April What?

The month of showers is upon the land and people will start to get restless, echoing the essential upheaval of Spring. The pollen in the air will soon tickle the cilia, and those who don’t inure themselves with cigarettes will reap its full blessing, whatever that is. Reproduction is the motivation behind this arc of the cycle, and some will take that impulse too literally. And yet others will channel it into strange and sundry activities, which will be on display all over town.

Breathe in deep and absorb the fecundity- for within time the simmering, sweltering, languid heat of summer will lay like a heavy wool blanket over your spirit and make you careless.

And so it is that this first day of April is a holiday. It’s been given an ignoble name- with a message of playful warning. Suppose this was the birth of the God of Mischief. How would you choose to honor that event? Would you do a head count of your friends, taking care to plan a surprise for every one of them? Or would you alternatively plot to release your demons in what appears to be a temporarily acceptable manner? Which of these would make you the fool, and who would be fooled?

Take a moment to consider that the number of The Fool is often said to be “0”, the value itself a great cosmic joke causing much consternation. But remember too that this figure is Major Arcana, and thus has multiple faces. (S)he is alternatively a jester, a mad man, a vagabond, and a beggar. (S)he may carry roses or a bindle… may be pursued by a cat or a dog, and situated between judgment and the world. Even in modern translation, this joker is most often a wild card. If you play a game with “trumps”, the Fool is an excuse for not following suit.

Apparently April 1st is a day of sanctioned irreverence. Perhaps we can indulge ourselves a bit. Bereft of reason, The Fool stands at the edge of a precipice, and risks a long slide or heavy collision, depending on the nature of the fall. And yet… and yet… perhaps (s)he will sprout wings (or a parachute) and attain smooth landing. The spirit seeking experience has earned the chance to risk a leap of faith.

And so we return to this day, year after year, and people give themselves the permission to act out their scripts. But just as with jokes, there is a seed of truth embedded in every trick. Perhaps it’s wise to pay close attention to deflection, obscuration and diversion- for likely there is someone sizing you up and spinning a web. Pay attention to the signs along the road. The Fool’s Journey can be many things, but don’t be shocked or embarrassed if you find yourself rendered naked in front of the eyes of the World.

Fun-and-games at the Grocery Store.

M. has decided that it's a big help for me to accompany her and Baby E. when they go to the grocery store. It just so happened that this past Saturday's weather forecast seemed to suggest treacherous road conditions, and cabin fever looked to be a distinct possibility. Ordinarily I would have no interest in going to the local strip mall during a weekend afternoon, but I knew that it made sense in our circumscribed world. We bundled up the tyke and set off, me driving at about half the speed I would normally attain due to passengers and ice. Naturally there was a hint of slip on the road and people were already driving like idiots. I don't get drivers who think panic makes them more adept behind the wheel.

When we got to the store I realized that everyone had anticipated the types of difficulties that we had. Perhaps the weather forecast is sponsored by Giant Eagle (I really don't know). There were a lot of folks in the aisles that seemed as oblivious as they probably had been on the streets outside. I'll be forthcoming and admit that whatever attitude I had when I walked through the sliding automatic doors was accentuated by the fact that I had only slept about four hours. I quickly made an executive decision to follow M. around blindly and not try to make any tough decisions. Through hindsight I have determined that this was wise. I would have been completely dazed and over-stimulated otherwise.

My main objective was to find a way to make the trip fun for E. and I. The first thing I focused on was his vocalizations. For some reason, he was especially happy I was along. He kept beaming up at me from his metal bench at the front of the cart. I guess he wanted to let me know about his good mood, as he was shouting out some funny stuff of his own devise. So I thought it was only right to return the favor at an enhanced volume. Perhaps it annoyed some particularly stressed patrons. If so i wasn't aware of it, and I wouldn't have cared regardless. In my condition I felt like E. was speaking my language, and I wanted to make sure there was a dialogue. I know that he appreciated it because we both got progressively louder.

Then I realized that certain customers were actually paying attention to us. Of course I had to start clowning around. In an exaggeratedly solicitous voice I kept asking E. what kind of dog food he wanted. I explained to him that the nuances of flavored mixes, and that he might prefer something with fish in it. Again I knew that he was entertained because he was laughing maniacally by that point. Meanwhile we started getting some strange stares from people. I pointedly asked him if we were all out of Robitussin, and if he had finished the last of it, as I had been too blitzed the night before to remember. The exchange was especially amusing because he had a prominent bruise on his head from daycare that was easy to notice.

Having scandalized the joint already, I decided to mimic stealing stuff off the shelves, hoping E. would take my cue. I even took off his mittens to facilitate the learning process. He was all kicked back with a gangster lean, hand dangling innocuously over the side. We went through the cookie aisle several times. E.'s got the kind of face that makes others love him almost immediately, so our developing scam is especially effective. I just have to figure out how to identify my favorite products for him, and he needs to learn how to hide the more valuable items where no one will look. I figure that we have plenty of time to work on the act. He'll get more wily as he continues to grow into his cuteness. He does indeed make the supermarket fun.

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.

The Vagaries of Gift Exchange.

Getting presents as an adult is often a strange and complex affair. In fact, whenever I think about it with any sort of focused energy, the entire idea of gift exchange is a bit confounding. In the United States, we tend to commodify* everything, translating it into a value expressed in terms of the dollar. When considering what types of presents we will be handing out during the holiday, many of us figure out a budget that accounts for how much we can afford to spend. M. and I work out basic parameters ahead of time so that neither of us feel guilty about any exchange inequity. Perhaps its odd that we take such a pragmatic approach to the tradition. It certainly makes rational sense, but what else does it suggest?

From the very basic background in anthropology that I acquired at university, I'm aware that cultures have been participating in gift-giving for thousands of years. The quality and spirit of such transactions differ widely. Among members of indigenous American tribes, it was expected that high-ranking members of each neighboring group would preside over ceremonies during which gifts were offered. This interaction was highly-structured, and the choices that were made often affected the future relations between the tribes. There was such subtlety of interpretation that a wide spectrum of messages, ranging from honor to insult with everything in between, could be conveyed in a ritualized fashion.

Although it's often not as conscious for us as it was for the Native Americans, we still follow implicit rules when we engage in gift exchange. Sometimes the rules are spelled out explicitly. For example, my in-laws decided years ago that it made sense to have a pool of gifts, rather than for everyone to buy separately for each member of the extended family. On its surface, this appears to be an almost entirely economic choice. At the same time, it relieves a bit of pressure from harried individuals trying to prepare for the holiday experience. One need not put quite as much thought into finding appropriate material gestures for people you don't see all that often. And that can be a relief.

On the other hand, the nature of a general exchange presents its own difficulties. How do you determine who gets what? Everything goes in a big pile, and divvied up according to one method or another. In M.'s family, an additional wrinkle has been added. Along with a "real" gift (purchased for an amount agreed upon beforehand), each participant is expected to find a "gag" gift as well. Everyone brings one of each, without in any way tipping his/her hand, and identifying which is which. Then lots are drawn and distribution begins randomly. That would be fairly straightforward, but another twist is yet added. Another round of numbers are drawn, and people can choose to take desired objects away from others, leaving them with unwanted items in exchange.

At that point, the "gift exchange" becomes something altogether different. It is now a contest to see who can go home with the "best" items. Obviously tastes vary among the players, and therefore the more idiosyncratic folks have the best chance of going home with whatever thing they covet. Mercifully, there is a stipulation that everybody gets to take possession of one "real" gift. However, subjectivity naturally plays a big role in determining what that means. In the processes of exchange and appropriation, personalities reveal themselves. It's at that point that the essence of the season tends to get either distorted, or emphasized, depending upon your personal frame-of-reference.

* It's a bit ironic that the Blogger spell-check doesn't recognize this word.

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").

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.

What's With the Price of Oil?

Note: I wrote this post several weeks ago, but am only getting around to posting it now.

Last week, while the Dow Jones index was showing a precipitous decline, my thoughts turned toward "opportunities" to protect the current value of my savings. I've always been cautious regarding investments, to the point of (perhaps) hurting myself. Even when things looked rosy, I hesitated to buy into the American economy. For far too long the financial system has felt like a shell game. It doesn't seem like we make anything anymore, although (of course) I realize that isn't really true. Still I get the feeling that, more than anything else, the "success" of the dollar has much more to do with how fast people can keep it moving. So much of the time it seems like nothing is being produced in that process.

I'd be the last person to try and claim any expertise when it comes to understanding market forces. But now I am suspicious of so many who have put themselves forward as experts. There have been so many layers of complexity and obfuscation that no one really can provide a straight answer that will describe the current situation. Most of the time it appears that people are merely making decisions based upon "gut feelings". A consensus builds that the current climate is favorable, or alternatively that it is perilous, and ordinary folks tend to accept whatever conclusions are put forth in the name of "conventional wisdom". Ultimately if the argument can be framed in terms of supply and demand, then the argument is all the more convincing.

So what makes the price per barrel of crude drop so quickly at the same time the market is tanking? Logic suggests that as the US dollar value decreases, the cost of gasoline should rise (and vice-versa). Yet one of the most dramatic downturns of the economy in 100 years has been accompanied by sharply decreasing prices. One could suggest that the oncoming recession (or depression, or whatever) is has been affecting the demand for oil. After all, less activity requires less fuel. However, I'd be surprised if the markets are really responding that fast. One could also point to the frenzied speculation on energy commodities over the past year. That could certainly be playing a role as well.

The interesting thing is that when I talked about investing in oil commodities to a friend who many recognize as a "financial wizard", he advised me against it. His outlook on the potential recovery of the banking and credit systems is intensely pessimistic, and he expects oil prices to continue on a steep decline. And yet that still seems counterintuitive to me, as I would expect a functional resource of undeniable utility to retain (or even increase) its value during a sustained economic downturn. People may look to cut costs, but they still need to get to work. Add to that the variable of home heating costs during the upcoming winter, and everything appears further out-of-whack. It's hard not to suspect that there are shenanigans at work.

I've never gotten around to a formal study of the phenomenon, but it seems to me that gasoline prices always fall before a presidential election. I realize that oil trading is tied to the US currency, and that certainly complicates the picture even more. Ultimately we are at the mercy of these fluctuations, and it's disturbing that external forces could be manipulating the situation to make us act in a particular way. Alternatively, oil could merely be caught up in the huge sell-off of Wall Street, with everyone (including hedge funds) rushing to liquidate all their assets at once. I wonder if this affected the election cycle, with the challenge of energy independence seemingly at the top of everyone's list. I hope this crucial issue doesn't get relegated to the back-burner again.

More Race-Baiting From the GOP?

On the way home from work yesterday I tuned into Sean Hannity on FM 104.7 (mostly because I wasn't interested in the topic on Fresh Air). I remembered that he was going to be in Pittsburgh to cover the most important "battleground state", as identified by the McCain/Palin campaign. Around 3:45PM he interrupted his usual blather with breaking news from Matt Drudge- " MCCAIN VOLUNTEER 'ATTACKED AND MUTILATED' IN PITTSBURGH". Hannity promised to try to get further details. He couldn't believe his luck. After all, he was in town and all-the-way live! More information trickled in, and the blowhard pundit delivered the tale of how a young woman (from Texas) named Ashley Todd (who works at a McCain call center) was mugged at an ATM, and had the letter "B" carved into her face by the hateful perpetrator.

Supposedly the 6'4" black man, who used a knife at her throat to take $60, was walking away when he saw "McCain for President" stickers on her car. He came back and said he was going to "teach (her) a lesson!". Then he mutilated her. It sounds absolutely horrid. And of course the Far Right echo chamber was sent into a frenzy of melodrama and race-baiting. Obama hasn't even lost yet and already black people are rioting! What is society going to be like under an authoritarian, with his jack-booted thugs beating and mutilating dissenters? One blog I visited even compared the incident to what the Nazis did to the Jews. And then the picture was released of the victim. My bullshit meter started to vacillate wildly.

I decided I'd hit some of the blogs and join the dialog. I chipped in with this response: "Call me a cynic… but if I’m going to rob a woman at knife-point in front of an ATM on the busiest street in Bloomfield (which happens to be the almost-entirely-white Little Italy section of town), I’m not going to stick around afterwards to see what bumper stickers she has on her car, and then double-back to carefully scratch (it was certainly not “carved” as some would have it) a very neat backwards (or upside-down) “B” into her cheek (therefore making a political statement), and tell her I’m “teaching her a lesson”. Especially if I know that Sean Hannity just happens to be in town the next day."

As the hours passed more information became available that cast serious doubt on her story. The independent media began to ask questions. We started learning about some contextual information about Ashley Todd. Her profile quote on her MySpace page (now removed, but cached before she had the chance) was especially telling, grammatical errors and all- "Lying is the most fun a girl can have without taking her cloths off, but its better if you do." Then we found out that Ashley had a twitter page (also removed but cached), and it sure seemed like she was laying the foundations for the story ahead of time. Apparently she had a blackberry (not stolen) in her car (not stolen)... and she thought everyone should know ahead of time that she was looking for an ATM and that she was "pretty sure she (was) on the wrong side of town" (only an outsider could think Bloomfield meets that qualification).

The Pittsburgh Police are evidently suspicious of Todd's account of the "incident". The Pittsburgh Tribune Review is reporting this morning that "her statements about the attack conflict with evidence from the Citizens Bank ATM where she claims the incident occurred". Considering that this is the Richard Scaife-owned conservative rag that originally presented the story in town, this is a substantial development. While any allegations of supposed "hate-crimes" must be taken seriously, investigations by the proper authorities must precede judgment. I'm really not concerned about how this might affect the election (I don't think it will either way), but I am very protective of my hometown. This entire incident could give a "black eye" to a region that has already become a focal point in the last days before the election... and I resent that.


UPDATE: Apparently local talk radio host Marty Griffin (KDKA 1020) isn't buying it either. He's reporting that Ms. Todd called the McCain campaign office before reporting this incident to the police.

UPDATE: Ashley Todd has changed her story. She's now claiming that she was sexually assaulted as well.

UPDATE: Ashley Todd has confessed to making up the whole thing. Police are trying to figure out what charges she will face (Thanks to Ian for the heads-up).

"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.

What IS in the Bailout Bill?

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

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

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

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

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

What is ACORN and Why do Republicans Hate it?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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.

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 ?

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?

McCain's Tactics Expose Unsuccessful Strategy at Debate.

As anyone who has made up their mind already about who should be the next US president should be able to admit, it is awfully difficult to analyze a debate with a large portion of objectivity. That's why I have a bit of hesitation about declaring a "winner" in last night's event. I think the best way to assess the performances is to consider what the expectations were for each candidate before they stepped up on stage. The McCain campaign's initial efforts to make the subject of the first debate "foreign policy" was telling. Clearly they believe that this is McCain's strength, and I don't think you'd find many impartial observers that would suggest that the GOP candidate hasn't put his focus on overseas issues throughout his career.

On the other side, there was a lot of talk about Obama's lack of experience in world politics, and therefore an accompanying expectation that this would not be his strongest in this series of three presidential debates. Obviously his opponents expected an easy win for McCain. That's what makes the responses after last night's contest so notable. I was hard-pressed to find anyone claiming that McCain had won a significant victory, despite his supposed strength on foreign policy issues. To be fair, the first 40 minutes or so incorporated discussion about the crisis on Wall Street, and how it effects national standing. There is no one (except for perhaps his campaign) claiming that this is a particularly strong suit for John McCain. But still, the "more experienced" candidate should have had a distinct advantage, given the theme. If he did, he failed to fully capitalize on it.

I find it telling that several major media sources came out and called the debate in Obama's favor (including Time Magazine and The New York Times). Meanwhile the CNN viewer poll "had Obama winning overall by a margin of 51-38. Even more problematic for the McCain/Palin ticket, a CBS poll found that thirty-nine percent of uncommitted voters who watched the debate thought Barack Obama was the winner. Twenty-four percent thought John McCain won. Thirty-seven percent saw it as a draw. While the conventional wisdom says that the initial reaction to debates can change over a few days, it's going to be hard for the Right Wing media machine to spin this to McCain's advantage. They will likely just cite "liberal media bias".

Unfortunately for the political dialog in this country, a lot of Americans make their judgments on superficial criteria. I suspect that this (for a change) will also hinder the perception of John McCain. His campaign tried to make the case that Obama looked defensive by agreeing with his aggressive opponent on a number of issues. While they suggested that this made Obama look "weak", the approach may end up making the Illinois senator look less "extreme" and more open to bipartisan diplomacy- which has been a big part of the strategy all along. On the other hand, I thought that the attack-dog version of McCain came off as more peevish than decisive (partially because he refused to look Obama in the eye). There have already been comparisons to the 1960 debate between Nixon and Kennedy. I wouldn't be surprised if that narrative reference sticks to this one.

As far as the specific content of the arguments presented by each side, there was nothing new for the informed viewer. Obama tied McCain to Bush's disastrous presidential agenda, and directed attention to the Arizona senator's unstinting commitment to a very unpopular war. McCain called out Obama on his opposition to the surge and continuously repeated the talking point that his opponent "just doesn't understand". I did find McCain's references to his record as not being the "Miss Congeniality" of the Senate puzzling. And his attack regarding Obama's supposed confusion over "tactics" and "strategy" was not only condescending, but flat-out wrong (I found it surprising that someone with an undeniable history in the military would screw that one up).

Overall, I can't see how anyone could come to the conclusion that this debate will be viewed as an asset for McCain in this race. This was his opportunity for an "early" knock-out punch on his chosen ground, and he failed to deliver it. Contrary to the claims of the McCain/Palin ticket, Obama came across as reliable, unflappable, and "presidential". Now the question of McCain's stamina rises to the forefront. He's behind and has to mount some sort of comeback. He's employed a few stunts that have largely fallen flat. Next up we have the confrontation between Palin and Biden, and the nation will be watching to see if McCain's running mate will be able to reverse the growing questions of her capabilities. That should garner a huge audience.


NOTE: If you are interested in reading an analysis of the various "misrepresentations" delivered in the debate, this site is a relatively unbiased one.

Self-Imposed Blackout for McCain/Palin.

It's remarkable just how fast information can become obsolete during this campaign season. I wrote yesterday's post on Wednesday, shortly before I heard about McCain's intention to pull out of Friday's debate. That fact didn't change a single thing that I wrote about, yet it still gave my analysis a sheen of dust. Because it turns out that even presidential debates, despite being programmed months in advance, can be sabotaged or even cancelled solely on the basis of one candidate's whim. It doesn't matter how much preparation, time, money, and energy the organizers have invested in the event; apparently if it's not viewed as convenient for one of the major players, he can just call the whole thing off. However, I can't find any record of it ever happening before.


Perhaps John McCain will reconsider his impetuous decision and rejoin the presidential race*. Maybe by the time you read this post, everything will have once again changed. Still I'd like to get my thoughts out regarding this latest controversy. Like many other Americans, I have been eagerly anticipating this showdown. I'm getting sick of the superficial posturing, the political maneuvering, and the dishonest ads. It's time to let these candidates face each other and the voting public. This is simply not the time for more backroom strategizing. There is plenty of that going on in the Legislature among those who are already on the appropriate committees to be dealing with this latest financial crisis.

Like many other observers, I suspect that McCain's decision was alomst completely about political expediency. Wednesday saw the release of a Washington Post/ABC poll that had Obama leading McCain 52-43%. The was the biggest differential in favor of Obama for months. In fact, the last time a candidate lost after this large a lead in September was in 1948, when Thomas Dewey lost to Harry S. Truman. Personally I distrust polls. But it seems that McCain's handlers watch them quite closely. Another factor** that dealt a huge blow to the GOP ticket was Wednesday's "revelation" within the mainstream media that McCain's campaign manager Rick Davis was an influential lobbyist for Fannie Mae during key years in the housing crisis.

For the past couple weeks John McCain has systematically squandered the boost he got from his previous "Hail Mary"-style gimmick- the selection of his running mate Sarah Palin. His proclamation that "the fundamentals of the economy are strong", his tradition of being a staunch deregulator, a general impression that he is "out-of-touch", an almost daily flip-flopping on his position regarding the bailout of Wall Street, and the claim that he would fire the SEC Chairman if he were president left the majority of Americans doubting his ability to act responsibly when it comes to the economy. Meanwhile Sarah Palin was increasingly displaying the fundamental lack of capabilty that keeps many wondering whether she should be anywhere near the presidency.

Given the situation McCain and his handlers found themselves in, it's no wonder that they sought a game-changing move that would distract the American Public from their campaign's steady collapse. So despite the fact that he hasn't cast a vote in the Senate since April 8th, and the general assumption that his economic credentials are dubious, he decided that he would "suspend his campaign" and go back to Wahington. Never mind that the negotiations regarding the bail-out have been underway for more than a week. This move is entirely in line with his self-imposed removal from the media. This past Tuesday he had his first press conference in 40 days. And the McCain campaign has not let Palin have one since her selection. Was anyone truly surprised that John McCain wanted to get out of the nationwide debates?


*Ok... well the truth is that he never did actually "suspend" his campaign. It was more than an empty gesture, however. Apparently John McCain went to DC to throw a wrench into a budding agreement between moderate Republican senators, the Democrats in Congress, and Bush.

** ... along with another terrible press appearance by Sarah Palin (with Katie Couric).

Trying to Understand Another Wall Street Crisis.

Like many across the nation and in the blogosphere, I've been investing a fair amount of time trying to learn as much as I can about the crisis on Wall Street. The last time I had an economics course was approximately nineteen years ago, and to say this is all new to me is a bit of an understatement. Still, people who have had an extensive background in the field and in universities seem just as confused. I think it's important to figure out as much as I can about the issues facing our nation, even (or perhaps especially) if so many of the major players seem intent on obscuring the reality. So I'm going to continue to plunge in and try and gather as much information from as many diverse sources as possible.

One of the most problematic aspects of the way the Government has responded so far rests squarely with the Bush administration. Along with Henry Paulson (US Treasury Secretary) and Ben Bernanke (Chairman of the Federal Reserve), the president seems bound and determined to force Congress into acting without much reflection. This, of course, comes as no surprise for anyone following along closely over the last eight years. The strategy seems to entail systematically letting things get so out of hand that it's possible to scare the political opposition into agreeing to "emergency measures" that further the Bush agenda for America. I've always suspected that those in power want to bankrupt the federal government in order to stifle progressive action.

So a $700 billion bail-out proposal has been delivered to Congress, and action is demanded this week. Within this proposal is embedded a very simple message- profits are privatized and losses are socialized. Who is genuinely surprised by the audacity being displayed here? There is NO oversight in this plan. There is NO reward for the taxpaying public that is asked to shoulder the financial burden of a cabal of criminals who knew exactly what was at stake when they risked the public welfare for their own material gain. Paulson continues to threaten the US with a deep recession if his rewards package for inefficient and corrupt financial institutions is not approved without change. But most observers suggest that severe economic pain is going to happen regardless.

Exactly who is looking out for the public good? I'm happy to report that both parties are resisting Paulson's onerous package. Yet I wonder about the motivation. Times Online is reporting that McCain's advisers and some senior Republicans are telling him to exercise the "nuclear option". They believe that a "populist" stance might be a "game-changing" move that would win him the election. So they are saying he must oppose the bailout. But for at least a few days John McCain has taken the position that something must be done for the future of the economy. Fortunately he doesn't feel as desperate about his chances for the White House as those around him. He still maintains* that he is committed to a bipartisan resolution. We'll have to wait and see.

Meanwhile no one in Congress seems anxious to accept the Bush/Paulson/Bernanke plan. Everyone insists that there must be more oversight. I find it remarkable that the GOP is abandoning its long-held, unquestioning position as the official standard-bearer of deregulation and "unfettered free-markets". But despite the "bipartisan" opposition to the Bush Administration's "no-condition bail-out", there is a significant difference between what the Democrats and Republicans are seeking. Barack Obama** and the Democrats are trying to ensure that the American taxpayer gets some kind of chance for reward in exchange for assuming risky investments. That condition is noticeably absent in the current McCain plan.

* I think it might serve the reader to have McCain's words documented now, in case he does end up engaging in another flip-flop:

"Inaction is not an option. The American people are watching, history will be our judge and it will judge us harshly if we do not put our country first," McCain said in his first press availability in six weeks." Link.


** Obama also seems to be looking past the crisis in an effort not to continue repeating the same mistakes. "Obama said he would aim to prevent another crisis by pushing for measures to curb the influence of lobbyists, streamline and strengthen regulatory agencies, crack down on no-bid government contracts and make government more open and transparent." Link.

Sarah Palin's Obstruction of Justice.

Mercifully, people finally seem to be coming to the understanding that the Sarah Palin phenomena consists mostly of empty calories. While the Christian Right is determined to back her solely on the merits of her "socially conservative" views, and her "anointed-by-God" status, the rest of America is starting to have second thoughts about her capability to play a role in the federal government. Even in pre-scripted performances with Sean Hannity, and "Town Hall"-style meetings with meticulous pre-screening by GOP agents, Palin looks woefully under-prepared to assume any important office, let alone the vice presidency. Important members within the Republican party are finally admitting she is a liability for the McCain campaign.

Keeping Sarah Palin protected from the "liberal media" will likely be just one among many problems that the presumptive VP presents the GOP. They are going to have to (somehow) prepare her for the debates if she is to avoid embarrassing herself , her supporters, and her party... let alone provide further ammunition for her opponents in their quest to impugn McCain's political and personal judgment. But there is an even bigger threat on the horizon then a debate with Joe Biden. Palin (and by extension the National Republican Party) has to watch out for the Alaskan legislature. It doesn't appear that the bipartisan coalition that has been bound-and-determined to investigate Palin's possible abuse-of-power wants to back off.

I'm not going to get into the intricacies of "Troopergate" in this post. Any reader who is unfamiliar with this scandal has had plenty of opportunities to inform himself already. If you don't know what is at stake in this case, then it's likely that you really don't want to know. However, you should be aware that the investigation into possible malfeasance in the dismissal of popular Public Safety Commissioner Walter Monegan is taken very seriously in the Great White North. In fact that's probably why Palin herself directed her Attorney General (Talis Coberg) to initiate a separate in-house investigation to look into the allegations. Unfortunately for Palin, Colberg himself knew she was lying... indeed he was personally involved in the controversy.

Before Palin accepted McCain's offer to join his ticket, she expressed a willingness to cooperate with the Alaskan Congressional investigation (it must be pointed out here that the Alaskan legislature is controlled by Republicans). But predictably, when it became a possible black mark for the McCain campaign, she began to take every possible step to delay the release of that inquiry's conclusions. First she suggested that the state Personnel Board had jurisdiction over ethics issues. She called for another review of the findings. Then the legislators decided to expedite the investigation and set an October 10th completion date for the study. At last in a state of complete desperation, Palin (and/or the McCain campaign) ordered all of her administration (along with her husband Todd) to disobey subpoenas. Such an action is a criminal violation.

Perhaps Sarah Palin thinks she can pull the wool over the eyes of observers in the Lower 48, and convince everyone that she did nothing wrong. She's obviously proven herself completely capable of fooling a large proportion of the Republican base. But from all available evidence, she is not going to be able to do that in Alaska. The residents of that state are fiercely independent, and don't seem to follow the conventional party divide. In fact it is Alaskan Republicans that are driving the Palin investigation. It occurs to me to suggest that maybe we could learn something from their example. Do we really want someone else this close to the Oval Office who enforces loyalty by imposing a gag rule on his/her employees? Do we want another executive that refuses to cooperate with criminal investigations? Do we need four more years of that?