From time to time, I will post an essay on someone in the world of politics or political coverage who has been a person of influence to me, whom I have admired or whom I have simply found fascinating for whatever reason. (Since I am making the rules for what I put on this blog, I am making the limits rather loose on these essay topics, rather than confining, as you can tell. :))
Here is the first.
RONALD REAGAN
March 30, 2008 seems like a very fitting day for me to write about Ronald Reagan. It was, after all, 27 years ago today that his life almost ended, in a flurry of bullets in front of the Washington Hilton. If we thank God for nothing else today, we should breathe a silent prayer that He spared President Reagan for another 23 years to the country that Mr. Reagan loved so much.
When it comes to Ronald Reagan, I recall a lot of firsts. I remember when I first heard his name: in my first grade classroom when I was asked if I knew who the President of the United States was. I replied that I didn't, so my teacher promptly educated me, though it didn't take immediately, since I kept pronouncing his name with a long "E" (REEGAN).
Neither of my parents were interested in politics at all back in the '80's, and neither one voted in the election of 1984. It is the first election I remember, and at 9 years old, I didn't understand it much, but I found it interesting. I am not the only one who will never forget the historical outcome, since Ronald Reagan carried 49 states out of 50. His smiling face, of course, graced the newspaper in Florida that I saw the next morning (we were in the midst of a move to Key West for a year of missions training).
My teacher for the 4th and 5th grades in our first couple of years in Taiwan (Faith Cooley, now Faith Young) has recently found this blog. She was the first person I ever met who didn't just admire Reagan or think he was a good President. She loved him. I had never seen anything like this level of devotion for a political figure, and wasn't sure it was quite kosher, but I was intrigued, and began to want to learn more about this man. I knew that he had a nice smile and seemed friendly, but that was about as far as it went.
I remember the first time I saw Ronald Reagan on TV, as if it were yesterday. In reality, it has been over 22 years ago. You have to understand that I grew up without TV in the home; I wonder if I would recall this moment as keenly as I do, were that not the case, but I have a feeling I still would. The Challenger explosion had just occurred, and a few days later, we were in a museum of some sort in Taipei, the capital city of Taiwan. The TV there ran a brief video clip of Reagan's speech. I don't know which part of the speech they ran, but I knew at that moment, in my 10-year-old mind, that I was seeing a master communicator who could connect with people's deepest convictions in a manner of simple truth and integrity. My day went on, and the recreation continued, but I had been stirred in a way I would never forget.
(Years later, I read the full text of the speech and then heard an audio recording of it. Peggy Noonan wrote it, but only Reagan could have delivered it. It ends with this paragraph:
"The crew of the space shuttle Challenger honored us by the manner in which they lived their lives. We will never forget them, nor the last time we saw them, this morning, as they prepared for their journey and waved goodbye and 'slipped the surly bonds of earth to touch the face of God.'"
You have to hear or watch President Reagan deliver the last line, his own voice thick with emotion, to appreciate how profoundly moving it was.)
In 1988, at the age of 13, I sent a letter to President Reagan, asking for an autographed picture. I got one back, but it was just a stamped autograph, rather than a genuine hand-signed photo. Nonetheless, I was thrilled. I still have it in a nostalgia box in the garage.
As the years have gone by, I have collected every text I can find on the Reagan presidency. I have read his own memoir, An American Life, 4 or 5 times. At last count, I have around 50 other books on Reagan, authored by those who served with him, by his wife and children and by pundits who continue to opine on his legacy. Of these, my favorites are both of Peggy Noonan's (What I Saw at the Revolution and When Character was King), Lyn Nofziger's memoir and Peter Robinson's How Ronald Reagan Changed My Life. Numerous columns, of course, have also been authored on Reagan and his legacy.
With all of the renewed interest in Reagan, and looking back over 20+ years of my own study, I have considered it all from the perspective of 2 questions. What made Ronald Reagan great? And why was and is he so deeply loved?
The message of Ronald Reagan continues to touch me today because he continuously saw the best in America. Many found it corny and continue to now when he referred to America as a "shining city on a hill" in John Winthrop's immortal phrase (and of course, Winthrop was quoting from St. Matthew). Do not ever count me among that number. It was a simple sentiment, perhaps, but such a beautiful one.
Here again, Reagan's own words:
"I've spoken of the shining city all my political life, but I don't know if I ever quite communicated what I saw when I said it. But in my mind it was a tall proud city built on rocks stronger than oceans, wind-swept, God-blessed, and teeming with people of all kinds living in harmony and peace, a city with free ports that hummed with commerce and creativity, and if there had to be city walls, the walls had doors and the doors were open to anyone with the will and the heart to get here. That's how I saw it, and see it still. And how stands the city on this winter night? More prosperous, more secure, and happier than it was eight years ago. But more than that; after two hundred years, two centuries, she still stands strong and true on the granite ridge, and her glow has held steady no matter what storm. And she's still a beacon, still a magnet for all who must have freedom, for all the pilgrims from all the lost places who are hurtling through the darkness toward home."
Reagan was great because he saw the big picture. My life has been shaped by remembrance of a President who refused to play small ball when virtually everyone around him ridiculed him for doing so. When, in a speech to the British Parliament in 1982, Reagan predicted that Communism in the Soviet Union would soon be relegated to the ash heap of history, he was universally scorned. Guess who had the last laugh within the ensuing 10 years? Yet, he never crowed over his victory; he was too much of a gentleman.
I don't remember the gas lines of the late '70's, but I've read about them. I'm afraid we're seeing signs of reemergence of inflation for the first time in 25 years, with bread going in a year from .82/loaf to $1.34/loaf, eggs and milk going up in price by 70-80% within a similar time frame, and other examples I could cite, as the designated grocery shopper in our family. All of this was routine throughout the '70's and the first couple of years in the '80's. Reagan declared in his 1981 inaugural address, "Let there be no misunderstanding; we're going to begin to act, beginning today!" He added, "The economic ills we suffer have come upon us over several decades. They will not go away in days, weeks or months, but they will go away....In this present crisis, government is not the solution to our problem; government is the problem." (emphasis mine) He made good on his word, over the next 4 years, with bold tax cuts and initiatives to spur private production.
Reagan fought a Democratic Congress throughout his entire administration (the Senate was in Republican hands for the first 6 years, but the House never was). Consequently, he was never able to pass much anti-abortion legislation. I credit Reagan, though, for strong moral leadership and outspokenness to advance the cause of life. Along with Surgeon General C. Everett Koop, Reagan authored, during his Presidency, the book Abortion and the Conscience of a Nation, which also sits on my shelf today. Reagan facilitated a climate that continues to move more and more towards a national consensus that unborn life must be protected.
But why did we love him?
1. He projected a spirit of warmth and kindness. I never got to meet him in person, but I have, over the years, communicated with a few people who did, and the response was always the same. What you saw with Ronald Reagan was what you got, a consistently gracious attitude.
2. He stood for what he believed in, without wavering. He could be tough and unyielding, but always with goodwill, rather than bitterness. Yes, he compromised to get legislation that he wanted; he called it taking half a loaf rather than no loaf at all, then coming back for the other half later. Hard to argue with that.
3. He made us all proud to be Americans again, and clearly felt good about doing it.
I was still in bed on Sunday morning, June 5, 2004, when Pam came in and told me that Ronald Reagan had succumbed the night previously to his long struggle with Alzheimer's the night. I felt the same deep sadness I experienced when I first heard the news that he had contracted the illness that ravaged the memory of this wonderful man. But, I felt a lot better as I viewed the coverage over the next week of an entire nation in mourning.
I have heard many heartfelt references to Reagan over the years that I treasure today, but I think my favorite one comes from General Colin Powell, who served as Reagan's final National Security Advisor:
"President Reagan's message was a simple one. It was sometimes seen as naive, simplistic and lacking sophistication. It had the sole redeeming virtue of being right. And the world is a better place for his having been right."
Rest in peace, Ronald Reagan. You are loved and missed by millions.
Sunday, March 30, 2008
New carpet is in!
My failure to post for 5 days is, I hope, an exception rather than something that becomes a rule. It is also explainable; we have had carpet installed all through the house, except for the kitchen/dining room and the bathroom. I did not install the carpet, but preparing for installation is, I have found, extremely time-consuming! Everything from the bedrooms and living room had to move out of the house to the garage, including our hundreds of books, CD's and all furniture pieces, large and small.
We have begun the process of moving back in, but frankly, are doing that in stages, since we have no deadlines to meet on that, as we did for the carpet installation.
It feels like a whole new house on the inside!
Back to business....
We have begun the process of moving back in, but frankly, are doing that in stages, since we have no deadlines to meet on that, as we did for the carpet installation.
It feels like a whole new house on the inside!
Back to business....
Tuesday, March 25, 2008
Random thoughts (Hat Tip, Thomas Sowell!)
Thomas Sowell has been one of my favorite columnists for years. Every few months, he'll publish a column that he titles "Random Thoughts on the Passing Scene", where he briefly comments on a wide variety of topics (usually non-political) that I assume he's been pondering lately.
I will, at times, post a similar blog, sweeping up a diversity of subjects that have been on my mind, but on which I don't have enough opinion material to constitute a substantive post in its own right. Sowell always has around 15-20 pithy sayings in his columns; I won't have nearly that many most of the time, and I won't be as concise or as eloquent.
Soooo, here's the first one:
Alan Jackson is an American treasure. His newest CD has 17 songs, all of which he penned himself. There are a few duds, but most of them are melodic and interesting, equal parts thoughtful and fun. And his voice just keeps getting more mellow and heartfelt as he approaches 20 years in the music business. I still tear up when I hear "Where Were You When the World Stopped Turning?" and I can sing most of it myself.
On a similar note, why do so many of us love American Idol? I like it because I enjoy music a lot, and there's a competitive edge to it that is fascinating. Simon Cowell's comments are what we all wait for every week, of course. And there are those moments of amazing talent that burst through unexpectedly every once in a while. By the way, David Archuleta will be the next Idol.
Don't wait until spring to rake your leaves! I did, and I wore a blister on the inside of my right thumb before I was even 1/3 of the way done. So now, the rest of the yard is still waiting. I was SO busy last fall, but I won't let that happen again. Better to catch up every Saturday for a while, then try getting it done after the leaves have fragmented and soaked up all that moisture under a winter's worth of snow.
Easter means more to me every year, but it sure wore me out this time. We had 2 hours of choir practice last Wednesday, a Maundy Thursday service, a community Good Friday service from 12:00 to 1:00 at Grace United Methodist Church where our choir sang 2 songs, our evening Tenebrae Service that same night where we sang 5 songs, the Easter Eggstravaganza on Saturday for the kids and then the Sunday services. We were exhausted by Sunday afternoon, but it was so meaningful and memorable. I hope we do it all and more next year, though; in comparison to Christmas, it's still just a smidgen of celebration.
I took Carli on her field trip today to the Johanning Auto Museum here in Kokomo with her pre-school classmates. The cars were interesting, but I enjoyed equally as much the markers along the way with brief descriptions of what was going on in that particular decade. Did you know that in the 1910's, the average yearly salary was $750.00? Additionally, the average life expectancy was 48 for men and 51 for women? Also, in the '70's (I believe), the average yearly salary was around $8,000, but round steak still cost $1.30 a pound. This confirmed my belief that people tend to overdramatize the "good old days." I'll take my salary now and my monthly food budget, although neither are overabundant, along with my central air and refrigerator over the ice boxes and stifling heat of the 1910's any day, thank you very much! It's all about perspective, folks.
I will, at times, post a similar blog, sweeping up a diversity of subjects that have been on my mind, but on which I don't have enough opinion material to constitute a substantive post in its own right. Sowell always has around 15-20 pithy sayings in his columns; I won't have nearly that many most of the time, and I won't be as concise or as eloquent.
Soooo, here's the first one:
Alan Jackson is an American treasure. His newest CD has 17 songs, all of which he penned himself. There are a few duds, but most of them are melodic and interesting, equal parts thoughtful and fun. And his voice just keeps getting more mellow and heartfelt as he approaches 20 years in the music business. I still tear up when I hear "Where Were You When the World Stopped Turning?" and I can sing most of it myself.
On a similar note, why do so many of us love American Idol? I like it because I enjoy music a lot, and there's a competitive edge to it that is fascinating. Simon Cowell's comments are what we all wait for every week, of course. And there are those moments of amazing talent that burst through unexpectedly every once in a while. By the way, David Archuleta will be the next Idol.
Don't wait until spring to rake your leaves! I did, and I wore a blister on the inside of my right thumb before I was even 1/3 of the way done. So now, the rest of the yard is still waiting. I was SO busy last fall, but I won't let that happen again. Better to catch up every Saturday for a while, then try getting it done after the leaves have fragmented and soaked up all that moisture under a winter's worth of snow.
Easter means more to me every year, but it sure wore me out this time. We had 2 hours of choir practice last Wednesday, a Maundy Thursday service, a community Good Friday service from 12:00 to 1:00 at Grace United Methodist Church where our choir sang 2 songs, our evening Tenebrae Service that same night where we sang 5 songs, the Easter Eggstravaganza on Saturday for the kids and then the Sunday services. We were exhausted by Sunday afternoon, but it was so meaningful and memorable. I hope we do it all and more next year, though; in comparison to Christmas, it's still just a smidgen of celebration.
I took Carli on her field trip today to the Johanning Auto Museum here in Kokomo with her pre-school classmates. The cars were interesting, but I enjoyed equally as much the markers along the way with brief descriptions of what was going on in that particular decade. Did you know that in the 1910's, the average yearly salary was $750.00? Additionally, the average life expectancy was 48 for men and 51 for women? Also, in the '70's (I believe), the average yearly salary was around $8,000, but round steak still cost $1.30 a pound. This confirmed my belief that people tend to overdramatize the "good old days." I'll take my salary now and my monthly food budget, although neither are overabundant, along with my central air and refrigerator over the ice boxes and stifling heat of the 1910's any day, thank you very much! It's all about perspective, folks.
Truth and Integrity
It occurred to me a few years ago, probably right around the time that resentment to George W. Bush was really kicking into high gear, that we accept some people's explanations, arguments and convictions at face value, and with others, we simply don't. This happens with politicians all the time. Why is this? Is it a good or bad thing?
Especially in Bush's first term, many of us trusted him implicitly. Bush's one most bankable asset is that he forthrightly states what he believes and what he really thinks. The credibility of his stances (hmmm, maybe ought to reword that, thanks to Larry Craig, but if I say "positions", is that really an improvement?) on some issues should certainly be scrutinized. But sincerity counts for something to a lot of us, which is why the contention by the Moveon.org types that "Bush lied, kids died" has not gained mileage in mainstream America to any great extent. Bush's perceived stubbornness has damaged his approval ratings, but not his dishonesty.
There is a reason that this latest exaggeration by Hillary about landing in Bosnia under sniper fire has blown into a real prairie blaze of a story. It plays into the Clinton persona that has existed for years now. Bob Dole said in 1996 that the greatest difficulty he faced in achieving the White House that year was that he was up against an opponent who would say anything to get elected.
The problem so many conservatives have with Hillary is that she seems to have no core of integrity. Her electoral difficulties are also heightened by the fact that she's not as good at the blarney and the one-of-the-folks gladhanding as her husband is.
Am I being fair with this assessment, though? Have we conservatives just trusted Bush because he was a Republican? Do Democrats actually trust both Hillary and Bill Clinton?
I'll just make a couple more points along this line, and then hope some of you all weigh in! :)
I don't only trust Republicans, even though I am one. (For that matter, I don't trust all Republicans, but that's another story for another time.) Joe Lieberman is a Democrat who exudes credibility and integrity. I felt in late 2003 that if the Democrats were smart enough to choose Lieberman for their nominee in 2004, Bush would have a real fight on his hands. Walter Mondale is another Democrat who seems like a fine man and a trustworthy public servant, although seemingly, I wouldn't agree with him on anything. Other names I could add to this list would include former Senator Bill Bradley from New Jersey, Gov. Bill Richardson of New Mexico, Senator Dianne Feinstein from California, former Gov. Mario Cuomo of New York....and I'm sure there are others, though they aren't springing to mind at the moment. I would have added Barack Obama to this list a few weeks ago, but the trust issue has really taken a hit with Obama for me, over the last month. Not just from the Jeremiah Wright flap either; I was reminded by a column I read today about the memo that surfaced showing that Obama's positioning on NAFTA was primarily for political ends (or some such wording).
Not. Good. At. All.
To clarify, this is not to say that I would agree with these public figures on the issues; far from it. They seem to me, though, like men and women who mean what they say and who are essentially people of honorable character.
There is something within me that rejoices when I see a politician take bold stands and follow through with votes to that effect over the years, even if I disagree vehemently with them. At least, you know what you're opposing in such cases. And if you can agree with the person most of the time, all the better. My hero, Ronald Reagan, talked about implementing a platform with "bold colors, no pale pastels." YES! Let's have more of it.
Especially in Bush's first term, many of us trusted him implicitly. Bush's one most bankable asset is that he forthrightly states what he believes and what he really thinks. The credibility of his stances (hmmm, maybe ought to reword that, thanks to Larry Craig, but if I say "positions", is that really an improvement?) on some issues should certainly be scrutinized. But sincerity counts for something to a lot of us, which is why the contention by the Moveon.org types that "Bush lied, kids died" has not gained mileage in mainstream America to any great extent. Bush's perceived stubbornness has damaged his approval ratings, but not his dishonesty.
There is a reason that this latest exaggeration by Hillary about landing in Bosnia under sniper fire has blown into a real prairie blaze of a story. It plays into the Clinton persona that has existed for years now. Bob Dole said in 1996 that the greatest difficulty he faced in achieving the White House that year was that he was up against an opponent who would say anything to get elected.
The problem so many conservatives have with Hillary is that she seems to have no core of integrity. Her electoral difficulties are also heightened by the fact that she's not as good at the blarney and the one-of-the-folks gladhanding as her husband is.
Am I being fair with this assessment, though? Have we conservatives just trusted Bush because he was a Republican? Do Democrats actually trust both Hillary and Bill Clinton?
I'll just make a couple more points along this line, and then hope some of you all weigh in! :)
I don't only trust Republicans, even though I am one. (For that matter, I don't trust all Republicans, but that's another story for another time.) Joe Lieberman is a Democrat who exudes credibility and integrity. I felt in late 2003 that if the Democrats were smart enough to choose Lieberman for their nominee in 2004, Bush would have a real fight on his hands. Walter Mondale is another Democrat who seems like a fine man and a trustworthy public servant, although seemingly, I wouldn't agree with him on anything. Other names I could add to this list would include former Senator Bill Bradley from New Jersey, Gov. Bill Richardson of New Mexico, Senator Dianne Feinstein from California, former Gov. Mario Cuomo of New York....and I'm sure there are others, though they aren't springing to mind at the moment. I would have added Barack Obama to this list a few weeks ago, but the trust issue has really taken a hit with Obama for me, over the last month. Not just from the Jeremiah Wright flap either; I was reminded by a column I read today about the memo that surfaced showing that Obama's positioning on NAFTA was primarily for political ends (or some such wording).
Not. Good. At. All.
To clarify, this is not to say that I would agree with these public figures on the issues; far from it. They seem to me, though, like men and women who mean what they say and who are essentially people of honorable character.
There is something within me that rejoices when I see a politician take bold stands and follow through with votes to that effect over the years, even if I disagree vehemently with them. At least, you know what you're opposing in such cases. And if you can agree with the person most of the time, all the better. My hero, Ronald Reagan, talked about implementing a platform with "bold colors, no pale pastels." YES! Let's have more of it.
Saturday, March 22, 2008
McCain in Iraq
Bob Novak reports in his Weekend Newsletter that Republican higher-ups are unhappy with McCain for making a trip to Iraq right now because "they felt that no political purpose was served by the prospective Republican presidential nominee going halfway around the world to praise President Bush's troop surge."
This kind of thing is what I despise most about politicians, and yes, I'm aware that I'm criticizing my own folk here. But, please, people....could we not assume that perhaps McCain wasn't going to Iraq for a political purpose, and couldn't have cared less about whether a polling boost was or wasn't the result of his trip? If we know anything about McCain, it is that without a doubt, he is a huge supporter of the troops. In fact, I think it is safe to say that he loves the men and women in uniform, and the sentiment is mutual. And we all know that he has supported this war from the beginning and continues to do so, today.
As I've said before, McCain was not my first choice for the Republican nod this year or even my second. One upshot that I do hope for, though, as a result of his nomination is that a new respect is garnered for a refusal to engage in politics as usual, i.e., the finger to the wind prior to every decision that is made, including a visit to the troops in the field. How would these Republican leaders have felt if McCain had called a press conference and informed everyone that he was considering a trip to Iraq but decided against it since it wouldn't advance his campaign goals (or some such wording)?
Let me clarify before I close up shop for tonight: I do believe there are more politicians in Washington and elsewhere than some might think who are principled and true to their convictions. Chris Matthews and I are not a lot alike, but I identify with him in one way and that is our overall fondness for politicians as people and admiration for their gutsiness in putting themselves out their on a regular basis for our up or down vote. But, this doesn't mean I won't call out shameful conduct when I see it, even on my team!
This kind of thing is what I despise most about politicians, and yes, I'm aware that I'm criticizing my own folk here. But, please, people....could we not assume that perhaps McCain wasn't going to Iraq for a political purpose, and couldn't have cared less about whether a polling boost was or wasn't the result of his trip? If we know anything about McCain, it is that without a doubt, he is a huge supporter of the troops. In fact, I think it is safe to say that he loves the men and women in uniform, and the sentiment is mutual. And we all know that he has supported this war from the beginning and continues to do so, today.
As I've said before, McCain was not my first choice for the Republican nod this year or even my second. One upshot that I do hope for, though, as a result of his nomination is that a new respect is garnered for a refusal to engage in politics as usual, i.e., the finger to the wind prior to every decision that is made, including a visit to the troops in the field. How would these Republican leaders have felt if McCain had called a press conference and informed everyone that he was considering a trip to Iraq but decided against it since it wouldn't advance his campaign goals (or some such wording)?
Let me clarify before I close up shop for tonight: I do believe there are more politicians in Washington and elsewhere than some might think who are principled and true to their convictions. Chris Matthews and I are not a lot alike, but I identify with him in one way and that is our overall fondness for politicians as people and admiration for their gutsiness in putting themselves out their on a regular basis for our up or down vote. But, this doesn't mean I won't call out shameful conduct when I see it, even on my team!
Last word on Obama/Wright for a while
So it's been 4 days since I've posted. Well, it is Easter weekend! :)
Since Obama gave his speech on Tuesday morning, I haven't felt that there was anything new to add concerning the whole Rev. Wright fiasco. This is not saying that the speech did or did not "work." It merely seemed to me that whatever there was to say had been said, and then some. Nothing in the 4 days since has really changed my opinion on that score, but I do have a few more comments before moving on to other topics.
Peggy Noonan's latest Friday piece in the Wall Street Journal says (in a much more poetic way than I ever could) that the voters will either decide that Obama can't be trusted because of his association with a pastor with such radical views or that he deserves plaudits for walking the fine line that included not disavowing his years of friendship with Wright, while still condemning his incendiary rhetoric. I think she is right, although I wasn't as impressed with the content of the speech as she was.
Clearly, Obama found what he perceived that he needed in his life from Trinity United Church of Christ 20 years ago. Wright had prestige within the larger black community in Chicago in the mid to late '80's and still does today. Has Obama benefited from this? I think one look at his career renders the answer obvious, from 8 successful years in the Illinois state Senate to 2 years in the US Senate to the probable nomination of the Democratic Party for President of the United States. Along the way, he made the calculation that the potential downsides of his continued association with the church did not mitigate against the overall net positives. It probably seemed like a sound strategy till a couple of weeks ago.
The only way the Republicans will let this go is if McCain comes out in a public statement of some sort, declaring that he accepts Obama's explanation at face value, and calling for a "cease and desist" order to all attacks on Obama that are Wright-based. Knowing McCain's track record with such things, this is entirely possible, which is dispiriting if you are a Republican who badly wants to win this fall and sees this whole episode as just the chink in Obama's armor that may provide the opening we desperately need to chart a path to victory.
Jack Kemp was on Hannity & Colmes last night articulating this position. His thesis was that we should be attempting to defeat Obama through sound arguments that expose his fallacious tax policies and "soak the rich", class warfare rhetoric for the flawed economics that they are. I had two reactions to this:
1) I remember what happened in 1996 when Kemp, as Bob Dole's running mate, tried to stay on the high ground, not just all through his debate with Al Gore, but through the whole race.
2) I wonder if we need more people like Jack Kemp in politics today.
Dole and Kemp did lose that election, by about 8 percentage points, if memory serves. But, the subsequent 4 years of Clinton paved the way for George W. Bush's presidency, so the Republicans won in the end anyway. Clinton also accomplished virtually nothing in his final 4 years. And Kemp still sleeps well at night because he kept his integrity and reputation intact as an impeccably credentialed conservative, but a man of principle and generous spirit.
Since Obama gave his speech on Tuesday morning, I haven't felt that there was anything new to add concerning the whole Rev. Wright fiasco. This is not saying that the speech did or did not "work." It merely seemed to me that whatever there was to say had been said, and then some. Nothing in the 4 days since has really changed my opinion on that score, but I do have a few more comments before moving on to other topics.
Peggy Noonan's latest Friday piece in the Wall Street Journal says (in a much more poetic way than I ever could) that the voters will either decide that Obama can't be trusted because of his association with a pastor with such radical views or that he deserves plaudits for walking the fine line that included not disavowing his years of friendship with Wright, while still condemning his incendiary rhetoric. I think she is right, although I wasn't as impressed with the content of the speech as she was.
Clearly, Obama found what he perceived that he needed in his life from Trinity United Church of Christ 20 years ago. Wright had prestige within the larger black community in Chicago in the mid to late '80's and still does today. Has Obama benefited from this? I think one look at his career renders the answer obvious, from 8 successful years in the Illinois state Senate to 2 years in the US Senate to the probable nomination of the Democratic Party for President of the United States. Along the way, he made the calculation that the potential downsides of his continued association with the church did not mitigate against the overall net positives. It probably seemed like a sound strategy till a couple of weeks ago.
The only way the Republicans will let this go is if McCain comes out in a public statement of some sort, declaring that he accepts Obama's explanation at face value, and calling for a "cease and desist" order to all attacks on Obama that are Wright-based. Knowing McCain's track record with such things, this is entirely possible, which is dispiriting if you are a Republican who badly wants to win this fall and sees this whole episode as just the chink in Obama's armor that may provide the opening we desperately need to chart a path to victory.
Jack Kemp was on Hannity & Colmes last night articulating this position. His thesis was that we should be attempting to defeat Obama through sound arguments that expose his fallacious tax policies and "soak the rich", class warfare rhetoric for the flawed economics that they are. I had two reactions to this:
1) I remember what happened in 1996 when Kemp, as Bob Dole's running mate, tried to stay on the high ground, not just all through his debate with Al Gore, but through the whole race.
2) I wonder if we need more people like Jack Kemp in politics today.
Dole and Kemp did lose that election, by about 8 percentage points, if memory serves. But, the subsequent 4 years of Clinton paved the way for George W. Bush's presidency, so the Republicans won in the end anyway. Clinton also accomplished virtually nothing in his final 4 years. And Kemp still sleeps well at night because he kept his integrity and reputation intact as an impeccably credentialed conservative, but a man of principle and generous spirit.
Tuesday, March 18, 2008
"God d--n America"
I mentioned Shelby Steele's book on Obama in a previous post. Steele has published an op-ed in the Wall Street Journal today that distills the thesis of his book, but gives you enough information to whet your appetite for more. You can get to the article here:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB120579535818243439.html?mod=djemEditorialPage
(Jed, I couldn't make out the instructions on how to do the hyperlink shortcut; if you or anyone else can e-mail or comment here with advice, please do so.)
I've had some sidebar thoughts over the last 48 hours that aren't outright political in nature, but do tie into the Jeremiah Wright motif, specifically his calls on God to "damn America" for its offenses, both perceived and real. First, and least important, let's be fair to Wright and concede that he wasn't using an expletive here. I think he may have at other points in other sermons, but my feeling is that he is using the term "damn" in a literal sense here. So that is the origin of my following reactions.
Growing up in a strictly conservative evangelical environment, I heard a lot of scathing denunciations of America's sins from a number of church pulpits. Furthermore, although the churches in which I participated maintained some cultural/lifestyle distinctives that the wider evangelical church world did not share, this particular pattern of calling out America's transgressions was not one of those peculiarities. To say it another way, even a cursory study of the preaching of evangelical leaders such as Billy Graham, D. James Kennedy, Pat Robertson, Jerry Falwell and scores of others who could safely be characterized as mainstream members of American Christendom will show these same patterns.
Although, frankly, I don't always enjoy it, I am certainly aware of the need for warnings of the possibility of God's impending judgment on America and on the world, as a whole. I also believe that it takes courage for many preachers to do that; not everyone's personality naturally coincides with the conviction that is necessary for such messages. God called the prophet Ezekiel, however, to serve as a watchman and to warn the Israelite people of the dangers that lay ahead if they continued down the paths they were forging. This is an implicit portion of the duty of any preacher of God's Word, from that time to this.
The point where I begin to be troubled is when such sentiments are delivered, not with a mixture of sadness and, yes, anger (which is not always unwarranted) but rather with gusto, laced with rage. Keep in mind that rage is not always accompanied by dilated eyeballs, strained screams and foam-flecked lips. At times, it is very low key and determined.
I'm reminded of the days right after September 11 when most of us were united as a country in our sorrow and, I felt, determination to become a better people. Yet, there were still those who declared that God's judgment had begun and would continue to be poured out. I even heard of one acquaintance of mine who shall remain nameless who essentially urged God to "bring it on, and the sooner the better." It would be one thing if this were an anomaly from just 1 or 2 church people out there on the edge, but I'm afraid it isn't, although I hope and pray that such petitions are enough of a small minority that the rest of us overpower them.
When I hear of such reckless religious bravado (I refuse to call it spiritual), I want to ask those people if they think they will be exempt from whatever God's judgment involves, or if they feel their children will be. Throughout history, such has never been the case. German Lutherans who stood up for the Jews in Hitler's Third Reich suffered in concentration camps right along with them. Christians in the Great Depression and famines throughout history have felt the hunger pangs and watched their children starve along with the lowest sinners. Christians in Rwanda and Darfur have seen their own slain along with the druglords and pimps in the genocidal horrors of the last decade. Why should the United States in the 21st century be an exception to this pattern?
As we contemplate Easter and the price that was paid that we might live in an age of grace, could we urge the need for repentance and "weep between the temple porch and the altar" (Joel 2:17) as we warn of the danger of God's judgment? BUT, may we not also be mindful of the mercy of God that endures forever and never fail to hold out the possibility of healing offered by II Chronicles 7:14?
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB120579535818243439.html?mod=djemEditorialPage
(Jed, I couldn't make out the instructions on how to do the hyperlink shortcut; if you or anyone else can e-mail or comment here with advice, please do so.)
I've had some sidebar thoughts over the last 48 hours that aren't outright political in nature, but do tie into the Jeremiah Wright motif, specifically his calls on God to "damn America" for its offenses, both perceived and real. First, and least important, let's be fair to Wright and concede that he wasn't using an expletive here. I think he may have at other points in other sermons, but my feeling is that he is using the term "damn" in a literal sense here. So that is the origin of my following reactions.
Growing up in a strictly conservative evangelical environment, I heard a lot of scathing denunciations of America's sins from a number of church pulpits. Furthermore, although the churches in which I participated maintained some cultural/lifestyle distinctives that the wider evangelical church world did not share, this particular pattern of calling out America's transgressions was not one of those peculiarities. To say it another way, even a cursory study of the preaching of evangelical leaders such as Billy Graham, D. James Kennedy, Pat Robertson, Jerry Falwell and scores of others who could safely be characterized as mainstream members of American Christendom will show these same patterns.
Although, frankly, I don't always enjoy it, I am certainly aware of the need for warnings of the possibility of God's impending judgment on America and on the world, as a whole. I also believe that it takes courage for many preachers to do that; not everyone's personality naturally coincides with the conviction that is necessary for such messages. God called the prophet Ezekiel, however, to serve as a watchman and to warn the Israelite people of the dangers that lay ahead if they continued down the paths they were forging. This is an implicit portion of the duty of any preacher of God's Word, from that time to this.
The point where I begin to be troubled is when such sentiments are delivered, not with a mixture of sadness and, yes, anger (which is not always unwarranted) but rather with gusto, laced with rage. Keep in mind that rage is not always accompanied by dilated eyeballs, strained screams and foam-flecked lips. At times, it is very low key and determined.
I'm reminded of the days right after September 11 when most of us were united as a country in our sorrow and, I felt, determination to become a better people. Yet, there were still those who declared that God's judgment had begun and would continue to be poured out. I even heard of one acquaintance of mine who shall remain nameless who essentially urged God to "bring it on, and the sooner the better." It would be one thing if this were an anomaly from just 1 or 2 church people out there on the edge, but I'm afraid it isn't, although I hope and pray that such petitions are enough of a small minority that the rest of us overpower them.
When I hear of such reckless religious bravado (I refuse to call it spiritual), I want to ask those people if they think they will be exempt from whatever God's judgment involves, or if they feel their children will be. Throughout history, such has never been the case. German Lutherans who stood up for the Jews in Hitler's Third Reich suffered in concentration camps right along with them. Christians in the Great Depression and famines throughout history have felt the hunger pangs and watched their children starve along with the lowest sinners. Christians in Rwanda and Darfur have seen their own slain along with the druglords and pimps in the genocidal horrors of the last decade. Why should the United States in the 21st century be an exception to this pattern?
As we contemplate Easter and the price that was paid that we might live in an age of grace, could we urge the need for repentance and "weep between the temple porch and the altar" (Joel 2:17) as we warn of the danger of God's judgment? BUT, may we not also be mindful of the mercy of God that endures forever and never fail to hold out the possibility of healing offered by II Chronicles 7:14?
Monday, March 17, 2008
And the beat goes on...
Bill O'Reilly just reported that the Rasmussen tracking poll is showing Obama's favorability ratings dropping 5 points in the last 3 days. I'm not surprised. Every time the Wright clips play, they sound more revolting, if possible, than they did the first time.
I don't think Obama's protests that he wasn't aware of the extent of Wright's feelings are wearing well out among average voters. We all know now that Obama disinvited Wright from giving the invocation at his inaugural campaign rally Obama announced his Presidential candidacy, saying "You can get pretty rough in those sermons." Smart move...Obama's campaign might have ended a lot sooner had he given Wright the podium that day in February 2007.
I'm not saying that this will destroy Obama's candidacy. It will be interesting to hear the speech Obama is set to deliver tomorrow on race and religion in politics. I just don't know how you disavow, with no accountability, 20 years of association with a pastor and church who weren't meekly hiding in a corner. TUCC is a church with which the Chicago area is quite familiar, for one. Also, it isn't as though there aren't other options for church attendance in the 3rd largest city in the country.
I don't know how long Obama's tightrope walk can continue...and even if it doesn't destroy his candidacy, a good bit of its virginal aura has diminished.
I also don't pretend to understand the complaint that placing "guilt by association" is unfair. Certainly, you can't hold someone liable for having one picture taken at a campaign fundraiser with a person who later turned out to be unsavory or even for accepting a contribution from someone whose views you don't completely accept. There may be exceptions occasionally to the previous statement....but in general, we all understand what does and doesn't constitute fair game here. 20 years, though??? No, Mr. Obama, you're going to have to do better than that.
I don't think Obama's protests that he wasn't aware of the extent of Wright's feelings are wearing well out among average voters. We all know now that Obama disinvited Wright from giving the invocation at his inaugural campaign rally Obama announced his Presidential candidacy, saying "You can get pretty rough in those sermons." Smart move...Obama's campaign might have ended a lot sooner had he given Wright the podium that day in February 2007.
I'm not saying that this will destroy Obama's candidacy. It will be interesting to hear the speech Obama is set to deliver tomorrow on race and religion in politics. I just don't know how you disavow, with no accountability, 20 years of association with a pastor and church who weren't meekly hiding in a corner. TUCC is a church with which the Chicago area is quite familiar, for one. Also, it isn't as though there aren't other options for church attendance in the 3rd largest city in the country.
I don't know how long Obama's tightrope walk can continue...and even if it doesn't destroy his candidacy, a good bit of its virginal aura has diminished.
I also don't pretend to understand the complaint that placing "guilt by association" is unfair. Certainly, you can't hold someone liable for having one picture taken at a campaign fundraiser with a person who later turned out to be unsavory or even for accepting a contribution from someone whose views you don't completely accept. There may be exceptions occasionally to the previous statement....but in general, we all understand what does and doesn't constitute fair game here. 20 years, though??? No, Mr. Obama, you're going to have to do better than that.
Saturday, March 15, 2008
Obama's Swift Boat Moment?
I had a premonition that I ought to DVR Hannity & Colmes from last night (Friday 3/14 edition) since we were out for the evening with family members. As you all know, we've had our attention focused on a more important matter for the last 3 days so I had somewhat missed the fact that the Jeremiah Wright story (for those of you from Mars, that's Obama's pastor's name) has escalated to the extent it has.
So I just finished watching the whole show from last night, which was completely devoted to footage of different sermon clips from Wright, a replay of Hannity & Colmes' interview with Wright a little over a year ago and an interview with Obama responding to it all, conducted by Fox correspondent Major Garrett.
You may be surprised about the element that I find most offensive in all of Rev. Wright's comments...but it is a strand that I find quite consistently through the vast majority of modern American Democrat/liberal-oriented thought. It can be summed up in 2 words: moral equivalency.
Allow me to set the table here just a bit. Racial issues are a very sore subject in this country, still today; this MUST be acknowledged and truthfully confronted. Racism is something that I am passionately opposed to wherever I find it, as a follower of Christ who does my best to follow the 2 greatest commandments of Jesus Himself, namely, to love God and love people, with everything in me. Like most in my generation, the "n-word" makes me cringe on the rare occasions when I hear it, and I'm glad to affirm that those occurrences are, indeed, extremely few and far between. I label as despicable any comment, joke, etc., that suggests implicitly that those of darker skin hue are less worthy of affirmation and respect and fair treatment than Caucasians are.
Let us also not fail to acknowledge the sin of failure to stand up to the evils of segregation and lynching of blacks in this country for FAR too long. And make no mistake about it; it was a sin that God took seriously and still does today. Every time I watch Mississippi Burning, one of the most valuable movies ever filmed, I'm amazed that these events were still taking place in the South and in parts of the North during my parents' lifetime.
Had Rev. Wright limited his remarks to references to all of these factors, imbuing it all with passion and the sorrow he shares as someone who witnessed much of it personally, I would have no criticism at all to level. Not only would I support his right to say it; I would stand with him.
Here are the areas where and reasons why I repudiate the sentiments of Rev. Wright:
1) Wright portrays a failure, which seems deliberate and militant to me, to acknowledge the enormous strides that have been made in this country in race relations in the last 40 years. I am open to correction in this regard, but I believe that race is not an issue of division to the vast majority of my generation. When we see someone, regardless of ethnicity, they are a person first, an American second and whatever race they are is at best third on the list, if not lower. It is an item of interest, certainly not a pejorative. Wright completely fails to appreciate this massive advance in understanding.
2) Like fellow offenders Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton, Wright pins all of the blame for the racial and genocial sins of the past on America and its leaders. Yet, he has no problem hobnobbing with and hugging the necks of today's megalomaniacal world leaders, e.g. Muammar Khadafi. (None other than Louis Farrakhan accompanied Wright on his trip to Tripoli for an audience with Khadafi.) From where does this disconnect emerge? What are its origins? I have not done the study necessary an explanation to this question deserves, but I'll venture the assertion that it all is very demagogic, at best, and a shameful and wilful ignoring of today's most desperate tyrannies, at worst. Again, it's called MORAL EQUIVALENCY. It is historically dishonest, and it is wrong.
3) Wright is exploiting that which divides us here in this country, rather than the common ground on which we can all stand in hopes of building a continuously better nation. I first visited the website of Trinity United Church of Christ about a year and a half ago, around December 2006, in preparation for an interview I was conducting for IWU with someone who attended there and was seeking adjunct faculty status with us. This was before Obama had even declared his candidacy for the Presidency, though I knew he attended there (I don't recall how I knew this at that time; as I've told countless people, my mind is more cluttered with useless trivia than anyone else with whom I'm acquainted!). In any event, what I saw on TUCC's website at that time in terms of ministering specifically to a BLACK congregation with BLACK values, etc., etc., really did not bother me. Clearly, that was their demographic; so what, I thought at the time? Most churches have target audiences, whether or not they admit it or are even conscious of it. Now that I've seen footage, though, where America is referred to as the "U.S. of KKK A." by Wright, and he blames America for unleashing the HIV virus as a genocide mechanism on black males and he also calls on God to "d--n America" repeatedly....I believe we have a problem. (A sidebar, back to my IWU interview in 12/06: As delicately as possible, as we sometimes have to do, I brought up the subject of her church to Tonya. The aspect of it all that I was concerned about at that time impinged on the overt support of the United Church of Christ denomination for gay rights and ordination of gays into the ministry; the UCC ordained their first gay minister in 1972! Tonya replied that, yes she had attended for a number of years and was a member there, but wasn't sure how long she could continue on, due to her increasing discomfort with certain trends she was observing. Not her exact words, but something to that effect. It all sounds quite prescient now, not?)
I don't think the Republicans will let this go, and they shouldn't. Barack Obama has premised his entire candidacy on bringing people together, and getting past the policies and battles that have bitterly split this country. His pastor is not helping in this endeavor. And as my friend Jed put it, "where we attend church says a lot about who we are, period."
More on this later....it is far from over, I'm convinced.
So I just finished watching the whole show from last night, which was completely devoted to footage of different sermon clips from Wright, a replay of Hannity & Colmes' interview with Wright a little over a year ago and an interview with Obama responding to it all, conducted by Fox correspondent Major Garrett.
You may be surprised about the element that I find most offensive in all of Rev. Wright's comments...but it is a strand that I find quite consistently through the vast majority of modern American Democrat/liberal-oriented thought. It can be summed up in 2 words: moral equivalency.
Allow me to set the table here just a bit. Racial issues are a very sore subject in this country, still today; this MUST be acknowledged and truthfully confronted. Racism is something that I am passionately opposed to wherever I find it, as a follower of Christ who does my best to follow the 2 greatest commandments of Jesus Himself, namely, to love God and love people, with everything in me. Like most in my generation, the "n-word" makes me cringe on the rare occasions when I hear it, and I'm glad to affirm that those occurrences are, indeed, extremely few and far between. I label as despicable any comment, joke, etc., that suggests implicitly that those of darker skin hue are less worthy of affirmation and respect and fair treatment than Caucasians are.
Let us also not fail to acknowledge the sin of failure to stand up to the evils of segregation and lynching of blacks in this country for FAR too long. And make no mistake about it; it was a sin that God took seriously and still does today. Every time I watch Mississippi Burning, one of the most valuable movies ever filmed, I'm amazed that these events were still taking place in the South and in parts of the North during my parents' lifetime.
Had Rev. Wright limited his remarks to references to all of these factors, imbuing it all with passion and the sorrow he shares as someone who witnessed much of it personally, I would have no criticism at all to level. Not only would I support his right to say it; I would stand with him.
Here are the areas where and reasons why I repudiate the sentiments of Rev. Wright:
1) Wright portrays a failure, which seems deliberate and militant to me, to acknowledge the enormous strides that have been made in this country in race relations in the last 40 years. I am open to correction in this regard, but I believe that race is not an issue of division to the vast majority of my generation. When we see someone, regardless of ethnicity, they are a person first, an American second and whatever race they are is at best third on the list, if not lower. It is an item of interest, certainly not a pejorative. Wright completely fails to appreciate this massive advance in understanding.
2) Like fellow offenders Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton, Wright pins all of the blame for the racial and genocial sins of the past on America and its leaders. Yet, he has no problem hobnobbing with and hugging the necks of today's megalomaniacal world leaders, e.g. Muammar Khadafi. (None other than Louis Farrakhan accompanied Wright on his trip to Tripoli for an audience with Khadafi.) From where does this disconnect emerge? What are its origins? I have not done the study necessary an explanation to this question deserves, but I'll venture the assertion that it all is very demagogic, at best, and a shameful and wilful ignoring of today's most desperate tyrannies, at worst. Again, it's called MORAL EQUIVALENCY. It is historically dishonest, and it is wrong.
3) Wright is exploiting that which divides us here in this country, rather than the common ground on which we can all stand in hopes of building a continuously better nation. I first visited the website of Trinity United Church of Christ about a year and a half ago, around December 2006, in preparation for an interview I was conducting for IWU with someone who attended there and was seeking adjunct faculty status with us. This was before Obama had even declared his candidacy for the Presidency, though I knew he attended there (I don't recall how I knew this at that time; as I've told countless people, my mind is more cluttered with useless trivia than anyone else with whom I'm acquainted!). In any event, what I saw on TUCC's website at that time in terms of ministering specifically to a BLACK congregation with BLACK values, etc., etc., really did not bother me. Clearly, that was their demographic; so what, I thought at the time? Most churches have target audiences, whether or not they admit it or are even conscious of it. Now that I've seen footage, though, where America is referred to as the "U.S. of KKK A." by Wright, and he blames America for unleashing the HIV virus as a genocide mechanism on black males and he also calls on God to "d--n America" repeatedly....I believe we have a problem. (A sidebar, back to my IWU interview in 12/06: As delicately as possible, as we sometimes have to do, I brought up the subject of her church to Tonya. The aspect of it all that I was concerned about at that time impinged on the overt support of the United Church of Christ denomination for gay rights and ordination of gays into the ministry; the UCC ordained their first gay minister in 1972! Tonya replied that, yes she had attended for a number of years and was a member there, but wasn't sure how long she could continue on, due to her increasing discomfort with certain trends she was observing. Not her exact words, but something to that effect. It all sounds quite prescient now, not?)
I don't think the Republicans will let this go, and they shouldn't. Barack Obama has premised his entire candidacy on bringing people together, and getting past the policies and battles that have bitterly split this country. His pastor is not helping in this endeavor. And as my friend Jed put it, "where we attend church says a lot about who we are, period."
More on this later....it is far from over, I'm convinced.
Friday, March 14, 2008
McCain/Romney?
My friend Ben Blowers left a comment on this subject on a previous post, and I have wanted to discuss this anyhow.
The whisper campaign has been building for at least a couple of weeks now regarding the possibility that McCain may pick Romney as his running mate. Bob Novak (the best reporter in the world; the man is a supersleuth) reported in a Saturday newsletter that Karl Rove is trying to push the McCain folks in this direction.
So what would McCain stand to gain from the choice? The most obvious answer is Romney's personal fortune. I have done 0 research on this, but from everything I hear, Mitt's net wealth is around a billion dollars. (Yes, even in this age of affluence, I still have trouble wrapping my mind around that many zeros with a dollar sign in the front. Do any of you?) McCain is low on funds, and thanks to his monstrosity of a piece of legislation, he is likely to stay there. There may be sufficient loopholes in the law, though, to allow Mitt to contribute indefinitely to the campaign were he the VP. I'm sure there would be an endless parade of self-righteous Washington Post editorials ranting on about how horrible this is for a candidate to be "buying the White House." Bring it on.
By this point, Romney also has name ID that he did not possess a year ago or even 6 months ago. I have to credit Michael Medved's latest column (I think it's his latest) for this thought. When people hear the name "Mitt Romney", the followup question won't be "Mitt Who?" Governor Tim Pawlenty of Minnesota or Terry Sanford of South Carolina will have to clear this type of hurdle if they are the choice for veep. In case you're interested in Medved's column, here is the link:
http://www.townhall.com/columnists/MichaelMedved/2008/03/12/mitts_weakness_for_the_top_spot_could_help_him_as_veep
(I haven't yet learned how to do this maneuver: Michael Medved's column is here, highlighting the word "here", so all you have to do is click on it and you arrive at the column. Some of you more web-savvy people will get a good chuckle out of that...go ahead and snicker. I will figure it out.)
Mitt has also gained a lot of ground in a very short time, winning over the affections of hardcore conservatives. His constant good cheer, his articulate abilities and his integrity became very clear to those of us who closely observed his campaign (versus those, with all due respect, who tuned in for the last 2 months or so of the period Mitt was still in the race). I was privileged to attend the Conservative Political Action Conference in Washington, DC for the first time this year. The attendees there are the grassroots of the conservative movement across the country, and trust me....Mitt was the CLEAR favorite there. He even won the CPAC straw poll for President after dropping out of the race! (McCain came in second, and he had already virtually clinched the nomination.) McCain needs all the help he can get as he continues to try to reach out to conservatives (and yes, I do believe he is trying). In short, a Mitt Romney pick would not win plaudits from the New York Times or the Indianapolis Star editorial page (to choose a lesser offender that is closer to home for me), but it would endear McCain to those of us who really care about him winning in November.
Some of you may have seen Romney's interview with Sean Hannity this last Tuesday night. Let's just say that when Hannity asked Romney if he would take the VP slot, if asked, Mitt all but declared that he would love to be considered. Yes, he couched his answer in the eloquent deferral that you would expect from him...but it's clear that he's willing.
I really enjoyed watching different ones here and there among my friends begin to really like Mitt Romney over the course of his candidacy. I became a supporter around April or May of last year. This was when the "Fred Thompson as White Knight" movement had been gaining steam for a couple of months, but Fred wasn't doing anything to capitalize on the buzz. I thought Thompson had real potential, and liked what I saw in many ways....but finally, I reached a point where I realized that it was time for Fred to either fish or cut bait. He didn't, so I chose to support Mitt and never regretted it.
I knew a number of people that worried about the Mormon factor. That never bothered me. We have had a Freemason, a Unitarian and a Deist in the White House, among other variances, and I'll lay any odds on you that if we could bring George Washington, John Adams or Thomas Jefferson through the time tunnel, back to a Presidential race today, they'd win roughly 97% of the evangelical vote. Mitt Romney, as a Mormon, certainly would advance the values that I treasure, to a far greater extent than the Methodist Hillary Clinton or the UCC Barack Obama, or for that matter, Baptist John McCain (he was raised Episcopalian, but is a member of North Phoenix Baptist Church today).
I felt far more cautious about the "flip-flop" accusations. Yet, even a cursory examination showed only one flip of any significance, namely, the abortion issue, and Mitt clearly moved in my direction to a strong pro-life position. Does anyone seriously believe he would change his mind again? Especially after being supported by the pro-life community? I can't claim to know the man's heart, but I believe his position change was heartfelt. He explained it all in an op-ed (in the Boston Globe, I think) at the time back in 2005...I'm not going into it here. But, let's say, just for giggles, that it was all done for political expediency. Practically speaking, would it matter? Would Mitt, the alleged political chameleon, really be so stupid as to immediately become pro-choice again once he was given the key to the White House? Let's be real.
Ronald Reagan, (whom I'm proud to say was my hero before loving Reagan became the cool thing for everybody to do, including many Democrats) signed the first pro-abortion piece of legislation in California history. He later referred to this as a "terrible mistake", which it was. But we forgave him, didn't we? Mitt governed almost 100% as a pro-lifer, even before he formally changed his position. So what gives?
Mark my word; Mitt is here to stay, whether he gets the VP nod or not. He will only be 68 in 2016, and he'll look 10 years younger!
The whisper campaign has been building for at least a couple of weeks now regarding the possibility that McCain may pick Romney as his running mate. Bob Novak (the best reporter in the world; the man is a supersleuth) reported in a Saturday newsletter that Karl Rove is trying to push the McCain folks in this direction.
So what would McCain stand to gain from the choice? The most obvious answer is Romney's personal fortune. I have done 0 research on this, but from everything I hear, Mitt's net wealth is around a billion dollars. (Yes, even in this age of affluence, I still have trouble wrapping my mind around that many zeros with a dollar sign in the front. Do any of you?) McCain is low on funds, and thanks to his monstrosity of a piece of legislation, he is likely to stay there. There may be sufficient loopholes in the law, though, to allow Mitt to contribute indefinitely to the campaign were he the VP. I'm sure there would be an endless parade of self-righteous Washington Post editorials ranting on about how horrible this is for a candidate to be "buying the White House." Bring it on.
By this point, Romney also has name ID that he did not possess a year ago or even 6 months ago. I have to credit Michael Medved's latest column (I think it's his latest) for this thought. When people hear the name "Mitt Romney", the followup question won't be "Mitt Who?" Governor Tim Pawlenty of Minnesota or Terry Sanford of South Carolina will have to clear this type of hurdle if they are the choice for veep. In case you're interested in Medved's column, here is the link:
http://www.townhall.com/columnists/MichaelMedved/2008/03/12/mitts_weakness_for_the_top_spot_could_help_him_as_veep
(I haven't yet learned how to do this maneuver: Michael Medved's column is here, highlighting the word "here", so all you have to do is click on it and you arrive at the column. Some of you more web-savvy people will get a good chuckle out of that...go ahead and snicker. I will figure it out.)
Mitt has also gained a lot of ground in a very short time, winning over the affections of hardcore conservatives. His constant good cheer, his articulate abilities and his integrity became very clear to those of us who closely observed his campaign (versus those, with all due respect, who tuned in for the last 2 months or so of the period Mitt was still in the race). I was privileged to attend the Conservative Political Action Conference in Washington, DC for the first time this year. The attendees there are the grassroots of the conservative movement across the country, and trust me....Mitt was the CLEAR favorite there. He even won the CPAC straw poll for President after dropping out of the race! (McCain came in second, and he had already virtually clinched the nomination.) McCain needs all the help he can get as he continues to try to reach out to conservatives (and yes, I do believe he is trying). In short, a Mitt Romney pick would not win plaudits from the New York Times or the Indianapolis Star editorial page (to choose a lesser offender that is closer to home for me), but it would endear McCain to those of us who really care about him winning in November.
Some of you may have seen Romney's interview with Sean Hannity this last Tuesday night. Let's just say that when Hannity asked Romney if he would take the VP slot, if asked, Mitt all but declared that he would love to be considered. Yes, he couched his answer in the eloquent deferral that you would expect from him...but it's clear that he's willing.
I really enjoyed watching different ones here and there among my friends begin to really like Mitt Romney over the course of his candidacy. I became a supporter around April or May of last year. This was when the "Fred Thompson as White Knight" movement had been gaining steam for a couple of months, but Fred wasn't doing anything to capitalize on the buzz. I thought Thompson had real potential, and liked what I saw in many ways....but finally, I reached a point where I realized that it was time for Fred to either fish or cut bait. He didn't, so I chose to support Mitt and never regretted it.
I knew a number of people that worried about the Mormon factor. That never bothered me. We have had a Freemason, a Unitarian and a Deist in the White House, among other variances, and I'll lay any odds on you that if we could bring George Washington, John Adams or Thomas Jefferson through the time tunnel, back to a Presidential race today, they'd win roughly 97% of the evangelical vote. Mitt Romney, as a Mormon, certainly would advance the values that I treasure, to a far greater extent than the Methodist Hillary Clinton or the UCC Barack Obama, or for that matter, Baptist John McCain (he was raised Episcopalian, but is a member of North Phoenix Baptist Church today).
I felt far more cautious about the "flip-flop" accusations. Yet, even a cursory examination showed only one flip of any significance, namely, the abortion issue, and Mitt clearly moved in my direction to a strong pro-life position. Does anyone seriously believe he would change his mind again? Especially after being supported by the pro-life community? I can't claim to know the man's heart, but I believe his position change was heartfelt. He explained it all in an op-ed (in the Boston Globe, I think) at the time back in 2005...I'm not going into it here. But, let's say, just for giggles, that it was all done for political expediency. Practically speaking, would it matter? Would Mitt, the alleged political chameleon, really be so stupid as to immediately become pro-choice again once he was given the key to the White House? Let's be real.
Ronald Reagan, (whom I'm proud to say was my hero before loving Reagan became the cool thing for everybody to do, including many Democrats) signed the first pro-abortion piece of legislation in California history. He later referred to this as a "terrible mistake", which it was. But we forgave him, didn't we? Mitt governed almost 100% as a pro-lifer, even before he formally changed his position. So what gives?
Mark my word; Mitt is here to stay, whether he gets the VP nod or not. He will only be 68 in 2016, and he'll look 10 years younger!
Changes in Blogspot setting
I've changed the setting on my blog so those without Google/Blogspot accounts can still leave comments. Please feel free to leave comments (at this point, we welcome them!)
Thursday, March 13, 2008
A Life Changing 36 Hours, Part II
I don't know how we slept last night, but I did, fitfully, for a few hours. By morning, I didn't even want to get up and face the day. I don't know if Pam slept at all, even though she was wrung dry emotionally.
Pam's parents drove all night, God bless them, and made it in about 7:30 this morning. They kept Olivia and picked Carli up from pre-school while we drove down to Indy for our appointment with the Prenatal Diagnosis specialist. The palpable fear was incredible. You have to understand that we were doing everything to avoid the thought we couldn't help but confront....that our little Madeline Kate might not live. (We found out that we're having another little girl earlier this morning.)
The first half hour with the ultrasound tech, our worries descended into out and out panic as she softly explained that the growth at the end of the spine was causing the back of the brain to collapse, which in turn was filling the brain with fluid. Pam began to sob, and it was all I could do to keep from dissolving, too. This went on for 30 eternal minutes or so, and we knew our baby wasn't going to make it.
Then, the doctor came in, looked over the data for a while and began to explain everything. Finally, Pam couldn't take it anymore and blurted out, "So will our baby survive?" The doctor said, "Yes, almost certainly...very high chance." I jumped in and said, "So what about life expectancy after she's born?" The doctor, one word: "Long." Me: "You mean she can expect to live out her normal span of years?" Doctor: "The odds are high that, yes, that will be the case." Pam: "What is the outlook on mental deficiency?" Doctor: "The odds are high that she should have very little to any delayed mental development."
I have explained this to people all day in this fashion: If the doctor had come to us and dropped the news in our laps yesterday morning that our child would be born without the use of her legs, we would have probably gone into hysterics. After 24 hours of agony in waiting, fearing for our little girl's life, though, we were ecstatic.
It turns out our little girl has spina bifida, which means that the lower portion of her spinal cord is exposed outside the skin. She will be born that way this July, and will be rushed to surgery immediately. We are in the care of a top-of-the-line team of neurosurgeons and neonatal care specialists, so there is every reason to expect that she will do fine. She will, however, suffer the possibility of permanent paralysis from the waist down at the most severe ranging to the possibility that she may eventually gain some usage in her legs, even walking with braces. She will always struggle with bowel and bladder control, though eventually, she will learn to manage it on her own. I asked Heather, the genetics counselor if there is a possibility that someday, she could live independently, fall in love, get married and have a family, if that is part of God's plan, and Heather said she sees no reason why that shouldn't be a joyful part of the potential story of little Madeline's life.
We feel like we have been pulled back from the brink of the abyss. What a wonderful Savior we serve Who has been with us every step of this very unexpected and extraordinary journey. And we've only just begun, of course. God has seen fit to entrust us with the care of a special needs child, and we are thrilled. I am not so naive as to presume that we won't face challenges to our patience, our faith and our nerves in the days ahead! But with the grace of God, the love of family and the care and support of the best friends and church in the world, we will not only be fine; we will thrive!
Pam's parents drove all night, God bless them, and made it in about 7:30 this morning. They kept Olivia and picked Carli up from pre-school while we drove down to Indy for our appointment with the Prenatal Diagnosis specialist. The palpable fear was incredible. You have to understand that we were doing everything to avoid the thought we couldn't help but confront....that our little Madeline Kate might not live. (We found out that we're having another little girl earlier this morning.)
The first half hour with the ultrasound tech, our worries descended into out and out panic as she softly explained that the growth at the end of the spine was causing the back of the brain to collapse, which in turn was filling the brain with fluid. Pam began to sob, and it was all I could do to keep from dissolving, too. This went on for 30 eternal minutes or so, and we knew our baby wasn't going to make it.
Then, the doctor came in, looked over the data for a while and began to explain everything. Finally, Pam couldn't take it anymore and blurted out, "So will our baby survive?" The doctor said, "Yes, almost certainly...very high chance." I jumped in and said, "So what about life expectancy after she's born?" The doctor, one word: "Long." Me: "You mean she can expect to live out her normal span of years?" Doctor: "The odds are high that, yes, that will be the case." Pam: "What is the outlook on mental deficiency?" Doctor: "The odds are high that she should have very little to any delayed mental development."
I have explained this to people all day in this fashion: If the doctor had come to us and dropped the news in our laps yesterday morning that our child would be born without the use of her legs, we would have probably gone into hysterics. After 24 hours of agony in waiting, fearing for our little girl's life, though, we were ecstatic.
It turns out our little girl has spina bifida, which means that the lower portion of her spinal cord is exposed outside the skin. She will be born that way this July, and will be rushed to surgery immediately. We are in the care of a top-of-the-line team of neurosurgeons and neonatal care specialists, so there is every reason to expect that she will do fine. She will, however, suffer the possibility of permanent paralysis from the waist down at the most severe ranging to the possibility that she may eventually gain some usage in her legs, even walking with braces. She will always struggle with bowel and bladder control, though eventually, she will learn to manage it on her own. I asked Heather, the genetics counselor if there is a possibility that someday, she could live independently, fall in love, get married and have a family, if that is part of God's plan, and Heather said she sees no reason why that shouldn't be a joyful part of the potential story of little Madeline's life.
We feel like we have been pulled back from the brink of the abyss. What a wonderful Savior we serve Who has been with us every step of this very unexpected and extraordinary journey. And we've only just begun, of course. God has seen fit to entrust us with the care of a special needs child, and we are thrilled. I am not so naive as to presume that we won't face challenges to our patience, our faith and our nerves in the days ahead! But with the grace of God, the love of family and the care and support of the best friends and church in the world, we will not only be fine; we will thrive!
A Life Changing 36 Hours
I've sat here staring at the screen for a good while now, trying to figure out how to sum this all up, yet accurately convey the emotions and sentiments of the last day and a half. There is no quick or glib way to do it, though...how do you just verbally tie up all the loose ends of an event that has completely UPENDED life as it once was? We will always look back at life before March 12, 2008 and life after it, I now know.
I went by Little School Presbyterian Pre-School to pick Carli up at just after 11:00 AM yesterday to take her over to the hospital with us. Pam drove over and dropped Olivia off at Lisa Bryant's. Pam, Carli and I met at St. Joseph's Hospital and excitedly walked into the hospital and up into the second floor waiting room to find out whether we were having a little boy or girl. After waiting about 1/2 hour, I finally took Carli down to the van to get her coloring book and crayons. We didn't take long, but by the time we got back upstairs, Pam was in the ultrasound room with the technician and the jelly on the belly and all the computer monitors. After about 10 minutes came the words that changed everything: "I'm sorry, but I'm seeing some abnormalities." I think my heart stopped. My fellow male readers will understand what I mean when I say that my brain immediately started racing to a possible fix, with none forthcoming. For a man and a father, that is a totally HELPLESS feeling. And yes, it is TERRIFYING.
Pam was crying and I was barely holding it back, and the poor nurse wasn't doing much better. She hugged us both and told us how sorry she was which really didn't help things any. She then told us she wasn't allowed to give any details and sent us over to see Dr. Eric Tuchscherer, our family doctor at American Health Network. We walked out of the hospital in a complete and total daze. I got Carli in the car and Pam got in the van. She managed to call Lisa Bryant and explain, through her tears, that there were problems. Lisa met us with Olivia at American Health, and got out and prayed with Pam right there on the spot. What a blessing that was. We made arrangements to get the kids to Steve and Vicki Lamar's, then got back to the doctor's office. We also called my parents and Pam's and our dear friend, Jed Hutchison to let them all know our news.
Dr. Tuchscherer came in and sat down and told Pam and I that we were more than likely looking at a serious type of prognosis with what he could see from the ultrasound. He explained the gamut of possibilities, and this was the first time the possibility was verbalized that the baby might not survive because of the fluid on the brain and the spinal irregularities that the ultrasound had shown. He also had tears in his eyes and gave Pam a hug and squeezed my hand. Again, very sweet, but not making us feel better, though we were grateful. (Sorry if that sounds like a jumble of emotions....but it was!) Dr. Tuchscherer made some calls and managed to get us a 12:30 appointment for Thursday, March 13 (today) at the state of the art Pre-Natal Center in Indianapolis.
By this point, we were getting calls and voicemails of support from our family and friends. We called the church and asked Pastor David if we could come see him, and of course he said to come on over. He talked with us for 20 minutes or so, then prayed with us. We felt like we wanted to talk to our Sunday School teacher, Konny Zurcher, who is also our administrative pastor's wife. Her husband, Stan, has an office across the church hall from Pastor David's, so we went in to talk to him and share the situation. As it turned out, Konny was about five minutes away shopping, and came rushing over. Konny and Stan were exactly what we needed. They both prayed, listened and cried with us for over an hour. (This was the point where all of the emotions really began to uproariously surface.)
By this point, it was around 5:30 in the evening. We went over to pick up the kids and then went back to the house. This is where the agonizing waiting game began, since there was NOTHING further we could find out until the next day.
Jed and Alyssa came over to the house, and Alyssa cooked supper. It was such a blessing to have them there, to get our minds off of everything for a few hours.
(There is a scheduled outage at 5:00 PDT tonight on Blogger, so I'm going to go ahead and post this, then do Part II whenever the outage is over.)
As if I needed a reminder that there are more important things in life than politics.... :)
I will come back to McCain/Obama/Clinton and other related subjects in due course, probably no later than tomorrow, maybe even later on tonight.
I went by Little School Presbyterian Pre-School to pick Carli up at just after 11:00 AM yesterday to take her over to the hospital with us. Pam drove over and dropped Olivia off at Lisa Bryant's. Pam, Carli and I met at St. Joseph's Hospital and excitedly walked into the hospital and up into the second floor waiting room to find out whether we were having a little boy or girl. After waiting about 1/2 hour, I finally took Carli down to the van to get her coloring book and crayons. We didn't take long, but by the time we got back upstairs, Pam was in the ultrasound room with the technician and the jelly on the belly and all the computer monitors. After about 10 minutes came the words that changed everything: "I'm sorry, but I'm seeing some abnormalities." I think my heart stopped. My fellow male readers will understand what I mean when I say that my brain immediately started racing to a possible fix, with none forthcoming. For a man and a father, that is a totally HELPLESS feeling. And yes, it is TERRIFYING.
Pam was crying and I was barely holding it back, and the poor nurse wasn't doing much better. She hugged us both and told us how sorry she was which really didn't help things any. She then told us she wasn't allowed to give any details and sent us over to see Dr. Eric Tuchscherer, our family doctor at American Health Network. We walked out of the hospital in a complete and total daze. I got Carli in the car and Pam got in the van. She managed to call Lisa Bryant and explain, through her tears, that there were problems. Lisa met us with Olivia at American Health, and got out and prayed with Pam right there on the spot. What a blessing that was. We made arrangements to get the kids to Steve and Vicki Lamar's, then got back to the doctor's office. We also called my parents and Pam's and our dear friend, Jed Hutchison to let them all know our news.
Dr. Tuchscherer came in and sat down and told Pam and I that we were more than likely looking at a serious type of prognosis with what he could see from the ultrasound. He explained the gamut of possibilities, and this was the first time the possibility was verbalized that the baby might not survive because of the fluid on the brain and the spinal irregularities that the ultrasound had shown. He also had tears in his eyes and gave Pam a hug and squeezed my hand. Again, very sweet, but not making us feel better, though we were grateful. (Sorry if that sounds like a jumble of emotions....but it was!) Dr. Tuchscherer made some calls and managed to get us a 12:30 appointment for Thursday, March 13 (today) at the state of the art Pre-Natal Center in Indianapolis.
By this point, we were getting calls and voicemails of support from our family and friends. We called the church and asked Pastor David if we could come see him, and of course he said to come on over. He talked with us for 20 minutes or so, then prayed with us. We felt like we wanted to talk to our Sunday School teacher, Konny Zurcher, who is also our administrative pastor's wife. Her husband, Stan, has an office across the church hall from Pastor David's, so we went in to talk to him and share the situation. As it turned out, Konny was about five minutes away shopping, and came rushing over. Konny and Stan were exactly what we needed. They both prayed, listened and cried with us for over an hour. (This was the point where all of the emotions really began to uproariously surface.)
By this point, it was around 5:30 in the evening. We went over to pick up the kids and then went back to the house. This is where the agonizing waiting game began, since there was NOTHING further we could find out until the next day.
Jed and Alyssa came over to the house, and Alyssa cooked supper. It was such a blessing to have them there, to get our minds off of everything for a few hours.
(There is a scheduled outage at 5:00 PDT tonight on Blogger, so I'm going to go ahead and post this, then do Part II whenever the outage is over.)
As if I needed a reminder that there are more important things in life than politics.... :)
I will come back to McCain/Obama/Clinton and other related subjects in due course, probably no later than tomorrow, maybe even later on tonight.
Tuesday, March 11, 2008
The Spitzer Saga/Mississippi
24+ hours in and Spitzer continues to stall on making any further comment, let alone announcing a decision about his future. So speculation went on all day. I don't know how long he can hold out; this isn't going away. There is a part of me that really would rather not pile on in a man's darkest hour. Yet, this is a man who really had this coming to him. Not a nice fellow by almost any estimation. I saw James Tedisco, the Republican Leader of the New York State Assembly, on Hardball with Chris Matthews shortly after 5 PM EST. Tedisco recounted an episode I'd read about earlier in the day: In January 2007, within mere days after taking office, he received a call from Spitzer warning him that he better not get in Spitzer's way for any reason, because in Spitzer's exact and endearing words, "I'm a f-----g steamroller!" This wasn't just a variance from the norm with Spitzer either. Sean Hannity has told the story for years about interviewing Spitzer back in Spitzer's early AG days. As you might imagine, Hannity didn't limit his line of questioning to subjects that Spitzer wanted to discuss. Shortly after the show's conclusion, Hannity's producer received a call from Spitzer saying they'd better watch their backs because he was coming after them or some such thing. There are multiple stories like this, it appears.
Maybe Spitzer is using the "slow drip" strategy that the Clinton administration made so famous in the '90's, where you leak all the information a little bit at a time in hopes of lessening the impact. I doubt it works; it doesn't appear that the press are inclined to come to Spitzer's aid anymore than anyone else is. And the story just gets worse the longer it floats out there. Now there are rumors that the patronage of errr, high-dollar escorts, may go back a good number of years? The classic analogy of a train wreck certainly applies here; it's terrible and quite agonizing to watch, but you can't take your eyes off of it.
Barack Obama will probably be projected to win the Mississippi primary in a few minutes. This should put him up fairly close to 1600 delegates. He will close the gap with Hillary even further in Pennsylvania over the course of the next 6 weeks. I don't know how Hillary comes back from this, but we have seen her candidacy revived too many times to count her out. I know some don't like this type of sentiment to be expressed, but this is how I see it: I wouldn't put much of anything past Hillary Clinton. I don't think she's demon-possessed or even worse, the Anti-christ, as some have foolishly suggested, nor do I think she has committed murder or would sanction it. I DO believe that she is ruthless and cold and fiercely determined to win, no matter whose reputations and integrity she has to destroy to get there or how many voters she completely embitters in the process.
I also think that Karl Rove was correct when he described Hillary as a "fatally flawed candidate." That is not to say that she can't win, but she will certainly be the easier candidate for McCain to beat by any feasible scenario, at this point.
I still like Obama as a person, on most days, though I hardly agree with him on anything of consequence. I like his wife, Michelle, too, but I have to say that although she may be an accomplished and very beautiful lady (not that the latter really matters), she seems given to utterances that are astonishingly self-indulgent (and that's being charitable). She's never been proud of America as an adult until this election season? Hmmm....
Well, Barack and Hillary, you two just keep duking it out and give McCain time to raise some funds.
Maybe Spitzer is using the "slow drip" strategy that the Clinton administration made so famous in the '90's, where you leak all the information a little bit at a time in hopes of lessening the impact. I doubt it works; it doesn't appear that the press are inclined to come to Spitzer's aid anymore than anyone else is. And the story just gets worse the longer it floats out there. Now there are rumors that the patronage of errr, high-dollar escorts, may go back a good number of years? The classic analogy of a train wreck certainly applies here; it's terrible and quite agonizing to watch, but you can't take your eyes off of it.
Barack Obama will probably be projected to win the Mississippi primary in a few minutes. This should put him up fairly close to 1600 delegates. He will close the gap with Hillary even further in Pennsylvania over the course of the next 6 weeks. I don't know how Hillary comes back from this, but we have seen her candidacy revived too many times to count her out. I know some don't like this type of sentiment to be expressed, but this is how I see it: I wouldn't put much of anything past Hillary Clinton. I don't think she's demon-possessed or even worse, the Anti-christ, as some have foolishly suggested, nor do I think she has committed murder or would sanction it. I DO believe that she is ruthless and cold and fiercely determined to win, no matter whose reputations and integrity she has to destroy to get there or how many voters she completely embitters in the process.
I also think that Karl Rove was correct when he described Hillary as a "fatally flawed candidate." That is not to say that she can't win, but she will certainly be the easier candidate for McCain to beat by any feasible scenario, at this point.
I still like Obama as a person, on most days, though I hardly agree with him on anything of consequence. I like his wife, Michelle, too, but I have to say that although she may be an accomplished and very beautiful lady (not that the latter really matters), she seems given to utterances that are astonishingly self-indulgent (and that's being charitable). She's never been proud of America as an adult until this election season? Hmmm....
Well, Barack and Hillary, you two just keep duking it out and give McCain time to raise some funds.
Monday, March 10, 2008
McCain in 2008!
I supported Mitt Romney's campaign for President from around April 2007 until he dropped out of the race last month. Once Mitt dropped out of the race, Republicans were left with John McCain, Mike Huckabee and Ron Paul, which is another way of saying that we were left with John McCain. For all you Huckabee fans out there, sorry, but clearly that was the truth, wasn't it? Huckabee couldn't manage to win a single state after Super Tuesday, for all his charm and "aw, shucks" aura. And for the Paul fans...are any of you seriously even reading this blog?
I am warming more quickly than I would have even thought possible to John McCain. I am about 2/3 of the way through his memoir, Worth the Fighting For. It is a little wordy and densely written at times, but parts of it are a lot of fun and other portions are very informative. The most major bones that conservatives have to pick with McCain are the Big 3 pieces of legislation: McCain/Kennedy, McCain/Lieberman and MCCAIN/FEINGOLD!!! Love them or hate them, you can understand a lot better why McCain championed these causes of you read his exceedingly lengthy chapter on the Keating Five scandal in which he was embroiled in the late '80's. I won't go into all the details here because I don't have the time or the inclination. But if you want to be informed about the man who will very possibly be the 44th President of the United States, read this book and especially that chapter. I'll tell you this much: McCain determined, once his reputation was cleared, that 1) he would always be as forthright with the press as he could possibly be and 2) he would support any cause that he felt benefitted the nation as a whole, whether its legislative sponsor was a Republican or a Democrat. Add to that the feeling of a second chance being granted after near destruction in a financial imbroglio....ergo, McCain/Feingold, one of the most unconstitutional pieces of legislation in the last 10 years.
There is much to like about McCain, though. I LOVE the promises to veto any spending bill that contains an earmark. We can only hope so. He also has a solidly pro-life record and can't be faulted on the national security front. I believe he is a man of conviction, and there is a certain integrity about him, as well. Definitely an American war hero...(I hadn't seen the footage of his Vietnam capture and imprisonment until this last weekend; WOW!) and he seems to be trying to reach out to those on his right, which is certainly where I reside!
I really can't see much difference between McCain and Bush, at all, except for Bush's support of a constitutional amendment defining marriage as a union only between a man and a woman, which McCain twice voted against. Evangelicals supported Bush in droves in 2000 and especially 2004. Can McCain win them over? It will be interesting to watch his efforts.
I am warming more quickly than I would have even thought possible to John McCain. I am about 2/3 of the way through his memoir, Worth the Fighting For. It is a little wordy and densely written at times, but parts of it are a lot of fun and other portions are very informative. The most major bones that conservatives have to pick with McCain are the Big 3 pieces of legislation: McCain/Kennedy, McCain/Lieberman and MCCAIN/FEINGOLD!!! Love them or hate them, you can understand a lot better why McCain championed these causes of you read his exceedingly lengthy chapter on the Keating Five scandal in which he was embroiled in the late '80's. I won't go into all the details here because I don't have the time or the inclination. But if you want to be informed about the man who will very possibly be the 44th President of the United States, read this book and especially that chapter. I'll tell you this much: McCain determined, once his reputation was cleared, that 1) he would always be as forthright with the press as he could possibly be and 2) he would support any cause that he felt benefitted the nation as a whole, whether its legislative sponsor was a Republican or a Democrat. Add to that the feeling of a second chance being granted after near destruction in a financial imbroglio....ergo, McCain/Feingold, one of the most unconstitutional pieces of legislation in the last 10 years.
There is much to like about McCain, though. I LOVE the promises to veto any spending bill that contains an earmark. We can only hope so. He also has a solidly pro-life record and can't be faulted on the national security front. I believe he is a man of conviction, and there is a certain integrity about him, as well. Definitely an American war hero...(I hadn't seen the footage of his Vietnam capture and imprisonment until this last weekend; WOW!) and he seems to be trying to reach out to those on his right, which is certainly where I reside!
I really can't see much difference between McCain and Bush, at all, except for Bush's support of a constitutional amendment defining marriage as a union only between a man and a woman, which McCain twice voted against. Evangelicals supported Bush in droves in 2000 and especially 2004. Can McCain win them over? It will be interesting to watch his efforts.
First post!
Well, what else do you call the first post? I mean, really....for that matter, what do you say to open your first paragraph? "Hello everyone, I've finally arrived in the blogosphere!"? That implies that people have been eagerly checking the Web with bated breath on a daily basis hoping against hope that I'll show up out there somewhere. Not so much.
The truth is that I should have started this blog at the first of the year when there were a lot of surprises left in the 2008 primary election season. I believe there are still plenty left, not just in this particular foray, either. As long as there are politicians anywhere in the world, but especially in the United States, there will be ample fodder for political junkies such as I.
Exhibit 1: Today! Gov. Eliot Spitzer (very much D- New York) steps up to the mic at a 2:30 press conference to announce that he's behaved inappropriately. Yes, you could say that. Somebody on Anderson Cooper 360 just reported that he paid $4300 for a Feb. 13 liaison with a New York callgirl at (I think) the Mayflower Hotel in Washington, D.C., then went up to the Hill to give testimony the next day (Valentine's Day) in a corruption case. Lovely, isn't it? This is a man who has gone after Wall Street types with a vengeance for not following the rules to the letter. I think we can start counting the days down until the Spitzer administration comes to a deservedly ignominious end. Quite a fall from grace for a governor who was elected in Nov. 2006 with the largest percentage (69%) in the history of New York gubernatorial races.
Back to the reason for the emergence of this blog: I talk to quite a few people about politics on a regular basis. The problem is, life is so fast-paced nowadays that by the time I see even the people whom I'm with regularly (at church, work, etc.), events that seemed major when they occurred have been eclipsed by subsequent happenings. Perhaps this type of forum will provide a chance for discussion in what at least approximates real time. We'll see.
I enjoy writing and a good political discussion...so what's not to love?
Most of my posts will probably have a political theme, but every once in a while, there will be a divergence from the routine (i.e., around August 4, when our 3rd child is scheduled to arrive!).
So if you find this blog, welcome to the conversation; I'm glad you've dropped by for a few. Let's chat!
The truth is that I should have started this blog at the first of the year when there were a lot of surprises left in the 2008 primary election season. I believe there are still plenty left, not just in this particular foray, either. As long as there are politicians anywhere in the world, but especially in the United States, there will be ample fodder for political junkies such as I.
Exhibit 1: Today! Gov. Eliot Spitzer (very much D- New York) steps up to the mic at a 2:30 press conference to announce that he's behaved inappropriately. Yes, you could say that. Somebody on Anderson Cooper 360 just reported that he paid $4300 for a Feb. 13 liaison with a New York callgirl at (I think) the Mayflower Hotel in Washington, D.C., then went up to the Hill to give testimony the next day (Valentine's Day) in a corruption case. Lovely, isn't it? This is a man who has gone after Wall Street types with a vengeance for not following the rules to the letter. I think we can start counting the days down until the Spitzer administration comes to a deservedly ignominious end. Quite a fall from grace for a governor who was elected in Nov. 2006 with the largest percentage (69%) in the history of New York gubernatorial races.
Back to the reason for the emergence of this blog: I talk to quite a few people about politics on a regular basis. The problem is, life is so fast-paced nowadays that by the time I see even the people whom I'm with regularly (at church, work, etc.), events that seemed major when they occurred have been eclipsed by subsequent happenings. Perhaps this type of forum will provide a chance for discussion in what at least approximates real time. We'll see.
I enjoy writing and a good political discussion...so what's not to love?
Most of my posts will probably have a political theme, but every once in a while, there will be a divergence from the routine (i.e., around August 4, when our 3rd child is scheduled to arrive!).
So if you find this blog, welcome to the conversation; I'm glad you've dropped by for a few. Let's chat!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
