Quick thought on a Wednesday

Now that W. has hit a 70% disapproval rating he has stolen the mantle of the least beloved POTUS from Tricky Dick Nixon. Some might think that this proves what a national disgrace he has become. Well, most of you would think that I guess. That's why they call it disapproval. I myself admit to being less than thrilled with his handling of, well, the economy, "war on terror," protection of civil liberties, immigration, education...you get the picture. But overlooked by basically everyone has been the beautiful gift that Bush has given to this great nation.

Americans can't agree on Coke or Pepsi, college or pro, Nascar or arugula (wry smile). In case you haven't been paying attention, half of the country hates the other half. That's what I keep hearing on CNN. Apparently, we can't agree on anything. But those days are over my friends. Walk down the street and ask ten people whether Bush has been good for America or not. Seven of the ten will say no. Much like that great Republican Abraham Lincoln, Bush launched a war and united a country. Call it a pyrrhic victory if you must. But please call it a victory. It might be the only one he gets.

A More Perfect Union

Obama's speech on race in America. Read it. Watch it. Whatever. This is a really impressive speech.

"This union may never be perfect, but generation after generation has shown that it can always be perfected. And today, whenever I find myself feeling doubtful or cynical about this possibility, what gives me the most hope is the next generation - the young people whose attitudes and beliefs and openness to change have already made history in this election."


Ben Harper- Morning Yearning
RIYL- Guys with acoustic guitars, Amos Lee

No. Just...no

Ok, so this is going to be my second Andrew/Obama link in a row. I told you that I'm heating up.

A suggestion from Andrew for the hypothetically elected Barack Obama:

Talking out loud with Marc Ambinder yesterday, I realized that I hoped a president Obama would ask Bob Gates to stay on as defense secretary. Gates has been one of the real stars of the Bush second term, managing to guide the military between the rapids of Cheney and the rocks of reality. He's an immensely impressive, level-headed, pragmatic conservative, and he wouldn't, I think, be immune to outreach from an incoming Democratic administration faced with extreme challenges in the Middle East. No such arrangement could be made before the election, of course. But I figured it would be worth airing the possibility.

I'm going to go ahead and give Andrew points for trying to be both reasonable and optimistic. Gates has done a surprisingly good job with the cards that he was dealt. By all accounts he has taken a realistic approach to the war in Iraq, favoring strategies that will reduce violence towards civilians without needlessly endangering U.S. troops. So kudos to Gates for a job well done, and to Andrew for recognizing it.

That being said, this has got to be one of the worst ideas that Andrew has had this election season. If politics suddenly became, well, not in fact politics, but instead some sort of public policy meritocracy, then this would be a fantastic idea. Andrew is right, we should reward people, of all ideologies, for doing their jobs well. Good ideas, and the people behind them, should rise to the top.

Making a decision like this, in an ideal world, would be the sort of move that could build goodwill across the aisle and create a coalition for withdrawal. It would also send a bold statement to the American people that Obama is serious about creating a post-partisan Washington. This is, I think, where Andrew was going with this, and again, he does deserve credit for "being the change that we want to see in the world." It would certainly be unexpected, and in a different era might be a really good thing.

But we do not yet inhabit that world. In our world, Gates is a proxy for Bush's failed war. In the same way that Colin Powell provided cover for launching this disaster, Gates has become a screen of respectability that Rumsfeld clearly could not provide. Even as Cheney rattles the saber over Iran, pundits sleep better at night knowing that Gates is there to be a voice of reason. Gates' presence in the administration makes the entire organization seem much more sane. And this is precisely the problem.

Obama is running on change, especially foreign policy change, and especially foreign policy change in Iraq. To leave in place Gates as Secretary of Defense might be sound military strategy, but it is undoubtedly a political poison pill. To keep Gates in gives legitimacy to Bush and weakens Obama's narrative of change. Nine years later, the 2000 Nader fallacy that Bush and Gore were the same person actually becomes true in some strange sense. In addition, Hannity, Beck, Limbaugh, The Corner, Brookings, etc., get to trumpet the greatness that was Bush while furthering the narrative that Democrats have no idea what they are doing when it comes to the military/defense. I cannot stress how important it is to fight this narrative.

So long as Republicans are seen as the party of the military, no matter how much they screw it up, Democrats will never be able to lead the country abroad, or make effective critiques of the Republican establishment. As it stands now, Republican military decisions are brave and patriotic, while Democratic decisions are weak and uninformed. This is such a strong narrative that Hillary Clinton has embraced it by moving to the right on defense, which not only leads her to vote for crazy things, but also gives Republicans an added boost of legitimacy. Many Democrats followed Bush into war when high profile people like Clionton did not speak out against it. Think she learned her lesson? See: Last week when she argued that John "100 Years in Iraq" McCain would make a better leader than Obama. Yeah. I will note that this is not to favor one party over the other, although I clearly do, just to say that a one party in charge of the military situation is a terrible thing for democracy. Do we need more evidence of that?

If Bob Gates were the only possible person who could do the job, clearly that would be a different matter. But he's not. So let's leave the Republican-in-the-administration appointment for something else, shall we? Clinton really does have Andrew rattled. He needs to get his head back in the game.


Sunset Rubdown- Us Ones In Between
RIYL- Wolf Parade, Modest Mouse, Clap Your Hands, Say Yeah!, TV On the Radio

Ed. note: This is probably my favorite songwriter at the moment. I have been trying to get Wes into his stuff but he can't get past the vocals. What a shame.

Like writing my thesis all over again.

Andrew links to a moving speech by Barack Obama about his stance on abortion that touches on both his relationship to voters and the role of faith in public life. As someone who identifies deeply as both an Evangelical and a feminist, abortion gives me fits. How anyone does not struggle with this issue, perhaps above all others, is beyond me.

Happily, this is just one more reminder about what has already been made abundantly clear: we need more of this type of honesty, humility, and reflection in our leaders. As Bryce is slowing down on the politics blogging, I'm just about to heat up.

Broken Social Scene- Looks Just Like the Sun
RIYL: Stars, Indie/Dream Pop, The Shins

I embedded this one as an extra incentive to listen. Sounds like summer.

Best. Blog. Name. Ever.

Ezra Klein's got a great post up over at Momma Said Wonk You Out about why health insurers suck (his words, not mine). Not that I disagree with the sentiment. Definitely worth a read, especially if you are thinking of voting Democratic this year.

My biggest complaint so far about getting care has been the way in which buying into a plan is in no way friendly to consumers. Market pressures that force cell phone companies to explain what plan you are buying and how much it will cost do not seem to have impacted health insurers. Klein's explanation for why the market has failed when it comes to health makes a lot of sense.

From a policy perspective, Klein seems to favor Hillarycare over Obama's plan. As an Obama supporter, that bums me out. But his criticism seems legitimate. Obama really does seem to dislike mandates, but it's difficult to see how the system can be reformed without them. I'd love to hear a detailed criticism of mandates, but for the time being I'm content to trust Klein's judgment on this one. He is definitely a wonk, and health care policy is his area of expertise. I'll be interested to see whether Obama actually moves left on this one after he becomes president, or whether his resistance to Hillarycare is genuine.

Exile from Mainstream

Josh Marshall really knows the way to a boy's heart. Talking Points Media have a post up from Brian McLaren talking about his new book Everything Must Change: Jesus, Global Crises, and a Revolution of Hope.

The post itself isn't really life-changing, but the fact that TPM gave him the chance to promote it is encouraging news. What I sometimes forget is that the real world has no idea what Evangelicals are really like. And if the past year has taught me anything, it is that the information they do receive about us/them is not very encouraging. See: "Jesus Camp," anything James Dobson related, the Creation Museum, and President Bush. Basically, we are only known for doing bad and crazy stuff. The good stuff just doesn't penetrate. The parts of me that have stopped identifying as Evangelical really don't care that much. If they want to ruin their reputation then that's there prerogative. However, there is a part of me that will always identify with being an Evangelical. I can't walk away from that any more than I could walk away from W.N.L., or my Michael W. Smith tapes, or "true love waits." So in a roundabout way this really is important to me. Donald Miller has stated that the church needs to stop trying to do a P.R. campaign for Jesus. That's true. Love speaks for itself. But having the church shown as a destructive force isn't good either.

To have a rational, sane Evangelical preacher with rational, sane thoughts on the world is refreshing, healthy, and helpful. Even more so when that person is given a national platform. Talking Points Media is extremely influential right now and deservedly so, they do important work. Serious people take this place, well, seriously. With this post people who have heard about "Jesus Camp," but don't actually know any normal Evangelical Christians, now have some exposure to someone who both loves Jesus and speaks in a really humble way. Great, huh?

I am, by the way, really looking forward to reading this book. Especially since Just Coffee is the OFFICIAL coffee of his book tour. Seriously).

Ouch.

Josh Marshall and company link to a report card of sorts for the Bush's time in office. It's worse than you think. Not that we didn't know all of these things already, but it really isn't pretty when his "accomplishments" are listed together.

It's also worth noting that this is not some sort of hatchet job. This is the Associated Press. Quoting former Bush campaign strategists and staffers. Only one more year...

It's Giuliani Time!

My new buddy Karen* (yes, the funny engineering video Karen) reminded me of my project to talk about each one of the oh-so-many 2008 candidates for POTUS. The problem with that little project, as I see it, is that so many of them are so obviously lackluster. I mean...Romney? Really? President? How am I supposed to write an entire post about that?

But I'd still like to finish it. So here is my post for "America's Mayor," Rudy Giuliani.

As a rule, trite poilitical attack names (Slick Willy, Shrub, Al Bore) are created simply because they are catchy. At times they have some sort of foundation in truth ("The Decider" comes to mind), but for the most part they are only useful for making someone look childish (although it's debatable whether the person using the name is, in fact, the childish one).

In the case of Rudy Giuliani, the label "President of 9/11" is not only catchy, but actually seems to be 100% accurate. Has anyone, any single person, actually heard him talk about something that wasn't A)Iraq, B)Iran, C)9/11, or D)Terrorism? I mean, really. I'm not saying that these aren't important issues (although I could make that argument). I'm saying that, outside of his argument that we are all going to die if we don't invade more countries(!), he really doesn't have anything going for him. And since I don't find that argument convincing...well, you get the picture.

You could say that, even though he doesn't talk about it much, running New York shows his capability for the job. But New Yorkers don't seem to like him very much.

Actually, whether it's "America's Mayor" Rudy, or "President of 9/11" Rudy, this is really going to hurt his case. Not only do these New Yorkers not like him, they also think he did a really terrible job with 9/11. Ouch.

I think I'll leave it at that. Talking about what Giuliani would do to the Constitution is a sure way to find myself in a paranoid depression.

*Karen was kind enough to send me this not at all doctored picture. My shocked face represents my fear that Giuliani is about to lecture me on how afraid I should be that anyone else might win the election.

Anne Coulter Really Stole My Thunder On Edwards Controversies

You heard it here first. The criticism of Edwards' new house, the request for Kuo to ask about it, the posting of the interview, and now my response.

For those of you who don't know what I'm talking about then scroll down a little bit. It'll all come to you.

As an aside, I highly suggest watching the full beliefnet interview with Edwards, which can be found right here. First and foremost, it was pretty refreshing to see someone who used to work within the George W. Bush White House sit down with a presidential candidate from the Democratic Party for a discussion on personal faith and its role in public life. I thought that the interview itself was great. I really like the questions that Kuo posed, and I was more than impressed by many of the answers that Edwards gave. If you are not going to watch the whole thing then at least try to watch the part where he answers the question about the house.


The residence in question:




This article from the Carolina Journal Online reports that the 28,200 square foot complex, built on 102 acres of property, is valued at over 6 million dollars by the county tax assessor. Apparently it is now the most valuable house in the county.

The "Journal" writes that "the main house is 10,400 square feet and has two garages. The recreation building, a red, barn-like building containing 15,600 square feet, is connected to the house by a closed-in and roofed structure of varying widths and elevations that totals 2,200 square feet," and that "the recreation building contains a basketball court, a squash court, two stages, a bedroom, kitchen, bathrooms, swimming pool, a four-story tower, and a room designated 'John’s Lounge'.”

Just so we all know what's being talked about.

Now on to business. Here's my transcript from that part of the interview:

Kuo: "Does the size of your house undercut your discussion on poverty?"

Edwards : "I think it's a fair question, first of all..I come from a very modest place and I've done well...and we have a very nice physical structure. It's completely unimportant. What matters is what happens inside that structure. I'm not for a minute suggesting that we're saints, or that we've done more than a lot of other people have done, but we have done...(lists "causes"...So, do I think we've done everything we could do? No, I don't think anybody does."

He clearly ducked the question about his house. To be honest, he didn't even duck it that well. What he tried to do, after a few brief remarks, was to steer the conversation away from his house and towards his charitable giving as well as his involvement in various "causes." If there's one thing I really hate, it's politicians ducking questions.

What is really telling, however, is the way that he explains why the size of his house is unimportant. That one sentence, "What matters is what happens inside that structure," stood out to me more and more as I continued to watch that part of the interview. What does happen inside that structure John? You can go swimming, play a massive game of hide-and-go-seek, plan national campaigns, use one of countless bathrooms...the list is endless really. But you can't identify with 99% of the American people, can you? Not living inside of that house. And let's face it, if you can't identify with Americans, you are definitely not going to be able to identify with the rest of the world. It's not even like he was just trying to keep up with the Jones' either. That's the most expensive house in the county. We get it John, you've done well for yourself.

The thing is, by ducking this question, Edwards called places doubt in my mind about the authenticity of his other answers. He didn't say that he wrestled with the decision, but believed it was ok with God, and compatible with his poverty work. He didn't say that he wanted to use it to further the Kingdom. He said, esentially, that he had done well for himself, so why not? That's just unacceptable to me as a Christian. If you read the Bible, talk about its role in shaping your beliefs on poverty, and still build that house, I believe that there is a fundamental disconnect somewhere. I will not question his faith, but I will question how willing he is to apply it to his own life.

I'm not saying that John Edwards and his family shouldn't enjoy their money in some capacity. I am saying that they have chosen to do so in a way that isolates them from the reality in which the rest of us live. The decision to spend six million dollars on a house that is 3/4 as large as the mansion owned by Bill Gates is just not one that I will ever be able to relate to. Can you relate to it? No matter how many scholarships he gives, or Habitat homes he sponsors, his decision that each member of his family needs more than one million dollars of home will never go away.

Someone once told me that if you want to make good decisions then you should ask for advice from people who have made good decisions in the past. This house makes me extremely skeptical about John Edwards' decisions in the future. Believing that a candidate will make good decisions is sort of an important component in wanting someone to be the leader of the free world.

Of course there is more that could be said. What about the environment? What does that house say about the need to care for this planet in an increasingly populated and industrialized world? What does it say about his commitment to that? I think I've said enough, however. Everything that I wanted to say, save this last little bit:

John, you had a chance to win me back. You had it, and you blew it. It was nice while it lasted. I still might support you for Vice again though.

p.s.- Thanks to Bryce for the link. If you want to see the video clip of Anne Coulter's remarks on Edwards it is posted right here.

Oh Snap

David Kuo is going to be interviewing John Edwards for beliefnet and is asking for questions to be submitted over at his blog.

Apparently I am not the only who thinks he has some explaining to do about the resort he is calling his new family home.

I hope Kuo asks the question. I hope Edwards answers it. This has the potential to narrow my support down to one.

Iran Is In for Spring

Here it is, part two in my continuing series on the 2008 presedential cantidates.

John Edwards (Democratic Party)

John Edwards, former Senator from North Carolina, first entered my political radar during my sophomore year at Pomona College. At that time the race for the Democratic nomination was still wide open, with Howard Dean's internet campaign just starting to receive a lot of mainstream press, and no candidates really receiving an overwhelming amount of favorable attention from the Democratic leadership.

I was introduced to Edwards by a friend at Pomona who had been asked to help run his campaign in California. From very early on he was an extremely attractive candidate (and not just because he looks like a Land's End model). Unlike John Kerry, Edwards had decided not to seek reelection to the Senate, choosing instead to pursue the presidency without distraction or a backup plan. Edwards was also at the forefront of positive Democratic thinking in the 2004 election. Rather than attacking Bush, a technique favored by Vermont's Governor Dean, or wooing traditional Democratic strongholds like labor, the technique favored by Rep. Dick Gephardt, Edwards sought to push the Democratic party back into a conversation about its ideals and its platform. And he, long before it was the cool thing for Democrats to do, spoke about the role that faith played in his life and in his policies.
Policies that were, and still are, tremendously attractive. He was advocating for universal health care, alleviating poverty, and balancing the budget, and he wanted to do them all at the same time. I know, I wish he'd won too.

Because of his connection to my friend, Edwards ended up coming to Pomona that year and giving a speech in the student center. It was an inspiring talk about poverty in America, and it cemented my support for him in the 2004 election. My faith in Edwards (along with my disdain for Cheney/Bush) was a major reason I was still excited to support Kerry after the convention, even though he himself was, in almost everyone's view, a less than ideal candidate.

And Edwards has continued to impress me. After his loss in the 2004 election he began to travel around the world in an attempt to repair the U.S.' broken image. He also started, and has continued to direct, a public policy think tank focusing on domestic poverty.

Finally, John's devotion to his wife, and his role as a public, pro-feminist husband, has been a breath of fresh air in this political climate. During Elizabeth Edward's very public battle with breast cancer he was a seemingly constant presence. Here's a segment of the official CNN transcript from an interview that John and Elizabeth did on the "Larry King Live" show where Larry asks John if he is worried that his wife might be less attractive because of her cancer treatment:

KING: Senator, has there been any thoughts, and this happens in any case when the male hears the news from the mate, aesthetically how will Elizabeth look?

How will she respond?

Do you have those feelings?

J. EDWARDS: No. No.

KING: No?

J. EDWARDS: Honest to goodness, Larry, the only thing I have thought about is making sure that we have 40 more years together. And Elizabeth and I have been married 27 years. We are physically connected to each other. And we've been through a lot with our children and with our family and our lives. And our lives are completely intertwined. And all that I have thought about is making sure we get her well and that she is there for me and for my kids.

Edwards gives a great, and really supportive, response to what is a characteristically sleazy question from Larry King.

There was also their joint interview on MSNBC's "Hardball With Chris Matthews" where Matthews came after Elizabeth Edwards and accused them of having an equal marriage. The horror! Here's that segment:

E. EDWARDS: There are not that many politicians who are actually very good at jokes. John spoke one time and I said I wouldn‘t even go because it was—he was supposed to be funny and I didn‘t think he could carry it off.

CROWD: (LAUGHTER)

MATTHEWS: I love it. You‘re great. Behind every great man, there‘s a woman trying to kill him.

CROWD: (LAUGHTER)

E. EDWARDS: He has great characteristics.

MATTHEWS: What is it? Does she do this? Does she bust your balls like this when you come home? When you get (INAUDIBLE), does she do that?

CROWD: (APPLAUSE)

E. EDWARDS: My children are watching this.

CROWD: (LAUGHTER)

MATTHEWS: What‘s this with the equal marriages? Why do people marry their equals? It used to be different? What happened to the Stepford wives, the good old days? What happened?

Both John and Elizabeth looked stunned. Equal marriage: 1 MSNBC: 0

So Edwards and I have a lot of good history. As a result, it may surprise you to learn that I'm sort of undecided about supporting him right now. Why? Well, in spite of all that Edwards has to offer (and I still think it is a lot), I believe that there is a fundamental disconnect between the words coming out of his mouth and the money going in and out of his pocket. In my view Edwards is, as they say, a limousine liberal. He's a former trial lawyer that has done very, very well for himself. And he's enjoying that in some very lavish ways.

Newsweek just printed a picture of the new Edwards family compound in North Carolina (yes, compound), which includes a 28,000 (give or take) square foot home. Not including guest house. And that unsettles me. That doesn't speak very well of his understanding of poverty. That doesn't speak very well of his understanding of environmental concerns. To me, all that says is that John Edwards, as he so often talked about in 2004, believes in the existence of two Americas. And he believes in the one where the fantastically wealthy live surreal lives.

That just so happens to be an America that most people will never live in. So why vote for it? I'm certainly not naive. I know that to run for president you need to have more than a few dead ones earning 15% in the market. But that house is just excessive, and, dare I say, hypocritical. I don't like that at all.

2008 it is (impeachment is probably too much to hope for)

Once again Bryce has come up with a great idea. Once again I am going to steal it. Before you read another word, head over to his blog to see his thoughts about some of the big names in the 2008 race.

Now that you're back, let me say that I really like the idea of expressing my thoughts about the candidates this early in the race. I am even more excited about the prospect of looking back in two years (or six, or ten) and reflecting on what my impressions were when the race was just starting. Unlike Bryce, I am going to devote one full post to each candidate in order to really flesh out my thoughts. This is going to be a massive project, so it will probably take me a while, but I am determined to see it to fruition.

All horses to the starting gate.

John McCain (The Grand Ole Party)


If I had to pick a time when I first became disenchanted with the modern political machine (and by that I mean the combination of a cynical government and a compliant press), I would undoubtedly choose the 2000 Presidential primary in South Carolina. I was a big fan of John McCain back then. After the years of pettiness that ended the once promising Clinton era, McCain seemed like a breath of fresh air. While I was undoubtedly pulling for Gore, I was still excited about the prospect of a general election race against McCain because I saw it as a no lose situation for the American people.

Bush, clearly the favorite son of the GOP establishment (no pun intended), had been unexpectedly trounced by McCain in New Hampshire, and was losing ground nationally as well. Until South Carolina. In South Carolina, McCain had the decency to oppose the use of the Confederate flag as a part of the official state flag. He had the decency to call out George W. for visiting Bob Jones University, a school that, at the time, did not allow interracial dating. The more time that McCain spent in South Carolina, the more I liked him.

He was doing so well in South Carolina, and the chosen son so poorly, that the decision was made by the Bush team and the GOP that McCain needed to be taken out of the race. And he was. Somehow Bush, aided by the GOP talking heads, was able to accuse McCain, a Vietnam veteran and prisoner of war who had been tortured, of being soft on defense. This is a man who, while still living and still in government, had a naval vessel named after him. Yes, there really is a USS John McCain. Unbelievably, this ridiculous claim stuck. Bush went on to win, decisively, in South Carolina, and was given the GOP nomination at the convention a few months later. We all know how that story turns out.

I can't tell you how devastated I was by what happened in South Carolina. Even as a student of history, the ridiculous claims of the Bush camp, and their shameless coverage by the press, struck me as particularly heinous. At the time I remember thinking "but all of this is just so patently false." In retrospect, those were the good old days. But why bring up all of this history anyway? Isn't this about McCain '08? Well, I bring it up because I think it is important to show just how much of my esteem John McCain has lost.

McCain used to be a man that voters could depend on to speak truth to power, even in the midst of it. Those days are long, long gone. It's sad that so many pundits now use his "Straight Shooter" nickname, and reputation, ironically. Sad, but not uncalled for. Where does one even start? How about his relative silence on immigration while serving as the Senator of a state where it long ago passed into the realm of crisis? Of course there is his very public courting of key figures in the religious right, including Jerry Falwell, a man he once called "an agent of intolerance." Worst of all, perhaps, is McCain's compromise with the Bush administration on torture. Other than campaign finance reform and Senate ethics reform, both of which were badly botched, I cannot name a single thing that McCain has done in the last six years that I like. Come to think of it, I don't have much more of anything to say about this candidate at all. The hope I once found in John McCain has been replaced by little more than regrets about what could have been.

But none of this really matters because, sadly, I am no longer John McCain's target voter. He is clearly looking to rally what Andrew Sullivan calls the "Christianist" base, while hoping that his maverick reputation will still resonate with the independents and libertarians that have supported him for so long. My call: no one is buying it. McCain's base has already largely abandoned him, disgusted by the behavior that I have just listed. And the GOP base? Forget about it. They trust McCain less than they trust Lieberman, and he still caucuses with the Democrats. This is a party that prizes loyalty above all else. Remember Reagan's "Eleventh Commandment," never speak ill of a fellow Republican? Not even his continued support of Bush's surge (cough, escalation) will wash the bad taste out of their mouths.

The only real things that McCain's got going for him at this point are name recognition and his reputation as a war hero. Even if the voters in the general election would pull for him, they will probably never get the chance to decide. Unless the GOP gets REALLY desperate, he will never make it past the primaries. McCain's only hope is that everyone else in the race looks worse than he does. Fortunately for him, his major competitors at this point are Giuliani and Romney. Actually, McCain '08 is starting to look pretty plausible after all.