Sticking to their Guns

Well, I took a much needed break after the RNC to take in all that I heard and quite frankly, just simmer down. Of course, I could repeat the many criticisms of the RNC already published in newspapers and discussed on political talk shows over the past few days but I'm not going to for now. Instead, I am going to try a slightly different approach. While there are numerous policy and philosophical differences I have with most of the politicans that spoke at the RNC, I was the most concerned with a general concept underlying the entire convention: the idea that unwavering beliefs and unchanging policy endorsements are the pinnacle of good leadership.

Although the idea of "flip-flopping" was turned into political death during the last President election, I wonder why the idea of holding steadfast to your position no matter what is seen as the opposite- aka political perfection? I am not speaking here of actual flip-flopping which regardless of party is a routine practice. Rather, I am speaking of the common references at the convention to the "idea" that John McCain and Sarah Palin are virtuous leaders as evidenced by their solid commitment to one thing or another. On the face of it, I see why this sounds good- and at times, may even be a positive trait in our leaders. However, this almost sounds like "blind faith" in which one takes something as a given, regardless of facts. I am by no means suggesting that I think a good leader should constantly be changing their positions. However, reevaluating one's positions isn't inherently bad, is it? For me, the question would be why did someone reevaluate or even change positions? Is it because they learned new facts or is it because some lobbyist "paid" them off to change positions? These are two entirely different scenarios that would necessitate two very different reactions in my book. So, why then are we told over and over by the Republicans that sticking to one's position, regardless of popular opinion, is the character trait de jour? Is it merely because the subtle reference to flip flopping may sink Obama like it did Kerry? Or is it because Bush's approval rating is so low that one needs to suggest that going against popular opinion is actually a good thing?

I realize that no one is going to please all U.S. citizens all of the time- not even close. But must we choose instead to elect a President that by definition suggests that we are voting for him because he will stand against public opinion but stay firmly committed to it? This is even more ironic given the McCain-Palin firm belief in the INability for Government to actually improve the lives of citizens. So, if they don't listen to public opinion and they don't trust the Government, who do they trust? Only themselves? I certainly don't have the answers but I have lots more questions.

And in honor of Bill Maher, I leave you with this:

NEW RULE: If you claim to be pro-life, you must support stem cell research and oppose the killing of innocent civilians worldwide!

RNC: The Regressive National Convention

In an editor's letter entitled "What Ever Happened to the Future?" in the July 2008 issue of Vanity Fair, Graydon Carter spoke to the trouble facing America today. He explained, far more articulately than I'm about to, that the genius of America historically was its emphasis on the future as opposed to the past. He argued that while Europe was busy looking backwards and celebrating the good old days, America was investing in its future, always looking to seize new opportunities. Unfortunately, he pointed out, those days have fallen behind us and instead of America leading the way, we have staggered recently (more precisely during the last 8 years of the Bush administration), falling behind Europe and others. In issues ranging from global warming to technology, we have hesitated or regressed entirely. To me, watching and listening to the Republicans over the last few weeks epitomizes this type of backwards-looking mentality.

Less than 1 hour into the RNC, images of the crumbling towers and references to September 11th are center stage ("Let's not forget George Bush has kept America safe" -Laura Bush). While September 11th is undoubtedly a day of siginificance to all Americans (and many across the world), it can not and should not be a political call to live in fear and govern through military might. Not only will this type of rule continue to drag us further and further behind the rest of the world, but it also doesn't work. According to a recent RAND corporation report, "the U.S. approach to countering al Qa'ida has focused far too much on the use of military force. Instead, policing and intelligence should be the backbone of U.S. efforts." They support this argument with DATA (I know, data can be SCARY, especially to those who believe in creationism and don't believe in global warming). Cory Doctorow describes the findings in the Boing Boing blog: "By analyzing a comprehensive roster of terrorist groups that existed worldwide between 1968 and 2006, the authors found that most groups ended because of operations carried out by local police or intelligence agencies or because they negotiated a settlement with their governments. Military force was rarely the primary reason a terrorist group ended . . . " And yet, Day 1 of RNC seemed to be an ode to the military and particularly the failed Iraq War. To me, Day 1 could be summed up something like this: religion, religion, religion, military, military, military, PAST, PAST, PAST!

I get it- we have a war hero presidential candidate and let's not forget that we are in the middle of a war. War hero+war=Elect McCain= put our country first! It amazes me that somehow war, and in particular the Iraq war (despite its waning popularity) still manages to garner so much positive attention and somehow equates to putting our country first. Even more shocking to me are military families and veterans, who have suffered continually from a lack of true support from the current Republican regime (unless you count repeated deployments and a lack of adequate health care for veterans as support), still seemingly enthusiastic about the Republican party and war in general (but admittedlly, I haven't actually looked at the statistics on this - YET). Shouldn't those the most likely to end up in harm's be the most war-phobic? Excuse the slight digression- now back to my original point . . .

I realize that Day 1 focused on the biography of John McCain and with 72 years of history, there is a helluva lot of "past" to discuss. I also am aware that during the DNC, we also took a brief tour into Obama and Michelle's past. But overwhelmingly, the sentiment at the DNC was excitement and encouragement for our future. And I have yet to hear anything forward-looking at the RNC. So, here's looking forward to hearing more from the Republicans in the days ahead. I only hope that that they too decide to look forward instead to continuing to dwell on the past.

And so, on to Day 2 . . .

P.S. Joe Lieberman seriously needs to stop calling himself a Democrat!!

The Curveball

Well, the Republicans are definitely the masters of the curveball. If you haven't already heard the news, McCain selected Governer Sarah Palin from Alaska as his running mate (see NY Times Article here). Palin is only a first time governor but if you're worried about her level of experience, fear not! She used to be a beauty queen AND the mayor of Wasilla, Alaska (population: approx. 8,500). And if that's not enough of an endorsement, John McCain can surely testify on her behalf as he has met her exactly once prior to this week.

To her credit, she apparently is known as a "whistleblower" who has focused much of her attention on ethical standards and standing up to corruption inside her own party. Certainly can't fault her there. On the other hand, her husband is an oil production operator on Alaska's North Slope and perhaps that's why she supports drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. I'm waiiting to hear more on this one but so far the media seems to have stayed somewhat quiet about this one.

What's to make of all of this? Will the Republicans be able to lure away white women who were Hillary supporters and seemingly on the fence about Obama? Will the hint of youth, gender equality (or just soccer-mom), and ethical standards be enough to reenergize a party that only last night was considered near lifeless in this election? Despite the many attacks from both sides of the aisle on this V.P. pick, the Republicans are certainly doing something right- they have people talking about them and NOT Obama today. Just the mere shock of this pick has helped them gain momentum and media coverage. Admittedly, any V.P. pick would have garnered serious media attention on Day 1 but who knows how this will actually play with voters? Time to get back to the news. Tune in for more tomorrow.

For more on Sarah Palin, check out these links:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/sep/02/palin.johnmccain
http://tpmelectioncentral.talkingpointsmemo.com/2008/09/the_palin_meltdown_in_slomo.php

Notice, she hadn't even left the country before last year . . .

To Obama's Speechwriters and Strategists

So, our Republican friends have been jumping at every opportunity to point out that Hillary Clinton did not fully endorse Obama in her Convention speech because she did not refer to his "readiness" to be President. Of course, had she claimed Obama WAS ready, they would just fault her for lying. Apparently, heated primaries lead to open warfare on the Democrats. Oh wait, everything the Democrats do or don't do leads to these types of attacks. For example, no one can actually argue that Joe Biden is a bad VP candidate. So, instead the Republicans have found another way to turn this into a negative. They suggest that by choosing Joe Biden, Obama is reaffirming that he is "not ready" because otherwise, one would never choose such a top-notch foreign policy candidate. Should we then suggest that if McCain chooses anyone with half a brain as a running mate that he too is not ready to lead on Day 1?!

If this seems like an attack on the Republicans, it is not. I am thoroughly impressed by their ability to turn just about everything into something negative against the Democrats. Get with it, Democrats! If we are going to win, and we ARE going to win, then we better start getting good at this ourselves! Perhaps there are trainings being provided on negative campaigning being given by the Republicans- sign up now while the going is good!

Bill did step up last night to remind us that primary rhetoric is just that and indeed Obama is ready to be our Commander-in-Chief and much much more- leading us into the future instead of speeding up our decline (economically, politically, democratically and otherwise). But this is too little, too late, and clearly just put on for show, they say. I say, no problem. Why, you ask?

I have never been more impressed by the Clintons as I've been in the last two days. Don't get me wrong, I have my doubts about their sincerity too but I'm not sure that it matters. What does matter is that anyone who can follow the Kennedys and the Clintons and still inspire the crowds is definitely here to stay. And while I haven't seen or heard Obama's acceptance speech, I'm confident that he will be able to energize, inspire, and captivate all of us tonight! So, here's hoping that "readiness" questions are a thing of the past after tonight and we can get to the true matter at hand: making Obama the next President of the United States!