They Eat Their Young

Did you see where David Frum, former Bush speech writer was forced out of his job with the American Enterprise Institute for saying some slightly critical things about the GOP loss on health care reform? Frum says it appears some of the donors had something to do with it. Make that the GOP Pure Police. You have to be pure to be a Republican these days. If you vary from the party line, if you dare think for yourself, if you dare talk about bipartisanship, you are in deep trouble.What will happen, you say? Well, if you are a lobbyist, you lose your job; if you are a member of Congress, you get a primary opponent next time. "We will weed you out" seems to be the governing dicta of the Pure Police. "We pull all weeds."

I'm concerned. I think we should all be concerned to see that the intelligent people have been forced out of the GOP by extreme elements (tea partiers) of the GOP.

Did you see Sarah Palin introducing John McCain to a partisan crowd in Arizona today? I have never seen John McCain so uncomfortable. He kept looking at his notes (When is she going to finish), and off to the side (Where is some aide who will come to my rescue), she embraced the tea party movement entirely and said if you are supporting John McCain, you are part of the tea party movement (Help, is there no one who will get her off the stage for me). After a while you began to feel sorry for him. But that leather jacket with the zippers on it in strategic places was fetching, wasn't it. Wouldn't she make a good President?

First Time Voter!

I met a first time voter today. Not just any first time voter. She is a middle aged woman, an immigrant from South America, who came here several years ago and became a US citizen earlier this year.

She saw my Obama button as I walked through the grocery store on my way to pick up three lemons. As I passed, she grabbed my arm and immediately started to tell me why she also supported Obama. I was in hurry, but the sparkle in her eye as she talked about Obama told me I should listen.

It turns out she knew a lot about both campaigns. She had been listening to both sides closely. The first thing she wanted to say was, “I can’t vote for McCain because he chose a woman who is not very smart to run with him. She doesn’t seem to know anything about anything. And how can he think she is ready to be President? He is an old man…and sick…and he needed to name someone much younger, someone people know about, someone who could help him right away.”

Her voice slowed a bit as she talked about Obama but lost none of its fervor. “Obama seems like a man you can trust. He seems like a man who cares about everybody. Obama seems like a man with a good heart…AND he fills my heart with hope.” I could see a tear starting to well up. “America is the hope of the world; everybody I know wants to come to America. It is the land of opportunity. You can be what you want to be. I love America. “She paused, and then added, “Please tell me Obama will win!”

Clearly she has paid more attention to this race than many Americans who have voted many times.

I told the lady from South America she was not alone in her exuberance. I assured her she was about to vote for a candidate who possessed the personal integrity, raw intellect, life experience and good judgment necessary to lead all of us as President. She liked that. I hope we don’t disappoint her.

Almost time to...........GO TO WORK!

No celebration should be planned. There is stil work to do...and after the winner is declared, it will be time for all of us to redouble our efforts to take back this republic and make it work for all of us, not just a select few.

As of this morning, it appears Barack Obama will carry "swing states" Pennsylvania, Virginia, Colorado and Nevada. Although he is ahead in Ohio and Florida, it would be premature to count them (although I feel better about Ohio this morning).

Indiana, North Carolina, and Missouri will be interesting to watch because the candidates are in a virtual tie right now...BUT, and it is an important but, those three states are not likely to change the outcome. And that is the good news.

But wait, there's more. The really good news is: Arizona, John McCain's home state, is now considered a very real "toss-up" state...as opposed to a "wishful thinking toss-up" state.

An interesting side note to think about today: late polls that include cell phone users have Obama up nationally 9.4 points as compared to landline users only that have Obama ahead just 5.1 points.

Tiptoe to the Horizon

If only we could tiptoe to the horizon and take a look over to gain at least a glimpse of what the future holds for us. None of us have that gift (or curse, depending on your point of view), but it doesn't take much imagination to see enormous potential for growth and strength in the American experience.

It seems clear that alternative fuels will soon power our automobiles, thus decreasing our dependence on foreign sources of oil.

It seems clear that alternative and renewable fuels will be used to generate our electricity, including clean coal technology (which really will be clean).

It seems clear that advances in nanotechnology will soon transform the way thousands of products are manufactured, and the products thus made will be in the millions.

It seems clear that computers will become increasingly more sophisticated, faster and more powerful, and even more integrated in our lives, not just to help us play video games or to keep us better connected to each other, but including, especially including, providing better health care.

The capitalist system is perfectly suited to take advantage of the innovation and invention that flows from American ingenuity. The problem for this country has been that, for the past eight years, there has been no leadership at the White House. The Bush-Cheney cabal was never able to address "that vision thing" -- as Bush 41 described it -- because they were not, and are not capable of it. With Obama taking the helm, at last we will have a chance to take advantage of the real potential in America that has been suppressed by this incompetent Administration.

It's Bill Clinton's Fault

What is it with Republicans? Why do they hate Bill Clinton so much that they HAVE to attach every misbegotten deed that has adversely impacted the nation since he left office to something he did or didn’t do during the 8 years he was in office?

Mmmmmmmm…?

Was it his success as a President? Was it the balanced budget he submitted to Congress which Republican Presidents in recent history were want to do? Was it the enormous prosperity the country enjoyed during his presidency? Was it the record jobs created during his years of federal stewardship?

Or was it those moments of immoral behavior, moments of personal failing that have caused them to hate him so? If so, where is the Christian spirit of forgiveness they supposedly learned in church school each Sunday? Where were these “Christians” when THAT lesson was being taught?

I’ve heard Bill Clinton blamed for Osama bin Laden’s attacks on America. To hear Pat Robertson tell it, 9/11 was a direct result of Bill Clinton’s presidency. I’m sure he must have thought up that Mission Accomplished banner, too, knowing all the while the grief it would cause Bush 43.

I’ve heard him blamed for the mortgage crisis. One of the talk radio nuts said it was Bill Clinton who came up with the subprime lending scheme.

The next thing you know the Republicans will blame global warming on Bill Clinton. I guess he is to blame also for all those terrible hurricanes visited upon the Bush Administration. And surely he is to blame for those high prices at the gas pump which had us all running for Japanese hybrids.

Male pattern baldness will be next. Just ask Rush Limbaugh.

I’ll bet Bill Clinton was the one who gave John McCain the idea that Sarah Palin would be a good choice for a running mate.

We must never forget...

As hard as it may be to believe, a few voters remain undecided. If you know one, remind him or her of a few of the painful days indelibly printed on the Bush legacy:

I hope we never forget the day the bridges collapsed in Minnesota, reminding us that the Bush administration would not support spending dollars from the Highway Trust Fund to repair and maintain our federal highway infrastructure.

I hope we never forget the day the Bush appointed head of the Consumer Products Safety Commission shrugged as she testified before Congress, confessing she could not remember whether or not the Commission had recalled a single toy made in China that was unsafe for our children.

I hope we never forget the near misses by aircraft at Reagan National Airport, and the fact that the FAA does not have the money to install current state of the art systems to keep planes from colliding on taxiways because the Administration does not support such spending.

I hope we never forget when the USDA announced the biggest meat recall in US history, partially because they cannot afford enough meat inspectors to do one of the basic jobs Americans expect from their government.

I hope we never forget that the FDA permitted unsafe drugs to enter the prescription drug market because of lax oversight, and because the FDA cannot afford the experts needed for proper testing in a timely manner.

I hope we never forget the inept reaction of FEMA to the catastrophic damage to the Gulf Coast caused by Hurricanes Rita and Katrina.

I hope we never forget that $500 million in federal support for development of a clean coal-fired electric generation project that was withdrawn because such spending would add more dollars to an already bursting federal deficit, even though such spending might result in cleaner more breathable air for all.

These are but a sampling from a very long list. There are many more from nearly every agency and department of our government where, over the past eight years, budgets have been slashed, staffs have been cut, and the delivery of services American taxpayers depend on has suffered.

Then there is the complete meltdown of our economy under the Bush Administration. It should come as no surprise that the Bush administration was not minding the store. They never did.

John McCain says he and George Bush share the same philosophy of government. Is there anything else you need to know?

We will strengthen our republic when we go to the polls next week remembering the failings of the current administration and determined not to forget what it did to our country these past eight years.

Higher taxes on higher profit or lower taxes on lower profit?

"I'd rather pay higher taxes on higher profit than lower taxes on lower profit."

That comment by a businessman in today's news sends a clear message to Republicans: "we're not buying the same old line this year." Did you hear that, McPalin team? We are not buying.


I think Americans finally understand the GOP's game. Every four years for at least 44 years, the GOP walks out the same old line: "Vote for us because we will lower your taxes and reduce the size of government. The only problem: they never do. It's a nice promise and they count on the voters with short attention spans and even shorter memories buying it.

I remember when Barry Goldwater and Bill Miller tried to sell it in 1964. Even Nelson Rockefeller, the acknowledged leader of the liberal wing of the Republican Party in the early 1960s was promising not to raise taxes. (Yes, there was a liberal wing of the Republican Party in those days.)

Richard Nixon and Spiro Agnew tried it, too, in 1968 and 1972 with better success. They even threw in a promise of victory in Vietnam with, "Peace is at hand." (They were smart enough not to say "victory is at hand" as John McCain does today.)

In 1976 Jerry Ford and Bob Dole would have used it to better effect if the aftermath of the Watergate scandal had not cleared the way for Democrats Jimmy Carter and Walter Mondale to be elected.

Then came Reagan in 1980. The former Democrat, former actor turned Republican, understood what to do with the old line. He and George H.W. Bush got elected twice on the line. Voters generally have forgotten that Reagan/Bush tripled the national debt as they lowered taxes (because they did nothing to reduce spending) and the size of the government almost doubled on their watch. Oh well, maybe nobody noticed.

Reagan -- the fiscal conservative -- never balanced a budget. He never came close to balancing a budget. He never came remotely close to even thinking about balancing a budget. Ronald Reagan, the patron saint of the GOP, paid for his massive expansion of the federal government by pawning off the expense on the next generation. And he used his communication skills to tell us this was all somehow OK.

Bush 41 and Dan Quayle got their chance in 1988 and simply continued the Reagan "borrow and spend" years but Bush made one fatal mistake. He emphatically stated, "Read my lips: no new taxes." He forgot that you are not supposed to lay that sacrosanct campaign tenet in concrete, you are only supposed to promise lower taxes. But those Bush boys were never very good with the English language. When taxes went up and Bush 41 did not veto them, voters turned him out because he could not erase the words he had put in the consciousness of every voter.

Democrat Bill Clinton was the first President since Lyndon Johnson to present a balanced budget to the Congress and the American people. When he left office after two terms of consistent growth and prosperity, he left a $230 billion surplus for the next administration.

In 2000 Bush 43 came into office with his co-president, Dick Cheney (still hard to know who was the real President but that's another blog entry). Bush 43 and Cheney went back to 1964 and picked up the mantra: "we promise you lower taxes and smaller government." And they added, "Who knows better than you how to spend your own money? Certainly not the government." Sounds so sweet, doesn't it? They didn't believe it, of course, but sure thought the electorate would.

The GOP must think we are all infants...or idiots? 91.4 PERCENT OF THE FEDERAL BUDGET GOES TO DEFENSE, SOCIAL SECURITY, MEDICARE, MEDICAID AND INTEREST ON THE NATIONAL DEBT. The GOP will not speak of these locked in spending items. Only Defense can be called discretionary but the GOP certainly does not see it as discretionary.

It is up to us -- as Sarah Palin likes to say -- to "call them out" when they promise something we and they know they can't deliver and indeed, have no intention to even attempt to deliver.

As Obama says, it's time to declare, "Enough."

The truth is this: The fiscally conservative party has indebted this country since 1980 with a mammoth amount of debt. Bush 43 will leave office on January 20, 2009, having doubled the national debt from 5.4 trillion dollars to 10.6 trillion dollars.

Just typing those record debt numbers is depressing to me. I'm ready for someone who will speak the truth to us, not the tired old mantra of discredited political ideology.

Not one of us wants to pay higher taxes, we just want to pay our fair share of taxes when it is warranted. That is patriotism in action. And we are all patriots -- at least we believe we are -- when we ask government to keep greed in check by regulating financial markets, care for the elderly by providing a small measure of support through Social Security and Medicare/Medicaid programs, pay for the infrastructure that provides safe roads and bridges and levees, secure our borders from those who would do us harm, and most importantly, provide for the common defense. There's more, much more we Democrats AND Republicans expect of our government, but you get the picture. We will pay taxes, we will pay higher taxes if needed, but we insist they be taxes fairly apportioned among the citizens and expended only in ways that are transparent and fully accountable.

Georgia on my mind

Georgia is my home state and so I follow politics there closer than I do almost any other state in the nation. I lived there when it was solidly Democratic. I left by the time McGovern had begun chasing the good ole boys into the Republican camp where they have been very happy. Richard Nixon got the second highest percentage win in November 1972 in Georgia (right behind Mississippi's 76% vote). And the party switch was underway.

But something is happening now. There is a movement afoot in the Peach State. And it starts with general unhappiness among the electorate there with the leadership of George Bush. (Who can't love a repentant alcoholic!) But the good ole boys ARE unhappy with Bush 43 and they don't see much hope for a better day in the aging maverick and his moose shootin' sidekick (Sarah The Shooter).

Various polls show incumbent Senator Saxby Chambliss leading by 4 points, by two points, and even tied in at least one poll with Democratic challenger Jim Martin. John McCain is just two points ahead of Barack Obama in Georgia. Georgia! A state that Bush 43 won by 17 points in 2004. There is a dark spot on the Republican brand in Georgia and it's called incompetence. There's not enough Oxi-Clean in the world to remove it. (Out damn spot, out!)

Yes, Obama still has work to do in Georgia and so does Jim Martin...but they are close and closing. And now folks are talking about a possible Obama win in South Carolina. If that happens, palmetto trees on the state house lawn are sure to topple! But the fact that reliable sources are even talking about a possible win for Obama in South Carolina tells you to get ready for an earthquake. (Yes, we have them in the South.) Okefenokee is the Seminole Indian name for the swamp in South Georgia which, when translated means, "land of the trembling earth."

Let it shake, baby. Let it shake!

Five minutes ago: Breaking News!!!

A new Insider Advantage Poll came out this morning and it now shows Obama at 48, McCain at 47 with Undecided at 3 -- IN GEORGIA! In the race for US Senate, incumbent Chambliss is 44, challenger Martin is at 42 with Undecided at 12. Although well within the margin for error, trends are UP for Obama and Martin. The ground is starting to tremble under my feet. Can you feel it!!

Who is the most popular governor in America?

John McCain is quick to tell us his running mate is “the most popular governor in America” and that’s supposed to be a good reason we should vote for her (and him).

There is only one problem with that: Sarah Palin is NOT the most popular governor in America.

In July 2007, The Weekly Standard reported Governor Sarah Palin had “an approval rating in the 90s” and the report was based on a recent public survey in Alaska. Not your state, not mine, just Alaska.

I have no idea what her approval rating is today in Alaska…but let’s accept “the 90s” estimate of The Weekly Standard. That makes her the most popular current governor in Alaska, that’s all. Until late August, no one in the lower 48 had even heard of her.

She is the most popular governor in Alaska, to be sure, but the rest of us – 300 million of us – have never voted for her, and never rated her anything, until John McCain introduced her in Ohio in August of 2008.

It is incorrect, therefore, for John McCain to keep referring to her as the most popular governor in America. If John McCain says, “Sarah Palin has a statewide approval rating in Alaska that is higher than the approval rating of any other sitting governor in his or her state,” I can accept that.

Breaking News: Hold the phone. On October 1, 2008 Mason-Dixon Polling reported her ratings had tumbled to around 68 percent. While that is still good, there are two governors in Western states with approval ratings in the low 80s, and at least two in the 60s. Now McCain can’t say she is the most popular governor – uh, anywhere. Dang it!

Pray for Defeat?

I am still troubled by an e-mail I received the other day from a Republican asking all who receive it to stop what they are doing each night at 7 p.m. and join in a mass effort, as Christians, to pray for the defeat of the one “leading in national polls,” but who does not “share our Christian values.” The not so subtle reference was to Barack Obama, of course, a devout Christian.

You can see why I am confused and troubled.

John McCain is the guy who divorced his wife when he came home from Vietnam. She had been in a terrible auto accident and just “wouldn’t do” anymore, I guess. He is also the guy who “dated” everything in skirts up and down the East Coast during his days as Navy liaison to the US Senate. He is also the guy who admitted that for a time he “dated” a stripper. He is also the guy who told intimates he was going to leave the Navy to run for Congress from a district in Florida because he had found a rich maiden who could support such an effort. He is the same guy who a few weeks later told the same intimates he had changed his mind, that he had met another beauty (Cindy McCain) in a Hawaiian bar and would be moving to Arizona soon to marry her and run for the Congress from a district to be identified there.

John McCain cannot be the real Christian, can he?

I’m having trouble finding the Christian life in John McCain. Let’s look at the other guy. Obama has been married to only one woman and devotedly so. He came to his Christianity through a long and circuitous faith journey and soul searching that brought him to Trinity United Church of Christ in Chicago where he made his commitment.

We gain some useful insight into the faith of Barack Obama when we review comments he made in a 2006 speech at a conference sponsored by Jim Wallis’s Sojourners organization.

In that speech, his message to the political Left was stop rejecting people of faith and instead find common ground. To the Right, he said you need to recognize the “critical role that the separation of church and state has played” in America. “Whatever we once were, we are no longer just a Christian nation; we are also a Jewish nation, a Muslim nation, a Buddhist nation, a Hindu nation, and a nation of nonbelievers.”

Then he said something most revealing: “And even if we did have only Christians in our midst, if we expelled every non-Christian from the United States of America, whose Christianity would we teach in the schools? Would we go with James Dobson’s, or Al Sharpton’s? Which passage of Scripture should guide our public policy? Should we go with Leviticus, which suggests slavery is okay and that eating shellfish is abomination? How about Deuteronomy, which suggests stoning your child if he strays from the faith? Or should we just stick to the Sermon on the Mount – a passage that is so radical that it’s doubtful our own Defense Department would survive its application? So, before we get carried away, let’s read our Bibles. Folks haven’t been reading their Bibles.”

The speech served as the basis for the chapter on faith in Obama’s The Audacity of Hope.

There is more, much more, in his speech that I commend to those who seek more insight into the faith journey of this thoughtful man. A comment near the end of the speech is worth repeating. He says religion ought to change its voice when entering the public square. "Democracy demands,” he argued, “that the religiously motivated translate their concern into universal rather than religion-specific, values. It requires that their proposals be subject to argument, and amendable to reason. I may be opposed to abortion for religious reasons, but if I seek to pass a law banning the practice, I cannot simply point to the teaching of my church or evoke God’s will. I have to explain why abortion violates some principle that is accessible to people of all faiths, including those with no faith at all.”

I don’t know about you, but Barack Obama is the kind of Christian I want in the White House – probing, asking questions, doubting, yet faithful and grounded in the Judeo-Christian tradition, someone who will use the precepts of his faith to unite us.

"My Friends"

John McCain used the speech crutch, "my friends," way too many times last night. I know John McCain. When he becomes really irritated with the situation in which he finds himself, he uses the phrase frequently. But it helps if you know what he is really saying.

I have known John McCain since the mid-1970s and observed his use of "my friend" or the plural "my friends" for many years. So, try to think of it this way: the next time you hear him say, "my friend," please know he is really saying, "you idiot," as in "Listen, you idiot, I will explain my energy plan once more." And when he says, "my friends," he is really saying, "you stupid people," as in "You stupid people, I am best qualified to lead this nation."

If you substitute "you idiot" or "you stupid people" each time you hear him say "my friends," you will have a much better idea of what he really means. But don't take my word for it, ask the people even closer, the staff of his campaign what they think he means.

Addendum:

Every time John McCain speaks publicly, I get requests for help in clarifying his words and his style of speaking. 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 repeat of the primer I posted in June:

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.

Nine Senators more "liberal" than Obama; Seven Senators more "conservative" than McCain

Let’s get one thing straight: Barack Obama is not the “most liberal member of the US Senate” despite what the GOP says.

In its analysis and rating of senators’ votes in 2007, the National Journal concluded back in June that 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.”

McCain had a lot of fun with this report in June. Now that October is here and his polling numbers are not so hot, McCain and his minions are raising the false charge again and hoping it will stick this time.

So, is the charge correct? Here's a primer on ratings and votes they measure.

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. Do they make things clearer? 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. No, the special interest groups don’t help us understand the ratings 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. I wonder what Goldwater's ACA rating would be today? It wouldn't be hard to determine. The conservative rating services would simple pick the most conservative votes to make him look really conservative and ignore any that might make him look like his friend Ted Kennedy.

All right, but what about John McCain? 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.

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 simply reading the ratings published today. That's the bottom line. So, forget 'em.

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.”

She didn't blink

When Sarah Palin was asked if she hesitated for a moment when she got the call from John McCain asking her to join him on the Republican ticket this year, her response was , "No, I didn't. You don't blink when a call like that comes in. You say "yes" and you say it for your country."

That was the comment that convinced me John McCain had made a mistake.

Anyone who has even a grade school understanding of the complex problems facing this nation would have hesitated, would have been given pause by the sheer weight of the question, would have asked for time to think about it, discuss it with family, and consider whether the full scope of their public service experience and their intellect would be sufficient for the task. But no, she didn't need to do that. She didn't even blink once. Sarah Palin said, "yes." Her country was calling and she was ready to serve.

Now, John McCain surely is having second thoughts about his decision. Surely he would like to reconsider a decision he made in haste in the desperate moments after Barack Obama concluded his speech to 90,000 screaming faithful in Denver's football stadium.

Sarah thinks of herself as just another "Joe Sixpack," but even Joe would have been humbled by the question. Even good old Joe would have blinked...at least once. She didn't blink, because she was blinded by her own ambitious pursuit of the tiara they award at center stage.

Free Sarah Palin

This is Campbell Brown’s editorial comment on CNN last night on the McCain camp’s sexist treatment of Sarah Palin:

"Tonight I call on the McCain campaign to stop treating Sarah Palin like she is a delicate flower that will wilt at any moment. This woman is from Alaska for crying out loud. She is strong. She is tough. She is confident. And you claim she is ready to be one heartbeat away from the presidency. If that is the case, then end this chauvinistic treatment of her now. Allow her to show her stuff. Allow her to face down those pesky reporters... Let her have a real news conference with real questions. By treating Sarah Palin different from the other candidates in this race, you are not showing her the respect she deserves. Free Sarah Palin. Free her from the chauvinistic chain you are binding her with. Sexism in this campaign must come to an end. Sarah Palin has just as much a right to be a real candidate in this race as the men do. So let her act like one."

I agree with Campbell. McCain’s minion are doing her no favors and doing a disservice to the voters who have a right to hear from the number two person on the Republican side. Or can it be, she is not ready for prime time and, they fear, never will be. Whatever the case, the truth will out.

Katie Couric of CBS is set to interview Palin tomorrow (Wednesday). Let’s hope she gets more than 30 seconds of Palin’s time.

Forget Palin, this is between Obama and McCain.

In the end, this presidential race is about the choice between Barack Obama and John McCain. Never forget that.

Biden and Palin are window dressing. The choices for this country are between the guy who wants to change the direction of America and another guy who doesn’t.

A Republican friend called me to ask why I was so passionate about electing Barack Obama. I tried to boil it down to terms he could understand, and said:

"If you think America's treasury is not completely dry, if you think America's military is not completely impotent on the world stage, if you think America's international reputation is still in good shape, if you think global warming is a left wing myth, if you think our domestic infrastructure is still serving our people, if you think financial markets are sound, if you think government agencies the citizens of America depend on are still doing their job, by all means, vote for John McBush.

“If you think America can afford Republican stewardship of our country for another four to eight years, vote for McCain. But if you believe the country needs a new leader capable of effecting true change – not just someone talking about change for political expediency – then you should vote for Barack Obama.”

This nation asks for action, and action now.

In FDR’s first inaugural address, he had one line that surely rings true today: “This Nation asks for action, and action now.”

Indeed it does.

We have a housing crisis with foreclosures continuing to rise in a national mortgage meltdown.

We have a confidence crisis, with Americans believing our nation is on the wrong track, our President failing us (approval rating of less that 30%).

We have a President who believes all should be willing to pull themselves up by their own bootstraps never recognizing – as Barack Obama said –“there are many who don’t even have boots to pull up.”

We have a planet that is warming catastrophically due to human actions, with a government unwilling to recognize the cause and take necessary action in concert with the world community.

We have a national reputation in tatters following an ill advised pre-emptive strike against another sovereign nation – the first in our nation’s history. We have a military capability worn disastrously thin by a President who took us to war on false pretenses.

We have a growing dependence on foreign sources of oil that undermines our economy. We have a government unwilling to recognize that any nation that does not control its energy supply does not control its economic destiny.

We have the world’s number one terrorist, Osama bin Laden, still hiding from America in a cave in Afghanistan, breathing feely the air about him, thumbing his nose at us and taunting us with one audio tape after another, especially painful to hear by the survivors of victims of the 9/11 attack on each anniversary.

We have an domestic infrastructure that is crumbling before our eyes – bridges that fail inMinnesota, levees that fail in New Orleans, mass transit systems crumbling from overcrowding and lack of funding.

We have government agencies whose ability to perform for the citizens they are suppose to serve has been diminished through lack of funding by a government that does not believe they should exist in the first place.

We have a national debt that has just passed 9 trillion dollars, with an interest of $409 billion per year that every one of us must pay thanks to the profligate spending of this administration (national debt grew from $5 trillion to over $9 trillion while George Bush was President).

Why do any of us allow ourselves to be distracted from these issues by an airhead beauty contestant when there is so much serious work to be done to set America right? Where is the outrage? Where is the demand from each one of us for the change Barack Obama stands for?

Where is the action that is called for – now?!

Winner of Political Conventions?

One of my Ohio Republican friends asked me this morning which of the two political conventions was the most successful.

Obama's supporters were already united in support of their candidate. The result was an unprecedented crowd of 84,000+ in the stadium to show him and us that they are ready for a change in leadership in America. No politician in American history had ever gathered that many people in one spot to hear a political speech!

The Democratic convention must be considered a great success.

McCain's supporters, on the other hand, gathered as a disjointed amalgamation of individuals seeking a leader for THEIR causes. McCain was not their guy but they were there, nonetheless, to go through the motions. What happens? McCain picks Sarah Palin to be his running mate, someone totally unknown to the American people and barely known among Republicans. However, because she is a believer in all things the Republican base holds dear, she is able to energize the crowd, unite them, and send them stampeding out the doors ready to vote McCain/Palin into office. Indeed, some of them thought the order of the ticket ought to be reversed!

The Republican convention must be considered the more successful because it accomplished a miracle.

In Alaska, people are still decompressing. One of her Republican competitors said today, "She is not ready to be governor; she is certainly not ready to be Vice President." While some people in Alaska are quite proud of her selection, others are stunned, in disbelief that the national party would pick such an unqualified person.

Conservative Jim Wooten, writing in the Atlanta papers, said she is "one of us." Again, as I have written before, we should not be looking for someone who is "one of us." The job is complex and difficult. It calls for an extraordinary person possessed of uncommon judgment and leadership abilities, broad knowledge of the world today, an even broader and deeper understanding of world history. She barely graduated from the sixth college she attended (I'm counting the one she attended twice).

If you witnessed how the Rs salivated over her, someone they had not met before last week, someone they knew nothing about, someone who simply told them what they wanted to hear....you begin to understand how easily dictators gain control of their countries.

The Rs will tell you quickly they are in favor of "less government in their lives" even as they demand government enforce their view on a few parochial issues that are important to them but which pale in comparison to the overriding issues on which all the people need true leadership -- fiscal responsibility, energy independence, health care, rebuilding US infrastructure, global warming, national security, including threats of nuclear, chemical and biological terrorism.

For the moment, the national political playing field has been leveled. The two candidates are nearly tied in the polls. As we go forward I pray the American people will not succumb to McCain's transparent pandering. He is using Ms. Palin as he has nearly every attractive woman who has crossed his path -- for his own selfish purposes. If he should get elected, he will forget about her entirely until he needs her. She can live in Alaska, as far as he is concerned (or in one of his seven houses), until he needs her.

Why would you pick someone who is under a cloud of suspicion in her own state, the subject of an ethics investigation, someone who billed the taxpayers of her own state for 312 nights she spent in her own home (WPost-9/9/08), someone who says her daughter had a choice of whether or not to keep the baby and yet stands ready to tell the rest of America's women they won't have such a choice if she is elected.

Why would you pick someone who is so totally out of step with mainstream America -- favors teaching creationism, favors earmarks (even though McCain opposes them), hired lobbyists to obtain $27 million in earmarks for her small town (the same lobbyists whose influence McCain says he wants to expel from corridors of power). She is anathema to all that McCain has been saying through his "Straight Talk" political philosophy, except that she is attractive, can read well from a teleprompter and has the right stance on all of the extreme right wing issues the base of his party holds dear.

If this is not political expediency at its core, I've never seen it. Karl Rove hit it on the head when someone asked him whether or not Obama should pick Tim Kaine, former mayor of Richmond and now governor of Virginia as his running mate: "If you pick Governor Kaine, you make an intensely political choice which says, you know, that ‘I’m not really first and foremost concerned with – is this person capable of being President of the United States.” Last time I check Richmond was larger than Wasilla, AK (200,000 compared to 7,000) and Virginia has 7.6 million citizens compared to Alaska's 700,000. Why shouldn’t the Rove rationale apply to Ms. Palin?

What I see is a base that doesn't care about governing, only about winning and making sure their issues are taken care of. Is that what we're about? I hope not. I have been watching the HBO series on John Adams (via Netflix) and it is terrific...but I wondered how sad it would make Adams and the other founders if they could see the sorry state into which we have devolved as a nation.

If the McCain/Palin ticket wins, I fear there is little chance America will arrest its current steep decline in power and influence on the world stage!

Beyond the Palin

Sarah Palin has a certain honest earnestness that is appealing. That can’t be denied, but beyond that, what does it say about the top of the ticket when second place creates more excitement.

Rest assured, in the end, this will be a fight between Barack Obama and John McCain. Unlike Bush 43, McCain's choice for second position will not reassure us that America will be OK.

Last night proved only that she reads well...and we knew that would be the case. After all, she is quite familiar with the teleprompter having worked intermittently as a sportscaster. And I predict John McCain will not read as well tonight because he has always been uncomfortable with the teleprompter. And this is such a superficial group of delegates that McCain should be careful that don't decide to reverse the order on the ticket.

What is the state of our selection process when a lady, little known outside her hometown of 7,000 in Alaska, can walk onto the stage 60 days prior to the election and have people saying, "Yeah, that's the one?"

Wait a minute.

This is America we're talking about, isn’t it?

We're talking about selecting the President and Vice President of our country.

Forget for a moment that she represents extreme right wing views that are contrary to those of mainstream Americans. Where is she on issues of substance that matter to you and me?

For 20 months, Sarah Palin has held the office of governor from a small state (population), and she is to be commended for her efforts to serve the needs of her people, but what can she tell us about our economy, what does she know about the threat of nuclear proliferation, what does she know about hydrogen fuel cells and alternative fuel sources. Does she believe drilling for more oil to burn is really going to improve the environment? She made that dubious connection broadly in one summary statement last night. There were many instances in her speech where one could only conclude she does not know much about the subject.

How far will that honest earnestness take her?

Why politics is fun...

Two months is an eternity in American politics. Anything can happen. So anything we say now must be said with the caveat: “things can change.” But it appears we are moving closer and closer to a switch in Presidential leadership from Republican to Democrat.

While the Republicans are still in convention in Minneapolis, I’ve taken a look at the electoral map and here’s what I see: if the election were held today, Obama would win with 348 electoral votes and McCain would have 190. Of course, that is just my opinion.

Let’s look at the map of 22 battleground states mailed to supporters by the DNC. As long as Sarah Palin is on the Republican ticket, the Rs should take Georgia, North Carolina and, of course, Alaska. Bob Barr will pull some votes away from McCain in Georgia but not enough to put it in the Democratic column. They should also be able to take Indiana and North Dakota. McCain is ahead in Indiana right now, 46% to 42%. I’m also putting New Hampshire in the Republican column.

The rest of the battleground states should go Democratic. It will be tight but winnable in Colorado, Montana, Michigan, Pennsylvania, Virginia and Florida. Yes, it will be very tight in Ohio but Dems will pull out a victory there. Right now, polls show Obama and McCain even at 40% each in Ohio with 20% undecided. Obama has a lead of 47% to 45% in Virginia, 48% to 43% in Pennsylvania, 45% to 44% in Florida, 46% to 39% in Michigan, and a virtual tie in Colorado – one poll there shows Obama ahead with 46% to 43%, another shows McCain with a one point advantage, 47% to 46%.

The popular vote will be much closer than the electoral count, as I indicated in an earlier posting, with Obama getting 48.5% and McCain getting 45.5%. As we have learned from recent elections, the popular vote doesn’t always indicate the victor. Al Gore got 540,000 more votes than George Bush in 2000…and we all know how that turned out.

It is easy to make predictions and color in a map, but make no mistake about it, winning this election will not be easy. It will require the full dedication of all Americans who believe we desperately need new leadership to make that new map a reality. (BTW, there are numbers of interactive maps on the Internet that allow you to pick the states each party is likely to win in your estimation and you can see instantly how each state affects the outcome of the Electoral College vote.)

It ain't TV, it's politics.

Michael Gerson wrote in this morning's Washington Post: "Interviewed by the NYT during the 1960 Democratic National Convention, an unnamed 10-year-old boy spoke for generations of convention spectators: 'You know, this is really very boring -- but somehow, you aren't bored.'"

That's the way I feel every four years as I watch these conventions. In 1964, I watched Senator John Pastore (D-RI) deliver an impassioned keynote address and was hooked. I am fascinated by these political conventions because it is the American political process doing its thing as only it can do it -- simultaneously boring and fascinating.

The Republican convention will be no different. If you find yourself feeling bored at times, remember, this ain't TV, it's politics. I could not go to sleep until after Hillary finished her speech last night. She did well; she delivered a home run. Of course, there are some who think it didn't go far enough, or it went too far. Enough already. It doesn't matter what people say about it. She did what she needed to do and is moving on. Everyone who supported her should move on, too. There is no thinking person among the Clinton loyalists who will vote for anyone other than Barack Obama in November.

Bill Clinton and Joe Biden will be the "show" tonight. They will do well. But all of this is prelude to the speech Thursday night in Denver's football stadium (INVESCO Field at Mile High) when 75,000 will gather to hear Barack Obama. His speech will be THE most memorable moment in this convention. People underestimate this young man. He is not a fire breathing dragon who can't wait to eat the young of his opponent. However, he IS a tough minded intellectual who sees the big picture, has a broad vision of the potential remaining in an America crippled by 8 years of inept and reckless government activity on domestic and foreign fronts.

Going forward, others will be in charge of handling the red meat (Joe Biden) and Barack Obama will be in charge of sharing his vision with his fellow citizens and giving all of us hope that the best days of America are ahead of us. I pray our citizens will take the time to examine what this candidate has said, and is saying, for I believe they will discern in him the same qualities I have seen since I first heard him speak in 2004.