Archive for

Sarah Palin = Harriet Meiers?

Ouch. But, possibly fair. Palin has the look of the unthoroughly vetted: she doesn’t fit in with McCain’s main spin, she faces corruption problems, and… she supports Obama. This is a feel-good rollout that might appeal to moderate women voters. For the weekend.

Picking Palin, McCain Surrenders “Experience” as a Talking Point

In a surprise move, John McCain has tapped Sarah Palin as his running mate.

Selecting an individual to be your running mate is an implicit acknowledgment of that person’s Presidential qualifications. Especially because the gloomy but real prospects stemming from McCain’s age mean that his running mate may, realistically, have to step into the Oval Office, McCain’s selection of Sarah Palin raises one question -

Why is Palin ready to be President, but Obama is not?

Sarah Palin is two years into her first term as Alaska’s governor. Before that, she was the mayor of Anchorage. In short, she has little on Obama’s decades of public service as a state representative and years in the Senate, a point even McCain advisers expressed concerns about:

One adviser said that while Mr. McCain thinks highly of Ms. Palin, who is opposed to abortion rights and would be welcomed by Christian conservatives, her less than two years in office would undercut one of the McCain campaign’s central criticisms of Senator Barack Obama — that he is too inexperienced to be commander-in-chief.

Especially because the post-convention spin on Obama, along with recent ads, have continued to stress the theme of Obama’s alleged “inexperience,” picking such a fresh-faced but inexperienced running mate seems a tacit nod to Obama’s qualifications, and an abandonment of the campaign’s most effective best talking point. Latent scandals surrounding the new governor don’t bode well either.

Plain and simple, this is a gamble. McCain has tied himself to a Republican rising star, before she’s fairly ready for the spotlight. If he wins, by catapulting her to fame, he secures the Republican’s future beyond his own term. If he loses, though… he’s prematurely shown the Republicans’ hand, and tarnished the party’s hope for a bright new future with failure. With the polls as they are, Palin would not have been my choice.

Democrats, moving forward, here is your talking point: by implicitly acknowledging that a two-year governor is experienced enough to be President, McCain concedes Obama’s own qualifications.

Contra Anonymous DI Legal Intern: Common Misconceptions About Intelligent Design, Part 3

It stands as a basic precept of academic integrity that careful thought be met with careful thought; far be it for a footsoldier in the culture wars to attack a tenured professor’s lengthily reasoned treatise, save for at length, and thoroughly. Thus we begin the final installment in our three-part series, analyzing an anonymous Discovery Institute legal intern’s (ADILI’s) attempts to take on the legal academy. In our hero’s last rant, s/he spends a page addressing a matter to which Anne Marie Lofaso devotes nearly sixty – whether intelligent design is “science,” and whether changing the definition of “science” to accommodate ID is tolerable. She answers both in the negative.

If ADILI’s rebuttal of Mrs. Lofaso, in this “article,” does not repeat the gross mis-characterizations of legal authority that defined the last piece, it’s because the article at no point engages in discussion of the law… anywhere. Instead, Mrs. Lofaso’s legal article is only cited for its scientific propositions: that the “materialist requirement” of science is valid, and that ID is unfalsifiable. ((These aren’t legal arguments, and it boggles my mind why a legal intern would be paid to address them, unless the DI’s commitment to the law is as lackadaisical as its commitment to science.))

To rebut the latter, ADILI cites us to a (surprise!) Discovery Institute document, which argues that ID is falsifiable because it makes the following predictions which, if untrue, would render ID invalid:

(1) Natural structures will be found that contain many parts arranged in intricate patterns that perform a specific function (e.g. complex and specified information).
(2) Forms containing large amounts of novel information will appear in the fossil record suddenly and without similar precursors.
(3) Convergence will occur routinely. That is, genes and other functional parts will be re-used in different and unrelated organisms.
(4) Much so-called “junk DNA” will turn out to perform valuable functions.

Huh. If ID’s “falsifiable predictions” sound odd, it’s because they’re (for the most part) retrodictive predictions made by plain old natural selection, which hypothesizes inter alia (3) convergence and (4) the meaningfulness of junk DNA. The DI is trying to piggyback its pet theory on the falsifiability – ergo scientific validity – of “Darwinism,” without ever attempting to make the unique predictions which are the true hallmarks of a scientific theory. If ID is “falsifiable,” it is only falsifiable insofar as it co-opts uncontestable points of evolutionary theory: its addition of a designer, the true portion of the theory for which falsifiability would be needed, lacks any such indicia.

Mrs. Lofaso’s article presents a clear articulation of the reason that science must be primarily “materialist,” one which ADILI never discusses, save to argue that it is discriminatory, intolerant, and somehow “censorship.” While the persecution complex may be a fantastic rhetorical card to play, it is neither scientific nor legal, and most importantly fails to answer the argument that counting supernatural causation as “scientific” is a “science-stopper.”

[T]he answer – God did it – is both epistemologically unfulfilling and intellectually stifling…. Behe has given several examples of what he considers to be irreducibly complex systems…. [y]et, scientists have explained how both systems, although complex in much the way Behe describes, are not irreducibly complex…. If left to Behe, the inquiry would have ended with his statement that these systems were too complex to come about by the mechanism of natural selection and that better explanation for these systems is that God created them – end of story.

Just so. Few scientists could conjure a more pithy example. The only “legal analysis” in this article – a citation to a book review in the Harvard Law Review, which profanes the pages of that journal by making the tired “why not teach the controversy?” argument – fails to answer the damning allegation that ID, by invoking God, would dilute science down to meaninglessness. ADILI has proven, in this article possibly more than others, that having a LexisNexis account and reading law journal articles does not, in fact, mean that you’re doing legal analysis. And it sure as hell doesn’t make you a lawyer.

A Fantastic Speech – Yes We Can!

I loved Obama’s speech. He hit all the strong points he needed to: he attacked McCain head on, discussing issues of substance & policy; he countered the “celebrity” smear campaign; he spoke with moderation on issues of division; he sought to, and possibly did, transcend politics, as he promised to do four years ago. Fantastic sound bites, and an aggressive stance moving forwards. He’s finally on the offensive; he’s finally on message; he’s finally putting meat to the skeleton-platform of “change.”

Memorable quotes (NY Times, and transcript):

• Spin: “America, we are better than these last eight years. We are a better country than this.”
• Counterspin #1: “Now, I don’t know what kind of lives John McCain thinks that celebrities lead, but this has been mine.”
• Washington Outsider: “We will do this. Washington — Washington has been talking about our oil addiction for the last 30 years. And, by the way, John McCain has been there for 26 of them.”
• Judgment & Experience #1: “If John McCain wants to have a debate about who has the temperament and judgment to serve as the next commander-in-chief, that’s a debate I’m ready to have. For — for while — while Senator McCain was turning his sights to Iraq just days after 9/11, I stood up and opposed this war, knowing that it would distract us from the real threats that we face…. You know, John McCain likes to say that he’ll follow bin Laden to the gates of Hell, but he won’t even follow him to the cave where he lives.”
• Judgment & Experience #2: “And today, today, as my call for a timeframe to remove our troops from Iraq has been echoed by the Iraqi government and even the Bush administration, even after we learned that Iraq has $79 billion in surplus while we are wallowing in deficit, John McCain stands alone in his stubborn refusal to end a misguided war.”
• Counterspin #2: “So I’ve got news for you, John McCain: We all put our country first.”
• Counterspin #3: “And that’s to be expected, because if you don’t have any fresh ideas, then you use stale tactics to scare voters. If you don’t have a record to run on, then you paint your opponent as someone people should run from. You make a big election about small things.”
• Washington Outsider #2: “I get it. I realize that I am not the likeliest candidate for this office. I don’t fit the typical pedigree, and I haven’t spent my career in the halls of Washington.”
• Counterspin #4: “What the naysayers don’t understand is that this election has never been about me; it’s about you.”

He cogently and graciously stood against the negative attacks that have been leveled against him, and took them one-by-one, while moderately articulating a liberal platform, defensible and palatable to swing voters. A resounding success, in the grand tradition of American oratory.

I’m not Barack Obama… but I approve his message.

Romney or Revolt

On the eve of his biggest decision – the selection of a running mate – Mr. McCain faces the sobering choice between winning the election, or uniting his party. Let’s level: Mitt Romney is an election-loser. Palin, Pawlenty, etc. give McCain his shot at glory. But the Republicans won’t have it. Farewell, John. We were just getting to know you… too well.

(No) More Mr. Nice Guy?

Into a campaign that has, by his own creation, become replete with cynicism and mocking anger, McCain has attempted to inject a little of his old self. In a new ad, hyped all day today, McCain will praise Barack Obama’s historic achievement:

Senator Obama, this is truly a good day for America. Too often the achievements of our opponents go unnoticed. So I wanted to stop and say, congratulations. How perfect that your nomination would come on this historic day. Tomorrow, we’ll be back at it. But tonight Senator, job well done.

Friends, don’t believe the hype. Regardless of its innocent appearance, McCain’s congratulations, by becoming part of an affirmative campaign act, betray the shallowness of their emotion. Like the kind act that goes unnoticed, this congratulations loses its spontaneity and honor by becoming so public.

I’m reminded of Gob on “Arrested Development,” apologizing to his brother for his family’s legendary incompetence and backbiting – “Michael, come home. We’re nice now. Family love Michael!” An empty attempt to apologize for a descent into negativism that McCain, like Gob, has no intent of halting.

Clever, though. In fact, this may speak to a new direction in McCain’s campaign, inclusive of his possible running mate pick. There are two ways to interpret this new ad: it’s either a cynical attempt to reclaim his forfeited honor, or a real change of heart. Only McCain’s future actions will tell us which it truly is. But either way, look for a fuzzy rollout of McCain’s soon-to-be-announced running mate, or, more interestingly, a fuzzy choice of running mate. Dare I suggest that this ad just made Lieberman look a little more likely?

Still, this ad rings hollow. Senator McCain, if you’re serious about this new tone, ditch the negative ads, stand by your failed ideology and lose like a man. Actions speak louder than words.

Religion on the Trail

BeliefNet canvasses the intersection of religion and politics in 2008, and concludes that Obama’s Herculean outreach may not be enough to make a sizable dent in the evangelical vote; even considering McCain’s own ineptitude at the same, the GOP seems to be coasting.

Morning in Pu-merica?

At “Yes to Democracy,” I reported on Bill Clinton’s ringing endorsement of Barack Obama. Patrick, fellow writer for YtD, follows up with tales of PUMAs, in the wake of Bill’s speech, questioning their allegiance to the idea, if not the person, of Hillary. PUMA-ism is failing; Bill Clinton tossed the Ring into the fire.

McCain’s Character: Unfit for Command

Recently, Mitt Romney gloated that, during the primaries, McCain was forced to move towards a more conservative position on immigration as a result of Romney’s popularity for his hardline stance. If McCain picks Romney as his running mate – as now seems likely – it will be because the two have become alike in more ways than just this one.

Had this blog been active when McCain clinched the nomination early last spring, I would have written on my hope for America, regardless of the electoral outcome: while I would’ve doubtless still cast my ballot for the Democrat (now Obama – Hillary, being a classy lady, handled that well), I was cautiously optimistic of the Republican prospects, and confident that come January 2009, America would be safely in the hands of an uncontroversial President with her best interests truly at heart.

No more. McCain has run a Rovian-style, divisive, hyper-negative, and hyper-partisan campaign, with the promise of more to come should the unthinkable happen and he ascend to the presidency. At every turn, McCain has exploited division and anger to his benefit, attempting to win over disaffected Democrats not with his policies, which promise to betray each and every one of them to the core, but with a promise of revenge. He’s trying to play the soon-regretted “rebound boyfriend” to jilted Hillary fans – it’s not presidential, and it is, at the core, deceitful and a disservice to America. It’s a false-flag campaign worthy of a new Nixon, not a post-partisan maverick. He should be ashamed.

But he’s not. And that’s the point. In fact – for every betrayal of his former, respectable self – he’s denied accountability, and attempted to win with pity what he can’t win through honor. Exploitation apologized for by denying accountability: this is not the character of a President. Senator Kerry put it best: McCain’s maverick credentials, and indeed his respectability, are all but spent:

I have known and been friends with John McCain for almost 22 years. But every day now I learn something new about candidate McCain. To those who still believe in the myth of a maverick instead of the reality of a politician, I say, let’s compare Senator McCain to candidate McCain

If McCain was once a leader among men, he is no longer. No amount of wistful memories of our American hero Jack, maverick and legend, should exculpate him for these sins and allow him to trade on surrendered honor.

It’s a Beautiful Day – Don’t Let it Get Away

Bill Clinton’s message to America, putting a complete end to fears that he would stand in the way of, or not wholly support, Barack Obama. Immediate media spin – Clinton united the party. Good. The comparison he evoked between himself, who the Republicans called inexperienced and unqualified in 1992, and the spin around Barack Obama, is a strong, forceful message for us to carry forward.

Other talking point successes:

• On poverty, war, and families separated by ridiculous numbers of redeployments: “Are these the family values the Republicans are so proud of? America can do better than that, and Barack Obama WILL do better than that.”
• Barack Obama’s experience: “the long, hard primary toughened and strengthened him, and in his first presidential decision, the selection of a running mate, he hit it out of the park.”
• America should lead by “the power of our example, than by the example of our power”: a ringing refutation of everything the Bush legacy stands for.

Clinton needs to go out and campaign for Obama. And he will. Citing Biden as proof not only that Obama has a good man behind him, but also as proof of Obama’s ability to make a good decision, was a nice touch. And CNN’s headline – “Bill Clinton rips GOP, backs Obama” – will ring for days. The only fear we should have, now, is that Clinton may overshadow Obama.