Straight Talk, Straight Talk
Before I get into the crux of this blog post, let me offer up to you a sampling of the lyrics to "Straight Talk" by Dolly Parton, from her 1992 film of the same name:
Gimme some straight talk, straight talk -- and hold the sugar pleaseNow, I have no idea if Senator John McCain took the name for his "Straight Talk Express" from the Parton film. I like to think he did, because that idea is a whole lot more endearing than the notion that he actually meant it to be taken seriously. If I've confused you, let me clear things up. Here's McCain during the 2000 presidential campaign:
Straight talk, straight talk -- sounds plenty sweet to me
Don’t talk to me in circles in some mumbo-jumbo jive
Gimme just straight talk, straight talk and we’re gonna be alright
’cause I like to know just where I stand, I don’t like guessing games
And I hate a bunch of gibberish, so just spit it out real plain
Don’t use big educated words from your bs degree
Straight talk, straight talk -- don’t try b.s.-ing me
Straight talk, straight talk -- turn loose and let it go
You can tell me anything -- just like on oprah’s show
Just tell me how you really feel, be on the up and up
With questions I can understand -- for answers you can trust
Pick up the ’phone, you’re not alone -- we’ve all got something to say
So listen in and listen up -- we’ll find a better way
With honesty and common sense, it’s really hard to miss
Straight talk, straight talk -- just tellin’ it like it is
Straight talk, straight talk -- there’s nothing like the truth
Just tell me all your troubles -- pretend I’m Donahue
So don’t be shy, ’cause we can talk -- you know you’ve got a friend
Call me, call me -- for simple straight talkin’
What’s cookin’, America?
Straight talk, straight talk
Straight talk, straight talk
I am a pro-life, pro-family fiscal conservative, an advocate of a strong defense, and yet Pat Robertson, Jerry Falwell and a few Washington leaders of the pro-life movement call me an unacceptable presidential candidate. They distort my pro- life positions and smear the reputations of my supporters. Why? Because I don't pander to them, because I don't ascribe to their failed philosophy that money is our message.Admirable. Sort of rad, right? The kind of things you like to hear from people you don't exactly intend on voting for. But McCain, in his ongoing Evangelical gangbang, has decided to give us a little less straight talk, straight talk:
Neither party should be defined by pandering to the outer reaches of American politics and the agents of intolerance, whether they be Louis Farrakhan or Al Sharpton on the left, or Pat Robertson or Jerry Falwell on the right.
American military hero and Arizona Sen. John McCain will deliver the Commencement message at Liberty University on May 13, at 9:30 a.m., in the Liberty University Vines Center.Now, maybe I'm being unfair. Maybe this is straight talk, straight talk from McCain. Maybe everything else has been...what's the word...oh yeah...BULLSHIT. Maybe he didn't really mean what he said in 2000 and he only said it because he thought that would work and now he thinks it behooves him to sound like those he claimed to oppose. Maybe in "healing the breech" and efforting to find "common values" with a petty, dickless fascist endears him to voters he feels he needs to win the election and that need trumps all other needs, like, say, integrity or honesty or, as Dolly might say, a little straight talk, straight talk. But even Dolly knew there was no going back to that listless douche Michael Madsen, that she had turned a corner, begun anew, found herself, schtupped James Woods, etc. I don't expect much from politicians, but unlike McCain, I do have a few standards when it comes to my "friends." Oh, and I hate a bunch of gibberish. (Via Sully)
While Sen. McCain and Liberty University Chancellor Jerry Falwell have had their share of political differences through the years, the two men share a common respect for each other and have become good friends in their efforts to preserve what they see as common values. This will mark his first ever appearance at Liberty University. Falwell said McCain's appearance at LU's graduation is another sign that McCain is wooing evangelical Christians.
"He is in the process of healing the breech with evangelical groups," Falwell said.
Falwell said McCain has expressed a willingness to support a Federal Marriage Amendment, an issue dear to conservative Christians.
posted by Tim @ 3:56 PM
13 comments
13 Comments:
The "appeal" of McCain has always alluded me. Oh, he did the "I have honesty and integrity" dance pretty well in 2000, but almost anyone can do that. Maybe it's just America's long running love affair with the occassional psychopath. McCain is clearly insane. Like Dr. Lecter or Count Dracula he's waiting seductively in the shadows for us to embrace him. Then he'll tear our fucking throats out. The lust for raw human flesh glints in his squinty eyes. He's a very frightening man.
I also don't quite get why he's a "moderate." Campaign finance reform? That old joke? He laughed about that one all the way to the bank, and never mind the fact that his most "liberal" piece of legislation was also the least Constitutional (and the SCOTUS ruling be damned!) The man is absolutely as conservative as George W.Bush. If not more. He's our own little Mussolini. And how we adore him.
Now, see, I'm wondering if you can further explain your explanation for how Senator McCain delivering the commencement adress at Liberty University goes against his quote from 2000.
From what I read in his 2000 words, McCain says that it is Falwell and Robertson that don't accept him, and have pushed McCain out of their circle. McCain never claimed in his 2000 speech to be anything different than what he is now, only that he doesn't "pander" to the right or left. Maybe in your head speaking at LU is pandering, but I think a little more elucidation on that point would be in order. I see no specific reason why giving a commencement address is pandering. If Jerry Falwell accepts McCain and his viewpoints for what they are, well then good for Jerry.
The latter part of the recent quote says McCain is willing to support the Federal Marriage Amendment, which doesn't seem very far from his 2000 quote either, where McCain was "pro-family."
I'm cool with you having your views, I'd just like a little more filling in the blanks that you assume don't need to be filled in.
Fair enough.
I do think giving the commencement address at Liverty University is pandering to "the agents of intolerance," as Sen. McCain put it. To speak at a university that denies admittance to homosexual students (as if they would ever go there) calls into question McCain's stance on gay rights, no matter his stance on the Federal Marriage Amendment (a stance he'll surely change if he sees fit, considering his never-ending waffling on abortion rights, one day saying he was opposed to it, except, of course, for his daughter, and the next saying he supports the current South Dakota law).
And if Falwell is, as McCain put it, an "agent of intolerance," I can only presume that such intolerance, which no politican should "pander" to, would include the policies of Falwell's Liberty U. There are plenty of pro-family groups one can court that aren't led by men who blamed 9/11 on homosexuals, pagans, feminists, the ACLU, and the People for the American Way. Sure, Falwell apologized, but I think it's fair to say that few, if anyone, even those who support Falwell, believe that his apology was anything but a pragmatic manuever.
McCain is pandering to the worst of his party and his religion. He is speaking at a bigoted insitution, led by a bigoted man. Being "pro-family" is all well and good, but citing your pro-family values prior to speaking at Liberty is little more than code to a portion of voters that is seeking an absolutist to support their psuedo-moral inititiatives. McCain is willing to showcase a partnership, an understanding with a man who he once viewed as intolerant and whose views have not changed or shifted one iota since 2000.
But Falwell and, more importantly, what Falwell represents, is important to McCain now as he seeks to put together the necessary support to become the Republican nominee for president. If seeking the support of an "agent of intolerance" is not pandering, I don't know what is.
I'll respond to your comment point by point relatively straight down.
For one, I'm unsure as to whether speaking at Liberty University is a directly Falwellian issue anyway. Sure, Falwell is the Chancellor of the school, but the school is by no means under his totalitarian control. (I, by the way, currently attend the "illustrious" school). There is a diversity of opinion, and even some professing homosexuals that attend here. They are often "recommended for counseling," and are probably highly encouraged to leave, but I have heard of openly homosexual students at LU.
I agree McCain probably will waffle on his abortion stance. I've yet to see a politician who doesn't do his or her fair share of side-switching as it appears to benefit him or her.
You then again equate LU as directly equaling Falwell, which is answered above. While I'm not sure if his apology on the 9/11 comments were more than political manuevering, remember that repentance can be genuine. Falwell at one time supported racial segregation, but he truly does not believe in such things anymore, and few but angry zealots would argue otherwise.
I take little offense at being called "the worst of his party and his religion," but take slightly more offense at calling the university I attend "bigoted." As I've previously stated, for one, the administration of the school does not inherently reflect the student body (what really makes up what a school is); secondly, while the school does believe that the Bible forbids homosexuality, they in no way hate homosexuals, and do not throw out, forbid, or lynch (even if our town name belies us) homosexuals.
And, as a final point, every politican panders, whether it be to Jerry Falwell or Howard Dean. Politicians in this age inherently give up real beliefs and moral stances, instead going for perception of morality and political views (this, if you may recall, is Machiavellian politics at its finest).
That was a surprise.
Do you think he'd be speaking at Liberty if Falwell wasn't the chancellor? Is his choice to speak there based on what Liberty represents or is this a way for McCain to mend fences with a particular branch of the party, by way of mending his severed ties with Falwell? No offense to you or your fellow students, but do you think McCain is trying to appeal to you, as voters, or is this little more than a publicity stunt to say he's a candidate that far right leaders (like Mr. Falwell) can endorse?
In essence, what I'm trying to say, is that I think this is all about Falwell. He could speak at any number of schools but he chose Liberty expressly because Falwell is the chancellor. He wants to outflank Romney and Allen and whomever else runs for the nomination. He wants to court those like Falwell, to send the message to voters that he is the candidate that the relgious right can support without any hesitation. This decision is obviously pandering, as any number of other manuevers, by any politician of any party makes on a daily basis. But what makes it upsetting is to whom he chose to pander.
I must admit, your argument does have merit. On the surface, it would seem that Falwell is the center of this issue. Yet, I can't, having not spoken directly with McCain as I'm sure few have on the issue, say for certainty. Maybe McCain would give a speech at Liberty if its ideology was relatively the same but Jerry wasn't there...I'm not one to say.
But, purely away from the morality of it all, can you say it's a bad move for McCain? Jerry did appear to be a major force in mobilizing the Conservative Christian voter group that was largely responsible for keeping Bush in office. A Republican would be rather unwise, I would think, to not pander to this group and their millions upon millions of voters.
You disagree?
The only reason I would disagree is that McCain has always had an appeal to independent and moderate voters. His play for the religious right may endanger that strength, one which separated him from the herd of candidates. Now, maybe I'm naive, but I can't imagine most "values voters" going for Hillary Clinton or Mark Warner or any other Democrat. So to so heavily court them, to the detriment of his standing with moderate Dems or independents seems foolish to me.
It'd be stupid of him to completely ignore them, but to court them in this obvious way (like trying to court black voters by hanging out with Al Shaprton) seems counter-productive. Must it be Falwell?
In the end, maybe this issue will be moot. Perhaps this is all for the nomination and his allegiance with the likes of Falwell will be tempered when and if he becomes the nominee. But it still bothers me that this is the tactic. I can't say I would've voted for McCain but I could at least respect his unwillingness to cater to the whims of Falwell or Robertson as so many others in his party are prone to do.
I can see how that may have been McCain's "strength," but I think it also may have been his weakness. Courting moderates and independents isn't going to win you the nomination (as 2000 told) nor will, in my opinion, it win an election in this day. Republican voters aren't looking for someone who swings on both sides of the line. The average Republican wants a definitively Republican candidate.
But, AyBendito, this is the real problem for Republicans. Tied as they are to evangelical Christians' impressive political machine, they greatly reduce their ability to appeal to a broader moderate base. Bush can do it because he's Bush, and for all his faults, and as much as I hate saying it, he's a masterful politician. But so much of the Republican power is now wrapped up in Bush's hands, and we see how quickly that slips away. When no one in the party, even the putative "maverick" McCain or the heretofore moderate Mormon Romney, is willing to stand up to the Falwell-Dobson-Robertson junta we have a problem. Especially when one considers that historically the waves of evangelicalism last for maybe thirty or forty years, tops (Cf.the "Great Awakenings", Bryanism, etc) the Republican Party has chosen to build itself on a rather rickety bridge.
Meanwhile, bigots or no, and theology aside, the political ideologies espoused by the leadership of the school and by, I should imagine, the vast majority of the student body represent the forces of intolerance and illiberalism (in a classical sense) that threaten the very idea of a free, republican government as envisioned by the tolerant Christians of 1776.
I have little to say on the first part. I feel that is a matter that we can only really find out over time. Maybe the bridge'll last a bit longer? Who knows.
The last part of your comment is, I feel, a bit sweeping and hasty. For one, political ideologies swing large in the student body of my school. Sure, a fair share are Republicans (of all various shades), but there are democrats, libertarians, and I'm sure a few others such as Constitutionalists and whatnot.
I wouldn't mind a little more explanation on what political ideology you feel the administration and student body hold that is so antithetical and destructive to the Founders' ideals...
You're right, the bridge could last much longer. But, the historical evidence would say otherwise. And while I'm a bit wary of making clear judgments about the future based on the past, there is a very clear pattern of religious-political fervor that waxes and wanes in this country. So, I'm willing to cast my bet.
And yes, I'm sure there is a diversity of opinion in the student body, probably at least as much as there was at my alma mater (a sweepingly, annoyingly liberal enclave) and I can't speak to the specifics of your school. The intention of Tim's post (and my sweeping, hasty and self-righteous commentary) was to point out the fact that our moderate McCain is in bed with the Christian Right. This is a political movement that explicity wishes to replace secular government with Christian government, teach Creationism (by any name) in public schools, bring prayer back into public schools, erect monuments to the Christian God in the public square, illegalize sodomy, fire gay teachers, "refer homosexuals to therapy," strictly regulate the content of films and television . . . need I really go on? Whether or not the indivudal voters, or student bodies, which support these ideologues have more nuanced views, it's impossible to claim that they don't know what they are supporting. The longing to make a Christian nation where there never has been one (the US Government signed a treaty shortly after its creation which expressed outright that the US is not, and never has been, a Christian nation) is deeply offensive to the republican ideals of the Founders, even if they might, if teleported in Dr. Who's timeship, support the specific pieces of that agenda.
I graduated from LU in 2002 and was there on 9/11/01. I can assure you that Jerry did not blame homosexuals or anyone else for what happened that day.....
I grew up here in the northeast, and before going to school down south, I too believed that Jerry Fallwell was a closed minded person. But I never heard hateful words coming out of his mouth, and I got to hear him speak once a week at least....
There is definately diversity of opinion at LU and for all the talk on acceptance and tolerance, I find that most often "progressives" are those guilty of intolerance and not accepting others' points of view.
I'd ask, first, if you believe that Falwell was misquoted, but then your phrasing goes a few steps too far and you assert that Falwell didn't blame anyone for the events of 9/11. No one at all, huh? Interesting.
And to respond to the rest of your comment, I can't help but repeat myself. No matter how diverse the opinions may be among the student body or faculty at Liberty U., as long as Jerry Falwell is chancellor, the university will unfortunately be judged primarily on that, and that alone. I've never been too fond of the notion of guilt by association, but when I read your feverish defense of Falwell, I tend to think you don't mind the charge.
And as for your progressives are worse argument...I don't so much care who's worse in some kind of death match between two sides I don't so much care for. But, ultimately, this post had nothing to do with that. It has to do with courting favor from a hateful fascist and the unfortunate necessity in doing so in order to become president or to obtain the nomination of a particular party. I'd, frankly, feel the same way if Hillary Clinton brainstormed with Louis Farrakhan or spoke at an event hosted by Michael Moore. But I wouldn't excuse the behavior simply because the other side does it too. That would be pointless.
Post a Comment
<< Home