Stu Blog

Republican commentator David Frum was one of those right wing guys wholeheartedly embraced by the media in the waning days of the election because he disliked the pick of Sarah Palin for VP. This week, he put on a fancy headset, fired up his webcam, and had some incredibly stupid things to say—such as:

Sarah Palin symbolizes “a party that has decided that we just don’t care about making the government work anymore. So long as your heart is in the right place–as long as you have the right values–as long as you’re a good Christian–as long as you don’t kill babies–anyone can run the US government.”

Yes, because there were just thousands of governors with 80% approval ratings. It wasn’t her job performance that made her an attractive candidate–it was her heart being in the right place. And her good quality brand of Christianity. And her non-killing of babies. Yup, that was it Dave.

You can argue that she wasn’t the right choice if you want, but where exactly was McCain going to go? Of the other 3 people mentioned seriously down the stretch—one was the VP nominee of the other party 8 years ago, the other was a pro-choice republican who invented the terrorism color code (surely that would have avoided ridicule on SNL)—and then there was Tim Pawlenty. Would McCain/Pawlenty really have lit the world on fire? Was it really such a no-brainer to pick the second term governor of a cold state who won re-election by 1 point in 2006 over the first term governor of a cold state that won election the same year by 7 points?

Maybe to mega-brains like David Frum it was. But to act like Sarah Palin’s lone attribute is her ability to birth children without killing them is an abortion of all that is logical.

He went on to accuse talk radio in engaging in “say-it-louder conservatism” –basically claiming that our solution to the right’s electoral problems is to say the same thing we always say, only louder. That’s ridiculous.

We don’t advocate “say-it-louder conservatism”— we do root for “say-it-BETTER conservatism” –that is, communicating what we stand for well enough to avoid being handily beaten by someone whose main qualifications are the words hope and change. And communication would go a long way after the past 8 years.

But more importantly we advocate “DO-it-better conservatism”—or maybe it’s “do-it-at-all conservatism.” Perhaps if we tried to govern with actual conservative principles, we wouldn’t have to worry so much about party branding. We could live and die on our ideas.

I suppose Frum would rather change the message to suck in more voters. Or maybe just alter it a little to make it more palatable. Maybe we could try throwing a few big government programs on top, and call it ‘compassionate conservatism.’ I bet that will work out well.

1) Environmentalists say we can't drill for oil in Alaska because it will hurt the caribou.
2) Sarah Palin says that it's not drilling that's killing caribou–it's the wolves that keep eating them.
3) Sarah Palin authorizes thinning the herd of wolves, to protect the caribou.
4) Environmentalists say Palin is a vicious murderer for killing all those wolves.
5) Sarah Palin's plan actually works to save caribou.
6) Sarah Palin is still the one who is called stupid.

Do you see what happens here? Environmentalist policies address ZERO of the two problems— conservative policies address BOTH.

Not only was the plan successful, it was enormously effective. Caribou populations in some areas had fallen by more than 80%. Yet, observations in October found no less than a 39:1 ratio of more young caribou alive this year, than the last two.

According to biologists with the Alaska Department of Fish and Game:

Link

As ugly and as politically incorrect as the wolf killing might seem to some, they said, the helicopter gunning that took place earlier this year saved caribou, especially young caribou, from being eaten alive.

Fall surveys of the Southern Alaska Peninsula caribou herd completed in October found an average of 39 calves per 100 cows. That's a dramatic improvement from fall counts of only 1 calf per 100 cows in 2006 and 2007.

This is all very similar to what's happening with polar bears. While environmentalists try to cut the world's energy use to save 0.06 polar bears per year (a real estimate of what these policies would do)-reasonable hunting restrictions have increased their population from 5,000 in 1972 to 25,000 today. In fact, it was the polar bear battle that first alerted us to the sensibility and backbone of Sarah Palin in March.

The story of the polar bear fight is a fascinating one. My column on the topic can be found in this issue of Fusion Magazine.

Is it me? Or have the right been far more sensible and gracious to Barack Obama since his election then the left ever was to George W. Bush when he was elected?

Immediately with Bush, he “stole” the election and he was “selected not elected.” That didn’t go away, even after winning all the recounts, the media recounts, and winning re-election four years later.

Bush has been widely praised for his graciousness during the transition, and McCain’s concession speech was very classy.

But it’s even happening on that evil talk radio. An Ohio paper ran a story about local republicans, where Glenn’s response was mentioned:

With a photo of vice presidential nominee Gov. Sarah Palin still sitting atop a meeting room table at Ed Pickens’ Cafe on Main, (Richland County Republican Chairman Mark) Arnold urged Republicans to support the incoming administration. He quoted conservative talk show host Glenn Beck from a recent show, in which the Fox commentator chastised a Georgia man who’d called in to say he refused to accept Barack Obama as president.

Explaining that this same attitude caused problems for President George W. Bush in 2000, Beck said, “How very un-American of you. He is the American president. … this is the way our system works.”

Link

It’s not like Glenn is changing any of his ideals-it’s just that their guy won, fair and square. The country is bigger than the party.

Also, Rush Limbaugh said:

“Barack Obama is my president of the United States. I couldn’t care less where he was born, what his name is, how old he is, or the color of his skin. He’s not black. He’s not white. He’s not Asian-American or Mexican. He’s not Chavez’s brother or Islamic. I don’t see Americans as members of groups. I see individual human beings. It is his ideas I am terrifically, tremendously worried about.”

These are the quotes that don’t make their way into the liberal blogs.

Why is there such a massive difference between the left and the right’s response? My guess is a combination of:

1) The right generally starts with the assumption that this country is good, and it works. We respect it–even when it doesn’t go our way–and we tend to blame ourselves for not being competent before blaming the other side for being unfair. Some of that is a form of personal (and somewhat blind) patriotism, at least for me. This country is bigger than one candidate. The flag wavin’ side of me doesn’t think that Obama could ruin this country even if he tried. The constitution and capitalism won’t let him. (Of course, if he ignores them…) Plus, I refuse to let politicians affect me that much.

2) We really hated the way Bush was treated. He wasn’t given a chance, and we remember that. It pisses us off. Much like Sarah Palin, Bush was viciously attacked from the second he appeared on the national stage—most of the time unfairly. Part of this response (at least for me) is a promise I made to myself years ago-that if Kerry (or now Obama) was elected-they would get a clean slate from me.

So today, I give Barack Obama a 100% approval rating. If and when he screws up, I’ll deduct points. Let’s make it a maximum of 10 points for each individual annoying event. If he does something great-I’ll add points. I’m that kind of guy. Let’s see how long he stays above 50%.

I don’t think Obama will be a good president. But I HOPE for a CHANGE in that opinion. I hope he’s the greatest president in history. I hope the pre-election promises of perfection are realized. I doubt they will be, but I want to at least give him a chance to screw it up before I say he screwed it up.

Regardless, he’ll be my president until he leaves office—even if his nationwide approval rating is zero (which will be impossible unless the on air staff of MSNBC is left out of the sample.)