What the Heck was I Thinking!?

Mickey Kause writes at Slate about Obama’s recent repudiation (where applicable) of Minister Wright’s sermons:

This seems to be the General Rule of Obama–if it’s going to damage him, he condemns it! And rejects and denounces. Vehemently! The Rule would seem to apply to all past and future controversial statements–his campaign could get that sentence printed up on little laminated cards and hand them out to reporters, or include them after the statements of all Obama surrogates, like those fine-print ‘void where prohibited’ waivers. “Condemned if controversial.

Seems awfully “conditional” - The listener can apply his condemnation for him where they feel will make them feel better about him.

Personally, I don’t care what kind of sermon Wright gives, nor how his congregation deals with it. What it does tell me is that Obama is very comfortable with the 60’s style vilification of the federal government.

It makes you wonder what Obama thinks he’s going to do if he wins - put people like Wright, or Ayers, or Rezko, or Power in charge of the engines of government? Or maybe he’s so good, he’ll come in and cast out all the money changers and make a clean sweep of government.

Or would the picture be more acceptable if we said he’ll come to Washington to clean out the augean stables of corruption?

 

Obama’s Rules: “Void if controversial” - By Mickey Kaus - Slate Magazine

From his most recent post:

Yea, that’s a Republican: Trolling for blue light specials in the red light district.

Don Surber » Blog Archive » Naughty Nottingham

Roger Kimball points the reader to a proposal by Arnold Kling another word for the political glossary - not just for Campaign ‘08, but for all politicians. (from Kling’s post):

“The term ‘Spitzer’ belongs in the dictionary,” Mr. Kling observes, “and its definition should be ‘any politician.’ We ought to think of all politicians as Spitzers. No, they don’t all have lurid involvements with prostitutes. But they all have an inflated view of their superiority over the rest of us.”

Kling goes on to add a particularly sharp definition:

Suppose that we define “Spitzer” as someone who believes in the aggressive use of political power. A Spitzer believes it is his mission to tell us what to do for own good.

Kimball believes that nearly all politicians, and most petty bureaucrats fall into that definition of a ’spitzer.’

Kling comes up with a strong condemnation of future political appointees or politicians filled with hubris:

Yes, he’s a real Spitzer all right.

Kimball’s post is about so much more than the moral turpitude of Elliott Spitzer.

Quoth James Carville in 2002: “You in New York are so blessed to have an attorney general who just showed what it was like to be a Democrat.” I don’t often agree with James Carville, but this time he hit the nail on the head. I only wish that the disease were confined to Democrats. It isn’t.

Kimball’s post is well worth the read.

 

Roger’s Rules: Spitzer and the army of born-again Leninists