The President Who Would Be King

The plan to try six alleged terrorists under the rules set forth by the Bush administration at Guantanomo is a fitting encore for the departing act of the president who would be king. For the rational thinking person, it underscores just how sick this regime, er, administration, was and is. The history lesson we need to learn from this is to make sure that it doesn't happen again. Let's go to a few basic principles. The Declaration of Independence states that "all men are created equal" and that "they are endowed by the Creator with certain unalienable rights". Please note that it doesn't say only Americans, nor does it limit the concept of providing and applying these principled concepts. It is said that some of the men to be tried in the kangaroo court were tortured. What a hell of a demonstration to the rest of the world in serving as an example of how friable the president who would be king considers the essence of our very system of government.

Am I Naive or What?

Several commentators have pointed out in the last week as the Democratic presidential campaign appears to be taking a final shape that a major crisis looms if a Democratic President takes office in January, 2009. Party divisiveness aside (Those on the left want immediate withdrawal, centrists favor a more orderly and structured withdrawal) attention will be paid by the rest of the world as to how this country leaves Iraq. Will an abrupt withdrawal leave that country in chaos and lead to a civil war that will greatly increase the number of civilians (already estimated at between 80 to 90 thousand) killed? Is it wishful thinking that left alone, Iraqi political officials will work it out and, if they can't, it's their problem and no longer ours? The wishful thinking aspect of this comes with the knowledge that we shouldn't have been there in the first place. In 2005 the Rand Corporation, under contract to the U.S. Army, prepared a detailed analysis of everything that had gone wrong in Iraq to that point in time. The ultimate conclusion was that there was a general lack of coordination. “There was never an attempt to develop a single national plan that integrated humanitarian assistance, reconstruction, governance, infrastructure development and postwar security,” the study said.

This is the situation, if the Democrats win, that will be tossed in their laps. The same problem will present to McCain if he is elected and he has already committed to a long term U.S. presence in that country. His apparent theme is 'war without end'. Presidential hopefuls of both parties need to sit down together now and gather a group of people around them and develop a unified humanitarian plan which excludes the consideration of the internal politics of America. We are faced with a legitimate and ongoing war in Afghanistan which we are losing because of our presence in Iraq. In short, it is a mess over there. The Bushian-Rovian style of politics in the U.S. will be gearing up to blame the Democrats for failure. As citizens of the U.S. we should insist that our government officials, for once, set aside their differences and hammer out a thoughtful and organized plan to put an end to this world crisis. Unity is critical. The message from the United States before this coming election should be that no matter who the winner is, the plan will be the same. The candidate who leads the way on this gets my vote in November. Am I naive or what? This would happen if pigs started to fly.

Disappointment

In a recent submission to the New York Times I wrote, in part, a statement about Rush Limbaugh. I referred to him as a former drug addict giving him the benefit of the doubt that his 28 days in a rehab center 'cured' him, although those of us familiar with substance abuse and the character traits of abusers speak and acknowledge the concept of recovering rather than recovery. The mention of Limbaugh was not the central point of my submission, but mentioned in passing. The thrust of my submission, instead focused on Obama's calm and reasoned opinion expressed during the recent debate in Hollywood that movie makers have the obligation to carefully consider and monitor the quality of their work in reaching intended, read young children, audiences. My submission was rejected. The policy of the NYT on submission of comments is as follows:

We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence and SHOUTING.

The Times has formally endorsed Clinton and, both prior to and subsequent to that endorsement, directly and indirectly, has taken a pro-Clinton tilt to its various presentations. This apparently includes the Opinionator which, by my understanding, is supposed to be a forum for the presentation of ideas, opinions, etc. in an objective fashion. The notion that the rejection of someone expressing a rational statement about the performance of a Clinton competitor on a subject matter that is near and dear to the hearts and minds of millions of Americans is troubling and reveals the bias of the purportedly neutral and open forum In short, the only reason I can fathom for the rejection of my submission was the statement about Limbaugh. Today, however, another commentator states "Talk radio’s leading gasbag, Rush Limbaugh, said as much, telling listeners that a vote for Huckabee was a vote for McCain." The term 'gasbag' constitutes in my judgment a 'personal attack' on the man. On the other hand, to call him a drug addict is a statement of fact. I am writing this to register my disappointment in the NYT in its rather obvious attempts to influence people who want nothing more than the best for our nation.

A Missed Opportunity?

Has an epic opportunity in history ebbed away? Several days ago in "Do It Now, John" (January 30, 2008) I suggested that a seminal moment had arrived in the Democratic Presidential campaign. The near moment had arrived for a white southern male to make history with the endorsement of a young black man. That morning Edwards dropped out of the race, but chose not to take sides. It was a missed historical opportunity. Now, the morning after Super Tuesday with Hillary and Obama in a neck and neck race to the finish, I sense the diminution of the man and the moment as the political machinations that have been the hallmark of the last twenty years of American are about to take over. What is so special about Obama is that he appears to understand that the political machines on both right and left have subordinated principles to politics. Clinton is up to her neck in that same political machinery and her potential nomination promises the nation another four to year years of the polarization, anger, distrust and hate that was the hallmark of the presidencies of both Bill Clinton and George W. Bush. For the remainder of this campaign I suspect that the Clinton campaign will do what it has done in the past. History does repeat itself. It will attempt to destroy the enlightenment that Obama has sought to bring to the table. Then, of necessity, it will move on and take the same divisive politicking to the White House.

Obama's vision has brought hundreds of thousands of young people into the political process. The depth of their commitment is at issue. If they cut and run now, the scenario described above is inevitable. How do I know all this? In my mind, the issue is and always has been, the initial vote for on the war in Iraq. Bush's duplicity and outright lies were evident at the time and any principled politician (who wasn't counting future votes in a faraway presidential election) should have had the guts to speak the truth about the issue. The fact that so many politicians did, in fact, stay silent and vote for Bush's war was the subordination of principles to politics. Just one example, of course, but a really good one. To obviate this potential, two things need to happen; the young people need to stay involved and Obama must elevate his remaining campaign to statesman-like status by taking the high road the rest of the way. He must not allow Clinton to draw him into a dirty campaign.

Huh?

William Kristol is an example of what I call a pseudo-con. I use the label because the attempt to claim a neo-con status by suggesting there is something new or principled or moral behind the movement is false. Mr. Kristol just recently began writing a weekly op-ed column for the New York Times and he wote about the conservative movement in his column this morning (February 4, 2008).

"The American conservative movement has been remarkably successful. We shouldn’t take that success for granted. It’s not easy being a conservative movement in a modern liberal democracy. It’s not easy to rally a comfortable and commercial people to assume the responsibilities of a great power. It’s not easy to defend excellence in an egalitarian age. It’s not easy to encourage self-reliance in the era of the welfare state. It’s not easy to make the case for the traditional virtues in the face of the seductions of liberation, or to speak of duties in a world of rights and of honor in a nation pursuing pleasure."

Let me address briefly the 'traditional virtue' aspect of this comment. It is a traditional virtue for one to be held accountable to others for his/her own actions. The pseudo-con movement, however, thinks that the virtue applies only to human beings and does not extend to large corporations who should be free to trod over the landscape and kill and maim and wiretap Americans without being held responsible for their actions. To encourage 'self-reliance' this Bush administration passed one of the biggest government handouts in history by establishing the prescription drug program which is nothing more than a fop to the drug industry in that our government is prevented from negotiating the price of drugs. Also, the notion that Bush and his minions have carried out their duties is 'a world of rights and of honor' makes me want to puke. The eight year experiment with this false movement is gratefully coming to an end. It is, indeed, ironic that those presidential candidates who have appealed most to Americans of all political persuasions recognize the duplicity that lies beneath the pseudo-con movement.

Buying The Presidency

Buying one's way into the White House is a bad, unAmerican idea. Serious thought needs to be given to political financing of campaigns. Joe Citizen is limited as to the amount of money he can give to an individual's campaign, a couple of thousand dollars at most. Today I read that Mitt Romney has put 35 millions dollars, not a misprint, of his own money in his campaign to buy (oops, win) the presidency. Let's apply a little common sense to this process. Without spending his fortune, Romney would only be a footnote in the history books as the son of a former governor of Michigan.

Meathead

The bloggers are running rampant over the past couple of days regarding the wisdom of the Democratic candidates appearing in Hollywood before the bigwigs in a televised setting more akin to the Academy Awards than a serious political discussion. The gist of the controversy is that the liberal elite which controls the movie industry is morally separated from real Americans and, that to emphasize the contended lockstep arrangement between Hollywood and the Democratic party is to do real damage to the party in mainstream America. I disagree. In fact I have several reasons for doing so. The first is my observation is that it is the Republicans who fan this fire with the likes of the former drug addict Rush Limbaugh who long ago conveniently disregarded the adage that people who live in glass houses shouldn't throw rocks. If celebrity alignment wasn't an important consideration let me ask the question as to whether it is a Democrat or a Republican who travels with Chuck (who?) Norris or Jon Voight (loved him in Midnight Cowboy) or the Terminator? In fact, the Republicans like their Hollywood stars so much they have put one in the White House and the California gubernatorial office (twice).

The second and more important of my reasons for disagreement is that there was a seminal moment during the debate that occurred when Barack Obama was asked about the impact of the movie industry on young children. He gave a thoughtful and intelligent answer that both acknowledged the freedom of expression and emphasized the responsibility that the industry has to keep in mind as to the potential impact of its films on youngsters with regard to both sex and violence. At that moment, the TV camera panned to Rob (Meathead) Reiner whose slight grimace suggested to me that he might not agree with Obama's statement. Obama, a father of two young children, delivered a major message to an audience of powerful people on something that needed to be said. Score big points for Obama, the principle of freedom of expression and the rigor of healthy debate in our democracy. A president can set the moral tone for our country, not by pandering to a group of anti-scientific anti-evolutionaries, but by carrying a simple and direct message right to the people who make and sell the nation's movies. The setting for delivering this point couldn't have been any better.