McCain Paints himself Into A Corner

With less than a month to go before Election Day, the polls are trending if not heavily, then consistently towards an Obama/Biden victory. Even Fox News, the last great bastion of right-leaning politics punditry, has succumbed to what looks like the inevitable: Obama will win and McCain will lose.

Not to be one to let the grass grow under my feet, I'd like to get the post-mortem started a little early. What went wrong for McCain? There's many factors that spelled defeat leading up to the election. Let's look back on some of the telling signs leading up to now, shall we?

• Certainly McCain was never Mr. Popularity among those on the right wing. Seen as too much of a moderate by fellow Republicans, he dared to cross the aisle to co-author legislation in a time where the Republicans enjoyed such a majority in both houses of Congress that compromise seemed an unnecessary evil.
• McCain was tainted by scandal, forever linked to the Keating Five. For those too young to understand... ah hell, just Google it. I'm long-winded enough as it is.
• McCain never quite clicked with the extreme religious right. To Bush's credit, he knew to play Mr. Born Again when the situation called for it.
• McCain relied too heavily on his status as a P.O.W. bad ass giving him the edge over us sissy liberals. It plays well in most cases, but this is a nation bone weary from an endless war.

The list goes on, but the one that caught my attention most recently was at a campaign event where he spoke with a woman who said she feared Barack Obama because he's an "Arab". The implication was clear - Obama wins, wraps his head in a turban , declares himself the Twelve Imam, and imposes Muslim laws. Any Christian holdouts refusing to convert to Islam get beheaded and the Inaugural Dinner is attended by the President of Iran.

McCain, to his credit, corrected the woman, saying Obama is not an Arab, and that he is a fine and honorable man. The crowd immediately booed. Booed! Watching McCain try to regain control of the crowd was just plain sad. Republicans are now booing their own candidate for refusing to propagate lies.

We're supposed to be electing the candidate based on the issues, or so I thought. But as McCain is falling behind in the polls, we've seen the names William Ayers and Jeremiah Wright trotted out once more, dusted off from their months of irrelevance. Republicans insist that these "associations" matter, because they reveal much about the man himself. I say, be very careful when attempting to besmirch Obama based on his associations. In the effort to get McCain elected, and in the past going back to the early 1980's, McCain has had a rogues' gallery on his speed dial, including Charles Keating and a few evangelists that would have us believe that Hurricane Katrina was God's righteous wrath borne against New Orleans for planning a gay pride parade. Scary stuff, that. To have a man in charge who keeps as spiritual counsel men with such Charlton Heston-esque notions of the Almighty makes you wonder how long it would take before we transitioned into a full-blown theocracy.

William Ayers and Jeremiah Wright - let's just admit it - are red herrings. Nothing in Obama's dealings with either of these men tells us anything about what kind of a job he would do as President. Their names are supposed to make you fearful and suspicious. And in your fear of Obama, you're supposed to vote for the safe candidate. But here's a thought - a safe candidate wouldn't employ fear as a tactic to make himself more attractive than the other guy. The safe candidate wouldn't want America to be afraid of anything, would they? It just seems to me that "safety" and "fear" would be mutually exclusive concepts - is it me?

Why are the Republicans losing so badly?

Because they WANT to.

The mess the Republicans have made being in charge over the last eight years has finally come to fruition. Wall Street is melting down, Banks are collapsing, and all because of the Republican de-regulation. Instead of a free market, instead of capitalism, we have seen rampant greed, golden parachutes for CEO's of failed institutions, jobs sent overseas, inflation on the rise, gas prices have skyrocketed while Bush's oil buddies got obscenely wealthy, and now we have growing unemployment, foreclosures like we've not seen in decades, and we're on the brink of war with Iran and Russia.

You've got to give the Republicans credit for having enough sense to realize the ship is sinking. They know that whoever is in charge when the roof actually does collapse will shoulder the majority of the blame. Republicans, having created this house of cards, can slink away after the election and then when it all comes crashing down say, "see what happens? Democrats in charge and it all goes to hell."

They'll neglect to mention that they're the ones with their market deregulation that got us here. They'll have us forget that when the Republicans ran the White House and Congress, that gas doubled and tripled in price. They'll have us forget they committed hundreds of billions of dollars to an unnecessary war. They'll have us forget how they bankrupted the Treasury and destroyed a budget surplus only to plunge us, and now Wall Street, into the biggest financial meltdown in our lifetimes. They'll shrug off the blame to Clinton, even though he had us going in the opposite direction. They'll pass the buck to Obama and Biden in 2009, abandoning the problem to the next generation.

That's okay though, Republicans. Don't worry about it. We're used to this from you. You did it with Reagan and Bush the Father, and now you've done it with Bush the Son - you screw the country royally, get your fatcat friends even richer, and leave this country like hooker in a ditch.

Come next year, you'll be playing golf in Dubai and laughing over how you fooled the American people into letting you get away with it, and how you got Obama to take the rap. But just like Clinton put our Humpty Dumpty economy back together again after twelve years of GOP omelets, so will Obama and Biden repair the damage this time.

That's why you nominated the least popular Republican you could find, and had her pick a hockey mom from Podunk Alaska as his running mate. You were never serious about winning in the first place. You WANT to lose this election, and bail out just in time. You know you've screwed us, and you know you haven't got the first clue how to fix it. So when Obama wins handily next month, if it fails you can blame him, and if he miraculously rescues us from the brink of the abyss, you can say he benefited from policies Bush the Son set in motion.

You've got all your bases covered.

My Two Cents on Abortion

Is it me, or is the abortion thing just another distraction? I mean, not to take anything away from the validity of either side... Do we really think whichever President gets elected is going to have any kind of drastic impact on abortion?

First off, of the three branches of government (executive, legislative and judicial), it will be the judicial folks that make the choices that impact abortion. Even if a President or even a Congress make laws restricting abortion, you have to know those decisions will be challenged eventually, and ultimately it will be the Supreme Court that gets the last word.

Now I know what you're going to say - who ever is the next president, for the next four or eight years, will probably be in charge of nominating replacement judges. We're looking at the strong possibility of 2-3 of the nine retiring in the near future. And when that happens, pundits will wag their tongues as to the significance of everything that happens.

But let's cut to the chase, shall we? Say a justice retires. The President nominates a replacement. Predictably, this nominee is in close lockstep with the President on issues like abortion. Then the nominee goes before Congress and gets every decision they've ever made re-examined and a few decisions they might hypothetically make in the future. Assuming the Congress approves this person (which is by no means guaranteed) they may or may not tip the scales in the Supreme Court towards the left or right.

So fast forward a few years. We replace two justices and now the Court is leaning heavily towards one side (pick one). Laws get passed having to do with abortion, and those laws get challenged, eventually making their way to the Supreme Court. Regardless of what is decided in the future, decisions from previous sessions stand, like... Roe V. Wade.

Now, I know this is a personal issue for many. Some have more first hand contact with life and death than others, like healthcare providers. To the rest of us, this is an interesting academic debate, and we have the luxury of distance. But I would respectfully submit that even the pro-choiciest of the pro-choice army does not enjoy the idea of abortion. Certainly, to those who have the procedure done, it is a traumatic and painful process. The doctors who perform abortions, I would guess, take no joy from terminating a pregnancy. Every fetus aborted weighs on their conscience. Why do they do it then? I can't be sure. I suspect that in the context in which it is presented, it seems at the very least, a reasonable alternative. Those of us who have never dealt with an unwanted pregnancy ourselves can only suppose the circumstances, but one thing I can safely assume - that this is not a world that exists in black and white, and we all find ourselves in some shade of gray. All of us make decisions we question later. All of us wonder about what could have been.

My point is, the decision as to whether a woman should have an abortion is one best left to healthcare professionals, and the mother. As a man, I have to remind myself that despite any opinions I have, if a woman was pregnant by me, regardless of how involved I am, this will affect her more profoundly than it will me. So having my say excluded from the final decision is a bitter pill, but one I have no choice but to swallow. And if I, as the father, only get a consulting vote, how much less should 535 men and women who don't even know us? This is a medical issue first, a moral one to be sure, but even so, it is not the government's place to mandate morality. In a country where our tax dollar goes to subsidize auto industries that pollute our air, in a country where handgun violence rivals even the most war-torn regions of the world, in a country with a multi-billion-dollar tobacco industry, in a country that devoted billions of dollars every year to building tanks and missiles, it seems a little disingenuous to suddenly cherish life when it comes to unborn babies.

I'm not saying life isn't sacred. I'm not saying our elected officials aren't entitled to their opinions. I'm just saying that decisions this personal, decisions no doubt tempered by personal mitigating circumstance, should not be left to anyone except the parties directly involved. If abortions ceased tomorrow and forever, I would celebrate along with the neoconniest of the neocons. But only if the choice to carry the pregnancies to term were made by the mothers and not the government. I just cannot accept that our government has the moral authority to dictate terms to the citizenry on this highly charged and personal issue. I close by saying that this issue has been trotted out to get the partied worked up, and nothing else. Next, we'll talk about some other irrelevant topic, like flag burning or gay marriage.

My Theory on Sarah Palin

I should preface this by saying I'm not as well-versed on her as I should be. I only know what the mainstream media tells me. She has been a governor for two years, which makes her the only one of the four with any executive experience, albeit brief. Before that, she was mayor of a small town in Alaska. All told, her experience in politics goes back to 1992. I think you'd agree that Republicans are in no position at this point to criticize Obama's "lack of experience".

If Republicans win the White House in November, Palin will almost certainly ascend to the presidency. McCain is not long for this earth, and I think it is telling that he chose a woman to be his running mate. My initial reaction was that McCain is trying to gather up the disaffected Hillary supporters to his cause. But in politics, it helps to be able to look beyond the obvious. Certainly, some will flock to vote for any woman in high office, regardless of qualifications, principles or policies. As a liberal, I had to laugh when conservatives crowed about the Palin decision as demonstrating the chauvinism of the Democratic Party. Parenthetically speaking, I have to wonder how many anti-Hillary Republicans will jump ship to Obama rather than vote for a woman.

I can see the strategic value in Republicans nominating in a woman, especially in light of Hillary not getting the Democratic nomination. I wonder though if it won't backfire. Republicans have made much of Obama's lack of experience, and there were many who scoffed at the idea of Hillary being President on general principle (i.e., her gender). Now McCain has forced them to either eat crow in the name of party loyalty or jump ship.

November will see a lot of people on both sides of the fence crossing over - women who supported Hillary for no other reason than her gender will throw their lot in with McCain. Misogynists in the Republican party who are loathe to see a woman in the Oval Office may well send a message on election day by either not voting at all or voting for the all-male ticket. But what's good about this election is that is going to be very telling about the motivations of voters. We'll see if the issues trump all, party loyalties call the shots, or we just wind up voting within our comfort levels and nothing else.

I do think Obama is going to win, though. Of course I do - I'm a Democrat. But I see the Palin question throwing the GOP into an ideological tailspin. Back in 1984, Walter Mondale took Geraldine Ferraro as his running mate, and it seemed to symbolize the left's willingness to include women in all its reindeer games at all levels. It cast the GOP as the Archie Bunkers of modern politics, and it also seemed like blowback for the defeat of the Equal Rights Amendment some years earlier. But I always secretly wondered if the Ferraro choice was made when Mondale realized that it wouldn't matter who he picked - Reagan fever was running high in America in 1984, especially in the wake of the Los Angeles Olympics. Reagan seemed to embody not just the GOP, but American pride in general. In light of what had to be an obviously hopeless cause, I suspect Mondale chose to attach himself to a running mate that would at least serve notice that the Democrats were going to be the first to crack the glass ceiling.

I have to wonder, in light of the general attitudes towards Bush in this country, if McCain isn't borrowing a page from the Mondale playbook. He knows he's going to lose, not because of anything about him per se, but because the country is going shift left after eight years of Republicans in the White House. And if he's going to go down in flames, he can at least serve notice that Republicans are every bit as progressive on gender issues as Democrats, even if it took them 30 years to catch up. So in the short term, Republicans lose the White House, but this decision to include a woman on the ticket begins to repair the reputation of the GOP as misogynists, a message which will blossom in time for the GOP to woo the feminists back into their camp for 2012.

Party Unity My Ass, or my plea to Hillary's supporters

So Hillary Clinton addressed the Democratic National Convention last night and stated her support for Barack Obama. She stated her belief that in order to prevail in the general election in November, we must unite as a party. It's a pretty simple message, and it's hard to deny her logic.

Ever since Hillary dropped out and Obama became the presumptive Democratic nominee, there have been rumblings. Those committed to Hillary's campaign found themselves in a tight spot. Most of the Democratic primary process was focused on choosing between the two. All others dropped away, leaving Democrats with those two.

For my own part, I was not in either one's camp in the beginning. I was not an Obama guy or a Hillary guy when this started. I liked Biden (and I'm delighted he's the VP candidate) in the beginning. But then he dropped out early, and I went for Richardson. I picked Richardson mostly for his experience with foreign relations. But then Richardson figured out he wasn't going to get the nomination, and he dropped out.

My point here is that with each candidate, there were supporters. Those supporters, for one reason or another, felt their candidate was the best pick. And when those candidates bowed out, they left their supporters looking for the second best pick. Many of us, whose first (and second, and third) choice didn't win have had to trade out loyalties several times. It's clear to me, as someone who has bounced from one candidate to another in the primary process, that the bottom line is to get a Democrat, ANY Democrat in the White House.

We Democrats have seen the damage inflicted on this country by George W. Bush. And if there was a candidate on the Republican side who was willing to admit that Bush had been bad for our country, if there was one single Republican candidate who had the courage to distance himself and commit to reversing Bush's course, I might have considered voting for him (or her). I'm not saying I would have, but it would have impressed the hell out of me to see someone willing to break ranks.

What Hillary's supporters need to keep in mind is this: easily 95% of the positions Hillary takes on the issue are mirrored by Obama. John McCain's voting records mirrors George W. Bush's 90% of the time. If a person supported Hillary Clinton because of her policies, it's not to late to see those policies win. And Hillary isn't going anywhere. She's still a Senator from New York, and she'll continue pushing her ideals through, whether Barack Obama wins in November or not. They also need to understand that without support from Hillary's people, Obama will lose - it's that simple. And if that happens, it means another four years of deficit spending, another four years of pointless war in Iraq, it means going to war with Iran in all likelihood, it means four more years of how things have been. I, for one, shudder.

We need to get a Democrat in the White House, for the good of the nation and the good of the world. We need to have someone who embraces the principles of the Democratic Party in a position to reverse the course that George W. Bush has set our nation on. We need to rebuild our infrastructure as well as our standing on the world's stage and we need a Democrat in the Oval Office to make that a reality.

If someone supported Hillary because she is a woman, and now won't support Barack Obama, then that person is, by definition, a sexist. There, I said it. And yes, women came be sexists just like men. When you decide to choose someone for a job based solely on their gender, that is sexist.

Hillary did not deserve to be in the running because she is a woman, or because of her last name. She deserved to be in the running because she was qualified and she would have made a good Democratic President. And like Obama or not, he is the nominee. And now the job is up to us Democrats to vote him into office. And we can still support Hillary Clinton. We can be proud that she got as far as she did. We can hope that if elected Obama may appoint her to a cabinet position. If all else fails, she is still the Senator from the great state of New York, and she will work with President Obama and no doubt advise him on many issues.

Maybe Hillary will run in 2012 if Obama loses. Maybe she'll succeed him in 2016. Maybe she will become the Senate Majority leader. No one is counting her out yet. But we are now in the phase of the political process where we vote for the President, and Hillary isn't an option. Please know that Hillary would not want John McCain in the White House, and if you call yourself a Democrat, I can't imagine why you wouldn't do everything in your power to keep him out as well.

English is the New White

The "english as our official language" crowd has been rattling their sabres lately. Let me boil this down:

The idea here seems to be that if you speak english, you are "better" than those who don't. You should not be made to wait in line behind someone who only speaks spanish. The inference here is that english is the "better" language, or that people who speak english are "better" people, more deserving for prompt service. Pressing "1" for english is offensive, they tell us. Imagine if they had to press "1" for spanish and "2" for english? Oh, the outrage! Who do those spanish-speakers think they are, acting so uppity?

They will use, as a rationale, the fact that more people in this country speak english. And since we are a democracy, and majority rules, those people who speak spanish are therefore "second-class", and should have no special treatment. Don't speak english? Too bad. Either they learn english like us "first class" people, or they shouldn't be allowed to vote, drive, get jobs, eat in restaurants, open bank accounts, rent property, own a home, send their kids to school, get medical care, etc.

The idea is offensive, they will say, to see any kind of print in spanish. Instructions on a voting ballot, for instance. Never mind that there's instructions in english. Never mind that the english instructions come first, and the spanish ones second. Never mind that no one has suggested removing the english language instructions, only that they make room for instructions in spanish as well. It's still offensive, we're told.

They seem to see spanish-speaking people as some kind of a threat, like they're a cult that's going to brainwash our kids when we're not looking. We get fed statistics of crime, shutting down emergency rooms, rape and murder, and we good white people are supposed to circle the wagons and protect ourselves from the invasion of these unwashed savages. We're told that spanish-speaking people are up to no good, and should not be trusted.

And of course, they raise the spectre of illegal immigration. They tell us that pandering to the spanish-speaking people (in other words, treating them like human beings) is going to encourage illegal immigration. Never mind that most if not all of these folks shop at Wal-Mart, one of the biggest offenders, hiring more illegal aliens than anyone else. They don't mind the spanish-speakers mowing our lawns and washing our cars like the good little peasants they are, but the minute they try to speak to us in spanish, look out. Now they've gone too far. Spanish speaking people want a living wage? Why, who do they think they are?

They tell us that we need to declare english as our national language, and thereby justify further mistreatment of those non-english speaking riffraff. They want other laws changed as well, to protect their "way of life", even though their way of life is not under attack by anybody. (Unless, by "way of life" you mean systematic and legal discrimination.) They want us to help them maintain their time-honored status of superiority by virtue of language. They want us to think of spanish speaking people as inferior. They create a crisis wher none exists, to scare us into passing laws to maintain their status quo.

But they're not racists - heavens no! This isn't a race issue, they assure us. It's a heritage issue. Just like slavery was a heritage issue. Just like "colored-only" swimming pools, lunch counters and water fountains were about "preserving our heritage". Of course they're not racists. Just because they automatically assume anyone who speaks spanish is an illegal alien doesn't make them racists, does it?

Surely not.

THE SOLUTION FOR SO-CALLED "SANCTUARY CITIES"

Right now Los Angeles, San Francisco, New York, and other major U.S. cities have two things in common: booming economies and high numbers of illegal immigrants. The problem is, many people living in these cities and doing business in these cites have a problem with the "sanctuary city" policies. They continue to do their part to contribute to the economies, despite their objections to their cities' policies.

In the meantime, the federal and local governments can butt heads and tie up the courts trying to prove each other's side wrong. It's all election year posturing and campaign rhetoric, and nothing actually gets accomplished. They use the issue to get people angry enough to vote against one side, and after the election peoples' tempers cool and the issue is largely forgotten until the next election.

I've confessed in a previous post to being a Craig's List addict, and in the past few days the topic of "sanctuary cities" has become THE hot topic. In my browsing the conservative talk radio rants, it seems the hosts on these programs all but froth at the mouth over it. They attack the mayors, the city councils, even the police for not hunting down every last illegal immigrant and deporting them. As I listen to the radio hosts and read the Craig's List posts, I wonder - do these people actually LIVE in a "sanctuary city"? It seems most of them do. Which begs the question: why do they stay? I mean if they're really that fed up, and if there are other cities that don't have these policies, what's stopping these people from going there?

You might think it heartless of me to suggest they pack up and go, but I would remind you, Gentle Reader, of the Conservatives' own slogan: "America - love it or leave it". We've been told on countless occasions that if we latte-swilling liberals hate our country so much, then we should just leave. Go to France, we're told, go to Canada, go somewhere else if you can't appreciate your country. I'm not suggesting anyone expatriate. I am suggesting that while living within the borders of America, a person has the choice of thousands of towns and cities, all with a variety of policies towards immigrants. You can find a town or city whose policies more clearly match your own convictions, and head there.

So with all that in mind, I say it's time for an experiment. Moreover, it's time for people to put some action behind their words and live out their convictions. But most of all, it's time to settle the question: are we, as a society, suffering or benefiting from the presence of illegal immigrants, and from policies that systematically tolerate their presence? It has been show time and time again that one of the most effective ways of getting policies changed is to cut off all financial support from the offending parties until they amend their practices. In other words, a boycott.

So here's how this works - everyone who is opposed to sanctuary cities leaves those cities. They move out, they relocate their families, their businesses, their lives to places with no sanctuary city policies. Then they stay gone for five years. Those of you that have no problem with living in a so-called sanctuary city can stay put.Those that leave, don't do business with anyone who works or lives in a sanctuary city, or anyone who does. Boycott all products and services based in sanctuary cities. Don't send your kids to college in any sanctuary cities. They live their lives, they get their goods and services elsewhere, they do their best to isolate these cities and let them fend for themselves economically, and in all other ways.

After five years, we'll compare the economic state of the sanctuary city residents' economic situation to those living elsewhere. We'll compare average incomes, crime rates, tax rates, education, health, pollution, suicide rates, infant mortality rates, unemployment rates, welfare statistics, and general quality of life. We'll do a side-by-side comparison between sanctuary cities and non-sanctuary cities, in every way that quality of life can be measured. If the quality of life measures out to be overall better in the sanctuary cities, then we will resolve no laws be made to interfere with those policies, as they would clearly be shown to be in the city's best interests. If the quality of life in sanctuary cities is worse, that can use that as a basis for outlawing sanctuary city policies and ridding it of all illegals by any means necessary.

The bottom line is this: if you want to do away with sanctuary city policies, you must first establish that it's in the public's best interest. You must prove beyond a doubt that people's lives would be better without the existence of sanctuary city policies. Because as long as there are people who believe that we as a society benefit from these policies, they will never go away. If you want to PROVE beyond any shadow of doubt that sanctuary cities are a bad idea, in my opinion this is the best way to do it.

You'll notice that I'm not taking a side here. I'm only interested in what's best. And until we can conclusively prove one side right and other side wrong, all we have is a difference of opinion - different conclusions drawn from the same set of facts. Whether you support sanctuary city policies or not, you want to see your point of view validated, proven true, and used as the basis for legislation. I respectfully submit that there is no other way I can think of to prove the point.

Of course, I am a confessed liberal, and I think that the anti-illegal mentality largely fomented by our friends on the right wing speak to their need to vilify a group and focus their hatred into xenophobia. I think they hate Mexicans, and they want it to be not only legal to stick it to all Spanish-speaking people, but they want it deemed patriotic. Hence, all the chest-thumping over these sanctuary cities.

For my part, I live in a sanctuary city and it doesn't bother me one bit. I know most of the people in this city are from somewhere else. Heck, I'm from somewhere else - it just happens that my "somewhere else" is here in the United States. But I came here to this city for the economy and a chance at a better life, at least financially, and I got my wish. So I can't bring myself to begrudge those people who have done the same, even if their "somewhere else" wasn't in this country.

And in my dealings with government, and after witnessing the colossally inept bureaucracy with which they address their affairs, I have to wonder: how many of these so-called "illegal immigrants" are only illegal because our government accepts mediocre work from its own employees? If the policies handed down from Congress addressed the issue of immigration with the same enthusiasm the immigrants demonstrate in their high-risk border crossings, how many "illegals" would we have? If the people responsible for processing the paperwork from these would-be citizens worked as hard as the Mexicans busing tables and washing cars in this city, I have to wonder: would we have fewer illegals?