MARK SHIELDS: He speaks so well there’s a temptation always to speak long. But I hope he speaks briefly.
But I think it’s just a remarkable, remarkable time in the country. And I think it is shared across party lines. Fifty-nine percent of Republicans now like Obama. I mean, that is rather remarkable.
JIM LEHRER: Remarkable time in our country, David?
DAVID BROOKS: It is. Even as the economic mood goes down, the political mood really does go up.
—From last night’s Lehrer News Hour which I happened to catch on the morning run
As a conservative [not a Republican], I like Obama.
I happen to disagree with most of his policies and thoughts on the economy, international affairs, abortion, sexuality, the role of the State, and pretty much everything else. But I like him.
I also think he’s a terrible, substanceless speaker, filled with inanities, platitudes, and shallow vacuities — in part I give him some understanding for that rhetoric, since he’s got to mask and obscure his policies and thoughts on the economy, international affairs, abortion, sexuality, and pretty much everything else for the rest of the Americans who think like I do and to whom he wishes to appeal for the time being.
The fact that David Brooks things that “the political mood” does “go up” is merely a sign of his own bias and fantasies.
“The political mood” has gone up for liberals. ; > ) And I perfectly understand that.
Hate to do a “me, too!” but I completely agree with Sarah – she’s really hit the nail on the head.
I’ve always like Obama.
I like Kathy Schori, too. If you ever want absolutely delightful folks at a dinner party, invite Kathy & Dick Schori, they are a hoot.
Both the president-elect and the PB, however, are completely wrong on too many issues and therefore must be stood against.
Brooks misinterprets the good manners not to throw hissy fits on the eve of the Inauguration as the political mood “going up.” How foolish.
Obama is one of the smartest, most talented, most substantive people ever to become president.
As for the points of style Sarah [#1] complains about, think REAGAN. Obama ran a Reaganesque campaign in which (for example) he stressed broad themes rather than policy detail and remained above the usual political tit for tat.
Obama’s political rhetoric is less platitudinous than George H.W. Bush’s famous [url=http://www.americanrhetoric.com/speeches/georgehbush1988rnc.htm]”Thousand Points of Light” speech[/url], itself more substantive than the usual Reagan speech. But how much easier it is to spot other people’s “inanities, platitudes, and shallow vacuities,” isn’t it?
“obama ran a Reaganesque campaign. . . . President-elect Obama has not ceased campaigning, not for a single minute. And I doubt that he will, I anticipate his first term to be a term of constant campaigning, because he has little knowledge of what to do, and how to do it,d with regard to international affairs or the domestic economy. Obama stresses “broad themes” because he has no way to express his views in any other way. His “big government” understanding is something that he will have to constantly ‘sell’ to a public who will, finally, wake up to the lack of substance in about 6 to 12 months. At that point, Mr. Obama will be pretty much lost. He reminds me of Robert Redford in “The Candidate,” as he wins the election, then walks from the ballroom up to his hotel room, turns to his accompanying adviser, and says, “What do we do now?” End of movie.
I think that the 59% Republicans don’t like him because he’s a nice guy. I think they believe that he’s going to be a good leader. He’s stuck to his guns on issues, but seems to have listened to conservative concerns. When he responds to issues, he responds directly to them (take his interview on Guantanamo). He also seems to do his homework, which was not the Bush’s strongest talent.
I’m pretty psyched that we have a leader who can understand the nuances of different political issues, and can explain them to the American Public. I also think that he understands conservative thinking and where it is strong.
The Republicans had 6 years to implement conservative policies. They didn’t do a very good job of it.
[i] Obama stresses ‘broad themes’ because he has no way to express his views in any other way [/i] —JKC1945 [#4]
Dream on. Obama is more substantive than any Republican president of the past 70 years: more substantive than Eisenhower, Nixon, and Bush Sr. and far more substantive than Reagan and Bush Jr.
As for Obama’s smooth speaking manner: yes, as long as he has a teleprompter or script in front of him. Without these, he can’t string two sentences together coherently, and without ten minutes of ‘uh’s and ‘um’s’. As for his acceptance speech, I don’t see what the big deal is. All he did was take campaign slogans and public service ad quotes and strung them together to say — NOTHING.
Sure he’s a nice guy. So is Jimmy Carter. But Carter was a terrible President whose policies led us into high double digit inflation and unemployment. Obama’s policies seem destined to lead the country into the same direction.
I just wish he’d smarten up and appoint some qualified people to his cabinet instead of relying on Clinton retreads with not just a skeleton but a whole graveyard full of skeletons in their closets. Get someone in there who knows what they are doing and prove it with their actions.
God, bless President Obama with Your wisdom.
Jim Elliott <>< Florida
“WITH ten minutes worth of um’s and uh’s” not ‘without’.
By the way, the current President Bush is just the opposite. With the script he is mediocre at best. Without one, in impromptu speaking, he shines.
#5 John Wilkens,
You said, “I think that the 59% Republicans don’t like him because he’s a nice guy” Mark Shields said, Fifty-nine percent of Republicans now like Obama.
You were so interested in getting in your dislike of Republicans, you misquoted Mark Shields.
My political mood is not “up” thank you very much.
I am deeply concerned about a massive and ultimately crippling expansion of the size and power of government. And not just because of soon-to-be President Obama. The Pelosi-Reid Congress has already been showing its colors and they ain’t pretty.
Is America going the way of Europe? It appears to be that way and it does not encourage me.
Everyone liked Ah-nuld in Kollivornia back when, too. Lotsa optimism, lotsa hope. Then he decided to be popular instead of fiscally responsible. Unfortunately for him, the droppings hit the ventilator before he was able to skedaddle from office.
At some point, reality will intrude on the soaring themes. Woe to us when that happens.
RE: “Obama’s political rhetoric is less platitudinous than George H.W. Bush’s famous “Thousand Points of Light†speech, itself more substantive than the usual Reagan speech.”
Of course, I disagree with the assertion, which I think remarkably delusory. Reagan’s speeches certainly stressed broad themes, and substantively so. So far, Obama has stressed broad themes consisting of things like “hope — for change” which I don’t think substantive. This is understandable since the actual substance of his ideology and policies is something that urgently needs to be obscured rather than boldly outlined in clear broad themes as Reagan did.
Understand — I’m not saying that Obama’s beliefs, foundational worldview or ultimate policies are substanceless or vacuous. I think them quite substantive. Merely the rhetoric with which he speaks is vacuous, and again, I’d advise him to do exactly what he’s doing if I were his speech coach. He’s pitch perfect on how he needs to purport to communicate to the American people and in order to achieve his goals needs to continue exactly what he’s doing.
RE: “But how much easier it is to spot other people’s “inanities, platitudes, and shallow vacuities,†isn’t it?”
Apparently not.
John Wilkins,
RE: “I think that the 59% Republicans don’t like him because he’s a nice guy.”
I agree with what I think you are saying which is that Republicans think he’s a nice guy. Heck, I’m betting that 59% of non-Republican conservatives think he’s a nice guy — I certainly do!
RE: “I think they believe that he’s going to be a good leader.”
I expect not. I’d stick with the “he’s a nice guy” reason for why people like him.
RE: “He’s stuck to his guns on issues, but seems to have listened to conservative concerns.”
No, he’s actually flip-flopped amazingly — but that’s really to be expected. I don’t begrudge it — and he’s “listened” to “conservative concerns” the way TEC/815 does.
But again — it’s not really his place to “listen” to “conservative concerns.” It’s his place to implement his policies based on his own foundational worldview concerning economic principles, the role of the State, and so on and so forth. And believe me, he will. ; > ) I await that with eager expectation.
Conservatives don’t need to be “listened” to — they need to get off their duffs and get their own house in order. It’ll be most interesting to see if they do.
RE: “He also seems to do his homework, which was not the Bush’s strongest talent.”
Hard to really tell, actually. I wouldn’t know if he does his homework as I’m not certain what homework a person of his views does. I don’t really think we can know that.
RE: “I’m pretty psyched that we have a leader who can understand the nuances of different political issues, and can explain them to the American Public.”
I cannot say if that’s true — I don’t see any evidence of understanding of “nuances” but who can say? I don’t really see any evidence that he doesn’t understand “nuances” either. But when does the “explaining” bit happen of whatever nuances he understands — I haven’t noticed any ability or desire at all to “explain” nuances to the American people.
RE: “I also think that he understands conservative thinking and where it is strong.”
He probably does “understand” conservative thinking.
RE: “The Republicans had 6 years to implement conservative policies. They didn’t do a very good job of it.”
The pigs have flown. I utterly agree with John Wilkins.
My hope is that the Republican Party is beginning to dimly aware of what a disaster their presidential campaign was — and the preceding actions that they took that set up that disaster. But we’ll see if they can actually return to conservative principles at some point.
Hope springs eternal. From my perspective, I don’t particularly care about or notice what Obama is saying or doing now that he’s elected. I’m sure America will survive his efforts to implement whatever policies that flow from his ideology.
But I do care immensely what the Republican Party does and says. That is a soap opera worthy of watching!
Library Jim,
RE: “I just wish he’d smarten up and appoint some qualified people to his cabinet instead of relying on Clinton retreads with not just a skeleton but a whole graveyard full of skeletons in their closets.”
I think Obama is doing exactly what he needs to do in order to implement the policies he wishes to implement based on his own worldview.
Were he to appoint other types of folks — he wouldn’t be himself nor true to what he believes.
Rick in Louisiana,
RE: “I am deeply concerned about a massive and ultimately crippling expansion of the size and power of government.”
Yeh — but the Republican Party participated in that. America has nobody but itself to blame for what’s coming and even what has already arrived. I’m far more disgusted with the Republicans which purport to be conservative than with those Democrats which purport to be liberal. At least the latter live up to and practice their beliefs.
Hey Jeffersonian,
RE: “At some point, reality will intrude on the soaring themes.”
Maybe in the hearts of the American people. But not in the press. As I said to a friend of mine months ago — Obama. Will. Not. Fail.
He can’t. America can’t afford for him to fail. For obvious historic reasons. And so . . . he won’t.
Or what’s left of the press after the coming implosions at the Times, Trib, etc. There’s always Chris Matthews tingling leg and the fulminating Keith Olberman, I suppose.
Stupid policy is stupid policy.
I do need to clarify something on this thread. Though it is likely that Irenaeus and my agreement on secular politics will be exceedingly rare, and thus we have plenty to disagree with on this thread, I do want to make clear that I don’t think Obama himself shallow and vacuous. With the option of changing my mind as time goes on, if I had to rank the level of depth of the ideas of the past presidents I’d put Obama and Reagan together as “most deep in conviction and thoughtfulness of ideas,” GW Bush as way down the list, and then cluster Bush Senior and Clinton as most vacuous, with Clinton edging out Bush Senior in vacuity.
So it would be:
Reagan/Obama
GW Bush
Bush Senior
Clinton
I’m not ranking my level of [i]agreement[/i] with the worldviews or philosophies of those men — only my perception of the [i]depth[/i] and thoughtfulness of their worldviews/philosophies.
I know that some people say that Obama really is as shallow as his rhetoric — but I consider him far more dangerous and able than that.
Obama is, indeed, dangerous. What we have, essentially, is a south – side – of – Chicago, neighborhood social worker with a fairly high intelligence, and an ability to articulate using the English language (when supplied to him by a professional speechwriter), who is going to try to determine and implement the policies of the most influential nation in the history of mankind. I am hopeful that we can survive it as a republic, but I am not completely confident that we will. That is how serious I believe this is. The populace went for this gentleman in the same way that we “go’ for a new movie star, or for an American Idol ‘super – singer – hero.” “You gotta hope for change, hope for a new way of hoping, and change the way we change,” we were essentially told, during the campaign – – and we went for it, hook line and sinker. And now we are told: “We will spend our way out of (this).” I am not personally confident in the immediate future of the republic.
16. jkc1945,
I understand your frustration. I don’t think Republicans offered a viable alternative. I am a John McCain admirer and voted for him but think that he didn’t demonstrate any more vision than Obama. I am ready to let Obama, the Democratic Party and the Press take the helm for a spell. The last eight years have made me weary. I am weary from the unabated criticism. I also think the Republicans blew an excellent opportunity when they had both the Oval office and the congress to do anything worthwhile. As a Deacon I am bound to pray for Obama in the prayers of the people every week.
Maybe he and I will be helped by those prayers.
“Obama is one of the smartest, most talented, most substantive people ever to become president.”
Irony? O has released not one single academic record for us to assess his smartness (books and speeches can be communal affairs), his campaign was managed by the (admittedly talented) Chicago machine –Axelrod and co., and he never passed legislation of any substance (even what he passed was other people’s with his name stamped on courtesly of Emil Jones) or even voted in a courageous way.
In his own words, he is a “blank slate” on which people project their hopes.
I find the O phenomenon one of the most alarming and delusional political events in US history. Creepily reminiscent of third world mass movements that end in dictatorships.
I hope the blank slate conceals substance. But I have grave doubts.
We may not have seen his GPA, but he was elected President of the Harvard Law Review in 1990. That may make him (in some circles) a snooty ivy-league elite, but it certainly doesn’t make him stupid.
As far as academic record goes, the University of Chicago isn’t an affirmative action kind of place. If he was hired there, he was hired based on merit and potential. He will be the first constitutional scholar elected as president, I believe (I could be wrong, but I can’t recall someone who’d done such).
As far as a “blank slate” goes, such people simply have not been reading. There are articles going far back that describe the type of person he is and the kind of choices he makes. Its in his books. It’s in the essays. He’s led a public life. Those who say we don’t know the man, simply aren’t listening. Austin repeats the tropes that he hasn’t passed much legislation, but in fact, he has his name on plenty of legislation. People just aren’t looking.
As I’ve said before – often – if you want to understand his inspiration, you might want to listen to the This American Life episode on Harold Washington which Kendall has linked to a few times. Mayor Washington was why he moved to Chicago, and his inspiration for public service.
This should not give conservatives “comfort.” But it should give plenty to those of us who believe in fairness, the rule of law, and equality.
RE: “As far as a “blank slate†goes, such people simply have not been reading. There are articles going far back that describe the type of person he is and the kind of choices he makes. Its in his books. It’s in the essays. He’s led a public life. Those who say we don’t know the man, simply aren’t listening.”
I completely agree with this. It’s clear what the man believes if people carefully read his work and watch his actions, rather than listen to his speeches.
RE: “This should not give conservatives “comfort.†But it should give plenty to those of us who believe in fairness, the rule of law, and equality.”
Lol.
Well . . . it should give liberals great comfort yes . . . but not the same thing as those “who believe in fairness, the rule of law, and equality.”
Thankfully, though, John Wilkin’s and my foundational worldviews are so mutually opposing and antithetical that his definitions of the words “fairness,” “law,” and “equality” are also antithetical from mine.
John Wilkins #20
“He will be the first constitutional scholar elected as president”
Just what qualifies Obama as a constitutional scholar? How many publications does he have in that area? How many books?
“As far as academic record goes, the University of Chicago isn’t an affirmative action kind of place. If he was hired there, he was hired based on merit and potential.”
Having a practitioner degree (JD) is frequently bolstered with a research doctorate (Ph.D.) for teaching at the University Level.
#21 – Sarah, although I’m quite aware we disagree on lots of things, I’m always a bit perplexed by what you mean by “foundational worldview.” I don’t know what your foundational worldview is. Except that you do repeat that it is different. And hilarious.
Dale, he didn’t write very much. He wasn’t a professor, but a senior lecturer. his talent – as editor of Harvard Law Review – and as a teacher is well documented. Of course, wisely, he left a scant paper trail.
I have left a “scant paper trail,” also. In my case, it is because I have written down precious little in my life that is worth the paper it would take to record it. Can it be we ought to consider that possibility for “scholar Obama,” as well? I wonder. . . . .
RE: “I don’t know what your foundational worldview is.”
Well — you’d need to review the threads in which we discussed our differences on the gospel, basic morality, sophistry, and various other matters back three years ago, JW. But I expect you recall all of that anyway. No real purpose in going back and repeating the months of disagreement on the basics anyway.
RE: “Except that you do repeat that it is different. And hilarious.”
Oh, I haven’t said it’s hilarious that we differ on essentials.
I merely laugh at your rhetorical attempts occasionally. That’s a very different matter.
John #23,
Once again I am calling you on your unabashed advocacy for Obama.
“his talent – as editor of Harvard Law Review – and as a teacher is well documented.” If it is well documented, where might I find it?
“Of course, wisely, he left a scant paper trail” I think his books are enough of a paper trail but they are not about constitutional law.
I think a realistic portrayal of Obama does him more justice than worshipful comments. Please don’t personalize the last comment since I feel this is a problem with a lot of his fans.
Not a comment about Obama per se, but it is a sad commentary that at the VP debate, Joe Biden couldn’t 1) state correctly which branch of Government Article I of the Constitution addressed and 2) got wrong what the Constitution detailed as the duties of the VP.
As a U.S. citizen living outside of the U.S.A., I must say that the majority of people I speak with are happy to see G.W.Bush and the Republican party leave office. I agree with them.
I am looking forward to the change.
Beware of change when the end goal or the details of that change are not plainly stated. Sometimes, it’s not always good to get one’s wish.
The phrase “Out of the frying pan, into the fire” comes to mind.
#28 Padre Mickey,
“I must say that the majority of people I speak with are happy to see G.W.Bush and the Republican party leave office”
Would that be a random sampling or just a measure of who you hang out with? In 2004 a New York socialite was dumbfounded that George W. Bush had won the election. She exclaimed, “How could he have won, none of my friends voted for him?”
#30. I am an unabashed advocate for Obama. I think he will make a good president.
The polls, however, according to fivethirtyeight.com seem to indicate that Obama has done a pretty good job of convincing people he’s on the right track.
http://www.suntimes.com/news/politics/obama/701490,CST-NWS-obamaprof18.article
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/30/us/politics/30law.html
Four professors examine his exams:
http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/07/30/inside-professor-obamas-classroom/
Dale, as far as law schools go, I don’t think you are correct when it comes to adding a PhD. Legal experience is a bit more important. And this is one of the reasons Obama was attractive – he was working as a state senator and had both a different experience than other professors, natural brilliance (as I said, U of C does not suffer affirmative action – especially in its Law School).
John Wilkins, I would like to ask you to comment: at what point will the economy becomes “Obama’s economy?” At what point will the Afghan war, and the Iraq war, become “Obama’s war?, in your mind. In other words, when will the honeymoon be over for you, in your “unabashed advocacy?” This is no trick question; I am interested in learning whether a person with your mindset (and there must be a lot!) would, if the situation were to deteriorate in some way or another, with Obama, remove your support and advocacy.
[i]As a U.S. citizen living outside of the U.S.A., I must say that the majority of people I speak with are happy to see G.W.Bush and the Republican party leave office[/i]
So, I guess when a majority of people outside the USA were HAPPY with our president, that’s when we were being attacked? And now that they are not, we have not had an attack since 9/11?
I’d rather be disliked and safe than well-thought of and live in fear of terrorism.
By the way, there is an interesting article in, of all places, [url=http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2009/01/17/IN0B159A69.DTL]the San Francisco Chronicle[/url] (I thought if they ever published a pro-Bush article, the Golden Gate Bridge would collapse!).
Some excerpts:
[blockquote]Bush showed U.S. is no paper tiger
Debra J. Saunders
From the day President Bush took office, the long knives were out for him – in ways they will not (and should not) be out for President-elect Barack Obama. The chattering class saw Dubya as a walking style crime in a cowboy suit. They hit Bush for everything – for the way he mangled syntax, for the books he read, because he worked out too much.
…he has received little credit for efforts that have prolonged millions of lives, thanks to the President’s Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief. Forget considerable goodwill in India and Africa. His good deeds, you see, don’t fit with the prescribed story line that, with Bush in charge, the rest of the world hates us.
Osama bin Laden once told Time magazine that the U.S. withdrawal from Somalia after the murder of 18 U.S. troops on a humanitarian mission made him realize “more than before that the American soldier was a paper tiger and after a few blows ran in defeat.” Members of al Qaeda have told intelligence officials that they never thought that Washington would respond to the 9/11 attacks as ferociously as Bush responded. They expected a few bombs to be dropped, no boots on the ground, a swift withdrawal if casualties mounted – the usual short-attention span foreign policy that warped Lebanon, the Persian Gulf War, Somalia, the African embassy bombings and the attack on the destroyer Cole.
Bush showed America’s enemies a country that does not retreat in fear, does not bomb with impunity, and most important, does not desert civilians or foreign governments that trust us. If you think that doesn’t matter, look at Libya, which disarmed its weapons program. And see how much easier Obama’s presidency will be, because Bush kept the faith.
Osama bin Laden may live, most likely quivering in a cave. But no one thinks America is a paper tiger anymore.[/blockquote]
The author makes more good points, and is well worth reading it in full.
Jim Elliott <>< proud to be conservative in Florida
#31 John Wilkins,
Thanks for providing some references to back up what you have asserted. One link you provided is the The New York Times, I would say that the NYT is also unabashedly an advocate for Obama. I don’t know the background on those selected to review his teaching but I’d be willing to bet they were sympathetic to Obama Also. (We’ve asked four legal experts to take a look at then-Professor Barack Obama’s course materials and offer some insight into what they say about Mr. Obama’s teaching methods, priorities and approach to the Constitution.)
On another link it stated “We’d be in class and get messages that he would come in 45 minutes late and everyone would wait for him,” said former student Andrew Janis, now a New York lawyer.” This statement means that he was popular but unprofessional to me.
As you know, in the publish or perish world of higher education publication is everything. If he were in most prestige schools, if he didn’t publish he would never see tenure or “professor”.
On another link it states “While most colleagues published by the pound, he never completed a single work of legal scholarship.” I’m sorry, John the references you provide are not convincing to me that he was in any way a constitutional scholar. I appreciate the effort though.
DCn, you might be right, but I’m not sure how you evaluate “pro-obama.” Simply saying its the NYTimes isn’t fair unless you have some criteria about evaluating their choices. you are “willing to bet” but you can’t evaluate their arguments. That’s too bad. Are you a constitutional lawyer?
Are you saying that the University of Chicago isn’t a prestige school? I believe that it is the #1 ranked school for conservative students.
For me it is enough that he taught constitutional law at all. That’s still more than most presidents.
The bias of the NYT has been well documented, from their ‘creating stories’ (with the resulting public outcry that ousted that particular ‘Pulitzer prize winning’ reporter) to running op ed pieces as new stories.
They are no friend of conservatives and do not hesitate to slant their stories accordingly.