Palin and Teleprompters

Last weekend the current grand champion of the Republican right, Sarah Palin, at the Tea Party convention critized President Obama for using a teleprompter. In her folksy "awe shucks" manner questioned why a such an aclaimed public speaker would use such a device rather than speaking from memory or without any aids by speaking from the heart.

The gathered throng clapped and shouted at her comment. Take a look at the following pictures of Ronald Reagan, "Great Communicator", who the Republicans all but worship and quote his words as if they were holy writ. Maybe if Palin was half the critical thinker as the least critical thinker of modern Presidents she would realize a) why teleprompters, or speach cards (G.W. Bush) are used, and b) that she had also slammed Ronald Regan and every Republican President going back to Eisenhower.

Paranoia, Conspiracies and Obama

Two the elements of the American character are distrust of government and a bent toward conspiracy theories. These two elements are alive and well in the health care debate. As there were some who did not view Bush as a legitimate President during his first term, there are those who hold Obama is a usurper.

Though the evidence is to the contrary, there are those who still maintain that Obama was not born in the United States and therefore not eligible to be President. Even worse is when a politician like Palin who give tacit support to the claims that officials in Hawaii have falsified records (and the birth announcement in the paper was a recreation).

These same folks hold that Obama is not a Christian but a Muslim. They ignore his statements of faith. They watch and firmly believe videos on youtube that have Obama admitting he is a Muslim. The authors of these videos have vivacious and maliciously edited out words and phrases that would give a contrary meaning to the words. Yet these videos continue to live on, particularly in the church with the “my friend at church” statement testifying to its validity and reliability.

What is interestingly many of these are the same people who attacked Obama for being part of Rev. Wright’s church. They argue that he is a Muslim one moment and then condemn him for being a long time member of a church under the leadership of Rev. Wright without seeing the inconsistency.

This past week the President made a speech to the nation on Afghanistan. Even the timing is viewed, by individuals like Russell Wiseman mayor of Arlington TN, as a nefarious plot to preempt Charlie Brown’s Christmas and keeping people from hearing a character reading the Christmas story (http://www.commercialappeal.com/news/2009/dec/04/mayor-fires-at-obama-online/). While I want to laugh at the unwiseman and others with similar views, when there are pastors telling their congregations to pray for the President’s demise, I can laugh. I can only feel disgust at the utter hatred that lies in such hearts and which is masked by religious language.

These are the same individuals who are attacking Obama with the following picture by saying that that on Veterans Day he showed disrespect to the Veterans and Nations by not saluting. At first glance the picture does look poorly upon Obama.

According to Factcheck.org this picture was taken not on Veterans Day (Nov 11) but on Memorial Day. On Veterans Day President Obama was wearing a blue tie and an overcoat, not a red tie without an overcoat. The picture in question was taken seconds after the President entered the platform and “Hail to the Chief” was still being played. In other words, those on the stage, and those in uniform below were not saluting the nation, the flag or veterans, but President Obama, the President of the United States. Yet, the falsehood continues to live on and spread fueled by the paranoia of conspiracy theorists who are anti-Obama and a distrust of Obama and his motives.

July Fourth

Ayatollah Ahmad Jannati, a high ranking conservative Iranian cleric recently stated that the ongoing unrest has foreign roots, in particular British roots. As we know foreign press has not only been restricted in its coverage of the protests but they have now been forbidden to be on the streets and interview Iranian citizens. The spin of the messages coming from the religious and governing authorities is ungodly foreign influences are destroying the orderly calm of the Iranian nation.

Nationals who were employed at the British embassy have been arrested, interviewed/interrogated aggressively and have confessed to being puppets of the ungodly foreign power. Jannati told the thousands of worshippers that the British "had designed a velvet revolution ... In March, they said (in their Foreign Ministry) that street riots were possible during June elections. These are signs ... revealed by themselves." He went on to tell the throng that those involved in the protests "need to repent and ask God to forgive them" and that regardless of what the pre-election polls showed, the election process was “pure” and that reelection of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad was truly a landslide victory.

Though he did not name Mousavi directly, Jannati implied Mousavi and his followers were committing treason when he quoted Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, leader of Iran's 1979 Islamic revolution, as saying that "anyone disrupts unity has not only committed a sin but also has committed treason against the Islamic Republic and the system." There is no room for honest disagreement and dissenting views are crushed.
My initial reaction is that this rhetoric is typical of the Iranian fundamentalists.

Despots, whether they are religious or secular, have a way creating bogey men and escape goats, and decrying how these outsiders and other non true believers are conducting an evil conspiracy in their midst. I would like to say that that happens “out there” and yet when I look at the church I ask if our hands are clean. Do we not have church leaders over the centuries, and even today, suggesting that if you disagree with them that you are fighting God and therefore you are evil? Do we not have those who define so narrowly that if you disagree with them then you cannot be a Christian? Do we not have many in the church who hold that those who accept and support abortion cannot be true Christians? In America do we not have a large number of evangelicals who functionally cannot fathom how anyone can be a true Christian and be a Democrat? And the questions could go on and on.

I fear that similar words of Iran clerics, has been heard on the lips of American and Canadian clergy. I fear that the same the same hard line agenda and spirit of Iran clerics have been and is still found within segments of church leadership today.

On this Fourth of July my mind turns to an American fundamental founding principle, religious freedom. Religious freedom has two sides to it, freedom of religion and freedom from religion. Freedom of religion allows people to worship freely as they so choose. We often forget the handmaiden of free worship, allowing others to worship and hold views different than mine without me degrading them or thinking that their faith is less valid than mine. I should not be so arrogant and bold as to claim to have the corner on truth and view others as being less enlightened than me.
Separation of church and state rests upon freedom from religion. Whereas Europe and other countries had their official religion the Founding Fathers determined that not only would the United States not have an official religion but it would allow its citizens to hold any religion they deemed to hold, or even to have no faith. Coupled with that posture means that no religion or set of beliefs should dominate government or be advanced by government action.

I do not agree with those who extend separation of church and state to mean that a person who is running for or in public office should not speak of their faith. Hearing about a person’s faith helps me to understand what motivates the person who is running for office and even what types of legislation he or she will push forward. Though a candidate like a Mike Huckabee or Sarah Palin may be a Christian, their fundamentalist views and statements about entrenching Christian believes in national legislation and their dismissive attitude toward liberal, adherents of non-Christian faiths and atheists scares me tremendously. Their type of thinking and demonizing is the American equivalent of what Ayatollah Jannati and the followers of other Iranian conservative clerics are saying and doing.

On July 4th 1776 the United States was founded upon freedom of religion and freedom from religion. Such freedoms are part of its nobility and strength as a country. Such freedom allows for diversity of religious expression and open political discourse. Those who signed the Constitution recognized that when one set of religious believes hold sway across the land and in government, that a nation is only a short distance away from the a society that claims to be benevolent while being far from being benevolent.

I am thankful for Jannati’s recent statements and the Iranian governing authorities reaction to the recent protests as they help me to celebrate this 4th of July with greater appreciation.

Reflection on 2008 Presidential Race

Two posts in one day...what can I say...my goal is to hit or surpass the goal announced in the challenge to the family. Now as as to the election.

As I type, throughout the east voting is concluding on the agonizingly long 2008 American presidential campaign. If the election goes along the lines of the polls it will not be close as far as the Electoral College is concerned. Obama should have about a 70 to 110 spread between over McCain.

About a year ago, the election started to impact our direct mail strategies. Earlier in the year our division was looking at implementing a donor call system that it has done in the past. Though Virginia has been solidly Republican for decades I argued then that we should not do so. The early signs indicated that Virginia could be a battle ground. Over the last four presidential cycles the popular vote spread between the two parties has narrowed significantly.

The military vote was not a solid as it has been in the past years for the Republicans. Add to those two factors that Obama was energizing the younger voters at a level unseen since Kennedy in 1960 and you have a fertile ground for a battle.

For the first time in decades Virginia has its second consecutive Democratic Governor and at least one Democrat Senator. With the second Senate seat being vacated by a retiring Republican, it seemed to stand to reason that the senate race was going to be hotly contested by the Democrats.

With a hotly contested presidential and senatorial race the state would be flooded by robo calls between mid September and the election. Not only would candidates be making calls, but so would various PACs from right to life to woman’s rights groups, from the National Rifle Association to groups opposed to the United Nations. The last thing The Salvation Army needed to do was to make calls during the same period and be caught up in the backlash.

It appears that former Democrat Governor Warner will soundly defeat his Republican predecessor Governor Gilmore. The early returns appear that Obama will take the Commonwealth and its 13 electoral votes by seven to nine points, which would be a major shift.

With McCain going down to defeat, recriminations and figure pointing will commence within days. Some leaders of the Religious Right will cry the Republicans ignored their concerns by selecting the wrong candidate. Those leaders and their followers who nod in agreement need to be reminded of two realities. The first is that the Religious Right is one voice, albeit a significant voice, in the Republican Party. The democratic process is grounded upon the civil discourse and of putting forth a cogent persuasive. If others have a more convincing message than the Religious Right, they need to accept the result. They should not bemoan that they did not win the day and do what James Dobson did, announce that he was picking up his ball and going home because he did not like the result (he later came back to the game when Palin was picked by McCain).

The second is that the Religious Right has lost credibility by wrapping themselves around George Bush. In the last election many evangelical leaders made it clear, as did Sarah Palin’s pastor did, that a good Christian could not vote for Bush’s opponent or any Democrat. As these preachers of righteousness remained silent on abuses within the Bush administration the Religious Right started to lose its moral ground and hearing. The middle of the road independents, particularly those under thirty, are giving far less attention to leaders of the Religious Right than in the past.

The McCain campaign continued to struggle to find a message that would hold traction and undergird the whole campaign. The first narrative was McCain the hero who does not back away from tough fights vs. those who lack courage. How he tried to cast Obama did not hold. Obama did not allow McCain’s bait to distract him. Instead Obama remained calmly focused on the message of change and his game plan.

Over the summer McCain’s message evolved to be the deal maker who puts country first versus Obama the nonpartisan pretender. McCain had a long history of brokering deals and working with Democrats in the Senate but the message did not hold. That message did not connect primarily because Obama again was being cast far from how he was being perceived. The Republican’s underlying dismissive view of Obama was apparent in their messages.

During and immediately following Obama’s trip to Europe the Republican message shifted to McCain the decisive leader versus Obama the rock star celebrity. That message died quietly when the electorate felt Obama had serious ideas that stood behind his popularity with the younger demographics whereas McCain still was not focused upon the serious issues facing the nation. McCain’s answer to rising gasoline prices was to drill more and diversify. When pressed as to flesh out his diversify message he remained vague and wanting. He answers to the rising foreclosure rates remained fuzzy. A vague energy plan and a fuzzy foreclosure plans did not match the McCain the decisive leader message.

Saying it was a reflection of his decisive leadership McCain selected Sarah Palin as his running mate. Immediately the unknown Palin became the rock star, a star who dwarfed McCain on the campaign trail. Coming out of the convention the new narrative was McCain/Palin, a team of mavericks standing against old style Washington politics. This message took hold for a while but soon lost traction. Though it lost traction the theme kept surfacing again and again through to the end of the campaign. The general public had difficulty seeing Obama as old style politics in light of his time in Washington and balanced thoughtful approach to issues.

In his effort to court the far right of the party McCain jettisoned a host of positions previously held. In changing his positions just to get the nomination, the maverick became a typical old style Washington politician. The message also lost traction when the public started to know about Palin and witnessed her in two disastrous interviews.

When the signs of the economic crisis become increasingly evident, McCain continued to claim that the fundamentals of the economy were sound. He and his financial advisor assured all would be well. McCain appeared shocked by the meltdown. Trying to portray himself as the decisive leader who could work with both parties to resolve a problem, he boldly announced the he was suspending his campaign and returning to Washington to solve the financial problem. That action backfired badly on three fronts.

It soon became evident that McCain was charging into the battle without understanding the nature of the battleground which was evident in several of his public pronouncements. Then people started to read and hear the stories that McCain sat silently in meetings without giving any suggestions. He was not being the reconciler or the decisive leader he claimed. Not only did he leave town without any plan in place but it appears that he emboldened those who were against doing anything. Hence, McCain became identified as being part of the problem.

Sarah Palin’s posturing herself as a down-home honest speaking hockey mom WalMart shopper was derailed by stories about $150,000 being spent on her wardrobe. It is one thing to have good looking clothing, but the cost of the outfits alarmed the middle of the road voter at a critical point in the race. Even when the press left the story, Palin revived it again by her comments on the campaign trail and by her Alaskan handlers false faulting Wallace.

In the closing weeks McCain turned to the traditional Republican message, the conservative fighter against the tax and spend liberal. Bush effectively used the same message against Gore in 2000. The message resonated with the base and independent voters who are right of center. It did find traction but it lost its punch when left of center voters recalled McCain’s past votes against Bush’s tax cuts undercut his message. The message lost some punch when amongst voters to recalled that Bush said the same yet is the President with the greatest deficit in the nation’s history whereas his “liberal Democrat” predecessor had a surplus.

That said, polls tightened in the last week as the Republicans unleashed an endless stream of attack ads that played upon fear. In the next hour time will tell if going to the well of fear will work once again. For the sake of future elections, their approach does not work.

On the whole, Obama has run a stronger campaign at all levels. His message has been consistent. His decisions have been thoughtful as against McCain’s rash selection of Palin and during the financial crisis charging off like mindless general into a war without knowing the nature of the battlefield. In his moving passionate speeches he has given the country a vision. We have seen a thoughtful passionate man. While campaigning is not the same as governing, running a thoughtful deliberate campaign does show potential leadership.

On another election issue, Kay Hagan is projected to defeat Elizabeth Dole in North Carolina (see the earlier 30 October post on this subject).

McCain/Pailin Victory Is a Frightening Thought

I victory by John McCain and Sarah Palin is a scary thought. The self-proclaimed maverick has long admitted that he shoots from the hip without little thought. McCain claims he tends to rely upon instinct, which for me translates to mean, he is governed by his emotion. His bent to tirades is renown on the Hill.

Palin, the proclaimed populous maverick governor, states she is a proud American who will help clean up America, set it on the right course and reform how politics are done in Washington. Yet, as governor of Alaska used her office for personal gain by charging back to the state nights she stays in her personal home rather than in the governor’s mansion. She talks about reforming politics in Washington yet as governor violated the ethical guidelines for public officials. What she states and her conduct has not matched her actions.

This election has exposed America’s ugly side, particularly the degree and nature of its bigotry.

The above is disconcerting but in of itself does not scare me. What scares me is that under the leadership of McCain and Palin the Republican party is drawing out its bigotry and its threads of intolerance. Day after day Palin talks about Obama being connected with a terrorist and that America really does not know him. McCain ads are run impugning Obama’s reputation. He addresses his opponent as “that man” and puts out advertisements that while talking about Wall Street corruption shows a picture of an African American businessman.

And then, McCain and Pailin are alarmed when some of their supporters at rallies cry out for Obama to be killed, call him godless, call him a terrorist who is out to destroy America, a Muslim and “an Arab”. McCain, mainly put the dots out there and when people draw the connections they act shocked. They have played with matches in a room filled with gas and act surprised that when a fire breaks out. Their alarm undermines their talk that they will govern thoughtfully.

Following the McCain lead, Elizabeth Dole, the Republican Senator in North Carolina who is in a very close race has run ads decrying her opponent Kay Hagan for visiting with a group of atheists. The advertisement is designed to inflame religious intolerance. The ad says, “In North Carolina, Kay Hagan says she shares our values. But, behind our backs she’s the guest of honor at a fundraiser hosted by the most vile, radical liberals in America.” The group is vile and radical because they are atheists. I have no idea what Hagan’s religious affiliation but it does not matter. A person should be able to meet with any citizens without incrimination or fear, but apparently Dole does not agree. By implication Dole is saying there are groups she will not meet with nor represent. Will she refuse to meet with and represent Hindus? About Muslims? Budhists? Agnostics? Gays? If she is willing to meet with all her constituents, then why the ad?

As mentioned a victory for McCain and Palin is a scary thought. A Republican victory will signal that the US is not as progressive on tolerance as the country wishes to believe and that it is acceptable behavior to draw it out. A McCain/Palin victory will mean that this country is not as religiously tolerant as its claims. It will mean that the country still is awash with bigotry, albeit more subtle and hidden than in the past.

Fortunately, and though things can change, current polls indicate they are not headed to the White House. I am an independent who has become convinced that the Republican party on the national level has lost its moral authority to govern.

Does Palin Lack the Moral Authority to be Vice President?

Shortly after the bi-partisan committee issued its report that noted Palin violated Alaska’s Ethical Act McCain issued a statement decrying the report as being an overreaching report that is making a tortured argument which is a result of as a partisan effort by the Obama and the Democrats to disgrace Palin. McCain’s statement is more applicable to his and Palin’s dismissive reaction.

McCain and Palin wants the country to believe that this report was a witch hunt over nothing as Palin did nothing wrong. Their goal is to have the country to believe that this is process was driven by Obama and his minions of political purposes. McCain and Palin want people to turn of their intellectual capacities and accept their claims uncritically for that is the only way that I can see accepting the McCain and Palin charge.

McCain and Palin want us to forget that the inquiry was a started as bi-partisan vote well before she became McCain’s running mate. They want us to ignore that Palin retracted her promise to cooperate until she became McCain’s running mate. They want us to ignore that the fourteen member committee was made up of four Democrats and ten Republicans. They want us to ignore that the vote was 12-0 for issuing of the report (two members abstained). The Republicans knew that report could impact the campaign but they still issued it. This speaks volumes for the Republicans on the committee and the Governor’s conduct should be viewed with askance.

Instead of recognizing what happened, and accepting responsibility, Palin and McCain are doing their version of Nixon. Nixon was not responsible for the planning or implementing of the Watergate break-in. He became swept up in not being forthright when wrongdoing was discovered.

On the whole, Palin has not committed a criminal act. She violated an ethical code and behaved in a manner that is not becoming of a Governor or Vice-President. Though it was an significant error of judgment, it is not necessarily a character flaw if she was forthright in accepting responsibility and confessing that she has not upheld the high standard. If she had accepted the responsibility for her actions, and those of her husband, the whole matter would not only blow over quickly but she would also demonstrate depth of character. A person of significant character would admit their error and actively seek to do a much better job. By accepting responsibility she would be living out in her own life “telling it as it is” that she made a mistake in trying to use her office for personal purposes.

Instead of “telling it as it is” she tells it as she wants it to be even if the evidence says otherwise. She is behaving like so many other politicians in Washington. She faults the press, the Democrats, Obama and Biden, and anyone else rather than admit that what she has done was wrong. Her response and defensiveness demonstrates lack of character. Her actions Palin indicates lack in depth of character. More importantly, the question now must be asked whether she has the moral authority to be Vice-President.

Unfortunately for McCain, his statement couples his credibility to hers. I now must ask myself whether he has the moral authority to be President. I am wondering more than ever if he has the balanced judgment to be President.