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.

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 must apologize for my cynicism up front because I know it is not shared by many – at least not in polite company. But I just can’t help it.

There were times during that debate last night where I had to remind myself that these were actually Republican candidates for President. At times, it sounded more like a John Edwards political rally with talk of “evil” Wall Street companies and Huckabee’s “two Americas lite.” And Romney’s penchant for throwing a couple of hundred billion dollars at voters sounded more like some other Massachusetts politician except I’m sure Mitt is a better driver.

When the presidential selection process began, there were several candidates that any conservative could have supported if not enthusiastically then at least by giving lip service if they had ended up the nominee. Now by default, we are left with a man who ran for governor as a center left moderate, governed as a centrist, and then adopted a slew of conservative positions on the issues just in time to be seen as a viable candidate for the White House. For many, giving Mitt Romney the benefit of the doubt for what John Hawkins has refereed to as his “Road to Damascus” conversion to conservatism is a matter of desperation. There isn’t anyone left in the race who espouses bedrock conservative principles mostly across the board except Romney.

For me, the question has never been that Huckabee and McCain aren’t “true” conservatives. By the lights of most who read this blog, I am not a “true” conservative either. The question is one of conservative governance and in both men, there is a lack of commitment to some truly basic conservative principles that calls into question just what kind of president they would be.

Huckabee cannot see beyond class. He has wedged class in his campaign in a pale imitation of John Edwards by trying to demonize the wealthy and speak for “ordinary Americans.” He has further carved out support by shamelessly and constantly appealing to Christian conservatives, calling himself a “Christian leader” and invoking the name of God every chance he gets.

Since when is initiating class warfare a conservative campaign tactic? Pundits call his philosophy “conservative populism” but it’s really much simpler than that. He is using class as a political scalpel to snip away a portion of the Republican electorate while slicing the bulk of Christian conservatives away from more traditionally conservative candidates. There is no path to the White House for Huckabee employing these tactics. But he should be able to harvest a couple of hundred delegates on Super Tuesday by winning 2 or 3 primaries while picking up delegates for finishing second and third elsewhere. He will then be in a position to humbly offer his services as Vice President to John McCain who will, if things remain relatively unchanged, come out of Super Tuesday with a huge lead in delegates on Mitt Romney.

For McCain, I suspect his fealty to conservatism and conservative principles will last until he wins the White House. It will be at that point that we will get a glimpse of just how important he thinks his conservatism is by looking at his cabinet appointments and the manner in which he fills other important posts in his Administration. I daresay there will be many “maverick” choices – including Democrats – that will curdle the blood of most movement conservatives and dismay the rest of us.

Would Romney be any different? The former governor and CEO would almost certainly look for the most competent people he can find to run the government. No doubt we would be disappointed in some of his choices. At least we could be assured that his selections were not made to “stick it” to conservatives – a disease McCain seems to have acquired over the years as his contempt for the right has been demonstrated on numerous occasions.

McCain and Huckabee can say they’re the best conservatives in the race until doomsday and it won’t make it so. And Romney can call his conversion to conservatism true and honorable until the cows come home and there will always be that nagging doubt in the back of everyone’s mind.

In my PJ Media column today, I look at McCain, Huckabee, and Giuliani and see a Republican party that is moving inexorably toward the center.

There may be many moderate and moderately conservative Republicans, as Jennifer Rubin muses in The Observer, who wish the party to do something about climate change despite the adamant opposition of many in the base. It could very well be that there is close to a majority of Republicans who want to solve the illegal immigrant problem by closing the border and then granting some kind of path to legality to those already here.

The proof is in the pudding, friends. John McCain supports those positions and is the presumptive nominee. All other GOP candidates opposed those positions and are toast.

While these positions would have been seen as “moderate” 8 years ago, those McCain supporters who identify themselves as “somewhat conservative” may also hold positions on continuing the mission in Iraq, fiscal responsibility, pro-life, anti-gay marriage, and other issues where they would find agreement with the base.

Does this mean that the party has lurched leftward while no one was looking? Perhaps not as much as it would appear but more than the base is willing to admit.

Would independents and even some Democrats really support McCain in a general election against either Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama? Not unless McCain made a conscious decision to virtually abandon the conservative base and adopt a more centrist platform. That’s because the country itself has moved slightly leftward in the last 8 years. On a variety of important issues including health insurance, the environment, and Middle Class entitlements, the American people appear ready to accept more government as the solution to perceived problems.

So in the end, it becomes a question of how many conservatives are willing to hold their noses and vote for McCain so that Hillary Clinton – the presumed Democratic nominee – is prevented from getting her clutches on the levers of government. I will probably be one of those conservatives who votes to keep Hillary Clinton out of the oval office. How many others would follow that example will determine the winner in November.

The Rick Moran Show will go live tonight at the special time pf 7:30 PM - 9:00 PM Central Time.

Tonight, I’ll have my trusty sidekick and co-host Rich Baehr, Political Correspondent of The American Thinker with me for the entire 90 minutes as we examine the Florida results and look beyond to Super Tuesday next week.

Joining me the first half hour will be Ed Morrissey of Captainsquartersblog.Com. Then Kevin Sullivan of Real Clear Politics Blog will be with us for the final hour.

For the best in political analysis, click on the button below and listen in. A podcast will be available for streaming or download around 15 minutes after the show ends.

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

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

My latest column is up at PJ Media. It’s a look at last night’s SOTU address and why such formal speeches are worse than useless. Jules Crittendon first offers his thoughts on the speech so make sure you read his take also.

A sample:

Not a word about the dollar which is tanking in international markets. Nor did the president mention record trade deficits. He alluded to a “decline” in the housing market, forgetting to mention that for the first time in memory, housing values dropped. It also slipped his mind that around 1 1/2 million Americans are apt to lose their homes in the coming year regardless of what he, the Congress, or the entire federal government does about it.

All of this may or may not lead to a recession. But it is equally uncertain whether throwing $130 billion dollars that we don’t have at people in the form of “rebates” will do anything except get most of the Congress re-elected.

A protest against power cuts to southern Beirut – cuts the power company denies making – escalated into a riot when protesters blocked roads and threw stones at police and the army who were trying to maintain order.

Southern Beirut is a Hizbullah stronghold but it is not certain that the violence was connected exclusively to the political crisis involving the election of a president that would be acceptable to both the Hizbullah led opposition and the majority March 14th forces. Then again, one can hardly dismiss the idea that this was a demonstration organized by Hizbullah which had recently promised “decisive action” in the streets in order to force the government to accede to their demands.

Both sides are currently in a standoff over the issue with the government proposing Army Chief Michel Suleiman for the post while the Syrian backed opposition opposes his election, still maintaining that any government formed by the new president must give them enough ministers to have veto power over the majority’s decisions.

There were reports of snipers firing from rooftop positions into the crowd below. One of their targets was an opposition Amal official:

Among the victims was an official from Parliament Speaker Nabih Berri’s Amal movement. The others were four Hizbullah activists, a rescue worker and a civilian.
The official was identified as Ahmad Hamza, Amal’s representative in Hay Mouawwad quarter of Shiyah, where protests first broke out at around 4 pm.

“Hamza has passed away after being shot in the back,” an Amal official told AFP, adding that he was unable to identify the source of the fire.

The bloodshed came amid fears of civil unrest in Lebanon which has been gripped by a prolonged presidential crisis, and two days after a massive car bombing killed a top intelligence officer and four other people.

The intelligence officer, Wassam Eid, was involved in terrorism investigations. He was reportedly assisting the International Tribunal in their investigation of the assassination of former prime minister Rafiq Hariri and other murders of anti-Syrian politicians and journalists.

The riot quickly spread from Beirut to the suburbs where the rioters blocked roads and threw stones at cars and police vehicles:

The army shut down many roads to stop the protests from spreading, and soldiers also took positions on rooftops.

But as night fell, riots spread to reach the airport highway, where demonstrators cut the main road with burning tires. Soon afterwards protesters cut the Mar Elias road in west Beirut while gunfire rang out sporadically across the southern suburbs.

Riots also reached south Lebanon, where the coastal highway between Sidon and Tyre was closed by blazing tires.

The road to Baalbek in east Lebanon’s Bekaa valley was also briefly closed.

A car that had been set ablaze exploded, triggering panic in Beirut where only two days ago a massive car bombing killed a top anti-terror officer and four other people.

A top security official warned the riots could spread unless politicians reined in their supporters.

What sparked the riot? Evidently, the old Hizbullah gambit of closing the road to the airport – something they have done before in their street protests. Only this time, the army intervened:

The unrest broke out after demonstrators set ablaze tires, blocking a main road linking the Shiyah and Mar Mikhael neighborhoods to protest at power shortages.

The army fired warning shots to disperse the demonstrators, a security official said.

Witnesses said that gunmen in the crowd opened fire at the security forces who retaliated.

Premier Fouad Saniora declared Monday a day of national mourning and ordered schools and universities closed.

As of today, it is unclear how many or if any of the demonstrators were killed by the army and how many by rooftop snipers who were apparently caught on tape and shown on Lebanese television.

Lebanese bloggers are weighing in offering analysis and mostly bemoaning what appears to be the powerlessness of the government to stop the murders. Mustapha at Beirut Spring offers some speculation about the rooftop snipers:

The puzzle has a missing piece. It seems that a third party wants to stir things up by breaking the balance of restraint between the Lebanese parties. As political analyst Ossama Safa puts it: “This is the work of agents provocateurs — someone is in there stirring trouble [..] I really think they want to get a hold of the situation. But someone, somewhere is doing this.”

The politicians will try to calm the situation. But expect a lot hot-headed blame to be tossed around.

And the fact that Hizbullah is now pointing the finger directly at the army is very significant. Could the opposition had staged the protest, started the riot by firing at the army from inside the crowd, and assured even more anger by having snipers pick off Hamza all to discredit General Suleiman? I would say it a more likely scenario than March 14th forces trying to deliberately start a civil war.

Abu Kais wants the government to start telling the truth about the violence:

Many of us have their own suspects. It doesn’t take a genius to point the finger at Syrian intelligence—the motives are there, and the methods too predictable. Yet despite all this obviousness, we ultimately sink in confusion because no one is willing to present an official account of what happened, and who did it. It’s always swept under the rug of “investigation”. Killers roam free and kill again while being “under investigation”. And the argument against Syrian culpability weakens, because not even the official authorities are able to point the finger.

Needless to say, we are tired of it all. If this is war, then could someone involve the dying public in the details of the fight? This public cannot subsist on the same old indirect accusations. Instead of declaring a day of mourning, how about a day of truth? How about teaching the interior minister how to speak? How about the army commander, instead of phoning the dictator next door, be asked to report to the defense minister and to the public? Is the enemy so powerful that we are afraid to at least give it the media treatment we have given Israelis when they were doing the killing?

And to underscore that point, Daily Star editorial page editor Michael Young interviewed former UN prosecutor Detlev Mehlis who was the first prosecutor appointed as part of the International Tribunal and whose initial investigation implicated high level Syrian ministers in the plot to kill Hariri. Mehlis was disappointed in the subsequent investigations of the Tribunal:

Mehlis, who was the first U.N. chief investigator, has said in his reports that the Hariri plot’s complexity suggested that Syrian and Lebanese intelligence services had a role, but [Serge] Brammertz has not echoed his view. Four pro-Syrian Lebanese generals have been under arrest for almost two years for alleged involvement in the murder.

In his final appearance before the U.N. Security Council in December, Brammertz said that progress made in the last few months has enabled investigators to identify “a number of persons of interest” who may have been involved in some aspect of the crime—or knew about the preparations.

The investigation “appears to have lost the momentum it had until January 2006,” Mehlis said in the interview. “When I left we were ready to name suspects, but it seems not to have progressed from that stage.”

“If you have suspects you don’t allow them to roam free for years to tamper with evidence,” Mehlis told The Wall Street Journal.

Indeed, for a while Brammertz seemed to be treating the Syrian government with kid gloves, praising their “cooperation” with the Tribunal while hinting that no Syrian ministers would be charged in the assassination. There was also evidence that Brammertz refused to follow up some leads with regards to Palestinian involvement in the crime.

All the violence takes place against the backdrop of an Arab League attempt to get the two sides to agree on a presidential candidate. Secretary Moussa will travel to Lebanon again this week to continue his fruitless search for a compromise acceptable to Syria and the opposition.

Meanwhile, the murders continue, the two sides become even more entrenched and the citizens of Lebanon are on edge wondering what will come next. The Blacksmiths of Lebanon outline the endgame:

The attacks on our institutions continue with the aim of dismantling the Lebanese state and replacing it with a quasi-Syrian province [slash] Iranian paramilitary front.

Thanks to the inviability of these plans and the historically proven inability of any one side [this time Hizballah] to impose its will on the rest of the Lebanese political/sectarian groupings, these plans will most likely fail. The issue remains, however: what will it cost our country before they do? Syria, Iran and their quislings in Lebanon [starting with Nasrallah, Berri, Aoun, and going all the way down to “the Qansos”, Wahhab, and Franjieh] continue to work to ensure that price is high.

It is best if the western powers who continue their strong backing of prime minister Siniora remember that these are the stakes in play.

I have a confession to make to my fellow conservatives: I don’t hate Bill Clinton.

Don’t get me wrong. I have a pronounced animus toward his policies, what he stands for generally, and his scorched earth, take no prisoners, political attack dog style of politics.

But I have to admit to a sneaking admiration of Bill Clinton, as a man.

He isn’t someone I’d want to sit down and have a beer with. This is someone I’d love to go on a lost weekend with. He appeals to the juvenile in all of us men – a rogue’s rogue who I could see playing marathon poker games and going on weekend trips to Vegas. Good cigars, good whiskey, and of course, the guy is a chick magnet.

No, he’s no gentleman. But if I ever had an impulse to lose control and regress back to a time when I had few responsibilities and less judgement, I’d want Bill Clinton by me as combination sidekick and hedonistic guide.

And let the good times roll, brother Bill.

A “lost weekend” or two may actually be what his wife has in mind for him after what transpired in South Carolina. Bill Clinton didn’t cost his wife the South Carolina primary with his sometimes harsh and belittling criticism of Barack Obama. But almost all agree that he may have overplayed his position as a former president by getting down into the partisan trenches and throwing mud at Hillary’s opponent.

I know I’m an old fuddy-duddy for being in love with tradition and respecting precedents and all that conservative stuff – all the things most liberals despise regardless of whether the traditions and precedents are efficacious to promoting a just moral order in society and allowing each succeeding generation to stay in contact with America’s past.

But Bill Clinton’s unprecedented role in Hillary’s campaign is getting to be something more than just enjoying the luxury of having a powerful surrogate to do her dirty work for her. Bill Clinton is giving us a glimpse of a Hillary White House and just what kind of mischief the the Spouse-in-Chief would be capable of getting into.

The SIC assures us that he won’t sit in on cabinet meetings or NSC briefings. So what? The White House, as the tour guidebook informs us, is also the president’s residence. Much government business has always been transacted on the second floor over dinner or drinks. Are we to assume that the SIC will recuse himself from these discussions? (“Bill, could you watch the football game in the study please? We’re going over plans to strike Iran.”)

But this is pretty small potatoes when it comes right down to it. That’s because where this SIC is concerned, one must remember he still has a “top secret” clearance and probably his own sources in the intelligence agencies and defense department. In fact, he probably has sources peppered throughout the government, people who might be eager to serve him.

A spouse with that kind of clout would have to deny himself the power to set up what would be in effect an alternate center of executive power. Or at the very least, a duplicate information center where the SIC knows as much as the CIC. In all fairness I would say to my liberal friends who occasionally stop by this site, do you see Bill Clinton denying himself or not availing himself of this kind of power? Would you argue that I am overstating the case?

The latter I will admit to being a possibility. But where one cannot overstate the SIC’s impact nor his clout is in the very personal and private relationship he has with his wife. And it is in that unknowable, hugely complex relationship that exists between a man and a woman who have been married as long as the Clintons – especially the Clintons – where even the most rank partisan must pause and give some thought.

Presidential spouses have been hugely influential in the past so I am not arguing against Bill Clinton being denuded of having a large impact on policy. But there has never been a spouse who has served 8 years as President and Commander in Chief. He knows very well – as any longtime spouse knows – how to manipulate his partner, what buttons to push, perhaps even how to bend Hillary to his will. (Hillary has the same weapons at her disposal but she’s the elected leader and using her wiles to convince her husband with regards to a course of action is not the same as Bill doing something similar).

We’re walking on untrod territory musing about this and frankly, I’m not entirely sure it’s relevant. But at the same time, it fills me with unease that a former president, unelected that he is, so close to the reins of power and with more influence and less accountability than any other official in government, would be in a position to subtly or otherwise affect the president’s decisions.

Would he do so to protect his own legacy? Would he use his special position for selfish reasons? I daresay any objective chronicler of the Clinton years would worry about the latter.

Perhaps I’m getting carried away by the purely historic nature of a Billary presidency and there is absolutely nothing to worry about (that’s what my liberal friends will tell me anyway).

But there are also advantages to having a former President so personally close to a Chief Executive – especially one so well respected throughout the world and blessed with Bill Clinton’s considerable gifts. As an envoy to let’s say the Middle East, he would be dynamite. And as a lobbyist in chief, he would know how to twist arms with the best of them. The SIC’s relationship with the president will grant him access, instant credibility, and a fair hearing in most capitols of the world.

But the nature of the universe is balance. And for every advantage a Bill Clinton brings to his wife’s presidency, there is a disadvantage waiting to be exploited. So far, I have seen little in the press that analyzes this historic and troubling phenomena. I would hope that eventually, heads wiser than mine will begin to look at the potential co-presidency of Bill and Hillary Clinton and make some judgements about the pluses and minuses such an arrangement would entail.

This bit from Kathy Lopez at The Corner speaks to at least some of us who view Obama’s historic candidacy through a slightly different prism than other conservatives:

I tell you, he almost had me tonight until he talked about the war that shouldn’t have been authorized and reminded me there are real policy issues at stake in this election! But listening to his inspirational, rallying speech tonight it’s clear and obvious that if he’s the nominee, he will be tough to beat.

I too have felt the pull of the man’s personality. And despite the fact that there is an element of media creation in his candidacy, no amount of glowing press coverage can obscure the fact that Barack Obama is a special person with special gifts and it is my belief he is destined to achieve special things – some day.

James Antle at AmSpec Blog:

I also think Barack Obama is a good and decent and honorable man. I think he represents liberalism at its best, rather than its worst. To a certain extent, I would view his triumph over the awful Clinton machine as a triumph of all Americans of good will. I am as proud of him as I am ashamed of the Clintons. Nevertheless, I think Obama’s candidacy is a threat to conservatives in a way that the nauseating Clintons are not. He has the potential to revive liberalism that is as strong as the Clintons’ ability to discredit it entirely. He is every bit as wrong on the issues as they are, if not worse. Should he somehow slay the giant and win the Democratic nomination, conservatives must oppose him with all their might.

Antle is talking about an ineffable quality found in Obama that has not been seen in a liberal since perhaps Hubert Humphrey – a joy and pride in being American and a liberal. Those of us who inhabit the internet know full well that a happy liberal is largely a misnomer. Indeed, in Congress and elsewhere, happiness and liberalism appear to be mutually exclusive concepts.

But as Dave over at Race42008 points out, Obama’s kind of liberalism – he refers to it as Liberalism 2.0 – is seductive to independents and even some Republicans because it speaks to what people think they need in their own lives:

Just when liberalism was thought dead and buried, it appears to be rising like a phoenix from the ashes. The new version is not your father’s liberalism, to be sure. It’s post-racial, optimistic, and it’s not ashamed of America nor her greatness. Like I said before, Obama is liberal, but he’s not angry about it.

So why are millions of disaffected Independents and Republicans, as well as millions of new voters, embracing a liberal candidate, even one of a Liberalism 2.0, given the failures of liberalism in the past? The answer can’t be fully described in a single paragraph. A changing world combined with neither a Republican nor a Democratic establishment capable of addressing those changes effectively has much to do with it. On foreign policy, the failures of Iraq, combined with the fact that the failures of Vietnam have been all but forgotten by now, have leveled the playing field between the two parties for the first time in forty years. On economics, the center of gravity in the U.S. and throughout the Western world has shifted leftward over the past few years due to middle class economic angst caused by globalization, which requires up to a decade of post-K-12 education in order to remain economically competitive as an individual, as well as to the rising costs of health care and declining fertility rates that threaten entitlements and retirement security. And culturally, while most people just want their government to implement practical policies that help families, such as making sure marriage isn’t punished in the tax code, the fact that many “pro-family” social conservatives continue to rail against gays and Hollywood has left many families thinking that these folks are concerned more about their own pathologies than about the actual concerns of most families. And, thus, the search begins for a new approach to governance.

A “new approach to governance” is Obama’s biggest weakness.

Andrew Sullivan once referred to Obama as a liberal version of Ronald Reagan. While there are some immediate and obvious similarities between the two, Reagan spent 25 years thinking, talking, and writing about the nature and role of government in society. They both might share a superior ability to communicate optimism and hope, but in the end, it is crystal clear that Obama simply isn’t ready to be president because he hasn’t thought about “governance” very long or very hard.

I have often referred to Obama as an empty suit. The analogy is apt because despite his obvious gifts, Obama has not fleshed out many of his basic, fundamental principles and how they would play a role in his presidency. Just what exactly does he stand for besides the vague platitudes about “hope” and “change” that pepper his speeches like little dollops of whipped cream? Where is the rock to which he tethers his beliefs?

I don’t think this is a question of intellectual laziness but rather it is a matter of not having spent enough time confronting, questioning, strengthening, and ultimately adopting in his own mind the bedrock foundation of a political philosophy. This is especially true because Obama, more than any other liberal politician in a couple of generations, really does want to re-define liberalism.

But to this point, there simply isn’t any “there” there. There are position papers. There is a nebulous appeal to some idealistic “crusade” to remake politics in America. But there is nothing behind the curtain of campaign platitudes that would lead one to believe that Obama has given any serious thought about how these concepts play into an overall framework of beliefs that he can call his own.

For this reason, at the present time, Obama would make a terrible president – beyond the fact that I believe his policies to be wrongheaded and even dangerous. And given the perilousness of the times, it is very possible that an Obama Administration – like the Bush Administration – would find itself eventually crashing on the shoals of history; battered and bruised by the inconstancy and contradictions that would afflict a basically rudderless chief executive.

Another term in the Senate or perhaps a turn as governor will give Barack Obama the kind of experience in government that would be beneficial to deepening his understanding of what I sense is his biggest deficiency – a better comprehension of the relationship between the government and the governed and how that fits into his own personal political belief system.

Join me for a special edition of The Rick Moran Show tonight at 6:00 – 7:00 PM Central Time on Blog Talk Radio.

With my trusty sidekick Rich Baehr, Chief Political Correspondent at The American Thinker, we’ll examine the results of the Democratic primary in South Carolina and look ahead to Tuesday’s do or die Republican primary in Florida.

If you’d like to participate in the discussion, you can call in to the show by dialing (718) 664-9764.

The Chat Room will open about 15 minutes before the show.

You can access the stream by clicking the button below.

A podcast will be available for download about 15 minutes after the show is over.

Last November when the DNC handed down its “death sentence” punishment to Michigan and Florida for holding their primaries prior to the party mandated February 5 date, there was immediate speculation that the penalty of taking away all of their delegates would never stand, that the party would never risk alienating two of the 10 largest states in the union.

During the intervening months, most of the pros I talked to were at a loss as to what would happen. Most didn’t think the penalty would stand and that some kind of accommodation would be reached prior to the convention.

But not one politico from either party that I spoke to in the last months foresaw a scenario where one of the candidates would brazenly claim solidarity with those state parties and seek to have their delegates seated at the convention:

“I hear all the time from people in Florida and Michigan that they want their voices heard in selecting the Democratic nominee.

“I believe our nominee will need the enthusiastic support of Democrats in these states to win the general election, and so I will ask my Democratic convention delegates to support seating the delegations from Florida and Michigan. I know not all of my delegates will do so and I fully respect that decision. But I hope to be President of all 50 states and U.S. territories, and that we have all 50 states represented and counted at the Democratic convention.

“I hope my fellow potential nominees will join me in this.

“I will of course be following the no-campaigning pledge that I signed, and expect others will as well.”

To review the situation, the DNC forbade candidates from campaigning in those states or running any advertising. Obama and Edwards went so far as to remove their names from the ballot in Michigan, believing that the DNC stricture would stand. Clinton didn’t think it “necessary” to remove her name from consideration in Michigan and a later effort to restore the two candidate’s names to the ballot failed in court.

Of course, this left Hillary a wide open field on January 15 when Michigan Democratic primary voters went to the polls and gave her 55% of the vote and 73 of the 128 available delegates – if the Michigan people were going to be seated at the convention. “Uncommitted” received 40% and 55 delegates.

Tuesday’s Florida primary will have all Democratic candidates on the ballot but none of them have campaigned in The Sunshine State and Hillary leads Obama by double digits in the most recent polls.

And now Clinton – in what has to be considered a shocking display of naked power politics – is seeking to change the rules in the middle of the race in order to benefit her campaign.

Ezra Klein:

This is the sort of decision that has the potential to tear the party apart. In an attempt to retain some control over the process and keep the various states from accelerating their primaries into last Summer, the Democratic National Committee warned Michigan and Florida that if they insisted on advancing their primary debates, their delegates wouldn’t be seated and the campaigns would be asked not to participate in their primaries. This was agreed to by all parties (save, of course, the states themselves).

With no one campaigning, Clinton, of course, won Michigan—she was the only Democrat to be on the ballot, as I understand it, which is testament to the other campaign’s beliefs that the contest wouldn’t count—and will likely win Florida. And because the race for delegates is likely to be close, she wants those wins to matter. So she’s fighting the DNC’s decision, and asking her delegates—those she’s already won, and those she will win—to overturn it at the convention. She’s doing so right before Florida, to intensify her good press in the state, where Obama is also on the ballot. And since this is a complicated, internal-party matter that sounds weird to those not versed in it (of course Michigan and Florida should count!), she’s adding a public challenge that, if the other Democrats deny, will make them seem anti-Michigan and Florida.

I wish I could be outraged by Hillary’s gambit but frankly, the way Ezra describes it, one can’t help but admire its underhanded brilliance. Ultimately – and this would hold true especially if the race for delegates extends beyond the primaries – I doubt whether the results in Michigan and Florida will stand and the lion’s share of the victories simply handed to her. But by raising the issue on the eve of the Florida primary, she lays claim to the sympathies of both state parties while putting the DNC on notice that there’s s new sheriff in town and that the rules other candidates may play by simply don’t apply to the Clinton’s.

Today is my birthday. I am 54 years old.

Big effing deal.

Those of you who still feel compelled to “celebrate” your birthday – probably those of you under the age of 40 – allow me to give you an exciting glimpse of what you are in for as the inexorable and terrifying passage of time works its magic on your mind, your bodily functions, and your psychological well being.

The first thing you notice about getting older is that past a certain age, you just don’t give a sh*t what other people think. It really is quite liberating and is probably the reason there are few good writers under the age of 50. Not giving a sh*t what other people think doesn’t mean you become a crass, callous, unfeeling monster – well, not completely anyway. What not giving a sh*t about others opinion of you does is allow you to see the truth and not care if uttering it or writing about it makes you a social outcast.

I find myself giving honest opinions about all sorts of things.

ZSU ZSU: Honey, do these pants make my butt look too big?

ZSU ZSU: Oh, Ricky!

See what I mean?

Another thing you notice about growing old – and my over-50 compatriots can sing this one like an old Negro Spiritual – is that you begin to value ease in eliminating bodily wastes. You actually think it’s a good day when everything comes out on time and without too much difficulty. You also include in your nightly prayers the plea not to wake up 2 or 3 times because your prostrate has begun to blow up like Kirstie Alley relapsing at a Pizza Hut.

That along with a decline in hearing and sight reminds you every day that eventually, life is probably going to suck the big one.

Don’t believe what you hear about growing old and sex. Especially if you love your woman and she remains reasonably fit. I haven’t tried (nor have I needed) Viagra or Cialis so I can’t testify as to their efficacy or usefulness. For me anyway, what I might lack in friskiness, I make up for in timing, accuracy, and wisdom – traits I tried to get Zsu Zsu to confirm for this post.

ME: Honey, say a few words about our sex life.

ME: Thanks, hon.

Finally, contemplating eternity can be fun and profitable – if you’re an undertaker. For the rest of us, not so much. Unless I plan to live to be 108, I am certain that the days behind me are much more numerous than the days I have ahead of me.

Once that singular truth breaks through the youthful conceit that you are going to live forever and that you are indestructible, life takes on an entirely different meaning. You catch yourself admiring and appreciating nature a lot more. You narrow your circle of friends, winnowing out the old drinking buddies and softball teammates, leaving only those who truly matter to you. Your family becomes more important.

And when you do contemplate eternity, there is an acceptance that what is, is, and that you have a choice; you can dwell upon the inevitable which will almost certainly turn you into a bitter, spiteful old man who resents the way your life turned out and bemoan all the lost opportunities that litter the landscape of any man’s passage through this world.

Or, you can be grateful for what you have and try not to think too much about what you missed in life and what is to come. I am still reasonably healthy (although I need to lose a good 50 pounds) and considering the fact that when I was 30 I believed I would be lucky to see 50, these last few years have been gravy.

In short, despite the slow deterioration of body and mind, I am reasonably happy and reasonably content.

Now if only the GOP could get its act together, my life would be complete – or at least less likely to give me a stroke.