The K.F. Stone Weekly

Es ist Shver Tzu Zein a Yid . . . Fershtayst?

  

   Few religious, ethnic or national doctrines have attracted more virulent, emotionally-charged criticism than the idea of a/the "chosen people."  Indeed, type the  word  chosenness -- the abstract form of the concept -- on to your screen, and you will quickly learn that -- properly speaking -- no such word exists.  (I no longer have that problem; I added it to my personal dictionary a long time ago.)

     For at least three millennia, we Jews have referred to ourselves as "The Chosen People."  And for at least three millennia, that self-referent -- whether loudly proclaimed, softly whispered or merely contemplated -- has been at least partly responsible for placing us in more dire peril, making us the butt of more opprobrious commentary and stereotyping, and leading us to more gaols, gallows and gas chambers -- than anything real or concrete.

  Although differing in historicity and proof texts,  Judaism, Islam, Catholicism, Mormonism, Rastafari,  -- even Unification and Brahma Kumaris -- all know about chosenness; that which adds strength, power and purpose -- if not superiority -- to their theology and weltanschauung. Very briefly, and by way of examples consider the following:

• Rastafari belief structure contain six fundamental principles, including the complete chosenness of the black race in the eyes of Jah -- God incarnate -- rendering them supreme physically and spiritually to all other people. 
  
• Mormons view all Latter Day Saints as covenant, or chosen, people; they have accepted the name of Jesus Christ. (Interestingly, Mormons do not dispute the "chosen" status of the Jewish people; rather, they believe that ultimately, Jews will accept Christianity . . . or else) 
• The traditional Christian concept of "Supersessionism" holds that Christian believers have replaced physical Israelites as God's chosen people.  They believe that Israel's chosenness found its ultimate fulfillment through the message of Jesus.  Therefore, Jews who remain faithful to Judaism are no longer considered chosen, since they reject Jesus as both messiah and the son of God.
• Brahma Kumaris (the "New Spiritual University") believe in a strict hierarchy of human souls . . . that they are the only religion which God talks to in person and the only one that will both inherit and rule the Heaven on Earth for 2,500 years.
  

    It is a sad fact of history that as times become more fraught with economic uncertainty -- indeed, as society goes through more rapid, uncharted changes, as the gap between "haves" and "have-nots" widens -- intolerance,  racial and religious bigotry, discrimination and demagoguery all grow.  For Jews, this means a heightened sensitivity to growing levels of anti-Semitism, and an increased awareness of just how many untruths frightened people are willing to believe.

   And this gets us back to the concept of the "Chosen People."

   The term "chosen people" has been more closely identified with the Jews than  any other group for a long, long time.  The reason is simple; Jews were the first to  be  called by that name.  And for those who care to ask the question "Chosen for what?" the original answer was also simple: chosen to receive The Law at Mt. Sinai.   And anyone -- Jew, Christian, Muslim, Rastifarian or atheist -- can read the relevant passages in the Hebrew Bible (Old Testament) in Deut. 7:6, 12:5, or 18:5. as but three examples.  Over the course of time, that question -- "Chosen for what?" -- has been asked with  far less frequency.  As anyone who has studied history knows, in far too many cases, Jews have been accused of understanding that "chosenness" to mean being superior to everyone else.  And although nothing could be farther from the historic truth -- about Jews considering themselves superior -- it is perhaps understandable how people in times of change, uncertainty and dislocation might come to that unwarranted conclusion.       

   It seems to me that were that question to be asked today -- "Chosen for what?" that a proper answer would quite simply be, "Chosen to be faithful witnesses to -- and to have a positive effect on -- all of human history."

   Nowhere does superiority enter into that answer.

   I believe that the Jews have done just that: acted as both faithful witnesses while  having as much of a positive effect as possible.  Consider, if you will that despite being something like 0.227% of the world's population (14.6 million out of 6.43 billion), the Jews have:

• Won 29 Nobel prizes in chemistry, 44 in physics, 49 in medicine, 24 in economics, 11 in literature and 9 in peace.
• Virtually created the motion picture industry . . . Meyer, Zukor, Goldwyn, Cohen, Thalberg, Lubin, Selig, Fox, Laemmlle, Warner . . . including the most successful filmmaker of all time: Steven Spielberg.
  
• Created the field of psychoanalysis . . . Freud and Adler, Fromm Erikson, Rapaport and Maslow.
• Responsible for creating the New York Times, Pulitzer Prize, Random House, Simon & Schuster, and Aldred A. Knopf.
• Clothing and design: Levi Strauss, Ralph Lauren, Calvin Klein and Donna Karan.
• Department stores: Macys, Federated, Bloomingdales, Filenes, Saks, Abraham & Strauss, Neiman Marcus, Bergdorf Goodman and Sears.
• Created the world's largest and most valuable computer company (Dell, Michael Dell).
• Co-founded the world's most successful search engine (Google, Sergey Brin).
• Head of the world's largest software company (Microsoft, Steve Ballmar).
• Co-founded and head of the world's largest software company (Oracle, Lawrence Ellison).
• Co-founded, led and served as chairman of the world's dominant microprocessor and memory chip company (Intel, Andrew Grove).
• Served as CEO or COO at three of the world's four most valuable Internet companies (Yahoo, Terry Semel; eBay, Jeff Skoll; and IAC, Barry Diller).
  
• Co-founded and head the communications protocol/chip company whose chips are in most U.S. cell phones and are slated to be utilized in the next generation of cell phones to be used worldwide (Qualcomm, Irwin Jacobs).

   And yet, even with all this, many will counter with the names  Bernard Madoff, Ivan Boesky and Michael Milken, and claim that America's current batch of problems are due to people like Barney Frank, Chuck Schumer, Lawrence Summers, Rahm Emanuel and David Axelrod.

   So maybe its not so much that Jews are the "Chosen People," as the "Choosing People," a folk who have chosen to roll up its sleeves and make as much of a difference in the lives of others. 

   But there's just so pleasing some folk.

   As we have long said, Es ist shver tzu zein a yid . . . namely, "It's hard to be a Jew."

   Or, to put it another way, "The Jews are just like everyone else . . . only more so." 

   Fershtayst?

©2009 Kurt F. Stone

HAPPY THANKSGIVING!!

Dream a Little Dream With Me?

  

   New York State Senator George Washington Plunkitt, "The Sage of Tammany Hall," summed up his political career in eight immortal words: "I seen my opportunities and I took 'em."  Plunktt (1842-1924) was the Platonic absolute of the "Machine Politician" -- one who practiced a patronage-based brand of politics and was brutally honest about exercising power for personal gain. Plunkett famously believed there to be a real and significant difference between "honest" and "dishonest" graft.  To his cynical mind, that which separated the two was partly whether one got caught, and partly for whom the swag or booty was meant.  According to Plunkitt, in the case of "dishonest graft," one worked solely for one's own interests; in that of "honest graft," one pursued the interests of "one's party, one's state and one's personal interests all together."   

   But no matter how you parse or prettify it, graft is graft, corruption is corruption.  And despite imaginative distinction he may have drawn between "honest" and "dishonest" graft, the fact remains that Senator George Washington Plunkitt was a corrupt politician.

    I found myself thinking about graft, corruption and "The Sage of Tammany Hall" the other day while reading results of Transparency International's annual ranking of the relative corruption levels of 180 countries in the world.  Not surprisingly, the five least corrupt (or most honest) countries in the world -- and their scores out of 10 -- were:

1. New Zealand (9.4)
2. Denmark (9.3)
3. Singapore (9.2)
4. Sweden (9.2) and
5. Switzerland (9.0)

   The five most corrupt countries on the planet were:

   180. Somalia (1.1) 
   179. Afghanistan (1.3)
   178. Burma (1.4)
   177. Sudan (1.5)
   176. Iraq (1.5)

   Other findings of interest: 

• Canada was tied with Iceland and Australia for #8 (8.7)
• The United States of America was ranked #19 (7.5)
• Qatar was the highest-ranked Arab country (#22 -- 7.0)
• Israel #32 (6.1)
• Cuba #61 (4.4)
• Italy #63 (4.3)
• Pakistan #139 (2.4)
• Russia #146 (2.2)

 (Note: For those wishing to see the complete listing, please go to Transparency International Index)  

   So what is it that makes the United States more corrupt than Norway, Hong Kong, Luxembourg, Germany, Austria, Japan and a dozen other countries, but far, far less corrupt than Turkmenistan, Tajikistan, Paraguay, Ecuador, Lebanon and oh so many many others?  And, assuming we could figure out where or what the corrupting influence(s) is/are, what could be done about it so that in the next decade, we could rank up there with all those clean-as-a-hound's-tooth countries and kingdom's?

   In eight simple words:

TOTAL ABSOLUTE PUBLIC FINANCING OF ALL POLITICAL CAMPAIGNS.

   Yes I know, the above is terribly idealistic, totally unrealistic and stands about as much of a chance of happening as Sarah Palin receiving  a Pulitzer Prize or Rhodes Scholarship.  But heck, what good is living if you can't dream?  Let's dream a not so little dream together . . .

   One of the major reasons why scads of legislation that should -- and at least theoretically can -- be enacted dies aborning, is that those who underwrite the senators and representatives have other ideas.  In simple terms and by way of example:

• Over the past 20 years, the National Rifle Association has made $17,299,836 in contributions to hundreds of legislators (17% Democrat, 83% Republican) in order to guarantee that no significant gun control legislation passes.
• Over the past 20 years, the AMA has made $26,277,243 in contributions to Democrats (39%) and Republicans (61%) in order to safeguard their interests -- which of course includes any and all health care reform proposals.
• Over the past 20 years, Blue Cross/Blue Shield have made $16,210718 in contributions to Democrats (51%) and Republicans (49%) to safeguard their interests.
• Over the past 20 years, Bristol-Meyers Squibb has contributed $7,263,612 to Democrats 41%) and Republicans (58%) to make sure that their voice is heard whenever the issue affects the pharmaceutical industry.

   This doesn't even get into advocacy groups -- the so-called "527s" -- whose contributions are made not to "candidates" but rather to "issues," and typically fund advertisements and commercials which are meant to sway voters.  And of course, there are tens of thousands of wealthy individuals who contribute hundreds of thousands -- sometimes millions -- of dollars to candidates in order to guarantee "access" -- a friendly ear.

   Is it any wonder that senators and representatives frequently stand foursquarely against that which their constituents want?  If laws were to be enacted which totally eliminated corporate, lobby, and "527" contributions (which classically go to incumbents, rather than challengers) then legislators would have to pay far more attention to the wishes of those who truly put them in office -- the voters of their state or district. 

   Seems like a no-brainer . . . but it's not.

   Back in 1976 in Buckley v. Valeo (424 U.S. 1) the United States Supreme Court upheld a federal law which set limits on campaign contributions.  (Heretofore, if I, as an individual wanted -- and could afford -- to contribute say $10 million to a candidate, it was kosher.  After this decisions, limits were set.)  However, in the process of so doing, the court ruled that "spending money in order to influence elections is a form of constitutionally protected free speech."  Although the court's decision was far from unanimous -- both Chief Justice Warren Burger and Associate Justice Byron White dissented -- the decision stands; money is tantamount to free speech.

   In 2002, Congress passed the "Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act" (McCain-Feingold), which included a prohibition on so-called "soft money" as well as limits on independent expenditures by private groups.  The court gutted many provisions of the law, citing Buckley v. Valeo's admonition that money was tantamount to free speech.  The one aspect of McCain-Feingold that is still with us is a provision which forces candidates to append an announcement at the end of each ad: "I'm . . . , and I approve this message."

   It is or course the height of naiveté to presume that total, complete public financing of American political campaigns are going to become the law any time soon.  For that to happen, the halls of Congress would have to be filled with idealists who were more interested in doing what was right and fair rather than that which was safe and self-perpetuating.  Until that day comes -- if ever -- that which some refer to as "Gold's Law" will continue to prevail.  Simply stated, "Gold's Law" states that "He/she who has the gold will make the law."  

   Under the circumstances, is it any wonder then that significant health care, or cap-and-trade, or gun control, or dozens of others critical pieces of legislation are rarely enacted?  It's almost as if old George Washington Plunkitt had moved from Albany to Washington, D.C., and was now practicing "honest vs. dishonest graft" in the nation's capitol.

   The single most important change we could make in the way we handle our political business is moving to total, absolute public campaign financing. Not only would it go a long way toward giving our voices as much volume and clarity as those of the lobbyists, special interest groups, and 527s; it would move the United States up higher and higher on the ladder of least corrupt nations on the planet.  

   Until the day comes when idealism becomes realism, all we can do is lobby, write articles, try to win over hearts and minds, and dream.

   Care to dream a little dream with me?

©2009 Kurt F. Stone

  

In the Words of Joseph Nye Welch

    Which is worse:  Really truly believing that President Obama was born, raised and thoroughly indoctrinated by Communists -- and as such is consciously doing everything in his power to destroy the United States of America, 

    Or: 

Knowing full well that the above is a total crock, but nonetheless broadcast it ad nauseum because:

A) You're an entertainer merely posing as a journalist.

B) It's great for ratings, which keeps those advertising dollars flowing.

C) You think your listening/viewing audience is made up of gullible cretins.

Sorry to disappoint, but I really don't know which of the above scenarios is worse.  

   Anyone who really truly believes that our president is a Communist (is that Marxist, Leninist, Stalinist, Maoist, Trotskyite, Shachtmanite or Lovestoneite?); or that there are already plans  on the drawing board to build mass internment camps for any and all who do not purchase health insurance; or that the various "Democrat" proposals for health care are nothing more, nothing less than "an agenda for death" . . .  Anyone who really truly believes this kind of moronic prattle is either terminally gullible or a direct descendant of the late Wisconsin Senator Joseph McCarthy. Like "Tailgunner Joe," folks holding these beliefs -- whether they possess microphones or not -- see enemies under every bed and easily ascribe those things they neither understand nor agree with to a pernicious, highly organized and malevolent conspiracy. As we well know, there are any number of folks with access to broadcast microphones and cameras spewing what is essentially neo-McCarthyism seven days a week, three-hundred-and-sixty-five days a year.  And just as in the days of McCarthy and McCarthyism, there are millions of people who firmly believe they now see the world clearly -- because they are looking through "lenses of understanding" provided by "physicians" like Rush Limbaugh, Michael Savage and Mark Levine.

   Remember, what we're discussing here is who or what is worse: those who really truly believe the things they broadcast, versus those who merely create scripts that permit them to reach the top of the entertainment heap.  

   There are times when it seems nicer and more generous to give guys like Limbaugh the benefit of the doubt and say "Well, he's an entertainer . . . he couldn't possibly believe all the drivel he spews.  He's figured out how to make $50 million a year.  Who can fault him for that?"  Then again, there are other times when it seems nicer and more generous to conclude that guys like Limbaugh really truly do believe what they broadcast; otherwise, they are breaking a prime Biblical injunction: "Do not put a stumbling block in the path of the blind." But, if they are innocent of violating that Biblical command, they are guilty of being spiteful, hateful and filled with fear.  

   So which is true . . . which is worse . . . and how to decide?

   Perhaps Senator McCarthy can provide answers. . . .

   Nearly 40 years ago, I wrote my senior thesis on the role that Senator McCarthy and McCarthyism played in the 1952 presidential election.  In doing research on the senator, I discovered that prior to "discovering the menace of Communism," he had tried to make a name for himself by becoming identified with two very different issues: Pepsi Cola and the Malmedy Massacre. 

   Early in his senate career, McCarthy decided that it would be smart -- and profitable -- to lead the fight for continued government regulation of sugar prices.  He managed to successfully keep the government ceiling on the price of sugar.  His dalliance with Pepsi became so blatantly obvious -- he accepted bribes from the soft drink giant -- that his colleagues derisively nicknamed him "The Pepsi Cola Kid."  

   Oops!  On to another issue . . . the Malmedy Massacre.

   On May 17, 1944, members of the 1st Panzer Division (Kampfgruppe Peiper) murdered 90 American prisoners of war -- in clear violation of the Geneva Convention of 1929.  A trial, in which the highest-ranking officer charged was SS General Sepp Dietrich, was held at the Dachau concentration camp in May-July 1946. The soldiers were found guilty and sentenced to death; enter Senator McCarthy.  Desperately looking for a way to garner publicity, he actually decided that it was in his best self-interest to lobby for the commutation of the death sentences meted out to the Waffen SS soldiers!  McCarthy was highly critical of their convictions because of -- unsubstantiated -- allegations of torture during the interrogations that led to their confessions.  McCarthy accused the U.S. Army of engaging in "a coverup of judicial misconduct," but never presented any evidence to support his accusation.  Shortly after this, a poll of the Senate press corps voted him "the worst U.S. Senator" currently in office.

   Oops! That's when he "discovered" the Communist menace.  

   In other words, he never believed there were Communists infiltrating the Army, Navy or Federal Government.  He "broadcast" it because it greatly increased his visibility -- his political "Neilson Ratings."  McCarthy continued blithely on for several years, destroying lives and careers by accusing thousands of being part of a mass Communist conspiracy. 

   Joe McCarthy finally got his comeuppance on June 9, 1954, the 30th day of the so-called "Army-McCarthy Hearings."  On that day, McCarthy accused Fred Fisher -- a young Jewish lawyer and assistant to United States Army counsel Joseph Nye Welch -- of being a Communist. (While a student at Harvard Law School Fisher had been a member of the "National Lawyers Guild," which J. Edgar Hoover had at one time tried to get the Attorney General to add to a list of supposed "subversive organizations.")  

   As McCarthy was dragging Fisher's name through the mud on nationwide television, Joseph Nye Welch interrupted him and uttered several sentences that would effectively destroy first the senator's  "ratings," and then his career:

   Until this moment, Senator, I think I have never really gauged your cruelty or your recklessness . . . . If it were in my power to forgive you for your reckless cruelty, I would do so. I like to think that I am a gentle man, but your forgiveness will have to come from someone other than me . . . . Senator, may we not drop this? We know he belonged to the Lawyers Guild . . . . Let us not assassinate this lad further, Senator. You've done enough. Have you no sense of decency, sir? At long last, have you left no sense of decency? 

   At that point, the gallery erupted into applause.  Senator Joseph McCarthy had been unmasked for the egregious unprincipled bully he truly was.

   I say the same thing to Rush Limbaugh: "At long last, have you left no sense of decency?"

   Yesterday, November 12, 2009 Limbaugh, like Joseph McCarthy before him, went too damn far.  He began his show by accusing the president of being "a destructive ideologue," and proclaiming that Obama "doesn't really want to create jobs," but instead wants to "wipe out the rich."  Nothing terribly new here. But then he compared House Speaker Nancy Pelosi to Adolf Hitler and Health Care Reform to what transpired at Dachau!  

THIS IS GOING TOO DAMN FAR!

If you really truly believe that Speaker Pelosi is no different than Hitler; if you really truly believe that health care reform is "how Dachau got started," than I urge you to take an extended leave of absence, go back and devote a couple of years to studying the real history of the 20th century.  For it is obvious that you haven't the slightest idea what you are talking about. 

   However, if you really truly do not believe that Speaker Pelosi is no different from Hitler; if you really truly do not believe that health care reform is "how Dachau got started," then I say:

"HOW DARE YOU?" 

"WHO IN THE HELL DID YOU LOSE IN THE CAMPS?"

"DON'T YOU UNDERSTAND WHAT A DISGRACEFUL DISSERVICE YOU DO TO THE DEAD?"

"HOW CAN YOU SO TRIVIALIZE THE MOST BRUTAL EVIL IN ALL RECORDED HISTORY?"

"ARE RATINGS POINTS EVEN MORE IMPORTANT TO YOU THAN BASIC HUMANITY?"

"DO YOU UNDERSTAND WHAT A TOTAL ASS YOU ARE?"
 

And, in the immortal words of Joseph Nye Welch:

"HAVE YOU AT LONG LAST NO SENSE OF DECENCY?

You don't have to answer this last question Rush; we all really truly know the answer.  

©2009 Kurt F. Stone

      

Paging Emmanuel Goldstein

  

  While reading, watching and listening to the interminable analyses surrounding this week's elections in Virginia, New Jersey, Maine, New York and California, I found myself remembering George Orwell's 1984. How so and why? Well, hearing Republican pundits proclaim that a Democratic victory in New York's 23rd Congressional District was actually a victory for the GOP, while Democrats were arguing that losing governorships in both New Jersey and Virginia had nothing whatsoever to do with the popularity of President Barack Obama or the future of the party, I couldn't help but remember all those "perpetual war" slogans from Owell's dystopian novel:

   WAR IS PEACE! 

   FREEDOM IS SLAVERY! 

   IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH!"

  

For those who recall 1984, these slogans are part of a "newspeak" dictionary entitled The Theory and Practice of Oligarchical Collectivism, authored by one "Emmanuel Goldstein," who in fact does not exist.  When coming from the pen of the fictional Goldstein, such shibboleths as "War is Peace!"  and "Freedom is Slavery!" are to be understood as the height of distopian lunacy. When  "Defeat is Victory!" comes from the mouth or quill of the not-so-fictional Jonah Goldberg, William Rivers Pitt, Michael Steele or even David Plouffe it is understood to be "political spin" which, although not necessarily a synonym for "lunacy," is nonetheless fairly maddening.  

 

   So what conclusions can be drawn from this week's various elections?

  

   Let's begin with the New Jersey and Virginia governors' races, where Republicans took back the state house.  As much as Republicans claim that their victories represented "clear defeats" for President Obama, it is good to remember that his name did not appear on either state ballot. 

 

 New Jersey voters had a choice between Governor John Corzine -- an exceptionally unpopular incumbent who ran an unbelievably bone-headed campaign -- and challenger Christopher Christie, a former United States Attorney.   Predictably, Christie won 91% of Republican votes while Corzine won 86% of Democrats.  And among those who said they were "very worried about the shape of the economy" Christie pulled in 61% of the vote as opposed to Corzine's 34%. Although he outspent Christie by a better than two-to-one margin and had the benefit of three campaign appearances by President Obama, Corzine just had too much crummy baggage. Additionally, independent candidate Chris Dagget -- who at times polled in significant double digits -- received a little under 6% of the vote.  Intriguingly, 46% of his votes came from independents, 37% from Democrats, and a mere 17% from Republicans.  Results from various exit polls made it a toss-up as to whether Christie won or Corzine lost.

 

   In Virginia, Republican Robert F. McDonnell, a polished fiscal/social conservative easily defeated Democrat R. Creigh Deeds, who by comparison came off as an ill-informed, ill-at-ease amateur.  McDonnell won 92% of Republicans, Deeds 93% of Democrats. McDonnell also had history of his side: the state has been a "tough get" for any Democrat for several generations.  Obama's success there in 2008 was the exception, not the rule for Democrats historically. It is fascinating to note that whichever party wins the White House has gone on to lose the Virginia governor's office one year later every time since the Carter administration.

 

   Anyone concluding that these two Republican victories offer "overwhelming proof" that the GOP is back on track, is reading a script penned by Emmanuel Goldstein. For despite these two victories, the country's opinion of Republicans  remains "monumentally bleak."  Two weeks ago, a Washington Post/ABC News poll reported the following:

    

   Less than one in five voters (19%) expressed confidence in Republicans' ability to make the right decisions for America's future, while a whopping 79% lacked that confidence. 
  

   Among independent voters, who went heavily for Obama in 2008 and congressional Democrats in 2006, the numbers for Republicans on the confidence questions were even  worse. Just 17 percent of independents expressed confidence in Republicans' ability to make the right decision, while 83 percent said they did not have that confidence.

  

   On the generic ballot question, 51 percent of the sample said they would cast a vote for a Democratic candidate in their congressional district next fall while just 39 percent said they would opt for a GOP candidate.

   And, perhaps most troubling for GOP hopes is the fact that just 20 percent of the Post sample identified themselves as Republicans, the lowest that number has been in Post polling since 1983. (No, that is not a typo.)   

   Then there were the Congressional elections.  In California's 10th District, Lieutenant Governor John Garamendi -- a down-the-line liberal, easily defeated conservative Republican David Harmer.  In winning, Garamendi now takes over the seat vacated by 5-term representative Ellen Tauscher -- a moderate, pro-business Democrat -- who resigned her seat in order to become Undersecretary of State for Arms Control and International Security.

 

    Lastly, there is Democrat Bill Owens' election to Congress from New York's 23rd District.  This will likely turn out to be the most telling -- and significant -- race of all.  Up until spring 2009,  a Republican has represented the 23rd for the past 18 years.  That man, moderate John McHugh was named Secretary of the Army by President Obama last spring.  Moreover, the 23rd, which covers most of New York's "North Country" -- starting at Lake Champlain, running westward along the St. Lawrence Seaway and over the Adirondacks Forest Preserve to Lake Ontario -- has been represented by nothing but Republicans since the days of President Andrew Johnson.  In fact, in one part of the district, the last non-Republican to represent the citizens in Congress was a Whig!

 

   Originally, the race appeared to be between moderate Republican Deirdre "Dede" Scozzafava -- a ten-year veteran of the New York State Assembly -- and moderate Democrat Bill Owens -- a Plattsburgh attorney who until he decided to run in the special election, was a registered independent.  Rounding out the race was Lake Placid CPA Doug Hoffman, running as a third-party candidate on the Conservative Party ticket.  Scozzafava, who is pro-choice and pro-same-sex marriage, opposes gun control and has strong ties to labor, received the endorsements of former Speaker Newt Gingrich, New York Congressman Peter King, the NRA, and the New York State United Teachers.  Liberal Democrat blogger Markos Moulitsas of the Daily Kos wrote an October 1, 2009 column in which he said he was "rooting for her." 

 

   Scozzafava -- who by all rights should have won the special election -- conflicted with her party's high priests and priestesses by not being as far-right as Sarah Palin or Michelle Bachmann.  Conservative luminaries such as Limbaugh, Beck, Bachmann, Pawlenty and Palin, denounced her for being "a dangerous socialist," derided her for being "to the left of Nancy Pelosi," and threw their support behind Doug Hoffman.  The resulting bedlam caused Scozzafava to leave the race and, with around-the-clock prompting from such Democratic heavyweights as Senator Chuck Schumer, Representative Steve Israel, NY Assembly Speaker Sheldon Silver and NY Attorney General Andrew Cuomo, Scozzafava actually endorsed Democrat Owens.  National conservatives poured hundreds of thousands of dollars into Hoffman's campaign, but he proved to be both inadequately prepared and dreadfully uninformed about local issues.  Running a lackluster campaign promising "lower taxes, less government and more freedom," Hoffman looked, acted and sounded lost.  In the end, Bill Owens -- who also received a lot of financial backing from around the country -- wound up defeating Doug Hoffman by more than 5,000 votes, 49.2%-45.2%.

 

   Unbelievably, the GOP's unreconstructed right-wing is labeling this a victory.  How so?  How in the world can Doug Hoffman's defeat be considered a victory?  And by whom?  It would appear that what these true believers are celebrating is the fact that they chased Dede Scozzafava -- that "far-left socialist" -- from the race.  What they are thereby implying is that there is only room for one platform in the GOP: that which is most conservative, most closed-minded and most in lockstep with the positions and values of the Harding-Coolidge-Hoover years.

 

   If this is the case, and if they truly consider having kept Dede Scozzafava -- an electable moderate -- out of the race to be a "victory," then they had better prepare themselves for a lot more "victories" in 2010 and 2012.

   

   "Paging Emmanuel Goldstein . . ."

 

    

©2009 Kurt F. Stone