Archive for August 18, 2008

McCain Co-Opts Solzhenitsyn’s Memories

According to BeliefNet, McCain’s story about the Vietnam POW camp guard drawing a cross in the sand and helping a Christian prisoner sounds an awful lot like the very same story told by Alexander Solzhenitsyn.  McCain detractors may call it theft & misrepresentation; more likely, it’s a poorly-stated attempt to relate his faith to Solzhenitsyn’s anecdote, rather than pretending it happened to him.  Still…

Betting on Obama’s VP

There’s a slim chance that, by the time this post goes up and people start replying, its subject will be moot.  But, let’s start anyways.  Who do you think will be Obama’s pick for Vice President?  Add your guess in comments, and whoever gets it right will win… uh… something.  Unclear.

I was putting my money on Evan Bayh, but I hear from Matt that Bayh and Clarke are out.  Speculators at “Yes to Democracy” are pushing for Gore, but while I think that pick could potentially restore America’s karmic balance from its 2000 deficit, I still don’t think it’s that likely (Gore likes being out of the political limelight lately).  But the way I see it, we have:

• Wesley Clarke
• Evan Bayh
• Chuck Hagel
• Joe Biden
• Al Gore
• Hillary Clinton
• Chris Dodd
• Tim Kaine
• Other minor player

HuffPost currently has Hillary in the lead.  I’d love to hear your guesses.

Update: the smart InTrade money goes with Matt’s bet, and backs Biden.

Forthcoming: Rebuttal of Discovery Institute’s New Legal Ground for Teaching ID

The Discovery Institute has recently posted a series of articles, by their legal intern (oh, the prestige!), explaining why teaching ID in schools is legal. I’ll have a rebuttal soon, but real legal work calls first. Thanks to Trent of RationalWiki for bringing these to my attention.  In the meantime, read my previous legal analysis of ID, and an explanation of the importance of the intersection between the law’s approach to particularized science and the scientific method.

Civil Religion at Saddleback: What is Faith’s Place in Politics?

Saddleback’s Civil Forum on the Presidency gave us a chance to look at the candidates, and evaluate their moral compasses.  Given that there’s now proof that McCain cheated, and knew the questions beforehand… looks like we learned a little bit more about McCain’s moral compass than we wanted to know. Once a cheater, always a cheater.

Pastor Warren began Saddleback with an explanation of his view for religion’s place in government (YouTube here):

We believe in the separation of church and state, but we do not believe in the separation of faith and politics.  Because faith is just a worldview, and everybody has some kind of worldview, and it’s important to know what they are.

Indeed.  Warren’s perspective is a mature outlook on how faith and policy intersect, but I question the full extent of its applicability.  For sure, while the first amendment guards against religious discrimination and state endorsements of religion, it does not prohibit legislators from looking to their faith, but especially in the wake of recent Supreme Court decisions, faith alone can only go so far as a legal justification. One ought not be able to justify otherwise unwise or irrational policy decisions based on faith alone. Whether our candidates believe that faith alone can justify an irrational law is an important thing to know about that individual’s “worldview.”  Lucky for us, John McCain has already given us his perspective on religion & leadership -

- and that is, if you’re not a Christian, get out.  I would not expect a mature philosophical understanding of the nexus between church and state from John McCain.

When Conspiracy Theories Pan Out

What started as a web rumor has been picked up & confirmed by the New York Times: John McCain was not in a “cone of silence” during Obama’s portion of the Saddleback debates, leading some to speculate whether the questions were leaked to him, allowing him time to prepare that Barack Obama did not have.  While I fault Pastor Warren for not making sure that his “cone of silence” was operational, McCain should also have taken steps to avoid the “appearance of impropriety.”

Saddleback Wrap-Up: Obama’s Alleged Loss, and Looking Forward

At Saturday night’s Saddleback Civil Forum on the Presidency, McCain and Obama appeared on stage together… for less than a minute, before entering interview-style discussions with Reverend Rick Warren, of the Saddleback Church.

Commenters here have claimed victory for McCain, joining a distinguished chorus of the McCain camp (shocker!), Republican boosters (amazing!), and PUMAs, those dregs of the internet. I dispute both this victory, and the significance of any alleged victory.

Slanted Playing Field; Poor Predictor

I concede that Obama did not do as well as I had hoped. He was rambling and replete with “umms.” If I expected that Obama in a debate would be just a repeat performance of the same, I’d suggest that he call up the coach that made Iain Duncan Smith & Bill Clinton presentable. But performance in a conversational interview is not the same as performance in an adversarial process.

First, there’s every reason to believe Obama was on slanted ground: while McCain did not participate in the last debate touching on faith – a laughable farce where the crazier you acted, the more love you received – in a sign of how far he’s fallen into the pocket of the religious right, he talked up his faith repeatedly, and took the first strong pro-life stance of his career:

As Christina rightly points out, to expect Obama to look sterling at a religious event next to the newly crowned prince of the religious right is foolish. Fault lies with the Obama campaign, though, for not lowering expectations and hitting that talking point before the debate. That Obama held ground is enough for me, and if Obama’s team had made that point earlier, it could’ve been enough for America, and a stunning coup.

Second, Obama’s law professor chops will shine through best when he’s challenged, rather than when he’s asked to speak introspectively.

Obama Speaks Substance; McCain Embraces “Hope”

Further, Obama took the chance to talk policy, and it went over well. Apparently McCain’s answer to the current economic crisis is the kind of empty hope that Republicans accuse Obama supporters of foolishly embracing. “Everyone can be rich! How? Unclear… let’s segue into a joke!”

Kudos to McCain for joking with the *ahem* already favorable moderator, and coming across as human, but while he was having fun, the opposition took the chance to speak substantively and clear up misunderstandings of tax policy, and give the kind of short, ten-word explanation of the economy that voters have been asking him for:

Had Obama delivered that brief talk in response to McCain’s, the winner would be clear. If McCain “won” on issues like this, it was only spin and empty words – no substance. Talk about a role reversal.

Granted moments like this were in short supply at Saddleback, and are generally few and far between in Obama’s performance overall. But they bode well.

The Shape of Things to Come

Most importantly, the “loss” alleged only by the opposition should not dismay Democrats: our ideas are winning in fair debates between Obama/McCain stand-ins, and we can expect to do stellarly at face-to-face debates. Consider yesterday’s matchup between likely Obama VP Evan Bayh (Sen., D-In) and likely McCain running mate Tim Pawlenty (Gov., R-Mn):

It was a massacre. Obama needs to study Bayh, and Bayh needs to be vice-president: he brings experience, he brings a respectable level of “fight,” and his… ah… error in supporting the Iraq War can be explained away by a legitimate chance of heart, the kind that Saturday night’s moderator recognized as a legitimate reason for that deadliest of political events, the “flip-flop.” Democrats can and will win these debates, with good speakers and intelligent, keenly trained minds. There’s no reason to expect Obama to not perform as well as Bayh, and I’d expect McCain to perform significantly worse than Pawlenty (who was good – just not good enough).

For McCain, Criticism Cut with Praise

I’ll give this to the Loyal Opposition: he spoke of his affair responsibly, and ended his discussion with a call for charitable politics. While I still can’t understand how this affair isn’t a candidate-killer – I don’t deny that good men can sometimes have urges, but a real man ends one relationship before acting on those urges – he ‘fessed up and moved on in a dignified manner. This bodes well for America no matter the results in November. But let’s not count Obama down, when the future continues to look bright.

Cross-posted at “Yes to Democracy.”