Dubya's legacy of Peace (?!)

In late 2006 George W. Bush made headlines in Israeli newspapers by publicly stating that he "would understand" if Israel launched attacks on Iranian nuclear facilities. It didn't get major play in US media outlets at the time, but hardliners (on both sides) in the Midde East took notice. Even though Condolleeza Rice tried to downplay the comment, Bush's words were interpreted by some as a not-so-subtle approval of opening up a third front on the "War on Terror" (or was that "Axis of Evil"?). Speculation suggested that Bush would "go along" with an initiation of aggression in a preemptive strike to degrade Iran's ability to become a regional power. Obviously it didn't do much for US diplomacy with the Mullahs.

There were some in America that were perversely satisfied with the president's "hardline stance". Many on the Christian Right applauded their hero's willingness to encourage Armageddon. Zionists on the North American continent may have been a bit more circumspect about communicating their pleasure, but the signs indicated their favorable reaction. Certain civilian "thinkers" in the Defense Department licked their lips in anticipation. The war drums beat a trance-like rhythm that made forward momentum almost unavoidable. Yet bad news from the Iraqi front seemed to dampen the spirit, if only among the general population. Soon after the expression of "understanding", the political landscape changed through that year's election.

Now fast-forward to this past Fall, and the presidential contest between Barack Obama and John McCain. The Fourth Estate finally started doing its job, empowered somehow by Tina Fey and Katie Couric. The subject of possible strikes against Iran became an actual issue that inspired actual questions in an actual debate. Obama expressed his willingness to sit down and talk with the actual leadership of Iran (HINT: he wasn't talking about Ahmadinejad). For this he was mercilessly attacked by both his opponent and the Rightwing echo chamber. Meanwhile he wasn't getting much support from within his own party. No political figure wanted to risk alienating an important constituency capable of helping finance a successful campaign.

While YouTube footage of McCain's version of the Beach Boys' "Barbara Ann" continued to circulate among the discontents, NPR aired an interview between Terry Gross and Robert Baer. I happened to tune in that day and had all my assumptions about power politics in the Middle East challenged. So when McCain tried to batter Obama for his advocacy of "sitting down with our enemies", I paid very close attention. I tried to sort through the bullshit and figure out exactly what the candidates believed about the "threat" of Iran and the structure of influence in the Muslim world. I became acutely afraid that Bush would give the green light to Israel, and a conflagration would erupt. I slept fitfully until I distracted myself with other concerns.

Fortunately for Western civilization, we made it through one alluring window of opportunity for an Israeli raid on Iran. We still have a major issue to confront, but I feel better about our foreign policy direction. However, there's another piece of information that I have to absorb now. This week NPR and NYT are reporting that George W. Bush refused an Israeli request for "bunker busters" that they intended to drop on Iran. I find it ironic that the single greatest possible chance that Bush has for a positive legacy is the result of an inaction. The only way he could have topped that was not to run for the office in the first place. Our outgoing leader is fond of saying that history will be his judge, but I'd like to suggest that he's wrong... the consequences of his actions will stretch well into the future.

The Herd Meets in Miami.

The GOP has officially started its deconstruction of the sea change that has seen them ousted from power. After the presidential election, it was clear that Republicans were going to have to take stock of their collective position, and try to figure out how to move themselves forward. On Wednesday and Thursday, the Republican Governor's Association met in Miami to sift through the debris. Leaders like Florida Chief Executive Charlie Crist (who hosted the annual gathering) took the opportunity to call for an expansion of the GOP base. The folks in attendance would have been well served to attend closely to Crist's words. Despite the fact that his state went for Obama, the local party did well in stemming the bleeding, ceding only one seat to the Dems in the legislature.

Observations seemed to have flown fast and furious as the politicians disagreed about ways to move forward, and argued about who or what to blame for their recent losses in national government. Curiously, traditional wedge issues like abortion and gay marriage were scarcely mentioned. In a time when the nation faces some of its most formidable challenges in more than half a century, the voting populace is not looking to vilify its less popular members. The "Us vs. Them" mentality that has proved so easy to perpetuate and manipulate over the last eight years is starting to lose its sheen. People are becoming more interested in substantive issues that affect the entire country. The Bush legacy is being increasingly rejected.

So now the GOP is considering turning its attention to energy, education, and the environment. These are areas that their opposition has been working on for decades. As these things become increasingly important to the middle and working classes, Republican leaders are facing being left out in the cold permanently. Minnesota Gov. Tim Pawlenty cast light specifically on the recent party approach to energy independence. Pawlenty said, " 'Drill, baby, drill,' by itself, is not an energy policy. We need that, but we need a lot more than that.'' Meanwhile Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal underscored the problem by pointing out, " 'Our bumper-sticker message can't be, 'Vote Republican because the other side is worse' ".

It's fairly easy to interpret some of these comments as criticisms of how the McCain/Palin ticket ran their campaign. There was some speculation at the meeting that John McCain was the worst possible nominee for the highest office in the recently concluded election cycle. Certain individuals suggested that the Arizona senator had "thumbed his nose" at the base (despite his pick for a running mate). Others disagreed, expressing their belief that McCain had the best chance of all the GOP candidates to win a close race against Barack Obama. They also pointed out that a climate that featured an unpopular outgoing president, a controversial war in Iraq, and a crisis in the economy, did not favor a Republican victory.

Not surprisingly participants shied away from attacking Alaskan governor Sarah Palin. After all, she is still the freshest and most noteworthy member of the club. While she represents one side of the growing ideological divide within the GOP, she also happened to be present at the meeting. On Thursday she delivered an address that could have easily been delivered on the stump only a month ago. Ultimately Mississippi Gov. Haley Barbour tried to dampen any fomenting dissension by warning, "Anybody here tonight who's talking about the 2012 presidential election needs to get their eye on the ball. We don't need any talk of 2012." Of course one might imagine that his admonition fell on deaf ears.

Election Day Log

This seems like such a momentous day, and the idea of posting a structured post seems anti-climactic. So instead I'll just post a series of impressions throughout the day.

6:10 AM

Time to get up and go to work. I slept well last night, and I feel remarkably peaceful. Polls open at 7AM, but I'll be far from my local polling station when they unlock their doors. I'd love to get my vote out of the way early, but it's just not possible. Should I have taken the day off to help the Obama campaign? I'm there in spirit. No way am I listening to talk radio on my drive this morning. NPR is fixated on the state of our financial markets. I see plenty of Obama signs (including some good handwritten ones on Rte. 28 at the 40th Street Bridge). As I head north there are less of them, with a couple of notable exceptions.

There is a very small handful of Obama supporters at my workplace, but they are nearby, so the morning starts on a positive note. Plus one employee greets me with an Eat 'N Park Smiley-Face cookie. A co-worker is calling for a tie (at 269) in the electoral college, which would nonetheless be a victory for the Illinois Senator (as the House of Representatives would then choose the president). A few of us are gently ribbing our local McCain supporter, and letting hm know there's a slot for him on the bandwagon. I take a look at some political sites, including Huffington Post.

Mid-morning

I had a chance to catch a few minutes of local talk radio coverage. KDKA 1020 host Marty Griffin is lamenting the "haters"- conservative hosts who continually attack Democrats indiscriminately. He could have been talking about his colleagues down at the station. That right there tells you something about the state of talk radio in Pittsburgh. The fact that we are left with Griffin as the "moderate" voice in town is pathetic. The good news is that I realized I could get AM 570 out of Youngstown. Robert Mangino is the voice of the morning in Southeastern Ohio. I caught him by accidenty filling in on KDKA Saturday Night. That was refreshing.

Lunch

I understand that NPR tries to convey an even tone in their programming, but to listen to Day-to-Day, you'd hardly know that there was an important national election happening today. There was a feature on how sexuality in television may influence teens, and some more coverage of the markets. However, there's no hard-hitting reporting of the big event. Instead we get a segment on political impressions, and another on election-night rituals. I'm hoping that Terry Gross has something interesting for my drive home- I certainly don't want to be forced into listening to Hannity or Honsberger.

Drive Home

NPR's "Election Special"?! A discussion of the military under the next commander-in-chief... what kind of demographic study led to that choice?

4:15 PM

I've cast my vote for the Obama/Biden ticket. It was a touchscreen device, and you can bet your ass I took my time to make sure the machine was working right. Behind me were some young African-American men voting for their first time ever. It's exciting. The wait was relatively short... about 5-10 minutes. M. and Baby E. (who refused to smile at the site captain) were with me. What's funny is that I kind of hoped that turnout would be low in my neighborhood. Now I guess we wait for the completely unreliable exit polls.

5:20 PM

Two Obama volunteers showed up to make sure we voted. It's very heartening to see the actual "ground game" in action. There were Obama canvassers here Saturday and they were perfectly matched for the demographics of this area. I saw several more Obama signs go up on my street over the last two days. It's important to note that I have yet to see a single McCain campaign worker in this neighborhood, throughout the entirety of the process.

8:15 PM

I couldn't sit around anymore and wait for the results to start coming in. After E. went to bed I took a walk around the neighborhood. Everything was unusually still. I drove out to Subway for a sandwich, and caught audio snippets about states already being called. Clips from the Obama and McCain headquarters in Pittsburgh told much of the story. The IL Senator's place is jumping with shrieks of joy, and on the other side there was dead silence as people waited for some McCain supporters to show up. But I didn't get any specifics until now. Pennsylvania is in the Obama win column!

9:25 PM

FOX and MSNBC call Ohio for Obama. Looks mighty good for the Democrat.

9:33 PM

MSNBC calls New Mexico for Obama. Is it over?

10:04 PM

Iowa for Obama.

10:35 PM

I was going to wait for more results came in, but it seems silly to wait any longer... congratulations to President-Elect Barack Obama, and to all those who have supported his campaign. This is truly a momentous occasion in the history of this nation. It makes me proud of my country.

10:50 PM

FOX calls Virginia for Obama.

11:01 PM

MSNBC officially names Barack Obama the next President of the United States, with projected victories in California, Washington, Oregon, Hawaii (297 electoral college votes).

11:13 PM

MSNBC reports that John McCain has called Barack Obama to concede the election.

11:18 PM

Add Colorado and Florida to count (333).

11:30 PM

A gracious "Exit Stage Left" by John McCain, and an accompanying call for the nation to come together once again under a new leader.

Midnight

And the address from our new President. A message of hope and an assurance of capability. What an amazing end to a crazy race, and an incredible start to a new chapter.

One More Day.

It seems almost surreal that we are just one day away from the 2008 presidential election. As far as I'm concerned, there hasn't been a political contest during my lifetime to rival this one. No doubt this is a highly subjective assessment, but I have never been more actively involved in the process. For four years I've anticipated this crucial vote, and there were times that I didn't think it would ever happen. The darkness of the George W. Bush years seemed to preclude it. The Bush/Cheney executive administration has gobbled up so much power for itself that I was partially convinced that they wouldn't allow another election to occur. If the vote proceeds without undue controversy tomorrow, my long-held concerns will seem melodramatic.

As far as predictions go, I made mine long ago and I refuse to alter them. It just doesn't seem in my best interests to revisit that speculation. If you do a bit of digging throughout this blog, you can likely find it. I'd be lying if I told you that I haven't wavered in my confidence. Two years is an awfully long time to pass, and a lot has happened since then. Yet through that time I have been resolute in my desires for a specific outcome. The prospect for its achievement seems simultaneously imminent and yet entirely abstract. If the powers-that-be have intentionally made us doubt our victory, then it is only natural to reserve our excitement. The fact is that there are no certainties in American politics.

I can imagine the worst case scenario, and that involves a McCain/Palin-controlled White House. I believe that John McCain's biggest mistake was bringing the Alaskan Governor into the national political scene. It opened up Pandora's Box. The hand of the GOP has been forced, and there will be a day of reckoning. I cannot say for sure that it will come tomorrow, but I know that it is coming. Party politics are due for a massive generational shift, and it should be compelling to watch that play out. The Reagan Era is coming to an end. That alone is reason for hope. The times call for a shift away from divisive politics, and that is only possible if both the Democrats and Republicans begin to reevaluate their priorities.

I've been quite clear in my support for Barack Obama, and my feelings and thoughts about his candidacy have only intensified. There was a time not too long ago when I thought a McCain presidency would be an improvement over the last eight years. I no longer believe that. A GOP victory tomorrow would be disastrous for the future of this nation. The best outcome we could hope for in such an event would be total stagnation in the federal government. In my estimation, the United States can't afford that now. The difficulties facing the country (and the world) are too significant and momentous. The situation requires a steady hand, and Barack Obama has demonstrated that he has the even temperament to guide us through the approaching storm.

Regardless of what happens tomorrow, we have come a long way toward the changes we need. To think that a candidate with a Muslim-sounding name (that evokes associations with the two people on Earth most identified as our national "enemies" since 2001) has come this close to becoming our next president is evidence suggesting the political maturation of a large portion of our electorate. To think that we may elect our first "black" Commander-in-Chief is absolutely amazing, and speaks to the possibility of our continued relevance as a positive example to the rest of the world. I invite you to join me and millions of my fellow citizens in changing the course of history on November 4th, 2008.

Fright Night and the Polls.

Whoever decided that election day should be held in the first week of November had a very cynical sense of humor. If the prospect of change in the political realm isn't frightening enough for many people, the celebration of the darker side of life that occurs on the weekend before the polls open should help raise anxiety levels. I have always loved Halloween. The holiday is the one throwback to the wild Pagan festivals that history suggests were so much fun. From early childhood I have learned to expect the offering of either tricks or treats. There is the sense that anything is possible. The same dynamic applies to politics. Strong opinions abound, and some will find their hopes met, while others will find them thwarted.

So in the spirit of this special day, I'd like to ask the reader about what they fear most on this coming Tuesday. It should come as no surprise that voters all along the spectrum have plenty of nightmare scenarios to choose from. Obviously they range from the realistic to the perverse. For some reason this cycle has presented us with an inordinate amount of speculation regarding worst-case situations, regardless of who wins the presidency. From my biased position, I would suggest that the McCain campaign has worked harder to stoke fears on their side. Like it or not, he occupies the establishment position during this contest, and so he has been forced to paint his opposition as the manifestation of particularly scary change.

Some of the predictions emanating from the Far Right are so breathless that they seem absurd. I've seen and heard multiple accounts of how Barack Obama will change the United States into a Socialist Republic. He'll make rich people cede their wealth to welfare recipients, and no one will have any incentive to make money anymore. Among the Christian Right, a common sentiment is that the Senator from Illinois will reveal his secretly-held devotion to Islam and make Christianity illegal forever hereafter. The Christian Reformationist Dr. James Dobson (founder and leader of Focus on the Family) predicts "hardship," "persecution" and "suffering" for Christians if Obama becomes president.

Interestingly, religious leaders have also been enflaming the fears of Jews who are still undecided about who to vote for. They have made repeated attempts to link Obama to supposed "associates" who have been perceived as vehemently anti-Israel. No matter how many times the candidate has reasserted his support for our Middle Eastern ally, wingnuts like "Joe the (Tax-Dodging) Plumber" continue to issue grave and unfounded warnings. Obviously such tools of the Republican Party get their marching orders from the top. John McCain's fear-based politics have been intentionally crafted to bring out the very worst paranoid delusions in his followers. I could fill up at least a hundred posts with more examples.


Even if John McCain were to mount an increasingly unlikely comeback, some of his supporters fear a widespread uprising and riots among African-Americans. On the opposite side, McCain's detractors worry that the Arizona senator might die in office, leaving the nation in the hands of his singularly unqualified running mate. Others are afraid that he will signal his approval for Israeli air attacks on Iran, which would likely lead to World War III. My own horror involves McCain prevailing and giving an acceptance speech that culminates with him tearing his own leathery face off, only to reveal that he is actually George W. Bush. Finally, the only prospect of an Obama presidency that provokes my anxiety is the small minority that may wish him harm.

John McCain's Last Narrative: The Obstructionist.

This past Sunday, New York Times Magazine featured an article by Robert Draper entitled "The Making (and Remaking) of McCain." It examined the various narratives that the Arizona senator's campaign staff has tried to attach to its candidate over the last year-and-a-half. Terry Gross got to sit down with Draper on Tuesday, and I was lucky enough to catch that segment of Fresh Air. I marveled at the litany of identities that McCain has assumed. He's been The War Hero, The Agent of Change, The Wise Elder, The Bipartisan Deal Maker, and The Maverick. During the chaotic course of the race, he has often needed to change his story mid-step, and that has caused a fair amount of confusion out on the stump.

So what mask is John McCain wearing in this last week before the election? I've often felt that people tend to choose a Halloween costume that subconsciously reveals their inner desires and complex relationships with their inner selves. In this case I feel that insight holds true. McCain has finally exposed his true nature. He is The Obstructionist. This is the final message his handlers are selling the American Public. What convincing argument are they left with to get people to pick John McCain over his opponent? They are warning that if Barack Obama becomes president, he will have an overwhelming Democratic advantage in Congress to work with. He will be able to push through his agenda with relative ease. And McCain doesn't want to let that happen.

Perhaps we shouldn't be surprised to see this latest face of John McCain. After all, we saw it just a few long weeks ago when the senior politician suspended his campaign and rushed back to Washington DC to "rescue" the Wall Street Bailout bill. We were told that the "Do-Nothing Gang" in Washington needed his expert guidance. After a stop at the Katie Couric studios, and a visit to his old friend Bill Clinton, McCain dropped into the Capitol for one last mission. Despite the fact that his senate colleagues had difficulty recognizing their long-lost friend, he assured them (and the nation) that he would save the day. But what did he actually contribute? Sources at the scene reported that he scuttled a deal that was already on the table, without offering any fresh ideas.

McCain's approach to "solving the economy" is much like his overall strategy of leadership- "Talk loudly and drag your feet." He's got a hell of a reputation for taking on unpopular issues, but by the time his initiatives gain traction, he has already abandoned them. What would this nation be like today if John McCain had stuck to his convictions about lobbyist corruption, reasoned and deliberate military policy, positive dialog in political campaigns, or opposition to the Bush tax cuts? Where would he be if he had moved ahead with his plan to enlist an actual moderate of substantial qualifications (Joe Lieberman or Michael Bloomberg) as his running mate? What would his reception have been if he actually tried to fulfill his promise that "Change is Coming"?

When it comes down to it, all John McCain represents now is a place-marker. He's basically just running interference for a political party that has no idea what to do next. Virtually every move the GOP has made during the last eight years has proved to be a failure. With the potential of an ignoble defeat facing Republicans on November 4th, its leadership has directed its attention inward. But can the American people wait while the GOP tries to figure out whether it wants to become the populist (and anti-intellectual) party of social conservatives like Sarah Palin, or return to values like fiscal conservatism, cautious foreign policy, and political accountability? Thomas Paine notably said, "That government is best which governs least", but we have to ask ourselves if we can actually afford that approach in these fragile times.

GOP in Crisis.

As the prospect of a John McCain presidency looks less and less likely to many people, the trickle of conservatives distancing themselves from the GOP ticket has turned into a steady stream. Over the last few weeks we've heard of prominent Republicans turning their back on the McCain/Palin ticket. It must be noted that there was no consensus candidate for the party during the primaries. The coalition that coalesced under the Bush banner began to show fissures as early as 2007. Christian Conservatives looked at the field with a distinct lack of enthusiasm, as one after another of their hopefuls fell away. James Dobson, head of Focus on the Family and arguably the leader of his faction, expressed his unwillingness to back the horses that seemed to be running strong.

Meanwhile the Neoconservative Movement, which had seen its cabal rise to power behind the scenes of the Bush Administration, increasingly saw its policy recommendations maligned and discredited by real-world consequences. The nation had seemed to lose its stomach for "spreading democracy" with a strategy of forceful aggression. Finally, fiscal conservatives began to wonder what happened to their approach to governance. They wondered who was representing the old school values of their fathers' GOP. Gradually John McCain reemerged from the bankruptcy of his campaign and began to challenge seriously for the nomination. While he didn't inspire genuine excitement, he seemed like the most acceptable compromise candidate.

McCain was in the odd position of being the only high-profile Republican who was seen as both a genuine counterbalance to George W. Bush (whose administration had sunk to its lowest approval ratings in seven plus years), and at the same time experienced enough to be trusted to carry the Red State banner. The only problem was that he had alienated the Christian Right in his bid for the presidency in 2000, a minority group that consistently generated the energy believed necessary to capture the nation's top office. The solution to that problem was generated by influential Neocon Bill Kristol and a Karl Rove-protégé named Steve Schmidt. They urged McCain to select a little-known socially conservative governor from Alaska named Sarah Palin.

As is patently clear by now, Palin was able to fire up a crucial part of the Right-wing base. Out of what now appears to have been an increasing sense of desperation, they billed this newcomer on the national political scene as The Future of the Republican Party. It was a hell of a gamble, and at first (in the wake of an effective RNC Convention speech) seemed to pay off dividends. But quite obviously that pivotal decision looks to have been short-sighted. Palin did not live up to her initial hype, and many within the GOP appear to be experiencing "buyer's remorse". The single most frequently-cited reason by prominent conservative figures for abandoning McCain is his ill-advised choice of a running mate.

While it would be too simplistic to lay the responsibility for the crisis that the GOP is facing solely at Palin's feet (she is simply the manifestation of forces that have been at play for the last thirty years), it's no secret that she has become a symbol for the displeasure that so many lifelong Republicans have recently expressed. She is not the unifying figure that the party needs to consolidate the power it has generated over the last several decades. I don't believe I am alone in this assessment either. If you have doubts, just ask Colin Powell, William Weld, Charles Fried, Kenneth Adelman, Scott McClellan, Susan Collins, Senator Chuck Hagel, Lilibet Hagel, Jim Leach, Lincoln Chafee, Congressman Wayne Gilchrest, Larry Pressler, Lowell Weicker, Matthew Dowd, Andrew Sullivan, Christopher Buckley, Christopher Hitchens, Susan Eisenhower, Arne Carlson, Francis Fukuyama, Bill Ruckelshaus, Jeffrey Hart, Linwood Holton, Jackson M. Andrews, Rita Hauser, Mike Murphy, Douglas Kmiec, Peggy Noonan, Michael Smerconish, Larry Hunter, Jim Whitaker, Wick Allison, Andrew J. Bacevich, or the host of "ordinary" Americans who want a change.

Who Will Make Our Nation Healthy?

It's pretty tough to determine how many people currently lack health coverage in the United States. Most estimates that I've seen hover in the 40-45 million range. That number is large enough to place health care front-and-center as a major issue in this presidential race. Both Barack Obama and John McCain have rolled out plans to address this problem. The difficulty is seeing through the negative campaigning and the murk obscuring the issues. And even after we determine where these candidates actually stand on health care, it may be folly to predict that their approaches will yield results come January. What is most likely is that a Democratic Congress will shape the basics of any program next year.

Of course the political makeup of the legislative branch favors Obama's prospective plan, and it's doubtful that anything John McCain suggests will ever see the light of say. Still it's useful to see what he might push for, should he prevail in November. His approach to the issue is to bundle it together with his general tax plan. If McCain's strategy was adopted, for the first time in US history, health benefits would be taxed. This would have an obviously negative effect on any Middle Class workers who get insurance through their jobs. In fact some experts suspect that it would be the beginning of the end of employer-provided health benefits. Nobel Prize-award-winning economist Paul Krugman has written an interesting explanation of how this would happen, and I won't try to summarize his logic here.

McCain expects to "offset" these new taxes with a tax credit of $2500 for any individual (or $5000 per family) purchasing their own health insurance plan. The average cost of a family policy is $12,100 ($4400 for an individual). But when people start being removed (or removing themselves) from employer -based health plans, funding for these credits will have to come from somewhere else. Another problem with this setup is that it is virtually impossible to get insurance if you have a pre-existing medical condition. While McCain's advisers claim that his tax restructuring of health benefits will allow an additional 27.5 million folks to purchase their own health care, independent analysts have determined that his plan will actually make the amount of uninsured citizens grow by 5 million in the first five years.

Additionally McCain seeks to open up the health insurance industry, so that people can purchase out-of-state plans. The problem there is that every state has different consumer protections, and undermining those state laws will lead to the classic deregulatory "race-to-the-bottom". This is something Barack Obama has stood adamantly against. He's calling for the standardization of benefits and premiums, and for requiring insurers to accept all applicants. He would require plans to cover preventive, maternity and mental health care (unlike McCain). He wants to make insurance currently offered to government employees available to the public through a federally sponsored health plan.

In order to preserve the employer-based insurance system, Obama would make it mandatory for employers to contribute "meaningful coverage" or pay into a government fund that would do so for the uninsured. Small businesses would receive a subsidy to cover this expense. Apparently the costs of Obama's plan would be largely financed by the suspension of the current Bush tax breaks for the wealthiest 1% of Americans. The Tax Policy Center reports that Obama's reforms will cost $1.6 trillion over the next ten years, and they estimate that McCain's program will clock in at $1.3 trilion. While the $30 billion/year difference seems substantial, it is significantly less than we are spending in Iraq every three months.

Furthermore the Tax Policy Center estimates that McCain would only reduce the number of the uninsured by 2 million, while Obama's changes would cover an additional 34 million folks that currently lack coverage. It seems to me that if you can benefit 32 million more Americans under Obama's plan for just $30 billion more per year, then it's an easy decision. And if you consider the increased quality assurances of insurance policies regulated under Obama's plan, it seems that everyone will come out ahead.

The Worst Endorsement of All.

In 2004, a couple of weeks before the presidential election, John Kerry was edging ahead in the national polls. It looked for a moment like he might be able to unseat the sitting president, who was coming under continuous fire over his decision to invade and occupy Iraq. But then the unthinkable happened and the race tipped in Bush's favor. A "new" video appeared featuring the figure that was then still the national bogeyman- Osama bin Laden. The historical narrative says that this interruption in US politics made voters reconsider their decisions by reminding them of Bush's "War on Terror". I'm not completely sure I buy that (I think the Swift-boating had just as much to do with Kerry's defeat), but John Kerry himself blames the video release for his loss.

There is some reason to believe that the concerted efforts of Bush supporters working to tie Kerry to the terrorists had an effect on the 2004 election outcome. Shortly before November of that year, Republican stalwart Orrin Hatch memorably claimed that the terrorists "are going to throw everything they can between now and the election to try and elect Kerry." Speaker of the House Denny Hastert reinforced those sentiments: "I don't have data or intelligence to tell me one thing or another, [but] I would think they would be more apt to go [for] somebody who would file a lawsuit with the World Court or something rather than respond with troops." Even the Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage chimed in with his assertion that Iraqi "terrorists" were "trying to influence the election against President Bush."

Naturally bloggers followed the example of their elected officials and provided an echo chamber for these scandalous accusations. Back then a young Bush spokesman (and disciple of Karl Rove) named Steve Schmidt seemed to encourage such attacks: "Those statements speak to the great concern many people have about John Kerry's consistent vacillation under political pressure on the most significant issues the nation faces with regard to the war on terror." It's ironic that Steve Schmidt (now John McCain's chief campaign strategist) has been going back to the well, and using similar tactics to tie his latest opponent to terrorism. In fact that is what his entire focus has been over the last few weeks, with his repeated references to Bil Ayers.

Once again amateur online pundits are following Schmidt's lead, and they are employing the most divisive rhetoric imaginable. They have been quick to report the words of President Ahmadinejad, Hamas and Muammar Qaddafi, seeking to tie Obama to "terrorism". But interestingly, they have been notably quiet about the most recent endorsement coming from actual terrorists. It turns out that Al Qaeda is supporting McCain for president. The McCain campaign has been tripping all over itself, trying to distance themselves from this particular nod. The most awkward rationalization they've developed so far is that Al Qaeda is using "reverse psychology" to affect American electoral politics. One has to wonder why they didn't come up with that when Hamas made its "endorsement".

Of course I'm getting a bit of amusement watching this story play out. There are many US security experts that remain unsurprised about Al Qaeda's pick. Some have been expecting the terrorists to "vote" before the election by executing a high-profile attack, which would likely flip the polls in favor of McCain. It's really pretty obvious (to those that are actually well-informed) why Al Qaeda would prefer the pro-war GOP (neocon) rule, because that party consistently plays into its hands by destabilizing the Middle East with its aggressive and ham-handed foreign policy. Al Qaeda* is made up of Sunni Muslims who would be threatened by Obama's strategy of negotiating with Shi'ites such as those who rule Iran. They would much rather see Israel (or the US Armed Forces) bomb that nation with McCain's support.

* According to Al Qaeda ideology, the four biggest "enemies of Islam" are Israel, America, Heretics, and the Shia. Abu Musab al-Zarqawi (former leader of Al-Qaeda in Iraq) called Shi'ites "the most evil of mankind . . . the lurking snake, the crafty and malicious scorpion, the spying enemy, and the penetrating venom". It reminds me of the charges the Republicans have leveled against the Democrats lately.

What IS in the Bailout Bill?

It's remarkable how quickly coverage of the bailout bill (HR 1424) was removed from the news cycle. After a couple of weeks of intense scrutiny and conflict, the legislation was quickly passed and entered the vast repository of history. One might think that either the government or the mainstream media would make substantial efforts to break down the components of the compromise and present them to the American public that they purportedly serve. But apparently the powers-that-be think that the populace is either too dull to understand the details, or simply disinterested. While these assumptions may apply to a certain segment of reality-television viewers and slavish consumers, I find them extremely offensive.

So I set out on my own to find out what was added to the bill that the president signed into law. The press referred to these additions as "sweeteners", suggesting that many of our legislators would have oppossed the bailout if they were left out. In the process the bill swelled from its original length to a behemoth consisting of 451 pages. It's only natural to wonder how much of the final product was actually examined by the full Congress. Were they only aware of particular sections that would appeal to them and their constituents? If that is so, what little poison pills were inserted and overlooked in the rush to judgment? Do we have a series of nasty surprises coming down the line?

One big alteration involved "temporarily" raising the amount of bank deposits the FDIC insures from $100K to $250K. This was widely publicized, and seemed to garner bipartisan support. Similarly an expanded exemption of middle class earners from the alternative minimum tax seemed to be popular with both sides. As the LA Times reports, "The new law also has tax relief provisions for disaster victims; research and development tax credits; a hybrid car tax credit; and tax breaks for teachers who spend their own money on school supplies." I was particularly pleased to learn that companies seeking to invest in solar and wind power technologies were among those getting tax credits. John McCain and the GOP had been adamantly opposed to allowing those breaks before the presidential election.

Of course there were plenty of House Republicans glomming on to the GOP focus on "pork barrel" and decrying the nearly $150 billion in spending added to the bill (but no substantial opposition from McCain, who has identified this as the major reform of his prospective administration). It didn't matter that there were so many tax breaks and credits included. This was largely a Democratic product, and opponents had to distance themselves from it (even when they voted "yes" to pass it). Naturally it was a bit of deregulation (and a buttload of tax cuts) that successfully wooed the free market loyalists- the Securities and Exchange Commission promised to ease rules forcing companies to value on–balance sheet assets according to their current market prices (source). Obviously holding financial companies to certain standards of transparency was not in the game plan for these laissez faire activists.

While oversight was defined a bit more than in Paulson's original proposal, the bailout did leave a lot of discretion to the Treasury, with the creation of a new " Office of Financial Stability" (to be overseen by a 35-year old former VP at Goldman Sachs). The $700 billion will be released in installments for the Treasury Secretary to buy assets and hold them until (or if) the taxpayer money can be recouped. Who knows whether or not HR 1424 will significantly ameliorate the effects of decades of diminishing governmental regulation and oversight in the economy? Will our leaders make a fundamental commitment to keep abreast of developing financial crises and scandals? I would hope that the feds have more in store that would establish rules that will keep this situation from continually repeating itself.

What is ACORN and Why do Republicans Hate it?

Now that John McCain's attack ads on Barack Obama's character and "associations" have mostly been exposed as signs of impotence in an increasingly desperate campaign, the McCain/Palin has implemented a new strategy. No, it doesn't have to do with presenting a broad platform to address the growing economic concerns of the middle class. Nor is it a bold new program seeking to stabilize our financial markets. It's not even a new strategy to contain Iran or to track down al Qaeda in Pakistan. To the contrary, it has little to do with anything that will occur after the first week of November. John McCain's staff has decided to to attack the Obama campaign with accusations of "cheating", and they mean to cast doubt on the results of the coming election.

The recent GOP disinformation blitz has to do with ACORN- which stands for the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now. ACORN was founded in Arkansas in 1970 by Wade Rathke and Gary Delgado. Its broad mission has always been to advocate for low- and moderate-income families by working on neighborhood safety, health care, and other social issues. Its activities have included programs to address better housing and wages for the poor, more community development investment from banks and governments, and better public schools. ACORN has generally been aligned with the Democrats, due to their focus on helping segments of society that are less advantaged.

The current "controversy" revolving around ACORN is its voter registration drive. Since 2004, they have been the target of investigations in a small number of the many locations in which they have been active. These challenges to its existence have been overwhelmingly initiated by conservative politicians, free market advocacy groups, and the rightwing media. The latest charges accuse ACORN of systematically engaging in and encouraging the practice of submitting fraudulent voter registration forms. Yet the organization has been quick to point out that they have consistently demonstrated full cooperation and public support for the investigations of rogue employees, and has fired them when found guilty of voter fraud.

Duriong this election cycle the McCain/Palin campaign has attempted to make its case against ACORN by "revealing" that its employees turn in forms that are later discovered to be ineligible. What they (and their "Conservative" operatives in the mediasphere) fail to mention is that workers involved in most voter registration drives are mandated by state law to turn in every form they collect, without alteration. It is left solely to the discrimination of state election boards to determine the eligibility of these prospective voters. Defenders of ACORN have rightfully pointed out that the only reason fraudulent forms have been brought to public attention is because its employees are in the practice of flagging those that are suspect.

But none of this matters in the brutal political climate that the GOP has fostered. Regardless of the reality of the situation, the Republicans are determined to follow up on Sarah Palin's Convention speech slurs against community organizers. The Mccain/Palin ticket is no longer trying to claim that the profession has no "real responsibilities". They are attempting to place Obama in a supposed conspiracy plot. They have accused their opponent of being a community organizer for ACORN in the early 90's. This is patently false. In his capacity as an attorney, Barack once represented ACORN in a successful lawsuit alongside the U.S. Department of Justice against the state of Illinois to force state compliance with a federal voting access law.

Meanwhile, it turns out that John McCain was "associated" with ACORN as recently as 2006, when he appeared at a rally to address immigration reform. I guess in his mind it's OK as long as his own "maverick" political ends are being achieved.

Who is “Joe the Plumber”, Really?

A few days ago the American citizenry was introduced to a new political figure. He's a man named Samuel Joeseph Wurzelbacher, and he lives somewhere in Lucas County, outside of Toledo, Ohio. He came to national attention via an interaction he had with Barack Obama over the weekend. The candidate was canvassing door-to-door in Wurzelbacher's neighborhood on Sunday, when the two fell into a discussion about Obama's economic policy. "Joe" asked the Illinois senator if he believed in the "American Dream", and started peppering him with questions about taxes. A FOX News crew was there to record the entire exchange, and it was soon spread throughout the web.

When John Mccain's campaign learned of the footage, they apparently scrambled to integrate a narrative about "Joe the Plumber" into their debate strategy. A strange version of Wurzelbacher's "story" was introduced by John McCain right from the start. He portrayed "Joe" as someone who wanted to buy a small plumbing business, and was concerned that Obama's proposed tax structure would hurt him. McCain kept returning to "Joe" throughout the 90-minute contest, at one point exclaiming maniacally, "Congratulations Joe. You're rich!! You're rich". The Arizona senator made a point of pulling out a quote from the Obama/"Joe" recorded dialog that suggested that his opponent wanted to "spread the wealth around" in America*.

In the process, "Joe the Plumber" became a talking point and a minor celebrity. But it quickly became apparent after the debate that Samuel Joeseph Wurzelbacher wasn't exactly what he had at first seemed. To begin with, it turns out that "Joe" really isn't a plumber at all. He's neither licensed nor registered in the profession, and consequently not supposed to be practicing plumbing in Lucas County. Additionally he makes around $40,000 per year, and is in no position (as a divorced father) to buy the company he works for, or any other company for that matter. In fact he has several outstanding liens against his house, including one for neglecting to pay his property taxes.

"Joe the Plumber" is in a heap of trouble, and he has sacrificed his privacy for fifteen minutes on the national stage. He's been used by John McCain and the GOP, and is quickly replacing Sarah Palin as America's Greatest Joke. Rather than an entrepreneurial hero, it appears that Samuel Joeseph Wurzelbacher is merely yet another partisan tool to be exploited in the Republican's desperate attempt to hold onto political power. The ironic thing is that "Joe" would in fact benefit under Barack Obama's tax structure. When Barack Obama talks about "spreading the wealth", he's not talking about handouts. He's talking about shifting the very real tax burden of this nation on to the wealthiest members of society.

The entire "socialist" meme being pushed by the McCain/Palin ticket is a red herring. The reality is that there won't be any broad new social programs, no matter who is elected. The difficulty lies in financing the obligations that our society has already accrued. Our government is over $10 trillion in debt (when we include the money to be spent in the bailout), and the interest on that sum is astronomical. This is eroding international confidence in our currency. What "Joe the plumber" really represents is the large contingent of middle class schmucks that wouldn't recognize their enlightened self-interest if it bit them on their collective ass. People like Wurzelbacher, who still believe in realizing the "American Dream" through the "free market system" are drinking the Kool-Aid that is destroying our country.

* To really understand what transpired between Obama and Wurzelbacher, you have to see the complete video and/or read the trancript. You can do that HERE.

NOTE: If you didn't see it in the above link, you can find out how the McCain and Obama tax plans will affect you HERE.

Obama vs. McCain. The Conclusion.

Last night's event concluded this election cycle's series of four presidential (and VP) debates. Its reception followed a pattern that was established during the first one, and continued throughout. I was happy with the performances of Barack Obama and Joe Biden in each of the installments. Still, after each contest, pundits consistently insisted that they were draws. But a strange thing happened when the viewing public was consulted- American voters (both decided and uncommitted) overwhelmingly reported a clean sweep for Obama. I'd like to say that the corporate media's refusal to choose a winner in this series will finally put to rest the oft-repeated rightwing notion that the press has a liberal bias. However, I'm not nearly so naïve as to believe that this pattern will be widely acknowledged.

Regardless, as I've said before, the debates really aren't about "winning and losing". They are about meeting expectations. In this case the objectives of each candidate were well known. Both the McCain campaign and the candidate himself promised that the Arizona senator would come out especially aggressive. Conventional wisdom said that this was his last chance to change the momentum of the race. We heard that McCain would finally bring up Obama's "suspect associations" with Ayers and ACORN, and we waited to see whether he would follow through. Moderator (and CBS anchor) Bob Schieffer left him with no other option when he asked the rivals to address the perceived negativity flowing through the race.

So John McCain came out swinging hard, the way Mike Tyson used to do before he tried to bite off Evander Holyfield's ear. For the first half hour of the debate, he looked feistier than we have seen him look at any time since 2004. He attempted to make populist appeals, using "Joe the Plumber" as a prop. He tried to pin the big-spending tail on the donkey. And he trotted out the timeworn "class warfare" red herring. But then (apparently) his advanced age and flagging endurance made him stumble, and from there on out Obama looked in control of the match. Ironically the turning point occurred with his introduction of Ayers, a subject Republican extremists insisted he include in the debate.

The absolutely unflappable Obama laid out, in the very simplest terms, the facts about his "association" with Bill Ayers. Not only did he convey absolute sincerity, but he even turned the narrative on its head, pointing out that the educational reform panel that he sat on with Professor Ayers contained folks like the "the presidents of the University of Illinois, the president of Northwestern University, who happens to be a Republican, (and) the president of The Chicago Tribune, a Republican- leaning newspaper." Then he put the nail in the coffin of the McCain/Palin attack ads by saying that his campaign has no connection to ACORN- an organization he represented (in the early 90's) only as an attorney working with the US Justice Department to ensure that the state of Illinois complied with the motor voter law.

After that turnaround, McCain was completely incapable of sustaining any momentum, and clumsily returned again and again to his "Joe the Plumber" gimmick. It was clear that John had "jumped the shark" when he began talking directly to the unseen "Joe", and congratulating him for being "rich". I think he realized too that he had blown his "last best chance". His eyes started flittering back and forth like he was lost and scared, and he began to make the faces that have been the source of so much speculation regarding his temperament and stability. By the end of the night, it was clear that Obama had succeeded from the first to the last in his mission to prove himself presidential. Meanwhile McCain was left to pick up the pieces of his shattered campaign, which has run nothing but attack ads for the last few weeks.

The McCain/Palin Campaign Embraces "Agents of Intolerance". Part 3.

PLEASE READ PART 2 OF THIS SERIES BEFORE CONTINUING.

When Sarah Palin suggests that Jeremiah Wright should be returned to the political dialog in this ever-intensifying presidential race, she is not-so-subtly underscoring an important message- religion matters in the political sphere. Palin knows that many Americans felt threatened by what they interpreted as Wright's radical approach to Christianity. In this respect Palin is very well-informed, as I'll prove later in this post. She knows exactly how high the stakes are in this election. She is also well aware that she was chosen to be John McCain's partner because he would otherwise have had significant difficulty getting support from the Christian Right. It is patently clear to many political observers that the GOP is using Palin as a tool.

Unfortunately for the Republican leadership, its selection of Palin as the future of the party carries with it great risks of backlash from the more moderate segments of the base. For as clearly as Sarah Palin appeals to the Evangelical Christian Movement, she also has the potential to turn off voters who choose to make their voting decisions based upon economic and foreign policy. But that's not all... the McCain campaign must make sure that religion remains the unspoken subtext of this contest, rather than rising to the surface of mainstream consciousness. The Arizona Senator has notably declared religion (and as an extension, Jeremiah Wright) as off-the-table within the larger political discourse.

Many of Sarah Palin's most fervent supporters (which include the Christian Right and many Neocons) have bemoaned McCain's resistance to attacking Obama for his past connections to the Reverend Jeremiah Wright. But what they don't seem to understand is that such an assault could lead to even more dangerous territory than the subject of William Ayers. Not only is John McCain's personal faith less than convincing, but Sarah Palin's religious associations are downright radical. It's clear that McCain's more cautious advisers envision a net loss if these subjects are explored in the mainstream media. While they may be able to whip up the spirits of those who have already proclaimed their unwavering support, they would be at great risk of alienating the remaining undecided voters.

From the evidence so far, I'd say that the moderates on the McCain staff are correct in their assumptions about this issue. Obviously the Fundies have received the message... they are not going to flip in favor of Obama. And should more information come out about Palin's Pentacostal roots, McCain can only lose. A few weeks ago there was a YouTube video depicting an "Assembly of God" bishop named Thomas Muthee blessing Sarah Palin in preparation for her run for the Alaskan governorship. It wouldn't have been all that startling, except for the inclusion of an invocation intended to protect Palin from "witchcraft". This is not the ordinary experience of the vast majority of Christians in this nation. Instead, most rational modern citizens see witches more as fun holiday imagery with which to decorate their front porches.

What was less emphasized about that video is that Muthee was also asking God to bring Palin campaign contributions. While a lot of Americans may be able to relate to this type of prayer, it's doubtful that they will be especially comfortable with a Vice President that believes in speaking in tongues, the laying on of hands, and prophesy. These are all modern day Pentacostal beliefs taught in the churches Palin has attended for years. Additionally, some of her preachers have been intolerant. Ed Kalnins was the senior head of Palin's church in Wasilla. Among his highlights* are sermons during which he preached that those who criticize George W. Bush are doomed to hell. That's not the type of revelation likely to counter the Obama campaign's assertion that McCain/Palin will essentially be a repreat of the Bush/Cheney years.


* Kalnins has questioned if people who voted for Sen. John Kerry in 2004 would be accepted in heaven, has characterized the 9/11 terrorist attacks and war in Iraq as part of a great worldwide struggle about Christian faith, and said that Jesus “operated from that position of war mode". Most frightening perhaps is that he believes that Palin's political ascent is decreed by God, and that the "Biblical End Times" are near (link). How he relates these two "prophesied" events is pretty clear.

The McCain/Palin Campaign Embraces "Agents of Intolerance". Part 2.

PLEASE READ PART 1 OF THIS SERIES BEFORE CONTINUING.

Shortly after John McCain's Christian Outreach team returned from its inaugural road trip in Ohio, the Christian Conservative Movement began to coalesce behind him. At a subsequent meeting in Denver, 100 Evangelical leaders announced their commitment to unite in an effort to beat Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama. The figures at this influential conclave included Christian luminaries like Phyllis Schlafly, Steve Strang, Phil Burress, David Barton, and Donald Hodel. While some of these leaders hinted that they were ambivalent in their support for McCain as an individual, they were clear in their opposition to the Democratic challenger. According to Burress, "The stakes are too high. And if Obama wins I need to be able to get up on November 5th, look at myself in the mirror, and when I pray, say, ‘Lord, I did all that I could.’” (source).

As summer wore on, it was increasingly obvious that the McCain campaign had been successful in courting the Christian Right*, but it was still a bit of a mystery as to how these folks had been convinced of McCain's sincerity. After all, despite evidence to the contrary, John McCain had recently announced his church affiliation as "Baptist". But as confusing as his denominational loyalties might be, even more potentially problematic were suspicions that McCain is an atheist. So it was vitally important for the candidate to put his money where his mouth was. Many among the faithful, unconvinced by the pronouncements of their pastors and other church leaders, waited for God's Hand to be revealed. Lo and behold, it was.

On August 29th, John McCain introduced Sarah Palin as his choice for running mate on his ticket. It was at this point that things became clear to Christians and non-Christians alike. The Religious Right would not be abandoned during the election season of 2008. Almost immediately a flood of support flowed forth into the McCain campaign. The women he sought to elevate to the #2 position in the executive branch was a rabid social conservative. Not only did she work against extending same-sex rights as governor of Alaska, but she opposed abortion- even in cases where the impregnated woman had been raped or involved (willingly or unwillingly) in incestuous relations.

Palin was obviously "the Right girl" for the righteous. Although she made feeble attempts to reassure moderates that she did not seek to impose her personal religious beliefs on the nation, she continued to give all the proper signals to her constituency. They knew what her intentions were. They understood the embedded codes in her language in the same way they had with the current "Born Again" president. There was no mistaking Palin's allegiances. And despite the lukewarm feelings that the Christian Coalition has for the noted "War Hero", it has agreed to put their energy (and money) behind the McCain/Palin ticket. In fact, for the first time in this contest, clergy began to endorse McCain from the pulpit.

Under federal law, it is illegal for tax exempt organizations to endorse or oppose a political candidate by name. But now there is an organized effort by the Alliance Defense Fund to defy the first amendment protection of separation of church and state. This nonprofit organization has been notably linked to efforts to excoriate homosexuals, and are unwavering in their belief that pastors should be involved in politics. In receiving this sort of assistance without inconvenient questions of ethical propriety, John McCain has clearly abandoned any remnant of secular soul he had retained until a few months ago. Whether or not his alliances have been forced upon him, he should be held accountable for his associates.



* Figures like Rod Parsley (a Pentacostal Diminionist), McCain's self-admitted spiritual guide, who remains adamant that there is no separation of church and state in the U.S. Constitution . He has called upon Christians to wage a "war" against the "false religion" of Islam with the aim of destroying it.

Or John Hagee (pastor of a "non-denominational" charismatic church in Texas, and leader of a media empire), the founder and National Chairman of the Christian-Zionist organization Christians United for Israel. When McCain learned that he had earned Hagee's endorsement, he said, "I'm very proud to have Pastor Hagee's support". Hagee strongly and vocally supports an American-Israeli pre-emptive military strike on Iran. He predicts that Russia and the Islamic states will invade Israel and will be destroyed by God. He denies global warming and has claimed that Hurricane Katrina was punishment for New Orleans after the city allowed a gay pride parade to take place.

TO BE CONTINUED IN PART 3.

The McCain/Palin Campaign Embraces "Agents of Intolerance". Part 1.

John McCain has offered signals that he is about to tone down his focused strategy of character attacks, and get back on the subjects and challenges that most citizens are concerned about. Still his campaign chairman Rick Davis (a Fannie Mae/Freddie Mac former lobbyist) defends his continuing advertising strategy, while leveling character assassination charges against David Axelrod (Davis' counterpart on Obama's side). Apparently Axelrod's been accusing Davis of selling access to his chief. Meanwhile Davis is out on the stump trying to put forth the case that VP candidate Sarah Palin has done nothing wrong in the "Troopergate" Scandal, despite last Friday's announcement that the Alaskan Legislature had found her guilty of an ethics violation.

Does anybody really think that these chaotic politics are going to subside during the last three weeks heading into the election? I certainly don't. In fact, Sarah Palin is trying to shake things up even more with her calls to revisit the Jeremiah Wright flap that hit the media months ago. It's understandable that she would want to change the subject from her abuse of power tactics in Alaska, but her method of altering the dialog may result in a more careful analysis of some of the figures that have shaped her own thinking. John McCain has been adamant about not wanting to inject a discussion of religion into the race. I can empathize with this view, since I've been sick of the conflation of faith and policy for the last eight years.

In 2000, John McCain spoke eloquently about the developing rifts in the American scene. He notably bemoaned the "corrupting influences of religion and politics", and even went as far as suggesting that portions of the religious right were divisive and un-American*. He specifically identified Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell as "agents of intolerance". He also directed his criticism at his primary rival George W. Bush for giving a speech at the "Conservative Christian" Bob Jones University without addressing the institution's ban on interracial dating. What McCain did in the run-up to that election, not even a decade past, was truly a "maverick" move and likely cost him a primary victory.

My, how things have changed since then. In 2006, while McCain prepared to enter the current presidential race, the Arizona Senator decided to deliver the commencement address at Liberty University. That school was actually founded by "intolerance agent" Jerry Falwell, who since McCain's earlier denunciation of him "has said that Jews can't go to heaven unless they accept Christ, that the Prophet Mohammed was a terrorist, and that gays and feminists bore responsibility for 9/11" (source). While McCain claimed ,"I'm not trying to make up to anyone, either liberal or conservative or anyone else", it was clear that Falwell got the message. He replied, "I do think, like any wise politician moving toward a presidential election, he is trying to build alliances".

And perhaps it was necessary for a wizened politician seeking the GOP nomination for the presidency to embrace a group that makes up a large proportion of the most loyal base of the party. There's no doubt that McCain realized that he had to compromise his formerly-expressed values in order to have a chance at winning. This past summer McCain put together a nine-member Christian Outreach Team to travel to battleground states. In early July, he sent his exploratory committee to its first destination, where they met with the Ohio Christian Alliance. Apparently it was clear from that meeting that Evangelical Christians had specific demands that had to be met in order for Mccain to gain their support. It soon became quite clear what these demands entailed.

TO BE CONTINUED IN PART 2.



*"The political tactics of division and slander are not our values," Mr. McCain said. "They are corrupting influences on religion and politics, and those who practice them in the name of religion or in the name of the Republican Party or in the name of America shame our faith, our party and our country" (link).

The McCain/Palin Commitment to The Bush Doctrine.

What an amazing day John McCain had Friday. He finally confronted a couple of his (or Sarah Palin's?) rabid followers at a "Town Hall" style rally in Minnesota. Surely you've seen the video by now? He's officially set the record straight. For one thing, he finally admitted that his opponent is not an "Arab". That is remarkable. Now all he has to do is share that information with his staff. Apparently they haven't been sure about Obama. Is he some kind of "Manchurian Candidate"? Is he a "socialist"? Does he "pal around with terrorists"? Those have been the messages for (at least) the last week, and it was starting to get really ugly among the "faithful". The secret service even had to investigate a possible threat against Obama's life.

Now we don't have to ask ourselves "Who is Obama?" anymore. Because John McCain has found one of the last vestiges of honor and dignity buried beneath his capitulation to the basest elements of the GOP. If anyone brings up Barack Obama's character to you, you can simply quote McCain: "I have to tell you, he is a decent person and a person that you do not have to be scared of as president of the United States." You know, if McCain wasn't running against Obama for president, I'd have to say that this was an endorsement. Or... how about "I admire Senator Obama and his accomplishments"? That sounds unequivocal. Even when he got back on the attack, he sounded kind of moderate- "He's a decent family man, a citizen who I just happen to have serious differences with on fundamental questions."

But what you have to ask yourself is why did McCain wait so long to tell the truth? Why did he give in to the tactics of Karl Rove-protégé Steve Schmidt? Did he forget what he famously said about negative ads during his failed bid for the presidency in 2000? Why did he hire the exact same folks that smeared him with ungodly rumors eight years ago? Maybe he made a Faustian bargain. This is undoubtedly his last shot at his most coveted dream, and he's seeing it slowly slipping away. If he is honest with himself he's probably wondering how the hell he got the nod from the Republican Party in the first place. Somehow the neocon wing of the party took control of the maverick, and we are seeing the results. It's an open secret that the cabal's head "intellectual" picked Sarah Palin as his running mate.

So what does that mean in terms of philosophy for the McCain/Palin team? Consider these now famous words:

"We will pursue nations that provide aid or safe haven to terrorism. Every nation, in every region, now has a decision to make. Either you are with us, or you are with the terrorists. From this day forward, any nation that continues to harbor or support terrorism will be regarded by the United States as a hostile regime."

-George W. Bush, September 20, 2001 address to the United States Congress.

I think that all the political observers that accused Sarah Palin of not knowing about the Bush Doctrine need to reassess their beliefs. She may not have been able to communicate the principles intelligibly, but she has shown beyond a shadow of a doubt, that she has internalized an understanding of the tactics that the approach involves. The McCain/Palin ticket is simply applying the Bush Doctrine to its political opponent. The accusations that Palin and McCain have made by insinuation (and in some cases quite directly) have very real consequences, and they need to be held accountable for them.

So if John McCain really wants to retain his "maverick" status, he needs to do what the 2000-era McCain would have done- jettison Sarah Palin*, Steve Schmidt, and the rest of their cronies. If McCain was truly uncomfortable with going negative (as some pundits have suggested), he needs to realize that he was forced to buy into a losing strategy. It's probably too late to turn the race around, but it would be an incredible move that would restore the faith a lot of people used to have in McCain's decency. It would be a game-changer, and not just a transient one. It might also go a long way in rehabilitating the dishonored Republican party. At this point, it looks like the old war hero has very little to lose by throwing one last "Hail Mary". Hell, maybe he can ask Hillary if she's available.


* Now that Sarah Palin has officially been found guilty of an "Abuse of Power" ethics violation by the Alaskan legislature, McCain has the perfect excuse to get rid of her. After all, he is the "reform candidate".

Robert Baer on NPR's Fresh Air, Part 3.

Note: Please read Parts 1 and 2 of this series before proceeding.

What would happen if, as John McCain and Sarah Palin have both advocated, Iran's nuclear facilities were bombed? Ex-CIA agent Robert Baer offers an unequivocal answer to that question- the Iranians would light the Persian Gulf and Saudi oil facilities on fire. Baer knows many of the old school Revolutionary Guard Iranian generals by name. He has learned about their collective temperament and understands their willingness to employ devastating tactics in order to protect their nation's territorial integrity. As Baer points out, these sober-minded men believe that the Persian Gulf has that name for a reason. Its rim consists of a population that is over 90% Sh'ite, and it will be defended at all costs.

If Israel launches air attacks (with or without American support) the Iranian government will almost certainly respond by shooting Silkworm missiles at every tanker in the Gulf, thus disrupting the international oil markets, causing an international Great Depression that will make the Wall Street crisis look like "a walk in the park", and setting off the first round of World War III. What sane politician would offer unconditional support for such a move? We do not have the financial resources, nor the will necessary to carry out such a massive operation for 30+ years. It shouldn't even be considered a realistic option. Yet we still hear the McCain/Palin ticket continually insist that they aren't willing to sit down with Iranian leaders, and that we can't "second-guess" the policies of our ally Israel.

The fact is that our current situation reflects the waning of the American Superpower. For better or for worse, the world recognizes that there is a fundamental shift occurring. The US dollar is flagging, and legislative efforts to avoid a complete economic collapse have not gone unnoticed by the rest of the globe. Yet our national politicians seem committed to a purported "War on Terror" that is steadily draining our resolve and treasure. Our adventures in Afghanistan and Iraq are becoming increasingly unpopular and untenable. Meanwhile Osama Bin Laden hasn't been heard from or seen in years. Robert Baer believes that he is dead, and suggests that the majority of his CIA colleagues agree with him.

Baer points out that fighting a war against an opponent whose leadership has been neutralized does not make any sense. Furthermore (like a growing proportion of the American citizenry) he is frustrated that there is no specific ultimate objective that would define victory in this amorphous conflict. The only final conclusion that seems consistent with reality is that we need a significant change in our longterm strategy. There is a growing awareness that the United States must dedicate itself to energy independence. We will not be able to afford this imperative if we continue to trick ourselves into believing that we can "democratize" the Middle East. Our goal must be to demilitarize that region.

I agree with Robert Baer's final conclusion. In order to preserve some relevance on the international stage, we must initiate a nationwide "Manhattan Project" to accelerate the development of sustainable alternative energy. In the meantime we may need to ensure that a steady supply of oil flows from the Middle East. No matter what McCain and Palin believe, this cannot be accomplished with a diplomacy relying on bombs and threat. We must sit down with the true power players, regardless of how we feel about them. That is the only way to avert the catastrophic path that the Bush Administration has placed us on. There is much more at stake here than Wall Street, federal taxation, corporate subsidies, and partial-birth abortions.

Robert Baer on NPR's Fresh Air, Part 2.

Note: Please read Part 1 of this series before proceeding.


It may sound strange to hear Robert Baer's characterization of the Iranian government as "maturing", especially given the inflammatory statements by Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, but he correctly points out the limited role the President actually plays in setting foreign policy. While the McCain/Palin ticket seems disproportionately obsessed with Ahmadinejad's rhetoric regarding the future of Isreal, they seem to be missing the point that it is cleric Ali Khamenei that is the actual Supreme Leader of Iran. Not only has Khamanei contradicted Ahmadinejad's anti-Israeli stance, but he has actually issued a fatwa against the production, stockpiling and use of nuclear weapons.

This seems to support Baer's argument that Iran could represent a rational partner in forming a security accord in the Middle East. A major complication for cooperative action between Iran and the West involves the Palestinan question. Hezbollah takes its marching orders from Tehran, and this has been a constant source of enmity between Israel and Iran. Still, Baer says that Ali Khamenei has implied that he wants no more than the Palestinians want- self-rule in the West Bank and East Jerusalem. He further insists that the Iranians see Saudi Arabia as their main rival in the Midde East. The Emirates of that country represent the 1400-year legacy of Sunni repression of the Shi'ites. The Wahabi form of Islam is a particular anathema to the Iranian clerics.

Robert Baer agrees that the Sunni fundamentalists are manifestly more anarchic and unreliable than their Shia counterparts. He raises the question of Saudi involvement in the 9-11 attacks, and rightfully points out that the Saudis have never been held to account for the participation of more than 15 of their citizens. In calling for formal negotiations between the US and Iranian governments, Baer realizes that he risks alienating Saudi Arabia- a longtime ally of the Bush family and the neo-con wing of the Republican Party. But if we are truly interested in combating "Islamofascism" in the region, it is appropriate to trace its sources. The reality is that the hardline fudamentalist madrasas throughout the Muslim world are financed by Saudi oil profits.

So why should we continue our irrational stance of loyalty to the Saudi Royal Family? As Robert Baer asks, "Do we really care who pumps the oil?" Certainly we need a Middle Eastern supply of crude, but must we buy it from Saudi Arabia? Baer insists that Iran wants the United States as a partner in stabilizing the Middle East. While he admits that this is an awfully tough sell for the majority of America (especially in light of the vilification that has been heaped on that country during the last eight years), he is clear that the alternative is a 30-year war with the most significant military power in the region. Yet the development of nuclear weapons in Iran presents a serious obstacle to negotiations.

There is no doubt in Robert Baer's mind that a nuclear arms race in the Middle East should be avoided. But he doesn't think that the current US approach of threatening preemptive military action is pragamatic or wise. It's useful to speculate on what consequences such an aggresive policy could bring. VP candidate Sarah Palin was recently asked how a McCain Administration would react to Israel if that nation made air attacks on Iranian nuclear facilities. She responded by saying that “We are friends with Israel, and I don’t think that we should second-guess the measures that Israel has to take to defend themselves and for their security.” This was almost undoubtedly a tacit approval of a prospective attack, and an eminently foolish position.

TO BE CONTINUED IN PART 3...