Beethoven?

I'm $10 lighter than I was a few minutes ago. A couple of kids from the local high school came to the door asking for money for their music club. The video I posted below was playing inside so I opened the door a little wider and told them if they could identify the piece that was playing I'd give them $10. They hemmed and hawed so I made it easier for them - just name the composer, I said. It was a guess but one kid said "Beethoven?" Being a man of my word, I handed him the $10, happy to do so, with a suggestion they listen to more of the great man.

Shakespeare and Beethoven

Enough politics. We'll pick it up on Monday. Today is a day for Beethoven and Shakespeare, perhaps the two greatest icons of Western art we have. I began this morning by listening to Beethoven's Third Piano Concerto, which I'm just learning. Composed in 1800 during what we now refer to as his early period, it's very Mozartian, and very wonderful - I've listened to in five times in the past four days. Later today, my baby and I are going to the Shakespeare Theatre to see All's Well That Ends Well.  They've been on a good run lately so I hope it's as enjoyable as The Taming Of The Shrew, Henry V, Richard II, and Twelfth Night. I'll let you know.

Finally, I'm a fan of Instant Encore, a site that gathers news, audios, and videos of all things classical. The daily email I received from them this morning had links to a breathtaking series of videos of Glenn Gould and the Toronto Symphony Orchestra playing Beethoven's Fifth Piano Concerto (the "Emperor"), one of the pinnacles of classical music achievement. Below is the first part of the first movement (YouTube has a ten minute limitation on videos and the movement clocks in at about twenty minutes) and if you want to continue with the entire concerto you'll see links down the side to pick it up.  Highly recommended.

[youtube]yftk_cnbwKQ[/youtube]

Rise and Shine

Need something to get your juices flowing this morning? This video from Red State ought to do it:

[youtube]6weDMH-SCOE[/youtube]

Interlude

Helen Merrill singing Cole Porter's "After You, Who?" I love this song:

[audio:AfterYouWho.mp3]

You’re Getting To Be A Habit With Me

I've praised the Bookworm Blog a number of times recently but that won't stop me from doing so again. The woman who runs the blog writes anonymously but I know from a few weeks of reading her daily (hence the title of this post) that she is married with children, lives in California, and is a few years younger than myself. Her writings on politics are wonderful and wise but today she reveals herself to also be a woman of great taste: she loves all the old songs. Berlin, Porter, Gershwin, Rodgers, Arlen, and dozens of others who wrote the songs we now refer to as the Great American Songbook.  Any reader of this blog knows my own love of this music. Just this morning I listened to a playlist of great old songs during my workout and have had those tunes running through my head all day. Then I got home and found this wonderful post by Ms. Bookworm which also points to what looks like an interesting book which compiles the lyrics of over 1000 songs.  I must admit I'm not much of a fan of lyric compilations, for most lyrics die on the page. But Terry Teachout has made the case in the past that Johnny Mercer's lyrics approach what can be called poetry, and I would add Cole Porter, Dorothy Fields, Larry Hart, and Oscar Hammerstein to that list of lyricists whose words often approach art. So I may pick it up. It's just nice to know that there are people out there who still appreciate the old songs. (In truth, I think the popularity of the old music is growing due to the pitiful state of contemporary music and the availability of the old stuff on the web.) At any rate, another tip of the hat to the Bookworm Blog, which is absolutely getting to be a habit with me. It's one of my daily stops.  Make it one of yours too.

Excerpt

"The movement now ascendant in the country is not about anything so small as the question of which party has control over the Senate in 2011. It is about the future of freedom and prosperity, about the kind of nation we will be. Its goal is to return the United States to a pre–New Deal understanding of the Constitution’s limits on federal power, and to a pre–Baby Boom Left’s appreciation of the greatness of America. That is not a project for one election cycle. It is the work of a generation."

Andy McCarthy, from his column titled Contra Buckley at NRO

More On O’Donnell

Bookworm, whom I've referenced here before, is a talented and thoughtful woman. Of all the millions of words written about Christine O'Donnell over the past week, hers in this post seem to me the wisest. There are virtually none of us who would not be somewhat embarrassed or at least chagrined if all the questionable actions and associations of our youth were publicized nation-wide. Especially is the press was determined to put the worst spin on each mistake. Bookworms post is long but it and the other posts she references should be read in full. Believe me, it's worth it. Here is a taste of what she has to say:

I was young and I was stupid, stupid, stupid.  I cringe when I look back at the things I did and thought.  What’s really sad is that the only thing that stopped me from making even worse mistakes was my cowardice.  I didn’t really live life.  I observed it from the sidelines, and simply managed to collect a whole bunch of bad ideas as I went along.

The good news is that I grew up....

....I get the feeling that Christine O’Donnell was a very lost soul when she was young.  The latest evidence of this fact is that Bill Maher is boasting that he has tapes of her admitting to practicing witchcraft (although, frankly, this should endear her to the Left, which loves its Gaia-worshipping Wiccans).

When O’Donnell hit Christianity, she hit it hard, taking a lot of extreme positions (masturbation being the one that has the Left most atwitter) — which is normal for a convert.  The zealots usually come from the recently converted, the ones who still have enthusiasm and who also feel that extremism is an act of repentance.  She’s had financial problems, too, although that leaves her in good company, since it seems that this is a common trait in federal employees.

But O’Donnell has grown up.  Or at least she says she has and, for now, I choose to believe her — because I grew up too.  I wasn’t as silly a youngster as O’Donnell, but I grew up in the 70s and early 80s, which gave me a couple of advantages:  I had a slightly more friendly pop culture (TV still hewed to traditional values) and my youthful idiocies didn’t get captured forever on video tape.

Read the whole thing. I'd comment more myself, and I may get around to it in time, but I'm too tired to think right now so it's off to watch a little football before I go to sleep.

The Great Awakening

I posted two excerpts immediately below from George Will's speech last night at at the Hillsdale College Center For Constitutional Studies & Citizenship. As always when it comes to Mr. Will, whether in a speech or a column, it is highly entertaining. You can find it here and I recommend it without reservation. His speech begins around the 33:00 minute mark.

He said two things I took particular note of, because they coincide with my own thoughts. I mentioned in my post on Christine O'Donnell that 2010 is "the most interesting, and perhaps the most important, political year of my lifetime." Mr. Will says the same thing during the speech, that 2010 is the most interesting political moment in his forty years as a columnist.

The second thing has to do with the title of this post. Last week I sent this link to a friend via email with a one sentence question: "Are we in the middle of a Great Awakening?" Mr. Will tells a questioner during the Q&A part of his speech that the 2010 elections will become known as "The Great Awakening."

I've said before in this space that the writings of George Will, with a helping hand from Bill Buckley, were the thing most instrumental in making me a conservative. Clearly the man has taught me well.

Excerpt

"It is said today that there is too much partisanship in Washington. Not true. Partisanship is argument based on principle and we need more of it not less of it in this town."

George Will, in his speech last night at the Hillsdale College Center For Constitutional Studies & Citizenship

Excerpt

"In the twenty months since this administration came to town there has occurred a diminishment of a political brand faster than anything in American history. The American people are awake."

George Will, in his speech last night at the Hillsdale College Center For Constitutional Studies & Citizenship

Purge

This morning we have but one more example of the need to purge the Republican Party leadership in Congress. Lisa Murkowski, who was appointed to her Alaskan Senate seat by her father, who had held it before her, apparently believes she has a divine right to the seat. Defeated in the Republican primary by Tea Party-backed Joe Miller, she has now decided to run as a write-in candidate. What possible justification is their for her decision? She says it's because she has heard from so many people in Alaska that she must run, but didn't the voters of Alaska just decide who they wanted as their Republican candidate? She makes this decision with full knowledge that being elected on a write-in vote is a near impossibility but could very well hurt Miller's chances in the general election. It is appalling. She's resigned her current Senate leadership positions before she could be fired from them but the Republicans in Congress should go further. She should be told that, if elected, she will not be allowed to caucus with Republicans in the next session. This will help Miller with Republican voters in the general. Lisa Murkowski is a disgrace, but her decision is illuminating to those of us sick of Washington politics; it perfectly displays the entitlement mentality held by so many in Congress, Democrat and Republican. They govern as any aristocratic elite, concerned primarily with the perpetual advancement of their own power and privilege. So blinkered are they by years of existence in the bubble of Washington D.C. they don't even realize that the peasants are in revolt.

My Thoughts On Christine O'Donnell

Who says Christine O'Donnell can't win in Delaware? Most years, I'd agree with that but this is not most years. This is, as I told my wife the other day, the most interesting, and perhaps the most important, political year of my lifetime. Things gave changed. That's what the GOP establishment can't get through their thick heads. 2010 is not like any other year we've experienced; the pushback from ordinary America is real. Whether it is ultimately successful, i.e., whether we get real rollback and real reform in the way business is done in Washington, is still a long shot.  But the point is, there's a chance right now.

The main reason I supported Ms. O'Donnell over the RINO Mike Castle is because of something that was pointed out earlier this week: if Mike Castle gives the GOP a 51-49 majority in the Senate, who becomes the most important man in the room? That's right, Mike Castle.  And what kind of legislation is going to be passed when he's ready to stand with the Democrats half the time and is demanding watered-down policy the other half? If we get a majority let's use it for real reform. That won't happen with Mike Castle holding every piece of legislation hostage to his spineless agenda.

So, I'm one hundred percent behind the lovely Ms. O'Donnell. Unlike Karl Rove, the epitome of the Washington establishment, the guy behind Bush's "compassionate conservatism" nonsense. Now, I suppose it was fine before the election to talk about Ms. O'Donnell's electability, though even then I thought it unwise (remember Ronald Reagan's commandment, "thou not speak ill of other Republicans"). Some, for instance Charles Krauthammer, whom readers of this blog know I admire as much as any man in America, criticized the political wisdom of those who supported O'Donnell. I suppose that is fair game. But to go after her in the viscous personal way that Rover did after she's won the primary is inexcusable. Rove owes Ms. O'Donnell a personal and public apology. If she does lose in the general we'll never know much the damage inflicted upon her by Karl Rove and others like him did had to do with it.

But I think she has a good shot of winning.  We heard the day before that she only had $24,000 to spend during the primary, as opposed to the Democrats $900,000+.  Forty-eight hours later she has $1.4 million. And more is pouring in. Christine O'Donnell is a symbol for how strong the anti-establishment mood is in the country and, it seems to me, your view on her candidacy and her win on Tuesday pretty much is a divining rod on where you stand. As for me, she's my girl now.  If she wins it will be important not only because it brings the GOP closer to a Senate majority but also because it will be an earthquake beneath feet of these milquetoast Republicans. Maybe then they'll begin to get a sense of what's going on outside the beltway.

Everyone is talking about the Buckley rule, Bill Buckley's famous dictum that he was always for the right-most electable candidate. These very same people seem to have forgotten Buckley's more famous maxim, the motto and purpose of the magazine he founded in 1955, 'to stand athwart history yelling STOP!'  We've got a change to yell stop right now - let's not blow it because of internal squabbling. In 2010, Ms. O'Donnell can win, if everyone gets behind her.

The Browning Version

I wasn't thinking of this question while I was watching The Browning Version last night, at least it wasn't in the forefront of my mind, but given the post immediately below, let me ask: how many of today's youth could take pleasure in such a subtly stirring movie as this? Very few, I think. Nothing explodes, there are no car chases or laser guns or aliens or super-heroes. It's in black and white, set at a post-war English boy's school, and takes a few scenes to get going. It has the thinnest of plots because so little actually happens on the screen. It's a quiet movie, consisting simply of people talking in different settings throughout a twenty-four hour period; words are said, motives revealed, realizations occur. It's a character study of a man who has failed himself and his students. He realizes, for the first time and on his last day on the job, the extent to which he is disliked. Michael Redgrave plays the lead role of schoolmaster Andrew Crocker-Harris and he is superb. It's hard to imagine anyone bringing more to the role. I'd go on but it would be hard to talk about without spoilers. Simply put, if you love a good story well-told, see The Browning Version.

Manufactured Personalities

A favorite theme of mine since I began this blog is the utter ignorance today's generation has for the past, especially the arts. They know nothing beyond the latest craze. I'd never heard of Lady Gaga until a few months ago (and I've still yet to hear any of her music) but she seems to be constantly in the news these days - she's this summer's craze. And she'll fade without much fanfare once the next craze comes along to replace her. Popular music long ago became a venue for children and it seems to become more infantilized with each passing year.

Camille Paglia, one of our more interesting social critics, picks up on some of my complaints in her column in the London Sunday Times magazine. I often disagree with Paglia but when she is right she is a pleasure to read because the woman holds nothing back. Her impressions of this particular Gaga moment are well worth reading in full but allow me to quote this passage:

....[m]ost of her worshippers seem to have had little or no contact with such powerful performers as Tina Turner or Janis Joplin, with their huge personalities and deep wells of passion.

Generation Gaga doesn’t identify with powerful vocal styles because their own voices have atrophied: they communicate mutely via a constant stream of atomised, telegraphic text messages. Gaga’s flat affect doesn’t bother them because they’re not attuned to facial expressions.

Gaga's fans are marooned in a global technocracy of fancy gadgets but emotional poverty. Borderlines have been blurred between public and private: reality TV shows multiply, cell phone conversations blare everywhere; secrets are heedlessly blabbed on Facebook and Twitter. Hence, Gaga gratuitously natters on about her vagina…

This passage perfectly expresses my fears that we are raising a generation who are immune to the beauty and power of real art, that many of today's youth respond not to true emotional expression but rather to technology. I've blogged about the ignorance of today's generation to the glories of the past many times, even the great popular artists only a generation or two removed, and I wrote a long essay chronically my impressions about the damage technology is doing to character of the young. Clearly, this cultural decay has not gone unnoticed by Paglia. She calls Lady Gaga a "manufactured personality" but that's the public Gaga. What's she like in private? Is there even a personality there? Or is she as vapid as many in her fan base? What happens with this year's passing sensation matters little to me. The tragedy is that with each year those enamored with the sensation seem more of a neutered herd who think alike, dress alike, and talk alike; who cannot recognize real art or true beauty; who have no connection to the past, or reverence for tradition, or regard for history; who are stripped bare of the necessary tools to function as members of a cooperative society. This isn't just a problem for art. It's a problem for democracy.

Interlude - 9/11

[audio:BeethovenStringQuartet1-2.mp3]

The Flincher

I've been on vacation this week, if you hadn't guess by now. I blogged a lot earlier on but I've been lost the past few days in Daniel Walker Howe's What Hath God Wrought: The Transformation of America, 1815-1848 (it's great) so blogging has been light. I'm kind of read out today so it's catch up time. Along with the Hanson piece I referred to below, the best thing I've read this week is from Peter Wehner over at Commentary's Contentions blog. In his post, Wehner also brings up the subject of Obama's temperament, i.e. his touchiness when criticized. He also mentions this:

Obama also has a habit of deriding not just the policies but also the motivations of his opponents. He almost never acknowledges the good faith of his critics; they are people to be mocked, ridiculed, derided. The only reason they oppose Obama is “politics pure and simple.” Republicans “prey on people’s fears and anxieties,” he said today. There is no room for genuine philosophical differences. It is as if Obama believes his ideas are so transparently brilliant and wise and beyond challenge that only the malicious and malevolent can oppose him.

Charles Krauthammer has mentioned this very same flaw numerous times during the panel discussion on Special Report. I mentioned the other day the reason why I think attack is always Obama's default mode: because he's got nothing else to fall back on. He has not spent a lifetime in politics arguing and persuading. Politics is, after all, the art of persuasion and Obama has never been in an environment where he needed to persuade. He has spent much of his life in academia, with its penchant for group-think and its disdain of views different from its own. Academics don't go to the trouble of learning the other sides arguments and attempting to refute them with a better argument. The herd mentality of the dorm room and the faculty lounge make this unnecessary since everyone agrees with everyone else. In this rarefied atmosphere highly dubious arguments are taken as fact, and the views of the general public are given short shrift. Obama then left that environment to become a community organizer on the streets of Chicago. Again, there was no need to persuade. Community organizers play on people's grievances. They gather people who are already unhappy and try to make them more unhappy. If possible, seeing both sides of the issue is even rarer in the community organizer field than in academia. So Obama has always simply had to enter the room, make his viewpoints known, and watch as everyone nods their heads. Now, as president, he's getting pushback and he's got nothing to fall back on but impugning the other sides motives. It's disgraceful.

But Wehner's post in the main is about what everyone else has been talking about all week, Obama's temperament. Apparently it's been obvious to a lot of people and for a long time. His main advisor, David Axelrod, wrote this to him back in 2006:

“This is more than an inconvenience,” David Axelrod wrote in a memo to Obama on November 28, 2006, in raising concerns about Obama’s thin skin. “It goes to your willingness and ability to put up with something you have never experienced on a sustained basis: criticism. At the risk of triggering the very reaction that concerns me, I don’t know if you are Muhammad Ali or Floyd Patterson when it comes to taking a punch. You care far too much what is written and said about you. … When the largely irrelevant Alan Keyes attacked you, you flinched.”

Read the whole thing.

Red Meat: Obama's Petulance and Christie's Bravura

I read Victor David Hanson's column over at PajamasMedia yesterday morning and have been meaning to blog about it but, truth be told, I just haven't felt like blogging. Anyhow, I'm back with a little red meat to throw your way. If you haven't read Hanson's column yet, do. It's an instant classic and should be read in full. Hanson says many of the things I've said here in the past about Barack Obama, only much more eloquently than I ever could. I was particularly interested in this section:

This is an old story with a long heritage. We know Obama got into Columbia; we have no idea what he accomplished there — or whether his undergraduate transcript merited admission to Harvard Law School. Obama may have charmed his way into Harvard Law Review, but in brilliant fashion he seems to have guessed rightly that once there he would be singularly exempt from the usual requirements of quantifiable achievement.

A part-time visiting law professorship at the University of Chicago Law school rarely leads to a permanent tenure-track position, much less a tenured billet– and never without a body of published articles and books. In Obama’s case those protocols simply did not apply. He was not only offered whatever he wanted, but as Justice Kagan reminded us, Obama was courted by Harvard Law School as well.

Most candidates for state office do not sue to remove their opponents from the ballot. Obama petitioned (successfully) that most of them be disqualified in 1995. It is likewise rare for the sealed divorce records of a front-running primary rival to be mysteriously leaked, prompting a veritable uncontested nomination. But after Democratic rival Blair Hull imploded from such revelations, so did Obama’s general election Republican opponent Jack Ryan, who dropped out of the race after his divorce proceedings were eerily likewise exposed. Lightning does strike twice in the same place for the blessed Obama.

Obama had served in the Senate for about two years, when he announced his candidacy for the presidency. That too is rare, but not unprecedented; what was singular was his claim that he was a bipartisan uniter, when, in fact, he compiled the most partisan voting record among 100 senators of either party. He sponsored no major legislation; his memoirs reflected others’ interest in him, not his own record of lawmaking. His themes were winning over adherents rather signature accomplishments.

The exotic name, the mixed racial heritage, and the street cred cool, juxtaposed to the nerdy professorial sermonizing, trumped the need to author or repeal significant laws or create lasting community institutions — or to leave any footprint of achievement at either the University of Chicago, the Illinois legislature, or the U.S. Senate. Running for office or courting appointments or angling for promotions seemed divorced from worry about doing anything when such wishes were granted. Obama’s tragedy is that there is nothing left he can run for, no further adulatory confirmation for just being Obama. Performance for the first time in his life is now all that counts.

Names and images matter in America. Just as a hypothetical moderately attractive blond but empty “Pam Hill” would not earn the high profile accorded to her double-ganger Paris Hilton of similar non-achievement, so too a Barry Dunham does not catch on in the progressive political world in the manner of a Barack Obama.

Nobel Peace Prizes traditionally are awarded to those after a lifetime of activism, often after some exposure to danger, or at least a sizable body of inspirational literature. Obama simply had no such record. He is our collective Peter Sellers of Being There. To paraphrase the embarrassed awards committee, Obama was granted the prize more on his symbolic potential, rather than on the basis of anything he did. Like hundreds of other liberal elites, the Nobel committee seemed to draw more personal fulfillment and satisfaction for bequeathing the award than did Obama in receiving i

This picks up on a few of my pet memes: one, that the press was negligent in their vetting of Obama during the 2008 campaign (Hanson calls it "journalistic malfeasance") and, two, that Obama has never had to work for it or earn it. Now that he has to he finds he's not very good at it and doesn't like it much. What are the odds, given that he is likely never again to be in a position to pass anything "transformative", that he doesn't even run in 2012?

The next bit of wonderfulness I pass on to you is the latest Chris Christie video. Yes, he's shown himself lately to be a bit of a RINO, with his statements on immigration and his endorsement of Mike Castle in Delaware but you've got to love this guy. Not only is he blunt - his takedown of this teacher after she laughs as he begins his remarks is magnificent - but he then goes on to destroy her arguments point-by-point in language anyone can understand. He's a great communicator. While I don't think he will be a contender for the GOP 2012 nomination, if he turns New Jersey around he will be formidable in 2016 (unless, of course, a Republican wins in 2012). Like Drew says over at Ace of Spades, "when the big man takes off his coat...you're toast." Enjoy:

[youtube]PkuTm-ON904[/youtube]

Mad Men, “The Suitcase”

Mad Men continues to amaze. Sunday's episode was a tour de force for Jon Ham (Don Draper) and Elizabeth Moss (Peggy Olson), as well as the writers. It was also a huge risk, a show concentrating almost entirely on Don and Peggy. Throughout they argue, accuse, push each other's buttons, and finally, come through on the other side, at reconciliation, understanding, perhaps even love. (I'm not necessarily talking about romantic love, but I wouldn't rule that out in the future.) Don receives an urgent message from California early in the show and he knows what it's about: Anna is dead, or dying. He doesn't have the strength to return the call. Instead, he manipulates Peggy, who's birthday it is, into staying that evening and helping him with the Samsonite luggage campaign. Peggy winds up cancelling her plans with her boyfriend, who, rather than planning the romantic dinner she was expecting, has invited her entire family as a surprise. "We're supposed to be staring at each other over candlelight, and he invites my mother? He doesn't know me," she says. Later, when Don has called California and gets the confirmation that Anna has died, he describes her to Peggy as ""the only person in the world who really knew me." Peggy replies, "that's not true." Don and Peggy know and understand each other better than anyone else. They both live for the work, not only because they love it but because it's the only place they truly feel comfortable. "I know what I'm supposed to want," she says, "but it just never feels right, or as important as anything in that office." That's true for both of them, and the quote immediately brings to mind the child Peggy has given up for adoption and Don's visit to her when she was in the hospital. The two characters had been linked from the start but Don's visit, when he tells her to get out, that "this never happened," is one of the pivotal moments in the show's history for it defined and deepened the relationship between the two and set Peggy off on the path she is now on: a young, liberated woman more interested in her career than in marriage and family. That was not an attitude that was likely to gain widespread favor in 1965 but she has accepted its truth. For his part, Don, who is in a alcoholic spiral downwards, opens up to Peggy as he never has to anyone else. It's almost a shock when he begins to cry at the news of Anna's death. He's crying not just for her but for himself too. He knows that his life is a waste. Later in the morning, after Don shows Peggy the idea he's come up with for the suitcase, he holds her hand and gives her an almost pleading look of thanks, one that says, "I need you." Don sees in Peggy a path back to normalcy, to salvation perhaps. Will Peggy Olson save Don as he once saved her?

Cur Dogs And The Presidency

Speaking of talking about a president like he was a dog, Lyndon Johnson once complained about it to Everett Dirksen, the Republican leader in the Senate when LBJ was president. But he did it as a joke and the two men laughed. He knew criticism came with the territory. It's hard to imagine a sit down between Obama and any leading Republican going down like this:

And every now and then, Everett Dirksen would call -- he was the Republican leader -- and he said, "Jack -- " you know, he had a voice that was like honey dripping over metal tiles; he'd say, "Jack, I want to see the boss later on today, and maybe we could have a drink and talk about a few things." And I'd say, "Yes, sir, Senator. The President will see you at six o'clock. How's that?" "Yes, that'd be fine."

And then he'd rise in the Senate at about three o'clock in the afternoon and accuse Johnson of every crime that the most depraved mind could be capable of committing, and then at six o'clock he'd show up, and I'd go up with him to the second floor of the mansion, and we'd sit and talk. And the President would say, "Everett, I wouldn't talk about a cur dog the way you did me in the Senate." "Well," he said, "Mr. President, you know I vow to tell the truth, so I had no choice." And then they would laugh, and then they would recount some old, long-fought battles.

I think Johnson was one of the worst president's in American history. He was also one of the most interesting. If anyone loved a political fight it was LBJ and he was a master at the game. It would never occur to him to publicly whine about being criticized and I'm sure he expected nothing less of Dirksen. Man up, Barack.

Dogs Days

As I said yesterday, the gaffes just keep on coming. As does the evidence that Barack Obama does not have the temperament to be president.

“Some powerful interests who had been dominating the agenda in Washington for a very long time and they’re not always happy with me. They talk about me like a dog. That’s not in my prepared remarks, but it’s true,” he told a crowd largely consisting of union members.

How pathetic is that? Poor Barack. No one likes him. They say mean things about him. George Bush (not to mention Ronald Reagan, no matter what the left says about him now that he's gone) took eight years of the most viscous political abuse a man has ever had to take and you never heard him whine. I've said it before and I'll say it again: Obama has never had to do anything really hard in his life. Previous to the presidency, all he had to do was show up and let people fawn over him. He expected the presidency to be the same but, of course, it's not. Being president is hard. Everything doesn't just fall into place upon your command. Others with differing views fight back against you and say things you might not like. And he can't take it. He hates the criticism that goes with the job and you can tell it eats at him.

Two years ago he was the new messiah. Today he's a president who's administration is falling apart. Day by day he seems to become smaller, more petty, and less consequential.

As with the oval office rug misquote, the twitterers had a ball with this. My favorite?

@jtLOL Who’s a good president? Obama’s a good president, isn’t he? Yes he is!http://bit.ly/aUvfps

Was Leviathan Government Inevitable?

I'm reading a splendid book right now, Daniel Walker Howe's "What Hath God Wrought: The Transformation of America, 1815-1848".

[abp:0195392434]

The book, which won the Pulitzer Prize for History in 2007, is part of The Oxford History of The United States series. I've also read the Oxford books which, chronologically, precede and follow it, Gordon Wood's Empire of Liberty: A History of the Early Republic, 1789-1815 and James McPherson's Battle Cry of Freedom: The Civil War Era. All are terrific.

I blogged about the Wood book here, in part regarding the irony that Hamilton's economic program during the republic's early years was so successful it made him and his class obsolete, and led to the demise of the Federalist party and their attitudes. The idea that there was a natural aristocracy whose privilege it should be to govern the masses was replaced by ideas of the thousands of successful new men ("middling sorts") that Hamiltonianism produced. These new men believed they had as much right to govern as the self-appointed elite, even more given they could better understand the common man's interests. I pointed out that:

The irony that it was Hamilton’s economic programs that gave rise to the men who would replace him and his class would not be lost on Hamilton.  After Jefferson’s election in 1800 he knew his time was through and he feared that everything he and the other revolutionaries had fought for had been subverted: “This American world was not meant for me.”

I went on further to discuss the age-old question regarding which viewpoint prevailed in the long run, the Hamiltonian or the Jeffersonian view. I declared my belief that we live in a Hamiltonian world but that Jefferson had won the argument, i.e. that granting the kind of power to the federal government that Hamilton wished, and got, would lead to the very type of coercive government that we now live under. Today's gargantuan government is the logical end-point of unchecked Hamiltonianism.

But Jefferson's Republican Party was complicit, as Howe points out in his book. Had Hamilton lived a few decades longer he may have been achieved some sort of satisfaction knowing that the Republicans who fought so vehemently against his programs would come to adopt many of them themselves. During his presidency, Madison, backed by Jefferson, proposed a Second Bank of The United States; the running of a national debt in order to finance constitutionally-questionable national infrastructure; and protective tariffs; three of the most bitterly disputed issues of Hamilton's economic program in the early days of the republic. What the Republicans had argued then as immoral and unconstitutional became part of their own agenda. While Howe points out that the Republicans had quite different reasons than the early Federalists in adopting these views, what struck me was how easily politicians shed their prior moral and intellectual objections once it became politically expedient for them. You can't change the spots on a leopard.

Which leads one to the conclusion that where we are now was probably inevitable. Given a country the size and complexity of the United States, with all its regionalism and diversity of color, religion, and attitude, it may matter little who won the initial republican arguments or small vs. large federal government, weak vs. strong states rights. Right off the bat the federal government held the upper hand and, given the nature of men and politicians, it was only a matter of time before leviathan appeared on the scene. The wonder may be that we held out so long.

Interlude

Appropriate inre: the post below, Southside Johnny and the Asbury Jukes, "I Don't Want To Go Home":

[audio:IDon'tWantToGoHome.mp3]

Fifteen Albums In Fifteen Minutes

The game going around the web right now:

The rules: Don't take too long to think about it--choose fifteen albums you've heard that will always stick with you. List the first fifteen you can recall in no more than fifteen minutes. (These aren't favorite albums, necessarily, just the fifteen that will always stick with you.)

Below are my fifteen. As instructed, they are not my absolute favorites albums, though many of them are. They represent touchstones in my life, records I think of and remember a particular moment or time of my life, usually the moment when I first heard them played or, more often, the period of my life when I was playing them over and over again. So you'll notice a heavy bias towards the records of my youth, almost all rock and roll records. A new record, especially one you fell in love with, was kind of an event back then. You knew it was coming, you picked it up the day it was released, you spent the following week listening to it over and over again. And if you fell in love with it it became part of your record-playing routine. I guess the records below could simply be categorized as the records I played the most when I was young (with a note that I kept a lot of the Dylan and Van Morrison records that I listened to constantly back then off the list, else it would contain nothing but their records. Instead I put on the list the first of their records that I fell in love with in order to leave room for others.)

Meet The Beatles - The Beatles
Rubber Soul - The Beatles
Highway 61 Revisited - Bob Dylan
Astral Weeks - Van Morrison
Phil Spector's Greatest Hits - Phil Spector
Tapestry - Carole King
The '68 Comeback - Elvis Presley
The Drifters Greatest Hits - The Drifters
Born to Run - Bruce Springsteen
Heat Treatment - Graham Parker
I Don't Want To Go Home - Southside Johnny and the Asbury Jukes
This Year's Model - Elvis Costello
Rumours - Fleetwood Mac
I Never Loved a Man the Way I Love You - Aretha Franklin
Rain Dogs - Tom Waits

So how about you? What's your fifteen?

Interlude

In case you're concerned this blog has become all-politics-all-the-time here's an interlude that perfectly fits my mood this morning. I've just returned from my morning walk and the weather here in the DC area is simply spectacular. Right now it's in the mid-60's, no humidity, a cool breeze, perfect sunshine. It just doesn't get any better. Here's Van Morrison singing "That's Entrainment" from his latest album (sorry, I still call them albums; old habits are hard to break). When I first heard the song I thought "entrainment" was another made-up-Van word but it's not. It’s a meteorological term meaning to trap, or carry along, a liquid or bubbles. Used to describe a mood, as Van uses it here, it would mean something on the order of giddily happy, effervescent. Which is perfect for this morning because that's how I feel. Enjoy:

[audio:ThatsEntrainment.mp3]

"The shallowness of Barack Obama’s intellect"

I put quotes around the title phrase because it's not mine but from Thomas Lifson at The American Thinker (I'll break here for a hat tip to the tremendous Bookworm Blog, which led me to Lifson's post. Bookworm has become a part of my daily reading and it should become a part of your own - that is one smart lady over there and oh how I wish I had her blogging talent.  Just to get a idea of her abilities, read her entire post here. You'll go back for more, I promise.)

Back to the Lifson post.  Here's a snippet but you should read the whole thing:

The error perfectly encapsulates the shallowness of Barack Obama's intellect, and his lack of rigor. Obama is a man who accumulated academic credentials while giving no evidence whatsoever of achieving any depth. He was the only president of the Harvard Law Review to graduate without penning a signed article in that esteemed journal. His academic transcripts remain under lock and key, as do his academic papers.

For the sort of people like David Brooks of the New York Times, who are impressed by fancy degrees and a sharp crease in the trousers, Obama may appear to be the smartest ever occupant of the Oval Office. But, as the old joke goes, deep down, he is shallow. Underfoot, literally, there is woven into his background a prominent vein of phoniness.

For some reason or other, Obama has been able to skate through academia and politics without ever being seriously challenged to prove his depth. A simple veneer of glibness has been enough to win the accolades of the liberal intelligentsia. But now that he has actual responsibilities -- including relatively trivial ones like custodianship of the inner sanctum of the presidency -- his lack of substance keeps showing up in visible, embarrassing and troubling ways.

I agree with this entirely, as readers of my own own blog will know - I've been arguing something similar for over two years now, that Barack Obama was and remains totally unfit for the presidency. He has neither the experience, the temperament nor the intellect for the job. I've argued in the past that his intellect has never progressed beyond the arrogance of dorm-room bull sessions or the condescension of faculty lounge lizards. The left closed ranks around him early in order to shield the American public from the emptiness of Obama's experience (the mainstream media's collective and coordinated refusal to vet him during the campaign may be the most irresponsible moment in the history of journalism) but it has now become apparent to even the general Obama watcher how little there is to the man. The activity where his emptiness shows through most clearly is, perhaps, when he is speaking extemporaneously. Without a prepared speech and his trusty teleprompter he borders on the pathetic: he fumbles, he pauses, he searches, he breaks out into semi-embarrassed grins. The reason he does so is because he has no information, no knowledge, to fall back on other than invective against his opponents. Intellectually, he's an empty vessel. So, day by day and inevitably, we gather more evidence of Obama's (and his associates) unfitness for the job. The oval office carpet silliness is simply today's exhibit.

Will It Matter?

Earlier this morning (see two posts below) I speculated about the possibility of big gains for the Republicans in November, saying that we need to retake the Senate and pick up at least 70 seats in the House to have any chance of stripping away the power of the Washington elites and remaking the way business is done on Capitol Hill.  If indeed the GOP achieves those gains the question will then be, will it matter?

For let's face it, the Republican Party is itself complicit in the mess we find ourselves in. To think that, if achieved, they will use power differently this time around requires some wishful thinking on our part. For too long they were the go-along-to-get-along party, always ready to compromise principal in order to achieve consensus with the Democrats, always ready to propose Democrat-lite type policy, always scared to be painted as cold-hearted by the mainstream press.  When they achieved political power previously, both in Congress and under the Bush presidency, they tried to maintain that power using the same methods as the Democrats, with big spending targeted at their own constituencies (for instance the Bush-Kennedy education bill and the prescription drug give-away) and to finance that spending by adding to the debt.  I'm paraphrasing Jonah Goldberg, whom I saw speak at a recent event, when he mentioned that conservatives should not forget that the furious firestorm created by the Obama administration's spending practices uses wood that was dried and kindled for eight years under the Bush administration and Republican rule.  Why would we expect the Republican party, were they to gain control of Congress, to act any differently this time?

There are a few things that could make a difference.  To begin with, there is a national sense of revulsion towards the policies of the Obama administration, especially when it comes to spending. Spending is the big issue in the current election. People understand like never before that we cannot continue on the current path. There is also the sense of elitist arrogance coming from this set of Democrats that has enraged the populace, exhibit number one being the strong-arm tactics used to pass the health care monstrosity against the public will. Add to that that many incumbent Republicans have lost in their primaries to more conservative candidates, many of them Sarah Palin and Tea Party endorsed. And also, as I stated in my previous post, numbers. If indeed we get 70+ House seats and control of the Senate, it will be fairly earth-shattering to those who currently hold seats in Congress. All these things will give pause to those Republicans up for reelection two years from now. These guys are all politicians and as such they will do what they need to in order to be reelected. The strategy to do so has always been to put a wet finger to the wind, gaging public support on each issue, always watching polls and carefully weighing options to offend the fewest numbers of people.  These guys must understand that playing it safe is no longer the way to get reelected. When they put that wet finger to the wind it has to knock them over on their ass so they understand things have changed.

Next, the leadership must change. I've admired Mitch McConnell for a long time.  I believe he is a solid conservative who often has the best interests of the country at heart. But should the Republicans take the Senate he thinks he will by default slide from minority leader to majority leader. This should not happen. He is too long in Washington, too closely associated with the modus operandi in DC that the rest of the country holds in such revulsion, to be an effective leader for change. He must step aside, along with the rest of the current Republican Senate leadership, for the good of the country. In his place should be Jim DeMint of S.C., a true conservative who has bucked the Republican establishment during the primaries and endorsed many of the Tea Party candidates who are anathema to the leadership. He understands better than his colleagues what is going on outside of Washington and he is ready tyo embrace and run with it. Among his soldiers should be the newly elected young guns, for instance Marco Rubio of Florida (whom I expect will win.) These young, energetic, forward-thinking conservatives should make up the new Republican leadership in the Senate. They were elected for a reason and they'll be more likely to deliver real change.  Don't talk to me about experience. The experienced got us into this mess.

Speaking of young, energetic, and forward-thinking, that leads me right to the House of Representatives and Paul Ryan. Whether or not he should become Speaker I can't really say. But he should be the party's leading spokesman on economic and budget issues, period. No one in Congress understands and can talk about these issues like Ryan. He is an all-star who can make his case to the people and can tear down the oppositions sophistries with ease. What's more, he has courage. His roadmap for getting out of this mess is a tremendous act of bravery and responsibility. That many in the current leadership are running away from it shows just how much new leadership is needed.

Next, they must introduce legislation the day they take power that reads something like this: "H.R. 3590, the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, is hereby repealed." It should pass committee and be introduced to the floor within the first week. I doubt a shaken Democratic party will filibuster so it should pass Congress. Obama is certain to veto it but that's okay. The Republicans need to start setting themselves against the Obama agenda and prove to the public they are serious about rollback. Obamacare will survive for at least another two years but they can then begin to defund it through the budgetary process. Will this lead to a budget crisis that shuts down the government? Perhaps so. A lot of people will want to avoid this due to previous history. It was after all the face-off Bill Clinton had with Newt Gingrich over the 1995 government shutdown, which Clinton won, that allowed Clinton to regain his mojo and take the upper hand once again. But I wouldn't worry about it this time. If the government shuts down, given current attitudes, that will be seen by many as a good thing. Besides, Obama and his team aren't the political pros the Clintonites were.

Next, they newly elected Republicans should pass legislation putting a hold on any money associated with the stimulus still not spent. Again, it will be vetoed. Again, this is a good thing. The object is not simply to take control of Congress this time. The object is also to defeat Obama in 2012. The public wants rollback. The Republicans must show just how much contempt Obama and his team hold the public. Each veto of legislation the public wants will be another step down the road to defeating Obama.

It goes without saying that the Republicans must pass responsible budgets with deep cuts in current spending. Again, it could lead to a budget crisis but I think it's one they could win and exploit to their own advantage.

Finally, we must keep the pressure on.  The members of the next Congress should be told over and over again that they work for us, we expect things to change, and that failure to deliver will lead to their firing. I think there is a good possibility this will happen. In the Internet age it is very easy to get the message across to Congress-critters. It should be exploited.

All these things could happen and, in the end, it may still not matter.  We're so far down the road to fiscal ruin that nothing we do at this point may save us. Still, we have no choice but to try.

Excerpt

"If a conservative order is indeed to return, we ought to know the tradition which is attached to it, in order that we may rebuild society; if it is not to be restored, still we ought to understand conservative ideas so that we may rake from the ashes what scorched fragments of civilization escape the conflagration of unchecked will and appetite."

- Russell Kirk, The Conservative Mind

How Bad Will It Be?

For the Democratic Party that is, in the November midterms?  Looking at it from my perspective, of course, the question is, how good will it be?  How many seats will the Republican Party pick up in the House?  25? 40? 60? 80? While any of those numbers are possible the trend has been unbroken towards the GOP for pretty much a year now.  A year ago many of us would have been satisfied with the 39 seats it will take to take control of the chamber.  Now, I think 39 would be a huge disappointment because it would pretty much signal an end to the popular revolt against spending that's currently sweeping the country. Democrats would be able to argue that the Republican gains were not much larger than the normal losses an in-party suffers in an off-year election and reason, perhaps correctly, that the public doesn't trust them.

So what's the over-under, the number of seats which will constitute satisfaction vs. disappontment?  For me right now it's 70.  Over 70 and I'll be happy.  Under, and I'll still be worried that the public doesn't understand the true extent of the economic crisis we're in. I have not blogged specifically about it before but let me state that I think we are set up for a meltdown the proportion of which we haven't seen since the 1930's.  The debt crisis is going to kill us if something drastic isn't done about spending, and soon.  We've already seen the housing bond market crash and from what I hear other various bond markets are tinkering on the edge. So we need numbers, big ones. Not just so we have control. We need numbers in order to give a slap in the face to the incumbents who do survive, to let them know that everything has changed. Business as usual is over. And if you want to survive you better get on-board. I think 70 is the minimum number for that to happen.

It's still not out of the realm of possibility the GOP could get more.  Dick Morris has talked about numbers as high as 90 or 100. That seems a bridge too far to me but the man has run winning political campaigns in the past so his views shouldn't be discounted.  Even more left-leaning politicos pretty much concede that the House is gone. Larry Sabato is currently predicting 47, with the caveat that there are a lot more seats on top of that which may switch.

How about the Senate? Again, Morris has been the only one (to my knowledge) to consistently predict the Senate could fall to the Republicans - they need 10 seats to gain a majority - but over the past few weeks just about everyone is saying it's in play. Sabato has it at 8-9 seats but that's without California (where Carly Fiorina is ahead of the despicable Barbara Boxer in many polls), Wisconsin (where Russ Feingold, one of the most liberal men in Congress, is neck and neck with newcomer Ron Johnson) or Washington (where Dino Rossi appears to be pulling ahead of Patty Murray).  Say all three of those go to the Republicans. We could be looking at a pickup of more than 10 seats.  Morris is predicting 12 and says we may see even more surprises beyond that.

I think we need the 10 Senate seats on top of the 70 House seats, for reasons stated above. If we are to have any chance of saving the country from economic ruin things need to change in Washington, drastically, and soon. That's why I'm such a big supporter of the Tea Party movement, and even Glenn Beck, who often gives me the willies. These are the people, along with Sarah Palin, who understand we are in crisis, who are getting out the message, and who are doing something to fight back against the gross irresponsibilities and unchecked appetites of the Washington elites.

But getting the 10 and 70 are just the first step.  What needs to happen afterwards? That will be the subject of my next post.

Excerpt

"When this president next week begins proposing expensive new measures to save us from a crisis he has just told us we are emerging from, he is going to compound the growing sense that he has no idea what he is doing or where to go to fix the mess. And he is going to convince many more people that the mess in which we are now mired is of a different order from the mess he inherited, and that it belongs to him and his party, and that somebody else is going to have to clean it up."

- John Podhoretz, in a post at Commentary's Contentions blog.

Amateur Hour

Mark Steyn is back after taking the summer off and thank goodness for that.  He had a column on his blog the other day and he rejoined the Ricochet podcast this week.  We'll need him in the run up to the election.  He's the rock star of the conservative movement. The only other conservative out there who garners the same respect is Krauthammer.

I'm only twenty minutes into the podcast but Steyn just picked up on something that I also noticed during Barack Obama's speech the other night.  There were a lot of things to object to in the speech but what struck me most was how amateurish the speechwriting was. "Do these people really think that this kind of rhetoric will be effective with the American people?" I wasn't even talking about the content, objectionable as that was. The phony platitudes and the insincerity of it all was hard to miss.  I called them, for the thousandth time,"amateurs," and I told my wife that he was being ill-served by his speechwriting team, though I admitted that Obama was so bad at delivering a speech Cicero could write one for him and it would still fall flat.  The speech was a disaster and it was a team effort.

And Steyn just agreed with me, correcting Peter Robinson's (who may have just been being kind because that's the kind of guy he is) assertion that these were smart people doing the writing.  "You said these are all smart people, the people who put together the speech.  I don't think so.  I think the speech was put together by amateurs who are idiots to let him go out in public with that speech....I don't understand how your minders can go out and let you do that in public."

We are being governed by amateurs folks.  And thank goodness for that.  If they were competent leftists they'd be even more dangerous.

Love Fades

I've been waiting for this since last summer.  Over at The Corner, Katrina Trinko links to a New York Times article showing fading support among the young for Barack Obama.  It's no surprise.  Back during the campaign when he was all about hope-and-change and all that other garbage you could understand that the young and inexperienced would fall for his nonsense - nearly 70% voted for him - but it's dawning on them now what Obama is really all about.  I've been telling my buddy Mike for a year that this would happen as soon as young people realize that his programs are bankrupting their futures and will be supported overwhelmingly by their tax dollars.  If anyone should be outraged by this president and his policies it's the young.  It's taken them longer than the rest of us because they are less politically aware and more inclined to wishful thinking and gauzy feelings than us old folks.  But they are catching on as they graduate from college saddled with a boatload of debt and no hope of finding a decent job. The opportunity to convert this generation to lifelong conservatism has never been better though I expect the Republican Party will find a way to screw it up.

My Girl Sarah

I don't mind admitting when I'm wrong, perhaps because I'm wrong so often I can't avoid it.  So here we go again.  I was wrong back in July, 2o09 when I fumed that Sarah Palin's political career was over after her abrupt resignation as governor of Alaska. Even before her resignation she'd become a political joke to many due to the mainstream media's egregiously unfair attacks on her. Resigning her elected post and thereby letting down so many supporters (financial and otherwise) was, I thought, an unforced error that could never be made right.  I couldn't possibly imagine how she could have a political future.  I wasn't alone.

But it's pretty clear now that she saw things that I and others were not in a position to see. What she saw was opportunity and she grasped it.  Not personal financial opportunity, which is what I suspected she was after at the time.  No, she saw the opportunity to become the leader of a movement, a grass roots revolution against the ruling elites.  The Tea Party movement was already a force last July but it had no leader.  Many argued that such a movement was better off without a leader, which would give the opposition a single figure to target and discredit.  For the already (in the eyes of many) discredited Palin to assume the position would give the left a big old bullseye to aim at, an easy mark.

But she played it beautifully. She has become the de facto leader of the Tea Party movement without ever announcing it or aspiring to it. She did it by simply showing up, assuring the faithful that she was with them, using her personal charm and magnetism to woo them, showing by her words and actions that she was not above them but one of them. The America people, especially those who make up the Tea Party, are not in the mood to have someone above them. In their opinion that is what has caused many of the problems the country is currently facing in the first place, those elected elites in Washington who believe they are above the rest of us, who have served themselves in government rather than the people who elected them.  Sarah Palin is so utterly middle-class American, so normal, so in tune with those who regard the Washington elites as abhorrent, that it was easy to become the leader of a leaderless movement.  As I said, all she had to do was show up.  No one has announced it or campaigned for it but make no mistake, she is the leader of this great movement to restore American honor.

She may also be the most influential political figure in America today. Who else is more influencial? You could argue Obama due to his position but his party is running away from him right now. Who in their right mind would have predicted eighteen months ago that an endorsement from Palin would be way more important than an endorsement from Barack Obama? Look at how many of the candidates she's endorsed that have won Republican primaries, many of them former unknowns running against incumbents. I don't think I've ever seen anything like it. The turnaround in her fortunes has been remarkable. She has political instincts that occur only in the very few and her ability to connect is a meaningful way with the average man in the street is a huge asset, especially right now when the public is as restless as any time in my adult memory.

Will she challenge for the Republican nomination in 2012?  I'm not sure that's the wise move.  She is still an incredibly divisive figure (though if elected I think that would change in a hurry except among the crackpot left, who will always hate her. She is very easy to like on a personal level and she is getting comfortable again, like she was before her vice-presidential nomination and the onslaught of criticism that made her gun-shy her and caused her to often have a deer-in-the-headlights look. She's also better than she was at talking policy.) I'm hoping for Mitch Daniels to run, or Haley Barbour, or Chris Christie.  They all have different strengths but each seem to me someone that could easily earn the support of the Tea Party while still keeping the middle comfortable.

But let's not digress.  This post is about my girl Sarah. I'm thinking now her best move would be continuing to do what she has been doing: travelling the country; showing up at events, appearing on television; reiterating values; raising money; endorsing the right kind of candidate. If we're going to have a political revolution that hands the government back to the people, she'll be on the short list of people to thank. And I think I'll have to reserve judgement on whatever moves she makes in the future.  She sees farther out than I can.

Interlude

My baby is leaving me to spend a few days with her sister down in Florida.  Which leads to the question, what happens to me after she's gone?  Perhaps I can listen to Jack Teagarden's beautiful rendition of "After You've Gone" over and over until she get's back:

[audio:AfterYou'veGone.mp3]

Excerpt

“Democrats used to be the voice of the common man in America, not his dictator, Now, with Wall Street, their mantra is, ‘We’ll take your money, but we won’t kiss.’ The people who own the party — George Soros, the Center for American Progress, the public-employee union bosses, rich folks flying private jets to ‘ideas festivals’ in Aspen — they’re Obama’s base.”

- Pat Caddell, Democrat and liberal (though the old-fashioned kind), today at NRO.