The Double Take Post

On Tuesday afternoon, during a visit to a children’s hospital in Nashville, Cindy McCain said that her husband’s opponent, Senator Barack Obama, has “waged the dirtiest campaign in American history.”

Huh?

Maybe Cindy meant that Obama has been the target of the dirtiest campaign in American history. But I doubt it. No, she meant what she said, and it’s ironic that she made these remarks in a hospital. Back in 1994, Mrs. McCain admitted to stealing drugs from her own charity to sustain her personal addiction to Percocet and Vicodin. She also fired the administrator of that charity in an effort to cover up her crime.

If Barack Obama has run the dirtiest campaign in American history, as this woman alleges, why haven’t they mentioned these facts? Can you imagine what the McCain camp would do if it were Michelle Obama who had done this?

In the past several months, conservative advocates have spread vicious and unfounded rumors about Barack and Michelle Obama. He’s secretly a Muslim. She hates “Whitey”. The subtle and not so subtle instances of racism have been a consistent undercurrent to this campaign. With less than a month until Election Day, and with McCain’s poll numbers sinking like the NASDAQ, now the surrogates have stepped aside. Now the principals are directly involved in the slander.

It’s a simple matter, really. The American people are preoccupied with the economy. McCain’s own advisers admit that his poll numbers go down when he addresses economic issues. So if you’re losing, and you can’t talk about the one thing people really care about, what do you do? You throw bombs. You call your opponent “unpresidential” because he’s willing to negotiate with our enemies. You roll out the stewardess to say that Obama is “pallin’ around with domestic terrorists.” And now, in a new low, you trot out the trophy wife to engage in personal attacks and distortions.

Distortions? Oh, yes, I forgot to mention Cindy’s remarks on Wednesday. At a McCain rally in Pennsylvania, she said “The day that Senator Obama cast a vote not to fund my son when he was serving sent a cold chill through my body, let me tell you.”

No, Cindy, that was the Vicodin.

What Mrs. McCain declined to mention, or perhaps does not know, is that Senator Obama voted against a particular appropriations bill that did not include a timetable for withdrawal for Iraq. Now, I know that it goes against the policies of the last eight years to ask questions and demand accountability before handing out billions of dollars. But this is nothing but the same old foolishness of singling out one vote on a particular bill and ignoring the fact that a legislator voted for a different but similar bill instead. They did this to Kerry in 2004. At one time, I thought that this was one tactic we would not have to endure this year, because we had two senators running against each other, and presumably that would cancel out the effectiveness of the tactic.

What we have seen in this campaign, rather, is John McCain’s refusal to let facts get in the way of a good line. He continues to recount in speech after speech Governor Palin’s opposition to the “Bridge to Nowhere” even though it has been well documented that she was for it until it became a political issue, and only then did she oppose it. We have seen Senator McCain continue to claim that his opponent voted 94 times to raise taxes. What he doesn’t mention is that the votes in question were to lower taxes for most people, while raising them for a much smaller number of people. And neither the Senator nor his felon, I mean wife, bothers to mention that McCain himself voted against funding for the troops. McCain voted against a funding measure virtually identical to the one opposed by Obama. The difference? The bill McCain voted against included a timetable for withdrawal. You know, the same timetable that the Iraqis themselves have now adopted because they want us to leave.

So why does Cindy McCain say these things? Maybe she doesn’t know any better. Maybe she doesn’t care. Or maybe she can’t stand the thought of the next few years at home with a defeated John McCain. Maybe she’ll say or do anything to prevent him from going off on her and once again calling her (in public) a word that rhymes with runt.

What a wonderful First Couple they would have been...

The Apology Post

The Blog to Be Named Later returns, despite a relative lack of commentary expressed by its readers, either publicly or privately, because it is now necessary for me to issue a formal apology.

During the life of this blog, I have been awfully critical of our president. I have expressed evolving views of the candidates to succeed him, with one constant caveat: Whoever is elected to succeed him, I opined, it will be an improvement. After all, I could (and have, on occasion) made the case from a historical perspective that George W. Bush ranks 42nd out of 42nd in terms of successful presidents.*

Well, Mr. President, I owe you an apology, because it’s clear now that I am completely wrong, because President John McCain would obviously be much worse.

Why is this, as I say, “clear”? Well, there is an overwhelming preponderance of circumstantial and concrete evidence that points to a McCain Administration eclipsing its predecessor in ineptitude.

First, there is the issue of ideological inconsistency. Say what you will about President Bush, but he has, over the last eight years, remained consistent with his core beliefs. I happen to think that they are wrong, but he has at least stuck with his principles. Whereas John McCain opposed offshore drilling as an impractical solution to the energy crisis, until he ran for president. He opposed the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy, until he ran for president. He sponsored campaign finance reform and decried negative campaigning, until he ran for president.

Second, there is the issue of the nature of their campaigns. Bush ran for president in 2000, and ran for re-election in 2004, promising smaller government, compassionate conservatism, reluctance to commit American forces to open ended military assignments, and ample funding for education. Okay, so he gave us the exact opposite of all that. But at least when he tarnished the honor and integrity of his opponent, he did it by inference. He suggested that John Kerry’s policies would leave the nation vulnerable to terrorists. John McCain and his running mate are now calling Barack Obama a terrorist.

Third, President Bush is in one sense the kind of person I admire. He’s an idiot, but he at least KNOWS he’s an idiot, so he recruited some smart, experienced guys to work in his administration. For instance, he selected Dick Cheney as his running mate. Now, I’m no fan of Dick Cheney. He has, in my view, routinely abused the power of his office and promoted an agenda favorable to Big Oil at the expense of the American people. But how does he compare to his potential Republican successor? He’s Abraham Fucking Lincoln.

Finally, there’s one major difference between Bush and McCain, and it’s not that Bush at least didn’t crash his planes when he was flying them in Alabama. No, the biggest single difference is that while I have never doubted Bush’s incompetence, I have also never doubted his sanity. Again, say what you will about George W. Bush, but at least he has been steady. At least he could be counted on to at least speak responsibly compared to Captain Chaos. It’s one thing to elect a dumb guy to be president. It’s quite another to elect someone who is unstable. And that’s what the Republican nominee for president is. I am referring to his apparently unresearched decision to select Sarah Palin to serve a heartbeat from the presidency after months of promising to select a running mate solely on the basis of qualifications. I am referring to the bizarre back and forth make believe shutting down of his campaign to address an economic crisis that he one week earlier denied existed. And I’m referring to the following quote from his own biography:

“I don't torture myself over decisions. I make them as quickly as I can, quicker than the other fellow, if I can. Often, my haste is a mistake, but I live with the consequences without complaint."

Well, I for one am not prepared to live with the consequences of President McCain’s quickly made decisions. And, after all, given the power of the presidency in these perilous times, millions of Americans might not get to live with the consequences of those decisions.

Senator McCain, in the absence of a coherent economic policy, lacking the ability or knowledge to address the health care crisis, burdened by decades of opposition to alternative energy, and desperate to escape the performance of his own party these last eight years, has spent a large portion of what he promised to be an “honorable campaign” trying to convince the American people that electing Barack Obama is too great a risk. Instead, he has amply demonstrated that he himself is the true risk.

And so as the McCain campaign thrashes around like a boxer, losing on points but desperately seeking a late round knockout, I say to you, Mr. President, I’m sorry. You weren’t so bad after all. Comparatively speaking, of course.






*George W. Bush is the 43rd President of the United States. However, only 42 men have served as president. Grover Cleveland served non-consecutive terms and therefore counts twice.

The Provisional Post

When the economy melted down last week, John McCain, saying the economy was fundamentally strong, continued his campaign. The situation continued to deteriorate. McCain campaigned on. Two new polls came out today, one from the Washington Post and one from FOX NEWS (!) showing that McCain is losing again, and NOW he is suspending his campaign to deal with the economic crisis.

I’m sure this has nothing to do with the fact that he’s suddenly down in the polls, that he’s two days away from a presidential debate he is, by his own admission, unprepared for. I’m sure it has nothing to do that he is falling behind Obama because the economy has surged to the top of a range of issues, and by a wide margin people trust Obama to handle the issue better.

In the last two weeks, even KARL ROVE has admitted that McCain has crossed a line that makes previous campaigns look like truth and justice. He flat out lies in his commercials. He picks a running mate and potential successor solely for political reasons. Now he’s trying to hide his complete lack of knowledge regarding the economy by presenting himself, once again, as being above politics.

Okay, that’s fine. I’ll take McCain’s action at face value. I will consider this an act of patriotism. We all should, with one provision. Since Senator McCain feels that his duties as a senator are more important than the campaign, he should not only suspend his campaign, he should go one step further: Drop out.

C’mon, John. Put country first.

The Threat Post

September 11, of course, was a terrible day in American history. The events of that day caused the deaths of several thousand Americans, and led to a dramatic shift in foreign policy that resulted in the deaths of thousands more.

The people who died in the World Trade Center, in the Pentagon, and in that field in Pennsylvania were innocent victims of a senseless attack. And as a people, we were right to want to see those responsible for this atrocity brought to justice.

However, I have to say, I think that there were more victims of September 11th than just the people who died that day. I think every American was a victim of that day, but not in the sense that you may think I mean. We’re all victims of 9/11 because on that day, we lost all sense of perspective.

In the last seven years, we have spent more than a trillion dollars fighting a “war on terror”. It has preoccupied our national conscience and consciousness. And we have allowed what happened on that day to overshadow several far greater threats to American security and prosperity.

I’m not talking about global warming. Not this time. The case for urgent action to address the climate crisis has already been made by far more persuasive and influential people than I.

Three thousand people died as a result of terrorism, on one day, seven years and two days ago. Since that day, more than three million Americans have died from cancer. And so I ask you: which is the greater threat?

I’m not belittling 9/11. I would just like to know why this is acceptable. What would happen to an external enemy, a country, that caused the deaths of half a million Americans? Can you imagine the destruction that would rain from the sky if that happened? But half a million people will die from cancer in the United States this year, and comparatively speaking, we do nothing.

Some crazy people fly planes into a building and kill thousands of people, and we mobilize, and we invade, and we think and vote and act differently. We even treat each other well for about a week. But half a million people die, and we’re not even aware of it, except on an individual level, when it happens to someone we know. And then we shake our heads in sincere regret, and move on with our lives.

That personal connection ought to mean more. Do you know anyone who died on 9/11? Probably not. Do you know anyone who died from cancer? Of course. Why isn’t this a national priority? Why is a crusade to cure cancer in 10 years the subject of one episode of The West Wing and not a national crusade in real life?

I guess this is partly because a major disease hasn’t really been cured since polio. I guess it’s partly because some people believe that a cure has to be found through private research and others think only the government has the resources to solve this problem. But I think the main reason is that we have lost our perspective.

John McCain is seventy two years old and still has his mother. Good for him. But I am thirty five and my mother has been gone long enough that I am starting to forget what her voice sounded like. And there are millions of people like me out there who could express similar thoughts.

I have written only sporadically about this presidential campaign for a number of reasons. I don’t want to write talking points for my side, so I only write when I think I have something to say. I also haven’t written much because this campaign is incredibly frustrating. I thought that maybe, just maybe, we had a chance this year for a campaign about ideas. That this election wouldn’t be about distortions and lies.

There are forgotten issues that we don’t deal with anymore, or never have. That’s what’s worth writing about, the campaign that never was. A campaign that included a discussion on catastrophic illness. A campaign that recognized poverty and remembered the homeless. A campaign with candidates who spoke honestly and with insight about the anxiety many people have about the future of this country.

People talk about 9/11 and what happened that day, and their bumper stickers and car magnets say “Never Forget”. Perhaps the trauma of that day has caused us to forget a lot of things. Or maybe that day has been exploited by people who want us to remember September 11, and not the other 364 days of the year.

The Surrender Post

Senator John McCain, as I write this, is preparing to name Governor Sarah Palin of Alaska as his running mate. This is an out of the box, unconventional choice that will no doubt stir quite a bit of controversy. The Blog To Be Named Later returns to clarify the issue. It’s very simple: John McCain, the old warrior, has surrendered his principles once again for the sake of ambition.

What does that mean? If John McCain were running for president thirty years ago (he’s old enough to have done that) he would have been free to pick a running mate that met his own personal standard of “ready to be president.” But this is a very different Republican Party, and a different political environment.

If John McCain were a younger man, if this weren’t his last chance after watching a moron take the nomination away from him eight years ago, he would be less susceptible to making a crass political choice. But he’s not young; today is his 72nd birthday.

This choice will be presented of evidence of McCain’s maverick nature, that he would think outside the box and choose a woman. Don’t be fooled. This is a pick of desperation, and in many ways, a pick of surrender.

McCain is surrendering to the reality that his age stands in stark contrast to that of his opponent. That’s a reasonable political calculation, to pick a young, dynamic running mate. The problem is, John McCain has spent months attacking Barack Obama for youth and inexperience, and he has today chosen for vice president someone even younger and with less experience. There are two great problems with this. First, it exposes McCain to charges of hypocrisy. More importantly, it exposes the United States of America to the possibility that it could have a manifestly unqualified president in a dangerous time in this country’s history.

To be fair, Obama’s resume is not significantly more impressive than Palin’s. Yes, I prefer four years in the Senate to two years in an igloo. Yes, I prefer someone who has gone through the fire of a long presidential campaign and has the demonstrated ability to inspire and lead. Yes, I think Obama’s choice of Joe Biden compares very favorably to McCain’s pick. But an Obama supporter cannot fairly complain about Palin’s inexperience, and must instead accept her meager resume and say, okay, fine, now we can stop talking about readiness to be president.

Instead, I choose to focus on McCain’s greatest surrender, and that is to the far right wing of the Republican Party. Sarah Palin is a genuine conservative, and that makes her more acceptable to the “values” Republicans. For all McCain’s tough talk, the Republicans aren’t fundamentally about foreign policy and national security. If they were, John McCain would have selected Tom Ridge, the former governor of a major state and later the first Director of Homeland Security. Or Senator Joe Lieberman, a longtime Senate veteran and the Chairman of the Homeland Security Committee. By most accounts, McCain wanted to pick Lieberman. They are close friends, they agree on the war, Lieberman has been an effective campaign sidekick and advocate for McCain. If McCain were really a maverick, he would have taken the former Democrat turned Independent Senator from Connecticut.

Why didn't he? Lieberman and Ridge support abortion rights, and McCain is not willing to offend the conservatives who have always viewed McCain with suspicion. This is but the latest in an increasingly long series of examples of McCain’s desperation.

After he was defeated in 2000, unjustly and unfairly, through rumor and innuendo, and had to watch George W. Bush claim the nomination that he deserved, John McCain realized that if he were to keep his flickering presidential hopes alive, he was going to have to do some pretty unpleasant things. Like Andy Dufresne in The Shawshank Redemption, he was going to have to crawl through shit to get where he wanted to go.









So he endorsed Bush for re-election, campaigned with him, hugged the bastard, and sold his soul. He could have made a principled decision to oppose an incompetent Commander in Chief, but instead he chose to embrace him.

During Bush’s second term, McCain watched as the occupation of Iraq was bungled and his own recommendations ignored. But he remained silent. Well, that’s not true. He actually remained vocal in his support of George W. Bush. As the 2008 election approached, McCain reached out to the evangelicals who scorned him in 2000. He mended fences with Jerry Falwell. He changed his position on tax cuts for the wealthy. He changed his position on abortion. He changed his position on ethanol. He solicited donations from corrupt businessmen that he had once accused of spending “dirty money” to defeat him. Strikingly, this heroic former prisoner of war, who spent five years in the Hanoi Hilton, buckled to pressure from the Bush White House and gave up his opposition to torture.

And now, he has sacrificed his principles once again. This choice was made for crass political considerations. Don’t offend the right. Try to appeal to the female voter. Pick somebody young to offset his own advanced age.

In 2000, I watched John McCain’s campaign for president in admiration. As a supporter of Al Gore, I began to worry as McCain scored upset after upset against his better financed opponent. I worried because I viewed McCain as a very strong opponent in the general election. And I worried that if McCain won the nomination, I would face a very difficult personal decision between Gore and McCain, because I thought either one of them would have made a great president. The American people spared me that choice by passing on both men in favor of a trained monkey. Back then, it would have been hard not to vote for John McCain.

Not anymore.

The Media Post

The contest for the American presidency is almost never about what it should be about. What it should be about, of course, is open to debate. Some say it should be about a particular issue. Which candidate can best revive the American economy? Who can solve the Iraq dilemma? What about global warming, health care, education, immigration, human rights?

If a campaign for the presidency were about only one of these issues, it would be a campaign too narrowly defined, but at least it would be one of substance. However, this campaign is turning out to be a Seinfeld campaign: it’s an election about nothing. And it’s the media’s fault.

The 2008 election is vastly different from, say, the 1908 election, and the differences are fueled mainly by the existence of a 24 hour a day, 7 day a week news cycle. Reporters covering the Taft-Bryan race a hundred years ago couldn’t afford to waste their limited copy space writing about silly, inconsequential things. Now those sorts of minutiae help television networks fill up hours of airtime. If you watch CNN, or Fox News, or MSNBC, you might be too appalled by the lack of objectivity to notice that what these folks are really doing is stalling, waiting for something else to happen.

Another change in politics in the last century is the complete absence of privacy. The news media reports on subjects that were considered taboo in Theodore Roosevelt’s time. This has an enormous effect on the country. First, it thins the talent pool. There are a lot of good people who would never consider running for office now. They might have first class ability, or good ideas about how to tackle an issue, or an ability to inspire and persuade. But these people, as most people do, have something in their lives that they don’t want splashed across the front page of the New York Times. I’m not condoning immoral or illegal behavior. I am, in fact, rather disgusted with John Edwards. It’s not so much the extramarital affair as the hypocrisy it represents. However, human imperfection is a fact of life. If we were to exclude presidential candidates for things like this, our history would be vastly different and probably for the worse.

If the media reported on the candidates personal lives in 1960 they way they do now, obviously John F. Kennedy would never have become president. Good, some would argue. I cannot agree. When I think of Richard Nixon, faithful husband, taking Kennedy’s place during the Cuban Missile Crisis, it gives me a chill.













By Nixon’s own admission, he would have invaded Cuba, likely triggering a nuclear war. I’m sorry, I’ll take the other guy, the one with the cool head and the hot girlfriend on the side.

In my opinion, the biggest problem with media coverage of this election isn’t the focus on silly stuff, although there is plenty of lapel pin foolishness to go around. It’s not even the lack of privacy, although I’m fairly sure the Edwards family would disagree. No, the biggest problem is that the coverage never ends. Take a break! Obama’s on vacation in Hawaii, McCain has spent some time at the ranch in Arizona, why can’t the media shut it down for a while? I remember a time, not so long ago, that if you watched a channel long enough, eventually they’d play the national anthem while showing footage of a fighter plane flying over mountains, and then the channel would go off the air.

There’s been a lot of discussion about media bias in favor of Barack Obama. And it’s probably true, at least to a certain degree. The reality is that media will cover anyone who’s a good story. The fifty people outside Lindsay Lohan’s house aren’t biased towards her, they just know that a picture of her getting out of a car is worth money. Especially if she forgets her underwear. It’s more or less the same with politicians. The media loved Bill Clinton, but did they go easy on him when the Lewinsky story broke? Of course not, they pounded him nonstop for a year. It’s the same with Obama. For most of 2007, all the stories were about Hillary and how she was inevitable. Then Obama caught on, and the media shifted to him, building him up. Then they tore him down a bit, breathlessly reporting that someone he knows said some things. Wow, thanks for the breaking news. Then they built him back up. And the cycle continues...

Still, there’s no denying that a majority of the media attention Obama receives is favorable. And that leads me to my final point. If the media is so in love with Obama, they should stop hurting him. How are they doing that? By covering him so relentlessly, by dwelling on every story and non-story that has the faintest hint of association with Obama that they’re making the American people sick of looking at him.

One of the stupid things that decided the 2000 election was the evening news test. That is, which of the two candidates could the American people stand to see and hear on the evening news for the next four years? Gore gave this one away by being pompous and condescending. Bush won it with unintentional comedy. And now, eight years later, the media is deciding this one for John McCain by overexposing Barack Obama. I’m for Obama and I’m tired of looking at him. So please, dear news media, find something else to talk about, just for a little while. And if you can’t think of anything, let’s see the fighter planes, let’s hear the national anthem, and let’s have a rest before the fall campaign is upon us.

The Irony Post

Republicans love Ronald Reagan. When the Gipper left office in 1989, and was later diagnosed with Alzheimer’s disease, Republicans across America named stuff after him. National Airport in Washington was renamed in Reagan’s honor. The USS Ronald Reagan, a nuclear powered aircraft carrier, was commissioned in 2003. There’s a Ronald Reagan Memorial Highway in Alabama (insert your own joke here). There was even talk of adding Reagan’s face to Mount Rushmore.

Given all this idolatry, it’s only fitting that the Republican Party, in its current effort to retain occupancy of the Oval Office, is running a campaign that is reminiscent of the man who was president back in 1981. But they’re not acting like Ronald Reagan. They’re acting like 1981’s other president: Jimmy Carter.

That’s right. The Grand Old Party is acting just like aw shucks, goofy smile, peanut farming James Earl Carter, Jr..

Not on the basis of the issues, mind you. Jimmy Carter, although he was not a successful president, was right on the big issues. He foresaw our current energy crisis and tried to get Americans to think about conservation and a comprehensive energy policy. The current Republican energy policy is whatever Exxon-Mobil says it is. Jimmy Carter used the power of the presidency to bring Arabs and Israelis together for the first time; the current president has used his term in office to inflame the Arab world with hatred for America. Jimmy Carter believed in a government that told the truth to the American people. Bush’s press secretary once said that the American people “better watch what they say.”

So how are the Republicans like Jimmy Carter? Well, as I said, Jimmy’s term of office did not go that well. Carter was a decent guy, but he should not have been president. He was a micromanager who disdained politics and distrusted Washington. Not surprisingly, he couldn’t get anything done. When the economy went south and the Iranians took 52 Americans hostage, he was doomed. So in 1980, when it came time for President Carter to run for re-election, he had a problem: he couldn’t win by running on his own record. The only alternative was to try and take the other guy down by any means necessary. So that’s what Carter did.

People forget this now, because a quarter century has gone by and Carter has been a great ex-president, but in 1980 Jimmy Carter ran one hell of a negative campaign. He tried to convince America that Ronald Reagan was not smart enough to be president, which wasn’t true. Carter argued that Reagan was uncaring and claimed Reagan had been opposed to Medicare, which also wasn’t true. Most galling of all, Carter ran a page from the LBJ playbook and claimed that to elect Ronald Reagan was to invite the beginning of World War III.

There are a lot of people who are going to make a principled decision to vote for John McCain, and I respect that. I know some McCain voters, and I wish I could change their minds, but I respect their decision. There will be people who will decide that McCain’s conservatism closely reflects their own personal ideology. Fine. There will be people who pull the level for McCain who like his long experience. Okay, I can see that. It’s perfectly valid to prefer a Senator who’s held that job for more than twenty years over the young guy who’s in his first term. And of course, we’ve seen over the last eight years what a thin resume in the Oval Office can mean. Abraham Lincoln had a thin resume too, but that’s another story.

There will, however, be a substantial number of people voting in this election who are susceptible to the kind of campaign sleaze that is currently under way. The whispering about Barack Obama’s “real” religious beliefs. The suggestions that Obama is not patriotic. The attacks on his wife, who as far as I can tell isn’t running for anything. Lincoln is instructive here as well. If we disqualified presidents because of their spouses, we would have lost the Civil War.

The Republicans and their surrogates will whisper this stuff to anyone will listen. They have to. They can’t run on their economic record. They can’t run on Iraq. They can’t run on global warming. They can’t run on health care. They can’t run on their record. They’re Jimmy Carter

On October 28, 1980, in his closing remarks during his debate with President Carter, Ronald Reagan looked at the camera and asked, “Are you better off than you were four years ago?” The Republican nominee this year cannot ask that question and hope to win the election. And that’s why, for the next 139 days, the party of Abraham Lincoln will campaign for the presidency on the basis of former pastors and flag pins.

The Twilight Post

The Blog to Be Named Later returns with what was originally going to be an analysis of recent events in the presidential election. However, today the Blog takes a trip into the Twilight Zone, because that seems to be where the rest of the country has gone.

There may be no event more important than an American presidential election. It is a contest that determines who will lead the most powerful country the world has ever known. More than that, a presidential election decides the course the United States will take over the next four years. This affects not only the 300 million American citizens, it has an enormous impact upon the rest of the world, so entwined are we in economics, politics and diplomacy.

In 1860, Abraham Lincoln was elected president at the precise time he was needed. He was preceded and succeeded by a series of mediocre presidents, but at the moment of crisis, whether through divine intervention or sheer luck, we had President Lincoln.

In 1901, by an assassin’s bullet, Theodore Roosevelt became president and led America into the twentieth century. It was Roosevelt who defined the modern presidency and served notice that America was now a world power. His own landslide election in 1904 was not an important election because its outcome was a forgone conclusion, but he was the right man for his time.

In 1932, Franklin Roosevelt won his own landslide over Herbert Hoover, and began a twelve year administration which ended the Great Depression and set the course for victory in World War II. At the time, Roosevelt was called “the indispensable man”, and there is merit to the nickname. He was succeeded by a plainspoken farmer from Missouri who never attended college, who was elected to the Senate by a corrupt political machine, and who had served less than three months as vice president, all the while completely in the dark on matters of state. His name was Harry Truman. All he did was make the momentous decision to drop the bomb on Japan, win the war, save Europe from communism through the Marshall Plan, the Truman Doctrine and the Berlin Airlift, and prevent a police action in Korea from becoming World War III.

Still, for all of that, some elections are more important than others. In 1976, how much could it matter if Gerald Ford or Jimmy Carter won the presidency? America, and the world, would not be much different. The same is true for many elections in American history. But there are some elections that matter very much, and this year is one of them.

We live now in times just as challenging, if not more so, than what Harry Truman had to deal with. This makes the choice of the next president all the more important. Unfortunately, we also live in times when the people of the United States have lost their way. Politics has become poisoned by money and partisan bickering. Political campaigns, which in Lincoln’s time were great debates of public policy, are venues for character assassination and stupid, shallow remarks made in thirty second commercials. Think about that for a moment. The single greatest factor in the selection of choosing the President of the United States is now television. Not the presidential debates, though. Not in substantive appearances by the candidates on news programs. Not by a legitimate comparison of the candidates by legitimate news organizations. No, the way to move a poll these days is with a commercial, tucked in between advertisements for Taco Bell and Free Credit Report Dot Com. This is what the presidency means to us now? We pick presidents like choosing between Bud Light and Heineken? Consider this: if we choose our presidents on TV via advertising, aren’t we explicitly saying that the presidency is for sale?

There’s something wrong with this country. There’s something wrong when pollsters are asking voters which presidential candidate they’d like to have a beer with. Do you choose your doctor that way? If you found a lump on a part of your body that should be smooth, would you pick the surgeon who’s going to operate on you based on how outgoing he is? No! You want a wall full of diplomas. You want credentials, you want evidence that this guy knows what he’s doing, and you don’t care if the other guy is pretentious or snobby if he can save your life. Maybe you pick the guy with the most experience, or maybe you pick the guy with the steady hand and the new idea. But you make your choice for good reasons. Just not when you’re electing a president.

There’s something wrong with this country. There’s something wrong when people complain that they don’t know much about the most talked about, most thoroughly covered, most photographed and researched political candidate in American history. And when I hear that, you know what it says to me? It says that people are using that as an excuse not to vote for someone who looks different from what they are used to, who has a name that’s not like theirs. In 2003, conservative Louisiana narrowly elected a liberal Democrat named Kathleen Blanco governor of Louisiana. Why? Because her opponent, a very bright, able, qualified Republican, is an Indian-American named Piyush Jindal. The fact that he goes by “Bobby” evidently wasn’t enough for people. Jindal was leading in the polls, but on Election Day, curiously, while his numbers in metropolitan areas were solid, Blanco outpolled him in rural areas. So Blanco won the election, and two years later, during the worst natural disaster in American history, Louisiana had a governor who couldn’t form a coherent sentence and got what it deserved.

There’s something wrong with this country. There’s something wrong when we’ve turned out back on our own history. The American people used to make informed decisions. We used to read newspapers. We used to subscribe to magazines that contained thoughtful, substantive articles. We used to watch Walter Cronkite. We used to know what We were talking about.

We don’t anymore. 15% of the American public thinks Barack Obama is a Muslim. This after three months of controversy over comments made by his pastor at the TRINITY UNITED CHURCH OF CHRIST. On the second anniversary of 9/11, nearly 70% of Americans still believed that Saddam Hussein had a role in the attacks. This despite a complete lack of evidence tying him to Bin Laden and a wealth of evidence that Bin Laden viewed Hussein as a traitor to Islam and essentially worse than America.

69% of Americans can identify Dick Cheney as Vice President, a respectable number, until you think about it and realize that nearly ONE OUT OF THREE AMERICANS DON’T KNOW WHO THE VICE PRESIDENT IS!

How important is this election? It’s hard to say, because I just don’t know if this country can recover from the downward slide it has been in for some time. It started after World War II, and in many ways was inevitable. We had too much power. This is what happens when you rule the world; you rot from within. It happened to the Persian Empire. It happened to the Romans. It happened to the Spaniards, to the British, to the French. And now it’s happening to us. You become drunk on power, there are no more worlds to conquer, and you begin to decay. You begin to slip generationally. The baby boomers didn’t accomplish as much as the WWII Generation, and now Generation X is falling short of the boomers. And don’t even mention Generation Y.

Is there no solution to this decline? Sure there is. It’s called knowledge. It’s called perspective. It’s called awareness. An informed, engaged, enlightened public making sure that it remains so. That is the hallmark of a great nation. But we’re not informed, we’re stupid. We’re not engaged, because we can’t be bothered. And we’re damn sure not enlightened. Not in a country filled with people who allow themselves to be made to fear, well, just about everybody. Watch out, or “the terrorists” will get you. Be careful, or gay people will get married and pretty soon you’ll be gay too! Be on your guard, or that Muslim guy will become president, and we’ll all have to wear turbans.

Forty years ago today, Robert F. Kennedy was murdered in Los Angeles. His death changed how a lot of people felt about this country. After the deaths of John F. Kennedy and Martin Luther King, in the midst of the agony of Vietnam and race riots, Bobby Kennedy was the last great hope of that generation. Now, for the first time in four decades, there is another politician who has that kind of potential. The question is, do the people still have it as well?

The "Oh, Good Lord" Post

Last night, all three of the remaining major presidential candidates made taped appearances on WWE Monday Night Raw.

*Silence*

*Uncomfortable pause*

*Crickets chirping*

I'm not sure that the above news item NEEDS commentary, but here it is anyway. The election of 1800 between John Adams and Thomas Jefferson was the first contentious, if not the first contested, presidential election. I was going to refer to this election as a "race", but that's not correct, and precisely my point. The presidency used to be something that people did not chase after, or at least did not openly chase after.

In America we refer to the process of seeking election to public posts as "running for office". This is a phrase the rest of the world would be unfamiliar with. In Great Britain, one "stands" for Parliament, and that sounds much more dignified than the ambulance chasing connotation "running" for office has.

For all of the nineteenth century and into the twentieth, presidential candidates did not campaign in the traditional sense, because it was considered undignified. Abraham Lincoln did not even attend the Chicago convention that made him the Republican nominee for president. Forty six years later, although opposed for the presidency by a young, charismatic and articulate opponent named William Jennings Bryan, the Republican nominee William McKinley campaigned for president by literally sitting on his front porch.

The lure of the presidency gradually became too great for candidates to sit idly by as their campaigns were conducted without them. By the time John Kennedy and Richard Nixon opposed each other in 1960, campaigns had become tests of endurance, with the neverending travel and countless speeches and ads we are accustomed to today.

When James Madison's entire presidential campaign was a series of thoughtful letters to colleagues that were published in newspapers, one could reasonably expect that the electorate would make their choice based on issues. The absence of a circus-like atmosphere contributed to the sober nature of the election. And candidates who came into office without campaigning and bargaining for the office could presumably consider themselves free to serve the American people rather than their contributors.

I think considering the personality and temperament of a presidential candidate is a perfectly valid part of choosing whom to vote for. And there are no doubt venues in which voters could be allowed to see their candidates in a more personal way. But to have Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton and John McCain on a WRESTLING PROGRAM? We have seen the President of the United States asked on national television whether he wears boxers or briefs. That same president, as the nominee of his party, played the saxophone on a late night television show.

Maybe this trend is not reversible. If that's the case, and presidential candidates are going to appear on entertainment shows, perhaps we could at least have them appear on the shows on which they belong. Allow me to make the first suggestion: Hillary on Desperate Housewives.

The Adams Post

The Blog to Be Named Later returns for a discussion of John Adams, the man, and John Adams, the HBO mini-series.

Since the series began airing last month, I have come across several news articles praising the quality of the production and calling for a re-examination of Adams. I've heard a few people mention the subject, people I wouldn't necessarily think would be interested. Okay, so Adams hasn't become a cultural phenomenon
in the last few weeks, but I have been encouraged by the generally sensible and thoughtful things I have heard and read.

I've also been surprised by my own reaction. I thought I understood this subject pretty well. I read David McCullough's book, on which this series is based. I've been to the Adams home in Quincy. I've touched his gravestone and that of his son with my bare hand. But the more time I spend watching John Adams, the more I realize I've been as guilty as historians and Adams' contemporaries in failing to grasp how important he was to American history.

Adams has not lingered in popular memory for obvious and easily understood reasons. In the order of office, he served after the heroic Washington and before the intellectual giant Jefferson. Both the first and third presidents captured the popular imagination, and to some degree hold it to this day. Adams was short, round, arrogant, and dismissive of his critics. He was every bit the equal of his contemporaries in intellect, force of personality, and historical importance. However, although he fit well with Washington and Jefferson, he also had traces of Richard Nixon in him.

That statement may come as a slap in the face to Adams fans, if there are any to be found. I only mean that Adams, like Nixon, had the respect that comes with skill and accomplishment. But what Adams really wanted was to be loved by the American people, as Washington was. In this, he was much like Nixon gazing with envy at JFK's portrait in the White House. However, unlike Nixon, John Adams largely resisted the dark urges of his character. The better angels of his nature, as Lincoln would say, won out.

Historians are almost universally critical of Adams for signing the Alien and Sedition Acts during his term of office, and rightfully so. This legislation was the 18th century equivalent of the Patriot Act, which took away the freedom of citizens in the name of protecting them. But Adams made this mistake in the midst of a larger crisis, the spectre of a disastrous war with France. On that score, Adams did right, even if he was denied due credit. The members of his party, and indeed the country at large, clamored for war with France. The patriotic nature of the crisis swelled Adams' popularity. He had only to go along with this overwhelming public desire for war, and he would have swept to re-election. In this crucible moment, Adams held firm. He placed principle before politics. He chose peace when war was the smart political move.

George W. Bush should watch this series. Ah, never mind, it's on after his bedtime.

In a sense, Adams doesn't get his "props" because there's no simple answer as to why he was great. Lincoln saved the Union. FDR pulled the country out of the Depression and steered a course to victory against tyranny. Why was Adams great? He was, as Jefferson called him, the "colossus of independence", who played a crucial role in the Continental Congress. It was Adams who proposed Washington for command of the Continental Army. It was Adams who put the quill in Jefferson's hands to write the Declaration of Independence. He made these moves because he recognized the skill of these men, but also because he cleverly sought to nationalize what was then a regional conflict by involving two prominent Southerners in the struggle. He authored Thoughts on Government, which was the foundation for modern state government. He served a diplomatic role in France, in the Netherlands, and helped restore good will and commerce as America's first ambassador to Britain. Even in the then-inconsequential office of Vice President, he mattered, serving as a moderating influence between the extreme positions of Jefferson and Hamilton. When President Washington could not count on either because of their struggle, he could turn to Adams for reasonable counsel. As president, Adams not only prevented a needless war with a continental power, by so doing he preserved conditions which a few years later led to the Louisiana Purchase.

A fair and just list of his service to this country would exceed my ability to recount the events as well as the patience of the reader. Suffice it to say that perhaps the most significant oversight in the memory and gratitude of this country is the absence of a national monument of any kind to John Adams.

So that's my read of John Adams. What about John Adams? I am forced to recommend it, despite certain inaccuracies. Paul Giamatti's portrayal of Adams is masterful, and Laura Linney is superb as Abigail Adams. In the end, the series passes the test of making you care how the story ends (even if you already know) and illuminating the importance of its subject.

Maybe I was wrong, maybe there is a simple explanation for Adams's greatness. How about this: Yes, Lincoln saved the Union.
But if not for John Adams, there might have been no Union to save.

The Dick Post: An Open Letter to the Vice President of the United States

Dear Mr. Cheney,

This morning I read in the New York Times (you know, that paper that employs Adam Clymer, who you once referred to as a "major league asshole") that you appeared on Fox News yesterday and commented on the remarks made by Reverend Jeremiah Wright, the former pastor of Senator Barack Obama.

I am an American citizen and a taxpayer. In a sense, that makes me your boss, although you seem to not understand the idea that you serve the people of this country. After all, during an interview on the fifth anniversary of this war that you created, a reporter informed you that two-thirds of Americans now opposed the war. Your response was "So?" Therefore, it is with some measure of skepticism that I approach the idea that you would heed the wishes of any citizen on any issue, but I will make my request nonetheless: Please be quiet.

In the past eight years, you have taken actions that are ethically dubious, morally vacant, and possibly criminal. In the 2000 election, your presence on the Republican ticket gave undue credibility to a man wholly unqualified to be President of the United States. As Vice President, you have consistently urged through voice and action abuse of the power granted to the Executive Branch by the Constitution. You have undermined civil liberties in this country. You have transparently put the interests of big business before those of the American people. And you also shot a guy in the face.

We'll call that last action an accident, but all the others seem to have been quite deliberate. Given your long and sullied record, sir, you should consider yourself fortunate that you have not been impeached and removed from office. Happily, the 22nd Amendment will remove you and Mr. Bush in 2009. On the happy occasion of your departure from public office, it would be appropriate to quote Oliver Cromwell's remarks to the Rump Parliment in 1653: "You have sat too long for any good you have been doing lately... Depart, I say; and let us have done with you. In the name of God, go!"

Until that time, on behalf of anyone who reads this blog, and for the millions of Americans who don't know this blog exists but would agree with the sentiment: hold your tongue. Do not interfere with the effort to choose good and decent people to lead this country, because you have no knowledge of the subject.

The Customer Service Post

Thoughts on recent developments in the presidential race as I watch John McCain declare victory in Florida and become the clear frontrunner for his party’s nomination:

This is going to be a different post from what you are accustomed to reading. This is true because I am, in a sense, answering mail from the suggestion box. I have been asked to expound on the Kennedy endorsement of Barack Obama. I have also fielded a request for an explanation as to why Hillary Clinton turns so many people off. Those two issues dovetail nicely, so I’m glad to fulfill the request by writing this post. However, the other difference in this post is that it must now begin with a confession, or at least a declaration: I have no idea what’s going to happen in this race. In keeping with the theme of unpredictability, I will put no planning into the composition of this post. No outline, no preconceived thoughts, no structure real or implied. I’m just gonna write, and see what happens.

As I have mentioned before, I have spent countless hours reading about the American presidency. I’m the sort of deranged individual who will read Richard Nixon’s autobiography, then go back and read it again a few years later. And generally, when I’m reading these 900 page books, my favorite parts are the recounting of presidential elections. I love them. I love the ’48 campaign between Dewey and Truman. I love 1960, when Nixon and Kennedy, two supremely gifted politicians, squared off. I love the ’84 campaign, because it’s the first one in which I mastered all the details, knew all the candidates, understood all the issues. Did I have a girlfriend then? Um, no.

Still, despite my close familiarity with the details of every modern presidential election, I have to say I am utterly stymied by this one. There are just too many variables. First serious female candidate. First serious black candidate. First time since 1936 with no obvious Republican nominee. The polls are suddenly all wrong. Conventional wisdom does not apply. I wrote in this blog about McCain’s fading chances just as they were beginning to fade. I was right, he faded. And although I sensed he was regaining momentum as the voting in New Hampshire drew near, I have to admit, I am stunned to see him on the verge of the nomination.

John McCain is following in George W. Bush’s footsteps in more ways than one. Obviously, he’s after Bush’s job and hopes to be his successor. But there’s more. In the 2000 election, at least a dozen improbable things had to happen to make Bush president. He ran with a thin resume against an incumbent vice president who was manifestly qualified to be president. He had to run against the prosperity of the Clinton years. He had to run on domestic policy, normally fertile ground for Democrats, and hope he wasn’t asked any foreign policy questions because he didn’t (doesn’t) know anything about foreign policy. All of those things broke his way. Then, on Election Day, he still came out behind in the national vote, and probably in the intent of the voters of Florida. And another series of improbable events took place that ultimately resulted in Bush being declared the winner.

That’s what’s happening with John McCain. He won Florida tonight, polling ahead of the economy candidate Mitt Romney among voters most concerned about the economy! By McCain’s own admission, he’s hardly an economic expert. He barely talks about the issue, and yet somehow he won an economic debate against a businessman turned candidate, and did it with a poorly financed campaign.

McCain has been aided by a remarkable series of events. The rise of Mike Huckabee in Iowa benefited the senator from Arizona, simply because it hurt Mitt Romney. The presence of a multi-candidate field in South Carolina allowed McCain to win the state that derailed his campaign eight years ago. In a one on one showdown with Romney in South Carolina and/or Florida, Romney probably wins. Think about that for a second. There were a whole slew of Republican candidates for president to challenge McCain’s inevitability as the Republican nominee. But the presence of all those candidates split the vote and ultimately aided McCain’s candidacy.

Having said all this, I don’t think that this race is over. While the media rushes to coronate John McCain, I think I’ll hang back before pronouncing this one done. The available balance on one of Mitt Romney’s credit cards probably exceeds John McCain’s net worth. Next Tuesday brings a wave of primaries from coast to coast, requiring expensive radio and television ads and non-stop campaigning. And, of course, there are still a sizeable number of conservatives who will not accept John McCain as their leader. Think McCain’s won over the right wing? Hold your nose with one hand and type rushlimbaugh.com with the other, and you’ll be disabused of that notion fairly quickly.

As I said, I have no reliable sense of what’s going to happen. I would only issue a prediction at this point if it came with an expiration date. Right now, and I emphasize those two words, it looks like McCain, with maybe Huckabee as his running mate. But who knows?

If I seem uncertain about the identity of the Republican nominee, I’m absolutely puzzled as to whom the Democrats will nominate. Last week I studied many state by state polls to try to break down the huge February 5 primary and identify a trend. It seemed clear to me at that time that Hillary Clinton was the likely Democratic nominee. Although I was wise enough to say anything could happen, that’s what the results of my study seemed to indicate. Now, in the wake of Obama’s overwhelming victory in South Carolina, and his subsequent endorsement by Senator Edward M. Kennedy, again, who knows?

I can’t tell you on the basis of the endorsement who’s going to win. I can say, however, that if an endorsement ever mattered, this is the time. For all the hoopla over Oprah Winfrey’s endorsement of Obama, Ted Kennedy’s is more important. The Oprah endorsement was a big news story, and demographically helped Obama by boosting his support among women. However, Obama didn’t really need the publicity Oprah’s endorsement gave him; he was already a celebrity candidate attracting an enormous amount of attention. And while the support among women helped, Obama was already competitive in that area.

Kennedy’s endorsement, however, could make a crucial difference in at least two ways. First, in a demographic sense, the magic of the Kennedy name still resonates deeply in the Latino community, and Ted Kennedy can deliver votes in a demographic that Clinton has thus far dominated. In a political sense, Kennedy can move organized labor into Obama’s corner. And the Kennedy endorsement, combined with those of Senator John Kerry and Governor Deval Patrick, probably puts Massachusetts in play.

But the real importance of the Kennedy endorsement is symbolic. Kennedy endorsed Obama at American University in Washington. This is not a randomly selected location. American University is where, in 1963, President John F. Kennedy gave one of his most important and well remembered speeches. In the course of a call to reexamine our attitudes toward the Soviet Union, President Kennedy said the following:


“For in the final analysis, our most basic common link is that we all inhabit this small planet, we all breathe the same air, we all cherish our children's futures, and we are all mortal."

And so when Senator Ted Kennedy took the stage at that same institution of higher learning and all but anointed Barack Obama as his brother’s political heir, it shook the ground of Democratic politics. It’s one thing for the media to make comparisons between Obama and JFK, or for me to do so on my blog that twelve people read. This was something else. And it sent a signal to Democrats across the country, saying that Obama’s candidacy is not some fleeting cause. It’s not a quixotic endeavor like Howard Dean’s candidacy four years ago. This is a serious effort to change the face of the Democratic Party.

And, of course, this was a dramatically unwelcome event for the Clintons, because, after all, they have been the face of the Democratic Party for fifteen years. What Kennedy’s endorsement does is shatter the sense that the establishment of the party is in Hillary’s corner and that ultimately her nomination is inevitable. This is not to say she’s finished; she may well be the nominee. But she’ll have to “go Churchill” to get it – blood, sweat and tears required. She’s already put forth the tears. Will she offer the other two, and will it be enough? I don’t know.

I can tell you this: I hope not. This brings me to the other requested topic, the case against Hillary. I don’t think that there is any single reason for the hatred she engenders. Much of it is undeserved, the byproduct of hypocrisy toward strong and assertive women. Some of it is thoughtless and shallow misinterpretation of her based on her relationship with Bill Clinton. Many people have long believed that their relationship is one of convenience rather than meaning. I don’t buy it.

No, my problems with Hillary are simpler to quantify. As a politician, I find her lacking. I can’t listen to her speak without thinking how much I’d rather listen to Obama, or Edwards, or her husband, for that matter. She’s simply not an inspiring leader. I also oppose her candidacy because I don’t want a co-presidency. I don’t want Bill Clinton pulling Hillary’s strings any more than I approved of President Reagan deciding what to do based on what Nancy’s astrologer said.

Back in 1962, when Ted Kennedy first ran for the Senate, he participated in a debate with his opponent for the Democratic nomination, who said something to the effect of “If his name was Edward Moore, rather than Edward Moore Kennedy, his candidacy would be a joke.” This was probably true, but in the midst of Camelot it didn’t matter; Teddy won in a walk. Consider this, though: If her name were Hillary Rodham, rather than Hillary Rodham Clinton, would she be within reach of the Democratic nomination for president?

Hillary is attempting to restore the Clinton dynasty, and her time, and her husband’s, is past. If this election unfolds as I hope it does, her candidacy will be remembered primarily as their failure to exit gracefully from the stage. This is not an election to restore the House of Clinton in opposition to the House of Bush. Ironically, it took the last brother of America’s greatest political dynasty to crystallize this argument. The heart of JFK’s New Frontier was a passing of the torch to a new generation of Americans. It is time to pass it again, to the junior senator from Illinois, the next president of the United States, Barack Obama.

The Flip Flop Post

The Blog to Be Named Later returns today with a discourse on the issue of flip flopping.

Casual observers of politics will associate the term “flip flopping” with Senator John Kerry, whose 2004 campaign for the presidency was marred by allegations of political opportunism. Speaking of the resolution to use force against Iraq, Senator Kerry said “I actually voted for it before I voted against it”, and this quote was used to devastating effect in the campaign.

In 2008, the alleged flip flopper is former Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney, who has also been assailed for changing his views on the critical issues of the day. Although this line of attack is being used against Romney today, it’s far from a new tactic, as I shall soon illustrate. And, of course, there is a usually a stark difference between reality and what is said about a public figure during an election campaign. Note the use of the word “usually”.

Comparing modern presidential campaigns to those that took place a hundred years ago is an apples and oranges affair, and perhaps that’s just as well. After all, George Washington once served the Crown of England, and later led the American Revolution. Flip flopper. Thomas Jefferson was a fierce proponent of limited governmental powers, then purchased Louisiana without explicit authority to do so. Flip flopper. Franklin Roosevelt promised to balance the budget when he ran for president in 1932, then proceeded to combat the Great Depression with spending to stimulate the economy. Damn crippled flip flopper.

Of COURSE politicians say one thing and do something else. They are PEOPLE. EVERYBODY says one thing and does something else. Who among us has not pledged to rise with the sun and go exercise, only to slap the hell out of the snooze button at the moment of decision? Who hasn’t made New Year’s resolutions that are not only unfulfilled but ultimately forgotten? Who hasn’t agreed to do something, say something, write something, pay for something, only to ease an uncomfortable moment, with no real intention of following through?

Now, I do not advocate deliberate dishonesty among public figures. My point is that there is a difference between a thoughtful, reasoned change in position, and one made shamelessly for political expedience. What we have in America today is an electorate that falls into one of three categories. There are those who seek inspiration and crave leadership, and if given the chance, will take what politicians say at face value. (This is a rapidly diminishing group). Then there are those who automatically disbelieve what any politician says. And of course, the third and most populous group is of those who aren’t paying attention in the first place. What election? American Idol is on!

What we need in this country is a fourth category, made up of people who possess the virtues of those in the first three categories and none of the faults. We need a typical voter to have a certain amount of faith that progress is attainable, that government can be made to work for the people. This person would have a healthy amount of cynicism, but would be willing to invest some measure of trust in their candidate. And he or she would understand how important the choice of who sits in the Oval Office really is.

So let’s assume that not only do such people exist, they might be reading this blog. Let’s examine the modern era for accusations of flip flopping and try to separate the principled from the opportunistic. Then we’ll decide together (okay, I’ll decide myself and tell you) how important consistency on the issues really is.

In modern politics, this current unfortunate trend starts with George H.W. Bush. [Insert your own George W. Bush joke here] Back in 1980, George H.W. Bush (let’s call him 41 to avoid confusion) ran for the Republican nomination against Ronald Reagan. This seems funny now, for those who remember Bush as Reagan’s lapdog during the 1980’s. Bush 41 then ran in 1988 as Reagan’s chosen successor, and his son clearly fancies himself as Reagan’s ideological heir.

In 1980, however, Bush challenged Reagan, particularly on economic grounds, calling the Gipper’s supply side trickle down theories “voodoo economics”. Rather than wade into boring economic statistics, suffice it to say that Bush was not conservative enough to be the Republican nominee. After losing the nomination to Reagan, he accepted a spot on the ticket, and suddenly developed conservative fever and fully supported Reagan’s economic policies. He also became a full fledged pro lifer, something he had never been when he was his own man.


Bush 41 knew that for him ever to be referred to as 41, as in 41st President of the United States, he would have to run in 1988 as a genuine conservative. Those in the party were not fooled, however, and a slew of candidates ran against him for the nomination in 1988, all of them from Bush’s right. And although Bush won the nomination and ultimately the election, he did so as an ideological fraud, campaigning as the ultra conservative he never was.

Once he became president, he governed like the Ivy League moderate Republican he really is. Actually, I applaud him for doing so. As a candidate for the presidency, he was a political opportunist. As the occupant of the office itself, he turned away from his pseudo conservatism to act in what he believed to be the best interests of the country. The best example of this came in 1990, when President Bush abandoned his famous “Read my lips, no new taxes” mantra from ’88, and raised taxes. Why do I consider this admirable? Because Bush 41 recognized that taxes had to go up to address the deficit, and shrinking the deficit was vital to improving the economy. So even though he took a major hit from the red meat conservatives for abandoning his no tax pledge, he did what he thought was right, despite the political consequences.

Fast forward to 2004, when John Kerry ran against George W. Bush. I don’t think there’s any great need for me to point out yet another example of the current president's hypocrisy for attacking someone for changing positions. In 2000, Bush railed against nation building and promised a humble foreign policy, for Christ’s sake. Let’s look instead at Kerry and decide if the charge was valid.

If George Bush 41 had to exaggerate his conservative tendencies to become president in 1988, John Kerry had to moderate his liberal tendencies to win in 2004. He has been justifiably criticized for running an ineffective campaign, but he still had much to overcome. He was running against an incumbent president, one more than willing to exploit the powers of his office to win the election. (Remember the terror alerts every three days in October?) Kerry had to overcome the Massachusetts liberal image and the built in Republican southern electoral advantage. And of course, there was the issue of the Vietnam War. John Kerry, winner of medals and ribbons for service to his country, could not imagine his record would be successfully slandered by George W. Bush. After all, the only ribbon Bush saw in those years was the blue one on the Pabst can.

Kerry had to run as a moderate, strong on defense, and he agonized over whether to support the war. He thought it was the right action to take, but he had no faith in those directing the effort. So he voted for one version of a force resolution but ultimately voted against it. He fell into the classic trap that has doomed the candidacy of every senator since JFK who has run for the presidency: a congressional record is easy to distort. But he didn’t flip flop. He didn’t try to have it both ways. That wasn’t his sin. His sin was that he seized the nomination on the basis of electability, but failed to capture the imagination of the American people. He didn’t have the communication skills to beat George W. Bush. How ironic.

And now we come to one Willard Mitt Romney, candidate for the presidency.
I did not judge Bush, senior or Kerry on partisan grounds. I will not do so with Romney either. This blog aspires to be a forum for thoughtful discussion of public issues, so I apologize for this, but here’s the bottom line: Republicans and Democrats alike can unite in agreement that Mitt Romney isn’t a flip flopper, he’s just full of shit!

I have never, in twenty four years of observing political campaigns, after reading hundreds if not thousands of biographies of historical figures, after virtually memorizing the history of the American presidency, come across a candidate so universally disliked by the other candidates. Of course, the Democrats hate Romney. But the Republican candidates hate him too! Mitt better watch his words the next time he’s in a debate with John McCain. I don’t care if McCain is 71 years old and disabled; if Romney distorts McCain’s record once more, I fully expect the senator from Arizona to channel John Rambo and skin Romney alive.
And when he does, all the law and order Republican candidates for president will cheer.

Why is Romney hated? Because he’s a flip flopper? Not exactly. Hey, you can change your mind. Ronald Reagan was once a Democrat, after all. But Romney didn’t just change his positions. Try to follow this contortion act, if you can:

-Mitt Romney, in his first run for public office, publicly took positions on health care and gay rights more liberal than those of his opponent, Senator Edward M. Kennedy. He was to the left of Ted Kennedy, people. Only Romney and Chairman Mao have ever accomplished that.

-After losing to Kennedy in a landslide, Romney then ran for governor in 2002 as someone who could work successfully with a Democratic legislature, saying he wanted to be governor of Massachusetts and it would not be a stepping stone.

-Romney was elected and served only one term, declining to run for reelection and essentially abandoning the Commonwealth in the last year of his term to run for president.

-As a presidential candidate, Romney has adopted ultra conservative opinions and castigated other candidates for not being a real conservative like him. He has spent millions of dollars on negative advertisements attacking his opponents by distorting their records to make them look moderate or even liberal. By the way, he denies taking the liberal positions he advocated in the 1994 Senate race, even though they are all captured on video and well documented.

-Since 2005, Romney has run a campaign based on his conservative credentials and experience. Then when Obama and Huckabee won the Iowa caucus as agents of change, Romney suddenly began campaigning as the real agent of change, changing his stump speech, his website and even his yard signs. He then proceeded to begin attacking Senator McCain as a Washington insider who couldn’t bring change.

Now, a confession. I am a flip flopper myself. Some time ago, I endorsed John Edwards for president on this blog, and millions of people, swayed by my learned opinion, coalesced around my candidate.

Okay, fine, not even my wife followed my lead; she volunteered for Obama. Still, I came out for Edwards. Since that time, I have considered voting for Hillary Clinton. I blame this on a prolonged illness which caused disorientation and nausea, which by the way is exactly what Hillary herself causes.

I also thought of voting for John McCain, although I have decided to rationalize that temptation by simply supporting him for the Republican nomination and we’ll see what happens down the road.

I must confess that I am taken with Barack Obama. I always liked him; I just had concerns about his lack of experience. The current commander in chief had the thinnest resume of any modern president, and we all know how that worked out. However, I am (or was, anyway) a student of history. We once elected a president whose sum total of political experience was two years in Congress. His name was Abraham Lincoln.

Apart from that consideration, I am persuaded by the shaky voice but steady words of Theodore Sorensen, who compares Senator Obama to his former employer, President John F. Kennedy. The issue, argues Sorensen, isn’t experience. Cheney and Rumsfeld had all sorts of experience. The issue is judgment.

Senator Obama had the good sense to oppose the war in Iraq when Hillary supported it, when Edwards supported it, and when I supported it. I’m no dove. But I find myself belatedly in agreement with Senator Obama, who said in October, 2002: “I’m not opposed to all wars. What I am opposed to is a dumb war.”












I do not disqualify Senators Clinton or Edwards for the presidency because of their vote for the war. But this shining example of good judgment on behalf of Barack Obama dramatically underscores the judgment over experience rationale. And it has changed my mind as well. In the last year, I have bounced around from candidate to candidate, mainly because I’m discouraged that none of them is named Al Gore. I do not retract my endorsement of John Edwards, and I will probably vote for him out of loyalty on February 5. But I am now flip flopping and supporting Barack Obama for president. In part this is because I don’t think Edwards can win the nomination, but I have another reason, one that runs deeper. My interest in politics began in 1983, when as a ten year old boy, I came across a newspaper article marking the 20th anniversary of President Kennedy’s murder. And now, a quarter of a century later, I am beginning to feel as if perhaps Senator Obama is my generation’s JFK, and I can’t turn my back on that idea.

So in the end, I have made my choice despite many changes of direction, leaving me vulnerable to accusations of opportunism. But in the end, I’m supporting Obama because doing so feels right. And that is what we need in America, not only from the voter, but from whoever is elected president.