The Violence Worker!

What To Do With Detroit

Detroit is so broke, the state is stepping in to try and bring their finances under some semblance of control. They've already appointed Robert Bobb to run the schools. From the WSJ:

DETROIT—A new state law has emboldened the Detroit mayor and schools chief to take a more aggressive stance toward public unions as the city leaders try to mop up hundreds of millions of dollars in red ink.

Robert Bobb, the head of the Detroit Public Schools, late last week sent layoff notices to the district's 5,466 salaried employees, including all of its teachers, a preliminary step in seeking broad work-force cuts to deal with lower enrollment.

Earlier last week, Detroit Mayor Dave Bing presented a $3.1 billion annual budget to City Council in which he proposed higher casino taxes and substantial cuts in city workers' health care and pensions to close an estimated $200 million budget gap.

Mr. Bobb, already an emergency financial manager for the struggling and shrinking public school system, is getting further authority under a measure signed into law March 17 that broadens state powers to intervene in the finances and governance of struggling municipalities and school districts. This could enable Mr. Bobb to void union contracts, sideline elected school-board members, close schools and authorize charter schools

This troubles me from the standpoint that we are taking the electorate out of the equation and appointing a mini-dictator.  Not that the electorate really cares, I suppose.  They keep re-electing the same people and their cronies election after election.  Essentially it's one party rule.  Republicans need not apply.  Lacking appreciable competition, you may as well have a kind of dictatorship any way.

And I pity Mr. Bobb.  He has a daunting task.  The entrenched unions and the bureaucrats will not go down easily.  They will fight for the last crumb and then complain they haven't gotten enough - demanding even more, long after the well runs dry.

Detroit was once the nations 4th largest city.  It was forged out of the automobile factories and built on chrome and horsepower.  Ever since the 1967 12th street riots, the population has ben in decline.  Initially, it was called "white flight".  Since then, it's been anybody who could afford a way out.  In any case, there are a lot less people and there is lot smaller tax base.  Corruption and incompetent leaders destroyed what was left

What might be a better idea is to decide that Detroit as it stands now (both in population and boundaries) is unmanageable.  Detroit should be broken up into several smaller cities.  The school district should be broken up as well.  Instead of one huge unwieldy city, break it up into smaller chunks.  Some parts could be easily absorbed by surrounding communities.  Others may have to start from scratch.  The State may have to help with some funds to get things off the ground, but it would be money well spent.  Some part of the city could remain and still be called Detroit, but the huge sprawling metropolis is no longer viable as it is presently constituted.

It's a thought and I doubt anyone will listen to me on this, but I think it would be a better solution than turning it over to some benevolent dictator.

VW

Europe Is Crumbling - Are We Next?

Much of Europe is teetering on financial collapse.  The amount of money needed to sustain their socialist welfare systems is exceeding their ability to generate enough taxes to feed the beast.  Simply put, their alligator diet far exceeds their lizard ability to provide.  Free healthcare, extravagant public pensions systems and generous welfare benefits are crushing the productive class.  The gravy train is coming off the tracks.

That's Europe, you say.  Well just how far behind them are we? 

Social Security is broke.  They are paying out more than they are taking in.  There is no lock box with your money safely stashed away.  That money is long gone.  Spent years ago.  There isn't anything left but an IOU in a binder in some office somewhere that says the government will pay it back.  The only money that Social Security now has is what you are contributing today.  LBJ opened up the lock box to fund his great society.  I read a good way of putting it once.  The government gives you an IOU buy printing a piece of paper and telling you they have the funds.  Sort of like you writing yourself an IOU for ten million dollars and then declaring yourself to be a millionaire.

Folks, we are tapped out and Washington and your state's only answer is to demand you pay more and more. 

Conservatives are often accused of being negative.  We are, if you listen to some on the left, against all of this progressive stuff they keep coming up with.  Oddly enough, one of their usual canards extolling the virtues of the socialist way is to bring up Social Security. We've tried to offer up solutions for the Social Security mess.  When we did, the liberals shot it down saying the system was fine. 

The bottom line to all of this is this:  We are approaching (if we haven't already reached it or even surpassed it) the point where our debt is unsustainable.  And by that I mean they can't tax us enough to pay for it.  My grandchildren already have a tax liability in the tens of thousands of dollars and they are seven years old and under.  Greece, Spain, and Ireland are already on the verge of collapse.  I suspect we are closer than we'd like to think.

We need to reduce spending.  Most of our spending is in the way of entitlements and frankly, we need to cut as much  as we can.  That even means me, I guess, since I get a government pension.  If that means it gets reduced, then so be it.  I'll take the pill with everyone else.

Our only real answer is to reduce the size of government and not just in nibbles, but huge bites.  When government employees are making thousands more than their civilian counterparts, we have a problem.  We also need to find a way to rein in this imperial Congress.  When Nancy Pelosi's liquor bill is more than I make in several years, we have a problem.  My company doesn't fund my beer tab, yet we apparently think it's necessary to keep Pelosi and her entourage well oiled with expensive hootch.  The Republicans are just as guilty at times thinking that we owe them all of their perks. 
The job was never meant to be a career.  Congressional pensions should be eliminated in favor of a cash payout equal to one year's pay at the end of two terms to compensate their retirement fund for their service.  If they stay after that, they get a base salary, no more retirement. 

At some point, you become a serf to the government.  You already are to some extent. Do you own your home?  Not really.  I don't care if you have a clear title and deed, you don't own it.  Don't pay your property taxes and see how quick the government takes it away from you.  The lord expects the serfs to pay tribute to live under his protection.

There ain't no free lunch, folks.  The government doesn't have its own money.  It has YOUR money.  It spends YOUR money and it takes YOUR money with the force of the law and a waiting jail cell if you don't give it to them when they ask.

The party is over and we just haven't left yet.  The hangover is coming.  Socialist Europe is crumbling and yet there are a lot of people who seem to want to push us toward that end.  Santayana admonished us that the lessons of history are often repeated if not learned.  Socialism has never worked and it won't work just because Barack Obama is now President.

VW

Labels

Scott brought up a great point in the comments to this post that I think is worth discussing.  We all use labels for things, groups, and even individuals.  My definition of a liberal or a conservative may be (and probably is) different than others - including someone who shares my world view.

I'm reminded of a definition of communication I learned at the TAC NCO Academy many years ago that really stuck with me.  It goes like this:

"Communication is achieved when the message sent is similar to the message received."

Nothing you say, write, or convey in some manner will be received by someone exactly how you intended it.  Only you fully understand the depth of your own emotions and intent.  The rest of us must try to understand your meaning given commonly accepted and learned patterns.  We listen for verbal clues such as tone and speed, or we look for visual clues in your body language, but we can never fully understand the depth and meaning of your words.  Sometimes, the clues are hard to come by.  An example might be if I say:

"Let's go to the park." 

Does that mean that I think we should drop what we are doing and go to the park? You don't know.  I might just be throwing out an idea or I might have already thought about it and I've made up my mind.  Unless I give out some other clues, or you ask me to clarify my intent, you aren't really sure what I mean.  If I'm just tossing out a suggestion and you think I have already made up my mind, it could be a problem.

And so it is with the labels we use, often casually, to catalog everything in our sphere including people and ideas.  On a certain level, it's human nature. We seek a certain order in our lives.  My desk at work is usually cluttered with papers and notes.  My desk at home seems to be a catch-all for half the house.  What matters to me is that I have everything  ordered in my head.  My space around me can be in total chaos, but as long my thoughts are organized, my external space is secondary.  Your definition of organization or need to organize might be totally different and probably is.

So when I use the words liberal or conservative, I have my own definitions.  They might be similar to yours, but not necessarily. Long ago in some forgotten English class, probably in high school or even junior high school (now called middle school in most places - see how labels change), I was taught that your writing should  be adjusted for for your intended audience.  The most obvious example of that is the difference between writing for small children and writing for adults.  Beyond that are the nuances of education level, genre, scope and message. 

Since this little dead end off the information superhighway is geared more toward people who more or less share my worldview, the language is slanted toward that group of people.  Along comes Scott whose views are not exactly quantified by the usual pigeon hole we stuff people in it and it becomes a bit more difficult to paint with the broad brush.

When I use the word liberal, I don't mean it in the Jeffersonian model.  I mean it in the Ted Kennedy, Barack Obama, Nacy Pelosi, Harry Reid model.  In other words, it generally means those who favor a larger centralized roll and involvement of the federal government in most aspects of our lives.  It includes those whose worldview says that government is fairer and that society takes precedence over the individual's desires.

Conservatism (in my definition) takes on a different view in that we see government as our servant, not our master.  We think individuals in general are far better off on their own and will achieve more and produce more if left alone. Government has it's roll and we need a certain amount to maintain civilized society, but by and large, people should be allowed to determine their own destiny.

I admit, they are somewhat vague. It seems almost an impossible task to pin them down to an exact definition that everyone will agree with.  That said, when I speak of liberals, that is mostly the idea I have in mind.  I don't think all liberals are bad, nor do I think all conservatives are good.  I do believe that most entrenched politicians in either party are generally not a good thing for either side.

I hope it "kinda sorta" makes some sense.  If not, then ask specific questions.  Otherwise, I might resort to another 700 plus word essay to try and explain a simple label.

VW

On Greed - Part II

Part the second of my thoughts on greed.

The other day, I started a discussion about the concept of greed.  Greed is considered to be one of the “seven deadly sins” by much of Christendom and committing them (according to some) will send our souls to eternal damnation.  The 14th century poet, Dante Alighieri, described to us in his “Divine Comedy” the various harsh punishments God had in store for us if we committed one or more of the seven deadlies and did not repent. It’s indeed a frightening vision.

I also reasoned that the desire to better one’s station in life was not necessarily an act of greed as long as your achievement is the result of honest labor and not from stealing it from someone else.

I gave Saint Thomas Aquinas’ definition and said that it didn’t necessarily work as a complete definition because people can prosper without someone else suffering.
I think we probably all agree that stealing or making money illegally meets the definition of greed.  However, I suggest that there is another dimension to the Cardinal sin of greed – a dimension that most people might not think of as greedy.  I would venture to say that many people might even think that what I’m about to write is usually thought to be more the antithesis of greed rather than its definition. 

Simply put, greed is thinking you are entitled to a share of the income of someone who is more successful.  Most people wouldn’t walk up to a successful person and demand a portion of their income; it’s against the law. However, if that person demands it under the aegis of the state through taxation, it suddenly becomes legal and even a point of morality.  One is legal and the other is illegal, but they are essentially two sides of the same coin.  Both are taking something by force and if you don’t think you are forced to pay taxes, stop paying them and see what happens.

Taxation is not a bad thing and using some of it to benefit  others is not entirely evil.  We all pay taxes to run schools even if we have no children because an educated people (theoretically) are less likely to require assistance.  I also don’t think a safety net for people is a bad thing.  Some may argue that everyone should be prepared for a job loss or a death or some other disaster and in a perfect world, I’d agree.  But this isn’t a perfect world and stuff happens.

Government welfare is not necessarily evil, but the dependency and entitlement mentality it creates is no different than trying to gain wealth just for wealth’s sake and trying to get it by cheating others.
There is no sin in being poor and there is no sin in accepting help when it is offered.  There are a couple of times in my life when help was offered and I gratefully accepted what was offered.  It wasn’t from a government source; it was from my church from funds that were donated specifically to help members in time of need.  Over the years, I’ve donated to that fund more than I ever received and it was understood that it was stopgap.  The sin would be to continue to expect the help and not seek ways to improve my circumstances.  I also understand that not everyone has access to that kind of help and I’ve long supported the idea of temporary aid to people in need. 

Greed, envy and covetousness are all based upon selfishness and so is socialism.  Socialism maybe wrapped up in some idea of fairness and compassion, but it is entirely based upon the idea that no one should have more than anyone else and if someone has more than me, I should expect a share. 

Essentially, socialism is just our old friend greed dressed in different clothes.  It’s not compassion, it isn’t fair and it isn’t justice.

VW

Beware coward....

  I LIVE.

This is MOGS. 

You know, formerly of the soon to be late, great Diary of the Mad Pigeon.

VeeDub has graciously allowed me to hang out here and every once in a while throw down my own "unique" perspective on things.

I'm not entirely sure that he (nor the rest of the crew) quite know what they've gotten themselves into here....

MWAHAHAHAHAHAHAH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

No seriously for a second, thanks to the Violence Worker and his gang.  Like I mentioned on the Pigeon, my contributions will likely be appearing somewhat randomly, but I hope to contribute to the discussion in any way I can. 

 RUN COWARD, RUN!  You can't get rid of me that easily! ;) 

On Greed - Part I

This is the first of a two part series exploring the concept of greed and an attempt to define it a little differently than most people.

PART I

Greed - It's one of the seven deadies.  It's one of those sins that Christian tradition says will get you a reserved spot in one of the more roastier-toastier places in Hell.  Dante Alighieri imagined the greedy eternally pushing huge stones against another greedy soul who is pushing back against the other in his work, "The Divine Comedy".  I've been thinking about greed since Mrs. VW and I watched a History Channel mini-series few weeks ago that exposited each of the seven sins from several different faiths. 

What is greed?  Is working hard and trying to better your station really greed?  Am I really taking something from someone else when I make more money? 

Greed is one of those things that seems to be as hard to define as it is to nail gelatin to a wall.  Modern life demands that I need to make a certain amount to sustain myself and my family.  Back in Alighieri's day, existence was more precarious and it took much less to eke out an existence.  Back in the 13th and 14th centuries, greed and covetousness were often linked together under the Latin word for avarice - avaritia.

Part of the problem is that we've been defining greed in the same way since the 13th century.  In Summa Theologica (written 1265–1274), Thomas Aquinas said this about greed or covetousness:

Covetousness may signify immoderation about external things in two ways. First, so as to regard immediately the acquisition and keeping of such things, when, to wit, a man acquires or keeps them more than is due. On this way it is a sin directly against one's neighbor, since one man cannot over-abound in external riches, without another man lacking them, for temporal goods cannot be possessed by many at the same time.

In other words, if I have more than I need, then someone else is without.  That seem to be a prevalent thought still today. If I achieve a certain amount of wealth or status, it must be at the expense of another less fortunate person.  Although Aquinas' words have some truth to them which we will explore in Part II, that's not necessarily how things always work.  Bill Gates didn't become wealthy by making me poorer.  We traded.  I got something of value for my money and I considered it a fair trade.  Read Adam Smith's "The Wealth of Nations" if you have trouble understanding that idea.  Smith understood the relationship of trade and labor.

If my wealth or status was ill-gotten, then I would not deserve it.  That, I suppose, is my delineator.  Simply put, if I came by wealth dishonestly, I really would be making someone poorer.  Their loss would be my gain and that would be wrong.

A desire to obtain wealth is not necessarily greed or wrong.  Without that desire, we might still be living in a cave hunting with a spear.  Certainly, we wouldn't be near as technologically advanced.  What would be the incentive?  We benefit when someone decides they can do it better, or cheaper then the last guy.  Sometimes, it's someone who gets a stroke of genius and comes up with something completely out of the blue.

Whatever the case, bettering humanity and gaining from it is not necessarily greed unless you succomb to the idea that it's all about the money and getting more money becomes your sole motivation.  Then you might have a problem.

Part II will deal with a different interpretation of greed.  What I have to say may surprise you.

VW

The Conservative Message

There is a lot of talk about the future of Conservatism flying around cyberspace, from the social networking sites such as Facebook and Twitter, to bloggers and diarists concerning the future of Conservatism, free markets and the Republican party.  Much of the talk concerns using the web and those social tools to reach and expand our base.  Indeed, a twitter group #TCOT or Top Conservatives On Twitter has sprung up with a myriad of projects and networking ideas to do just that.  Most of those running for RNC Chairman are members and even engaged in discussions with us at the root level.   I'm a member and I agree with the goals and ideals that they are working on and toward.  There is no doubt that much needs to be done in the networking and activist sphere.

While all this is important, we need to realize we are losing the war of message.  We all talk about lowering taxes, cutting spending and  the benefits of the free market.  We bang our heads and our keyboards over the antics of Harry Reid, Rod Blagojevich and their ilk to no real avail.  We may as well be writing about our toddler's toilet habits or our latest doctor's visit.  We preach to the choir and everyone says amen.  We have a message and it needs to get out, but no one is listening. 

Most people know and understand at a fundamental level that Conservative principles are the key to a strong and prosperous America.  They know it, but the left doesn't argue those points, nor do they really care.  We can talk or write about these things until Hell freezes over and we will not make a difference.  That's not to say that we shouldn't keep communicating these things.  We need to keep talking about them, but we need to understand what we are up against and then how to re-wrap that message in order to counter the left and what they've been able to do with their message.

What the left does is transfer greed from one level to another and they play upon our fears.  They look for every possible vehicle to either scare the hell out of us, or make us feel guilty for having more than some poor starving Ethiopian.  They play upon our generosity and work to make us feel bad about what we have.  Notice their energy policy.  It's not about alternative energy, it's about the "oil addiction".  That's what they say, but what it's really the evil, capitalist oil companies who they see as making "obscene profits".

They couch their message as a moral argument.  They play upon the greed of many poor people while railing against the excesses of corporate officers.  They tell those of us who work for the man that the man is taking the food out of our mouths and leaving our children sick in the streets. 

The message of the left plays on our emotions.  It calls to our sense of fairness and goodness.  We Conservatives need to understand this and tailor our message to meet them at this same emotional level.  It's all well and good to extol the benefits of the free market or lower taxes, but the left is telling them people they can get free healthcare and even free housing and food. 

We need to repackage our message in a way that will address those emotions and sense of fairness and goodness.  Our message is prosperity and yes, even fairness, but we deliver that message in a matter-of-fact or clinical way.

In my discussions with people, they always resort to the emotional and you can even get them to at least agree with most of what you say, but they just can' leave the emotion out of argument.  Conservatives are mean greedy people who don't like minorities, old people or children.  It always falls back to some variation on that theme.

I'm not sure I have any answers.  I just see the problem and I hope someone smarter than me can figure out how to address it. 

In the mean time, I will be trying to figure it out.  Maybe someone out there already has or at least is trying.  Our message is sound, we just need a way to breech the emotion wall.

VW

The End Of The Reagan Era

Time Magazine pronounced the official end of the Reagan era.  Unfortunately, I think they are correct.

Thirty years before Barack Obama, Reagan offered hope and change to a nation sick of the status quo. As with F.D.R. in 1933, the new President's most pressing task was to dispel gathering fears that the U.S. might be entering a period of irreversible decline. Ironically, nothing so impressed voters as the grit and humor he displayed after being shot by a would-be assassin. Reagan practiced coalition government, though in his case it meant melding the cultural conservatism that had made him governor with the economic conservatism that had propelled him into the Oval Office. Populists and pinstripes--Reagan spoke to, and for, both. His governing majority included Wall Street titans and nascar fans, right-to-lifers and leave-me-alone libertarians, Jeane Kirkpatrick neocons and xenophobes channeling Father Coughlin through his lineal descendants on toxic talk radio.

Reagan preferred laughing at his adversaries to demonizing them. He disarmed critics of his relaxed administrative style by acknowledging that the right hand of his Administration didn't always know what its far-right hand was up to. As the laughter crested, so did the tax-cutting, the regulatory rollback and the military buildup that foreshadowed, paradoxically, the most sweeping arms reductions of the nuclear era. The ensuing political realignment was measured less in voter-registration rolls than in a pervasive skepticism about the state. Because there were many things government did badly, it came to be assumed, there was virtually nothing it did well. Long after his return to California in 1989, Reagan's anti-Washington consensus continued to exercise a powerful restraint on his successors. Even the notably activist Bill Clinton was driven to acknowledge an end to the era of Big Government.

Essentially, Time is saying we are now past Reagan's era.  With the Republican George W. Bush allowing spending to run virtually unchecked, he was Obama's door man out of the Reagan era.

During the debates, McCain tried to hammer at Obama's billion dollar earmark record.  McCain may as well have been saying Obama flossed his teeth after every meal for as much good it did for him.  Nobody seemed to care.  Indeed, Obama brushed it off as being nothing more than a drop in a very large bucket.  One could have made the argument that if 535 lawmakers earmarked a billion, it would take up half the budget.  Obviously that water is long passed under the bridge and Obama is now the President elect. 

Those who supported Obama expect that he will expand government.  They demand it.  They want him to stick it to those "rich guys" and pass the pork down to them.  They want free health care and the want the wealth redistributed.  Some, like Peggy Joseph, expect the government to now pay their mortgage and put gas in their tanks.  She thinks government is now the new Santa Claus.

Of course, most people are not like Ms. Joseph and understand that Obama won't be sending them a check for their mortgage or giving them a government paid gas credit card.  Frankly, I'm not even sure what most people expect from an Obama administration. I think most people figure he's going to tax the rich (which generally means to most people anyone who makes more money than themselves) and somehow give them a piece of it through some kind of government program.  Indeed, with over a trillion dollars in new spending proposals, we are most likely in for the largest expansion of the Federal Government since Franklin Delano Roosevelt. 

Welcome to the new era of Senator Government.

VW

The Bail Out From Hell

I'm not an economist.  As a matter of fact, I get intense anxiety just looking at my debit card and I'm not exaggerating by much.  I wouldn't know a hedge fund from a hedge row and stocks and bonds have some kind of weird S&M sound to it to me.  That's not to say I don't have a few investments.  Most of us probably do in some form or another, but I have my wife to manage the day to day banking and professionals to deal with the larger stuff.  I would assume my knowledge of high finance is probably like most folks - better left to pros.

All that said and with my admitted lack of knowledge, I believe this is the beginning of the end of freedom and the America we knew and grew up with.  We have sold our souls to socialism and there is no turning back.

And I suppose what just absolutely curdles my milk is the fact that all of these people that caused this financial Armageddon will walk away from it all relatively unscathed.

If I were the dictator, I'd freeze every dime of their assets and make them pay it back.  They then would be told to go find a real job and there would be a proviso that they would not be allowed to be in charge of cleaning the toilets, let alone anything to do with money.

Everyone is trying to blame someone. The Democrats and Republicans have so many fingers pointing in so many places, it's almost comical if it weren't so bad.  The truth is that both sides own the problem and we are the ones that will suffer. Let me explain it this way:

Let's say you own a house and it is in foreclosure.  Some smooth talking guy comes out of the blue and says he has a plan to help you keep your house.  He says he'll buy your house, let you make low rent payments for awhile until you can get back on your feet, and then you can buy it back for a little more than what he will buy it for today.  He says it will help restore your credit rating and life will return to normal.  Your back is against the wall so you take the deal.  A few months later, your benefactor kicks you out of the house and flips it.  It's all legal like and everything.  '

We ordinary Americans are the guy with our back to the wall and the smooth talking salesman offering to buy our house are the people who designed this bailout.

I don't know.  Maybe we ought to just let this house of cards fall and suffer the consequences.  It would be the most painful, but it just might preserve us as a nation.

I'm not one given to conspiracy theories, but I gotta tell you, I could start believing in a few right now.  I don't know if this is by design or not, but I do know that a lot of Socialists are gloating at the moment.

At this point, I don't know if either of the candidates will have much of a chance to fix this mess, but I wholeheartedly believe that our only chance is John McCain. 

Sad that.

VW

Who Would Keep Their Pledge?

232 years ago, the grandest experiment in self governance in political history was set in motion when 56 men signed their names to an eloquent and daring document whose words still echo in the hearts of free people around the world.  No other political document on earth, either before or since, has impacted world history so profoundly than our Declaration of Independence.  The only document that even comes close was written eleven years later and is our own Constitution.

The men who wrote the Declaration of Independence did not just write some flowery sounding words.  These were not men looking for earmarks and pork.  When they signed this Declaration, they did so knowing full well that the consequences could be deadly.  The very last sentence of the the Declaration indicates that they knew the weight and significance of their words:

—And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes, and our sacred Honor.

Most people never get that far in their reading of the Declaration.  If they know anything about it at all it is probably connected with the "Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness" phrase and even then, most people probably assume that particular phrase is part of the Constitution.

As I was contemplating the upcoming Fourth of July Holiday, that last sentence popped into my head.  Long ago, I had a US History teacher take time in class to point out that sentence and its importance to us and the Declaration.  It was in eighth grade and our teacher was an Estonian immigrant whose parents came here to escape the Nazis.  I wish I could remember her name as she had a profound influence upon me and my love for history.

The point to all of this is to compare McCain and Obama and decide which one would sign such a pledge and if they signed it, would they keep their word.

Rather than beat around the proverbial bush, I'll come straight out and say that McCain would sign it and mean it.  Obama might sign it it, but as soon as the political heat started rising, I believe he would disavow it as soon as he could.  He has a history.

On March 18, 2008, Senator Obama said this:

"I can no more disown him than I can disown the black community.  I can no more disown him (Jeremiah Wright) than I can my white grandmother."

Six weeks later, on April 29th, Senator Obama disavowed Wright. 

Since his disavowal of his former spiritual adviser, Mr. Obama has since disavowed others and changed his position on a number of issues.  Michael Crowley , editor of the New Republic, a center-left publication, pointed this out in an op-ed in the Guardian yesterday:

During the Democratic primary season, all those eons ago, Barack Obama deployed no more powerful line against Hillary Clinton than his insistence that 'we can't just tell people what they want to hear. We need to tell them what they need to hear'. More than just a catchy couplet, the phrase was a deadly arrow into the heart of Clintonism.

Few things crippled Hillary's campaign like the belief that she would say or do anything to get elected, from supporting the Iraq War to claiming she'd dodged sniper fire at Tuzla. In Obama, Democrats seemed to have found something refreshing: a brave truth-teller unmoored to pollsters such as Mark Penn, someone who had spoken out against Iraq the war and could at last restore integrity and honesty to Washington politics.

But since Obama dispatched Clinton, he has seemed rather more attuned to what the people want to hear or perhaps he has simply traded the wants of a liberal audience for those of a more moderate one. Either way, he is treading that reliably time-worn path every nominee follows to the political centre. And the question for Democrats is whether to applaud Obama as a cunning politician who knows how to win or fret that he's given undecided voters reason to think his 'politics of hope' are just politics as usual.

McCain, on the other hand has shown that he doesn't march to any drumbeat but his own.  In conversation, I' often described McCain as a bit of a loose cannon, but never have I gotten the impression that his vote or his opinion was for sale and that includes polling results.  McCain's experience as a combat pilot, POW and subsequent years of service both in and out of the US Navy and US Senate have molded him into someone who has had to face more than just some angry words.  In other words, he isn't afraid of much and he isn't afraid to take unpopular stands if he thinks he's right.  I sometimes disagree with his stances, but I respect him for not putting up a finger to check the political wind.

No one is perfect and that goes for McCain.  However, if the Declaration were to be signed today, it could be argued that both would sign it given a similar set of circumstances, but there is only one that you could trust to keep his word and it isn't Obama.

VW