The Daily Detour

The Republicans' crisis of hurricane proportions

It's been a big week/weekend in the political universe as the DNC came to end, John McCain announced his unlikely pick for VP, and now the GOP gets ready to launch their own Republican National Convention. But in the midst of it all, both parties have been keeping one eye on the politics and the other eye down south at Hurricane Gustav as it bears down on New Orleans. Ever mindful of a recreation of Hurricane Katrina three years ago, it has created some very complex circumstances for the Republicans as the RNC gets underway.

The Louisiana Republican delegation has already withdrawn from the convention. And there has been some speculation that the Republicans may even suspend one or more days of the convention to adjust for the landfall of Gustav.

Politicians on both sides of the aisle are already weighing just how Hurricane Gustav will impact this presidential race. Even liberal mockumentary movie director, Michael Moore suggests that this hurricane "proves there is a God."

So, what should the Republicans do? Feel free to weigh in with your own armchair political analysis as this crisis unfolds. (And as you enjoy your Labor Day Weekend holiday, be sure to offer up prayers for all of those who will be affected by this storm.)

UPDATE: Well, it looks like Hurricane Gustav gave New Orleans and the other Gulf Coast cities just a glancing blow. But John McCain and the Republicans were right in all-but-suspending the first day of the Republican National Convention. As he pointed out, it wasn't a time to be merely Republicans, but instead, Americans. And the determination to standy ready to help hurricane victims, rather than partying up in Minneapolis-St. Paul projected a much better presidential image than just about anything the Republicans could have spouted from the RNC main stage.

McCain picks VP running mate: Sarah who?

That is the biggest question on everyone's mind (and will be over the next few weeks) as people learn more about the winner of John McCain's veepstakes. Ever the maverick, he passed over Tom Ridge, Mitt Romney, and Tim Pawlenty from Minnesota in favor of a GOP rising star, Sarah Palin, the governor from the great state of Alaska (great, BTW, because that's where Jean and I spent over 3 weeks living out of the back of a Chevy Blazer on our honeymoon way back when--another story for another day :). His choice surprised everyone, but as they say in the movies, she could prove to be the sleeper hit of the summer.

Governor Palin, a self-proclaimed "hockey mom" of five children (including a son with Downs Syndrome), brings a somewhat mixed bag to the Republican ticket. As a gun-toting, pro-life, ethics reformer, she alleviates many of the fears that conservatives had about who McCain might pick as his VP. And if you saw/heard her speech yesterday in Dayton (catch video excerpts here), she epitomizes the basic working-class American story. Not having heard her speak before, I thought she actually came off very well--very articulate, yet not too polished. There was a genuineness about her demeanor and story which may well resonate with many voters. She also brings a certain, albeit limited, amount of executive experience to the race. The fact that she is from small-town U.S.A. will bode well for her (and may make a bigger connection nationwide than the young, upwardly mobile politicos surrounding Obama have come to realize--as the first of their mixed messages yesterday indicated).

In her speech, Governor Palin demonstrated that she is not just a pretty face. While touting her record and accomplishments in office, she also strategically included a number of key elements. First of all, her son serving in the military connects her with other mothers across the country. Her husband is a working-class union member. And more significantly, she made a conscious point to specifically thank both Geraldine Ferraro and Hillary Clinton for paving the way for her ascendency to this historic VP slot. (Here's Ferraro's reaction Ferraro's reaction to Palin's acknowledgment, as well as, this brief post.)

That Governor Palin has a track record of rooting out corruption and engaging in ethics reform strengthens John McCain's message of reforming Washington. However, her relative lack of experience in the executive office of governor equally neutralizes one of the strongest arguments against Obama (namely his own significant lack of experience). The Democrats have been quick to point this out since she is "one heartbeat away from the presidency." It will be interesting to see the evolution of that particular talking point.

Moreover, the talking heads are already making political hay about Governor Palin's strong pro-life position, arguing that we don't need someone with such extreme views in the White House. (A TDD editorial side note: I thought that the abortion debate was about a woman's right to choose her position on this issue. Apparently, if a woman decides upon a pro-life position she has chosen wrongly--and should lose that right to choose? The logic escapes me.)

Anyway, with the large number of disgruntled former Hillary supporters wary of Obama, Team McCain is legitimately making a play for those votes, as well as, the independent fence-sitters. We'll see if the appeal of Governor Palin being a proven female leader will outweigh the potential negatives Dems. and Indies may feel about her solidly conservative philosophy. This is shaping up to be a barn burner! (I was going to go way out a limb and make an offical TDD prediction about the outcome right now, but I too am just learning about who Sarah Palin is and discretion is the better part of valor as they say. Now I'm not one to wait until 2 minutes left in the 4th quarter to finally weigh in either. So, be looking for the official TDD prediction with a full 4 quarters to go in the game, sometime in the beginning of October.)

UPDATE: Already the political pundits are weighing in from all across the country, as each one gives their opinion about whether or not Sarah Palin was a good pick for McCain. The lead paragraph in an article in this morning's Indianapolis Star virtually sums up the unconventional nature of Palin:

She is breathtakingly unlike any other vice presidential pick in American history -- a gun-toting, mooseburger-eating former Miss Wasilla, whose parents nearly missed her official unveiling because they were out hunting caribou.

It seems the experts are having a difficult time trying to get their minds around Sarah Palin (which is particulary interesting because the "candidate-coming-in-from-the-outside-to-reform-the-status-quo" theme is so universally accepted and encouraged each polical cycle). It's actually kind of refreshing to watch the professional soothsayers scratching their heads. :)

Obama's cotton candy coronation at the DNC

Last night was an historic event, with the coronation of the first African-American presidential candidate on the same date that Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. delivered his famous "I Have a Dream" speech 45 years earlier. The historical irony was not lost on anyone.

For the Democratic party faithful, Obama could do no wrong with his acceptance speech. He came out swinging in an attempt to shore up the growing impression that he is not tough enough to stand up to John McCain. And, as usual, he gave an intoxicating speech worthy of his rhetorical reputation. He said all things to all people which, to quote the apostle Paul, were just "what their itching ears want to hear."

It seemed as though Obama has been listening to the voices of even those in his own circles who have been warning him lately to begin to make his message of "Hope" more specific. In fact, in his speech he said, "Let me spell out exactly what change means...." in an attempt to quell this lingering problem. Unfortunately, however, the specifics only went so far.

On a different note, it was not so long ago that Team McCain sent an early volley in the war of campaign ads. It had to do with McCain's contention that Obama is more a celebrity than a seriously-qualified candidate for the United States presidency. Naturally, Obama's team bristled at the suggestion and immediately retaliated with a campaign ad of their own.

However, by upending tradition and moving the nominee's acceptance speech out of the usual setting of a convention center and into a stadium, it seems Team Obama was playing right into that celebrity rock-star reputation last night. And so the people came, all 84,000 of them into Invesco Field at Mile High in Denver. (Even during the speech Obama felt it necessary to attempt to downplay the celebrity status by taking another dig at McCain's implication. Interestingly, Obama seems to assume that if you come from humble beginnings, then the celebrity label doesn't stick. But how many celebrities do we know who were born right into that status?)

The point with this is the one we've been touching on here at The Daily Detour (and will continue to do so until there is tangible evidence to the contrary). Obama speaks only with enough specificity to convince the uncritical masses that he has a real (and realistic) plan to support his innumerable campaign promises. (Just three examples from his speech: He will provide affordable education to every American family who wants it. Also, he will lower taxes for 95% of all American families. And finally, a direct quote, "In 10 years we will finally end our dependence on oil from the Middle East.") The ever-present "How exactly?" question continues to nag my mind whenever I hear such statements.

If you've listened to Obama for any length of time, you begin to hear the same-old recycled political promises/cliches. The actual substance of Obama's message, however, is devoid of a specificity that is required for a presidential campaign. I'm hard-pressed to remember a time when I've heard a politician make more unsubstantiated promises. Either he is lying about what he is going to do, or he is simply naive. Giving him the benefit of the doubt, we can assume the latter.

Obama has been called many things, including the "Messiah". After watching the spectacle and his speech last night, it'll take a messianic miracle to pull off all of the campaign pledges he offered his Democratic disciples.

UPDATE: After a good (but short) night's sleep, I woke up and realized what nags at me about all of this. I've articulated it in different ways, but simply put, it is this: As a person who spends much of his life giving speeches, I can give a very good speech, and at times, I've been known to give an exceptional speech. But in no way does that qualify me to be the CEO of Eli Lilly or even the president of the Kiwanas Club, let alone the president of the free world. And given Obama's considerable lack of experience, he was asking us to relay on his judgment instead. The more I've studied of Obama and discovered his philosophy, his past political positions, and his associations, the more I fear that we the voters will turn off our minds and become seduced by his rhetoric. In an email waiting in my inbox this morning, Jonathan Garthwaite, the editor-in-chief for Townhall.com, issued this warning after hearing Obama's speech last night:

Emperor Obama has spoken.

In a manner fit for an Emperor, Obama descended upon the more than 80,000 gathered in Denver to receive his message last night.

I couldn't help but notice the similarities between the spectacle and the man himself. While the Roman columns looked the part, Invesco field was no more a Roman Coliseum then Barack Obama is qualified to be President of the United States.

Even with Joe Biden by his side, Roman pillars surrounding him and Bill and Hillary behind him, the Barack Obama last night at Mile High was the same inexperienced, liberal radical we have always known him to be. No amount of rock concert lighting, Broadway stagecraft, lofty rhetoric -- or even fireworks -- will change that. The media networks in attendance may trust him to lead them to the Promised Land, but we certainly do not.

Friends, here's the point as we get closer to the election and as you begin to more seriously consider who to elect as the next president of the United States. Obama has shown himself to be a nice guy, and a superb public speaker. There can be no doubt about that. But do not suspend your powers of critical thinking when evaluating him as a candidate for the presidency. Be willing to dig below the surface rhetoric and ask yourself, "What does he really stand for?" "How does he actually plan to accomplish all that he has set out to do?" "Who has he relied on to provide council and shape his political philosophy?" "What experience, if any, has he had in leading a group of people or an organization?" Given his very limited political experience, there is not much of a public record to evaluate, but even so, find out, "How has he voted on key issues?" And most importantly, "How does all of this line up with my own convictions? (And for Christians especially, how does it line up with a biblical worldview on the important issues at stake in this election?)"

At the end of the day, you may still choose Obama. So be it. That's the beauty of living in a free country. But if you do, I hope it's a thoughtful decision made after very careful consideration of who he is and how he will actually lead. That is why I issued the End of Summer reading challenge a few weeks ago, and why I'm reading through his The Audacity of Hope and other books. Because the decision about who will be the next President of the United States cannot be taken lightly. It is one in which we all have a voice, and we all have a stake.

UPDATE: Here are a couple of perspectives on Obama's speech (and the DNC) from The Washington Post, both David Broder and Charles Krauthammer.

Crisis averted... for now.

Yesterday was a big day at the DNC for a couple of reasons. First of all, it was the day when Obama was officially nominated for the Democratic ticket (including the multitudes of delegates that had been pledged to Hillary Clinton). There was some fear and trepidation about whether this process would be carried out with efficiency.

Not only that but Bill Clinton was on deck to give his talk. Would he equally embrace Obama the way Hillary did last night? There was some real skepticism, but he came through, albeit grudgingly I'm sure. (Interestingly, I heard an extended quote from him on the radio earlier today in which he articulated a hypothetical scenario which virtually endorsed McCain. It was astonishing, actually. Michelle Malkin has the quote on her blog.)

Then it was Sen. Joe Biden's turn to essentially introduce himself to the country (since most of the country probably doesn't know him. Quick test: Do you know which state he is from?) Biden's speech had a few interesting points. He went on the attack against John McCain and even attempted some humor along the way, including the following one-liner:

...no longer will the eight most dreaded words in the English language be: “The vice
president’s office is on the phone.”

It caught my attention because I thought I had heard it somewhere before. And then I remembered an old quote from Ronald Reagan,

The most terrifying words in the English language are: I'm from the government and I'm here to help.

It seems Biden speechwriters have adapted a gem from The Great Communicator. Who knew Biden was pulling some humor out of the old Reagan play book? (Unfortunately for Biden, he stumbled through the line and it lost much of its effectiveness to smattering applause.)

On a more serious note, there was the usual litany of policy changes that Biden assured us that Obama would bring to the country (healthcare for everyone, the end to the war in Iraq, education for everyone, end of oil dependence in 10 years, etc...) He followed each promise with the refrain, "That's the change we need." I couldn't help but ask the same question that is plaguing my mind while watching/hearing Obama's message through this campaign: "How?" How exactly does he (do they) plan to do that? The promises are plentiful, but the specific answers as to how they plan to carry out those promises are vague and idealistic. It's more of the same cotton candy rhetoric which is sugary on the outside but has no real substance within.

To top off the evening, Obama made a surprise appearance which offset Bill Clinton's moment in the limelight. This was supposed to be Bill Clinton's night. (In fact, every time they flashed to the smiling, clapping Clintons I couldn't help but think that they have certainly mastered the public face. You can be sure they are smiling through clenched teeth, as they are reminded that all of this coronation hoopla could have, should have, been for Hillary.)

Day 3 down, one more to come. We'll keep watching to see what kind of sustainable impact the convention will have on Obama's campaign. (Meanwhile, be looking for McCain's VP announcement in the next day or so. The word is that he has settled on a running mate, but is staying mum for the timing being. Should be interesting....) 

UPDATE: Columnist George Will writes about Team Obama's cotton candy rhetoric. And here's another editorial from the notoriously liberal NYT equally suggesting that many people still feel like they don't actually know Obama (and this after a never-ending campaign season in which the media has presented favorable to unfavorable stories about him at a 7-to-1 ratio?)

Hillary the Great Unifier

During the primary, as I mentioned back in May, it was Obama who was presumed to be the Great Unifier. Ironically, it is not Obama who is at the point to bring the country together, let alone the Democrat party. Hillary, whose razor-thin margin of defeat propelled Obama to his current status, has taken on the mantle of the Great Unifier. There was heightened anticipation by those within the Democratic party and without to see how Hillary would handle her moment on the main stage. Would she get behind Obama in that polite kind of way that is expected at a DNC, while everyone can see how she really feels, or would she demonstrate a genuine enthusiasm for the candidate who (despite crushing her lifelong ambition) is the presumptive Democratic nominee for president? Fortunately, for Obama, the Democrats, and her own political future, she wisely chose the latter.

Hillary performed admirably under the circumstances. In fact, she probably met, even exceeded, the expectations of most Democratic insiders. The question will be whether or not her supporters were listening.

The other indicator of success will be whether or not Obama gets the inevitable jump in the polls which follows each convention. Thus far, with his VP announcement, and the DNC to this point, his poll numbers have remained stagnant. (In a recent Gallup poll, in fact, McCain has even started to go ahead.) So, there is much to be watching for in the days ahead. For now, we can look forward to seeing what Bill Clinton will bring to the equation tonight.

Take the (updated) citizenship quiz

Some of you may have been around last October when I put a citizenship quiz up here at TDD. Apparently, they added more questions this time around. So, in keeping with the spirit of the political conventions (and the waves of American patriotism that they inspire), here's an opportunity for you to take the updated citizenship quiz. There is one caveat--if you don't score high enough, you do have the option of choosing which country you get deported to. :) 

Opening night at the DNC

Okay, so much for further solidifying my reputation as a die-hard political junkie. I was having dinner with some of our TDD readers and ended up missing the beginning of the opening night at the DNC. I got back to catch the last part of the liberal lion, Sen. Edward Kennedy's, speech and caught Michelle Obama's speech.

The news commentators had much to say about the couragous effort put forward by Sen. Kennedy, given his recent battle with cancer. Surrounded by his family and friends, Kennedy sounded the "time for hope and change" theme. Given his condition, he projected a picture of strength and roused the party faithful. It was very much a passing of the torch from his generation to the next one. (I assume he won't be around to see the next DNC in four years.)

Then Michelle Obama took to the stage and honestly, gave a very good speech. She said all the right things that one would expect in such a setting (including a her love of this country, a blatant attempt to correct a telling comment earlier in the primary). It was a strong opening night for the Democrats in my opinion.

If I didn't disagree so fervently with the philosophical convictions behind her flowery rhetoric, I might be swayed to Obama's cause. Unfortunately, a presidency is defined by more than words. (For you conservatives out there, think Bill Clinton. For you liberals, think George W. Bush.)

See you tomorrow... (when Hillary takes the stage and we get to see if her supporters stage a political mutiny).

UPDATE: I failed to also mention the 3-minute speech given by Mike Fisher from here in Beech Grove, Indiana. He was selected by the Obama team as one of the 20 "real" Americans who will share a perspective on what life in America is like for the average person. I wonder, does that effort by the Democrats imply that the other headliners taking the stage in Denver aren't "real" Americans--Sen. Kennedy, Bill and Hill, Sen. Biden, and Barack and Michelle Obama? Bringing in the "average Joe (or in this case, Mike)" implies that the out-of-touch, elitist reputation that Obama has been battling still needs to be overcome. And the apparently, the Dems. know it.

Democratic National Convention begins...

...and so do the protests. As the nation's Democrats descend on Denver for the Democratic National Covention, the pre-Convention protests are already under way. Included in this is the liberal activist group, "Recreate68", an umbrella organization that was "created for all the grassroots people who are tired of being sold out by the Democratic Party." According to their website, they are "an organization planning peaceful, nonviolent protests" during the DNC.

Caleb Howe and the rest of a Fox News crew covering the protests had a very different experience. (WARNING: Proceed with appropriate discretion if you watch the accompanying video clip from this event.) It seems like many of the protesters need to go back and reread their stated approach to protesting. As an eyewitness to the Recreate68 protest earlier today, Caleb Howe wrote,

The rage and hate of the violent protesters was clear. They despised the Fox News crew. They feel Fox is conservative, and therefore, I suppose, scum. So much for hearing all views.

Throughout the event, these men and women exercising their freedom of speech lamented, in dramatic and ominous terms, their lack of free speech. Then in the middle of the event they decided to silence the Fox News crew.

For a peace protest, these guys sure are ready to make war. Not with enemies abroad, but with conservatives at home, real or perceived. Stop war, they cry. Just not theirs, apparently.

It's difficult to see how one might expect anything different, particularly given the name of this organization. For anyone old enough to remember 1968 (or those who have studied that period in U.S. history), that particular year came to represent the upheaval that America was experiencing during the 1960's. It brought us the infamous Democratic National Convention in Chicago, defined as much for the overriding examples of rebellion against authority than for any political developments coming out of the convention itself.

1968 also brought the assassinations of both Robert Kennedy and Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. For King it was a time of particular irony, given the genuinely peaceful approach he demonstrated in leading the country in the direction of increased civil rights for African-Americans. But his violent death further cemented the uniqueness of his Ghandi-inspired approach to demonstrations.

For a group that wants to recreate 1968, these folks at the DNC could learn a thing or to from Dr. King's example. Until they do, their desire for reform will forever be hindered by their abrasive, disrepectful approach to political engagement.

UPDATE: Mission accomplished...Recreating 1968 is underway as violence erupts in Denver, prompting the police to clash with more protesters. I keep thinking, shouldn't these protesters be at next week's Republican National Convention not the DNC?) And to think this is only the first full day of the DNC.

UPDATE: Here's some additional video footage from a mob which attacked conservative blogger, Michelle Malkin.

Bye, bye, Bayh... Obama picks Biden for VP

This morning's byline under the breaking news headline in The Indianapolis Star read, "Hoosier Democrats disappointed Bayh wasn't VP pick". Sen. Evan Bayh is further securing his status as the also-ran, this being the third time he has been passed over for the VP spot.

But, the big news this Saturday morning is that Obama has chosen Sen. Joe Biden, D-Del., for his running mate. (Here's Sen. Biden's official website.) Biden brings 35 years of experience in the U.S. Senate, particularly in the areas of foreign policy and defense. He is also a Catholic who comes from a blue-collar background. His positions are most liberal, to be expected.

A few initial observations:

1. First of all, it was a wise choice, given Obama's strengths and weaknesses. Biden being strong on foreign policy and defense is good for the Obama-Biden ticket. It strengthens what has always been a huge weakness for Obama. That he picked Biden suggests that he has finally acknowledged this deficiency.

2. Biden is Catholic. Obama has been dogged (and will continue to be) by his views on abortion. As I've written in the past, this issue is very important to many Americans, and one in which Obama's philosophy in this area will cause him increasing trouble. With Biden's background as a Catholic, it appears that this is strategic attempt to off-set Obama's position. Of course, given Biden's liberal voting record, he may be simply a Catholic in name only on this particular issue.

3. Finally, as I alluded to above, it seems like this was a pretty good pick for Obama's team. It helps to balance the ticket. However, there are a couple of major issues which may hinder their efforts. First of all, Biden himself has made some pretty indicting comments about Obama which are already coming back to hurt him. And secondly, Obama's message of hope and "change we can believe in" was built on an anti-establishment message. Namely, that it's time to overhaul the Washington establishment. In fact, if you'll recall, this was a major point of distinction Obama was making between Hillary and himself in the primary. He painted her as the establishment candidate who had spent too much time in Washington, while he was the one coming in from the outside who would bring the change America so desperately needs. It's difficult, therefore, to see how adding Biden (and his 35 years in Washington) to the ticket promotes Obama's message of change. There is a seeming inconsistency there. Either he didn't actually believe what he was saying about Hillary & Co., or he did and was simply presenting an expedient message he knew America wanted to hear.

Regardless, Obama's VP decision has been made. Let the media feeding frenzy begin as we see how this affects the remainder of the campaign. Now, can wait to see if McCain chooses wisely.To all the rest of you political junkies out there, have a great weekend!

UPDATE: Here's a couple of Catholic perspectives on Sen. Biden and his pro-abortion record, here and here. So much for getting out from under that hot-button issue.

UPDATE: It seems Cal Thomas has been doing a little eavesdropping on The Daily Detour. Here's his editorial in today's (Tuesday, Aug. 26th) Indianapolis Star about Obama's pick of Biden. It could be summed up in his opening paragraph:

DENVER - In selecting Sen. Joseph Biden as his running mate, Barack Obama gains some needed foreign policy expertise, but loses some credibility. If Washington is as bad as these two say it is, was Biden a contributor or an enabler during his six Senate terms? If 36 years in the Senate doesn't make you an "insider" and part of the problem, what does?

UPDATE: Here's Gary Varvel's perspective on what Biden brings to Obama.

Chinese gymnasts to be stripped of gold?

That is the question under consideration. As I was watching Phil Dalhauser and Todd Rodgers beat the Brazilians in a very exciting 3-game match late last night, NBC's Bob Costas broke in with the story that was already making the rounds on the internet. There has been a swirling controversy about the ages of some of the Chinese gymnasts.

According to international gymnastic rules, participants must turn 16 by the end of the Olympic year, but a few of the Chinese gymnasts looked to be much younger. The Chinese Gymnastic organization has been assuring everyone that there is not an age issue, using the girls' passports as proof of their birthdates. But now a computer security expert, Mike Walker, has uncovered official documents that may shed new light on the issue that many have already suspected. The International Olympic Committee has launched an official investigation.

If it's proven that the Chinese gymnasts are indeed underage, then they would be stripped of their gold medals. This would mean that the U.S. Gymnastics team would get the overall gold, and Nastia Liukin would get a gold medal for her performance on the uneven bars. The Chinese gymnastics team would be left with two bronze medals. Stay tuned as the drama continues....