Rod Blagojevich, "America's Least Popular Governor".

If you were under the mistaken impression (and I honestly don't understand how you possibly could be) that the GOP has a monopoly on graft and corruption, then you ought to tune in to one of the numerous and timely stories about Illinois Governor Rod Blagojevich. He's recently come under fire for a few missteps, including an attempt to auction Barack Obama's vacant Senate seat to the highest bidder. Democrats have been having a pretty good time slamming their opponents for their moral turpitude, and while Republicans have demonstrated much of it over the past few decades, it should be noted that party affiliation does not necessarily determine one's integrity (or lack of it).

One need only take a cursory look at Chicago politics to reinforce the belief that Democrats know how to get their hands dirty. In some ways Blagojevich can be looked at as the quintessential Chicago lawmaker. Born in 1956 to Serbian immigrants and raised in the northwestern part of the city, he knows what it is like to be on the lowest rung of society. Growing up he worked odd jobs (shoeshine boy, pizza delivery, meat-packer, etc.) to help support his family. He attained an undergraduate certificate at Northeastern and got a law degree from Pepperdine. He entered politics by winning a seat in the Illinois legislature, and then successfully insinuated himself into the US House of Representatives.

Ironically Blagojevich concentrated on legislation dealing with crime and law enforcement. After a couple of relatively inactive terms in Congress, he went on to make a bid for Governor in 2002. He ran on a platform of "ending business-as-usual" in state government. This was a reference to the former Governor George Ryan, who served time in prison for ethics scandals arising from his stint in office. Although he was able to win re-election in 2006, he quickly found himself under investigation by both the Illinois Attorney General (Lisa Madigan) and the FBI. Through it all, he has been able to oversee a progressive agenda facilitated by Democratic control of the state. As a result he is particularly favored by African-Americans and labor leaders.

Despite a few loyal constituencies, Rasmussen Reports found Blagojevich to be "America's Least Popular Governor" (his ratings have been below those of George W. Bush). He has been rejected by Illinois Democrats due to his purportedly dictatorial leadership style, and a refusal to engage in productive communication. Various officials have called him a "a madman", "a 10-year old child", "insane", "disengaged", and "cuckoo". His own Lieutenant Governor (Pat Quinn) has reportedly not spoken to him in over a year. No doubt there are a lot of public figures that would like to distance themselves from Blagojevich, as well as his infamous campaign fundraiser Tony Rezko. Shady associations, along with multiple accusations of hiring fraud, have plagued the Governor for years.

Even a brief summary of the crimes and misdemeanors that Blagojevich has been suspected of perpetrating is beyond the scope of this post. His alleged desire to sell the US Senate seat to the highest bidder seems to be the tip of a vast Illinois iceberg. If he refuses to resign despite the increasing pressures of the local media, national press, and various politicians within and without his party, he could actually be in the position to appoint someone to fill the Congressional vacancy. Impeachment proceedings are likely, but they could stretch out over months. Meanwhile, rightwing hacks are attempting to tie the President-Elect to this ne'er-do-well despite their historically strained relationship. The FBI has recordings of Blagojevich referring to Obama as a "motherf--ker" because the future Chief Executive refused to offer the Governor anything in trade for the appointment of his choice for the empty Senate seat (other than "appreciation").

Saxby Chambliss Allowed to Continue Poisoning DC.

I'm sure that you've heard by now that Saxby Chambliss won his Georgian run-off election to retain his US Senate seat. He actually beat his rival Jim Martin by 15 points- a much larger win than during the general election, when he failed to achieve the necessary 50% of the vote to avoid the "do-over". With that victory, the Republicans have finally achieved what they fought so hard for during this past voting cycle. The GOP has been able to avoid a supermajority of Democrats in the Upper House. That means that the filibuster is still in play for these obstructionists. Now their opponents will need to sway someone from their side in order to attain cloture, and force votes on controversial legislation.

I can't say that this was particularly unexpected. It was quite clear before November 4th that the Dems had a long road to 60 seats. Still I can't help being a little disappointed. It looked for a minute like they had a shot. Franken and Coleman have been running neck-and-neck in the Minnesotan recount, and the party seemed to have resources to sink into the Georgian race. The ironic thing is that if the Democrats could have foreseen that they were going to get this close to complete dominance, they might have looked a lot harder for a stronger candidate than Jim Martin. Apparently the best thing he had going for him was that he wasn't Saxby Chambliss. Obviously that wasn't enough without Obama's long coattails.

The thing is that I really wanted Chambliss to lose for reasons quite apart from the larger partisan politics. The guy is clearly an asshole. He only occupies his place in Washington because he smeared Vietnam War veteran Max Cleland in 2002. What's so galling is that Chambliss is just another chicken hawk within the "Patriot Party". He scored five deferments to stay out of Southeast Asia, and still had the nerve to attack Cleland for voting against a homeland security bill. His campaign actually produced an ad that associated Cleland with Osama bin Laden and Saddam Hussein. Even John McCain stepped forward to criticize the spot, saying "It's worse than disgraceful, it's reprehensible."

Still that didn't stop McCain from flying down to Georgia to support Chambliss' re-election bid. Apparently the former US congressman is quite connected. Chambliss is one of several GOP lawmakers to publicly return money he received from disgraced lobbyist Jack Abramoff. He was one of the only senators in history to gain a chairmanship on a full standing committee within his first two years of assuming office. That position (head of Agriculture, Nutrition and Forestry) seemed to present a conflict of interest, as his son Bo Chambliss is a lobbyist for a commodities firm in Chicago that is under its legislative jurisdiction. I guess that it's just "all in the family" for this notorious southern clan.

Chambliss is fairly typical of many of the Republican politicians that swept into DC in 1994 under Newt Gingrich's congressional leadership. He's a social conservative, and he's corrupt. The ACLU gave him a 17% rating on civil rights. The National Educational Association gave him an "F". On organized labor issues, he has earned a score of 11%. He's terrible on the environment... a fact that likely explains why the GOP wants him working on our nation's forests. All of this makes him a natural for the Deep South. It's just too bad that the Democrats couldn't capitalize on the unique congruence of factors that prevailed in the recently concluded election. Perhaps Georgia would have actually enjoyed a change in their national representation. It will be many years before they see another such opportunity.

Mr. McCain Goes To Washington.

I’ve heard a lot of people from all different political persuasions weigh in on John McCain’s latest political gambit. Some were certain that it was a political trick to escape the debates. Others claimed that he was just acting out the essential risk-taking predisposition at the core of his personality. Quite a few suggested that the move was motivated by desperation. I’ve done a lot of thinking about John McCain’s motivations over the last twenty-four hours, and it finally occurred to me that there was a crucial component of the situation being overlooked. Could it be possible that McCain exercised his only option, given the situation on the ground?

Look at it this way… McCain is selling himself as a "maverick" that is willing to reach across party lines and work in a bipartisan fashion. Sure he flaked out when he realized that government intervention was necessary to “rescue” Wall Street from the position that it put itself in. He’s always been known as an impulsive guy. He genuinely wanted to believe that the “fundamentals of the economy were sound”. When he heard that the worst was yet to come, he went apoplectic. He looked around for a scapegoat and called for the head of SEC Chairman Christopher Cox (reportedly a long-time friend). Falling back on his long-held reputation as a proponent of free market Capitalism, he came out immediately against the bailout.

Let’s face facts. There is a base constituency that is at the heart of the GOP that is fundamentally devoted to completely deregulated “free markets”. Any Republican who has subscribed to this perspective cannot come out in favor of a government intervention, especially the likes of which the Bush Administration has proposed. To do so would expose him/her as a complete hypocrite. That’s the tragic flaw of the idealogue… they lock themselves in. On one level John McCain has always wanted to reassure this wing of his party that he is “on board”. Recall his proclamation to the Wall Street Journal on March 29, 2007- “You are interviewing the greatest free trader you will ever interview, and the greatest deregulator you will ever interview.”

It’s true that John McCain has always been attracted to hyperbole. But I trust that at his core, he really believed it when he said it. How galling it must have been to realize that he was caught up in a quagmire that demanded one of the largest government interventions in our history. And he also must have figured out that he couldn’t sit this one out. After all, he’s running to be the nation’s leader. Yet at the same time, he must have known that he would be essentially irrelevant to the process that would work out this issue. The Congress is controlled by Democrats, and like it or not any solution will be theirs to own. They don’t need a single Republican supporter, because whatever bill they work out with Bush and Co. will not be vetoed.

So what do you do if you are John McCain? Try to insert yourself and try to look useful… like a “statesman”. It doesn’t hurt if you can use the opportunity to threaten non-involvement in a crucially important presidential debate and criticize your opponent for continuing his campaign (while you step up your own). Now you (in your role of John McCain, after your 22-hour flight from New York City) are in Washington and completely superfluous- effectively shut out of the process and needing to look busy. If you try to muster your colleagues to join you in support of the legislation, you alienate them from those they claim to represent back home. If you are unable to get their support, then you look like a failure. If you join the Democrats, you look like a turncoat and a hypocrite.

The reward is entirely front-loaded. What’s to gain on the back end? All McCain has to look forward to is some good PR to offer to moderates and the undecided… that is, if he can get the press on his side. That’s going to be hard to do with the constant criticism he has directed at them over the last few weeks. And how does he vote for a “rescue” that he had no part in engineering, and still distinguish himself from Obama, whose side he has effectively joined? Who’s going to trust John McCain - the Republicans, the Democrats, or the media?

The 2008 Presidential Debates, Brought to You By the CPD (?)

As most readers must surely be aware of by now, we are entering the debate period of the 2008 Presidential General Election. The first event will be held on Friday evening at Ole Miss, September 26th, moderated by Jim Lehrer, and broadcast on PBS affiliates. The remaining presidential debates are on October 7th (Tom Brokaw, Nashville, NBC), and October 15th (Bob Schieffer, Hofstra, CBS). The VP showdown, which could possibly garner a larger viewership due to the immense hype surrounding Sarah Palin, will be on October 2 at Washington University in St. Louis, and hosted by PBS' Gwen Ifill. For a short time (at least) the candidates will hunker down and bone up on the issues.

Given the contentious nature of these campaigns so far, it comes as no surprise that the terms and conditions of the debates are controversial. It's notable (of course) that only the nominees from the two major political parties have been invited to participate in these events. There will be no spoiler candidate in 2008. I find this particularly disconcerting because the two-party system makes our political dialog simplistic, and adds to the impression that every position must be framed in black-and-white terms. This type of "you are either with us or against us"-style of politics is more appropriate for an audience of 13-year olds than a purportedly "sophisticated" electorate. Pehaps one day we will see the rise of a viable third party.

Anyway, it is fascinating to study the arguments and negotiations that occur before the major players even take to the stage. Did you know that a "bipartisan" organization called the Commission on Presidential Debates (CPD) ultimately makes the important decisions regarding the debates? The CPD is apparently a non-profit, 501(c)(3) entity as defined by Federal US tax laws, funded entirely by corporate contributions. The organization is headed by Frank Fahrenkopf and Paul Kirk, former heads of the Republican and Democratic National Commitees, respectively. It was founded in 1987, and has only regulated debates since the 1988 presidential race between George H. W. Bush and Michael Dukakis.

Right from its inception, the CPD generated criticism. In 1988, the League of Women Voters was the first to voice its objections. That association notably charged that "the demands of the two campaign organizations would perpetrate a fraud on the American voter." It may not be surprising that the League of Women Voters was offended by what they saw as a power-grab by the Republican and Democratic parties. Indeed the LWV had served the crucial moderating role in the presidential debates of 1976, 1980, and 1984. They were usurped by the major parties, who colluded to involve corporate contributions (soft money) in the sponsorship of the event. After the CPD takeover, corporations realized they could curry favor with both parties by donating funds.

Indeed the CPD is heavily influenced by the private sector today. According to the Open Debates website, "many board members of the CPD have close ties to multinational corporations; Frank Fahrenkopf is the nation's leading gambling industry lobbyist, and Paul Kirk lobbies for pharmaceutical companies." In the meantime, the two major parties resolve any issues involving the participation of third-party candidates behind closed doors. The CPD has no hard-and-fast rules either. In 2000, Ralph Nadar sued the CPD for arbitrarily requiring any participant to show at least 15% support across five national polls. If this is a concern for you (as it is for me) please support the initiatives of ReclaimDemocracy.org, a site working to replace the CPD with the Citizen's Debate Commission.

John McCain, "The Greatest Deregulator".

The US economy seems to be coming apart at the seams. The Federal Reserve recently announced its latest bail-out- the AIG Corporation. The Reserve has offered an $85 billion loan to be paid back over the course of the next two years. Of course this comes on the heels of government rescues of other private corporations like Bear-Stearns and Fannie Mae/Freddie Mac (which readers of this blog certainly do not have to be reminded of). It's interesting to note that previous to this latest action, federal officials importuned the private sector to come up with some funds to save a crucial cog in its machine, but alas, when true saving is required it seems the government is always the fallback plan.

This is especially galling given that the private sector bemoans government intervention whenever they perceive it as a risk to their unfettered pursuit of short-term profits. I can't tell you how many times I've had to listen to armchair economists and "libertarians" extol the virtues of the Private Sector, and its vast superiority at meeting the needs of the American citizenry. These folks push for deregulation at every turn, and turn their heads when their Wall Street idols extend their hands for more taxpayer dollars to save their collective ass. The fact is that their self-interest always overwhelms their principles. When push-comes-to-shove they remind us that we are all "collectivists" when we are in trouble.

So the financial markets continue to make crucial mistakes that we are asked to pay for when times are bad, and then fight tooth-and-nail against giving anything back when things are going "well". When any politician even hints about raising corporate taxes, he/she is branded a "socialist", yet when "free market" adherents get themselves and the nation's economy into a crisis and require corporate welfare from the government, they are quick to remind us that "we are all in this together." I'm no expert in economics (and neither are you), but it doesn't take a genius to realize that we are getting bilked. There are very real individuals exploiting the myth that Capitalists can do no wrong.

These corporate pirates build their "house of cards" and resent anyone who wants to take a close look at its foundation. According to their worldview, government is corrupt and inefficient and has nothing to offer in its regulatory capacity. That's why a guy with a record like John McCain is so alluring for them. By his own admission, he doesn't know much about economics either. But he does have a solid record of being anti-regulation. His most notable bipartisanship effort was his membership in the Keating Five. That esteemed group of senators ignited a major scandal as part of the Savings and Loan crisis of the 80's. It cost the American taxpayer more than an estimated $180 billlion.

So John McCain does know a thing or two about the perils of relinquishing government oversight of crucial US financial markets. So why does he take such great pains to remind us that he is the "Greatest Deregulator"?* Besides the fact that it is the one time he seems to be telling the truth, it could have something to do with his top economic advisors. In the 1990's, Phil Gramm worked overtime as Chairman of the Senate Banking Committee to deregulate the banking and financial services industry. And then there is Carly Fiorina, whose biggest claim to fame so far is having been fired by Hewlett Packard for having engineered a failed merger with Compaq. Of course McCain mostly uses her to level charges of "sexism" against Barack Obama. But at least she admits that neither McCain or Palin have the executive experience to run a major corporation.





Bottom line- the "markets" are not going to sort themselves out. We need to start thinking on a longer-term basis. Neither John McCain nor his advisors can be trusted on the subject of the economy.


* “You are interviewing the greatest free trader you will ever interview, and the greatest deregulator you will ever interview”

-John McCain, As Quoted in The Wall Street Journal, March 29,2007.

Palin's Incompetence Revealed... Now Put the Focus on McCain.

There was a time not long ago (two weeks, actually) that I still believed that John McCain was a good and honorable man. He seemed to be above rolling in the mud and sleaze of a dirty political campaign. Unfortunately I can no longer credit McCain with such intentions. His stated approval of an ad that deliberately lied about Obama's stance on sex education in our schools was absolutely reprehensible. One wonders whether he puts the same amount of time into the approval of his ad campaign as he does into the vetting of potential running mates. Or has he completely given himself over to crass and cynical politics aimed at convincing people to vote against his opponent, rather than for him?

While such strategies are common for the GOP, McCain has always prided himself on being somehow "different". In fact he was one of the only Republican politicians to decry the low-ball slime demonstrated by the Swift-Boating of John Kerry in 2004. Unfortunately it appears that giving in to his comrades is more important than principle. After all, as one of my Republican acquaintances said- "Hey, you can't change things if you don't win". Still a fitting response would be to point out that running the executive department entails a series of invitations and temptations to abandon your values. I find it a bit sad to see McCain jump the gun merely to achieve more political power.

Why have his policies on immigration, torture, tax cuts for the rich, offshore drilling, windfall profits taxes, gay rights, defense cuts, lipstick remarks, etc. changed so radically over the last two years? Why has he met (in 2008) with the same sort of Christian Right leaders that he called (in 2000) "agents of intolerance"? Why did he risk the future security and prosperity of our nation by choosing a running mate with NO national or international experience, extreme social conservative values, and a penchant for lying? And why does he continue to trumpet those lies even after learning the truth? If he genuinely doesn't know the reality of Palin's record of pursuing earmarks, of her support for the "Bridge to Nowhere", of her fealty to oil companies, and her almost total ignorance of foreign affairs- then we MUST question his fitness for the presidency.

Instead of continuing to accept the "received wisdom" that McCain is a man committed to integrity, the voting populace needs to face the possibility that this experienced politician is merely a purveyor of half-truths and obfuscation. John McCain stood on a stage in Minneapolis and warned that "change" was coming to Washington. Ostensibly he is referring to the same nation's capitol that we refer to as "D.C.". It's the one that featured a scandal that exposed Republican lobbying corruption and sent Jack Abramoff to prison, and Tom Delay back to Texas. We're talking about the GOP-the party that McCain is now the nominal leader of. How is John McCain going to clean the place up after employing more lobbyists on his campaign staff than any other 2008 presidential candidate?

Like many other opponents of McCain's candidacy, I cringe at the the thought that Sarah Palin will be so close to the Oval Office (especially after her embarrassing interview with Charlie Gibson this past week). She is frankly incompetent. But we really need to redirect the light of truth back on the actual GOP nominee for president. If nothing else, the Palin selection reflects on his poor judgment as a leader. Yet still the message is patently clear, whether or not the worst nightmares of the anti-McCain/Palin contingent come true. McCain has called for "change" after voting 95% of the time with Bush in 2007 and 100% of the time in 2008. And I agree with him- we cannot afford another four years of the Bush play book. Obama/Biden must prevail.