John McCain will be in New Jersey today and tomorrow to tap into the wallets of the state’s wealthy political class. I can’t begrudge any politician for trolling for cash under the current system, and we have become here in the Garden State the political equivalent of an ATM machine.
But, as Juan Melli says at Blue Jersey, McCain’s visit “is a good time to ask some important questions.”
Since a plurality of New Jersey residents (about 40%) consider themselves Catholic, they are probably all on the edge of their seats wondering whether or not McCain agrees with pastor John Hagee who has called the Catholic church the “great whore” and blamed Hurricane Katrina on gays. McCain has said that he “was pleased to have the endorsement of pastor John Hagee”.
I think McCain should be asked about this repeatedly. It would probably make sense to spend about 40% of air time and column space over the next few weeks discussing this important topic because this is what the hard-working people of New Jersey care about. Does McCain agree that New Jerseyans are whores or does he denounce the statements by Hagee? And if he doesn’t reject Hagee’s endorsement and statements, why is he accepting large amounts of money from whores?
This dovetails with a point I’ve been making about the double standard that exists on this issue. Barack Obama is made to answer for the pastor of his church. He didn’t leave, so he must agree with what his pastor has to say.
You hear this all the time. It has been a chief argument offered by Hillary Clinton is that she would have left Wright’s church. Of course, as Mother Jones has pointed out, she has her own interesting religious connections.
The hypocrisy of the clergy argument is apparent when you consider Catholic liberals. No one would dare demand that a Catholic candidate — like John Kerry — renounce his or her church because of the church’s anti-abortion, anti-gay doctrines. (Some Catholic clergy called for him to excommunicated, of course, proving the absurdity of the argument.)
And what about folks like Hagee and Pat Robertson? Is there a reason that Republicans are never asked to distance themselves from these gasbags?
Why is it that Jesse Jackson will never be forgiven for his Hymietown remark, but Sen. Byrd is forgiven his racist past?
Does anyone think that race might be the reason?
This brings me to a word that has been much discussed among the punditocrisy — electability. Is Barack Obama electable, the question goes — implying that there is something about him that will drive voters away. Perhaps.
I have my criticisms of him — at base, I think his push for a new post-partisan politics is a bit too squishy and raises questions for me about his philosophical core (his opposition to the dopey gas-tax holiday gives me hope that he is willing to avoid political gimmicks, unlike Clinton), and his opposition to the war in Iraq and willingness to talk with Iran and others does not translate into criticism of American empire building.
But the electability argument has nothing to do with real issues. Rather, because we are talking about Obama, it seems pretty clear that the electability argument is a coded race argument. He’s not electable, Clinton has been implying, because working-class voters won’t back him. White working-class voters. White voters plus black candidate, the electability argument posits surreptitiously, equals McCain presidency.
This kind of electability argument does nothing but pander to the worst in voters. Electability, in general, is a foolish construct that elevates pandering above principle — candidates who have or continue to take principled stands will anger some segment of the voting public. It is a purely defensive position — it is running not to lose, which, as any sports fan knows, is the surest way to pile up the defeats.
South Brunswick Post, The Cranbury Press
The Blog of South Brunswick
E-mail me clicking here.
Hank Kalet 