Time Magazine Validates Placing Expediency over Principle

Predictably, the media reacted with the utmost angst and outrage over the comments of former NATO Supreme Allied Commander Gen. Wesley Clark when he sententiously suggested that John McCain's experience in Vietnam did not necessarily serve as a qualification for the Presidency. Yet again, when confronted with a legitimate statement from a political figure, the media rushed to place it in the most salacious, distorted context as possible, irrespective of the legitimacy or salience of the argument put forth.

For example, numerous sources took Clark's remarks entirely out of context, and insinuated that Clark had the temerity to question the patriotism of Sen. McCain (he didn't), while others absurdly caterwauled that Barack Obama must not only disavow Clark's remarks (which he indirectly did) but totally distance himself from the General. Discarding the absurdity of Obama breaking with Clark over the latter's making a legitimate argument, instead of a personal attack, the media also oddly propagated the notion that a candidate is responsible for what his surrogates say. If that was the case, where is the clamor for the removal of Charlie Black after he told Forbes magazine that a terrorist attack would be "good for my candidate." Unsurprisingly, the fervor extends only to the Democrat in this instance.

However, the most dispiriting, yet revealing argument that the media espoused in reaction to Clark's comments, as epitomized in a column by Time Magazine's Jay Newton-Small, was that McCain's record should remain unquestioned not because doing so raises nonsensical or illegitimate questions, but because it is not politically expedient.

In his piece, Newton-Small goes as far to acknowledge that pressing inquiries regarding the connection between McCain's POW experience and the relevant experience he thus gained from that excursion are entirely fair questions:

" The idea Clark was trying to communicate is that John McCain's honorable military service should be divorced and analyzed separately from his foreign policy record. Why? Because the first is unassailable, while the other is eminently flawed."

That said, he then argues that the aforementioned should be subverted solely in the interest of political expediency:

"But in minimizing the import of McCain's military service, Clark instead opened the door to the sort of criticism that Obama, who painstakingly praises McCain's military record at virtually every event, cannot afford. Cable-television talking heads feasted on the comments, with at least one partisan going so far as to accuse the Obama campaign of "swift-boating" McCain."

A compelling theory can be made that John McCain's experience as a fighter pilot, and then later as a POW does not automatically render him qualified to be the Commander in Chief. After all, the fact that, as a result of his imprisonment in the Hanoi Hilton, McCain largely missed the critical decisions made on the ground during Vietnam, has been discussed ad hominem by prominent politicians like John Warner and Chuck Hagel.

Yet despite all of those mitigating factors, the essence of xxx's argument, that Barack Obama, and by extension, his campaign advisers should avoid any sort of issue which does not comport with what our political establishment views as "politically damaging" super cedes all other considerations.

It's difficult to understate how much of a disservice adopting that course of action regularly would do to the functioning of our political system. To date, Barack Obama has already adopted this mantra in the case of the FISA/warrantless wiretapping debate. In refusing to contest this patently illegal bill, Obama utilized the favorite rhetoric of the right in stating that he "wants our intelligence community to have all the resources at hand in this time of peril." It's widely believed that Obama utilized this line of rhetoric solely to inoculate himself from attack by the Republicans on questions of national security later on in this election cycle.

However, by adopting this nefarious media narrative which purportedly provided "political cover", a narrative which portends apocalyptic consequences if we don't allow the Bush Administration to immunize lawbreaking telecoms, and thereby trample on the Constitution, Barack Obama epitomized this media maxim, of expediency over principle, thoroughly.

Consequences to both the country, and his campaign quickly ensued. For the country, the pending bill in the Senate will eviscerate protections embedded in the Constitution, as well as codify a special tier of justice for large corporations, in which they are immune from prosecution for offenses that normal citizens are not. For the campaign, Obama has seen his political base incite a near revolt, and thereby casting him in an unfavorable light amongst the myriad of liberal grassroots supporters he had steadfastly cultivated, to great end, throughout the primary season. Only time will tell if Obama will learn the lessons of his faux pas, and thereby avoid the pitfalls of elevating whatever is opportune over what must be discussed, for the sake of the country.

Forgoing substantive questions in the name of avoiding "politically difficult" predicaments has been a hallmark of our media establishment throughout the election season. For some inexplicable reason, most media outlets deem the transient, largely trivial stories as superior to a thoughtful, lengthy discussion about the litany of issues plaguing our country. As a result, it is not surprising that TIME's Newton-Small would assert that Obama should neglect a serious question about McCain's qualifications for President. After all, their dominant creedo raises the minutiae of political discourse to the top of their newscasts, websites and panel discussions, to the utmost detriment of our country.

Thankfully, Barack Obama has showed incipient signs of refusing to conform to this deleterious media narrative. He refused to disown Clark, despite heavy pressure from the media, and of course, the righteously indignant McCain campaign. In doing so, Obama, for the first time since the primary season ended, decided to eschew the prevailing media notion that he must conform to media mandates. This is especially notable because of his recent decisions, including putting a flag pin on his lapel to abdicating his membership at Trinity Church of Christ, entirely aligned with whatever fervor the media may be preoccupied with.

Ultimately though, Obama owes all Americans, not just those who plan on supporting him, a candid dialectic about issues, from Iraq to the surging cost of health care, in this general election campaign. As evidenced by the McCain campaign's comic overreaction to Clark's comments, his campaign shall not be relied upon to participate in this discussion. As a result, Barack Obama must continue to obviate the media's pressure on him to succumb to preoccupation with valence issues e.g. Clark's remarks, or how he adorns his lapels on his suits.

This shouldn't be too hard. After all, in being the first African American presidential candidate for a major party in history, he has overcome greater obstacles than our media. Here's hoping he is up to the task.

Let's not Deify Barack Obama....

Don't get me wrong, barring another mistake tantamount to last week's FISA reversal then capitulation, I will be voting, and more importantly, campaigning and writing on behalf of the election of Barack Obama in the Fall. Frankly, I'd rather massage Hillary Clinton's thighs with baby oil while a scantily clad Janet Reno videotapes than vote for great grandpa McCain. McCain's candidacy is entirely bereft of ideas to solve the foremost American problems, and more critically, McCain himself is a figure incapable of reconciling the deep divisions plaguing this country presently.

As a result, Barack Obama thus serves as the only plausible for those repelled by the alternative; John McCain's attempt to continue the reign of George W. Bush.

However, that does not mean that Obama should be given unconditional support from his base, irrespective of whatever policy positions he may take.

In the last few weeks, Obama has made a surprising reversal on issues once deemed endemic to the success of his campaign as a straight talking, "post partisan" figure. And yet, Obama has largely received little to no scrutiny or criticism, neither from the press, nor his supporters. The latter is particularly disturbing, as unlike media, they have at least a semblance of credibility remaining. Unfortunately, said supporters could be falling prey to the phenomenon prevalent during the Bush years, in which a political figure is canonized by a particular political group, regardless of whether or not his positions countermand the interests of the group. The tendency to subvert the given candidates positions in favor of a "character based" analysis is what allowed George W. Bush to receive carte-blanche to eviscerate the Constitution's 4th amendment rights, siphon jobs and revenue from the middle to the aristocracy, and start a devastating war in Iraq that carries nefarious ramifications far past January 20th, 2009 when he thankfully departs office.

I've always viewed the liberal constituency as largely immune from the aforementioned deification of political leaders, and that's why the benign reaction to Obama's decisions of the last few weeks have been strikingly troubling. To review, simply look back at his positions on the pivotal political developments this week. In doing so, one will glean the notion that they seem to be antithetical to what his constituency actually wants.

1. Worst of all has to be his brazen reversal of positions on the immunity provisions within the FISA bill that will be voted on in the Senate next week. After firmly pledging to rebut the insertion of these illegal provisions into the bill in January and February, he suddenly reversed course and stated his support for the legislation. His lame excuse for voting the bill, in which he took a page from the Bush playbook and argued that the country is now safer was pitiful, and dangerous.

When the bill ultimately comes to the floor for a vote, and is passed, illegal wiretapping by numerous telecommunications companies will be absolved. The Bush doctrine, which espouses a profound disrespect for the 4th Amendment privacy protections, will be cemented as a legitimate law of the land. I highly doubt that Barack Obama's core supporters want those two things to come to fruition, and it seems odd that they would not question their candidates support for it.

2. His muted response to the striking down of the Washington D.C. hand gun ban should also have been jarring to his base. Whatever your thoughts on gun control may be per se, do the core supporters of Obama generally synchronize their views with the "Originialist" cabal of Scalia and Thomas? I highly, highly doubt they find agreement on any substantive issue, much less gun laws. So why do they excuse their candidate from the same indemnity? By doing so, they are doing the country a disservice by perpetuating the notion that the Democratic candidate can proffer views that coincide with the far right ideologues that inhabit the court, and get away with it.

3. Lately, Obama has taken to bashing MoveOn.org, the "radicals" of the 60's in his stump speeches. MoveOn.org is one of the foremost entities within the net roots movement that perpetuates positive stereotypes of Barack Obama. The "radicals" he indemnifies in speeches are often the theoretical forefathers of what the modern Democratic party. Given this, why is he bashing them? More damningly, how does he think he can get away with it?

Sadly, the complicity of the very voters I refer to constantly in this blog certainly helped enable his attack. More over, their silence on his slightly hypocritical, disingenuous repudiation of sites like MoveOn.org is emblematic of a different problem plaguing Obama's candidacy: he, incorrectly, believes that he must subvert core elements of his constituency in a feeble attempt to "look tough" to swing voters and Republican attackers.

As Keith Olbermann sagaciously pointed out last night on his news program, the Republicans are going to spew venom towards Obama regardless of how "tough" he projects himself to be. Thus, it is purely counterproductive to espouse rhetoric that, at the cost of bashing his constituents, conveys an image of strength. Allowing him to get away with it, as many of his surrogates have to this point, is dangerous both because it ignores the reality of the Republican attack machine, but it also may hurt him down the road, that is, if the GOP can successfully portray him as lacking conviction and principle, as they did to John Kerry in 2004.

4. One of the themes of this blog is the illumination of the mainstream media as often times complicit in perpetuating falsehoods, half-truths and outright lies that the Bush Administration, presidential candidates, and nearly all politicians proffer to disguise their true motives. While this propensity is a staple of John McCain's campaign thus far, Barack Obama has largely stayed above that pernicious fray.

Until this week. General Wesley Clark, in appearing on CBS' "Face the Nation" on Sunday essentially said that while he admires John McCain's patriotism, "crashing fighter planes does not qualify you to be President." Which is entirely a valid opinion. And yet, you know what comes next; cue the Republican faux uproar machine. In consorting with the media, McCain's campaign managed to distort the statements to the point where it sounded like Clark denied the veracity of McCain's patriotism, which he unequivocally did not. Predictably, the media demanded some sort of statement from Barack Obama.

And, they got one. Obama essentially complied with the blatant alteration of Clark's remarks in a speech which heavily criticized the general. As aforementioned, Sen. Obama has largely not fallen into this trap for most of his campaign. However, on this occasion, he played right into the hands of the disingenuous cohabitation between the media and the Republicans which subverts facts, and actual quotes, in the name of rhetorical gerrymandering and outright lies.

Despite this complicity, not a peep emanated from the disparate factions that endorse Sen. Obama's bid for the Oval Office. By allowing him to play along with the Republicans on the issue and escape unscathed, the supporters are allowing Sen. Obama to further his questionable strategy of "moving to the center without recriminations. Inevitably, "moving to the center" as this incident, and as his stark reversal on FISA, really means that a candidate must play to the worst elements of the Republican spin machine, which wholeheartedly propagates fear, lies and distortions as their preferred form of political discourse.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

As I explicitly indicated in the introduction, voting for John McCain for me is as likely as James Inhofe becoming a Greenpeace activist. However, the potential of not voting remains a possibility. As the nascent, but growing outrage at Obama over his maneuvering on FISA, Wes Clark and the DC gun ban indicates, many others Obama supporters may abstain from the ballot box as well in November.

Ultimately, what we all want is a Barack Obama who is both cognizant of the positions he might need to take in swing states and also fiercely committed to the principles that he espoused throughout his entire political career, up until these last few weeks.

By allowing him to ride roughshod over the fundamental goals of the liberal electorate without any sort of tangible consequences, the opposite will be achieved. In order to prevent the party from snatching defeat from the jaws of victory, accountability for Barack Obama, even if its to the detriment of his chances with"Reagan Democrats" or other sections of the electorate he may be attempting to woo with these recent vacillations on warrant less wiretapping and gun control, is the sine qua non of his election in November.

Joseph Lieberman's Astounding Hypocrisy

As mentioned in this space a few weeks back, the Democrats are poised to capitalize on the GOP-fatigue currently pervading the country in the Fall, and pick up at least 5 Senate seats, thereby increasing their presently razor-thin margin.

The nearly ubiquitous disdain for Lieberman amongst the Democrats is well known, but it has intensified particularly in recent months as he has slandered Barack Obama and castigated those who oppose the surge as myopic, and even patriotic.

Also in the last column, I discussed the likelihood being high that one of the foremost duties of the new Senate leadership would be to vitiate the presence of Joseph Lieberman in committee chairmanships. One group, funded by filmmaker Robert Greenwald, has attempted to hasten said departure with the release last week of their new website: www.liebermanmustgo.com.

The site is amusing, and spot on in its critiques of Lieberman as a fringe right figure when it comes to foreign policy issues, particularly those involving his beloved protectorate, Israel.

But, this column is centered on Lieberman's subsequent response to the website, and what it exposes about the blatant hypocrisy that imbues many of the Connecticut Senator's statements.

When asked to respond, Lieberman said:

"I think most people in this country are really tired of this kind of partisan politicking."

Such a laudable and beneficent statement from Lieberman. If only he wasn't exhibiting the apotheosis of hypocrisy in stating it. Going by the accepted definition of partisan, instead we see that Lieberman exemplifies the very tactic that he so decries in the statement above.

Unsurprisingly, multiple incidents involving Lieberman shows that he typifies the definition of a thoroughly partisan figure.

According to Dictionary.com, a partisan is: "A fervent, sometimes militant supporter or proponent of a party, cause, faction, person, or idea."

Unsurprisingly, multiple incidents involving Lieberman shows that he typifies the definition of a thoroughly partisan figure.

For example, when MoveOn.org featured a full page advertisement in the NY Times giving David Petreaus the pejorative sobriquet of "David Betray-us", Lieberman responded with this fusillade of indignation, most of which directed at politicians from the Democratic party who had nothing to do with the ad:

"The Personal Attack On Gen. David Petraeus Launched Today By Moveon.org Is An Outrageous And Despicable Act Of Slander That Every Member Of The Congress -- Democrat And Republican-- Has a solemn responsibility to condemn."

His ludicrous insinuation that members of the party with whom he caucuses have any sort of obligation to repudiate an advertisement that has nothing to do with them is the epitome of "partisan", as it illustrates Lieberman's overly fervent devotion to an idea. Lieberman has for months endorsed Petraeus as the Army's savior in Iraq, and as a result, he is forced to "respond" when an attack is lobbied forth against the general. In becoming inordinately obsessed with a tangential statement by a PAC, instead of the litany of policy failures that confront the U.S. military in Iraq quotidian, Lieberman reveals his true colors and shows himself to be militantly obsessed with a person, or idea.....the very definition of partisan.

More over, Lieberman has recently showed an insidious proclivity for "partisan" politics as he attempts to convey his Draconian, uncompromising stance vis a vis the "War on Terror", he attempted to distort Barack Obama's position on the surge with a statement that, at the very least, strains credulity, and at the worst, is malicious slander:

"If we did what Sen. Obama wanted us to do last year, Al-Qaeda in Iran would be in control of Iraq today. The whole Middle East would be in turmoil and American security and credibility would be jeopardized."

Even ignoring his incalculable misunderstanding of the facts on the ground in the Middle East (Al-Qaeda is a Sunni group, and would never associate with who they consider to be apostates in the Iranian regime), this statement is a vivid portrayal of Lieberman’s frequent attempts to fear monger and spread lies about Barack Obama’s campaign, a person who, again, he caucuses with in the Senate. In his deliberate, borderline salacious perversion of the facts, Lieberman again reveals his true allegiances; they are to his ideology, no matter how diametrically opposed that may be to the situation in praxis. By doing so, he yet again serves as a nauseating personification of a partisan politician, in that his allegiance to an idea, or particular policy, supercede that of the reality. As the two examples above starkly lay out, Lieberman's dismissal of Robert Greenwald's website as "yet another example of partisan politicking" was the height of hypocrisy. Before he departs from the Democratic radar scene hopefully forever, Lieberman can evince his unabated support to the militaristic policy that has stained the United States perception in the Middle East, cost thousands of lives and siphoned billions of dollars from what was a relatively stable economy.

But at the very least, he could do us a favor and not insult the polity's intelligence with the blatant hypocrisy he spewed out a few days ago.

McCain's Campaign Ramps up the Fear Mongering...

In a conference call earlier today, two of John McCain's terrorism "advisers", neo-con ideologue Randy Scheunemann and former CIA director James Woolsey criticized Barack Obama as having a "a perfect manifestation of the September 10th" , which Woolsey characterized as "very dangerous and naive approach."

It's only June and the GOP is already bringing out their favorite election weapon: incessant fear mongering and intimidation of voters who are already on edge because of the volatile situation with the economy and energy prices. Yet again, in trying to impugn Senator Obama as "naive" on terrorism, the Republicans implying that the United States will be blown to oblivion if a Democrat were to be elected.

Governing based on fear has been the specialty of the Republicans during the Bush Administration. By adopting an authoritarian and wholly pre-emptive approach to fighting terrorism, the GOP has been able to mount a thin justification for their flagrant abuses of the Constitution in the last 7 years.

In fact, endorsing the Constitution as a method of vitiating terrorism is precisely what has raised the ire of the maniacal war mongers that inhabit McCain's campaign. In essence, Barack Obama stated that a law and order approach to fighting terrorism, one that is perfectly within the constraints of the Constitution, is applicable in a post 9/11 world. Perversely, it is exactly that assertion, that the Constitution is a sufficient bulwark, that Woolsey and Scheunemann objected to today. After years of trampling on rights and liberties imbued into the Constitution, I guess they don't notice the obvious, though slightly sickening irony.

Since Woolsey and Scheunemann decided to bring up the merits of their approach to offsetting terrorism when compared to Obama's approach in a blatant, and pitiful attempt to fear monger, it's apt to compare and contrast the two.

The best comparison is thus to examine two terrorist attacks, the 1993 World Trade Center bombing, which was investigated and subsequently adjudicated via the law and order method, and the 9/11 attacks, which was pursued almost solely within the framework of pre-emption that Neo-Cons have long espoused.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

After the devastation wrought by the 1993 World Trade Center bombing, the Clinton Administration delegated the responsibility of solving the crime to officials most intimately acquainted with the law and order method.

The results?

The 3 culprits behind the attack, including the leader, Ramzi Yousef are behind bars for the remainder of their lives. The FBI, with cooperation from foreign intelligence services and other branches of government, apprehended numerous suspects summarily, and largely without fanfare. Yousef was subsequently captured 2 years later in Pakistan.

All in all, the investigation was conducted professionally and with an explicit urgency given the heinous nature of the attacks. Most importantly, the successful apprehension and imprisonment was conducted within the constraints of the Constitution.

Contrast that approach with the one employed by the Bush Administration in response to the 9/11 attacks. Admittedly, the 9/11 attacks were of a much more stentorian scale than that of the first WTC attack 8 years. However, the scale of the investigation needed to capture those responsible, although larger, did not require a whole scale change that the Administration ultimately employed.

The results?

Osama Bin Laden and Ayman Al-Zawahiri remain on the loose somewhere, at least we hope, in the tribal areas separating Afghanistan and Pakistan. Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, arguably the mastermind behind the attacks, was apprehended in Pakistan, but was subsequently treated with so little decency, nor tact, that ended up feeding a Thanksgiving dinner worth of false intelligence to American investigators.

More over, 6 years after the fact, Mohammed's "military commission", in which justice would be finally meted out, remains in legal limbo because of the highly unconstitutional tactics utilized by the Administration. These are tactics, though now widely discredited, that were part of the arsenal of the "pre-emptive" approach advocated by such sages as the aforementioned Woolsey and Scheunemann.

Most damaging to the overall U.S. effort against Al-Qaeda worldwide has been the predilection within the Administration towards a pre-emptive doctrine, as evidence by the calamitous situation we now find ourselves in with Iraq. By foolishly and deceptively invading a country in the name of "preventing a terrorist attack" (evidence to that end non withstanding), the Administration thereby took the emphasis on the individuals actually responsible for the tragedy that was September 11th.

As the example of Iraq clearly shows, the Bush doctrine, which emphasizes guess-work and hypothetical over the tried and true methods proven to be successful in 1993, is hardly the panacea for those who wish to be rid of the terrorist threat. Rather, it is exactly the type of "solution" that will exacerbate our problems and therefore put more lives at risk.

Ramzi Yousef did not metamorphose into a martyr, as did KSM, and other terrorists who have managed to goad the United States into abandoning the Constitution in favor of torture, coercion and lawlessness. The trio of suspects incarcerated after 1993 did not serve as symbolic to the Muslim world of the hypocrisy and duplicity of the United States. Guess who did? How about the Al- Jazeera cameraman who was imprisoned for 6 years without access to any semblance of due process? Or, the Syrian who was arrested in Canada at the behest of the United States, and then sent to a Gulag-style black site in Central Europe to be tortured?

Ultimately, the "War on Terror" will not be solved by the tactics of the FBI or a cruise missile strike into the heart of Tehran. Rather, it will be solved by the gradual amelioration of anger that Muslims justifiably feel towards the United States foreign policy. As most social movements that preceded it have, Terrorism will fade once it is bereft of public support. Guantanamo Bay, and the greater Bush policies to fight the War on Terror only serve to prevent that day from coming to fruition

Despite all of the evidence mentioned above that countermands their argument Scheuenemann and Woolsey actually keep a straight face, and a somnolent tone when they profess that their theories of fighting terrorism supersede the law and order method highlighted by Senator Obama. In all likelihood, the seriousness with which they deliver those messages are a product of the delusions intrinsic to the Neo-Con world view.

However, what is dangerous about their approach is that it likely to be a sword wielded upon the electorate ad nauseum prior to November. Republicans will profess, with signature zeal and unction, that they are the best at keeping Americans alive, despite significant evidence to the contrary. They realize that they are shithouse on the economy, health care and the environment, and as a result will turn desperately for any branch to which to cling as they attempt to retain the White House. Expect a litany of sophistry and slander like that proffered today to arise yet again.

As a result, it will be incumbent upon Sen. Obama's campaign to fight vigorously, at at times, ruthlessly against the GOP fear mongering machine. As the previous paragraphs prove, it will behoove the Democrats to emphasize the investigation of 1993 versus the one in 2001 to discount the Republicans arguments.

If they don't, Obama could potentially lose, and his campaign will only have itself to blame Obama will likely be devastated if he is sent back to the Senate in November.

But his devastation pales when compared to that which could be levied upon the country were the Bush-McCain policies to fight terrorism to be continued.

Update on Senate Races/Thoughts on McCain

Quick post today, as I cannot rouse enough indignation to fulminate against anything save John McCain's disregard of the Constitution of the day after the tragic death of Tim Russert.

1. A quick perusal of the latest indices of polls on RealClearPolitics.com should brighten the day of any Democrat in America. Even the Al Franken race in Minnesota, and the challenge being mounted to Elizabeth Dole non withstanding, the Democrats are poised to pick up 7 more seats from the GOP in the Fall Senate elections. Amongst the GOP stalwarts that are in dire straits; Ted "Tubes" Stevens of Alaska and the buffoonish Mitch McConnell of Kentucky.

But perhaps the Senator in trouble whom incurs the most wrath of the Democrats would be John Sununu of New Hampshire. Sununu was implicated in a massive phone jamming scam against their election opponents during his hotly contested 1st run for the Senate in 2002. Sununu, who trails by as many as 18 points in some polls, appears to finally be getting his comeuppance from New Hampshire voters.

It's almost a certainty that the Democrats will gain on their razor-thin majority. If they were hypothetically to gain 7 seats, as postulated above, or even 5, their caucus, and their ability to maneuver in the Senate would be drastically heightened.

For one, they could finally expunge John McCain's favorite lackey, Joseph Lieberman, from any sort of committee chairmanships. Many powerful Democrats don't want Lieberman any where near the chambers, much less as the head of a powerful committee. They will finally get their wish.

Most importantly though, a caucus of 58 members is a mere 2 votes short of invoking cloture, and thereby obviating the threat of filibusters. Time after time, the Senate Democrats have been unable to instigate any substantive debate on global warming, health care reform and Iraq. If they succeed in obtaining the new Senate seats, they will finally be on the threshold of tangible reform.

2. The last 2 days have exemplified perfectly John McCain's transformation from an independent politician to someone who capitulates incessantly to the demands of the fringe, autocratic right wing.

Just 2 days ago, McCain was guarded when responding to questioning concerning the Supreme Court decision to rebuke the runaway, unconstitutional detention policies of the Bush Administration. McCain simply said: "It obviously concerns me . . . but it is a decision the Supreme Court has made. Now we need to move forward. As you know, I always favored closing of Guantanamo Bay and I still think that we ought to do that."

Fast forward 2 days, and abracadabra, McCain offers, in his characteristic pandering hyperbole, a completely contrary position: "The Supreme Court yesterday rendered a decision which I think is one of the worst decisions in the history of this country."

For someone who accused his primary opponents of "surrendering" and "flip-flopping", those two quotes seem to be in diametric opposition, and they were spoken in a mere 48 hour interval. McCain, yet again, proves that he is willing to forsake any semblance of integrity and consistency in the name of winning this election.

Hopefully the media will see through the ruse that is John McCain as a "maverick", and start to hold him accountable, not only for substantially altering his positions for political gain, but also for the very logic and reason behind said positions.

Speaking of the logic behind McCain's views on the Supreme Court decision of earlier this week, let's now turn to that.

McCain and his cadre (Scalia, WSJ editorial page) allege that this decision will make the country less safe. And yet, he can not come up with any legitimate reasons to justify that assertion. His lame justification that the Supreme Court will now be "inundated with challenges" is pure sophistry. Guantanamo Bay houses a mere 270 prisoners at present. Annually, the Supreme Court receives more than 7,000 petitions. You do the math; it is unlikely that 270 makes a dent into the deluge they already receive. This canard on behalf of McCain is yet another example of his fealty to the most non-democratic, autocratic segments of his party.

In actuality, McCain's lame excuse is just political cover to prevent the GOP base, who unabashedly endorses the detention policies of George W. Bush, from revolt. Unfortunately for these people, from the outset, the Framers provided that habeus corpus is an inimical right to all peoples, and can not be vitiated, even in time of peril. McCain simply comes across as an enemy of the fundamental precepts of the Constitution when he inveighs against a decision to restore what has been a fundamental right for more than 200 years.

What's most puzzling is McCain's indignation about the decision if he believes the prisoners are guilty. If they are abominable, and guilty of terrorism related charges, why can McCain simply let them be prosecuted in court? If their guilt is so imminent, what can be so frightened of and outraged at?

Should Our Politicians Reassess their Unconditional Support for Israel?

These days it seems like just about the only thing that Barack Obama and John McCain agree on is an unequivocal support for Israel. While they are diametrically opposed on seemingly every critical issue, they almost find themselves competing to see who can offer more fulsome support for Israel, and by extension, the foreign policy of that country.

Numerous public statements from each bear out this assertion. Essentially all of McCain's disdain for the Iranian regime comes from their rhetoric towards Israel. He also offered the infamous "bomb bomb bomb" Iran quote a few years back when asked what he wanted to do to that country, particularly if they made an aggression gesture towards Israel.

For his part, Barack Obama was nearly stumbling over himself at the AIPAC convention last week to offer an unequivocal endorsement of Isreal's policies vis a vis Iran, and the Palestinians.

Just a mere month ago, McCain lambasted his electoral opponent for what he perceived as his "naivety" on the Iranian threat when he said:

"It is a serious error on the part of Senator Obama, that shows naivety and inexperience and lack of judgment, to say that he wants to sit down across the table from an individual who leads a country who says that Israel is a stinking corpse."

The most interesting part of the quote is that McCain cites Iranian's policy on Israel as a justification for a continuation of the United States policy with respect to the Islamic Republic. Judging by this quote, John McCain seems to believe that United States policy in this matter is predicated on how Iran deals with another country.

A logical extension of McCain's quote would also lead the reader to believe that his loyalty to Israel is tantamount, or even paramount to his loyalty to America. As a politician whose duty is to presumably serve the interests of the citizens of the United States, it's odd, and highly questionable for John McCain to instead place the interests of this country at the behest of another, as he is clearly doing in this instance. For a candidate who stakes his candidacy on his dexterity and expertise in foreign affairs, it is as best shortsighted, and at worst a dereliction of duty for John McCain to delay the advancement of the United States strategic interests towards Iran because of Iran's policy towards another country.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Surprisingly, McCain has received no flack for the aforementioned decision to inextricably intertwine the interests of the United States with that of Israel from any current office holders. As indicated above, Obama's similar stance certainly provides McCain with apt political cover to neglect US strategic interests, but that is not the real reason that he escapes unscathed.

Rather, the political climate has shifted to the point where anything but unapologetic support for Israeli policies is nearly political suicide. If any candidate, or elected official, irrespective of party, offers a critique of Israeli decision makers, they are immediately discredited by the mainstream press and other politicians. Some detractors, like Jimmy Carter, have been labeled anti-Semitic by the far right zealotry who steadfastly supports Israel. Politicians first and foremost strive to be re-elected, and in order to due so in the present milieu, they must suppress critiques of Israel, no matter how salient they may be to present or future US policy in the region.

The climate as such has thus rendered any sort of serious discussion on the actual impact of the United States' unabated support for Israel impossible. Because of this pervading sentiment, policy flexibility and adaptability has been severely limited, lest our policy makers want to incur the wrath of those on both the Christian right, and the pro-Israel right.

1. Unfettered support for Israeli policy has made a simmering Middle East into a powder keg, and thus increased the blowback towards the United States as a whole. A perfect example of this phenomenon would be 9/11. Of course, Washington endorsing Tel Aviv did by no means directly cause the terrorist attacks. But, this support was arguably the foremost bone of contention Al-Qaeda has with the United States, one they can easily use to recruit and radicalize Muslim men and women in the region.

2. Support for Israel without any sort of conditions has endangered the stability of regimes friendly to American policies in the region. Allies like Saudi Arabia and Egypt find themselves under intense fire from their citizens when they appear to look powerless on the Arab/Israeli conflict. By associating themselves with the United States, a nation who has little issue with supporting Israel, these Arab nations put themselves in danger from Islamist insurgencies and other potential radical groups who feed off the otherwise moderate citizens who feel passionately about Palestinian statehood. However loathsome Egypt and Saudi Arabia may be on human rights and freedom of speech, they are invaluable supporters in the war on terror. If they were to be shamed by their citizens after looking impotent towards helping the Palestinians, dire consequences could materialize for our interests.

3. The no questions asked support for Israel has emboldened and assisted Iran. It's no secret that the mullah's running Iran are not particularly popular amongst their own people. The control and dissemination of information, and they ability to mold public opinion is essential for the clergy to maintain power.

Luckily for the Iranian leadership, there is no easier way to distract the populace than to bring up how the "Zionists and Americans" are crusading against Muslims throughout the world. No other argument, as facetious and factually wrong as this may be, has a similar mollifying effect for the Iranian regime. The Bush Administration's decision to offer unilateral support to Israeli doctrine has thus provided the Iranian leadership, namely Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, with plenty of rhetorical fire to steer their citizenry away from any concerted effort at reform.

As a result, disastrous decisions have been made that have jeopardized critical US interests in the region. Among the miscues:

Given the 3 examples listed above, one would think that carrying a myopic and restricted policy into a region as volatile as the Middle East would be implausible. Public opinion and pressure would not permit for such a contretemps between United States interests and their policies in the region.

Yet, sadly, because the climate is such that any sort of policy that attempt to disengage United States' policies from Israel's is summarily dismissed as "anti-Semitic", or would "help the terrorists", failures abound. As I mentioned in the first paragraph, this phenomenon spans the ideological spectrum, from the far right to the Democrats in Congress. None of these entities are brave enough to buck the prevailing orthodoxy, and as a result, American interests are threatened and will continue to be so.

Frankly, one should expect a greater degree of intellectual pliancy from the man who will be the 44th President of the United States. That said, I would not turn to John McCain for any sort of resiliency or malleability with respect for the Middle East. Like the rest of his party, every issue is as clear as the Biblical battle between "good" and "evil". The Israeli's are good, and of course, the Palestinians and their Muslim allies are patently, and wholly bad. Hell, the only thing that gets John McCain more excited than the imminent destruction of Iran, and the subsequent rise of Israel to the apotheosis of the Middle East, is to talk about how "we are winning" in Iraq.

So that leaves the onerous task to Barack Obama. Throughout the primary season, Obama has shown himself a formidable and adaptable politician. Despite that pedigree, he has thus far been unwilling to serve as a bulwark against the irrationality of the present Israel policy.

However, he has shown a innate capacity to learn quickly. After all, only 4 years ago he was a novice in the Illinois legislature. Let's hope he utilizes those same instincts to address the deficiencies in the U.S. policy towards Israel.

Lessons from Presidential Primary: Part 2

Sincere apologies for the week long delay between parts 1 and 2. Deciphering Cindy McCain's tax returns and her husband's confusing medical records took longer than originally envisioned.

Back to the lessons...

1. "Lunch Pail" voters may not vote what's best for their "Lunch Pail": After Super Tuesday, Barack Obama had problems specifically with what is known as the "lunch pail" voters, the working class. He was trounced by these cadre in West Virginia, Ohio and Kentucky. Now that their preferred candidate in the primary season, Hillary Clinton, has withdrawn from the race, a large number of this group has insinuated that they will defect to John McCain's side.

To some extent, this is not a particularly surprising development. Rural America is not known as a hotbed of tolerance, and there is historical precedence for these voters to abandon the Democrats (John Kerry to Lil Bush by more than 20 points amongst this demographic in 2004).

What we found from the revelation, that the working class voters may abandon Obama, is that the Thomas Frank thesis is still alive and well; that is, the working class voters continually ally themselves with candidates who offer stolid opposition to their economic well being. John McCain is no different from his Republican predecessors. His vision for the economy does not provide permanent relief from suffocating energy prices (gas tax holiday is the epitome of gimmick politics that his counterparts on the Evangelical right specialize in), it does not provide health care to the millions of the uninsured, and he does not alleviate the chronic wage stagnation and income disparities that have plagued this country since 1980.

Nevertheless, these voters may be shifting to McCain's campaign. There is still obviously months before the election, but their gravitational shift after Clinton's withdrawal at the conclusion of the primaries may foreshadow difficulties for Obama in the Fall.

Then again, I could be grossly misstating the policy preferences of the working class. Maybe they are just enamored with McCain's breathtaking proposal to institute no new taxes on "Internet ventures"

2. Starting your Campaign a month after everyone else is a bad idea:
Ahh, the fate of the formerly teflon Rudolph Giuliani. America's favorite cross dresser decided to eschew all common knowledge about the early primary season, and not compete in the Iowa, New Hampshire, Michigan and South Carolina contests. Simply put, this was a fool's errand of the highest magnitude.

Rudy's followers may argue that the relatively conservative electorate in that state would not have taken to Rudy's message. This can be proven illogical on two fronts: First, New Hampshire and Michigan are hardly the bastion of Tony Perkins, James Dobson and the far religious right conservatism. Secondly, "winning" in those early bell-weather states does not necessarily mean the person who receives literally the most votes. In 1992, Bill Clinton finished 2nd in New Hampshire, but by deft manipulation of the media (we all remember the Comeback Kid, don't we?), Clinton emerged from New Hampshire with the perception that he had exceeded expectation and thus truly won the state. Going forward, Clinton was buoyed by that perception much more than who actual won the state.

The same axiom can be applied to this year, in the instance of Hillary Clinton. Hillary, in what came as a shock to her camp, did not prevail in Iowa. However, the gravitas of that loss forced to alter her campaign, and what emerged from that was her most success election persona; that of a fighter who refuses to back down ever.

Rudolph Giuliani was the consensus GOP front runner for the majority of 2007. Undoubtedly, his message did not play as well to conservatives in Des Moines as it would in New York City or Miami, but by abdicating the race pre-emptively, he created the perception of a frail, flawed candidate. By the time he made his last stand in Florida, the ship had sailed and all of that inimitable momentum had gone to John McCain.

3. Hell Hath no Fury like a Clinton supporter scorned?: Washington D.C. on May 31st was a frightening place. Hoards of hyped up Clinton supporter scoured the streets of our National's Capital for anyone carrying a copy of Sports Illustrated, or featuring a pronounced bulge in their trousers. As Sam Stein vividly illustrated on The Huffington Post, he could not safely eat a Reuben without being ensconced and then attacked by fervent Clinton backers.

All hyperbole aside, the vitriol espoused by Hillary's army at the Rules Committee meeting vividly showed us just how much support she had, and by extension, how much of a dent she had put in the proverbial glass ceiling. It can firmly be stated that a lesson from 2008 is that a woman is no longer to be tossed aside as a light weight, non-contender in a Presidential election.

What the fury of her supporters portends for the future of Sen. Obama's campaign is of more interest to this entry. As Salon.com pointed out, every election features some backlash against the winner, from supporters of the loser, even if they hail from the same party. Will the anger linger?

Not if these women have any sort of capacity for rational thought, it won't. Forgetting that Clinton and Obama's positions on major issues are essentially indistinguishable, but what exactly do women who support Clinton have to gravitate to about McCain's campaign? His record on abortion rights is similar to Sam Brownback and all the other right wing demagogues. His health care plan doesn't even cover himself, much less millions of sick children. On a personal level, he deserted his first wife after she was rendered less beautiful following a horrific car accident in 1973.

Obviously, I did not cover all issues that could be of primacy to the female voter, but the litany I just laid out would make it awful in congruent for a disgruntled Clinton supporter to defect to McCain's side.

4. Once the Media confers a "label" on a candidate, it refuses to take it away, even if there is substantial evidence to the contrary: If you read most of the major papers in this country, here is the perception you would have on each of the 2 major candidates:

John McCain- A maverick who never once kowtowed to the orthodoxy of his party. He is unflappable, independent and infallible. His personal story is rife with heroism and notably absent of controversy or moral turpitude.

Barack Obama- According to an editorial in the New York Times, Obama is considered an apostate by most Muslims, and will therefore engender more hate for our troops in the Middle East than Israel and George W. Bush combined. Also, Obama quite possibly doesn't "love American" enough, and would be absolutely giddy if Iran destroyed Tel Aviv.

CANDIDATE REALITY:

John McCain, despite his maverick image, as I mentioned in part 1 of this piece, is with his party hook, line and sinker on nearly every single issue. The only way he becomes distanced from the GOP, and thereby deservedly receives the Maverick imprimatur is if the election comes down to a referendum on Campaign Finance Reform. McCain has also committed the dreaded "flip flopping" twice now, once when he switched to supporting the warrant less wire tapping program, and also when he suggested troops could leave Iraq in 2013 after deriding Mitt Romney as someone who "surrendered" when he suggested a timetable for redeployment.

More over, McCain is not the paragon of virtue that Fox News would like him to be. He indisputably served meritoriously in the military. Since then, however, he has committed adultery and been involved in the Keating 5 scandal.

Barack Obama, on the other hand, has never been embroiled in infidelity (I could personally care less, but this is a rhetorical argument that the right uses against the left all the time, so why not give them a taste of it)), more over, he has unequivocally stated his support for Israel and its right to exist. Obama has also been a Christian ever since he was of age to make decisions on his own, and therefore any lingering accusations or insinuations that he is a Muslim is pure sophistry.

Yet, despite these facts, McCain is still portrayed as a maverick whose judgment on matters of morality, national security can not be legitimately criticized. More over, the media interpretation allows McCain to possess air of being incorruptible, despite considerable evidence to the contrary. In the same vein, Barack Obama has stated ad nauseum his beliefs in the Christian doctrine, and yet the Times allows op-ed pieces that allege he will be hated in the Middle East because of his "former life" as Muslim to be published in May.

This bastion of journalism, our supposed paper of record, and its cohorts in the media originally latched on to the archetypes of McCain as a tireless maverick, and as Obama as the potentially un-patriotic neophyte whose origins are murky, and potentially harmful. In order to save face, a widespread deviation from that initial perception is impossible, no matter how incontrovertible the evidence is to the contrary.

If their is one thing that the Bush 43 years taught us, it is that admitting your wrong is impermissible, no matter how that decision causes one to abdicate from duty, reason and accountability.

Let's hope the media can stop serving as a copy cat for that doctrine.