“The Next Best Thing to Being President”, a New York Times editorial (registration required), ponders the possibility of a John Kerry/Bill Clinton democratic ticket.

The exact constitutional language forbidding Clinton from being president again says nothing about him being vice president, nor does it forbid a former president from succeeding his way to the top again (the 22nd Amendment forbids being “elected to the office of the president more than twice.”).

Not sure what I think about that, but it’s one of those funny ‘what if’ situations to ponder. Of course if Clinton could legally become president again, unleash the conspiracy theories and watch out John Kerry.

Considering some of the comments of late, I have a hard time not commenting on tonight’s State of the Union address by President George W. Bush.

Thinking my wife would be watching the latest episode of America’s Next Top Model, I tried to watch the speech online. Apparently the Whitehouse web site was going to webcast the speech. Two minutes before the speech began I couldn’t find any indication on the site of how or where to access the webcast. Thankfully, even UPN opted to cover the speech, so I was able to watch it on old fashioned TV. Now that the speech is over, I see two little Real and Win icons which launch the webcast, though no text to indicate as much. Did anybody else try to watch the speech online? Any success?

Aside from the technical hurtles, I found the speech mildly entertaining. My favorite part was when Bush said, “Key provisions of the Patriot Act are set to expire next year,” and the Democrat side of Congress erupted in applause. Not to be outdone, the Republicans cheered as Bush finished his statement, “The terrorist threat will not expire on that schedule,” with an additional scowl to the Democrats. I don’t know enough about the Patriot Act to take a side, I just thought the reactions were funny. It’s almost as good as reality TV.

One comment I found especially odd, and it still puzzles me: “For diplomacy to be effective, words must be credible — and no one can now doubt the word of America.” Bush said these words after the example of Libya giving up its WMD programs after negotiations. But I wonder how Bush can possibly think America is credible in the eyes of the world when the tons and tons of weapons of mass destruction we went to war over are nonexistant. ABC panned to Secretary of State Colin Powell, and I wondered if the ABC director was thinking the same thing, remembering Powell’s display of intelligence before the United Nations.

Finally, there are these words on freedom:

We also hear doubts that democracy is a realistic goal for the greater Middle East, where freedom is rare. Yet it is mistaken, and condescending, to assume that whole cultures and great religions are incompatible with liberty and self-government. I believe that God has planted in every heart the desire to live in freedom. And even when that desire is crushed by tyranny for decades, it will rise again.

As long as the Middle East remains a place of tyranny, despair, and anger, it will continue to produce men and movements that threaten the safety of America and our friends. So America is pursuing a forward strategy of freedom in the greater Middle East.

A recent post of mine on poverty drew criticism that I contradict myself in supporting the rights of the poor in the U.S., while not supporting the rights of Iraqis brutalized under Saddam Hussein. Those comments seem to completely agree with Bush’s remarks above, but I think I see things differently.

I hear a call from the Bible to protect the innocent, care for the poor, uplift the downtrodden, but I also hear a call from the Bible — and especially Jesus — to be peacemakers. This is a debate I’ve had many times before, and I see no clear answers. Sometimes force is required to maintain peace and justice, but that’s a contradictory approach. There aren’t any easy answers.

Freedom and democracy are great things, but I guess I don’t see them as answers to the world’s problems. You can protect the innocent, care for the poor, uplift the downtrodden and promote peace and justice without the freedom and democracy we have in the U.S. Maybe I sound like an idiot. Freedom and democracy probably make it easier to do those things, but freedom and democracy aren’t the goal. Peace and justice are, so why not focus on them? You’re aiming for the wrong goal, and in attaining that goal you’ll have lost site of the true goal.

Let us fix our eyes on Jesus, as the verse goes, not on churches or sermons or pastors or books or doctrines or any of those things that can be wonderful in the walk of faith, but in and of themselves are nothing.

Maybe I’m totally off-base, but that’s my perspective at 10:21 p.m. CT on the eve of the State of the Union address.

After reading blogs from my friends like this and the comments on this one, I start thinking about politics. Of course nothing polarizes a room quite like a political discussion.

Why does it have to be that way? Why do we have to be so bent on our own ideological views that we can’t even be civil? Is it that hard to have an honest discussion of the issues, where — gasp! — we might even admit when we’re wrong?

Time recently did an article on President George W. Bush, “The Love Him, Hate Him President” (of course you need a subscription to Time or the willingness to actually pay for it to read it online). The piece covers this polarization of American politics pretty well.

Maybe I’m just naive, but is it that hard to be honestly critical? I’m not a big fan of Bush, but I’ll acknowledge he’s done some great things. He’s offered amazing leadership after 9/11. His package of tax cuts seems to be jump starting the economy. He helped get a prescription drug benefit for seniors.

Those are all good things, but let’s be honest. The unilateral approach and lack of a follow-through plan have really hindered Iraq. While I applaud Bush’s efforts to consistently root out terrorism, a lot of his actions aren’t helping the problem.

While his tax cuts may be helping the economy (not being an economic expert I’m not sure how much credit Bush can claim, and being unemployed I’m not sure how healthy the economy really is), I can’t help but wonder about the nation’s ballooning debt. Sure, fighting terrorism is worth some debt, but that’s not the only cause. Are tax cuts really worth it when we just end up paying for debt in the long run?

A drug benefit for seniors is great (again, I don’t know how much credit Bush gets for this — it seems more like Congress did the legwork), but again I wonder about the cost and why they didn’t fight to lower drug prices. The way I understand it, the bill abandoned a provision that would allow the Federal government to use its massive buying power to lower the drug prices. I don’t understand why we’d abandon that.

Every one of these issues is not a cut and dry issue, and I wish we’d acknowledge that. I wish a politician would forget about the bumper sticker slogan and admit that while the Medicare bill is a start, it falls short. Or what about the Energy bill that’s bloated with add-on expenses to buy votes? It’s multiple times more expensive than what Bush asked for, but you don’t see him rolling it back and urging Congress to pass the original vision.

That’s the problem today. We’re all a bunch of Michael Moores and Ann Coulters. You call my guy a jerk so you must be a jerk! Mud-slinging at its finest. And through it all we can never rise above to have anything close to a clear discussion of the issues.

Maybe that’s just my overly idealistic vision of what politics could be. I guess by its very nature it won’t happen. Bah. And we wonder why voter turnout is so lame.

I don’t exactly get along with James Dobson and Focus on the Family. For the record, our worldviews are fundamentally opposed. At least that’s what they told me. I dared to suggest there might be a logical endpoint for the command to multiply and fill the earth. Apparently I’m wrong, and that means I’m a heretic.

I’m OK with that.

So it shouldn’t come as any surprise that I disagree with other things Dobson stands for. With fundamentally opposed worldviews, it’s bound to happen. But I guess I’m still surprised. I naively think we can all just get along.

This time around it’s gender roles. I’ve heard about the views espoused in Dobson’s Bringing Up Boys before, but this time it really sunk in. Dobson belongs to the old school of gender roles, where men are men and women are women. Gender roles are sharply defined, and crossing those lines is a “straight” path to homosexuality. Apparently dads are supposed to wrestle with their boys, stock their toy boxes with play guns, encourage them to play sports, and — I wish I was making this up — shower with toddler-aged boys to show them what a penis looks like. If a father fails in those things, the boy is bound to be gay.

T-ball was the extent of my childhood sports career, I rarely wrestled with my dad, and I definitely didn’t shower with him. While I did play with plenty of guns, that’s only 1 for 4. I must be three-quarters gay. My wife played with G.I. Joes as a child, so our marriage is pretty much whacked.

This is the kind of 1950s mindset that firmly divides domestic chores from manly tasks. This is the mindset that declares men as the only fit breadwinners and women as the only fit nurturers. This is the mindset that squeezes people into boxes that don’t fit. This results in non-athletic boys (like myself) and non-girly girls feeling unnatural, like something is wrong with us.

This is the mentality that in part crippled my parents’ marriage. Rigidly defined roles left the overwhelming housework to my mom while my dad sat back to be served. It goes deeper than that, but anyone could see the tension it caused.

This is the kind of mentality that leads to (gasp!) homophobia. I’m not condoning homosexuality, but it exists and you have to face it. Washing dishes and playing sports has little to do with sexual orientation. Homosexuality is a deeper issue than mere gender roles. You’d think we could get past the manly pride stereotype.

I know Focus on the Family and James Dobson do some great stuff. They stand up for some important causes and do good work. But sometimes they support things I just don’t understand. And what really baffles me is how many people give Dobson and Focus on the Family unwavering, unquestioning support. Unfortunately, ideological lemmings exist on throughout the spectrum.

Politics is beginning to get very interesting. I think the 2004 election is going to be a doozie, and it certainly helped that the last election reinforced the importance of voting (I suppose for some people it did the opposite, but I hope we have enough faith in democracy to realize that we’ll do our best to count the votes, but we can’t count yours if you don’t vote). Even if nothing happened during the past three years, this would be an interesting election year. But with September 11, the weakening economy, the rising unemployment, and the sprawling war on terrorism, it’s a huge election.

And the group of candidates is beginning to look as large and ridiculous as the California recall candidates. I hope the Democrats wise up and start trimming the ranks soon. The Howard Dean and Wesley Clark phenomena’s are especially interesting, and I’m eager to see how that plays out.

It gets especially interesting as all the critics and loud-mouths have to put their two cents in. Molly Ivins’ book, Bushwhacked: Life in George W. Bush’s America, came out this week, which is a scathing analysis of Bush’s first term. You can put that one right next to Shrub: the Short But Happy Political Life of George W. Bush, which came out during the 2000 election. Despite the overwhelming bias, I’m curious to pick up these titles.

And my favorite loud-mouth, Michael Moore is releasing a book next month, Dude, Where’s My Country? It follows his best-selling Stupid White Men and well-received, yet factually questioned Bowling for Columbine. Now I like Michael Moore. He stands up for issues that we don’t normally think about. He stood up for the automotive workers in the 1980s with his documentary Roger & Me. He stood up for workers again in the 1990s with Downsize This. While I don’t agree with all his views, he does make a powerful point on social justice issues.

At the same time, he comes off with this false-humility that just grates on me. When his facts are challenged, he doesn’t stand up. I wrote about this back in April (see April 6, 2003), and examined some of the factual questions relating to Stupid White Men and Bowling for Columbine. Moore has answered some of the issues on Bowling for Columbine, but he doesn’t even listen to himself. He attacks his attackers just like they attack him, trying to discredit his critics rather than just answer them. His writing is packed with arrogance and makes me wish for once he’d admit that he doesn’t know everything. I’d respect him so much more if he stopped playing the innocent liberal, the simple man with a microphone and camera.

I’d also be interested to see Moore’s response to the Nader effect. In the 2000 elections Moore supported Nader, encouraging Americans to vote for a third party and let their voice be heard, refusing to believe that a vote for Nader was a vote for Bush. Of course that’s exactly what happened. I don’t want to blame it all on Nader, because there should be room for another political party. It’s just a bit odd seeing how anti-Bush Moore is. Of course Moore blames it all on the Supreme Court and the vote counting mess and whatever other conspiracy theories he can come up with. You wouldn’t want to admit you’re wrong.

Of course the biggest question of all is Iraq. There are so many things up the air that could change the race. Weapons of mass destruction were our justification, but none have been found. We can justify the war in other ways, but that’s Monday-morning quarterbacking. That was our justification, we stuck by it, and so far we’re wrong. That’s not cool. The post-war reconstruction is another joke. I’m beginning to wonder how much planning was really done in the first place. We’ve got a first rate military, but all we can do is blow stuff up. We don’t have a clue how to put anything back together. That’s got to change. Bush needs to find a way to put Iraq back together, or it’s going to be one messy election if soldiers are dying as weekly poll results come in. I’m all about finishing the job, but so far all we’ve managed is worsen our image the kind of terrorist state we’re trying to root out.

Ah, the joys of politics. Where does it go from here?

(a half-hour later:)

So after spouting off against Michael Moore, I decided I should read a bit and see his response to the whole Nader thing. He claims that most Nader supporters changed their mind at the last minute and voted for Gore. What was 5% of the vote in early polls dropped to 3% when the actual voting happened. Instead of Nader being issue, Moore decided to unleash his venom on the Electoral College, demanding that the popular vote should decide the election, which would have declared Gore the winner.

Or he could blame Monica.

Or he could blame the Supreme Court.

Sheesh. As for his popular vote comments, I thought the purpose of the Electoral College was that a president is chosen by the proportionate size of each state. It’s a mixing of the Senate (every state gets two senators) and the House of Representatives (each state gets representatives based on its population), so each state is has more of a say in the election. Otherwise candidates could completely ignore states with lower populations because those states don’t matter. Maybe I’m screwing it up, but I thought that was the purpose for a electoral system where you can win the popular vote but lose the election.

But however you work it out, it’s kind of funny how none of these issues are raging anymore. That whole thing is behind us. I don’t know if it’s 9/11 or our fickle nature, but we don’t seem to remember the election mess of 2000, and I wonder if it will come back to haunt us.

At any rate, it’s a lot of fun reading Michael Moore’s rantings. I don’t always agree with him, but man does he get going sometimes.

St. Paul Central High School has made the news again over Minnesota’s reactionary pledge law. A student refused to stand during the pledge, choosing to opt out of the requirement, which is allowed according to the state law. Instead the student was kicked out of her class for not being respectful. It turns out the teacher was misinformed, and students are not required to stand during the pledge.

While a minor issue, this raises questions of whether you can legislate patriotism, or even respect. It’s somewhat frightening to me that some would think it’s appropriate to discipline someone for not standing during the pledge of allegiance. I certainly understand and respect the sacrifices of those who have gone before us, but they gave us the freedom to acknowledge their actions in any way we want. Forced patriotism is not patriotic. Forced respect is not respectful.