Notes From D.R. | Random Thoughts on the Passing Scene

Bill Kristol on history’s role in the 2008 race.

Maybe President Bush wouldn’t have such a rough time of it if more Americans remembered.

Most of Bush’s current political woes can be traced back to the country’s collective amnesia concerning 9/11. Ask yourself: would there be this much unrest over the goings-on in Iraq if more Americans recalled the tragic events of 9/11, and accepted the premise that the establishment of a functioning democracy in the Middle East is a prerequisite for preventing the likelihood of future attacks?

Granted, Bush hasn’t done a very good job of selling the American public on this idea. It says something damning about the President that Rush Limbaugh and Bill O’Reilly have done a better job at explaining the importance of "staying the course" than he has.

However, Bush wouldn’t even have to be a "salesman" if more Americans had retained the memory of people leaping from burning towers and anguished cell phone calls from passengers on planes about to plummet into the ground. So much of the President’s current political drama is caused by Americans choosing to forget that day’s trauma.

Two-thirds of the country supported Bush’s decision to topple the terrorism-supporting regime of Saddam Hussein in March 2003. Back then, 9/11 was still alive in the collective consciousness. The populace accepted the idea that America was in the midst of an ideological struggle between democracy and neo-fascism.

I remember the vibrant patriotism that filled the air four years ago–a patriotism that overpowered the anarchic aggression of anti-war protesters. Now, it seems that the anti-war side has the power, the energy, the momentum. They certainly have the House of Representatives and the Senate.

How did this happen? Where did the country go wrong? Why did the country choose to forget?

On his last solo album, Steely Dan singer Donald Fagen has a track entitled "The Great Pagoda of Funn" (sic), about lovers who decide to block out the outside world, believing that a state of artificial bliss is preferable to the worry caused by "poison skies/and severed heads/and pain and lies." While Fagen didn’t intend the song to be a metaphor for the way America has now chosen to respond to the post-9/11 world, it’s hard to deny that this is in fact the case. Let’s face it: how many Americans are even bothered to read stories about the apparent success of the recent troop surge? In many respects, we’ve gone back to the blissful ignorance of the 1990s; there are probably more Americans who know about Donald Trump possibly having his head shaved this weekend than they do about Iran kidnapping British sailors.

It’s time to confront the grim reality that this country is far, far different from what it was during World War II. Pearl Harbor had a far more galvanizing effect on the American people than 9/11 ever did. Surrender was an abstract concept six decades ago. Now, it seems to be the default option.

Osama bin Laden must have seen this coming. He must have known that America would not have the stomach to support a protracted war against terrorism. He had to know that at some point, America would crack and throw in the towel, allowing the Islamofascists to dominate by default.

My God. The terrorists have won.

Former Republican Presidential candidate Steve Forbes endorses Rudy Guiliani. More from the Wall Street Journal, Human Events and Wizbang.

Hard to believe, is it not, that this fall will mark the 25th anniversary of the release of Michael Jackson’s Thriller album?

It speaks volumes about Jackson’s self-destructiveness that when we think about him now, we only see him in terms of the scandals he’s been involved in since the early 1990s, as opposed to the work of creative genius that propelled him to super-stardom in the early 1980s. Listening to Thriller nowadays is sort of like watching Roman Polanski’s The Pianist: you can’t deny the quality of the work, even as you shake your head at the depravity of the person who created it.

Jackson was arguably the last "traditional" musical figure to achieve tremendous success prior to hip-hop’s ascendancy in the popular culture. Ironically enough, it was Jackson’s ability to transcend racial barriers that allowed hip-hop to gain so much popularity in the mainstream. (Few remember that prior to the Billie Jean video in 1983, it was extremely rare to see an African-American performer featured on MTV.)

Even at the height of his Thriller success, Jackson was far from a universally loved figure. Louis Farrakhan condemned Jackson in April 1984 for supposedly presenting an unmanly image to black youth, and the racial-solidarity crowd didn’t look too fondly upon his dalliances with Brooke Shields. Let’s not even get into the debate over his altered physical appearance.

It shouldn’t be forgotten that the pre-whacko Jacko was to the 1980s what Colin Powell was to the 1990s: a symbol of bigotry conquered, of hatred overcome. Jackson became popular at just the right political/cultural moment: after three decades of civil-rights-related strife, and during a time in which racial and political tensions still hadn’t really receded (the debate over efforts to make Martin Luther King Jr.’s birthday a national holiday was only just beginning to conclude, and President Reagan had been repeatedly smeared as racially insensitive by America’s civil rights leadership), Jackson held out hope that blacks and whites could ultimately find commonality. He was embraced by both communities solely on his merits as a performer–an accomplishment that was trumpeted in the ’80s but has been completely ignored now (for obvious reasons).

Those of us who remember the Thriller era will always fight a desire to forget about everything that came after. One wishes that post-Thriller fame hadn’t gone to Jackson’s head, causing him to completely separate himself from reality and thus set the stage for future disaster.

Remember when the media tried to portray Jackson as the "babyface" of the music industry, and Prince as the "heel"? Jackson was the sweet, kindly role model and Prince was "His Royal Badness," the former a symbol of innocence, the latter a portrait of perversion. It may be that Prince avoided the fate that befell Jackson precisely because of the negative way he was portrayed in the press.

Like Bill Clinton, Jackson evidently figured that he could get away with anything since he was seen as a positive figure in the eyes of the media. While Prince certainly had an ego, he never had the American press corps telling him, in essence, that he could do no wrong–and thus never really behaved as though he were without fault.

Like the mythical Narcissus, Jackson made the mistake of falling in love with his own image. As a result, a populace that embraced him 25 years ago has now told him, in no certain terms, to Beat It.

Trouble for Fred Thompson’s possible Presidential bid?

UPDATE: From the Washington Post.

Yet another fight over a proposed withdrawal from Iraq. More from Captain’s Quarters and Human Events.

UPDATE: More from the Washington Post, the New York Times, the Washington Times, Bill Kristol and Michelle Malkin.

Will ’90s nostalgia be the key to a Hillary Clinton victory in 2008?

Republicans would be quite foolish to underestimate the electorate’s desire to, as Stevie Wonder once put, live in a "pastime paradise." After eight years of the controversial War on Terror, one must be concerned about the possibility that voters may want to go back to the way things were.

While Republicans have a generally dim view of the Clinton ’90s, we can’t forget that there are plenty of Americans who have a positive view of that decade–a view that’s unaffected by Clinton’s unwillingness to confront the growing threat of radical Islamic terrorism during that period. For those who recall the ’90s as being filled with fun, laughter and good times (as opposed to incessant political scandal, high-profile racial tensions, and a lack of concern about what was going on in the rest of the world), the impetus to "return" to those days by electing Hillary could be overwhelming.

Mrs. Clinton will not hesitate to exploit 1990s nostalgia in her quest for the Presidency. She could successfully convince the electorate that if she became President, we would once again have an "excellent" economy, a "respectable" foreign policy, and "a nation respected throughout the world."

This is why the Republicans must be extremely careful when it comes to selecting a candidate for 2008. Unless Barack Obama does the impossible and knocks Hillary out of contention, it is very likely that the GOP nominee will have to face off against Mrs. Clinton–and will thus have to confront the intense 1990s nostalgia that exists among certain segments of the electorate.

Hillary will not hesitate to paint the GOP candidate as being cut from the same cloth as the supposedly nefarious right-wingers who "hounded" her husband all throughout the ’90s. It will take a candidate of extraordinary strength and skill to deflect such criticism.

Essentially, the Republicans need a Teflon candidate–someone who, like George W. Bush in 1999-2000, cannot be associated with the "1990s right" in terms of image. We need someone who can convince the electorate that instead of trying to recreate the 1990s, it would be far better to sensibly confront the challenges that face us in the late-2000s–and that Hillary is not the person to confront such challenges.

This will be a daunting challenge. Considering the large number of people who seem to believe that their vote for Bush was a mistake, the GOP nominee will, in essence, have to re-fight the 2000 election. Bush’s victory in that election was a de facto repudiation of the Clinton years–but since Bush’s presidency has been so controversial, the 2008 Republican contender will have to wage a second war against the pro-Clinton philosophy that some folks now think should have carried the day seven years ago.

The GOP standard-bearer must make clear that the "Clinton philosophy" was ineffective against terrorism–and must counteract claims that the "Bush philosophy" was even weaker. Thus, the contender will have to figure out a way to subtly defend the Bush approach to terrorism–not an easy task in the current political climate.

Republicans are forever trying to find a new Ronald Reagan. It’s time for us to stop doing that. Considering the daunting challenge ahead of us in 2008, we need to find someone even better than Reagan.

White House spokesman Tony Snow resumes his fight against cancer. More from the AP, Dan Kennedy, Captain’s Quarters, Bryan Maloney, Human Events and Michelle  Malkin.

Are black churches in the United States beginning to adopt a libertarian view of homosexuality? An interesting article from the New York Times.

A Boston minister encourages tourists not to come to the city after a Kentucky woman is shot to death.

UPDATE: More from the Boston Herald.

Seventeen years after the original became a sleeper hit, the fourth Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles film tops the charts.

Yes, I admit it. I voted for George W. Bush in 2000.

I was not originally a supporter of the then-Texas Governor; in fact, I had backed John Kasich’s Presidential bid, feeling that he was the best of all of the GOP candidates in the field. However, by the summer of 1999, it was obvious that Kasich had no real chance of receiving the nomination; thus, he dropped out and endorsed Bush.

While I had long admired Bush’s father, I really didn’t know all that much about "Dubya." As I learned more about the man, I found myself quite impressed with his track record in Texas and his ability to transcend partisan lines. After the scandal-plagued, excessively partisan Clinton era, I definitely believed that a fresh start was in order–and that Al Gore would not provide such a start.

While Bush was criticized by some folks on the right for his use of the catchphrase "compassionate conservatism," I understood that he had to use such a slogan to distance himself from the media-maligned Kenneth Starr and Newt Gingrich. Bush did make a few mistakes on the campaign trail (he should have been more prepared for the now-notorious November 1999 interview with Boston political reporter Andy Hiller, and he probably should have skipped his February 2000 visit to the then-controversial Bob Jones University), but I still found him far superior to Republican rival John McCain, a man whose appeal I never quite figured out.

Bush secured the GOP nomination and ultimately defeated Gore in what became the most fascinating, and most controversial, election in United States history. His presidency has been every bit as fascinating, and every bit as controversial.

There are many Americans who now say they regret voting for Bush. Either they feel he has led the country into ruin, or they believe he has not done enough to thwart those who are attempting, either intentionally or unintentionally, to destroy the United States.

I don’t regret voting for the man.

Has he disappointed me in some areas? Sure. I wish he would take a strong, clear stand against unrestrained illegal immigration. I desperately wish he could make an argument in favor of the Iraq war that would actually resonate with the American people.

However, I still believe that things would have been far, far worse if Gore had won in 2000. I don’t believe he would have taken the steps necessary to stimulate the then-cooling economy. I don’t believe he would have been as resolute in the fight against fundamentalist Islam.

One reason why it’s so easy to bash Bush nowadays is that a lot of people don’t stop to consider the alternative. Would Gore have made America less vulnerable to a second 9/11-style attack? Would Gore have made even token efforts to secure our borders? Would Gore have appointed Supreme Court justices with the intellect and qualifications of John Roberts and Samuel Alito?

What evidence is there to suggest that, had Gore won the 2000 election, we would not see more of the extreme partisanship and demagoguery that defined the Clinton years? The preening moralism that Gore has demonstrated in his crusade against global warming is a good indication of how he would have run things as President. Would such self-righteousness have really helped our standing in the world?

My continued support of Bush is not about being stubborn or ignorant; it’s about recognizing that, for all his faults, he has done an outstanding job of preventing a second attack on the homeland–a job that I sincerely believe Gore would not have been able to perform. Some people now feel that Bush was the wrong choice. I continue to believe that he was the only choice.

Sen. Ted Kennedy apparently plans to sabotage President Bush’s nomination of Massachusetts Republican Reed Hillman as new US Marshal for the state. Lord love a duck…

The Iranian military kidnaps 15 British soldiers. More from the New York Times, Jules Crittenden, Red Mass Group, Captain’s Quarters, Reuters and Dean Barnett.

UPDATE: More from Captain’s Quarters, the Wall Street Journal, the Washington Times, Human Events and the Washington Post.

SECOND UPDATE: More from the New York Times, Washington Post, Power Line, Captain’s Quarters, Scott Allen Miller, Human Events and Michelle Malkin.

THIRD UPDATE: From the New York Times, Human Events and Power Line.

The House passes a "cut-and-run" bill. More from the Washington Post, Michelle Malkin, Power Line, Captain’s Quarters, the Washington Times, Human Events and Hugh Hewitt.