Obama Owes McCain an Apology (and is just plain weak)

First of all John McCain simply repeated what Ahmed Yousef, chief political adviser to the Prime Minister said when he said that Hamas preferred an Obama Presidency. Here's the quote in its entirety:

"We like Mr. Obama and we hope he will win the election." This statement was made in an interview with Aaron Klein and John Batchelor interviewed on WABC.

Now we know why Obama was so sensitive to accusations that Hamas would prefer him as President - one of his advisors had been meeting with members of the radical terrorist group which wants to annilate Israel. The Washington Post piece on the meetings is here. Even Politifact.com - a non-partisan political fact checking website validates McCain's statement is "mostly true." You can find the entire analysis here.

Of course Chris Matthews and the liberal MSM won't discuss this on the Sunday morning shows - it would undermine their efforts to impose a liberal agenda on the nation. Anyone thinking Obama represents a restoration of Camelot misunderstands not only Obama's but also JFK's ideology. JFK was much more conservative than Nixon - an irony the left refuses to acknowledge and he aggressively fought Communism in every corner of the globe.

JFK confronted Communism throughout the Western Hemisphere, in Europe and in Asia. He backed at least one attempted coup against a Communist regime (Cuba) and a war to stop Communist insurgency in Southeast Asia (Vietnam). And he did these both without negotiating with our enemies.

Like it or not for the multi-culti left, Terrorism is the new Communism and the Global War on Terror is the new containment. Even Europe is beginning to wake up to the threats posed by the Iranian backed global terrorist movement (Hamas, Hezbollah and and has begun electing center-right governments which support taking the fight to the extremists before they bring it back here (again).

The Yankee-Cowboy War Looks to Continue

After Tsunami Tuesday, it looks like the Big Mo is with Senators Clinton and McCain, thus setting up another battle in the Yankee-Cowboy War. The Yankee-Cowboy War is a way of conceptually understanding that the Post-World War II period produced a shift in the source of American ruling-class (oligarchic) power from the Northeast to the Southwest/West fueled by shifts in the sources of economic wealth.

The Southern Rim drawn from a line South of North Carolina across the nation to San Francisco (Cowboys) with its oil, natural resources and technology based sources of economic power has risen to challenge the banking and industrial power of the Eastern Establishment based in Chicago, New York, Boston, and the industrial states (Yankees). The Eastern Establishment ruled the country more or less unchecked,from our founding until the oil, aviation and aerospace (and later technology) industries matured and the Southwest (and West) became a rival source of economic power, producing its own social elite. It has dominated Presidential elections since 1960 (see below).

The Yankee-Cowboy War is essentially a post-Marxist conception of ruling class infighting between rival factions. It's important to note that the war is actually fought by political donors, corporate executives etc., and the actual politicians are not necessarily conscious (beyong their own class interests) of this ongoing war. Whether you agree with the premise or not, a look at our Presidents and Presidential contests post-Eisenhower shows that the fundamental battles for political control have been fought between representatives of these two establishments.

1960 - JFK v. Nixon - Yankee (JFK) Won
1963 - Cowboy (LBJ) comes to power in a putative coup engineered by his supporters.
1964 - LBJ v. Goldwater - Cowboy v. Cowboy, though LBJ had deep ties to the Yankee faction.
1968 - Nixon v. Humphrey - Cowboy (Nixon) won
1972 - Nixon v. McGovern - Cowboy (Nixon) won
1974 - Yankee (Ford) comes to power in a putative coup engineered by his supporters.
1976 - Ford v. Carter - Cowboy (Carter) won
1980 - Carter v. Reagan - Cowboy (Reagan) won
1984 - Reagan v. Mondale - Cowboy (Reagan) won
1988 - Bush 41 v. Dukakis - Cowboy (Bush 41) won
1992 - Bush 41 v. B. Clinton - Cowboy v. Cowboy. Bush 41 and Clinton both had deep ties to the Yankee faction through educational background and professional ties. In this case however, Clinton represented the interests of the Yankee faction and Bush's deep financial ties to the Cowboy (oil) establishment align him with their interests.
1996 - B. Clinton v. Dole - Yankee (Clinton) won - Georgetown, Yale and McGovern Presidenial Campaign experience make Clinton more of a Yankee representative than a Cowboy one.
2000 - Gore v. Bush 43 - Cowboy (Bush 43) won - Gore, though putatively from Tennessee spent his life growing up within the Eastern Establishment, even attending Harvard, and thus represented the Yankee establishment
2004 - Bush 43 v. Kerry - Cowboy (Bush 43) won - Bush's time in the Northeast seems not to have influenced him as much as it did Clinton despite his being a Yale Alum and member of the elite Skull & Bones Society
2008 - McCain v. H. Clinton - a classic showdown during which the Yankee faction may finally claw its way back to power. Despite spending time in Arkansas, Senator Clinton has alway been a Yankee, from growing up in the Chicago suburbs to attending hte elite Wellesley and Yale universities.

It's worth noting that in the elections from 1960 to present, the Cowboy faction has been dominant, winning 9 of 12 contests. In the cases where two putative members of the Cowboy faction competed against each other, the one more closely tied to the Eastern Establishment at the time has lost. Bill Clinton is the only President to be elected from the Yankee faction during this time, and the other two Yankee Presidents came to power through the death or political destruction of their Cowboy predecessors.

The Coming Political Realignment

The fractious competition in both the Republican and Democratic presidential selection process threatens to tear asunder the coalitions that have undergirded both for years. The nomination of John McCain will alienate most supply siders and free speech libertarians. Rudy Giuliani's nomination will alienate the values voters, and Mike Huckabee's nomination will alienate non-evangelicals and non-christianists as well as all right thinking Americans who think it's an abomination that Southern States incorporated the Confederate Battle Flag into their state flags during the push to end segregation. Mitt Romney's nomination obviously will alienate the evangelicals and anyone who prizes ideological consistency.

The likely nomination of Senator Clinton will split the black vote along generational lines. The younger generation of black leaders already is questioning the unwavering support of the black community for the Democratic party, and the Clintonian savaging of Barack Obama will cause them to take a second look at the Republican Party. House Democratic Whip James Clyburn's recent acknowledgement that Republican Senate Leader Everett Dirksen did much to advance civil rights is one reason for this second look. Additionally, the black community likely will come to realize that the Clintons are pitting Hispanics against them and will resent that.

All of this means that parts of both parties will be alienated and up for grabs post the 2008 Presidential election regardless of which party wins. It's conceivable that Republicans could regain their share of the Hispanic vote and enlarge their share of the black vote, while Democrats would gain the allegiance of more social and fiscal libertarians (provided they keep to their DLC roots and don't revert to their big spending LBJ era ways).