Presidency to the Highest Bidder!

John McCain, who continues to be portrayed as a maverick out to change campaign finance law, also continues to show a personal relativism on the matter that should be garnering more media coverage. The latest news is that the Republican National Committee plans to raise $120 million to support his candidacy. This comes on top of his breaking of his own campaign finance law and decision to opt out of the campaign finance system.

McCain's proposed tax cut (making the very Bush cuts he once voted against permanent) would according to a recent analysis by Gordon and Kaval (Washington Post, The Trail, March 23, 2008) cost $2 Trillion over the next decade and deliver 58% of the benefits to the top 1% of taxpayers and only 4% to the bottom 60%. They also question whether his health plan will actually help Americans attain high quality healthcare.

Yet McCain feels comfortable claiming that Obama is "out of touch" with the frustration of working class people in America. This sort of rhetoric continues to work in my mind largely because the media allows these attacks to go unchallenged and because they themselves are completely out of touch with working class America. While the media continues to talk about Obama's pastor, his race and his latest comments, it appears the real McCoy (I mean McCain) story stuffed in the back of the post deserves substantially more coverage.

Redux from yesterday: A poll by ABC News and the Post finds that the comments that were going to cost Obama the presidency and maybe even the democratic nomination have had little effect: www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/04/15/AR2008041503586.html?wpisrc=newsletter. Obama is closing the gap in Pennsylvania, is ahead in Indiana, is ahead in the poll in almost all categories except leadership (including electability), now leads Clinton in CA and other states she won, has more delegates, has won the popular vote and is close in the pledged superdelegates. But of course Clinton continuing to run a near-futile attempt at somehow coming out on top is good for democracy, as she attempts to destroy the probable democratic candidate.

What the Matter With Bitterness?

The New Republic has just put in their rather hefty two cents on the latest Obama imbruglio. John Judis (www.tnr.com/toc/story.html?id=bf08a566-7c44-446a-aa34-7889b0f24b5a) with little supporting evidence, claims that Obama has already essentially lost the general election and maybe the democratic nomination because of this comment. I think there are several problems with this article and this line of reasoning in general. For one, the press seems to have forgotten that Americans put the democrats in charge less than two years ago to end the war in Iraq. The only legitimate anti-war candidate is Obama and McCain, besides being at an age that could make some uneasy and essentially arguing for continuing most of the Bush policies of the past 8 years, is more bullish on Iraq and bellicose on Iran than his newfound hero (Bush; remember the guy who used dirty politics in South Carolina to capture the Republican nomination eight years ago).

I think Obama's charisma, his nonpareil speaking abilities and his ability to toe the line between his earned privelege and his modest background may actually connect with the white working class that may feel wedge issue politics is costing them too much these days: stagnant wages and growing unemployment, increasing income and wealth gaps, rampant political and economic corruption, sons and/or daughters stuck in Iraq or dead and the whole other host of concerns surrounding the failed policies of conservatives.

Obama's comments were right in line with Thomas Frank's book (as I said below) and the press did not lambast him for writing it. The real conceipt is for a senior editor at the New Republic to speak for the majority of people in the U.S. under the premise that the very things Obama is talking about is all that white working class people care about. This is not a cohesive, homogenized mass, but individuals who make decisions based on a number of factors -- unfortunately including gun control, abortion, faith and backlash political strategies. To allow Clinton to continue to use the ugly political strategies of the right as a last ditch effort to squeeze out the nomination shows the extent to which the media and even TNR have turned away from substance to cover politics in purely cynical terms. Hopefully the clarion call for hope and substance will subsume this cynicism outside the towers of our failing fourth estate.

Hillary Rove?

The strategy currently being employed by the Clintons bears a striking resemblance to the one used by Republicans from Reagan forward -- and particularly by Karl Rove. They have played the "race card" on several occasions, through their surrogates, claiming a Black man can't win the presidency. They have used erroneous arguments and facts to bolster their claim that Hillary is the better Democratic Candidate -- by mentioning the big states she has won, even as it is clear most if not all of those states will be won by Obama as well (and a recent poll found Obama ahead in California). The fact that Obama is winning in the smaller, more competitive states actually may benefit Dems in the general election if he can turn any of them over.

The latest attacks may be the most absurd. Obama's oft-repeated comment:

"It's not surprising, then, they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren't like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations."

appears to be a relatively accurate explanation for Republican victories in recent years and the general strategy employed during the conservative revolution -- namely playing on a backlash against the 60s, civil rights movement and feminism with a hearkening to an idyllic past when women were in the home, blacks were largely segregated from whites and hard work, religious virtue and community thrived, as a mechanism to win over working class voters who essentially acted against their own economic interests based on a series of wedge issues like abortion, affirmative action, immigration and gay marriage that symbolized the cultural war for America's soul(see, for example, Frank's book, What's the Matter with Kansas?). Yet Clinton has taken this comment (made in private) and turned it into a rallying cry for her turn to the right.

She now sounds like a gun-toting religious fanatic, two weeks after she denounced the radical comments of Obama's minister and close friend. And this all comes on top of the inaccurate comments the Clintons have made about Obamas record throughout the campaign (including that he supported the policies of Reagan, based on an absurd misreading of a point he made during that speech). It appears as if there is no line Hillary won't cross in her increasingly futile attempt to win the nomination by subverting the democratic process and counting on the superdelegates or voters in Florida, where Obama didn't even campaign.

The worst part of this ugly campaign, including the infamous "phone call" ad Republicans will probably use in the general election, is that Hillary Clinton appears to be willing to hand the election to McCain rather than show the slightest integrity or concern for the future of the country, if she doesn't run it. I hope the people of Pennsylvania and the remaining states see the facade that this campaign has become and end this caustic internecine war.

Clinton Comeback??

Last night was a saving grace for Clinton and the media has shifted its discourse overnight. However, early estimates show that she only cut into Obama's lead by 4 delegates. That means she needs to make up another 150 with only 611 left. More troubling is her turn to the negative; which appears to be a quadrennial Democratic habit to internally mar their own candidates. Last week, Clinton mocked Obama's message of hope and change -- showing her own cynicism and commitment to backing the status quo. This cynicism became even more apparent with her latest ads in Texas showing a child in bed and the old message of fear that seems to be all many Democrats have to offer.

As to McCain, I am very troubled by a tendency of the media and many democrats I know to assume he would govern from the middle. There was a point in his career when he was a renegade on some issues, but his current discourse seems to put him squarely in conservative quarters. To point:

1) He claims he will make Bush's tax cuts permanent, going against his own votes against those tax cuts at the time.
2) His position on Iraq seems almost delusional. He's happy to keep up there for a 100 years (in his own words) and continues to claim we are winning the "war."
3) After being a champion of campaign finance reform, he seems to have broken his own law to get extra money for his campaign at a crucial moment that all but guaranteed him the nomination.
4) He is essentially conservative on most social issues and will probably be in a position to elect a number of supreme court justices if he wins the election.
5) Conservatives will most likely unite behind him now and come out in large numbers, particularly if they face Hillary (or maybe even Obama, as a Black man). Democrats must be vigilant if they want to win what once looked like an easy victory.

One hopes democrats and independents will wake up to the facade that McCain is presenting to the public and recognize that there is more to leadership than a presumptive (and increasingly questionable) incantation to "integrity." One also hopes the media can put aside what has been a general reverence for Senator McCain to actually cover the issues and his questionable shift to conservatism in recent years. At least a boy can dream . . .

Take a Position, Any Position!

An article in the New York Times yesterday tells us that Al Gore, Nancy Pelosi and several other prominent Democrats plan to remain neutral throughout the rest of the primary process: www.nytimes.com/2008/02/16/us/politics/16delegates.html?th=&emc=th&adxnnlx=1203293177-6kNYj%20zNrKf7zieEzNtvEA&pagewanted=print While this may make sense as they do not want to make enemies with the potential candidate, it is somewhat troubling that timidity continues to rule the day so often with Democrats. Pelosi who was once considered too liberal to lead the Democrats in Congress has been largely ineffective and tended to give too much away to the President losing almost every battle she decides to fight. This seems emblematic of a party that can't seem to find a heart, or any consensus, on what it is they stand for and who they stand with. At least the Republicans wage battles over ideas and what their central ideological positions are. I think it's time for the Democrats to do the same (and not just debate electability and the fine nuances of specific issues in perpetuity).
Obama at least talks about changing the tone in Washington and challenging Democratic orthodoxy. Gore and Pelosi appear to me to be symptomatic of the problem with Democrats since Clinton (and earlier to be honest), which is a lack of resolve and integrity as regards their positions and platforms. I would love to hear a politician with the resolve to say "we need to raise taxes to deal with the deficit, etc." Gore, while since proving himself a man of integrity and principles, lost an election that he should have won in a landslide simply by running on the record he and Clinton amassassed over 8 years. Instead he couldn't decide if he was a new democrat, a populist or an alpha male on the prowl. In the debates, which he should have easily won, he first came off as a rapid dog in heat, then a timid lamb who couldn't find a substantive differences between Bush and himself then a populist who stood with the people against power.
Kerry suffered from similar problems after being anointed by the mainstream media, after they dismantled the candidacy of Howard Dean with a video clip taken completely out of context. Certainly Bush used dirty tactics, including the Swift Boat debacle the media failed to adequately covered, but Kerry never made it clear what he stood for and this is symptomatic of so much of a Democratic establishment that would rather not lose by failing to take any strong, potentially unpopular positions than to win by standing for something: and I mean anything!
Democrats have become like the left since the fall of capitalism -- in making their only position that of negation -- but they further have taken Republican cynicism as their calling: believing that winning at any costs trumps actually believing in something or fighting for it. I think this is why Obama has inspired so many and why the establishment is so scared of actually giving him a chance. I just hope all this talk of superdelegates and neutrality from up high doesn't end up as the latest wrong moves that have cost Democrats and this country for too long . . .

The Election

As the election season heats up, I thought I would add my rather inconsequential two cents on a relatively daily basis; focused on the discourse and media coverage of the campaign. Today's New York Times op ed by the milquetoast David Brooks

www.nytimes.com/2008/02/12/opinion/12brooks.html?th=&emc=th&pagewanted=print

seems rather reasonable on the surface. Yes Democrats are making promises they can't keep and will have tough decisions based on the rising deficit and faltering economy upon entering office (if we win). But, there is of course a solution that could help cut those deficits (which were surpluses when GWB entered office, lest us forget). It is simply to turn back the clock and, along with McCain in his original votes before moving right and trying to rewrite his personal history, get rid of the irresponsible Bush tax cuts that simply gave more money to the wealthiest Americans. Democrats should restore the inheritance aka "death" tax, close the loophole for hedge fund managers (who make in the tens and hundreds of millions and pay 15%) and return the system to its more progressive roots (we have essentially ended up with a de facto flat tax today). Of course, the "tax cut" tango must be challenged -- tax cut from the left, tax cut from the right, tax cut for a boom, tax cut for a bust -- and we might remember that there are alternative economic policies available to anyone with a little imagination or a history book that goes back over ten years. As the income gap continues to increase, our education system continues to fail us and the baby boomers shuffle towards retirement and old age someone better realize the times they are a-changing (again) and forge a new path . . .

Bush Announces New Plan to Cut Crime: Before It Happens

By Gina Tonic

BUTTE, Montana, April 11, 2003 – Expanding the preemptive strategy of the war to homeland security, the President and Attorney General today announced a bold new crime initiative. With the bill, the administration hopes to substantially reduce the crime rate by catching criminals before they act.

“Waiting for crimes to happen is waiting too long for crimes to happen,” the President said today after an Iraq War update and a long midday nap.

An unnamed administrative official told In Praise of Folly that Mr. Bush first thought of the idea after seeing the futuristic action film Minority Report. “Wouldn’t it be cool if we could do that now,” he was quoted as saying at the time. “Get these evildoers before they have the opportunity to do bad things to upstanding businessmen and women.”

“Now that we have seen the successful implementation of our plan to free the Iraqi people, I mean secure weapons of mass destruction, I mean free the Iraqi people, it is time to capitalize on the successful preemptive strike strategy.”

The central feature of the plan is a massive racial, religious and socioeconomic profiling plan that should weed out most of the potential criminals before they even consider the idea of committing a crime. “I am confident that we can implement this plan without hearing from those whiney civil liberties folks,” said White House Press Secretary Ari Fleischer. “At least I hope so.”

The new law will be placed as a rider in the bill currently going through Congress to give full immunity to gun producers against those annoying lawsuits. “If we really want to fight crime in this country we need to arm all Americans. How else do we expect to protect ourselves?” said Attorney General John Ashcroft. “We are also in the early planning stages of a training program that will allow citizens to strike preemptively against terrorists right here at home. We are calling the plan American Gun Owner Freedom.”

Bush Clarifies Environmental Policy

By Pierre E. Stroika

NEW YORK, April 9, 2003 – In a move that should appease environmental groups and end two years of unyielding contentiousness, President Bush has clarified his environmental stance. Speaking to a group of his favorite corporate sponsors, the President explained “By allowing air pollution and our environment in general to continue to worsen, we can deal with one of the other persistent problems in America today, the exorbitant cost of health care for the aged.”

“By reducing life expectancy, we can abrogate [sic] the strain on Social Security and Medicare while increasing profits for corporations – making the lives of the young that much more satisfying before they die,” Mr. Bush continued.

The President believes that we could also help the economy by kicking out all those “tree-hugging hippies” that are constantly standing in the way of business interests. “I’m hoping to inseminate [sic] into Patriot Act II language that will allow us to excremate [sic] any American that thinks the environment is more important that the economy, or who puts their own health above the need of the country and its invaluable business leaders.”

“I’m satisfied,” said Greenpeace activist Summer Lane. “I wish he had just told us that in the first place instead of pretending that he wanted to help the environment by burning down all the trees, making pollution abatement voluntary and loosening restrictions.”

“Few can argue with the economic position put forward by the administration,” said Alan Greenspan. “Following the advice of Captain Spock, the needs of the many clearly outweigh the needs of the few.”

Other groups also felt the honest approach was turning the tide in the debate. “He did say he was going to restore honesty and integrity to the office, and who can argue with him now. Clinton pretended he like the environment, and yet look at the meager amount he did,” said one non-profit director that wanted to remain anonymous.

Business leaders were also satisfied with the decision. “Listen, it will be much easier for us to explain how we see the world now. Why should we have to pretend to care when our mission is clearly just to maximize profits? It’s like some people have never even taken Economics 101,” said ex Adelphia CEO billionaire John Rigas from his prison cell.