patrickmurfin

Virginia Red (Second from Right) and the Boys, That Other Adams (John Adams), Nutmeg Sureman (Roger Sherman), Hudson River Bobby (Robert Livingston), and  Old Sparky (Benjamin Franklin).  Picture Courtesy Trumbull.

Note:  Two years ago today I posted this I posted a guest entry by bloger Virginia Red and his        associates with a brief introduction.  It wears well.  So here it is again:

VIRGINIA RED, or LONG TOM as he is known on the DAILY KOS, is a popular wordsmith.  The following political diatribe, of which he was the main author, has achieved something of a cult like following.  Although he generally gets authorship credit, a posse of associated bloggers contributed, edited and tweaked this political screed.  They include THAT OTHER ADAMS (so designated to differentiate him from his much better known cousin, a Boston ward heeler and disreputable rabble rouser named Sam) and OLD SPARKY, an elderly and eccentric Philadelphian.  Also involved were HUDSON RIVER BOBBY and Connecticut’s NUTMEG SUREMAN, whose main job seemed to be proofreading. 

The piece has been floating around for a few years and is frequently quoted, particularly its rousing introduction.  Its blatant hostility toward authority and its bold assertion of some kind of equality among humanity have long irritated conservatives and frightened those at ease with unlimited power in their own hands.  Malcontents of every stripe—abolitionists, suffragettes, trade unionists, civil rights marchers, even immigrants, “furiners,” and queers have taken the words to heart and incorporated them in their own agitations.

Most readers, however, will be unfamiliar with the bill of particulars RED and the boys drew up against George Rex, the reigning bad guy of the time.  A few years ago those trouble makers over at VETS FOR PEACE stumbled on the complete text and decided that most of it could apply—more or less—to George, the Resident of the United States.  They are even used the text as the basis for a proposed bill of impeachment against W., and they didn’t have to do much tinkering.

It just goes to show you what a hot potato this is.  Read for yourself.  Share with your friends and family between beers and brats this Fourth of July.

The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America

When in the Course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security. — Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world.

He has refused his Assent to Laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good.

He has forbidden his Governors to pass Laws of immediate and pressing importance, unless suspended in their operation till his Assent should be obtained; and when so suspended, he has utterly neglected to attend to them.

He has refused to pass other Laws for the accommodation of large districts of people, unless those people would relinquish the right of Representation in the Legislature, a right inestimable to them and formidable to tyrants only.

He has called together legislative bodies at places unusual, uncomfortable, and distant from the depository of their Public Records, for the sole purpose of fatiguing them into compliance with his measures.

He has dissolved Representative Houses repeatedly, for opposing with manly firmness his invasions on the rights of the people.

He has refused for a long time, after such dissolutions, to cause others to be elected, whereby the Legislative Powers, incapable of Annihilation, have returned to the People at large for their exercise; the State remaining in the mean time exposed to all the dangers of invasion from without, and convulsions within.

He has endeavoured to prevent the population of these States; for that purpose obstructing the Laws for Naturalization of Foreigners; refusing to pass others to encourage their migrations hither, and raising the conditions of new Appropriations of Lands.

He has obstructed the Administration of Justice by refusing his Assent to Laws for establishing Judiciary Powers.

He has made Judges dependent on his Will alone for the tenure of their offices, and the amount and payment of their salaries.

He has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harass our people and eat out their substance.

He has kept among us, in times of peace, Standing Armies without the Consent of our legislatures.

He has affected to render the Military independent of and superior to the Civil Power.

He has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our constitution, and unacknowledged by our laws; giving his Assent to their Acts of pretended Legislation:

For quartering large bodies of armed troops among us:

For protecting them, by a mock Trial from punishment for any Murders which they should commit on the Inhabitants of these States:

For cutting off our Trade with all parts of the world:

For imposing Taxes on us without our Consent:

For depriving us in many cases, of the benefit of Trial by Jury:

For transporting us beyond Seas to be tried for pretended offences:

For abolishing the free System of English Laws in a neighbouring Province, establishing therein an Arbitrary government, and enlarging its Boundaries so as to render it at once an example and fit instrument for introducing the same absolute rule into these Colonies

For taking away our Charters, abolishing our most valuable Laws and altering fundamentally the Forms of our Governments:

For suspending our own Legislatures, and declaring themselves invested with power to legislate for us in all cases whatsoever.

He has abdicated Government here, by declaring us out of his Protection and waging War against us.

He has plundered our seas, ravaged our coasts, burnt our towns, and destroyed the lives of our people.

He is at this time transporting large Armies of foreign Mercenaries to compleat the works of death, desolation, and tyranny, already begun with circumstances of Cruelty & Perfidy scarcely paralleled in the most barbarous ages, and totally unworthy the Head of a civilized nation.

He has constrained our fellow Citizens taken Captive on the high Seas to bear Arms against their Country, to become the executioners of their friends and Brethren, or to fall themselves by their Hands.

He has excited domestic insurrections amongst us, and has endeavoured to bring on the inhabitants of our frontiers, the merciless Indian Savages whose known rule of warfare, is an undistinguished destruction of all ages, sexes and conditions.

In every stage of these Oppressions We have Petitioned for Redress in the most humble terms: Our repeated Petitions have been answered only by repeated injury. A Prince, whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a Tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a free people.

Nor have We been wanting in attentions to our British brethren. We have warned them from time to time of attempts by their legislature to extend an unwarrantable jurisdiction over us. We have reminded them of the circumstances of our emigration and settlement here. We have appealed to their native justice and magnanimity, and we have conjured them by the ties of our common kindred. to disavow these usurpations, which would inevitably interrupt our connections and correspondence. They too have been deaf to the voice of justice and of consanguinity. We must, therefore, acquiesce in the necessity, which denounces our Separation, and hold them, as we hold the rest of mankind, Enemies in War, in Peace Friends.

We, therefore, the Representatives of the United States of America, in General Congress, Assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the Name, and by Authority of the good People of these Colonies, solemnly publish and declare, That these United Colonies are, and of Right ought to be Free and Independent States, that they are Absolved from all Allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain, is and ought to be totally dissolved; and that as Free and Independent States, they have full Power to levy War, conclude Peace contract Alliances, establish Commerce, and to do all other Acts and Things which Independent States may of right do. — 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.

The Academy Award winning documentary Taxi to the Dark Side will be presented at McHenry County College, Room B177C, at 7 PM, Thursday, June 25.

The free presentation is in support of Torture Awareness Month, sponsored by the National Religious Campaign to End Torture. 

“The film which exposes the US government policy of torture by telling the story of an innocent Afghan taxi driver.  Through both images of Bagram Air Force Base prison in Afghanistan and discussions with those convicted of his homicide, it investigates the brutality causing his death and examines the history of this cruel practice,” according to Penelope Bryan-McQueen of McHenry County Peace Coalition.

There will be a discussion following the film regarding what actions can be taken to pressure the Obama administration to follow through on his campaign rhetoric.

The program is free and open to the public.  It is co-sponsored by the Coalition and the MCC Student Peace Action Network.

In one week the 2009 General Assembly:  A Meeting of Congregations will convene in Salt Lake City.  Around the country Unitarian Universalists are excited, getting ready to go and deciding what to pack.  Those looking for wardrobe advice or a guide to fine dining—or on how the @$*&! can I get a drink in a Mormon town—will have to go elsewhere.  This post is about something completely different—girding the loins to face a UUA Presidential Campaign in full roar.

It has been eight years since the last contested Presidential election.  Only grizzled GA Junkies, long serving ministers, staff and perennial vendors have experienced this hoopla before.  The vast majority of delegates—maybe even you—will be experiencing it for the first time.

I’m too poor to make it to Salt Lake this year.  I have cast my absentee ballot already.  But I was in Cleveland eight years ago when the Rev. William Sinkford defeated the Rev. Dianne Miller in a close and hard fought election.  I remember it well and think I owe those of you who are going to experience the whole thing for the first time.  So here goes.

First, a disclaimer:  I am a supporter of the Rev. Peter Morales and have served on his Web Communications Team.  This blog entry, however is entirely my own responsibility and was prepared completely without consultation with anyone involved in the campaign.  Second, a pledge:  While I might not be able to temper my enthusiasms in every instance, I will try to keep my remarks useful to everyone, including supporters of the Rev. Dr. Laurel Hallman and the many of you who are still uncommitted or ambivalent.

Of course the Presidential election will not be the only issue in front of the GA.  The adoption of a Statement of Conscience on Peacemaking is still a matter of controversy between advocates of firm pacifism and those of a Just War approach with self-declared UU conservatives wringing their hands in the corner over any statement at all.  The Commission on Appraisal’s proposed revision to the Principles and Purposes has quietly stirred up opposition in the ranks on account of clunky wordsmithing and a feeling in the Pews to leave well enough alone.  The always high energy Youth Caucus is apt to be restive because their continental organization, Young Religious Unitarian Universalists (YRUU) was smothered in its sleep by the UUA Board with no replacement in sight.  Bereft members of former UUA Affiliate organizations may likewise be more than a tad unhappy.  The future of General Assemblies themselves may be in question as the current Board seems to be supportive of “reforming” or replacing GAs with governance-only meetings and regional assemblies.  In the background the adoption of Policy Governance, the continuing drive to Congregational Polity Fundamentalism (my admittedly pejorative term), and the strains of the Budget caused by the economic crisis will all be on delegate’s minds.  And many of these issues will influence and be influenced by the Presidential race as supporters of both candidates try to stake out turf.

But the election is going to grab your immediate attention as a delegate.  You won’t be able to ignore it.

Anyone under the delusion that this is a solemn process like the election of a Pope or a respectful act of discernment is in for a big shock.  The election of a UUA President is politics with all that entails.  As you will discover upon arriving in Salt Lake.

If you fly in, you may be astonished to find your plane greeted by button wearing, literature toting, wildly enthusiastic volunteers from both campaigns.  They will “greet you” and try do determine if you are yet committed to a candidate or bound by instructions from you home congregation.  If your answer is “no” to both questions or you seem “soft” in any way in your support of a candidate you will soon be the center of a great deal of attention.

If you arrive by car, get off a Greyhound, or fling your bindle from the side-door Pullman car before leaping from the train, you will find similar greetings at your hotel and when you enter the Convention Center.  In fact, for the next few days candidate volunteers will be at the top of every escalator, lurking outside plenary sessions, be all over the vendor area despite being asked repeatedly to confine themselves to each campaign’s lavishly appointed multi-media booths, and will swarm around evening social events.  And each and every one of those volunteers really wants to talk to you!  

You probably will find campaign materials and invitations to events left under the door of your hotel room, just in case you have somehow eluded other contact.  You will undoubtedly be invited to at least one candidate reception in a hotel suite or well appointed meeting room.  If you belong to a significant organization, whether or not it is still an official affiliate, you may find the candidates or leading surrogates at your organization’s annual meeting.  Or you may be invited to special receptions and events targeting your interests.  

If you are still truly uncommitted and if you are identified as potentially influential among like delegates, you may be astonished to receive direct attention from some folks with very big names in the UU universe.  How flattering it is for the delegates from the UU Fellowship of East Podunk-Over-the-Hill to find they are found fascinating by a big name minister from a prestige congregation, someone whose name is regularly in the UUWorld, or whose book you have maybe read in an adult RE class.   UU heavyweights will ache to have a meal with you and tell you all about the sterling qualities of their favored candidate.

Of course not all campaigning will be about how good the candidates are.  No matter how many covenants are signed, an inevitable part of any election is tearing down the opposing candidate.  In the genteel (relatively) world of UU politics this is usually preceded by effusive praise of the other candidate as a local minister followed by a long and detailed “but…”  These negative messages may be targeted to you based on your identified interests and passions.  In this campaign this has often broadly been that Morales lacks spiritual depth and uses “scare” tactics about growth on one hand, or the Hallman is an inward focused navel gazer and is unprepared for the demographic shifts remaking the American religious landscape on the other.  Both criticisms can and are made with passion and sometimes delivered with sharp elbows, but are part and parcel of any campaign.

But inevitably in any campaign with passionate advocates some negative campaigning is likely to turn nasty either without the knowledge and approval of the candidates or sometimes with a wink-and-a-nod from their campaigns.  Usually you will find nothing committed to paper.  But you may hear alarming rumors about murky pasts, secret agendas, connections with “devil figures,” even, alas, sexual and relationship peccadilloes.  No one can ever seem to track down the origin of these kinds of rumors, but they can flash across the Assembly at astonishing speed and be nearly impossible to refute without highlighting them even further.  Beware of and discount any of these kinds of rumors.

The candidates will have a joint Presidential Forum at 7 PM Thursday night.  It will undoubtedly last longer than the appointed hour and a quarter.  That session will be available on streaming video for the folks back home or for delegates confined to their hotel rooms by Brigham Young’s revenge.  CDs will be available in the blink of an eye.  Both campaigns will take careful note of the questions and answers.  Within hours each campaign will have out material tailored to the hot button issues identified in the appearance, highlighting their candidates' responses, and criticizing the answers of the opponent.

And then, believe it or not, the campaigns really roll into high gear.  Each will be carefully counting and tracking delegates, noting when each finally expresses a preference or indicates a leaning.  Leaners and the ever dwindling pool of uncommitted voters will each receive even more direct attention from the campaigns and their leading surrogates.

Balloting will finally take place from noon to 5:30 on Saturday in the Exhibit hall.  Delegates will have to bring their signed ballot stubs to the polling place to relieve a ballot.

Then it’s nail biting time.  Nobody has been able to poll this election, but all indications are that it will be a very tight race.

The results will be announced at what is billed as a special worship service in Celebration of the Candidates and the Election.  It is being advertised as a worship service to keep celebrating by the victor’s supporters and wails of grief from the loser’s at a minimum. It will fail to accomplish that.  The losing candidate will make a very gracious statement and pledge support of the winner.  The winner will be effusive in praise of the looser and promise to rely on him/her for advise and support.  And then it will, quite suddenly, be over.

Inevitably some of the loser’s folks will be bitter.  Some will say that this is the “final straw” and will announce that they are leaving the UUA for good.  A few will even mean it.  One final piece of advice:  Don’t let yourself be one of these soreheads.  As the children of Knoxville reminded us after the shooting in their church, The Sun Will Come Out Tomorrow.

Over at The Chalice Blog Chalice Chick shares a marvelous photo that she took on the sly of a copy of Jean-Antoine Houdon's bust of Benjamin Franklin at a museum in Toledo, Ohio.

I will see C.C. one Franklin and raise her one from my very own “collection.”

As you can tell, my bust owes a significant debt to Houdon.  If more than 200 years had not elapsed, perhaps the artist might have a copyright claim.  My Franklin began life as a Bi-Centennial Avon Deep Woods Aftershave bottle.  Pop off Franklin’s head and smelly stuff once flowed.  The old man himself probably would have approved with amusement.  His image adorned all manner of things, including the bottoms of chamber pots, during the French popular mania for the good doctor.

Actually, Ben is part of a matched set.  On the other end of this particular bookshelf in my study sits George Washington.  I picked the both of them up a few years ago for a couple of dollars at one of those “antique stores” that are really junk collections in old garages.

They are both part of a minor collection of figures from American History that clutter and literally collect dust in my chaotic study, much to the dismay of my long suffering wife.  My little Jefferson bust resembles those piano top composers awarded to diligent students in my youth.  A barely recognizable bronze Franklin Roosevelt doubles as pencil sharpener.  Lincoln in painted and chipped plaster is the largest of the sculptures.  He sits on a corner niche shelf over my left shoulder as I type.

My crowed walls continue the theme.  There is Jefferson again in a small picture as a youthful red head that once served as a table decoration at a political diner.  There is also a nice calendar-like shot of his monument illuminated at dusk.  Jefferson and Franklin are united with John Adams, Robert Livingston, and John Hancock on a low quality plate commemorating the presentation of the Declaration of Independence to the Continental Congress.  FDR gets better treatment in a handsome poster brought home from his Memorial in Washington.  A glance around the room will also reveal, in no particular order, Ralph Waldo Emerson, Mother Jones, Martin Luther King, Joe Hill, nearly forgotten Illinois poet Vachel Lindsay, Eugene V. Debs, and a small poster of assorted portraits called Lincoln Through the Ages.  Jesus makes an appearance in a woodcut standing with a bunch of shabby men in what appears to be a soup line.  We’ll make him an honorary American given the context.  Oh yeah, and there is a Senate campaign poster of a youthful Barack Obama and an Obama commemorative calendar I got as a Christmas present last year.

Scattered among them all are framed quotes from William Ellery Channing, Edwin Markham (the little poem from which this blog takes its name,) Mark Twain, Nelson Algren, John Adams, Walt Whitman, and Alfred E. Newman.  There are also copies of the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution.

All in all, it is a decorator’s nightmare.

But having these folks around me in the dead of night as I madly type away at this or that project is both comforting and challenging.  They help keep me reasonably honest.

Thomas Starr King in his former glory in the U.S. Capitol before being usurped by Ronald Reagan.

It is sad that Thomas Starr King has been demoted from his place as one of California’s icons in the U.S.Capitol’s Statuary Hall.  He was replaced by another transplant—King was a New Yorker—Illinois’ own Ronald Reagan.  

Reagan, the highest saint in the pantheon of conservative Republicans, is not bereft of memorials.  Even before he died Congressional Republicans announced a drive to have something major named for the Gipper in every Congressional District.  They may not have succeeded, but they came damned close.  Across the country airports, highways, bridges, schools of all levels, parks, libraries, and museums now carry his name—and that’s in addition to an aircraft carrier and a Congressional office building.  Some were new, but many other were already in existence, and many were previously named for local notables.  Starr King is hardly the only one elbowed aside by GOP school boy adulation.

Perhaps the current shriveled rump of the once mighty Republican Party that Reagan restored to glory is particularly gleeful that a Unitarian got the hook.    Modern UU’s, with our advocacy for same sex marriage, support of abortion rights, a propensity to always be loudly protesting something that the Religious Right holds dear, and our harboring of atheists and pagans is loathed by the party’s “base.”  A few years ago a Rockford, Illinois conservative think tank said something like, “pick the scab off of any social abomination and the puss that oozes out is Unitarian.”

They probably don’t care that Starr King himself was a loyal Republican who carried the state in 1860 for Abraham Lincoln and who worked tirelessly to elect at Republican legislature to prevent Democrats from swinging the state to the Confederacy.  His barnstorming speaking tour of the Golden State and legendary eloquence was credited by no less than Winfield Scott, Commanding General of the Army, with “Saving California for the Union,” a sentiment echoed in the Eastern press.  

That was no small thing.  Although California was too far from the main theaters of the Civil War to provide many troops for the blood soaked battlefield in the East, the wealth of its gold mines was largely the economic engine that kept the Union afloat.

Neither do the religious zeaots who dominate the modern Republican Party, such as it is, seem to know or care the Reagan was maybe the least religious and most secular of Twentieth Century Presidents.  Even Richard Nixon could at least claim a Quaker upbringing and famously forced secular Henry Kissinger, a secular Jew, to kneel with him in prayer.  Only another Republican icon, Dwight Eisenhower, came as close to total indifference to religion as Regan.

I don’t want to begrudge Regan the honor.  But it is interesting that Illinois never thus enshrined Lincoln.  Our state is represented by the justifiably obscure James Shields, a forgotten politician and sometime soldier, and Frances E. Willard, founder of the Women’s Christian Temperance Union.  New York never elevated either of the Presidential Roosevelts, both of whom are commonly listed as among the top five best occupants of the White House.  The Empire State is represented by members of two of the state’s early political family dynasties—George Clinton, the State’s first Governor and Jefferson’s Vice President, and Robert R. Livingston, a lesser Founding Father who served with Jefferson, John Adams, and Benjamin Franklin on the committee to draft the Declaration of Independence (although he is unknown to have contributed even a comma to the document.)

Any way, Starr King will not be without honor.  His statue will be relocated to a place of honor at the California Capitol in Sacramento.  Maybe busloads of future students on class field trips will pause before it to learn of his distinguished career—that is assuming bankrupt California still has public schools and busses.  He is also commemorated by two--count them two--mountains, one in New Hampshire and a more significant peak in the Sierra Nevada range.  Another statue adorns San Francisco’s Golden Gate Park.

Unitarian Universalism’s West Coast seminary, Starr King School for the Ministry honors him and will continue to do so if it can survive the current UUA Board’s—the hey-most-ministers-go-to-other-schools-anyway-what-do-we-need-them-for-anyway crowd—hostile indifference to denominational schools.  Sigh.  Maybe in the end they will give him a greater break the California legislature gave Starr King’s statue.

Modern UU’s are apt to remember Starr King most for an oft quoted, and oft paraphrased, bon mot.  The young preacher, who served both Universalist and Unitarian congregations, famously observed, “Universalists believe that God is too good to damn them.  Unitarians believe that they are too good for God to damn.”

Most folks were glad that the Illinois General Assembly recently passed a long awaited Capital Bill.  A long list of needed McHenry County road projects and stretches of neglected, pot holed highways cried out for attention.  And, coupled with President Obama’s Stimulus Bill, needed jobs will be created as shovels start to turn at last.

But, of course, the devil is in the details.

Every once in a while Cal Skinner  at the McHenry County Blog uncorks a gem.  This time he has turned up a real eye popper in money earmarked for townships in the new capital bill.  All township road commissioners get at least $75,000 whether they need it or not.  But check out the eye popping $495,000 for Algonquin Township Highway Department and its few miles of roads outside state, county and municipal control.  It looks to me like a huge pay off to Road Commissioner Bob Miller’s mighty Republican machine. 

Then check out the generous $200,000 for Grafton, for which a negligent clerk left in identification of Rep. Mike Tryon—coincidently the McHenry County Republican Party Chair--as the sponsor.  Then turn your attention to another populous Township--Nunda.  It gets the same 75 Gs as puny Alden. 

What gives?  A cynic might think that now that Nunda Township is a wholly owned subsidiary of Brent Smith Empire Builders Inc, that it might be getting the back of the hand for drooling excessively over Tryon's job and Miller's power. 

Smith is ostensibly a lowly Precinct Committeeman and a power in the recently energized McHenry County Young Republicans.  But he is a clout heavy member of the Local 150 of the Operating Engineers and has used union muscle to work for selected GOP candidates.  He put together the Team Nunda slate, including his wife Joni, that swept to victory in the April Township elections defeating Change for Nunda candidates Meredith Reid Sarkees and I.  With his erstwhile mentor, Nunda Road Commissioner Don Kopsell likely to retire after or—better  yet—during his term, Smith might slide into the job with its potent mini-army of patronage workers. 

Smith clearly is aiming to seize leadership in the County party at the head of resurgent conservative purists out to purge “trimmers” and suspected moderates like Tryon.  But Tryon is popular with the voters if not with the knuckle dragging “base.”  And Miller commands the deep pockets of campaign cash to dole out to favored candidates.  Both men just sent a strong message to the lean and hungry Smith.

Rev. Peter Morales and Rev. Laurel Hallman shared a chuckle at a joint appearance at the Central Midwest District Assembly in April.

Despite the fact that the Rev. Dr. Laurel Hallman has been an announced candidate for two long years (and a presumed candidate before that) and the Rev. Peter Morales has been on the trail for over a year, many rank-and-file Unitiarian Universalists—you know, the folks in the pews—may be getting their first real look at the Presidential contest when they opened the Summer issue of UU World magazine. Each candidate placed bought-and-paid-for two page advertising spreads.  (Sorry the ads do not appear in the on-line version you will find via the previous link.  UUs out there can go scramble for their print copies for the discussion below.  Go ahead, I’ll wait.)

The two ads are a study in contrasts.  Hallman won the coin flip, or something.  Her ad was first.  For UU political junkies who have been closely following the campaign, it was a revelation.  The left hand page contained a series of bullet points on change, the challenge of the multicultural future, growth, and building “the movement that we love.” None of these issues were featured proximately in her original platform, which emphasized deepening “understanding of our liberal religious heritage, theology, and spirituality.”  All were hallmarks of the Morales campaign and were driven to the fore by reactions to the multiple joint appearances made by both candidates at many venues over the last year.

But while effectively acknowledging that Morales has shaped the campaign, the ad makes a mantra of adding some variations of “it takes more than talk” to each implying that Morales is all wind and no sail.  Does this campaign tactic seem vaguely familiar to any one?

The second page features a missive from the candidate which opens with warm fuzzies and a positive tone, but follows with another back hand to Morales, “I will never forget that the UUA is not a corporate headquarters or government agency—it is home to a religious movement.”  This is a clear reference to Morale’s long pre-ministerial career in business, journalism, and California government thus attempting to make light of his call for the application of modern management tools and technology while questioning the depth of his “spirituality.”

Flanking the bullet points and the essay on both pages are impressive endorsements by UU heavy weights in bold print, including names which the most of delegates hold in awe and esteem.  It is an impressive list and meant to emphasize a theme of the Hallman campaign from the outset—that she is the Chosen One and that Morales is something of an interloping outsider.

The Morales ad which follows is a study in contrasts.  It opens with a very brief quote from the candidate:

Our movement has breathtaking potential.  If we act boldly, with clear vision and tough practicality we can seize this historic opportunity to revitalize our faith.

Then follows with a series of endorsement statements from a wide range of sources, heavy hitters and ordinary lay members alike, discussing Morale’s plans for growing the faith, leading in hard times, public witness, and multiculturalism.  Dimly screened behind the text are photos of dozens of other endorsers of all ages, colors, sexes, and classes.  Nary a negative implication or word against Hallman appears.

The Hallman ad reflects a campaign that feels besieged and defensive.  Morales, on the other hand, presents an optimistic, grass roots, issue oriented face.

Meanwhile, identity politics, originally foresworn by both candidates, has raised its head.  Early on in the campaign, when Morales seemed more of a nuisance than a serious competitor, Hallman sailed along with the largely unspoken understanding that women would rally behind her after other high profile women lost the last two UU presidential races.  Then Morales picked up endorsements by some highly regarded women ministers of large congregations.  After a joint appearance of the two candidates at the International Convocation of Unitarian Universalist Women in Houston this February the Board of the Unitarian Universalist Women’s Federation unanimously endorsed Morales.  Many Feminists, it turned out liked Morales and his record on women’s issues. 

The response of the Hallman campaign was to dust off a year old resolution here-to-fore languishing in the depths of the personal endorsements on the Hallman web page.  The Annual Meeting of the Unitarian Universalist Women & Religion organization endorsed Hallman at a meeting before the 2008 General Assembly in Ft. Lauderdale.  That was before both candidates made their presentations at the GA and Morales emerged as a serious contender.  Now the endorsement of this smallish organization was needed to balance the Board of the venerable Women’s Federation, recognized as one of only three survivors among UUA Affiliate Organizations.

Supporters and surrogates of the Hallman campaign also began openly appealing for gender solidarity because it was “finally time” for a woman to take the helm.  The wind was partially taken out of those sails when the last woman to run from the UUA Presidency, the Rev. Dianne Miller reiterated her endorsement of Morales on the UU e-mail discussion list Election-L thusly:

…The next UUA President faces tough decisions with big needs and decreased resources, and will need to act in a climate of competing demands and viewpoints.

I have decided to support Peter Morales for a number of reasons. For one, I have been impressed with his inclusivity and warmth and his ability to maintain a steady engagement with issues in the midst of politically charged discourse.

Speaking of Election-L, that is where a good deal of the heat—and some light—is generated in the campaign.  Although only 380 or so folks subscribe, this discussion forum gets lively with passionate advocates of both camps arguing to sway the votes of a relatively few uncommitted readers.  A personal e-mail to a list contributor asking him to dial down his rhetoric by a Morales campaign official was recently accidently posted to the list leading to a flurry of charges of sexism against both the poster and the campaign official from Hallman supporters.  Both men subsequently apologized both for the technical error and for offence given.

Then Hallman campaign manager, the Rev. Wayne Arnason decided to make the tempest-in-a-teapot an opportunity to blow up the stove and paint the Hallman campaign in high minded nobility by declining to participate further in discussions on the list.    The only thing he accused the Morales campaign of was "strategizing" about list posts. Guilty as charged.  That that is what campaigns do--strategize to find ways to bring their message clearly to the most number of voters.  Despite that, most pro-Morales posts on the list have come from people completely independent of the campaign or who, like Hallman supporters, use the list as a way of announcing their personal endorsements. 

Some regard the decision to publicly disengage was itself “strategizing.”  Self declared undecided potential voters appealed to both side to continue to post positive information about their candidates.  Morales campaign manager Dea Brayden promised Election-L readers that, “…the Morales campaign has been and will continue to be committed to maintaining a tone that… meets both the letter and the spirit of the covenant that the candidates agreed
to…”  She said further that:

I expect that Morales supporters will continue to post to this list. I hope
that Hallman supporters will too, and that we all will continue to maintain
an innuendo-free tone that always has been our aim.  It is to everyone's
benefit that the strengths, the passions and visions of both candidates are
described here.  May the discourse be substantial and useful.

Subsequently posts have been made to the list by neutrals, Morales supporters, and Hallman supporters, if not members of her official campaign.

The campaign has also been conducted in the blog-o-sphere.  Both campaigns have their own blogs. Morales for UUA President has been around longest and contains long form individual endorsements, endorsements by organizations like the Women’s Federation and Unitarian Universalsist for a Just Economic Community (UUJEC), and direct responses from  Morales himself on campaign issues.  He used the forum to address questions about the fate of UUA Affiliate Groups and to de-bunk a nasty but persistent rumor that he did not plan to move to Boston to work out of UUA headquarters if elected.

Hallman was late to the blog arena.  Her Laurel Hallman for UU President so far includes just two entries, both of them lifted in total from her regular web page.  With no new entries in over a week, the campaign may have already abandoned trying to keep it up.

Meanwhile individual bloggers are stepping up endorsements of both candidates, and sometimes lively discussions go on in the comments sections.  

Both candidates can be found on Facebook--Morales and Hallman.  And both have posted their candidacy announcements, some sermon or speech clips, and endorsements on You Tube.  Neither, as far as I can tell have fallen for the charms of Twitter, which I am told is blogging for the short attention span era.

With the election at General Assembly in Salt Lake City only four weeks away, absentee voting by delegates and ministers in fellowship has already begun.  Some congregations, like Eliot Chapel in St. Louis either have already or will soon hold meeting to instruct their delegates. Rev. Daniel O’Connell described the process and outcome at Eliot.

Other congregations, like my own Congregational Unitarian Church in Woodstock, leave their delegates to vote their consciences.  I have already cast my absentee ballot for Peter Morales.  

My guess, as both an old hand at politics and a UUA governance geek is that the race, which Hallman once thought of as securely in her hands, is now up for grabs.  In fact rank and file trends might be edging toward Morales.  Since there are no polls or goat entrails to read, we may all wait on pins and needles for the outcome.

Full disclosure: I am a declared Morales supporter and a member of the campaign's Web Communications Team.  I am solely responsible for the content of this post and have not shared it in advance with any member of the Morales campaign.