Fear is the key

In today's L.A. Times, Neal Gabler has an article that analyzes exactly what "conservative" Republicans have been doing, tracing their strategy back to Senator McCarthy, not to Senator Goldwater, who in 1964 lost in one of the biggest landslides in American electoral history and wrested the party from its Eastern establishment wing.

According to Gabler, the myth tells how Nixon co-opted conservatism, talking like a conservative while governing like a moderate, disenchanting true believers. Ronald Reagan, next, embraced it wholeheartedly, becoming the patron saint of conservatism and making it the dominant ideology in the country, even though he didn't practice it in terms of fiscal responsibility or size of government. George W. Bush picked up Reagan's fallen standard and "conservatized" government even more thoroughly than Reagan had, cheering conservatives until his presidency came crashing down around him. That's how Gabler believes the mythology tells it.

Gabler's thesis is that the real connection is from Sen. Joe McCarthy, to Nixon to Bush and possibly now to Sarah Palin. McCarthy attacked alleged communists and the Democrats whom he accused of shielding them, as well as the centrist American establishment, Eastern intellectuals and the power class, many of whom were Republicans, including moderate ones. McCarthyism became a means to play on the anxieties of Americans, convincing them of danger and conspiracy even when they didn't exist, which he used to build power and support. George H.W. Bush used it to get himself elected, terrifying voters with Willie Horton (and denigrating Dukakis as a commander-in-chief). His son used fear of 9/11 and convincing voters that John Kerry was a coward and a liar and would hand the nation over to terrorists, tried and true McCarthy tactics used very aggressively, and W. then used fear and stealth in pushing through totalitarian unconstitutional measures. The thread continued through McCain and then Palin, probably through Rove (who also coached W.), and I quote from Gabler, "That's why John McCain kept describing Barack Obama as some sort of alien and why Palin, taking a page right out of the McCarthy playbook, kept pushing Obama's relationship with onetime radical William Ayers."

What Gabler believes is that, because of this tradition, the Republican Party will continue to move rightward. Fear and blame; rabble-rousing; the Rush Limbaughs and Sean Hannitys and Bill O'Reillys; and now Palin. This is the direction the Party will take. Probably because it cannot be believed as the party of small government or fiscal responsibility or moral integrity; all credibility lost in the harsh reality of events; at least not until people forget and these actualities become memories and fade. It is a dangerous approach because it incites people to do violent things, especially as times become more stringent.

It is, I believe a shame, because some of the original precepts of fiscal responsibility and keeping government out of peoples' lives and moral integrity are well worth preserving. The Republican Party which stood for those princples was a Grand Old Party. But, I hate to say it, those are all too easily trumped by fear-mongering and, I might add, difficult to achieve. I would nominate the Republican Party today as the Party of Fear, as opposed to the Party of Solutions. And, if that's the direction it's going in, yes, it's a shame.

Bush didn't like to think; used his gut

On Chris Matthews' Show today, Matthews argued that one of the major differences between President Bush and President-elect Barack Obama is the fact that Obama is intellectually curious while Bush never liked to do "homework."  Bush made decisions based on "gut".

Everybody seems to forget that a President like Bush, who doesn't really like to think but only acts on "gut" feelings, was therefore easily manipulated by other, stronger people with real convictions (not that we agree with them) like Cheney and Rumsfeld. Bush was led around by the nose by Cheney and Rumsfeld and the neocons; he basically never questioned them; so they had a field day with him.

Bush also turned, like Circe, people who worked for his Administration and disagreed with his acts, into beasts or swine by playing on their ambition and loyalty: one example is the greatness that once was Powell and the smartness that once was Rice, as well as so many others now departed. So Bush was the figurehead and people behind him like Cheney and Rumsfeld called the shots, and the Republican Congress went along with it and destroyed their party, and the Democrats, fearing to look soft on terrorism, went along as well.

What a sorry mess was made of the whole thing. If Bush were to try to confront what he had wrought, he would probably be fit for a padded cell.  No way it could sink in.  He must still feel invulnerable; his Dad will bail him out as he always has if he runs into any trouble.

A Plan in the back pocket

I once did business with a number of General Motors divisions. This was some time ago. At one meeting, in Saginaw, I believe, I ran into a young man who was headed to executive status; he told me, proudly, that he was going to go to G.M. University. I blinked; I'd never heard of it. Afterwards, the more I thought about it, the more I began to realize how incestuous G.M. was when someone went to their university instead of being sent to Harvard, or M.I.T. or U.C.L.A. or Carnegie Mellon or any one of the major schools outside of the G.M. universe, so they could absorb new and different ideas about how G.M. should be run.

Alas, G.M. still seems to be caught in that incestuous, inwardly-looking mode. I would have thought, when they confronted that Congressional Committee recently, and they were asked for a "Plan", one of them might have reached in his back pocket, and pulled one out, and said, "Here it is. We've been working on it feverishly. Happy to share it with you. Any improvements or suggestions are welcome." But no, all these auto executives could do was slink off in shame and go back on their jets to the cocoon that they live in in Detroit.

Maybe they'll come up with something; maybe not. But I kind of wish they had had a Plan in their back pocket, happy that someone asked for what they had been working on so hard to make things right.

Foolish me.

Disgusted with Congress, Aren't You?

The stock market slips and falls and careens downhill, and the stories out of Congress (OK, in this case the Senate) are filled with indignation about how they broke their own rules applauding cconvicted felon ex-Senator Stevens and lauded him, like the tight, ineffective, incestuous, elitest club they are, while afterwards they leave and won't be back to even acknowledge the crisis in the downward spiral of stocks or to attempt to do something about it. No wonder they have such low rating.

"Do-Nothing" is a mild epithet for this pitiful group of Senators and Representatives. The media has no story about it; no indignation; only stories about their treatment of the Big Three Automakers. I, for one, am angry at how indifferent they all are, what a bunch of sheep they are, when it comes to the fundamentals of our economy. The stocks and mutual funds are part and parcel of most Americans' savings, their 401Ks, their IRAs, and the Congress walks out and doesn't even pay attention while Rome (in this case, the U.S.A.) burns.

For those who think government programs are ineffective

Why haven't I seen this mentioned anywhere?

Those Republicans, Conservatives, Libertarians who still believe in less government involvement and regulation need to be confronted with how stupid was their push for private Social Security Accounts. If that had happened, more than 55 million people would have lost, at a rough guess, 40% of their benefit payments or the entire Social Security Program would be at grave risk. This points out:

. That government programs, like Social Security, are always badly administered as contrasted with private investment accounts or IRAs

. Investing in the stock market pays huge dividends in comparison to the stupid, badly-run government-administered social programs

. The enormous funds that investment houses, like Bear Stearns (remember them?), would have earned would have sustained them through the current crises

. The resultant revolution by those over 65 would not have serious social consequences in our country.

(Of course I'm being sarcastic by listing these points here.)

But the point is well-taken and no respectable Republican, Conservative or Libertarian would dare to mention privatization of Social Security today. At least until we've all forgotten the trauma that has been on-going as the stock market has tanked and continues to do so. Or, for that matter, letting investment companies alone as good ole Phil Gramm and Rush Limbaugh recommend, without any regulation or over-sight.

Are the Republicans really that stupid?

Senator Chuck Hagel, obvious unfettered, lashed out at the Republican Party at a talk he gave at Johns Hopkins School of Advanced International Studies.

I happen to agree with two of his points.

The Republican Party has been led around by their noses by such so-called conservative windbags as Rush Limbaugh and by fear of criticizing the current Administration of Bush and Cheney, whose policies have been disastrous, not to mention such players as Karl Rove and Tom DeLay. So as long as these players continue to determine the direction the Republican Party takes, they will continue to go down the path to oblivion.

The other stupid thing the Republicans have been doing, in direct contravention of what the majority of Americans want, is to continue to criticize, grouse, complain and predict dire doom as a result of Obama and the Democrats taking over the reins of government. No reconciliation; no spirit of "We'll work together!"; just "doom and gloom" at what Obama will do. No offering, as Hagel points out, of solutions or alternatives to help lift our country out of the morass Bush and Cheney have created.

It seems there are very few intelligent, positive Republicans. They sound too much like angry old men, who don't know how to do anything except complain. I know I'm generalizing, but my starting point was Chuck Hagel, if you recall, and his blistering speech.

Obama's TV Interview

Saw Obama's TV interview on Sixty Minutes and was personally blown away by how calm, how relaxed, he seemed. I was joking that he must be on something. But, no, it's his style, and I find it reassuring, but, even more than that, I find it to be exactly what's called for in these upsetting, traumatizing, chaotic times. The guy sounds and acts normal, without the usual politicians' sloganeering and over-blown calls to emotionally tug at our heart-strings. He isn't trying to be relaxed; he is relaxed.

I guess my feeling is that Obama will attempt to assemble (I hate to use the words because that turned out to be such a disaster) the "best and the brightest" of the people out there. And, if they can't begin to right this ship that has been so thoroughly wrecked by Bush / Cheney & Co., then perhaps nobody can. Obama's refreshingly candid, relaxed yet disciplined attitude will trickle down to thoese chosen to work in his Administration, and we can all, Republicans, Democrats, Libertarians, Independents, Right- and Left-Wingers, hope for the best because that's what we have going for us.

Remember, Obama's reaching out to McCain, meeting with him, to talk about working together. No sniping or back-biting, just a joint mutual private conversation about how they can cooperate. Who can fault that at this early stage of the game? (I exempt the Right Wing Nuts like Limbaugh from this remark, and leave them to flounder and excorate anything that sounds like bi-partisanship.)

Response to Dick Cavett's "Wordsmith of Wasilla"

Cavett's piece in the NYTimes, complaining about Sarah Palin's pushy appearances on TV, is epitomized by this explanation of how she talks, "...frayed syntax, bungled grammar and run-on sentences that ramble on long after thought has given out..." He wonders at the people who praise her and find her refreshing and appealing.

I am reminded of the line from that wonderful radio show, "Many years ago, in the Orient, Lamont Cranston, the Shadow, learned how to cloud men's minds..." To paraphrase, "Many years ago, in Alaska, Sarah Palin, the Governor, learned how to cloud men's minds..."

She's like that person in the movie by Truffaut, The Wild Child. All she knows is controlled aggression. Her feedback loop, except for delivery of one-liners, has apparently been disabled and it doesn't seem that she is capable of learning anything subtle or even substantial.

But, I submit, what is striking about Sarah Palin, and frightening, is the relish with which she rouses the rabble. When people yell epithets at rallies, when they spew out such emotionally-charged words as "Kill!" and "Traitor!", she evokes the darkest, most base part of the American psyche. That is how she seems at times to be most energized, and it is what we all need to be mindful of, because, if the situation gets bad enough, it can happen here. Some of it already has.

Notable Quote

Something that caught my eye from The Huffington Post, a comment from biotechwoman:

If Republican Governors can offer solutions that WORK, as Palin says, where have they been for the past 8 years? Why is it that we have socialized the banks, insurance companies, and soon to be auto industry, under the Republican watch? Why has America committed war crimes under the Republican administration. And, why do the poorest, most uneducated and unhealthy people in the US, come from Republican states?

Consequences of our acts

According to the blog Pandagon, the manager of eatery El Coyote in Los Angeles is a Mormon who donated to “Yes on 8.” With a large gay clientele, the owner should not have been surprised when they decided to boycott the establishment.

I guess I believe that, if you are a good Mormon, and your Church asks you to support a bill that denies the marriage of gay couples, you need to be proud to follow their precepts. They are against the marriage of gays. They ask you to support them in that. Period. If you however do not believe in that, you tell your religion that. But you don’t complain if the gay people boycott your restaurant and hurt you financially, pretending that you didn’t do something they find offensive, because you did. You simply cannot have it both ways. Sorry.

The only way out, if you truly like the gays and their rights, is to disavow your Church on that particular issue. If they don’t like it, tough. It all boils down to who has power over you; do you have power over yourself or does your Church have power over you? That’s a decision you must make for yourself. You cannot evade the consequences of your acts. 

I mention this because it seems to me McCain has been guilty of this double standard, and he now has to face up to the consequences of his acts.  Pretending it was all fun and games is a favorite ploy.  Denial is another.  Sometimes evil is punished, sometimes it goes unnoticed.  But standing up tall for what you believe in is a real virtue.

The quote by  Pastor Martin Niemöller (1892–1984) really makes sense here:

"In Germany, they came first for the Communists, And I didn’t speak up because I wasn’t a Communist;
  And then they came for the trade unionists, And I didn’t speak up because I wasn’t a trade unionist;
  And then they came for the Jews, And I didn’t speak up because I wasn’t a Jew;
  And then . . . they came for me . . . And by that time there was no one left to speak up." 

Letter to local editor

Dear Editor:
The Register's "Opinion" Page on Wednesday featured two columns ("How left will Obama go?" by David Boaz of the Cato Institute and "Obama and an intellectual renaissance" by Thomas Sowell), both of which are "downers."
By running these columns, The Register has begun to adopt the current Republican strategy of solving our national crisis by putting the new party in power down, criticizing the new government before it does anything, from not moving far left enough to lambasting intellectuals. Sowel, especially, who is now almost universally negative, needs to go.
What the Republicans and Conservatives need is a constructive, positive approach to preserve some credibility with the public - and this goes for the Libertarian viewpoint also - to lay out in
detail, point by point, a forward-looking program to show what can be done to improve our country. It is not enough to talk in hifalutin' terms about smaller government and minimal taxes and personal freedom because, frankly, Republicans and Conservatives haven't stood up for any of that.
Frankly, the negativity is getting tiresome.

Class Acts Abound

Everybody, for public consumption, is trying to be a class act. I find it amusing that Bush is so cordial to Obama when meeting with him at the White House, yet it is the right thing to do and we can admire it. McCain of course can't say one bad thing about Palin in his appearance tonight on the Jay Leno Show. The sniping comes from people who don't want to be named.
On the Republican side, it is suspect that no one wants to speak the truth and really look at what happened and, more importantly, why it happened. Blaming "headwinds" and "economic forces" is the easy way out right now, even for McCain. Bush, of course, wants to go out in style as a prelude to being remembered as a "great" President, even though he and Obama disagree on the most fundamental issues.
On the Democratic side, it is part of a planned strategy to not ruffle the feathers of anybody at this time. Lieberman is part of this strategy. Obama is not into playing the blame-game in any way, shape or form. What Obama apparently wants is to transition into the Office of the President with a minimum of infighting or trauma. He wants to keep things positive because he knows that, if they go south early on, he will have an even greater mess, and an even steeper uphill battle, on his hands. He has bigger fish to fry, once he gets in, and I believe he knows it.
Washing their dirty linen in public may be theraputic for the Republicans, but it could hurt and easily turn ugly. My prediction is that it will take place, sooner or later, as the factions grapple for the leadership of what remains of the GOP.
I suspect we're going to see more of this "We have work to do and we're rolling up our sleeves and doing it" attitude on Obama's part and, under his leadership, none of the public blaming or retribution, at least publicly. It might even be refreshing as people understand more of what he wants to accomplish.

Handover

I'm proud - aren't you? - to be from a country where the transition from one very different President to another, from one party to another, is done matter-of-factly without the need for armed force, assassinations, bloodshed or any of the inhuman things people do to each other for power and the right to rule. Many people are willing to die for such a luxury as we have here, and what we often take for granted, in a country that, in its formal turnover, behaves lawfully and civilly. Despite our many faults, I'm proud that two Presidents can put aside their very great differences and can serve, whether they realize it or not, as an example to the world. Savor the moment, in this time of existing and impending crises. It's enough to bring tears to one's eyes.

Two "hidden" issues

I believe that it is possible that two issues, apart from what is now just plain old "habit", hold many people in the Republican Party. They weren't really mentioned by McCain; Palin did bring at least one of them up. I was reminded of this by what Rep. Mike Pence said on Fox News today. When asked by Chris Wallace what "conservative solutions" the GOP would bring to their current minority-party status, Pence said social issues like "the sanctity of marriage" will remain the backbone of the Republican platform.

So "sanctity of marriage" and "right-to-life", the two ideals, both very emotional issues, may be what the Republicans will begin banking upon. By emotional, I mean NOT logical. Truth to tell, "right-to-life" as an issue, snares many Catholics, of course, and many fundamental Christians. Not letting homosexuals "marry", even though they might be allowed to have civil unions, certainly snares the Mormon vote, as the vote on the California referendum proves. Both are not meat-and-potatoes issues, such as taxation or health care or even the overall economy, but are "values" issues. These two issues can trump, so to speak, issues that may in fact be even more important to the voters involved, but which they knowingly or unknowingly ignore in favor of the strength of these two issues. And the Republicans, even if they don't really care about either of these two issues, know they can use them to snare voters (some fundamental Christians have begun to see the light about this and realize they've been snookered by a group in the GOP who could care less about whether abortions are performed or gay people can marry).

These, by the way, are often hidden in campaigning and only surface with code words. The parties involved know what's involved, including the makeup of the Supreme Court, which will determine if Roe vs Wade gets struck down, but still talk about - I love the phrase - "sanctity of marriage." Why, just for the heck of it, couldn't marriage between two men or two women be "sanctified"?

I'm always impressed by the hypocrisy involved here. I always thought that a true Republican, a true Conservative, believed in less government involvement when it came to telling the populace what to do. They rail, loud and clear, about Big Government. The NRA would agree with this. Yet, when it comes to these two issues, all of a sudden it becomes imperative that the government stop all women from having abortions and all doctors from performing them; and the government must not perform marriages for all gays, male or female. In these two instances, Big Government is allowable and even smiled upon.

To Obama's credit, he seemed to steer clear of these two hot issues, as if they were landmines that could blow everything up. He might even have convinced a few true believers that the economy and other problems trumped these two very idealistic issues.

Excuses, excuses from the aggrieved

Most of the reading I've been doing of Republican and Conservative blogs and articles seem pretty lame. There seems to be a lot of denial out there at this point, plus much finger-pointing and blame, and the professionals, like Limbaugh, are training their sights on predicting how bad it's going to be under Obama and a Democratic majority. All this would be pretty laughable, except for the fact that Palin, and I'm not overlooking McCain's participation, gave encouragement to some pretty ugly hostility that could begin to break out, like a wildfire, into some even more uglier actions on the part of those individuals who feel powerless now and look at violence as a solution. I do not like Limbaugh for that reason; he sometimes plays with fire; when you listen to him he sounds aggrieved as well as angry (that's his dirty little secret).

What I would like to hear is some clear analysis, and see some harsh light cast upon what really did occur, so that Republicans and Conservatives can sort it all out. To act otherwise is to be childish and downright stupid. In any sport, like football, for instance, if you don't understand why you lost and what you can do about it next time, you haven't got a chance to win again. Such an analysis requires putting aside the hurt and ego, stepping away from the propaganda and lies commonly used in a campaign, being unemotional about what really occurred. I urge those who can do this to do so. All the rest is scapegoating and/or grousing.

I once worked for a very smart guy who used to say, "It's time to follow, lead or get out of the way." If you love this country, there are too many important things to be done to play the blame-game, grouse or predict dire consequences.

Obama's first press conference

Some random thoughts about Obama's first press conference:

• It was civil.
• You didn't think questions were being avoided.
• Obama's remarks were infused with intelligence.
• The subjects ranged from the usual, to the difficult, to the personal.
• Obama showed a sense of humor without losing the gravity.
• You get the impression that these are men who want to do a good job and are girding up for it.
• You also get the impression they can be tough when they need to be.
• Obama's remark about being "a mutt" injected into a discussion of what pet dog would be chosen shows remarkable self-awareness and lack of fear about who he is.
• Obama was respectful and courteous even when he didn't answer a question directly
• It seemed to be what a Presidential press conference "should be".
  
• He came across as Presidential.

NOTE: If all of this sounds like a fan letter to the President-elect, it probably is. As time goes on, we will find plenty, no doubt, to be critical of and times when we don't agree with the President or his staff.

Response to article in American Spectator

I read your piece "Saul Alinsky Takes The White House" [http://spectator.org/archives/2008/11/06/saul-alinsky-takes-the-white-h#comment_5181] with amusement, Mr Hillyer, because your detailed scenario of how the Democrats will take over and enslave us (I'm being somewhat sarcastic here) sounded like a page out of the - guess what? - the Rove Playbook. I have the feeling that you've seen Rove's moves in action and, therefore, can use them in your imaginary scenario. Rove. I daresay, might have written it.

But what's missing is any suggestion on your part that the people who are coalescing under Barack Obama's leadership all, I believe, want to correct what's wrong here. And plenty is wrong. But they aren't blaming; they're too busy getting started; they seem to be interested in not playing the blane-game and, instead, putting people and programs in place to make America a beautiful place again. They're also strong enough to know, for instance, that a filibuster can sometimes hold up progress, as opposed to letting the minority rant and rave.

By the way, one factor that needs to be addressed is why Republicans are now in the minority, and why their influence is shrinking. There's a reason for this and, if the Republican Party is to survive, it must understand this.

To think in terms of it being a battle, Mr Hillyer, is to over-simplify it. Thinking like that is easy and absolves all of the Republicans who went along with the program. The hard work, the heavy lifting, that needs to be done to restore the Republican Party to prominence involves analyzing the current challenges, fashioning a realistic plan to deal with it and correct the problems, and implementing enough of it to prove that it works. Slogans, name-calling, PR and denigrating the "other side" won't work.

Remember, even Greenspan has admitted that he did not fully understand the situation and its impact. He admitted he made a mistake. He told the world that his analysis was flawed.

Prejudiced view right now

Watching Obama choose Rahm Emanuel, David Axelrod, and Robert Gibbs as chief of staff, senior adviser, and White House press secretary, I had the distinct impression that these are intelligent people who "get things done." I rather liked that. I also got that they're veterans and can be tough, not cronies or namby-pambies. Someone criticized the choices as old-style, but what I picked up is that Obama wants people in his staff who know politics and how it's played, so he can get done what he wants, which is a sea change in the way politics have been conducted. They don't have to be black or young right now; that will happen. In one article someone slipped in the caveat that Rahm Emanuel was also a moral person at heart, so any toughness he may demonstrate will be driven by that. I suspect many of his picks will be moral people.

A case in point about who's in charge: When Obama met General David Petraeus in Baghdad, after being briefed about Iraq, he said, according to the Time Magazine article by Joe Klein: "You know, if I were in your shoes, I would be making the exact same argument. Your job is to succeed in Iraq on as favorable terms as we can get. But my job as a potential Commander in Chief is to view your counsel and interests through the prism of our overall national security." In effect, he was saying, as your Commander-in-Chief, if I'm elected, I must have an overall point of view for the entire situation. That's smart; that's strong; that's the right way, I believe.

Rather than play the blame-game or go for retribution, Obama may also make use of people who may have opposed him, such as Powell or even Rice, preferring that approach to out-and-out tossing them under the bus. Unlike Bush, who, like Circe, turned people into swine, Barack Obama may offer them a path to retribution, to a chance to do good and an opportunity to atone.

That's my current prejudice, anyway.

Hard, Uphill Struggle

Don't for a moment think it will be easy to correct what devastation has been wrought upon this wonderful country of ours. It will be a long, uphill struggle. We're lucky that Barack Obama has been willing to take on this responsibility because it's a killer of a job, especially if you're serious about it and have the integrity to want to do the right thing, because he has that long-term mentality and commitment and the intelligence to sort it out.

One person called me today and told me that his company had its worst sales just recently, which would necesssitate layoffs and cuts in spending. This particular company was showing a 15% growth rate up until last year, and a 10% growth rate at the early part of this year. It mirrors all too many other companies in our country, and I cite it as an example because it presages difficult times ahead. The election is the start, not the end of the effort to right things.

Along with this, it will be much too easy to snipe and complain and grow impatient, to criticize and concentrate on mistakes and missed opportunities. If we are to succeed in this effort to right our ship of state, to restore our economy, to return our country to its previous position, we need to cut the new government and the new President some slack. John McCain, in his concession speech, and George W. Bush, for that matter, who promised to make the transition a smooth one, both have projected the right kind of attitude to make this an auspicious beginning; I take issue with the bloggers and pundits who already have their knives sharpened, before anything has happened.

As good old Ben Franklin said, if we do not hang together, we shall all hang separately.

Denial by Republicans

What many Republicans can't seem to do is think clearly about why they lost this election. It's easier to blame the melt-down of the stock market and the failure of some of the largest financial institutions as the reason why Senator McCain lost. But, to the contrary, I believe that this time around what the Republicans needed was an effective chief executive, and McCain wasn't that person.

This is not sniping and criticism; it seems to me to be fact: First of all, McCain didn't know how to organize a group of people, how to "vet" those who ran his campaign so they made sense when they built strategies, how to mobilize them and actually lead them, how to inspire them. These are qualities of a good CEO, a good campaign leader, a good general. Sorrily, McCain never did seem to have those qualities and I've seen no example of where he did anything like that in his past actions.

I find it amusing that so many Republicans put Senator Obama down for being merely a "community organizer". The truth is that's a very good starting point for learning about organizing groups of people, about motivating them, about dirty tricks and resoluteness in the face of scarce resources. Especially on the rough South Side of Chicago. Someone said, and I really loved it because it nailed the situation, "Jesus was a community organizer."

The proof is that, despite the wreckage that George W. Bush leaves behind and the bad taste in everybody's mouth left by his terms in office and the incalculable damage he has done to this country that we love so much, McCain, with his flawed campaign, did so well. Had he broken with Bush earlier and stayed there instead of doing that at the last minute, and had he had the qualities that I've talked about above, he might be the President-elect today. Had McCain carefully vetted Governor Palin, who dragged him down as the descending polls foretold, and not impulsively chosen her, he might, indeed, be the winner. Had he put together a group that was capable of building a coherent program for our country, to really change our country, he might have had a much better chance.

All of the teaching about leadership starts with a leader's vision. It must be compelling and it serves to motivate those who hear it. But vision isn't enough. The organization that supports the vision must be built and must be managed. In both of these, because McCain vacillated all over the place and didn't have a consistent message, and because he didn't build an effective organization that worked together, his campaign failed.

"The fault, dear Brutus, is not in our stars, but in ourselves..." This quote, from Shakespeare, is a good one to remember when reviewing the ignominious defeat that the Republican Party has suffered during this election. But, truth to tell, I expect the Republicans to continue again and again to shift the blame to the bad economy as if it were a shield against taking responsibility for the outcome. The wound is too deep and too traumatic.

Letter to Editor of OC Register

Because my wife said I was always writing critical stuff, she suggested that I send a letter to the Editor of the OC Register, our local paper, about how I felt about voting today, so I sent this:

Dear Editor:
A short time ago today, I voted in Mission Viejo. There was a very short line and all of the polling place volunteers were cheerful and helpful. The voting machines had a circular wheel, like a kid's toy, and produced a paper copy that you could check. Two of the machines were down, but it didn't affect anybody. All of this made it easy to vote and I felt proud to live here in Orange County in California; but the crowning touch was that, in preparation for what might be an overflow of voters, the City split the precincts and set up a new location in a second church near where we had previously voted. I'm proud to be an American and a Californian because of all this.
Very truly yours...

It was nice to open the paper this morning and find that the OCRegister printed this today 11/05/08.

Bush's smart move

Somehow I haven't heard anyone giving George Bush, our current President, credit for what I believe was an exceedingly smart move when he promoted General Petraeus to be take charge of both the Iraq and Afghanistan conflicts. In one adroit manoeuver, George W. Bush changed Petraeus' viewpoint and made him confront the much bigger picture of the total use of our military as a resource and the differences inherent in, and required to function effectively, in each of the diffierent countries. Before, all Petraeus cared about was Iraq and what was needed there. So give President Bush credit for that one at least.

Prediction

I think Barack Obama, if he's elected, will deliberately use bi-partisan individuals, not as token appointees, but as real players in his Administration, because he deeply understands how we as a country need to be brought together, not divided. My fear is that punishment of such individuals as Cheney and Gonzales will go by the wayside in the terrible crush of events and priorities that need to be observed. This is, to paraphrase Obama, the United States of America, not the Divided States and I predict we will see that kind of color-blindness (color-blindness in terms of Red States versus Blue States, Them versus Us, Small Town versus Big City, real Virginia versus phony Virginia, etc.) enforced and spread throughout everything that he attempts to do to bring our country back from the edge.

Scaring oneself and others

From a quote by Jonah Goldberg, editor-at-large of National Review OnLine in an article entitled, "Sorry, but Obama scares me": "Before our very eyes, America stands poised to elect as president the most radical man ever to run for this office credibly. Don't say we didn't warn you." I won't repeat the other invective in his article, some of which I believe is untrue and scurrilous, and some of which, as I'm fond of saying, is pure wish-fulfillment fantasy.

If you stand back from the tone of the article and the quote, what seems quite apparent to me is that this is (a) either a defense of the status quo, which is what McCain winning the election would be, or (b) scaring oneself, first of all, and then scaring the rest of the world because a Democrat, and a Democratic majority, would be put in place to replace what the God-awful Republicans (and, I hasten to add, some Democrats) who have been in power have done to wreck this country and bring it to its knees.

It's rather sick to keep complaining about an on-coming Democratic majority running things without offering any concrete alternative solutions that can work to get us out of this mess. It's actually downright irresponsible, and I accuse Jonah Goldberg, and those who groan and moan along with him, of being just that ... irresponsible.

Let's see what these people can do, might be a more mature and smarter attitude. What can we do to help them? might also have a place. But, no, it's denigrate and divide, them versus us, as if you, Mr. Goldberg, and your followers don't live in this country, don't suffer the consequences, have no responsibility for helping to right the ship.

Turnabout? ...

One reader commented about Bill Kristol's column today in the New York Times in which he, Kristol, says, "Being conservative means never being too surprised by disappointment." Kristol then goes on to do the usual thing for pundits, by playing both sides of the fence, never taking a stand himself. After all, remember, he along with many others, is just a commentator, a stander on the sidelines, an insulated isolated individual who doesn't really have to worry about, or implement, any specific programs to bring about specific results. To Billy K., it's all about the passing parade, whoever wins.

The reader, at any rate, said, Let me get this straight. A young black guy with a Muslim name who no one outside of political junkies had heard of 4 years ago is the "establishment" and a white septugenarian who married into huge aristocratic wealth and has been in Washington for over 30 years is the "underdog?"

To that reader, I guess, unless he's being sarcastic, I guess I'd say, Gee, I think it's called "diversity." If you haven't seen it in Phoenix, maybe you ought to try looking around the state of Arizona. Or ... Ordinarily the white septagenerian would be way ahead, except for two factors: (1) the white guy has run a very stupid erratic campaign, and (2) a guy named George Bush messed the U.S. up so badly that anyone with a Republican label is going to be ostracized and will end up as the underdog, no matter who is running against him.

Any way, I'd like to see a real Conservative, compassionate or otherwise, iterate a series of logical, well-thought-out principles by which they will operate and then stick to it. For example, "fiscal responsibility" might be one of the principles. Anybody who didn't hew strictly to the principles would be ostracized by the Conservatives. Enough of these phony Conservatives who crumple into a jellied mass and spend money like water without worrying about where it comes from.

I always thought Bill Kristol was a lightweight, anyhow, along with Brooks, hired basically to balance the NY Times Editorial pages.

Why Obama is qualified

Although it may be difficult for you, as a Republican or Conservative (yes, I'm talking to those who would denigrate Obama), if you would listen to the very factual and careful interview segment dealing with Afghanistan on the Rachel Maddow Show on MSNBC that she had with Senator Obama, and compare it with anything Senator McCain has said about that conflict, you would understand that Obama fully understands the nuances of the very bad situation and has a clear vision of what needs to be done to fix it. In calm, clear language he lays out how bad it is and what he would do about it. I hasten to add that this isn't posturing for the interview or for votes; it isn't slogans or politicking; it would win the respect, and probably does win the respect, of the military. Petreus would no doubt agree with it and probably will implement it if Obama wins the election. I urge you to listen to that segment and then re-think your position on this subject. No histrionics, no easy solutions, no vote-getting here, nothing but the laying out what we must do if we aren't to be engulfed. [The video can be found at http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/10/30/rachel-maddow-interviews_n_139402.html]

Fighting McCain

Saw a McCain rally on TV today and it struck me that every third word was “fight!” “I will fight for you … we must fight … this is a fight … fight for this … fight for that …” It became a mantra for McCain. He clearly enjoyed using that word and seeing the reaction it had on the crowd. It resonated with the crowd, all right. They cheered whenever McCain said that word. I started thinking, Is this what he believes? Is it all a fight? A fight implies hostility, people getting hurt, anger, seriously injuring the other party, viewing it as a two-sided bout with our guys on one side and theirs on another, you know the drill. And under the invective I also caught a whiff of Big Daddy, in effect saying, I will fight for you; I will protect you; I will be the one you can trust to take your side and not let them hurt you. There was nothing about advocacy, about planning, not a word about working with those who opposed us, nothing about organizing or even about a team that works together to get things accomplished. I began to think that McCain is, indeed, a military man; but not a subtle intelligent one like Petreus or Powell; no, a blunt, warrior-type, spoiling for the confrontation. He would also like you to believe that he will protect you, and take care of you, and for that you have to trust him. Frankly, his performance (and these are strong words) sickened me.

Joe Lieberman

Joe is an "O". That stands for "opportunist." So Joe-O jumps from a sinking ship when it looks like it's time for the rats to do so. That's why he has started to say some nice things to the press about Obama. I think he's hoping to get the same treatment from Obama that Obama gave to Colin Powell, but I suspect he's wrong and will receive his comeuppance after the dust has settled. On a personal note, Joe-O seemed very smarmy to me as a speaker and as a newly converted Independent. Something about him seemed smarmy (a word that fits him very well). I guess I just don't trust the man at all. Being an Independent, myself, I never welcomed him to our ranks. So, Toodle-O, Joe-O.

Turnabout?

There was a saying, when I was a kid, "I'm rubber, you're glue, whatever you say sticks on to you." I started thinking about that when John McCain's campaign started using the following:

Step #1: Obama is associated with a terrorist.
Step #2 Obama believes in terrorism.
Step #3: Obama is a scary guy to become President.

Let's try this on, instead:

#Step 1: McCain went on vacations with a guy, a felon, who went to jail for 4 1/2 years because he did something dishonest.
#Step 2: McCain had a fund-raiser in the living room of a guy who broke the law and went to jail for 4+ years and advocates killing people, and he pals around with him.
#Step 3: McCain hangs around with known criminals, both of whom broke the law and went to jail.
#Step 4: McCain likes to hang around with criminals, convicted felons, and would be very scary as President.

The only trouble is that the first is somewhat murky and not proven, mainly innuendo, and the second series of steps is based on an open published record of Keating and Gordon Liddy's convictions, sentencing and jail terms and McCain.

I submit neither has a leg to stand on, but the first is what's being used, stupidly, I believe, because it didn't work to hoist McCain's polling numbers, as part of McCain's badly-run campaign. Once again, it has proven that old maxim. If it doesn't work the first time to get the result you want, keep repeating it and you'll keep NOT getting the result you want.

In McCain's situation, it would be smarter if he stuck to the issues. But some terrible masochistic impulse must be at work here. I'll say this sarcastically, of course ... Maybe Obama's operatives have infiltrated McCain's camapaign and are channelling Rick Davis, Phil Gramm, Douglas Holtz-Eakin, and Schmidt to undermine McCain's campaign.

Woulda, coulda, shoulda

Quoting Joe Conason in Salon:

"Consider the cumulative performance of the stock market. Until this year, the best data available showed that on average, equities increased in value by more than 12 percent during Democratic administrations, and by around 8 percent when Republicans were in power. The largest gains in the past 80 years occurred under FDR, Truman, Johnson and Clinton -- and when the awful declines of the past few months are factored in, the Democratic record will look even better."

I have been listening to all of the recriminations, the self-loathing, the but-if's, the shoulda's and, above all, the laments of the so-called Republicans and Conservatives who went along with the program to (a) destroy the economy, (b) the military, and (c) the Republican Party. In the beginning, there might have been the excuse that, "We didn't realize what we were doing." But, as it got worse and worse, and started downhill, both with George W. and then the panel of GOP candidates, all flawed, I heard no outcry at how destructive it was or how it would ruin all of the three elements I mentioned above.

Denial is one part of it. Stupidly following the label of "Republican" when the truth was it had nothing to do with real Republican principles such as fiscal responsibility or honest marketplaces, is another.

But what astonishes me is the denigration of the brightest spot in the whole universe of past Presidents, the prosperity everyone enjoyed under Clinton with Rubin's guidance, which gets bad-mouthed and re-written. Bush started with an amazing surplus, left to him by Clinton. (I'm tired of people claiming the existing President has no responsibility for the state of the nation or the economy, by the way, and harkening back to the past Presidents or pretending that an economic tsnuami arises all out of mischance with no one behind it.) Under Clinton, stupid though he may have been in his personal life, we did enjoy real prosperity.

Prosperity is not the sole province of the Republicans, and if you're practical you can separate out what nutures it and see it in the things both parties do, and can do. In fact, if I look at George Bush the first (it's the economy, stupid) and George Bush, his son, I see a terrible economy that we had; and the same goes for Jimmy Carter.

But don't keep pretending that the Republicans have a lock on a good economy; the record does not prove it. I happen to believe that McCain doesn't know where he stands now; he has changed positions so often he's lost; he has no consistency and he can't even control his own campaign; so how can he control an administration? So, you can not vote (probably a vote for Obama); vote for McCain; or vote for Obama and hope he does bring some change.

I learned long ago that Life doesn't give you good choices, usual it's the lesser of two evils; and Obama today seems to be the lesser of two evils over McCain's zigs and zags and negativity and promises such as "I know how to get Osama Bin Laden," but it's a secret how he'll do it; and, I'll take care of you if you're a veteran, and voting so badly the Veteran's organizations rank him near the bottom.

Woulda, shoulda, coulda are all bad words, as far as I'm concerned.

Why Sarah Palin must go

Sarah Palin is a liar.
She has lied about things since she was nominated.
She may not know how to tell the truth.
One example is her statement that she was completely cleared of the abuse of power charges against her when they said, yes, she could fire the individual in question but had violated state ethics rules. Another example is the Bridge To NoWhere because she kept the money for the bridge in Alaska and didn't save the federal government anything, which isn't "reform." A third example is the Pipeline, which will take seven years to construct if it ever is built, and the botched way she handled the spending of lots of money in buying up, in advance of getting a contract, the rights-of-way for said Pipeline.
She likes to stir up crowds with incendiary comments without worrying if they are true. This is the path to demagoguery. It is very dangerous, like a kid playing with fire, unaware of the consequences, especially when our country is stressed in terms of people losing homes and jobs and savings, and can erupt in violence. We need to be civil to one another, not incendiary.
She epitomizes a "rabble rouser."
There is something (this is opinion) almost pathological about her penchant for doing these things. Sort of like Senator McCarthy was really pathological.
Someone how we must send her a strong message that such behavior is not acceptable here in the U.S.

Response to Michael Barone

I quote from Mr Barone's article about Ohio and a possible Obama win there:

"But he is interested in advancing policies that could have serious wealth-destroying effects: higher taxes on high earners, protectionism, government-controlled health insurance, the card check bill abolishing secret ballots in union elections, which could have the effects on much of the private sector that United Auto Worker contracts have had on what used to be called, quaintly, the Big Three U.S. automakers."

The Big Three were weakened by arrogance because for a time they were monopolistic. GM made cars that people didn't buy while while Japan made cars that people loved and were of better quality.

Seems to me that much of what passes for Republican or Conservative punditry looks suspiciously like wish fulfillment. I believe the last resort of a losing side is to criticize the opponent who's winning. Some of it gets confused with campaign rhetoric, whose purpose is to scare the electorate into voting your way. The point is, if you're a Republican or Conservative who really believes in the principles espoused by your side, you want to carefully analyze what went wrong, why it happened, and what can be done to re-build your party and its principles so people are willing to vote for them again and so they really contribute to re-building our country.

I find it offensive for those who believe their side is losing to criticize the opposition by predicting that what will befall us all is all the ills that have already occurred in our country in spades. We are seriously in debt, we are over-extended and losing not winning in our so-called "wars", our assets have plummeted to their lowest levels, our economy is in shambles, and unemployment is a disaster, our retail sales incredibly low, and on and on. So if you're not trying to be disloyal - yes, disloyal to our country - is to say you'll give them a chance and would be willing to work with them to do what needs to be done to straighten things out. You're going into wish fulfillment land again if you believe that McCain, who everyone agrees (either out loud or privately) would get us out of this chasm when he can't run a decent campaign, can't organize the effort to be President so it holds together and works, can do a better job.

Obama and crew may fail, but by sniping at him, even subtly, you do our country a disservice and you need to examine your own positions carefully and deeply. Let him who is ... cast the first stone, you remember the admonition by the Great Teacher.