I suspect this news must make John Kerry very mad. “I was labeled an effete snob because I ordered provolone on my cheese steak, but he gets to publicly talk about eating soufflé? SOUFFLÉ!!??”

For many of us who supported the invasion of Iraq, one of the biggest advantages to regime change was the chance to plant a seed of freedom in the Arab world. In Lebanon, Tunisia, and now in Egypt, what we planted is evolving in ways we cannot accurately predict, but which we can confidently state are better than the indigenous species.

The great virtue of democracy is that it is the only form of government that is consistently just: Everywhere and always, the citizens of a democracy have exactly the government they deserve.

I don’t know enough about Egypt, nor am I judgmental enough, to proclaim what sort of government the Egyptians deserve. But I look forward to welcoming them into the community of peoples who have accepted the honor, burden, and torment of self-government. And I hope that freedom, that most invasive of species, sinks its roots deep and soon spreads its branches from Rabat to Tehran.

Yesterday, I wrote about what the “Ground Zero” mosque disaster reveals about the Republican Party. In short, it reveals that the Bush administration was a false dawn. Bush, for all his flaws, believed that the GOP should be a universalistic party based on traditional values, a big tent for “faith-based” conservatives of all races and creeds: Muslims, Hispanics, Mormons, African-Americans, whatever. Now it is clear that the post-Bush GOP is a far nastier creature: A party seething with hatred towards vulnerable religious and ethnic groups. Despite the pretense that the GOP’s anti-mosque crusade is based on what Imam Rauf and company believe, it has more to do with who they are. It’s telling that the people Republicans are turning to for their anti-mosque street cred are not “moderate, peace-loving” Muslims, since even Muslim Republicans are disgusted by their party’s actions. The GOP’s new heroes are former Muslims like Nonie Darwish and Ayaan Hirsi Ali. That’s one way to escape the new Republican bigotry. Maybe the folks the GOP wants to harass in Arizona should try becoming former Hispanics.

This a great example of two forms of liberal writings. First is the one that everyone who’s been to college will remember is the “People who disagree with me are bigots” genre. Second is the “Why aren’t conservatives today as cuddly as the reasonable conservatives of yore” genre. What’s impressive is that Beinhart a.) weaves these two together so well, and b.) has already lumped W. into the “cuddly conservatives of yore that today’s conservatives can’t live up to” category. That was fast.

But more importantly, Beinhart faults Republicans for siding with Ayaan Hirsi Ali against “vulnerable religious minorities.” When your definition of a “vulnerable minority” excludes a woman who’s had to flee two continents because of violent threats by religious fanatics but includes those fanatics’ coreligionists, methinks the moral compass is a bit off.

After the last eight years, it’s great to have a President who knows what a library is.

Of all the possible idiotic Bush is Stupid comments, I think this is the most idiotic yet. Why? First, As Human Events points out, W had two degrees, which is exactly two more than McCartney. More fundamentally:

Not to mention Bush is married to a librarian.

P.S. At what point in the future will “the last eight years” not refer to the Bush presidency? W was only president for 6.5 of the last 8 years. And when discussing fault for current problems, it never dawns on anyone that Democrats have now been in control of Congress for almost four years.  I suspect that in the mid-2020s we will still hear “the last eight years” used to describe the Bush presidency.

I think of that when I read this “threat” from Ahmadinejad to Obama:

If you set step in [President George] Bush’s path, the nations’ response would be the same tooth-breaking one as they gave Bush.

Ah yes, like that time when Iran lead a coalition of dozens of countries to invade America and overthrow George Bush. Or that time when Iranian airpower supported indigenous rebels to overthrow America’s Christianist government.

Yes, it’s true, the nations of the world certainly got the better of George W. Bush. Obama has much to fear, indeed.

For all the snarkiness I throw President Bush’s way its always good to remember that he is a gentleman and, in the end, truly presidential.

Of course I expect Mr. Levin et al to now patiently explain to me why Rush isn’t a Real Conservative™.

Legal scholars said the administration’s new approach, which avoids repeating claims of executive power that the White House has previously voiced, could avoid setting off fights with lawmakers. But the approach will make it harder to keep track of which statutes the White House believes it can disregard, or to compare the number of laws challenged by President Obama with former President George W. Bush’s record.

Yes, that’s right, rather than telling us what portions of laws it thinks are unconstitutional as the Bush administration did, Obama notes what portions are unconstitutional and then keeps that information under wraps, reserving the right not to enforce certain sections of the laws without telling the public as much.

Lots of us defended signing statements as little more than the administration’s public pronouncement of its opinion of the finer points of certain legislation. “Tyranny!” came the response. “Abuse of executive privilege!” “Like George III all over again!”

I ask you, which executive abuses its authority: the one who gives to the public its opinion on the law, or the one who doesn’t and merely lets the public guess? Signing statements were a step forward for executive transparency, but those who spent 8 years decrying them as the spearpoint of Caesarism have gotten their way. Perhaps it’ll be better to sit in the dark surrounded by unseen cockroaches rather than to turn on the lights and see the filth.

Repeatedly invoking the Bible, President Obama yesterday told religious leaders that health-care critics are “bearing false witness” against his plan.The fire-and-brimstone president declared holy war in a telephone call with thousands of religious leaders around the country as he sought to breathe life into his plan for a system overhaul.

Without naming anyone specifically in the 10-minute conference call, Obama said opponents had been spreading lies.

“I know that there’s been a lot of misinformation in this debate and there are some folks out there who are, frankly, bearing false witness,” Obama said.

“I need you to spread the facts and speak the truth.”

(H/T)

As Charles Francis Adams once said about another Democrat, Obama “is in one sense scripturally formidable, for he is unquestionably armed with the jawbone of an ass.”

The president has a problem. For, despite a great election victory, Mr. Obama, it becomes ever clearer, knows little about Americans. He knows the crowds—he is at home with those. He is a stranger to the country’s heart and character.

He seems unable to grasp what runs counter to its nature. That Americans don’t take well, for instance, to bullying, especially of the moralizing kind, implicit in those speeches on health care for everybody. Neither do they wish to be taken where they don’t know they want to go and being told it’s good for them.

Who would have believed that this politician celebrated, above all, for his eloquence and capacity to connect with voters would end up as president proving so profoundly tone deaf? A great many people is the answer—the same who listened to those speeches of his during the campaign, searching for their meaning.

I’ve complained numerous times (e.g.) that, for all the hubub about what a great speaker Obama is, the only thing he has ever persuaded anyone of is that he’s a great speaker. I can’ t say I’m surprised in the least that he cannot sell health care.

Let me be a little provacative: When Obama speaks, Americans say, “What a clever man is Obama.” When George Bush spoke, Americans said, “Let us march on Bagdhad.”

This is, of course, a gross oversimplication. But it’s also true. George Bush, for all his supposed inability to speak and all his supposed stupidity, was able to approach the American people with an originally unpopular idea and convince them that he was right. His argument wasn’t “Listen to me because I’m George Bush;” instead, it was “listen to me because overthrowing Saddam is the right thing to do.” The failure of George Bush’s second term rests largely on his decision, conscious or not, to stop trying to persuade his fellow Americans of the correctness of his ideas.

Obama’s argument, mostly, is that we should listen to him because he’s Obama. But no one in America has that sort of inate political power. We’re a spirited people who don’t take kindly to being told what to do. Obama’s inability to persuade, despite the supposed cleverness of his speeches, will continue to be the signal weakness of his presidency. And we will not again have a successful president until someone appears on the political stage with the ability and desire to persuade us that he’s correct.