2012: The Search for a Pastor-less Candidate

Barack Obama is to Jeremiah Wright as John McCain is to ?

DNC Chairman Howard Dean's approved response is “you’re a racist!” This is, of course, how Democrats would like to keep our long-awaited conversation on race. Democrats call Republicans “racist” while Republicans inaudibly mutter something about which side of Slavery and Segregation the Democrats were on (not to mention Jim Crow Laws, Poll Taxes and the Civil Rights Act of 1964). Republicans might even mention Bull Connor and Bob Byrd (former Kleagle in the KKK, current senator) but to no avail, the label sticks.

Moreover, the “racist” claim is in step with the updated version of how Democrats define attacks against their candidates:

Swiftboating: Presenting an indisputable fact about a white Democrat politician that may be devastating to their campaign

Racism: Presenting an indisputable fact about a black Democrat politician that may be devastating to their campaign

If you’re one of the 0.02% of the population that watches the DNC’s network (MSDNC), you know the real answer to our initial question is that McCain’s Reverend Wright is John Hagee.

Hagee has been accused of calling the Catholic Church the “great whore” (from Revelation) which he later attempted to clarify. Unfortunately, not everyone is afforded the luxury of “context.” Hagee also said Hurricane Katrina was God’s punishment on New Orleans for its collective sin including the sin of homosexuality.

As abhorrent as the Left finds Hagee’s use of Old Testament Wrath-ology, they certainly weren’t appalled when former Democratic Presidential Nominee, Albert Arnold “Al” Gore, Jr., implied that Katrina was a result of our sin of SUV-driving. If only Hagee had implied that we had been punished by Mother Earth and not by God he’d be eligible for a Nobel Peace Prize!

The truth is, there is a world of difference between Wright and Hagee, and there’s an even bigger difference between their respective relationships with Obama and McCain. McCain has never been to Hagee’s mega-church, let alone called the Cornerstone Church in San Antonio his spiritual home for two decades. Hagee didn’t lead John McCain to Christ, never baptized his kids, didn’t marry him and Cindy. Hagee didn’t inspire any of McCain’s books or his initial run for elected office. Hagee was not McCain’s personal spiritual mentor on the campaign trail.

However, the fact that one could continue on this train of thought into infinitude is the point of this article.

Lost in all the pastoral sniping is how someone else is getting a total pass on the matter. Hillary Clinton doesn’t regularly attend church and has no spiritual mentor to speak of. And her campaign is better for it.

What’s more, in a July 2007 New York Times interview Clinton claims to have “felt the presence of the Holy Spirit” and says that she’s officially “open” on the idea that Jesus Christ is the only way to salvation.

That’s it! As is the case with every other issue on the table this year, she says just enough info to pacify the electorate. Her comments were made sufficiently under the radar so as to not attract attention. (FYI, if you want people to know what sound a tree makes when it falls in the woods, don’t broadcast the event on MSNBC or write about it in the New York Times.)

What does this all mean? Would Obama or McCain be better off if they, like Ronald Reagan, didn’t go to church (at least not publicly)? Is this the collective lesson learned from JFK and Mitt Romney? Would Mike Huckabee’s political aspirations been better served by going to Law School rather than Seminary? Could Carter and Bush [43] be the last presidents to positively motivate bloc voters based on their profession of faith?

If all those things are true, it would truly be unfortunate. In 2004, just 13% of Americans considered themselves non-religious. Over three quarters of Americans are self-proclaimed followers of Christ. It’s no secret that our country was founded on religious (particularly Christian) principles.

It would be a shame if future candidates for our highest elected office were disqualified in some way based on their affiliation with an institution so integral to our past and present.

Why Rev. Wright Will Endure

If you believe Barack, neither the “out-of-context” Reverend Wright from YouTube snippets or the in-context Wright at the National Press Club is the man he met 20 years ago. We can all agree that people change. But no one becomes a virulent anti-American preacher overnight, especially at the incredibly inconvenient moment that one of your parishioners is running for President.

Which leaves millions of voters begging questions such as, how much anti-government, anti-white rhetoric has Obama heard from the pulpit over these past two decades and how much of it has seeped into his subconscious or, worse, his conscious?

Furthermore, how can someone who claims he wasn’t “in the pews” when these statements were made have never heard the news from someone else? No one thought to tell the US Senator that his pastor credited the government with creating AIDS to kill people of color? No one tipped him off when the reverend exhorted the church to stop singing “God Bless America” and collectively sing a prayer of damnation for their country? Really? No one said a word to Obama? What kind of political environment is Chicago anyway?

As preposterous as that all sounds, those who endorse Obama (college students, “Latte Liberals”, MSNBC, Hamas, etc.) believe he is the candidate with the “judgment” to lead America. He has the “judgment” to lead but lacks the ability to determine that his friend and mentor of 20 years is really an anti-American race-baiter?

This speaks to his ability to perform the duties incumbent upon the US President. If he’s oblivious to the thoughts of Wright, can Obama be trusted with selecting Supreme Court Justices or cabinet members? Is he fit to be Commander-in-chief of all four branches of our Armed Forces?

But, for Obama supporters, the only choice is to believe his words. It’s his words that have incited fainting on the campaign trail and sent “thrills” up the legs of the Chris Matthews of the world. If you can’t believe him at his word what does Obama have?

Without words, Obama’s supporters may actually have to look at his wafer-thin resume. They may even consider the fact that Chicago is as downtrodden and corrupt as it was when he was first elected to the state senate.

They may even start looking at how their “post-partisan” candidate has little-to-no history of crossing the political aisle and working with “the other side” to get things done for the good of the country. They’ll realize that the only Republicans who support his candidacy are former congressmen like Lincoln Chaffee (you know the pro-Abortion, pro-Gay Marriage, anti-war, Sierra Club Republicans… a.k.a. Democrats). They might have to consider his consistent Mike-Dukakis-Ultra-Liberal stances on every issue facing America.

Moreover, not believing his spoken words means that we’ll have to start looking at his written words. Handwritten words, like those on a General Candidate Questionnaire filled out prior to his state senate run. He felt the need to write that he was member of the AFL-CIO and the Sierra Club but neglected to correct the portion that said he was against all capital punishment and advocates a ban on handguns. To explain it, he took the very Clintonian step of blaming a staffer for filling out the questionnaire that was at odds with his moderate image. One is left to assume that they forged his handwriting as well. Admittedly, I can’t remember exactly what he said. I was feeling a tad lightheaded at the sound of his voice.

Finally, for Obama’s supporters to believe him at his word, they will have to come to terms with the idea that in the twenty years that their “Agent of Change” knew Reverend Jeremiah Wright, the only change that took place in Wright was that he began to spread hatred and lies from the place where he was entrusted with ministering the love of Christ.

“Change We Can Believe In.” I beg to differ.

The Reverend Wright issue will live on not because of the Wright’s words but because of Obama’s.

What is “Vigorous Diplomacy”?

What is “Vigorous Diplomacy”? I can’t honestly say that I know. It’s a phrase you’ve probably heard more than once this campaign season. John McCain and Hillary Clinton both say they advocate “Vigorous Diplomacy” and seem to consider it the cure-all for America’s anemic foreign relations. So, if two of the three finalists in this year’s election of the Free World’s leader think it so crucial, then shouldn’t we, at very least, try and figure out what the heck it is?

John McCain believes it involves becoming a “model citizen” in the global community. Last month, the Four-Term Arizona Senator cited the need to respect the collective will of our democratic allies as opposed to wielding our power to “do whatever we want whenever we want.” He holds that several issues have tarnished our collective rep. Among them: torture. And, while he may (by his own admission) not be an economic expert, I believe he’s the closest thing Americans have to an authority on the matter, so I yield to his expertise.

While the presumptive GOP-nominee has mentioned it in a stump speech or two, Tulzan sniper fire couldn’t keep Senator Clinton from what seems like an hourly mentioning of “Vigorous Diplomacy.” Hillary has offered it as a solution to just about every international conflict we have. Specifically: Iran and North Korea but China and Venezuela as well. These are strained relationships, to be sure, but none as tenuous as the definition of the phrase itself.

As best I can tell, there’s no generally accepted definition for “Vigorous Diplomacy.” As such, let’s begin by examining its constituent parts. Here are the respective definitions from Merriam-Webster’s online dictionary:

Vigorous:

1: possessing vigor : full of physical or mental strength or active force : strong

2: done with vigor : carried out forcefully and energetically

Diplomacy:

1: the art and practice of conducting negotiations between nations

2: skill in handling affairs without arousing hostility : tact

Invoking Occam’s Razor, the simplest answer when combining the definitions of the two words is that “Vigorous Diplomacy” is “Forcefully and skillfully negotiating between nations without arousing hostility.” Sound reasonable?

The proof, then, should be in the proverbial pudding. Do recent actions of Hillary Clinton fit our reasonable definition?

Let’s start our inquiry with Russia, a very large, very powerful democratic ally. Its leader, President Vladimir Putin, has a decade and half of experience in the KGB. Like the majority of the free world, Putin supported the invasion of Afghanistan but balked at endorsing our use of military force in Iraq. Bush [43] famously liked what he saw when he got “a sense of his soul” (whatever that means) and has worked with him to reduce both countries’ nuclear arms which remain a truly unfortunate lasting symbol of our generation’s most significant non-conflict.

So what has Clinton said or done to improve this important but strained relationship whilst on the campaign trail? For starters, she all but canceled-out Bush’s sentiments while campaigning in New Hampshire last January declaring that Putin “doesn’t have a soul.” To which Putin retorted “I think that a statesman must have a head at a minimum… And in order to build interstate relationships, one must be governed by the fundamental interest of one's own country rather than by emotions.” Ouch.

Furthermore, when asked in a February debate about the Russian heir apparent, Clinton stumbled over his name calling him “Medved... whatever” and implying that it was a moot point since he’s been “hand-picked” by the “soulless” KGB agent and will effectively be a puppet of the former regime. Nice.

One must conclude that our definition cannot be correct since the champion of Vigorous Diplomacy was neither skillful nor able to avoid hostility with the Russian leadership.

Let’s try a different track. Maybe this is one of those terms best defined by what it is not, for example, “antipathy” (as in “antipathy to people who aren’t like them”). You can attempt to describe what it means but your best bet in effectively explaining it is to say something to the effect of “it’s the opposite of sympathy.”

So, what is not “Vigorous Diplomacy”? After listening to the Clintons (all three of them now), the polar opposite of “Vigorous Diplomacy” must be “Cowboy Diplomacy”. Though mentioned by the Clintons nearly as often as “Vigorous Diplomacy”, “Cowboy Diplomacy” may be no less nebulous an idea. However, if one were to venture a contextual guess, one might believe that “Cowboy Diplomacy” is best thought of as “whatever the Bush Administration does.” And, what the Bush Administration did is invade a country without the approval of the global community (but, oddly enough, with the approval of the Clintons).

With that in mind, if I were to give you a completely ridiculous hypothetical situation… let’s imagine… I don’t know… what if the Olympic Committee went off the deep end and granted hosting rights for the 2008 Summer Olympics Games to a Communist country that has been exacting religious oppression not only it’s on own people but on its neighbors. Now imagine that country has the largest army in the world.

George W. Bush and Hillary Clinton offer two opposing diplomatic options in dealing with this entity: One says we should organize a boycott of the Opening Ceremonies of the event in an effort to embarrass the country into changing their ways. The other wishes to continue meeting one-on-one with their leadership hoping to come to peaceful resolution that results in improved standing in the world-wide community for all involved.

Thinking objectively, which one do you believe is advocating “Vigorous Diplomacy” as opposed to “Cowboy Diplomacy”?

This is seriously confusing.

Unfortunately, it seems we’re back where we started, without a definition for “Vigorous Diplomacy.” Therefore, I resolve to continue to define it as I always have.

“VD” a communicable illness, with no known cure, that has unpredictable, unfortunate and embarrassing side-effects, spread by the act of …[edit]…, perpetrated by the shameless among us and enabled by mass ignorance.