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.