SENATOR McCAIN DENIES HASSLINGTON A POLITICS-FREE AFTERNOON
File the following few paragraphs under the "You Just Can't Avoid U.S. Presidential Politics Right Now" category:
My English in-laws are presently in town. On Thursday afternoon, I was in the Lake Nokomis area of southern Minneapolis with them, attempting (for a few hours at least) to avoid thinking about politics, when one of them, prompted by the sound of an engine overhead, looked into the sky and, as though struck by a celestial vision or suddenly confronted by what seemed to be a UFO (however you wish to see it), pointed upward and exclaimed, "John McCain!"
We were quite close to the Minneapolis/Saint Paul International Airport, so, though Senator McCain was expected in town that day, I assumed that the individual in question was simply suffering from slightly-delayed jet lag and thought that a nearby plane looked "official" and perhaps "impressive," and therefore one of the two presidential candidates might...just might...be onboard. (It is, after all, a long flight across the Atlantic, which can sometimes do odd things to one's head, and, at any rate, much of Europe is very interested in the U.S. presidential election process this time around, so the fact that a presidential candidate might be in town is quite an exciting one for them.)
Out of curiosity and, I'm sure, due to the fact that whenever anyone exclaims something and points into the sky one feels the need to at least look upward (it must be a human self-preservation response; you don't want to be hit on the head by anything from above...), I looked up to see that, yes, the words "John McCain" were painted as big as life along the side of the presumptive Republican nominee's campaign plane, which was coming in for a landing and was not too far above our heads. (We were a few blocks from the airfield.)
Politics naturally became the topic of conversation for an hour or so afterward--my in-laws, like many folks from the Old World, are big Obama fans at present--which was just fine with me, except I couldn't help but rather ruefully regret having my non-political afternoon end shortly and so abruptly after it had begun. It's the principle of the matter that counts, you see.
On another (nearly completely unrelated) note, if this scenario is trend-setting, I cannot wait to see what odd politically-themed things happen when my Aussie friend Travis is in town in early August....
"JB" AND "SP": THEY'RE THE BEST CHOICES, IN MY OPINION, BUT NOT NECESSARILY THE INEVITABLE ONES
A friend and I were discussing my endorsements for both the Democratic and Republican Vice Presidential running mate slots when, in the course of our conversation, it dawned on me that some people use endorsements as a sort off hedge between who they think should be selected for a particular position and who they think will be selected for that position. For instance, someone might not necessarily think that Hillary Clinton is the "right choice" to be Senator Obama's running mate, but they might think that she is nonetheless going to be chosen by Senator Obama to be his running mate, and therefore that person might endorse her in order to avoid being "wrong" after the choice is announced later this summer. (Though it's off-topic, for the record, I do not at present think that she will be selected to be Senator Obama's running mate.)
That way of viewing the endorsement process is perhaps clever, but, given its hedging-nature, it is also perhaps too cute by half. At any rate, that's not how I view the endorsement process. I endorse who I think will make the best fit for a given position. For instance, I endorsed Governor Bill Richardson for President on his official website last summer and, when he dropped-out of the nomination race (and given that Senator Biden had also dropped out by that point), I endorsed Senator Barack Obama on his official site. (I started the Hasslington blog-site this past April.) I chose those individuals because I felt that they were the best candidates for the job at the time and given the choices, not because I thought they were going to win their party's nomination.
That is why I have endorsed, for instance, Senator Joe Biden for the role of Senator Obama's running mate: he fulfills several necessary Vice Presidential "aspects"--for lack of a better term--for Senator Obama, and he would be ready immediately to step into the role of President if need be. (If you want more particulars, please see my endorsement of Senator Biden in my July 5 post.) It is also why I have endorsed Governor Sarah Palin to be Senator McCain's running mate (see my July 8 post).
If, say, Senator Clinton had won her party's nomination, and, say, Governor Romney had won his party's nomination, I may have selected two different running mates. But whether I would have selected different running mates or not, I would have done so on the same basis--in order to fulfill needs, shortfalls, and other various "aspects" that arise given the strengths and weaknesses of the individual each party nominated for President.
So, no, I do not think Senator Biden and Governor Palin are inevitable running mates for Senators Obama and McCain, and they may not even be the ones who have the best chances of being asked to fill those important roles (though they both must surely be rather high on the various lists, so to speak). I do, however, feel that, given their own professional qualities and backgrounds, and given the two individuals selected to be the nominees of the two major parties, they are the best choices to fill those roles. (I also continue to think that Governor Richardson would make a spectacular Secretary of State for a potential Obama Administration.) Hence, I have endorsed them.
I have also been asked which of them is "more likely" to be selected as a running mate...if only one or the other were to be selected. I dislike such questions, but I viewed this one as a challenge when it was put to me a few days ago. I've gone back and forth on this, and my answer at present is (still) a tentative one, but in the interests of speculation, and given the necessity for Senator Obama to pick an experienced politician with solid foreign policy credentials, I say this: Joe Biden is slightly more likely to be asked to be Senator Obama's running mate than Sarah Palin is to be asked to be Senator McCain's running mate. (Senator McCain probably does need a younger, female running mate, but it is not the necessity that an experienced, foreign-policy expert running mate is for Senator Obama.)
VOTE THOREAU
The nation-wide political pandering has begun but by no means is it over; awful ideas like the Senator Clinton/Senator McCain gas tax holiday (which George W. Bush would be unlikely to sign into law anyway--which is a good thing, even if in his case it would be done for the wrong reasons) may very well be expanded upon to include even more transparently-expedient non-ideas prior to election day in November, at both the congressional and presidential levels, as well as at the state and local levels. (Let's hope not, but let's plan for it to happen.)
Pandering, from both the political right and the left, is like selling the populace used cars that don't work but have a nice, shiny new paint job--it's like selling sparkling lemons to the masses. With this in mind I will provide you with one of my favorite quotations, from Henry David Thoreau, for whom one can substitute baskets for cars:
"...instead of studying how to make it worth men's while to buy my baskets, I studied rather how to avoid the necessity of selling them."
Politicians being who and what they are, we may or may not get much opportunity to vote for individuals who are in the business of studying how to avoid the necessity of pandering this year, as has been the case in most (if not all) previous years. Hence, it's up to voters to demand that we not be pandered to for the purposes of political expediency, and the only way we can do that is if we smarten up and tell our potential leaders that we will not buy their "baskets" unless doing so is absolutely necessary.
Many politicians will not be happy to hear such a declaration, and they might be even less happy if we carry through with it, but if he were still (amazingly) around in 2008 Mr. Thoreau would breathe a sigh of relief if such a mindset came to pass, even if only for small groups of committed people. So my hope for 2008 is that politicians, especially (but not exclusively) at the national level, sense that the voting public is serious this time around, and by and large come up with substantive, realistic plans to tackle our nation's problems, while shelving the generic sloganeering for another time. They can start by junking the gas tax holiday idea.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment