The Body Politic

VIEWPOINT: A Conservative Comes in from the Cold

Guest blogger "Dave Allen" has a sensitive lobbying job inside the Beltway, so he is using a pseudonym to contribute to The Body Politic. He is a diehard conservative. The editor is a personal friend and has vetted his identity and credentials. The viewpoints shared here are not necessarily those of the editor, but they are welcome here as are all well-articulated opinions that help us elevate the discourse on the most important policies, issues and leaders of our day. If you wish to contribute a guest blog, email: bodypoliticblog@gmail.com.

By Dave Allen, Guest Blogger

There is no easy way to say this:

In 2001, Republicans captured the White House and held majorities in the House and the Senate (slight, but a majority). Conservative (Republican appointed) SCOTUS held a 5-4 majority. They also held a majority of state governorships and even state legislatures.

Today in 2008, all of that is gone.  By January, Democrats will hold the White House, the Senate, the House, 29 governorships. 28 state legislatures, and the new Democrat president will likely make two SCOTUS appointments within 18 months, giving a 6-3 majority.

My party has slowly, gradually, but completely GOTTEN THEIR ASSES KICKED.   I say "my party" but the Republicans of 2008 aren't even close to being the true conservative ideologues that attracted me to the Party Of Reagan back in the 1980's. As the GOP moved farther away from limited government, lower spending, and a strong defense, I have more and more started identifying myself as a "conservative" and less as a "Republican".  While not a member of the Libertarian Party, I more and more identify with libertarian principles.  I now identify more closely with the Cato Institute than the Heritage Foundation. And I am not alone, millions of my conservative colleagues have done the same.

It used to be FUN to be a Republican.  Using Reagan as an icon, scrapping with liberals just to prove a point. Even in the 90's, uniting with Newt against the "evil liberal" Bill Clinton (who actually in retrospect, governed as a moderate).  But now, while I am still very proud of my  conservative principles , they aren't always represented by the GOP.  Sometimes I'm embarrassed for my own leaders. Not by them, but for them.

THE ELEPHANT IS VERY SICK. If the Republicans don't self-diagnose and self-medicate, the Party of Lincoln may find itself threatened with extinction, the same thing that eventually happened to the Whigs and the Federalists.

# # #

Editor's Note: You may also want to watch this YouTube video on why the GOP should be glad that McCain Lost so badly this year. It is produced by another conservative, and it turns the GOP's pureplay attack politics on its head.

HISTORY: Our America Elects Barack Obama; the President-Elect is Circumspect

And the people have a new job to do

By Kimberly Krautter

Indeed, our hands are once again on the "arc of history," and we are bending it to the hope of a better day. I have never been so proud of our America.

There is a lot of Wednesday morning quarterbacking going on right now. To the surprise of some no doubt, I am not going to get into that. There will be plenty of time to parse the woulda, coulda, shouldas, and to certainly examine the possibilities. Next week, I will publish my "cabinet dream team" and open up that for discussion.

Instead, today, I wonder if some of you were likewise struck by the sober tone of Obama's acceptance speech last night. Here's a guy with a mega-watt smile and a stratospheric oratory style. And yet, each "Yes we can" was delivered with such prudence.

Take a look at the speech. From the moment he walked out on stage, the President-Elect held a posture that indicated he was wearing the mantle of the office. He delivered his message with measure and deep circumspection.

At a time of enormous jubiliation in our country and shared global celebration; when the light of American Liberty once again shone so brightly, Barack Obama, the man who was the cause of that revelry was startlingly reserved.

Personally, I felt a pull in my stomach. My heart was soaring, but my gut was listening to the undertones.

I have heard from some national security insiders that each new President is aghast when he is finally presented the file that shows the actual state of our national security. I've been told that the Defense and State departments as well as the Treasury department had made appointments with each candidate to meet with whomever won the election within 48 hours to begin the briefings.

For Obama, this means no time for a victory dance. No time for rest. The game is afoot. And it is a big one.

Pundits will say that the stakes are extraordinarily high for the Obama Presidency not only because of the issues of our time but because of his unique place in history. I am struck from his speech last night and from insider insights that we, the body politic, have a certain responsibility to bear as well.

This moment, this election is as much ours as his. Obama's success is wholly dependent upon our support. Just as it will be incumbent upon the President-Elect to lead from the center and to act bi-partisanly, it is vital for us to put aside our own partisanships and vested interests to become educated on what it will take for our nation to turn the corner towards peace and prosperity.

We have applauded loudly many times as candidate Obama called the nation to service. With his election, it is our turn to step up, share the mantle and put our money/time where are cheers are.

Our job as citizens did not end with casting a ballot yesterday. It only began. A successful Obama presidency will forever secure the blessings of history on our nation. It will change the DNA of our nation and greatly impact the world. But that success rests on our shoulders as much as his.

Praising Krugman; Prizing Old School Journalism

By Kimberly Krautter

This morning, The Body Politic salutes Paul Krugman, the newest Nobel Laureate for Economics, and discusses the need for front line journalism that rises to the level of quality that we routinely get on the editorial pages.

Paul Krugman is better known as a regular columnist for The Gray Lady. His two recent books "The Great Unraveling" (2004) and "The Conscience of a Liberal," (2007) aptly disabuse conventional notions that wanton free-market economics are the foundation of middle class success. With the skill of a journalist, he uses academically weighted evidence to prove that the modern intersection of extremist evangelical politics and neo-conservative policies has done nothing more than weaken the middle class. More importantly, he predicted that those political and policy strategies would lead to the near full collapse of capitalism itself -- as we have seen over the last few weeks.

As an individual, a critical thinker and a leading voice in the national dialogue, Krugman proves that the gutter rhetoric spewed by conservative gas bags like Limbaugh, Coulter, Hannity and the rest of the neo-con echo chamber endangers not only our national soul but our national security because it distracts us from the real issues, sharply divides us against each other and keeps our minds off the store (read: the government) and what is being done in our name and in the name of future generations. (Of course the liberal Chatty Kathys like Maureen Dowd, Michael Moore are just as guilty).

I'm all for info-tainment. I'm a big fan of “The Daily Show”, “The Colbert Report” and will even watch Glenn Beck or listen to Neal Boortz from time to time. Yet, it is precisely because our news organizations have tried to chase ratings instead of the truth that they have become little more than info-tainment, and they are losing the ground of influence to TV comedians and radio hate mongers.

BBC America reports that Krugman, a distinguished professor of economics and international affairs at Princeton University, achieved this high honor because,

"The Nobel jury said Mr. Krugman's work had led to theories that could help explain the effects of free trade and globalisation and the driving force behind worldwide urbanisation.

"He has thereby integrated the previously disparate research fields of international trade and economic geography," the academy said in its citation.

"Krugman's approach is based on the premise that many goods and services can be produced more cheaply in a long series, a concept generally known as economies of scale," it went on.

"Meanwhile, consumers demand a varied supply of goods. As a result, small-scale production for a local market is replaced by large-scale production for the world market, where firms with similar products compete with one another."

While today we celebrate Paul Krugman's Nobel Prize, we must also offer this caution:  The Fourth Estate went into foreclosure about two decades ago. It is good for all interested that a handful of media properties like Krugman, Thomas Friedman, Mark Halperin, Lou Dobbs and the venerable Katharine Weymouth still keep challenging the status quo and add substance to the national discourse. But, the first three are columnists -- what those of us from the old school of journalism used to call editorial opinion writers -- and Ms. Weymouth is a publisher. None are front line journos doing the job of dispatching hard news from the field (although Halperin made the transition from correspondent to analyst in the last few years). 

America and the global interests so dearly tied to her success desperately need journalists who can take the opinions of Krugman et.al. off of the editorial pages and do an unbiased job of dissecting the facts that underpin those opinions so that the body politic can be informed without the taint of slant.

"Slant" used to be as cardinal a sin in news reporting as a typo or burying the lede. These days we have precious few of those who would meet such muster. Christiane Amanpour and Nic Robertson define "trust" with their intrepid journalism that holds all sides accountable. Kitty Pilgrim has been a very strong correspondent on the business beat, but she has been forced to editorialize more and more with her increased participation on Lou Dobbs' show. For a long time she appeared clearly uncomfortable with breaking the rule against slant. However, when caught by the glare of a live TV and when earnestly and doggedly challenged for an opinion by Dobbs, she relented. Now in her role as occasional host of the program, Pilgrm as been forced to regularly express editorial opinion.

Even strident field reporters like Michael Ware and David Mattingly are regularly probed by news desk hosts for comment on the stories they report when doing live cuts. There is a young female war correspondent that I find most impressive, but I cannot recall her name. I've spent the last half hour attempting to search for her name to no avail. Then I realized... it is better that I don't know her name. In the "old days", when it came to news, knowing a reporter by name meant that the reporter, not the story, was the focus of attention.  We need more of this.

So, while I fervently congratulate Mr. Krugman for a well deserved accolade, it is time for fewer opinion writers and more unbiased, unbranded reporting.

McCain: Trading In His Character to Chase the News Cycle

By Kimberly Krautter

The only thing less attractive than a candidate running on the “It’s My Turn” platform (Dole, Kerry, Clinton), is one who runs on the “I Know You Are But What Am I?” platform.

As usual, with only three weeks to go before election day, and with early voting begun in many parts of the nation, the timbre of the rhetoric is heating up and the tactics are going down to the lowest levels.

Yup, things are getting nasty out there. It’s starting to look like schoolyard scrapping. One candidate goes negative and the other guy responds in turn, and when the teacher (read: pundits) call them both on it, the second guy says, “He started it!”

As a communications professional, I’m often asked to parse just what makes an ad “negative”. The term has become a bit nebulous. When the chips are down for a candidate, he often cries foul when his opponent airs an ad that challenges his record and turns the candidate’s words or votes against him. Frankly, in the world of advertising and marketing, that’s considered fair play. Think about the famous “Pepsi Taste Challenge” from the 1980s.

While the tone of such an ad might be “contrary”, it’s not truly “negative.” A negative ad/attack ad is one that gets nasty and personal and takes the discourse away from the issues and fails to promote the platform – the advertiser candidate’s vision for the future should he be elected.

Over the last three days, the McCain camp turned truly negative. Down in the polls and with his Veep choice exposed for the cynical political ploy that it is, the man who pledge to keep the focus on the issues launched an ad calling his opponent, “Dangerous.”

Let’s do some fact checking.

The McCain/Palin charge: Obama is dangerous because he “closely associates” with homegrown terrorists like Bill Ayers of the radical group the Weathermen.

The Truth: Fifteen years ago as a rookie candidate for the state house of representatives, a young Barak Obama attended a fundraiser held by a distinguished professor at the University of Illinois named Bill Ayers who worked with Chicago Mayor Richard M. Daley on issues of elementary school education reform to elevate the standards of teaching in the inner cities. Ayers also worked on anti-poverty issues via grants from the powerful and far-reaching Annenberg and Woods Foundations.

As a community organizer, Barak Obama served on a charity board of directors with Bill Ayers. As young candidate concerned with issues of public school education and poverty, Obama did attend a fundraiser and campaign event at the home of Ayers.

It is also true that when Obama was 8 years old, Bill Ayers was a member of the 60s radical group The Weathermen. These were nasty people. They did identify with Maoist Communists, and they believed in violent overthrow of government. They put their beliefs into practice committing a series of bombings, jailbreaks and street riots.

It’s worth noting that, Obama was 8 years old and living in Hawaii at that time. And 26 years later when he became loosely acquainted with Ayers, the radical had never been convicted or jailed for the activities of his associates with the exception of a sit-in.

Facts on the Flip-Side

In stark contrast, John McCain’s close associate Charles Keating was convicted and thrown in Federal prison for illegal banking activities with Junk Bonds that caused the Savings & Loan crisis of the late 1980s and early 1990s which caused a market crash that required a government/taxpayer bailout.

You know what they say in the sandbox about pointing a finger…the rest of your fingers point back to you…

In fact, John McCain and four other seated U.S. Senators were so in bed with the felon Charles Keating that they were known as “The Keating Five”. John McCain was not only an adult of advanced age at the time of this association; he was a trustee of the people as a U.S. Senator. Furthermore, he was investigated for corruption for his part in getting regulators to back off and allow disastrous junk bond dealing.

The familiarity between the loosey-goosey deregulation that led to junk bond dealing that caused millions of elderly people to lose their nest eggs with the S&L crisis and today’s loosey-goosey deregulation that has caused millions of families to lose their homes with the mortgage meltdown cannot be overstated.

It is a far more legitimate question of McCain's character for him to use his chief surrogate Sarah Palin to challenge the character of Barak Obama based on a brief and fleeting association with a 60s radical in the face of his own complicity and corruption with a convicted felon as a means of simply scoring political points. Frankly, it is an indictment against McCain's character.

Once again, I am personally sickened by McCain’s naked cynicism and what is becoming an ever more desperate grab for the Oval Office simply because he stridently believes that it’s his turn.

America: Is this a man you want managing the most important issues of our time? McCain's increasingly reckless gambles (the “VP from Nowhere” and the nasty negative advertising in the face of his own past associations) portend that he will be likewise reckless and gamble with the future of our nation to appease his own ego and political legacy.

A man who chases the news cycle is not the man I trust to be President of the United States. We need someone with a sense of measured statesmanship and discernment to make the critical decisions that we need to secure our future.

THE BAILOUT: More Gordon Gekkonomics

By Kimberly Krautter

Let's be clear: our current economic crisis is not about cash. It's about credit. It's about the debt game and a pernicious pandemic addiction to debt instruments.

I'm rather relieved that Congress took a vacation today because we all need to take a time out and get some perspective. YES, the vicious 7% decline in the stock market is painful. And, the media kept punching that bruise in the context of the no vote on the revised Paulson plan and the near failure of another major bank (Wachovia).

However, yesterday's event does not even rise to the category of trauma. It did not, in fact, even break into the list of top ten worst days in the history of Wall Street (CNN Money). Although a few voices of reason attempted to make this clear, they were drowned out by the cacophony from the echo chambers.

The message that we keep hearing from media folks who report on business and the economy is that if banks won't lend each other money then the entire bedrock of the American economy will liquefy, businesses will collapse and America will go back to bartering for goods and services. They threaten that If the banks won't lend each other money then they won't lend it to us.

So what? Cash is -- and always has been -- king. You don't walk into a grocery store and say, "I'll gladly pay you Tuesday for some hamburger meat today." No. You want the beef, and if they have it, and the price is right, you pay for it. 'Nuff said.

Even in this time of crisis, the only small businesses that are not going to make payroll are those who unwisely risked their cash positions, and so they deserve to fail. Isn't that the definition of free market capitalism?

That is how small business and ALL good businesses operate. At least that's how it used to be. The problem we are reading about in today's headlines is that too many big businesses have gotten drunk on debt and leveraged (read: "gambled") their cash position on the promise of great gains by buying a parking spot on Wall Street. Essentially the big guys stepped away from business basics and started to put at risk more than just their net profits.

True, this worked beautifully for a period of time (one in which there were regulations in place to prevent wholesale chicanery), and this type of strategic business finance allowed many companies to diversify and led to the rise in global commerce. But as regulatory controls were relaxed, the funny business and fuzzy math began.

Unfortunately for the rest of us (homeowners, small business operators and other taxpayers), after 20 years of Gordon Gekkonomics, the Wall Streeters figured out a scheme to earn even more per-trade fees by taking their own counsel and diversifying their services. They began to target the small investor, and in a truly brilliant stroke, they used their big corporate clients as street corner pushers of the new debt drug.

In a move that would make the biggest Mafia boss green with envy, Wall Street bosses leaned on corporations and said, "Pay me protection against those pesky employees, and tell them that in lieu of cash compensation, you'll invest about 15-25% of it for them (with us, wink-wink, nudge-nudge) and they'll end up with a big retirement bungalow in Boca on the backend."

When this new game was initiated, the 401K and profit sharing plans were optional.  As it gained in popularity though (and not so coincidentally in the go-go days of the Clinton '90s) it became mandatory. Today, new employees in all but the retail industry no longer have the option to earn full cash compensation with which to spend or invest as they wish. Consequently, as the corporation goes, so goes the nest egg.

One would have thought that the regulators would have learned not to trust the Wall Street Robber Barons after the Savings & Loan collapse of the '80s and the Enron fiasco of the '90s. But, then again, since the regulators themselves are so personally vested in Wall Street as are all of the elected leadership, (who are further compromised by accepting campaign donations from Wall Streeters) to expect clarity and perspective is a stretch.

Now hold on Hoss. Take your finger off the trigger and come down off that high horse of yours before you accuse me of suggesting that we should NOT invest or worse just stick our money under the mattress. Far from it. As my dad, a CPA, always said, the greatest story ever told about money and capitalism is Frank Capra's "It's a Wonderful Life". The point of that movie so apropos to now is are we going to continue to allow the Potters of this world sell us a bill of bad debt? Or are we going to smartly maintain a cash position, live/do business within our means now and invest only that which we can afford to risk? Doing the latter ensures that Old Man Gower gets to keep his store and Mrs. Macklin can keep her house.

Although for more than 20 years my career has been in corporate communications (and still is), last year I bought a small event design firm that was owned by a dear friend who passed away. On the side, I had helped him operate it for years, and I knew full well the perils and pitfalls of balancing the books, meeting payroll and satisfying customers while maintaining a high level of quality. It's a tough and mean task. Still only operating it as a side business, we have been able to stay afloat using old-school business basics. With the signs and portents of the current economic crisis looming last year, I kept a careful eye on the cash position, inventory position and marketplace and made sound strategic moves to cut overhead so the company could operate within its means.

A bottom up, Capra-esque stabilization strategy is not just the stuff of heartwarming cinema. Even New York Times columnist and noted Princeton economist Paul Krugman agrees. Just last night on CNN's Larry King Live he and the irascible Ben Stein agreed that a bottom-up strategy would prove far more healthy and intelligent than the stink bomb bill currently before Congress. It puts real cash into the pockets of people who live and trade in real cash. It gets cash flowing through banks at the retail level and through businesses where real goods and services are bought and sold. A strategy like this keeps the middle class working and earning.

The Robber Barons do not like this plan because they exist in a wholly virtual world in which real money never changes hands, only ephemeral exchanges of ones and many, many zeroes.

If we can stop the spin and hype, and take one good minute to THINK, perhaps we will realize that "Greed, for lack of a better word, is good" -- but only for a select few. There is no such thing as "trickle down" in Gekkonomics unless you count the stink of the decay of the middle class.

I don't know about you, but I find it unconscionable that in only three generations our country has gone from the depths of economic depression to enjoy the wide freedoms bought by a disciplined free market after WW2 to a drunken debt orgy and near collapse.

I do think a solution needs to be wrought. I do not claim to have the knowledge to recommend or counsel on the subject, but I do know that the Gordon Gekkos should not earn one penny from it. I also think that we the middle class taxpayers on whose future and posterity the solution will be borrowed should be part of the calculus. After all, the banks and robber barons expect to be compensated when they put their money at risk, and so should we.

THE FIRST "DEBATE": Blah, Blah, Blah, Blather

By Kimberly Krautter

The only thing more banal than Friday's (ersatz) debate was the performance of the so-called "Chief Strategists" of the Obama and McCain campaigns as they appeared yesterday on "Meet The Press". These Sunday Fauntleroys were more scripted than a petit prince in a starched collar.

So, in case you had something more important to do like reconcile your check book against the line of credit keeping the roof over your head,  here's a recap:

The esteemed Mr. Brokaw did the late Russert proud by making a very swift cut-to-the-chase by declaring moot any discussion of who won/lost the Friday contest. Instead, he asked if either candidate was happy about the "agreement" on the latest Wall Street bailout program.

First up, McCain's proxy, Mister Steve Schmidt. His answer (and, mind you, this is a direct quote translated into American English for those who don't speak Beltway):

"Blah, blah, blah, blather. My guy saved the day in the greatest strategic move since Alexander crossed Hellespoint. Blah, blah, my guy is a MAVERICK, A-N-D even the House GOP loves him. Blah, blah, blah."

Pivoting with the precision of a Dean Smith baller in an NCAA tourney, Mister David Axelrod for Team Obama countered with this pithy retort (again, translated for your convenience).

"Blah, Blah, blah, talking point, talking point, talking point. Because our guy is smarter than your guy, blah, blah, blah-blah-blah. Talking point. Blah."

Well, Brokaw in all of his journalistic eminence was not about to let these two talking heads get away with THAT! So with a swift, stolid query that telegraphed, "I knew you guys would say that, and I was ready for you, so TAKE THAT!" He asked, (translated):

"So the conservative sounding board and Bushy-ite champion the Wall Street Journal says that both of your candidates stunk up the place last Friday. What do you say about that. Huh? "

To which Axelrod -- with a ramrod straight sense of confidence -- said, "Blah, blah, blah, BLATHER! Talking point, talking point, talking point. Blah, blather," with a look that said, "So there, Brokaw."

Not to be outdone, Mister Schmidt said, "I'm utterly changing the subject. Ha, ha, ha! Bet you didn't see THAT one coming! I want to completely distract you from that embarassing line of questioning because I know my guy STUNK THE ROOM UP last Friday and looked like a neutered Dan Quayle, so I'm going to keep talking as long as it takes for Russert to roll in his grave and tap Brokaw on the shoulder..."

O.K. readers... I don't think you need the entire transcript to get the point. So, at least this year the distinction between the two brands -- er, I mean, candidates -- exceeds the choice between Coke and Pepsi. But what do we really have here? With only 41 days to go, and early voting already at the disposal of a large swatch of the citizen population, could God, Allah or Quetzacoatl tell The Body Politic if our choice is more finely drawn than between a Seussian "Thing 1 and Thing 2"?

Honestly, considering recent signs that we have indeed entered the 9th circle of Hell, it seems that we are choosing between two equally destructive forces after whom we -- the taxpayers/voters AND our GREAT grandchildren -- are going to have to clean up.

Bitter, party of one. Bitter! Your table is ready...

So, here's my own political calculus this year: It's the History-thing, stupid!

My beloved America is but an infant of history, but in our oh-so-brief 221 years on the geo-political globe, we have made quite the impact. And accordingly, in times of crisis and tumult, our body politic has found respite in signs and symbols around which we rally our resolve. To wit, I humbly offer this: At the risk of being accused of ageism, I pick Obama. It's not an age-thing, rather a generation-thing.

Obama may not have the depth of chronological experience nor the military resume, but he does represent (symbolize) and hearken a new generation of thinking; one that is agnostic on the distracting issues of race, gender, creed, or social status. An Obama presidency would, in sharp relief, provide a signal to our own populace as well as to the world, that America has moved beyond the bugaboos of our history (those pesky inconsistencies between rhetoric and reality) to usher in a new way of thinking that has less to do with past glories and more to do with a future that embraces the inner-Republic of all nations.

Les Miserables: Welcome to Bizarro World

How appropriate to have awaken to an ad for the touring company of "Les Miserables". Our current events more closely resemble the tomes of Hugo or Dickens than at any other time in our history. It truly is "the best of times, it is the worst of times" as the news media screams a tale of two Americas: Those inside the Beltway and those tightening our belts.

The robber barons who pillaged and plundered using fuzzy math to over-value real estate are in charge of the "bailout" plan -- the only bill in modern history less than several thousand pages to waft down from the ivory towers and be shoved down the throats of Congress and into the pockets of the constituency. Pretenders to the throne are posturing a plenty saying, "Help yourself to this crumb of cake while we fully empty the national cupboards."

Is it just me, or has the absurdity reach the level of total incomprehension? The Dems are aligned with Bush. House GOP reps want to protect the little guy. Clinton is defending McCain. A "suspended" campaign equals a full day of photo ops and a full court press by surrogates. Lindsay Lohan is gay. What else!?!

So let's recap: The same Wall Street and banking whiz kids responsible for "impudent real estate lending" resulting in the S & L crisis and caused the market crash of 1987 which cost (US) the tax payers $126 Billion and contributed to massive deficits...

...Are the same guys who over-valued ether to create the dot-com bust and de-regulated energy and telecom leading to the market collapse of 2001 and the plunder of billions in pensions thanks to Enron and Worldcom et.al...

...Are the same guys who got the nation drunk on easy sub-prime credit, created the "exotic mortgage backed securities" on which trillions of other lending are propped and led to the current "crisis"...

... So THIS is the braintrust on which our "leaders" are relying to wisely spend $700 Billion to "rescue" our economy?

Meanwhile late night comedians are playing Jean Valjean. What we really need is a Madame LaFarge? (And the hockey mom won't cut it -- she's about as intimidating as Mlle Baptistine.)

MEA CULPA: My Own Flip-Flop on McCain

By Kimberly Krautter

Simply stated, I was for McCain before I was against him.

Eight years ago, I was such a McCain fan that I blogged a proposed "Gore-McCain" ticket. Of course, I knew that was a scandalous suggestion to the wingnuts on both sides of politcs. Yet, since McCain was (then) a social moderate, a true maverick, etc. I thought his strengths made a great complement to Gore's. I also thought, how healing it would be to our bitterly divided country to have a ticket that defined bi-partisanship and called for -- dare I thought -- partnership politics and perhaps even a return to statesmanship in Washington.

Even without a combined ticket, had McCain won the GOP nomination that year, I would have voted for him over Gore because I was sickened by the then Veep's inability to be strong in his own convictions. As a professional "handler", I was deeply upset by how Gore had allowed himself to be overly handled, resulting in a campaign that I viewed as a cynical grab for higher office.

Flash forward to this year... I am likewise sickened by McCain's weakening spine. His pledge to put "country first" now looks like nothing more than patented Rovian doublespeak.

Without further ado, here is a list of McCain's flip-flops and other inconsistencies which are guiding my decision to vote against him this year. (NOTE: Much of this info has been gleaned from other blogs. I apologize for failing to cite the sources and promise to amend this posting ASAP with that info and links.)

• Peggy Noonan (conservative strategist, speechwriter for Reagan and Daddy Bush) on why the Palin pick is cynical and opportunistic http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TDBW0SbDxPo
• Charles Krauthammer (ultra-conservative columnist and Republican wonk for the Wasington Post)http://tpmcafe.talkingpointsmemo.com/talk/2008/08/ultraconservative-charles-krau.php
• Frank Rich (NYTimes liberal columnist) on the big white elephant in the room http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/14/opinion/14rich.html?_r=1&hp&oref=slogin

And, for your review... the ever expanding list of McCain flip-flops on major policy:

• TORTURE: (this column cites specific legislation on which McCain has voted, appeasing Bush admin policy on "enahanced interrogation" techniques such as waterboarding, etc.)http://www.huffingtonpost.com/philip-giraldi/john-mccain-and-torture_b_87163.html
• ABORTION: Now he's both for and against overturning Roe v. Wade.
• TORTURE: McCain took a firm line in opposition to torture, and then caved to White House demands.
• RELIGIOUS RIGHT:  McCain criticized TV preacher Jerry Falwell as "an agent of intolerance" in 2002, but has since decided to cozy up to the man who said Americans "deserved" the 9/11 attacks. (Indeed, McCain has now hired Falwell's debate coach.)
• RELIGIOUS RIGHT: McCain was against presidential candidates campaigning at Bob Jones University before he was for it.
• BUSH TAX CUTS: McCain used to oppose Bush's tax cuts for the very wealthy, but he reversed course in February.
• ENERGY INDEPENDENCE: McCain was anti-ethanol. Now he's pro-ethanol.
• CAMPAIGN FINANCE 1: In 2000, McCain accused Texas businessmen Sam and Charles Wyly of being corrupt, spending "dirty money" to help finance Bush's presidential campaign. McCain not only filed a complaint against the Wylys for allegedly violating campaign finance law, he also lashed out at them publicly. In April, McCain reached out to the Wylys for support.
• CAMPAIGN FINANCE 2:  McCain supported a major campaign-finance reform measure that bore his name. In June, he abandoned his own legislation.
• CAMPAIGN FINANCE 3:  McCain gave up on his signature policy issue, campaign-finance reform, and won't back the same provision he sponsored just a couple of years ago.
• CONFEDERATE FLAG: (Albeit not a major policy issue, but one that measures a candidates political cynicism and opportunism) McCain was both for and against state promotion of the Confederate flag.
• GENERAL PHILOSOPHY: McCain used to think that Grover Norquist was a crook and a corrupt shill for dictators. Then McCain got serious about running for president and began to reconcile with Norquist.

No matter what your political sympathies, it's important to stand tall and demand the most from our leadership. Even more important is to have dialogue with family, friends and neighbors. It was through respectful and spirited dialogue that our Founders drafted the U.S. Constitution -- that wonderfully revolutionary parchment that gave birth to our nation and changed our world. Let's make it o.k. to once again talk about issues around our family dinner tables and friendly gatherings. It is the legacy that our forefathers bequeathed to us, and it is vital to ensure that our children witness this so that legacy continues for generations to come.

Remembering David Halberstam

"The idea that somewhere before it is a big story that there is some young person... putting themselves on the line morally, ethically, journalistically, that is a great thing," Halberstam told the AP. "I mean, that is what a free society is about."

Our country and our ever shrinking world lost a giant yesterday. Critical of the mainstream press which he loved so much, I believe Halberstam looked to the Blogosphere to collectively carry the torch of original,true, unsensational journalism.

His call to arms was to pick up the pen or the keypad and report, but report with integrity and an intrepid dedication to uncovering the truth. This requires sourcing; a challenge for the average blogger whose access is limited to the craft of Internet research. Fortunately, there are professional journalists among our colleagues, so we can look to them for that. It also requires, critical thinking and the willingness to always question, especially ones own hypotheses.

This is where the average blogger can excel. Ask questions that challenge the sources and sourcing of mainstream journalism. Challenge your own position so as not to become entrenched. Never stop asking questions.

And always, seek Truth and speak it to power -- that is transformational communication.

REQUIRED READING

Defining A Nation -- Essays compiled by David Halberstam

The Powers That Be -- At once a reverent revisiting of the heyday of Post WWII journalism and a lamentation of the corporate media we have today. A challenge to editors, professional press and bloggers  alike.

The Best and Brightest -- An expansion on his earlier work "The Making of a Quagmire". A condemnation of the ivory tower leadership (McNamara, Westmoreland, Rusk, Kennedy, et.al.) who engineered the Vietnam War. Who will write the definitive piece on the eerie coda that is Iraq?

Mr. President, your lab results are in.

In a fitful moment, President Bush said, "I will not withdraw, even if Laura and Barney are the only ones supporting me."  How very revealing... on so many levels.

Dear Mr. President:

YOU are not the issue. Perhaps you should read the Constitution. The job of President of the United States is not the same as being president of your fraternity. Perhaps you missed that important class; hence your "gentleman's 'C'."

You are merely an elected representative, hired by the People as an executive manager of our government. Your sworn duty is to protect and defend the Constitution and thereby the nation and her people. As ordained by the Constitution, you are to prosecute matters according to the will of the people.

The People do not support the MAN in the Oval Office. The People support the OFFICE of the President. Perhaps you forgot that we declared our independence from princely pretenders so that we could be citizens of a self-governing nation versus subjects of any one person supposedly ordained by God.

It seems this particular elected position caries a uniquely harsh strain of hubris. Every man who has ever sat in your chair has been infected. Yet, the degree of your petulance is beyond contempt.

Well, there is at least one remedy that can inoculate the People against further abuses of power. If you will not at least proffer a comprehensive strategic plan for victory over terrorism and to extricate us from Iraq -- and a plan on which a majority of your field generals, both active and retired, can agree -- then We the People will pull your funding.

Dear Congress:

Your rubber-stamping days are numbered. Grow a spine, or you are out of a job in a few weeks.

At this point, most of the nation could not care less whether we pull the lever for a Republican or a Democrat. Neither party has demonstrated true leadership. Partisanship over statesmanship is the reason we are in trouble.

No true freshman Congressperson could do worse than any sitting incumbent.

One of your duties is to manage the purse strings of our nation. That includes performing the necessary due diligence. It is your job to review all expenditures requested by the President and make sure that monies are appropriated in a manner that will protect and defend the nation and her interests. This likewise includes performing an annual audit to make sure our tax dollars are being used properly.

You have NOT done your job!

Dear America:

Not one person currently in Congress is owed your vote. Each one is guilty of playing petty politics instead of providing the leadership and guidance our country needs in a time of war.

Vote against spineless rubber stamping. Vote against the enablers of drunken pork spending when provisions and promises are broken time after time to our troops and their families. Vote against back door tax increases that raise our healthcare costs and tuitions limiting our choices and any chance to enjoy life an liberty. Vote against increasing poverty roles and declining access to the American dream.

Vote against the increase in the terror threat here and around the world. Vote against the fading credibility of our nation.

Vote against failed policies that have enabled two-bit ersatz democratically elected dictators in Venezuela, Iran and Korea to saber rattle and destabilize previously contained threats.

JUST VOTE.  This is not just a right, it is OUR JOB according to the Constitution.

Vote. Or suffer more of the same... and you know what that's called... INSANITY.