The K.F. Stone Weekly

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

  

  

 

 

The Great American Earache, Jr.

   John Elliott Rankin (1882-1960) represented Mississippi's 1st Congressional District in the House of Representatives from 1921-1953. In his day, Rankin was without question the most narrow-minded, racist member of that body . . . and that's saying one whole heck of a lot.  Rankin was what one might call an "equal opportunity bigot."  He hated Jews and Blacks with an equal passion, and made no bones about  it.  His Congressional speeches were invariably laced with lies, half-truths and obnoxious racist epithets; so much so that one artful wag nicknamed him "The Great American Earache."  As a member of the notorious House Un-American Activities Committee Rankin came under fire for failing to investigate violence and murder perpetrated by the Ku Klux Klan. "After all," Rankin said on the House floor, "The KKK is an old American institution." When Rankin was taken to task by columnist Walter Winchell, "The Great American Earache" dismissed Winchell (Winschel) as "The little Kike."  When Adam Clayton Powell, Jr. was elected to the House in 1944, Rankin repeatedly referred to him as "The nigger from New York." Powell was so incensed that he rose  to say "The time has arrived to impeach Rankin, or at least expel him from the party. " The House did neither.

   On June 4, 1941, New York Representative M. Michael Edelstein engaged Rankin in a colloquy.  In a debate over whether or not America should become engaged in the war in Europe, Edelstein argued for intervention.  Rankin then rose and charged that the pro-interventionist faction was being "orchestrated, financed and led by a little group of our international Jewish brethren."  Incensed, Edelstein immediately went on the attack and accused the "Gentleman from Mississippi" of "demagoguery and hate mongering."  His voice rising with emotion, Edelstein cried out, "Mr. Speaker, Hitler started out by speaking about 'Jewish brethren' and 'international bankers.' The last speaker speaking about international bankers coupled them with our 'Jewish brethren'. . .  I deplore the idea that any time anything happens . . . men in this House . . . attempt to use the Jews as their scapegoat."

  At this point, Edelstein began to sway, his face quickly losing color.  Nonetheless, he continued on to his peroration: "I say it is unfair, and I say it is un-American.  All men are created equal, regardless of race, creed or color; and whatever a man be, Jew of Gentile, he may think what he deems fit."  Edelstein staggered from the House floor, collapsed in the Capitol lobby, and within seconds died of a massive heart attack -- murdered, some say, by John Rankin, "The Great American Earache."

   In finishing the newest edition of The Congressional Minyan: The Jews of Capitol Hill, I of course did a "touch up" on Rep. Edelstein's entry.  During the several days I was "hanging out" with Edelstein, I watched as angry, sometimes gun-toting "birthers" and assorted irate, fearful Americans screamed at the top of their lungs, proclaiming that our president is an "alien," a "racist," a "socialist" and  that he and the Democrats are "dedicated to tearing this country down and imposing Islamic law."

   I found myself wondering if these could be John Rankin's great grandchildren.

   And then along came South Carolina Representative Joe Wilson.  He is, of course, the fellow who had the temerity and cosmic bad taste to cat-call "YOU LIE" to President Obama as our Chief Executive was addressing a joint session of Congress on the status of Health Care reform in America.  For his efforts -- and despite his extremely lukewarm, halfhearted apology -- I hereby bestow on him the honorary appellation:

    The Great American Earache, Jr.
Inhonesto Causa

   One might argue that Wilson's two-word tirade is in no way comparable to the hate-filled invective of his "appellation-sake," John Rankin.  Then again, Rankin's ravings weren't broadcast for the entire world to see and hear . . . over and over and over again; neither the technology nor the desire existed in 1941. Back then, the country was faced with many crucial problems and issues, all of which demanded  critical examination and response -- from Congress, the media, from the people themselves.  It simply was not in the cards to waste precious time either defending or condemning Rankin's hate-filled invective. That was a side-show America could ill afford at the time.  True, Rankin should have had his sorry tuches kicked all the way back to Tupelo. But the fact of the matter is that he remained in Congress for another decade, at which time he ran for the Senate, coming in 5th in a five-man race with a mere 13% of the vote.  He had been marginalized, and spent the last decade of his career being mostly ignored.  That was the 1940s, a time when a bigot like John Rankin was barely a sidebar, let alone a story.

    2009 is of course, a different story.  A fool like Joe Wilson is the story. Now we have tens of dozens of media outlets all competing for a slice of the audience -- an audience they consider as customers and consumers first, and only then, as citizens. They are more than happy to put the name, face and tirade of Wilson on TV and invite him on their talk shows . . . or spend the better part of a day writing about him for a weekly Blog article. 

   Shame on us all!

   How to reform health care; what to do about the economy, the environment and Afghanistan -- these are the issues that matter, not a Brobdingnagian bigot like Joe Wilson. Yes, what he did was terribly wrong.  He showed consummate disrespect for the President of the United States.  But then again, so did a majority of the Republicans sitting on their hands in the House last Wednesday night -- some sneering, others snoring, some even texting.  As a result, much of what President Obama said has already been forgotten -- or worse, misreported or mis-characterized.  President Obama says, "Insurance executives don't do this because they are bad people; they do it for profits;" Hannity reports, "The president said 'Insurance executives are bad people.'" May we say here and now that Hannity lies?  Rush Limbaugh proclaims that the only thing Rep. Wilson did wrong was in offering an apology!  Isn't it obvious that Limbaugh will stir up any pot or kettle he finds for the sake of ratings?

   So much of what passes for dialogue and discourse these days is anything but. We have reached a point where for many, incivility is courage, prevarication is patriotic, and the First Amendment guarantee of free speech is absolute[ly] for those with whom you agree.

   Enjoy your new nickname for the while, oh "Great American Earache, Jr."  It is my sincere wish that you achieve irrelevance even quicker than your appellation-sake.

   And that we get back to the true challenges at hand. . .   

©2009 Kurt F. Stone

En passant: For those who found Rankin v. Edelstein of interest, please know that the new edition of The Congressional Minyan: The Jews of Capitol Hill -- which will be out shortly -- has nearly 200 such stories drawn from the Halls of Congress. It is published by Rowman & Littlefield.

Where There's a [George F.] Will . . .

      There is a legend that when Mohammad, the founder of Islam, was asked to give proofs of his teaching, he ordered a particular mountain (Mt. Safa) to come to him.  When the mountain did not comply, Mohammad supposedly raised his hands towards the heavens and proclaimed, "Allah is merciful.  Had the mountain obeyed my words, it would have fallen on us and we would have been destroyed. Therefore, I will go to the mountain and thank Allah for showing us mercy . . ." 

   Somewhere along the line, the tale came to the attention of Sir Francis Bacon who, in his book "Essays," simplified and popularized it as "If the mountain won't go to Mohammad, Mohammad will go to the mountain."  This expression is pretty well known to most literate folks even though its history may be a tad hazy.  Don't ask me why, but I have long thought it to be distantly related to the locution about "Hell freezing over."  To me, both expressions speak of things which although possible, are grossly improbable -- like the Cubs winning the World Series, or Sean Hannity saying something positive about Nancy Pelosi.     

   Well, after reading an op-ed piece by George F. Will in Tuesday's Washington Post, I find myself wondering if perhaps it has started hailing in Hades.  For in his piece "Time to Get out of Afghanistan" Will, as consistent and intelligent a conservative as we've got -- now that William F. Buckley has shuffled off this mortal coil -- argues that Washington "must rapidly reverse the trajectory of America's involvement in Afghanistan."  He argues that far from increasing the number of troops we have on the ground, we should pull them out. Now, suddenly, he grasps  what everyone from Alexander the Great and the Mongols to Sir Robert Peel and Mikhail Gorbachev eventually learned: that no matter what you do, no matter how hard you try, you're never going to conquer, tame or remake Afghanistan  in your own image. Commenting on the recent, as yet inconclusive elections in Afghanistan, Will inquires about their worth: "Creation of an effective central government?  Afghanistan has never had one." 

   Will recommends that "Forces should be substantially reduced to serve a comprehensively revised policy: America should do only what can be done from offshore, using intelligence, drones, cruise missiles, air strikes and small, potent  Special Forces units, concentrating on the porous 1,500-mile border with Pakistan, a nation that really matters."  (By the way Mr. Will, please note that Afghanistan is a totally land-locked country, making it rather doubtful that anything could be done "from offshore.")

   Could it be?  Is this really, truly George F. Will -- a CONSERVATIVE REPUBLICAN -- cooing like a dove?  Isn't cooing supposed to be the job of the liberals?  Aren't conservatives like Will supposed to be the expert saber rattlers? Is it really beginning to precipitate in purgatory?  Or is something else going on here?

    For the moment, Will hasn't got too many conservative -- or neo-conservative -- allies joining in on the cooing.  Writing on the Commentary website, former George W. Bush administration official Peter Wehner calls Will a "defeatist," and claims his column "could have been written in Japanese about the USS Missouri."  Wehner also calls Will "a defeatist" who "sound[s] more like Michael Moore than Henry Kissinger."

   Ouch!

   William Kristol the neo-conservative editor of the Weekly Standard, accused Will of "urging retreat, and accepting defeat."  And Frederick Kagan, a military historian at the (neo-conservative) American Enterprise Institute, who is pushing for a huge surge of US troops into Afghanistan, called Will's column "reprehensible."

   Double Ouch!

   So who is cooing along with Will?  Why liberal Democrats like Wisconsin Senator Russ Feingold, whose recent op-ed in the Wall Street Journal called on the president to a time line for troop withdrawal. And increasingly, a higher and higher percentage of the American public are turning against American involvement in Afghanistan. According to a recent Washington Post-ABC News poll, 51% of respondents believe that the "war is not worth fighting."  Another poll has the percentage of those who see Afghanistan as a "war of choice rather than necessity" to be as high as 57%.  Could it be that George F. Will has gone over to the other side and become a card-carrying liberal?  That he will soon come out in favor of same-sex marriage and start pulling for the Obama health care plan?

   Has the Mohammad ventured to the mountain?

   In a word, NO.  The fact that Will's call for a US pullout comes at precisely the moment the Obama administration is leaning toward a further escalation of the war effort should raise eyebrows.  And, when Will mocks American efforts to eradicate  Afghanistan's opium trade as "Operation Sisyphus" bells should be going off.

   What in the world is going on here?  "Conservatives generally support a president they generally distrust because they think it important the country win the war in Afghanistan," William Kristol wrote the other day.  "As for today's liberals, they just don't want to see Americans win wars." And what of Mr. Will?  He has always been a staunch supporter of American military wars and ventures; he was a hawkish about Vietnam, Laos, Thailand, Granada, Kosovo and Iraq. To my way of thinking his new-found dovishness has as much to do with practical politics as with morality or anything else. 

   George F. Will is a shrewd, calculating conservative.  What I think is going on in this mind goes something like this: the more obvious the link between President Obama and the quagmire of Afghanistan; the broader the rift this war causes in both the country and on Capitol Hill; the greater the likelihood of cutting into Democratic majorities in 2010 and perhaps taking back the White House in 2012. Then too, Will knows that historically, the American voting public has a terribly difficult time turning out a president when the country is at war.  Just ask Tom Dewey, George McGovern and John Kerry, as three examples.  Perhaps then what Will is banking on is that if and when we pull our ground forces out of Afghanistan, the American public will turn away from Obama and the Democrats and shift both their allegiance and their votes to . . . ?  To whom?  To the party of Rush Limbaugh, Mitt Romney, Sarah Palin and Tom Coburn?  To those who brought us tax-cuts for the wealthy, "No Child Left Behind," and WMDs in Iraq? 

   I think not. When it comes to Afghanistan, there will undoubtedly be even greater cleavage and separation between the "yeas" and the "nays."  But unless and until George F. Will and conservatives like him can identify a positive path, they will continue to languish in the minority.

   Then again, now that you've "gone to the mountain" and come out as a dove, perhaps we can interest you supporting a nifty public health option or some serious programs aimed at curbing global warming.  Perhaps together we can make hell freeze over.

   After all, where there's a (George F.) Will . . .

  

©2009 Kurt F. Stone

 
   

Sarah Palin: Another One Bites the Dust

   Ninety-nine years ago this month a young sports writer named Franklin P. Adams published an eight-line poem in the New York Evening Mail whose refrain is still recognizable even if its author and content are not:

                       These are the saddest of possible words: 

                      "Tinker to Evers to Chance."

                       Trio of bear cubs, and fleeter than birds,

                       Tinker and Evers and Chance.

                       Ruthlessly pricking our gonfalon* bubble

                      Making a Giant hit into a double -

                      Words that are heavy with nothing but trouble:

                     "Tinker to Evers to Chance."

(* A long medieval banner or flag.) 

    "Tinker to Evers to Chance" is of course just one of many trios that fall trippingly off the tongue.  Consider too: 

• Wynken, Blynken & Nod.
• Shadrach, Mesach & Abednego.
• Crosby, Stills & Nash.
• Harvard, Princeton & Yale.

   With all the above trios, there is an obvious linkage:

• "Tinker, Evers & Chance" were three infielders with the Chicago Cubs.
• "Shadrach, Mesach & Abednego" were three who survived the fiery furnace.
• "Wynken, Blynken & Nod" were three fishermen sailing and fishing in the stars.
• "Crosby, Still & Nash" are three superb rock musicians.
• "Harvard, Princeton & Yale" are America's three oldest Ivy League colleges.   

There are now a couple of new trios to add to the litany:

• Gingrich, Vitter & Craig
• Ensign, Sanford & Palin  

    For those who have been out of town, the first trio is made up of former House Speaker Newt Gingrich, current Louisiana Senator David Vitter, and former Idaho Senator Larry Craig.  The second triad consists of current Nevada Senator John Ensign, current South Carolina Governor Mark Sanford and the "As of today and supposed to become former" Alaska Governor Sarah Palin.   

As with the above referenced trios, "Gingrich, Vitter & Craig" and "Ensign, Sanford & Palin" also possess obvious linkage.  To wit:

• Both trios are made up of self righteously confidant conservative politicians whose public posture turned out to be dangerously divergent from their private practice.
• In both cases (with the possible exception of former Senator Craig) the trios are made up of individuals who had until recently been referenced as potential 2012 Republican presidential contenders.  Today, they are in that collective category called "Rotza ruck!"

 In the main, conservative commentators, faced with the necessity having to write or say something -- anything -- about the moral/ethical lapses of a Gingrich, Vitter, Craig, Ensign or Sanford or the sheer 1984-ish absurdity of a Sarah Palin [Orwell: "War is Peace."  Palin: "Resignation is advancement."] have, without batting an eyelash proclaimed, "Well, the liberals are far, far worse!"  Within the past few weeks, they have seen most of their presidential hopes go up in smoke or, in the case of Governor Palin, simply bite the dust:

   Instead of announcing that Sarah Palin is resigning her office in midterm, Fox Noise ran a crawler proclaiming, "Palin will not seek a second term."  Rather than attempt to decipher or explain what she said at her press conference or in her interview with Andrea Mitchell, most conservative commentators have gone on the offensive -- attacking "lefties" for making Palin's life so impossible that resignation became a necessity.  One commentator, Milwaukee's Mark Belling went so far as to blame Palin's downfall on . . . are you ready for this? . . . the SDS!  No really!  While filling in for Limbaugh this past Tuesday, Belling ranted on and on about how those who ". . .admire and support Castro; Che Gueverra, whose t-shirts they still wear; Daniel Ortega in Nicaragua; Robert Mugabe in Africa -- African self determination; Idi Amin in Africa; Ho Chi Minh; Mao -- remember how they were running around in the '60s with the Little Red Book?"  Egad!  These are the folks who forced Pain to resign?

   When Nevada Senator John Ensign announces that his parents have given his ex-mistress and her husband nearly $100,000 based on "humanitarian concern for two friends," the conservative press applauds their generosity.  There is nary a peep about the fact that Ensign, a prominent member of the Christian men's organization "Promise Keepers," has publicly admitted that he has had a long-term relationship with another man's wife.  [It should be noted that one of "Promise Keepers" core beliefs is, "A Promise Keeper is committed to honoring Jesus Christ through worship, prayer and obedience to God's word in the power of the Holy Spirit."] 

   That when Governor Mark Sanford publicly admits that he lied to his wife, his cabinet and the people of South Carolina, and disappeared for five days so that he could travel to Buenos Aires and have a rendezvous with his Argentine "soul mate," all Rush Limbaugh can say is, "I guess we have learned something.  Republicans like sex too," and then lament that Sanford "could have been another Kennedy . . . without the Mafia connections."  So far as El Rushbo was concerned, if anyone were to be surprised by what Sanford was admitting to, it was likely the fault of the Democrats.  "How's that?" you ask.  Well, try and follow Limbaugh's logic: "Up until now (whether or not "Republicans like sex"] has been debatable.  Republicans are these church going, moralistic no-fun-in-life kind of people according to the libs.  Mark Sanford  developed . . . an email frienship, started innocently, the girl from Ipanema.  He went down to Argentina to see the girl from Ipanema." (sic -- emphasis added]. 

   [If I weren't concerned about being labeled a "G.D.G.E." -- a 'G.D. Geographic Elitist,' I would hasten to inform Rush that Ipanema is in Brazil and that Brazil is definitely not in Argentina. But I am concerned, so won't mention it.]

  With the recent demise of such front-line players as Ensign, Sanford & Palin -- and understanding that Gingrich, Vitter and Louisiana Governor Bobby Jindal bit the dust quite a while ago -- who's left on the GOP bench?  Mike Huckabee?  Mitt Romney?  Michael Steele?  How about a tickwt of Rush Limbaugh and Ann Coulter?

   When will the conservative entertainers ever figure out that just because we Americans are for the most part a good understanding and forgiving folk does not mean that we are all fools.  There is a big difference between being a truly repentant sinner -- otherwise known as a human being -- and a hypocritical blowhard. A vast majority of Americans understand that difference.  Too bad so few of them are on radio or television.

   Who will be the next one to bite the dust?

©2009 Kurt F. Stone

Was Thomas Wolfe Wrong?

 

   Back in 1940, Harper Brothers published Thomas Wolfe's You Can't Go Home Again.  Published posthumously, You Can't Go Home Again tells the story of George Webber, a young author who writes a novel about his family and home town -- Libya Hill. His book becomes a rousing success everywhere . . . except in Libya Hill.  When George, now a world-famous novelist, returns home, he is unnerved by the force of the outrage and hatred which greets him. The "good folks" of Libya Hill are furious by how many of their "secrets" he has exposed in his novel. Far from being proud of their native son, his former neighbors and school chums begin sending him death threats; George has no choice but to flee.  He then begins a monumental search for his own identity; a search that will ultimately take him to New York, Paris and Berlin.  Despite the high regard he and his novel are held in throughout the literate world, poor George Webber learns a hard and difficult truth: that indeed, Thomas Wolfe was right: You Can't Go Home Again. 

   Or was he?  Oh sure, if we're taking his words literally -- in the sense of Heraclitus' old saw You can't throw the same stick into the same river twice -- then Wolfe was undoubtedly right. Heraclitean flux aside, is it possible that Wolfe was in error?  That there are cases in which one CAN go home again?  

   Fast forward nearly seventy years.  It's no longer about George Webber; now, it's about Arlen Specter.  And, it's no longer about a fictional novelist returning home to Libya Hill; now it's about a flesh-and-blood senator returning "home" to the Democratic Party.  As many people know, the Kansas-born Arlen Specter started out life as a Philadelphia Democrat.  Heck, 45 years ago LBJ appointed him to a high- level position on the Warren Commission, where the then 33-year old attorney became chief architect of what became known as the "single bullet theory."  And most people know that when he wanted to run for Philadelphia D.A. in 1964, he switched to the Republicans.  His reason for the change can be summed up in six simple words: He couldn't win as a Democrat.  [It should be noted that as D.A. he gave his first job to a young Penn law graduate from New York named Ed Rendell, who today is the Democratic governor of Pennsylvania.]

   Just about every political junkie knows that in his career, Arlen Specter has lost about as many elections as he has won. He lost his position as D.A. in 1973, and was beaten in Republican primaries for senator in 1976 and governor in 1978.  In 1980, running once again for the United States Senate, he squeaked by in the Republican primary and then, riding Ronald Reagan's coattails, edged out former Pittsburgh Mayor Pete Flaherty 50%-48% to join "the most exclusive club in the world."  He has been a Republican member of that club ever since . . . until 72 hours ago.  With less than 2 years to go until his next reelection bid, and realizing that he likely would lose in the Republican primary to conservative former House member Pat Toomey [whom he had defeated by an anemic 51%-49% in the 2004 Republican senate primary], Specter decided that his only chance to remain in the Senate was to return "home" to the Democratic fold.

   Throughout his now 29-year senate career, Specter's spot on the political spectrum has been variously defined as "moderate," "independent," "liberal," and "mostly unpredictable."  One of the senate's brightest members, Specter has earned the grudging respect -- if not any honest degree of affection -- of his colleagues.  Truth to tell, Specter has been neither liberal nor moderate, conservative nor, strictly speaking, independent.  And despite the fact that his former colleagues now claim he was always a R.I.N.O. -- "Republican In Name Only" -- it's never been clear what he was -- or will be now that he's a Democrat.  Possibly a D.I.N.O. -- Democrat In Name Only?

    Those who cheer that Specter's defection -- added to Al Franken's eventual arrival -- will give the Democrats a filibuster-proof super majority, might want to stow the pompoms and megaphones.  For although Specter is pro-choice, has no problems with providing federal dollars for stem-cell research and voted against invoking cloture on 163/SJRes 1, a constitutional amendment defining marriage as the union of a man and a woman, he is no wide-eyed Kennedy-style liberal. Over the past 5 years, the liberal League of Conservation Voters has given him an average rating of only 25 [out of 100], the A.C.L.U. a 40, the pro-business Chamber of Commerce a 90, and the conservative Family Research Council a respectable 60.  He is a decided pro-military hawk who voted in favor of providing detainee rights, and a social moderate who also voted in favor of Justices Antonin Scalia, Sam Alieto and John Roberts. [In matter of fact, Specter gave his solemn word to George W. Bush that if the president would support him for Chair of Senate Judiciary, he would in turn give his support to anyone Bush might nominate for the court. 

   As soon as Specter announced his change of party, the White House announced that President Obama would campaign for him in 2010.  Governor Rendell, Majority Leader Reid and senate powerhouse Chuck Schumer have all likewise come on board.  Prior to Specter's defection, it looked like his Democratic opponent would be 7th District Rep. Joe Sestak, a retired two-star admiral and the highest-ranking former military officer ever elected to Congress.  Whether or not Sestak drops out of the primary race is anyone's guess.  What is not in question is the strategy the Republicans will employ in 2010 against Arlen Specter: they will target Democratic districts with campaign spots FOR Arlen Specter delivered in 2004 by none other than George W. Bush!  In political circles, this is known as "taking revenge."

   Despite all their efforts to put a "we-really-could-give-a-hoot-'n-a-holler" spin on Specter's party switch, the GOP is reeling, wondering "what else could go wrong?"  And while it is true that Senator Specter wasn't the most loyal of Republicans, his departure is but one more proof that the "Big Tent" is nothing more than a hollow rhetorical device.  The GOP is obviously floundering, rudderless and in a tailspin to mix several metaphors.  Their base is as small and unenthusiastic as at any time in the past 75 years.  As proof, one need only look at the most recent national polling figures: less than 25% of the American voting public now considers itself Republican.

    But this does not mean that the rest of America is necessarily in love with -- or identifies itself as -- Democratic.  Specter's transfer -- all positive spin to the contrary -- is not proof that all of America is "coming home" to the party of Kennedy, Johnson, Carter and Clinton.  For indeed, it is neither the same party nor the same "home."  

   Perhaps Thomas Wolfe was right; you can't go home again.

  Make no mistake about it; Arlen Specter has done what is best for Arlen Specter.  I for one cannot and will not hold that against him; after all, winning is the first rule in both baseball and politics.  And yet, something very very good may come out of it.  I liken Specter's "coming home" to a baseball team's late season acquisition of some gnarled old pro whom they figure might help get them to the World Series.  If he does, they look like geniuses; if not, oh well, you picked him up for a song and won't be resigning him anyway.  In this case, the "team" is the United States Senate; the "late season pickup" is Arlen Specter; the "World Series" is National Healthcare -- something which the senator sees as a right, not a luxury. If Specter's presence on the Democratic side of the aisle can indeed put quality healthcare within the reach of all Americans, then taking possession of the rest of his political baggage will be worth it.

    And if this works, then in a strange sense, Arlen Specter will wind up proving that Thomas Wolfe was wrong; you CAN go home again.  Except in this case, the "home" to which he will be returning is not the Libya Hill of George Webber. . . 

    It is the political party of Franklin Roosevelt and Harry S. Truman.

   © 2009 Kurt F. Stone

    

A Letter to Norm Coleman

   Dear Senator Coleman:

   It's been less than 48 hours since a special three-judge panel issued a unanimous, unambiguous decision that the "overwhelming weight of evidence" proves that the race between you and Al Franken for the U.S. Senate was conducted "fairly, impartially, and accurately."  Moreover, they concluded that Franken's 312-vote margin means that he is "entitled to receive the certificate of election."

   In other words Senator it's time for you to look reality squarely in the punim and be a gentleman; time for you to step aside, admit defeat, congratulate Al Franken on his hard-fought victory, and permit him to take the oath of office.  And then you can go about the task of looking for a high-paying, high-profile job . . . perhaps replacing Michael Steele at the RNC?  

   In order for this to finally happen of course, your buddy and fellow Republican, Governor Tim Pawlenty will also have to face facts; for he's the fellow who by law must sign the certificate of election.  But alas, like you, Governor Pawlenty isn't ready to give up the ghost.  Like you, the governor doesn't seem to be worried or even concerned about the fact that Minnesotans have been minus a United States senator for 3 1/2 months.  And now, Texas Senator John Cornyn, the head of the Republican Senate Campaign Committee has joined this orgy of stupidity in announcing that he is prepared to take the battle into Federal Court. 

   You don't seem too worried.  And neither does Governor Pawlenty.

   Ah, but he may start worrying pretty soon. For as you will recall Senator, Governor Pawlenty is up for reelection next year and is considering a presidential run in 2012.  Every extra day he delays signing that certificate makes him look less like a leader, and more like a partisan hack.  And while that may well score him points with hardcore Republicans, it is damaging him with everyone else.  OK Senator, Governor Pawlenty's political future isn't necessarily your concern.  But isn't what's best and most fair for the good folks of Minnesota? 

   There was a time not so long ago when that was the tune you were whistling.  Many of us remember that on election night -- when you appeared to be the winner by an eyelash -- you majestically warned that a recount would be extremely costly and expressed deep, honest concern about Minnesotans being denied full Senate representation.  At that point you sounded more like a statesman than a politician.  But now that the margin of victory -- slim though it may be --belongs to Al Franken, you are whistling a tune that sounds like it was composed by the Prendergast Ring.  Now its "Damn the cost . . . mitigate, litigate, abrogate!" 

   There was a time long ago when you would have picked up a bullhorn and raged against what you are currently doing.  Once upon a time in the late '60s and early '70s, you stood foursquarely on the side of "the people."  Back when you were student body president at Hofstra, you protested the war in Vietnam, took over the administration building, railed against the inherent unfairness of "the system," and vowed to knock the "entrenched elites" down a peg or two.  Heck, you were even a roadie with "Ten Years After" and spent your 20th birthday with them up at Woodstock. [You know something Senator? We were born just four days apart.  And while you were celebrating your 20th up in Bethel at Woodstock, I was observing mine at Tanglewood attending the Berkshire Festival.  As much as I may have enjoyed "I'm Going Home," or "Suite Judy Blue Eyes," I really preferred Beethoven's Ninth.]  Yours has been a most circuitous route, filled with plenty of formers: Former student radical; Former liberal Democrat, and now, Former United States Senator.

   Senator, you and your attorneys claim that the sole motivation in drawing the election out is "to ensure no Minnesota voter gets left behind."  It sounds noble Senator, but instead, what you and your people are really doing is leaving the entire state of Minnesota behind. 

   Senator, you have been quoted as saying that during this long ordeal, "I have had more dinners at home with my wife than I ever have before," and that now you put on t'fillin ever morning and say the traditional morning prayers in order to ". . . bind myself to God every morning because its in his hands."  I know that since you stopped receiving your Senate salary, you have been working part time for the Republican Jewish Coalition. These are all things for which you should be grateful; to a certain extent, you are on a path taking you back to your roots.  Hopefully you will continue on that path back to the old-time student activist who would have been aghast at the former Senator's obdurateness.  If I were you Senator, I would let Governor Pawlenty, Senator Cornyn and the rest of your friends in the Republican Party know that you want them to cease and desist; that the time has come to act like a mentsch and gracefully bow out.  You know Senator, ever since 1978, your about-to-become former Senate seat has been occupied by mentschen -- by good, warm-hearted people: first Rudy Boschewitz, next the late Paul Wellstone, and then you.  Never before in American history has one Jewish senator been replaced by another and then yet another.  Once you finally do the right thing and give up the ghost, your seat will go to Al Franken, a fourth lahntsman and a Harvard grad to boot. And who would have ever thought that it would happen in Minnesota of all places?  Ah, there's the beauty of America for you! 

   Senator, do the right thing. Bind that t'fillin strap just a bit tighter.  Let it remind you that you are indeed made of bigger stuff. 

   The people of Minnesota will thank you.

   The people of the United States will thank you.

   History will thank you.

   Be good to yourself,

  Kurt F. Stone

 

   PS: I must admit to having a personal reason (beyond what is written above) for hoping you will bring an end to this nonsense: Without closure, I cannot finish my biographic piece on either you or Al Franken for the next edition of The Congressional Minyan: The Jews of Capitol Hill, to be published by Rowman & Littlefield. 

 (Now how's that for a shameless plug . . . ? 

 ©2009 Kurt F. Stone      

  

     

What Would General Bovay Say?

  

   History records that on March 20, 1854, a handful of disaffected Whigs, Free Soilers and Democrats assembled in a small frame schoolhouse in Ripon, Wisconsin. Alvan Bovay, the town's only lawyer [and a future Civil War General], was the fellow who had invited them to attend.  The thing that brought them together was their mutual loathing for the newly-enacted "Kansas-Nebraska Act."

   Authored by Illinois Senator Steven A. Douglas, the law granted settlers in the newly-created territories of Kansas and Nebraska the right to determine for themselves whether or not to allow slavery.  Douglas hoped the bill's passage would help ease tensions between North and South, because in his eyes, the act would permit the South to expand slavery to the new territories, while the North still had the right to abolish slavery in their own states.   He was wrong.  Dead wrong.  Opponents -- like the folks up in Ripon -- denounced the law as a terrible, cowardly concession to the South's "Peculiar Institution."

   By the time Bovay's little group departed from the schoolhouse, they had given birth to a new force that would soon sweep the North: the Republican Party. Within less than four months, the party would hold its first official meeting in Jackson, Michigan; within another two years, they would elect Edwin Denison Morse their party's first -- and still longest serving -- national chair.  Precisely why the assembled Republicans chose Morse, a future New York Governor and United States Senator, and not the party's idealistic founder Alvan Bovay, is unknown.  What is known is that in 1874, Bovay -- convinced that "The mission of the Republican Party has ended with the overthrow of slavery and the reconstruction of the old slave states on a free basis . . . " -- he left and joined the fledgling Prohibition Party.

   Bovay's GOP, a party born in idealism and annealed in the fires of adversity used to stand for far more than tax cuts, deregulation and the further enriching of the "haves" and "have-mores."  Bovay's G.O.P., which would become the party of such political titans as Abraham Lincoln, Teddy Roosevelt, Fiorello LaGuardia and Jacob Javits -- is a far, far cry from our modern-day version -- that of Mitch McConnell, John Boehner, Michael Steele, Michelle Bachmann, and Bobby Jindal.

   Or Rush Limbaugh.

   You've got to wonder what Alvan Bovay would think or say about the current shape, direction and leadership of the party he birthed. Would he want to admit membership in a party so weak-willed, so misguided that it is seemingly taking its marching orders from a radio talk-show host?  How might he react to the ceaseless drumbeat of invective; to the mindless catcalls of "Socialist" and "Left-Wing Communist?"  I've got to believe he would be somewhere between dumbfounded and apoplectic. 

   And spinning in his grave.

   The current contretemps with Rush Limbaugh and Republican National Committee Chair Michael Steele is but the latest indicator of how far Bovay's party has strayed from it original idealistic path.  Where once the party had positive goals and aspirations -- progress, equity, and equality -- today its raison d'être appears to be nothing more than opposition and the demand for blind loyalty. 

   If Alvan Bovay were still among the living, he would likely at this point ask a handful of questions:

• "Loyalty to what?" 
  
• "Loyalty to whom?" 
  
• "Precisely what is it that you believe?" 
  
• "Who leads you in those beliefs?"
  
• "What is it that shapes, defines and motivates you to action?"  

  To listen to Limbaugh -- or indeed, any of the other so-called "leaders" of the G.O.P. -- that which defines and motivates them is far more often negative than affirmative; far more contrarian than positivist. To today's GOP, the LIBERAL opposition [whom they persist in referring to as the "Democrat," rather than "Democratic" Party] is not merely a bloc that can espouse different ideas, opinions or proposals -- all of which are worthy of debate; no, the opposition is evil incarnate -- an organized conspiracy of LIBERAL sociopaths whose LIBERAL raison d'être is the very destruction of America.

   To listen to the speakers who addressed last week's CPAC [Conservative Political Action Conference] gathering, one might reasonably believe that Speaker Pelosi, Majority Leader Reid, Chairman Frank and White House Chief of Staff Emanuel [to name but a few] get up each morning and partake in a conference call with none other than Satan himself.  At the conference, speaker after speaker consistently demeaned, degraded and derogated LIBERALS. As such, these Republicans showed neither what they were for nor where they stood, but rather what -- or who -- they were against, and what -- or who -- was responsible for virtually all our present problems and ills.  And believe me, it wasn't them . . .

  Shortly after Chairman Steele referred to Limbaugh as an "entertainer," whose show is both "incendiary" and "ugly," a firestorm of controversy erupted; so much so that Steele had to back down and "make nice" with the "$400 Million Man."  In his retraction, Steele referred to Limbaugh as a "national conservative leader," and declared that, "There was no attempt on my part to diminish (Limbaugh's) voice or his leadership."  It makes you question what the definition of "conservative" is, and precisely who's in charge of the party.

   It was not a pleasant sight to behold.

   Adding his gleefully cheerful two-cents, White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs expressed his "surprise at the speed in which Mr. Steele, the head of the RNC, apologized to the leader of the Republican Party."  Gibbs then suggested that the media ask other Republicans whether they agreed with Limbaugh's hope -- expressed on both his radio show and before CPAC -- that President Obama fails.  

   Score one for the White House. 

   By the way: for those who feel the need to apologize to Rush Limbaugh for something -- for anything -- there's an  I'm Sorry Rush  website which has been established for this very purpose.  Click and enjoy!

   And while we're on the subject of apologies, it might not be a bad idea for Michael Steele, Rush Limbaugh and the party one of them leads to issue a blanket apology to Alvan Bovay.  Just as a suggestion, it might go something like this:

   "General Bovay: We sincerely apologize to you and the gentlemen who originally formed the Republican Party.  We apologize for having strayed so far from the ideals with which you created this party -- progress, equity and equality.  We apologize for having allowed our political vision to become so myopic and bedimmed as to be virtually incapable of seeing anyone other than ourselves. . . ." 

   And while you're at it General, would you please be so kind as to express our apologies to Abraham Lincoln, Teddy Roosevelt, Fiorello LaGuardia and Jacob Javits as well?  

   What do you say General Bovay?

©2009 Kurt F. Stone

    

  

Some Dare Call It Treason

  

  For centuries, idealists and litterateurs have held an almost religious conviction that calamity brings out the best in humanity. It was precisely this conviction -- some might prefer the term "convention" -- which underlay the Three Musketeers' declaration, Un pour tous, tous pour un ("All for One and One for All!")  Sweden adopted the Latin version, Unus pro omnibus, omes pro uno, as its traditional -- albeit unofficial -- motto in the late 1860s. And of course the variant E pluribus unum ("Out of many, one") has been on the Great Seal of the United States for the past 233 years.

   In keeping with this concept, it has been an enduring American belief that in times of crisis or challenge, "We the People" cast aside the trivialities which may divide us, and come together as a nation.  Of course this unity-in-time-of-trouble vision is an ideal, and ideals are meant to guide and shape our actions.  Throughout most of our history, we have managed -- sometimes better, sometimes worse -- to do just that.  It was in the very nature of FDR's New Deal; a political crazy quilt that received quite a bit of bipartisan support -- on Capitol Hill, in the media, and throughout the heartland.   It is instructive to check out Depression-era photos in Look or Life, or perhaps the films of a director like Frank Capra. What do we find?  People filmed or photographed in groups, working together in an attempt to make things better for everyone.  Yes, they are just photographs and films.  Nonetheless, they are reflective of an "All For One and One For All" spirit which actually did exist; a spirit which in 2009, seems as dated, hokey and saccharin as an Andy Hardy film festival.  

   Oh yes, there were folks who accused Roosevelt and his braintrust of trying to attach a collectivist anchor to an already sinking ship of state. And there was a sizeable group of Republicans who voted against New Deal legislation. But not even FDR's most vocal detractors had the audacity to pray aloud for his failure; to do so would have been to pray for the failure of the United States.  And that would have been tantamount to . . . well . . . to an act of treason.

   We all know that President Obama's massive stimulus plan was enacted without the support of a single House Republican, and that only Republicans Snowe, Collins and Specter voted for it in the Senate. What makes this final vote tally so maddening is that it came despite the president's willingness to talk with, listen to -- and take counsel from -- the disloyal opposition.  Despite getting their way on so many issues -- larger tax cuts and fewer direct disbursements; despite getting both House and Senate leadership to agree to the elimination of billions of dollars worth of earmarks; the Republicans still stood arm-in-arm, shoulder-to-shoulder in opposition.

   And it gets even worse . . .

• Fox Business Network reporter Tracy Byrnes "revealed" that Namasté Solar Electric, Inc., the Colorado solar energy company whose president introduced President Obama at this week's signing of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 [the stimulus package's official title] has a "progressive, maybe even socialist internal structure."
• Rush Limbaugh, the self-anointed, self-appointed "leader" of the Republican Party, has repeatedly told his listening audience he "hopes he [Obama] fails."  Moreover, when commenting on President Obama's February 18th speech in Mesa, he claimed the president said: " . . . we all must learn to live within our means and not expect the value of our homes to go up 10, 20 percent over our lifetimes ever again."  Limbaugh told his audience, "This is what I mean by him talking down the economy."  If El Rushbo had taken the time to read a transcript of the president's speech, he would have seen that what he really said was quite different: ". . . we should not assume that housing prices are going to go up 20, 30, 40 percent every year" [emphasis added] and not "over our lifetimes."  Instead, Limbaugh would have his listeners believe that the president should fail, because he is somehow "against" America.
  
• South Carolina Republican Senator Jim DeMint asserted that under the Recovery Act, "[i]f [universities] take any money, you can't have a prayer group in a dorm anymore." This is patently untrue. The bill "prohibits the use of funds for modernization, renovation or repair of facilities . . . used for sectarian religious instruction, religious worship, or a school of divinity. . ."  [emphasis added]
• Arizona Rep. Jeff Flake has repeatedly claimed that the act "could lead to rationed health care," and will lead to "government deciding which procedures you can have and which you can't."  Despite the fact that this is in no wise true, several media outlets have chosen to repeat the representative's charge verbatim.  What the Recovery Act does contain, is a provision that establishes "a nationwide health information technology infrastructure that allows for the electronic use and exchange of information" in order to create "an electronic health record for each person in the United States by 2014." 
• Republican governors Jindal, Barbour, Otter, Sanford, Perry and Palin have publicly stated that they may very well not accept any stimulus funds for their states. (Never mind the fact that their legislatures will have the final say.) Not surprisingly, all six have been prominently mentioned as possible presidential aspirants.
  
• On an almost daily basis, national Republicans and their media allies "reveal" yet another venal, nefarious clause, rider or amendment attached to the stimulus package; in most cases, what they have unveiled is simply not true. It has been claimed, by way of example, that the stimulus package includes $30 million "to protect the salt marsh harvest mouse in the San Francisco wetlands," which happens to be in Speaker Pelosi's district. This is patently false; no such provision exists.  Then too, Republican lawmakers have repeatedly claimed that Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid included a provision directing $8 billion to be spent on a high-speed rail line between Southern California and Las Vegas.  In truth, although the stimulus bill does include $8 billion for high-speed rail lines, it nowhere states where it/they will be built.  Furthermore, it leaves that determination up to the Secretary of Transportation, who happens to be Ray LaHood, a former Republican member of the House.
• Arizona Senator John Kyl has repeatedly claimed that the economic recovery plan is "going to be wasting an awful lot of money, putting permanent programs in place that over a ten-year period are going to cost $3.2 trillion, according to the Congressional Budget Office."  Wrong!  In fact, more than half of the $3.2 trillion figure comes from the cost of permanently extending more than 20 provisions of the bill, which the bill does not do!
• And on and on and on . . .

  These misrepresentations are beginning to sink in.  As I speak before groups, more and more I'm hearing people express severe reservations about the stimulus package, citing many of the erroneous "pork add-ons" as the source of their concern.  The only thing I can suggest by way of encouragement is that they not be so quick to accept "facts" when they are presented by those who have a vested stake in seeing President Barack Obama and the Democrats fail.
 
   Why in the world would anyone in their right mind wish failure?  Is there a delineable strategy beneath the madness that some dare call treason?

   Believe it or not, there does appear to be both a strategy and a purpose.

   It would seem that the Republicans on Capitol Hill -- and many Republican governors -- are banking on failure so that they can eventually say, "See . . . we told you so!"  Under terms of this scenario, they see themselves picking up lots of seats in the 2010 midterm elections, thus putting them in a much better position for taking back the White House in 2012.  But what if there is demonstrable recovery?  What then?  Well, apparently they believe that in the case of success, no one will remember their ever having been in opposition.  In the latter case, this is highly unlikely; in the former, incredibly deceitful and downright unpatriotic.

   With the likes of Limbaugh, Hannity, Beck and the boys and girls of Fox, one might give a grudging pass; after all, they are, at base, entertainers competing for ratings points.  The more outrageous they are, the better their ratings.  However, even with an understanding of show business and the ratings' game, there can be little or no justification for their blatant lies, misconceptions and dreams of failure.  As even so politically conservative a figure as the Rev. Pat Robertson noted recently in speaking about Limbaugh's hope that the president fail: "That was a terrible thing to say.  I mean, he's the president of all the country. If he succeeds, the country succeeds.  And if he doesn't, it hurts us all.  Anybody who would pull against our president is not exactly thinking rationally."

   Without question, we are in the midst of a calamity, which ideally should bring out the best in humanity.  For many, it has, it does and it will.

  For others -- both in and out of office -- it brings out that certain something that some dare call treason.

© 2009 Kurt F. Stone
    

      

  

           

Knowledge Isn't Always Power

  

   For what to some are fairly obvious reasons, there is more than a bit of irony in a practicing Jew quoting a fellow named Bacon. It neither passes the smell test nor feels quite kosher.  Then again, what's life without a whiff of illogic or a morsel of imaginary trayf?  I mean, it's not like the mere quoting of Sir Francis will lead to a deathless yearning for a BLT, or visions of fatted swine rotating on a greasy spit . . .

   Oh what the heck; let's throw caution to the wind and quote the old boy:                               

                            Knowledge is power.

   There, I've gone and done it!  But you know something?  It wasn't nearly as satisfying as I thought it would be.  Moreover, with all that's been going on for the past God knows how long, it's probably no longer even true.

   Simply stated, in this day and age knowledge isn't always power.

   Currently, there are people running all over Capitol Hill -- and up and down Pennsylvania Avenue as well -- all loudly proclaiming that they never suspected:

• The economy was in such bad shape, or
• That major banks were on the verge of collapse, or
  
• That all those no-money-down, interest-only mortgages would eventually spell doom and disaster, or
  
• That the Big Three Automakers ["BTA"] were sinking in quicksand, or
• That America's been in a recession for more than a year.
  

   From all available evidence, it is obvious that the facts, the figures, the forecast -- i.e., the knowledge -- have been available to legislators and regulators, executives and lobbyists for quite some time.

   In 2005, federal bank regulators, correctly assessing the crisis looming just over the horizon, proposed a series of guidelines for institutions writing risky loans.  In light of what has transpired in the mortgage industry of late, their warnings and proposals seem to have been written by some Delphic oracle:

• They correctly warned bankers that "exotic mortgages" were often being granted to buyers who had bad -- even no -- credit.
• They urged banks to make sure that buyers "actually had jobs and could afford houses."
• They proposed "a cap on risky mortgages" so that a "string of defaults wouldn't be crippling."
• They strongly urged banks to "help buyers make responsible decisions" by clearly advising them that "interest rates might skyrocket and huge payments might be due sooner than expected."

   All of these proposals remained precisely that: proposals.

   In January 2006, Paris Welch, a prominent California mortgage lender tried to blow the whistle on all these no money-down, low-interest mortgages as well, warning anyone in authority who would listen to "Expect fallout, expect foreclosures, expect horror stories."  She -- among others -- correctly predicted that without stringent regulation, the mortgage industry in particular -- and the American economy in general -- were heading for a major implosion.  And yet, despite having this knowledge -- which, according to Sir Francis Bacon, should have been empowering -- both Congress and the Bush Administration chose to listen to other voices that spoke very different words. 

   Bankers proclaimed that all the so-called "troubled mortgages" were in reality, no trouble at all.  As a result of their proclamations (and an intense campaign put on by their paid lobbyists), regulators delayed taking action until it was too late -- at which time these very bankers either went under or came back to Congress asking for buckets and buckets of bailout money.  

   As an example, David Schneider, the former home loan president of Washington Mutual ("WaMU"), told federal regulators in early 2006 that "These mortgages have been considered more safe for portfolio lenders than many fixed rate mortgages."  Schneider backed up his testimony with lots of paid lobbying in an effort to convince Congress, regulators and a sympathetic White House that he knew the situation better than any or all of the prophets of doom and gloom. 

   Guess again: Within two years of uttering these words, both Schneider and WaMU were out of business.  Indeed, the WaMU collapse was the largest bank failure in U.S. history.  

   Here we have a clear-cut example of knowledge not leading to power, because knowledge and power were, in essence, occupying different universes

  Now this is not to say that had Congress, the White House and all their buddies indeed gotten off their collective arses and started using the knowledge at hand sooner, that none of our current problems or challenges would exist.  The sad truth is that we will never know, because much of Congress and virtually all of the Bush Administration, chose to pay attention not to those with the facts and figures, but rather to lobbyists representing the very interests they should have been regulating in the first place. 

   Generally speaking, knowledge without will, vision, integrity or courage, has a most difficult time of translating into power. In the political arena, it is close to impossible; a process that lacks will, vision, integrity and courage will more often than not become an exercise in futility, a danse macabre where hidden agendas abound, and what started being potentially empowering, becomes either an impediment or an irrelevancy.

   Yesterday, the 10th of December 2008, the House of Representatives passed a $14 billion loan-guarantee package for the "BTA."  In addition to the money, the measure mandates that the BTA submit a reorganization plan (or suffer the consequence of having to immediately repay the loan) by March 31, 2009.  It further creates the executive post of "Car Czar," who will have what appears to be unfettered authority to get the Big Three back on tract. (Honestly, why we persist in using the term "Czar" is beyond me; I'm sure Congressman Frank must be aware of just how profligate and imperious most of the Russian despots were.  After all, much of his family escaped from Czarist Russia!) 

     In order for the bill to become law, it will of course have to pass the Senate.  And here is where the going gets rough.  For despite having the knowledge of what will likely happen if the BTA go under, many Senate Republicans are against the plan.  Indeed, Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R.KY), whose state has more than 50,000 jobs related to the industry, has already said he will cast a "no" vote.  Instead, he supports an amendment by Tennessee Republican Bob Corker that would force severe cuts on union workers and auto industry bondholders as part of the bailout. 

   McConnell, Corker, and many of their Republican colleagues, represent states that have non-union auto plants.  They see this bail-out measure as an opportunity to bust the UAW and stick bondholders with enormous losses -- matters which are purely political and have little to do with saving the American automobile industry.  Additionally, one of the bill's amendments that is under extraordinary fire forbids any company receiving loans from using any of that money for financing their lobbying efforts against new, more stringent carbon emissions standards recently enacted by California and a dozen other states.  Despite the knowledge that the "cleaner the car," the more likely consumers are to purchase them, the BTA's friends and lobbyists are fighting this measure tooth and nail. 

   In other words, for many, it's politics as usual.

   Oh that the knowledge we did possess could have empowered our elected leaders to act before things got to such a pass -- as we were careening into recession.  Unfortunately, whatever knowledge was available was ignored, twisted, obfuscated or just plain buried.

   Why?

   Well, according to Sir Francis -- who's getting easier to quote -- the answer may well be that

   "Nothing is more damaging to a state than that cunning men pass for wise . . ."

  

©2008 Kurt F. Stone

  Note: Within 24 hours of posting this article, Senate Democrats decided to abandon their efforts to bail out the auto industry.  The stated reason for the abandonment was Republican intransigence; GOP senators balked at supporting any bill that would not, in essence, destroy the United Autoworkers Union.  The Democrats knew that under these circumstances, they didn't have the 60 votes needed to for the measure to pass. 

The Re-re-re-packaging of John McCain

  

Back in 1969, writer Joe McGinniss published The Selling of the President.  The book offered a then-revolutionary behind-the-scenes look at the careful choreography that went into the marketing and repackaging of presidential candidate Richard Nixon.  McGinniss' thesis was simple: Nixon's handlers -- with equal measures of cynicism and hubris -- treated him and his race for the presidency as just another product or ad campaign. Indeed, the book's original dust jacket had Nixon's jowly countenance emblazoned on a pack of cigarettes.  The Selling turned out to be a groundbreaking work of inestimable importance.  It gave readers a ringside seat at what in retrospect was the first truly "modern" [read: unedifying] presidential race. What I find so amazing rereading the book nearly 40 year later is that two of the key actors in that 1968 "ad campaign" are still at the top of their game in 2008: Roger Ailes and Pat Buchanan.  Buchanan of course, is Rachael Maddow's curmudgeonly conservative counterpart on MSNBC; Roger Ailes is president of the Fox News Channel, the home of über neo-cons Bill O'Reilly and Sean Hannity.

      McGinnis hit the jackpot; The Selling sold. It quickly shot up to the top of the New York Times bestseller list, and made its then-26 year old author a staple of what at the time was the "late night talk show circuit." More importantly, McGinniss' work pulled back the curtain and permitted the first unobstructed view of what has become commonplace in American presidential campaigns: a witch's brew of cynicism laced with a generous dollop of hucksterism.  Those who imbibe this noxious potion do so at their own risk.  It's fumes can make the Purple Heart winning grandson of a Jewish immigrant look like a "latte-sipping" coward, and turn a kid from Hawaii by way of Harvard Law into the most confusing of all oxymora: an elitist homeboy.

   Political junkies will quite likely recall that term of yore, "The New Nixon."  Well, as they say,  "The more things change, the more they remain the same."  Seems like every couple of days brings forth a "New and Improved!" John McCain.  From the "Hero," "Maverick" and "Straight Shooter" who once called the Religious Right "agents of intolerance"  and remembered what it was like to be the victim of torture, McCain has been packaged, repackaged and re-repackaged into someone or something that is all but unrecognizable.  But that's the nature of advertising.  One's product must always be changing, must always be "New and Improved!" or else begin losing market share.

   I would hate to estimate how many commercials we watch or hear in an average day, week, month or year. Its got to be in the tens of thousands.  Some stick with us just because we hear or see them so often.  Others enter our daily speech: remember "Where is the beef?" "It's the Real Thing," and  "You Deserve a Break Today"?  Sometimes, the very nature of the product -- Viagra, deodorant or just about any feminine hygiene product -- require lots of verbal misdirection.  And then, there are all those commercials that "prove" that "Nine out of ten experts agree" that Product X or Product Y is the best there is. In recent years, advertisers have even starting bringing up the name of the competition -- announcing to consumers that while "Their Product" Stinks," "Ours is Faaaantastic!"

   As a result of all this commercial bombardment, some consumers have come to believe everything they see or hea,r while others have arrived at the point where they believe virtually nothing. Those in the latter category are of a mind that "If it's being pitched on TV (or radio or the Internet) it's got to be a lie."  And who's to blame them?  It's just the nature of the advertising game: cynical, hucksterish and seeking to make consumers of us all.

   Ah, but we're supposed to be engaged in a serious discussion about electing a leader, not selecting toothpaste.  The problem is, that ever since the days of young Joe McGinniss, our presidents -- indeed, most political leaders -- have generally been advertised in pretty much the same manner -- and often by many of the same people using the same tricks -- as Madison Avenue has been hawking most any other commercial product.  And that means aiming for and bombarding the lowest common denominator, whether it be called "Middle America," "The Silent Majority," "Joe Sixpack" or, as of last night, "Joe the Plumber."

   Because "products" like John McCain are constantly being repackaged; because the "sell" far more often involves exposing what's wrong with the other "product" as opposed to what it is that makes yours superior, we the "consumer" wind up believing that everybody's lying and everything stinks.  If the subject were toothpaste or deodorant we could just shrug it off and say "there you go again."  But this is one heck of a lot more vital; it involves the future of our country . . . indeed, the very future of the world.

   On balance, the Obama campaign's "sell" of their "product" has remained  remarkably consistent.  Yes, they have run lots of so-called "negative" spots. But most reliable polling data tend to show that the American public believes McCain to be running the nastier, more negative campaign. 

   Could it be that people are actually beginning to see that one "product" really is superior to the other?  Could it be that the more the voting public sees or hears John McCain and Sarah Palin, the less they understand who or what they really are?  I think the answer to both questions is "Yes." 

   I think its beginning to dawn on lots of people in the American heartland that despite what has been sold as a "lack of experience," Barack Obama is decidedly more thoughtful, more empathic, more dignified and presidential than John McCain.  Or that while undoubtedly Senator Joe Biden is quite a bit more loquacious than Governor Sarah Palin, he is ready to become president; he has no need of a crash course in "White House 101."

   For those of us who have read Senator Obama's first two books [which unlike those of John McCain, he himself wrote] we recognize that he is the same man with the same energy, vision and intellect he was 5, 10, even 15 years ago.  No one has had to "repackage" him.  Yes, Senator Obama -- like Senator McCain -- is as much a "product" as he is a politician.  For better or for worse, that is the nature of the modern campaign beast.

   But after so many years of "New!" "Improved!" and "Revolutionary!" isn't it nice to know that the "product" we are about to elect is one we can trust; one that won't break down as soon as the warranty expires; one that will perform just the way the advertisers said it would.  

    A couple of brief thoughts about last night's third and final presidential debate:

   Many have written me complaining that Senator Obama didn't go on the attack last night; that he did not "shove Sarah Palin down McCain's throat," or "respond much more vigorously about those who were shouting 'kill him' at a recent Palin rally."  From my point of view, this would not have been presidential.  He remained above the fray, did not take the bait, and emerged the debate winner.

   A rule of thumb in campaign politics is that Democrats run "as far left" as they dare in primaries, then move toward the center for the general.  For Republicans it is quite the opposite: run "as far right" as you dare in the primaries, then move toward the center in the general.  Senator Obama has done this to perfection.  However, Senator McCain has actually been moving even farther to the right in the general.  This is unprecedented, and shows that his political quiver is nearly out of arrows.  All he's got left is his "neo-con" base.

   As for those worrying about the "Bradley Effect," permit me to plant a seed of doubt.  There is also such a thing as a "Reverse Bradley Effect," whereby folks publicly proclaim they are going to vote for the white candidate, and then once in the privacy of the voting booth, vote for the black candidate.  This has happened with quite a bit of regularity over the past decade in such disparate places as Louisiana, Michigan, California and believe it or not, Oklahoma.

©2008 Kurt F. Stone