Thursday, November 06, 2008
Political Mayhem Thursday: Stolen from the Waco Farmer
I had a piece all written for today's post, but when I read the Farmer's post over at his own blog, The Bosque Boys, I simply stole it and pasted it in below. We obviously have deep disagreement over politics, but share a love for this country, its history, and what it represents. His piece is better written than what I had prepared, represents a different perspective, and is fair, wise, and gracious. I hope you enjoy it as much as I did.
"Congratulations to President-elect Barack Obama, who ran the best campaign of my lifetime--possibly the best campaign ever.
Why did we lose this election?
Number One Reason: because we deserved to. Our only argument was that the other guys were going to be even more disastrous than we had been. True enough, perhaps, but not compelling.
As a tribe, we conservatives believe in consequences for bad decisions and poor performance. We failed miserably in our attempt to right this country. It is time to take our medicine. It is time to rebuild on a solid foundation of fundamental principles.
On the other hand, I wish Barack Obama success, for his success will be my success.
In truth, we know almost nothing about him. Four years ago he was an obscure state senator--and he is not naturally forthcoming about his history or his philosophy. Nevertheless, my sense (i.e. fervent prayer) is that he is an intelligent fellow and a good man. Let's hope for the best.
What are my realistic but optimistic expectations for an Obama presidency?
1. I hope that Obama will be a healer and a pragmatist.
2. I hope Obama completes the mission in Iraq regardless of where the credit for success may fall. If the president-elect decides to retain Robert Gates as Secretary of Defense, and David Petraeus as commander of Cent-Com, and allows them to back us out of Iraq in a responsible fashion, he will have my undying gratitude for the duration of his administration.
3. I hope the new president will address the long-term realities of spending and taxes and what is possible and sustainable (as opposed to banal Democratic Party talking points).
4. I hope the new president will address our long-term liabilities regarding education (as opposed to banal Democratic Party talking points).
5. I hope the president will address our long-term energy needs in a pragmatic way (as opposed to banal Democratic Party talking points).
What are my expectations for myself?
1. Realize that much more is at stake over the next few months and years than partisan victory.
2. Realize that the success of the next president is inextricably linked to our success as a nation in a moment in which we cannot afford to fail as a nation.
3. Support my president wholeheartedly on January 21st.
Of course, I will continue to advocate for my core principles, which are the same now as they have been for all of my adult life. However, I will do nothing to tear down this president. I will do all I can to guard against character assassination and Obama Derangement Syndrome.
If he succeeds grandly, we win as a nation. If he falls short, we will be back in time to offer another option--and maybe we will be better equipped to live up to our own ideals then.
May God Bless this President. May God Bless America."
Osler here again. I realize that I am probably violating some kind of copyright law here, but if there's trouble, I know an IPLawGuy who will have my back. If you enjoyed this stolen post, you might also enjoy Justin's fine work over at Running Down a Dream.
Comments:
<< Home
I agree, by the way, with the Farmer's comments on talking points. Both Obama and McCain offered fairly shallow talking points during the campaign. However, I feel confident that the level of policy analysis is there with Obama, and that he is going to seek a range of expert advice.
The Republicans are a mess right now. They will lose more seats in 2010, and then it will stabilize, but they don't have a message anymore. It's reduced to a whole party of RRL's jumping up and down and yelling "they're bad!" No plan, no guiding idea, just snarky cynicism.
# posted by 
: 9:32 AM
: 9:32 AM
Thanks for the high honor, Prof. Osler. I happily grant the Razor permission to reproduce my post in this manner.
Waco Farmer-- Thanks! You are my first repeat guest blogger who did it the second time without his knowledge.
Gary-- I think you overstate the situation. Many Republicans (but not enough) criticized the Bush administration for losing the principle of small government. Also, remember history-- it was out of the utter depths of Watergate that the Republican Party rebuilt around a leader who clearly articulated principles, Ronald Reagan.
Gary-- I think you overstate the situation. Many Republicans (but not enough) criticized the Bush administration for losing the principle of small government. Also, remember history-- it was out of the utter depths of Watergate that the Republican Party rebuilt around a leader who clearly articulated principles, Ronald Reagan.
Gary:
You're right, that is exactly what I do. And, of course, by that I mean that either you've never actually read one of my posts or you just don't know what logical argumentation looks like.
I have offered very clear policy ideas in many of the debates we have had here on the Razor. I've also stated my guiding principles and ideology on a number of occasions. You just don't agree with it. Or you can't read. These are both serious problems for you.
Yes, I attempt to be snarky and sarcastic when I post (see above two paragraphs). I like to keep it fun. Sorry, didn't realize we always had to be so serious. Debates about the fine details of tax policy and trickle down economics are sweet and fun, and certainly don't need to be spiced up with some humor. My bad.
I often find that the people that get angry with people who are sarcastic when discussing serious issues are the people with no sense of humor. I'm not talking about anyone specifically here (pointing at Gary) but his name starts with a "G" and ends with "ary."
I agree with everything Waco Farmer said. I also agree with what Osler said in response to Gary, but am dissapointed he didn't defend me. Come on man!!
p.s. - that last part was not sarcastic in any way. I actually agree with him on everything he said. I hope I achieved the appropriate level of seriousness for you Gary.
You're right, that is exactly what I do. And, of course, by that I mean that either you've never actually read one of my posts or you just don't know what logical argumentation looks like.
I have offered very clear policy ideas in many of the debates we have had here on the Razor. I've also stated my guiding principles and ideology on a number of occasions. You just don't agree with it. Or you can't read. These are both serious problems for you.
Yes, I attempt to be snarky and sarcastic when I post (see above two paragraphs). I like to keep it fun. Sorry, didn't realize we always had to be so serious. Debates about the fine details of tax policy and trickle down economics are sweet and fun, and certainly don't need to be spiced up with some humor. My bad.
I often find that the people that get angry with people who are sarcastic when discussing serious issues are the people with no sense of humor. I'm not talking about anyone specifically here (pointing at Gary) but his name starts with a "G" and ends with "ary."
I agree with everything Waco Farmer said. I also agree with what Osler said in response to Gary, but am dissapointed he didn't defend me. Come on man!!
p.s. - that last part was not sarcastic in any way. I actually agree with him on everything he said. I hope I achieved the appropriate level of seriousness for you Gary.
# posted by : 10:24 AM
: 10:24 AM
RRL,
It's true. You have articulated ideas. You have also eaten a healthy lunch while I ate a burger topped with bacon, ham, AND fried cheese.
I'm cooking up a plan. On Nov. 19 the Federalists are sponsoring a Serr/Osler debate here at school. I think after that, you and Lane should have an After-Debate in Scruffy's backyard.
It's true. You have articulated ideas. You have also eaten a healthy lunch while I ate a burger topped with bacon, ham, AND fried cheese.
I'm cooking up a plan. On Nov. 19 the Federalists are sponsoring a Serr/Osler debate here at school. I think after that, you and Lane should have an After-Debate in Scruffy's backyard.
Prof. Osler --
I think that the reality (and sadness) of modern campaigning is that shallow talking points are what the general electorate finds most compelling, because it's safe and doesn't really challenge the status quo. I think both candidates were much deeper than they let on (and hence my frustration with their "debates").
Ultimately, the executive position is less about policy positions (though with a majority in both houses of Congress, President-Elect Obama will be an effective policy-based President, I think) than it is about leadership qualities. That's where I think we can trust what we've seen of Obama (and I don't think he's an unknown at all; that's a shallow talking point if I've ever heard one).
He's shown himself to be a collected, rational and pretty much together individual. And he was a con law professor (my dream job), so he's got that going for him.
I think that the reality (and sadness) of modern campaigning is that shallow talking points are what the general electorate finds most compelling, because it's safe and doesn't really challenge the status quo. I think both candidates were much deeper than they let on (and hence my frustration with their "debates").
Ultimately, the executive position is less about policy positions (though with a majority in both houses of Congress, President-Elect Obama will be an effective policy-based President, I think) than it is about leadership qualities. That's where I think we can trust what we've seen of Obama (and I don't think he's an unknown at all; that's a shallow talking point if I've ever heard one).
He's shown himself to be a collected, rational and pretty much together individual. And he was a con law professor (my dream job), so he's got that going for him.
Osler:
As I've said previously, I'm all for debating Lane. And I feel Scruffs would be the perfect location. My home court advantage will be huge as I doubt Lane has ever had a mock trial practice in the backyard at Scruffs.
As I've said previously, I'm all for debating Lane. And I feel Scruffs would be the perfect location. My home court advantage will be huge as I doubt Lane has ever had a mock trial practice in the backyard at Scruffs.
# posted by : 10:42 AM
: 10:42 AM
Prof. Osler,
At the risk of shameless self-promotion, I've expressed some of the same thoughts, as yours, on www.thefrosolonopatriarch.blogspot.com.
My other blog, www.traversingthewilderness.blogspot.com, presents draft chapters of my new book in progress, Through The Wilderness. I hope this book will solidify my reputation as one often mistaken for a theological and political liberal because of my commitment to fundamental (not fundamentalist) principles.
I sincerely hope and pray that, during the transition to, and years of, the Obama administration, all us will implement the concept of disagreeing without being disagreeable.
At the risk of shameless self-promotion, I've expressed some of the same thoughts, as yours, on www.thefrosolonopatriarch.blogspot.com.
My other blog, www.traversingthewilderness.blogspot.com, presents draft chapters of my new book in progress, Through The Wilderness. I hope this book will solidify my reputation as one often mistaken for a theological and political liberal because of my commitment to fundamental (not fundamentalist) principles.
I sincerely hope and pray that, during the transition to, and years of, the Obama administration, all us will implement the concept of disagreeing without being disagreeable.
Gary
RRLs has his reasons for jumping up and down. Obama plans to ask RRL to head the President's Council on Fitness. RRL is practicing is either practicing rope jumping or jumping jacks while Obama tries to reach across the aisle
RRLs has his reasons for jumping up and down. Obama plans to ask RRL to head the President's Council on Fitness. RRL is practicing is either practicing rope jumping or jumping jacks while Obama tries to reach across the aisle
Christine:
I can promise you this, of all the things Obama might ask me to do, heading up the President's Council on Fitness is not one of them. The President's Council of Channel Changing or the President's Council on Beer Drinking, now that is the ticket!!
I can promise you this, of all the things Obama might ask me to do, heading up the President's Council on Fitness is not one of them. The President's Council of Channel Changing or the President's Council on Beer Drinking, now that is the ticket!!
# posted by : 11:44 AM
: 11:44 AM
I would note, there is some chance that this president will have to appoint someone to oversee the smoking lounge in the White House, and RRL may well be up for that. (I suspect there will be channel-changing and beer drinking in that room, too).
Great post, WF.
I agree the Republican Party is in a tough spot presently. I disagree that the conservative voices on these boards are the problem. I feel the opposite is true, actually.
The problem, my view, is one of identity. Part of it is the "good problem" created by a party that gathers under a larger tent. Part of it, though (probably an extension of the "good problem"), is the indiscriminate dedication to vote/support getting above all else.
An interventionist foreign policy can be a defensible and noble position, but it's tough to jive with small government fiscal conservatism.
A dedication to legislating "morality" and "family values" can be a force for good, but tend to fly in the face of "government, stay the hell out of my life - conservatism."
Government (tax payer) support of failing domestic industry seems awful generous and makes folks feel like their government has their backs, but clearly violates free market principles.
I think the party will just have to make a call on some of these mutually exclusive principles.
We (Dems) find ourselves in the same position quite often, maybe even right now. I think yall's dilemma has just been highlighted b/c you've been behind the wheel for a while.
I agree the Republican Party is in a tough spot presently. I disagree that the conservative voices on these boards are the problem. I feel the opposite is true, actually.
The problem, my view, is one of identity. Part of it is the "good problem" created by a party that gathers under a larger tent. Part of it, though (probably an extension of the "good problem"), is the indiscriminate dedication to vote/support getting above all else.
An interventionist foreign policy can be a defensible and noble position, but it's tough to jive with small government fiscal conservatism.
A dedication to legislating "morality" and "family values" can be a force for good, but tend to fly in the face of "government, stay the hell out of my life - conservatism."
Government (tax payer) support of failing domestic industry seems awful generous and makes folks feel like their government has their backs, but clearly violates free market principles.
I think the party will just have to make a call on some of these mutually exclusive principles.
We (Dems) find ourselves in the same position quite often, maybe even right now. I think yall's dilemma has just been highlighted b/c you've been behind the wheel for a while.
It's not even January 20, 2009 yet, and the Obama Administration is already failing in its promises to the American people.
How do I know this?
The BCS still exists.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ndx3ifpIn7o
/Ducks rocks from fervent Obama supporters.
How do I know this?
The BCS still exists.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ndx3ifpIn7o
/Ducks rocks from fervent Obama supporters.
To follow up on Lane and Prof. Osler, I think that shallow talking points have been the norm for a while-
I think the last candidate who ran on "a choice, not an echo" (maybe I am misquoting) was Barry Goldwater- he lost. It seems that mouthing platitiudes is the way to get elected- "I am for the children/puppies/kittens" etc. I wish people would more clearly articulate their positions, but such will likely never happen- for that cannot fit in a 30 second sound bite.
Just my 2 cents,
Chicago
I think the last candidate who ran on "a choice, not an echo" (maybe I am misquoting) was Barry Goldwater- he lost. It seems that mouthing platitiudes is the way to get elected- "I am for the children/puppies/kittens" etc. I wish people would more clearly articulate their positions, but such will likely never happen- for that cannot fit in a 30 second sound bite.
Just my 2 cents,
Chicago
# posted by : 1:17 PM
: 1:17 PM
Chicago, are you posting that DURING the evidence exam?
If so, you are my newest hero.
If so, you are my newest hero.
# posted by : 2:29 PM
: 2:29 PM
Bar results are released today around 3pm. If I don't get enough points to pass, will President Obama take points from one of the top passers and give them to me?
# posted by : 2:39 PM
: 2:39 PM
I have a theory about the shallow talking points
1. If the candidates stump speech is too long and complicated people will miss the point. If you are truly interested in the meaty details you can usually go to the candidates web site or read analytic pieces by people who are scholarly and like picking this stuff apart. They are policty wonks.
2. If the candidate gives up too much of 'their' plan during the campaign, those details WILL be used against the candidate negatively. This was the brilliance of the Bush 2000 and 2004 campaigns. There was little discussion of merits and only the twisting of the facts to meet the opponents ends.
3. The campaign is long and as we saw this year the issues that appeared most important when the primaries started had taken a back seat by election day.
1. If the candidates stump speech is too long and complicated people will miss the point. If you are truly interested in the meaty details you can usually go to the candidates web site or read analytic pieces by people who are scholarly and like picking this stuff apart. They are policty wonks.
2. If the candidate gives up too much of 'their' plan during the campaign, those details WILL be used against the candidate negatively. This was the brilliance of the Bush 2000 and 2004 campaigns. There was little discussion of merits and only the twisting of the facts to meet the opponents ends.
3. The campaign is long and as we saw this year the issues that appeared most important when the primaries started had taken a back seat by election day.
How did 8 people fail? Seriously. Did they not get Counseller's "We expect 100%" lecture? We got beat by by U of H for cryin' out loud. What happened?
My heart goes out to those 8, though. I thought I was having a bad day . . .
My heart goes out to those 8, though. I thought I was having a bad day . . .
# posted by : 3:39 PM
: 3:39 PM
Actually on the 19th I'll be at a concert at Stubb's. RRL, if you're amenable, we can have a Town Hall-style talk over barbecue and beer whilst listening to the sweet and soothing metal stylings of Turisas and Dragonforce.
Nice post, Waco Farmer!
I would disagree, or at least offer my impressions, on one point, though: while early in the campaign I, too, felt as though I didn't know who Obama really was, I think his campaign made it much clearer over time: during the convention, in particular, and then as the economic crisis worsened I think Obama's message got simpler. We also could find out the candidates; bios from plenty of sources like CNN, Frontline on PBS, Newsweek, and any number of articles.
And for me what emerged was that Obama is actually a pretty simple guy to understand: he's serious, calm, cautious, family-oriented. And very smart, and capable of understanding a great deal of complexity. And I think that's what he showed us, and is a big part of what makes him unique and good for the job.
For McCain: while the biographical stuff was explained very well in all sorts of media articles and specials, I always felt I never knew who the real McCain was. It seems, politically, that he has made himself into whatever he needed to, to get elected and to get ahead. He almost got swayed into the Democratic party after the 2000 election, yet four years later he was supporting Bush all the way so he could get Republican support as a presidential candidate.
And the campaign never really helped me see the real McCain, either. I never--until the end--felt his economic remedies were clear.
I think his concession speech revealed the real McCain, unfortunately. And it was a really, truly admirable McCain. I felt the same way about Al Gore's concession speech when it was finally all over in 2000: the best of the man, and the true core of the man, was revealed only in defeat. It's too bad--and probably says a lot about the nature of politics.
I would disagree, or at least offer my impressions, on one point, though: while early in the campaign I, too, felt as though I didn't know who Obama really was, I think his campaign made it much clearer over time: during the convention, in particular, and then as the economic crisis worsened I think Obama's message got simpler. We also could find out the candidates; bios from plenty of sources like CNN, Frontline on PBS, Newsweek, and any number of articles.
And for me what emerged was that Obama is actually a pretty simple guy to understand: he's serious, calm, cautious, family-oriented. And very smart, and capable of understanding a great deal of complexity. And I think that's what he showed us, and is a big part of what makes him unique and good for the job.
For McCain: while the biographical stuff was explained very well in all sorts of media articles and specials, I always felt I never knew who the real McCain was. It seems, politically, that he has made himself into whatever he needed to, to get elected and to get ahead. He almost got swayed into the Democratic party after the 2000 election, yet four years later he was supporting Bush all the way so he could get Republican support as a presidential candidate.
And the campaign never really helped me see the real McCain, either. I never--until the end--felt his economic remedies were clear.
I think his concession speech revealed the real McCain, unfortunately. And it was a really, truly admirable McCain. I felt the same way about Al Gore's concession speech when it was finally all over in 2000: the best of the man, and the true core of the man, was revealed only in defeat. It's too bad--and probably says a lot about the nature of politics.
# posted by : 9:23 PM
: 9:23 PM
Thanks for the compliment, Swiss Girl.
Let me just tweak my comment on "knowing Obama." He had a very thin public record. In terms of our decision, we had very little in the way of documentary evidence on which to base our preference.
I would say that my impression of him is similar to yours--but I would also say that impression is the one he worked so hard to cultivate. Was he very talented at projecting his real self (a great quality for a politician--very Reaganesque), or was he extremely skilled at creating a public persona?
It doesn't really matter as long as he lives up to the promise.
In re McCain:
McCain was McCain. As someone who watched literally hours upon hours of raw footage of the four candidates on the stump, I can tell you that the concession was in keeping with his campaign. McCain is McCain. He frustrates me and he thrills me, but the man does not change for anybody or anything--unless he seriously believes there are valid reasons of national interest to do so.
McCain faced a stiff headwind in terms of the coverage he received--and he never really broke through all the partisan noise.
I firmly believe that an honest reassessment of this campaign will portray McCain in a much more positive light than we currently hold him.
Having said all that, vive Obama! It is refreshing and liberating to drink the Obama koolaid. I am happy to finally see the light. Today there is no reason not to hope for the best.
FYI: I was using the Ghandi slogan, "be the change you seek," when Barack Obama was still in the Illinois State Senate.
Fired up! Ready to Go!
Let's Go Change the World.
Post a Comment
Let me just tweak my comment on "knowing Obama." He had a very thin public record. In terms of our decision, we had very little in the way of documentary evidence on which to base our preference.
I would say that my impression of him is similar to yours--but I would also say that impression is the one he worked so hard to cultivate. Was he very talented at projecting his real self (a great quality for a politician--very Reaganesque), or was he extremely skilled at creating a public persona?
It doesn't really matter as long as he lives up to the promise.
In re McCain:
McCain was McCain. As someone who watched literally hours upon hours of raw footage of the four candidates on the stump, I can tell you that the concession was in keeping with his campaign. McCain is McCain. He frustrates me and he thrills me, but the man does not change for anybody or anything--unless he seriously believes there are valid reasons of national interest to do so.
McCain faced a stiff headwind in terms of the coverage he received--and he never really broke through all the partisan noise.
I firmly believe that an honest reassessment of this campaign will portray McCain in a much more positive light than we currently hold him.
Having said all that, vive Obama! It is refreshing and liberating to drink the Obama koolaid. I am happy to finally see the light. Today there is no reason not to hope for the best.
FYI: I was using the Ghandi slogan, "be the change you seek," when Barack Obama was still in the Illinois State Senate.
Fired up! Ready to Go!
Let's Go Change the World.
<< Home
