There’s much to mull over concerning Iran’s pending parliamentary elections – the vetting process yet again. Yet for the moment, we have the American political circus to comprehend, and our own “vetting processes” are less than perfect. For our Presidential primary here in Virginia tomorrow, we are pleasantly surprised to contemplate that our votes might still mean something. Alas, (and this is Scott writing) my early favorites (Chuck Hagel, Bill Richardson, or Ron Paul) either chickened out, gave up early, or have been quite marginalized. But there is still a race on; in both parties, it’s not yet certain who will win.
What’s an independent thinker to do? I’m tired of being “embarrassed” every time our current President speaks, smirks, or slurs.
By contrast, Saturday’s Jefferson-Jackson Day speech here in Virginia by Barack Obama gives me hope that we might yet have a President by this time next year who won’t cause me to cringe:
[W]hile Washington is consumed with the same drama and division and distraction, another family puts up a For Sale sign in the front yard. Another factory shuts its doors forever. Another mother declares bankruptcy because she cannot pay her child’s medical bills.
And another soldier waves goodbye as he leaves on another tour of duty in a war that should’ve never been authorized and never been waged. It goes on and on and on, year after year after year.
But in this election – at this moment – Americans are standing up all across the country to say, not this time. Not this year. The stakes are too high and the challenges too great to play the same Washington game with the same Washington players and expect a different result.
Many of these themes echo recent Obama stump lines. I especially like this passage:
If I am the nominee of this party, John McCain will not be able to say that I agreed with him on voting for the war in Iraq; agreed with him on giving George Bush the benefit of the doubt on Iran; and agree with him in embracing the Bush-Cheney policy of not talking to leaders we don’t like. Because that doesn’t make us look strong, it makes us look arrogant. John F. Kennedy said that you should never negotiate out of fear, but you should never fear to negotiate. And that’s what I will do as President. I don’t just want to end this war in Iraq, I want to end the mindset that got us into war. It is time to turn the page. (emphasis added)
Yes, this primary is personal for me. My son the Army reserves Lieutenant was just activated into the full-time Army, with his unit slotted for “deployment” later this year. So the ole’ “pro-life” card has, shall we say, a different meaning for me.
McCain, Huckabee & Kenneth Copeland!?
As much as I once liked him, voting for McCain, Mr. Bomb, Bomb, Bomb Iran, or Mr. “stay in Iraq for a 100 years,” would, for me, be the antithesis of “supporting the troops.”
I do realize that many “independent” friends think McCain is one of them — and that may indeed explain much of his success thus far. But for me, McCain gave up the “Maverick” mantle when he went with the imperialists of old, backing the surge and now loose chatter advocating staying in Iraq without end.
Huckabee for a few moments intrigued me. To be sure, he’s the ultimate un-foreign policy candidate, and he’s tried to turn it into a joke. (He’s been staying at a lot of Holiday Inn’s lately). When he wasn’t “boasting” of consulting with John Bolton, his campaign did float some curiously “independent” ideas, such as the notion of serious talking to Iran (what a concept!) in the current issue of Foreign Affairs. He also notably criticized the Bush Administration for its “counterproductive… bunker mentality” towards the world.
I anticipate Huckabee might do better than expected here in Virginia, though more on social issues, as conservative religious “folk” here remember John McCain’s blasts at them eight years ago. It was no accident that Pat Robertson endorsed Rudy Guliani – after courting Romney) Huckabee yesterday was “speaking” before Falwell’s mega-church in Lynchburg.
But Virginia’s “conservative Christians” are hardly a monolith; the formulas that worked before are in tatters. Jerry Falwell is gone; Pat Robertson is on the way out, and his once intimidating “Christian Coalition” barely even exists – even what it stands for anymore is a mystery. (A friend yesterday even hinted that the current CC leader is quietly supporting Clinton)
It’s quite unclear (if it ever was) who “speaks” for the “Conservative Christian” vote. James Dobson vows he can’t vote for McCain. (I doubt he’d endorse any Democrat, but his “threat” to withhold support from McCain is telling.)
The old televangelist leaders are also under siege, and the best known among them face much deserved scrutiny by Senator Charles Grasslee (R. Iowa). A “charismatic enron” has been in progress, and the empires of the mightiest of the “word of faith” (or “name-it-and-claim-it”) preachers (think Richard Roberts, Kenneth Copeland, John Hagee, Benny Hinn, Paula White, Joyce Meyer, Creflo Dollar, etc., etc.) are starting to crumble.
There’s a hook here to the Virginia primaries, in the form of an extraordinary association between Mike Huckabee and one of the most “in-your-face” billionaires of the lot — Kenneth Copeland, of Newark, Texas. See this “irreverent” “Wittenburg Door” take on recent Kenneth Copeland gathering (with videos).
Billionaire evangelist oilman cattle rancher Kenneth Copeland, who sits so high atop the “prosperity gospel” pyramid that he has hundreds of “franchise” churches whose pastors send money back up the pipeline, spent much of his annual ministers conference last week talking about how he stonewalled the Senate Finance Committee, then boasted about having Mike Huckabee on his team.
“Kenneth Copeland, I will stand with you!” Huckabee yelled over the phone, according to Copeland. “You’re trying to get prosperity to the people, and they’re [the Senate] trying to take it away from ‘em. I will stand with you anytime, anywhere, on any issue!”
Put crassly, Copeland is claiming that Huckabee will back with his “dear friend” Copeland because Senator Graslee’s approval rating is “only 11%.”
I’ve followed Copeland for decades. Along with Richard Roberts, he’s a symbol for me of all that’s gone wrong in “American” Christianity since the 1970’s. The arrogance, greed, and corruption have been mind-boggling. While this is a huge subject beyond the confines of a short entry, the days of what I’ve dubbed (elsewhere) the “televangefleestas” may at last be numbered.
To my amazement, Huckabee appeared on Copeland’s daily TV program for a week last November. This is toxic for the Huckabee campaign. I’ve found nothing yet indicating Huckabee distanced himself from Copeland. If McCain & co. haven’t yet picked up on this, it’s a “gold mine” waiting to exploit, should Huckabee surprise tomorrow.
I have since learned that Huckabee was confronted on Sunday with the Copeland quotes. The four minute video clip should be at the top of this wd link:
http://www.wittenburgdoor.com/copelandclips#billionaire
Huckabee plays a bad hand gamely — in effect trying to distance himself from Copeland — to minimize his contact with Copeland — to whitewash Copeland (he’s a good guy, folks like him etc.) — to deny he was in actual fact going to interfere on behalf of Copeland against his Republican Senate colleague, and in the end, to try to change the subject to MoveOn.
Huckabee has played with fire; he’s desperate for allies – just not their baggage.
(If it’s not clear, I’m referring to the NBC “Meet the Press” program, Huckabee as guest.)
On the matter of the McCain proclamation of staying in Iraq for “100 years,” I came across this excellent Huffington Post commentary by a Sam Sedaei: (one of many there on topic)
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/sam-sedaei/unapologetic-imperialism_b_86033.html
Here’s his punch line:
“John McCain may believe that America’s presence in Iraq will eventually lead to over 1.8 billion Muslims around the world to roll over and accept Christian presence on holy land. But in reality, as long as America does not chart a course that would lead to self-government in Iraq and withdrawal of all American forces not just from Iraq but also from Saudi Arabia and other sensitive regions…, Americans will remain a target for attacks at home and abroad and used by terrorist organizations to recruit disillusioned Muslims to join in violence against the American forces abroad or citizens here in the United States.”
Ah, Obama! Sounds familiar, isn’t that one the Mussolini of Moderation?
Obama’s answer, and the right one: you deal with the official Palestinian leadership, which is willing to deal, but you pressure them to take action on other fronts that will bring the people back from Hamas. We “have to make sure that Abbas and Fayad and those that are controlling the West Bank still actually start delivering something tangible that is benefiting the lives of Palestinians in the West Bank, that they are ridding [their party] Fatah of the corruption that has been endemic and are put in a stronger position politically so Hamas is not dictating the terms of Palestinian negotiations but the moderates in the Palestinian camp are dictating what the Palestinian people are willing to go along with.”
Scott, I am sorry to hear that you have a son in the military. And surely you are too sophisticated to buy Obama’s or anyone else’s campaign rhetoric without looking at his record and his other statements and declarations. You may have already seen this comment of mine, but it really does belong here:
“I don’t want to just end the war, but I want to end the mindset that got us into war in the first place.” Glorious words from Senator Barak Obama
Well, I have a few questions for the good Senator.
1. Why have you done absolutely nothing to end the “war” until now? Why have you, on the contrary, voted FOR every single “war” appropriation?
2. If you have been so consistently against the “war”, why have you stated on several occasions that you don’t know how you would have voted on the authorization had you been in the Senate at the time?
2. What did you mean when you said your position regarding Iraq was very much in line with that of George Bush?
4. If you are so eager to end both the “war” and the mindset that got the U.S. into the “war” in the first place, why do you want to increase the size of the military by 90,000 troops? What are you going to need all those additional troops for?
5. If you are so eager to end the mindset that got the U.S. into the “war” in the first place, why have you stated more than once that attacking Iran to “bring them into line” is an acceptable option to you?
6. If you are so eager to end the mindset that got the U.S. into the “war” in the first place, why would you even consider unilaterally bombing the territory of an already weak and unpopular ally – i.e. Pakistan?
7. If you are so eager to end the mindset that got the U.S. into the “war” in the first place, why did you not fight, or at least vote against the very bellicose Kyl-Lieberman bill declaring the Iranian equivalent of the National Guard to be a terrorist organization? Why did you duck out of that vote, Senator, as you have found a way to duck out of so many other potentially “awkward” votes going back to your tenure in the Illinois State Senate?
Sorry, Senator, but the declaration I quoted above sounds like just so much campaign bull****. To be believable it should be consistent with the rest of your statements, as well as with your actions. I am not even a little bit impressed.
Hi Shirin, You’ve raised excellent questions. Early on, I was also nauseated by certain pandering that showed up in the Obama campaign, to assure certain quarters that he wasn’t a “threat” to them. Nature of the beast perhaps — but early cautions for me. I haven’t yet checked all the specific concerns you list…. though wouldn’t be surprised. (I would much rather have been voting for, say, Jim Webb, but he wasn’t running.)
So again, what were my alternatives? I really do like Ron Paul (on the Republican) on general foreign policy matters….. yet for reasons I’ve yet to fathom, he didn’t stir enough support in Republican/Independent circles. As I knew he was likely to pull less than 10% of Virginia Republican votes, I had to consider that side of the aisle, Virginia gives all delegates to the winner. (as such a vote for Paul would have no consequence, save as a protest vote)
On the democratic side, it’s proportional — so all votes cast there “mattered” in the determination of delegates to the Convention.
Back to the specific issues you cited, what’s jumping out at me now is Obama’s high profile emphasis on changing the course of US foreign policy…. Indeed, in all the recorded calls I got (and I got 4 of em!), in all the TV ads for Obama I saw, getting the US out of Iraq was the very first issue cited. Now if he becomes the nominee and starts waffling, then yup, I’ll be mad as heck…. and all the more determined to support Congressional candidates — more like Webb (& Hagel).
Anyway, never mind the pundits, Obama did just as Jim Webb did two years ago, made this a referendum on staying the course with Bush/McCain/Clinton, or going a new way…. It was a powerful argument — generating more excitement than I’ve ever seen for a primary in Virginia. (ever)
(and as one last footnote for those outside Virginia, people here to not register with either party. You can go to a primary and vote in either party’s vote — but only one or the other. I suspect the stats will show a lot of independents were voting on the democratic side this time)
Report of the scene at my own rural Albemarle County Precinct: (at Red Hill Elementary) I was one of maybe a dozen voters there at 3:30 p.m. It was very cold, sleeting. Outside, there’s was a tent up for Obama. Not a single other candidate had anyone there advocating for them. Later, I was chatting with neighbors and long time residents… the buzz about Obama was intense. (and also about how to rid ourselves of that disgrace to our Congressional District – Vuhgil Goode — another subject)
Oh, and the results — as of 7:01, CNN was blasted confident in their exit polls that they declared Obama the winner. Yet given that Virginia Democrats send delegates according to proportion of votes gained, it DOES matter how much Obama wins by. As the numbers are coming in, it’s a huge slam-dunk crushing of Clinton here, 2-1. It’s not just African-Americans (who once were evenly split) now overwhelmingly support Obama, he did well across the board. I’m waiting to see the “independent” splits.
Over on the Republican side, Huckabee (as anticipated by me) did much better than expected, but it’s looking like he’s a few % points short, and under Republican rules, he gets no delegates. (as it stands now – 9:10 pm)
Here’s the CNN link to the results (updated on-the-fly)
http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/primaries/results/state/#VA
One statistical note: It appears that nearly twice as many Virginians chose to vote in the Democratic primary over those voting in the Republican primary.
I suppose skeptics will wonder if this means Republicans figured that their primary was less meaningful, or that they couldn’t get excited about their options. Yet it may be a harbinger for November, of Virginia independents and even Republicans crossing over and voting for Obama. (notable for a state that for decades has gone Republican for the White House)
Well, Scott, of course we all have to make our own choices based on our own criteria and what we believe we can expect from the candidates, AND we have to choose from what is available. Unfortunately, in the areas that are most important to me, foreign and military policy in general, Iraq and potential future military adventures in particular, neither Hillary nor Obama looks at all attractive to me. And of course, McCain is simply out of the question.
I begin with Hillary’s history of support for her husband’s Iraq policy of regime change by strangulation and battery of the civilian population, along with two major bombing campaigns (most people probably don’t even remember the first one, done in retaliation for a very questionable alleged assassination attempt against Clinton’s predecessor, and resulting in numerous civilian deaths, including the death of one of Iraq’s premier artists and her husband, and the permanent maiming of her daughter), and regular minor ones. Hillary, who claims to be a great champion of the rights and welfare of children, has never seemed anguished, or even particularly bothered by the deaths of more than half a million Iraqi children under five years, as a direct result of the sanctions and import embargo. Even Madeleine Albright at least hesitated before making her infamous “price is worth it” statement.
Her willingness to declare nuking Iran (and who knows whom else) “on the table”, her declared belief in “confrontational diplomacy”, her enthusiastic support of the invasion of Iraq, and the continuation of the occupation, her declared intention to increase the size and budget of the military (for what purpose does the United States need a larger military?), the fact that she does not appear to have ever met a military action she did not support – etc., etc., etc..
She has a lot of the qualities this country needs in a president – smart and quick-witted, tough, personable, etc., etc., etc., but her voting record, her stated intention to continue the United States’ “political as well as military mission” in Iraq, her description of the “missions” for which she would keep an unspecified number of troops in Iraq (which include combat, despite her claim that she would withdraw combat troops)? No thanks.
Unfortunately, looking at Obama’s record, and his statements on Iraq, I don’t think he is much different, except that he appears to be less bellicose than Hillary is.
So, I just don’t know what to do at this point. So much so that I voted for Edwards in the primary, even though he had already withdrawn.
“It appears that nearly twice as many Virginians chose to vote in the Democratic primary over those voting in the Republican primary.
I suppose skeptics will wonder if this means Republicans figured that their primary was less meaningful, or that they couldn’t get excited about their options. Yet it may be a harbinger for November, of Virginia independents and even Republicans crossing over and voting for Obama.”
You overlooked one possibility – they voted in the Democratic primary in order to have a part in selecting the person their guy would be running against. I’m not saying that’s the reason, I’m just saying………..