”After they drove the car into the ditch, made it as difficult as possible for us to pull it back, now they want the keys back. No. You can’t drive. We don’t want to have to go back into the ditch. We just got the car out.”
- President Obama
uh-huh
In a Washington Post piece today, Martin Luther King III (son of the late Civil Rights leader) addresses the rally to be held at the Lincoln memorial by Glenn Beck, and apparently (because he does not exactly come out and say it) the inappropriateness of Beck’s remarks at that place, at that time.
Mr. King is not his father, and I am always leery of those who tell us what some important figure thought or meant, regardless of their relationship to that figure. Dr King’s words and works leave a lasting memorial, and I think that they illustrate his beliefs clearly. Mr. King wants to make sure we don’t misunderstand them.
My father championed free speech. He would be the first to say that those participating in Beck’s rally have the right to express their views. But his dream rejected hateful rhetoric and all forms of bigotry or discrimination
I am also leery of those who throw in a “but” when discussing free speech. I am not entirely sure what aspects of Beck’s speech Mr. King believes will express hateful rhetoric or bigotry, as he implies they will. Has Mr. King read Beck’s planned remarks? Was a copy of them submitted to him previously for his review? Or is he in fact betraying some prejudice of his own, expressing an opinion based on his views of Beck’s political leanings?
He [Dr. King} hoped that even in the direst circumstances, we could overcome our differences and replace bitter conflicts with greater understanding, reconciliation and cooperation.
I believe that that is true, but Dr. King understood, as does Mr. Beck, that this kind of understanding does not come easily, and open discussion of differing opinions enables such understanding. Dr. King understood that before compromise, some confrontation must take place. Dr. King forced that confrontation and lead the way through non-violent protest and civil disobedience. Mr. King is confusing (as so many do) compromise with capitulation. It seems to me that Mr. King, while acknowledging Mr. Beck’s right to express himself, is really wishing he would just go away, as many of his father’s opponents certainly did.
If the civil rights movement taught us anything it is this; that nothing changes unless we force that change. Mr. Beck sees problems in this Nation, and has set out to try and change them. His supporters believe in his cause and have rallied to his support to try and effect those changes, exercising their Constitutional rights of free assembly and free speech. I like to think Dr. King would approve.
Over at National Review Online, Kathryn Jean Lopez has a piece on the California Senatorial race between Senator Barbara (Don’t Call me Ma’am) Boxer and Carly Fiorina, in which she discusses the wisdom of Senator Boxer’s new campaign ads regarding her opponent’s stance on abortion.
Mrs. Lopez, I think, is missing the point and making a common mistake among conservatives. Euphemisms are not the issue. Using the word “choice” may soften the blow for some, but most voters are not fooled, and know exactly which side of this issue they come down on. And unfortunately, Senator Boxer’s abortion ads may not be such a bad move politically. Here in Michigan we had a recent example of this when Democratic Gubernatorial candidate Virg Bernero used a similar tactic to come from behind and secure his party’s nomination for Governor. Many conservative pundits here were dumbfounded by Bernero’s foray’s into this subject, as unemployment and a staggering economy were the driving issues, but in the end it may have proven an effective move. In a state like Michigan (or California) where there is a strong Democratic base, raising the abortion issue will almost always be a winner, as it is one of the defining platforms of the party.
Regardless of it’s relevance to the current situation, or the practical impossibility of making it illegal, conservatives and particularly conservative politicians dismiss the abortion issue at their own peril. I think we have to accept that we will always be the losers when liberals bring it up. The left has been successful, as they so often are, at depicting our stance on abortion as extreme and anti-woman.
There are compromises to be made on this issue, but there is little chance that they will be made. Allowing minors to receive abortions without parental consent, and legalizing partial-birth abortions, are extreme positions, but the left has done a fair job of making their views seem mainstream. Our positions, therefore, are easily viewed as being beyond the pale. We should not abandon our principles, but we must accept that when it comes to abortion we will always be cast as the villains, and for Democrats the abortion hole-card will almost always be an ace.
Wash, DC – President Obama announced today that despite setbacks to his efforts to impose green house gas regulation caused by BP’s successful attempts to stop the oil leak from the damaged Gulf well, he will not be dissuaded from his domestic energy agenda.
A White House spokesman who wishes to remain anonymous told us the President has said in a closed meeting, ”Right now teams of experts are scouring the country searching for the next environmental disaster or potential disaster. We will not rest until this catastrophe is found and we can return to the important work of making Americans afraid of petroleum-based products and imposing on them unwanted and unnecessary energy regulation.”
The election in yesterdays primary of Rick Snyder as the Republican candidate for Michigan’s Governor provides his democratic counterpart, Virg Bernero a wide open avenue of attack that the Lansing Mayor is sure to pursue.
Bernero’s campaign for the democratic nomination was based in classic democratic terms of the little guy versus the rich, elitist, Republican machine. Couched in the Wall Street against Main Street rhetoric Democrats have perfected since the financial meltdown in the fall of 2008, Bernero has claimed that large Wall Street lending instructions have starved Michigan of much needed capital and participated in the downfall of what was once the wealthiest state in the nation. Snyder’s past as a venture capitalist plays directly into this position.
This strategy does not come without potential costs however. Michigan has been suffering from recession for years now, much longer than the rest of the country, and the states problems predate the financial crisis. Rampant capitalism, whatever its role in the current national recession, has had little nor nothing to do with the collapse of Michigan’s economy, and most voters are aware of that. In yesterdays election voters turned out at a ratio of 2 to 1 in favor of Republican candidates, and the fact that they selected Snyder over other strong conservative candidates suggests that they are in search of what he offers; knowledge of the private sector, and experience in running a company.
If the Bernero campaign chooses to make this a battle over free markets versus the little guy they run the risk of isolating independents and more moderate democrats who recognize the failures of Lansing to encourage economic stability and growth. It is significant that the republican candidate is a first time office seeker. There is a feeling among many voters that politicians have gotten us into this mess, and perhaps it is time to try something different. Bernero is a consummate political operative, and if he is not careful, he will make himself representative of everything Michigan voters rejected yesterday.
