Stimulus and Support for the Presidency

Senator Lindsey Graham is being interviewed on a Fox News program as I write this. He charges that the President has “failed” and has lost an opportunity to bring the country together by going forward with a recovery bill that could only gain the support of three Republican senators. The senator’s commentary directly called into question the competence of the President to lead the country. Apparently this senator speaks for the entrenched 41 Republican senators who reject a compromise worked out in joint sessions today. Three Republicans, according to media reports, will vote with the Democratic majority to pass the compromise.

The consensus of the Congress has consistently appeared to be that an extraordinary fiscal stimulus effort by the federal government was immediately essential. Now, I understand that the bill presented to the Senate was the product of a Democratic House of Representatives relieving years of tension and contained “non-stimulative” options. Accordingly, I expected that appropriate and vigorous opposition would be raised to portions of the House bill in the Senate. But, it was also my expectation, given the unquestioned gravity of the national economic problems, that the Republican opposition would be tactical rather than strategic. In other words, though the posturing would be on strategic fundamentals, the attacks would be surgical amendments to individual provisions.

We are engaged in a fighting war on two fronts and, according to most political and economic projections, near the verge of a national or international depression. The media’s 24 hour cyclic headlining of quoted and synthesized hyperbole about the economic crisis by experts and fluttering, talking-heads has continued to shake the confidence of investors and non-investors, institutions and the institutionalized among our citizens. Whatever the validity of the conclusion, some 59 million American’s recently expressed a belief that Barack Obama, a Democrat, had the ability to lead this country through these perils; a conclusion with which I did not agree. This belief was a vote of confidence. Now, two weeks into his administration, the Cheneyesque assertions by a member of the United States Senate purposefully or ignorantly undercut that confidence and are unwarranted and irresponsible. The President’s personal efforts toward the Republican minority over this past week have been highly commendable, particularly in the shadow of President Bush’s open contempt for the then minority party. Whatever the strategic fiscal arguments might be currently, our citizens and the international community need confidence in our leadership. Statements from the United States Senate subverting confidence in our President of eighteen days, severely harms any prospect of success in recovery and the stature of the United States.

The Republican Party lost the confidence of the vast majority of Americans as evidenced in the results of the last two national elections. The leadership of a Republican President had been rejected around the world. However, as the Republican Party seeks to redefine, reassert or repeat its image, it need not and should not precipitously undercut the Presidency of the United States with attacks such as those of Sen. Graham. Speaking on the Senate floor, Sen. McCain said of the bill “This is not a bi-partisan” compromise. However, it is the intransigence of the Republican minority that brings failure to the President’s attempts at a bi-partisan stimulus bill. The compromise will, apparently as I write this, become the Law of the Land. Hopefully Republicans such as Sen. Graham will, however grudgingly, express a confidence in the President for the good of the country if not their party. Like it or not our President is a Democrat.

Life as a Voyage

I ran across this quote tonight from the autobiography," Wanderer," of Sterling Hayden, an actor, and a member of the OSS during WW II who ran guns to guerrillas fighting the Nazis in Yugoslavia. Apparently, he loved the ocean and sailing. I thought it is interesting, beyond sailing.

"To be truly challenging, a voyage, like a life, must rest on a firm foundation of financial unrest. Otherwise, you are doomed to a routine traverse, the kind known to yachtsmen who play with their boats at sea... cruising, it is called. Voyaging belongs to seamen, and to the wanderers of the world who cannot, or will not, fit in. If you are contemplating a voyage and you have the means, abandon the venture until your fortunes change. Only then will you know what the sea is all about. "I've always wanted to sail to the south seas, but I can't afford it." What these men can't afford is not to go. They are enmeshed in the cancerous discipline of security. And in the worship of security we fling our lives beneath the wheels of routine - and before we know it our lives are gone. What does a man need - really need? A few pounds of food each day, heat and shelter, six feet to lie down in - and some form of working activity that will yield a sense of accomplishment. That's all - in the material sense, and we know it. But we are brainwashed by our economic system until we end up in a tomb beneath a pyramid of time payments, mortgages, preposterous gadgetry, playthings that divert our attention for the sheer idiocy of the charade. The years thunder by, the dreams of youth grow dim where they lie caked in dust on the shelves of patience. Before we know it, the tomb is sealed. Where, then, lies the answer? In choice. Which shall it be: bankruptcy of purse or bankruptcy of life?"

A thought about Obama

There is a long road ahead for him, but I appreciate President-elect Obama's having begun his day on the 19th of January with an unscheduled visit to the wounded warriors at Walter Reed Army Medical Center. He did this a day after laying a wreath at the Tomb of the Unknowns at Arlington National Cemetery.

Each of these actions by a president-elect were, I understand, unprecedented in the days immediately preceding an inauguration.

I was not a supporter of Obama in the election and still have serious concerns. But, in a few hours he will be our President, and, accordingly, he deserves our respect and support. I am, frankly, angered by the emails that I receive continuing to replay the political diatribes of the election cycles. I understand that many of the actors in Congress have records and views and some are now asserting intended political actions that are worthy of criticism. And there will be a time when those political actions, if pursued within this administration, will bring those personalities and issues into the arena of vigorous debate and discourse. But, let's at least not politically castigate this President, directly or indirectly, before he has taken an action, proposed legislation or violated his oath. After all, the affirmative vote of 69,456,897 Americans deserves some respect as well.

Cheney's farewell.

According to a report moments ago – "Vice President Dick Cheney will be in a wheelchair during Tuesday's Presidential Inauguration, after pulling a muscle in his back while moving, White House spokeswoman Dana Perino said" (CNN)

I cannot envision his recreating a more appropriate iconic image wholly representative of his character, demeanor and role these last eight years. Can you?

A letter to a friend: Unions

I have not been watching the auto industry issues very closely but I am concerned about some of what I read. My mother and father were both union members and often the best Christmas gift I received as a child was from the union. Having been raised in Chicago, I remember well the stories of the violence against union organizing in the early twentieth century. The unions made the difference between a living wage and basically indentured servitude. I remember my mother speaking of the difference in wages after her laundry unionized. I think her wage for hand pressing and folding a shirt went up to about .03 cents a shirt. She was 15. My dad worked for US Steel at its mill in South Chicago and, though wages were a continuing issue, safety concerns were paramount. Most importantly in each situation there was a structure that spoke for the workers. Prior to that, to speak up about conditions would cost a worker a job or a beating. To be sure, if one survived the career in the mill or sweat shops, the companies ultimately provided retirement and health benefits. A situation not unlike the Armed Services though each time a union contract came up for renewal all benefits and wage amounts were up for renegotiation. In my parent's situation, the contract that he was under from US Steel called for all benefits to end upon his death. So my mother lost all health benefits when he died. Other workers under different contracts may not have had their elderly spouses abandoned. Remember, in that generation most women were housewives.

The point, it seems to me, is that contracts for future benefits were always subject to market forces. The retirees now benefiting from contracts entered into years ago are in that situation because of the give and take of market power and negotiation. These were not the result of largess on the part of the companies or extortion of the workers.

The disparity between UAW wages in the North and foreign companies in the Southern states comes from market forces and, I expect, from the lack of unions in Southern states. As an attorney in private practice here in Richmond I saw first hand the substantial and heavily moneyed effort to keep unions out. I represented the companies. It seems to me that there is little difference in the actual wages paid whether North or South. [see the articles below] This lack of disparity is due in part to the existing market situation of higher existing UAW wages. Otherwise, I am confident that Toyota to South Carolina would be paying close to Mexican wage scales. Further, the plants in the South are relatively new and accordingly do not have added weight of existing, negotiated benefits for retirees and current employees.

Our country has come a long way with established safety regulations and so that effort on the part of unions need not be as needed or confrontational. But laborers have value in a capitalist system. The most effective way to insure a correct value for labor is by matching the power of the corporate structure against a unified, labor structure. There is no compassion in capitalism. Our country has dramatically moved away from employer health and retirement benefits. We are now in the transitional period when substitutes for employer programs and even social security are developing daily.

The bottom line for me is that the auto industry, as with American manufacturing, is not failing because of labor costs. The paradigm has changed. The globalization of United States corporations attracted by exceptionally cheap labor overseas is merely the logical extension of capitalism. Corporations are not good citizens. They have no patriotism. American labor can perform as well or better than any other national group. Maybe they just have to accept wages comparable to those in a village outside Ho Chi Minh City or wait for those villagers to organize for appropriate wages and benefits.

http://www.uaw.org/barg/07fact/fact02.php

http://www.heritage.org/research/economy/wm2162.cfm

http://bigthreeauto.procon.org/viewadditionalresource.asp?resourceID=2050

Proportionate Terrorism 12/27/08 ?

The article on NYTimes.com read simply "Israeli Gaza Strike Kills 225" and wounds some 700 Palestinians. The article gave an explanation for the attack: "But in some ways the [upcoming Israeli] elections have made it impossible for officials like Mr. Barak not to react, because the public has grown anxious and angry over the rocket fire, which while causing no recent deaths and few injuries is deeply disturbing for those living near Gaza."

The world has for years been "anxious and angry" and has experienced terrorism and death while Israeli governments alternate factions cold and colder to resolution and Palestinian "authorities" feign or hide behind claims of sincere desires for resolution. And each side must continue to use the imposition of terror to express the validity of its position.

Neither the Palestinian nor the Israeli people deserve death because of the intransigence of their respective rulers and the criminally inept policies of the United States. This visceral reaction on my part to this day's news must be followed with a broader analysis though it will benefit only the writer.

Government in Illinois

Chicago/Illinois politicians generally hone their criminal talents from birth within the party system. They should be given some credit for the unswerving commitment to a life of cutting edge bribery. These are not amateurs at corruption but they are, invariably, so greedy as to cross the line into stupidity. Growing up in Chicago under the wing of the old Mayor Daley the corruption in the city was systemic. But the city ran exceptionally well with a shadow government of democratic precinct captains and corrupt officials. As a resident driver back then, one knew to have a five or ten dollar bill wrapped around the driver's license on the chance one was stopped for a traffic offense. The corrupt office holders, contractors and appointees picked up the trash, shoveled the snow, cleaned the parks, acquitted the guilty and protected the bookies. But if you didn't especially need justice or honest official conduct, life was calm and stable.

A note to the ASPCA

I take issue with the decision to place an ASPCA ad calling attention to the great number of animals abandoned during the holidays during the CNN report tonight by Ms. Amanpour on the genocide of humans in Darfur. There is no measure of equality between these two situations. The juxtaposition of these issues by the ASPCA during this program was more than insensitive, it was sickening and obscene. Your organization should be ashamed of this insensitive stupidity.

End of an Era - Worth Repeating

"Words had to change their ordinary meaning and to take that which was now given them. Reckless audacity came to be considered the courage of a loyal ally; prudent hesitation, specious cowardice; moderation was held to be a cloak for unmanliness; ability to see all sides of a question, inaptness to act on any...The advocate of extreme measures was always trustworthy; his opponent a man to be suspected...." Thucydides (circa 420 BCE)

Interesting how "BCE" might also refer to "Bush/Cheney Era.

Merely an Observation

Have you ever waited in a checkout line while a women ahead of you searches through, readjusts, drops and replaces all or a portion of the contents of an oversized shoulder bag? Of course, we all have. We sigh, groan or cuss under our breath but we learn to expect, with a high degree of probability, this activity because such conduct seems to be in the nature of the beast. Apparently, this lesson had been lost on NASA.

'Oh Great': Astronaut Loses Tool Bag During Spacewalk
Wednesday, November 19, 2008 (Associated Press)
HOUSTON — A spacewalking astronaut accidentally let go of her tool bag Tuesday after a grease gun inside it exploded, and helplessly watched as the tote and everything inside floated away.
It was one of the largest items ever to be lost by a spacewalker, and occurred during an unprecedented attempt to clean and lube a gummed-up joint on a solar panel.
Heidemarie Stefanyshyn-Piper was just starting to work on the joint when the mishap occurred.
She said her grease gun exploded, getting the dark gray stuff all over a camera and her gloves. While wiping off herself, the white, backpack-size bag slipped out of her grip, and she lost all her other tools.
"Oh, great," she mumbled.

A Continued Response

The friend answered with his observation that "many were jumping on the Bush-bashing bandwagon." Taking this personally I responded:
"It seems to me that everyone standing in line is not waiting to jump on any "bashing" bandwagon. I think the lines we see are quite simply the growing - though relatively static - lines for unemployment insurance, company grade officer resignations, Veterans care, bank/401K withdrawals, small business/student/home mortgage loans, criminal legal representation (primarily former Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, Lehman Brothers, et al.) and voter registration (OK. This last one has almost all Bush bashing democrats)."

The friend then commented that he felt confident that he could show the democrats at least equally as responsible. And, so I said:
"Generally, you will not get an argument from me. It's an "Imperial Presidency" that I condemn. The elected representatives from both political parties, for most of at least the last 16 or so years, have consistently set the table in Washington so as to ignore, corrupt and devalue our country's higher ideals and the true common good of the people."

The friend then suggested that we might all agree that less government would be better. And, so I felt compelled to add:
"I agree - with a footnote. Cutting federal and state is certainly a very worthy effort. However, the cuts should be well considered. Wholesale chopping that eliminates or guts effective oversight has repeatedly shown human nature or "the market" incapable of sustained, reasoned, fair and legal conduct. The current financial crisis has a genesis in unrestrained greed and overreaching (bottom and top) in the mortgage market and, most significantly, in the derivatives markets where oversight was non-existent. In my own personal experience as a federal criminal prosecutor I saw the aftermath of the lifting of regulatory oversight in the airline industry with wide spread use of counterfeit/surplus repair parts and negligent repair and maintenance. I had ample job security when the savings and loan institutions were taken to account, again, as a direct result of the gutting of effective oversight by elimination of inspection positions and targeted budget constraints. So, I agree with the cutting of the duplicated, ineffective and unnecessary. Yet, until there is an even playing field for each and among all, there must be reasoned oversight. Caveat emptor is not a substitute for "Equal Justice for All."

Wasn't there an old NCO adage to the affect: "The only thing that is done well is that which is inspected."?" [My friend was kind to correct me. "The hero of St. Vith--BG Bruce Clarke wrote in his book for the Commander and Leader that a unit does well that which the commander checks."

This is not Plato, but, it has been cathartic.

A Response

A friend today sent around an email, apparently in support of the Iraq Invasion by George W. Bush, referring to an "Associated Press article this summer [that] revealed that our troops found 550 metric tons of yellowcake a few miles south of Baghdad in 2003 and kept it secret until recently. See: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/25546334/ " I replied as follows:

Interesting but fundamentally irrelevant when considering the manner in which the Bush/Cheney Administration cherry-picked and fabricated intelligence, failed to follow fundamental intelligence procedures of verification (For example: "Curveball") and, when necessary to support its preordained intention to invade Iraq, lied to the American people. The more egregious of these, in my opinion, were the statements, primarily by Cheney, asserting existence of unquestionable evidence of a direct and nefarious connection between Saddam and al Qaeda.

This "yellow cake" referred to in the article was stock existing in Iraq prior to 1991. The Bush Administration's repeated dire warnings were of then "current and continuing efforts" by Saddam to obtain uranium. Independent expert conclusions following the invasion and based upon evidence within Iraq (documents, interrogations and interviews) seem to be in agreement that Saddam had stopped efforts to build a WMD program in at least 1991.

We must beat the forces opposing us in Iraq and Afghanistan and, in a joint effort with nation-building assets from within our own government and from NATO countries, assist in establishing an allied front with the resulting governments against terrorism. When this is completed it will be almost solely the achievement of the United States military command and the military and intelligence forces on the ground. The decision to invade Iraq by Bush was the stupidest decision of any president in my lifetime. The fact that the proffered rationale for the necessity of invasion was false is wholly reprehensible and worthy of continuing condemnation whatever the outcome of the wars. But, that's just my humble opinion.

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…”

Trust me. Again.

Today, President Bush spoke of the economic instability on Wall Street and his approach to Congress for immediate implementation of his proposed response. "The whole world is watching to see if we can act quickly to shore up our markets and prevent damage to our capital markets, businesses, our housing sector, and retirement accounts," Bush said Monday. "Failure to act would have broad consequences far beyond Wall Street. It would threaten small business owners and homeowners on Main Street."

On Monday October 07 2002, in Cincinnati, Ohio President Bush also stressed the need for immediate, unquestioning approval of his policy initiative. Our President said then: "Knowing these realities, America must not ignore the threat gathering against us. Facing clear evidence of peril, we cannot wait for the final proof, the smoking gun that could come in the form of a mushroom cloud....Understanding the threats of our time, ..., we have every reason to assume the worst, and we have an urgent duty to prevent the worst from occurring."

The current situation calls to mind another quote from this president "Fool me once, shame on you; fool me twice, shame on me." Well, actually, he screwed that up too. Congress has a constitutional responsibility to approach proffered solutions to this mess with intelligence and a real concern for the common good. Congressional Republicans have an opportunity to salvage their honor lost in blind approvals of Bush's policies and Democrats, in control of Congress, have an opportunity to focus their oversight in a credible, timely manner for the common good as they have repeatedly said was their intention. All beware the lobbyists bearing gifts and draft proposals.

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.

Financial Markets

Treasury Secretary Paulson in a briefing at the White House moments ago expressed relief and, more significantly, satisfaction that the private sector has come together to take over or bolster the failing financial institutions. Private commercial solutions would, I expect, relieve the federal government from direct intervention. Yet, it also appears to me that we are merely allowing bigger, more powerful profit-driven entities unregulated growth.

President Bush should immediately assemble an advisory panel consisting of non-partisan experts from a broad range of financial disciplines to review the current "corrective" efforts in the market and advise on immediate regulatory approaches. His Office and his administration, standing alone, have neither the confidence of the American people nor of the international community. Congress will take a long term view in the not distant future but by the time new books of regulations and new federal agencies are approved Congress will be able to merely massage rather than tame the beast.

Palin Did Well While McCain Faltered.

Gov. Palin's speech at the convention should do more than bring a sigh of relief to Republicans. She showed the right combination of her personal strength and nature. She seemed to come across honestly. That was Sarah Palin; and I am more confident.

Frankly, it was McCain that caused me some concern after the speech. As he came on the stage after she had completed her speech and greeted her family, he seemed uncomfortable and unsure how to continue or fit into the energy of the crowd. More significantly to me, however, was his way of handling these moments. Although his vice presidential candidate stood to his immediate left McCain repeatedly turned away from her and directed comments to her husband as the crowd continued to cheer. McCain seemed to feel more comfortable with a "man to man" exchange than one with Palin. Palin had just made a most successful speech. McCain should have been able to show that he is personally comfortable with his choice. Had Palin been a more experienced politician she might have taken the initiative. Hopefully McCain and Palin will learn how to be natural together.