Onward, dubious soldier

I've written before about how it's hard to be cynical about John McCain's POW story - how he subjected himself to four extra years of torture by adhering to the first-captured, first-released principle rather than take the easy way out. Okay, so the part after the em-dash remains pretty impressive. But it looks like there's room for cynicism anyway, and not just because McCain and his surrogates have politicized the tale by making it the focal point of his election campaign.

Check this out. No really, check it out. It's a story about how McCain has allegedly played a key role in a decades-long coverup regarding POWs allegedly left behind in Vietnam. I know I link to articles all the time and that it's mostly to prove that I know how to put in a link (Matt 2.0!). But this really is worth reading, not only because it theoretically could take the McCain campaign out at the knees, but because it's not likely, if the last thirtysomething years are any indication, to get much play from the mainstream media.

A politician's cavalier hypocrisy and the media's lazy complicity - two sources of rage for the price of one.

Strong idea, weak proof

This research-study story from the Toronto Star should be taken with a grain of salt the size of a small planet, but it leads into an idea I've been thinking about for a while - the odd relationship between liberals, conservatives and courage.

The gist is this: Conservatives so often paint liberals as cowards who don't have the spine to face the tough issues of the day, particularly issues like war and national security. But isn't the whole conservative proposition an exercise in cowardice? Isn't every right-wing campaign based on some speciously-reasoned terror? We must spend billions fighting wars in Iraq and Afghanistan because the terrorists are scary. We must deny gay marriage because "the gays" would uproot the moral fabric of society and because gay marriage would inevitably lead to horses marrying 10-year-old boys. We must not regulate markets or have socialized medicine because that makes us Communists, and Communists are scary. 

On almost every issue, the conservative argument is based on being afraid. Afraid of change, afraid of the future. And yet conservatives succeed quite regularly at playing the tough guys, disguising cowardice as courage.

I'm not suggesting that the liberal proposition is perfect, but I just don't see the same dissonance between the public image and the principles that drive it.

Oh (yeah, forgot about) Canada

Compared to U.S. elections, which mix a tiny dash of policy focus into a steaming brew of character assassination, feigned outrage and relentless appealing to the lowest common denominator, Canadian elections, with their focus on legislative agendas and their charisma-free leaders, are kinda dull. Thus, it is with some sadness that I have to acknowledge the fact that my home and native land has a vote for Oct. 14.

Whereas the Americans are talking about change and are, in one form or another, going to get it, us Canucks are being put through the democratic process for the purpose of reaffirming the status quo. Stephen Harper's still creepy - all the more so when he tries to go all family guy in his TV spots - but his performance thus far has been mainstream enough to pacify concerns that he'd turn Canada into a Bush-lite, neo-con state. Stephane Dion, for all his good intentions, is still a dork who comes off as though he's crying about Harper shaking him down for his lunch money (don't think Harper wouldn't do it, either). Jack Layton still looks like he just walked off the set of a late-70s porn flick and while he's managed to pull in some former Liberal supporters, he still represents what amounts to a fringe party. And speaking of fringe, there are the Greens, who will just count themselves lucky to hold onto their first ever MP.

In other words, we're still going to end up with a (perhaps slightly enlarged) Conservative minority. In the meantime, we'll get ads about Green Shifts, economic management and pulling troops out of Afghanistan. We'll also get some personal attacks, but far fewer than our southern neighbours. I guess we should be thankful that our political system remains, relatively speaking, focused on the issues. It speaks well for Canada and Canadians. Sadly, though, it just lacks the entertainment value of U.S. politics - the best reality show running.

Palin impalin'

Almost forgot about Sarah Palin's big Wednesday night speech. There was a lot of pressure on her, and she pretty convincingly destroyed the notion that she'd be some kind of terrified deer in headlights. Turns out she's more like the driver who sees the deer, floors the gas pedal and joyfully licks the blood off the windshield after the collision. Only Rudy Giuliani's speech rivaled hers in terms of grinning, mean-spirited bile.

When she wasn't ripping out liberal throats, Palin was lovingly speaking of her family and introducing them one by one. That, to me, should solve once and for all the conundrum of whether it's fair to criticize her handling of her teen daughter's pregnancy. You simply cannot exploit your family for political gain and then cry foul on anyone who brings up your family in an unfavourable light. 

Women - and men - ought to be proud of Palin's groundbreaking nomination. But she provides yet another reason to avoid the Republican ticket. She may seem like a female heroine, but she'd set women back decades if she's in power. Best that she be known as the unlikely answer to a trivia question.

McCain takes the edge off

Watching John McCain's acceptance speech last night, it occurred to me that the Republican convention played out like a week-long good cop-bad cop routine. After days of failed candidates, party insiders and a vice-presidential hopeful softening up the Democrats with vicious body blows - including several of the below-the-belt variety - McCain took the stage last night to play the caring nurse with the soothing, bedside manner. If the previous speeches were meant to rile up the Republican base, McCain's was an appeal to common-sense independents. It wasn't particularly graceful and it certainly didn't make me feel any better about his policy positions, but at least it was better than the childish pissing and dissing contest that preceded it.

Generally speaking, I think it was an effective speech for McCain. It made him less frightening to non-Republicans, and even if the GOP base doesn't agree with all of his politics, they never get tired of hearing about his war stories. Which are, you have to admit, pretty astonishing - especially the fact that he condemned himself to four extra years of torture in a POW camp in order to let a fellow soldier go free. Kind of hard to be cynical about that one.

The final lap of this endless race commences now. For many reasons, from the justifiable to the reprehensible, it'll be closer than it has any right to be.

All the good Palin puns have been used...

...at least as far as I can tell. Anyone got a Palin pun they haven't seen used yet? Consider this an informal contest - post a comment with your Palin pun (I've already seen Palin comparison and Palintology, among others) - and you'll win a prize pack consisting of my amusement.

But seriously now. McCain has seen Barack Obama's barrier-breaking candidacy and raised him another barrier-breaking candidacy. Or to make a more accurate poker analogy, he's flat-called. Alaska governor Sarah Palin would become the first female vice president if the Republicans win in November, which means that the Democrats no longer have solitary claim to to a potential "first." Either way, the U.S. will make history in this election.

Palin's nomination is fascinating for a ton of reasons. On one hand, it could be perceived as a cynical grab for disaffected Hillary Clinton supporters, but Palin's a long way from Clinton. Her pro-life, pro-gun views are to the right of McCain's own, so this selection actually seems to be aimed more at conservative hardliners than independent female voters. McCain wasn't looking to bring more people into the tent - he was looking to pacify the people who were already in the tent but not convinced of his ability to keep it upright. 

In pacifying the Moral Majority, however, McCain has chosen someone whose level of experience - she's been governor for less than two years - is even less impressive than Obama's. Nothing that hasn't been said a billion times elsewhere already, but the GOP's attacks on Obama's inexperience ring pretty hollow now. Although they've kept launching them during the first couple days of the RNC convention.

Oh, and then there's the whole thing about Palin's 17-year-old daughter being five months pregnant, courtesy of her 18-year-old boyfriend. In making the announcement, Palin was quick to express her support and to note that her daughter would have the baby and marry the boyfriend (does the NRA sell commemorative shotguns for these occasions?). All very well and consistent with her anti-abortion stance, although I wouldn't bet the beer money on Bristol and Levi having a long and happy future together. 

However, Bristol Palin's pregnancy would seem to put the lie to another one of her mother's core beliefs - abstinence-only education. One has to assume that Bristol was told to save herself for marriage and was perhaps not well versed in the workings of condoms, etc. 

And that raises another question, which is the real impetus for this post (aren't you glad we got to it eventually?). Pundits and politicians have debated whether the VP nominee's children, and specifically Bristol's pregnancy, are fair game for attack in an election campaign. Notably, Barack Obama has said it's off limits. I think he's wrong.

When a politician espouses one belief but his or her behaviour reflects something entirely different, that calls the character or judgement of that politician into question. Governor Palin would have kids learn only about the importance of keeping it in their pants, but her own daughter's situation suggests how hopeless and dangerous that belief is. Bristol is a living example of a failed policy idea, and the Democrats need to find a way of making this argument, although the focus has to be on the policy, not the person.

My feeling on this stems from my reaction to Dick Cheney's hypocrisy on gay rights. On one occasion, when interviewed by CNN's Wolf Blitzer, Cheney responded to a question about the child being raised by his lesbian daughter and her partner. Cheney said Blitzer was "out of line" for asking how Cheney could square his support for his daughter with his administration's anti-gay views. Howlin' Wolf tried to press on with this very legitimate question, but got nowhere. And I'm still dying to know the answer.