Right Wing Nut House

OK, so the president of the United States made a bow to the Emperor of Japan. Yes, he also bowed to the Saudi King, even though press secretary Gibb’s nose grew about 6 inches when he offered that the president was really trying to pick something up off the floor.

I can understand the motivation for lying - hysterical kooks saying that the bow proves the president is really a Moooooslim - but really, couldn’t he have come up with something a little more imaginative? Maybe the president was trying to stretch his back - he hurt it playing basketball, you see. Or perhaps the president had a cramp and was doubled over in pain. Either one of those explanations would have been better than the invisible whatever that was on the floor that the president felt compelled to reach down and pick up just as he was greeting the Saudi King Abdullah.

Whether to the Sheikh of Araby or Hirohito’s son, I am told it doesn’t matter by my liberal friends, that this is a distraction, that it’s typical right wing hand wringing, that nobody cares, that you’re supposed to bow to the emperor, that everybody does it so what’s the big deal besides Obama never does anything wrong and is perfect….

OK - Well, I just sort of extrapolated from their argument that last bit.

One wonders if there will ever be any monumental goof this president makes that would rise above the level of “distraction” and actually be a cause for complaint. And by “monumental” I mean a serious breach of protocol. Tom Lifson at American Thinker spent many years in Japan and offers this:

I agree with Scott Johnson, Steve Gilbert, Andrew Malcom, and many others that the President of the United States should not be bowing before any head of state. But unlike these astute observers, I actually know a little something about the art of the bow in Japan, having lived in Japan four different times on a resident visa, taught East Asian Studies at Harvard, and counseled many hundreds of American, European, Middle Eastern, and Australian executives on how to work and negotiate with the Japanese — including teaching them the right way to bow.

Obama’s bow (below) violates a fundamental precept: NO TOUCHING while bowing.

Here is one of many websites that illustrates how to bow in Japan. The one thing that virtually everyone who teaches bowing etiquette stresses is under no circumstance try to combine a bow with a handshake.

The Emperor appears to smile, which is something polite Japanese are taught to do when embarrassed. Unlike just about everyone who comes into the Emperor’s presence, Obama obviously received no instruction on Imperial etiquette. (Note: The Japanese take their monarch and etiquette in general about 100 times more seriously than do the British.)

That’s fine with me. I wouldn’t like our president to receive such instructions from a foreign entity. But he obviously did not indicate to any of the American embassy staff, nor to any aides familiar with Japan that he intended to bow, and bow deeply. Anyone with about two days’ familiarity with Japan knows about bowing. The average person in Japan bows dozens of times a day. You see it everywhere.

Lifson goes on to say that the emperor’s reaction was in keeping with someone who has been embarrassed and chooses to smile broadly instead. Looking at pics of other world leaders greeting the emperor, seems to bear that out.

So is it a big deal that Obama bows to the son of Hirohito, a man who could have easily stopped the attack on Pearl Harbor but didn’t? The son of a man who acquiesced in atrocities as his army literally raped its way across Asia? The son of a man whose real war crimes would have had him hanging from a gibbet without the intercession of McArthur who needed him as a figurehead to control the post-war Japanese population?

Is it a big deal that we fought a revolution so that no American forevermore would ever have to bow to another sovereign? This isn’t just some quaint little tradition that conservatives shouldn’t get their panties in a twist over. This means something - to history, to the nature and character of Americans, to how we define ourselves as a people. No bowing - ever. That has been the standard American presidents have followed for 240 years. Why is it all of a sudden a “distraction” to point this out? Can we at least criticize the president for his doltish understanding of protocol? His towering ignorance? His arrogance in making us look like a bunch of international rubes who don’t know the first thing about greeting an ally?

Apparently, the definition of America to Obama and his snickering, simpering, ultra-cynical supporters includes not only fashioning a foreign policy that gives the appearance of groveling, but performing the actual act as well.

I wonder if he’ll kow tow to the Chinese when he visits later this week? That would be another “distraction,” I suppose. He might as well considering that the thugs in Beijing hold about $3 trillion of our debt. Maybe if he kneels and touches his head to the floor they won’t ask him how he intends to pay it back.

CORRECTION

Steve Pendlebury at AOL’s The Sphere points out that I am in error for making the sweeping statement that no president ever bowed to a monarch in our history.

“His bow is neither (1) unprecedented nor (2) a sign of cultural understanding,” an academic who knows Japanese culture well explained in a message to ABC’s Jake Tapper. In 1971, President Nixon bowed to
Emperor Hirohito and his wife and repeatedly referred to them as “Your Imperial Majesties.”

Nixon got the bow right, though — a slight bend from the waist with hands at his side. “Obama’s handshake/forward lurch was … jarring and inappropriate,” according to Tapper’s friend.

Referring to a monarch by their title is fine - I have no problems with that. That, indeed, is protocol and part of the diplomatic rituals to which all presidents must adhere.

And it would satisfy my curiosity if there was anything said about that bow of Nixon’s at the time. A brief search of the New York Times archives failed to turn up anything, although the good professor didn’t mention the year of Nixon’s visit. Given the contempt the national press felt for Nixon, I wonder if any of them took the opportunity to take him to task for it.

I apologize for my error in making Obama the only president who dissed our revolution. But while we’re discussing it, why did the White House lie again about the bow, calling it “protocol?”

If that were the case, several dozen other world leaders who met the emperor and didn’t bow were breaking protocol. Obviously, the White House is once again full of it. The question is; what are they ashamed of?

When Obama bowed to the Saudi King Abdullah, why not come out and say that the president was showing respect to the Guardian of Mecca? Or when he bowed to the emperor, why not just say he was humoring an old man or something? The president has made a point to deny American exceptionalism. That is his choice. If he wants to bow to every prince and potentate on the planet, he can do so. Maybe it is a kind of “distraction.”

Except they’re lying about it. That is not a distraction, that is a question of presidential credibility. We supposedly just went through a period of 8 years where a president had no credibility because he lied all the time. Obama’s lies are becoming painful and obvious. This may be one small lie but it fits into a larger pattern that should concern even liberals. If you want honest government, you don’t excuse lies, you don’t defend lies, you call them out and shame the liars.

I still think it was wrong for the president - any president - to bow before royalty.

The news that Khalid Sheikh Mohammed will be tried in New York City kind of shocked me yesterday. It has cheered some, worried others, and made some on the right white hot with anger.

Those who see this as a “triumph of the American Justice system” are blowing smoke out of their ass - including Obama. Let’s face it - he is gambling with the lives of God knows how many New Yorkers that we can stop any terrorist attacks occurring during the trial. Some on the right are accusing Obama of not thinking about this possibility, but that is certainly not true. The government is going in to this situation with their eyes wide open and the fact that we are bringing KSM to New York when he easily could have been tried in exactly the same manner at Guantanamo (or out in the middle of the Mojave desert for that matter) shows us that they wish to make some kind of grandiose statement about American justice.

This then is the calculated risk being taken by the president; that it is worth the threat to innocent Americans to prove our justice system is capable of handling even the most dedicated and evil enemy combatant. I don’t deny that this is a worthy goal. But weighed in the balance against what it might cost us, I believe, quite simply, it is a monumental mistake.

Not only are innocents at risk, but how sure is the administration that this trial won’t degenerate into the kind of idiocy we witnessed during the Simpson trial? Would that prove the efficacy of our justice system? Or would it be remembered as a shameful moment in the history of American jurisprudence?

Can any judge anywhere prevent this trial from becoming a media circus? Not unless they want to lock up half the journalists in America or censor their work. Is it even remotely possible that this trial will not be televised? Fat chance. Can both the defense attorneys and prosecutors resist the temptation to grandstand, to play to the TV audience rather than the jury? How about the judge?

The belief that this trial will show-off the “American justice system” in all its solemnity and seriousness is a laugher. And again, the government is not stupid. They know this will happen. This will be the OJ trial on steroids - the highest rated legal series on TV since Law and Order was in its heyday. And yet, despite the real possibility that terrorists - even the lone wolf Nidal Hasan variety - will try and grab the limelight by slaughtering a bunch of innocent New Yorkers, the government is insisting on idiotic posturing rather than protecting the people.

At bottom, this is a political decision, not a legal one. The Wall Street Journal:

Please spare us talk of the “rule of law.” If that was the primary consideration, the U.S. already has a judicial process in place. The current special military tribunals were created by the 2006 Military Commissions Act, which was adopted with bipartisan Congressional support after the Supreme Court’s Hamdan decision obliged the executive and legislative branches to approve a detailed plan to prosecute the illegal “enemy combatants” captured since 9/11.

Contrary to liberal myth, military tribunals aren’t a break with 200-plus years of American jurisprudence. Eight Nazis who snuck into the U.S. in June 1942 were tried by a similar court and most were hanged within two months. Before the Obama Administration stopped all proceedings earlier this year pending yesterday’s decision, the tribunals at Gitmo had earned a reputation for fairness and independence.

As it happens, Mr. Holder acknowledged their worth himself by announcing that the Guantanamo detainee who allegedly planned the 2000 bombing of the U.S.S. Cole off Yemen and four others would face military commission trials. (The Pentagon must now find a locale other than the multimillion-dollar, state-of-the-art facility at Gitmo for its tribunal.)

Taking the side of the administration, the New York Times praises this “return” to the rule of law (the military courts, as the WSJ notes, were operating under rules passed by a bi-partisan Congress which means that the Times agrees with the tea partyers that Congress can act unlawfully.)

Putting the five defendants on public trial a few blocks from the site of the former World Trade Center is entirely fitting. Experience shows that federal courts are capable of handling high-profile terrorism trials without comprising legitimate secrets, national security or the rule of law. Mr. Bush’s tribunals failed to hold a single trial.

The fact that defense lawyers are likely to press to have evidence of abuse aired in court — Khalid Shaikh Mohammed was tortured by waterboarding 183 times — is unlikely to derail the prosecutions, especially given Mr. Holder’s claim to have evidence that has not been released yet.

I don’t think there is a debate that our courts are completely unable to handle terrorist cases, or other sensitive trials where national security is a concern. I would note that the Times, while taking John Cornyn to task for the senator’s characterization of the government’s action of trying KSM and his friends as “common criminals,” makes the same mistake with KSM; they assume he is a “common terrorist” and that previous court cases prove that justice can be served.

KSM is a “common” nothing and the Times is being disingenuous throughout that entire editorial. If ever there was a special case where exceptions to the rule are in order, it is this one.

I am not concerned that KSM may be acquitted. I’m sure the charges will be sufficiently broad to allow him to be convicted of something. I am also sure that he will never see the outside of a cell in his lifetime.

The question is one of intelligently balancing the need for security and the need for justice - something that the left accused Bush of failing to do by pointing out that he bent over backward toward the goal of security while justice suffered.

Isn’t President Obama doing exactly the same thing? Aren’t we now putting the concept of justice far ahead of security? If justice was the goal, a New York venue for the trial would not have been necessary. There is no rational argument that makes it so without also making the point that security should be a secondary consideration.

This is what the administration has done.They have consciously made a choice to put the lives of American citizens at risk for what is, in effect, propaganda - to show the world (and satisfy his domestic liberal base) that American justice is a superior system, or, in the words of the Times, KSM will be “…tried in a fashion that will not further erode American justice or shame Americans.”

I’ll believe that when I see it. This trial has all the potential to “further erode American justice and shame Americans.” Legal circuses usually have that effect.

If America were an individual, she would long since have experienced an intervention where a trip to a competent psychiatrist would have been highly recommended.

Maybe our good friends France, Germany, and Great Britain could step in and gently make us confront our schizophrenia, pointing us toward the psychological help we need. I hear Russia is reasonable as far as hourly rates but Iran’s shock therapy might be just what the doctor ordered.

On one level, the debate in America over national health care is a political tussle. The mud wrestling, eye gouging, and hair pulling that is going on between the two sides can be seen in the context of many of our more contentious debates over issues like race, war and peace, or gay marriage.

But on another level - and I am not trying to be melodramatic - this is a fight over the soul of America. Perhaps all big political battles have this element lurking underneath the debate, but national health insurance, far more than any previous political scrum, holds the potential to change America in ways that even the most die hard proponents of the bill can’t imagine.

I have written often that change is what America is all about; that we stand still for nothing or nobody and that we either adapt to change and prosper or refuse to accept it and wither away. This process has always been affected by conservatism and it’s notion that there has to be some elements in our society that are worthy of handing down to the next generation, that change must be orderly, channeled, and that it fits in the framework laid out at our founding. In this way, the vast majority of Americans come to accept the change peacefully.

Why then the resistance to national health care? It isn’t just “tea baggers,” I would say to my liberal friends. There is genuine distress over this issue among at least 1/2 the population - probably more. Dismissing these concerns in a political context where opponents of reform are caricatured as (take your pick) racists, heartless monsters, or wildly out of touch “angry white men,” may be unavoidable, but I wonder if you realize that most opponents of national health care take issue with those cartoonish criticisms.

At bottom, most Americans really do see this issue as a question of what kind of country we should be. The latest Gallup poll reveals that there is great uneasiness over what the Democrats are trying to ram through:

More Americans now say it is not the federal government’s responsibility to make sure all Americans have healthcare coverage (50%) than say it is (47%). This is a first since Gallup began tracking this question, and a significant shift from as recently as three years ago, when two-thirds said ensuring healthcare coverage was the government’s responsibility.

Gallup has asked this question each November since 2001 as part of the Gallup Poll Social Series, and most recently in its Nov. 5-8 Health and Healthcare survey. There have been some fluctuations from year to year, but this year marks the first time in the history of this trend that less than half of Americans say ensuring healthcare coverage for all is the federal government’s responsibility.

The high point for the “government responsibility” viewpoint occurred in 2006, when 69% of Americans agreed. In 2008, this percentage fell to 54%, its previous low reading. This year, in the midst of robust debate on a potentially imminent healthcare reform law, the percentage of Americans agreeing that it is the government’s responsibility to make sure everyone has health insurance has fallen even further, by seven points, to 47%. Half of Americans now say this is not the government’s responsibility.

I would hazard a guess and say that all the while that national health care was an abstract idea, it enjoyed broad support. But now that we’re getting close to actually realizing that goal, people are getting cold feet. And the reason goes to the heart of defining what this country is all about.

Whither government in America, ask the people? How much should we allow it to do for us without losing something essential that makes us who we are? Are we really all that different of a people from everyone else on the planet? Is there an identifiable “American character” that sets us apart?

Our ancestors certainly thought so. Alexis de Tocqueville agreed. Indeed, it may be out of fashion to talk about the basis of our Constitution, but if we ever forget the idea that all power flows from the consent of the governed and not the other way around, we are doomed to suffer a significant loss of personal freedom simply because government can do pretty much whatever it chooses to do unless the people withhold their consent. There hasn’t been a lot of that these last 40 years and government’s ravenous appetite to do what all governments, once created, and regardless of who is in charge, seek to do - control - has gotten out of hand.

This despite the best of intentions of government’s major cheerleaders, and their belief that society can be perfected with the application of the principles of social science; seek out root causes of society’s problems and address them.

In their eagerness to improve the lot of the American citizen, a government has been created that stopped asking permission and now simply runs roughshod over the very idea of “consent of the governed.” Perhaps American society has become too complex for government to stop its manifest destiny to control, influence, and otherwise interfere in our lives. It certainly seems that way when looking at national health care. And those Gallup numbers reflect that notion. No one understands what’s in the bill. All they know is that, for the moment, it massively increases the role of government in people’s daily lives.

I liken it to the very first draft initiated by President Lincoln during the Civil War. The riots that took place in New York City and elsewhere, along with the general unease with the very idea of conscription demanded by Washington was a symptom of something much bigger; the idea that the national government, for the very first time in American history, could reach out and tap the ordinary citizen on the shoulder. Prior to that, the only contact that most people had with Washington was through the Post Office. The draft (and other Civil War era initiatives like nationalizing currency) went against the ideal people held in their imaginations of what kind of country America was.

I think those Gallup numbers reflect a similar unease. And here is where the real schizophrenia of the American people is demonstrated.

People actually want health care reform. They want a public option. They want health insurance to be cheaper and available to all. And they don’t think people should be denied insurance just because they have a pre-existing condition that insurance companies say makes them ineligible. Every poll taken confirms these facts. We talk a good game with regard to self-reliance, individual liberty, and being true to our Founding principles. But when it comes right down to it, the majority of us want government to relieve our burdens and make our lives easier.

It may make us less free, but many of us are willing to trade that freedom for a little security.

You can argue that we’re not losing anything by having government eventually taking over 1/6 of the American economy, but that is nonsense. We are about to hand government an enormous amount of power along with the ability to control our lives in ways that can only dimly be glimpsed at this point. If you think this a positive good, fine. But please do not insult our intelligence by claiming that national health care will be so much better because we will get rid of evil insurance companies, ride herd on Big Pharma, or stick it to those rich doctors and hospitals.

I imagine despite the unease that people feel over health care reform, we will eventually come around to accept it if it passes. And we will continue to fool ourselves that the version of America many of us hold in our heads that celebrates the freedom and individualism that marked roughly the first 150 years of the American experiment is still a viable model to define who we are.

But eventually, that disconnect between who we are and who we think we are will have to be confronted. What will replace it? I haven’t a clue.

Maybe we can ask Spain for a second opinion.

We all like things to be simple. This is probably due to an evolutionary quirk that rewarded simpleminded hominids who didn’t expend the enormous energy in calories that would have required us to think hard about something. The brain eats up about 40% of our caloric intake so it makes sense that those early pre-homo sapiens would have been natural Clintonites and “kept things simple, stupid.”

The way everyone is furiously writing about the Fort Hood shootings - specifically why this painfully obvious jihadist was allowed to stay in the army - verifies that hypothesis.

It’s really quite simple, you see. The American government and the military are lousy with PC and we paid for our timidity in the face of evil with the lives of 14 brave soldiers.

Or, an equally simple explanation is that war and cruelty to Muslims drove Hasan over the edge so of course he snapped. That and the prospect that he was going to be sent to Iraq.

For the fringes, it’s even easier; the only good Muslim is a dead Muslim and, on the other side, it really is America’s fault that Hasan “went Muslim.”

You can box, wrap, and tie up in a bow explanations given by both right and left for why the Fort Hood attack occurred. They are that pat, that logical, that simple - so easy to understand in the context of ideology and partisanship that going beyond and digging a little deeper is discouraged because it might complicate things.

I am not satisfied by these explanations and you shouldn’t be either. There is a germ of truth in the explanations offered by both sides, but I think large gaps need to be filled in to prevent us from making Hasan a cartoonish representation of the Evil Muslim, or blameless victim.

There is history to consider, for instance. The 9/11 attacks placed the American government - indeed all Americans - in a bind; how do we fight an ideology animated by religious fanaticism without condemning hundreds of millions of believers who are peaceful adherents to that same religion to guilt by association?

We failed to make this distinction in World War II with the Japanese to our eternal shame. You simply cannot tar an entire group - ethnic, racial, religious, or even those of a certain sexual orientation - with the sins, no matter how grievous, of a few. To do so is to toss the very idea of American exceptionalism out the window.

This does not mean that you must totally sacrifice security in order to avoid the conundrum. The Hasan case clearly proves that. This is a fellow that dozens of people knew did not belong in the United States Army due to his radical, treasonous statements. At this point, we don’t know why no one turned him in, or if they did, why nothing was done. It is a distinct possibility that more latitude has been given Muslims in the military with regard to their views than is granted others, but there is no direct evidence that this is so. It makes sense that this is the case, but lacking facts, it is still rank speculation.

It is also speculation that no one turned him in because they feared PC retribution. What Hasan did is so far beyond the pale of rationality that most who heard him spout no doubt believed him chillingly odd but not a real threat. I think that would be the reaction of most of us if we had encountered Hasan in our everyday lives. We get the same kind of reaction from friends and neighbors of serial killers, despite warning signs that we never pick up on. It may very well be that Hasan’s acquaintances in the army did indeed fear the consequences of turning him in. But we don’t have a clue so why the certainty in such speculation?

Not wanting a repeat of the Japanese experience in World War II is not political correctness. But perhaps the way our government implemented policies to avoid that historical deja vu will be seen as having gone too far. Clearly, the Hasan case cries out for a thorough review by the military of its policies. But I suspect it wasn’t a policy failure that led to Hasan’s continued association with the Army but rather a failure of imagination on the part of his co-workers and friends who either fooled themselves into believing he wasn’t a killer, or dismissed his treasonous utterances as someone “just letting off steam.” The prospect that he would pick up guns and kill fellow soldiers was so far beyond the pale of  imagination that those who knew of his views and heard his bloodcurdling threats never put two and two together, never made the psychic connection, between thought and act.

Does this mean that it was, in fact, political correctness that was involved in the “failure of imagination?” I can hear many of you who subscribe to this theory telling yourself that you never would have made that mistake, that because you are PC free, you would have reported Hasan immediately.

I congratulate you on your perspicaciousness. But if you worked with someone everyday for years and the change was gradual, I question whether in fact, such would be the case. And for those, like the seminar participants at Walter Reed who heard Hasan in all his jihad glory, the failure of imagination would have been even more applicable given their unfamiliarity with the terrorist.

Hindsight allows us to read into Hasan’s jihad anything that fits our preconceived notions of political correctness or victimhood. But for all of us, the conundrum remains. Bending too far toward PC is a recipe for disaster. Leaning toward treating every Muslim as a potential threat is equally distasteful and un-American. Finding the middle ground would seem to be impossible given the way this incident has now become a war between the ideologies.

But find it we must. Is there a way to satisfy our security needs while refraining from engaging in emotionally satisfying Muslim bashing or ignoring the eventualities posed by radical, fundamental Islamism that led to Hasan’s rampage?

Not quite as easy to explain now, is it?

Some of you may know that I am an aficionado of American political rhetoric. There was a time in this country where speeches actually made a difference in politics and policy, and the great orators were known to sway voters, members of Congress, prince, potentate, and history itself with their thundering orations.

Think Patrick Henry. Think Lincoln at Gettysburg, or Bryan’s “Cross of Gold” speech that catapulted him to the Democratic nomination for president. Think of FDR throwing down the gauntlet of war to the mighty Japanese empire. Think of a smallish man addressing half a million souls in front of the Great Emancipator’s statue, and demanding that his dream of racial equality become a reality.

Those days are gone now. Reagan briefly revived the spoken word as a powerful weapon for the presidency. But his successors have been decidedly lacking in the consistent application of political rhetoric to dramatically alter the status quo. It’s not their fault. None were of a political tradition that prized the spoken word over the soundbite culture of political communication that arose in the last quarter of the 20th century.

Except in times of national tragedy. Here, where man, moment, and the spoken word all combined to lift us up, to assuage our grief, and to restore the American spirit, each of Reagan’s successor’s rose to the occasion in their own way, performing magnificently on the largest of stages.

Clinton’s speech at Oklahoma City was agonizingly good - a personal, elevated remembrance and national pep talk all in one. Bush at Washington Cathedral and in front of a joint session of Congress after 9/11 (I liked his Cathedral speech a lot better), overcame his limitations as a communicator and achieved heights of rhetorical and stylistic splendor he was never to reach again.

President Obama’s magnificently delivered, marvelously written, heartfelt speech at Fort Hood yesterday was, to my mind, the best piece of American political rhetoric since Reagan’s Challenger address in the aftermath of that tragedy. It was by far and away the best speech he’s given as president, and it bests two other superior efforts of his that preceded his election; his keynote address to the 2004 Democratic convention, and his speech on race in Philadelphia during the campaign.

Technically, the speech was extremely well crafted. Reading it, you are struck by its humble simplicity, it’s logical progression, its smooth, effortless transitions, and soaring peroration. We don’t know enough about the president to see his imprint on the written words. But by the way he imbued the speech with his living spirit, you could tell that even if he didn’t have much of a hand in writing it, he was feeling it intensely.

There has been much criticism on the right for it’s tone of “political correctness” in not mentioning the word “terrorism” or “jihad.” I understand where my fellow righties are coming from, but I think they are a little off base. This was not a time for a call to action; it was a time to grieve. The president walked right up to saying the “T” word and, while he didn’t say it, everyone knew what he was talking about:

It may be hard to comprehend the twisted logic that led to this tragedy. But this much we do know - no faith justifies these murderous and craven acts; no just and loving God looks upon them with favor. And for what he has done, we know that the killer will be met with justice - in this world, and the next.

These are trying times for our country. In Afghanistan and Pakistan, the same extremists who killed nearly 3,000 Americans continue to endanger America, our allies, and innocent Afghans and Pakistanis. In Iraq, we are working to bring a war to a successful end, as there are still those who would deny the Iraqi people the future that Americans and Iraqis have sacrificed so much for.

We had a discussion on the debate over how to define Hasan’s act last night on my radio show. Yes, I believe the government is overly sensitive to offending Muslim sensitivities, and it is possible that the military paid for this walking on eggshells attitude when they ignored Hasan’s obvious radicalism.

But calling the shooter a “terrorist” animated by radical Islam to carry out jihad against those who he perceived to be an enemy wouldn’t have helped the families in their grief nor would it have said anything profound to the nation. Obama rightly said that there was no justification - religious or otherwise - for the shooting. In this venue, it was exactly the right thing to say and I believe it a little bit of a stretch to criticize him for not going farther. There may be a time for criticism as more becomes known about what our government knew about this killer and why they did nothing to deal with him. But that time was not yesterday.

Not discussed very much as far as I can tell is the overall theme of the president’s address; that this generation is second to none as it relates to self-sacrificing service to our country. The president expertly connected each of the dead - reading their names and giving a short snippet of personality to go along with the identification of the fallen - to this idea that these were among the best of their generation:

As we face these challenges, the stories of those at Fort Hood reaffirm the core values that we are fighting for, and the strength that we must draw upon. Theirs are tales of American men and women answering an extraordinary call - the call to serve their comrades, their communities, and their country. In an age of selfishness, they embody responsibility. In an era of division, they call upon us to come together. In a time of cynicism, they remind us of who we are as Americans.

We are a nation that endures because of the courage of those who defend it. We saw that valor in those who braved bullets here at Fort Hood, just as surely as we see it in those who signed up knowing that they would serve in harm’s way.

Again and again, the president returns to this theme, and connects those who served in the past with our present day heroes:

For history is filled with heroes. You may remember the stories of a grandfather who marched across Europe; an uncle who fought in Vietnam; a sister who served in the Gulf. But as we honor the many generations who have served, I think all of us - every single American - must acknowledge that this generation has more than proved itself the equal of those who have come before.

We need not look to the past for greatness, because it is before our very eyes.

This generation of soldiers, sailors, airmen, Marines and Coast Guardsmen have volunteered in a time of certain danger. They are part of the finest fighting force that the world has ever known. They have served tour after tour of duty in distant, different and difficult places. They have stood watch in blinding deserts and on snowy mountains. They have extended the opportunity of self-government to peoples that have suffered tyranny and war. They are man and woman; white, black, and brown; of all faiths and stations - all Americans, serving together to protect our people, while giving others half a world away the chance to lead a better life.

Absolutely translucent rhetoric, delivered in Obama’s inimical, well modulated voice with expert phrasing.

Many a good speech has crashed on the shoals of a bad peroration. It is said that Edward Everett’s 2 hour memorial speech that preceded Lincoln’s at Gettysburg suffered from a weak, and forgettable climax. I don’t see it myself and it’s hard for us who are unfamiliar with 19th century rhetoric to critique such things intelligently. But when Obama reached his own high point yesterday, you heard echoes of John Kennedy and Martin Luther King:

Here, at Fort Hood, we pay tribute to thirteen men and women who were not able to escape the horror of war, even in the comfort of home. Later today, at Fort Lewis, one community will gather to remember so many in one Stryker Brigade who have fallen in Afghanistan.

Long after they are laid to rest - when the fighting has finished, and our nation has endured; when today’s servicemen and women are veterans, and their children have grown - it will be said of this generation that they believed under the most trying of tests; that they persevered not just when it was easy, but when it was hard; and that they paid the price and bore the burden to secure this nation, and stood up for the values that live in the hearts of all free peoples.

So we say goodbye to those who now belong to eternity. We press ahead in pursuit of the peace that guided their service. May God bless the memory of those we lost. And may God bless the United States of America.

It doesn’t beat, “…slipped the surly bonds of earth to touch the face of God,” but then, those weren’t Reagan’s words anyway. Nevertheless, the same “mystic chords of memory” are elicited in both speeches.

It wasn’t until I both saw and read the speech that it hit me; it is the first major address that Obama has given where he did not try to cycle the moment back to himself with the use of personal pronouns - a rather jarring habit of Obama’s that subtracts from what he is trying to say.

In total, this was a triumph for the president. The moment, the venue, and the words all came together in what will certainly be remembered as the best speech of this young century.

My latest wildly popular, huzzah-eliciting article at Pajamas Media has to do with the idea that maybe if we want to solve some extremely serious problems like the deficit or Medicare reform, it will be necessary to work with the Democrats and vice versa.

A sample:

The radical idea that 500,000 citizens in a congressional district send a representative to Washington to do something other than scream his head off that the opposition are a bunch of traitorous, America-destroying philistines trying to undermine democracy because they want to declare tomorrow “National Blue-Haired Ladies Day” just hasn’t caught on yet on either side.

Of course, the Democrats actually have to do something about governing the country because they are in power and have to take evidence back home to hold up as an example of how busy they have been the last two or six years. This is sort of like a kid who proudly holds up his homework to the teacher, showing her how hard he labored over the assignment even though he waited until the last minute to work on it.

But that hasn’t prevented the Democrats from acting in a beastly manner toward Republicans, which is only payback for when the GOP was in the majority and acted in a beastly manner toward the Dems, which they only did because previous to that when the Democrats were in power, they acted in a really beastly manner toward GOP lawmakers.

Politics sure is a serious business, isn’t it?

No, it is impossible to expect the GOP to have worked with the Democrats on health care, or cap and trade, or even card check. These things are an anathema to Republican principles - as it would be if the GOP asked Democrats to help on a tax cutting bill for business, or some other issue that would be a bridge too far to cross for liberals.

But on the great challenges facing the country, the people have a right to expect that they shouldn’t have to pay for the consequences of this childish nonsense that passes for political discourse today. And the consequences of not reforming Medicare or making serious efforts to bring down the deficit are too horrible to contemplate.

Read the whole thing.

Interesting reactions from left and right to the passage in the House of health care reform.

A bill nobody has read, that contains nobody knows what, that no one has a clue of what kind of impact it will have on the current health care system, with a cost known only to God, has been passed with no formal hearings, extraordinarily limited debate, and in a totally partisan manner (minus one Republican who doesn’t have a prayer in 2010).

That’s the “reality” I would say to my friends in the reality based community. Can you argue with any of those points above? Only if you spin so hard you are in danger of flying off into orbit.

If we had a rational government, any one of those realities would have derailed health care reform long ago. But rationality has left the building, as has common sense, proportionality, wisdom, and that fine old conservative virtue, prudence.

National Health Care Reform represents a new way of governing; the blind, leading the deaf and dumb, toward an unknowable future - driving the engine of government at full speed, and without any brakes. Can’t see that break in the tracks up ahead? Ooops! My bad. We’ll pick up the pieces later.

Of course, this is only the first step. Something approximating the House bill is going to have to pass the senate - by no means a foregone conclusion, but made more likely by last night’s vote. And the conference committee to reconcile the two versions while hanging on to enough votes in both houses for passage will be something akin to trying to put a round peg in a fractal hole.

But the momentum appears to favor getting something passed before the end of the year. If the House vote proved anything, it is that the Democrats are fully capable of coming up with solutions that will allow their huge majorities to win the day regardless of the issues. They have proven adept at papering over their differences, finessing the insoluble, and coming up with imaginative gimmicks to make national health care reform a reality.

The question then arises; where to, conservatism?

There has been more than one liberal pundit who has speculated that the passage of national health care reform would mean the death of conservatism. Holy Jesus! If communism couldn’t be killed by it’s massive internal contradictions, I hardly think conservatism is in any danger of going the way of the Dodo bird because national health insurance has become a reality.

But perhaps the chocks will be pulled out from underneath the kind of “small government” conservatism that believes rolling back the Great Society, the New Deal, and taking America back to a fiercely literal interpretation of the Constitution, is the path that conservatism should follow.

I put “small government” in quotes because the reality is that most who adhere to that brand of conservatism are actually proponents of “no government” conservatism. All conservatives look in askance at the welfare state. But there is a difference in seeking to destroy it willy nilly and substitute a pre-Constitutional environment more in keeping with the Articles of Confederation, than in drastically reforming both the programs and ideology that undergirds the culture of dependency that has taken control of government. But the “no government” conservatives will become even more irrelevant now that we are on the road to nationalized health care. Government as the “enemy” may still be a potent call to arms for these conservatives, but their impact on actual public policy will be close to zero.

If national health care becomes a reality, history tells us that it will never be repealed, that one sixth of the American economy will be permanently controlled by Washington. There will be successful efforts to play around at the margins, bringing efficiencies and changing some of the more odorous aspects of what is to come. But politicians have never taken away an entitlement in history, and I am extremely skeptical that it can be done in this case.

Once the independent health insurance industry is gone, how to you get it back? How do you reconstitute a private health care system? The answer is you can’t. Once national health care has had its way with the system and we see single payer insurance, and a health care bureaucracy that dictates treatments, costs, eligibility, as well as rationing what care is left, it will be impossible to ditch that system in favor of a market based, private entity. It is much easier for government to destroy private industry than it is for government to actually create a free market for health care. The very act of government creation would, by definition, not allow the market to determine the parameters of its operation.

So, do conservatives deal with this reality and work to affect it, or do they cling to the irrational belief that they can turn the world upside down, repeal a middle class entitlement, and resurrect an entire industry? I believe that, along with other entitlements, conservative principles can be applied to governance so that it’s costs are kept from rising too quickly, while choices can be broadened. In short, if there must be national health care, conservatives can run it far better than liberals.

Not very satisfactory but real world options are rarely as palatable as those we imagine when clinging to dreams of Jeffersonian (or Randian) utopias. John Galt may be a folk hero, but even he is going to need to see a doctor at some point. So, from where I’m sitting, (given the strong probability that national health care will be a reality by the end of the year) you can either work to radically improve what the Democrats have so carelessly tossed into the people’s laps, or you can continue thinking that it is possible to create a government that doesn’t do much except kill terrorists and give out tax break like pieces of candy corn on Halloween night.

That’s an exaggeration, of course. But my purpose - groping, feeling my way in the dark though it seems - is to think about what conservatism means facing this new reality. Those who wish to continue living in a fantasy world where “no government” or “small government” (rather than “smaller government”) dominates, I congratulate you on your efforts. It is more than the rest of us who wish to advance the cause of conservatism in the real world are capable.

No matter how the vote in the House on health care reform turns out, the amateur historian in me is tickled to be living in such “interesting times.”

I think that 200 years from now, this interlude in American history will be seen in the same way that we look upon the Missouri Compromise, or the nullification debates. More modern examples would include the Civil Rights Act and Voting Rights Act. The impact that all those debates had on the future of America cannot be overstated.

Even debates over New Deal or Great Society social legislation were muted and, in retrospect, not as controversial as the health care reform bill that is being brought to the floor today.

Never has such a large part of the American economy been designated for federal control. Never has the government reached so far into the personal lives of its citizens, compelling them through force of law to surrender some of their liberty. Every American will be affected by this bill in ways that not even the bill’s most ardent supporters can say with any certainty.

It is, as was said of the 1981 tax cuts, “a crap shoot.”

There is the potential for great mischief - a veritable smorgasbord of slippery slopes - some more realistic than others. There is the danger that the bill will not do what its supporters say it will do; lower costs and cover more people. There is the certainty that with the government now paying more for health care, they will feel it necessary to, if not dictate, then strongly encourage people through punitive tax laws to change what they consider “unhealthy” behavior.

I have written often over the last months that some reform is vitally necessary. The system is broken. Too many who want and need insurance are priced out of the market. Costs are rising at a ruinous rate and are sucking the life out of our economy. And some provision must be made for those with chronic or pre-existing conditions who are rejected by insurance companies.

Then there are the real biggies; We need to begin now to reform Medicare and Medicaid. There simply is no choice if we don’t want our economy to be destroyed.

But the bill that has been brought to the floor of the House today is far too ambitious in some areas, much too timid in others, way too expensive, and at bottom, an invitation for government to inject itself into the economic and personal lives of its citizens. The president and the Democrats have not made their case that this bill is the answer. Instead, they have made the primary goal of the process not the reform of health care, but a political yardstick by which to measure the president’s success. A failure is to be avoided because it would wound his presidency and damage the Democratic party’s chances for electoral success in 2010. Using that thinking, a bad bill is better than no bill at all - a recipe for unmitigated disaster.

This is not surprising because the monumental complexity of this bill makes it impossible to boil down into coherent policy. It is a slap-dash, confused, utterly incomprehensible mish mash of clashing interests, favors for industry, mandates for business, and the worst that nanny statism has to offer. It is too much for America to digest at once, and the best we can hope for is that the votes to pass it never materialize, forcing its withdrawal.

Despite the Democrat’s huge majority, chances for passage are still up in the air. That’s due to something that the president, in his health care reform speech, said was not in the bill but to no one’s surprise, ended up being included anyway; federal funding of abortions.

An agreement on language that would have set up an “independent monitor” to make sure that federal funds were not spent on abortion fell through last night - largely because the Catholic bishops, who are involved in the negotiations for this issue - wouldn’t support it.

Instead, Pelosi reluctantly agreed to a deal where Bart Stupak would be able to offer a floor amendment banning most federal funding for the procedure. It appears that this will satisfy a couple of dozen Democrats who will vote for the final package once the abortion amendment goes down to defeat.

According to Politico, that’s not nearly enough to assure passage:

“It’s a question of how you can keep everybody together and that’s the challenge before us,” Waxman said of the proposal earlier in the day. “What’s being called the Ellsworth language is also the bishop’s language which is the Stupak proposal. It’s basically to stop any services for abortion coverage in both the public plan and all private insurance. Not just for those who get subsidies but for everybody who goes to private insurance policies.”

“I would like the bishops, who I understand want to see passage of the legislation, to help us work out a way so we don’t have winners and losers,” Waxman said. “Because the losers will make us lose the bill and the winners then wont have won anything.”

Democratic officials said their count of hard “nos” was in the range of about 25. While House Speaker Nancy Pelosi can afford to lose up to 40 votes and still win passage, there are dozens of other lawmakers who remain on the fence publicly.

The last whip count had Pelosi at least 14 votes short, with no doubt a lot of fence sitters added to the “Yes” column. And that was for a bill with a “robust” public option. The abortion and illegal immigrant access issues weren’t even considered.

President Obama will come to the Hill today to twist some arms, and perhaps do a little horse trading with the fence sitters. Indications over the last month is that there may be as many as 60 Democrats who are very nervous about the bill, either because of abortion, or it’s ever climbing cost. No doubt many of them are open to blandishments from the White House. But in the end, it may be that there are just too many who won’t go along with the majority to realize passage - at least now.

It is possible that Pelosi will yank the bill from consideration today and delay the vote for a few days or a week in order to really turn the screws on recalcitrant members. But regardless of what happens, the thrust and parry in this debate has been one of the most fascinating exercises of democracy in our republic I can remember.

How it ends will determine what kind of country we will be forever after.

I probably shouldn’t write this. Every time I say that to myself, I get into trouble. And I still might hit the “delete” button before it’s published.

But I am spitting mad and feel the need to share my anger with those precious few of you who are not so blinded by partisanship that logic, reason, and above all, good common sense can’t be applied to a discussion about what happened at Fort Hood yesterday.

The rationalizations for Major Hasan’s rampage - his motives, his state of mind, even the environment in which he carried out his horrific attack - are being tossed about the blogosphere on both sides as if everything that can be known about the circumstances has already been revealed.

This must be the case because without any definitive word from authorities, from his friends and associates, or from Hasan himself, both lefty and righty blogs have already “solved” the mystery of motive and any argument to the contrary is “racist,” or “pro-jihad,” or “hate speech,” or “political correctness.” By far the most bizarre explanation for Hasan’s killing spree is that it was the result of some kind of weird Post Traumatic Stress Disorder transference where the good doctor heard so many horrible tales of what happened in Iraq that he cracked.

News flash: Everyone can’t be right. In fact, it is likely everyone is wrong. Was it an example of Muslim extremist terrorism? Or a reaction to bullying and name calling by brother officers? Or the prospect of being deployed to Iraq? A combination? None of the above?

I am making the same argument I made when six police officers were gunned down in Pittsburgh - the result, we were told, of the maniac listening to conservative talk radio and reading conservative literature. Trying to glean motive when a madman acts insanely is an exercise in futility. This is especially true when you pull such theories out of your ass because no investigation had been made at that point into the shooter’s motives.

Brainwashing and indoctrination are a separate issue. In this case, we know he attended a wahabbist mosque headed up by a radical imam. But regardless of the personal views of the imam, there apparently wasn’t a terrorist cell operating out of the mosque, nor are we aware that the imam preached jihad. Even if he did, there is absolutely no evidence that the kind of “immersion” necessary to brainwash an individual into committing suicide attacks was available to Hasan at his place of worship.

Needless to say, we are unaware of any other members of that mosque going on a shooting rampage anywhere in the US.

I am going to be accused of being in “denial” about this incident being a terrorist attack. I would rather be accused of waiting until the facts are in before making a judgment like that. I will also be accused of ignoring “Islamaphobia” and the terrorizing prospect of Hasan being sent to Iraq. I am not ignoring anything. Well…almost anything. Anyone who accuses me of ignoring “PTSD transference” as a motive is a loon. Not only because no one has ever heard of it but for the simple reason that only a psychological evaluation - not done yet - could uncover such a reason.

I hope you see what I’m getting at. In the rush to score political points against the opposition, one thing appears to be an afterthought; the unspeakable tragedy of 12 people having their lives extinguished for no good reason at all. In fact, both right and left bloggers are using the dead bodies of the victims to play “gotchya” with the opposition. And that’s what’s got me smoking hot this morning.

A couple of samples from prominent (second tier) blogs will illustrate what I am getting at:

Atlas Shrugs:

UPDATE: Shlep Smith has the jihadi’s cousin on the phone, Nader Hasan, and Schlep is lapping up the lies and he is doing the taqiya. Nader is saying the Malik was a great American. Hasan is saying that the mass murderer “was harassed” and that’s why he methodically planned and executed this massive attack on a US military installation.

He was not a convert. He is a devout Muslim who joined the army with a purpose.

“Methodically planned and executed?” Have we traced the shooter’s steps for the few hours prior to the attack? If not, how is Geller so sure? “Joined the army with a purpose?” He joined at age 17 against his parent’s wishes. How can Geller possibly say that? It’s not even a guess.

Hullaballo:

Regardless of motivation one would certainly hope, above all, that this had nothing to do with it. It’s pretty awful that one’s thoughts would immediately turn in that direction when something like this happens. But after Tim McVeigh, you have to consider it. (If the shooters were civilians, my thoughts would go in a different direction.)

Digby’s first thought was that it was right wing terrorists. The link goes to the “oathtakers” website - the group of military and law enforcement who re-swear to uphold the constitution and not obey any orders that go against it. The irrationalism of the Oathtakers is a separate issue but it is revealing that this moron just pulled that kind of crap out of absolute thin air. No execessive partisan spinning there, by God!

Stacy McCain:

A madman inspired by Vlaams Belang and incited to violence by right-wing extremists . . . Oh, wait. No.

IT’S THE JIHAD, STUPID!

Couldn’t have said it better myself, Pamela. A jihadi psychiatrist? Yeah, there’s your irony, Dr. Freud.

Excuse the dark sarcasm. Having spent the past week in upstate New York with Ali Akbar — yes, that’s his real name, and he’s a Southern Baptist from Texas — covering a campaign repeatedly maligned as “radical” and “extremist,” there is something especially bitter for me in this ugly reminder that there are still people who want to kill us all, just because we’re Americans.

We don’t know he was a jihadist. And this was not some foreigner, but an American born in Arlington, VA and who joined the military because, as he told friends at the time, he thought it was his duty to serve. It could very well be he didn’t want to kill “all” Americans - only those in the military.

I hate to be picky like that, but the truth has to matter somewhere. Jumping the gun before all the facts are in to write an authoritative sounding post when in reality, you don’t know your ass from a hole in the wall about what happened or who this guy was, makes my point about the utter banality of the blogosphere.

Andrew Sullivan:

It looks increasingly as if he snapped at the thought of participating in a war he might have seen as anti-Islam. This, if borne out, is grim news:

Hasan indeed, snapped. Why, I suspect even the brilliant Andrew Sullivan doesn’t know less than 24 hours after the attack occurred. Except it must feel good to climb on the back of dead soldiers to tell us the “grim news” that Andrew Sullivan is against the Iraq War.

To those who accuse me of sticking my head in the sand about terrorism, I will say this:

1. Yes, this fellow posted some rather incendiary views on the internet. But others post worse and don’t gun down 12 US soldiers or anyone else for that matter.

2. He was anti-war and hated the thought of going to Iraq. Well, that closes the case then, right? Except no one else has felt motivated to shoot up an army base because of those feelings.

3. He was exposed to extremist rhetoric and views on the internet and in his mosque. He may even agree with most of it. But it is a rather large step to take from sympathizing with Muslims you feel are being persecuted to picking up a gun and slaughtering people.

4. He shouted “Allahu Akbar” before opening fire. This is the smoking gun for Hasan being a terrorist, right? Unless you can show me that the maniac was not delusional and thought he was somewhere else killing somebody else, I will simply point out that gleaning motive from a diseased mind is not a job for bloggers - me, you, or anybody.

This is why the FBI has not ruled out terrorism but is refusing to call it that at the moment. Law enforcement has a little different standard than partisan bloggers; they feel the need to investigate carefully and make a judgment based on the facts and not wild, politically motivated speculation. This may inconvenience those who seek to score political points, or show off their anti-Muslim bona fides. But then, reality is always more boring than what bloggers can come up with to increase their audience, and garner links.

I fully understand that this is how the game is played in the blogosphere and am under no illusions that it will ever change. But these bombs being tossed back and forth - with 12 dead bodies lying between them - made me snap this morning.

Since it looks like I am going to hit the “publish” button, better batten down the hatches and lay out the plastic over the furniture. The spittle will be flying shortly.

Want to piss off the left? Everybody watch every single episode of the new ABC mini-series “V.” Drive the ratings through the roof. Make the show the hottest cultural happening since Seinfeld. Copy the hairstyles. Ape the fashion. Start bidding up the action dolls on Ebay.

And most especially, actually tell people you believe that this is a show about Obama and the left. It isn’t, but if you want the liberals to poop in their pants, say you think it is.

I find it not a little ironic that Jonathan Chait would see a “Tea Party Worldview” in a show that is such a hammer over the head metaphor for fascism. That’s because in the universe created for “V,” the birthers are right, the paranoid loons who believe Obama is a Muslim terrorist have a point, and there really are Haliburton built concentration camps in Utah.

Except the plot line follows fairly closely the original “V” which aired before many tea partyers were even born. This makes any overt connection to Obama problematic, although the writers manage to stick it to the president on at least one occasion when “national health care” is mentioned to describe the Visitors plans to help humanity.

Chait:

The political drama of the original was replaced by a ham-handed metaphor for President Obama. The visitors are young, charismatic, futuristic, and have a one-worldish vision of peace. They target the young by enticing them to join an idealistic (but, in reality, sinister) youth group. A few perceptive humans warn of the dangers of hopping on the bandwagon before we know what the bandwagon is really about. The alien leader, Ana, promises to use futuristic technology to heal humans. “You mean universal health care!” gapes a reporter, who, naturally, has been co-opted by the aliens. Anna soothes skeptics by declaring that accepting change can be difficult. A small band of human resistors forms. The lead character is skeptical–what proof do you have she asks, besides some scary thing “you read on the internet.” But the seemingly hysterical message from the internet is true! The charismatic new leader is masking her true identity! The death panels are real! Etc., etc.

The real irony passes so far over Chait’s head it doesn’t even muss his hair. The fact is, the “resistors” are paranoid. That’s because at first, there is no proof that the aliens are anything other than benevolent souls who only want to help. It is not until the true reptilian nature of the Visitors is revealed to one of the main characters, FBI Agent Erica Evans (played by the ravishing MILF Elizabeth Mitchell) that the “paranoid” conspiracy nuts are proved correct.

Now this might be considered something of a birther fantasy come true - except the show has been in the works since 2007, according to executive producer Scott Peters:

Others on both sides of the political spectrum may point to the visitors’ explicit promises of hope, change and universal health care as a pointed reference to pledges of the Obama administration. But [Executive Producer Scott] Peters says the show has been in the works since 2007. Reality was “never really a factor,” he says. “There’s no political message being shoved down anyone’s throat.”

Could it be that the outward, and unintentional parallels with Obamamania is discomfiting some on the left because the parallels to Hitler’s Germany - so obvious, so easily seen - hold implications for the ease with which many of them succumbed to the siren song being sung by the president? Not that Obama is a fascist in any way, but is Chait really upset because he and his fellow leftists might, under other circumstances and with another candidate less dedicated to constitutional order, have fallen into supporting a real fascist?

It would upset me if I suddenly realized my susceptibility to abandoning critical thinking and embracing an undemocratic leader. All that is missing from Obamamania for it to have become an American nightmare was a candidate willing to take the cult of personality he created and turn it into something that perverts democracy. The same can be said for some other political leaders in America (one - Huey Long - may have actually harbored such un-American notions).

But in Obama’s case, the ability to manipulate the media (not to mention the open cheerleading for the candidate during the race), more money than God, and the extra added bonus of being able to stifle criticism by playing the race card at the drop of a hat all combined to create an extraordinarily incendiary mixture that a man with more authoritarian appetites than our president might have been tempted to use to the detriment of democracy.

Thankfully, Barack Obama is not such a man. Sure, he tries to stifle dissent. What modern president hasn’t? Clinton blaming conservative talk radio for the Oklahoma City bombing and Karl Rove calling war protestors “unpatriotic” are just two examples of how the presidency has evolved to control the opposition by marginalizing resisters. It didn’t work any better than Obama’s efforts to shush Fox News so perhaps we can be grateful that even with their enormous power, presidents have to put up with criticism despite their best efforts to silence it.

In the case of “V,” one wonders if the unintentional parallels to Obamania will actually force script changes down the road. That’s because ABC has decided to air only 4 episodes this month, and then send the series off to hiatus until the spring. Already, there are signs that someone is not happy with the finished product.

Naturally, when a show debuts to huge ratings and mostly great reviews, the producer’s career is golden. Not this time. Apparently the network who gave Obama an infomercial and refuses to release the “Path to 9/11? DVD decided to replace the show runner Scott Peters before the pilot even aired. In fact, ABC hosted a big visit by press people last Monday, but Peters was notably absent. Exec producer Steve Pearlman spoke with the reporters.

Peters has been demoted to exec producer, a largely honorary title and has been replaced by former “The Shield” and “Chuck” alum Scott Rosenbaum.

Was this a case of ABC purging a political dissident from the show to make it more politically subservient? ABC has been very pro-Obama. And while the president’s name is never mentioned once in the show, there’s little doubt what they’re getting at. Critics of the “V” aliens are shown to be viewed as wackos and fringe people, the same way the MSM likes to portray ordinary Americans who don’t drink the kOOl-aid. Journalists who question the motives of the V are treated like they’re “not real news”. Wink!

My understanding is that such a change is not uncommon in the industry once a series goes on the air. Still, one wonders if the writing will take a different turn for future episodes given the jawboning on the left about parallels to Obamanania.

Yes, there are superficial similarities with Obama, but perhaps because I loved the original mini-series so much (both parts), I was more focused on how closely this incarnation of the story reflected back to the 1983 version. From what I’ve seen so far, the biggest change is the strong female characters compared to the original. Elizabeth Mitchell plays one tough cookie. She is also a single mom raising a problem teenager. The alien leader, Anna, is cool, gorgeous, scary smart, and so self possessed that any male I know would fight for the chance to ask her out for coffee.

There’s also an interesting religious angle with a Catholic priest questioning his faith with the arrival of beings from another world who never heard of Jesus, and who appear to be the real “saviors” of man. I hope they develop this a little more because it certainly would be one of the major implications for humankind if it was ever discovered that an alien civilization existed.

The special effects are a lot less cheesy, the revelation that the “Visitors” who look gorgeous in their human costumes are actually dragons isn’t handled half as well, and there is less big hair and more pixie styles among the women. (Being a big hair lover, I found this disappointing). The way we discovered the Visitors were aliens in the original was when the female co-leader Diana was seen by newsman Marc Sanger who had snuck aboard the Mothership, devouring a hamster whole. Now that was great television.

The 1983 series had “scientists” who were the persecuted minority - stand ins for the Jews. Given references to the internet already, might bloggers be targets in the remake? I’m with Chait who doubts whether scientists will be the imagined “enemies” of the Visitors. I also doubt that the fifth columnists will all be filthy rich, having been promised fabulous wealth by the Visitors if they cooperate. The great columnist Dorothy Thompson once wrote a piece on “Who would go Nazi?” if fascism ever came to America. Most of her choices were Republicans. I wonder if the new series will try and advance that same meme?

Overall, I’d give the production a B+ for it’s faithfulness to the original (so far) and a B- for political content. The have yet to really get into the fascist parallels that made the original so compelling. That grade may change as the story is fleshed out more in the coming weeks.

But if you want to enjoy the show, I suggest not trying to see Obama criticism or tea party worldview validation in every scene. It’s not there, and it will take away from immersing yourself in what promises to be a good story with lots of action.