Right Wing Nut House

This blog post originally appears in The American Thinker 

Will they ever learn?

Another anti-war movie is tanking at the box office. Overnights for Friday show the film “Stop Loss” garnering an anemic $1.4 million for a projected $4 million opening weekend. This despite a huge build up and massive ad campaign with great reviews from movie/war critics.Not one Iraq war movie has been anything close to a financial success. In fact, it is fair to say that every single anti-war film to date has lost its shirt:

 In the Valley of Elah (2007) - $6.8 million.
Redacted (2007) - $.06 million.
The Kingdom (2007) - $47.4 million.
Rendition (2007) - $9.7 million.
Lions for Lambs (2007) - $15 million.
Home of the Brave (2006) - $.04 million.
(HT: Cinematical)“The Kingdom” - a drama about the FBI investigating a terrorist attacks on Americans in Saudi Arabia - ended up getting about half its $80+ million budget back in receipts. It’s actually an exciting film and doesn’t even mention Iraq (although the last scene shows a moral equivalence between terrorism and our efforts to stop it).

But the blockbuster “Lions for Lambs” ($15 million gross) which starred Hollywood heavies Tom Cruise, Meryl Streep, and Robert Redford (who all agreed to forgo their usual huge salaries for a percentage of profits from the film) earned back far less than half its $35 million production costs.

And director Brian De Palma’s hysterical anti-war, anti-military depiction of the rape of an Iraqi girl and the murder of her family depicted in “Redacted” was so bad it never even made it into general release. And that from an “A-1″ Hollywood director.

So why are anti-war films tanking? Here’s one take from an industry analyst:

“It’s not looking good,” a studio source told me before the weekend. “No one wants to see Iraq war movies. No matter what we put out there in terms of great cast or trailers, people were completely turned off. It’s a function of the marketplace not being ready to address this conflict in a dramatic way because the war itself is something that’s unresolved yet. It’s a shame because it’s a good movie that’s just ahead of its time.”

“Ahead of its time?” Moviegoers “not ready” to see Iraq War movies? Allahpundit scoffs at that notion:

They keep making ‘em even though we keep not watching ‘em, which shows you how committed they are to the message and/or fearful of testing that “America’s not ready yet” hypothesis with a pro-war flick. Check out the trailer for this abortion if you missed it last year. One shopworn anti-war contrivance after another, right down to the cringeworthy graphic of a tattered flag. No wonder even the left doesn’t want to sit through this crap.

Allah is off base suggesting that Hollywood places more importance on the anti-war message than on the idea that the film will make any money. If there is one place in the United States where money is worshipped more than in Hollywood, I can’t think of it. When a production company spends $80 million on a film and loses nearly $40 million, the chances of them getting backing from a major studio to make another film is severely reduced.  This alone is motivation to make a film they are pretty certain will make money.That $40 million in losses is real money. Even losing half that is a catastrophe. The exception to this was probably De Palma’s “Redacted” (Cost: $5 million of DePalma’s own money) where the director admitted he wanted to instruct the American people on how to feel about the war and ended up making an incoherent mess of a movie that even anti-war critics panned. 

What’s the problem then? Insularity is one explanation. The liberals in Hollywood believe everyone thinks the way they do about the war because their friends and associates all believe the same things. They think their wildly leftist worldview is mainstream.

Another reason most of Hollywood believes making anti-war films will rake in gobs of money is the success of such films in the past. “Platoon,” “Coming Home,” “Born on the Fourth of July” - all grossed very well at the box office. (If they had noticed that John Wayne’s “Green Berets” did pretty well also, they may have had second thoughts.) In Hollywood, nothing succeeds like success.
 
Finally, as Allah points out, Hollywood refuses to make any movie that could be construed as “pro-war” or “pro troops.” I am not as convinced as some are that such a movie would do boffo business at the box office. I think Americans just wish the war would go away at this point and want nothing to with either a pro or anti war movie. I may be wrong but war weariness seems to be the dominant feeling about Iraq among the American people and spending $7-10 bucks to watch something they wish would just disappear - even if they are supportive of our efforts in Iraq - just doesn’t seem logical to me.

There are many explanations for why Iraq War films are doing  badly as this article in the Washington Post demonstrates:

Film historian Jonathan Kuntz of UCLA points out that most memorable war films appear many years after a conflict ends, when the nation has had time to reflect on the experience and a historical consensus emerges about the war’s successes and failures.The classic films about Vietnam — starting with “The Deer Hunter,” “Coming Home” and “Apocalypse Now” in 1978 and 1979 and ending with “Born on the Fourth of July” in 1989 — came out years after the last U.S. serviceman had left the battlefield. “M*A*S*H,” which was essentially an anti-Vietnam film but set in the Korean War, was released nearly 20 years after the Korean armistice. But the outcome in Iraq remains an open question, with America’s military commitment to the country under constant debate.

There may be something to that. We all may be too close to the political arguments and the emotional investment in defending or opposing the war to be able to see the war as a diversion or as entertainment.

Eventually, we may reconcile our feelings about the war and place it into the context of our national narrative. Until then, it appears that the American people just want to be left alone.

As political corruption goes, news that New York Governor Elliot Spitzer consorts with high class call girls is pretty low on the sin-o-meter. It was, however, a shock to learn a man mentioned in some circles as presidential material could have been so careless and stupid.

Just what possesses a man who has everything going for him to become enmeshed in such an embarrassing scandal?

We see it time and time again and ask the same questions over and over. The fact of the matter is, these politicians exist in a political (and social) system that makes them feel entitled to break the law, play around on their wives, and use their elected position to sate their appetites. In Spitzer’s case, we have no idea how long he has been visiting prostitutes. He may have been doing it all his married life.

As the product of a wealthy family that carries its own set of entitlements, Spitzer’s dalliances as governor might be explained as simply an extension of the entitlement he felt as a rich man’s son. And his hubris in believing no one would ever find out is part and parcel of a powerful politician’s sense of invulnerability - a fool’s belief in their own indestructibility.

It all caught up with the soon to be former New York governor yesterday:

The federal investigation of a New York prostitution ring was triggered by Gov. Eliot Spitzer’s suspicious money transfers, initially leading agents to believe Spitzer was hiding bribes, according to federal officials.

It was only months later that the IRS and the FBI determined that Spitzer wasn’t hiding bribes but payments to a company called QAT, what prosecutors say is a prostitution operation operating under the name of the Emperors Club.

As recently as this past Valentine’s Day, Feb. 13, Spitzer, who officials say is identified in a federal complaint as “Client 9,” arranged for a prostitute “Kristen” to meet him in Washington, D.C.

The woman met Client 9 at the Mayflower Hotel, room 871, “for her tryst,” according to the complaint. Client 9 also is alleged to have paid for the woman’s train tickets, cab fare, mini bar and room service, travel time and hotel.

The suspicious financial activity was initially reported by a bank to the IRS which, under direction from the Justice Department, brought kin the FBI’s Public Corruption Squad.

One of the more delicious ironies of this entire matter is the fact that Spitzer led the feds to the prostitution ring through his suspicious money transfers rather than the feds catching him as a result of any investigation into interstate prostitution. In short, Spitzer brought the world down on top of himself by his own actions - a truly biblical happenstance.

The comparisons to Republican politicians caught up in similar circumstances are being denied by liberals in the most uproariously amusing fashion imaginable. World Famous Sock Puppet Lambchop supplies the jaw dropping explanation:

But how can his alleged behavior — paying another adult roughly $1,000 per hour to travel from New York to Washington to meet him for sex — possibly justify resignation, let alone criminal prosecution, conviction and imprisonment? Independent of the issue of his hypocrisy — which is an issue meriting attention and political criticism but not criminal prosecution — what possible business is it of anyone’s, let alone the state’s, what he or anyone else does in their private lives with other consenting adults?

With all of the intense hand-wringing abounding, it’s very difficult to discern the standard being applied here. Are any public officials who commit adultery engaged in such morally intolerable behavior that they ought to resign, because that didn’t seem to be the standard back in the 1990s? Or is that any illegal behavior of any kind — no matter how serious or frivolous, whether victim-creating or victimless — merits resignation? If a political official smokes pot, or gambles in a poker game, or commits adultery in a state where adultery is a crime, are they now so morally beyond the pale that it is time for them to go? Is that the standard here?

Evidently, only Republicans who engage in these affairs are evil. Here’s Lambchop on Senator David Vitter after that hypocrite got outed:

So, to recap: in Louisiana, Vitter carried on a year-long affair with a prostitute in 1999. Then he ran for the House as a hard-core social conservative family values candidate, parading around his wife and kids as props and leading the public crusade in defense of traditional marriage.

Then, in Washington, he became a client of Deborah Palfrey’s. Then he announced that amending the Constitution to protect traditional marriage was the most important political priority the country faces. Rush Limbaugh, Fred Thompson and Newt Gingrich supported the same amendment.

As always, it is so striking how many Defenders of Traditional Marriage have a record in their own broken lives of shattered marriages, multiple wives and serial adultery. And they never seek to protect the Sacred Institution of Traditional Marriage by banning the un-Christian and untraditional divorces they want for themselves when they are done with their wives and are ready to move on to the next, newer model. Instead, they only defend these Very Sacred Values by banning the same-sex marriages that they don’t want for themselves.

(HT: Reihl)

Lambchop is very careful in his dismissive piece on Spitzer to point out the hypocrisy (on one level) of the governor who prosecuted prostitution rings while US Attorney. That’s a pretty shallow analysis when you consider Spitzer’s entire campaign was based on his adherence to a higher ethical standard than his opponents as well fostering the belief that he was a dedicated family man. I guess just as long as you support gay marriage, you get a virtual pass from Mr. Lambchop who has had a change of heart about politicians and prostitutes now that a Democrat is in trouble.

What a tool.

In the end, the Vitters, the Foleys and the Spitzers of the world have one thing in common; an inability to resist the temptations that go with holding high office and a moral blind spot when it comes to justifying their own behavior. One might add that politicians who continue to abuse the public trust by not holding themselves to a higher personal standard than the rest of us must believe that they will never get caught. Perhaps many never do and the ones who make the front pages of newspapers are simply careless and stupid.

All the more reason to employ a healthy cynicism when supporting any politician - even one who claims to represent “change” and proclaims himself a new kind of politician practicing a new kind of politics. An informed citizenry in a democracy looks at its leaders with a jaundiced eye and sees beyond the claims of moral superiority to make a decision based on what they see of a candidate’s judgement and experience. Hero worship will only lead to bitter disappointment and the revelation that their man on a white horse has feet of clay.

They are, after all, human. And that might be the best reason to vote for them in the first place.

In Religion News today, we learn that there’s nothing we can do - except perhaps getting naked and dancing around an Oak tree worshipping Gaia - to save the planet from rapacious capitalists, gas hungry gear heads, electrical power gluttons, and lawnmower fanatics.

Basically, we’re toast:

The task of cutting greenhouse gas emissions enough to avert a dangerous rise in global temperatures may be far more difficult than previous research suggested, say scientists who have just published studies indicating that it would require the world to cease carbon emissions altogether within a matter of decades.

Their findings, published in separate journals over the past few weeks, suggest that both industrialized and developing nations must wean themselves off fossil fuels by as early as mid-century in order to prevent warming that could change precipitation patterns and dry up sources of water worldwide.

Using advanced computer models to factor in deep-sea warming and other aspects of the carbon cycle that naturally creates and removes carbon dioxide (CO2), the scientists, from countries including the United States, Canada and Germany, are delivering a simple message: The world must bring carbon emissions down to near zero to keep temperatures from rising further.

This is fantastic news - for those who consider industrialized civilization just a crazy interlude in human evolution and that our true calling is to root around with the pigs digging up truffles while at the same time, breaking our backs plowing the back forty with a horse drawn prairie sodbuster.

No, really, 19th century farming can be fun. And for those of you in industries that would be hard hit by this return to yesteryear - which includes just about everybody - have no fear. There will be work enough for all once we get into the spirit of the adventure.

Are you pretty good with animals and don’t mind getting scorched every once and a while? Blacksmithing is your trade then, my man.

I’ve got just two words for you: Wheel Wright. The future is yours. Grab it.

Do you like working with your hands and can lift several hundred pounds all day long? I’m sure there will be plenty of calls for Wagoneers.

Attention pizza delivery drivers. Take a correspondence course in how to drive a stagecoach.

Parents, enroll your child immediately in the Steamfitters Guild.

With trains about ready to make a comeback, lineman and gandy dancers will be in tremendous demand. Maybe we can even bring back the Non Partisan Anti-Chinese League.

Chim-Chiminey, Chim-Chiminey, Chim-Chim-Cheroo - If you need a good job, cleaning chimney’s for you.

I wonder if burning whale oil gives off CO2? Probably a better alternative than burning wood. If I were a young, unattached man, I’d move to Nantucket a go a-whalin’. I’d even have a white whale to pursue.

Of course I’m being facetious. But what I was trying to do was show that there is indeed a sizable, vocal minority of climate change alarmists who are only using the issue of global warming to advance another agenda - political, economic, and social - that is inimical to the free market, injurious of human liberty, and desirous of controlling our lives in minute ways. And what they wish to accomplish is nothing less than the destruction of western industrialized civilization.

The study, which may or may not indicate that there is little we can do to stop from warming the planet, will be seized upon by those who wish to impose draconian “solutions” that would have the effect of severely curtailing industrial activity thus causing massive disruptions in our society. These are people who talk of “sustainable development” in a world with fewer people, fewer, opportunities, and fewer dreams.

They are not a majority of climate change advocates. But not acknowledging that they are present and working to achieve their goals is ignorant.

I don’t know the motives or the history of the scientists who completed the studies mentioned in the post article but I would think that, as with anything else, more study as well as careful peer review of these studies will be necessary before any action should be taken. That might be especially appropriate since one of the authors mentioned in the article - Andreas Schmittner - wrote a paper back in 1997 predicting rising CO2 levels would lead to global cooling in Europe.)

I’m no scientist. Neither is Nobel Prize winning global warming alarmist and hypocrite Al Gore. Nor are the legions of global warming deniers who are pointing to a stretch of cold weather as “proof” that global warming is a myth.

We are, most of us, not qualified in any way, shape, or form to make any kind of technical or scientific judgment on most of the evidence relating to climate change unless we happen to hold an advanced technical degree and are able to examine that evidence in its totality and not pick and choose headlines that bolster one’s political position on the issue.

The idiocy inherent in the prospect of myself or 95% of internet commenters - right and left - trying to hold a scientific debate on a subject where almost all of us are not scientists and where most of the evidence is couched in the arcane and mysterious language of scientific disciplines for which the overwhelming majority of us barely realize the parameters of study is self evident.

Not that this matters because at bottom, we who are unable to examine the evidence on the same plane as climatologists, meteorologists, atmospheric physicists, environmental scientists, and a hodgepodge of chemists, archaeologists, anthropologists, and other scientists end up simply believing one side or the other. Like religious fanatics, the two sides argue dogma while rejecting the other’s “beliefs” as apostasy.

Considering the stakes, this is madness. And scientists are not helping matters any. Likening those who question the conclusion that global warming is caused largely by man and that it threatens civilization to Holocaust deniers is far beyond the pale of rational discourse. Similarly, those who use the term “climate Nazis” to describe global warming advocates have no place in this debate.

But because of the monumental importance of the issue, all of this matters little. Even though our opinions are half baked and ill informed, we scream at each other, accusing one side of being in the pocket of big business (or in thrall to the anti-science element in the Republican party) or the other side of blindly following a “scam” that seeks to destroy the American economy and promote a one world government.

Both sides have been guilty of laughable exaggerations. Every heat wave during the summer is trumpeted to the skies by warming advocates as “evidence” that the world is warming up. The ebbing of ice packs, glaciers, and snow pack on mountains, is fodder for the alarmists while every shred of evidence that might contradict the global warming scenario including core samples and faulty CO2 models becomes “proof” that global warming is a lie.

Case in point:

“Earth’s ‘Fever’ Breaks: Global COOLING Currently Under Way,” read a blog post and news release on Wednesday from Marc Morano, the communications director for the Republican minority on the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee.

So what is happening?

According to a host of climate experts, including some who question the extent and risks of global warming, it is mostly good old-fashioned weather, along with a cold kick from the tropical Pacific Ocean, which is in its La Niña phase for a few more months, a year after it was in the opposite warm El Niño pattern.

If anything else is afoot — like some cooling related to sunspot cycles or slow shifts in ocean and atmospheric patterns that can influence temperatures — an array of scientists who have staked out differing positions on the overall threat from global warming agree that there is no way to pinpoint whether such a new force is at work.

And lest you think only one side can’t tell the difference between “climate” and “weather,” here’s an oldy but goody from 2003:

NBC Blames Global Warming for European Heat Wave

It was inevitable. Whenever someplace in the world gets hot for a few days, sooner or later a network story will blame it on global warming.

NBC’s Patricia Sabga won the contest on Wednesday night when she warned that “scientists attribute the extreme temperatures to what’s been described as a dome of hot air hovering over Europe, a summer weather pattern that may become the norm.” Sean Seabrook, identified on screen as a “meteorologist,” then asserted: “Scientists appreciate now that global warming is taking place and I think these occurrences of heat waves will become more frequent, so this may be a sign of things to come.”

The climate is warming. This is indisputable. It has been warming since the end of the last ice age nearly 20,000 years ago. During that time we’ve had rapid warming spells that last centuries and cooling periods as well (the “Little Ice Age” in Europe from 1300-1800 had a huge impact on politics and society).

But overall, for this last post-ice age epoch the temperature has been rising. No one disputes this. The problem, of course, is the last 100 years or so of human industrial activity and the burning of fossile fuels. Many scientists see the “spike” in average temperature of .75 degrees C as directly related to the increase in CO2 emissions resulting from the burning of hydrocarbons. Others point to a peak of sunspot activity or ice core samples that show past rapid warming periods where there has been an increase in CO2 in the atmosphere.

I have no clue who has the upper hand in this debate. Flat statements like “global warming is real” or “global warming is a scam” mean nothing when each side is contradicted by sound scientific evidence. This despite efforts by some in the global warming crusade who seek to end debate on the issue for political, not scientific reasons by trying to postulate that there is a “consensus” that catastrophe is ahead unless we reduce our emissions.

Whoever heard of ending debate on a question of science when there is credible evidence that challenges what has become conventional wisdom? What reputable scientist would agree with this nonsense? No one knows or can accurately predict what the weather will be like 100 years from now. Models that attempt to show a correlation between specific levels of carbon dioxide and temperature have been shown to be useless. No one knows what effect increased temperatures will have in the future. No one even knows if reducing emissions will effect the rise in temperatures one iota.

Closing off debate on climate change is not a question of science but of politics.

It is inevitable that politics would dominate the global warming debate because the solution proposed - reducing emissions - impact ordinary people’s lives enormously, perhaps even catastrophically. For some, whose agenda includes what can only be interpreted as the downfall of the capitalist system, the climate change debate is secondary to imposing their ideas of socialism and reduced influence of the nation state. Others may see a loss of profit and influence unless global warming is “debunked.” And when the cost to the US economy is measured in the trillions of dollars to “play it safe” and proceed as if global warming is the calamitous threat some say it is, the arguments for and against take on an urgency the demands attention.

And then there is the vast bulk of ordinary citizens - you and me - who are caught somewhere in the middle, forced to try our best to understand the debate by reading flawed analysis of both sides in a scientifically ignorant media. Even those few general interest science publications that lay people can read and understand are usually tainted by bias for or against anthropogenic climate change.

In the end, we are left believing one side or the other based largely on our political leanings and not on our scientific acumen. In a way, I envy those who can follow the debate on a technical level and are able to keep the spark of scientific inquiry alive by listening to all sides in this debate and evaluating evidence based on the facts while leaving politics on the outside.

If the only thing you take away from reading this is to have a little more respect for those who don’t agree with you on global warming, I will be content. Because at the moment, speaking for myself, I just don’t know. And the price of ignorance - on both sides - may be too much for us to bear.

UPDATE: 3/6

I thought about doing this days ago but just never got around to it.

Those who say we shouldn’t only take the word of scientists on global warming are correct.

The problem is any 3 year old chimp can understand the conclusions drawn by various studies and models. But only scientists can examine the evidence those conclusions are based on and make a judgement as to their accuracy and efficacy.

Cooking the books of a statistical study on temperatures or overstating some key piece of evidence can only be discovered by those with the knowledge and training to do so. That is why all legitimate studies undergo peer review.

Anyone who relies solely on the conclusions reached by scientists without examining the evidence from where those conclusions came from is talking throught their hat and need not be taken seriously. That was my point that was poorly made that I am now clarifying.

I am usually quite proud of being a conservative. I know in my heart that the only way to enjoying liberty under the law AND equality of justice is through the application of conservative principles to government and society. And I am usually proud of the rational, reasonable basis on which most conservatives see the world and evaluate people and events.

That’s why it embarrasses me to no end to see fellow conservatives who actually believe that Barack Obama is some kind of “Manchurian Candidate” sent by Muslims to undermine American society. Or that Obama is a closet Muslim just waiting to take power before unmasking himself. Or perhaps most bizarrely, since Obama was born to a Muslim father, he is a Muslim whether he wants to be or not and that Muslims elsewhere will not let him forget his heritage.

There are other permutations to this theme involving Obama’s middle name of Hussein which to some of my fellow conservatives is a dead giveaway that he is Muslim. And there are no end of theories, rumors, tall tales, and outright lies about Obama’s Muslim childhood spent at this madrass or that mosque which “proves” him to be a son of Islam.

Most of this idiocy takes place in comment sections of blogs and conservative boards where new Vince Foster murder theories still generate excitement. Occassionally, one of these stories goes mainstream and for a brief period, conservative are made to look like paranoid loons who believe Barack Obama is a cross between the anti-Christ and Osama bin Laden’s long lost brother.

Well, today conservative stupidity regarding Obama and his supposed ties to Islam hit paydirt - as in generating a ten on the laugh-o-meter. Evidently, the probable next president of the United States was caught in flagrante dilecto, dressed to the nines in what appears to be some kind of native garb (probably Kenyan) and with a (gasp!) turban on his head. To some of my unschooled, ignorant conservative friends, this is further proof that if we elect Obama president, there will be a department of Sharia Affairs.

The truth as Jim Hoft (via Sweetness and Light) shows, is a little less dramatic. The costume is that of a Kenyan tribal elder.

Now Obama already has some problematic connections to Kenya including his appearances for presidential candidate Raila Odinga, a distant cousin and someone whose recent actions in fomenting violence in Kenya following a crooked presidential election are extremely troublesome. (There have also been rumors of a deal between Odinga and the small Islamist party in Kenya that he would, if elected, establish Sharia law - a dubious proposition and almost certainly a lie that has been picked up by some conservatives in this country and passed off as the truth.)

But the idea that Obama in traditional Kenyan garb proves he’s some kind of closet Muslim or Islamic sympathizer is absurd. Kenya is 70% Christian and only 10% Muslim. To extrapolate that Obama’s dress denotes anything other than acknowledging his birthright not to mention playing the gracious guest by donning the clothing of his hosts is irrational, stupid, ignorant, and totally without foundation.

But that doesn’t stop some from allowing imagination to trump rational thought:

Over at Islamica magazine, they are acknowledging what the few of us fighting the great fight have been saying all along. Hussein Obama is Islam’s candidate. They call it a wink and a nod but shhhhhh don’t let on to the fat, lazy infidels.

Expect the fantasy mongerers in the mainstream media to continue to scrub and whitewash (no pun) Hussein Obama’s Islamic bonafides. The rabid fervor by the leftarded lemmings is Hitleresque.

A former Associate Publisher of The New York Observer should know better.

While writing this post, I received a comment on my article from yesterday about Obama’s radical friends. The wildly off base nature of most of the charges made almost make me believe I’m living on a planet full of escapees from the loony bin:

Rick, check out these other Obama ’soulmates”:

Cousin Raila Odinga, the losing Presidential Candidate in Kenya, whom Obama supposedly has almost daily conversations, has been linked to religous violence, burning of churches ( with parishioners in them), and other violence following his loss in the elections. Odinga was accused of making a secret pact with a Kenyan national muslim group to install sharia law in Kenya if he won the election. Oh by the way, check out the picture of Obama in Kenyaa tribal Muslim garb in 2006 at Sweetness and Light.

“Tony” Rezko, corrupt Syrian-Amerioan slumlord/ businessman and heavy poitical contributor to Chicago area democrats, who will be inducted this week I believe for corruption. This is the character, with a nineteen year relationship to Obama and his law firm, who put up the money for a portion of Obama’s lot so Obama could purchase his $2.1 million home. Rezko it seems also has ties to politically connected types in Syria and the former Saddam regime.

It seems that it was true that Obama was reaching out in bi-partisan way- it just was to the parties of the Islamic radicals and not to the Republicans.

This is a guy who:

• Won’t say the pledge of allegience
• Won’t wear an American flag pin.
• Whose wife has never been proud of American before her husband’s campaign.
• Who belongs to a racist anti-white church in Chicago.
• Who was enrolled as a muslim in Indoneisa’s schools and studied the Koran in afterschool clubs.
• Whose middle name is named after Ali Hussein, grandson of Mohammad and the founder of Shia d’ Islam. Incidentally, “Barrack” is awfully close to the name “Buraq”, the winged steed that Mohammad rode to heaven on.

This apostate muslim is the one who is to lead us on the War on Terror?

Pray tell, how is Barrack going to make peace between the Shia , Sunni and the Sufi, much less those other people of the Book, those infidel Jews and Chistians? The muslim Takfiri have only been waging war on the insufficiently pious muslims and infidel for over thirteen hundred years, or did’nt Barrack learn that studying the Koran as a teenager?

We as voters really need to hear from Barrack, how studying the Koran as a teenager affected and shaped his political outlook and worldview.

I receive these kinds of comments all the time and read them constantly on other blogs. What the commenter and other conservatives don’t take into account about Obama is that he is much more of a calculating man than anyone generally gives him credit for. He attends a church in Chicago whose pastor is admiring of black racist Louis Farrakahn. But I doubt whether Obama’s Christianity goes much deeper than his devotion to Islam - which is to say his religiosity is a calculated element of his political personae. His attendance at Trinity United Church Of Christ in Chicago establishes his authenticity as an African American more than fulfilling any spiritual need the candidate may have.

And that’s why I find charges that Obama is some kind of closet Muslim so absurd. The candidate may have been trained as a grass roots organizer using the playbook written by radical Saul Alinsky. And he may have been involved in radical lefist politics early in his career. But a man who has so carefully crafted a political resume by conveniently being absent for key votes or voting “Present” on controversial bills - all the better to obscure how far left his politics go or what his true politics are - it is not beyond imagining that whatever his religious beliefs, they are calculated to effortlessly merge with the rest of this image Obama is presenting to the world. There is no room for Islam in this image nor is there anything in the public record that would indicate Obama has even given his Muslim heritage - if indeed his father was a member of the Islamic faith - a second thought as an adult.

I would say to my conservative friends who continue to insist that this is a rich vein to mine that you are so off base as to be a laughingstock. Just because my middle name is David doesn’t mean I’m a Jew despite a long, illustrious connection of that name to the history and faith of the Hebrews. Hence, this nonsense about Obama’s middle name being “proof” that he is a Muslim has got to stop. There’s no evidence that name was given to him for any other reason except the given one - it was his father’s middle name as well.

Nor does Obama dressing up in local garb make him a Kenyan elder or a shadow Muslim. The fact that he is wearing a traditional headress is irrelevant to what he believes. When Calvin Coolidge was photographed wearing a Lakotan headdress, no one came out and said Coolidge was a devotee of The Great Spirit. Politicians wear all sorts of funny hats and clothes. It’s part of Americana. For Obama to be singled out for honoring his hosts by dressing in traditional garb is the height of stupidity and my conservative bretheren should be ashamed of themselves.

I really wish this meme would stop. There is so much else to criticize Obama for that to start tilting at windmills by claiming he’s a danger to our Judeo-Christian society is a waste of time, effort, and resources. I would imagine the candidate himself rather than being hurt by these accusations probably gets a good laugh out of them, so silly they are and so revealing of the stupidity that permeates a large subset of the right.

Get a grip, friends.

UPDATE

Good to see even most of my conservative readers agree with me - at least judging from the comments and the nearly dozen emails I’ve gotten already.

One good point made by an emailer is that even if he isn’t a Muslim, Obama may be more sympathetic to Muslims than any other candidate.

I hope so. Someone sympathetic to Muslims wouldn’t use the word “Crusade” when talking about the war in Afghanistan. That utterance by Bush did more to harm US-Muslim relations than anything except possibly the war in Iraq which most Muslims refuse to acknowledge freed 25 million of their co-religionists from one of the most brutal regimes in the world.

But would he be more accomodating of radical Islamists? Would he seek some kind of truce with al-Qaeda or other radical groups? Would he believe the Iranians if they told him face to face that they had no interest in building a nuclear bomb?

This, I don’t know. But given his past associations with radical leftists whose myopic belief in the goodness of our enemies (since it is we who are the ogres of the world) is one of their most endearing qualities, that fact might make any foriegn policy initiative possible.

Some believe it is inevitable that the west will negotiate with Bin Laden - at least about Afghanistan. God knows what these next years will bring but if there would be an American President who might consider it, I would finger Obama before McCain any day of the week.

John McCain may not have done as well as the media expected on Super Tuesday but he nevertheless acquired a stranglehold on the Republican nomination and only a total, unmitigated collapse by the Arizona senator could possibly deny him the prize awaiting him in the Twin Cities.

To his great credit (and my surprise), Hugh Hewitt sees the writing on the wall and makes a heartfelt plea for unity:

Senator McCain has a clear path to the nomination, Romney a very uphill battle, and Huck is fighting for 2012 at this point and for a win in a major vote outside of the south. Certainly they should all stay in through the primaries ahead because it isn’t over and because our side needs the excitement of a campaign in such key falls states as Wisconsin, Ohio and Pennsylvania to keep the MSM from turning 100% of its attention on to growing the Obama phenomenon. They ought to be scheduling three man debates in every state, making their points and taking every opportunity to look ahead to the fall.

At the same time, Romney and Huckabee ought to begin to note Senator McCain’s lead and urge their followers to recognize that if they cannot come back they and their followers will have to come in and join the party’s eventual nominee. Senator McCain would do well to make a similar statement though his lead is significant and his collapse unlikely. Putting Humpty Dumpty together again cannot wait for St. Paul. Each of the three need to strike some common chords again and again, beginning with why the GOP needs to retain the White House, regardless of who its nominee is.

Frankly, the way that Hugh and other conservatives had been carrying on since the Florida primary, I thought Hewitt would be with the bitter enders who believe that if Mitt can’t get the nomination, some kind of Republican Götterdämmerung should be initiated and the party and its apostates consumed in some cataclysmic immolation complete with fat ladies in Viking helmets and sturdy, Aryan warriors with great, bushy beards.

Thankfully, Hugh at least has more sense - and class - than that.

For in truth, Mitt Romney is toast. He’s a gone goose. He is finished. Fertig! Verfallen! Verlumpt! Verblunget! Verkackt! .

In fact, this candidate is no more! He has ceased to be! ‘E’s expired and gone to meet ‘is maker!

‘E’s a stiff! Bereft of life, ‘e rests in peace! If you hadn’t nailed ‘im to the lectern last night ‘e’d be pushing up the daisies!

‘Is metabolic processes are now ‘istory! ‘E’s off the twig!

‘E’s kicked the bucket, ‘e’s shuffled off ‘is mortal coil, run down the curtain and joined the bleedin’ choir invisibile!!

THIS IS AN EX-CANDIDATE!!

Or, he could be pining for the fjords?

Seriously, Mitt made a good run but anyone who harbors the illusion that the race is not over need only look at the numbers. Come to think of it, if anyone still believes Romney has a chance in hell of winning the nomination, the probability exists that facts won’t matter much to them anyway - only fairy tales and bedtime stories.

That’s okay. I have to put something on the blog today anyway so let’s examine the race from the standpoint of where we are now, how many delegates are left to be awarded, and what that means to the viability of candidate Romney.

With 1191 delegates needed to win, McCain has 615 delegates according to CNN to Romney’s 248. McCain is likely to pick up 20-30 more delegates as soon as California and a couple of other proportional delegate states are completely counted. Romney also should pick up a couple of dozen additional delegates when all is said and done.

With barely 1300 total delegates left on the table, McCain would only need around 550 of those delegates to claim victory. Romney would need to win 900 of the remaining 1300 delegates to overtake McCain.

Can he do it?

McCain would have to totally collapse for that to happen. After next week’s “Potomac Primary” involving Virginia, Maryland, and Washington, D.C. - where Virginia and DC are winner take all states and where McCain is comfortably ahead - only Vermont remains as a WTA contest. All the rest of the states in play will award delegates proportionately.

Romney would have to win virtually all the remaining contests by at least a 3-1 margin - and even then you can’t ignore the presence of Mike Huckabee in the race. The Baptist preacher helped put the stake through Romney’s heart last night when he stole 5 southern primaries. This denied McCain the overwhelming victory he needed to put both candidates away but it also killed Romney’s chances of getting close to the Arizona senator.

Not enough states, not enough delegates, and not enough time. The fat lady may not be singing in the GOP race but she’s certainly warming up in the wings.

Did Bill Clinton really say we have to “slow our economy” to deal with global warming?

In a long, and interesting speech, he characterized what the U.S. and other industrialized nations need to do to combat global warming this way: “We just have to slow down our economy and cut back our greenhouse gas emissions ’cause we have to save the planet for our grandchildren.”

At a time that the nation is worried about a recession is that really the characterization his wife would want him making? “Slow down our economy”?

I don’t really think there’s much debate that, at least initially, a full commitment to reduce greenhouse gases would slow down the economy….So was this a moment of candor?

A “moment of candor?” Or a journalistic faux pas? Here’s more from Bill:

“Everybody knows that global warming is real,” Mr. Clinton said, giving a shout-out to Al Gore’s Nobel Peace Prize, “but we cannot solve it alone.”

“And maybe America, and Europe, and Japan, and Canada — the rich counties — would say, ‘OK, we just have to slow down our economy and cut back our greenhouse gas emissions ’cause we have to save the planet for our grandchildren.’ We could do that.

“But if we did that, you know as well as I do, China and India and Indonesia and Vietnam and Mexico and Brazil and the Ukraine, and all the other countries will never agree to stay poor to save the planet for our grandchildren. The only way we can do this is if we get back in the world’s fight against global warming and prove it is good economics that we will create more jobs to build a sustainable economy that saves the planet for our children and grandchildren. It is the only way it will work.

(HT: Sadly No)

Obviously, Clinton was not recommending that we unilaterally slow down our economy to cut emissions. He was saying that just because we did, others wouldn’t necessarily follow suit.

But just what the hell was he saying? He was saying that “the fight” against global warming will create more jobs and build a “sustainable(?) economy” that will save the planet so that Californians won’t wake up one morning a hundred years from now in desperate need of water wings and flippers.

Earth to Brad: I congratulate you on calling Tapper out for his idiotic take on Clinton’s speech. But you missed the real story. What Bill said was a lie. A great, big, fat, Clintonian truthbusting whopper of a fib.

As much as scientists all agree that global warming is “real” - and they do - economists are in agreement that cutting our emissions even modestly will entail a huge cost to our economy. How much depends on what model you”re looking at (ironically, exactly the same as trying to glean how much warming can be expected over the next century). From a low of $500 billion over ten years to a high of $1.8 trillion over a decade are current estimates published in peer reviewed journals.

In case you were curious about what effect that might have on the economy, imagine all the global warming advocates in the world gathering together in one place, each of them with a $100 bill. Then imagine a bonfire where all of those millions of hundreds are burned while the greens take off their clothes, cover themselves in body paint, and dance a dabke in celebration.

Well…maybe they wouldn’t cover themselves in body paint. Maybe they’d just smear honey on themselves or vegetable oil. But you get the picture.

Taking that much money out of the economy would if not be catastrophic, it would certainly cause a long, painful recession. I haven’t seen a recent study on the number of jobs that would be lost so I won’t give a number. But economists are in almost unanimous agreement that the effect on job growth would be severe.

Bill Clinton is lying through his teeth by trying to make dealing with global warming a painless process. It won’t be. It will involve massive disruptions in industry and labor with some regions being hit very hard. We would have to alter our lifestyles not just in how we use energy and generate emissions but in fundamental ways we are just beginning to grasp. There will be a cascade effect on our society that no one - and I mean no one - can foresee.

Clinton talks of “building a sustainable” economy. Just what does he mean? What exactly does “sustainable” mean? Not surprisingly, no one knows. But it sure sounds good, eh?

Population growth alarmists talk about “sustainable” economies being able to support 1-2 billion people on earth. Meanwhile, the United Nations - in true bureaucratic fashion - has perhaps the most confusing (and sometimes contradictory) sets of criteria for sustainability that encompasses all facets of society, not just the economy.

But contained in many of these “sustainability models” is a streak of Ludditism - anti-capitalist, anti-business, anti-property rights, anti-growth; in short, anti-people and anti-freedom. This is the true agenda of some global warming fanatics. And I believe it is telling that Bill Clinton has adopted their nomenclature to lull us to sleep about the true cost of cutting emissions.

Now let me say that if this is what it would take to save the planet, we would have no choice but to initiate the kind of draconian policies that would harm our economy most severely. Let me further say that I believe that anthropogenic global warming is a reality although man is probably not to blame to the degree usually ascribed.

The problem isn’t whether global warming is “real” or not. The problem is that there is not one iota of proof that reducing emissions will lower the temperature. Zero. Zip. Nada. Common sense would dictate that it would but some models show differently. This is a part of climate science that all can agree is not settled - not by any stretch of the imagination.

So in effect, we are being asked to drastically alter our economy and our lifestyle on a whim and a prayer. No thanks.

This doesn’t mean we shouldn’t try to lower emissions by developing new (and old) technologies that would generate less greenhouse gas while working to wean ourselves from foreign oil supplies. It does mean that Bill Clinton is a lying sack of rotten potatoes when he tries to sell “sustainable” economic growth as a painless panacea for reducing our carbon footprint.

UPDATE

Bryan at Hot Air is on pretty much the same wavelength I am:

He goes on to serve up pipe dreams about how green tech like 100-mile-per-gallon cars will create more jobs, which seems unlikely. He’s also off in the weeds when he declares that anything is “the only way it will work.” That’s classic Clintonian fallacy: A complex problem, if it’s even a real problem, requires a complex set of solutions, supposing it’s even something we could solve.

The bottom line is that, for whatever reason, ABC actually played Clinton’s “slow down the economy” line unfairly and ended up downplaying his argument against the far left on global warming. I’m sure that will be too much mental jujitsu for the Clinton-hating, “conservative media” nutroots to handle.

I am sick of writing about Mike Huckabee and his desperate, shameless pandering to South Carolinians. I am sick of politics in general. So today I want to write about something a little more uplifting.

Political oratory is not what it once was in America. This is understandable given the advent of television and the lessening attention span of the voter. Back in the day, a good political speech could run 2 hours or more. And in the days before microphones, that meant the orator would have to really belt it out, usually in a sing-song manner so that the diaphragm did most of the work. There was an art and artifice to oratory back then. Audiences came to expect the classical allusions, the histrionic hand waving, the tears, the posing - all tricks of the trade a good orator would have at his beck and call.

How on earth did people sit still for two hours to listen to a speech, you might ask? With the good ones, the people usually begged for more. Most politicians were proud of their ability to deliver a stemwinder of a speech and sway people to vote for them.

This is an outgrowth of the fact that most politicians began their careers as lawyers. In small town America, going to a courtroom was like going to the movies. Court watching was sophisticated entertainment for high born and low born alike.

There are numerous examples of defense attorneys getting a murderer off by giving a closing argument that blatantly appealed to the pity of the jurors or of prosecutors getting a jury to convict an innocent man by raising the jury’s bloodlust.

There were also traveling orators who, for a fee, would deliver appropriate remarks at funerals and holidays like the Fourth of July. Many times, these orators doubled as preachers - another place Americans liked to go to listen to a good speech.

It seems we Americans appreciated a good speech more than just about anything. Think of the Lincoln-Douglas debates where thousands turned out to hear the two men. And, of course, a half a million turned out to hear a Georgia preacher speak of a dream he had for America.

There are a couple of things that all great speeches have in common. 1.) The moment. The exact time in history where the speakers words will resonate. 2.) The backdrop. The place the speech is delivered amplifies its meaning. And 3.) The words. All great speeches are as inspiring when read as they are when delivered orally.

Here following are my personal top 10 political speeches in American history. The idea came from this list filed this morning in the Washington Post. I felt I could do much better.

I doubt whether any of my choices will be controversial although the ranking I give them will spark a healthy debate in the comments, I hope. Just take this little diversion for what it is - a hope that you are as fascinated with our past and the impact of the spoken word as I am.

10. Lincoln’s Second Inaugural

On March 4, 1865 the Civil War was finally winding down. Abraham Lincoln stood on the Capitol steps underneath the recently completed dome - a symbol of the country’s commitment to the Union.

Lincoln delivered one of the shortest but one of the most memorable inaugural addresses of all time. The peroration haunts us to this day:

Fondly do we hope, fervently do we pray, that this mighty scourge of war may speedily pass away. Yet, if God wills that it continue until all the wealth piled by the bondsman’s two hundred and fifty years of unrequited toil shall be sunk, and until every drop of blood drawn with the lash shall be paid by another drawn with the sword, as was said three thousand years ago, so still it must be said ‘the judgments of the Lord are true and righteous altogether’.

With malice toward none; with charity for all; with firmness in the right, as God gives us to see the right, let us strive on to finish the work we are in; to bind up the nation’s wounds; to care for him who shall have borne the battle, and for his widow, and his orphan — to do all which may achieve and cherish a just and lasting peace, among ourselves, and with all nations.

Standing 15 feet away from Lincoln was John Wilkes Booth. The two would meet a month later in Ford’s Theater.

9. Patrick Henry “Give me liberty or give me death.”

On March 23, 1775, the British were occupying Boston and had declared martial law throughout the colony. A rabble rousing firebrand member of the House of Burgess named Patrick Henry stood up and, some believe, helped start a war. Others say he gave America a national consciousness that day. What he did was convince some very influential people - George Washington among them - that if the British could take away the rights of New Englanders they could do it to Virginians.

Henry’s bombastic, sneering, inspiring speech was a catalyst for Virgina to support Massachusetts and thus start the country down the road to independence. The peroration from Henry’s speech is what we most remember:

It is in vain, sir, to extenuate the matter. Gentlemen may cry, “Peace! Peace!” — but there is no peace. The war is actually begun! The next gale that sweeps from the north will bring to our ears the clash of resounding arms! Our brethren are already in the field! Why stand we here idle? What is it that gentlemen wish? What would they have? Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it, Almighty God! I know not what course others may take; but as for me, give me liberty, or give me death!

Gives me the chills reading it today.

8. Washington’s Speech before Congress Resigning his Commission

It was an act that stunned the Europeans and caused them to elevate Washington to hero status. A winning general simply resigning and going home? Such a thing had never been done - going all the way back to the Romans.

Washington, ever cognizant of his place in history and knowing full well what his self-abnegation would mean to the history books, nevertheless was quite sincere about going home. On December 23, 1783, he stood before Congress and with trembling hands, delivered a short, graceful speech that assured the strength of civilian rule and democracy in America:

Having now finished the work assigned me, I retire from the great theatre of Action; and bidding an Affectionate farewell to this August body under whose orders I have so long acted, I here offer my Commission, and take my leave of all the employments of public life.

7. Franklin Roosevelt’s First Inaugural Address

March 4, 1933 saw the American experiment in ruins. More than 13 million unemployed. Industrial capacity at 50% of what it was pre-stock market crash. Banks closing, soup lines, suicides up - people had lost faith.

Franklin Roosevelt didn’t change things immediately. Indeed, unemployment was still at 10% more than 8 years later on December 7, 1941. But what Roosevelt offered was hope that things were going to get better. And for a people as optimistic as Americans historically are, that’s all that was needed.

Contrasted with the do-nothing Hoover administration, Roosevelt’s activism was a tonic that got America out of the doldrums and blunted much of the impetus for a communist revolution that in 1932 seemed a possibility. Here’s the passage everyone remembers:

So, first of all, let me assert my firm belief that the only thing we have to fear is fear itself–nameless, unreasoning, unjustified terror which paralyzes needed efforts to convert retreat into advance. In every dark hour of our national life a leadership of frankness and of vigor has met with that understanding and support of the people themselves which is essential to victory. And I am convinced that you will again give that support to leadership in these critical days.

But it is his peroration that inspires:

We do not distrust the future of essential democracy. The people of the United States have not failed. In their need they have registered a mandate that they want direct, vigorous action. They have asked for discipline and direction under leadership. They have made me the present instrument of their wishes. In the spirit of the gift I take it.

In this dedication of a Nation we humbly ask the blessing of God. May He protect each and every one of us. May He guide me in the days to come.

6. Ronald Reagan at Point du Hoc

This speech is consistently ranked in the top 10 of the greatest of the 20th Century. And for good reason. It has all the elements I mentioned above that makes a great speech plus the drama of having the survivors of D-Day present to listen to it.

I challenge anyone - conservative or liberal - to watch this June 6, 1984 speech in its entirety and not get choked with emotion.

The Rangers looked up and saw the enemy soldiers — the edge of the cliffs shooting down at them with machineguns and throwing grenades. And the American Rangers began to climb. They shot rope ladders over the face of these cliffs and began to pull themselves up. When one Ranger fell, another would take his place. When one rope was cut, a Ranger would grab another and begin his climb again. They climbed, shot back, and held their footing. Soon, one by one, the Rangers pulled themselves over the top, and in seizing the firm land at the top of these cliffs, they began to seize back the continent of Europe. Two hundred and twenty-five came here. After 2 days of fighting, only 90 could still bear arms.

Behind me is a memorial that symbolizes the Ranger daggers that were thrust into the top of these cliffs. And before me are the men who put them there.

These are the boys of Pointe du Hoc. These are the men who took the cliffs. These are the champions who helped free a continent. These are the heroes who helped end a war.

Gentlemen, I look at you and I think of the words of Stephen Spender’s poem. You are men who in your “lives fought for life . . . and left the vivid air signed with your honor.”

Video here. MP3 here.

5. Roosevelt Declaration of War Against Japan

In a voice shaking with emotion and indignation, Roosevelt threw down the gauntlet to the Japanese empire:

Yesterday, December 7th, 1941 — a date which will live in infamy — the United States of America was suddenly and deliberately attacked by naval and air forces of the Empire of Japan.

The United States was at peace with that nation and, at the solicitation of Japan, was still in conversation with its government and its emperor looking toward the maintenance of peace in the Pacific.

Indeed, one hour after Japanese air squadrons had commenced bombing in the American island of Oahu, the Japanese ambassador to the United States and his colleague delivered to our Secretary of State a formal reply to a recent American message. And while this reply stated that it seemed useless to continue the existing diplomatic negotiations, it contained no threat or hint of war or of armed attack.

Given before a joint session of Congress while men were still trapped below decks in many of the ships bombed at Pearl Harbor, Roosevelt’s peroration drew the loudest and most prolonged standing ovation of his career:

Hostilities exist. There is no blinking at the fact that our people, our territory, and our interests are in grave danger.

With confidence in our armed forces, with the unbounding determination of our people, we will gain the inevitable triumph — so help us God.

I ask that the Congress declare that since the unprovoked and dastardly attack by Japan on Sunday, December 7th, 1941, a state of war has existed between the United States and the Japanese empire.

Roosevelt’s words awoke the “Sleeping Giant” by putting the war in terms of a crusade against the Japanese.

MP3 here. Note the applause at the beginning of the speech. Unbelievable.

4. William Jennings Bryan “Cross of Gold” Speech

You can draw a straight line from Bryan to John Edwards without deviating an inch. The angry populist wasn’t invented by Bryan but he carried the shtick all the way to the Democratic nomination in July of 1896.

Basically, some crackpot had come up with the idea that the problem of poverty in rural America could be fixed if only we had a lot more money in circulation. The way to do that was to go off the gold standard and make silver a sort of substitute. It was called “bimetalism” and would have set off an inflation panic that would have destroyed the economy.

But why let that stand in the way of personal ambition? Bryan, a relatively unknown ex-Congressman, got up to speak to the issue at the convention and quite simply wowed ‘em. A contemporary description of the reaction among the delegates:

His dramatic speaking style and rhetoric roused the crowd to a frenzy. The response, wrote one reporter, “came like one great burst of artillery.” Men and women screamed and waved their hats and canes. “Some,” wrote another reporter, “like demented things, divested themselves of their coats and flung them high in the air.” The next day the convention nominated Bryan for President on the fifth ballot.

The peroration sounds a helluva lot like Edwards at his angriest:

If they dare to come out in the open field and defend the gold standard as a good thing, we shall fight them to the uttermost, having behind us the producing masses of the nation and the world. Having behind us the commercial interests and the laboring interests and all the toiling masses, we shall answer their demands for a gold standard by saying to them, you shall not press down upon the brow of labor this crown of thorns. You shall not crucify mankind upon a cross of gold.

Bryan was later humiliated at the Scopes Trial by Clarence Darrow and died a broken bitter old man.

3. Lincoln’s Gettysburg Address

He was invited as an after thought. The great orator of the time Edward Everett was slated to give the dedication with Lincoln invited to make a “few appropriate remarks.” Originally scheduled for September 23, 1863, Horton said he could hardly do justice to the event with such short notice. The organizers rescheduled for November 19th.

Everett’s two hour oration held the audience spellbound. It was a classic 19th century eulogy with allusions to the Greeks and the Romans, biblical quotes, and flowery language - all given in a booming voice so that all could hear.

Then the President of the United States rose and in his high pitched, tinny, nasally voice, spoke the words that redefined America for all time by greatly expanding the very definition of freedom:

The world will little note, nor long remember what we say here, but it can never forget what they did here. It is for us the living, rather, to be dedicated here to the unfinished work which they who fought here have thus far so nobly advanced. It is rather for us to be here dedicated to the great task remaining before us—that from these honored dead we take increased devotion to that cause for which they gave the last full measure of devotion—that we here highly resolve that these dead shall not have died in vain—that this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom—and that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth.

No other speech in American history has accomplished so much by saying so little.

2. Kennedy Inaugural

Many historians believe that the January 20, 1961 Kennedy Inaugural address was the best of all time. I agree. The speech is a masterpiece of writing and Kennedy delivered it magnificently.

Beyond that, it was the time the speech was given that gave it such resonance. World War II vets were moving into positions of authority in business, in labor, in politics. The torch was indeed being passed to a new generation. And most Americans believed that the coming years would see a confrontation with the Soviet Union.

But little noticed by many is that the “young people” who flocked to Kennedy’s banner were not baby boomers. That group was too young. Rather it was the “tweeners” who were born between 1935 and 1945 who were too young for World War II and mostly too young for Korea (the Korean war ended in 1953) who supported him. The baby boomers adopted him after his death for the most part.

But Kennedy’s apparent youthfulness - something he cultivated religiously despite his poor health - inspired the entire population. His enthusiasm or “vigor” also was contagious. After the Eisenhower years, it was like the country woke up from a long nap.

The speech was a challenge to the country and to the Soviets. Reading it, one is struck by how bellicose it was - a cold warrior’s dream come true. And its stirring call to sacrifice for the common good - so often misused by Democrats when they call upon the people to help the poor or pay more in taxes - was actually an echo of the kind of sacrifice the country made during World War II.

In the long history of the world, only a few generations have been granted the role of defending freedom in its hour of maximum danger. I do not shrink from this responsibility — I welcome it. I do not believe that any of us would exchange places with any other people or any other generation. The energy, the faith, the devotion which we bring to this endeavor will light our country and all who serve it. And the glow from that fire can truly light the world.

And so, my fellow Americans, ask not what your country can do for you; ask what you can do for your country.

My fellow citizens of the world, ask not what America will do for you, but what together we can do for the freedom of man.

Kennedy is referring to the coming confrontation with the Soviets - that he makes quite clear he wishes to avoid but has no illusions about the enemy.

Echoes of this speech are still heard today making it a truly historic speech that deserves its ranking.

Video here.

1. Martin Luther King “I have a dream”

No speech in American history - and few in world history - had the immediate and lasting impact of King’s words on the steps of the Lincoln Memorial that 28th day of August, 1963. It electrified both black and white Americans and was the catalyst for passing two extremely important pieces of legislation; the Civil Rights Act and Voting Rights Act.

But beyond the practical effects of the speech, the uplifting, spiritual nature of the words as well as King’s thundering delivery made the speech almost biblical in its incantations:

I have a dream that one day this nation will rise up and live out the true meaning of its creed: “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal.”

I have a dream that one day on the red hills of Georgia, the sons of former slaves and the sons of former slave owners will be able to sit down together at the table of brotherhood.

I have a dream that one day even the state of Mississippi, a state sweltering with the heat of injustice, sweltering with the heat of oppression, will be transformed into an oasis of freedom and justice.

I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character.

I have a dream today!

King had the ability to hold a mirror up to white America so that they were forced to confront their shame. In many respects, he was almost like a biblical prophet. And his words, with their spectacular imagery and inspirational message poured over the listeners like a cool, refreshing rain.

The man, the moment, the backdrop, and the words all came together that August day to deliver what I consider the greatest speech in American history.

Video here.

For a party based on putting Americans into little boxes that identify them by their race, religion, ethnicity, or sexual orientation, the Democrats have been able to skate through for about 35 years with no major clashes among their many and varied interest groups which threatened the unity of the party.

Oh there have been ideological struggles to be sure. But as long as the party kept putting up white males for the top spot, clashes between people pigeonholed in those boxes was avoided.

Well, it can’t be avoided any longer:

After staying on the sidelines in the first year of the campaign, race and to a lesser extent gender have burst into the forefront of the Democratic presidential contest, thrusting Senators Barack Obama and Hillary Rodham Clinton into the middle of a sharp-edged social and political debate that transcends their candidacies.

In a tense day of exchanges by the candidates and their supporters, Mrs. Clinton suggested on Sunday that Mr. Obama’s campaign, in an effort to inject race into the contest, distorted remarks she had made about the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.

Mr. Obama tartly dismissed Mrs. Clinton’s suggestion, adding that “the notion that somehow this is our doing is ludicrous.”

Mr. Obama’s campaign then attacked Mrs. Clinton for failing to repudiate one of her top black supporters for “engaging in the politics of destruction” with an apparent reference to Mr. Obama’s acknowledged drug use in the past. And throughout the day, supporters of Mrs. Clinton and of Mr. Obama each accused the other of injecting race in search of political gain.

The exchanges created apprehension among many of their supporters who viewed this moment — if perhaps inevitable, given the nature of the contest — as divisive for Democrats. At the same time, it offered a portrait of a party struggling through entirely unfamiliar terrain that has been brought into relief by Mr. Obama’s victory in Iowa and Mrs. Clinton’s in New Hampshire.

Hillary owes her victory in New Hampshire to the spectacular turnout of women to support her candidacy. Fully 57% of Democratic primary voters were women and Clinton received nearly 50% of their votes far outpacing Obama’s total. If women are going to support her and come out for her in such numbers, Obama is truly in trouble.

Meanwhile, we have yet to have a contest in a state where Mr. Obama’s race will give him a huge advantage. The latest CBS-New York Times poll shows that Obama garners nearly 50% of the black vote, besting Clinton by 15%. That same poll shows Hillary over Obama by 16% among women. Hence, we have the makings for a lot of potential friction that neither campaign wants but won’t be able to avoid.

Obama actually carried the women’s vote in Iowa, showing a measure of strength that absolutely floored the Clinton campaign. In fact, part of the feeling that Obama would sweep through New Hampshire was the stunning way in which women flocked to his candidacy in Iowa.

For whatever reason - many point to the “Crying Moment” as key - women came home to vote for Hillary. Perhaps part of it was the historic nature of her candidacy. Perhaps it was the feeling that the press was ganging up on her. The fact is, Hillary can thank women for her victory in New Hampshire and she knows it. Now comes the trick of maximizing that vote throughout the primaries.

For Obama, it is a little different story. With black support rising for him, he is expected to do very well in the deep south where African Americans make up from 40% to 50% of the vote in most states. He is comfortably ahead in South Carolina, the first southern state to hold a primary (1/26) and is making up ground fast in Florida.

Due to the historic nature of both their candidacies, it could have been predicted that some kind of row would erupt where the candidate’s identity was involved. After all, Obama’s race and Hillary’s gender are the ultimate cards to play for and against them. And Obama apparently either was planning to get off the mark first or it just happened that the Clinton’s played into his hands. It turns out that his campaign had already prepared an attack that would accuse the Clintons of raising the issue of race. A memo has surfaced that cataloged what the Obama people consider racially insensitive remarks:

In a tense day of exchanges by the candidates and their supporters, Mrs. Clinton suggested on Sunday that Mr. Obama’s campaign, in an effort to inject race into the contest, distorted remarks she had made about the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.

Mr. Obama tartly dismissed Mrs. Clinton’s suggestion, adding that “the notion that somehow this is our doing is ludicrous.”

Mr. Obama’s campaign then attacked Mrs. Clinton for failing to repudiate one of her top black supporters for “engaging in the politics of destruction” with an apparent reference to Mr. Obama’s acknowledged drug use in the past. And throughout the day, supporters of Mrs. Clinton and of Mr. Obama each accused the other of injecting race in search of political gain.

The exchanges created apprehension among many of their supporters who viewed this moment — if perhaps inevitable, given the nature of the contest — as divisive for Democrats. At the same time, it offered a portrait of a party struggling through entirely unfamiliar terrain that has been brought into relief by Mr. Obama’s victory in Iowa and Mrs. Clinton’s in New Hampshire.

Their identity politics is a double edged sword. Each knows that an attack that appears directed at Obama’s race or Clinton’s gender risks energizing the supporters of that candidate and can also loose the dogs of the media on the attacker as the press sees itself, as always, as a referee in these matters. On the other hand, accusing your opponent of falsely using the identity card is akin to crying rape where the victim was a willing partner. And in Obama’s case, it appears he was ready to unleash the race card using somewhat innocuous statements as “proof” of the Clinton’s “insensitivity.”

On the other side, the Clinton’s are hardly innocent. Using a loose cannon like BET’s Bob Johnson - inoculated against charges of using the race card by virtue of his African American heritage - was virtually a guarantee for some racial fireworks directed against Obama. As it was, Johnson alluded to Obama’s past drug use in a rather elliptical - and deniable way. Both the Clinton’s and Johnson now say that the TV exec was referring to Obama’s days as a community organizer. The snickers from one and all after that explanation should tell the Clinton’s that they need to be a little more subtle next time.

Clinton has already tried to play the gender card, especially at the debates where attacks by the other candidates on her became the guys ganging up against the girl. But each time, the press has called her out for it and the gambit failed to elicit the kind of response among women that she was looking for. And then came the day before the New Hampshire primary and the emotional moment in the coffee shop. Suddenly, the gender card was irrelevant - even though, intentionally or not, it had just been played. Now it was “cracking of the ice queen” that played out and Hillary Clinton recaptured the women who had deserted her in Iowa.

Where this is headed is anyone’s guess. Obama risks a backlash if it is perceived he is using the race card unnecessarily and solely for political gain. Clinton, on the other hand, must be able to attack Obama in ways that don’t bring race to the fore. She tried the experience vs. inexperience attack and that didn’t work. Now she is trying to co-opt Obama’s message of change by trying to show that she has worked for real change for many years. That seemed to play well among a very important constituency; the over 55 age group. The oldsters vote in higher percentages than any other group of Americans and are vital in the large states voting on Super Tuesday.

But the race card for Obama is just too good a weapon not to use. And judging by that memo and what it represents, I have no doubt that the candidate will make use of that weapon as often as the thinks he can get away with it.

This then is where identity politics has taken the Democrats. Walking on egg shells one moment and shamelessly pandering to their respective constituencies the next. It has the potential of splintering the party if one side goes to far. But I doubt that will happen. Self-interest being the driving force in both camps and given the temperament of both candidates, I would suppose that there will be limits to the lengths to which they will go in savaging each other.

Is Mike Huckabee carrying out a “scorched earth” campaign where he doesn’t care if he destroys the party and splits the conservative movement into its base component parts?

Sure looks that way:

“Many of us who have been Republicans out of conviction . . . the social conservatives,” he told reporters, “were welcomed in the party as long as we sort of kept our place, but Lord help us if we ever stood forward and said we would actually like to lead the party.”

Mark Levin:

Huckabee continues to use his faith as a weapon against those who question not his faith, but his political populism — much of which he shares with secular progressives. And he is clearly hoping to stir up resentment among Evangelical Christians against the other elements of the conservative movement and Republican Party as a way of encouraging them to vote in the caucuses and primaries. This is a tactic right out of Saul Alinsky’s playbook. Of course he wants us to believe the Reagan coalition is dead because he cannot win with it intact. But he cannot win either the nomination or presidency with the narrow focus of his appeal. This is why I find Mike Huckabee’s tactics and candidacy so deplorable.

For myself, I could care less if the evangelical social cons threw a tantrum and walked out of the party and the movement. They have always been willing to fall on their swords and lose elections rather than compromise so what’s the big deal? Less political baggage in my book. And with them gone, I trust that many former Republicans as well as libertarians would feel a lot more comfortable about casting their lot with a small government, fiscally conservative party.

If they want to promote a candidate whose ideas about a nanny state include a “Christian government” watching over us as opposed to a secular one, let them try that out on the electorate. Just do it from the obscurity of a third party rather than the floor of the GOP national convention in September.

I have made my feelings known about Huckabee on this blog. I believe him to be a shady operator who, as Levin points out, uses religion as a club against his opponents while setting himself up to be a “superior Christian” to the other candidates. The mindless enthusiasm for this “populist” only shows that the religious right is not ready or worthy to lead any party that purports to represent a polyglot collection of neocons, Main Street, Traditional, and economic conservatives.

I know that many social cons do not support Huckabee and are supporting other candidates who also espouse socially conservative positions. I have no problem with that whatsoever. Those other candidates are not using their religion as a wedge issue in order to maximize their support among one faction or another in the conservative movement. Huckabee, on the other hand, sees his only chance at success in breaking the party and the movement by throwing his weight around as a “Christian leader” while feeding the resentment and paranoia of some evangelicals who think opposition to his candidacy is the result of his religion.

Huckabee will be taken down eventually. There is no way 50% of the party will ever support his candidacy. But the damage he can do between now and then may be irreparable by cracking once and for all the conservative coalition - already under enormous pressure - and destroying any hopes for a GOP victory next November.