Thank GOP voters for small favors

If there has been one silver line in the long disgusting spectacle of the GOP nomination contest, it's the failure of Rick Perry to get any traction. As Jonathan Bernstein reminded us early and often, Perry -- a three-term governor of the largest Republican state, with an at least superficially impressive job creation record and an enormous war chest-- was the candidate best positioned to win, or at least give Mitt Romney a serious run. He's failed to break into the top four purely by virtue of proving himself too stupid and (perhaps) cruel and abusive even for Republican primary voters.  Tonight he was in top form -- calling Turkey's leaders terrorists and lumping this NATO member with Iran and Syria, defending the U.S. marines who urinated on Afghan corpses on the grounds that their crime was not as bad as the beheading of Daniel Pearl, and declaring a state of war between the U.S. and South Carolina and between the U.S. and "religion."

While Republicans are going to nominate a shameless liar, they have forborne to elevate an incompetent, a religious fanatic or a fascist. 

Tonight, for the first time, I got fully into the swing of debate-tweeting. Some live impressions @xpostfactoid1.

Fare and ballast

In what sense is Fox "fair and balanced"?  Roger Ailes gives the game away:

Ailes has a blunt rejoinder to those who say he runs a biased outfit: “Every other network has given all their shows to liberals. We are the balance.”

The free market that ate conservatism

Andrew Sullivan, addressing a reader's question why the Republican Party has embraced the lunatic right, posits:

The only real explanation that I can come up with is that the interests of "movement conservatism, the business" trumps patriotic conservatism as a political philosophy in the GOP.

The power of the conservative industrial complex - utterly cynical enterprises like Eagle Publishing and Fox News, for example - is real and has done a huge amount to destroy an uncynical and constructive conservatism.

There's an irony here. There's long been a tension in American conservatism between defense of "traditional values" on one hand, which include deference to established authority as well as Biblically-based sexual morality, and free market fundamentalism on the other. The latter, with its hostility to regulation, undermines traditional values by removing all restraints on the entertainment and advertising industries. Those industries have eviscerated public discourse, swallowed much of the news industry, and now hold the free market party itself hostage to a cadre of quasi-fascist screamers.

Audacity of The New Yorker: Comparing Obama and Lincoln

The editors of the New Yorker, in the best retrospective of this endless campaign and the Bush Administration that I've read anywhere, have expressed in a couple of sentences what I've been trying to get across about Obama for the better part of a year (e..g., here and here):

Obama has returned eloquence to its essential place in American politics. The choice between experience and eloquence is a false one––something that Lincoln, out of office after a single term in Congress, proved in his own campaign of political and national renewal. Obama’s “mere” speeches on everything from the economy and foreign affairs to race have been at the center of his campaign and its success; if he wins, his eloquence will be central to his ability to govern.

As Obama himself put it in the January 5 ABC debate:

And, you know, so the truth is actually words do inspire. Words do help people get involved. Words do help members of Congress get into power so that they can be part of a coalition to deliver health care reform, to deliver a bold energy policy. Don't discount that power, because when the American people are determined that something is going to happen, then it happens. And if they are disaffected and cynical and fearful and told that it can't be done, then it doesn't. I'm running for president because I want to tell them, yes, we can. And that's why I think they're responding in such large numbers.

Do we still have that democratic capacity to sell-correct? Arguably, people always do.In his inaugural address to the (then) Czechoslovakian nation on Jan. 1, 1990, Vaclav Havel told his people that after 40-plus years of Communism

we live in a contaminated moral environment. We fell morally ill because we became used to saying something different from what we thought. We learned not to believe in anything, to ignore one another, to care only about ourselves.

Later in the same speech, though, he acknowledged the miracle of the velvet revolution:

Where did the young people who never knew another system get their desire for truth, their love of free thought, their political ideas, their civic courage and civic prudence? How did it happen that their parents -- the very generation that had been considered lost -- joined them?

The U.S. moral environment has been tainted by an eight-year binge of preemptive war, relentless lying on the part of leaders, the shredding of civil liberties, the institutionalization of torture, not say by a binge of deregulation, tax cutting and credit run wild. Just 53% of Americans now think that torture is never justified -- the lowest percentage among developed nations, lower than that of the Chinese, who live under an authoritarian regime. A people can be corrupted from above, by their leaders and by media controlled by their leaders, e.g. Fox and its beloved torture-glorifying "24."

But democracy in America ain't dead yet. It may seem ridiculously starry-eyed to hope that Obama, like Lincoln before him, can win over the electorate by sheer force of ideas, by articulation of American ideals and of policies designed to give them new life -- and to hope further that he can execute those policies with some success if elected. Maybe those of us who buy in are Charlie Brown running for another kick of the football. But that's -- oh, the fear of looking foolish by quoting a politician's keynote! -- the audacity of hope.

Obama on Fox: "The right temperament"

Obama was on point, focused, calm and direct in his interview with Chris Wallace on Fox today (transcript here). He placed Hillary's four-for-six streak in the broad perspective of his steady march to the nomination. He took responsibility for any failure to win over any bloc of voters. He refused to suggest (or insinuate, as Hillary in a similar position might have done) that Bill Clinton was playing any race card.

While the interview began, like the infamous ABC debate, with a string of non-policy questions (electability, race and electability, connecting with working class voters, Wright, Ayers, ability to work with Republicans), the tone was different. Wallace pressed Obama, hard at times, but he pressed for more information - there were no 'gotcha' questions, or absurd phrasings like "Do you think that Reverend Wright loves America as much as you do?"

The interview touched on taxes, Iraq, merit pay for teachers and partial birth abortion, but it wasn't really about policy. It was about who Obama was, whether the 'distractions' shed any light on that question, and whether he is electable. Perhaps Obama's central point came in the 'lightning round' at the end:

WALLACE: What mistakes have you made? What have you learned about running for president? What have you learned about yourself?

OBAMA: I’ve learned that I have what I believe is the right temperament for the presidency. Which is, I don’t get too high when I’m high and I don’t get too low when I’m low. And we’ve gone through all kinds of ups and downs.

People forget now that I had been written off last summer. People were writing many of the anguished articles that they’re not writing after our loss in Pennsylvania. On the other hand, after Iowa, when everybody was sure this was over, I think I was more measured and more cautious.

That I think is a temperamental strength.

I say that this point was central, though it came off the cuff at the end, because Obama was demonstrating this 'temperamental strength' throughout. He seemed to be viewing the long slog as if looking back twenty years later. As so often, he seemed like the sole adult on an electoral stage crowded with excitable children. This was true with regard to:

1. Bob Herbert:

WALLACE: Bob Herbert, columnist for the "New York Times", happens to be a black man, says that Hillary Clinton seems tougher than you do.

OBAMA: Well, look, after you lose then everybody writes these anguished columns about why did you lose? After Iowa, everybody said Obama is transforming folks because he’s bringing in all these voters we never expected would vote for a black guy. This is the nature of politics.
The fact of the matter is that we have done well among every group because people are less interested in dividing the country along racial lines or regional lines. They’re really focused on how we’re going to solve these big problems right now.

2. Bill Clinton:

WALLACE: Do you agree with him that there’s been a deliberate effort by the former president and some Clinton supporters to make race an issue in this Democratic race?

OBAMA: I don’t think there’s been a deliberate effort. You know, I take the president at his word that he is –

WALLACE: Which one?

OBAMA: Well, oftentimes, you know, I think that he’s been going after me hard. He may not have intended it in a racial way. I think he just sees me as competition against his wife. And that’s what, you know, husbands do, hopefully, or spouses do in political contests.

3. race:

WALLACE: Senator, for all your efforts to run a post-racial campaign, isn’t there still a racial divide in this country that is going to make it very hard for you to get elected president?

OBAMA: Well, Chris, if you look at the general election polls, we are doing better against John McCain than Senator Clinton is. And we are putting states in play like Colorado and Virginia that have not been in play for a very long time. Here in Indiana, we just — you just saw polling by "The Indianapolis Star" showing me beating John McCain.

And so, look, is race still a factor in our society? Yes. I don’t think anybody would deny that. Is that going to be the determining factor in a general election? No, because I’m absolutely confident that the American people, what they’re looking for is somebody who can solve their problems.
What they’re looking for is somebody who can pull the country together and push back some of the special interests that have come to dominate the agenda, who will tell them the truth about how we’re going to bring down gas prices, how we’re going to bring back jobs. And if I fit the bill, then they will vote for me.

If I lose, it won’t be because of race. It will be because, you know, I made mistakes on the campaign trail, I wasn’t communicating effectively my plans in terms of helping them in their everyday lives. But I don’t think that race is going to be a barrier in the general election.

4. losing:

WALLACE: If the voting ends in June and you are still leading in superdelegates - I’ll ask again. If the voting ends in June and you’re still leading in the popular votes and delegates and the superdelegates hand the nomination to Hillary Clinton, do you think the young people, the African American people, the young first time voters you brought into this campaign, aren’t they going to be awful angry?

OBAMA: I think there would be some frustration there. It’s not just young people, by the way. This event that we just had here in Marion, Indiana, I had a 48 year old white woman come up to me and say she is voting for the first time. Never voted before. She probably would not vote. It’s possible.

But here is my strong belief. Democrats are going to be unified. I think we should find that person who is going to be best able to not just defeat John McCain but also lead the country. I happen to think I’m that person. I will make that argument forcefully to the superdelegates prior to the convention.

These impressions are based on transcript only, so voice tone, body language, etc. are a blank slate. But on paper it looks like a highly effective revisiting of the toxic points of the ABC debate.

Related posts:
Obama endorses Hillary!
Changing 'the rules' on Clinton
Debunked! Obama spanks the Clinton Kids again
Truth and Transformation
Obama Praises Clinton, and Buries Him
Obama: Man, those Clinton Kids are Something

Fox News readers swoon for Obama

If you doubt Obama's crossover appeal, check out the reader comments on the Fox News website following the transcript of his SC victory speech. The first fifteen are below. Two of the first three are what you might expect -- and then, a rapturous outpouring. If you think this is a run of Montagues crashing the Capulet party, read all 55 comments. The proportions hold, and there are lots of self-identified Republicans.

1. Southern girl Says:
   January 26th, 2008 at 9:42 pm

   Another preacher speech and I can guarantee you that he will not fullfill half the promises he is making. He is just saying what we want to hear, until he gets in office and then the people will see him for who he really is!!

2. 2
   Jeff Says:
   January 26th, 2008 at 9:45 pm

   Hands down one of the best live speeches Ive heard in quite some time. I got goosebumps.

3. 3
   kcfg Says:
   January 26th, 2008 at 9:49 pm

   What Democrat milk toast. God bless Obama for pandering… but oh, my gosh… can no one see the pandering… and the fact that his “plans” will kill us in the future??? We cannot afford this “change” as all anyone will be left with (if at all) will be chump change!

4. 4
   Daniel Adewumi Says:
   January 26th, 2008 at 9:49 pm

   This is powerful!. This is a change we can believe and this is a change that we must fight for and this is the change we will have.

5. 5
   Lori Says:
   January 26th, 2008 at 9:52 pm

   Awesome! Thanks for standing up to the pressure. I will be working for you here in my home state of Pennslyvania, and I am a republican!

6. 6
   Pla10um Says:
   January 26th, 2008 at 10:01 pm

   Yes. We. Will.

7. 7
   skyyking Says:
   January 26th, 2008 at 10:06 pm

   I am 62 years old and follow politics very closely. I do not recall a better, more moving, more relvant, more intelligent speech in my life than Obama’s victory speech in SC tonight. Wow! I am off the fence and into the Obama camp with my tent, sleeping bag and money. For the first time since John Kennedy, I am ready to get truly excited about the potential to change our misguided, poorly led country. Go Barry, go!

8. 8
   Carl Says:
   January 26th, 2008 at 10:06 pm

   There is no longer any question who will be the leader who can actually change America. Washington is broken. No one else , either republican , democrat , or independant can bring us together to solve the problems that face us as a Nation.

   The speech Obama delivered just recently in SC was one of the best I’ve ever heard ! Come on America ! We can do better ! Vote for Obama.

9. 9
   Karl Keene Says:
   January 26th, 2008 at 10:10 pm

   Yes we can! We can overcome the tragedy of the Bush administration by electing a visionary and inspirational man - Barack Obama!

   Yes we can! We can finally put to rest the negative, depressing and divisive Bush-Clinton wars by electing Barack Obama!

10. 10
    Heather Says:
    January 26th, 2008 at 10:13 pm

    Fabulous speech! I missed it on CNN (no cable), but WOW! What powerful words. He does give us HOPE. GO Obama!

11. 11
    Robert Jeskey Says:
    January 26th, 2008 at 10:14 pm

    Simply amazing, energetic politician that can cross party lines. Anyone but Hillery.

12. 12
    Abdullah Says:
    January 26th, 2008 at 10:14 pm

    Barak Obama, we need you as a breath of fresh air. This is more than a run for President. It is a run for our future.

Am I missing something? Are Fox News website visitors a different crowd from Fox News viewers? Or are we looking at a landslide if Obama can get past Hillary?

Related posts:
Not Dead Yet: Democracy in America
Obama's "what I meant" moments
Truth and Transformation
The lying Clinton meme
Obama praises (Bill) Clinton, and buries him