Friday, April 18, 2008

Karl's Weekend Reading

Let's have more Philadelphia Debates! Was that a defining event, or what?! We can feel the weight of our bitterness lift from our body!

Kimberley Strassel at the WSJ, provides a great post-debate summary, A 'Bitter' Misstep:

So there is some irony that Mr. Obama has guaranteed this political cycle will now contain a hefty focus on . . . church and guns. The latter, by the way, is an issue some Democrats still "bitterly" credit for losing Al Gore key states in 2000. Sure enough, firearms made a prominent appearance at Wednesday's debate, forcing both candidates (who've spent the past week lauding American gun "traditions") to remember they were still fighting in a liberal, gun-control primary. Their hem-and-haw answers surely left neither gun-owners nor gun-haters happy, guaranteeing future discussion.
At least a few on the right have decided that if the choice is between getting voters to remember why they didn't like Mrs. Clinton 15 years ago, or getting voters to remember why they didn't like Mr. Obama a few minutes ago, they'll take the fresher memories.

George Will compares Obama with a previous Democratic candidate, Adlai Stevenson, in his Tuesday article, Barack Obama's Bitter Liberalism:

Stevenson, like Obama, energized young, educated professionals for whom, Barone wrote, "what was attractive was not his platform but his attitude." They sought from Stevenson "not so much changes in public policy as validation of their own cultural stance." They especially rejected "American exceptionalism, the notion that the United States was specially good and decent," rather than -- in Michelle Obama's words -- "just downright mean."
The iconic public intellectual of liberal condescension was Columbia University historian Richard Hofstadter, who died in 1970 but whose spirit still permeated that school when Obama matriculated there in 1981. Hofstadter pioneered the rhetorical tactic that Obama has revived with his diagnosis of working-class Democrats as victims -- the indispensable category in liberal theory. The tactic is to dismiss rather than refute those with whom you disagree.

Larry Elder looks at the media's response and role in the 'Bitter' story. Were they objective as they would have us believe? Larry writes the following in his Thursday article, Obama is 'Bitterly' Out of Touch:

Obama, by the way, made his "bitter" analysis on a Sunday, but not until Friday did this become a major media story. Why so long? No doubt, the anti-Second Amendment, secular media -- to say nothing of those in attendance -- agreed with Obama's analysis of the unsophisticated little people. Obama is, therefore, "in touch."

But remember the recent Bush press conference, when Bush responded with skepticism about a reporter's prediction of impending $4-a-gallon gas? The next day, page A-1 in the Los Angeles Times: "$4-a-Gallon Gas? It's News To Bush; President's Surprise at the Idea Fuels a Sense That He's Out of Touch." But as to the newsworthiness of Obama's insult to Midwesterners -- it made pages A-13 and A-17, in the Los Angeles Times and The New York Times, respectively.

Ushanka owner and former UN Ambassador, John R. Bolton, continues to press the Bush Administration's non-progress in the North Korean talks. It appears the US will agree to a 'trust, but not verify' policy towards the North Korean Communists. Tuesday's WSJ: Bush's North Korea Capitulation.

Pyongyang's escape from accountability could break down international counter-proliferation efforts. What possible reason will Iran now have to be transparent about its nuclear activities? If North Korea can get away with deception and be rewarded, why should Iran not do the same? In Libya, Moammar Gadhafi will kick himself for giving up his nuclear weapons program in 2003. This deal with North Korea is troubling enough, but the worst news is still to come.