I can't say that I am shocked by all of the finger pointing that is going on in the replies to this post. All I know is that the election is over and I don't rely on pundits to shape my opinions. America has already changed and this election reflects that change. Anyone can be worried or critical about the unknown. After election day (in this case that was a week ago) we all go back to being just Americans. I am excited about what the future will bring and I hope that Obama has a successful presidency-afterall, Obama's success is our success.

I agree with Gary. For years I've heard the most hateful, spiteful things out of the mouths of liberals I know and don't know. One friend of my girlfriend once said she would be happy when "someone bombs a church full of Christians." Now, I'm an agnostic and I was incredibly offended by that. If I had said that about Muslims or any other group, I would have been the conservative, white-guy bigot.

There's definitely a double standard. Liberals feel they're entitled because they are so angry and what they're standing up for is so much more "morally superior" to what conservatives stand up for. But hatred is hatred no matter which side of the aisle you might sit.

I am one of those conservatives (for the most part) that so many are talking about. Although I did not vote for Obama, I deeply respect the process and wish him only the best. How can you not--his success is our success. It seems obvious to me.

I would like to draw your attention to the other side for a moment. Have you listened to the likes of Stepanie Miller, Bill Press and Randi Rhodes (not sure on spellings)? Without anger, condescension, bullying and mocking--I have a hard time imagining what they will talk about. The conservative talk show hosts have no monopoly on venom or ignorance.

You mentioned your father and three male conservative pundits. Do you have something against female conservatives, or just women in general?

Posted by Marion | November 7, 2008 2:45 PM

Why would you jump to such a conclusion? Do you ever feel like a man-hater when you go out to lunch with your girlfriends? What would you think of someone who suggests you are?

Bill,

In answser to your question about the phrase "speak truth to power," lots of things grate on me when I see a double-standard applied in the things I read depending on who is in power. I never liked the smugness associated with that phrase and I don't like that same smugness when those who don't buy Obama's promises are dismissed solely on the basis of their skepticism. Time will tell on whether he keeps them or not, but during this election, I heard quite a few sweeping promises from both candidates, most of which I did not believe. And at Grant Park I heard quite a bit of grandiose rhetoric. Bill, you are a great writer which made the contradiction in your post curious to me:

"His belief in the virtue of self-help and self-discipline doesn't make him less inclined to ask what a small, well-timed boost in goods or services or money from the government could do to help people to self-sufficiency or prosperity and useful citizenship. He's too good to be true!"

As you said, when it comes to the feds, nothing is small, and self-help and self-sufficiency don't require government hand-outs. Subsidies are what they are and they are not given on the premise that recipients are remotely self-sufficient.

Obama is a man, he is nothing more. He is not too good to be true, but perhaps his image is. I'm sure he will do his best in office. The job itself is almost overwhelming for any one person so he will need all the support he can get and he will get mine, but not blindly.

Jon and Tim:

I forgot to say that what makes me so hopeful about Obama is that he has been very careful not to make sweeping promises, not even to imply, for instance, that he or the Democrats will be the architects of a national health care system.

His reluctance to indulge in grandiose rhetoric I find VERY refreshing--and promising. It makes me more hopeful than I've been for any other president in the last forty years.

"This is a man who might get things done" kept running through my mind as he spoke at Grant Park. "He doesn't have the standard national prejudice against 'big government' (As if our federal government could be anything less than ENORMOUS! Really!!) and yet he doesn't believe that more federal aid is automatically the best answer for most social problems."

"His belief in the virtue of self-help and self-discipline doesn't make him less inclined to ask what a small, well-timed boost in goods or services or money from the government could do to help people to self-sufficiency or prosperity and useful citizenship. He's too good to be true!"

Tim, let me ask you: Doesn't the smugness, the self-satisfaction of the phrase "speak truth to power" grate on you at least a little bit? It assumes that because I am the little guy, I'm automatically in possession of THE TRUTH, and you, as the holder of power, are barred forever from knowing that truth. Its tinge of, no, its deep-dyed righteous indignation and its premise that one of us, namely me,the ordinary man, is speaking from a stance of innocence and child-like spontaneity to a hardened worldling who calculates rather than thinks, and is always working out the odds of success of a cynical grab for more power; I say, that pose, TIM, is INTOLERABLE to me and causes a gag reflex whenever I read a respected national political writer use it as if he or she never doubted the impossibility of contradiction.

In recent years, the term "speak truth to power" became a popular one as certain pundits and politicians used it to justify their dissent in the face of the Bush administration. I wonder if such an honorable term will be used when people dissent from the policies and actions of the Obama administration, or whether such dissenters will be dismissed as shameful and divisive.

What gets me nervous right now is not Obama, but the fact that people like Bill Sweetland, who have a healthy skepticism in their DNA, start to wonder if we are worthy of him (Obama). Please, Bill, shake it off and make sure to bring your unique world view to the Obama years. It will be much needed.

"Can WE be worthy of HIM? Can we be patient and wise for months and years on end? Can we accept the inevitable unsatisfactory compromises, the reality that looks like a lame, halt, spavined version of what we had imagined, and not lose faith?"

Wow! It's amazing that after being told lie after lie from politicians whose sole purpose in life is nothing more than to win national popularity contests, we still believe they are genuinely looking out for the little guy. Worst of all, we still have faith that a few elected officials have the intellect and the ability to make decisions for every other American.

It's easy for Obama and any other politician to sell you their snake oil. They'll never be forced to drink it. When Obamacare becomes law and we have to start rationing medical care as the Europeans and Canadians do, Barack will be moved to the front of the line while others wait for their "free" medical care.

I wish I could be as optimistic as you Bill. I really do. But I don't accept things on faith. I hope this man has figured out how to buck the system, but I'm not holding my breath.

All I can think after this election is that the American people feel that a $10 trillion debt just isn't large enough.

Just Ann Coulter.

I watched Greta Van Susteren. Her remarks weren't inflammatory or divisive. She interviewed Karl Rove the day after the election and he, too, remained tempered.

You mentioned your father and three male conservative pundits. Do you have something against female conservatives, or just women in general?

Hannity's back to his ways, eh? Well, as you said Jeff, that didn't take very long. The kindler, gentler, more understanding Hannity must've tanked in the ratings category.

Very good observations. I knew there was no hope for Limbaugh, but was pleasantly surprised to see some positive post-election remarks about Obama from the likes of Karl Rove, Bill O'Reilly, Bill Crystal, Brit Hume, Michael Reagan and others. That's good for the country at this moment. However, as for Hannity, it didn't take long to revert to form. After a few conciliatory words right after the election, he moved quickly into attack mode, even though Obama is more than two months away from even setting foot in the White House. Last night, he blamed Obama directly for the stock market decline of the last two days (never mind the terrible jobs and retail reports just released). He went on to say his worst fears are already being realized about Obama being a "radical liberal" by his naming of Rahm Emmanuel chief of staff (even though McCain supporter Lindsay Graham said Emmanuel was a good choice). It will only get more relentless in the coming months and beyond. On the other side of the coin, the Olbermanns of the world need to keep the honeymoon very short. For their own credibility and the public interest, they must ask tough questions and not just be Team Obama cheerleaders for the next four or more years.

Michael:

I find your father's comments very interesting, because they confirm something I've always said about Americans: Americans are fundamentally conservative. This dictum applies to Republican and Democrat alike. They don't like innovation; they don't even like moderate change.

That fact is what makes the campaign slogan "Change" so amusing, apart from the fact that like "democracy," "freedom," or "politics as usual," change is a word that can literally have any one of a million meanings, or no meaning at all.

Having voted for Obama, I think that he has the intellect and will and political savvy to give substantive practical meaning to this vaguest of slogans.

But I have no doubt that one of the biggest reasons Obama won was the instinctual belief of the American public that he would do nothing out of ideological passion or dogmatic certainty, that he would never rashly pursue radical gigantic social betterment schemes, and that change, if it occurred, would be slow, sure, and well-prepared.

By the way, Michael, may I say that I think Obama a better public speaker than JFK. His speech at Grant Park was masterly.

I'm glad it's him instead of me faced with the prospect of having to live up to the ecstatic admiration and hope I saw on the faces of so many in his audience. Could Abraham Lincoln himself have fulfilled similar hopes for his presidency?

Obama seems so noble, so intelligent and soberly intellectual, so modest and free from the standard narcissism and mild megalomania of other successful presidential aspirants. My first thought as he began speaking the other night was, "Can WE be worthy of HIM? Can we be patient and wise for months and years on end? Can we accept the inevitable unsatisfactory compromises, the reality that looks like a lame, halt, spavined version of what we had imagined, and not lose faith?"

I also agree this was a great post, and I'm sad to say that I also agree that the pundits will continue their same embarassing, shameful behavior, on both sides of the political spectrum, they're only flip-flopping roles now with the changing of the guard--the liberal pundits shamelessly talking like Obama is the messiah and the conservatives spreading unnecessary wild-eyed fear, calling him the devil.

I'm a moderate to conservative Republican that voted for John McCain, but I think O'Reilly and Limbaugh are idiots. Their behavior is ridiculous. I side with Hannity and the dad of poster M.Sebastian on this issue, in that, while I'm not too excited about many of Obama's proposed policies, I think this is a good thing for the country, a new day.

The majority of these cable idiots (ie. pundits) are just ratings-hungry abusers of the public. They need to grow up. They add very little of real value to the public discourse. What we need is respectful, thoughtful rationale to support or refute various views, not people screaming at each other. O'Reilly is a waste of space and time.

I agree.

I do not like Mr. Obama at all...obviously. But that doesn't mean I WISH him failure. His failure would affect me even more than him - at least when he leaves office he'll have a lucrative speaking career much like Bill Clinton.

I hope he and the Democratic House/Senate can turn the economy around. Now...how you can do that by:

1. Raising taxes
2. Contracting the money supply
3. Adding a $1.6 trillion health care plan to government. And that's just an estimate by the way. History has shown that every time someone proposes a national health entitlement, it actually costs about twice as much - Britain's NHS and Bush's Medicare Drug program are perfect examples.
4. Imposing a windfall tax on oil companies (i.e. raising the price of gas for consumers)
5. Not addressing the fact that Medicare, Social Security, and Medicaid are bankrupt with more seniors about to burden the system even more

And all of this during a recession. An economic turnaround - given all of these factors - has never been done in the history of the world. And I fail to see how a former Community Organizer and one-term Senator has figured out how to repeal the laws of economics and make this work. Maybe it's me.

Of course, someone on his staff might actually sit him down and say, "Look. You said what you said to get elected, but here's the thing...The economy's really f'd up, and if you do all this, you're gonna f it up even more!"

If he adopts the policy of "do no harm," he might have a successful administration. We'll see.

Great post.

The thing Hannity said that I think most reasonable Republicans would agree with is that while they may not have wanted Obama to win and will be watchdogs, they have a deep belief in this democracy and what it enables the individual to achieve.

Related to this, it points to a story out of history where Truman became irate with Gen. McArthur over an issue of protocol - the legendary general waited for the president's plane to land first. "If he won't respect me, he will respect the office of the President of the United States," Truman said in essence. I think that's what you are seeing here. No matter who is president, the right always reserves a certain amount of reverence for office of the presidency. Back in the '90s it was that very reverence that was at the root of the outrage over Clinton and how he disrespected that office with his personal behavior.

As for Limbaugh, his entertainment schtick tends to be very sarcastic and his words often said in parody are easily taken literally and out of context, often intentionally. The proper context for your quote above is that the coal industry and Joe the Plumber, who were demonized by the Dems in the waning days of the election, will now further be demonized under the coming administration now that it's in power. His words were said in his mimickry of the voice of the new administration. In reality, he has been a huge defender of both the coal industry and Joe the Plumber, which is why he could say such a harsh thing and know he's not offending his listeners. It is in its truest sense an inside joke between the host and his loyal base.