Middle School Politics: State of the Union Seating Rules

While Martin Luther King Day may have conjured up images of courageous sit-ins last week, members of Congress have been trying to stage a sit-in of their own. Democratic Senator Mark Udall of Colorado has proposed that politicians sit with members of the opposite party during the president’s annual State of the Union address tonight. Udall makes some good points in his proposal letter, including, “The choreographed standing and clapping of one side of the room – while the other side sits – is unbecoming of a serious institution.”

Udall’s calls of bipartisan squattage seem to have caught on, with more than 25 members of Congress supporting the idea. The true test will take place on January 25, when Congress members file into the Chamber and pick their seats.

Expectations for the middle-school era seating rules are running high in Washington. Udall’s letter says that it is an opportunity “to bring civility back to politics.” Alaska’s Senator Lisa Murkowski has said that it is “a good first step towards greater civility.” Massachusetts Senator Scott Brown went so far as to invoke MLK’s name, saying, “I think Dr. King would appreciate the bipartisanship that I have shown that others have shown.”

The back-slapping and feelings of self-satisfaction may be premature. The very fact that sitting next to someone from the opposite party is seen as major progress–indeed, something to make Martin Luther King proud–simply proves that something needs to be done to return civility to politics. And by something, I mean something with a little more shelf life than the length of a presidential speech. Nancy Pelosi and John Boehner sitting next to each other for the length of a short movie is not going to get much, if anything, done.

Ira Katznelson, author of Liberal Beginnings: Making a Republic for the Moderns and political science and history professor at Columbia University, says that the participation will likely be underwhelming, “A small number of individuals, I suspect, will act on this idea, and more only if the leadership of both parties joins in the promotion, which seems quite unlikely.” He also says that should the seating occur as Udall would like it, the underlying policy fight remain: “I think the impact would be modest, at best, since both mass and elite polarization are quite real, and differences of perspective and opinion are very sharp. Still, the tone might change, if modestly, while the policy fight goes on.”

The reason for the seating statecraft stems from the shooting of Representative Gabrielle Giffords in Tucson. The tragedy forced politicians and pundits to tone down the rhetoric, at least as long as Giffords’ condition remained uncertain. Once it became clear that she would live, the blame and self-victimization began. Many looked at Sarah Palin’s map which contained crosshairs over Giffords’ district. This prompted Palin to compare treatment of her to centuries of anti-Semitism. Rush Limbaugh said that Jared Lee Loughner had the full support of the nation’s Democrats. A song began making its way around Twitter called “Sarah Palin Battle Hymn.” Recorded back in October, the song’s unfortunate resurgence was exacerbated by lyrics like, “Sarah Palin, she won’t listen to their bunk / Sarah Palin’s going south to hunt some skunk.”

Sitting Democrat-Republican-Democrat is not going to curb this type of militant language and rhetoric by itself. It may be a good start, but taking the word “killing” out of the official title of the act to repeal the last Congress’ health care law may be a better one. It could move things in the right direction, but so could having a modicum of decency and not playing the victim while six people were mourned and others held on for dear life. It may begin the movement toward civility in politics and punditry, but it needs to be recognized as an extremely small gesture up against much larger examples of political incivility. The last thing that the seating arrangement should be is an example of post-partisan politics heralded by politicians as an excuse to continue their polarizing ways.

Photo - Senator Mark Udall (Washington Post)

Post-Shooting Blame: Music versus Politics

A commenter on my last post (and by a commenter, I mean the sole commenter) brought up an interesting point that had crossed my mind prior to posting. He/she said:

You might be able to create an interesting parallel to the blame on music for various school shootings. 

Who's responsible if some people are unable to handle a message?

I think the most salient example of blaming music for various school shootings is Columbine. When Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold shot up their Colorado high school back on April 20, 1999 the fingers began pointing at Brian Warner aka Marylin Manson. In fact, politicians began lining up behind anti-Manson groups that aimed to discourage people from listening to the singer. Manson, out of respect for the victims of the Columbine massacre, canceled the rest of his concert tour, while making it clear that he felt that music and goth culture were being scapegoated.

Other musicians caught flack, including bands like KMFDM and Rammstein. At the time, I believed that the arguments that bands like this contribute to an atmosphere that would facilitate a school shooting or some other act of mass violence to be ridiculous. I still hold this view.

There is one absolutely crucial difference between talking heads like Palin and Limbaugh and musicians like Marylin Manson or Eminem (another target of blame for various school shootings). Palin and Limbaugh masquerade as serious people; in other words, they are reported on in the media as having something to add to a national conversation about politics or society. People like Marylin Manson and Eminem are entertainers. They're not here to get out some political message or get us to vote for one person or another. People turn to music and entertainment to get away from all the crap they have to put up with on a daily basis, not to learn more about it.

Now, in reality, Palin and Limbaugh are on the same plane as a Marylin Manson or Eminem entertainment-wise. They get paid millions of dollars to entertain. Unfortunately, given the lackluster media America turns to for information, Palin and Limbaugh are treated as something more than entertainment. They're treated as leaders of a conservative movement fed up with anything remotely liberal or centrist. If they are going to revel in this role (which they clearly have) as well as enrich themselves from it, it should come as no surprise that they will be held responsible for helping to expand what Ross Douthat called "the darkness" last Sunday.

And then there's personal responsibility. Let's not forget who's really in trouble here. Jared Loughner is behind bars without bail. Palin is not being arrested or fined or anything like that. She is being criticized for being a hack, and rightfully so. People pointing out that Palin used violent imagery on her website or that Rush Limbaugh had an extremely violent billboard is not "blood-libel" (a term used out of sheer ignorance on Palin's part rather than malice). The statements saying "Violent imagery like this is not appropriate in the wake of the Tucson tragedy," misses the point. It was not appropriate before Representative Giffords was shot and it remains inappropriate today.

Jared Loughner is clearly a nutjob. I would argue he is unable to handle many things, the least of which is violent imagery by leading political blowhards. But if this is the case, why arm someone with this type of message? This would be like me giving every person in America a gun and then when violence breaks out escaping any type of responsibility by saying, "Well, clearly these people could not handle the responsibility of a firearm."

I think it bears repeating: Sarah Palin is not to blame for the Tucson tragedy. She is to blame for adding to increasingly violent rhetoric surrounding politics. Take the Tom and Bill example from Monday. Tom wanted Bill to get hit by a bus. Bill got hit by a bus. Obviously Tom didn't cause Bill to get hit by the bus, but he's still a jerk for saying it.

Was Loughner influenced by the rhetoric of "leaders" like Palin and Limbaugh? We'll never know because his mind is so messed up that anything he says is suspect. What we do know is that Palin put a gun sight over Giffords' district and Giffords was shot in the head. If you want to use all of this violent imagery and then violence occurs, be ready to deal with a lot of scrutiny, whether you were directly a part of it or not. To quote Representative Giffords: "When people do that they've got to realize that there are consequences to that action."

Photo - Rush Limbaugh billboard in Tucson, AZ (Mediaite)

Should Sarah Palin Be Blamed for the Giffords Shooting?

No. At least not more than the individual who hopes that someone they do not like gets hit by a bus, only to have that happen. What Sarah Palin can be blamed for is her callousness and inability to admit wrongdoing in the wake of an act that, given the trajectory of extremist rhetoric that has scarred political discourse, was sadly inevitable.

Back in March Palin put up a map of Congressional districts held by Democrats that she wanted to be overtaken by Republicans in the midterm election. She chose the unfortunate imagery of gunsights to point out the districts. At the time she was heavily criticized at the time for this move by many (including me). She did not back down, instead Tweeting after the health care vote, "Commonsense Conservatives & lovers of America: "Don't Retreat, Instead - RELOAD!" Pls see my Facebook page." Luckily for those uninjured in the recent shooting of Representative Gabrielle Giffords, alleged shooter Jared L. Loughner was tackled before reloading a second clip of his Glock.

The excuse being paraded around Palin headquarters as of late–that the sights over Giffords' and others' Congressional districts were surveyor's sights, not gun sights–is insultingly weak. Palin's a well-documented gun enthusiast. Her passion for Abraham Lincoln's pre-presidential occupation? Not so much. Her camp's insistence that the sights are simply surveyor symbols is akin to Matt Hale claiming that his use of a swastika refers to the ancient Buddhist symbol, not the Third Reich.

But the most chilling thing about Palin's gun sight map is that Representative Giffords herself commented on it back in March while talking to MSNBC. In that interview she said, "We're on Sarah Palin's targeted list, but, the thing is, the way that she has it depicted is she has the crosshairs of a gun sight over our district. When people do that they've got to realize that there are consequences to that action."



Let's repeat for reptition's sake: Sarah Palin is not to blame for inspiring Jared Loughner to try to kill Representative Giffords. Has Palin contributed to a political landscape that has become increasingly hyperbolic and extreme? Yes. Has she inappropriately used violent gun imagery? Yup. Has she unapologetically defended her use of this imagery, even in spite of the Giffords shooting? Without a doubt. It's for these reasons that Palin deserves scrutiny and should be ashamed of herself.

Take the hit-by-a-bus example I started this post with. If Tom wishes Bill to get hit by a bus, and Bill does, Tom will probably feel pretty bad. If Tom publicly states this wish for Bill to get hit by a bus to all of his friends and anyone else who will listen, and then Bill does get hit by a bus, what are those people going to think of Tom? Obviously Tom didn't make Bill get hit by a bus, but the simple expression of it is inappropriate and made more so by Bill's accident. Same with Palin. You want to put gun sights over Giffords district, and then tell people to not retreat but reload, and it happens that Giffords gets shot? You better be able to put your tail between your legs and admit you were wrong and petty and immature, not insult our intelligence by telling us you didn't mean what you really meant.

Ross Douthat had an excellent column in the New York Times yesterday about the tragedy. He points out previous homicidal shooters (Lee Harvey Oswald, Arthur Bremer) and notes that they were not necessarily motivated by politics. Instead they were mentally ill, grasped by some delusion that led them to kill (or attempt to kill). With the reports of Loughner coming out, it seems that in all likelihood he will join these famous assassinators–not motivated by politics specifically, but more by an unknown mental phantasm. Douthat has one portion of his column that struck me:

When our politicians and media loudmouths act like fools and zealots, they should be held responsible for being fools and zealots. They shouldn’t be held responsible for the darkness that always waits to swallow up the unstable and the lost.

I agree that politicians should not be held responsible for "the darkness" that Douthat alludes to. This darkness has always existed and will always exist no matter what politicians do. But what happens when politicians and others contribute to this darkness? What kind of responsibility should they shoulder?

Photo - 2009 Sarah Palin calendar (Wall Street Journal)

Sarah Palin: Jan Brewer Has the "Cojones" that Obama Lacks

Sarah Palin's attempt to be funny/folksy/whatever her shtick is may have gone a little too far on "Fox News Sunday" when she said that President Obama lacked the testicular fortitude to "look out for all Americans." In her discussion of Arizona's misguided immigration law, Palin said:

And, Jan Brewer, bless her heart, she's going to do all that she can to continue down the litigation path to allow secure borders because she's – Jan Brewer has the cojones that our president does not have to look out for all Americans – not just Arizonans – but all Americans in this desire of ours to secure our borders and allow legal immigration to help build this country. . . . if our own president will not enforce a federal law, more power to Jan Brewer . . . to do what our president won't do. [emphasis mine]

Palin Defends Paul Against the Media's Hunt for a "Gotcha Moment"

Rand Paul, son of frequent presidential candidate Ron Paul and now the GOP's nominee for the US Senate seat in Kentucky, has run up against some difficult questions and interviews in the week since his primary victory. A self-proclaimed Tea Partier and a die-hard libertarian, Paul has gained much of his political traction in recent months because he espouses the view that the federal government should stay out of nearly all private affairs, greatly reduce all taxes, and drastically cut spending. These are the issues he ran on, and no doubt why he trounced Kentucky Secretary of State Trey Grayson in the primary.

McCain: "I Never Considered Myself a Maverick"

In a move that clearly shows McCain's desperation stemming from a challenged primary for his Arizona Senate seat by former Congressman J. D. Hayworth, McCain told Newsweek in a recent interview that he "never considered [himself] a maverick." McCain, who very much owned that term during the 2008 presidential election, seems to have completed the decimation of his image as an above-the-fray politician to a pandering, willing-to-say-anything-to-get-elected hypocrite.

He cannot honestly think that the American people are as dumb as his former running mate. It's only been a little more than a year since the presidential campaign when he was using the word "maverick" with impunity. Until Saturday, that is, when he disavowed himself of the word as casually as one would an buzzing gnat; a small annoyance. But unfortunately for McCain his attempt to indulge his base by denying that the majority of 2008 ever happened is well off the mark. And it's also going to piss off this guy.

Happy April Fools' Day!

To honor this unofficial holiday I was going to write a post praising Palin and the Tea Partiers, ending it with "April Fools!" However, trying to come up with a post that sounded realistic and not over-the-top ridiculous proved to be an impossible task. So instead, I wanted to focus on Palin and the Tea Partiers in two humorous ways (is there any other way?).

Palin Jumps on the Nazi Comparison Bandwagon

On Friday I discussed Godwin's law and its applicability to politics. Now a "frontrunner" for the 2012 Republican nomination has compared Obama's administration to the Third Reich, albeit slightly more subtly than Rush Limbaugh did last week. Harking back to the pseudo-science of eugenics (a tenet synonomous with the Third Reich), Sarah Palin stated that she fears losing her parents and her son under Obama's healthcare plan that would supposedly weed out the less "productive" of society.

What she said was extreme, considering she essentially accused Obama of wanting to set up a "death panel" to decide who gets health coverage based on their perceived value and productivity to society. What Palin stated, in other words, is that Obama wants to re-establish the practice of state-supported eugenics in this country by denying those who this imaginary "death panel" deems unworthy of medical coverage. I like to think that this country has come a long way from Buck v. Bell; there is no evidence of a desire by the Obama administration to set up a death panel to withhold health coverage based on subjective predicted productivity in society.

But Palin struck a different tone in a later Facebook post, saying that

"we must stick to a discussion of the issues and not get sidetracked by tactics that can be accused of leading to intimidation or harassment. Such tactics diminish our nation’s civil discourse which we need now more than ever because the fine print in this outrageous health care proposal must be understood clearly and not get lost in conscientious voters’ passion to want to make elected officials hear what we are saying. Let’s not give the proponents of nationalized health care any reason to criticize us."

So first Palin fans the flames of extremism by claiming that the Obama administration will practice Nazi-era eugenics through a death panel, then calls for civility in the health care debate? Hypocrisy at its finest. There were two contradictory posts on her Facebook, one original post and another, cover-your-ass kind of post. I wonder which one was sincere. Peace.

Photos - Sarah Palin (Examiner)

Palin's Nixon-esque Epiphany: The Media Does Not Play Nice

While I was caught up with Gates-gate, something else was happening that I wanted to expand upon but did not have the time: Sarah Palin's abrupt departure from the governorship of Alaska. While bizarre by itself - as someone who constantly touted her executive experience leading the state on the campaign trail with John McCain last year - her parting words were very similar to another embarrassment for the Republican Party.

When Richard Nixon lost his bid for the governorship of California in 1962, he gave what he deemed his "last press conference," telling the media that they won't have "Nixon to kick around anymore." He hoped that his words would make "the press recognize that they have a right and responsibility to, that if they're against a candidate, to give him the shaft, but also recognize that if they give him the shaft, put one lonely reporter on the campaign who will report what the candidate says now and then." We all know that this was not Nixon's last press conference, and he went on to win the presidency of the United States, and then tarnished the office like no one else could.



Contrast Nixon's "last press conference" with Palin's "last press conference." She stated, "You represent what could and should be a respected, honest profession that could and should be a cornerstone of our democracy. Democracy depends on you, and that is why -- that’s why our troops are willing to die for you. So how about in honor of the American soldier, you quit makin’ things up." So the formula for the fake last press conference goes as follows: tell the press what their job/responsibility is, and then cry foul for being personally attacked by the media. It sounds like Palin thinks she got shafted like Nixon.

But Palin's criticisms of the media is akin to the boy crying wolf. Remember back in October when she tried to say that the media was infringing upon her right to free speech? Comments like that tend to illegitimize one's views on a particular subject. Did Palin get a bum rap in the media? Sure. The real question is, did she deserve it? The way I see it, the media just did the majority of the vetting that McCain's campaign neglected to do. Were some of the media's things wrong? Sure. The last thing I would have done is publish a story that said that the governor's newborn was her daughter's unless I was 110% sure it was true. Hurtful? You bet. But again, and I'm not saying that Palin was asking for it, because it was way out of line, but did Palin think that the media was going to play fair?

I mean, come on, this is a country which has produced Rush Limbaugh as a figurehead of the Republican Party. A person who plays "Barack the Magic Negro" on his show, a person who says that he hopes the Commander-in-Chief fails, who goes through wives like underwear and who gets away with illegal drug transactions by paying the DA's office, is one of the most influential media elites. Bill O'Reilly, someone who pays off a former employee after sexually harrassing her. Hell, G. Gordon Liddy has a nationally syndicated radio program. And Palin brought her family (which was in turmoil) into this company, thinking the media had a code of conduct?

Unfortunately, it just seems to be the nature of the game. It's almost like a rite of passage. McCain went through it in 2000, Obama sure as hell went through it (they had to dig as deep as Rashid Khalidi - seriously?). Palin went through it, as well. So while Palin may have a point in that she was not treated well by the media (for justified and unjustified reasons), to say that it was unfair is a bit much, as the media tried to dig up as much as possible on everyone (remember George Stephanopoulos' question about Ayers that was fed to him by Sean Hannity?). Hell, we're having a debate during one of the most trying times in America about where Barack Obama was born. It'd be funny if it weren't so sad.

The Daily Show With Jon Stewart	Mon - Thurs 11p / 10c
The Born Identity
http://www.thedailyshow.com/
Daily Show Full Episodes Political Humor Joke of the Day

Is the media messed up? Of course. Have I done too many question and answer phrases in this post? Absolutely. But the one thing about the media is this: by debasing everybody in order to get more viewers and ad revenue (you think O'Reilly's $9 million salary pays for itself?) it puts everyone on an even playing field. Sure, that playing field may be extremely muddy and a crappy one to play on, but everyone's on it. So Palin's right, the media does not play nice, but by selling out and sensationalizing everything, in a sense one could say that they play fair. And besides, America already fell for the whole "silent majority" and "I'm being unfairly targeted as a bad person" thing with Tricky Dick Nixon. And if you think we're going to fall for that again because we'd rather focus on an already debunked rumor than the issues and what this nation really needs, well, then you might be in the right spot (provided you can prove beyond your birth certificate, local newspapers, governors, and non-partisan fact checkers that you were born here). Peace.

Photo - Palin resigns (Esquire)

Bill Kristol's Logic: McCain Victory Good for Liberals

Reading Bill Kristol's column today made me wonder, "How does this stuff make it past the common sense police?" Kristol goes into an argument about how a McCain victory would mean good news for liberals, while at the same time painting everyone on the left as anxiety-ridden crybabies when it comes to electing a president. He even cites a young woman from Denver who put her relationship on hold while she awaited the results of the election. Are there people like this in the Democratic Party? Yes. Are there equally nutty people on the right? Given what we've seen at McCain/Palin rallies, you bet there are. Yet Kristol continues to pool all liberals into one group, saying that he's here to help us in the case of a McCain victory (it's just like the Second Coming!).

But maybe Kristol's right. Maybe those conservatives supporting McCain and Palin are actually nice people, voting on the issues and not rumors like Obama is a Muslim or hangs out with terrorists. Maybe, as Kristol says, "conservatives will greet the news [of an Obama victory] with [their] usual resolute soicism or cheerful fatalism." Or, maybe not:





But it's unfair to pool all conservatives into one group like Kristol did with liberals. There are obviously fringe elements on both sides, though it just seems that one side is basing their anger on 8 frustrating years of Bush/Cheney and the other side is basing their anger on rumors of terrorist ties and religious affiliations (did I mention one of the candidates is black?). As one reads more of Kristol's article, however, it becomes apparent that the man has no idea what he's talking about. His first point as to why an McCain victory would help liberals is that it would be a win for an underdog. Yeah, because a 70+ year old white man who's been in Washington for almost three decades beating an under-50 black man in Washington for less than a full Senate term is an underdog victory.

His second point was that a McCain victory over Obama would be a defeat for the establishment. Because cheating on your first wife with a woman whose family is worth over $100 million, and then marrying her and launching your political career with her father's money and connections really says, "Fuck the establishment."

His third point: a McCain victory would be a victory for the future. He says that, "Liberals should therefore welcome a McCain win as a triumph of hope over fear, of the future over the past." Seriously? Voting a well-educated, qualified black man into the White House only 50 years after the Jim Crow era would be a triumph of the past over the future? Are some of Obama's votes from white guilt? Sure, but he's also qualified and I think more votes come from his qualifications than his skin color (I would even argue his skin color does him more harm than good in the eyes of the electorate). But apparently McCain, with the whole Keating Five scandal and decades of Washington experience, is the candidate of hope and the future.

Fourth point: A vote for McCain is a vote for freedom. Beyond the fear-mongering and the not-so-subtle "Obama is un-American" tone this has to it, Kristol's primary citation is McCain's defense of the surge and Obama's continued criticism of it. Do we forget that Obama was against the war before it was cool? That's like someone saying, "Here, play with this snake, it won't bite." And despite your unwillingness to do so, you are forced to play with it and it bites you. Then your friend says, "Well, it's actually a really poisonous snake and now we have to cut your leg off so the poison doesn't spread." Then somehow your friend is baffled when you want nothing to do with him after you lose a leg thanks to his ignorance. But he was right about cutting off your leg!

Fifth (final and most desperate point): Executive and legislative control by one party usually creates a political superstar for the other party (citing Carter and Reagan, Clinton and Gingrich). Then the scare tactics: it might lead to a Palin presidency in 2012! Reagan must be rolling in his grave and Gingrich must be angrily e-mailing Kristol for comparing them to Sarah Palin. Reagan may have been highly misguided, but he was no Sarah Palin. He was smart, and while Gingrich is similarly misguided, the two have done more good for their parties than Palin ever will. If Obama wins this election, you will see public attitude toward Palin change drastically, as she will be cited as one of the main reasons McCain could not pull it off in November. Plus, why is it a bad thing for the other party to have a qualified political star who increases public debate on the issues? If anything, that's what we'll need if the Democrats dominate the executive and the legislative branches (I'm already assuming a strong Republican showing in the 2010 midterm elections in the event of an Obama victory).

In his little wrap-up describing what McCain needs to do to win, Kristol pens an emblematic line about the McCain campaign. He says, "It's an inside straight. But I've seen gamblers draw them." The entirety of the latter-half McCain campaign has been a gamble. Palin to win PUMA voters, going extremely negative (trying to tie Obama to Ayers and Khalidi), and praising Joe "Obama = Death to Israel" the Plumber as McCain's role model. But the thing with gamblers (and this is one area where Kristol is right) is that sometimes they win big. Nothing is written in stone and until all the votes are tallied and all the hanging chads are counted, we do not know who the president-elect will be on November 5. No matter what your political affiliation or who you are voting for, this is America and it requires the people's participation. So please, go out and VOTE!

Photos - Bill Kristol (nytimes.com), Barack Obama (en.wikipedia.org), John McCain (en.wikipedia.org)

Palin's Loose Grasp of Reality Continues: Freedom of Speech Infringement?

Anyone who heard about what Sarah Palin said to Chris Plante, host of a conservative radio show, must be confused (as I am). She thinks that because the media has called her attacks on Obama regarding Bill Ayers, Jeremiah Wright, and Rashid Khalidi negative (was she trying to paint them in a positive light? If not, then it's negative) her right to freedom of speech that is guaranteed in the First Amendment is in danger of being infringed upon.

Full interview, Part I:

Part II:

(Skip to 0:50 in part 2 to hear Palin's comment on freedom of speech)

It is quite clear that Palin is in troubled waters with this comment. To begin with, a private entity (like the media) cannot illegally infringe upon one's freedom of speech (at least if that person is not an employee; you enter a grayer area when it comes to the EEOC) because that right is guaranteed under the Constitution and thus requires a state action to even to be considered as an infringement of that right. Secondly, in the type of open environment that we as United States citizens and residents are lucky enough to enjoy, there is what is called a "marketplace of ideas," to quote Oliver Wendell Holmes. One person says something, another person can respond, others can join in and rebuttals and such can be offered up. That is part of the beauty of America. Debate is necessary to bring out the truth.

So to say that because you are criticized your freedom of speech is being infringed upon is ridiculous. The same tenet that gives one the right to say whatever he/she wants gives someone else the right to criticize you (add freedom of the press guaranteed by the same amendment and the media's ability to call something negative is enhanced). To say that because someone rebuts what you say or paints it in a way that you do not find favorable it infringes on your freedom of speech (and thus the party who criticized you should not do so for the greater "good" of the people's first amendment right) is ridiculous and totalitarian.

Additionally, there are many people in the world who would love to be in Sarah Palin's shoes when it comes to free speech. To people in nations like China, Cuba, Venezuela, or North Korea (to name a few) if some criticism were all that accompanied speaking out against the government (which Palin is certainly doing when she talks about the Washington elite, etc.) they would be ecstatic. Instead they must deal with beatings, imprisonment, even death for exercising their human right to free speech, and they still manage to use that right whenever possible. For Palin to say that the media calling her attacks on Obama negative (again, there are no positive attacks) a potential infringement on her freedom of speech is insulting.

If Palin is feeling bullied by the media for calling her ridiculous assertions that Obama's policies will be shaped by some hippy like Bill Ayers negative, she needs to either begin talking about the issues or, if she wants to continue to try to smear Obama, deal with it. Freedom of speech goes two ways, and to say that the first amendment's dichotomous nature is preventing the utilization of the right in the first place is ludicrous. Is Palin under media scrutiny? You're damn right. When you're a heartbeat away from the presidency and your own running mate does not vet you and all you have to talk about is Obama's acquaintances instead of the issues, what can you expect? Obama, McCain, and Biden have gone through the same process, though it was months and months ago and people seem to forget it (Stephanopoulos anyone?). It also does not help that she has made many missteps so far in front of the nation (I can see Russia from my house!). Palin likes to say that she calls them like she sees them. It seems as if the media is doing the same thing with her. Peace.

Photos - Palin (Wall Street Journal), Oliver Wendell Holmes (Wikipedia)

Joe the Unlicensed Contractor, Sarah Palin, and McCain's Hypocrisy: A Trifecta of Scare Tactics

While the main headline grabber yesterday was Obama's 30 minute informercial (which was done surprisingly well and not as schticky as I thought it would be), the McCain campaign yesterday still managed to make waves in the news world. The newly minted McCain campaign's Sabbatai Zevi (read: Joe the Unlicensed Contractor) dropped a bombshell yesterday at a McCain campaign supported bus tour in which he agreed with a member of the audience asking questions who stated that a vote for Barack Obama would mean the death of Israel. The scare tactics continue.

Later when Joe the Unlicensed Contractor was on Fox News with Shepard Smith (of Jenny from the Block Blowjob fame) he was pressed to explain why he felt that a vote for Barack Obama was a vote for the death of Israel. He could not explain why he felt that way beyond saying that Obama has stated that he would sit down with the President of Iran without preconditions (something "Joe" mistakenly labeled as an action and not just words when, in reality, saying you will do something manifests itself in the form of words):



Joe said an interesting thing in the phone conversation. When asked what Obama's stance on Israel was, he avoided the question and stated, "Let people go out and find it...Find out why they would think that I would say that...You don't want my opinion on foreign policy; I know just enough probably to be dangerous." I think I know why Sam would say something like that. It's probably because he has no idea what he's talking about and cannot state Obama's stances on Israel. And Joe/Sam is right, we don't want his opinions on foreign policy.

All of this continues with the scare tactics of the McCain campaign (who, after Joe/Sam's recent fear mongering put out a statement essentially backing Joe's comments). But rule number one when trying to smear a distinguished professor in order to get a barb or two in about your political opponent: know how to pronounce the guy's name (skip to 2:25 if you don't want to watch the whole thing).



If Sarah Palin knows so little about Rashid Khalidi that she cannot even pronounce his name correctly, why are we supposed to listen to her assertions that Khalidi was a former PLO spokesman? Additionally, as the Olbermann tape above mentioned, in 1998 the International Republican Institute (IRI) gave $448,873 in a grant to the Center for Palestine Research and Studies (CPRS) (page 14 of the PDF, grant # 5180). The interesting thing about 1998 is that John McCain was the chairman of the board of the IRI and Rashid Khalidi was one of the founders of CPRS. In a statement yesterday the IRI stated that, "We understand that Rashid Khalidi was one of the many founders of CPRS, and we understand that he was for some (unclear) amount of time a board member. IRI did not in the 1990s conduct background checks of grantees’ founders or board members. IRI did on a number of occasions vet CPRS as an organization, including, as was our custom, with the Israeli government, and we were given no cause for concern." No concern, of course, until John McCain can try to use it as a smear against Obama.

So while Joe/Sam the Unlicensed Contractor seems to be Sarah Palin's male counterpart (not vetted properly, entirely unready for national attention, saying stupid things in front of the media, and embraced by the McCain campaign), a bigger McCain issue is his own hypocrisy. I understand that McCain could not have possibly remembered giving money (albeit half a million dollars) to Khalidi's organization, but don't the speechwriters at the McCain campaign factcheck or make sure there are no conflicts of interest or overt hypocrisy? If this is the competency level of the campaign with less than a week to go until Election Day, it makes you wonder how ready any member of that camp, nevermind the higher-ups, would be to run one of the most powerful countries in the world. Peace.

Photo - Joe the Unlicensed Contractor (who apparently may be in line for a country music deal) (popwatch.ew.com)

Straight Up Scare Tactics

One quote from a CNN article struck me in particular as being emblematic of the McCain campaign lately. The McCain campaign has been desperately grasping at straws since they have determined (but also have inadvertently strengthened) the stigma that the media and the country have "written them off." The latest is taking it to a new level. Back in April (yes, APRIL) the LA Times wrote a piece about a farewell dinner for Rashid Khalidi, a UChiacgo professor who was slated to leave to go to Columbia, and Obama's attendence. The paper reported that at that dinner, a young Palestinian-American woman read a poem that was highly critical of the United States policy in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. The paper had also received footage of the dinner, which Obama was at, and promised the source of the tape that it would not air it (read: journalistic integrity). Some have pointed to the LA Times and said that this is an example of media bias. Unless the source that the LA Times has does not exist or has not requested that the tape remain unaired, the LA Times is doing the right thing. McCain decided to bring this up anyway today in a last ditch effort to scare people away from Obama.

The quote I was referring to earlier, the emblematic one, came from a McCain aide who replied, after being asked why this was being brought up 6 months after the report, "Because we are one week away from potentially electing Barack Obama." If that's not a fear-mongering quote for the ages, then the Celtics aren't better than the Lakers. We saw something similar from another McCain campaign participant - Bill Kristol - but no one listens to him anyway.

What is unbelievable is that - and I did not think this was possible - Rashid Khalidi is more irrelevant than Bill Ayers when it comes to Barack Obama. I cannot even believe that we are talking about this guy. If he were a PLO spokesman, why wouldn't Bush and Co. ship him to Gitmo? If Jose Padilla can be locked away like he has, and Khalidi was as dangerous as McCain/Palin want you to believe, he'd be in Cuba or some CIA black site. Instead he is teaching at a university. And just as a quick sidenote: I took a class with Khalidi (and according to McCain/Palin that makes me a dangerous person). This is what I took from his class: Western imperialism in the Middle East had unintended consequences which led to increased instability in the region that was furthered by Western action. Oooooh, dangerous.


What is important to remember in all of this is that if McCain's goal is to boost his own poll numbers, he should know that this is not the way to do it. While tactics like this may cause a temporary dip in Obama's numbers (as it seems to have done briefly when the Ayers madness reached its peak), it does not raise McCain's numbers (which is what he really needs right now). Experimenting with the Ayers connection (which did not work) and spending time debunking the myth that Obama is an Arab (as if there is anything wrong with that in the first place) among his own ignorant supporters has distracted McCain from the real issues of the election and, in the process, truly hurt his campaign for president. If McCain and Palin want to start talking about the issues at their rallies instead of tenuous relationships Obama held with academics, socialism, or how Palin has "gone rogue" I (and the media) are willing to listen. If not, then the media is just going to hop on the attacks (that's what gets viewers and, in turn, ad revenue) and his campaign will continue to suffer. It's up to you, McCain. You can begin to focus on the issues, possibly win the White House (or, if you end up losing, it will be with a shred of dignity left) or you can continue to focus on the bullshit and probably end up losing the election and your reputation. Peace.

Photos - Sarah Palin (Rockford Register Star), Barack Obama (Daily Nation)

The Election Has Not Happened Yet

Just a quick reminder to the media: the election is a week from now and has not occurred yet. With all of the reporting lately on Obama's poll numbers and that 60+ Democratic Congress, one would think that November 4 has come and gone and Obama was president-elect and Pelosi and Reid the two most powerful people in Washington. Not so fast.

While it may be true that Obama's lead in the polls is a very high 16 points, he also led by 10 points (which is considered a sizable margin) against Hillary Clinton in the New Hampshire primaries. For those of you who forgot, Obama lost that state. Why? Numerous factors were involved - a good ground game by Clinton, an outpouring of female voters, and other unknown variables.

So who is predicting all of this Obama and Democratic-led hoopla? The media, the pundits, and also the McCain campaign. Obama and his staffers like to remind themselves of what happened in New Hampshire and say that they are playing it like they are 10 points down, not 16 up. Obama reminded his supporters in New Hampshire that you have to run through the finish line and not let up during the last portion of the race:



But McCain seems to be jumping on the fact that many people have "written him off." He continues to point to the poll numbers, reminding people that he is down by a lot:



While McCain's strategy of playing the underdog may work, it also is a big gamble (like most of his campaign since picking Palin). While it may get some voters to go to the polls because they think they can help give McCain a surge in the election, it could also get people to either stay home (thinking that it is a lost cause to vote for him when he is down by so much) or vote for Obama (for the same reason). A gamble, but like McCain's other gambles (see: Palin), it may not work out.

Through all of this we have the media fanning the flames from the sidelines. With headlines like "Republicans scramble after Stevens conviction" and "Polls show McCain not making up ground in Ohio," it's hard to imagine that many in the media do not forsee an Obama victory next Tuesday. The words "scramble" and "not making up ground" seem to be based on the assumption that Republicans are panicked and McCain is desperately seeking to catch up to Obama. We do not know if these things are true (though, to be fair about the Stevens article, some Republicans are asking Alaskans to vote for Stevens even if they think he's guilty because if he steps down the Alaskan governor (a Republican) will be able to appoint a conservative replacement - that's just desperate). Polls are not 100% accurate, and we still do not know the full extent of the Bradley Effect. Many pundits will say, "Oh, well a lot has changed since then there are plenty of excuses that people can come up with to not vote for Obama than they could have with Tom Bradley." I just do not buy this. If someone is embarassed to say that they do not want to vote for Obama because he is black, are they going to say that they don't like him because he is a Muslim or is buddy-buddy with Bill Ayers (two things that have been definitively debunked)? The Bradley effect assumes that those who take part in it have shame; people who claim Obama is a Muslim or is going to take advice from some hippie like Bill Ayers have none of it.

We should all take Obama's advice and not count the chickens before they hatch. The media simply wants to paint a big picture of a landslide victory (the whole divided America, red state blue state crap is a little played out). It's not liberal bias (though one could argue it is a backlash against Bush who played the media big time leading up to Iraq - don't forget that the media didn't treat Carter too well when things were looking bad for the country). If the roles were reversed we would be talking about what went wrong in the Obama campaign (is it because he's black? Too liberal? Was it the Ayers/Wright stuff?). Election Day is seven days away and anything could happen, so don't play along with the media's assumptions. Peace.

Photos - McCain and Obama under a polling logo (ABC News), Obama and wife Michelle after the Senator conceded the New Hampshire primary (LA Times)

Still Not Talking About the Issues: Ashley Todd a Distraction

The story of Ashley Todd, the 20 year old McCain campaign volunteer allegedly attacked in Pittsburgh due to her political affiliations, has been making the national news rounds. As with any story making national news (see: Joe the Unlicensed Contractor), media scrutiny can sometimes lead to fact-checking (unless it's the Iraq War). As it turns out, Todd was not attacked by anyone and it appears that she inflicted her injuries upon herself (including carving a "B" into her cheek - backwards).

This would have little to no political consequences if it were left untouched by both campaigns. People would have written it off as some looney in western PA looking to seek attention. The reality of the situation is, however, that both campaigns took notice of Ashley Todd's allegations. Barack Obama's campaign simply said that they hoped Todd would recover quickly. The McCain campaign went a little further.

John McCain actually called the woman up, and Sarah Palin talked to the woman's family. While going a little further than the average campaign statement wishing the "victim" well, still not a horrible thing to do. The main issue is the fact that many reporters who first reported on the story say that their source was not the police department, but the McCain campaign itself:


While I do believe that the McCain campaign had something to do with injecting the story into the national news spotlight quicker than normally would have happened (if something like this would have reached the national news anyway), I do not think that they did it knowing it was false. Their main error was pushing the story before all the facts were out.

But now the McCain campaign ends up with egg on their face. While the McCain camp may not have participated in overt race-baiting, Fox News did not waste time attributing the unidentified black male's actions against Ashley Todd to the Obama candidacy:

"Part of the appeal of, and the unspoken tension behind, Senator Obama’s campaign is his transformational status as the first African-American to win a major party’s presidential nomination. That does not mean that he has erased the mutual distrust between black and white Americans, and this incident could become a watershed event in the 11 days before the election. If Ms. Todd’s allegations are proven accurate, some voters may revisit their support for Senator Obama, not because they are racists (with due respect to Rep. John Murtha), but because they suddenly feel they do not know enough about the Democratic nominee."

So because a black man allegedly attacked a white woman in Pittsburgh (classic racial fear, right Woody?), it should make people rethink their support for Barack Obama as a black president because they do not know enough about him? Unless Barack Obama himself attacked the woman, I do not see how it should bear on him at all. Linking the two due to race is racist (even Murtha would tell you that).

Ironically, in the same post, John Moody (VP of Fox News), admits that not all of the facts are out and says that the McCain campaign will be ruined if this turns out to be a hoax (maybe he was privy to the McCain campaign pushing the story...?): "If the incident turns out to be a hoax, Senator McCain’s quest for the presidency is over, forever linked to race-baiting." Never mind that Moody himself was blatantly race-baiting in his misguided remarks about how Obama, as a black man, should be doubted in light of an imaginary black man in Pittsburgh.

The fact of the matter is, the story should not have been pushed by the McCain campaign. In an election where issues of race have been highlighted due to Obama being black, one would think that a large black man attacking a young white woman (and sexually assaulting her) supposedly due to her allegiance to the McCain campaign would be off limits, with the exception of the "get well soon" statements, until all of the facts were 100% verified (and even then it may be unwise to discuss it). Alas, the McCain camp clearly needs to brush up on its Tawana Brawly and Francisco Nava knowledge. Of course, they could always talk about the issues... Peace.

Photos - Ashley Todd (Times Online), Ashley Todd, this time in handcuffs (Faniq)

Real vs. Fake America?

Palin's comments last week, when she referred to the "pro-America" places that she and McCain visit as the "real America, have touched off a rhetorical firestorm. In her comments at a fundraiser in Greensboro, North Carolina, she said that "We believe that the best of America is in these small towns that we get to visit, and in these wonderful little pockets of what I call the real America, being here with all of you hard working very patriotic, um, very, um, pro-America areas of this great nation. This is where we find the kindness and the goodness and the courage of everyday Americans. Those who are running our factories and teaching our kids and growing our food and are fighting our wars for us. Those who are protecting us in uniform. Those who are protecting the virtues of freedom." Apparently Palin thinks that big city folk do not possess the kindness and goodness of everyday Americans and that they do not fight in America's wars. In other words, the large cities (which, by no small coincidence, tend to lean democratic) are not pro-American.

Palin has since apologized for the comment, realizing how dumb it was to say. Of course, in the same interview she expressed how inexperienced Barack Obama was and rattled off her experience as being a mayor of Wasilla, Alaska as one reason she is more ready for the Oval Office than he is. Jon Stewart sent a correspondent to Wasilla to find out about its "realness" and also get an inside look into the mayor of Wasilla's duties:

No social services? Really? I guess they're too busy signing the checks over at Wasilla town hall.

But Sarah Palin is not the only one on the McCain campaign who sees different parts of America as "real" and other parts as "fake." Nancy Pfotenhauer, a McCain campaign adviser, dismissed an MSNBC anchor who, when discussing the state of Virginia and its vital importance to McCain come November 4, stated that the northern portion of the state, which tends to lean democratic, had recently strengthened in terms of its electoral power statewide. This was Pfotenhauer's response:

So it seems that anything liberal or sympathetic to the Democratic Party is not "real." Earlier this month McCain's brother Joe stated that northern Virginia was "communist country" while at one of the candidate's rallies. This pales in comparison to what North Carolina congressman Robin Hayes (R) said at a McCain rally in Concord, North Carolina. While first denying that he said it, Hayes finally admitted that he stated, "Liberals hate real Americans that work and achieve and believe in God."

It's clear what this is. The old "Us vs. Them" idiom. The only problem is that the "Us" and the "Them" are on the same side: they're both American. It is idiotic to try to divide this country at a time when we are at war with two nations and as soon as one war seems to go well, the other falls apart (Afghanistan to Iraq, then back to Afghanistan) and the stock market is in turmoil because neither party stepped up to the plate to try to regulate the Wall Street leviathan. Instead of talking about these issues, we talk about what parts of the country are real and which are not, Joe the Unlicensed Contractor who brought the tax debate to the forefront despite his own tax liens, and how liberals are not as patriotic as conservatives (a move straight from Karl Rove's dirty little book). One congresswoman, Michelle Bachmann (R - MN), has even suggested that the news media do a "penetrating expose" on anti-Americans in Congress because she feels that Barack Obama may not be the only one:

Somebody wake up Joe McCarthy from the dead and get the old HUAC hacks, apparently their job is not done because there are still liberals in the United States.

If I could describe the way that this race has been going the past couple of weeks, I would choose pathetic. The country's economy is in the shitter, we are fighting two wars, the Bush Administration has used the Constitution as toilet paper the past few years, and we're talking about "real" parts of America and small town "pro-America" (never mind that 9/11 happened in the biggest city in the nation), anti-Americanism in the halls of Congress, and BILL FUCKING AYERS. Bill Kristol said in his column on Monday that he did not think that anti-intellectualism was "rampant in the land." Given the way that the McCain campaign and a lot of others in the Washington elite have been acting lately (Robocalls are not exactly intellectually stimulating), I would have to say McCain and company are banking on Bill Kristol being wrong (yet again). Peace.

Photo - Sarah Palin (www.foxnews.com)

McCain Cannot Let Go of Joe the Plumber

The McCain campaign strategy seems to be invoke something, find out it was a big mistake, but try to go with it and convince the American public that your mistake was actually part of the plan (see: Sarah Palin). So it is with Joe the Plumber. Without looking into Joe's credentials (or lack thereof), McCain decided to thrust the guy into the national spotlight in a an ill-advised debate style which hinged on him. Once the media looked into the guy (as McCain or any other sane individual knew they would) they found out some interesting facts.

Joe the Plumber's real name is Samuel Joe Wurzelbacher and, in reality, he is not really a plumber. Despite insisting that he does not need a license to practice his trade, the folks who run Toeldo, Ohio say that he does. And his claim that he is about to buy his employer's $250,000 plumbing business may not be true, either. In any event, it is worth watching Obama's answer to Sam (Joe), because instead of brushing him off, he takes the time to explain his plan to him and makes sure that he understands it:

Wurzelbacher seems to get it and to appreciate Obama's time to answer his question. Now, beyond McCain's initial incantation of Joe the Plumber at the third debate, his campaign seems to be grasping the idea of Sam (Joe) the Plumber (probably in their attempt to portray themselves as populists). McCain has even gone so far as to call up Joe (Sam) to ask him to come out to some campaign rallies. Rather than let the Joe the Plumber fad die, McCain seems to want to embrace it despite the recent revelations of the real Joe (Sam).

Palin also seems to be embracing Joe the Plumber. She has said that he had the courage to stand up to Obama and that should be commended. Indeed, it should, because politicians do not get asked legitimate questions (it is too bad that this time it seems that the questioner was not the best person to be asking the question given his tax history). But Palin should not be praising Joe the Plumber, for when she faced a similar incident in Philly and was called out on it later, she said that Katie Couric was participating in "gotcha journalism": (you can ignore the interview with the guy who asked the question, because he seems like a pompous ass)



So, isn't Palin caught in "gotcha politics" (isn't that a pizza place?) when she invokes the Joe (Sam) the Plumber question? Is it not hypocritical for Palin to say that she should not be called out on her answer to a random voter (in which she agreed with Barack Obama's ill-advised plan to enter sovereign Pakistani land to get terrorists without Pakistani approval, which is in direct opposition to John McCain's position), but that Barack Obama's answer should be scrutinized? Or is it still sexist to ask Sarah Palin about things she has said and what she believes?

All of this Joe the Plumber stuff is getting annoying. He asked Obama a good question, and Obama answered him quite well. The McCain campaign, looking for anything to bring attention off of their policies and anything else that may mean something to the voter before the election, have continually brought up Joe the Plumber to show, "Hey, look, I own eight homes, but I still care about your average Joe; I'm a populist! Greed and corruption on Wall Street!" Once Joe's 15 runs out, it'll be back to the Ayers non-connection. But while McCain and Palin continue to use the image of Joe, I propose a name change . I think we should call him Joe the Unlicensed Contractor. Peace.

Photo - Obama and Sam (Joe) (www.timesonline.co.uk)

McCain Appears to Reverse Course of Campaign; Is it Too Late?

It appears that the McCain campaign - after a week of personal attacks and smears against Obama - wants to play nice again as his poll numbers begin a sharper decline than we have seen in the past few months. The most current poll puts Obama well above McCain (50%-43%) with just over three weeks to go in the election. A month ago today, McCain was leading Obama 47%-45%. Many pundits and political insiders have pointed to the McCain campaign's tactics of the past week (namely to use personal and character attacks on Obama rather than discuss the issues in an era that, while precedented, nonetheless has people very worried), as one of the reasons for this fall in the polls.

It now appears that the negative campaigning that the McCain campaign has employed - whether through Palin and her "palling around" with terrorist accusations against Barack Obama or surrogates like McCain campaign co-chair Frank Keating (no relation to the Keating Five) bringing up Obama's experimental drug use while in college - did not have the effects that McCain and company had been hoping for. This led McCain to quickly try to calm down his hostile crowds by saying that Obama was a "decent" man when people attacked him and spread rumors that he was an Arab. While not distinctly refuting the Arab mischaracterization, he has tried to, as the Globe says, "restore civility" to his campaign.

This, of course, does not mean that he is going to denounce other disrespectful attacks on Obama from within the Republican party or at his own rallies. This video, which has been circulated around the internet for a few days now, shows a McCain/Palin supporter with a Curious George doll with an Obama bumper sticker wrapped around the doll's head. When he realizes that he is being captured on videotape, he tries to surreptitiously stash the Obama sticker away and give the doll away to a confused child in the audience:


Of course you can't take one racist that looks like a pedophile from a Sarah Palin rally and apply it as the model to all those who attend McCain/Palin rallies. You also cannot take the folks who yell out "terrorist" or "kill him" when Barack Obama's name is brought up at these rallies as representative of the entire group. But notice that when McCain attempts to take the moral high ground and repudiate these comments, he uses generalities and vagueness. Maybe he doesn't want to admit that the same people making these comments are wholeheartedly supporting him and he desperately needs their votes; alienating them would alienate a Republican base that he has worked so hard to win over following initial doubts to his loyalty to the party line. But as McCain and his aides realize, when you pander to the extreme right wing of the Republican party, you lose moderates and independents who may very well lean toward the other candidate (as we have seen with Obama's surging numbers and McCain's stagnant and slightly falling numbers).

Sometimes, however, McCain does not even turn to the vague repudiation of ridiculous attacks on Barack Obama. That was the case with Virginia GOP leader Jeffrey Frederick when he compared Obama to Osama bin Laden, saying that both had friends who bombed the Pentagon (he was referring to Bill Ayers, who Obama met later in life as they both served on a Chicago board for education but in a previous life had organized a domestic terror group that bombed a toilet in the Pentagon, which injured no one). When pushed on the comparison, Frederick stuck to it. When asked about what he thought of Jeffrey Frederick's remarks, McCain not only did not say that they were inappropriate, saying that we needed to know the full context (I wonder what context would make that appropriate), but took the moment to repeat his attack on Obama for being on the same board as Ayers:

It seems that while McCain doesn't want to find himself in Lady Macbeth's shoes, trying to wash the blood from his hands when it is already too late, he has little problem with others doing some dirty work at arms length. That way, McCain can make it look like he is above the fray, while others make the attacks on Obama that tend to alienate moderates and independents in this country. McCain is in desperate territory; some advisers and previous supporters are beginning to distance themselves from the campaign so as not to be sucked into the collapse should McCain lose November 4. Will McCain's "honorable" turn-around be enough to help him overcome a large deficit in less than a month? I'm leaning towards no, but as I've said before, the Democrats cannot get too cocky, because the sole fact that this race is even within the ten point margin with one of the candidates backing an immoral and incredibly unpopular war, among other unpopular stances, is telling. Peace.

Photo - Two supporters at a McCain rally in Virginia Beach (blog.indecision2008.com)

Ayers Connection Non-Existent: Now It's Back to Wright

If anyone was unfortunate enough to read the ever-wrong Bill Kristol today in his New York Times column, you probably were left scratching your head saying to yourself, "Is this how inexplicably desperate the McCain campaign is?" You see Kristol, who is a foreign policy advisor to the McCain campaign, has brought the Reverend Jeremiah Wright back from the dead in the last month of the campaign.

In his unsubstantive interview with Sarah Palin, Kristol says that when Palin mentioned Ayers, he countered with the assertion that Jeremiah Wright has a closer relationship to the Democratic nominee for president than the former self-proclaimed terrorist. Palin, taking the obvious hint from Kristol and pouncing on it, said the following: "To tell you the truth, Bill, I don't know why that association isn't discussed more, because those were appalling things that the pastor had said about our great country, and to have sat in the pews for 20 years and listened to that...to me, that does say something about character. But, you know, I guess that would be a John McCain call on whether he wants to bring that up." Kristol follows with the line, "And I guess we'll soon know McCain's call on whether he wants to bring Wright up - perhaps at his debate with Obama Tuesday night." It appears that neither Palin nor Kristol realizes that McCain has already put the issue to bed.

Back in March, McCain essentially put the kabash on the issue in an interview with George Stephonanopoulos' best friend Sean Hannity when McCain said - after some insistent baiting by Hannity - "I do know Senator Obama, he does not share those views."

So while McCain said eight months ago that the Reverend Wright issue was essentially irrelevant, the campaign's major mouthpiece at the New York Times and the campaign's vice-presidential candidate are bringing it back up in a desperate attempt to drag down Obama. Given the fact that Palin is not really allowed to give input on important decisions - such as the McCain campaign pulling out of Michigan - I would not expect her to realize that the decision regarding Wright had been made months earlier.

Of course, we should all take anything that Kristol says about Wright with a large grain of salt. He is the same man who, in March of this year, stated that Obama was in the pews on the day of Wright's infamous "God damn America" sermon. A little fact-checking was done and Kristol was forced to apologize when it was proven that Obama was not at the church that day. Kristol's writing should always be suspect - he is a bit of a snake when it comes to honesty - but when talking about matters concerning Jeremiah Wright, everything should be, in Santa's manner, checked twice.

Naturally, Bill's column had other issues with it. While pointing out that Palin regretted allowing herself to be handled more than a competitor in the Westminster Dog Show (and before anyone twists my words I am not calling Mrs. Palin a dog), he pointed out how when he asked her if she would challenge Biden to another debate he believed he heard a lot of staffers in the background before Palin gave her answer (though this could just be speaking to Palin's habit of not knowing what is going on in the world around her). He also said that he would volunteer to moderate a debate between the two vice-presidential nominees. Clearly this would be a conflict of interest considering Kristol serves on McCain's campaign (although, to give Kristol a break here, it could have been a tongue-in-cheek comment). But his last line in the column - Hockey Mom knows best - is just ridiculous. Watch the Katie Couric interviews, Bill, and try to repeat that line with a straight face.

I've said it before and I will say it again: why is Bill Kristol given a spot at the New York Times? Are the Times that desperate for a conservative writer that they hire Bill Kristol? After his insistence on Iraq and its projected aftermath was shown to be completely - not even just a little bit, but completely - wrong, why is he a major part of the national conversation? Let him take his spot at Fox News and tell those not concerned with the facts what they want to hear. If Kristol wants to try to argue the issues, that's fine and possibly worthy of a weekly column for him. But if he wants to use his column as a mouthpiece for the McCain campaign by focusing on things like Bill Ayers and Jeremiah Wright when real issues like the economy and foriegn policy are what need to be discussed, let him go serve out his journalistic career as a Fox News hack. Peace.

Photos - Palin at a rally in Florida (Huffington Post)