T., He has engaged the terrorists on his home soil and allowed the U.S. to conduct operations against the terrorists as well. Because of his history ,taking power in a military coup, and not being liked by the radicals in his country (5 asassinations attempts so far) he is in a difficult position. Factor in that Pakistan is a nuclear power and if toppled will probably fall into the hands of people already on record as being our enemies. Could he do more? sure, does he sometimes play both sides against the middle? no doubt, but it emphasizes the need for diplomacy.
Whats funny is to think that Obama would want to kill terrorists more than Bush. Lobbing a few cruise missles into Pakistan, or fomenting his audience with simplistic jingos is not the answer.
should we be invading these countries as well?
According to the Bush Doctrine, we should. Surely you wouldn’t suggest diplomacy? They are supposed to give up their terrorists. If high-ranking AQ members are plotting another major action in the caves of Pakistan, Musharraf should be actively tracking them down. That is what I assume “actionable intelligence” means. Actively plotting a strike against us.
As to talking about it, Obama probably shouldn’t speak so soon on any plans he might have. I am somewhat befuddled that the “kick some Muslim ass” conservatives aren’t happier, though. Is it because it’s Obama saying it?
Next entry: Rupert's Milions
Previous entry: 3%. No, I'm Not Kidding.
Who's Logged In
Total Members: 7041
Total Logged in members: 1
Total guests: 62
Total anonymous users: 0
Seattle Outcast,
Capitalism
Search
Search this site with Google
Search will take you to Google.com, which will display results from Right-Thinking and link you back here. Search using pMachineRecent Comments
The $8.7 Billion Hole
(4 total, Last @ 10:43)
Ed Kline: There’s a part of me that thinks we should still keep trying to fix these countries. But there’s a growing part that thinks this would be just throwing good money after bad. The world will make you a libertarian yet Hal.
Calculate the impact of Congress letting the Bush tax cuts expire..
(10 total, Last @ 08:46)
Seattle Outcast: What about the vermin sure to co inhabit the place with muirgeo1? Surly if you could overcome your allergy for the plywood shack you would then have to deal with that too? Would a .45 auto be overkill for shooting vermin? On second thought, I'll just torch the place and…
Calculate the impact of Congress letting the Bush tax cuts expire..
(10 total, Last @ 07:52)
AlexinCT: I know “the wealthy” make for great rhetorical fodder on the campaign trail, but I really would like to see someone runningn for election acknowledge that these evil greedy rich elite are actually also the ones who take the business risks required to real create jobs. Every time I hear…
Calculate the impact of Congress letting the Bush tax cuts expire..
(10 total, Last @ 07:25)
Seattle Outcast: Why not stay at muirgeo’s? He’s got a vacation home :) I'm allergic to cheap plywood shacks...
Calculate the impact of Congress letting the Bush tax cuts expire..
(10 total, Last @ 06:01)
Retluocc1: Why not stay at muirgeo’s? He’s got a vacation home :) Okay, now THAT made me laugh.
Last 30 Comments
I think you’ve made a slight mistake-people look for presidents with executive, not legislative, experience. This is why Rudy is still the leader of the pack on the GOP side and why Fred Thompson is having problems even before he gets out of the starting gate. People know about Rudy and his leadership abilities; nobody knows what the hell Fred Thompson did other than act.