Why Republicans Won't Win in November

Why? Because Republicans (Gingrich variety, not Goldwater) believe government is inherently bad. They believe the only good government is a smaller government…or better yet, no government at all. They is why the current administration has spent so much time gutting federal budgets, laying off workers, and dismantling every department, agency or commission that exists. The Bush-Cheney approach to government has only three goals, as one Republican described it to me not long ago, “Defend the shores, deliver the mail, and stay the hell out of my life.” That is a sad and pathetic commentary on the intelligence of the people being manipulated in the Republican Party these days.

Democrats, on the other hand, see the good that government does and only want to make it more efficient as it serves the citizens. Our national problems are monumental and not easily resolved. They are going to take some work, some intelligent application of skills and the talents of all Americans. Democrats also believe government has a role to play in meeting the needs of the citizens, that citizens and veterans should not be left to pull themselves up by their own bootstraps when disaster hits (hurricanes in Louisiana, floods in the Midwest, wounded soldiers coming home to moldy health facilities, soldiers foreclosed on while in the service of their country). People with problems are simply told to buck up and get busy. As Bush said to flood victims in the Midwest recently, “You will be fine soon, you’ll come back better” (whatever that is supposed to mean).

Republicans think Obama is naïve and foolish if he thinks he is going to change things. Know what? He already has. He has already done what few thought he could. He became the first black man to win his party’s nomination. He did it by engendering a remarkable level of trust in primary voters and a belief by those same voters that America can be better.

Millions of disaffected voters have found the one guy with the requisite judgment and associated job skills necessary to make a difference in the enormously challenging job of President. By winning their trust, he also motivated many who had never participated in the presidential selection process to give their own small contributions to the Obama campaign. Yes, he has big money contributors but he has no federal lobbyists, and most importantly, he has 1.8 million contributors. If each gave only $100 that would be $180 million, so yes, of the $226 million he raised in the primaries I’m prepared to say most came from small contributions. These are the people who support him with a passion and who will pass the passion to their neighbors in time to take their country back this November.

But this is something Bush-Cheney Republicans do not, and apparently, cannot understand. That’s fine with me. They’ll still be welcome at the inauguration next January.

Small Town Patriotism

I was born in a small town in South Georgia. The people there are as united in their patriotism and religion as any place I have ever been. That said, I am confident it is no different from thousands of other small towns in America where God and country come first with family a close second. When America is in trouble, these are the towns first to send their youth to places where they will be in harm’s way. And they do so mostly without question, even enthusiastically in some cases, in the tradition of their fathers and grandfathers before them.

When leaders declare war, these are the bedrock solid defenders of the republic who answer the call and do not question the decision. And if you asked them, they would reply that they do not know enough, in their estimation, to make a different decision. Men in positions of power from somewhere else, endowed with great insight and political genius, no doubt, had made the decision and so it must be done. They must march off to war…any war…every war.

Small towns are left behind to suffer, and the residents do so together. As soon as it becomes known that so-and-so family down the street has “lost” a son or daughter, the fried chicken and potato salad show up with apple pies right behind them. A single loss is everyone’s loss.

I think of them every time I read a list of the fallen from the Iraq War because most of the fallen come from the small towns of America I know well, where “my country is still my country, right or wrong.” Small towns do not cause war but they pay the price of war. They pay it directly…over and over.

When a soldier dies in a far off land, he or she may die in front of others who knew them only as comrades-in-arms, who selflessly lifted the weight of war to their shoulders every day. As tragic as the death is and as deeply felt as it is among the comrades, the true death of a soldier occurs at kitchen tables across the nation, one kitchen table at a time. One at a time, kitchen tables hear the news, families are devastated, neighbors are saddened, and sweethearts cry. All bear the grief, and silently, these left behind patriots salute the country’s leadership, sing “God Bless America,” and if asked, prepare to send another generation off to duty. Without question. That is the depth of their patriotism, their love of this country, their respect for the office of the President.

Or so it seems.

This year, the mood of these patriots is different. Most of them can be counted among the 82 percent who believe the country is off track. This November, these patriots across America plan to demonstrate with their votes that they will not blindly follow again those who intentionally lie and deceive fellow citizens, who pursue war for their own ideological or political reasons, who give up so easily the blood of America’s future, those they often address but silently disdain at the beginning of speeches with the words “My fellow Americans...”

This time, this November, it will be different. The silence of each vote cast – electronically or by paper ballot – will send a deafening message to Washington that veritably shouts, “This is our republic; we will defend it at all costs but always, and only, in a cause that is just.” And a new generation of leaders will take heed – we pray, for more than a brief time – and commit to the inviolability of the trust that has been bestowed upon them.

Candidates -- Pure and Perfect in Every Way

And then there are those who insist that candidates for President be pure and perfect in every position they have taken since leaving the crib. You cannot take one position 40 years ago and get away with changing it today. Nosirree! That won’t do. And while you’re at it, you best be aware of every social, cultural and legal change that is likely to take place in the future. Decisions you make today must be consistent with any future domestic and international developments, or you’ll be toast. In other words, to be good enough for our support you must be a cross between a Benedictine monk and the Oracle of Delphi.

Above all, the record of your life must not reflect a lapse in judgment or a mistake of any kind. Not one. As one watches the news, listens to special interest groups, or reads the political blogs, one is led to conclude neither John McCain nor Barack Obama is qualified to lead this nation.

It’s silly…and every one of us is to blame if we accept the view that persons cannot change, cannot mature, cannot reevaluate positions, cannot learn from life experiences and become better for it.

In modern times, very few members of Congress have been successful in pursuing office of President of the United States. Each one always brings a legislative record ripe for the picking. Richard Nixon and John Kennedy are the notable exceptions in the past half century. Reagan, Carter, Clinton and Bush 43 were all governors and thus had no legislative record to pick apart.

But for a member of Congress, here’s what you might face –

“Well, I see you voted to confirm __x___ for the Supreme Court. (Now comes the social issues list) "You must be against the right to bear arms,” or “You must favor abortion rights?”

“Well, you voted to raise taxes ___x ___ times," or "You voted to raise the national debt ___x ___ times. You must be one of those 'tax and spend' liberals.”

“Well, you voted against the war before you were for it. What, you don’t know your position or are you trying to have it both ways?”

This year, the person elected President will be a member of the United States Senate…so an exception is in the works. But to be safe, when John McCain and Barack Obama pick their running mates, both are likely to pick someone not in any legislative body anywhere. In other words, they are likely to pick a governor like Charlie Crist of Florida, or Tim Pawlenty of Minnesota for McCain. For Obama, it’s likely to be a governor like Ted Strickland of Ohio or Tim Kaine of Virginia – to name a few. That way, the media and special interests will not be able to spend the fall combing the voting record of their running mate, thus distracting voters from the issues important to the race.

But this is not the way it should be. In the record of every man and woman offering his life in the service of the nation, mistakes will be found. Sometimes major mistakes will be found. We have to find a way to get over throwing the candidate out who has ever stumbled. The question we should ask candidates is not “Have you ever made a mistake,” rather it should be, “Have you learned from your mistakes and what have you learned?” The answer to that question should be the only thing that is weighed in the balance.

We should be very afraid of the candidate – or officeholder – who says he has not made a mistake. Remember when Bush 43 told a press conference at The White House he could not think of a single mistake he had made in his Presidency? Bush 43 likes to compare himself to George Washington. Well, Washington made plenty of mistakes, and he admitted to most of them. The difference is George Washington learned from his mistakes and the record shows he worked diligently never to repeat them.

The father of our country was a great man, a great leader, and like all fathers, flawed. That’s the candidate I want to support for office. I want a candidate not afraid to make mistakes, confident enough to admit to his mistakes and wise enough to apply the lessons learned to strengthen this republic.

Obama or McCain -- Liberal or Conservative?

Let’s get one thing straight: Barack Obama is not the “most liberal member of the US Senate” despite what the National Journal says. And John McCain doesn’t think so either.

John McCain is known to point out that Obama supports the President at least 50 percent of the time. The National Journal disagrees. In its analysis and rating of senators’ votes in 2007, the Journal concluded Obama is the “most liberal member of the Senate.” The GOP jumped on it, sending out press releases to all media. The right-wing bloggers jumped on it too, as further evidence that Obama is just another one of those “tax and spend liberals.”

So, which is it? Is McCain right or is National Journal right? The GOP can’t have it both ways.

Frankly, in my view, neither conclusion is correct.

The ratings are often based on a very subjective analysis of votes cast. For example, in the judgment of editors of the National Journal, Obama’s vote to establish a Senate Office of Public Integrity should be counted as a liberal vote. Who knew? Wouldn’t you think that vote would be neither liberal nor conservative? Could there be anything more deserving of bipartisan support?

What about those ratings of special interest groups. Are they any help? I’m talking about organizations like Americans for Democratic Action, American Civil Liberties Union, National Federation of Independent Business, the Americans for Constitutional Action – to name just a few. Their ratings are so important they appear at the end of every member’s bio in The Almanac of American Politics. These ratings, however, are based on a select list of 10 or 12 votes from among hundreds of votes cast in a single year, and they’re mostly designed to be used as a lobbying tool. Nope, the special interest groups don’t help because typically they use their ratings to polarize the electorate.

I worked in the US Senate for 17 years and I can tell you with confidence that nothing so frustrates the members – all members of both parties – like these arbitrary ratings. Anyone can pick a dozen votes to make a member look “liberal” or “conservative.” I remember well, Barry Goldwater, THE father of the modern conservative movement, and he voted frequently with his more liberal colleagues. Ted Kennedy is well known to support conservative issues; indeed, he worked closely with President Bush to pass education legislation.

Let’s be blunt: Most of the analysis and ratings are not an accurate reflection of the political ideology of a given Senator. You may be able to discern someone leaning one way or another…but it is not possible to gauge who is the “most liberal” or “most conservative” by reading the ratings published today.

All right, but is McCain “liberal” or “conservative?” Conservatives certainly don’t like it when he partners with Democrats like Russ Feingold in writing campaign finance reform legislation. McCain certainly sounds liberal, doesn’t he?

Is Obama liberal or conservative? Liberals don’t like it when he says he wants to bring the best minds into his administration, even Republicans! Obama certainly sounds like a conservative, doesn’t he?

Can political scientists give us an objective answer?

One respected Internet site, Voteview.com, created by political scientists, reports there are nine senators more liberal than Obama, and seven senators more conservative than McCain.

Darn, this is hard. Maybe we should quit trying to peg a member as a “liberal” or “conservative.” Maybe we should quit using those words with pejorative intent, too. Maybe we should look at the totality of the member’s record. Maybe we should listen to the member explain his vote when it’s in question.

Yes, its a little work, but Jefferson and the others never said preserving this republic would be easy. They said it would require each new generation to renew their commitment to think before they vote. Isn’t it time to do some of that?

So when someone says to you, “I’m not voting for Obama because he is the most liberal member of the US Senate,” tell them, “That’s not true; the record doesn’t show that. Find another reason, please, and then we’ll talk.”

Of All Times, Why Not This Time

After the first OPEC oil embargo of 1973 – a time when I was working in the U.S. Senate – I heard one Senator ask another, “Why don’t we develop a long range plan to put America on the road to energy independence right now, so we don’t have to suffer a day when oil is finally running out and the price is going through the ceiling?” The other Senator, a governor before he was elected to the Senate some 30 years earlier, responded, “One thing I’ve learned about politics: you don’t solve a problem before the people believe they have one…(pause for dramatic effect)…because you won’t get credit for solving it.” Everyone laughed. I didn’t. I thought everyone could see clearly we had a serious national problem that needed to be addressed. But the old Senator was right. As soon as the embargo was lifted Americans went right back to buying their gas guzzlers and quickly forgot that a day of reckoning was coming.

Now, it’s 35 years later.

I'm stuck in traffic, every car is at a dead stop. As I contemplate the bumper of the SUV directly in front of me, I realize I can not see over, under, around or through this behemoth. How am I supposed to see brake lights on the SUV in front of it…or the next one?

As I sit in traffic, engine idling, I think about the $4 a gallon I just paid to fill this tank at the local Exxon station. I also begin to recall the pain imposed by that first OPEC oil embargo of October 1973.

That fall, prices rose dramatically and lines stretched as far as the eye could see in some cities as gas station inventory dropped. OPEC members found out they could influence world oil prices quickly, and Americans discovered their government had lost its ability to control the nation’s economic destiny.

So what did we do? We reduced the federal speed limit to 55, extended daylight saving time, and created a large federal agency where bureaucrats still sit and write national energy policies. One after the other. Shelves are full of them.

In other words, we turned a blind eye to the root of the problem, and soon forgot about the embargoes.

As soon as prices stabilized in the ‘80s, Boomers started looking for larger vehicles to transport their families, something that did not resemble their father’s station wagon. Manufacturers responded by putting a truck frame on a new kind of car – the sport utility vehicle. Some could carry an entire soccer team!

Of course, the SUV is not solely responsible for our increased oil consumption but it is emblematic of our refusal to come to grips with a problem that continues to threaten our economy and, indeed, our national security. Since 1973, America has doubled the amount of oil it imports to meet its daily requirements. That is unacceptable to me.

So, what is the answer?

I encourage you to join me in asking Barack Obama and John McCain what they plan to do about getting America on a path to energy independence. I’m not talking about just reducing consumption, I’m talking about true energy independence. Obama has already shown some leadership by refusing to go along with that “gas tax holiday” gimmick proposed by Hillary Clinton and endorsed by John McCain. We don't need more political expediency, we need political leadership!

Obama may our best hope in these times to find a political leader willing to make the hard choices and explain them to the American people without trying to make sure he “gets the credit.”

There are political risks in such decisions, to be sure, but we voters must allow our President and those legislators with the political fortitude to follow him to take those risks without fear of retribution. That last step may be the hardest.

If we, collectively, have the political will to solve this problem, there will be plenty of credit to go around, starting with the voters. Maybe this time, the voters will come to the conclusion they really do have a problem. Maybe this time, our leaders will do the job they should have done in 1973.

Even Milkman Donates Mother's Milk of Politics

For decades people have asked me what can be done to mitigate the influence of special interests, especially the cash-hog corporate lobbyists in Washington. My answer was always the same: “Get involved. Give a dollar, two dollars, maybe 10 dollars.” At this point in the conversation the person is usually backing away fast, perhaps turning on his heels while searching desperately for an exit.

I have always believed the quickest way to push fat cat lobbyists out of the picture in Washington is get more people involved in the selection process. Not just cheering for their candidate from the sidelines but actually contributing real money to the campaign.

Many years ago, I worked for a US Senator who was elected from a state of nearly 5 million citizens, 2.1 million of whom were registered voters. When he ran for office the first time, no more than 4,000 individuals contributed their own money to his campaign – less than .002 percent of registered voters!

That was not an atypical situation anywhere in the country – then, or now.

At least it was not atypical until Barack Obama came along, and with him, the Internet. As enthusiasm for an Obama candidacy began to build, the Internet was employed to engage voters directly and motivate them to willingly contribute small amounts of their own money to his candidacy.

Obama has done what no candidate for national office has ever been able to do: he has engaged both the minds and pocketbooks of the voters in large numbers. Indeed, his financial reports are so large they have overwhelmed computers at the Federal Election Commission.

More than half of individual contributions to Obama have been in chunks of $25 or less. That means most of his contributors are nowhere near the individual limit, and thus, are likely to come back to give again for the general election.

Obama is taking no money from lobbyists. And now his campaign has persuaded the DNC to refuse further contributions from lobbyists. Obama contributors did not realize they were making history. Most never gave a thought to the fact that they might be marginalizing Washington lobbyists. But they did, and they are.

I never thought I would live to see it. This may be the moment in American history when the people actually take back their government. At least, we have a chance to do so. We have a chance.

"Reading" John McCain's Speaking Style

I first met John McCain when he worked as the Navy’s liaison officer in the US Senate, and I have followed his career from afar since those days. He has never been the most dynamic speaker on the circuit, a fact that is obvious to all who have witnessed his attempts to connect with the American voter.

If you are among those sometimes wondering what to make of his public utterances, here is a quick primer:

1. When McCain is blinking, he does not believe what he is saying.

2. When his eyes are blinking so fast they seem to flutter and he is smiling, he has no idea what he is talking about but he hopes you are buying it anyway.

3. When he is staring blankly into the camera without blinking, he desperately wants you to believe what he is saying and he hopes you will take it to the bank without further questions.

4. When he furrows his brow and squints darkly into the audience as a question is being asked, he is praying………….for an answer, any answer, to occur to him.

5. Of course, if you happen to engage him in conversation, be wary of any sentence beginning with, “My friend,” for at that point in the conversation he is not thinking of you as his friend. Enough said.

Memo to Tim Russert

As I watched that gaggle of NBC political reporters, analysts and pundits on Meet the Press today, I thought, “What a waste of time.” It does not help the voter understand the issues better or candidates’ views when Tim presents talking heads doing what they do best – just talking.

Here’s my suggestion to Tim: Why not devote a series of Sundays this summer to panels of experts on the major issues. But not just any experts: each panel would consist of six individuals, three each selected from among those who have endorsed the two major candidates. They would not be asked about their candidate’s position (that’s for the campaign spokesman); rather, they would be asked to share advice they would give their candidate on the issue with which they are most familiar. Start with the economy, then to national security, followed by global warming and related environmental issues. What a great way to start a national dialogue on the issues. (By the way, this would give talking heads much to talk about in the week following each panel discussion.)

And it would give the voters an idea of the quality of advice the winning candidate is likely to receive starting next January.

Most importantly, on the Sunday before the Democratic Convention, Tim could invite Barack Obama to appear and respond to the more salient comments made during the series (video clips to be selected by Tim, of course), and invite John McCain to appear the Sunday before the Republican Convention for the same discussion.

Why not turn the dog days of summer into a useful exercise that will help the voter understand who best to put in The White House to address the most pressing issues of our time?

Into the Media Maw

The media cannot be sated. When there is a question surrounding an Unknown, it must be asked until the Unknown becomes the Known. Then it is on to the next Unknown – no matter what it is, no matter how trivial (latest YouTube video craze), no matter how important (Obama’s pick for VP).

VP picks are typically announced at the party’s convention and my calendar says it does not take place until August 25-28 in Denver. Meanwhile, Obama has asked three people to conduct a search and determine for him the best VP candidates for the nation in 2008. From a short list they will develop, he will make a decision.

I’m fine with a little conversation in the media about possibilities…but lay it out there and leave it alone. We don’t “need to know” right now. Give the man some space, some time, some peace, some rest…and, most importantly, give him time to think.

This absolute frenzy to be first to determine the Unknown has got to stop.

But it won’t.

The media maw is wide and deep and must be fed. It must. The favored entre of this voracious animal is always…Unknown.

Over the Horizon

It seems to me that the new Aptera (300 mpg!) automobile is to American capitalism as Barack Obama is to representative government. Both are breathtakingly refreshing in their approach to solving pressing problems.

The Aptera is a light-weight, high tech, vehicle that, according to the website of the manufacturer, will be available to you and me in about a year as an electric car or a plug-in hybrid.

This is not an ad for the car. It is a message for all the Nellie Naysayers out there who believe America’s best days are behind her. Don’t you believe it! Since 1973, we have known there was a finite amount of oil left in the world and, as demand increased and supplies shrank, the price was bound to go up. It did. And while market forces will make the price fluctuate, even pushing it down from time to time, the long term view calls for higher and higher gas prices.

Enter American ingenuity…again. While our elected leadership has mostly slept, American entrepreneurs have been hard at work, and we are beginning to see the fruits of their labors. To paraphrase Captain John Paul Jones, we have not yet begun to invent!

The thought of the Aptera and similar new technology should bring a smile to your face. It must surely be Saudi Arabia’s worst nightmare. It must give Iran's President Ahmadinejad and Venezuela’s Hugo Chavez very bad heartburn. Soon…very soon, we may not need so much of their black gold.

Yes, I know China is ready to buy what we don’t…but that is just a temporary salve for the oil producing nations. Their time, as dictators of price for the one of the world’s most valued commodities, is almost up.

No Wind at McCain's Back

McCain’s problem is there is no wind at his back.

He’s not just old, he thinks old. And the old way of thinking says you can say anything to get elected and no one will notice, and if they do, they won’t do anything about it. He’s wrong. Americans have finally awakened from their national nightmare and, with steely resolve, are going to take back their government this November.

Something fundamentally American is on the move. No one running for President has ever drawn the crowds Barack Obama has. There were 20,000 in Houston, 35,000 in Philadelphia, 75,000 in Portland with another 15,000 the police would not let through the gates, 19,000 in St. Paul on that historic night when he claimed enough delegates to secure the nomination, with 15,000 more outside who could not get in.

There IS something moving across the face of America. It is the breath of renewal, carried by the winds of hope, nurtured by the promise of a better day, and fed by the desire of every one of us to take back our republic, preserve the rights of all under the Constitution and bequeath a stronger nation to the next generation.

John McCain’s view of change is to follow the fickle weathervane of public opinion. The American spirit with its indominatable resolve to make this a better land needs no weathervane to point it forward.

To Save a Republic

I believe we still have a chance to save this republic -- to put it back on track, to reassert America's leadership on the world stage, regain lost credibility abroad, restore respect for the US Constitution, respect for the balance of powers necessary to govern, and most importantly, adopt at least a measure of bi-partisanship when it comes to reaching solutions for our toughest problems.

In that spirit, now that the nomination is secured for the Senator from Illinois, I think it time to take another look at the speech Senator Obama delivered in Philadelphia on March 18. Here are very brief excerpts none of us should forget and all should heed.

Barack Obama:

“I believe deeply that we cannot solve the challenges of our time unless we solve them together – unless we perfect our union by understanding that we may have different stories, but we hold common hopes; that we may not look the same and we may not have come from the same place, but we all want to move in the same direction – towards a better future for our children and grandchildren.”

“…race is an issue that I believe this nation cannot afford to ignore right now….the issues that have surfaced over the last few weeks reflect the complexities of race in this country that we’ve never really worked through – a part of our union that we have yet to perfect. …if we simply retreat into our respective corners, we will never be able to come together and solve challenges like health care, or education, or the need to find good jobs for every American.”

“…the real culprits of the middle class squeeze – a corporate culture rife with inside dealing, questionable accounting practices, and short-term greed; a Washington dominated by lobbyists and special interests; economic policies that favor the few over the many. And yet, to wish away the resentments of white Americans, to label them as misguided or even racist, without recognizing they are grounded in legitimate concerns – this too widens the racial divide, and blocks the path to understanding.”

“I have asserted a firm conviction – a conviction rooted in my faith in God and my faith in the American people – that working together we can move beyond some of our old racial wounds, and that in fact we have no choice if we are to continue on the path of a more perfect union.”

“…it means taking full responsibility for our own lives – by demanding more from our fathers, and spending more time with our children, and reading to them, and teaching them that while they may face challenges and discrimination in their own lives, they must never succumb to despair or cynicism; they must always believe that they can write their own destiny.”

“…America can change. That is the true genius of this nation. What we have already achieved gives us hope – the audacity to hope – for what we can and must achieve tomorrow.”

“…the path to a more perfect union means acknowledging that what ails the African-American community does not just exist in the minds of black people; that the legacy of discrimination – and the current incidents of discrimination, while less overt than in the past – are real and must be addressed.”

“It requires all Americans to realize that your dreams do not have to come at the expense of my dreams; that investing in the health, welfare, and education of black and brown and white children will ultimately help all of America prosper.”

“In the end, then, what is called for is nothing more, and nothing less, than what all the world’s great religions demand – that we do unto others as we have them do unto us. Let us be our brother’s keeper, Scripture tells us. Let us be our sister’s keeper. Let us find that common stake we all have in one another, and let our politics reflect that spirit as well.”

“This union may never be perfect, but generation after generation has shown that it can always be perfected. And today, whenever I find myself feeling doubtful or cynical about this possibility, what gives me the most hope is the next generation – the young people whose attitudes and beliefs and openness to change have already made history in this election.”

From: “A More Perfect Union”

Let It Be

As of today, Barack Obama needs less than 50 delegates to claim the nomination. Only the Montana and South Dakota primaries remain with a total of 31 delegates at stake. When the results come in, Obama will add them to the names of the super delegates who have moved to his side, thus allowing him to claim the nomination, with confidence, in remarks Tuesday night (in St. Paul in the same venue, incidentally, that the Republicans will use for their convention, September 1-4, 2008). The race, finally, will be over. Yes, I know, Hillary says she will stay in it, but THE RACE IS OVER!)

Now we have only five months to wait for the Bush-Cheney nightmare to be over and a new day to dawn in American politics. It is time for everyone to take a deep breath, turn off Fox News, turn down Keith Olberman, laugh with Chris Matthews, enjoy John Stewart, feel sorry for Bill O’Reilly, and just – chill out. We have a long way to go.

To put it in perspective, we haven’t even reached the baseball All-Star break yet. We still have miles to go. The 2008 World Series will be over as will the parade for the new champions. Even the confetti from the champions’ parade will be buried under piles of newer rubbish long before Election Day. Indeed, it is likely that even some of the new fall television programs will have been canceled before the November 4^th election.

It IS a long journey, but – and think of it this way – it is not as long as the eight years we have endured already. So, for the mental health of all parties, it is best to disengage from time to time (and this is one of those times). The "silly season" has begun. Time to take John Lennon's advice and just “Let it be.”