Game Over

I felt like posting something about this week in politics, since it has been an extraordinary week. Particularly, the State of the Union address and the "question time" session between President Obama and the GOP have had me thinking about the situation in Washington and what needs to happen next.

President Obama pretty much hit the bullseye by having that public dialogue with the opposition party, and by suggesting that there should be more of these meetings in the future. What a relief it is to have an opportunity to see our elected officials actually discussing something substantive, and bringing some meat to the conversation, instead of rerunning the same old, worn out and meaningless talking points they trot out on the talk shows. That's not to say that there was no rhetoric during the Q&A session, but there was definitely a higher level of effort made on both sides to act like grownups and at least try to get somewhere.

Yet, it apparently wasn't enough to make a lasting change in the way things work in D.C. On Meet the Press this morning, there was John Boehner, as unnaturally orange of face as ever, holding firm on the party line and insisting that the GOP have "an obligation to stand on principle". He explained that the American people expect their representatives to do this, and that this is their primary job on Capitol Hill.

That's when I started to yell at my TV. How wrong-headed can a guy be, especially after some really clear and obvious signs from the public that we expect our government to step up their game? Part of the problem, it occurs to me, is that the GOP have gotten confused about exactly which game it is that they are playing.

They seem to think that politics is just a big football game. Maybe it's because of the Super Bowl or something. But they act as if the idea is to have two opposing teams, one playing offense and the other playing defense, with the only objective being to score points for your own team and prevent the other team from scoring.

Which begs the question that, to me, seems pretty obvious: how does that make things happen that need to happen in this country? How does it assist job creation, health care reform, national security, long-term fiscal stability, or anything else? If either party decides to just hold the line and block the other guys for 4 years, waiting until it's their turn to get the ball back and run the kind of plays they want to run, we get nowhere and nothing gets better. You can't just say that you are content to bide time until the other team runs out of downs. That's NOT the job that Boehner and the other D.C. dipsticks were elected to do. They were elected to work out how to fix the problems and meet the challenges that face our nation.

Unfortunately, the GOP feels that protecting their particular ideology is all that matters, and that if the nation as a whole has to suffer a while longer while they protect it, then that's just how it has to be. Now, I'm not here to say that either side needs to just roll over, abandon their beliefs and make nice for the sake of it. But what I truly believe, especially after watching the Q&A session this week, is that there are probably many more areas of common ground between the left and the right than they care to acknowledge, and that many ideas that might actually work are being shunned by Republicans not because the ideas are bad, but because they are being proposed by the Obama administration or the Democrats.

I guess, according to what Boehner says, the Republicans will look back on the Obama presidency as nothing more than an inconvenient speed bump on the road to their next period as the majority party. It will not be a time during which any progress is made, nor will it be a time where the GOP will assume responsibility for any work that needs to be done. All they're there for, from what they're saying, is to stave off as many Democratic efforts as possible and preserve their ideology so it's ready to go when the next Republican Congress and President show up. If this is their definition of leadership, no wonder this country's going down the shitter so quickly.

True leadership is about intelligence, open-mindedness and flexibility. Without those qualities, you can't properly assess a situation, or figure out the best way to deal with it. You have to be able to acknowledge that circumstances are never constant - that there is always some new variable, some unexpected factor, that gets thrown into the mix. An unwavering ideology is never going to be able to provide solutions for all the problems we face. There must be creative thought, there must be cooperation, and there must be mutual effort. Most importantly, that effort must be made on behalf of the nation and not merely to serve a particular party. Otherwise, who benefits? We regular folks just continue to suffer for 4 years while they screw around, and the mess that the next guy (be he a Republican or Democrat) must clean up just gets bigger and bigger. How is this a good result for anyone?

We need to let the GOP know that the football game has to end. We need to change the rules of play entirely to ensure that the interests of the people are what matters, and not the partisan point-scoring. If Boehner and the Republicans continue to defend and excuse their obstructionism by saying it's what they were elected to do, they will fail to truly serve the people who elected them. And as we are seeing at ballot boxes around the nation, voters are quick to discard the people who fail to serve their interests well, regardless of their party affiliation. No one is safe, and no ideology is sacred. People can't feed their families or pay their bills with ideologies. The GOP will need to come up with a better game plan than merely being defenders of the faith, because the nation's faith in politicians who do nothing has finally run dry.

Game Over

Wilson lied. Period.

In case you missed it, non-partisan, Pulitzer Prize-winning website PolitiFact has weighed in on Representative Joe Wilson's commentary. You can click here to read it - http://politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2009/sep/09/joe-wilson/joe-wilson-south-carolina-said-obama-lied-he-didnt/ - or you can scan the bottom line right here:

The Truth-O-Meter Says:

"You lie!" (in response to President Obama saying health reform would not insure illegal immigrants.)

Joe Wilson on Wednesday, September 9th, 2009 in the audience at a joint session of Congress

Joe Wilson of South Carolina said Obama lied, but he didn't

....so who's the liar now? Please, let's all recognize that there's no other way to spin this: Representative Wilson may have been impassioned and emotional, but he got the facts wrong and he chose the wrong avenue to lodge his complaint. Many people have written to political sites today to support Wilson, because they say he "spoke truth to power".  Well, if it WAS truth he was speaking, then we might take that into consideration. But his anger was based on his personal interpretation of language in the bill, and from all objective accounts, there is no intent on either side to provide government-funded health care coverage to illegal immigrants. If the language in the bill is still ambivalent on that point, then Representative Wilson and others who share his concern can hammer those details out before the final measure is written, and they can vote against any bill which they feel they cannot support. That's how to solve the problem - not shouting out in the middle of a speech.

More importantly, his intentions do not excuse his actions. We cannot, and should not, throw civilized discussion out the window because we believe that the end justifies the means. Why should Representative Wilson get a pass for being out of order during a joint session of Congress? He's there to do a job, and the halls of Congress are his workplace. Just like any other workplace, Congress has certain guidelines for conduct. If you break the stated rules regarding conduct at any job, you get a warning, at the very least. Representative Wilson should be no different and anyone who wants to excuse his error is just inviting a huge, unruly mess. If spontaneous, disrespectful outburts are OK for him, then it needs to be OK for everyone else to do the same. His supporters have to tell America, straight out, that there is no longer any room for rules, manners, decorum, tradition, order or common courtesy in American government. It's a free-for-all, and everyone who is angry enough about something can just yell at everyone else until the cows come home.

That's great, but just remember, it's not just conservatives or republicans that get angry. Liberals were angry when we organized in support of Barack Obama's campaign. We were angry when we pulled in a record number of young voters, Hispanic voters, and other voters who had not traditionally chosen to vote (or to vote for Democrats) in previous elections.  We were angry when we raised record sums of money for the campaign. We were angry when we rose up as a majority and asked the Republican party to get out of the White House before they started any more wars based on false information, ran up any more foreign debt, burned bridges with any more of our former allies and took away any more of our civil liberties. We were angry - and we won. We won BIG. Not by trying to shout down the opposition, but by outworking them, and by addressing people's concerns instead of stoking people's baser instincts. It was a good strategy then and it's a good strategy now, but if those on the right simply cannot keep their rage in check long enough to do the work that's needed for their side, as we did last year, they will not be able to connect with the majority of Americans.

So if conservatives are changing the rules of the game, and declaring that it's all about who can shout the loudest from now on, they should remember that they are not the only ones with something to shout about.

Wilson lied. Period.

An open letter to Representative Joe Wilson

During this evening's Presidential address to the joint session of Congress, South Carolina made a real contribution. Representative Joe Wilson called out "You lie!" to President Obama in response to a point about insurance coverage for illegal immigrants.
This is a perfect crystallization of the ugliness that has infiltrated and poisoned our nation in recent months. All the crazy juice that people have been drinking, from town hall meetings to tea bag protests to birther rallies - it all came into focus in this one, nationally-televised WTF moment.

When those elected to represent us publicly embrace the angry mob mentality, in the hallowed halls of Congress no less, we all have to realize that the lunatics have truly taken over the asylum.

And so I am posting the content of an email I sent earlier this evening to Representative Wilson, and I encourage all of you who found his actions inexcusable to do the same. His address is http://www.house.gov/formwilson/IMA/issue.htm. While you're at it, let the Speaker of the House know that you support official Congressional censure for the "gentleman" from South Carolina: http://www.speaker.gov/contact.
 
AN OPEN LETTER TO REPRESENTATIVE JOE WILSON

Representative Wilson - I realize that, because I am not a member of your constituency, my opinion may be irrelevant to you. However, I am first and foremost an American citizen, and my allegiance to this great nation and the principles on which it was founded mean far more to me than my place of residence or my party affiliation. I would have expected that, as an elected member of Congress, you would share my "Country First" attitude, but your deplorable actions during the President's address before the joint session of Congress have proven otherwise.

I feel compelled to write to you because, even though you were not elected to represent me or the place where I live specifically, you were elected to serve the country and to advance the best interests of its people. This is something you failed to do tonight, and I must protest in the strongest possible terms the way you have contributed to the backwards momentum of public debate in this country. I have watched political events on television for decades and have never witnessed such an utter lack of respect for the President. In addition, the tactic you used devalued your own office as well. You should be ashamed, sir, and I would not be surprised if many of your constituents were ashamed of you as well.
 
Unfortunately, I realize that in this partisan world in which we live, you may also have many constituents who applaud you for having the "courage" to yell at the President during his address. Make no mistake, those who do are part of the problem, just as you have become tonight. Your outburst served no purpose other than to underline the sorry state of American political discourse. You and those who may support or Heaven forbid, emulate you, will have much to answer for when the process of open discussion and debate in this country finally buckles under the weight of the unchecked anger, fear and self-righteousness of those who respect no boundaries, or even the Golden Rule, in their efforts to drown out the words of others with whom they do not agree.

You have already issued an apology - I am in no position to say how sincere it is, or whether it was merely another act of political self-interest. I do know that many Americans share my disgust and will be letting you and the rest of the political world know how we feel, whether it matters to you or not. Frankly, what I and others think shouldn't even enter into it. You should already know yourself that what you did was uncalled for and unacceptable - we the people should not need to tell you that, but since we have been forced to do so by your lack of self-awareness, I do hope you will listen.

An open letter to Representative Joe Wilson

Senator Ted Kennedy and his health care dream

As y’all know, I’ve been out of the blog loop for ages. I just have too much else to do to bother with it in general. But today, I do find myself wanting to post something on the passing of Senator Ted Kennedy, and on the continuing fight over health care reform. 

The man wasn’t a saint; he was a Kennedy, after all, and a politician. Still, Senator Kennedy was an amazing force of nature in his legislative life, and a man who actually had the fortitude to stick to his guns on any issue that was important to him. In the face of resistance and anger from many of his colleagues in Washington – often including those in his own party – Kennedy never wavered when he believed that he was doing the right thing. And as the reviews of his career as a lawmaker have been reminding us over the past 36 hours, he was doing the right thing more often than not. A man born to privilege, without any need to concern himself with those of a lower economic station, became the champion of the poor, the victimized, the desperate. He genuinely wanted to help people with the work he did as a member of Congress, and that is not something that can be said with a straight face or a clear conscience about almost any other politician in our nation today. 

In today’s New York Times, there are many articles, reports and rememberances regarding Senator Kennedy. As I read through the paper this morning, one sentence jumped out at me from all the newsprint. In an editorial about Kennedy, the Times wrote that the senator always held fast to the conviction “that politics be grasped and administered throught the prism of human needs”. This struck me like a lightning bolt from the blue. It is a crystal clear reminder of what the American government should be about, and a reminder of how far those in power have strayed from that noble ideal.

 In the current debate about health care reform, Kennedy’s passion and main focus for decades, we have seen our elected officials at their worst. We have witnessed lies, distortions and scare tactics on one side, developed and propagated for no other reason than to mislead the public and block any reasonable discussion of the facts. On the other side, we have seen proponents of reform failing to respond strongly or quickly enough, and we have seen many taking the path of least resistance, giving up on important points of reform (like the public option) in order to move things along more smoothly and just get something – ANYTHING – passed. In all of this, we have been let down in a huge way by those who have been sent to Washington to do their best on our behalf.

 What about “the prism of human needs”? Many in Washington (and in the voting public) have been brainwashed into believing that the fundamental obligation of our government should be to protect capitalism. Nothing could be further from the truth, or from the intentions of this country’s founding fathers. This was always intended to be a nation of betters – better freedoms, better opportunities, better ways of life. Our elected officials have a duty to make sure that these things are available to every American citizen. Why should we stand back and accept the nonsense that is currently being spouted by those politicians whose only concern is to protect the market? Businesses should not be the priority here – people should. There is a gaping hole and a staggering inequity within our current health care system, and any politician who refuses to address this in a meaningful way, out of concern for the health of the free market, doesn’t deserve to represent the citizens of this nation.

Let there be no doubt, no distortion, about this fundamental truth: the American government DOES NOT exist for the purpose of protecting capitalism. It must allow it, and it must provide space for it to flourish, but it must not aid and abet capitalism at the expense of the struggling among us. It must not be so beholden to industry that it fails to provide for those citizens who cannot find the help they need within the current system. It must not favor business out of a sense of obligation to the biggest donors, the loudest lobbyists, or the most powerful political action groups.

 This reform movement has been framed by many opponents as a choice between a complete government takeover of the health care industry and a healthy free market. This rhetoric serves as a powerful tool for influencing peoples’ opinions, but it is not grounded in reality. What this reform bil is actually about is a choice between the rights of citizens and the rights of companies. The main objection that the anti-reform people have is that a public option would make it more difficult for private insurance companies to thrive.

 Let’s examine that concern for a moment: the insurance industry, which has prospered for decades by offering as little coverage or compensation as legally possible to millions of Americans who are in need, might not be able to make the kind of money it’s used to making if the low-cost, universally-available government insurance program becomes a reality. This, according to the opponents of reform, is akin to socialism. If I may paraphrase Barney Frank, on what planet do these people spend most of their time?

 If the town hall warriors and their leaders would give the bill an honest reading, they’d know that creating and providing a government-run health care program, ALONGSIDE private insurance, is the real goal here. Nobody wants to dismantle private insurers, or remove the option of private insurance from those who wish to pay for it. It is certainly true that a government-run program would make a huge dent in the bottom-line profits of private insurance companies. But why is this socialism? The government has no responsibility to ensure that businesses are always successful, or that companies may exist without competition from any other source. And as many calmer and more rational experts on the subject have pointed out, the US Postal Sevice never put FedEx or UPS out of business. There has been room for all of them to co-exist and grow. If the Postal Service didn’t exist, then FedEx and UPS executives would be a whole lot richer, without a doubt. But that does not mean that the government-run Postal Service is a socialist entity. It means that the commercial services like FedEx and UPS need to be more competitive in order to attract and keep customers, and there’s nothing wrong with making a company work for its money.

 

It is precisely this point that makes this such a clear-cut situation. The insurance and health care industries haven’t got any competition to force them into being more reasonable in their treatment of customers. They have been allowed to reign unchallenged, and it has made them all-powerful. Anyone who has ever experienced the frustration of arguing with a representative over their coverage, or who has been dropped or denied coverage based on a pre-existing condition, knows how dangerous that sort of unchecked power can be to the average American. Unchecked power over health or illness, over life or death, in the hands of corporations whose only motive is profit-based, should not be protected by the government and should not be considered the American ideal.

Opponents of reform also like to make dire predictions about how bad it would be for the government to control any part of the health care system. The scary talk about how medical services will be rationed by the government? Pure rubbish. Nothing in the bill calls for any form of rationing. Moreover, access to doctors, medications and procedures are most definitely rationed in America right at this moment – except that it is the insurance and medical industries who are doing the rationing.  Only the fortunate ones receive coverage, and out of those who are covered, only a fraction receive top-notch, complete coverage. Is this OK with everyone who opposes reform? Is it really more acceptable to allow companies to pick and choose a handful of people to insure while the majority of Americans are left without protection, simply because it would be far too financially damaging to the company to actually insure sick people?

 The bottom line is that without a public option, any reform bill will be inefficient to truly bring about the changes that are so desperately needed in our health care system. There may be honest arguments had about how to make it happen, and the details will require a lot of work to figure out. But blocking it from happening should not be the goal of any politician or citizen who wants the best for their country and their countrymen. America is one of the last prosperous industrialized nations in the world to consider or implement some form of government-run health insurance. That fact ought to be the scariest one of all to anyone who is paying attention.

And those politicians who are trying to stay in the good graces of the insurance and medical industries by distorting facts and lying to us ought to be ashamed of themselves. Particularly today, when the world is looking back and remembering the singular efforts of the late Senator Ted Kennedy. Most legislators could never come close to the type of tireless effort he put into his work over his lifetime. But maybe they could at least try. Maybe they could take just a moment to clear ther heads of the rabid partisanship and take a clearer look at what it is they were really elected to accomplish, and who they were really elected to represent. Senator Kennedy never forgot why he was in Washington, and maybe his passing will remind some of his colleagues to use “the prism of human needs” to gain a better perspective on how to best meet the challenges ahead.

Senator Ted Kennedy and his health care dream

Reality check

This has been a dizzying couple of weeks. The ups and downs of the financial crisis and of the attempts to repair it are coming fast and furious. Congressional bickering and finger-pointing has left us no closer to a solution than we were when this whole mess started. And during this turmoil, the candidates have been struggling to find the right angle to take. I've seen a lot of criticism directed at both McCain and Obama, although McCain is getting the lion's share of it. It didn't help him to make such a big stink about how he has been "stepping in to solve problems for the American people", when the bill he was trying to lay claim to got defeated later the same day, causing a massive plunge on Wall Street.

I think the media, and most voters, are truly missing the point here. The candidates are both correct when they try to stress the urgency of the situation, and the need for some feasible agreement to be reached as soon as possible. For each day that the issue remains unresolved, the money crunch worsens and the effects are being felt in businesses and households all over the nation. But the problem comes when we expect the candidates to come up with the answer. Reality check - neither McCain nor Obama has been sworn in as president yet. In case you forgot, there is still a guy named George W. Bush residing at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, and he's got a lease there until January of next year. This is HIS problem right now, and it is HIS job to rally the administration and Congress to work out a deal. His failure to do so is the problem here, so laying the blame for the bailout's defeat on either candidate is a bogus move.

What, exactly, do people expect McCain and Obama to do right now? They are senators - no more and no less, and both have been removed from the day-to-day business of Capitol Hill for months now as they campaign for the presidency. How, exactly, are they responsible for leading Congress to the answer for all our nation's economic woes? After a crash that was years in the making, it is unrealistic to look to either one of them to solve it all in a week or two. They have both voiced their belief that an agreement on a plan is urgently needed, and they have tried to encourage their colleagues to find some common ground. But for either of them to interject themselves into the process in a greater way would be inappropriate right now, and probably none too helpful, if the events of the past several days are any indication.

The McCain campaign has alleged that Obama has been "watching from the sidelines" during this crisis, and has not done enough to rally support for the president's bailout proposal. Reality check - during yesterday's vote on the bailout plan, 60% of House Democrats voted in favor of the bill, while only 37% of Republicans did so - despite the McCain camp's insistence that "It's really Senator McCain who got all parties around a table to hammer out a deal". The truth is that Congress is not focusing on the needs of the presidential candidates right now - many of them have their own election bids to worry about, and pissing off their constituents is not on their agenda. They do not answer to McCain, or Obama, and to add the presidential race into the mix is a distraction from the task at hand.

It's time for the media and the public to recognize that the leadership on this particular issue needs to come from the White House. Admittedly, this is easier said than done. Bush and his cohorts, after years of alienating and disappointing everyone around them, have fallen into the lame duck zone, where their powers of influence are virtually nil. Still, we cannot lay the responsibility for a solution to the bailout issue on the presidential candidates. Not yet, anyway. When one of them is elected, he will need to get his shit together pretty fast and take action to clean up this mess on a long-term basis. But for now, the immediate concern is the short-term needs of the market and of Americans who are scared and strapped for resources. Reality check -the president and the leaders in Congress must be the ones to step up and make something happen. It's time for everyone to get off the partisan blame train and admit that, even if it's tough to do, a plan is needed and the time to pass one is now.

[digg=http://digg.com/2008_us_elections/Don_t_blame_McCain_or_Obama_for_bailout_s_failure]

Reality check

Where's the beef?

 

Remember the Wendy's commercial from the '80's, with that old lady yelling, "Where's the beef?" I can't help thinking the same thing after the fiasco on Capitol Hill yesterday. John McCain calls off the debate, the campaign and everything else, because he thinks going to "Warshington" and finalizing the bailout bill is more important than anything else. But he forgot to make a plan for what to do AFTER he got there, and he ended up doing and saying nothing helpful all day. If ever there was an example of the old saying, "If you're not part of the solution then you're part of the problem", this was it. There was no guidance offered and no insight shared, and the day ended in frenzied media glare and bitter partisan bickering. What happened? Where was the input he seemed so desperate to share with his fellow Congressmen and women? WHERE'S THE BEEF?

This is just typical McCain -style over substance. Want to boost your sagging campaign numbers? Bring in Sarah Palin - she looks good and has instant surface appeal. Sure she's a bit inexperienced and not too great with the issues, but if nobody asks too many questions or watches too many YouTube videos of her in church, she will dazzle the base. Don't have a great track record or any new ideas to run on? Just throw some negative ads on the air...deflect attention from your own inadequacies and pray that most people won't bother to fact-check your empty accusations against your opponent. Want to look like a hero during a time of national crisis? Announce that solving the problem is your number one priority, then make a big show of abandoning everything else to focus on just that one problem.

Except, after all that "country first" rhetoric, he hasn't actually contributed anything to the process. He seems to think this is grade school and that someone's taking attendence. But you don't get points just for showing up to the meeting. If he really does want to get this task done, then he has to participate - offer some ideas, guide his colleagues, SOMETHING, especially after he painted himself as someone who just HAD to be involved in fixing this problem. If he has anything constructive to add to the debate, then what is he waiting for? Now is the time to show his hand, before we all decide that the whole incident was nothing more than posturing and pandering to revive his poll numbers.

Wasn't he the guy who prides himself in reaching across the aisle and supporting bipartisan solutions? Didn't he tell us he had the experience to lead in a time of crisis? Hadn't he been chiding Obama for what he called "inaction"? In fact the McCain campaign ran ads about Obama's supposed "inaction" this week..and FactCheck.org already posted a response showing why the ad was full of crap (what a surprise!) Well, last time I checked, there was no hand extended across the aisle to Democrats by Senator McCain - in fact, he couldn't even get his own party to come together and agree on a plan. He failed as referee when the fighing broke out and the discussions broke down. He still has not presented his own outline of what he wants the plan to include and how it should look. His statements to the press and in the meetings yesterday, by all accounts, were generalizations about being "optimistic" and indicated no clear direction or strategy. He flailed his way through the meltdown last week, and he seems to be flailing his way through this process as well. OK Senator - you wanted in on this and you said you were ready to roll up your sleeves and get something done. So...WHERE'S THE BEEF???

I'm sure today will be another day of drama and turmoil, and it still remains to be seen whether or not the debate will happen tonight as scheduled. But at this point, the first and most important question to be answered is, when is John McCain going to do what he said he came to Washington to do? Or will this turn into yet another campaign promise that gets broken before the campaign even ends?

Where's the beef?

Beyond belief

Just when I thought that things could not possibly get any more insane than they already were in the worlds of politics and finance...today happened. Yesterday, I said this situation in Washington was turning into a circus. Today, I realize I may have been too generous in my assessment. At least you know what to expect in a circus - some animals, some clowns, some crazy stunts performed without a net as the audience holds its breath...oh, wait. That sorta is what today was like, when you get right down to it.

I have never seen anything like this in my lifetime. I have to ask: if you're a McCain supporter, just what the hell exactly is it that you're supporting at this point? I mean, do you even know what the hell your candidate is supporting? Because after he spent the day riding in on his white steed to rescue the economy, nobody seems to know what he was there for. People IN HIS OWN PARTY could not explain to reporters what McCain's position actually is. Does he want to see a modification of the Paulson plan? Does he want something else altogether? Does he want a glass of warm milk, a blankie and a nap? There's no way of knowing, because he STILL hasn't taken a stand or made a statement that explains his specific concerns or criticisms on the bailout plan. After bringing the race for the White House to a grinding halt, forcibly party-crashing the proceedings on Capitol Hill, and pissing off David Letterman, there has been no result, no progress, no clarity. NOTHING.

I am at a complete loss. How can he still have people of sound mind who would vote for him? I cannot, for the life of me, understand it. After this past 2 weeks, he appears to be something more than people may have bargained for. They wanted a maverick, and he really was one once. But now? Well, now he's just a loose cannon - a schizophrenic shape-shifter who changes gears so rapidly and recklessly that you can hear the engine grinding from miles away. Careening like a geriatric pinball from talking point ("The fundamentals of our economy are still basically strong") to talking point ("America this week faces an historic crisis in our financial system"), contradicting himself in ways that cannot possibly be ignored or explained rationally. Throwing out half-baked ideas, one after another, in a desperate attempt to sound like he's being decisive - let's form a commission! No, wait - let's fire the head of the SEC! Oooh, no, I got it - we should try that newfangled "oversight" thingy I've heard so much about! Yeah, that's the ticket!

This is not what should happen. This man has sold himself as the man with the plan, the one who could get things done, the reformer, the bipartisan enabler, the voice of experience and know-how. I ask you, in all honesty and in all seriousness: have his judgment, his demeanor, his actions, his words, his entire response to the economic meltdown, impressed anyone as being good enough? With so much at stake, and with so little room for error in the way this is handled, does it make ANYONE out there feel better to see how confused and erratic McCain's message has been? I don't know...I can only speak for myself, but this guy has me scared shitless. I know Obama's supposed to be the one with no experience, but McCain has failed spectacularly at his attempts to play the role of the capable leader in a time of crisis. The way he went from cluelessness about the true scope of the problem, to the other end of the spectrum where panic reigns and the sky is falling, just boggles the mind. And the childishness of suggesting that the debate should be called off, and that if things weren't resolved to his satisfation by Friday night, he wasn't gonna show up - well, that's just the most inane thing I've heard in a long time. To dictate to his opponent, the Debate Commission,  all his hosts in Mississippi who spent so much money, time and effort preparing for this event, and the American people that this debate could only go forward with his say so...it is arrogant, presumptuous and outrageous, and one of the least presidential statements he could possibly have made.

I know there are voters who still -STILL! - feel he is the best choice to lead our nation out of its current circumstances and into better times. But based on this past couple of weeks alone, I don't think those people are basing their vote on McCain's abilities as much as they are basing it on a dislike of Barack Obama. There is nothing scarier than the idea that people would knowingly and willingly choose someone who is already screwing things up in Congress (they had a bailout deal in play before he showed up today), before he even gets elected, just to avoid voting for someone like Obama.

You know what, folks? Obama's not a Muslim. He's not a terrorist. He doesn't hate white people. He doesn't support extremists or radicals. He has known, and even worked with, people who have dubious views or conduct (just like John McCain). He himself has never shared those views or engaged in that sort of conduct (unlike John "Keating Five" McCain or Sarah "Troopergate/Witchcraft" Palin). He is a legal US citizen. His middle name is Hussein. He comes off as a bit too cocky sometimes. He has not been in Washington as long as his opponent has. He is liberal. He is black. And all things considered, he is the better choice in this presidential race, so put your country first and get over it.

Beyond belief