This morning E.J. Dionne writes:
The result of the 2008 election may come down to how voters decide to define Barack Obama. Is he Adlai Stevenson or John F. Kennedy?
Note well that this formulation of the central question of the election does not deign to ask who Obama really is, emphasizing instead that “almost all of the turns in this contest have been driven by how Obama presented himself and how voters perceived him.” (Emphasis added)
Since the operative question about Obama concerns presentation and perception rather than actual identity and character, I have a much better way to pose it than Dionne’s false alternative between Kennedy and Stevenson. Here’s how I put the question in an email to a good friend back in February:
What a fascinating show future president Obama is putting on! It will be even more fascinating to discover whether he is:
a) Jimmy Stewart, in Mr. Smith Goes to Washington;
b) Robert Redford, in The Candidate;
c) Peter Sellers (Chauncey Gardiner), in Being There; or
d) Laurence Harvey, in The Manchurian Candidate.
It will also be interesting to see whether, in the remaining primaries, Hillary goes after his record (raising capital gains to 39.5%, a close mentor/minister who praises Farrakhan and calls Israel “a racist state,” etc.) or leaves that to the Republicans. So far, the only thing Clinton Inc. has accused him of is being black (a half truth?).
Obama “presents” himself as Jimmy Stewart, and is “perceived” that way by his adoring and credulous fans.
I could see that appeal after his maiden speech at the 2004 Democratic convention (“There’s not a black America and white America and Latino America and Asian America; there’s the United States of America,” etc.) Later, for the first part of the primary campaign, he seemed more like a cross between Redford and Sellers, a balloon floating on good looks, good “presentation,” and the hot air of “hope” and “change.”
More recently, however, my “perception” of him has soured a good bit, and not only because he’s become the Wright man for the job or because of his bitter, clinging rhetorical errors (pronounced “Ayers”). Or perhaps those errors are merely indicative of what strikes me as even more ominous: the gaping chasm between how he “presents” himself — the bi-racial, post-partisan healer — and what there is of an actual record in his present and past, that of a hard left ideologue.
I don’t want to argue this here, but consider: When has Obama ever bucked his party on a matter of substance? He has taken firm positions on two issues, doing away with Bush’s tax cuts and raising the capital gains tax to 39.5%; and pulling out of Iraq as quickly as he can get the troops packed and loaded on transports. Entirely aside from the merits of these positions, since a good half the country is firmly opposed to tax increases, and a significant number of people regard unconditional retreat as a national security disaster, how would attempting to achieve either one of these goals move us beyond or above the bitter partisanship of the past decades? How would either inviting Rev. Wright to the White House, or pointedly refusing to invite him, contribute to bi-racial good feeling?
I wouldn’t yet say that Obama is The Manchurian Candidate, but on the other hand I don’t think it’s paranoid or out of order to pay more attention to “where he’s coming from,” Manchuria or not.
I think he hung around with those guys to become more authentically black. I think you’re overstating his raise on capital gains. He’s not any worse that Hillary on domestic issues, but on global he could be worse than Jimmy Carter. His disposition could lead him to overreact to a crisis. That would be ironic.
I like the idea of “Chauncey Gardner for President”.
[The Following Added by JSR]
Yes! First Hope. Then Change. Hope for Change…
“I think you’re overstating his raise on capital gains.”
To Charles Gibson, he said he would not raise it above 28%, what it was under Clinton. I don’t know what his previous statements were.
The answer to Gibson was interesting because he said he wanted to raise it even though, as Gibson pointed out, a raise will decrease revenues.
I’d say his economic literacy is pretty low, but I’m not certain Hillary is any better.
John Rosenberg writes:
>>>”I don’t want to argue this here, but consider: When has Obama ever bucked his party on a matter of substance? He has taken firm positions on two issues, doing away with Bush’s tax cuts and raising the capital gains tax to 39.5%; and pulling out of Iraq as quickly as he can get the troops packed and loaded on transports. Entirely aside from the merits of these positions, since a good half the country is firmly opposed to tax increases, and a significant number of people regard unconditional retreat as a national security disaster, how would attempting to achieve either one of these goals move us beyond or above the bitter partisanship of the past decades? How would either inviting Rev. Wright to the White House, or pointedly refusing to invite him, contribute to bi-racial good feeling?”
As you may or may not know, John–we are DEFICIT spending, and borrowing money from China, Japan and Saudi Arabia to fund $12 Billion a month war in Iraq.
>>>”U.S. NATIONAL DEBT CLOCK
The Outstanding Public Debt as of 24 Apr 2008 at 02:00:18 AM GMT is:
$9,343,188,974,058.64
The estimated population of the United States is 303,864,145
so each citizen’s share of this debt is $30,747.92.
The National Debt has continued to increase an average of
$1.46 billion per day since September 29, 2006!”
http://www.brillig.com/debt_clock/
In Bushanomics, “debt is good”, and we can afford to keep cutting taxes on the wealthiest 1% because…
…
>>>”New projections from the Congressional Budget Office provide the ingredients for two important stories about the nation’s fiscal condition if the Bush tax cuts are extended rather than allowed to expire.
One story involves prospects for balancing the budget. For fiscal years 2007 through 2010, the Bush tax cuts will make balancing the budget impossible in those years. Extending the tax cuts would make matters worse, indefinitely delaying any hope of balanced budgets or generating the surpluses achieved in the late 1990s. More important, under reasonable assumptions, the tax cuts push the deficit to unsustainable levels (in excess of 2% of gross domestic product)….
…The second story is the imminent collision between the Bush tax cuts and the benefits promised by Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid. For those planning retirement as early as 2017, most analysts agree that enacting benefit cuts that soon would be grossly unfair to those workers because they would not have enough time to adjust to the benefit reductions…
…Growth in “entitlements” is said to be out of control, but the extent of projected growth to 2017 is dwarfed by revenue losses implied by Bush administration policy. Without significant adjustments elsewhere in the budget, benefit costs and revenue shortfalls will have to be reconciled somehow over the next 10 years.”
http://www.epi.org/content.cfm/webfeatures_snapshots_20070829
Over the years, John, you’ve given us all the impression that you were some sort of a “conservative.” There’s absolutely NOTHING “conservative” about what Bush’s economic, “cut taxes, but borrow and spend MORE” policies have done to our nation.
You’ve already been corrected on Capital Gains, but let’s even look at that:
From the Center of Budget and Policy Priorities:
>>>”A closer review of the available evidence, however, indicates that the supporters of the dividend and capital gains tax cuts tend to overstate the positive effects of these tax cuts and ignore their negative effects.
Although current research shows that some companies initiated or increased dividends following enactment of the dividend tax cut, the findings also indicate that some corporate dividend policies may be ineffective at achieving the economic and corporate governance improvements that the tax cut’s supporters assert will result from increased dividend payouts.
The high cost of the dividend and capital gains tax cuts continues to add to the deficit, and the resulting increase in deficits has negative long-term economic consequences.
Economists at the Congressional Research Service and the Brookings Institution, for example, have concluded that the adverse effects of the increased deficits cancels out, and may even outweigh, any positive effects from these tax cuts themselves.
Further, while there may be open questions about the economic impact of the dividend and capital gains tax cuts, there is no question that the benefits of these tax cuts flow overwhelmingly to those with the highest incomes.
The Urban Institute-Brookings Institution Tax Policy Center estimates that more than half — 53 percent — of the benefits of these tax cuts in 2005 will go to the 0.2 percent of households with incomes over $1 million. More than three-quarters of the benefits in 2005 will go to the 3.3 percent of households making more than $200,000.”
http://www.cbpp.org/3-10-05tax.htm
John writes:
>>>” How would either inviting Rev. Wright to the White House, or pointedly refusing to invite him, contribute to bi-racial good feeling?”
Except Rev. Wright has BEEN invited to the White House already…on different occasions:
>>>”According to the Chicago Tribune (April 3, 2008), after completing two years of service in the Marines in 1963, he volunteered again to become a Navy corpsman. He did so well in corpsman school that he was the valedictorian and became a cardiopulmonary technician. Assigned to the Navy’s premier medical facility at Bethesda Naval Hospital, he was a member of the commander in chief’s medical team, and helped care for President Lyndon B. Johnson after his 1966 surgery. For his service on the team, which he left in 1967, the White House awarded him three letters of commendation.”
http://www.rense.com/general81/sdf.htm
The Photo of Jeremiah Wright assisting in the surgery of LBJ (to the right, behind I.V.)
http://bp1.blogger.com/_icmbtAgYu90/R-L1roDnwoI/AAAAAAAAAAc/PAGr1AbpUJE/s1600-h/File0442.jpg
Picture of a Thank You note:
http://bp3.blogger.com/_icmbtAgYu90/R-L19IDnwpI/AAAAAAAAAAk/Bwt1_87Tamg/s1600-h/File0441.jpg
And of course, Reverend Wright with President Bill Clinton in 1998 after Monicagate:
http://bp0.blogger.com/_icmbtAgYu90/R-LelYDnwnI/AAAAAAAAAAU/Bbm3xehqJ6M/s1600-h/File0437.jpg
And, John–where is your concern for our troops in Iraq? Surely you’re not in the Bush/McCain camp of PERMANENT occupation, endless tours, and limitless expenditures, incurring more and more casualties by the day to prop up a Shia dominated Islamic ally of Tehran, are you?
–Cobra
“Except Rev. Wright has BEEN invited to the White House already…on different occasions:”
And, of course, to decent Americans it should make no difference that he became an ignorant, greedy, mouth breathing racist “preacher” who calls the most powerful black woman in the world a crack whore to the delight of his Obamas.
We sure learned a lot about what some people do in church, didn’t we?
Cobra, it’s really true: A broken clock is right twice a day.
Prez Bush has not been a fiscal conservative. The conservative wing of the Republican Party is as unhappy with this as you are. Prez Bush has spent wildly and irresponsibly. I’m in agreement with you there.
But, Prez Bush is not running against Sen. Obama.
Look, I’ve wanted to be convinced that Obama is something other than he appears to be. The alternative is Sen. McCain, who isn’t that appealing on a lot of issues either.
Yes, the Democrats has been kissing the behinds of black demagogues like Rev. Wright for a long time. (South Park has produced some great episodes about this butt kissing.) This has been incredibly destructive to the black community, which continues to flock to nuts like Wright because the Mao-Maoing pays off in welfare and entitlements.
Thomas Sowell recently published an article suggesting that the Republic Party go after black voters by offering them something new. The Republican Party to date has attempted to win black voters by offering even more entitlements, playing identity politics, etc. Sowell suggests going after those black voters who really might vote Republican by stressing individual responsibility, church going, etc. I recommend the article.
Republicans have to get smarter about going after the black vote. Democrats cannot win a national election with less than 90% of the black vote. If the Republicans can figure out a way to attract 20% of black voters, the Democrats are dead.
My experience tells me that at least 20% of the black community is open to hearing a message of responsibility, family values, church going and patriotism.
In fact, Cobra, I’m going to start with you. Some day, you’ll be older and wiser and you’ll probably have kids. Do you really want them to play this Mao-Maoing game as a way of arm twisting whites into giving away welfare and entitlements? Or would you rather see your kids assume that they must fend for themselves, be strong and earn their living on merit? Do you want to see another generation of black kids begging and threatening whites for a handout? Do you want to see another generation of black men failing at school and landing in prison?
Mikem writes:
>>>”And, of course, to decent Americans it should make no difference that he became an ignorant, greedy, mouth breathing racist “preacher” who calls the most powerful black woman in the world a crack whore to the delight of his Obamas.”
Who do you consider the “most powerful black woman” in the world? And why, does it sound so hilariously ironic that YOU, Mikem, would have the words “powerful” and “black woman” in the same sentence after all these years of essentially denegrating African-Americans on this blog?
Like I said, this blog NEVER ceases to amaze me.
Stephen writes:
>>>”If the Republicans can figure out a way to attract 20% of black voters, the Democrats are dead.
My experience tells me that at least 20% of the black community is open to hearing a message of responsibility, family values, church going and patriotism.”
Except, Stephen…you just don’t get it. And here’s why–
Look at WHO the Republicans have based their entire anti-Obama strategy upon.
Reverend Jeremiah Wright, who happened to have preached a message of responsibility, family values, church going…and grew a congregation of 86 into over 8,000 in doing so.
Now…don’t get me wrong–You don’t have to agree with ANY or ALL of the statements made by Reverend Wright. I certainly have my problems with a few, but if Republicans paint him as “Satan,” and they’re demonizing Barack Obama for being “alligned with Satan,”, then they’re ALSO demonizing the 8,000 members of that predominantly, but not exclusively African-American church.
When mostly White, middle-aged, multi-millionaire right winged pundits and media hacks, including Sean “My ties with neo-Nazi Hal Turner don’t count” Hannity, froth at the mouth while demonizing
THOUSANDS of African-American church goers that you claim are the ones Republicans must concentrate on reaching out to, do you see the circular firing squad forming, Stephen?
–Cobra
Cobra, have you ever considered tempering your language? The wild hyperbole doesn’t convince anybody. It’s a theatrical technique that you use because throughout your lifetime you’ve learned that it scares white people.
Do you realize how much of your personality has been formed by this game of shucking and jiving you do for the sake of scaring whites into handing over welfare and entitlements?
I’m on to the game you play, Cobra. I’ve been on to the game for 30 years. It’s a ridiculous, shameless, clown role you’re playing… scaring the white folks with the fiery language.
Do you really want to see your sons and daughters continue to play this clown role?
I can really only think of one reason why you might continue to be wedded to this role. You really believe that blacks don’t have the intelligence to do anything else but con white folks.
“…would have the words “powerful” and “black woman” in the same sentence after all these years of essentially denegrating African-Americans on this blog?”
More of your lies and BAMN tactics. I decry discrimination and hate. It is to my great sorrow that black “civil rights activists” are in the forefront of the racist and hatemongering mob in this country.
As far as black women go, I have stated my great admiration, many times, for their perserverence and hard work trying to go to school, work and raise families (all at the same time) without any help from the “men” in their lives. It is black women who I see trying and succeeding. And their men, well, here you are defending a black man for calling Condi Rice a skeezer under cover of his ministry of hate. (And in case anyone does not realize just how low Wright reached to teach hatred to his eager flock, a “skeezer” is a drug addicted woman that will do sexually humiliating things for women-hating men in return for drugs. If they just want to get laid, they go to a hooker. If they want a woman to lick their anus or be urinated on, they find a “skeezer”. That’s what Wright called Condi Rice. Obama’s spiritual advisor and mentor, for twenty years. That’s Wright and that is Obama.
“…essentially denegrating African-Americans on this blog?”
Cobra, Cobra, Cobra. As is obvious to readers here, YOU do that in almost every post. Defending the undefendable, making racist threats, and stereotyping all blacks as inferior and incapable of suceeding in a color blind system.
mikem writes:
>>>”(And in case anyone does not realize just how low Wright reached to teach hatred to his eager flock, a “skeezer” is a drug addicted woman that will do sexually humiliating things for women-hating men in return for drugs. If they just want to get laid, they go to a hooker. If they want a woman to lick their anus or be urinated on, they find a “skeezer”.”
Well I’ll be, Mikey! Whoda thunk YOU, of all people would seemingly have his finger on the pulse of uptown slang terminology?
But, just a minor correction…the Urban Dictionary list 23 definitions for the term “skeezer”, and not all of them are sexual in reference…
http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=skeezer&page=1
…which means there is wiggle room.
Mikem writes:
>>>”Cobra, Cobra, Cobra. As is obvious to readers here, YOU do that in almost every post. Defending the undefendable, making racist threats, and stereotyping all blacks as inferior and incapable of suceeding in a color blind system.”
I don’t personally threaten any individuals on this blog or anywhere else.
I’m the guy who CHALLENGES your blog-buddies in here when they claim Blacks are less intelligent or genetically predisposed to crime.
America is NOT a “color-blind system”. It NEVER has been.
Stephen writes:
>>>”Cobra, have you ever considered tempering your language?”
Have you ever met Mikey?
–Cobra
[…] veterans with very good memories), you’ve seen that comparison before — first here (April 2008, quoting the comparison from an email to a friend in February), and then here (June […]
[…] to look more and more like he may really be channeling Chauncey Gardiner in Being There, a possibility I have written about many […]
[…] Gardiner in Being There — has been mentioned here a number of times, the first time in “The Real Barack Obama?” in April […]