Glenn Reynolds writes:
I think Obama’s “charisma” was based on voter narcissism — people excited not just about electing a black President, but about themselves, voting for a black President. Now that’s over, and they’re stuck just with him, and emptied of their own narcissism there’s not much there to fill out the suit.
That’s fairly strong stuff. Plainly, Obama played to many voters’ needs — for whites to vote for a historic candidate, for urban intellectuals to vote for one of their own, and for younger voters to vote for a new generation of leadership. Obama quite purposefully did not fill in many of the blanks, leaving to everyone’s imagination what he might do once in the White House. Indeed, he had made a career and an art out of being just beyond definition so that everyone could form a pleasing portrait of the candidate they were voting for.
Now there is an emptiness at the center of the presidency, an odd passivity. Decisiveness and specific policy proposals are missing, creating a sense that Obama is fulfilling the role of head of state but not that of head of government. Part of this is accentuated by his own aversion to projecting American strength and power on the world stage. So whom is he representing (a new multilateral world order?), and what are his aims? Getting along with competitors and shrinking from conflict seem to be high on his list.
Obama clearly wanted to become president, defying many who suggested he hadn’t the experience and would get run over by the Clintons. The latter, at least, proved to be untrue. Now that he is president, he plainly has a domestic-policy vision of America at odds with the views of many who voted for him. Does he have the force of will and the know-how to accomplish that reordering of government — before he loses much of his congressional majority? It’s not clear. And on the international stage, meekness and incompetence have ruled the day, suggesting he’s not in control of events.
Obama, who was omnipresent and larger than life, now seems to be a bystander in his own presidency. And the public is left pondering whether this was the candidate they voted for. Well, yes, but it’s now becoming apparent the price to be paid for voting to make themselves feel enlightened.
Ted is in danger of turning into a cheap date.
Ted Olson Endorses John McCain:
From Jennifer Rubin at Commentary: “Ted Olson, fomer U.S. Solicitor General and conservative legal icon, has just informed me that he is endorsing…
I have loved and respected Ted Olson for as long as I can remember. I guess I have been wrong about him. I know thousands of conservatives that will be sick over this decision. John McCain almost changed parties in 2004. How can even the liberal Republicans be so blind? I will be sitting out this election.
Well, there’s being pure, and then there’s beating Hillary. If you loved and respected Ted Olson so much, maybe you should give his reasons a chance.
Linda, you echo my sentiments.
haha. Now we are ripping Ted Olsen for endorsing the likely nominee of the party? Frankly, if you think McCain is untrustworthy on judges then Olsen is a patriot for signing up so he can influence McCain to appoint good judges.
Tuck Fed.
Linda, Beth, et al: Turn off Rush Limbaugh (and the histrionics) and try thinking for yourselves. Ronald Reagan granted amnesty, raised taxes, named Sandra Day O’Connor to the court, and sold arms to Iran. Romney and Giuliani have long records of liberal tendencies. They all get a pass, but somehow John McCain is every conservative’s worst dream.
Linda and Beth, right on! I deeply respect Ted Olson and enjoy his annual Federalist Society Supreme Court round-up talks.
But this an endorsement of diplomatic formality. He was, of course, on Rudy’s judicial advisory board. And now that Rudy’s out, Mr. Olson obviously would not contradict Rudy’s endorsement–out of personal respect and political necessity.
Yet McCain has continually undermined Olson’s contributions to originalist jurisprudence thought and judges. Look no further than the “Gang of 14″ and McCain’s unflattering statements about Justice Alito.
As governor of Massachusetts, on the other hand, Mitt Romney (a J.D. himself) made quality judicial appointments. And Judge Bork’s recent endorsement of Romney should allay any other concerns about Romney’s judicial philosophy.
I really don’t understand you Republicans that are going to sit out the election if McCain wins the nomination. That makes absoutely no sense to me. Even Hugh Hewitt, who is an avid Mitt Romney supporter, thinks it’s stupid to sit out elections, because THAT’S HOW YOU LOSE! I don’t know why in the world any Republican would think that Hillary or Obama (who was today named the most liberal senator in 2007) would make a better president than John McCain. That just makes no sense.
Well, here is how it works. If Hilliary OR McCain become President, the administration will be a disaster. If McCain is the disaster, it falls on the Republicans. If Hilliary is the disaster, it falls on the Dems. If the Dems have the Congress and the Admin in 2009 term, with a disaster resulting, the Republicans have an excellent chance of getting both Congress and the Presidency in 2012. So better to sit out if McCain is the Nominee….let the voter turn out for him be miniscule. Let Hilliary get what she gets…but no mandate of the population.
Otherwise, Nominate Mitt Romney and lets ditch the witch and the monkey both.
Joshua,
It’s not better to sit it out. For several reasons.
Number one is the national defense. Way too important to risk by letting a dem in the WH in order to make a point.
Number two is the Supreme Court. Even if McCain appointed, say, one moderate and one conservative that would still leave an infinitely better court in four years than Hillary would leave by appointing hardcore liberals. That’s the value in Ted Olsen signing up. Olsen is a guy who could convince McCain to make solid appointments. So at worst, McCain leaves a Court that is similar to the one we have – at best he gets us the fifth vote. Likely it’s somewhere in between – a slightly more conservative vote.
Number three is his Vice President. If he picks a good conservative, that conservative will have name id, experience and a leg up in 2012.
Sitting out is not the answer. It’s never good to lose. You can’t count on Jimmy Carter handing you the presidency after four years. You just can’t count on that.
Joshua,
Wrong. McCain is his own brand, and will succeed or fail as John McCain, not as the voice of the Republican Party. When McCain speaks, there is no illusion that he speaks for the Republican Party — never has, never will. A “failed” McCain Administration will not leave much stink on the GOP. This is where Rush Limbaugh is dead wrong in believing that a McCain nomination would “destroy” the GOP.
At the end of the day, this is a choice between John McCain or the People’s Republic of Obama (or Hillary). I’ll take McCain.
I’m a Romney guy and have been for months now. I urge all conservatives to back Romney, since he is, in my opinion, the best overall candidate for the job. But if McCain were to get the nomination (God forbid!), I would support him. We’ve got a war on Islamofascism that the Democratic candidates barely acknowledge. McCain acknowledges that reality and understands the issue. In addition, the next president will likely make one or more Supreme Court appointments. So there are two very powerful reasons to support McCain (however difficult it may be for us conservatives), if he is the GOP nominee.
John K.,
Bingo. John McCain will not allow us to lose a damn war — he understands the costs involved. That alone is enough to vote for him over any of the cheese-eating surrender monkeys the Socialis…er….Democrats put up for election.
It disturbs me greatly that Romney supporters like Joshua above feel comfortable casually slurring Senator Clinton as a “witch” and Senator Obama as a “monkey.” I find that highly, highly offensive.
Mark,
Agreed, and I hope no one believes my comment referring to Social…er…Democrats as “cheese-eating surrender monkeys” should be taken similarly. I was making reference to Jonah Goldberg’s slur for the French.
And I certainly don’t mean to paint Romney supporters as endorsing that kind of thing. We have two good conservative Republican candidates. Whoever wins the nomination, I hope they are elected President and nominate Ted Olson to the Supreme Court. And personally, I prefer McCain.
Well joshua is not alone, I also will be sitting out for the same reasons. I am a conservative first and Republican second. McAmnesty is not a conservative, even if he does carry an (R) after his name. McVain may get the liberal Republicans to nominate him, and the other fools that don’t track what he has voted for, but he will lose the election. I voted for Reagan twice, and have always voted a straight ticket. But this is where I draw the line. I, like the party mascot has a long memory, and I remember what you have done to our party all these years Mr. Maverick for the Democrats. You will go down in flames.
Ok, ScottG, so you believe Hillary or Barack would be better than McCain? You think they’re more conservative than McCain? You think Reagan would want to see them in office? Not a chance. If you sit out, then you’re giving the election to the Dems on a silver platter. Think about the consequences of that for a second. I really don’t think that’s what you want.
If you cannot bring yourself to vote for the nominee of the party in the general election, you should stop calling youself a Republican and go find a place where people will embrace your fair weather support.
O.K. if Republicans nominate McCain I’ll stop calling myself a Republican.
Does anyone seriously think that John McCain is going to be influenced by Ted Olson? John is more obstinate than maverick.
On another note, how dare anyone claim what determines a Republican or no? Last I checked, being a Republican or not is an individual voluntary matter. The big tent party (no not Democrat) is where many conservatives reside. With McCain there is no conservative to vote for.
McCain is unfairly criticized by many here. Let me take one issue raised, and discuss how it is wrong to hold against McCain: “Gang of 14.” Recall that there was a Schumer led Democrat filibuster of Bush judicial nominees. While it was said that the fillibuster had not been invoked historically with respect to judicial nominations, that was because judicial nominations were once not political. They are now, because of the Democrats.
There was under consideration an “option” of changing the fillibuster rules so that they could not be invoked as to judicial nominees. The problems with that “option” were: (i) that it was not known whether it would have been passed — many Senators were quietly leery of changing fillibuster rules, which had not been done before; and (ii) if it did pass, if there were a Democrat Congress with the White House in Democrat hands, the road would be open to appoint left wingers to the U.S. Supreme Court and to the U.S. Courts of Appeals. We of course now have a Democrat Congress as a result of the 2006 election and may have a Hillary Clinton Presidency as a result of the 2008 election. Also, had the constitutional option not been passed, it would have meant a blockage of all or almost all of Bush’s judicial nominees.
What the “Gang of 14″ refers to was a compromise brokered by a group of Republican and Democrat Senators to allow Bush nominees to be voted on and thus approved unless there be extraordinary circumstances. That way, the Bush nominees to the U.S. Supreme Court and most of the Bush nominees to the U.S. Courts of Appeals could be confirmed without changing fillibuster rules or running the risk of having a complete blockage on conservative confirmations. In fact, John Roberts and Sam Alito were confirmed to the U.S. Supreme Court and a great number of Bush nominees to the U.S. Courts of Appeals were confirmed. As a result, Chuckie Schumer is complaining that the Democrats were snookered. Yet, McCain is pilloried because of the Senate compromise that can fairly be said to have snookered Chuckie. Wrong.
No I don’t want the Democrats to win, because they have liberal policies. But they aren’t supposed to represent the Conservative party, the Republicans are. If the Democrats screw things up, at least we can say that the Democrats were in charge. Why do we need the Republicans to do the Democrats dirty work? The Republican leadership has just offered up a whole lot of crap to us Conservatives. At least with Romney I can hold my nose and pull the lever. He seems honest and with constant oversight could hold conservative principals. Now McAmnesty will do whatever Ted Kennedy and his other back room wheelers and dealers ask, he is the worst type of politician. I don’t care for someone that would give away America to non-citizens, as though it was his to hand out. He is supposed to be representing us remember, not his non American Amigos from south of the border. Oh he says he got the message, but did he? All I see is him waiting to get elected so it is full steam ahead with what he has already started. He and his Democratic buddies will keep the borders open and grant anyone that can get over here a free ride, I am not going to let him get a chance to do this. Lets hope that in four years, the Republican party has learned their lesson and listened to their base. If not, it will be time to make the Conservative Party.
“Gang of 14″ is but one drop in the bucket of liberalism demonstrated by John McCain.
Opposing Bush tax cuts, the “black box” solution McCain and Kennedy engineered on immigration, closing down Guantanamo Bay and bringing terrorists onto our soil where the would have Habeas Corpus rights, buying into the global warming (caused by man) hype, shall I go on….?
OhhhKayyyyy. The wingnuts have done so much for the United States in the last two presidential elections, winning (with the help of the Supreme Court) for the Chimp. And now you decide you are too pure in heart and mind to vote for McCain.
OhhhKayyyyy. Now we see that you are ideological nut cases. No judgement. No sense of responsibility. No brains.
But keep it up!!! Pretty soon the whole country will be just like you. The earth is 6000 years old. The Grand Canyon was created by Noah’s Flood. We will be in Iraq until the 2d Coming of Jesus.
After all, isn’t that what you hear on AM radio…..between the ads for colon-cleansing?
What a bunch of jerks!!!
ScottG and Captain America, please watch the replay of the Democratic debate on CNN tonight, and then tell me you would rather sit out than vote for McCain.
I am as conservative as it gets, but I also know that I want to win the election. McCain is not going to allow Iraq to become another Vietnam, he is staunchly pro-life, he hasn’t voted for a tax increase in 25 years, and on and on.
Sure there are many things I don’t agree with McCain about (Global warming, drilling in ANWR, not voting for the Bush tax cuts, etc.), but when it comes down to it, he’s miles better than Hillary or Obama.
At the very least, you who feel like sitting out need to think about the consequences of setting a timetable and pulling out of Iraq, which is what would happen with the two Dem. nominees. Please think about that before you decide to sit out.
Oh hello there Libtard (JohnMcC), I see that you are just foaming with BDS. It just so happens that Pres. Bush is not a true Conservative on many issues, like balancing the budget, controlling spending, Amnesty, and he squandered years of controlling both houses and the executive branch. Hell if the Democrats had that much power, they would have actually used it. I respect the man, and I think that he has a good heart. He did what he thought was best for our nation and the world. Now you can and will disagree, and that is your right. But just because you and your loonie friends repeat your sick mantras over and over, doesn’t make you right. Just remember when you ratchet up the rhetoric, it will also get ratcheted up for your side also. You see you could have stayed grounded in truth, and treated OUR president with respect, but now you and your moonbat friends have changed the way we do business, and you are on the same playing field.
I was ready to vote for Obama, if McCain got elected….but now i think i will just go with my heart (and brain) and write in Ron Paul. The rest of you better wake up……the younger generation is voting now, getting excited about politics, and the democrats welcome them. The Republicans are consistently excluding the young voter’s Gp hero in debates, in the news, MSM, . . . etc. Have you read all the stories on the internet today? about children getting their parents to vote for obama, how he has inspired younger voters. Ron Paul has also done that, but not too such an extent, for lack of publicity, other than grassroots support. You want to keep the Republican Party intact and strong? Allow ALL candidates to DEBATE, not allow a “debate” to be a showcase for the media’s pick for the presidency. Do you realize why the media is pushing McCain? He is the most liberal, and it is obvious that MSM is liberal. Wake up….
I will pull the lever for McCain. I know him from Naval Aviation. This is an arrogant liberal. I will not be in party with McCain at the top. What happened to Ted? I had my doubts about him when he adopted Guiliani, but McCain? This news saddens me.
Correction “I will never pull”
Once again, nobody’s addressing my question. For all of you calling McCain a liberal and saying you’ll never vote for him, tell me why you think Hillary or Obama would be better for this country, ESPECIALLY during wartime?
I have not deserted the Republican party, the Republican party has deserted me with McCain.
Nick, they won’t answer your question because being right is more important to them than the security of our country. All that screaming about the unpatriotic left not supporting the war? How unpatriotic is it for these people on the right to abandon the effort our soldiers have died for, just because their party’s candidate isn’t conservative enough for them?
Amen Lily, totally agree. It’s ridiculous.
I will tell you why I will allow the Democrats rather than McAmnesty get into office. It is called principle, something that most of us Conservatives have. Lets see, who would I rather have run the U.S. into the dirt? Republicans or Democrats? Now if McMexican hands America over to our Southern neighbor, repeals our first amendment rights, refuses to stand up for traditional marriage, won’t allow us to become energy independent by allowing us to drill up some of our own oil, is against tax cuts, etc. They will say that we (Republicans) screwed over America. Just as they are saying Bush did, because he grew Government, spending was not controlled and he has been giving tax money/benefits, citizenship, and our childrens futures away to non Americans. No, I think that I would rather the Republican leadership get a clear message, and the Democrats be responsible for the destruction of our country. Of course we could turn this around, by supporting a candidate that is not a RINO, or in Romneys case less of one. But then I heard that McShamnesty doesn’t care if he gets the Conservative vote anyways, he is depending on Independent and Hispanic votes to make up the difference. Well, that may work, but then again Obama might just get my vote to make sure McDemocrat doesn’t get elected and to insure the party is hearing my voice. You see if you don’t stand up for what you believe, in four years, they will be serving up more of the same or worse. I think I will nip this in the bud right now.
The wrong Olsen was on that plane. Better they shoulda flown together.
Amen Rushbo!
Wake up pubbies….McCain will enact all the terrible liberal legislation and when it fails, the Republicans will get blamed. It is much better to have the liberals from the Demo party adopt them and get the blame. This is a watershed moment. This is the big government Republicans (the Fords, the Bushes, the Doles, the Nixons, the Olsens[to bad about Ted]) to rid themselves of the conservatives all the while claiming to be real conservatives. They hope we will stand still and pull the lever for more of the same decline. I will write in before I will pull the lever for McLame. The silence of Thompson and continued spoiling run of Huckabee at this moment tells all about these two guys. Thompson is rolling for McLame and so it Huckabee.
Wow, Howard! Who’s left in your tent?
Stay and enjoy the big tent run by Eastern liberal Republicans. This has happened before, but this time I am not staying to see if I can be just like the Democrats. At least, I will feel like I did not cast a vote for my one time flight instructor who is a nutcase.
In case you missed it–Conservative lawyers for McCain
I saw the news about Ted Olson at the Contentions blog last night, along with the news that Miguel Estrada, Steven Calabresi, and Charles Fried have endorsed John McCain.
What a buncha libs!!!1!1
/eyeroll
Here’s Ted Olson:
Take that, Mark Levi…
At least Mark has not been watching pro-wrestling like these guys have in past years. They(Estrada, Calbresi, Fried, Olsen) have not been paying attention. I am, of course, embarrassed for them, and they can now change their name “lib lawyers for McLame”.
There are always a group of people who have some strange idea that politics is not about winning. Besides Michael Savage and Lou Dobbs, can anyone else really claim that they have always been passionate about stopping illegal immigration and that the Reagan revolution has been abandoned by trying to compromise on the issue. Whether one agreess or not with McCain clearly he is conservative on the big issues of defense, budget deficits, and judicial activism.
Nathan sez: “Wrong. McCain is his own brand, and will succeed or fail as John McCain, not as the voice of the Republican Party. ”
Whaddya blind, man? Have you not seen how Bush failures have been played? Do you think the age-old mantra of Big Media (“Reps Bad! Dems Good!”) will suddenly go the way of the dodo? Do you think Big Media’s love affair with McCain will last post election?
Let me explain: Within 24 hours of McCain getting the nod (God, forbid) Big Media will roll out it’s Keating Five Review and replay it and replay it and replay it and replay it. And do you think they will describe the scandal as “bi-partisan”? Do you think there will be any mention whatsoever that four of the five were democrats? Big Media will turn on McCain faster than you can say “True (sic) Conservative (sic)”. And they will, as always, make it and him GOP-centric.
I had respect for Ted Olsen until he became defense attorney for Jonathan Pollard, the U.S.’s most notorious and damaging spy. I have no regard for anyone or anything he endorsing anymore.
Always good quality info from this site!