The Limits of Experience

Yesterday’s mail brought me two letters from John McCain, each asking for money in a slightly different way. I’ve accepted the unfortunate reality that supporting a candidate I feel strongly about means I get on that candidate’s mailing list and will not be left alone until at least November, if then. I know that, for good or ill, it takes tons of money to get elected President of the United States. That’s why I’ve contributed to a political campaign for the first time in my life. John McCain is the first presidential candidate I’ve ever felt strongly enough about to support with my money, and by putting a sticker on my car and a sign on my front lawn.

But I want to say a couple of things for the record.

I have to take exception to the second letter I received yesterday. It began with “Dear Friend and Fellow Republican,” and then went on to tell me, as if I cared, that Carly Fiorina has signed on as the party’s “Chair of Victory 2008.” Enclosed with that letter was a separate one from Ms. Fiorina asking me to donate to the Republican cause.

There is no really polite way to say this: I am not a Republican, and I don’t care who works for the party. I wouldn’t give money to the Republican Party any more than I would give it to the Democratic Party. When I voted in the Texas Republican primary, I was embarrassed to identify myself to the poll worker as a Republican. (Of course, I would have been more embarrassed to say I was a Democrat, especially in light of what it would have meant in that particular context.)

I gave you money, Sen. McCain, because I believe in you, and I did it despite, rather than because of, your party association. Due to the unusually low quality of this year’s two Democratic frontrunners, coupled with your own middle-of-the-road appeal, you’re probably going to have many independent supporters and not a few Democratic crossover supporters. It would be nice if we non-Republicans could feel that you understand who your base is, and calling us Republicans just because we gave you money is a poor start.

The thing about Barack Obama’s relationship with the controversial Rev. Jeremiah Wright is that it’s not a scandal. Sen. Obama hasn’t hidden bribe money in his freezer or been caught bumping shoes in an airport men’s room. No fireworks. Nothing to see here, folks.

It’s just that people have drawn a logical and reasonable inference from the association: that Obama agrees, or at least doesn’t strongly disagree, with Wright’s positions.

The continuing questions Sen. Obama faces about his association with Rev. Wright aren’t harassment. He hasn’t been singled out or held to a higher standard. If anything, he’s being given more opportunities to try to dispel the genuine doubts that association has created in the minds of voters. He certainly hasn’t been subjected to any more scrutiny than any other presidential candidate in the past half-century or so.

Sen. Obama gave a brilliant, stirring speech in the immediate aftermath of the Wright brouhaha. It’s a speech that will go down in history, one in which Obama demonstrated his fine oration skills and spoke in a brave and straightforward manner about things no one likes to talk about. For that he is to be lauded.

But the one thing the speech didn’t do is respond to the concerns it purported to answer: Does Sen. Obama agree with Rev. Wright that AIDS was created by the U.S. government as a weapon of genocide against blacks? Was American “terrorism” the real cause of the September 11 tragedy? Should “God damn America”? And if so, how would a President Obama reconcile those views with his oath to uphold and defend the U.S. Constitution?

Unfortunately, we’ll probably never know to what extent Sen. Obama agrees with his retired pastor’s radical views. He can’t tell us. If he disavowed any connection to Rev. Wright, we would lose respect for Obama as a human being. After all, he sat in Wright’s congregation for 20 years, was married by him, and had his children christened by him. You don’t build that kind of connection with someone and then turn against him when it becomes politically expedient to do so.

So, then, we’re left with that 20-year relationship, which speaks for itself. It can’t be explained away, and any attempt to do so would make Sen. Obama look worse rather than better. The senator is well aware of this fact, which is why he chose to divert attention away from it rather than face it head-on. He had no other choice if he wanted to remain a serious presidential candidate.

The unfortunate comments Obama made about Pennsylvania’s small-town voters, while far less worrisome than his relationship with Rev. Wright, are still an unpleasant peek behind the handsome, populist mask. The views Sen. Obama expressed are typical of the liberal elite, of which he is no doubt a card-carrying member. Obviously, he either didn’t know he was being recorded that evening or thought he was among discreet friends.

Sen. Clinton, to be sure, holds the same convictions as her rival about religion-clinging, gun-toting small-town voters. The difference between them is that Sen. Clinton is an experienced politico with the wisdom to keep dropping those Gs and to never voice her real views within a mile of any recording device. If only she could remember not to tell blatant, easily disproven lies near a recording device.

Sen. Obama’s being a liberal elitist shouldn’t make any difference. Can anyone name a powerful Democrat who isn’t?

The good news is, for the first time in a long while, we have a real alternative in a presidential race. John McCain doesn’t toe anyone’s party line. He’s a family man who doesn’t care what color his children are, a decorated war hero, a former POW who has seen the dark side of humanity, never lost his honor, and lived to tell the tale. No one pulls his strings.

Go McCain! If you have an extra buck or two lying around, please make a donation. He still needs our help to win.

Sen. McCain, if you’re listening: Either Joe or Condi would make a most excellent running mate.