Responding to David, Nancy, and John

Responding to David Sirota's "Recognizing the Race Chasm"

David: While I agree that racism or at least race-as-a-factor is a real part of the results in the Democratic primary/caucus process, I would point out that it seems a much larger factor for blacks than for whites. Obama has, as you pointed out, won every state with more than 17% black population. In both North Carolina and Indiana, Hillary Clinton received only a single-digit percentage of the vote. I'm not condemning blacks for blindly voting for the black guy. (I don't believe it's possible that Hillary would only get a single-digit percentage if blacks were actually thinking about anything other than skin color, and with numbers that skewed I think such a generalization is appropriate.)

This will sound a little crass, but as opposed to the people you describe who deny that any racial issues still exist in America, my position is more than I don't care if they exist, at least not until a substantial section of black leadership stops trying to reinforce a racial divide for their own political and financial benefit.

On what basis do you believe that we deeply need a "national conversation about race" particularly if one side in a conversation finds it in their interest not to come to any solutions or agreement? Bill Kristol is exactly right, in the NY Times article you linked to in your piece. Indeed, by at least initially running as a candidate who is beyond racial politics, Obama was showing his belief that he could win election (including votes of blacks) without pandering to race-baiters like Al Sharpton.

Responding to Nancy Watzman's "Two billion dollars and counting"

Nancy: Are you implying that the cost of elections is inherently a bad thing? My guess is that you are but I don't want to respond based on what would just be my assumption about your position. I will say, in case it isn't obvious, that I don't believe expensive campaigns are inherently bad. If the Schaffer/Udall race ends up costing $2 or $3 per Coloradoan, so what? There's no reason people should be restricted from any level of publicly-disclosed support for a candidate, any more than we should be restricted from how much food we buy or charity we give away.

Responding to John Andrews' "Hoping Ross reconsiders"

John: On my own blog I have had a debate with myself (with interesting comments from several readers), weighing the pluses and minuses of John McCain versus either of the Democrats. Of course, from someone with my political views, John McCain is superior to the Democrats. But somehow I just can't see that as a compelling reason to vote McCain.

When I asked McCain in person about whether he had any regrets regarding the McCain-Feingold Incumbent Protection Act (OK, I didn't use those last three words when I asked him), he responded that what we need is more regulation of 527s rather than a recognition that McCain-Feingold is obviously unconstitutional despite what the black robed idiots said. (Really, those are the same people who said that "public benefit" means the same thing as "public use", so it's OK for government to take private property and give it to other private organizations simply to get more tax revenue.) To me, this position is not just unacceptable, it disqualifies McCain from higher office.

People say I should be very worried about the next Supreme Court justices, and I am, but look at John Paul Stevens, David Souter and even Anthony Kennedy, all appointed by Republicans. I would bet that McCain would try to find a judge who would find McCain-Feingold acceptable, and if that happens then that judge can't be counted on to be decent on anything else either.

I understand we're at war, but I believe that the realities of the real world and a few briefings by generals and admirals will constrain the Democratic nominee from being as aggressive in surrendering as they are suggesting now, as they pander for the MoveOn.org loonies.

Most of all, I believe that while the GOP is a big tent, we must be very careful to understand the differences between being under the tent and burning the tent down. McCain's contempt for the Constitution strikes me clearly as the latter. Just because a Democrat would be even worse does not mean I could live with myself telling the GOP that someone with McCain's views is acceptable.

Along these lines, I strongly recommend this article by Reason's Matt Welch.

To me, John McCain is less appealing now than George W. Bush was several months before his first election to the White House. Much less appealing, actually. And I didn't vote for George W. Bush, so I can't today see how I'll be convinced to vote for John McCain.

If you pitch a tent in the yard, be careful of bears, mountain lions, and elk. It's pretty wild out here by the Kaminsky home...though some of the scariest creatures in the area are the wild-eyed environmentalist Democrats.

Bookmark/Search this post with: