Everybody is all atwitter at the idea that McCain might pick a pro-choice figure to be his number two. I can’t begin to say how unlikely I find this kind of talk. It’s kind of absurd on the face of it. After McCain has spent so much time reversing himself on so many issues important to the conservative base – voting against his own immigration reform bill, reversing on off-shore oil drilling – it’s unthinkable he’d endanger all that goodwill by picking a pro-choice candidate – especially not after his staunchly pro-life performance at Saddleback.
No, I think a reader over at Marc Ambinder’s blog has it right: McCain is simply throwing this out there so that the media will report it and it will further the idea among independents and weakly aligned Democrats that he’d consider a pro-choice candidate. McCain is far more conservative than he’s public image implies, and this is part of shoring up that image. All of this discussion is simply to get the media to play further into McCain’s “maverick” image.
Wednesday, August 20, 2008
Mutiny
I came across this link to the Mormon Times on two different blogs today, both of which pulled the following quote from Orson Scott Card:
1) Does he think that marriage isn't a sociological construction? I just don't know enough about Christian theology. Was the institution given to Adam and Eve by god at the beginning of time?
2) What biological imperative is he talking about? Clearly same-sex unions cannot produce children, though with the advent of various kinds of fertility options neither heterosexual marriage or intercourse are the only way to perpetuate the species.
3) What does he think about the unarguable relative stability of governments that allow same-sex unions. What is his explanation for how the vast majority of these nations not only "endure" but prosper?
4) Is what he's saying illegal? When he says "I will act to destroy that government and bring it down" isn't he dangerously flirting with advocating rebellion? Any law students or lawyers reading today?
What would be the theological and practical underpinnings of his answers to these questions? Surely, he would have a response. It's worth noting that a very meaningful minority of Americans enthusiastically agree with this guy's statement, and I think it's worth exploring why that might be the case.
"Regardless of law, marriage has only one definition, and any government that attempts to change it is my mortal enemy. I will act to destroy that government and bring it down, so it can be replaced with a government that will respect and support marriage, and help me raise my children in a society where they will expect to marry in their turn. Biological imperatives trump laws. American government cannot fight against marriage and hope to endure. If the Constitution is defined in such a way as to destroy the privileged position of marriage, it is that insane Constitution, not marriage, that will die," - Orson Scott Card, Mormon Times.I have several questions, and would appreciate any help answering them.
1) Does he think that marriage isn't a sociological construction? I just don't know enough about Christian theology. Was the institution given to Adam and Eve by god at the beginning of time?
2) What biological imperative is he talking about? Clearly same-sex unions cannot produce children, though with the advent of various kinds of fertility options neither heterosexual marriage or intercourse are the only way to perpetuate the species.
3) What does he think about the unarguable relative stability of governments that allow same-sex unions. What is his explanation for how the vast majority of these nations not only "endure" but prosper?
4) Is what he's saying illegal? When he says "I will act to destroy that government and bring it down" isn't he dangerously flirting with advocating rebellion? Any law students or lawyers reading today?
What would be the theological and practical underpinnings of his answers to these questions? Surely, he would have a response. It's worth noting that a very meaningful minority of Americans enthusiastically agree with this guy's statement, and I think it's worth exploring why that might be the case.
Tuesday, August 19, 2008
Context is Key
Sean, over at 538, has an interesting perspective on the story Talking Points Memo reported earlier today of McCain outspending Obama on television ads in key battleground states. I think it’s a good take, and it reminds us of something that doesn’t get talked about much:
Readers here know that Barack Obama is dwarfing John McCain's ground operation; we've written about it repeatedly. Those thousands of paid organizers are not working for free. The field offices and the phone lines and the Blackberries and the reimbursed travel miles are not free. Moreover, Barack Obama pays his organizers out of the Campaign for Change, which is funded by Obama's own campaign; McCain's are mostly paid by the coordinated committees which in turn are funded by the RNC, RNSC and RNCC, further impacting the way spending numbers are attributed to each campaign.Sean points out that Obama is investing more heavily in getting campaign workers in states than pretty much anyone running for president, ever. Simply, the McCain campaign has way less money than Obama, and way less ability to raise more of it. It’s easy to forget about it, but McCain’s operation is tiny compared to Obama’s. I suppose it’s anyone’s guess how this will turn out for Obama. But at the moment, Obama is spending less on ads in traditionally key states, but he’s spending money on ads in way more states than McCain, and he’s spending way, way more than McCain on people on the ground, going door to door, passing out literature and talking to people. And most importantly: McCain may still be spending all this money, but he’s still behind or tied. It’s easy to look at the narrative day-by-day and say, “Oh, Obama’s been doing badly for a few weeks” – but you have to look at the context of a much larger, longer campaign than McCain is running – or is even able to run.
Alaska, DC and Oil
Via Andrew Sullivan, there’s a great piece in the New Republic about the fall of a political dynasty.
The events of the past two years in Alaskan politics read like the last days of a venal institutional party somewhere in Latin America. Indeed, Alaska's history often resembles that of a kind of frozen banana republic: an idealistic political experiment projected onto an unsettled territory with a troubled colonial past, stagnating in the hands of a single ruling party bolstered by a monolithic resource extraction economy. Ted Stevens and Representative Don Young, the state's iconic strongmen, have collectively spent 75 years in Congress, in part by encouraging Alaska's resentfully transactional view of the federal government, which still owns most of the land within the state's borders and supports it with generous subsidies. In lieu of the United Fruit Company, Alaska has the North Slope oil fields, upon which the state has been economically dependent since the 1970s.It’s worth a read. Ted Stevens, already a TPBP favorite, and Don Young are on the way out. I can’t say there’s much to mourn, although some of my favorite political moments of the last few years have come from Senator Stevens. For that, at least, he will be missed. But check out the article. It’s fascinating reading about a dirt poor state dominated by one powerful industry.
The Sounds of Silence
I apologize to my faithful readers for my lack of posts the last day or two. The job acquisition front has taken up the vast majority of my time these last two days. Fear not, as I'll be back in the saddle tonight or tomorrow, filling your e-eyes with the commentary and analysis you've grown accustomed, nay addicted to.
In the meantime, I'll hand the floor over to CNN's Jack Cafferty, who summarizes my feelings quite well.
In the meantime, I'll hand the floor over to CNN's Jack Cafferty, who summarizes my feelings quite well.
David Brooks Explains it All
Another week, another head slapping David Brooks column. The thesis this week is that McCain, the man, really wanted to run a clean campaign – but, wouldn’t you know it, that blasted media (and here we picture Brooks turning his head and spitting on the ground) simply wouldn’t let him. I’ll let Brooks lay out some of the ways McCain tried to remake politics:
Other than the fact that this is almost exactly the thesis laid out by David Broder a few weeks ago (twice, actually), Joe Lieberman, postpartisan!? Is there any figure in American politics right now who is engaged in more nakedly partisan posturing?
Brooks (and Broder) are arguing that, because Obama wouldn’t agree to McCain’s terms, it’s Obama’s fault that McCain is running a despicable, Rovian campaign. Because McCain’s message isn’t able to find any purchase with Americans, it’s Obama’s fault that McCain is forced to imply that Obama is a traitor and a mysterious, frightening Other. And because Obama isn’t winning by double digits (“Everyone said McCain would be down by double digits at this point.” And who are these people, David? Thanks for providing some sources!), it’s McCain who’s really winning.
Is there any aspect of his campaign that McCain is responsible for? Or, is the magnetic sway of the aura of Obama’s powerful Elitist Liberal Infatuation Generator so powerful that even the staffers of the McCain campaign are unable to escape its seductive pull? John McCain didn’t want to run a sleazy, by-the-numbers campaign. He wanted to help engender an era of post-partisan politics where Davids Brooks and Broder could skip merrily down the Mall, hand in hand, to a voting booth in a secret garden and cast their votes for their favorite Maverick War Hero, ensuring that no substantive policy differences would ever be discussed – because implying that people have different “positions” on “issues” is simply too gauche.
But, damn it, McCain was losing. Principled standards are for winning campaigns.
McCain started his general-election campaign in poverty-stricken areas of the South and Midwest. He went through towns where most Republicans fear to tread and said things most wouldn’t say. It didn’t work. The poverty tour got very little coverage on the network news. McCain and his advisers realized the only way they could get TV attention was by talking about the subject that interested reporters most: Barack Obama.That mean old Obama just wouldn’t agree to do exactly what McCain wanted! What other road is there, other than to imply that Obama wants to commit treason to win the presidency, is in any case not ready to be president, and is, apparently an airheaded celebrity?
McCain started with grand ideas about breaking the mold of modern politics. He and Obama would tour the country together doing joint town meetings. He would pick a postpartisan running mate, like Joe Lieberman. He would make a dramatic promise, like vowing to serve for only one totally nonpolitical term. So far it hasn’t worked. Obama vetoed the town meeting idea. The issue is not closed, but G.O.P. leaders are resisting a cross-party pick like Lieberman.
Other than the fact that this is almost exactly the thesis laid out by David Broder a few weeks ago (twice, actually), Joe Lieberman, postpartisan!? Is there any figure in American politics right now who is engaged in more nakedly partisan posturing?
Brooks (and Broder) are arguing that, because Obama wouldn’t agree to McCain’s terms, it’s Obama’s fault that McCain is running a despicable, Rovian campaign. Because McCain’s message isn’t able to find any purchase with Americans, it’s Obama’s fault that McCain is forced to imply that Obama is a traitor and a mysterious, frightening Other. And because Obama isn’t winning by double digits (“Everyone said McCain would be down by double digits at this point.” And who are these people, David? Thanks for providing some sources!), it’s McCain who’s really winning.
Is there any aspect of his campaign that McCain is responsible for? Or, is the magnetic sway of the aura of Obama’s powerful Elitist Liberal Infatuation Generator so powerful that even the staffers of the McCain campaign are unable to escape its seductive pull? John McCain didn’t want to run a sleazy, by-the-numbers campaign. He wanted to help engender an era of post-partisan politics where Davids Brooks and Broder could skip merrily down the Mall, hand in hand, to a voting booth in a secret garden and cast their votes for their favorite Maverick War Hero, ensuring that no substantive policy differences would ever be discussed – because implying that people have different “positions” on “issues” is simply too gauche.
But, damn it, McCain was losing. Principled standards are for winning campaigns.
Monday, August 18, 2008
Extinct Blog of the Day
Today's blog belongs to Cincinnati Inquirer reporter Paul Daugherty, who blogged the 2004 Olympic games in Athens. Paul treated his blog more like a spiral note pad during 7th period study hall, than as an actual medium for the distribution of news. Which, wouldn't be at all funny, if he wasn't, you know...a professional reporter and columnist. Enjoy.
Fred Hiatt is Concerned About Russia
Fred Hiatt writes a remarkably ignorant column today, discussing Russia’s position in the world today. Russia, of course, is the new threat du jour (radical Islam is so 2006). Hiatt discusses all the ways that the United States has gone out of its way to accommodate Russia on the world stage.
I love reading articles about G8 meetings, because in almost every single one, you inevitably get to the line, “the world’s seven largest economies, and Russia.” Hiatt’s condescending and ignorant take should be shocking, but is sadly par for the course. Russia is an autocratic state riding high on oil prices. They are acting in their self interest which – shockingly enough – is not the same as the United States. For Hiatt to imply that the United States has been overly accommodating of Russian fears and ambitions displays either a fairly shocking ignorance, or a willingness to engage in grotesque distortions to support a neocon worldview where the United State’s self interest is redefined as the world’s interest.
So NATO expansion is an affront only to the kind of Russia that the West would find unacceptable in any case. But, even if America has not sought to encircle or strangle Russia, should it not have been more sensitive to Russia's wounded pride? Might Russia have evolved more democratically if Washington had been more deferential?My, look how accommodating the United States has been! It certainly is strange that Russia would be upset with the US, considering that the US is only trying to install a missile defense shield in one of their close neighbors, weakening their security. And when the US is trying to expand mutual defense treaties to small, antagonistic nations on Russia’s border, that’s just what friends do, right? I’m sure that the US wouldn’t have any problem with Russia attempting to expand its sphere of influence into the Western Hemisphere.
Maybe so, but there's not much evidence to support such a theory. The West spent a good part of the past 17 years worrying about Russia's dignity -- expanding the Group of Seven industrial nations to the G-8, for example -- and it's not clear such therapy had any effect.
I love reading articles about G8 meetings, because in almost every single one, you inevitably get to the line, “the world’s seven largest economies, and Russia.” Hiatt’s condescending and ignorant take should be shocking, but is sadly par for the course. Russia is an autocratic state riding high on oil prices. They are acting in their self interest which – shockingly enough – is not the same as the United States. For Hiatt to imply that the United States has been overly accommodating of Russian fears and ambitions displays either a fairly shocking ignorance, or a willingness to engage in grotesque distortions to support a neocon worldview where the United State’s self interest is redefined as the world’s interest.
Sunday, August 17, 2008
Meet the Press Review
Host: David Gregory
Guests: Condi Rice (segment one)
Bobby Jindal and Tim Kaine (segment two)
Political Roundtable: Chuck Todd, Andrea Mitchell, Josh Green
Recap:
Condi -- Russia had better be good or we're going to revoke it's driving privileges and put them in time out.
Bobby -- Vote for McCain or I'm going to perform an exorcism on you in my living room.
Tim -- Virginia's an awesome state, and anybody who says otherwise doesn't know what they're talking about. By the way, vote for Obama and me for vice president.
Chuck -- If you subtract Obama's negatives from the total number of states that McCain
has TV advertising in, and divide that number by the most recent Gallup tracking poll plus 3x the square root of pi it will tell you the location of the fountain of youth.
Andrea -- If you talk to people close to the campaign-- they'll tell you the exact same thing I'm about to.
Josh -- God, I love writing articles that everyone's talking about. Thank God everyone would still rather talk about the dysfunctional Clinton campaign than anything vaguely relevant.
David -- God, I love hosting meet the press. If these guys talk for another 30 seconds I won't even have to think about an obvious follow up question to the blatant lie that guy just told. Man, I really hope they invite me back next week.
God save us all.
Guests: Condi Rice (segment one)
Bobby Jindal and Tim Kaine (segment two)
Political Roundtable: Chuck Todd, Andrea Mitchell, Josh Green
Recap:
Condi -- Russia had better be good or we're going to revoke it's driving privileges and put them in time out.
Bobby -- Vote for McCain or I'm going to perform an exorcism on you in my living room.
Tim -- Virginia's an awesome state, and anybody who says otherwise doesn't know what they're talking about. By the way, vote for Obama and me for vice president.
Chuck -- If you subtract Obama's negatives from the total number of states that McCain
has TV advertising in, and divide that number by the most recent Gallup tracking poll plus 3x the square root of pi it will tell you the location of the fountain of youth.
Andrea -- If you talk to people close to the campaign-- they'll tell you the exact same thing I'm about to.
Josh -- God, I love writing articles that everyone's talking about. Thank God everyone would still rather talk about the dysfunctional Clinton campaign than anything vaguely relevant.
David -- God, I love hosting meet the press. If these guys talk for another 30 seconds I won't even have to think about an obvious follow up question to the blatant lie that guy just told. Man, I really hope they invite me back next week.
God save us all.
Life Inside Guantanamo Bay
The Washington Post has an essay by a Saudi man who was held in Guantanamo Bay for five and a half years. He was never charged with any crimes, and he was released with little explanation in 2007. It’s a pretty harrowing read. Guantanamo Bay and the Bush administration’s decision to hold people in indefinite detention are certainly abhorrent. Jumah al Dossari’s story of being swept up by the Pakistani military and shuffled around until finally arriving in Guantanamo Bay is full of details that ought to give anyone pause: being kept in freezing metal rooms, suicide attempts, beatings and the inexplicable legal proceedings where he was unable to see the evidence the government was using against him.
In all the things I’ve read about Guantanamo Bay and the way the government has pursued the “war on terror,” the biggest question I keep asking myself is, what was this supposed to accomplish? What did the Bush administration think they were going to get out of this? They kept a man who had done nothing wrong in prison without charge for over five years, and then just let him go. When in that time did they discover that al Dossari was no threat, either to himself or to others? Presumably, by releasing this man, the government is admitting that he is not a terrorist. If he isn’t, why did they keep him? If he is, why did they let him go? Why did it take over five years to determine this? This whole operation, Camp X-Ray, the military tribunals, keeping “enemy combatants” in indefinite detention – to what end? These people are not super villains. Even the people in Guantanamo Bay who are terrorists, the lengths that they go to – al Dossari was transported to the camp on a plane, shackled to the floor, wearing black-out goggles and ear muffs – makes no sense. Did they expect him to use superpowers to take over the plane? This central incoherence is what I find truly perplexing about our reaction to terrorism. The mentality that says, “even if it’s wrong, we’ve got to do something” doesn’t make any sense to me. On an individual level, that may be understandable, but as a governing philosophy it creates travesties like the one we find ourselves in now.
In all the things I’ve read about Guantanamo Bay and the way the government has pursued the “war on terror,” the biggest question I keep asking myself is, what was this supposed to accomplish? What did the Bush administration think they were going to get out of this? They kept a man who had done nothing wrong in prison without charge for over five years, and then just let him go. When in that time did they discover that al Dossari was no threat, either to himself or to others? Presumably, by releasing this man, the government is admitting that he is not a terrorist. If he isn’t, why did they keep him? If he is, why did they let him go? Why did it take over five years to determine this? This whole operation, Camp X-Ray, the military tribunals, keeping “enemy combatants” in indefinite detention – to what end? These people are not super villains. Even the people in Guantanamo Bay who are terrorists, the lengths that they go to – al Dossari was transported to the camp on a plane, shackled to the floor, wearing black-out goggles and ear muffs – makes no sense. Did they expect him to use superpowers to take over the plane? This central incoherence is what I find truly perplexing about our reaction to terrorism. The mentality that says, “even if it’s wrong, we’ve got to do something” doesn’t make any sense to me. On an individual level, that may be understandable, but as a governing philosophy it creates travesties like the one we find ourselves in now.
Saturday, August 16, 2008
Rick Warren Megachurch Running Diary
Preview: Apparently, due to a coin flip, Barack Obama will sit down with Rick Warren for the first hour, while McCain (who is in some booth and can’t hear what’s going on – no kidding) will handle the second hour. They won’t be answering questions together at all, though the questions proposed to each will be identical. Have to say, I didn’t know about the Family Feud style format. Maybe the audience could award points, and whoever gets to 200 in the fewest number of questions could receive $20,000. Somebody get J. Peterman on the line.
8:02: And we’re off.
8:03: Rick Warren: “We believe in the separation of church and state, but we don’t believe in the separation between faith and politics.” Better to get that out of the way at the beginning.
8:04: Rick Warren seems a little nervous.
8:05: Q: Who are the three wisest people you know in your life and who would you listen to if you became president? Barack: my wife, my grandmother, and everyone I’ve ever met. Solid answer.
8:07: Barack seems almost too engaged. Where there’s that constant inner dialogue, and he’s trying really hard to be articulate and engaging without saying something he’ll regret. When he’s doing this he sometimes comes off as though he’s reaching for answers (which I suppose he is on some level) I generally don’t think this is when he’s at his best. I wish he’d just shoot from the hip every once in a while.
8:12: These aren’t good questions for Barack. It isn’t super easy to side step them, unless you just have some inner dogma that kicks in and answers for you. I actually think this format favors McCain.
8:15: They have commercials? Really?
8:19: World View section. I predict Obama excels here.
8:20: Q: “What does that mean to you, to trust in Christ?”
Obama: I believe in Jesus. Seriously. I promise.
8:21: Warren seems like he’s settled down a little bit. Next up: abortion.
8:23: He at least says he’s pro-choice. Didn’t like his answer though. He should have used this as an opportunity to appear principled. He’s beating this new “abortion reduction” Democratic plank into the ground.
8:26: Gay marriage.
8:27: Barack: “blah blah, man and a woman…civil union good, same-sex marriage bad” I know he thinks this is his only path, but this idiocy still makes me roll my eyes.
8:28: Stem cell research.
8:30: I was wrong about him being good in this segment. I didn’t think he was foolish enough to try to actually win this crowd. He had to use this opportunity to sound principled, and to speak to his own base. Instead he’s turned it into a popularity contest on purpose. Let me tell you who wins that.
8:33: He should NOT have answered this Supreme Court question. Thomas is incompetent of course, but that’s a mistake. He should have talked about why it was inappropriate to comment, since he may directly address the composition of the court in the future. $20 says McCain either sidesteps it completely, or says Stevens, and all the other pro-choice judges (assuming he can remember their names) and gets a huge applause from the crowd.
8:36: Yawn. Obama’s dying.
8:37: My girlfriend: “This is just painful.” No argument here.
8:40: Obama sounds a little better on the tax section.
8:45: International section.
8:48: I’m not missing Phelps going for his 8th gold am I?
8:51: Q: What should we do about (Christian) religious persecution around the world?
8:52: These questions are right in McCain’s wheelhouse. He’s a crowd pleaser if nothing else and he’ll tell them exactly what they want to hear, whether or not he actually believes it.
8:53: Warren: Human trafficking is, “the 3rd fastest growing industry in the world”. Huh? How do you…huh?
8:54: Q: Why do you want to be president?
8:55: Obama’s answer is good. I think he’s settling in.
8:57: And…he’s done.
8:58: Enter John McCain. He and Barack exchange an awkward half hug.
9:01: McCain’s on.
9:02: What three people question. McCain: Petraus, an injured soldier, and the COE of e-bay.
9:04 McCain actually brings up his first marriage. First time I’ve heard him do that. Probably a good idea. You know anybody in this crowd that’s heard about that was curious.
9:06: Seems clear Warren feels more comfortable with McCain.
9:07 McCain just finished mostly fabricating a list of times he went against his party’s wishes. Too bad Warren doesn’t know or care enough for a follow-up.
9:08: McCain: “blah, blah, drill for more oil” (smile) (big applause)
9:09: The crowd is SO much more responsive to McCain, and he seems particularly cogent tonight.
9:10: McCain’s talking about being tortured. Pretty compelling stuff.
9:12: First commercial break. This is a massacre in the making. Every thing about this was suited to make McCain look like a rock star and Obama look comparatively less popular. Now, that’s fine if that’s the paradigm you’re working with, you just except that and consider your strategy accordingly (or you just don’t do it). But, Obama didn’t get the memo. He intentionally treated it as some sort of pandering-for-white-evangelical-votes competition, pissing his own base off in the process.
9:18: McCain’s telling another long anecdote about being a P.O.W. Big applause.
9:19: McCain’s wants to ban abortion (big applause).
9:19: My girlfriend: “What about for rape victims?” (good question, though I guess Warren didn’t agree)
9:20: McCain doesn’t want the gays to get married. (big applause)
9:21: Apparently he’s cool with gay Californian’s getting married as long as they don’t have to recognize it in Arizona. I actually didn’t know that.
9:22: McCain: We should defeat evil (big applause).
9:23: McCain: I’ll follow Bin Laden to the gates of hell (big applause).
9:24: We won’t leave Iraq until we attain victory, and we will (big applause).
9:25: The Supreme Court Justice question: He named all four liberal justices. He couldn’t remember Stevens’ name for a minute. You’ve got to give me points for calling that one. Says Roberts and Alito have been great.
9:27: Another anecdote, this time about Katrina. Don’t know why Obama didn’t do more of this.
9:31: Warren’s leading McCain on these questions a lot more than he did Obama.
Q: Define rich.
9:32: McCain: “I want everybody to be rich” (big applause).
9:33: McCain’s answer to the rich question: $5 million. He realizes immediately that that was the wrong answer, and talks about how he was joking and how his answer will be “distorted”. He’s trying to backtrack a bit.
9:37: Another commercial break. McCain struggled a little bit there at the end, but to borrow a sports metaphor, you’ve got more margin for error at home.
9:40: Warren: “We’re without a doubt the most blessed nation in the world.” Well, that’s good to know.
9:42: McCain: “Our job is to stop genocide whenever we can.”
9:44: Warren throws McCain a softball about Georgia that he didn’t to Obama. Fair and balanced. McCain is using this as a springboard to talk about the resurgence of Russian Empire. Full of inflammatory language. On Georgia: “It’s a beautiful little country.” Can someone ask him if he thinks we should send troops into Georgia if Russia won’t get out?
9:47McCain: “Our Judeo-Christian traditions dictate that we do not allow people to be oppressed around the world” (I got this as close as I could. Does anybody have TiVo? I’d love the exact quote.) Speaking for every realist everywhere: This kind of uncompromising, crusader rhetoric is stupid and dangerous and is the best possible illustration of why this man cannot be president. It wouldn’t bother me at all if I didn’t think he was completely serious, and surrounded by people that think the same thing.
9:49: McCain: We need to make adoption easier (except for gays).
9:50: Another anecdote about adopting an orphan.
9:53: They’re done.
Recap: McCain came across as much more personable, and was destined to be far more popular with this crowd. His rhetoric actually bordered on uplifting at times, which is a marked change. He didn’t mention Obama once, and wasn’t nakedly partisan at all. If this was your first exposure to him this election cycle (and I’m sure it was for some people) you might not laugh out loud when you heard him described as a “maverick”.
Obama focused way too much on minutia, and spent almost no time letting people get to know him better. He was also strangely pandering at times, which was stupid, as he was never going to be able to compete with the unadulterated pander-fest that was McCain’s segment.
Don’t know how this gets portrayed in the media tomorrow, and I’ve been wrong about these things before, but I say Obama looked comparatively bad and subsequent coverage will accurately reflect it. I’m off to watch Phelps now.
8:02: And we’re off.
8:03: Rick Warren: “We believe in the separation of church and state, but we don’t believe in the separation between faith and politics.” Better to get that out of the way at the beginning.
8:04: Rick Warren seems a little nervous.
8:05: Q: Who are the three wisest people you know in your life and who would you listen to if you became president? Barack: my wife, my grandmother, and everyone I’ve ever met. Solid answer.
8:07: Barack seems almost too engaged. Where there’s that constant inner dialogue, and he’s trying really hard to be articulate and engaging without saying something he’ll regret. When he’s doing this he sometimes comes off as though he’s reaching for answers (which I suppose he is on some level) I generally don’t think this is when he’s at his best. I wish he’d just shoot from the hip every once in a while.
8:12: These aren’t good questions for Barack. It isn’t super easy to side step them, unless you just have some inner dogma that kicks in and answers for you. I actually think this format favors McCain.
8:15: They have commercials? Really?
8:19: World View section. I predict Obama excels here.
8:20: Q: “What does that mean to you, to trust in Christ?”
Obama: I believe in Jesus. Seriously. I promise.
8:21: Warren seems like he’s settled down a little bit. Next up: abortion.
8:23: He at least says he’s pro-choice. Didn’t like his answer though. He should have used this as an opportunity to appear principled. He’s beating this new “abortion reduction” Democratic plank into the ground.
8:26: Gay marriage.
8:27: Barack: “blah blah, man and a woman…civil union good, same-sex marriage bad” I know he thinks this is his only path, but this idiocy still makes me roll my eyes.
8:28: Stem cell research.
8:30: I was wrong about him being good in this segment. I didn’t think he was foolish enough to try to actually win this crowd. He had to use this opportunity to sound principled, and to speak to his own base. Instead he’s turned it into a popularity contest on purpose. Let me tell you who wins that.
8:33: He should NOT have answered this Supreme Court question. Thomas is incompetent of course, but that’s a mistake. He should have talked about why it was inappropriate to comment, since he may directly address the composition of the court in the future. $20 says McCain either sidesteps it completely, or says Stevens, and all the other pro-choice judges (assuming he can remember their names) and gets a huge applause from the crowd.
8:36: Yawn. Obama’s dying.
8:37: My girlfriend: “This is just painful.” No argument here.
8:40: Obama sounds a little better on the tax section.
8:45: International section.
8:48: I’m not missing Phelps going for his 8th gold am I?
8:51: Q: What should we do about (Christian) religious persecution around the world?
8:52: These questions are right in McCain’s wheelhouse. He’s a crowd pleaser if nothing else and he’ll tell them exactly what they want to hear, whether or not he actually believes it.
8:53: Warren: Human trafficking is, “the 3rd fastest growing industry in the world”. Huh? How do you…huh?
8:54: Q: Why do you want to be president?
8:55: Obama’s answer is good. I think he’s settling in.
8:57: And…he’s done.
8:58: Enter John McCain. He and Barack exchange an awkward half hug.
9:01: McCain’s on.
9:02: What three people question. McCain: Petraus, an injured soldier, and the COE of e-bay.
9:04 McCain actually brings up his first marriage. First time I’ve heard him do that. Probably a good idea. You know anybody in this crowd that’s heard about that was curious.
9:06: Seems clear Warren feels more comfortable with McCain.
9:07 McCain just finished mostly fabricating a list of times he went against his party’s wishes. Too bad Warren doesn’t know or care enough for a follow-up.
9:08: McCain: “blah, blah, drill for more oil” (smile) (big applause)
9:09: The crowd is SO much more responsive to McCain, and he seems particularly cogent tonight.
9:10: McCain’s talking about being tortured. Pretty compelling stuff.
9:12: First commercial break. This is a massacre in the making. Every thing about this was suited to make McCain look like a rock star and Obama look comparatively less popular. Now, that’s fine if that’s the paradigm you’re working with, you just except that and consider your strategy accordingly (or you just don’t do it). But, Obama didn’t get the memo. He intentionally treated it as some sort of pandering-for-white-evangelical-votes competition, pissing his own base off in the process.
9:18: McCain’s telling another long anecdote about being a P.O.W. Big applause.
9:19: McCain’s wants to ban abortion (big applause).
9:19: My girlfriend: “What about for rape victims?” (good question, though I guess Warren didn’t agree)
9:20: McCain doesn’t want the gays to get married. (big applause)
9:21: Apparently he’s cool with gay Californian’s getting married as long as they don’t have to recognize it in Arizona. I actually didn’t know that.
9:22: McCain: We should defeat evil (big applause).
9:23: McCain: I’ll follow Bin Laden to the gates of hell (big applause).
9:24: We won’t leave Iraq until we attain victory, and we will (big applause).
9:25: The Supreme Court Justice question: He named all four liberal justices. He couldn’t remember Stevens’ name for a minute. You’ve got to give me points for calling that one. Says Roberts and Alito have been great.
9:27: Another anecdote, this time about Katrina. Don’t know why Obama didn’t do more of this.
9:31: Warren’s leading McCain on these questions a lot more than he did Obama.
Q: Define rich.
9:32: McCain: “I want everybody to be rich” (big applause).
9:33: McCain’s answer to the rich question: $5 million. He realizes immediately that that was the wrong answer, and talks about how he was joking and how his answer will be “distorted”. He’s trying to backtrack a bit.
9:37: Another commercial break. McCain struggled a little bit there at the end, but to borrow a sports metaphor, you’ve got more margin for error at home.
9:40: Warren: “We’re without a doubt the most blessed nation in the world.” Well, that’s good to know.
9:42: McCain: “Our job is to stop genocide whenever we can.”
9:44: Warren throws McCain a softball about Georgia that he didn’t to Obama. Fair and balanced. McCain is using this as a springboard to talk about the resurgence of Russian Empire. Full of inflammatory language. On Georgia: “It’s a beautiful little country.” Can someone ask him if he thinks we should send troops into Georgia if Russia won’t get out?
9:47McCain: “Our Judeo-Christian traditions dictate that we do not allow people to be oppressed around the world” (I got this as close as I could. Does anybody have TiVo? I’d love the exact quote.) Speaking for every realist everywhere: This kind of uncompromising, crusader rhetoric is stupid and dangerous and is the best possible illustration of why this man cannot be president. It wouldn’t bother me at all if I didn’t think he was completely serious, and surrounded by people that think the same thing.
9:49: McCain: We need to make adoption easier (except for gays).
9:50: Another anecdote about adopting an orphan.
9:53: They’re done.
Recap: McCain came across as much more personable, and was destined to be far more popular with this crowd. His rhetoric actually bordered on uplifting at times, which is a marked change. He didn’t mention Obama once, and wasn’t nakedly partisan at all. If this was your first exposure to him this election cycle (and I’m sure it was for some people) you might not laugh out loud when you heard him described as a “maverick”.
Obama focused way too much on minutia, and spent almost no time letting people get to know him better. He was also strangely pandering at times, which was stupid, as he was never going to be able to compete with the unadulterated pander-fest that was McCain’s segment.
Don’t know how this gets portrayed in the media tomorrow, and I’ve been wrong about these things before, but I say Obama looked comparatively bad and subsequent coverage will accurately reflect it. I’m off to watch Phelps now.
I'll See Your Townhall, and Raise You a Megachurch
In a TPBP first, I'll be covering the Wick Warren (of A Purpose Driven Life fame) Obama/McCain debate-meeting-sitdown taking place at a California megachurch tonight. This will be the first time these two have been under the same roof for anything resembling a debate this campaign cycle.
I'll be doing a kind of running real-time dairy/commentry that I'll try to post immediately after the event, which is airing tonight on CNN at 8:00PM. Partying like a rock star in the big city, I am. If you watch it and have anything to maybe we can treat that post as a kind of open thread.
I'll be doing a kind of running real-time dairy/commentry that I'll try to post immediately after the event, which is airing tonight on CNN at 8:00PM. Partying like a rock star in the big city, I am. If you watch it and have anything to maybe we can treat that post as a kind of open thread.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
