Worst argument against Obama yet

Courtesy (sadly, as I like his work) James Joyner.

Nor do I have any reason to believe Obama would be less prone than McCain to overreach in his use of executive power to advance what he believes to be legitimate and necessary goals. Indeed, Obama’s seeming lack of sense of humor and condemnation of any and all criticism as beyond the pale worries me greatly on that front.

Really? You know, point to FISA, point out that his domestic agenda could, one can argue, require greater executive power. Just don't argue that thin skin and an alleged lack of humor has something to do with it. After all, George Bush was certainly funnier than Al Gore in 2000. How'd that work out for the Constitution?

Indy Racing Revolution

I wanted to introduce my newest link (Random Favorites), Indy Racing Revolution by Chris Estrada. Via Chris, two interesting pieces.

The first provides us with real news: New Hampshire and Las Vegas on the '09 IRL schedule. The FOXSPORTS.com story includes lukewarm denials, so I'd say it will happen. Also interesting is that LVMS, which has been reconfigured (more banking, sadly) since the IRL last raced there, would be the season finale.

This is both a great opportunity and major risk for the IRL. The opportunity comes from the growing closeness with Speedway Motorsports Inc. (SMI), as opposed to International Speedway Corporation (ISC), owned by the France Family. SMI and ISC are in compettition. Years ago, TGeorge and ISC were BFF's. Now, ISC venues are sparse on the IndyCar schedule. If you want some ovals, (tracks in general), you might need SMI.

It's risky, though, since the IRL left both tracks due to piss poor attendance. Loudon, for instance, featured some the worst crowds I've EVER seen. If the attendance is not much better, this will not end well for anyone.

THIS by Estrada is just full of goodness. Enjoy!

Awesomeness

A picture I thought I'd never see. The same PT who said, "I'm not gonna drive one of those crapwagons!" will do just that. The same PT who, some say, got screwed out of a win in the '02 500 by Tony George is, obviously, going to drive for, uhh, Tony George. Ahh, the ironies of mergification, enough to make Harry Turtledove pause!

More awesomeness: Crazy man Forsythe to Indy Lights! Rumor has it that Forsythe might run a 500 program in '09 and full IndyCar program for 2010, though given the new car in 2011, that makes no sense.

A Meme That Must Die

As Nate Silver points out HERE, the "pundit class" in America truly has no new ideas and is intellectually bankrupting itself. How about this, idiots? "Barack Obama is... Barack Obama, a politician with some unique traits who can also be utterly conventional." He will chart his own legacy (good or bad) in his time.

Still, one of the memes he cites is "He's the new Carter!!!" I always thought it was nonsensical, but it remains a powerful meme on the right. Just two problems.

1. You can make that argument as often and as loudly as you'd like. Fine by me, though I disagree with it. What you CANNOT do is then argue, as many righties have, that he's a "ruthless, Chicago pol." who will throw anyone "under the bus," ala Charles Krauthammer. Sorry folks, but in this case, the two descriptions ARE mutually exclusive, at least at the degrees you on the right have taken them.

See, one CANNOT simultaneously be a "weak, naive twit," like Carter, and a "cynical, calculating pol." Doesn't work. One or the other folks.

2. To the substance of the question, Ryan Lizza's piece in the New Yorker (what about the cartoon????!! Move on, already) paints a pretty balanced picture of someone perfectly comfortable with working in the system as is. He may not like it (or maybe he does), but he's not naive about it. The profile might upset some starry-eyed supporters, but it is balanced and shows he's most concerned with results, purity or not.

On foreign policy, Eli Lake gives the meme a nice smackdown. Unfortunately, we get another "comparison" (to Reagan!) in return, but clearly, Jimmy Carter he is not.

Finally, Obama's foreign policy speech today is not one of a clueless twit. As Andrew suggests, Bush 41-esque.

Saving Sullivan (and myself?), Part 2

So, as Andrew writes HERE, Iraq, once seemingly lost for good, has seen tremendous progress. Even as one who opposed the "Surge" when announced and for months after, I'll admit that it made a difference. I should note that, by itself, I doubt the surge would have done much if not for the Iraqis (esp. Sunnis in Anbar) finally rejecting Al Qaeda and it's ideology. Still, it certainly helped.

Which is why it defies logic (mine anyway) that Sullivan sees this as being advantageous for BOTH POTUS candidates, esp., he suggests, OBAMA. Huh, come again? Even more than Bush, it was McCain who was out in front of the whole "surge" idea. While Andrew acknowledges that, sort of, he says it STILL gives credence to Obama's overall judgment. Curious, considering he (Andrew) was once one of the blogosphere's biggest cheerleaders for the war. By '06, he had indeed (to his credit) changed his mind, but I think some (most?) of this was a lack of faith in the Administration to win/not totally **** everything up. He's been open to success even since that point ("Victory" is a silly term here, since no one knows how that translates, or if, by definition, it's possible).

Well, I think we have some successes here (short-term anyway; I fear we've armed too many groups, so that, in a few yrs., we'll have a nice Lebanon repeat), so shouldn't the part of Andrew that believed in the underlying rationales for this, be rejecting the one candidate who consistently said this was a terrible idea?

For that matter, if it turns out Iraq ends up in a good spot, shouldn't I reconsider? I opposed the war from the start, never seeing the need or justification. While that still holds, if some good that I had not foreseen does come of this, whither my judgment? And how could I support a party that would have been so wrong on the most important foreign policy issue?

In the end, I still vastly prefer Obama to McCain, and whatever happens in Iraq, I believe that McCain's foreign policy is dangerously hawkish (when coherent). But I'm liberal; Andrew is not.

It is Sullivan's contention that Burkean conservatism is about humility, and not getting caught up in one's (or another's) greatness. Clearly, the Bush Right understands none of this, so Andrew's rejection of it makes perfect sense. His indecision on McCain does not, since domestically, we know a McCain administration will be much more in line with his conservatism (less government, entitlements, etc., not to mention, he doesn't have the in-your-face faith of Bush).

Instead, Andrew seems to have put quite a bit of faith in Barack Obama as a person who is right for the job at this moment. I share this view, but would Burke? Given his prescient rejection of the French Revolution, guided by wreckless men who believed in their own greatness, I doubt he would support ANYONE, however noble they might be, who actually disagreed with him on the issues. No man is that great to put your faith in him purely for who he is, I think Burke might say. Yet, Andrew does just this.

I read Andrew Sullivan everyday. His might be the best blog touching on politics out there. He can believe what he wants. I just think he'll come to regret supporting Obama over McCain, should Obama become POTUS.

Saving Sullivan's (Political) Soul

And now, dear readers, we come to the case of one Andrew Sullivan (WIKI profile). As his Wiki indicates, he HAS BEEN an Obama supporter. This is the same person who still admires Margaret Thatcher (NOTE: Not judging that, here). Regular Dish readers know that he favors entitlement reform, smaller government, and something of a flat tax, not exactly liberal ideas.

Now, given my support for Obama, I should welcome his potential support. In a sense, I do, but I tend to feel folks should vote for the person who most closely follows their views. Now, a quick comparison:

John McCain On The Issues

Barack Obama On The Issues

Now, who do you think most closely resembles Andrew Sullivan (other than gay rights)? NOT Obama.

Recently, Sullivan went thru some mental jujitsu to justify his lack of an endorsement (now) for McCain. THIS on fiscal conservatism. He likes what McCain says, but doesn't believe him? By that standard, vote for no one!

On Iraq, where Andrew repudiated his fervent, neo-conish support for the war, but now admits that, on some level, the surge worked, we find THIS. Elsewhere (can't find it), he says that differences on Iraq between are decreasing.

On most of domestic policy, he ought to favor McCain (wishful thinking, notwithstanding*). Foreign policy is a tougher call, given how Iraq sobered many, like Andrew. In theory, McCain should be different from Bush (Climate Change, for one**) in this arena. Of course, different might mean "crazier than Bush," ala Abe Greenwald. If we assume he won't be a total neo-con idiot (to be fair, there's a case to be made that he WILL), then, for his own good, I suggest Andrew look at everything and... Endorse McCain.

Why do I say this? In my mind, if you end up not supporting the candidate with whom you are in agreement more because of the traits of the other person, you'll regret it. Because while I'm convinced Barack Obama can be a great president, I'm a liberal. For Andrew's conservatism, however, McCain is his best bet.

One more note. If the GOP nominee were Romney or Giuliani, I'd skip this post altogether. Why? Well, Romney's a dishonest hack and Rudy, uhh, SCARES THE BEJEEBUS out of me, and others. Within the GOP at least, McCain is neither (though his foreign policy makes this liberal nervous).

Postscript. Earlier today, I thought he was coming around to his more natural place with these two*** posts. Later on, though, that seemed not to be the case.

*I'm agnostic on Soc. Security myself.

**Effing Hilarious.

RNC on climate change: Man, we suck!

***Andrew clarified his (seeming) support for the ad HERE.

Book Review

Well, given this blog's name, this seems appropriate. Anyway, today's topic: Thunder at Sunrise, by John M. Burns.

Let me start with this: The writing by Mr. Burns won't blow you away. From a pure prose/literary perspective, if you read one chapter, you've read 90% of the book. The Preface, first chapter, and Epilogue are unique however.

A chapter begins with worldly historical events, trying to create an atmosphere in which the racing events occur. A lead-up summary of the event (Vanderbilt Cup, Grand Prize, and Indy) and a summary of the event itself contains the balance of the chapter. Pretty utilitarian.

I don't really begrudge Burns for this, though, since the nature of the topic kind of necessitated this style. I suppose he could have written this more like a novel, but then the racing could get lost. Conversely, he could have narrowed his focus to the Vanderbilt Cup, America's first great racing event, but the drivers and automakers of the era competed in all three events, and the emergence of each event had an impact on the prestige of the previous event. How do you narrow it down?

At any rate, the 257 pages are loaded with great photos from the events, though a majority of them are from IMS. Still, comparing pictures from the 1904 Vanderbilt Cup and, oh, the Peugeots driven by Jules Goux (1913-14) and Dario Resta (1915-16) at Indianapolis, it is striking even then to see the aesthetic changes. Frankly, the 1904 machines look like little more than boxes with wheels (small wheels, with hideously thin tires). The Peugeots show semblance of streamlining, esp. at the back, with a better understanding of engine technology. By 1914, speeds were just a shade under 100 mph at Indy.

The most compelling part of the book might be the first two chapters, describing the first Vanderbilt Cup on Long Island, and the events surrounding it's formation. Burns is at his best describing the atmosphere of excitement and uncertainty for the first race. The crowds simply swamped organizers, making crowd control laughably, though disastrously, impossible. I was struck by the fact these racers, organizers, and fans were truly embarking on uncharted territory; to those at the time, it must all have seemed like something of a fantasy world out of science fiction. They had little understanding of the consequences of what they were attempting. Little thought was put into safety; they simply didn't know what could happen, or what to do about it.

Despite crowd control issues, the race was a smashing success. And Burns wants us to believe that had it gone badly (or never started in the first place), American motorsports would have been stillborn. I don't know about that, but the fact that all 3 events attracted the same caliber of manufacturers (foreign and domestic), gives some credence to the point, in that, had there been no Vanderbilt Cup (in many ways, the first U.S. Grand Prix), would anything else of equal prestige have ever emerged?

Perhaps the best part of the book is getting introduced (or reintroduced) to the great drivers of the day. From Harry Grant, to George Robertson, George Heath to Eddie Hearne and Ralph Mulford to Ralph DePalma, drivers who were otherwise lost to history (other than DePalma, a true legend) are brought back to life.

So too are car makers like Mercer, Stutz, Alco, Locomobile, National, and Pope, marques that most of today's readers (like myself) had never heard of. Burns helps chronicle not just the early racing scene, but the overall automotive scene of the era.

Needless to say, Burns, despite his faults, details an automotive and sporting era far more interesting and colorful than many would otherwise imagine. In that, Thunder at Sunrise is a success and must-read for those interested in the sport's history.