October 27, 2008, 6:00 a.m.
The L.A. Times Suppresses Obama’s Khalidi Bash Tape
Obama, Ayers, and PLO supporters toast Edward Said’s successor, but the press doesn’t think it’s quite as newsworthy as Sarah Palin’s wardrobe.
By Andrew C. McCarthy
Let’s try a thought experiment. Say John McCain attended a party at which known racists and terror mongers were in attendance. Say testimonials were given, including a glowing one by McCain for the benefit of the guest of honor ... who happened to be a top apologist for terrorists. Say McCain not only gave a speech but stood by, in tacit approval and solidarity, while other racists and terror mongers gave speeches that reeked of hatred for an American ally and rationalizations of terror attacks.Now let’s say the Los Angeles Times obtained a videotape of the party.Question: Is there any chance — any chance — the Times would not release the tape and publish front-page story after story about the gory details, with the usual accompanying chorus of sanctimony from the oped commentariat? Is there any chance, if the Times was the least bit reluctant about publishing (remember, we’re pretending here), that the rest of the mainstream media (y’know, the guys who drove Trent Lott out of his leadership position over a birthday-party toast) would not be screaming for the release of the tape?
Do we really have to ask?
So now, let’s leave thought experiments and return to reality: Why is the Los Angeles Times sitting on a videotape of the 2003 farewell bash in Chicago at which Barack Obama lavished praise on the guest of honor, Rashid Khalidi — former mouthpiece for master terrorist Yasser Arafat? At the time Khalidi, a PLO adviser turned University of Chicago professor, was headed east to Columbia. There he would take over the University’s Middle East-studies program (which he has since maintained as a bubbling cauldron of anti-Semitism) and assume the professorship endowed in honor of Edward Sayyid, another notorious terror apologist.
The party featured encomiums by many of Khalidi’s allies, colleagues, and friends, including Barack Obama, then an Illinois state senator, and Bill Ayers, the terrorist turned education professor. It was sponsored by the Arab American Action Network (AAAN), which had been founded by Khalidi and his wife, Mona, formerly a top English translator for Arafat’s press agency. Is there just a teeny-weenie chance that this was an evening of Israel-bashing Obama would find very difficult to explain? Could it be that the Times, a pillar of the Obamedia, is covering for its guy? Gateway Pundit reports that the Times has the videotape but is suppressing it. Back in April, the Times published a gentle story about the fete. Reporter Peter Wallsten avoided, for example, any mention of the inconvenient fact that the revelers included Ayers and Bernadine Dohrn, Ayers’s wife and fellow Weatherman terrorist. These self-professed revolutionary Leftists are friendly with both Obama and Khalidi — indeed, researcher Stanley Kurtz has noted that Ayers and Khalidi were “best friends.” (And — small world! — it turns out that the Obamas are extremely close to the Khalidis, who have reportedly babysat the Obama children.)Nor did the Times report the party was thrown by AAAN. Wallsten does tell us that the AAAN received grants from the Leftist Woods Fund when Obama was on its board — but, besides understating the amount (it was $75,000, not $40,000), the Times mentions neither that Ayers was also on the Woods board at the time nor that AAAN is rabidly anti-Israel. (Though the organization regards Israel as illegitimate and has sought to justify Palestinian terrorism, Wallsten describes the AAAN as “a social service group.”)
Perhaps even more inconveniently, the Times also let slip that it had obtained a videotape of the party. Wallsten’s story is worth excerpting at length (italics are mine):
It was a celebration of Palestinian culture — a night of music, dancing and a dash of politics. Local Arab Americans were bidding farewell to Rashid Khalidi, an internationally known scholar, critic of Israel and advocate for Palestinian rights, who was leaving town for a job in New York.
A special tribute came from Khalidi's friend and frequent dinner companion, the young state Sen. Barack Obama. Speaking to the crowd, Obama reminisced about meals prepared by Khalidi's wife, Mona, and conversations that had challenged his thinking.His many talks with the Khalidis, Obama said, had been "consistent reminders to me of my own blind spots and my own biases. . . . It's for that reason that I'm hoping that, for many years to come, we continue that conversation — a conversation that is necessary not just around Mona and Rashid's dinner table," but around "this entire world."...[T]he warm embrace Obama gave to Khalidi, and words like those at the professor's going-away party, have left some Palestinian American leaders believing that Obama is more receptive to their viewpoint than he is willing to say.
Their belief is not drawn from Obama's speeches or campaign literature, but from comments that some say Obama made in private and from his association with the Palestinian American community in his hometown of Chicago, including his presence at events where anger at Israeli and U.S. Middle East policy was freely expressed.
At Khalidi's 2003 farewell party, for example, a young Palestinian American recited a poem accusing the Israeli government of terrorism in its treatment of Palestinians and sharply criticizing U.S. support of Israel. If Palestinians cannot secure their own land, she said, "then you will never see a day of peace."
One speaker likened "Zionist settlers on the West Bank" to Osama bin Laden, saying both had been "blinded by ideology."Obama adopted a different tone in his comments and called for finding common ground. But his presence at such events, as he worked to build a political base in Chicago, has led some Palestinian leaders to believe that he might deal differently with the Middle East than … his opponents for the White House....
At Khalidi's going-away party in 2003, the scholar lavished praise on Obama, telling the mostly Palestinian American crowd that the state senator deserved their help in winning a U.S. Senate seat. "
You will not have a better senator under any circumstances," Khalidi said.The event was videotaped, and a copy of the tape was obtained by The Times.
Though Khalidi has seen little of Sen. Obama in recent years, Michelle Obama attended a party several months ago celebrating the marriage of the Khalidis' daughter.
In interviews with The Times, Khalidi declined to discuss specifics of private talks over the years with Obama. He did not begrudge his friend for being out of touch, or for focusing more these days on his support for Israel — a stance that Khalidi calls a requirement to win a national election in the U.S., just as wooing Chicago's large Arab American community was important for winning local elections.
So why is the Times sitting on the videotape of the Khalidi festivities? Given Obama's (preposterous) claims that he didn’t know Ayers that well and was unfamiliar with Ayers’s views, why didn't the Times report that Ayers and Dohrn were at the bash? Was it not worth mentioning the remarkable coincidence that both Obama and Ayers — the “education reform” allies who barely know each other … except to the extent they together doled out tens of millions of dollars to Leftist agitators, attacked the criminal justice system, and raved about each others books — just happen to be intimate friends of the same anti-American Israel-basher? (Despite having watched the videotape, Wallsten told Gateway Pundit he “did not know” whether Ayers was there.) Why won’t the Times tell us what was said in the various Khalidi testimonials? On that score, Ayers and Dohrn have always had characteristically noxious views on the Israeli/Palestinian dispute. And, true to form, they have always been quite open about them. There is no reason to believe those views have ever changed. Here, for example, is what they had to say in Prairie Fire, the Weather Underground’s 1974 Communist manifesto (emphasis in original):
Palestinian independence is opposed with reactionary schemes by Jordan, completely opposed with military terror by Israel, and manipulated by the U.S. The U.S.-sponsored notion of stability and status-quo in the Mideast is an attempt to preserve U.S. imperialist control of oil, using zionist power as the cat's paw. The Mideast has become a world focus of struggles over oil resources and control of strategic sea and air routes. Yet the Palestinian struggle is at the heart of other conflicts in the Mideast. Only the Palestinians can determine the solution which reflects the aspirations of the Palestinian people. No "settlements" in the Mideast which exclude the Palestinians will resolve the conflict. Palestinian liberation will not be suppressed.The U.S. people have been seriously deceived about the Palestinians and Israel. This calls for a campaign to educate and focus attention on the true situation: teach-ins, debates, and open clear support for Palestinian liberation; reading about the Palestinian movement—The Disinherited by Fawaz Turki, Enemy of the Sun; opposing U.S. aid to Israel. Our silence or acceptance of pro-zionist policy is a form of complicity with U.S.-backed aggression and terror, and a betrayal of internationalism.
SELF-DETERMINATION FOR THE PALESTINIAN PEOPLE!
U.S. OUT OF THE MIDEAST!
END AID TO ISRAEL!
Barack Obama wouldn’t possibly let something like that pass without a spirited defense of the Israel he tells us he so staunchly supports … would he? I guess to answer that question, we’d have to know what was on the tape. But who has time for such trifles? After all, isn’t Diana Vreeland about to critique Sarah Palin’s sartorial splendor?
— National Review’s Andrew C. McCarthy chairs the Foundation for the Defense of Democracies’s Center for Law & Counterterrorism and is the author of Willful Blindness: A Memoir of the Jihad (Encounter Books 2008).
Monday, October 27, 2008
Friday, October 24, 2008
1976 Is Back
1976 Is Back
Obama as Carter.
By Mark Moyar
A newcomer to national politics, he claimed to transcend partisan labels. He moved to the center during the campaign, at a time when the Democrats held large congressional majorities. In a troubled economy, he told voters he would keep taxes down for most Americans, limit spending, and balance the budget, all while implementing ambitious social programs. He planned to cut military spending to free money for other purposes, but assured moderates and conservatives that when it came to America’s enemies, he would be tougher than the Republicans. The media, droves of moderates, and some conservatives believed him, having pegged him as a man of character.His name was Jimmy Carter, the year was 1976, and he won. His presidency helps us predict the likely results of an Obama victory in 2008.
What did the majority of 1976 get in return for its votes? Carter’s campaign vow to avoid increasing payroll taxes went out the window: He and Congress raised Social Security taxes through the roof. They also slapped large new taxes on oil and gas. Meanwhile, Carter canceled his plan for a tax refund to Americans earning under $30,000. Casting aside more campaign pledges, Carter and Congress increased annual federal spending from $403 billion to $579 billion and grew the national debt from $709 billion to $914 billion. Tens of billions of dollars went to new jobs programs, urban aid, and mushrooming entitlements, and Carter’s promise to stop Democratic pork-barrel spending was abandoned.Carter and the Democratic Congress generated 18 percent inflation and economic stagnation at the same time. Unemployment rose. Americans came to regret the votes they had cast — Carter’s approval rating sank to 21 percent in 1980, the lowest in the history of polling.
Carter also threw out his professed hawkishness on foreign policy. Declaring America liberated from its “inordinate fear of Communism,” he sought better relations with the Communists in the Soviet Union, China, Cuba, and Vietnam. He was much less nice to America’s allies, withdrawing support from those who did not accept his self-righteous demands for human-rights reforms. Friendly regimes in Nicaragua and Iran fell to hostile tyrants.
If Obama abandons his promises the way Carter did, his presidency will be even more dangerous. Carter at least had longstanding tendencies toward fiscal restraint, and he, together with a large block of conservative Democrats in Congress, prevented the most left-wing elements of Congress from taxing and spending even more. Obama, on the other hand, has himself been part of the most left-wing element in the U.S. Senate, and conservatives do not have a significant presence on the Democratic side of the Reid-Pelosi Congress. Also, Obama has no history of breaking with his party before this year.
There are reasons to believe Obama will indeed break his promises. In March, he told the American public he would force Canada and Mexico to make concessions on NAFTA. Obama’s senior economic adviser privately assured Canadian officials that Obama’s public promises were “more reflective of political maneuvering than policy.” In the ensuing months, Obama likewise sent contradictory messages to different audiences on such issues as taxes, Iraq, and crime.In the second presidential debate, Obama made the most flagrant of his bogus promises yet, when he announced a “net spending cut.” The National Taxpayers Union has estimated that Obama will actually produce a net spending increase of at least $292 billion per year. Although the press would have pilloried McCain for such a brazen falsehood, Obama took so little heat that he repeated it again at the third debate.
Also during the third debate, Obama distanced himself from ACORN, denying any involvement with this organization since 1995. But as Sen. McCain pointed out, the Obama campaign paid $832,000 to an ACORN subsidiary earlier this year. Most ominous for the future is Obama’s statement to the Heartland Presidential Forum — which consists of ACORN and other leftist “community organizations” — that as soon as he wins the election, “we'll be calling all of you in to help us shape the agenda.”Perhaps most incriminating of all is Joe Biden’s Seattle speech. In words that received less media attention than the “international testing” remarks, Biden asserted that an Obama administration would make unpopular decisions, because “if they're popular, they’re probably not sound.” As a consequence, “You all are going to be sitting here a year from now going, ‘Oh my God, why are they there in the polls, why is the polling so down?’” In other words, Obama’s poll numbers will fall once Americans learn that his popular promises of 2008 have been supplanted in 2009 by actions that most Americans oppose.
Before casting a vote for Obama, Americans must consider the likelihood that he will follow the path of Jimmy Carter — that he will wreck the fragile economy by reneging on promises to cut taxes and spending, that he will be tough on America’s allies and soft on its enemies. The odds of Obama staying true to his current rhetoric are so poor that not even the boldest gambler should bet on it.
Obama as Carter.
By Mark Moyar
A newcomer to national politics, he claimed to transcend partisan labels. He moved to the center during the campaign, at a time when the Democrats held large congressional majorities. In a troubled economy, he told voters he would keep taxes down for most Americans, limit spending, and balance the budget, all while implementing ambitious social programs. He planned to cut military spending to free money for other purposes, but assured moderates and conservatives that when it came to America’s enemies, he would be tougher than the Republicans. The media, droves of moderates, and some conservatives believed him, having pegged him as a man of character.His name was Jimmy Carter, the year was 1976, and he won. His presidency helps us predict the likely results of an Obama victory in 2008.
What did the majority of 1976 get in return for its votes? Carter’s campaign vow to avoid increasing payroll taxes went out the window: He and Congress raised Social Security taxes through the roof. They also slapped large new taxes on oil and gas. Meanwhile, Carter canceled his plan for a tax refund to Americans earning under $30,000. Casting aside more campaign pledges, Carter and Congress increased annual federal spending from $403 billion to $579 billion and grew the national debt from $709 billion to $914 billion. Tens of billions of dollars went to new jobs programs, urban aid, and mushrooming entitlements, and Carter’s promise to stop Democratic pork-barrel spending was abandoned.Carter and the Democratic Congress generated 18 percent inflation and economic stagnation at the same time. Unemployment rose. Americans came to regret the votes they had cast — Carter’s approval rating sank to 21 percent in 1980, the lowest in the history of polling.
Carter also threw out his professed hawkishness on foreign policy. Declaring America liberated from its “inordinate fear of Communism,” he sought better relations with the Communists in the Soviet Union, China, Cuba, and Vietnam. He was much less nice to America’s allies, withdrawing support from those who did not accept his self-righteous demands for human-rights reforms. Friendly regimes in Nicaragua and Iran fell to hostile tyrants.
If Obama abandons his promises the way Carter did, his presidency will be even more dangerous. Carter at least had longstanding tendencies toward fiscal restraint, and he, together with a large block of conservative Democrats in Congress, prevented the most left-wing elements of Congress from taxing and spending even more. Obama, on the other hand, has himself been part of the most left-wing element in the U.S. Senate, and conservatives do not have a significant presence on the Democratic side of the Reid-Pelosi Congress. Also, Obama has no history of breaking with his party before this year.
There are reasons to believe Obama will indeed break his promises. In March, he told the American public he would force Canada and Mexico to make concessions on NAFTA. Obama’s senior economic adviser privately assured Canadian officials that Obama’s public promises were “more reflective of political maneuvering than policy.” In the ensuing months, Obama likewise sent contradictory messages to different audiences on such issues as taxes, Iraq, and crime.In the second presidential debate, Obama made the most flagrant of his bogus promises yet, when he announced a “net spending cut.” The National Taxpayers Union has estimated that Obama will actually produce a net spending increase of at least $292 billion per year. Although the press would have pilloried McCain for such a brazen falsehood, Obama took so little heat that he repeated it again at the third debate.
Also during the third debate, Obama distanced himself from ACORN, denying any involvement with this organization since 1995. But as Sen. McCain pointed out, the Obama campaign paid $832,000 to an ACORN subsidiary earlier this year. Most ominous for the future is Obama’s statement to the Heartland Presidential Forum — which consists of ACORN and other leftist “community organizations” — that as soon as he wins the election, “we'll be calling all of you in to help us shape the agenda.”Perhaps most incriminating of all is Joe Biden’s Seattle speech. In words that received less media attention than the “international testing” remarks, Biden asserted that an Obama administration would make unpopular decisions, because “if they're popular, they’re probably not sound.” As a consequence, “You all are going to be sitting here a year from now going, ‘Oh my God, why are they there in the polls, why is the polling so down?’” In other words, Obama’s poll numbers will fall once Americans learn that his popular promises of 2008 have been supplanted in 2009 by actions that most Americans oppose.
Before casting a vote for Obama, Americans must consider the likelihood that he will follow the path of Jimmy Carter — that he will wreck the fragile economy by reneging on promises to cut taxes and spending, that he will be tough on America’s allies and soft on its enemies. The odds of Obama staying true to his current rhetoric are so poor that not even the boldest gambler should bet on it.
Thursday, October 23, 2008
Obama Is as Untouchable as a Really Hot Chick
October 23rd, 2008 10:16 AM Eastern
Gutfeld: Obama Is as Untouchable as a Really Hot Chick
By Greg GutfeldHost, “Red Eye”
So yesterday, during an ideas meeting, a staffer pitched a story about Sarah Palin, focusing on how little we know about her time in college.
My blood pressure spiked, because naturally her history — or lack thereof — is far less murkier than Barack Obama’s. But it didn’t seem to matter, because no matter what you have against the man, it just doesn’t stick.
Seriously, the man isn’t a presidential candidate, he’s a really hot chick. You know what I mean, right?
You know how when a friend starts dating some girl, let’s say a stripper with top of the line implants, he overlooks everything else. She could be spreading Chlamydia like a Jehovah’s Witness unloading a case of Watchtower pamphlets, and it won’t matter.
Blinded by beauty, he lets her get away with everything, until your buddy is left broken and broke, riddled with disease, sleeping in your garage and convinced a mob boyfriend wants him dead.
I’m not saying Barack is that harmful. I’m just saying that when it comes to the media, he possesses a force field that every hot chick has and no matter what you say or do to convince obsessed fans otherwise, it’s pointless.
Face it: If you found out that your new girlfriend, who happened to be Megan Fox, worked with ACORN, hung around with Bill Ayers and used to do coke back in college, would you care?
Of course you wouldn’t! It’s Megan Fox!
Congratulations. You’re now The New York Times.
And if you disagree with me, then you sir are worse than Hitler.
Greg Gutfeld hosts “Red Eye with Greg Gutfeld” weekdays at 3 a.m. ET. Send your comments to: redeye@foxnews.com
Gutfeld: Obama Is as Untouchable as a Really Hot Chick
By Greg GutfeldHost, “Red Eye”
So yesterday, during an ideas meeting, a staffer pitched a story about Sarah Palin, focusing on how little we know about her time in college.
My blood pressure spiked, because naturally her history — or lack thereof — is far less murkier than Barack Obama’s. But it didn’t seem to matter, because no matter what you have against the man, it just doesn’t stick.
Seriously, the man isn’t a presidential candidate, he’s a really hot chick. You know what I mean, right?
You know how when a friend starts dating some girl, let’s say a stripper with top of the line implants, he overlooks everything else. She could be spreading Chlamydia like a Jehovah’s Witness unloading a case of Watchtower pamphlets, and it won’t matter.
Blinded by beauty, he lets her get away with everything, until your buddy is left broken and broke, riddled with disease, sleeping in your garage and convinced a mob boyfriend wants him dead.
I’m not saying Barack is that harmful. I’m just saying that when it comes to the media, he possesses a force field that every hot chick has and no matter what you say or do to convince obsessed fans otherwise, it’s pointless.
Face it: If you found out that your new girlfriend, who happened to be Megan Fox, worked with ACORN, hung around with Bill Ayers and used to do coke back in college, would you care?
Of course you wouldn’t! It’s Megan Fox!
Congratulations. You’re now The New York Times.
And if you disagree with me, then you sir are worse than Hitler.
Greg Gutfeld hosts “Red Eye with Greg Gutfeld” weekdays at 3 a.m. ET. Send your comments to: redeye@foxnews.com
Sunday, October 19, 2008
PC Effect, Not Bradley Effect, May Haunt Obama
PC Effect, Not Bradley Effect, May Haunt Obama
October 18, 2008 - by Bernard Chapin
Barack Obama has recently improved in the [1] polls and is strongly favored to win our presidential [2] election. Should he fail in his attempt, a mythical excuse now hovers in the ether as a means to beatify him. Racism will be fingered as the rationale behind the public’s rejection. This explanation is entirely irrational but will soothe the tender sensitivities of Democrats, as it bolsters their (seemingly innate) feelings of self-righteousness. Tying Obama’s loss to racism will burnish pride. Manufactured will be the conclusion that pseudo-liberals are more morally advanced than their conservative foes. The political left will claim that they were above race and point to the mixed ethnicity of their champion, whereas it will be implied that the right was not “[3] ready” for a man of Obama’s stature and alleged excellence.
Various mainstream media [4] members have already embraced this illogical line of argumentation. CNN’s [5] Jack Cafferty proudly circulated the fallacy, noting: “Race is arguably the biggest issue in this election, and it’s one that nobody’s talking about. The differences between Barack Obama and John McCain couldn’t be more well-defined. Obama wants to change Washington. McCain is a part of Washington and a part of the Bush legacy. Yet the polls remain close. Doesn’t make sense … unless it’s race.”
Yet Mr. Cafferty overlooked the fact that leftists everywhere, such as Kansas Governor Kathleen Sebelius, breathed so much life into this topic that it may well be able to transport itself to the polls on November 4. Sebelius [6] proclaimed, “Have any of you noticed that Barack Obama is part African-American? That may be a factor. All the code language, all that doesn’t show up in the polls. And that may be a factor for some people.”
Of course, allusions to racism are but a false dichotomy. There is a plethora of legitimate reasons for rejecting Barack Obama as president. That we must either endorse his candidacy or admit to being malignant racists is a risible notion. Much has been written about what is known as the [7] Bradley effect (peruse this fine article by [8] Stephen Green that appeared at Pajamas Media for more information). Specifically, the effect suggests that white voters may lie to pollsters about whom they are going to support if the candidate in question is black. The phenomenon is referenced whenever a black candidate garners impressive numbers in exit polling, but manages to under-perform once the final votes are tallied. (Of course, in disharmony with this effect, John Kerry was a perfect example of exit polling data not matching final vote tallies.) It receives its name from black politician Tom Bradley, who lost the 1982 California governor’s race after being significantly ahead in pre-election polling. To those who buy into the theory, Obama’s lead must be weighty in order for it to endure.
Perhaps its popularity is what caused Sebelius and Cafferty to intimate that the American people possess a nineteenth-century sensibility in regard to race. As always, the mainstream media were happy to lend their emotive keyboards to the process of validating these slanders, as demeaning the general population is a cause they cherish. They highlighted (re: celebrated) a [9] recent poll from Stanford which purportedly gave credence to such pessimism. The academic survey found that “[10] racial misgivings” may reduce Obama’s aggregate results. In the words of one of the researchers, “[t]here are a lot fewer bigots than there were 50 years ago, but that doesn’t mean there’s only a few bigots.” A closer examination of the data showcased that a third of white Democrats are the individuals who may harbor negative views of blacks.
That some Democrats — members of a party completely obsessed with race and every other form of politically correct effluvia — are racist is hardly surprising. The political left is to racism as [11] John Elway was to fourth-quarter comebacks. However, what quickly becomes apparent about this [12] survey of attitudes (go to the blue box on the right-hand side of the page and hit the link, “full poll results,” to see the study’s conclusions in detail) is that, while the demographics of the study group were broadly representative of the population as a whole, the researchers consciously chose to analyze whites in isolation.
Responses to questions were broken down into the subgrouping “whites only” and “all respondents.” What a queer and shady method by which to analyze data. Why, if the unstated purpose of their investigation was to ascertain what people think of Barack Obama, were “blacks only” omitted as a subgroup? No doubt it was intentional and a product of the academics’ belief that their inclusion would make a mockery of the study’s conclusions. This is due to blacks being human, and no random collection of human opinion will ever meet the strict parameters for enlightenment as set by the sterile dictates of political correctness.
The bottom line is that the poll’s discoveries were totally mundane. The media avoided the reporting of exculpating tidbits such as Barack Obama having led all public figures with a 30 percent “very favorable” rating. Further, that 82 percent of whites versus 84 percent of “all respondents” agreed with the statement that Barack Obama’s race was not going to influence their vote is another eventuality which journalists thought best not to mention.
More damning is that Pew Research conducted [13] a poll of their own earlier this year addressing the perceptions of blacks, whites, and Hispanics towards one another. Its revelation — “the overall portrait of race relations is one of moderation, stability, and modest progress” — was too positive for journalists to acknowledge. Pew differed from Stanford by neglecting to isolate whites as a group. On this occasion, 82 percent of whites had a “very favorable” or “mostly favorable” opinion of blacks. In harmony with Caucasian perception, 80 percent of blacks perceived whites in a “very favorable” or “mostly favorable” light. The proper conclusion to draw from this information is that America’s citizens are a high-functioning and kindly lot; however, good news will not pique the interest of our press corps, which remains mired in the days of segregation.
A defining characteristic of the fashion by which the media attempts to mislead and indoctrinate our people is through omission of fact. Should whites fail to embrace Senator Obama it proves their underlying racism, but if blacks back him near unanimously — as they [14] overwhelmingly did in the Democratic primaries of South Carolina, Georgia, Alabama, Louisiana, and Mississippi — it proves that they… supported a Democratic candidate. The sultans of spin were pleased to publicize the results from Stanford, yet analyzing it in the context of monolithic black support for Obama remains off limits. Clearly, racism is in the eye of the fabricator.
In all likelihood, a biracial background has been a net positive for the junior senator from Illinois. Were it not for his mixed ethnicity he would continue to merely represent my state as opposed to being the nation’s presumptive savior. [15] Geraldine Ferraro had it right when she said, “If Obama was a white man, he would not be in this position. And if he was a woman of any color, he would not be in this position. He happens to be very lucky to be who he is. And the country is caught up in the concept.”
We certainly are, unfortunately. White guiltists everywhere have queued up in diversity droves to stand with him. My town now pulsates with every manner of yuppie sporting his kitsch. Personally, in regards to the Bradley effect, I do not doubt that Obama will under-perform on November 4 and perhaps even among those wearing the goofy symbols of his personality cult. The rationale for a possible disparity between pre-election polling and his final results will be more a product of political correctness than racism. Thus, a PC, or politically correct, effect is the accurate term, rather than one bearing the name of Bradley.
Many whites may countermand their public utterances in the privacy of the voting booth, and the most likely justification for their doing so is that political correctness has cowed and emasculated them to the point in which a passive-aggressive rebellion is the only one viable. PC is a bully which eventually alienates most of those who are exposed to it. The thought processes of the person who abandons Obama in private do not involve “I don’t like Barack because he’s black,” but instead, “Fine, I told those idiots what they wanted to hear and now I’ll do what I want to do.”
Most people do not want trouble and having vigorous arguments in the street with activists/pollsters counts as “trouble” in their eyes. This is definitely true of moderates who bear the appellation they do as a function of being less resolute than the rest of us. Swing voters are swing voters for a reason. Generally, they are not very serious about politics and possess no underlying ideology.
As opposed to answering questions about preference in the manner of conservatives — “Of course I’m not voting for Barack Obama. He’s a leftist!” — they will consider superfluous factors like confidence level, speaking style, appearance, and what others think of their choice. The latter is key in this context. The perceptions of others fuel what we term the PC effect. It’s politically correct to back Barack so many vow to do so, but ultimately they may reconsider.
Certainly, these are bleak days for the McCain campaign. Perhaps the natural inclination of people to stand up to a bully will force the timid to reverse their past declarations and assert themselves on Election Day — and, thereby, alter the course of history.
Article printed from Pajamas Media: http://pajamasmedia.com
URL to article: http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/pc-effect-not-bradley-effect-may-haunt-obama/
October 18, 2008 - by Bernard Chapin
Barack Obama has recently improved in the [1] polls and is strongly favored to win our presidential [2] election. Should he fail in his attempt, a mythical excuse now hovers in the ether as a means to beatify him. Racism will be fingered as the rationale behind the public’s rejection. This explanation is entirely irrational but will soothe the tender sensitivities of Democrats, as it bolsters their (seemingly innate) feelings of self-righteousness. Tying Obama’s loss to racism will burnish pride. Manufactured will be the conclusion that pseudo-liberals are more morally advanced than their conservative foes. The political left will claim that they were above race and point to the mixed ethnicity of their champion, whereas it will be implied that the right was not “[3] ready” for a man of Obama’s stature and alleged excellence.
Various mainstream media [4] members have already embraced this illogical line of argumentation. CNN’s [5] Jack Cafferty proudly circulated the fallacy, noting: “Race is arguably the biggest issue in this election, and it’s one that nobody’s talking about. The differences between Barack Obama and John McCain couldn’t be more well-defined. Obama wants to change Washington. McCain is a part of Washington and a part of the Bush legacy. Yet the polls remain close. Doesn’t make sense … unless it’s race.”
Yet Mr. Cafferty overlooked the fact that leftists everywhere, such as Kansas Governor Kathleen Sebelius, breathed so much life into this topic that it may well be able to transport itself to the polls on November 4. Sebelius [6] proclaimed, “Have any of you noticed that Barack Obama is part African-American? That may be a factor. All the code language, all that doesn’t show up in the polls. And that may be a factor for some people.”
Of course, allusions to racism are but a false dichotomy. There is a plethora of legitimate reasons for rejecting Barack Obama as president. That we must either endorse his candidacy or admit to being malignant racists is a risible notion. Much has been written about what is known as the [7] Bradley effect (peruse this fine article by [8] Stephen Green that appeared at Pajamas Media for more information). Specifically, the effect suggests that white voters may lie to pollsters about whom they are going to support if the candidate in question is black. The phenomenon is referenced whenever a black candidate garners impressive numbers in exit polling, but manages to under-perform once the final votes are tallied. (Of course, in disharmony with this effect, John Kerry was a perfect example of exit polling data not matching final vote tallies.) It receives its name from black politician Tom Bradley, who lost the 1982 California governor’s race after being significantly ahead in pre-election polling. To those who buy into the theory, Obama’s lead must be weighty in order for it to endure.
Perhaps its popularity is what caused Sebelius and Cafferty to intimate that the American people possess a nineteenth-century sensibility in regard to race. As always, the mainstream media were happy to lend their emotive keyboards to the process of validating these slanders, as demeaning the general population is a cause they cherish. They highlighted (re: celebrated) a [9] recent poll from Stanford which purportedly gave credence to such pessimism. The academic survey found that “[10] racial misgivings” may reduce Obama’s aggregate results. In the words of one of the researchers, “[t]here are a lot fewer bigots than there were 50 years ago, but that doesn’t mean there’s only a few bigots.” A closer examination of the data showcased that a third of white Democrats are the individuals who may harbor negative views of blacks.
That some Democrats — members of a party completely obsessed with race and every other form of politically correct effluvia — are racist is hardly surprising. The political left is to racism as [11] John Elway was to fourth-quarter comebacks. However, what quickly becomes apparent about this [12] survey of attitudes (go to the blue box on the right-hand side of the page and hit the link, “full poll results,” to see the study’s conclusions in detail) is that, while the demographics of the study group were broadly representative of the population as a whole, the researchers consciously chose to analyze whites in isolation.
Responses to questions were broken down into the subgrouping “whites only” and “all respondents.” What a queer and shady method by which to analyze data. Why, if the unstated purpose of their investigation was to ascertain what people think of Barack Obama, were “blacks only” omitted as a subgroup? No doubt it was intentional and a product of the academics’ belief that their inclusion would make a mockery of the study’s conclusions. This is due to blacks being human, and no random collection of human opinion will ever meet the strict parameters for enlightenment as set by the sterile dictates of political correctness.
The bottom line is that the poll’s discoveries were totally mundane. The media avoided the reporting of exculpating tidbits such as Barack Obama having led all public figures with a 30 percent “very favorable” rating. Further, that 82 percent of whites versus 84 percent of “all respondents” agreed with the statement that Barack Obama’s race was not going to influence their vote is another eventuality which journalists thought best not to mention.
More damning is that Pew Research conducted [13] a poll of their own earlier this year addressing the perceptions of blacks, whites, and Hispanics towards one another. Its revelation — “the overall portrait of race relations is one of moderation, stability, and modest progress” — was too positive for journalists to acknowledge. Pew differed from Stanford by neglecting to isolate whites as a group. On this occasion, 82 percent of whites had a “very favorable” or “mostly favorable” opinion of blacks. In harmony with Caucasian perception, 80 percent of blacks perceived whites in a “very favorable” or “mostly favorable” light. The proper conclusion to draw from this information is that America’s citizens are a high-functioning and kindly lot; however, good news will not pique the interest of our press corps, which remains mired in the days of segregation.
A defining characteristic of the fashion by which the media attempts to mislead and indoctrinate our people is through omission of fact. Should whites fail to embrace Senator Obama it proves their underlying racism, but if blacks back him near unanimously — as they [14] overwhelmingly did in the Democratic primaries of South Carolina, Georgia, Alabama, Louisiana, and Mississippi — it proves that they… supported a Democratic candidate. The sultans of spin were pleased to publicize the results from Stanford, yet analyzing it in the context of monolithic black support for Obama remains off limits. Clearly, racism is in the eye of the fabricator.
In all likelihood, a biracial background has been a net positive for the junior senator from Illinois. Were it not for his mixed ethnicity he would continue to merely represent my state as opposed to being the nation’s presumptive savior. [15] Geraldine Ferraro had it right when she said, “If Obama was a white man, he would not be in this position. And if he was a woman of any color, he would not be in this position. He happens to be very lucky to be who he is. And the country is caught up in the concept.”
We certainly are, unfortunately. White guiltists everywhere have queued up in diversity droves to stand with him. My town now pulsates with every manner of yuppie sporting his kitsch. Personally, in regards to the Bradley effect, I do not doubt that Obama will under-perform on November 4 and perhaps even among those wearing the goofy symbols of his personality cult. The rationale for a possible disparity between pre-election polling and his final results will be more a product of political correctness than racism. Thus, a PC, or politically correct, effect is the accurate term, rather than one bearing the name of Bradley.
Many whites may countermand their public utterances in the privacy of the voting booth, and the most likely justification for their doing so is that political correctness has cowed and emasculated them to the point in which a passive-aggressive rebellion is the only one viable. PC is a bully which eventually alienates most of those who are exposed to it. The thought processes of the person who abandons Obama in private do not involve “I don’t like Barack because he’s black,” but instead, “Fine, I told those idiots what they wanted to hear and now I’ll do what I want to do.”
Most people do not want trouble and having vigorous arguments in the street with activists/pollsters counts as “trouble” in their eyes. This is definitely true of moderates who bear the appellation they do as a function of being less resolute than the rest of us. Swing voters are swing voters for a reason. Generally, they are not very serious about politics and possess no underlying ideology.
As opposed to answering questions about preference in the manner of conservatives — “Of course I’m not voting for Barack Obama. He’s a leftist!” — they will consider superfluous factors like confidence level, speaking style, appearance, and what others think of their choice. The latter is key in this context. The perceptions of others fuel what we term the PC effect. It’s politically correct to back Barack so many vow to do so, but ultimately they may reconsider.
Certainly, these are bleak days for the McCain campaign. Perhaps the natural inclination of people to stand up to a bully will force the timid to reverse their past declarations and assert themselves on Election Day — and, thereby, alter the course of history.
Article printed from Pajamas Media: http://pajamasmedia.com
URL to article: http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/pc-effect-not-bradley-effect-may-haunt-obama/
Tuesday, October 14, 2008
The judicial consequences of an Obama presidency
Night of the Living Constitution
Explaining the judicial consequences of an Obama presidency
by Terry Eastland 10/20/2008, Volume 014, Issue 06
Have you noticed how the justices of the Supreme Court are living longer and longer, compiling more and more years of service--far more than they used to? Doubtless the justices tire of seeing their ages mentioned in stories triggered by the presidential race that contemplate who is most likely to retire and leave a vacancy to be filled. But here is what the birth certificates say:
John Paul Stevens, 88
Ruth Bader Ginsburg, 75
Antonin Scalia, 72
Anthony Kennedy, 72
Stephen Breyer, 70
David Souter, 69
Clarence Thomas, 60
Samuel Alito, 58
John Roberts (the chief justice), 53.
Stevens has served the longest of the nine, and by next July he will have completed 34 years, than which only five justices ever recorded more. (He is threatening the record in this obscure competition, which was set by the justice whose seat he took in 1975, William O. Douglas, who served more than 36 years.) Because of his age and length of service, Stevens is widely considered the most likely to step down, followed by Ginsburg. Both happen to be judicial liberals on a Court that has four liberals (Breyer and Souter being the other two) and four judicial conservatives (Scalia, Thomas, Alito, and Roberts). The fickle Kennedy tends to provide the fifth vote in close cases, particularly those involving abortion, race, and religion.
Now, John McCain promises to name judicial conservatives to the Court, while Barack Obama vows to pick judicial liberals. So you can see what could happen if McCain is elected president. For if there is a vacancy during his term, the departing justice is likely to be a judicial liberal. The same is true if there is a second vacancy. One can imagine a President McCain replacing liberals with conservatives and thus finally meeting that ancient Republican goal (dating from the 1968 presidential campaign) of an unambiguously conservative majority on the Court. In this liberal nightmare, the relatively youthful majority would be busy whittling away at Roe v. Wade, eliminating race-based preferences in the public sector, strengthening the government's hand in fighting terrorism, and facilitating a larger role for religion in public life--among many other bad, bad things.
But, for McCain, actually replacing liberals with conservatives would be far more easily said than done. Indeed, liberals who worry that a conservative majority could be created by the addition of a single McCain appointee also know that, regardless of who is elected president, a Democratic Senate will almost surely persist through the first two years of the next presidential term--and probably all four. With comfortable majorities, Senate Democrats will have the power to prevent the appointment of any nominee.
As for Obama, if he is elected president and Stevens or Ginsburg (or both) step down during his term of office, then he gets to replace a liberal with a liberal--maintenance work, you could call it, though the liberal cohort would become younger. Obama couldn't create a liberal majority unless at least one conservative, or man-in-the-middle Kennedy, were to step down, and that looks doubtful, at least in the next four years. Neither Kennedy nor Scalia shows signs of leaving the Court, and the three remaining conservatives are young, as young is measured on the Court--two of them have sat only briefly.
Still, if a conservative were to retire, President Obama would find himself in a winning situation as regards confirmation of his nominee. Indeed, it's hard to imagine a Democratic Senate rejecting any Obama nominee for any vacancy, at least not on grounds of judicial philosophy.
Which raises the question of Obama's judicial philosophy. We know what McCain's is. He is the nominee of a party that for decades has advocated interpreting the law on its own terms and not infusing it with ideas or values not found within the Constitution--a party that opposes government by judiciary and supports judicial restraint. The non-lawyer McCain reflects this philosophy in typically direct statements, such as this from a speech on the courts last spring at Wake Forest University: "A court is hardly competent to check the abuses of other branches of government when it cannot even control itself."
There can be little doubt that McCain accepts and will act in furtherance of his party's philosophy. He voted for the Roberts and Alito nominations, both of which Obama opposed, and he holds up both as models for the kind of judges he would appoint.
In sharp contrast to McCain, Obama is the nominee of a party that has embraced the activism of the Warren Court and its expansion under the Burger Court (think Roe v. Wade) and which has hardened in its hostility to judicial conservatism during the Bush presidency. Obama has proved to be one of his party's most determined opponents of judicially conservative nominees. He voted not only against Roberts and Alito but also against six circuit-court nominees and joined in the Democrats' filibustering of such nominees--which filibustering was without precedent in Senate history.
Obama, a Harvard-trained lawyer who for a decade taught constitutional law at the University of Chicago Law School, has said "my judges" should have "the heart, the empathy, to recognize what it's like to be a young teenage mom, the empathy to understand what it's like to be poor or African-American or gay or disabled or old." He has characterized such people as being in "the minority" and "on the outside" and not having "a lot of clout." His judges should help them by importing to their deliberations their own "perspectives," "ethics," and "moral bearings." Thus his judges would carry out the judiciary's "historic role" of protecting those who "may be vulnerable in the political process," who have seen "the system not work for them," who don't "have access to political power," and who "can't protect themselves from being dealt with sometimes unfairly."
What's striking about comments like these is that Obama seems to be espousing a sort of "Footnote Four" judicial philosophy. Footnote Four is the most famous footnote in constitutional law. It's found in United States v. Carolene Products, the 1938 case in which the New Deal Court sustained a law prohibiting the shipment of so-called "filled milk" across state lines. (It is remembered today solely because of its renowned footnote.) Marking a turning point in constitutional law, Footnote Four confirmed the court's new-found deference to economic regulation while announcing the judicial intention, as Lucas A. Powe Jr. puts it in his history of the Warren Court, to protect "those who need protection." The footnote called them "discrete and insular minorities"--those Americans, says Powe, who "even in a well-functioning political process may not be able to form coalitions and thus may be subject to discriminatory legislation."
For Obama, it would seem that what he calls minorities or outsiders would encompass not only those "vulnerable" in the political process and thus "subject to discriminatory legislation" in a Footnote Four sense but also those who encounter a "system" that doesn't work for them. It appears for Obama that the courts must be involved in improving things for all of those "who need protection," and it could be a large group considering that Obama's informal, campaign-trail list hardly seems exhaustive.
Obama, who is a stout defender of the right to abortion announced in Roe, would seem to want judges sympathetic to arguments that the Constitution protects a fundamental right to education or health care or housing--perhaps even a right to credit. Though Obama has supported the death penalty in certain, narrowly defined circumstances, his philosophy would also seem to entail its judicial abolition. And with regard to race-based preferences, judges who share his philosophy could push for their permanent institution in higher education, employment, and contracting as a way of making the "system" work better for certain minorities.
An Obama judiciary would be a plainly liberal one. Not surprisingly, Obama has endorsed the idea of a "living Constitution," one judges adapt to meet the needs of a changing society. A living Constitution has its analogue in what might be called a "living U.S. Code," by which judges rewrite federal statutes they regard as somehow deficient, which for Obama could mean statutes having an adverse impact on people "who need protection." Obama's model justice is Earl Warren, who saw the role of the Court as that of doing justice, regardless of what the law at issue in a case might say. The senator must have cringed when he heard John Roberts, during his confirmation hearing to be chief justice, answer a question about what the biggest threats to the rule of law might be by saying there was really only one threat--that of judges who take their "authority and extend it into areas where they're going beyond the interpretation of the Constitution, where they're making the law. . . . Judges have to recognize that their role is a limited one. That is the basis of their legitimacy."
This election plainly poses the question, if voters realize it or not, of whether we want judges like Roberts or judges eager to extend their authority beyond what is legitimate and erase the venerable distinction between law and politics. This question will be there even if no Supreme Court vacancies occur during the next four years. For the next president will certainly name judges to the federal appeals courts. At the usual turnover rate, if Obama is elected, by the end of his four-year term eight of the twelve regular circuits could have majorities appointed by Democratic presidents. By the same measure, if McCain is elected, every one of the twelve circuits, including the notoriously liberal Ninth Circuit, could have a Republican-appointed majority. The appellate courts are especially important today because, with the Supreme Court deciding many fewer cases than it used to, they effectively function as the courts of final appeal in their jurisdictions.
Just as the appeals courts could go either way, so could the Supreme Court: a President McCain could have the opportunity to create a conservative majority or a President Obama could have the chance to create a liberal majority. On the other hand, it's possible that the composition of the Court when the next election rolls around will be the same as it is today. The same justices could be sitting in their same chairs. They would be four years older, and they would have served four more years. And Justice Stevens, age 92, would hold that record.
Terry Eastland is the publisher of THE WEEKLY STANDARD.
© Copyright 2008, News Corporation, Weekly Standard, All Rights Reserved.
urchinTracker();
Explaining the judicial consequences of an Obama presidency
by Terry Eastland 10/20/2008, Volume 014, Issue 06
Have you noticed how the justices of the Supreme Court are living longer and longer, compiling more and more years of service--far more than they used to? Doubtless the justices tire of seeing their ages mentioned in stories triggered by the presidential race that contemplate who is most likely to retire and leave a vacancy to be filled. But here is what the birth certificates say:
John Paul Stevens, 88
Ruth Bader Ginsburg, 75
Antonin Scalia, 72
Anthony Kennedy, 72
Stephen Breyer, 70
David Souter, 69
Clarence Thomas, 60
Samuel Alito, 58
John Roberts (the chief justice), 53.
Stevens has served the longest of the nine, and by next July he will have completed 34 years, than which only five justices ever recorded more. (He is threatening the record in this obscure competition, which was set by the justice whose seat he took in 1975, William O. Douglas, who served more than 36 years.) Because of his age and length of service, Stevens is widely considered the most likely to step down, followed by Ginsburg. Both happen to be judicial liberals on a Court that has four liberals (Breyer and Souter being the other two) and four judicial conservatives (Scalia, Thomas, Alito, and Roberts). The fickle Kennedy tends to provide the fifth vote in close cases, particularly those involving abortion, race, and religion.
Now, John McCain promises to name judicial conservatives to the Court, while Barack Obama vows to pick judicial liberals. So you can see what could happen if McCain is elected president. For if there is a vacancy during his term, the departing justice is likely to be a judicial liberal. The same is true if there is a second vacancy. One can imagine a President McCain replacing liberals with conservatives and thus finally meeting that ancient Republican goal (dating from the 1968 presidential campaign) of an unambiguously conservative majority on the Court. In this liberal nightmare, the relatively youthful majority would be busy whittling away at Roe v. Wade, eliminating race-based preferences in the public sector, strengthening the government's hand in fighting terrorism, and facilitating a larger role for religion in public life--among many other bad, bad things.
But, for McCain, actually replacing liberals with conservatives would be far more easily said than done. Indeed, liberals who worry that a conservative majority could be created by the addition of a single McCain appointee also know that, regardless of who is elected president, a Democratic Senate will almost surely persist through the first two years of the next presidential term--and probably all four. With comfortable majorities, Senate Democrats will have the power to prevent the appointment of any nominee.
As for Obama, if he is elected president and Stevens or Ginsburg (or both) step down during his term of office, then he gets to replace a liberal with a liberal--maintenance work, you could call it, though the liberal cohort would become younger. Obama couldn't create a liberal majority unless at least one conservative, or man-in-the-middle Kennedy, were to step down, and that looks doubtful, at least in the next four years. Neither Kennedy nor Scalia shows signs of leaving the Court, and the three remaining conservatives are young, as young is measured on the Court--two of them have sat only briefly.
Still, if a conservative were to retire, President Obama would find himself in a winning situation as regards confirmation of his nominee. Indeed, it's hard to imagine a Democratic Senate rejecting any Obama nominee for any vacancy, at least not on grounds of judicial philosophy.
Which raises the question of Obama's judicial philosophy. We know what McCain's is. He is the nominee of a party that for decades has advocated interpreting the law on its own terms and not infusing it with ideas or values not found within the Constitution--a party that opposes government by judiciary and supports judicial restraint. The non-lawyer McCain reflects this philosophy in typically direct statements, such as this from a speech on the courts last spring at Wake Forest University: "A court is hardly competent to check the abuses of other branches of government when it cannot even control itself."
There can be little doubt that McCain accepts and will act in furtherance of his party's philosophy. He voted for the Roberts and Alito nominations, both of which Obama opposed, and he holds up both as models for the kind of judges he would appoint.
In sharp contrast to McCain, Obama is the nominee of a party that has embraced the activism of the Warren Court and its expansion under the Burger Court (think Roe v. Wade) and which has hardened in its hostility to judicial conservatism during the Bush presidency. Obama has proved to be one of his party's most determined opponents of judicially conservative nominees. He voted not only against Roberts and Alito but also against six circuit-court nominees and joined in the Democrats' filibustering of such nominees--which filibustering was without precedent in Senate history.
Obama, a Harvard-trained lawyer who for a decade taught constitutional law at the University of Chicago Law School, has said "my judges" should have "the heart, the empathy, to recognize what it's like to be a young teenage mom, the empathy to understand what it's like to be poor or African-American or gay or disabled or old." He has characterized such people as being in "the minority" and "on the outside" and not having "a lot of clout." His judges should help them by importing to their deliberations their own "perspectives," "ethics," and "moral bearings." Thus his judges would carry out the judiciary's "historic role" of protecting those who "may be vulnerable in the political process," who have seen "the system not work for them," who don't "have access to political power," and who "can't protect themselves from being dealt with sometimes unfairly."
What's striking about comments like these is that Obama seems to be espousing a sort of "Footnote Four" judicial philosophy. Footnote Four is the most famous footnote in constitutional law. It's found in United States v. Carolene Products, the 1938 case in which the New Deal Court sustained a law prohibiting the shipment of so-called "filled milk" across state lines. (It is remembered today solely because of its renowned footnote.) Marking a turning point in constitutional law, Footnote Four confirmed the court's new-found deference to economic regulation while announcing the judicial intention, as Lucas A. Powe Jr. puts it in his history of the Warren Court, to protect "those who need protection." The footnote called them "discrete and insular minorities"--those Americans, says Powe, who "even in a well-functioning political process may not be able to form coalitions and thus may be subject to discriminatory legislation."
For Obama, it would seem that what he calls minorities or outsiders would encompass not only those "vulnerable" in the political process and thus "subject to discriminatory legislation" in a Footnote Four sense but also those who encounter a "system" that doesn't work for them. It appears for Obama that the courts must be involved in improving things for all of those "who need protection," and it could be a large group considering that Obama's informal, campaign-trail list hardly seems exhaustive.
Obama, who is a stout defender of the right to abortion announced in Roe, would seem to want judges sympathetic to arguments that the Constitution protects a fundamental right to education or health care or housing--perhaps even a right to credit. Though Obama has supported the death penalty in certain, narrowly defined circumstances, his philosophy would also seem to entail its judicial abolition. And with regard to race-based preferences, judges who share his philosophy could push for their permanent institution in higher education, employment, and contracting as a way of making the "system" work better for certain minorities.
An Obama judiciary would be a plainly liberal one. Not surprisingly, Obama has endorsed the idea of a "living Constitution," one judges adapt to meet the needs of a changing society. A living Constitution has its analogue in what might be called a "living U.S. Code," by which judges rewrite federal statutes they regard as somehow deficient, which for Obama could mean statutes having an adverse impact on people "who need protection." Obama's model justice is Earl Warren, who saw the role of the Court as that of doing justice, regardless of what the law at issue in a case might say. The senator must have cringed when he heard John Roberts, during his confirmation hearing to be chief justice, answer a question about what the biggest threats to the rule of law might be by saying there was really only one threat--that of judges who take their "authority and extend it into areas where they're going beyond the interpretation of the Constitution, where they're making the law. . . . Judges have to recognize that their role is a limited one. That is the basis of their legitimacy."
This election plainly poses the question, if voters realize it or not, of whether we want judges like Roberts or judges eager to extend their authority beyond what is legitimate and erase the venerable distinction between law and politics. This question will be there even if no Supreme Court vacancies occur during the next four years. For the next president will certainly name judges to the federal appeals courts. At the usual turnover rate, if Obama is elected, by the end of his four-year term eight of the twelve regular circuits could have majorities appointed by Democratic presidents. By the same measure, if McCain is elected, every one of the twelve circuits, including the notoriously liberal Ninth Circuit, could have a Republican-appointed majority. The appellate courts are especially important today because, with the Supreme Court deciding many fewer cases than it used to, they effectively function as the courts of final appeal in their jurisdictions.
Just as the appeals courts could go either way, so could the Supreme Court: a President McCain could have the opportunity to create a conservative majority or a President Obama could have the chance to create a liberal majority. On the other hand, it's possible that the composition of the Court when the next election rolls around will be the same as it is today. The same justices could be sitting in their same chairs. They would be four years older, and they would have served four more years. And Justice Stevens, age 92, would hold that record.
Terry Eastland is the publisher of THE WEEKLY STANDARD.
© Copyright 2008, News Corporation, Weekly Standard, All Rights Reserved.
urchinTracker();
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)