Having just read David Bernstein’s disgraceful polemic over at the Volokh Conspiracy, a gutter argument that would make Sean Hannity blush (assuming anything would make Sean Hannity blush), it occurs to me that the nomination of Sarah Palin has caused a seismic shift in the focus of the campaign away from Barak Obama.
The gut reaction is that this is a bad thing for the Democrats, particularly since it takes the wind out of their sails after the Big Tent Show in Denver. But this may not be the case at all.
The constant attention leveled at Obama has made him, well, less exciting. He doesn’t have much new to say, and seeing and hearing the same old stump speeches has become tiresome. He needed a break, out of the limelight. Perhaps this will give him an opportunity to think about developing a plan to effectuate some of the changes he speaks so eloquently about?
By taking the lights away from Obama, the Republicans have done him a favor. Let’s argue whether Palin is qualified to be a heartbeat away from the presidency. Let’s debate whether she was a “brigadier” in Pat Buchanan’s army, or just wearing a button out of courtesy. Ultimately, the only people who care about this fly-spec scrutiny are the arch-partisans, who will argue to the death over the most absurd nuance while having absolutely no impact on the undecided voters.
In the meantime, Barak Obama can enjoy some quiet time to regroup, to focus his thoughts and to rejoin the campaign after the others grow bored with Sarah Palin. By then, the Obama over-exposure will have faded and we will be ready for some new inspirational talk, and maybe even some substantive clue as to what he intends to do.
It’s hard, if not impossible, to stand the harsh glare of the spotlights for too long. The Republicans could not haven given Barak Obama a better gift than some time in the shade while their own exposed wound gets a healthy dose of sunlight.
Aside: Jeralyn at TalkLeft has posted about Sarah Palin’s one Alaska Supreme Court appointment, Daniel Winfree. He sounds like a terrific choice.
In the meantime, wouldn’t it be nice if we could have a discussion about the candidates on the sidewalk rather than the gutter? With so many thoughtful conspirators over at Volokh, it’s a shame that David Bernstein chose to take the low road.
Discover more from Simple Justice
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
What a bizarre reaction! What did you find polemical/disgraceful/low road about my post? I’m genuinely curious.
Rather than question the factual basis for accuracy of Palin’s supposed support for Pat Buchanan, you begin by the unsourced attack on “[t]he left blogosphere, and Jewish Democrats,” and denigrate their “decency” for disagreeing with you. You then continue the attack by juxtaposing Obama’s “20-year intimate history with Rev. Jeremiah Wright” as if this has anything to do with Palin, ultimately concluding that Pat Buchanan is a liar because it doesn’t comport with what you believe. This was a flagrant, pandering polemic, David, replete with ad hominems and logical fallacies. It would be expected from Bay Buchanan, not you.
And if you have any doubts about the nature of your post, take a hard look at the angry, thoughtless, harshly partisan comments it engendered. That’s fine if you want to be Sean Hannity, but not if you see yourself as an acolyte of William F. Buckley.
The left blogosphere was, and still is, pushing the story. It started with a piece on the Nation’s blog, which found the Lexis story that she wore Buchanan’s button, but neglected to cite the Lexis story saying she was supporting Forbes. People like Wexler, who claimed that Obama’s long relationship with Wright was completely irrelevant to Obama’s character, jumped on the Nation piece, with it’s one tiny data point, to impugn Palin. I don’t see anything disgraceful, or even polemical, about pointing this out.
Had you post been a clear, cogent statement like this, pointing it out would not have been polemical. Though you seem to have a real issue with Wexler aside from anything to do with Obama.