Calm Down, He's Only Human

During the presidential campaign, many conservatives laughed at the seemingly supernatural powers that Obama supporters saw in their candidate. Now those folks are doing essentially the same thing - working themselves into a frenzy over the massive, monstrous Change that Obama is about to unleash on us all.

For instance, a very intelligent and very conservative friend of mine is circulating this Dick Morris column to everyone he knows. Obama, according to Morris, is bent on nothing less than imposing "socialism" on America. We are going to become like Germany, France, the U.K. and even Sweden!

My response to this is simple: Chill out, people. Obama is only human. A very talented, intelligent, rhetorically gifted human, yes. A politically and theologically liberal human, yes. But still human. He cannot simply snap his fingers and force his will upon the rest of us.

Obama is, above all, a pragmatist. He will do many things we won't like, but nothing so dramatic as to risk his chance at re-election. To the extent he does the evil things some conservatives predict, it will be because he knows those policies have broad public support.

You can, of course, debate why the public supports leftist policies. A good part of the blame has to land on the backs of conservatives who failed to articulate a clear, consistent political philosophy. Over a period of years - and most especially in the last eight years under Bush - we gave Obama the ammunition he is about to use against us.

Rather than whine about it, I suggest we all examine the reasons we are in the predicament and consider how we can bring about the kind of change we want.

Pray For Obama

Fox and MSNBC just called California for Obama, giving him the White House. If you just can't believe it, you're in good company. This is not what I wanted, either. For better or worse, though, the electoral process is what it is. We have to live with it.

Many of us prayed for a different outcome. Were our prayers ignored? No. God does not always give us what we want. He gives us what we need. The reasons may be beyond our comprehension right now, but we can trust that good will ultimately come from this apparent defeat.

What to do now? One word: pray. Specifically, pray for Barack Obama. When the Apostle Paul wrote in Romans 13 that "the powers that be are ordained of God," he was referring to the brutal empire that would ultimately have him beheaded. If that Caesar was ordained by God, then Obama is no less. I know it's hard to swallow this right now, but it's the truth.

Of course we can and should expect Obama to work within the Constitutional framework, and we don't have to roll over and accept everything he does. Yet he is ordained of God. The best thing we can do now is pray that God will change Obama's heart and give him the grace to lead with integrity and justice. Maybe he will surprise us.

Another thing to pray for is Obama's protection. With all due respect to the Secret Service, this president will have even more nutjobs than usual wanting to hurt him. Also pray for Michelle Obama and their two daughters. They will have their own challenges to face.

Easier said than done? Of course. Yet it's the right thing to do. Now is the time to start.

Election Day Thoughts

I haven't written much about the presidential election because in my view it is largely irrelevant. We are in deep trouble whether McCain or Obama wins the White House. With Obama we will get massive federal spending, increased government control of the economy, unjust wars and counterproductive intervention abroad, abortion, gay marriage, and suppression of free speech. With McCain we will get massive federal spending, increased government control of the economy, unjust wars and counterproductive intervention abroad, abortion, gay marriage, and suppression of free speech. Pick your poison.

Obviously I would never vote for Obama, whose ghastly support for infanticide knows no bounds, but the idea of John McCain as the conservative opposition is simply laughable. Eight years ago, even those who are now his most fervent supporters chose George W. Bush over McCain because, they said then, McCain was a liberal in disguise. Has he changed since then? Of course not. So why does he deserve your vote now? Is Obama that much worse than Gore would have been?

Speaking of Bush, if you want to blame somebody for what we are about to endure, GWB ought to be in your crosshairs. He is the one who set the precedent that on all matters remotely related to national security, the President's word is supreme, all-powerful, and beyond appeal, up to including the power to secretly imprison and torture anyone he wishes. Some of us warned against this and were drowned out by so-called loyal conservatives. Now that same unlimited authority will belong to Obama. Do you have any doubt he will use it? Good job, guys.

I've been told I should bite my tongue and vote for McCain for the sole reason that he will give us pro-life Supreme Court justices, which Obama will surely not. This argument might make sense if McCain were actually pro-life, but he's not. This is the man who wanted to place pro-abortion Joe Lieberman or pro-abortion Tom Ridge a heartbeat away from the presidency, and would have done so had political reality permitted. Now ask yourself: if you are truly committed to a cause, and you are a 72-year-old cancer survivor, would you not make absolutely sure that your hand-picked successor was equally committed to that cause? Of course you would. Yet McCain picked Palin only under pressure from the religious right - pressure that we won't be able to exert once he is safely in office.

The fact that McCain would even consider Lieberman or Ridge tells you everything you need to know about the priority he places on life issues. He is pro-life only for those babies who are big enough to be seen on an ultrasound, and who had the good fortune not to be conceived as a result of rape or incest. He's happy to see smaller and even more defenseless children shredded alive in the cause of medical experimentation. He will even use your tax money to pay for it.

Clearly McCain is not someone who is deeply committed to protecting innocent life. Like most Republicans, he just goes through the motions in order to get pro-life people to vote for him. Even in the unlikely event he wanted to nominate a pro-life Supreme Court justice, the chance of such a person getting through the Democratic Senate is nil.

In one strange way we are probably better off with Obama. As noted above, we will have a liberal in the White House no matter who wins. If it's Obama, congressional Republicans will at least make a mild effort to show some backbone. With the help of Southern Democrats, they may be able to head off some of Obama's worst proposals. If McCain is president and pushes the very same plans in consulation with his Democratic buddies - which he will - the GOP will meekly fall in line just like they did with Bush. And you can see where that got us.

All that said, I think we'll be okay for the next four years. If Obama wins, he is smart enough not to overreach. If McCain wins, the Democratic Congress will restrain his worst impulses. Tough times are coming in either case, but the world will keep turning. The real threat we face is a long-term decline in public morality and values. Our problems are much more spiritual than political. No president will solve them.

Maybe McCain will pull an upset tonight. We'll know soon. Whichever of the two wins, they will have done so without the help of my vote. I made the mistake in 2004 of voting for what I thought was the lesser of two evils. I forgot that the lesser evil is still evil. I won't forget again.

Obamaphobia Takes Hold

I have several friends and relatives who send me a steady stream of e-mails containing the latest news about the grave threat Barack Obama presents to America. Every time I get one of these, I wonder: what do they think they are accomplishing? They know there is the proverbial snowball's chance I will vote for Obama, and I am glad to tell anyone who will listen why I feel this way.

In this regard I have plenty of ammunition. For instance, Obama thinks it is fine if the law allows and/or encourages women to burn, dismember, and crush the skulls of their children, either before birth or shortly after. Against that, the fact that he used to hang out with terrorists or took donations from Fannie Mae is mere frosting on the cake.

The people who send me these e-mails know, on some level, that the "facts" they are trying to spread are not likely to change anyone's mind. So why do they do it? I suspect it is out of frustration. Time is running out and the polls suggest an increasing likelihood Obama will win. (Check out Dr. Steven Taylor's electoral college maps for evidence.) People are starting to face this reality and they don't like it. The crisis in the financial markets created a heightened sense of fear in the last few weeks, making the frustration on all sides even worse.

Personally, I think Obama's past associations with William Ayers, Jeremiah Wright, and others are fair game. These kind of things come out in all campaigns. It is remarkable, however, that none of it is new. All these things were brought out in the Democratic primary, thanks to Hillary Clinton, and McCain himself refused to use them - until now. Why? Because he's losing and he really has not much else to say. On the overriding issue of the moment, the economy, he and Obama are largely in agreement. Both voted to approve the Hank Paulson bank bailout plan and appear to have no problem with nationalized large chunks of American industry.

It is worth noting, too, that many of the people who are so angry at Obama right now are the same ones who stood behind George W. Bush while he abandoned all pretense of budgetary discipline and smaller government, launched a war of choice, tortured prisoners and shredded the Constitution in order to concentrate near-unlimited power in the Oval Office. In this he was aided and abetted by a Republican-controlled Congress for six years. Some of us warned that those powers would someday fall into less trustworthy hands. Now it is about to happen. Having made their bed, the Bush loyalists are now upset that they might have to lay in it.

There is also the race factor. For most of the campaign it was bottled up, but now the dogs are getting loose. Some of it is thinly-disguised and some is quite overt. McCain can try to calm the crowds, but they are having none of it. This has moved beyond his control. Not everyone who dislikes Obama has racist motives, but some do. I suspect it is a bigger number than any of us want to admit.

We are on very dangerous ground here. If some nutcase takes a shot at Obama, it's not hard to imagine mass violence in large cities - and maybe beyond. Likewise, if we get into another 2000-type Florida recount fiasco, tempers will flare no matter who comes out on top. For this reason, I hope that whoever wins does so by an electoral and popular landslide. A close election is the last thing we need right now.

Conclusion: I highly suggest everyone turn down the heat, and quickly. The United States is closer to a breakdown in civil order right now than any time since 1968. For my friends on the right who think there is still a chance for McCain to win if only enough people can be told about Obama's sordid background: You Are Wrong. In fact, the more you talk about these things the better Obama does in the polls. You are accomplishing the opposite of what you want, and you may be opening a Pandora's Box that is best kept closed. The best thing you can do right now is shut up.

Yes, I realize that Obama supporters are saying some pretty vile things too. The personal attacks on Sarah Palin have been particularly shameless, but the fact that they are doing this kind of thing does not mean you can do the same. Ever heard of turning the other cheek? Now is an excellent time to practice.

Palin on Roe

I must confess I have been unable to force myself to watch the entirety of Sarah Palin's interview with Katie Couric. The parts I did see made me wince. So it was only today, via Rod Dreher, that I learned what she had to say about Roe vs Wade.

Keep in mind that, for social conservatives, the prime justification for having Palin on the ticket is that she is demonstrably and personally pro-life. For all McCain's faults, with Palin as VP we have a foot in the door at the White House, and maybe a chance to get one of our own in the big office someday. Right? Now read this:

Couric: Why, in your view, is Roe v. Wade a bad decision?

Sarah Palin: I think it should be a states' issue not a federal government-mandated, mandating yes or no on such an important issue. I'm, in that sense, a federalist, where I believe that states should have more say in the laws of their lands and individual areas. Now, foundationally, also, though, it's no secret that I'm pro-life that I believe in a culture of life is very important for this country. Personally that's what I would like to see further embraced by America.

Couric: Do you think there's an inherent right to privacy in the Constitution?

Palin: I do. Yeah, I do.

Couric: The cornerstone of Roe v. Wade.

Palin: I do. And I believe that individual states can best handle what the people within the different constituencies in the 50 states would like to see their will ushered in an issue like that.

OK. Palin sounds like someone who has the right instincts. She does not sound like someone who has wrestled with the philosophical and legal basis of her beliefs. There are two huge problems with what she said.

First, she says abortion should be up to the states. This line of reasoning was wrong when applied to slavery in the 19th century, and it's wrong now. Government at all levels must defend certain fundamental human rights. These include - as the Declaration of Independence says - life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Life is the foundation, and states have no right to take it away from innocent people. She is taking essentially the same position that Fred Thompson did in the GOP primary campaign. Plenty of us roundly criticized Thompson for it at the time. For the most part, Palin is now getting a pass.

Second, Palin thinks the Constitution contains a "right to privacy." Roe vs Wade notwithstanding, most legal scholars find no such thing and regard Roe's logic as laughable, even when they agree with its result. Yet we are told that Palin can be counted on to influence McCain's judicial appointments more in the conservative, originalist direction? I think not, if this interview reflects her judicial philosophy.

Abortion will almost certainly come up in tonight's debate, and I hope we hear something from Palin to clarify these remarks. Otherwise, I suspect a wave of buyer's remorse will sweep over the people who have so lionized her for the last month. The more we learn about Palin, the less she lives up to the reasons McCain supposedly picked her. This momentum needs to change, and it needs to happen fast, or else Obama will win in a rout.

John McCain Favors Cannibalism; Christians Fall In Line

More than a few people who, this time last month, were terribly disappointed at the thought of John McCain as the GOP nominee have had their minds changed by his selection of Sarah Palin as running mate. As I said at the time, McCain is still McCain. Now the evidence is beginning to mount that the Palin selection is nothing more than a cynical ploy to manipulate Evangelical voters. Consider this:

Sept. 12 (Bloomberg) -- John McCain won't attend a gathering of religious conservatives this weekend -- and the Republican presidential nominee won't have to ask forgiveness.

The Arizona senator's selection of Alaska Governor Sarah Palin as his running mate has appeased the evangelical and social conservatives who form his party's core voters. Now, they are letting him know that he doesn't need to further demonstrate his fealty...

McCain, 72, is now reaching out to other constituencies, including independents who may provide swing votes in a tight contest in November.

He also is trying to expand his Republican base. At his party's convention in St. Paul last week, he dispatched two emissaries to address the Log Cabin Republicans, a gay group. Former Republican Representative Jim Kolbe of Arizona said McCain has indicated that he would be open to a repeal of the military's ``Don't Ask, Don't Tell'' policy, which allows gay men and women to serve in the armed forces as long as they don't discuss their sexual orientation. [more]

Wonderful news, yes? Has McCain turned over a new leaf? I think not. He is the same 72-year-old cancer patient who desperately wanted to put pro-abortion, pro-gay marriage Joe Lieberman a heartbeat away from the presidency and was dissuaded only by political reality. Now we learn he gets along swimmingly with the Gay Republicans. And when it comes to gays in the military, John McCain thinks that the policy established by Bill Clinton is too conservative.

If that's not enough for you, check out the new McCain commercial discovered by Chelsea at Reflections of a Paralytic. "Change is coming" for stem cell research, it says. What does this mean? A McCain spokesman confirmed that the Senator is still in favor of embryonic stem cell research as well as adult stem cell research.

For those who may not understand the difference, here it is: adult stem cell research doesn't kill anyone. Embryonic stem cell research does. It is nothing less than medical cannibalism. The embryos that are destroyed in this research are living humans with their own unique DNA. They require nothing more than 1) time and 2) a supportive environment to develop into people like you and me. That is scientific fact that has nothing to do with religion. John McCain thinks it is okay to kill them in order to find cures for the diseases that afflict those of us lucky enough to already be born.

It is, of course, quite true that Barack Obama also favors this research, along with a variety of other ghastly practices that involve the destruction of innocent human life. This doesn't let McCain off the hook. What it means is that we have one candidate who is willing to kill babies at any time between conception and birth (and even afterward if the mother was trying to abort her child), and another candidate who is willing to kill babies as long as they are very small and their bodies can be used to nourish and extend the lives of adult humans. McCain would also, incidentally, permit the killing of those babies who were unfortunate enough to be conceived in the act of rape or incest.

So what we have here is a difference of degree, not of kind, between Obama and McCain. Both would allow innocent humans to die. They differ only in the details. Yet we are supposed to support McCain because Obama is even worse? Please. We do not accept this logic anywhere else.

• If one man kills three people and another kills thirty, is the first one not a murderer?
• If one man sexually assaults a child, and another sexually assaults three children, is the first one not a pervert?
• If one man steals a hundred dollars, and another steals a million dollars, is the first one not a thief?
• If Hitler had only gassed a thousand Jews instead of six million, would he be any less of a monster?
  

We could go on but you get the point. The lesser of two evils is still evil. The fact that McCain chose Sarah Palin as running mate is nice. It does not change who he is. Those who think he is somehow different now will live to be sadly disappointed, in my opinion. You are being used by a party that does not care about the things you think are important. It cares for one thing, and one thing only: the acquisition of power.

Palin Redux

As far as political convention speeches go, Sarah Palin did a good job last night. Considering that she had only days to prepare and was under enormous pressure, you could even call it outstanding.

She certainly has the base fired up. In this she is getting a lot of help from the media and the left-wing blogosphere, which recognizes the potential threat Palin creates and is determined to destroy her. This will surely backfire on them. Obama’s biggest advantage has been the moribund mood of the GOP faithful; now his own followers are stirring up a hornet’s nest. If Obama doesn’t get his followers under control soon, whatever lead he currently enjoys could vanish quickly.

I’m starting to like Palin. She seems genuine, she’s got a few good ideas, and she’s clearly a no-nonsense, get-things-done kind of leader. The problem is that she is still attached to John McCain, and we have no reason to think that she will have any particular influence on a McCain Administration’s policies. I fear she is being used as bait to draw the social conservatives back into the GOP fold and once in office McCain will revert back to his old ways. Daniel Larison is even more cynical:

Practically everything that you, the average conservative, like about Sarah Palin is opposed and negated by what John McCain stands for and has represented for pretty much his entire career, but still conservatives are reacting deliriously to a speech whose ultimate purpose is to co-opt them into backing a presidential candidate whose policies on vital national questions are antithetical to everything they value. Does her small-town ethos impress you and inspire some identification with her? McCain embraces the policies promoting globalization and mass immigration that are gradually transforming your small towns beyond recognition. Does her hostility to Washington elites please you? McCain serves and always has served the interests of those elites, and his immigration legislation was just the most recent and egregious form of this. Like the undead creature it resembles, the GOP establishment will feed off of every bit of the energy, vivacity and authenticity that Palin possesses in its bid to keep conservatives serving their goals. Do not help the creature to feed on its victim.

Likewise, Mark Shea points out that for all the good things we've seen, Palin seems to be in full agreement with John McCain's determination to continue the Bush/Cheney policy of endless war and prisoner torture. McCain remains someone who thinks it is perfectly OK to kill innocent children as long as they are invisible to the naked eye. Here's Mark:

I love Sarah Palin as a human being. I love her Capra-esque career. I think that, unlike so much of the GOP leadership, she's actually serious about prolife issues and has proven that in an intensely personal way. I think she's a sincere Christian who (with allowances made for her bad theological formation due to circumstance beyond her control) lives a life of integrity. But I also think she's also pretty much on the same page with McCain (and Bush) about Grand End to Evil ideology. I think that, like McCain, she will like talk the talk about torture but turn a blind eye to doing something about it as McCain has when actually confronted with a vote. She hasn't yet spoken to McCain's Lesser Cannibalization views, but (since she accepted the Veep position) it's obvious this will not get in the way of her supporting him. That doesn't necessarily mean she agrees with him and a Palin Presidency might show her to dissent from McCain. So I'm willing to wait on that.

Here is, I think, the best argument in favor of a McCain-Palin vote: it might put her in position to become president herself, one way or the other, and if that happens she might turn out to be someone who will do the right things most of the time. Anyway, Obama would be even worse. So the thinking goes. With all due respect to the people who think otherwise, I still can't buy it.

Leaving aside the fact that the lesser of two evils is still evil, there is a big risk for Palin and the pro-life movement. If McCain-Palin lose, the GOP establishment will need a scapegoat. There's a strong chance they will point the finger at Sarah Palin and those pesky pro-lifers. That will make it a lot easier for someone like Rudy Giuliani to get the nomination in 2012. Go ahead and laugh - but McCain differs from Giuliani only in degree, not in kind.

Conclusion: I like Sarah Palin, but the inescapable fact (for now) is that I cannot vote for her without also voting for John McCain. Since I can't trust McCain, it doesn't really matter how sound and reliable Palin is. She's still #2 to the guy who would much rather have had pro-abortion, pro-gay marriage Joe Lieberman at his side. I just don't see this prospect as anything to get excited about.

Palin Overload

Following up my first reaction to the Palin pick... does it seem odd to anyone else that some of the very same conservatives who have been so amused by the religious fervor surrounding Obama, are greeting Sarah Palin with Hosannas and Alleluias?

Be that as it may, we are starting to get some more sober-minded analysis of the Palin pick. Much of it focuses less on Palin than on what this decision tells us about McCain. Here are some links for you.

Politico has The Story Behind the Palin Surprise as well as Six Things the Palin pick says about McCain. I like #2: He is willing to gamble, big-time.

Let’s face it: This is not the pick of a self-confident candidate. It is the political equivalent of a trick play or, as some Democrats called it, a Hail Mary pass in football. McCain talks incessantly about experience, and then goes and selects a woman he hardly knows, who hardly knows foreign policy and who can hardly be seen as instantly ready for the presidency.

Joe Klein at Time says this illustrates McCain's gunslinger decision-making style - which may not be what we need right now.

Michael Dougherty at American Conservative likes Palin but thinks she is being thrown in over her head.

Like Bobby Jindal or Mark Sanford, I considered Sarah Palin a promisingly conservative, likable, and reform-minded governor. I wished desperately to spare her (and them) from association with the bellicose and ideological foreign policy of Bush-McCain. These three governors excite various parts of the conservative base but need time to prove themselves.

Ramesh Ponnoru at NRO questions Palin's experience and asks the obvious question: Can anyone say with a straight face that Palin would have gotten picked if she were a man?

No idea who this is, but somebody named Gatemouth has compiled a list of Republican women more qualified to be president than Sarah Palin.

Jim Lobe recalls that McCain has called the fight against radical Islam the "transcendent issue of our time." If that's true, why did he choose as his back-up and heir apparent a person with no experience in foreign policy, military affairs, or counter-terrorism?

Again, let me stress I like Palin. But I don't see a lot of upside to this pick because a) she does nothing to help McCain out of the hole he is in and may even dig it deeper; and 2) in the unlikely event she gets to be vice-president, there is little chance she will be able to influence the McCain Administration on the issues that matter most.

VP Sarah

I'm feeling a little left out today. Pretty much all my favorite bloggers are positively bubbling over with enthusiasm for Sarah Palin. A few examples: Caveman, CK, Rod, Gazizza, Texas Fred, Feddie, Red Cardigan, Darwin, Steve, Chelsea, and Pauli.

Unfortunately I have a hard time being so excited. Nothing against Sarah Palin; she is clearly a strong, talented woman with an impressive life story. She appears to be solidly pro-life. Furthermore, we should all be grateful McCain didn't go with one of his anti-life pals like Tom Ridge or Joe Lieberman. It could have been a lot worse.

Nonetheless, I do not see how having Sarah Palin on the ticket really changes anything of consequence on the issues I care about. The fact of the matter is that John McCain is not really pro-life. He says the right things sometimes, but it is not important to him. The fact that he would even consider putting Lieberman or Ridge a heartbeat away from the Oval Office tells you everything you need to know about McCain's priorities.

Having Sarah Palin as VP will accomplish one thing: we'll have a firmly pro-life president if McCain happens to die in office. Short of that, we (social conservatives) are no better off than we would be with Hillary Clinton.

Ah, some will say, having Palin by his side will give us a voice! She'll make sure he toes the line! Please. John McCain has been in Congress since Sarah Palin was in high school. He has a Washington power base that is both deep and wide. What reason is there to think he will place Palin - whom he met for the first time only six months ago - on top of the list of people who have his ear?

Yes, Palin is a strong woman. She took on the Alaska GOP establishment and is winning so far. Alaska has all of 600,000 people. There is simply no comparison to Washington, where Palin has no power base of her own. Her main influence will come from the fact that she will be in position to run for president herself someday. But unless McCain gives her significant responsibilities and a high public profile, she won't have any more luck than Dan Quayle did in that endeavor.

The reality is that Sarah Palin is on the ticket for one reason: to get John McCain elected. If he wins she will sent to the back burner, having served her primary purpose. She will make speeches to pro-life groups and sit in on Cabinet meetings. I just can't see her becoming especially powerful otherwise. Yes, she's a renegade like McCain. But if she renegades against McCain, she'll be sent to Dick Cheney's "undisclosed location" so fast it will make your head spin.

As a purely political matter, does Palin give McCain better odds? Again, I'm not so sure. She is obviously helping to excite the Republican base. But the fact that we're two months from Election Day and the base needs to be excited is not a good sign. The Democratic base is excited, too. Obama's convention speech got Super-Bowl type TV ratings.

Does Palin help with women? She alluded to this in her speech yesterday, repeating Hillary Clinton's words about cracks in the glass ceiling. The McCain people obviously hope to attract some of the disappointed Hillary supporters. I think they are smoking crack. The kind of women who wanted Hillary to be president or VP will vote for a Republican only on the day hell freezes over. They may stay home and not vote; but they're not going to push the button for John McCain or put a pro-life woman that close to power. Not.Gonna.Happen.

Palin brings one big downside: lack of experience. Yes, yes, she's at least as qualified as Obama. That's not the point. After they re-think their strategy, the Democrats will be smart enough not to bring up the experience issue. And with Palin on the ticket, McCain can't bring it up, either. He has just given up one of his primary offensive weapons. Moving the experience question off the table helps Obama much more than it helps McCain.

It will be interesting to see how this all plays out. I suspect the social conservatives who are now gushing about Palin will start showing some buyer's remorse fairly soon. Let me repeat that I have nothing against Palin. I think she's a fine person with a promising future. She ought to complete her term as governor and run for president herself someday... and that's probably what will happen.

2008 is not a Republican year, and McCain's chances are not good no matter who he had picked. This election is all about a few swing voters in a few swing states: Pennsylvania, Ohio, Michigan, Missouri, and maybe a few more. If the Democrats are able to frame the campaign around economic issues - and they're off to a good start so far - Obama will win. I saw nothing this week to change that calculus.

VP Joe

Okay, so I was wrong. Obama picked Joe Biden.

I actually kind of like Biden. Aside from his support for little things like, say, the legalized mass slaughter of unborn babies, Biden seems to be a nice guy. He's been around Washington a long time and will be able to provide some adult guidance in an Obama White House. Whether Obama will really listen to Biden is another question. I think probably not.

Religiously speaking, Biden is a contradiction in terms: pro-choice Catholic. The U.S. bishops have made crystal-clear that it is not possible to be both of these things. Having Biden on the ticket will re-ignite the whole politicians and communion issue for the rest of the campaign. Look for media stories about those bad old bishops who won't let good Catholics like Biden follow their conscience.

On a lighter note, it is Hollywood tradition for celebrity SuperCouples to merge their two names into one: Brangelina, Bennifer, TomKat, etc. What shall we call Barack Obama and Joe Biden? Here are a few ideas:

• Jobama
• Barjoe
• Jarack
• Babiden
• Obiden
• Bibama
• Birack
• Bamaden
• Bidenack

Any others?

VP Hillary

It appears that Barack Obama will announce his choice for vice-president in the next day or two. I will go out on a limb and say that the three finalists being discussed in the media - Bayh, Biden and Kaine - are all a smokescreen. I think it will be Hillary Clinton.

Not that I care one way or the other, of course. Obama will never got my vote for dogcatcher, much less president, unless he has a truly remarkable conversion. His VP pick is irrelevant in that regard.

Dick Morris thinks that the Clintons have hijacked the Democratic Convention from Obama. But whatever else Obama is, he's not stupid. He is giving plum speaking spots to both Bill and Hillary for a reason. What better reason than the fact she is on the ticket? The plan was probably hatched months ago. It will be unveiled with great drama, and the media adulation will be amazing to behold.

If I am proven wrong on this, I'll gladly eat my words. But if I'm right, I expect lots of incoming links. :)

Saddleback Follies

I watched Rick Warren's back-to-back interviews with Obama and McCain at his Saddleback Church Saturday night. Three reactions:

First, it would have been nice to see some follow-up when the candidates dodged questions or gave nonsensical answers. The format had its advantages in asking the same questions of both Obama and McCain, but they were still able to wiggle out of some tough spots. For instance, McCain was quick to say that life begins at conception, but then admitted to support of embryonic stem-cell research. These things don't fit. If, by McCain's own definition, every fetus is human, why is it all right to kill some of them but not others?

Second, while McCain had the better night, I don't think it was quite the massive victory some commentators think it is. Republicans are supposed to do well in front of an Evangelical audience. Obama - repugnant though his positions are - at least showed up, talked about his faith, and got applause a few times. That's really all he needed.

Recall that in 2000 and 2004, George W. Bush had overwhelming support from Evangelicals and still barely won both times. In 2004 he was helped mightily by the presence of gay-marriage initiatives on the ballot in several states. Even so, John Kerry would be president today if a hundred thousand votes had gone the other way in a few key states.

Barack Obama doesn't need to get all the Evangelicals on his side. All he needs to do is peel off 5% or 10% of those who supported Bush four years ago. If those people vote for Obama, vote for a third party candidate, or don't vote at all, it is very bad news for McCain. Obama appears to be well on his way to achieving this goal. In that sense, the appearance at Saddleback was a big step in the right direction for him.

Third, McCain's answer that the United States must "defeat" evil makes me nervous. We must resist evil, of course, and sometimes fight it. But evil will not be defeated until Christ returns at the end of time. If defeating evil becomes our national policy, we will defeat only ourselves.

Nothing I heard at Saddleback makes me change my mind. I cannot vote for either Obama or McCain. The lesser of two evils is still evil.

The Bishop and the Governor

From Catholic World News:

Kansas, May. 9, 2008 (CWNews.com) - Archbishop Joseph Naumann of Kansas City has announced that Governor Kathleen Sebelius should not receive Communion because of her support for legal abortion.

In a column appearing on May 9 in the archdiocesan newspaper, The Leaven, the archbishop said that Governor Sebelius has sent a "spiritually lethal message" by implying that she could remain a Catholic in good standing while supporting abortion on demand.

The archbishop's column cited in particular the governor's veto of the Comprehensive Abortion Reform Act, which would have required abortionists to inform women about the effects of the procedure and alternatives to abortion.

The governor's stand in favor of abortion is particularly painful, Archbishop Naumann wrote, because Sebelius is a Catholic. He reported that he had met with her "several times over many months to discuss with her the grave spiritual and moral consequences of her public actions." Because the governor has now rejected his pleas and her public stand constitutes a scandal to the faithful, the archbishop said that he has now directed her to refrain from receiving Communion. Archbishop Naumann reported that he has asked Governor Sebelius to accept this directive, so that she will "not require from me any additional pastoral actions."

More from American Papist.

Governor Sebelius has been mentioned as a possible running mate for Barack Obama, so this story may make it into the national media soon. "That mean old bishop," they will say. "How dare he tell the governor how what to do! Separation of church and state! Theocracy! Off with his head!"

Actually, Archbishop Naumann isn't telling the governor how to do her job. He is telling her how she must behave in the church over which he, not she, is the earthly shepherd. The governor remains free to join some other denomination which is less concerned about these things. The governor is also free to attend no church at all. What she is not free to do is pretend she is a Catholic in good standing while continuing to act in ways that are contrary to centuries of Catholic teaching.

We should also note that the church does not regard such actions as punishment. The bishop is attempting to convince the governor to amend her life and save her own soul. Because she ignored his private requests, he was forced to make the matter public.

Archbishop Naumann is surely familiar with St. Ambrose who, as bishop of Milan in the fourth century, threatened his own emperor with excommunication for the murder of 7,000 people. The emperor repented and was reconciled after several months of penance. Will Governor Sebelius do likewise? For her own sake, I hope so.

GOP Swimming Upstream

I haven't written much about politics lately. The reason for this is my growing conviction that it just doesn't matter who will be our next president or which party controls Congress next year. All the possible scenarios add up to deep trouble. There are only slight differences in the particulars.

I still think Obama has the edge over McCain. I say this not because he is charismatic, attracts hordes of young voters, or has the black vote locked up. All those things are true but he would win even without them. The tide of 2008 is in the Democrat's favor.

The most recent Gallup Poll has 67 percent of voters disapproving of President Bush; those numbers are worse than Richard Nixon’s on the eve of his resignation. A CBS News poll taken at the end of April found only 33 percent of Americans have a favorable view of the GOP — the lowest since CBS started asking the question more than two decades ago. By comparison, 52 percent of the public has a favorable view of the Democratic Party.

Things are so bad that many people don’t even want to call themselves Republicans. The Pew Research Center for the People & the Press has found the lowest percentage of self-described Republicans in 16 years of polling. [More]

With the economy sinking, an unpopular war with no end in sight, and the most unpopular president in history on his side, McCain is swimming upstream. Unless he can rebuild the entire political landscape in the next few months, there could be a blowout in November.

Yes, McCain is a war hero. All well and good, but so was George H.W. Bush in 1992 and Bob Dole in 1996. Draft-dodger Bill Clinton beat both of them handily. Al Gore and John Kerry may not have been heroes but at least they went to Vietnam. Both lost to George W. Bush of the Air National Guard. Being a war hero is not an automatic ticket to the White House.

With Democrats busy sniping against each other, McCain has had a free pass for the last three months. That is about to change. You are going to see a serious effort to convince the electorate that a vote for John McCain is a vote for a third Bush term. McCain will try to distance himself from Bush, but I don't think he can succeed.

So barring some major surprise between now and November, it seems very likely that Barack Obama will be our next president. It is also likely he will have a big Democratic majority in Congress. This will allow him to actually get things done. Fortunately, parties in that position have a tendency to overreach and get slapped down in the next election. How much damage will be done in the meantime? All we can do is wait. And pray.

Ending the Rule of Law

From the Washington Post:

The Justice Department sent a legal memorandum to the Pentagon in 2003 asserting that federal laws prohibiting assault, maiming and other crimes did not apply to military interrogators who questioned al-Qaeda captives because the president's ultimate authority as commander in chief overrode such statutes...

Sent to the Pentagon's general counsel on March 14, 2003, by John C. Yoo, then a deputy in the Justice Department's Office of Legal Counsel, the memo provides an expansive argument for nearly unfettered presidential power in a time of war. It contends that numerous laws and treaties forbidding torture or cruel treatment should not apply to U.S. interrogations in foreign lands because of the president's inherent wartime powers.

"If a government defendant were to harm an enemy combatant during an interrogation in a manner that might arguably violate a criminal prohibition, he would be doing so in order to prevent further attacks on the United States by the al Qaeda terrorist network," Yoo wrote. "In that case, we believe that he could argue that the executive branch's constitutional authority to protect the nation from attack justified his actions."

This practical implication of this expansive interpretation is that the president, and anyone he/she designates, is not bound by any law whatsoever. He/she can do anything as long as it is done in the name of national defense. Why stop at torture? How about summary executions? Rape? Child molestation? If that's what it takes to defend America, it's legal. The logic applies equally well. This is Mr. Yoo's argument, made on behalf of his boss, President George W. Bush.

Many of the same Republicans who could not talk enough about the "rule of law" when Bill Clinton lied under oath think exempting George W. Bush from a few laws is no big deal. Here's the problem: the genie is out of the bottle. Every president from now on will have these same powers. That includes liberal Democrats. Anyone think either of them won't try to open the door even wider? It will be fun to watch Bushies try to argue that President Obama is overstepping his authority. I can easily imagine the Obama Justice Department finding some legal logic to justify the imprisonment and torture of pro-life activists, for instance.

A ridiculous thought? Maybe. But if it happens, you can thank George W. Bush and his enablers, who have made a mockery of the very Constitution they claim to protect.

Those Who Cast Stones

Today's news that New York Governor (and sometime moral crusader) Eliot Spitzer was apparently a patron of a high-class prostitution ring is getting lots of play. Initial reports said he planned to resign. He may yet do so, but my guess is that unless criminal charges follow Spitzer will survive to launch more crusades.

Why do I say this? Simple. We already established the precedent back in 1998 that it is perfectly fine for high government officials to carry on perverse sexual affairs, lie under oath in official proceedings, lie to the press and the public, intimidate witnesses, and attack anyone who tries to stop them. If the charges against Spitzer are true, then the only difference between him and Bill Clinton is that some money changed hands.

The public doesn't care because it has been conditioned that all manner of personal conduct must be "tolerated" if not actively encouraged and even celebrated. Those few of us who disagree with this are, in the popular view, nothing but cranky religious fanatics.

At the personal level it is a great tragedy, of course. Mr. Spitzer's wife and children have been betrayed and will suffer greatly. They need our support and prayers. So does the governor himself. We all have our weaknesses and failures. Hopefully he will learn from this experience and find forgiveness and redemption.

That having been said, it would certainly be nice to see Spitzer's downfall as a public official. He's been promoting some truly odious policies and the common good will be well served if he takes the opportunity to retire.

The U.S. Tortures People

From today's Washington Post:

President Bush said Saturday that he has vetoed legislation meant to ban the CIA from using waterboarding and other harsh interrogation tactics because it "would take away one of the most valuable tools on the war on terror."

In his weekly radio address, Bush said, "This is no time for Congress to abandon practices that have a proven track record of keeping America safe." [more]

The bill Bush vetoed would have required the CIA and other intelligence agencies to follow the same standard that applies in the military. For the record, here are the practices that Bush thinks are so indispensable:

• Forcing the detainee to be naked, perform sexual acts, or pose in a sexual manner.
• Placing hoods or sacks over the head of a detainee; using duct tape over the eyes.
• Applying beatings, electric shock, burns, or other forms of physical pain.
• “Waterboarding.”
• Using military working dogs.
• Inducing hypothermia or heat injury.
• Conducting mock executions.
• Depriving the detainee of necessary food, water, or medical care.

Here's my question: if doing these things is the only way America can be kept safe, do we really deserve to be safe? Exactly what is it, pray tell, that distinguishes us from the terrorists we are fighting? Why is it that they are considered barbaric and we are not?

Bush has, on many occasions, looked into a camera and told the public "The United States does not torture." Why, then, does he use the veto to preserve for the CIA the right to perform acts that any sensible person can see are torture? The answer is that he is lying. Note what Bush said today: he is preserving techniques that "have a proven track record." That means we have already done these things. He's not just saving up for a rainy day.

Listen closely, Republicans. George W. Bush is a liar. When he says the U.S. does not torture, Bush is lying just as surely as Bill Clinton was lying when he said he had no sexual relationship with Monica Lewinsky. To hide his lies, Clinton parsed the definition of "is." To justify his lies, Bush parses the definition of "torture." Where is the difference? Republicans who were up in arms about Clinton's lies give their own guy a pass.

Bush's lies are, in fact, far worse than Clinton's lies, which concerned only his personal acts. Acting in your name and by the authority you gave him, President Bush just made evil into official American policy and then lied about it. Congratulations. I hope you're proud of him.

I'll make a prediction here and now: this evil will not keep us safe. Instead it will do the exact opposite. Bush is putting the American people in more danger than ever. In this life or the next, he will pay a price for endorsing this evil. So will we all.

One more point: the fact that John McCain says he opposes torture is one of the few things that I find attractive about his candidacy. Yet McCain inexplicably sided with Bush when this bill came before the Senate last month. This tells us something important. Remember it in November.

Don't Stop Believing

Attention, People Who Seek Change: Do not be dismayed at the setback your candidate suffered on Super Tuesday II. On the third day, Obama will rise again in fulfillment of the Holy New York Times. He will ascend unto the Superdelegates. He will come again in glory to judge the living and the dead, and his kingdom will have no end.

Look Who's Behind Hillary

Hat tip: Born at the Crest of the Empire

The Gospel of Barack

From Mark Shea:

1:1 As it is written in the AP Manual, "Behold, I send my press corps before thy face, who shall prepare thy way." And so it came to pass that pundits went forth into all that country, preaching a vote of repentance for the forgiveness of sins. And lo, these pundits spake by the Spirit of the Age, going into all their towns and cities and declaring:

1:2 "He is not operating on the same plane as ordinary politicians. . . . [He is] the agent of transformation in an age of revolution, as a figure uniquely qualified to open the door to the 21st century." -- Gary Hart

1:3 "Barack Obama is our collective representation of our purest hopes, our highest visions and our deepest knowings . . . . He's our product out of the all-knowing quantum field of intelligence." -- Eve Konstantine

1:4 "This is bigger than Kennedy. . . . This is the New Testament." "I felt this thrill going up my leg. I mean, I don't have that too often. No, seriously. It's a dramatic event." -- Chris Matthews

Read the rest. You won't regret it.