Dirty Politics and Partisanship

Uh oh, Michael Gerson has discovered that politicians are being mean to each other, and he's condemnatory. Why, look how offended he is by:

• The smear campaign, attributed to Karl Rove, that a politician with a long history of charitable work for abused children is a pedophile.

• The push poll, suggesting that John McCain had an African-American daughter, benefiting Gerson's ex-boss, George W. Bush.

• Whisper campaigns of the sort attributed to Karl Rove, that political opponents are gay.

• The false attacks on John Kerry by "Swift Boat Veterans for Truth," which again benefited Gerson's boss while inspiring a new word for sleazy campaign tactics.

• Attacks on President Obama as a "socialist".

• Circulating flyers in churches, calling John McCain the "fag candidate", and suggesting that voters who didn't want homosexuals in the administration should vote for Bush.

• Attacks on President Obama's religious faith, suggesting that he's a secret adherent of "black liberation theology".¹

• Attacks on President Obama as "palling around with terrorists".

• False suggestions that the Obama Administration is anti-Catholic. (Oops.)

• False suggestions that the President was born in Kenya and isn't a legitimate President.

• President Obama's suggestion that Mitt Romney's record at Bain does not qualify him for the White House.

Note, I'm omitting the various wacko smears and conspiracy theories used to attack Clinton, as Gerson wasn't writing during that period and is a creature of the Bush/Rove machine. But I don't expect I would have much more luck finding Gerson expressing moral outrage that Clinton's political opponents were suggesting that he was guilty not only of financial impropriety, no matter what the facts turned out to be, but of murder.

Seriously, it's very difficult to find examples of Gerson actually arguing against dirty campaign tactics. Part of that could be self-interest, as it would not have done his career any good for Gerson to tell his boss, and his boss's "brain", that their campaign tactics were deplorable. Or it could be that he simply doesn't notice or care what's going on in the southbound lane.

It's fair to note that for a guy who supposedly wants a return to more mannered political campaigns, Gerson has been happy to ally himself with the worst of the attack gods, and for that matter at times to join their chorus. "Obama's not a bigot - but he surrounds himself with (anti-white) bigots". "He's arrogant and patronizing", an "elitist", an intellectual lightweight.² But when it comes to disavowing sleazy tactics directed against the President or other Democratic politicians, Gerson's silence is deafening. Look what happens when he's put on the spot, and unable to avoid addressing the false suggestion that Obama is "secretly a Muslim",

I think that this is a reflection of polarization. It is a reflection of a conspiratorial tendency on the Internet, which is true on left and right, by the way.

You see, just like whispers that a candidate is a pedophile or has an illegitimate African American child, there's no way such rumors could be planned, orchestrated and advanced by politicians, their supporters and campaign staff. The best explanation is that it's the Internet's fault. Yeah, that's it. And both sides do it.

And so I you know, I think and it's not but is not historically unprecedented. If you look back, people accused Know-Nothings accused Abraham Lincoln of being a secret Catholic, OK? People accused Franklin Roosevelt of being a Jew, OK, because with policies that he pursued.

There is a long history in America of people using these kind of attacks. But it was disturbing then and it's disturbing now.

And these attacks are disturbing, but they're really no different from the attacks that have occurred throughout American political history. It's disturbing but when you look at the big picture, no biggie, you know?

Well, it puts the president in a different position. You know, to object to this makes it sound like being, you know, of this faith is somehow objectionable, which it isn't. So, it's he shouldn't, I don't think, change, you know, carry a big Bible around. That would be deeply cynical, and he's not going to do that. The good book says, you should pray in a closet. That's, I think, pretty good political advice.

Tongue-tied and twisted. What else can I find? The "Obama's not a patriot because he doesn't wear a flag pin" argument? Gerson tells us it's not that Obama isn't a patriot - he doesn't wear a flag pin because he's a condescending snob.

It is now possible to imagine Obama at a cocktail party with Kerry, Al Gore and Michael Dukakis, sharing a laugh about gun-toting, Bible-thumping, flag-pin-wearing, small-town Americans.

In other words, Gerson is more than happy to be part of the smear machine when it's advancing his own political goals and agenda.

Gerson, predictably, feigns offense at the "polarization" created by President Obama's criticisms of Bain, and then it's all claws and venom:

Whatever his intentions or provocations, Obama is now engaged in partisan polarization on an industrial scale. His campaign’s latest round of Bain charges is not politics as usual. It is the accusation of criminal impropriety — the filing of false government documents — without real evidence, as various fact-checking outfits have attested. Obama’s recent attack ad, “Firms,” reflects the sensibilities of a particularly nasty 13-year-old. It is difficult to imagine most Americans saying: “That’s just what American politics most needs — more juvenile viciousness.”

Well, the evidence of the filing of false government documents would be that Romney is claiming to have "retired" from Bain several years before he stopped reporting himself to the SEC as President, CEO and sole owner. Gerson also deliberately overstates his case, pulling in the most outrageous statement made by anybody associated with the Obama campaign and pretending it's representative.

If I ignore Gerson's over-the-top rhetoric, he does make a valid point. Just as with the suggestion that Bill Clinton was guilty of fraud and murder, it's pretty extreme to accuse somebody of criminal activity when you don't believe that the charge will be substantiated, let alone that the person will be prosecuted. Unlike Gerson, I'm more concerned about conspiracy theories that don't die, or that are advanced for weeks, months or years by a political campaign that knows them to be false, than I am with an off-hand comment by a low-level campaign staffer. But I guess if you approach the argument with any amount of perspective it becomes harder to bash the President in the name of comity.

These are not excesses; they are the essence of Obama’s current political strategy. He is attempting to destroy Romney before Romney can define himself, while using a series of issues — the mini-DREAM Act, voting rights and contraceptive controversies — to excite his base. The approach is not politically irrational. But it is premised on the avoidance of issues such as unemployment and the deficit. And it leaves little room for complaints about the brokenness of Washington.

Why, it's almost as if they looked at the tactics of political operatives like Karl Rove, or politicians like George W. Bush, and said, "If we define our opponent, even if unfairly, we can win an election we might otherwise lose". Is Gerson's fit of pique, then, that the Democrats have studied at the feet of the masters, such as his former boss? That as dubious as the tactics are, they're actually pulling this off in a cleaner, more honest manner than one would have seen from a G.W. Bush or Karl Rove? Because it's really difficult to believe that Gerson was blithely writing speeches for G.W. without ever noticing his boss's tactics.

But these tactics do have an effect on politics. The most partisan Democrats are encouraged and empowered. The most partisan Republicans gain an excuse for the next escalation. This is the nature of polarization: Both sides feel victimized, which becomes a justification to cross past limits and boundaries. Neither side feels responsible for the problem, while both contribute to it.

It's difficult to argue with that. By dragging politics into the sewer, politicians like George W. Bush, operatives like Karl Rove and enablers like Michael Gerson set us up for a continuation and escalation of the problem. Except for some reason, in this context, Gerson isn't stammering that this is not really any different than what we've seen throughout the history of the nation's political campaigns, or that we should blame the Internet.

Funny, this,

Obama and his political team have a history of viewing themselves as superior to Washington and the “Beltway mentality.” The president combines a feeling of superiority to politics with a determination to beat his opponents at their own grubby game. It allows him to view himself as a pure, transformative figure while employing the tactics of a Chicago pol.

Gerson opens with the arrogance smear he's been pushing for years. He then states that the President is using the tactics of his opponents - that is, Gerson is stating that the "grubby" tactics he deplores when used by Obama are the intellectual property of the Republican Party. And that means that Obama is "employing the tactics of a Chicago pol", never mind that he just told us that Obama is using the tactics of the Republican Party.

And that "Chicago pol" thing? That's a smear that Republicans have been directing at Obama since he arrived on the political scene, a favorite of the worst of the hacks. Perhaps Michael Gerson can point me to a time when he has pushed back against the smear before giving it his full embrace? Or am I more likely to find the opposite?

Does Gerson actually deplore dirty politics? Truly, even if I were to ignore his role in the Bush Presidency, and say, "It was just a job - perhaps he held his nose a lot and hated what he and his colleagues were doing," I would have a difficult time believing that Gerson is sincere. Because no man who gushes about Karl Rove,

Rove's main influence on the Republican Party has not been a series of tactical innovations but a series of strategic arguments. In this way, Rove is the opposite of a cynical political operator.

can credibly claim that he dislikes sleazy, dirty political campaigns. It seems much more reasonable to infer that what people like Gerson hate is when the other side appears to be gaining the upper hand.

Update: I guess I should note that David Brooks apparently got the same party memo as Gerson and is in full blown hack mode. Brooks intentionally misrepresents the Obama campaign as attacking capitalism, when he knows full well that the actual attack is on Romney's claim that his experience leading Bain qualifies him to be President.

If Romney stumbled through the primary campaign and right wing attacks on his "vulture capitalism", it doesn't speak highly of him that he still has not formulated a response to the criticism of his background as a qualification for the White House.
---------------
1. Gerson did write a condescending column, asserting that Rev. Jeremiah Wright is an adherent of black liberation theology and suggest that if the President was not aware of that he must have been sleeping through the services he attended. He fastidiously avoided stating, "I don't think the President holds these beliefs."

2. Gerson writes,

But it is hard to avoid the feeling that Obama has gained the nomination without fully earning it. Unlike Clinton or Bush, his intellectual contributions have been slight. The wave he rides may take him far -- but he is not determining its direction.

Seriously?

Protecting Romney from Criticism of Bain

Have you ever been in a car with somebody, waiting to pass an accident scene, while they observe that the traffic accident is not obstructing the road and that the only reason traffic is slow is because of the gawkers? And then, as they pass the accident, they themselves are distracted to the point that they don't notice that the car in front of them has driven on and they're now the gawker causing the slowdown?

The beltway pundits who call for more polite, mannered political campaigns remind me of that sort of driver. Actually, some of them seem a bit worse - some of them would stop their car in the roadway, get out, and share their opinions on the seriousness of the accident and whether it merited gawking, and offer running commentary about the other drivers passing the scene, oblivious to the fact that they've become part of the problem.

When the accident is cleared, they might recite that they're happy that it's over, but they'll keep bringing it up until the next accident comes along, and even then it may become a point of comparison. In many cases they'll talk incessantly about an accident in the northbound lane and, when you point out another accident, they'll express that accidents in the southbound lane are completely different.

Today, Robert Samuelson offers a lot of hand-wringing over problems in the northbound traffic lane, deploring what he calls "character assassination on the campaign trail". I don't follow Samuelson closely, so I am ready to stand corrected if he has in fact deplored past attacks on President Obama - Joe Wilson's outburst at the State of the Union Address, Justice Scalia's outburst from the bench, the entire "birther" phenomenon (Romney's contribution), absurd accusations that he's a socialist (in Romney's softened version, Obama "takes his political inspiration from Europe, from the socialist-democrats in Europe."), attacks on his religion, both his actual Christian faith and his imagined Muslim faith.... If Samuelson has ever demonstrated the slightest bit concerned about any of those acts of character assassination, I'm afraid I missed it.

But, oh, his heart melts for his friends in the financial industry.

Obama practices a cheap populism. He seems to presume that the complexities of the ACA and his repeated attacks on business (on oil companies, insurance companies, banks, hedge funds, private-equity funds and “the rich” in general) have no effect on the climate for investment or job creation. This is dubious.

It should be noted that Samuelson provides no context for any of this "repeated attacks", no quotes, no links. He also provides no evidence that any of President Obama's so-called attacks have resulted in any changes of policy, any economic impact, anything at all. "Dubious"? That's the best Samuelson can do? He thinks that substitutes for facts and evidence? I am aware that certain extremely wealthy people have complained that the President isn't sufficiently nice and deferential to them, and dares to suggest that they might bear some responsibility for the financial crisis and state of the economy. Samuelson apparently agrees with that. But when I look for what the President has actually said I find statements like this:

The tax cuts I’m proposing we get rid of are tax breaks for millionaires and billionaires; tax breaks for oil companies and hedge fund managers and corporate jet owners.

It would be nice if we could keep every tax break there is, but we’ve got to make some tough choices here if we want to reduce our deficit. And if we choose to keep those tax breaks for millionaires and billionaires, if we choose to keep a tax break for corporate jet owners, if we choose to keep tax breaks for oil and gas companies that are making hundreds of billions of dollars, then that means we’ve got to cut some kids off from getting a college scholarship. That means we’ve got to stop funding certain grants for medical research. That means that food safety may be compromised. That means that Medicare has to bear a greater part of the burden. Those are the choices we have to make.

Or this:

While full recovery of the financial system will take a great deal more time and work, the growing stability resulting from these interventions means we're beginning to return to normalcy. But here's what I want to emphasize today: Normalcy cannot lead to complacency.

Unfortunately, there are some in the financial industry who are misreading this moment. Instead of learning the lessons of Lehman and the crisis from which we're still recovering, they're choosing to ignore those lessons. I'm convinced they do so not just at their own peril, but at our nation's. So I want everybody here to hear my words: We will not go back to the days of reckless behavior and unchecked excess that was at the heart of this crisis, where too many were motivated only by the appetite for quick kills and bloated bonuses. Those on Wall Street cannot resume taking risks without regard for consequences, and expect that next time, American taxpayers will be there to break their fall.

Does Samuelson have another, secret example of the President being mean? Because although I can characterize the elimination of tax breaks for corporate jets as symbolic, it's more than fair to suggest that calls for sacrifice should not stop with the middle class. Yet Samuelson sees that as an attack on "the rich"? Does Samuelson see a call for the end of subsidies as an attack on oil companies? An accurate assessment of the position taken by some within the financial industry, that the bailout signaled a right to return to business as usual, LIBOR fraud, reckless trading, manipulation of commodities prices, and the like, is an attack on "banks, hedge funds" and the like? Sadly, I expect so.

I'll present a counter-point from Paul Krugman:

In the wake of a devastating financial crisis, President Obama has enacted some modest and obviously needed regulation; he has proposed closing a few outrageous tax loopholes; and he has suggested that Mitt Romney’s history of buying and selling companies, often firing workers and gutting their pensions along the way, doesn’t make him the right man to run America’s economy.

Wall Street has responded — predictably, I suppose — by whining and throwing temper tantrums. And it has, in a way, been funny to see how childish and thin-skinned the Masters of the Universe turn out to be. Remember when Stephen Schwarzman of the Blackstone Group compared a proposal to limit his tax breaks to Hitler’s invasion of Poland? Remember when Jamie Dimon of JPMorgan Chase characterized any discussion of income inequality as an attack on the very notion of success?

And I'll let you wager about which of the two gets invited to the billionaires' cocktail parties. As Krugman put it,

But here’s the thing: If Wall Streeters are spoiled brats, they are spoiled brats with immense power and wealth at their disposal. And what they’re trying to do with that power and wealth right now is buy themselves not just policies that serve their interests, but immunity from criticism.

Fear not, young bankers, Robert J. Samuelson has your back.

Why is Samuelson suddenly so concerned about "character assassination"? Why is he suddenly willing to advance the silly argument that the President's occasional, seemingly consistently accurate, statements about tax distribution and the financial industry, are somehow the cause of a slow recovery? It's pretty obvious: the President's reelection team is targeting Mitt Romney's tenure at Bain Capital for criticism, and those attacks appear to be working.

Samuelson is on the record about "character assassination," true or untrue, fair or unfair, in elections:

We have entered an era of constitutional censorship. Hardly anyone wants to admit this -- the legalized demolition of the First Amendment would seem shocking -- and so hardly anyone does. The evidence, though, abounds. The latest is the controversy over the anti-Kerry ads by Swift Boat Veterans for Truth and parallel anti-Bush ads by Democratic "527" groups such as MoveOn.org. Let's assume (for argument's sake) that everything in these ads is untrue. Still, the United States' political tradition is that voters judge the truthfulness and relevance of campaign arguments. We haven't wanted our political speech filtered.

That is, unless it's working for the other side better than it's working for our own, in which case it's, "Look at that horrible accident in the northbound lane!"

Update: The substance of Samuelson's attacks on Obama, which were peripheral to the discussion above, have been ably tackled by Dean Baker.

Update 2: If Samuelson is concerned that Obama's occasional, accurate rhetoric is going to devastate the economic recovery by hurting the feelings of bankers, oh, how he must hate the facts.

For The Good Of The *ME*

Party, nothing. As tracking polls suggest that Obama has largely bounced back from the "Pastor Wright" controversy, Hillary Clinton is actively trying to inject the controversy back into the mainstream. How many places do you suppose rejected this Ed Koch smear piece, before it was finally accepted by "NewsMax"?

A man of remarkable judgment, Koch also ran smear pieces against John Kerry back in 2004. And you know what? Even while smearing Kerry, Koch was praising Bill Clinton.

So it's now erstwhile Democrats like Koch trying to revive a dying meme, tossing in a new accusation ("Obama is a bad parent" - Obama should apparently pull his kids out of his church because of statements made when he was not in attendance by his now-retired pastor) and exaggerating a ridiculous theme ("Obama threw his grandmother under a bus"), closing (of course) with an attack on Michelle Obama's patriotism.

I was skeptical of the claim that Hillary Clinton would try to win at any cost, even if it meant putting a Republican into the White House. Statements that Clinton would "do anything" to get the nomination have seemed like "more of the same old Clinton-bashing" we've been hearing for a couple of decades. The Tonya Harding option? Really? But given the nature and tone of Clinton's latest attacks, and those of her proxies, it's much harder to avoid that conclusion. I don't think it's about 2012 - I believe Clinton knows this is her last chance for the Presidency. It appears she is willing to engage in scorched earth tactics to win this time, even if the net result is that Obama wins the nomination but cannot win the Presidency.

This also makes me wonder whether this is the first time Koch has signed up to attack a Democrat, even at the expense of losing the Presidency, to help clear Hillary Clinton's path to the White House. To now be supporting Hillary Clinton over John McCain, Koch either owes the country a mea culpa for being so wrong in 2004, or owes a huge apology to John Kerry for being so mendacious.

A reminder - I'm of the position that Obama is "just another politician", have questioned the Obama campaign's tactics, and have criticized his campaign's policies and smears on Clinton. I do not appreciate his campaign's (successful) efforts to block a revote of the Michigan primary.

I am not entirely convinced that the net effect of these smears will harm Obama as a Presidential candidate, as the harder they are pressed now the more they will be regarded as "old news" by the time the election rolls around. But this stuff does not make me want to support or vote for Clinton - quite the opposite.

Syndicated Columnists Are Often Cowardly, Shallow And Dishonest....

And, of course, Bill Kristol is a syndicated columnist.

Seriously, let's take a look at his latest smear piece:

• "But orators often ask themselves the convenient questions, not the difficult ones. And Barack Obama is an accomplished orator."
• "After all, politicians sometimes indulge in ridiculous and unfair comparisons to make a point. And Barack Obama is an able politician."
• "But ambitious men sometimes do a disservice to the best in their own communities. And Barack Obama is an ambitious man."

Kristol could have added to my amusement by couching his observations in the form of questions, but... close enough. As I previously observed,

I'm left wondering if Kristol writes his editorials at a desk, or while sitting in front of a highly polished vanity mirror.

Who is he really writing about?

If he were really writing about Barack Obama, he wouldn't need to dance around his accusations. He could say, "Barack Obama is indulging in ridiculous and unfair comparisons to make a point." But instead he utilizes faulty logic to make a smear he is apparently afraid to present directly. Instead we get things like this:

• Party hacks are often spineless cowards.
• Bill Kristol is a party hack.
• Draw your own conclusion.

But don't prejudge Kristol - while the bulk of his column is composed of that type of smear by innuendo, we haven't gotten to the meat of his attack yet:

The last thing we need now is a heated national conversation about race.

Hm. Some might argue that the last thing we need is a rich, white Republican party hack telling us that we don't need a national conversation about race. But let's hear him out.

Luckily, Obama isn’t really interested in getting enmeshed in a national conversation on race.

Okay, Bill... then the point of this column was to share the fact that you shuddered about something that you don't expect to happen? Really, couldn't you find a better foundation for your smear piece than, "I shudder at the bogeyman, even though he doesn't exist?" Particularly given that your smears about things that don't make you shudder once again reveal your trademark sloppiness with the facts.

The real question, of course, is not why Obama joined Trinity, but why he stayed there for two decades, in the flock of a pastor who ... suggested soon after 9/11 that “America’s chickens are coming home to roost.”

For the "chickens" line, Wright was quoting Ambassador Edward Peck. You know, one of those wild, out-of-control Republican appointees....

Meanwhile, we're five years into the war under a leadership Kristol describes as having driven us into a ditch. He's not only comfortable in the passenger seat, he insists upon keeping the same driver while screaming "Step on it!" Yeah, he's one to lecture Obama for hanging with the wrong crowd....

Pay No Attention To The Race-Baiter Behind The Curtain

Robert Novak writes,

In such a prolonged contest, Obama will enjoy overwhelming African American support. The question is whether the Clinton campaign can resist pointing this out in an effort to mobilize white backing. It certainly has not resisted so far, demonstrated by feckless Gerry Ferraro's mimicking what she heard from Bill and Hillary.

As Novak suggests, why would Clinton need to point that out when they have people like Gerry Ferraro Robert Novak making the argument for them?

More Red, Blue and Purple America

Maps with commentary from Michael Gastner, Cosma Shalizi, and Mark Newman at the University of Michigan.

Why does anybody take him seriously?

Andrew Sullivan on Bill Maher's show: "Don't demean people and expect them to vote for you."

Right - and any liberal who disagrees should take his tax-hiking, government-expanding, latte-drinking, sushi-eating, Volvo-driving, New York Times-reading, Hollywood-loving, left-wing freak show back to a blue state, where it belongs.

"Best Speech Ever"

Four years ago, the media related that Al Gore gave an extraordinary concession speech, and it was even suggested that if his concessionary persona had been evident during the campaign he might have won the election. Now, we're getting the same type of spin about Kerry's concession - e.g., "Tearful Kerry leaves best speech to the bitter end".

Is this the new motto for the Democratic Party? They can't win a national election to save their lives, but they're extraordinarily gracious in defeat? ("Bush also did 10 points better this time among voters who told exit pollsters that government should intervene more, not less, to solve problems." If you even lose the "nanny state" vote to the Republicans, what hope is there?)

Demockery In Action

So the wave of the future is that the Democrats work to bring out the vote, and then the Republicans send out "poll watchers", backed by legions of trial lawyers, to interfere with voters' exercise of their rights and to prevent the votes from being counted?

And certain Democrats will complain that the youth vote that didn't show up to vote for Kerry would have shown up to vote for Dean (even if nobody else did).... Color me skeptical. When people don't bother to show up for the polls in any significant number, it's hard to believe that they have sufficient interest to do so for any candidate.

Looking For The Exceptional

It would have been interesting to see one of the also-rans from 2000 running in this election - John McCain instead of George W. - as parts of the campaign would have been very different, particularly given McCain's pointed criticism of Bush campaign's grotesque misrepresentation of his own Vietnam record back during the 1999 primary season. I don't think that type of slander, or the "Swift Boats" nonsense, would have gained traction in a battle between the two principled Vietnam War veterans. (And both are principled, particularly by "Washington standards", even if you don't agree with their principles.)

Also, whatever you make of their lives in politics and their questionable conduct during this campaign, both McCain and Kerry did extraordinary things when they were younger. Kerry opted to serve in Vietnam, and came back to forcefully oppose that war. McCain chose to decline an early release from the "Hanoi Hilton", suffering worsened treatment during the remainder of his incarceration, out of solidarity for his fellow POW's. I can't think of anything similarly extraordinary in the privileged background of either Al Gore or GW Bush - nor do I have any confidence that anything in either man's character would have ever led them to be similarly extraordinary.

Given McCain's ability to shoot from his hip, and to shoot straight, and the fact that his episodic candor has earned him significant bipartisan respect (including by many who question many of his political stances), a Kerry-McCain match-up could have been very interesting. It may well have been, at least in comparison to the now-traditional mud wrestling contest, relativley honest and clean.

I think McCain would have beaten Gore in 2000, but apparently he was too much of a maverick - too much of "his own man" - for his party. I think that there's a good chance that McCain would beat Kerry in 2004, were he the candidate.

Don't Ask, Don't Tell....

Urgent Message from Jonathan Garthwaite of Townhall.com - "Vets Want To Expose Kerry, Need Your Help".

The "Integrity" of the Election

Believe it or not, despite his legendary (some might even say "mythic") balance, George Will has somehow managed to editorialize that the elections must be saved from evil Democrats and their trial lawyers - you know, like the ones who worked so vociferously for GW to block the 2000 Florida recount - and informs us of a shocking case in St. Louis, where they got a liberal judge to keep the polls open late such that more people could vote, but somehow forgot to mention the recurring problem of efforts to suppress the vote, or even recent criminal indictments surrounding a Republican vote suppression effort and redistricting effort.

But then, perhaps it's only worthy of mention if the questionable conduct might allow more registered voters to access the polls and cast lawful ballots.

Still, one wonders how he can comment on fraud associated with the use of absentee ballots, without even breathing a word about the legendary vote whores of Texas.

Is It Really That Simple

Jonathan Freedland suggests that the Presidential election represents a conflict between faith and reason. While Freedland may overstate that conflict, even in his expression of grave concern he may well be understating the effect of a second Bush term on the United States.

Should Debates Have Background Music?

These are dangerous times. I believe I offer tested, strong leadership that can calm the waters of the troubled world. And I believe that we can together do things that are within the grasp of Americans.

Perhaps this?

[Caution - that link will automatically play a .wav file.]

Stupid Questions, And How They Might Be Answered

The New York Times today permitted political partisans to pose "questions" that they would like to ask the other party's candidate (Questions for Bush; Questions for Kerry). I guess this is the power of celebrity - they got low-caliber "questions" which the letters editor would have trashed, and printed them anyway. Let's take 'em on.....

Charles Murray - Five percent of Americans pay 54 percent of all personal income taxes. They do not use more government services than other Americans; they use fewer. Why is this fair?

Mr. Murray, as you certainly know, the tax figure you present ignores payroll taxes. Yet payroll taxes, which are another form of income tax, take a huge bite out of the paychecks of working men and women. As you also know, you are ignoring sales taxes, state and local taxes, property taxes, gas taxes, so-called "sin" taxes, and many other taxes which fall on the shoulders of this nation's working men and women. You are also ignoring user fees and license fees. But you know all of that. You wish to distract people from tax realities in order to justify even more tax cuts for the richest of the rich. I favor a system of taxation that is fair to all people, Mr. Murray, rich and poor, not one that favors any particular group of people, and that is what I will work for.

Charles Murray - Would you be willing to sponsor tort reform that requires plaintiffs to have used common sense before being eligible for damages?

Mr. Murray, do you mean a calculus whereby the judge or jury deciding the case would allocate a percentage of fault to the victim, and adjust the verdict in proportion to the parties' fault - or even eliminate an award where a plaintiff was more than 50% responsible for his own injury? Such adjustments already occur, Mr. Murray, and they have existed for hundreds of years at common law. I am surprised you don't know that.

Charles Murray - You promise to create millions of jobs, but many people who run businesses say that nothing in your life has taught you how much effort, risk and sometimes heartbreak goes into creating one real job. Could you describe your experiences when you last had to meet a payroll, or when your boss had to meet a payroll?

Mr. Murray, as a Senator I have an office staff, which I manage, and for which I have a budget. This is not really different from any other mid-management position. In terms of "making payroll", during the Clinton Presidency the government made payroll and turned a tidy profit - call it an enormous budget surplus. Under Bush, the government cannot make payroll, and has borrowed astronomical figures to make ends meet. Call it a record-breaking budget deficit. If you are suggesting that President Bush's dubious record in business is a qualification as President, the facts suggest something completely different.

Christie Whitman - You have been critical of President Bush's rejection of the Kyoto Protocol, yet in 1997 you joined 94 of your Senate colleagues in effectively rejecting its terms. What has changed to make you accept now what you then rejected?

Christie, as you know, President Bush has done far more than reject Kyoto. He has politicized the EPA, rejected scientific opinion, buried official reports, and has otherwise taken a very non-scientific approach to the issue of climate change. Meanwhile, evidence of climate change is all around us, perhaps nowhere more strikingly than in the President's brother's state of Florida. You ask what has changed? What hasn't changed? Whatever disagreement may exist as to its cause, climate change is very real and it would be a priority for any competent President.

Christie Whitman - The president's Clear Skies proposal calls for a 70 percent reduction in some of the worst air pollutants, including mercury, over the next decade. While the current Clean Air Act has made a difference, it is cumbersome, it almost always involves lengthy litigation that delays any benefits, and it doesn't set any specific level for the reduction of mercury. Why haven't you led the fight to avoid lawsuits and instead demand the results the president has advocated?

Christie, it is almost comical that you mention mercury levels, given that one of President Bush's first acts when he took office was to attempt to raise the acceptable level of mercury in drinking water - water than the men, women and children of this nation trust to be safe and clean. And while portions of the President's proposal would diminish harmful emissions, independent analysis indicates that it will be less effective in doing so than the existing legislation. You should also know from your extensive experience in government that "simpler" is not always "better". The President has attached a pretty name to a proposal which is in many ways a license to pollute. It is better to fix the existing legislation, flawed though it may be, than to replace it with a pro-industry bill - which is I guess what people like you would have us call "results" - that will damage our environment, and endanger the health of the people of this nation.

Stephen L. Carter - During the long period it would take to carry out your plan to improve the public schools, would you, in the interest of racial justice, support a system of vouchers to enable the parents of poor inner-city children to pay for private schooling to cover the transitional years? Throughout the five or more years that your plan envisions, many inner-city children will continue to receive substandard educations, and to suffer in other material and spiritual ways.

Stephen, I would of course encourage states to develop the systems they deemed necessary to ensure that inner city children get quality education during the transition, and states may well choose to use vouchers. But as you surely realize, you cannot "fix" a system by emptying it of its best students, nor can you transfer students into private schools and charter schools which don't exist. A voucher system does not magically create additional space in existing schools - that takes years, and as you have implicitly stated we can't wait. Unfortunately, opportunists who latch on to voucher and charter school programs can create cataclysmic failures for parents and students, as occured in California this fall when a single "charter school" provider failed, shuttering sixty schools around the state, and leaving 6,000 students scrambling to enroll elsewhere. You don't fix an educational system by diverting resources to untested programs and profiteers.

Stephen L. Carter - If the answer to the first question is no, would you call on well-to-do Democrats to show their support for public education, and for the poor, by voluntarily sending their children to the schools that the inner-city parents are required to use? After all, a sudden influx of middle-class families might force a cure for many of those schools' deficiencies.

Stephen, as you know, that is a ridiculous question. I want to ensure that all parents, rich or poor, receive quality education. I don't begrudge President Bush his years at Andover, Yale and Harvard, even though his well-connected family might have pressed for serious improvement in any public schools he might have instead attended, because they wanted to provide him with the best education and opportunities. That, as you know, is achieved by making the system better, not through absurd stunts such as the one you propose. I wouldn't ask you to send your children to the worst school you could find, merely to prove a point, and if I did I would fully expect you to reject my invitation. Where did your kids go to school?

Stephen L. Carter - If the answer to the second question is no, are there any sacrifices that you would call upon middle-class Americans to make for the sake of improving the condition of the worst-off among us?

Stephen, perhaps you aren't aware of this, but the middle class pays a tremendous price to fund the public education system. States like Michigan have enacted elaborate systems to create fairness in educational funding, such that the City of Detroit has funding per pupil which exceeds the state average. Again, I am very surprised that you don't know this, but the middle classes are already contributing.

David K. Shipler - You speak of "compassionate conservatism," yet you rarely talk about the poverty that afflicts millions of Americans, including many who work hard at low-wage jobs. Your administration has inadequately financed or reduced the budgets of housing, child care, job training and other programs vital to helping the working poor. What do you see as government's proper role, and how would you change policies in a second term to demonstrate true compassion?

David, there is a difference between being "compassionate" and giving handouts. If I see a vagrant on a street and give him change, I may subsidize a sandwich, or perhaps a bottle of booze, but I do nothing to lift him out of his situation. I see the government's role as being to help people climb the ladder, not to subsidize them so that they are comfortable sitting on the floor when they could be climing. Not that I like to resort to the cliche, but compassionate conservativism is a hand up, not a handout. It's teaching a man to fish. There's no compassion in keeping poor people poor, even if you make their poverty somewhat more comfortable. You display compassion by helping them to achieve.

David K. Shipler - The federal government has begun to finance "faith-based initiatives." Previously, religious groups had to create separate, secular entities to receive federal money for services for the poor. Now, grants go to religious organizations that can discriminate against people of other faiths in hiring. Some will inevitably use tax dollars to promote their religious beliefs. Are you trying to break down the First Amendment's wall separating church and state?

No. Further, the Supreme Court is the final arbiter of the boundaries between church and state, and to the best of my knowledge my proposals have been held constitutional. What I will not do is put arbitrary hurdles in front of an organization that wants to help people, merely because it is affiliated with a religious organization.

David K. Shipler - Using the Patriot Act and other means, you have tried to evade the courts and minimize the rights of those accused of terrorism. Your administration has conducted searches without warrants, obtained gag orders on those forced to turn over records, monitored conversations between lawyers and their clients, employed unverified intelligence reports in criminal proceedings, and claimed the power to imprison Americans indefinitely without indictment or trial. Now that a couple of major cases have collapsed, what proof exists that these measures are actually being used against the right people? How many terrorist plots have they foiled?

David, you have asked a lot of questions there, perhaps because you are aware that your questions don't stand on an individual basis. On September 11, 2001, our nation faced a terrorist attack on an unprecedented scale, and it became obvious that we needed to root out sleeper cells which might be planning additional attacks on our people. Congress passed the legislation required to achieve that necessary end. How many terrorist plots has this foiled? So far, on the home front, all of them. But we can't drop our guard, because while we have to succeed 100% of the time the terrorists only have to succeed once. Congress is presently revisiting provisions of the Patriot Act which are due to expire under the sunset provisions of that legislation, and if provisions are deemed unnecessary Congress will presumably permit them to expire.

Alice M. Rivlin - According to your former Treasury secretary, Paul O'Neill, Vice President Dick Cheney believes that "deficits don't matter." Do you agree with the vice president? If so, why promise to cut the deficit in half in your next term? If not, what dangers do you think large sustained deficits pose for our economy? Do you worry about burdening your daughters and their children with rapidly growing federal debt and interest payments?

Alice, I have expressed that deficits matter, and I have expressed that I intend to halve the deficit over the next four years. It is not always bad to have a deficit - sometimes it is necessary to stimulate the economy, and sometimes it is the necessary result of national emergency, sometimes both. And that's what we faced after 9/11. But I have consistently advocated for eliminating the deficit.

Alice M. Rivlin - You say that you want to allow young workers to put part of their Social Security taxes into personal accounts. They could invest these accounts in stocks or bonds and leave them to their heirs. At the same time, you promise not to reduce scheduled benefits for current and soon-to-be retirees. But taxes paid by working people are used to pay benefits to current retirees. If the taxes paid by younger workers are diverted to their personal accounts, where will the money come from to pay those benefits? Would you try to borrow the additional money (estimated to be at least $1 trillion)? Would you take money from other programs? Would you raise taxes?

Alice, obviously the plan would be for a savings program that also permits Social Security to continue to self-fund. That would not require any new taxes or debt.

Alice M. Rivlin - In a recent open letter, 169 economists and business school professors, including 56 professors from Harvard Business School, your alma mater, sharply criticized your economic policies. They said your proposals for Social Security and making the tax cuts permanent "only promise to exacerbate the crisis" and that "your tax policy has exacerbated the problem of inequality in the United States." Do you dismiss these critics as uninformed? If not, what would you say to persuade them they are wrong?

Alice, if you have ever tried to have a discussion with a group of economists, you would know that they rely upon theoretical models, and they frequently disagree over the most basic of economic projections, and it just so happens that they disagree with this Administration's economic advisers. For every fifty six economists who are adamant that their projections are 100% right, there are countless others who are just as certain that they are 100% wrong. The classic joke about an economist, stuck at a bottom of a hole, is that his solution for escaping is "first, we assume a ladder". With all due respect to Harvard's economists, life gets more complicated outside the ivory tower.

Alan Ehrenhalt - As a candidate in 2000, you argued in favor of compassionate conservatism and a restoration of decency and moderation to the national government. Those of us who voted for you took this seriously. But your personal demeanor as president has been belligerent and dismissive of virtually anyone who opposes your policies. You state flatly that anyone who is not with you is against you, and at least imply that disagreement is equivalent to disloyalty. You refuse to admit making mistakes, even when it is obvious that you made them. You all but invite attacks on the country with "bring it on" taunting that makes you sound more like a gang leader than a responsible head of state. What happened to your promise of compassion? Have you concluded that moderation and decency are not useful qualities in a president?

How can I respond to your question without first observing that, as you caricature and misrepresent my statements and record, you engage in the very conduct you are supposedly criticizing me for having done. I have already addressed the compassion my Administration seeks to bring, and I am sorry that it is not the welfare state you want. There we disagree, and there, presumably, despite all evidence of the failures of the welfare state, you will stick adamantly and without reflection to your desire for the expansion of the failed welfare state. Moderation and decency are very useful qualities in a President. But adhering to a failed welfare policy is not moderate, is not decent, and is just plain wrong.

Alan Ehrenhalt - When you were governor of Texas, you complained about the long list of mandates that Washington was imposing on the states without supplying the money to pay for them. You criticized the Republican Congress for ignoring legitimate state complaints. "Mandates are mandates, regardless of the philosophical bent of the person doing the mandating," you said in May 1998. "It starts at the White House." But your administration has imposed billions of dollars in mandates without even a pretense of offering sufficient money for states to meet them. Did your concern for fairness to Texas and the 49 other state governments simply evaporate when you moved into the White House?

Alan, I am not sure what you are trying to criticize. You don't appear to have a problem with unfunded mandates, just the fact that I have in the past criticized them. I think if you had a problem with any particular mandate I have created, or had evidence that it was unfunded, you would have presented it as an example. The usual example people bring up of a supposedly "unfunded" mandate is "No Child Left Behind". Yet that Act brought billions of dollars of federal revenue to the states. While you seem to think that we can tax and spend, tax and spend without regard to consequences, we face real world budget constraints. You surely aren't proposing that we eliminate "No Child Left Behind", so are you asking me to raise taxes? People who want to pay more taxes already know who to vote for, and it's not me.

A Closing For Kerry

If you recall the Presidential debates eight years ago, you will recall the friendly presence of a President who was not angry and combative, who did not feel a need to continually insult his opponent. A President unafraid to admit his mistakes, but confident in his accomplishments. A President who was comfortable with his record, and had no need to be hostile and angry. Today, you have a President who is hostile and embittered, insulting and angry, because he knows his record cannot withstand scrutiny.

Non Sequitur

On the VP debate,

But Ken Mehlman, Mr Bush's campaign manager, told the Guardian the vice-president had made clear the fundamental philosophical differences between the two tickets. "He was saying in a world where 19 people with boxcutters can kill 3,000 Americans in the course of 20 minutes, allowing to remain in power a brutal dictator who defied the world, who had a weapons of mass destruction capability... wasn't acceptable and wasn't safe.

Does that follow? Maybe we should have invaded China, as that is probably where the boxcutters were made....

This Is Sad....

A Bush supporter penned a blog entry for the Racine, WI "Journal Times", entitled "The vice president strikes back".

Cheney easily quoted facts and figures, names and situations, voting records and current trends with the ease that some of us quote "Simpsons" episodes. (Or "Star Wars" movies.)

Um... Leaving the fact-checking to others for the moment, the author expects us to be impressed that Cheney's abilities parallel her uncanny ability to quote "Star Wars"? So she is telling us that we should cast our votes for Senator Palpatine? (Does that put GW in the role of Darth Vader?)

The Vice Presidential Debate

What to me was perhaps the most significant result of the VP debate was the fact that, as combative and pointed as it often was, it had no estimable impact on my opinion. That is, nothing about the Vice Presidential candidates or their respective performances had an appreciable impact on how I view the heads of their respective tickets. That might not have been the case, had one of them had an on-stage meltdown, but obviously that didn't happen.

If I were to declare a "winner" in the context of which candidate looked most Presidential, it would be Edwards. If I were to declare a "loser" in the context of which candidate clung most desperately to a pathetic lie, it would be Cheney and his continued advancement of an Iraq-Al Qaeda nexus with an implied link to 9/11.

If I were to give a candidate bonus points for refusing to bend his personal convictions to the will of his party, they would go to Cheney for his silence on the issue of rights for domestic partnerships. Certainly it isn't bravery to sit in silence, rather than speaking one's conscience, but it demonstrated that there are lines Cheney will not cross with respect to his family and his party. When Cheney's boss was put to a similar test, and could have spoken out against the smear campaign over Kerry's war record, he failed - that is, unless his claimed personality traits of courage and credibility exist only as fiction. I am not sure that similar tests have yet been put to Edwards or Kerry.

At the same time, if I were to give penalty points for stubborn idiocy, it would be for Cheney's insistence that he would handle Iraq in exactly the same way if he were to do it again. That simply can't be true.

The "Zap Them With A Cattle Prod And Wake Them Up" award goes to Babbling David Brooks and Narcoleptic Mark Shields, who provided some post-debate commentary on PBS. They found the Iraq material exciting, but were bored by the domestic issues. Thus, declared Brooks, this election really does turn on Iraq. What a pathetic way to prioritize the many important issues this nation faces.

Gearing Up for Halloween