What would Frank Church do?

(According to his campaigns, think of Idaho first and assert his independence from the national Democratic party.)

Assume = ass + u + me. But hey, Frank Church could still be alive today - he would be 84, I think. Just like many folks ask themselves "What would Jesus do?" Senate Democrats should ask "What would Frank Church do?"

Who would Frank Church endorse? We all remember the superdelegate fiasco of the primaries, and I think a Church endorsement would go to Obama, since he won the Idaho caucus with 80% or so. As a result, every Democratic superdelegate in Idaho endorsed Obama, as well as former 3.5 term Governor Cecil Andrus. Not just that, either - Idaho has something of an isolationist streak, and Church was definitely an opponent of dumb wars like Vietnam or the invasion of Grenada. (Not that the invasion of Grenada counts as a war.) We know Obama is not opposed to all wars, just to dumb wars. I don't know about Hillary's true views, but I am convinced she voted for war with Iraq (and for stuff like Kyl-Lieberman) because she believed she needed to appear hawkish when she ran for president. Church served on the Foreign Relations committee so he would have naturally been interested on the candidates' foreign policy views. (Obama also served on Foreign Relations, Hillary did not but served on Armed Services. See what I mean about appearing hawkish?)

Obama, Church, and Hillary all have something of a cultural conservative streak. Obama - if you read Audacity of Hope, it's pretty clear. I'm not saying that he's against gay folks or anything - I'm saying he's against a hypersexualized culture. Church - he was pretty surprised when he found out his son was sleeping in the same bed as his girlfriend in their hippie commune. Hillary - she sure hates violent video games. (Me - I'm a young white male, you figure it out.)

I have to mention Ron Paul here, because Church actually does remind me of Ron Paul a bit. Same isolationist foreign policy. Both have pro-life sympathies. Both are very principled. Both believe in the gold standard - haha, nope, Church was a proud New Deal Democrat, and Paul doesn't believe in the New Deal or its programs. (Random sidenote: And isn't it weird that Mike Gravel ended up in the Libertarian party? He was quite a liberal senator back in the day, and he even believes in socialized medicine.)

As for Bush - after Church left the Senate, he wrote plenty of articles criticizing Reagan's foreign policy. Bush makes Reagan look like Dennis Kucinich. Would Church have supported Bush's foreign policy? (No.)

The one time I've been disappointed in Obama was when he voted for those bullshit FISA amendments. Was that politically smart? No idea, because the election was about the economy. I don't think his vote on FISA would have mattered one way or another after September 15. What about Church? Well, the original FISA was a result of the Church Committee. Church would have abhorred the idea of giving the CIA more power.

You get the idea. Fight the good fight, Democrats! Frank Church always did.

(Yeah, I know this is a copout post. On the plus side, I bought a book about the Cheney vice-presidency today. Fun fun!)