Beating the Bushes:

The Maggot in the Cheese

   Flipping through an old album the other day, I came across two photos that brought back some pretty distressing memories: one of then-Senator Dan Quayle, standing and shaking hands with yours truly, surrounded by a bunch of well-dressed gentlemen; the other of then-Senator Jesse Helms, standing and shaking hands with still yours truly surrounded by the same bunch of well-dressed gentlemen. I'm the one in the blue blazer with a fairly dyspeptic look on his face. [Note: Eerily, within 24 hours of posting this piece comes the announcement that Senator Helms has died.]

   The photos were taken nearly twenty-five years ago when I was an officer of something called GOPAC -- the Gold Coast Political Action Committee.  The group's raison d'être was providing a maximum of $5,000 in campaign funds to those members of Congress the group deemed "good and reliable friends of Israel."   While on the surface this sounds both great and straightforward, there was a problem -- that which poet Edna St. Vincent Millay once called "The maggot in the cheese, the canker in the leaf."   You see, we were a "single-issue" PAC.  What this means is that the only yardstick we used to measure or evaluate the various representatives and senators was the quality of their support for Israel.  For many GOPAC members Israel was the only issue that mattered.

   "Back in the day," I argued long, hard and -- as it turned out,  unsuccessfully -- for us to use an expanded, more diffuse measuring device: a multi-issue approach. Under this proposal, we would look at where potential recipients stood -- and how they had voted -- on ten or more critical issues after we had first determined that he or she was a "good and reliable friend of Israel."  I remember warning the well-dressed gentlemen that "If the only issue by which we judge these guys is Israel, I promise you that the day will come when we  find ourselves making contributions to people with whom we disagree on most everything else -- like economy, Social Security, healthcare,  the environment, etc. . . ."  In political jargon, what I was arguing for was something called a "Mic-Pac," a "multiple-issue" political action committee.

   I lost that battle.  Hence the dyspeptic, "maggot in the cheese, canker in the leaf" grimace on my face in the two old photos.

   To a great degree, many American Jews still employ this single-issue yardstick in measuring a politician's worth -- no matter whether it be the current "Disaster in Chief" or a candidate for president, the Senate or House.   I can't tell you how many of my university students have informed me that "George W. Bush is the best friend Israel ever had."   Whenever I've asked them to back up their statement with examples or facts -- or have asked the simple question "Do you think he's been good for America? -- I'm generally met with either silence or a harangue against Pelosi, Reid, Kennedy and Obama.  In the first case -- about him being "the best friend Israel ever had" -- I presume they mean that he has essentially left the Jewish State alone to do pretty much as she wishes.  Well now, if that's the measure of a "best friend," then I must not understand the meaning of the term.  In the second case -- about W. being "good for America" -- I take the relative silence to be an indication that the person is loathe to say "yes," but can't quite bring him or herself to say "no."   Perhaps they're beginning to discover their own "maggot in the cheese" or "canker in the leaf." 

   In the race between Senators Obama and McCain, this "single-issue vs. "multiple-issue" argument is of absolutely vital, absolutely critical importance.  I firmly believe that the candidate who will ultimately be best for America -- and the world -- on a wide range of issues, will ultimately be best for Israel.  Simply stated, one cannot be "best for America" and at the same time be "not good for Israel."  To my way of thinking, it is counterintuitive. 

   To my way of thinking, there is no contest:  Barack Obama is the candidate who will be "best for America," and therefore "best for Israel." 

   I do not address myself to the benighted souls who persist in forwarding all those emails warning that Senator Obama is a Muslim, a terrorist, or some sort of dyed-in-the-wool Marxist.  These are probably the same folks who believe that Jim Morrison is alive, well, and recording under an assumed voice.

   There are obviously a sizable number of people out there who wouldn't vote for Barack Obama if he were the last candidate on earth; perhaps because he's an African American, perhaps because he's a progressive Democrat.  And some of them are still going out of their way to convince others of the "truths" that they "know" about the senator.  Why just the other day, I received  a rather large envelope from one "Ari ben Canaan" on "Rehov Irgun" in Israel.  [This is obviously a made-up name: "Ari ben Canaan" was the protagonist in Leon Uris' novel Exodus.]  Inside the envelope were nearly a dozen different articles, their assorted authors all "proving" that Senator Obama has long planned on running for president just so he can annihilate the Jewish State.  In his cover letter, Mr. "ben Canaan" compared me to Julius Lowenthal, the "biggest fool on the ship of fools," and told me to "Wake up and smell the friend chicken, Schmuck!" 

    Alice (mom) always taught us not to argue with crazy people, so I chose not to answer him.  But Mr. "ben Canaan" is merely the tip of the iceberg; there are lots of crazy people out there who just won't consider that Senator Obama, who will be best for America, will also be best for Israel.

   I certainly understand how critically important the State of Israel is -- to the Jewish people, to America, and indeed, to freedom-loving people the world over.  At the same time, I understand that many people will base their decision on who they will vote for on the single issue of Israel.  But this is a dangerous trap.  For what will America -- not to mention Israel -- have gained if the next President of the United States continues to support policies that have made us into a fearful nation, enriched the ineffably wealthy, caused our economy to tumble which in turn has forced millions out of their jobs, and left tens of millions without health insurance?

   The answer is nothing . . . absolutely nothing. 

  When it comes to Israel, both Obama and McCain have shown themselves to be "good and reliable friends," no matter what the anti-Obama contingent will claim.  It seems to me that the only way to avoid or forgo "The maggot in the cheese, the canker in the leaf," is to compare the two on issues of peace and economy, environment and education, labor, equality and civic pride. If we can escape the trap of  "single-issue" voting, we will wind up with a president who is not only "best for America," but "best for Israel" as well.  The two are inextricably bound.   

   To my mind, the greatest investment America can make in Israel's future is an Obama presidency. 

©2008 Kurt F. Stone

What Pray Tell is the "Enron Loophole?"

   Its never ceases to amaze how every week brings new words and phrases into the national political vocabulary,  especially during election season. Some, like "Creationism" "Stagflation," "sound byte," and "Swiftboating" have become so familiar as to elicit nary a hiccup from one's computer spell-check. Others, like "Teapot Dome," "vicuña coat," "hanging chad" and "The Keating Five" are best known to those of us who proudly wear the political junkie's lapel pin -- a garland of placards in a field of greenhouse gases.

   The latest -- and potentially most damaging is the "Enron Loophole."  And although my spell-check is none too certain what to make of "Enron," Google sure does; as of ten minutes ago, a search for that term brought up no less than 175,000 different sites. Within less time than it takes to solve the Rubik's Cube [another term that the old spell-checker recognizes] the "Enron Loophole" has become so omnipresent that one would presume that everyone knows to what it refers.

   For those who don't we humbly offer -- as a public service to our readers -- a brief history, synopsis and dramatis personae of that which could -- and undoubtedly should -- become the one 2008 election-year phrase that will live in everlasting infamy.  For the "Enron Loophole" is one, which by all rights, should surpass "Whiskey Ring," "Credit Mobilier," and "Abscam." 

    Back in 2000, then-Texas Senator Phil Gramm slipped a little-noted Enron-backed provision into the Commodities Futures Modernization Act.  Simply stated, this provision exempted from regulation energy trading on so-called "electronic platforms" or "dark markets."  Heretofore, energy trading [electricity, natural gas, etc.] was done mainly under the auspices of either the Commodity Futures Trading Commission [which was chaired during the first Bush Administration by Senator Gramm's wife Wendy] or the heavily-regulated New York Mercantile Exchange [NYMEX].  Their rules and regulations are in place in order to "prevent price distortions and supply squeezes."  With passage of the Gramm-sponsored, Enron-backed bill, traders and speculators moved the lion's share of their business over to the unregulated Atlanta-based Intercontinental Exchange [ICE] -- the so-called "dark market."

   It should be noted that at the time of its enactment, Republicans controlled Congress, and Senator Gramm was the Senate Banking Committee chair; even worse, his wife Wendy, not five weeks after leaving CFTC was named an Enron director.  The bill, which was signed by President Clinton in December of that year, was approved without so much as a Senate hearing.  Internal Enron documents which were released in 2002 [after the company had imploded and gone bye-bye] reveal that the then-Houston based company not only helped write the legislation, but baldly lobbied Senator Gramm ["Gramm needs to fully understand how helpful the bill is to Enron," went one internal memo].

   Within a year of its being freed from "regulatory interference," Enron began creating false energy shortages in California.  They wound up bilking consumers out of an estimated $40 billion.  And despite the new Bush Administration's attempts to come to come to Enron's rescue  -- W. personally joined in with those fighting against imposing caps on soaring electricity prices --  the Houston energy giant soon went the way of the Stegosaurus and Slide Rule.

   But wait; there's more!

  In 2006, the "Enron Loophole" permitted a hedge fund called "Amaranth Advisers" to corner the  natural gas market.  Now trading on the unregulated "dark market," the Amaranth "hedgies" wallowed up to the crap table, plunked down their gelt, and bet that futures prices on natural gas would go "up, up, up and away!" 

   Oops! 

    In September 2006, natural gas prices fell to a two-year low.  Amaranth Advisers lost their well-heeled clients about $6 billion, thus proving the truth of the old axiom "He who plays around with unregulated energy futures will most likely get torched."  About a year ago, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission [FERC] charged Amaranth with manipulating prices and has suggested a fine of $291 million plus the forfeiture of "unjust profits," whatever that means.

   It is highly likely that the high price of oil is also a result of unregulated activity in the "dark market."  Recently, Michigan Senator Carl Levin released a report concluding that "speculative markets" are "partly to blame for surging oil prices that have pushed gas at the pump toward $4 a gallon."  And Senator McCain [not to mention President Bush and Governor Charlie Crist] would have us believe that the answer to high prices at the pump in June 2008 is drilling off the coast of Florida!  Hey guys, it ain't a question of supply and demand; its a rigged game!

   So why has interest in the the "Enron Loophole" issue grown to the point where there are now more than 175,000 sites devoted to it?   And, what role might it play in the 2008 presidential election?

   First question first: Why has the loophole resurfaced precisely now?  Why not six months or two years ago?  Simple: the recent $307 billion farm bill.  When questioned, Senator McCain said he was against the bill, because "it would dole out wasteful subsidies."  One McCain aide, told journalist Jason Leopold that McCain opposed the farm bill because "it rewards lobbyists" by granting rich farmers "lucrative subsidies." OK, that's reasonable. However, the same aide noted that one additional reason for his boss's opposition was a section containing "regulatory language on the energy futures market."

   There's that word again . . .    REGULATION!! 

   ARGH!!!

   Who put this idea of hating any form of government regulation into the head of a man who freely admits "I don't know as much about the economy as I should?" 

   Why former Senator Gramm, that's who.

   Gramm, who is often described as "one of McCain's closest friends in politics," is also the campaign's chief economic adviser.  Anyone who has followed politics over the past twenty years will know that Phil Gramm hates government regulation and oversight even more than a Dodger fan hates the Giants. And this is the man to whom John McCain has entrusted his economic game  plan?

   Let Republicans and Obama haters of all shapes and sizes decry his relationship with Jeremiah Wright.  Let them question whether or not he thinks Louis Farrakhan is a stand-up guy.  For my money, the two  of 'em are full of sound and fury, signifying nothing.  To the best of my knowledge, neither has provided a platform whereby consumers could be bilked out of $40 billion or pay more than $4 at the pump. Neither one has paved the way for the richest one-tenth-of-one-percent to profit by human misery.  All these two gasbags have done is exercise their big fat mouths.

   Instead of continually wondering about Senator Barack Obama's alleged "relationship" with people whose words we may find abhorrent, we would be far wiser to question Senator John McCain's verifiable relationship with the man who made the term "Enron Loophole" such a hot term in the Google galaxy.

   Move over "Whiskey Ring."

   Stand aside "Teapot Dome."

  The "Enron Loophole" is about to overtake you!

©2008 Kurt F. Stone

"Strict Contortionists" [or] "One Man's Ceiling is Another Man's Floor"

    OK ladies and gentlemen, on the count of three, let's all heave a great big collective sigh of relief:

   One, two, three . . . "Aaaaah"! 

    I'm sure that's how a lot of us feel now that the Supreme Court has finally handed down its decision in Boumediene  et al v. Bush, the case that -- at least for now -- keeps habeas corpus alive and kicking.  In rendering its razor-thin 5-4 decision, the court has stingingly rebuked President Bush and all his Hey! Don't you know that America's at war with radical Islamists? allies.  In its landmark decision, Justices Kennedy, Stevens, Souter, Breyer and Ginsburg have held that habeas corpus protections do apply to detainees held at Guantanamo Bay. And despite what Chief Justice Roberts and his, brethren Scalia, Alito and Thomas claim, Boumediene v. Bush will neither place America in greater peril nor free prisoners from their padlocked cells.  What it does do is underscore the continued centrality of the United States Constitution -- even in a time of war.

   Writing for the majority, Justice Kennedy noted that "Liberty and security can be reconciled; and in our system they are reconciled within the framework of law."   

   Justice Scalia's scathing 25-page dissent reads more like a political broadside than a reasoned legal brief:

• "The game of bait-and-switch that today's opinion plays upon the Nation's Commander in Chief will make the war harder on us.  It will almost certainly cause more Americans to be killed."
• "Today the Court warps the Constitution."
• "The nation will live to regret what the Court has done today." 
• "[This decision] breaks a chain of precedent as old as the common law that prohibits judicial inquiry into detentions of aliens abroad absent statutory authorization."
• "Most tragically, it sets our military commanders the impossible task of proving to a civilian court . . .that evidence supports the confinement of each and every enemy prisoner."

   If I understand the dissenting opinion correctly, a large part  of the argument rests on the "fact" that since Guantanamo is not on American soil, the Constitution does not apply to those "enemy combatants" housed there.  Well now, if our base in Guantanamo is not, for legal purposes, considered part of the United States, then it logically follows that Senator John McCain is debarred from running for President of the United States; he was, afterall, born on a military base in the Panama Canal Zone, and according to Justice Scalia, that base was not a part of the United States. 

   As they say in legalese, Res ipsa loquitur -- "The thing speaks for itself." [Yes yes, I know, literally it should be rendered "The thing itself speaks," but let's not split fine hairs.]  

   Those decrying the majority decision claim that now, dozens -- if not hundreds -- of suspected terrorists will be free to go back home and start blowing us up all over again.  Granting the right of habeas corpus to this group -- so Scalia and his supporters argue -- will place America in grave peril.  Well, even retired General Colin Powell disagrees.  Speaking on the very issue last year, Powell said:

   "The concern was, well, then they'll have access to lawyers, then they'll have access to writs of habeas corpus.  So what?  Let them.  Isn't that what our system's all about? And by the way, America, unfortunately, has too many people in jail, all of whom had lawyers and access to writs of habeas corpus.  And so we can handle bad people in our system."   

   Be prepared for a watered-down version of this decision to become part of Senator McCain's presidential campaign.  We've all heard the argument before: "If you don't elect me, sure as God made little green apples, the Democrats are going to appoint activist judges to the Supreme Court . . . and then where will we be?"  Further, he and his surrogates will argue that "A vote for John McCain is a vote for 'strict constructionsts,' judges who, far from enacting new law, will rely only on what is actually written in the Constitution!"

   This argument -- about "activist" versus "strict constructionist" judges --  has been part of the Republican playbook ever since the days of Richard Nixon.  In recent years, it has become code for "If you elect a Republican, he will only appoint judges who will overturn Roe v. Wade and make sure that you can have prayer in the public schools."  Well my goodness, we've had lots of these so-called "strict constructionists" on the bench for the past two decades, and Roe v. Wade is still the law of the land.  Ironically, overturning this decision would be a Republican's worst nightmare; what would they then have to rail against?  How ever could they keep their conservative and evangelical friends voting for them?

   From where I sit, Roberts, Scalia, Alito and Thomas are not "strict constructionists" in any sense of the term.  At best, they are judicial activists; at worst, what might be termed "judicial contortionists."  It never ceases to amaze me how, that when Republicans agree with a judge, he or she is a "strict constructionist;" but when they disagree, its because the juror is a so-called "activist."

   Paul Simon said it best: "One man's ceiling is another man's floor."

   To my way of thinking, left to their own devices, Roberts, Scalia, Alito and Thomas are -- in potentia -- the very definition of "activists" judges.  They are the ones seeking to make new law, rather than rendering law based upon a literal reading of the Constitution.  

   One of the issues best kept in mind when deciding whether to vote for Senator McCain or Senator Obama is this matter of "activist" versus "strict-contortionist" judges.  The court is now just one "strict contortionist" Justice away from being as fully conservative as it was in the days of William Howard Taft.  Justice John Paul Stevens [the man who replaced Justice William O. Douglas] turned 88 a month ago; you can bet he's going to be retiring in the very near future.  And although Justice Anthony Kennedy is a very spry 72, he is far from predictable.  Knowing that he is the current "swing vote" on the Supreme Court isn't too great for one's sense of well-being.  His legal instincts are far closer to Roberts and Scalia than to Souter or Ginsburg.

   I can think of lots of good reasons to enthusiastically prefer Senator Obama to Senator McCain.  But after witnessing just how close we all came to losing habeas corpus this week, the issue of appointing Justices to the Supreme Court has broken away from the pack and is now heading into the lead.

   ©2008 Kurt F. Stone

  

  

"Preserve," Support" "Protect," and "Defend" -- Four Words That Should Matter

     In reviewing the 183 articles I've posted since this site's inception back in February of 2005, I was intrigued to discover that four were on the subject of Impeachment.  The first of these, Villainova, was posted back on December 23, 2005; the most recent, To Impeach or Not to Impeach: Why is There a Question? ran on November 15, 2007. The February 23, 2006 piece carried the straightforward, not terribly imaginative title Impeach George Bush!  In rereading the articles -- including the July 26, 2007 piece entitled Bush's Tush -- I was both amazed and downhearted to find that the four had engendered a total of two -- precisely TWO -- comments.  On the other hand, my recent pieces on Senator Obama have garnered enough commentary -- some diligently thoughtful, some patently ugly -- to fill a fair-sized filing cabinet.   

   Well, ready or not, here comes the fifth op-ed piece on Impeachment -- but with a bit of a difference.

    I am not going to argue either the correctness or the necessity of impeaching Bush and Cheney; in an ideal world, they would have been hauled before the Judiciary Committee a long time ago.  

   I am not going to enumerate the 35 articles that Ohio Representative Dennis Kucinich so painstakingly read into The Congressional Minyan two nights ago; although chilling to the max, it makes for boring reading.

   I am not going to wager on the chances of Impeachment or criminal indictment ever becoming reality; if I want to place a bet, it will be on something with better odds for success -- like the Florida Lottery or Irish Sweepstakes.

   I am not going to bemoan the fact that in the past 48 hours, the national media has run precisely 2,744 articles on "killer tomatoes," to a mere 240 on impeachment; we the people are as much to blame as the media for this grossly lopsided statistic.  

   And, I am not going to tar Speaker Pelosi, Majority Leaders Hoyer and Reid or the rest of Congress with the brush of cowardice; why waste good ink on that which is -- or at the least damn well ought to be -- painfully obvious? 

   Madam Speaker has already staked herself to a position: that Impeachment would be a waste of time considering that the Bush Administration is now in its lame-duck phase.  She's also worried that Republicans would use Impeachment as a club with which to beat Democrats in the 2008 election.  Then too, she says that "Congress can use its time more wisely on the real problems we face."  OK, you tell me: what do you expect from Congress in the next several months on such issues as the housing crisis, the price of gas, health insurance, the war in Iraq, global warming or a couple of dozen other critical issues?

   Instead, let's talk about what not initiating impeachment proceedings means; about the sorry state of words, deeds, integrity and We the People.

   In pouring over what I believe to be a representative sampling of articles and commentary out here in Cyberspace, I've noticed that people break down into two heavily-barricaded camps:

• Those who firmly believe that Bush, Cheney and their confreres are the second coming of Benedict Arnold -- if not Vlad the Impaler, and
• Those who are absolutely convinced that anyone and everyone supporting Impeachment is a Looney Tune. 

   While all this angry, defensive finger-pointing, this resorting to ad hominem argumentation may make for good theatre, it fairly ignores what is truly at stake: the very future of the United States of America as envisioned by the Founders. Jefferson, Adams, Hancock, Monroe and the rest thoroughly rejected the royalist principles that "l'etat, c'est moi," and "The king can do no wrong."  These brilliant products of the Enlightenment fully understood that if the United States was to succeed, it had to be a "nation of laws, and not of men."  They didn't just talk a good game; they staked their lives, fortunes and reputations on it.  Who today has that much gumption or conviction? 

   Somewhere along the lines, we lost that understanding.  Far too often as both a polity and a society, we are far more interested in next week, the next election, the next fiscal quarter, than we are with the next generation or the generation after that.  We fail to understand that indebtedness doesn't just accrue to Visa or Mastercard, China, India or Saudi Arabia, but to history as well. Far too often we calculate our indebtedness -- whether personal, corporate or national -- only in terms of dollars and cents.  What we have failed to calculate is our future indebtedness in terms of peace and progress, optimism, progressivism and [small-r] republicanism.

   When Congress gleefully impeached President Bill Clinton for perjury and extramarital shtupping, much of the world chuckled; to them, it was both partisan and incredibly frivolous. But when Congress refuses to even consider impeachment proceedings against President Bush and/or Vice President Cheney for their very real "high crimes and misdemeanors," much of the world cringes.  They see America's moral compass becoming irreparably smashed and beaten.

   When one takes the oath of office, they place their right hand on a Bible -- or in the case of Minnesota Representative Keith Ellison a Koran after the Bible -- and solemnly swear to "Support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies foreign and domestic; that I will bear true allegiance to the same. . ."  It seems to me that these words -- especially the verbs "support" and "defend" have lost all meaning.  For what is at stake is not just the future of George W. Bush or Dick Cheney, individual Democrats or Republicans, the outcome of the next election, but the very fabric of this nation "of laws, not of men."  By standing blithely by and permitting so many laws to be broken, so many lies to be papered over, so much liberty to be abased, it darkens the American skies with the ominous thunderclouds of self-destruction.

   History, of course will have the final word.  It has never ceased to amaze me how many of yesterday's headline-making "loonies" are today's forgotten heroes. A couple of examples:

   In his day, Wisconsin Representative Victor Berger was called "the most dangerous man in America."  His "crime?"  He dared to talk about the need for a national system of old-age pensions back before World War I. 

  

In the late 1920s a New York Representative by the name of Fiorello LaGuardia was labeled "a grandstanding lunatic" for proposing much of what would within three years be called "The New Deal." 

   As early as 1935, New York Representative Emanuel Celler was scoffed at for warning that the creation of a House committee to investigate so-called "un-American activities" would likely make "the mere harboring of unpopular opinions" a federal crime. 

   And now there's Representative Dennis Kucinich -- who is already being called every vile name in the book -- for having the "temerity" to nail his 35 Articles of Impeachment on the House door.  

    I do not pretend to know what history's verdict will be so far as George W. Bush and his administration go.  As the saying goes, "I am neither a prophet nor the son of a prophet."  What I do know, however, is that unless -- and until -- we come to understand that such verbs as "preserve," "protect," "support" and "defend" have real meanings with real consequences, our debt to future generations will be far far greater than our debt to Visa, Mastercard or China. 

©2008 Kurt F. Stone

    

The Obama Minyan

   Now that Senator Obama is the de facto [I hate the word "presumptive"] Democratic nominee, the slings and arrows of yesterday are about to become the Titans and Tomahawks of tomorrow.  Make no mistake about it: the Republicans will attack him with every missile in their silo.  And like the "MIRV" [Multiple Independently targetable Reentry Vehicle], their political projectiles are going to be aimed at lots and lots of different targets.

   Indeed, there will be something for everyone:

• Economic Elitists will no doubt be clubbed with the fear that an Obama presidency will lead to the ultimate victory of Marx over Monetarism. 
• Social Conservatives will be warned that an Obama Administration will make abortion, same-sex marriage and the teaching of Evolution mandatory.
• Conspiracy Theorists will be convinced that an Obama cabinet will include Louis Farrakhan, Pastor Wright and perhaps even the ghost of Emma Goldman.
• Zionists will be taught that an Obama foreign policy will sound the death-knell for the Jewish State.
• And of course, the words "lack of experience" will become so ever-present that schoolchildren will no doubt conclude that this must be the senator's middle name.

   Already, one can hear those MIRVs warming up in their silos.

   Let's handle the last two, because to a great extent, they are inextricably bound together.  It is absolutely true that Senator Obama has not been on the national scene nearly as long as Senator McCain.  And, it is equally as true that he has no eponymous legislation for which he can claim credit, ala the "McCain-Feingold" Act.  I for one have often found the "experience issue" to be a non-starter. To my way of thinking, its not always "what you know," but "who you know and trust that knows what you need to know."  If one only peeks behind the curtain of their fears and uncertainties [amply cheer-led by conservative bloggers and all those "entertainers" who pass themselves off as mainline journalists], one will discover something truly heartening: that Senator Barack Obama has surrounded himself with a roster of the "best and brightest," the likes of which have not been seen since the days of JFK.  I will match up Obama's experts and wise men and women against those of McCain six days a week -- and on the seventh we rest.

   Which brings us to the issue of Senator Obama vis-a-vis Israel. 

   Much has been made over the past months, weeks and even days, about the number of so-called "professional Israel haters/anti-Semites" who are "advising" the gentleman from Illinois.  Anyone with email service has received screaming cyber missives warning that Obama is getting all his Israel/Middle East input from the likes of former Carter-era National Security Advisor Zbigniew Brzezinski, the Kennedy School's Stephen Walt, the University of Chicago's John Mearsheimer and now, former Michigan Representative [and Edwards' campaign manager] David Bonior.

   While none of the aforementioned is going to be invited to our next seder, the influence they have -- and will have -- on Senator Obama's future Middle Eastern strategy is effectively nil, nada, zilch, gornisht.

   As noted in our February 21, 2008 piece -- The Truth About It:

   "According to David Axelrod, the senator's chief strategist, '. . . [Brzezinski] is not an adviser.  We do not call him an adviser and he does not call himself an adviser.  He is a supporter of Senator Obama and they have spoken about the Iraq war once several months ago . . . . The only people who call Brzezinsky an adviser are the Clinton campaign . . ." 

   So far as professors Walt and Mearsheimer go, their names originally became linked to the Obama campaign some time back.  Under what circumstances?  Well, last year, the two professors published a work entitled The Israel Lobby and American Foreign Policy.  Truth to tell, it painted a woeful, damning portrait of A.I.P.A.C. and the power it wields in Washington.  It so happens that the Obama campaign's cyber nerds placed small ads in various spots on the Internet, designed to drive readers to its website.  From experience, I can tell you that the best way to accomplish this is to put in a string of key words . . . like "politics," "Democratic," or "president."  This is precisely what the Obama camp did.  Well, one of these ads popped up on the Amazon page hawking Walt and Mearsheimer's book.  Immediately, the anti-Obama forces began proclaiming "You See!  Obama is one of those Israel haters!" Once this was brought to the Obama campaign's attention, they removed the ad.  But viola, the damage had been done; suddenly and miraculously, Walt and Mearshmer had been transformed into "senior Obama advisers." They were not, and are not.

 

   David Bonior, who signed on with the Obama campaign just in time to represent it -- along with Congressman Robert Wexler -- before the Democratic National Committee, did not have a great voting record vis-a-vis Israel.  And while not trying to soft-peddle his votes -- many of which I find just wrong -- one does well to remember that his district was home to the highest percentage of Palestinians of any district in the United States.  And while one can -- and should -- revile many of the votes he cast while in Congress -- which I do -- one must keep in mind that the first rule of politics is "get yourself [re]elected." Then too, Bonoir was not hired because of his positions on the Middle East, but precisely because, as a former Michigan powerhouse, it was felt that he could best state the Obama case vis-a-vis delegates.  Also, by bringing him on board, it was a clear sign that John Edwards was about to support the campaign.

 

   So just who is advising Senator Obama on Israel and the Middle East?  Who makes up "The Obama Minyan?"  [n.b. A "minyan" is a lawful quorum of ten Jewish adults -- some athorities say only men -- required for reciting Jewish prayers.]

  

   A bit of research available to anyone who wants to know the truth, turns up the following "minyanaires:"

 

• Rep. Robert Wexler: Rob, who I am proud to say is my representative in Congress, is a devoutly religious, Miami-bred member of the House Foreign Affairs subcommittee on the Middle East and South Asia.  As early as 2002 he was calling for the ouster of terrorist leaders in the Mideast and declared that Israel was engaged in full-scale war.  When it comes to supporting the Jewish State, no one takes a backseat to Congressman Wexler.
• Former Rep. Mel Levine: Mel, a good friend of longstanding [who ironically, was my representative when I was still living in Southern California], was a member of the House from 1982-1992.  Mel comes from a family whose allegiance to Israel is legendary: in 1948, his late father Sid was Western States' representative for the Haganah.  Indeed, one of Mel's earliest memories, as he recounted for my book, The Congressional Minyan: The Jews of Capitol Hill was: ". . . as a five-year old hearing the doorbell ring . . . and being knocked over by a gunny sack filled with God knows what. . . and my dad grabbing me and basically throwing me away from the door.  I learned many years later that that was some type of materiel that was on its way to Israel during the War of Independence." During his years in the House, Mel's was one of the most intelligent and passionate voices ever raised on Israel's behalf.  Bar none.
• Ambassador Dan Kurtzer: Dan was President Clinton's Ambassador to Egypt from 1997-2001, and President George W. Bush's Ambassador to Israel from 2001-2005.  Prior to entering foreign service, he was dean of his alma mater, Yeshiva University.  Now retired, Dan is the first-ever commissioner of the Israel Baseball League. [Which, by the way, drafted Sandy Koufax!]
• Former U.S. Senator Tom Daschle: Yes, I know, Tom is a Catholic, so technically, cannot be counted in a "minyan."  Nonetheless, during all his years in the House and Senate [where he was Minority Leader], Tom was among Israel's strongest and most consistent supporters.  Despite coming from a state [South Dakota] that is home to precisely 99 Jews, Tom is well-known for his efforts on behalf of the Jewish State.  I first met him back in 1986, when he came to South Florida to get acquainted with the Jewish community.  Following a luncheon speech at the Woodlands Country Club, one of the Zionist lions asked him "what was the family name before Daschle?  Are you sure you're not Jewish?"
• Rep. Jan Schakowsky: Jan has represented a Chicago-area district [9] in the House since 1998.  One simply cannot be elected and reelected by such wide margins [75% in 2006, 76% in 2004] from Evanston/Skokie unless they are actively, stridently, vociferously pro-Israel. And this Jan is.
• Penny Pritzker:  Scion of the Hyatt Hotel chain and herself the founder/Chair/CEO of "Classic Residency by Hyatt," Penny is one of the wealthiest women in the world. Holder of a Harvard degree in economics, and a graduate of the Stanford University Law School, Penny is part of a famiy that has been among Israel's strongest financial backers for more than two generations.  Penny is the Obama campaign's national finance director; as such the senator has come under intense fire from anti-Zionist groups who claim that he is "in the pocket of the Zionists."  How can one be anti-Israel and at the same time get slammed by the true haters of Israel for being "overly Zionist?"  Beats me.
• Anthony Lake: The grandson of a Church of England clergyman who came the United States from Oxford to teach New Testament Studies at Harvard, Tony Lake converted to Judaism in 2005.  He has long been a foreign policy advisor to Democrats.  When questioned by Moment Magazine about his support for Barack Obama vis-a-vis Israel, Lake responded: "The question is: Which America is the strongest friend of Israel?  Which America will be the strongest adversary to those who would do us harm?  And clearly, the answer is an America that is unified rather than torn apart by the politics of the past 20 years.  And it is in Obama's DNA to be a unifier while having clear views."
• Denis McDonough: Senior Fellow at American Progress and former Legislative Director for Colorado Senator Ken Salazar, Denis is currently the Obama Campaign's Foreign Policy Coordinator. He is an acknowledged expert on Israeli-Arab relations; an area of expertise that has been sorely lacking for the past eight years.  Denis is a stalwart supporter of Israel, and despite the fact that he is not "MOT" ["A Member of the Tribe"] he is without question a member-in-good-standing of the Obama Minyan.
• Dan Shapiro: Former Foreign Policy Adviser to Florida Senator Bill Nelson.  Dan was responsible for writing the "Syria Accountability Act of 2003," which was intended among other things, to "halt Syrian terrorism and its occupation of Lebanon . . . and to hold Syria accountable for its role in the Middle East."  This measure was co-sponsored by California Senator Barbara Boxer and Former Pennsylvania Senator Rick Santorum. That bill became law in December 2003.  Dan also drafted a 2007 measure that prohibits US contacts with Palestinian leadership. He was brought on board largely on the strength of his close relations with AIPAC.
• Lee Rosenberg: A Chicago-based independent venture capitalist, Lee is  both a member of the Obama Campaign finance team, and, perhaps most importantly, the Treasurer of AIPAC. For anyone who watched the senator's address before AIPAC the other day, that was Lee who did the introduction.

   And these, my friends are the front-line members of the Obama Minyan.

   Unquestionably, there will continue to be lots of folks out there from Compton to Caribou who will continue believing [and spreading] lies about Barack Obama being al-Qaeda's "Manchurian Candidate," a "secret Muslin," and an "anti-Semite."  Let's face it: for some people, facts cannot hold a candle to fiction; intrigue is a lot more entertaining than intelligence.

   As for me, I am both proud and humbled to be a part of the Obama Minyan.  And although it has been a longstanding Jewish tradition to never go out seeking "converts," in this instance, and for this purpose, I will gladly break with tradition.

   How about you?

©2008 Kurt F. Stone

  

  

Beam Yourself Up Scottie!

     Message to Scottie:

    So now you're beaming yourself up? Sorry to have to inform you of this Scottie, but your job has always been to beam the others up, not yourself.  For several years, it was your task to make others look good; to safely transport them to that vast clime where "no one has gone before." Before your debarkation, it was your job to transform dross into gold and water into wine.  You were the one crew member whose job spec read "Protect us from  our lies, our posturing and ourselves." 

 Scottie, have you misplaced the script?  Have you forgotten the Prime Directive? Obviously you have.  For in publishing What Happened: Inside the Bush White House and Washington's Culture of Deception, you are effectively beaming yourself up into the vast empyrean of mea culpa. That's simply not the way things are suppose to be. 

   Are we supposed to be grateful for your memoir?  Are we supposed to rush out and purchase a copy, thereby paving over your guilt with gelt? I fear that that's what's going to happen, despite the fact that all the awful truths you've "revealed" most of us have long suspected in haunting principle -- if not known in absolute fact.  And even if we agree with your take on how Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Rove and the gang lied us into Iraq -- the lies they told about 9/11, Saddam, and WMDs -- the fact remains that not only did they [by your own admission] know all along they were telling lies, but you, you were the one giving voice to these lies, day in day out.  You were the one beaming them up.  As such, you are as culpable as the men and women who put these mendacities into your mouth. 

   Then there is the case of Valerie Plame.  What Rove, Libby and the rest of the crew did in outing her -- and just to get back at her husband, Ambassador Wilson -- is 100% against the law.  It doesn't really matter whether you were "misled" as you now claim; the damage was done, an actionable crime was committed.   

   I do agree that the White House press corps was too easy on you and the crew -- uh, administration -- on the run-up to Iraq.  They showed an unconscionable lack of backbone and grit in not challenging every word, comma and semicolon.  But please, do not tell us that you now wish they'd only asked the hard questions; you know in your heart of hearts that you would have swatted their questions away like noxious flies at a picnic. 

   Scottie, don't be too surprised if one day soon you wake up to discover that, short of beaming yourself to some celebrious haven, you have rematerialized in front of a hostile Congressional committee or federal grand jury.  For the words, deeds, and machinations you have detailed in your book are, in the estimation of people with knowledge far greater than mine, legally actionable.  Should it come to this, would you seek the cloak of immunity -- or forgetfulness? Do you understand that you may well have the power to underscore, highlight and make bold this administration's position as the absolute worst, most disastrous in American history? 

   Already, your erstwhile friends and compatriots are hurling lethal thunderbolts your way, characterizing you as nothing more than a "disgruntled former employee," a "turncoat" who is "out to make a quick buck."  Tell me Scottie: when you first sat down to write this book, did you have any idea of the treacherous terrain to which you were beaming yourself? Did you really, truly think that you could teleport yourself on to a new career?

   Don't be too surprised if FOX News doesn't come calling, hefty contract in hand.  For in order to profit from sin, you have to be Ollie North or G. Gordon Liddy.

   In closing Scottie, it may well be that you haven't yet reached the "final frontier."  But one can hope that ultimately, in beaming yourself up, you have set the stage for the Bushies to be beamed down -- as far down as history and the courts will allow.

©2008 Kurt F. Stone 

    

Mr. Obama Goes To Shul

  BOCA RATON, FLORIDA * Senator Barack Obama came to Temple B'nai Torah this afternoon.  As will often happen with candidates out on the campaign trail, his arrival was delayed by several hours.  And although he apologized for being tardy and making us wait, he never did mention the reason for his delay.  As I found out later that night, he had hopped up to Capitol Hill in order to vote in favor of a measure which greatly expands the G.I. Bill.  He could have taken the high, self-serving road and told those assembled why he was late.  He could also have taken the low, "finger-pointing" road and flailed Senator McCain for being one of 22 Republicans voting against our men and women in uniform. 

   Instead, he did neither. 

   This was not his reason for going to shul.

   Rather, he was here, in the midst of approximately 750 mostly-Jewish men, women and teens, to talk about himself, Israel, and anti-Semitism, and to address head-on the virtual St. Vitus' dance of fear that has been such a noxious staple of cyberspace this past year 

   I managed to snag a VIP pass and, guiltily walking past the long line of folks standing out in the rain, was seated about 6 feet away from the senator. Sitting with me were -- somewhat surprisingly -- at least thee lions of the Republican Party and a couple of die-hard Clinton acolytes.  They, like so many in the assembled minyan, were not there because they already supported Senator Obama. Rather, they had come to find out for themselves just who the "skinny guy with the strange-sounding name" is, and whether or not he will be as bad for Israel as so many have claimed. 

   Senator Obama certainly had his work cut out for himself.

   To make the senator's task even more challenging, just the day before he attended shul, the New York Times ran a story entitled "Many Florida Jews Express Doubts On Obama."  In the article, staff writer Jodi Kantor quoted a handful of South Florida Jews who were dismissive -- if not downright hostile -- to Senator Obama's candidacy.  One elderly woman said she would never vote for Obama "because of his attitude on Israel."  A second averred that Obama "is part of Chicago's large Palestinian community."   A third worried that if he were elected, Obama "might fill his administration with followers of Louis Farrakhan."  And yet a fourth opined, "His father was a Muslim and you can't take that out of him."

    No one ever said running for president was easy; especially when you're a guy named Barack Obama, and you're speaking in a synagogue before more Jews than the rabbi has seen since last Rosh Hashana.

    With a mesmerizing mix of eloquence and erudition, articulation and affability, the Senator won over the vast majority of the assembled minyan.  During the more than two hours he spent speaking and dialoguing, Senator Obama made it abundantly clear that he was, is, and always shall be, a staunch defender of the Jewish State.  [One should know a fact: after going over the voting records of both Senator Clinton and Obama vis-a-vis issues pertaining to Israel, AIPAC -- the main Israel support lobby in the U.S. gave both a 100% rating.  That's 100% of the time that both senators voted in a manner that was favorable to the Jewish State.]

   Senator Obama told of how, as a youngster attending summer camp, he had a Jewish counselor who told him about Zionism: 

   "I really connected with it, because in Zionism, there is this sense of rootedness, of having a place and a home.  And for a kid with my unusual background . . . and not knowing precisely where I fit, this struck a tremendous chord."

   When asked about his relationship with a Palestinian professor from the University of Chicago, the Senator said:

   "Yes, I have met the man, but why do people automatically conclude that therefore I must be in agreement with what he espouses?  People do have the ability to listen to those with whom they disagree.  How can one ever make any progress if the only folks they talk to are those with whom they are in agreement?"

   Obama went on to say:

   "I don't want to get in to the 'some of my best friends are Jewish' trap, because it's terribly demeaning.  But I will tell you this: when I first ran [unsuccessfully] for Congress against Bobby Rush, the main argument against me was that I was too close to the Jewish community!  I have always believed that Jewish and African Americans have an historic bond, an historic memory.  I mourn the passing of the time when Jewish Americans and African Americans worked together in harmony to bring about change.  If it weren't for the Jewish community and their central role in the Civil Rights struggle, I wouldn't be here today, running for President of the United States."

   Addressing all the emails that are going around [indeed, I just received one entitled "The Fifty Lies of Barack Obama"], he made a telling point with a fine degree of humor:

   "You know, no one believes those emails that start out: 'I'm a Nigerian who has $5 million in the bank but can't get at it . . . however if you'll only send me a thousand dollars . . .' Or all those medicines that promise to help expand your . . . well, let's not go there . . . [laughter] . . . But seriously, why then do people believe scurrilous rumors?  Promising millions for nothing or potency for pennies has about as much reality as proclaiming that I am a Jihadist."

   Many in the crowd were of the opinion that "George W. Bush is the best friend Israel has ever had."  I hear this from my students more often than is comfortable.  Senator Obama addressed this in words of stark simplicity:

   "In the past seven years, Iran has become infinitely more powerful than ever before. It has given tremendous financial support to the major enemies of Israel. This has all happened under the Bush-Cheney-McCain watch.  How can anyone conclude that the one who empowers your worst enemy is your best friend?  It doesn't make any sense."

   One person in the crowd asked why, in saying he would convene a summit meeting of all Arab countries, he excluded Israel, Obama smiled and answered:

   "Well first, Israel isn't an Arab country; its a Jewish State.  Secondly, they are our strongest ally . . . our best friend in the region.  The countries we would be talking to are the ones we want to convince that someday, somehow, they're going to have to learn how to live in peace with Israel.  If you only talk to your friends, there is absolutely no chance that you're ever going to be able to change your enemies.  That is part of the definition of courage"

    By way of example, Senator Obama mentioned how, when speaking before students at a school of Ramallah, he told them, "One day you are going to have to learn to live in peace with Israel."    

   Did Senator Obama's "performance" make supporters out of everyone in attendance?  Probably not, for he is, as we say in Hebrew, raq basar va'dahm ["merely flesh and blood"]. Nonetheless, I believe he quelled the fear and uncertainty in many hearts.

   There no doubt will always be those who choose to believe the worst about Senator Obama -- or anyone in the public eye for that matter.  There will also always be those who seek to hide incipient racism beneath the veneer of inept rhetoric.  And believe me, I am fully expecting people to write and tell me that I have had the wool pulled over my eyes -- that Senator Obama is a Muslim, ant-Semitic . . . the whole nine yards.  

   And yet, for at least one afternoon, in one shul, the minyan had the opportunity to listen to -- and share with -- a man who reminded us that the Arabic barack and the Hebrew baruch share the same meaning:  "Blessed."

   It was a "sermon" well worth the wait.

   Oh yes: by the end, even the three Republicans were on their feet.

   And don't worry about being late Senator.  You see, ever since Sinai, we've been on Jewish Standard Time . . .

©2008 Kurt F. Stone

Vos Meinsdie iz Seig?

    Yesterday, in a speech before a group in Columbus, Ohio, Senator John "The Presumptive Republican Nominee" McCain etched a portrait of America and the world circa 2013 that would make even M.C. Escher stand in awe.

   For in his speech, McCain predicted that by the end of his first term:

• The Iraq war will have been won.
• al-Qaeda in Iraq will have been defeated.
• A democratic government will be fully operational there.
• Taxes will be lower.
• Congressional earmarks will have been eliminated.
• Robust economic growth will have returned.
• The genocide in Darfur will be a distant memory.
• The Social Security crisis will have been solved.
• Construction on 20 new nuclear power plants will be underway.
• Osama bin Laden will be either dead or captured.    

    As Arlo Guthrie asked in his classic "The Pause of Mr. Claus," What's in the pipe that he's smoking?

   It is patently obvious that the senator's remarks are meant to distance himself ever so slightly from President Bush, and get away from his "100 years in Iraq" nonsense.  Never mind that he is attempting to open Napoleon Solo's "Channel D" in order to contact independents and so-called "Reagan Democrats." As the old saying goes, "All you who really believe this, I've got this dandy bridge for sale . . ."

   Beyond the hollow promises to fix the economy, remake Social Security,  eliminate all congressional earmarks -- which, as obnoxious as they may be, amount to just a shade under .007% of the entire federal budget -- there is the very serious question Vos Meinsdie iz Seig? -- Yiddish for, roughly, "What is the definition of victory?"

Oh yes, there are plenty of examples of victorious conclusions to bloody wars:

• Lee handing his sword to Grant at Appomattox.
• General Alfred Jodl signing the document of Germany's unconditional surrender at General Eisenhower's Headquarters in Reims, France.
• Japanese Foreign Minister Shigemitsu and General Umezu initialing documents aboard the U.S.S. Missouri.

  In these -- and dozens of other -- cases, the combined military might of one set of allies defeated those of their enemies.  That is, nations, countries with defined borders, established -- albeit murderous and dictatorial -- governments acknowledged that the other side had beat them, and it was high time to lay down their arms and take whatever medicine the victors prescribed.
   
   The situation in Iraq is, of course, totally different.   First and foremost, America and her "coalition of the willing" are not fighting against the combined forces of any government.  Insurgents, terrorists, guerrillas, and suicide bombers do not an army make -- at least in any traditional sense of the term.  When government-sponsored forces engage one another in battle, at least they wear different uniforms; one can frequently identify the enemy.  In Iraq, anyone -- and everyone -- is potentially the enemy.

   Second, armies, navies and air forces are trained to fight wars strategically --  "by the book."  In comparison, the conflict in Iraq has no "rules;" what passes for strategy is most often a muddle of murderous inconsistency. 

   Third, more often than not, when countries become a battlefield, they are defended by their own troops and those of their allies.  In Iraq, the lion's share of battle has been undertaken by a military force viewed by most not as a savior, but an invader.  When a country is at war with itself, it is neigh-on impossible to succeed, let alone struggle on to something as illusive as "victory."  The historic tensions and animosities betwixt Sunnis, Sh'ias and Kurds had been, in a sense hermetically sealed during Saddam's bloody reign.  Once he was deposed, the gruesome genie was unleashed, fueled by the pent-up fury of untold centuries.

   And out of all this Senator McCain has a definition for "victory?"

Vos meinsdie iz seig?

    Then too, there is the Arizona senator's vision of an Iraq with a fully operational, democratic government. To understand the full implication of this dreamy vision, let us take a page from rabbinic literature.

    As anyone who has ever read the Hebrew Bible [i.e. Old Testament] knows, the Children of Israel spent forty years wandering in the wilderness; forty years between the end of Egyptian servitude and the beginning of Judean self-governance.  According to the midrash -- exegetical commentary -- God had originally planned on keeping their journey to a mere seven weeks.  Why the change?

   Most commentators agree that the change was due to the Israelites' base sinfulness and utter lack of trust in the Lord.  When Moses did not descend from Mt. Sinai at the precise moment they thought he would, they gave in to their fears and had Aaron create the Golden Calf.  In other words, for many commentators, the change from seven weeks to forty years was a punishment for this collective sin.

   There is, however, another commentary which shows tremendous understanding of both human nature and political reality.  According to this, the forty-year trek was meant to teach a pivotal lesson: that while it is quite easy -- albeit deeply tragic and inhumane -- to turn free people into slaves, it is terribly difficult to turn slaves into free people. To have expected the Israelites -- who had been enslaved for four hundred years -- to suddenly shake off their bonds and fully grasp the ways of freedom, was ludicrous.  In making the Children of Israel to wander about for forty years, God was making sure that virtually every man, woman and child who passed over the  River Jordan [save Joshua and Caleb] had been born in freedom, not slavery.

   This ancient commentary is most instructive in the case of Iraq.  By declaring that the Iraqis will be fully self-governing within six-months, three years, a generation, Senator McCain is making the assumption that former slaves are both longing for -- and capable of -- governing themselves.  This is a dangerous, delusional trap into which Senator McCain and most of his Republican colleagues have fallen.

   Just as there is no hard and fast definition of "victory" in Iraq, so too should there be no illusion about just how difficult it will be for them to remake themselves into a modern democratic state.  It will take at least a generation, if not two . . . or three . . . or longer.

   Senator McCain is correct in beginning to talk about bringing our troops home at some point in the future. But to link the words "Iraq" and "democracy" with the year 2013 is sheer folly.

   Like the sign says, "if you break it, you pay for it . . ."

"But That Was Yesterday . . . and Yesterday's Gone"

   We begin with a heartfelt -- albeit pro forma -- declaration: Senator John McCain is a man of uncommon valor and fortitude.  What he went through during his five tortuous years as a P.O.W. is beyond human comprehension.  He was tested in ways that not even Franz Kafka could imagine, and emerged to greet the sun of a new day. Senator McCain was, is, and shall always be, a shining example of the ineffable in man.

   Having unburdened ourselves of the plaudits due the man, let's get to the subject at hand: the genius of John McCain . . .

   For years, editorial writers have used the words "maverick," and "principled" to describe Senator McCain.  Time and again, he has been applauded for bucking Republican orthodoxy, for being the "heir" of Teddy Roosevelt.  At one point this was undeniably true.  Consider that in past years, Senator McCain co-sponsored a patients' bill of rights with liberal stalwarts Ted Kennedy and John Edwards.  He united with Senator Chuck Schumer to sponsor one bill allowing the reimportation of prescription drugs and another permitting the wider sale of generic alternatives.  All three of these drove the health care industry, the White House and the GOP leadership up the wall.  Despite pressure, Senator McCain did not cave.

   Senator McCain joined John Kerry in co-sponsoring a bill raising automobile fuel efficiency standards.  Another time he teamed up with Joe Lieberman on a measure imposing a cap-and-trade regime on carbon emissions.  He was also one of only six Republicans to vote against drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Reserve.

   He has worked with Michigan Senator Carl Levin to close tax shelters, co-sponsored bills to close the gun-show loophole and federalize airport security and, perhaps most notably, voted against both the 2001 and 2003 Bush tax cuts.   Talk about a maverick!

   In fact, his moderate bona fides were so accepted, so much of the myth that is John McCain, that in 2004, John Kerry actually wooed him to join his ticket as vice president.  According to the New Republic's Jonathan Chait, the two held no less than a half-dozen clandestine conversations on the topic which, as Chait noted, was "about a half-dozen more than would have been needed if McCain was a dyed-in-the-wool conservative Republican."

    At this point, a lyric from Chad and Jeremy comes to mind: "But that was yesterday . . . and yesterday's gone." [For all you guitar enthusiasts out there, that's E7, A, Bm7-5, E7, A, Bm7-5, A D9, E7.] 

    Where then is the John McCain of yesteryear?  What became of the man who, like T.R., was dead-set against repealing the estate tax, and once called the Reverends Falwell and Robertson "agents of intolerance?"  Is this the same man who now wants to make the Bush tax cuts permanent, and is "very honored" to have the endorsements of Pastor Rod ["America was created to destroy Islam"] Pasley and Reverend John ["The Catholic Church is a whore"] Hagee?  How is it that a man who spent so many years working in tandem with Feingold, Kennedy, Schumer, Levin et al, can now claim the mantle of George W. Bush? 

   During the Republican primaries, many of the nation's most influential papers lauded McCain as a principled, straight-shooter:

• The Boston Globe: "Voters may disagree with his policies, but few doubt his sincerity."
• The Los Angeles Times: "The Arizona senator's conservatism is, if not always to our liking, at least genuine."
• The Wall Street Journal: "His philosophy is best described as a work in progress."

   Truth to tell, McCain's metamorphosis from "maverick" to "true believer" is not all that surprising.  After all, he is running for president, and will need both the hard-core right and big money if he is to win in November.  That's just the way politics works.

   What is a bit surprising -- and more than a little frustrating -- however, is the relatively free ride he has gotten from the media.  Articles and editorials enumerating his many flip-flops are in short supply.  Nowhere do we find commentary on his weak, dunderheaded rationalizations about why he wishes to make permanent the very tax cuts he originally voted against. When repeal of the estate tax first hit the senate floor, McClain noted "I follow the course of Teddy Roosevelt who talked about the malefactors of great wealth and gave us the estate tax."  Likewise, his votes against both the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts.  Today, he declares that voting to make those cuts permanent is not in the least inconsistent: "To let them expire would amount to a tax hike." 

   Excuse me? Isn't this the height of illogic?  While it is perfectly natural for some to oppose -- and others to support -- tax cuts, where is the logic in claiming that the repeal of said cut is tantamount to a tax hike? It buggers the imagination.    

   Those who have made a cottage industry out of harping on Senator Obama's "relationship" with Jeremiah Wright are strangely mute on the subject of the "Straight-Shooter" and his ecclesiastic minyan.  Where the Reverend Wright spewed his bilge in front of a couple of thousand each Sunday, the Reverend Hagee's, national television and radio ministry reaches an estimated 99 million homes a week [source: http//www.ministrywatch.org]

      There has been a great deal of speculation over which Democrat -- Obama or Clinton -- has the best chance of defeating John McCain.  Yes, we're well aware of those exit polls that purport to show an unhealthy percentage of Clinton supporters who claim they will vote for McCain if their candidate doesn't capture the nomination.  To our way of thinking in early May, those polls don't mean a whole heck of a lot.  We've yet to see a head-to-head debate between McCain and Obama.  Our money is on the Illinois senator; he has the issues, the message, and ability to make himself understood.  And, his thermostat is set a lot lower than McCain's, who has long been known for possessing a volcanic temper.

   One wonders if Senator McCain -- unlike Senators Obama or Clinton -- is immune to media scrutiny because "attacking" him -- i.e. revealing the truth -- would be tantamount to trashing an American hero.

   It is indeed a long, long journey from working with Ted Kennedy and having serious chats with John Kerry to climbing into bed with John Hagee and Rod Paisley.  It takes seven-league boots to make the leap from maverick to mossback. 

   Chad and Jeremy were right: But that was yesterday, and yesterday's gone.

    It only remains to be seen if the American voting public and the Fourth Estate know how to sing that refrain.

©2008 Kurt F. Stone

Rearranging Deck Chairs on the Titanic

   Let's see if we've got this straight:

   Senators McCain and Clinton have endorsed a "gas-tax holiday" for the 2008 peak summer driving season.  If the proposal is enacted, the government will forgive and forgo collecting the 18.4 cent federal tax that is added to each gallon we pump. Senator Obama, who has come out against said tax holiday, has been widely trashed for his opposition. 

   Let's do a little math: 

   My 2003 Toyota Solara, which has four cylinders and a manual five-speed transmission, gets about 33 highway and 28 city miles to the gallon.  The tank holds just a shade over 15 gallons, which means I get about 450 miles per tank. I religiously fill the old girl up once a week.  At 18.4 cents per gallon, I am putting $2.76 into Uncle Sam's coffers each time I fill up.  Multiply that for, say eight weeks of "peak summer driving," and I will save precisely $22.08 in federal tax.  Factor in Annie's Toyota four cylinder Highlander, which has a slightly larger tank and gets about about 4 miles per gallon less, and we save a whopping $45.00 over this eight-week period. 

   Now, add to this the $1,200.00 rebate we're going to be receiving in the next couple of weeks, and we'll have just about enough to fly out to California and visit Alice, Riki & Bob, Mitzi &  Matt, Leon & Ximena, Leanna, Alan and the gang.  Car rental will of course be extra. 

    Call me crazy, but I'm with Senator Obama on this one; I think the gas tax holiday is a ridiculous idea whose time has come . . . to be expunged from  political dialog.  Far from being any kind of quick-fix for the nation's dolorous economic woes, it is yet another misguided, ill-conceived attempt to curry favor with voters by convincing us that there is such a thing as a free lunch. 

   WRONG!

   Last time I looked, if you want bagel 'n lox with a side of cole slaw and an iced tea, you'd better be prepared to pay. 

   Yes, I certainly understand that those who  fill-'er-up up more than once a week, along with those who make their living driving the nation's highways -- especially truckers -- will be saving quite a bit more than Annie and me.  But what is missing from the equation are a couple of sobering facts:

• For every tax dollar that is forgiven, another indebted dollar gets swallowed up by the bankers of Beijing.  This is yet another case of puffing a putative short-term "gain" at the expense of a very real long-term  calamity.
• If we assume that tax-forgiveness will permit folks to add even one additional fill-up during the eight week period, that will put more money into Saudi coffers.
• Oil company profits continue setting records [Exxon Mobil, weeping  like Bessie Smith, just announced that it earned $10.9 billion in the first quarter of 2008.]

   Some have suggested that if McCain, Clinton et al are so hellbent on enacting this gas tax holiday, they ought to at least figure out where the offset money is going to come from.  How's about let's tax excess oil company profits?  Yeah right.  So long as this -- or any other -- oil-besotted administration reigns, there's about as much chance of that happening as my waking up tom