Lurking

Have no fear. I haven't abandoned the blog. I guess you could say I've just been lurking in the bushes a bit of late. Know that I have a few posts simmering, though, which I hope to throw on the front burner soon.

Romney Explained

As some of you might have noticed, I haven't been the most prodigious blogger of late… at least not on this site. I’m going to just come clean and admit it. I've been unfaithful to my blog. For the last two months I've been contributing to another site called Law Students for Romney. Since that might strike those of you familiar with my liberal leanings as a little paradoxical, allow me to set the record straight. I am not really a law student for Mitt Romney. I am, however, an avid Romney watcher who was invited by a friend to contribute on a Romney-themed blog. I accepted, and that's that.

While I am admittedly something of a political junkie anyhow, much of my interest in Romney actually stems from the fact that he's a Latter-day Saint. As a result, I've been especially attuned to how he's presenting himself as a candidate and how the media has portrayed him and his faith.

So just what do I think of Romney and his candidacy? Frankly, I'm disappointed. I actually used to like Romney a lot. I even encouraged my sister in Massachusetts to vote for him back in 2002. Politically he was a centrist then; not overly ideological and very pragmatic. Romney was the problem solver. He spoke of compromise and bridging differences, and his rhetoric was overwhelmingly positive. Today, however, he stands in stark contrast to his former self. In less than four years he's become a staunch conservative, shifting his policy positions on a broad range of issues including, but not limited to, campaign finance, affirmative action, taxes, gun control, stem-cell research, gay rights, immigration, bilingual education, and, most well-known, abortion. He's gone from rejecting the "Reagan Republican" label, to embracing it. Now, to make clear, I'm fine with policy shifts in and of themselves. In fact, one of my criticisms of the current administration has been its stubborn resistance to change. Flexibility can be a good thing sometimes, but in Romney's case, the timing of his many position shifts raises the specter of political expediency. Add to this the hard line Romney's begun to take on important issues like immigration, foreign policy, economics, and the environment, and, for me, his candidacy really begins to lose his luster.

Chuck Todd, the incoming political director for NBC News, captures my feelings well in a recent article he wrote about Romney and John Edwards' political shifts:

[Romney] is widely respected in the business community as someone who knows how to tackle a problem, and he seems to have applied this mindset to his ideology. Technically, he's doing all the things that should please the right and make himself more palatable to conservatives.

But the mistake Romney appears to be making is that as he's fixed all the little problems with the sale of his product (in this case, himself) to niche markets, he's done serious damage to the overall brand of what he represented previously.

Romney's best traits, arguably, are the outsider tag and his problem-solving skills. But he's so bogged down in proving his bona-fides to conservatives that questions about his overall authenticity are now damaging his reputation as an outsider and a problem-solver. By getting into bed with many conservative elites, is he no longer an outsider? He's literally checking every box (NRA membership? Check; Heritage Foundation contribution? Check; and so on). The more he plays the flip-flopper and finger-in-the-wind, the less his best traits come through.

It's still early, but both Edwards and Romney need to recognize that if they lose the personal connection that once made them seem like naturals, it won't matter how well they answer the NRA or SEIU questionnaires. Voters will punish the candidates for losing touch with the people they most need to stay in touch with -- themselves.

Even more disconcerting to me is the rhetoric that has accompanied Romney's conservative turn. Rather than elevating the debate and focusing on substantive issues, Romney has adopted the hyperbole of the far right. In several of the speeches and interviews I've seen over the past few months, he's sought to demonize the left with broad, over-reaching generalizations on values, security, and economic policy. A recently leaked internal campaign document of Romney's lists France, Massachusetts, liberalism, and "Hollywood values" as "bogeymen" he intends to target. The document also lays out how Romney plans criticize the European Union for wanting to "drag America down to Europe's standards." In his speeches, Romney all too often caricatures those with whom he disagrees, erecting strawmen out of targets like France, Nancy Pelosi, Hillary Clinton, Democrats, and the so-called "liberal media," which he easily knocks down for cheap applause. In the Republican primary campaign, he’s also begun to fight a somewhat dirty campaign, going so far as to unapologetically misrepresent the positions of his competitors at times.

I've never been a fan of partisan warfare, but I recognize that the realities of running a presidential campaign require a certain amount of stereotyping, generalizing and even mudslinging. That said, as I’ve listened to Romney, I've found myself much more comfortable with the rhetoric of several of the other candidates on both sides of the aisle. John McCain, Rudy Giuliani, Bill Richardson, and especially Barack Obama have, on the whole, run campaigns that pander less and maintain a more elevated political discourse than Romney's (whether this continues to hold true remains to be seen, but it's something I hope the candidates continue to strive for).

The worst part for me is that I think Romney had the potential to be a great candidate. I believed his executive experience and his pragmatic approach set him apart as someone who could really affect positive change in Washington. Now I feel like Romney is becoming just another ideologue who grandstands for the party base. My father, a political scientist, thinks that Romney believes it is the only way he has a chance with religious conservatives who are already wary of his Mormon faith. Perhaps Romney is just being "pragmatic" in how he's choosing to run his campaign, but that doesn’t make me feel any better about his candidacy. I vigorously defend Romney when his faith is attacked, but I have a hard time defending many of his policy shifts. He’s boxed himself in on a whole variety of issues. I don’t think it’s possible for him to go back to being the pragmatist that he was anymore without sacrificing all of the credibility he’s attempted to build with this rightward shift in the first place.

My Wife

Thought I should plug Melbo's triumphant return to the blogosphere.

My New Favorite Ice Cream

I haven't tried it yet. But I have a new favorite ice cream. It's vanilla with bits of fudge-covered waffle cone and caramel. It sounds good enough, but what puts it over the top for me is a healthy dose of "liberty".... it's Stephen Colbert’s Americone Dream. In a statement released in response to this latest Ben & Jerry's offering, Colbert said "Dessert has a well-known liberal agenda. What I hope to do with this ice cream is bring some balance back to the freezer case." I say it's about time.

Fair, Balanced... and Funny?

After struggling with "Fair and Balanced" for 10 1/2 years now, Fox News has decided to get into the "funny" game too. Apparently Dennis Miller's occasional guest rants weren't enough for the network... so now it's had Joel Surnow, executive producer of Fox's "24", create a "right-leaning" Daily Show knock off called "The 1/2 Hour News Hour." To promote this Sunday's premiere, Fox has been floating a couple of clips online that feature a bevy of Barack Obama jokes, a couple of predictable swipes at Howard Dean and Nancy Pelosi, guest appearances by both "President" Limbaugh and "Vice-President" Coulter, and a hearty-sounding laugh track (which, from the looks of these teasers, they'll probably want to keep handy). Call me presumptuous... but I don't think the Daily Show has much to worry about.

Back From The Dead

It's good to have you back out of the blogging graveyard Hobby Horse and BillieJean.

The Mighty Wee Block

You know the recycled bit on television shows and in the movies where some inexperienced character finds themselves changing a newborn boy's diaper only to have the little kid squirt directly up in their face? I'd always written the scenario off as a bit of over-the-top slapstick that wasn't all that funny... but the fact is, it's not that over-the-top and actually can be kind of funny.

A little background might help. Our second day home from the hospital, my in-laws and I were kicking back in the family room watching something-or-other we had tivo'd when we hear an anguished cry from upstairs. Melbo had been in our room with the baby Erich and, from the sounds of it, was now trying to teach him several words that babies probably shouldn't know. I exchanged glances with Melbo's mom and brother and we all bolted for the stairs, thinking collectively that something had gone terribly wrong.

What we found was urine. A lot of it. On the wall, the bassinett, Melbo, and lil' Erich, though Erich didn't seemed to mind much. He actually looked suprisingly content.

Like I said, not over-the-top and, in the end, pretty darn funny... at least the first time.

Which brings me to one of the world's all-time greatest inventions... the Wee Block. Days earlier, a close friend had given us a Captain Blast Off (essentially an athletic cup of sorts made of thick absorbent foam and cloth). We were grateful when we received it, but I don't think we knew how grateful we'd be. Melbo hadn't thought to use the block that first fateful time and, in truth, it probably wouldn't have made much difference because technique is rather important. But once you get it down, you're golden. Or not golden. Which is my point.

Long live the Wee Block.

The "Grillz" Bill

State Rep. John J. DeBerry Jr. has decided to tackle some of the more important issues facing Tennessee right now. He is currently introducing a law that would prevent anyone but a dentist from taking impressions in order to make "grillz." The statute targets mall kiosks and jewelry stores that take the dental impressions and has the effect of denying the youth and the poor of Tennessee equal access to this essential hip hop accessory. Under the proposed law, only dentists could take impressions for "the fabrication of a cosmetic metal apparatus to be worn in the human mouth, whether or not such apparatus features silver, gold, or platinum caps, jeweled inlays, or any other cosmetic features." DeBerry says of his bill "I guess we can't outlaw the jewelry for your mouth, but we can make sure that it if your children go in there, they are not getting an impression of their teeth with a mold and material that someone else has just used." I say the hip-hop generation should rise up and protest this reprehensible intrusion on the group's urgent claim over its own destiny and body, claims implicit in the very meaning of liberty.

World Meet Erich

What Will Happen To Them?

In honor of Martin Luther King Jr. Day, here's a stirring excerpt from the last speech Reverend King ever gave, I've Been to the Mountain Top. If you're interested, you can read or listen to the address in its entirety here.

[In the parable of the Good Samaritan, Jesus Christ] talked about a certain man, who fell among thieves. You remember that a Levite and a priest passed by on the other side. They didn't stop to help him. And finally a man of another race came by. He got down from his beast, decided not to be compassionate by proxy. But with him, administered first aid, and helped the man in need.

Jesus ended up saying, this was the good man, because he had the capacity to project the "I" into the "thou," and to be concerned about his brother.

Now you know, we use our imagination a great deal to try to determine why the priest and the Levite didn't stop.

At times we say they were busy going to church meetings--an ecclesiastical gathering--and they had to get on down to Jerusalem so they wouldn't be late for their meeting. At other times we would speculate that there was a religious law that "One who was engaged in religious ceremonials was not to touch a human body twenty-four hours before the ceremony." And every now and then we begin to wonder whether maybe they were not going down to Jerusalem, or down to Jericho, rather to organize a "Jericho Road Improvement Association." That's a possibility. Maybe they felt that it was better to deal with the problem from the casual root, rather than to get bogged down with an individual effort.

But I'm going to tell you what my imagination tells me. It's possible that these men were afraid. You see, the Jericho road is a dangerous road. I remember when Mrs. King and I were first in Jerusalem. We rented a car and drove from Jerusalem down to Jericho. And as soon as we got on that road, I said to my wife, "I can see why Jesus used this as a setting for his parable." It's a winding, meandering road. It's really conducive for ambushing. You start out in Jerusalem, which is about 1200 miles, or rather 1200 feet above sea level. And by the time you get down to Jericho, fifteen or twenty minutes later, you're about 2200 feet below sea level. That's a dangerous road. In the day of Jesus it came to be known as the "Bloody Pass."

And you know, it's possible that the priest and the Levite looked over that man on the ground and wondered if the robbers were still around. Or it's possible that they felt that the man on the ground was merely faking. And he was acting like he had been robbed and hurt, in order to seize them over there, lure them there for quick and easy seizure. And so the first question that the Levite asked was, "If I stop to help this man, what will happen to me?" But then the Good Samaritan came by. And he reversed the question: "If I do not stop to help this man, what will happen to him?".

That's the question before you tonight. Not, "If I stop to help the sanitation workers, what will happen to all of the hours that I usually spend in my office every day and every week as a pastor?" The question is not, "If I stop to help this man in need, what will happen to me?" "If I do no stop to help the sanitation workers, what will happen to them?" That's the question.

Let us rise up tonight with a greater readiness. Let us stand with a greater determination. And let us move on in these powerful days, these days of challenge to make America what it ought to be. We have an opportunity to make America a better nation. And I want to thank God, once more, for allowing me to be here with you.