William Katz: Urgent Agenda
SNIPPETS, our daily collection of short items and comments, is here.
---------------------------------------------
Our next subscription drive will be in October. However, readers are invited to subscribe at any time. Subscriptions are voluntary, but are critical to keeping us going. Subscribe in the right-hand column.
--------------------------------------------
Answers to last week's "Current Question" are here. The new "Current Question" is here, in the right-hand column.
--------------------------------------------
SATURDAY, SEPTEMBER 13, 2008
UPDATE AT 11:43 P.M. ET: You just can't make this up:
STAMFORD, Conn.—House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, the nation's highest-ranking female politician, said Saturday that GOP presidential candidate John McCain exercised "poor judgment" by selecting Sarah Palin as his running mate.
Pelosi told reporters she missed Palin's television interview Thursday because she was attending a bocce tournament in Hartford.
However, she said, she heard that the Alaska governor's responses to ABC News reporter Charlie Gibson demonstrated "poor judgment," The Advocate of Stamford reported Saturday.
A bocce tournament? So you missed the most important political interview of the season? Nance, you can record these things. They have machines, with buttons.
Geez.
NOTE AT 11:27 P.M. ET: The AP's campaign against Sarah Palin has reached the point where stories have begun to contradict themselves. An AP story out tonight contains this line:
The governor has limited her public appearances and chances to mingle with voters or reporters since leaving McCain's side earlier in the week.
Two paragraphs later the story says this:
Palin spent much of her time in Alaska preparing for and conducting a series of televised interviews with ABC News.
Which is it, guys?
The story also points out that Palin used a teleprompter at a speech today. Boy, is that news. I don't know if I could have voted intelligently without knowing that.
I think the public is smart enough to catch on. I hope so.
September 13, 2008.
UPDATE AT 10:37 P.M. ET: Reader Andy B notes that a transcript is available here, showing the full Charlie Gibson interview with Sarah Palin, and noting what was edited out. Fascinating. Very juicy.
UPDATE AT 10:18 P.M. ET: We try to stress that the popular vote, reflected in the polls we report, has no legal standing in a presidential election. It's the electoral vote that counts. So, we report that the Real Clear Politics electoral vote map has turned very interesting, and very competitive. It now shows McCain/Palin with 227 EVs (electoral votes) and Obama/Biden with 217. Toss-ups stand at 94. It takes 270 EVs to win.
If toss-ups are thrown out, and turned into leaners, Obama/Biden wins with 273 EVs, to McCain/Palin's 265.
As a general rule, Obama polls better than he delivers, and has tended to be a weak closer. However, we give the standard investment-industry caution that past experience is not a guarantee of future results.
Incredibly close race.
GUYS FOR SARAH
Posted at 8:01 p.m. ET
The assumption is that Sarah Palin is attracting throngs of women to the GOP ticket. It turns out, though, that it may be men who are more attracted. The New York Daily News reports on some fascinating numbers:
Republican John McCain's choice of Sarah Palin as his running mate was intended to lure women voters, but it's the guys who are actually getting hooked, new polls show.
One CNN survey this week found that 62% of men have a favorable opinion of Palin - nine points higher than women.
Similarly, 57% of men believe Palin is qualified to be vice president, compared with only 43% among women.
It may be logical:
"I think in some ways Palin does help go after the Hillary voter, but a lot of people confuse that to think it is just women," said John McIntyre, co-founder of RealClear Politics, a Web site that tracks presidential polling.
"It's not just women - it is white, working-class voters in general," said McIntyre. "And I am sure that when the McCain team was looking at the pros and cons, those male Hillary voters were every bit on their mind as women."
Whatever the logic, it's working:
Other polls seem to confirm that Palin's real allure is in her ability to unite the GOP's conservative base, male and female.
One Rasmussen Survey found that 79% of conservatives have a favorable impression of Palin, a figure that drops to 43% among moderates. Likewise, conservatives are twice as likely as moderates to think she is qualified to be President, and five times more likely than liberals.
Finally...
"She's just an amazing woman for the Republican Party," enthused Ted DiBenedetto, 41, of Centreville, Va., at a rally in nearby Fairfax. "She's a hunter, she's a fisherman, she's a reformer, she's got executive experience, and she's run her state national guard.
"I was actually a non-McCain supporter," DiBenedetto said. "When he picked Sarah, that unified the Republican Party."
There is good news here, but there are also warning signs. Palin's newfound support can be peeled away, especially support in the middle, where elections are won and lost. The Obama side is now engaged in an all-out attack, and the press will help out. But Obama has been off his game recently, and his advisers seem baffled by Palin and her appeal. May their attack turn into surrender.
September 13, 2008. Permalink 
NOTE AT 5:55 P.M. ET: Quote of the day, from the AP: "Palin has been sheltered by McCain staff who have huddled with her over the last few days. She moves on to Nevada for a rally and is expected as early as next week to rejoin McCain on the campaign trail."
COMMENT: Please note the use of the word "sheltered." The patronizing tone here is beyond obvious. Bias? What bias?
BIAS? WHAT BIAS?
Posted at 2:57 p.m. ET
Reader Bill Palmer alerts us to the comparison between Charlie Gibson's interview with Barack Obama, and his interview with Sarah Palin. The comparison is stark. Ironically, the Hillary Clinton Forum published this list of the Obama questions:
How does it feel to break a glass ceiling?
How does it feel to "win"?
How does your family feel about your “winning” breaking a glass ceiling?
Who will be your VP?
Should you choose Hillary Clinton as VP?
Will you accept public finance?
What issues is your campaign about?
Will you visit Iraq?
Will you debate McCain at a town hall?
What did you think of your competitor’s [Clinton] speech?
And the Palin questions:
Do you have enough qualifications for the job you’re seeking? Specifically have you visited foreign countries and met foreign leaders?
Aren’t you conceited to be seeking this high level job?
Questions about foreign policy
-territorial integrity of Georgia
-allowing Georgia and Ukraine to be members of NATO
-NATO treaty
-Iranian nuclear threat
-what to do if Israel attacks Iran
-Al Qaeda motivations
-the Bush Doctrine
-attacking terrorists harbored by Pakistan
Is America fighting a holy war? [misquoted Palin]
The transcript of the Gibson/Obama interview is here:
http://abcnews.go.com/print?id=5000184
The transcript of the Gibson/Palin interview is here:
http://elections.foxnews.com/2008/09/11/raw-data-palins-interview-with-abc-news/
Bias? There's bias? Are you seeing things?
September 13, 2008. Permalink
TRACKERS
Posted at 1:54 p.m. ET
Both our two standard trackers - Rasmussen and Gallup - are in for the day, as is the Hotline trackers.
As reported below, Rasmussen reports a three point McCain lead, same as yesterday.
Gallup reports a two-point McCain lead, a statistical tie. McCain was up five points only three days ago.
Hotline reports a one-point McCain lead. Yesterday it had Obama up by one.
So, averaging them, McCain is up by two. But this may be deceptive. Both Gallup and Hotline measure registered voters, Rasmussen measures likely voters. McCain tends to do somewhat better among likely voters. Traditionally, Republican voters are more likely to vote.
So far the McCain convention bounce seems to be holding. We'll watch that this week. Also, these trackers are measuring only one night of surveys following Charlie Gibson's first interview with Sarah Palin. And they are not measuring Obama's new aggressiveness.
Still, a very tight race.
September 13, 2008. Permalink
UPDATE AT 9:44 A.M. ET: The first tracker is out for today. Rasmussen reports McCain up three over Obama, unchanged from yesterday. The McCain convention bounce holds steady.
SARAH
Posted at 8:19 a.m. ET
Sarah Palin will continue to be the story in coming days. She's doing another "exclusive" interview, this time with Sean Hannity of Fox. That will be written off in advance because Hannity is clearly a Palin partisan.
Palin is entering a period of extreme danger. The press is determined to destroy her. It must destroy her. She's being asked questions that Barack Obama has never been asked, that no reporter seeking advancement in his profession would dare ask. I winced when Charlie Gibson, professorial glasses down over his nose, asked Palin if she'd ever met a foreign leader. Did Lincoln ever meet a foreign leader? How many foreign leaders did Bill Clinton meet before he became president? What a childish question.
It's frustrating because Barack Obama was made chairman of a subcommittee of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. The subcommittee dealt with Europe. He never held one meeting. Nor did he make a single trip to the area under his authority. The only foreign leaders he could have met were the ones floating through Washington. In reality, Obama is a minor-league U.S. senator with a weak record, never thought of as a leader, who presumes to be president. No one in the mainstream media challenges his credentials.
And can you name a single mainstream journalist who has gone back over Joe Biden's record and challenged his judgments? Joe Biden isn't even there.
The extreme danger for Sarah Palin is that the novelty will wear off and the press will bear in. There is an investigation of her underway in Alaska that has suddenly been put on the fast track. You may be sure it will be treated as a major story, even though it is minor. She'll be portrayed as corrupt, there will be suggestions that she broke the law. To cite a line used by Republicans when Harry Truman fired Douglas MacArthur, "Impeachment was discussed." The word will come up. Destroy, destroy.
What should she do? Well, the first thing she should do is limit these sit-downs. They can do her no good. I'd rate her first performance, with Gibson, a B-. Sarah should do a Reagan - limit press availability and speak over the heads of the media to the American people. That works for her, it's her brilliance. The press will whine, but no one will really care.
Noel Coward, the British wit, songwriter and playwright, once said that there must be an invisible barrier between performer and audience. You may look, but you may not touch. The same is true in politics. Americans don't want their major figures to be household objects. They want them to be familiar and distant at the same time. The disgraceful Jimmy Carter carried his own bags when president. Americans hated it. Ronald Reagan wouldn't enter the Oval Office without wearing a jacket. Americans loved it. It is a balance. Reagan understood. FDR understood. Kennedy understood. The danger for Sarah is that the mystique can wear off if she becomes too familiar.
When I worked on The Tonight Show, some famous performers turned down invitations to appear, citing that same factor - the fear that they would become too familiar, too close, that the aura would be destroyed. They were right.
Let Sarah be Sarah. No, I don't want to see her on Oprah. I want to see her on the campaign trail, next to John McCain, and giving us the same magic we saw at the convention. And if journalists complain, I hope they complain as loudly as possible. The public will drown them out.
September 13, 2008. Permalink
BLUNDER
Posted at 8:15 a.m. ET
The new Obama ad ridiculing John McCain because McCain doesn't use e-mail is turning out to be more of a blunder than we'd originally thought. At first it seemed just a bit snotty. Now it seems to be a personal, and ugly insult. Jonah Goldberg at NRO explains:
Yep. The day after 9/11, as part of its "get tough" makeover, the Obama campaign is mocking John McCain for not using a computer, without caring why he doesn't use a computer. From the AP story about the computer illiterate ad:
"Our economy wouldn't survive without the Internet, and cyber-security continues to represent one our most serious national security threats," [Obama spokesman Dan] Pfeiffer said. "It's extraordinary that someone who wants to be our president and our commander in chief doesn't know how to send an e-mail."
Well, I guess it depends on what you mean by "extraordinary." The reason he doesn't send email is that he can't use a keyboard because of the relentless beatings he received from the Viet Cong in service to our country. From the Boston Globe (March 4, 2000):
McCain gets emotional at the mention of military families needing food stamps or veterans lacking health care. The outrage comes from inside: McCain's severe war injuries prevent him from combing his hair, typing on a keyboard, or tying his shoes. Friends marvel at McCain's encyclopedic knowledge of sports. He's an avid fan - Ted Williams is his hero - but he can't raise his arm above his shoulder to throw a baseball.
Obama serves with John McCain in the U.S. Senate. Didn't he ever know that? What precisely does Obama do in the Senate? Does he ever observe anything, except himself in a mirror?
The McCain people should exploit this. No shame in doing it. Make Obama look like an insensitive dilettante. Why not tell the truth?
Obama is now engaging in what he openly admits is a rougher campaign. The idea is to throw him off, portray him as a blunderer, an ordinary politician, and not the messianic figure sold to us earlier.
September 13, 2008. Permalink
GALLUP: GOP COULD REGAIN CONTROL OF HOUSE
(See "In Congress" below)
FRIDAY, SEPTEMBER 12, 2008
UPDATE AT 10:14 P.M. ET: A new Newsweek poll of 1038 registered voters calls the presidential race tied. In general, Obama tends to do better among registered than among likely voters.
Bottom line: A very close race, but there's only one poll published today that shows Obama ahead, and that's by one point. A dramatic change from two weeks ago.
FROM THE FRONT
Posted at 9:01 p.m. ET
We are fighting two wars right now. Urgent Agenda has readers all over the world, and some of them are in the combat areas.
One reader, for example, commenting on our photo of the Army's Stryker combat vehicle, published here yesterday, wrote:
You should see it over here, with additional bar armor all over it, 3-4 machine guns sticking out of each hatch, and other neat stuff. It's cool even for an old jaded guy like me. That said, it also does a pretty good job of protecting our soldiers, and in getting them to the fight.
I sure hope so.
Another reader, a knowledgeable American traveling in the region in an official capacity, writes this about the situation in Afghanistan:
It is Ramazan in Afghanistan (they spell it with a z) and though, in general, things are quieters (mostly because everyone is exhausted by midday) the Taliban are seeking to exploit the quiet on occasion with spectacular attacks. The recent failed but well-coordinated attack by multiple suicide-vesters and the successful attack by the bomber dressed as a beggar are just two examples of what I expect will be several this month, especially around the "Night of Power" a particularly holy night in the third week or so (there are some sectarian disagreements on exactly when) of Ramazan.
Look for increased international and US efforts in Afghanistan soon. Simply too many areas are falling into the grasp of Taliban rebels who are growing bolder in the face of relatively sparse coalition presence (force ratios of solders to populace are startlingly disparate between
Iraq and Afghanistan).
I thought you'd like to hear it, from people who are actually there.
September 12, 2008. Permalink
UPDATE AT 8:06 P.M. ET: A new Marist College poll gives New Jersey to Obama, 47-40, among registered voters. However, when the numbers are adjusted for likely voters, the spread becomes 48-45 in this heavily Democratic state. That is a less than overwhelming picture for Senator Obama.
Posted at 5:15 P.M. ET
In focusing on the presidential race there's a tendency to ignore Congress. In fact, all of the House and a third of the Senate are up for grabs this November.
Until now the conventional wisdom in the MSM held that the Democrats would sweep Congress, leaving maybe, oh, a Republican senator or two, and about half dozen congressmen, all right wingers who would put women in prison, take away minority voting rights and have Exxon-Mobil rewrite the Constitution. All on the first day.
Maybe not.
Gallup reports that the congressional preference gap has closed considerably. The GOP has an honest shot at turning things around. Although replacing Nancy Pelosi on the speaker's throne is a dream, it's a dream worth pursuing. Gallup:
PRINCETON, NJ -- A potential shift in fortunes for the Republicans in Congress is seen in the latest USA Today/Gallup survey, with the Democrats now leading the Republicans by just 3 percentage points, 48% to 45%, in voters' "generic ballot" preferences for Congress. This is down from consistent double-digit Democratic leads seen on this measure over the past year.
Maybe the voters noticed what Congress accomplished this year. That took a second.
The new results come from a Sept. 5-7 survey conducted immediately after the Republican National Convention and mirror the resulting enhanced position of the Republican Party seen in several other indicators. These range from John McCain's improved standing against Barack Obama in the presidential race to improved favorability ratings of the Republicans, to Republican gains in party identification. The sustainability of all of these findings is an open question that polling will answer over the next few weeks.
Maybe we're seeing more of the Sarah magic.
The positive impact of the GOP convention on polling indicators of Republican strength is further seen in the operation of Gallup's "likely voter" model in this survey. Republicans, who are now much more enthused about the 2008 election than they were prior to the convention, show heightened interest in voting, and thus outscore Democrats in apparent likelihood to vote in November. As a result, Republican candidates now lead Democratic candidates among likely voters by 5 percentage points, 50% to 45%.
And get this. Drumroll please:
If these numbers are sustained through Election Day -- a big if -- Republicans could be expected to regain control of the U.S. House of Representatives.
It's panic time in Aspen, hysteria in Manhattan, a call-the-shrink moment in Beverly Hills. Oh, the joy of it all. Get out the digital camera.
If the current closer positioning of the parties holds, the structure of congressional preferences will be similar to most of the period from 1994 through 2005, when Republicans won and maintained control of Congress.
I'll take it. Bottom line:
Now that the symbolic leadership of the party is shifting away from Bush and toward the suddenly popular Republican presidential ticket of John McCain and Sarah Palin, things may be changing. This shrinks Bush's shadow over the Republicans, revealing more of the Democrats' own shadow stemming from high disapproval of Congress.
Key point made by Gallup: We don't know if this will continue. McCain/Palin and the GOP must fight and fight, and never let up.
September 12, 2008. Permalink
UPDATE AT 2:49 P.M. ET: The new Hotline tracker just released shows Obama up by one point. The poll had McCain up by two yesterday. That's a three-point change in favor of Obama, whereas Rasmussen showed a three-point change in favor of McCain. There's probably a lot of statistical noise here, signifying nothing.
POLLS
Posted at 1:34 p.m. ET
Both our standard trackers for the day have been published. As noted below, McCain picked up three points since yesterday in the Rasmussen tracker, to lead Obama by three.
However, McCain lost a point in the Gallup tracker, which now also has him ahead by three. Two days ago he was up by five.
A new AP poll, just released, has McCain up four. The results are presented by AP as grudgingly as possible.
We always stress that polls are snapshots. However, the trend since the end of the conventions shows a modest lead for McCain, which, so far, he's kept.
Trackers tomorrow should pick up any changes prompted by Sarah Palin's first sit-down interview with major media.
September 12, 2008. Permalink
BULLETIN AT 9:39 A.M. ET: The first tracker of the day is out. Rasmussen reports that John McCain has jumped into a three-point lead over Barack Obama. Rasmussen had the race tied yesterday. However, Rasmussen still has Obama leading in the all-important electoral college, 264-247. It takes 270 electoral votes to win.
QUOTE OF THE DAY AT 9:18 A.M., FROM PEGGY NOONAN, WALL STREET JOURNAL: The mainstream media may themselves come down on Mr. Obama. They like him, but if he doesn't come back and make this a race, he'll embarrass them. They just might be on the edge of getting angry, having been left exposed. Forget what Mr. McCain and Mrs. Palin can do to Mr. Obama: If he embarrasses the media, they'll kill him.
She's got the media right.
IRAN - GOING CRITICAL
Posted at 8:58 a.m. ET
Reports on Iran's nuclear program are increasingly disturbing. Now we might have to say "alarming." Con Coughlin, who follows rogue states and terror dancers for London's Telegraph, reports:
Fresh evidence has emerged that suggests Iran has renewed work on developing nuclear weapons, according to Western security sources.
Nuclear experts responsible for monitoring Iran's nuclear programme have discovered that enough enriched uranium, which if processed to weapons grade level could be used to make up to six atom bombs, has disappeared from the main production facility at Isfahan.
American spy satellites have identified a number of suspicious sites, which the Iranians have not declared to nuclear inspectors, that intelligence officials believe are being used for covert research.
Isn't Isfahan subject to inspection?
The Isfahan complex, which enriches raw uranium "yellow cake" into material that can be used for either nuclear power or atomic weapons, is supposed to be subject to close supervision by the Vienna-based International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA). But the Iranians only allow IAEA inspectors access to the final stage of the production process, where the uranium in gas form - UF6 - is stored.
By conducting a careful study of the amount of material stored at Isfahan, and the amount of "yellow cake" known to have been processed at the plant, nuclear experts believe between 50-60 tons of uranium - which if enriched to weapons grade level would be sufficient to produce five or six atom bombs - has gone missing from the plant.
And...
IAEA officials believe the Iranians have deliberately removed the uranium at a stage in the production process that is not under their supervision. "The inspectors only have limited access at Isfahan, and it looks as though Iranian officials have removed significant quantities of UF6 at a stage in the process that is not being monitored," said a nuclear official. "If Iran's nuclear intentions are peaceful, then why are they doing this?"
Maybe it's just cultural. Maybe we don't understand because of BUSH! That's it.
The Iranians will be asked to give a full account of the missing enriched uranium when the IAEA's board of governors meets in Vienna later this month to discuss the continuing crisis over Iran's nuclear enrichment programme.
And I'm sure they'll get a full, prompt and friendly answer.
This is serious stuff. Washington doesn't seem to have the zeal about confronting Iran that it once did, thanks largely to the destroy-all-zeal stewardship of Condi Rice at the State Department, and the life-is-too-hard mentality at Defense.
Iran is forging ahead, with nothing to stop it. A new president may confront nuclear weapons in the hands of a theocracy that may actually mean what it preaches.
Note the concern of the Palin-pursuing mainstream media.
September 12, 2008. Permalink
CHANGE WE CAN'T BELIEVE IN
Posted at 8:25 a.m. ET
Gerard Baker, of The Times of London, one of our favorite British reporters. dissects the Obama mantra of change, and finds it doesn't quite hold up, for more than a minute or so. If the polls are any guide, more and more Americans are coming to the same conclusion:
Travelling in Britain this week, I've been asked repeatedly by close followers of US politics if it can really be true that Barack Obama might not win. Thoughtful people cannot get their head around the idea that Mr Obama, exciting new pilot of change, supported by Joseph Biden, experienced navigator of the swamplands of Washington politics, could possibly be defeated.
They look upon John McCain and Sarah Palin and see something out of hag-ridden history: the wizened old warrior, obsessed with finding enemies in every corner of the globe, marching in lockstep with the crackpot, mooseburger-chomping mother from the wilds of Alaska, rifle in one hand, Bible in the other, smiting caribou and conventional science as she goes.
They get this stuff from the BBC, another Atlantic institution that our intellectual establishment reveres.
Two patronising explanations are adduced to explain why Americans are going wrong. The first is racism. I've dealt with this before and it has acquired no more merit...
...In a similarly condescending account, those foolish saps are being conned into voting for Mr McCain because they like his running-mate. Her hockey-mom charm and storybook career appeals to their worst instincts. The race is boiling down to a beauty contest in which a former beauty queen is stealing the show. Believe this if it helps you come to terms with the possibility of a Democratic defeat. But there really are better explanations.
But, Gerard, those are the explanations that make the intellectual classes feel comfy.
One is a simple political-cultural one. This election is a struggle between the followers of American exceptionalism and the supporters of global universalism.
McCain believes in the first. Obama believes in the mush of the second.
You can argue the merits of each case. But let me try to explain to my fellow non-Americans why Mr Obama's problems go well beyond that.
And he does.
The essential problem coming to light is a profound disconnect between the Barack Obama of the candidate's speeches, and the Barack Obama who has actually been in politics for the past decade or so.
Speechmaker Obama has built his campaign on the promise of reform, the need to change the culture of American political life
Politician Obama rose through a Chicago machine that is notoriously the most corrupt in the country. As David Freddoso writes in a brilliantly cogent and measured book, The Case Against Barack Obama, the angel of deliverance from the old politics functioned like an old-time Democratic pol in Illinois. He refused repeatedly to side with those lonely voices that sought to challenge the old corrupt ways of the ruling party.
That's a point the McCain people should start driving home.
Speechmaker Obama talks about an era of bipartisanship, He speaks powerfully about the destructive politics of red and blue states.
Politician Obama has toed his party's line more reliably than almost any other Democrat in US politics. He has a near-perfect record of voting with his side. He has the most solidly left-wing voting history in the Senate.
And more...
Speechmaker Obama talks a lot about finding ways to move beyond the bloody battlegrounds of the “culture wars” in America; the urgent need to establish consensus on the emotive issue of abortion.
Politician Obama's support for abortion rights is the most extreme of any Democratic senator. In the Illinois legislature he refused to join Democrats and Republicans in supporting a Bill that would require doctors to provide medical care for babies who survived abortions.
The record is coming into focus.
Here's the real problem with Mr Obama: the jarring gap between his promises of change and his status quo performance. There are just too many contradictions between the eloquent poetry of the man's stirring rhetoric and the dull, familiar prose of his political record.
And a wonderful conclusion. This is why we like Gerard Baker:
It's been remarked that the biggest difference between Americans and Europeans is religion: ignorant Americans cling to faith; enlightened Europeans long ago embraced the liberating power of reason. Yet here's an odd thing about this election. Europeans are asking Americans to take a leap of faith, to break the chains of empiricism and embrace the possibility of the imagination.
The fact is that a vote for Mr Obama demands uncritical subservience to the irrational, anti-empirical proposition that the past holds no clues about the future, that promise is wholly detached from experience. The second-greatest story ever told, perhaps.
It will still be a tough fight, and the Europeans may ultimately get their way and see a President Obama. But we McCain backers may have the last laugh as the European coffee-house crowd starts to realize that Obama doesn't care about Europe, and never even visited when he chaired a Senate subcommittee dealing with European affairs. What will they say when President Obama refuses to stand up to the new Soviets, and Europeans suddenly realize they're in danger?
Maybe they'll say, "This McCain, is he still available? We'll take the girl, too."
September 12, 2008. Permalink
BLUNDERING ON SARAH
Posted at 7:45 a.m. ET
On the heels of Charlie Gibson's often-sneering interview with Sarah Palin, Michael Gerson examines another example of the liberal establishment's blundering in dealing with her. They could ask legitimate questions about her qualifications and background. They have, however, other ideas.
But instead of engaging this issue, liberals have been drawn, helpless and mesmerized -- like beetles to the vivid, blue paradise of the bug zapper -- toward criticizing Sarah Palin's religion. Palin's former Pentecostal church is called a "shout-and-holler tabernacle." Reporters press Palin's former pastor to reveal if she has ever spoken in tongues, the way it was once asked if candidates had ever used drugs. Palin's beliefs are compared to those of the Rev. Jeremiah Wright -- though it turns out that she was caught on tape requesting prayers for the success of her country instead of railing against it. In that sense, Palin sounds most like President Franklin Roosevelt, who prayed on D-Day that, "by Thy grace, and by the righteousness of our cause, our sons will triumph."
And...
There are serious responses to such silliness. If religious beliefs about the dignity of human life were illegitimate as a basis for public policy, there would have been no abolition or civil rights movements. The idea of a divine image found in every human person is one of the main foundations for the American tradition of liberty, tolerance and pluralism. Religious duty motivates millions to love and serve their neighbors -- and thus to respect their neighbor's rights of conscience.
Exactly.
But it is the political effect of these attacks that must have Team McCain shouting and hollering with the joy of a frontier camp meeting. In general, liberal political and media elites demonstrate a religious diversity that runs the spectrum from secularism to liberal Episcopalianism -- all the varied shades from violet to blue. Yet they assume their high church or Mencken-like disdain for religious enthusiasm is broadly shared.
They are shocked to learn that anyone - especially members of the non-coastal peasantry - could possibly disagree with them.
The media treatment of Pentecostalism (Palin's main religious background) and Bible church evangelicalism (her current affiliation) has had the quality of a National Geographic special on a newly discovered Amazon tribe. You might not suspect that Pentecostalism -- grown from the admirable, racially integrated roots of the Los Angeles Azusa Street Revival of 1906 -- is one of the fastest-growing and most influential forms of mainstream Christianity.
But who would want to research religion when one can research the newest UN statement on global warming, and drop a word of encouragement to Al Gore?
And so Democrats and their liberal allies set out a self-destructive mixed message. Democratic politicians press their appeal to blue-collar workers and the working poor -- while liberal intellectuals and pundits express their disdain for the religious values and motivations of the poor and middle class themselves.
Didn't used to be this way. When I was young, Democratic leaders felt as much at home in the pew as in the smoke-filled rooms. And both the pew and those rooms produced some pretty fine statesmen.
While most religious people in America don't speak in tongues, many pray for healing in times of sickness and trouble, and most are offended when sneering elites attack the religious practices of their friends and neighbors...
...All this can only work to Barack Obama's disadvantage, given his cool, aloof manner and his patronizing comments about the bitter and religious. And it has brought an unintended benefit to the McCain-Palin ticket -- a populist, religious appeal that McCain alone did not possess.
Well-written and well analyzed. I suspect that part of the liberal crowd's problem is that they don't know their own country very well, and don't want to. If one hasn't slept in a Yale dormitory, how can one live?
In that sense there's been a role reversal in American politics. Before the mid sixties it was the Republicans who did most of the sneering, looking down at those immigrants, those workers in the fields and factories who could never afford a Buick, those people with rough hands.
Now it is the Democrats. And like those pre-Reagan Republicans, they will probably never learn.
September 12, 2008. Permalink
UPDATE AT 6:51 A.M. ET: From ABC News: Live from New York…it's Sen. Barack Obama, D-Illinois. The campaign confirms that the Democratic presidential nominee will appear on the season premiere of Saturday Night Live, with guest host Michael Phelps.
Comment: He's been on before. A good idea during a campaign for the presidency? I'm not sure. Helps with the kids, maybe hurts with the parents.
FROM ALLESANDRA STANLEY OF THE NEW YORK TIMES, DESCRIBING CHARLIE GIBSON AS HE INTERVIEWED SARAH PALIN: Mr. Gibson, who sat back in his chair, impatiently wriggling his foot, had the skeptical, annoyed tone of a university president who agrees to interview the daughter of a trustee but doesn’t believe she merits admission.
Perfect.
"What you see is news. What you know is background. What you feel is opinion."
- Lester Markel, late Sunday editor
of The New York Times.
SUBSCRIPTIONS:
Subscriptions to URGENT AGENDA are voluntary. Why subscribe to something you're getting free? To help guarantee that you'll continue to get it at all. Subscriptions sustain us. Payments are through PayPal and are secure, but you do not have to sign up for a PayPal account. Credit cards are fine.
FOR A ONE-YEAR ($48) SUBSCRIPTION, CLICK:
FOR A SIX-MONTH ($26) SUBSCRIPTION, CLICK:
IF YOU DON'T WISH A SET SUBSCRIPTION, BUT PREFER TO DONATE ANY OTHER AMOUNT TO SUSTAIN URGENT AGENDA, CLICK:
SEARCH URGENT AGENDA:
POWER LINE:
It's a privilege for me to post periodic pieces at Power Line. To go to Power Line, click here.
To link to my Power Line pieces, go here.
THE CURRENT QUESTION
This space will regularly raise questions that relate to the news, but transcend daily headlines. The idea is to stimulate talk about basic issues. Our last question asked:
Last week we asked,
What are the three most absurd positions put forward by Barack Obama?
You can view the answers here.
This question was was suggested by reader Francis Drouillard:
What will Obama supporters do if he loses?
If you'd like to send us your thoughts, click:
response@urgentagenda.com
(Please stay within two or three paragraphs. We try to print every reply, if space allows. Place your name at the end of the message if you wish your name published. This question will stay up through Sunday.)
CONTACT:
YOU CAN E-MAIL US, AS FOLLOWS:
If you have wonderful things to say about this site, if it makes you a better person, please click:
applause@urgentagenda.com
If you have a general comment on anything you see here, or on anything else that's topical, please click:
comments@urgentagenda.com
If you must say something obnoxious, something that will embarrass you and disgrace your loving family, click:
despicable@urgentagenda.com
If you required subscription service, please click:
service@urgentagenda.com
FAVORITE SITES (List will grow)
Power Line
Faster Please (Michael Ledeen)
OpinionJournal.com
Hudson Institute
Bookworm Room
Bill Bennett
Red State
Pajamas Media
Michelle Malkin
Diana West
The Weekly Standard
The New York Sun
Real Clear Politics
The Corner
City Journal
Gateway Pundit
American Thinker