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. Please leave your application in the comments to this post or in the post linked above.
The hot topic among the Council members this week is certainly Sarah Palin. Their interest is consistent with the degree to which Gov. Palin’s name on the ticket has energized Republicans. I don’t think I’m as interested as some Council members are in the scandal/smear du jour or the Vice-Presidential candidate.
The Glittering Eye, “Waiting for the Takeover (Updated)”
IMO probably the most important business/economics story of the year is the takeover of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac by the Treasury and that’s what my submission this week was about.
Soccer Dad, “An exceptional choice”
Soccer Dad explains the reasons he supports John McCain’s candidacy. I didn’t vote for George W. Bush in 2000 but I would have voted for John McCain. The time that’s passed and his age concern me now but I’m concerned about Barack Obama, too. What’s worse the things that he could say or do that would make me support him with confidence would probably doom him with his base.
Bookworm Room, “Beneath the Gobbledy-gook, an implied concession about taxes”
I don’t think we should be under any illusions that Sen. Obama sees tax policy as primarily a tool of economic policy but as a tool of social policy. Addtionally, he places a strong premium on fairness and equality. Fortunately, he’s enough of a pragmatist to know that if he raises taxes during an economic downturn and the economy doesn’t improve or even worsens his first term will be his last. I find that comforting.
The Razor, “Dems Proving the GOP is really…”
Scott considers the beginning of the smear campaign against Gov. Palin. It’s rather amazing to me (since they’ve practiced it for so long) that Democratic activists are making the mistakes that they are in identity politics. The harder they attack the more they’ll lose.
Joshuapundit, “The Game Changer – Duty, Honor, Country”
Freedom Fighter considers the candidacy of John McCain. Frankly, I’m distrustful of Sen. McCain’s national greatness notion of foreign policy.
Wolf Howling, “Standing At The Crossroads – Identity Politics, Multiculturalism & The Melting Pot”
GW reviews the Republican Party’s record on civil rights and racial politics. I think that GW is making a few false assumptions. First, neither the Republican nor the Democratic Party are programmatic parties and never been. Republican and conservative are not synonymous nor is Democratic and progressive. Second, the Republican Party of today would be unrecognizeable to the Republicans of forty years ago just as the Democratic Party of today would come as a shock to the Democrats of yesterday. Yesterday’s Dixiecrats are today’s Republican leadership. And I really need to explain the origins of the Republican Party to GW some day. Anti-slavery and not racist are not the same thing. In fact it’s almost the reverse.
The Colossus of Rhodey, “Is the Philly Daily News Literally Going Nuts?”
Hube takes a look at the way in which those who oppose the Republican ticket have been trying to use Gov. Palin’s daughter’s pregnancy as a club to beat the governor over the head with. I think that this is a very interesting development but I also think that Hube has missed the point. For either an abstinence-only sex education program or a comprehensive sex education program to be deemed a failure when a young woman who’s taken the course becomes pregnant you must assume that 1) the young woman bears no responsibility for her own acts; 2) the purpose of the course was to prevent pregnancy; and 3) the young woman did not intend to become pregnant. The more interesting thing to me is the subtext in the attacks that Hube cites that pregnancy is a misfortune that happens to a young woman. I doubt that’s a winning argument with most of the country.
Rhymes With Right, “A Bad Political Dad From History?”
Greg wonders about the interrelationships among parenthood, gender, and seeking high political office. Greg, the rich are different from you and me. And don’t expect consistency in political attacks. Consistency implies closely-held values. There are no closely-held values. Winning is the only thing.
Cheat-Seeking Missile, “Fight, Fight, Fight”
Laer questions Sen. McCain’s choice of words in his acceptance speech. It’s all a matter of emphasis and you might want to take a look at the visualization of Sen. McCain’s speech to see where the emphases actually were.
Hillbilly White Trash, “The New Reagan”
Lemuel Calhoon returns after a prolonged absence to laud Sarah Palin’s selection as Sen. McCain’s running mate.
Well, I’ve decided which posts I’ll vote for this week. Which posts would get your votes?
Hello Dave:
I knew I could count on you for an argument over this one. If you would like to craft a response, I would love to debate this one with you. I included a clarifying paragraph in the top half of my essay specifically to address some of the comments you have made – though admittedly I did not go into detail as it would have turned an over long essay into the blog version of War and Peace.
I will grant you the definitions change over time as to what would be considered conservative, liberal, progressive, etc. – so the labeling in that regard needs to be temporally specific. Yes, the Dixiecrats of old are the Republicans of today – but the Dixiecrats had a central plank of segregation and racism. When they jumped ship, that did not make it onto the Republican side. If you look for racism in Georgia today, you will find it far less among the Republicans – other than their stupid attachment to the stars and bars. You will find it in pretty blatantly in Democrats such as Cynthia McKinney however.
As to the origins of the Republican party, I am pretty up to speed on that, so let’s argue away. Remember, my thesis is that the Republican Party has always been less racist and more favorable to civil rights than the Democratic Party. Yes, I know Lincoln and northern whites of the era were racist. They wanted to free the slaves and send them to Liberia. That is not exactly seeking equality. But in the context of the time, it was a world apart from those in the Democratic Party who saw blacks as so sub-human as to justify their continued enslavement. So, to the extent your argument concerns how racist the Republicans were from 1854 to 1865, do make it in comparison to the Democrats. And as I say in my disclaimer, I make no claim whatsoever that Republicans have clean hands – merely that their hands are cleaner than the left.