At the saddleback forum, McCain, who apparently understands more about life's beginning than the Pope (http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2008/08/when-an-embryo.html), stated that "life begins at conception." Of course he was met with loud applause from the evangelical audience.
Personally I am disturbed by McCain's apparent lack of thought, or at least what I hope is lack of thought, on this issue. Because McCain is also in favor of stem cell research, which requires embryos, or in McCain's worldview, fully functioning human beings with souls.
So by his own admission, McCain is in favor of life ending scientific experiments on human life.
Will this contradiction go unnoticed, or will McCain be forced to clarify his views?
John McCain was quick to try and use the crisis in Georgia for political points, but he never mentioned how policies he supported limited our leverage on the situation.
By repeatedly and unnecessarily stepping on Russia’s toes, from supporting a missile shield in Poland to training Georgia’s army, President Bush antagonized Russia to the point where they decided to push back aggressively. When President Bush ordered the invasion of Iraq without UN approval, he set the precedent that Russia is now using, inadvertently handicapping our current criticisms. And because of our massive commitment to Iraq, our military and diplomatic resources are strained, ties with Europe have frayed, and our ability to respond to Russia’s aggression, or any future crisis, has been reduced.
While Barack Obama was warning of the bind the Bush foreign policy placed us in, McCain was busy cheering for the Iraq War and advocating even more antagonistic policies towards Russia. If foreign policy expertise consists of making belligerent, rash statements, then McCain is the expert he claims to be. If we are instead looking for a President who can keep a cool head under pressure and respond rationally to a developing situation, Obama wins hands down.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CDTJDv4hevU
What do you know. McCain's campaign really did put Barack Obama on a dollar bill, in a video with a clear message that the change offered by Obama is an assault on America's proudest traditions.
Why was this not covered on the news outlets? Knowing about this video makes Obama's statements crystal clear, and obviously not a direct reference to race.
I was already disgusted with the McCain camp's eagerness in playing the race card by accusing Obama of playing the race card. But I had though that Obama might have slipped up in tying the attacks directly to McCain. Now, knowing that Obama's statement was a literal reference to a McCain attack makes the former maverick's actions even more sickening.
There is no doubt that Republicans in general have been playing the race card for quite some time. Whether its the repeated emphasis on Obama's middle name or the disgusting email smear campaign, race is an issue that plays directly into the Republican strategy of trying to make Obama seem like a dangerous outsider.
This strategy is not a figment of our liberal imaginations. Pat Buchannan and many other conservative commentators openly brag about it. So its certainly legitimate for Obama to bring attention to it, as he has been doing for months.
What the McCain campaign jumped on was Obama's specific reference to McCain as the perpetrator of this strategy. They claim that McCain has never done anything of the sort. Are they right? Well, maybe in a technical sense, if you define innocene as no directly racist attacks. After all, even the most rabid of the Republican attack machine refrains from being openly racist (unless they can send an anonymous email).
Still, considering that McCain has essentially given smear artists the green light by refusing to say stop, McCain should bear some responsibility for the attacks. And the McCain campaign has definitely bought into the dangerous outsider strategy. McCain himself accuses Obama of being unpatriotic, even a traitor. Obama is labeled as "presumptuous." (Read uppity.) McCain ads speak of McCain as "the American President that America has been waiting for." While not directly racist, all of these attacks feed the storyline of "un-American." For Kerry, that meant French. For Obama, the "un-American" theme definitely has racial overtones.
So when Obama talks about Republicans in general, and McCain in particular, trying to make him into the bogeyman, it would seem legitimate to include references to his own race. However, it might not be politically feasible to do so; the racial overtones are subtle, and because the mainstream media is clearly nervous about exploring the details, the McCain campaign can safely get away with playing the race card by accusing Obama of playing the race card whenever he makes the point.
The ironic thing about the Iraq debate is that both candidates, regardless of their position, will be forced to follow similar policies upon taking the oath of office. Whether its Obama or McCain, the next President will begin to draw down troop levels in Iraq while reinforcing Afghanistan. The army cannot sustain such a long term deployment for much longer. Public opinion in both America and Iraq will demand withdrawal. And the worsening situation in Afghanistan has required more attention for a long time, attention that can only come after a draw down in Iraq.
One candidate has been advocating these policies for a long time. The other is just coming on board.
Unfortunately, the debate has become a muddled mess about whether or not the surge has succeeded, whether or not it would have been the end of the world had we followed Obama’s policy proposal, whether or not the surge was worth the opportunity cost. There is little analysis of what the U.S. Army can continue to sustain, the pros and cons of permanent bases, or the potential adverse effect a continued occupation could have on Iraqi actions.
McCain, consistently talking about undefined “victory,” fails to address what the realities will be on the ground should he take office. And that’s a shame.
Finally McCain seems to have pushed to the defensive on Iraq. The Iraqi government, the Pentagon, and even the Bush Administration seem to have reached the conclusion that we need to begin withdrawing from Iraq. That leaves McCain in the uncomfortable position of maintaining his unpopular position in the face of a relatively broad, if strange, coalition, or changing it to something similar to Obama’s. Either way, the politics will not be easy. Yes, McCain can argue that all this talk of withdrawal is only made possible by the success of the surge in reducing violence and allowing the central government to consolidate some of its power, but politically that argument wouldn’t seem to hold much merit, especially after he has been repeating his mantra of withdrawal equals surrender for months.
The gap in voter’s perceptions of McCain as the better candidate in international relations is worrying and disappointing, especially considering Obama’s clear vision on so many pressing international issues. But maybe a turning point was finally reached this last week, and Obama will begin to shine on foreign policy, as he should.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/02/us/02detain.html?_r=1&hp&oref=slogin
Ironic, I suppose.
I should feel shocked, but after the past eight years I'm hardly surprised.
At least its one more argument to chock up against the torture cheerleaders.
The absolute hypocrisy of those now smearing General Clark's military record in response to his perfectly logical and taken out of context comments is disgusting.
What happened to the straight-talker? Has he really sunk so low as to use former swift boaters to "defend his own record" from made up smears while attacking the service of others?
This is the kind of politics that has to change.
In light of the Republican onslaught looking to label Obama as a radical liberal, I thought I would write out many of Obama's centrist positions and bipartisan efforts.
Some of Obama's more centrist positions include:
Merit based pay for teachers
A more fiscally conservative plan than John McCain's
Tax cuts for ninety-five percent of Americans
Second amendment as an individual right to bear arms
Upholding the death penalty in certain cases
Acknowledging the role of faith in politics and is a supporter of many so called “family values”
Reforming bureaucracy and welfare
Regardless of what Republicans say, a centrist foreign policy that welds ideology with a pragmatic realism
Support for free trade, though tempered by desire for more environmental and labor standards
Bipartisan efforts include
Legislated better gas mileage standards for the auto industry with both Republicans and Democrats
Took action on nuclear non-proliferation with Republican Senator Lugar
Ethics reform in both the Federal and Illinois Senate
Death penalty reform in the Illinois Senate
Nuclear Energy bill in the Illinois Senate
Comprehensive Immigration Reform with John McCain (who has since flip-flopped for his conservative base)
Taking action on Darfur with Republican Senator Brownback
Of course, these positions alone don’t tell the whole story. Even when he takes more liberal positions, Obama is clearly someone who by his very nature looks to the center for a solution. Health care is a solid example; Obama’s belief that government should play a role in encouraging opportunity is reflected by the subsidized government insurance option, but his concern that some manner of choice be maintained shows up in the lack of a mandate, while his desire for improved efficiency and minimalist bureaucracy reveals itself in the emphasis on prevention, technology reform, and the continued importance of the private industry.
Today on the Situation Room you accused Obama of voting against life saving measures for babies born prematurely and wondered how any man could do such a thing. If you had actually taken the time to look at the facts, you would know that the bill in question was a gimmick put forward by anti-abortion activists; the life saving measures were already law, thus making them completely redundant. At the heart of the bill was an extension of personhood to the fetus; this is what Obama was voting against. (One suspects that the bill was intentionally set up so that people like you could twist Obama’s vote.) Yes, he is pro-choice, no, he is not nearly as radical as you attempted to portray him. But I suspect that you already knew that, which is disgraceful on your part.
And as for the media being soft on Obama, give me a break. The media laps up McCain’s spin like a cat dying of thirst. Where is the coverage of McCain’s flip flops on campaign finance reform, or energy, or Iraq? Why are McCain surrogates allowed to get away with suggestions that have no basis in fact? The media has never seriously questioned McCain, and while I understand that the narrative of an Obama friendly media is just politics, it would do our country a lot of good if you would focus on actual issues rather than throwing around faulty claims with no basis in fact.
Watching the likes of James Dobson and Tony Perkins accuse Obama of "picking and choosing" biblical passages to suit his own public policy agenda, I can only wonder if they realize the irony of their words. When did opposition to abortion and gay marriage become central tenents of the one true Christian church? Last time I checked, that message which I personally follow has a lot more to do with Jesus, love, foregiveness and salvation. Where in the bible can be found the overwhelming evidence to support the views of the so called Christian right? That one verse mentioning God's role in the development of the fetus, or the scattered few denouncing homosexuality? Using this logic of "picking and choosing," I arrive at the conclusion that men should render unto Caeser what is Caeser's and to God what is God's; in other words, do what Jesus did; to avoid destroying your soul and your religion, stay out of politics and the moral shades of grey it creates. Instead, pour your devotion into that message of loving your neighbor and accepting Jesus as your savior.
And yet, we live in a democracy where all groups compete to promote their own idealistic vision of what the world should be. As Obama has noted, asking people of faith to leave their system of values behind at the door is ludicrous; even the most secular of people have values, likely derived from a faith that dominates their society, or perhaps some greater spiritual vision of the world, by which they make their decisions. So, maybe we must move beyond the cherry picking and agree that, yes, Christians should do what they can to create a more just society within America and the world, guided by the principles of the Bible.
What it comes down to is this. The religious right in no way has a monopoly on Christian values reflected in our politics; indeed, if any political party can claim the mantle of Christian reformers (and none probably can), it would be the Democrats, for it is far easier to use the Bible in justification of feeding the poor through welfare, or ending humanitarian crises around the world, or an emphasis on consensus building with other nations, or environmentalism, or education for all children, than it is to promote a narrow agenda against abortion and gay rights.
So to see the self-righteous out there proclaiming that Obama is twisting the words of the Bible for his own ends is somewhat amusing, highly frustrating and certainly both hypocritical and ironic. As Democrats, we must push back on the issue of faith.
