Pre-Election Thoughts...For Posterity's Sake

As much as it pains me to say it, America stands ready to elect Barack Obama to the Presidency tomorrow. For the past few weeks I've been trying to get my brain around that idea so the shock doesn't do permanent damage.

The world, and my neighborhood, hates Bush and loves Obama. There is a great deal of glee percolating through the Democratic base; and I'm frankly OK with that. If history has taught me anything, it's that mankind runs in cycles, and we're at the end (or beginning) of one right now. Barack Obama isn't the messiah; but I also have to admit that he's not Satan either. But what is he?

The campaign has told us a great deal about him, for those who have ears to hear. Here we have a man who has been classed as an outsider, a fresh voice; despite all evidence saying that his political record is one of expert play within the political machinery of Chicago. We have a man who is considered a moderate despite the evidence showing a very left-wing voting record. We have a man with no executive experience being given a pass for this by the media (even, I shudder to say, The Economist) because "he's run a good campaign."

He has no record of accomplishment. The record he does have gives me the willies. We are about to elect the most pro-infanticide President in our history, and no one seems to care. How the hell did this come about?

Obama gives people hope. He speaks, and crowds melt. Chris Matthews gets a "thrill up his leg" when Obama works his magic. But let me put this to you Democrats a different way and see what you think.

A Candidate emerges to challenge for the highest office in the land. Some are surprised that he would choose to run, since his political record is fairly thin; but on the other hand, many have been watching him for years waiting for the moment when he could stand up and proclaim his vision to the people. He puts together a campaign staff of stunning effectiveness, and in the primaries manages to beat back a strong challenge from a candidate the media seems to back wholeheartedly. The Candidate's approach is simple: Washington is broken, and requires healing from an outsider. In his campaign, the Candidate relies more on rhetoric than concrete policy platforms--the message is that there should be first and foremost an emphasis on the common man. As questions about experience swirl about his campaign, he makes a brilliant VP selection--an old and respected Washington hand. The election is tight, but in the end our Candidate prevails.

This Candidate is George W. Bush.

I hear so many times about how Obama is "different" and "transformational" and "inspiring." Is this enough?

I hope like hell that it is. But I have my doubts.

Jeremiah Wright: A Quick Observation

The Rev. Jeremiah Wright, Senator Obama's "Spiritual Mentor," is doing a question-and-answer session at the National Press Club right now. The moderator asked him a question regarding a passage from the Gospel of John: "...I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me" (John 14:6). In the light of this well-known passage, she asked him, what did he think about Islam and Judaism?

Wright's response was brief and illuminating. He said, "Jesus also said, I have other sheep that do not belong to this fold." This generated cheers and applause from the audience, and seemed to suggest that Wright feels there are other paths to salvation. Now while this is a valid topic for theological debate, I find Wright's use of this passage very disingenuous--because he only quotes the first half of the verse. Here is John 10:16 in full (emphasis mine):

I have other sheep that do not belong to this fold. These also I must lead, and they will hear my voice, and there will be one flock, one shepherd.

You can read it yourself; it's part of the famous parable of the "Good Shepherd".

So here's the thing: Wright is a pastor, and he knows exactly what John 10:16 says...yet he rips a piece of it out of context in order to give a "politic" answer to a question (or perhaps more accurately, he gives a politic response to avoid answering the actual question). He insists that he is a servant of the truth. What does his response to this query tell us?

There's something appealing about this photo.

Manufactured Drama, Part II

Looking for an example of the media's obsession with creating the story? Look no further than this piece, detailing Chris Matthews's excited gurglings.

I have to tell you, you know, it's part of reporting this case, this election, the feeling most people get when they hear Barack Obama's speech. My, I felt this thrill going up my leg. I mean, I don't have that too often. No, seriously. It's a dramatic event. He speaks about America in a way that has nothing to do with politics. It has to do with the feeling we have about our country. And that is an objective assessment.

What kind of journalism school did you go to, Chris? "And that is an objective assessment." I don't often mind commentators expressing opinions because, hey, they're commentators; but are you kidding?

Manufactured Drama and the "Potomac Primaries"

No one doubted that yesterday's "Potomac Primaries" (Virginia, Maryland, and DC) would be important. Heck, given the wafter-thin delegate margin between Hillary and Obama, every state is taking on immense significance. But what was most interesting, to an enthusiast of the political theater that's playing itself out, is the degree to which the various media outlets are trying to manufacture drama to fill the gaps between actual news items.

McCain's win in Virginia (50-41% over Huckabee) is a prime example. The early returns, with just 10-15% of districts reporting, had Huckabee with a 4-point lead. Since the results were slow to come in during that first hour or so, the commentators had a lot of time to fill. They constantly gushed about what a blow it would be to McCain if Huckabee upset him here, how this was a sign that "conservatives" were rebelling against him, and how this was going to prevent McCain from launching into the national campaign he'd been looking forward to. Then, with about 20% of the vote in, the gap started to narrow. When it stood at 47-45 Huckabee, I caught Karl Rove on Fox News. He--and only he, at this point--spoke out against reading too much into these early results. He spoke a bit about McCain's campaign in Virginia and predicted that, by the end of the night, the senator would capture Virginia with 50 to 52% of the vote. And he was right.

This became clear at about 40% of the precincts reporting, but the narrative didn't change much: Huckabee still put up a stern resistance, a sign of McCain's weakness in the conservative base. Apparently, a 9% margin isn't big enough. If this had been a Presidential result, it would have been called a landslide.

The Obama/Clinton narrative was similarly flogged to death. There's been a good amount of fretting, in the public and in the media, about whether the news organizations are setting the story, rather than letting the facts speak for themselves. Well, duh. There's a need for drama, and the media fill every empty second with whatever drama they can scrape up. We hear about Obama's momentum (probably real enough), but less about the fact that the delegate count has what's effectively a microscopic edge for Obama. A Hillary sweep in big-ticket states like West Virginia and Wyoming would bring her back. Obama's not running the table...yet. The media just needs to polish its scripts so they can be ready when he is.

Hillary's Disconnect From Reality

Came across an interesting quote in this piece as I skimmed the news this morning.

The senator was asked a question from a Politico.com reader in Santa Monica, Calif., who was seeking assurance that "no new business or personal scandal involving Bill Clinton" could erupt if she were in the White House and give fodder to Republicans.

"You know, I can assure this reader that that is not going to happen," she said. "You know, none of us can predict the future, no matter who we are and what we are running for, but I am very confident that that will not happen."

Is there really anyone out there, Democrat or Republican, who thinks that Bill is capable of remaining scandal free?

"We are in crisis. There is panic and fear"

According tothis article from the UK's Times Online, al-Qaeda is finally beginning to feel the pinch.

Al-Qaeda in Iraq faces an “extraordinary crisis”. Last year's mass defection of ordinary Sunnis from al-Qaeda to the US military “created panic, fear and the unwillingness to fight”. The terrorist group's security structure suffered “total collapse”.

These are the words not of al-Qaeda's enemies but of one of its own leaders in Anbar province — once the group's stronghold. They were set down last summer in a 39-page letter seized during a US raid on an al-Qaeda base near Samarra in November.

If these are authentic, it's a stunning testimony about the effectiveness of the ground-up strategy the US has been pursuing in recent months. But I have to admit some degree of skepticism about the documents: they are almost too good to be true. If, for example, you wanted your enemies to think you'd given up the fight, what better way than to "allow" such documents to fall into their hands? But this may be too paranoid of me.

Skirting the Chelsea Issue

Yesterday, an interesting story started percolating through the media.

On Thursday, Shuster guest-hosted Tucker Carlson's MSNBC show, "Tucker," and in referring to Chelsea Clinton's role in calling superdelegates on behalf of the Clinton presidential campaign, he asked if she was "sort of being pimped out in some weird sort of way?"

Later that night, he heard from an outraged Reines [a Clinton campaign aide], who called the remarks "absurdly offensive."

Shuster was unrepentant. He told Reines his commentary was justified because of the contrast between Chelsea Clinton's overt political role and the aggressive way campaign aides "jump down the throat" of reporters who seek to question her about it.

There are two, well maybe three, issues here. First, it was clearly in bad taste for Shuster to suggest that the candidate's daughter is being "pimped out," especially since it was clearly in the sense of "being prostituted." He could have dismissed this in two minutes if only he had said that it was a slip of the tongue and that he certainly didn't mean that Hillary was offering superdelegates sexual favors from her daughter.

The second issue appears to be why Shuster failed in his basic task: the Clinton campaign has shown great reluctance to talk about Chelsea, despite the fact that she is front and center on the campaign stage. She is calling superdelegates and sounding them out, and she therefore is a valid target of journalists' inquiries. The media's frustration with this disconnect is natural. But of course, as is always the case in these matters, Shuster and Reines are talking about completely different things. But in the end, this will blow over as the public realizes there is no meat here.

The third issue: another "uncharitable" bit from me, but I have to say it--I don't find Chelsea attractive. The picture I posted above is her at her best, and she's certainly not ugly (the straightened but somewhat wavy hair suits her), but she is certainly not attractive in the classical sense. I suspect the fact that I keep hearing the media spout about how hot she is is a reaction to seeing the change from a gawky teenager to a put-together 27-year-old. Just don't make her out to be something she's not.

Turning Over Scientology's Rocks: Tax Deductions for Members?!

First, the outrage: Scientologists can claim tax deductions for religious expenses. What's more, the IRS has agreed that it will only offer this benefit to Scientology.

But before I get into the nuts and bolts, some personal background. Scroll down if you want to get right to the meat.

I have never had much respect for the Church of Scientology, not since I wandered into their Boston office in September 1988, during my freshman year of college. I was told by the guy on the street that they were conducting "personality tests" and needed college-aged subjects. Since I was more or less just wandering around at the time, getting myself familiar with the city, and since I'd never heard of "Scientology," I said sure. They got me in the door, through the lobby, and sitting down at a table in front of a bubble test that looked like it was going to ask a lot of personal questions. At 17, I was naive but not stupid, and I got the hell out of there.

So much for my foundation story, but I wanted to be sure to come clean with my biases. I haven't lost friends or family, I haven't been scarred personally...but I have come to the conclusion that they are dangerous. So when I heard about the web-based "insurgency" being waged against them by Anonymous (based at Project Chanology), I was intrigued. I watched their video heralding their attacks; and after reading an article about them in The Economist, checked out the Chanology website. That's when I came across this entry, under "News and Announcements":

New York Sun - Feb. 8, 2008 - Judges Press IRS on Church Tax Break. This needs some major publicity, stat! This is an ongoing legal battle that may result in some serious damage for CoS.

Here's the meat.

The New York Sun article covers the case of a Jewish couple who wanted to deduct the costs of sending their child to religious education classes. Their deductions were disallowed by the IRS; but the couple sued, claiming that Scientologists were allowed to deduct their religious training expenses, and it is patently unfair to allow this for only one religion.

The case stems from an agreement the IRS reached with the Church of Scientology in 1993 to end more than a decade of lawsuits, audits, and other enforcement actions involving the tax agency, Scientology entities, and church leaders. The church paid $12.5 million, while the IRS agreed to drop arguments that Scientology, which was founded by L. Ron Hubbard, was not a bona fide religion.

At about the time of that deal, the IRS agreed to allow Scientologists to deduct at least 80% of the fees paid for "religious training and services."

Honestly, I couldn't believe that this was the case, so I did some digging. Apparently, this is well documented. According to section IV.A.3.ix.b of the "Closing Argument," which deals with the details of the 1993 agreement between Scientology and the IRS regarding tax-exempt status:

...the following actions will be considered to be a material breach by the Service...the issuance of a Regulation, Revenue Ruling or other pronouncement of general applicability providing that fixed donations to a religious organization other than a church of Scientology are fully deductible unless the Service has issued previously or issues contemporaneously a similar pronouncement that provides for consistent and uniform principles for determining the deductibility of fixed donations for all churches including the Church of Scientology"

Experts appear to hold that this clause contractually requires the IRS to discriminate in favor of Scientology.

The good news is that, as seen in the Sun article, judges are starting to sit up and take notice.

"The view of the IRS is it can unconstitutionally violate the Constitution by establishing religion, by treating one religion more favorably than other religions in terms of what is allowed as deductions, and there can never be any judicial review of that?" Judge Kim Wardlaw asked at the court session Monday in Pasadena, Calif.

"That is not at all what I said," a Justice Department lawyer representing the IRS, Ellen Delsole, said.

"That's the bottom line," Judge Wardlaw and a colleague on the panel, Harry Pregerson, both replied. "This does intrude into the Establishment Clause," Judge Wardlaw added.

An important disclaimer here: the case in question is being heard by the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, famous for its judicial activism and for being the most-reversed court in the nation. But here's the point: is it fair to give a financial advantage to one religion while denying it to all others? I'm not sure there are a lot of people that would answer "yes" to that question.

---

Update: Some documentation of Scientology's tax-privileged status is not difficult to find. In short, the IRS's Revenue Ruling 93-73 makes obsolete the earlier Revenue Ruling 78-189, which makes a detailed case against payments for "auditing" sessions counting as charitable contributions.

Romney's End

It's done. As of an hour or so ago, Willard "Mitt" Romney is out of the 2008 Presidential race.

I'll come out and say it: I've never liked Romney. Not in the same way I've never liked cabbage or Hillary Clinton, but there was a dislike there all the same. My first reaction at hearing that he was going to make a serious run for the White House was alarm. If there's a politician who's more ready to change his stance to suit his immediate needs, I haven't met him. Some amount of flip-flopping is to be expected in any candidate who's not a complete dogmatist; but in Romney's case, it all seemed so calculated.

That's the uncharitable welling up from inside me. But to give him some credit, I will say that I found his withdrawal comments to be heartfelt and gracious. Take for example:

“If I fight on in my campaign, all the way to the convention, I would forestall the launch of a national campaign and make it more likely that Sen. Clinton or Obama would win,” he said.

“And in this time of war, I simply cannot let my campaign be a part of aiding a surrender to terror.”

Very true. It's good that the GOP has a candidate who can come to grips with his own political mortality. What the Democrats are only beginning to be concerned about is the fact that neither of their top two has any reason yet to back down. Clinton trails in fundraising and (for the moment) delegates, but she's got a fuller resume and a big, loyal following. If Obama withdraws at this point, I suspect it will be taken as a betrayal by the movement that's behind him, and it may end his Presidential chances permanently. There's a tragic aspect to all this: not long ago, it seemed that all the Dems needed to do was run a candidate, and the top office would be theirs. It may well still happen, but someone has to be knocked to the mat first.

The big question on the GOP side is whether this will quell some of the discontended rumblings coming from the far right of the party. Romney could, in theory, have still been their man. Will they acquiesce, or abstain?

Technorati Tags:
Romney, McCain, Clinton, Obama, President, Election, Democrat, Republican, GOP