Pick your battles

Alright, I know I've already posted once today, but bear with me, folks. It's my own fault; I probably shouldn't read the news headlines as often as I do, because I know I'll see something that pisses me off. For example...

Earlier today, there was a press conference announcing the release of the Pentagon's report on the effect of repealing the "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" (DADT) policy for the military. According to Secretary of Defense Robert Gates, the report indicates that there would be no major disruption within our armed forces if DADT is repealed, and gays and lesbians are allowed to serve openly. This report was meant to answer those members of Congress who had insisted on some form of in-depth study into the issue before moving forward with any decisive action. So, now we got the answers we were after, and that should satisfy everybody, right?

Of course not, you silly! That would be too easy! I mean, so what if the report says the military can handle repeal? And so what if the majority of Americans favor repeal? And so what if people really don't support DADT anymore? And so what if other nations have managed to allow openly gay men and women to serve without a problem?

The bottom line, very simply, is that the GOP does not want this repeal to happen. In their eyes, it is a political point on which they cannot yield, whether it's due to fear of the far-right, Tea Party element in their base, or whether it's just old-fashioned homophobia and hate. Whatever the reason, there is no report, no poll, no set of facts or figures that will ever change the minds of the many Republicans who oppose repeal.

As evidence, you can check out the responses from Republicans today, including Rep. Joe "You Lie!" Wilson. They are declaring a need for reports on the reports, in true Washington-clusterfuck style. Maybe further recommendations, maybe some hearings, whatever it takes to really, reeeallly be super-dee-duper sure that the world won't explode if we invite people who have The Gay to fight and die for our country. And if all else fails, according to some Republicans, let's just stall until next year, when a repeal will be a bit harder to come by.

Folks, I don't know about your moms, but my mom always used to tell me, "Pick your battles". She told me that not everything needed to be a fight, and that maybe there were times when the struggles weren't worth it. I wonder if the moms of all those GOP lawmakers ever told them the same thing. I know they have only one item on their agenda right now, and that item is, "Stop Obama from succeeding/getting re-elected". I realize that allowing the repeal of DADT would be in direct violation of that sacrosanct agenda. And I realize that the knee-jerk, mob-think mentality to which the vast majority of Republican politicians subscribe makes it nearly impossible for them to respond to the facts and the overwhelming public opinion supporting repeal.

I just wonder if it ever crossed any of their minds that, perhaps, their resistance on this particular issue is a dead-end road. Everyone knows DADT will be repealed. It's no longer an "if", but a "when", and those who oppose its repeal will undeniably be on the wrong side of history. There is no credible reason to ask men and women to hide their sexual orientation as a requirement to serving in the military. It simply makes no sense.

Would it be OK to ask troops to pretend they weren't black, or Jewish, or athiestic, or anything else? Would we ever accept a "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy on behaviors which actually have the potential to affect others, such as excessive alcohol consumption, smoking or gambling? How is it considered bad for morale and cohesion in a military unit when someone is gay, but not if they're intolerant of gays - or certain ethnic groups, or Muslims? Why don't we ask troops to conceal that sort of despicable mentality if they want to serve? It really doesn't matter why we don't place restrictions on things like that. The point is, we don't. We couldn't. And it makes no more sense to ask gay troops to pretend they're not gay. It's ridiculous, it's illogical, and it is ultimately indefensible.

Republicans might not care how ridiculous they appear. With Sarah Palin, Michele Bachmann, and so many other truly loopy people representing them, they certainly seem to be okay with the whole "lack of public credibility" thing. But if they really did want to fix their image, be seen as more than just "The Party of No", and gain some traction with the majority of America, a good way to start would be to stop being so crazy about the DADT policy. There are plenty of battles to fight on Capitol Hill. It makes sense to pick those that will actually lead somewhere, and abandon those that can't be won, and really shouldn't be fought in the first place.

Pick your battles

What's "wrong" about the left is what's right

Over the past week, I've been asking myself what it means to be a Democrat.

I'm not talking about the political aspects of being a Democrat, or the causes and beliefs of the party as a whole. For the most part, those are pretty clear. I'm wondering more about the nature of the typical Democrat. And it's MSNBC host Keith Olbermann that provoked these musings, for a couple of reasons.

First, he tweeted something last weekend, in response to Jon Stewart's choice to include clips of Olbermann alongside clips of Fox stalwarts like Bill O'Reilly and Glenn Beck, during a video montage shown at the Rally to Restore Sanity. Olbermann felt that it was a case of false equivalency for Stewart to have aligned him with the mouth-frothers at Fox, and after a few tweets to that effect, he ended on this note: "Whatever the losses are on Tuesday, will they be because Liberals were too LOUD or because they were too timid?"

Then, in today's news, the story broke that Keith Olbermann had contributed to the campaigns of a few Democrats in the run-up to the midterm elections. While none of his contributions were over the allowable limit and all were properly disclosed, they were in apparent violation of the code of ethics at NBC, which precludes its news employees from creating any possible "conflict of interest" by directly supporting political campaigns or organizations. Again, there were early attempts to both defend and dismiss the behavior on Twitter following the story, although they have so far been made on behalf of Olbermann by his fans and supporters and not by Olbermann himself. Tweeted responses to the story include, "It's not like Olbermann pretended to be unbiased or a news journalist", and, "You mean he's a liberal?"

Part of the reaction many will have when criticizing Olbermann will be a charge of hypocrisy. After all, it is Olbermann's show, Countdown, where several recent and ongoing stories have focused on the contributions made to the Republican Governors Association and the Chamber of Commerce by News Corp, the parent company of Fox News. Pointing out how a rival cable network has been unethical with their political contributions may now seem like the pot calling the kettle black, in the minds of some critics.

I'm sure the argument that will be put forth by Olbermann's supporters - and perhaps, ultimately, by Olbermann himself - will go something like this: A few small contributions made legally by a private citizen aren't the same as million-dollar donations made on behalf of a corporation. Olbermann wasn't using his program to raise funds or to solicit other contributions, as Fox's Sean Hannity had done for Republican gubernatorial candidate John Kasich last month. And, so what if Olbermann gave money to Democrats? At least MSNBC doesn't pretend to call itself "fair and balanced" while simultaneously feeding the right-wing's political machine, as does Fox News.

And I get all of that, just as I got why Olbermann and his fans might have been a bit riled by seeing clips from Countdown included in Jon Stewart's Rally for Sanity video montage. The cries of "false equivalency" that surfaced then may well pop up again now.

Still, I feel that the calling out of Keith Olbermann is not "false equivalency" at all. Full disclosure here: I am also a fan of Keith Olbermann. I am a regular Countdown viewer, and I enjoy and appreciate a lot of what he does on his show. Having said that, however, I think it's time to tie in the recent public nudges he's received with the results of this week's elections and the nature of Democrats as a group.

It seems to me that Democrats, on average, are a decent bunch of folks. I shouldn't generalize, of course; there are ignorant and narrow-minded Dems just as there are decent, thoughtful conservatives, and no one person is representative of either party as a whole. But I spend a lot of time with Democrats, and they do tend to have a certain way about them.

They tend to be inquisitive, and will look for information so that they may understand a question before they answer it. The knee-jerk responses are fewer and farther between among my liberal friends, because they are usually more info-based than doctrine-based. With most of them, there is acknowledgment of grey area, of doubt, on many topics they discuss, and when they have those doubts they find out more facts until they feel comfortable with their position on a subject.

They are not, generally, "me first" people. They are sympathetic to the needs of others, and are as responsive as their circumstances allow them to be. They are willing to spend time, money and effort when they can to help when help is needed. They also understand the need for communities and governments to play a role in America's well-being, and if that means we need to pay taxes in order to build roads, pay teachers' salaries or give deserving students grants for college, they're OK with that.

Nor are they "America - love it or leave it" people. They do love America, fiercely, but realize that for all its strengths, it has many weaknesses and areas that need to be improved. They point these out not to bash this country, but to try and garner support for the improvements that need to be made, so that we may be an even better nation. They realize that American exceptionalism, the buzz-phrase dear to the hearts of many on the right, is a bad idea for any nation that wants to have a strong future to look forward to, and not just the remnants of a glorious past to look back on.

Democrats are usually tolerant, and do not fear or persecute those who have a different skin color/religion/sexual orientation, etc. They can live and let live, and they can recognize the difference between behaviors that might be a problem because they actually affect others (like hate crimes against minorities or homosexuals), and behaviors that really don't matter to anyone but the person themselves (like gay marriage).

Another trait that is shared by most Democrats I know personally is the tendency to play fair. I realize that, on the bigger scale of national politics, there are definitely Democratic politicians who are crooked and corrupt too. But in my own circle of Democratic acquaintances, there is a natural inclination to abide by the rules, and to work within the system. Even when they want to change the system, they try to do it from within, not through advocating "second-amendment remedies", as suggested by Sharron Angle. Democrats don't think they are above the rules, and they are outraged when others act as if they are.

And this is where we come back to Keith Olbermann. When he was called out by Jon Stewart for the insults he used in occasional rants on Countdown, it was because Democrats know that's not the right way to carry on. False equivalency didn't apply; insults are insults, regardless of their frequency or severity compared to those thrown around by the hosts on Fox. Lowering the discussion to that level isn't productive, no matter which side does it, and Stewart was correct to make that observation. And if Olbermann's campaign contributions did, in fact, happen in violation of NBC's ethics policies, then it doesn't matter if his donations were smaller and less significant than the ones News Corp. made to the right. His actions may have been legal, and he may have had a right to make those contributions, but he did flout the rules of his workplace. Additionally, in terms of looking bad ethically, he has given some fresh ammunition to his enemies.

Finally, let's consider Olbermann's query about whether the left will suffer more by being too loud or too timid. His concern about the timidity of the left seems perfectly valid when you look at the way most left-leaning folks I know tend to act. Their inquisitiveness and open-mindedness looks like lack of conviction when compared to the black-and-white world the right occupies. Their willingness to support their community and their government can be construed as naive. Their acknowledgment of America's flaws allows some to call them self-loathing apologists. And their tolerance and sense of fair play are no match for the ruthless way that right-wing groups often exploit the rules and the fears of others in order to further grow their control and influence.

So, yes, we Democrats (and liberal Dems in particular) do have a lot of inherent characteristics that may contribute to our perceived timidity. And to people like Keith Olbermann, this is a liability that will forever hold us back when opponents threaten our political landscape, as was the case this past Tuesday. I can't help but wonder, though, if in trying to level the playing field with the right, we'd have to abandon some (or all) of the principles we currently use to govern our own behavior. And if so, would it be worth it?

The fact of the matter is, we Democrats aren't as effective politically as the GOP may be, due to our tendencies as a party in general. I mean, we've all heard it said that the meek shall inherit the earth, but I'm pretty sure that when it comes to politics, that's pretty much bullshit. President Obama displays all the tendencies I named above, and his leadership abilities have been criticized and questioned by both sides. He may be a one-term president as a result. So, is it useful to hold on to our liberal ways if it means that, in so doing, we're resigning ourselves to a government dominated by the GOP?

I can't speak for everyone who supports the Democratic party. I'd like to think that, just as in Star Wars, the powers of good can and will triumph over the dark side of the force, though we may lose a forearm and a whole pile of X-wing fighters before that happens. For myself, I don't think I'd be able to sleep knowing that our side won, but only because we were total scumbags in our pursuit of power. If there's a way to overcome right-wing scumbaggery without being actual scumbags ourselves, I'm all for it. But that's a magic formula we don't seem to have discovered just yet. Hopefully people like President Obama - yes, and Keith Olbermann too - will play a role in helping to guide us closer to that answer before the next election cycle begins.

What's "wrong" about the left is what's right

(Real) Lessons from Election 2010

I don't suppose too many of us are surprised by the results of yesterday's elections. As a Democrat, I am deflated today, but I am certainly not shocked. I'm sure the media pundits will all be feeding off the carcass of this election cycle for weeks, pretending to understand what it all means. I personally know better than to presume that I know what it means, and I will refrain from analyzing the mood of the electorate or predicting the future of the nation based on these results.

What I do know is what went wrong in terms of the election process as a whole. It seems we've outgrown the "business as usual" template for political campaigning and reporting. I really do think the way we've gone about things is old, tired and in sore need of some serious upgrading. In the spirit of bi-partisanship, let me offer some ideas with which both the left and the right may agree.

The reality of the situation is this: even with all the available coverage of political candidates and campaigns, voters still manage to remain unaware and uninformed in so many ways. In fact, it could be argued that this lack of awareness is a direct result of the overwhelming amount of available information out there today. If you're someone who leans right, there are cable channels, newspapers and websites which will present "news" from your perspective, and nothing but. The same holds true for those who lean left. It's pretty clear that most voters tend to seek out their own particular safe havens, and dwell there without venturing beyond them. This severely limits the information and viewpoints that they are exposed to, and at the end of the day, no matter how much time people spend reading and viewing, nobody learns anything.

There's also the (very large) segment of the population who has simply switched off altogether. They are sick of the hype and disgusted by the system, and have decided that they'd rather not participate in the process at all. They have no respect for any politician or party, and no motivation to become involved.

For both the ideologically rigid and the politically apathetic, there are certain truths that apply. I think the media, both parties and all politicians need to accept these truths now, and learn a lesson or two about how to better handle the campaign and election process next time around. In that spirit, here are the real lessons of Election 2010:

NO MORE DEBATES. The debates I watched over the past several weeks were complete wastes of time. On the local and state levels, I saw nothing that even approached a healthy exchange of ideas and opinions. Candidates no longer answer the question, regardless of what question is being asked. The debate process has degenerated into a platform for extended political ads, in which talking points are endlessly regurgitated and digs at the opposing candidate(s) are volleyed at regular intervals. If these political wanna-bes can't even handle giving a straight answer in a debate, we cannot hope to get straight answers from them once they are elected.

NO MORE POLITICAL ADS. When an ad comes on the television, who is actually paying attention? When a flyer appears in the mailbox, who is actually reading it? Even if some people do see them, how many change their minds or find new points of view to consider as a result? I think it's fair to say that the vast majority of political advertising, both broadcast and print, is completely ineffective at this point in time. There are some ads which have attracted attention for their sheer nuttiness/entertainment value (demon sheep? "I am not a witch"?), but I would bet my house on the fact that no one who cares enough to vote is using the ads as a source of information on which to base their decisions. The amount of money spent on advertising is insane, and a waste of epic proportions.

NO MORE ROBOCALLS. One of the worst ideas ever in the history of politics. I cannot, for the life of me, imagine that anyone does anything other than screen their calls or hang up once the robocalls start coming in. Again, a waste of time and money.

NO MORE POLLS IN THE NEWS. If politicians want to do internal polling to let them know what campaign strategies are working and which are not, that's fine. But when the polls are the focus of every news report for months, it hinders the democratic process. I can tell you that, here in my home state of Florida, there were so many people who "knew", months ago, that the Democratic candidate for Senate, Kendrick Meek, had no chance to win and should just drop out, because the polls told them so. Similarly, when I did some "Get Out The Vote" work for the Dems, I saw incredible numbers of people who felt there was no point voting for the incumbent Congressman from my district, Democrat Ron Klein, because the polls showed his GOP opponent to be leading by a sizable margin. These polls depress voter enthusiasm and turnout by convincing people that the results are already a forgone conclusion, long before the election even takes place. Additionally, they are notoriously flawed and can be affected by many different factors. To feature them as gospel on so many news networks and websites is irresponsible journalism. News outlets may as well use a Magic 8 Ball or an Ouija board as a source.

NO MORE MEDIA COVERAGE OF INSIGNIFICANT CANDIDATES. There was a ludicrous amount of press on Delaware's Christine O'Donnell during this election cycle. This, despite the fact that she was never seriously expected to win, no matter whose side you were on. She, and other kooky, long-shot candidates, ate up a ton of media time, distracted a huge chunk of the voting public from more important topics, and further solidified the idea that our government is a circus rather than a functioning body of public servants.

With such over-saturation of the political landscape, is it any wonder that American voters are either completely polarized or completely indifferent? The current means of campaigning and of covering elections has jumped the shark. Unless things change, I know that, by the time this nation is asked to vote again, it will have been beaten senseless by the mind-numbing barrage of ads and media coverage that it has had to endure, just as it was this time. And most of those who have endured it will either remain unswayed by the hue and cry, voting the party line blindly, or will ignore it all and choose not to choose. That is certainly not the best way to elect our leaders. The system needs to be radically revamped, and soon, so that we may find a way back to meaningful debate, dialogue and democracy before we are asked to head to the polls again.

(Real) Lessons from Election 2010

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

Waiting to Exhale

Well folks, I have been MIA from the blogosphere for several weeks now. I've spent some time on a family trip, and doing some stuff at my kid's school. But I have also been trying, in my little way, to help Barack Obama become our next president.

Emails have been sent...friends, neighbors and family have been hassled...phone calls have been made...lawn signs have been put up...money has been donated...letters to local papers have been written...all in the hope that I could add something positive to the support that Obama's been getting here in my home state of Florida. I have been very encouraged by the signs I see around me that, just maybe, the Sunshine State will get it right this time around.

I know that nothing is certain, and as Obama has been repeating over and over during these final days, we can't take anything for granted. So I have been working at it and waiting for November 4th to come, and now that it's here I am in a weird frame of mind.

On the one hand, I feel extremely anxious and unsettled. It's almost like waiting for Christmas morning, only I'm not sure if I'm getting a present or just coal in my stocking. The anticipation is greater than I expected, and I am not sure how agonizing the next 24 hours will be. The wish for time to hurry up hurry up HURRY UP ALREADY is almost overwhelming. And if things don't go Obama's way, the disappointment will be overwhelming too.

But on the other hand, I feel so good knowing that I've been a part of all this. I know many people gave more time, money and effort than I did, so I am not tooting my own horn here. But just like millions of other Americans, I have some personal investment in this presidential race. I gave time and I gave a shit and I am proud to have joined with all those who did the same. I am excited to know that this country may finally be ready to elect an African-American president for the first time in its history, and I am especially happy that it's this particular man.

I was fortunate enough to be in the crowd in Sunrise last Wednesday, when Joe Biden and Barack Oabama came to speak to us here in South Florida. It was the night of Obama's TV infomercial, and at the end there was a moment where the broadcast cut to a live feed from our event. Some of you saw and heard me and my fellow Floridians for a few minutes, cheering and chanting. But it was the stuff you didn't see on TV that made the most impact on me.

I arrived hours before the doors opened that day, and already there were hundreds and hundreds of people waiting to get inside. It was chaotic, hot and crazy out there. But it still made me happy to be a part of it. As we all stood in the sun and tried not to pass out, we talked and shared our thoughts and hopes, we laughed together, we got to know each other a bit, and we even sang and danced a bit. We were all buzzing with an energy that I don't think I've ever felt before. We all had that sense of being lifted by a common purpose. It is one of the most powerful feelings in the world, but one which we tend not to experience much anymore.

We, as a nation, tend to keep ourselves to ourselves more often than not these days. In the past 8 years, the polarization that we have experienced under a devisive administration has torn us into factions. The additional stresses we have undergone - war, economic turmoil, political scandals - have only served to further fuel our bitterness, our fear, our pessimism, and our desire to assign blame, point fingers and draw battle lines in the sand. We became divided and weak, and we have lost a great deal of our standing and our stock value in the eyes of other nations. But most troubling of all, we have grown used to this sorry state of affairs and we have become a nation where 90% of us know we are on the wrong track.

To be in that arena in Sunrise last Wednesday night, you wouldn't have known that to be the case. The stands were packed full of people who, by the end of the night, believed again. We were all ready to move forward and leave the dark clouds of the past 8 years behind us. And it was Barack Obama who lit that spark in us.

As he spoke, and I looked around me at the faces of my fellow Floridians, I saw everyone. Not the sea of white, privileged, angry faces I've seen in news reports from McCain and Palin rallies, but a diverse mix of people who really are America as it is. I was struck by the way all of us had come together that night, and how we had found this common ground. It made me feel the sort of enthusiasm and patriotism I had not felt for years, and it felt good to get that back.

I have always been a proud American. I have always believed that I am damned lucky to live in this country. But I have not seen the glimmer of true greatness in this country's leaders during my lifetime, until now. I don't think he's perfect, or a saint, or anything like that. I know he will not have it easy, and that many of the promises he has made may not come through during the next 4 years.

But I do feel, very strongly, that Barack Obama wants to be a great president. I believe that he wants us all to be great Americans. And I believe he can guide us and serve as a positive example as we strive to reach a better place as individuals, as communities and as a nation. I believe he deserves a chance to be our next president, and I hope he will be.

If you haven't yet voted, VOTE. If you know friends, family members or co-workers who haven't voted, get them to the polls. If you can, help the campaign of your choice to assist and support voters in your community. And if you all do your part, we will have a clear winner by this time tomorrow. Until that moment, I'm waiting to exhale.

Waiting to Exhale

A special place in Hell for McCain and Palin

John McCain and Sarah Palin both seem to know exactly who can go to Hell.

McCain, while running against George Bush in the 2000 Republican primaries, was incensed that the Bush team had run smear campaigns against him (how funny is that?). He was particularly angered by their attempts to bring his adopted Bengali daughter into the mix, by spreading rumors that "John McCain has a black baby".  In an interview, McCain stated,  "I believe there is a special place in hell for people like those."

And just the other day, Sarah Palin misquoted Madeline Albright during a campaign appearance, proclaiming, "There's a place in Hell reserved for women who don't support other women." Albright actually said "women who don't help other women", but whatever.

Point is, these two sure do seem to be right with the Lord. They're pretty confident that they have the moral authority to discuss how other people deserve to burn in Hell. And if the recent tactics against Barack Obama are any indication, they think there's a spot in Hell for him, too. The fact that he worked on a couple of community projects with William Ayers, who was once a radical extremist - even though by the time Obama met him, he was a respected and law-abiding member of the community and of the educational establishment - is evidence enough for McCain and Palin that Obama is "too risky" to be president.

While listening to the sound bites from McCain and Palin's campaign stops yesterdaay, and hearing the links between Barack Obama and William Ayers repeated again and again, I realized that the whole thing sounded sorta familiar. I did some quick Googling, and I found what I was looking for.

Here is a description of the life of another important and well-known figure, written by a highly-respected scholar; see if you can spot the similarities between this and the Obama/Ayers discussion:

This person..."was the most active resister perhaps known to history...a troublemaker, par exellance". He "was not just provocative; his actions were illegal...His entire life led up to the culminating confrontation with the powers of his day...His words were revolutionary...All his actions vary in focus and intensity; all are illegal and draw the ire of the ruling and religious authorities."

In addition, "[He] dined with a social outcast...fraternizing with the enemy...[He] publicly embraced all those excluded by societal laws..."

So who was this "troublemaker" who, like Ayers, defied the law in order to challenge the powers that be, and who, like Obama, associated with the outlaws of his society? Well, it just so happens that it was Jesus. You know, the Son of God, the King of Kings...that guy. Seems He had a real tendency toward civil disobedience, according to writer and lecturer Father John Dear. The author is a Jesuit preist who, earlier this year, was nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize by the Archbishop Desmond Tutu. Dear, in his 1994 book, The Sacrament of Civil Disobedience, writes:

"The Gospels make plain that Jesus regularly mingled with 'sinners and tax collectors'...By sitting at table with a tax collector, sinners and other public outcasts, Jesus must have shocked everyone."

Discussing Jesus healing the lepers, Dear says, "This act was civilly disobedient because it went beyond the designated boundaries of society, from those nebulous areas where some people are considered 'insiders', to those clear-cut, off-limits places where others are declared 'outsiders'...Jesus deliberately touched the leper who came begging to him, and in doing so, Jesus broke the sociological and religious barriers of society...Jesus was now a marginalized outsider: he had violated all the taboos." Hmm, insiders and outsiders...where else have I heard this lately?

So, am I saying that Obama = Savior? Christ, no! But I am saying that one of the basic tenets of Christianity is "Love the sinner, hate the sin". Which begs the question: why is Obama being castigated by McCain and Palin for associating with a former radical activist? Are men not allowed to work side by side on charity boards because one of them was once a criminal? And if they do work together, do you truly believe that the experience makes the other man a criminal too, by extension?

I thought the GOP were all up on their Bible studies, but I guess they forgot that Jesus had time for everyone, including prostitutes and theives. In fact, Jesus saw fit to accept, as one of His 12 apostles, a man known as "Simon the Zealot", who was a fierce Jewish nationalist and, as a young man, subscribed to the beliefs of the Zealots. According to Wikkipedia,  "the Zealots objected to Roman rule and sought violently to eradicate it." But isn't that philosophy kinda like...domestic terrorism, or something? And yet Simon the Zealot was OK by Jesus, was selected to hang with His posse, and was eventually canonized as a Saint in the Catholic, Anglican and Lutheran Churches. I can only assume that, when "Christians" like McCain and Palin ask "What Would Jesus Do?", they don't mean it literally, because if they did, then Barack Obama wouldn't be catching the crap he is right now.

Perhaps the McCain folks hadn't heard the news yet, but there's this whole "Ten Commandments" thing, and one of the items on that list is, "Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbor." Any discussion of how Obama "palled around" with William Ayers, despite a lack of any evidence to support a relationship of that nature, would probably run afoul of that "false witness" idea. I am willing to bet that there's a very, very  special place in Hell reserved for those who break a commandment in the pursuit of political gain.

It is a sad time for all of us as Americans, because, at a moment when we desperately need a leader to guide us to better times, we are being asked to accept a team of self-serving politicians who would rather point fingers at others than get their own house in order. After years of divisive politics under a polarizing administration, one candidate wants to stick with the status quo and maintain an "us-vs.-them" mentality. I can't help wondering who could have advised McCain and Palin that hypocritical self-righteousness is a good way to win the hearts of Americans. Now, who could have come up with such a diabolically bad strategy? Hmmm...I don't know...could it be...



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

A special place in Hell for McCain and Palin

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