The International House of Bacon

* An interesting report from the Washington Timesabout some minor backlash NPR recieved for its “Conversations With Conservatives” series at the end of February.

* Not shockingly, Obama’s talking point that some CEOs make more in 10 minutes than the average worker does in a year is, with one to three exceptions depending on which metric you use, completely false. This is why populism is dangerous - it makes the mistake of either assuming anecdote as the clear reality (see: every John Edwards speech ever, Michelle Obama) or having to purposefully distort reality to make what may have otherwise been a valid, debatable point about a specific issue.

* Obama on the war. In a way, it does a good job explaining why Obama’s current Iraq strategy is so schizophrenic.

* Someone needs to reeducate the Associated Press regarding fair use principles. I think my favorite part is the probable concurrent contradiction by the organization.

* Kos blogger “on strike” because Daily Kos is apparently in the tank for Obama or something. It’s funny - the Republicans had a more diverse slate of candidates, more concern about the future of their party and ideology, and yet largely avoided this sort of infighting.

* Howie Carr’s yearly check-in with politicians in Massachusetts who call for higher taxes was published this week. One of the quirks in Massachusetts’s tax system is that the standard income tax rate is 5.3%. It should be 5% per a citizen vote, but Massachusetts politicians don’t care about Massachusetts residents. ANYWAY, at some point, an optional 5.8% rate was instituted - if you would like to pay the higher rate, the opportunity is there. Not surprisingly, very few people do pay the higher optional rate, including those who say that the state’s finances are in disarray and that higher taxes are needed. I love it.

* A minor follow-up to the Obama/Wright thing - while this was meant to apply to the Rezko situation (hardly finished, by the way), it applies here, too: Obama says that, “In a dangerous world, it’s judgment that matters.” If his “judgment” is to not only stick with this preacher for as long as he did, but also a) talk about possibly having to distance himself from Wright, only b) waiting until the mainstream press gets ahold of it, what does this say about Obama’s judgment? This is his standard, after all.

* More LiveJournal nonsense: censoring interests. Good times, SUP, really.

I’m so happy that the duo for Once won an Oscar last night. I call them “the duo for Once” because I don’t know how to spell Marketa Irgosloveta. See?

* Bookseller has announced the shortlist for oddest book titles.

* Saturday Night Live came back this week - one funny bit with Mike Huckabee, one “would be funnier if it weren’t so true” bit about Obama.

* Is there any piece of populism that Obama won’t embrace? I worked in textbooks for years, it’s no more a racket than any other form of bookselling.

* I loved this story: Minnesota bar patrons become actors in theatrical productions to retain their right to smoke. Any way to poke holes in ridiculous anti-smoking laws, I’ll support.

* Meet the new Florida Marlins cheerleaders: the plus-size male group, The Manatees.

* QandO has an amazing takedown on the ethanol movement. Required reading.

* Barack Obama, funded by corporate interests. Same old Washington politics as usual.

* PowerLine posts the response from Rep. John Shadegg about his changing his mind over retiring following a large groundswell of support for him staying in Congress. I’m pleased.

* Female readers, do you agree that you “wake up every morning wondering how on earth I am going to pull off that next minor miracle to get through the day”? Are you “struggling to keep her head above water?” Exactly how out of touch is Michelle Obama? Do we assume that her husband is this out of sync with the rest of us, too?

Okay, a few things because this is a very long election cycle. This will be somewhat disjointed:

1) What’s written here in terms of political opinion are just that - opinion. I do not pretend to have the market cornered on the truth on most issues.

2) Generally speaking, I don’t think you’re an idiot if you believe what you believe and have good, sound reasons as to why you believe what you believe. I may not agree with you, and may be puzzled as to why you’ve reached a certain conclusion, but I have a lot of respect for reasoned, logical opinion.

3) I’m not the same person I was four years ago, and a lot of my philosophies involving politics - and especially tactical voting - have changed considerably since the Kerry campaign.

I’m catching a lot of heat for my Obama entry today. I didn’t expect any, but perhaps that’s my first problem. Let me map this out in detail:

On the Democratic side, there are/were essentially four candidates running with a legitimately viable shot at winning the race: Clinton, Edwards, Obama, Richardson. A very interesting slate of candidates: the highly experienced statesman, the populist lawyer, the known commodity, and the bringer of hope. These archetypes existed largely before the campaign, as all of them were recognizeable long before the campaigns even started. The newest face in the bunch was Obama, and he had been electrifying people since the 2004 Democratic National Convention.

Here’s the rub: Richardson appealed to a very small crowd, unfortunately, probably because of the headliners in the Democratic club ahead of him. Edwards is a world-class populist, and can sling the class war rhetoric better than anyone I’ve been alive to see. Hillary Clinton is Hillary Clinton - her name comes with both baggage and cache, and having Bill around doesn’t hurt you, either, since there’s at least the perception that you know what you’re getting. Obama’s set himself apart his own way, and it’s through “hope” and “change.” As noted in the last entry, this was all stuff he took onto the national stage four years ago, and to great acclaim. The message has stayed extremely consistent.

Now, for Obama, the question for him (and for me) is whether it’s been too consistent. He’s done nothing to set himself apart in Congress thus far - his two noteworthy legislative victories to this point have been minimal but positive, involving government oversight and accountability. His platform is not entirely different from his opponents in any substantial way. The only thing that sets him apart is his charisma, which he appears to have coming out of every pore.

This is where I get lost, for starters - populism really does nothing for me, and being inspired by a politician isn’t really my idea of a good time politically. But the annoying thing is that it appears that Obama supporters are split between two groups:

a) The inspired.
b) The educated.

Before you start tearing me down for this, there is overlap, for sure - many people excited about Obama know what he’s about, and that feeds into it. This is not where I’m critical, even if I think you’re wrong. My criticism comes where there appears to be a disconnect between the inspired and the educated, where Obama’s support is coming from folks who not only don’t necessarily care about what he’s standing for, but actively don’t know. Anecdotal, yes, and I’m not sure how to test this in a more controlled way, but you’d be shocked at how often I’ve encountered this exact concept.

This is where populism is dangerous. Yes, Obama’s about providing “hope” for America, but to find out why, you’ll have to take a deeper look. But don’t worry about it - he’s an agent for “change!” While the other guys are simply politics as usual, look at me - I’m different, and I’m a good enough speaker where I can inspire you where the guy in charge now isn’t all that good at it, and the other guys don’t get it the way I can.

I don’t understand how people, especially someone who goes out of their way to find out about a candidate’s positions and figure out where they stand, can’t be somewhat insulted by the nature of it. Besides the attempts at taking reign in the “change” department, but (and this is where I think it’s the worst) offering “hope” to those not significantly involved in the political process not through action or details, but through a glossy presentation heavy on emotional platitudes but light on detail. His book was called The Audacity of Hope - that he has the audacity to make emotional appeals in order to curry your favor should be a major warning sign, and you should be doubly offended if you’re a consistent Democrat or liberal. Have we forgotten the 2004 campaign already? Hell, ignore the campaign and go with the post-11 Sept political landscape, where one of the major criticisms of Bush was that he was preying on the fears of the electorate. Is it because “fear” has a negative connotation and “hope” a positive one that we’re suddenly okay with a Presidential candidate pushing emotional buttons? Is it because it’s your guy doing it this time? I don’t know.

A lot of my issue with this is shaded by my own problems in 2008. Even the candidates I supported (Paul, Thompson, Richardson) brought agendas to the table that I could not enthusiastically get behind. It’s one thing to be 2004 and have one proven commodity against someone likely to do worse, it’s entirely another to have a pile of choices that fail to address the problems currently inherent in the system.

I’m also, however, not easily plied by emotional appeals from politicians. While Giuliani, Huckabee, Clinton, etc definitely have supporters who have nebulous and/or inconsequential reasons they’re giving to vote for them, they’re not making those issues the centerpieces of their respective campaigns. And when the emotional appeals set Obama apart from the other candidates, it’s not a demonstration at all of competence or even of simply being Presidential. It’s hardly an effort in favor of him, and often comes across as an effort in the opposite direction, namely that he’s hoping that people ignore his agenda because he’s full of “hope!” and will create “change!”

All of this, of course, is my opinion. You’re free to vote as you wish and support who you wish, just as I’m free to question whether that’s a good idea, or even a smart way of going about it. But the expectation of intelligent voting isn’t a horrible thing, and no method of coming to a conclusion on a candidate is beyond criticism. If anything, I’m more annoyed by Obama than by his supporters, because I think there’s a good chance some of them aren’t aware of what they’re getting into.

Excuse me while I take some time to sift through links I’ve had sitting around for a while.

Over at Betsy’s Page, Newmark highlighted a piece about “Care Bear Politics.” The piece, based off of a blog post by Reason’s Julian Sanchez and an article at Real Clear Politics:

And then there’s the Care Bear vision, which takes as given the perfectability of humankind and correspondingly interprets all problems as fixable, given the right conditions. Care Bearism involves, in Thomas Sowell’s words, “a disdainful dismissal of arguments to the contrary as either uninformed, irresponsible or motivated by unworthy purposes.” Should the critics prove, after the fact, to have been right, Care Bearists grant themselves absolution because their hearts were in the right place.

Since at least the 1960s, liberalism has provided an ideological wigwam under whose pastel-colored flaps the Caring-American community has gathered to emote and caucus in its therapeutic and sentimental fashion, always looking forward to a better future (in part, because it means they don’t have to look at the wreckage of their past schemes). Some latter-day conservatives began as liberals, until they understood that The Care Bear Stare was no effective defense against problems originating in human nature, which is not infinitely malleable, and in the intractability of evil.

While the conclusions of the piece leave a bit to be desired, the relative concept therein - from Sowell’s words to the examples at the start of the piece (both of which I’ve encountered numerous times) - are not only apparent, but seem to be manifesting itself in this election cycle to new heights.

I went into this election not so much tired of Bush (although there’s more than a little exhaustion) as tired of the brand of politics that have been ushered in - a “do-something” attitude, if you will, that seemed to reach new heights even as Bush branded himself a conservative regardless of his actual resume. With the failure of the Thompson run to gain traction, and knowing full well that Ron Paul is a non-factor, we’re stuck with more of the same, more of this “Care Bear” mentality:

* Barack Obama with his nondescript “change” manifesto.
* Mike Huckabee’s plans for the Constitution.
* John Edwards’s…everything.
* Mitt Romney’s abysmal record in Massachusetts.
* Hillary Clinton’s Santa Claus view of government.
* Rudy Guiliani’s record in NYC.
* John McCain’s record in Congress.

To use a cliche I hate, it’s the same pig dressed in different lipstick, and, perhaps more interestingly, is proof positive that this sudden lurch rightward that is alleged since Bush entered office is completely nonexistent - that the centrist Bush with his “compassionate conservatism” and government-can-do-it attitude introduced into the Republican Party and is apparently embraced by those with national recognition. Sure, the Jim DeMints, Jeff Flakes, and Jon Kyls of the Repubican Party exist, but most people reading this won’t recognize all three of those names for a while.

So what does this mean? It means that, right now, we have seven Care Bears running for President. Sure, some of them have lesser powers than others - as bad as McCain is, for instance, the damage he could do doesn’t come close to Edwards - but we’re still heading down that same road that so many are allegedly tired of. Especially in the age of large deficits, a slowing economy, and financial uncertainty, can we afford it in any context?

We know the answer to this, of course, but none of the folks who’ll be President in a year are actually going to answer it.