Politics and Culture

John Hagee sent a letter to Bill Donahue:

“After weeks of meeting with various Catholic leaders, and accessing scholarly literature on Catholic-Jewish relations, Pastor John Hagee has demonstrated an improved understanding of the Catholic Church and its history. In his letter to me, Hagee says, ‘I want to express my deep regret for any comments that Catholics have found hurtful.’ He specifically cites his emphasis of ‘the darkest chapters in the history of Catholic and Protestant relations with the Jews,’ and has pledged to provide a more complete and balanced portrayal going forward that will not reinforce mischaracterizations of the Catholic Church. And while he stresses that his invocation of terms like ‘apostate church’ and the ‘great whore’ were never meant by him to describe the Catholic Church, he acknowledges that anti-Catholics have long employed such language.

“The tone of Hagee’s letter is sincere. He wants reconciliation and he has achieved it. Indeed, the Catholic League welcomes his apology. What Hagee has done takes courage and quite frankly I never expected him to demonstrate such sensitivity to our concerns. But he has done just that. Now Catholics, along with Jews, can work with Pastor Hagee in making interfaith relations stronger than ever. Whatever problems we had before are now history. This case is closed.”

That should be that, right?

As John McCain goes for the environmentalists, Obama goes after this bitter constituency:

I'm surprised that 10% would vote for Hillary. Why?

..."the disastrous policies of the Bush administration" as in, "High taxes on oil companies will lower prices, and Iran wants peace, and we should fight Al Qaeda in Pakistan but not in Iraq, and high taxes create jobs and...ummmm...McCain wants to continue Bush's disastrous policies."

Here's an example:

"Just as he doesn't know the difference between Iraq's Sunnis and Shiites, John McCain today showed that he doesn't understand the economy, the mortgage crisis, or its impact on America's families and communities. Instead of offering a concrete plan to address the crisis at all levels, McCain promised to take the same hands off approach that President Bush used to lead us into this crisis. While John McCain promises a third Bush term, Democrats are offering real solutions to help the millions of American families who played by the rules and are still fighting to keep their homes."

What Bush policies led us into this crisis, and why didn't Democrats notice this Bush policy?

Man! Obama sure is lucky that he has more money and academia, most major newspapers, and almost all of the television networks on his side. He's going to need it when he goes against the vicious GOP attack machine this fall. Poor guy.

In more evidence that I have, in fact, entered an alternate reality, Newsweek claims that the Republican attack machine, not theirs, is the scarier monster. Have they ever heard Howard Dean? Daily Kos? Huffington? How about using this Newsweek attack piece to preempt any McCain criticisms of Obama?

I think this whole "GOP is meaner than us" is catching on amongst the easily self-deluded and self-righteous left.

Here's the original Newsweek article. Below is the McCain campaign response by Mark Salter:

Dear Jon,

A useful way to read the piece would be to try to imagine you were a Republican reading it. The characterization of Republican presidential campaigns as nothing more than attack machines that use 527s and other means to smear opponents strikes us as pretty offensive. Is that how Ronald Reagan won two terms? Do they really think other Republican presidential candidates were elected because they ran dirtier campaigns than their opponents? Or could it be that they were better candidates or ran better campaigns or maybe more voters agreed with their position on important issues? >From the

beginning of their article, Evan Thomas and Richard Wolffe offered a biased implication that Republicans have won elections and will try to win this one simply by tearing down through disreputable means their opponents. You can see why many Republicans and voters and our campaign might take issue with that.

Suggesting that that we can expect a whispering campaign from the McCain campaign or the Republican Party about Senator Obama’s race and the false charge that he is a Muslim is scurrilous. Has John McCain ever campaigned that way? On the contrary, he has on numerous occasions denounced tactics offensive tactics from campaigns, 527s and others, both Democratic and Republican. By the way, which party had more 527 and other independent expenditure ads made on its behalf in 2004? It wasn’t us.

By accepting the Obama campaign construct as if it were objective, Evan and Richard framed this race exactly as Senator Obama wants it to be framed – every issue that raises doubts about his policy views and judgment is part of a smear campaign intended to distract voters from the real issues at stake in the election, and, thus, illegitimate. And even if Senator McCain might not be inclined to support such advertising, if he can’t stop them from occurring then he will have succumbed to the temptation to put ambition before principle. How this notion could appear credible after MoveOn, the AFL-CIO and the DNC launched negative ad campaigns weeks ago, and after leaks from the Obama campaign that they would soon start running negative ads against McCain, is mystifying. When a conservative talk show host emphasized Senator Obama’s middle name, Senator McCain immediately denounced it himself in the strongest possible terms. When a left wing radio host called Senator McCain a “warmonger;” when Senator Rockefeller disparaged Senator McCain’s war record; and when Howard Dean consistently accused Senator McCain of corruption, dishonesty and various other smears, the response from the Obama campaign has been either silence or a spokesperson releases an anodyne statement saying they don’t agree with the characterization.

To see how completely Evan and Richard have accepted the Obama campaign spin look at the example of an illegitimate smear they cite: Senator McCain raising the Hamas spokesman’s comments welcoming Obama’s election. The Senator has never said that Senator Obama shares Hamas’ goals or values or proposed a relationship with Hamas different than the one he would propose. On the contrary, he publicly acknowledged that he doesn’t believe Senator Obama. He did note that there must be something about Obama’s positions, particularly his repeated insistence that he would meet with the President of Iran (Hamas’s chief state sponsor), that was welcomed by Hamas. Imagine if a right wing death squad spokesman announced that they welcomed McCain’s election. Would Evan or Richard treat that as an illegitimate issue or would they examine which of McCain’s stated positions might have found favor with the terrorists? That seems obvious on its face to me. Rather than argue that his position on Iran is the right one and has no bearing on how Hamas views him, Senator Obama makes a false charge that we accused him of advocating a different relationship with Hamas than Senator McCain’s supports. His false characterization of Senator McCain’s statement was accepted uncritically by Evan and Richard.

Democratic Party allied third parties have announced negative ad campaigns, which distort McCain’s statements and positions, in the hundreds of millions of dollars. They are already running them. Senator Obama himself and Democrats generally have taken out of context and distorted Senator McCain’s statements on a post war military presence in Iraq and his views on the economy. Our townhalls are now routinely salted with Obama supporters who are there to raise embarrassing questions for the Senator (we don’t screen people at our events). An Obama supporter asked him in Iowa if he called his wife a very vulgar name.

When the North Carolina party prepared to run an ad raising the Reverend Wright issue, Senator McCain again denounced it in the strongest possible terms, and was sharply criticized by conservative radio and pundits for doing so. And when the North Carolina party refused to withdraw it, the Obama campaign, Howard Dean and others charged that he was either being disingenuous or ineffective. I understand why they might employ that tactic, but isn’t it the job of reporters to ponder its implications to see if it is fair?

Senator McCain is not going to referee ads run by groups outside our control. The other side has no intention of reciprocating and has shown every inclination to tolerate and even encourage such attacks against us. Of course, he will denounce any use of race or calumnies against his opponent by anyone. But he won’t play traffic cop anymore. The other side uses the same tactics, with no opposition from the Obama campaign that I have seen. Also, were he to do so and be unable to discourage independent expenditures run by people who have no relationship with him or our campaign, (and, in some cases, had previously run attacks against him) the Obama campaign will denounce him as a phony or weak. If Evan and Richard’s piece represents a general attitude among their colleagues, the press will agree.

Evan and Richard noted, ominously, that our campaign includes Steve Schmidt and Charlie Black, characterizing them basically as noted Republican attack specialists. The Obama senior staffers were described as idealists and decent sorts, and jujitso experts who could use Republican Party smears and deceitful tactics against their authors. I’m sure both David Plouffle and David Axelrod are fine, upstanding citizens. But the former ran a campaign for Senator Torricelli and the latter worked on the campaigns of Mayor Daley. I don’t remember those campaigns being notable for their delicate courtesy and softball tactics toward their opponents.

Without a trace of skepticism, your reporters embraced the primary communications strategy the Obama campaign intends to follow: any criticism of their candidate is a below the belt, Republican attack machine distortion that should discredit the authors. And any attempt by our campaign to counter that suggestion will be dismissed as a rant. The other day, Senator Obama noted that Representative DeFazio’s accusation that Senator McCain was up to his neck in the Keating 5 scandal was a legitimate line of attack, despite the fact the Senator was largely exonerated by the Senate Ethics Committee, whose special counsel declared he had been kept in the investigation only because of his party affiliation. Were we to raise the Rezko matter, their campaign would accuse us of distracting voters with a low blow by making more of a “flimsy relationship” than the facts warranted. Evan and Richard, I feel certain, would agree.

The McCain campaign will keep to the high standards of political debate Senator McCain demands of us. The Senator will not tolerate unfair attacks by anyone on our campaign. We won’t, however, abide by rules imposed on us by our opponents, and which pertain only to our campaign and not theirs, even if they manage to get reporters to call the deal fair

Thanks for hearing me out.

Democrats are still under the impression that lower taxes are what caused the mild, fully employed slowdown this year. How, exactly, will raising taxes while spending more help the economy? I don't mind being "on my own" if the one I throw my lot with is the federal government. And, I'm not on my own, if you think about it. I have my family, friends. Change means thousands out of your pocket to give to whomever Obama thinks is worthy.

McCain isn't my "lesser of evils." I actually like and respect him; he's a good guy and one with whom I generally agree. But, I don't like being part of a drumbeat so I'm purposefully criticizing McCain:

Generally:

McCain has a sincere speaking style, but sometimes trips over his words, reminding us, to the detriment of McCain's campaign, of the difficulty our current commander and chief has with impromptu speaking. He's reduced his use of "friends" in speaking, but for a while, it was almost a verbal tick. McCain sprinkles his sentences with "breakers" like "I believe" or "if you will." He repeats jokes often.

Specifically:

McCain responded to Obama's "losing his bearings" comment by accusing Obama of slyly bringing up his age. Now, I believe this. Unless it's something that Obama says regularly, somebody gave him a phrase that denotes "meandering" and connotes dementia. However, it's not good for McCain to worry about "intentions" or hidden insults. Doing so makes him sound, frankly, like the seemingly wimpy Obama (Blunted somewhat by the fact that surrogate Salter and not McCain himself leveled the charge.). It reminds me of how Democrats worry about crypto-racism or sexism.

On two recent McCain sayings:

"My friends, I will have an energy policy that we will be talking about, which will eliminate our dependence on oil from the Middle East that will prevent us from having ever to send our young men and women into conflict again in the Middle East,"

He later explained that he was referring to the first gulf war. People of bad faith said he was admitting that Bush went to war with Iraq for oil.

Is Huffington right that McCain "implied" that the Iraq war was for oil? No, it's ridiculous. When do we start taking Iraq's oil? How much oil could we have bought for the money we spent on the war? Why are foreign companies getting most of the contracts? Since Saddam's oil was already on the market, it had the effect of lowering prices. If they wanted higher prices, then...ahh, like I said, ridiculous. The easiest thing to do would have been to lift sanctions and trade with Iraq like France and Germany did.

I tend to believe people's explanations unless I have reason to doubt them, but I think that McCain really meant that the Middle East is more important than it should be because of oil. That, and he just wanted to mention his energy plan (which should include ANWR).

"The bridge in Minneapolis didn't collapse because there wasn't enough money," he said. "The bridge in Minneapolis collapsed because so much money was spent on wasteful, unnecessary pork-barrel projects."

First, it was shameless for Obama to mention it. And, McCain's reply wasn't quite beyond the pale, but still silly- kind of. Obviously, if the government were more adept at finding and prioritizing problems, it would find and prioritize bridges in near-collapse. Earmarks are quite a separate appropriation and it's not clear that the money saved on earmarks would go to increase infrastructure. McCain could propose that, but he probably wants to reduce taxes more.

Pastor problems:

McCain's pastor, the one that people should compare to Wright, is a pretty moderate guy and I'm sure representative of McCain's feelings toward religion.

My friend showed me this clip of David Corn saying some negative things about Islam. I don't actually care about religions fighting amongst each other. As long as people aren't killing each other or forcing conversion, vigorous debate is a good thing. These people say Catholicism is wrong; I say they are- so what? What I don't like is Corn's insinuation that America's armies are at his church's disposal to fight Corn's enemies (something which I'm sure McCain will make clear). If Corn means it in some prophetical, destinational kind of way, O.K., but Corn, if he wants to involve himself in politics, should make clear that he doesn't expect the Republican nominee to use his interpretation of prophesy and national purpose as a foreign policy guide.

Three words: Gas tax Holiday.

Even dumber than Obama saying that Republicans, whose leader didn't want anything to do with legitimate issue, Wright, play dirty politics. Even more of a stretch than Republicans being the "divisive" ("two Americas? tax breaks for the rich?) party is the idea that Democratic policies would lower the price of gasoline. It's like putting Britney Spears in charge of a youth group because the girls are too slutty. Exactly how is "going after" oil companies going to lower the price of gas? How is restricting drilling in Alaska, the gulf, and everyplace else going to lower gas prices? Truly Bizarro.

Prager has a good commentary on the speech.

Well, it was fun while it lasted, but the 2008 Democratic primary is now over. Some thoughts:

1. In-fighting did hurt the Democrats- that's what I mean by "party over" for the GOP; it was a once-every-forty-year gift (1968) from the Dems to the Republicans. The fraction of my life that cares about politics is both nervous and slightly down at the Dem primary's resolution. Nervous because we have to really go at it now- with a zeitgeist disadvantage for the GOP. Down because I won't get to read liberals attack other liberals.

2. I think Obama's win had something to do with Democrats wanting the contest to be over. If the primaries started over again and Hillary didn't lie about Bosnia, Hillary would be the favorite.

3. The Democrats have begun their devious, dishonest attacks (It's a Stalinist who suggests that only Republicans have an attack machine [below]). For instance, Obama attacked McCain "for running a sleazy campaign based on 'fake controversies' and 'distractions.'" Infuriating! First, Wright is relevant to Obama's character and "judgement" with which he claims, because of his 2002 Iraq speech, that he is especially endowed (If McCain called Fred Phelps his "mentor," Obama wouldn't care?). Second, Obama admitted that it's a legitimate campaign issue himself. Third, McCain actually condemned the North Carolina Wright ad- Obama should be thanking him. His "beyond politics" appeal shouldn't work this time.

4. It's Democrats who are lying about McCain with their "100 years" ad. Democrats are the less self-aware party by far.

5. McCain has 20 times the moral credibility of wimpish Obama. Hopefully, McCain can do to Obama what he did to Romney after Romney went negative.

Attack machine.

While Obama was the long shot, he suggested that, as president, he's interfere to help the Teamsters union bring back corruption or, as they insist, reduce costs. I don't think it's too much of a big deal, but it does further make it harder to swallow his anti-special interest, "new politics" lines.