Obviously, I'm biased...
This was a weird first day to tell you the truth, very dissonant:
The three most notable speakers were in order George W. Bush, Fred Thompson, and Joe Lieberman.
Bush, conveniently held up in Washington overseeing the Hurricane Gustav disaster. Really? What exactly is he doing anyway? Felt like banishment more than service.
Thompson gave a really good speech especially for his standards, the most dynamic and articulate I've heard from him, but he threw out some serious red meat and some very typical party line conservative talking points.
Lieberman's speech was the weirdest, praising McCain's efforts on global warming and immigration, for example, which failed to get much of an applause from the group. And calling for bi-partisonship and inter-party cooperation to an audience that clearly and truly is not interested in such things.
Which really speaks to the challenge of this campaign. McCain really wants to be who he is, a traditional conservative, mainly, but someone who most wants to shake things up, go his own way, do things he believes in, like immigration reform (my personal pet issue) or global warming.
But does the core of this party really want a deviation from the last eight years? Didn't Bush get elected as president two straight times by this base? They don't want immigration reform, or government intervening on global warming's behalf. What is even more strange, while Palin has a record of shaking things up, she also has a record of being very solidly within the far right of the republican party, on oil, on the environment, on drilling, on global warming.
So, how do you blend a story of conservative red meat, and loyalty to Bush's party, with McCain's desire to rebel from the party and go his own way.
There was definitely some dissonance felt by me in this regard, especially with Lieberman's speech. And that's the problem with this campaign, McCain is an appealing person and could make a good president, but will his party truly let McCain be McCain.
"He's trying to run against his own party without running against his own party." - Mark Shields during post commentary.
I do want to say that Fred Thompson told McCain's story very well. He was the perfect person to tell it. His biography was breathtaking and one really good reason why McCain would have made a good presidential candidate in 2000. Why wasn't his biography good enough for them then, when if I remember correctly he was found unfit to govern because of his POW experiences by his own party.
And make no mistake about it, his biography was barely good enough for the party now, he won this nomination with a lot of luck.
Tuesday, September 2, 2008
Abortion and Obama
I want to get into Barack Obama's speech in more depth, but I loved, loved this portion of it:
We may not agree on abortion, but surely we can agree on reducing the number of unwanted pregnancies in this country. The reality of gun ownership may be different for hunters in rural Ohio than for those plagued by gang-violence in Cleveland, but don’t tell me we can’t uphold the Second Amendment while keeping AK-47s out of the hands of criminals. I know there are differences on same-sex marriage, but surely we can agree that our gay and lesbian brothers and sisters deserve to visit the person they love in the hospital and to live lives free of discrimination. Passions fly on immigration, but I don’t know anyone who benefits when a mother is separated from her infant child or an employer undercuts American wages by hiring illegal workers. This too is part of America’s promise - the promise of a democracy where we can find the strength and grace to bridge divides and unite in common effort.
And this is the central theme of the Obama's candidacy, to get past all of the divisiveness that turns our country in a never ending war of words, a war that never ends, a war where nothing substantive gets done. Instead his message is to build on common beliefs and common interests, to get at the root of the problems and to find both common cause and compromise.
There has been a lot of slander on Obama's abortion views. It's pretty clear that he stands pretty clearly in the pro-choice camp, but there's been a lot of talk and some controversy that his stance is even more dark and mysterious than this, that he actually supports infaticide. Really? Does that even make sense?
Read the whole thing on fact check that details three bills in question, 2001, 2002, and 2003.
Here's some quotes:
Obama opposed the 2001 and 2002 "born alive" bills as backdoor attacks on a woman's legal right to abortion, but he says he would have been "fully in support" of a similar federal bill that President Bush had signed in 2002, because it contained protections for Roe v. Wade.
Regarding the 2003 bill, it did have provisions to protect Roe v. Wade in it and that Obama reportedly voted against it in committee. That's where it gets complicated, and you will need to read it and explain it to me. But I really doubt, no I know, that Obama is not in favor of infaticide in any respect:
What we can say is that many other people – perhaps most – think of "infanticide" as the killing of an infant that would otherwise live. And there are already laws in Illinois, which Obama has said he supports, that protect these children even when they are born as the result of an abortion. Illinois compiled statute 720 ILCS 510/6 states that physicians performing abortions when the fetus is viable must use the procedure most likely to preserve the fetus' life; must be attended by another physician who can care for a born-alive infant; and must "exercise the same degree of professional skill, care and diligence to preserve the life and health of the child as would be required of a physician providing immediate medical care to a child born alive in the course of a pregnancy termination which was not an abortion." Failure to do any of the above is considered a felony.
Nonetheless, I am pro-life, I am against abortion, and I would be somewhat concerned if a presidential candidate actually would support their own family to have an abortion.
In that regard, there's been some controversy over this quote a few months ago:
it should also include other, you know, information about contraception because, look, I've got two daughters. 9 years old and 6 years old. I am going to teach them first of all about values and morals. But if they make a mistake, I don't want them punished with a baby. I don't want them punished with an STD at the age of 16. You know, so it doesn't make sense to not give them information."
Now, I am sure Obama would like to rephrase this if given a chance. Look, this whole thing is tricky. I know well and am affected by someone who is raising a child as a single parent, whose father has never been part of the child's life. And the mother is struggling trying to balance it all.
Her son is precious, a gift from God, but life would be so much better for both the mother and the son if the birth happened differently. I think that was Obama's primary point. That we should have a comprehensive approach to teenage pregnancy and sexuality. And surely, you would have to live in a box if you believe that we could solve these problems just by teaching abstinence while the storms of hyper-sexuality swarm in virtually every part of a teenager's life.
But back to Obama, I am sure he respects and cares for life. But with abortion and unwed pregnancies, these issues are complicated, more complicated than most people seem to understand, tied down as we are to our own limited and unique experiences. One quick example, I have a friend who had to file for bankruptcy partially because insurance wouldn't cover a DNC required after she had a miscarriage, denied because the procedure, it was felt, was too close to an abortion.
Having said all of that, the abortion issue is not even all that relevant in regards to a presidential election. A president has absolutely no power to overturn Roe v. Wade. As far as I understand it, this would have to come either through an ammendment to the Constitution by a hyper Congress majority(?) or through a Supreme Court decision, interpreting the Constitution differently than it does now.
Now, some people would then choose a President based solely on how they would select Supreme Court justices. I guess there is something to this argument, but its tricky to know how a president's selections will go. Some of the more liberal justices were selected by Republican presidents. Personally, I am just mainly concerned that qualified, competent and fair thinking justices are nominated, and that a president is not tied down too much to ideology in the selection process. Competence and fair thinking first, ideology last. I love having a balanced court which is something we have now.
And really, tell me again, what has Bush Jr done to limit abortions? Has abortion rates gone up or down during the past eight years? I have no idea because nobody is talking about it, including George W. Bush.
But the bottom line, is that I want a competent, qualified, and effective president. Certainly I'm not going to let the abortion issue hijack my choice.
We may not agree on abortion, but surely we can agree on reducing the number of unwanted pregnancies in this country. The reality of gun ownership may be different for hunters in rural Ohio than for those plagued by gang-violence in Cleveland, but don’t tell me we can’t uphold the Second Amendment while keeping AK-47s out of the hands of criminals. I know there are differences on same-sex marriage, but surely we can agree that our gay and lesbian brothers and sisters deserve to visit the person they love in the hospital and to live lives free of discrimination. Passions fly on immigration, but I don’t know anyone who benefits when a mother is separated from her infant child or an employer undercuts American wages by hiring illegal workers. This too is part of America’s promise - the promise of a democracy where we can find the strength and grace to bridge divides and unite in common effort.
And this is the central theme of the Obama's candidacy, to get past all of the divisiveness that turns our country in a never ending war of words, a war that never ends, a war where nothing substantive gets done. Instead his message is to build on common beliefs and common interests, to get at the root of the problems and to find both common cause and compromise.
There has been a lot of slander on Obama's abortion views. It's pretty clear that he stands pretty clearly in the pro-choice camp, but there's been a lot of talk and some controversy that his stance is even more dark and mysterious than this, that he actually supports infaticide. Really? Does that even make sense?
Read the whole thing on fact check that details three bills in question, 2001, 2002, and 2003.
Here's some quotes:
Obama opposed the 2001 and 2002 "born alive" bills as backdoor attacks on a woman's legal right to abortion, but he says he would have been "fully in support" of a similar federal bill that President Bush had signed in 2002, because it contained protections for Roe v. Wade.
Regarding the 2003 bill, it did have provisions to protect Roe v. Wade in it and that Obama reportedly voted against it in committee. That's where it gets complicated, and you will need to read it and explain it to me. But I really doubt, no I know, that Obama is not in favor of infaticide in any respect:
What we can say is that many other people – perhaps most – think of "infanticide" as the killing of an infant that would otherwise live. And there are already laws in Illinois, which Obama has said he supports, that protect these children even when they are born as the result of an abortion. Illinois compiled statute 720 ILCS 510/6 states that physicians performing abortions when the fetus is viable must use the procedure most likely to preserve the fetus' life; must be attended by another physician who can care for a born-alive infant; and must "exercise the same degree of professional skill, care and diligence to preserve the life and health of the child as would be required of a physician providing immediate medical care to a child born alive in the course of a pregnancy termination which was not an abortion." Failure to do any of the above is considered a felony.
Nonetheless, I am pro-life, I am against abortion, and I would be somewhat concerned if a presidential candidate actually would support their own family to have an abortion.
In that regard, there's been some controversy over this quote a few months ago:
it should also include other, you know, information about contraception because, look, I've got two daughters. 9 years old and 6 years old. I am going to teach them first of all about values and morals. But if they make a mistake, I don't want them punished with a baby. I don't want them punished with an STD at the age of 16. You know, so it doesn't make sense to not give them information."
Now, I am sure Obama would like to rephrase this if given a chance. Look, this whole thing is tricky. I know well and am affected by someone who is raising a child as a single parent, whose father has never been part of the child's life. And the mother is struggling trying to balance it all.
Her son is precious, a gift from God, but life would be so much better for both the mother and the son if the birth happened differently. I think that was Obama's primary point. That we should have a comprehensive approach to teenage pregnancy and sexuality. And surely, you would have to live in a box if you believe that we could solve these problems just by teaching abstinence while the storms of hyper-sexuality swarm in virtually every part of a teenager's life.
But back to Obama, I am sure he respects and cares for life. But with abortion and unwed pregnancies, these issues are complicated, more complicated than most people seem to understand, tied down as we are to our own limited and unique experiences. One quick example, I have a friend who had to file for bankruptcy partially because insurance wouldn't cover a DNC required after she had a miscarriage, denied because the procedure, it was felt, was too close to an abortion.
Having said all of that, the abortion issue is not even all that relevant in regards to a presidential election. A president has absolutely no power to overturn Roe v. Wade. As far as I understand it, this would have to come either through an ammendment to the Constitution by a hyper Congress majority(?) or through a Supreme Court decision, interpreting the Constitution differently than it does now.
Now, some people would then choose a President based solely on how they would select Supreme Court justices. I guess there is something to this argument, but its tricky to know how a president's selections will go. Some of the more liberal justices were selected by Republican presidents. Personally, I am just mainly concerned that qualified, competent and fair thinking justices are nominated, and that a president is not tied down too much to ideology in the selection process. Competence and fair thinking first, ideology last. I love having a balanced court which is something we have now.
And really, tell me again, what has Bush Jr done to limit abortions? Has abortion rates gone up or down during the past eight years? I have no idea because nobody is talking about it, including George W. Bush.
But the bottom line, is that I want a competent, qualified, and effective president. Certainly I'm not going to let the abortion issue hijack my choice.
Monday, September 1, 2008
Is John McCain a third Bush term?
If you watched the Democratic convention at all last week especially once Hillary Clinton was through finally and fully passing the baton of her supporters over to Obama, you heard this message loud and clear. In regards to McCain and his policies, the message came through: "That's not change, that's more of the same." They made it powerfully and convincingly.
But the question is, was this just political sloganeering, or was their substance behind the talk. I contest that it was a bit of both. For a long time, I have been a John McCain supporter and defender of him and his policies. Especially when I was more conservative, I admired his blend of courage and conservatism. Willing to break away from the party line on occasion, willing to compromise to get things done (one of the most important qualities in a politician in these divisive times), as well as being a strong conservative.
Many of my conservative friends hated McCain for what they described as his lack of loyalty, his tendency (in their minds) to steal the spotlight with these ever so public displays of independence.
I have to say that this campaign really backs up that claim that he loves the spotlight. He loves being a celebrity while all the while flinging the label at Obama. In reality, like Bush he knows how to present himself as being the all American every man even though he's far from it.
Which brings me to the reasons why that McCain, in all likelihood would usher in basically a third Bush term, although perhaps a slightly more competent one at that:
He seems to have this love for seat of the pants, high risk/high reward style of politics that was so much a part of this administration's governing style. He seems to be a bit of a political cowboy. You can see this in his exuberant support of the Iraq invasion. In his over the top foreign policy views. You can see this in his background. Like Bush, he graduated at the bottom of his class, but unlike Bush he actually served in Vietnam. Like Bush, he had a prestigious father which helped him early in his career, unlike Bush he actually used that advantage to push himself forward to actually move beyond the legacy of his father into something all his own.
And this Palin pick really underscores his high risk/high reward persona. The fact that Palin was barely vetted really hits this point home. Though its true he probably had very little choice, it will either destroy his candidacy and potentially destroy Palin's career, or put him in contention for the white house.
He shares many of the same domestic views of Bush specifically and of the party generally. While he tends to deemphasize his domestic views, he does agree more than he disagrees with the President. domestically, as proven by his very conservative voting record in the Senate. From the privatization of social security to the promotion of school vouchers to solve our educational ills to his emphasis on gutting government programs (although ironically conservatives talk the talk while the continue to grow government in ways that align with their policies).
Finally, since running for the presidency, and because of his desire to win over and excite his hard to please base, he's had to transform himself even more so into being something very much like Bush. He voted to maintain Bush's tax cuts after he had originally voted against passing them. He has since deemphasized his abhorrence of torture and the suspension of civil liberties and has flip-flopped in his stance against off-shore drilling.
And the style of his campaign right now is much more Bush-like than McCain like. He has jettisoned his "straight talk express" and now limits the press's access to him. His message his highly managed, and he basically used the entire month of August to trash Obama in very dirty ways and barely even promoted his own policies.
Having said all of this I do believe a McCain's presidency would be what Bush's presidency could have been if Bush was actually qualified for president. Despite his over-exuberant support for the Iraqi invasion, I don't believe McCain himself would have done it if he were running the government at the time. Hard to know for sure, I know, but the invasion was such a stupid thing to do, that I have to believe that only a president as incompetent as Bush could have done it. I do believe he would be more willing to work with the Democrats, although given the way he's run this campaign, he will be far less effective at doing so now. He's burning Democratic bridges at every turn.
So, while I think the Democratic rhetoric was a lot about political sloganeering, it was a fair attack. McCain supported Bush's presidency from day one, he is now Bush's party's politician in chief. If McCain does not want to run with Bush's legacy wrapped around his neck, he must show America how and why he is different and how and why that will help to move America forward in the 21st century. In my mind, a tough task.
Its significant that Hurricane Gustav is approaching Louisiana today, sad and significant. Katrina was a poignant reminder of what can happen when we elect bad political leaders. The fact that we still have yet to re-build the city and have still not helped many of the victims of the disaster underscores just how bad this presidency has been.
It also marks the beginning of McCain's attempt with Palin to show that he would be a much better version of Bush Jr. His selection of Palin did a lot to soften the effects of the highly effective Democratic convention. Now, its their obligation to prove to the voting public that unlike much of the Bush presidency, there was an some substance behind the gimmick.
But the question is, was this just political sloganeering, or was their substance behind the talk. I contest that it was a bit of both. For a long time, I have been a John McCain supporter and defender of him and his policies. Especially when I was more conservative, I admired his blend of courage and conservatism. Willing to break away from the party line on occasion, willing to compromise to get things done (one of the most important qualities in a politician in these divisive times), as well as being a strong conservative.
Many of my conservative friends hated McCain for what they described as his lack of loyalty, his tendency (in their minds) to steal the spotlight with these ever so public displays of independence.
I have to say that this campaign really backs up that claim that he loves the spotlight. He loves being a celebrity while all the while flinging the label at Obama. In reality, like Bush he knows how to present himself as being the all American every man even though he's far from it.
Which brings me to the reasons why that McCain, in all likelihood would usher in basically a third Bush term, although perhaps a slightly more competent one at that:
He seems to have this love for seat of the pants, high risk/high reward style of politics that was so much a part of this administration's governing style. He seems to be a bit of a political cowboy. You can see this in his exuberant support of the Iraq invasion. In his over the top foreign policy views. You can see this in his background. Like Bush, he graduated at the bottom of his class, but unlike Bush he actually served in Vietnam. Like Bush, he had a prestigious father which helped him early in his career, unlike Bush he actually used that advantage to push himself forward to actually move beyond the legacy of his father into something all his own.
And this Palin pick really underscores his high risk/high reward persona. The fact that Palin was barely vetted really hits this point home. Though its true he probably had very little choice, it will either destroy his candidacy and potentially destroy Palin's career, or put him in contention for the white house.
He shares many of the same domestic views of Bush specifically and of the party generally. While he tends to deemphasize his domestic views, he does agree more than he disagrees with the President. domestically, as proven by his very conservative voting record in the Senate. From the privatization of social security to the promotion of school vouchers to solve our educational ills to his emphasis on gutting government programs (although ironically conservatives talk the talk while the continue to grow government in ways that align with their policies).
Finally, since running for the presidency, and because of his desire to win over and excite his hard to please base, he's had to transform himself even more so into being something very much like Bush. He voted to maintain Bush's tax cuts after he had originally voted against passing them. He has since deemphasized his abhorrence of torture and the suspension of civil liberties and has flip-flopped in his stance against off-shore drilling.
And the style of his campaign right now is much more Bush-like than McCain like. He has jettisoned his "straight talk express" and now limits the press's access to him. His message his highly managed, and he basically used the entire month of August to trash Obama in very dirty ways and barely even promoted his own policies.
Having said all of this I do believe a McCain's presidency would be what Bush's presidency could have been if Bush was actually qualified for president. Despite his over-exuberant support for the Iraqi invasion, I don't believe McCain himself would have done it if he were running the government at the time. Hard to know for sure, I know, but the invasion was such a stupid thing to do, that I have to believe that only a president as incompetent as Bush could have done it. I do believe he would be more willing to work with the Democrats, although given the way he's run this campaign, he will be far less effective at doing so now. He's burning Democratic bridges at every turn.
So, while I think the Democratic rhetoric was a lot about political sloganeering, it was a fair attack. McCain supported Bush's presidency from day one, he is now Bush's party's politician in chief. If McCain does not want to run with Bush's legacy wrapped around his neck, he must show America how and why he is different and how and why that will help to move America forward in the 21st century. In my mind, a tough task.
Its significant that Hurricane Gustav is approaching Louisiana today, sad and significant. Katrina was a poignant reminder of what can happen when we elect bad political leaders. The fact that we still have yet to re-build the city and have still not helped many of the victims of the disaster underscores just how bad this presidency has been.
It also marks the beginning of McCain's attempt with Palin to show that he would be a much better version of Bush Jr. His selection of Palin did a lot to soften the effects of the highly effective Democratic convention. Now, its their obligation to prove to the voting public that unlike much of the Bush presidency, there was an some substance behind the gimmick.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)