For Love or Money Money Money

What fun, an intersection of religion and politics! Only it’s not fun, it’s outlandishly ugly. Oh yeah, and illegal. On Sunday, a reported 33 pastors across the country defied Federal law and endorsed a political candidate for President.

As you no doubt know, churches are tax exempt. Churches do not pay income taxes on donations or earnings, don't pay sales taxes on purchases, don't pay property taxes on buildings and land, etc. We the people (not the IRS) gave churches this gift in exchange for a few trade-offs. Through our elected officials, we said you don’t have to pay taxes if you agree that you will not directly or indirectly participate or intervene in any political campaign on behalf of (or in opposition to) any candidate for elective public office.

What these pastors did was a morally irresponsible example to their churches and community. I highly doubt the IRS will take the action it should and enforce the tax code against these churches, but I wish it would. And this is not just an issue of the IRS going after right-wing churches. In 2004 the same thing occurred when some churches spoke out against the war in a way that intervened politically against George Bush.

The pastor interviewed by the Washington Post shared his insight into why he needed to defy Federal law:

Asked why he felt the need to discuss the candidates by name and to be explicit in rejecting Obama and his pro-choice views, Johnson said he must connect the dots because he is not sure that all members of his congregation can do so on their own.

I hope you are equally aghast at this outrageous abuse of religious authority. But even if you are not, I hope my fellow taxpayers at least want these moral hypocrites taxed.

First Presidential Debate of 2008

After a tumultuous week, the debate was almost anti-climactic. The events of the week will be remembered long after what was said or done at the debate. From the previous debates by Obama and McCain in their primaries, I expected McCain to "win" in the eyes of the viewing public. McCain's usual performance of short, directive answers plays better than Obama's usual nuanced and longer answers. However, every poll on Saturday morning shows people believe Obama "won" the debate (not counting online polls like mine - unscientific but vote anyway!).

I'll pause here to give kudos to Jim Lehrer, the moderator. The questions were fair and relevant, and this was the closest thing to a "debate" I have seen in presidential politics in a long time. Jim worked hard in the beginning to try to have the candidates engage each other, but stayed out of the way.

On substance, I thought Obama gave the clearest and most accurate answers in the economic discussion that was the first half hour. I agree with Obama on the economy, so I'm sure that affects my view of the answers, but I was glad to hear him make the point that McCain is proposing tax cuts without equal spending cuts. McCain uses earmark spending as his only example of spending cuts but McCain could not respond to the fact that earmark spending doesn't even come CLOSE to covering his tax cuts. Neither candidate would identify specific programs for spending cuts, but I thought Obama explained what his decision process would be.

The majority of the time was spent on the foreign policy issues of Iraq, Afghanistan, Iran, North Korea, and Russia. On these topics, my analysis of the debate was that McCain displayed more experience but Obama showed better judgment and a far better analytic approach. The two best examples for me of this analysis involved Pakistan. I thought it was fairly damning of McCain for him to say his only problem with Obama's approach to military strikes in Pakistan was whether or not we talked about it! I was also impressed with Obama's willingness to say to the American people that we "coddled" the dictator Musharraf and thus lost the Pakistani people. McCain's attempted justification of "but the alternatives were worse" is no excuse. But more importantly than who is right is Obama's willingness to be OPEN about it. Let the American people know what we're doing abroad instead of this secret supporting of dictators when it's convenient.

In the Iraq war discussion, nothing new. But a great line from Obama, "John, you like to pretend like the war started in 2007." It's true that McCain will not defend his 2003 position on the Iraq war. The Iran discussion was similar. I believe McCain knows more people and has been more places, but I also believe that Obama is right that the approach of McCain has not worked. McCain had no evidence that it has worked. It's pretty remarkable when, on this issue, even the Bush Administration is now moving toward what Obama has been saying for quite awhile.

On the non-substantive debate dynamics, eventually I could no longer ignore that McCain would not look at Obama during the debate. I don't think he even turned his head. Given the exchanges and the direct urging of the moderator, that seemed like a decision. I have no idea why. Watching a clip later I noticed that McCain didn't even look at Obama when shaking hands in the opening. Also, McCain gave a few sarcastic answers and repeatedly said "he doesn't understand" (though wouldn't look at Obama and say "YOU don't understand"). Overall I think this icy demeanor hurts McCain. Obama wasn't Reagan or Clinton "warm" either, but seemed equally engaged with the moderator, McCain and TV audience.

Overall, I have to give Obama the win on substance in the economy (better description of his own plan and distinctions with McCain's); a draw on foreign policy substance (just comes down to who you agree with); a slight edge to Obama on demeanor (though if you're turned off by sarcasm you would give Obama a big edge here).

Has this debate impacted my vote? Only to the extent that I feel more confident in Obama as a leader. I already agreed with his economic plan but liked his open analysis on foreign policy. If you have a different opinion or something stood out to you, I'd like hear about it.

Online Surveys & Market Research

New Debate Poll

Online Surveys & Market Research

Online Surveys & Market Research

Presidential Debate Poll

Online Surveys & Market Research

And The Trees Are Stripped Bare Of All They Wear

Yesterday was the Autumnal Equinox, a special joy of mine. Every season gives us its own treasure, but I might pick Autumn as my favorite. Yesterday evening was dry and cool with that telltale angle of the evening sun tipped slightly to the south now. This poem came to mind, a favorite of mine since childhood. Reading it, I'm nostalgic for Fall's treasures and eager for a new round.

"When the Frost is on the Punkin"
by James Whitcomb Riley (1853–1916)

WHEN the frost is on the punkin and the fodder's in the shock,
And you hear the kyouck and gobble of the struttin' turkey-cock,
And the clackin' of the guineys, and the cluckin' of the hens,
And the rooster's hallylooyer as he tiptoes on the fence;
O, it's then the time a feller is a-feelin' at his best,
With the risin' sun to greet him from a night of peaceful rest,
As he leaves the house, bareheaded, and goes out to feed the stock,
When the frost is on the punkin and the fodder's in the shock.

They's something kindo' harty-like about the atmusfere
When the heat of summer's over and the coolin' fall is here—
Of course we miss the flowers, and the blossoms on the trees,
And the mumble of the hummin'-birds and buzzin' of the bees;
But the air's so appetizin'; and the landscape through the haze
Of a crisp and sunny morning of the airly autumn days
Is a pictur' that no painter has the colorin' to mock—
When the frost is on the punkin and the fodder's in the shock.

The husky, rusty russel of the tossels of the corn,
And the raspin' of the tangled leaves as golden as the morn;
The stubble in the furries—kindo' lonesome-like, but still
A-preachin' sermuns to us of the barns they growed to fill;
The strawstack in the medder, and the reaper in the shed;
The hosses in theyr stalls below—the clover overhead!—
O, it sets my hart a-clickin' like the tickin' of a clock,
When the frost is on the punkin and the fodder's in the shock.

Then your apples all is gethered, and the ones a feller keeps
Is poured around the cellar-floor in red and yaller heaps;
And your cider-makin's over, and your wimmern-folks is through
With theyr mince and apple-butter, and theyr souse and sausage too!
I don't know how to tell it—but ef such a thing could be
As the angels wantin' boardin', and they'd call around on me—
I'd want to 'commodate 'em—all the whole-indurin' flock—
When the frost is on the punkin and the fodder's in the shock.

Bodies Strewn Across the Dead End Street but I Won't Heed the Battle Call

A few weeks ago Obama and McCain were asked the same question and they each gave their immediate answer without knowledge of the other's response. One question really grabbed my attention because I think it gives us unexpected insight of the mindset and belief system of the two.

"Does evil exist? And if it does, do we ignore it? Do we negotiate with it? Do we contain it? Do we defeat it?"

OBAMA: Evil does exist. I mean, I think we see evil all the time. We see evil in Darfur. We see evil, sadly, on the streets of our cities. We see evil in parents who viciously abuse their children. I think it has to be confronted. It has to be confronted squarely, and one of the things that I strongly believe is that, now, we are not going to, as individuals, be able to erase evil from the world. That is God's task, but we can be soldiers in that process, and we can confront it when we see it.

Now, the one thing that I think is very important is for to us have some humility in how we approach the issue of confronting evil, because a lot of evil's been perpetrated based on the claim that we were trying to confront evil. In the name of good, and I think, you know, one thing that's very important is having some humility in recognizing that just because we think that our intentions are good, doesn't always mean that we're going to be doing good.


MCCAIN: Defeat it. A couple of points. One, if I'm president of the United States, my friends, if I have to follow him to the gates of hell, I will get bin Laden and bring him to justice. I will do that. And I know how to do that. I will get that done. No one, no one should be allowed to take thousands of American -- innocent American lives.

Of course, evil must be defeated. My friends, we are facing the transcended challenge of the 21st century -- radical Islamic extremism.

Not long ago in Baghdad, Al Qaida took two young women who were mentally disabled, and put suicide vests on them, sent them into a marketplace and, by remote control, detonated those suicide vests. If that isn't evil, you have to tell me what is. And we're going to defeat this evil. And the central battleground according to David Petraeus and Osama bin Laden is the battle, is Baghdad, Mosul, Basra and Iraq and we are winning and succeeding and our troops will come home with honor and with victory and not in defeat. And that's what's happening.

And we have -- and we face this threat throughout the world. It's not just in Iraq. It's not just in Afghanistan. Our intelligence people tell us Al Qaida continues to try to establish cells here in the United States of America. My friends, we must face this challenge. We can face this challenge. And we must totally defeat it, and we're in a long struggle. But when I'm around, the young men and women who are serving this nation in uniform, I have no doubt, none.

For some reason, I see so much in these answers I could dive in and spend 30 minutes (okay, I did spend 30 minutes discussing this with a patient friend). But I'll try to make the main 2 points quickly.

First, Obama cares as much about domestic evil as genocidal evil. When asked about evil, this country's children and the streets of our cities are as close to his mind (and heart) as the "usual" and politically safe paradigm of genocide or terrorism.

Second, and I think this is far more important, Obama recognizes his own (our own) depravity and when all political "sense" is saying "never equivocate on a question like this!" Obama is willing to say the hard thing yet again. I cannot overstate the importance of this quality to me.

In contrast, McCain exhibits callous disregard of the fact that evil will accompany HIM in his battle against evil. On a certain gut level there's a part of me that says, "Yeah, get 'em!" when McCain immediately launches a war in response to evil. But that quickly fades into the gut-wrenching reality that an American captain is going to be put into the situation of knowingly killing a woman and child to try to protect his men.

Kearney could see a woman and child in the house. "We saw people moving weapons around," Kearney told me. "I tried everything. I fired mortars to the back side to get the kids to run out the front. I shot to the left, to the right. The Apache got shot at and left... Finally, we shot a javelin and a tow. I ended up killing that woman and that kid."

Our cheer "follow him to the gates of hell, John!" should get stuck in our throats as we realize OUR desire for revenge and belief in the rightness of our cause has just sentenced 3 young American soldiers to a situation where they will eventually execute in cold blood four Iraqi prisoners with pistol shots to the head as the prisoners stood handcuffed and blindfolded beside a Baghdad canal.

Yes: us, we, the good guys. These were good people fighting for a good cause whose lives are ruined, yet John McCain is getting people pumped up for revenge without a thought of humility. Beware the righteous warrior. I find Obama's answer so much more seasoned, wise and (dare I say) more in line with how Jesus would answer.

I Can't See for the Smoke

I'm told the media elite are in full throat panic over Sarah Palin and are out to get her, have an agenda against her, etc. I imagine it's a tough call in the "tone" of interviewing an elected official. I like to see politicians asked tough questions, made to clarify generic statements, and contradictions pointed out. But is there a point of taking the tone too far? I offer for input this clip of Charlie Gibson interviewing Sarah Palin. She's getting killed by facts and her inability to articulate any differences between McCain-Palin and Bush-Cheney on the economy. Yet aren't you distracted by Charles Gibson's condescension? Take a look and answer 3 quick questions below.



1. Do you think Gibson was fair or overly condescending?

2. Do you think Palin was speaking fairly, spinning or lying?

3. Did Gibson's demeanor have any impact on your impression of Palin's answers?

Neighborliness

There is a serious waste of resources happening today in the media and fanned by McCain's campaign. I wish the same amount of time and energy was being spent discussing things like, oh I don't know, let's say taxes! The tax "plans" of Obama and McCain take 2 very different approaches. Here is an interesting discussion Obama had with Bill O'Reilly about Obama's view of taxes and their use, you can read the transcript or there is a video link:

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,419703,00.html

I think a few facts are important:

Obama would restore the top two income tax rates to their pre-2001 levels of 36% and 39.6%. Currently they're 33% and 35%.

Obama would start applying payroll taxes to income over $250,000. Currently they pay Zero payroll taxes on income over $250,000.

Obama would tax long-term capital gains and dividends at 20%. Currently the most one would pay is 15%.

The Congressional Budget Office said today the U.S. budget deficit for fiscal 2008 is $407 billion and predicted it is likely to rise further in fiscal 2009.

The U.S. national debt is $9.6 trillion.

Now some opinions:

I don't think it is realistic not to raise taxes in some way. Even if we magically cut $407 billion from next year's budget, we'd still be looking at growing the $9.6 trillion in debt because of interest. And don't think it's Iraq. Obama says we're spending $10 billion a month in Iraq. We can assume he's using the highest possible figure. So saving every single cent of that saves only $120 billion. 300 billion to go in the budget...

I am for cutting spending, of course. Let's cut billions and billions in spending. I have no idea where, but let's slash it! But the reality is that the demands of infrastructure, commerce, energy and security are rising. I see no one else being honest, or at least specific, about how to pay for these things!

If we assume taxes must increase, what's wrong with Obama's plan?

Okay, I'll throw it out there and hope you can help me. Give me your opinions and stats on what's right or wrong on Obama's proposed tax initiatives.

The Daily Show

Why do I even bother? Brilliantly done, especially the ending.

You Remind Me of a Man

Most of last night’s speech really reminded me of a senator I used to read about named John McCain. About 18 months ago, I appreciated McCain’s attempt at immigration reform, opposition to torture, openness to the press (and thus the public), fervor for balancing the budget, opposition to tax cuts not aimed at middle income earners, and (more importantly) seeming to value an accomplishment higher than “party unity.” I have not seen that lately. But last night McCain spoke of unity over partisanship and chided the Republican Party rather strongly for a convention acceptance speech. McCain even alluded to Republicans’ sanction of torture and implied he would end it (“I know how the military works…and what it shouldn't do”) and one small allusion to immigration (“In this country, we believe everyone has something to contribute and deserves the opportunity to reach their God-given potential, from the boy whose descendents arrived on the Mayflower to the Latina daughter of migrant workers”). In general terms, it was a workmanlike speech delivered as well as expected. It was more stirring in his personal story than any political strategy. I was surprised he went as far as he did talking about his own POW experience. It seemed to me they kept ramping up the POW story and details as the week went along and I thought it reached a macabre (and over the top) crescendo with the “When you’ve lived in a box….” narration by Fred Thompson immediately before McCain took the stage. I assumed they did this to keep McCain from having to do this himself, much like others communicated the historic aspect of Obama’s race so that he didn’t have to mention it. At least McCain gave the best tie-in I’ve heard for why his POW experience is relevant to being President by describing how it personally changed him and created his love of “country.”

The calls for unity in government and personal respect for Senator Obama rang hollow to me given the full-throated display of mean spirit the night before. But the best thing McCain has going for him, in my opinion, is that there continues to be a small disconnect between him and the group gathered in the convention hall. McCain’s biggest reaction came from the crowd the moment he mentioned Sarah Palin’s name. Yet there were stifled boos when McCain mentioned his respect for Obama. The crowd sat quietly when McCain promised, “I'll ask Democrats and Independents to serve with me” and when McCain mentioned, “I've fought lobbyists who stole from Indian tribes.” He was met with stone silence when he said, “We were elected to change Washington, and we let Washington change us.” All good stuff, but I continue to be puzzled, as I have been all week, how the speakers speak passionately how “change is coming…We’re going to change Washington” etc. with no apparent memory that from January 2001 through January 2007 they held all three branches of the Federal Government and today still hold two out of three!

McCain’s platform elements sounded like the last few State of the Union speeches. To the best of my understanding, McCain is running on a platform of “All the same policy elements we have right now, but with less corruption.” Fair enough. America will decide, and we can discuss specific elements of health care, taxes, etc. here before November.

How Long Must We Sing This Song? How Long? How Long...

I want to be angry but instead I’m sad. I start out furious but end up feeling remorse. I believe a golden opportunity slipped through America’s hands last night. Today I could be talking about how a highly competent but “ordinary” (I mean that in the best sense possible) woman exploded onto the political scene and seems poised to bring common sense and community values to Washington. From what I have seen of Sarah Palin so far I believe she has that in her. Instead, I am dismayed at how someone with her fresh voice and an eager audience chose to use sarcasm and lies to tear a good man down, repeat a major distortion of her own record and offer nothing specific in return other than more oil drilling.

Sarah has a compelling personal and professional story and she did a good job talking about that at the beginning of her speech. I think at that point she was leaning heavily into the desires of all of us who have ever said “I wish someone from my town would have some input in Washington.” The Harry Truman reference was right in line with that too. Then Sarah jumped headlong into the mud pit and never looked back.

You have to hear the audio to get the true feel for the disdain dripping from her voice as she belittles Barack’s community organizer experience. If she has any compassion for people at all, then Sarah cannot possibly know what Barack did as a community organizer. So at that point in her speech, I am already faced with a decision of: 1) she believes spending 3 years giving your life in direct assistance with every aspect of life with low-income Americans is worthy of scorn, or 2) she didn’t bother to find out what it was he did. Neither option is a good one.

Sarah follows that with a mild distortion of Barack’s discussion of why he thinks Midwestern white voters are “bitter.” Lucky for Sarah, very few will actually look up what Barack said because they might say, “hey, wait a second, he might be right!” Her discussion of her own Alaskan record is fine, with one glaring exception discussed below. The whole thing is a tad misleading because most people aren’t up on the unique features of the Alaskan budget. If we dove into it, I actually think Alaska is a good argument for state control of the oil and gas in this country, but that’s another issue.

The big distortion that really irks me, I might even call it an outright lie, is this whole “bridge to nowhere” thing. It’s a fact that Sarah Palin was for the bridge and was “upset” that a community in her state was being called “nowhere.” Even more importantly, it is a fact that Alaska took AND SPENT every cent originally marked for that bridge. So what is the reform in that? What is the truth in “I told them thanks but no thanks”?

From there on to more attacks on Barack. If you were hoping for substance in them, I have bad news, more sarcasm: “What does he actually seek to accomplish after he's done turning back the waters and healing the planet?” Followed by more lies: “America needs more energy; our opponent is against producing it.” (against producing more energy? Are we even supposed to take this statement seriously?) “Victory in Iraq is finally in sight, and he wants to forfeit.” (is she aware that the Iraqi government agreed with Barack’s plan for troop withdrawals and now the Bush administration is agreeing too?).

I wish I had more time to pour some passion through my pen, but in the interest of getting this out there so I can hear your feedback, that’s all I can say at this point. (what about that line of hers deriding Barack's concern for the human rights of prisoners?!Agggggghhhhhh!)

Okay, one other thing, I heard from commentators after the speech that the crowd was chanting “Drill, baby, drill!” and this was apparently a refrain for the evening. A reasoned debate of the pros and cons of starting to drill in places that are not currently being drilled - that we can have! And I suspect at the end of that we'd end with a small increase as a stop-gap measure and for future use in case the mid-east shuts off our supply.

But wildly stomping and cheering "drill baby drill" is short-sighted and devoid of reason, and when you add in that many of these same people also cheer wildly that oil companies are evil, it makes them look stupid.

Look at me, I’m right in there calling people sheep. That’s why I end up feeling remorse over this. Barack is calling us to hope and a better tone in politics, imperfectly of course, slipping sometimes himself of course, but calling us all nonetheless. But the politics that divide us is an easier path to take…

Three Men and a Baby

George W. Bush, Fred Thompson and Joe Lieberman all spoke last night at the Republican National Convention. First, I want to mention the stage. I love it. The stage is only about 4 or 5 feet off the ground and 3 sides of it are in the crowd. The speaker is part of the crowd; a very interesting arrangement for an event such as this. The back of the stage is an incredible 51 feet by 30 feet high-def LED screen. I wonder if knowing they could never compare to the Invesco Field stage from last week’s convention, the campaign decided to go for an entirely different affect. The affect here is sparsely practical and modern (the good kind of modern). I watched the screen used effectively as relevant photos faded in and out during Thompson’s speech, and a Minnesota senator gave his speech in front of a panoramic view of St. Paul.

Bush gave a very short speech via video that hit exactly the notes needed to satisfy the party faithful in attendance but created no opportunities to tie McCain to Bush (apparently one awkward hug per year is enough). Bush was on video, but the perfect delivery made me suspect it was not a live feed. After watching that short speech on video, if I were McCain’s people, I would scrap the idea I’ve heard that McCain will give his speech via satellite. Bush felt dramatically removed from the room and the thousands of people. Because of delays, you cannot interact with the crowd in any way without appearing very awkward (see the Obama family moment from last Monday). Without interaction and standing in a silent room, the speaker is totally removed from the crowd. Nearly the exact opposite affect the stage creates for live speakers. In many situations I could see that not an issue, but this is one of those times McCain would want us to see him being embraced and cheered by thousands. He’s not exactly a charismatic guy; he doesn’t need to create a situation to make him seem even more removed. Of course, after the love fest I expect for Sarah Palin tonight, maybe he doesn’t want the comparison. But I’m way off the evening’s speeches now… Bush was warmly received, which was fine but did create for some bizarre moments later when the crowd cheered with equal passion for how screwed up things are “in Washington.”

Fred Thompson gave McCain’s life story from the Naval Academy through his POW time in Vietnam. McCain’s years as a prisoner of war is an incredible story, no doubt about it. It’s interesting to me how we can all so easily disconnect an individual from the atrocity of war. We can feel awe and respect for McCain’s behavior after being shot down, without ever considering the women and children on the ground being terrorized and killed just moments earlier. Fred’s telling of the story was good, but he was glued to the teleprompter! As an actor, I really expected him to be engaged more with the camera and crowd. Fred then moved into McCain’s political career with basic generalized statements designed to highlight McCain as a “true” reformer instead of just “a teleprompter speech designed to appeal to American critics abroad.” (I’m wondering, does this mean McCain will not be using a teleprompter on Thursday? I’m confused…) This typified Fred’s attacks on Obama, which were all pretty generic and seemed ineffective. Fred did give a very practical line or two about how taxes affect us all, ending with a good line: “They say they are not going to take any water out of your side of the bucket, just the ‘other’ side of the bucket! That's their idea of tax reform.”

I give credit to the convention organizers for scheduling Joe Lieberman. Joe started his speech calling for national unity, not partisan politics, on issues like gas prices, health insurance and threats from enemies abroad. I like the appeal and the unifying message of having a well-known Democrat say it at the Republican convention, but I was disappointed that Joe gave zero examples of anything specific about these issues. What is it that partisan politics has prevented McCain from doing about gas prices, health insurance and enemy threats? Off-shore drilling is the only semi-specific issue related to these topics that McCain is “for” that the Democratic congressional leaders have opposed. Anyway, I thought Joe’s presence alone spoke highly of McCain’s willingness to at least not criminalize anything Democratic. Lieberman slipped from this track, though, when he attacked Barack with a generic argument summarized by him as “eloquence is no substitute for a record.” I’m not sure when in America it became a point of contempt to be smart and communicate well, or when intelligence and the ability to motivate no longer became foundational qualities of a president.

In final comment, I did chuckle several times as the convention crowd created moments of dissonance. Having cheered President Bush and McCain’s long record in Washington, they equally cheered McCain’s apparent ability to “drain that swamp” and to end the
“self-serving ways of Washington.” Joe met with tepid applause when he touted McCain’s work on immigration and global warming. The funniest (most ironic) moment of the night came when Fred Thompson and the crowd cheered President Clinton’s ability to work with the Republican Congress to reform welfare and balance the budget! Especially that budget one, THAT was funny!

Oh yeah, the baby. Watching delegates and party spokespeople being interviewed about Sarah Palin’s expecting daughter, and hearing them offer such defense and gracious comments, I couldn’t help but remember Dan Quayle and these same people’s outrage at fake person Murphy Brown pretending to have a baby as a single woman…

P.S. I cannot WAIT until tonight's speech when we get to see Sarah Palin's speech, which apparently includes skinning a moose, drinking the blood and grinding some moose burger all while she breastfeeds Trig, teaches Bristol some Lamaze and rips Joe Biden a new one!