Posted on 04/18/2007 4:54:12 PM PDT by Behind Liberal Lines
Robert Novak, nationally syndicated columnist, television news commentator and the self-acknowledged “Prince of Darkness” of the Washington press, spoke at Schwartz Auditorium (Cornell University) last night.
In his opening remarks, Novak, who served in the Korean War and worked for 50 years in Washington, D.C., revealed the origin of his sinister moniker. “I believe in limited government, low taxes and individual economic freedom. And in Washington that makes you The Prince of Darkness. It may well make you The Prince of Darkness at Cornell,” said Novak.
In his speech, Novak offered an analysis of the 2006 Congressional power shift, a diagnosis of the struggling Republican Party and an evaluation of the upcoming presidential election.
Novak attributed the 2006 Democratic sweep in the House and Senate to failures of the Republican Party and resulting disillusionment of its members. In his analysis, Novak cited the unpopularity of the Iraq war, President Bush’s expansion of government, increases in entitlement program costs and failure to reform the tax system.
Regarding Iraq, Novak pointed out that historically, even successful wars have provoked the ire of American voters. “After two Democratic presidents won World War II, the first election was 1946. There was a Republican landslide,” he said.
Novak claimed that although he supports a global economy and free trade, it is not the job of the United States to spread democracy: “We can’t have the whole world our way. Let’s worry about security in the United States,” he said.
Novak also blamed a lack of strong party leadership for the Republican decline. “There’s not a leader in the Republican Party to enunciate the issues. I once said that George W. Bush has got the smallest vocabulary of any president I knew. It doesn’t make me popular at the White House, but the truth is that he isn’t the most articulate man, and the presidency is a leadership role where you must articulate yourself,” said Novak.
Novak went on to discuss the chief difficulties of the two Democratic frontrunners.
“Senator [Hillary] Clinton [(D-N.Y.)] is smart. She thinks she would be a much better president than her husband. She thinks she’s smarter, better read, and she’s a lot more disciplined. I know both Clintons, and I’ll tell you something: Bill Clinton is one of the most likeable people I’ve ever met. Hillary is not likeable.”
According to Novak, what Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) lacks in experience, he makes up for in popularity. “He’s only been in the Senate a couple of years, nobody knows him. And people love him,” said Novak.
But, Novak said, Obama’s race may affect his political career: “Senator Obama is an African American. Does that mean he can or cannot be elected president? We don’t know. Don’t pay attention to the polls. You call up someone and say, ‘Would you vote for an African-American for president?’ guy says, ‘No I wouldn’t, I’m prejudiced.’ Nobody says that.”
Novak identified the lack of a dominant candidate as the primary challenge for Republicans. “This is the first election since 1952 where the President or Vice President of the United States is not running for either President or Vice President. All new people,” Novak said.
Novak’s speech evoked a number of student reactions.
“He had a sense of humor and let us know very directly how he found leaders of both parties. I found I really liked him because he is comfortable with what he believes in and is willing to give us an informed opinion flavored with his point of view. Like Helen Thomas, he likes being a journalist because he likes to cause trouble, however he is no Republican nut job,” said Ryan Gomez ’09
“I’m interested in both journalism and politics and so obviously, he’s a pretty huge figure. I thought it was real interesting. I don’t know a lot about him personally, and so it was good to hear what he thought about various issues — especially from such an insider in D.C. It was good to hear about both races,” said Tristen Cramer ’09.
isn’t Novak jewish as well or my bad assumption.And why do so many journalists hate Israel ? Boggles my mind
Novak isn't criticizing policy here,but rather criticizing the person. And it seems to me it falls into the "kicking a man when he's down" classification as well.
Well ok, I would agree with you that the comment about the vocabulary has no place. I suppose I reacted to people always crapping on Novak when he tells the truth that W is not exactly the most popular president ever, and hasn't been much of a conservative, either.
You forgot that he was asked not to put Wilson’s wife into an article but decided he would do so anyway
It’s an odd thing, but very intelligent people are frequently stupid enough to think long, fancy words lend merit to ideas or people.
He's a reporter. People who say things to reporters shouldn't be surprised when they show up in print. And besides, I still don't see what is wrong with it. A lying fraud was exposed. That the justice system went after Libby for it is not Novaks fault or responsibility.
I guess you would prefer if Wilson was still trotting around like a neutral expert.
As Lee Oskar of “War” put it in “Why Can’t We Be Friends”:
“Sometimes I don’t speak right, but yet I know what I’m talking about.”
That's not to say I wouldn't want them right by my side in a showdown at the OK corral.
Leni
He seems to understand the meaning of “is”
Yes, Novak is Jewish... and he hates the state of Israel. Never heard his explanation (not that one would be forthcoming, stating that fact is not exactly PC, and would hurt one’s career), but it’s been very well in evidence in his commentaries.
I’ve heard this phenomena among some Jews explained sometimes as “self-loathing Jew” or “if it weren’t for Zionism and existence of Israel THEY wouldn’t hate us” or plain empathy for “Palestinians oppressed by Israel”... Neither argument is intelligent, but they all are more about feelings than logic.
I've never met Bill Clinton but I'm willing to accept Novak's assertion that he is likeable. It comes with the territory--that is, with his being a sociopath.
Vocabulary? How many ways do you need to be able to say “No, no timelines”?
How many times has vocabulary defined a man of character?
How many times has vocabulary won war battles?
Another of the “elitist” mentality of the east. It matters not what your character or your ability is, it only matters if you wear the “right” clothes, have the “right” snobbery speech cadence, and use pretentious words. It all is how you appear at the cocktail parties you know.
Another reason I look at the man - I can’t stand that silly eastern elitist nonsense. Once you lose someone you realize how absolutely silly all that social nonsense is. The ones I have hated being around in my life, are the very ones the “elitist” find attractive - pompous, pretentious snobs who dwell on nonsense. I value the people of the heartland of America.
The east can have the social butterflies - give me the Texans.
Let them socialize - that is all they are good at. Let the men lead.
Such a wonderful post. I love you.
Well said.
And he shows that he does not have the ability to look beyond the “frills” that the eastern “elite” values and see the man.
It shows he cannot read the real worth of a person as he only sees the outward pretenses.
Doesn’t display much intelligence to me.
I knew you were asking a real question, but I just couldn't resist.
It is unfortunate that GWB is not a better speaker. But I do not think Bill Clinton’s vocabulary is any broader than Bush’s.
Novak speaking truth here. [applause]
Republicans can show their conservatism through actions and words...but they been falling short on both accounts for a long while now...
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.