Recently in Politics Category

With a couple days to go before the midterm elections, the huddled masses await my deep insights, seeking direction before they trudge to the polls. And so, this idiot, who feigns to be far more informed than he actually is, hereby weighs in.

I'm hoping the Republicans get control of the House. I always favor divided government. Controlling everything didn't do any favors to either Bill Clinton or George Bush. The country is better served by divided government, as long as the two sides are willing to actually work together.

I'm not opposed to Republicans also gaining control of the Senate, but I don't see it happening. In fact, I hope it doesn't happen, mainly because it means some questionable candidates, like Ms. O'Donnell and Ms. Angle, will be elected. Washington is not in need of more incompetence.

"Anger" elections sweep both competents and incompetents into office. After the Clarence Thomas confirmation hearings, voters who were outraged over the treatment of Anita Hill sent a record number of women to the Senate. They included capable senators like Diane Feinstein, Patty Murray, and Barbara Boxer, but also Carol Mosely Braun, who was a joke.

Likewise, the Tea Party candidates are a mixed bag. Linda McMahan, Marco Rubio, and Rand Paul (among others) are quality candidates. Sharon Angle and Christine O'Donnell are jokes--fit for the House, but not the Senate. Joe Miller is somewhere in between. Scott Brown, who won Ted Kennedy's former seat last year, has acquitted himself well, I think (though concrete-shoed Tea Partiers feel betrayed).

I'm a bit amused by Tea Party antics. Joe Miller's goons handcuffed a reporter carrying out his First Amendment job. Rand Paul's goons manhandled and stomped a protester asserting her First Amendment rights to assemble and protest. And Barack Obama is the Nazi? If anyone's wearing jackboots, it's the Tea Partiers. (But let's be real: nobody is jackbooted. Nazi comparisons are stupid and ignorant of the enormity of actual Nazi history--which does say something about the intellect of those who make the Nazi comparisons.)

My conservative friends are wretching over my earlier positive statement about Barbara Boxer. Understand: I don't like Barbara Boxer, and never have, and I hope she loses this election to Carly Fiorina. HOWEVER...she is no Christine O'Donnell. Boxer has shown herself to be a capable representative of the left, and of her state. She has shown strength and leadership. I would rate her at least as bright as, and certainly better informed than, Sarah Palin (though several rungs down the ladder from her fellow Senator, Diane Feinstein). I don't have to like Senators, but I do want them to be of Senate caliber.

Carly Fiorina, as far as I know, isn't a Tea Party candidate. I like her. I remember following her when she was CEO of Hewlett-Packard. I kept up on the HP dramas via BusinessWeek, and because at the time, HP made Macintosh clones. She was not an effective CEO, but it was a huge corporation in a time of transition. Fiorina is a high-quality person and I'd love to see her elected. But it's not looking good at this point.

Sharon Angle is a real nutjob, but she actually has a chance because Harry Reid's negatives are so low. However, assuming Democrats retain control of the Senate, I would rather have Harry Reid as Senate Majority Leader than a formidable guy like Chuck Schumer. Think about it. It's the difference between Pee Wee Herman and The Rock. If the Republicans must continually bump heads with someone, I'd pick Reid over Schumer any day. At the same time, in the interests of competence: Reid has been a terrible majority leader, and Schumer, despite being such a media-whore, might be pretty good. So I'm torn.

I'm hoping Lisa Murkowski wins in Alaska, as much to poke Sarah Palin in the eye as anything. At the same time, there's some childishness on Murkowski's part--she did lose the primary fair and square. But her sense of entitlement worries me less than Miller's right-wing views. As far as splitting the Republican vote--it ain't happening; both are trouncing the Democrat. If the returns do show Murkowski as the winner, I'm betting Joe Miller challenges the write-in ballots (spelling, legibility, etc.) in the courts, and we have a big mess.

Speaking of childishness and sense of entitlement: Charlie Crist.

I like Linda McMahan and would love to see her elected. She's too right-wing for a moderate like me, but she's a serious candidate and would be an asset to the Senate. She, unlike professional wrestling, is worthy of respect.

I don't like Rand Paul, but he would bring different viewpoints to the Senate, which is good. Unfortunately (or fortunately), his idealistic views would never gain traction in the Senate; he'll become an isolated fellow constantly talking about the sky falling, and nobody paying attention. I figure he'll last two terms, then leave in frustration.

I lived in California under governors Ronald Reagan and then Jerry Brown. Now it looks like Jerry Brown will return as governor. I groan over that. And yet, all things considered, he might actually be the right person to begin fixing the California mess. Brown is an insider with an independent spirit, and at his age has nothing to lose--just the right combination, perhaps?

However, I've always cheered for Meg Whitman. Looks like the election is getting away from her at this point, and I'm not sure she could have fixed California anyway. Plus: the fact that she spent $140 million of her own money, and Brown ran a barebones campaign--you gotta love Brown on that point.

As you can see, I'm all over the board. Certainly not a party person. I've given up on political parties.

The Tea Party people will not be compromisers, which means we're looking at a great deal of gridlock. We already have too much of that. But then, many of these people are being elected precisely to continue gridlock. I don't view that as a good thing.

It's interesting how so many local elections--especially senate and governor elections--have been nationalized. Across the country, people are informed about races in Alaska, Florida, California, Nevada, and elsewhere. This is nothing new, but I don't think we've seen it on this scale before. But then, the 24-hour cable news channels need stuff to talk about.

So there you go, the Dennie Voter's Guide. Consider yourself enlightened.

The Clarence Thomas/Anita Hill story has crashed back into public consciousness, thanks to Thomas's wife's bizarre suggestion that Anita Hill apologize. And that prompted an old flame of Clarence Thomas, who has kept quiet for 19 years, to emerge from the woodwork.

Like many people, I was transfixed by the Clarence Thomas confirmation hearings in 1991. Anita Hill was so believable..and yet, so was Thomas. Who to believe? What was the truth?

Liberals blindly sided with Anita Hill's lurid accusations against Clarence Thomas. Meanwhile, conservatives claimed that Anita Hill was making it all up, a mere pawn of liberals.

Today, I am neither Republican nor Democrat. But back then, I was mostly Republican. And yet, after listening to endless hours of testimony, in my gut I felt Anita Hill was telling the truth. I had no way of knowing if my gut reaction was correct or not. That's just how I felt. I WANTED to believe Clarence Thomas, I really did. And I was glad to see him confirmed. But I always felt Anita Hill was, at the least, telling MOSTLY the truth of what she experienced.

It was a truly puzzling story. Could there be a middle ground somewhere?

Now, some evidence is coming out to confirm my gut reaction. The Washington Post tells that story.

Lillian McEwen (right) was dating Clarence Thomas prior to the hearings, and she kept quiet. But now she's speaking, and what she has to say confirms what Anita Hill accused Thomas of doing--his fascination with porn, his treatment of women, etc.

A lawyer and prosecutor, McEwen is retired now and living comfortably, with nothing to lose. She's talking about the things she observed and heard from Thomas during their dating years. The Post article also collects what other women who worked with Thomas said, testimonials that didn't get much airplay during the hearings but which align with what Hill and McEwen allege.

McEwen, as much as anything, is irritated that Thomas continues playing the indignant victim, making himself out to be someone she insists he most definitely was not. She's had enough.

Anita Hill will never be exonerated, and Thomas will never be unconfirmed. But it's always good for truth to come out.

But is this the truth yet? My gut is a bit more satisfied, but I remain open to surprises.

I recently read three lengthy political profiles which I want to recommend. Normally, the best political profiles appear in The New Yorker. But here are three in other publications.

Newt Gingrich

Newt Gingrich: The Indispensable Republican was written by John H. Richardson for the September 2010 edition of Esquire. The profile focuses a lot on Gingrich's 3 marriages. Central to the profile is a lengthy interview with Gingrich's second wife, Marianne (right), to whom he was married for 18 years before he took up with a new woman and eventually divorced Marianne.

All things considered, Marianne is surprisingly reasonable and non-bitter, though nonetheless quite frank. Richardson writes, "You might be inclined to think of what she says as the lament of an abandoned wife, but that would be a mistake. There is shockingly little bitterness in her, and she often speaks with great kindness of her former husband."

Gingrich proposed to his second and third wives before he had asked for a divorce from his current wife. So Marianne experienced both sides. She says, "He asked me to marry him way too early. And he wasn't divorced yet. I should have known there was a problem." She says his proposal came within weeks of them meeting. "It's not so much a compliment to me. It tells you a little bit about him."

While his marriages are the continuing thread, the profile ranges way beyond that. We learn about Gingrich's childhood, and about the insecurities which someone very close--like a wife--would see when Newt is out of the spotlight. We also come to understand, to an extent, why a man of Newt's brilliance has been saying some really outrageous things (for which Joe Scarborough, on Politico, really took Gingrich to task). In several ways, we're told that Newt doesn't feel that his rhetoric must line up with his lifestyle, a fact supported by his attitude toward personal morality.

It's quite an interesting profile, though Newt did not appreciate it.

Sarah Palin

Sarah Palin: The Sound and the Fury appeared in the October 2010 issue of Vanity Fair (which came out in September). Reporter Michael Gross, a self-proclaimed Christian, says he launched into the article with positive feelings toward Palin. But as he followed the story, talking to person after person who knew Palin, a different article emerged.

If you're a Sarah Palin fan, you won't like this article. You won't want to accept what people say about the Sarah Palin they have seen, and the stories they tell behind-the-scenes. Unless you're willing to accept that we peons constantly get hoodwinked by our political heroes. I'm one of those cynics who has believed in people's public persona way too many times, and been severely disappointed. So I have no trouble accepting that at least some, maybe most, of this may be true.

However, I'm troubled by the over-use of anonymous sources in the article, people who would talk about Palin only if their names weren't used. Gross acknowledges that this is a problem, that it damages the credibility of his article. Yet in the end, that's what he had to go with. Sarah Palin, as he (and unnamed sources) continually point out, can be very vindictive and has a record of destroying people who oppose her. That's why people preferred to stay off the record.

Gross spent months working on the article, and followed Palin through four states. He talked to lots of people in Alaska who know her (and who say she's not the outdoorsman she pretends to be). He talked to people in the McCain presidential campaign, who had very few kind words about her and revealed some things I hadn't heard before (like a Palin daughter who once told her, "You're so fake. Why are you pretending to be something you're not?"). Gross also delves deeply into all kinds of financial issues surrounding Palin. We learn about her explosive temper (which stays hidden from public view), her increasing isoloation in Wasilla, and the Bill-and-Hillary nature of her marriage.

Take the article with a grain of salt, or several grains. I did. I don't like anonymous sources, and the portrait that emerges of Sarah Palin doesn't always align with my gut reaction. But Gross is a responsible reporter, and I've taken the article under advisement. Plenty of negative stuff is said and written about Palin by detractors who have agendas (politicians and the MSNBC prime-time idiots), and I have no reason to trust what they say. But a good reporter like Michael Gross--I can't write off everything he says. And there is a LOT in this lengthy, in-depth profile to chew on.

Glenn Beck

Being Glenn Beck, by Mark Leibovich, appeared in the September 29 edition of the New York Times. It's mostly a positive, and somewhat light-hearted, profile of Beck. I found it enlightening, and have had to soften some of my disdain for this man, whose divisiveness I consider very bad for America. The article helped me understand some of his motivations, and that he shouldn't be taken too seriously.

The article also sheds light on Beck's sometimes rocky relationship with FoxNews and its other headliners. We learn that his show has an especially high female demographic, that he's lost a lot of viewers, and that nearly 300 advertisers won't promote their products on his show. It's all interesting stuff and, as I said, presented in what I would consider a positive package.

Christine O'Donnell has seen China's "carefully thought out and strategic plan to take over America."

That statement, according to James Fallows of the Atlantic, came in 2006 during a Senate primary debate. She was criticizing one of her opponents--a man of Chinese ancestry, Jan Ting, a law school prof--of appeasement for suggesting that China and the US were economically dependent and should work together.

Yes, she looked across the platform, saw a Chinese-American, and assumed he must be in bed with Mainland China. Just like all those Japanese-Americans during WW2 were actually beholden to Emperor Hirohito.

Said O'Donnell: "We have to look at our history and realize that if they pretend to be our friend, it's because they've got something up their sleeve."

She said she was privy to classified information which, when pressed, she said came from nonprofit groups that send missionaries to China. So the Chinese are not too protective of their masterplan to conquer the US.

O'Donnell was pulling the same stunt Dick Cheney regularly pulled in justifying torture by saying that torture had uncovered big terrorist plots. But when questioned, he would claim access to classified information which he couldn't divulge. "If you could see what I've seen, you would agree with me." So how can you disprove it?

Anyway, Sarah and the Tea Party picked an excellent candidate. Anyone who can uncover an enemy's masterplan for conquest--I want that person on our side. Besides, I can't wait to hear all the interesting things she'll say as a sitting Senator.

Is the sex scandal dead? That's what Louise Roug wonders on The Daily Beast.

She points to Mark Sanford's 55% approval rating, and the rebounds of John Ensign, David Vitter, Eliot Spitzer, and Bill Clinton. Many, many others could be mentioned, including Newt Gingrich, who proposed to 2 of his 3 wives before he had asked for a divorce from his current wife. Perhaps if Gary Hart had messed around with Donna Rice today, it'd be no big deal.

(Roug does cite as an exception John Edwards, whom she says "bedded his way to oblivion and doesn't appear in danger of emerging anytime soon".)

Roug mentions how Ronald Reagan ended the taboo against divorce, and that fooling around with drugs in college days is now practically a badge of honor. Nobody cares if you smoked marijuana in college. She says Barack Obama may have actually exaggerated his drug use, to gain political points with his left-leaning, young constituency.

Roug suggests that while pundits and preachers still fuss over sex scandals, voters have moved on. They just don't care anymore. There have been so many scandals that it's become somewhat ho-hum. Such is the state of America's moral fibre.

I found Roug's conclusions sad, but probably spot-on.

I don't believe anything Glenn Beck says because of the little lies he gets caught telling. If he lies about little things, how can I believe him about big things? I take that approach toward most people, so why would I omit Beck?

The best-known example is when Barbara Walters and Whoopi Goldberg busted Beck for making up a story which cast them in a negative light. I was almost, but not quite, embarrassed for him as the ladies had him absolutely cornered.

During his 8/28 rally, he said, "I went to the National Archives, and I held the first inaugural address written in his own hand by George Washington."

The Archives spokesperson says Beck didn't lay a finger on any precious documents. "Those kinds of treasures are only handled by specially trained archival staff." And Glenn ain't one.

Makes you wonder about those endearing stories he tells about his kids. Do you think those conversations actually take place? I kinda doubt it.

He didn't need to make that story up about the National Archives. It wasn't necessary. But he can't resist exaggerating for dramatic effect. My personal feeling is that the truth is always good enough.

The only remaining question is: why am I so doggone obsessed with this guy?

Greg Boyd, a pastor in St. Paul, Minn., wrote an excellent piece in the online Relevant Magazine about Christians and patriotism. The article is called "For (Too Much) Love of Country."

I love my country, but my country's agenda is not God's agenda. As Boyd points out, our eternal citizenship is in the Kingdom of God, and we are ambassadors of that Kingdom. When I try to look at the world through God's eyes, what I see is different from what I see when I merely look at the world through the eyes of an American.

I've read a lot of Boyd's writings regarding patriotism, and find that he cuts right through a whole lot of my deeply-ingrained cultural baggage. Here are some excerpts from Boyd's article in Relevant Magazine.

I see no problem with an American Christian being patriotic. At the same time, followers of Jesus need to be very careful. History shows us how easy it is for Christians to forget that the Kingdom Jesus came to establish is "not of this world." And it's to His Kingdom we are to pledge our sole allegiance.

Throughout history we find Christians buying the age-old pagan lie that God uniquely favors their country, and their national enemies are God's enemies. Believing that lie, patriotic Christians have tragically followed the orders of earthly rulers and marched into battle "for God and country," rather than following the example of Jesus--who gave His life for the people who persecuted Him....

Ironically, in some cases the "enemies" Christians have slaughtered have been other patriotic Christians who happened to be born in other countries, or other parts of the same country. Few things have done more to discredit Christianity than the patriotic zeal with which Christians have participated in violence....

If we become too invested in our nation, we can forget our real citizenship is in heaven and our job is to live as ambassadors of Christ. Rather than manifesting the distinctive values of the Kingdom of God, we can begin to assume the ideals of our culture are Kingdom values.

I appreciate that America recognizes my rights to "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness," but there is nothing distinctly Kingdom about these rights. They're nowhere to be found in the Bible. To the contrary, as a follower of Jesus I'm called to surrender my rights to life, liberty and happiness, and instead submit to the will of God. These rights are noble on a political level, but they can get in the way of my call to seek first the Kingdom.

I'm grateful America extends these rights to people, for most countries throughout history have not. But my sole allegiance is to the heavenly Kingdom that calls me to surrender my rights. If I get too concerned with an earthly country that frees me to pursue my rights, my healthy patriotism becomes idolatrous. I've put my country's ideals before God.

James Fallows, the famed writer for The Atlantic, once wrote that George Bush brought a "truly toxic combination of traits" to presidential decision-making.

1. Ignorance. He was not broadly informed to begin with.
2. Lack of curiosity. He did not seek out new information.
3. Decisiveness. He prided himself on making broad, bold decisions quickly, and then sticking to them to show resoluteness.

I think there may be some pastors like this. And corporate execs, and coaches, and parents, and generals, and fill in the blank. Certainly tons of other politicians. You make a decision without really thinking it through, and then refuse to admit that you may have made a mistake. Just a matter of scale.

A denominational communications director may even be guilty of this occasionally.

MSNBC is back on XM Satellite Radio, finally! I used to listen to it all the time going to work, when Don Imus hosted the morning show. Everybody who was anybody in politics clamored to be on his show. He made them put away the talking points and give honest opinions, and they complied (or were blacklisted by Imus). I loved it. It was the most enlightening, and fun, political show on TV or radio (though Imus constantly strayed over "the line").

But in 2006, XM Radio dropped MSNBC from the line-up. As a result, for the past four years I've been listening to ESPN's Mike&Mike show on my way to work--and, in fact, have become a huge, huge fan. Even prior to 2006, I frequently listened to it if Imus didn't interest me.

Sure, I could still listen to CNN or FoxNews, both of which are on XM Radio. But the CNN morning show is terribly boring, with no star-power and generic hosts. And the Fox&Friends show is intolerably partisan, one of my all-time least-favorite shows, one for which there is a special place in Hell far from the drinking fountain.

After the Great Imus Fall in 2007, MSNBC replaced Imus with Joe Scarborough. The show started slowly, but now attracts an impressive array of guests of all stripes, much like the old Imus program did (but without the juvenile elements). All the political power players from both parties eagerly agree to be guests. The political wattage is astounding.

Scarborough is a conservative Republican, but he's a very fair host. When people come on with opposing views, he doesn't feel like he must win an argument like Sean Hannity and other purely partisan pundits do (if they even bother to bring on guests with opposing views). Nor will he let a partisan come on and rant unchallenged (like the Fox shows allow Ann Coulter and Michelle Malkin and others to do). Rather, Joe presides over a discussion which can be extremely enlightening. You learn something, without the shouting (though Joe and Lawrence O'Donnell tend to mix it up).

It's actually somewhat of an ensemble news show, with regulars like Mika Brzezinski (who is basically a co-host), Mike Barnacle, Patrick Buchanan, and Willie Geist. Morning Joe is in the tradition of the This Week with David Brinkley. Brinkley always treated guests with respect, and when they left the set and the show moved on, he refused to talk about them; he considered it rude, unclassy. Of course, Brinkley was a journalist by profession, whereas Scarborough is a politician-turned-TV-host. Brinkley rarely showed his opinions, even during the pioneering roundtable at the end of each program (he left that to Sam Donaldson and George Will). Joe has no such conniptions, but he holds back, letting us learn from his guests rather than feel like he must pummel views which don't agree with his own.

Anyway, this morning I listened to Morning Joe on the way to work. What a pleasure! I know I'll be switching back and forth between Morning Joe and Mike&Mike. But at least now I've got a valid news option.

I previously wrote about Atul Gawande's article in the New Yorker, which told about the path various countries have taken to reach national healthcare (that was actually only the beginning part of a lengthy article). The most fascinating case is England, which Gawande describes as the world's most socialized system. England's story is unique, and in no way applies to the United States. And that's part of the point--no two countries start at the same place.

It all began when England declared war on Germany in 1939. In preparing for air attacks, British leaders relocated 3.5 million people to the countryside. They had to ensure that those people were taken care of--food, lodging, schooling...and medical care.

The government also began upgrading and expanding local hospitals, getting ready for the influx of large numbers of wounded civilians and soldiers. No way could private hospitals handle it on their own.

During the war, the government basically had to assume the costs for civilian and military casualties. The 1940 Battle of Britain destroyed large numbers of private hospitals and clinics. Private hospitals were overloaded with non-paying casualties. It was obviously an extraordinary situation.

World War 2 destroyed England's existing system, but the British government, through good planning, managed to maintain a good level of healthcare throughout the war (considering that it was a WAR). Interestingly, the new system ended up being better than the old. The population's health improved, and infant and adult mortality rates declined. Even dental care improved.

The wartime medical service began demobilizing in 1944, but citizens didn't want it to end. Neither did private hospitals, which now relied on government payments. So the government began looking at a permanent national system--which was already pretty much in place. National healthcare was officially instituted in 1948 with barely a whimper of protest.