God Bless Us

For all those who made calls and knocked doors, for all those who left home and worked in the campaign, for all those who sent money, for all those who talked to a friend or neighbor, for all those who wrote, for all those who prayed, for all those who went to the polls, thank you. We the people have tonight taken an unprecedented step, opening a door to a wide open future for us and for the world. Let's make it great.

Sloppy Democracy: A Tale of Election Woe

I set out for the polls at noon with a light heart that now has sunken. At the end of short walk in sunshine of a glorious autumn day, I arrived at my designated polling place -- the Peter Roujet Middle School in Brooklyn -- and approached the information table, excited to exercise this most sacred of American duties. I told the woman my address; she looked in her materials and told me to get in line for the 20th district. I did.

Immediately in front of me in line were three young, Latino Brooklynites, voting for the first time. They were excited about it. But when, after about 15 minutes, they reached the table to get their voter cards, they found that not one of them was in the list of registered voters. They were offered paper affidavit ballots instead. They refused, thoroughly unconvinced that such ballots would be counted. They stormed out. During the minor fracas, a middle-aged Latino came to back the young men, saying he'd been turned down the previous year -- despite his having lived in the same house in that neighborhood for the past 30 years.

"They're trying to keep out votes out," he said, half-yelling. "But that's okay. The black man is still gonna win. White man trying it again."

This rattled me. Then I stepped to the table.

"He's in the wrong place. He should be at 15."
"The information table sent me here."
"She'll take you over to the front of the line."

Another poll worker appeared and led me to the front of the massively long line for district 15 and offered me to the three workers there. They told us to wait. She told me, "I'll be right back." She never reappeared. The workers at the table snapped at me, told me I had to get in the back of the line. I explained the situation -- they'd already heard it from the worker who'd brought me to them. They resisted. Told me I was being unfair. I started to step towards the back of the line, when one of them said, "Fine. I'll take care of you after we take three more people."

After two people were processed another poll worker approached the table.

"The computer fixed now?" they asked him.
"Seems to be."
"Take him," they said, laughing and gesturing to me. "Take him. You, go with him."
"Where?"
"Just go with him. You want to vote on the computer?"
"Why? And is it even working?"
"It's fine. It's fine," he told me. "If you don't like it you can come back and get in line."

What was this? Testing mattresses?

I went with him. Woodrow, a very affable, elderly African-American, seated me at a small desk with slight blinders on the sides and fed a voting form into the machine on the desk.

He said, "You can read, right? Just read the screen. Ask me if you have any questions. It will be fine."

I looked at the machine, made by a company called AutoMark. I realized it was essentially an automated way to fill out a 'handwritten' affidavit ballot, the kind given to people who don't appear on the list of registered voters. Would my vote go into that pile? Would it then even get counted? And would this happen just because I'd been sent to the wrong line and the poll workers didn't want to deal with me?

I stepped easily through the two-way, linear, touch-screen process. It was a simple system that notified you if you tried to move onto the next race without having looked at all the choices for the previous one. And it double checked if you tried to skip a race altogether. But I balked at the multiple listings for some of the candidates. What happens if I voted for Obama/Biden as the Working Families Party? Would that vote stick to the people or the party? Why were Obama/Biden Democrats at the top of the list, followed by three listings for McCain/Palin (Republican/Conservative/Independence)? And why were those four the only choices visible on the first page?

When I finished making my selections, the machine proffered a summary page to review my choices before finalizing them. It then spit the form back out, now blacked in at the appropriate places. Woodrow handed me an envelope -- just like those I'd seen given to the affidavit voters. I filled out my name and address on the envelope, dated and signed it. But what to do about the section that said I "MUST" mark one of three choices, explaining why I was filling an affidavit ballot? I wasn't. None of the choices applied to me.

Woodrow said, "Just write 'BMD'. Even though it says you must choose one, you don't have to."
I thought: Isn't that a surefire way to have my vote disqualified?

I questioned him about it, but he smiled and tried to reassure me. I folded my printout, sealed it in the envelope, after folding it awkwardly because it didn't fit, and handed it back to him. He told me then he'd take it back over to the table, the one with the workers who'd snubbed me.

Dazed, I stood in the hallway of the middle school for a few minutes. What had just happened? When I managed to wander out, I started talking to a young man who had used the computer right after me. He had no idea what had just happened.

He said, "The guy just came over to the line and asked if anyone knew how to use a computer. I raised my hand, and he told me to go with him."

He seemed even less clear than I on how we'd just voted and if we'd managed to disqualify our votes unknowingly and at the hands of the poll workers.

Woodrow was helpful and honest with me. When I asked, he told me he and his wife had had a four-hour training with this BMD ("Ballot Marking Device" " I discovered when I got home and Googled it) and then had operated one during the primaries. He seemed confident. I'm less so. I hadn't even filled in a Voter Card. Would my vote be tossed in with the affidavit ballots of people not on the registered voters list? Does that mean it will be counted? Will it even get into the system? Did this particular BMD make an internal record my vote and store it on its hard-drive? Does it have a hard-drive, or was it just an easier way of marking a 'hand-marked' ballot?

Look, I know that here in Brooklyn a few votes here or there probably won't make a difference nationally. But my experience illustrates some of the grave problems with our hodgepodge election system. Even within one polling place, I witnessed at least three different forms of casting ballots, and at least minor chaos resulted. What could be the result of millions of such places, multiplying each others' errors all over the country?

I also saw three young voters storm out, possibly forever, soured on the whole idea of voting because of the inefficiencies of the system that suddenly seemed to line up with the oppressiveness they'd experienced in previous interactions with the state. And, I had just literally attached my name to my vote. So much for the privilege of the secret ballot.

Yes, this may have taken place in a district that was probably already in the bag for one candidate; but if it happens here it can happen in states with a much closer margin. Obviously, these things degrade our democracy. They depress voter turnout and threaten the chance that the will of the people really be done. This was not voter suppression (though my general impression has been that, historically, Democrats try to get more votes counted and Republicans try to get more votes discounted) but it might as well have been. It may be worse. It's our own incompetence.

Fired up! Ready to go!

Sen. Obama's final pre-vote rally last night, in Manassas, Virginia. No doubt that we need him to lead us.

First Voting Photo of the Day and God Bless Dixville Notch

A couple of you have already sent us comments about your voting experiences -- from Japan to Mississippi to New Jersey -- and if more of you feel so moved to send such things our way, we'd be honored. And if you need to vent your anxiety or share any other thoughts on this exciting, thought-filled day, please do.

Oh, and if you hadn't yet heard, at least two New Hampshire towns have chosen Sen. Obama: He won early-voting and traditionally Republican Dixville Notch, NH, 15-6. Watch the vote count here. And he took Hart's Location with 17 votes to Sen. McCain's 10.

Final Words In This World

Election Eve and I'm scared shitless. Maybe because I think polls are inaccurate, sensationalist crap. Maybe because I've never yet backed a winner for the Presidency. (Admittedly, this is only my third time voting for it.) Maybe I'm hedging my bets, so that a let-down won't hurt so hard. Maybe I'm a pessimist. But, really, I think it's this: A win by Barack Obama would be such an indescribably great and wonderful occurrence that I can't really believe it will happen.

A President Obama would mean so much -- almost, dare I say it, on a cosmic level -- that I find the possibility Nov. 5 could dawn with him as President-elect only fantasy. (What would follow an Obama inauguration on Jan. 20, 2009, is a problem for another day. I can't consider policy anymore. For now our universe is a closed system, consisting of one choice. Beyond that, nothing.)

Over the last few weeks I've found myself too sickened, too distraught, too concerned to parse my thoughts or analyze coherently enough to write, thanks to the dastardliness of Mr. McCain's campaign, during which the man sold all his principles; the deja vu of proud ignorance and rabid hatreds riled by Mrs. Palin; the overconfidence of Obama supporters; my constant dread the worst will always happen. Rather than be torn asunder and rabidly consumed by the furor of this violent, national circle jerk, now barreling into climax, I retreated.

While in hiding, I've firmed my belief that polls such as have yanked us around by our collective genitalia for the last months are bunk at their mildest and, at their harshest, severely imperil our political process. I've firmed my belief that we must have a nationally standardized voting process that ensures greater accuracy and transparency. For the Crusaders of Democracy the mechanisms of our own systems cry out embarrassingly for help. So much so that both sides in this election have vociferously called for greater diligence to prevent voter fraud (Republicans) and voter stifling (Democrats).

Yet this need for transparency must extend beyond candidate vetting and campaign finances. It must infuse the White House. And only one of the two campaigns has shown anything other than wretched disregard for transparency, truthfulness and human decency -- and it's not the one that once touted itself as the Straight-Talk Express, an engine than long ago went off the rails. America deserves better.

As we should have learned over the passed eight years, America also deserves a leader who relies more on fact and brainpower than his own arbitrary whims and fantasies. One who actually values the education so-often debated on the campaign trail.

I want a President who is smarter than I am. Someone who understands better than I how to make a government work best for its people and the world. One who is better educated and a better diplomat.

If you consider casting your vote for the guy who seems just like you (despite his several homes and numerous cars), consider this: Do you really think you should be President? If you think one guy is better to have a beer with, go drink with him, but for God's sake don't vote for him. (Anyway, he'll have more time for that drink with you if he's not busy running the country.)

Give me a public servant with a brain and with knowledge. And give me one who wants to help people -- not one who thinks war and the enforcement of a unilateral morality are the sole purposes of government. Not one who incites hatred and anger but one who values peace and co-existence, so that We the People can simply enjoy our rights to Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness. How do you expect a President to educate our children well, so they can compete in the world, when he did his damndest to get expelled from the institution of higher learning to which his family legacy handed him admission -- and who now mocks people who have worked hard for, earned and utilize an American education?

Electing Obama would be so great in large part because of what he represents. Not as the USA's first non-white President (though that would be historic and important) but because, despite what culture-war mongers like Sarah Palin would have you believe, he truly represents the best of America. Not only the part of it the Republican candidate for Vice President called the 'real America', but the expansive, encompassing, living, breathing, roaring underdog-mutt of a nation that we are. Obama is pull-yourself-up-by-your-bootstraps; he represents the best of America and would best and most effectively represent us to the world -- and run our country.

After all, the Presidency is not an honor to be earned. Which candidate deserves the office more is a malignant consideration. The Presidency is not an honor. It's a job. You don't hand an old-timer the reigns of your company based on what he's given to the place. It's not an honorary position. You hand the job to the candidate who will not only represent the best of the company and stay truest to its mission but will best guide the company day-by-day towards its greatest potential. Don't vote for John McCain because he 'deserves' to be President. If you wish to truly honor his decades of service to America give him what he's earned: a rest.

In a few hours, we, the great, brash American experiment will launch ourselves onto a new vessel, in hopes it will serve us better than our current sinking wreck, as we continue our heaving and rising and plunging through ever-turbulent seas. Which of the two proffered ships will we choose to carry us onward?

Despite my raging doubts, I hope that as you read this you're visualizing your recently passed or soon-to-come trip to the voting booth and are eagerly awaiting 7 p.m. EST when the first polls close. As we sit poised on the edge of a potential turning point for our country and our time, I sit and hope that we as a nation put our collective balls on the table and take a step towards the future and not the past, a step towards change in which even I can believe.

Republican Off The Rails

I just woke up nauseous and panicked from a nightmare -- what I thought was only a nightmare at first. Then I remembered it could be real. In it, I saw hundreds of screaming people lining a small roadway, waving (poorly-made) signs, begging the candidates to stop their campaigns and fix the economy.

This is absurdity. Suddenly, Pres. Bush is feeling left out of all the excitement, so he calls an urgent press conference and requests the two Presidential candidates return to the Hill and save the day. John McCain has jumped on his horse, slung his six-shooters on his hips and is ready to ride to the rescue, eschewing Friday's Presidential debate and, hell, the entire campaign until this problem is solved. Why?

Do we really need Mr. McCain trying to dig us out of financial crisis that was already visibly underway when he was telling us "the fundamentals of the economy are still strong"? Is the man whose candidacy was bolstered at the GOP convention by Fred Thomson's mocking Democrats for worrying over the health of the economy really who we need trying to fix this mess? The man who spent his career fighting regulation on Wall Street will suddenly save the day by implementing regulations on Wall Street? Suddenly, now that Sen. McCain has finally been convinced that there's a problem with unfettered financial gambling when it imperils his campaign, everybody has to stop what they're doing? The man who, at a Republican primary debate last December, was quoted as telling reporters: "The issue of economics is not something I've understood as well as I should," McCain said.

But even so, even if we really need all our legislators involved on this immediately, why cancel the debate? Does Mr. McCain need more time to study? Can he not work on legislation for two days and then handle an hour-and-a-half debate? A President needs to be better than that.

Sen. McCain would have us believe that canceling the debate and suspending the campaign would be a selfless choice. But simply by saying that, by claiming to put politics aside to work together, Mr. McCain is making a solely self-serving political move. He bets that the American public won't see that he's just trying to use our financial woes to gain points in the polls based on his character, his willingness to sacrifice, to work out a problem everyone else has already been working on for days while he's campaigned. Sen. McCain's suggestion isn't really a suspension of the campaign, it's rather an attempt to bring the campaign to Capitol Hill. As Rep. Barney Frank said about the impending arrival of the candidates:

"We're going to have to interrupt a negotiating session tomorrow between the Democrats and Republicans on a bill where I think we are getting pretty close, and troop down to the White House for their photo op," said Frank, the House Financial Services Committee chairman. "I wish they'd checked with us."

Harold Meyerson suggests that McCain, realizing that Obama is more right on the economy than he is, will use the pressure of pseudo-bipartisanship in national crisis to erase the distinction between them in the minds of the public.

And, by avoiding debate with Sen. Obama, Sen. McCain is continuing the traditional Republican ploy of hiding from scrutiny, hiding from the people. Now, when we need to hear from it most, the so-called straight-talk express tries to slip into a dark tunnel. If the Democrats -- and we the people -- don't nail McCain's ass to the wall on this, they might as well roll over now. And that would make for a real nightmare.

No More Moose-Stepping

"The Media" has always received its criticism -- charges of bias and spinelessness and unfairness all at once (even on these pages). That's fine. Mostly, it's deserved. It's necessary, even if not always right. (Even when revelatory reports make the front pages, we the people still re-elect George W. Bush. At some point we citizens hold responsibility.)

Currently, as always in campaign season, the press is drawing allegations of unfairness to the candidates. But the allegiance of the news media lies not primarily with fairness but with truth and justice. If only we adhere to that amongst the calculated maelstrom of accusations of bias from the Right and pussyfooting from the Left, if we could stand on moral high ground and respond to charges of unfairness with "But it's true, so shove off", rather than, "Oh, no, sorry; we didn't mean to upset you; we'll fix it", we can allow the flaming arrows of criticism to rain upon us without concern. The media's job is not be liked after all. If we're nice to everyone -- or indiscriminately derisive -- then we fail.

This is not rec-league soccer where everyone plays the same amount regardless of the benefit to the team. We are here to lay bare the machinations of government and advocate for the best for the American people and the world. Sometimes one side deserves more rebuke than another.

Let's take this page from what Gov. Palin spat at us at the GOP convention: "I'm not going to Washington to seek their good opinion - I'm going to Washington to serve the people of this country." We do not exist to please our readership. Nor are we part of anyone's PR machine. We defer to no one but blind Justice and bright-eyed Truth.

Of course this is idealism. Those in the business of news also have other concerns and agendas -- legitimate and il- -- that compromise their work. So, those of us who serve no corporate master now can bear the realistic burden of truth telling.

So, with that, Open Veins officially endorses Barack Obama and Joe Biden of the Democratic Party. (As if that weren't obvious.) These are, of course, not perfect politicians. We hold certain concerns with them and will continue to make those known and look for others. To keep them honest as we can. We will attempt to maintain H.L. Mencken's perspective of politicians, looking at them only down.

But the Democratic is without hesitation the better ticket for America and our global co-habitants. Better by miles than a once-principled politician who, running on his integrity and authenticity, has now sold many of those principles and flipped positions on many issues in his heat for the Oval Office. And the provincial boss who despite her cries of revolution brings with her more of the fanatical, proud-to-know-nothing bullying that has blundered through the White House, the country and the world for the past eight years.

Sen. McCain touts himself as an agent of change, yet he has served in politics for nearly 30 years after more than 20 years in the military, which surely must be counted as part of the much-derided Institution. John S. McCain III is both son and grandson of Navy admirals. He is hardly new blood. His campaign has proven himself just another GOP cutout. Even on the topic of rebellion, first he criticized Sen. Obama as not having spent enough time in Washington; now he criticizes him as being a Washington insider. ABCNews nicely lays out some of the basic contradictions in the Republican campaign here.

One of the foremost concerns recently has been McCain's multiplicity of positions about the economy, which even after the collapse of Bear Stearns he said was still strong. After a career of pushing for de-regulation in financial markets and then his almost unbelievable lack of awareness of the already-underway financial catastrophe, McCain suddenly became Mr. Regulation only after disaster struck (the collapse of Lehman Brothers, Merrill Lynch and AIG), to the point that claimed he would fire the head of the SEC, a power the President does not have. A President must surely have greater foresight than that -- and a greater sense of reality. Jonathan Alter of Newsweek goes further in depth on this here.

Both the ABC and Newsweek pieces lead us to another great concern about McCain. He has gone from a true straight-talker to just another shifty politician who hides from public inquiry. ABC says that the formerly constantly available candidate has given way to one who hasn't held a press conference since Aug. 13, has diligently avoided the reporters covering his campaign and rarely speaks in public without a script. Who else has been famous for this? Presidents George W. Bush and Richard M. Nixon. Haven't we learned enough from those two men to shun the promise of an opaque White House?

In addition to its failings on policy, despite its incredulous rhetoric about hope and strength and change, this Republican ticket and its campaign -- often disingenuous; playing traditional, self-serving party politics; not sticking to its guns as promised; playing to our fears and delusions and hatreds; thinking that Americans will buy an anti-feminist as VP just because she has the correct private parts -- is mired in cynicism, and that's no way to lead America.

Pulling Back the Curtain: In Their Own Words

On The Daily Show from Sept. 3, Jon Stewart lets GOP honchos -- including Sarah Palin herself -- expose their own hypocrisy in their bashing of the media for even talking about the GOP VP nominee in anything other than flattering... deference. Hypocrisy is a moral issue. The real revelation here is what the hypocrisy illuminates: That the pick of Palin is purely a self-serving, political move by the GOP, intended to put their interests as the Republican Party above those of the nation. It also reminds us of what we all claim to know but seem to constantly forget: Politicians are lying to you. Especially when they tell you they're not lying to you.

For those who can't watch the video, here are some highlights:

In one clip, Karl Rove lauds Palin for having been mayor of -- "I think" -- the second-largest city in Alaska. In a clip from last month, Rove blasted Gov. Tim Kaine of Virginia for having been only governor for three years (Palin has served 1.5) and mayor of Richmond, which he derides as being "not a big town" (it has more than 20 times the population of Wasilla) and called Obama's considering of Kaine an "intensely political choice".

We then see a clip of Bill O'Reilly telling people to back off the issue of Palin's having a pregnant teenage daughter, that it's a "personal" family issue. Then we see a clip of Bill O'Reilly talking about the teenage pregnancy of Jamie Lynne Spears, in which he concludes that her pregnancy proves that her parents are "pinheads" and obviously have no control over their daughter.

Top McCain adviser Dick Morris, on the floor at the GOP convention derides the "deep sexism" that has resulted in the media's talking about Palin. Then a clip from a few months ago: "When a woman wants to be President, she shouldn't complain based on gender....This is what Hillary always does when she's under fire: She retreats behind the apron strings."

We even get a nip from Palin herself. Just watch. This is good journalism.

(Thanks to the three of you who brought this clip to our attention.)

Technorati tags: politics, Palin, Republican, Obama,President, Biden, McCain, Stewart, Rove.

Opening the Doors of Reason

In Let Them In: The Case for Open Borders, a book released in May, Wall Street Journal editorialist Jason L. Riley debunks some of the main arguments for restricting immigration -- and does it primarily from a pro-free-market perspective. We've pushed these facts for a long time, here on Open Veins, but it's nice to see them validated by people who, judging from our current political climate, should stand on the opposite side of the wall.

Speaking of reason, Riley took his stance to ReasonTV. (Nice transition!) He says that a general increase in population has no real tie to a nation's prosperity: He cites the rich though densely populated Hong Kong and the sparsely populated but desperately poor region of sub-Saharan Africa. Riley says that because there is no fixed number of jobs in this country immigrants aren't stealing jobs from other Americans.

As for homeland security issues, he argues that if we were to let economic migrants in legally, they would cease to function as potential shields for people entering the country who might actually threaten us.

He agrees that there are of course costs in health care and education associate with illegal immigration -- though they're generally overstated. But he thinks the benefits outweigh those costs. The problem, he says, is that the costs of immigration happen on a local level but many of the benefits go to the Federal government -- payroll and other Federal taxes paid by undocumented immigrants who will never collect those benefits and a majority of whom, according to Riley, work on the books. In my mind, this explains much of the reason why so many localities have attempted to pass their own immigration laws. They see the costs only and not the benefits. This is compounded by the propagandizing by those using the issues for their own political gain, as Riley says. Generally, as we know, those are conservatives.

But, in this talk that he gave at the "market-liberal" CATO Institute, Riley says this:

"No self-respecting free-markets advocate would ever dream of supporting laws that interrupt the free movement of goods and services across international borders. But when it comes to laws that hamper the free movement of workers who produce those goods and services, too many conservatives today abandon their free-market principles.... Ronald Reagan gives way to Pat Buchanan." (I agree with Reaganites? More evidence that political parties and ideologies are generally counterproductive to reason. How much better if we could all operate only on the level of issues.)

In his talk at CATO, Riley makes arguments that debunk the reactionary hysteria created by Lou Dobbs, Bill O'Reilly and their ilk that we're suffering some massive, illegal-immigrant crime wave:

"Numerous studies by independent researchers and government commissions over the past 100 years have repeatedly found that immigrants are less likely to commit crimes or be behind bars than the native born."

He mentions that welfare case loads have fallen during the years of the current illegal-immigrant boom and that "it's clear that immigrants have benefited the U.S."

I won't go through all of his talk. It's short. Watch it. But I leave you with his closing, after he explains that the immigration wave of the early-20th century was much more massive in relation to the U.S. population than what we have now and didn't destroy the country: "Today's immigrants aren't different. They're just newer."

Technorati tags: Immigration, Politics, Dobbs, undocumented, alien,O'Reilly, Illegal, Riley.

On The Trail: Defending the Fourth Estate

By now, a lot of people have seen this video of Sarah Palin in which she exhorts an audience at her church in now-famous Wasilla to pray for her natural-gas-pipeline project. And I just couldn't help but be reminded of one of my favorite moments in the life of another wildly charismatic, oil loving Westerner -- "family man" Daniel Plainview who submits himself to a maniacal baptism in order to get himself… an oil pipeline. Watch Gov. Palin (starting at around 2:02), then watch this scene, paying very careful attention to what Plainview smugly mutters to himself in the very last seconds, knowing he's pulled one over on the dupes.

Obviously, that's just a joke. But, actually, one would think that, after eight years of Pres. Bush, so many people have come to realize that the ambitious sometimes use their perceived or real religion to get what is best for them as individuals. After the failures of Bush, in this same video, we have Palin calling the war in Iraq "a task that is from God" (around 3:46).

A sandstorm has swirled not only about Palin herself but about the appropriateness of this media vetting of her. Partly because of some sensationalist, hysterical reporting and rumor-mongering and partly because of a manufactured mistrust of The Media among many Americans, intentionally fostered by the Republican Party, we have seen a backlash from people who think the media is just being unfair and mean to Palin. Have lines been crossed in terms of investigating familial issues? Probably. But is much of this investigating of a person vying to hold the second-highest office in our country legitimate? Of course. That is why the news media exist.

The Fourth Estate is not just a business sector -- and if it is, it's certainly not a lucrative one for most of us these days – neither is it entertainment. The news media exist to investigate and present information useful to the people, to poke holes in the self-serving rhetoric of politicians – in short, to keep our government honest. Do we often fail in this? Of course. But better to let the world hate us because we point out unpleasant truths than to let them go on believing the fallacies fed them. We fail most direly when we accept the spoon-feeding ourselves – as we surely did, by and large, in the justification of the invasion of Iraq. That is why the Founders of our nation put freedom of the press right up there at the top. They understood how essential a free press is to the functioning of democracy and justice.

Some of the darkest periods of our history have come hand-in-hand with a stonewalling of the press by the White House. Nixon did it most famously. George W. Bush has done it as well. By keeping distant from the press they refused to answer to the people. By keeping themselves sequestered they fostered an impression of invulnerability. By avoiding public scrutiny they escaped a true vetting by and for the people and therefore were free to operate of their own in will, instead of working for us. Our leaders must remain accountable to the people. Inherent in our nation is the belief in checks and balances to ensure enduring justice and democracy. The media must be a part of that.

I just read the New York Post – which I would guess the Right doesn't consider part of The Media; go figure – and saw their ringing endorsement of McCain. Mentioned in one of their articles is that Palin is finally going to start meeting the press -- now that she's been coached -- perhaps towards the end of this week, in a sit-down with Charlie Gibson. The Post quotes McCain's campaign manager Rick Davis as saying about the VP candidate's having to answer questions from the press, "Until at which point in time we feel like the news media is going to treat her with some level of respect and deference, I think it would be foolhardy to put her out into that kind of environment." That's one perspective. For sheep. And talk about elitism. It's also a dangerous harbinger of what a McCain White House could look like. Deference? This is The USA. I hold, rather, with H.L. Mencken: "The only way a reporter should look at a politician is down."

Also, this criticism of the media for actually telling facts about Palin seems to come with an inherent sexism, as if they're saying: 'Don't pick on her; she's just a cute, little lady. Be nice to her, you meanies. Because of that, I'm going to vote for her.' (Personally, I think anyone who casts their vote based on their impression that the media are mean, are spitting in the face of the right and privilege and duty of voting, in fact in the whole concept of democracy.)

But the strangest – though not surprising – hypocrisy of it all is the sudden insistence that (Republican) politicians' personal lives are off limits. Palin's religious beliefs are off limits – but we'll still insist that Obama is a secret Muslim with foreign allegiances AND that the Christian church he attended for years hates America.

The questions that arise from all of this are: Will people believe just what they want to believe? Meaning, if they want to like Palin, will they see the media as bullying her and ignore the legitimate as well as the illegitimate things they report about her? Will people believe the truthful reporting or just turn away from it and back up the Right's New Sweetheart?

Ultimately, was Hunter S. Thompson correct when he wrote that honest politicians have a tough time winning because "We are not a nation of truth lovers"?

Because the facts certainly seem to bear that Palin is already being dishonest with the American people: Her condemnation of earmarks in her acceptance speech and the lie that she turned down the money really rankles me – and should us all. And that her reticence so far to really meet the public – and the GOP machine's attempts to block out true media inquiry into her as a politician – would imply that both she and the party are aware of her shortcomings and that they want to ensure that the image they're creating for her is the only one voters see. This is, of course, not a new trick, nor the sole property of the GOP.

The Democrats are of course playing their politics as well. This push towards appealing to everyone is certainly a political decision – though it does dovetail with the Obama campaign's ideology of national unification. The Republicans have touted the unification idea as well. But the difference in message seems to be that Obama wants to fudge the lines of the Democratic Party to include everyone; whereas, McCain's campaign wants everyone to get in step with the Republicans – who now of course contend they are not in any way related to the Republican Party that's held power for the last eight years. (I'd rather point out that, contrary to their current rhetoric, they certainly have stronger ties to the GOP of George W. Bush than to the Republican Party Abraham Lincoln took to the White House.)

I am still struck by the turn in this campaign towards a more traditional election than we expected. Familiar charges levied and familiar platforms pushed – and the familiarity, despite the attempts at causing mass amnesia in the American public, of the Republican candidates' similarities to the themes of the George W. Bush campaigns. Despite the claims of change, we're again hearing about God, guns, sticking to principles, gustiness. Although I guess there is one noticeable difference here: Bush was a straight shooter, whereas McCain is a straight talker. The king is dead; long live…


Technorati tags: politics, Palin, Republican, Obama,President, Biden, McCain, media.

The Widening Gyre: In Which the War Hero Makes His Case and PBS Loves It

RNC Day 4:

In the aftermath of Sen. John McCain's acceptance speech last night in St. Paul, as the balloons and confetti rained down from the rafters -- with several hundred more people now arrested outside -- Judy Woodruff lauded McCain's speech and the effect it had on the Republican delegates swarming around her on the convention floor. Her PBS colleagues, for the most part considered part of the "liberal media" that the GOP has spent the last week (and, really, many years) bashing, agreed. Only Mark Shields said he'd seen better speeches from McCain and fixed on the gap between his claim of change and the traditional Republican positions that he espoused in the speech. Even David Brooks, generally towards the right, agreed.

We'll bring you more soon, but what do you think?

I spoke to one Brooklynite last night who thinks the Dems are totally sunk already, that McCain and, particularly, Palin have energized the GOP and that the Republicans are just to much better at politicking than Democrats that they'll maintain control of 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue. She has a point. These self-proclaimed straight-talking, non-politicians are damn good at politics. It reminds me of the old saying that the greatest trick the Devilhttp://www.blogger.com/img/gl.link.gif ever pulled was convincing the world he didn't exist.

But a politics writer I talked to today, also in Brooklyn, thinks that there's no real reason for Dems to worry. He thinks the fallacies of this "new" Grand Old Party will not fool enough of the American populace -- and hinted that he knows someone hot on the trail for proof of at least some of the seemingly wild rumors about Sarah Palin.

I don't think the Dems need the wild rumors substantiated. There look to be enough inconsistencies with the issues firmly in the real of politics that should call her seriously into question.

________

Around 200 people -- including some 19 journalists were arrested during protest actions yesterday in St. Paul, according to this article in The Washington Post, bringing the week's total to around 600.

Technorati tags: politics, Palin, Republican, Obama,President, Biden, McCain, convention, protests.