Thoughts on the Conventions

I promised some thoughts on the Conventions, but now that time has elapsed and the outcome is a bit clearer it doesn't seem as relevant. Nevertheless a few things that stick out in my mind a week and a half later:

1. The DNC had a lot of good speeches but lacked a major theme. The slogan supposedly changed each day, with daily themes so forgettable I cannot remember them now. The RNC was much more effective in this regard, staying with the "Country First" theme throughout, and driving it home at every opportunity.

2. The DNC had a lot of good speeches, and some not so good.
Michelle Obama was a hit and showed someone we should be proud to have as a First Lady.
Hillary's was a particularly thorough and rousing endorsement.
Bill Clinton gave a speech which reminded many of us why we elected him twice.
Comparatively minor functionaries like Sen. Casey and Gov. Schweitzer positively beamed.
While hyped speakers like Gov. Mark Warner fell somewhat flat.
Biden needs some serious work. His was, I think, the weakest speech of the fortnight.
Obama sizzled but did not soar, which was probably on purpose. I sat there expecting to cry as I did four years ago. Instead I was sober and resolved. Sober is no fun, but then one can get a lot more done when sober (or so I'm told, I'm a tea-totaller mostly).

3. Gustav was actually a blessing for the RNC. It forced them to pare down, refocus, and re-concentrate their efforts. The result was a more compact and focused convention. Worries that the hurricane would remind everyone of the Katrina blunder mostly were mostly unfounded. The storm was not as bad as Katrina, not as bad as predicted, and the government response was much better. Rather than footage of the Superdome fiasco, the country watched footage of busses lined up to take folks out of New Orleans, of National Guard on the streets, and of levies that held. And FEMA seemed to do a better job there than they seem to be doing now with Ike (mind you Ike turned out to be a much worse storm). The shift in focus also proved good for the Republicans. Rather than four rambling days of "He's not ready to lead" which would have seemed ironic coming out of Gov. Palin, they got three concentrated days of "Maverick Hero Reformers".

4. Obama got a few practical things out of his convention. He did get a modest bounce in the polls, but that was shortlived. Longer-term gains include the firm and final support of the Clintons and many of their allies. Despite Republican jabs about Mile High stadium, and rather petty ribbing about the kind of "temple" Bush and McCain have appeared in front of time and time again (Can you say "hypocrisy" children?), Obama also got the names of a couple of thousand supporters in Colorado. If Colorado turns out to be the state that puts Obama over, as it easily could be, that stadium decision may have turned out to have been the smartest move of the campaign.

5. McCain got much more out of his convention. He got a huge bounce which has not entirely subsided yet. He also got his base incredibly fired up on Palin. Time will tell if this remains. The bounce is beginning to settle. And it is not entirely clear the effect Palin will have on independents. For the moment it is a resounding success which may make the difference.

6. Going second is better. I don't know if Dean flipped Mehlman for it or how these things are decided, but the Dems have not had good luck going first (at least they didn't four years ago).

7. The media in the country is a shambles if not a sham. I found myself flipping back and forth between CSPAN, the cable networks (CNN, MSNBC, FOX), and in primetime the local broadcast networks. I utterly and completely preferred CSPAN, straight coverage with no commentary. The local networks showed almost nothing but the key speech of the night, bookended by local news and light commentary and brief clips of the day's speeches. The cable network reporting was a farce. The pundits and talking heads have been yaking away 24/7 for months, usually with nothing new to say. It's the same talking points over and over. So do they drop that and cover the convention? No, they talk on and on with the same exact stuff we've heard for weeks. The key point for me was Day 1 in Denver. Sen. Claire McCaskill gave what I thought was a rousing and effective speech, much of it attacking McCain. At that precise moment on CNN, Anderson Cooper and David Gergen and their compatriots were debating whether the Democrats had wasted their first day. Now I actually like Gergen, but at that moment he was arguing that the Democrats were completely blowing the opportunity by not criticising McCain. At that exact moment over his shoulder in the background, McCaskill was doing precisely that. Again and again throughout the fortnight, I found myself screaming "shut-up" at the TV and switching to CSPAN.

So that's it. It's going to be a barn-burner.

Thoughts on 9/11, 7 years later

When I think of that day I think of how easily it could have been me. They chose a United flight from Newark to San Francisco. If four days earlier they had chosen a Continental flight from Newark to Oakland it would have been me. I don't know if I would have been as brave as the heroes of United 93.

I also think of my late grandfather, who was the most calming voice that day. I was visiting him and my grandmother that morning. Aunts and uncles were panicked, Grandma was beside herself. But Grandpa, a man who had lived through the Depression, remembered December 7, 1941, nearly lost his feet to frostbite during the Battle of the Bulge and landed on Okinawa after the main invasion, he sat back and throughout the day coolly repeated a verse from Ecclesiastes: "There's nothing new under the sun". He had been through it all before, seen the horrors of hate and war, knew the resilience and resolve of the American people, and counted in all things on the justice and mercy of the Lord. He has since passed, but I was so blessed to be with him that day.

That Sunday, at my father's suggestion, we sang a hymn I have held close ever since (Hymn 573):

Father eternal, Ruler of creation,
Spirit of life, which moved ere form was made,
through the thick darkness covering every nation,
light to our blindness, O be thou our aid:
thy kingdom come,
O Lord,thy will be done.

Races and peoples, lo, we stand divided,
and, sharing not our griefs, no joy can share;
by wars and tumults love is mocked, derided;
his saving cross no nation yet will bear:
thy kingdom come,
O Lord,thy will be done.

Envious of heart, blind-eyed, with tongues confounded,
nation by nation still goes unforgiven,
in wrath and fear, by jealousies surrounded,
building proud towers which shall not reach to heaven:
thy kingdom come,
O Lord,thy will be done.

Lust of possession worketh desolations;
there is no meekness in the powers of earth;
led by no star, the rulers of the nations
still fail to bring us to the blissful birth:
thy kingdom come,
O Lord,thy will be done.

How shall we love thee, holy hidden Being,
if we love not the world which thou hast made?
Bind us in thine own love for better seeing
thy Word made flesh, and in a manger laid:
thy kingdom come,
O Lord,thy will be done.

Laurence Housman (1865-1959)

Veepstakes

With Obama set to announce at any moment, VP speculation is rampant. I certainly don't know who either of them will pick, but I do have my preferences. I'll admit some of those preferences are rational and some are not.

On Obama's side, I would certainly be heartened with a pro-life pick. For a party that has put NARAL front and center and rubbished good folks like the senior Mr. Casey, any lean in a more moral direction would be significant to me. At the moment only Gov. Kaine fits that description, however imperfectly. He doesn't have much experience, but I'd almost be willing to overlook that. Even slighter pro-life leanings can be found in Sen. Bayh, like myself a blue-dog, and Sen. Biden. Bayh strikes me as a rather safe, uninteresting fellow. His record is not perfect, but I don't think he'd do much harm. Biden is more problematic. He's a goodly fellow, with one of the best records on foreign policy, but he seems to suffer from perennial foot-in-mouth disease. And he has a long legislative record to plumb and attack. Gov. Sebellius has a good bi-partisan record, in a conservative state no less. But her recent pro-choice moves have really hit me the wrong way. And do we really need another liberal Catholic out there for the conservative bishops to deny communion to? (Do we, Sen. Biden?) Besides, in her stump speeches for Obama she has struck me to be about as interesting as stale wonder bread.

Then of course there's Hillary. I would have been seriously disappointed with this pick a month ago. I've long felt that this country needs to move beyond the partisan bickering and sexual indiscretions of the 90s, if that's even possible. Half the country, after all, hates her guts. But as the campaign has gotten nastier (just look at today), it has begun to look more and more like her milieu. She's got blue-collar, blue-dog credentials, a modicum of experience, and she's a fighter. Right now those are all looking like things Barack needs. She's got enough baggage to fill a container ship, and I'm already not looking forward to all the clips the right will run of her sliming Obama (which they'll undoubtedly run whether she's the running mate or not), but the country knows her and even the right respects her.

Personally, I'm still hoping it will somehow be a shocker, like the junior Casey or Hagel. And my biggest dream of all, Colin Powell. The only problem with him is that he should be at the top of the ticket. But he's never really wanted the job. Which is why he has always been perfect for it, a true Cincinnatus. As I like to say - Always give the Ring to Hobbits. Only give power to those who don't really want it. For the moment, it's Kaine and Bayh who are looking the most hobbitish.

On McCain's side it's much easier. I'm not sure I like any of them. I will be really disappointed if he picks someone like Romney, who I think is a shiftless, partisan hack. Though Giuliani's stock has risen with me in recent days, how could I abide a pro-choice Republican. That's like my worst nightmare. Mr. "a Noun, a Verb, and 9/11" just won't do. Joe Lieberman is certainly with me on many issues, but something distresses me about his fixation on the war. Even conservative commentators are saying why would we support a VP nominee who agrees with us on only one thing, the war. I certainly appreciate the long friendship he has had with McCain, a fellow maverick if you will. But it seems like he is willing to betray his entire party just over a difference on Iraq, the only major thing he agrees with the Republicans on. Perhaps that's true bi-partisanship, true character, but I just don't know. I really don't know enough about some of the others like Pawlenty and Jindal. They seem rather untested, and would diminish McCain's arguments about Obama's inexperience. At this point McCain is going to have to really impress me. A good, reforming maverick like Palin or a grand old statesman like Lugar would go a long way. (And so far the only speculation about Lugar has been for Obama). And then of course there's the Huckster. I actually like Huckabee a great deal. His folksy charm, aversion to mudslinging, and authentic faithfulness are really quite winsome. His policies in Arkansas were a mixed bag, but I don't think I would be disappointed. Of course, I don't think he has a snowball's chance in Arizona.

It's all going to be interesting. Maybe we'll all be surprised.

Politics

I have tried writing about the election several times over the last week, but each time I am held back by the question of how much to disclose my own political leanings. It is a complicated question that I have tried to answer several times. I have wrestled heavily with the notions of objectivity and bias, with my own political history and that of my family, and with what my own political philosophy and policy positions actually are. Each time my writings descend into incoherence and finally end with the merciful application of the delete button. I think this is in part due to the fact that my political thinking is really all over the map.

I come from a long line of blue-collar, blue-dog, conservative Christian, FDR Democrats. Though I am less blue-collar than my grandparents were (my parents managed to bring us into the ranks of what Marx referred to as the petit-bourgeoisie), that description still fits in many ways. The problem is that conservative Christian FDR Democrats aren't supposed to exist any more, and I find myself increasingly isolated. I'm pro-life but think it's an incredibly difficult issue to legislate. I think organized labor has gone off the rails, but that unions are essentially good. I am an environmentalist, but I still love to drive my old clunker around the state, and I am concerned about undue burdens on property owners. I love the spotted owl; I also love things made out of redwood. I think that Communism was a massive failure, based on good intentions but fatally flawed. I think Capitalism has been a great success, but it tends to leave people out and promotes a culture of greed and self-interest. I am not convinced that supply side economics helps anyone but the most wealthy. I don't see why a sensible balance of free market and regulation can't work. I never knew what to think of the Iraq war, and frankly I don't now. I think it is an absolute scandal that bin Laden is at large seven years later, but I'm grateful we haven't been successfully attacked again. I think that the Democrats have too often maligned and misunderstood the Christian faith, but that the Republicans have too often thought they owned it and have co-opted it for their own purposes. I have never been fond of George. I am quite fond of Laura. I believe the U.S. is the greatest country in the world, but that we should celebrate it with honor and humility.

Some consider all of this schizophrenic. At least one of my mentors thinks I'm a conservative Republican in the making. But I think I'd never be more than a hated RINO. I don't think either party really has what I'm looking for. But in a two-party system being an "independent" doesn't make much sense to me. Sure it sends a message that party system is broken, which it certainly is, but I'd like to vote in the primaries and keep tabs on what the party of my forebears is up to. So for the moment I'm content to remain a hated Blue-Dog.

The irony as I write this is that it reminds me of the position I am in with the Episcopal Church. I don't like what has gone on in TEC, but I'm also suspicious of the Network in general and the secession movement in particular. So until my diocese goes totally overboard, or God calls me to another ecclesiastical body, I'm content to remain in Church of my forebears. And believe me, Anglican partisans think this is schizophrenia, too.

Huzzah!

Day 17 seems to have been the last of it. I've been improving steadily for the last 3 days or so, but I was a bit nervous Sunday morning. In the end I had voice enough to sing and to read the intercessions. There is still an occasional rogue cough here and there, but it looks like I've got this thing licked. And this morning, which would have been Day 18, I could only imagine my little antibodies marching in grand review and parading the virus through the streets in chains, as joyous lung cells threw a ticker-tape parade . Salve victor!

Time will tell how long The Alta Californian survives its founding cause. I didn't sleep well last night, for an entirely different reason, so there you go.

Saddleback

Watched the live broadcast of the forum this afternoon. It was an interesting event. Senator McCain did much better than I thought he would. In many ways the questions were much better suited to his positions. The abortion, gay marriage, and faith-based initiative questions, for example were very simple for him to be able to answer. Overall he was open and straightforward, but he continues to lose me on most key issues. Senator Obama had a harder time of it, in my view. By the very nature of his political philosophy he was forced to offer more thoughtful, more nuanced answers on the very same questions, and often in a somewhat unsatisfactory manner. He seems to have a harder time with this format. So inspiring in prepared remarks on the stump, it is much more of a struggle him to formulate good responses on the fly, even when he has really good answers in mind.

It is not the conventional wisdom, but I think this will all give McCain the advantage in the debates. But we'll see, McCain's candor occasionally gets him in trouble, and some of his answers come off as politically artificial. For example, Pastor Warren's first question. The wisest people McCain knows are General Petraeus and Meg Whitman? How convenient. ("The military and big-business", my father muttered). For Obama it was his grandmother. How very human...and non-political. So we'll see.

I'll be posting more about the election in the coming days, in part just to flesh out my own thoughts on politics and the politics of this particular moment. As with other aspects of my life, my politics defy easy description. And at this hour, I don't even want to try.

I stand corrected. The CW emerging is that McCain did triumph at Saddleback, and that this is evidence that he just may rule the debates.

8

Looks like master Phelps has done it. What he has done has been remarkable, inspiring, and just plain fun to watch. Kudos to him, and to masters Peirsol, Hansen, and Lezak for sharing in it.