Sarah Palin is a major gambit. The ubiquitous sports metaphor among pundits has it that she is a Hail Mary pass, a last-ditch effort to bolster a desperate Republican campaign. The Alaska governor was a dark horse when Sen. John McCain announced her as his running mate Aug. 29. Her nomination seems carefully tailored to appeal to the electoral blocs in which Sen. Barack Obama is perceived as weak. Palin should play very well with the voters supposedly alienated by Obama's infamous gaffe two weeks before the Pennsylvania primary in April. Obama was speaking at a private fundraiser in San Francisco when he said that, in reaction to the indifference of the Powers That Be, rural voters in Pennsylvania "cling" to the Second Amendment, religion, and xenophobia. Apparently dwelling on Obama's five-month-old comment, McCain and his people chose the evangelical governor of a state with an even stronger gun culture than we have in Pennsylvania.
During her acceptance speech, Palin brought up Obama's comment, saying that Obama addresses working class voters with respect when he speaks in Scranton, Penn., but mocks them behind their backs in San Francisco. The problem with Obama's comment in April was not that it betrayed a lack of understanding of the working class; indeed, there is a great deal of bitterness among the working class in this state. Gun ownership and church attendance are high in rural areas of Pennsylvania. These are cultural pillars which remain constant in the lives of blue-collar voters buffeted by the sort of things Obama and Biden talk about in stump speeches. Obama was obnoxious in his delivery, but his observation was sound. In the days since the Republican Convention, he and his running mate have pointed out that Republicans said much about God and guns but nothing about the issues which face the working class. This response is smart. Palin can field-dress a moose. Fine, but what are she and McCain going to do to lower gas prices, expand access to health care, create jobs for the middle class?
We have heard from the Republicans for months that Obama is naught but a carefully contrived spectacle, devoid of substance. He has been derided as a celebrity and accused of relying on identity politics. All of these memes have been irrevocably undermined by McCain's choice of running mate. The only requirement imposed on the vice president by the Constitution is that he or she must be fit to assume the Presidency; it is for this duty that Republicans have endorsed Palin. It's laughable for them to continue to disparage Obama's thin resume.
So many of the issues raised by McCain and his surrogates regarding Obama's fitness to take up the staggering responsibility of the presidency apply equally to Palin. How can it be said that he is too green to serve as commander-in-chief, but she is not? The pinnacle of Palin's executive experience is the governorship of a state no larger than the Harrisburg metropolitan area. Has her short time in that post prepared her to manage the vast executive departments of the federal government? If Democrats are wrong to treat their candidate like a celebrity, should Republicans refer to Palin as a "rock star"?
On the day that McCain introduced her to the nation, Palin parroted Sen. Hillary Clinton's remark about the 18 million cracks the senator's supporters had made in the glass ceiling that is the American presidency. Attaching a female to the bottom of the ticket in hopes that women will vote their gender is as sexist as any remark made by Democrats about Palin neglecting her children to run for office. It is obvious that the Republicans think women voters are stupid and that they condone identity voting when it is to their benefit.
The forfeiture of so many prominent talking points is the price McCain has paid to energize the Republican base. The Religious Right and social conservatives adore the governor and don't care much about the contradictions her presence forces on the campaign.
Showing posts with label John McCain. Show all posts
Showing posts with label John McCain. Show all posts
Monday, September 1, 2008
Friday, August 29, 2008
McCain neuters major talking point with VP pick
Awash in media coverage of the Democratic Convention, Sen. John McCain announced today that his running mate will be Republican Governor Sarah Palin of Alaska. Palin was a dark horse, and the fact that her selection remained a secret for so long might have been an impressive media coup had the announcement not been overwhelmed by Sen. Barack Obama's historic acceptance speech a mere 12 hours earlier.
The McCain campaign has not been exceedingly deft in its interaction with the media, though reporters have taken dives for McCain on one or two important occasions. If the timeline surrounding the selection had been different, this might have signaled a reversal for the campaign.
Much like Obama's pick, Palin sketches out a number of contrasts to the top of her ticket. She is 28 years McCain's junior, and has not held any office in Washington. Palin came into office as a reformer in a state teeming with corruption less than two years ago, so her rhetoric about Washington will probably approach that favored by Obama. She gave birth to a son with Down Syndrome in April; she and her husband decided not to abort the pregnancy when they learned of their unborn son's disability. Her vociferous opposition to abortion makes her a pleasing choice for the religious right. If she becomes the first female vice president, she will break the old-Protestant-white-guy mold on as many counts as Barack Obama.
The obvious problem with choosing a neophyte as nominee is that it undermines the McCain campaign's primary attack meme against Barack Obama. A vice president must be qualified for the presidency, and not merely because of the dictates of the Constitution. The Republican National Convention next week will endorse a woman with 21 months of experience in state government to be commander-in-chief. If Obama's resume is thin, Palin's is transparent.
The strategy behind Palin relies partially on her reputation as a reformer in her own party, which McCain hopes will reinforce his erstwhile claim to maverick-dom, and partially on the hopes that she will attract disaffected Clinton voters. But her primary advantage may be her appeal to the hard right. Palin is extremely Protestant, speaking out loudly against abortion rights and advocating Creationism in her state's school curricula. One consolation that came with McCain's primary victory was the elimination of three of his rivals who indicated in a debate that they do not believe in evolution. The choice of Palin may give unfortunate credence to the anti-reality crowd.
The McCain campaign has not been exceedingly deft in its interaction with the media, though reporters have taken dives for McCain on one or two important occasions. If the timeline surrounding the selection had been different, this might have signaled a reversal for the campaign.
Much like Obama's pick, Palin sketches out a number of contrasts to the top of her ticket. She is 28 years McCain's junior, and has not held any office in Washington. Palin came into office as a reformer in a state teeming with corruption less than two years ago, so her rhetoric about Washington will probably approach that favored by Obama. She gave birth to a son with Down Syndrome in April; she and her husband decided not to abort the pregnancy when they learned of their unborn son's disability. Her vociferous opposition to abortion makes her a pleasing choice for the religious right. If she becomes the first female vice president, she will break the old-Protestant-white-guy mold on as many counts as Barack Obama.
The obvious problem with choosing a neophyte as nominee is that it undermines the McCain campaign's primary attack meme against Barack Obama. A vice president must be qualified for the presidency, and not merely because of the dictates of the Constitution. The Republican National Convention next week will endorse a woman with 21 months of experience in state government to be commander-in-chief. If Obama's resume is thin, Palin's is transparent.
The strategy behind Palin relies partially on her reputation as a reformer in her own party, which McCain hopes will reinforce his erstwhile claim to maverick-dom, and partially on the hopes that she will attract disaffected Clinton voters. But her primary advantage may be her appeal to the hard right. Palin is extremely Protestant, speaking out loudly against abortion rights and advocating Creationism in her state's school curricula. One consolation that came with McCain's primary victory was the elimination of three of his rivals who indicated in a debate that they do not believe in evolution. The choice of Palin may give unfortunate credence to the anti-reality crowd.
Tuesday, May 13, 2008
Down the McMemory Hole
John McCain made an embarrassing mistake during the speech that I just posted about. When I read the transcript of the speech at his Web site, I noted a conspicuous omission: he did not refer to Kelo v. City of New London (2005), a rallying point for self-proclaimed strict constructionists. In a surprisingly pro-corporate decision, the liberal justices, as well as Anthony Kennedy, ruled that the state of Connecticut could use eminent domain to seize private property and sell it to a developer who would pay more in taxes than the original owner.
It turns out, however, that McCain did mention the case, but displayed an unfortunate misunderstanding of the Fifth Amendment, which led his campaign to edit the comment from the video on his Web site and scrub it from the transcript. He claimed that "Not only just compensation" is required during the exercise of eminent domain, "but also, private property may not be taken for public use."
One wonders what McCain's version of eminent domain actually entails. Eminent domain is the purchase of private property for public use, with or without the consent of the owner but always with due compensation. Since the Supreme Court has always been a strong defender of property rights, the definition of acceptable public use was narrow until the Kelo decision. I have no idea how McCain and his speechwriters thought eminent domain worked. I imagine that this was something of a Freudian slip, in which he imposed his own views on the text of the Constitution. If this is so (and I certainly could be wrong), it only serves to heap more suspicion on his
loud complaints about original intent. I certainly hope the next president knows more about the Constitution than this man.
It turns out, however, that McCain did mention the case, but displayed an unfortunate misunderstanding of the Fifth Amendment, which led his campaign to edit the comment from the video on his Web site and scrub it from the transcript. He claimed that "Not only just compensation" is required during the exercise of eminent domain, "but also, private property may not be taken for public use."
One wonders what McCain's version of eminent domain actually entails. Eminent domain is the purchase of private property for public use, with or without the consent of the owner but always with due compensation. Since the Supreme Court has always been a strong defender of property rights, the definition of acceptable public use was narrow until the Kelo decision. I have no idea how McCain and his speechwriters thought eminent domain worked. I imagine that this was something of a Freudian slip, in which he imposed his own views on the text of the Constitution. If this is so (and I certainly could be wrong), it only serves to heap more suspicion on his
loud complaints about original intent. I certainly hope the next president knows more about the Constitution than this man.
Defending the McConstitution
In an attempt to gain some media attention on the day of two large Democratic primaries, Sen. John McCain delivered a speech May 6 at Wake Forest University in Winston-Salem, NC. After pontificating on the art of compensating for poor grades and inexplicably showcasing former Sen. and GOP primary failure Fred Thompson of Tenn., he moved on to talk about his respect for the Constitution.
This is the same man who in February voted to extend revisions to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act which give law enforcement the ability to spy on Americans without warrants. FISA, as it was originally passed 30 years ago, provided law enforcement the ability to conduct wiretaps of phone conversations between a phone in America and one in a foreign country and seek retroactive court permission within 72 hours. This was a compromise between the Fourth Amendment protection against unreasonable searches and seizures and the necessities of intelligence work. In order to preserve the constitutional protection, the Supreme Court's precedent is that, given probable cause, a federal agent should seek a warrant if at all possible. This is a fundamental protection installed in the Constitution to prevent overextension of executive power.
In 2005, McCain took a principled stand against torture by the U.S. armed forces, attaching Amendment 1977 to the Detainee Treatment Act of 2005. The amendment prohibited military interrogators from using "cruel, inhumane, or degrading" treatment to extract information from prisoners, including those at Guantanamo Bay. McCain had long cultivated a reputation as a strong opponent of torture, often appealing to his own brutal treatment as a prisoner of war in Vietnam. This position was subject to a reversal when the Military Commissions Act of 2006 came to a vote. This Act allowed the government to deny habeas corpus to U.S. citizens accused of terrorism and gave the CIA permission to use techniques barred to the armed services under the DTA.
At first, it may seem that the use of torture is not a constitutional issue; indeed some conservatives, such as Antonin Scalia, argue that the Constitution does not prohibit cruel interrogative techniques because interrogation is not a form of punishment. That's a specious distinction which relies on a pedantic and overly literal reading of the Eighth Amendment. American jurisprudence does not apply the same strict reading to other amendments, notably I, II, and IV. To suggest that the men who wrote the Eighth Amendment and the legislatures that ratified it wished merely to prevent gruesome treatment after conviction is facially ridiculous. If anything, a prisoner who has not yet enjoyed due process of law has more protection under the Constitution than a convict.
All of this says nothing about the suspension of habeas corpus, which is expressly prohibited by Article 1, Section 9 of the Constitution. Even if we were to concede that the Constitution has nothing to say about torture, it is obvious that the MCA is an expansion of the executive's law enforcement powers beyond those envisioned in the Constitution. Far from the overweening judiciary that McCain and other conservatives complain about, the real constitutional crisis in this country is President Bush's belief in the unitary executive.
McCain takes offense at the lengthy opinion in an obscure case from 2005, Deck v. Missouri, ridiculing the "penumbra," a legal concept used to protect rights not expressly named in the Constitution and a favorite target of those who style themselves strict constructionists. The minute extension of additional protections to capital defendants in the Missouri case is apparently more troubling to McCain than the signing statements that Bush has routinely used to ignore the law. McCain disapproves of the practice, but not as much as he disapproves of the Court's deciding what is acceptable treatment of a prisoner under the Constitution.
After running through a litany of issues on which he disagreed with the rulings of the courts, McCain accused Democrats in Congress of voting against judicial appointees based on personal disagreements rather than qualifications. But why should judicial philosophy not be a qualification for judicial office? The complaints against John Roberts and Samuel Alito, Bush's two (successful) Supreme Court nominations, were grounded at least in part on their view of the proper role of the courts. The Democrats who voted against their confirmation appealed to their actions as federal judges. Roberts, for instance, repeatedly voted to narrow the protections given to various minorities by the courts. This is an abdication of the courts' duty, upholding and encouraging the expansions of executive power by the Bush administration.
Inexplicably, McCain pointed out, with righteous indignity, that he voted to approve Justices Stephen Breyer and Ruth Bader Ginsburg when they were appointed by President Bill Clinton. He did not let his differences with them determine his vote, he said. Why he would approve of two justices he now criticizes as subverting the Constitution and showing contempt for democracy is unclear. Both served as federal judges prior to their appointments; their understanding of the role of the judiciary should have been obvious. And yet it seems that before he needed to shore up support with the Republican Party's base, he was not concerned about judicial activism.
McCain's entire speech reeks of hypocrisy. He plainly advocates for judges that adhere to the party line of the GOP. Roberts and Alito support broader federal power on issues important to conservatives and a narrower reading on liberal concerns (like equal protection). The next president will appoint activists amenable to his political views. Republican talking points notwithstanding, almost all federal judges are now pragmatists. Conservatives are not any more consistent in their obedience to the Constitution's original intent than liberals.
All the powers of the American presidency must serve the Constitution, and thereby protect the people and their liberties. For the chief executive or any other constitutional officer, the duties and boundaries of the Constitution are not just a set of helpful suggestions. They are not just guidelines, to be observed when it's convenient and loosely interpreted when it isn't. The clear powers defined by our Constitution, and the clear limits of power, lose nothing of their relevance with time, because the dangers they guard against are found in every time.To the naïve, it would seem with such an introduction McCain is preparing for a major break with the Bush administration. The Bush Department of Justice has logged seven years of extraordinary disrespect for the checks and balances of the Constitution. The senator seems to be laying the groundwork for a precipitous shift from the Bush approach, with its warrantless wiretaps and suspenison of habeas corpus. Sadly, after all that he decided that Tessio should stay on with the family but Clemenza needed to die. The crux of our constitutional crisis, the asserted, is "the common and systematic abuse of our federal courts." That's right, folks. The malfunction in Washington is all the fault of the courts. The big threat to our democracy is unaccountable judges who don't care about public opinion.
This is the same man who in February voted to extend revisions to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act which give law enforcement the ability to spy on Americans without warrants. FISA, as it was originally passed 30 years ago, provided law enforcement the ability to conduct wiretaps of phone conversations between a phone in America and one in a foreign country and seek retroactive court permission within 72 hours. This was a compromise between the Fourth Amendment protection against unreasonable searches and seizures and the necessities of intelligence work. In order to preserve the constitutional protection, the Supreme Court's precedent is that, given probable cause, a federal agent should seek a warrant if at all possible. This is a fundamental protection installed in the Constitution to prevent overextension of executive power.
In 2005, McCain took a principled stand against torture by the U.S. armed forces, attaching Amendment 1977 to the Detainee Treatment Act of 2005. The amendment prohibited military interrogators from using "cruel, inhumane, or degrading" treatment to extract information from prisoners, including those at Guantanamo Bay. McCain had long cultivated a reputation as a strong opponent of torture, often appealing to his own brutal treatment as a prisoner of war in Vietnam. This position was subject to a reversal when the Military Commissions Act of 2006 came to a vote. This Act allowed the government to deny habeas corpus to U.S. citizens accused of terrorism and gave the CIA permission to use techniques barred to the armed services under the DTA.
At first, it may seem that the use of torture is not a constitutional issue; indeed some conservatives, such as Antonin Scalia, argue that the Constitution does not prohibit cruel interrogative techniques because interrogation is not a form of punishment. That's a specious distinction which relies on a pedantic and overly literal reading of the Eighth Amendment. American jurisprudence does not apply the same strict reading to other amendments, notably I, II, and IV. To suggest that the men who wrote the Eighth Amendment and the legislatures that ratified it wished merely to prevent gruesome treatment after conviction is facially ridiculous. If anything, a prisoner who has not yet enjoyed due process of law has more protection under the Constitution than a convict.
All of this says nothing about the suspension of habeas corpus, which is expressly prohibited by Article 1, Section 9 of the Constitution. Even if we were to concede that the Constitution has nothing to say about torture, it is obvious that the MCA is an expansion of the executive's law enforcement powers beyond those envisioned in the Constitution. Far from the overweening judiciary that McCain and other conservatives complain about, the real constitutional crisis in this country is President Bush's belief in the unitary executive.
McCain takes offense at the lengthy opinion in an obscure case from 2005, Deck v. Missouri, ridiculing the "penumbra," a legal concept used to protect rights not expressly named in the Constitution and a favorite target of those who style themselves strict constructionists. The minute extension of additional protections to capital defendants in the Missouri case is apparently more troubling to McCain than the signing statements that Bush has routinely used to ignore the law. McCain disapproves of the practice, but not as much as he disapproves of the Court's deciding what is acceptable treatment of a prisoner under the Constitution.
After running through a litany of issues on which he disagreed with the rulings of the courts, McCain accused Democrats in Congress of voting against judicial appointees based on personal disagreements rather than qualifications. But why should judicial philosophy not be a qualification for judicial office? The complaints against John Roberts and Samuel Alito, Bush's two (successful) Supreme Court nominations, were grounded at least in part on their view of the proper role of the courts. The Democrats who voted against their confirmation appealed to their actions as federal judges. Roberts, for instance, repeatedly voted to narrow the protections given to various minorities by the courts. This is an abdication of the courts' duty, upholding and encouraging the expansions of executive power by the Bush administration.
Inexplicably, McCain pointed out, with righteous indignity, that he voted to approve Justices Stephen Breyer and Ruth Bader Ginsburg when they were appointed by President Bill Clinton. He did not let his differences with them determine his vote, he said. Why he would approve of two justices he now criticizes as subverting the Constitution and showing contempt for democracy is unclear. Both served as federal judges prior to their appointments; their understanding of the role of the judiciary should have been obvious. And yet it seems that before he needed to shore up support with the Republican Party's base, he was not concerned about judicial activism.
McCain's entire speech reeks of hypocrisy. He plainly advocates for judges that adhere to the party line of the GOP. Roberts and Alito support broader federal power on issues important to conservatives and a narrower reading on liberal concerns (like equal protection). The next president will appoint activists amenable to his political views. Republican talking points notwithstanding, almost all federal judges are now pragmatists. Conservatives are not any more consistent in their obedience to the Constitution's original intent than liberals.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
