Taking a Look at 2009

Where are we headed in 2009? A new administration lies in wait. The degree of hope, anticipation, and expectation is palpable. The number of challenges in every conceivable sphere seems overwhelming. What to do first? How to prioritize? How to avoid the many pitfalls? Can Republicans and Democrats, or even Democrats and Democrats really work together to solve problems? In the words of the President-elect, how will 'this time' really be different from all the other times?

Let's take a look at the challenges. First, there's the domestic front. The recession doesn't seem to be going away. The infrastructure stimulus appears to be the first order of business. There is the ongoing bailout of the auto industry. What's to be done with the remaining billions in the Wall Street bailout - can we at least add greater accountability as we continue to spend these funds? Are we looking at additional bailouts down the road? Do we need to do more about housing, which was the initial culprit in the present crisis? What about health care and energy initiatives? I think you get the idea.

Let's not forget international affairs. Can we find at least a semi-positive resolution in Iraq? Are we in danger of plunging too deeply into a new quagmire in Afghanistan? What about the Israeli-Palestinian peace process? We have just learned that Israel has started bombing in Gaza. That doesn't seem to be helpful. How are we going to enhance the stature of our country overseas? What about Iran and North Korea, or India and Pakistan? What surprises are out there that we may not even be thinking about now?

I understand that the President-elect has found himself in the dark as he vacations in Hawaii. In fact the entire island of Oahu wound up without power. What kind of an omen is this? Does this signal a sense of impending doom as we try to tackle the oncoming problems we face? Perhaps, rather, it suggests that we are starting out in darkness or with serious problems; but the lights are about to come on, if only slowly, as we begin the new year of 2009. I find the latter a much preferred interpretation of the darkness omen.

One thing is certain, there will be no shortage of issues and stories for reporters to write about, and bloggers to blog about in 2009. It would be nice if we tread a bit gently on the new adminsistration. Let's give them a chance to get their feet on the ground. Maybe we can look for small and gradual successes instead of expecting the waters of the Red Sea to be parted in the first week. Unquestionably the enormity of the task is daunting. But as the old chinese proverb tells us, the journey of a 1000 miles begins with a single step.

Happy New Year.

Rick Warren Goes to the Inauguration

How can it be that the individual asked to give an invocation at the inauguration can create so much controversy? Is this a sign of just how much religion matters in our country today? Is it an indication of just how uncivil we have all become to those who disagree with us on any issue? Does it suggest that ideology has developed to the point where it trumps good sense or even good manners?

My first indication of such a trend occurred several years ago when the Governor of my state was disinvited from speaking at a local Cathoic college, becase an anti-abortion group objected to the Governor's position on abortion. Never mind that the Governor had done many good things for the poor, to improve health care, etc. None of these things mattered, because of his position on abortion. It didn't even matter that as the Governor of the state he was an individual our community needed to work with and dialogue with in order to further our aims on any number of issues. The decision to disinvite seemed ludicrous at the time, yet it has become a commonplace way of doing business. The decision to not talk to those we disagree with has became the norm rather than an aberration.

Let me admit that there is certainly reason to understand how the Gay Community feels about the issue of Rick Warren. The bitter defeat of Gay Marriage in California still stings. The fact that Rick Warren worked hard for the passage of Proposition 8 adds to the feelings involved. The question is asked whether President-elect Obama is deliberately insulting the Gay community, or did not really believe what he said on these issues during the campaign. Some may even feel a sense of betrayal.

However, anyone who has followed the Obama campaign would not be the least bit surprised at the invitation to Rick Warren. The central theme of his campaign has been to bring people together. He heralded a new kind of politics. He was criticized for wanting to meet with Heads of State regarding international conflicts. How much more important to be able to meet with fellow Americans who disagree wih us. Where is it written that we must hate those who do not agree with us on every issue? Must we demonize, isolate, and shun all those who oppose us? Is everyone either for us or against us?

In fact, Pastor Warren has done many positive things that we can celebrate. He has extended the breadth of evangelical issues to include poverty and the environment. His popular book, The Purpose Driven Life has helped many toward self understanding and self improvement. It is in this seeking of common ground that we can come together to work for a better country. President-elect Obama has made clear that he doesn't want to leave everyone on the sidelines that did not vote for him. There are many issues on which we can work together across the aisle, and this is the goal. Of course the President-elect will be opposed on any number of issues. In some cases he will be opposed by those who voted for him and are members of his own party. But gaining the widest possible consensus as we move forward on specific issues is to be desired.

What a great opportunity it is for Pastor Rick Warren to call down upon President-elect Obama the blessings of the almighty for the work of the nation. As he lends his voice to those praying and hoping for great things from this administration we should be uplifted, not discouraged. The path ahead is steep and there are many barriers in our way, but the more people we can bring aboard to make the journey together, the better our chances for success. The goal is to do things differently this time around. This time we need to listen to each other, and when we disagree, do so strongly, but without rancor. This time those of us on both the right and the left need to accept the fact that just because someone opposes us doesn't mean they are not acting in good faith. This time we need to all work together whenever we can, and when we disagree we need to work within our democratic process to attempt to build a consensus for our own point of view. I welcome Pastor Warren to the inauguration, and I am glad that he chooses to give his blessing to the work of our incoming president, even though he does not always agree with him on every issue.

Union Busting Republicans

I've often wondered why there is so much anti-unionism in this country. When we talk about oppressive regimes one of the first characteristics we look for is to see whether labor has the ability to organize. Just one example is the excitement of a Lech Walesa starting Solidarity in Poland which was shared by all Americans. It demonstrated that freedom was indeed coming to Poland, and each success of the Solidarity movement was a victory for American style democracy. Labor organizing seems to be an important quality of our democracy everywhere except in our own United States. Union membership currently is hovering around 7% across the country which is cause for great joy among conservatives and Republicans.

I understand that Unions have made many mistakes over the years in this country. I understand that there has been corruption. I understand that they have overreached. I even understand that the contracts they have won need to be modified in some cases. However, I thought the current economic problems were the result, not of unions, but of business on Wall Street. Unless I'm mistaken we are where we are because Wall Street has made mistakes. Wall Street has been corrupt. Wall Stret has overreached. It is Wall Street that has operated without regard for rules or constraints on their behavior. Yet we provided 700 billion, nay, more than a trillion dollars, to bailout Wall Street, but could find not a dime to help the likes of General Motors or Ford. No wonder Republicans have developed a reputation for being mean spirited.

We have been told repeatedly that bankruptcy is the best option for Detroit. The best option for whom? Bankruptcy will allow the companies to restructure and abrogate their union contracts. That's the real message. They want to make sure that the Union does not even have the right to negotiate necessary changes to the contract with management. The UAW has shown itself ready to make appropriate concessions and has indeed already made many of them, but these senate power brokers want to literally kill the union. We are in danger of watching the vaunted middle class of this country continue to shrink as we watch the rich continue to get richer.

We know that eight Republican senators from southern states that have contracts with non Detroit car makers voted in a solid bloc to deny money for Detroit. Was there any statesmanship in such voting? There seems to have been a determination to protect industry in its own backyard, and contribute to the demise of the Big Three. They have demanded that the union accept the same terms as companies operating in the south in order to receive any kind of bailout. Such coercive micromanaging at the congressional level sounds strange coming from Republicans. Sometimes I wonder what do they really believe. It is also important to note that currently there is very little difference in the wages of auto workers whether union or non union. The union is rightly trying to protect its current retirees who depend on their pensions to live on. These retirees gave their best years to the auto companies and are right to expect contracts with the company to be honored. I thought most Republican businessmen believed in the sacredness of contracts. I guess that applies only when the contracts protect their own interests.

Another favorite Republican campaign cry is that Democrats are playing class warfare. The whole bailout history demonstrates that it is Republicans who are playing hardball class warfare. We have to bailout our friends in wall street, but the blue collar workers not only can, but must go down the tubes so that our friends can make even more money. When Unionism is completely destroyed in this country maybe we will be able to think back to a time when the lower classes were not oppressed. Maybe we can look to Poland as an example of what workers in the United States might aspire to. Maybe we can hope that the time will come again when the right of U.S. workers to organize will not be denigrated and impeded by those with power and wealth.

The Obama Cabinet

During the last few weeks President-elect Obama has assembled an impressive economic and national security team. The appointments have received rave reviews. The strength of experience and overall quality has been affirmed by Democrats and Republicans alike. Surveys of public opinion have demonstrated widespread support for the appointments. About 71% support Hillary Clinton as Secretary of State designate, and 80% or more approve of retaining Secretary Gates at the Defense Department. Overall, the cabinet has about 75% approval of the public.

There are detractors. The main caveat seems to be the convergence of too many large egos for effective governance. Has President-elect Obama put together a 'team of rivals' as Doris Kearns Goodwin describes in her book on Lincoln, and is that a good or bad thing? Well, we know the egos of the George W. Bush cabinet failed pretty miserably. Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfield, and Colin Powell just didn't make it. The difference, I believe, was that the Bush cabinet represented two widely divergent ideologies that could not be reconciled, thus precipitating a major power struggle. In this case, despite media efforts to highlight major differences among the Obama National Security team for example, they really pale in comparison to the differences within the Bush cabinet. There is also likely a difference in leadership qualities between the current and incoming Presidents.

The conflicts between Hillary and Barack on foreign policy during the primaries came to the fore precisely because no major differences actually existed. Both candidates had to magnify minor differences such as who should talk to Iran, because they shared a quite similar overall vision for foreign policy. The differences Obama had with Secretary Gates over Iraq have pretty much been eliminated because of the changes on the ground in Iraq and the new Status of Forces Agreement approved by the Iraqi government. The entire National Security team is in agreement that diplomacy needs to be used more frequently and more effectively, and that military entanglements need to be minimized.

So have we indeed assembled the dream team? All Americans should hope that this is so. I believe all the principals can and will work together. In the short term there is much to be hopeful about. One major question, though, is just how patient will the American people be. How much latitude will they give this administration to function? I don't believe there will be problems initially by team members not working together, or trying to out maneuver each other. The problem, rather, will be how much of an opportunity will the American people give them to operate.

The judgement on this cabinet and on the individuals in it needs to be exercised in the area of performance. The Economic Team for example needs to be given a chance to put their recovery plan in place. If Congress impedes progress on Obama initiatives we will never know if their recovery plan can work. Every decision Obama makes will by definition produce both agreement and disagreement. Each item in the stimulus plan will be both praised and attacked by various members of congress as it is unveiled. Yet the truth is there is no magic bullet that all can agree will turn the economy around in the shortest amount of time. I believe we need to trust the leaders we have put in office and support their efforts to revive our economy. Picking apart the stimulus plan, or insisting that narrow interests be included for political reasons will interfere with progress at a time when we all need to be pulling together. There will be plenty of time to play politics, but if there was ever a time when a new administration should be given a chance to implement their policies, this is it.

The time for criticism will undoubtedly come soon enough, and of course plenty of mistakes will be made. Hopefully, though, if President-elect Obama is given an opportunity to put in place a well thought out plan crafted by his team of experts that everyone seems to believe in, we will see enough successes to move our country forward again. I agree that the team is impressive, lets give them a chance to work their magic.

Cardinal Francis Stafford Speaks

He was a young priest walking the streets of Baltimore strongly advocating for civil rights. He himself claims to have been motivated by the American Theologian John Courtney Murray who's great work on religious liberty was codified into Church teaching at the Second Vatican Council. He now finds Hans Urs von Balthasar and others as theologians more to his taste. Fortunately, the Document on Religious Liberty from the council still stands and Cardinal Francis Stafford cannot discard it.

It is difficult to ponder the Cardinal's words to a recent gathering in Washington. They are stark, condemnatory, and sound not a single conciliatory note. Reading the entire text of what he said as printed in the National Catholic Reporter is truly distressing. What has happened to this good priest from the Archdiocese of Baltimore? It is easy to say that he has been in Rome too long. He has forgotten what it means to work among the people. Maybe he needs to return to Baltimore, walk the streets, and find out what is going on in people's lives. What are the issues ordinary people, Catholics and non-catholics face? To what extent do the Cardinal's remarks have any connection to the real world that people live in?

What Cardinal Stafford learns from Balthasar and others is that the Curch needs to be counter-cultural. O.K. What does that mean? Does it mean that the Church needs to attack everything that seems to be part of modern culture, even though some of it may be good? Like Johannine dualism do we see the world as darkness and the Church as light? Stafford goes on to attack Thomas Jefferson and the Declaration of Independence of the country he used to be part of. Roe vs. Wade, he tells us, has produced a downward spiral in this country so that it can no longer be called the land of freedom. There is no mention of life issues such as war, poverty, caring for the oppressed, etc. etc. For Stafford the seeds of this evil spiral go back to our founding fathers and their acceptance of slavery even in the constitution. It is so easy to find fault with the government in this country. We are a nation becoming, and we have stumbled many times. But even the example that Stafford gives demonstrates movement toward progress in this country from the Civil Rights movement he participated in, to the election of an African American president which he deplores. Unfortunately there is not a commensurate look at the horrendous mistakes we find in the 2000 year history of the Church which continue to the present day in the clergy abuse scandal and its coverup.

Stafford has taken one aspect of the Church and has distorted the Church by diminishing many other equally important facets of Church tradition. God created the world and said that it was good as Genesis tells us. The Psalms proclaim the goodness of our God, as not only the forests and birds of the air, but trumpets, lyres, and human voices are raised in praise of the Lord. This is God's world, and we must examine the culture, not to condemn it, but to find what is good in it, find what is sacred in it, and work to enhance it and make it even better.

Yet the Cardinal's rhetoric about our new President-elect includes some really shocking statements. We are told that our country has become a dirty house in a gutted world. Obama's message is a very toxic anti-humanism. We are entering an era of the Garden of Gethsemanie as we weep over the violence concealed behind his (Obama's) rhetoric. Stafford sees the new administration as all about coercing individual consciences. I'm curious as to how it is that banning all abortions does not coerce individual consciences. Stafford seems unable to see the larger world in which people live. The fact that he has woven webs of intricate theological mumbo jumble (read some of the rhetoric in his piece) does not mean that everyone else subscribes to his statements. Of course for him, those who don't agree are acting in bad faith and therefore are without rights.

The Freedom of Choice Act seems to be what has the good Cardinal so upset. Of course there is no such law at the moment, but is one the congress will be dealing with in the future. It apparently is coercion when professionals are expected to provide information or services that are legally available. This is a delicate situation, and certainly the Freedom of Choice Act is worthy of legitimate debate. If American Church leaders have concerns about some possible provisions of such an act they should sit down with policy makers and express their concerns. No doubt solutions can be found. These solutions will not satisfy everyone, because that's the way a democracy works. All people and their rights must be protected, not just Catholics. That is the role of government. Maybe Stafford cares only about protecting the rights of the institutional church. It must be remembered, however, that Cardinals coming over here from Rome cannot dictate American policy and law.

Finally, the Cardinal accuses Obama of violence. What about the violence of his words that might encourage others to do harm to our young president? To suggest that Obama is akin to the anti-Christ, or as he says it, Obama is apocalyptic because he goes "contrary to natural and divine laws regarding human life", is not a way to bring peace. We have already been told that there have been more threats against President-elect Obama than any other President-elect in history. Thanks for stirring up the pot. Isn't it interesting that Pope Benedict XVI congratulated Obama after the election and spoke to him on cooperating on issues such as poverty, war, and other areas of agreement. The U.S. Catholic Bishops also delivered a much more conciliatory statement. Cardinal Stafford could find nothing positive to say about the new administration. I don't think any American of whatever political stripe could read the full text of Cardinal Stafford's words and not be filled with disgust. Cardinal Stafford may be entering an era of agony in the garden, but American Catholics do not agree. The majority voted for Obama, and they are filled with hope and good will that despite the challenges he faces, the new president may be able to lead us into a better world. As we approach the Christmas season it might be well for the Cardinal to remember our Savior who brought hope to the world by becoming part of it, becoming like us in every way except sin. He chose to lift humanity up, not tear it down.

Change We Can Believe In

Every new announcement from the Obama transition team is greeted with the refrain 'I thought he was going to bring change, but this is more of the same'. I wonder what the media and others were expecting. Maybe if the President-elect were placing 18 year olds out of high school or 22 year olds out of college into cabinet posts it would be considered change.

First of all, I wonder where the notion came from that change meant rejecting the Clinton administration. I never heard Senator Obama say that he had a problem with the successes of the Clinton years. I thought change meant that we wanted to move away from the past eight years. The intent was to change the dynamics of the war in Iraq, to restore some of our lost civil liberties, to end torture as part of our policy, to bring competence back into our government (which by the way was a hallmark of the Clinton years), to restore our credibility and good name abroad, and to work with others both in and outside of our country as colleagues and not as flunkies to do our bidding.

The press has already demonstrated its distaste for everything Clinton, but it is time to put these withering voices aside. The press vented itself for whatever slights it may have received during the 90's all through the primary season and had much to do with sinking the Hillary campaign, but enough is enough. After all, Barack Obama is the President-elect and it is his judgement that matters as to who he wants in his cabinet. The press will have plenty of opportunity to judge the new cabinet on their performance so lighten up a bit. Also, whatever one may think of the principals themselves, their administration was filled with quality professionals who acquitted themselves well. They exude the experience that is needed for the many crises we face, and we should welcome them into the mix for the rough ride that is ahead. I would be interested in knowing who might be recommended for these posts that could bring anything to the table even close to what the likes of Rahm Emmanuel, Eric Holder, Larry Summers and others have to offer. Whatever problems Hillary may bring with her as Secretary of State are problems for the President-elect, not the New York Times etc. Unless, that is, the media is still determined to destroy the Clintons.

Frankly I am sick of it. Every new administration calls on the best and brightest of previous administrations. Unfortunately the experience gained in the current administration are not such that one would wish to call on their expertise. Obama is doing a good job of pulling the best and brightest together based on the needs of our country at this time. It is time for the media to stop expressing its disdain everytime anything Clinton is added to the mix. You saw to it that she did not become President or Vice President so stop with the nastiness.

I might just add for those who would say that the Clinton nomination has been handled poorly. I agree. I'm still willing to chalk that up to the growing pains of any new administration. Yet the media wants to blame the Clinton's for every bit of drama in this story. Andrea Mitchell was the first to break this story and she did not get the story from the Clintons. Hopefully it will get sorted out quickly. However, the constant determination of the media to ascribe sinister motives, and political intrigue to every Clinton move is truly getting old.

Transition from Candidate to President

It has been 14 days since Senator Obama was elected as the 44th President of the United States and he has yet to announce a Cabinet member. Not only that, but the economy is still in trouble, troops are still in Iraq, and his two girls are still without their hypo-allergenic dog. I don't know about you, but this whole thing is just going too slowly for me.

I just saw this morning that 80% of Russians would have voted for Obama if they could have voted. Babies all over the world are being named Barack. Even in the Middle East expectations are sky high, and yet, President-elect Obama keeps reminding us that we only have one president at a time and he is not yet the president. The world seems very much like a kid with a candy bar that has been told he cannot eat it until he finishes his dinner. I don't know how many peas we're going to have to eat before we get to dessert.

I might also say that I don't think I have ever seen a transition quite like this one. My recollection is that in general President-elects head for vacation right after the election. This President-elect is already putting in long hours. He wasn't even able to head back to Hawaii for his grandmother's memorial service. I wasn't around for FDR's transition, but given the gravity of the nation's problems in 1932, and the additional delay before the actual inauguration it must have been mind boggling. There is little doubt, that all President-elect Obama's hard work will help him hit the ground running with a strong staff in place on January 20th, but what happens in the meantime?

There are so many pitfalls to avoid, and so many traps to fall into. Do you cooperate or stay aloof from the current administration? Do you attend the global summit? Do you promote an auto industry bailout or not? Do you meet with world leaders, and which ones? Do you announce your cabinet all at once, or piece by piece? How many and which Republicans should be part of your cabinet? How far do you go to ensure that your cabinet has the right number of minorites, females, etc.? It makes me tired just thinking about it. That doesn't even include developing policies to address all the critical and multi-faceted problems staring the country in the face.

What have we seen so far, and what tantalizing bits of information can we glean from these first steps? First the leaks. A campaign with no missteps suddenly seems to be full of rumors and a little bumpiness. Rahm Emmanuel's name was leaked as the new chief of staff before the election. Then, he said he was mulling the decision over. Seemed a little sloppy. Names for various cabinet positions are coming from many sources. Maybe its just the transition from a small team of campaign advisors to the enormous number of people involved in the transition. Maybe some of the leaks like that of Hillary Clinton have been intentional. Maybe we just need to realize that no transition is perfect. No cause for worry at this point, but it might bear watching.

Although criticized by some Republicans the selection of Rahm Emmanuel is an excellent one. The importance of a strong chief of staff can not be over stated. President Clinton was at his best when Leon Panetta was his chief of staff. It remains one of the most encouraging signs of the in-coming administration that the best and brightest seem to be the ones Obama is inclined to call on. The list reads like a who's who directory: Bob Gates, Bob Rubin, Larry Summers, Paul Volker, Hillary Clinton. The list goes on and on. The greatest difficulty will probably be in choosing the right person from each list. But the end result certainly looks promising.

Perhaps President-elect Obama is addressing the too high expectations best, by just slowing down a bit the public roll out of his administration. He is clearly working hard behind the scenes. Yet, I think he may be trying to get all of us used to the reality that positive change will be gradual, and we are not going to see a new problem solved each day. We are just going to have to wait awhile for that candy bar.

Taking a Look at the Catholic Vote

The Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life has mined some interesting data from the exit polls concerning the role of religion in last week's election. In every religious category President-elect Obama did significantly better than John Kerry did in 2004. Even among weekly church goers of all religions the Obama vote increased from 35% for Kerry to 43% for Obama. Among Catholics Obama received 54% of the vote as opposed to Kerry's 47%.

It is interesting to note that the Catholic Bishops this year have been more adamant about opposing pro-choice candidates than in any year in the past. There were a small group of vocal bishops opposing Kerry in 2004. That number grew in 2008. Can it be that there is an inverse relationship among Catholics in that the more the heirarchy warns against voting for a candidate, the more likely they are to vote for that candidate? Catholics, as all other Americans, do not expect to be told who they are allowed to vote for, and they will not tolerate it even from their Bishops. In this democracy the right to vote without any kind of coercion is a sacred right. Add to that the dismal record of our Bishops in the sex-abuse scandal and any kind of credibility they may have had is diminished. Do the Bishops really want to take on a President Obama on abortion related issues and reduce their relevance even more?

Catholic Theologian, Richard McBrien, in an October 27 column in the National Catholic Reporter makes some important points. First of all, he emphasizes that the official teaching of the Catholic Church is not in question. He goes on to make clear that the position of the Bishops has not varied. The Church can and will in no way endorse any candidate for President of the United States or any other position. Furthermore, no bishop is to speak in opposition to a candidate, since that is in effect a form of endorsement. These points have been made in writing in a number of documents. A Catholic, as McBrien noted, had every right to vote for either presidential candidate.

Why then do we hear a growing number of clerical voices raised against pro-choice candidates, and so few voices raised to challenge these Bishops? It really is a matter of politics. The pro-life voices are very loud, and no Bishop seems to want to speak against them. There is a strong pro-life lay faction in the Church that is demanding stronger and stronger action against any one considered out of step with the pro-life aganda. This is not about church doctrine. It is about strong arm tactics to promote a point of view and running rough shod over anyone else who might have even a slightly different perspective.

I read with sadness many of the responses to Dr. McBrien's column in NCR. The narrow, single issue point of view is destructive to the Church and our country. The notion that overturning Roe v Wade, which is not Church doctrine by the way, is more important than what happens to our economy and working Americans, the lives of soldiers and civilians in Iraq, Afghanistan, etc, is disturbing. The Church needs to come to grips with some of these issues. The Bishops need to demonstrate enough courage to put forth a balanced, nuanced approach to this issue, that remembers that people of goodwill may differ, and deserve to be heard as well.

The Church is better than the rhetoric we are hearing and its high time some leadership develops that leads us away from the brink. Of course the Church should continue to speak out on its legitimate positions in this area. I don't believe demonizing anyone who may disagree even marginally is the right thing to to do. Just because some religious and lay leaders from various faith traditions have decided to demagogue this issue, does not mean that should be the position of the Catholic Bishops of this country. Perhaps the election results will convice Bishops that they may be hurting their cause more than helping it, and becoming more intransigent may just isolate them further from the communinty they seek to influence.

President Obama

I had been a strong supporter of Senator Hillary Clinton for president. First of all, I liked her and felt she would be a very good if not great President. Additionally, I also felt that the notion of this country electing an African American President was just not a realistic one at this point in time. I was not alone in that belief. It should not be forgotten that African Americans also strongly supported Hillary Clinton, because they too had difficulty seeing Senator Obama as a serious candidate. It was not until Obama won in Iowa, a predominately white state, that African Americans began to believe that white America would actually vote for a black man for president.

There can be no doubt that this election represents a very historic moment in American History. Those of us who lived through the Civil Rights Movement are overwhelmed at where we are in this country today. The vivid scenes of peaceful demonstrators being attacked on our television screens each evening remain very much with us. Being a part of school integration, and then watching as very quickly schools essentially became resegregated and stayed that way did not give one much reason to hope. Yet America really has changed. Is there still racism and discrimination in our country? Of course. Are there blocks of voters out there who would never consider voting for a black man for president? Absolutely. But the undeniable truth is that the percentage of such people was simply not large enough to change the outcome of this election. President-elect Obama received about 44% of the white vote, which is actually more white votes than Bill Clinton ever received. It is also true that white voters no longer represent as significant a prpoportion of the electorate as in the past. African American and Hispanic voters voted in large numbers for Obama.

As historic as this election has been, it is interesting to note that young voters don't have the same perspective about the magnitude of the event as older voters. Two thirds of voters under 30 supported Obama. These young voters, however, whether they were black, white, hispanic, etc. did not factor race into the equation to any extent. They latched on to a young, intelligent, competent candidate with a good program, and they voted for him. In that sense I think their attitude is 'what's the big deal', he was the best candidate and he won.

Where do we go from here? The election of any new president brings a period of good will, and I believe even most Republicans understand the logic of what happened in this election and are prepared to meet the new president half-way. The challenges are enormous and patience is the name of the game. I believe it is critical for President-elect Obama to put together a truly bi-partisan administration with not just a token cabinet member. I believe all Americans are filled with hope, and certainly prayer will be important as well. Our hope, however, has to be based on the quality of the people called to serve in the administration, and the leadership a President Obama can deliver to move effectively, however gradually, to address the severe problems we face in the economy and in foreign affairs.

In terms of race relations in America, the encouraging thing we have seen is that our young people really are moving beyond race and want to live and work together in a more perfect world. As Ambassador Andrew Young put it, he still has the scars of his long struggle that he can't fully put aside, but Senator Obama does not have these same scars which made it possible for him to be a post racial candidate. All Americans now, young, old, black, white, and others need to join in that post racial world and maybe we will have gotten to the promised land of Martin Luther King and can begin to sit down at that table of brotherhood where all God's children can be free. No we have not arrived at Utopia, but maybe we can have the audacity to hope.

Word Games

For Democrats the code word has always been Social Security. Mention of this word is designed to send fear into older voters that Republicans will damage their future security. The Republican refrain of tax and spend liberal has been equally powerful in destroying many a Democratic candidacy. It matters not if these words have any true validity in a particular case, their power comes simply from using the word.

This campaign, however, has worked overtime at promoting words with little or no substance behind them. The McCain campaign has resorted to name calling with almost daily escalation of the words used to describe Barack Obama. We have heard he's going to raise your taxes, despite anything Obama has said to discount that charge. We are hearing free floating charges of liberal, escalating to socialist, and even Marxist or communist. We know these words have negative connotations, so accusing a candidate of such a connection may be enough to defeat him. Senator Obama used the phrase spread the wealth around, so he must be a Socialist. Of course, there is no reference to the redistribution of wealth to the top that has been going on under the current administration. A campaign lacking substance is beneath John McCain and the Republicans, but it seems to be par for the course in a losing campaign.

Why do these empty words work so well? According to Jon Meacham in an excellent Newsweek article in the October 27th issue, it may be because the United States continues to be a conservative country. The words resonate because compared to Europe we are more religious, more socially conservative, and our libertarian streak makes us averse to taxes and government programs. The point of Meacham's article is that even if Obama wins he would do well to govern from the center or center right, or his presidency will be brief.

There is much truth to Meacham's article, especially if the comparison is to Europe. We have had different experiences. The great war did not have the same effects here as it did in Europe. The social issues of gun control, abortion, and gay marriage have hit a responsive chord among many Americans. Yet, as Jonathan Alter's opposing viewpoint in Newsweek points out the country is changing. Most importantly these changes are being seen among the young, which suggests that changes will continue especially on social issues. Additionally, if nothing else, Americans try to be abundantly fair. This is why we have seen over time significant changes in civil rights for minorities, women, and gays. Eventually Americans change because they see it as the right thing to do, and that it is simply required by what our country stands for - freedom for all, not just some. Even when it comes to tax policy at some point the question beomes are we really being fair to all, if our tax policy is designed only as pro-business. Most would agree with Senator Obama that the middle-class deserves a tax break.

It is also worth noting in response to Jon Meacham's article, that the Democratic presidencies he cites as over reaching can also be interpreted differently. For instance, Lyndon Johnson lost not because of resistance to the great society, but because of Vietnam. Jimmy Carter's failure resulted from the Iran hostage crisis, not his liberal policies. Finally, Bill Clinton was reelected despite the scandals of his administration, because people liked his center-left policies. Democrats were even supported in 1998 over impeachment happy Republicans.

But ultimately, I think the problem may be that the wrong question is being asked. Fundamentally, the issue of whether the country is liberal or conservative is the wrong one. The circumstances of the 2008 election have demonstrated that Americans are basically neither conservative nor liberal but pragmatic. They want their government to work. Whether a policy is liberal or conservative matters not if it will get the job done. Congress had so much trouble with the so-called rescue plan on ideological grounds. People were amazed. Their only interest was, would it work. If it qualifies as socialist, but rescues a failed economy, it really doesn't matter. I believe Americans have looked at Katrina, failed policies in Iraq, Afghanistan, and on other foreign issues, as well as the serious financial crisis, and see their government as being broken. They want it fixed, and will take a chance on anyone who is willing to try some new strategies. After all it fits in with our adventurous spirit, and it looks like we are about to begin an exciting new adventure on Tuesday.

How Catholics Should Vote

The Archbishop of Denver, Charles Chaput tells us that Joe Biden should not present himself for communion, and that Barack Obama is the most pro abortion candidate since Roe v Wade was first decided. What are we to make of such a statement. Well, he's the Archbishop so I guess the discussion is over, and he has settled the issue if not for all Catholics at least for all Denver Catholics.

The one redeeming feature of the Archbishop's comments is that he says he is making the statement as a private citizen and not as the head of the Archdiocese. The problem of course is that he is not a private citizen, and his remarks are taken by many as the official words of the infallible church in action. Just as General Colin Powell cannot be misconstrued as a private citizen when he crosses party lines to support Barack Obama for president, so the head of a major Archdiocese making a statement is not the same as a statement coming from 'Joe the Plumber'.

Yet, we also saw Barack Obama and John McCain enjoying dinner together with Cardinal Egan of New York the other evening. They had both been invited to the traditional Al Smith dinner, and both candidates were warmly received by the New York Archbishop and Cardinal. Cardinal Egan had many positive things to say about both candidates. Nothing occurred which would have intimated that it was O.K. to vote for one of the candidates but not the other. If anything, as an event recognizing the famous Democratic governor of New York, the assumption was that there were a lot of Democrats there, both clerical and non-clerical. So who is more important, the New York Cardinal or the Denver archbishop?

Additionally, in a September 18 article in the National Catholic Reporter, Archbishop John Favalora of Miami is indicated as having said that the Church can not be compared to a "party boss" and will not tell people how to vote. These comments were made in the process of rejecting a consortium of conservative Christian ministries to directly promote certain candidates who espouse specific scriptural values. The Archbishop points out that there are many ways to interpret scripture, and he also acknowledges the importance of the constitutional separation of Church and State as it relates to maintaining the Church's tax exemption.

The different voices within the Church might suggest to some that we need to develop in this country a uniform set of rules for what is acceptable in the political arena. I would submit, however, that we need to do precisely the opposite. What is demonstrated here is how tricky it is for a religious leader to insert themselves into a political discussion. Political decisions need to be made by politicians and the voters, not clerics. As the Archbishop of Miami noted, the Church should appropriately state its positions on moral issues, but it must be remembered that having a moral position on an issue is not the same as translating ones point of view into a political or legal policy. Clearly one cannot simply adhere to one specific religious leaders' comments as normative without personal reflection. We live in a world and a country where we are called individually to discern what the best course of action may be, and as Archbishop Favalora says, it is not up to the Church to determine how Catholics vote.

Let's look at the circumstance of the 2008 election. Suppose we reject a candidate who could help solve our economic crisis because of his position on abortion. We also reject a candidate who could help solve the energy crisis, the health care crisis, and who could lead America positively through the many foreign policy crises we face. Of course we don't know if any candidate can do any or all of these things, but isn't that exactly what each voter must decide for themselves? When a religious leader determines what issue should decide the campaign and how voters should vote on this issue, they demonstrate their lack of understanding of democracy and how our government operates. If nothing else, Archbisop Chaput has demonstrated what not to do.

Embracing one issue politics regarding abortion suggests that there is no other issue besides abortion worthy of consideration. This is a distortion of the 2000 year history of the Roman Catholic Church. It demonstrates that those religious leaders who promote such a position are fixated on the topic of abortion, but it does not mean that the Church itself shares this fixation. The Church is involved all over the world in many critical issues for its members and for non-members alike. Such issues include war, peace, poverty etc. These issues matter. To say that none of these issues should influence one's vote in an election in the United States of America, demeans the importance and the critical role that our country as well as the Vatican play in the affairs of the world. When you compare these matters with the limited influence the President of the United States will have on this country's abortion policy, the one issue voter seems foolish or naive.

Can McCain Come Back?

History would suggest that we will see a closing of this race in the last nineteen days. Some of the red states that seem to be turning blue will revert to traditional voting patterns. Those independents who usually vote Republican, but have been toying with the prospect of an Obama vote, will decide that they are more comfortable with McCain. Besides, John McCain gave his best debate performance last night. He was feisty and gave clear Republican arguments on taxes and the economy. He attacked and put Obama on the defensive. Obama seemed slightly off his game.

Yet post debate polls gave Obama the same clear victory he has shown in each of the previous debates. Voters did not seem to feel any better about John McCain after this debate than before. It seems that the character of this race has already jelled. What Obama gained in the first two debates in terms of being seen as presidential, more steady than McCain, and even more likeable are firmly in place. The image of John McCain as angry, negative, and attacking on irrelevant subjects has been established. Obama is out pointing McCain in areas that would never have been expected: leadership, coolness in a crisis, judgment, and even the right kind of experience.

Senator Obama was right twenty long months ago when he began his campaign. This election is about change, and that's what the American people are demanding. The problematic economy solidified this judgment, and a marginally better debate performance is not going to alter the fundamentals of the campaign. Although the discussion has changed, the American people have not forgotten Katrina, the Iraq War, secrecy, torture and the erosion of civil liberties; in short, the things that have given George Bush a 23% favorability rating. The country seems more than ready to turn the page.

Senator McCain, however, says that he is not George Bush, and that George Bush is not running. First thing this morning a new Obama add tackled that issue. It even replayed John McCain's own words in which he had previously said with pride that he had voted with George Bush 90% of the time, more than many other Republicans. This quick response highlights the other part of the mountain that John McCain needs to climb. He has neither the resources nor organization necessary to close this gap. These are areas where Republicans are normally quite strong. Clearly it was their ground game that beat John Kerry in 2004. Yet in state after state, including such red states as Virginia and North Carolina, it is Obama's strong primary campaigns that have given him boots on the ground to make these states competitive.

What does John McCain do, now? He keeps fighting. He keeps campaigning non-stop. When you are down 40-0 in the 4th quarter you can quit or you can keep fighting. Nobody thinks John McCain will quit. He likely will close the race somewhat. He needs to forget the score, and continue to move forward as if the score is tied. Does he continue to talk about Bill Ayers and Acorn? I don't think it matters. I believe those issues were essentially put to rest last night. They were laid on the table and Obama responded. You can argue that questions remain, but I believe at this point there is nothing much left to say on either side. If McCain or Palin choose to continue to hammer away at these issues, they will provide background noise and cheers from the base, but I think the rest of the electorate has moved on.

Finally, What does Barack Obama have to do? Can he still lose this race? Of course a serious gaffe by him or Joe Biden could have an effect. He could also be too cautious and try to sit on his lead. Also there is always the possibility that some outside cataclysmic event could change the dynamics of the campaign. I believe Obama,like McCain, needs to put on an energetic final push. He needs to travel from state to state talking to voters about his message of change. He then needs to activate his ground game, especially in marginal states, and continue to play like he's two points behind. He needs to make sure those young and newly registered voters find their way to the polls. Maybe McCain can catch up. I just can't come up with a scenario in which that seems to be a realistic possibility.

Who is John McCain?

We've been hearing a lot of questions in the last few weeks about who Barack Obama is. Suggestions or inferences have surfaced that he may be different from the rest of us - less American, less Christian, less patriotic etc. My question during that period has not been about Barack Obama, but about John McCain.

Along with much of the "main-stream media" I have wondered what happened to the John McCain I thought I knew. I remember the candidate in 2000 who was pilloried in South Carolina by the Bush team. I think of the John McCain who stuck to his guns in advocating for immigrant populations despite the anger of crowds. I remember the John McCain who succumbed to popular sentiment about flying the confederate flag in South Carolina, but then regretted his decision publicly saying he shouldn't have done that. I remember not a perfect man, but a man of conviction and integrity.

I have heard Joe Scarborough on "Morning Joe" say a number of times that John McCain has not changed. He's always been a politician. He has always spoken like any politician, tailoring his message to the crowd in front of him. No doubt there is truth to that perspective. Yet, while it is impossible for politicians to be something other than politicians, it is also true that there are some who rise above what is expected of them. Perhaps that is what has made John McCain a real maverick in the past.

The McCain campaign in the last several weeks has gone over the top. Senator McCain has amazingly, hired many of the same team that attacked him in South Carolina. They have flooded the airways with hateful advertisements. His campaign has apparently told him that these tactics are necessary if he has any chance to win. The rallies have been the worst. Rally attendees have shouted out their feelings about Senator Obama saying everything from him being a terrorist to the need to get him or kill him.

Yesterday, we may have finally seen the old John McCain emerge. Listening to one of his supporters say that Barack Obama was an Arab he apparently couldn't take it anymore. He retrieved the microphone and said that was not true and that Obama was a decent family man, and he expected his followers to be respectful. Clearly, he has been uncomfortable with his own campaign, and finally responded like a true statesman.

What happens now? We don't know, but hopefully it will mean a genuine toning down of the over the top rhetoric at these rallies. These rallies have become not only hateful but even dangerous. It should also impact the McCain adds being run. Nothing of course can be done about the adds run by other organizations, and no doubt there will be a lot of ugly stuff going on until election day. But during the primaries McCain castigated the Republican party for attacking Obama on Jeremiah Wright. He needs to return to this more high-minded approach to his campaign, and tell his advisors to buzz-off. He especially needs to do this, because I believe this is who he truly is.

What we learned when Senator McCain retrieved that microphone is that some things are more important than winning. Tarnishing one's legacy in the midst of a final campaign does not seem to be worth the prize being sought. Senator McCain may not win this election, but if he is true to himself and runs the kind of campaign he can feel comfortable with, he can walk off the stage with his pride, dignity and integrity in place. He can hold his head high. Bravo, John McCain.

Obama Closes the Deal

On September 28, after the first debate, I wrote that I believed Barack Obama was poised to win the election fairly comfortably. Nothing that happened at last night's town hall debate suggested anything different. There were no knock out blows. Both candidates handled themselves well, although overall it was pretty boring television. If anything, it was McCain who came up with a somewhat new idea in terms of buying up bad mortgages and renegotiating their terms. So, why is this election over?

The election basically ended when the market fell 500 additional points just before the second debate began. Obama didn't really do anything to advance his cause on Tuesday night, but like the good Doctor, he did no harm. He continuted to look presidential, his calm demeanor was reassuring to many voters, and he demonstrated a command of the issues. He had already passed the threshold of being seen as presidential in the first debate. Now it was up to the voters to decide which candidate they wanted to be their president.

The voters have decided, and I believe we may be looking at an oncoming landslide. Why, because the country is now ready for change. This country generally votes for change when things are not going well. This is why people have been wondering for months why Obama was not already farther ahead. Change is always scary, but when not changing becomes more scary than embracing change, it is pretty clear what will happen. I might just add, for those who are not yet reassured, I find reassurance in the team that is working with Obama. Just on the economy all the best minds have been tapped from Bob Rubin to Warren Buffet, from Robert Reich to Paul O'Neil. The same caliber of foreign policy team also appears ready to step up to the plate.

Let me certainly add a word of caution. There is no question that 28 days is more than a life time in a political campaign. Anything can happen. However, once all the cliches have been uttered, the question remains as to just what is it that can change the direction of this campaign? It becomes more and more difficult to see what that might be. The negative campaigning does not seem to be having the desired effect. At this point even a good economic plan won't save John McCain. He needs a miraculous and speedy turn around in the economy. All the forcasts are for at least nine months of continuing economic problems.

What about Sarah Palin's huge crowds in Florida and other states? Rest assured you will see huge crowds for the McCain/Palin ticket from now to election day. Notice that these crowds are for the most part in Republican strongholds, including Nebraska. No one can doubt that conservatives are energized and are greatly enamored of Governor Palin. However, I remember that in 1996 during the last several weeks of that campaign Bob Dole kept receiving larger and larger crowds. Many, perhaps including Senator Dole, believed that he must have been gaining on Bill Clinton. As it turned out it was probably a fond public farewell to a great old soldier rather than an endorsement of his candidacy. The current crowds may say something about Sarah Palin in 2012, but beyond that the country is about to embark on the Obama era.

The Vice Presidential Debate

There was more interest in last night's debate than there was in the earlier presidential debate. Excitement was in the air. Everyone wanted to see who would fall on their face. Would Biden be the famous gaffe machine? Would Palin be able to connect two simple sentences together? It was like going to the circus to see if the tightrope walker would fall.

What did we actually see? None of the above. Joe Biden demonstrated his knowledge of the subject matter, wtithout sounding arrogant, demeaning, or cocky. He talked tough about issues, attacking John McCain's policies without attacking Governor Palin or appearing condescending.

Sarah Palin was able to retrieve her earlier confidence. No one was ready to put her into the category of Lincoln or FDR, but she did not embarrass herself. She may have not really answered many of the questions as she kept reverting to discussions of energy as her comfort zone. She did, however, maintain her dignity, and made some good points. She had a few one line zingers, but she also exhibited some sensitivity, and humanity especially on the issue of same sex couples. Biden and Palin both appeared warm and friendly toward each other, which was refreshing.

These results were predictable, given the format of the debate, and the amount of time they had to prepare. There were a limited number of questions which could pretty much be anticipated. There were no trick questions. So, unfortunately for those who were hoping for a disaster, both candidates showed up in St. Louis well prepared.

So what was the meaning of this debate? It did stop the bleeding for John McCain, but I don't believe it did anything to reverse course. The economic crisis is too much with us. Giant challenges await the next President and a decent debate performance is not going to change the equation going forward. Palin's performance should energize her base once again, but I don't believe it will move independents into McCain's column. It will be up to John McCain to win this election, not Sarah Palin. He has two more debates in which to make his case.

What does he need to to do? We are hearing strong advice to go negative and return to issues such as Jeremiah Wright and others.I think that would be a mistake. If you watched the annoying line running across the bottom of the screen as the debate was proceeding, at least on CNN, the line always trended down when any candidate was criticizing the other. At this point people are not interested in negativity. They know neither candidate is a saint. They want someone who can lead, and tell them how they are going to fix our many problems. Obama has risen over the past few weeks on the strength of his steady hand and unflappable nature. He appears to have a plan and knows what he wants to do. By contrast, John McCain has seemed erratic, jumping from one position to another, and lacking a coherent plan. He has his work cut out for him, and his unpredictable bold moves do not appear to be the answer. In the remainder of the campaign John McCain needs to show the American people why they should trust him to lead our country at such a perilous time. Telling us why Barack Obama is not that man just will not do.

Winning the First Debate

I have been watching televised debates since Kennedy/Nixon in 1960. I do not believe there has ever been more intense interest in such a debate than there was Friday night. We had heard estimates of up to 100 million viewers. Viewers were treated to a heavyweight match. It was like a Super Bowl where the game was actually good. True, it started off slow, but if you stuck with it you were rewarded with a serious, intelligent handling of the issues by both candidates. In this sense, I believe you can say that the American people were winners in this first debate.

If there is a consensus at this point it seems to be that Obama came out slightly ahead, though both candidates performed quite well. McCain demonstrated a strong grasp of the issues and was aggressive and forceful. Obama demonstrated that he belonged on the stage with John McCain even in the area of foreign policy, and that in itself may have been enough to win the debate. Although some may interpret it differently, I think Obama also came out ahead on style points. McCain's apparent refusal to look at Obama or address him directly seemed awkward at best. Obama appeared more relaxed as the debate went on, and seemed more willing to engage directly with Senator McCain.

Let's talk a few specific points. I think both were disappointing on the economy. In fact the first 30 minutes was a chance to push the snooze button. Both reiterated points from their campaign speeches, and in fact may have been nervous in the early stages of the fight as they were feeling each other out. I think it was a missed opportunity for both of them. They had just rushed back to Washington for the all important bailout. Voters wanted to know what was going on, and what was each candidate doing about it. Neither delivered. We are all still waiting for someone to explain why this whole issue is important to 'Joe Six-pack'. Why should we care about this Wall-Street bailout? No one has delivered that message which is why they are having so much trouble getting a bill passed. Someone needs to explain that we understand and share your anger that this has happened, but we also need to understand the consequences for ordinary Americans of refusing to act.

That brings up a continuing problem for Barack Obama. He still has trouble stating his message in a way that connects with the American people. He doesn't do anecdotes well, and for the most part doesn't even try. The exchange about the two soldier's who died is a case in point. McCain told of the mother of a fallen soldier who gave her son's bracelet to him to wear and to ensure that her son had not died in vain. Obama responded well by talking about the bracelet he had received from a mother who wanted him to ensure that other mothers would not have to endure what she had. It was an effective rejoinder, however, while McCain's story was filled with emotion, Obama's seemed cold.

I thought the best line in the debate for Obama was when he turned to McCain and challenged him on the Iraq war. He said that McCain was wrong on weapons of mass destruction, our soldiers being greeted as liberators, etc. It was a strong and powerful message. John McCain's best line was probably when he said that Obama was so far to the left that it was hard to reach across the Senate aisle to work with him. He was also strong in talking about the need for spending cuts.

What happens now. I am boldly ready to make a prediction. I should preface this, however, by saying that my predictions are usually the kiss of death. They are often akin to being on the cover of Sport's Illustrated. Be that as it may, I believe that Senator Barack Obama is now poised to win this election. He has been slightly ahead for some time now. He met the threshold test in this debate of being seen as a potential commander in chief. I think a tie constitutes a win for Senator Obama. I believe many undecideds were unsure about Obama's readiness to be president. He has reassured many of them. It is certainly true that some major unforseen event could change the outcome of the election. The bailout plan could fail, or there could be some other October surprise; but barring that, I believe we will see a continuing drift in the polls toward Obama over the coming weeks, and a fairly convincing victory on November 4th.

The Truth in Campaigns

Those of us who have been following political campaigns for any length of time have long since learned that candidates are going to stretch the truth over and over again during the course of a campaign. Candidates are going to describe themselves in the best light possible and at the same time cast their opponent in the most negative light possible. We understand adds for commercial products operate this way, and campaign adds are certainly no different.

My problem has always been that the mainstream media in the past has felt constrained to equate all questionable statements as equal. The impression that was often left was that both sides are doing it and therefore they are all alike. The corollary of that often winds up being that politicians are all crooks and none of them are any good. This turns out to be not a very edifying prospect for the art of politics. Perhaps the ironic thing is that with the advent of talk radio and Fox News there is not much of a media that can really be called mainstream anymore. Evenhandedness no longer seems as important, and there are reasonably neutral fact checkers out there who I think are doing a better job of differentiating somewhat minor mistatements from truly outrageous statements. Plus, if you want the spin for a particular side, and many of us do, you can always go to Fox News or Keith Olbermann on MSNBC.

For my part, I believe that the McCain campaign has truly gone over the top with its aggressive determination to distort the truth, tell outright untruths, and continue to insist on the veracity of these statements even when their fallacies have been pointed out by objective sources. I think many of us expected more from Senator McCain and as a result are very disappointed with the tenor of his campaign.

Certainly the Obama campaign is not without sin. For how long did they milk John McCain's comment about having troops in Iraq for 100 years? They are distorting the truth with their use of McCain's comment that the fundamentals of our economy are sound. They have also on various occasions none to subtly played the age card. Many additional examples could be given.

However, there seems to be a deliberate and organized attempt by the McCain campaign to say just about anything if it will help them get elected. There is also a determination never to back down or admit the falsity of what they have said no matter how clearly untrue their statement may have been shown to be. Unfortunately this pattern seems to be all too familiar from the George Bush administration we know so well. Again, probably the most disturbing aspect of this campaign is that it seems so uncharacteristic of the John McCain we thought we knew. I find it difficult to recognize the presidential candidate of 2000.

Let's start with the continual refrain that Barack Obama is going to raise taxes on everyone including the middle class. No one knows what might happen after the election, but Senator Obama has never indicated such an intention. He has stated over and over that he will raise taxes only on those making over $250,000 a year. He would lower taxes on everyone else. Neutral analysts have charted that Obama's plan would lower taxes more for the average family then Senator McCain. Where did the McCain campaign get this notion that Obama would raise your taxes? It appears that they just made it up. What did they do when they were told that what they were saying was untrue? They simply kept repeating the untruth and refused to accept the objective facts in the case.

In part of the silly season, the McCain campaign insisted that Barack Obama intentionally insulted Sarah Palin with his comment about putting lipstick on a pig. Never mind that no sane candidate would ever utter such an insult about their opponent intentionally. Never mind that John McCain had used the same expression several times himself. Never mind that the context of Senator Obama's statement was clearly directed not at Sarah Palin but at the policies of Senator McCain. I watched surrogates for John McCain when questioned by other commentators, say that they had observed Senator Obama making the statement and they could see that he was addressing his comments to Sarah Palin. How did they know that? How could they know what Senator Obama was thinking? Reality didn't seem to intrude on their thinking at all. The goal seemed to simply be that stating this notion over and over again may turn some people off to Senator Obama, so that was a good thing whether or not there was any truth to their allegations. It seems like the strategy of the "Big Lie" is alive and well.

And then there is the charge that Senator Obama wants to teach comprehensive sex education to five year olds. It has been clearly shown that the bill passed by the Illinois legislature was designed to protect kindergarten age youth from possible sexual predators. The content of the training revolved around good and bad touch explanations. Again, several McCain supporters when questioned insisted that they were right in their allegations. The more they insist, the assumption must be, the more people will believe them.

Unfortunately, I could go on and on in this vein. Any hope that this campaign would be conducted on an honorable level appears long gone. We might be better off if we carefully lesson to all the debates, and analyze them for ourselves. Avoid as much as possible the spin doctors and even the political commentators (present company excluded, of course). And above all, let's turn off all campaign adds as soon as they begin to air.

Nancy Pelosi's Mistake

Recently Nancy Pelosi, Speaker of the House, got herself into trouble by discussing the theology of abortion. Her comments on St. Augustine and the creation of the soul were intriguing but ill-advised. She should have known that she would be stirring up a hornet's nest that would have better been left undisturbed. Jesuit Tom Reese suggested that she should not have ventured into the theoloy of abortion. I agree with him. But I would suggest that the Bishops need to be equally careful not to plunge into the politics of abortion.

In this country the Church cannot dictate public policy. They are free to clearly state their positions on issues of morality, but all moral truths are not codified into civil law. These are political judgements. The Church can expect their followers to adhere to their moral dictums, but they ought not demand that Catholics support particular laws under pain of ecclesiastical punishment. None of the laws that have been suggeseted conform exactly to Catholic teaching. Consequently the Church is actually supporting legislation that differs from its position on abortion. For example, Church leaders have at times supported laws that allow abortion in cases of rape or incest, or parental notification laws that presume the legality of abortion. How can one accept policies contrary to your position, but then demand of others that they follow in lock-step the legislative priorities you have decided to pursue. This micromanaging of the legislative process for Catholics is insulting and demeaning in a country that prides itself on the separation of Church and State.

One might suggest as a guideline a desire to reduce the number of abortions. How does one do that? It could be done in any number of ways. Legislation is a messy business and compromise is a major part of what the final piece of legislation may look like. Politicians and voters must all exercise their individual consciences in terms of what they see as the best legislative structure for this pluralistic society. While Catholics may need to adhere to the moral teaching of the Church they do not need to adhere to specific legislative options.

Moreover, this election is too important to become sidetracked by peripheral issues. The economy is coming apart before our eyes leaving too many people struggling to survive. Geopolitical issues of war and peace hang in the balance. However important the issue of abortion may be, history has shown that the occupant of the White House has little or no impact on legal or policy decisions related to abortion. It would be most unfortunate if the clergy were to somehow imply that Catholics should or should not vote for this or that candidate based on their views on abortion.

Freedom of Religion and Politics

I believe that there is common ground in America on the founding fathers' principle that everyone is entitled to believe whatever they choose in this country. There is disagreement on the meaning and value of the separation of Church and State, but the right to freedom of religion or from religion is, I believe sacrosanct.

In a Religion News Service article an examination of the Pentecostal beliefs of Sarah Palin's former church are documented. Some of the highlights of Pentecostal beliefs cited include a. all non-christians, including Jews, are going to Hell b. America is a Christian nation c. Pentecostals embrace speaking in tongues and also in faith healings. Additionally Sarah Palin herself has said that we need to pray that our soldiers and our leaders are following God's plan in Iraq and that God's will has to be done in building a Natural Gas pipeline in Alaska. We are already familiar with the religious beliefs of Barack Obama's former pastor Jeremiah Wright.

Clearly, in this country, no one can question the right of any individual to hold any of these views mentioned, or any other views not mentioned. Freedom of religion means that I can believe in God, Jesus, Allah, or no God. The question is, in the public domain, what is the appropriate role for these beliefs to play in governing. This is a huge issue and one that I don't believe has been explored carefully enough.

The most important point is that while we are entitled to believe whatever we want, we have a critical responsibility to respect the beliefs of every one else. We cannot impose our beliefs on others either through force or legislation. If you impose your beliefs on me, then I no longer have freedom of religion. In the past many of us were religious but didn't talk much about it. Of course our beliefs informed the decisions we made and the actions we took, but we didn't claim that our decisions were right or wrong based on our religious beliefs, but based on what we determined to be best for our country.

Sarah Palin's turning to prayer seems appropriate in terms of what we have heard, but it also helps us to highlight just what may or may not be acceptable. For example, to pray that our mission is the right one in Iraq makes sense to a believer; to believe that our mission is right in Iraq because of our Christianity is dangerous. To pray for the success of the Natural Gas pipeline is sensible for a believer; to insist that we must build a pipeline because it is God's will is an entirely different matter.

I fear that by placing our religious faith at the center of the political discourse a number of things are likely to occur, most of them not so good. There is a danger that those of us who don't believe as others will be seen as somehow less than what we need to be - the tyranny of the majority. Can public servants serve all people equally, even those who might believe differently from them and are therefore going to Hell? One of the problems with religion is that if you believe something based on your religion there is no further discussion possible. God has spoken and he can't be wrong. But of course, God has not spoken. We only think we know what he wants, but everyone doesn't see things the same way. Even Christians within the same denomination have vastly different interpretations of God's word on many issues. Abortion is one of those key issues where those who see it as wrong sometimes fail to appreciate the fact that others can disagree and still be people of goodwill.

Abraham Lincoln said it best in saying that we need to pray that we are on God's side. Why is that so important? Because if we know anything about God, it is that his ways are inscrutable, unknowable. We try to follow God's will, but we do it as men and women struggling with the tasks of daily life. We seek God's help, but we must put forth our own human effort to try and make things better. We may think we know what God wants, but we need to listen to everyone else, because God just might be speaking to us in the voices of those we might least likely expect to be speaking God's word. As my former pastor used to say, We need to pray as if everything depends on God, and work as if everything depends on ourselves.

Sarah Palin's Convention

Veni, Vidi, Vici. Oh! Wait a minute! This is supposed to be John McCain's convention. Well, it isn't. Sarah Palin electrified the crowd inside the hall last night and probably connected with many voters outside of the Republican base as well. She appeared to transcend her own ideology by presenting herself as a real person as she introduced her family to the American electorate. If there was any question that she will be a formidable opponent those doubts were impressively erased. Was her speech a little too long, a little repetitious, and perhaps a little too harsh? I think so. But who's counting? Does anyone really want to listen to John McCain's speech tonight after listening to Sarah Palin last night? I don't think so.

Bottom line; John McCain with his pick of Sarah Palin has shaken up this race. Now what happens? Anyone who thinks he knows the answer to that one has not been paying attention. The only thing we can do is point out what needs to be done by each campaign. Whoever is successful will likely win this race. First of all, Sarah Palin still has much to prove. Is she the one who should be a heart beat away from the President of the United States? I don't believe this race can be won with Palin continuing to attack and avoid the media and its necessary questioning. McCain is saying that they are mavericks and reformers. What does that mean? Does her very conservative ideology undercut any attempt at running a centrist campaign? Does John McCain want to return to the culture wars of the past? He has stated repeatedly that the world is a dangerous place. If it is, then, abortion, gay marriage, and creationism don't seem topics worthy of this election. Clearly, tonight, McCain needs to lay out a coherent plan for the country for the next four years. Just being willing to lead us into two or three more wars in the world's trouble spots is not good enough.

For the Obama campaign nothing much has changed. Of course Joe Biden has his work cut out for him in the vice-presidential debate. More importantly both Obama and Biden need to get out there on the campaign trail and connect in small groups with voters in swing states like Michigan and Ohio all across this country. The time for speeches with huge audiences of admiring followers is over for both campaigns.

Finally, for both candidates the debates are probably going to be decisive in the outcome of this race. It should be an exciting couple of months. It should energize the electorate and be good for the country as long as both campaigns discourage and avoid overly negative attacks.

Going After Palin

This is going to be a very short blog entry, because as we all know we are not allowed to go after the new vice-presidential candidate. This tactic is not new. It was very much true in the Obama/Clinton campaign. Every day Hillary Clinton was savaged in the press and sometimes by Obama operatives, but any criticism of Senator Obama was deemed racist. When Bill Clinton said it was a fairy tale to believe that Obama had always been consistent in his criticism of the war from the beginning, his words were distorted and he was deemed a racist. He had brought up a legitimate issue, but instead of addressing it with legitimate debate and illuminating the issues, he was just called names. I believe this election is too important not to talk about the elephants in the room.

It is true that the issue of Sarah Palin's seventeen year old daughter is not a topic for political discussion. It is also true that many in the media and blogosphere have gone way over the line in attacking Governor Palin and even spreading lies about her. That said, there are plenty of legitimate issues that may be getting lost now as everybody tries to appear not to be picking on Sarah Palin. The McCain camp has even gotten it down to a science in defending her. If someone asks a legitimate question about her qualifications the question is not answered. Instead, in the old bait and switch tactic, the McCain operative will bring up some inappropriate question that may have been asked earlier to show that their vice-presidential pick is being treated unfairly.

Let's look at just a few things that do need to be considered carefully over the next two months. Although, the Governor's daughter is absolutely off limits my own daughter has questioned why, when the issue first arose, did not the Mother consider declining the offer in order to avoid placing her daughter into the media spotlight. Did it not occur to her that it might be best to refuse the offer in order to protect her daughter's privacy and better address family issues? Her daughter and family could be enjoying blissful anonymity as they address private matters, except for a choice that Sarah Palin has made.

I might also briefly touch on the question of whether it is such a great idea for the daughter to marry the child's father. It might be, but if the descision is being made to satisfy some preconceived notion of family values, it could also be a disservice to the baby and her parents. It is one thing to make a mistake. It is another to compound that mistake. I don't know what is best, and I know nothing about the relationship the couple may have, but I do object to anyone who believes that it is always and automatically best for the couple to marry.

I am also troubled by the Republican talking heads who are working overtime to defend every aspect of Sarah Palin's background. The question in my mind is whether or not it is a plus to have to be working so hard to defend one's vice-presidential pick. I thought such choices were supposed to generate as little controversy as possible. Senator McCain and others have insisted that the primary qualification for a vice-presidential candidate is the experience which makes them qualified to be president on day one. Now, Republicans are tripping over themselves to try to explain away apparent contradictions about her experience. There are other issues which are coming to the fore such as an ongoing ethics investigation, apparent reversals on her actions as mayor and governor such as being for the 'Bridge to Nowhere' before she was against it. Is she really the maverick and fighter against corruption that she is portrayed as being. It almost seems as if there are two Sarah Palins; the one we are learning about through the media, and the one being portrayed by Republicans at their convention. Stay tuned.

No, To Palin

Let me say first that I know absolutely nothing about Sarah Palin, John McCain's choice for Vice-President. But, I believe that is precisely the point. I'm quite sure I am not the only person in America to whom this pick is unknown. I cannot say anything negative about this woman, and suspect that she is a very fine and capable individual. Yet with two months to go in this election to introduce an unknown to the electorate and expect him/her to be accepted without question strains credulity. A free lance writer, Joe Klock, has pointed out in a recent column that it is highly questionable that we go through this 18 month process to choose a presdidential candidate, and then our vice presidents are selected by one individual. The concern becomes particularly acute in the case of John McCain who is clearly picking a potential president that we are stuck with no matter what choice we might prefer. I feel that Senator McCain has not taken this choice seriously. He is the one who has been harping about experience and yet has chosen someone who is new to the national political scene, and who's resume is quite thin.

I have known many wonderful women throughout my life, and even a number of men, who I believe would make excellent vice-presidents. They may be school administrators, presidents of professional and non-profit organizations, college educators etc. They have demonstrated adminstrative experience, intelligence, skill, wisdom, integrity, and fairness. I would have no problem voting for many of them to fill such a lofty position, because I know and have confidence in them. There is no reason why the rest of the country would or should support them for such an office, because in this country the people decide who to choose for their elected officials. These choices are to be based on knowledge of the candidate over the course of time, not taking John McCain's word for his choice. For eighteen months we have watched Barack Obama slog through the snows of New Hampshire to the sunny climes of Nevada and New Mexico. We have decided for ourselves yea or nay what we think of him based on his presentation of himself to us.

For John McCain to thrust such a new face upon us at this late date seems a travesty of the process. If my understanding is correct, he himself never met Sarah Palin until last week. This choice does not seem to me to be a serious one. It may turn out to be a politically smart choice. However, if this is the way Senator McCain plans to govern this country, I am not at all encouraged.

Beyond Denver

The streamers and balloons along with the Greek columns have all come down, and the Democrats have wrapped up their show in Denver. They seem to be getting a fairly significant bounce out of the convention. What is memorable, however, and what will continue to matter as the Republicans prepare for their show in the Twin Cities?

Michelle Obama presented herself as a wife and mother in contrast to the caricature of her that had been developed throughout the campaign. It was impoprtant that Michelle soften her image among those who had questions about her, and I believe she did. Hillary Clinton made the case for the Democrats and Barack Obama. Of course we are told that she didn't go far enough, but it's hard to know which part of her endorsement of Senator Obama the media didn't understand. Bill Clinton stated the case as only he can. His ability to frame the issues and make complicated concepts understandable to us simple folk is still second to none. The question remaining about the Clintons is not whether they were effective at the convention, but whether they will continue to be used effectively throughout the coming campaign. We are told that Joe Biden's speech was disjointed and not well delivered, but my impression is that Biden is going to be a strong stump candidate, and is going to be a tough and effective fighter for this ticket in many battleground states.
I think the Obama campaign was effective at this juncture because they were able to get prominent Democrats like the Clintons out there validating this ticket.

Yet, everything rises or falls based on the performance of the candidate himself. He needed to tell us his program for the next four years, and how he was going to deliver a better America. The theater in Denver was hard to beat. The enthusiasm and inspiration among the delegates was palpable. By all accounts Obama went even further than expected in talking tough, showing willingness to go after McCain, and appearing ready to stand and fight toe to toe even in the foreign policy area which is considered McCain's strong suit.

It is difficult to fault the four days in Denver as carefully crafted drama that has achieved the required bounce and moved the campaign forward. I believe Obama did indeed blunt some of the McCain attacks of the past few weeks, and reenergized his base of partisans. The Republicans are likely to gain a few points during their week as well. It is too early to speak intelligently about the Republican Vice-Presidential pick. One thing that hasn't changed, however, is there will still need to be a campaign after the conventions. It looks like it will be a long and difficult campaign for both candidates. The debates are going to be critical. The issues are going to be joined. Unfortunately, it looks like negative adds will also play a major role. When it is all over the American people will make the final judgment as to who will be the next President of the United States.

It's Biden!

As a supporter of Hillary Clinton, how should I feel about the choice of Joe Biden as the vice-presidential nominee? Surprisingly, I find myself far more disappointed than I expected to be. After all, it has been clear for some time that Obama was not moving in Hillary's direction. However, I believe many of Hillary's supporters are having a similar reaction. For those of us who believed, there was something special about this election and something special about Hillary. I believe we are already seeing that in the fact that there seems to be no Biden bounce for Obama, and several commentators are saying for the first time that McCain could actually win this election. Hillary supporters who say they will support McCain have moved from 16% to 27%. I believe this represents a stark contrast to the incredible excitement the ticket would now have if Hillary had been chosen. Yes, there are plenty of Hillary detractors out there, but how many of them would have been voting for Obama anyway?

Accepting the fact that it simply was not meant to be, Joe Biden clearly represents my second choice as the best person for the Veep position. He exemplifies many of the qualities that Senator Obama most needs in a running mate. I believe that, even among Hillary supporters, Joe Biden will wear well over time. He has a personal story of triumph and tragedy that Americans will respond to. He clearly says what is on his mind in a way that I think will resonate with the American people. He is a regular guy who should be able to connect with voters in Pennsylvania, Ohio, Michigan, etc. His foreign policy experience is exceptional, and his relationship with John McCain makes him an ideal person to challenge McCain's rhetoric and negative ads. He may be an attack dog, but I believe what he says will be seen as making sense. Who knows, he may even make a few calculated 'gaffes' so as to be seen as a real person by the voters.

Congratulations to the 'scrappy kid from Scranton'.

The Softer Side of Benedict XVI

John Allen's column in the National Catholic Reporter describes Pope Benedict's queston and answer session with priests in Northern Italy during his recent summer vaction. We get some important insights into the mind of the Holy Father which appear to be quite different from those of Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger when he was the head of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith.

On evangelization Bemedict exemplifies what John Allen likes to call 'Affirmative Orthodoxy', which basically means not hitting people over the head with constant references to arcane points of Catholic teaching. Benedict emphasizes focusing on others instead of self, and he talks about exemplifying basic human decency and goodness. The message seems to be that we ought to evangelize more by the example of the lives we are leading than by an aggressive attempt to inculcate specific points of doctrine.

When asked about concerns such as too few priests, Benedict acknowledges the problem and admits that he doesn't have the answer. He invites responsible dialogue and indicates that we are all searching together for the right path to address these concerns. This focus on collegiality and dialogue is refreshing and should give those in the Church pause who respond to every suggestion or idea as if it represents the great heresy of our age. We are all called to give the Church the best of what we have to offer, and we should not be silenced or trivialized if our words appear to challenge long standing practices. The days of 'well, we've always done it that way' are simply not good enough any longer, even in the Church.

Finally, Benedict talks about how he has mellowed in his assessments of people and their worthiness to receive communion. He believes that if there is even the 'slightest spark of faith' people should be given the benefit of the doubt. He recommends mercy over severity. These remarks suggest that pro choice Catholic politicians and perhaps even divorced Catholics remarried in civil ceremonies should be given the benefit of the doubt when approaching the Eucharist.

Benedict XVI is no liberal reformer, and has made clear his adherence to the continuation of Church teachings without significant change. Yet I believe in one important respect he is moving the Church forward. I believe he is focusing on the human element that we all have in common. I believe he is saying that some things are more important than orthodoxy. Recall Jesus' words to the Pharisees about the emptiness of many of the prescribed rituals. I believe Benedict is calling us to end the struggle in the Church between conservatives and liberals. Our common love of God and search for the truth should ensure that we always operate with respect for one onother. Our journey of faith takes many twists and turns and the role of the Church should not be to beat back every spark of dissent which might actually turn out to be part of that right path for addressing concerns in the Church.

What's Going On With Women Priests?

According to the National Catholic Reporter 6 women have been ordained as Roman Catholic Priests this year by duly consecrated bishops. Additionally, a total of 32 female priests have been ordained in the past two years. These numbers represent female priests in the United States, but do not include significant numbers of women priests ordained in several other countries.

What is going on here? Can this be a significant movement, or are we looking at a meaningless gesture of a fringe group of dissidents whose actions will be forgotten in short order? Only time, of course, will tell. But while we are waiting for time to tell us, what are we to make of this women priest movement in the Roman Catholic Church?

The Bishops of the dioceses in which these ordinations have taken place have condemned them. The Vatican says that all associatied with these events are automatically excommunicated. The ordinations are said to be invalid. They are certainly illicit. No one can question that they go against current church regulations. The ordinations are only invalid, however, if one accepts the premise that it has been ordained by God that women are by reason of biology incapable of being ordained priests. The female Bishop who ordained these women was consecrated, as far as we know, by a male Roman Catholic Bishop who was in good standing in the Church at the time. Just as the question of the validity of Anglican Orders was debated in the Church for many years, the validity of these ordinations will be a subject of much scholarly discussion for years to come. It can't be decided by a fiat from Rome.

I am actually surprised to see women's ordination rise to the level of a key issue in Church reform circles. I would have imagined married priests, birth control, or some other such issue as being the key question that would spark a major movement. Clearly I underestimated the passion and determination of women, particularly women in the Church. I would not be surprised if the Vatican too may be grossly underestimating the power of women in this regard. A look at the history of women, especially in this country, on the isue of the right to vote, the right to compete for jobs with men in every area tells us that once women decide they intend to have a seat at the table, they will not stop until it occurs. The Vatican may discover it can only resist the onslaught of women for so long.

It's really hard to argue against the right of women to hold positions of authority in the Church, as the Anglicans found out. The scriptural evidence is inconclusive, and can in no way legitimately be used to rule out women priests no matter what Rome might say. The role of women in the Church has been such a dominant one that the notion that the 'old boys network' can continue to call the shots indefinitely is unlikely. Nuns have of course run schools and hospitals, and have had growing influence in the operation of parishes. Lay women have been the mainstay of support in terms of attendance, participation, devotion, and doing everything from cleaning to providing leadership in many parish activities. I don't believe women are going to continue to allow themselves to be second class citizens in the Church for much longer.

I recommend reading the homily of Fr. Roy Bourgeois which can be found in the National Catholic Reporter. Fr. Bourgeois is a Maryknoll priest who concelebrated the ordination Mass and gave the homily in support of the woman being ordained. I believe something is brewing in the Catholic Church today. Clearly as in most organizations change seldom comes from the top down. The Second Vatican Council was a major exception to that rule, and God bless Pope John the XXIII for his actions. The courageous women who are making a statement with their ordinations could represent a blossoming of the work of the Holy Spirit from below. It is a long overdue development. Come Holy Spirit.

The 'Sojourner'

There is a fascinating article in the New York Times by David Brooks which is well worth reading. The August 5th article is titled "Where's the Landslide"? It basically discounts the often cited notions of race or inexperience as primary factors in the failure by Barack Obama to run away with the November election at this point. Rather the article concentrates on what it sees as Obama's status as a sojourner. Brooks points to Obama's failure to demonstrate significant roots in any area of his life be it where he was born and raised, his family, religion, college, teaching, community work, or Congress. He seems to be just passing through. He is generally well regarded in all of these spheres, but not really well known. John McCain by contrast, comes from a military family and fits into a niche that Americans understand. Every president fits in to some category whether its the Kennedy clan, small town Jimmy Carter, or backwoodsman, Andy Jackson.

How important is this focus on understanding a candidates roots? Brooks feels that while Americans are not particularly hostile to Obama they are still trying to figure him out. One would think the vast array of experiences that Obama has had would be more of a plus. Clearly it is with some people. Young people do not seem to have the same concerns as older folks, perhaps because many of them have similar backgrounds. Young people today seem to be less interested in where they came from than they are in where they are going.

What might the sojourner factor tell us about the coming election? It might tell us that Barack really needs to get large numbers of young people out to vote. It certainly tells us that the debates are going to be critical in helping people make up their minds in this election. Moreover, this is a candidate who still needs to do more about making real contact with everyday American people. He needs to have a beer with the guys at a local bar, and not just as a photo-op. He needs to sit down at the diner and have lunch with the locals. He cannot continue to remain above the fray and appear to be distant and detached. He neeeds to let his hair down and really let people feel that they know who he is deep down. He especially needs to spend time and connect with people in battleground states such as Ohio and Pennsylvania. Finally, it may also be that he needs to take another look at Hillary Clinton for vice-president. Maybe the baggage of the Clinton Clan is just what he needs to establish some roots in his campaign.