In many of the Presidential races through which I've lived, there is a moment when you realize one side or the other has lost. It is usually an obscure moment. And many may miss it or not agree.
One obvious one for me was the moment when Jimmy Carter failed in his effort to show how serious nuclear proliferation was by quoting his daughter, whereupon Ronald Reagan jumped all over him for turning to a family member for nuclear policy advice.
Another obvious moment was Howard Dean's excited scream after winning in New Hampshire's primary.
Less obvious was George H. W. Bush's curiosity at a supermarket scanner. How out of touch could he be?
When George W. Bush used the ad where he hugged the 13 year old girl who had lost a parent in 9/11, I knew he'd win. And that was on top of the "I voted for it before I voted against it" problem John Kerry never was able to answer.
I think Al Gore lost the moment he gave in on the issue of tax cuts as a way of dealing with the budget surpluses from the Clinton Administration. I always thought they should have gone to cut the national debt.
But maybe the strangest moment happened the day after the Palin-Biden debate. John McCain was so proud of the job she did. "Heh?" He repeated his statement of pride and followed with another "Heh?" Then a third, "Heh?" It was as grating a sound as has ever been recorded. As one commentator suggested, "How would you like to listen to that for four years?"
There are many other major factors in any candidate's winning or losing the Presidency, but I still think there is a moment when a candidate does something innocuous and everyone finally knows it's over.
Showing posts with label John McCain. Show all posts
Showing posts with label John McCain. Show all posts
Thursday, October 9, 2008
Monday, September 1, 2008
Politics, A-r-r-g-h!
Let me add my voice to the ones pointing out how the hurricane is being politicized!
I am most disturbed by the way Sen. McCain and President Bush feel they have to be present among the people who are working on preparations for and recovery from the hurricane.
When a major political figure shows up in such places, the disruption is incredible. Each of those men has with him Secret Service who have to disrupt what is going on to assure security. In addition, all the staff each brings take up space which emergency activities need to be left open. On top of them, are the press who will not only take up space but be asking questions of emergency personnel for their stories.
Maybe worse is that all transportation around the visit has to stop for the reason of security along all travel routes of the two politicians and around where they are.
Every stop the President and the Republican nominee makes along the route of the storm increases the disturbance to the efforts!
Sen. Obama has been wise to stay away even if that does not seem as "Presidential." It is just a lot smarter. He (and the President and Sen. McCain) should stay at a place where communications are excellent to keep up with what is going on and from which they can "call in" their concern and support during the storm itself without causing logistical nightmares for the people on the ground.
The disruption of the people who are trying to organize relief and response to the storm just to get photo ops for political reasons is an absolutely unnecessary stress.
I am most disturbed by the way Sen. McCain and President Bush feel they have to be present among the people who are working on preparations for and recovery from the hurricane.
When a major political figure shows up in such places, the disruption is incredible. Each of those men has with him Secret Service who have to disrupt what is going on to assure security. In addition, all the staff each brings take up space which emergency activities need to be left open. On top of them, are the press who will not only take up space but be asking questions of emergency personnel for their stories.
Maybe worse is that all transportation around the visit has to stop for the reason of security along all travel routes of the two politicians and around where they are.
Every stop the President and the Republican nominee makes along the route of the storm increases the disturbance to the efforts!
Sen. Obama has been wise to stay away even if that does not seem as "Presidential." It is just a lot smarter. He (and the President and Sen. McCain) should stay at a place where communications are excellent to keep up with what is going on and from which they can "call in" their concern and support during the storm itself without causing logistical nightmares for the people on the ground.
The disruption of the people who are trying to organize relief and response to the storm just to get photo ops for political reasons is an absolutely unnecessary stress.
Tuesday, August 19, 2008
Saturday Debate, Part II
From Salon.com, I've borrowed the following quote from Dan Gilgoff of Beliefnet.
Dan Gilgoff: Some Obama supporters are claiming that McCain saw the questions before the forum began, giving him a leg up on Obama.
Rick Warren: They're dead wrong. That's just sour grapes. They both did fantastically well. The only question he knew, I gave them the first question and I was changing the questions within an hour [before the forum began]. I talked to both of them a week before the debate and told them all the themes. I talked personally to John McCain and I talked personally to Barack Obama. I said, 'We'll talk about leadership, talk about the roles of government,' I said I'd probably have a question about climate change, probably a question on the courts. I didn't say, 'I'm going to ask which Supreme Court justice would you not [nominate]. They were clearly not prepared for that.
D.G.: A source at the debate tells me that McCain had access to some communications devices in the few minutes before he went on stage with you and that there was a monitor in his green room, in violation of the debate rules.
R.W.: That's absolutely a lie, absolutely a lie. That room was totally free, with no monitors -- a flat out lie.
Hmmm. . . . I was right that Rev. Warren did some pre-debate discussing of the questions with both candidates. If I had been him, I would have done the same thing to reassure both candidates that it was a legitimate event. The difficulty is that if he as moderator has a preference between the two, he may say a little more to one than to the other. The moderator's credibility is on the line since it is his opportunity to gain national stature. Who knows how honest he was in his pre-debate discussions?
Well, Rev. Warren's honesty was put to the test because while he told the audience that Sen. McCain was in a room where he couldn't hear what was going on onstage, Sen. McCain's staff reported that he was still in his motorcade on the way to the event. For someone who had so much at stake to put on a responsible effort with a national audience, Rev. Warren had to either know of Sen. McCain's actual whereabouts or presumed too much. He certainly had not accompanied Sen.McCain to the room as a matter of hospitality, which would have been what I'd have done.
Rev. Warren failed that test.
How much of the debate Sen. McCain heard is not clear from this snippet. But other reports say there was a monitor in the green room where Sen. McCain was supposed to have waited and that it was turned off (disabled?). But Rev. Warren offers a different response. There was no monitor!
Is this a big deal?
Is truth telling a big deal? Was it the Packer offensive line whose names Sen. McCain used when he was asked for names of his unit as he wrote in a book about his POW experience or was it the Steelers' defensive line as he told a Pittsburgh crowd this year?
Somehow those who do not worry about the truth in little things do not worry about it in the big things.
Update: You may have noticed that I removed the reference to the "cross in the dirt" vignette that McCain uses and some have said was borrowed by McCain from Alexander Solzhenitsyn. I still have my doubts but researchers at FactCheck.org have found that the story could have happened but no one will ever know. The alleged borrowing is unlikely because of the differences in the details, the likelihood of numerous such communications among the many Christians under persecution, and the ambiguity about Solzhenitsyn's actual use of the story. - I've tried to find the blogs where I originally got information related to the vignette and I can't find them now. . . .
Monday, August 18, 2008
Saturday Night's "Debate" in the California Church
We got the impression that the questions for each candidate would be the same, would be given to each fresh (Sen. McCain was assigned a seat in the "cone of silence" so he would not hear the questions and Sen. Obama's answers), and thus each would be spontaneous and unrehearsed.
But I had the impression that both candidates may have seen copies of the questions ahead of time. Both candidates, as I saw them interact with Rev. Warren, seemed to be aware of the questions and responded not as much with spontaneity as with their typical way of answering.
Despite Rev. Warren's intent, it appears the questions fit better into Sen. McCain's talking points than with Sen. Obama's.
In fact, there seemed to be a sense that Sen. McCain had his answers ready and pounced on most of the questions.
Some bloggers and the Obama campaign committee now claim they think that McCain actually did hear some if not all of the questions and Sen. Obama's answers.
There was one moment about 19 minutes into Sen. McCain's time for which I reran a recording to see if I heard him right.
On my way there, I heard Sen. McCain open with a response to Rev. Warren's concern about his comfort in the "cone of silence." "I was trying to hear through the walls." Motive was there, but not enough to be decisive. At the nineteen minute mark, Rev. Warren asked the question about abortion to which Sen. McCain responded he would be the "Pro-Life President" if elected. Then he asked, "Are we going to get back to the importance of Supreme Court justices?"
When I heard it Saturday night, my impression was that he was referring back to when Sen. Obama talked about the justices that he would not have nominated.
As I watched the rerun, I was not far from keeping that interpretation. But the actual words do not provide any clear alternative to his simply wanting to discuss Supreme Court nominations as part of the abortion issue.
But I still feel that McCain had time to prepare his answers and that Obama may have.
There is no question that McCain knew what he wanted to give that friendly audience.
I was not happy with his failure to answer some of the questions but inserted his talking points instead.
And I think he may have really lost the women's vote by proclaiming he is the pro-life candidate.
But it is hard to say whether or not he cheated and was not in the cone of silence.
Update: Criticism of the "debate" Saturday includes the possibility that McCain came late to the site and therefore had an opportunity to listen to the broadcast in his car as he was driven in. While he apparently went to the green room, which Rev. Warren jokingly called the "cone of silence," where the monitor in there was turned off (Rev. Warren asserted), he may have heard enough of the broadcast to have time to anticipate his own responses.
I recall that in the lead up to the broadcast, Rev. Warren said the two candidates would meet briefly at the beginning of the broadcast and then not be on stage together at any other time. It was smoother to have the two meet after Sen. Obama had concluded his turn. But if that was not the original plan, then Sen. McCain could have had a major advantage.
I hope there is a careful review of what happened.
Further update: The McCain people stated that Sen. McCain was still in his motorcade on the way to the site when the broadcast was going on.
But I had the impression that both candidates may have seen copies of the questions ahead of time. Both candidates, as I saw them interact with Rev. Warren, seemed to be aware of the questions and responded not as much with spontaneity as with their typical way of answering.
Despite Rev. Warren's intent, it appears the questions fit better into Sen. McCain's talking points than with Sen. Obama's.
In fact, there seemed to be a sense that Sen. McCain had his answers ready and pounced on most of the questions.
Some bloggers and the Obama campaign committee now claim they think that McCain actually did hear some if not all of the questions and Sen. Obama's answers.
There was one moment about 19 minutes into Sen. McCain's time for which I reran a recording to see if I heard him right.
On my way there, I heard Sen. McCain open with a response to Rev. Warren's concern about his comfort in the "cone of silence." "I was trying to hear through the walls." Motive was there, but not enough to be decisive. At the nineteen minute mark, Rev. Warren asked the question about abortion to which Sen. McCain responded he would be the "Pro-Life President" if elected. Then he asked, "Are we going to get back to the importance of Supreme Court justices?"
When I heard it Saturday night, my impression was that he was referring back to when Sen. Obama talked about the justices that he would not have nominated.
As I watched the rerun, I was not far from keeping that interpretation. But the actual words do not provide any clear alternative to his simply wanting to discuss Supreme Court nominations as part of the abortion issue.
But I still feel that McCain had time to prepare his answers and that Obama may have.
There is no question that McCain knew what he wanted to give that friendly audience.
I was not happy with his failure to answer some of the questions but inserted his talking points instead.
And I think he may have really lost the women's vote by proclaiming he is the pro-life candidate.
But it is hard to say whether or not he cheated and was not in the cone of silence.
Update: Criticism of the "debate" Saturday includes the possibility that McCain came late to the site and therefore had an opportunity to listen to the broadcast in his car as he was driven in. While he apparently went to the green room, which Rev. Warren jokingly called the "cone of silence," where the monitor in there was turned off (Rev. Warren asserted), he may have heard enough of the broadcast to have time to anticipate his own responses.
I recall that in the lead up to the broadcast, Rev. Warren said the two candidates would meet briefly at the beginning of the broadcast and then not be on stage together at any other time. It was smoother to have the two meet after Sen. Obama had concluded his turn. But if that was not the original plan, then Sen. McCain could have had a major advantage.
I hope there is a careful review of what happened.
Further update: The McCain people stated that Sen. McCain was still in his motorcade on the way to the site when the broadcast was going on.
Friday, March 28, 2008
"Patriotism and the Pulpit" by Rev. Jack Copas
My friend Jack has put together a very helpful response to the Rev. Wright flap being used to counter Senator Obama's presidential campaign. Jack doesn't take sides, unless one thinks that challenging someone's thinking is partisan. Here are his thoughts:
The latest news these days about our Presidential election comes from a most unlikely arena. Barack Obama has been roundly criticized for sermons his pastor, The Rev. Dr. Jeremiah Wright, preached in the pulpit of the Trinity United Church of Christ. This really intrigued me because I have been criticized a time or two for preaching sermons people strongly disagreed with. Yet to the best of my knowledge no one in any church I have ever served has ever been held accountable for words I said. Some reporters even asked Senator Obama why he still attends that church since he repudiated what his pastor said. Some said he waited too long to distance himself from Dr. Wright. The reason people were so angry about what Dr. Wright said was his words were perceived to be a direct assault on The United States of America. Our traditional definition of patriotism was being challenged and folks get mighty testy over that subject.
When I first heard about this story I thought it was amazing the media was so focused on some minister’s sermon and whether what he said could have some reflection on Senator Obama’s candidacy. This sounded like lunacy to me because Dr. Wright’s statements had nothing to do with Barack Obama. I felt the same way about this controversy as I did when two other prominent ministers endorsed John McCain for President. One of them said the Roman Catholic Church was a “whore” religion and the other pastor said as Christians we must kill all Muslims. Astoundingly that minister even gave some Scriptural references to make his points. My point here is that neither John McCain nor Barack Obama should be held accountable for the statements of preachers who support them no matter what comes out of their pulpits. Why? Because as United Methodists we believe in two things. One is called “free will”. You have the freedom to decide in your own mind and heart how much (if any) of the pastor’s sermon is something you believe in or agree with. Your faith journey is yours alone to walk. The other is freedom of the pulpit which means pastors are free to make prophetic pronouncements at their own peril without requiring the congregation to go along with them.
How you would feel if people asked you why you still attend this church because of words I may have happened to preach in our pulpit? Is the church all about the minister? What about other reasons you belong to church? What about your church family and the nurture you give to each other? If you were married in this sanctuary and if your children were baptized here would you simply walk out if the current minister preached what you felt was an inflammatory sermon?
One thing is for sure after all is said and done - nobody can ever accuse Barack Obama of being a Muslim anymore. He has been a member of that United Church of Chist congregation for more than twenty years.
The reason I feel this controversy is important is because of the way we define the role of “religion” in politics. Let’s face it, we won’t dare elect an atheist to the Presidency and we have equal intolerance of anyone who asks God to “damn America”. We tend to gravitate to preachers who fuse together our national pride with our faith in God. There are no politicians worth their soul who do not usually end their speeches with the phrase “God Bless America." Yet I recall Sinclair Lewis predicting this jolting forecast: “When fascism comes to this country it will be wrapped in a flag carrying a cross!”
I suppose we would all agree that patriotism in and of itself is a good thing and we should encourage people to take pride in this country, right? Of course it is except when our love of this nation blinds us from self-reflection. As Christians we are not called to merely praise our country and reap the harvest of our national bounty. If that were true then we could say “lucky us being born into wealth and privilege and too bad for those unlucky Mexicans or Cubans or Haitians trying to get here. But if they get here we will hire them off the books."
There is a danger in believing that we are entitled to living lives people all over the world can only dream of living. And there is an even greater danger of practicing historical amnesia when we have to answer for how we attained all these things. I read an article that said the United States is on the verge of economic collapse and Godless China is poised to become the new superpower of the world. How would that sit with you?
So what exactly is the role of “religion” in our nation? Well one thing I know is that the Church gives up its authority when it only blesses the established order. Many ministers who have chosen to cozy up to power lose their ability to remain objective. Pulpits all across America are supposed to critique our government leaders and the Gospel requires us to speak truth to power. The Church is not some social organization that has gone mainstream. We must confront powerful sources that cause powerlessness and remind America of what real patriotism is and, more importantly, what it is not!
Personally I grieve over the shallowness of our national pride. The selfish rhetoric about the greatness of our country pales in comparison to the atrocities we have committed throughout the world. Instead of trying to live up to what we stand for as a nation we defend our torturing and we never admit when we are wrong. I doubt I would ask God to “damn America” but I am asking God to “help America” recognize its own arrogance. We have been guilty as a nation of the very things we claim to oppose. Claiming to defend liberty, we have trampled on innocent people trying to enhance our prosperity. We can’t stand for high moral ethics when our national behavior contradicts our words. People all over the world hate America not because they are jealous of our freedoms or what we value. They hate us because we hurt them. I am anxious when the world views my country as an imperial bully whose foreign policy is designed to taunt its enemies.
Few people want to hear sermons that challenge us to live up to the true meaning of our creeds. On the other hand, we all want our country to stand for nobility and honor. We want our leaders to find new peace initiatives to work with hated neighbors and we demand that our leaders stop lying to us. We want our country to actually be the land of the free and the home of the brave. And when our country displays itself to be less than that we must call it to account and make the necessary changes for it to be so. Real patriotism settles for nothing less. It takes a lot of courage to preach a sermon like that.
I love The United States of America and cherish the Constitution we uphold. But, like Dr. Wright, I must express outrage in the pulpit if my country demonstrates conduct that contradicts that very same Constitution. And all ministers must exercise their prophetic call to encourage this country to live up to its own principles. Real patriotism is much more than waving a flag and reciting the pledge of allegiance. Real patriotism for the people "of" God is when we work for justice, when we hunger for peace, when we share our blessings, when we love mercy, and when we walk humbly "with" our God. That is what I think of when I hear Kate Smith sing “God Bless America”.
Grace and peace,
The Rev. Jack M. Copas, D-Min.
Pastor
The latest news these days about our Presidential election comes from a most unlikely arena. Barack Obama has been roundly criticized for sermons his pastor, The Rev. Dr. Jeremiah Wright, preached in the pulpit of the Trinity United Church of Christ. This really intrigued me because I have been criticized a time or two for preaching sermons people strongly disagreed with. Yet to the best of my knowledge no one in any church I have ever served has ever been held accountable for words I said. Some reporters even asked Senator Obama why he still attends that church since he repudiated what his pastor said. Some said he waited too long to distance himself from Dr. Wright. The reason people were so angry about what Dr. Wright said was his words were perceived to be a direct assault on The United States of America. Our traditional definition of patriotism was being challenged and folks get mighty testy over that subject.
When I first heard about this story I thought it was amazing the media was so focused on some minister’s sermon and whether what he said could have some reflection on Senator Obama’s candidacy. This sounded like lunacy to me because Dr. Wright’s statements had nothing to do with Barack Obama. I felt the same way about this controversy as I did when two other prominent ministers endorsed John McCain for President. One of them said the Roman Catholic Church was a “whore” religion and the other pastor said as Christians we must kill all Muslims. Astoundingly that minister even gave some Scriptural references to make his points. My point here is that neither John McCain nor Barack Obama should be held accountable for the statements of preachers who support them no matter what comes out of their pulpits. Why? Because as United Methodists we believe in two things. One is called “free will”. You have the freedom to decide in your own mind and heart how much (if any) of the pastor’s sermon is something you believe in or agree with. Your faith journey is yours alone to walk. The other is freedom of the pulpit which means pastors are free to make prophetic pronouncements at their own peril without requiring the congregation to go along with them.
How you would feel if people asked you why you still attend this church because of words I may have happened to preach in our pulpit? Is the church all about the minister? What about other reasons you belong to church? What about your church family and the nurture you give to each other? If you were married in this sanctuary and if your children were baptized here would you simply walk out if the current minister preached what you felt was an inflammatory sermon?
One thing is for sure after all is said and done - nobody can ever accuse Barack Obama of being a Muslim anymore. He has been a member of that United Church of Chist congregation for more than twenty years.
The reason I feel this controversy is important is because of the way we define the role of “religion” in politics. Let’s face it, we won’t dare elect an atheist to the Presidency and we have equal intolerance of anyone who asks God to “damn America”. We tend to gravitate to preachers who fuse together our national pride with our faith in God. There are no politicians worth their soul who do not usually end their speeches with the phrase “God Bless America." Yet I recall Sinclair Lewis predicting this jolting forecast: “When fascism comes to this country it will be wrapped in a flag carrying a cross!”
I suppose we would all agree that patriotism in and of itself is a good thing and we should encourage people to take pride in this country, right? Of course it is except when our love of this nation blinds us from self-reflection. As Christians we are not called to merely praise our country and reap the harvest of our national bounty. If that were true then we could say “lucky us being born into wealth and privilege and too bad for those unlucky Mexicans or Cubans or Haitians trying to get here. But if they get here we will hire them off the books."
There is a danger in believing that we are entitled to living lives people all over the world can only dream of living. And there is an even greater danger of practicing historical amnesia when we have to answer for how we attained all these things. I read an article that said the United States is on the verge of economic collapse and Godless China is poised to become the new superpower of the world. How would that sit with you?
So what exactly is the role of “religion” in our nation? Well one thing I know is that the Church gives up its authority when it only blesses the established order. Many ministers who have chosen to cozy up to power lose their ability to remain objective. Pulpits all across America are supposed to critique our government leaders and the Gospel requires us to speak truth to power. The Church is not some social organization that has gone mainstream. We must confront powerful sources that cause powerlessness and remind America of what real patriotism is and, more importantly, what it is not!
Personally I grieve over the shallowness of our national pride. The selfish rhetoric about the greatness of our country pales in comparison to the atrocities we have committed throughout the world. Instead of trying to live up to what we stand for as a nation we defend our torturing and we never admit when we are wrong. I doubt I would ask God to “damn America” but I am asking God to “help America” recognize its own arrogance. We have been guilty as a nation of the very things we claim to oppose. Claiming to defend liberty, we have trampled on innocent people trying to enhance our prosperity. We can’t stand for high moral ethics when our national behavior contradicts our words. People all over the world hate America not because they are jealous of our freedoms or what we value. They hate us because we hurt them. I am anxious when the world views my country as an imperial bully whose foreign policy is designed to taunt its enemies.
Few people want to hear sermons that challenge us to live up to the true meaning of our creeds. On the other hand, we all want our country to stand for nobility and honor. We want our leaders to find new peace initiatives to work with hated neighbors and we demand that our leaders stop lying to us. We want our country to actually be the land of the free and the home of the brave. And when our country displays itself to be less than that we must call it to account and make the necessary changes for it to be so. Real patriotism settles for nothing less. It takes a lot of courage to preach a sermon like that.
I love The United States of America and cherish the Constitution we uphold. But, like Dr. Wright, I must express outrage in the pulpit if my country demonstrates conduct that contradicts that very same Constitution. And all ministers must exercise their prophetic call to encourage this country to live up to its own principles. Real patriotism is much more than waving a flag and reciting the pledge of allegiance. Real patriotism for the people "of" God is when we work for justice, when we hunger for peace, when we share our blessings, when we love mercy, and when we walk humbly "with" our God. That is what I think of when I hear Kate Smith sing “God Bless America”.
Grace and peace,
The Rev. Jack M. Copas, D-Min.
Pastor
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)