Are You Ready To Vote?

Many of us are anxiously counting down to Election Day — so much so that about 1/3 of us may actually vote prior to Tuesday, according to recent press reports. For those of us who have yet to cast our ballots, it's important to make sure we consider not only the presidential candidates but also any state and local contests on which we have the privilege to weigh in. 

I urge everyone to take a look at their sample ballots, familiarize themselves with all candidates and public questions or referenda so that they may make educated decisions. In the Internet era it's easier than ever to do this. You can, for example, check on the voting records of members of the US Congress here. Since most congressional incumbents run for re-election this should be a useful tool for many of us. You can also check your local newspapers and websites for their takes on and explanations of public questions and referenda. 

I also urge everyone to refrain from simply voting party lines and consider each of the candidates on their individual merits. I, for example, am likely to split my ticket by voting for Republicans on the county level because I believe that the local Democratic machine is wasteful and takes its power for granted. The importance of considering each race on its own is even more true on the municipal level, where the difference between, say, a Republican in Congress or the White House and a Republican on your town or city council can be huge. 

We still have three full days left. Let's use them wisely. 

The Forgotten Branch of Government

With everyone so focused on the presidential race and, secondarily, on whether Democrats will expand their majorities in Congress, today's New York Times story on the transformation of the federal judiciary is worth a read for citizens everywhere. 

We often forget that we have three branches of government that are designed to check and balance one another. The presidency and Congress get most of what little media attention is devoted to public affairs outside of campaign season. But the judiciary can be just as powerful. We see this in such pivotal Supreme Court decisions as Bush v. Gore, Roe v. Wade, Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka, Plessy v. Ferguson, Dred Scott v. Sandford and Marbury v. Madison. And, as the Times story points out, we also see it in the influence of the federal appeals courts, which increasingly decide many matters critical to American society because the Supreme Court is reviewing fewer lower-court decisions. 

This is very important in the context of the race for the White House, as the president appoints federal appeals-court judges. Bill Clinton appointed 65. George W. Bush has appointed 61. According to the Times story, the combined appointments of Republican presidents since 1980 — particularly those of the last eight years — have contributed to a massive rightward shift in the composition of the federal judiciary and, as a result, of its interpretation of the law.

Whether you agree with such a shift or not is almost immaterial here. My point is that the judiciary matters, even though we think about it and hear about it very little. We need to make sure we are aware of its important decisions as well as changes in its composition, and keep in mind that in selecting a president we also help determine the nature of the judiciary branch — both the Supreme Court and the federal appeals courts. 

Abuse of Power

Apart from being very busy the last few days, I've also been at a bit of a loss regarding what to write about on Citizen. The presidential campaign has given us no shortage of truly amazing misbehavior and hypocrisy, but I feel like I've beaten up on the McCain campaign so much that pointing out every last brazen transgression would be piling on (not to mention exhausting). So I'm thankful to a reader in the great state of Massachusetts for passing along some news that is simultaneously amusing and depressing, and therefore utterly comment-worthy:

A Massachusetts state senator has been arrested for allegedly accepting $23,500 in bribes from constituents and others with business before the legislature. The FBI has this poor soul on film stuffing $100 bills into her bra after a surreptitious meeting with a confidential informant. Read the Boston Globe story, and see the picture, here. 

What I found most amusing were the reader comments that followed the Globe article, particularly one that states that the accused lawmaker, Diane Wilkerson, first ran for her seat representing Boston's Roxbury neighborhood as a proponent of reforming corrupt government. I've seen this movie far too often living in New Jersey, aka the government corruption capital of North America (though I have to admit Alaska is giving us a run for our money lately). Especially in cities, preaching "reform" is usually just a way for one scoundrel to replace another at the controls of the great government graft machine. Even those who sincerely want to eliminate corruption and abuse of power usually fall victim to the same irresistible tactics — chiefly, handing out contracts and jobs to contributors and supporters instead of to the most qualified recipients — once they get into office and face re-election. 

I hate to sound like a cracked vinyl disc here, but the only thing that can eliminate graft, corruption and abuse of power by our elected representatives (or at least keep it to a minimum) is the steady, consistent application of scrutiny and electoral power by ordinary citizens. So pay attention out there, and be on the lookout for Benjamin Franklin peeking out of your local state senator's blouse.  

Lunch or Lipitor?

Americans will likely consume fewer prescription drugs this year than they did in 2007, the first yearly decline in more than a decade, according to the lead story in today's New York Times. 

Several factors are likely behind the highly unusual decline, including a reaction to recent safety issues with some prescription drugs that may be making Americans more reluctant to treat every malady or discomfort with chemicals when other remedies are available. But the primary reason, according to the authors of the study on which the article is based and the Times' interviews with citizens, is that the deepening recession is increasingly forcing Americans of modest means "to choose between gas, meals and medication," as one doctor put it. 

Before I comment further on this development, I think it's important to contrast this lamentable reality with the notion, advanced by an anonymous commenter on this blog two days ago, that "America since 1980 has been a much better place for every American compared to the years before." Leaving aside the absurd presumptuousness of this assertion (how could any of us deign to know just how well or badly "every American" has fared in the past quarter-century?!), the recent deterioration of health care coverage surely refutes such a rose-colored, blanket statement.  

But far more importantly, the situation outlined in today's headlines also underscores that our health care system is simply not delivering the proper treatment to everyone who needs it. 

I don't have a solution to this problem (if any readers have ideas, I would love to hear them). But both candidates for president purport to have one. Trouble is, as another Times story points out today, both of them are irresponsibly misleading citizens about their plans — especially regarding how many uninsured they'd cover and how much it would cost to do so. 

True, these are details that may be impossible to pin down before the election ends and the process of piloting health-care reform legislation through Congress begins. As the Times piece correctly points out, this is because of the black-and-white nature of modern campaigning as well as the inability of economists to predict accurately how human beings will respond to dramatically changed rules and incentives. 

But someone will win the election, and subsequently try to implement his plan. At that point we need to demand clarity about just what we're getting into. The risks are great. On one hand we risk failing to do enough to address a growing problem that has a multiplier effect on our economy. People with inadequate health care get sicker, further straining the system and raising costs for everyone. Sick employees don't show up for work, reducing efficiency and raising costs for employers. And soaring insurance costs hurt American companies' ability to provide jobs and compete with global rivals. On the other hand we risk doing too much and saddling the system with inefficient, government bureaucracy, potentially leading to the long wait periods and de-facto rationing of care we see in single-payer systems like Canada's. 

Like many of the challenges we face, health care is a complex problem that is not given to the tidy, partisan sound-bite solutions that have become the coin of today's political realm. That's why we all need to be involved. Your representatives in Congress will vote on any plan that either McCain or Obama tries to pass. Pay attention to the details when that time comes and make your voice heard. 

Exhuming McCarthy

"Let us not assassinate this lad further, Senator. You have done enough. Have you no sense of decency sir, at long last? Have you left no sense of decency?"

--Joseph Welch, special counsel to the US Army, to US Senator Joseph McCarthy

June 9, 1954

These words marked the beginning of the end of McCarthyism, a four-year reign of terror over reason and decency by Joseph McCarthy, a US Senator from Wisconsin. McCarthy reprehensibly and relentlessly exploited post-World War II worries about the spread of communism to fuel his unquenchable political ambition. 

Just as the Cold War was getting under way, McCarthy claimed he had proof that dozens, perhaps even hundreds, of communists had infiltrated the highest levels of the US government — the Truman White House, the State Department and even the Army. He never provided that proof, but he did use his Senate subpoena powers to call hundreds of witnesses to testify before his Senate subcommittee, accusing them of communist party membership, support or ties. Local and national newspapers gave widespread publicity to his unsubstantiated accusations. 

The frenzy climaxed in the spring of 1954, during three months of hearings convened to investigate a dispute between McCarthy and the Army. The Senator accused the Army of harboring communists. The Army fought back, charging that McCarthy and his chief counsel, Roy Cohn, had inappropriately pressured the Army for preferential treatment of G. David Schine, an army private who was a former McCarthy staffer and a close friend of Cohn's. 

The above quote from Welch, simply read on a page or a computer screen without the proper context, does not seem particularly devastating. But his words summoned the patriotic anger that had been building in millions of country-loving Americans throughout McCarthy's ugly rise. The Army-McCarthy hearings occurred just as television was being adopted, and was one of the first major political news events to be broadcast live into our living rooms. When citizens saw McCarthy in all his misanthropic, bullying yet impotent self-glory, they did not like what they saw. In defending a witness from further browbeating, Welch said to McCarthy's face what millions of Americans had been too afraid to say out loud for too long. Six months later the Senate voted by a 2/3 majority to censure McCarthy. Less than two and a half years later he died of complications from alcoholism, at the age of 48.

The real sin of all this, aside from the tragedy of his life, is that the beginning of the end of his "ism" took so long to arrive. Dozens of wrongfully accused citizens had careers and lives ruined by McCarthy's unsubstantiated accusations, and many more lived in fear of the same fate. 

What does this have to do with anything? Well, a member of Congress on Friday called for a return to McCarthy-era witch hunts and loyalty tests. In an interview with MSNBC's Chris Matthews, Michele Bachmann, a freshman congresswoman representing Minnesota's 6th district, said that she was "very concerned that [Obama] may have anti-American views" because "the people that Barack Obama has been associating with are anti-American, by and large." She even called on the news media to investigate other members of Congress "to find out if they are pro-America or anti-America." Here's the video:

The good news is that we appear to have learned a valuable lesson from the dark period in our history that was McCarthyism. In the 48 hours following Bachmann's appearance on Matthews' Hardball, nearly 13,000 patriotic Americans showered Bachmann's re-election opponent, Elwyn Tinklenberg, with $640,000 in campaign contributions. And at this writing more than 52,000 citizens have signed a petition calling on Congress to censure Bachmann. 

This comes on the heels of a series of polls showing that the McCain-Palin campaign's overwhelming focus on misleading and hatemongering attacks against Senator Obama in recent weeks has seriously damaged the ticket's standing with American voters. 

Often I am troubled by the extent of apathy and gullibility that I see in many of my fellow citizens. But episodes like these — Welch's knockout blow against McCarthy, the electorate's repudiation of McCain-Palin's Napalm attacks and the nipping in the bud of Bachmann's neo-McCarthyism — restore my faith in the ultimate wisdom of the American people. Sometimes it takes us too long to get there, but usually we wind up in the right place. 

Shoeless Joe

Is anyone surprised that the real Joe "the Plumber" Wurzelbacher bears little resemblance to the mythological "Joe the Plumber" that John McCain attempted to wield as a desperate, gimmicky bludgeon during his debate Wednesday night against Barack Obama?

Turns out ol' Joe is not a licensed plumber, is in no position to buy the company he works for, makes about $40,000 a year and appears to be a registered Republican. He doesn't want the tax cut that Obama plans to give him, even though it would help him make good on his delinquent Ohio property tax bill, and — naturally — is a fan of Sarah Palin. Read all about it in the Toledo Blade — which, incidentally, is one of the country's best newspapers. 

While Joe doesn't appear to have been an outright Republican plant, as my gut told me yesterday might have been the case, the dirty tricksters in McCain's campaign certainly glommed on to him, embellished his story and thought no one would call them on it. These guys and gals have been purveying pitiful prevarication so successfully for so long that they're getting sloppy and complacent. They're not getting away with it anymore. And that's a good thing for citizens everywhere. 

Plumbing the Depths of Discomfort

I have to say I was pleasantly surprised at the quality of last night's debate. The moderator, Bob Schieffer, didn't exactly adhere to my wish list for debate questions, but I thought he did a good job of asking questions that gave the candidates some room to roam. (Brief aside: How, how, how could CBS have replaced this very competent, accomplished, serious journalist with Katie Couric?) The ground rules of this session — each candidate gave a 2-minute response to a question, followed by back-and-forth discussion — were far better than the first two, permitting the candidates to engage and respond to one another. 

I'm not going to waste any time on trying to spin who "won" or "lost" the debate. But I did want to share a couple of thoughts. 

First, in his attacks on Obama, McCain unfortunately (yet predictably) relied too often on statements that soiled the truth like it was a dirty diaper. 

Some examples:

He invoked "Joe the Plumber" to mischaracterize Obama's tax plan, which, according to the non-partisan Tax Policy Center, would reduce the average tax bill for those with incomes of less than $227,000 annually and levy an average of just $12 in extra taxes on those with incomes between $227,000 and $603,000. So, if Joe the Plumber buys the business he's working for and it turns an annual profit of less than $603,000, his taxes in all likelihood will either fall or remain flat. His income, however, will rise substantially. In other words, he'll be far better off. McCain made it seem as if Obama would cut off America's small businesses — and the many jobs they create — at the knees. It's a lie. McCain's transparent gimmick here makes me wonder exactly who Joe the Plumber is and how he wound up asking questions at an Obama rally in Ohio. That may sound paranoid, but the recent history of slimy Republican campaign tactics gives me plenty of reason to be. 

Even worse was McCain's reference to abortion-related votes cast by Obama during his tenure in the Illinois state senate. McCain intimated during the debate that Obama had voted to decline funding for infants born as a result of failed abortion procedures, and against a measure that would have limited late-term abortions. Fortunately, Obama did a better job of counteracting this canard. He noted that he opposes late-term abortions with an exception for the health of the mother, and that the Illinois bill did not contain such an exception. Obama also explained, calmly and succinctly, that he only voted against the first measure because Illinois already had a law on the books that provided the same care for these infants — and, more importantly, because the language regarding this neonatal care was attached to a broader bill that attempted to roll back Roe v. Wade, a ruling that he supports. In short, the bill was "gotcha" politics at its worst. Anti-abortion legislators sponsored it specifically because they knew their pro-choice colleagues would vote against it, opening them to exactly the kind of irresponsible, intelligence-insulting, truth-stretching attack that McCain embraced last night. 

And this brings me to my second thought about last night's debate. Almost all I could think about while watching it and immediately thereafter was just how uncomfortable McCain looked. He appears agitated, annoyed and angry — to such an extreme magnitude that I question why he's even putting himself through the exercise of running for president. As I've mentioned before, this is not the John McCain we knew during the 1990s — the genial, bipartisan truth teller that the media and independent voters fell in love with. He just doesn't look comfortable in his own skin. 

A recent article in Rolling Stone suggests that McCain's Maverick persona was entirely fabricated — a disguise he stepped into following his entanglement in the Keating Five scandal, solely for the purpose of furthering his blind ambition. I'm not sure I buy that argument completely. But having watched the McCain metamorphosis reach its ugly apex these last few weeks, I do question whether the McCain we're seeing now is the real McCain — a privileged Navy brat who angrily lashes about in a perpetually futile attempt to surpass the heroic legacies of his father and grandfather. Perhaps the biggest irony of the campaign is that last night and during the campaign's recent twists and turns he has come off as less presidential than Obama, whom McCain and his race-baiting, hate-driven surrogates have repeatedly tried to cast as somehow too foreign and untested to occupy the Oval Office. 

What do you think?

Questions That Won't Be Asked Tonight

Looking forward to tonight's debate, I thought about what questions I would ask if I were Bob Schieffer, the moderator. Here are a few that popped into my head, in no particular order:

• Please explain why you believe you are prepared and qualified to be president of the United States.

• Please name the three highest priorities you'd bring into office.

• What can we expect to see in the first 100 days of your presidency? What policy objectives would you target, and how?

• What will be your approach to appointing Supreme Court justices should you have the opportunity to do so as president?

• How did our financial system wind up in such dire straits, and what can we learn from this experience that will help us prevent it from reoccurring?

• Given the opportunity, what would you change about the way we go about electing a president?

• What can private citizens do to help solve the vast array of serious problems our nation faces?

• What do you think the role of the vice president should be?

• Seven years after 9/11, how big of a threat is posed to the US by terrorists, and how would you act to counteract that threat?

• What's your view regarding whether, when and how to use military force to achieve US objectives?

Most of these questions probably won't be asked tonight. I think Schieffer will do a reasonably good job, but he's likely to stick to the same script that most moderators use: asking for each candidate's position on an exhaustive list of issues while throwing in a few questions aimed at addressing flash points in the campaign, such as whether Obama is qualified enough, McCain's guilt-by-association attacks or whether the troop surge in Iraq was a success. This approach is flawed, but probably necessary because of the ridiculously short time alloted for candidate answers. 

A far better way to structure debates would be for the moderator to ask a small number of open-ended, prepared questions, like the ones listed above. Instead of asking candidates to articulate their positions on Iraq or Afghanistan, ask them their views on using military force or how they'd address the threat of terrorism. That would give candidates significantly more options about how to answer, and what they choose to talk about — and not talk about — would tell us a lot more about what kind of leaders they are and how they'd govern. Follow-up questions could ask candidates to be more specific about any vague responses, as well as drill down further into anything new or interesting a candidate may say in his initial answer. 

These types of questions might actually require that the candidates think — and tell us what they think — instead of listening for key words in the question ("health care," "Iraq," "taxes") and summoning their endlessly rehearsed talking points on that issue. 

Anyway, I hope everyone watches tonight, and that Schieffer proves me wrong. 

Britney Spears Endorses McCain

Earlier today I was thinking about what it meant that Citizen's traffic roughly doubled on the day last week that I posted about Madonna. A few minutes later I found the answer, in Bob Herbert's column in today's Times.  

The column lists a litany of American woes that any developed nation should be ashamed of: our youth's subpar math skills; a dangerously decrepit infrastructure, which contributed to the destruction of New Orleans three years ago and the deaths last year of 13 motorists when a bridge collapsed during rush hour in Minneapolis; and insufficient funding for something as basic as safe drinking water for our people. 

Herbert could have added many more items to his shame list, but he has but one column, not the whole newspaper. And his larger point is far more important than being comprehensive in his detailing of our many problems. 

All of these problems have a common contributing factor: an unengaged citizenry. As I've argued before, we, the people are to blame for our worst problems, not our politicians. That's because we fail to demand better solutions from our leaders. Why? We're more concerned with reality TV, celebrity hijinks and all manner of other plaque that is clogging the arteries of our information superhighway. When we do pay attention to public affairs our attention is too often directed at pointing fingers and attacking those with whom we disagree, and too infrequently channeled to thinking about problems and working toward solutions. Herbert points a finger at the media for dwelling too much on all of this nonsense. What he doesn't say is that the media are in business to make money, and unless viewers and readers demonstrate more discerning appetites, they are going to continue to be fed spam in a can for breakfast, lunch and dinner. 

Our system of government is not working properly -- not because it is poorly designed, but because we are not doing our part. And to contribute properly, we needn't make Herculean efforts. Simply keeping up on public affairs, thinking critically, forming opinions, voting and perhaps engaging one another and our elected representatives now and then when we feel passionately about a particular issue, is enough. But so many of us fail to meet even those minimal requirements of basic citizenship. Tens of millions of us fail to even exercise our right to vote. So instead of trying to solve our problems and talk to us like reasonable adults, politicians relentlessly pursue their own interests over ours and choose to communicate with us by appearing on The View, Letterman, Leno and Oprah, and by spending billions on 30-second, intelligence-insulting TV attack ads.

Herbert's column cites a 1985 book by Neil Postman, Amusing Ourselves to Death. I'd never heard of it before but Herbert's reference — which implies that Postman thought our fascination with entertainment at the expense of citizenship was damaging our republic — has me intrigued enough that I'll probably buy a copy and read it.  

So, in case you hadn't figured it out by now, I'm basically calling you all simpletons who care more about Madonna — or a potential McCain endorsement by Britney, which, contrary to my misleading title, has not happened (but let's see how Citizen's traffic responds to that subject line...) — than about the health of our democracy. Well, not really. We — this blogger included — all succumb at times to the information age's shallower amusements. The whole reason this blog exists is to provide a forum where we can help each other to overcome those temptations, or at least minimize them, so that we can be the citizens our founders intended us to be. 

Or, as Jeff Tweedy said:

I'll side with you

If you side with me 

Associated Nonsense

The McCain campaign, falling further behind by the minute, is escalating its attacks on Senator Obama's "associations." McCain's argument here is that Obama has associated with people who are hostile to the United States or hold otherwise objectionable views, and thus is somehow guilty of the same misdeeds and hostile attitudes.

I happen to think the argument is specious. But we are blessed to live in a free country. So, let's say you believe it. It follows that McCain and Palin should be subject to the same kind of examination and guilt by association. So, what about Palin's connections to the Alaska Independence Party, which has advocated violent secession from the United States? Here's a quick rundown: 

• Palin and her husband were once members of the party, whose founder, Joe Vogler, has said he hates the US government and in 1983 convinced the government of Iran to use its United Nations membership to give him a forum for urging the UN to support Alaska's secession from the US. Todd Palin belonged to the AIP for seven years. 

• Palin helped engineer her election as mayor of Wasilla, Alaska, through the support of a local member of the AIP whose nickname around town was "Black Helicopter Steve" because of the cache of weapons he kept to stave off U.S. troops, whom he was convinced would strike at any moment to impose the dreaded "New World Order." 

• After being elected Mayor, Palin appointed Black Helicopter Steve to the city council. 

• As a gubernatorial candidate in 2006, Palin appeared at the AIP state convention.

• Palin ended a videotaped address to the AIP earlier this year by saying "keep up the good work, and God bless you." 

Now let's turn to some of Senator McCain's associations. In 1987 he tried to persuade federal regulators to lay off his pal Charles Keating, head of Lincoln Savings and Loan, which collapsed two years later amid a tsunami of bad loans, costing taxpayers $3 billion, bankrupting untold widows and orphans and helping trigger the wider savings-and-loan bailout that cost you and me $125 billion.

Senator McNasty also served on the board of the US Council for World Freedom. One of this group's particularly paranoid anti-Semitic members in 1985 accused Jews of milking the Holocaust for sympathy and has suggested that a small coterie of Jewish financiers and business leaders control the entire world. 

The McCain-Palin ticket's associations arguably make them look a lot more anti-American than do Obama's. 

To me their rhetoric feels a lot like people who stridently oppose keeping abortion legal because of their "respect for life" yet feel no compunction whatsoever at extinguishing life via the death penalty or preemptively invading a sovereign nation that did us no harm and killing tens of thousands of its citizens. They're not pro-life, they're pro-some-lives-over-other-lives. McCain and Palin are being just as hypocritical by dwelling almost constantly in their campaign appearances on the supposed ghosts in Obama's attic. Somewhere George Orwell is having a good chuckle.  

I can't wait to see what happens if McCain is man enough to bring up all this nonsense in Wednesday's debate. 

An Open Letter to Madonna

Citizen

http://cit-i-zen.blogspot.com

October 9, 2008

Madonna Louise Ciccone-Ritchie

Somewhere in the UK

Or on tour in America

via the Internets

Dear Ms. Ciccone-Ritchie,

I read with dismay today about your recent on-stage diatribe, in which you used an extremely vulgar word to identify Alaska Governor and Republican vice presidential candidate Sarah Palin. In the same article, I learned that you also recently compared Senator John McCain, the GOP presidential candidate, to Adolf Hitler.  

This is not easy to say. I know that a little piece of you dies for every moment you are not the center of global attention, and that it's hard for a onetime megacelebrity to watch the world pass her by, rendering her irrelevant despite failed attempt after failed attempt to maintain her clutch on notoriety. I have Jesse Jackson's cell number if you want someone to empathize with.  

But here is the truth: you are not helping. In fact, you're hurting the cause you seek to bolster with your hateful, ignorant words. In the real world, which you ceased to inhabit sometime around 1984, citizens do not look to entertainers for political wisdom. And there's good reason for that: for the most part they are wholly unqualified to be spouting off publicly about world affairs, despite the irresistible urge that must come from people constantly sticking microphones and tape recorders in their faces. 

Occasionally celebrities can devote themselves to public affairs enough to be regarded as voices of reason and even leaders. The late, great Paul Newman is one example. And, of course, Ronald Reagan parlayed his B-movie acting career into the presidency. But I feel bound to inform you, ma'am, that your quarter-century of doing little more than parading around in your underwear does not put you in this league. For you, publicly commenting on politics is about as laughable and desperate as the time you tried passing yourself off as a guitar playing singer-songwriter in the 90s, or that ridiculous British accent you've affected in the past few years.

So many of us wish you would stop. There are plenty more productive things you could be doing with your time and money. Take your kids on a nice vacation. Enjoy the English countryside. Meditate. Read books. Lecture about the significance of giant, metallic, cone-shaped bras to 20th Century feminism. If you simply can't relieve that creative itch, perhaps you could re-make that 80s film you did with Rosanna Arquette, but this time call it Desperately Seeking Anyone Who Will Pay Attention to Me.

Oh, yeah, and tell A-Rod no talking politics, either. 

Sincerely, 

Citizen

Will McCain and Palin Be Happy if Someone Hurts Obama?

I don't know where to begin today. 

Last night's debate isn't really worth commenting on. I think the candidates' performances speak for themselves. 

I'm really incensed about something else: the McCain/Palin campaign's utterly reprehensible stirring up of racial antagonism, general hatred and even talk of murdering Barack Obama. 

In my post yesterday I pointed out how the McCain campaign is resorting to irresponsible smears of Obama as a desperate, last-ditch attempt to salvage its vanishing election-day prospects. What I didn't know then was just how despicable the behavior that McCain and his running mate are prompting — and indeed, tolerating — on the part of their supporters. 

Washington Post reporter Dana Milbank's coverage of Palin's Monday rally in Florida reveals that supporters in the crowd reacted to her media-bashing by "hurl(ing) obscenities at a camera crew. One Palin supporter shouted a racial epithet at an African American sound man for a network and told him, "Sit down, boy."

Unfortunately, it gets worse. At another rally in Florida, Palin intimated that Obama thinks our troops in Afghanistan are nothing but baby killers — a blatant and irresponsible lie that elicited a cry of "treason!" from the audience. Here's the video:

Then there was McCain's refusal to correct a supporter who clearly answered the candidate's question — "Who is the real Barack Obama?" — by angrily shouting "A terrorist!" Here's that video:

And moving into chunks-welling-up-in-your-throat territory, Palin's wacko accusation that Obama's political career was launched by "domestic terrorist" Bill Ayres prompted one man in the audience to shout "Kill him!," according to the Washington Post. The Secret Service is now looking into that doozy. 

Is this how John McCain wants to inspire Americans and solve the litany of grave problems we face? Mudslinging is one thing, and to some extent an expected part of the dirty game that is politics. But tolerating such hateful, violent comments and behavior is beyond unacceptable. It's sad and shameful, but also dangerous. Every citizen with a brain and a heart should punish this conduct with extreme prejudice.  

Will John McCain and Sarah Palin be happy if someone hurts Obama? Is that their idea of patriotism? They should ask themselves those questions and think very hard about the answers, for their latest round of smears is clearly inciting that type of feeling in some supporters, and they are doing nothing to stop it from tragically spinning out of control. 

 

McCain: What's Missing?

OK, take a look at the video below from the September 26 presidential debate, and the various other photos here of Senator John McCain from the presidential campaign trail. Specifically, look closely at McCain and tell me what's unusual about his appearance. And be nice to Cindy. She's a recovering drug addict. 

  

Give up?

He doesn't wear a flag pin. 

Is he an Islamocommufascist terrorist? 

Do we know the REAL John McCain?

Can we risk putting such a man in the White House, as commander in chief of our noble troops that are in harm's way around the world?

Well, of course we can. John McCain loves his country. I know that and so do you. We may disagree on whether he's the best man for the job but his basic patriotism and desire to do right by his country and its citizens is not in question. 

My point here, as some of you probably have figured out by now, is that using paranoid innuendo to smear someone for what he wears or doesn't wear, how he looks or who he may have had tenuous associations with is no way to help citizens decide whether that person is qualified to lead us. As the McCain campaign recognizes that it appears headed for defeat on November 4 it has turned increasingly to irresponsible smears of Senator Barack Obama — from surrogates using his middle name to silly chain emails that keep repeating the same demonstrably false claims: that he is a Muslim who was sworn in to the Senate with his hand on the Koran and refuses to say the Pledge of Allegiance or wear an American flag lapel pin. 

Serious citizens should recognize this trash for what it is, and demand better of our candidates.  

McCain and Obama: the Best America Has To Offer?

I was just reading an article in the Week In Review section of today's Times, about the changing role of the vice presidency, and was struck by the following passage:

The next president will face challenges probably not equaled since Franklin Roosevelt took the oath in 1933. Two wars, an economy in crisis, an energy emergency, destructive partisanship, frayed alliances overseas — all add up to a burden that will be tough for any new president to tackle alone.

It's hard to disagree with this sentiment, and it gets me to thinking:

Are these the best candidates America has to offer?

Each of the major-party presidential candidates has at least one serious deficiency. Most of the elections in my lifetime have also been contests between similarly imperfect candidates, but I can't help but feel that the problem is getting worse with time. The situation is particularly troubling now, with our nation facing a wider array of serious problems than at any time I can remember. And it's noone's fault but our own. As citizens we need to be more engaged in public affairs and demand better of our leaders. Until we do, we'll get the government we deserve.

What do you think?

Vote McCain, Get a 25% Chance of President Palin

Now, for something from the "worth considering" department: According to the Associated Press, actuaries have determined that John McCain has a 25% chance of not surviving a second term in office, should he win the presidency on Nov. 4. 

Discuss.

Why Main Street Needs to Bail Out Wall Street

On Monday I left my New York financial district office to get some lunch and Jesse Jackson was out on the street leading a protest of union members against the government's financial bailout plan.

"Bail out working people, not Wall Street," was among their chants.

What they didn't understand was that "working people" (I resent the implication in this phrase, incidentally, that non-union, white collar employees don't really "work") are inextricably tied to Wall Street.

It's understandable that many citizens are struggling to grasp why it's so important for the government to spend $1 trillion or thereabouts to buy the troubled assets of financial institutions, many of whom wound up in this mess because of their own irresponsible behavior. Populist rhetoric from lawmakers on both sides of the aisle isn't helping. In his column in today's New York Times, Thomas Friedman lays it all out perfectly:

"This is a credit crisis. It’s all about confidence. What you can’t see is how bank A will no longer lend to good company B or mortgage company C. Because no one is sure the other guy’s assets and collateral are worth anything, which is why the government needs to come in and put a floor under them. Otherwise, the system will be choked of credit, like a body being choked of oxygen and turning blue.

Well, you say, “I don’t own any stocks — let those greedy monsters on Wall Street suffer.” You may not own any stocks, but your pension fund owned some Lehman Brothers commercial paper and your regional bank held subprime mortgage bonds, which is why you were able refinance your house two years ago. And your local airport was insured by A.I.G., and your local municipality sold municipal bonds on Wall Street to finance your street’s new sewer system, and your local car company depended on the credit markets to finance your auto loan — and now that the credit market has dried up, Wachovia bank went bust and your neighbor lost her secretarial job there.

We’re all connected. As others have pointed out, you can’t save Main Street and punish Wall Street anymore than you can be in a rowboat with someone you hate and think that the leak in the bottom of the boat at his end is not going to sink you, too. The world really is flat. We’re all connected. “Decoupling” is pure fantasy.

I totally understand the resentment against Wall Street titans bringing home $60 million bonuses. But when the credit system is imperiled, as it is now, you have to focus on saving the system, even if it means bailing out people who don’t deserve it. Otherwise, you’re saying: I’m going to hold my breath until that Wall Street fat cat turns blue. But he’s not going to turn blue; you are, or we all are. We have to get this right."

Actually, I think Mr. Jackson understands this perfectly, but he'd rather exploit citizens' fears than tell them the truth, because doing the former preserves the tattered remains of his political standing. The nomination by Democrats of Obama — who, unlike Jackson and other liberals of his generation, prefers to appeal to the better angels of our nature than to our basest anxieties and class resentments, is ushering in a new era for the left. And that era has little room for demagogues like Jackson.