« BACK  |  PRINT

RS

MEMBER DIARY

Schooling Krauthammer

Known liberals lose presidential elections. Period.

[Since his conservative epiphany in 2000, Gamecock has regularly referred to Charles Krauthammer as "The Master", so instrumental was he in said epiphany.]

Originally published in The Minority and HinzSight Reports

Is Gamecock the only member of the chattering class in America that understands the history of U.S. presidential elections since 1968? I give a pass to the under 30 crowd that obsesses over polls. I give no pass to the Beltway crowd, including “The Master.”

Before I dare school said master, some facts as the rooster sees them.

You people, this is fundamental: The American people do not elect known liberals to the office of President of the United States. Period. Democrats have lost every such election but three since 1964. Those three ran as moderates. All the others ran as liberals of varying degrees. Most of the losers led MSM push polls at various times until a week or so before the elections, at which time the media gave up the ghost to try and salvage some credibility. Obama is doing worse than most all the previous Democrat losers thanks to the alternative media that grabbed the attention of usually inattentive average voters with images and rhetoric from Obama’s hate whitey America pastor of 20 years.


Krauthammer’s latest column in the Washington Post, in its assessment of Palin’s effect on the race, not only ignores the above overarching paradigm, but also reveals a fatal genetic defect of those trapped in the Manhatten-DC-Chicago-LA-San Fran cocoon of ignorant elitism in the following:

“There are two questions we will never have to ask ourselves, ‘Who is this man?’ and ‘Can we trust this man with the presidency?’ ”

– Fred Thompson on John McCain, Sept. 2

This was the most effective line of the entire Republican convention: a ringing affirmation of John McCain’s authenticity and a not-so-subtle indictment of Barack Obama’s insubstantiality. What’s left of this line of argument, however, after John McCain picks Sarah Palin for vice president?

Palin is an admirable and formidable woman. She has energized the Republican base and single-handedly unified the Republican convention behind McCain. She performed spectacularly in her acceptance speech. Nonetheless, the choice of Palin remains deeply problematic.

It’s clear that McCain picked her because he had decided that he needed a game-changer. But why? He’d closed the gap in the polls with Obama. True, that had more to do with Obama sagging than McCain gaining. But what’s the difference? You win either way.

Obama was sagging because of missteps that reflected the fundamental weakness of his candidacy. Which suggested McCain’s strategy: Make this a referendum on Obama, surely the least experienced, least qualified, least prepared presidential nominee in living memory.

Palin fatally undermines this entire line of attack. This is through no fault of her own. It is simply a function of her rookie status. The vice president’s only constitutional duty of any significance is to become president at a moment’s notice. Palin is not ready. Nor is Obama. But with Palin, the case against Obama evaporates.

Fred Thompson’s line may or not have been the most effective, but it surely was not the most effective for the reason Krauthammer assumes. I agree that McCain didn’t need Palin to beat Obama, but not for the reason Krauthammer assumes. Palin will increase the size of the landslide I already expected. I suspect the missteps Charles refers to by Obama are not the ones I would cite, and Palin is no more a “rookie” than any other member of the respective tickets. All are rookies. None have served either as President or Vice-President of the United States.

Among living non-Rookies we have Carter, Mondale, Clinton, Gore, Bush41, Quayle, Bush43 and Cheney. Does their status as non-rookies make them indistiquishable as being trustworthy with the Presidency?

Of course not.

What makes Obama, and Biden not trustworthy is their liberal views. Their missteps have been their liberal musings and policy positions. The only thing Palin is a “rookie” at, is indulging the scrutiny of and interchanges with, the cocoon of ignorance referred to above.

Charles (and those similarly situated), the President and Vice-President of the United States are chosen by voters on Election Day. You all can imagine that they do so based on what you all subject them to if that makes you feel better. You can imagine that debate gotcha moments on your world of TV is what makes the world turn. You delude yourselves.

One thing explains the 7 of 10, soon to be 8 of 11 GOP winning way from 1968-2004, soon to be 2008: Known liberals lose, whether they be “rookies” or “veterans” at indulging the PC machinations of the D.C. chattering classes or not.

I understand that to admit the truth would be to diminish the supposed self-importance of hundreds, if not thousands, of chatterers from Alexandria to Boston, so I give you all a pass. I enjoy your chattering. I chatter. I also enjoy Seinfeld re-runs, sports and Family Guy.

Mike DeVine’s Charlotte Observer columns

Legal Editor for The Minority and HinzSight Reports

“The way to stop discrimination on the basis of race is to stop discriminating on the basis of race.” – The Chief Justice

Race 4 2008

“One man with courage makes a majority.” – Andrew Jackson

COMMENTS

  • JSobieski

    I caution that all sorts of things that have never happened before do happen eventually.

    In other words, events don’t happen . . . until they do.

    The US electorate is highly divided. Although the US voter has not voted in a truly liberal candidate for President before, they have voted in large numbers for a liberal candidate.

    Gore in 2000. Lots and lots of votes. Campaigned as more of a liberal than Clinton did in either 1992 or 1996.

    Kerry in 2004. Despite the fact that the population of the country was still on the whole supportive of the Iraq war, a whole lot of people voted for a person who made his bones bashing this country during the Vietnam war.

    The number of rabid leftists is unfortunately growing, both here and in throughout the Western world.

    Something like 35% of Germany thinks George Bush knew about 9/11 in advance. The numbers in the US on that point are a bit lower, but not that much lower.

    Liberalism is on the wane in the sense that fewer people call themselves liberal now then back in 1976. However, the extreme leftists are growing in number, and ultimately, they do make it difficult to govern the country as they can force bad behavior out of democrat elected officials.

    I don’t think Obama will win this electino because Americans don’t vote for liberal Presidential candidates. However, I caution against thinking that this state of affairs is permanent.

    Talk radio has unleashed conservatism in a way that didn’t exist before, but the blogosphere is multiplying and reinforcing the enviro-communists who want to bring Western civilization down to its knees.

    Should make for an interesting century.

  • gamecock

    I think the baby boomer left peaked in the 2004 electorate, thanks to abortion, primarily.

    What Taranto calls the “Roe effect.”

    more later

  • ZootSuit

    I not only agree with you that Charles Krauthammer is “The Master” but, considering some of my other recent comments here on RedState, I agree with him word-for-word in his column. The only thing I could add is that — well, even as Krauthammer admits in his column — McCain’s “gamble” may work.

  • bs

    I think she (perhaps inadvertently) has served a critical purpose – putting the magnifying glass on Obama’s lack of experience. Only in conservative blogs did I hear this discussed before. But now the blathering by the liberal left media has allowed it to percolate to the top. By accusing Palin of not having experience, it gave the GOP the opening to compare her experience to Obama’s, and in the process make the point that Obama has NO experience…which precious few were hearing before. Is it a relevant comparison, since one is running for POTUS and the other is a VP candidate? Not particularly – but it serves the purpose and gets the issue on the table.

  • pilgrim

    John Bolton, a former U. S. envoy to the United Nations and a former Bush administration hawk said this about Sarah Palin:

    Because her state borders two countries [Canada and Russia], she has a different perspective that the lower 48 [states] doesn’t get. I have been “impressed” with Ms. Palin, the Republican party’s first female vice-presidential candidate, when I met her in June last year. Ms. Palin knows “the ins and outs of the missile defence issue.”

  • ZootSuit

    But then, reading his remarks again, I realize that I do not disagree with him. Reading Charles Krauthammer column — indeed, reading my own comments about Sarah Palin — I don’t think either of us questioned her intelligence. Quite the contrary, I think she is quite intelligence and believe I have said so in the past.

    For that matter, I do not question Barack Obama’s intelligence, although I do question his ability to think on his feet when not scripted. I (and I would also argue, Charles Krauthammer, although he is very well able to speak for himself) simply question both of their experiences for the offices they are seeking.

    Having said that, I also must say that every time I hear the line that Palin has foreign policy experience because her state borders Russia, I think of the line that Obama used saying that his childhood oversees gave him unique and valuable insight as foreign policy experience. Truth be told, as a bit of a foreign traveler myself, I do think spending time overseas does give you unique and valuable insights (and makes you appreciate even more how unique and great this country truly is) but I still don’t think foreign travel or even living overseas or governing a state that borders Russia counts as the type of foreign policy experience that I would like to see in candidates who are vying for the highest offices in the land.

    But I have reconciled myself to the fact that I am alone here.

  • pilgrim

    He is not saying that Alaska’s proximity to Russia is the reason he thinks Sarah Palin has foreign policy experience. What he is saying is this:

    She was very knowledgeable about missile defence ? Alaska has missile interceptor bases which are on a trajectory from North Korea.
    source

  • ZootSuit

    And that is a good thing. Seriously.

  • gamecock

    Who can possibly have it save presidents and veeps running for re-election, former presidents and veeps that failed to be re-elected, or former secretaries of state and defense, by your terms?

    Palin, on the other hand, among governors, did negotiate a pipeline agreement/treaty with Canada, a foreign country.

    Surely you don’t deem anything a congressperson does to be requisite “experience”? By that score, I have same. I talk about those issues all the time.

    And so does Palin. That said talks aren’t to Brokaw and Co or inside the beltway is to her credit. I’m sure the discussions are at a higher level that the PC Sunday show soundbites than mean nothing.

    I watched the old movie “Advise and Consent” last night and was remonded that only one Secretary of State has ever been elected President: Thomas Jefferson.

  • gamecock

    http://townhall.com/Columnists/FrankJGaffneyJr/2008/09/02/palins_experience