Early Thanksgiving!

Election night was unbelievable. Literally. Down at Democratic Headquarters several dozen folks had gathered to watch the returns, yet the room was strangely quiet over an almost unbearable two hours, as the patient assembly tried to make sense out of the myriad maps and graphs displayed on TV news reports. Then, suddenly, the screen filled with the announcement that Barack Obama would be the 44th President of the United States.

The room erupted into noise and motion as people shouted and danced and hugged and cheered, the emotion of the moment even driving some of us to tears. How to believe that this moment in American history had arrived – and that we had been a part of it?

And yes, everything did change. The rest of the world celebrated right along with us; news flashed from all around the world, like the rolling reports of new years' celebrations, except it was all at once.

It was thrilling, no doubt about it. Especially for those of us who supported Barack Obama for the better part of two years, way too long by some standards, but that’s a problem for another time.

For those who are less than thrilled, but would welcome some good news, let me offer at least one thought.

The election is over.

And another: The winner was Obama, not Clinton.

And this: Rahm Emanuel, known as “Rahmbo,” is to be Chief of Staff at the White House. This appointment likely signals that the Obama administration will be disciplined, and that it will not be pulled to the left by the left-most members of the party. (That could be a whole separate column, so trust me for now.)

There was some collateral damage, too, in that the hapless campaign run by McCain and the Rove acolytes he listened to may have been the death of the Republican Party. And no, I don’t find that cause for celebration, because I believe in the usefulness of a loyal opposition.

But that opposition should be honorable and I think that the Republican Party, after it was hijacked by radicals, lost its moorings. Without those moorings, it will likely be a very, very long time before American politics regains its balance.

How is the Republican Party to become viable again? Certainly not by returning to the slash-and-burn tactics of Rove and Gingrich, now thoroughly discredited as party visionaries. These guys, along with Grover Norquist, are where the blame really should go once the dust settles.

How about revisiting the ideas of William F. Buckley, one of this country’s truly thoughtful intellectuals, about whom George W. Bush said, “Bill Buckley was one of the great founders of the modern conservative movement. He brought conservative thought into the political mainstream, and helped lay the intellectual foundation for America's victory in the Cold War and for the conservative movement that continues to this day.”

Buckley often spoke out strongly against the “neoconservative” approach to government. In a conversation with George Will (no slouch in the matter of conservatism), speaking about the Bush doctrine of spreading democracy abroad as foreign policy, he said:

It's anything but conservative. It's not conservative at all, inasmuch as conservatism doesn't invite unnecessary challenges. It insists on coming to terms with the world as it is, and the notion that merely by affirming these high ideals we can affect highly entrenched systems.

The thoughtful conservatism of Buckley was overrun by radicals like Grover Norquist, head of the euphemistically named Americans for Tax Reform; Norquist once told NPR, “I don't want to abolish government. I simply want to reduce it to the size where I can drag it into the bathroom and drown it in the bathtub.” Starve the government of revenue and you can do away with foolish things like, oh, national defense, public education, Medicare, Social Security, and FEMA.

Norquist was co-author of Newt Gingrich’s 1994 “Contract with America,” and had a long association with Karl Rove. He was instrumental in securing early conservative support for George W. Bush in the lead-up to the 2000 race for the presidency.

In 2003 Paul Krugman, who this year won the Nobel Prize for Economics, wrote:

Here's how the argument runs: to starve the beast, you must not only deny funds to the government; you must make voters hate the government. There's a danger that working-class families might see government as their friend: because their incomes are low, they don't pay much in taxes, while they benefit from public spending. So in starving the beast, you must take care not to cut taxes on these "lucky duckies." (Yes, that's what The Wall Street Journal called them in a famous editorial.) In fact, if possible, you must raise taxes on working-class Americans in order, as The Journal said, to get their "blood boiling with tax rage."

If I were trying to rebuild the Republican Party I’d get out a new broom and run these guys out of town.

The loveliness of the Obama victory is that it did not involve viciousness (pleas by some worried supporters notwithstanding) and remained calm and thoughtful throughout. And it paid off: Obama won in almost every identifiable constituency, including college graduates making more than $100,000.

Question for Karl Rove: Does this mean that to build a permanent Democratic majority all we have to do is provide college education for everyone that wants it?

Think positive — but think!

As tempting as it might be to engage in ad hominem attacks against the opposition in this Presidential election, I’m gambling on the notion that folks may be more likely to read what I have to say if I don’t, so I won’t.

There’s no doubt some satisfaction in going after the person rather than the idea, especially if we feel clever in doing so, seeking the cheap thrill of a zinger over the effort of a point finely made that might actually inform.

To this end, with the election just a week away, I’d like to offer information about developments in favor of electing Barack Obama.

Last Sunday, on Meet the Press, Gen. Colin Powell set forth his reasons for supporting Obama, ranging from his concerns about where the Republican Party is headed (he is a Republican) to the way the McCain campaign had been run in the preceding several weeks; from his concern about McCain’s lack of direction as the current economic crisis unfolded, and the selection of Sarah Palin to be his running mate, to his trust in Obama’s “way of doing business” and judgment.

Gen. Powell said it came down to which of the two candidates would best serve the needs of the nation for the next period of time. He said,

I have come to the conclusion that, because of his ability to inspire, because of the inclusive nature of his campaign, because he is reaching out all across America, because of who he is and his rhetorical abilities – and you have to take that into account – as well as his substance, he has both style and substance, he has met the standard of being a successful president, being an exceptional president.

According to Editor & Publisher, a website that follows such things, editorial boards across the country have so far endorsed Obama by a margin of 3-to-1, contrasted with an almost even count in 2004. And before anyone hollers “liberal media,” let it be noted that, in addition to the usual suspects (the New York Times, LA Times, Boston Globe, Washington Post, Baltimore Sun), the Bryan-College Station Eagle made its first-ever presidential endorsement, for Obama. Furthermore, at least 38 papers that endorsed Bush in 2004 have switched this year to Obama, including our own Fort Worth Star-Telegram.

The Chicago Tribune endorsed a Democrat for the first time ever, and while you may be tempted to think, “Well, of course a Chicago paper would endorse Barack Obama,” think about the fact that they probably know Obama better than most of the rest do.

And speaking of hometown perspectives, the Anchorage Daily News, in its endorsement of Obama — “Sen. Barack Obama, the Democratic nominee, brings far more promise to the office. In a time of grave economic crisis, he displays thoughtful analysis, enlists wise counsel and operates with a cool, steady hand,” the paper had this to say about Sarah Palin:

Despite her formidable gifts, few who have worked closely with the governor would argue she is truly ready to assume command of the most important, powerful nation on earth. To step in and juggle the demands of an economic meltdown, two deadly wars and a deteriorating climate crisis would stretch the governor beyond her range. Like picking Sen. McCain for president, putting her one 72-year-old heartbeat from the leadership of the free world is just too risky at this time.

Colin Powell may be the most recognized in what has begun to look like a Republican mass defection; other notables to endorse Obama recently include Scott McClellan, Ken Adelman, William Weld, Christopher Buckley, and Susan Eisenhower.

Ever since he was accused of being too famous, the attacks on Obama have been relentless and have ranged from truth through implication to out-and-out lie. No, he’s not a Muslim (and as Colin Powell said, What if he were? This is America!) and no, he’s not a terrorist, and no, he’s not in favor of turning murderers loose (the Republicans’ latest robocalls, recorded by Rudy Giuliani, are Willie Horton redux).

And no, Obama is not a socialist, unless you consider wanting to give a tax cut to folks in the middle class, tax credits to small businesses and tax incentives to companies who don’t send their jobs overseas to be socialism.

If you do, it’s well past time to get out the dictionary.

Throughout all the attacks a calm and imperturbable Barack Obama refused to reciprocate, despite urgings from some of his supporters and a slew of pundits to “get tougher.” According to conservative TV host Joe Scarborough, speaking to Newsweek recently, “He doesn't attack Republicans, he doesn't attack whites and he never seems to draw these dividing lines that Bill Clinton [does].”

Finally, and inexplicably, his opponents complain that Obama is an intellectual, an “elitist.” As if that were a defect.

Let me say this about that: When I fly, I want my pilot to be one of the elite that make up the best; I want my surgeon to be of the medical elite; I want my lawyer to be unbeatable; I want our troops and their generals to be the best of the best, and by golly, I want my President to be.

Short and sweet: Obama’s tax plan

Some days I just don’t understand how, this late in the game, there can be anyone left who is undecided about the Presidential race. I mean, it’s been going on for close to two years!

Other days, I remember to give the benefit of the doubt to folks who are not political junkies like me and so haven’t been paying attention as closely as I have.

But by now there’s a lot of information out there — the TV ads that have begun to show up in the last month or so, the 24/7 cable news, and of course the candidates’ web sites (and the Obama campaign even has its own TV channel, 5890 on Dish Network) — so
they’d better hop to it, for early voting starts NOW.

This space was dedicated a week ago to comparing the two candidates’ health care plans, followed on Friday by a comparison of their proposals for dealing with the economic crisis.

You could say the best was saved for last. Taxes.

Let’s talk about “Joe the plumber” for a minute.

Samuel Joseph Wurtzelbacher, a registered Republican who rocketed to fame in the third Presidential debate, told Obama, in a rope line, that he was poised to purchase his bosses’ plumbing business but that doing so would bring him income “in the $260,000 to $280,000 range” which he figured would increase his taxes under the Obama plan.

Whether or not he was a “plant,” as some suspect, it made a great talking point for the debate, so I’m glad this conversation took place right there in front of everyone, and I don’t agree with the media frenzy about his license or anything else personal.

It turned into a great hook for the candidates, and gave Obama the chance to point out that (a) based on what he is making at this point Joe would benefit from Obama’s proposed tax cut, and (b) that his tax rate would increase only on the amount of income above $250,000.

In other words, the first $250,000 would be tax-increase free! Still, if I ever get lucky enough to earn that kind of money, I don’t think I’ll mind at all paying another 3% or so on the $10,000, $20,000 or $30,000 extra.

This being politics, of course, part of Obama’s answer on the rope line was morphed by the McCain folks into something vaguely sinister.

Obama said to Joe, “If the economy’s good for folks from the bottom up, it’s gonna be good for everybody. If you’ve got a plumbing business, you’re gonna be better off if you’ve got a whole bunch of customers who can afford to hire you. And right now, everybody’s so pinched that business is bad for everybody. And I think when you spread the wealth around it’s good for everybody.”

This naturally became “Redistribution of wealth! Horrors! Welfare! Yuck!”

Obama went on to explain to Joe that he would also eliminate the capital gains tax for a small business like Joe’s, to encourage growth.

What’s amazing to me is that voters who would never in their wildest dreams reach a net income of $250,000 for a family, or $200,000 for a single taxpayer, are convinced that an Obama administration would raise their taxes.

According to a chart published by the Washington Post, citing the Tax Policy Center, Obama’s plan would actually not raise taxes significantly for anyone earning up to $603,402; the tax increase that would kick in at that point would be 8.7% and that would hold up to $2.87 million. Anyone you know going to be worried about that?

Y’know, we’re getting into the stratosphere here, what the Tax Policy Center identifies as the top 1% of Americans. But apparently this is who McCain is really, really worried about when he says that Barack Obama is going to raise your taxes.

Warren Buffett, a man who knows a thing or two about making money, hasn’t got a problem with Obama’s tax plan, so I guess I don’t either.

Short and sweet: Health care

What amazes me most about the ongoing health care debate is the finality with which some politicians and their pundit supporters dismiss the idea of universal health care, and especially single payer plans, with the nail-in-the-coffin reminder that “You don’t want the government running your health care, do you?”

And folks who don’t stop to think about it may agree, because they certainly don’t want the government running their health care, nosiree.

So I guess they’ll be turning down Medicare when they retire.

Unless they, like Joe Barton, are members of Congress, in which case they already have government-run health care. Doesn’t seem to bother him at all.

It’s been understood for years that the abysmal state of our health care system is a drain on our national economy, not to mention a drain on the health and pocketbooks of the millions of American citizens who have no health care coverage.

Who do you think pays for those emergency room visits by the uninsured?

America is the only major industrialized nation that does not provide some form of universal health care for its citizens. But this year, happily, we are offered some real ideas for fixing the health care system. And the reader is well advised to listen, learn and then choose.

The New England Journal of Medicine, a respected and non-partisan publication, has published its evaluation of the proposals by Barack Obama and John McCain, and I want to describe the main points here, in the order they are listed by the Journal.

John McCain’s plan:

Proposes to make employer-paid health insurance premiums taxable to the employee;

Provides for $2500 per worker or $5,000 per family refundable tax credit for those purchasing private insurance;

Creates a high-risk pool for persons who are unable to purchase that insurance; promotes less comprehensive insurance policies;

Proposes to deregulate insurance markets;

Proposes to reform Medicare to make bundled payments for episodes of care and pay on the basis of outcomes.

Barack Obama’s plan:

Proposes requiring employers (except very small businesses) to either offer insurance to employees or pay a tax;

For the uninsured and small businesses, would create a new national health plan similar to Medicare, and establishes a new national health insurance exchange that would offer choice of private insurance options;

Mandates that all children must have coverage (expanding the SCHIP program);

Would provide subsidies to lower-income Americans to help them afford coverage;

Would expand coverage, financed through the payroll tax, letting tax cuts for families making over $250,000 expire, and savings from electronic medical records, disease management, and other system reforms;

Would regulate private insurance plans to end risk rating based on health status;

Proposes to insure business against the costs of workers’ expensive medical episodes.

These, again, are the highlights. For each of the candidates there are other proposed measures to control costs and improve quality, but the ones I’ve reported are selected by the Journal as “key elements” of the respective plans.

However you get there, universal health care is not just a do-good, feel-good, help- the-afflicted issue. It’s a bread and butter issue for the country.

Giuliani: Divorced again!

In his appearance on Meet the Press on Sunday, former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani told Truth he wanted out and took Honor along with him. Oh, and while he was at it, he completely abandoned Reality.

Why do I give a fig about this? I’ll tell you why.

Just as a person who has been attacked by a dog may thereafter fear all dogs, a person who has experienced McCarthyism may forever be vigilant lest we allow it into our society again.

I was in high school during the ascendancy of Sen. Joseph McCarthy (R-WI) and his counterparts in the House Unamerican Activities Committee, and because my father worked at the U.N. I got a pretty good inside look at the tyranny of those people.

Dad, with the rest of the American employees of the U.N. Secretariat, had to complete a 13-page loyalty/security questionnaire; the final page was blank, with the instructions, approximately, to “use the space below to provide information that will prove your loyalty to the United States.”

Any historian will confirm that Joe McCarthy never unearthed a single enemy of the people, and he eventually got into some hot water for trying to play the U.S. Army for fools. But the inquisitorial process was numbing (“Were you aware that your friend Mr. Soandso was a member of the Communist party 20 years before you met him?” “Have you ever entertained the Soandso family in your home?”) — and the collateral damage was fierce.

Mr. Soandso — whose politics were pretty ordinary, it turned out — lost his job, and — the times being what they were — his children were harangued in school as “commies.” His wife went to work to support the family. He never recovered his job, his good name, or his dignity.

Meanwhile, back at the State Department, where Dad had worked before the U.N., a dear friend of our family was subpoenaed to appear in person, no attorney allowed; she was questioned over a period of hours about her loyalty and friendships. It was rough and it was traumatic, and she resigned because she just couldn’t take any more.

No charges were ever filed against either of the people I’ve described.

But I was impressed, and I was terrified. Even half a dozen years later, waiting at a bus stop I spied a newsstand that displayed the Daily Worker; I was afraid to cast a further glance at it lest I be seen by someone who might do that to me.

I finally got over it as the country seemed to get saner (and Joe McCarthy, who was laughed out of power by Judge Joseph G. Welch during the Army hearings, finally succumbed to the ravages of alcohol and hatred), but I’ll admit to being a wee bit paranoid still.

So Mr. Giuliani got my attention when he said, essentially, that Barack Obama’s community organizing was run by "a Saul Alinsky [Red flag!] group," in league with the Chicago machine politicians, and that the real purpose of that group was to use taxes for the redistribution of wealth rather than for the benefit of the country.

“Redistribution of wealth” — you know, like Fidel Castro and Hugo Chavez; it’s quite a stretch to claim that trying to put people back to work after they've lost their jobs when the steel plants closed is trying to redistribute wealth.

Rudy said this was “socialist,” called Obama the most left-wing candidate ever, and the most liberal member of the Senate. He repeated the “redistribution of wealth” bit three times, pretty hefty for a few-minute comment.

Naturally, I can’t help but wonder how he would characterize Adlai Stevenson, famously called a “pinko” by Nixon back in the McCarthy era; for that matter how might Eugene McCarthy or George McGovern feel about giving up the “most left-wing” title? And as for the Senate liberals, did he just diss Ted Kennedy? And what about Bernie Sanders, for heaven’s sake, who calls himself a “socialist”?

And Saul Alinsky? Alinsky was in fact the father of “community organizing,” and he was very good at it. He fought AGAINST the Chicago machine because he saw that it wasn’t working for the working poor. Let alone the just plain poor. And he succeeded.
Here’s what the Washington Post said about him:

Alinsky was a bluff iconoclast who concluded that electoral politics offered few solutions to the have-nots marooned in working-class slums. … Power flowed up, he said, and neighborhood leaders who could generate outside pressure on the system were more likely to produce effective change than the lofty lever-pullers operating on the inside.

Alinsky took action with an organizing campaign in 1939 in Back of the Yards, the desperate Chicago meatpacking district depicted in Upton Sinclair's "The Jungle." Fashioning an unlikely alliance of unions, the Catholic church and others to win concessions from industry and government, he said organizers must listen to people's desires, then find leaders to carry the fight.

Sounds pretty reasonable to me.

So it’s not surprising that when Obama, trained (and by the way, Rudy, having been very successful) in community organizing, talks about the fixing the economy he calls for building from the bottom up, putting people put back to work, rewarding employers for keeping jobs from going overseas, and paying women the same as men for the same work, for example. That’s part of the beginning.

But Giuliani wants you to think, “Commie pinko!”

Rudy, Rudy, Rudy: We’ve been through all this before, haven’t we? And there are a bunch of us who don’t want to go there again. Better take care, lest you be laughed off the stage like Joe McCarthy!

Originally published September 14, 2008

John’s choice

With the choice of Sarah Palin as his running mate, John McCain did one thing for sure: he injected new life and perhaps a wee bit of hope into a Republican convention that was struggling to attract America’s attention.

To the wider audience not distracted by funny hats and backdrop films of cornfields and LA middle schools, the snarky comments about Barack Obama had become repetitious and there was even growing suspicion among some that McCain’s only real qualification to be President of the United States seemed to be his five-plus years of experience as a prisoner-of-war subjected to torture.

The “maverick” image of 2000 had pretty well faded as, one by one, McCain took on the attitudes of his former nemesis: tax cuts for billionaires, about which he said in 2003, "I cannot in good conscience support a tax cut in which so many of the benefits go to the most fortunate among us at the expense of middle-class Americans who need tax relief," in 2006 became his new favorite proposal.

Speaking of torture, John McCain famously (and deservedly) supported legislation that would have banned waterboarding and some other forms of torture. But last February, when the bill came to a vote (with Mr. Bush promising to veto it), he voted against it.

The man who, more than many, symbolizes the wounded veteran, has consistently opposed increasing veterans’ benefits, including health care for wounded warriors and educational rewards for serving the country.

McCain’s proposals to address the health care crisis (yes, Virginia, there is one) include offering a $5,000 tax credit to help Americans buy insurance, which makes one wonder about folks who don’t make enough to pay enough taxes to cover that, and (incredibly) taxing as income the value of employer-provided insurance.

The man famous for opposing earmarks in legislation chose a running mate who, as mayor of her town, managed to obtain more earmark money for her constituents than any other town in the country. And the multimillion-dollar allocation earmarked for a “bridge to nowhere,” that Palin wants us to believe she rejected, were actually paid to Alaska — just not for that bridge.

Republicans at the convention seem to have bought into the assertion that a great many of Hillary Clinton’s supporters will abandon all their principles (sort of the way McCain did) and vote for him just to have Sarah Palin “a heartbeat from the presidency.”

The people who voted for Hillary Clinton because of what she said and stood for will choose to vote for Mrs. Palin just because she’s a woman?

It’s called cognitive dissonance, folks.

Does anyone actually stop to think what “one heartbeat away” means? And if and when they do, do they pause at least a moment to imagine the possibility that — like any of us — John McCain, being mortal, could expire on election day, for example, and then what?

We have an economy on the rocks, health care costs about to explode, schools failing, college costs headed for the stratosphere, jobs being lost (the latest unemployment number was 6.1%, the highest in five years); we have global warming (which Palin doesn’t believe in); we have war winding down in Iraq, another heating up in Afghanistan, a developing crisis in Pakistan, the threat of trouble with Iran, unknown challenges in the former Soviet bloc, and the ever-present Israeli/Palestinian conflict.

And John McCain offers us eye-candy with attitude?

We learned over the weekend that the McCain campaign has told the media that Palin will not be available for interviews (read: questions) anytime soon. In fact, according to campaign manager Rick Davis, Palin won't give any interviews “until we think it’s time and she feels comfortable doing it." And, according to a report on Talking Points Memo, he later added that she wouldn't give any interviews "until the point in time when she'll be treated with respect and deference."

In the meantime, all you folks who are still deciding who to vote for this November can just accept the McCain campaign’s word for it: She is, like, TOTALLY ready to order our sons and daughters into battle.


Originally published September 7, 2008

And furthermore …

Even before finishing my last post I realized that there are quite a few more items that need to be said about the current campaign for the presidency. The idea that even one voter might make a choice based on bad information is anathema to everything our Founders intended for America.

Take (please!) this new ad from the McCain campaign:

"Life in the spotlight (the video shows crowds cheering Obama) must be grand, but for the rest of us times are tough."

Us? This from the guy who campaigns wearing $520 leather Ferragamo loafers, enjoys the use of his billion-heiress wife’s private plane to travel to campaign events, and owns at least half a dozen homes in pleasant locations?

The ad goes on: “Obama voted to raise taxes on people making just $42,000,” while the text-over says Obama: RAISE TAXES ON MIDDLE CLASS.

The narrator claims that Obama “promises to raise taxes on small business, seniors, your life savings, your family.” Talk about hot buttons! Then, next to a photo of a smiling Barack Obama, “Painful taxes! Hard choices for your budget!”

What a heartless cad!

The ad concludes, of course, with “I’m John McCain and I approve this message.”

Some in the TV commentariat speculated aloud last week that they don’t believe McCain is really this kind of guy, that he must not really know what his minions are putting out there because he surely would not be comfortable running such ads.

Next to the ad described above, I could almost forgive the simple slander of using a remark out of context, as I described last week. Here we have an out-and-out lie. No other way to characterize it.

Obama has said for months that his tax proposals include REDUCING taxes for every family with less than $250,000 income, and eliminating them altogether for low-income families and seniors under $50,000.

I used to fantasize that whenever an election was won with a proven lie the person who won that way should have to give up the office. Fat chance.

From lies to too-clever-by-half: In an exchange about McCain’s fixation with off-shore drilling, Obama observed that, hey, if every driver got the car tuned up and its tires inflated to specification the fuel savings would be immediate, contrasted with the years before new wells could influence gasoline prices — if indeed they did more than a penny or three a gallon.

McCain promptly began a campaign to mock this as “Obama’s energy plan,” and handed out cute little pressure gauges to reporters. (Ordinary folks could get one for only $25.00 on McCain’s web site.)

But here’s what BusinessWeek.com wrote on August 1, 2008:

According to www.fueleconomy.gov, the gas savings of having a properly tuned car is 16 cents a gallon, compared with a car that’s not properly tuned. The savings from properly inflated tires versus improperly inflated tires is up to 40-cents a gallon.

Statistics vary, but more than half of the vehicles on the road today are believed, from periodic spot checking, to be under-inflated.

AAA and NASCAR agree, by the way.

Further, according to BusinessWeek.com,

The U.S. government’s own Energy Information Administration says that removing restrictions on offshore drilling wouldn’t lead to any additional domestic oil production until 2017, and that even at its peak the extra production would have an ‘insignificant’ impact on oil prices.

So it was reassuring to hear McCain endorse the idea a week or so later.

And none of these sources mentioned the fact that the savings realized by reducing driving speed to 55 mph is said to add about five miles per gallon, not an amount to be sneezed at with current prices where they are.

One thing for sure: McCain’s argument that if we only “Drill here! Drill now!” it will bring down the price of gasoline is, to say the least, misleading.

Ok, but let’s say it’s a reasonable argument that, assuming more oil will eventually be needed, whether or not it drives down prices, we should probably be starting now. Here’s a problem:

People who seem to know what they are talking about point out (a) that we are already operating our refineries at capacity, so to accommodate more oil we will need to build more refineries; and (b) that there are millions of acres of existing oil leases that have not been drilled upon.

According to the U.S. Minerals Management Service,

Currently 79 percent of America’s technically recoverable offshore oil reserves are open for leasing, while just 21 percent are closed to drilling. [Minerals Management Service, 2006]

Currently 82 percent of America’s technically recoverable offshore natural gas reserves are open for leasing, while just 18 percent are closed to drilling. [Minerals Management Service, 2006]”

It does seem to me that it would make sense to start drilling on lands that are already available, start building more refineries, all while continuing the quest for alternative solutions (after all, we’ll have at least a decade on our hands).

I remember how the Bush tax cuts for the very, very wealthy got through a distraught Congress while we were still reeling from the attacks of 9/11 — the President took advantage of the willingness of the nation to follow him just about anywhere, and the tax cuts were passed within days.

Could it be that the oil companies (who love the idea of more leases in juicy offshore locations, who gave McCain over $1 million to show that love) are hoping our present panic will help get them those leases?

All I can offer is a cautionary to Americans to pay close attention, check out the facts. Else, once again, it’s “fool me twice” time.

Originally published August 10, 2008

Politics 2008

If it weren’t so infuriating I’d just shrug it off and call it silliness. But believe you me, this is deadly serious stuff and can make or break the success of Barack Obama’s quest for the Presidency. It all depends, frankly, on how much attention American voters are willing to commit to the selection process, and their capacity for critical thinking.

Come to think of it, this kind of stuff probably goes back to, oh, 1789 or so (yes, there were candidates other than George Washington for the signal honor of being Father of our Country), but my own experience is necessarily limited to the last 50-plus years.

You could liken it to the snake oil salesmen of the old West, or the fellow who offers a deed to the Brooklyn Bridge or perhaps some oceanfront property in Arizona, to Professor Harold Hill and his promise to build a boys’ band in River City, or the recent scammers right here in Waxahachie: What all these have in common is the ability to slick-talk folks into believing in something that is a lie.

Every one of their victims chose to buy into something they would never have believed if they had just been a little more skeptical, asked a few more questions, done a little fact-checking for themselves.

I like to think that you can attribute the willingness of some voters to believe the unbelievable to what I think is an American tendency to see the good in people, to give the benefit of the doubt, sort of the way we pride ourselves on the concept of “innocent until proven guilty.” But some outcomes suggest that at least a touch of cynicism is in order, at least when it comes to our money and our country.

Back in 1952, Richard Nixon lobbed non-fact grenades against his opponents, as in accusing Adlai Stevenson of being a “Commie-sympathizer” for suggesting that we talk to Red China. That would be the same Richard Nixon who famously opened the gate to Red China after he got elected some years later.

Leaping forward to our current situation, George W. Bush promised us that he was a “compassionate conservative,” and turned out to be neither.

A very clever fellow named Frank Luntz thought of a way to help the Republicans get rid of nettlesome taxes like the estate tax, which taxes the transfer of great wealth — defined nowadays as exceeding $2 million and excluding family farms — to other than a surviving spouse or a charity. I don’t know if anyone you know will have that much to leave to the kids, but now that it’s called the “death tax,” you’d be dumfounded to learn how many ordinary folks are dead-set opposed to it. Even though experts calculate that doing away with the estate tax would deprive the country of “tens of millions” of dollars every year.

You see, Luntz wanted plain folks to believe that just dying would bring a tax upon you. As Molly used to tell Fibber, “Tain’t so, McGee!” Check it out.

Speaking of taxes, John McCain is quite emphatic when he claims that “Barack Obama wants to raise your taxes!” What he fails to mention is that “your” in this case refers to people with incomes greater than $250,000, twice that for a married couple.
And of course it wouldn’t be helpful to him to add that Obama also wants to lower taxes for everyone earning less than that, and eliminate them altogether for folks earning under $50,000.

Nope. “Barack Obama wants to raise your taxes” is out there, low-hanging fruit dangling from the tree for people too hungry to question it.

And then there’s the not-exactly-a-lie: Speaking to the Congressional Democratic Caucus last week, Obama said, according to people who were there, as reported in The Atlantic:

“It has become increasingly clear in my travel, the campaign, that the crowds, the enthusiasm, 200,000 people in Berlin, is not about me at all. It's about America. I have just become a symbol of the possibility of America returning to our best traditions.”

So what does John McCain’s latest ad tell us about that? That Obama said, in a fit of vanity, that, “I have become a symbol of America returning to our best traditions.” Tain’t so, McCain.

Finally, the straight-out lie of the McCain campaign to bring down Barack Obama is manifested in his recent pop-culture ad costarring celebrity airheads Spears and Hilton, which claims that Obama is all speech and no substance, and in support of that claim McCain’s minions love to say that “we don’t know what he stands for.”

Well. Now, you can go to the library or to Google and find position speeches dating back through the entire campaign and read until your head spins, or you can go to his website and find them there, all neatly categorized.

When you think of it, it’s odd that McCain can attack Obama for what he stands for if we don’t know what that is, isn’t it?

My idealistic, optimistic hope is that THIS time, with what has been called the worst economy since the Great Depression, with America’s reputation in tatters around the world, with our troops committed to an occupation in Iraq while getting blown up in Afghanistan and Iran is making us nervous (but we don’t have any troops to spare right now), our infrastructure showing signs of distress, health care costs and the mortgage crisis driving more seniors into bankruptcy than ever before, that THIS time every single voter will pay attention like never before.

Else, it’s “fool me twice” for America.

Originally published August 3, 2008

McCain II

I thought I’d shared what I have to say on the subject of John McCain as potential President, but events this past week made it clear there’s more that needs to be said.

For a while it seemed that McCain’s occasional “misspeaks” and less than perfect recall might be written off as “senior moments,” as one of his aides said — and wished he hadn’t — a few weeks ago. Indeed, a case could be made, though it would take some creativity, that a President need not have a perfect memory; after all, he can surround himself with people who’ll fill in the blanks for him if necessary.

Some folks may brush off the fact that McCain has confused Sunni and Shii’a on multiple occasions, a not insignificant mix-up when you consider that the two factions basically hate each other, that the Sunni are the ones who have been involved in al-Qaeda while the Shii’a have not, and that the Shii’a are the predominant sect in Iran (and head the Iraqi government, for that matter).

If ordinary citizens like you and I can understand these differences, surely someone who wants to be President should be able to.

A couple of months ago at a press event while they were visiting Iraq, McCain had Joe Lieberman there to help him out.

McCain told the assembled reporters that “al-Qaeda is going back into Iran and receiving training and … coming back into Iraq from Iran.” Ol’ Joe whispered into his ear, whereupon McCain immediately corrected himself to say, “I’m sorry, the Iranians are training extremists, not al-Qaeda.”

McCain’s style of campaigning is often nonchalant to the point of being blasé. When questioned about the fact that cigarettes are still a major U.S. export to Iran, he answered, “Maybe that’s a way of killing them. Heh-heh.” He quickly added that he was joking.

Y’know what, Senator? The job of President is no joke. Every utterance, every misspeak, every joke will, to paraphrase Mark Twain, be halfway ‘round the world before your correction can even get its boots on.

We have enough trouble getting our message into the Muslim world without giving Al-Jazeera & Co. extra stuff to spin against us.

Phil Gramm, a name you may remember, has been serving as co-chair of McCain’s campaign almost from the get-go, and has been, at least up to last week, McCain’s chief economic adviser.

Last week Gramm told the Washington Times, among others, that America is only in a “mental recession,” not a real one, and that we are “a nation of whiners.”

McCain was Johnny-on-the spot with his own brand of damage control. (Remember: this is his Chief Economic Adviser, rumored to be in line for Treasury Secretary.) Said McCain, when asked whether Gramm might become a member of his administration: "I think that Senator Gramm would be in serious consideration for Ambassador to Belarus, although I'm not sure the citizens of Minsk would welcome that."

Heh-heh. Takes care of that, doesn’t it?

He did go on to say that Senator Gramm “does not speak for me. I speak for me.”
These guys have been best buds for some 25 years; does anyone honestly believe that John McCain had no clue?

Perhaps the greatest “misspeak” of last week — unless, of course, it wasn’t — was when McCain referred to our Social Security program as “a disgrace.”

"Americans have got to understand that we are paying present-day retirees with the taxes paid by young workers in America today. And that's a disgrace. It's an absolute disgrace and it's got to be fixed."

Um, Senator, that’s the way Social Security is supposed to work. That’s the way it was designed. Back in 1935. Have you forgotten that? Or did you just not know it?

McCain has voted against himself on legislation regarding torture, veterans’ benefits, stem cell research, the environment, and even campaign finance reform. He has yet to offer coherent statements on the mortgage crisis, the economy, energy, or health care — or in fact anything other than his military exploits — because those things have never really mattered to him, and still don't, and he’s now too late to the game.

Is it heresy to call out McCain?

Once, many years ago, I had the opportunity to compliment the wonderful Katharine Hepburn, in a backstage visit after “West Side Waltz,” on her portrayal of her character as a maverick. I said I really related to that.

“Oh, but you know,” she said, in that slightly quavering New England voice, “it’s not always easy being a maverick!” She would know.

In the past, I admired Sen. McCain, to the point of contributing to his campaign in 2000. It had nothing to do with his military service or POW experience. I just admired what I saw as honor and fierce independence, and totally related to him as the maverick he seemed to be.

Apparently John McCain has also discovered that it is not always easy being a maverick, for it seems his “maverickness” has pretty well evaporated over the course of this campaign season.

Why do I say this? Well, consider the definitions of “maverick”:

(1) an unorthodox or independent-minded person;
(2) a person who refuses to conform to a particular party or group.

Now consider John McCain:

When President George W. Bush rolled out his tax cuts for the very, very wealthy at the expense of the economy (if you want to challenge me on this, line up your sources), Sen. McCain stood up in the Senate and objected:

I cannot in good conscience support a tax cut in which so many of the benefits go to the most fortunate among us at the expense of middle-class Americans who need tax relief.

The maverick stood strong.

But in this year of the 2008 Presidential election, he wants to make those very tax cuts permanent.

John McCain, one who knows from personal experience, strongly opposed torture and led the battle for anti-torture legislation — until it came time to vote on it. Then he voted with the Bush administration against it.

McCain won enthusiastic praise from environmentalists, including me, when he came out for pro-environment legislation. He supported, for example, the long-established ban on off-shore drilling for oil; this year he is in favor of lifting the ban.

By the way, that won’t do anything to lower gasoline prices, my friends. The problem is not how much is still in the ground to be extracted (in 10 or more years from now when wells might be productive); the problem is that no matter how much is pumped out, China and India and other rapidly developing countries will continue to grow and consume enormous quantities of the supply, and the supply is finite.

Someday folks will get it: there are no more dinosaurs left to die off and create new pools of fossil fuels. Some of us learned that in the fourth grade.

McCain ran into huge problems with his party because of his support for comprehensive immigration reform. So how did he handle it? Without getting into the virtue of the legislation he had co-sponsored, it is enough to know that he has danced away from it in this election season.

Where’s the maverick?

McCain’s strength was that he appealed to voters as a “straight talker,” as someone who was willing to buck his party on any number of matters out of principle. He was no party-line guy, he was a truth-teller. But now we are left to wonder: Which truth?

It is reported that during his college years at the Naval Academy “McCain had conflicts with higher-ups, and he was disinclined to obey every rule, which contributed to a low class rank (894/899) that he did not aim to improve. … McCain did well in academic subjects that interested him, such as literature and history, but studied only enough to pass subjects he disliked, such as math.” (Wikipedia)

I respectfully remind the reader that we have just gone through almost eight years with a President who is disinclined to obey rules and does not aim to improve his ranking.

It has also been reported, with disquieting frequency, that McCain has a very short temper, once described by The Arizona Republic, his hometown newspaper, as “volcanic.” In the 2000 presidential primaries members of his own party who opposed his becoming their nominee seemed interested in linking his propensity for rage to his POW experience.

Now, the fact that he is known to swear like a sailor should worry no one in and of itself — note the analogy, after all! Even blasting away at colleagues in the Senate from time to time might not be cause for concern in a future President. But certainly we want to know what to expect in disagreements with heads of other states.

And we absolutely don’t want a President who hits the red button first and asks questions later.

So let me sum it up: John McCain was a fighter pilot during the Vietnam war; he flew many missions before he was shot down and captured and imprisoned, and he was kept in prison for five and a half years; during that time he endured torture.

His military career was distinguished as far as it went, including experiences that were heroic. But why must that now be the dominant narrative of his candidacy?

Perhaps because the John McCain we admired so much for refusing to conform to the party line is no more. He’s gone all orthodox on us. His turnabouts have not left him in fair play.

There is nothing left of the maverick — ironically, the one John McCain who might have had a chance of winning in November.

Originally published 7/4/08

Feeling her pain

There’s plenty of good reason to encourage a thoroughbred racehorse, winner or not, to “gallop out” after passing the finish wire. It helps the horse cool down and is said to aid in preventing post-race soreness. Some handicappers watch gallop-outs carefully, believing they’ll find clues as to health, strength, attitude and future performance of a given horse and jockey combination.

Some horses, it seems, "gallop out" past the wire for several furlongs on their own accord while others, sensing that the race is over, will slow themselves down and happily head for the paddock.

That's how we should think about the Democratic primary race these days.

Allowing a candidate who has run so hard for such a long race to have a decent amount of time to wind down with dignity would hurt no one and would likely help the Party.

Moreover, it is clearly silly, and disrespectful, for opinion purveyors in the media to continue to wonder aloud why Hillary Clinton is still running. They claim bewilderment that she has not done the math, seen the writing on the wall, and torn her campaign into little pieces. After all, in their opinion, Obama clearly can’t be beaten and there are only a handful of primaries left.

Even so, there are only a handful of primaries left, so why not indulge the voters in those states by allowing them to be part of the process? After all, Howard Dean’s 50-state strategy is obviously going to be in play this time around, and with this primary season drawing folks in every state out to vote, many for the first time, this fall’s election promises to be transformative.

Of course, it would be well if during this period there is an effort to cool down without destroying. In the home stretch of the campaign, it would hurt neither herself nor the Party should Sen. Clinton choose to turn her withering remarks to the Republican in the race.

Which brings me to today’s point: Though I have been highly critical of her for a good long while, I have considerable empathy for Mrs. Clinton; I do not have sympathy for her.

Like most of us, I have lost a battle or two in my life, some more important than others, and I can tell you that losing can be a little tough, or it can be really hard; it can be frustrating, and even infuriating; it can be excruciatingly painful.

Mrs. Clinton’s has not been a race that can be easy to concede. On the one hand I blame her advisers, who clearly encouraged her to believe in her inevitability from the very beginning, ignoring one of the simplest rules of politics, that nothing is certain and anything can happen.

On the other hand, she chose those advisers and chose to believe them — even, to the detriment of her campaign, exuding a sense of entitlement well beyond the point where she should have known better.

Her path, overall, is littered with mistakes, some of which have proved more damaging than others, but most of which might have been avoided had she simply opted from the beginning to run a plain-spoken and principled campaign — after all, see how Sen. McCain’s “straight-talk” reputation seems to have protected him from all manner of unpopular and even bizarre positions.

But it’s too late for Hillary Clinton.

Like the protagonist in a Shakespearean tragedy, she has been brought down by her own flaws.

As a flawed person, I can certainly empathize, but I don’t feel sorry for her at all.

Don't be fooled

Depending on how things work out over the next couple of months, Americans could find themselves faced with a daunting choice: To vote for someone with a record of pandering and not always being honest but you hope she’s telling the truth this time, or to vote for someone with a record of pandering and a reputation for straight talk and telling the truth but you hope to goodness this time he isn’t.

The recent hullabaloo over gas prices has been enough to set a political junkie’s teeth on edge, not to mention make grown economists weep and newspaper editorial writers run out of words.

Consider this: You might have to choose between John McCain, a Republican, who says he’d like to give America a “gas tax holiday” and Hillary Clinton, a Democrat who wishes to run against him, says that’s a swell idea, and proposes that it can be paid for by sticking it to the oil companies with a “windfall profits” tax — a tricky prospect, considering it would require both houses of Congress acting to pass that legislation between now and when school lets out. Congress. The House and the Senate. One month.

If you don’t see a problem there, then ask yourself: Will George W. Bush ever sign a bill imposing a new tax on anyone, let alone the oil companies?

Barack Obama, who opposes the idea, is catching all kinds of flak from the Clintons, who claim that he is “out of touch” because he thinks saving a family $0.30 a day, or $25-30 for the whole summer, is not worth the 300,000 jobs it would cost, let alone removing $9 billion from the highway funds that are used to fix everything from potholes on I-35 to bridges over rivers and canyons.

Well, Hillary did respond to that last week. She decided to say, instead, that it would “save the American people $8 billion.” Sounds more impressive, that’s for sure. Who among us wouldn’t love to have a share of $8 billion dollars?

But, you know what? Your share of that, given the millions of Americans who pump gas and drive, would be — ta-da! About $0.30 a day.

Not so fast, some would argue: What about truck drivers, taxi drivers, long-distance commuters, and farmers? They need a lot more gasoline and thus are hurt more by skyrocketing prices. True, but the reasonable point has been made by reasonable experts that we should and could help those folks with tax credits, something that would come directly from federal funds without abandoning needed highway repairs. And wouldn’t have to be accomplished in just a month.

Those weeping economists, by the way, are almost unanimous in saying that it’s most likely any tax reduction would just be consumed by the oil companies anyway, keeping prices just where they are. Because they can.

So, under the McCain/Clinton plan, instead of taking from the oil companies to give a break to the consumer, we’d be taking from the consumer to give to the oil companies. Great plan.

I’ll tell you what’s going wrong in America. It is not that we have a “red state, blue state” divide. No, the division in this country, when it comes right down to it, is between those who are content to believe anything they are told, without regard to source, and those who just don’t understand how they can fall for it.

I’m going to join that happy crowd that blames “the media” for a lot of what’s going on in this election season. In this case, I blame the TV media for hyping, ad nauseam, whatever story gets the most viewers even when it offers no enlightenment; the blogging media that perpetuates outrageous rumors without one scintilla of documentation, whether out of carelessness or out of bigotry or just hate for the “other”; and those of the print media that don’t find important issues important enough to spend the space.

The Founders felt so strongly about having a free press that they amended the Constitution to provide protection for it. After all, without a free press (think Thomas Paine), America might never have come into being.

Americans have always understood the role of the free press to be to watch and report on what their government is doing, and that the free press is essential to the survival of our democracy. When that freedom is abused by the media, in whatever form, we are being disserved and we should object.

Service is honesty; disservice is perpetuation of rumor or retelling of unexamined events.

And yet too much of our information is just that.

If the reporting we read and hear includes all the information that is relevant, and not just sound bites and what the reporters think people may think about them, then we will be better able to decide on an issue, or a President.

The great journalist Ambrose Bierce once declared that the vote, our most sacred right, is “The instrument and symbol of a free man's power to make a fool of himself and a wreck of his country."

Let us not be fools.

Toilet bowl effect

In 1914, two years before he was appointed to the Supreme Court, a collection of articles by the esteemed Louis D. Brandeis was published under the title, Other People’s Money — And How the Bankers Use It. It was a sensation.

In 1991, after a successful run on Broadway, “Other People’s Money,” a play by Jerry Sterner, became a movie featuring Danny DeVito as a ruthless liquidator of moribund businesses.

In a monologue that has since acquired almost a cult following, DeVito’s character
explains to the stockholders why it would be foolhardy to try to keep their company in business when new technology was going to make it obsolete.

This company is dead. I didn't kill it. Don't blame me. It was dead when I got here.

It's too late for prayers. For even if the prayers were answered and a miracle occurred, and the yen did this and the dollar did that, and the infrastructure did the other thing, we would still be dead. You know why? Fiber optics. New technologies. Obsolescence. We're dead, all right. We're just not broke. And do you know the surest way to go broke?

Keep getting an increasing share of a shrinking market.

Down the tubes. Slow but sure.

You know, at one time there must have been dozens of companies making buggy whips. And I'll bet the last company around was the one that made the best goddamn buggy whip you ever saw.

Now, how would you have liked to have been a stockholder in that company?

You invested in a business, and this business is dead. Let's have the intelligence, let's have the decency to sign the death certificate, collect the insurance, and invest in something with a future.

Last week I was complaining to a friend about a comment I’d heard on NPR to the effect that, in the recent Pennsylvania primary, Hillary Clinton had won “the core constituency of the Democratic Party” by taking more of the white, non-college-educated, working class vote than had Obama. I just didn’t see it.

Because I don’t think you can define the “core constituency” of the Democratic Party that way any longer, any more than you can claim the Republican Party base is still mostly made up of rich people.

Whoever Hillary Clinton won in Pennsylvania, the total vote for her was less than half what the most conservative estimates had projected, suggesting that the “white, working class, non-college-educated” voter either is not a certain voter for Hillary or that the proportion of such voters has shrunk — or perhaps both.

“It’s called the toilet bowl effect,” said my friend, going on to illustrate: When a toilet is flushed, a huge volume of water descends into the bowl and then whirls in an ever-shrinking vortex until it’s gone.

Hillary Clinton appears to be capturing an increasing share of a declining constituency, and Democrats would be foolish to take seriously her effort to persuade us that because she can win the “Archie Bunker” vote she must be given the nomination.

Pish and tosh, I say.

A similarly deluded member of the punditocracy reminded us over the weekend that ever since the 1960s (and its civil rights legislation) the only Democrats to win the presidency were from Southern states and he suggested that may still be true.

I’ve got news for him: The South has gone north, so to speak.

I was born and raised to the age of 12 in the South; I have lived in New York, Ohio, and California since then, and now that I am back, I am here to tell you: This is not your father’s Old South.

My experience qualifies me to speak with some authority about Yankee directness and California subtlety; about brazenly liberal folks in San Francisco but not so in some of its suburbs; about racism in New York, in Ohio and in California while better relations now exist between black and white folks in Texas.

And I can state unequivocally that one of the best things about the South, what I think of as the “dear hearts and gentle people factor” hasn’t gone north; it’s still very much here, thank you.

So, just as the Democratic Party can take heart that the “white, less-college-educated, working class” voter has, in the last 50 years, become less white and more educated; that the “working class” of decades ago have risen in skills and expectations; they will be well advised not to focus a disproportionate share of their money and energies trying to capture an increasing share of what has become a shrinking market.

Upside-Downside

If you think I’m spending too much time thinking about the upcoming presidential election, I might agree. Or I might say there’s no such thing as too much thinking when it comes to changing presidents, something our current Commander in Chief might choose to call “a defining moment.”

Defining decade might be more like it; that’s how long it seems to have taken to turn this battleship around. Perhaps defining generation, as in “We are so out of here!”

Amazingly, there are still three candidates in the race, with no end in sight, apparently -- though it is devoutly to be wished by most Democrats that we were already down to only two. A few brouhahas have erupted, some silly, some troubling, not least the penchant on the part of Hillary Clinton to gussy up her resume a bit.

As the candidates head for the finish line next fall it behooves the voter to do more than just listen to words or watch the ever-changing polls. It is time to think.

As recently as a couple of weeks ago I agreed with those Obama supporters and not a few pundits who thought Clinton should pull out of the race because it is statistically well nigh impossible for her to win the nomination without very sharp and unacceptable tactics. But then I changed my mind.

Why shouldn’t she continue? There is a rationale that can’t be disputed: Lightning might strike, Obama might stumble, votes in the remaining state primaries might break 90-10 in her favor. But it could happen.

The upside is that Obama gets a lot more experience surviving nastiness, while all the remaining states get to vote; the downside is that every one of her attacks on Obama is recorded by the Republicans for playback in the fall – and don’t think Obama is the only one who would be hurt.

Yes, she has every right to continue in the campaign, so long as she runs an honorable race. Dishonorable might make me think again.

As for McCain and his laser-like focus on all things military – there are a few problems he’ll have to deal with, not least his age, which may account for his Lieberman-guided understanding of who we’re fighting in Iraq; his desire to keep our over-extended soldiers in Iraq for years while keeping the Bush tax cuts (something we used to call having our cake and eating it too); and his dismissive approach to our current economic crisis.

The Chicken Littles in the punditocracy opine often and loudly that the continuing Democratic contest is giving McCain an advantage that might be insurmountable, but they totally forget two truths: First, the guy who is not getting attacked always rises, like cream in unstirred milk; doesn’t mean a thing. And, most important, McCain can’t win because he is a terrible campaigner, a weak candidate who doesn’t seem all that charged up by comparison, and whose entire basis for running is his military background.

Don’t get me wrong. I kinda like the guy; I sent him money once. But if you don’t buy my reasoning, then think about the fact that just recently the word “recession” finally passed the lips of significant folks – like Ben Bernanke, head of the Federal Reserve System where, you should excuse the expression, the buck stops in these matters.

John McCain? Bush policies to be continued? In the middle of a recession? I don’t think so.

Which brings me to Barack Obama.

I thought I would explode at one point early this month: it was after a couple of days of drumbeat around the Clinton campaign’s assertion -- but not in public and not in speeches -- that Barack Obama “can’t win.” I didn’t see it coming, I have to admit, though I should have. It just hit me all of a sudden: The Clintons have come to the point where they are running a purely racist campaign.

All of this talk, the Clintons' claims that states with more electoral votes, or states that voted solidly Democratic time after time in the past, or states that chose their delegates – or some of them, like Texas – by caucus, or states with more voters, period, being likely to refuse to vote for anyone but Hillary Clinton, is just so much malarkey. This gambit is all they have left.

Now, I don’t believe for a minute that either of them is a racist; I just think that they want the superdelegates to believe that the American voter is, and that they have nothing to lose by playing the only card they have left to play: “Obama can’t win. You know Obama can’t win.”

That’s code, folks. You’re supposed to understand from this that a black man cannot be elected president of the United States.

Well, let me tell you the upside in nominating Barack Obama.

All over America governors and members of Congress representing not-so-blue states are supporting Obama in droves, in many cases because they know that if Hillary Clinton is at the head of the ticket her negatives and the resulting higher Republican turnout will hurt them down-ballot, whereas an Obama-led ticket will bring so many new and enthusiastic voters and independents out to vote it is bound to help them.

The way I see it, this could mean so many Democratic victories that even if McCain ends up winning, the Democrats will have such majorities in Congress that he wouldn't be able to do a doggone thing they don't like.

The downside? The risk that the Clintons are proven right and in the midst of a recession, with homes foreclosing all around us, joblessness on the rise and a bloody war without end in sight; despite a Republican candidate who offers more of the same, racism will prevail.

If that happens, America will be the worse for it, and God help us.

I believe in America, though, and my faith is strong that we are all we say we are and all that we wish for the rest of the world.

So I’m rolling the dice. America, call it!

A Parable

Before I came to Texas, I was terrified of flying. No joke. I am no longer so afraid, I'm happy to say, and maybe that has something to do with becoming a Texan, who knows? But that’s not where I’m going here.

In those days I did not fly, period. Thus it was that I arrived in Texas at the Amtrak station in Fort Worth on a hot day in May of 1989.

Now I had heard lots of stories about cowboys and cattle drives and the wild, wild west. My bosses at the Super Collider had heard the same stories, which was why they had sent me, a relatively low-level person, to help set up the laboratory in Waxahachie; the lives of physicists were not to be risked. But even so I was hardly prepared for what happened next.

The kindly conductor helped me down from the train and had just placed my bags on the platform, when I heard a distant thunder, a strange sound that had nothing to do with the clear blue day.

Before you could say “Omigosh, what’s that?” the thundering grew closer and there came into view a huge dust cloud, and it was moving toward us.

“Omigosh, what’s that?” I cried, as out of the dust there materialized a mighty herd of red-eyed cows, goaded on by cowboys on horseback, whooping and hollering and cracking whips and firing pistols. And the whole doggone tangle was headed right toward me!

“Quick!” yelped the conductor, grabbing my arm. “We’re gonna have to run for it!”

This wasn’t supposed to happen in a modern city like Fort Worth, right? Yet closer and closer they came, the sound of their hooves like steel on the pavement; their horns were black and shiny and for just an instant I thought I could feel their hot breath, so close they came. Then I ran. Seriously.

Without my luggage, and without much dignity, I let the conductor pull me across the track and into the station.

The ruckus went past us, and then out of view, and I could finally breathe again.

Now, you can say what you want, you can be skeptical. You can say cowboys don’t drive thundering herds of longhorns through downtown Fort Worth at midday anymore. You can even accuse me of making it up. But I remember it that way, and I’m sticking to it.

Unless, of course, that’s not what happened that day. In which case, all I can say is “So? So I made a mistake, which just shows I’m human.”

Truth to tell, lots of us have memories, or so we think, of events that may have happened differently. And sometimes some of us consciously elaborate, even make things up. But events that happened not at all? No.

So. I made it up. But you know what? It doesn’t matter, because I’m just having fun with you, and when a relatively insignificant person like me makes things up, it doesn’t matter. Unless it’s to make a point.

Consider Hillary Clinton’s description of arriving in Bosnia with her teenage daughter and the two of them having to duck sniper fire and run for cover the moment they disembarked from their plan. Consider how, after irrefutable evidence proved the account to be untrue, she said she "made a mistake." It is irresistible to wonder how that could be.

The problem for Hillary Clinton is that there are only two possible explanations.

She may have made it up out of whole cloth (see above), which is troubling in a potential leader of the free world; or she may have come to believe it herself, which is even more troubling.

That’s why it’s a story that matters, and one that won’t go away.

Thanks for the memories: To Greg Jones, for "Ghost Riders in the Sky," a real memory that needs no embellishing.

Alice in Wonderland

I have the urge to scream when I hear commentators and political experts, who should know better, assert that Clinton and Obama “need to stop bickering,” that “they” are hurting the party. Comments like these don’t square with the reality as I’ve come to know it.

The Clintons are the ones doing the damage here. They have been very successful at framing the race, which isn’t hard to do if you just keep on the attack. Last week they absurdly accused Obama of “playing the race card” after Clinton supporter Geraldine Ferraro’s remarks about his race.

It’s Alice in Wonderland time.

The only thing Obama has done to Clinton is to aggravate the heck out of her by (a) not engaging at her street-fight level, and (b) winning more states, more delegates, and more votes.

But Hillary Clinton claims that she has proven she is the most likely winner against John McCain because she won “all the big states” in the Democratic primaries.

It’s faulty reasoning; to accept this you have to believe that California, New York, Ohio and the rest of the big blue states (Obama won Illinois) would automatically fall to the Republicans in an Obama-McCain match-up. Hard argument to make.

If Obama would only cede to Clinton the race he is winning — one in which she cannot now legitimately overtake him — all would be peaceful. Like a spoiled child, she seems determined to nag, browbeat, whine and stubbornly hold on until everyone else is exhausted and just gives in.

Some of those same misguided pundits and politicians suggest that the perfect solution is to put these two on the same ticket. I don’t think so.

Clinton has run a mean, dishonest, cynical campaign. The idea of both running together is idealistic to a fault, in my opinion. And not a good idea politically.

Nonetheless, the Clintons would have you believe they would offer Obama the vice-presidential spot, but if you trust a word they are saying you aren’t learning from history. The lying and cheating they’ve engaged in has completely alienated me, of all people.

But just for the sake of argument, imagine a Clinton/Obama ticket: That would present a near certainty that Mrs. Clinton’s high negatives throughout the country would (a) draw out more Republican voters and (b) cause not just a few Obama folks to just stay home — precisely because of the negative campaign she has run against him.

For that matter, can you imagine her choosing as VP someone who would outshine her? Or, for that matter, someone to whom she owes no favor?

Now imagine Obama/Clinton: If Hillary were the VP candidate, because of those high negatives, she would drag down the vote in the states Obama could win without her. The result would be losing many down-ballot races, so that even were Obama/Clinton to win it might well cost the Democrats important congressional seats.

Anyway, why would the guy who is in first place accept second place? Especially knowing that he would end up being part of a threesome, outnumbered by Clintons?

Finally, have you thought through what another four or eight years of Clintons in the White House would be like for the country?

I think she figures that she will by God be the nominee and devil take the hindmost; if that gives the election to McCain — who is better qualified anyway, according to her — then, so what? He likely would serve only one term and then she’ll be baa-ack!

People in the know have almost to a person acknowledged that in fact the candidates’ positions are so close on matters of substance, with differences primarily in how they would implement this or that idea, that it really has come down to which style of leader we want.

My own personal take on the choice is this:

Do we want someone who will tell us what to do, or someone who will persuade us to do it? Do we want secrecy, or transparency? Do we want calculation and triangulation, or is it time to play it straight?

And, finally, do we want another four or more years of drama with all the same old players, or do we want a fresh start?

The perfect ticket: Obama/Webb

From American Prospect's editorial, "The 2008 Veepstakes," dateline February 26, 2008:

Webb's high standing may say more about the party and its search for an identity than it does about Webb himself. There is a rugged quality to Webb, and some Democrats see in him attributes they long for in their party -- conviction, strength, and a willingness to fight. The brawler in him is barely concealed, and unstated in every one of his arguments is an undercurrent of, "you wanna take it outside, asshole?" Days after he narrowly defeated Allen, Webb endeared himself to the party faithful by telling the president off at the White House.

Read the whole piece and see if you agree with me.

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.