Funyuns and Mountain Dew

Here's Ann Althouse on Justice Alito unwittingly seizing the media spotlight from the SOTU:

Isn't it fascinating that the lengthy, amplified, magnified speech of the most powerful man in the world with his big captive audience — in the magnificent room and in smaller rooms all over the country — are outweighed by one man's headshake and silent mouthing of 2 or 3 words?

And isn't it ironic that, right when we saw the judge's minimalist expression that overwhelmed the President's torrent of words, Obama was railing about the "powerful interests" that would use their great wealth to speak far too much during election campaigns?

This is just another example of Obama's greatest weakness: his inability to be "presidential." Calling out the hunched and frail Ruth Bader Ginsburg for a public jeering (as it appeared televised) is no way to lift yourself above the partisan fray.

0 comments

Watching the State of the Union last night I was expecting President Obama to begin healing his wounded image. What I saw simply confirmed what I've believed about the Obama administration from day one: there is no one behind the wheel of this car. Instead of taking the only rational course - moving to the political center - Obama doubled-down and tied his fortunes (and those of the Democratic Party) to an overly ambitious and already dead reform platform.

Obama could of used this speech to reverse (or at least stall) the negative momentum Democratic hopefuls are facing in the upcoming midterms. Instead of giving those candidates useful talking points and lines of attack, he stuck with the same three-pronged campaign model he ran in 2008. 1) Bush and Republican bashing, 2) the Cult Of Obama, and 3) Empty platitudes about "hope" and "change."

The strategy of running against Bush is crude, intellectually corrupt, and quite possibly effective for one more campaign season. But I wouldn't want to bet the Senate on it. The fact is, Bush will ultimately be judged almost solely on foreign policy, and history is likely to be kind on that front (assuming Iraq stays stable). At some point "Bush" will no longer be a four-letter word.

As for "hope" and "change" - it's all well and good to campaign on "hope" and "change." An alarmingly high percentage of the electorate will buy into such buzzwords, as we've seen. A new take on the classic "Beltway Outsider." A very nice position for a politician to find himself. It has won elections in the past and will win more in the future.

But here's the problem in a nutshell:

a) The electorate has to believe you are the engine of change. At this moment in time Obama hasn't been able to deliver. Health care is dead. Jobs will not recover in time for the midterms. Cap-and-Trade is going nowhere fast. Don't Ask Don't Tell will stall in Pentagon backrooms. Gitmo will stay open. And this string of setbacks come in the midst of the most advantageous political atmosphere in memory. And now, to make matters worse, the Republican Party - which was utterly defeated and in a smoking heap of ashes just months ago - is now energized and on a winning streak.

b) The electorate has to believe you'll be around long enough to see change through. As of right now, how many people believe Obama will win a second term? Hands please? No one? That's what I thought. If the netroots are any barometer of the true Obama base (and it seems pretty likely that it is) there is very little "hope" within the Obama base and the Democratic Party at the moment. It may be a self-fulfilling prophecy that Obama is doomed because his base believes he simply cannot win.

This puts Obama - and his cult of personality - on precarious political ground. He's been here for a year and already his base is jumping ship, tired of losing and convinced that Obama cannot change the momentum.

That is why it is dumbfounding that Obama would not use the State of the Union to move to the political center. I find it plausible that in 2012 the economy will be such that Obama can breeze to reelection (its the economy after all, stupid). But what of 2010? Right now Obama needs a win. In fact, he needs several. If Democrats lose substantial ground in these midterms - which looks increasingly likely - the political landscape beyond becomes mighty dangerous.

0 comments

Johnathan Dee of the New York Times has a very interesting glimpse inside the rise and fall of Little Green Footballs. Forgive me for sounding immodest, but it reminds me of my previous foray into the blogosphere. Don't get me wrong - at PG's height it was still only a tenth of the size of LGF's readership today, and so the problems were likely only a tenth of the size of Charles Johnson's. But the constant bickering among commenters, threats of violence, violations of privacy, accusations of censorship, and political posturing were enough to drive me away for three whole years now.

As for LGF, I've been a loyal reader for years now, and while I have generally agreed with Charles' world view, I have rarely agreed with the way he chooses to administer his blog. On my blog I very rarely found it necessary to censor comments or ban trolls outright. And on a blog such as LGF, which by design fosters such rousing debate and often seems to beg for dissent (even from loyal Lizards), using such broad action and inflammatory rhetoric comes off as intellectually bankrupt.

Of course Dee's article also speaks volumes about the ego of Johnson. Let's face it - even the blog in the center of everybody's attention is just a blog. Johnson accomplished some amazing things in his time. Rathergate was probably the blogoshpere's finest moment. But ultimately you're just a guy in front of a keyboard like the rest of us, not a king maker. This is a lesson that Kos and Andrew Sullivan could learn from (as soon as the seething rage and "heartache" caused by the very whisper of Charles Johnson's name passes).

0 comments