From God's Politics
Back to the Future with Focus on the Family
by Ryan Rodrick Beiler 10-30-2008
Yesterday, Jim posted his response to Focus on the Family….Action’s 16-page “Letter from 2012 in Obama’s America.” They say that though their letter is a “what if?” exercise, that this “does not make it empty speculation, because every future ‘event’ described here is based on established legal and political trends that can be abundantly documented…”
For example, the letter predicts four terrorist attacks in the U.S., after which “the entire country is fearful.” I can just imagine it—Homeland Security would need a whole new color-coding scheme. (Magenta Alert!) But who knows? Maybe they have some kind of intelligence upon which to base such an outrageous prediction—perhaps a memo with a title something like: “Bin Laden Determined to Strike in the U.S.”
It’s just too bad that back in 2000, Focus on the Family…Action kept their clairvoyant abilities under a bushel and neglected to send a “Letter from 2008 in Bush’s America” warning us all of the trouble we’d encounter. Maybe they thought it would be bad for fundraising. Well anyhow, let’s fire up the DeLorean and travel back to the year 2000 for this letter from the future….
October 30, 2008
Dear friends,
I can hardly sing “God Bless the U.S.A.” anymore. When I hear the words
“And I’m proud to be an American
Where at least I know I’m free,”
I get tears in my eyes and a lump in my throat. [Editor's Note: Non gustibus disputandum, or perhaps I should say, non lachrymas disputandum.] Now in October 2008, after seeing what has happened in the last eight years, I don’t think I can still say that “I’m proud to be an American.” The actions of my government have been a national shame.
And do “At least I know I’m free”? Our civil liberties have been trampled by a White House that dominated all three branches of government for most of its term, enabling it to pass legislation like the U.S.A. Patriot Act and other policies that increased secrecy and domestic spying and vitiated habeas corpus—all in the name of national security. Few politicians of either party dared to resist them for fear of being branded “unpatriotic” or “soft on terrorism.”
The 2000 election was closer than anybody expected. In fact, Al Gore won the popular majority. But because of loyal officials in Florida and conservative allies in the Supreme Court, George W. Bush became president. Many Christians voted for Bush because he was “pro-life” and a “compassionate conservative.” As Bush himself often says, history will be his judge. It hasn’t been too kind so far.
Over the next eight years:
* Administration neo-conservatives use the horrific terrorist attacks of 9/11 as the rationale for attempting to remake the Middle East according to their Project for a New American Century—an extreme agenda widely available well before the 2000 election.
* The resulting wars in Iraq and Afghanistan kill thousands of Americans and untold civilians, but fail to bring Osama Bin-Laden to justice.
* Global sympathy for the U.S. after 9/11 turns into global anti-American sentiment and is fueled by a war waged under false pretenses of weapons of mass destruction that were never discovered.
* President Bush awards the Medal of Freedom, the highest civilian honor, to General Tommy Franks, George Tenet, and Paul Bremer despite the fiasco that Iraq had become.
* No-bid military contracts result in profiteering and corruption by corporations with cozy administration relationships.
* Other military contractors—run by evangelical Christians—are found by the FBI to have committed unjustified killings of civilians.
* Our national honor is further tarnished by revelations of torture and abuse at Abu Ghraib, Guantanamo Bay, a network of secret prisons, and the practice of “extraordinary rendition.”
* Later investigations demonstrate that top administration officials anticipated that their decisions regarding treatment of prisoners would be a national shame.
* With the Middle East peace process on the back burner—or off the stove entirely—for much of his term in office, Bush is forced to accept the Hamas’ electoral victory in Gaza and Hezbollah’s renewed influence in Lebanon.
* The domestic response to the 9/11 terrorist attacks is a new bloated national security apparatus that makes hundreds of arrests but only a handful of convictions related to terrorism.
* Closed-door meetings between Dick Cheney and corporate officials form U.S. energy policy.
* Global scientific consensus on climate change is suppressed and resisted, as evisceration of environmental protections deepens environmental degradation.
* Government apathy and incompetence exacerbate the effects of Hurricane Katrina, disproportionately affecting poor black residents of the Gulf Coast.
* A mentally unstable man with legally purchased guns goes on a killing spree on the Virginia Tech campus.
* Despite their popular self-defense rationale, guns kept in the home for self-protection are still 22 times more likely to kill a family member or friend than to kill an intruder in self-defense.
* “Born again” Christian couples divorce at the same rate as their secular counterparts, but conservative leaders continue to blame gays and lesbians as the prime threat to the sanctity of marriage.
* Despite new studies demonstrating the link between social spending and economic conditions on reducing abortion, the extreme flanks of both parties continue their narrow focus on legal maneuvers that have little demonstrable effect on actual abortion rates.
* Bush’s Faith-Based Initiatives raise hopes of effective anti-poverty government partnerships—but funds are cut so deeply that multiple officials appointed to run the initiative resign in disgust.
* The percentage of Americans in poverty rises from 11.3 in 2000 to 12.5 in 2007
* The number of Americans without health care increases by 5.9 million between 2001 and 2007.
* The U.S. prison population rises to 2.3 million—more than any other nation by both number and percentage. China is a distant second.
* Tax cuts for the rich, combined with massive military spending on the war in Iraq, balloon the national debt from $5.7 trillion in 2001 to $10.5 trillion in 2008
* The national budget goes from a $128 billion surplus inherited from the Clinton Administration to a deficit of $438 billion in 2008.
* Though U.S. military spending is greater than the rest of the entire world combined, both parties want to increase the size of our armed forces.
* Deregulation and unchecked corporate greed result in multiple corporate scandals, culminating in a full-blown financial crisis and recession that result in massive government bailouts—while the recipients of sub-prime mortgages are blamed for their bad choices.
* Meanwhile, oil companies rake in record profits.
* Also, immigration raids, Scooter Libby, Karl Rove, the U.S. Attorney firings, Terry Schiavo, Jack Abramoff, Tom Foley, Duke Cunningham, Larry Craig, Tom Delay, shameful conditions at Walter Reed Army Hospital, increase in soldier suicides, and Dick Cheney shot a guy in the face …
Of course, not all of this stuff is the Bush administration’s fault. Just most of it. And it’s not like he didn’t accomplish anything worthwhile. PEPFAR is great. Really quite super. Even though members of his own party tried to sabotage it. But I digress.
The truth is almost always scarier than fiction. That’s why, in this campaign, both candidates have emphasized their desire for change. After the last eight years, we desperately need it.
Friday, October 31, 2008
Thursday, October 30, 2008
Fear Revisited Once More: Letter from Pastor Wallis to Dr. Dobson
James Dobson, you owe America an apology. The fictional letter released through your Focus on the Family Action organization, titled "Letter From 2012 in Obama's America", crosses all lines of decent public discourse. In a time of utter political incivility, it shows the kind of negative Christian leadership that has become so embarrassing to so many of your fellow Christians in America. We are weary of this kind of Christian leadership, and that is why so many are forsaking the Religious Right in this election.
This letter offers nothing but fear. It apocalyptically depicts terrorist attacks in American cities, churches losing their tax exempt status for not allowing gay marriages, pornography pushed in front of our children, doctors and nurses forced to perform abortions, euthanasia as commonplace, inner-city crime gone wild because of lack of gun ownership, home schooling banned, restricted religious speech, liberal censorship shutting down conservative talk shows, Christian publishers forced out of business, Israel nuked, power blackouts because of environmental restrictions, brave Christian resisters jailed by a liberal Supreme court, and finally, good Christian families emigrating to Australia and New Zealand.
It is shocking how thoroughly biblical teachings against slander--misrepresentations that damage another's reputation--are ignored (Ephesians 4:29-31, Colossians 3:8, Titus 3:2). Such outrageous predictions not only damage your credibility, they slander Barack Obama who, you should remember, is a brother in Christ, and they insult any Christian who might choose to vote for him.
Let me make this clear: Christians will be voting both ways in this election, informed by their good faith, and based on their views of what are the best public policies and direction for America. But in utter disrespect for the prayerful discernment of your fellow Christians, this letter stirs their ugliest fears, appealing to their worst impulses instead of their best.
Fear is the clear motivator in the letter; especially fear that evangelical Christians might vote for Barack Obama. The letter was very revealing when it suggested that "younger Evangelicals" became the "swing vote" that elected Obama and the results were catastrophic.
You make a mistake when you assume that younger Christians don't care as much as you about the sanctity of life. They do care--very much--but they have a more consistent ethic of life. Both broader and deeper, it is inclusive of [i.e. their caring about and being opposed to] abortion, but also of the many other assaults on human life and dignity. For the new generation, poverty, hunger, and disease are also life issues; creation care is a life issue; genocide, torture, the death penalty, and human rights are life issues; war is a life issue. What happens to poor children after they are born is also a life issue.
The America you helped vote into power has lost its moral standing in the world, and even here at home. The America you told Christians to vote for in past elections is now an embarrassment to Christians around the globe, and to the children of your generation of evangelicals. And the vision of America that you still tell Christians to vote for is not the one that many in a new generation of Christians believes expresses their best values and convictions.
Christians should be committed to the kingdom of God, not the kingdom of America, and the church is to live an alternative existence of love and justice, offering a prophetic witness to politics. Elections are full of imperfect choices where we all seek to what is best for the "common good" by applying the values of our faith as best we can.
Dr. Dobson, you of course have the same right as every Christian and every American to vote your own convictions on the issues you most care about, but you have chosen to insult the convictions of millions of other Christians, whose own deeply held faith convictions might motivate them to vote differently than you. This epistle of fear is perhaps the dying gasp of a discredited heterodoxy of conservative religion and conservative politics. But out of that death, a resurrection of biblical politics more faithful to the whole gospel--one that is truly good news--might indeed be coming to life. -- The Reverend Jim Wallis
***
[I shake my head in disbelief at Dobson's rants against those who do not concur absolutely with his religious beliefs. The reason is that I have read his column as a psychologist a number of times and although, as a former psychologist myself, I disagree strongly with some of his views, I do not regard his columns on child nurture to be blatant quackery. On religion, I cannot say the same.]
This letter offers nothing but fear. It apocalyptically depicts terrorist attacks in American cities, churches losing their tax exempt status for not allowing gay marriages, pornography pushed in front of our children, doctors and nurses forced to perform abortions, euthanasia as commonplace, inner-city crime gone wild because of lack of gun ownership, home schooling banned, restricted religious speech, liberal censorship shutting down conservative talk shows, Christian publishers forced out of business, Israel nuked, power blackouts because of environmental restrictions, brave Christian resisters jailed by a liberal Supreme court, and finally, good Christian families emigrating to Australia and New Zealand.
It is shocking how thoroughly biblical teachings against slander--misrepresentations that damage another's reputation--are ignored (Ephesians 4:29-31, Colossians 3:8, Titus 3:2). Such outrageous predictions not only damage your credibility, they slander Barack Obama who, you should remember, is a brother in Christ, and they insult any Christian who might choose to vote for him.
Let me make this clear: Christians will be voting both ways in this election, informed by their good faith, and based on their views of what are the best public policies and direction for America. But in utter disrespect for the prayerful discernment of your fellow Christians, this letter stirs their ugliest fears, appealing to their worst impulses instead of their best.
Fear is the clear motivator in the letter; especially fear that evangelical Christians might vote for Barack Obama. The letter was very revealing when it suggested that "younger Evangelicals" became the "swing vote" that elected Obama and the results were catastrophic.
You make a mistake when you assume that younger Christians don't care as much as you about the sanctity of life. They do care--very much--but they have a more consistent ethic of life. Both broader and deeper, it is inclusive of [i.e. their caring about and being opposed to] abortion, but also of the many other assaults on human life and dignity. For the new generation, poverty, hunger, and disease are also life issues; creation care is a life issue; genocide, torture, the death penalty, and human rights are life issues; war is a life issue. What happens to poor children after they are born is also a life issue.
The America you helped vote into power has lost its moral standing in the world, and even here at home. The America you told Christians to vote for in past elections is now an embarrassment to Christians around the globe, and to the children of your generation of evangelicals. And the vision of America that you still tell Christians to vote for is not the one that many in a new generation of Christians believes expresses their best values and convictions.
Christians should be committed to the kingdom of God, not the kingdom of America, and the church is to live an alternative existence of love and justice, offering a prophetic witness to politics. Elections are full of imperfect choices where we all seek to what is best for the "common good" by applying the values of our faith as best we can.
Dr. Dobson, you of course have the same right as every Christian and every American to vote your own convictions on the issues you most care about, but you have chosen to insult the convictions of millions of other Christians, whose own deeply held faith convictions might motivate them to vote differently than you. This epistle of fear is perhaps the dying gasp of a discredited heterodoxy of conservative religion and conservative politics. But out of that death, a resurrection of biblical politics more faithful to the whole gospel--one that is truly good news--might indeed be coming to life. -- The Reverend Jim Wallis
***
[I shake my head in disbelief at Dobson's rants against those who do not concur absolutely with his religious beliefs. The reason is that I have read his column as a psychologist a number of times and although, as a former psychologist myself, I disagree strongly with some of his views, I do not regard his columns on child nurture to be blatant quackery. On religion, I cannot say the same.]
More on Fear and 1 John 4:18
This from God's Politics, by Jim Wallis, his latest post:
In the final days of this election campaign, a new message has emerged. For the entire political year, the overriding theme has been change—with each candidate competing to be the real champion for a new direction. With 80 percent of Americans unhappy with our country’s current direction, it seemed that no other theme could break through.
A new message has, and it is this: “Be Afraid—Be Very Afraid.” Most of that fear is directed at Barack Obama, the leading candidate with just days to go before November 4. Instead of being content to offer a competing policy vision to Obama’s, the Right has now focused on the man himself in an attempt to stir the fears of the electorate that “he” is not really like “them.” “Do we really know who Barack Obama is?” has been the refrain of partisan peddlers. A parallel and ugly national innuendo campaign stokes the fear. Is he a Muslim? An Arab? A pal of terrorists? Or maybe even a closet Socialist? Where did he grow up? Why such a funny middle name? Doesn’t his support come from those parts of the country (and those people) that deep down inside are anti-American?** And, of course, what has quickly become a campaign classic—guilt by association.
[**The answer to all those questions is NO!]
The fact that Barack Obama is the first black nominee of a major party for president gives all the fear a decidedly racial undertone. YouTube has quickly become populated with video after video of the dark underbelly of American fear and racism. The innuendos and rumors have brought to the surface latent fears and thinly veiled biases that many had hoped were gone from our country. The message of fear is the same: Obama may look okay on the surface, but we don’t know what might lie beneath.
Regardless of whether one favors Obama or McCain, this development should be of concern to all Americans, and especially people of faith. There is now a new spiritual dimension to this election, and it is decidedly evil. Christians believe that “There is no fear in love, but perfect love casts out all fear...” (1 John 4:18.) There are, of course, good and decent motivations to vote either way in this election. Strong people of faith will be marking different boxes on Election Day, but for people of faith there will be a spiritual decision to be made as well. Will we put our trust in the power of fear or hope?
Conservatism did this with the bright and hopeful theme of “Morning in America” with the Ronald Reagan years. I disagreed with most all of Reagan’s agenda, but his appeal was to ask us all to choose hope, not fear. Similarly, the best of liberalism was seen in the power of John and Robert Kennedy’s appeal to build a “newer world.” Both conservatives and liberals can appeal to the better instincts of the American people, or to their worst—and each side has done both over the years.
Fear has always been the dark side of American politics, and we are seeing its resurgence in the campaign’s final days. Demagoguery has come from both the right and the left in America, and the most dependable sign of it is the appeal to fear over hope. Facts don’t matter when fear takes over. Fear covers over the debate on a candidate’s tax plans, the wisdom of their foreign policies, their experience and judgment to handle the economic crisis. Fear attacks character and lies with false prophecies of what a candidate would do if they are elected.
Some of the worst fear-mongering has sadly come from leaders of the Religious Right who are worried about losing their control over the votes of the evangelical and Catholic communities, especially a new generation of believers. Their apocalyptic rhetoric has been among the worst and most irresponsible. When religious leaders sound so desperate and seek to stoke fear and hate, they have lost their theological perspective by putting too much of their hope in having political power. It is that loss of power and control which seems to be motivating the current campaign of desperation and fear now being waged by so many conservatives. Instead, scripture points to a better way:
For "Those who desire life and desire to see good days, let them keep their tongues from evil and their lips from speaking deceit; let them turn away from evil and do good; let them seek peace and pursue it. For the eyes of the Lord are on the righteous, and his ears are open to their prayer. But the face of the Lord is against those who do evil." Now who will harm you if you are eager to do what is good? But even if you do suffer for doing what is right, you are blessed. Do not fear what they fear, and do not be intimidated, but in your hearts sanctify Christ as Lord. Always be ready to make your defense to anyone who demands from you an accounting for the hope that is in you." (1 Peter 3:10-15, emphasis added)
With that reminder that Christ is our ultimate hope, let us pray that, on November 4, the need for change will finally prevail over the appeals to fear. Pray that the voters will choose either Barack Obama or John McCain as the best agent of change, rather than submit to the tyranny of fear. It is always better to live (and to vote) in the light of hope than in the darkness of fear. It is always an act of faith to believe that, in the end, hope will prevail over fear. So pray, and vote.
In the final days of this election campaign, a new message has emerged. For the entire political year, the overriding theme has been change—with each candidate competing to be the real champion for a new direction. With 80 percent of Americans unhappy with our country’s current direction, it seemed that no other theme could break through.
A new message has, and it is this: “Be Afraid—Be Very Afraid.” Most of that fear is directed at Barack Obama, the leading candidate with just days to go before November 4. Instead of being content to offer a competing policy vision to Obama’s, the Right has now focused on the man himself in an attempt to stir the fears of the electorate that “he” is not really like “them.” “Do we really know who Barack Obama is?” has been the refrain of partisan peddlers. A parallel and ugly national innuendo campaign stokes the fear. Is he a Muslim? An Arab? A pal of terrorists? Or maybe even a closet Socialist? Where did he grow up? Why such a funny middle name? Doesn’t his support come from those parts of the country (and those people) that deep down inside are anti-American?** And, of course, what has quickly become a campaign classic—guilt by association.
[**The answer to all those questions is NO!]
The fact that Barack Obama is the first black nominee of a major party for president gives all the fear a decidedly racial undertone. YouTube has quickly become populated with video after video of the dark underbelly of American fear and racism. The innuendos and rumors have brought to the surface latent fears and thinly veiled biases that many had hoped were gone from our country. The message of fear is the same: Obama may look okay on the surface, but we don’t know what might lie beneath.
Regardless of whether one favors Obama or McCain, this development should be of concern to all Americans, and especially people of faith. There is now a new spiritual dimension to this election, and it is decidedly evil. Christians believe that “There is no fear in love, but perfect love casts out all fear...” (1 John 4:18.) There are, of course, good and decent motivations to vote either way in this election. Strong people of faith will be marking different boxes on Election Day, but for people of faith there will be a spiritual decision to be made as well. Will we put our trust in the power of fear or hope?
Conservatism did this with the bright and hopeful theme of “Morning in America” with the Ronald Reagan years. I disagreed with most all of Reagan’s agenda, but his appeal was to ask us all to choose hope, not fear. Similarly, the best of liberalism was seen in the power of John and Robert Kennedy’s appeal to build a “newer world.” Both conservatives and liberals can appeal to the better instincts of the American people, or to their worst—and each side has done both over the years.
Fear has always been the dark side of American politics, and we are seeing its resurgence in the campaign’s final days. Demagoguery has come from both the right and the left in America, and the most dependable sign of it is the appeal to fear over hope. Facts don’t matter when fear takes over. Fear covers over the debate on a candidate’s tax plans, the wisdom of their foreign policies, their experience and judgment to handle the economic crisis. Fear attacks character and lies with false prophecies of what a candidate would do if they are elected.
Some of the worst fear-mongering has sadly come from leaders of the Religious Right who are worried about losing their control over the votes of the evangelical and Catholic communities, especially a new generation of believers. Their apocalyptic rhetoric has been among the worst and most irresponsible. When religious leaders sound so desperate and seek to stoke fear and hate, they have lost their theological perspective by putting too much of their hope in having political power. It is that loss of power and control which seems to be motivating the current campaign of desperation and fear now being waged by so many conservatives. Instead, scripture points to a better way:
For "Those who desire life and desire to see good days, let them keep their tongues from evil and their lips from speaking deceit; let them turn away from evil and do good; let them seek peace and pursue it. For the eyes of the Lord are on the righteous, and his ears are open to their prayer. But the face of the Lord is against those who do evil." Now who will harm you if you are eager to do what is good? But even if you do suffer for doing what is right, you are blessed. Do not fear what they fear, and do not be intimidated, but in your hearts sanctify Christ as Lord. Always be ready to make your defense to anyone who demands from you an accounting for the hope that is in you." (1 Peter 3:10-15, emphasis added)
With that reminder that Christ is our ultimate hope, let us pray that, on November 4, the need for change will finally prevail over the appeals to fear. Pray that the voters will choose either Barack Obama or John McCain as the best agent of change, rather than submit to the tyranny of fear. It is always better to live (and to vote) in the light of hope than in the darkness of fear. It is always an act of faith to believe that, in the end, hope will prevail over fear. So pray, and vote.
Wednesday, October 29, 2008
Anchorage Daily News Endorsement for Obama
Obama for President
Palin's rise captivates us but nation needs a steady hand
Published: October 25th, 2008 07:37 PM
Last Modified: October 25th, 2008 08:10 PM
Alaska enters its 50th-anniversary year in the glow of an improbable and highly memorable event: the nomination of Gov. Sarah Palin as the Republican vice presidential candidate. For the first time ever, an Alaskan is making a serious bid for national office, and in doing so she brings broad attention and recognition not only to herself, but also to the state she leads.
Alaska's founders were optimistic people, but even the most farsighted might have been stretched to imagine this scenario. No matter the outcome in November, this election will mark a signal moment in the history of the 49th state. Many Alaskans are proud to see their governor, and their state, so prominent on the national stage.
Gov. Palin's nomination clearly alters the landscape for Alaskans as we survey this race for the presidency -- but it does not overwhelm all other judgment. The election, after all is said and done, is not about Sarah Palin, and our sober view is that her running mate, Sen. John McCain, is the wrong choice for president at this critical time for our nation.
Sen. Barack Obama, the Democratic nominee, brings far more promise to the office. In a time of grave economic crisis, he displays thoughtful analysis, enlists wise counsel and operates with a cool, steady hand. The same cannot be said of Sen. McCain.
Since his early acknowledgement that economic policy is not his strong suit, Sen. McCain has stumbled and fumbled badly in dealing with the accelerating crisis as it emerged. He declared that "the fundamentals of our economy are strong" at 9 a.m. one day and by 11 a.m. was describing an economy in crisis. He is both a longtime advocate of less market regulation and a supporter of the huge taxpayer-funded Wall Street bailout. His behavior in this crisis -- erratic is a kind description -- shows him to be ill-equipped to lead the essential effort of reining in a runaway financial system and setting an anxious nation on course to economic recovery.
Sen. Obama warned regulators and the nation 19 months ago that the subprime lending crisis was a disaster in the making. Sen. McCain backed tighter rules for Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, but didn't do much to advance that legislation. Of the two candidates, Sen. Obama better understands the mortgage meltdown's root causes and has the judgment and intelligence to shape a solution, as well as the leadership to rally the country behind it. It is easy to look at Sen. Obama and see a return to the smart, bipartisan economic policies of the last Democratic administration in Washington, which left the country with the momentum of growth and a budget surplus that President George Bush has squandered.
On the most important issue of the day, Sen. Obama is a clear choice.
Sen. McCain describes himself as a maverick, by which he seems to mean that he spent 25 years trying unsuccessfully to persuade his own party to follow his bipartisan, centrist lead. Sadly, maverick John McCain didn't show up for the campaign. Instead we have candidate McCain, who embraces the extreme Republican orthodoxy he once resisted and cynically asks Americans to buy for another four years.
It is Sen. Obama who truly promises fundamental change in Washington. You need look no further than the guilt-by-association lies and sound-bite distortions of the degenerating McCain campaign to see how readily he embraces the divisive, fear-mongering tactics of Karl Rove. And while Sen. McCain points to the fragile success of the troop surge in stabilizing conditions in Iraq, it is also plain that he was fundamentally wrong about the more crucial early decisions. Contrary to his assurances, we were not greeted as liberators; it was not a short, easy war; and Americans -- not Iraqi oil -- have had to pay for it. It was Sen. Obama who more clearly saw the danger ahead.
The unqualified endorsement of Sen. Obama by a seasoned, respected soldier and diplomat like Gen. Colin Powell, a Republican icon, should reassure all Americans that the Democratic candidate will pass muster as commander in chief.
On a matter of parochial interest, Sen. Obama opposes the opening of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, but so does Sen. McCain. We think both are wrong, and hope a President Obama can be convinced to support environmentally responsible development of that resource.
Gov. Palin has shown the country why she has been so successful in her young political career. Passionate, charismatic and indefatigable, she draws huge crowds and sows excitement in her wake. She has made it clear she's a force to be reckoned with, and you can be sure politicians and political professionals across the country have taken note. Her future, in Alaska and on the national stage, seems certain to be played out in the limelight.
Yet despite her formidable gifts, few who have worked closely with the governor would argue she is truly ready to assume command of the most important, powerful nation on earth. To step in and juggle the demands of an economic meltdown, two deadly wars and a deteriorating climate crisis would stretch the governor beyond her range. Like picking Sen. McCain for president, putting her one 72-year-old heartbeat from the leadership of the free world is just too risky at this time.
Palin's rise captivates us but nation needs a steady hand
Published: October 25th, 2008 07:37 PM
Last Modified: October 25th, 2008 08:10 PM
Alaska enters its 50th-anniversary year in the glow of an improbable and highly memorable event: the nomination of Gov. Sarah Palin as the Republican vice presidential candidate. For the first time ever, an Alaskan is making a serious bid for national office, and in doing so she brings broad attention and recognition not only to herself, but also to the state she leads.
Alaska's founders were optimistic people, but even the most farsighted might have been stretched to imagine this scenario. No matter the outcome in November, this election will mark a signal moment in the history of the 49th state. Many Alaskans are proud to see their governor, and their state, so prominent on the national stage.
Gov. Palin's nomination clearly alters the landscape for Alaskans as we survey this race for the presidency -- but it does not overwhelm all other judgment. The election, after all is said and done, is not about Sarah Palin, and our sober view is that her running mate, Sen. John McCain, is the wrong choice for president at this critical time for our nation.
Sen. Barack Obama, the Democratic nominee, brings far more promise to the office. In a time of grave economic crisis, he displays thoughtful analysis, enlists wise counsel and operates with a cool, steady hand. The same cannot be said of Sen. McCain.
Since his early acknowledgement that economic policy is not his strong suit, Sen. McCain has stumbled and fumbled badly in dealing with the accelerating crisis as it emerged. He declared that "the fundamentals of our economy are strong" at 9 a.m. one day and by 11 a.m. was describing an economy in crisis. He is both a longtime advocate of less market regulation and a supporter of the huge taxpayer-funded Wall Street bailout. His behavior in this crisis -- erratic is a kind description -- shows him to be ill-equipped to lead the essential effort of reining in a runaway financial system and setting an anxious nation on course to economic recovery.
Sen. Obama warned regulators and the nation 19 months ago that the subprime lending crisis was a disaster in the making. Sen. McCain backed tighter rules for Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, but didn't do much to advance that legislation. Of the two candidates, Sen. Obama better understands the mortgage meltdown's root causes and has the judgment and intelligence to shape a solution, as well as the leadership to rally the country behind it. It is easy to look at Sen. Obama and see a return to the smart, bipartisan economic policies of the last Democratic administration in Washington, which left the country with the momentum of growth and a budget surplus that President George Bush has squandered.
On the most important issue of the day, Sen. Obama is a clear choice.
Sen. McCain describes himself as a maverick, by which he seems to mean that he spent 25 years trying unsuccessfully to persuade his own party to follow his bipartisan, centrist lead. Sadly, maverick John McCain didn't show up for the campaign. Instead we have candidate McCain, who embraces the extreme Republican orthodoxy he once resisted and cynically asks Americans to buy for another four years.
It is Sen. Obama who truly promises fundamental change in Washington. You need look no further than the guilt-by-association lies and sound-bite distortions of the degenerating McCain campaign to see how readily he embraces the divisive, fear-mongering tactics of Karl Rove. And while Sen. McCain points to the fragile success of the troop surge in stabilizing conditions in Iraq, it is also plain that he was fundamentally wrong about the more crucial early decisions. Contrary to his assurances, we were not greeted as liberators; it was not a short, easy war; and Americans -- not Iraqi oil -- have had to pay for it. It was Sen. Obama who more clearly saw the danger ahead.
The unqualified endorsement of Sen. Obama by a seasoned, respected soldier and diplomat like Gen. Colin Powell, a Republican icon, should reassure all Americans that the Democratic candidate will pass muster as commander in chief.
On a matter of parochial interest, Sen. Obama opposes the opening of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, but so does Sen. McCain. We think both are wrong, and hope a President Obama can be convinced to support environmentally responsible development of that resource.
Gov. Palin has shown the country why she has been so successful in her young political career. Passionate, charismatic and indefatigable, she draws huge crowds and sows excitement in her wake. She has made it clear she's a force to be reckoned with, and you can be sure politicians and political professionals across the country have taken note. Her future, in Alaska and on the national stage, seems certain to be played out in the limelight.
Yet despite her formidable gifts, few who have worked closely with the governor would argue she is truly ready to assume command of the most important, powerful nation on earth. To step in and juggle the demands of an economic meltdown, two deadly wars and a deteriorating climate crisis would stretch the governor beyond her range. Like picking Sen. McCain for president, putting her one 72-year-old heartbeat from the leadership of the free world is just too risky at this time.
Monday, October 27, 2008
Jane Pauley Stumps for Obama in Madison
Went to Demo headquarters again today to make phone calls. An hour into the work, Zach and Lea said that Jane Pauley was coming to town to campaign for Obama. First I'd heard of it. That would be exciting for little old Madison, I thought.
First, "Who is Jane Pauley?" (I quote a friend, in her forties, who works at Wal-Mart, and who has probably watched mostly TV Land, bless her.) Jane was a broadcast journalist on The NBC Today Show and Dateline for nearly twenty years. She is a fellow Hoosier, from Indianapolis, a graduate of Indiana University, and was a news anchor at WISH-TV8 in her home town. She lives in New York and has had three children with her husband, Gary Trudeau, drawer of the comic strip Doonesbury.
For an old geezer who doesn't socialize a lot by choice, I had fun hanging out with the fellow Demos who'd gathered at The Downtowner restaurant before Jane showed up there. It seems that most of the folks I know, outside of the fellowship I commune with almost daily, were there in that fairly small room of fifty or so people.
Spence and Laura S., Merritt A., and Julie B., past and present Democratic officeholders, were there. Spence was and still is a hero, dating from his high school basketball days when I was the sixth grader who watched him and his teammates garner the Indiana state championship in 1950. And he treats me as an equal. I told Julie that I had a dance class with her mother in the early fifties; both mother and daughter are prominent in Jefferson County politics. Julie, like her mother, has beauty and poise.
I got to meet the new president of the nearby college, with whom I've exchanged emails. She has gravitas without trying to impress everyone with it and I hope she will prove to be the best president the school has had in a long time. A sociology professor at the same school and I had a nice visit; he'd brought a copy of a book he'd written to give to Jane and was to introduce her.
Several others I've met since coming back to town in 1989 and who go back to my childhood were there. I was delighted to see Bill H., a church musician who plays for a church of righties and who I didn't guess would be a supporter of Barack. He assured me he's been a backer from the first. A couple of friends of my brother Bud expressed sorrow over his passing to me. I told them I miss him. He would have been excited about Barack's candidacy, I think. I know he would have liked Michelle and the two little girls, Malia and Sasha.
We chattered away for quite a while and the fifty or so seemed like a hundred. Then Jane showed up, crossing Main Street like we all do, not at the corner but from in front of the movie theater, running across. We could see her through the picture window, smiling and waving at us. (It is seldom like crossing a Manhattan street, after all.) Her sister, Ann, and daughter, Rachel, were with her. They'd come from Richmond through Connersville and Switzerland County, which means they took a very scenic but very circuitous route and explains why they were so late!
Jane bounced right in, dispensed with all ceremony but did inject warmth and humor and put us at ease, and started pitching for her candidate. She stood six feet away from me! Sure enough, it was her pretty face, her Hoosier unaffected voice (the one she had when she was on WISH-TV 8, still less affected, more mature, even maternal). She looked to be about thirty, Spence said afterward as we walked on the street, and I added that (at 58) she has the willowy figure of a teenager. She was vibrant, bubbly, and enthusiastic about Obama!
Jane said that two endorsements in particular for Obama are remarkable: that of Colin Powell on Meet the Press (in his interview with her old friend Tom Brokaw) and that of the Anchorage Daily News (q.v).
"I try not to view or read things that upset me," she said. "I didn't watch Sarah Palin's speech at the convention because I was sure she would be a hit. I knew it would be stressful. Sure enough, the next morning I couldn't avoid seeing the New York Times headline: 'Palin Electrifies Convention,' and sure enough that was a downer. That word, "electrify." Well, when Colin Powell endorsed Obama, he said that Barack's election would not only be 'electrifying' for the nation but for the world. Well, after that, the word electrify was put into perspective again." We laughed at the irony when she just mentioned the endorsement of Obama by the principal newspaper in Alaska. ("Palin's rise captivates us but nation needs a steady hand," the subhead of the endorsement reads.)
When Jane was done lighting our fires she was in no hurry to leave and seemed to visit with everybody. I was no exception; she and I stood there and chatted like old friends. I told her I'd had a crush on her when I watched her on Channel 8. She told me I reminded her of Lee Hamilton. Must be the haircut.
I asked Rachel, Jane's daughter, if she (Rachel) was a twin. She lighted up a little and said "Yes!" I asked her if her twin is a sister or a brother. I was the one delighted when she said, "Brother." I told her I have twins, a boy and a girl, too. Her Aunt Ann said, "We've met many twins on this tour."
It was a good day.
First, "Who is Jane Pauley?" (I quote a friend, in her forties, who works at Wal-Mart, and who has probably watched mostly TV Land, bless her.) Jane was a broadcast journalist on The NBC Today Show and Dateline for nearly twenty years. She is a fellow Hoosier, from Indianapolis, a graduate of Indiana University, and was a news anchor at WISH-TV8 in her home town. She lives in New York and has had three children with her husband, Gary Trudeau, drawer of the comic strip Doonesbury.
For an old geezer who doesn't socialize a lot by choice, I had fun hanging out with the fellow Demos who'd gathered at The Downtowner restaurant before Jane showed up there. It seems that most of the folks I know, outside of the fellowship I commune with almost daily, were there in that fairly small room of fifty or so people.
Spence and Laura S., Merritt A., and Julie B., past and present Democratic officeholders, were there. Spence was and still is a hero, dating from his high school basketball days when I was the sixth grader who watched him and his teammates garner the Indiana state championship in 1950. And he treats me as an equal. I told Julie that I had a dance class with her mother in the early fifties; both mother and daughter are prominent in Jefferson County politics. Julie, like her mother, has beauty and poise.
I got to meet the new president of the nearby college, with whom I've exchanged emails. She has gravitas without trying to impress everyone with it and I hope she will prove to be the best president the school has had in a long time. A sociology professor at the same school and I had a nice visit; he'd brought a copy of a book he'd written to give to Jane and was to introduce her.
Several others I've met since coming back to town in 1989 and who go back to my childhood were there. I was delighted to see Bill H., a church musician who plays for a church of righties and who I didn't guess would be a supporter of Barack. He assured me he's been a backer from the first. A couple of friends of my brother Bud expressed sorrow over his passing to me. I told them I miss him. He would have been excited about Barack's candidacy, I think. I know he would have liked Michelle and the two little girls, Malia and Sasha.
We chattered away for quite a while and the fifty or so seemed like a hundred. Then Jane showed up, crossing Main Street like we all do, not at the corner but from in front of the movie theater, running across. We could see her through the picture window, smiling and waving at us. (It is seldom like crossing a Manhattan street, after all.) Her sister, Ann, and daughter, Rachel, were with her. They'd come from Richmond through Connersville and Switzerland County, which means they took a very scenic but very circuitous route and explains why they were so late!
Jane bounced right in, dispensed with all ceremony but did inject warmth and humor and put us at ease, and started pitching for her candidate. She stood six feet away from me! Sure enough, it was her pretty face, her Hoosier unaffected voice (the one she had when she was on WISH-TV 8, still less affected, more mature, even maternal). She looked to be about thirty, Spence said afterward as we walked on the street, and I added that (at 58) she has the willowy figure of a teenager. She was vibrant, bubbly, and enthusiastic about Obama!
Jane said that two endorsements in particular for Obama are remarkable: that of Colin Powell on Meet the Press (in his interview with her old friend Tom Brokaw) and that of the Anchorage Daily News (q.v).
"I try not to view or read things that upset me," she said. "I didn't watch Sarah Palin's speech at the convention because I was sure she would be a hit. I knew it would be stressful. Sure enough, the next morning I couldn't avoid seeing the New York Times headline: 'Palin Electrifies Convention,' and sure enough that was a downer. That word, "electrify." Well, when Colin Powell endorsed Obama, he said that Barack's election would not only be 'electrifying' for the nation but for the world. Well, after that, the word electrify was put into perspective again." We laughed at the irony when she just mentioned the endorsement of Obama by the principal newspaper in Alaska. ("Palin's rise captivates us but nation needs a steady hand," the subhead of the endorsement reads.)
When Jane was done lighting our fires she was in no hurry to leave and seemed to visit with everybody. I was no exception; she and I stood there and chatted like old friends. I told her I'd had a crush on her when I watched her on Channel 8. She told me I reminded her of Lee Hamilton. Must be the haircut.
I asked Rachel, Jane's daughter, if she (Rachel) was a twin. She lighted up a little and said "Yes!" I asked her if her twin is a sister or a brother. I was the one delighted when she said, "Brother." I told her I have twins, a boy and a girl, too. Her Aunt Ann said, "We've met many twins on this tour."
It was a good day.
Saturday, October 25, 2008
Let There Be Lights
I've been mistakenly receiving emails from Asian Americans and Pacific Islanders for Obama. Here is the most recent one. I found it instructive and relevant to the tone and the false accusations continuously made about Barack Obama in this campaign.
October 24, 2008
Dear Friends,
Thank you for the opportunity to share a few thoughts with you as we near the night of Diwali. In the coming days, Hindus, Sikhs, Jains and their friends of all faiths will gather across America and around the world to celebrate the Festival of Lights. Much has happened in the world since the last Diwali, and this is a wonderful opportunity to reflect on the year past and rededicate ourselves to spreading peace and tolerance in the coming year.
Last year, I wrote that Diwali’s celebration of the triumph of illumination over ignorance had a special meaning for me. At that time, traveling across America and meeting people of every spiritual and ethnic background showed me that there’s much more that unites us than divides us. Now, one year later, I believe this even more strongly.
Americans, despite our varied backgrounds, believe that all people are created equal, and that each person should be free to practice or not practice religion as they choose. These beliefs have faced challenges at home and abroad throughout history, but they are the beliefs our nation was founded on, and we always return to them.
If I’m elected President of the United States, I will work to renew America’s moral leadership in the world. This is our time to create change, and I believe that we can and must continue the fight against ignorance and intolerance. I hope you enjoy your celebration and renew your commitment to overcoming ignorance. I wish you all the best for a joyous Diwali.
Sincerely,
Barack Obama
October 24, 2008
Dear Friends,
Thank you for the opportunity to share a few thoughts with you as we near the night of Diwali. In the coming days, Hindus, Sikhs, Jains and their friends of all faiths will gather across America and around the world to celebrate the Festival of Lights. Much has happened in the world since the last Diwali, and this is a wonderful opportunity to reflect on the year past and rededicate ourselves to spreading peace and tolerance in the coming year.
Last year, I wrote that Diwali’s celebration of the triumph of illumination over ignorance had a special meaning for me. At that time, traveling across America and meeting people of every spiritual and ethnic background showed me that there’s much more that unites us than divides us. Now, one year later, I believe this even more strongly.
Americans, despite our varied backgrounds, believe that all people are created equal, and that each person should be free to practice or not practice religion as they choose. These beliefs have faced challenges at home and abroad throughout history, but they are the beliefs our nation was founded on, and we always return to them.
If I’m elected President of the United States, I will work to renew America’s moral leadership in the world. This is our time to create change, and I believe that we can and must continue the fight against ignorance and intolerance. I hope you enjoy your celebration and renew your commitment to overcoming ignorance. I wish you all the best for a joyous Diwali.
Sincerely,
Barack Obama
Thursday, October 23, 2008
It's In the Book!
When I was a little kid my oldest brother brought home a 78-rpm record of Johnny Standley and the Horace Heidt band doing a spoof of an "evangelist." Johnny "preaches a sermon" the "text" of which is the nursery rhyme, "Little Bo Peep," then the "congregation" sings the "closing hymn," which is "Grandma's Lye Soap." I can still see tears of laughter running down the cheeks of Mother and Sadie. (I would add that those were also tears of relief, but I won't go into that right now.) I downloaded it from iTunes a while ago and found it to be more hilarious than ever. (Those were innocent times, when that record was cut, and there is nothing whatever scatological about the humor, and if there is an allusion to irreverence towards certain forms of worship it was miles from "blasphemy." But I don't want to go into that right now either.)
In Johnny's "sermon" he punctuates his commentary on the rhyme with "It's in the book!" Which I merely wanted to use to segue into a little "sermon" of my own. To myself. Consider it a Hamlet-like soliloquy. The book in question is the First Letter of John in the New Testament, specifically these words in Chapter Four:
"God is love, and those who abide in love abide in God, and God abides in them. Love has been perfected among us in this: that we may have boldness on the day of judgment, because as he is, so are we in this world. There is no fear in love, but perfect love casts out fear; for fear has to do with punishment, and whoever fears has not reached perfection in love. We love because he first loved us. Those who say, "I love God," but hate their brothers or sisters, are liars; for those who do not love a brother or sister whom they have seen, cannot love God whom they have not seen. The commandment we have from him is this: those who love God must love their brothers and sisters also."
I feel sickly, tired and sad – that old triad of depression that I sooner or later slide into. I am sick and tired of the campaign and will be glad when it’s over – i.e. I will be glad when it’s over ONLY IF OBAMA WINS. It seems to be going his way but I’m afraid. I’m afraid that the hate-mongers and fear-mongers will win. Whereas those who have had fear and hatred struck in their hearts by the whispering campaigns and mob rallies and emails and robocalls and who think Barack is secretly a Muslim (i.e. terrorist) are afraid he will win. We two groups live in parallel universes and only the love of God could transcend the vast spaces between us. Voting is occurring now, in Florida, for one place. I’m afraid that the Republicans will steal the election by suppressing the votes for Obama. So, in addition to depression, I’m locked in anxiety until this election is over. And, I fear, win or lose, I’m going to be stuck with just depression when the election is over. (I'll cross that bridge...)
"There is no fear in love, because perfect love casts out fear." The God of Jesus -- the one Jesus called "Daddy" ("Abba") -- only that One is capable of the perfect love we so desperately need. I have too much fear and I sadly confess not little enough hatred and I desperately need the perfect love of that God to see me through this. So do we all.
It's in the book.
Amen.
In Johnny's "sermon" he punctuates his commentary on the rhyme with "It's in the book!" Which I merely wanted to use to segue into a little "sermon" of my own. To myself. Consider it a Hamlet-like soliloquy. The book in question is the First Letter of John in the New Testament, specifically these words in Chapter Four:
"God is love, and those who abide in love abide in God, and God abides in them. Love has been perfected among us in this: that we may have boldness on the day of judgment, because as he is, so are we in this world. There is no fear in love, but perfect love casts out fear; for fear has to do with punishment, and whoever fears has not reached perfection in love. We love because he first loved us. Those who say, "I love God," but hate their brothers or sisters, are liars; for those who do not love a brother or sister whom they have seen, cannot love God whom they have not seen. The commandment we have from him is this: those who love God must love their brothers and sisters also."
I feel sickly, tired and sad – that old triad of depression that I sooner or later slide into. I am sick and tired of the campaign and will be glad when it’s over – i.e. I will be glad when it’s over ONLY IF OBAMA WINS. It seems to be going his way but I’m afraid. I’m afraid that the hate-mongers and fear-mongers will win. Whereas those who have had fear and hatred struck in their hearts by the whispering campaigns and mob rallies and emails and robocalls and who think Barack is secretly a Muslim (i.e. terrorist) are afraid he will win. We two groups live in parallel universes and only the love of God could transcend the vast spaces between us. Voting is occurring now, in Florida, for one place. I’m afraid that the Republicans will steal the election by suppressing the votes for Obama. So, in addition to depression, I’m locked in anxiety until this election is over. And, I fear, win or lose, I’m going to be stuck with just depression when the election is over. (I'll cross that bridge...)
"There is no fear in love, because perfect love casts out fear." The God of Jesus -- the one Jesus called "Daddy" ("Abba") -- only that One is capable of the perfect love we so desperately need. I have too much fear and I sadly confess not little enough hatred and I desperately need the perfect love of that God to see me through this. So do we all.
It's in the book.
Amen.
Monday, October 20, 2008
Chicago Tribune Endorses Obama
FROM THE CHICAGO TRIBUNE EDITORIAL BOARD
Tribune endorsement: Barack Obama for president
2:33 PM CDT, October 17, 2008
However this election turns out, it will dramatically advance America's slow progress toward equality and inclusion. It took Abraham Lincoln's extraordinary courage in the Civil War to get us here. It took an epic battle to secure women the right to vote. It took the perseverance of the civil rights movement. Now we have an election in which we will choose the first African-American president . . . or the first female vice president.
In recent weeks it has been easy to lose sight of this history in the making. Americans are focused on the greatest threat to the world economic system in 80 years. They feel a personal vulnerability the likes of which they haven't experienced since Sept. 11, 2001. It's a different kind of vulnerability. Unlike Sept. 11, the economic threat hasn't forged a common bond in this nation. It has fed anger, fear and mistrust.
On Nov. 4 we're going to elect a president to lead us through a perilous time and restore in us a common sense of national purpose.
The strongest candidate to do that is Sen. Barack Obama. The Tribune is proud to endorse him today for president of the United States.
-----------------------
On Dec. 6, 2006, this page encouraged Obama to join the presidential campaign. We wrote that he would celebrate our common values instead of exaggerate our differences. We said he would raise the tone of the campaign. We said his intellectual depth would sharpen the policy debate. In the ensuing 22 months he has done just that.
Many Americans say they're uneasy about Obama. He's pretty new to them.
We can provide some assurance. We have known Obama since he entered politics a dozen years ago. We have watched him, worked with him, argued with him as he rose from an effective state senator to an inspiring U.S. senator to the Democratic Party's nominee for president.
We have tremendous confidence in his intellectual rigor, his moral compass and his ability to make sound, thoughtful, careful decisions. He is ready.
The change that Obama talks about so much is not simply a change in this policy or that one. It is not fundamentally about lobbyists or Washington insiders. Obama envisions a change in the way we deal with one another in politics and government. His opponents may say this is empty, abstract rhetoric. In fact, it is hard to imagine how we are going to deal with the grave domestic and foreign crises we face without an end to the savagery and a return to civility in politics.
-----------------------
This endorsement makes some history for the Chicago Tribune. This is the first time the newspaper has endorsed the Democratic Party's nominee for president.
The Tribune in its earliest days took up the abolition of slavery and linked itself to a powerful force for that cause--the Republican Party. The Tribune's first great leader, Joseph Medill, was a founder of the GOP. The editorial page has been a proponent of conservative principles. It believes that government has to serve people honestly and efficiently.
With that in mind, in 1872 we endorsed Horace Greeley, who ran as an independent against the corrupt administration of Republican President Ulysses S. Grant. (Greeley was later endorsed by the Democrats.) In 1912 we endorsed Theodore Roosevelt, who ran as the Progressive Party candidate against Republican President William Howard Taft.
The Tribune's decisions then were driven by outrage at inept and corrupt business and political leaders.
We see parallels today.
The Republican Party, the party of limited government, has lost its way. The government ran a $237 billion surplus in 2000, the year before Bush took office -- and recorded a $455 billion deficit in 2008. The Republicans lost control of the U.S. House and Senate in 2006 because, as we said at the time, they gave the nation rampant spending and Capitol Hill corruption. They abandoned their principles. They paid the price.
We might have counted on John McCain to correct his party's course. We like McCain. We endorsed him in the Republican primary in Illinois. In part because of his persuasion and resolve, the U.S. stands to win an unconditional victory in Iraq.
It is, though, hard to figure John McCain these days. He argued that President Bush's tax cuts were fiscally irresponsible, but he now supports them. He promises a balanced budget by the end of his first term, but his tax cut plan would add an estimated $4.2 trillion in debt over 10 years. He has responded to the economic crisis with an angry, populist message and a misguided, $300 billion proposal to buy up bad mortgages.
McCain failed in his most important executive decision. Give him credit for choosing a female running mate--but he passed up any number of supremely qualified Republican women who could have served. Having called Obama not ready to lead, McCain chose Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin. His campaign has tried to stage-manage Palin's exposure to the public. But it's clear she is not prepared to step in at a moment's notice and serve as president. McCain put his campaign before his country.
Obama chose a more experienced and more thoughtful running mate--he put governing before politicking. Sen. Joe Biden doesn't bring many votes to Obama, but he would help him from day one to lead the country.
-----------------------
McCain calls Obama a typical liberal politician. Granted, it's disappointing that Obama's mix of tax cuts for most people and increases for the wealthy would create an estimated $2.9 trillion in federal debt. He has made more promises on spending than McCain has. We wish one of these candidates had given good, hard specific information on how he would bring the federal budget into line. Neither one has.
We do, though, think Obama would govern as much more of a pragmatic centrist than many people expect.
We know first-hand that Obama seeks out and listens carefully and respectfully to people who disagree with him. He builds consensus. He was most effective in the Illinois legislature when he worked with Republicans on welfare, ethics and criminal justice reform.
He worked to expand the number of charter schools in Illinois--not popular with some Democratic constituencies.
He took up ethics reform in the U.S. Senate--not popular with Washington politicians.
His economic policy team is peppered with advisers who support free trade. He has been called a "University of Chicago Democrat"--a reference to the famed free-market Chicago school of economics, which puts faith in markets.
-----------------------
Obama is deeply grounded in the best aspirations of this country, and we need to return to those aspirations. He has had the character and the will to achieve great things despite the obstacles that he faced as an unprivileged black man in the U.S.
He has risen with his honor, grace and civility intact. He has the intelligence to understand the grave economic and national security risks that face us, to listen to good advice and make careful decisions.
When Obama said at the 2004 Democratic Convention that we weren't a nation of red states and blue states, he spoke of union the way Abraham Lincoln did.
It may have seemed audacious for Obama to start his campaign in Springfield, invoking Lincoln. We think, given the opportunity to hold this nation's most powerful office, he will prove it wasn't so audacious after all. We are proud to add Barack Obama's name to Lincoln's in the list of people the Tribune has endorsed for president of the United States.
Tribune endorsement: Barack Obama for president
2:33 PM CDT, October 17, 2008
However this election turns out, it will dramatically advance America's slow progress toward equality and inclusion. It took Abraham Lincoln's extraordinary courage in the Civil War to get us here. It took an epic battle to secure women the right to vote. It took the perseverance of the civil rights movement. Now we have an election in which we will choose the first African-American president . . . or the first female vice president.
In recent weeks it has been easy to lose sight of this history in the making. Americans are focused on the greatest threat to the world economic system in 80 years. They feel a personal vulnerability the likes of which they haven't experienced since Sept. 11, 2001. It's a different kind of vulnerability. Unlike Sept. 11, the economic threat hasn't forged a common bond in this nation. It has fed anger, fear and mistrust.
On Nov. 4 we're going to elect a president to lead us through a perilous time and restore in us a common sense of national purpose.
The strongest candidate to do that is Sen. Barack Obama. The Tribune is proud to endorse him today for president of the United States.
-----------------------
On Dec. 6, 2006, this page encouraged Obama to join the presidential campaign. We wrote that he would celebrate our common values instead of exaggerate our differences. We said he would raise the tone of the campaign. We said his intellectual depth would sharpen the policy debate. In the ensuing 22 months he has done just that.
Many Americans say they're uneasy about Obama. He's pretty new to them.
We can provide some assurance. We have known Obama since he entered politics a dozen years ago. We have watched him, worked with him, argued with him as he rose from an effective state senator to an inspiring U.S. senator to the Democratic Party's nominee for president.
We have tremendous confidence in his intellectual rigor, his moral compass and his ability to make sound, thoughtful, careful decisions. He is ready.
The change that Obama talks about so much is not simply a change in this policy or that one. It is not fundamentally about lobbyists or Washington insiders. Obama envisions a change in the way we deal with one another in politics and government. His opponents may say this is empty, abstract rhetoric. In fact, it is hard to imagine how we are going to deal with the grave domestic and foreign crises we face without an end to the savagery and a return to civility in politics.
-----------------------
This endorsement makes some history for the Chicago Tribune. This is the first time the newspaper has endorsed the Democratic Party's nominee for president.
The Tribune in its earliest days took up the abolition of slavery and linked itself to a powerful force for that cause--the Republican Party. The Tribune's first great leader, Joseph Medill, was a founder of the GOP. The editorial page has been a proponent of conservative principles. It believes that government has to serve people honestly and efficiently.
With that in mind, in 1872 we endorsed Horace Greeley, who ran as an independent against the corrupt administration of Republican President Ulysses S. Grant. (Greeley was later endorsed by the Democrats.) In 1912 we endorsed Theodore Roosevelt, who ran as the Progressive Party candidate against Republican President William Howard Taft.
The Tribune's decisions then were driven by outrage at inept and corrupt business and political leaders.
We see parallels today.
The Republican Party, the party of limited government, has lost its way. The government ran a $237 billion surplus in 2000, the year before Bush took office -- and recorded a $455 billion deficit in 2008. The Republicans lost control of the U.S. House and Senate in 2006 because, as we said at the time, they gave the nation rampant spending and Capitol Hill corruption. They abandoned their principles. They paid the price.
We might have counted on John McCain to correct his party's course. We like McCain. We endorsed him in the Republican primary in Illinois. In part because of his persuasion and resolve, the U.S. stands to win an unconditional victory in Iraq.
It is, though, hard to figure John McCain these days. He argued that President Bush's tax cuts were fiscally irresponsible, but he now supports them. He promises a balanced budget by the end of his first term, but his tax cut plan would add an estimated $4.2 trillion in debt over 10 years. He has responded to the economic crisis with an angry, populist message and a misguided, $300 billion proposal to buy up bad mortgages.
McCain failed in his most important executive decision. Give him credit for choosing a female running mate--but he passed up any number of supremely qualified Republican women who could have served. Having called Obama not ready to lead, McCain chose Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin. His campaign has tried to stage-manage Palin's exposure to the public. But it's clear she is not prepared to step in at a moment's notice and serve as president. McCain put his campaign before his country.
Obama chose a more experienced and more thoughtful running mate--he put governing before politicking. Sen. Joe Biden doesn't bring many votes to Obama, but he would help him from day one to lead the country.
-----------------------
McCain calls Obama a typical liberal politician. Granted, it's disappointing that Obama's mix of tax cuts for most people and increases for the wealthy would create an estimated $2.9 trillion in federal debt. He has made more promises on spending than McCain has. We wish one of these candidates had given good, hard specific information on how he would bring the federal budget into line. Neither one has.
We do, though, think Obama would govern as much more of a pragmatic centrist than many people expect.
We know first-hand that Obama seeks out and listens carefully and respectfully to people who disagree with him. He builds consensus. He was most effective in the Illinois legislature when he worked with Republicans on welfare, ethics and criminal justice reform.
He worked to expand the number of charter schools in Illinois--not popular with some Democratic constituencies.
He took up ethics reform in the U.S. Senate--not popular with Washington politicians.
His economic policy team is peppered with advisers who support free trade. He has been called a "University of Chicago Democrat"--a reference to the famed free-market Chicago school of economics, which puts faith in markets.
-----------------------
Obama is deeply grounded in the best aspirations of this country, and we need to return to those aspirations. He has had the character and the will to achieve great things despite the obstacles that he faced as an unprivileged black man in the U.S.
He has risen with his honor, grace and civility intact. He has the intelligence to understand the grave economic and national security risks that face us, to listen to good advice and make careful decisions.
When Obama said at the 2004 Democratic Convention that we weren't a nation of red states and blue states, he spoke of union the way Abraham Lincoln did.
It may have seemed audacious for Obama to start his campaign in Springfield, invoking Lincoln. We think, given the opportunity to hold this nation's most powerful office, he will prove it wasn't so audacious after all. We are proud to add Barack Obama's name to Lincoln's in the list of people the Tribune has endorsed for president of the United States.
Saturday, October 18, 2008
"The Surge Is Why We're 'Winning' in Iraq"
From the God's Politics blog
The Sad Truth about the Surge
by Tony Campolo 10-17-2008
In a recent conversation I had about the coming election, a friend reiterated the campaign rhetoric that the “surge” in Iraq has worked, and that Barack Obama ought to admit that John McCain was right in advocating the surge long before President Bush made it a reality. Because I wasn’t so sure that the surge deserved such lauding, I did some research, and what I found was very disturbing.
Yes! The violence has de-escalated, just as my friend had pointed out, but the reasons I discovered as to why it has de-escalated have caused me much consternation. Consider the following:
1.) To the south of Baghdad, in the region around the strategic port city of Basra, violence has declined because the radical Shiite Muslim cleric Muqtada al-Sadr is now firmly in control. His militia, supplied by Iran, has been a challenge to the official government of Nouri al-Maliki, which has little control in the region because the U.S.-backed Maliki troops have just about ceded this region to al‑Sadr. This assessment, which, not surprisingly, differs from that given by the Bush administration, is substantiated by foreign analysts such as Joost Hiltermann, deputy program director for the Middle East and North Africa for the International Crisis Group.
2.) It is true that to the west of Baghdad, in Anbar Province, the violence against Shiites by Sunni Muslims has largely abated — but not because of the surge. Violent attacks on the Shiites by Sunnis have been so intense that most Shiites have fled the country. Almost a million of them have become refugees in Jordan and are suffering from extreme poverty because the Jordanian government, faced with a lack of jobs for their own citizens, will not give these refugees permission to be gainfully employed.
3.) Another reason that the violence in Anbar Province has declined is because, according to The Times of London, America [My note: i.e. the Bush administration in the name of the U.S.] is bribing the insurgents not to fight. Paul Craig Roberts, the assistant secretary of the Treasury during the Reagan administration and a former associate editor of The Wall Street Journal, reports that the Bush administration is paying $800,000 a day for Sunni insurgents not to attack U.S. forces. This is outrageous, especially given what’s happening to the U.S. economy.
4.) Then there is this — Assyrian International News Agency reports that the Christians of Iraq have been suffering severe persecution. Fifty percent of Assyrian Christians, who prior to April 2003 comprised 8 percent (1.5 million) of the Iraqi population, have fled the country. There are now 150,000 of them in Jordan and 70,000 in Syria. Fifty-two churches have been attacked or bombed since June 2004. In the north of the country, the Kurds have kidnapped Christian children and forcibly transferred them to Muslim families. Ironically, Christians had extensive freedoms and were protected from persecution under Saddam Hussein.
Yes, I agree with my friend. Violence is down in Iraq, but I’m not so sure that the surge deserves the major credit for this, nor am I convinced that the results of what has transpired in Iraq over the past year are anything to cheer about. In addition to the horrendous loss of lives, which should be our primary concern, there is the matter of our military presence in Iraq costing the American taxpayers $250,000 a minute, and this at a time when we’re facing a financial crisis. It’s time that some truth-telling is done, not only about the surge, but concerning what’s really happening over there in Iraq.
Tony Campolo is founder of the Evangelical Association for the Promotion of Education (EAPE) and professor emeritus of sociology at Eastern University.
The Sad Truth about the Surge
by Tony Campolo 10-17-2008
In a recent conversation I had about the coming election, a friend reiterated the campaign rhetoric that the “surge” in Iraq has worked, and that Barack Obama ought to admit that John McCain was right in advocating the surge long before President Bush made it a reality. Because I wasn’t so sure that the surge deserved such lauding, I did some research, and what I found was very disturbing.
Yes! The violence has de-escalated, just as my friend had pointed out, but the reasons I discovered as to why it has de-escalated have caused me much consternation. Consider the following:
1.) To the south of Baghdad, in the region around the strategic port city of Basra, violence has declined because the radical Shiite Muslim cleric Muqtada al-Sadr is now firmly in control. His militia, supplied by Iran, has been a challenge to the official government of Nouri al-Maliki, which has little control in the region because the U.S.-backed Maliki troops have just about ceded this region to al‑Sadr. This assessment, which, not surprisingly, differs from that given by the Bush administration, is substantiated by foreign analysts such as Joost Hiltermann, deputy program director for the Middle East and North Africa for the International Crisis Group.
2.) It is true that to the west of Baghdad, in Anbar Province, the violence against Shiites by Sunni Muslims has largely abated — but not because of the surge. Violent attacks on the Shiites by Sunnis have been so intense that most Shiites have fled the country. Almost a million of them have become refugees in Jordan and are suffering from extreme poverty because the Jordanian government, faced with a lack of jobs for their own citizens, will not give these refugees permission to be gainfully employed.
3.) Another reason that the violence in Anbar Province has declined is because, according to The Times of London, America [My note: i.e. the Bush administration in the name of the U.S.] is bribing the insurgents not to fight. Paul Craig Roberts, the assistant secretary of the Treasury during the Reagan administration and a former associate editor of The Wall Street Journal, reports that the Bush administration is paying $800,000 a day for Sunni insurgents not to attack U.S. forces. This is outrageous, especially given what’s happening to the U.S. economy.
4.) Then there is this — Assyrian International News Agency reports that the Christians of Iraq have been suffering severe persecution. Fifty percent of Assyrian Christians, who prior to April 2003 comprised 8 percent (1.5 million) of the Iraqi population, have fled the country. There are now 150,000 of them in Jordan and 70,000 in Syria. Fifty-two churches have been attacked or bombed since June 2004. In the north of the country, the Kurds have kidnapped Christian children and forcibly transferred them to Muslim families. Ironically, Christians had extensive freedoms and were protected from persecution under Saddam Hussein.
Yes, I agree with my friend. Violence is down in Iraq, but I’m not so sure that the surge deserves the major credit for this, nor am I convinced that the results of what has transpired in Iraq over the past year are anything to cheer about. In addition to the horrendous loss of lives, which should be our primary concern, there is the matter of our military presence in Iraq costing the American taxpayers $250,000 a minute, and this at a time when we’re facing a financial crisis. It’s time that some truth-telling is done, not only about the surge, but concerning what’s really happening over there in Iraq.
Tony Campolo is founder of the Evangelical Association for the Promotion of Education (EAPE) and professor emeritus of sociology at Eastern University.
Monday, October 13, 2008
Krugman Wins Nobel Prize
Paul Krugman, Ph.D., professor at Princeton University and Op-Ed page columnist for The New York Times, was awarded the Nobel Memorial Prize in Economic Sciences today.
The prize committee lauded Mr. Krugman for “having shown the effects of economies of scale on trade patterns and on the location of economic activity.”
The prize committee lauded Mr. Krugman for “having shown the effects of economies of scale on trade patterns and on the location of economic activity.”
Sunday, October 12, 2008
Rhodes Scholars
This evening we watched Cisco Pike (1972) with Kris Kristofferson in the title role. I told Rosie that Kris is a Rhodes Scholar. We also know that Dr. Rachel Maddow, our newly found media darling, is among that elite group, receiving a D.Phil. at the Lincoln College, Oxford, in the 1990s. The list gave a few surprises. One of the most pleasing was a 1910 recipient, from Franklin College, Franklin, Indiana: Aurora's own Elmer Davis. Mr. Davis was a newsman and director of the Office of War Information during World War II. Another newscaster of distinction was Howard K. Smith of Arkansas. I was also delighted to find the name of John Brademas, former Indiana Congressman from South Bend. The list also includes Senators Richard Lugar of Indiana and Paul Sarbanes of Maryland, House Speaker Carl Albert and Senator David Boren of Oklahoma, Senator William Fulbright of Arkansas, Justices John Marshall Harlan, Byron White, and David Souter, General Wesley Clark, Secretary of State Dean Rusk, Attorney General Nicholas Katzenbach, Secretary of Labor Robert Reich, and Senator Bill Bradley of New Jersey. The only President who was a Rhodes Scholar is Bill Clinton. I used to play baseball with a kid who went on to Purdue, became a Rhodes Scholar, and has been in higher education ever since. It's a dazzling list.
I've been preoccupied with politics ever since the Democratic primary heated up and I cast my lot with Barack Obama, and it's good to know that there are those in politics who have distinguished themselves academically -- the elite, if you like. I hope -- pray -- that the elite -- which simply means the excellent or most capable people in society -- will prevail in the coming election.
I've been preoccupied with politics ever since the Democratic primary heated up and I cast my lot with Barack Obama, and it's good to know that there are those in politics who have distinguished themselves academically -- the elite, if you like. I hope -- pray -- that the elite -- which simply means the excellent or most capable people in society -- will prevail in the coming election.
Friday, October 10, 2008
I say! Whawt's this? Whawt have we heah?
Ode to Sean Hannity
by John Cleese
Aping urbanity
Oozing with vanity
Plump as a manatee
Faking humanity
Journalistic calamity
Intellectual inanity
Fox Noise insanity
You’re a profanity
Hannity
*Afterthought! Profound apologies to all manatees everywhere, God bless 'em. They don't feed on human flesh, unlike you-know-who...
by John Cleese
Aping urbanity
Oozing with vanity
Plump as a manatee
Faking humanity
Journalistic calamity
Intellectual inanity
Fox Noise insanity
You’re a profanity
Hannity
*Afterthought! Profound apologies to all manatees everywhere, God bless 'em. They don't feed on human flesh, unlike you-know-who...
Wednesday, October 08, 2008
Ugly, Ugly, Ugly
This is the gist of an editorial in the New York Times this morning:
It is a sorry fact of American political life that campaigns get ugly, often in their final weeks. But Senator John McCain and Gov. Sarah Palin have been running one of the most appalling campaigns we can remember.
They have gone far beyond the usual fare of quotes taken out of context and distortions of an opponent’s record — into the dark territory of race-baiting and xenophobia. Senator Barack Obama has taken some cheap shots at Mr. McCain, but there is no comparison.
Despite the occasional slip (referring to Mr. Obama’s “cronies” and calling him “that one”), Mr. McCain tried to take a higher road in Tuesday night’s presidential debate. It was hard to keep track of the number of times he referred to his audience as “my friends.” But apart from promising to buy up troubled mortgages as president, he offered no real answers for how he plans to solve the country’s deep economic crisis. He is unable or unwilling to admit that the Republican assault on regulation was to blame.
Ninety minutes of forced cordiality did not erase the dismal ugliness of his campaign in recent weeks, nor did it leave us with much hope that he would not just return to the same dismal ugliness on Wednesday.
Ms. Palin, in particular, revels in the attack. Her campaign rallies have become spectacles of anger and insult. “This is not a man who sees America as you see it and how I see America,” Ms. Palin has taken to saying.
That line follows passages in Ms. Palin’s new stump speech in which she twists Mr. Obama’s ill-advised but fleeting and long-past association with William Ayers, founder of the Weather Underground and confessed bomber. By the time she’s done, she implies that Mr. Obama is right now a close friend of Mr. Ayers — and sympathetic to the violent overthrow of the government. The Democrat, she says, “sees America, it seems, as being so imperfect that he’s palling around with terrorists who would target their own country.”
Her demagoguery has elicited some frightening, intolerable responses. A recent Washington Post report said at a rally in Florida this week a man yelled “kill him!” as Ms. Palin delivered that line and others shouted epithets at an African-American member of a TV crew.
Mr. McCain’s aides haven’t even tried to hide their cynical tactics, saying they were “going negative” in hopes of shifting attention away from the financial crisis — and by implication Mr. McCain’s stumbling response.
We certainly expected better from Mr. McCain, who once showed withering contempt for win-at-any-cost politics. He was driven out of the 2000 Republican primaries by this sort of smear, orchestrated by some of the same people who are now running his campaign.
And the tactic of guilt by association is perplexing, since Mr. McCain has his own list of political associates he would rather forget. We were disappointed to see the Obama campaign air an ad (held for just this occasion) reminding voters of Mr. McCain’s involvement in the Keating Five savings-and-loan debacle, for which he was reprimanded by the Senate. That episode at least bears on Mr. McCain’s claims to be the morally pure candidate and his argument that he alone is capable of doing away with greed, fraud and abuse.
In a way, we should not be surprised that Mr. McCain has stooped so low, since the debate showed once again that he has little else to talk about. He long ago abandoned his signature issues of immigration reform and global warming; his talk of “victory” in Iraq has little to offer a war-weary nation; and his Reagan-inspired ideology of starving government and shredding regulation lies in tatters on Wall Street.
But surely, Mr. McCain and his team can come up with a better answer to that problem than inciting more division, anger and hatred.
***
And a friend sent me this e-mail:
This is from the UK. They may understand Gov. Palin better than we do.
Flirting her way to victory?
Sarah Palin's farcical debate performance lowered the standards for both female candidates and US political discourse
by Michelle Goldberg in the Guardian, Friday October 3 2008
guardian.co.uk
[Note: I am italicizing some passages that struck me as novel, coming from an outside observer of the current U.S. political scene.]
At least three times last night, Sarah Palin, the adorable, preposterous vice-presidential candidate, winked at the audience. Had a male candidate with a similar reputation for attractive vapidity made such a brazen attempt to flirt his way into the good graces of the voting public, it would have been universally noted, discussed and mocked. Palin, however, has singlehandedly so lowered the standards both for female candidates and American political discourse that, with her newfound ability to speak in more-or-less full sentences, she is now deemed to have performed acceptably last night.
By any normal standard, including the ones applied to male presidential candidates of either party, she did not. Early on, she made the astonishing announcement that she had no intentions of actually answering the queries put to her. "I may not answer the questions that either the moderator or you want to hear, but I'm going to talk straight to the American people and let them know my track record also," she said. And so she preceded, with an almost surreal disregard for the subjects she was supposed to be discussing, to unleash fusillades of scripted attack lines, platitudes, lies, gibberish and grating references to her own pseudo-folksy authenticity.
It was an appalling display. The only reason it was not widely described as such is that too many American pundits don't even try to judge the truth, wisdom or reasonableness of the political rhetoric they are paid to pronounce upon. Instead, they imagine themselves as interpreters of a mythical mass of "average Americans" who they both venerate and despise.
In pronouncing upon a debate, they don't try [to] determine whether a candidate's responses correspond to existing reality, or whether he or she is capable of talking about subjects such as the deregulation of the financial markets or the devolution of the war in Afghanistan. The criteria are far more vaporous. In this case, it was whether Palin could avoid utterly humiliating herself for 90 minutes, and whether urbane commentators would believe that she had connected to a public that they see as ignorant and sentimental. For the Alaska governor, mission accomplished.
[Amusingly, Pat Buchanan of MSNBC thought that Palin won the debate. I don't know what Tom Brokaw and David Broder, the "deans" -- the most "urbane" of the "commentators" -- said, but I can't imagine their pronouncing the woman as the blithering idiot she is because of their "fair and balanced" take on things.]
There is indeed something mesmerising about Palin, with her manic beaming and fulsome confidence in her own charm. The force of her personality managed to slightly obscure the insulting emptiness of her answers last night. It's worth reading the transcript of the encounter, where it becomes clearer how bizarre much of what she said was. Here, for example,is how she responded to Biden's comments about how the middle class has been short-changed during the Bush administration, and how McCain will continue Bush's policies:
"Say it ain't so, Joe, there you go again pointing backwards again. You preferenced* [sic] your whole comment with the Bush administration. Now doggone it, let's look ahead and tell Americans what we have to plan to do for them in the future. You mentioned education, and I'm glad you did. I know education you are passionate about with your wife being a teacher for 30 years, and god bless her. Her reward is in heaven, right? ... My brother, who I think is the best schoolteacher in the year, and here's a shout-out to all those third graders at Gladys Wood Elementary School, you get extra credit for watching the debate."
[*prefaced? Dan Quayle, where are you?]
[Like the speech by Gabby Johnson in Blazing Saddles, that too was "authentic frontier gibberish."]
Evidently, Palin's pre-debate handlers judged her incapable of speaking on a fairly wide range of subjects, and so instructed to her to simply disregard questions that did not invite memorised talking points or cutesy filibustering. They probably told her to play up her spunky average-ness, which she did to the point of shtick - and dishonesty.
Asked what her Achilles heel is - a question she either didn't understand or chose to ignore - she started in on how McCain chose her because of her "connection to the heartland of America. Being a mom, one very concerned about a son in the war, about a special needs child, about kids heading off to college, how are we going to pay those tuition bills?"
None of Palin's children, it should be noted, is heading off to college. Her son is on the way to Iraq, and her pregnant 17-year-old daughter is engaged to be married to a high-school dropout and self-described "fuckin'redneck."
Palin is a woman who can't even tell the truth about the most quotidian and public details of her own life, never mind about matters of major public import. In her only vice-presidential debate, she was shallow, mendacious and phoney. What kind of maverick, after all, keeps harping on what a maverick she is? That her performance was considered anything but a farce doesn't show how high Palin has risen, but how low we all have sunk.
***
That was before the recent arrant horse shit about Barack's "palling* around with terrorists."
[* "palling" -- see appalling, Palin]
It is a sorry fact of American political life that campaigns get ugly, often in their final weeks. But Senator John McCain and Gov. Sarah Palin have been running one of the most appalling campaigns we can remember.
They have gone far beyond the usual fare of quotes taken out of context and distortions of an opponent’s record — into the dark territory of race-baiting and xenophobia. Senator Barack Obama has taken some cheap shots at Mr. McCain, but there is no comparison.
Despite the occasional slip (referring to Mr. Obama’s “cronies” and calling him “that one”), Mr. McCain tried to take a higher road in Tuesday night’s presidential debate. It was hard to keep track of the number of times he referred to his audience as “my friends.” But apart from promising to buy up troubled mortgages as president, he offered no real answers for how he plans to solve the country’s deep economic crisis. He is unable or unwilling to admit that the Republican assault on regulation was to blame.
Ninety minutes of forced cordiality did not erase the dismal ugliness of his campaign in recent weeks, nor did it leave us with much hope that he would not just return to the same dismal ugliness on Wednesday.
Ms. Palin, in particular, revels in the attack. Her campaign rallies have become spectacles of anger and insult. “This is not a man who sees America as you see it and how I see America,” Ms. Palin has taken to saying.
That line follows passages in Ms. Palin’s new stump speech in which she twists Mr. Obama’s ill-advised but fleeting and long-past association with William Ayers, founder of the Weather Underground and confessed bomber. By the time she’s done, she implies that Mr. Obama is right now a close friend of Mr. Ayers — and sympathetic to the violent overthrow of the government. The Democrat, she says, “sees America, it seems, as being so imperfect that he’s palling around with terrorists who would target their own country.”
Her demagoguery has elicited some frightening, intolerable responses. A recent Washington Post report said at a rally in Florida this week a man yelled “kill him!” as Ms. Palin delivered that line and others shouted epithets at an African-American member of a TV crew.
Mr. McCain’s aides haven’t even tried to hide their cynical tactics, saying they were “going negative” in hopes of shifting attention away from the financial crisis — and by implication Mr. McCain’s stumbling response.
We certainly expected better from Mr. McCain, who once showed withering contempt for win-at-any-cost politics. He was driven out of the 2000 Republican primaries by this sort of smear, orchestrated by some of the same people who are now running his campaign.
And the tactic of guilt by association is perplexing, since Mr. McCain has his own list of political associates he would rather forget. We were disappointed to see the Obama campaign air an ad (held for just this occasion) reminding voters of Mr. McCain’s involvement in the Keating Five savings-and-loan debacle, for which he was reprimanded by the Senate. That episode at least bears on Mr. McCain’s claims to be the morally pure candidate and his argument that he alone is capable of doing away with greed, fraud and abuse.
In a way, we should not be surprised that Mr. McCain has stooped so low, since the debate showed once again that he has little else to talk about. He long ago abandoned his signature issues of immigration reform and global warming; his talk of “victory” in Iraq has little to offer a war-weary nation; and his Reagan-inspired ideology of starving government and shredding regulation lies in tatters on Wall Street.
But surely, Mr. McCain and his team can come up with a better answer to that problem than inciting more division, anger and hatred.
***
And a friend sent me this e-mail:
This is from the UK. They may understand Gov. Palin better than we do.
Flirting her way to victory?
Sarah Palin's farcical debate performance lowered the standards for both female candidates and US political discourse
by Michelle Goldberg in the Guardian, Friday October 3 2008
guardian.co.uk
[Note: I am italicizing some passages that struck me as novel, coming from an outside observer of the current U.S. political scene.]
At least three times last night, Sarah Palin, the adorable, preposterous vice-presidential candidate, winked at the audience. Had a male candidate with a similar reputation for attractive vapidity made such a brazen attempt to flirt his way into the good graces of the voting public, it would have been universally noted, discussed and mocked. Palin, however, has singlehandedly so lowered the standards both for female candidates and American political discourse that, with her newfound ability to speak in more-or-less full sentences, she is now deemed to have performed acceptably last night.
By any normal standard, including the ones applied to male presidential candidates of either party, she did not. Early on, she made the astonishing announcement that she had no intentions of actually answering the queries put to her. "I may not answer the questions that either the moderator or you want to hear, but I'm going to talk straight to the American people and let them know my track record also," she said. And so she preceded, with an almost surreal disregard for the subjects she was supposed to be discussing, to unleash fusillades of scripted attack lines, platitudes, lies, gibberish and grating references to her own pseudo-folksy authenticity.
It was an appalling display. The only reason it was not widely described as such is that too many American pundits don't even try to judge the truth, wisdom or reasonableness of the political rhetoric they are paid to pronounce upon. Instead, they imagine themselves as interpreters of a mythical mass of "average Americans" who they both venerate and despise.
In pronouncing upon a debate, they don't try [to] determine whether a candidate's responses correspond to existing reality, or whether he or she is capable of talking about subjects such as the deregulation of the financial markets or the devolution of the war in Afghanistan. The criteria are far more vaporous. In this case, it was whether Palin could avoid utterly humiliating herself for 90 minutes, and whether urbane commentators would believe that she had connected to a public that they see as ignorant and sentimental. For the Alaska governor, mission accomplished.
[Amusingly, Pat Buchanan of MSNBC thought that Palin won the debate. I don't know what Tom Brokaw and David Broder, the "deans" -- the most "urbane" of the "commentators" -- said, but I can't imagine their pronouncing the woman as the blithering idiot she is because of their "fair and balanced" take on things.]
There is indeed something mesmerising about Palin, with her manic beaming and fulsome confidence in her own charm. The force of her personality managed to slightly obscure the insulting emptiness of her answers last night. It's worth reading the transcript of the encounter, where it becomes clearer how bizarre much of what she said was. Here, for example,is how she responded to Biden's comments about how the middle class has been short-changed during the Bush administration, and how McCain will continue Bush's policies:
"Say it ain't so, Joe, there you go again pointing backwards again. You preferenced* [sic] your whole comment with the Bush administration. Now doggone it, let's look ahead and tell Americans what we have to plan to do for them in the future. You mentioned education, and I'm glad you did. I know education you are passionate about with your wife being a teacher for 30 years, and god bless her. Her reward is in heaven, right? ... My brother, who I think is the best schoolteacher in the year, and here's a shout-out to all those third graders at Gladys Wood Elementary School, you get extra credit for watching the debate."
[*prefaced? Dan Quayle, where are you?]
[Like the speech by Gabby Johnson in Blazing Saddles, that too was "authentic frontier gibberish."]
Evidently, Palin's pre-debate handlers judged her incapable of speaking on a fairly wide range of subjects, and so instructed to her to simply disregard questions that did not invite memorised talking points or cutesy filibustering. They probably told her to play up her spunky average-ness, which she did to the point of shtick - and dishonesty.
Asked what her Achilles heel is - a question she either didn't understand or chose to ignore - she started in on how McCain chose her because of her "connection to the heartland of America. Being a mom, one very concerned about a son in the war, about a special needs child, about kids heading off to college, how are we going to pay those tuition bills?"
None of Palin's children, it should be noted, is heading off to college. Her son is on the way to Iraq, and her pregnant 17-year-old daughter is engaged to be married to a high-school dropout and self-described "fuckin'redneck."
Palin is a woman who can't even tell the truth about the most quotidian and public details of her own life, never mind about matters of major public import. In her only vice-presidential debate, she was shallow, mendacious and phoney. What kind of maverick, after all, keeps harping on what a maverick she is? That her performance was considered anything but a farce doesn't show how high Palin has risen, but how low we all have sunk.
***
That was before the recent arrant horse shit about Barack's "palling* around with terrorists."
[* "palling" -- see appalling, Palin]
Friday, October 03, 2008
Feel free to post, friends and family
Open for business again. All comments will be scrutinized before they are published or rejected. The following criteria for comments on Sojourners' blogs seem relevant here, a ballpark guideline, not a megachurch one. I confess I have not always adhered to them myself. More's the pity but "all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God." (Romans 3:23)
Comment Code of Conduct
I will express myself with civility, courtesy, and respect for every member of the Sojourners online community, especially toward those with whom I disagree—even if I feel disrespected by them. (Romans 12:17-21)
I will express my disagreements with other community members' ideas without insulting, mocking, or slandering them personally. (Matthew 5:22)
I will not exaggerate others' beliefs nor make unfounded prejudicial assumptions based on labels, categories, or stereotypes. I will always extend the benefit of the doubt. (Ephesians 4:29)
I will participate in community accountability by rating posts up or down based not on what ideas are expressed but on how they're expressed, and will flag posts that violate these rules of conduct. (Proverbs 12:18)
Go for it.
Comment Code of Conduct
I will express myself with civility, courtesy, and respect for every member of the Sojourners online community, especially toward those with whom I disagree—even if I feel disrespected by them. (Romans 12:17-21)
I will express my disagreements with other community members' ideas without insulting, mocking, or slandering them personally. (Matthew 5:22)
I will not exaggerate others' beliefs nor make unfounded prejudicial assumptions based on labels, categories, or stereotypes. I will always extend the benefit of the doubt. (Ephesians 4:29)
I will participate in community accountability by rating posts up or down based not on what ideas are expressed but on how they're expressed, and will flag posts that violate these rules of conduct. (Proverbs 12:18)
Go for it.
Local Politics: 32 Days to Election
Volunteered again to get out the vote: will make phone calls this next Tuesday afternoon from Democratic Headquarters. Dropped in this morning and got yard signs. Obama yard signs are virtually nonexistent here. I think I have one coming in the mail but it might not be for a week or two yet. Serious omission, not to see that yard signs are plentifully available, in my opinion. Then I've heard that people put them out and then lose them to vandals or those who object to Obama signs for one reason or another. (Hint: southern Indiana, Confederate flags, "this black-and-white thing," as the lady put it when I went door to door back in May.)
A while ago at the car service place, I overheard two young men talking.
"You going to vote for Obama?"
"Oh, no way! Did you see the debate last night? Boy, Palin was hot. She told ol' Biden off."
I sighed and got up and moved to another room.
In correspondence with a friend, I think I found the right words for Palin: cute and charmin', you just betcha. And mean and full of shit.
A while ago at the car service place, I overheard two young men talking.
"You going to vote for Obama?"
"Oh, no way! Did you see the debate last night? Boy, Palin was hot. She told ol' Biden off."
I sighed and got up and moved to another room.
In correspondence with a friend, I think I found the right words for Palin: cute and charmin', you just betcha. And mean and full of shit.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)