Thursday, October 23, 2008

A dream or a nightmare.

If other Americans planning to vote for Barack Obama on November 4 feel the same way I do, then if he does not win because of (insert soul-destroying reason here: Republicans steal the election again, a Bradley effect, not enough people vote for him), there will be a massive wave of emotion to endure on November 5. If others share my sentiments, there will be:

1. Profound sadness
2. Blind terror at what the next decade holds for our country
3. An irrevocable loss of faith in the democratic process, and
4. An increase in job searches abroad.

There are so many reasons for this. The McCain campaign and its supporters can jeer about a campaign based on “hope” all they want, but the underlying premise of Obama’s campaign represents so much more than people who can’t see beyond the confines of their own four walls can imagine. Many of us believe that the last eight years have placed this country on the path to destruction, and to say as much doesn’t make us anti-American, or defeatists, or dirty liberals. It simply means we do not agree with the policies of a president whose supporters rigged an election for him, or with the way the country has been co-opted by religious fanatics who seek to legislate their version of morality for us all. It means we believe the country should be run by someone who is the opposite of who we have now: someone highly educated, analytical, calm, collaborative, and with a global world view; someone who possesses a long-term view for America.

Barack Obama holds out the promise of hope for this country. Hope that those of us who have felt disenfranchised can re-establish our voices, and not be made to feel we are un-American for daring to voice our opposition to the unprecedented, abusive amassment of power by this administration. Hope that we can renew a commitment to civil rights in this country that has been shamelessly chipped away by the current administration, and which doesn’t bode any better under a McCain/Palin stint on Pennsylvania Avenue. Hope that we can be a beacon for the world once again with national pride based not on some outdated notion that we are the biggest and strongest so that we may self-righteously impose ourselves on the rest of the world, but on our achievements as an advanced, educated, growth-oriented, post-racial and tolerant society that is blazing an enviable path into the future.

Barack Obama inspires us to dream that we can have a say in our own destinies and that with him at the helm this world is going to be a better place, and he backs up his vision with solid ideas about how to advance our nation past the loggerheads at which we find ourselves today. To imagine that this pure and hopeful dream could be destroyed by the conniving machinations of a pair of fools who clearly do not represent the majority in this country … it is simply devastating.

Tuesday, October 21, 2008

Apparently I'm Out.

According to Michele Bachmann, a congresswoman from Minnesota, she and the rest of America would just “love” to see the American media do an exposé on who is “pro-America” and who is “anti-America” in Congress. (Presumably any non-American media would be “anti-America,” so let’s not have them participate in this investigation.)

Even though Ms. Bachmann did not follow up her statement, which she made to Chris Matthews on MSNBC, with an explanation of what constitutes “pro-America” or anti-America,” I’m going to take a swing and posit that under her world view I am “anti-America,” and that so is any Democrat in Congress.

What is wrong with the Republican Party right now? Between Ms. Bachmann’s wacko suggestion and Sarah Palin trotting out the concept at her rallies that only small towns are “pro-America,” we are witnessing something very ugly: an attempt to drive a wedge between fellow Americans by painting those that do not subscribe to a conservative agenda as lacking patriotism; indeed, as traitors to the country. It’s an awfully cheap way to try to win an election, and it undermines our strength as a nation.

After more than a decade of rancorous partisanship in this country, it’s clear that many Americans are ready to move past it and want to work together for the future of the country. A large part of Senator Obama’s appeal is that he exhorts us to come together and find common ground, to remember that we are ALL Americans and have America’s best interests at heart. His calm, unruffled demeanor soothes us and lets us believe that mending the rent fabric of our country isn’t just a pie-in-the sky ideal. It’s that type of leadership that Americans want right now; not some two-bit throwback to McCarthyism that seems designed for nothing more than to fire up the tiny minority of voters who wouldn’t see the whole scheme as an insult to their intelligence.

Monday, October 20, 2008

A self-congratulatory weekend for the liberals, except maybe me.

Forgive me for being so blunt, but Sarah Palin’s appearance on SNL was as devoid of substance as the rest of her public appearances. Was it supposed to benefit her somehow? Let us know she can take a joke? Because standing there with a tight smile while other people make fun of you, rather than actually chiming in with a little self deprecation of your own, doesn’t make me think you’re up for the joke. It makes me think you’re suffering from a nasty lack of self awareness when you can’t laugh at your own persona.

Not that I think SNL did her any favors. Giving her the line “I won’t take any questions” when stepping up to the podium just vacated by Tina Fey only reminds viewers that Governor Palin avoids questions from anyone but the faithful like the plague, a fact of which I’m sure the writers were gleefully aware. Following that up with Alec Baldwin ceding lamely “You’re much hotter in person,” after giving his true opinion while reading his lines off a cue card in a most deliberately “I don’t want to be here” manner was also an unfortunately apt depiction of how many people see her.

On the other end of the TV spectrum this weekend, there was Colin Powell’s eloquent endorsement of Barack Obama on Meet the Press. Always diplomatic, he made clear that he was in no way denigrating John McCain or indicating that he thought he could not be president (although a few things he said belied that stated position), but simply that he had a long line of reasoning to support Obama. His list was an insightful expression of the numerous character traits that he believes Obama possesses that make him right for the job, culminating in a simple statement that the personality and type of leadership Obama offers is the right course for the time we are in right now.

It was also a pleasure for those of us hanging off the left hand side of the fence to hear General Powell castigate the Republican Party for its subtle and not-so-subtle attempts to portray Obama as a Muslim, and to ask, “so what if he were?” We have come to demonize Muslims in this country by casually equating being a Muslim with being a terrorist. As a person who dislikes religious dogma of all stripes, I know that I have sometimes been guilty of making unfounded leaps of logic like that myself – not that all Muslims are terrorists, but that people who practice a faith that I don’t understand, and which seems to allow some pretty bad behavior in God’s name, have an agenda I should be scared of.

For me, though, that’s everybody. I have come to distrust organized religion in general, whether the faith is Christian, Muslim, Jewish; whatever. I have allowed myself to think that the extremist views in each group represent the ideology of all in the group. The incredibly vocal nature of evangelical Christians in America, who seem to seek to impose their own narrow view of morality on the entire country through taking over the Republican Party rather than by pleasantly inviting like-minded people to join their mega-churches, has nurtured that in me. So just as my knee-jerk reaction is to believe that evangelical Christians all possess the desire to dictate the way I live my life, I also conclude without reflection that a religion that I perceive as being violent and fundamentally sexist because of the acts of a visible vanguard (and I’m referring to Islam, although it could just as easily be Christianity) seeks to do the same things – but believes that death and destruction are warranted to achieve that goal.

I’m embarrassed to admit what an appalling lack of analysis on my part it shows to continually allow the more strident members of a religion to infect what others assure us are the gentler virtues of the faith. I’m thankful that a sober-minded, intelligent man like Colin Powell has reminded me, and the leaders of an entire political party that should at least act as if it knows better, of the danger such a cavalier way of thinking poses to the democratic ideals on which this country is based.

Friday, October 17, 2008

Because children are starving in ... America.

Will this campaign never end? It lurches on from day to day, with speeches by both presidential candidates that could just as easily be given by playing the same tape over and over and continued divisive, offensive Palin rallies. I think America is reaching the end of its rope. Campbell Brown suggests in a column today that the candidates could give everyone a break and help America at the same time, by scrapping their negative advertising for the rest of the campaign and donating the combined $30,000,000 per week to food banks and other charities.

That’s astounding, don’t you think? Thirty million dollars a WEEK spent on ads that have been shown to be having the opposite effect of what’s desired, while homeless shelters and soup kitchens across America are stretched to their limit by the influx of the newly homeless. Just as more citizens need their services, these charities are feeling the crunch of lessened donations from Americans who are hoarding their money out of fear for their own livelihoods.

This is a scary state of affairs. The story Ms. Brown tells of a woman who has taken her three small children to the shelter for all three meals a day, every day since her husband lost his job and they lost their house, hits awfully close to home. So many of us are a few missed mortgage payments away from foreclosure, and in economic times when nobody feels secure about his job, it could be you and it could be me bundling our small children up against the cold to ask for help.

The candidates are not likely to accept the challenge to divert their advertising budgets to feed the hungry. Our tax dollars are lined up for the foreseeable future to “rescue” banks and pump money into the Iraqi economy, but people here need our help. If the thought of your fellow Americans already suffering today is not enough by itself to move you, think of it this way: the time may come that you, too, will need the services and the compassion offered by our nation’s charities. The possibility is a lot more real than it was a few months ago. Money, food or time that you donate to a charitable organization now is like an insurance policy for the future. The more people that give, the more likely these organizations will be there as more people need them, and the more we renew a culture where it is natural to help one another.

America prides itself on the idea that its citizens are incredibly resourceful, and able and willing to sacrifice in the face of great challenges, but most Americans haven’t been tested on that front in many years. The potential scope of the current economic crisis constitutes a great challenge, and there is no denying that we are all going to have to make sacrifices. Why not start now, by helping us all to help ourselves with a few dollars for a homeless shelter?

Wednesday, October 15, 2008

Debate No. 3 - Game Over?

I am encouraged. Even though McCain clearly did a better job in this debate than he had in the previous two, he didn’t do well enough. Polls that came out directly after the debate showed that Obama still “won” the debate, with a split of 58% to McCain’s 31%.

What could cause McCain still to score such low numbers when he really was more effective than he had been previously? Unfortunately for McCain, he just can’t escape his own personality. He has reached a point where the negativity he exudes simply overwhelms anything he says. He smirks, and sneers, and still visibly struggles to contain his disdain and even anger. Obama may have appeared flatter than he has in previous debates, but he never loses his cool. It’s such a marked contrast to McCain, and it appears to be what the majority of American voters are warming to in this time of serious crisis.

The other simple fact is that there are only 19 days left until the election. Are there really people out there who still have not made up their minds? John McCain has done himself a great disservice over the last month, starting with the selection of Sarah Palin as his running mate. While his choice has been marvelous for shoring up his base, it has been miserable for bringing any new converts his way and has probably lost him some independents who might have otherwise voted for him. He claims that she has inspired women voters, but outside of his very conservative base, the opposite is true. Many women have been insulted by his assertion that she represents great strides for women in this country – particularly as more information has come out about the various ways in which she has conducted her administrations as mayor and governor as her own private fiefdom. Some of us who might have been able to tolerate a McCain presidency in concept are now terrified by the prospect when it includes a vice president Annie Oakley who lacks the requisite brainpower and who has no qualms about drumming up a little racist hatred for the cause.

McCain has followed up his cynical and misguided pick of Sarah Palin with a month of chaos. He has had no clear message other than that Obama would be a scary choice for the “good and patriotic” people who attend his rallies. He has swung back and forth on the issues, particularly with respect to the economy. One day the fundamentals of the economy are strong, the next day it’s a crisis worthy of a pretend suspension of his campaign. He and Sarah Palin have followed the “I’m rubber, you’re glue” school of politics, in which they accuse their opponent of every lousy thing they themselves are guilty of in the hopes of muddying the waters for some of their less critically-minded potential supporters. They have spent their time sowing the seeds of doubt instead of hammering home an argument of how they will help the middle class. Hint: Neither espousing trickle-down economics nor telling voters you “know” how to solve each and every crisis but aren’t bothering to share the details before you’re elected is sealing the deal. In short, they’ve squandered their chance.

McCain performed better in tonight’s debate, but if he isn’t able to convince Americans between now and November 4 that there is a person who truly understands them hiding behind the anger and the naked power grab, he’s done.

Monday, October 13, 2008

Warren, I Know You're Listening.

With whom will the new president replace Hank Paulson, and can he maybe get started on it today? Really, if the stakes here were not so high we could say that Paulson is an embarrassment and leave it at that, but with our economy crumbling around us his ability to steer us out of this crisis, or lack thereof, needs addressing today. The administration now seems to be aiming the spotlight on an assistant Treasury secretary, Neel Kashkari, to describe how the US will also use the $700 billion “rescue” package to implement the same action so decisively taken by Britain and swiftly followed by the rest of Europe: equity injections. Perhaps that is because yet another change in direction, even if this may hopefully be the right one if delivered in concert with the EU, will not pack much of a punch coming from Paulson’s mouth.

As many economists have recommended from the outset of this financial crisis, the U.S. appears to finally be on board with the concept of injecting capital into banks and financial institutions in exchange for a proportional equity interest. Some conservatives have resisted this because it is an obvious slap in the face to their ideology – there is no room for government intervention in the free markets, and particularly not when it amounts to the “nationalization” of these entities. However, it has become clear in the last few weeks that all bets are off now with respect to what amount of government intervention is appropriate or necessary to salvage the American economy.

Isn’t it possible that allowing the government to take equity in the companies it bails out could ultimately cost the American taxpayers less money? Companies that were all too happy to take the handout of Uncle Sam Fed liberating them from their “toxic” assets might be more willing to search around for creative solutions when faced with the possibility that the government might have any say in the governance of their companies. When Sweden faced this problem in 1992, its decision to take equity positions in the companies to which it provided money caused SEB, Sweden’s largest bank at the time, to find it within itself to seek other sources of capital – and it turned a profit the next year.

Oh, so much potential disaster to think about if none of this “rescue” stops the mess from flowing through like lava into the economy. But the bright side if McCain and Palin win the election is that a Vice President Palin can teach us all how to skin our own animals – we’ll need that ability.

Friday, October 10, 2008

Things I Can't Stand Anymore.

1. Sarah Palin accusing Barack Obama of actions more aptly attributable to herself and/or to John McCain, such as:

(a) putting ambition over country
(b) consorting with freaky ministers
(c) lying
(d) deregulation of the markets resulting in the housing and financial crises
(e) using fear tactics

It’s transparent nonsense and it’s desperate and loathsome.

2. Sarah Palin. She ruins every day.

3. Each day, seeing on every news website one of the two variants of photos of traders on Wall Street experiencing another crappy day:

(a) holding their heads in their hands
(b) looking up expectantly at the ticker

4. Waiting for the markets to level off. The more this wackiness in the markets continues, the more the effect is that investors and banks are digging their heels in and causing a crisis for everybody else. Will the dollars I have today be enough to pay my mortgage next week, or to feed my family?

Wednesday, October 8, 2008

A Misleading Respite.

Yawn. There were no big surprises at the town hall debate, other than that the crypt keeper seemed marginally more coherent than he has in other venues lately. As usual, however, I was struck by the glaring differences in their demeanors: Obama is cool, languid, doesn’t get ruffled. His smile is broad and appealing and he flashes it regularly. McCain, on the other hand, is tightly wound. His demeanor is stiff and angry, even beyond the obvious physical limitations caused by his years as a POW. His smile is not much of a smile at all, but is instead a sardonic reflection of whatever condescending remark or exaggeration he’s making at the time.

And speaking of condescension: how about that eyebrow-raising moment when McCain suggested to the African-American man who had asked how the bailout would help people other than the bankers themselves that he probably hadn’t heard of Fannie Mae or Freddie Mac before all this? It was a throwaway remark that said an awful lot. This was a guy sitting in the audience of a political debate, asking a valid question about the economy. Why on earth would anyone assume he had not heard of Fannie and Freddie before the current economic crisis? How insulting, not to mention arguably you-know-what. But that would be in line with the McCain campaign’s current modus operandi, wouldn’t it.

Although the debates have not been exciting, they are a calm, welcome respite from the nastiness of the campaign trail. It’s a relief to hear the candidates discuss their actual ideas for the country without most of the appalling mudslinging that has sunk to unprecedented lows lately. Of course, I don’t see that as any kind of difference on the Obama side of the fence; he generally has proven that he prefers to stick to the issues and compare his views to John McCain’s, except when provoked. An increasingly desperate McCain, however, has latched his cold embrace around his inner snake. To see him behave himself reasonably respectably for 90 minutes, then, is both a relief and misleading. It is heartening to hear that he has some actual plans for the country, even if I don’t agree with 95% of them, and seduces me to hope that if he is elected he can drop the nonsensical behavior of the last few months and behave like an adult as he works for this country.

In reality, though, I know that hope is displaced; just a placebo my mind grasps for so as not to panic about the ramifications of a McCain-Palin administration. Because, really, how is someone who conducts himself in such a vile manner 23 hours of the day going to turn it off just because he finally won the ultimate prize: a higher rank than his father?

He can’t, because that is who he is. Other than surviving his years as a POW, his actions over the course of his life have not shown him to be an admirable person. He is a man who basks in the trappings of perceived power, who becomes angry and lashes out when anyone threatens his ambitions, and not much more. His lack of respect for women is notorious, a point that is only amplified by his cynical choice of Sarah Palin as his sidekick. When the cameras aren’t trained on him in the Oval Office, why would he be anyone but his true self?

Monday, October 6, 2008

Mud Wrestling.

Say it ain’t so, Caribou Barbie! Sarah Palin’s folksy schtick that pretends to put a soft candy shell on her poisonous, hard center is increasingly intolerable. The robotic pit bull announced at a rally on Saturday that “the high heels were on, and the gloves were off,” to a cheering crowd of apparent imbeciles. Yes, imbeciles. One would have to have the IQ of Double Bubble to buy into the toxic behavior, speech and character of Governor Palin.

During her speeches over the weekend, the dead-eyed striver insinuated to her adoring acolytes that Obama doesn’t like America the way “you and I” like America, and how he “pals around” with terrorists. Fortunately, that attack on Obama’s pretty much non-existent association with William Ayers, a radical from the Vietnam era (when Obama was a child), has been largely criticized. But what do you think she really meant by separating the “anti-America” Obama from good Americans like us? She wants to continue to try to paint him as “other,” something unfamiliar and undesirable, un-American: black. It’s a not-so-subtle way to remind anybody who might be on the fence that “hey, I bet you have some deep-seated prejudices you might be fighting against – let me give you a ‘reason’ not to fight them.”

Why can’t she and her senile grandpa stick to talking about the positive changes they see for this country? Because they don’t have anything to separate themselves from the Bush administration, so they are reduced to revolting character assassinations on their rival. And in that, McCain has found a willing mouthpiece. Palin will do anything to ensure that she and McCain make it to the White House, because it’s herself she envisions ruling the roost on Pennsylvania Avenue. So she parrots her attack lines and her 3 speaking points on energy, health care, and how Obama’s tax increases will ruin the economy, then gets on another plane to do it again.

It will be interesting to see how the “gloves off” declaration of the old man and the ingénue plays out in the next few polls. Right now, Obama appears to have a 100-point lead on the electoral vote map, but the Republicans have shown time and again that Americans seem to like to get down in the mud with their politicians. Hopefully, Obama can continue to temper it by sticking to how he can improve our country, but if he wants to throw in a well-timed “Keating 5” reference, well, that’s OK with me.

Thursday, October 2, 2008

Sarah Six Pack.

It really happened; the rumors were true. When asked whether there were Supreme Court decisions she disagreed with other than Roe v. Wade, Sarah Palin was unable to come up with any. She hemmed and hawed in that slightly belligerent way of hers, but in the end her answer conveyed nothing other than “I don’t know.” How Katie Couric maintains her composure talking with this woman is beyond me:

Couric: Why, in your view, is Roe v. Wade a bad decision?

Sarah Palin: I think it should be a states' issue not a federal government-mandated, mandating yes or no on such an important issue. I'm, in that sense, a federalist, where I believe that states should have more say in the laws of their lands and individual areas. Now, foundationally, also, though, it's no secret that I'm pro-life, that I believe in a culture of life is very important for this country. Personally that's what I would like to see, um, further embraced by America.

Couric: Do you think there's an inherent right to privacy in the Constitution?

Palin: I do. Yeah, I do.

Couric: The cornerstone of Roe v. Wade.

Palin: I do. And I believe that individual states can best handle what the people within the different constituencies in the 50 states would like to see their will ushered in an issue like that.

Couric: What other Supreme Court decisions do you disagree with?

Palin: Well, let's see. There's, of course in the great history of America there have been rulings, that's never going to be absolute consensus by every American. And there are those issues, again, like Roe v. Wade, where I believe are best held on a state level and addressed there. So you know, going through the history of America, there would be others but … Couric: Can you think of any?

Palin: Well, I could think of … any again, that could be best dealt with on a more local level. Maybe I would take issue with. But, you know, as mayor, and then as governor and even as a vice president, if I'm so privileged to serve, wouldn't be in a position of changing those things but in supporting the law of the land as it reads today.

So there you have it. Far more interesting to me, though, was her answer to the question of whether she thinks there is an inherent right to privacy in the Constitution: she does. Yeah, she does. I guess someone forgot to explain to her exactly what the justices based their decision on in Roe v. Wade.

In an attempt to counteract the serious damage she is doing to the McCain campaign and to her own national political future, Governor Palin called in today to the talk radio show of conservative host Hugh Hewitt. When “asked” whether she was surprised that her campaign had ignited so much hostility on the left and in the media, Palin explained:

“Oh, I think they’re just not used to someone coming in from the outside saying you know what? It’s time that normal Joe six-pack American is finally represented in the position of vice presidency, and I think that that’s kind of taken some people off guard, and they’re out of sorts, and they’re ticked off about it, but it’s motivation for John McCain and I to work that much harder to make sure that our ticket is victorious, and we put government back on the side of the people of Joe six-pack like me…”

Hey! Governor! It most certainly is not time that “Joe Six-Pack” be represented in the position of the vice presidency. Not that you’d know it from the way McCain has treated it, but it’s kind of an important job, and not one that will benefit from being held by an intellectually incurious and rather petty, small-time politician. Plus, wasn’t George Bush supposed to be the guy people would want to have a beer with? Does wanting to have six of them with you mean you’ll do six times as much damage to the country as he did?

Wednesday, October 1, 2008

October Surprise.

It’s October, which means it’s time for a surprise. We have the whole month to see what fresh hell John McCain can think up to inflict on the voters! My hope is that the electorate is tiring of his bizarrely-run campaign, with its increasingly silly twists and turns. Let’s recap his attempted “game-changers” over the last few weeks:

1. After noticing that his attempts to interest Americans in his campaign are having less than stellar results, and as a way to divert the conversation away from the very successful Democratic Convention, McCain chooses the delightfully spunky Sarah Palin as his running mate. What a maverick! Soon America will fall in love with her just as he did when he met her yesterday!

2. Hoping to capitalize on Hurricane Gustav barreling toward the Gulf Coast, McCain, in a move soon to become his trademark, suspends the first night of the Republican Convention to make it look like he cares. He flies somewhere or other, not the Gulf Coast, to talk about how he cares while his creepy wife and the creepier First Lady hold forth at the podium back in St. Paul about how we’re all Americans. Apparently the Republicans in St. Paul just started drinking and placing ads for discreet gay sex earlier than they would have if they’d had to listen to speeches.

3. Last week, seeing the polls heading inexorably down as America is exposed to more and more examples of Sarah Palin’s incurious brand of existence, McCain decides he needs to pull out all the stops. Hearing something about a major economic crisis despite the fundamentals of the economy being “strong,” he announces that he is suspending his campaign to fly back to Washington and butt in where he’s not wanted. Even though his campaign is “suspended,” his ads continue to run and his flunkies continue to shill for him on the news programs.

4. Unable to get his party to listen to what he has to say about the bailout bill, presumably because he doesn’t know what he is saying himself anymore, he fails to muster up enough votes from the House Republicans. He issues a statement that now is not the time for blame, then 15 minutes later another one blaming the Democrats. Hedging his bets, his campaign puts out two ads simultaneously: one blaming Barack Obama for the failure of the bill’s passage, and one for its success.

Despite his best efforts to shake things up with all his “maverick” actions, McCain’s poll numbers continue to drop. Here’s hoping his next wacky stunt will be to climb back into his coffin until the election is over.

Meanwhile, tomorrow night is the vice-presidential debate, and maybe its outcome will be a surprise. Certainly the scene has been set for us, the slack-jawed public, to be pleasantly surprised when she strings two sentences together in a comprehensible manner. In the last few days, the media has been telling us that our expectations have been set low enough that any performance by Ms. Palin that doesn’t cause us to cringe far back into our sofa cushions will be cause for the Republicans to crow their victory. I’m not quite on board with that one. My expectations are low because Sarah Palin is not smart, and there’s not much she can show me to exceed them. In fact, I’m smacking my lips in anticipation of having to watch the whole thing from behind my hands.

Monday, September 29, 2008

Pointing a Wizened Finger.

I didn’t think my distaste for the new incarnation of John McCain could get any more intense, but hey, guess what; it has. First, let me congratulate him on the success of his little trip back to Washington – boy, did he do a bang up job rallying those Republicans to pass the bailout bill. Great job. Even better, though, is how he now blames the failure of the plan to pass on Democrats: one of McCain’s limp campaign advisers said today that “This bill failed because Barack Obama and the Democrats put politics ahead of country.”

Honestly, how do these people sleep at night? Every slimy, underhanded thing they say is either a lie or a childish tactic that some people still seem to buy: “I know you are, but what am I?” Because who really put politics ahead of “country” in this scenario? As I see it, it was the candidate who pretended to suspend his campaign to make a grandiose political gesture of flying back to Washington, only to completely fail to bring his party to any consensus. It sure looks to me like more Democrats than Republicans supported the compromise bill, even though it was the shoddy Republican insistence on deregulation, firmly supported by John McCain, that squarely placed America into this mess in the first place. So to say that Democrats are putting politics first when they are voting to pass a bill to solve a problem created by Republicans, well – it’s just another example of how ridiculous McCain has become.

On another note, rumor has it that CBS has tape of two more answers from Katie Couric’s interview with Sarah Palin that show Ms. Palin in an even more embarrassing light. If that were even possible!

Saturday, September 27, 2008

Grumpy Old Man.

So who “won” the debate? As a matter of substance, I’d say it was fairly even, and if you went into the debate supporting McCain you would continue to do so, and if your bumper stickers read “Obama ‘08” you won’t be peeling them off any time soon. It took a while for McCain to find a stride, and in fact I found many of his answers during the first half hour difficult to follow, and sometimes almost incomprehensible. He careened all over the place in single answers, and occasionally didn’t seem to answer Jim Lehrer’s questions (speaking of which, am I the only one who thought that both candidates answered Lehrer’s question about which programs they might have to cut or give less priority to because of the enormous bailout plan? He asked the question 3 times, yet I thought both had been pretty clear after no more than twice. I guess McCain wasn’t the only one having a senior moment).

But for all the relative even-handedness of the candidates’ command of their positions, their styles could not have been more different, and that is what will have swayed an undecided voter. John McCain was petty and condescending; he spoke to Obama as if he was a naïve child, uneducated in the ways of the world. He didn’t look at Obama once, even though the format was designed to be a discussion during the second half of each answer session. In contrast, Obama frequently addressed himself to McCain, looked over at him, and attempted several times to strike a bipartisan and conciliatory tone by agreeing with points about McCain’s answers before launching into how his position differed. In sum, Obama had the demeanor of someone I would want at the helm of my country, and McCain looked as if he belonged teaching a classroom of unruly, teenaged prep-schoolers, preferably not my own.

CNN and CBS polls that tracked viewers’ reactions during the debate showed a clear, positive response to Obama, which tells me I was not the only one put off by McCain’s acid style. I know I am tired of being condescended to; patronized as people I don’t agree with make decisions for my life and country that I find despicable. At least if very conservative Republicans have to endure what they see as taking their medicine for a few years, it will be handed to them by someone who actually thought about it before he made his decision, and gives it to them with a smile instead of the back of his hand. As McCain said himself, he’s not known as Miss Congeniality in the Senate. Unfortunately for him, one of his own campaign managers said that this race is essentially a popularity contest. If that’s the case, McCain will have earned the Grumpy Old Men vote, but that’s about it.

Thursday, September 25, 2008

Double Down.

When David Letterman won’t let it go, you know it’s bad. John McCain canceled his appearance on the Late Show because he had to get back to “Warshington to save the economy.” And while he was at it, he announced he would suspend his campaign and postpone Friday night’s debate until bailout legislation was passed. David Letterman, who in an attempt to soften his criticism repeated again and again that McCain is a real live hero, stated that he was disappointed in McCain’s decision and wondered why he couldn’t do what a good quarterback should do – put in his second string quarterback to fill in for him. The he noted it was Sarah Palin, and that was why.

John McCain has become quite the gambler lately, and his odds aren’t looking good. This latest shenanigan is particularly ridiculous: an attempt to seem “presidential” by stating that he is going to sail back to Washington to help save the day, handily asserting as well that he doesn’t think it’s a good time for the scheduled debate. You know, the debate he doesn’t want to have because his scrappy, angry style might not play so well these days against the cool, measured demeanor of his opponent. Even better, he suggested that the postponed debate be rescheduled for the date of the vice presidential debate – and that that debate be postponed until… oh, sometime. Congress, particularly the head of the Banking Committee, Chris Dodd, doesn’t even want him there because they know it’s just a rank political ploy.

This is so poor on so many levels.

1. Isn’t this actually the perfect time for a debate? Why don’t the candidates agree to change the topic back to the economy and discuss their plans to deal with the mess at hand? America needs to hear from the people who aim to be its next president, and not allow the one who is sinking in the polls to avoid a debate.

2. McCain thinks he can scupper the vice presidential debate. I’d say this one is a no-brainer. McCain and his minions think they have found the perfect way to keep his clueless running mate away from the limelight until after the election. If this Friday’s presidential debate is postponed, look for constant excuses going forward about being unable to reschedule the vice presidential debate. Presumably they will just continue to limit her to planned interviews (that she still flubs) and meetings with foreign leaders who talk to her like she’s a juicy piece of meat.

3. Shouldn’t a president be able to handle more than one task at a time? I mean, really. The old man can’t shake it off and meet up to discuss the future of the free world for his desired constituents? Does he plan to pick and choose his duties as president, as well?

John McCain needs to stop this nonsense and either campaign like a normal person, preferably in the “civilized” manner he claimed that he would at the outset, or just admit he’s not the man for the job. Right now, he is in no way acting like someone who wants to run the country – and hey, maybe he has decided that he doesn’t. At this point, it’s not looking particularly desirable. Maybe he could do us all a favor and simply let that suspension of his campaign go on indefinitely, and head back to Arizona for a long winter’s nap.

Tuesday, September 23, 2008

Where Do We Live?

The more I read about Hank Paulson’s proposed bailout, the more I’m outraged by its audacity. I’m not denying that something needs to be done quickly to shore up our financial institutions: by most accounts it sounds like many are hanging on by a thread, now inadequately capitalized to sustain the losses caused by the greed and poor judgment of their management and investors. However, the call to ram through without question a bill that would vest sole authority in the Treasury Department to take and apply hundreds of billions of dollars of taxpayer money, with no oversight and no accountability, is shameless.

If Congress permits this administration to pass this latest excuse for an emergency measure without some major revisions, then to an extent we get what we deserve: an executive branch that, despite the clear separation of powers enumerated in our Constitution, will have amassed all power under its own roof. How would the Founding Fathers have felt about that? I’d like to think that even that serpentine proponent of originalism, Justice Scalia, would see a problem here. Where are the checks and balances? Why does Congress keep rolling over for this president, when almost all the citizens of this country are in agreement that he is stupid, feckless, rash, and ill equipped to make good decisions for this country? His track record is abysmal. Why would we let him change the entire face of American capitalism, and of American government, before he shambles out of office? The prospect is ridiculous.

Apparently Congress is at least grilling the money boys on their plan. However, they’ve asked questions of this administration before, only to capitulate, mewling pathetically, in the end. The stakes are too high, and the timing is too suspect, for Congress to let this happen again.

Monday, September 22, 2008

And Behind Door Number Three...

What parting gift does George Bush have for us now? Lest his successor not have enough destruction to clean up, now our president has given the American public the present of a $700 billion bailout to fund; thus ensuring the mortgaging of its children’s futures well into the foreseeable future. Today he urges Congress not to dilly-dally and fiddle with his Treasury Secretary’s plan that might undermine its “effectiveness”; instead it should presumably forge ahead without question, much as it was asked to do with regard to the invasion of Iraq and anything else the administration wanted, NOW. And of course, America has suffered the effects of his gun-slinging mentality.

Please let this be the last of this president’s helpfulness before he heads back into obscurity in Crawford. This nation cannot afford any more of his capricious actions. This latest proposal, authored and squired around town by his former Wall Street denizen Treasury Secretary, Hank Paulson, is decidedly free of stipulations that would require additional oversight of either the Treasury Department or of any of the financial institutions that these funds would bail out. Isn’t that how we found ourselves in this position in the first place? Is it really appropriate to reward the C.E.O.’s of these organizations with multi-million dollar payouts to walk away from their mismanagement of people’s life savings? And all this coming from the Republicans – using what they would label bad (read: lefty) economic policy if they were not doing it themselves.

Why should Congress allow this to happen on Bush’s terms, with no opportunity for discussion? As usual, the administration is preying on Americans’ fears to support rash action without taking the time to understand the consequences. First it threatened "Muslims who want to kill us" to justify unprecedented, Constitution-defying expansion of executive power, now the alarm is sounded that Wall Street will collapse, taking with it your home, your job and your savings – but not if you sign this blank check over to our Treasury Secretary! But this financial crisis didn’t turn up yesterday – weren’t there measures to have been taken months ago? Is the economy really going to collapse if Congress doesn’t pass this legislation immediately, without change?

It is criminal for George Bush to take such an enormous, partisan decision only 44 days before his successor is elected, when that action will have long-term, serious ramifications for Americans and across the globe. Americans should require their elected representatives in Congress to force a serious debate on and inquiry into the origins of this bill instead of just capitulating, once again, to the steamroller that is this wretched administration. Otherwise, it’s just one more thing our next President will have to waste precious time trying to untangle once he takes office.

Friday, September 19, 2008

More of the Same, and Then Some More.

It’s hardly a new argument that electing John McCain and Sarah Palin is electing “more of the same.” And to some extent, that would be true – with Sarah Palin playing the parts of both George Bush and Dick Cheney. I’m inclined to believe, however, that the overall effect of a McCain-Palin administration (or Palin-McCain, as Palin has now referred to it on the stump), will be much worse. Their brand of “maverick” will build nicely on the groundwork Bush and Cheney have laid over the last eight years; fleshing out the bones of the poisonous infrastructure the current administration has set about to construct.

As George Bush, Governor Palin babbles responses to questions, sometimes answering, sometimes not. When she does, her grasp of the subject matter is obviously weak. She doesn’t mangle words and phrases quite as badly as George Bush, but close. It’s clear she possesses neither a great intellect nor an inclination toward thoughtfulness: her words indicate she would be likely to act first, and not think about it later. Like George, she operates like a somewhat clueless medieval king surrounded by his sniveling, sneaky advisors. They may tell her what to do, but sometimes she has to remind them who’s boss by mishandling a matter or two on her own.

As Dick Cheney, Palin favors closed doors and secrecy, and doing whatever the hell she wants regardless of the “rules.” In that respect, she will take over Cheney’s Fourth Branch quite nicely. She may lack Cheney’s brainpower, but she appears to match up to his cunning steely eye for steely eye.

Where does McCain fit into this Palin-McCain administration? These days, if he isn’t standing uselessly off to the side of his protégé while she clubs slack-jawed crowds over the head with her repeated lies and contradictions, he is doddering around the stage like a senile old grandpa, muttering incoherently about the fish that swim around oil rigs and punctuating his rambles with cartoon-like “heh-heh-hehs.” As the British say, he appears to have lost the plot.

If McCain is elected, and manages to stave off the coup of a power-hungry Palin for a little while, it’s hard to predict now what that will mean for the country. Who can tell what he truly believes about anything anymore other than that he wants to be president at any cost? If he’s against government regulation, it’s Tuesday. If it’s Wednesday and it seems politically expedient, he’s for it. He would rather lie or adopt an absurd position anytime than admit a mistake (see, e.g., whether he would meet with prime minister Zapatero). He doesn’t seem to be his own man anymore, assuming he ever was.

But from watching Palin’s power-maneuvering, I don’t think it would be long before she would find a way to stick McCain in a closet somewhere and insert herself in the top spot. Cindy might have something to say about it, but I imagine VP Palin could make short work of her. It’s this scenario, with Palin at the top, that many of us really fear – as well we should. Look at who she is, everything we have learned about how she has operated in Alaska, her un-nuanced approach to foreign policy, her religious beliefs, her “mission-driven” approach to her role in Washington and how she talks about all of it. It’s a combination that to me spells “End Times.”

Thursday, September 18, 2008

Sarah Palin Talks to Sean Hannity.

Somebody please send Sarah Palin back to Alaska for good. I mean YOU, American voters. If you haven’t decided on that course yet, in spite of her having lied repeatedly to your face about everything in the world for the last three weeks, then how about taking a look at her “interview” tonight with Sean Hannity? She’s got lots more lies and inanities to share with you, fellow Americans, so tune in. If you can’t face turning your teevee to Fox news, let me walk you through some highlights:

Governor Palin: On gridlock and getting their novel “reforms” through Congress:

“But John McCain has that streak of independence in him that I think is very, very important in America today in our leadership. I have that within me also. And that’s why John McCain tapped me to be a team of mavericks, of independents coming in there without the allegiances to that cronyism, to that good ole’ boy system. I’m certainly a Washington outsider and I’m proud of that because I think that that is what we need also.”

Me: NOT mavericks. Opportunists and good ol’ fashioned Republicans. And how can she continue to say with a straight face that she has no allegiances to cronyism, to that “good ole boy system”? Her mayoral and gubernatorial administrations have been documented as completely rife with favors, pressure and taking ludicrously large earmarks for her state.

GP: On if the political “attacks” by the Democrats will be effective:
“You can’t underestimate the wisdom of the people of America. They’re seeing through the rhetoric, and they’re seeing through a lot of the political cheap shots, also. And they’re getting down to the facts and the voting records that are going to show that stark contrast.”

Me: Let’s hope you’re right, lady, because that’s what’s going to have you riding the Straight Talk Express across some bridge you co-opted hundreds of millions of dollars to build, right on back to your delightful home in scenic Wasilla.

GP: On their solutions for the economy:

“Through reform, absolutely. Look at the oversight that has been lack, I believe, here at the 1930s type of regulatory regime overseeing some of these corporations. And we’ve got to get a more coordinated and a much more stringent oversight regime…government can play a very, very appropriate role in the oversight as people are trusting these companies with their life savings, with their investments, with their insurance policies, and construction bonds, and everything else.”

Me: Who ARE you? I think I hear the hinges of your jaw creaking. You’re parroting John McCain’s muddled, contradictory message about government oversight in this arena, and it sounds false and ridiculous. Yours is the party of deregulation, John McCain was a champion of the same until 2 days ago, and now you’re reaping what you’ve sown. This immediate flip-flop is absurd.

GP: On reaction to Obama’s attack on McCain for saying that the “fundamentals” of the economy are strong:

“Well, it was an unfair attack on the verbiage that Senator McCain chose to use because the fundamentals, as he was having to explain afterwards, he means our workforce, he means the ingenuity of the American people. And of course, that is strong and that is the foundation of our economy.”

Me: Did my head just explode? The hypocrisy of this pair is absolutely mind-bending.

It goes on, and it doesn’t get any better.

I genuinely do not understand how voters can overlook the shortcomings of these two and vote for them. They feed us a pack of lies or whatever they think we want to hear, daily, then each smile in their respective creepy styles and feed us some more. Why is anyone obstinate enough to think that people who campaign like this are going to govern in a more acceptable fashion?

Wednesday, September 17, 2008

Crisis on Main Street.

In case you hadn’t noticed, the economy has some issues. With the latest developments, thousands of white collar workers, some with the kind of salaries I have long scorned and envied because of the seeming lack of relation between their size and the amount of education/effort required to receive them, will lose their jobs. The government is stepping in again for an $85 billion bailout of AIG (where is that money supposed to come from? Maybe Iraq will lend it back to us), after saving the day for Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac only a couple of weeks ago. The Republican love of deregulation is coming back to bite us.

The good news is, according to John McCain, that the fundamentals of the American economy are “strong.” Or, no, that’s not what he meant, he meant that the American workers are “strong.” Unlike Senator Obama, who McCain accused on “The View” of choosing his words carefully in respect to the “lipstick on a pig” distraction, McCain apparently does not give any thought to the meaning of the words he uses. But even if he really meant that American workers are “strong,” so what? What good is it to be “strong” when you’re losing a job that you won’t easily replace? Is strength going to save the day when Americans can’t afford to buy food for their children? When the bank forecloses on their homes? There’s been plenty of exaltation of the strength of the blue-collar American worker for the last seventy years, but for the last thirty of those it hasn’t meant much more than a way to pay lip service to the requirement that they adapt to the decline of the manufacturing era in the U.S.

If the typical blue-collar American worker has been labeled “strong,” it is not a word that applies readily to white-collar workers. Indeed, “weak” seems more fitting. Let’s face it, just like many blue-collar workers, many white-collar workers are ill-prepared without additional schooling or training to make a switch into a different industry, to apply a different skill set. And also like most other Americans, white-collar workers frequently do not have any kind of financial cushion to fall back on. That is a potentially devastating combination for anyone. The bottom can fall out quickly, and the latte crowd is arguably ill-equipped to deal with it, both financially and emotionally.

Today’s white-collared workers are a pampered bunch, rarely having known the experience of a job loss in an economy so weak that they could not quickly rebound. Many identify with their careers very strongly, and will struggle to redefine themselves as they are forced to adapt in order to continue to provide for their families. There is a pervasive attitude among many that their choice of careers elevates them above the people with the jobs they may find themselves doing in order to survive, and that elitist attitude will take a battering. The injection of such angst into the equation may seem pathetic to your average American, and to an extent it is. Nonetheless, it’s a reality, and an impediment to finding the “strength” of which John McCain speaks.

We’ll have to hope that what Senator McCain first said, what he didn’t really mean, is true after all: that the fundamentals of our economy are strong. If they are not, the relative strength or weakness of the American worker will mean nothing in the face of a downward slide that seems to be gathering momentum.

Monday, September 15, 2008

Another Day, Another Planet.

Every day brings a new round of mind-blowing episodes from the Twilight Zone that is now Republican America, usually touched off by one of McCain’s main mouthpieces, “Tucker” Bounds. Today, in response to a new Obama ad that challenges McCain’s gutter-trolling campaign tactics, the New York Times reports that Mr. Bounds said the advertisement was inappropriate “as Americans face economic uncertainty.”

Let’s see, does he mean inappropriate like McCain’s ad that shows Obama’s cadre of wolves racing through the woods looking for that innocent lamb Sarah Palin, presumably to rip her throat out before she shoots them from her airplane? Or the one that implies Obama advocates teaching a full sex ed course to 5 year olds? Was the economy so much more certain 5 days ago that disgusting ads like the ones McCain put out were acceptable then? Please let me out of this alternate universe, where Republican operatives talk out of both sides of their mouths, but do it with such fake, righteous indignation pasted across their faces that somehow an apparently large group of people somewhere in this country swallows it hook, line and sinker.

I can’t understand it. Article after article describes how Palin has created the most stereotypically dirty of small-time administrations, both as mayor of her little town and as governor of her state. She has fired people who disagree with her, and hired high school friends for positions only minimally related to their experience. She’s taken enormous earmarks for her state, as well as a nice little chunk of money from the taxpayers through the use of per diems for sleeping away from the governor’s mansion in Juneau at her own home back in Wasilla. She has sniffed around her local library inquiring about banning books. She and her staff have special email accounts that they use because they believe those records would be harder to subpoena. Still, she stands up in front of enormous groups of cheering people who don’t seem to find any disconnect between her claims of sweeping reform and her own actions that belie it.

How can it be? Do people not read the papers? Do they only watch Fox News? Or do they simply choose not to face the ever-increasing number of damaging facts simply because they want yet another “someone like them” in the White House? When is America going to learn what that gets us? Or, as is looking more likely, when is MY half of America going to learn that the majority sees that what we think of as a failing America as a success?