© Kevin Renes | Dreamstime.com

The last debate.

Three weeks to go.

Got me to reminisce about my early exposure to politics.

The first presidential debate I ever watched was the first modern presidential debate: Nixon v. Kennedy, 1960.

I was a kid, growing up in a very political household. My dad had been a precinct captain, and was soon to become Democratic township committeeman of our (before he took over) rock-ribbed Republican suburb.

My mother was the brains of the outfit, who had helped my dad go door to door to elect a Democratic congressman whose name was always gold in their house, even 40 years later, Barratt O’Hara.

The first television we had was purchased not to watch Uncle Miltie and the antics of Lucy and Desi, but rather was acquired to watch the conventions of 1952.

In late 1959, my parents began an impossibly quixotic quest: from our family room they created a national campaign to nominate Chester Bowles of Connecticut for president. Where this cockamamie idea came from I have no idea to this day. A very distinguished progressive politician. Before that, a phenomenally successful advertising executive. Once and future ambassador to India and Under Secretary of State.

Way too qualified for the presidency.

Yr (justifiably) humble svt spent many a weekend that year and through mid-1960 stuffing, addressing and stamping envelopes.

It was a simpler time. Stuffing envelopes in support of a national presidential campaign by hand, indeed.

My parents were crushed when they arrived in Los Angeles for the Democratic convention only to find the fix was in, and Jack Kennedy the landslide nominee.

They left, and took a much needed vacation to San Francisco. But, staying with my grandmother, my siblings and I watched that convention, and the Republican one.

So, aged 12, I accompanied my parents to the nearby Unitarian church, where several large screen TVs were set up for the local Democratic party faithful to watch the proceedings. Of course, this being 1960, the large screen TVs were maybe 25-inch.

But it made an impression.

Nixon: tricky,  in need of a shave for his five-o’clock shadow, not trustworthy.

Kennedy: youthful, dynamic, eloquent.

There was no doubt in my young mind who would win the election.

Fast forward 48 years. (O. M. G.)

Watched the debates (all four of them, start to finish) on MUDGElet No. 3′s 50-inch high definition TV, currently harbored (as is he) in our humble abode.

Can’t hide anything from high definition.

Tonight’s final McCain-Obama debate was the best one of their three, I think. McCain finally seemed to be prepared. Askew, but prepared. Way too focused on plumbers for some reason. Maybe it was something he ate.

And Obama seemed, as always, to have command of the facts and was typically imperturbable in the face of the odd grimaces and all too expected character attacks. Does anyone even slightly to the left of Attila the Hun really care about Bill Ayers?

McCain: Ancient, snarling, reptilian.

Obama: Knowledgeable, calm, reassuring.

As more than one observer has noted tonight, it seems inconceivable that one would willingly invite the former into your living room for the next four years. Jarring. Discordant. Discomforting.

Whereas Senator Obama … well, we’ve been listening to and watching him for many, many months now.

Cool under fire. Thoughtful. Capable.

The choice we citizens face November 4 — now, actually for the many states that are allowing early voting — has never seemed so strikingly clear.

The ugly past v. the handsome future.

And their looks have absolutely nothing to do with that comparison.

It’s it for now. Thanks.

–MUDGE

© Pemotret | Dreamstime.com

Sometimes good things happen to good people.

Paul Krugman of Princeton University and the NYTimes, frequently quoted in this space, was awarded the 2008 Nobel Prize in Economics today.

This is worthy recognition to an outstanding thinker, who not only thinks the deep thoughts of his “dismal science,” but articulately delivers complex concepts with clarity.

Well done, Nobel committee, and Paul Krugman!

—————–

Last post, I spoke in glowing terms of one of my favorite progressive blogs, First Door on the Left.

Len did it again today (recognizing Paul Krugman, by the way) by posting the complete transcript of Barack Obama’s fleshed out economic rescue plan delivered in Ohio today.

A Rescue Plan for the Middle Class

Posted by Len on Monday at 1:19 pm in Democrats, Election 2008, Politics

I know these are difficult times. I know folks are worried. But I also know this – we can steer ourselves out of this crisis. Because we are the United States of America. We are the country that has faced down war and depression; great challenges and great threats. And at each and every moment, we have risen to meet these challenges – not as Democrats, not as Republicans, but as Americans.

We still have the most talented, most productive workers of any country on Earth. We’re still home to innovation and technology, colleges and universities that are the envy of the world. Some of the biggest ideas in history have come from our small businesses and our research facilities. It won’t be easy, but there’s no reason we can’t make this century another American century.

But it will take a new direction. It will take new leadership in Washington. It will take a real change in the policies and politics of the last eight years. And that’s why I’m running for President of the United States of America.

My opponent has made his choice. Last week, Senator McCain’s campaign announced that they were going to “turn the page” on the discussion about our economy so they can spend the final weeks of this election attacking me instead. His campaign actually said, and I quote, “if we keep talking about the economy, we’re going to lose.” Well Senator McCain may be worried about losing an election, but I’m worried about Americans who are losing their jobs, and their homes, and their life savings. They can’t afford four more years of the economic theory that says we should give more and more to millionaires and billionaires and hope that prosperity trickles down to everyone else. We’ve seen where that’s led us and we’re not going back. It’s time to turn the page.

Over the course of this campaign, I’ve laid out a set of policies that will grow our middle-class and strengthen our economy in the long-term. I’ll reform our tax code so that 95% of workers and their families get a tax cut, and eliminate income taxes for seniors making under $50,000. I’ll bring down the cost of health care for families and businesses by investing in preventative care, new technology, and giving every American the chance to get the same kind of health insurance that members of Congress give themselves. We’ll ensure every child can compete in the global economy by recruiting an army of new teachers and making college affordable for anyone who wants to go. We’ll create five million new, high-wage jobs by investing in the renewable sources of energy that will eliminate the oil we currently import from the Middle East in ten years, and we’ll create two million jobs by rebuilding our crumbling roads, schools, and bridges.

First Door on the Left » A Rescue Plan for the Middle Class

Click the link above, and read the entire speech. And, if you care to, Len has posted the video.

Details and substance in a statesman’s package. It’s not that much of a stretch: noble.

The contrast with the shrill, desperate bleating from the Republican opposition couldn’t be more stark.

Obama calmly talks numbers, carefully researched and thoughtfully delivered.

McCain and the redneckette shout what most voters are accurately recognizing as Faux News/talk radio inaccuracies, and more telling, irrelevancies.

“The only thing to fear is fear itself.” And McCain/redneckette are fearmongers of the classic, Republican stripe.

Citizens: On Nov. 4, cast your decisive vote against fear.

Sen. Obama: Now, make some room for a recent Nobel prize winner on your advisory team.

It’s it for now. Thanks.

–MUDGE

© Ian O hanlon | Dreamstime.com

As some observers have noted after the two conventions, there were lots of distractions, lots of words, but not much in the way of substance.

Especially regarding this nation’s number one concern.

Iraq, you ask?

That’s so 2007.

No, it’s the economy — rather, the very dangerous state of the economy.

Our Republican friends, plutocrats, or plutocrat wannabe’s, don’t believe we have a problem. McCain is and has always been insulated from the real world by, first, years as a Naval officer, where the pay might not be royal but subsidized expenses are low; then years as a prisoner of war, where the cost of living takes on an entirely ugly but non-financial meaning; then many more years as a Senator, married to wealth, a combination as isolated from the real world as it gets. He relies on his good buddy and close advisor on topics economic, former colleague Phil Gramm of Texas, who believes we’re all whiners.

The Democrats talked a spectacularly good ball game, but had little substantive to offer us.

Even so, based on their track record, one has to believe that the Democrats are more likely to get it than the Republicans, who have spent the last eight years aiding and abetting the liars and thieves on Wall Street and beyond.

Meanwhile, the news, and its import, is grim and becoming even more so.

The Power of De

Op-Ed Columnist | By PAUL KRUGMAN | Published: September 7, 2008

Save the home lenders, save the world? If only it were that simple.

The just-announced federal takeover of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the giant mortgage lenders, was certainly the right thing to do — and it was done fairly well, too. The plan will sustain institutions that play a crucial role in the economy, while holding down taxpayer costs by more or less cleaning out the stockholders.

But Sunday’s action needs to be seen in a larger context — that of the attempt by the Federal Reserve and the Treasury Department to contain the fallout from the ongoing financial crisis. And that’s a fight the feds seem to be losing.

We’ve come a long way from the days when Alan Greenspan declared a national housing bubble “most unlikely.” There was indeed a bubble, and since it popped two years ago home prices have fallen faster than they did during the Great Depression.

You got that, friends? Home prices have fallen faster in the past two years than they did during the Depression!

Except of course for the plutocrat class, who are apparently insulated from such plebeian concerns.

This great bail out leaves the CEOs of Fannie and Freddy licking their wounds with millions in severance and outlandish pay over the past several years while they directed their organizations into insolvency, and is symptomatic of tough, ugly times ahead.

Op-Ed Columnist – The Power of De – Op-Ed – NYTimes.com

So strategic thinkers, like Paul Krugman, see parallels with Japan, a country that just spent over a decade in an economic funk, that our own current problems threaten to renew for them.

It’s time for some substantive strategic thinking on rescuing the nation from this economic crisis from our presidential candidates.

If I dare to repeat myself, it’s going to take a liberal quantity of BOLD.

Senator McCain’s version of bold is his typically impulsive and reckless choice for vice presidential candidate, a political and religious wingnut. Palin makes Tricky Dick Cheney look like an accomplished statesman. After all his hidden agenda is only oil. And oil money.

Senator Obama, the ball is in your court.

Give your country something to chew on: a real plan to pull this country away from the abyss.

If you make sense, if you give people the substantive means, not just hopeful words, to see light at the end of this gloomy tunnel, then you win.

If you won’t, then I’m very afraid that you will be handing the election to those who vote on superficialities, not issues.

And I’m very afraid that those superficialities will beat you.

It’s ugly, I know, but true.

It’s it for now. Thanks,

–MUDGE

© Catia Amadio | Dreamstime.com

MUDGE’s Musings

In case current events in the nation of Georgia haven’t made the fact crystal clear, yr (justifiably) humble svt is unhappy to inform you that the U.S. military hasn’t exactly covered itself in glory over the past nearly 20 years since the end of the Cold War.

And the diplomatic corps has similarly shown itself to be overstressed and undermanned.

Nicholas Kristof made the point this past weekend: the U.S. has more musicians in its military bands than it has diplomats!

And what Kristof’s story omits, due to rapidly breaking events, is the failure of both U.S. diplomacy and U.S. military strength during the Russian invasion of Georgia this past week.

Military strength? Well, we can’t simultaneously put sufficient boots on the ground to meet our objectives in Iraq and Afghanistan, much less come to the aid of a strategically critical ally, Georgia.

Diplomacy? A strong diplomatic corps might have foreseen (yes, hindsight is always 20:20) that Georgia was simultaneously taking U.S. and NATO support as more than words, while underestimating Vladimir Putin’s urge for regained empire, and warned Mikheil Saakashvili away from his adventuristic invasion of South Ossettia.

Or a diplomatic arm with some heft might have been able to forestall, or at least mitigate, Russia’s response. Putin may now be emboldened to exercise his brand of “diplomacy” over other, West-leaning, former states of the old Soviet empire, and the U.S. will be hard pressed to protect them, diplomatically or militarily, if it even figures out that this would be a useful strategy.

But George III is a happy warrior, as befits a civilian who took giant steps to avoid substantive military service, and diplomacy apparently doesn’t mean much to him, or it appears, to Congress.

Make Diplomacy, Not War

Op-Ed Columnist | By NICHOLAS D. KRISTOF | Published: August 9, 2008

Iraq and Afghanistan are the messes getting attention today, but they are only symptoms of a much broader cancer in American foreign policy.

A few glimpses of this larger affliction:

¶The United States has more musicians in its military bands than it has diplomats.

¶This year alone, the United States Army will add about 7,000 soldiers to its total; that’s more people than in the entire American Foreign Service.

¶More than 1,000 American diplomatic positions are vacant because the Foreign Service is so short-staffed, but a myopic Congress is refusing to finance even modest new hiring. Some 1,100 could be hired for the cost of a single C-17 military cargo plane.

In short, the United States is hugely overinvesting in military tools and underinvesting in diplomatic tools. The result is a lopsided foreign policy that antagonizes the rest of the world and is ineffective in tackling many modern problems.

After all, you can’t bomb global warming.

We increasingly ask our military to be diplomats on the ground, a totally misguided and criminal misuse of force. Women and men trained to kill should hone their expertise in warfare, and leave diplomacy to unarmed experts in the language and culture.

And we love to spend billions on hardware, at the expense of all else.

For the price of one F-22, we could — for 25 years — operate American libraries in each Chinese province, pay for more Chinese-American exchanges, and hire more diplomats prepared to appear on Chinese television and explain in fluent Chinese what American policy is. And for the price of one M.R.E. lunch for one soldier, the State Department could make a few phone calls to push the Chinese leadership to respond to the Dalai Lama’s olive branch a few days ago, helping to eliminate a long-term irritant in U.S.-China relations.

Op-Ed Columnist – Make Diplomacy, Not War – Op-Ed – NYTimes.com

We have lost our way in the world, and one cannot be certain whether even a new administration will know what needs to be done to right the ship of state.

Barack Obama’s most glaring vulnerability is his lack of military, or global experience.

John McCain’s most frightening (from a pretty serious list) propensity is wild overstatements regarding the liberal use of military force.

100 more years in Iraq was not a misstatement, it was an unusually cogent (for this septuagenarian former POW) reflection of his world view: every problem in the world is a nail, and the U.S. military is a damned fine hammer.

This is wrong on every count (and I hope to have more on our current military failings perhaps as soon as tomorrow). The U.S. deserves so much better than its present Evangelical, neocon, mush-mouthed leader, and trading him for an adulterous, corrupt, overaged and showing signs of it every day, misspeaking leader would be a catastrophe on a truly global scale.

Give us a well spoken, analytical, reflective leader, who values diplomacy (and gave the world a brief preview during his “victory” tour a couple of weeks ago), and the nation might just have a chance to once again lead the planet in the important virtues:

Vigorous championship of human rights; leadership by example sustaining economic and political freedom for every one of its 6.5Billion inhabitants; and the resolution of inevitable conflict through substantive and skillful negotiation across a table, not at the business end of a laser guided bomb.

Rebuilding the Foreign Service would be a good start. Even at the expense of a few flugelhorns.

It’s it for now. Thanks,

–MUDGE

MUDGE’s Musings

Frank Rich of the NYTimes eviscerated John McCain over both his supposed area of expertise, military affairs, as well as Sen. McCain’s admitted area of weakness, matters economic. It wasn’t pretty.

It’s the Economic Stupidity, Stupid

Op-Ed Columnist | By FRANK RICH | Published: July 20, 2008

THE best thing to happen to John McCain was for the three network anchors to leave him in the dust this week while they chase Barack Obama on his global Lollapalooza tour. Were voters forced to actually focus on Mr. McCain’s response to our spiraling economic crisis at home, the prospect of his ascension to the Oval Office could set off a panic that would make the IndyMac Bank bust in Pasadena look as merry as the Rose Bowl.

“In a time of war,” Mr. McCain said last week, “the commander in chief doesn’t get a learning curve.” Fair enough, but he imparted this wisdom in a speech that was almost a year behind Mr. Obama in recognizing Afghanistan as the central front in the war against Al Qaeda. Given that it took the deadliest Taliban suicide bombing in Kabul since 9/11 to get Mr. McCain’s attention, you have to wonder if even General Custer’s learning curve was faster than his.

Mr. McCain still doesn’t understand that we can’t send troops to Afghanistan unless they’re shifted from Iraq. But simple math, to put it charitably, has never been his forte. When it comes to the central front of American anxiety — the economy — his learning curve has flat-lined.

Rich follows similar economic criticism of McCain from Paul Krugman 12 days previously, before Phil Gramm elevated himself from has-been to economic advisor to get thee gone in just a few hours time.

Mr. McCain’s fiscal ineptitude has received so little scrutiny in some press quarters that his chief economic adviser, the former Senator Phil Gramm of Texas, got a free pass until the moment he self-immolated on video by whining about “a nation of whiners.” The McCain-Gramm bond, dating back 15 years, is more scandalous than Mr. Obama’s connection with his pastor, the Rev. Jeremiah Wright. Mr. McCain has been so dependent on Mr. Gramm for economic policy that he sent him to newspaper editorial board meetings, no doubt to correct the candidate’s numbers much as Joe Lieberman cleans up after his confusions of Sunni and Shia.

[By the way, the photo at the top of the column will hereby become Left-Handed Complement's official John McCain portrait.]

Carly Fiorina has picked up the economic cudgel from temporarily banished ex-Sen. Gramm. She comes with a wonderful track record: booted out of Hewlett-Packard after five years of big talk and miserable results.

Then Rich wanders into a long-time hobby-horse of this nanocorner of the ‘Sphere©, Michael Bloomberg, positing him a potential vice president on the McCain ticket.

Mr. McCain reminds us every day how principled he is. That presumably means he’d risk a revolt by his party’s dwindling agents of intolerance and do everything in his power to persuade Mr. Bloomberg to join his ticket in the spirit of patriotic sacrifice. The politics could be advantageous too. A Bloomberg surprise could impress independents and keep the television audience tuned in to a G.O.P. convention that will unfold in the shadow of Mr. Obama’s address to 75,000 screaming fans in Denver.

Op-Ed Columnist – It’s the Economic Stupidity, Stupid – Op-Ed – NYTimes.com

All this vice presidential speculation this year provides the usual column-inch filler during the summertime doldrums for the political junkies out here, but it’s also particularly of interest, in a year of unusually vulnerable presidential candidates. (Hey, if Hillary can point it out, so can I. I’m going to hate myself in the morning, though.)

But, hey, Frank Rich! I want Michael Bloomberg for the good guys.

It’s it for now. Thanks,

–MUDGE

It’s baaaaaack! Mid-summer lethargy. Another in a string of Midwestern 90/90 days.

So begging your indulgence yet again, we bring back another gem from the dim, cool and crisp past, last October.

Blast from the Past!

A post we really, really loved to write, and read, and re-read…

From last fall, and always in season, originally posted October 8, 2007, and originally titled “mm164: A Nation of Christians is Not a Christian Nation,”

MUDGE’S Musings

The creation of the United States of America was the result of two parallel streams: the twin manifest desires for freedom of economic opportunity and freedom of religion.

The Bush theocracy would like us to forget the latter. So thanks are due to Jon Meacham in today’s NYTimes, for a useful reminder.

By JON MEACHAM

JOHN McCAIN was not on the campus of Jerry Falwell’s Liberty University last year for very long — the senator, who once referred to Mr. Falwell and Pat Robertson as “agents of intolerance,” was there to receive an honorary degree — but he seems to have picked up some theology along with his academic hood. In an interview with Beliefnet.com last weekend, Mr. McCain repeated what is an article of faith among many American evangelicals: “the Constitution established the United States of America as a Christian nation.”

According to Scripture, however, believers are to be wary of all mortal powers. Their home is the kingdom of God, which transcends all earthly things, not any particular nation-state. The Psalmist advises believers to “put not your trust in princes.” The author of Job says that the Lord “shows no partiality to princes nor regards the rich above the poor, for they are all the work of his hands.” Before Pilate, Jesus says, “My kingdom is not of this world.” And if, as Paul writes in Galatians, “there is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free man, there is neither male nor female: for you are all one in Christ Jesus,” then it is difficult to see how there could be a distinction in God’s eyes between, say, an American and an Australian. In fact, there is no distinction if you believe Peter’s words in the Acts of the Apostles: “I most certainly believe now that God is not one to show partiality, but in every nation the man who fears him and does what is right is welcome to him.”

The kingdom Jesus preached was radical. Not only are nations irrelevant, but families are, too: he instructs those who would be his disciples to give up all they have and all those they know to follow him.

The only acknowledgment of God in the original Constitution is a utilitarian one: the document is dated “in the year of our Lord 1787.” Even the religion clause of the First Amendment is framed dryly and without reference to any particular faith. The Connecticut ratifying convention debated rewriting the preamble to take note of God’s authority, but the effort failed.

The founders of this nation were not irreligious men, although a religion that allowed many of those residing in the southern states to reconcile faith with the holding of slaves has to be judged harshly (perhaps a topic for another day).

But they understood, apparently better than many of their modern-day successors, that the freedom to practice one’s religion is a cornerstone of this nation.

After all, flight from religious persecution was and has been a consistent motivation for waves of immigration, both before, and for nearly every year since the signing of the Constitution.

[Please click the link below for the complete article -- but then please come on back!]

A Nation of Christians Is Not a Christian Nation – New York Times

Messers Falwell, Robertson and McCain: Leave the rest of us alone to practice, or not, the religion of our choice, free from coercion and the pernicious attempts to undermine education in this country with “creation science” and the like.

The founders were not anti-religion. Many of them were faithful in their personal lives, and in their public language they evoked God. They grounded the founding principle of the nation — that all men are created equal — in the divine. But they wanted faith to be one thread in the country’s tapestry, not the whole tapestry.

If you want a Christian nation, I’ve got one for you: France! Should you want a pure theocracy, try Iran! Go hence and prosper, if you can.

It’s it for now. Thanks,

–MUDGE

MUDGE’s Musings

We’ve spent the past month or so watching the candidates come off their primary paces, attempting to rejigger their respective approaches to the general election, and taking some hits for the resulting adjustments.

The mishandled wars in Iraq and Afghanistan have been top of mind for many voters since the pointless charade of “Mission Accomplished!”

Paul Krugman reminds us, however, of another paramount issue in this election, the economy, and what its dire condition means to John McCain.

Our current economic distress has been covered in this nanocorner of the ‘Sphere© quite frequently, most recently while highlighting this glass-half-full analysis from two senior Federal Reserve Bank officials. The U.S. economic juggernaut didn’t get to its current poor state by itself. President Bush, and his Republican allies in Congress can take plenty of the credit.

Behind the Bush Bust

Op-Ed Columnist | By PAUL KRUGMAN | Published: July 7, 2008

By huge margins, Americans think the economy is in lousy shape — and they blame President Bush. This fact, more than anything else, makes it hard to see how the Democrats can lose this election.

But is the public right to be so disgusted with Mr. Bush’s economic leadership? Not exactly. We really do have a lousy economy, a fact of which Mr. Bush seems spectacularly unaware. But that’s not the same thing as saying that the bad economy is Mr. Bush’s fault.

On the other hand, there’s a certain rough justice in the public’s attitude. Other politicians besides Mr. Bush share the blame for the mess we’re in — but most of them are Republicans.

For Krugman, our crummy economy has many causes, but three of the most important are the housing/mortgage bubble, the cost of health care and high commodity (fuel and food) prices. And the seeds to the crises in all of these areas were sown, if not on George III’s watch, then under the constipated purview of the six years of Republican Congresses that immediately preceded Bush’s presidency.

Op-Ed Columnist – Behind the Bush Bust – Op-Ed – NYTimes.com

Whatever his strengths might be, the economy has not been McCain’s area of expertise. As a result, he’s fallen back on knee-jerk Republican economic thought (cut taxes for the wealthy, and the rest be damned) that has led us into this all-but recession. We’ll let Paul Krugman have the last word:

And bear in mind that John McCain has gone to great lengths to affirm his support for Republican economic orthodoxy. So he’ll have no reason to complain if, as seems likely, the economy costs him the election.

It’s it for now. Thanks,

–MUDGE

Most everybody slightly to the left of Attila the Hun knows that there’s much amiss about the United States.

Seldom has yr (justifiably) humble svt encountered as bracing an analysis of why the U.S. has become the global basket case it is, as in Arianna Huffington’s book excerpt published in AlterNet.org today.

How did we get to this benighted valley? How did mainstream Republicans and Democrats of all stripes let it happen? We dropped the ball. Left a vacuum. And, of course, the fools rushed in.

Right Is Wrong — How the Lunatic Fringe Hijacked America

By Arianna Huffington, Knopf Publishing. Posted May 22, 2008.

The GOP is now a dark, putrefied party of Bush, Cheney, Rove, Limbaugh and Coulter. And we’re all the worse because of it.

The following is an excerpt from Arianna Huffington’s new book, Right Is Wrong.

The Radical Takeover

The most sweeping takeover of the new millennium didn’t take place among the telecoms or the big oil companies, or in Silicon Valley. It took place in Washington, but we can see and hear and feel its effects nationwide on our televisions, radios, and computer screens. And America is much the worse because of it. I’m talking about the takeover of the Republican Party by its own lunatic fringe, and the Right’s hijacking of America.

Ronald Reagan’s GOP has been replaced by the dark, moldering, putrefied party of Bush, Cheney, Rove, Limbaugh, and Coulter. Morning in America has given way to Midnight in America.

Yes, the Republican Party has always had its far-right cowboys, its Jesse Helmses and Spiro Agnews. Yet they were removed from the party’s more sober core.

But these days, judging by the opinions and actions of the Republicans in office and the party’s candidates for president, it has become impossible to tell where this core stops and the fanatical fringe begins. Just look at what the party is endorsing.

We have a Republican Party that continues to back the White House’s delusions about Iraq at the expense of our military, our treasure, our safety, and our standing in the world.

We have a mainstream on the Right that supports torture, that confirmed an attorney general nominee who is officially agnostic on torture, and that rallies behind a president who refuses to define what the very word “torture” means.

We have a mainstream that supports — even applauds — the behavior of thuggish Blackwater mercenaries, that supports the gutting of our civil liberties, that opposes universal health care, and that has views on immigration that wouldn’t have been heard outside a John Birch Society meeting ten years ago.

The “supposedly liberal” media can take some “credit” for the current awful state of this nation, as they have legitimized, in the name of balance, the outrageous agenda of the radical Right.

A key to understanding the fanatical Right’s takeover of the Republican Party and how these ideas spread to the rest of the country is looking at the role of the media — not the Fox News pseudo-newsmen or the talk radio blowhards — but the respectable, supposedly liberal media. Without the enabling of the traditional media — with their obsession with “balance” and their pathological devotion to the idea that truth is always found in the middle — the radical Right would never have been able to have its ideas taken seriously. If not for the media’s appeals to balance, movement conservatism would have been laughed out of the court of public opinion long ago. And when the press does attempt to dig into the ideological underpinnings of debates about policy and current affairs, it becomes trapped by another form of the media’s bipolar disorder. Besides seeing two sides to every issue, they insist on seeing most political battles through the lens of right vs. left. By reporting everything that’s happening in American politics through this prism, the media missed the big story: the hijacking of America by the lunatic Right.

As faithful reader may recall, Arianna Huffington, whose primary journalistic endeavor these days is The Huffington Post, always an important read, and, of course, found in our blogroll, once was a Republican.

[Please click the link below for the complete article -- but then please come on back!]

Right Is Wrong — How the Lunatic Fringe Hijacked America | AlterNet

She says she left the Republican party after she realized that only government can provide the funding solutions to the urgent problems our country faces: poverty, a deeply damaged public education system, the crumbling infrastructure.

The mainstream of U.S. thought probably has always believed in government, but has allowed that sensible position, as have so many sensible opinions, get overrun by the “putrid” likes of Cheney, Limbaugh and Coulter.

We, our children and our grandchildren are, and will be paying for scores of years a stupefyingly high price for the radical Right’s takeover of government and the national agenda.

A price measured, of course, in treasure (our tax dollars, as well as catastrophically high prices for commodities such as fuel and food).

A price measured in the loss of economic influence to rapacious oil chieftains and the new global capitalist mafia, as best exemplified by Russia (Tsarist, Communist, Putinist, a thug is a thug is a thug).

A price measured in the erosion of the U.S.’s status as the world’s last best hope for democracy.

Sensible people need to be sure that they vote in November for candidates that sever themselves totally from the lunatics. John McCain is not that candidate, people.

________________________________________

A short word about process…

While this nanocorner of the ‘Sphere© is a hobby, I take seriously the Prime Directive of Blogging that reads: Thou Shalt Blog Daily!

That is why I was bothered that, for the first day in some months, yesterday, I missed.

I could blame my “friends” at Comcast (with friends like that…) who left me without Internet access at home for 32 hours — gone for no reason, back with even less. But, I’m not going to get mad…

Happy to be back!

It’s it for now. Thanks,

–MUDGE

Faithful reader (if s/he indeed is faithful) is probably disgusted with this nanocorner of the ‘Sphere© lately, as we’ve been rehashing good old stuff rather than creating good new stuff here.

As I reflect on my lethargic approach to blogging this past week, my analysis finds that it’s partly due to the demands of the bill paying occupation, and partly my failure to extricate from the zillions of new pages popping up every day in said ‘Sphere a nugget of insight upon which to build.

Didn’t really want to write about the Democrats’ Clinton/Obama soap opera. Although, I commend to your attention Eric Zorn of yr (justifiably) humble svt‘s hometown Chicago Tribune on why Sen. Clinton is the wrong running mate for Obama.

So that left me with — what? Reruns, and this during sweeps month, too!

Tonight though, finally, revelation. Christopher Dickey of Newsweek makes a thought connection regarding the cesspool that is our Iraq adventure that makes such great sense that one is tempted to slap oneself, saying “it’s so obvious — why didn’t I think of that?”

I didn’t. Dickey did. Read and learn.

Slaughterhouse Beirut

Lebanon’s chances for meaningful reconstruction are diminishing by the day. And despite Bush’s bravado, it’s going to be the same in Iraq.

Newsweek.com |Christopher Dickey | May 13, 2008 | Updated: May 13, 2008

If you want to know what Iraq will look like 25 years from now, look at Lebanon today. The similarities and differences—but mainly the similarities—raise a lot of painful memories and questions for
Americans.

This fact hit me once again when I was talking to Mike Sheehan, who is one of the more clear-eyed analysts of terrorism and the way we react to it. The subject came up of Beirut as it is now, a bloody mess, and as it was when Mike and I first focused on it a quarter-century ago, when it was even bloodier.

Back then President Ronald Reagan waded into the Levantine quagmire, quickly understood that he had made a big miscalculation, and withdrew. “Some counterterrorism experts argue the Reagan pullout from Lebanon was a mistake and emboldened future terrorists,” says Sheehan. “I never bought this analysis, then or now. I think it was one of the smartest things Reagan did during his tenure—to get out of the Lebanese civil war. To stay in any war to ‘make a statement’ has never made sense to me. You have to have well-defined interests and achievable goals when you put American soldiers in harm’s way; both seemed to be missing in Lebanon. Reagan recognized it and withdrew.”

Aha! Lebanon. Filled with religious factions, armed to the teeth. Filled with proxies of foreign nations with mischief on their minds eager to fill the ever present power vacuum (read: Syria and Iran). And the scene of U.S. intervention, that failed in a bloody and ultimately ignominious fashion.

A dysfunctional “state” for many, many years, and, as Dickey observes, not likely to improve.

And yet, whether the United States stays in Iraq or goes, “Lebanonization” is the most likely result: a foundering half-failed state where neighbors fight proxy battles through sectarian militias and through the many factions in a government that is unable to govern at all. There will be times of war when life seems to go on almost as normal, and times of peace when it seems not to. There will be spurts of investment, maybe even tourism. There will be festivals of democratic excitement. And then sudden storms of savage violence will sweep through the streets of the capital, only to subside, then erupt in smaller cities, and subside. And erupt again. And so it goes, to borrow the old refrain from Kurt Vonnegut’s novel “Slaughterhouse Five.” If the world pays any attention at all, the span will be brief. The fighting and the failures to govern will have gone on so long that nothing seems new in that news.

We failed to fix Lebanon; perhaps it is permanently unfixable. Did we learn from that experience, strategically, politically, militarily?

On the day the last Marine combat unit pulled out of Lebanon in 1984, a television interviewer asked then-Secretary of State George Shultz if that meant a victory for the bad guys. He could not but equivocate: “This is a kind of warfare, really, that is something different for us … We have to improve our intelligence capability, and we have to think through how, within the concept of the rule of law, which we hold so dear, we can take a more aggressive posture toward what is a worldwide and very undesirable trend.” That was 24 years ago, and we’re still thinking it through.

Finally! Now it’s possible to understand Iraq.

Religious factions and militias, armed to the teeth, bent on senseless slaughter. Units on the ground that are proxies for mischief making states and anti-Western cells.

And the scene of U.S. intervention that, despite egregious losses of blood and treasure, shows no signs whatsoever that what ails Iraq will ever be permanently fixable.

[Please click the link below for the complete article -- but then please come on back!]

Dickey: Why Iraq Will End Up Like Lebanon | Newsweek International | Newsweek.com

To all those who say: “you can’t just up and leave!” I can now respond: your great hero Ronald Reagan up and left Lebanon all those years ago.

Lebanon didn’t get better when we arrived; it certainly has gotten worse since we left.

Okay: what have we learned tonight?

1. Iraq is an ugly example of a political entity, artificially created by a European power with arbitrary borders disdainful of hundreds of years of tribal and religious sectionalism, whose creation thus contained the seeds of its own destruction, now playing on a CNN broadcast near you. Doubt this? Take a close look at Lebanon. Some dysfunctional states are unfixable.
2. And, keep an eye out for what’s going on in Africa, filled with nations like Rwanda, Sudan and Zimbabwe, artificially created by a European power with arbitrary borders disdainful of hundreds of years of tribal and religious sectionalism, whose creation thus contained the seeds of its own destruction, now playing on a CNN broadcast near you. Let’s try not to intervene militarily too enthusiastically there, please.
3. Come November, let’s send old 100-year war McCain slinking back to his comfortable Senate seat where his pointlessly dangerous testosterone can be contained.
4. Let’s get our boots out of Iraq’s pointlessly dangerous dust and safely home, soonest.

It’s it for now. Thanks,

–MUDGE

Share this post :

del.icio.us it!

digg it!

reddit!

technorati!

yahoo!

Stop me if you’ve heard this one.

A funny thing happened on the way to Barack Obama’s coronation as the Democratic presidential candidate.

That’s if you consider Hillary Clinton funny.

She just keeps winning large elections in important states, the latest, Pennsylvania, the other day. It’s Hillaryus, to borrow an oft-coined a phrase.

Gail Collins in today’s NYTimes has the correctly humorous perspective:

Hillary’s Smackdown

By GAIL COLLINS | Published: April 24, 2008

The clamor for Hillary Clinton to drop out of the presidential race has reached new levels of intensity since the Pennsylvania primary. Of all the things Hillary has done, Obama supporters find her tendency to win large elections in swing states as by far the most irritating. If she beats him in Indiana, they’ll be surrounding her house with torches.

“Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton is back!” cried Philadelphia Mayor Michael Nutter to the cheering crowd at the victory bash on Tuesday.

The smoothly oiled money-raising high-momentum phenomenon that has been the Obama campaign for the past several months keeps running into reality. Her name is Hillary.

Despite organizational dysfunction, in spite of difficulties raising funds, in spite of the prospective First Gentleman, Senator Clinton seems to be more electable in the large population states than her charismatic opponent.

How absolutely galling for Senator Obama and his idealistic supporters!

[Please click the link below for the complete article -- but then please come on back!]

Hillary’s Smackdown – New York Times

Technically, Obama has more delegates pledged, but this stubborn issue of electability is likely to keep the pot boiling until the convention. Ms. Clinton has every right to keep jabbing away, and it’s probably an excellent character revealing exercise for those who’ve been starry-eyed when viewing the junior Senator from Illinois.

It is this observer’s prediction that the superdelegates will realize their collective dreams to become, for the first time in more than –what?– 75 years, the sovereign-makers in their (politically correctly smokeless) smoke-filled rooms in Denver this summer.

All this while elderly (and showing it in some unexpected ways) Senator McCain can sit on the sidelines basking in the glow of a once insurmountable Democratic lead brought down to earth. And both of his potential foes are providing him his general election ammunition, free of charge.

But, it’s okay. If the Democratic Party finds a way to lose a historically can’t-lose election to a morally bankrupt Republican party that has chewed up our nation’s present and endangered the globe’s future, then that should be the wake up call that those of us of the liberal persuasion need to finally make the changes that need to be made.

As the Federalists and Whigs could tell us if they were still with us, political parties can look around and suddenly find themselves obsolete. This may be that time for the Democrats, if friendly fire causes the party to lose this can’t lose election.

In the meantime, Barry, if I may be so bold as to call you Barry, please remember a hoary (political) adage, originally uttered by Friedrich Nietzsche:

That which doesn’t kill us makes us stronger.

Here’s some no-charge (and worth every penny) advice for all three candidates.

Probably the most critical personal requirement any potential leader of the free world (as opposed to this era’s two pernicious attributes: to raise $zillions by promising everything to every Daddy Warbucks; and look marvelous on television):

Show us some grace under fire.

Rise above the mud-wrestling. Be a visionary leader. Win this election on merit, rather than simply being the least worst choice.

Right about now, yr (justifiably) humble svt can’t see who would exactly be that least worse choice, much less the most meritorious one. And that’s a most unexpected place to be on April 24th in this confounding election season.

It’s it for now. Thanks,

–MUDGE

Share this post :

del.icio.us it!

digg it!

reddit!

technorati!

yahoo!

Can’t help it! It’s like a tennis match, this run-up to the Democratic convention.

Ooh, she hit a good one!

Swack! He got her good on that one!

Etc.

And, the happiest tennis fan in the stadium is John McCain, who sees the Democrats doing the heavy lifting for he and the until recently hapless Republican party. They’ve gotta be figuring that Clinton and Obama are dealing each other unrecoverable blows; they’ll be too exhausted to put up a defense against him come the general election, and McCain and the Republicans must be taking notes on what stroke aimed where is the most effective.

End of the tennis allusion; never my game, actually. (I was left-handed before left-handed tennis was glamorous.) But, you see its appropriateness.

He’s winning; she and her staff are working at fever pitch to stop him. Kind of ugly out there.

And the professional commentariat notices (as, of course, do we modestly talented amateurs):

Hillary or Nobody?

By MAUREEN DOWD | Published: March 26, 2008

While the cool cat’s away, the Hillary mice will play.

As Barack Obama was floating in the pool with his daughters the last few days in St. Thomas, some Clinton disciples were floating the idea of St. Hillary as his vice president.

She can’t win without him, said one Hillary adviser, and he can’t win without her.

They’re stuck with each other.

It’s one of my favorite movie formulas, driving the dynamics in such classics as “A Few Good Men,” “The Big Easy” and “Guys and Dolls”: Charming, glib guy spars and quarrels with no-nonsense, driven girl, until they team up in the last reel. He spices up her life, and she stiffens his spine. And soon they hear the pitter-patter of little superdelegate feet, who are thrilled not to be pulled in two directions anymore.

And everybody’s happy. Or are they?

Dowd sees a downright Machiavellian twist: beat up Obama, let McCain win, and…

Even some Clinton loyalists are wondering aloud if the win-at-all-costs strategy of Hillary and Bill — which continued Tuesday when Hillary tried to drag Rev. Wright back into the spotlight — is designed to rough up Obama so badly and leave the party so riven that Obama will lose in November to John McCain.

If McCain only served one term, Hillary would have one last shot. On Election Day in 2012, she’d be 65.

Plausible, in an “inside the beltway” sort of analysis. Ugly though.

[Please click the link below for the complete article -- but then please come on back!]

Hillary or Nobody? – New York Times

So, if this was just Maureen Dowd, one could chalk it up to “how am I going to fill the column inches today?” and move on.

Exhibit 2, from the day before:

The Long Defeat

By DAVID BROOKS | Published: March 25, 2008

Hillary Clinton may not realize it yet, but she’s just endured one of the worst weeks of her campaign.

It seems fairly clear from Brooks’ reading of the tea leaves, that Clinton can most likely not gain the nomination. Her chances now?

Last week, an important Clinton adviser told Jim VandeHei and Mike Allen (also of Politico) that Clinton had no more than a 10 percent chance of getting the nomination. Now, she’s probably down to a 5 percent chance.

Five percent.

Let’s take a look at what she’s going to put her party through for the sake of that 5 percent chance: The Democratic Party is probably going to have to endure another three months of daily sniping. For another three months, we’ll have the Carvilles likening the Obamaites to Judas and former generals accusing Clintonites of McCarthyism. For three months, we’ll have the daily round of résumé padding and sulfurous conference calls. We’ll have campaign aides blurting “blue dress” and only-because-he’s-black references as they let slip their private contempt.

And here’s the cruelest quote of all:

When you step back and think about it, she is amazing. She possesses the audacity of hopelessness.

Brooks thinks she should do the right thing, wait for the right moment (but a soon moment), and withdraw.

[Please click the link below for the complete article -- but then please come on back!]

The Long Defeat – New York Times

Now to Exhibit 3:

Obama has not only out-campaigned her, she’s also done an excellent job of stabbing herself in the eyeball.

This from one of our favorite writers at Slate, Emily Yoffe, posting in Slate’s “The XX Factor” blog:

Experience?

By Emily Yoffe | Published Thursday, March 27, 2008 1:05 PM

One of Hillary Clinton’s rationales for staying in the race when she was getting battered in a string of defeats was that she was so much more experienced than Barack Obama, that over time his inexperience would cause him to stumble. That would leave Clinton, having been so gruelingly tested over so many years, ultimately victorious. But isn’t it ironic that now a central Clinton claim on the presidency—her experience—is making her look foolish.

One “exaggeration” after another, all that experience. “First Lady” is a very polite title; but it’s not “Vice President” for heaven’s sake!

[Please click the link below for the complete article -- but then please come on back!]

The XX Factor : Experience?

So, let’s put these “mis-remembered” incidents into context. As the video that outed Mrs. Clinton this week shows, there are people who were there, and remember what was happening in Bosnia with, let’s just say, more certain accuracy.

Exhibit 4:

Imagined Snipers, Real Challenges

By ROGER COHEN | Published: March 27, 2008

Here’s some news for Hillary Clinton: the Bosnian war was over in 1996.

Those of us, like myself, who first went to Bosnia at the start of the war in 1992 and then, in 1994 and 1995, endured President Bill Clinton’s circumlocutions as we sat in an encircled Sarajevo watching pregnant women getting blown away by shelling from Serbian gunners, know that…

So, yes, the war was well and truly over when Hillary Clinton arrived in the northeastern Bosnian town of Tuzla on March 25, 1996. It was over, although she recently recalled “landing under sniper fire.” It was over when “we just ran with our heads down to get into the vehicles to get to our base.”

So what’s this all about, these lies about experience? Seems straightforward to me: it’s SOP today to distort, or lie outright on one’s résumé. For a journalist to make up quotes if the real ones are too inconvenient to acquire. For autobiographers to totally invent a colorful past. CEO’s invent college credentials. It’s a trend, folks, an ugly trend, and if it’s unseemly for our journalists, our autobiographers, our television stars, it’s absolutely outrageous for this nation’s leaders. Cohen says,

Clinton made up Bosnian sniper fire in an attempt to show that she’s tougher than Barack Obama; that she’s a hardened, seasoned, putative commander in chief ready to respond to crisis when the “red phone” of her fear-mongering ad rings.

John McCain’s own recent “misspeaking” about Iran, placing (Sunni) Al Qaeda in (Shiite) Iran, also smacked of muscle-flexing: he wanted to signal toughness to the mullahs in Tehran, where Obama has suggested he’d seek dialogue.

Cohen’s point: this country needs reflection, not reflexive reaction. This country needs intellect; we’ve had quite enough macho cowboy “shoot first and ask questions later” to last us forever.

The obvious contrast to shrill Hillary, and past his prime McCain? Erudite, reflective, Barack Obama, the anti-cowboy.

[Please click the link below for the complete article -- but then please come on back!]

Imagined Snipers, Real Challenges – New York Times

Yr (justifiably) humble svt has only written at length regarding Hillary Clinton’s candidacy once before, about six weeks ago before the recent unpleasantness that has put a grin on the face of John McCain and the Republicans, who thought they might never smile again.

Here’s some of what I said then:

mm284: A vote against Hillary is NOT a vote against women in high office

… Thus, I have absolutely no trouble with the concept of a woman ascending to the office of President of the United States of America. Long overdue.

But.

I’ve had trouble from Day 1 with the actuality of the particular woman who seeks that office this year.

And it’s not about her gender whatsoever.

Maureen Dowd in today’s NYTimes finally expressed out loud what many of us of the progressive persuasion have not expressed out loud, although perhaps it has been manifested in polling places for the past six weeks. Because, after all, it doesn’t seem very progressive, or very feminist, to be against a woman running for president.

It’s about this woman….

So, wife, daughter, mothers, bosses, please understand how sincere I am.

This country is more than ready for a strong competent leader.

If that strong competent leader is of a progressive frame of mind, so much the better.

If that progressive strong competent leader happens to be a black man, or Hispanic, or a self-made billionaire mayor, or a woman, well, it’s about time.

But this woman?

Sorry, can’t do it.

Even less now, than then.

It’s it for now. Thanks,

–MUDGE

Share this post :

del.icio.us it!

digg it!

reddit!

technorati!

yahoo!

You’ll recall the uproar NYTimes precipitated last week with their hazy “revelation” of a purported John McCain affair. We even deigned to notice it here in this  nanocorner of the ‘Sphere©.

That was the outrage-inducing lead of what actually was a reasonably good rehash of the good senator’s lobbyist affinity over the years. He apparently never met one he couldn’t do business with.

But sex sells even for the Gray Lady of Times Square, and that’s what McCain supporters zeroed in on, along with the rest of us.  The ferociously detailed dotted ‘i’s and crossed ‘t’s of McCain’s lobbyist dealings over the past 20 years thus easily became the 95% of the Times story that not enough people read.

Word was that the story has caused the Republican party’s loony wing to bury their concerns with McCain, in the immortal spirit of “the enemy of my enemy must be my friend.”

But, fair is fair, and in an odd and indeed, most disturbing, attempt to dismay Obama supporters, today’s edition features a rather ghoulish examination of Obama assassination worries.

In Painful Past, Hushed Worry About Obama

By JEFF ZELENY | Published: February 25, 2008

DALLAS — There is a hushed worry on the minds of many supporters of Senator Barack Obama, echoing in conversations from state to state, rally to rally: Will he be safe?

In Colorado, two sisters say they pray daily for his safety. In New Mexico, a daughter says she persuaded her mother to still vote for Mr. Obama, even though the mother feared that winning would put him in danger. And at a rally here, a woman expressed worries that a message of hope and change, in addition to his race, made him more vulnerable to violence.

“I’ve got the best protection in the world,” Mr. Obama, of Illinois, said in an interview, reprising a line he tells supporters who raise the issue with him. “So stop worrying.”

It’s no accident that this story surfaces while the candidates are criss-crossing Texas in advance of next week’s primary, and indeed the Dallas byline is a natural, a way of reminding anyone under the age of 55 or so of the first of the defining political assassinations of our time.

[Please click the link below for the complete article -- but then please come on back!]

In Painful Past, Hushed Worry About Obama – New York Times

So, trying to soothe my own concerns, I posit that the nutcakes out there have either already put their plans in place, or never read the Times. Thus, no real harm done.

But seriously, besides moving electrons (and this story is on the most emailed list today), what possible purpose can such a story have than to compensate for what even those of a somewhat liberal bent might see as a somewhat undersourced (at least so far as the sexual content was concerned) attack on McCain?

It’s symmetry, see? We raise their hackles last week. We raise yours this week. Next week: who knows?

It’s it for now. Thanks,

–MUDGE

Share this post :

del.icio.us it!

digg it!

reddit!

technorati!

yahoo!

Late start tonight; busy day led to a busy evening.

Did get time to step outside into the crystal clear 13°F night to gander at the lunar eclipse.

Very cool. Cold, actually, but fun to see.

Puts our everyday concerns into perspective, when you get that all too rare chance to slow down, pause and look up to see the cosmos working in its own time and rhythm.

To business.

As part of the NYTimes series of extended coverage of the presidential candidates, they’ve just published the following:

For McCain, Self-Confidence on Ethics Poses Its Own Risk

By JIM RUTENBERG, MARILYN W. THOMPSON, DAVID D. KIRKPATRICK and STEPHEN LABATON | Published: February 21, 2008

WASHINGTON — Early in Senator John McCain’s first run for the White House eight years ago, waves of anxiety swept through his small circle of advisers.

Stephen Boitano/Getty Images | Vicki Iseman at an awards dinner in 2004.

A female lobbyist had been turning up with him at fund-raisers, visiting his offices and accompanying him on a client’s corporate jet. Convinced the relationship had become romantic, some of his top advisers intervened to protect the candidate from himself — instructing staff members to block the woman’s access, privately warning her away and repeatedly confronting him, several people involved in the campaign said on the condition of anonymity.

When news organizations reported that Mr. McCain had written letters to government regulators on behalf of the lobbyist’s client, the former campaign associates said, some aides feared for a time that attention would fall on her involvement.

Mr. McCain, 71, and the lobbyist, Vicki Iseman, 40, both say they never had a romantic relationship. But to his advisers, even the appearance of a close bond with a lobbyist whose clients often had business before the Senate committee Mr. McCain led threatened the story of redemption and rectitude that defined his political identity.

Straight talk my …

[Please click the link below for the complete article -- but then please come on back!]

For McCain, Self-Confidence on Ethics Poses Its Own Risk – New York Times

I respect the man as a decorated war hero and courageous POW beyond measure.

As a politician, however, regardless of his “straight” talk, McCain’s actions, according to the Times’ writers, don’t match up.

All politicians have baggage. They don’t get to high office (or even dog catcher) without donations from people who expect that their contributions are not altruistic in the slightest.

Republicans specialize in McCain’s kind of lobbyist related baggage, which I imagine most of the country feels is preferable to the kind manifesting itself in men’s rooms and with Congressional pages.

We’ve talked of Ms. Clinton’s baggage.

Mr. Obama, in national politics for a much shorter time, has a smaller briefcase, but baggage all the same.

Baggage comes with the territory.

No wonder so many have been so apathetic about politics as practiced in this country. Especially young people, who have seen it all on CNN and Fox News and have turned away with disgust.

No wonder there’s been such enthusiasm for those candidates and potential candidates who are viewed as outside mainstream politics.

But even the Huckabees and Ron Pauls of this election season come with baggage; they didn’t get invented yesterday, after all.

It’s why this nanocorner of the ‘Sphere© has been so intrigued by Michael Bloomberg. As a self-made billionaire, Bloomberg is by definition impervious to lobbyists and other special interests.

Of course he comes with baggage too. His name, after all, isn’t Blair.

Well, that’s all I’ve got tonight. Read the NYTimes story, all six writers’ worth, and remember that the inspiringly heroic John McCain of the Vietnam era has grown into an entirely conventional politician. With baggage.

It’s it for now. Thanks,

–MUDGE

Share this post :

del.icio.us it!

digg it!

reddit!

technorati!

yahoo!

It’s Slippery Saturday (in these northern climes) following Tsunami Tuesday. And we’re wondering where Michael Bloomberg fits in the election puzzle.

As faithful reader knows, we’ve been following the non-candidacy of Michael Bloomberg, mayor of New York City, since we staked out this nanocorner of the ‘Sphere©. As a review, you might consult the following:

As this has been an eventful week in the endless saga of Campaign 2008 (began the day after the November, 2006 elections), we wondered how Mike’s plans (or non-plans) might be affected by the tumultuous events.

On the one side, the very even positions of Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton — a delegate count and popular count virtual dead heat after Tsunami Tuesday.

On the other side, Tuesday’s bloodbath ratified the startling reemergence of John McCain, such a front runner that Mitt Romney has departed the field, purportedly $50million in personal funds the lighter for his trouble. Someone on Public Radio’s “Wait, wait don’t tell me” this morning cracked that, when interviewed, Romney angrily denied ever being a candidate.

In a race McCain vs. either Obama or Clinton, is there room for Bloomberg? McCain, after all, is the conservative Republican that even liberals like (and yr (justifiably) humble svt pleads guilty – starts with his answer to “what did you do in the war, Daddy?”). Obama is rather out there, from a conservative’s perspective, but his messages of non-partisanship and reconciliation play surprisingly well in red states. And of course, Ms. Clinton comes from a centrist tradition.

So, if McCain, Obama and/or Clinton are the choices, where would Michael Bloomberg fit. Were the Republican candidate preacher-governor Huckleberry or changeling-Mormon Romney, Bloomberg might have an easier time making a case for a third alternative.

Or, perhaps there’s a better idea. We picked up on Jon Taplin’s proposal for a Obama-Bloomberg ticket several weeks ago.

Now, via the Huffington Post, and published just before Tsunami Tues., is a version of the same tune.

Obama/Bloomberg: A Can’t Miss Ticket?

|Bruce Yaffe | Posted January 31, 2008 | 05:02 PM (EST)

…There is a legitimate option requiring immediate action that significantly increases the likelihood of a Bloomberg presidency. Though Mayor Mike is a CEO kind of guy, it is not unreasonable for him to team up with the other non-polarizing candidate in the race, Barack Obama, forming a real bipartisan coalition. Michael Bloomberg as Barack Obama’s endorser, supporter, and eventual running mate!

Michael Bloomberg is 65-years-old, and his best and perhaps only shot at becoming president of the United States is by being the VP in a successful administration. Mr. Bloomberg would be a ‘most senior advisor’ for eight years, adding significant ‘gravitas’ to the executive branch, providing superior managerial expertise, economic expertise, and a large cadre of intelligent loyalists. He could legally provide enormous campaign funding and prevent the need for President Obama to kowtow to special interests or to waste time fundraising….

What we’ve been thinking for a while, Bruce.

A successful eight year Obama-Bloomberg administration would, at age 74, perfectly position Michael Bloomberg to be the next president of the United States. A viable option for a healthy man with a fully functioning 98-year-old mother.

[Please click the link below for the complete article -- but then please come on back!]

Huffington Post – Obama / Bloomberg: A Can’t Miss Ticket?

One would have to imagine that, after the bloody primary season results in victory for either Mrs. Clinton or Mr. Obama, it would be difficult for either to accept the other as a “kiss and make up” running mate. Too much vitriol caught on too many YouTube vids.

But a ticket of Obama-Bloomberg makes such sense: no ugly charges, no further fund-raising problems, and someone to choose from on a ticket with actual managerial experience.

What do you say, Mike?

It’s it for now. Thanks,

–MUDGE

Share this post :

del.icio.us it!

digg it!

reddit!

technorati!

yahoo!

The creation of the United States of America was the result of two parallel streams: the twin manifest desires for freedom of economic opportunity and freedom of religion.

The Bush theocracy would like us to forget the latter. So thanks are due to Jon Meacham in today’s NYTimes, for a useful reminder.

By JON MEACHAM

JOHN McCAIN was not on the campus of Jerry Falwell’s Liberty University last year for very long — the senator, who once referred to Mr. Falwell and Pat Robertson as “agents of intolerance,” was there to receive an honorary degree — but he seems to have picked up some theology along with his academic hood. In an interview with Beliefnet.com last weekend, Mr. McCain repeated what is an article of faith among many American evangelicals: “the Constitution established the United States of America as a Christian nation.”

According to Scripture, however, believers are to be wary of all mortal powers. Their home is the kingdom of God, which transcends all earthly things, not any particular nation-state. The Psalmist advises believers to “put not your trust in princes.” The author of Job says that the Lord “shows no partiality to princes nor regards the rich above the poor, for they are all the work of his hands.” Before Pilate, Jesus says, “My kingdom is not of this world.” And if, as Paul writes in Galatians, “there is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free man, there is neither male nor female: for you are all one in Christ Jesus,” then it is difficult to see how there could be a distinction in God’s eyes between, say, an American and an Australian. In fact, there is no distinction if you believe Peter’s words in the Acts of the Apostles: “I most certainly believe now that God is not one to show partiality, but in every nation the man who fears him and does what is right is welcome to him.”

The kingdom Jesus preached was radical. Not only are nations irrelevant, but families are, too: he instructs those who would be his disciples to give up all they have and all those they know to follow him.

The only acknowledgment of God in the original Constitution is a utilitarian one: the document is dated “in the year of our Lord 1787.” Even the religion clause of the First Amendment is framed dryly and without reference to any particular faith. The Connecticut ratifying convention debated rewriting the preamble to take note of God’s authority, but the effort failed.

The founders of this nation were not irreligious men, although a religion that allowed many of those residing in the southern states to reconcile faith with the holding of slaves has to be judged harshly (perhaps a topic for another day).

But they understood, apparently better than many of their modern-day successors, that the freedom to practice one’s religion is a cornerstone of this nation.

After all, flight from religious persecution was and has been a consistent motivation for waves of immigration, both before, and for nearly every year since the signing of the Constitution.

[Please click the link below for the complete article -- but then please come on back!]

A Nation of Christians Is Not a Christian Nation – New York Times

Messers Falwell, Robertson and McCain: Leave the rest of us alone to practice, or not, the religion of our choice, free from coercion and the pernicious attempts to undermine education in this country with “creation science” and the like.

The founders were not anti-religion. Many of them were faithful in their personal lives, and in their public language they evoked God. They grounded the founding principle of the nation — that all men are created equal — in the divine. But they wanted faith to be one thread in the country’s tapestry, not the whole tapestry.

If you want a Christian nation, I’ve got one for you: France! Should you want a pure theocracy, try Iran! Go hence and prosper, if you can.

It’s it for now. Thanks,

–MUDGE