Why is it that whenever people think they see the image of a bearded man or a crying woman on a slice of toast or the side of a rusty dumpster, they immediately think it's Jesus or Mary? I mean, it could be anyone. It doesn't even have to be somebody famous. It could be Jesus' next door neighbor. It could be Mary's stressed-out sister-in-law that's bawling her eyes. Obviously Jesus and Mary didn't leave behind any pictures of themselves, so why does everyone assume that if a water-spot on the wall of a convenience store in Encino happens to look like a man's bearded face, then the man must be Jesus? It could be some hippie from down the street for all we know.
It seems to me Jesus wasn't the slightest bit vain in real life. Therefore, it makes no sense that He would now be plastering His own image on random surfaces all over the place. If Jesus and Mary are in fact behind these occurrences, you can bet it's someone else's mug they're putting out there.
Thursday, July 31, 2008
McCain's "Celebrity" Ad, Part II
Yesterday I noted with approval John McCain's new ad, in which he points out that Obama's status as an international celebrity is no real qualification for president. Evidently the ad has set off a bit of a firestorm. The liberal blogosphere is outraged. Why is that?
I'd say the reason the ad has provoked such a loud response is that it points out an obvious truth that liberal commentators, like the emperor who was wearing no clothes, want to remain unspoken: Obama's success to date has been fueled in large part by media hype, coupled with America's penchant for elevating certain famous people to a level of celebrity that is completely out of proportion to their actual accomplishments. The point of the commercial is not that Obama is no more worthy of being president than Britney Spears. It's that Obama may be the Britney Spears of presidential politics. Britney is deservedly famous for her singing career, but her accomplishments as a singer in no way justify all the publicity she has received over the years. The same goes for Obama. He's a talented politician, but he hasn't accomplished nearly enough in his career to justify all the hype.
Again, I think it's a smart move on McCain's part to make this point. Most people, even those who enjoy following the tabloid adventures of Angelina Jolie, recognize celebrity culture for the superficial diversion it is. Moreover, only the most committed Obama devotee would fail to recognize in his meteoric rise at least an element of mindless celebrity mania. Thus, the ad points out something about Obama most viewers will find both intuitively true and legitimately troubling -- which is why it seems to have struck a nerve.
I'd say the reason the ad has provoked such a loud response is that it points out an obvious truth that liberal commentators, like the emperor who was wearing no clothes, want to remain unspoken: Obama's success to date has been fueled in large part by media hype, coupled with America's penchant for elevating certain famous people to a level of celebrity that is completely out of proportion to their actual accomplishments. The point of the commercial is not that Obama is no more worthy of being president than Britney Spears. It's that Obama may be the Britney Spears of presidential politics. Britney is deservedly famous for her singing career, but her accomplishments as a singer in no way justify all the publicity she has received over the years. The same goes for Obama. He's a talented politician, but he hasn't accomplished nearly enough in his career to justify all the hype.
Again, I think it's a smart move on McCain's part to make this point. Most people, even those who enjoy following the tabloid adventures of Angelina Jolie, recognize celebrity culture for the superficial diversion it is. Moreover, only the most committed Obama devotee would fail to recognize in his meteoric rise at least an element of mindless celebrity mania. Thus, the ad points out something about Obama most viewers will find both intuitively true and legitimately troubling -- which is why it seems to have struck a nerve.
Wednesday, July 30, 2008
Ten things not to worry about
I can't say I was ever worried about these things in the first place, but the list makes for interesting reading.
McCain's "Celebrity" ad
This new ad from McCain takes a shot at Obama's celebrity status.
Obviously, there are huge differences between these candidates, both in style and substance. Despite the concerns of many Republicans that McCain wouldn't run a tough campaign, McCain seems to have no qualms about using negative ads to draw clear contrasts between himself and Obama.
Obviously, there are huge differences between these candidates, both in style and substance. Despite the concerns of many Republicans that McCain wouldn't run a tough campaign, McCain seems to have no qualms about using negative ads to draw clear contrasts between himself and Obama.
Drip, drip, drip
The National Enquirer is upping the ante again with a further installment on their John Edwards "love child" story. This particular update seems calculated to compel some kind of a response from the mother, Rielle Hunter, and the putative father Andrew Young. The article reveals the name of the baby and alleges that a wealthy friend of Edwards has been funneling "hush money" to Hunter at the rate of $15,000 a month in addition to undisclosed amounts to Young.
If Young really is the father, then the Enquirer's reporting to date would seem to represent an outrageous (and undoubtedly actionable) invasion of privacy against him, Hunter and the baby. It's hard to see how anyone could continue to weather the onslaught of such unwarranted publicity without filing suit against the Enquirer or otherwise fighting back in some highly public way. For that reason, I would expect this story to take a dramatic turn, one way or the other, in the near future. Either Edwards will be forced to own up to the relationship or Hunter and Young will start pushing back. The drip, drip, drip can't go on indefinitely.
If Young really is the father, then the Enquirer's reporting to date would seem to represent an outrageous (and undoubtedly actionable) invasion of privacy against him, Hunter and the baby. It's hard to see how anyone could continue to weather the onslaught of such unwarranted publicity without filing suit against the Enquirer or otherwise fighting back in some highly public way. For that reason, I would expect this story to take a dramatic turn, one way or the other, in the near future. Either Edwards will be forced to own up to the relationship or Hunter and Young will start pushing back. The drip, drip, drip can't go on indefinitely.
Getting to the bottom of Obama's canceled visit with wounded troops
The Washington Post is jumping ugly on the McCain campaign for supposedly misrepresenting the reasons behind Barack Obama's failure to visit a military hospital in Germany at the tail end of his recent European tour. McCain has an ad up claiming Obama canceled the stop when it became clear he couldn't bring cameras or campaign staff along. According to the WaPo's version of events, however, the real reason behind the decision was the Obama camp's fear that the stop would be perceived as political.
While the Post deserves some credit for trying to sort out this mess, their focus on the McCain ad is misplaced. Their own reporting shows that Obama canceled the announced visit with wounded soldiers for what it now appears was no good reason at all. If Obama had made the visit, without media fanfare (as his campaign now claims had been the plan all along), there is simply no way it would have blown up on him politically. While it's hard to imagine McCain attacking Obama for visiting with wounded soldiers, even if he had done so, any such attack most likely would have backfired on McCain.
More important, even if Obama thought the stop would be politically risky, so what? McCain has made a career out of politically risky moves. If Obama canceled the stop for the reasons given by the Post, then it raises a question far more disturbing than whether McCain's ad is accurate: If Obama can be this weak-kneed over the potential political fallout that might come from visiting wounded soldiers, what sort of leadership can he be counted on to deliver when he is faced with a truly momentous decision, such as sending soldiers into combat in the first place?
In uncovering the real reason for the canceled visit to the military hospital, the Post arguably exposed a flaw in McCain's political ad. But the flaw they inadvertantly exposed in Obama is of far greater significance.
While the Post deserves some credit for trying to sort out this mess, their focus on the McCain ad is misplaced. Their own reporting shows that Obama canceled the announced visit with wounded soldiers for what it now appears was no good reason at all. If Obama had made the visit, without media fanfare (as his campaign now claims had been the plan all along), there is simply no way it would have blown up on him politically. While it's hard to imagine McCain attacking Obama for visiting with wounded soldiers, even if he had done so, any such attack most likely would have backfired on McCain.
More important, even if Obama thought the stop would be politically risky, so what? McCain has made a career out of politically risky moves. If Obama canceled the stop for the reasons given by the Post, then it raises a question far more disturbing than whether McCain's ad is accurate: If Obama can be this weak-kneed over the potential political fallout that might come from visiting wounded soldiers, what sort of leadership can he be counted on to deliver when he is faced with a truly momentous decision, such as sending soldiers into combat in the first place?
In uncovering the real reason for the canceled visit to the military hospital, the Post arguably exposed a flaw in McCain's political ad. But the flaw they inadvertantly exposed in Obama is of far greater significance.
Saturday, July 26, 2008
Obama Veepstakes
Politico reports that Obama's VP search committee is floating the name of Ann Veneman as a possible running mate. Like that will happen.
Evidently, the reason Ms. Veneman is a viable selection is that she's a Republican who served as Agriculture Secretary during W's first term. Naturally, the netroots are just clamoring for Obama to pick a Republican with close ties to Bush rather than a loyal Democrat.
Also, nobody has ever heard of her, so she has that going for her.
Yup, this is definitely the year the Dems pick an anonymous, Bush-tainted Republican to put on the ticket.
Evidently, the reason Ms. Veneman is a viable selection is that she's a Republican who served as Agriculture Secretary during W's first term. Naturally, the netroots are just clamoring for Obama to pick a Republican with close ties to Bush rather than a loyal Democrat.
Also, nobody has ever heard of her, so she has that going for her.
Yup, this is definitely the year the Dems pick an anonymous, Bush-tainted Republican to put on the ticket.
Friday, July 25, 2008
The McCain Veepstakes
Romney would do the most good in terms of helping the ticket. So that's whom McCain will pick, right? Not so fast. I think McCain thinks he's is in good shape and doesn't need the things Romney brings to the table in order to beat Obama. He thinks he has the luxury to pick someone nobody has heard of and who probably can't deliver his own state, but someone who appeals to McCain for other reasons. Someone like . . . Tim Pawlenty.
Obama the Uniter
David Brooks has an important and insightful column today on the disturbingly anodyne worldview laid out by Obama in Berlin. According to Obama, the solution to the world's problems is (and has always been) to "bring people together" -- something he immodestly claims the ability to do. Brooks points out that, in the real world, conflicts often must be resolved through confrontation if they are to be resolved at all. JFK and Reagan both knew this, as did Harry Truman. As these presidents would testify, the way to bring an end to tyranny is to stand up to the tyrants. It's certainly not to unite with them. Clearly, there will be no "coming together" between the civilized world and radical Islam. If the next U.S. president doesn't understand this, we're in big trouble.
Thursday, July 24, 2008
The Title Says It All
A useful reminder: Media Love of Obama Doesn't Equal Victory
My sense is that voters are far more sophisticated today than in previous generations. They like Obama, and they want to "Believe." But they're not going to vote for him solely on the basis of his oratorical skills. Or because the MSM seem excited by him.
My sense is that voters are far more sophisticated today than in previous generations. They like Obama, and they want to "Believe." But they're not going to vote for him solely on the basis of his oratorical skills. Or because the MSM seem excited by him.
Barack, Sr.: Immigrant or Absentee Father?
It's no longer a surprise to find Barack Obama flip-flopping on policy matters. But must he flip-flop on his family history as well? In addressing Latino voters, the presumptive Democratic nominee states he grew up without a father, alluding to Barack, Sr.'s decision to attend school on the East Coast (and eventually return to Kenya) and leave his young family behind in Hawaii. But on other occasions, including today's speech in Berlin, the senator characterizes his father as somehow belonging to America's immigrant tradition.
Whatever Obama's feelings toward his father may be -- and it's a subject to which he's obviously given a great deal of thought -- his attempt to portray Barack Sr. as an immigrant flies in the face of reality. Obama's father came to America to get an education. During his short time in Hawaii, he met and impregnated a 17-year-old girl -- Obama's mother -- then left her and returned to Africa. While none of that history reflects badly upon the candidate, nor does it fit within the "immigrant" narrative Obama is trying to craft.
Whatever Obama's feelings toward his father may be -- and it's a subject to which he's obviously given a great deal of thought -- his attempt to portray Barack Sr. as an immigrant flies in the face of reality. Obama's father came to America to get an education. During his short time in Hawaii, he met and impregnated a 17-year-old girl -- Obama's mother -- then left her and returned to Africa. While none of that history reflects badly upon the candidate, nor does it fit within the "immigrant" narrative Obama is trying to craft.
How long can the MSM hold out in refusing to cover the Love Child Story?
Let's please dispense with the suggestion that John Edwards' relationship with Rielle Hunter isn't "newsworthy." Perhaps the public's sense of propriety has been sufficiently dulled in recent years that a national politician can father a love child while his wife is dying of cancer, arrange for campaign subordinates to take the rap for him, and yet still remain a viable candidate for vice president or attorney general. It doesn't follow that the media should take no notice of the fact.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
