I am utterly speechless.

According to an email obtained by TPM Muckraker, financial news network CNBC has asked the fringe right wing group Tea Party Patriots to stage a health care town hall “event this week that will have lots of energy and lots of anger”:

Yesterday, Tea Party Patriots national coordinator Jenny Beth Martin sent an email, obtained by TPMmuckraker, to a Tea Party google group. Martin told the group: “We have a media request for an event this week that will have lots of energy and lots of anger. This is for CNBC.”

She then asked: “So, where are the big events this week and where can TPP best be represented on the news?”

Later that day, a Tea Bagger named Pat Wayman responded with a suggestion, also obtained by TPMmuckraker: “This one should be a riot! literally….” he wrote.

Wayman then posted information for an upcoming “health fair” hosted by Rep. David Scott (D-GA), at which the uninsured will receive free medical coverage*.

As Wayman noted, “[t]his is the Congressman who got a swastika painted on his office sign last night.” …

Teabagger spokeswoman Martin quickly walked back the request to her group when it became public:

She stressed that her group “does not endorse anything that incites violence of any kind,” adding that the email list is un-moderated. “I can’t moderate every single comment,” she said.

Asked whether CNBC had specifically told her they were looking for an event with “lots of energy and lots of anger,” Martin replied: “That was the impression that I received from them.” She declined to elaborate.

The organized astroturfing and disrupting of congressional “town hall” events is no longer just a production of the GOP fringe: a major news network is now overtly encouraging the disruptions.

We should recognize these efforts what they have clearly become: active sedition of the U.S. government, now aided and abetted by a major news network.

It’s time to halt all health care town hall forums, both congressional and presidential, before someone is seriously hurt (or worse). The kettle has boiled over, and there is no longer any way that the safety and security of the public can be assured at these meetings.

Neal Gabler has a nice column in yesterday’s LA Times where he ponders the notion of the Republican intellectual center. He’s following avidly, as we all are, the infighting among the GOPers as they fight to remake themselves. Will the GOP follow the extremist social conservatives, or will they hearken back to a philosophy from an earlier time, to Reagan, or Goldwater? Gabler’s thesis is that there is not intellectual center for the Republican Party, that all they’ve got left are angry and ugly talking heads like Hannity and Limbaugh, and that, as such, what plays for an “intellectual enter” for the Republicans is more like the McCarthy of the HUAC era. Here’s a bit from that LA Times article:

McCarthyism, on the other hand, which could be deployed by anyone, thrived. McCarthyism was how Republicans won. George H.W. Bush used it to get himself elected, terrifying voters with Willie Horton. And his son, under the tutelage of strategist Karl Rove, not only got himself reelected by convincing voters that John Kerry was a coward and a liar and would hand the nation over to terrorists, which was pure McCarthyism, he governed by rousing McCarthyite resentments among his base.

Republicans continue to push the idea that this is a center-right country and that Americans have swooned for GOP anti-government posturing all these years, but the real electoral bait has been anger, recrimination and scapegoating. That’s why John McCain kept describing Barack Obama as some sort of alien and why Palin, taking a page right out of the McCarthy playbook, kept pushing Obama’s relationship with onetime radical William Ayers.

And that is also why the Republican Party, despite the recent failure of McCarthyism, is likely to keep moving rightward, appeasing its more extreme elements and stoking their grievances for some time to come. There may be assorted intellectuals and ideologues in the party, maybe even a few centrists, but there is no longer an intellectual or even ideological wing. The party belongs to McCarthy and his heirs — Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Bill O’Reilly and Palin. It’s in the genes.

I’m not here to say Neal Gabler is wrong, as there seem to be many McCarthyite tendencies among the Republicans nowadays, but it seems to me that he doesn’t fully describe this intellectual vacuum of the Republicans. Changing a vision of Republican lineage from Goldwater to Joe McCarthy seems too obvious to me. Surely such a move might have rigor, but it seems almost a Godwin-like move. Or maybe I should say that he adequately doesn’t cover the contradictory elements of Republican strategies. Isn’t Elmer Gantry a more apt metaphor, bringing together as it does the notions of deceit, religion, and collective anger? Of course, Elmer Gantry is a bit of an allegory about Mr. McCarthy, is it not?

It’s a nice little intellectual exercise. What best represents the Republican intellectual center? It’s just too easy to imagine that center to be My Pet Goat, or The Very Hungry Caterpillar, or even the Bible. I suppose Paradise Lost, with the Devil as the tragic hero, might be a nice work by which to describe the Republican intellectual center. Even then, though, such a highly moral text doesn’t seem to me to have the kind of irony necessary to describing Republicans in their present state of sin. But one look at a guy who supposedly represents the intellectual wing of the GOP, William Kristol, nails this question, I think. Here’s Kristol giving Bush advice, from next week’s Weekly Standard:

In addition, Bush can explain to Americans just how his administration’s detention, interrogation, surveillance, and other counterterrorism policies have helped keep us safe. If he lays out the case for them publicly–as his appointees are surely doing to their transition counterparts privately–he’ll make it easier for the incoming Obama administration to back off rash promises and continue most of the policies. This would be a real service to the country. It would also force a rethinking, by those capable of rethinking, of the cheap and easy demagoguing on issues like Guantánamo and eavesdropping. Over time, Bush might even get deserved credit for effective conduct of the war on terror.

As it happens, a Rasmussen Reports survey last week found about half of U.S. voters say the United States should not close the terrorist detention facility at Guantánamo, while less than a third think it should. So, on this and other war-on-terror-related issues, Bush’s positions are reasonably popular–even though the Bush administration has done very little to make its case. Attorney General Michael Mukasey did a good job of laying out the argument for the administration’s conduct of the war on terror in remarks to the Federalist Society a little over a week ago. Bush should take up this cause.

One last thing: Bush should consider pardoning–and should at least be vociferously praising–everyone who served in good faith in the war on terror, but whose deeds may now be susceptible to demagogic or politically inspired prosecution by some seeking to score political points. The lawyers can work out if such general or specific preemptive pardons are possible; it may be that the best Bush can or should do is to warn publicly against any such harassment or prosecution. But the idea is this: The CIA agents who waterboarded Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, and the NSA officials who listened in on phone calls from Pakistan, should not have to worry about legal bills or public defamation. In fact, Bush might want to give some of these public servants the Medal of Freedom at the same time he bestows the honor on Generals Petraeus and Odierno. They deserve it.

OK, maybe this extended quote represents just what Gabler meant with the McCarthy metaphor. Kristol is talking the straight Bush line on terror, cherry picking polls when they support him, and calling for a hard line backed by the kind of jingoistic rhetoric that might make McCarthy proud. Kristol goes so much further, though. The man wants to give the Medal of Freedom to people who tortured prisoners, who kept some innocent prisoners at Gitmo for years? No, this is far more Orwell than McCarthy. This is just bizarre, and more bizarre still is that someone like William Kristol has a job writing this drivel.

Oh how I love irony! My frenzied friends on the right have done their damnedest to portray the Obama’s as snooty elitists…despite the fact that it’s the McCain’s who own seven homes, thirteen automobiles, and a virtual department store of haute couture for Cindy to show off on the campaign trail.

None of this should come as a surprise since the GOP has spent the last three decades pretending to care about the interests of the common man. With the emergence of the maverick McCain-Palin reformers ticket, that persona has been put on steroids…championing the likes of Joe Six-Pack, Joe The Plumber, and Tito The Construction Worker.

Unfortunately, it’s not that easy to play a caribou killin’ moose burger eating mom, with a doggone down home dialect, when one is dressed up in 150K of name brand clothing purchased with campaign funds. It’s especially problematic when just days earlier your rabid right ring rottweiler’s are pushing a story about Michelle Obama partaking of a delectable dinner fit for an airing on an episode of Robin Leach’s “champaign wishes and caviar dreams” Lifestyles of the Rich and Famous.

So here’s the problem…it turns out the Michelle Obama story was false…shooting a huge hole in the efforts to paint her as none other than an angry and arrogant African American manifestation of Mommy Dearest meets Leona Helmsley.

From The New York Post:

The source who told us last week about Michelle Obama getting lobster and caviar delivered to her room at the Waldorf-Astoria must have been under the influence of a mind-altering drug. She was not even staying at the Waldorf. We regret the mistake, and our former source is going to regret it, too. Bread and water would be too good for such disinformation.

Now cue the creation of Caribou-Barbie-wears-Christian-Lacroix (yea, that’s close enough for Vic the Voter to draw a connection to hockey’s Pierre Lacroix, right?) and you begin to see the sweet irony that comes with exposing those whose expertise is found in concocting ill-conceived illusions.

From Politico:

The Republican National Committee appears to have spent more than $150,000 to clothe and accessorize vice presidential candidate Sarah Palin and her family since her surprise pick by John McCain in late August.

According to financial disclosure records, the accessorizing began in early September and included bills from Saks Fifth Avenue in St. Louis and New York for a combined $49,425.74.

The records also document a couple of big-time shopping trips to Neiman Marcus in Minneapolis, including one $75,062.63 spree in early September.

The RNC also spent $4,716.49 on hair and makeup through September after reporting no such costs in August.

Politico asked the McCain campaign for comment, explicitly noting the $150,000 in expenses for department store shopping and makeup consultation that were incurred immediately after Palin’s announcement. Pre-September reports do not include similar costs.

Spokeswoman Maria Comella declined to answer specific questions about the expenditures, including whether it was necessary to spend that much and whether it amounted to one early investment in Palin or if shopping for the vice presidential nominee was ongoing.

Think about it…when Sarah Palin asked us to imagine the difference between a hockey mom and a Pit Bull, we foolishly believed it was limited to lipstick. Well, we now know it includes skirts and suits, handbags and high heels, dresses and designer wear, and anything else one can buy on a paltry allowance of 150K.

Not to worry though, John McCain and Sarah Palin plan to share the pie with the two Joe’s and Tito and Vic…that’s what Republicans do when they cut taxes for all of Robin Leach’s BFF’s. A word of caution to the wise though…you better stay alert…I wouldn’t want you to miss out on a few of the crumbs when they fall off the table.

Cross-posted at Thought Theater

As we move closer to the election, I’ve witnessed a phenomena that has only recently begun to make sense to me (by the fact that it doesn’t make sense). First, I have to hand it to my Republican friends…their tenacity in creating tangible talking points out of thin air is unmatched.

Let me provide an example before I attempt to draw the connection between the manner in which they analyze and strategize elections and the predisposition of some Christians to promote intelligent design over evolution.

Over at the National Review, flummoxed politicos are desperate to craft a salient narrative to leverage John McCain back into a position to win the election. What they fail to realize is that their lurching from one idea to the next is simply supporting the Obama mantra that John McCain and the GOP are erratic. Take a look at the following.

From Jonah Goldberg (Part One):

I have no idea whatsoever if there’s merit to this, and if there is how much merit, but lots of email like this:

When are people going to start talking about the REAL reason the markets are down - Obama up in polls. If I was McCain, I’d start telling people, “If you want to lose more money, vote Obama.”

From Jonah Goldberg (Part Two):

Now, it’s far more likely that the causation and correlation suggested by some readers is backward: the markets tank for non-political reasons and Obama does well as a result, rather than Obama does well and then the markets tank. Still, I think Pethokoukis’ point that Obama’s success may make investors more pessimistic about the future has some plausibility to it.

Finally, it sounds like this reader has it right (and I should correct a bunch of emailers who seem to think I was suggesting McCain blame Obama for the crashing markets, which I think would be ludicrous).

Jonah,

The suggestion that markets are down because of Obama’s rising in the polls shows a preposterous misunderstanding of economics, and McCain will be (rightly) pilloried if he tries to make that claim. I have no doubt Obama will be an utter disaster for business and economic growth/recovery in this country, but the markets are reacting to fact that unemployment is way up (and climbing), manufacturing numbers are way down, housing prices are still falling, credit has seized up, overnight funding is near impossible to acquire at anything but prohibitive cost, there continue to be real questions as to the solvency of financial institutions and their nightmarish balance sheets, etc. Just about every piece of data that comes back these days is negative, with the exception of falling commodity prices and a strengthening dollar, as Kudlow correctly mentioned last week. Companies growth prospects in this kind of environment are bleak at best, and the markets are reacting in kind. In addition, the ban on short selling of financials rolled off today, so some of the downward pressure that had built up over the past week released itself today.

We’ll reach a bottom of the market eventually, however–and I mean no disrespect to the previous e-mailer you quoted below–it’s naïve to suggest the continued hammering we’re all taking has anything material to do with the political zeitgeist.

OK, to argue that the ascension of Obama in the polls is responsible for our crashing financial system requires the suspension of reality. Now in fairness, I have to note that Jonah, in his second posting, dismisses the notion offered by the emailer in his prior posting. At the same time, this has seemingly become standard operating procedure for my friends on the right. Again, there’s no fault in testing trial balloons; though there is folly in releasing the ones that don’t merit a moments consideration. Doing so gives them an air of legitimacy that fosters more of the same.

Here’s the problem…all too often GOP operatives establish an outcome (the preferred fact or belief) and then they create a hypothesis to support it. Clearly this isn’t out of the ordinary with regards to scientific study. Virtually every hypothesis has at its origin some level of belief that it may be true, which leads to its testing. The problem with many on the right is that their bias and partiality leads them to corrupt the construct in order to rig the results. In other words, the scientific method is an acceptable construct when it yields the preferred result. Should it refute the optimal outcome, the kitchen sink must be tossed at it in order to discredit it.

That brings me to the connections between those who oppose the theory of evolution in favor of creationism or its most recent stepchild, intelligent design, and those who would put forth an intellectually dishonest explanation to further their political objectives.

Let me be clear, it’s a free country and we’re all entitled to attempt to influence others with whatever arguments we choose to employ. The problems arise when the credible and convincing means to measure the validity of a theory are cast aside in deference to ideological intransigence. You see, when an individual can dissect the Bible into those portions they accept and those segments they set aside…all the while maintaining the infallibility of the process and the indisputable nature of the conclusion…fiction has been elevated to a level commensurate with fact.

Even worse, there is no rational or reasonable means to compel these believers to abandon their arbitrary assertions in favor of a fact driven formula. Once this rejection of reasonability is rejected relative to religion, the distance to its dissolution with regards to other disciplines is easily abridged. In the field of politics, once dogma is allowed to dethrone dutiful deduction, extremism is enabled.

Hence, the efforts to assign arbitrary attributes to Barack Obama is the epitome of embracing this elusive equation. Not only does this promote discord, it precludes its resolution. Before it can be corrected, the quintessential question must focus upon uncovering the underlying motivations.

As I watch John McCain and his minions grapple with the prospect of defeat…and the fear that imparts…it supports my suspicion that terror management is at the core of our conundrum. Terror management posits that we humans are prone to obsessing upon the fear of our mortality and acting to diminish it.

As such, religion and the promise of an afterlife is a strategy to assuage the anxiety. Those predisposed to acting from fear are therefore susceptible to strategies that allow irrational ideations to override objective analysis. When confronted with fearful events, the instinctual reaction is to resort to the suspension of reason in order to construct a place of comfort.

Unfortunately, this behavior has an “imprinting” quality such that it is self-reinforcing the longer it persists. In the political realm, it is manifested in a refusal to allow or applaud alternate avenues of governance. The Clinton presidency is an excellent example. There is little doubt that his tenure was a period of relative peace and prosperity…and yet many on the right refuse to recognize as much. These individuals often argue that the time a president is seated in office isn’t the essential measure of his merit…or they prioritize other considerations…such as morality in the case of Clinton.

Here’s the problem. This approach isn’t applied consistently. Ronald Reagan receives credit for his time in office as well as for a number of ensuing years. Questions of morality, such as his having been married twice and his silence on the AIDS epidemic, are ignored. Shades of gray are danger zones and the pursuit of black and white…regardless of either’s availability…is the ultimate safe haven from which to view the world. With the passage of time, the GOP and its pliable and therefore palatable propaganda becomes the only amenable world view…facts be damned.

Doubt is equated with death and it must, therefore, be banished. Science, though seemingly certain, is still too slow in providing a palatable domicile from which to proceed. To embrace it is to risk the possibility that one’s earthly existence could end before it can afford acceptable answers to free one from fear. A retreat to the malleability of irrational ideations is the only avenue by which one can construct an illusory and idyllic island, insulated from the unmovable manifestation of mortality.

Death is certain; political suicide is optional. Come into the light my GOP friends…I promise it won’t kill you. Besides, you’ll still have heaven as a backup, right?

Cross-posted at Thought Theater

There are times when I’m sure the United States won’t survive the remaining days until we elect our next president…let alone the day after. As I watch the McCain campaign succumb to increasingly divisive acts of desperation…fomenting fear and animosity by directing innuendo at ignorance…I can’t help but question the recklessness of his ambition.

If the role of leadership is to advance our society, then political appeals predicated upon a least common denominator equation are an affront to that objective. Frankly, it’s difficult to blame those voters who are vulnerable to gutter politics as a result of generational prejudices, isolation from mitigating influences, and limited educational opportunities. Notwithstanding, there is great danger in inciting those who lack the tools to make objective conclusions.

Those who willfully engage in this kind of misdirection are little more than manipulative opportunists who must be exposed and rejected. Dividing this nation to advance one’s ego is an admission that the advancement of the ego supersedes the enlightenment of the electorate.

To understand the risks of tactical cynicism, take a look at the following two videos. The first is the latest McCain campaign ad. The second is from a recent rally supporting the McCain-Palin ticket.

I think this third video amplifies my argument and points to another underlying issue. With a number of these voters, the McCain strategy is designed to allow them to unleash racist hatred under the guise of a new label. One can easily see how a term like “terrorist” is now being substituted for “n*****”…a term they realize would draw even more outrage and accusations of blatant bigotry. This cynical ploy is despicable!

While watching the second video, it’s easy to feel outrage at the individuals espousing uninformed opinions. However, if one takes the time to consider the construction of their conclusions (see the first video), it’s clear that they are being intentionally misled. The fact that they can creates an opening for those who would put the pursuit of power and profit first. The more fear the McCain campaign can invoke, the less likely rationality and reasonability can be restored. This is the dilemma we face.

Sadly, the fact that fear can still succeed in trumping the economic self-interest of these individuals is disheartening. In the end, those who frame this election as a battle between good and evil appear to be the ones planting the unsubstantiated seeds of the evil they callously erect in order to oppose.

The only plausible cure for this brand of politics is to deliver a crushing electoral defeat to those who have chosen this course of action. Only then will there be a deterrent to the politics of distortion and deception. Should this happen, perhaps future elections can focus on real issues of import to average Americans. For voters to be receptive to reconsideration, the cynicism of their leaders must be exposed and exterminated.

Frankly, if our increasingly dubious economic situation isn’t sufficient to force us to see through these absurd distractions, it may require even more suffering for us to discern rhetoric from reality. It seems to me that some of the people we see in the above video have become so removed from rationality that unless and until Barack Obama personally hands them a loaf of bread and a bowl of soup, they’ll hold fast to the fabrications they’ve been fed by the McCain campaign.

Unfortunately history tells us that extremist ideation is often most influential when economic turmoil prevails. It is even more ominous when some leaders choose to intentionally exacerbate it by linking the societies financial difficulties to cultural and moral considerations. In times of tumult, there is always the risk that some people in positions of power will see scapegoating as the path to power.

Two years ago, when I suggested the housing bubble fiasco would exponentially eclipse the S&L scandal, there were many who called me a partisan alarmist. Two months ago, despite repeated assurances to the contrary from those in power, the dominos began to fall in rapid succession…exactly as I’d predicted. While the toll is just beginning to be tallied, the damage has been done and it will be huge.

Today, I’m going to offer another prediction…not because I want it to materialize…but because history instructs us to do so lest we find ourselves repeating the same mistakes over and over again. This nation is on a trajectory for tragedy. In our unwillingness to face facts and find common ground, we are laying the groundwork for vilification, violence, and victimization.

When evil opportunists identify the emergence of this dynamic, they are drawn to exploit it for power and profit. Unless the forces for good intervene quickly to derail this downward spiral, we’ll eventually find ourselves quantifying the coming calamity in corpses. Soon after, we’ll utter the words that history tells us so often follow these days of darkness, “Never again, never again.”

I hope history will conclude that my voice was one of many who sought to sound the alarm in advance. If doing so now makes me a pessimist, I’ll glady accept the attachment of that label if my warning can contribute to transforming a looming tragedy into an historic high point at which the human spirit was able to choose good and extinguish an emerging evil…without the needless shedding of blood. Only then will we have fulfilled our prior promise of, “Never again, never again.”

On that rather gloomy note, I’ll turn to sarcasm and snark as it is often the only means to escape the unease such speculations unleash. It also offers an alternate means to expose essence. The following list is offered to illuminate the absurdity of the rhetoric being employed at recent Republican rallies.

Top ten signs you’re un-American and have connections with known radicals and terrorists:

(more…)

It’s easy to get lost in the rampant rhetoric of elections. All too often we forget what the stakes are and just how important it is to vote. We do so at our own peril. The following two videos serve to illuminate the bright line between rhetoric and reality.

In the first video, we garner some insight into the extent of Palin’s hypocrisy and her willingness to ride the political fence for advantage. While Sarah Palin is busy traveling the country attempting to portray Barack Obama’s brief association with former Weatherman, Bill Ayers, as the reason to reject his election, she completely ignores her own suspect affiliations.

She wants us to believe that Barack Obama is a terrorist sympathizer because he sat in the same room with Bill Ayers and served on an education committee with him. At the same time, she completely ignores her endorsement of a man and an organization that is actively seeking the secession of the state of Alaska from the United States…a man whose hatred for his country is every bit as inflammatory as the words of Barack Obama’s former pastor, Jeremiah Wright.

Now take a look at the second video and listen to the impassioned remarks of Donna Brazile as she elucidates the essence of this election absent hateful hyperbole. If Brazile’s utter honesty doesn’t move you, you might want to start looking for your misplaced soul. If you don’t know where to look or can’t be bothered, I know an abrasive Alaskan governor you might want to pal around with.

If you want to know why this elections matter, watch these videos a second time and ask yourself where the truth lies. The evidence is overwhelming. Casting a vote on election day is our opportunity to send a message that the truth still matters. If Sarah Palin wants to reject America when it’s politically expedient, I think it’s only appropriate we return the favor.

Given the choice, I’d much rather take a seat in the back of the bus with Donna Brazile than hitch a ride on the “Straight Talk Express” with the likes of Sarah Palin and John McCain. Come November 5th, I want it to be clear that Donna Brazile can sit anywhere she likes and I want Sarah Palin to know that her brand of rancid rhetoric has no place at the political table.

Cross-posted at Thought Theater

It seems to me that a significant question will emerge in the aftermath of the 2008 election. The crux of that question has been framed by the inflammatory rhetoric of the McCain-Palin campaign in recent days. In its effort to sway voters and win this election, the McCain campaign has chosen to ignite animosities that will undoubtedly linger beyond November 4th…animosities that have the potential to unleash the very kind of violence that typified the groups and individuals the McCain campaign has attempted to link with Barack Obama.

At the core of the conflicts that marred the sixties and seventies was an immense divide between those who supported the continuation of the war in Vietnam and those who viewed it as an act of unnecessary imperialism. At the same time, issues of racial equality and morality were drawn into the equation…pushing many to embrace increasingly radical avenues of dissent.

Let me be perfectly clear, I am in no way offering a defense of those who perpetrated the destruction of property and acts of violence in order to deliver their message of disapproval. At the same time, prudence requires us to identify circumstances that could encourage members of our current society to feel justified in fomenting more of the same.

Each time Sarah Palin and other McCain operatives frame this election as a choice between preserving the status quo (patriotism, capitalism, and exceptionalism) or the emergence of a radical new order (postnationalism and socialism), the mechanisms to spark the fuse of righteous rebellion are accelerated. The tenor has the potential to trigger untold turmoil.

Take a look at the rhetoric being offered by Sarah Palin at yesterday’s rally in Florida and note how it seeks to portray the above distinctions.

From The Chicago Sun-Times:

So I’m reading the New York Times, though, and I was really interested to read about Barack’s friends from Chicago, as the New York Times (put it ?).

(Applause.)

Now it turns out one of his earliest supporters is a man named Bill Ayers.

(Boos.)

And according to the New York Times he was a domestic terrorist and part of a group that quote, “launched a campaign of bombings that would target the Pentagon and our U.S. Capitol.”

(Boos.)

And then there’s even more to the story. Barack Obama says that Ayers was just someone in the neighborhood, but that’s less than truthful. His own top adviser said that they were quote, “certainly friendly.” In fact, Obama held one of his first meetings of his political career in Bill Ayers living room.

(Boos.)

And they worked together on various projects in Chicago. And, you know, these are the same guys who think that patriotism is paying higher taxes.

(Boos.)

Remember, that’s what Joe Biden had said. And I am just so fearful that this is not a man who sees America the way that you and I see America, as the greatest source for good in this world.

(Applause.)

I’m afraid this is someone who sees America as imperfect enough to work with a former domestic terrorist who had targeted his own country.

(Boos.)

This, ladies and gentlemen, has nothing to do with the kind of change that anyone can believe in, not my kids, not for your kids. What we believe in is what Ronald Reagan believed in, and that is America is an exceptional nation.

Many in the media have argued that John McCain has failed to craft an economic message that resonates with a majority of Americans. While conventional metrics suggest the pundits may well be right, I contend they are missing the fact that there is an economic (and political) ideology contained in the McCain campaign’s fundamental framing of this election. The fact that this message has elicited cries of “Terrorist”, “Treason”, and “Kill him” from members of an agitated audience is frighteningly foreboding.

Yes, I think it’s safe to say that it may be impossible to discern the underlying motivations of John McCain and his minions. While the possibilities are limited, the outcomes are ominous. On the one hand, one might assume that the spoken words match the essence of the ideology supported by McCain, his handlers, and the base of the Republican Party. On the other hand, McCain and his handlers may simply be exploiting the fears and beliefs of the party’s base in the hopes of political advantage. Regardless, once the cogitated cat is out of the bag, walking it back in will be problematic…and perhaps impossible in the short term.

Here’s the issue. Should this tactic be allowed to blossom…and Barack Obama wins this election…the McCain campaign will have played an integral role in legitimizing any ensuing acts of anarchy designed to unseat those who are viewed as promoting a new and unpalatable paradigm. The fact that race could be a consideration serves as an acrid accelerant. By characterizing the opposition as the impetus for dismantling our long standing societal structure, the McCain campaign will have arguably participated in fueling the fires and offering tacit acceptance of those acts undertaken in obligatory opposition.

Ironically, by invoking the unacceptable acts of those associated with the unnerving unrest of another era…and attempting to attach them to Barack Obama…the McCain campaign may be laying the foundation for its repetition…albeit manifest as the mirrored opposite in its construction. When Joe Biden, during the vice presidential debate, suggested that the “past is prologue”, I doubt he understood how prescient his words may have been.

As one looks back on the last ten years, one will invariably see the emergence of a short-sighted scorched earth strategy. The election of George Bush, along with the belief by Karl Rove that his politics-by-division would grant the GOP unbridled political dominance, set in motion a maelstrom capable of inflicting great damage.

When Sarah Palin playfully suggests “the heels are on, the gloves are off”, she may not realize the harm her heated hyperbole may unharness. The fact that John McCain, once the victim of these wicked waves of wrath, has chosen to embrace it in Sarah Palin and employ many of Rove’s mercenaries to execute his own tectonic triangulation may well be seen by history as the trigger that pushed America to the precipice of partisan political armageddon.

That brings me back to identifying the question that will fundamentally define the 2008 election, “At what point did John McCain forego putting country first and at what cost?”

Cross-posted at Thought Theater

Keith Olbermann wasted no time in responding to Sarah Palin’s latest stump schtick. According to Palin, she’s decided that it’s “time to put on the heels and take off the gloves” in her efforts to sully Barack Obama. In tonight’s Special Comment, Olbermann takes the governor up on one of her suggestion and pulls no punches…and the results may not be what Palin had in mind.

As Olbermann notes, it’s rather puzzling that Palin would choose to focus upon linking Barack Obama to individuals of questionable character…or as she likes to infer…”terrorists”, given her own brow raising associations with a witch doctor and a secessionist organization run by an anti-American radical.

It seems to me that people who wear rose colored lipstick and run around in glass stilettos should think before they kick every hockey puck in the arena. After all, she wouldn’t want someone to suggest that her rhetoric is little more than a pig in a poke.

Cross-posted at Thought Theater

I vote for stupid stunt, but then, I’m biased against Pat Robertson. the man is famous for saying stupid stuff. Now he wants us to believe that there’s going to be a war in the Middle East between November 4th and Barack Obama’s Presidential Inauguration. Here’s the scoop from the Virginia Pilot:

In a letter on his Web site, www.patrobertson.com, Robertson said his opinion was that Israel would bomb Iranian nuclear sites between Nov. 4 and the inauguration of the United States’ new president.

Robertson tied his warning to biblical prophesy. His letter, which starts out describing his concerns about Russian aggression in Georgia, predicted that Russia would also enter the war, though the United States wouldn’t.

“However, we may not be spared nuclear strikes against coastal cities” in America, he wrote.

A version of the letter was sent in September to members of Regent University, where Robertson is founder and president. He is also founder of the Christian Broadcasting Network and host of its daily show, “The 700 Club.” The network and university are based in Virginia Beach.

“We have between 75 and 120 days before the Middle East starts spinning out of control,” Robertson wrote. “If there was ever a time for fervent prayer, it is now.”

The letter on the Robertson web site is here, and it is enough to make one puke. The subtext is clearly that there’s something dangerous down the road, but Robertson knows better than to predict and “October Surprise.” His predictions are historically so bad that all the people he might get to believe it would laugh at him when they found out it wasn’t true. What he’s doing here is raising the specter of danger so those on the fence about Obama will go vote for McCain, a man Robertson thinks, at least, the stronger on foreign policy.

What Robertson doesn’t count on is an American population that sees John McCain as erratic and his running mate Sarah Palin as “unqualified.” Robertson’s warning, designed to make people go for the “safe” candidate, may well lead people to Barack Obama.

If affectations were authenticity, Sarah Palin’s debate performance would have been Oscar worthy. If flirtations were facts, Sarah Palin could transform ennui into an astute entry in the encyclopedia. If muddled mutterings were metrics, Sarah Palin could be a mathematician. If serendipity were substance, enlightenment would emerge from Palin’s equivocations. If ifs and buts were candy and nuts, we’d all have a Merry Christmas. If audacity were hope, John McCain and Sarah Palin would be our saviors.

Look, by virtually any means of measurement, the performance of Sarah Palin during last nights debate was an insult to voters and a mockery of our political process. While I realize Republicans want to support their ticket and hold the White House, the fact that any American could ignore the utter inanity of her performance last night…and cast a vote for the McCain-Palin ticket…is an affront to the integrity of our democracy.

To grant legitimacy to tactical cynicism is to empower the reckless acts of those who would sacrifice our society for their own exigent egotism. The only salient conclusion one can draw from John McCain’s selection of Sarah Palin as his running mate is that he may be the most dangerous man in America. Make no mistake; John McCain’s life is the epitome of insolence and self-indulgence. Sarah Palin’s selection is simply the exclamation mark.

With that said, John McCain is merely a symptom of a far more endemic illness. John McCain embodies a segment of our society that is willing to sacrifice rationality and reasonability for the pursuit of power and profit. Were that the limit of this egregious era of enmity, I might reconsider this recitation. The gravity of this moment doesn’t afford that luxury.

John McCain and Sarah Palin do not represent the heart and soul of America…they are impostors who wrap themselves in the superficial rhetoric of patriotism, righteousness, and religiosity. They do this by denigrating and casting doubt upon those qualities in others. It takes the form of narcissistic negation designed to deny worth to those who refuse to check their cerebral capacities at the door and adopt their mindless mantras. When I witness the chanting of “USA, USA” or “Drill baby drill” at a McCain rally, I don’t hear the collective cries of informed and evolved individuals; I hear and see the summary suspension of identity for the comfort of canned incantations.

The fact that this lockstep submission to simplistic circumlocution is being glorified in the disingenuous gesticulations of Governor “give me a frickin’ break” Palin is an insult to true patriots, the resolutely righteous, and those who respect religion enough to forego flaunting it as if it were the latest fashion. Yes, John McCain served his country in the military…but the measure of a man must be his motivations…just as is the case with regards to the service of one’s God. If patriotism or religion is employed as the means to manipulate others, neither is noble or noteworthy.

To understand this concept, and its relevance in discerning the essence of John McCain from the caricature he has carefully crafted, I highly recommend reading the recent article in Rolling Stone that traces his less than laudable biography.

As I read the article, I found myself recalling the story of Forrest Gump. While there may be symmetries in these two men’s situations, they begin to diverge at the moment one delves into an examination of the purity of happenstance versus the cunning of calculation. While this exercise in illumination is intended to inform as to the integrity of the individual, it becomes especially insidious when a number of the observers can no longer apply objectivity in identifying the insincerity of the protagonist’s executions. Ironically, the juxtaposition of fiction and fact only serves to amplify the premise of my argument…a belief that America is on the verge of becoming a tragic caricature of itself…prosecuted by icons hatched from the thin air of our illogical imaginations.

To understand the inevitable outcome of this diminishment-by-denial brand of obfuscation…carried out by and for the McCain-Palin candidacy…take a look at its full and frightening manifestation in Rich Lowry’s summarization of the “performance” of Sarah Palin, posted at the National Review.

A very wise TV executive once told me that the key to TV is projecting through the screen. It’s one of the keys to the success of, say, a Bill O’Reilly, who comes through the screen and grabs you by the throat. Palin too projects through the screen like crazy. I’m sure I’m not the only male in America who, when Palin dropped her first wink, sat up a little straighter on the couch and said, “Hey, I think she just winked at me.” And her smile. By the end, when she clearly knew she was doing well, it was so sparkling it was almost mesmerizing. It sent little starbursts through the screen and ricocheting around the living rooms of America. This is a quality that can’t be learned; it’s either something you have or you don’t, and man, she’s got it.

Perhaps I’m wrong, but isn’t the moment at which projection becomes an acceptable substitute for substantive competence and principled character, the moment at which reality has been rejected? The fact that this analysis…deliberately divorced from the fundamental consideration of John McCain’s judgment in selecting Palin…can be put forth by Lowry and embraced by millions only exacerbates the erosion of rational thought.

As I read Lowry’s inanity, it seemed as if this election was being reduced to the kind of manipulations one might expect to witness when a scantily clad vixen engages the unbridled libido of an adulterous husband on the prowl. Ah, yes, nothing better than pecker politics. Not only is this the epitome of a sexist oversimplification, it suggests the Governor is simply an object used as the means to an end. The cynicism is shocking.

That brings me back to John McCain and Forrest Gump. You see, the trajectory of the life of Forrest Gump was best exemplified by the flight of a feather in the wind…whereby the unintended acted upon the soul of an innocent. On the other hand, Sarah Palin is an offshoot of John McCain’s path…a path that is akin to the clever carpenter cutting corners to build a house of cards…whereby his suspect soul is little more than a hypocritical hologram that puts Palin forth as the purposeful act of a sullied snake-oil salesman. In the progression of the pathology I’m describing, Sarah Palin is merely a distraction offered by the disease in order to further its spread and prevent its detection and destruction. The Rich Lowry’s of the world are its toxic foot soldiers and the voting public is its intended victim.

In the end, it is insufficient to diagnose the source of our sickness and excise it from our body politic. Absent an aggressive intervention aimed towards inoculating the entirety of the organism, the unseen outposts of our oncology will continue to multiply. Treatment must be comprehensive. The return to rational health must include the rejection of those who would willingly drink the elixir and subscribe to the suggestions that it is an essential element of our identity.

Those who consume the potion called Sarah Palin at the behest of John McCain and his minions do so at their own peril. Once the pathogen gains a foothold, prevention will prove futile. America is on the precipice of a pandemic. Those of sound mind and steeled judgment must speak out against the allure of inauthenticity. Sarah Palin is poison. John McCain is pushing and promoting that poison. Stand up and demand that America purge itself of this vile virus. Restoration is coming…rejection is the cure.

Cross-posted at Thought Theater