Right Wing Nut House

Phil Gramm is still one of the smartest men ever to serve in the United States Senate. This despite his clueless statement that the US is in a “mental recession” and that Americans are a bunch of “whiners” about the economy.

Well things may very well look that way to the former Chairman of mortgage giant USB and a guy who gets $50 thousand a crack to regale fat cat businessmen with stories of how stupid our government is and how the private sector is always smarter. I’m sure from the vantage point of someone whose idea of rough economic times is cutting back on the number of manicure’s he receives a week from 3 to 2, things are just peachy.

The former Texas senator can cite figures on why the economy is not in recession from now until Barack Obama takes the oath of office and it still won’t change the fact that the manufacturing sector of our economy is losing jobs faster than Gramm’s prospects for a cabinet position in a McCain administration. This means that Pennsylvania, Ohio, and Michigan are for all intents and purposes, in an economic slide - a real downturn and not one invented by the New York Times or the Democratic party. To tell these people that they are just having a bad dream and to stop bitching gives those with a political tin ear a bad name.

“Technically” not being in a recession is like saying that “technically” I have the body of a Greek god, a mind like Aristotle, and the compassion of Albert Schweitzer - or I would have those things if I bothered to work out, read more, and gave a good goddamn about the rest of you. It’s all a matter of perception. And you can be “technical” all you want and still not grasp the fundamental truth that it doesn’t matter where they got the idea - whether you and Phil Gramm believe it was force fed the American people by a biased media, a sneaky and underhanded Democratic party, or if they read it in a bathroom stall - the undeniable truth of the matter is that most Americans believe the economy sucks and that they feel quite vulnerable at the moment to job loss, a loss of health insurance, and the price of gas making it impossible for them to maintain their standard of living.

Politicians don’t deal in “what ifs.” They leave that kind of thing to fans of the Chicago Cubs. Those who aspire to be president deal with the reality of the here and now. And John McCain, fighting perceptions of his own lack of understanding and compassion towards working folk, cannot tolerate nor can he afford his number one economic surrogate and advisor to run off at the mouth about the American people suffering from some demented notion that times are tough and that they should ignore everything that’s going on around them and be happy.

Things may be fine in some areas of the US but in the absolutely vital states of Michigan, Ohio, and Pennsylvania, there is real, demonstrable economic pain. What’s more, there is a palpable sense of fear in the air in those states. People don’t necessarily want government to guarantee them a job. They want to be reassured that their leaders understand what they are going through and that, true to our traditions and history as Americans - that things will be better in the future.

No, Phil. We are not nor have we ever been a nation of whiners. Whiners don’t build transcontinental railroads or criss cross the country with a ribbon of highways. Whiners don’t win three World Wars (going on 4) or liberate billions from oppression. Whiners don’t stamp the world with cultural icons like Hollywood or even hated McDonalds. Whiners don’t create a $13 trillion economy while the rest of the world stagnates into economic ennui.

John McCain has the right idea of what to do with someone who has so little faith in America, her people, and our future:

“The person here in Michigan that just lost his job isn’t suffering a mental recession,” he told reporters after a town-hall-style meeting at a factory in this city west of Detroit.

And when he was asked whether Mr. Gramm — McCain campaign co-chairman, UBS Investment Bank vice chairman and former economics professor — might serve as treasury secretary in a McCain administration, the candidate replied with a flash of his sometimes tart humor.

“I think Senator Gramm would be in serious consideration for ambassador to Belarus,” he said, “although I’m not sure the citizens of Minsk would welcome that.”

Talk about throwing someone under the bus, McCain just booted Gramm through the windshield and ran over him. Definite road kill, the former Texas senator has become.

McCain has been straight talking his way across the old rust belt, telling auto workers in Michigan their jobs aren’t coming back, supporting free trade in Ohio, and talking energy in Pennsylvania. Will voters give McCain the benefit of the doubt because he refuses to pander to them? Experience says no, that the American people may not like pandering but they like hard truths even less. Perhaps McCain will get credit outside of the rust belt for telling it as he sees it.

But in those 3 vital states, his candidacy is now an even harder sell thanks to the insensitive, stupid remarks of Phil Gramm.

This article originally appears in The American Thinker

Public approval of Congress is so low that a few Republican optimists dream of overcoming the structural factors favoring the Democrats, holding steady or even gaining seats. They are dreaming. America has a proud tradition of disdain for Congress.

In the run up to the Civil War, the floor of the US House of Representatives became the very first battlefield as northern and southern members would routinely resort to fisticuffs in order to settle arguments or points of personal honor. It was not unusual for Members to come armed with pistols to the floor, ready and willing to offer satisfaction to those who maligned them.

And you thought our Congress was a mean place today?

While the House floor back then could erupt in violence at the drop of the proverbial hat, the Senate was a different story. Here, the well born members had tradition and ceremony to stand on, preferring to leave the fighting to the riff raff over in the House — until the Spring of 1856.

It was then that the issue of statehood for Kansas roiled the Capitol and men appeared to lose their minds with passion. At the height of this controversy Massachusetts Senator Charles Sumner rose to give a speech that skewered slave holders and the “harlot” slavery. Sumner painted slavery in the most sexually suggestive terms imaginable while virtually accusing every slaveholder of raping their female slaves.

One of the most horrifying aspects of slavery to the good Puritans of New England was the “freedom of the slave quarters” granted to southern masters (and their house guests). Sumner’s words were designed to recall that horror and in the process condemn not only the institution of slavery, but those who practiced it.

Sumner even got specific in his condemnation. He named the fire eating senator from South Carolina Andrew Butler as one of the practitioners:

“The Senator from South Carolina has read many books of chivalry, and believes himself a chivalrous knight, with sentimcuts of honor and courage. Of course he has chosen a mistress to whom he has made his vows, and who, though ugly to others, is always lovely to him; though polluted in the sight of the world, is chaste in his sight I mean the harlot, Slavery. For her, his tongue is always profuse in words. Let her be impeached in character, or any proposition made to shut her out from the extension of her wantonness, and no extravagance of manner or hardihood of assertion is then too great for this Senator. The frenzy of Don Quixote, in behalf of his wench, Dulcinea del Toboso, is all surpassed.”

That fellow had a way with words, didn’t he? Not everyone agreed — especially Butler’s cousin Preston who heard of the calumny practiced against his kinsmen and took matters into his own hands. This is from the Official Senate History of the incident:

Representative Preston Brooks was Butler’s South Carolina kinsman. If he had believed Sumner to be a gentleman, he might have challenged him to a duel. Instead, he chose a light cane of the type used to discipline unruly dogs. Shortly after the Senate had adjourned for the day, Brooks entered the old chamber, where he found Sumner busily attaching his postal frank to copies of his “Crime Against Kansas” speech.

Moving quickly, Brooks slammed his metal-topped cane onto the unsuspecting Sumner’s head. As Brooks struck again and again, Sumner rose and lurched blindly about the chamber, futilely attempting to protect himself. After a very long minute, it ended.

Bleeding profusely, Sumner was carried away. Brooks walked calmly out of the chamber without being detained by the stunned onlookers. Overnight, both men became heroes in their respective regions.

For months afterward, Brooks received ceremonial canes from admirers across the South, several engraved with the epithet “Hit him again.” Summner, for his part, spent years in physical therapy and returned to the Senate in time to lead the Bitter End Republicans both during the Civil War and Reconstruction.

What did the American people think of displays like this? Most probably, they were hugely entertained. In a time before radio, TV, the internet, and Bill Maher, politicians were celebrities. And a politician who could deliver a stemwinder of a speech was a superstar. Can you imagine a knock down, drag out fight between say Bono and Kid Rock? The syndication rights alone would be worth millions.

On the other hand, few would pay to see our current lawmakers go at it on the floor of their respective chambers. Somehow, I can’t see Harry Reid gettin’ it on with Mitch McConnell, although Mitch has a few inches and probably 50 lbs on the Nevadan. Then again, Harry looks like one of those sneaky strong, wiry types with arms like banded steel. And don’t let that mild mannered professor look fool you either. As a kid, he would accompany his father, Harry Reid Sr., for long days deep underground in the mines. His father was a hardrock miner — not a job for the faint of heart or someone averse to hard work.

But despite seeing Congressmen and Senators as well known personages, the American people back then saw Congress as a whole pretty much the way we see it today; a healthy republican skepticism for their motives and a tendency to view the entire crew as a pretty worthless bunch. They may have liked and admired their own Member of Congress and Senators. But taken together, the Congress was seen as a bunch of greedy charlatans who were out to enrich themselves and their cronies.

If that description strikes you as apropos of today’s gaggle of congress critters, you wouldn’t be alone. A recent Rasmussen poll is great news for our elected officials. An overwhelming majority of Americans actually agree on something for once. Amidst war, a faltering economy, gas prices that are so high parents are auctioning off their children just to fill the tank, and the prospect of al-Qaeda paying a visit to your neighborhood soon, Americans have come to a consensus on one major issue.

They believe that Congress pretty much sucks.

Rasmussen reports in its latest survey that just 9% of the public gives Congress good or excellent ratings. I said this was great news for our lawmakers because it would be hard to imagine these numbers going any lower. They have hit absolute, undeniable, rock bottom. Just 2% of the public believes that Congress is doing an “excellent” job. Only 7% believe them to be doing a “good” job. Meanwhile, 88% think that Congress is doing a “fair” or “poor” job with 52% believing that 535 marmosets might do a better job than the sorry bunch currently calling themselves our Congress.

The big reason for these historically wretched numbers is the fact that the Congress has done precious little to address the major concerns of the American people. And their number one concern at the moment is the extortionate price for a gallon of gas. Energy costs for the average family have doubled this year and all the voter is seeing from our “Great Men” is handwringing and blame making. Unlike our lawmakers, the American citizen is quite the sensible person and figures that the Congress isn’t going to get anything done by being beastly to each other. They want action and they want it yesterday.

But that just isn’t in the cards with this assemblage up of pirates and grifters. As long as they’re bringing home the pork to their own districts, while making solicitous noises about knowing how tough it is for the average family in this crisis, the average voter will chalk up the problem to “all those other Congressman” and return their Member for another two years so that he/she can rob the treasury some more.

It’s depressing but true that this cycle of stupidity will be repeated once again this year. Historically, incumbent Congressmen are returned at a rate of 98% and though a few Republicans will probably fall in November, it won’t affect that percentage very much. Most Democratic gains will come in the 32 open seats vacated by retiring (or indicted) members. Being an incumbent these days is like getting dealt a straight flush every hand. The only way to lose is if you go to jail or die before scooping up the pot.

Some of my conservative friends point to these embarrassing numbers and take me to task for not believing in a GOP sweep in the fall. The Democrats, after all, are in control of this flea circus and if the Republicans could get swept away in 2006, punished for mismanaging Congress then surely the Democrats should suffer a similar fate, yes?

In a perfect world, such would be the case. CBut we don’t live in a perfect world or even a halfway tolerable one. The aftertaste of 12 years of Republican rule is still being spit out by the voter which is why in the generic vote for Congress, Democrats still lead by a comfortable 47-34 margin. People may be going broke filling their tanks with gas but they aren’t yet ready to blame the party that promises them a bountiful and clean energy future but in the meantime they should sit down, shut up, and suffer in silence.

It shouldn’t be a winning strategy but it will be. And its because people don’t expect anything from Congress anyway that allows this kind of cynicism to win through to victory.

A helluva way to run a country

These are the days that I truly hate the internet and how it has affected our politics.

Don’t get me wrong. The “Jesse Jackson ate Obama’s testicles” story is a lot of fun to write about - as you can tell already. And I make no claim to being above it all when it comes to latching on to an internet feeding frenzy and participating in these Bloggasm memes.

But really now, just what is this story about? Does anyone seriously believe The Good Reverend is going to withdraw his support from Obama or work one whit less energetically to get him elected? Can anyone possibly claim this has any relevance whatsoever to the campaign, any issue of the campaign, or is even tangentially related to presidential politics?

Of course not. This is basically a story about a racialist who sees an ascendant Obama as a threat to his little white guilt extortion racket and expressed his frustration at the fact that if Obama is elected, it will be harder to maintain his position in the African American community and hence,  the lifestyle to which he has become accustomed.

Electing Obama will not prove there is no racism in America. But if Obama continues to push themes of personal responsibility for African Americans and if he continues his efforts to alter the cultural bias against obeying the law, staying in school, and getting a good education, the days of Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton, and the rest of the Victimhood Society being able to afford $2000 suits and live high off the hog will be numbered.

Taking responsibility for one’s own life be it accepting the obligations that come with fathering a child or staying away from drugs and the poisonous culture of gangs is a liberating experience - the last thing that the Jacksons and Sharptons of the world want. Absolute dependency on government for African Americans is their ally and any efforts to throw off that oppressive yoke threatens their raison d’être.

But back to Jackson’s mock threat to make a eunuch out of Obama. Or, more accurately, make Obama more of a squish than he already is. Here is Jackson’s colorful sotto voce threat while being filmed by Fox News and, unbeknownst to Jackson, a live mic:

The Rev. Jesse Jackson apologized Wednesday for saying Barack Obama is “talking down to black people” during what Jackson thought was a private conversation before a FOX News interview Sunday.

Jackson was speaking to a guest at the time about Obama’s speeches in black churches and his support for faith-based charities. Jackson added before going live, “I want to cut his nuts off.”

His microphone picked up the remarks.

Here’s a link to the video.

To emphasize “cutting off” the remnants of Obama’s manhood, Jackson actually gave a slight “stick it to ‘em” fist pump as if he relished the idea of taking a rusty blade to said body part. One wonders in more private venues what body parts he would look forward to removing from someone like President Bush or one of the group of writers and reporters who have delved into his personal and professional life to reveal the Good Reverend as nothing more than a philandering bunko artist.

And no one has chronicled the outrageous activities of this charlatan better than Kenneth Timmerman whose unauthorized biography of Jackson revealed shocking facts not only about The Good Reverend, but also his enablers in business and government who were terrified of Jackson’s threats of being branded “racist” for not giving in to his extortion schemes.

Shakedown” chronicles in excruciating detail what Jackson is all about:

As Timmerman’s chronicle makes explicit, there were few if any things that Jackson failed to exploit for monetary value. The book’s title, Shakedown, refers to the process by which Jackson would “shake down” or extort corporations for money, threatening to call for a boycott of their products by black Americans unless they provided a certain number of jobs to minorities and made hefty donations to Jackson’s various non-profit organizations. Fearful of being labeled racists and becoming embroiled in public relations scandals, many corporate CEO’s gladly acquiesced to Jackson’s demands, doling out funds and rewarding Jackson’s business “partners,” usually wealthy black businessmen, with lucrative jobs. Left out of this process were ordinary black men and women, the ones whose collective power to boycott lay behind Jackson’s threats.

One particularly obvious “shakedown” occurred in 1999 when Jackson’s organization Rainbow/PUSH opposed the proposed merger of telecommunications giants AT&T and TCI, claiming that the companies had a “questionable employment record.” AT&T CEO Michael Armstrong instructed his company to donate $425,000 to the Jackson-controlled non-profit group, Citizenship Education Fund [CEF]. Jackson’s opposition to the merger was immediately halted. Then, when the bond deal between the companies was announced, Armstrong personally requested that the small black-owned investment bank, Blaylock & Partners be named co-manager of the record-breaking deal. Blaylock personally benefited to the tune of $1.4 million from the deal, “its biggest deal ever.” Blaylock’s CEO, Ron Blaylock then gave Jackson a $30,000 donation.

While the shakedown of AT&T benefited Jackson and Blaylock, it did nothing for the ordinary men and women on whose behalf Jackson was supposedly acting when he inquired about the “questionable employment record” of AT&T and TCI. “Jesse was brokering deals for a closely knit black elite, and it rankled many black businessmen who never made it into his inner circle-either because they refused to contribute to Jesse Inc. or because they simply weren’t big enough to count,” writes Timmerman.

One can see how an Obama presidency might cut into Jesse’s racketeering by empowering those “little people” beyond anything Jackson has ever delivered. So while Jackson feels a certain obligation to campaign for Obama and place his candidacy in a political/historical context, he doesn’t have to like it. Those “faith based initiatives” would really put a crimp in Jackson’s, Sharpton’s, and others ability to soak corporate American and hold up Congress for funds.

That’s the backstory but where’s the connection to Campaign ‘08? It isn’t there and you won’t find any. The story got legs simply because Jackson used a street metaphor to express his feelings about Obama moving in on his bailiwick by offering an alternative to the African American community on how they can find a seat at the American table.

Jackson and his friends feel the heat. And yet they don’t dare submarine Obama’s candidacy lest they be revealed as the charlatans they truly are. So they hang around the fringes of the Obama campaign until they say something outrageous like Jackson did the other day. Then we get the non-apology for causing a non-distraction at a non-event.

Remind me again why I’m writing about this…?

Finally, Nouri al-Maliki - a guy I’ve been calling an empty suit for years - seems to have grown a pair and is standing up for the Iraqi people against the Americans.

The Iraqis want our combat forces to leave in an orderly fashion by withdrawing troops using a timetable that will be mutually agreed upon. What’s not to like in this?

Well, if you’re President Bush or John McCain, you have a political problem in that you have opposed a timetable being attached to our withdrawal for years. But that was Democrats setting arbitrary timetables not the sovereign nation of Iraq giving their problematic allies a graceful way to exit with honor and a true “Mission Accomplished.”

Saddam is gone. His WMD programs are history. The Iraqi army has proven in Basra, in Sadr City, and most especially in Mosul that they are capable of handling the security of the country (internal). The police - while still a large problem as far as corruption - performed quite well in Mosul also.

Just what is it we are still needed for?

Security from external threats? Agreed - but we don’t need 135,000 troops for that. We don’t need 50,000 troops in Iraq either. A “tripwire” force of less than 20,000 should be all that’s needed to keep Iran or Syria or any other hostile power from violating the territorial integrity of Iraq. With the pre-placement of equipment for a much larger force along with several thousand American advisers to continue the Iraqi’s training, a large combat presence will be tough to rationalize.

It was unrealistic of us to think that we could nurture this fledgling democracy through its growing pains and into the light of true liberty. At some point, the apron strings must be cut and the Iraqi government and people must go out on their own and find their own path to freedom. It will be messy. There will be stops and starts. It won’t look much like western style democracy. But the Iraqis must develop their own traditions, their own institutions if they are to succeed in joining the free nations of the world.

Ben Franklins admonishment to a woman outside of Independence Hall after the Constitution was agreed upon at the convention should hold special meaning for the Iraqis. When asked by the lady what kind of government to delegates had given the people Franklin responded “A republic ma’am - if you can keep it.” I don’t know exactly what kind of government will emerge in the coming years in Iraq. All I’m sure of is that it will be an Iraqi government. It may be free. It may be less free. It may devolve into a dictatorship - perhaps even mimicing the clerical fascists next door in Iran.

And while we will watch with great interest and even powerful emotions, it matters not what we think. We have done all that we can to give them this opportunity - an opportunity that cost us more than 4,000 brave souls and countless thousands who returned maimed, disfigured, and emotionally troubled. Other unforseen consequences will no doubt emerge not the least of which is a regional power in Iran who will try their best to undermine what we have started in Iraq. They may succeed. And then again, they may not. There are many in Iraq who are dedicated to establishing a secular democratic state. Perhaps their good hearts and good intentions will hold off the beast to the south who will work through proxies to try and destablize the nascent state.

But it will not be our direct concern anymore. Take the deal, Mr. President. The Iraqis have grown up and are ready to take responsibility for their own security, their own state. Hasn’t that been our goal all along.

Make the deal, Mr. Bush. It will be your parting gift to the country and might - just might - raise you up in the estimation of your countrymen. Goodness knows you’ve done enough the last 8 years to lower it.

You won’t want to miss tonight’s Rick Moran Show,, one of the most popular conservative talk shows on Blog Talk Radio.

Tonight, Rich Baehr of The American Thinker joins me in the second chair for a discussion of the state of the presidential race in early July

Our catch phrase for the show: “Almost like the “Algonquin Round Table” except I don’t live in Algonquin anymore and Dorothy Parker died years ago.”

The show will air from 7:00 - 8:00 PM Central time. You can access the live stream here. A podcast will be available for streaming or download shortly after the end of the broadcast.

Click on the stream below and join in on what one wag called a “Wayne’s World for adults.” A podcast will be available for streaming or download around 15 minutes after the show ends.

The Chat Room will open around 15 minutes before the show opens,

Also, if you’d like to call in and put your two cents in, you can dial (718) 664-9764.

It’s not making news because after all, reporting on the messiah’s mixed race upbringing and sterling oratory makes for so much better copy.

But someone, someday in the major media is going to wake up and take a good long look at Barack Obama’s campaign and notice something very strange; it is staffed from top to bottom with Chicagoans who have mostly made their bones working for Mayor Richard Daley and the Chicago Machine.

It is not an exaggeration to say that Barack Obama’s campaign is being run out of Chicago. He recently moved most of the Democratic National Committee functions to the Windy City and his campaign headquarters is there as well.

The question the press might want to ask would be is there anything being “run” in Chicago that doesn’t have Mayor Daley’s fingerprints all over it?

Is Barack Obama Daley’s man?

Seth Gittel in the New York Sun:

While the convention will be held in Denver it will give off the greatest Chicago cast since 1996, when Mayor Daley hosted the convention that nominated President Clinton for his second term. The June decision to place operations of the Democratic National Committee in Chicago together with Mr. Obama’s headquarters reinforces the Windy City’s dominance of Democratic politics. The big question is whether American voters will notice.

Mr. Obama has run successfully as a candidate of reform. A former community organizer, he fills his rhetoric with references to “a new and better day” and the omnipresent imperative of “change.” In South Carolina last January Mr. Obama said, “we’re looking to fundamentally change the status quo in Washington.”

For the junior Illinois senator, change in Washington is a requirement. But that does not seem to be the case for Chicago, as it seems from Mr. Obama’s support for Chicago’s mayor who has been in power since 1989. Mr. Obama announced his support of the mayor’s reelection effort in January 2007 after Mr. Daley, endorsed him for president in 2006.

[snip]

The reality is that without Mr. Daley’s backing, Mr. Obama would be running a very different kind of campaign. Part of the tactical genius for Mr. Obama’s campaign has been provided by his campaign consultant, David Axelrod, who also is a longtime operative in Mr. Daley’s operation.

A columnist with the Chicago Tribune, John Kass, explained the arrangement in an interview with CNN: “Richard M. Daley is the boss of [the] Chicago Machine. His spokesman was David Axelrod. Their candidate is Barack Obama. Who speaks for Barack Obama? David Axelrod. There’s no such thing as coincidences. Chicago politics doesn’t have coincidences.”

As far as coincidences go, there’s also the woman Newsweek described as the campaign’s “insider-outsider, a trusted friend who can give them a view from beyond the confines of the campaign bubble,” Valerie Jarrett. Ms. Jarrett served as the planning and development commissioner for Mayor Daley during the 1990s. Today, in addition to being a confidante of Mr. Obama and his wife, she’s also the chief executive of Habitat Co., which has drawn scrutiny for managing uninhabitable affordable housing, such as the Grove Parc Plaza complex.

It is amazing to those of us who have followed Chicago politics for any length of time that Axelrod’s close connections to Daley are not a part of the story of this campaign. It’s not that this fact is rarely mentioned. It is that it is NEVER mentioned! Axelrod knows full well the stink that emanates from City Hall could tarnish Obama’s Mr. Clean reputation - a rep that has been created out of whole cloth given Obama’s own connections and pandering to the Machine when it would benefit his career. His endorsement last year of Daley (along with most of the corrupt Cook County slate of candidates) shows just how serious Mr. Obama is about “change.” In short, he’s perfectly willing to change you but when it comes to changing Chicago, the candidate is a weak sister.

The inclusion of Ms. Jarrett in Gittel’s analysis is surprising. She is the invisible woman of the campaign and, as her resume indicates, is a bridge between Obama and some of the Machine’s moving parts. Her stint on the Planning Commission - one of the most powerful jobs in the city - coincides with Michelle Obama’s service on the same board. They also served together on another powerful board, the Landmarks Commission (try to build almost anything or anywhere in the city without the approval of the Landmarks Commission and you run into big problems).

Anyone asking the question how a little known state senator who has served less than half a term as a US Senator could be the Democratic nominee for president only need look at Obama’s friends in very high places in Chicago. This is the story of the campaign. It’s a shame everyone is missing it.

“After you, my dear Alfonse.”
No, no - After you, my dear Gaston.”
(”Alfonse and Gaston” - newspaper comic strip created by Edward Burr Opper)

When looking at the choice Barack Obama must make for the Vice Presidential nominee of the Democratic party, one is struck by the number of high profile candidates who have politely refused to run with the messiah.Reliapundit has compiled the list of “after you” candidates:

EDWARDS HAS SAID HE’S NOT INTERESTED.
JOE BIDEN SAYS HE’S NOT INTERESTED, BUT MIGHT SAY YES IF ASKED.
DITTO KERRY.
GOVERNOR TOM STRICKLAND OF OHIO HAS SAID HE’S NOT INTERESTED.
SENATOR BAYH SAID HE’S NOT INTERESTED - BUT MIGHT SAY YES.
GOVERNOR BREDESEN SAYS HE’S NOT INTERESTED.
WEBB HAS NOW SAID HE’S NOT INTERESTED.

RP draws an interesting parallel with the McGovern candidacy where George was so obviously going to lose hugely to Nixon that no one wanted to join him for the death watch. Finally, in desperation, McGovern turned to Missouri senator Tom Eagleton. Eagleton was a fine man, a good senator, but had undergone electro-shock therapy for depression about 10 years previously. In 1972, this was considered a disqualification for high office by most - even though McGovern stupidly backed Eagleton after the news broke and was forced within 48 hours to withdraw his candidacy - and I’m not so sure it would be widely accepted today.

The point being, no respectable potential Veep nominee would touch McGovern’s campaign with a ten foot pole.

The Obama campaign is beginning to smell a lot like the McGovern effort. Perhaps not so much because people don’t think he can win as much as the disaster-in-waiting his presidency could be. Seasoned pols like Governor Strickland and Senator Evan Bayh have politely declined the honor. Now, part of that may be the realization that they would not be Obama’s first choice, although Strickland would probably bring the candidate Ohio and Bayh, Indiana. Ditto Bredesen with Tennssee. And in a close race, any one of those states could help make the difference.

But the “after you” syndrome seems to have infected the campaign as other potentials who would be popular with the party have in effect said, “Don’t call me unless there’s no one else who will do it.”

But why? There are precious few professionals who think John McCain can pull it off. The GOP is in absolute disarray. From top to bottom, defeatism and depression have set in which almost guarantees big Democratic pick ups in the House and Senate.

And yet…

If Obama were such a shoo-in, why are so many candidates for the Vice Presidency taking their name off the chalk board? This is especially true of younger guys like Bayh, Bredesen, and Webb who have all been mentioned as possible presidential contenders some day. Serving 8 years in an Obama administration as Vice President would almost guarantee their ascension to the top spot on the Democratic ticket in 2016.

Are we missing something that these guys have already caught on to?

Obama’s poll numbers are good but taking into consideration all the factors involved, those numbers just don’t add up. With a screamingly bad economy in some parts of the country (and getting worse everywhere else) along with people desperately wanting “change” (whatever that means) coupled with the Republican brand being about as salable as dog food at a convention of gourmet cooks, by all rights Obama should be so far ahead at this point that McCain wouldn’t even be showing up in his rear view mirror.

But that is not the case. Despite a campaign in disarray with many Republican strategists criticizing the organization, the message, the themes, and the scheduling of McCain, Obama can’t shake the Arizona senator. Daily tracking polls by Gallup and Rasmussen have the race closer than the GOP could have dreamed at this point. Gallup has it 47-43 Obama while Rasmussen shows a 5 point Obama lead 49-44.

The big news from those tracking polls is that Obama can’t crack 50%. And the all important electoral college numbers at this point also show Obama lagging although he is doing slightly better than his national numbers would indicate. According to RealClear Politics running count, Obama has 153 solid electoral votes with 85 leaning his way for a total of 238 (270 needed to win). McCain has 93 solid and 73 leaning for a total of 163. The map currently shows 137 toss up EV’s - a number that is expected to grow to McCain’s detriment.

The problem for Obama is that McCain is running better in states like Washington, Oregon, Michigan, and Pennsylvania than Obama is running in some GOP leaners and toss ups. In other words, this is still a tight race in every way despite the perceived advantages of the Democrat.

And then there’s the matter of race that no one is taking for granted. No one can guess what the American people will do when they are faced with making a choice in the voting booth. In privacy and secrecy, with the curtains closed and no one looking over their shoulder, just how tolerant will the American people be? Perhaps a few of those candidates who are saying they don’t want the Veep job believe that in the end, race might make a difference.

Finally, there’s the Hillary factor. Since Mrs. Clinton wants the job, appearing to stand in her way would not be healthy politically. The Clintons have long memories and know how to treat their friends - and anyone they perceive as an enemy.

So I don’t necessarily see “The McGovern Factor” at work in the reluctance of so many A-list Democrats who are declining to serve as Veep on a ticket headed up by Obama. But I find it strange that McCain does not seem to be having a similar problem despite the fact that he finds himself very much in McGovern territory as far as the perception of his chances in the fall.

No doubt Obama will find a candidate - a good candidate - to run with him. But the process by which he chooses his running mate has revealed a hesitation among some Democrats to tie themselves too closely to their presidential candidate. Is it significant? I think it is and I believe one reason may very well be that some Democrats are not as confident of victory in November as they let on.

A couple of weeks ago, the New York Times published an exciting story about how the CIA broke 9/11 mastermind Khalid Shaik Mohammed. The hero of the story was a nondescript CIA interrogator who astonished his CIA colleagues by eliciting enormous amounts of valuable information from KSM, all by using psychological ploys and developing a rapport with the terrorist rather than the tactics used by the “knuckledraggers” as the interrogator’s colleagues called the CIA paramilitary types, who were using waterboarding and other methods of torture.

As Allah points out, the story in the Times was not about the interrogator but rather the US government’s stumbling about in the post 9/11 intelligence climate searching for a counter terrorism strategy. Why then, did the Times reporter Scott Shane, his Washington Bureau Chief Dean Baquet, and executive editor Bill Keller decide to include the real last name of the interrogator when publishing the story?

An editor’s note published with the article explaining the decision to out the interrogator is self serving twaddle:

The Central Intelligence Agency asked The New York Times not to publish the name of Deuce Martinez, an interrogator who questioned Khalid Shaikh Mohammed and other high-level Al Qaeda prisoners, saying that to identify Mr. Martinez would invade his privacy and put him at risk of retaliation from terrorists or harassment from critics of the agency.

After discussion with agency officials and a lawyer for Mr. Martinez, the newspaper declined the request, noting that Mr. Martinez had never worked under cover and that others involved in the campaign against Al Qaeda have been named in news stories and books. The editors judged that the name was necessary for the credibility and completeness of the article.

The Times’s policy is to withhold the name of a news subject only very rarely, most often in the case of victims of sexual assault or intelligence officers operating under cover.

The backstory, revealed today by Times “Public Editor” Clark Hoyt, is even more shocking in its implications. What it reveals about the people who make such decisions at the highest editorial level at the Times is that quite simply, they do not believe that al-Qaeda poses much of a threat to individuals and, by extension, the United States.

And beyond the security calculations made on behalf of the interrogator by those noted terrorism experts Bill Keller and Dean Basquet, there is the extraordinary lack of common decency in deliberately and knowingly placing someone’s life and the lives of his family in danger. This is especially true when you consider that the story would have gotten along just fine without us knowing the real name of the interrogator.

This raises a couple of other questions, none of which would flatter the editorial leadership at the Times. Are they so enamored of their own policies and rules governing the naming of names that they got caught up in a fight to identify a non-covert employee of the CIA at the expense of his safety? Did Keller et al sacrifice common sense and common decency on the altar of corporate inflexibility rather than bend the rules to accommodate a special situation?

I do not ascribe wicked ulterior motives to the Times outing of the interrogator. I believe it much more likely that the bureaucrats and lawyers at the Times insisted on following established policy - the God of the small minded - instead of making an exception in the interrogator’s case.

Clark Hoyt’s non-explanation of why the interrogator’s name remained in the story despite entreaties made by DCIA Hayden and the interrogator’s personal attorney, the high-powered, well connected Washington lawyer Robert Bennett, is more incredible than the “Editor’s Note” that appeared in the original story. Note the lack of empathy for the interrogator’s concerns for his safety and that of his family as well as the disingenuous of the explanations:

Shane said he had sought the C.I.A.’s cooperation in reporting the story but was rebuffed by the agency and by Martinez, who now works for a private contractor. After Shane contacted friends and associates of Martinez and sought an interview with him, Mark Mansfield, the C.I.A.’s director of public affairs, sent a strongly worded letter to Dean Baquet, The Times’s Washington bureau chief. Naming the interrogator “would be reckless and irresponsible,” Mansfield said, and “could endanger the lives of this American and his family” by making them Qaeda targets. And in the “poisoned atmosphere” of the debate over the C.I.A.’s interrogation techniques, Mansfield wrote, Martinez could be “vulnerable to any misguided person who believes they need to confront ‘torture’ directly.”

Baquet asked for a meeting to discuss the C.I.A.’s request. Mansfield refused. He told me the letter said it all and nothing could be accomplished by a meeting. But to Baquet, Shane and Rebecca Corbett, the editor of the story, the refusal suggested that the C.I.A. was not actually that concerned. The Times has been asked before by the C.I.A. to withhold information — it has sometimes agreed, sometimes refused — and serious requests have usually come from the top of the agency, with an opportunity to discuss them.

But the reporter and editors said they were still worried about Martinez’s fears and tried to assess how realistic they were. Shane said he repeatedly pressed the C.I.A. for more information. He called John Kiriakou, a former covert operative who was the first to question another top Qaeda terrorist, Abu Zubaydah. Kiriakou voluntarily went public last December, and Shane wanted to know what happened. Kiriakou mentioned a death threat published in Pakistan and didn’t go into much more detail. Kiriakou said he advised Shane not to use the name.

The Times was not looking for a reason to keep the name of the interrogator quiet. They were looking for justification to publish it. When the CIA wouldn’t give it to them, they went outside the agency and were told exactly the same thing - publishing the name would put the man and his family in danger.

How much danger? Here is what the former agent told Hoyt about what happened when his name became known:

When I asked Kiriakou for full details about his experience, he said he received more than a dozen death threats, many of them crank. His house was put under police guard and he took his family to Mexico for two weeks after the C.I.A. advised him to get out of town for a while. He said he lost his job with a major accounting firm because executives expressed fear that Al Qaeda could attack its offices to get him, though Kiriakou considered that fear unreasonable.

Apparently, the Times brain trust did not press Kiriakou for these details because they simply didn’t want to hear them. Our brave Public Editor did not see fit to criticize his colleagues for this gross negligence.

Finally, the last leg of the Times case for publishing the name was cut from under them (”serious requests have usually come from the top of the agency, with an opportunity to discuss them…”) when the DCIA calling Bill Keller to plead the interrogator’s case:

[name redacted] hired a Washington super-lawyer, Robert Bennett, to plead his case. With the story two days from publication, Gen. Michael Hayden, the C.I.A. director, called Bill Keller, The Times’s executive editor. Keller said Hayden acknowledged that he did not know of any specific threat to [name redacted] or of any Qaeda hit list. But Hayden said that naming [name redacted] could subject him to harassment or even put him in danger. Keller said, “I had this impression that he was doing it out of respect for [name redacted] and his family’s concerns more than a concern the C.I.A. had.”

Through his spokesman, Hayden agreed with Keller’s description of what was said but disagreed with the editor’s interpretation of the call. Hayden was “extremely disappointed” in the newspaper’s decision, Mansfield said.

Keller’s “impression” that Hayden wasn’t serious about trying to protect the interrogator is a breathtaking example of journalistic arrogance. With that kind of insight, Keller should be transferred to the Business Section and made into a stock touter. Instead, it is clear that the Times editors placed the interrogator’s safety as a secondary concern while trying to justify their decision to name him.

What kind of fallout can the interrogator expect?

The Times and other news organizations have been asked over the years to withhold stories for fear of harm. And they have done so when a persuasive case has been made that the danger — whether to national security or an individual — is real and imminent. In this case, there is no history of Al Qaeda hunting down individuals in the United States for retribution. It prefers dramatic attacks that kill indiscriminately. And The Times took reasonable precautions to prevent Martinez from being easily found.

Bennett said The Times did “a terrible thing.” He said Martinez had been threatened repeatedly by Mohammed and others he interrogated but they did not know his identity. Now their friends do, at least to some degree. Martinez has received no threats since the article was published. Shane, on the other hand, has received abusive e-mail bordering on the threatening.

I understand how readers can think that if there is any risk at all, a person like Martinez should never be identified. But going in that direction, especially in this age of increasing government secrecy, would leave news organizations hobbled when trying to tell the public about some of the government’s most important and controversial actions.

Of all the self serving tripe contained in this backstory, the notion that there is no threat because al Qaeda hasn’t gone after individuals yet is perhaps the most ridiculous. It suicidally underestimates the capabilities of our adversary while giving the paper another “out” when it comes to responsibility if anything does happen to the interrogator. “How could we possibly have known they would kill the guy? They had never done it before…” would make an excellent lead editorial if, God forbid, al-Qaeda makes good on its threats.

And poor little Shane! He’s been getting “abusive” (name calling) emails “bordering” on being threats. What shameless sophistry from Hoyt. To try and equate an al-Qaeda threat with that of some internet magpie is patently stupid and transparent in the extreme. It is perhaps revealing of how the Times editors actually view the War on Terror that they would compare al-Qaeda to an anonymous web rabble rouser.

And in a case like this, it is up to the paper to prove how it would be “hobbled” if they published an alias for the interrogator rather than mention him by name - not the other way around where the subject of the story must prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that he would be in danger if his name was published. That is perhaps the most telling proof of hubris on the part of the Times. In their little cocoon of arrogance and self importance, they place the life of a man on a scale and weigh it against their own petty policies and personal notion of the public’s “right to know.”

The fact that the interrogator was no longer with the agency and therefore was being punished with notoriety years after he had served his country honorably shows that the Times concerns were not with national security or the personal security of the interrogator but rather with their own warped view of journalistic standards that apparently brook no revision - even if it could cost someone’s life.

Hoyt never bothers to criticize any of his colleagues in this story. He accepts their “explanations” - some of which are outrageously inapt - at face value with no comment on whether they pass the smell test. To my mind, the excuses made by Keller, Shane, and Baquet stink - reason enough to bring down disapprobation on the Times, their editorial staff, and most especially, their Public Editor who once again has failed to do his job.

I am so pleased that our freedom loving president has decided to attend the opening ceremonies of the Olympic Games in Beijing, China. I’m sure he is relieved that he doesn’t have to pretend to care about those wild ass Tibetan monks and nuns who just a short while ago were being slaughtered in the streets of Lhasa. After all, if CNN isn’t paying attention, why should he?

We are, after all, into our “Let’s not be beastly to the Chinese” mode this month - despite Beijing’s utter refusal to seriously assist the world in stopping the slaughter in Darfur where they hold sway with the government and continue to supply them arms. The same could be said for most hot spots in the world today where China has chosen - shall we say - a more “pragmatic” approach to international diplomacy. In other words, if the solution would harm Chinese economic interests, better to be a Sabot than pragmatist.

From Iran, to the Congo, to Burma - where western countries tried unsuccessfully to enter and alleviate the horrific suffering caused by the typhoon that hit Burma on May 2 - China has seen fit to block, impede, ignore, and otherwise discombobulate efforts to resolve these problems and protect the peace or save lives.

This is the reality of living with a China that is beginning to flex its muscles on the world stage. Quiescent for 600 years, China is back with a vengeance and while cooperating in a very limited sphere of priorities, the Dragon prefers to go its own way. It is procuring oil deals in the Middle East, trade deals in South America, and beginning to dominate its neighbors in East Asia economically.

And part of this muscle flexing - a very large psychological part - is hosting the Summer Olympics. As much a confidence booster for its own people as it is a showcase for foreigners (who they still see as barbarians), the Games are an announcement that China is back and that she is about to start kicking butt and take names in the international arena. The powers that be on the International Olympic Committee who handed the Chinese this propaganda coup - fabulously wealthy, old monied European dilettantes and obscure royalty - are playing with forces they neither know nor care little about. The Chinese government dangled billions in front of their eyes and that was enough. To hell with human rights said the IOC lickspittles.

True to form, the Chinese recently cracked down on Tibetans who have a slightly different idea about who should be running their country and it does not include the Chinese army and paramilitary units who routinely whack people they consider troublemakers. The death toll from the riots during last March’s uprising was around 55 we are told. What was never announced were the number of people - monks included - dragged out of their houses in the middle of the night and simply “disappeared” in the old fashioned Stalinist tradition. Word trickled out that entire monasteries were emptied and the monks beaten and shot. Some of the more prominent human rights activists are under house arrest or in some Tibetan dungeon somewhere.

But since the New York Times, the Washington Post, and even Keith Olbermann seems to have mislaid their outrage over this blatant violation of common decency and the UN Charter on Human Rights, our brave Sir President feels it now safe to kow-tow to the Chinese and pretend as if “Tibet” is just a place name on a map:

US President George W Bush will attend the opening ceremony of the Beijing Olympics, the White House says.

Human rights groups and opposition politicians including presidential hopeful Barack Obama had urged Mr Bush to consider boycotting the ceremony.

Beijing’s rights record has come under intense scrutiny since Tibetan protests were suppressed in March.

Troops used force to quell the biggest anti-China demonstrations in Tibetan communities for two decades.

Beijing says rioters killed about 20 people in the unrest, but exiled Tibetan groups accuse security forces of killing scores of protesters.

Even Obama supports a boycott of the opening ceremonies - today. Where he might come down tomorrow on the subject is a different kettle of fish. But for the moment, the messiah is four square in favor of making this small, yet telling statement about what America thinks of the Chinese bully boys cracking down on Tibetans.

But not our George. His compassionate conservative answer to critics?

“He believes he’s going to China to support first and foremost our athletes. He sees this as a sporting competition,” she said.

How touching. Does this make world leaders who intend to boycott the ceremonies hard hearted monsters who don’t support their nation’s athletes?

Some world leaders are missing the 8 August opening ceremony.

Germany’s Angela Merkel is not attending the Olympics. British Prime Minister Gordon Brown will be in Beijing for the closing ceremony only.

French President Nicolas Sarkozy says his attendance depends on progress in dialogue between Beijing and the Tibetan government-in-exile.

Those talks are going about as well as can be expected - which is to say not well at all. This probably means that Sarkozy will join Brown and Merkel in insulting their athletes by missing the opening of the games.

There are those, such as James Joyner, who don’t care much one way or the other:

I don’t feel strongly either way about this issue. My preference would have been not to award China the Olympics, given not only their abysmal human rights record but also the ridiculous level of pollution in Beijing which puts the health of the athletes in danger. Boycotting the opening ceremonies would embarrass the Chinese government and send a message, I suppose, although it would likely just increase their intransigence and make them less cooperative.

What strikes me as interesting in all this is that Bush has rather clearly, in his second term, become much more cognizant that symbolic gestures and rhetoric have an impact beyond the domestic audience. A boycott would likely play well at home, since both the Left and the Right are united in their distaste for the PRC government, albeit for different reasons. But China is the key player in Asia and their cooperation is essential in addressing many issues of strategic concern to the United States in that region. Thinking through the consequences of thumbing our noses at them, therefore, is important.

Joyner’s assessment of the problem of “thumbing our noses” at the Chinese is dubious in my mind. We are, after all, talking about a small gesture that if the Chinese do indeed get their nose all bent out of shape because of it, only prove themselves to be unworthy of any approbation for having “come so far” as a nation. His analysis also fails to assess the damage caused by our not standing up for human rights and Tibet.

If the Chinese are so paranoid and sensitive about anything marring their precious games (they murdered hundreds of thousands of cats and dogs to “clean up” Beijing), perhaps they should address the reality of Tibet rather than trying to sweep it under the rug - something Joyner inadvertently is encouraging them to do. Bush or no Bush, the news nets are not going to ignore Tibet or the boycott by the Big Three in Europe. Ergo, Bush will be seen as the weak sister in the face of Chinese pressure to conform, to get with the program, and celebrate China’s coming out party.

A small thing? I think not. The symbolism of Bush attending the opening ceremonies will not help us in the slightest despite Jim’s hopeful outlook and as the only major western leader in attendance will give unwanted legitimacy to a government whose own people are suffering under a Communist tyranny. I wonder what the Chinese dissidents - those few not in jail at the moment - are thinking about Bush’s decision?

The fact is, because Tibet and Chinese domestic politics is largely ignored at the moment by the press, Bush feels safe in making his announcement. Out of sight and out of mind.

And for the Tibetans, out of luck as well.

This article originally appears in The American Thinker

It’s nearly mid-summer here in the beautiful Midwest. The old saying about the corn being “knee high by the 4th of July” is laughably anachronistic. These days, with hybrid seeds, scientific farming methods, and soil so rich it’s almost a separate food group by itself, the corn is waist high by now and reaching for the sky.

There is perhaps no holiday I look forward to more in my adulthood than the 4th. I have several traditions that have taken hold over the years; watching the wonderful series The Revolution on the History Channel all day, playing patriotic music both old and new, steaks on the barbecue, watching the White Sox, and finally a trip to the local fireworks show.

And never far below the surface is a powerful emotion that can emerge at the most unexpected of times. Sometimes, a particular song can make the throat tighten or a passing memory of a childhood patriotic celebration will cause my eyes to mist over. These outward manifestations of patriotic feelings are, I am sure, shared by many if not most conservatives. We love this country of ours. We worship its past - the great men and women who risked so much and sacrificed all to create the greatest nation on earth. We glory in our traditions and the symbols of our nationhood.

This despite the fact that most of us also recognize that America has failed at times to live up to the ideals set forth in the Declaration of Independence and Constitution; that to this day, the words “all men are created equal” ring hollow for those who suffer the effects of racism, sexism, and bigotry. And that we, a nation of immigrants, don’t always welcome newcomers the way we should.

This is one of the major reasons I love history. America is, at bottom, the most schizophrenic nation imaginable. As long ago as 1765 in the midst of the Stamp Act crisis, wise old Samuel Johnson, the English man of letters who compiled the first English language dictionary, wrote to a friend “Why is it we hear the loudest yelps for freedom from the drivers of Negro slaves?”

Johnson nailed the historical dichotomy of America that continues to this day. We are nation in love with peace who have fought uncounted wars and battles just since the end of World War II. We are a nation with a Statue of Liberty who welcomes immigrants with the stirring words “Give me your tired, your poor, Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free, …” who then turns around and puts up signs “No Irish need apply” or “English only spoken here.”

Herein lies the great chasm that separates liberals and conservatives when it comes to defining the word “patriotism.” The right sees patriotism as a physical, emotional connection with the past; an open acknowledgment and tribute to those who came before us and guaranteed with their blood, sweat, and tears that we, their progeny, would live in freedom. We are aware that America is not all it could be but rather than dwelling on our imperfections, we celebrate all that is good and decent in this land and its people.

The flip side of the same coin is how liberals define patriotism. They seem to intellectualize their love of country. They distrust outward displays of patriotic emotion, tending to equate fervor with patriotism’s evil twin - nationalism. Liberals see a problematic past for America and are not shy about pointing out where America has fallen short in its promises of liberty and equality.

But does this mean that liberals are less patriotic than conservatives?

Is it unpatriotic to want your country to live up to its extraordinary ideals? Is it unpatriotic to criticize what liberals see as hypocrisy in our history, where we celebrate freedom while keeping millions in bondage? Or speak glowingly of Native American culture while treating them abysmally?

Last week, Peter Beinart penned the most thoughtful article on patriotism of the right and left I have ever read. In it, he demonstrated that just because the two sides define the word differently doesn’t mean that both don’t love America equally. Here’s how Beinart, a man of the left, defines the way liberals see patriotism:

If conservatives tend to see patriotism as an inheritance from a glorious past, liberals often see it as the promise of a future that redeems the past. Consider Obama’s original answer about the flag pin: “I won’t wear that pin on my chest,” he said last fall. “Instead, I’m going to try to tell the American people what I believe will make this country great, and hopefully that will be a testimony to my patriotism.” Will make this country great? It wasn’t great in the past? It’s not great as it is?

The liberal answer is, Not great enough. For liberals, America is less a common culture than a set of ideals about democracy, equality and the rule of law. American history is a chronicle of the distance between those ideals and reality. And American patriotism is the struggle to narrow the gap. Thus, patriotism isn’t about honoring and replicating the past; it’s about surpassing it.

Just this past Monday, Barack Obama, feeling his patriotism questioned, gave a similar explanation for where his own patriotism flows:

As I got older, that gut instinct – that America is the greatest country on earth – would survive my growing awareness of our nation’s imperfections: it’s ongoing racial strife; the perversion of our political system laid bare during the Watergate hearings; the wrenching poverty of the Mississippi Delta and the hills of Appalachia. Not only because, in my mind, the joys of American life and culture, its vitality, its variety and its freedom, always outweighed its imperfections, but because I learned that what makes America great has never been its perfection but the belief that it can be made better. I came to understand that our revolution was waged for the sake of that belief – that we could be governed by laws, not men; that we could be equal in the eyes of those laws; that we could be free to say what we want and assemble with whomever we want and worship as we please; that we could have the right to pursue our individual dreams but the obligation to help our fellow citizens pursue theirs.

For a young man of mixed race, without firm anchor in any particular community, without even a father’s steadying hand, it is this essential American idea – that we are not constrained by the accident of birth but can make of our lives what we will – that has defined my life, just as it has defined the life of so many other Americans.

That is why, for me, patriotism is always more than just loyalty to a place on a map or a certain kind of people. Instead, it is also loyalty to America’s ideals – ideals for which anyone can sacrifice, or defend, or give their last full measure of devotion. I believe it is this loyalty that allows a country teeming with different races and ethnicities, religions and customs, to come together as one. It is the application of these ideals that separate us from Zimbabwe, where the opposition party and their supporters have been silently hunted, tortured or killed; or Burma, where tens of thousands continue to struggle for basic food and shelter in the wake of a monstrous storm because a military junta fears opening up the country to outsiders; or Iraq, where despite the heroic efforts of our military, and the courage of many ordinary Iraqis, even limited cooperation between various factions remains far too elusive.

I believe those who attack America’s flaws without acknowledging the singular greatness of our ideals, and their proven capacity to inspire a better world, do not truly understand America.

A fair minded person can read what Obama says and get the sense that his idea of patriotism really isn’t that much different from the love of country expressed by conservatives. He condemns the mindless hatred many on the far left express about America while aknowledging that honoring the symbols and history of America is a legitimate way to express one’s patriotism. The key to his love of America, though, is his belief that where our past comes up short in living up to our ideals, it is our patriotic duty to close that gap.

Beinart shows how even though there are different ways that liberals and conservatives express their love of country, they are both necessary and vital for a whole America:

When it comes to patriotism, conservatives and liberals need each other, because love of country requires both affirmation and criticism. It’s a good thing that Americans fly the flag on July 4. In a country as diverse as ours, patriotic symbols are a powerful balm. And if people stopped flying the flag every time the government did something they didn’t like, it would become an emblem not of national unity but of political division. On the other hand, waving a flag, like holding a Bible, is supposed to be a spur to action. When it becomes an end in itself, America needs people willing to follow in the footsteps of the prophets and remind us that complacent ritual can be the enemy of true devotion.

Patriotism should be proud but not blind, critical yet loving. And liberals and conservatives should agree that if patriotism entails no sacrifice, if it is all faith and no works, then something has gone wrong. The American who volunteers to fight in Iraq and the American who protests the war both express a truer patriotism than the American who treats it as a distant spectacle with no claim on his talents or conscience.

In a very real sense, Beinart’s ideas are as revolutionary as America itself. His connecting the two different yet essential forms of patriotism harkens back to our founding where two competing views on the nature of man fought for dominance at the Constitutional Convention.

The difference between liberal and conservative on this point is profound and has been at the bottom of every political argument in our history. It goes back to the debate over the Constitution – between those who possessed what historian Page Smith referred to as a “classical Christian conscience” and those who believed in the values and precepts of the enlightenment.

Smith believed that the Constitution is infused with elements of both but that the classical Christain conscience dominates. It is the belief that man is inherently evil and will do mischief to his fellow man unless restrained by law and governance. (Smith ascribed a belief in original sin and man’s corruptibility as prerequisites for the classical Christian conscience.) Most of the Federalists ended up in this camp if only because they saw a need to restrain the passions of the common man and keep a strong hand on the tiller of state.

The Jeffersonians had a much more expansive and benign view of human nature. They believed in the perfectibility of man and, like true children of the enlightenment, saw man as basically good but error prone. By applying rational and reasoned concepts to government, Jeffersonians believed man was perfectly capable of governing himself as long as sensible laws were enacted to govern his passions.

One can immediately see the basics of the liberal-conservative schism in this debate over the shape of our constitution. And if you were to extrapolate a bit, you can even see how two definitions of patriotism could emerge from the competing philosophies.

I hold out little hope that many readers (at least those who leave comments) on this site or most sites on the internet would grant Mr. Beinart the legitimacy of his thesis. The patriotism issue is just too emotionally charged and too closely identified with the war for most of us to let go of our petty vindictiveness and grant the opposition the one thing both sides crave the most; recognition that they are acting with the best interests of the United States uppermost in their hearts and minds.

I’m not saying everyone should abandon political combat and move into some loathsome kind of Obama-led paradise where everybody agrees about everything and our great national debates on the war, the energy crisis, the budget, or social issues would suddenly be stilled as we all recognize the error of our ways and come together to hold hands around the great American campfire. That sickening kind of political heaven might be attractive to the ignorant but idealistic young and a segment of the left that sees opposition to its policies the same way the Catholic Church viewed Martin Luther.

But it is not for me. I will continue to battle the left with anger at times but also humor, sarcasm, and satire – hopefully vouchsafing the genuineness of their beliefs and yes, their patriotism in opposing me.

That’s an ideal that all of us - liberal and conservative - can live up to.