As you may know the members of the Watcher’s Council each nominate one of his or her own posts and one non-Council post for consideration by the whole Council. The complete list of this week’s Council nominations is here.
With the sad departure of Done With Mirrors from the Watcher’s Council there’s a spot available. If you have a blog of your own, please consider applying for a position. If you’ve applied before try again. The rules and responsibilities are here.
Soccer Dad, “The Washington Post chooses hope ahead of substance ”
Soccer Dad criticizes the Washington Post’s endorsement of Sen. Barack Obama for the presidency. I think there are a lot of reasons that so many papers are endorsing Sen. Obama. One is that they sincerely believe he’s the better candidate, which for many may be colored by partisan or ideological blinders. Another is, as Soccer Dad suggests, the triumph of hope over experience. A visceral dislike for Sarah Palin may be another factor. I think that one of the factors is that they’ve decided that’s the way the parade is going and they want to get out in front of it.
The Colossus of Rhodey, “Don’t know much about history? The media sure doesn’t ”
Hube reviews for the class what the Constitution actually says about church and state. It’s always seemed to me that if secularists paid half as much attention to the free exercise clause of that portion of the First Amendment as they do to the establishment clause it would blunt their enthusiasm for constitutional arguments about the role of religion. I also hasten to point out that the Founders did not ban the states establishing churches.
Joshuapundit, “Kicking The Rats Off The Ship ”
Freedom Fighter takes right-leaning pundits to task for their antipathy towards Sarah Palin.
The Razor, “If Obama Wins…Part II”
Scott continues his observations on what we should expect from an Obama presidency, noting how limited is the power of the president to influence the economy. I do think it’s likely to be boom time for social workers and community organizers. And I’d go Scott one better on the Supreme Court: the effect of an Obama presidency on SCOTUS appointments will be to maintain the status quo.
Cheat-Seeking Missiles, “Media Bias #89 – The Audacity Of Inexperience ”
I agree generally with Laer that in evaluating Sen. Obama’s experience the press is setting the bar embarrassingly low. They’ve confused aspirations with accomplishments.
The Glittering Eye, “Unforeseen Secondary Effects”
In my submission this week I consider the failure of Hawaii’s universal healthcare plan for children and why such plans are likely to fare no better at the national level than in the states.
Hillbilly White Trash, “Biden screws up and tells the truth ”
LC considers the foreign policy challenges an Obama administration is likely to face. Actually, my concern is nearly the opposite of LC’s—I worry that President Obama may be so eager to demonstrate his resolution and toughness that he’ll respond with unnecessary, er, audacity.
Bookworm Room, “Why Obama’s “share the wealth†argument should hurt him ”
In posting on the effects of redistribution I think that Bookworm has hit on the essential problem: relative poverty is its own goad. I sincerely believe that no American should be allowed to be genuinely in want but there’s a difference between that and redistributing wealth from the ultra-wealthy to those who by any reasonable measure are quite well off.
Rhymes With Right, “Some Sense From The Pentagon ”
The only problem I have with Greg’s observation on the nature of the fight against Islamist terrorism is that I don’t know how many American Muslim’s are actually denying that’s what the conflict is about.
Well, I’ve decided which posts I’ll vote for this week. Which posts would get your votes?
“Actually, my concern is nearly the opposite of LC’s—I worry that President Obama may be so eager to demonstrate his resolution and toughness that he’ll respond with unnecessary, er, audacity.”
I’ve been thinking the same thing. He may not even wait for it to happen. This GOP leadership tactic of painting the Democrats as soft on the RoW’s bad guys has been most successful in the minds of top Democrats. Obama talks about a surge in Afghanistan — as though the players and balances in Afghanistan today is Iraq in 2006, as though surges always were the eternal answer (an odd position for one so opposed to it in the case where it stood a good chance of yielding results).
“I think there are a lot of reasons that so many papers are endorsing Sen. Obama. One is that they sincerely believe he’s the better candidate, which for many may be colored by partisan or ideological blinders. Another is, as Soccer Dad suggests, the triumph of hope over experience. A visceral dislike for Sarah Palin may be another factor. I think that one of the factors is that they’ve decided that’s the way the parade is going and they want to get out in front of it.”
All quite likely. And they don’t seem to sense the inherent embarrassment in journalist after journalist — not just the editorial boards but the columnists one by one and even the TV reviewers, etc., etc., making their personal endorsements for Obama, all in more or less the same language, echoing more or less the same unthough-through points.
But who cares what a journalist thinks? I guess some people must, because so much of the airwaves are full of talking-head journalists. But seriously: Who in America born after 1870 has said, “I wasn’t sure who to vote for for president, so I waited to see who the Daily Blat endorsed.” In local elections, such an endorsement matters. For president?
And will you guys please get on the stick and replace me? Or else I’m going to appoint my own replacement.
You’re irreplaceable, Callimachus. The best we can hope for is to fill the seat you occupied.
The flattering thing is, I actually was quoted by name in one of the recent non-council council winners, from my non-blog writing. I suspect some of you knew.
I got a bit of a chuckle out of that.