The makeup of a campaign

It has been said that the definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results. While this may not be the scientific definition it certainly makes you wonder how, when 81% of the country believes we are headed in the wrong direction, the 2008 election could be so close. Why, when McCain has voted with Bush over 90% of the time , is he considered a "maverick" or a "Washington reformer"?

Unfortunately, in politics and campaigns especially, its more about the image you create and the story you tell then actually debating the issues. And McCain would have it no other way. In this post I look at the makeup of a campaign and McCain's own decisions, to finally pull back the facade and see exactly how he would lead as President of the United States.

I believe the people you surround yourself with says a lot about your judgment and who you are as a person. So how is it that McCain, who has more lobbyists and former-lobbyists in his campaign, is still considered a reformer? And this is not simply low-level employees, these are key strategists that are undoubtedly effecting the decisions McCain makes on a day-to-day basis.

Here is the line-up:

1) Rick Davis, Campaign Manager - Rick Davis founded the lobbyist firm Davis & Manfort, which he recently took a leave of absence from to create the "image" of an ethical campaign. His firm, however, has lobbied McCain for a deal to allow the purchase of Airborne Express in Ohio to a German company that owns DHL and helped manage Ukrainian politician Viktor Yanukovich. Incidentally, DHL is now moving its hub and will cost Ohio 10,000 to 30,000 jobs and Mr. Yanukovich has known ties to Vladimir Putin. (conflict of interest, I think yes) The worst is that Mr. Davis, while a lobbyist, headed McCain's reform institute (read the site, its a joke) the non-profit paid Mr. Davis a handsome salary and collected "donations" from companies seeking to do business with the U.S. government. Basically, McCain created this "institute" and staffed it with lobbyist who are now using it to get tax $$ from the government.

2) Charlie Black, Senior Advisor - Is a founding member of the powerful lobbying firm BKSH & Associates, and has a 30-year career as a Washington lobbyist. Mr. Black's client list includes foreign leaders Mobutu Sese Seko of Zaire, Nigerian Gen. Ibrahim Babangida, and Somali President Mohamed Siad Barre. All of whom are not well known for being the most democratic leaders.

3) Randy Scheunemann, Senior Foreign Advisor - Is a paid lobbyist for the country of Georgia and a co-owner of the lobbying firm Orion Strategies . The day McCain showed support to Georgia during their conflict with Russia Mr. Schunemann's firm signed a new $200,000 with the country. Mr. Schunemann also advised Donald Rumsfeld on the Iraq strategy and we all know how well that turned out.

To be continued with economic advisors and lobbyists who either think we are whiners or worked hard to make it easier for mortgage companies to sell home buyers bad mortgages.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

I mean... really. If you don't laugh you'll cry. Here is McCain berating Palin - I mean, former rivals Former Gov. Mitt Romney and Former Mayor Rudy Giuliani - about their lack of experience in foreign policy. While he's at it he reminds us that he's older than Methuselah. McCain of 2007, come back. We miss your straight talk.

Voter Suppression and the G.O.P

If you have not been living under a rock or on another planet for last year then you are well aware of the housing crisis that has hit America hard. Besides falling home prices there has been a record number of home foreclosures in the last year. In fact, in the first 6 months of this year foreclosures are up 136% in comparison to last year's record number. And just this past Sunday the federal government had to bail out Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac mainly because of predatory lending that was made easier by Phil Gramm, Senior Economic Adviser to McCain, and other congressional leaders (more details about this soon).

So how could the G.O.P possibly use record home foreclosures to their advantage? Well in swing state of Michigan there is a swing county named Macomb where the chairman of the Republican Party is planning to use the list of foreclosed homes to block people from voting in this upcoming election. WHAT?! It's true.

The GOP is declaring that they want a "fair" election and are arguing that if you no longer live in the home or county that you are not allowed to vote for that address. Like many arguments this party is spewing they pepper truth on to a false statement and generally try to alarm people. To the people of Macomb County and any other person in a foreclosed home you have the right to vote!

1) If your home is in the process of foreclosure you are still a resident of the home and county and as such are entitled to vote.
2) Even if you have been evicted from your home and do not have a new address you are entitled to vote at that address.

It amazes me that nearly 140 years after the 15th amendment passed that this is still going on in one way or the other. It is no surprise to me that the GOP is targeting this county and not Riverside, CA or Maricopa, AZ both hit hard by foreclosure but both not swing states and with low African-American populations.

This is just another way that the McCain campaign is trying to profit from the difficulties average Americans are facing. And to drive the point home McCain has set up its regional headquarters for the Macomb county in the office for foreclosure specialist Trott & Trott oh yeah and its founder, David Trott, has raised nearly $250,000 for McCain.

A History of Community Organizers

It is clear from the GOP Convention last week and over the past few days that the republicans have decided to make a hard right and make their campaign about disparaging the character of their opponents. And Rick Davis, Mccain Campaign Manager is certainly not trying to hide this strategy, as you can see here.

But that is for another post; here I want to dive into the history of the community organizer. Sarah Palin and Rudy Giuliani and the rest of the right-wing talk radio believes that the job of community organizer is void of responsibilities and they are also generally unsure of what these organizers do. So in an effort to clear that up I am going to list a few community organizers from American History and World History.

1) Susan B. Anthony is credited as a leader who helped bring about women's rights and women's suffrage in the United States. She founded the National Women's Suffrage Association an organization dedicated to gaining equal women's rights. She was ahead of her time when she declared "Where, under our Declaration of Independence does the Saxon man get his power to deprive all women and Negroes of their inalienable rights?"

2) Martin Luther King Jr. a man that needs no introduction and is considered a leader in civil rights and human rights. He successfully organized peaceful protests during the civil rights movement and for his work was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize, Presidential Medal of Freedom, and Congressional Gold Medal.

3) Mohandas Gandhi The leader of India's Independent Movement. By organizing rural and urban citizens, farmers and peasants he managed to pioneer the resistance to tyranny through non-violent protests. He is credited with expanding women's rights, easing poverty, and establishing India's independence among many other noble causes.

These are only a few, others include Cesar Chavez (co-founder or National Farm Workers Association), Dorthy Day (founder of Catholic Worker Movement), Harriet Tubman (Antislavery and the underground Railroad), Jesus Christ (founder of the Christian Faith).

I am not arguing that these people are fit to be President of the United States, but they all made a decision to put the interests of their community, state, or nation above their own. They did so without violence and without asking for anything but justice and equality in return. It should also be noted that each of these figures while working as community organizers were also agents of change and often ridiculed and attacked for doing so.

Resentment strategy

Bill Maher on the Rovian strategy of stoking resentment for fictitious bombast and elitism on the part of the left. Krugman too weighs in less polemically and more incisively on this all-important issue. It's political as hell, of course, and devoid of substance, but maybe that's precisely the reason why it needs to be pointed out again and again. Though the right naturally has a political platform, you wouldn't have guessed it listening to the best they could give at RNC. Bitterness, rancor and general partisanship prevailed as they inveighed again and again against some diffuse east-coast snobbery while avoiding almost all issues of substance. Unfortunately, it gets the votes. Many of the right will be sticking it to the left by voting with the Republican party, convinced that the spluttering anger that their speakers conveyed in fact characterizes the "angry left". Will anger be more effective than hope?

Fiscal responsibility?

For all the hoopla about former Alaska Governor Frank Murkowski's private jet allegedly sold by newbie Governor Sarah Palin on Ebay for a profit, I hate to revisit this tired story. But I just wanted to see what was out there, doing my own fact checking to understand what the GOP was telling the truth about, and what were lies. The Anchorage Daily News (ADN) published an impressive list of Sarah Palin's accomplishments as Governor of Alaska during her 20 month tenure. In pride of place, at the very top of the list: "The state-owned jet: Sold." For how much and to whom? John McCain would have his audiences believe on the campaign trail that the jet was truly sold on Ebay for a profit. He made this assertion in Wisconsin and he will make it again. See the video of his speech on MSNBC. The statement is at 7:58 if you prefer to skip ahead.

Meanwhile, although the ADN is clearly pro-Palin, their archives state clearly that the private jet was NOT sold on Ebay and that it was sold for a LOSS of $600,000. That of course is a loss absorbed by tax-payers. The highest bidder on Ebay had offered only $1.9 million for the $2.7 million jet. This can be checked on the ADN website here.

So what is up with the thousand little points of lies from this Republican ticket? It takes time to fact-check, as I have just done here. The strategy is obvious. Assume your constituents and any independent still undecided will absorb these small details which define a non-existent rectitude of a fictional character, without taking the time to check every detail. The assumption is probably well-founded, sadly.

Quote

It's late. I'm not tired. Here's a quote for your edification which I came across earlier this week.

"I like your Christ. I do not like your Christians. They are so unlike your Christ." --Ghandi

It returns to mind after watching the RNC.

Homework!

Incidentally, for good overviews of negative and positive liberties, see these links. I regret starting this post on such a brainy note, but I've been thinking about these different "liberties" for a while. Without falling into the (oft conservative) trap of black and white logic, I do think current conservative tendency is to push negative liberties (a kind of libertarianism, abortion being a looming exception) and liberals positive liberties (exemplified most obviously in affirmative action, though conservatives have now coopted that one!) Anyway, for all this inflicting of homework, maybe I deserve conservative's ire for intellectual elitism. Read and respond, or just contribute something new and leave me to chew my cud...

Who does heroism belong to? And what is it?

What is it about conservatives and heroism? They tried to adopt the purple-heart Ranger Pat Tillman into their ranks of military heroes until his parents' criticism of the White House and the Pentagon made that impossible. They have successfully touted the service and courage of tens of thousands of other Americans soldiers as a brand of patriotism belonging only to their party and encouraged only by their ideology. Yesterday, in John McCain's acceptance speech for the Republican nomination, we heard the same, well-known story of this heroism and bravery, of his remarkable resilience at the hands of the North Vietnamese, with even more detail and pathos. His base loved it, the crowd at the RNC was wild with enthusiasm. The metaphor, if metaphor there was, emphasized McCain's resilience not only physically but also politically. It emphasized a determination to never back down to the corrupt Washington insiders (those dark forces which are never overtly named). Glowing by the end of the speech, as the standard bearer against all things evil, the evil of torture inflicted by the North Vietnamese, and the evil of corrupt politics, were conflated into all things evil. The allegory was complete, and here was the man, the knight errant (that other great symbol of mavericky herosim), that would save us from the forces of evil.

Now I know I am making gross generalizations and I want to be corrected. But I can't help but look at this symbol of heroism and then listen to the bashing of community service leaders - foot soldiers of public servants you could say - and think, How do conservatives praise heroism to the heavens only to disparage the little efforts, the small acts of heroism performed by humbler people? How does this add up? In one breath, heroism at a grassroots or street-level is mocked while a great, almost untouchable parable of heroism is breathlessly revered.

Conservatives, I can't help but thinking, are comforted by these images of great heroism which are, for all intents and purposes, unattainable. Most people I know will not be tortured at the hands of Communists. And I can say with even more confidence that I will never meet someone who has not only been tortured but stood up to it and practically asked for more. It is at this apex of McCain's speech that the crowd seemed to respond the most. Not by sympathy, mind you. How does one sympathize with something unimaginable? How does one understand the unreachable? They clapped and praised by respect and by a recognition of the allegorical resilience which McCain is meant to exude to his followers. This is a guy who not only stands up to evil but absorbs it.

What then, is a conservative to do? How be a hero after the apotheosis of the ultimate hero? No need. After all, hasn't conservative dogma for the last eight years been to stick it to the terrorists by shopping more and filling up the family Humvee with pride? I can't help but think that all this balances out. McCain, in the conservative imagination, is meant look over his base, to comfort them morally. They've done their duty by voting for such an ubermensch.

For all the badgering of Obama and his "minions", it isn't so much some kind of mythical Obama worship, sterile and idolatrous, that brings out his supporters but the inspiration to do something, however small. Obama is not an end but a means for his followers, while from outside the conservative mentality, I can only see conservatives as comforted by McCain as an ends: the guy who will do it all, battle the dark forces of partisan bickering, etc. etc. There is a sense in liberal mentality that Obama will effectuate change in the White House, but it is a sense that the change he brings about will not just belong to him alone, but to all of us. His followers don't want to act for him but through him, hoping for what Isaiah Berlin has called positive liberty. More on that later.

This is all vague, but I'm trying to wrap my head around it.