In late August, Rick Davis, McCain campaign manager, said, "This election is not about issues.  This election is about a composite view of what people take away from these candidates."

At the time, I thought that he was absolutely wrong.  Issues are what matters and even if the McCain camp chose to focus on personal attacks, the American people would focus on the issues and not on personalities.

I was wrong and Rick Davis was right, even if not in the way that he intended.  The American people are choosing Obama over McCain because of temperament and judgment. 

When the financial markets threatened to collapse, McCain, who seemingly hours before opined that "the fundamentals of the economy are strong", suspended his campaign and said he would fly to Washington, Mighty Mouse style, to save the day.  He then attended several campaign functions, finally showing up in Washington just in time to help tank the first round of bail-out bills.

When he later showed up to the debate which he said he wouldn't attend until the financial crisis was over, McCain seemed tense and angry, in contrast to Obama's measured calm.  In the second debate, McCain was aggressive and seemed to wander aimless in the  background while Obama stayed on point and never got flustered, even as McCain grew more peripatetic.  The third debate only reinforced the perception that Obama was reasonable, unflappable and yes, presidential while McCain seethed and grimaced.

The issues of experience and judgment both favored Obama as McCain's veep choice reduced herself to satire requiring only slight modification to suit Saturday Night Live. McCain's argument about experience was undone by his choice of Palin and his execrable judgment in choosing so unqualified a running mate became obvious to all.

When even the conservative pundits started abandoning McCain, they didn't cite his positions or views on the issues. They blamed his temperament. George Will wrote of McCain: "the more one sees of his impulsive, intensely personal reactions to people and events, the less confidence one has that he would select judges by calm reflection and clear principles, having neither patience nor aptitude for either."  Likewise conservatives from Charles Krauthammer to Peggy Noonan to Christopher Hitchens to Chris Buckley have broken with McCain not over issues but over judgment, character and temperament.

The American people, who have witnessed the McCain camp's recent round of mudslinging and smear tactics, seem to have come to roughly the same conclusion.  When asked which candidate inspires confidence, increasingly they are answering Barack Obama.

Rick Davis is a pretty smart fellow. He got it right after all.

 

    

 

 

  

 

 The Republicans who talk about the "Real-America" and the "Real Americans" or the "pro-America part so of this great nation" obviously want to play the "us" against the evil "them." It is an old game, and often a successful one.

The sad truth is that in America, the "real America" as well as the America of myth, bigotry is alive and well. That is nothing to be surprised about or even ashamed of. It is an integral part of history that as country we are working through. The good news is that we are moving beyond this part of history. The obvious bad news is that we are not here yet.

Having grown up in the segregated South, I find it to be truly amazing that a relatively young black man with a scary name and a complicated family history is on the verge of the becoming the president of the United States. That says good things about Barack Obama and his message. It also says good things about America.

There is really nothing surprising about the McCain camp tactic of tossing red meat to the rabble, of trying to repeat the past stratagems that worked too well. Obama is "dangerous", "risky" and "pallin' around with terrorists." They have attempted to make Jeremiah Wright and Bill Ayeres this campaign season's Willie Horton, and they have largely failed. Now they scream "socialist" as if the undecided voters can be so easily fooled. It is difficult to believe that the McCain camp might think this recent name calling will give them much traction. Then again, Sarah Palin still hasn't learned the duties of the vice-president, so perhaps the bar is really being set that low.

Bigotry is part of the "Real America". Can we move beyond it? I believe the answer is "yes, we can."

John McCain appears to have an absolute obsession with earmarks.  He seems to suggest that all he would have to do as president to balance the budget is to cut earmarks.  If only it was that simple.

Here is what Obama should have said when McCain went off on his earmark rant.

“Senator, everyone is opposed to government waste and pork barrel politics. The problem is  - earmarks are roughly 1-2% of the federal budget.  Yes, many should be cut.  But that doesn't mean that you should loose sight of the bigger picture.

For example, Sarah Palin's “bridge to nowhere” which she supported before she opposed, would have spent $200 million dollars to build a bridge to an island where only eight people lived.  That is obviously not a good use of taxpayer dollars. But, compare this to our occupation of Iraq, where we spend as much every 12 hours.  And compared it to what we have done and will need to do to address the current financial crisis. The 700 billion dollar package that we both voted for, with reservations, would pay for thirty five hundred bridges.

Yes, we need to fight waste and we need to cut spending, but we are fighting two wars and face a worldwide financial crisis. This is no time to lose sight of what me need to do to save this country from financial ruin. Obsessing over an earmark for the study of bear DNA is just not going to get it done. “ 

 

John McCain and Sarah Palin claim that they are the "mavericks" in the race, promising a clean break from the past administration. Yet here they are choosing fear-mongering, the oldest and most time-worn of the Bush/Rove tactics. 

If the facts aren't on their side, they seem to think that all they need to is too scare the electorate. "Obama is dangerous". "He is palling around with terrorists." McCain asks, "Who is Barack Obama?" And someone in the crowds screams back, "He is a terrorist". In another crowd someone yells "Kill him".    The McCain campaign seems to have degenerated into a lynch mod.

The fascinating thing is that McCain is one who looks angry and dangerous while Obama looks and sounds presidential.  It will be interesting how already fear-fatigued Americans will react to the red meat being tossed out by McCain\Palin.   It will indeed be an interesting month. 

By all accounts the McCain camp didn't vet Sarah Palin before they offered her the job as running mate.

Now it appears that the McCain camp didn't bother to vet Gwen Ifill when they agreed to have her as moderator for the VP debate.  Her new book "The Breakthrough: Politics and Race in the Age of Obama" was announced by the AP two weeks before the debate moderators were agreed to on August 6th.  The McCain gang now claims that they knew nothing about her book before agreeing to allow Ms. Ifill to moderate.  Apparently they learned of her book only quite recently. 

Is a quick Google search really so far beyond the capacity of the McCain campaign?   Should these be the folks running the country?

If by some great mischance or misdemeanor the McCain/Palin team is elected to office this November, there may be one, and only one, way to save the Republic.
 
Don't tell anyone - but here it is:

Replace Sarah Palin with Tina Fey.  Bundle the real Sarah off to a hunting lodge in Alaska, perhaps one with a view of Russia on a clear day, and let Ms Fey ascend as the power behind the throne.  As Sarah Palin, Ms. Fey is smarter and funnier that the original, and having demonstrated that she can manage even Alec Baldwin, she can obviously control grumpy John.

Remember - keep this a secret. Don't tell a soul.
 

Obama is bringing a knife to a gun fight. He is responding to the McCain gutter tactics with a cool calm reserve. It is time to get angry. A time for outrage.

When Bernard Shaw asked Dukakis in the 1988 presidential debate, "Governor, if Kitty Dukakis [his wife] were raped and murdered, would you favor an irrevocable death penalty for the killer?" Dukakis  answered  coolly, "No, I don't, and I think you know that I've opposed the death penalty during all of my life."  He was disengaged and showed no real  passion. And as we all know he lost the election.

Obama is staying cool, smart and sarcastic as McCain and his minions talk the worst sort of trash about him and telling outrageous lies with impunity.  Unless Obama wants to be the next Mike Dukakis, it is time to bring a gun to gun fight.  It is time for outrage and anger.

Obama is bringing a knife to a gun fight. He is responding to the McCain gutter tactics with a cool and calm reserve. It is time to get angry. A time for outrage.

When Bernard Shaw asked Dukakis in the 1988 presidential debate, "Governor, if Kitty Dukakis [his wife] were raped and murdered, would you favor an irrevocable death penalty for the killer?" Dukakis  answered  coolly, "No, I don't, and I think you know that I've opposed the death penalty during all of my life."  He was disengaged and showed no real  passion. And as we all know he lost the election.

Obama is staying cool, smart and sarcastic as McCain and his minions talk the worst sort of trash about him, telling the most outrageous lies with impunity.  Unless Obama wants to be the next Mike Dukakis,  it is time to bring a gun to the gun fight.  It is time for outrage and anger.

 I think that Obama's position that families should be kept out the campaigns is a good one, for a wide range of reasons.  Nevertheless, I am struck by the double-standard at play in the Palin family.

When Sarah Palin learned that her fifth child would be born with Down's Syndrome, she chose to use this for her own political ends.  This was no longer a private family matter but a public event . Palin was interviewed by People magazine for their "Celebrity Baby Blog".    She put up a "Trig Welcoming committee page" on her governor's web site, inviting people from all over the country to offer congratulations and comments. 

Simply put, Palin used her son's Down's Syndrome to establish herself as a "right to life" hero, and her status as such was invoked by all the right wing talking heads, as well as more than a few cable news "personalities".  

All this changed when Bristol's pregnancy was announced.  Suddenly, we are told that we should all respect the privacy of the Palin family. Suddenly the baby, Trig, is no longer a poster boy and the doors to the family have shut. So much for Palin Family Values.

John Goodman, a longtime McCain adviser on health care, (who the McCain campaign is now disavowing ala Phil Gram), is quoted by the Dallas Morning news as saying that "anyone with access to an emergency room effectively has insurance."  

There is no health care crisis. There are no uninsured. As long as there are emergency rooms, everyone has insurance.

It all seems so familiar. I have heard that argument before, in a slightly different form. Are there no prisons? Are there no work houses?

I have prepared a short video response:
 
A John McCain Christmas Carol



  

I have long suspected that elected officials from the Democratic Party are some previously unclassified form of invertebrate, a totally spineless creature capable of great noise but no real movement or action.  

The recent collapse before the FISA  bill demonstrates just how helpless and useless these poor creatures are. Once again snatching defeat from the jaws of victory, they have abandoned principle for safety and all now seem to be hiding in dark recesses of Washington.  Regrettably they will, no doubt, return again to make considerable noise - sound and fury, signifying nothing. 

I have long suspected that elected officials from the Democratic Party are some previously unclassified form of invertebrate, a totally spineless creature capable of great noise but no real movement or action  

I have long suspected that elected officials from the Democratic Party are some previously unclassified form of invertebrate, a totally spineless creature capable of great noise but no real movement or action  

The surreal posturing of the Bush/McCain foreign policy keeps bumping into reality with interesting results.

On May 15, 2008, Bush spoke before the Israeli Knesset, railing against “appeasers”.

“The fight against terror and extremism is the defining challenge of our time. .. Some seem to believe we should negotiate with terrorists and radicals, as if some ingenious argument will persuade them they have been wrong all along. We have heard this foolish delusion before. As Nazi tanks crossed into Poland in 1939, an American senator declared: ‘Lord, if only I could have talked to Hitler, all of this might have been avoided.’ We have an obligation to call this what it is – the false comfort of appeasement, which has been repeatedly discredited by history.”

Now a bit over a month later Condi Rice flies into Lebanon with approving words for the Lebanese government's negotiations with Hezbollah.  

Rice Visit Signals Support for Power Deal in Lebanon

Likewise the Israeli indirect negotiations with Hamas have borne fruit with a new cease fire agreement.   The State Department in its own moment of surrealism praised the outcome of the negotiations while reiterating its position that Hamas is a terrorist organization, with which of that basis, one should never negotiate.

US Welcomes Prospect of Israel-Hamas Truce

All this raises the question – who exactly are the “appeasers”?  Bush's attack on Obama was clear enough, but isn't the government of Israel more guilty than Obama, who merely suggested negotiations, whereas the Israelis actually went ahead and negotiated? And what of Condi Rice and her State Department drones who praised the outcome of the various negotiations with both Hamas and Hezbollah?  

I guess the Bush rule is that Obama must be an appeaser to suggest negotiations but everyone should just look the other-way when Israeli or Lebanon does negotiate successfully with those who the Bush administration label as terrorist.  

Dissenting from the majority in the recent Supreme Court ruling that detainees at Guantánamo detainees have habeas corpus rights, Justice Antonin Scalia claimed that the decision “will almost certainly cause more Americans to be killed.”   McCain called the decision “one of the worst decisions in the history of this country.”

In essence, both Scalia and McCain argue that a respect for our Constitution is a threat to the lives and safety of the American people.  Beyond that, because the decision specifically addresses habeas corpus, which predates the U.S. Constitution by over 400 years, Scalia and McCain are arguing against the most basic rule of law itself.

I am struck  by the bizarre irony of Scalia's statement. How many Americans have died fighting to preserve the Constitution, which Scalia now so cavalierly calls a threat to the lives of Americans?  What does it say about America today if a Supreme Court justice calls the most fundamental of our basic rights, a threat to our safety?  What could be more profoundly offensive to the memories of those who fought for our liberties than for a Supreme Court Justice to so blithely dismiss the values at the core of a free society?

Scalia and McCain have it backwards. A respect for the Constitution and the fundamental rule of law is not a threat to Americans. It is perhaps the only thing worth fighting for.  We are indeed a nation at risk – from terrorists who wish us harm and from those in power who presume to attack the Constitution that they themselves so perfidiously swore to protect.