Flippin’ the Word

As I recently predicted, John McCain has some ’splaining to do about his support of last summer’s immigration legislation. This past weekend McCain and Barack Obama separately addressed groups of Hispanic officials, each trying to coax the presidential election their way by pandering to the newest swing voting bloc - a bloc which, ironically, is largely comprised of people who are not even allowed to vote.

Obama criticized McCain’s withdrawn support for the very plan he endorsed just a year ago, insinuating that McCain’s change in position is an example of brazen politicking.

“One place where Senator McCain used to offer change was on immigration. He was a champion of comprehensive reform, and I admired him for it. But when he was running for his party’s nomination, he walked away from that commitment. He said he wouldn’t even support his own legislation if it came up for a vote. If we are going to solve the challenges we face, we can’t vacillate, we can’t shift depending on our politics.”

But actually, isn’t that what representative democracy is all about? Isn’t a senator supposed to defer to the will of the people? The truth is that McCain’s constituents - those people he has sworn to represent - spoke loudly last summer to voice their disapproval of an immigration bill which they regarded as a plan for amnesty. The point is not whether it was actually a plan for amnesty, nor whether the bill would have been effective, nor even whether it was right or wrong. The point is that the people didn’t support it, and so McCain did what he should have done: He stopped supporting it.

It’s en vogue to bemoan political flip-flopping, having been brought into fashion by the catchy phrase that defined the 2004 presidential election. Somehow, it has come to be seen as a bad thing for a politician to change his position in response to the reactions of his constituents. In reality, though, that is the single most important aspect of a government ruled by the people. Indeed, a government is ruled by the people only insofar as officials adjust their policies in accordance with public response.

The story is not that John McCain has changed is position on immigration. The story is that it is regarded as a story at all.

First wives wield a lot of influence during each aspect of a presidency. A president’s wife is inspected closely during nomination bids and scrutinized during tenure. After the term has ended, it is surely the president’s wife who largely determines the tone of her husband’s legacy.

So, then, who are the women behind the current campaigns, and what are their relative merits and demerits?

Well, before I delve into my candid assessment of Michelle Obama and Cindy McCain, I have to first reveal my partialities. I totally heart Laura Bush. Her term as First Lady was as sweet as her husband’s tenure was sour; if I could, I’d keep her for another 8 years. Laura always acted appropriately, maintaining a deserved distance between herself and her husband’s policies. In doing so, she remained a First Lady rather than a cabinet member and a wife instead of a consulting partner.

Our current choices are somewhat less savory.

Cindy McCain is the quintessential ice queen, with gleaming opaque eyes and an upturned nose. If she were prettier she’d be the penultimate trophy wife: large inheritance, Slavic features, and a penchant for prescription pills. She talks a lot about her charity work, which would earn her points if only she weren’t so effing Stepford-like. Seriously, it’s kind of scary. If the American people want a down-to-earth, approachable, accessible executive branch - as they apparently did when they elected the Bushes - they won’t find that in Cindy McCain. While the Bushes were elected on the buzz that they’re the kind of people with whom you could share a beer, the closest Cindy has come to beer is DeBeers.

Nutshell: Cindy’s got the detached disengagement of a country club MILF who keeps a separate bedroom than her husband and holds her grandchildren at arm’s length to avoid sticky kiddy hands.

Michelle Obama, for her part, is no Laura either. She’s professionally successful in her own right, though you’d never know it by listening to her pity party rants. She bemoans the supposed race stigma and socioeconomic disparity, acting as if she’s suffered at the hands of racism.and poverty. The truth is, Michelle was raised by two parents in a solidly middle-class household. Further, she attended Ivy League schools, probably at the behest of affirmative action mandates. How can I be so sure? Well, I took a gander at her undergraduate thesis, infamous for its glaringly poor grammar and its overt racism. Michelle Obama’s upbringing and professional life have been anything but wrought with struggle - though she’d have you believe that she’s waged a Civil War of her own. Still, she’s smart, there’s no doubt about that. She snagged a future U.S. President, and she’s probably got a lot to do with his candidacy. I see something there between she and Barack, that undulating adoration that exists when the marital bond is strong and edifying. Indeed, I credit her with a great deal of Obama’s past and future successes.

Nutshell: Michelle’s certainly accessible, if sometimes tedious and trite.

It’s hard to say which woman will have the best impact on her husband’s campaign…that depends on what America is looking for in a First Lady this time around. I’m predicting that voters will prefer Michelle’s wry accessibility to Cindy’s confectionary imperfection.

As for my preferences, in case my implications above weren’t clear, I’ll break it down for you. I’ll take Michelle Obama over Cindy McCain any day. I value my life, after all, and Cindy’s impish eyes make me fear for my mortality.

Listening - Katy Perry’s “I Kissed a Girl”

Reading - Malcolm Gladwell’s “The Tipping Point”

Watching - Adam Sandler’s “You Don’t Mess With the Zohan”

Loving - Gmail Notifier

Missing - Domino’s Doublemelt

Awaiting - Spoloeto’s “Monkey”

Clicking - http://thedairiburger.wordpress.com/

P.S. - I understand that some of you readers are veritable grammarians, so preemptively: Save yourselves some time and refrain from sending me anal emails about my misuse of parentheses when titles should have been underlined and vice versa. My guide to MLA is MIA, and besides, I have trouble with authority.

A chapter of the Boy Scouts is suing Philadelphia, citing censorship after the City demanded that the organization admit gays. Of course, the City provided some semblance of a choice so as to make it look like the demand was not in conflict with the U.S. Supreme Court’s explicit ruling that the Scouts has a First Amendment right to exclude who it wishes. The City, which has historically rented the Scouts’ meeting place for $1 a year, now threatens fair-market rent if the group doesn’t comply with Philadelphia’s no-discrimination ordinance.

As to the relative merits of each case, I say “whatever.” I do, however, suggest that City Solicitor Shelley Smith take a law school refresher course, or even just arrange a visit to her local fourth grade civics class.

“I think they think that their First Amendment right trumps our local ordinance,” said Smith.

Indeed. It’s called the Supremacy Clause. Read it and weep.