McCain's Machinations: His Palin Problem

Every presidential nominee, including McCain, believes that an essential criterion for picking a VP is that the candidate must be ready, if necessary, to assume the presidency from day one on, thus ruling out on the job training. McCain has also argued that Obama is not ready to be president because of his lack of experience, especially on foreign policy.

But he apparently thinks that Palin is ready, despite her lack of experience, especially in matters of foreign policy, which is essentially zilch, non-existent, zero minus one. What is wrong with this thinking?

As Michael Kinsley said today in Slate, it raises a fundamental question about McCain's honesty, since apparently when he was making such a ruckus over Obama's lack of experience, he did not mean a word of it.
http://www.slate.com/id/2199029/

If Palin is qualified on foreign affairs, then Obama must be stupendously overqualified for the job, since he has served on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, has recently been in Iraq and the Middle East, and has met numerous heads of state and other high-ranking officials.

But protest the defenders, Palin has been involved in small business, mayor of a town of 9,000, and governor of a thinly-populated state for about 20 months.

Recently she said she needs to know "what it is exactly that the VP does every day," has never been to Iraq, or thought much about it, what with being so busy with state government and all, and allegedly does not know what "the plan" is (McCain's, Bush's, anybody's?) to exit from Iraq. In the light of this, defenders conclude that she is more qualified by experience to be president than is Obama.

She herself said that having little experience may be an advantage enabling you to take a fresh look at things. Thus she turns the experience argument upside down and suggests that inexperience is a qualification.

The next move is for Republicans to change the subject in the face of this transparent farce and say that McCain has the experience and thus the Republicans win the experience argument! Heaven help us if this tortured logic and these desperate maneuvers convince anyone to vote for her on the basis that she is qualified by her lack of experience and by McCain's being full of it.

It is becoming more apparent every day that Palin is an extreme right-winger on many subjects.
For Palin's views, see:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sarah_Palin

Hillary supporters are then invited by Palin to vote for Palin. She apparently thinks as a woman she can be a stand in for other women for Hillary Clinton, tempting Biden to say to her (but I hope he will resist though I wish he could):

"Look, I know Hillary Clinton. She is a friend of mine. and Governor, you are no Hillary Clinton."

Way to Go, Barack!

The great big, bold lead headline in my morning paper said:

OBAMA RIPS RIVAL

The speech was excellent in content and tone, had some fire and brimstone, annihilated the major Republican charges against him, and was full of specific content. He positioned himself for the campaign ahead by setting an agenda and a fighting spirit.

Wow, he must have been reading my blogs.

Obama and the Common Touch

Bill's Clinton's intellect is no less imposing than Barack Obama's, and his resume is equally impressive -- Yale and Oxford. But Bill has the common touch. He can identify with ordinary people so that his elite intellectual status does not raise a barrier. Now being from Arkansas and named Bill Clinton does not hurt. But his manner and approach and way of speaking help even more. Y'all understand that, don't you?

So far Barack has not been so successful. An exotic name like Barack Hussein Obama is already a question mark. When he is not making a speech but communing with the folks and answering questions, he sounds too much like the professor he was. Carefully chosen words uttered slowly and the inability to simplify things without your getting the idea he is all too aware of the complexities, ambiguities, and nuances give the impression that he is so cool, controlled, and in charge of his thought that he cannot utter the simple simplicities with passion.

He needs a little more of the warm-hearted preacher and less of the deep-thinking professor -- a little more fire and brimstone, outrage, and feeling that convey sincerity without appearing that he is acting and calmly calculating and not speaking from the heart.

Can he do it? I hope he can. It probably is not something Bill can teach him. You sort of have to have it as part of your real self. If he cannot connect with the folks on the streets, in the factories, in the bars, at prayer meetings, those who do the hard work and get sweaty, he may have to sit with Dukakis and Kerry at a sidewalk cafe drinking fine wine and reflect on why the working-class white folks didn't believe that they--these sophisticates -- really felt their pain.

Reflections on Obama, King, the Clintons, and More

1. The symbolism of Obama's acceptance speech on the 45th anniversary of Kings "Dream" speech is inescapable and self-explanatory.

2. For the first time in a good while, I like the Clintons. The actions of Hillary and Bill at the Convention are remarkable, commendatory, and done despite great pain and disappointment. Hillary's nomination would have been an equally great occasion for rejoicing.

3. I am so disgusted at the TV journalists, pundits, commentators, political advisers, and the like I can hardly stand to watch any more, and I keep the remote and the mute handy to shut them off. If the news was 99% joy, peace, harmony, and universal happiness, and 1% was about conflict, controversy, and trouble, what would get headline coverage on the 24 hour news cycle? Except where they have inside information, they have no better insight than any of the rest of us who read at least two good newspapers a day and some serious books and journal. Only a few are worth listening to, are a waste of time, and one of my favorites -- Time Russert -- is not with us.

4. The last few days, like many Democrats, I have felt gloomy doubtful, and scared that Obama would join Mondale, Dukakis, Gore, and Kerry as defeated disappointments. Obam's magic had deserted him. McCain was making gains, and except for Michelle and Ted Kennedy, the first day of the Convention offered little relief. Since then, Hillary, Bill, Joe Biden, and Montana Gov. Brian Schweitzer have revived me a bit. Tonight I hope the old magic comes back, and new sense of optimism will return.

5. Most of the time I and everyone else forgets that Obama is half-white. The fact that the Democratic nominee is the product of a black-white marriage, literally an African and an American, is no less remarkable than our noting that he is an African American -- meaning that he is black.

Mr. McCain, Put Away these Childish Things

Thank God, the Brett Favre situation has been resolved. All America has been nervous, tense, and preoccupied with this day and night. Now that this momentous matter has been taken care of, we can all go back to the silliness and triviality of the McCain campaign.

Obama should say the following:

If 71 year old Senator McCain wants to keep on playing childish games like he has been doing for the last week or more, let him do so, but I intend to be the adult in this campaign and deal with serious issues. But, just for the record, keeping tires properly inflated will save gas. But to say that this is my total energy plan is dishonest and deceitful, and you know that it is, Senator.

On the importance of proper tire inflation to fuel efficiency, check out the NASCAR website:
http://www.nascar.com/2008/auto/cct/07/01/tstewart.car.care.tires/index.html

McCain Scandal: Adultery, Trophy Wife, and More

It would be mean, low-down, despicable -- and loads of fun, not to mention justified in the light of the dirty, slimy ads the Republicans are running. I refer to the Obama ad I'd like to see. It would feature JM as the philandering husband who divorced his first wife, who had been badly injured and disfigured in an automobile accident, to marry a good-looking, wealthy woman 24 years his junior -- all true. Think of the images -- adultery, abandoned wife, gorgeous trophy wife, a filthy rich blond. Did I mention that McCain was one of the "Keating Five" involved in the Savings and Loan Scandal?

You Hit Me First, Did Not

First Little Boy: You hit me first.
Second Little Boy: Did not. You hit me first.

Obama Campaign: You played the race card first.
McCain Campaign: Did not. You played the race card first.

American Voter: Sigh............... It's gonna be a long summer.

Republican Mean Machine

Contrary to earlier hints otherwise, McCain has succumbed to the temptation of taking the low road against Obama. The Republican mean machine is already unleashing a barrage of nasty ads and accusations on the dirty low end of campaign tactics in the spirit of Lee Atwater, hoping that something will stick.

The aim is to challenge Obama's worthiness for high office, i. e., a mere celebrity with no experience or wisdom, all glitz and glamor but no gravitas, all hat no cattle, an unscrupulous politician who would risk losing a war to gain election, etc. -- the same old demagogic character assassination routines used successfully on Dukakis, Gore and Kerry, so gullible are large numbers of voters.

Apparently McCain has a personal dislike of Obama that approaches contempt, perhaps underlined by jealousy of the new kid on the block who is getting all the attention. The more time goes on the less respect I have for the war hero.

The news stations, with more time than substance to offer, aid and abet all this by playing the silly clips and talking about them ad nauseam, then further compounding the shallowness by an annoying parade of political strategists who mouth the party talking points and shed no light on anything important. To his credit, Barney Frank on Hardball nailed them to the wall for all this irrelevance and tried to shame them into discussing matters pertinent to future of the country.

But, heck, the TV media are not out to serve the public good but to make money for corporations, and they will do what they think gains viewers and thus ad revenue. Let's face it, how many people would want to listen to 40 minutes of serious discussion by knowledgeable analysts on the health proposals of the candidates when they can tune in to what is today's hot flash, controversial, emotional, visual, attention-grabbing, no matter how superficial or irrelevant to serious concerns. PBS has to beg for money for their more substantial coverage.

Ah, democracy in our time, but, alas, so it has always been. In fact, some attacks were even more scurrilous. Yet, knowing this, I am not comforted but all the more dismayed. Please pass the Alka-Seltzer.

Oh Lord, how I devoutly hope Obama wins this election.

Can Obama Walk on Water?

Barack Obama should go down to the banks of the Potomac and see if he can walk across unaided. If he can, then let us anoint him now as Messiah and forego the election. If he cannot, he needs to be reminded that pride (to think of oneself more highly than one ought to think) goeth before a fall and tone down the hubris.

Obama and a Dog Walking on its Hind Legs

I just figured out why the Obama speech in Berlin to adoring throngs was such a puzzle: It was like a dog walking on its hind legs. As Samuel Johnson said, "It is never done well, but you are surprised that it can be done at all."

No speech would be satisfactory because of the singular circumstances pertaining to its being done at all. No criteria exist for judging what was called for. But it's fun to watch a dog walking on its hind legs.

With Apologies to Patsy Cline

Patsy Cline sings a beautiful song entitled "If I Could See the World Through the Eyes of a Child." An impish little devil compelled me to write alternative lyrics.

If I could see the world through the eyes of a child,
A lot of knee caps I would see.
My first thought upon seeing another knee --
Most people are taller than me.

Principled McCain and Pragmatic Obama?

I have heretofore put Obama's policies and shifts in policies in the best possible light, believing him to be idealistic and principled. But at the moment he appears to be primarily a tough-minded, realistic Chicago-style pragmatic politician, while McCain is sometimes the more principled. Latest point of reference:

John McCain opposes the heavy 54 cents a gallon U.S. tariffs on Brazilian ethanol imports, saying that the Brazilian product made from sugarcane "is much more efficient than ethanol from corn." He also wants to end subsidies for U.S. ethanol production, which he blames for "destroying the market" and "causing a serious problem with inflation."

Barack Obama opposes removing the tariff on Brazilian ethanol and supports the substantial ethanol subsidies which benefit corn farmers, especially huge agribusiness corporations like Archer-Daniels-Midland Co. Obama has advisers and prominent supporters with close ties to the industry. Next to Iowa, Illinois is the largest producer of corn in the United States. Ethanol subsidies cause a rise in food prices and hurt the poor around the world.

Nevertheless, I will continue to support Obama because his policies are much more in line with mine than McCain's will ever be, and I believe he wants to be as idealistic and principled as he can be within the limits of what getting elected requires.

The New York Times, June 23, 2006
http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=6079

Who Is Obama, Really?

Some leftward Democrats see Obama as betraying the progressive principles they thought he held. Republicans label him as far too liberal then and now. The media like to talk (the all-news channels ad nauseam) about his flip-flopping. Some think that he is pure pragmatist who wants to win, principles be damned.

Here is my tentative hypothesis: Barack Obama is most comfortable toward the left. His core principles are liberal. But he has promised a new politics that rises above crippling partisanship. This involves making compromises, accepting the better when you cannot get the best. He realizes that politics is the art of the possible. He recognizes the futility of being a martyr for lost causes. In all of this there are elements of of pragmatism and realism -- you cannot exercise power for the good unless you achieve it.

Viewed in this way Obama has been consistent in the deepest sense, although his approach involves adjustments in policy over time that give the surface appearance of flip-flopping. This approach puts him in the best light rather than in the worst as his progressive supporters and his avowed opponents are wont to do.

So far he is doing a good job of finding a proper balance between idealism and realism and between principles and pragmatism. Until compelling evidence renders this judgment null and void, I am sticking to it.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/10/opinion/10collins.html

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/07/09/AR2008070902368.html?hpid=topnews

Unpleasant Truths the Next President Won't Tell Us

I earnestly hope Barack Obama is elected president, but neither he or John McCain is likely to tell it like it is, at least not in the form of the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. Here is a sample of what we probably or surely won't hear from either in 2009:

1. A major reason why so many Muslims in the Middle East are hostile or hateful toward us is not because of our democracy or our values but because of our policies and practices -- invasion of their countries, the presence of foreign troops in Saudi Arabia, where the holiest places in Islam are located, support of repressive governments, and the like. The origins of our present troubles go back as least as far as the complicity of the US and Britain in the 1953 overthrow of the democratically-elected government of Iranian Prime Minister Mohammed Mosaddeq. Other factors, some of them, internal to Muslim nations and people themselves doubtless are involved, but our actions in and toward them are central.

2. An important factor in this constellation is our one-sided support of Israel. The founding of Israel may have been a mistake. Nevertheless, the nation is there, and their citizens have a right to exist in a secure environment under conditions of justice. Israel is guilty of many past injustices against the Palestinians and continue to oppress them grievously.

3. Oil is not the whole reason behind our actions and errors in Muslim countries, but it it looms large. Because we did not take measures, although President Carter urged us to, decades ago to free ourselves from our dependence on Middle East oil, our national well-being depends on keeping it flowing until we can at last free ourselves from this bondage. As some wag put it, if the main export of Kuwait were broccoli (despised by the then President Bush), would we have intervened to repel Iraq in 1991?

No president will fully acknowledge these truths because it would be politically disastrous to do so, and a proper response would require national repentance and new policies. Nevertheless, they constitute a hard knot of tangled predicaments that took a long to create and will be difficult to resolve even if the our leaders had to courage to do what is needed and if the American people would permit them to do so.

Is there much more to it than this? Of course, there is, but we won't be able to get to the much more unless we at least deal with these three fundamental elements.

The best we can hope for is that Obama, if elected, will be a little better, while if McCain wins, expect a continuation of the same policies that have contributed to the mess we are in.

We have a tiger by the tail in the Middle East. Does anyone know how to get us loose without serious injury to us or the tiger?

Obama and Faith-Based Human Services

Obama spoke favorably the other day about the value of faith-based human services. It reminded me that an article I posted on my web side in 2004 had become newly relevant. You can find it at this address:

http://frontiernet.net/~kenc/faith-based.htm

Stop Wasting Time Debating What the Bible Really Teaches

1. The Bible teaches that homosexuality is wrong.
2. I believe that the Bible teaches that homosexuality is wrong.

The first statement is normative, purports to state an objective truth, and is highly debatable. It is somebody's interpretation, and it can be disputed.

The second statement is descriptive, states a subjective conviction, and is indisputably true. I believe what I believe, and that's a fact.

Form 2 statements have the same implications for action as form 1 statements.

Most essentialist (Form 1) disputes about what the Bible really teaches in an authoritative fashion accomplish little. I could convene a conference on what the Bible teaches normatively about homosexuality with the best biblical scholars and theologians in the world on the subject. It would produce a set of conflicting conclusions that I could predict in advance if I knew the general theological outlook of the participants.

As a rule liberal biblical scholars will conclude that the Bible condemns abusive sexual relationships of all kinds but not faithful, monogamous same-sex love. Conservative scholars will nearly always say that the Bible condemns all homosexual acts and relationships. Numerous conferences and debates in journals and books show this over and over. So I need not convene my conference. Seldom does anyone have a change of mind as a result of such debates. So, of what use are they?

Given all this I propose we abandon unhelpful essentialist or normative notions of what a given religion IS or TEACHES or REQUIRES. This approach states what is claimed to be definitive truth, so that anyone who disagrees is wrong. The result is a multitude of contradictory claims.

What finally matters is what people BELIEVE Islam or Christianity is, or what the Koran or the Bible teaches and what they do about in daily life and practice.

Does the Koran permit or require jihad? Muslim scholars and theologians are not in agreement about what it is and when it is required, permitted, or prohibited? But what I want to know is: What do particular Muslims around the world actually believe it teaches about jihad and what they do about it? This is operationally useful.

In daily life we confront people who hold a variety of views about moral and religious subjects, many of which contract others. I can only decide for myself what the right interpretation is. I cannot decide for others. The important question, then, is how I am going to relate to them -- agree and form coalitions to promote our common beliefs or oppose them in every appropriate manner.

The text of the Bible and the Koran say many things, but none of it means much until it is interpreted by someone. It is the various interpretations that finally matter in a practical sense. So let every believer and every group try to discern in their own ways what the Bible or the Koran requires today in the way of belief and practice. Let them all confess their beliefs and be loyal to them. Let them all seek agreement with others where possible by joint inquiry.

Debates about the objective truth of the matter are mostly fruitless and largely a waste of time. Have we not learned this by now?

George Carlin, 1937-2008

Somewhere in the many layers of George Carlin's makeup was a gentle, tender, sensitive idealist who had sympathy for those who suffered and a passion for justice. I think that was more fundamental than his cynicism and his nihilism. It was this compassionate core that generated all his contempt of hypocrisy and cruelty, his railing against the stupidities of religion and politics, and his rebelliousness against demands for conformity that stifle life and creativity.

Sometimes he went too far and cut away healthy substance though aiming only at the rot. Nevertheless, I think he epitomized his own insight -- a cynic is a disappointed idealist. Anyone who does not struggle with cynicism in this troubled world of ours does not understand the situation or lacks compassion.

He was creative and marvelously funny, never more so than when he saw the humor in everyday life--the craziness in common ordinary events that make up most of our existence. Contrary to much opinion, however, I don't think he contributed anything useful by using the seven words you can't say on regular TV but which he used to nauseating excess on HBO. I don't want to hear them on TV or anywhere else most of the time.

The truth is that we need forbidden words. They serve a useful psychological purpose. They express strong emotion in circumstances where only the impermissible will do. They suggest a note of defiance, an assertion of autonomy against society's standard of decorum. But if all words are permitted, what will we say when we need an utterance that provides the peculiar, delicious pleasure of trespassing into the prohibited?

To think that bad words are just a hang-up we need to get rid of is shallow, superficial, and silly. Forbidden words are not just words. They carry social meanings and have psychological power when properly used. If we trivialize them by introducing them into ordinary speech, teach them to our children, make them common on TV, etc., we will rob them of their efficacy, and we will just have to invent new ones. I like the ones we've got, so keep your f!gh*kj%$#$ hands off them, and don't try to make them respectable.

Remember the Mississippi lawyer who defended his state's anti-liquor laws thusly: "I do not want to drink my whiskey under the stigma of legality." Exactly!

When I see someone who displays deep internal anger, I immediately want to know about his early childhood years. With respect to Carlin I discovered that his mother when pregnant with George was minutes away from aborting him and suddenly changed her mind. In addition. his mother and father separated when he was an infant. He says that his father drank and was a bully who viciously beat his older brother for the first five years of his sibling's life. I suspect that explains a lot. See:
http://www.esquire.com/features/what-ive-learned/george-carlin-0102

I liked the gentle, sensitive Carlin best. One of his finest contributions was a moving comparison between football and baseball. In the former, huge men wearing protective armor try to knock their opponents to the ground. In the latter, players hit a ball with a stick, and the sweetest words are "safe at home." We could have used more of that kind of humor and would have been better off without all the dirty words.

Shakespeare: A Poem

For the best in English writing, Shakespeare gets my vote.
When we want a bon mot, we do Shakespeare quote.
But since none else doth command such note,
Whom besides the Bible doth Shakespeare quote?

Obama a Promise Breaker or Political Pragmatist?

Senator Obama has been widely criticized as a promise-breaker on public finance, thus despoiling his image as a reformer and apostle of a new politics. While recognizing that the reason he did it was that he can raise much more money than Senator McCain and thus boost his chances of getting elected, critics concluded that Obama is just another politician like all the rest.

Journalists are reputed to be cynics, yet one has to laugh at how often they function as absolutists and moral purists on this and many other points. It is all or nothing, saint or sinner, pure or impure. All most could focus on was his flip-flopping and how it belied his alleged aim to transform Washington's way of doing things.

One can look at it this way, but if we assume a larger perspective, the final verdict may be rendered differently. Recognizing that politics is the art of the possible and that one has to gain power before one can exercise it, I have argued in these pages that a worthy politician needs to move between idealism and realism, principles and pragmatism. Obviously, on any given issue at a specific time, one can argue where the praiseworthy politician ought to be located on this double continuum.

Maybe Obama is an idealist who wants to change things for the better. Maybe he does have core principles that he will not abandon. Maybe in the case of campaign finance reform at this particular moment, he felt that realism and pragmatism dictated his decision in the light of the fact that the election may be close and he will need every advantage he can get.

This perspective does not necessarily validate his choice or render it any less regrettable. One can argue with it. Nevertheless, a larger perspective might save us from from a superficial one-issue moral absolutism that obscures deeper truths. Only a comprehensive pattern emerging over time gives us a basis for a sound judgment.

My own view is that the moral imperative that Barack Obama be elected president is so overwhelming that it justifies his pragmatic decision on campaign finance at this juncture in history.

What Marriage Is: Some Clarifying Theses

When we say X and Y are married, we usually mean that they had a valid civil or religious ceremony performed upon presentation of a state-issued license. That works very well for most ordinary purposes, but upon reflection, it gets more complicated.

A few days ago in California Del Martin and Phyllis Lyon, both in their 80's and who had been living together for more than fifty years, secured a license and went though a civil ceremony that gave them the legal status of marriage in that state. I say that in the sense that matters most this couple had been married for a long time. The license and the ceremony meant only that they now had all the rights, privileges, and responsibilities of married people recognized by the state of California.

For a full understanding, we need to recognize three meanings of the term "marriage."

A. Marriage in the fundamental sense means a relationship in which the partners have committed themselves to live in love and loyalty to each other for the rest of their lives. Note that Scripture speaks of what God has joined together, not the state.

B. Marriage in the legal sense means that the partners have met the standards and gone through the procedures required for them to be legally married in a particular state.

C. Marriage in the religious sense means that the partners have met the standards and gone through the procedures recognized by a particular religious community.

Given the disputes going on now all over the country, some clarifying theses may help:

1. People can be married in all three senses.

2. People can be married in sense A. but not in senses B. and C.

3. People can be married in senses B. and C. but not in sense A.

4. People can be married in any set of two but not in the third.

I argue, along with Will Campbell, that churches should explicitly separate A. and C. from B. Ministers of the Gospel should not do the work on the state. Not only does it violate the separation of church and state, it contributes to confusion about what marriage in the religious or fundamental sense means. Marriage does not require the sanction of the state to make it religiously valid. Churches and ministers should make it clear that what they do pertains only to C. If people want to be married legally, let them go the courthouse and take care of it. What we do in C. presupposes A., although we cannot guarantee it, but B. is not strictly a concern. Some people are more truly married in sense (A.) than others who have a legal or a religious certificate or both.

When a minister "marries" a couple in church, what that means, properly understood, is not that the license and the ceremony make them married but that formally and publicly the religious community recognizes what presumably has already been established in their personal relationship.

Hence, with regard to same-sex marriage, the church does not need the permission of the state to recognize a marriage in the fundamental (A.) and religious sense (C.). Churches just need to get out of the business of validating the legal status of marriage. That is the role of the state and not the church, and the church should have nothing to do with it.