Rick Klein speculates that Barack Obama listened to Bill Kristol’s advice and incorporated more military references in his speech this week on public service. It would be nice if the sentiment came intuitively and not as an afterthought dragged out of him by conservative critics. Still, his excuse that he didn’t join the military because it was a voluntary force by the time he was old enough to serve seems especially lame. The point is of course that he could have chosen to serve. He need not have been defensive — he chose to pursue other avenues — but he could be more humble and honest. Voters might respect him more and scoff less if he came right out and said the physical danger and personal hardship of military service was not one that he undertook, but that is all the more reason for him to appreciate those who did. It would seem humility and gratitude are frowned upon by the Obama team. One wonders why — a healthy helping of each is sorely needed.
Contentions
13 Responses to “Obama Listens to Kristol?”
May 2013
-
Articles
-
"My Negro Problem-and Ours" at 50
Norman Podhoretz -
Gay Marriage, the Court, and Federalism
Tara Helfman -
The Spirit of '75?
Algis ValiunasAn audacious, and wrong, argument about the American Revolution.
Fiction
-
Onto a Good Thing
Joseph Epstein
Politics & Ideas
-
The Bureaucrat-Driven Life
Heather Wilhelm -
The Making of an Education Reformer
Sohrab Ahmari -
Bork's Watergate
James Rosen -
Dear Prudence
Paul O. Carrese -
Whose Accomplishments?
Mona Charen
Culture & Civilization
-
The Parenting Trap
Dana Mack -
George Saunders, Anti-Minimalist
Fernanda Moore -
A Chekhov in Training
Terry Teachout -
What Ailes the Liberal Media?
Andrew Ferguson
John Podhoretz
-
Taking Obama's Foreign Policy Seriously
John Podhoretz
Threat Assessment
-
More Genocide Threats from Iran
Jonathan S. Tobin
Letters
-
Denying Jewish Peoplehood-and Reality
Our ReadersResponses to Robert S. Wistrich's "The Changing Face of Anti-Semitism"
-
Gun Laws, Crime, and Freedom
Our ReadersResponses to Benjamin Domenech's "The Truth About Mass Shootings and Gun Control"
-
Don't Confuse Principle and Pose
Our ReadersResponses to Matthew Continetti's "Poseur Politics in the Era of Obama"
-
Jews and Sports
Our Readers
Enter Laughing
-
Get Our Free Newsletter
After all, he’s not going to veto his own bill, right?
No, but Obama can do what always works for him… find a way to vote present.
I go with option 1 above. he likes it just like it is.
It’s very clear what Obama is doing. He’s voting present.
First, I confess to finding the phrase “pork-a-thon” quite erotic.
Second, I wouldn’t be surprised if Obama does try to pull off a last-minute intervention, where he swoops in and high-mindedly brings everyone together. I mean, the guy loves to throw people close to him under the bus, so I can imagine him doing it here too (“this is not the stimulus package I once knew”). The problem, of course, is that it’s one thing when Obama cues “Crosstown Traffic”, and the bus revs up and rolls over Bill Ayers or Jeremiah Wright. It’s another thing entirely to leave tire tracks all across the backs of Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi. Obama will need them again and again over the next four years.
Thus, if Obama does do the Superman swoop-in here and embarrass the Democratic congressional leadership, he’ll burn a lot of capital. Which begs the question: where the heck has Rahm Emmanuel been in all this? Fat lot of good he did.
“In contemporary usage, “begging the question” often refers to an argument where the premises are as questionable as the conclusion.
In popular usage, “begging the question” is often used to mean that a statement invites another obvious question. This usage is stated to be incorrect in The Oxford Guide to English Usage, 1st edition;[5] “raises the question” is suggested as a more appropriate alternative.”
“Any form of argument in which the conclusion occurs as one of the premises, or a chain of arguments in which the final conclusion is a premise of one of the earlier arguments in the chain. More generally, an argument begs the question when it assumes any controversial point not conceded by the other side.”
Rahlm’s been talking to his criminal defense lawyers and trying to recall what he said on those calls to Blago.
Re what will Obama do: I’ll go with a combination of all of the above:
1. He’ll vote present, in the sense that he will let it pass however it passes. By the way, the only way the D’s and O can get out of this mess is by the stupidity of the R’s in the Senate: if they agree to any compromise, rather than just voting en masse against the D’s bill, they will have muddied the waters and the D’s will survive to pass yet another stimulus bill later this year when the first one bogs down (and another, and another; see Japan, stagnation).
2. But when he signs the bill and when he talks at the press (in between his sure-to-occur foreign policy pratfalls), he will say: “As I’ve said before [Not True] and as I’ll say again, I’m for a bill that works for America. It will take years for us to recover [thanks, O, for the vote of confidence]. I am disappointed that the R’s and the D’s [as opposed to his new party, the O's] were not able to work together, and I sincerely hope that their failure to do so does not doom this bill.
3. If the bill works short-term [it is guaranteed to fail long-term, in that it will bankrupt us], Obama takes credit. If it doesn’t, he talks at the press, and tells them: “As I’ve said before . . . ” You know the rest.
Chuck:
I’ve been fighting the “begs the question” battle for at least five years. Give it up. we’ve lost
Look forward to four more years of Good Cop, Bad Cop.
Why shouldn’t he like the bill? It advances single-payer medicine, undoes welfare reform, creates a bunch of businesses (green of course) completely dependent on government, along with a bunch of other far left government initiatives he’s always favored.
Why should he worry whether it turns around the recession? He is already preparing everyone for the “stimulus” to fail for the next four years.
Gee, the Washington Post’s neocon editorial board doesn’t like it. Will wonders never cease.
I mentioned earlier some of the concerns conservatives had raised regarding Obama. One I forgot to mention, but which is germane here, is whether he would be able to stand up to Pelosi and Reid. He was even asked a question during one of the debates: Name a time when you opposed the leadership of your party on an important issue?” All he could do was point to times when he took actions which certain Democratic constituencies (trial lawyers) might not have liked. He couldn’t point to one time when he went against what Reid wanted. His loyalty rating was just about perfect, I think, voting with leadership on everything. So there was a legitimate question of whether Obama would be able to face up to the major powers in his party, like Pelosi and Reid, and tell them off.
I hope I’m wrong–I hope Obama rides on up Capitol Hill, cracks a few heads together and forces the Dems to move the bill back toward the original vision he had outlined–but assuming he does nothing of the sort, I think we’ve found our answer. No, even Obama is ostensibly the most powerful person in his party, he will not defy the powers of Reid and Pelosi.
There seems to be an underlying assumption that Obama knows what would effectively stimulate the economy. I suspect that he hasn’t a clue and is simply bobbing around in the political currents. Has he ever made a defense of any policy based on more than feel good rhetoric? There is simply not enough depth to him.
Re: #10
That was a snot-drip, Jonni-boi. Wipe your nose, dear.
John
The WP has endorsed every single Democrat candidate for President since 1960. Furthermore, Obama has……oh forget it….
This is part of the problem when you vote for an idea, not a person, forgetting that this person has to actually be competent and capable of actually advancing this idea. One would hope that people so naive and easily manipulated as to believe that Barack Obama was going to be an agent of positive and profound change will sit at home in Nov 2010, and leave the selection of our government to the sober adults who need more than a slogan and a few speeches to go on.