October 2008 Archives

Well, he's "post-partisan" when he has no other choice. The rest of the time, Arnold is a jerk, calling out girlie-men and skinny boys, as he does here. But I wonder if Sen. McCain's supporters will proudly remind Arnie that they have a strict policy of not caring what people from other countries think of our presidential race anyway. Or maybe our next president will just send him back home, since Arnie's obviously so crestfallen about what's happening to this nation.

Many libertarians and conservatives are shocked, shocked that the greatest nation in history could stoop to what they dismiss as "socialism." And they are alarmed that Joe the Plumber hasn't woken everyone up yet. What this story and this one show is that such persons are simply a minority within America in terms of their disdain for progressive taxes. One interesting snippet:

In fact, when the McCain campaign criticizes Obama for raising taxes (or letting tax cuts lapse, as the Obama campaign prefers to frame it) for high income Americans, they may be treading on dangerous ground. When respondents to this survey were asked whether high income Americans pay their fair share in taxes, 58% of registered voters said that they paid less than their fair share. Just 18% of registered voters said that high income Americans paid more than their fair share. As the chart below indicates, this sentiment was particularly prominent among Democrats and independents. From this perspective, it is not surprising that McCain hasn't gotten much traction by criticizing the fact that Obama wants to increase taxes for high income Americans. Most Americans, particularly those beyond the Republican base, appear to think that high income people should be shouldering more of the tax burden than they are.

Jonathan and I have both argued that it's a red herring to say that Obama is scary because he's liberal by the standards of the stodgy, conservative U.S. Senate.

By contrast, Gail-Tzipporah says here that "It doesn't matter how many leftist bills get passed through Senate, Rob. What matters and what scares the bejeezus out of me most is that we may be on the verge of electing a leftist President who will then pass leftist bills. If I wanted a leftist regime, I would have moved to Russia when it was in the throes of communism or Cuba long ago."

My initial reaction involves wondering whether Gail-Tzipporah had strong feelings against the hoarding of executive power by Bush and Cheney over the past eight years - an accumulation of power that seemed to negate the Founding Fathers' intent on checks and balances.

During those years, I've asked my Republican friends if they could hold to a Golden Rule about executive power: "Will you still support a strong executive concept once Hillary is in power?" Their disingenuous answer was, "Sure, especially if she uses it for the noble purposes that Bush and Cheney for which intend to use it."

Well... Now the American public is on the verge of electing someone that many Republicans are convinced is a commie. Looks like you'll have to live with communism, then, because you set up the rules this way.

For my part, I just don't buy the idea that Obama is a communist or even a hard leftist, or that he has the ability to push through a radical agenda, even through a 62-member Democratic majority.

***

A Republican friend of mine quibbled a few years ago with how so many liberals were complaining about how Bush would suspend the Constitution and impose wartime emergency rule that crushed all civil liberties. This friend argued that this was a psychological projection on the part of liberals, who he felt were quite inclined to using coercive power (think of PC rules, for example).

Maybe. But the shoe's now on the other foot. Staunch Republicans are writing on message boards that "you're going to need to hold on to your guns, gold and ammo if Obama is elected." It's a similar, overreacting psychological projection

As for Obama's associations, apparently nothing I can say will convince you that he's a sane person, and I imagine that nothing you can say will make me take seriously that he's a commie pacifist rat.

And I'm not sure whether Gail-T is as prone as I to quibble with Palin's church crowd or with her husband's associations.

What could be more "un-American" than a substantial public association by both of them with an AIP group that is split between die-hard secessionists and subtle secessionists? I guess this conversation is a non-starter, though, because some people will always see Apple Pie Sarah as all-American, even if she has publicly, on video, supported those who want "out" of America.

Reality is working really hard to put satirists out of business. How, after all, could anyone compete with a Christian call to worship Mammon? Yes, some Christians who think Halloween is too pagan are trying to repurpose it to serve the Lord. Well maybe not the Lord you might be thinking of, or to be fair, they may think they're serving.

Believing, correctly, that the economy is in a shambles, they called for a "Day of prayer for world economies." They are praying for a divine force to help us, heal us, renew our souls, reinvigorate our lines of credit and make the stock market rise from the grave--even like unto Brother Lazarus.

Free of either irony or biblical information, they gathered at the idol of Mammon, the Golden Bull icon and trademark of Merrill Lynch. Were they unaware of how unhappy God was with the people when they worshipped a Golden Calf? I mean, God waxed quite wroth as I remember--and it was only a little calf. This is a great big bull. I'd stand clear of that thing. I'm thinking lightening, earthquakes, floods and other acts of God's displeasure.

If you're going to worship idols and blaspheme, at least go to the Statue of Liberty and worship Liberty--something of real worth.

Sen. McCain condemns how Sen. Obama talks openly about doing what the Bush administration is, um, doing openly. I haven't heard him condemn the President, though. See link here.

....and no heads are cooler than those of the calm and reserved Brit-based Financial Times. Here, these unrepentant free-marketeers don't even bother acknowledging the socialist-baiting of the GOP as they toss their support to Barack Obama. Link here (subscription required), fair-use snippets are below:

US presidential elections involve a fabulous expense of time, effort and money. Doubtless it is all too much - but, by the end, nobody can complain that the candidates have been too little scrutinised [Rob's note: obviously the hard right can complain]. We have learnt a lot about Barack Obama and John McCain during this campaign. In our view, it is enough to be confident that Mr Obama is the right choice.

At the outset, we were not so confident. Mr Obama is inexperienced. His policies are a blend of good, not so good and downright bad...

Mr Obama fought a much better campaign. Campaigning is not the same as governing...
Nonetheless, a campaign is a test of leadership.

Nor should one disdain Mr Obama's way with a crowd. Good presidents engage the country's attention; great ones inspire....

We applaud his main domestic proposal: comprehensive health-care reform. This plan would achieve nearly universal insurance without the mandates of rival schemes...

Mr Obama is most disappointing on trade. He pandered to protectionists during the primaries, and has not rowed back....

In responding to the economic emergency, Mr Obama has again impressed - not by advancing solutions of his own, but in displaying a calm and methodical disposition, and in seeking the best advice. Mr McCain's hasty half-baked interventions were unnerving when they were not beside the point.

On foreign policy, where the candidates have often conspired to exaggerate their differences, this contrast in temperaments seems crucial. For all his experience, Mr McCain has seemed too much guided by an instinct for peremptory action, an exaggerated sense of certainty, and a reluctance to see shades of grey...

Rest assured that, should he win, Mr Obama is bound to disappoint. How could he not?...
The challenges facing the next president will be extraordinary. We hesitate to wish it on anyone, but we hope that Mr Obama gets the job.

Republican presidential contender John McCain got one thing right about Democratic rival Barack Obama. He told Larry King that he didn't think race would be much of an issue in the final vote. As McCain put it only "a tiny, tiny, minority" will vote against Obama because he's black. McCain was not just campaign bloviating to puff up his oft touted credential as a play it straight on race guy. The notion that because millions of whites passionately back Obama race is permanently off America's table is more hope and prayer than reality.
Still despite endless and obsessive speculation that race could derail Obama in his slog to the White House it won't and it probably never would have. Start with McCain and Obama; McCain made the personal and pragmatic choice not to make race an issue either directly or indirectly through code words, snide hints, and racial guilt by association attacks. When the Jeremiah Wright flap cropped up, he could have hammered Obama as a stealth race baiter. He turned thumbs down on that. Later when VP mate Sarah Palin and some others in his campaign were etching to unload on Obama-Wright again, he still said no.

That decision was not totally due to honor and noble intent. A too frontal racial attack would have brought instant screams of foul from Democrats, and millions of voters who demanded that the campaign be a clean, issues focused campaign. McCain read the political leaves correctly and saw the political peril in flipping the race card. The occasions that he slipped and rapped Obama as a socialist and a terrorist fellow traveler brought universal condemnation that he was going negative or worse running a dirty campaign.
Obama helped things even more. The firm message in his signature slogan of hope and change, campaign literature, TV ads, rallies, in pitches to contributors, his core of advisors, and major endorsers was that the Obama presidential campaign and an Obama presidency would be broad, non-racial and issues driven. Anything else would have instantly stirred horrifying visions to many of Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson. His candidacy would have been DOA.

But McCain and Obama's best efforts to make race a non issue in the campaign would have fallen short without the sea change shift in public attitudes. The decade since the Rodney King beating, the O.J. Simpson trial, and the urban riots, has been a period of relative racial peace in America. During that time polls consistently showed that more whites than ever are genuinely convinced that America is a color-blind society, equal opportunity is a reality, and blacks and whites if not exactly attaining complete social and economic equality, are closer than ever to that goal. Though the figures on income, education and health care still show a colossal gap between poor blacks and whites, the perception nonetheless is that racism is an ugly and nasty byproduct of a long by-gone past.

The passage by huge margins of anti-affirmative action measures in California, Michigan, and Washington, was not simply a case of whites engaging in racial denial or a cover for hidden bias. Many white voters backed the initiatives because they honestly believed that color should never be in the equation in hiring and education, and that race is divisive.
It's is easy to see why they believe that. "Whites only" signs and redneck Southern cops unleashing police dogs, turning fire hoses on and beating hapless black demonstrators have long been forgotten. Americans turn on their TVs and see legions of black newscasters and talk show hosts, topped by TV's richest and most popular celebrity, Oprah Winfrey.

They see mega-rich black entertainers and athletes pampered and fawned over by a doting media and an adoring public. They see TV commercials that picture blacks living in trendy integrated suburban homes, sending their kids to integrated schools and driving expensive cars. They see blacks such as former Secretary of State Colin Powell and his successor Condoleezza Rice in high-profile policy-making positions in the Bush administration. They see dozens of blacks in Congress, many more in state legislatures and city halls. They see blacks heading corporations and universities. And those blacks who incessantly scream racism about their plight are roundly reviled for feeding racial paranoia.
There is even some talk that the so-called Bradley Effect, the penchant for whites to lie to pollsters about their true racial feelings and vote against a black candidate, may actually turn into a reverse Bradley Effect this election. That's that many whites will vote for Obama because he's black. That notion is just as dubious as the Bradley Effect. But to even raise the possibility tells much about changing times and attitudes.

If Obama wins and that seems likely, race will be, as McCain says, only a tiny, tiny factor. That's a tribute to him, Obama and the millions of America voters that were determined to make sure that race did not hurt Obama on November 4th.
.
the Race to the White House (Middle Passage Press, February 2008).

So Obama is a leftist and a socialist? I'm quaking in my boots. There is no left in the country. Look at Europe where there is a very broad political spectrum. There are intellectuals on the left and on the right. Where is our left in America? If Barack is the best example, the old left is deader than dead.

We've got one out of the closet socialist in Congress. Bernie Sanders (I don't know, he's just a vowel away from Saunders). He is the enemy? He is supposed to haunt our dreams? He is a one-man movement, and he is from a different generation. Trotting out the label "socialist" just will not create the necessary frissons on the night before Halloween.

Here's the thing about our labels and libels. Socialism as it was practiced in Cuba and the old Soviet Union was indistinguishable from Fascism as practiced in Germany and Italy. These were all powerful statist societies without freedom, justice and the only real equality was the suffering of the masses.

Voting for Obama is like a vote to move to Cuba or the former Soviet Union? In what way? He wants universal healthcare? Okay. McCain says we don't want a bureaucrat to make our health care decisions. I agree. But who makes these decisions today? Who says who will live and who will die? A bureaucrat who works for an accountant who is employed by an insurer whose business it is to invest premiums and not pay benefits.

Under what American government has there been the greatest aggregation of power to the federal government and rejection of state's rights? Yes, this one. Which government has come up with the theory of the unitary executive, arrogating all power to the executive? Yes, this government. Bonus question: Which government has effectively (if ineffectually) socialized our banks, brokerages and insurance companies? Once more, this government. Are they socialists? Are they fascists? No and I'm not making that charge. I'm simply pointing out how our American right is too often without a sense of irony.

It doesn't matter how many leftist bills get passed through Senate, Rob. What matters and what scares the bejeezus out of me most is that we may be on the verge of electing a leftist President who will then pass leftist bills. If I wanted a leftist regime, I would have moved to Russia when it was in the throes of communism or Cuba long ago.

Also according to some, his economic plan, which hinges on taxing the beejezus out of the rich just doesn't add up because some business owners have said that they'll cut jobs if they have to pay more taxes. McCain plans to tax everyone evenly and taxes is just one ugly fact of life. Or how else would we get roads and schools and libraries and all those other things?

Then there are his affiliations, and I would no more vote for someone who befriended all those questionable characters than I would one who had befriended David Duke or any other friendly assortment of the Klan.

My friend John Galt posts this comment about why he feels Bill Ayers is a real campaign issue:

Perhaps we should discuss this offline. First off, I'm not sure how you got the impression that I'm agitating. Secondly, when I say Ayers is an unrepentant terrorist, I'm saying he's not in the least bit remorseful about his Weather Underground activities; I've never said that he's still a terrorist. Third, and most importantly, the issue is not Bill Ayers, but rather Barack Obama. I'm bothered by the fact that Obama has an obvious affinity for the likes of Bill Ayers, Reverend Wright, and now Rashid Khalidi - extreme leftists all. Add to that the most liberal voting record in the Senate and you have someone who should go back to community organizing.

He knows my number, so he can certainly call at any time to clarify, if he feels I'm misguided in how I'm addressing this. But I also do want to tackle this publicly.

I'll let slide the odd distinction between Ayers being an unrepentant terrorist and a current terrorist.

But John's final sentence is something I'm hearing a lot from the anti-Obama "fright" crowd -- the readers at TownHall.com and American Spectator and WorldNetDaily and other conservative sites who say that election of Obama will be the final black nightfall for the America they've loved.

Yet there are many, many conservatives who are now "Obamacons," like here. This summer, the conservative Economist of England looked at an Obama-McCain matchup and called it "America at its best" -- it later took back those words because it felt McCain was acting like a cheap demagogue, not because they realized Obama is a Marxist.

Obama has been vetted and supported by some of conservatism's finest minds, and too many of them have preferred him to McCain for anyone to credibly dismiss him as a radical. And not all of these people share Colin Powell's skin color, needless to say. (And if Powell's ulterior motives seem an unconvincing basis for an endorsement of Obama's foreign policy, what about this very conservative guy?)

So Obama has the most "liberal" voting record in the Senate? How many Marxist bills have been coming through the Senate? Voting liberal within the U.S. Congress is not the same as being a European leftist. What exactly is the most leftist action Obama has taken in Congress to date?

So Obama is proposing a 39.6% top marginal tax bracket? How, then, did the pro-America crowd survive the "Marxist Reagan" years, which featured a 50% top bracket for the vast majority of his two terms? How did they survive Bush Sr. raising their taxes in a manner that made it possible for Clinton to finally balance our budgets for the only time since 1980?

So Obama can be gracious and close to angry people like Rev. Wright and Ayers and Khalidi and left-wing University of Chicago professors, while also being friends with Warren Buffet and Colin Powell and the Google CEO and Mary Poppins? That strikes me as a sign of character and emotional intelligence, not danger.

As for Obama as being so obviously repulsive to fiscal conservatives, here's a link for an interesting article by Robert Novak:

The prototypal Obamacon may be Larry Hunter, recognized inside the Beltway as an ardent supply-sider. When it became known recently that Hunter supports Obama, fellow conservatives were stunned. Hunter was fired as U.S. Chamber of Commerce chief economist in 1993 when he would not swallow Clinton administration policy, and he later joined Jack Kemp at Empower America (ghostwriting Kemp's column). Explaining his support for the uncompromisingly liberal Obama, Hunter blogged on June 6: "The Republican Party is a dead rotting carcass with a few decrepit old leaders stumbling around like zombies in a horror version of 'Weekend With Bernie,' handcuffed to a corpse."

These Obamacons are obviously less attracted to Obama than disgusted by their own party's ongoing failures. But the point remains that they look at McCain, who not long ago ridiculed Bush's tax cuts for the rich and has always supported a progressive tax system, and don't see a worthwile contrast with Obama. In fact, the recent over-the-top demagoguery of the McCain campaign increases their desire to outmaverick the erstwhile maverick and take their vote elsewhere.

Bottom line: When looking at how the mainstream of America sees Obama and how the conservative intelligentsia is looking at Obama, it seems that those who dismiss him as too liberal for America may themselves be too conservative for America.

This possibility was less obvious when such persons felt they were the vanguard of a growing conservative movement. But now...?

I like what Jon Stewart implied tonight -- that, if the Obama critics are serious about the charges they're making, then they'd have to accept an Obama victory next week as a legitimate "mandate for socialism."

Okay, John, you can call me now if you want to take this offline.

I was moved by this photo of a couple of Pakistani men grieving for children lost in Pakistan's latest catastrophe -- a quake that would have done minimal damage in Los Angeles due to better construction standards. As I told my mother a few days ago, still there in Islamabad, that country seems to be under a dark cloud.

When will people get that hanging people in effigy, no matter what the skin color of the original, is irresponsible and deeply offensive? The people who put up this of Sarah Palin in West Hollywood ought to be ashamed.Yes, we get that WeHo is probably not leaning McCain-Palin. So why this?

One of the creepiest parts of this election is that people seem to think that advocating violence is an acceptable way of disagreeing with a candidate. How so NOT far have we come since 1908. Sad.

Barney's Beanery has again launched its Rock the Beer Vote, an informal poll of presidential preference based on which beer customers choose.

McCain supporters can get a frosty draft of Bud Light. Obama endorsers can pull the spigot for a Stella Artois.

Now, really, in Los Angeles (or more accurately West Hollywood, Santa Monica and Pasadena where the venerable restaurant is located), which beer do you think more people will drink? Stella, of course!

Couldn't the Beanery have selected a slightly tastier beer than Bud Light? I know, John McCain's wife, Cindy, is the chair of Hensley & Company, the third largest distributor of Anheuser-Busch beers in the nation. But Anheuser-Busch also distributes Red Hook, Bass and, for that matter, Stella.

Ah well, at least voters will have better choices this time around. In 2004, the beer electorate had to choose between MGD for Bush and Pabst Blue Ribbon for Kerry.

This Politico piece is the best article I've seen on media bias. Bottom line: Sure, there may be ideological bias, but it doesn't drive coverage nearly as much as other biases do. (And those who most detest the media's ideological bias are the ones who have "scalding biases" of their own, so there's no pleasing them.)

I can, at some fuzzy level, understand the questions some people have about Obama and Bill Ayers.

For the most part, though, I've been sensing that it's simply a visceral distaste for liberalism, even liberalism that may have grown up and left behind extremism.

But I'm willing to keep having that discussion with Ayers-haters. First, though, I'd need to know the Golden Rule of the political game. How close and how recent does a "bad apple" acquaintance need to be?

And what would that mean for Sarah Palin and her relationship with the felonious Ted Stevens, detailed in troubling fashion here....?

In the same way, why aren't the many secessionists within Todd Palin's beloved AIP being seen as nearly as anti-American as Jeremiah Wright? Me, I see AIP's leaders' claim that 'we don't necessarily oppose being part of the U.S., we just want to vote on it' as a very weak sauce.

In both cases, I suspect that a generalized contempt for liberalism is driving the criticism of Obama, whereas the associations of Palin are somehow more "apple pie" in the eyes of conservatives.

But, if conservatives can give me a coherent and consistent standard for political conduct, we can have a meaningful discussion here.

The then freshly elected President Clinton had barely dropped his arm after taking the oath of office in January 1993 before they started in on him. The "they" was Rush Limbaugh (Remember his "Day one of America held hostage" daily rant), packs of radio shock jocks, legions of Christian broadcasters, and, of course, the Fox Network. Clinton was allegedly too pro abortion, too pro big government, too pro tax and spend, too unpatriotic, too personally sleazy, and too married to Hillary. But his greatest crime was he was a Democrat. The Fox holy crusade against him didn't end until he closed the door for the last time on his way out of the White House.

Now it's Democratic presidential contender Barack Obama's turn. The cast of the anti-Clinton holy crusade warriors remains unchanged. They are gnashing their teeth in horror while rubbing their hands in glee at the prospect of a President Obama. They'll soon likely get their wish and when they do they'll dust off the Clinton bash script with all the same "too" hits that were leveled against him. Some may even be tempted to sneakily toss the race card into the script.

Obama won't be able to keep the wolves totally at bay. He's a centrist Democrat like Clinton. For the hardcore conservatives that alone is enough to send red flags shooting to the top of the pole and keep them there. The added plus is that an anti-Obama feeding frenzy is a potential ratings bonanza for Fox.

There are five things then that Obama can do to damp down the yelps against him.
1. The economic mess. He's not Houdini and he can't magically make it go away. It will be tough if not impossible to deliver on the ritual debate and campaign stump promise he made to virtually cut taxes for everyone while keeping tax increases to the bare minimum. That defies fiscal logic.

He can though arm twist banks to renegotiate, impose a moratorium on, delay payments, or repackage loans for thousands of foreclosed challenged homeowners. There's even some talk about government intervention to use some of the bailout money to create a homeowner foreclosure relief fund to provide government guaranteed loans to directly aid those in most immediate danger of losing their homes. He can prod Congress to use some bailout money to help these severely distressed homeowners. He can act on the proposal to create a government sponsored small business credit fund to make readily available loans and lines of credit to credit worthy small and medium sized businesses that have been refused loans by banks.

Infrastructure Stimulus. Obama can take the Senate up on its offer to call a lame duck special session after the elections to pass an economic stimulus bill which includes more than 10 to 16 billion dollars for the federal-aid highway program, transit, and airport capital improvement projects. It's not exactly the second coming of the old Roosevelt Great Depression job creation WPA but it will stimulate business, contractors, and suppliers, create thousands of jobs, and potentially ramp up tax revenues for cash strapped cities and counties.

Rein in Wall Street. He can push and prod the Fed to better monitor and enforce provisions that clamp a lid on dubious trading, lending practices, and investments by some banks and brokerage houses. That includes imposing severe penalties for those who break the rules.

The Iraq war. He can't end the war in the six months as he promised when he was a middle of the pack Democratic presidential contender and then backpedaled from that promise when he became the lone Democratic presidential contender with a real shot at the presidency. But he can beef up Iraqi's security forces and then conduct a phased withdrawal of American troops. This is a good faith step toward winding down the war without compromising Iraqi security and American troop safety.

Neutralize Fox News. In an off the cuff quip in mid October, Obama said he'd be much better off if Fox News didn't dog him mercilessly. Obama's pique at Fox was understandable since he's been their number one punching bag for months.
But Obama can and should turn the tables on Fox. Carping and complaining about their legendary anti-Democratic Party bias, or trying to pretend they don't exist isn't going to change Fox, let alone make it go away. Instead, keep Fox in the loop. Obama should talk to the Fox guys like he routinely talks to the New York Times, the Washington Post and CNN. That won't make them sheath their daggers. It might though make them pull them out a tad slower.
These five things are time and cost effective doables. They will do much to help smooth out some of the bumps in President Obama's road ahead, Fox notwithstanding.

Earl Ofari Hutchinson is an author and political analyst. His new book is The Ethnic Presidency: How Race Decides the Race to the White House (Middle Passage Press, February 2008).

As best as I can tell, California's Proposition 8 is about "respect."

This means that each side says, "The Law has to respect my concept of marriage, and it has to avoid affirming the other side's concept of marriage."

This prop isn't about how we want to live, it's about how we want to think about how we live.

"Some of my best friends," as they say, work at Focus on the Family... and some of my best friends are gay.

I'm not convinced that how marriage is seen in the eyes of the law makes any real difference in a society, except psychologically.

Dennis Prager is in a lather about how societies have always defined marriage as between two sexes.

But what's the problem if it gets defined differently? Will you or I accidentally marry the same sex? "Aw, nuts, I got confused by these shifting definitions..."

What is more intriguing to me is why conservatives, who in theory despise excessive government, want to use government as a weapon in the culture wars -- regarding marriage, what happens within the walls of a woman's body, and so on. Don't like government? Fine -- let people live their lives. But if you need to make laws that protect your definition of morality, you're not a small-government person.

....John McCain, according to the NY Times' Nicholas Kristof, here. Kristof explains why that could be so:

An American president who keeps troops in Iraq indefinitely, fulminates about Islamic terrorism, inclines toward military solutions and antagonizes other nations is an excellent recruiting tool. In contrast, an African-American president with a Muslim grandfather and a penchant for building bridges rather than blowing them up would give Al Qaeda recruiters fits.

During the cold war, the American ideological fear of communism led us to mistake every muddle-headed leftist for a Soviet pawn. Our myopia helped lead to catastrophe in Vietnam.

In the same way today, an exaggerated fear of "Islamofascism" elides a complex reality and leads us to overreact and damage our own interests.

Yet this supple form of reasoning will always seem like dangerous malarkey to most people, due to cognitive biases that are detailed here in this famous Foreign Policy article on "Why Hawks Win."

So the dilemma of a democracy is this: You can usually win an election by being tougher-than-thou, and you will usually lose by talking about finding ways to get along with real and perceived rivals. How can you govern sensibly, how can you avoid being bankrupted over the long haul (see bin Laden's statement here), when hawks will accuse you of treason if you attempt to govern sensibly?

Gangs are a terrible problem in Los Angeles and in many of our major cities. Gangs import, create and market drugs. They fight each other and slaughter innocent civilians. Some are based on race, some ethnicity and some bring race and crime together with drugs and motorcycles.

Marlon Brando in the Wild One looks quaint by today's standards. Westside Story is a picnic in the park compared to the violence and killing of our gangs. Crips and Bloods get lots of publicity and MS-13 represents imported gang activity in LA and across the nation. However, right now in Los Angeles the gang of the moment is The Mongols--a violent assemblage of Latino motorcycle thugs.

They are not necessarily the biggest or baddest gang. They are in the news because law enforcement believes that they have found a new and potent weapon in combating their terror. Threats of jail don't stop them. Repeated arrests don't even slow them down. The violence of La Vida Loca is no deterrent. So what do we do with intractable criminals who fear neither law nor death? We have a plan.

You see, they made a fatal mistake in their development. They designed a logo, a visible emblem of their criminal association. And then they did what any smart entrepreneurs--criminals or regular (increasingly difficult to tell the difference)--would do; they trademarked their logo. I suppose they did this in an abundance of caution, reserving the right to sue if some other gang misappropriated their sign. Normally they shoot the competition but maybe they thought they could go make few bucks by using the legal system.

This is where we got them. Some judge took their logo away, confiscated it, seized their trademark. Where injunctions hadn't been observed, where jail hadn't deterred, where drive-by shootings didn't discourage, there is nothing, the anti-crime mavens of Los Angeles concluded, like the prospect of being sued for illegal use of a trademark to keep violent motorcycle gangs in line. I'm sure the Mongols are quaking in their steel-toed boots.

Who knew that intellectual property lawyers would be in the forefront of fighting crime? Well, I guess there is a kind of precedent. Al Capone went down as a tax cheat not a mobster murderer. It could work. I just wonder though, how much hard time do you get for trademark infringement?

(Sung to the tune of "La Bamba" by Richie Valens)

Ai yi yi yi yi Obama
Ai yi yi yi yi Obama

It's no necessario to put him in office-ito
in office-ito

Ai yi yi yi yi Obama
Ai yi yi yi yi Obama

He has done things to toy with our coffer--itos
Coffer-itos

Ay yi yi yi yi Obama
Ay yi yi yi yi Obama
Yo no tengo dineros, yo no tengo dineros
Por capitol, por capitol

Ai yi yi yi yi Obama
Ai yi yi yi yi Obama
El ACORN-ito
ACORN-ito

Ai yi yi yi yi Obama
Ai yi yi yi yi Obama
When ACORN made the banc-itos
Give loans to the pauvricitos.
Who went belly-up-ito
Belly-up-ito

Ay yi mortgage
Ay yi mortgage
Ay yi mortgage
Out the window-ito, window-ito

Ai yi Obama
Ai yi Obama

Problemas for the domicilios
Domilicios

Ay yi yi yi Obama
Ay yi yi yi Obama
That man in Iran is no amigo
No amigo

Ay yi, Obama
Ay yi ,Obama
Ay yi, Obama, Obama

(Copyright, Gail Saunders, one day in 2008)

Google: Barrack Obama, ACORN, Home loans for the poor
or forget that and go to: http://www.newsmax.com/politics/obama_voter_fraud/2008/09/22/133091.html

I want to post this AP story, because it's good fodder for some discussion here. Bottom line -- most Americans favor "spreading the wealth."

No wonder you're hearing GOP activists talking more about "pro-America" parts of the country -- apparently most of us are commie pinkos.

I'll be the first to admit that the $150,000 spent by the Republican National Committee on wardrobe and other sundries for GOP VP candidate Sarah Palin has not exactly been squandered.

By that I mean she looks good and isn't being chided for wearing pantsuits. I wonder what's better, pantsuit comments or an association with Neiman-Marcus?

At any rate, today's campaign story is about Gov. Palin's personal stylist, Amy Strozzi, who has worked on TV's "So You Think You Can Dance?" and who seemingly is paid more than John McCain's foreign-policy adviser Randy Scheunemann.

Does Randy know the difference between a Jimmy Choo and a Manolo Blahnik? Can he spray an "up-'do" into shape before a campaign rally? Does he know what scarves go with a St. John Knits suit?

I'm sure Scheunemann didn't go into foreign-policy think-tankery for the money ...

I'm sure some Obama bashers will say, "Well, for every fake story about a black man attacking a white woman and branding her with a scarlet "B," five such real events take place without drawing MSM coverage."

I did have a good talk yesterday with my pseudonymous friend "John Galt," and we both understood each other better about what can push our buttons when engaging in "friendly fire" on this site. I admitted that I can be oversensitive when I feel that I'm being mocked: Sure, I may make fun of Sarah Palin, but I long ago figured she's not reading my posts and taking them personally. John for his part noted that some of his well-intentioned sarcasm can be taken the wrong way.

I do still believe that anonymity is problematic and excessive in this era of message boards and chatrooms. It makes it easier to jab harder than we might if there were an Internet trail back to our real name.

In the next few days, I do intend to discuss here, with John, some of his contentions about how Obama would hurt the free markets and tax system. I believe Greenspan's testimony yesterday signifies that a reappraisal of market economics is inexorable.

At first glance it seems absolutely incredible that Democratic presidential contender Barack Obama can't shake Republican rival John McCain. Yet an AP poll calls the race a statistical dead heat. That's only one poll, of course, and the mish mash of other polls show Obama with either a respectable lead or a near rout of McCain. But that nagging AP poll hints at something that has bedeviled the Obama campaign from day one, and that's the inability too put McCain away.

How could that happen? Obama has smashed every record in netting campaign contributions, gotten nearly every major newspaper endorsement, is fawned over by millions in other countries, was generally regarded as the clear winner in his three debates with McCain, and draws record crowds to his campaign rallies. He is running against an aged, at times physically challenged opponent with a vice presidential mate with a phone book length of negatives that have made her a laughing stock in many circles. Both belong to a party which most voters blame for wrecking the economy and waging a costly, failed, and flawed war.

The last Democratic presidential candidate to have so many pluses stacked up in his election bank against a GOP opponent was Franklin Delano Roosevelt in 1932. His opponent was the hapless, Depression blamed Herbert Hoover. But Hoover at least was a sitting president. McCain isn't.

The formula answer for McCain's staying power is that it's because Obama's black. From the moment he announced his candidacy in February 2007, race has been biggest X factor endlessly talked about and agonized over as the thing that could torpedo his chances. In countless surveys, African-Americans have virtually made it a mantra that that if he loses it's because he's black. Certainly, there are enough closet and open bigots who won't vote for him purely on race. But that's not enough to explain why McCain still hangs around.

Republican influence, party loyalty, voter tradition, conservative values, personal and individual preferences are powerful and compelling factors that determine why people make candidate choices, and they obviously work for McCain among a wide swatch of Americans voters.

For many voters McCain plainly fits the tradition bound stereotype of what a president should look and sound like; namely older, mature, and more experienced (a big GOP hit point against Obama). Psychologists have found that what people think about themselves and what they believe others think about them can influence how they perform and how they expect others to perform.

There's another explanation for McCain's fingernail grip on the race. That's the power of negatives. McCain has been roundly hammered for going dirty, and at times he has. Obama has been smeared with the Ayers guilt by terrorist association, the Rezko crooked deal tie, the charge of socialist wealth redistribution, the ACORN vote fraud connect, the knock that he will abandon the troops in Iraq to their fate, and that he's soft on Iran, Cuba, and Venezuela and the slew of other supposed rogue's list enemies.
The question is does smearing a candidate really work? The two best known examples are the Willie Horton hit against Democratic presidential contender Michael Dukakis in 1988 and the Swift Boat blindside of Democratic presidential contender John Kerry in 2004. One stoked the fears of crime (Dukakis). The other planted doubts about character (Kerry). In both instances, they worked.

Even without these extreme cases, there's evidence that going negative can work. Though surveys show that the overwhelming majority of voters abhor personal smears against candidates and are turned off by them, far too many voters also can be influenced by the negative stuff they hear about a candidate. The trick is that the smear must be directly linked to the candidate's political position on the issues, or style, or personality. The smear must be based on a twisted fact or a wildly exaggerated tinge of truth to make it work. In each of the smears against Obama--Ayers, Iran, Rezko--there is just enough of a hook to hinge the smear on and hope that it sticks. The internet bristles with loads of anonymous racist and derogatory comments, cracks, and slanders about Obama based on this stuff and more.

The Snopes website has color coded the rumors, myths, and outright lies about Obama as true, untrue or partially true. Nearly all are coded as false or as a stretched half truth. Yet, fact and truth is one thing, but when they clash with an individual's doubts, suspicions, fears, and prejudices then an implanted negative slur against a candidate often will be taken as gospel.

A lot of voters plainly back McCain for the right reasons. They like his positions on health care, taxes, the war, think he's more experienced, and are Republican loyalists. Unfortunately, a lot more will back him because of the slander hits on Obama. Either way, it's a vote for McCain, and it's a big reason why Obama can't shake McCain.

I actually empathize with the impulse that makes the Palin crowd feel not everyone is a "real American." But the part they won't like is that, in the world's mind, they are the irrelevant Americans.

Those silly "Old Europeans" or pagan Third Worlders do not envy Wasilla or Walla Walla. But they lust after New York and San Francisco. They wouldn't fit in in Tuscaloosa as well as they'd fit in around Portland. They love the Blue States.

The America that makes the world turn turquoise in envy, the America that makes the world go round, is Blue State America. When the little guy from Liverpool or the little girl from Karachi or the young prodigy from Singapore dreams about America, he or she dreams about the America that is captured in images of New York, Hollywood and that dreaded Boston. Places marked by opportunity and equality and openness unseen in other parts of the world or in many parts of Red State America.

Sorry, Sarah, but the world doesn't share your view about what (and who) makes America great. (And it would be good for you to care what they think beyond your own shores.)

In a much-talked about exchange between Minnesota Republican Rep. Michele Bachmann and Chris Matthews this week, Bachmann suggested that there are certain "anti-American" congressfolk. Bachmann later said that she didn't mean it. (I'll give her the benefit of the doubt that she didn't. Under the heat of the TV cameras, it's easy to say things you don't quite mean.)

At a campaign rally, another Republican Rep. Robin Hayes or North Carolina told a crowd that "liberals hate real Americans." He later said he didn't mean it either. Gov. Sarah Palin has been making oblique references to "real America" as part of her stumping for the election, which seems to categorize everyone in California and other non-heartland areas an "unreal" Americans.

This raises some obvious questions. First, what exactly is a real American? Someone who loves America? If so, that means just about all of us, not to mention a good many illegal immigrants who are so happy to live in America they would break the law to come here. But clearly, "liberals" aka Democrats, can't be real Americans, so that would subtract roughly half of the country's actual population.

I assume from the cited comments above that I am not a a real American by virtue of living in California and especially because I choose to live in the Los Angeles (Worse, I went to college in San Francisco, the city that made goofball liberalism famous)? But I wonder if I can get a half-point for being born in Indiana, which seems to be one those "real" American places that Palin was referring to? Or is that negated by owning a hybrid car and having a Spanish surname? Can I get points for having a sister in the Navy? Or does my grandmother who gives to the Heifer Project in my name eclipse that "real" American association?

If this post is starting to sound ridiculous, that's because debating who is a real American is ridiculous. Real Americans are a diverse and motley bunch who defy categorization. They come in all colors. They come in all ages. They come in every religious faith. They come in every political ideology. They live in the cities and the towns, the suburbs and the farms, the mountains and the swamps. In all their collective glory, and warts, they represent the Real America. God bless em all.

(To be read with baritones singing "America, the Beautiful" in the background. "Oh beautiful for spacious skies, for amber waves of grain, for purple mountain majesties above the fruited plane... America, America...)

In its most pared down version, a real American is someone who was born here or who applied for and was granted citizenship.

By way of analogy, it is no different than being a real hot dog, pork, beef, combo, vegetarian or kosher. The difference is in the content.

Barack Obama is a real American as is John McCain. Osama bin Laden, not. Abbie Hoffman was a real American, as is Patty Hearst. David Duke is a real American, too (and we know how he's going to vote). Unfortunately, so are half the criminals in our jails (the ones that are here legally, anyway).

But being a real American goes beyond that. (Hoist up the flag; dust off the picture of Ronald Regan.) It is also someone who is decent, kind, honest and hardworking and who loves his neighbor as much as he loves himself and would contemplate giving up his life to defend the values of this country.

This bit about who is a real American did not originate with the wacky harebrained muttering of a Vice Presidential candidate, or with a few screwball congresspersons. Nor is simply a not so thinly veiled knock at a guy who's multi-ethnic, African-American, had a Kenyan father, allegedly attended a Muslim school, has the middle name of Hussein, has an outspoken African-American wife, has a daughter who at one time sported braids, went to effete Harvard, and worked in a hardcore, poverty area, in rock solid Blue State city. That guy by chance is the odds on favorite to bag the White House.

Actually, there's long been the suspicion that Latinos, Asians, and especially African-Americans are somehow different than real, red-blooded (white) Americans. I say especially African-Americans not because that's how Obama identifies, but because of the eternal suspicion that African-Americans are perennial, unpatriotic malcontents and racial rebels. The notion that blacks are America's ritual outcasts has been immortalized in the title of the towering classic, the Invisible Man, by Ralph Ellison. But I guess when you think about it maybe it's better to be a fake American, than invisible.

My grandparents were Jewish immigrants from Poland and Russia. My wife Helene was born in Germany to Polish Holocaust survivors. We are real Americans. Call me a Brie-eating, Chardonnay-drinking liberal but my iconic food is actually the jalapeno cheese bagel.

My son Adam is a real American. His late mother, Barbara, was Scotch/Irish/German and American born. His wife Su-Yun is certainly a real American. She, unlike my wife, was born here. Unlike the Jonathans, Lindas and Isaiahs all around, people ask her if she has an "American name." What could this mean? Are only English names American? Su-Yun is as American as Susan, Sarah or Sylvia. Juan, Sean, Ivan and Hanan all have equal claim with John.

We Americans are a mighty gumbo of peoples, cultures and ideas. My family is Democratic, Republican, tall, short, gay and straight. Cousin Richard married Fera, an Iranian Muslim, and their daughter Linda is a real American. Cousin Nancy's son, Isaiah, is half white, half black, Jewish and All American. My granddaughters Roxie and Iris are Asian, Caucasian and Semitic. They are Americans. We rejoice that we are enriched by our differences. We are real Americans, united but thank God, not the same.

I have a good friend of more than two decades who has recently tested the concept of "Friendly Fire."

He has taken the pseudonym "John Galt." As less than a fan of Ayn Rand, I had to do a little research to find that he was a hero in Rand's mind for protesting high taxes or something of the sort.

I don't much like pseudonyms on the Internet, as I don't respect commenters who find it easy to take angry potshots at me while cloaked in secrecy.

I find it problematic that my longtime friend ___ (fine, I'll let him keep his precious anonymity) would protect himself with a pseudonym that, while no secret to me, allows himself to leave no Internet track record for others to judge him by. And I think it's why he can pop off about the "leftist drivel" that this site is allegely spewing out.

This Washington Post writer says better than I can why the Palin clothing issue strikes some of us as problematic, but which struck him as one drop in a river of drivel.

As for Ayers, I accept Obama's response about how he's not particularly more tied to Ayers than are the Republicans who associate with Ayers on boards, and that he listens to endorsers such as Warren Buffett and Colin Powell rather than Ayers. You, "Mr. Galt," are free to disbelieve him. But most Americans disagree with you, and I am not sure what more you would demand of us in this matter.

I will apologize if I stated my thoughts in a smug or haughty way that struck someone like "John Galt" as "leftist drivel." But it would seem that anyone who has known me over the long haul would be aware that I'm not a leftist; and people who respect me don't dismiss my stuff as "drivel." I certainly don't engage in Friendly Fire with such persons.

Americans often feel that they should be able to be friends with those who disagree vigorously with them. Sure. But I think we've taken it too far; now, we mock other people easily and casually and in over-the-top manners while expecting them to still be friends. That is precisely why we now have so much out-of-control partisanship -- and it's aggravated by the cloak of anonymity (or quasi-anonymity) donned by John Galt and others.

The very fact that this is America (cue the italics, cue the banjos, bring in the piccolos) means that wrapping oneself in an unburnable flag, movements like our current penchant for hegemonic expansionism (and thinking that other countries just love having us invade them) and any notion that the government is always right (or Right) simply don't fly.

Rather than define patriotism as a sloganeering, mavricky conservatism, as Gov. Sarah Palin seems to be so fond of doing, we need to remember that the definition of "true patriot" in our coarse political discourse at any given time is a rapidly moving target.

Protest. Free expression. Criticism. They're all American in the deepest sense.

We can disagree. We don't all have to be evangelical Christians. Hell, we can even be Muslims or Jews or ... God forbid, atheists.

Let the majority rule but let the minority live free. Put that in your pipe and smoke it.

The Republican Party's definitely been "spreading the wealth around" by making the small town girl and her family look good.

The expenses include $75,062 spent at Neiman Marcus in Minneapolis Minn., and $41,850 in St. Louis in early September. The committee also reported spending $4,100 for makeup and hair consulting. The expenses were first reported by Politico.com.

"With all of the important issues facing the country right now, it's remarkable that we're spending time talking about pantsuits and blouses," said McCain spokeswoman Tracey Schmitt, who has been traveling with Palin.

She's right. We could be talking more about serious issues, like Bill Ayers and terrorist fist-bumps and the so-called Marxist threat posed by the standard-bearers of America's largest political party.

The Los Angeles Times today unveiled their makeover and redesign. I'm sure that lots of time was devoted to this nose job, this elective cosmetic surgery, this colorful liposuction. I'm sure that the salaries saved by the firing and forcing out of actual news writers, editors, proofreaders and reporters more than covered the costs. I'm also sure that the addition of more color and color-coded sections and the eventual addition of caricatures of the few remaining by-lined columnists will neither increase circulation nor staunch the bleeding of circulation and advertising revenues.

More color with less content is the news equivalent of junk food. Strangely however as the junk increases the paper slims down. There is less news, fewer stories and little recognition of quality writing. But think of the money they are saving on news while spending it on design and color. The list of writing and analytical talent lost is shocking: from international news to local political writers, from business to sports, from entertainment to opinion, we are left with fewer reasons to buy or read the Times.

A once great paper, with a national and international reputation, is being vivisected before our eyes. The Tribune Empire is being taken apart and sold off for scrap and we are left watching our Los Angeles Times bleed out. But at least we can see the red. I know I'm seeing red--red-hot anger, red blood and the fatal flow of red ink. They can now put their USA Today style color graph/pie-chart on the front page to document their shrinking presence, increasing irrelevancy and immanent demise.

One amiable and discerning reader wanted to know why I endorse McCain and not just why I am against Obama. The amiable and discerning opinion editor of this paper also wanted to know the same thing, and since I am blogging for them, here goes:

I endorse McCain because he doesn't think that all Americans deserve a college education. There are some Americans who don't deserve to go to college because they don't have the grades and haven't earned the right to do so.

I endorse McCain because he doesn't associate with nimrods like Reverend Wright and a host of others from the pro-Palestinian front.

I endorse him because in the long run, his tax program may help create more jobs. McCain wants to reduce taxes evenly across the board whereas Obama plans on raising them for the 5% of the populattion who who earns more than 250K a year. Right now, they are paying about 60% of the taxes, but he plans on raising their taxes. This may sound enticing for the bulk of us who earn less, but it may not create more jobs.

"People who earn over $250,000 a year are the ones who create jobs and open or expand businesses," said Gary Aminoff, President of the San Fernando Valley Republican Club, "and if you take more capital away from them for tsxes, then there is going to be less business expansion, fewer jobs and less total tax revenue."

I also endorse McCain because he wants to get out of Iraq, not suddenly, which may cause the country to sink into further ruin, but slowly and gradually. Besides, should something happen to Barack Obama that would leave us with Joe Biden, who looks like he's on his way out anyway, which would then lead to that big mouthed broad, Nancy Pelosi, and I'd rather have Sarah Palin in office than her. She may shoot from the hip, but she's basically sensible and appears to be a quick study.

It's nice that Barack Obama's cool, calm, collected and photogenic, but we are looking for someone to lead the country, not for someone to jitterbug with at a country club.

Barack Obama may seem like a nice guy, but underneath, I keep questioning the company he keeps then distances himself from once trouble arises.

It takes a true believer of the neocon variety to think that the Guardian chart below is the result of us being so shiningly good that even our allies are blinded by our virtue. And it takes a true Obama hater to spin our allies' affection for Obama as a bad thing.

Yet ironically, if the rest of the world wanted McCain as prez, don't you think conservatives would be trumpeting that? They'd be saying, "All our allies know the world is too dangerous a place to be entrusted to Obama."

Again, it's good to see a contrarian Republican such as Colin Powell add some healthy perspective to the accusations that Obama is some kind of socialist wolf in the henhouse.

Partisan GOP types are angrily scrambling for ways to rationalize being wrong about pretty much every prediction or prescription they coughed up over the past eight years. Demagoguery, as Powell pointed out today, is what has resulted.

Much of the demagoguery relates to the notion that Obama just lives to institute a highly progressive tax, with rich folks being taxed back to the Stone Age -- taxed so exorbitantly that they'd rather stay at home eating bon bons than creating new jobs for stiffs like you and me. I even saw one letter-writer to a conservative newspaper threaten to to sit on his hands and "let China make some money for a change."

Boy, we should be frightened by these rich people's sudden threats to become middle class. But when exactly can we expect them to start downsizing and stop attempting to keep up their home in the Hamptons? And, unless you were being taxed, oh, around 97% on every dollar over $100,000 a year, why would you stop working so hard...?

The Obama-bashers need to realize that Adam Smith himself favored a progressive tax. Smith, the father of modern capitalism, felt a progressive tax was appropriate and moral, given how a society's haves are naturally more invested in that society than the have-nots.

Think about it: Who has more to lose by an invasion by foreign powers -- Warren Buffett or a street person? The homeless guy is happy to take his chance on the next regime.

And who places greater demands on local police -- a poverty-wage single mother or a Beverly Hills tycoon?

If Adam Smith understood this, why don't today's Republicans?

As a quasi-libertarian, I'm actually more of a flat-tax person than Smith. But, for most sane and responsible people, all bets are off when even a country's "small-government conservatives" don't believe in paying as you go. At that point, the door opens for progressive taxes and other remedies.

"Socialist"? No. Let's have a real discussion here.

This CNN.com piece about Colin Powell's endorsement is must-reading for those who have taken the bait about how "un-American" Obama is. Some salient passages (emphasis mine):

Reporter: Sir, what part did McCain's negativity play in your decision, the negative tone of the campaign?

Powell: It troubled me. We have two wars. We have economic problems. We have health problems. We have education problems. We have infrastructure problems. We have problems around the world with our allies. So those are the problems the American people wanted to hear about, not about Mr. Ayers, not about who's a Muslim or who's not a Muslim. Those kinds of images going out on Al-Jazeera are killing us around the world.
And we have got to say to the world, it doesn't make any difference who you are or what you are, if you're an American, you're an American. And this business, for example, of the congressman from Minnesota who's going around saying, "Let's examine all congressmen to see who is pro-America or not pro-America" -- we have got to stop this kind of nonsense, pull ourselves together and remember that our great strength is in our unity and in our diversity. And so, that really was driving me.

And to focus on people like Mr. Ayers and these trivial issues, for the purpose of suggesting that somehow Mr. Obama would have some kind of terrorist inclinations, I thought that was over the top. It was beyond just good political fighting back and forth. I think it went beyond. And to sort of throw in this little Muslim connection, you know, "He's a Muslim and, my goodness, he's a terrorist" -- it was taking root. And we can't judge our people and we can't hold our elections on that kind of basis.
So, yes, that kind of negativity troubled me, And the constant shifting of the argument. I was troubled a couple of weeks ago when in the middle of the crisis, the [McCain] campaign said, "We're going to go negative," and they announced it, "We're going to go negative and attack [Obama's] character through Bill Ayers." Now I guess the message this week is, "We're going to call him a socialist, Mr. Obama is now a socialist, because he dares to suggest that maybe we ought to look at the tax structure that we have."

Taxes are always a redistribution of money. Most of the taxes that are redistributed go back to those who paid them, in roads and airports and hospitals and schools. And taxes are necessary for the common good. And there is nothing wrong with examining what our tax structure is or who should be paying more, who should be paying less. And for us to say that that makes you a socialist, I think is an unfortunate characterization that isn't accurate.
I don't want my taxes raised. I don't want anybody else's taxes raised. But I also want to see our infrastructure fixed. I don't want to have a $12 trillion national debt, and I don't want to see an annual deficit that's over $500 billion heading toward a trillion. So, how do we deal with all of this?

So Powell has forcefully used his American military-hero credentials to refute the bizarre and contradictory "commie/terrorist/pacifist/Muslim/angry-Christian" characterization of Obama.

Here's what I saw when I looked at the Common Cause eye popping list of the principal corporate, banking, and brokerage house donors to Barack Obama and John McCain--virtually the same names. The list reads like a who's who of the top Wall Street con artists, cheats, shills, and deadbeats. All of whom are now giddily gorging themselves at the taxpayer $700 billion (and still climbing) trough. This is the same bunch that Bush, Paulson, Pelosi, Dodd, an