Politics as Usual in an Exceptional Time.

I've been taking a bit of a break from politics these last couple of months. I realize that it isn't entirely appropriate to pull away during the beginning of a new president's tenure... especially considering how ardent a supporter I was of the pre-executive Barack Obama. It's not fair for me to shine the light of analysis on the preceding administration, and then give this one a free pass. Yet at the same time, I spent so much energy following the 2008 presidential election that I felt entitled to have a rest. Truth be told, my level of involvement in the political scene was unsustainable. There was just no way for me to devote the hours it took for me to inform myself, while at the same time pursue my other interests and obligations.

Still it's not as if I have been living in a bubble. I realize that there has been a rash of government activity aimed at confronting our tenuous economic position. I took a look at the stimulus package, and considered the amount of extraneous spending included in the final bill. I try to keep up with the planning for the disbursement of the second half of the TARP funds. I even tune in for the latest reporting on the stock market. There is little to recommend a belief that we are "righting the ship". Obviously extreme measures have not yet been sufficient, and I think that Congress and the Obama Administration will continue to search for bold steps to jar the American economy out of its current malaise.

It's been slightly entertaining to see just how quickly Obama's hope of a post-partisan era of politics has been revealed as just so much wishful thinking. Michael Steele, the prospective new head of the opposition party, has blatantly labeled bipartisanship "a fiction". Granted the new GOP Chairman has been under great fire lately. I suppose this was inevitable given the state of the Republican leadership in the wake of their great losses. Steele is tasked with rebuilding a party that lays in ruins at the feet of eight years of failure. And he's being asked to deal with a constituency that is notoriously recalcitrant and resistant to change. That's quite a bit to overcome for someone who has never won a major election during his career.

Chairman Steel also has to contend with one of the loudest windbags since Joseph McCarthy. Hack radio host Rush Limbaugh continues to consolidate his power over the "conservative movement", in the midst of total breakdown. Limbaugh strikes me as nothing more than a very fat vulture, greedily licking his lips at the vulnerability of the dying Republicans scattered around Washington. He's obviously aware that this his last best opportunity to be the voice of the GOP. The rank-and-file has been left with nothing but platitudes and defeat. It's been 15 years since the last recapitulation of moral majority values, and the playbook that was drawn under the watchful eye of Newt Gingrich has proved ineffective and empty.

Still it's difficult to understand what productive outcome Limbaugh hopes to achieve with his incendiary stream-of consciousness, especially since it can be reduced to a mercenary desire to see Obama and Co. fail in their attempts to help the nation regain its bearings. As a national figure, he is continuing to erode his own popularity. No doubt his invective is carefully calculated. He realizes that he is increasingly irrelevant, and that his last best chance to be a player is to distinguish himself as the enemy of the White House. I think he truly believes that he can elevate himself by attacking the Commander-in-Chief. The trouble is that he is setting a dangerous precedent that his less deliberate followers are likely to emulate. And that can't be good for the US.

The Right's Newfound Fear of Executive Orders.

If you still listen to conservative talk radio (despite its rapidly decreasing relevance in the American political scene), you've probably noticed that guys like Limbaugh, Hannity, and Savage are beside themselves in the wake of the Democratic takeover of the federal government. This is all easy to understand when you consider how far and how fast the GOP has fallen since the election of 2006. It's difficult to believe that the Republican Party had attained a complete consolidation of national power as recently as little more than three years ago. Things have definitely changed, and many pundits are having difficulty making the proper adjustments. That may be a shame for their followers, but it can also be quite entertaining.

One topic of intense consternation on the extreme Right is the presidential power of executive order. Obviously, while George W. Bush presided, uber-conservatives were only too happy to welcome his heavy-handed governance, and Cheney's construction of "the unitary executive". This approach made the Bush administration one of the most overreaching political bodies in modern American history. With the complicity of much of the media, Bush and company were able to reign almost completely unchallenged in Washington. And indeed, much of their agenda was prosecuted via executive order. Obviously this category of proclamation that carries the force of law is an important tool in the presidential arsenal.

Regardless of your interpretation of the legitimacy of Bush/Cheney, there can be no arguing that they fully embraced the concept of ruling by fiat. For a complete list of executive orders passed from 2001-08 (broken down by category), you can consult this site. If that math is correct, Dubya issued 284 executive orders during his eight years in office. He put out eight in the first month of his first term. Even more telling, he wrote five during his last working week as the president. Of course this accounting doesn't apply to the other directives and signing statements he made while occupying the Oval Office. For guys like Limbaugh, Savage and Hannity to bitch about Obama's activity so far is laughable.

Obama's critics are frothing at their collective mouth because they know he is a formidable leader who will actively work to undo a lot of the damage of his predecessor. It's especially amusing to see them try to hide their assaults under the banner of concern for the US Constitution. But when they hyperventilate about the "unprecedented" total of Obama's executive orders (I count five on the official White House site), they rarely if ever get into the details of their opposition. Do you have any idea what type of policy that Obama is trying to execute with his directives? You certainly don't if you listen to Conservative hack radio. They'd rather try to frighten with lies than enlighten with facts.

Let me provide a quick breakdown so far, Three of our President's executive orders fall under the banner of defense policy objectives. He is closing the prison at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba (1). He is setting up new standards and practices for the interrogation of detainees in US custody (2), and he is establishing a Special Interagency Task Force on Detainee Disposition (3). Furthermore he has sought to hold executive branch appointees to certain new ethical requirements (4) and established a policy to make Presidential records more accessible (5). Make a quick analysis of this list and tell me which of these E.O.'s present a danger to our rights under the US Constitution...

Senator Al Franken !?

I'd like to extend congratulations to my friends in Minnesota who have the pleasure of welcoming their new US Senator Al Franken. It seems that you people have gained a tirelessly determined warrior. I think very few political observers would have predicted his victory with any level of confidence in early November. In fact when the canvassing board reconvened to declare Franken the winner over incumbent Norm Coleman yesterday, there were no doubt many observers watching in stunned disbelief. The margin of victory was indeed minuscule, and the race was decided by a mere 225 (or so) votes. I'd imagine there are a lot of Minnesotans marveling over the fact that their votes actually counted.

Of course Coleman and his campaign have vowed to fight on in the courts. Still it seems that perception counts for more than anything else in politics, and the declaration of a victor seems to be almost unimpeachable. I can't see any authority being willing to retract this outcome. It would be a significant subversion of the American political process. In some ways it's reminiscent of the 2000 presidential election, in which that other "Al" was vanquished in our highest federal courts. Congress will return to DC today and there will be an empty seat, as Minnesota law necessitates a week delay before the declaration of an official winner. But very few question who will be occupying that seat during the next six years.

Interestingly, the GOP does have recourse to block Franken from the Upper House. Certification of the election results lies in the hands of Minnesota Governor Tim Pawlenty, who came very close to becoming John McCain's running mate this past August. And while the Democratic Senate majority and its Rules Committee ordered Norm Coleman's offices closed at the Capitol building, there is some noise about the Republicans taking the matter to the federal courts. If they do, it could delay the seating of Franken for weeks, or even months. It will be interesting to see how patient the citizens of Minnesota will be with their representation cut in half by continued legal wrangling. I doubt it will make Coleman any more popular.

Indeed Norm Coleman risks looking like a hypocrite if he drags this out any further. When Franken refused to concede in the wake of the November election, while citing the need for an official recount, Coleman accused his challenger of wasting taxpayer money. Now this former Democratic mayor of St. Paul is threatening to do the same thing. By hook-or-by-crook, it seems like the Brooklyn-native is committed to retaining his power. Coleman has a tradition of being willing to sacrifice his principles to achieve position. He changed party affiliations in 1997 in a bid to attain statewide office. Now he's a long way from his roots as an anti-War progressive Democrat in the Woodstock-era counterculture.

Regardless of Coleman's odd persistence, it now appears that the Democrats will be a single vote away from ensuring cloture in the US Senate. With 59 votes, they only need to ensure the cooperation of one member from across the aisle to advance any particular piece of legislation. But there are certainly some kinks to be worked out. No one quite knows how to handle the situation in Illinois, with Blogojevich-appointee Roland Burris appearing set on claiming the President-elect's vacated seat. Meanwhile in New York, the brewing controversy over the possible ascension of Caroline Kennedy is playing out (pending Hillary Clinton's approval as Secretary of State). There is a lot to be determined, and Franken is only part of the picture.

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.

Another Strike Against Potential Filibusters.

One more battle in the Congressional War on Obstructionism has been concluded. Mark Begich has officially defeated Alaskan senator Ted Stevens. The count of absentee and early ballots gave the Mayor of Anchorage a 1.2% lead over the incumbent. Stevens was the longest-serving Republican in the Senate, but saw his reputation shattered after being convicted on seven counts of corruption charges. Apparently he accepted money ($250K) in the form of personal gifts from VECO, an oil-services company. Even had he won the election, it's doubtful that he would have been allowed to occupy his seat. Minority Leader Mitch McConnell was planning to call upon Stevens to resign. The GOP mercifully postponed an expulsion vote until after the results of the count.

With Begich joining the majority, the Democrats now number 58 within their caucus. His victory makes him the first Alaskan Democratic Congressman since Mike Gravel left the Senate in 1981. Interestingly, the last member of the House of Representatives to represent the party was Nick Begich (Mark's father) , who disappeared in a flight over Alaska in 1972. Begich will be the only legislator in the Upper House who does not have a college degree. He's got a history of barely squeezing into his elected positions. After running unsuccessfully to be the Anchorage Mayor twice, he found his third try charmed when he won by just eleven votes. He also benefited from a law passed during that cycle that allowed a candidate to win the mayoralty without a majority of the vote.

In other recent news, "Independent" legislator Joe Lieberman will remain with his former party, as he is being allowed to keep his chairmanship of the Homeland Security Committee. A secret vote on his future weighed heavily in his favor (42-12). He reportedly appreciates the gesture as one of "reconciliation" rather than "retribution". Closer to the truth is the longshot chance that the Democrats may attain a filibuster-proof majority in the Senate if everything falls their way. The two remaining contests involve a hand recount of 2.9 million votes in Minnesota, where Norm Coleman (R) leads Al Franken (D) by a mere 215 votes, and a runoff in Georgia pitting incumbent Saxby Chambliss (R) against Jim Martin (D).

My prediction prior to the election was that the Dems would end up with 57-58 seats in the Senate, and they have now reached that mark. What's particularly amusing is that several "conservatives" on talk radio were crowing about the Democratic "failure" to gain their objectives in Congress, despite the fact that they expanded their numbers in both houses. Despite the difficult odds, they now have a slim possibility of being able to defeat any GOP filibusters. I know that scares the hell out of the Republicans, but it would certainly prime the pumps of the Obama administration. It would mean, that instead of merely focusing on undoing the disastrous policies of the Bush Administration, the Dems could actually pursue a progressive agenda.

In order to force cloture (end discussion on a proposed bill for a vote), there needs to be 60 senators who want to move legislation forward. Perhaps the Democrats will be able to isolate a few Republican dissidents, and make deals that defeat filibusters. That techique gets its title from the Spanish word for "pirate" or "freebooter". It involves participating in an endless stream of debate in order to stall action on a bill. The last session of Congress saw the GOP minority employ this tactic more than any group of senators in US history. There is no doubt that it will continue to do anything it can to thwart the Democratic agenda. Besides going "nuclear" (changing the rules on the Senate floor), there are not going to be a lot of options to curb procedurally-enforced inaction.

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.

The Purging of the GOP.

Yesterday, as I was surfing "conservative" blogs for alternative perspectives, I found a comment that literally had me laughing out loud. It was in a column by Rick Moran entitled "Conservative Civil War well underway". In the article, Moran is congratulating "The American Thinker" (the blog where his writings appear) for realizing that the GOP is currently entering a major crisis. That in itself is mildly amusing, because the party's condition is obvious to anyone with even a cursory understanding of American politics. Still, Republicans obviously need something to feel "right" about during these trying days, and I suppose it displays a lack of generosity to kick these fellows while they are down. But the temptation is nonetheless strong.

The specific quote that had me rolling was," We will continue to follow this ideological struggle closely because we believe it to be the most important story of this young century." It's been quite clear that the conservative movement has been guilty of an astonishing amount of hubris over the last eight years, but this assertion was so over-the-top that I felt I had to work it into a post. I marked it's place in the virtual world by submitting a response- I thanked the author for the unintended humor of the statement, labeling it "an expression demonstrating the prism of extreme self-importance through which modern day 'conservatives' view themselves." Of course my gratitude went unacknowledged.

Not surprisingly, the malcontents frequenting the "American Thinker" are way too preoccupied with the perils of the coming election to spend much time striking out at outsiders. There are already plenty of desperate individuals translating their frustrations into personal attacks against whatever online entities they can fit into their perversely broad categorizations of "the enemy". To their credit, the habitués of "American Thinker" seem to have directed their attention toward their own house. Yet while the identity of the next president of the United States won't even be determined for a few more days, they are already picking over the remains of the GOP. Apparently recent developments haven't left them feeling optimistic.

Instead of trying to figure out why the majority of Americans have rejected the Republican party after two full administrations of misrule under George W. Bush and his Right-wing cronies in Congress, they have decided to criticize "conservative" figures who have abandoned the McCain/Palin ticket. Some of the harshest rhetoric is reserved for the likes of David Brooks, Peggy Noonan, and David Frum- a group one poster referred to as "quitters, whiners and cowards". The consensus (at least in this isolated corner of the Far Right) seems to be that it is time to excommunicate the RINOs (Republicans-In-Name-Only) and embrace the social conservatism espoused by the Fundamentalist Christian segment of the party.

Apparently Sarah Palin is acutely aware of the dissension within the ranks. She looks to be anxious to become the de facto leader (along with, perhaps, Louisiana governor Bobby Jindal) of the next round in the decades-old "Culture War". If readers of "American Thinker" are in any way truly representative of the emerging core of the GOP, look for the party to cleanly remove all traces of an intellectual center from its body. It will be left to the true idealogues (Limbaugh, Hannity, Ann Coulter, James Dobson, et al.) that have been pushing for the most extreme platform to lead its flock. If Palin is (as some McCain insiders suggest) going "rogue" in the week before the election, then we can only imagine what her camp-followers are capable of in the coming years.

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.

"Socialism" Vs. Progressive Taxation.

In my earlier post about "Joe the Plumber", I wrote about how his elevation (by the McCain campaign and the Right Wing media) to the status of "middle class everyman" obscured the very real arguments being made about taxation in America. Apparently the majority of Americans are secretly seething about Obama's proposal to suspend the Bush tax cuts to the very wealthy. We are supposed to believe that 95% of America thinks that the richest 5% is overburdened by progressive taxation. Evidently no one realizes that we have reached the point where the interest on our national debt is approaching the amount we spend on our federal budget. How we are supposed to finance the government is increasingly an underexamined question.

We are in the midst of a financial crisis that is about to hit the American middle class with the force of a category 5 hurricane, and the GOP and its cronies have been trying to make the "socialist" brand stick to Barack Obama and his fiscal and domestic policy platform. I think that (once again) it's time to get our definitions straight. "Socialism" is "any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods". Progressive taxation obviously doesn't fall within the parameters of the definition. But this is what the extreme Right is referring to when it talks about its opponent's "socialist" policies.

Republicans would have you believe that the core principal of Socialism is income redistribution- "Take from the haves to give to the have nots." Not only is this crudely simplistic, but it is a Cold War-based lie that's been repeated since Ronald Reagan's presidency. Perhaps that's why the GOP is running on an anti-intellectual and anti-academic platform- because careful analysis exposes their argument for what it is. The US has been traditionally referred to as a "Capitalist" country. It is therefore illuminating that the vast majority of American economists (81%) support progressive taxation (SOURCE) and Obama's policy positions (SOURCE). But why should you bother listening to the experts when you have "your own" strong opinions?

What does a study of history tell us? If you are dead-set in changing the definition of the word "socialism" to include progressive taxation, then you have to accept that the USA has been socialist since 1862, when the first progressive income tax was passed in this nation (SOURCE). It is therefore an AMERICAN VALUE that has carried us through the years and helped us become a superpower. If you are against this tax policy, the case can be made that you are ANTI-AMERICAN. Naturally a "free market" idealogue is going to attempt to fight this conclusion using any means necessary. But the reality is that their alternative is a fantasy- "free markets" have never existed anywhere except in theory. It's a grand "utopian" fairy tale that wealthy people (and sycophants) have used to put the masses to sleep.

You often hear the "free market" dictum that “wealth creates wealth”. It’s not that there’s no merit to this argument. That’s why I don’t necessarily support “socialism”. But on the other hand, entrenched wealth creates obstacles to competition and innovation. The ideas that make men wealthy eventually become outdated with the changes in the environment. Yet wealthy men often have little incentive to adapt to those changes, because they risk losing their competitive advantage. They are more motivated to protect their wealth artificially by working to maintain the status quo. They have the resources to set the conditions to attain that end. Progressive taxation works against that stagnation.

Thomas Jefferson said, “"The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants." I’m not in favor of class warfare or anarchic revolution. I believe in incremental social change. By shifting the tax burden on to the wealthy, you free up the middle class to provide new ideas to adapt to a changing society (and to put their own money behind these ideas)- something that the entrenched wealth of the upper classes has proved itself incapable of. Entrenched wealth stifles innovation and competition the same way ruling classes have in so-called "socialist" nations. Progressive taxation doesn't "punish" achievement. That's a ridiculous notion. It fosters enhanced economic class mobility, which is crucially necessary in encouraging the adaptation necessary over the long run.

Nathan Sproul and Lincoln Strategy Group.

By now it seems that every American has heard of ACORN, a community organization started decades ago to assist the poverty-stricken. The GOP is waging an all-out attack on that group, hoping that if it can't beat Obama, at least it can vanquish a bunch of "liberal" community organizers. So it's seized on some apparently fraudulent voter registration forms that ACORN was required by law to submit to elections boards, and provoked investigations by various state authorities and the FBI. But behind the Republicans' assault on so-called "Democrat"-run voter fraud, they are waging war on another front in order to gain themselves an advantage in the coming election. And with that in mind, I give you Nathan Sproul and Lincoln Strategy Group.

Exactly who is this Nathan Sproul? He is a graduate of the Pillsbury Baptist Bible College, and a Republican political consultant and strategist with ties to the Arizona GOP and the Christian Coalition. Early in his career he worked tirelessly to end sex education in his state. In 2004, he was instrumental in the nearly successful efforts to remove the Arizona Clean Elections Law. Sproul also set up a voter registration drive in 2004 called "America Votes", which just so happened to have the same name as a progressive group trying to expand the electorate. His intention was to register as many new Republicans as possible. This in itself is not illegal, but the methods that Sproul and Company used to do so were highly suspect.

Sproul and his group have been repeatedly investigated for voter fraud. His own employees have alleged that they were specifically instructed only to register Republicans, and told to shred thousands of forms submitted by people wanting to become new Democrats. Yet even with his terrible track record, and the small amount of local media attention he has drawn to himself and his company, Nathan Sproul remains a trusted operative of the GOP. During this very presidential race, John McCain has directed $175,000 worth of funds to Sproul's Lincoln Strategy Group for get-out-the-vote efforts. Meanwhile the Republican National Committee has diverted $37,000 to the Lincoln Group during this cycle, explicitly for registering voters.

What makes all of this especially problematic is how vocal Sproul has always been in support of McCain and the Far Right Wing of the Republican Party. He's given the McCain campaign $30,000 of his own money for this election. He is absolutely dedicated to winning at any cost, and I believe characterizations of him as "Arizona's Karl Rove" are unfair to Sproul, as he is quite obviously more of an idealogue. While it's true one could make the case that ACORN leans politically left, there is a big difference, as Republican Congressman Chris Cannon noted in May of this year: "The difference between ACORN and Sproul is that ACORN doesn't throw away or change registration documents after they have been filled out."

It is widely believed that Sproul will do anything possible to advance his political agenda. Since 2004, Democrats in Congress have been aware of both his objectives and methods. In fact, in October of 2007 Representative John Conyers complained that the Bush Administration Justice Department had refused to closely scrutinize the activities of Sproul and the Lincoln Strategy Group. Given the ample assistance Sproul provided to Bush in the 2004 presidential race, I guess that's not surprising. But what is surprising is that the mainstream press has remained mum about this fraud, especially if you believe that the corporate-owned media has a "liberal bias" (as many on the Right maintain). Why aren't Sproul and his Lincoln Strategy Group household names, like ACORN? I guess you'll have to decide that one for yourself.

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".

McCain and Palin Take Their Masks Off.

This weekend the McCain/Palin ticket announced that they will respond to their supporters' continued calls for them to "take the gloves off". One might assume that this would mean that the GOP would redirect their efforts to address Obama's positions and his record on the important issues facing the nation. But instead it means that they wil continue to direct their attacks against Obama's character and "associations". We've actually been seeing this strategy for weeks. Recall the fallacious attempts to tie former employees of Fannie Mae/Freddie Mac to Obama. It turns out that the charges should have been reversed. There are at least 9 of those employees working on the McCain campaign, including his campaign manager Rick Davis.

Now the GOP is becoming increasingly desperate due to poll numbers that show their opponent with a commanding lead. So they have decided to dredge up half-baked attacks centered on supposed "associates" of Barack Obama. There is nothing new in these accusations. FOX News and Right Wing talk radio has been flogging these tales for months. Indeed there have been a number of occasions when writers of "conservative" blogs have tried to shift the conversation away from McCain's weaknesses using names like Jeremiah Wright, Tony Rezko and William Ayers. No matter how many times I've pointed out that these are meaningless red herrings, McCain backers seem determined to push them forward.

So I guess it's time to address the reality behind these flaccid jabs. Jeremiah Wright was one of many pastors that presided over the Chicago church that Obama once attended. There are recordings of sermons Wright delivered that contain invective aimed at the powers-that-be in American society. Some on the Right have interpreted specific comments as racist and anti-government. Barack Obama has denounced Wright and left the church as a response to those criticisms. He has been clear that he does not agree with whatever incendiary comments the Reverend has made. This past April John McCain explicitly declared the Reverend Wright issue off limits. Going back to that well would clearly brand the McCain/Palin ticket as hypocritical.

William Ayers is currently a professor of early education at the University of Chicago. He cofounded an organization called the Weather Underground in the late 1960's. That group became the more violent wing of SDS (Students for a Democratic Society) , and Ayers was eventually accused of involvement in several bombings in opposition to the Vietnam War. His relation to Obama is minimal. Apparently he once hosted a "coffee klatch" for Obama's run for the state senate. They lived in the same neighborhood, and ran into each other due to their shared passion for educational reform. Barack Obama was eight years old when the Weather Underground was active, and has denounced its past operations. The two do not speak to each other currently.

Tony Rezko is a civil engineer who has been a Democratic and Republican fundraiser in Chicago since the 1980's. By all accounts he was corrupt, as many lobbyists and fundraisers on both sides of the aisle have proven to be. He was convicted on bribery and fraud charges in 2008. Rezko raised money for Obama's senatorial campaign. When Obama found out the extent of Rezko's corruption he donated 2/3rds of all the money that Rezko had raised to charity. There are also allegations that Obama and Rezko had mutual interests in a private real estate deal. But there have been no allegations of criminal behavior associated with that incident. Neither has Obama ever been accused of participating in any of Rezko's criminal activities.

The emphasis on these flimsy "associations" demonstrates the fundamental inability of the McCain campaign to offer widely appealing solutions to the nation's problems. I expect that this new direction will backfire on the McCain/Palin ticket. Not only is it a transparent distraction from the economy, but it allows the Obama/Biden staffers and the media to dispel the shadowy rumors that have been making the rounds for the last year. Finally it puts the issue of political association on the table for both candidates, which could prove devastating for a Republican challenger who is trying to dissasociate itself from the terribly ineffective policies of the Bush Administration and its many fallen GOP legislative supporters*.


* Not to mention McCain's involvement with The Keating 5.

Setting the Palin Narrative. Part 3.

In the previous two installments in this series, I outlined the basic story of the Palin experience since she was chosen to be John McCain's running mate. I've also attempted to explain why the McCain campaign has gone to great efforts to keep the media from questioning the Governor from Alaska. If there is any possibility that Palin won't be able to deliver the core message and talking points, her handlers will try to keep her under tight control. Of course she is running for a high national office, and they haven't been able to completely eliminate her media appearances. But the ones that have gotten through have proven to be completely disastrous and she is increasingly drawing criticism.

When I first heard that McCain asked Sarah Palin to join the ticket, I almost couldn't believe it. It seemed to undermine his reputation as a "maverick" within the Republican party, and his promise that he would select a highly qualified candidate that was able to step in if he was able to fulfill his duties as president. The more I learned about her, the more I expected her to be gone by the Republican convention. Obviously I misjudged the GOP commitment to Palin, and this incorrect speculation reinforced my reluctance to make predictions for this race. Now the McCain campaign is facing the prospect of a VP debate that they were unable (despite obvious efforts) to delay or cancel. The nation anticipates this event with a mix of excitement, fascination, and trepidation.

Some political commentators still expect Palin to be removed from the ticket. If McCain was to choose this option, it might make sense for her to be withdrawn before the debate. Palin's supporters tend to believe that it is the "liberals" drivingthis sentiment. But a growing number of "conservatives" are calling for her removal. A short list includes Senator Chuck Hagel, George Will, David Brooks, Charles Krauthammer, David Frum, and Kathleen Parker. These aren't lightweight pundits like Hannity or Limbaugh... these are serious journalists. And contrary to what the McCain campaign has tried to suggest- they are not criticizing her to create lower expectations for Sarah Palin's performance in her debate. They want her to go back to Alaska.

I have to wonder if this would be political suicide for McCain. Certainly he would risk losing the support of the Palinmaniacs. They probably wouldn't vote for Obama anyway, but they might just stay home or choose a third party candidate on election day. Regardless, there is no way to tell how many of these people actualy exist. We have to operate under the assumption that Palin will be showing up to confront Joe Biden. Apparently the McCain campaign has whisked her off to Arizona for what some have referred to as "deabte camp". Do they plan to continue cramming her head with the type of talking points that she has consistently mangled so far? Palin loyalists suggest that is why she has performed poorly in interviews. They want a change too.

With an odd twist upon Campbell Brown's call to "Free Sarah Palin", her supporters are pleading with the McCain people to "Just Let Sarah Be Sarah!". They point out that she wasn't chosen to be the source for facts and information about policy, but rather in order to personalize the campaign and give the "good folks" someone to relate to. While this may be true, it reveals a particularly problematic and cynical strategy. Does America care about who Sarah Palin really is? Do her positions and record as governor and mayor matter? Do we want someone that close to the presidency that lacks crucial knowledge of policy and facts? Maybe you do, but I don't. We'll have to wait-and-see how willing moderator Gwen Ifill is to indulge Sarah Palin's "I'm Just Like Y'all" act.


NOTE: I had to throw this in here... I really can't tell whether McCain is joking in this video... or not. What do you think?

NOTE #2: I keep finding this stuff, so I might as well post it. I'll come out and say it directly- I don't care that he spent five years as a POW, it doesn't excuse this attitude.

Setting the Palin Narrative. Part 2.

It seems strange to feel compelled to address a vice-presidential debate in the midst of such economic chaos. For a long time throughout American history, the selection of a VP was treated as an afterthought by the vast majority of the public and media. Of course the danger has always existed that one day a man (or woman) might be called on to fulfill the most important obligation of the #2 executive- getting that last promotion to the Oval Office. In fact I count nine men who have had to assume the responsibilities of the presidency unexpectedly. This exclusive group included such luminaries as John Tyler, Chester Arthur, Gerald Ford, Millard Fillmore, Andrew Johnson, and Calvin Coolidge. It's hard to imagine the voters would have chosen them to execute the duties of the Chief Executive.

While some have suggested that it's in poor taste to point out that John McCain presents a particularly high risk of expiring in office, the reality is that if elected he would be the oldest president ever to assume the position. It's difficult to believe that the candidate himself hasn't thought about this possibility. He could hardly ignore the repeated requests from reporters and opponents asking for the release of his medical records. But on the other hand, many are scratching their heads over his selection of Sarah Palin as his running mate. Quite a few commentators from both sides of the aisle have leveled charges that John McCain has exercised poor judgment in making his very first "executive decision".

Yesterday I published a post that outlined the GOP creation of a public persona for Sarah Palin. That formulation is increasingly coming under intense scrutiny. You can't convincingly argue that your state's proximity to Russia makes you a foreign policy expert, especially if you've never even crossed that "small maritime border". It simply fails to inspire confidence in any rational citizen. If you do slip up and try to make that case, you certainly don't repeat it ad nauseum until you have become a laughingstock on a national scale. Similarly, when asked to give one single example of an economic reform that your running mate has accomplished, you don't respond with generalizations and clichés. You just answer the question. If you can't, then you have no business representing a ticket promising "change" in Washington.

I think that the McCain campaign realizes all of this. That's the reason why they have gone to great pains to keep Sarah Palin from being freely questioned by the media. It's not to develop an "air of mystery and seduction". It's not to give her time to "get up to speed". It's not to allow her time with her family. The truth is that McCain and Co. realize that they risk embarrassment every time that they send Palin out alone to another interview. That's why John McCain is always at her side when she's making stump speeches to her rabid followers. That's why the McCain campaign won't allow her to do press conferences. That's why John McCain felt compelled to return to Katie Couric's soundstage and interrupt Palin's answers to reasonable questions.

Some critics have suggested that the McCain campaign's strategy of protecting Palin from the media is sexist at its core. I'm not sure if I buy that. To my mind her gender has NOTHING to do with the fact that she is unprepared, uninformed, and inarticulate in unscripted conversations. There are just as many men who evince these traits, and just as many women that are certifiable geniuses when it comes to political communication. I'm sure that Palin being a fundamentalist Christian woman with extremely socially conservative views made her initially attractive in "the vetting process". But the bottom line is that the McCain campaign could not have known what they were getting, or they would have made an alternative choice. They are stuck. As you know, you have to go to war with the Sarah Palin you have, not the Sarah Palin you thought you were getting.*

*My apologies for evoking memories of Mr. Rumsfeld.

Setting the Palin Narrative, Part 1.

There's a lot of speculation on the internet about Thursday's VP debate.That's to be expected given the extraordinary way that Sarah Palin was presented to the nation at the GOP convention. Nobody knew who she was, and she delivered a laconic speech complete with a homespun delivery and a series of snarky little witticisms. Naturally the speech was written for her (and she had read it adroitly off the teleprompter), but people responded as if she had created it herself. It injected a shot of adrenaline into the moribund Republican party, and once people found out about her staunch social conservatism, Palin was built up into the physical representation of the future of the GOP. It was as if people were watching the discovery of the next Ronald Reagan or Margaret Thatcher.

Right Wing pundits across the land became melodramatic in their excitement. They proclaimed the speech a "Grand Slam" heralding a new direction in politics. They worked overtime to build expectations for the unknown governor of Alaska. The McCain campaign, realizing the benefit of letting the energy cycle within the closed system, wisely kept Palin's appearances limited to pep rallies. Meanwhile the conservative-leaning media outlets concocted a narrative that had resentful Hillary Clinton-supporters flocking to the "historical candidate" (no matter that the glass ceiling was actually broken by Geraldine Ferraro and the Democrats 24 years ago). "Palinmania" and "Palin Derangement Syndrome" (a term that accurately conveyed the unquestioning zeal of her fans) became household words.

Opponents of the McCain/Palin ticket were stunned into an awkward and mute silence. Nobody had anticipated this choice. The Obama camp, along with his enthusiastic base, began to search for any information they could find about this little-known politician. It was his fanbase, and not his staff, that landed the first blows against the "Palin Factor". Scurrilous accusations, mixed with valid criticism, flooded the Web. The more scandalous and exploitive rumors (such as the suggestion that Palin's Down's Syndrome-afflicted infant was actually her daughter's baby) caused a backlash of appalled censure. Although the Obama campaign disavowed the salacious charges, the Palinmaniacs tried to hold it to account for the ever-intensifying smears.

As the Democrats tried to formulate a strategy to confront this novel sensation, cool heads initiated a more evenhanded examination of the claims coming out of the McCain/Palin campaign. It became clear that many of the Governor's reforms and "accomplishments" had been presented in a misleading light. Palin's record was picked over, and there emerged a new narrative- that of a typical (albeit inexperienced) politician with the facade of a "reformer". Many of the statements Palin had made during her GOP Convention speech turned out to be misleading (at best). Skeptical observers wondered whether the young candidate had been properly vetted. The sheen of the "maverick" began to dull underneath the gaze of the media.

While Palin's handlers tried to keep her sequestered from any genuine press scruitiny, eventually mainstream interviews would be inevitable. How would she perform without a script? A chous of "conservative" commentators rose up to defend her, and reassured audiences that Palin was smart and well-spoken, and would look even better under pressure. They warned her detractors not to underestimate her. Television journalists like Charlie Gibson and Katie Couric took this advice to heart, and abandoned their usual softball tactics. When their conversations with Palin were aired, the perception of the candidate changed quickly and decisively. The GOP's narrative was almost immediately challenged. And the "Palin factor" evolved.

Read Part 2

EESA and the Transformation of American Economic Values.

Once again we are being told that the Wall Street bailout (I mean "rescue"... or is it "stabilization"?) was on the verge of accumulating enough votes to pass. The terms of the deal (now titled the "EMERGENCY ECONOMIC STABILIZATION ACT OF 2008") are available in complete and summary form on many sites throughout the Web. The fact that the breakdown of the bill was not presented in bullet form is a bit disconcerting. It's as if Congress wants the reader to work in order to understand it. The obfuscation written into all pieces of legislation inhibits most people from truly engaging proposed bills. If there is a truly "elitist" bent in modern-day American politics, it is most evident in this bipartisan approach to "transparency".

Make no mistake about it... the Democrats will own whatever bill eventually gets passed. Some will point out that the president can veto the bill, but it appears unlikely that any version will be voted on if that possibility exists. So the extent to which the EESA protects the interests of the taxpayer is determined by whatever concessions the Dems can wrangle from George W. Bush and Henry Paulson. Certainly House Republicans will try to take credit for introducing their own version of the legislation, but these claims will be mostly disingenuous. The fact is that the only addition they have contributed is a government-run insurance company for bad private investments (which seems like a function similar to that of AIG).

It's not like the small cabal of House Republicans* that were ushered into the White House by John McCain last Thursday didn't have a lengthy wishlist. But first and foremost, they wanted to test their economic theories of the "free market". At the heart of the matter, they are resolutely against any government intervention. In other words, they'd let the situation play itself out if it were left up to them- stability of the nation be damned. It doesn't really matter that the vast majority of national and international economists (from all points along the political spectrum) have warned that action is necessary to avert a major worldwide crisis. To give you a sense of where House Republicans are coming from, keep in mind that their main objective was to push for corporate and investor tax cuts to be included in the bill.

Despite what the disciples of pure economic theories believe, we are witnessing a major transformation in the way that global markets are managed. It is no longer possible to convince the majority that deregulation is an ultimate good. Those policies have allowed certain banking corporations to get so large that they can effectively hold the health of the country for ransom. This is effectively extortion by the very players that got us into this mess with their advocacy of completely unfettered markets. What I find particularly galling is that John McCain continues to enable those with this philosophy while simultaneously proclaiming himself the contemporary Teddy Roosevelt. This is a mortal insult to that great former president's legacy of trust-busting.

Now I'm not saying that I wholly support the bill that Congress turned down today. I would have preferred that the government simply offered loans at moderate interest rates, instead of offering to buy highly dubious assets at a reduced price. If these turn out to be worthless, the taxpayer would lose big under such a plan. I also appreciate the lip service devoted to regulation and oversight. We've heard that before, and for it to be effective government must attempt to be incorruptible. Still I am thankful that we don't have the Congress that presided over the economy for the first six years of Bush's presidency without confronting the impending collapse of Wall Street. If we've learned anything from the last ten years, it's that laissez faire capitalism is a potentially fatal strategy as it essentially rewards unlimited greed, borderline-criminal short cuts, and a dangerous degree of deception.


*The reponsible parties for inaction include John McCain, Eric Cantor (VA), Paul Ryan (WI), Jeb Hensarling (TX), John Carter (TX)... and ?

Condoleezza Rice Tries To Re-ignite The Cold War.

I can't tell you how many times in the last few weeks I have had people suggest that I am a "communist" because I disagree with them about the proper direction of our county. This would be completely understandable if I was advocating the common ownership of all property in the United States, or if I wanted a single, self-perpetuating political party to control all aspects of the nation's social and economic spheres. If I was stating my support for such a situation, then it would be fair to accuse me of communist tendencies. That's clear because those are the definitive conditions necessary for that type of government. But I've never been in favor of those things. No, instead my opponents are reacting to my support of Barack Obama- who coincidentally has also never called for the aforementioned measures.

How long is it going to be before the McCarthy-ites in the extreme Right Wing abandon the tired and ignorant tactic of branding all those who disagree with them as "communists", "socialists", or "Marxists"? Never mind that these terms are used interchangeably as if they were truly communicating the same thing (a "socialist" is in favor of the government assuming control over the country's "means of production", and a "Marxist" is someone who follows the philosophies of Karl Marx*). Never mind that I've never actually met an American who seriously aligns himself with these views. These are simply outdated labels that have lost any connection to the reality of the world. Someone needs to remind "conservatives" that employ these labels that the Soviet Union collapsed nearly two decades ago.

Still the spectre of our former "superpower" rival seems to loom large on the periphery of GOP perception. I was frankly dismayed to hear about Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice's comments to an audience at the German Marshall Fund on September 18th. If you aren't familiar with what she said, here are some highlights:

“Our strategic goal now is to make it clear to Russia's leaders that their choices are putting Russia on a one-way path to self-imposed isolation and international irrelevance. (...) Russia's international standing is worse now than at any time since 1991. And the cost of this self-inflicted isolation has been steep.”

In typical Red-baiting fashion, the Bush Administration's reigning "Sovietologist" called out the world's largest nation (and the world's largest exporter of natural gas, the second largest oil exporter and the third largest energy consumer) in one of the most provocative manners possible.

Besides the fact that Rice's position betrays the essential hypocrisy of the Bush administration, it exposes the decreasing relevance the United States has on the international stage. Bush can send out his surrogates to deliver veiled warnings to rising powers all he wants- but the sad truth is that the policies put in place by this presidential administration (with the fawning assistance of Republican legislators) have consistently eroded our ability to be respected (or even feared) by would-be competitors. Given our inability to stabilize a third world country such as Iraq, I don't think Rice is fooling anyone. She is merely inflaming any two-bit opponent that dreams of giving the United States a hard time.

I believe it's time for us to take a good hard look at our new standing in the world. No matter what you might hear from Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Ann Coulter, Bill O'Reilly or John McCain- our self-image as the dominant force in the international realm is becoming nothing but a delusion. Our economy is on the brink of collapse. The free market system that we've been trying to forcibly impose on the rest of the world is in dire need of re-evaluation. More and more we are being seen as a "paper tiger". And as far as "socialism" is concerned, the Bush administration is embracing that approach with its proposal to nationalize the home mortgage industry. It's time to abandon previous assumptions.

*Characterized by a "system of economic and political thought developed by Karl Marx, along with Friedrich Engels, esp. the doctrine that the state throughout history has been a device for the exploitation of the masses by a dominant class, that class struggle has been the main agency of historical change, and that the capitalist system, containing from the first the seeds of its own decay, will inevitably, after the period of the dictatorship of the proletariat, be superseded by a socialist order and a classless society."

- Dictionary.com

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.

What Kind of Animal Wears Lipstick?!

I have to admit that I laughed hard when Republicans started squealing about the recent Obama quote. Barack was talking about McCain's newfound commitment to "change" and said:

"John McCain says he's about change too, and so I guess his whole angle is, 'Watch out, George Bush -- except for economic policy, health care policy, tax policy, education policy, foreign policy, and Karl Rove-style politics -- we're really going to shake things up in Washington.’ That's not change. That's just calling the same thing something different. You know you can put lipstick on a pig, but it's still a pig. You know you can wrap an old fish in a piece of paper called change, it's still going to stink after eight years. We've had enough of the same old thing."

That seems fairly straightforward to me. It's merely a continuation of his recent insistence that words matter. You can't just make stuff up. If your policies are simply a continuation of the last eight years (like the McCain/Palin ticket is), then it seems especially disingenuous to claim to stand for "change".

But the humorous thing is that conservative pundits throughout the nation immediately interpreted it as a knock against Palin. They knew in their hearts that Palin is indeed the Pork Barrel Queen, and so they naturally made that association. Who else could Obama have been referring to? Then they stepped back and started feeling guilty about their own train of thought. See... when extremist conservatives have a naughty idea that they feel guilty about, they try to project it on to someone else so that they can vilify him/her, while at the same time displacing the sinful thoughts. In that manner, they effectively repress the self-perceived "icky" parts of themselves. It's an all-too-human reaction.

Obviously they missed the boat, and now they look shrill and foolish with their strident claims that Obama's comments were "sexist". In a way, I guess it underscores just how well the GOP has disguised its true mission. Obviously they intend to continue the divisive strategies and business-as-usual politics that the Bush administration has been pimping for eight years. Yet they have finally found a way to see themselves as "victims"- something that they have been bitching about regarding the Democrats for decades. Apparently that's the bottom line for the Right Wing. Now that they have discovered their collective "inner feminist", they are appropriating for themselves the very role they have forced on women all these years.

Anyway, the McCain campaign shouldn't have whined in public about Obama's analogy. They should have just steamed about it in private, and came up with some witty retort. Because when McCain called for an apology, he exposed his immense facility for hypocrisy. He used the very same comparison to sum up his feelings about Hillary Clinton's plan for health reform. The intriguing thing is that the Clinton people didn't bite. Nor did they stumble into the trap of implicating their own help-mate. They went on with their tactics of trying to promote policy positions. Unfortunately for McCain/Palin, they can't do that. People don't want to hear that their candidate is simply recycling the Bush playbook.

Obama comes out looking pretty good after the onslaught of outbursts emanating from the school-marmish Republicans. The Right looks even more defensive and melodramatic than usual. And Obama's supporters should be overjoyed. Their man demonstrated both the depth of his wit, and his willingness to engage in the street-fighter style he's proclaimed to possess. Personally I prefer to assume that Obama meant exactly what the Republicans accused him of. Maybe he was just "calling a pig a pig". What's so wrong with that? Even according to the "Conservative" version of reality- he wasn't making a general characterization of women*, but rather summing up Sarah Palin as a politician. Is it really any more offensive than calling her a dog?

*... or being disrespectful of an entire profession merely to get a cheap laugh.