Sunday, November 23, 2008

A Letter to My Brother Newt Gingrich - Candace Gingrich on The Huffington Post

by Candace Gingrich

November 22, 2008

Dear Newt,

I recently had the displeasure of watching you bash the protestors of the Prop 8 marriage ban to Bill O'Reilly on FOX News. I must say, after years of watching you build your career by stirring up the fears and prejudices of the far right, I feel compelled to use the words of your idol, Ronald Reagan, "There you go, again."

However, I realize that you may have been a little preoccupied lately with planning your resurrection as the savior of your party, so I thought I would fill you in on a few important developments you might have overlooked.

The truth is that you're living in a world that no longer exists. I, along with millions of Americans, clearly see the world the way it as -- and we embrace what it can be. You, on the other hand, seem incapable of looking for new ideas or moving beyond what worked in the
past.

Welcome to the 21st century, big bro. I can understand why you're so afraid of the energy that has been unleashed after gay and lesbian couples had their rights stripped away from them by a hateful campaign. I can see why you're sounding the alarm against the activists who use
all the latest tech tools to build these rallies from the ground up in cities across the country.

This unstoppable progress has at its core a group we at HRC call Generation Equality. They are the most supportive of full LGBT equality than any American generation ever -- and when it comes to the politics of division, well, they don't roll that way. 18-24 year olds voted overwhelmingly against Prop 8 and overwhelmingly for Barack Obama. And the numbers of young progressive voters will only continue to grow. According to the Center for Information and Research on Civic Learning, about 23 million 18-29 year olds voted on Nov. 4, 2008 -- the most young voters ever to cast a ballot in a presidential election. That's an increase of 3 million more voters compared to 2004.

These are the same people who helped elect Barack Obama and sent a decisive message to your party. These young people are the future and their energy will continue to drive our country forward. Even older Americans are turning their backs on the politics of fear and demagoguery that you and your cronies have perfected over the years.

This is a movement of the people that you most fear. It's a movement of progress -- and your words on FOX News only show how truly desperate you are to maintain control of a world that is changing before your very eyes.

Then again, we've seen these tactics before. We know how much the right likes to play political and cultural hardball, and then turn around and accuse us of lashing out first. You give a pass to a religious group -- one that looks down upon minorities and women -- when they use their
money and membership roles to roll back the rights of others, and then you label us "fascists" when we fight back. You belittle the relationships of gay and lesbian couples, and yet somehow neglect to explain who anointed you the protector of "traditional" marriage. And, of course, you've also mastered taking the foolish actions of a few people and then indicting an entire population based on those mistakes. I fail to see how any of these patterns coincide with the values of "historic Christianity" you claim to champion.

Again, nothing new here. This is just more of the blatant hypocrisy we're used to hearing.

What really worries me is that you are always willing to use LGBT Americans as political weapons to further your ambitions. That's really so '90s, Newt. In this day and age, it's embarrassing to watch you talk like that. You should be more afraid of the new political climate in America, because, there is no place for you in it.

In other words, stop being a hater, big bro.

Friday, November 14, 2008

Sitting on top of the world - Garrison Keillor in The Chicago Tribune

November 12, 2008

by Garrison Keillor

Be happy, dear hearts, and allow yourselves a few more weeks of quiet exultation. It isn't gloating, it's satisfaction at a job well done. He was a superb candidate, serious, professorial but with a flashing grin and a buoyancy that comes from working out in the gym every morning. He spoke in a genuine voice, not senatorial at all. He relished campaigning. He accepted adulation gracefully. He brandished his sword against his opponents without mocking or belittling them. He was elegant, unaffected, utterly American, and now (Wow) suddenly America is cool. Chicago is cool. Chicago!!!

We threw the dice and we won the jackpot and elected a black guy with a Harvard degree, the middle name Hussein and a sense of humor—he said, "I've got relatives who look like Bernie Mac, and I've got relatives who look like Margaret Thatcher." The French junior minister for human rights said, "On this morning, we all want to be American so we can take a bite of this dream unfolding before our eyes." When was the last time you heard someone from France say they wanted to be American and take a bite of something of ours? Ponder that for a moment.

The world expects us to elect pompous yahoos, and instead we have us a 47-year-old prince from the prairie who cheerfully ran the race, and when his opponents threw sand at him, he just smiled back. He'll be the first president in history to look really good making a jump shot. He loves his classy wife and his sweet little daughters. At the same time, he knows pop music, American lit and constitutional law. I just can't imagine anybody cooler.

It feels good to be cool, and all of us can share in that, even sour old right-wingers and embittered blottoheads. Next time you fly to Heathrow and hand your passport to the man with the badge, he's going to see "United States of America" and look up and grin. Even if you worship in the church of Fox, everyone you meet overseas is going to ask you about Obama, and you may as well say you voted for him because, my friends, he is your line of credit over there. No need anymore to try to look Canadian.

And the coolest thing about him is the fact that back in the early '90s, given a book contract after the hoo-ha about his becoming the First Black Editor of The Harvard Law Review, instead of writing the basic exploitation book he could've written, he put his head down and worked hard for a few years and wrote a good book, an honest one, which, since his rise in politics, has earned the Obamas enough to buy a nice house and put money in the bank. A successful American entrepreneur.

Our hero who galloped to victory has inherited a gigantic mess. The country is sunk in debt. The Treasury announced it must borrow $550 billion to get the government through the fourth quarter, more than the entire deficit for 2008, so he will have to raise taxes and not only on bankers and lumber barons. His promise never to raise the retirement age is not a good idea. Whatever he promised the Iowa farmers about subsidizing ethanol is best forgotten at this point. We may not be getting our National Health Service cards anytime soon. And so on and so on.

So enjoy the afterglow of the election awhile longer. We all walk taller this fall. People in Copenhagen and Stockholm are sending congratulatory e-mails—imagine! We are being admired by Danes and Swedes! And Chicago becomes The First City. Step aside, San Francisco. Shut up, New York. The Midwest is cool now. The mind reels. Have a good day.

Garrison Keillor is radio host and author.

oldscout@prairiehome.us

Monday, November 10, 2008

Will We Queers Never Learn?

Politics is one of my favorite sports. I covered the Texas Legislature as a reporter and editor for more than 20 years. Then I went to work in the Legislature as a legislative aide for one state representative and as chief of staff for another. Both were Democrats and both were women. One was white, the other black. So I have seen more than my share of how it all works and it ain't pretty.

Any election, whether it is a person running for office or a proposition on the ballot, takes a lot of work long before election day. I am always a bit amazed at how we, as a community, tend to ignore the work necessary to elect the folks we want, pass the proposals we support or defeat the ones that are onerous to us.

What I saw in the passage of Proposition 8 was a campaign that seemed poorly organized with little thought about where to focus in order to defeat the measure. I suspected the opposition would come from the African American and Hispanic communities. Having had relationships with both black and Hispanic men, I know from our conversations and their stories of growing up queer in those communities that both communities would be resistant to gay marriage.

Yet we, as a community, rather naively and blithely believe those two communities will support us because of the history of discrimination and violence they have suffered. Understand that both communities are strongly based in religions that teaches homosexuality is a sin. Like it or not, that is the cold, hard truth. And those good folks will vote their faith first.

Unless...

Unless we reach out and go to them and sit down with them face to face, all the protests and demonstrations and hate mongering we stir up will count for nothing and will, as John McCain can attest, likely result in a backlash against us. I am heartened to see so many take to the streets to march for what we believe. Where were we before the election when that same energy could have defeated Prop 8?

The work, carefully planned and executed, has to come months before Election Day. It is intense work, one on one work, work that would have sent Prop 8 down in flames had we been willing to take the time and trouble to place ourselves in the Hispanic and African American communities and talked to them.

When I talk to another person and I ask them about their experiences with discrimination and violence, when I listen intently to what they have to say and respect their beliefs and fears, a dialog opens between us and, in that moment, I am much more able to relate to them and see their side. Having laid that groundwork, I am more likely to bring them around to see the discrimination and violence practiced against me and my community. We share common ground and once we both recognize that, my task of bringing them to my way of thinking becomes much easier.

That type of intense, one on one, campaigning takes time and patience. It requires me to put aside my prejudices and anger and engage them on a very intimate level so that I understand their fears and am able to communicate my own. My experience is that 95 percent of the time, they will respond. Will they vote to support me? I can't answer that. I do know, however, they are much more likely to support me than if I get in their face and tell them they are bigots.

I only wish that half the intensity and energy our community expended protesting Prop 8's passage in the past few days had been spent in the months and weeks and days before the election. Had we done so, we would not be having this discussion now.

Sunday, November 9, 2008

Four Lessons Gay Marriage Actvists Must Learn From Obama - Lee Stranahan on The Huffington Post

by Lee Stranahan

Barack Obama won a historic and overwhelming victory. It's too bad the proponents of gay marriage don't seem to have learned much about how and why he won.

I am in total agreement with those who want gay marriage to be legal. They are right. Being right isn't enough.

In fact, many progressives have found an odd sort of contentment in being grumbling angry losers for years because they were so damn right. Now that Obama has lit the path for being both right and effective, it's time tor the conservatives to be the grumbling losers and time for progressives to chalk up victories on issues important to them by applying the lessons of this election.

1) Anger Loses
The protests and expressions of anger on the part of the GLBT community and their friends and family have been impressive. Thousands of people have taken to the street and their anger is justified. I don't think it's smart, however. I see no evidence at all that it's going to help advance the cause of gay rights.

If anger won elections, John McCain and Sarah Palin would now be the king and queen of America. McCain was practically bursting blood vessels in the last few speeches of the election and he lost in a landslide. Anger turned off the independents at the same time it fired up the base.

Just because anger is justified doesn't mean it's wise. That's where discipline comes in. As Obama said repeatedly, "Don't boo - vote." In other words, channel your emotions into something more productive then the easy road of making loud noises.

WWOD? The McCain campaign threw a fresh pack of lies at Obama every chance they got. The number of death threats towards him increased as the angry McCain campaign cranked up the rhetoric. If anyone was justified in their anger, it would have been Barack Obama. He could have struck back in anger and fired up the Democratic base to take to the streets to protest racism and lies.

Obama could have gotten angry.. He didn't. He won. We all won.

2) Get Organized
The No On 8 people have shown they can get big numbers out to a rally. So why couldn't they run an effective ad campaign, send out a clear message or win the election?

The Yes on 8 crowd had the advantage of a built in organizing system in the churches. It's the same organizational structure that explains why Fireproof, a Christian themed, ultra low budget movie with Kirk Cameron as the lead has grossed more than Oliver Stone's 'W'. Churches are good at getting groups of people to do things en masse. That's not a bad thing; it sure helps when they do charity work.

And the ability to organize people isn't a left / right thing; black churches helped Obama. There's a similar secular power with unions or groups like the National Rifle Association. None of it was harnessed by the people in favor of gay marriage to any significant degree.

Without that structural advantage, the pro gay marriage crowd needed to work harder and not be self satisfied. The forces that defeated gay marriage in California did what Obama did; they organized a diverse group of voters and got them out to the polls.

3) Outreach Works
Barack Obama showed that reaching beyond the base can yield big results. I haven't seen much evidence that the people who support gay marriage did much more than reach out to the people who already support gay marriage. In fact, rallies that have protesters yelling 'Mormon scum!' are negative outreach.

What if the gay community reached out to the black, Latino and Mormon communities that voted against gay marriage? What if instead of merely chalking up opposition to 'fear and hate' they went in churches and communities and started engaging in conversations? Would they meet with resistance? Of course. Would they see fear and hate? Absolutely. Changing a lifetime of thoughts and feelings isn't easy but the election showed us change does happen.

But African Americans, Latinos and Mormons all know firsthand the pain and frustration of discrimination. They have all seen their share of fear and hate. They know the value of marriage and family. The way to expose the things they have in common with their gay brothers and sisters is through dialog, not demonstration.

It may seem like an unlikely alliance but it's just as unlikely as getting a white working class guy to vote for a President whose middle name is Hussein.

4) Pick Your Battles
The Obama campaign showed a lot of discipline in picking which battles to fight and which to avoid. Here's a good rule; pick battles you can win.

The current tactic of trying to fight church tax exceptions is a dead on arrival loser of a battle. It's not going to happen.

Tax free churches have a long precedent in our society. It's a fight that will result in a direct battle with every religious organization in America, not just the ones opposed to gay marriage. Further, selectively going after the Mormon or Catholic church is a slippery slope. Trying to take away the tax exempt status of churches you don't like only makes it easier to take away that status for churches with inclusive agendas, like the Unitarian Universalists. Even that doesn't matter, however, since it won't happen.

Some people don't like the idea of picking battles because they want their entire agenda enacted right now. Well, wisdom says that 'perfect' is the enemy of 'good'. Incremental steps require patience but they work.

I believe that the enactment of Proposition 8 is a delay of the inevitable as our county moves towards a more perfect union. If my comrades will take a moment and learn the lessons of this last election, I hope that delay will be short.

Lee Stranahan is a writer and filmmaker who also blogs about politics at BobCesca.com which may sound like a contradiction but it's not but it is.

Saturday, November 8, 2008

You Can Forget My Taxes - Melissa Etheridge on The Huffington Post

Singer Melissa Etheridge rails against the passage of the gay-marriage ban in California—and she won't be paying the state a dime.

by Melissa Etheridge

Okay. So Prop 8 passed. Alright, I get it. 51% of you think that I am a second class citizen. Alright then. So my wife, uh I mean, roommate? Girlfriend? Special lady friend? You are gonna have to help me here because I am not sure what to call her now. Anyways, she and I are not allowed the same right under the state constitution as any other citizen. Okay, so I am taking that to mean I do not have to pay my state taxes because I am not a full citizen. I mean that would just be wrong, to make someone pay taxes and not give them the same rights, sounds sort of like that taxation without representation thing from the history books.

Okay, cool I don't mean to get too personal here but there is a lot I can do with the extra half a million dollars that I will be keeping instead of handing it over to the state of California. Oh, and I am sure Ellen will be a little excited to keep her bazillion bucks that she pays in taxes too. Wow, come to think of it, there are quite a few of us fortunate gay folks that will be having some extra cash this year. What recession? We're gay! I am sure there will be a little box on the tax forms now single, married, divorced, gay, check here if you are gay, yeah, that's not so bad. Of course all of the waiters and hairdressers and UPS workers and gym teachers and such, they won't have to pay their taxes either.

Oh and too bad California, I know you were looking forward to the revenue from all of those extra marriages. I guess you will have to find some other way to get out of the budget trouble you are in.

…Really?

When did it become okay to legislate morality? I try to envision someone reading that legislation "eliminates the right" and then clicking yes. What goes through their mind? Was it the frightening commercial where the little girl comes home and says, "Hi mom, we learned about gays in class today" and then the mother gets that awful worried look and the scary music plays? Do they not know anyone who is gay? If they do, can they look them in the face and say "I believe you do not deserve the same rights as me"? Do they think that their children will never encounter a gay person? Do they think they will never have to explain the 20% of us who are gay and living and working side by side with all the citizens of California?

I got news for them, someday your child is going to come home and ask you what a gay person is. Gay people are born everyday. You will never legislate that away.

I know when I grew up gay was a bad word. Homo, lezzie, faggot, dyke. Ignorance and fear ruled the day. There were so many "thems" back then. The blacks, the poor ... you know, "them". Then there was the immigrants. "Them.” Now the them is me.

I tell myself to take a breath, okay take another one, one of the thems made it to the top. Obama has been elected president. This crazy fearful insanity will end soon. This great state and this great country of ours will finally come to the understanding that there is no "them". We are one. We are united. What you do to someone else you do to yourself. That "judge not, lest ye yourself be judged" are truthful words and not Christian rhetoric.

Today the gay citizenry of this state will pick themselves up and dust themselves off and do what we have been doing for years. We will get back into it. We love this state, we love this country and we are not going to leave it. Even though we could be married in Mass. or Conn, Canada, Holland, Spain and a handful of other countries, this is our home. This is where we work and play and raise our families. We will not rest until we have the full rights of any other citizen. It is that simple, no fearful vote will ever stop us, that is not the American way.

Come to think of it, I should get a federal tax break too...

Melissa Etheridge is an Academy Award-winning and Grammy Award-winning singer-songwriter.

Wednesday, October 29, 2008

Remember Who We Are...

My parents, grandparents and great grandparents lived through the horrific days of the Great Depression. Though I was born 20 odd years after its beginning and 10 odd years after the beginning of World War II, I was colored by their experiences and stories of the hardships they faced and how they managed to survive both through the sacrifices they were willing to make.

Today we face similar circumstances and we stand at a turning point that will determine whether we move away from greed and fear and selfishness or whether we embrace those self destructive values.

While listening to the "town hall" Presidential debate, one woman asked the candidates what I believe was the central question we face today. A child of that Depression, 78 year old Feora from Chicago, asked via the Internet.

"Since World War II, we have never been asked to sacrifice anything to help our country except the blood of our heroic men and women. As President, what sacrifices will you ask every American to make to help restore the American dream and to get out of the economic morass that we are now in?"

McCain meandered around the question, went to his talking points and talked, in broad terms about eliminating waste.

Obama talked about how 9/11 and how the country came together and how Bush missed the opportunity to utilize our willingness to sacrifice by telling us "to go shopping." He mentioned we need to think about how we can reduce our energy needs and talked about expanding the Peace Corps. All good answers but still, in my mind, he missed the point Feora was making.

What neither did and what disappointed me about both was to make a direct call to Americans to get involved on a local, regional, state, national and world-wide basis. That is exactly what my family and yours did. The results of their sacrifices gave us the world we inhabit today.

And we have become lazy and focused on a consumer driven life style rather than dedicating ourselves to building a world of compassion and selfless dedication to others. Rather than ask "What's in it for me?" we should be asking "What can I do to help those around me?" and "What are my responsibilities to humanity?" The corresponding sacrifice is that we ask for help when faced with seemingly overwhelming situations. I have never asked that I did not also receive. And I have gained that measure of humility and sense of belonging that comes with asking for help that allows me to be a human being and part of the world around me.

We took the gifts our families sacrificed to give us and transformed them into a society which comprises five percent of the world's population and consumes 25 percent of its resources. We have become addicts of a soul-stealing lifestyle we can no longer maintain. More things are not the answer. Sacrifice and care for the people around us and the world beyond our borders can and will ignite a world where ignorance and hate and fear will not consume us but a world where compassion and integrity and dignity will feed us.

Our choices today will determine whether we as peoples of the world will survive or whether we will doom ourselves to extinction. The choice is ours. I know what my choice is. What is yours?

President Palin is Danny Elfman's "Greatest Fear"

Tuesday, October 28, 2008

McCain's chances in hell approaching zero - on 236.com


A playful McCain acts out his latest poll numbers...







The media all knows the election is over, but there's only so many ways they can describe how John McCain's campaign is going and what his prospects for winning are.
The New York Times today goes with "increasingly dire."
First Read goes with "running out of time."
The Los Angeles Times decides it's an "uphill slog."
The Arizona Republic goes with "chances appear dim," and the "political vultures are circling."
Even The Corner knows what's going on, with Rich Lowry taking a break from, uh, enjoying Sarah Palin speeches to call McCain's chances "grim."
But there's still eight days left in this thing. The media don't like writing the same thing day after day, but McCain's prospect don't seem to be in flux. So how should the media describe his campaign this week?

Monday, October 27, 2008

Felons can serve in Congress... Are you surprised?

"...he can continue to hold his seat because there is no rule barring felons from serving in Congress."

An excerpt from The Huffington Post about Alaska's US Senator Ted Stevens' conviction on corruption charges Monday.

I AM NOT surprised...

Thursday, October 23, 2008

A Day in the Life of Joe Middle-Class Republican | as posted on The Huffington Post

by John Gray

Joe gets up at 6:00am to prepare his morning coffee. He fills his pot full of good clean drinking water because some liberal fought for minimum water quality standards. He takes his daily medication with his first swallow of coffee. His medications are safe to take because some liberal fought to insure their safety and work as advertised.

All but $10.00 of his medications are paid for by his employers medical plan because some liberal union workers fought their employers for paid medical insurance, now Joe gets it too. He prepares his morning breakfast, bacon and eggs this day. Joe's bacon is safe to eat because some liberal fought for laws to regulate the meat packing industry.

Joe takes his morning shower reaching for his shampoo; His bottle is properly labeled with every ingredient and the amount of its contents because some liberal fought for his right to know what he was putting on his body and how much it contained. Joe dresses, walks outside and takes a deep breath. The air he breathes is clean because some tree hugging liberal fought for laws to stop industries from polluting our air. He walks to the subway station for his government subsidized ride to work; it saves him considerable money in parking and transportation fees. You see, some liberal fought for affordable public transportation, which gives everyone the opportunity to be a contributor.

Joe begins his work day; he has a good job with excellent pay, medicals benefits, retirement, paid holidays and vacation because some liberal union members fought and died for these working standards. Joe's employer pays these standards because Joe's employer doesn't want his employees to call the union. If Joe is hurt on the job or becomes unemployed he'll get a worker compensation or unemployment check because some liberal didn't think he should lose his home because of his temporary misfortune.

Its noon time, Joe needs to make a Bank Deposit so he can pay some bills. Joe's deposit is federally insured by the FSLIC because some liberal wanted to protect Joe's money from unscrupulous bankers who ruined the banking system before the depression.

Joe has to pay his Fannie Mae underwritten Mortgage and his below market federal student loan because some stupid liberal decided that Joe and the government would be better off if he was educated and earned more money over his life-time.

Joe is home from work, he plans to visit his father this evening at his farm home in the country. He gets in his car for the drive to dads; his car is among the safest in the world because some liberal fought for car safety standards.

He arrives at his boyhood home. He was the third generation to live in the house financed by Farmers Home Administration because bankers didn't want to make rural loans. The house didn't have electric until some big government liberal stuck his nose where it didn't belong and demanded rural electrification. (Those rural Republican's would still be sitting in the dark.)

He is happy to see his dad who is now retired. His dad lives on Social Security and his union pension because some liberal made sure he could take care of himself so Joe wouldn't have to. After his visit with dad he gets back in his car for the ride home.

He turns on a radio talk show, the host's keeps saying that liberals are bad and conservatives are good. (He doesn't tell Joe that his beloved Republicans have fought against every protection and benefit Joe enjoys throughout his day) Joe agrees, "We don't need those big government liberals ruining our lives; after all, I'm a self made man who believes everyone should take care of themselves, just like I have".

The Group Behind Prop 8 | Stuart Whatley in The American Prospect

Ultraconservative legal organization the Alliance Defense Fund is backing a California marriage ban with rhetoric about "defending" family and children.

by Stuart Whatley | October 22, 2008

In her October column on ballot initiatives, Dana Goldstein points out conservatives' tendency to employ language in their initiatives that is antithetical to their intended goal. Ward Connerly's "civil-rights initiatives," for example, seek to quash affirmative-action programs. But perhaps no group has demonstrated greater dissonance between rhetoric and reality as the Alliance Defense Fund (ADF). The ADF is a primary player in the push to pass the California Protection of Marriage Act (Proposition 8), which calls for the explicit revocation, not protection, of the gay community's new-found right to marry.

Following the ADF's defeat in California's In re Marriage Cases in May, when the court ruled that bans on same-sex marriage are unconstitutional, the ADF found reinforcements in other conservative groups such as ProtectMarriage, the National Organization for Marriage and Focus on the Family. In the following months, this conservative conglomeration successfully garnered over one million signatures to place Prop 8 on the ballot with hopes of overturning the court's ruling. The ADF's role in the case was to "defend" its position on the legal definition of marriage -- that it is exclusively between a man and a woman -- under the aegis of traditional Christian family structures.

The ADF is a Christian conservative consortium of lawyers, founded in 1994 as an answer to the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU). Its stated purpose -- to "defend the right to hear and speak the Truth through strategy, training, funding, and litigation" -- reflects an underlying paranoid worldview entirely antithetical to reality: that Christians in America are persecuted by the government and secular society. Given the ADF's incessant litigiousness and efforts at national ubiquity, this puts their defensive posturing somewhere between farcical and downright mendacious. The reality is that the ADF is a legal powerhouse that spends over $20 million a year to project its paranoid argument into courtrooms across the nation.

The ADF's main prerogative is to defend the Christian majority's "right" to suppress respective minorities' liberties. Glen Lavy the group's head of marriage litigation, claimed in May that the ADF was not challenging same-sex couples' right to marry, but rather "defending" the traditional Christian notion of marriage as a necessary condition for children's healthy development. Following the court's decision to allow same-sex couples to marry, he told reporters that "the government should not, by design, deny a child both a mother and father." Thus, the ADF spins its efforts as defensive in the interests of children rather than offensive against the interests of the minority gay community.

This, of course, is a compelling argument for those who share the ADF's traditional Christian values, and maybe even for some moderate voters. However, the "we're defending children" rhetoric is quite obviously an obfuscation of the initiative's true intent. In fact, in an April 20, 2007 memo to Congress, Lavy provides valuable insight into his actual beliefs by expressing his support for groups and individuals who consider homosexuality to be "physically and psychologically harmful" as well as "immoral."

Having lost its legal battle in May, the ADF has since redirected its efforts to guaranteeing Prop 8's passage in November. Specifically, the group has attempted to finagle the initiative's language, controlling how it will be read by voters at the ballot box. In early August, ADF lawyers filed an appeal with the court to reverse state Attorney General Jerry Brown's decision that changed the words "limit on marriage" to "eliminates right of same-sex couples to marry" in Prop 8's title. While the modification is much clearer as to the initiative's true intent, ADF Senior Counsel Joseph Infranco seemed to realize that such clearly worded language would turn off moderate voters. By arguing that "election ballot titles should be neutral and not intentionally prejudice voters," while at the same time advocating for vaguer language, Infranco perhaps revealed his own suspicion that Prop 8 must be misrepresented in order to pass. However, the court denied the appeal, affirming Brown's new wording.

California's judiciary has thus far demonstrated immunity to the ADF's rhetoric. Unfortunately, however, the organization does not limit itself to waging just one war at a time. Elsewhere, beyond California's same-sex marriage debate, the ADF held an event called Pulpit Freedom Sunday on September 28, under the banner of Free Speech, to brazenly violate the federal tax code that prohibits such political activism by tax-exempt 501(c)(3) charitable organizations. Pulpit Freedom Sunday, or the Pulpit Initiative, fulfilled the ADF's goal of recruiting pastors to explicitly discuss partisan politics. All told, 100 pastors were willing to participate, and the ADF selected a third of them. With each pastor endorsing a presidential candidate "on the basis of Scripture," abortion and same-sex marriage were elevated from marginal culture-war issues of this election to the paramount concern. One need not have been in each of the 33 congregations on Pulpit Freedom Sunday to guess in which direction the partisan winds blew.

Furthermore, the ADF intends to send the IRS a copy of each sermon transcript as a direct instigation. As of this writing, the IRS has not revealed its course of punitive action, which will determine if the ADF wins its day in court or not. The ADF's ultimate objective is to spur a U.S. Supreme Court battle over what it considers to be a pastor's prerogative to determine "the proper role of church in society" and to have the law thrown out for good.

In a September 9 press release, ADF President and CEO Alan Sears goes as far as to suggest that such tax-exempt demagogy is not only a First Amendment right, but also the historical foundation for "many Americans' attitudes and actions toward slavery, child labor, civil rights, and even the American Revolution."

Like "protection of marriage" and "civil-rights" ballot initiatives, the ADF's rhetoric here is basically opposite its intent. The end of slavery, child labor laws, the civil rights movement, and the American Revolution were driven by Enlightenment calls for democracy, human equality, and liberalism -- not the exploitation of an organization's charitable status to endorse its favorite politician.

However, mirroring the campaign in California, the ADF's disingenuous representation of its true motives has drawn skepticism, if not outright condemnation, from others in the legal community as well as religious leaders. Notably, Reverend Eric Williams from the United Church of Christ in Ohio, partnered with former IRS lawyer Marcus S. Owens, regard the ADF's actions as ethically questionable and doubt that the Supreme Court will sympathize with its retrograde position.

The Pulpit Initiative appears to be more extreme than past actions and may be the beginning of the end as the organization loses clout, and possibly its tax-exempt status, from its unbridled ambition. While 33 pastors participated in the event, more than 180 are participating in an Interfaith Alliance pledge that seeks the exact opposite -- to uphold the separation of church and state by promising not to discuss partisan politics in their sermons.

So far, this election cycle has shown that the ADF's deceptive rhetoric may not be as effective as it's been in the past, mirroring Ward Connerly's recent failures to pass anti-affirmative-action measures (only two of the five target states have chosen to participate in his "Super Tuesday for Civil Rights"). With a larger trend of dubious claims from the right this election season, it is reassuring to see indicators that the public and judiciaries are growing wiser to dishonest political charades. One can only hope this response will continue through November 4.

Monday, October 20, 2008

Another Invitation to Abuse - Editorial in The New York Times

The New York Times - Editorial - October 18, 2008

Attorney General Michael Mukasey recently issued new guidelines for the F.B.I. that permit agents to use a range of intrusive techniques to gather information on Americans — even when there is no clear basis for suspecting wrongdoing.

Under the new rules, agents may engage in lengthy physical surveillance, covertly infiltrate lawful groups, or conduct pretext interviews in which agents lie about their identities while questioning a subject’s neighbors, friends or work colleagues based merely on a generalized “threat.” The new rules also allow the bureau to use these techniques on people identified in part by their race or religion and without requiring even minimal evidence of criminal activity.

These changes are a chilling invitation for the government to spy on law-abiding Americans based on their ethnic background or political activity.

Mr. Mukasey has promised that investigations conducted under the new rules will be consistent with the Constitution. Clearly, the Bush administration cannot be trusted to find the right balance between law enforcement and civil liberties. Even before this administration the F.B.I. had its own long history of abusing its powers to spy on civil rights groups and antiwar activists.

Critics also warn that the new rules could impede legitimate law enforcement efforts by alienating communities whose cooperation the F.B.I. needs and by distracting agents from focusing on genuine criminal activity and national security threats.

Mr. Mukasey and Robert Mueller, the F.B.I. director, refused requests from several senators, including Patrick Leahy, the Judiciary Committee chairman, to delay the new rules until Congress and the public could thoroughly review them. Instead they rushed to put the changes in place before President Bush leaves office.

The next president will have to order a full and transparent review of this latest change, and all of the Bush administration’s policies that threaten Americans’ most fundamental rights.

Sunday, October 19, 2008

Upper Class Pillaging - Mike Garibaldi-Frick in The Huffington Post

by Mike Garibaldi-Frick

October 19, 2008 - 01:07 AM (EST)

Even today as the U.S. Treasury is being pillaged by corporate America, there has been an absence of any significant economic middle class(*) backlash here in America. As the wealth gap between the middle class and upper class has increased more than any time in our history, Americans seem to be mostly helpless in stemming this trend toward inequality.

Will the tide finally turn during an Obama Presidency? After analyzing Obama's economic positions (including health care, tax policies and budgeting), most economists say "yes!"

After eight years of the Bush Presidency, McCain style deregulation and tax policy that favors the rich, the American middle class has been taken hostage and told they will lose everything (trickle down financial ruin) if they do not bailout the big banks, investment firms and insurance companies. Bush & Cheney have perfected the panic mode wealth transfer that Naomi Klein describes so well in "The Shock Doctrine." This multi-trillion-dollar parting gift is their payback to the upper class that helped orchestrate their election.

The U.S. Treasury gained support for the bailouts by promising stricter rules on grossly excessive executive compensation. But now we find out that financial workers at Wall Street's top banks -- the greedy ones that got us into this mess in the first place -- are going to receive payouts worth more than $70 billion and, according to the Guardian, "... a substantial proportion of which is expected to be paid in discretionary bonuses, for their work so far this year - despite plunging the financial system into its worst crisis since the 1929 stock market crash."

Last year, for instance, Merrill Lynch's chairman Stan O'Neal took a golden parachute deal worth over $160 million, after announcing losses of nearly $8 billion at his firm. Did Mr. O'neal's labor bankrupting Merrill Lynch really justify $159,935,000 more dollars from society than a teacher or fireman?

The politics of capitalism attempts to fool us into believing in extreme individualism --e.g., that every man is an island. But, the truth (starkly exposed by Mainstreet needing to bailout Wallstreet) is that we are closely interconnected even if worlds apart in wealth and influence. Mr. O'Neal taking $160 million out of the money system to spend on extravagances, does effect the teacher and fireman via the national debt they will incur to bailout Mr. O'Neal / Merrill Lynch.

Where did the billions of dollars lost by the banks go? Did the money just evaporate? No. Most of it went to these huge CEO and executive payouts to expand the obscene wealth of the upper class. Someone has to pay for the mega-yachts, extravagant parties, multiple mansions and other extravagances of the rich. If you want to see where your money is going, just tune into "Lifestyles of the Super Rich."

Once again, responsible hard-working citizens are paying for the lavish lifestyles and reckless financial abandon of the upper class. How ironic that the same institutions that have been feeding off the middle class like leeches for decades (via unreasonable fees, large interest rate spreads, insurance rate hikes, hyped-up investment schemes, etc.), are now begging for more blood money.

The middle class and poor get crumbs from measly "bailouts" such as the lackluster sub-prime mortgage assistance program and a tax rebate check for $600; while the rich get more tangible bailouts to the tune of billions. Capitalism for the middle class, socialism for the rich, indeed! This is what you get when corrupt Republicans and the Corporate sociopathic personality rule the economy. One of the ways to change this dynamic is to remove corporation's status as a separate entity unbound by individual consequences and place more responsibility on the executives that direct corporate actions.

We need to end the the welfare era for the rich via tax cuts, Halliburton / war "no bid" handouts, oil company gouging and corporate bailouts. Instead, the American government needs to lift the middle class with investments in education, job training, energy independence (from domestic oil companies too!), health care and economic programs such as small business development and tangible mortgage assistance.

The only choice for fiscal conservatives in this election is Obama. By electing Obama POTUS and other fiscally sympathetic representatives, the middle class can then exercise its newfound power over insurance companies, corporations and bankers. You want us to bail you out? Here are some of our demands:

1) Corporations and the rich need to pay higher taxes, period. We are tired of hearing that higher corporate and upper class taxes will increase the jobless rate and slow the economy.

Even Warren Buffet (an Obama supporter) says that our current tax system unfairly puts more of the tax burden on the working class than the rich. The rich pay more taxes as a total collected, but much less of a percentage as the middle class.

Mr. Buffet goes on to say, "There's class warfare, all right," Mr. Buffett said, "but it's my class, the rich class, that's making war, and we're winning."

2) We want tougher consumer regulations on the insurance, credit card and banking industries along with fair mortgage lending practices. It's time for Wallstreet, insurance company's and banks to forgo some of the excessive profits we have seen in the past and pass savings along to their clients.

3) Middle class and small business tax cuts. It's time for some "trickle up" economics.

When Obama becomes President of the United States with a Democratic Congress, the middle class will once again have a strong voice in national politics. If you were advising Obama as he begins his Presidency in 2009, what policies would you suggest he initiate to stimulate and strengthen the economy and middle class (instead of corporate bailouts)?

(*For this blog's purpose I'm referring to the "middle class" as everyone who is not in the "upper class." Even though the "upper middle class," "lower middle class," "working class," and "lower class," combine to make up 99% of the United States population, the remaining 1% owns about one third of private wealth.)


Wednesday, October 8, 2008

The GOP Peddles Economic Snake Oil - Thomas Frank in The Wall Street Journal

Suddenly Republicans are against market values?

OK, let me get this straight: The central axiom of conservative Republicanism is that government is inherently corrupt and can't do anything right.

Over many years of ascendancy, conservative Republicans have filled government agencies with conservative Republicans and proceeded to enact the conservative Republican policy wish list -- tax cuts, deregulation, privatization, outsourcing federal work, and so on.

And as a consequence of these policies our conservative Republican government has bungled most of the big tasks that have fallen to it. The rescue and recovery of the Gulf Coast was a disaster. The reconstruction of Iraq was a disaster. The regulatory agencies became so dumb they didn't even see the disasters they were set up to prevent. And each disaster was attributable to the conservative philosophy of government.

Yet now we are supposed to vote for more conservative Republicans because we learned from the last bunch of conservative Republicans that government just doesn't work.

That is the advice of Sarah Palin, Republican vice-presidential nominee, in last week's debate with her Democratic counterpart, discussing the dread prospect of universal health care: "Unless you're pleased with the way the federal government has been running anything lately, I don't think that it's going to be real pleasing for Americans to consider health care being taken over by the feds."

Conservative misrule, prompted by conservative disdain for government, proves that government cannot be trusted -- and that the only answer is to elect another round of government-denouncing conservatives.

"Cynicism" seems too small a word for this circular kind of political fraud. One reaches instead for images of grosser malevolence. It's like suggesting that the best way to recover from pneumonia is to stand in the rain for three hours. It's like arguing that the way to solve nuclear proliferation is by handing out weapons-grade plutonium to everyone who asks for it.

Consider also the perverse incentives that such a logic would establish. If we validate Mrs. Palin's thoughts on federal bungling by electing her to the high office she seeks, we are encouraging her to bungle everything that comes her way. After all, by her thinking, such bungling will not discredit her doctrines but rather confirm them, demonstrate the need for more Sarah Palins down the road. We will be asking for it, and it's not much of a stretch to predict that we will get it.

In the three-ring circus of conservative blame-evasion, however, that's only one act. Over in the House of Representatives, a new breed of Republican idealists spent last week dazzling the faithful by taking a bold stand against the Wall Street bailout. The administration's plan was a "slippery slope to socialism," declared their leader, Jeb Hensarling of Texas.

One might have admired their pluck but for the breathtaking opportunism of their own counterproposal, the "Free Market Protection Act," which is described on the Web site of the Republican Study Committee. True, it is not a "slippery slope." It is a headlong stampede over a precipice, a running leap out a skyscraper window.

It starts by calling for "voluntary private capital" to solve the problem of bad mortgage-backed securities (MBS). Several sentences later it asks for a "mandatory" fee to be levied on all MBS, good or bad, and apparently without regard for whether it's held here or overseas, where American law doesn't apply. I asked William Black, the University of Missouri-Kansas City professor of economics and law whom I quoted last week, what he thought of this scheme. He replied, "This is significantly insane as a matter of finance -- and unconstitutional as a matter of law. This clause would cause a world-wide financial panic were it implemented."

Back at the study committee's Web site, I see conservatives call to "Suspend 'Mark to Market' Accounting." Suddenly our "free-market protection" gang has decided it's unfair to make companies value their MBSs at . . . the market price. Somehow the all-seeing market has gone irrational, and so companies must be allowed "to mark these assets to their true economic value," meaning, one might say, to mark them however they please, a practice that, to put it shortly, is what got us into this mess in the first place.

Space prevents me from discussing the plan's provisions to temporarily suspend capital gains taxes and repeal the Humphrey-Hawkins Full Employment Act. But I will note that, in discussing the derring-do of Mr. Hensarling and his hard-core colleagues, the New York Times chose to refer to them as "populists" -- friends of the common people. As an indicator of the confused state of our political discourse, the signals don't flash any brighter than this.

Years ago, conservatives realized that to destroy the legitimacy of your adversary's concepts is to destroy your adversary. Today we are surrounded by the wreckage. Much depends on our success in rebuilding.

Write to thomas@wsj.com

Tuesday, October 7, 2008

Swampland, Embarracuda - Joe Klein, political columnist for Time magazine

October 6, 2008

Posted by Joe Klein at time-blog.com

I'm of two minds about how to deal with the McCain campaign's further descent into ugliness. Their strategy is simple: you throw crap against a wall and then giggle as the media try to analyze the putrescence in a way that conveys a sense of balance: "Well, it is bull-pucky, but the splatter pattern is interesting..." which, of course, only serves to get your perverse message out. I really don't want to be a part of that. But...every so often, we journalists have a duty to remind readers just how dingy the McCain campaign, and its right-wing acolytes in the media (I'm looking at you, Sean Hannity) have become--especially in their efforts to divert public attention from the economic crisis we're facing. And so inept at it: other campaigns have decided that their only shot is going negative, but usually they don't announce it, as several McCain aides have in recent days--there's no way we can win on the economy, so we're going to go sludge-diving.

But since we are dealing with manure here, I'll put the rest of this post below the fold.

It is appropriate that the prime vessel for this assault is Sarah Palin, whose very presence on a national ticket is an insult to your intelligence. She now has "credibility," we are told, because she managed to read talking points off notecards in the debate last week with unwitting enthusiasm.

Over the weekend, she picked up on an article in The New York Times, which essentially says that Barack Obama and the former terrorist Bill Ayers have crossed paths in Chicago, served on a couple of charitable boards together, but aren't particularly close. To Palin--or her scriptwriters--this means that Obama has been "palling around" with terrorists. Now, I wish Ayers had done some serious jail time; he certainly needed to pay some penance for his youthful criminality--even if most people in Chicago, including the mayor, have decided that he has something of value to say about education. But I can also understand how Obama, who was a child when Ayers was cutting his idiot swath, would not quite understand the enormity of the professor's background. (I got to know Alger Hiss twenty years after the fact--he was a printing salesman then, a friend of my father's--and thought of him as a sweet old man, if a good deal more liberal than dad's other friends.)

In any case, this is rather rich coming from Palin, who is married to a man who belonged to a political party--the Alaskan Independence Party--that wanted to secede from the union. (I should add here that the Times may have been overreacting to the McCain campaign's attack on its fairness here: the Ayers story was a nothingburger, but it was placed prominently in the top left hand corner of page one--a position that would seem to indicate that it contained important news, which it didn't.)

Then we have the ever-reliable Bill Kristol, in today's New York Times, advising Palin to bring up the Reverend Jeremiah Wright. Palin, of course, believes that's a darn good idea:

“To tell you the truth, Bill, I don’t know why that association isn’t discussed more, because those were appalling things that that pastor had said about our great country, and to have sat in the pews for 20 years and listened to that — with, I don’t know, a sense of condoning it, I guess, because he didn’t get up and leave — 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.”

So then, I'd guess, it would be appropriate to bring up some of the nuttiness that passes for godliness in Palin's religious life. Leave aside the fact that The Embarracuda allowed herself to participate in a cermony that protected her from witchcraft, how about her presence--she didn't "get up and leave"-- at a sermon by the founder of Jews for Jesus, who argued that the Palestinian terrorist acts against Israel were God's "judgment" on the Jews because they hadn't accepted Jesus.

Speaking of Jews, the ever-execrable Sean Hannity has been having intercourse with a known Jew-hater named Andy Martin, who now wants to expose Barack Obama as a Muslim. According to the Washington Times:

In 1986, when Mr. Martin ran as a Democrat for Connecticut's 3rd Congressional District seat under the name "Anthony R. Martin-Trigona," his campaign committee filed papers saying its purpose was to "exterminate Jew power in America and impeach U.S. District Court of Appeals judges in New York City."

Calling all Podhoretzs! Where's the outrage? I mean, don't the hateful doings at Palin's church and Hannity's perfidy deserve a lengthy exegesis from Pete Wehner or Jennifer Rubin or one of the other empretzled ideologues over at Commentary?

As I said, I'm of two minds about this. I don't want to give currency to this sewage, so it will remain below the fold. And I'll try to devote the lion's share of my time to the issues--the war, the economic crisis, the fraying health insurance system, the environment--that should define this campaign. But what a desperate empty embarrassment the McCain campaign has become.

Monday, October 6, 2008

A McCain Fan

A teacher in Jackson, Mississippi asked her 6th grade class how many of them were McCain fans..

Not really knowing what a McCain fan was, but wanting to be liked by the teacher, all the kids raised their hands except for Little Johnny. The teacher asked Little Johnny why he decided to be different ... again.

Little Johnny said, 'Because I'm not a McCain fan.'

The teacher said, 'Why aren't you a McCain fan?'

Johnny said, 'Because I'm a Democrat.'

The teacher asked why he was a Democrat.

Little Johnny answered, 'Well, my Mom's a Democrat and my Dad's a Democrat, so I'm a Democrat.'

The teacher asked, 'If your Mom was a moron, and your Dad was an idiot, what would that make you?'

Little Johnny replied, 'That would make me a McCain fan.'

Saturday, October 4, 2008

I am an elitist...

I'm an admitted elitist. Yep, me, John Ater. I believe in elitism. And here is why.

The Oxford English Dictionary defines the word "elite" as "a group of people considered to be the best in a particular society or category, esp. because of their power, talent, or wealth."

And I would add because of their intelligence, common sense and abilities.

Life, even for us simple folk, often proves to be very complicated and presents us with myriad choices that often change the courses of our lives. In my older years, I have come around to the belief that those choices hold no moral weight of "right" or "wrong", "good" or "evil" but hold a more karmic and immediate weight of consequences.

We are watching the consequences of our choices play out in today's world. The consequences of electing senators and representatives and presidents who allowed financiers to regulate themselves finally arrived at our doorsteps in the past few weeks. The consequences of electing (or rather having a Supreme Court elect) a president who decided (probably at the urging of his vice president) that the Constitution of the United States did not apply to his presidency are now abundantly clear even to most of his die hard supporters. The consequences of blindly following that same president's lead in a "war on terror" played out in an unrelated war with a country which we know now had nothing to do with the attacks of September 11th. Those consequences we all have watched play out on the news in body counts and human rights violations and loss of respect for what our country once meant to those around the world.

I could not agree more with Bill Clinton's words.

"People around the world have always been more impressed by the power of our example than by the example of our power."

But Dr. Martin Luther King said it best.

“I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character.”

As I have aged, I have learned those lessons, finally. And in learning them, I have become a believer in the elite; the elites like Benjamin Franklin, Thomas Jefferson, John Adams, Abigail Adams, George Washington, Abraham Lincoln, Theodore Roosevelt, Franklin Roosevelt, Eleanor Roosevelt, Harry Truman, John Kennedy, W.E.B Du Bois, Barbara Jordan, Ann Richards, Hillary Clinton, Maya Angelou... The list is too long. You know. Those elites.

For our nation, I want an elite as president. In fact, I want elites running this country and the world. I want the best and the brightest, the smartest, the ones who have character and some common sense, the ones who can and do actually think beyond their own lives and bank accounts, who consider seriously the consequences of their actions and how those actions will affect the people who sent them to office. I may not agree with them. I may even oppose them. However, because they are the elites, I will know they believe in their choices and they will think beyond their own selfish interests and those of their rich friends.

We are standing at a turning point. We, as individuals and as a people, will live with the consequences of our choice in this presidential election. No matter who is elected, the president will make mistakes. That is the curse and the blessing of being human. What I desire is not someone who blames everyone else for the mess but a person who can own up to those mistakes and chart a course out of whatever quagmires those mistakes create. Give me an elite. Give me someone who is smarter than I am. Give me someone of character and of thought and of compassion. Give me someone who is willing to shoulder the weight of the world and give us their best shot.

Call me an elitist. I can think of no more honorable a title.

Thursday, October 2, 2008

She either is or she isn't...

In a quote to Politco.com from a McCain official about Sarah Palin and tonight's debate...

"This is going to finally put her back into a position where we see her like we saw her the first couple weeks," a McCain official said. "She was herself. She was authentic, and people related to that. ... Tonight, she'll get into a rhythm. You're going to see her in a way that you haven't seen her yet."

Well? Which is it?

Sunday, September 28, 2008

McCain’s Suspension Bridge to Nowhere - Frank Rich in The New York Times

WHAT we learned last week is that the man who always puts his “country first” will take the country down with him if that’s what it takes to get to the White House.

For all the focus on Friday night’s deadlocked debate, it still can’t obscure what preceded it: When John McCain gratuitously parachuted into Washington on Thursday, he didn’t care if his grandstanding might precipitate an even deeper economic collapse. All he cared about was whether he might save his campaign. George Bush put more deliberation into invading Iraq than McCain did into his own reckless invasion of the delicate Congressional negotiations on the bailout plan.

Barry Blitt

By the time he arrived, there already was a bipartisan agreement in principle. It collapsed hours later at the meeting convened by the president in the Cabinet Room. Rather than help try to resuscitate Wall Street’s bloodied bulls, McCain was determined to be the bull in Washington’s legislative china shop, running around town and playing both sides of his divided party against Congress’s middle. Once others eventually forged a path out of the wreckage, he’d inflate, if not outright fictionalize, his own role in cleaning up the mess his mischief helped make. Or so he hoped, until his ignominious retreat.

The question is why would a man who forever advertises his own honor toy so selfishly with our national interest at a time of crisis. I’ll leave any physiological explanations to gerontologists — if they can get hold of his complete medical records — and any armchair psychoanalysis to the sundry McCain press acolytes who have sorrowfully tried to rationalize his erratic behavior this year. The other answers, all putting politics first, can be found by examining the 24 hours before he decided to “suspend” campaigning and swoop down on the Capitol to save America from the Sunnis or the Shia, or whoever perpetrated all those credit-default swaps.

To put these 24 hours in context, you must remember that McCain not only knows little about the economy but that he has not previously expressed any urgency about its meltdown. It was on Sept. 15 — the day after his former idol Alan Greenspan pronounced the current crisis a “once-in-a-century” catastrophe — that McCain reaffirmed for the umpteenth time that the “fundamentals of our economy are strong.” As recently as Tuesday he had not yet even read the two-and-a-half-page bailout proposal first circulated by Hank Paulson last weekend. “I have not had a chance to see it in writing,” he explained. (Maybe he was waiting for it to arrive by Western Union instead of PDF.)

Then came Black Wednesday — not for the stock market, which was holding steady in anticipation of Washington action, but for McCain. As the widely accepted narrative has it, his come-to-Jesus moment arrived that morning, when he awoke to discover that Barack Obama had surged ahead by nine percentage points in the Washington Post/ABC News poll. The McCain campaign hastily suited up its own pollster to belittle that finding — only to be drowned out by a fusillade of new polls from Fox News, Marist and CNN/Time, each with numbers closer to Post/ABC than not. Obama was rising most everywhere except the moose strongholds of Alaska and Montana.

That was not the only bad news raining down on McCain. His camp knew what Katie Couric had in the can from her interview with Sarah Palin. The first excerpt was to be broadcast by CBS that night, and it had to be upstaged fast.

But even that wasn’t the top political threat McCain faced last week. Bigger still was the mounting evidence of the seamless synergy between his campaign and Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the mortgage monsters at the heart of the housing bust that set off our current calamity. Most of all, it was the fast-moving events on that front that precipitated his panic to roll out his diversionary, over-the-top theatrics on Wednesday.

What we were learning — through The New York Times, Newsweek and Roll Call — was ugly. Davis Manafort, the lobbying firm owned by McCain’s campaign manager, Rick Davis, had received $15,000 a month from Freddie Mac from late 2005 until last month. This was in addition to the $30,000 a month that Davis was paid from 2000 to 2005 by the so-called Homeownership Alliance, an advocacy organization that he headed and that was financed by Freddie and Fannie to fight regulation.

The McCain campaign tried to pre-emptively deflect such revelations by reviving the old Rove trick of accusing your opponent of your own biggest failings. It ran attack ads about Obama’s own links to the mortgage giants. But neither of the former Freddie-Fannie executives vilified in those ads, Franklin Raines and James Johnson, had worked at those companies lately or are currently associated with the Obama campaign. (Raines never worked for the campaign at all.) By contrast, Davis is the tip of the Freddie-Fannie-McCain iceberg. McCain’s senior adviser, his campaign’s vice chairman, his Congressional liaison and the reported head of his White House transition team all either made fortunes from recent Freddie-Fannie lobbying or were players in firms that did.

By Wednesday, the McCain campaign’s latest tactic for countering this news — attacking the press, especially The Times — was paying diminishing returns. Davis abruptly canceled his scheduled appearance that day at a weekly reporters’ lunch sponsored by The Christian Science Monitor, escaping any further questions by pleading that he had to hit the campaign trail. (He turned up at the “21” Club in New York that night, wining and dining McCain fund-raisers.)

It’s then that Angry Old Ironsides McCain suddenly emerged to bark that our financial distress was “the greatest crisis we’ve faced, clearly, since World War II” — even greater than the Russia-Georgia conflict, which in August he had called the “first probably serious crisis internationally since the end of the cold war.” Campaigns, debates and no doubt Bristol Palin’s nuptials had to be suspended immediately so he could ride to the rescue, with Joe Lieberman as his Robin.

Yet even as he huffed and puffed about being a “leader,” McCain took no action and felt no urgency. As his Congressional colleagues worked tirelessly in Washington, he malingered in New York. He checked out the suffering on Main Street (or perhaps High Street) by conferring with Lady Lynn Forester de Rothschild, the Hillary-turned-McCain supporter best known for her fabulous London digs and her diatribes against Obama’s elitism. McCain also found time to have a well-publicized chat with one of those celebrities he so disdains, Bono, and to give a self-promoting public speech at the Clinton Global Initiative.

There was no suspension of his campaign. His surrogates and ads remained on television. Huffington Post bloggers, working the phones, couldn’t find a single McCain campaign office that had gone on hiatus. This “suspension” ruse was an exact replay of McCain’s self-righteous “suspension” of the G.O.P. convention as Hurricane Gustav arrived on Labor Day. “We will put aside our political hats and put on our American hats,” he declared then, solemnly pledging that conventioneers would help those in need. But as anyone in the Twin Cities could see, the assembled put on their party hats instead, piling into the lobbyists’ bacchanals earlier than scheduled, albeit on the down-low.

Much of the press paid lip service to McCain’s new “suspension” as it had to its prototype. In truth, the only campaign activity McCain did drop was a Wednesday evening taping with David Letterman. Don’t mess with Dave. Picking up where the “The View” left off in speaking truth to power, the uncharacteristically furious host hammered the absent McCain on and off for 40 minutes, repeatedly observing that the cancellation “didn’t smell right.”

In a journalistic coup de grâce worthy of “60 Minutes,” Letterman went on to unmask his no-show guest as a liar. McCain had phoned himself that afternoon to say he was “getting on a plane immediately” to deal with the grave situation in Washington, Letterman told the audience. Then he showed video of McCain being touched up by a makeup artist while awaiting an interview by Couric that same evening at another CBS studio in New York.

It’s not hard to guess why McCain had blown off Letterman for Couric at the last minute. The McCain campaign’s high anxiety about the disastrous Couric-Palin sit-down was skyrocketing as advance excerpts flooded the Internet. By offering his own interview to Couric for the same night, McCain hoped (in vain) to dilute Palin’s primacy on the “CBS Evening News.”

Letterman’s most mordant laughs on Wednesday came when he riffed about McCain’s campaign “suspension”: “Do you suspend your campaign? No, because that makes me think maybe there will be other things down the road, like if he’s in the White House, he might just suspend being president. I mean, we’ve got a guy like that now!”

That’s no joke. Bush has so little credibility he can govern only through surrogates (Paulson is the new Petraeus). When he spoke about the economic crisis in prime time earlier that same night, he registered as no more than an irritating speed bump en route to “David Blaine: Dive of Death.”

It’s that utter power vacuum that gave McCain the opening to pull his potentially catastrophic display of economic “leadership” last week. He may be the first presidential candidate in our history to risk wrecking the country even before being voted into the Oval Office.

Time of Solidarity

Less than two months remain until the presidential election, an election that will decide the next President of the United States. The person elected will be the president of all Americans, not just the Democrats or the Republicans.

To show our solidarity as Americans, let's all get together and show each other our support for the candidate of our choice. It's time that we come together, Democrats and Republicans alike.

If you support the policies and character of Obama, please drive with your headlights on during the day.

If you support John McCain, please drive with your headlights off at night.

Thank you for your participation.

Friday, September 26, 2008

Image of Virgin Mary Found In Palin’s Bouffant - Steve Young at steveyoungonpolitics.com

Palin, r, with image
of the Blessed Mother
just above the bangs

September 23, 2008

by Steve Young

(Tampa, Fla) During a campaign appearance by Vice presidential nominee Sarah Palin at a retirement village in Tampa, Florida, onlookers were stunned to see what they believed to be an image of the Blessed Mother Mary embedded in Palin’s wrapped puffed-up do.

“At first I thought it was just one of those Love Bugs y’get caught in the car grill, ” said 82-year-old Hubert Henry. “But then it started glowin’ like the baby Jesus I seen last year in the window at the Stuckey’s just of Route 1 in Hulmville. Damn miracle, I tellya.”

McCain spokesman, Tucker Bounds, said that while the selection of Palin was a miracle for the campaign, the viability of Palin being chosen by the Virgin Mary to appear in her hair was something he’d rather leave up to the voter.

The Spies Who Love Obama - Laura Rozen at MotherJones.Com

Washington Dispatch: Why some of Bush's intel professionals are now working for a Democrat—and how they'd reform the CIA. Part Two in a series on the candidates' national security policies.

September 25, 2008

by Laura Rozen

As has become painfully clear since 9/11, intelligence is only as good as the worldview of the person receiving it. The team of former intelligence professionals who have come together to advise Barack Obama describe a candidate who they believe is open-minded and intellectually inclined to absorb information—not just the recognized current threats (terrorism, Iran, Iraq, Pakistan, a resurgent and more belligerent Russia), but the ones on the horizon (nuclear terrorism, water wars, climate change and the conflicts it could generate). But they also are urging him to rethink the architecture of the intelligence community to grapple with both current and emerging threats, and to do away with the Bush administration's legacy of excessive secrecy and its tendency to view complex international challenges in black-and-white terms.

"The world is a very complicated place and there are not always easy solutions to a lot of the problems out there," says John Brennan, a top Obama intelligence advisor and former senior CIA official who co-founded the Terrorist Threat Integration Center and the National Counterterrorism Center, a post-9/11 effort to integrate the US government's terror threat intelligence. "If you look at the world in black and white, you miss a lot of the subtleties out there. 'Either with us or against'—the world is not divided into good and evil a lot of time. Despite America's military might, a lot of these problems do not lend themselves to kinetic solutions"—i.e. the use of force. And world dynamics are likely to get more complicated and nuanced, not less, by 2025. An intelligence forecast being prepared by the US intelligence community for the next president "envisions a steady decline in US dominance in the coming decades, as the world is reshaped by globalization, battered by climate change, and destabilized by regional upheavals over shortages of food, water and energy," according to the Washington Post.

Obama himself articulated his approach to intelligence in a speech in July. "It's time to update our national security strategy to stay one step ahead of the terrorists," Obama said at Indiana's Purdue University. "It's time to look ahead—at the dangers of today and tomorrow rather than those of yesterday."

But even though matters such as politicized intelligence, torture, domestic surveillance, and preventing terror attacks are among the most controversial issues of the Bush legacy, intelligence has remained largely a stealth topic in the presidential campaign.

Intelligence advisers to Obama say the topic's relative absence may actually be appropriate: "This is not an issue for the campaign," says one former White House official now advising Obama. Adds a former senior CIA operations officer who is also a member of the campaign's intelligence working group: "The only way we can correct it is to have a bipartisan, national interest audit of what it's currently doing, figure out what works, and make the best recommendations and implement them. And you don't want to see this pitfall the election."

Aside from Brennan, the campaign's intelligence working group (which is coordinated by former National Security Council official Rand Beers) spans a range of national security professionals who have served in senior leadership, operational and legal positions in the National Security Council, CIA, and defense intelligence agencies, including many who served both Republican and Democratic administrations. Among them: Former CIA deputy director John McLaughlin, former senior CIA operations officers Art Brown and Jack DeVine, retired Ltn. Gen. Claudia Kennedy, retired Ltn. Gen. and former head of the Defense Human Intelligence Service Donald Kerrick, former CIA lawyer and special advisor to the CIA director Kenneth Levitt, former CIA general counsel Jeff Smith, former CIA Near East division chief Robert Richer, and former CIA officer Valerie Plame Wilson. Former CIA lawyer and Clinton-era NSC official Mary McCarthy has stepped back from her previous role coordinating the group due to private sector work demands. One participant described the group's priorities for a prospective Obama administration to me this way: "The intelligence community is a complete mess. Intelligence reform—try to fix it. Improve morale. CIA is dysfunctional. Rectify a lot of stuff that was done by executive order in secrecy, and bring more transparency. Better protection of civil liberties. Improve oversight of CIA on these activities."

Meanwhile, national security experts in the McCain camp characterize their candidate as a Washington veteran who doesn't need a working group to advise him on the issues. "John has been in town for three plus decades," says Gary Schmitt, a former executive director of the President's Foreign Intelligence Advisory Board who occasionally contributes advice to the McCain campaign. "McCain is his own guy and he has been his own guy. McCain can pick up the phone and call [former deputy secretary of state] Rich Armitage whenever he wants."

But some of Obama's intelligence advisors say their experience with the recent administration has shown that leaders who think they already know it all can lead to disaster. "Old man Bush was a great guy," says one veteran intelligence officer now supporting Obama, who requested anonymity. "He was truly interested and sensitive to intelligence. But this Bush administration has done terrible damage to the intelligence business. They have operated a perpetual campaign, treated intelligence as a political tool, and never fully appreciated why it must be non-partisan and objective and can't be tampered with."

"It's time," he continued, "for a very serious change."

Want more? Read the following intel stories by Laura Rozen, national security correspondent for Mother Jones.

CIA Veterans Are Scared of McCain

Hollywood and the CIA: The Spook Stays in the Picture

Operation Stop Talking

Watercoolered: the CIA's Double Secret Probation

The Story Valerie Plame Couldn't Tell

Defending Valerie Plame: Who is this Punk?

Fixing the Post-Bush Nation: Interviews With Former CIA officials:
Milt Bearden: The Bush legacy, in its most reduced and understandable form, will be that the limits of American democracy, and all its institutions, have been exposed.

William D. Murray: The CIA's greatest strength—and why the Department of Homeland Security will be hard to fix.

Paul Pillar: The peril of waging war on a credit card.

Valerie Plame Wilson: Why we need to stop outsourcing the CIA, fast.

Photo from Barack Obama's campaign website.

Laura Rozen can be reached at lrozen [at] motherjones [dot] com.

Why CIA Veterans Are Scared of McCain - Laura Rozen at MotherJones.Com

Washington Dispatch: Four years ago, the candidate called the CIA a "rogue organization"; now he's advised by a former Chalabi promoter and Agency basher. No wonder the spooks are spooked.

This is part one of a two-part series on the main presidential candidates' intelligence policies. Next week we'll look at Barack Obama.

Tall, broad-shouldered, mustached, Michael Kostiw looks like the former oilman and CIA case officer in Africa he once was. Now, as Republican staff director for Sen. John McCain on the powerful Senate Armed Services Committee, Kostiw, 61, is probably the closest top former CIA official to the Republican presidential candidate, and is discussed as a possible candidate for a senior intelligence position should McCain win the presidency. But his relationship with his former Agency is complex. Standing in his large office in the Senate Russell building on a quiet day during August congressional recess, Kostiw shows off a pair of wooden statuettes that were given to him by an African nation's ambassador—and longtime top official in his country's government—to Washington. The envoy, Kostiw says, is an old contact that he proposed trying to recruit two decades ago when he was a CIA case officer in the country. But his Agency boss at the time waved him off the recruitment, saying, "That guy isn't going anywhere."

It's a small but telling anecdote in an almost two-hour conversation with a man whose career trajectory from CIA Soviet East Europe division operations officer to Texaco oilman to co-vice chair of the International Republican Institute to top Porter Goss and McCain Senate aide may signal what a McCain presidency would mean for the intelligence community—and why many from the CIA are quietly worried about a McCain presidency. The Bush years have been brutal for the CIA, which was pilloried for getting Iraq intelligence wrong while accused of downplaying and withholding intelligence from the White House that would have justified military action. Many current and former US spies expect a McCain administration guided by neoconservatives to treat them with hostility and mistrust. They also say McCain would likely weaken the CIA by giving broad new spying authorities to the Pentagon, which CIA officials believe is more amenable to giving policymakers the intelligence they want, while being subject to less congressional oversight.

These critics point especially to the McCain campaign's top national security adviser Randy Scheunemann—who ran a front group promoting war with Iraq and the fabrications of controversial Iraqi exile politician Ahmad Chalabi, the Committee for the Liberation of Iraq, and who has lobbied for aggressive NATO expansion. Scheunemann's record, they argue, encapsulates everything wrong with the past eight years of Bush leadership on intelligence issues, from a penchant for foreign policy freelancing and secret contacts with unreliable fabricators, to neoconservatives' disdain for the perceived bureaucratic timidity of the CIA and State Department, to their avowed hostility for diplomacy with adversaries. If McCain wins, "the military has won," says one former senior CIA officer. "We will no longer have a civilian intelligence arm. Yes, we will have analysts. But we won't have any real civilian intelligence capability."

"McCain would be an absolute disaster," says a second recently retired senior US intelligence operations officer. "He is prejudiced against the CIA. The day after the 2004 election when Bush won, McCain came on TV and gave an interview in which he said something to the effect of, 'The CIA tried to sabotage this election. They've made their bed and now they have to lay in it.' I used to like McCain, but he is inconsistent." Columnist Robert Novak quoted McCain in November 2004 as saying, "With CIA leaks intended to harm the re-election campaign of the president of the United States, it is not only dysfunctional but a rogue organization."

McCain is influenced by a circle of hardline Republican legislators and congressional staff as well as disgruntled former Agency officials "who all had these long-standing grudges against people in the Agency," the former senior intelligence officer said. "They think the CIA is a hotbed of liberals. Right-wing, nutty paranoia stuff. They all love the military and hate the CIA. Because the CIA tells them stuff they don't want to hear."

But Kostiw says such fears are overblown. He insists that McCain's national security inclinations are more independent than the neoconservative caste of his campaign's advisory brain trust would suggest. "McCain on intelligence will favor an OSS-type agency," Kostiw said, referring to the CIA's World War II-era predecessor organization, the Office of Strategic Services. What does that mean? "An effective intelligence professional element that will take risks and will be responsive to civilian control and made up of the best and brightest officers the US has to offer." A civilian agency? "It has to have a civilian function, but will have a vast military element as well. I always say, you have to keep the Central in the Central Intelligence Agency."

"Lots of people talk to John on foreign policy matters—not just Randy Scheunemann," Kostiw adds, ticking off a list of realist Republican foreign policy hands: Brent Scowcroft, national security adviser to President George H.W. Bush, Henry Kissinger, General Jim Jones of the Center for Strategic and International Studies, former defense secretary James Schlesinger. But are these people really in McCain's inner circle? "The inner circle is the critical issue," Kostiw concedes.

"There has been a battle within the McCain campaign between neoconservatives and realists, but by and large, neoconservatives hold the high ground," says a former White House official now advising the Obama campaign on intelligence issues, on condition of anonymity. "And some of their positions have been deeply troubling," he added, citing McCain's proposal to kick Russia out of the group of eight leading industrialized countries.

Kostiw downplays any damage done by the McCain camp's rhetorical hostility to Moscow. And he says that McCain has been around so long, he is not overly susceptible to the influence of his national security brain trust. "I've been in meetings with McCain, where some adviser is discussing a policy issue," Kostiw said. "And at the end, McCain thanks them and says he's made up his own mind, and the outcome is the other way." Take his position against torture, Kostiw points out, a position that put McCain at stark odds with the Bush/Cheney White House.

But former CIA hands say they have heard such reassurances from Kostiw before—about former House intelligence committee chairman Porter Goss, who served as CIA director from 2004 until his sudden resignation in 2006—and they proved delusionally unfounded. "Mike [Kostiw] is a nice guy," says the former senior CIA operations officer. "But this is the guy who sat around talking to all of us when Porter came in [as CIA director in 2004], and told us how much Porter respected us, and not to worry about the stories we hear. He was trying to reassure us that Goss was not out to destroy the Agency. He told us everything is going to be fine." Goss (for whom Kostiw was a special adviser) brought to Langley several ultrapartisan House Republican aides—the "Gosslings"—whose hostility to the Agency's senior operations officers and conviction that they were not loyal to the Republican president was so blatant, it led to the angry departure of the two top operations veterans—and dozens more—and sent morale plummeting. After Goss' proposal that Kostiw serve in the CIA No. 3 spot crumbled when it was leaked that Kostiw had been fired from the Agency two decades earlier, allegedly for not paying for a package of bacon from a grocery store (some colleagues say that was just the cover story, and that Kostiw had in fact left the Agency for other financial-related reasons), Goss, against the advice of senior CIA officers, appointed a controversial, womanizing administrative officer, Kyle "Dusty" Foggo, to be the CIA executive director. Foggo's indictment on corruption charges related to the Congressman Duke Cunningham corruption case in May 2006 coincided with Goss' abrupt resignation the same month. (Foggo is slated to go on trial in October.) The top two Agency operations vets who had quit in disputes with the Gosslings—Steve Kappes and Michael Sulick—returned to the Agency after Goss' departure. And Kostiw, after serving as Goss' "special adviser" at the Agency, went to work for McCain on the Senate Armed Services Committee.

Kostiw may insist that a McCain presidency would steer away from his advisers' ideological zeal. But his fellow former intelligence officers are skeptical, fearing his assurances will prove as overly optimistic as his promises to them about Goss.

Laura Rozen is Mother Jones' national security correspondent. She can be reached at lrozen@motherjones.com.