Taking a Moral Stand

America’s Democrat Party is fired up at the prospect of its candidate winning the 2008 presidential election. The party was reasonably successful in the Senate and House elections last November because of voter frustration with the way Republicans were running the show and Democrats were able to win seat after seat without actually offering anything of substance to the electorate.

The 2008 election will be different. The Democrats will have a record to defend in Congressional elections and the presidential candidate will have to demonstrate leadership qualities. Essentially the battle for the Democratic nomination is a two-horse race. Forget Edwards. This time around what he is offering is no different from the half-baked left wing platitudes he spouted in 2004.

Barring a huge upset, either Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama will be the chosen one. As neither has extensive experience in an elected office, it is doubly important for the candidates to take whatever opportunities come along to demonstrate where they stand on key issues.

A few days ago, General Peter Pace, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, provided such an opportunity. He made the following comments in an interview with the Chicago Tribune:

“My upbringing is such that I believe that there are certain things, certain types of conduct that are immoral,” said Gen Pace. “I believe that military members who sleep with other military members' wives are immoral in their conduct.”

“I believe that homosexual acts between individuals are immoral, and that we should not condone immoral acts. So the ‘don't ask, don't tell’ (policy) allows an individual to serve the country ... if we know about immoral acts, regardless of committed by who, then we have a responsibility.

“I do not believe that the armed forces are well served by saying through our policies that it's OK to be immoral in any way, not just with regards to homosexual acts,” he added.

"So from that standpoint, saying that gays should serve openly in the military to me says that we, by policy, would be condoning what I believe is immoral activity

There was no ambiguity in what the general said. And his comments outline a position on an issue that has a lot of supporters and opponents. The Democrat presidential candidates were given their chance to state their views.

First, Hillary Clinton was asked to comment.

“Well I’m going to leave that to others to conclude,” she replied.

Great. That rules out any further comments on the issue by Senator Clinton. The woman has nothing to say on the subject. Not exactly leadership quality, is it. Perhaps that’s why Hillary is a senator and Gen Pace is in charge of America’s entire military organisation. Pace is clearly a leader.

A Clinton spokesman later gave a damage limitation statement:

“Obviously she doesn't agree” with Pace's comment and was only trying to say it was the general's right to make up his own mind on the issue.

What’s so obvious about that? Hillary said she’s going to leave it to others to conclude.

Next up was Barack Obama:

“I think traditionally the Joint Chiefs of Staff chairman has restricted his public comments to military matters. That's probably a good tradition to follow.”

If  I’m not mistaken, Senator Obama means Gen Pace’s comments were inconvenient because they force politicians who aspire to the role of commander-in-chief of the US military to take a stand on a controversial issue. Those sentiments are perfectly understandable, but Gen Pace did say something controversial and someone running for president is expected to show clearly where they stand.

Obama was given a second bite at the cherry and his follow up response was:

“I think the question here is whether somebody is willing to sacrifice for their country, should they be able to if they're doing all the things that should be done.”

That wasn’t the question at all, and we still haven’t had a worthwhile answer.

Neither candidate has given any indication they have “the right stuff” in terms of leadership. They have dodged an awkward question for fear of alienation voters. That lack of courage and commitment is bad enough for a couple of US Senators, but what if one of them were to become president – and possibly vice president, too. A leader has to deal with issues that can’t be left for others to conclude and can’t be wished away.

Can you imagine either politician coping with, for example, a terrorsit attack destroying Times Square? There are some issues you can't leave to others to conclude, nor wish away the inconvenience. Their timid, opinion-polls-oriented response make it blatantly obvious neither Clinton nor Obama should be given the power to confront such events.