Do You Believe in the Power of Prayer?

Just catching up on some pre-election shows on DVR, including The Daily Show and The Colbert Report.

Colbert made fun of some clip of a guy praying for a McCain victory and reminding God that His reputation is at stake because members of other religions "for various reasons" are praying to their gods for the other guy to win.

I asked Cindy if she ever prayed for Obama to win. She said, "not specifically."

I thought back and realized that, well, neither did I.

So here's my questions to anyone who wants to answer:

1) Did you pray about this election?
2) What was your prayer?
3) To the best of your understanding, was your prayer answered?
4) What inferences, if any, do you draw from the answer to #3?

A More Perfect Union, Still Imperfect...

I've gotten away from blogging about film or much else besides politics in the past few weeks. I hope to change that soon.

Last night was a time of renewed hope more me; it was a time that reaffirmed my hope in the American people and reminded me of what it means to be an American and what a great honor and privilege it is to be relatively free.

While watching President Elect Obama's speech, I commented to my wife that the mood was more sober than triumphal and that they audience was not going wild. She responded: "They're listening."

Maybe that was Obama's real victory. He got us to listen again, to believe that there is power in the exchange of words and ideas, that a politician might actually be saying something that we needed to think about and not just responded to when "Applause" went up on a teleprompter.

There were a number of things that alloyed that joy. Some were selfish, others were and are more things that made me somber about the challenges the new president elect faces in bringing a divided culture together. They are:

1) North Carolina still hasn't been called. I wrote at another venue:

According to results posted at Fox News and ABC and CNN, Obama is ahead by 12,160 votes. (Fox says 99.8% have reported, ABC and CNN say 100% but haven't called it.)

This is a difference of 0.3%. (Obama 49.84; McCain 49.54; Barr 0.59%). Bob Barr's 25, 181 votes was double the margin of victory.

Every vote matters

The outcome of the national election isn't in dispute, but (this is one of the selfish ones), it matters to me that my state goes blue. It will be bittersweet to me if the general election is won but North Carolina lost by the slimmest of margins.

But how must my friends and colleagues who voted Republican feel? Intellectually, I understand that winner take all is no different at the state than national level, but there seems something odd about all the electoral votes going one way when the margin is less than 1/2 of 1 percent. Will there be a recount? I hope not, but state law allows for a candidate to request it in a margin this close. I sincerely hope that some day we can do away with the electoral college. It is a remnant whose time has passed, that served its function but is not the best way, I think, to elect a president.

2) Not All Life is Equal, Apparently.
A lot of Americans care about the unborn...as long as they aren't born and grow up to be gay.

Whatever bittersweetness I might feel at North Carolina being so close, I can only imagine it is a small sliver of what gays and lesbians must feel while watching the results come in. African-Americans have waited so long for the practice of America to approximate its promises that I can only be thrilled and happy for them and for us. But I did feel some hackles raised when both William Bennett (on CNN) and John McCain gave variants on the spin that this historic election means that no longer should Americans tolerate the "excuse" that achievement is impossible for some individuals because of insurmountable barriers. Unless, of course, that achievement is marriage and the individual is not black, but gay.

With between 96-100% reporting, clear winners seem in place for these ballot iniatives:

Arizona 102 (Ban on Gay Marriage)
Yes--56% No 44%

Arkansas 1 (Ban on Gay Couples Adopting Children)
Yes--57% No 43%

California 8 (Ban on Gay Marriage--only 92% reporting)
Yes--52% No 48%

Florida 2 (Ban on Gay Marriage)
Yes--62% No 38%

Over the last eight years, I've often chided the Republican party for being schizophrenic in its pro-"life" stance...of talking the talk on opposing Roe v. Wade but not walking the walk when it comes to respect for all human life. So, too, the Democrats seem to have chosen a candidate who embodies hope and inclusion and tolerance, who includes talking about gays in his speech, while on the state level telling that candidate that they want equality, but not, apparently, for everyone.

We must crawl before we can walk, I suppose.


3) You know, in spite of the fact that I kept hearing about record turnout, I was surprised to hear from FiveThirtyEight.com that the youth turnout only went up about one point. According to the North Carolina election board site. Approximately 67% of registered voters voted. I suppose there are reasons that might prevent someone from voting, but consider this--in an historic election, facing two wars, a financial crisis, the possibilit of several supreme court appointments, etc. nearly 1 out 3 registered voters in North Carolina didn't vote.

Sports Illustrated's Peter King quotes Saints player Scott Fujita yesterday:

"A lot of people think their vote won't make a difference, or that their voice will never be heard,'' Fujita texted. "But if we all felt that way, then the system would be broken. There's a lot more good than bad in this country, and the only way to begin to fix what's bad is to get out and vote. Also, suffrage rights didn't come without incredible struggle for a lot of people in this country -- women and blacks in particular. To me, not voting would be a huge slap in their faces.''

How many people fought and died so that I could cast my vote? How many didn't give the ultimate sacrifice but gave of their time, talents, and income? How many lawyers fought for my rights? How many politicians put the ideals of democracy against expediency? How many that walked before me had to give of themselves or sacrifice so that I could be free? How anyone could take that for granted or receive that gift with anything other than awe and respect is something I simply cannot fathom.

Come on North Carolina....

...make me proud of my adopted home.

I get to spend Christmas with friends and relatives from California and Ohio.

Don't make me be the only one hanging my head.

*************************************
ABC NEWS Says 100% reporting:

McCain (R) 2,088,670 49%
Obama (D) 2,102,175 50%


YES! I LOVE YOU, TARHEEL STATE!

Even though I am a Duke fan, from this day forward the phrase "Tarheel Blue" will have a special place in my heart.

One Voice Can Change the Room...

View From the Trenches in a Swing State

I spent 3-4 hours this morning volunteering at the local Obama precinct house in Fuquay-Varina, North Carolina.

They said what they needed was canvassers. People to go door to door with their lists of voters in high priority districts to ensure they knew where to go (election day precincts are different from early voting precincts), that they had voted, or whether they needed any assistance getting to the polls.

It was raining steadily all morning, but the turnout in the precinct house was impressive. Some of the people I rode or worked with said that in comparison to previous elections, a high percentage of people indicated they had already voted (early or earlier in the day) or were heading out to do so.

I've heard over and over that voter turnout favors Obama. If that is the case, things look good in these trenches. I was worried about the weather, but, again, many had already voted and those who were on there way were not to be deterred. Just about any model for a McCain victory that I've seen depends upon polling seriously mismeasuring voter enthusiasm or turnout.

A side note, too.

This is the first time I've felt strongly enough about an election to donate time or money. Participating in the process does make such a difference. I would urge many of my friends or colleagues who are indifferent or undecided (God knoweth how) to be a bit more engaged rather than taking the "I'm undecided CONVINCE me" posture. That low level of interest tends to lead to apathy. Getting out, even if it is just a couple of hours (I spend 2-3 hours on two different days canvassing neighborhoods and disseminating information) takes you away from your Internet or neighborhood bubble and shows you how people live. It moves the consequences of an election (local or national) from the category of the abstract to the real.

To my friends who want to vote Obama but are concerned or influenced by Republican rhetoric regarding Roe v. Wade, I make a last minute appeal:

If all you cared about were legalized abortion on demand, you wouldn't be undecided, would you? The fact that you are struggling tells me on some level, in your heart of hearts, you really want to vote for Obama but are afraid--of your (sub)community, friends, maybe even family. It's okay. God gave you a mind to reason and a conscience to listen to. There is more than one commandment and we all fail every day to be perfect. There are people who are great Christians in both political parties--who disagree about how to reduce abortions (and unwanted pregnancies for that matter). I won't repeat all of the arguments here, because most of you have heard them before.

What I will say is--I give you permission to vote for Obama. If you lose your credibility or respect as a Christian because of your vote, then your friends and community don't care about the sum total of your relationship with God and development of your faith, they only care that you are either "with us or against us."

George MacDonald wrote in Wilfrid Cumbermede:

The upper hand of influence I had over him I attribute to the greater freedom of my training, and the enlarged ideas which had led my uncle to avoid enthralling me to his notions. He believed that truth could afford to wait until I was capable of seeing it for myself, and that the best embodiments of truth are but bonds and fetters to him who cannot accept them as such. When I could not agree with him he would say with one of his fine smiles, "We'll drop it then, Willie. I don't believe you have cuaght my meaning. If I am right, you will see it some day, and there's no hurry."

Many will tell you there is a hurry, and urgency. That you agreeing with them is a matter of life and death. That may even be true, but I'm not sure that it is God's way. Even in the matters of life and death truth must be truth to the listener or it cannot carry the force of accepted fact. Don't let others decide for you or spiritually bully you into going against your beliefs.

MacDonald also wrote in The Hope of the Gospel:

If then we go wrong, it will be in the direction of the right, and with such aberration as will be easier to correct than what must come of refusing to imagine, and leaving the dullest traditional prepossessions to rule our hearts and minds, with no claim but the poverty of their expectations from the paternal riches.

Trust yourself, but more importantly, trust God. Believe that if you will but move in the direction of the right as you see and feel it (even if that is not the direction that seemingly makes sense to your friends or comrades) that you will train your heart to be obedient to the convictions God places there and any errors you make will be "easier to correct" than will be the results of refusing to imagine, refusing to think that you could be right and those who are so very sure could be wrong. Easier to correct, indeed, than the results of substituting someone else's conviction for your judgment, and taking the path of least resistance rather than the one that you think to be true.

Okay, Here's Something that Annoys Me About the Obama Campaign

I doubt it should come as any surprise to anyone who reads this blog when I say that I sent $20 to Barack Obama's campaign. Earlier I had volunteered some time and canvassed my neighborhood to get out information about early voting, but I hadn't given any money, and on the heels of the $4 million dollar infomercial, I figured that every little bit helps.

It took approximately 30 seconds for me to receive an e-mail confirmation and thanks for my contribution:

From the beginning, this campaign has been built and funded by supporters like you giving only what they can afford.

It took less than 2 hours for me to receive a request for further donations:

Kenneth --

I'm the Chief Financial Officer for Barack Obama's campaign. I track the donations coming in and the expenses going out.

I asked for the opportunity to write to you directly so that I could try to explain what's happening right now.

This organization has thousands of employees and spends millions of dollars a day -- and at the moment we're doing it without a safety net.

Our spending plans have been stretched by John McCain's negative attacks and the overwhelming resources of the Republican National Committee.

As of October 15th, John McCain and the RNC together had nearly $20 million more in cash than the combined total of Obama for America and the DNC. And just this week, we're facing new and unexpected spending against us in Montana and West Virginia.

Your incredible generosity has gotten us this far. But right now we need your help more than ever to get this campaign across the finish line.

Please donate $25 or whatever you can afford right now

That's not really what's bothering me though. John McCain and the RNC have 20 million more than they do? Really? What about this at CNN (not exactly a McCain shill):

"It's evidence, if you needed any, that the Obama campaign has more money than there is ad time left to buy," said Evan Tracey, director of the Campaign Media Analysis Group. "This is flexing the muscles."

and

The Obama campaign reported last week that it had raised a record-shattering $150 million in September.

Obama has outspent McCain by a huge margin, according to CNN's consultant on ad spending.

Between the time the two candidates clinched their party's nominations in the spring and October 25, Obama spent more than $205 million on TV ads. McCain spent more than $119 million, according to TNS Media Intelligence/Campaign Media Analysis Group.

Believe me, I'm the wrong one for McCain to approach with the Obama lied about taking campaign financing argument. If he can raise more money through contributions than through public financing, God bless. But don't try to have your cake and eat it, too. Don't turn down public financing because you can raise more money without it, outspend your opponents by a wide margin and then complain that they have so much more money than you do.

Believe you me, I'd happily drop another $20 if it could guarantee I didn't ever have to hear the words "President McCain" (and maybe another hundred if I could be assured of never, ever hearing the words "Vice-anything Palin"). I might begrudgingly drop a few if I thought it was really needed. But by being disingenuous in its appeals, the Obama campaign keeps itself from being able to make me believe them when they make the most effective appeal. I'm not saying they are the boy that cried wolf, exactly, but I am saying if it walks like a boy that cries wolf, and quacks like a boy that cried wolf...

How John McCain Will Win

I guess since Homer was the one who finally killed James Bond, it shouldn't be surprising that he got John McCain elected:

McCain Supporters at Miami Rally Threaten Obama Supporters

Story here.

What I Am Concerned About...

Last weekend, I was talking to my friend Peter and to my sister-in-law Laura, and I opined that I wasn't much worried about the "Bradley" effect. When Peter asked me to assess the confidence points I had behind my pick, I said "14."

Still, nothing is over till it's over. So, in ascending order, here are the things I'm most worried about still.

6) Barack Obama lets slip that he is a Duke fan while speaking in Raleigh tomorrow. (I don't know if he is, but I just hope one of his handlers makes clear how fanatical and illogical UNC fans are.)

5) Frivolous Lawsuits.
Honestly, I think we still don't know who won Florida in 2000. The documentary Hacking Democracy said that Kerry had lawyers in place to challenge results in New Mexico. In both places the democratic candidates chose structural integrity over prolonged or continued legal battles. If John McCain were to lose the election by less than four states, do you really see him doing the same? Neither do I. [Reason this isn't higher is because I don't think he will be close enough to matter and so won't pursue it.]

4) Block the Vote.
Remember that lawsuit last year where Indiana wanted to demand photo identification and the Supreme Court said no? Well, Indiana is (in some polls) back to being a toss up, and now, after the Supreme Court backed the Ohio elections chief in the GOP's attempt to get newly registered voters purged, will Indiana be deterred from asking for the same thing? Of course not.

We all understand that the reason ACORN handed in registration cards that they themselves flagged as fraudulent or suspicious is because they are required to do so by law, right? And we all understand the reason that law is in place is because the Republicans have a long and storied tradition of purging legally registered voters? Hey, it worked in Florida in '00, why not give it another run?

3) Optical Scanners in New Mexico
The film Hacking Democracy demonstrates how easy it is to hack and fix memory cards on Diebold voting machines. According to one witness in the same film, John Kerry noted that every precinct in New Mexico that had optical scanning machines came back for Bush, and he carried the state by a close margin. New Mexico has been in the solid blue camp on most electoral maps for quite some time now...based on polling. I don't trust those Diebold machines, and I find it unfathomable that public elections are cloaked in proprietary secrets from compaines whose CEOs, board members, and runners are often big contributors to the GOP.

2) The weather.
Good turnout is supposed to favor Obama, particularly in states like Georgia where the best chance of a Democratic victory would be a strong turnout by new voters. Most weather reports I've seen predict rain in key battleground states including Ohio, North Carolina, Florida, and Georgia. Dems seem to be voting early, but will voter turnout be hurt by the weather?

1) The unexpected
What's new in this election? Massive turnouts. If lines are hours long for early voting, what sorts of turnouts will we have on election day? Historically, enthusiasm in early voting usually crests with enthusiasm for turnout on election day rather than less voters on election day. Will some precinct(s) in key states have machine malfunctions, sufficient paper ballots, run out? Will people in line be turned away? Will lines still be several hours long when precincts close? If so, will people be voting well into the night?

D.L. Hughley Breaks the "News"??

Okay, I've been pretty critical of the conservative notion that the American media is biased. And I've been pretty critical of Governor Palin's false eschewing of labels when she in fact indulgences in labels and stereotypes all the time.

So I had to cringe when CNN's newest show was D.L. Hughley Breaks the News.

Hughley, on a cable news network, gave a monologue that included such gems as were Obama to have a place for Colin Powell in his administration, it would be the first time two black people were in the White House "since Thomas Jefferson had a three-way" and then went on to say the Election had somehow influenced the world series because the reason the Boston Red Sox lost to the Tampa Bay Devil Rays was that the were "all white." Of course, no monologue would be complete without some reference to John McCain's age; Hughley opined that McCain was especially disappointed that a 106 year-old nun recently endorsed Obama because "they used to date" (he somehow didn't realize or care that this may be insulting to the nun, making light of her vows, as it was of McCain). He also suggested that McCain's legacy would be historically tarnished if he lost because he would be forever known as the guy who couldn't even beat a black man. Oh yeah, and in riffing about Obama's cholestrol level, Hughley trotted out the old ethnic stereotypes about eating fatty foods. It was all positively cringe worthy.

There are, I suppose, a lot of comments one could make about this. It's hard to call out Hughley for cheap remarks when the GOP and McCain's follows are full of them, but, "They started it" is hardly a convincing disavowal.

Really, though, the main thing that jumps out to me is why the heck was this on CNN? If Hughley had given the same monologue on Comedy Central, or Fox (hah, fat chance) or the WB, or NBC (like, say on SNL), I'd still find it offensive, but I wouldn't find it disingenuous. This show was on CNN, though, and the clip above was linked not to the "Entertainment" page on CNN but to the "Politics" page on CNN. This isn't news and reporting, it is a showcase on a major news network for a "comedian" to engage in partisan satire. Whatever credibility CNN has as a respected news network just took a big hit.

Sarah Palin and Labels

Sarah Palin can't decide whether or not she is a feminist. When asked if she considers herself a feminist by Katie Couric, she said "I do." When asked if she was a feminist by Brian Williams, she said:

"I'm not gonna label myself anything, Brian. And I think that's what annoys a lot of Americans, especially in a political campaign, is to start trying to label different parts of America different, different backgrounds, different … I'm not going to put a label on myself. "

Yeah, that really annoys a lot of Americans when you start trying to label different parts of America different. Like when you call some parts the "real America." She's not going to put a label on herself, but she doesn't mind throwing around labels, like, oh, terrorist, socialist, elitist, liberal, ultra-liberal, and "real" America.

My Vote is Cast

The North Carolina Votes Early precinct at Fuquay-Varina opened today (others in Wake County opened last week) so I went by to cast my vote so that if anything happens to me between now and election day, I'll have gotten my vote in. I was voter number 339 for the day at that location, which had been open from about 7 to Noon. It was about a 10 minute wait, with a steady stream of people.

Okay, I've done my part. Now the wait begins.

GOP Spends 150 K of Donations on Palin Clothes and Make Up

In the wake of an unpopular financial bailout bill, candidates made hay out of the fact that AIG continued business as usual by sponsoring a rewards junket for top sellers.

In response to growing deficits, Senator McCain has repeatedly cast himself as a pork and perk eliminator, suggesting that the best way to get control of deficits is to cut spending, and saying that he and his party have the discipline and principles to freeze spending enough to reduce deficits without rolling back the Bush tax loopholes for corporations or the so-called "super-rich."

This just in: The McCain campaign has spent approximately $150,000 of campaign contributions on make-up, hair styling, clothing, and "accessories" for Sarah Palin.

I'm tempted to let it go at that because this one spins itself, but...oh, I can't help myself.

The reformers that will "fight" for me and stand up to free-wheeling liberals could think of nothing better to do with the campaign contributions that "real America"ns send them than to send Sarah Palin to Neiman Marcus with a charge card and then off to the Tresame hair salon. [Given her recent appearance on Saturday Night Live, can a guest spot on Project Runway be far behind? I can just see Hedi Klum now..."The winning look will actually be worn by Governor Palin at a rally where she explains why none of you can get married because you're all gay--all of you, if she is elected, will be out...]

The linked AP report about notes that:

Federal campaign finance law prohibits the use of campaign funds for personal
use, but it defines personal use as any expense "that would exist
irrespective of the candidate's campaign or duties as a federal
officeholder."

The Republican campaign argues that spending this campaign money (whether via individual donors or publicly-financed allocations, does not constitute a preach of campaign finance law. (Remember when John McCain was actually one of the guys that wanted to reform campaign finance abuse?)

I guess then that this legal argument boils down to the claim that Sarah Palin would not need a whole new wardbrode and public fund financed makeover if she wasn't a campaign member. I don't know, personally, I tend to think that, you know, being CLOTHED is a personal expense that exists for all of us, not just those of us traveling to real America to sniff about elites.

McCain Campaign Concedes Colorado, New Mexico

According to John King at CNN, the McCain campaign has quietly and privately conceded New Mexico (no big surprise there)Iowa, and Colorado. Take all non-attributed reports with a grain of salt, but CNN was right about the GOP conceding Michigan.

Why is that so significant? Because if Senator Obama wins every state that John Kerry won plus Iowa, New Mexico, and Colorado, he would win the election--even if Senator McCain were to pull out wins in Florida, Ohio, Missouri, North Carolina, Virginia, and Nevada.

Everyone assumed that the McCain campaign would have to put Virginia back in the Red column at some point, but it looks like the demographic change in that state has made that unlikely. Now, if the McCain campaign has essentially conceded Colorado and Iowa, even that would not be enough. Instead, their new strategy seems to be to fight for wins in Nevada (still neck and and neck), Florida, and Ohio and to try to flip Pennsylvania instead.

Pennsylvania has been in the "leaning" Obama to solid Obama in most projections. CNN's poll of polls shows Obama with a thirteen point lead there. Even were McCain to somehow flip Pennsylvania, win Ohio and Florida, but lose Virginia, he would still have to sweep Missouri and Nevada to eke out an electoral win.

Why Pennslyvania instead of Virginia? The story doesn't say but I suspect two reasons:

--Some polling data suggests that Colorado voters raised John McCain's "negatives" because they felt he was running a negative campaign. I suspect the GOP believes that it would have a greater possibility of success with a negative campaign in Pennsylvania than Virginia, where the Northern Virginia demographic (educated, middle to upper class, politically informed) has grown and helped tip the state AND doesn't like negative campaigning. [Does that sound "elitist"? Yes, just as the Republican strategy seems to pander to a reverse elitism--because we are willing to listen to smear campaigns we are the "real America" and hence better than those informed voters.]

--Senator Obama, of course, was beaten badly in the Pennsylvania primary by Senator Clinton, despite campaigning heavily in that state. It was that primary that led Senator Clinton to make the argument that Senator Obama could not win white, working class voters and carry the states needed to win the electoral college. Obama proved otherwise, but prepare for the GOP to resurrect that argument. Also Senator Obama's self-proclaimed biggest campaign gaffe was the infamous "cling to guns and religion" comment, which was taken out of context to reinforce the stereotype that he was an elite. I would expect the GOP to run that quote over and over in robocalls and ads in Pennsylvania.

On the one hand, this news depresses me because its more of the cynical same from the McCain camp. On the other hand, I suppose one can argue that if the other side is throwing a "hail mary" that means they are behind and getting increasingly desperate.

"We're Going to Have an International Crisis..."

I'm sure these speeches of politicians are vetted, sound bite test, test grouped, and purposeful, but after reading the substance of Joe Biden's most recent remarks, all I could think of was...WTF??

I'm operating on some basic assumptions here:
1) The game ain't over 'til it's over.
2) The purpose of a campaign speech is to encourage people to vote for you.

Biden said that within six months of an Obama administration there would be a "generated crisis" to "test the mettle" of Obama.

What the heck is a "generated" crisis? This appears to mean either manufactured in some sense, like an October surprise, hinting that political opponents might try to generate a crisis...you know, some scenario out of Thirteen Days or some such. Either that or he's suggesting that the world community will think America is weak and be more likely to attack or press some political advantage because it believe Obama doesn't have the "mettle" to stand up to the world.

Both sound like something that would be coming out of John McCain's mouth--did Biden read the wrong teleprompter?

More strange still, Biden didn't exactly use this gloomy scenario to say that such a notion would be foolish. Instead he seemed to suggest cynically that Obama's popularity would take a hit in office because the American people wouldn't be able to distinguish between what is right and what is popular:

"I promise you, you all are going to be sitting here a year from now going, 'Oh my God, why are they there in the polls, why is the polling so down, why is this thing so tough?' We're going have to make some incredibly tough decisions in the first two years," said Biden. "I'm asking you now, be prepared to stick with us. Remember the faith you had at this point because you're going to have to reinforce us."

I like Biden, and it's no secret to anyone who reads this blog that I intend to vote for Senator Obama on the first day of early voting in my precinct, but...well, this sure read like a colossal gaffe to me. One it borders on arrogance, assuming the election is already won, after his own running mate cautioned against getty cocky. Two, it bizzarely seems to concede that an international crisis is more likely under an Obama presidency than a McCain one. This plays right into the "too risky" strategy of the Republicans. If I were on the McCain campaign--well, first I would kill myself by drowning in a sea of self-loating, but after that--I would make sure that Biden's clip was in just about every ad I ran between now and the election.

I honestly have no idea what the heck Biden is getting at. I assume that he is trying to lay the groundwork for a public relations war should Senator Obama be elected, but it seems like a strange, strange, strange campaign strategy, telling other people that if your running mate is elected an international crisis will happen within six months.

Said Biden, "I promise you it will occur" and "I promise you, you all are going to be sitting here a year from now going, 'Oh my God, why are they there in the polls, why is the polling so down, why is this thing so tough?"

The timing is atrocious, too, as it takes the news cycle voluntarily away from the Colin Powell endorsement and effectively negates the argument of, "See, even their guy [Republican] thinks he is better for foreign affairs." Now the Republicans can counter with, "See even their guy [VP] thinks an Obama presidency will spur an international crisis."

Expect to hear the latter from now until election day. "Why is this thing so tough"??? Senator McCain couldn't have asked for a better gift.

B. J. Lawson vs. David Price -- NC 4th

One side effect of having such an obvious and clear choice in this year's presidential election is that I haven't paid much mind to some of the other, local races.

That changed last week when I got a mailer from Lawson for Congress.

First off, I guess I'll say, I'm no huge fan of David Price. I wrote his office a couple years ago asking him to support some legislation that was relevant to my family. Neither he nor anyone in his office ever replied. (Incidentally, neither, this year, did anyone in Elizabeth Dole's office when I e-mailed her asking for information about her stand on the federal bailout of the financial system; Price's office did reply to that e-mail.)

I was strongly put off by Lawson's mailer, mostly because I felt it rather disingenuously tried to imply to the casual reader that he was running as a Democrat. The first page read "Our grassroots campaign is as diverse as our district--Democrats, Unaffiliated, Republicans, Libertarians..." [Emphasis in the original]. The second page said "Are you voting for Change on November 4th" and "Be the Change." So, in marketing terms, he was trying to run as a Republican under the marketing campaign of the Democratic ticket. In fact, nowhere other than on the last page, in small print under a sample ballot, did the mailer say that he was running as a Republican. From a campaign that claims "I'm a big believer in transparency in government," the mailer struck me as rather disingenuous.

That said, the flier did articulate a position on military intervention that is closer to my own than that of either the current administration or the Democratic party. I think it is misleading to say, as Lawson does, that "David Price has consistently voted for war throughout his Congressional career." In response to my request (at the website) for documentation of this claim, I was directered to this page, which acknowledges that Price voted against H.J. Res 114 (2002) [War in Iraq] and H.J. Res 77 (1991) [Gulf War]. I actually agree with Lawson's larger point that the more damning vote was probably H.J. Res 64, which authorized the president to "attack" any nation "believed" to be involved in 9/11. This isn't quite the same as voting for war, though. I believe the Constitutional requirement that Congress vote for war is important, and the move towards the executive branch having that power is and was a serious abdication of the moral responsbility of the elected officials. Price's war votes more recently have reflected the "timetables" argument, which is that he voted for appropriations tied to timetables--which were defeated by filibuster by Republicans who used funding the troops to hold the other party hostage to funding. While I sympathize with candidates like Price who argue that it would be wrong to withhold funding for troops that are there, even if we don't want them there, and that it is the Republicans who are playing a massive and immoral game of political "chicken" by putting the troops in the way of a straight up vote that reflects the will of the people, I also agree that it was the lack of political courage or conviction in the wake of 9/11 that put the Dems in a position of being afraid to stand up for the rule of law in the face of the rhetoric of fear.

Lawson is a Ron Paul disciple (I don't mean the term disparingly), so he is, obviously against the recent federal bailout. I hated the bailout, but almost everyone I know and/or respect with a knowledge of economics said it was the right thing to do. In the Lawson-Price debate at UNC, Price said he opposed the initial "2 page" bill submited by Chairman Paulson and fought for modifications (along the lines articulated by Obama--no CEO bonuses, tax-payer stakes in companies propped up with federal money, some regulation or oversight). Lawson says in his mailer, "David Price voted for the administration's $850 billion Wall Street bailout, despite evidence that it will not reduce foreclosures or ease the credit crisis." [Empahsis in the original.] I think Price would be right to object that "the administration's" seems to imply that he was in favor of the original Paulson plan, and he voted for the modified plan. I personally am surprised by the use of the word "evidence" attached to a future state, with the claim it "will not reduce [...] or ease."

To sum up:

Things I like about the Lawson campaign:

--It seems to better reflect the ideology that the Congressman should represent the people and not the party interests.
--It articulates a clear, underlying ideology, which, in my experience is generally a better gauge of direction than a stance on any one current issue.
--It rightly takes both parties to task for making military intervention a decision of the executive branch rather than taking the easier (i.e. more popular way out) of only focusing on the Iraq war as an unpopular war.
--It rightly condemns the passage of the PATRIOT Act [where's George Orwell when you need him?], which David Price voted for.
--The "One Subject at a Time Act" that would limit legislation to one subject per bill would definitely, in my opinion, make it harder for candidates to trade votes, swap votes, or spin votes and lead to more transparency in government. I'm sick to death of all the, "Well, I was agaisnt THAT PART of the bill, but I had to vote for it in order to not be against THAT OTHER PART of the bill."
--As a physician, I am particularly appalled by our treating drug abuse as a criminal offense rather than an individual medical problem. A particularly egregious byproduct of federal drug prohibition is our inherently unjust way of prosecuting these "crimes" and administering sentences, as rates of drug abuse and incarceration provide ample evidence for institutionalized racism. I reject the idea of incarcerating potentially productive individuals for making choices that hurt only themselves.

Things I don't like:
--I felt its mailer was at worst, deceptive, at best misleading.
--I felt like he has mischaracterized David Price's record in places in order to score political points. [While I certainly agree that Lawson is closer to my own ideology on some than Price is, I'm always concerend about a campaign that focuses so much on the other guy and runs on an "I'm not him" platform. A candidate's ethos and truthfulness is the glue that holds any platform together.]
--I'm not convinced that his bailout opposition is the right position to hold, and I worry that he is running under the umbrella of a party that used public opposition of the bill to get "sweeteners" rather than to stand on principled opposition.
--Finally, while I think the "Read the Bills" and "Write the Laws Act" are relatively benign, the central focus they hold in his platform strikes me as a bit naive.
--No mention from an MD and libertarian on the mailer or "issues" section about Abortion rights?

I'm still undecided about this race, but I do appreciate that Lawson does not appear to be a typical hawkish Neocon and I sent a small donation to his campaign, because I think the only way to have accountability in government is to have representatives like David Price be held accountable for their votes, views, and ideology.

What is the "Real America"?

Republican candidate for vice-president, Sarah Palin, has been enjoying her campaign trek through what she calls "real America."

Senator Joe Biden has rightfully chastised her for the implication that some parts of America are more American than others, and now polling 538.com site makes the following observation about Palin's remarks:

Since her coming out in Dayton, Ohio on August, 29th, Palin has held (or is scheduled to hold) public events in 44 cities according to the Slate.com candidate tracker. [....]

[...] the racial composition of voting-age (18+) population in these 44 cities as according to the 2000 census.** They are, on average, 83.3 percent non-Hispanic white, 7.5 percent black, 5.2 percent Hispanic, and 4.0 percent "other". By comparison, the US 18+ population in 2000 was 72.0 percent white, 11.2 percent black, 11.0 percent Hispanic, and 5.9 percent other. Thirty-four of Palin's 44 cities were whiter than the US average.

So, what is a "wonderful little pocket [....] of the real America"? Sounds like to the GOP it is those places where they can try to pander to white voters by telling us that we are the real America.

And You Think The Financial Meltdown has Hurt You?

CNN reports that retired Republican Senator John Danforth has told the New York Times:

"This is a year where everything that could go in Obama's favor is going in Obama's favor. Everything that could go against McCain is against him. It's absolutely the worst kind of perfect storm."

But hey, enough about Main Street, let's talk about how things have affected John McCain! Well, turns out that by hurting main street, the financial meltdown has made them look at who they think might actually help them.

Danforth's statement ranks right up there with Phil Gramm's soon to be infamous "nation of whiners" response to the meltdown and McCain's previously blogged "because life is not fair" remark (when asked why he thought polls were going Obama's way).

You know, this financial crisis is terrible not because it exploded the deficit, saddled children with debt, cost jobs and homes but because it came at the worst possible time for John McCain.

Republican Senator Slams McCain Campaign.

Well there's coattails, no coattails, and then there's "please don't let the door hit you on the way out."

Maine Senator Susan Collins has called on the McCain campaign to stop its campaigning in her state, saying, "These kind of tactics have no place in Maine politics."

Let me rephrase that...

REPUBLICAN Senator Susan Collins has called on the McCain campaign to stop its campaigning in her state "immediately."

Well, not all campaigning, but to stop the campaigning it is doing, which is using robocalls trying to link Senator Barack Obama to William Ayers.

Collins joins Florida Governor Charlie Crist as incumbent Republicans who are running away from the McCain campaign.

Ironically, it looks like John McCain has finally demonstrated that he can "reach across the aisle" and get members of both parties to agree on something.

Unfortunately, what he is getting them to agree on is that John McCain is running a sleazy, ineffectual, negative campaign.

"He won't have the luxury of studying up on the issues before he acts...."

Senator John McCain gave this doozy of a statement in Florida today:

"The next president won't have time to get used to the office. He won't have the luxury of studying up on the issues before he acts. He will have to act immediately."

Well, I submit that whichever candidate is elected, he will have the same amount of (non) time to get used to the office, because as Senator McCain (finally) figured out in the last debate, he's not George Bush. Which also means, he doesn't have any experience in the office of president.

But that's not my real point, rather it is this...

"He won't have the luxury of studying up on the issues before he acts."

When, exactly, did becoming informed about decisions become a "luxury"? Since when is "act[ing] immediately" before learning about the issues a preferable trait to trying to become informed about the decisions one has to make?

Yes, I know, that he was trying to say not that he acts without thinking or being informed, but that's sure what it looks and sounds like. Certainly Senator McCain is right that the office of President may be accelerated--professional athletes, particularly football players, often talk about the speed of action the higher one rises--but this sound bite makes it sound like the only substitute for speed is to eliminate preparation. In fact, if anything, the Bush administration has shown that simply going by your gut is a pretty good way to run things into the ground.

Two other points. As far as the idea that one needs to be prepared rather than learn on the job, I think it has been Senator Obama and his campaign that has been more efficient, specific, and otherwise indicative of a readiness to begin to implement ideas rather than trying to figure out what to do. The second point is that the acceleration of pace of office makes stamina important (so, yes, age is an issue) and (more importantly) means that staffing is important as well. It is precisely because the president can't learn everything about everything that he or she needs to be surrounded by a staff that is capable of advising, briefing, challenging, and otherwise working with him. Senator McCain's pick of Sarah Palin as a running mate, along with his insistence that she is ready to be president should anything happens to him, not only evidences questionable judgment but gives a powerful clue to the sorts of people he would surround himself with and what he sees as their function and value.