Sarah Palin: John McCain's "No Guarantees" Candidate

McCain: Palin could beat Obama. Maybe.

Looking back on the 2008 Presidential election, a lingering question remains:

Did Sarah Palin cost John McCain the Presidency, or did John McCain cost Sarah Palin the Vice Presidency?

The argument is largely the same each way: to those who favour Palin, John McCain wasn't strong enough on conservative issues, and drove conservative voters to stay home. For those who favour McCain, Palin's views are too extreme, and drove moderate voters into the waiting arms of the Democrats.

But in a recent appearance on FOX News, McCain seemed more interested in looking forward to the 2012 Presidential election. When asked if Palin could beat Obama in 2012, he answered to the decidedly affirmative -- but with no guarantees.

“Of course, she can,” McCain said. “She can. Now, whether she will or not, whether she'll even run or not, I don't know.”

“A lot of things happen in campaigns,” McCain continued. “You remember, I was written off a couple of times and was able to come back. So, there's going to be a roller coaster ride for all of them before we finally arrive at our nominee.”

But just as in 2008, Palin's greatest strength could also be her greatest weakness.

“She also inspires great passion, particularly among Republican faithful,” McCain noted.

Of course, he's right. But she also inspires passionate hatred -- that is really the only way to describe it -- from the left.

Often, it works out to the benefits of conservatives, as many of these people simply reveal themselves for the defective human beings they are, sending reasonable and intelligent voters to look at the alternatives.

Even so, this really does not make for good politics. Palin has been masterful at forcing the chronically-unstable among the left (even some of those who otherwise can be intelligent and insightful, such as Andrew Sullivan) to reveal their mania. This is not an acceptable alternative to having ideas of her own.

Declared candidates such as Herman Cain, Mitt Romney and Tim Pawlenty have ideas of their own. Palin does not. Her purported "common sense conservatism" is not an acceptable alternative to having some ideas.

Perhaps Sarah Palin could beat President Barack Obama in 2012. But "perhaps" isn't a good enough reason to forsake candidates with real ideas in favour of Palin.

Leave No Man Behind

Following the end of the Vietnam War, many historians have argued that the United States' faith in itself had been shaken -- that the first and, to date, only military defeat the US ever suffered deeply wounded its public consciousness.

Many have argued that Rambo: First Blood 2 was symptomatic of those wounds. Popular theory holds that the film is an attempt to re-fight the Vietnam War, this time with the United States emerging as the victor.

There may be a case for that. But the film also presented the United States with another opportunity: that to go back and make good on what has become a popular mantra for the US Marine Corp:

Leave no man behind.

In the film, John Rambo (Sylvester Stallone), serving prison time for his rampage in First Blood, is approached with an offer from the United States government: participate in a reconnaissance mission to help identify and recover US servicemen still behind held in Vietnam.

Rambo agrees, and sets off for Vietnam. His mission is to reconnoiteur only -- he is forbidden from engaging the enemy. However, when he stages a rescue of a mistreated POW, the commander of the mission, Marshall Murdock (Charles Napier), calls off the recovery. Rambo is left in enemy hands.

After the arrival of Russian Lieutenant Colonal Podovsky (Steven Berkoff) in the Vietnamese camp, Rambo is tortured until he stages a daring escape.

Rambo even returns to the camp and liberates the POWs. He leaves no man behind.

At the end of the Vietnam war, nearly 2,000 Americans remained unaccounted for in Vietnam. To date, less than 600 have been accounted for.

While the United States had agreed to pay war reparations to Vietnam in exchange for the POWs, the government didn't deliver, and the POWs were withheld. Many of them never returned.

The urgency that no man be left behind clearly wasn't always shared by the US government, but is still felt by many even today. John McCain's efforts to account for POWs have proven to be a noble, if sometimes maligned portion of his record.

During the 2008 election, many slanderous tales were told about McCain being a collaborator during his time as a POW. There was absolutely no truth to them.

One of McCain's proudest records as a Congressman -- as a member of the House of Representatives or the Senate -- has been keeping diplomatic channels open with Vietnam in order to account for POWs still missing.

The likelihood of recovering any POWs alive had already grown slim by the 1980s. Today, many American POWs remain unaccounted for. There is almost no chance any of them are still alive. However, McCain has spent much of his career attempting to arrange the return of their remains to their families.

No Rambo-style mission into Vietnam is known to have ever been staged, let alone successfully free POWs.

Diplomacy has remained the last, best hope to recover these POWs. For many years, John McCain has been their Rambo -- even after their passing.

Afghanistan is Not a Political Football

Michael Steele's comments on Afghanistan unconsionable

Following Republican National Committee chairman Michael Steele's recent comments on Afghanistan, a storm is brewing within the Republican Party that could well blow him right out the door.

In a clear and blatant effort to cast Afghanistan as Barack Obama's war, Steele mischaracterized the United States' involvement in the region, treating them as if it was actually Obama's doing.

"This was a war of Obama's choosing," Steele insisted. "This is not something the United States had actively prosecuted or wanted to engage in."

"During the 2008 Presidential campaign, Barack Obama made clear his belief that we should not fight in Iraq, but instead concentrate on Afghanistan," Steele later explained. "Now, as President, he has indeed shifted his focus to this region. That means this is his strategy."

"I supported the decision to increase our troop force and, like the entire United States Senate, I support General Petraeus' confirmation," he continued. "The stakes are too high for us to accept anything but success in Afghanistan."

If Steele is really in such agreement with the war in Afghanistan, one may wonder what, precisely, the problem for him was -- aside from Obama's plans to shift US attentions away from Iraq.

The truth is that, following 9/11, the United States made an effort to get involved in Afghanistan. Later, at the request of the UN, the rest of NATO did as well. It goes without saying that George W Bush, a Republican President, led the US to depose the Taliban.

It was a just act the responsibility for which Steele, as RNC chairman, should not be deflecting onto Barack Obama. If not for the increasing unpopularity of the Afghan engagement, there's little question that Steele wouldn't be.

But the increasingly unpopularity of the war lends itself toward its use as a political football -- it's clear that this was Steele's full intent in his comments. It's utterly unacceptable.

Senator John McCain is among the many Republicans who won't stand for it, and have all but called for Steele's resignation as RNC chairman.

"I think those statements are wildly inaccurate and there is no excuse for them," McCain said. "I think that Mr. Steele is going to have to assess as to whether he can still lead the Republican Party as chairman of the Republican National Committee."

Of course, with less than four months to go until the midterm elections, it may be fair to question if teh Republican Party can afford to oust Steele as RNC chairman at this point, for fear of disrupting ongoing campaigns.

One thing is for certain: Michael Steele would clearly be better served to keep politically-motivated comment on foreign policy to himself, at least until the midterm elections are over.

At that point, the Republican will have to make a decision on whether or not they can continue to the key confrontation with Barack Obama in 2012 with Steele in place.

David Cameron More John McCain Than Barack Obama

In the British Conservative party's second TV address, David Cameron seems to emulate US Senator John McCain, famed for his "straight talk" on political issues.

In the second address, entitled "What it Takes to Change a Country", Cameron promises precisely that: straight talk on political issues. He also further explains his "big society" vision.

Cameron proposes the "big society" theoretically as an alternative to big government. The goal is clearly to brand the Conservatives as the party that can still deliver on social policy-related goals while cutting Britain's looming deficit.

This will prove to be an especially important message as talk of a coalition government between Labour and the Liberal Democrats becomes more and more prevalent.

While Cameron's message is a strong conservative message, one challenge for his party will be the presentation. While the Liberal Democrat messaging has proven to be eye-poppingly slick, deeply engrained with symbolism, the Tory addresses have, to date, been (unfortunately) characteristically bland.

While those predisposed to be receptive to the Conservative message will likely pay attention to this ad, others may be more likely than not to tune out.

This was the same challenge that confronted John McCain during the 2008 Presidential Election: convincing Americans to stay tuned to his message, favouring it over the more glamourous message of eventual winner Barack Obama.

Obama reportedly once remarked that Cameron is more sizzle than substance. Now the notion that the sizzle may be gone is becoming utterly unignorable.

This has become the challenge for David Cameron during this election: preventing Britons from simply tuning him out. To date, he hasn't been doing himself many favours.

No, Joe, You Did That Yourself

Joe Wurzelbacher blames John McCain for his "screwed up" life

Many of those following the 2008 Presidential Election found themselves resigned to sheer annoyance every time the spectre of "Joe the Plumber" popped up in the discussion.

Joe the Plumber, whose real name is Joe Wurzelbacher, was picked out of a debate audience by John McCain.

Following that brief brush with greatness, Joe the Plumber simply refused to go away quietly, becoming something of a conservative media darling, despite the fact that he repeatedly showed himself to have nothing to contribute.

Apparently, all the attention has made Wurzelbacher's life somewhat uncomfortable, and he blames McCain for it.

“I don’t owe him shit. He really screwed my life up, is how I look at it,” Wurzelbacher complained. “McCain was trying to use me. I happened to be the face of middle Americans. It was a ploy.”

The thing that Wurzelbacher seems to forget to mention is that he wasn't the "face of middle Americans" until McCain elevated him into the national spotlight.

Furthermore, McCain didn't force Wurzelbacher into his ill-fated role with Pajamas Media, in which he demonstrated precisely how ill-suited to journalism he is.

If Joe Wurzelbacher's life has been screwed up by his public prominence as Joe the Plumber, it's Wurzelbacher himself who screwed it up. He certainly did more than enough to embarrass himself since being hoisted into the media spotlight.

Jesus For President

In a certain sense, it may have been only natural that a Presidential candidate who campaigned on a message of hope would embrace -- and, in turn, be embraced by -- a religion whose message so often aspires to be a message of hope.

The de-hijacking (or perhaps re-hijacking) of Christian faith from the religious right certainly came as a surprise for those who had long grown accustomed to the association of Evangelical Christianity with conservative (and particularly Republican) politics.

But there were clearly large portions of the American Evangelical vote that were simply waiting to be de-hijacked.

In Like Father, Like Son (a book actually about Ernest and Preston Manning and the religious themes within their political careers), Lloyd Mackey splits Evangelical Christianity into seven categories. These categories demonstrate the oft-ignored variety amongst Evangelical Christians.

Mackey's first category of Evangelical Christians was Mainstream Evangelical Churches,

The second category is the Penecostal assemblies (featured so prominently and comically in Borat), who use emotion as a tool of worship.

Simililar to Penecostal assemblies, Evangelical Churches of the Charismatic Tradition also use emotion as a tool of worship. The key difference is that while the Penecostal assemblies developed out of distinctly Protestant traditions, Churches of the Charismatic Tradition derived from Catholic traditions.

A large portion of Evangelical Christians (particularly in Canada, but also in the United States) are Evangelicals in mainstream churches, who promote Evangelical traditions within the Catholic, Lutheran, Anglican and mainstream Baptist churches.

Reformed Evangelical churches are heavily influenced by the Calvinist philosophy, which believes that God's outreach is irresistable, and thus that God chooses whom to reach out to -- who invariably believe -- and whom not to.

Evangelical churches stemming from the tradition of Holiness include the Salvation Army Church. These churches tend to subscribe to the Social Gospel. (Interestingly enough, George W Bush's United Methodist Church subscribes to the social gospel.)

Mackey also classifies Evengelicals who immigrate from other countries -- Ethnic Evangelicals -- as their own particular segment, and notes that Ethnic Evangelicals have traditionally supported whichever political party is in power then they arrive in the country.

In paying attention to Obama's campaign style, it becomes immediately apparent that his campaign offered a great deal of appeal to Penecostal Assemblies, Ethnic Evangelicals and Churches of the Charistmatic and Holiness Traditions.

The de-hijacking of the Evangelical vote was certainly abetted by John McCain's reluctance to pursue the religious vote, in particular vast portions of the Evangelical vote.

But it's apparent that Obama is the kind of leader who would simply appeal to large portions of Evangelical Christianity, as defined by Lloyd Mackey.

Hopefully, the swing of so many Evangelical Christians toward Barack Obama will promote better understanding of the nuances of Evangelical Christianity.

Softening the Hard Right Turn

To succeed, the Republican Party needs moderate conservatives

Writing recently in the Los Angeles Times, Jonah Goldberg notes that many American left-wingers believe these are very, very good times for them.

Why are these very, very good times for the left wing? Certainly not because they're implementing their agenda on issues like health care reform. As Goldberg notes, and certain less-than-gifted bloggers are more than willing to confirm, many left-wingers -- particularly socialist progressives -- think these are good times for them only because they believe the conservative cupboard to be effectively bare:

"If there's one thing liberal pundits are experts on these days, it's the sorry state of conservatism. The airwaves and the Op-Ed pages brim with more-in-sorrow-than-in-anger lamentations on the GOP's failure to get with President Obama's program, the party's inevitable demographic demise and its thralldom to the demonic deities of the right -- Limbaugh, Beck, Palin.

Such sages as the New York Times' Sam Tanenhaus and Frank Rich insist that the right is out of ideas. After all, the religious dogmatism and 'market fundamentalism' of the Bush administration were entirely discredited, leaving the GOP with its intellectual cupboard bare.

'During the two terms of George W Bush,' Tanenhaus declares in his latest book, 'conservative ideas were not merely tested but also pursued with dogmatic fixity.'

Even worse than being brain dead, the right is blackhearted, hating good-and-fair Obama for his skin color and obvious do-goodery."

The idea of ideological civil war among conservatives was even enough to distract various left-wing thinkers and commentators from what was then the then-impending defeat of two Democratic governors in New Jersey and Virginia which are being said to effectively cast a pall over Barack Obama as he plots his next move forward.

"The same voices seem eager to cast Republican Dede Scozzafava's withdrawal from the congressional race in New York's 23rd District not only as proof that their interpretation is correct; they're also determined to cast it as a far more important news story than the Democrats' parlous standing with the voters. Don't look at the potential historic gubernatorial blowout in Virginia, or the Jon Corzine train wreck in the New Jersey election, or the flocking of independents to the GOP in the major races. No, let's all titter and gape at the cannibalistic 'civil war' on the right."

Just as Goldberg notes in Liberal Fascism, many of these commentators have naturally drawn comparisons between what is currently going on within conservative circles with fascism -- in this case, Joseph Stalin.

As Goldberg notes, it's just one of many such allusions that is particularly troubled:

"Frank Rich, gifted psephologist, finds the perfect parallel to the GOP's squabbles in Stalin's murderous purges.

'Though they constantly liken the president to various totalitarian dictators,' Rich writes, 'it is they who are reenacting Stalinism in full purge mode.' Stalin's 'full purge mode' involved the systematized exile and slaughter of hundreds of thousands (not counting his genocide of millions). The GOP's purge has so far caused one very liberal Republican to halt her bid for Congress."

Indeed, Goldberg wants to offer a different explanation altogether:

"Let me offer a counter-theory, admittedly lacking in such color but making up for it with evidence and consideration of what conservatives actually believe.

After 15 or 20 years of steady moderation, many conservatives think it might be time to give their ideas a try.

Bush's 'compassionate conservatism' was promoted as an alternative to traditional conservatism. Bush promised to be a 'different kind of Republican,' and he kept that promise. He advocated government activism, and he put our money where his mouth was. He federalized education with No Child Left Behind -- coauthored by Teddy Kennedy -- and oversaw the biggest increase in education spending (58%) in history, according to the Heritage Foundation, while doing next to nothing to advance the conservative idea known as school choice.

With the prescription drug benefit, he created the biggest new entitlement since the Great Society (Obama is poised to topple that record). He increased spending on the National Institutes of Health by 36% and international aid by 74%, according to Heritage. He oversaw the largest, most porktacular farm bills ever. He signed the Sarbanes-Oxley Act, a massive new regulation of Wall Street. His administration defended affirmative action before the Supreme Court. He pushed amnesty for immigrants, raised steel tariffs, supported Title IX and signed the McCain-Feingold campaign finance reform legislation.

Oh, and he, not Obama, initiated the first bailouts and TARP.

Now, not all of these positions were wrong or indefensible. But the notion that Bush pursued conservative ideas with 'dogmatic fixity' is dogmatic nonsense."

Indeed, in Liberal Fascism, Goldberg argues that in George W Bush's speeches one can find firmly entrenched the ideals of the Protestant Social Gospel.

Indeed, Bush belongs to the United Methodist Church (prior to 1977 he was an Episcopalian). The United Methodist Church fuses the outreach of the social gospel with the personal holiness aspect of traditional Evengelical churches.

This firm belief in human charity is an often-overlooked side of Bush:

"Most Democrats were blinded to all of this because of their anger over the Iraq war and an often irrational hatred of Bush. Republicans, meanwhile, defended Bush far more than they would have had it not been for 9/11 and the hysteria of his enemies."

One could argue further that many of Bush's opponents were indeed deeply ideologically invested in ignoring these elements of his political identity.

But Bush left behind him a particularly toxic political environment -- much of which was the doing of his supporters, and much of which was the doing of his opponents -- and left the Republicans and Democrats alike facing a stark dilemma:

"In 2008, the primaries lacked a Bush proxy who could have siphoned off much of the discontent on the right. Moreover, the party made the political calculation that John McCain -- another unorthodox and inconsistent conservative -- was the best candidate to beat Obama."

Moreover, the opponents of George W Bush campaigned against John McCain as if he himself were Bush.

When Obama defeated McCain in the election, much of the triumphal reaction was seeped in the language of electoral vengeance -- this despite the fact that had not (and still haven't) beaten Bush, but instead defeated a candidate who was at least partially selected for his ability to reach out to moderate and conservative Democrats.

But, as Goldberg himself notes, the Republicans may have miscalcuated the will of their base to sacrifice their ideological expectations and adhere to the Republican brand.

"In short, conservatives have had to not only put up with a lot of moderation and ideological flexibility, we've had to endure nearly a decade of taunting from gargoyles insisting that the GOP is run by crazed radicals.

Now the rank and file might be wrong to want to get back to basics, but I don't think so. With Obama racing to transform America into a European welfare state fueled by terrifying deficit spending, this seems like a good moment to argue for limited government.

Oh, and a little forgiveness, please, for not trusting the judgment of the experts who insist they know what's happening on the racist, paranoid, market fundamentalist, Stalinist right."

What Goldberg seems to be suggesting is that many American conservatives have tired of the "big tent" vision of conservatism pursued by the Republican Party.

What he doesn't seem to understand is the perils of abandoning that particular model. And while the Republican Gubernatorial victories in New Jersey and Virginia (both states that went firmly in favour of Barack Obama in 2008) are indeed illustrative of the current state of the Democratic Party, the victory of Democrat Bill Owens very much does present this dilemma in all its glory.

When the Republican candidate Dede Scozzafava quit this particular election and supported Owens, the Conservative Party candidate, Doug Hoffman, enjoyed a brief surge. Many conservatives -- and many conservative media commentators -- believed he could win the race in a lock.

But Scozzafava's exit from the race added a lot of undecided voters to the mix. On election night they decided to follow Scozzafava's lead and support Owens. The hard conservative vote in the district wasn't enough to secure a victory for Hoffman.

The lesson the episode offers is a very simple one: there aren't enough hard conservative voters in the United States to guarantee a victory for a hard conservative Republican Party, or even for a Conservative Party with no Republican opponents.

While hard conservative voters have proven to be enough to get the Republicans in the game, so to speak, they need moderate voters to put them over the top. That means moderating their conservative ideology in recognition that, yes, there are voters in the United States other than merely conservatives, and, yes, they deserve to be heard too, and not just by the Democrats or the Green Party.

A strong argument certainly does exist for the need for Republicans to harden their conservative policies. One could easily argue that Republican brass has been spooked by the taunting (as Goldberg puts it) of progressive socialists who declare anyone who isn't as far left as they are to be of the "extreme right".

But conservatives -- and especially not the Republican Party -- cannot afford to harden their conservative policies at the expense of being able to reach out to political moderates.

To do this is political suicide, regardless of whether or not American conservatives think this is "their turn".

RIP - The Meaningfulness of Racism as an Issue

Vapid accusations of racism do the issue a severe disservice

As Michael Coren notes in his SUN media op/ed column, racism used to mean something.

"A racist was someone who judged another person not on their ability, character or achievements but purely and exclusively on the colour of their skin or ethnic background," Coren writes. "Members of racial minorities such as blacks, Jews or Asians lost jobs, were denied basic human rights, enslaved and even murdered. Racism, as I say, used to mean something."

"Not now," Coren continues. "Racism still exists of course, but being called a racist often means you are winning an argument against a liberal or merely stating a conservative or orthodox opinion."

Former US President Jimmy Carter and New York Times columnist Maureen Dowd took turns accusing Obama's political opponents of being racists.

"I think an overwhelming portion of the intensely demonstrated animosity toward President Barack Obama is based on the fact that he is a black man, that he's African-American," said Carter. "There is an inherent feeling among many in this country that an African-American should not be president."

How is it that people like Jimmy Carter and Maureen Dowd know that Barack Obama's opponents are racist? Why, because they say so.

"[Joe Wilson's] outburst was certainly rude but there surely was no racist aspect to it. Not so explains Dowd. She heard the unspoken, 'You lie, boy!'" Coren writes. "Ah, now I see. Even though the word 'boy' was never uttered it must have been meant because Obama is of mixed race and Wilson is a white man who opposes him."

Carter's and Dowd's arguments don't hold water in a rational mind. Then again, they were never meant to.

Rather, they're meant to obscure the issues being debated in the United States right now and shame and intimidate Obama's opponents into silence.

"It is unfair and itself divisive to impute racial motives to Mr Obama's opponents without evidence," writes McGill political scientist Gil Troy. "The shrill opposition reflects the high stakes surrounding the current debate, Americans' enduring ambivalence about big government and the ugly way modern politics plays out in the media, within the blogosphere and on the streets."

"Mr Obama is controversial because he is seeking big changes," Troy continues. "Mr Obama wants to be a transformational president. ...Spending nearly a trillion dollars to stimulate the economy, taking over the U.S. auto industry, and now trying to solve the perennial health-care riddle – while protecting America and seeking world peace – are sweeping goals. No wonder there's pushback."

"The conservative counterattack is particularly intense because Mr Obama seems to forget that Americans have mixed feelings about big government," Troy explains. "There's a strong individualistic streak in American thought. Every major jump in the government's mandate has encountered fierce resistance."

Yet because Carter and Dowd have found such an immediately receptive audience amongst the political commentators at the increasingly-FOX News-like CSNBC, people like themselves -- and clods like Janeane Garofalo -- have been utterly unrepentant about their relentless playing of the race card.

Carter, for his own part, ought to be embarrassed. Race-baiting should be considered below any former President, even one as terrible as Carter was.

“I’m deeply disturbed by those accusations because it’s a unfair and untrue commentary on the American people and them exercising their god-give rights to disagree with the administration," said John McCain. "It seems to me that President Carter has earned his place as – if not the worst President in history – certainly the worst in the twentieth century.”

McCain, as some may recall, was also accused of racism during the 2008 election, particularly when Obama's most unscrupulous supporters had no other rebuttal to offer.

Fortunately, Barack Obama himself takes a very different take on the matter. He knows full well that there isn't a total absence of racism in the movement that has risen against him, but at least he refuses to exaggerate it.

"Are there people out there who don't like me because of race? I'm sure there are. That's not the overriding issue here," Obama recently said. Instead, Obama rightly attributes the criticisms to a debate over the role of government "usually that much more fierce during times of transition or when presidents are trying to bring about big changes."

Just like Gil Troy suggested.

"Even though we're having a passionate disagreement here, we can be civil with each other, and we can try to express ourselves acknowledging that we're all patriots, we're all Americans and not assume the absolute worst in people's motives," Obama concluded.

To which any rational individual should be able to say "amen".

But people like Jimmy Carter, Maureen Dowd, Janeane Garofalo, Keith Olbermann and Rachel Maddow clearly don't want cooler -- and more rational -- heads to prevail. It's just not in their game plan.

"It is dishonest for Mr Carter, Ms Dowd and others to play the race card, implying that anyone who dares disagree with Mr Obama's health-care plan or stimulus package is a redneck," Troy concludes. "American politics needs a different tone – these delusional, demagogic, racial recriminations only make things worse."

Barack Obama -- in his handling of this issue and others -- has shown himself to be a very wise leader. But unfortunately, both Obama himself and the issue of racism are being done a severe disservice by Carter, Dowd and company. By envoking racism for petty political purposes they risk casting the entire issue as permanently vapid and meaningless.

The very best that can be hoped for is that the opportunistic and savage attempts of these demagogues to steamroll their opposition under accusations of racism will help challenge some traditional -- but fallacious -- notions about racism.

" It was always said that racism can only come from a group with power. That's a deeply fallacious argument and, even if it were true, power is no longer in the hands of a creamy few," Michael Coren concludes. "Obama is powerful, not a racist. Some of his friends who are black, such as his former minister Jeremiah Wright, are not powerful but are racist."

Unfortunately, it all may be too much to hope for so long as partisan demogogues are bastardizing the issue.

Coulter, Malkin Better Get Ready for Round 2

Meghan McCain drops the gloves again

The last time Ann Coulter, Michelle Malkin and Laura Ingraham took aim at Meghan McCain, things did not turn out well for them.

Ingraham especially embarrassed herself when she mocked McCain as a "plus-sized model".

The latest battle comes after Michelle Malkin identified McCain as a conservative commentator who needs to "shut up" during a live public online chat about her new book.

"So Michelle Malkin successfully rounds out the trifecta of extreme female conservative pundits, following Laura Ingraham and Ann Coulter, who believe that I, and Republicans like me, need to shut up and get out of the party," McCain wrote on her blog. "Is this surprising? Not really, given my father’s complicated history with the extreme right of the GOP."

"What do Malkin and the other conservative pundits hope to accomplish by arguing that people 'like me' have no place within the Republican Party?" McCain asked. "And who exactly are people 'like me'? Young people? Moderate people? Young female people? People with tattoos who go to biker rallies?"

One could expect that Malkin, Coulter and Ingraham would probably answer that people like Meghan McCain (and her father, John) aren't sufficiently conservative for their meager tastes. Few people credit them with an understanding that conservatism only truly succeeds as a "big tent" movement, and that moderate conservatives like the McCains are key to making such a thing possible.

"The Republican Party should be a place for all kinds of people, and I hope my fellow moderates come to see that the party is the place for them, too," McCain continued.

As McCain rightly notes, the mass exodus that people like Malkin, Coulter and Ingraham advocate would only help the Democrats.

"If the party continues to demand that people leave, I guarantee you that they will," McCain noted. "If you tell people there is no place for them, they aren’t going to fight for their right to stay. They are going to rush into the open arms of the other team."

One can imagine that the Democrats would be more than happy to have John and Meghan McCain on their team, even if Michelle Malkin lacks the wisdom to see the benefit.

"The old conservatives of the past need to start accepting that this is a new era and I am a part of a new generation," McCain concludes. "I am as sick of the infighting as everyone else, but I would like to point out that I am not the one starting this fight or demanding that the other half of the party leave."

A Republican party with Meghan and John McCain is a stronger Republican party -- especially since John McCain has begun out-networking President Barack Obama.

If Ann Coulter, Michelle Malkin and Laura Ingraham can't recognize this, they'd better get the hell out of the way for people who can. One thing is for certain: Meghan McCain is not taking the slings and arrows of the extreme right-wing lying down.

She's dropping the gloves and fighting back.

The Sound of Dissent in Dixie

When leader singer Natalie Maines of the Dixie Chicks spoke out against the Iraq war on March 10, 2003, she provoked a firestorm from the American right wing.

Speaking out against the war in Iraq, Maines told an audience in London that she was ashamed the President was from Texas.

Various right-wing activists, bloggers and media figures targetted the Dixie Chicks for nothing less than complete professional destruction.

Shut Up and Sing documents how, in a period of weeks, the Dixie Chicks went from being lucrative corporate shills to being branded as un-American or anti-American.

American country music radio stations fed the fire by caving under the pressure being exerted by far-right groups like Free Republic. By complying with the boycott -- refusing to play the Dixie Chicks' music and in some cases even organizing mass destructions of their CDs -- these radio stations emboldened these activists.

Had those radio stations not been as compliant with the de facto mass censorship it's likely that the campaign against the Dixie Chicks would have failed.

What all too often escapes scrutiny in the affair is the role of then-President George W Bush in the affair. As President of the United States Bush was obligated to defend the freedoms of American citizens regardless of whether they agreed with his war or not.

A conscientious leader would have defended the Dixie Chicks despite their criticism of him. A concientious leader understands the value of freedom of speech, and understands the value of dissent.

This being said, to describe Bush as a conscientious leader would be a mistake. This is an individual who strictly adhered to a specific ideological programme even after it became evident that this programme was failing. In his approach to policy Bush proved to be far too rigid to ever be described as conscientious. Not only Americans, but countless others, continue to suffer the consequences of his failed economic policies, in particular.

Bush may not have explicitly encouraged the sustained attack on the Dixie Chicks, but in failing to speak out against it, and speak supportively of their freedom of expression, he failed to live up to his responsibility as President of the United States of America.

Unsurprisingly, John McCain -- the man who very well could have been elected President in 2000 if not for Karl Rove's infamous "secret black baby" push-polling stunt -- seemed very Presidential when grilling radio executives over whether or not they were "networks" and whether or not politically-motivated programming decisions were being made.

The contrast with Bush's "they shouldn't have their feelings hurt" comments is both obvious and profound.

On a day when Americans are celebrating their hard-earned freedoms, it's important for people all over the world to remember precisely how tenuous and how costly exercising those rights can be, and remember that political leaders have a responsibility to uphold those rights.

An Interesting New Puzzle Piece

Sarah Palin joins GOP rebuilding effort

Rush Limbaugh is an incredible ass.

Limbaugh is such an incredible ass that he all too often fails to understand who is on his side, who isn't, and generally what's really going on.

Such must have been his shock when he learned that former Vice-Presidential nominee Sarah Palin has officially joined efforts to re-brand the Republican party, mere hours after Limbaugh insisted that the GOP leadership is afraid of her.

Oops.

"Something else you have to understand is these people hate Palin too," Limbaugh had mused. "They despise Sarah Palin, they fear Sarah Palin, they don't like her either. She's, according to them she's embarrassing. McCain said, 'I was there with Ronald Reagan'…. No Reagan voter ever believed McCain was a Reaganite."

"And I think… a lot of this is aimed at Sarah Palin," he continued. "When you strip all the talk — It's 'the Reagan era is over, stop all this nostalgia and stuff.' Clearly, in last year's campaign, the most prominent, articulate voice for standard run-of the mill good old fashioned American conservatism was Sarah Palin. Now, everybody on this [NCNA] Speak to America tour has presidential perspirations [sic]. Mitt Romney there, he wants to be president again. Jeb may someday. Eric Cantor, some of the others, McCain — I don't think he does, but you never know. So this is an early campaign event, 2012 presidential campaign, primary campaign, with everybody there but Sarah Palin."

Now, the National Committee for a New America -- a committee name that seems to oddly ring of Preston Manning's The New Canada -- has contradicted Limbaugh in delicious fashion, and added some level of intrigue to the affair.

Palin, after all, is held up by many as an example of the antiquated social conservative policies the Republican party has become so closely associated with. Even though her stances on most of these issues aren't nearly as extreme as many of her opponents insist -- for example, her views on abortion actually promote the kind of alternatives to an abortion that pro-abortion activists often insist they would support -- Palin's participation in the NCNA will allow the party's detractors to denounce the process as putting a new shade of lipstick on a pig.

But if a rebranded, rejuvinated Republican party is to be successful it will have to find a place in it for those who hold socially conservative values. While that place shouldn't grant these individuals the dominant position over policy making that they've previously enjoyed, their ongoing participation in the Republican party will remain important.

Certainly many social conservatives -- especially proponents of the religious right -- would reject a Republican party that didn't grant them an extraordinary amount of influence over party policy.

Moving away from these particular social conservatives is one of the most important things the new Republican party could do for itself.

For those social conservatives who are willing to collaborate with those who don't share their views in order to establish a consensus that more effectively reflects the modern-day values of the American people, Sarah Palin's influence on the Republican party will be important in terms of maintaining the Republican party as a party they, too, can call home.

It will be a party that Rush Limbaugh probably won't like very much anymore. Then again, that alone will be of immense value to the new GOP.

"Dirty" Moderates

McCains call for space for moderates within GOP

When Arlen Specter left the Republican party for the Democrats, Rush Limbaugh had one request for him:

"Well, Specter, take McCain with you. And his daughter."

Limbaugh's words underscore what has become an increasingly-hostile environment toward moderate conservatives in the Republican party -- a trend that began in the 1990s as the Republican party increasingly courted the religious right. Demagogues more interested in ideological purity than the pragmatic nuts-and-bolts of politics have increasingly led the Republican party astray.

John and Meghan McCain want to lead it back to the centre -- a task increasingly difficult with individuals like Limbaugh and Ann Coulter trying to drag the party even further to the right, and insisting that anyone unwilling to collaborate to that end be cast out of the party.

"I just wish that moderates like myself — more moderate Republicans and more socially liberal Republicans — weren’t looked at as, ‘Get rid of the dirty moderates. Get rid of them,’" Meghan recently complained, pointing to the Democrats' success in moderating itself.

“We need to be an inclusive party," she continued. "We need to be an umbrella party. We need to inspire 20-somethings, which is something the Obama campaign did very well.”

“And it’s not that I think that our message is neither good nor bad — I just think it’s that the Democrats package their message better, and I think if we could be able to communicate with my generation, the Republican Party can really rebuild itself,” she concluded.

The elder McCain, who seems to have accepted that his time to lead the Republican party is passing, impressed upon the need to embrace both youth and newer technologies. “By Twitter, by Internet, by all the things that frankly, the Obama campaign did a very good job at," he added. "That’s why we need lots of young people involved. If you are young, give us a call.”

McCain continued on the importance of mixing older conservative principles with these newer technological communication means. “I think we go back to old principles — and that’s less government, lower taxes, national security, etc, but we have to also have a new set of ideas and policies to implement and bring our principles into the 21st century.”

In order to find those ideas and principles the Republican party desperately needs to embrace moderate conservatives.

The Republican party's inability to accomodate moderates within its ranks have already cost it dearly. Once Al Franken is seated in the Senate -- and as the inconsistencies surrounding the Minnesota Senate election are cleared up it appears that he very much will win -- the Republicans will be seated across from a filibuster-proof Senate.

While all of this takes place, fools like Rush Limbaugh continue to sneer in the face of political reality. Faced with the fact that the world refuses to conform to their fantasies of ideological purity, individuals like Limbaugh have been revealed for the dinosaurs they really are.

Unfortunately they seem intent on leading the Republican party into extinction alongside them. Fortuantely, individuals like the McCains refuse to let them.

If Ever The Twain Shall Meet...

...John McCain and Barack Obama could beat swords into plowshares

In a recent speech delivered in Prague, Barack Obama called for the global elimination of nuclear weapons.

"I state clearly and with conviction America's commitment to seek the peace and security of a world without nuclear weapons," Obama announced. His stance remains at odds with American nuclear policies that weakly pursue non-proliferation elsewhere in the world -- in places such as Iran and North Korea, while failing in Israel, India and Pakistan -- while continuing to maintain stockpiles of nuclear weapons at home.

Those aresenals have long been maintained under the pretences of deterrence.

In a more reecent speech, John McCain called fof continued work on the US anti-ballistic missile shield.

McCain's comments were made in response to a recent missile launch by North Korea. "I believe there is no more compelling argument for missile defense capability than what just happened with the North Korean launch," McCain explained.

Many intellectuals, such as Freeman Dyson, have long opposed the missile defense shield -- otherwise known as the Strategic Defense Initiative -- because they argue that such counter-measures can only lead to increased proliferation by the United Statess' nuclear opponents.

Under conditions in which the United States continued to maintain nucear weapons, and especially under a doctrine that allows for first use of nuclear weapon, this was certainly true.

But with the Cold War long over, and the American nuclear doctrine that allowed for first use but not first strike -- reserving the right to use nuclear weapons to repel an invasion by the now-non-existent Soviet Union -- clearly outdated, a new possibility has evidently presented itself that was never present during the Cold War: the combination of SDI with complete nuclear disarmament.

Considering that the missile shield has yet to work, and whether or not it ever will work remains questionable, this may be a moot point.

But a successful missile defence shield would allow the United States to wean itself off of what the Plowshares movement calls "the idolatry of nuclear weapons".

The Plowshares movement -- the name given to the largely-Catholic movement that vandalizes nuclear weapons sites and pours their own blood on them as an act of civil disobedience (even if an act of civil disobedience fused with vandalism) argues that nuclear weapons became a false idol when the United States became politically and psychologically dependent upon them. Moreover, they argue this "idolatry of nuclear weapons" has become ecclesiastical, as few American politicians (at least until now) will refute the need for such weapons.

When Plowshares activists damage missile components and missile sites with hammers they are acting to help bring the prophetic events of Isaiah 2:4 to fruition. This passage reads:

"And he shall judge among the nations, and shall rebuke many people: and they shall beat their swords into plowshares, and their spears into pruninghooks: nation shall not lift up sword against nation, neither shall they learn war any more."

Their spilling of their own blood -- usually drawn for weeks in advance of their protest, and smuggled in bottles -- is meant to symbolize Jesus Christ's self-sacrifice at the time of his crucifixion.

Clearly, the Plowshares movement does this in pursuit of a national redemption -- one similar to the kind that the Biblical Christ offers through his death and resurrection.

Neither Barack Obama nor John McCain have been shy about their Christian religious beliefs. Many of those in the Plowshares movement -- who, if anything, enjoy increased legitimacy in the post-Cold War world -- must feel encouraged by each man's support for nuclear disarmament.

McCain has declared his support for Obama's disarmament agenda, although Obama remains lukewarm to the missile defence shield.

Barack Obama needs to understand that, although costly, a successfully-developed issile defence shield would grant the United States the security necessary to pursue complete disarmament.

The United States unilaterally disarming will not rid the world of nuclear weapons. France, Britain, China, Russia, Israel, India and Pakistan will continue to have them. Iran and North Korea will continue to pursue them.

While the threat of a nuclear launch against the United States -- or any other western country -- is nearly non-existent today, it cannot be ruled out that there will not be such threats in the future. The United States needs to be prepared to meet them, and nuclear deterrence has clearly become an oudated model.

It's also important to note that, according to Christ's own example, the United States turning its nuclear cheek wouldn't entail passively accepting evil, but rather retaliating nonviolently -- in the case of missile defence, through the destruction of incoming missiles.

Realistically, SDI and nuclear disarmament are policies that can only be pursued together.

With any luck, Barack Obama and John McCain share the wisdom to recognize this.

Shooting the Messengers

Tommy de Seno calls for John, Meghan McCain to leave the Republican Party

As one continues to assess the current state of the American Republican Party, one can't help but think that some honest, heart-felt criticism is certainly in order.

The Republicans have lost the White House and lost control of both Congressional houses. To make matters worse, far-right ideologue Rush Limbaugh seems to have seized control of the party's public image.

At a time like this, when times are so dark for the Republican party, Justified Right's Tommy de Seno wants to drive some of the party's most concerned supporters out.

John and Meghan McCain are in de Seno's sights. Their unforgivable sin is purported to be criticizing the American conservative movement and working with the enemy.

"I grew tired of McCain fighting our agenda, voting against tax cuts, bowing to global warming loons, insulting Christian leaders, ganging against us with his liberal 'Gang of 14' and passing useless laws with liberals like Senator Russ Feingold. — Not to mention snubbing CPAC," de Seno writes.

"The press rewarded McCain’s behavior by labelling him a “maverick” for bashing the Republican Party (if a Democrat bucks his party, like Lieberman, the press paints him as a traitor, not a maverick)," he continues.

De Seno then goes on to address Meghan McCain, who recently took on Ann Coulter in the press.

"Now comes his daughter Meghan McCain, proving the old adage that the poop doesn’t fall far from the pig’s rear end, Meghan has joined her father in the Republican bashing business," de Seno writes.

"Writing on The Daily Beast, an Internet blog, she takes on author Ann Coulter," he continues. "She says she 'straight up doesn’t understand' Coulter (probably all those big words Ann uses). She labels Ann’s followers part of a 'cult' (Meghan must be reading the papers — that’s how media refers to our whole party!). She takes a swing at CPAC, too (chip off the old block, that Meghan)."

If Meghan McCain doesn't understand Ann Coulter, she certainly isn't alone. In a blog post on the National Post's Full Comment blog, John Moore notes that Coulter's current rhetoric is incredibly out of sync with the comeuppance the GOP recieved in the recent election. Ironically enough, de Seno credits himself and his likeminded ilk for that comeuppance, when he notes their refusal to support the elder McCain.

"It’s painfully clear she has crossed the threshold of her half life," Moore writes. "Her mantra that liberals are pitiable, conniving, traitorous losers and that conservatives are valorous, patriotic administrative geniuses plays poorly against the backdrop of the hand-over from George W Bush to Barack Obama. Imagine penning a panegyric to dirigible travel while crossing the Atlantic on the Hindenburg."

Yet de Seno seems to think that criticizing Coulter -- who, along with Limbaugh, currently remains one of the best reasons not to support the GOP -- should be considered off-limits for Republicans.

Quite the contrary. What the Republican party needs more than anything is a critical voice from within the party to remind it that people such as Limbaugh, Coulter and de Seno are leading the Republican party too far into the political fringes for it to even possibly remain viable.

In the world of politics, some times one's worst critic is their best friend. Sadly, individuals like Tommy de Seno are all to eager to push any critical voice out of the Republican party.

Shooting the messengers will not solve the Republican party's problems. Unfortunately, individuals such as de Seno are afflicted with itchy trigger fingers.

History

Barack Obama elected President of the United States of America

One could be forgiven if they feel that the world has ground to a halt this evening.

The citizens of the United States of America have delivered their decision: Barack Obama will be the 44th President of the United States.

There will be no protracted wrangling over the electoral college. No supreme court. For the first time in nearly a decade, the United States can boast an honest-to-god democratically elected President -- elected fair and square.

The election was the only poll that mattered, and Obama won.

Few need any kind of reminder of the heavy burden of history Obama will carry throughout his Presidency. For the first time in its 231 years of existence, the United States has elected an African American as its President.

Only in a country that has well and truly turned a historical page in its traditionally contentious race relations could a man like Barack Hussein Obama be elected President. All Americans should be as proud as defeated Republican nominee John McCain that such a thing is possible.

Today, in the same year that Canada set a historic low in voter turnout, the United States posted its best voter turnout since 1908.


This election was not merely historical in the sense of the man elected. It's also historical for participation. After the humiliating nadir of the 2000 and 2004 elections, many can toast the United States as having recovered its democratic self-respect.

But Obama's mandate isn't as towering as the electoral college would seem to suggest. Although the number of electoral votes granted to Obama very much justifies the labeling of his victory as a landslide, his slim lead in the popular vote should continually serve as a reminder that if the electoral college distributed its votes the same way that his party does throughout its primary elections, this election victory would have been much more difficult to claim.

Many should hope that John McCain -- unlike Al Gore and John Kerry -- will make good on his promise to help Obama build bridges between the electoral coalition that has helped him win the Presidency and the rest of his country.

Obama's victory has been well-earned, and is well-deserved. But the real work for Obama now lays ahead of him, and he'll need the American people beside him in order to prevail in his labours.

To say that the United States has chosen its new Commander in Chief wisely would mischaracterize this election. Americans had two excellent choices for President before them -- perhaps the most difficult choice they have faced in the last 20 years.

But in the end, Obama -- the historical candidate -- has won his historical victory.

In a no-lose situation, it's unsurprising that all Americans have emerged as the real winners tonight.

The Only Poll That Matters

Americans elect the "Leader of the Free World" today

Today, as millions of Americans head off to the polls to elect the President of the United States of America, it seems that it's all but guaranteed that history will be made -- Barack Obama will be elected the first African American President.

Of course, Obama has already made history by being the first African American to run for President as the nominee of one of the two major parties.

But even as the polls continue to favour Obama with a lead of anywhere from three to seven points -- although enough undecided voters remain to turn the race for McCain -- this election is not over yet.

The only poll that matters is the election.

If Obama does indeed emerge victorious this evening, there are few rational reasons for tears to be shed. Obama is every bit as excellent a candidate as John McCain, and McCain every bit as excellent as Obama. No matter what happens, the United States will elect an outstanding Commander in Chief.

America has reached its decision. The only thing left is for them to deliver it at the polls.

A Great New Way to Contest the Presidency

The Folly of the "Lesser Evil" Mentality

Considering Barack Obama to be the lesser of two evils presents moral and practical conundrum

As the 2008 US federal election draws to a close, many American voters are finding themselves effectively sandwiched between their distaste for the twin elite coalitions in the United States -- the Democrat and Republican parties -- and their seeming inability to effect change through a third party.

Actor Danny Glover believes he has the answer for the conundrum faced by these voters.

A few days ago, Glover appeared on the Real News Network, where he proclaimed "if we are going to have some sort of impact on this Democracy, I think we're going to have to accept the fact that we're going to have to deal with the lesser of two evils, and I consider Barack Obama to be the lesser of two evils."

Choosing the lesser of two evils may seem like a reasonable notion. But there is a problem with it: at the end of the day, one is still left with evil.

It's widely accepted that the Democrat and Republican parties are so institutionalized in the United States that no third party could ever dream of being fully competitive. Due to the firmly entrenched partisanship of Democrats and Republicans and the literally thousands of elected positions available to be contested, third parties rarely survive long enough to actually win power.

The "lesser evil" mentality essentially tells us that both the Democrat and Republican parties are evil -- the Democrats only nominally less evil than the Republicans. As such, some third party would have to be imagined to be "good". Yet that party, seemingly, cannot compete.

One has to wonder about the moral standing of a society that only presents its voters with two realistic options: between evil and evil.

Those who -- like Danny Glover -- are deciding to support Barack Obama only because he's the "lesser of two evils" are demonstrating not only a significant lack of faith in their country, but also a significant lack of faith in their ability to change it.

Which is actually quite ironic that these individuals would choose to anoint the leader who has campaigned on change -- change they don't truly believe is possible -- as this "lesser of two evils".

Certainly, many progressive-minded Americans are fearful that voting for a third party would only result in another Republican government. Many Democrats continue to blame Ralph Nader and his Green party for both terms of the George W Bush Presidency.

But to brand John McCain as the greater of two evils is rather confusing. John McCain's record is well known. Not only has he served his country honourably, including being imprisoned by North Vietnam during the Vietnam War. Beyond that, he spent the last eight years as every Democrat's favourite Republican. Before that, he served honourably as an American member of Congress, and was integral to the US effort to normalize relations between the United States and Vietnam. His work on campaign finance reform has further democratized American politics, and certainly wasn't done out of self-interest: fundraising has never been a strength of McCain's campaign.

Furthermore, McCain has often reached out to Democrats in order to accomplish his goals.

Yet the McCain that has often come across during the Presidential Election has, all too often, been a fictional John McCain. There has been John McCain the traitor, John McCain the racist, and numerous other dishonest caricatures promoted by various members of the "progressive" left.

One supposes the matter is actually very simple: if Barack Obama is to be the "lesser of two evils", then there must be a greater evil to contrast him against. If no such evil is actually present, that evil must be invented.

The invention of such evil puts an indelible twist on the moral nature of the political contest. It demands that, even if policy differences aren't sufficient to demonstrate one candidate's superiority over the other, morality must be invoked instead. However, if the moral failings of the candidate whom it is insisted is more evil, fiction most be invoked in order to make that argument.

Certainly McCain isn't the only candidate to whom fiction has been applied in order to moralize this election. There has been Barack Obama the secret Muslim, Barack Obama the terrorist, and countless other fictions.

The moralizing -- and subsequent fictionalizing -- of the American Presidential contest is very unfortunate indeed. It means that many thousands -- if not millions -- of Americans will be making their voting decision based not on fact, but on fantasy.

Then, there is also the fact that this has been done not in the name of uniting the American people, but dividing them. And with potentially less than three percent separating McCain and Obama (according to the margin of error of most polls) there is no question that this election will produce an American population as divided as ever before.

But don't ask Danny Glover about any of this. So far as being a political visionary goes, he makes a really good actor.

Driving Mr McCain

Kids Do the Darndest Things...