How McCain couuld have won

Yesterday I posted two mistakes the McCain campaign made. Here's how he could have won.

Support Barack Obama. Back in 2004, people wanted security. George W. Bush was the candidate for security. David Frum wrote a piece on how Kerry could have won had he criticized the poor efforts the Bush administration was making in the war on terror. This campaign people want hope and optimism. For several reasons, Obama had that angle locked up since the primaries. As a result, constantly criticizing his policies and associations, and trying to bring up scandal did not have the effect of increasing support for McCain, but of dowsing hope and optimism. People supported Obama all the more. As a result, McCain needed to support Obama.

• "You want to meet with leaders of foreign countries face to face? I do, too! That's exactly where this world needs to head. I think you're wrong that you can do it on November 5th, but we can get there by...."
• "You want to improve the fortune of the middle class? That's exactly what we need to do. I think we need to put pressure on the wealthiest to be donating more money to NGOs and NPOs--and we'll let them keep these companies accountable by their donations--which will let us ease the tax burden on the middle class and help to create grassroots charity and help which is the backbone of American grace and help."
• "Barack Obama is not a socialist."
• "Barack Obama is not a Muslim...no matter what some of you think." (And McCain did this at one of his rallies, but it remains an issue with many of Obama's detractors.)
• "I spoke at ACORN conventions before and they do important work. I am embarrassed that some of their workers have done some foolish things. But Barack Obama is not those workers."

It's important to note that the McCain campaign may not really believe all those things, but they still needed to say them and appear as optimistic as Obama's supporters.

A short critique of the McCain campaign

McCain campaign made two mistakes that, I think, will cost them this election:

1. Sarah Palin. The mistake in picking Palin for VP is not because Palin is a weak candidate--I think she fared well in her debate and has grown more comfortable as the campaign has gone on (which has not always been good for the McCain campaign)--but that she resonates with only the base of the Republican party. The base of the Republican party already had a person who would energize them: Barack Obama. McCain needed to pick someone who could steal centrist votes from Obama. Palin does not come close to doing that.

2. Allowing fear to play too large a role in their critique of Obama. Willam Ayers. ACORN. Socialist. It didn't work. It never worked. You should have stuck to the Rock-Star politician line--something which would have kept Obama from airing his infomercial last night.

Christianity and Homosexual Unions

I was listening to a Rabbi on the radio the other day speaking of gay marriage. He was pretty insightful. Speaking about homosexual marriage, he said (something like), "I speak to Jews. If a person is not a Jew, then the rules I am talking about don't apply." The radio host then said something completely modern: "Yeah, I like that. And isn't Judaism not so much about following the rules, but about loving your neighbor?" The Rabbi responded, "No, there are lots of rules and they need to be followed. Part of being a Jew is following the rules." The host was a little stunned, not sure what to say.

The Rabbi was able to capture an important distinction between the centripetal nature of Judaism and the centrifugal nature of Christianity. Namely, while Judaism is about bringing people in, Christianity is about going out to the people. Once in, the Rabbi expected people to follow the rules; if out, the rules don't apply.

But what about the rules of Christianity? Traditional Christianity agrees with Judaism that homosexual relations are sinful. But if Christianity is centrifugal--moving out from the center which is Jesus--how does the church respond? Can the church tell people to follow rules that are not their own?

I think this is a question for political theology because it centers around the community/ies Christians belong. If Christians only belong to the church, then most of them are not fighting this battle. (Some Christians, of course, are having the discussion about homosexuality and marriage for their church.) If Christians belong to their culture, then they may worry that their culture is at stake, but wish to preserve the freedom of religion of their culture. (The fact that government thinks it capable of redefining institutions it didn't invent is troublesome, but most people don't seem to care about that argument.)

The best posture, in my opinion, is one described by my brother's minister, Dr David Widdicombe, when he was giving a lecture on Oliver O'Donovan, specifically concerning O'Donovan's thought on some forms of reproductive techhology. The posture is that of a prophet. Widdicombe described O'Donovan's position as saying, "It's not that we can't do it, it's that we'll pay a price for it." I think the Christian has to remind its culture from his/her place as a Christian that the price to be paid for entering into this practice will be high.

Recent movies

I just finished watching The Hulk, starring Edward Norton. A few weeks ago I watched Ironman, with Robert Downey, Jr. Both movies center around transformation, though in different ways. Ironman tells the story of Tony Stark, military-scientist-for-profit-and-fame turned super hero. The Hulk is about scientist Bruce Banner who gets a gamma infection which gives him uncontrollable power when his blood pressure reaches a certain level. His transformation comes toward the end when Banner, devoted to keeping this monster under wraps and without incident, volunteers to transform to stop another crazy monster. While the Hulk this time, though, there is a measure of control because of love. Right at the end of the movie, we see Banner practicing some kind of yoga to control his blood pressure and begins transforming into the Hulk, this time under his own volition.

Good movies. Enjoyable. Super-hero movies without the philosophical nature of Batman, but stories of redemption and transformation, nonetheless.

Head Shots in the NHL

I have a solution to minimize the amount of concussions in the NHL resulting from players heads getting hit, either by elbows or shoulders. Currently, shots to the head with shoulders are legal, with elbows are not. I know why this used to be the case--elbows used to cause more damage--but we are now coming to a day where both parts of the body and the equipment that covers them both cause loads of damage.

Here's a recent video of Weight, not a dirty player, hitting Sutter causing a concussion. You'll hear the announcers say it was a clean hit and that Weight had no intention of hurting him. Both are right. I don't think Weight meant to hurt Sutter. His hit is within the rules. What Weight did mean to do was level Sutter. Sometimes in hockey you can get leveled and you hardly feel it. Sometimes you can get leveled and wonder what your name is. When you are lining up a player, though, there is always that chance that you'll hit his head and knock him unconscious. My solution is to make each case when a player gets a concussion open to punishment, even if the hit is within the rules. Weight knew his hit was within the rules and tried to level Sutter. Unlucky for Sutter, his brain was literally rattled. Since that was the case, it should now be unfortunate for Weight. Weight's suspension is based on Sutter's injury. What this will do is make people think twice before "leveling" another player. You take a chance that your hit will result in your own loss of playing time. Weight could have made as effective a hit without trying to "level" Sutter and since he chose a riskier, if legal hit, he pays for it.

Expelled (Documentary)

This afternoon as I was home, sick, I watched Ben Stein's documentary on the war between Darwinism and Intelligent Design. Aside from a strange foray into Nazism and the Holocaust--its point being that Darwinism, specifically natural selection, was a belief that led to a classification of human beings that enabled a group in power to exterminate them, which may be a perfectly valid observation, but that, in my opinion, does more to turn Darwinists away from the doc's message than show that academic freedom is being denied--I found the documentary entertaining and informative.

On a side note, I find it strange why Intelligent Design is denounced as "not science," while some atheist scientists believe their religious statements and beliefs developed from their scientific research count as science. Hello? McFly? Religious statements--positive or negative--are not science. They are religious and philosophical. You can arrive at religious beliefs via scientific research, but neither are science. Interpreting scientific data as evidence of atheism is no less religious than interpreting scientific data as evidence of theism. I don't know why that is so hard to figure out, but lots of people miss it. Now, that being said, Darwinism and natural selection may still be the manner in which matter has evolved, which may close the door to some versions of intelligent design. But to say natural selection means atheism is not science.

The most interesting part of the film was to hear atheist Richard Dawkins say that a certain highly evolved intelligence may have planted the seed for life on this planet and we may discover evidence for this in molecular biology (though this intelligence had to have evolved, as well).... Uh.... [Aaron scratches head.]

Another interesting part was when Ben Stein asked Dawkins--who, it must be pointed out, did graciously give an interview to Stein!--what he would do if he died, saw God, and God asked him what he did with his life. Dawkins answered that he would answer as Bertrand Russell did, by asking why God didn't make himself more obvious. I felt like saying lots of things, but in the end, I don't think with Dawkins it would matter. All in all, a quasi-documentary worth watching.

Scattered political thoughts

• John McCain showing up on David Letterman and Sarah Palin going on SNL was smart.
  

• It is not mutually exclusive and might even be necessary to talk of "spreading the wealth around" as part of "spreading the opportunity around."
  

• It matters to me that John and Cindy McCain give away a higher percentage of their income than do Barack and Michelle Obama. It matters to me that John McCain has an adopted child and has supported adoption.

• Abortion can be more than a litmus test for evangelical Christians and D.A. Carson has a tremendous article here.
  

• I found myself wishing this morning for a political party that is skeptical of power--in word and deed; committed to life from conception to death; doesn't cater voting blocs based on language, race, income, or sex; dedicated to its mission in season and out. Man, do I want to be found in that party.
  

Canadian Elections

Conservatives win and increase their seats in the House to 143. They have learned some lessons about Canada and Quebec. To those who say that Canadians do not trust Stephen Harper with a majority government: What does this say about you? The scariest man in Canada is trumping everyone else and his face was THE face of the Conservative Party during his election. Hmmmmm.....

In all, Canada made a wise decision. It will be tough in the coming months economically, but with anyone else it would have been disastrous.

The Vice Presidential Debate

Just a few bullet pointed thoughts:

• Governor Palin wanted to be an everyday person and, bless her heart, she tried super-duper hard 'cause she's just not like those Washington types.
• Senator Biden is a professional politician. This has both strengths (he knows a lot about "the issues") and weaknesses (he makes ordinary people feel that they don't).
• Senator Biden has learned both to make and to communicate a distinction between questioning one's motives and questioning one's judgment. Governor Palin, by improperly harping on Obama's voting against funding the troops--a bill McCain also voted against, has either not learned to communicate with this distinction in mind, or has not learned the distinction.
• Governor Palin is much smarter and formidable than the MSM has believed. I cannot imagine her President in the foreseeable future.
  
• The Republicans should not use Iraq as a divisive issue. Whatever Barack Obama believes about reducing "combat troops" (a carefully chosen term, btw), Joe Biden, with his concept of timelines, does not sound like a "white-flag of surrender."
• The candidates both came across as Americans first. Christians should feel tension toward them both, as a result.
  

Uh....can someone tell me who re-defined "extreme"?

If this isn't ironic, I don't know what is. "Comedian" Sandra Bernhard "joked" that Sarah Palin would be gang-raped if she visited New York. The reason for such a joke? Palin holds "extreme" and "outrageous" views that a fetus should be legally protected. Um...OK. Sure. I think it makes sense now. Gang raping a woman? That's a joke. Protecting an unborn child? That's outrageous. Let's get some gang-raping moderates to bring some civility to this discussion.