An Aside

I must admit that I have been anxious to put pen to paper or, rather, finger to key, given the events and propaganda pervading the media during these closing days of the presidential campaign. For example, I wanted to write about how McCain is being disserved by those running his campaign from my perspective as a target independent swing voter. And, I expect I soon will do that. But, I am somewhat embarrassed to admit that I have wasted a moment of my time to write to the on-screen personages of a television program that I never watch. After seeing a clip from "The View" and reading associated commentary, I sent the following into the bowels of their website:

"Elizabeth Hasselbeck is correct in her view of the importance of the personal associations chosen by candidates. Of course, there are general issues presented in this presidential election that are important for the electorate to consider. However, the character of the person who would be president is above all other matters the most crucial of these. It is not a "smear" to seriously discuss the associations a candidate choses to maintain in his or her personal and professional life. Recall the discusssions in the past of a candidate's membership in an "all-white" country club or an "all-male" business club. It is one thing to question the weight to be given any relevant issue and a far different matter to deny its relevance entirely. "You are known by the company you keep." Can the others on the show reasonably deny that?"

Gut Reactions

The first debate has just concluded and I can get back to the Cubs game. Since they are losing I’ll try to multi-task and write my initial reaction to the debate. I expected the debate to present the candidates in a forum and within a debate structure that would permit exposure of their comparative knowledge and “performance” skills. No one should make a decision on a candidate based on observations of a television debate. I had very limited expectations of the value of the exercise. This debate lived down to my expectations. First of all, there should have been tighter control of the timing. Each candidate appeared at times to be satisfied with their response but the moderator pushed simply for more of the same. Had the moderator asked a more focused second or third question we would have learned more about the stated position. McCain clearly showed more self-control and appeared the more secure. Sen. Obama frequently showed impatience and an immaturity in his facial expressions, body movements and attempts at interruption when Sen. McCain spoke. Sen. McCain’s expressions were, at worst, paternalistic at times.

Substantively, over an hour was spent discussing the current economic crisis although the debate was scheduled to concern foreign policy. With the relatively unbridled economic discussion there was little time remaining for foreign policy and a good portion of that time was spent on Iraq/Afghanistan and Iran. Assuredly, these countries are important for our country and there was a limited time for discussion of Russia. Other important areas of foreign policy were left out completely. I have repeatedly heard their positions on Iraq/Afghanistan and Iran and allowing the repetition was of no value to anyone but, possibly, a Van Winkle. I hoped to hear how they perceive and would deal with China, Venezuela, Cuba, Africa, India/Pakistan, India, or how about genocide, globalization, or differentiated Muslim extremism in the world. The debate as structured and controlled was a major disappointment.

During the movement through the channels to the Cubs channel, I heard the talking heads begin to discuss what they thought were the most important issues of criticism of the debate. McCain was expected to “hit a home run” in this debate on foreign policy and in their view he had not, so “points to Obama.” “Obama stood tall.” “Obama held his own.” I should admit that I never got over to Fox. Well, although I disagreed with McCain on a few of the issues and am sympathetic to Obama’s counter positions, I believe McCain was the clear winner of the overall debate. I have no doubt that Sen. Obama will be seen to have won on the economic portion. However, his strength in that portion of the debate is neither his substantive policies nor his abilities. Any perceived victory is purely the result of the effects now felt by Americans of the Bush/Republican debacles. Viewing the overall debate, McCain came across with confidence, knowledge and relevant experience and expressed himself clearly and decisively. Even Sen. Obama repeatedly said that he “agreed with John.” McCain was unnecessarily repetitious at times but a good part of the blame for that was in the structure of the debate and the lack of control by the moderator. Sen. McCain is still the best candidate but he still carries ugly luggage.

Love Thyself

This is a brief thought regarding the reaction of the media (Letterman included) to the possibility of a delayed presidential debate. Since Sen. McCain announced his desire to go to Washington and delay the debate scheduled for tonight there has been a chorus of wailings from talking heads who are part of the television media. Certainly, McCain's decision warrants a legitimate discussion and debate. Yet, it strikes me that the real basis behind their emphasis and comment is their belief in their own self worth. "They" seem to consider the candidate's selection of the financial crisis as more important then the televised debate as an affront to their perceived position of power and influence. The American people "want to see the candidates together on television." We are the real and essential dynamic of our system, they seem to be saying. They ask how a candidate can refuse to put himself out before fifty million Americans that "we" can provide? They have made this very personal. The correct answer was given by an interviewee on one of these "essentials" when he said that the work to be done for the 300 million Americans was the more important.

Crisis vs. Campaign

The descriptions are frightening to some and seriously troubling to all. “Financial meltdown,” "the most serious financial situation since the Depression,” “crisis” seem to be the milder terms. The Secretary of the Treasury and the Chairman of the Federal Reserve are quoted as saying the situation, if not immediately addressed, could have dire consequences for our Wall Street as well as international markets. They also assert that, unaddressed, the situation would directly harm an American’s ability to maintain her home, his job and savings.

Senator Obama’s staffers contacted the McCain campaign staffers this morning and proposed a joint declaration of principles on the crisis by the candidates which would be presented to Congress and the Bush Administration. Senator McCain called back and, apparently speaking directly with Sen. Obama, agreed with the proposal. Sen. Obama showed initiative and Sen. McCain showed a willingness to adopt a reasonable proposal, even from an opponent.

Later, Senator McCain announced that he was suspending his campaign and returning to Washington to engage in the resolution of congressional/Administration efforts. In this announcement he asked Sen. Obama to do the same and join him in meeting directly with the President to help resolve the differences between the Administration’s proposal and congressional objections. McCain asked that the debate scheduled for Friday on foreign policy, perceived by a vast majority of knowledgeable people to be a McCain strength, be postponed. McCain’s campaign also announced that he had directed all campaign media efforts on his behalf to cease while this suspension continued. Senator Obama has rejected the McCain concept and said that the joint proposal would be sufficient to get their points across and that the American people were anxious to see the debate. Up until moments ago Democrats, Speaker Pelosi included, today (N.P.R. interview) spoke of a substantial gap between the Administration and Congress. Beginning tonight with the six o’clock news, however, a couple of Democrats, when questioned about the McCain effort, said it wasn’t needed and that an agreement was nearly completed. So sayeth the Dervishes.

“Ride to the sound of the guns," has been around in military lore and tradition for centuries. The sound of the cannons is considered to be where the center of action is on the battlefield. A leader belongs at the place of battle where the outcome may be influenced by the exercise of leadership. In some situations the presence of the leader may be enough to influence the outcome while at other times the leader’s continuing decisions are significant to the outcome. If you need me to state an example of the soundness of this exhortation I suggest you go back to your copy of “People” magazine.

Sen. McCain is “riding to the sound of the guns.” This most important debate on the financial crisis facing this country, at least, in our lifetimes is ongoing in Washington. If there are principles and issues of import to a sitting United States Senator on this issue, that Senator belongs in Washington within the arena fighting for those principles and issues. The idea of sending a document of concerns in lieu of standing and asserting those concerns, debating, negotiating, and compromising where essential for the best interests of our country, is not the action of a leader. Each of these candidates is the presumptive leader of his party and one will inherit the results of this effort. Being the leader of the party includes leading the party. Sen. Obama cannot respond “present” in this crisis. As far as the desire of Americans to see a debate, that position is now overtaken and overwhelmed by the concerns of the citizens about their own and the country's financial future.

The Bush proposal is a mere skeleton yet contains Cheneyesk demands that have to be eliminated. The Congress must report for duty whatever the impact on their political futures. McCain is correct in taking this action in moving to the sound of the guns. Obama presents himself as what we used to refer to as a “base camp warrior.” I refer you down the page to my quotation of Teddy Roosevelt, “[T]he credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena…”

Decision

I believe that John McCain is the best candidate for the office of the President of the United States. I believe that the Republican Party during the administration of George W. Bush has actively pursued and passively permitted policies contrary to the Constitution and laws of the United States and the best interests of this country.

So I sit here angry and try to find something to give me comfort in deciding whether to vote for the best candidate or against his party. The media is of no help. In fact, the cable coverage of CNN, MSNBC, and Fox has been ludicrous in the respective bias of each. The coverage of the old networks has been insignificant. I think that I am a fairly intelligent, educated and well read citizen yet I haven't reached a decision. Assuredly there are differences in the stated proposals “for reform” between the candidates. The party platforms, the candidate speeches, the spin of their talking-heads and the point-counterpoint of the arguments, however, are all mostly hollow when considered in the historic viability of “candidate promises.” The “soul” of each party used to be apparent. I don’t recognize either one now.

I would unhesitatingly support the John McCain of 2000. I am angered that the best the opposition could come up with is Senator Obama. I cannot at this point actively support either one. But, how will I vote? For the moment, I am deeply angered by a statement made tonight by Rep. Eric Cantor of my state of Virginia, the Republican Chief Deputy Majority Whip, on an MSNBC cable talk show. When challenged to affirm or disavow the conduct of the Bush administration, Cantor said that fingers should not be pointed nor blame assessed for past conduct. He argued that the only relevant questions relate to the future and how the candidates would approach the present situations. Cantor’s protest of accountability is only the latest restatement of the position of a substantial number of Republican office holders over the last five to six years. It is obvious that their position is to avoid any accounting or review. It is not an unqualified support for the actions of the administration because such a position would be untenable and they understand that. This failure of the Republican Party is a decision to place their party over principle, over their oath of office and a dereliction of their responsibility as a co-equal branch of our government.

McCain is still the best candidate but his baggage is ugly.

Palin and the Media (Chapter One)

The attacks on the candidacy of Gov. Palin, both direct and inferential, being presented now in the media are baseless and ridiculous. The question as to whether the mother of young children can handle substantial leadership responsibilities should have long been buried in the sands.

The lead to a New York Times "news report" today reads: "A series of disclosures about Gov. Sarah Palin, Senator John McCain’s choice as running mate, called into question on Monday how thoroughly Mr. McCain had examined her background before putting her on the Republican presidential ticket." The NYT should have more correctly read "This newspaper is calling into question...." since the article describes it's own reporters calling the issue into question.

After referring to the pregnancy of Gov. Palin's daughter, the NYT article immediately continued: "Among other less attention-grabbing news of the day: it was learned that Ms. Palin now has a private lawyer in a legislative ethics investigation in Alaska into whether she abused her power in dismissing the state’s public safety commissioner; that she was a member for two years in the 1990s of the Alaska Independence Party, which has at times sought a vote on whether the state should secede; and that Mr. Palin was arrested 22 years ago on a drunken-driving charge." These items, as presented by the NYT, individually and collectively, are meaningless. Certainly, the underlying issues of the ethics investigation are important and relevant to her qualifications. However, the fact, alone, that she has a lawyer to represent her in the investigation is suggestive of nothing more than her wisdom in seeking an advocate to insure her rights are protected. The NYT presents this as part of a "Law and Order" script where the detective announces "She lawyered -up." and the audience immediately concludes that she is guilty. I don't know the background of the "Independence Party" but it certainly doesn't have the ring of the Communist Party or anarchism. The secession of Alaska, or Hawaii, or Puerto Rico or Staten Island (which have each given it some consideration) is not a prelude to another Civil War though there is no telling what image that same "Law and Order" audience would conjure at the suggestion. Assuming Mr. Palin has matured since his marriage to the Governor and after his other adult accomplishments his arrest (conviction?) 22 years ago should be nothing more than a footnote. Her daughter's pregnancy is simply irrelevant to Gov. Palin's candidacy. Although the media appears to accept this, there are continuing and unnecessary references to the irrelevance thereby keeping the issue before the public as if it mattered. It doesn't.

The manner of the media's presentation of accumulated, insignificant events and conjectures may influence those Americans who read the headlines on the magazines at the checkout counter and walk out of the store wondering whether or not Jennifer Anniston really is a Russian spy. The conjectures are picked up and spun and re-spun on the 24 hour "news" channels with the addition of "analysis" by talking-heads who are vacuous, advocates for one side or the other. And my friends, on both ends, pick up this, so-called, news and analysis and their emails then bolster the truth and importance of nothing.

McCain's choice of Palin

First of all, after the self-centered, morally corrupt years of the Clinton presidency and the corruption of our Constitution and national moral values by the Bush/Cheney cabal, I want to see, in anyone who would lead this Country, strength of character and integrity. That integrity should itself be premised upon a high personal moral code. The strength of character I look for is suggested in the words of the West Point Cadet Prayer: "Make us to choose the harder right instead of the easier wrong, and never to be content with a half truth when the whole truth can be won. Endow us with courage that is born of loyalty to all that is noble and worthy, that scorns to compromise with vice and injustice and knows no fear when truth and right are in jeopardy." I want an American who will defend not just America's shores against attack but also will defend the People's Constitutional and evolved liberties and sustain their pursuit of happiness.

For my adult life I have been a political independent. I grew up in Chicago where the Democratic precinct captain was the link to all political services. On one wall of our rented flat was a crucifix and a picture of FDR. I stood near and listened to JFK speak. I believed in him and believed in "The Impossible Dream" of that man from La Mancha. Later, despite the warning that voting for him would place me in Viet Nam, I voted for Goldwater.

I now understand more about the growth of this country than was presented in the history classes of the fifties and early sixties. I appreciate more the complexities of international policies and national politics. I have repeatedly sworn to support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic. And I believe that whatever value to the United States there may be to "free-trade" and globalization, they are not a substitute for the evolved values of liberty and justice in our country. In other words, it is imperative that our leaders believe that the core of this "experiment" must be protected. There will be change, as in all things. But, the strength, the beauty, the value, the promise of the American experiment has now given way to self-centered consumerism and unbridled capitalism. The rhetoric of politicians espousing "our American values" is, and has been for some time, hypocritical in view of their actions and their inaction's.

I see hypocrisy in the McCain of 2008 as he does himself. I wholly disagree with some of his proposals; continuing the Bush tax cuts, for example. With the editors of The Economist (Aug. 30, 2008), I prefer McCain One. The Republican Party agenda under Cheney/Bush has been an affront to the vast majority of Americans. Yet, I have a confidence in McCain's integrity and strength of character that I just cannot find in Obama. The fluffy rhetoric of the Democratic Party and expansive promises are hollow. I am angry that the opposition party could do no better than Obama after the debacles of Bush. I am willing to trust McCain's judgment as president though I may shudder and say a prayer as to some of his stated policies. His decisions in office will be made, I believe, after honest, intellectual consideration of options for the common good within this country. I am encouraged by his honesty when he answers "I don't know the answer but I'll get back to you" to some off-the-wall question. But, let me get back to the questions surrounding Gov. Sarah Palin.

I am willing to trust McCain's judgment as president on critical international and national issues. I see no reason, at this point, not to trust his judgment on Palin. McCain will define the role and responsibilities he wants from his Vice President just as he will define the policies of the Republican Party for this election. I share the concern of others who question whether the scope and substance of Gov. Palin's life experience has given her the strengths necessary to lead a nation. As I see her in these first few days, I like the fact that she appears to have entered into politics more with a sense of selfless service to her community than political party ambition. I like her "frontier" persona. I like her positions and actions to bring integrity into government and on care for the environment. I like the choice of a strong woman who has shown the ability to lead, to make tough decisions. Her shortcomings in international affairs are the shortcomings of Obama as well. I do not have confidence in Obama's character. Presidents and Vice Presidents have the strengths of intellectual and experienced advisers. The "3:00 o'clock AM" calls are events in evolving situations that have been studied and briefed. The Pentagon, Homeland Defense, the CIA, et al. have contingency studies and plans. The real questions are in the personal character, intelligence, wisdom and decisiveness of the leader. These questions apply equally during the regular work day of the leader.

Gov. Palin should begin with the benefit from us of a trust in McCain's judgment and with a confidence in herself. As for me, I want to believe.