Who Loves America?

Michael Medved's latest article takes on that old conundrum, why are liberals and conservatives so different. Turns out conservatives see America as a great place and liberals aren't as keen on it.

The right views America as exceptionally blessed and righteous — chosen by God (or fate, if you prefer) to inspire humanity with distinctive ideals of liberty, self rule and free markets. The left, on the other hand, expresses an intensifying tendency to see the U.S. as exceptionally guilty (for slavery, "genocide" against Native Americans and arrogant imperialism) and exceptionally backward when it comes to "social justice." Progressives never tire of reminding us that the United States lacks the welfare state guarantees that characterize other wealthy nations, and that it tolerates a vast gap between rich and poor.

Or to put it another way, Progressives want an America that works for all Americans, not just the wealthy.

Medved is pretty transperant here; this is the simplistic way Conservatives beleive that Liberals look at America. We don't like it, and want it to be more like Europe. Conservatives love America and are content having a small powerless Government with a strong military, because they believe in the American people.

Conquer the World

Michael Medved's latest article is about Egypt, naturally. He feels that the troubles in Egypt prove that we should't bother with financial aid or treaties.

Nevertheless, the current turmoil demonstrates that the benefits of big aid budgets and much-heralded international treaties may prove ephemeral and limited. Those who believe that permanent or even long-term benefits can result from bribes or negotiations with shady, authoritarian regimes will repeat the same miscalculations that have too frequently warped American policy in the past.

Long term, by the way, means longer than 30 years. He acknowledges that the peace accord between Egypt and Isreal has lasted 30 years, and agrees that this is probably a good thing. But since it may end with the new government, that proves that treaties are worthless and financial aid to foreign countries is a waste of money.

There are a number of possible responses to this. Scriptoral, for example.

2 Vanity of vanities, saith the Preacher, vanity of vanities; all is bvanity.

3 What profit hath a man of all his labour which he taketh under the sun?

Ecclesiastes 1:2-3. What profit indeed? Why do anything? For surely we will all die someday. If Egypt can't stay completely loyal and subservient to our will forever, we may as well treat them as the enemy that they are.

I don't think Medved actually thinks that; rather I think he sees our relationship Egypt as largely successful. He just can't say so because it is Carter's legacy and because Conservatoids generally don't believe in diplomacy of any sort.

But let's see what his readers think.

5.) Revolutions always start with the overthrow of a monarchy, progress to masonic republics and end in dictatorship. America just has't made it to the final stage yet. Eventually, the growing third worldunderclass will emplace a Chavez like figure here as well.
5.) 90 MILLION muslims in Europe by the end of the century. UNACCEPTABLE. There will be a major civil war in Europe within a few decades. We cannot, as Christians or Jews, coexist them islam.

coexist them islam. That's another great name for a band or surrealist manifesto. Very edgy. Still kind of depressing, isn't it? I guess we would be a lot better off if we hadn't overthrown our King.

lesson #1. islam has been at war with the world since the 7th century. it has been at war with the united states since its inception, in the 18th century. the only ways to end a war with islam is submit, which means slavery, or to win it, and the only way to win it is to kill every one of them.
lesson #2. do not bargain with, treaty with, fight for, pander to, bribe, or bow to islamists. it just encourages them to wage their war against us.
lesson #3. do not allow even one muslim to infiltrate your own country, and send home any that already have. they bring their war with them. see #1.

let me know when the fools in our government, or the liberals that control the media, have learned any of these lessons. religion of peace. tell that to the hundreds of millions of infidels who have been murdered or enslaved by peaceful muslims.

I don't think this counts as hateful murderous rhetoric because it's directed at Muslims. I mean I admit it sounds hateful. It sounds murderous. It even sounds genocidal. You know I can't continue this pretending; this is hateful, murderous, and genocidal. But par for the course when you read Townhall Comments dealing with Islam.

Don't Worry about the Government

Michael Medved's latest article argues that Character doesn't matter all that much.

These various scandals, embarrassments and imperfections may count as lurid and compelling, but they shouldn't play a major role in swaying voters in the upcoming elections. All the candidates mentioned above have won their party nominations in campaigns for the House and Senate. When the electorate decides their fate in November, the only significant factor involves choosing a direction for Congress and the country.

Interesting. Is this a tacit admission that the Tea Party forced some weak candidates on the Republican party?

This 9/11 Mosque Stuff just keeps coming

In a way I'm tired about blogging about it, and in another, this is something I legitimately feel passionately about. So there you go. And now that Obama has weighed in on it, you can expect another week of articles. Today's article comes from Michael Medved.

No, all Muslims aren’t the same, but all Mosques are the same, in one important sense at least: they all celebrate Islam. They exalt its teachings, traditions, history and adherents.

Yes, American Muslims enjoy a right to celebrate their faith in their mosques.

But it remains wildly inappropriate to celebrate and glorify one particular faith at the scene of one of the most notorious crimes in its history.

Lets take these in reverse order.

1. If someone wanted to build a Christian Church in the exact same spot, Medved would have nothing to say about it.

2. The first bit essentially proclaims that any Mosque is the same as the Mosque that Osama bin Ladin worships at (assuming he gets to go to a Mosque atall). Which is another way of saying that all Islam is responsibile for what Osama bin Ladin did; a point Medved makes clear later on his article.

The insistence on creating such a building on such a place sends a dishonest, disturbing message: that Islam itself bears no special connection to the attacks of 9/11, and that the Mosque’s planners feel no shame over their co-religionists who planned and executed those crimes.

What a poorly constructed paragraph - Medved suggests that the Cordoba Centers funders are putting forward two lies. The first lie is that Islam bears no special connection to the attacks of 9/11; presumably Medved believes this to be a lie.

The second "lie" is that the Mosque's founders feel no shame over their co-religionists attack on 9/11. But presumably Medved actually believes that they don't feel any shame; he probably believes they should, but they don't. All Muslims should feel terribly guilty to be Muslims all the time, and certainly whenever they are in New York City, near Ground Zero.

Is Obama Evil?

Maybe but Michael Medved says there's not much point in trying to convince the American people of that, in his latest article.

Based on human nature and political history, the answer to that question ought to be obvious: Americans have often felt that our leaders make mistakes or pursue destructive policies but we have rarely (if ever) believed that they did it deliberately to damage the country. In the last 80 years, Herbert Hoover, Gerald Ford, Jimmy Carter and George H. W. Bush all got voted out of office by an angry electorate but a majority of the public never embraced the idea that these floundering presidents were actually bad guys.

He really lays in to the Republican Base, purely on practical grounds.

The same Harris Poll that showed a majority of GOP’ers think Obama is a Muslim also suggested that a full 24% of Republicans believe he “may be the Antichrist.” Why would independent, moderate or undecided voters ever want to associate themselves with such people?

He's not wrong, from a tactical sense at least. But of course I hope that Republican Party fails to heed his advice; since as dissappointing as Obama has been, he's still far better than any Republican would be.

I'm wonedering what Medved's readers at Townhall thought of his prescription.

We don't need another John McCain disaster from you Rockeffeler republcans. Take your arrogant, condescending,losing, wishy washy strategies and get lost.

Who cares whether Obama is wrong or evil. He is dangerous and is destroying America.

There can be no denying the reams od evidence and facts pointing to Obama's psychopath narcissism. You can point to Hitler's successes in building the autobahn, rebuilding German industry, or reuniting German-speakers in the Sudetenland, but that does not negate teh fact that Hitler was a psychopath narcissist, and a very popular one at that.

He [Obama ] is leading us down a road traveled by the U.S.S.R. and China and it leads to impoverishment for all Americans.

What he [Obama] is, is The Great Deceiver, the Great Divider, The Great Depressor for a destructive leftist agenda. I guess that would also make him The Great Destroyer.

Yeah Medved isn't exactly winning them over - in fairness there are other posts who totally agree with Medved though.

Who Want's Yesterday's Papers?

Reading around Townhall today, on the election. Some of these articles were written yesterday. Larry Kudlow seemed to think that Hoffman was a shoe-in to win New Yorks 23rd District (he in fact lost to the Democrat). Michael Medved on the other hand has written an article urging conservatives to vote for Republicans.

It is very much a plea to the base not to go looking at third parties or at staying home.

GOP victories, in off year elections like those on Tuesday, and especially in the fateful Congressional elections of 2010, can save the country from Obama’s most radical and destructive schemes.

Well nice to see. I think, though, that both Republicans and Democrats are fidgety going into 2010. Conservatives are feeling strong and are not going to want to compromise on a less than conservative candidate. Liberals are feeling let down by Obama and are going to want to see real progress on issues they care about before 2010. Still a lot can happen between then and now.

Teach the Children

Apparently President Obama is going to speak to the nations students next Tuesday (Sept. 8).

President Obama announced that on September 8 — the first day of school for many children across America — he will deliver a national address directly to students on the importance of education. The President will challenge students to work hard, set educational goals, and take responsibility for their learning. He will also call for a shared responsibility and commitment on the part of students, parents and educators to ensure that every child in every school receives the best education possible so they can compete in the global economy for good jobs and live rewarding and productive lives as American citizens.

Naturally this move has engendered suspicion from Conservatives who see this as the forming of a sort of Obama Youth movement. Michael Medved in his latest article takes this tack.

Imagine the reaction of one of these anti-Obama parents to a first grader who comes home proudly announcing that our whole class made promises about helping President Obama.

He also notes that had Bush tried this, many on the left would have slammed into him in exactly these terms. That's still sad; since I am not of a mindset to assume that everything Obama does is suspicious, the idea of the President speaking to students and telling them to, well, study and work hard seems OK to me.

The Forgotten Wealthy

Michael Medved's latest article is a paean to the forgotten millionaire, the ones we have been making songs attacking for a long time (he quotes several of these songs). But is that really fair?

The presence of unimaginably wealthy people enriches our area in both tangible and intangible terms. Its not just the obvious addition to the tax base, or the lavish level of charitable giving with local museums, parklands, performing arts institutions, universities, sports stadiums and much more benefiting handsomely from the generosity of the Gates family, or of his idiosyncratic Microsoft co-founder, Paul Allen. Theres also an energy, a cosmopolitan atmosphere and a sense of world class swagger, that comes to any community thats able to spawn and retain some of the most productive and powerful entrepreneurs in existence. Far from swallowing up limited resources that would otherwise nourish the middle class and the poor, a citys most successful businessmen generate and contribute resources that benefit everyone.

So far so good, but Medved does leave out a couple of points.

First of all, you have to ask how they made their millions; some people acquire money through base or immoral means. Yeah it's nice that a plutocrat might build a museum, but if he acquired the money to build that museum by exploiting the city's worker or polluting the city environment, well it might not be a net gain.

Secondly most wealthy who run industries don't choose to live in exactly the same communities as those industries. If you are wealthy, why would you want to live next to a manufacturing plant? Rather you move to a large urban center.

Thirdly he notes that people like it when a wealthy person moves into their neighborhood and dislike it when a poor person moves into their neighborhood. This proves we like wealthy people more. Or it proves that we are very sensitive about home values (this part of Medved's article is pretty nasty).

Finally, Medved's larger point is something that Conservatives believe generally, which is that the Wealthy's interests should be the interests of society in general. That whatever the wealthy want, the poor should want that as well. That has always struck me as faulty logic. While I am not keen on demonizing the wealthy as a class, it should be obvious to all that what is good for the wealthy is not necessarily good for the rest of us.

Conservatives vs. Liberals

Michael Medved's latest article takes on this ancient conundrum. Liberals he says reflexively blame society for society's failures. If someone falls behind, it is proof that society is unfair. He then explains the conservative position.

Conservatives and libertarians, on the other hand, view success or failure as the inevitable consequence of different levels of talent, hard work and productivity. While acknowledging that a few lucky slackers may be born into fortunate circumstances that they never earned, or that some virtuous and gifted individuals can suffer reverses or tragedies that they don’t deserve, right wingers believe that worldly advancement (particularly in the USA) comes for the most part from focus, toil and smart choices. They therefore resent government redistribution programs for taking hard-earned wealth from the people who deserve it most and giving it to those who merit it least.

Weak. If I were to write a parody of the Republican/Conservative point of view just to make fun of it I might come up with something like this.

The truth is that, as a liberal, I don't believe that all inequalities are the fault of society; in some cases people are just lazy or make bad choices. In other cases, there are systematic problems that can be addressed. So rather than believing that all problems are caused by society (as Medved believes that I believe) or believing that all (or nearly all) problems are caused by the individual (as Medved believes), I believe that some problems are caused by the individual, but there are some systematic weaknesses that can be cleaned up.

Gaza and Rational Anti-Americanism

Michael Medved's latest article asks the poignant question of why Palestinian death matter a lot more than deaths in other parts of the world. Why do we care about Palestine when we don't care about people in Sri Lanka or Uganda? Credit where credit is due; this is a damn good question. But of course Medved's proposed answer ignores a few points.

Another factor serves to explain the blinding spotlight on all conflicts involving Israel and her neighbors: the deep engagement in the region of the United States of America. Domestic critics of recent U.S. policy suggest that much of the world (especially among Islamic nations) hates America because of our connection to Israel. In fact, the evidence actually suggests that the nations of the earth despise Israel because of its close attachment with the United States.

Yep - Reflexive Anti-Americanism causes the world to reject Israel and champion the Palestinians.

What?

A few obvious points. Medved discounts any wrong action on Israel's part; the actual suffering of the Palestinian people isn't a blip on his radar. Second he discounts the influence of Oil on the situation. If this were happening in Africa or in some other part of the world where natural resources were not quite so concentrated, Palestinians would really be screwed.

But more to the point, the Anti Americanism in Medved's history is presented as irrational. He never provides the context for why some nations might not be keen on us; perhaps for him there is no context. Our support of the Shah or Saddam Hussein for example, or our support of Israel's subjugation of the Palestinians isn't mentioned.

Because Medved refuses to grapple with what we have done to piss off people in that part of the world, the only answer is they hate America (and Israel) irrationally. And once you have reduced your enemy from someone you disagree with (and I'm certainly not in agreement with Hamas or Iran's way of looking at things) to an irrational mad dog, well, it sort of justifies anything. I mean if you determine that the Palestinians or the Middle East are mad dogs, well, why waste your time negotiating with them. You don't negotiated with mad dogs; you lock them up or put them down (or both).

This attitude has to be terribly corrosive to conducting foreign policy; but it seems pretty common on the right wing of this nation.

Freedom of Religion

Or, Can a Non-Christian really be an American Citizen? Michael Medved's latest article would seem to imply that no, non-Christians really don't belong here. He notes that the founders intended Christianity to be the dominate religion (a dubious theory as we've discussed). Then he brings it back to Christmas.

For more than two centuries, government at every level followed this approach, making no "attempt to level all religions" and recognizing the privileged position of Christianity as the faith embraced by the vast majority of the nation's citizens. If municipalities or other public entities authorized Hanukkah displays to accompany the Christmas trees that became common everywhere, they did so because the Christian majority supported these gracious concessions to a tiny Jewish minority, not because the Constitution required them.

So basically Michael Medved is clearly arguing that other religions should be treated as legally and politically inferior to Christianity. I'm pretty sure I disagree with that.

Another minor point; Medved does pretend that the big threat to Christians celebrating Christmas comes from Festivus and the Flying Spaghetti monster; I suppose this protects him from the implications of his opinions to the millions of Jewish, Muslim, Hindi, Bhuddhist, Atheist, and Agnostic Americans.

History Moans

Michael Medved has written a history book, and his latest article is a plug for it. It does happen to be timely as it is apparently about the 10 great lies of American History. Lie Number One deals with our treatment of the Indians; I think he lets us off the hook a little to easily, but his argument at least is within the realm of history.

Lie number two is that our country was built on the backs of slaves.

While slavery represented an undeniable horror in our nation's early history, the slave population never exceeded 20% of the national total (amounting to 12% at the time of the Civil War). This means that at least 80% of the work force remained free laborers.

The claim that our forefathers built America "on the backs of slaves" rests on the idiotic idea that involuntary servitude proved vastly more productive than free labor. In fact, the states dominated by the slave economy counted as the poorest, least developed in the union — providing the North with crushing economic superiority that brought victory in the War Between the States.

Of more than 20 million Africans taken from their homes in chains, at most 3% ever made their way to the territory of the United States (or the British colonies preceding our nation). Americans played no part in establishing the once-universal institution of slavery but played a leading, outsize role in bringing about its abolition.

1. 80% of the work force remaining free laborers only works if you assume the entire American Population to be laborers. I'm sure managing a plantation was a lot of work; but not sure you can equate the two.

2. The claim that America was built on the backs of slaves does not rest on the theory that slaves are more efficient than free workers.

3. The southern states were underdeveloped technologically, but the northern states mills and factories were fed by raw materials extracted, in large part, by slaves picking cotton. The American Economy grew, as a whole, because of cheap materials, and slavery played a big part in keeping those materials cheap, before technological innovation made them less profitable.

4. The American South fought to preserve slavery while the North fought to preserve the Union. The only reason the Union played an outsize role in ending slavery is that we had played an outsize roll in preserving and expanding slavery; we had the most slaves. Once we got rid of slavery (during a bloody war in which Virginians, Georgians, Alabamans, Mississpians and others fought for the right to own human beings), well, our share of slavery had grown so large, and other civilized nations had abandoned the practice, that it was a significant drop in world slavery.

Anyway, just one of those things that gets under my skin. Michael Medved is a Conservative Pundit so his history is meant to prove his ideological points, not to actually determine what actually happened.

A Time for Healing

Both Michael Medved and Rush Limbaugh have taken on the thorny issue of what Republicans should do in the wake of their recent electoral loss. And they both agree that attacking Obama excessively is a mistake. Limbaugh is the more pragmatic of the two, pointing out that attacking Obama just didn't work.

He's got everybody in the country enough behind him for all of the mythological reasons, for all of the public image reasons, the historical reasons and right now people don't want to hear anything bad about Barack Obama. They just don't want to hear it and if they do they're not going to believe it and they're going to resent anybody who runs around talking about Obama. He's going to have to do something first that illustrates that the criticism that we have mounted up 'til now is accurate. You know, we talk about Reagan-ism. We talk about social-ism, collective-ism, commun-ism. Obama-ism is the way to go after this.

. . . I think for however long is necessary 'til the bloom goes off the Obama rose -- 'cause it at some point is going to and this whole image thing will give way at some point to political reality, and until that happens -- personal criticism, or not even personal, but attacking Obama's ideas by attacking him is not going to fly.

I've bolded the key words; Limbaugh encourages laying off the personal attacks until such time as people are a little less enamored of Obama, then back to the personal attacks.

Medved largely agrees with Limbaugh, but, in his latest article, shows a bit more philosophical insight.

The angry negativity also helps the GOP avoid the painful soul-searching and re-tooling of the conservative message that faces any viable party after a bitter, sweeping defeat—and that's another reason to postpone the Obama attacks. Focusing on what's wrong with the Democrats allows us to avoid facing what's wrong with us, and figuring out why the public rejected our message in both 2006 and 2008. Trashing our opponents helps us to dodge the blame for public disillusionment with the Republican Party itself– blame that extends well beyond McCain (or Palin) and should rightly include some of the same commentators most eager to return to the partisan fray.

I wonder what commentators Medved is talking about who are eager to return to the partisan fray?

Michael Medved Just Isn't That Bright

Here are the opening paragraphs of Michael Medved's latest article.

Is the United States a land of limitless horizons, where hard work and big dreams enable people of humble background to scale dizzying heights of privilege and power?

Or is this a society of slammed doors and blocked opportunities, of a trapped middle class and shattered hope, where ordinary people can only provide a better life for their children with the help of an activist government and dramatic new policies?

The Denver Democrats insist that both descriptions are true, and they fail to acknowledge the obvious contradiction in the two primary messages of their convention.

I don't know Republicans keep telling us we are a God Fearing country while also lambasting us for watching pornography and having abortions. Isn't that the same sort of contradiction?

But to clear up this particular contradiction, Democrats believe that America is not a perfect country but we don't believe that it's hell on earth either. It's a good country, it has a lot of strengths. And a lot of people are getting ahead. But the hurdles are too high for some people in some communities. It's impressive that some people from those communities do well, but we want to make it so that all children born in those communities have access to the same sort of opportunities as kids born in our more affluent communities.

Pretty Damn Overt

Michael Medved at a post on his blog is singing the praises of a new book.

The campaign of 2008 has already witnessed the dramatic rise of the Religious Left, with Barack Obama and other liberals claiming scriptural authority for their big government versions of compassion. In this context, “How Would God Vote?”, the explosive new book by David Klinghoffer, provides an invaluable response. The subtitle says “Why the Bible Commands You to be a Conservative” and the book digs deep into scriptural text to emphasize that the Almighty demands individual commitment, rather than asking human beings to satisfy their obligations to their nieghbors through impersonal government policy.

God Commands you to be a Conservative. Lovely.

Still this doesn't bug me as much as it might because you can practically smell the desperation here. They are basically commanding Christians to be conservative. And that kind of desperation? Well it smells good.

What Planet is Michael Medved writing from?

Michael Medved writes a pitying article about how hard it is to be a Republican believer, but his observations don't line up with reality.

Imagine that George W. Bush told a public forum that he had “felt the enveloping support and love of God” since childhood, and that on “many, many occasions” he “felt like the Holy Spirit was there with me.”

It’s not hard to imagine the derisive tabloid headlines: “Bush: God Is With Me” or “Prez Sees Spirits” or “W. Talks About His Imaginary Friend.” Howard Dean might comment: “It sounds like Bush is once again saying that he talks to God, so we better watch out. The last time that happened, he took us to a war based on false intelligence.”

First of all Bush talks about his faith all the time, and usually without comment. He's a lame duck President with a failed Presidency; unless God tells him to invade Iran, who cares what he believes?

Secondly Bush's presidency is a good example of why we should be concerned about the religiousity of our Presidents. The existence of a religious feeling, such as Hillary Clinton expressed, isn't the problem. The problem comes when, in Bush's case, it becomes a metaphysical get out of jail free card, an excuse and exoneration of any dumb and evil thing that Bush wants to do. McCain, while a very bad choice for President, at least doesn't suffer from this particular malady.

No Atheists for President

According to Michael Medved's latest article. Apparently because most of us believe in Christianity and because some of our public ceremonies (notably the Pledge of Allegiance) invoke a creator, an atheist President would either not do those ceremonies or would be a hypocrite. Then he says this bit.

On one level, at least, the ongoing war on terror represents a furious battle of ideas and we face devastating handicaps if we attempt to beat something with nothing. Modern secularism rejects the notion that human beings feel a deep-seated, unquenchable craving for making connections with Godliness, in its various definitions and manifestations. For Osama bin Laden and other jihadist preachers, Islam understands that yearning but “infidel” America does not. Our enemies insist that God plays the central role in the current war and that they affirm and defend him, while we reject and ignore him. The proper response to such assertions involves the citation of our religious traditions and commitments, and the credible argument that embrace of modernity, tolerance and democracy need not lead to godless materialism. In this context, an atheist president conforms to the most hostile anti-America stereotypes of Islamic fanatics and makes it that much harder to appeal to Muslim moderates whose cooperation (or at least neutrality) we very much need.

What's hilarious here is that even the mention of making some of the substantive foreign policy changes that might make us slightly less hated in the middl east provokes cries of caving to terrorists, and the reminder that these people are crazy and we must accomedate them. Hell even the election of Keith Ellison, Muslim, to the U.S. Congress was portrayed in some right wing circles as a foolish capitulation to animals who would never stop hating us no matter what we do (and of course the only reason to elect a Muslim is to appease fanatics. It's not like Mr. Ellison could actually appeal to voters any other way).

So when it comes to invading their countries, maintaining bases over there, supporting oppressive regimes, supporting Israel, ignoring the plight of the Palestinian people and electing Muslims to the U.S. Congress, well we shouldn't let the terrorists affect any of those decisions because they are just animals and unreasoning. But elect an atheist President? We better not do that if we want to stay on their good side.

Questions for Michael Medved

1. Do you like a nice salad?

2. If your answer is yes, are you aware that Adolf Hitler was a vegetarian? How do you feel sharing a preference for salad with one of the most evil men in history?

3. If no, are you aware that Atilla the Hun never ate one salad (as far as I know)? How do feel sharing a disdain for salad with one of the most evil men in history?

This is inspired by Michael Medved's latest article, in which he takes Obama to task for failing to burn Jeremiah Wright at the stake.

5. In the teaching of Reverend Wright and his adult education classes, as well as the Sunday school of his church, there’s a major emphasis on the Black identity of Jesus Christ. The stained glass windows at the church identify Jesus with the dark skin tone of sub-Saharan Africa. To your church, the racial identity of Jesus matters a great deal. Does it matter to you? Do you personally believe that Jesus was black?

6. If you don’t think he was black, have you done anything to correct the misimpression your little girls would have received in church?

7. If you think it’s true that Jesus was black, then you obviously believe that most Jews of First Century Judea also looked like today’s Africans. If that’s true, do you agree with Minister Farrakhan that Twenty-First Century Jews and Israelis are imposters and interlopers with no ancestral connection to the Holy Land, and that black Africans represent the true Israelites and Chosen People? Do you believe that your many Jewish supporters would feel comfortable with this religious vision?

Nice. I particularly like the bit about explaining to his daughters that Jesus really was nothing like them at all. "You see little girls, Jesus was really as white as the driven snow, the way most white Christian Churches portray him. So don't be thinking that you might have something in common with the savior of all mankind."

I'd like to believe that most people are smart enough to see through these particular questions, but I guess they probably aren't.

The Issue of the Day

The big issue of the day is Jeremiah Wright and his relationship with Barack Obama.

So some thoughts.

1. A lot of whites don't want to hear that racial justice hasn't yet been achieved; Republicans are counting on that. Limbaugh and Hannity are hyping this issue as much as possible, and it's somewhat hilarious to listen to them claim that Wright's thoughts on race are way off. In the wake of Barack Obama's speech yesterday, we see Michael Medved saying that even acknowledging race as an issue is going to to turn off American voters.

If the Obama campaign follows up on his over-praised speech and makes intensified race-talk into a new national priority, he may well destroy his chances of winning the presidency. The most “progressive” wing of the Democratic Party could celebrate prospect that a President Obama would get countless opportunities to deliver more lectures on slavery, Jim Crow, oppression, and race differences.

But less politically correct Americans may prove notably less eager to seize the chance for additional solemn scolding sessions like the one they just heard in Philadelphia. Most voters, black as well as white, feel weary and wary of the destructive cycle of accusation and apology, so that Obama’s new implied promise of a presidency of endless race-based agitation may well constitute an offer that we easily can refuse.

Kind of hilarious isn't it? Conservative Commentators make Jeremiah Wright a big issue, and when Obama response to their insinuations, he's attacked for making race an issue. He's a black man; just by running for office he's making race an issue.

I'm intrigued by what Tomas Sowell, another black man, said about the speech.

Like the Soviet show trials during their 1930s purges, Obama's speech was not supposed to convince critics but to reassure supporters and fellow-travelers, in order to keep the "useful idiots" useful.

Sowells article is pretty reprehensible altogether, but I find myself wondering what ideology are us "useful idiots" falling for? Marxism? Islam? Black Nationalism? What's clear, reading Sowells article, is that Obama is clearly a stealth candidate for someone, hiding his radicalism and tricking weak minded dopes (like myself). Pretty sad that Sowell feels he has to resurrect cold war paranoia to trash Obama.

I do have points 2 and 3, but will post them in a forthcoming post, since this one is already long.

Mitt Romney for Vice President?

This seems like a longshot, but at least one Conservative Commentator is suggesting it. Namely Michael Medved, in his latest article.

I’m not yet ready to endorse Mitt Romney as the ultimate choice for second spot on the ticket, but it’s increasingly obvious that he deserves the most serious consideration. For one thing, his experience in all those annoying Republican debates (in which Romney’s performance steadily, inexorably improved) gives him a huge advantage over any Democrat in the single, fateful Vice Presidential debate scheduled for this fall.

With the Democrats increasingly unlikely to field either a Clinton-Obama combo (he won’t take it) or an Obama-Clinton team (he won’t offer it), a McCain-Romney partnership would highlight the relative unity in GOP ranks.

In that context, Mac-and-Mitt sounds more and more like it could be a winning ticket for the party and the country.

I don't know about relative unity; certainly lots of Republicans don't like McCain, and they don't like him on ideological grounds. The differences between Obama and Clinton, while real, aren't nearly as ideological; rather on the issues they are pretty similar.

I also don't think this is very likely. McCain is going to need a staunch conservative, but he's going to want a staunch tame conservative, someone who will follow his orders. And he's got to be concerned about putting someone in the vice presidency who will run against him from the office - he's old now, and he'll be older in 2012 if, heaven forfend, he makes it to the oval office.