sex, lies and the internet

Lies and sex, not to mention lies about sex, are nothing new to the world of politics. Back in 1884, Grover Cleveland’s opponents famously chanted, “Ma, Ma! Where’s my pa?” in hopes that drawing attention to Cleveland’s reported illegitimate child would defeat his run for President.

Sort of what Karl Rove’s minions did to John McCain in 2000; except in the Cleveland case, where the charge was probably true, it didn’t work and in the McCain case, where it most assuredly was a lie, it cost him the primary and probably the election.

Last week the New York Times, a paper I love and rely upon and one that is held in great esteem by professional journalists around the world, ran a story about McCain’s relationship with a lobbyist a few years back.

A female lobbyist, the item noted, going on to say that “convinced the relationship had become romantic, some of his top advisers intervened to protect the candidate from himself — instructing staff members to block the woman’s access, privately warning her away and repeatedly confronting him.”

What bothered me, and many others, about the story was the way it was received, which of course resulted from the way it was presented.

The substance of the Times story was to call into question McCain’s sincerity in opposing lobbyists’ influence while under the influence of at least one lobbyist himself. But you can guess what the TV news shows, pundits and wall-to-wall talk shows picked up, and you’re right: The sex angle, complete with a photo of the very attractive lady lobbyist, stunningly decked out in evening attire.

I believe it was a newsworthy story, with or without with an extra dollop of drama; I just think the romantic angle itself warranted waiting until the reporters had indisputable evidence because they could have anticipated that sex rather than lobbying might become the story.

As it turned out, the New York Times became the story because they published it, and on page one, and now everyone’s attention is somewhat diverted from the seriousness of the matter alleged.

In the last dozen years, sex and lies have been joined by the Internet as weapons of choice in political struggles.

To be sure, there are great enhancements to public discourse in the incredible amount of information that’s available to anyone with access to the Internet, and the value to candidates who want to get their messages out and bring in contributions is, well, immeasurable.

But the use of the Internet for mischief has, sadly, become almost an institution in our politics. For those who would destroy a candidate for public office by publishing lies, it’s a piece of cake now: easy anonymity, free distribution to the entire world if one so chooses, and of course the liberty we enjoy to speak freely and say just about anything.

A couple of months ago I wrote about an Internet rumor that had been circulating for well over a year; I pointed out that it may have originated with Insight Magazine, a Washington Times (that would be Rev. Moon, of course) publication, but if not then certainly it was given a significant boost from there through the Fox news network and onto the Internet.

The rumor, about Barack Obama, was reported on and thoroughly debunked repeatedly in the mainstream media, then and since, but like those trick candles we all hate it just keeps on keepin’ on.

Last week, the Fort Worth Star Telegram reported that Barack Obama, again, “is the subject of a shadowy smear campaign based on the Internet that falsely suggests he's a Muslim intent on destroying the United States. Obama is a Christian and has been fighting the e-mail hoax, which also claims he doesn't put his hand over his heart during the Pledge of Allegiance, and he's been trying to correct the misinformation.” Link.

Those emails also claim that Obama took the oath of office with one hand on the Koran, obviously confusing him with Congressman Keith Ellison, of Minnesota, an African-American who actually is a Muslim and who did take his oath of office upon a copy of the Koran. (A copy once owned by Thomas Jefferson, by the way.)

The Star-Telegram also reported that Obama, at last week’s rally in Austin, addressed the issue head-on:

“Well, I've been going to the same Christian church, praying to Jesus for the last 20 years. So don't insult me, and don't insult the Muslims.”

I find even more distressing than the non-ending clearly questionable rumors and lies the fact that some people are apparently willing to believe them. Anyone accessing the World Wide Web knows – or should know – about web sites like snopes.com, which check the truthfulness of Internet rumors.

Is a sore loser inevitable?

It was only a couple of months ago that I suggested in this space that the primary season would soon be upon us, but I never imagined that it might be Texas that would determine the winners!

On the Democratic side, the race is so far too close to call and our primary on March 4th will be significant — when’s the last time you had a chance to vote in a Presidential primary knowing that your vote would actually matter?

I wrote then:

We haven’t seen a lot of the candidates here in Texas, of course, because Texas doesn’t get to vote in a primary until next March, by which time it may be all over.

Wrong!

And then:

What I’d give for the old days of “brokered” conventions!

Maybe wrong again: I should have remembered that old admonition, to be careful what you wish for! It certainly looks like that’s where we are headed, and it’s not pretty.

On the one hand, events have — I believe happily — proven the pundits’ assessment of Clinton “inevitability” to be dead wrong!

On the other, there could be a destructive battle to decide who will seek the presidency on behalf of the Democratic party.

There is already anger and bitterness in the air, mostly, it seems to me, flowing from the Clinton campaign and certain of its supporters demanding, each time they perceive a setback, that some rule or other be changed to their benefit.

The anger is on display when Bill shakes his finger at his audience, when his wife attacks the press for treating her unfairly, and most recently in the form of a screed written by Robin Morgan, a prominent feminist, blaming “sociopathic woman-hating” for what’s going on.

These activities are disturbing because of what they tell us about the candidate. And whether you believe it or not, as tempting as it is to have a candidate who will do anything, change every rule, to defeat the Republican candidate in the fall, it is already settled in the minds of many Democrats that they really, truly, want an end to this kind of politicking.

Clinton’s decision to portray herself as inevitable from the get-go did not work, though it seemed at first it might. It didn’t work for two reasons: The voters turned out not to appreciate the arrogance and sense of entitlement that seemed to underlie it; and Barack Obama turned out to be, as even Bill Clinton acknowledged the other day, the more exciting candidate.

But, she argues, Obama hasn’t been truly “vetted” so no one knows what his opponents might dredge up to throw at him, whereas everyone already knows everything there is to know about her.

Well not quite: There is still the unresolved request for her White House records and tax returns to be disclosed, and the influence of Bill’s rather eclectic business dealings.

In any event, as Barack Obama himself somewhat amusedly pointed out, there is no doubt that whatever can be dug up against him would most likely have been uncovered by the Clintons by now.

Mrs. Clinton’s claim that she will be “ready from Day One in the Oval Office” has always struck me as somewhat peculiar, given that the first day in the Oval Office doesn’t arrive until almost three months after the election — a space in time designed by our better-angel forbears to allow for the smooth transfer of power and plenty of preparation, Cabinet building and the like.

And then there’s Bill. What can I say?

Now, there were some fine accomplishments during the Bill Clinton presidency, most notably a healthy economy, but there were also more some not-so-wonderful events — most notably the failed health care plan and the passage of NAFTA — and more problems than you could shake a stick at, problems no one wants to take on again, not to mention a level of inter-party rancor that does not appear to have faded.

That in mind, Hillary Clinton argues that she is the best qualified to withstand attacks from Republicans because of all that she has endured; what folks need to consider is that those attacks were leveled at the Clintons!

Which means one thing does seem inevitable: If Hillary Clinton is the nominee, and if she were to win the White House — certainly not a certainty — we’d be right back where we left off in 2000, rancor and all.

I don’t see what I believe America needs, and I do see what I believe America most assuredly does not need.

Beginning with early voting on February 19th, Texas now has the rare and remarkable opportunity to change the course of American politics for a good long while. The calculation even by folks in her own campaign is that if Hillary Clinton does not win Texas — and win it big — the race will be over and Barack Obama will secure the nomination.

You can talk all day long about “superdelegates” but the consensus continues to be that Texas can decide the outcome and maybe even help to save the world!

The Clintons constantly deride Barack Obama’s rhetoric as “poetry” contrasted with the “prose” she offers. So a little spin here is irresistible:

“Prose” is the root of “prosaic,” and if Obama is the opposite of prosaic, then, according to the thesaurus, he is extraordinary, imaginative, inspired and inspiring — just what we need in a leader!

Farewell to the Pharisees

It seems to have been proven once again: Money can’t buy you the presidency of the United States of America.

Mitt Romney should’ve learned from Steve Forbes, who spent some $38 million of his own money in each of his two attempts to become president back in 1996 and 2000.

By the time Romney suspended his campaign last week he had spent, according to the folks who do the numbers, approximately $1.16 million — including $35 million or so of his own money — for each of the 286 delegates he won.

Our boy Huckabee, on the other hand, ambling somewhat jovially and much less frenetically along the same campaign trail, has collected some 20 delegates for each $1 million spent so far and 180 or so delegates on board. Imagine if he had even a fraction of Romney’s money!

I find no report of Huckabee putting any of his own money into the mix, and in fact, according to the Washington Post, he continues his pre-campaign career of paid speaking engagements, explaining that “If I don’t work, I don’t eat.”

If I thought there was any likelihood at all that Mr. Huckabee could win the White House, I might be writing to sound the alarm instead of just enjoying the show, if for no other reason than his stated wish to abolish the IRS and add a hefty sales tax to what we buy.

(You think 8.25% is a tough tax to pay? Try thinking about 30%! On every dollar you spend!)

But it’s refreshing to watch Huckabee’s campaign just for the sheer decency and authenticity of it. And his sense of humor really lights up an interview.

Of course, despite his credentials as a Baptist minister and his position on matters they claim to hold dear, the folks I call the Radical Right aren’t having any of it. I have no idea why, other than Huckabee’s unarguably Christian desire to help the poor and worry about middle class jobs.

Even more so, the RR doesn’t care for John McCain. The very conservative senator from Arizona apparently isn’t conservative enough for the likes of Laura Ingraham, Rush Limbaugh and Ann Coulter, despite a long conservative record.

These worthies are so opposed to McCain they have vowed to support Hillary Clinton should he become the Republican nominee.

But this brings to mind the old saw about the dog chasing a car: What would he do if he ever caught it?

What do you suppose would happen if they actually “won” the election? Would they be able to influence events at the White House? Or would they just be out of work?

Imagine, if you will, American society without the Limbaughs and Ingrahams and Coulters, whose stock in trade is hateful speech! Ahhh!

Seriously, it seems obvious to me that the Radical Right has hijacked the concern about social issues that for a long time defined the mostly evangelical portion of the Republican base, in order to promote their own decidedly uncharitable agenda.

They want to cut taxes for the rich. They don’t want campaign finance reform, preferring that rich folks and corporations be allowed to donate unlimited money to campaigns. (They might want to rethink this; see above).

They don’t want any path to citizenship to solve the problem of what to do with 12 million people who came here illegally, no matter how many years ago or how heavy the penalty proposed. They don’t want universal health care. They don’t want to clean up the environment.

Their list is long, but you’ll notice one common denominator: Money.

This election offers the Republican Party an opportunity, whether John McCain or Mike Huckabee is the nominee, to purge itself of the radical element. By winning the nomination in spite of everything those folks have thrown at him, McCain may succeed in marginalizing them; if Huckabee were to amaze everyone and win the nomination, I think the radicals would go the way of the Pharisees:

Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for you devour widows' houses, and pray at length as a pretense.